Quick Poll: Is over-unity, aka free energy, possible?

Question:

The current physics model does not give room for a self sufficient over-unity device to exist. For example, if I told you about an idea for building a battery-like device that never ran out of power and that didn’t take energy from the sun or random RF noise (note that this doesn’t necessarily imply the creation of energy), the current physics model simply says that’s impossible. My question is this: How hard convinced are you that the current physics model has a 100% firm, factual base and that there is 0% possibility of   an over-unity device? Because, if there really is no way it could exist then people should stop wasting their time pushing science in that direction, right? Otherwise, if there is any possibility that today’s model has a flaw and really does permit the existence of an over-unity device, any possibility at all, we should pursue it, shouldn’t we?

Response:

I, for one, am as convinced as can be that the conservation laws (which negate the possibility of over-unity devices) are valid. They aren’t called laws idly, you know. They are laws because no observation or experiment has ever found an exception. Gordon Richmond

Response:

> The current physics model does not give room for a self sufficient > over-unity device to exist. For example, if I told you about an idea for > building a battery-like device that never ran out of power and that > didn’t take energy from the sun or random RF noise (note that this > doesn’t necessarily imply the creation of energy), the current physics > model simply says that’s impossible. > My question is this: How hard convinced are you that the current physics > model has a 100% firm, factual base and that there is 0% possibility of >  an over-unity device?

… People have been trying to disprove conservation of energy since they thought up the idea. Seems like a pretty solid law so far. Trying to get around it is probably pointless (though sometimes entertaining). This is one of those things where you can learn a lot from failing. This doesn’t mean that we should stop looking for unconventional energy sources. Fusion, for instance, is certainly not over-unity but it would be mighty useful. Superconductors aren’t an energy source but if we had versions that work at room temperature they would make things more efficient so less energy would be required. There is a lot of this kind of untapped potential out there. Anthony

Response:

> The current physics model does not give room for a self sufficient > over-unity device to exist. For example, if I told you about an idea for > building a battery-like device that never ran out of power and that > didn’t take energy from the sun or random RF noise (note that this > doesn’t necessarily imply the creation of energy), the current physics > model simply says that’s impossible. > My question is this: How hard convinced are you that the current physics > model has a 100% firm, factual base and that there is 0% possibility of >   an over-unity device?

Not under current physical laws. But it’s possible to change physical laws. Many people beliving in free energy have a messed up memory of their past in other high tech civilizations. Their messe up memory creates the imagination, that it is easy to have it. In reality, it’s as easy as to built up a notebook 500 years ago. No problem in 500 years continouse technical development, but now complete impossible. — Roland M

Related Posts