Overunity, Free Energy And Perpetual Motion: The Strange Side Of YouTube

Spend enough time on YouTube, and you’ll eventually find yourself in one of the many dark corners hiding within it. No, I’m not talking about the comments. In this case, I mean the many videos dedicated to free energy, overunity devices, perpetual motion machines, or anything else that violates the laws of thermodynamics by trying to get out more energy than is put in. The human race has been reaching for impossible dreams of perpetual motion and free energy for just about all of recorded history. Now it’s convenient to find them all in one place.

searl_effect_generator-shot0001Browsing the tubes, it’s easy to break free energy videos down into two major groups: enthusiasts and scammers. Catching a scammer is easy – they’re looking for money. Somewhere in the video or description will be a link to a website with more information. Eventually that will lead you to a place where the scammer attempts to part you and your hard-earned money.

Names like John Searl, Muammer Yildiz, and M. T. Keshe go here. Searl especially deserves note because he’s been at it for decades.  Supposedly, his “Searl Effect Generator” SEG has been built several times, but the prototypes generate so much power they create their own anti-gravity field and fly off into space. Obviously this man and his staff need your money to continue their work. Scammers deserve disdain and public shaming. These are the folks who know their “discoveries” are nothing more than snake oil.

On the other side of the coin lie the enthusiasts. These are the backyard tinkerers, the ones who put down their computers, pick up their tools, and try to build something. Sounds a lot like the average Hackaday reader, doesn’t it? I have to admit I went into this article with the same disdain for the enthusiasts that I have for the scammers, possibly even more. In some cases, these are the folks who truly believe they can have a chance to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Inevitably these folks fail to build free energy generators, overunity devices, or whatever their pursuit is, but they all do seem to learn something in the process. A lot can be said about the builds themselves. Some of these are awesome devices. Even if they don’t work for their intended purpose, they are great demonstrations of magnetism or chemistry. This is where I had a change of heart. If someone wants to spend their time working on an impossible hack, then more power to them. I may not think they have any chance of success, but at the very least, they’ll learn how to build.

magmotorA good example is this 2008 video by [theDaftman]. [TheDaftman] is building a Newman motor. In 1979, scammer Joseph Newman “designed” a motor which uses coils, magnets, and a simple commutator to operate from DC power. Yes, it’s a DC motor. A basic version can be seen in this video by [a]. [TheDaftman’s] version uses four “pots” (motors) connected on a common shaft. He uses a bank of switches to power up or down each of his four motors. The setup is much like a 4 cylinder internal combustion engine. Real life multi-pole motors include all the coils on a single rotor (or stator depending on the type of motor). However, it’s rather interesting to see the parts broken out like this. As for Newman himself, he’s still pushing his technology on his own YouTube channel.

Many of the devices on YouTube are based on magnets. Enthusiasts wrongly believe the invisible force created by magnets is the key to unlocking free energy. This has led to some intricate builds using coils and permanent magnets. [The Openminded Skeptic] has created his share, including this 3D printed magnet motor. While the motor didn’t work, it is an impressive build, and [The Openminded Skeptic] himself has said that he learned quite a bit from the build. [jzsd14me] also has some great examples of magnet motors built both from plastic and wood. The motors do spin, but of course they aren’t overunity.

Another group of enthusiasts center around splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Oxyhydrogen, is a real thing of course. The idea here is that Brown’s gas, a common name for the HHO gas produced by the electrolysis of water, will power cars. An unmodified carbureted gasoline engine will run quite happily on hydrogen. The problem is that it takes more energy to perform the electrolysis of the water than you get back from the hydrogen. A car running on a HHO generator will eventually be found on the side of the road with a dead battery.

hho-1This doesn’t stop HHO enthusiasts. There are plenty of designs for generators on the internet. [Alexthe2nd] has a video depicting his 60 plate generator. [delvis11] bumped that up to 354 plates.
Even though HHO is not a great solution for the automotive industry, it does have uses in the hacker world. Brown’s gas can be used to make a torch capable of cutting steel. Viral YouTuber [CarsAndWater] started with HHO generators. His Red Hot Nickel Ball (RHNB) series is powered by an HHO torch.

Note: hydrogen gas is fairly flammable, but it only burns as fast as it can get access to oxygen. Brown’s gas pre-combines the two in just the right mixture: one spark and the whole thing can explode. This is something [omahaturbo] found out when he failed to install a spark arrestor.

So the next time you find yourself on the strange side of YouTube don’t run for the hills. You might just find some awesome (pointless) builds hiding between the scammers and the trolls.

208 thoughts on “Overunity, Free Energy And Perpetual Motion: The Strange Side Of YouTube

    1. Look guys the biggest trouble is with heat and not being able to exchange it fast enough. So with that being said the common ohm produces way to much of it. How do we create less resistance increasesurface area of the transfer conduit (wires) so why no use tube in the same very same fashion as the winding wires. In both the electric motor and the generators. Then pass a coolant through them kinda of like a window unit a.c. now with all this power being generated it must be stored lets try lithium ion battery’s or maybe even diamond batterys. No we’ve covered heat transfer away for the device and storage of energy. Lets move on to a not so smart switch that will start said device from stored energy when power becomes to low. To create more energy. By itself with out human interaction. This boys is the future everyone is thinking it but no one is trying to take it a step further high quality #1 copper tubing and rare neodymium earth magnets will defiantly give you the most bang. Have at it i have no money just knowledge.go for the stars guys.

      1. STANLEY A MEYER. PATENTS HIDDEN : VOLTAGE INTENSIFIER CIRCUIT. and EPG (ELECTRIC PARTICLE GENERATOR) …. go watch all 5-10 1-3hour talks on youtube. overunity exists at every dam but its (finite only due to the time life of the water cycle on the planet.) more energy in the electric field of the universe than anywhere else. research it quick before they can censor faster than we can repost

  1. sometimes, the “cranks” are right, but just too early. For example Stanley Meyer which HHO producing devices supposedly can decompose water at a much greater rate than normal electrolysis… turns out he was right, there is now academic researchers replicating (or almost replicating) his work


    Stan Meyer’s brief http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/MeyerData.pdf

      1. No, the difference here is that the researchers are working in an area outside their expertise with a power supply that is extremely difficult to quantify and the write up is junk.

    1. HHO isn’t a thing, we left it behind with other bad concepts like the aether-frame and the 4 humors.

      Its mixed H2 O2, nothing more, nothing less . HHO isn’t even a good descriptor of what it is.

          1. Except…if you actually performed any in-depth analysis of the patents, you would know that the molecular gases formed in the “water fuel cell” are fed to another voltage zone and bathed in photon energy in the “gas processor”…this pushes the shared orbital electrons to a larger orbit (which weakens the stable molecule’s covalent bond)…then a floating positive electrode steals free/weakly bonded electrons “Electron Extraction Circuit”…..that my friend would produce mono-atomic ions ;-)

          2. The funny thing about patents is you don’t actually have to have a working prototype to get your paperwork accepted. The check just has to clear.

            But please elaborate about volatile gas mixtures having worthwhile ‘extra’ energy but somehow not pre-igniting despite a measly 20 microjoules being needed to kick them off. Or maybe you’d rather argue they under go some as-yet-undiscovered form of nuclear fusion, but miraculously don’t put off any elements (other than H’s and O’s as water), fundamental particles or any other measurable quantity.

            The only thing exposed here is quackery.

          3. There have been several working working prototypes…lol, news reports, DoD contracts, a working replica under the name of plasmolysis created by a former skunkworks engineer…the pre-ignition issue was solved with the last ionization event happening in the combustion chamber with modified spark plugs. (Stable molecular gasses until that point…just energized to larger/weaker electron orbitals)

          4. Ever heard of plasmonics, or cold plasma ozone? The fact is, for a hundred years we have defined electricity as “the flow of electrons”, but in reality that is the effect of introducing the aetheric pressure we call voltage to an otherwise static electron sea (metals, ions, semiconductors). We observe the effect, not the cause. In reality, electricity is this pressure. When we close the loop the the high pressure negates the low pressure and our pressure gradient equalizes to 0 (dead battery). We will call that “hot energy” due to electron hysteris causing friction caused by increased supplied electrons hitting….Now, there is another way…the mysterious “cold electricity”, which isn’t really mysterious at all from a physics standpoint. “Cold electricity” is just the observation of voltage seperated from initial current flow and it’s reapplication to another sea of electrons. So…as applied to electrolysis, we currently force extra electrons in to break the shared electrons in the water molecule, this creates electron hysteris (friction/heat) which increases proportional to input current…very counterproductive method. Well, physics is a. Scaleable, and b. Reversible.
            Voltrolysis would be the application of voltage pressure (static) onto the water while restricting elctron flow, this stretches and rips the water molecule apart, and releases free electrons, then instead of -electron source, you supply a + electrode and take the free electrons. Resulting in the water not being able to recombine to water and you have ionic gasses that couple due to ionic charge, not electron orbit sharing (covalent).
            The nature of all physical laws predicts…no mandates this! It violates nothing, it’s just the whole picture. Equal and opposite…then go research the anomalous heats associated with the reassociation of mono-atomic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen…and why we no longer use the supierior self shielding atomic-hydrogen welding process. ;-)

          5. Plasmonics is the study of the interaction between electromagnetic fields and free electrons in a metal, cold plasma ozone is an industrial ozone production technique, they have nothing to do with one another except in the bullshit of the free energy deluded. For pity sake, many here actually know real science, please stop insulting our intelligence with this sort of nonsense, we can see straight through it.

          6. Except you forgot that metal surface is covered in a clear dielectric (insulator)…..and cold plasma is produced with single terminal bulbs attached to neon sign transformer….ionized gas wrapped in dielectric glass….hmmm…….voltage doing work? No connection? Someone give Einstein a cookie please..

          7. Yeah, you’re right…it is the mark of a truly intellectual man to resort to petty name calling and to selectively respond to only the opening statement….must of got your cookie.

          8. Zeropointunlimited, sorry, but there is simply no doubt whatsoever that the gas you get when you electrolyze water and combine the gases thus produced consists of a mixture of 2 parts H2 and 1 part O2.

            There are any number of ways to prove this.

            Let’s start with the ideal gas law, which says that a given number of moles of a gas will have the same volume at a given pressure and temperature as any other gas, regardless of their molecular weights. So if you electrolyze 18 g (one mole) of H2O, you get one mole of H2 and one half mole of O2, and you can prove this by their combined volume at STP.

            Now if it was a mixture of atomic H and O, then 1 mole of H2O would produce two moles of H and one mole of O, and the resulting volume would be twice that of the H2+O2 actually produced. Also, atomic H and O are both known to be *extremely* reactive. There is no way they would leave each other alone. That’s why about the only place you see them is in near outer space where the density is so low and the mean free path so high that the H’s and O’s actually take some time to find each other.

            Similarly, if the result was a rearrangement into HHO, then 1 mole of H2O would produce one mole of HHO. Again, the volume would be different.

            So have you done the experiment? Actually, I seriously suggest that you don’t. People who make this stuff regularly blow themselves up. There was an especially horrific (fatal) case somewhere in Si Valley some years back, as I recall.

        1. Except you forgot that metal surface is covered in a clear dielectric (insulator)…..and cold plasma is produced with single terminal bulbs attached to neon sign transformer….ionized gas wrapped in dielectric glass….hmmm…….voltage doing work? No connection? Someone give Einstein a cookie please..

      1. Chemist here. We totally accept things like HHO because it is an empirical description of the substance, much like calling water “H2O” isn’t technically correct since the hydrogens are constantly dissociating and re-bonding with all the oxygens.

    2. I have had so many arguments on line with those that seem to think that one day someone will make a breakthrough on this issue that I have lost count. They all seem to believe that because of misinterpretations like this there is a chance that the science establishment will be proven wrong on overunity.

      I point out that we have been engineering with electromagnetics for over 150 years and the idea that someone tinkering in a barn has found a novel property in this area that has escaped everyone else is risible.

      I point out that if the laws of the universe permitted overunity to occur at all, somewhere, some place a feedback loop would have been created by now that would have torn the universe apart.

      Yet this fantasy continues to run in the minds of some.

        1. In contemporary electromagnetic technology there has been so much engineering done, that if there were any major anomalies such that it would have that sort of an impact, they would have manifested by now. It would have shown up in commercial and industrial projects and would have been seen by those working on them. If

          Note I am referring now to engineering, not science per se, because the argument I always get is that scientific theories have been overturned in the past, but it’s not quite the same on the practical; side – things work or they don’t there and problems are chased down to their roots, not dismissed as being outside of accepted theory.

          The guy on the farm that never completed high school, and is proud to have taught himself basic electricity can fool himself into thinking his lashup of motors and generators is producing more power than is going in – he can prove it with the half dozen Radio Shack multimeters he’s hooked up to the apparatus. A real engineer of course understands that these sorts of measurements are meaningless because it is not the right equipment, the wrong techniques are being used and the wrong parameters are being measured. This has nothing to do with being intellectually hidebound (the usual critique) but simply because they know more than the layman does.

          It is also a matter of scale: observations that have brought well-established physical laws into quest invariably have been at either very large scales (relativity) or very small (quantum). It isn’t likely something will show up where it can be seen by someone tinkering with magnets in his basement.

          1. i absolutely agree and i wasen’t specifically thinking about magnets here. i just think that it would be naive and arrogant to assume we do know everything whats happening in the “macro world” especially when you consider that the possibility are endless. take metamaterials and material research as an example its still an ongoing research field and we discover new things every day. whats to say that a guy in his garage might not by accident find something new? sure he might not be able to understand or measure his discovery properly but he will for sure know something is weird….

          2. It’s not a question of knowing everything, it’s a question of knowing enough, and we know enough to know that the fundamental Laws are not going to be turned over. Look, no rational person believes in magic spells, magic of that sort just isn’t real. What you are saying in essence is that yes every magic spell cast to date didn’t work, and we know it can’t work because our understanding of the way the Universe works precludes magic spells as a causative agent to that can affect the fundamental forces of nature and inanimate matter. What you are asserting is yes this is true but maybe somebody drawing pentacles on their bedroom floor in the dark surrounded by candles just might find a way to do just that. No

            No they won’t because that path has been proven closed in such a way that everything we know about the Universe would be in grave error and the problem with that is our current understanding allows us to do so many thing right that it simply can’t be that wrong, period.

          3. @DV82XL
            Yet , the establishment knows we are WAY off somewhere….establishment calls it dark matter, now they added dark energy. You do know what these two concepts mean? The numbers don’t add up….there is an overwhelming amount of anomalous matter and energy…that MUST be there. The problem is establishment can’t observe it. But all the data, and all the math says it must be there…hence, Dark Matter/energy.
            So….ummmm wtf are you arguing?
            Really it comes down to embittered, compartmentalized, “professionals” entrenched in the status quo, where the very thought of an “un-adept” research scientist figuring something out that was intentionally omitted a hundred years ago is repugnant to their closed minds. This is conducive to hive mentality and dogmatic control….not to unabashed progress.

          4. Just because when you look at legitimate papers in high-energy physics or cosmology with your uneducated eyes you see gibberish, where there is real meaning it does not follow that you can spout gibberish and have it mean anything other than that you are a fool. Go and learn the subject properly with the mathematics if you still see what you think you see after that, then debate. As it stands the only thing you are asserting is your ignorance and gullibility

          5. Only a fool would assume such things…It’s funny, because I started patent researching before I got my associates in applied science….I found calculus to be rather easy buddy…decided not to pursue my masters when my physics professor (who had his masters) admitted in front of about five fellow students, that he couldn’t explain why my demo of a simple resonant pulsed dc ungrounded transformer was violating ohms law in front of our eyes….it was around the same time a local laser company electrical engineer who developed their power supplies got me a luncheon with the entire team of five engineers after viewing another demo I had of a resonant circuit “splitting the di-pole” (one wire electrical transmission). So, you keep making your assumptions….P.S. Obama paid off all my student loans…So, I got an associates for free, and can finish my last year and a half when I choose. Suck that you arrogant prick! :D

          6. @Zeropointunlimited, you said, in a rather dismissive tone:
            “…establishment calls it dark matter, now they added dark energy…”

            Are you aware of the neutrino story? One of the open puzzles at the dawn of the nuclear age was beta decay — the emission of an electron (beta particle) by a radioactive nucleus with too many neutrons. Things just didn’t add up, namely momentum and energy, apparently violating two pretty fundamental laws of nature. (The conservation of energy is also known as the first law of thermodynamics.)

            A few physicists thought this really might be the case, so to save these two conservation laws, Wolfgang Pauli proposed that an invisible ghost particle carries away the excess momentum and energy. Edoardo Amaldi and Enrico Fermi named it the “neutrino” (Italian for “little neutral one”) to distinguish it from the regular neutron.

            It took a quarter century, but eventually Cowan and Reines proposed and conducted an experiment that proved the neutrino was real. Conservation of momentum and energy had lived yet another day.

            That’s where we are now with dark matter and dark energy. They’re proposed to resolve apparent conflicts between know n hostsbvphysical laws (e.g., Newtonian and Einsteinean gravity) and astronomical observations (e.g., the rotation rates of glalaxies, and searches are underway for both. Maybe they’ll succeed, or maybe somebody will prove one or both don’t exist and suggest another hypothesis to be tested. Either way, they’re following the scientific method: making observations, collecting data, forming hypotheses and experimental predictions, testing them, and repeating the whole process as many times as it takes to arrive at a theory that explains everything they see.

            What else would you have them do? Mindlessly adopt whatever theory youd’d like them to believe?

          7. Hi all . I designed a device that is continuing to move and creating power. The problem I am having is making it stop. Is it possible to demagnetize both motion and eliminate electricity at once
            using the same poles. (Not opposite)

      1. You do realize that the universe IS IN FACT being torn apart, right?

        The very fact that we are here talking about these things instead of there being nothing means that Thermodynamics has been violated, or, at least, that you can finagle things to such a degree that (energy in)-(energy out)=0 takes trillions of years.

        But yeah, people working with electromagnetism in their garages aren’t going to invent a perpetual motion machine.

        1. Well yes, but that’s not what I meant (and I suspect you know it) A overunity feedback loop would be far more cataclysmic, would have probably occurred early on, and indeed we wouldn’t be here to contemplate it either.

        2. nitePhyyre said: “The very fact that we are here talking about these things instead of there being nothing means that

          Or really? I suppose you have an independently verifiable, repeatable, peer reviewed PROOF for that *OPINION*. Right?

          In EVERY discussion where someone is defending “water as fuel”, there is a complete ignoramus claiming that “Thermodynamics has been violated”. Bullsh!t. It’s your claim, PROVE IT.

      2. Magnets are magic for many people. (Heck, I have an EE degree, understand how they work, and they’re still pretty magical to me). I think the basic problem is that they thing that magnetic force is really giving them something for nothing.
        When people really want to stick to their beliefs, I don’t argue with them – I try to strike the “Agree to disagree” balance.

      3. Overunity energy is the reason I started tinkering in the first place. If not for that insane hope, I never would have put myself through the rigor of learning the fundamentals of circuits and electromagnetism. While I know now that it’s a deeply flawed concept, if it can give us more backyard hackers I am all for it.

        1. The tragedy is that you weren’t taught enough basic science in school to have realized this sooner. I also suspect that you would have found some other entry point to hacking – hackers are born, not make.

          1. At least we’re not teaching that all observable evidence is bollocks and the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the universe in one big sneeze, and that this is an alternative hypothesis.


    3. What a bunch of crap. You trolls don’t miss an opportunity to peddle your pseudo-scientific garbage, do you?

      Stan Meyer was a con artist and a thief. He died from a congenital heart condition, and not nearly soon enough. He did for alternate energy what L. Ron Hubbard did for religion. These water as fuel scams have been going on for over 40 YEARS. When are these idiots going to realize that the laws of physics aren’t going to change for them? Enough already.

      1. Dear Playsec. In general you assume that extracting energy by the Mach Pinciple / Dennis Sciama by pulling in far bodies of mass is impossible. In general, I am not sure you are correct.

  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs
    See this magnetic rail, the magnets are in 45 degrees angle, still effective pushing the shuttle magnet.
    Suppose the rair tracks are pushed in the middle and so we have slightly curved track = slope down and then slope up.
    Will the shuttle still be pushed via the duct? (ok suppose the duct is a culindrical tube, now slightly bent).
    If you say yes it will still be pushed=repelled by the magnets, then why can’t we make
    a big circle (expensive, I know) say the size of a small room and the shuttle goes round forever?
    It works for 1 metre track (non-curved), I don’t suppose this video clip is fake ?

    1. because a magnet has as much “push” as it has “pull”, so in a circular track the other poles of the other magnets would eventually slow it down, combine that with the fact that in that configuration the magnets are creating a compound magnet, essentially acting as one big magnet, that wouldnt work in closed circle, there would be nowhere for the “other” pole to go.

      so one cant configure a circle as they have above and if one made a circle of individual magnetic fields then the magnets would slow down the projectile as much as it accelerated it.

      1. @oodain, true, still a shuttle instead being a straight stick could be half a U in which case the other pole as a raised (scorpion?) tail is not so much in the way.
        So you are saying that in a circular fashion, all the 45 degrees magnets would form a large one and would not repel / push independently any more? Not sure of that.

      1. Yeah, don’t call me until you have a $0 electric bill. When you can show that you’re powering your house off your invention, people will be throwing money at you. Until then — STFU!

        1. Neither are examples of perpetual motion. The first video all examples but the last had external energy input from the builder. The last example merely had enough mass to keep spinning without slowing down in the short time it was being recorded.

          The second video isn’t perpetual for sure It made noise, a sure sign it’s losing energy. Also, the magnet over the ball was attracted to the ball as it passed, and added DRAG as it left. It too will run out of energy in a short amount of time.

          If these machines can’t yet supply even a modest load what good are they when our demands are measured in TERRAWATTS??

    2. Basically what is happening is that the magnetic fields cancel out once the main magnet is in the track, the motion is only caused by the magnet initially getting pulled into the track. That is, at the start, the magnet is being pulled into the track based on the fields of the large stacks of magnets, and one pole of the shuttle magnet is closer to the track, and thus the force is unequal. Once the shuttle is thrown into the track, all the fields cancel out so there is actually very little to no force acting on the shuttle while i moves through the track.

      It can’t be looped, and no free energy.

      1. @kratz, I believe what is happening is the back of the shuttle magnet stick is repelled/pushed by the opposite poles close to it, as opposed to the other poles of the fish bone that are further out.
        The shuttle does not like to get in, but once its tail pole is in, all pole pairs push it as they are the opposite ones.

        1. So, a circular track consisting of many of these smaller magnet segments with some distance in between them may be something to try. My guess is additional external energy will need to be supplied to keep the projectile moving, as it will be repelled by the next segment it is approaching.

    3. The magnetic field is configured so that it’s like a long shallow cone or a funnel. The force that drives the magnet forward comes from the gradient of the magnetic funnel as the fields try to expand against each other. There’s a force treshold you have to pass to squeeze the magnet in before it pops out the other end, and that provides the energy to move the magnet.

      If you make it loop around on itself, it just makes a circular tube-like magnetic field and there isn’t any sort of gradient to push the smaller magnet around. If you leave a gap in the loop, then it’s like a playground slide that loops back to the bottom of the stairs – you still have to climb up for another go. The smaller magnet will go around once and stop.

    4. Notice, too, that the boys have to push the magnet shuttle with a small amount of force to get it into the magnets. What you are seeing here is a release of energy they, themselves, put into the system. Think of it like a spring – they pushed the spring in on one side and then released the energy out the other side.

      Also notice that when they don’t quite get the magnet in the right way, it stops at the end of the track when the last few magnets pull it back. Even here, you don’t see propulsion the entire length of the track.

    5. I thought it kind of funny when he said you have to find the north pole using a compass and incorrectly identified the pole of the magnets because the compass pointer that points ‘north’ was attracted to the magnet. The Earth’s “north pole” is magnetic south so the compass “north” pointer was attracted to the south pole of the magnet.

  3. 1. I met some scammers and so called “enthusiasts” of those motors based on magnets or strange ways to combine them with coils. Most of “enthusiasts” won’t learn from their failures because they’re stubborn and won’t admit the got duped. Besides, scammers will tell them they messed up something, and that’s why devices don’t work.
    2. HHO is supposed to work as additive to fuel/air mix, which will increase both temperature and efficiency of engine. Those “enthusiasts” fail to calculate efficiency of electrolysis and potential gain of power generated by engine. The whole HHO generator would eat up hundreds of watts, while adding something between 1 and10% of Brown gas to mix. It would be cheaper and better to use oxygen tank instead. Or nitro…

    1. My 2 cents on no.1:
      “enthusiasts” should be disdained as well (most of them) because of their stubborness and their almost religious belief that modern science is trying to hide all this vast knowledge that thye feel they are tapping into. What they are doing is blindly pursuing the same thing again and again with no will to learn, as, in their beliefs, thermodynamics is a lie, magnets have magical powers, and more coils are the solyution to everything. Also more magnets. And coils.
      The only thing that is perpetual is a distrust to physics and a belief to their Gurus and conspiracy theories…

      And more scammer names to add to the list:
      Beddini (maybe with one d)

    2. >”Most of “enthusiasts” won’t learn from their failures because they’re stubborn and won’t admit the got duped.”

      These people are actually mildly insane. Studies on schitsophrenics and people who believe they’re Napoleon or they have invisible friends etc. indicate that the problem isn’t in the contents of their thoughts, but the thought processes themselves. It’s as if there’s something wrong in your brain that makes you go “1 + 1 equals 3” and that’s just simply and obviously true.

      These people largely just see things differently. They see e.g. a number of a multimeter, and it -means- something different than it would to a sane observer. They can’t be convinced that the device isn’t working because to them it is working, whatever “working” means. They -are- getting results, and somehow the fact that these results never translate to anything real isn’t an issue.

      It’s like in the movie Beautiful Mind when John Nash was bathing his child in the bath-tub, left the tap running and the baby floating there, convinced that his invisible friend was there to take care of him. At that point he knew that other people would not see the guy, but still it didn’t seem implausible to him.

      1. Yep, I agree. Have had conversations with some of the enthusiasts (and scammers), and something definitely ain’t right with them.

        They’re cheered on by a legion of people lacking either the education or mental facilities to question them. Sometimes a little knowledge is worse than none. A friend one day asked me “if a car alternator can produce so much power, why can’t you drive a DC motor off it with part of the power produced to keep it turning, and draw off the rest?” I explained to him that it always takes more mechanical power to turn the alternator than the electrical power that comes out, and that it takes a LOT of mechanical power to turn the alternator. “No it doesn’t, I’ve held one it my hand, it turns freely. I know most motors can be generators, and other motors turn freely too.” Ho boy. After launching into the simplest possible explanation of back-EMF, and that an alternator doesn’t even contain permanent magnets but instead requires some supplemental electrical input to become a generator, I think his brain went into an infinite loop.

        And then every month or two a HAD editor writes up something trying to put a positive spin on it. Adam says, “If someone wants to spend their time working on an impossible hack, then more power to them… at the very least, they’ll learn how to build”. Ok, learning and doing are generally good things. But not when the goal or end result is to perpetuate ignorance of fundamental knowledge.

        Though I must reluctantly agree that sometimes, there are positive aspects. HHO is actually useful, though not for the reason most enthusiasts pursue it. I’ve used knowledge written up on HHO generators in the design of an electrolysis CO2 generator, used in planted freshwater aquariums. And there’s one supplier of parts for DIY HHO generators, offering such a broad and useful selection, that I keep his name on file. I’ll be placing a third order with him soon, even though I’m not using any of the parts for electrolysis at all.

        1. BTW: HHO is the pseudoscientific name given to “Brown’s gas” under the claim that it’s special because the hydrogen atoms dissociate off the H2 molecule, and that was the basis of the claim that it contains extra energy and magical properties compared to just regular H2 and O2 – or oxyhydrogen – gas mixture.

          Oxyhydrogen gas has been used for ages in metallurgy and clockmaking etc. and in theater and lighthouse limelights all the way back in the 19th century, and has nothing to do with overunity cranks who hijacked the concept somewhere between 70’s to 90’s.

        2. In all fairness, an alternator can contain permanent magnets, however those are often referred to as magnetos. To add to confusion, magnetos can also generate DC and are often used on some engines for generating voltage to fire spark plugs.

  4. When I was 10 or so I designed a perpetual motion machine based on wheels of magnets positioned to repel each other. My dad bought me some magnets and let me try to build it for a while before finally telling me it was impossible.

  5. For those of you who watched the X-Files last night they had proof positive of a space craft that used zero-point energy to fly. Unfortunately it got blown up. But Mulder saw it fly so it must be real.

  6. If you want a less extreme challenge, try to build a configuration of magnets that float in a stable manner using only their magnetic field.

    In other words, one magnet system hovering over another without something such as a support rod or tethers connecting the two systems.

    It seems like this should be doable. Put magnets in a circle so that there’s a dip in the force in the middle, so a single magnet will float and be contained within this minimum. It would flip over, so connect this single magnet to two others floating above similar dips by a stick, in a “Y” configuration, so now it won’t flip over and you’ve got a stable configuration – right?

    Any takers?

    (Note: Before you comment, note that I’m a physics guy and play along.)

    1. I have tried this for many hours as a kid with a bunch of lego parts and a heap of magnets. Never managed it for more than a couple seconds by fluke and even then I was cheating by spinning the thing to use gyro stabilisation.

      However I have seen other materials used in this situation (beryllium? can’t remember) due to it’s ability to repel magnetic fields rather than be attracted by them. I think there are several configurations of such materials that give stable magnetic levitation without spinning for minutes or hours at least before the metal crystals become disturbed.


    2. It’s possible to build it if you have a large chunk of a diamagnetic material to shape the field, such as a bunch of antimony shotgun pellets molten into a blob, but it’s a touch and go thing. It’s stable in a very narrow region.


      The idea is to place one magnet above another to cancel the force of gravity on the lower magnet, and then place a diamagnetic material above between them to repel the lower magnet and stop it from shooting up at the slightest disturbance.

      1. Yes, they are actively stabilized. There is a strong permanent magnet in the floating portion, and a configuration of a couple permanent magnets and a couple of electromagnets in the base. (In the Om/One I have, it’s two permanent and two electro-. Not sure if this is consistent with others.) If you remove power from the base, the levitated part slams into the lower with a disconcerting force. The top doesn’t need to be spinning, but it does look better that way.

  7. I read a really interesting book (can’t for the life of me remember the title, but it was published in the 1970s, I think) on the hey-day of perpetual motion “research” (identified in the book as the late 17th to late 19th centuries). This is was the period before the laws of thermodynamics were firmly established, and so many educated people believed that perpetual motion was possible. Of course, we know that it isn’t, but a part of the thesis of the book was that, had those laws been discovered earlier, a whole wealth of ingenious mechanical movements that we use today or were important precursors to today’s technology might not have been discovered until much later, because the people working on perpetual motion would have given up before they started – “why should I bother trying to achieve this task when I can prove on paper that it is impossible.”

    It’s a somewhat dangerous argument to completely sign on to, because it is essentially an apologist stance, and those are rarely defensible, but it was an interesting read nonetheless.

    1. I’m pretty sure that the fundamental philosophical argument for perpetual motion was never that well recieved.

      If only because the church held the position that God is the prime mover that makes other things move – that things needed a cause to move and that ultimate cause was God – and if something created motion and work in and of itself then that was obviously in violation of the principle.

      Even before established science, people were savvy enough to note that something doesn’t come from nothing.

  8. Stop trying to make free energy because that will destroy the universe!!! It will create a new big bang or a physical paradox or not happen at all. If you want free energy try to connect to the grid without being caught, or a solar panel, or living with your parents

  9. By far the most impressively predatory, craven and abusive free energy scam I have yet found is the ‘QEG’. It has it all – coopting of open source concepts, expensive parts you order, non-sensical blue prints, a group of raaaa chanting hippies living off stolen money in Moroco, serial scam artists attached to the ‘freeemen movement’.

    These pathetic thieves had people all over the world building their 50% efficient generator, and took in hundreds of thousands of dollars to ‘build a pump for Moroccan village’. All a scam.


    1. Good point. An individual devoted to unlocking the conspiracies and bringing HHO/PM to the world is a bit like a deeply religious person. I don’t agree with you, but if it makes you happy to sell your house and ‘go live on a mountain’ then we’ll just ignore each other an live our lives. Heck even the OP is right, at least you’re pushing your personal limits and making stuff.
      It gets nasty when others encounter the same people and see them as prey….

    1. why? in converts light energy into electricity with poor efficiency and gives of heat as a waste product what about this sounds like over-unity to you? over-unity means the energy output is bigger than the energy input in an given system. a solar cell clearly dosn’t falls under that category (lots of light in some electricity and heat out)

      1. When I use a solar cell, I put no energy into it, but get usable electricity out. How we define the ‘system’ it works in seems to be the sole difference as to whether a solar cell should be considered a over unity device or not.

        My point was that in order to talk sensibly about whether a device is impossible, breaks the laws of physics or is over unity, we first need to define and be clear about what system the device operates in.

        1. The light it is converting into electricity IS the energy being put in to it. If you leave it in the dark it does nothing,

          You have to apply a significant amount of energy to it to get a smaller amount of energy out in a different form. If you took that energy and fed it in to a device that converted the electrical energy into light with 100% efficiency, and used that to feed the solar cell in place of the original light source, it would not be able to sustain itself. It is not getting more energy out of the system than is being put in.

          For it to qualify as an overunity device, you have to be able to remove the original source of energy and it still be able to keep running on its own output.

          1. TechnoGeek, Now we’re getting some usable definitions: “For it to qualify as an overunity device, you have to be able to remove the original source of energy and it still be able to keep running on its own output.”
            I would also take the liberty of adding “…running on its own output, within a closed system.”

            By that definition, then yup, I think over unity devices are impossible.

            The rub is that I doubt any holistically thinking person would claim a truly closed system.

    2. I guess it depends. If you see the solar cell and its load as the entire system, you could be fooled into thinking you are experiencing over-unity phenomena. But it’s only possible until you notice that the cell produces energy from solar radiation. If you incorporate the Sun into your system everything becomes under unity again (thermonuclear energy lost by the Sun cannot be replenished by the battery’s output) e.g. back to normal, no magic.

      1. michalkob, that was the serious point I was getting at.
        Space is now considered to be fizzy with zero point energy. Isn’t it within the realms of possibility that there might be a way to draw usable energy from that?
        If the sun is to be included in the overall system in which a solar cell operates (obviously; but just because we can perceive light, that doesn’t mean we should immediate include light radiation and exclude something else we might not be able to perceive), shouldn’t all energy occurring in a given area of space be considered part of that system?

        Which leads to my 2nd question above. How do we classify a device as over-unity and ‘pulling energy from nowhere’ (impossible), as opposed to ‘converting energy from one form to another’?

        1. Chris said: “Space is now considered to be fizzy with zero point energy. Isn’t it within the realms of possibility that there might be a way to draw usable energy from that?”

          No. The term ‘zero point’ has been coopted to mean something it’s not. Zero point is the LOWEST point of energy. It’s analogous to electrical ground. It is the point to which *all* other energy flows.

          “How do we classify a device as over-unity”

          In the most basic terms, it means getting MORE energy out than you put in. It’s something for nothing. It’s a free lunch, and it DOES NOT exist. If you’re getting more energy out that you can not account for, then you did something WRONG.

        2. simple answer no.

          long answer the space is fuzzy sure but it always sums to zero, for every particle of energy that pops into existence a particle of “anti-energy” does too. for zero point energy to work you have to cancel out the “anti energy:” which can’t be done. even if you could contain it for a short while with some form of magic you’re still need to feed it some form of energy to get rid of it which would be no different then a fuel.

          as for how we classify a device it’s simple, energy can’t be made, and that’s what a over unity device says it can do. it’s easy to measure all forms of energy going into a device and forms of energy coming out out it. say you have a solar cell connected to a battery and a light in a dark room. over unity say not only will that light never go out but in fact it well get brighter over time.

          in real life energy will always be converted into formed of energy you can use or simply lost from the system.

  10. i have to admit that i watch those videos for fun sometimes. most of them are obviously completely rubbish but once in a while you find one that has the potential of being something because the author doesn’t understand what he does.what i mean by that is that some device claim to be over-unity because their creator don’t differentiate between energy and usable energy. take for example a heat pump to some it might look like over-unity since your only using bit of electrical energy to drive the pump to get a lot of heat energy. what your really doing is using a bit of energy to tap into a bigger “ambient energy reserves” . if this concept might be transposed to the thing besides heat that could really be something awesome and new….

  11. Many things that have been said to be theoretically impossible have actually been done and the theory revised to accept the new facts. That is how science is supposed to work.
    Mercury’s orbit fails Newtonian mechanics and needs a little General Relativity to explain it accurately.
    If someone placed an apparently working over-unity machine on your desk you would not say “In the name of Thermodynamics I command you to stop” :)
    You should look carefully for deception (Hidden batteries), then for unknown energy inputs to the system (Studying a radio receiver without a understanding of transmitters could lead to the Idea that energy is appearing in the circuit from nowhere), and if all else fails conclude that Thermodynamics may need to be revised, I think this is unlikely as it has been tested thoroughly over the years, but it must always remain a option or science becomes dogma.

    1. Holding up Mercury’s orbit is always a favorite tactic of supporters in these arguments. All it shows is that you have no better grasp of what this means than you do of thermodynamics. Newtonian mechanics were not overturned by General Relativity, they were shown to be a special case. Real evidence of overunity on the other hand would mean absolutely everything about thermodynamics would be utterly wrong, and the problem with that is that these Laws work so well in other domains, and those domains are so firmly connected at their roots, that you are left with explaining why it worked so well in the first place.

      I say this over and over in these discussions – those that argue it might be possible have no idea just how deep this rabbit hole goes, just how profound these Laws are. It is you that lack a broad enough vision to see the implications, not those of us that assert it can’t ever happen

      1. I don’t think you read my comment very well. I said it was unlikely to be real, you say it is impossible.
        Science must always keep a open mind, or else it becomes a religion defending a dogma.
        I have some idea of the implications it would have if it was as easy as the magnet motor people think, but special cases are still possible in situations that have not been studied experimentally, high energy density just after the big bang, or deep space, maybe it is a source of dark energy. I am not an expert and these are just off the cuff but you get the idea.
        If someone made a device that can gain energy from the rotation of the galaxy, like tidal generators gain energy from the orbit of the moon, it would not be over-unity but it could still be very useful.

        1. Yes it is impossible, and I explained why it is, and if you really did understand the implications you would know it too. I’m sorry, but it is because you haven’t the grounding in the subject that you still believe it is possible, specifically in the case of overunity – that there might be some yet to be discovered source of convertible energy that doesn’t violate the fundamental Laws is really not germane to the discussion.

          Just for the record, in this instance, a special case at the cosmological level is not possible because the resulting feedback loop would have already destroyed the universe. In other words this universe would not have the degree of stability it currently has if this were possible.

          1. Last response.
            Yes undiscovered convertible energy is germane, It is something I said to look for before the conclusion that Thermodynamics needed be altered was required.

            You are assuming the hypothetical cosmological level special case is exponential what if the conditions are self limiting and the energy is asymptotic.

            I agree with you that it is probably impossible but I would not refuse evidence that proved me wrong, facts must always come before theories.

          2. You really have no idea what you are talking about and like almost everyone that thinks they can make assertions about science from a position of ignorance, you have fallen back on flawed ontological reasoning. Only by making the effort to study the subjects at hand in any depth will you ever be able to understand just how wrong you are now and why.

        2. As DV82XL says, Newtonian mechanics wasn’t overturned by relativity; Einstein simply showed that it was a special (limiting, actually) case in the absence of mass distorting space-time. Even a very large mass like the sun has a very small effect; the precession of Mercury’s perihelion due to relativity is still only 43 arc-seconds (0.012 degrees) per century.

          Yes, science has more to learn about how the universe operates. But those frontiers are all at the extremes: the very small (smaller than a proton), the very large (the known universe), at extremely high energies and densities (e.g., near the speed of light or black holes) and so on. CERN had to build a massive machine to barely recreate some of these conditions just for a fleeting instant in just a tiny volume of space so they could eventually create just one or two copies of a new particle that only exists under such extreme conditions. As I said, the frontiers of physics are all at the extremes.

          The simple fact is that we already have a very good understanding of basic physical laws at ordinary human scales of time, speed, distance, density and so on — the ones relevant to everyday engineering. This understanding is extremely unlikely to change for the reason that’s already been given: somebody would definitely have noticed by now! A lot of our technology now depends on this physics being correct. E.g., every computer is a physics experiment that continually reaffirms our understanding of quantum mechanics.

          As DV82XL also says, very few (if any) people seeking overunity, free energy, etc, have the slightest clue of the unavoidable and extraordinary implications that the violation of the laws of thermodynamics they seek would HAVE to have in our daily lives. Since we don’t observe those implications, we can pretty safely say the violations can’t exist. The laws are correct.

          1. I think you have it backwards Relativity would never have been considered if all the observations had continued to support Newtonian mechanics. Relativity explains the observations both old and new better and so became accepted over the old Idea.
            If hypothetically someone produced a Over-Unity machine It would be the job of Science to explain it not the job of reality to conform to the theory.
            I agree with both of you that the chance is vanishingly small but Scientific principles are for understanding what is, was, and could be, not dictating what is allowed to exist. If ideas shaped reality gods would exist because people believed in them long before they believed in science.
            My only objection is to the flat statement “Impossible”, “Theoretically Impossible”, is fine because it acknowledges that is is based on our current understanding of the universe.

          2. This is what I meat upthread by a flawed ontological argument. It is also what I was alluding to when I wrote about magic spells. What you are asserting, in essence, is that in the face of overwhelming evidence about how the Universe works, we should keep our minds open enough to accept that there might be a slim possibility that a person might discover a verbal incantation in some incomprehensible language that could invoke a demon because the possibility, although vanishingly small that this could happen is still positive. I believe almost every rational person would agree that this is not the case as it is unlikely that our current understanding of the Universe could be that incomplete that some evidence that this would be even marginally possible could remain hidden until now. It is essentially the same with the fundamental Laws. They are so deeply entrenched into the fabric of our understanding of the Universe that they simply would not work as explanations as well as they do if there were holes in our understanding of them that would permit overunity. Understanding why the previous statement is true can only come from a firm grasp of the foundational science which is why those that argue that we need to keep and open mind on this subject almost never have a good grounding in the subject, while those that know it is impossible do. Ironically it is not the latter who are being narrow-minded as their position is a consequence of having a broader overall view of the implications.

          3. @DV82XL Yes exactly. At least open enough that if new facts violates the old theory the theory would be revised, not the facts ignored.
            If someone demonstrated summoning a demon, after proving it was not deception (would take a lot of proof), I would revise my view of the world to accept it.
            I believe, as you do, that over-unity is impossible, but if it was proved by experiment to be true (would take a lot of proof), I would change my mind, Can you say the same?

          4. That argument is tautological in that it can be restated as: “If the imposible were proven, it would not then be impossible,” however that really doesn’t establish any relevant truth here and ultimately is essentially a rhetorical argument, which has nothing to do the broader topic. In the end it is the same as asking a devout Hindu if he would believe in Christianity if Armageddon as described in Revelations were to occur. The question is pointless because a devout Hindu knows for certain he will never be in that position and that is not a case of being closed-minded.

            I understand, to the extent it is taught at all in modern Western education, the dialectic approach that is emphasized is that of balanced inquiry. Inherent in this approach is the requirement that room must be left for the contrary position. While this is useful in evaluating issues in the social and political sphere, it has little utility in science which these days tends towards constructive empiricism. As a consequence a scientist can reject the idea of a demon being invoked by an incantation outright as being outside the realm of physical possibility. This is not as a philosophic position, but rather a commonsense one and the reason it is the correct position is that there is an inherent understanding that such a phenomena cannot occur in isolation – there are other consequences that are so profound that they could not remain hidden until now or our ability to use our understanding as a tool to control the universe and to predict its behavior just wouldn’t work as well as it does.

            It is the same with overunity and for precisely the same reasons.

          5. “there is an inherent understanding that such a phenomena cannot occur in isolation – there are other consequences that are so profound that they could not remain hidden until now”

            This is such an important point that it really needs to be underscored. We couldn’t do science at all — and we wouldn’t have been able to engineer so many working inventions that are based on it — if the laws of nature changed willy-nilly. We have very good reason to believe that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, that they are the same in any inertial frame of reference, and that they remain unchanged over time.

            Now it turns out that the mathematician Emmy Noether proved a century ago that each of these properties of the universe absolutely imply the various conservation laws. The fact that physical laws are the same everywhere means that linear momentum *must* be conserved. The fact that physical laws are the same in any inertial frame (regardless of its rotation with respect to any others) means that angular momentum *must* be conserved. And (here’s the kicker, for overunity nuts) the fact that physical laws do not change over time means that energy (or mass/energy) is conserved!

            This last one is probably the most important premise of science. If physical laws changed over time, it would be impossible to replicate and confirm the experiments of others. We simply could not do science! So the fact that we live as we do today instead of in caves because of what we’ve learned through science and then applied through engineering, is pretty good proof that science works. And because it does, mass/energy is conserved!

          6. I’ll believe anything, no matter how bizarre, counterintuitive or even in violation of accepted laws of physics, IF AND ONLY IF THERE IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE TO DO SO. So it is pointless to argue about hypotheticals. Just go and provide that evidence!

          7. Sounds like we will have to continue to disagree about the meaning of science.
            I can however invoke a daemon (computer program) with the incantation “Ok Google”.

          8. No, I think we both have the same notion of what science is, we disagree on the matter of epistemological certainty in physics, and my position on this matter is that of just about every knowledgeable person in the field, and that, if nothing else should give you pause for thought.

          9. Michael, I don’t think we disagree. Yes, relativity was proposed to resolve some outstanding paradoxes that were getting a lot of attention toward the end of the 19th century. Einstein did this by modifying Newton’s Laws. But his new versions were still an imperceptibly exact match to Newton in cases of low densities and low velocities. That’s generally how things happen these days to existing theories; they’re tweaked, not overturned.

            I think my point remains, and you don’t really disagree with it: the frontiers of physics are now at the extremes, conditions that may have existed at the Big Bang, or now only near and in black holes, but which are extremely difficult or even impossible to recreate on earth experimentally. Since no one encounters those situations on a regular basis, nobody finds any contradictions with established physical theory; otherwise, as you say, the theory should be — and would have been by now — modified to fit reality.

            There is a huge amount still to learn in what you might call “higher layers of abstraction” above basic physics, with the best example being biology. But “vitalism” died centuries ago; we have never seen any evidence whatsoever that living organisms, as complex and puzzling as they might be, follow anything but the same basic laws of physics that govern everything else. And these basic laws of physics are extraordinarily unlikely to change at this point, at least on an everyday human scale and quite a bit around it. By that I mean Newtonian mechanics as modified by Einstein, the laws of thermodynamics, quantum theory (e.g, QED), Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism, and so on.

  12. The latest one that catches my eye on YouTube is the coils wound in star shapes, as if making ht electrons turn sharp corners does something special. But really, the perpetual motion and special motor and generator people get boring pretty quickly. It is the same thing over and over. I always wind up on Russian Dash Cams. At least they are highly educational and great for new young drivers who need to learn what not to do.

        1. When an electron’s trajectory is curved by a magnetic field it loses energy to EM radiation. You can even build some kind of X-ray ‘laser’ based on this effect. But you need highly accelerated electrons (big particle accelerator). It is not a real laser from principle, but you can design the device to give quite coherent and monochromatic radiation. Keywords are “wiggler” and “undulator” magnets.

  13. Overunity = you get more energy out then YOU put in. It does not mean that the energy must come from empty space.
    A standard heat pump is producing overunity.
    Talking of empty space – it is not empty. There is lots of dark matter and dark energy.
    I too have spent some thought and time experimenting with overunity.
    My thinking was this; electricity might not be the highest enthalpy energy form there is, it´s the highest we know of, but all this dark energy might have higher enthalpy. We just can´t see it and use it, but we know it is there.
    Getting the electrons “surf” on the waves of some dark energy form does not sound as total fiction for me. But i am a believer…
    By the way, these “laws” we are talking about, they are theories, nature does not care about our limited understanding of it.
    I have found (as far as my limited understanding of physics goes) a repeatable proof of an exception in the second law of thermo dynamics…
    People, dont give up hope, we are not at the endstation yet :)

    1. “I have found (as far as my limited understanding of physics goes) a repeatable proof of an exception in the second law of thermo dynamics…” If you believe you have found an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics it is only because your understanding of physics is limited.

      The Laws are not theories, (particularly not in the wrong sense that you are using the term) they are consequences of the structure of the Universe. This is the one thing none of you seem to grasp – these are so fundamental that any violation would be so profound that everything would be different than what we observe now, in every conceivable domain. That isn’t a question of conservative thinking, its a recognition of just how far-reaching these concepts are. The funny thing is that it is those that make these claims of violations of the fundamental Laws that are being myopic and tunnel visioned, not those that reject them outright.

      1. The second law states that entropy “wants” to increases and will not decrease without input of energy. right?
        I know there is more to this and there are many definitions of the second law. it seams hard to explain the content with few words.

        You make sound like you know a thing or two about thermodynamics…
        Could you please explain this to me?

        I was driving in the norwegian mountains, it was -25°C, my car was very cold.
        I drove down to one fjord where the open water kept the air at around 0°C. the air is also much more humid here.
        The trip took 10-15 minutes, not giving the windshield a chance to warm up, all warm air was going towards my feet.
        When i arrived at the “beach” a lot of water condensed on the windscreen and forming a lot of shapes in patterns. as ice does…

        So the water heated the windscreen and cooled down as it did so, loosing energy.
        The water went from chaotic behaviour with high entropy (gaseous) to solid form with lower entropy. (very ordered structure in those patterns)

        The water is loosing energy. Right?
        The water is loosing entropy. Right?

        What am i not seeing?

        1. en·tro·py
          a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

          You are not seeing the part where entropy is a property of a system’s energy. In your system you have a cold windshield and warm water vapor. Ordered (hot/cold), Low entropy. The windshield warms up and the water cools down eventually reaching equilibrium. High entropy.

        2. You are absolutely right that when water loses heat and freezes, its entropy spontaneously decreases. (This is a great comeback to evolution deniers who claim that the 2nd law somehow prevents it.) But — where does that lost heat energy go? Into the environment, and then off into space as low temperature thermal radiation, thus increasing the entropy of the rest of the universe by more than it decreased in your freezing ice. If your freezing ice didn’t have anything at a lower temperature to accept its heat energy, it wouldn’t freeze.

          Entropy has a very specific definition in thermodynamics, with units of energy divided by temperature. When the sun radiates 6 kJ of energy at 6000K, it loses 6kJ/6kK = 1 J/K of entropy. When you absorb that 6kJ at, say, 300 K, you gain 20 J/K of entropy, which is more than the sun lost so it is possible. And when you re-radiate that 6 kJ to deep space at, say, 270 K, then you lose 22.22 J/K of entropy but the universe at only 2.7 K (the cosmic background) increases its entropy by a whopping 2,222.2 J/K of entropy. At each step the total entropy of the universe increases. The heat won’t flow the other way.

    2. Oh my god a heat pump does not produce overunity. A heat pump is just an air conditioner set up “backwards” with the evaporator outside and the condenser inside. It takes the small amount of heat in a huge volume of air (the outdoors) and concentrates it to be emitted in a relatively smaller place (inside your home).
      When I was an HVAC tech almost every homeowner was absolutely clueless as to how their air conditioning system actually worked. The concepts of capturing heat in one place and releasing it in another were just short of understanding doctorate level quantum physics. You must expend electrical energy to get the fans and compressor working. You must burn fuel, capture sunlight, use falling water or radioactive decay to produce that electricity. You must transmit that power over lines. Some of that energy will be lost due to friction and voltage drop. There must be heat in the outside air and trust me there is heat even on the coldest day on the coldest place on the surface of the Earth. The things in your home will absorb that heat and conduct it back out or ou will lose heat every time you open a door, window, turn on the exhaust fan in the kitchen or bathroom. It will seep out the tiniest cracks. The energy will seek out a place of lower energy and go there.
      THERE IS NO FREE ENERGY. I don’t care how you define a system, nature always wins that argument.

      1. You can call me torulf, no need for “oh my god”, thank you though :P
        Yes. I used a heat pump as an example to define the word overunity. As i thougt everybody knows it is only transfering heat from one place to an other.

      2. Torulf isn’t the first person I’ve seen use the heat pump analogy. Somehow people don’t understand that the heat these pumps are moving is coming from somewhere – in this case the outside air. This becomes painfully obvious when you see a heat pump that isn’t going through it’s proper defrost cycle. The outdoor units freeze right up.

      3. You’re exactly right, a heat pump is not an overunity machine. How it actually works is right there in the name heat PUMP. It literally pumps heat “uphill” from a cold source to a hot sink; it’s just an air conditioner in reverse.

        People who don’t understand thermodynamics don’t know that heat is an “inferior” form of energy. You can only convert some of it to useful work, and then only when you have a colder “sink” into which you can dump the unconverted heat. The absolute maximum efficiency you can possibly attain is 1 – Tc/Th, where Th is the temperature of your heat source and Tc is the temperature of your cold sink. This is the famous Carnot Limit. There’s absolutely no way to do better; that’s the second law of thermodynamics, probably the most solid law of nature there is. The only way to get 100% efficiency is to have a cold sink at absolute zero, but they simply don’t exist — that’s the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

        But suppose you run this heat engine in reverse. Instead of turning high temperature heat into useful work and some colder waste heat, let’s *add* useful work and turn colder heat into high temperature heat. That’s exactly what a refrigerator, air conditioner and heat pump all do. How well can that work?

        The answer is the inverse of the Carnot Limit, known in the HVAC world as the Coefficient of Performance. If the Carnot limit for a given Th and Tc is 50%, then the COP for a heat pump pumping heat from Tc to Th is 200%. That is, for each kilowatt of work you give the system, you get two kilowatts of heat at Th: one from the input work and one from the cold source at Tc.

        Ah, but suppose we take that 200% of heat and drive a heat engine with it? Sorry, but the 2nd law is very crafty; it’s already thought of that. The most work you could possibly get from the output of your heat engine running from your heat pump is 50% of that 200%, which is 100% — exactly what you put into your heat pump in the first place.

        Heat pumps only seem to give something for nothing, but they don’t. COPs of more than 1 are possible with heat pumps only because heat is an inferior form of energy. Still, heat pumps are often a very good idea, certainly better than taking high grade energy like electricity and just turning it into heat; that can never produce a COP of more than 1.

    3. torulf said: “A standard heat pump is producing overunity.”

      No it’s not, and you can’t cite anything credible to back it up.

      “electricity might not be the highest enthalpy energy form there is”

      Key words: “might not”

      In other words, all you have is uninformed conjecture, and you’re going to pontificate as if it were fact. Please, go on.

      ” but all this dark energy might have higher enthalpy.”

      Yeah, “MIGHT”. I also might have a magic unicorn in my pocket that poops cocaine. Might.

      “We just can´t see it and use it, but we know it is there.”

      ‘We’ do? How do we ‘know’ this? It’s never been seen, and it’s never been measured directly.

      “By the way, these “laws” we are talking about, they are theories”

      Yup: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.” … “Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.” … “This is SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT from the common usage of the word ‘theory’, which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess”

      “I have found (as far as my limited understanding of physics goes) a repeatable proof of an exception in the second law of thermo dynamics…”

      There is ONE rule to scientific claims. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Certainly a commenter on Hackaday with a “limited understanding of physics” finding an EXCEPTION to “thermo dynamics” would be a news worthy event. it might even earn you a Nobel Prize! Please, DO tell us your amazing discovery. In the mean time, you may want to read this until it makes sense:


    4. “I have found (as far as my limited understanding of physics goes) a repeatable proof of an exception in the second law of thermo dynamics…”

      And the problem is right there in your statement. In order to prove an exception, you must completely understand the physics. You admit you don’t, implying that all those in the field, who understand physics better than you, have somehow “missed something”.

      To say that’s unlikely is to significantly understate the case.

  14. Whay all these words, we have free solar power, and eletric cars, why do we need to researgs any more….. we dont it has all been invented, now we only need bright, people to wote….

  15. What the hell???? Adam Fabio must be spending too much time with Brian these days. Was there really NOTHING else interesting on the whole internet that you could write about? Poor poor poor poor article.

      1. Dear responder,

        Although most of the perpetual motion machine posts are fake, don’t forget that Einstein’s cosmological constant breaks the coservation of energy and so is the empirical accelerated expansion of the cosmos. By Mach’s principle, Woodward Effect and by Dennis Sciama inertial induction, if you generate oscillating gravity, or Warp Drives diagonal to the radius of cylinder then you extract energy from trajectories of far bodies of mass by contracting the metric of space-time. If you pull in, stars 100 light years away even by a nano metre a year, then you must get this energy back e.g. by a perpetual rotating motor. The problem of such a supposed motor is tidal huge microscopic forces at the edges of its local gravitational fields. You can read my original paper in SDI, look for Eytan Suchard or get an updated 50 pages paper in http://www.scribd.com/eytan_il
        Not only inertial mass generates gravity, also electric charge !!! Million billion times the expected value. Electrons expand space-time despite their total pull as you can read in my paper. Protons contract space-time despite their
        total push of neutral rest mass at far distances. See also:
        The original paper without the new progress and corrections can be found in: http://sciencedomain.org/abstract/9858
        Please also note that the origins of the Chronon Field theory are in Dr. Sam Vaknin’s seminal doctorate dissertation
        in 1982 on the asymmetry of time.
        In general, it takes the separation of tens of coulombs over 1 meters distance within a meter cube, to overcome
        the gravitational field of the earth. That will take tens of giga-volts and is therfore impractical. With 100-300 Kv and
        capacitors of 10 pico-Farads you can achive a thrust of less than 0.1 micro-Newtons which is immeasurable
        due to the 1-10 micro-Newtons measurement limit of available technology.
        I will not post any sketch of a commercial disk shaped Warp Drive engine for obvious reasons. If this technology falls into wrong hands, it will be a disaster for the USA and for the civilized world. The world is not ready for a fully fledged
        Warp Drive engine.

        Material and spiritual redemption,
        Eytan Suchard.

  16. The first time I ever read about people building hydrogen generators for their cars they didn’t say anything at all that sounded to me like perpetual motion. They acknowledged the fact that generating the hydrogen took a lot of energy. They didn’t talk about any sort of closed loop, they were still burning mostly gasoline.

    Supposedly these people tried it and found that their gas milage went up a few percent. That was all. Their best idea of how it worked was that it altered the chemical reaction of the burning gasoline to one that was more efficient. I lack the knowlege of chemistry to verify that this is possible or imposible. I do know that the efficiency of a gasoline engine is far from 100% so there should be room to talk about quite a bit of improvement before hitting the perpetual motion looney bin right?

    I was pretty excited about any idea that would save me gas money. I wanted to build this but.. life happens. I still haven’t but the idea has not died for me. I still might. Is it provable that this working would be perpetual motion? In which case I wouldn’t bother.

    Obviously burning the hydrogen to turn the alternator to power the electrolysis to replace the hydrogen isn’t going to work. But.. if it made the combustion of the gasoline more complete, if the product of the combustion was at a lower energy state then it would be without the hydrogen then I would be gaining energy that would have otherwise been wasted out the tail pipe. A joule saved is a joule earned right? Could that add up to enough to pay back the initial generation of hydrogen with some left over?

    In that scenario there wouldn’t be any new energy brought into the universe. There would just be less getting thrown away as partially combusted fuel.

    One other difference.. those articles only talked about hydrogen, not HHO. I got the impression that they were just throwing the oxygen away and relying on the engine’s air intake to supply more.

    1. Claims that hydrogen (or water, or whatever) somehow makes a modern car engine burn gasoline more completely can be dismissed out of hand. Look at it this way. Cars have had catalytic converters since the late 1970s. They’re designed to oxidize any unburned hydrocarbons (i.e., fuel) and carbon monoxide. If more than a teensy tiny fraction of the gasoline going in was coming out unburned, the catalytic converter would glow white hot and fall off. Then the car would most definitely fail emissions testing, if it hadn’t already.

      The fundamental thermodynamic limits of an Otto-cycle engine are set by the compression ratio. (That, and the heat properties of the combustion gases but you can’t really do anything about them). IIRC, this limit is about 50%. Real engines get maybe half that because of pumping losses against the throttle valve, to mechanical friction, and to heat loss through the cylinder walls. If you want to improve the mileage of a gasoline engine, that’s where you focus your efforts. E.g., the Toyota Prius and other hybrids get such great mileage not so much because they’re hybrids, but because it doesn’t use the Otto cycle. It uses the Atkinson cycle, which permits much higher compression ratios on gasoline without knocking or needing high octane fuel. The hybrid part of the car just makes the Atkinson engine more practical in a car.

      1. The catalytic converter doesn`t fall off when the gasoline engine isn`t close to the stoichiometric point. It does get hot, less efficient and start to smell bad. I follow gasoline cars up a steep mountain nearly everyday and it`s pretty bad regardless of the age of the vehicle. You can definitely tell if the person doesn`t have a catalytic converter so your statement of a `teensy tiny fraction` seems to be exaggerated.

        What may be claimed is it brings the cars engine closer to the stoichiometric point. If it runs rich then there will be more unburnt hydrocarbons and on the other end will be more NOx but that`s negligable in gasoline engines. So if HHO is bringing it closer to that point then effectively it is making the engine more efficient and cleaner.

        1. It is not necessary for a car engine to run at the stoichiometric point for the catalytic converter to not get hot and fall off; it only has to run too rich. Yeah, I was exaggerating a little for effect but my point remains: in a properly tuned engine, there is very little residual HC and CO coming out of the engine for the catalytic converter to oxidize. It may be a lot of pollution but the HC and CO still represent only a small fraction of the energy in the original gasoline, and the catalytic converter can’t handle much more than that without burning up. Capturing the energy in this residual HC and CO would yield very little extra power.

          (I’m leaving out NOx, as important a pollutant as it is, because it doesn’t represent unburned fuel. It’s an unfortunate side effect of burning almost anything efficiently in a N2/O2 atmosphere.)

          The best fix for a car engine that produces too much HC and CO (whether or not the catalytic converter actually burns up and falls off) is a thorough tuneup, not some magical water electrolysis or injection box.

          And if you really want to increase the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, you’ll have to completely redesign it along the lines I described: greater expansion ratio, lower pumping losses against the throttle valve, and less heat loss through the cylinder walls. All three are inherent in very large Diesel engines such as those on ships, which is why they achieve impressively high efficiencies of > 50%. You really have to work for them in small engines, especially while also controlling emissions, but it can be done: the Atkinson engine in the Prius is a good example of a gasoline engine with considerable improvements in the first two problems. The power-to-weight ratio is lower and you can’t change power as quickly, but that’s why it has a hybrid drive train.

  17. Ironically this sort of random tinkering led indirectly to the discovery that pyrolytic graphite has quite sensitive temperature hysteresis in its paramagnetism, ie a magnetic motor.
    The catch of course is that it needs energy in the form of laser light to run, but it really does work and is the subject of several patents as it could be useful as an alternative to Stirling motors, if the near infrared light emitted from a thermal wool encased self heated piece of 238PuO is focused onto a suitably well balanced system held in – surprise – nearly frictionless magnetic bearings.
    Of course the waste heat can go to <20% efficient TECs or the slightly better VTECs based on cesium which is able to emit electrons at a lower inherent work function, and the whole system can be tuned by extracting energy until the plutonium pellet stabilizes at the optimum temperature.

  18. Sorry, diamagnetism.
    The effect actually needs very little power, with a thin sheet of GO oaper only 5mW at 405nm can be enough to move it.
    This suggests that more efficient materials could nearly move with ambient light, perhaps based on doped graphene.
    I did notice that alternating atomic thickness layers of lithium, magnesium and graphene (feasible using MOCVD) might be a candidate for a diamagnetic material dozens of times stronger than native graphene/oxide.

  19. It is a shame that some good ideas get lost in this “energy innovation” sector, which is rife with BS and nonsense. Usually combustion engine inventions or innovations, which get pushed aside because of people making silly claims like HHO or “engines on water”. Ugh.

    Seemingly great ideas, like thermal recuperation via water injection in the “Six Stroke” engine, was one of the most interesting. Then some old ideas are updated with modern tech, like the Kauertz “cat-and-mouse” engine, most recently in the “Massive Yet Tiny” engine. The Quasi-Turbine was an interesting configuration that I think a few people tinker with. Rotary valvetrains come up now and again, too. Sometimes, and idea actually gets some traction, like electro-pneumatic valves funded by Koenigsegg. And then there’s always Stirling engines …

    It is pretty interesting to look back at some of these ideas, and see how many of them were discounted or defeated by some automotive certainties which are now slipping away. The first and biggest always is: does it work as a fast-throttle engine with a broad torque curve, so the standard engine + transmission + differential can directly drive the wheels? This gets many designs discounted. But now that we have parallel and serial hybrids that can accomodate indirect engine drive, the picture is very different.

    Secondarily, emissions was always a big issue. When double wideband O2 sensors setups were insanely expensive, and add-on systems like electric systems for water or air injection were also costly, anything other than a standard piston IC engine was not worth the added cost. Nowadays, the cost layout looks very different.

    I would say that these days, if you tried to sell someone a serial hybrid with a 15HP combustion engine in it, it would be unsalable, due to power anxiety and just lack of understanding of system ratings. But then again, people *are* buying the BMW i3 with a ridiculous 1.3 gallon tank in it. Maybe the trick is to just market it to people who don’t look at technical specs and are buying with someone else’s money.

    1. Good ideas won’t get lost in all the BS and nonsense to anyone who actually understands physics.

      Probably the most valuable thing I learned in my engineering education was the difference between what’s impossible and what merely hasn’t been done yet. A good engineer picks something in the second category and makes it happen. One who can’t tell the difference often wastes his entire life banging his heads in vain against the laws of thermodynamics.

  20. if you start from the point that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Then there cannot be one single device that is under- or over-unity. Its just a matter of counting all inputs and outputs, no matter if they are usable for you or not. There is only unity, Sometimes someone says perpetual motion doesn’t exist. I would rather say it is the only thing that exist.

  21. In the past many discoveries were made by people that went against the classical science vision, and it’s possible that new ideas can come up from all this pseudo science… Scientists always said some things were impossible, but sometimes it is. Many things in science are still unknown and that keeps science interesting. Overunity could be explained by this “unknown”, so keep an open mind but not to much, keep also a critical mind. But really I agree there is a lot of bullshit on youtube.

    I’m suprised that no one talked about Pentone motors, it’s not overunity but it let you run your combustion engine with part of water. The system is quite well described (conjunction of pyrolysis and electrolysis thanks to the pressure and waste of thermal energy in a modified exhaust) and used by many people… In fact I didn’t test it myself but I saw some that had installed it on tractors and mowers, and it works well with more than 50% of water.

    1. spacexion said: “In the past many discoveries were made by people that went against the classical science vision”

      Citation? Which discoveries? How far back in the past? Back when ‘scientific’ thinking was dictated by religion? Name ONE instance where a significant scientific discovery was made in the 20th century by someone who was going “against the classical science vision”.

      “and it’s possible that new ideas can come up from all this pseudo science”

      “Ideas”? An ‘idea’ as defined by merriam-webster:

      * a thought, plan, or suggestion about what to do
      * an OPINION or BELIEF
      * something that you IMAGINE or picture in your mind

      Yes, new “ideas” can come up, but that doesn’t automatically make them A) scientific, B) possible, or C) practical.

      When I was a kid I had an IDEA to plug a power strip into itself and have unlimited free power. How do you think that IDEA worked out? Any clueless idiot can have an IDEA. That doesn’t automatically give it ANY scientific merit.

      “Scientists always said some things were impossible, but sometimes it is.”

      “Scientists”. Which scientists? Which things? This statement is beyond vague. Daily horoscopes are more specific than this statement. Tell us SPECIFICALLY which things they said were impossible, but were wrong.

      ” Many things in science are still unknown and that keeps science interesting.”

      Yes, the is a LOT left to discover. But the number of unknowns in the FUNDAMENTALS of science, specifically the laws of conservation of energy are thoroughly explored. It’s beyond absurd to think that some ignoramus in his garage is going to upset 150+ years of mathematically proven scientific fact, especially when that ignoramus is ‘publishing’ exclusively to YouTube. ALL of science is testable and repeatable, and is thoroughly vetted by publishing data and methodology openly and freely. I defy you to cite ONE case where ‘free energy’ nutters have done ANYTHING close to that.

      “Overunity could be explained by this “unknown””

      Weasel word: “COULD”. It either does or it does NOT. Get it though your THICK skull, there is NO SUCH THING as “over unity”. You CAN NOT get something for nothing. “Over unity” only exists in the minds of people too willfully ignorant to know better, and of course in the deceitful pitches the lying scum that profiteer off that ignorance.

      “I’m suprised that no one talked about Pentone motors”

      I was relieved, until now.

      “it’s not overunity but it let you run your combustion engine with part of water.”

      You are the EPITOME of the type of ignorant sucker that these scum are looking to con, or a clever shill seeking to seed doubt in the minds of those who are less informed. “Pentone motors” are the EXACT same “water as fuel” free energy bullshit, just with a different name.

      WATER. IS. *NOT*. A. FUEL. You CAN NOT extract energy FROM water. There is NONE to be had. It is the ash left over from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen.

      “The system is quite well described (conjunction of pyrolysis and electrolysis thanks to the pressure and waste of thermal energy in a modified exhaust) and used by many people”

      No it’s not. People CLAIM it is. If this actually worked, it would have been widely utilized by industry as a cost saving measure. Competing nations would use it to beat us economically. NEITHER of these things have happened.

      “In fact I didn’t test it myself but I saw some that had installed it on tractors and mowers, and it works well with more than 50% of water.”

      You meaningless anecdote is a prime example of the kind of bullshit that perpetuates this nonsense. It says nothing, it proves nothing, but the clueless and willfully ignorant lap it up as actual proof. Take it back to YouTube. It has NO place on HaD.

      1. What I always find amusing in these debates is that it is assumed by those accusing us of being narrow minded seem to think we have not studied the history of our fields. Guess what? We have, the difference being that it wasn’t the narratives of iconoclasts working against a conservative establishment you have been told with the embellishments of dramatic licence that have been added to the popular accounts to try to give them the kind of human interest that the non technical listener likes these stories to have.

  22. Energy conversion and accelerating mechanism make generator can efficiently generating good output than input needed to maintain generator overunity.
    To be launch next year to save the world and improve life and reduce poverty.

    1. No, it can’t. It’s impossible. It will always be impossible. You’re either lying or haven’t understood your machine properly. If it’s the second, you’d be better not wasting your time.

      If you want to save the world, there’s all sorts of things you can do to help, but over-unity isn’t one of them.

    1. The Conservation Laws are not, and never will be violated to the degree, and on a scale such that any sort of ‘free energy’ is possible. These Laws describe the very structure of the Universe at a very fundamental level, for example the very fact that this is a 3+1 dimensional universe may well be a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics being what it is. This makes all talk of overturning them nonsense.

  23. This is not a magical machine but a new recover to use accelerating mechanism to efficiently increase alternator rotating speed to generate electricity at full load.

  24. Well this over unity subject sure gets people worked up! If there actually is such a thing it would change civilization forever. I’m not a trained scientist but look at recent discoveries in quantum physics that defy current scientific theories or actual certified medical miracles. There is a saying that we are through a glass darkly and that there are more things in heaven and earth than man has ever dreamed of. I hope that’s true and I’m going to look into this over unity thing.

  25. i suppose the website designer did not know whats the difference between scam and truth. in real words, there is nothing like free energy. firstly people who research and say its free energy are morons. there is of course a lot of methods to obtain larger electrical output from less electrical input. but here there is just electrical energy conversion from magnetic energy. for a 1000 years , if there is no trouble for the source of electrical energy , the motor dynamo coupling will be considered as reliable source. i made one of such device. there is no perpetual motion here.

  26. man, over unity is made and tested formally in india. tested by a foreigner, made by an indian engineer. i have seen the method, there is something the post author is missing to understand, these machines don’t violate laws of physics or conservation of energy. its only electrical energy thats been amplified, not total energy, look into your books what total energy refers too. electrical energy is a part of total energy.

    1. You’re spewing a bunch of factually INCORRECT *BS*. It’s clear you haven’t even the slightest understanding of electricity *or* physics. There NO SUCH THING as “over unity” when it comes to power generation. It’s a made up term, made by ignoramuses like you that swallow then vomit misinformation.

      If it’s real, then where is it? India would beat the pants off both the US *and* China inside of a year if it were real. Yet they still struggle their way out of the 3rd world.

      You CAN NOT get more out than you put in. PERIOD.

  27. I would like to formally thank DV82XL for clarity, integrity and brilliance in his presentations. I dabbled in over-unity in the 90,s with the Australian Joe Cell. It was the only one I felt had potential. I believe that the Laws of thermodynamics will stand true, maybe forever. and I think it more productive to focus on harnessing the energy sources that are obvious like solar and gravity, until we understand things like dimensions other than 3rd if they exist or Ki energy. Right now I am more interested in some of the events I have seen or heard of in the dojos of martial artists. More akin to the mother who picked up one side of a car to remove her child from underneath it!

  28. OMG, how could you dare leave out of your article the most recent – – EARTH ENGINE, with multiple vids on YouTube.
    They claim to have working models installed already producing electricity for customers, the will invite you on a tour !

  29. First of all, there is no such thing as perpetual motion rather, the correct term is Infinite Energy! Second, this is not a strange topic even for Youtube video. Zero Point Energy has been around for over a hundred years , in fact, Nikola Tesla demonstrated it by running a Pierce Arrow car without gas or oil using only the energy derived from out of the Earth using a rectifier to amplify the energy into usable form. This was over a hundred years ago and quite frankly we never needed gas or oil and we should by this knowledge be all pissed off with the oil companies and automobile manufacturers that have tied us to their gluttonous greedy grid system! We have Westinghouse to thank for not allowing Tesla to mass produce his zero point energy cars or developing a society that would operate on clean, cheap, environmentally safe and non-polluting infinite energy!

    1. Terry Tibando: Thank you for the correct term infinite Energy, I only have one question: what is infinite energy?
      Wouldn’t It be better to say nothing replaces the term perpetual motion because. a rose of a different name is still a rose. Why not call it a rose? Now on the other hand, if you are talking about something similar to perpetual motion that runs on recycled energy, and does not last forever. Maybe that can be a different term than perpetual motion.
      maybe EttCM Energy to torque Conversion motor. system That has been around for about 3 years. But this technology is not that known yet. Also this is not Overunity but maybe Free energy fits. keep an open mind.

  30. There is a renewable electrical energy which is vastly overlooked. It is a special case of electrical reactance in which the non-saturation of an inductor hosts triangular waves resulting from either a sine wave or a D/C flatline input.

    Whenever a lagging and leading power factor occur, simultaneously, zero watts results due a conversion into the realm of reactive generation with a half-cycle of oscillations between them. Since it is lossless, and since this is not energy, it can only grow – often at alarming rates. Yet, it can be converted into real power of unity power factor using simple techniques, such as: a resistive heating element. This is the proverbial fork in the road replacing the consumption of any fuel, nuclear or otherwise, to boil water and rotate an electric generator.


  31. There are so many ways to define “free energy”. Here is the latest juicy tidbit which I have learned which reminds me of what I have already known for a couple of years …

    If capacitance is reduced low enough, let’s say in the vicinity of one-tenth of a pico Farad, then this capacitance tends to over-react and amplify energy. Foster’s reactance theorem would appear to confirm this by allowing for negative impedance in its definition.

    In the field of geology, a non-magnetic substance has a refractive index which just happens to be the square root of its dielectric constant …

    “The refractive index of a nonmagnetic material is the square root of its relative permittivity.” — https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Relative_permittivity

    So, if you’re having trouble looking up on the Internet the dielectric constant for a material that you want to think about using in a capacitor, then (in the alternative) you search for the refractive index for that material and infer its dielectric constant.

    For example, …

    The refractive index for granite (bedrock) is around 2.75. Its relative permittivity (or, dielectric constant) is the square of 2.75, or approximately: 7.5625.

    If a circuit uses a low enough capacitance, such as: one-tenth of a pico Farad, and is fed a scarcity of voltage, such as: one micro volt, and if the remainder of this hypothetical circuit is designed to take advantage of these two conditions, then it may become possible to simulate an over-reactive situation whose reactance grows at logarithmic rates often-times becoming explosive! …



    I’ll take a guess that a sizable portion of the real power approaching a low-level capacitor of one-tenth pico Farad does not get absorbed and subsequently discharged (after a suitable time-delay). Instead, it gets converted into imaginary power and, thus, is allowed to refract through what would otherwise be impenetrable to real power while being clearly permeable for imaginary power, namely: an insulating medium of a capacitor’s dielectric. The continuous conversion of a portion of real power refracting through this type of low-level capacitance has multiple opportunities per half-cycle of oscillations to accumulate more and more reactive power within this type of circuit at a rate which could be greater than the thermodynamic rate of its conversion back into real power as heat, etc, and -thus- become an overunity situation which trumps entropic losses per unit of time.

    This is how I view overunity, as a: race against entropic time.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.