E=mc^2

[Ben2503]

Hi Ben,

I could ask you the same thing - where is the proof of conservation of energy? It doesn't exist.

However, I actually can prove with basic math that more is happening than is claimed by conventional flawed theories showing that gravitational potential does come into the system to do more work.

Let's take the example of a perfectly spherical ball of clay that weights 3kg and lift it from the ground to 3 meters.

3 kg x 9.81 mss = 29.43 (force)

Then 29.43 x 3 meters (distance) = 88.29 joules of real work - real dissipated energy to lift the 3kg ball of clay to 3 meters.

88.29 joules of work is not theoretical work, that is actual work to lift that 3kg ball to 3 meters and we have the results to prove it. For the fact that the object was lifted 3 meters and the object actually is at 3 meters, which required real work - real dissipated energy to get there - I would say it is pretty much an indisputable fact proven by 3rd grade math and junior high school equations that it took 88.29 joules to get it there and conventional physics agree with this.

Before I go on, this has to be considered - if we just expended a COMPLETE 88.29 joules of energy, how can there be anything left of the 88.29 joules of energy left in any form - actual energy or potential energy since it was REQUIRED to use an entire 88.29 joules of energy to lift the 3kg ball to 3 meters.

Ben, what are you comments on this so far?

You can look up any conventional website and they will show you this exact formula - mass x gravity = force and force x distance equals real work that was EXPENDED to lift the object to that height.

Hi Aaron.
I fully agree with you on this. This is not my point.
My point is:

If we want to make progress we need to work in a structured manner. Proper tests should be made that can prove or disprove a theory. We should be especially interested in effects that disprove our theory, because these will indicate that we are on the wrong path. If we are looking for over-unity we must measure total input and and total output power very precisely. Not just measure one and derive the other from some parameters.
e.g. I came across many videos in which the input power of a device was measured and the output power derived from the 'wattage' of the (LED) lightbulbs connected. And then over unity was claimed.

With respect to the old versus new physics I like the caterpillar -> butterfly metaphor. You need caterpillars (that eat you precious plants) in order to get the butterflies.

[Allcanadian]

@ben2503

If we want to make progress we need to work in a structured manner. Proper tests should be made that can prove or disprove a theory. We should be especially interested in effects that disprove our theory, because these will indicate that we are on the wrong path. If we are looking for over-unity we must measure total input and and total output power very precisely. Not just measure one and derive the other from some parameters.

I would agree, we may see things differently than most however doing some math to prove a COP >1 in spite of the conventional math proving COP <1 still leaves us with nothing more than numbers on paper. It is as easy as falling off a log and as I said prior... you want me to prove pigs can fly on paper?, no problem.
I have been down this road many times however at the end of the day we must still deal with reality because a bunch of number on paper will not help anyone. It will not feed them (unless they eat the paper), it will not light there homes or keep them warm (unless they burn the paper). Reality is the ultimate indicator that we are doing something right and making progress.

I used to think I could think my way through the problem and it does help as a starting point but at some point we have to get our hands dirty.

AC

[Aaron]

free energy

Hi Aaron.
I fully agree with you on this. This is not my point.
My point is:

If we want to make progress we need to work in a structured manner. Proper tests should be made that can prove or disprove a theory. We should be especially interested in effects that disprove our theory, because these will indicate that we are on the wrong path. If we are looking for over-unity we must measure total input and and total output power very precisely. Not just measure one and derive the other from some parameters.
e.g. I came across many videos in which the input power of a device was measured and the output power derived from the 'wattage' of the (LED) lightbulbs connected. And then over unity was claimed.

With respect to the old versus new physics I like the caterpillar -> butterfly metaphor. You need caterpillars (that eat you precious plants) in order to get the butterflies.

What I am mentioning is a proper test that disproves the magical idea about storing potential showing that free environmental potential can do work, which is always denied by conventional science - just like they say magnets can't do work.

It takes 88.29 joules of real dissipated energy to raise the 3kg ball to 3 meters so when the ball is lifted to 3 meters, there is nothing to store because we just used up the entire 88.29 joules.

mgh shows mass x gravity x height and that is the formula for potential energy that is supposed to be "stored" in the object but it is not. As long as someone believes that I stored 88.29 joules of potential energy into the object by lifting it, then it cuts off the ability for gravity to contribute it's potential that can do real work. Yet, they can't account for what happens next and suddenly the magical pixie dust gets sprinkled.

mgh is the accurate formula to show the right number but it has always been misinterpreted. mgh shows that when the 3kg ball is at 3 meters, there is 88.29 joules of potential energy. It isn't stored. It is 88.29 joules of potential energy that free gravitational potential energy will contribute once the ball is released to fall down. 88.29 joules of real dissipated energy will actually happen by the ball resisting the air when falling (minor dissipation) and most will happen when the ball hits the ground and impacts with a big THUD creating heat, deformation, etc...

So we already EXPENDED a real 88.29 joules to lift the ball. When the ball came back down, another 88.29 joules of real measurable dissipated energy happened. Both the lift and the fall had equal amounts of dissipated energy and both contribute to entropy. That is a total of 176.58 joules of work done and we only contributed 88.29. 176.58 / 88.29 = 2, which is a COP of 2.0 - real "overunity".

This is not a theoretical example - anyone can simply add up the real work done and the result is always the same. If the ball can bounce, then that is a regauging process where the dissipation on impact goes to compressing the ball so it can bounce back into the air (less height each time), but adding up all the work, it is way over 2.0 COP.

The phony conventional arguments against the 2.0 is that the lift is positive work and the fall is negative work so there is no net work being done. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments as BOTH are positive work that contributes to entropy. The direction the ball is moving does not make one positive work and one negative work. There is no negative work unless time is flowing backwards and the ball gets lifted into the air on its own at a negative resistance (true antigravity).

2.0 will always be the case no matter what in a full cycle where there is no regauging process.

I did it with a rubber ball that bounced about 83% of the previous height each time and adding up all the lifting work alone (not including the impact work on each cycle) it was over 8.0 COP.

The problem with free energy is not how to make it - the problem is to get people to understand how to even know what they're looking at and most people don't.

"If we are looking for over-unity we must measure total input and and total output power very precisely." - Ben

I would have to argue against this statement of yours because that doesn't show overunity. Total input compared to total output is a measurement of EFFICIENCY and normal overunity devices have a max of up to 100% efficient. You won't get it above 100% efficient even if you can produce 8 times the work compared to what you input. There are always going to be losses. TOTAL input is input we pay for + it includes free environmental input that we do not pay for. That is the total input. When we look at the total output, it will always be less than the total input because of losses.

For example total input vs total output on a simple Bedini SSG can be 90-95% efficient with a pretty good build.

To measure overunity or over 1.0 COP production just like a heat pump, we only compare input that we pay for (not including free environmental input) with the total output - we find that the Bedini SSG is easily 1.2~1.5 when running in attraction mode.

Efficiency of 90-95% but COP of 1.2-1.5, which is 120% to 150% total work done not including what nature put in for free.

That is the the accurate way to measure overunity. There is a huge misconception in the "free energy" field that there is more output than the input but that isn't true. There is more output compared to what we pay for. All we do is put in x amount and leverage nature through regauging processes to delay entropy as long as possible so that the total amount of work done is more than what we pay for. There is nothing magical or mysterious about this and no laws are violated.

COP is what we're after not over 100% efficiency claims, which are technically bogus.

I'm interested in anything that can debunk my 2.0 COP example and nobody over all these years has been able to do it with any math, experiment, or logic. Think about it - claims of negative work vs positive work showing no net work, etc... that is all rhetoric.

What I described is not theoretical and I use very accepted formulas, but they are used in the proper context, not contexts that are flawed at face value.

It is right there in front of us. We lift the object and expend work - that means there is nothing left from what we used and 3rd grade math proves it. It isn't like it took 176.58 joules to lift it but 88.29 joules magically remained when it got to the top. It took 88.29 joules to get it to 3 meters and because it only took 88.29 joules to lift it, there is nothing left at the top. We ALREADY got out of it what we put in. And we're about to get an equivelant amount of work IN ADDITION TO what we put in for free. Nature always gives a freebie.

We created a new potential difference of 3 meters for 3kg and mgh shows us that 88.29 joules of potential energy are available. EVEN IF it is stored in the object, 88.29 joules of further energy dissipation happens when the ball impacts the ground for a grand total of 176.58 joules, which is still twice as much real dissipated energy that happened compared to what we expended.

That is the point that the conventional skeptics have to dance around with their dog and pony show with all the rhetoric about no net energy gain, etc... yet there it is right there in front of us. The extra 88.29 joules of energy absolutely did not come from us - we only used 88.29 and that was it. We're not even touching the ball anymore when we let go so when the ball is dropped from that height and 88.29 joules of further energy dissipation happens, that is prima facie evidence that gravity indisputably can and does perform work because the 2nd amount of 88.29 in dissipated energy did not come from us.

The entire storing of potential idea is a logical fallacy for one and adding up all work shows 2 times what we put in meaning that Einstein's elastic aetheric model is false where the belief that an object lifted against the aether causes an elastic displacement, yet it is claimed that the energy that we get back out of the object when it falls is from what we put in - YET - we ALREADY got the work out of it that we put it - THE LIFT OF THE OBJECT!



It isn't that Einstein didn't really believe in an aether, his earliest papers were all about the aether. The issue is that his perspective doesn't allow for gravitational potential to actually enter the system and do work showing that we live in a DEAD universe where we are isolated from any interaction with it - that is a very sad and claustrophobic reality. But there you have it - 3rd grade math and junior high school equations proving Einstein, conservation of energy, closed system thermodynamics, etc... wrong.

It isn't like I'm trying to use some theoretical math model to make an argument. I've done the experiments and just visually looking at a bouncing ball, you can see the total amount of force x distance in all the lifts are WAY MORE than what we put in. Arguments that the ball didn't bounce higher, etc... are all rooted in ignorance because the lift of the ball regardless of the height on each bounce is still real dissipated energy calculated by fd and adding up all the fd shows way more dissipated energy than our initial input. A simple open dissipative system where the dissipation goes to regauging it self so new fresh gravitational potential can enter and do more work thereby delaying entropy.

Free energy has been hiding in plain site and simply by seeing things as they are instead of in a way that we're told to see it reveals that free energy literally is dripping off the walls and it not something mysterious after all.

[Ben2503]

What I am mentioning is a proper test that disproves the magical idea about storing potential showing that free environmental potential can do work, which is always denied by conventional science - just like they say magnets can't do work.

It takes 88.29 joules of real dissipated energy to raise the 3kg ball to 3 meters so when the ball is lifted to 3 meters, there is nothing to store because we just used up the entire 88.29 joules.

mgh shows mass x gravity x height and that is the formula for potential energy that is supposed to be "stored" in the object but it is not. As long as someone believes that I stored 88.29 joules of potential energy into the object by lifting it, then it cuts off the ability for gravity to contribute it's potential that can do real work. Yet, they can't account for what happens next and suddenly the magical pixie dust gets sprinkled.

mgh is the accurate formula to show the right number but it has always been misinterpreted. mgh shows that when the 3kg ball is at 3 meters, there is 88.29 joules of potential energy. It isn't stored. It is 88.29 joules of potential energy that free gravitational potential energy will contribute once the ball is released to fall down. 88.29 joules of real dissipated energy will actually happen by the ball resisting the air when falling (minor dissipation) and most will happen when the ball hits the ground and impacts with a big THUD creating heat, deformation, etc...

So we already EXPENDED a real 88.29 joules to lift the ball. When the ball came back down, another 88.29 joules of real measurable dissipated energy happened. Both the lift and the fall had equal amounts of dissipated energy and both contribute to entropy. That is a total of 176.58 joules of work done and we only contributed 88.29. 176.58 / 88.29 = 2, which is a COP of 2.0 - real "overunity".

This is not a theoretical example - anyone can simply add up the real work done and the result is always the same. If the ball can bounce, then that is a regauging process where the dissipation on impact goes to compressing the ball so it can bounce back into the air (less height each time), but adding up all the work, it is way over 2.0 COP.

The phony conventional arguments against the 2.0 is that the lift is positive work and the fall is negative work so there is no net work being done. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments as BOTH are positive work that contributes to entropy. The direction the ball is moving does not make one positive work and one negative work. There is no negative work unless time is flowing backwards and the ball gets lifted into the air on its own at a negative resistance (true antigravity).

2.0 will always be the case no matter what in a full cycle where there is no regauging process.

I did it with a rubber ball that bounced about 83% of the previous height each time and adding up all the lifting work alone (not including the impact work on each cycle) it was over 8.0 COP.

The problem with free energy is not how to make it - the problem is to get people to understand how to even know what they're looking at and most people don't.

"If we are looking for over-unity we must measure total input and and total output power very precisely." - Ben

I would have to argue against this statement of yours because that doesn't show overunity. Total input compared to total output is a measurement of EFFICIENCY and normal overunity devices have a max of up to 100% efficient. You won't get it above 100% efficient even if you can produce 8 times the work compared to what you input. There are always going to be losses. TOTAL input is input we pay for + it includes free environmental input that we do not pay for. That is the total input. When we look at the total output, it will always be less than the total input because of losses.

For example total input vs total output on a simple Bedini SSG can be 90-95% efficient with a pretty good build.

To measure overunity or over 1.0 COP production just like a heat pump, we only compare input that we pay for (not including free environmental input) with the total output - we find that the Bedini SSG is easily 1.2~1.5 when running in attraction mode.

Efficiency of 90-95% but COP of 1.2-1.5, which is 120% to 150% total work done not including what nature put in for free.

That is the the accurate way to measure overunity. There is a huge misconception in the "free energy" field that there is more output than the input but that isn't true. There is more output compared to what we pay for. All we do is put in x amount and leverage nature through regauging processes to delay entropy as long as possible so that the total amount of work done is more than what we pay for. There is nothing magical or mysterious about this and no laws are violated.

COP is what we're after not over 100% efficiency claims, which are technically bogus.

I'm interested in anything that can debunk my 2.0 COP example and nobody over all these years has been able to do it with any math, experiment, or logic. Think about it - claims of negative work vs positive work showing no net work, etc... that is all rhetoric.

What I described is not theoretical and I use very accepted formulas, but they are used in the proper context, not contexts that are flawed at face value.

It is right there in front of us. We lift the object and expend work - that means there is nothing left from what we used and 3rd grade math proves it. It isn't like it took 176.58 joules to lift it but 88.29 joules magically remained when it got to the top. It took 88.29 joules to get it to 3 meters and because it only took 88.29 joules to lift it, there is nothing left at the top. We ALREADY got out of it what we put in. And we're about to get an equivelant amount of work IN ADDITION TO what we put in for free. Nature always gives a freebie.

We created a new potential difference of 3 meters for 3kg and mgh shows us that 88.29 joules of potential energy are available. EVEN IF it is stored in the object, 88.29 joules of further energy dissipation happens when the ball impacts the ground for a grand total of 176.58 joules, which is still twice as much real dissipated energy that happened compared to what we expended.

That is the point that the conventional skeptics have to dance around with their dog and pony show with all the rhetoric about no net energy gain, etc... yet there it is right there in front of us. The extra 88.29 joules of energy absolutely did not come from us - we only used 88.29 and that was it. We're not even touching the ball anymore when we let go so when the ball is dropped from that height and 88.29 joules of further energy dissipation happens, that is prima facie evidence that gravity indisputably can and does perform work because the 2nd amount of 88.29 in dissipated energy did not come from us.

The entire storing of potential idea is a logical fallacy for one and adding up all work shows 2 times what we put in meaning that Einstein's elastic aetheric model is false where the belief that an object lifted against the aether causes an elastic displacement, yet it is claimed that the energy that we get back out of the object when it falls is from what we put in - YET - we ALREADY got the work out of it that we put it - THE LIFT OF THE OBJECT!



It isn't that Einstein didn't really believe in an aether, his earliest papers were all about the aether. The issue is that his perspective doesn't allow for gravitational potential to actually enter the system and do work showing that we live in a DEAD universe where we are isolated from any interaction with it - that is a very sad and claustrophobic reality. But there you have it - 3rd grade math and junior high school equations proving Einstein, conservation of energy, closed system thermodynamics, etc... wrong.

It isn't like I'm trying to use some theoretical math model to make an argument. I've done the experiments and just visually looking at a bouncing ball, you can see the total amount of force x distance in all the lifts are WAY MORE than what we put in. Arguments that the ball didn't bounce higher, etc... are all rooted in ignorance because the lift of the ball regardless of the height on each bounce is still real dissipated energy calculated by fd and adding up all the fd shows way more dissipated energy than our initial input. A simple open dissipative system where the dissipation goes to regauging it self so new fresh gravitational potential can enter and do more work thereby delaying entropy.

Free energy has been hiding in plain site and simply by seeing things as they are instead of in a way that we're told to see it reveals that free energy literally is dripping off the walls and it not something mysterious after all.

I am totally speechless, best of luck Aaron

[Ernst]

just my 2 pennies

I don't agree that space is full of "energy" but potential energy, it is full of source potential.

You quote Tesla and yet you disagree with him, for he said:

Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic?
If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain —
then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

The faster the acceleration, the more aetheric resistance it encounters per unit of time. That means the relative density of the aether in relation to the object increases as the acceleration goes up.

again: Tesla saw the ether as an incompressible medium, its density can not increase.

Then this:

I could ask you the same thing - where is the proof of conservation of energy? It doesn't exist.

The laws of thermodynamics DEFINE energy. Conservation of energy exists BY DEFINITION. There can be no argument here, if there is, then your definition of energy does not match the commonly used definition.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, which is far more interesting:

If c is speed of light in vacuum then shouldn't the mass-energy equivalence be Energy in vacuum equals mass in vacuum times speed of light in vacuum? It isn't in a vacuum if it has mass in the same vacuum, is it? Or am I just going senile?

You should ask yourself two questions:
- Can there be speed without anything that moves? For example: a car moves at a speed of 100 m/s. If I remove the car, is its speed still there?
- Can you have energy without a medium to hold that energy? (you can use the same example)
With these considerations look at the equation: E=m c^2
We see energy, mass and a velocity....
Let's look at kinetic energy, E = 1/2 m v^2
Again we see energy, mass and a velocity. But this time we can say that the mass (in the equation) holds both the energy and the velocity.
Back to Einstein:
What is holding the energy? It can not be the mass, since that mass is converted into this energy. So on the left side there is no mass, but there is energy...?
Then what is holding the velocity? It can not be the mass, for that one can not travel at the given speed.
The conclusion is that the equation does not make any logical sense in this form. The more logical form would be E / c^2 = m.
On the left side there is still something missing: ether.
Now it says what mass actually is: a certain amount (E) of ether moving (around) at light speed (c).

Does that help?

Ernst.

[Aaron]

aetheric density

You quote Tesla and yet you disagree with him, for he said:




again: Tesla saw the ether as an incompressible medium, its density can not increase.

Then this:


The laws of thermodynamics DEFINE energy. Conservation of energy exists BY DEFINITION. There can be no argument here, if there is, then your definition of energy does not match the commonly used definition.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, which is far more interesting:


You should ask yourself two questions:
- Can there be speed without anything that moves? For example: a car moves at a speed of 100 m/s. If I remove the car, is its speed still there?
- Can you have energy without a medium to hold that energy? (you can use the same example)
With these considerations look at the equation: E=m c^2
We see energy, mass and a velocity....
Let's look at kinetic energy, E = 1/2 m v^2
Again we see energy, mass and a velocity. But this time we can say that the mass (in the equation) holds both the energy and the velocity.
Back to Einstein:
What is holding the energy? It can not be the mass, since that mass is converted into this energy. So on the left side there is no mass, but there is energy...?
Then what is holding the velocity? It can not be the mass, for that one can not travel at the given speed.
The conclusion is that the equation does not make any logical sense in this form. The more logical form would be E / c^2 = m.
On the left side there is still something missing: ether.
Now it says what mass actually is: a certain amount (E) of ether moving (around) at light speed (c).

Does that help?

Ernst.

Ernst,

Tesla's use of the word "energy" as in space is filled with it is not a technical use of the word - it is metaphysical. He is using it in the sense that space is filled with an aether that is alive and moving - that is the original definition of "energy". That is not the the same thing as energy defined as dissipated potential (work). I already explained my take on that earlier in this thread.

How is the measurement of work measured? In joules of energy dissipated. So any technical definition of energy not equating to work is false at face value.

---------------------------------------

The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. It is named after the English physicist James Prescott Joule (1818–1889).[2][3][4]

--------------------------------

The definition of energy that I use, which is work, is consistent with the actual unit used to measure work, which is joule. A joule is a unit of ENERGY, WORK or AMOUNT OF HEAT. Energy and Work are the same thing.

I don't care about obviously false uses of energy by the conventional establishment - the measurement of energy shows you right there that it is the same thing as work, which is what I've been saying from the beginning.

"It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second."

That is also exactly what I have been saying. Energy dissipation is work done.

Being "incompressible" doesn't have anything to do with whether its density can be increased or decreased.

Incompressible is the idea that if you physically trying to compress it, it would just go through the container just like hydrogen leaks straight through a balloon since it is so porous - same concept. In that sense, hydrogen is also incompressible, yet we can increase the psi of hydrogen in a tank. Just because it is incompressible doesn't mean we can't increase the density of it.

If you have 2 plates with a 1mm gap and coat it with some dielectric coating like super corona dope so you can increase the voltage potential to 80kv for example, yet it doesn't jump that gap, in that gap, the density of the polarized aether is extremely high compared to 10kv for example. As the voltage pressure goes up (gas pressure reading of the aether), so does the density per unit of space.

If the density of the aether cannot be increased, then it would be impossible to have anything higher than 0 volts.

You mention "holding the energy" but energy in that context is different from the definition of energy would agree with, which is based on how we actually measure energy and it is defined as being equivelant to work done (joule).

With the mass and aether - to me energy is simply work being done to overcome the resistance that the aether gives to the mass as the mass is moving through it. Conceptually it seems so simple and the equation you propose would of course give the same answer. Is it more logical? I don't know but I agree there is something missing.



All I know is that any child is capable of using some basic math and basic formulas to show "overunity" in something as simple as lifting an object and dropping it and to me, that is tangible because we can actually put our fingers on the results.

[I_Like_Science]

Alright, so a couple of days turned into a few, but I did do it. I was going to write a full paper on this and the results, but after the very non-trivial amount of work it was to model this, I'm going to leave it here for now.

If you're going to refute my results, please take the time to understand my model and dissent based on that and/or my assumptions.

I will lurk and answer questions about the math and term usage, but I won't take the time to defend against semantics or non-model related criticisms.

Link to original paper.

ALL the math can be found in the linked file. If there is enough interest, I might take the time to make it all more legible.

Link to download MATLAB code (fullclean.m)

Link to download the text file of code (fullclean.txt)



Forgot to list on there, I assume that the gyroscopic forces are only present during the initial 'let go' of the box. In reality, if I'd modeled the gyro being on the entire drop, this would decrease the time spent falling in the gyro model even further.

Results-


The differences in the t2 and t2-t1 data are due to the other authors' 'normalizing' their data. It's more important to note the tdiff and 'normalized' accelerations are very similar, along with my computed fictitious force being essentially identical.

Conclusion-
The original paper must be viewed as inconclusive as the results found therein can be adequately explained by aerodynamic forces and an imperfect (real) release mechanism. To demonstrate aetheric forces, you'd have to redo the test in a vacuum, and ideally with a method of release that is near perfect.

And this is how I knew to guess that the forces were not induced by aether.

[Ernst]

just one more question

Aaron,

Am I correct in assuming that you see energy as "work done" and not as "capability to perform work". If that is the case I can see your point, but it is not the commonly accepted definition.

If I move a mass of 1 Kg 1 m up in the gravitational field, I perform a certain amount of work.
"work done" as you say, energy used, spilt, consumed, gone.
(see here)
But by doing this I add "the capability to perform work" to that mass. Its location in the gravitational field comes with a certain potential; potential energy. For if that mass is released it will perform work. New "work done", as you say.

I can do a similar thing with water. If I heat it to 99 C, I spend energy. Work done.
But now the water is hot, it holds energy. If I put a cold piece of metal in it, that metal will get hot. New "work done"? But at the same time the water cools down a bit, it contains less energy, for part of it is transferred to that piece of metal.

This is very similar to moving objects in a field, masses in a gravitational field, charges in an electric field etc. Its location in the field comes with a potential, the capability to perform work.

you say:

If the density of the aether cannot be increased, then it would be impossible to have anything higher than 0 volts.

That is only true if you assume that ether density is a measure of electrical tension, which is different from Tesla's view. I refer to his lecture in 1891-05-20: "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination".

If there is such a thing as electricity, there can be only one such thing, and; excess and want of that one thing, possibly; but more probably its condition determines the positive and negative character.

and

Returning to the subject, and bearing in mind that the existence of two electricities is, to say the least, highly improbable, we must remember, that we have no evidence of electricity, nor can we hope to get it, unless gross matter is present. Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound other; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule. Looking at it in that light, we would be justified in saying, that electricity is concerned in all molecular actions.
Now, precisely what the ether surrounding the molecules is, wherein it differs from ether in general, can only be conjectured. It cannot differ in density, ether being incompressible; it must, therefore, be under some strain or in motion, and the latter is the most probable. To understand its functions, it would be necessary to have an exact idea of the physical construction of matter, of which, of course, we can only form a mental picture. But of all the views on nature, the one which assumes one matter and one force, and a perfect uniformity throughout, is the most scientific and most likely to be true. An infinitesimal world, with the molecules and their atoms spinning and moving in orbits, in much the same manner as celestial bodies, carrying with them and probably spinning with them ether, or in other words; carrying with them static charges, seems to my mind the most probable view, and one which, in a plausible manner, accounts for most of the phenomena observed. The spinning of the molecules and their ether sets up the ether tensions or electrostatic strains; the equalization of ether tensions sets up ether motions or electric currents, and the orbital movements produce the effects of electro and permanent magnetism.

This is the clearest description that Tesla gives us on how he sees electricity. And it is an invaluable key to understanding his work.

Ernst.

[Aaron]

aether, density, etc...

Aaron,

Am I correct in assuming that you see energy as "work done" and not as "capability to perform work". If that is the case I can see your point, but it is not the commonly accepted definition.

If I move a mass of 1 Kg 1 m up in the gravitational field, I perform a certain amount of work.
"work done" as you say, energy used, spilt, consumed, gone.
(see here)
But by doing this I add "the capability to perform work" to that mass. Its location in the gravitational field comes with a certain potential; potential energy. For if that mass is released it will perform work. New "work done", as you say.

I can do a similar thing with water. If I heat it to 99 C, I spend energy. Work done.
But now the water is hot, it holds energy. If I put a cold piece of metal in it, that metal will get hot. New "work done"? But at the same time the water cools down a bit, it contains less energy, for part of it is transferred to that piece of metal.

This is very similar to moving objects in a field, masses in a gravitational field, charges in an electric field etc. Its location in the field comes with a potential, the capability to perform work.

you say:

That is only true if you assume that ether density is a measure of electrical tension, which is different from Tesla's view. I refer to his lecture in 1891-05-20: "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination".

and


This is the clearest description that Tesla gives us on how he sees electricity. And it is an invaluable key to understanding his work.

Ernst.

Ernst,

Yes - I use the definition of "work done" and not the capacity to do work one reason is the definition of energy being the capacity to do work completely contradicts the very definition of the unit of measurement that we use to measure energy - joule - which is actual work done. Like the definition of joule I posted equates work done with energy.

There is energy and there is potential energy. However, the "capacity" to do work equates energy as being potential energy and that is a complete contradiction to equate two opposite things as being the same when in fact they are not.

The definition of capacity/capability is: "the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating."

Capacity isn't the active doing of anything - just the potential or ability to.

Therefore, when it is said that energy is the capability or capacity to perform work, it is an erroneous definition because it is actually defining potential energy and not energy.

The joule as a measurement of actual work done is the same as a measurement of energy (energy dissipation) and not potential energy or potential work.

The common definition of energy needs to be changed to reflect the same definition of a joule of energy or a joule of work done in my opinion because as it stands, the definition of energy is actually a definition of potential energy.

The water example is a really good example by the way but I see it differently. When you heat water to 99C, you just dissipated energy or did work to create a potential difference in the state of the water molecules. The energy dissipated didn't get transferred to the water - all that energy you put into heating the water is long gone, what you did do is create a gradient, dipole or potential difference (thermal flywheel).

That is simply like lifting a flat board on the ground up on one side like a ramp for something to roll down. In the case of a gradient like this, the aetheric potential with broken symmetry (polarization) can move to the water molecules and then to the colder item to warm it up. As there is energy dissipation between the hot water 99C dipole and the colder object - energy not from hot water but from aether using the 99c water as a ramp to roll down to the colder object so to speak - as the potential difference between the cold object and hot water gets closer together, the ramp is now at a lower angle (temp reduces) so there isn't as much potential difference since work was done to heat the colder object.

So I would say the hot water is not "holding" energy - there is aetheric source potential that is coming into the excited water molecules by the water molecules being at a higher potential difference and there is dissipation of that organized potential (energy) that enters the water. A thermal flywheel (hot water) is like a dipole with momentum and it takes time for the potential difference to equalize depending on its surroundings.

It is clear that Tesla is just expressing his views of what he thinks is probable. I disagree with equating something being incompressible with not being able to change density. Telsa is leaving out some distinctions that could qualify a claim to the contrary so I would say it is a matter of semantics.

In Tesla's other language - he constantly uses the term energy in a way that does not mean work as I use it and does not even mean the capacity to do work as the popular definition says. So we have 3 definitions of work. The popular one that I disagree with for reasons stated above, the definition I use equating it with work since that is how a joule is defined and then there is a popular usage of energy by Tesla that is in alignment with the original meaning of energy that says energy is activity. Some of the original uses of the word energy does mean "working" but back then there was no distinction between activity without work being done or activity with work being done (in terms of work being joules of energy).

The aether or "virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum" is extremely active, lively and energetic, yet no work measurable in joules is being done. Activity without resistance is movement, but unless there is resistance, there isn't work being done in the joule sense of the word.

Nobody has been able to zoom in and see what the aether looks like so all of this is just an exploration in imagination anyway, but certain things can be more probable or ruled out based on things we can observe.

Yes, I equate an increase in aetheric density with an increase in electrical tension meaning the actual voltage potential if it is sitting or "Heaviside Flow" if it is moving over the wires to the opposite terminal. Looking at fluid dynamic models to explain the aether appear to be the most accurate and the aether is just like a gas.

An empty capacitor is in equilibrium. When we "charge" a capacitor, we are filling it with polarized aether to create the potential differences the terminals. We are not piling electrons on plates in the capacitor. Increasing the voltage of a capacitor by "charging" it up is increasing the gas pressure of the polarized aether.

At the terminals will be a negative and positive. Those terminals break the symmetry of the aether and if we apply a circuit to it like a flash light circuit, that potential difference at the terminals of the cap polarizes the aether in the space around the terminals of the cap. With circuit connected, positive aetheric potential moves to the positive terminal, goes over the surface of the wire like a wave guide towards the negative terminal at near light speed. The electrons most loosely bound in the copper atoms of the wire are attracted towards the positive terminal since it is attracted to the polarity of the aether moving from positive to negative and they jiggle down the line at a few inches per hour.

That is the electron current, but that is only the drag and is what is responsible for destroying the source dipole so the electron current rated in watt seconds is only a measurement of the rate of destruction of electricity - for example - Bedini said for years that the meters only measure what is wasted.

So electricity being a meeting of aether and mass if that is electron mass is only part of the story. The real electricity appears to be the aether and it can make things happen without having to destroy the source dipole with current. In essence, it may be able to do things without actually dissipating energy so there can be electricity without any electron mass involved at all.

There are two schools of thought that are saying the aetheric source potential has mass or it does not. So far, I have seen no convincing argument that it does have mass and being able to interact with an attract or repel mass electrostatically may be able to happen with no mass associated with the charge.

Anyway, point being that the the capacitor voltage is an indication of the pressure of the aether in the cap - so higher the voltage, the more pressure or density. It is contained electrostatically in the cap and not by a simple material that contains the aether since the aether would go right through it. It can't be compressed in that sense but we can still increase the density of it per unit of volumetric space with electrostatic containment - not sure what else to call it.

So again, aether being "incompressible" has to be defined - cannot be compressed by what? A solid material like a steel bottle? I agree - in that example - aether cannot be compressed. But can it be denser by higher gravity or by acceleration? I think it is self evident.

Can an object accelerating through space encounter more aether per unit of time? I think it is obviously yes. So relative to the object, the aether is more dense. If the aether cannot be actually dense or relatively dense, then an object accelerating would have to encounter the same amount of aether irrespective of time and in that case, the entire universe fall apart. In that case, an object would have a constant amount of inertia regardless of its speed since no matter how fast is it going, it is only going to encounter the same amount of aether per unit of time (local time for the mass).

More aether per unit of time for an accelerating object is the same as more aether per volumetric space for an object standing still.

[Aaron]

gyro test analysis

Conclusion-
The original paper must be viewed as inconclusive as the results found therein can be adequately explained by aerodynamic forces and an imperfect (real) release mechanism. To demonstrate aetheric forces, you'd have to redo the test in a vacuum, and ideally with a method of release that is near perfect.

And this is how I knew to guess that the forces were not induced by aether.

I'm not qualified to analyze that txt file with all the math. I could punch the equations into a calculator but I don't know the context of what means what.

I'd like to repeat that I think the gyroscope test is a bad experiment because the differences are too small. 4-5 inches difference in the spinning ball experiment is very bold and in our face.

I never doubted your speculation about aerodynamic differences in the container with the non-spinning gyro - but it is still a guess so the original experiment has not been debunked.

The conclusion that the test has to be redone - I agree completely but even with a redo on this experiment, the differences would be so small that there will always be room for debate.

What do you mean by this: "And this is how I knew to guess that the forces were not induced by aether."

Are the gyros not sitting on the bottom of the containers? If they are, then of course there is no acceleration of the gyros relative to the box. If they're fixed at any point in the containers and can't move relative to the box, how could there be acceleration relative to the containers? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

At this point, you still have no way of knowing if the spinning gyro fell faster because of the aether or more drag on the opposite container. The test has to be redone, which I don't think would be very conclusive.

I'd like to see the spinning ball experiment done in a vacuum or something similar to the experiment I proposed.

[Ben2503]

Aaron,

Am I correct in assuming that you see energy as "work done" and not as "capability to perform work". If that is the case I can see your point, but it is not the commonly accepted definition.

If I move a mass of 1 Kg 1 m up in the gravitational field, I perform a certain amount of work.
"work done" as you say, energy used, spilt, consumed, gone.
(see here)
But by doing this I add "the capability to perform work" to that mass. Its location in the gravitational field comes with a certain potential; potential energy. For if that mass is released it will perform work. New "work done", as you say.

I can do a similar thing with water. If I heat it to 99 C, I spend energy. Work done.
But now the water is hot, it holds energy. If I put a cold piece of metal in it, that metal will get hot. New "work done"? But at the same time the water cools down a bit, it contains less energy, for part of it is transferred to that piece of metal.

This is very similar to moving objects in a field, masses in a gravitational field, charges in an electric field etc. Its location in the field comes with a potential, the capability to perform work.

you say:

That is only true if you assume that ether density is a measure of electrical tension, which is different from Tesla's view. I refer to his lecture in 1891-05-20: "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination".

and


This is the clearest description that Tesla gives us on how he sees electricity. And it is an invaluable key to understanding his work.

Ernst.

Hi Ernst.

I fully agree with you, the definition of Energy: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work.
The unit of Energy is of course Joules, the same as for Work. I would be odd if it was something else. Like the currency on a bank account is the same on both the + and the – sides.

The confusing part is the ‘work’ done in Aaron’s example. Is the distance for the calculation of the work done 3+3 = 6 meters or 3-3=0 meters or both??
Common sense (and the Energy companies) says its 6 meters, the law of conservation of energy says its 0. It seems to me that both are correct ☺ and as Tesla indicated the best way to make use of electrical energy is using alternating currents in conjunction with resonant circuits.

I agree with Tesla that we know very little about the Ether. Basically just that it has EM properties. We know that it is a medium for EM waves, but we are not sure if these are transversal or longitudinal by nature. Longitudinal seems to be most likely one, but this in contradiction with our present models.

Perhaps the states of aggregation should be:
Solid <-> fluid <-> Gas <-> Plasma <-> Ether
where <-> stands for addition / subtraction of atoms per unit of volume.

Paul Distinti is making videos on his view on the ether. I do not understand or agree with everything he presents, but some were real eye-openers for me.
please check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUe...nhhTicspymWThP

Best regards,
Ben

[Aaron]

definition of energy

the definition of Energy: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work.

The unit of Energy is of course Joules, the same as for Work. I would be odd if it was something else.

The first definition above says energy is potential work - the capacity to perform work is the potential to perform work. Potential = Capacity


----------------------------------------------------------------------

World English Dictionary potential (pəˈtɛnʃəl)
— adj 1. a. possible but not yet actual b. ( prenominal ) capable of being or becoming but not yet in existence; latent 2. grammar (of a verb or form of a verb) expressing possibility, as English may and might 3. an archaic word for potent — n 4. latent but unrealized ability or capacity: Jones has great potential as a sales manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The second definition above says energy is the same as work.

These definitions are 180 degrees opposite and both are commonly accepted. I can't be the only one that sees the blatant contradiction.

[indio007]

The only thing I have to say about the experiment is that it's not an experiment.
it is a simulation.

Off the top of my head, there is no simulation of torque, angular momentum or centrifugal force.

[Hrothgar]

out with the old

What I am mentioning is a proper test that disproves the magical idea about storing potential showing that free environmental potential can do work, which is always denied by conventional science - just like they say magnets can't do work.

It takes 88.29 joules of real dissipated energy to raise the 3kg ball to 3 meters so when the ball is lifted to 3 meters, there is nothing to store because we just used up the entire 88.29 joules.

mgh shows mass x gravity x height and that is the formula for potential energy that is supposed to be "stored" in the object but it is not. As long as someone believes that I stored 88.29 joules of potential energy into the object by lifting it, then it cuts off the ability for gravity to contribute it's potential that can do real work. Yet, they can't account for what happens next and suddenly the magical pixie dust gets sprinkled.

mgh is the accurate formula to show the right number but it has always been misinterpreted. mgh shows that when the 3kg ball is at 3 meters, there is 88.29 joules of potential energy. It isn't stored. It is 88.29 joules of potential energy that free gravitational potential energy will contribute once the ball is released to fall down. 88.29 joules of real dissipated energy will actually happen by the ball resisting the air when falling (minor dissipation) and most will happen when the ball hits the ground and impacts with a big THUD creating heat, deformation, etc...

So we already EXPENDED a real 88.29 joules to lift the ball. When the ball came back down, another 88.29 joules of real measurable dissipated energy happened. Both the lift and the fall had equal amounts of dissipated energy and both contribute to entropy. That is a total of 176.58 joules of work done and we only contributed 88.29. 176.58 / 88.29 = 2, which is a COP of 2.0 - real "overunity".

This is not a theoretical example - anyone can simply add up the real work done and the result is always the same. If the ball can bounce, then that is a regauging process where the dissipation on impact goes to compressing the ball so it can bounce back into the air (less height each time), but adding up all the work, it is way over 2.0 COP.

The phony conventional arguments against the 2.0 is that the lift is positive work and the fall is negative work so there is no net work being done. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments as BOTH are positive work that contributes to entropy. The direction the ball is moving does not make one positive work and one negative work. There is no negative work unless time is flowing backwards and the ball gets lifted into the air on its own at a negative resistance (true antigravity).

2.0 will always be the case no matter what in a full cycle where there is no regauging process.

I did it with a rubber ball that bounced about 83% of the previous height each time and adding up all the lifting work alone (not including the impact work on each cycle) it was over 8.0 COP.

The problem with free energy is not how to make it - the problem is to get people to understand how to even know what they're looking at and most people don't.

"If we are looking for over-unity we must measure total input and and total output power very precisely." - Ben

I would have to argue against this statement of yours because that doesn't show overunity. Total input compared to total output is a measurement of EFFICIENCY and normal overunity devices have a max of up to 100% efficient. You won't get it above 100% efficient even if you can produce 8 times the work compared to what you input. There are always going to be losses. TOTAL input is input we pay for + it includes free environmental input that we do not pay for. That is the total input. When we look at the total output, it will always be less than the total input because of losses.

For example total input vs total output on a simple Bedini SSG can be 90-95% efficient with a pretty good build.

To measure overunity or over 1.0 COP production just like a heat pump, we only compare input that we pay for (not including free environmental input) with the total output - we find that the Bedini SSG is easily 1.2~1.5 when running in attraction mode.

Efficiency of 90-95% but COP of 1.2-1.5, which is 120% to 150% total work done not including what nature put in for free.

That is the the accurate way to measure overunity. There is a huge misconception in the "free energy" field that there is more output than the input but that isn't true. There is more output compared to what we pay for. All we do is put in x amount and leverage nature through regauging processes to delay entropy as long as possible so that the total amount of work done is more than what we pay for. There is nothing magical or mysterious about this and no laws are violated.

COP is what we're after not over 100% efficiency claims, which are technically bogus.

I'm interested in anything that can debunk my 2.0 COP example and nobody over all these years has been able to do it with any math, experiment, or logic. Think about it - claims of negative work vs positive work showing no net work, etc... that is all rhetoric.

What I described is not theoretical and I use very accepted formulas, but they are used in the proper context, not contexts that are flawed at face value.

It is right there in front of us. We lift the object and expend work - that means there is nothing left from what we used and 3rd grade math proves it. It isn't like it took 176.58 joules to lift it but 88.29 joules magically remained when it got to the top. It took 88.29 joules to get it to 3 meters and because it only took 88.29 joules to lift it, there is nothing left at the top. We ALREADY got out of it what we put in. And we're about to get an equivelant amount of work IN ADDITION TO what we put in for free. Nature always gives a freebie.

We created a new potential difference of 3 meters for 3kg and mgh shows us that 88.29 joules of potential energy are available. EVEN IF it is stored in the object, 88.29 joules of further energy dissipation happens when the ball impacts the ground for a grand total of 176.58 joules, which is still twice as much real dissipated energy that happened compared to what we expended.

That is the point that the conventional skeptics have to dance around with their dog and pony show with all the rhetoric about no net energy gain, etc... yet there it is right there in front of us. The extra 88.29 joules of energy absolutely did not come from us - we only used 88.29 and that was it. We're not even touching the ball anymore when we let go so when the ball is dropped from that height and 88.29 joules of further energy dissipation happens, that is prima facie evidence that gravity indisputably can and does perform work because the 2nd amount of 88.29 in dissipated energy did not come from us.

The entire storing of potential idea is a logical fallacy for one and adding up all work shows 2 times what we put in meaning that Einstein's elastic aetheric model is false where the belief that an object lifted against the aether causes an elastic displacement, yet it is claimed that the energy that we get back out of the object when it falls is from what we put in - YET - we ALREADY got the work out of it that we put it - THE LIFT OF THE OBJECT!



It isn't that Einstein didn't really believe in an aether, his earliest papers were all about the aether. The issue is that his perspective doesn't allow for gravitational potential to actually enter the system and do work showing that we live in a DEAD universe where we are isolated from any interaction with it - that is a very sad and claustrophobic reality. But there you have it - 3rd grade math and junior high school equations proving Einstein, conservation of energy, closed system thermodynamics, etc... wrong.

It isn't like I'm trying to use some theoretical math model to make an argument. I've done the experiments and just visually looking at a bouncing ball, you can see the total amount of force x distance in all the lifts are WAY MORE than what we put in. Arguments that the ball didn't bounce higher, etc... are all rooted in ignorance because the lift of the ball regardless of the height on each bounce is still real dissipated energy calculated by fd and adding up all the fd shows way more dissipated energy than our initial input. A simple open dissipative system where the dissipation goes to regauging it self so new fresh gravitational potential can enter and do more work thereby delaying entropy.

Free energy has been hiding in plain site and simply by seeing things as they are instead of in a way that we're told to see it reveals that free energy literally is dripping off the walls and it not something mysterious after all.

OU is stupid. Arguing over nebulous descriptors is useless unless your a fan of ranting. Yes, unity does scream everything and to have more than everything is just infinity times infinity.

I am not looking for COP, as with your description COP suggests leaves room for deception as to harness-able energy verses unusable energy wasted yet measured.

Why not get to the nuts and bolts with a new term? Like, Recyclable Output to Input Ratio. ROIR - A setup claiming a ROIR of 12 would be able to power 12 more of the same device after transforming the output to match the form of input characteristics. Therefore if your input was 60 hertz 120 volt 24watt ac and your output was 200000 pulse per sec DC then a ROIR cannot be determined until the output has been transformed back to the original 60hertz 120 volt AC.

This makes for a very specific claim.

[I_Like_Science]

I'm not qualified to analyze that txt file with all the math. I could punch the equations into a calculator but I don't know the context of what means what.

Aaron, by admitting this, you just earned some respect outta me. What follows won't be either intended to be funny or condescending. I'm just going to try to lay out some logic.

I'd like to repeat that I think the gyroscope test is a bad experiment because the differences are too small. 4-5 inches difference in the spinning ball experiment is very bold and in our face.

As far as the gyro drop test goes compared to DePalma's 'original' experiment, well, Aaron, I think you believe the gyro test is bad because it doesn't show what you want it to show. They are theoretically (and that's the very important part) identical tests. The main differences between them, as the theory goes, actually would support the gyro drop test as falling FASTER than DePalma's ball.

And it would seem DePalma agreed with me.

In 1977 one of my former students performed a high precision verification of the dropping of a rotating object: "The Gyro Drop Experiment."3

I don't read 'high precision verification' as 'bad experiment'.

Link

I never doubted your speculation about aerodynamic differences in the container with the non-spinning gyro - but it is still a guess so the original experiment has not been debunked.

Assuming by original you mean Gyro drop test-
Saying it's a guess is understating the math behind what I showed. It's an estimate. If the estimate is close to that which has been experimentally shown, then in this case, that's a problem for the experiment.

Assuming you mean DePalma-
I'll leave it at "I don't believe DePalma's ball requires debunking".

What do you mean by this: "And this is how I knew to guess that the forces were not induced by aether."

Are the gyros not sitting on the bottom of the containers? If they are, then of course there is no acceleration of the gyros relative to the box. If they're fixed at any point in the containers and can't move relative to the box, how could there be acceleration relative to the containers? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

You get it, man. It's just that the implication follows due to lack of acceleration within the box then the sum of internal forces must equal zero. Essentially, the gyroscope (or whatever, a pair of kick boxing kangaroos) can't contribute to the downward rate of fall.

Ok, the more I think on it, the FBD I posted would be assuming that gyro's work in the ways of known physics. Assuming (and I don't) that the spinning gyroscope does 'access a latent potential energy field', the force would then be considered external rather than internal and would allow for the box to drop faster. This is why the gyro drop and depalma's ball are equivalent tests.

At this point, you still have no way of knowing if the spinning gyro fell faster because of the aether or more drag on the opposite container. The test has to be redone, which I don't think would be very conclusive.

But I DO have a way of showing (and, in fact, DID SHOW) that it is HIGHLY likely that is was drag, not aether.

If people understood my model, we could have the discussion 'Is it a good model? Does it accurately predict the motion of the falling cylinder?'. This would be a substantive discussion, but for now we are left at the question 'Do mathematical models matter?'.

I mean no offense by this (truly), but to even ask that question 'Do math models matter?' belies an ignorance of what they do. Are they perfect? Hell no. They are only as good as the assumptions they are based on and the level of detail put into them. But that's why the real question here is 'Is it a good model?'. If you don't understand the math, you can't make that determination, and taking the attitude 'I don't get it so it's wrong and unimportant' is silly at best. This I mean less toward you, Aaron, and more towards others who had said that in almost as many words.

Even Tesla, who seemed to love experiment, knew that there was a sane limit where models are superior.

If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. ... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.

I must say I'm glad you've gone on to list your falling clay ball, car/hill, loaded spring examples. They are fun food for thought.

On the matter of your car example.

You have made one main misconception. The stored potential energy is not intrinsic to the car but the cars position. In other words, the material of the car stores no potential energy, but the position of the car within a field can do work (is energy). No, the car will not gain mass. What's more important to realize is that the total energy of the car is a function both of internal energy, and it's position within a potential field.

I know it's not a great counter example, I'll try to think of a better one later, but you're thinking of this one dimensional like a car that you only ever measure speed in. Speed is a very known thing and easily subject to 3rd grade math (or less!), but it is directionless. Velocity takes into account speed and direction. Conceptually, you've said that a car going 10mph for one hour will always go 10 miles from it's starting point. Make that speed a velocity, and it is entirely possible that the car goes precisely nowhere after that hour.

So think of energy both as internal, and a function of where it is.

Now we can use this concept in the case of the falling clay ball. No energy is 'dissipated' in raising the ball to 3m, but there is the matter of ~90 J of WORK being done on the ball to raise it to that height. When you decouple potential from internal, it's obvious that the ball hasn't 'gained' 90 J, but its position in space has. Yes, the ball now has the ability to do work when it falls, but that was work that was already put into the ball when it was lifted. It's as simple as that.

On the spring example, well it's totally different. The spring DOES store the energy internally. The energy is actually stored as the electromagnetic repulsion of the atoms making up the spring. Think trying to push two negative magnetic poles together, but really tiny magnets and BILLIONS of them. When the user lets go, the stored internal energy gets released. And yes, in this case, there would be a VERY minute increase in its mass. Kinda cool, isn't it?