Self energizing systems in nature....

[142857]

I hesitate to say perpetual motion, but, whatever you want to call OU that makes sense to you.

I'm going to define it broadly as any system, the motion of which creates the energy needed for the system to continue ..... ie: more out than in. simple.

Now let us consider a universe of seemingly endless possibilities, like this one.

Nothing we have yet discovered seems to comply with this perpetual energy idea......Except for the presumably incorrect or misunderstood model of an atom.


If I hit a baseball out into space in a perfect direction, where it would never interact with any force of any kind......It would go forever....yet it's inital input can obviously be traced to the inital hit....the ball may retain it's input energy forever but NO energy may be derived from it. This tells me that you could possibly store energy forever....

Nothing I can come up with anywhere seems to actually display self energizing characteristics.
It seems that anything that is currently in motion has a definitive energy source that is not it's self.

Somebody please tell me why this assesment is incorrect?
I hate to be a downer, but i've pondered long and hard about this and it kinda bums me out to.

Quite simply put....If Howard Johnsons(insert whatever name you like, Muller, Bedini, ect.) claims had been true, if his motor actually did work, it would have effectively, outdone every known miracle of nature.

[boguslaw]

It's simple.Don't loose hope!

Examples for you :
1.vacuum tube contains filament or cathode which is emitting electrons
make a special tube with large filament/cathode , connect to LCr circuit and you have free energy (but someday filament will fall apart of course, but it's not a problem if filament is cheap and thick like toroid core )
2. when you scream in normal room there is no much effect but try the same in good opera
3. rolling stones - did you ever thought that some physical parameters may vary in time or place ? like snow ball rolling down the hill and increasing mass
something which teachers won't tell you,because is not linear

You should not think that 3 effects were not used.In fact there were plenty of devices constructed on those principles and much more on others.
Nature is our great teacher.Always.
We should revert to nature , and to God.

[Allcanadian]

@142857

Nothing we have yet discovered seems to comply with this perpetual energy idea......Except for the presumably incorrect or misunderstood model of an atom.

Let's consider this statement, we know as a fact all the components of matter are in continuous motion and we know as a fact that energy as EM waves covering the whole EM spectrum are radiated from every star in all directions filling every space. Therefore we know as a fact that at no point that we know of in the known universe is there a "space" which does not contain energy which is changing in some way. Can you give me one single example of anything anywhere in the known universe which is not in motion relative to something else or cannot interact with with the space it occupies?.

If I hit a baseball out into space in a perfect direction, where it would never interact with any force of any kind......It would go forever....yet it's inital input can obviously be traced to the inital hit....the ball may retain it's input energy forever but NO energy may be derived from it. This tells me that you could possibly store energy forever....

One issue with this scenario is that we know as a fact the known universe is full of stars and these stars radiate EM energy filling all space therefore your baseball never interacting with anything is impossible unless the universe was devoid of stars in which case we would have no need to consider anything as we would not be here.

Nothing I can come up with anywhere seems to actually display self energizing characteristics.
It seems that anything that is currently in motion has a definitive energy source that is not it's self.

The first mistake many people make relates to Maxwell's theories, you see Maxwell stated catagorically that his equations will ignore all external forces because we cannot know nor calculate all these forces because they are always changing. That is we cannot integrate a variable which is always "variable" because we cannot know it's value because it is constantly changing. So for reasons of simplicity Maxwell only considered a system which could be considered as "closed". Then for reasons which I find mindboggling people started to assume that there are systems which can in fact be considered as closed in reality which is absurd when we think about it. All we have to do is consider the fact that at no point in time anywhere we know of can something not interact with it's environment in some way. If all space is full of EM energy in transition, moving from one place to another, then how can matter not interact with the space it occupies?

Quite simply put....If Howard Johnsons(insert whatever name you like, Muller, Bedini, ect.) claims had been true, if his motor actually did work, it would have effectively, outdone every known miracle of nature.

Actually they must be based on the laws of nature, how could they not be?, however that does not mean we always understand how the laws apply in every case which leads to a question, is everything we personally do not understand a violation of natural law?. Common sense would suggest that nature is what it is regardless of what we believe and that a lack of understanding is no fault of nature but solely our own lack of understanding. The premise that if we think logically and logic is infallible then our thinking is infallible is flawed on every level.
Regards
AC

[142857]

yeah, see...I'm not saying there is no "free" energy anywhere....I'm simply saying that there are no natural phenomonon which display "self energising" properties.

As in what everybody is trying to do with the various "motor-generator" ideas.


Space is indeed full of energy....but a star is simply a fule source....like a burning lump of coal it will eventually burn up/out.


wind is free, tidal is free, solar is free......lots of things have great potential and obviously need to be further explored and developed...

I'm just really pointing at the "self-running" machine ideas out there.

And again I state that: NOTHING in the universe, so far as we know displays self-running or self energizing properties/abilities.

Everything requires a fule source...er input energy.....nothing creates enough energy through it's own motion to feed it's self and perpetuate said motion.

1984machine? anybody?

[boguslaw]

In this sense you are correct.There is no perpetual motion machine in nature, everything will stop someday, but who cares about that if it take millions years ?

[Allcanadian]

@142857

Space is indeed full of energy....but a star is simply a fule source....like a burning lump of coal it will eventually burn up/out.

I would agree, stars burn out and new stars are formed as well just as some coal is burned as new coal is also being formed in the Earth all the time.

I'm just really pointing at the "self-running" machine ideas out there.

Maybe I was mistaken as I thought you were trying to imply that a device which appears to output more energy than was input must be magically creating energy from nothing which of course violates the conservation of energy. I like to play this game every now and then when I state I have a device in which I input 1 joule of energy and get 4 joules out. Of course this is easy because every heat pump can do this when we consider it is an open system and a conversion of energy takes place, this is where context is important because we are not creating energy only moving it.

Everything requires a fule source...er input energy.....nothing creates enough energy through it's own motion to feed it's self and perpetuate said motion.

I would agree nothing creates energy as energy cannot be created nor destroyed and can only change form, however just because we are not aware of one form of energy does not mean it cannot exist. This would mean reality must always follow our opinions and of course we know this is not the case.
I think many people may be confusing many issues concerning free energy because we know all matter and space contains a great deal of energy in various forms therefore it seems obvious that we have no need for energy to be created from nothing as we know it is already present everywhere. As well I think we could take a leap of faith and believe a machine that has a greater output than input must create something from nothing or consider that it has converted a form of energy which was already present. I have never believed in OU as a something from nothing proposition but rather a matter of energy state and energy conversion from one form to another which seems to make more sense.
Regards
AC

[mbrownn]

I hesitate to say perpetual motion, but, whatever you want to call OU that makes sense to you.

I'm going to define it broadly as any system, the motion of which creates the energy needed for the system to continue ..... ie: more out than in. simple.

Now let us consider a universe of seemingly endless possibilities, like this one.

Nothing we have yet discovered seems to comply with this perpetual energy idea......Except for the presumably incorrect or misunderstood model of an atom.


If I hit a baseball out into space in a perfect direction, where it would never interact with any force of any kind......It would go forever....yet it's inital input can obviously be traced to the inital hit....the ball may retain it's input energy forever but NO energy may be derived from it. This tells me that you could possibly store energy forever....

Nothing I can come up with anywhere seems to actually display self energizing characteristics.
It seems that anything that is currently in motion has a definitive energy source that is not it's self.

Somebody please tell me why this assesment is incorrect?
I hate to be a downer, but i've pondered long and hard about this and it kinda bums me out to.

Quite simply put....If Howard Johnsons(insert whatever name you like, Muller, Bedini, ect.) claims had been true, if his motor actually did work, it would have effectively, outdone every known miracle of nature.

I think it is Newtons laws of motion.

Each action has an equal and apposite reaction. HELLOOO If we put 1kw of power into the ball it takes another kw of power to stop it in a perfect system. That means 1kw of recoverable energy was created for free and the motion of the ball consumed nothing.

Lets think about this, where does the reaction power come from? The environment.

So looking at a motor we can put energy in and recover energy out and the motion cost us nothing, this sounds like a Bedini energizer to me.

Yes this is an oversimplification but what I am saying is this was known before and we were told not to believe it.

all we have to do is create 1kw and a second kw is created by the environment then feed half of that total back to the source and we have a feedback loop where we can draw 1kw for use and continue to feed 1kw into the source indefinitely.

Of course there is no perfect system and there will be losses back to the environment and no machine will run for ever but it is possible to run a 1kw motor, recover 70% of that energy and feed it back to the source. Now we have 300w of input energy plus the 700w of recovered energy running the 1kw motor. Think about it we can run a 1kw machine with 300w of input.

[Farmhand]

THat is exactly right mbrownn, with the correct circuitry it should be no problem to use capacitors to store the recovered energy at a higher voltage and return it to the source by some kind of regulator like a DC to DC converter or a switching step down power regulator.

We can then use the 300 watts from the utility power or inverter, let's say a motor is running from 240volts supplied by an inverter then rectified to big caps then pulsed to run the motor, the inverter is powered by a 12v battery, this is easy, the recovery from the 240volt motor gets stored in another big cap then is regulated to the supply caps from say 300volts to the 240 in the supply caps. It gets easier if the utility power is used. The motor runs from the Supply caps and the recovery caps regulate down from the appropriate voltage. No need to return the saved energy to the battery in either setup.

Once the recovery starts to feed the supply the battery supplies less power.

Then there is the work the motor does, if the motor runs a generator then OU or C.O.P. over 1, is assured. I guarantee it. Just kidding.

It is more complicated than a normal arrangement but there are savings to be had.

I could do it myself and I will try when I learn enough about the electronics to make it happen. And get the time and stuff. I am only me and I must do other work too. It is frustrating to have so many idea's but not enough time to ever try them all out.

Cheers

[boguslaw]

I think it is Newtons laws of motion.

Each action has an equal and apposite reaction. HELLOOO If we put 1kw of power into the ball it takes another kw of power to stop it in a perfect system. That means 1kw of recoverable energy was created for free and the motion of the ball consumed nothing.

Lets think about this, where does the reaction power come from? The environment.

So looking at a motor we can put energy in and recover energy out and the motion cost us nothing, this sounds like a Bedini energizer to me.

Yes this is an oversimplification but what I am saying is this was known before and we were told not to believe it.

all we have to do is create 1kw and a second kw is created by the environment then feed half of that total back to the source and we have a feedback loop where we can draw 1kw for use and continue to feed 1kw into the source indefinitely.

Of course there is no perfect system and there will be losses back to the environment and no machine will run for ever but it is possible to run a 1kw motor, recover 70% of that energy and feed it back to the source. Now we have 300w of input energy plus the 700w of recovered energy running the 1kw motor. Think about it we can run a 1kw machine with 300w of input.

Not only.... we can fool environment and it can create many more