## Re: Theoretical overunity

Expand Messages
• Group, Here is a copy of a letter I wrote to someone privately requesting more information on my theory. I thought you folks might enjoy it. UbaVonTuba wrote:
Message 1 of 14 , Jun 30, 2004
Group,

Here is a copy of a letter I wrote to someone privately requesting
more information on my theory. I thought you folks might enjoy it.

UbaVonTuba wrote:

Okay, let me try and break it down for you.

If you shoot a cannon from atop a mountain into the air for it to arc
over and eventually fall into the lowlands, what happens?

First of all, it should be obvious that since the descent leg (fall)
of the journey is longer than the ascent (launch), the kinetic energy
(not including friction loss due to atmosphere) upon impact will be
greater than the energy expended to launch (or shoot) the projectile.

Where does that extra energy come from?
Well, it comes from the gravitational attraction of the Earth.
Basically, the Earth pulls downward on the projectile for a longer
time than the object ascends.

See? Gravity is a conservative force. Without atmospheric friction,
if you shoot something up from a particular place to have it return
to the same location, the kinetic energy of the object upon impact
will be the same as the kinetic energy you imparted to it, upon
launch.

However, if you start from a height and land in a relatively low
area, gravity has longer to act upon the object and therefore you'll
have more kinetic energy upon impact than when you launched.
Essentially, you gain the energy it would have taken to launch the
object to the same height from the low area to begin with. Of course
if you wish to return the object to the launch site, you will then
lose that energy again.

It should be noted at this point that the Earth is also attracted to
the object and moves toward it too (very very slightly).

Now, the orbit of the Earth around the sun allows a unique factor to
enter into the scenario. At any one point in its orbit, the Earth is
SIMULTANEOUSLY a high peak and a lowland relative to the sun. What
determines what part the Earth is playing is the angle of the
projectile's trajectory.

When the object is shot into space, it does indeed have its own
effect on the solar system. Upon launch, if you use a cannon, there
is a recoil to the Earth and then an attraction between the Earth and
the object (very small). If you use a rocket, there is only the
minute attraction.

Since the object's course is designed to be relative to the sun,
there is an attraction between them also.

So let's examine in detail what happens.

Launching the object outward (toward a higher solar orbit) will not
have consequences for Earth's orbit due to the fact that you are
pushing and pulling the Earth's orbit inward and outward. Since you
are not detracting from the relative speed of that orbit, the Earth
will merely react to the push or pull and then re-align itself to its
normal orbit. Net result; no measurable consequence.

Now, the object is interacting with the sun which circumstantially is
the relative center of gravity for the whole solar system.

At first, it is pulling away from the sun, thereby pulling the sun
with it. Then it is falling into an elliptical orbit around the sun,
still pulling the sun toward it (orbital wobble). However, by
pulling on the sun, it is in essence pulling on the mass of the
entire solar system as the sun will in turn pull on all the other
masses and re-align their orbits with the sun's new orientation.

It should be noted that all of these effects are too small to
measure. Net result; no measurable consequences. Besides, you can
counter them by making you're next launch go a different way or start
from a different point in Earth's orbit relative to the sun.

Now, when the object impacts upon the Earth with its increased
kinetic energy (relatively in line with the Earth's orbit), it will
slow the Earth slightly if impacted on the leading orbit, or increase
the Earth's orbital speed if impacted on the trailing side of Earth's
orbit.

Or, you can cause it to impact on the edge of Earth's disc and use
the energy to increase or decrease Earth's rotation.

In any event, it is important to note that any consequences to the
solar system's gravitational masses can be canceled with subsequent
launches and impacts (although using different trajectories). So,
even entire solar system wobble due to your actions can be canceled
out relative to the universe at large.

Therefore, since all reactive forces cancel, or can be canceled,
except for the increased kinetic energy, that energy is overunity in
nature. You truly get more energy than you started with.

It should be noted that by causing the sun's (solar system's)
disturbances you are actually imparting force (energy) to the
gravitational masses, not taking it away (except with canceling
launches). Therefore, there is even more "overunity" than just the
increase in kinetic energy from your projectile.

The important key here is that the Earth is SIMULTANEOUSLY a high
place and a low place relative to the sun. It is this unique factor
that allows this "overunity" to be theoretically possible. You can
think about it similarly to a quantum paradox. The Earth is neither
high nor low, but it is also high and low at the same time (sounds
like a paradox to me anyway).

Now, I wish to say that none of this, as described, is practical, but
it does hint at the theoretical possibility of overunity.

I hope this clarifies it for you.

Eric
• ... No, it s not overunity. If the projectile lands with more energy than was given to it during launch, it s taken energy from another planetary body.
Message 2 of 14 , Jul 2 9:17 PM
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:

> Therefore, since all reactive forces cancel, or can be canceled,
> except for the increased kinetic energy, that energy is overunity in
> nature. You truly get more energy than you started with.
>
> It should be noted that by causing the sun's (solar system's)
> disturbances you are actually imparting force (energy) to the
> gravitational masses, not taking it away (except with canceling
> launches). Therefore, there is even more "overunity" than just the
> increase in kinetic energy from your projectile.
>

No, it's not overunity. If the projectile lands with more energy than
was given to it during launch, it's taken energy from another
planetary body. Launching another projectile in a different direction
can't "put it back" unless that projectile lost net energy in its flight.

No free lunch in orbital mechanics, either.
• Gary S., Hmm. Well, I don t think you understand what I have discovered here. Perhaps you can open your mind to the possibilty that I have discoverd a new
Message 3 of 14 , Jul 2 9:30 PM
Gary S.,

Hmm. Well, I don't think you understand what I have discovered
here. Perhaps you can open your mind to the possibilty that I have
discoverd a new (and so far, not yet understood) phenomena?

Anyway, are you aware that in quantum mechanics perpetual motion is
the rule? In fact, there cannot exist a state of zero energy? Are
you aware that due to the normal quantum paradoxes regarding particle
placement and whatnot that quantum level perpetual motion devices are
readily and easily devised (in theory)?

Do you know that "real" researchers have been trying to develop macro-
level quantum devices for the purposes of developing perpetual motion
and other such exotic devices?

Are you aware that these paradoxes pertain to particles and other
subatomic phenomena being in more than one place at the same time, or
behaving in more than one expected way at the same time?

What I have found is that if you think about an orbit in a particular
way, it is possible to understand a macro level paradox that is
similar to the commonly understood quantum level paradoxes.

In relative space (special relativity) we normally consider it to be
impossible to be standing at the highest point on Earth (Mt. Everest)
and the lowest point on Earth (The Dead Sea) at the same time.
However, an orbit makes this possible.

Due to the nature of an orbit, an orbiting body is both at the same
time, in relation to what it is orbiting. In other words, you can
drop an object from an orbiting body and have it fall on itself
(escape velocity of the orbiting body and a proper trajectory must be
achieved first). During the fall it will pick up kinetic energy due
to gravity. Gravity is conservative and is therefore not altered in
any way by this process. Relative positions will be altered by this
process, but those position changes can generally be compensated for
in subsequent drops.

What I am saying is that the effect is no different than dropping an
object from a high tower on one side of the Earth, and then doing the
same thing from a similar tower on the opposite side. The two events
compensate for each other's deflection of the Earth.

The Earth's orbit allows the fall to take place on opposite sides of
the sun without having to build a second tower (or have a second
orbiting body). Also, the Earth is either the tall tower, or the low
landing platform, as needed.

Eric
• ... I think that you don t understand General Relativity, as it does not apply to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference. No free lunches if you grab
Message 4 of 14 , Jul 3 11:40 AM
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
> Gary S.,
>
> Hmm. Well, I don't think you understand what I have discovered
> here. Perhaps you can open your mind to the possibilty that I have
> discoverd a new (and so far, not yet understood) phenomena?
>

I think that you don't understand General Relativity, as it does not
apply to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference. No free
lunches if you grab KE from orbital bodies, but I do agree that we
could never pull enough out of any planet to noticeably affect its
orbit, so doing so would not have any practical limitations. So yes,
you could do it for a long, long time, but it is not theoretically
overunity.
• Gary S., This is a letter I wrote to someone with similar concerns. I hope it makes sense to you considering that it is slightly out of context to your last
Message 5 of 14 , Jul 3 9:53 PM
Gary S.,

This is a letter I wrote to someone with similar concerns. I hope it
makes sense to you considering that it is slightly out of context to
your last response. I have snipped portions not relevant to your
letter as best I could.

ubavontuba wrote:

about. In fact, I am using as little acceleration as possible, I'm
not accelerating willy-nilly. My experiment has specific goals and
targets to meet. What I'm really talking about actually, is falling.

...as our object speeds outward from Earth, the Earth continues
onward in its orbit. We can even "hang" our object in an orbit or
semi-orbit of Mars or some other mass which allows the Earth even
more time to recede around the sun.

It is important to note that the Earth only had to launch the device
to Mars during relative proximity. Please note that the orbital
changes have significantly lenghtened the distance between our object
and the Earth. The mere fact that it would take much more energy to
launch to Mars as the distance increases should give you a clue as to
what is happening.

Another way of thinking about it is that at this point, the orbit of
Earth is like a descending elavator relative to Mars.

An accurate representation of what's happening is as follows:
The object is launched from Earth near the peak of what becomes (for
the object) an eliptical orbit of the sun. As with any eliptical
orbit, the peaks are areas of relatively low velocity, and the center
of the lenghtened portion (legs) is the point of highest velocity.

As the Earth comes around the sun, our object is dropped from Mars
(leaves Mars orbit) such that it meets the Earth near the center of
the object's orbital leg. This point of highest velocity is much
faster than the relatively low velocity point where Earth launched
the device. Add to that the fact that the Earth's orbit is now
running head-on into the object (approaching) whereas upon launch it
was perpendicular and receding. You should easily be able to
calculate a significant Kinetic energy difference beween launch and
landing.

I know you think I'm talking physics voodoo here, but do the
calculations. The energy difference between a proximal Earth and
Mars and a seperated distance between them should be quite obvious.
Also, the energy difference between a receding Earth and an
approaching Earth should be obvious. It is these changes in position
that make my scenario possible.

It is important to note that these changing positions, although they
represent different energy potentials, they do not require energy to
be accomplished (due to the nature of orbiting masses).

Eric
• ... have ... not ... yes, ... Hi Gary and Eric, I just wanted to point out that we do not need to launch anything into space to tap into the kinetic energy of
Message 6 of 14 , Jul 4 9:19 AM
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
> > Gary S.,
> >
> > Hmm. Well, I don't think you understand what I have discovered
> > here. Perhaps you can open your mind to the possibilty that I
have
> > discoverd a new (and so far, not yet understood) phenomena?
> >
>
> I think that you don't understand General Relativity, as it does
not
> apply to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference. No free
> lunches if you grab KE from orbital bodies, but I do agree that we
> could never pull enough out of any planet to noticeably affect its
> orbit, so doing so would not have any practical limitations. So
yes,
> you could do it for a long, long time, but it is not theoretically
> overunity.

Hi Gary and Eric,

I just wanted to point out that we do not need to launch anything
into space to tap into the kinetic energy of astronomical bodies.
We can do this right now at the Earth's surface. Installations off
of the coasts of Europe and North America are already harvesting
tidal energy:

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~pbrown/g410/tidal/tidal.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/2992996.stm

http://www.iclei.org/EFACTS/TIDAL.HTM

The ultimate source of energy for tidal energy comes from the Moon's
rotation around the Earth. And, as you say, the kinetic energy lost
by the Moon in this way is negligible over human time-scales.
Estimates indicate that this mode of electricity production is not
yet cost effective, but maybe will be in the near future.

Leo C.
• ... So yes, ... Theoretical overunity - if only it could be diagnosed as easily as, say, theoretical pregnancy . . . haaaaaaa Just piss in the cup,
Message 7 of 14 , Jul 4 12:15 PM
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
So yes,
> you could do it for a long, long time, but it is not theoretically
> overunity.

" Theoretical overunity " - if only it could be diagnosed as easily as, say, " theoretical
pregnancy " . . . haaaaaaa
"Just piss in the cup, *doctor X*, we will see just what that theory of yours is really
cheers ---
BuddyRay
• Tell you what Eric, Instead of telling us do the calculations why don t you show us the calculations you ve done? That s how it works: you ve made the claim,
Message 8 of 14 , Jul 12 8:54 AM
Tell you what Eric,

Instead of telling us "do the calculations" why don't you show us
the calculations you've done?

That's how it works: you've made the claim, YOU provide the
calculations to support said claim.

--Soren

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
> Gary S.,
>
> This is a letter I wrote to someone with similar concerns. I hope
it
> makes sense to you considering that it is slightly out of context
to
> your last response. I have snipped portions not relevant to your
> letter as best I could.
>
> ubavontuba wrote:
>
talking
> about. In fact, I am using as little acceleration as possible,
I'm
> not accelerating willy-nilly. My experiment has specific goals
and
> targets to meet. What I'm really talking about actually, is
falling.
>
> ...as our object speeds outward from Earth, the Earth continues
> onward in its orbit. We can even "hang" our object in an orbit or
> semi-orbit of Mars or some other mass which allows the Earth even
> more time to recede around the sun.
>
> It is important to note that the Earth only had to launch the
device
> to Mars during relative proximity. Please note that the orbital
> changes have significantly lenghtened the distance between our
object
> and the Earth. The mere fact that it would take much more energy
to
> launch to Mars as the distance increases should give you a clue as
to
> what is happening.
>
> Another way of thinking about it is that at this point, the orbit
of
> Earth is like a descending elavator relative to Mars.
>
> An accurate representation of what's happening is as follows:
> The object is launched from Earth near the peak of what becomes
(for
> the object) an eliptical orbit of the sun. As with any eliptical
> orbit, the peaks are areas of relatively low velocity, and the
center
> of the lenghtened portion (legs) is the point of highest velocity.
>
> As the Earth comes around the sun, our object is dropped from Mars
> (leaves Mars orbit) such that it meets the Earth near the center
of
> the object's orbital leg. This point of highest velocity is much
> faster than the relatively low velocity point where Earth launched
> the device. Add to that the fact that the Earth's orbit is now
> running head-on into the object (approaching) whereas upon launch
it
> was perpendicular and receding. You should easily be able to
> calculate a significant Kinetic energy difference beween launch
and
> landing.
>
> I know you think I'm talking physics voodoo here, but do the
> calculations. The energy difference between a proximal Earth and
> Mars and a seperated distance between them should be quite
obvious.
> Also, the energy difference between a receding Earth and an
> approaching Earth should be obvious. It is these changes in
position
> that make my scenario possible.
>
> It is important to note that these changing positions, although
they
> represent different energy potentials, they do not require energy
to
> be accomplished (due to the nature of orbiting masses).
>
> Eric
• ... Or, instead of trying to figure on using a planet-sized body to take energy from, why not an orbiting object the same size as the projectile used to
Message 9 of 14 , Jul 13 11:03 AM
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "sorenlaf" <sorenlaf@y...> wrote:
> Tell you what Eric,
>
> Instead of telling us "do the calculations" why don't you show us
> the calculations you've done?
>
> That's how it works: you've made the claim, YOU provide the
> calculations to support said claim.
>
>
> --Soren
>

Or, instead of trying to figure on using a planet-sized body to "take"
energy from, why not an orbiting object the same size as the
projectile used to gather that energy? If it's free energy the
relative sizes of the objects shouldn't matter, should they?
• Soren, You are right. I shouldn t make claims I can t demonstrate sufficient evidence to support. I apologize. My only defense is that this seemed to make
Message 10 of 14 , Jul 15 11:36 PM
Soren,

You are right. I shouldn't make claims I can't demonstrate
sufficient evidence to support. I apologize. My only defense is
that this seemed to make such logical sense to me that I thought
others might be able to see it also. I was wrong.

I have belonged to several math-heavy groups. It seems that no
matter how proficient one is in math, there is still plenty of room
for disagreement. I had one "educated physicist" try to tell me that
Einstein's equivalence principal (constant acceleration) would lead
to ever increasing G-forces (he used lots of math). It took a lot
for me to get the message accross that he was wrong. After a few in
the group started to side with me, he left the group (he was a
founding member!). I left too, hoping it would encourage his
return. I don't know what happened after that. It was a group that
primarily concerned itself with "wormhole" theory.

So, although I am starting a math education for myself, I doubt it'll
make any difference here. People believe in the laws of motion as if
they were written by God Himself, rather than a man. This man lived
many centuries ago and could not possibly have forseen the dynamics
of space-flight and the consequences of Einstein's relativity as we
know them today. I was just trying to demonstrate a relative effect
that differentiated, in theory, from Newtonian concepts. I guess I
have failed (for now).

Anyway, I have some more thinking to do on this concept. Again, I
apologize to you and the group for jumping the gun on something I
can't properly prove, at this time.

Eric

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "sorenlaf" <sorenlaf@y...> wrote:
> Tell you what Eric,
>
> Instead of telling us "do the calculations" why don't you show us
> the calculations you've done?
>
> That's how it works: you've made the claim, YOU provide the
> calculations to support said claim.
>
>
> --Soren
• Gary, Relative size does matter! (pun) Actually, you are correct. As long as while passing each other they could attain a centripetal attraction (like by
Message 11 of 14 , Jul 16 12:07 AM
Gary,

Relative size does matter! (pun)

Actually, you are correct. As long as while passing each other they
could attain a centripetal attraction (like by using a lasso), they
could turn around each other. However, relative trajectories,
distance and speed become important. Perhaps you could use a small
asteroid or a comet.

What is important to note is that it wasn't my intent to use the
orbital velocity of the planets, I only wished to cause a change in
direction.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that everything is orbiting the sun,
using a planet would indeed transfer energy from the planet to the
projectile, or from the projectile to the planet. It depends on how
you approach the planet.

In any event, I am satisfied that I cannot properly prove my theory
at this time, so I am dropping it for the time being.

Eric

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:

> Or, instead of trying to figure on using a planet-sized body
to "take"
> energy from, why not an orbiting object the same size as the
> projectile used to gather that energy? If it's free energy the
> relative sizes of the objects shouldn't matter, should they?
• Soren, True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all. -- Socrates
Message 12 of 14 , Jul 19 5:23 PM
Soren,

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in
knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all."
-- Socrates (470?-399 BC)

Read post #10657 and get back to me.

Eric
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.