Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

[g4macdad]

No physics laws have been broken, yet free energy has arrived.

Turns out the only problem has been skepticism.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-6MDHF39X...elated&search=

[Floyt]

Lots of harping on about the supposed credentials (ooh look, real scientists! Cool-looking turbines!) and general obfuscation. Brace of loonies stands by in the comments section to pull Leonardo gambits. Do not want

[g4macdad]

Originally Posted by Floyt

Lots of harping on about the supposed credentials (ooh look, real scientists! Cool-looking turbines!) and general obfuscation. Brace of loonies stands by in the comments section to pull Leonardo gambits. Do not want

What? What are you in denial about?

Tell us what facts you dispute in a clear scientific manner.

I stated no laws have been broken. The energy is not created it is harnessed.

[tracer]

Quote:

Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

I dispute that.

[g4macdad]

Originally Posted by tracer

I dispute that.

Why?

[tracer]

Well, let's see. Have you ever heard the old expression "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"

The only evidence I see in that video is the video producers' say-so.

"No longer disputable?" My patooty!

[g4macdad]

Please try to escape scientific dogma and be a leader.

"Just like a boat in calm waters and good sunshine. If a scientist did not know how to use solar panels, he might have ignored the light energy and applied the Law of Conservation of Energy in what he thought was a CLOSED system. He might advocate rowing using muscle energy."

We are immersed in electromagnetic waves (and gravitational pulls) and exchange such energies constantly. Electromagnetic waves come from the orbiting electrons of atoms. Unless these electrons stop rotating and fall into the nucleus, there will be Electromagnetic Wave Exchanges. (Some call this a form of Zero Point Energy.)

The Law of Conservation of Energy has been misapplied by scientist and patent offices for centuries as demonstrated by “the boat in calm water and good sunshine” example.

[Foster Zygote]

It's pretty much the same concept.

[g4macdad]

Originally Posted by tracer

Well, let's see. Have you ever heard the old expression "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"

The only evidence I see in that video is the video producers' say-so.

"No longer disputable?" My patooty!

This is not an acceptable answer.

What specific claims do you dispute? Just because you don't understand something does not automatically make it incorrect.

If you want to dispute something, please feel free to do so, but replies like that show only ignorance.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

What specific claims do you dispute?

Well I for one dispute the "free energy" claim. They claim to have turned thermodynamics on its ear. Where is the evidence? A verbal claim in a video obviously designed to entice investors doesn't cut it.

[fuelair]

Mac d please sell everything you have and invest heavily in this! We won't be sorry!! Be sure to send us updates on your dividends and new lifestyle!!!!! Best, Me

[a_unique_person]

Steorn will be so [rule8] off about this.

[g4macdad]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Mac d please sell everything you have and invest heavily in this! We won't be sorry!! Be sure to send us updates on your dividends and new lifestyle!!!!! Best, Me

Thats the best you can do? Did you try looking up this technology?

You are trying to hide your ignorance behind skepticism. Let's say you have succeeded, we can't tell you're stupid even though you are. Now what?

http://www.gammamanager.com/question.html

BTW I don't need a new lifestyle, my current one is just fine, thank God for all my blessings. I am currently looking into buying this.

http://www.polarisindustries.com/en-...ZR/Experience/

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

Thats the best you can do? Did you try looking up this technology?

Maybe you could explain it to us?

[TjW]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

Thats the best you can do? Did you try looking up this technology?

You are trying to hide your ignorance behind skepticism. Let's say you have succeeded, we can't tell you're stupid even though you are. Now what?

http://www.gammamanager.com/question.html

If it's a certain, proven thing, why not put all your money into it?

What claims have they made in enough detail to rebut? I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Care to rebut that, scientifically?

[g4macdad]

Originally Posted by TjW

If it's a certain, proven thing, why not put all your money into it?

What claims have they made in enough detail to rebut? I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Care to rebut that, scientifically?

Nope.

Hey look my mistake. Go back to your pathetic lives please. You seem to enjoy them just the way they are.

I guess it won't bother me any.

[joobz]

My opinions can best be summarized by a MST3K style annotation of the video. Feel free to read this while watching it.

Video: "EBM Technology"
me: "It's one vowel better than IBM!"
Video: "Similar to large motors and generators"
me: And Here's one of those standard motors right now!
Video: "when one measures the Combined electrical and heat output..."
me:Because heat generation is what you want when you are trying to beat thermodynamics!
Video:"new source of energy is extracted and utilized due to its unusual geometry and high iron loss!"
me:umm, what's an iron loss.. is the device anemic?

that's as far as I got before the stupid started to hurt.

[Folly]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

Thats the best you can do? Did you try looking up this technology?

You are trying to hide your ignorance behind skepticism. Let's say you have succeeded, we can't tell you're stupid even though you are. Now what?

http://www.gammamanager.com/question.html

It feels like there have been lots of people trying to obliquely advertise their junk lately. Why is this? Is there some sort of thieves den for shady advertisers that lists accessible forums with reasonably high web impact?

Not that this necessarily applies to you, g4macdad. I'm entirely willing to assume you were honestly impressed by the techno-babble on that website. You've referenced it, but reading through it tells me nothing other than someone is asserting they can generate power in a fundamentally new way that turns all our current knowledge on its ears. Oh, and of course you can find out more if you sign an NDA and arrange for a demonstration, all for a small fee. What did you find particularly compelling on this website?

[Loss Leader]

I, for one, believe that this machine works. It does not create "free" energy; it harnesses energy from a parallel universe increasing the total available energy in our universe but also increasing entropy across the entire multiverse (like a solar cell harnesses the sun's energy to increase available energy on earth but offset by draining energy from the sun). The single problem with this technology is that it may destroy a parallel universe in which other copies of ourselves are fighting to survive including, but not limited to, Dr. Rodney McCay who might need the help of his own sister to reverse the damage. And that's not the amazing part. The amazing part is that his sister is played by David Hewlett's ACTUAL FRICKIN' SISTER!

Oh brave, new world ...

[strathmeyer]

Why were so many of the scientific sentences in the video such nonsense? I've seen more realistic conversation about computers on an episode of 24.

Loss Leader, if what you say it true, we are actually taking energy from other parallel universes. Sign me up for the universe wars!

[stormer]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

Thats the best you can do? Did you try looking up this technology?

You are trying to hide your ignorance behind skepticism. Let's say you have succeeded, we can't tell you're stupid even though you are. Now what?

http://www.gammamanager.com/question.html

Too bad this technology will not take off, eh g4?

The E720 unit weighs 15,000 kg, and produces an excess of 15 kW according to the youtube video. Of course, on the link you provide above, the documents say about 6+ kW excess. With a return of investment in 4 years. Lead time for delivery of a unit is 18 months (still) even though the video showed the unit (not a prototype) working in the year 2000.

Just think, the Three Gorges dam cost $22 billion, and will produce 22,500 MW of power, for a price of slightly less than $1 million per MW. Construction started in 1994, and only in 2009 will full capacity output be reached.

The EBM costs $1,000 to $3,500 per kW, (your website link above) or $1 million to $3.5 million per MW.

I mean, the world doesn't need free energy when you have too pay for it, right?

[g4macdad]

Originally Posted by Folly

It feels like there have been lots of people trying to obliquely advertise their junk lately. Why is this? Is there some sort of thieve's den for shady advertisers that lists accessible forums with reasonably high web impact?

Not that this necessarily applies to you, g4macdad. I'm entirely willing to assume you were honestly impressed by the techno-babble on that website. You've referenced it, but reading through it tells me nothing other than someone is asserting they can generate power in a fundamentally new way that turns all our current knowledge on its ears. Oh, and of course you can find out more if you sign an NDA and arrange for a demonstration, all for a small fee. What did you find particularly compelling on this website?

This is one of several technologies that utilizes fields of energy.

Here is a list:Gravity_Motor, Steorn Toy, Wang Generator, Tsing Hua Magnifier, Energy from Air machine, Chao Car, Magnetic Power Inc flux change generator, EBM machine, Minato Bicycle, Milkovic dual mechanical oscillation system.



The whole problem has been the claim that these somehow break newton's first law of thermodynamics (COE). It has recently come to light that these devices actually follow this law just fine. The problem has simply been the dogma of the scientific community.

[SezMe]

Since you seem to know enough so much about this unit, please answer these questions (quotes from the FAQ at your link:

Quote:

Q4: What is the capacity, output power of the unit? The rating power of the machine is fixed or can be varied according to the demands?
A4: Out power range: minimum: 1000 kW
maximum: 500 MW

Are these estimates or actual output from a prototype? If the later, provide a link to the report of the prototype testing. If just estimates, what is the basis for such estimates?

Quote:

Q6: What kind of fuel should be used (gas, biogas, oil, coal, agricultural waste, etc.)?
A6: The fuel of the units is the magnetic flux provided (produced) by the unit and/or by an outside magnetic field, which exercised mutual influence with the active iron of the unit producing driving torque on the shaft of unit. This is provided by the special geometry of the unit.

Can you restate this answer in English?

Quote:

Q13: What is the reliability of the unit in a general circumstance? Experiences in plant operation?
A13: The production price of EBM energy kWh is less than half of production price of the conventional energy generation. The reliability is excellent!

Why is there any production price of EBM energy at all? According to the video, once it is spun up to operational speed, there is no input at all. There is no such thing as the "production price of conventional energy" because it is all over the map, depending on numerous variables. So, in numerical terms, not in a vague comparison, what is the production price of EBM energy?

Note that saying the reliability is "excellent" is a non-answer. What is the numerical, actual, experience-based up-time of the unit?

If you can't answer these questions, then answer this one: Why the hell do you think this is anything other than a scam? Yes, that is a genuine question.

[g4macdad]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...65#post2707365

[Slimething]

Yup. I'm stoopider now. At about 1:17, the narrator says that the unknown source of energy is tapped and delivers more power due to its "high iron loss". I listened to the damned thing three times. What iron? But, even if he meant ions, that still wouldn't make any sense.

g4, at first I thought you were kidding. I agree the video is very slick but this is just a bunch of hoo-ha. Sounds like Professor Irwin Corey is back.

[bjb]

Iron losses are one of the losses caused associated with an electric machine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_loss

Copper losses are another source of inefficiency that we worry about. In general, iron losses are considered a bad thing because they make an electric machine less efficient! In fact, here's a quote from a reputable motor designer on the negative impact of iron loss:

http://www.lynxmotiontechnology.com/applications.htm

In many cases, efficiencies in excess of 98% are achievable. This high efficiency is achieved through the elimination of iron losses inherent in most electric motor designs.

I have to caution that this 98% number does not include bearing and windage losses. I should also mention that I was involved in the test of a SEMA motor (I wrote the statement of work, test plan and procedure for the motor as well as managed the $150,000 contrace our company gave to Lynx) so I have a certain amount of knowlege when it comes to electric machines.

That said, I was impressed by the video because I saw almost everything I would have expected from such a test. I didn't see a dynamometer, though, and that is somewhat disturbing. But I did like the big thermal box around the machine. We did something similar with the SEMA motor so we could estimate how many BTU's of heat were being generated. Along with a motor, we were designing a cooling system so that information was very necessary for our project. But even with the insulating box and thermocouples all over the motor, we never really got good numbers for the heat output. It is a difficult thing to measure with 'no error', which is something not mentioned in the video.

Anyway, I have to say it is B.S. to include heat output as part of the efficiency number. There's always going to be 'extra' heat because math models are based upon the electromagnetic equations and they generally ignore friction losses (bearing, windage). This means you'll get more 'heat' than you expected based on the math model. It seems these guys are claiming they're getting extra energy but what they really have is more heat than predicted by their model.

Finally, the idea that they are getting extra heat can be attributed to measurement error. For example, during our project we had a 270V power distribution box that had voltage sensors on the input and output. What was interesting was that we never were able to measure a voltage drop across the box, even when we had 300-400 amps running through it. If I had wanted to, I could have claimed that our box was actually a superconductor! Of course, there was a small voltage drop but since our sensors were calibrated to read up to 400V, the small drop was beneath our measurement error (my guess is that the heat output measurements from EBM are similarly flawed and they are taking advantage of their measurement error to get an 'over-unity' energy output). Most of the others on the project were mechanical engineers so they didn't appreciate our 'lossless' power distribution box. Fortunately, our managers never heard about it, otherwise, they would have made us patent the thing!

[Oldpossum]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

The whole problem has been the claim that these somehow break newton's first law of thermodynamics (COE). It has recently come to light that these devices actually follow this law just fine. The problem has simply been the dogma of the scientific community.

Ahhhh, heres your problem!
There is no "Newton's first law of Thermodynamics" to break, or follow!
There is Newton's 1st law of Gravitation, which has nothing to do with Free Energy.
and there is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which has nothing to do with Newton, or Free Energy either, for that matter.

Basicly your problem, g4macdad, is that you don't comprehend basic physics, and so you seem incapable of understanding, why you are posting gibberish; And why we are so sceptical of the links, to the Free energy scams, you post.

[wollery]

I thought he said ion loss, but I may be mistaken.

The magnetic field of a magnet is produced by the alignment of its atoms. To get energy out of a magnet you have to either fire charged particles past it, or move a conductor near it. That's essentially what this machine does, like a normal generator. Their claim appears to be that they have some unique configuration of magnets that allows the output energy to be higher than the input energy. This is BS.

When you move a conductor in a magnetic field it produces electricity, and this electricity produces a magnetic field which opposes the first magnetic field. This is where the heat comes from - magnetic friction. Nowhere in this video did they actually explain where they are getting the excess energy from. Are they destroying the magnetic field? If so then it isn't free energy, you'll have to keep replacing the magnets.

[Zep]

The only "perpetual" part of this whole business is the perpetual movement of money from the wallets of the suckers into the bank accounts of the scammers.

Which would suggest, G4, if you believe in this perpetual bit, that you are one of the scammers rather than an "investor".

True?

[bjb]

I don't recall hearing anything about permament magnets being mentioned in the video, and it is possible to build a genertor that does not contain magnets. Based on what I saw in the video, the machine uses copper winding on both the rotor and stator, a sure sign that no permament magnets are used. I did see a lot of iron in the machine so I'm convinced it has plenty of iron losses...

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

Please try to escape scientific dogma and be a leader.

"Just like a boat in calm waters and good sunshine. If a scientist did not know how to use solar panels, he might have ignored the light energy and applied the Law of Conservation of Energy in what he thought was a CLOSED system. He might advocate rowing using muscle energy."

In other words, you think scientists are friggin morons who wouldn't notice something as obvious as the biggest heat source in the solar system.

Quote:

We are immersed in electromagnetic waves (and gravitational pulls) and exchange such energies constantly.

Yes indeed. It's called heat. And thermodynamics explains why we cannot exploit it. And nothing you've written suggests that you either understand why this is so, or have any idea of why the brightest minds of the last 100+ years have all concluded that this obstacle cannot be circumvented.

Quote:

Electromagnetic waves come from the orbiting electrons of atoms. Unless these electrons stop rotating and fall into the nucleus, there will be Electromagnetic Wave Exchanges. (Some call this a form of Zero Point Energy.)

No, actually, they DON'T. If they did, then electrons would decay into the nucleus and atoms would collapse, but they quite obviously don't. That was quite a puzzle for turn-of-the-century physicists, and the solution to that problem helped lead to quantum mechanics. Electrons in ground states around atoms DO NOT emit electromagnetic radiation. "Zero-point enegy" is nothing other than a delusion that the ground state of an atom is for some unexplained reason not really the true ground state. Well, it is. If it weren't, atoms would decay spontaneously (as radioactive isotopes, which are NOT in nucleic ground states, do all the time). And yet, that never happens. Why, pray tell? You've got no idea, and neither do any of the other zero-point energy proponents.

Quote:

The Law of Conservation of Energy has been misapplied by scientist and patent offices for centuries as demonstrated by “the boat in calm water and good sunshine” example.

No, it hasn't. Rather, gullible fools like you have misapplied the concept of "zero-point energy" in a process of deluding yourself.

Originally Posted by g4macdad

The whole problem has been the claim that these somehow break newton's first law of thermodynamics (COE).

Uh, Newton isn't credited with formulating the laws of thermodynamics.

Quote:

It has recently come to light that these devices actually follow this law just fine. The problem has simply been the dogma of the scientific community.

[insomneac]

Just make sure any tungsten lying about isn't replaced by Pu-186.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...65#post2707365

Evasion noted.

I can't decide whether he's yanking our chains or really is the complete idiot his posts make him out to be.

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by insomneac

Just make sure any tungsten lying about isn't replaced by Pu-186.

How many here got the reference?

The saying from which the book title is derived also applies quite well here.

The book:
Isaac Asimov's The Gods Themselves

The aphorism:
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.

[jsiv]

Do not worry, friends. Big Oil(tm) will have everyone involved killed off by the end of the week.

[Zep]

Really? Well, folks, I gotta hurry - there's LOTS I gotta finish before Saturday...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

Please try to escape scientific dogma and be a leader.

"Just like a boat in calm waters and good sunshine. If a scientist did not know how to use solar panels, he might have ignored the light energy and applied the Law of Conservation of Energy in what he thought was a CLOSED system. He might advocate rowing using muscle energy."

He might. And he would be wrong. We know why he would be wrong. Somebody being wrong at some time is not evidence that somebody else is right at some other time.

Quote:

We are immersed in electromagnetic waves (and gravitational pulls) and exchange such energies constantly.

Yes we are, and such energies are generated somewhere. Nothing new in that. You can harness some of them, but only at the expense of having to create them.

Quote:

Electromagnetic waves come from the orbiting electrons of atoms. Unless these electrons stop rotating and fall into the nucleus, there will be Electromagnetic Wave Exchanges. (Some call this a form of Zero Point Energy.)

Wrong. Orbiting electrons do not emit EM. If they did, they would loose energy and they would stop rotating.

Quote:

The Law of Conservation of Energy has been misapplied by scientist and patent offices for centuries as demonstrated by “the boat in calm water and good sunshine” example.

Wrong. Unfounded claim.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

This is not an acceptable answer.

What specific claims do you dispute? Just because you don't understand something does not automatically make it incorrect.

If you want to dispute something, please feel free to do so, but replies like that show only ignorance.

I dispute that a free enegy device has been demonstrated. I request proof.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by g4macdad

This is one of several technologies that utilizes fields of energy.

Here is a list:Gravity_Motor, Steorn Toy, Wang Generator, Tsing Hua Magnifier, Energy from Air machine, Chao Car, Magnetic Power Inc flux change generator, EBM machine, Minato Bicycle, Milkovic dual mechanical oscillation system.



The whole problem has been the claim that these somehow break newton's first law of thermodynamics (COE). It has recently come to light that these devices actually follow this law just fine. The problem has simply been the dogma of the scientific community.

I have to correct you just a teeny bit here. The problem is not some pesky scientists. The problem is that none of these devices deliver as promised. There are several billion uneducated, energy hungry people out here, who won't give a [rule8] about what pesky scientists say if they can get a device that produces free energy. All these people would be installing free energy units as we speak, if any were actually available.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by bjb

*snip*Of course, there was a small voltage drop but since our sensors were calibrated to read up to 400V, the small drop was beneath our measurement error *snip*

You need to make differential measurements to detect this. The simple solution is to connect a low voltage sensor across the suspected drop. Since this is AC you need to allow for phase shifts, of course.

Which brings me to a possible source of what these guys might be measuring (unless they are deliberate scammers, which I think they are, but they could then be using the effect to try to fool prospective investors):

I notice in one of the more or less nonsensical drawings (more about this later) shown in the video that there was an RC circuit. If you put a resistor and a capacitor in series, apply AC and measure the voltage across each of the components, you will find that the sum of the voltages across each component is greater than the applied voltage. ..Heureka! We have overunity! ..... Not exactly. If you check more in depth, you will find that they are not in phase.

Now for the drawings. When you show drawings on a video, it can have two purposes. It can be to explain things, or it can be to try and impress people. Since we never see the full drawings (or formulas), and no explanations are given, the purpose in this video is solely the latter. Unfortunately, I, for one, am not impressed.

Finally, this thing fails one of the basic tests for such things: The test of scope. If you had invented a device that could actually produce free energy, would you:

1) Advertize it on YouTube, and private websites, hoping for private investors.

2) Take it to governments and big power companies, where the big buck is.

See?

Hans