Posted on Leave a comment

An OverUnity Formula?

I recently (November 2014) had an interesting (to me anyway) thought while contemplating the Water Powered Generator concept I notified my eNews subscribers about in our enews and a blog update on the old site.

There may be a way to mathmatically ‘prove’ and optimize many over-unity and/or free energy (OU FE) technologies with a simple formula taught in high school physics class.

I’ve noticed a common denominator of many of the OU FE technologies is speed or velocity.

If we use the formula KE = 1/2M*V2,
Kinetic Energy equals one half Mass times Velocity Squared;
we find that velocity is vitally important to efficiently getting energy out of a system.

Let’s take examples of a weight of 10 lbs rising 1 foot and a 1 lb weight rising 10 feet.
Both have done 10 ft/lbs of ‘work’.

Now assume both happened in 1 second.

The KE of the first would be (10/2)*(1*1) = 5

The KE of the second (lighter but faster weight) would be (1/2)*(10*10) = 50

The KE of the lighter faster weight is 10x more than the larger slower weight, even though the ‘work’ done was identical!

Take oxidation as another example:  If iron oxidizes slowly, we call it rust and there is little way to extract energy from it.  If it oxidizes faster, we call it burning and it is hot enough for us to convert some of the heat energy to kinetic energy.  If it oxidizes even faster, we call it an explosion (mix with aluminum to make thermite) and conversion of potential chemical energies to kinetic energy is even more efficient.

With gasoline, we average 3 BTU per combustion event in an internal combustion engine.  If we used 3 BTU of dynamite, the piston would be blown through the bottom of the engine.  The amount of thermal energy (3 BTU) is exactly the same.  The difference is the speed of combustion.
This is why the Bourke Engine was/is so efficient, it is designed to operate with fuel that detonates.
BTW, the safe way to dispose of old dynamite is to burn it in a fire; it doesn’t explode when burned, it just burns like a log.

So, my point is that, technologies using velocity as part of their energy conversion system make use of the part of the KE equation that is velocity squared.

You only consider 1/2 mass, and you square velocity; so moving mass isn’t as effective as increasing velocity.
As the velocity increases, the KE increases squared.  If you are looking for OU FE, (or even just high efficiency) you need to pay attention to velocity.

Back to the so called Water Powered Generator.  While this generator isn’t really water powered (no combustion of water), it does use water as the medium to convert pressure to velocity.
So MAYBE… If the technology is valid, or at least for this theory / concept to be valid… We could work out the energy it takes to pump small amounts of water to high pressure compared to the energy we get back from releasing that pressurized water through a nozzle designed to convert pressure to the highest velocity possible, onto a device (like a Pelton Wheel) optimized to convert that velocity to Kenetic Energy…

Pressure / Mass conversion charts for Pelton Wheels are available online; so a person could quickly see how much KE you’d get for any given pressure (say 200 psi) and mass (of water).  Then, find the data needed to figure out how much energy it’d take for an efficient pump to pump that volume of water to that pressure.

Comparing these two sets of data would tell you if it takes less energy to pump the water than you get from the output.
Logic says it won’t be OU, because it should take just as much energy to pump to high pressure as you get back from releasing that pressure (plus resistance losses) but this line of thinking is the only one I currently see as a possible theory…

So, what are some other examples of OU FE technologies that use speed as part of their conversion of energies?

I’ve seen MANY different configurations of electromagnetic induction technologies, most of which require an extremely fast pulse or discharge to exhibit OU effects.  For examples research Edwin Gray, Joesph Newman and John Bedini.

I’ve seen several capacitive discharge OU technologies.
Like this YouTube video, this theory and this schematic.
More research resources / examples:
Charging a capacitor without loss
A motor circuit that works?
Capacitive Discharge WaterGun
Capacitive Discharge Motor
Capacitive Water Explosion (to make water a fuel)

BTW, I proved that capacitors are actually electromagnetic devices too (truely opposite of inductors), by putting a flat coil in between two plates and putting AC onto the plates; the coil output an AC voltage and current, proving that there is an actual magnetic field between the plates of a capacitor.

Interesting new way to collect energy from vibrations using parrallel plates.

Energy Conserver Theory:
Note that I (George Wiseman) have a personal theory that heat, light and magnetisum are side effects of electron flow and do not ‘consume’ electricity.
I believe that these ‘loads’ don’t consume power, I think the way we currently design circuits cause power sources to neutralize themselves.
If my theory is correct, a person should be able to design circuits that ‘recycle’ electricity; having electron flow in ways that do not allow the source to neutralize itself (or at least slow that effect down).
I describe this theory and show some experiments to prove it in my Energy Conserver Book 1 and Energy Conserver Book 2.
I designed a circuit similar to the Tesla Switch years before I knew Tesla’d already done it.


For a practical (and free) Guide to Free Energy technologies, go HERE!

For plans to build a Free Energy Accumulator, go HERE!

For plans on how to build a Free Energy Motor / Generator, go HERE!


For another answer to “IS FREE ENERGY REALLY POSSIBLE?”

Yes! And thermodynamics has been extended since 1977 to include systems that output more than we have to input as long as they’re open to other sources of potential energy from the environment. 
Check out this simple article that gives a basic feel for this concept:


Many conventionally trained academics deny the possibility that a machine can produce more work than we’re required to supply on the input. As long as a system is open to the environment where more potential energy can enter the machine, then more work can be done than we had to pay for.




The downfall to conventional academia is that the concepts of energy and potential energy are taught completely backwards and there is no accounting for what the actual source potential for electrical charge even is or where it comes from. 




Once the distinctions are straightened out, then we can see that not only is it possible to create a free energy machine, if we build them according to the natural principles of open systems, it is practically a requirement for them to output more than we have to input. 




Closed system thermodynamics as taught in school only apply to closed heat systems, yet the entire field of physics, etc. try to apply it to electromagnetics, mechanical systems, you name it. The fact of the matter is that conventional closed system thermodynamics actually do not even apply to any natural system in the Universe – because every natural system is open to other sources of potential energy!




We recommend reading a copy of The Quantum Key by Aaron Murakami as a basic primer that explains the reality of free energy systems in terms so simple, only a junior high school level understanding is needed. 




The Quantum Key is actually a simplified Unified Field Theory for the layman that links gravity, inertial, electricity, mass, light speed, etc… all together in a seamless manner and even gives a simple explanation of what Time may actually be. Make sure to at least read the descriptions of the chapter on the website below!




This book is available at a hugely discounted price, which will change soon, so make The Quantum Key a part of your library – its a perfect companion to the Bedini SG Trilogy!
Another OU technology…
Jim Murray & Paul Babcock demonstrated the SERPS unit, which lit 50 watts of bulbs for a net draw of only 1 watt from the power supply. That is a COP of 50.0, which is 5000% more work done than the net draw from the transformer.

Get your own  FREE ENERGY BIBLE 

Leave a Reply