Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Theoretical overunity

Expand Messages
  • Eric
    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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Gary S.
      ... 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, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.
      • Eric
        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, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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
        • Gary S.
          ... 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, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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.
          • Eric
            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, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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:

              Your example about accelerating is way off-base from what I'm 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
            • mintowheel
              ... 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, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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.
              • Budmont El Rayo Everett III
                ... 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, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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
                  all about. . ."
                  cheers ---
                  BuddyRay
                • sorenlaf
                  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, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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:
                    >
                    > Your example about accelerating is way off-base from what I'm
                    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
                  • Gary S.
                    ... 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, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- 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?
                    • Eric
                      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, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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
                      • Eric
                        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, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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?
                        • Eric
                          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, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.