E=mc^2

[Aaron]

Cop

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.

Although Prigogine helped to pave the way with the distinctions of open dissipative systems, it was Bearden who really pointed out the distinctions that true "free energy" machines - more out than we put in, not more out that total in - can also be measured by a simple calculation that is analogous to COP for heat pumps.

Work done divided by just what we pay for will show whether we are getting more than we pay for or not and if so, it will be over 1.0 COP. This idea that there should be some other term to describe this has been around for a long time - I've often thought about it before, but COP does indeed cover exactly what needs to be measured to show real "free energy" production without needing a different term.

The only issue with COP I have is too many conventionally trained people are unwilling to see that the principle of COP not only applies to heatpumps because electromagnetics, mechanical devices, etc... are perfectly capable of being over 1.0 COP, which is easily measured.

Anyway, COP is in widespread use and it does describe the relationship between work done and what we had to input.

[Aaron]

energy dissipation

Aaron, I think you believe the gyro test is bad because it doesn't show what you want it to show.

As it stands, the gyro experiment actually does show what is consistent with the spinning ball experiment, the spinning one fell faster. So it does show what I believe would be the results anyway. How does it not show what I want it to show? It supports my argument for what the results would be predicted to be. I don't like the experiment because small fractions of seconds difference can be questionable - and there you are questioning if the difference is from air drag. It is only a possibility until we know by redoing the experiment.

I could argue that the drag on the container with the spinning gyroscope is so several magnitudes greater in comparison to the accelerated fall of the spinning gyroscope that most of the effect of the spinning gyroscope was negated by air drag of the container it was in. Had it not been for the container sabotaging the faster fall of the spinning gyroscope, the difference would have been bigger. It is certainly possible that this is the case but no matter what, it is just speculation.

Whether it is a bad experiment or not is a matter of opinion. To me, something that gets a COP of 1.01 would be a bad experiment to prove "overunity" but 1.20 would be a good one because it is just overwhelmingly obvious. To me, the spinning ball is overwhelmingly obvious and the gyroscope one is not.

I personally never said math models don't matter but it still just suggests a possibility that we will never know unless the experiment is repeated.

Tesla wasn't against math but this more clearly shows his attitude about people that get too caught up in it:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

"You have made one main misconception. The stored potential energy is not intrinsic to the car but the cars position."

I am definitely NOT the one that has this misconception. I am arguing against this because whether you know it or not, this is what a great percentage of conventionally minded people believe and I have countless emails over the years to prove that. Of course it isn't intrinsic to the car.

I'm obviously arguing against it, or I thought I was , and what you got out of it was that was my misconception?

"but the position of the car within a field can do work (is energy)"

Yes, the potential difference established between the car and a lower level will determine how much work it can do, which is energy dissipation. There is no such thing as work done in measurable joules of energy without energy dissipation and conventional explanations to the contrary are a complete farce. We can't just leave it at a "position of the field" it is the potential difference or dipole that is created by having the car at a level above the flat ground.

You are changing what I said and your example is not the same as what I am saying. Speed is irrelevant. If it takes x joules of energy to lift an object - it will be the same x joules whether it took a microsecond or a year to lift it to the height.

If the ball of clay has 90 joules of potential energy available to it from gravity, there will be 90 joules of energy dissipation during the fall against air resistance and impact on the ground.

Work done is work done. Time only factors in with these examples if you want to figure out the power of the lift for a unit of time for example.

I get your example that 10 miles an hour could be over gravel and a bunch of bumps and might make it 9 miles over and hour. Your example doesn't even apply and is not an analogy to anything I said.

"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."

I'd have to say you have are simply repeating the conventional gospel and it doesn't have any basis in reality. Energy is absolutely dissipated while lifting the ball. This concept of the "internal" energy is all smoke and mirrors and it cannot be quantified - it is only rhetoric. But we CAN measure joules of energy lifting it and joules of energy while it falls.

"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."

No, just the conventional gospel with no basis in reality. We did not put work into the ball when it was lifted. Work was done to lift the ball - there is a difference and that I can say is as simple as that.

You claim there is work but no energy dissipation when lifting the ball. But work will be done and there will be energy dissipation when it comes down.

In both cases, the work is measured in joules of energy and if it takes us 90 joules to lift the ball and we get 90 joules of work when the ball falls down, that is 180 joules of work accomplished by us only contributing 90 joules.

To lift the ball, potential energy is being disordered and that process is the very essence of energy dissipation and that is exactly what is happening when lifting the ball and that energy dissipation is measurable in joules of energy. That dissipation can be from the kreb cycle in my cells to lift the ball. That dissipation can be the fulcrum point of a lever to lift the ball. That dissipation can be a string on a pulley connected to the ball in addition to biochemical energy in our arms and hands, etc... There is no getting around the fact that real energy dissipation is happening during the lift.

When the ball comes down, potential energy available from natural free gravitational potential energy come into the system to push the ball down and do more work and that is also a disordering of potential energy, which is the very essence of energy dissipation and is also measurable in joules of energy.

In BOTH cases, energy dissipation is happening and summing up the joules in both cases shows 200% what we put in at a very high efficiency and definitely at a COP of 2.0.

It is not a matter of whether that much energy is actually happening in that example or whether the extra energy came from gravity, which can and does do work, it is a matter of allowing oneself to stop buying into mythical concepts that try to explain it all away with smoke and mirrors and the concept of "internal energy" is smoke and mirrors. It is just jargon and rhetoric but has no quantifiable reality - it is just talk.

Again, I can measure in joules of energy lifting work and dropping work and it is twice as much as I contributed. "Overunity" is demonstrated and gravitational potential is a source of potential energy that does work.

It requires stepping out of the box where so many of these concepts came from heat science and they do NOT apply to electromagnetics or other systems - hence, the ridiculous fallacy that closed system equilibrium thermodynamic principles apply to lifting a ball is a joke.

Conventionally, energy dissipation is heat being transferred to something colder from its "internal" energy - as one example. To me that concept is false because it isn't consistent with what we know about how we get symmetrical source potential to be polarized and come into a system to do work. There is no internal energy to hot water - there are potential differences that allows aetheric source potential to come into those points of potential differences and become disordered. The energy isn't intrinsic to the water, it is intrinsic to the disordering of polarized source potential (aether) that comes into the water molecules that are acting as potential differences that break the symmetry of the aether.

Just like a battery, there is no such thing as filling up a battery with charge. That is one of the most laughable concepts in electrical "science". There is NO difference in a charged battery or a dead battery except that the chemistry is simply polarized. A battery doesn't go dead because it ran out of something - it goes dead because the internally separated chemistry starts to get disordered so there is less of a potential difference at the terminals. The potential difference at the terminals breaks the symmetry of the aetheric source potential to polarize it and that polarized aether moves to the terminals of the battery and over the wire to the opposite terminal and that is where the "Heaviside flow" moving over the wires comes from. The battery doesn't supply the electrons that flow over the wire from neg to pos - those electrons come from the copper wire itself. Half the potential helps to power the load while the other half is destroying the source dipole in a closed loop circuit.

Just like a battery works, that is how hot water works, that is how our biochemistry works, it is how gravitational potential works, etc... there is nothing in nature that does not operate to these principles. It is consistent, but conventional explanations that try to write all of it off with jargon and rhetoric about internal energy, etc... are not consistent.

Making exceptions for some work that doesn't dissipate energy while other work does dissipate energy is in my opinion just a perpetration of nonsense at face value. The explanation is simply a convenience to cover up the fact that every natural system in the world has free exchange with free source potential and that there is no such thing as a closed system and conservation of energy is one of the greatest scientific hoaxes in the history of mankind.

The spring is the same thing - there is no energy stored because energy is the disordering of organized potential and that can't be stored in a spring. There is energy dissipation (work) when we compress the spring. No more energy is left after the compression. We have created a potential difference and the potential difference is intrinsic within the tension of the wire that we just compressed, NOT the energy because there is no energy when the spring is compressed. The atomic example is more likely electrostatic and not electromagnetic, but same idea. When the spring is able to rebound, that potential energy made possible by the potential difference in the tension of the metal can then do work or dissipate energy but not while it is compressed. The compression is not storing energy, it is potential energy.

If it takes 10 joules to compress the spring, there IS energy dissipation of 10 joules. And when the spring (assuming it pops out once and does not oscillate) pops up it will do 10 joules of measurable work for a total of 20 joules.

A definition of dissipation: "A dissipative process is a process in which energy (internal, bulk flow kinetic, or system potential) is transformed from some initial form to some final form"

Energy doesn't transform, it it just organized source potential that gets disorganized.

The point is that "A dissipative process is a process in which energy" happens by the reduction of one potential difference to create another potential difference.

What I have presented is consistent throughout without needing to give any conditions or stipulations in regards to conditional energy dissipation in some cases and not in others while both are admitted to be work, which are both measurable in joules of energy.

And based on observable facts that there is measurable joules of energy (work done) happening on the way up and on the way down, then by definition, "energy dissipation" is happening in both examples.

[I_Like_Science]

"You have made one main misconception. The stored potential energy is not intrinsic to the car but the cars position."

I am definitely NOT the one that has this misconception. I am arguing against this because whether you know it or not, this is what a great percentage of conventionally minded people believe and I have countless emails over the years to prove that. Of course it isn't intrinsic to the car.

Oops, communication malfunction, the bold is supposed to be the correction, not the problem.

*sigh* I suppose if you've been inundated with corrections, mine will sit like a piece of sand on a dune, so I'll keep it brief and to the point.

A definition of dissipation: "A dissipative process is a process in which energy (internal, bulk flow kinetic, or system potential) is transformed from some initial form to some final form"

I'm quite glad you gave me this definition, because I was going to ask. Now I can state that there is no energy dissipated within the ball when we lift it. Nothing is transformed in the energy of the ball as it is lifted, it only receives the ability to perform work acquired from the earths gravity field.

Looking at the person ball system, work is done BY the person ON the ball (against gravity), and is thus negative for the system. Work is then done BY the earth ON the ball (with gravity), making it positive. I know it's tempting to look at this and say that because work was done on the ball TWICE, it is additive. But this is not the case because the work done in the first place was against gravity so it TOOK work to get it there, the second action was with gravity, so it GAVE work back.

You see: work in + work in = 2 work in.
I see: work in - work out = 0.

Keep trying to prove me wrong by experiment. I wish you the best of luck.


On the matter of the gyro..

As it stands, the gyro experiment actually does show what is consistent with the spinning ball experiment, the spinning one fell faster.

I honestly don't know what to tell you. If the only thing that'll convince you that theoretical aether has no effect on a falling gyroscope, I wholeheartedly hope you do the test someday.

But based on my model and what I know of it, I will sit here and predict that try as you might, the experiment will not show anything that can't be explained by 'normal' physics.

I've read the rest of your post, and can only conclude that anything else I would say will fall on deaf ears. (type fall upon blind eye's maybe?)

In the face of censorship and pure belief, this has ceased to be entertaining to me.

[BroMikey]

Your Model Predictions

But based on my model and what I know of it, I will sit here and predict that try as you might, the experiment will not show anything that can't be explained by 'normal' physics.

I've read the rest of your post, and can only conclude that anything else I would say will fall on deaf ears. (type fall upon blind eye's maybe?)

In the face of censorship and pure belief, this has ceased to be entertaining to me.

It is a prediction and until people get off their lazy chair and show something other than what everyone else told them, you are not an experimenter and no very little.

Book smarts can be mostly false assumptions that people build on.

Good day.

[BroMikey]

Keeping up the charge

As it stands, the gyro experiment actually does show what is consistent with the spinning ball experiment, the spinning one fell faster. So it does show what I believe would be the results anyway. How does it not show what I want it to show? It supports my argument for what the results would be predicted to be. I don't like the experiment because small fractions of seconds difference can be questionable - and there you are questioning if the difference is from air drag. It is only a possibility until we know by redoing the experiment.

I could argue that the drag on the container with the spinning gyroscope is so several magnitudes greater in comparison to the accelerated fall of the spinning gyroscope that most of the effect of the spinning gyroscope was negated by air drag of the container it was in. Had it not been for the container sabotaging the faster fall of the spinning gyroscope, the difference would have been bigger. It is certainly possible that this is the case but no matter what, it is just speculation.

Whether it is a bad experiment or not is a matter of opinion. To me, something that gets a COP of 1.01 would be a bad experiment to prove "overunity" but 1.20 would be a good one because it is just overwhelmingly obvious. To me, the spinning ball is overwhelmingly obvious and the gyroscope one is not.

I personally never said math models don't matter but it still just suggests a possibility that we will never know unless the experiment is repeated.

Tesla wasn't against math but this more clearly shows his attitude about people that get too caught up in it:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

"You have made one main misconception. The stored potential energy is not intrinsic to the car but the cars position."


Making exceptions for some work that doesn't dissipate energy while other work does dissipate energy is in my opinion just a perpetration of nonsense at face value. The explanation is simply a convenience to cover up the fact that every natural system in the world has free exchange with free source potential and that there is no such thing as a closed system and conservation of energy is one of the greatest scientific hoaxes in the history of mankind.

The spring is the same thing - there is no energy stored because energy is the disordering of organized potential and that can't be stored in a spring. There is energy dissipation (work) when we compress the spring. No more energy is left after the compression. We have created a potential difference and the potential difference is intrinsic within the tension of the wire that we just compressed, NOT the energy because there is no energy when the spring is compressed. The atomic example is more likely electrostatic and not electromagnetic, but same idea. When the spring is able to rebound, that potential energy made possible by the potential difference in the tension of the metal can then do work or dissipate energy but not while it is compressed. The compression is not storing energy, it is potential energy.

If it takes 10 joules to compress the spring, there IS energy dissipation of 10 joules. And when the spring (assuming it pops out once and does not oscillate) pops up it will do 10 joules of measurable work for a total of 20 joules.

A definition of dissipation: "A dissipative process is a process in which energy (internal, bulk flow kinetic, or system potential) is transformed from some initial form to some final form"

Energy doesn't transform, it it just organized source potential that gets disorganized.

The point is that "A dissipative process is a process in which energy" happens by the reduction of one potential difference to create another potential difference.

What I have presented is consistent throughout without needing to give any conditions or stipulations in regards to conditional energy dissipation in some cases and not in others while both are admitted to be work, which are both measurable in joules of energy.

And based on observable facts that there is measurable joules of energy (work done) happening on the way up and on the way down, then by definition, "energy dissipation" is happening in both examples.

Hello Aaron

Great lengthy discourse and I would of thought all of your expressions would have sunk in by now as you explain observable phenomena to whats his name.

Keep up the great talks and let me say every time these college level parots get to chirping their phony bologna, your come backs are hard enough to get through to me.

These posts are very important and I should after all thank what's his name for getting you stirred up.

Mike

[Aaron]

negative work

Oops, communication malfunction, the bold is supposed to be the correction, not the problem.

*sigh* I suppose if you've been inundated with corrections, mine will sit like a piece of sand on a dune, so I'll keep it brief and to the point.



I'm quite glad you gave me this definition, because I was going to ask. Now I can state that there is no energy dissipated within the ball when we lift it. Nothing is transformed in the energy of the ball as it is lifted, it only receives the ability to perform work acquired from the earths gravity field.

Looking at the person ball system, work is done BY the person ON the ball (against gravity), and is thus negative for the system. Work is then done BY the earth ON the ball (with gravity), making it positive. I know it's tempting to look at this and say that because work was done on the ball TWICE, it is additive. But this is not the case because the work done in the first place was against gravity so it TOOK work to get it there, the second action was with gravity, so it GAVE work back.

You see: work in + work in = 2 work in.
I see: work in - work out = 0.

Keep trying to prove me wrong by experiment. I wish you the best of luck.


On the matter of the gyro..



I honestly don't know what to tell you. If the only thing that'll convince you that theoretical aether has no effect on a falling gyroscope, I wholeheartedly hope you do the test someday.

But based on my model and what I know of it, I will sit here and predict that try as you might, the experiment will not show anything that can't be explained by 'normal' physics.

I've read the rest of your post, and can only conclude that anything else I would say will fall on deaf ears. (type fall upon blind eye's maybe?)

In the face of censorship and pure belief, this has ceased to be entertaining to me.

You're not correcting me, you are just repeating the same conventional ideas that revolve around closed system concepts that prevents over 1.0 COP from anything that is not a heat system.

The common definitions of work or the measurement of it do not include distinctions between work or "reactive work" so to speak. I don't mean reactive power, but it is a similar concept.

If you have a rubber ball that is so big it takes 100 joules to lift it to a certain height and it is 90% efficient meaning it will bounce to 90% of that height when released, it will keep bouncing until the impact losses on the ground add up to 100 joules. Simultaneously, if you add up all the Force x distance in each upward lift, it will equal 1000 joules of work (that includes our 100 joules of input).

Obviously if there is 90% of each cycle, it will never get to 100 joules of impact losses since it will always be fractionated until the end of time, but the point is made and the ball really will stop because obviously it won't always be 90% exactly.

According to you, the lift(s) would all be negative meaning there is a negative 1000 joules of work and all the impacts would be 100 positive joules for a net result of negative 900 joules.

So essentially, we just reversed the entropy of the universe by -900 joules of negative energy - according to your logic.

Why does it not sum to zero?

Even if you say only our lift of 100 is negative and the impacts until the ball is still is positive 100 and that is the net 0 result - where did the other 900 joules of Fd work in each lift magically go?

Simple science claims Force x distance is work to lift an object and that applies whether we have our hand on the ball or it went up by itself from a bounce.

"Prigogine has called these systems dissipative systems, because they are formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment and because they disappear if that exchange ceases. They may be said to live in symbiosis with their environment." part of a tribute to Prigogine

These systems can include self-organization of communities (order out of chaos), applies to chemistry, plant life, etc... regauging motors, etc...

1. "capacity to do work", which is potential energy
2. joule is a measurement of actualized energy dissipation or work

1 - is the conventional definition of energy
2 - is the conventional definition of the measurement of energy

1 & 2 are 180 diametrically opposed to each other and I'm the one being corrected?

Unless the schizophrenia is overcome in the very basics of our language that makes it possible to even talk about energy, potential energy, work, etc... with any semblance of sanity, it will be a long journey.

It is no wonder there is a desire to make up definitions of what energy dissipation is or isn't depending on what kind of work is done and magically turn positive entropic dissipative energy work into negative work with a magic wand and a minus sign.

By the way, explain 4-5 inches of height difference in the spinning ball experiment with "normal physics". You already tried and aerodynamic lift by a spinning object failed to explain it. You don't need data to know the ball went higher - it did. According to normal physics, why did it? You have evaded this question from the beginning and claiming you need data is a cop out because you do not need data to know it went higher. 4-5 inches is a tremendous difference in height for two 1-1/16" pinballs being launched in the air with the same energy.

In the face of censorship? Don't tell me you're one of them.

[Ben2503]

phi= 0 or 90 degrees?

I've read the rest of your post, and can only conclude that anything else I would say will fall on deaf ears. (type fall upon blind eye's maybe?)

In the face of censorship and pure belief, this has ceased to be entertaining to me.

It is indeed becoming a semantical discusion which I normally do not engage in but in this case has 2 positive aspects:
1. You and I are now entitled to call ourselves 'Antigravity Specialists' as we both have a degree in 'Antigravity Engineering'

2. It makes me re-think this 'work done' aspect. It seems to me that the whole issue is like a R-L-C circuit. When in resonance the energy is constantly being converted from potential (in the C) to kinetic (in the L) and back. Now we can discuss if the Energy used is a function of: U*I; U*I*cos(phi); U*I*sin(phi) or I^2*R.

The problem with 'Antigravity guys' like us is that we are trained to: "check, re-check and check again" and therefore always want to see proof in the form of well documented test reports. This attitude is a pain in the *** but it made aviation the fastest, safest and cheapest way of transportation.

Best regards,
Ben

p.s. While in 'Antigravity mode' there is still gravity inside the craft.

[Beamgate]

Fun with nature

A field ( male + ) slower, more mass
Velocity: 186,000 m/sec
Mass: 1850 / cm2

B field (female -) faster, less mass
Velocity: 202,000 m/sec
Mass: 1257 / cm2

magnetism : 330,000 m/sec

What proportions do we observe here?

[Ben2503]

Butterflies, we want butterflies, let's kill the f**** caterpillars

[Ruphus]

I really haven't thought of it until now, but I suppose the problem some have with the math proof is that all the formulas do not factor out an aetheric property. An if it did we wouldn't know which ones. So the formulas work great because they acount for aether already. However if forces aether could be calculated then all the math we use now would have to be modified.

I think I finally get what you are saying Aaron.

[Hrothgar]

But

too many people measure the input of apples then show the output of oranges and expect no one to argue the result one way or the other. Also, I've noticed something about Bearden his terminology WAYYY to up there to effectively communicate with normal people. Even people communicating on the same level will use accepted but non precise terms that cause fallout in effectively passing on new concepts. In the case of the bouncing ball how many times can the act of dropping the ball again restart the original drop condition in height? It can have a COP of 800% and still not meet that condition as most of the force measured is unavoidably wasted in your example. Regauging is simply a term to try to explain away that unavoidable waste while still looking smart. Percentage of efficiency is also faulty, as to truly determine efficiency you would have to know every unknowable variable about every process in the last model ever designed to compare against he first this includes "laws" of physics yet unraveled involving the subjects. In short COP is for people who want to jack up the numbers. When I suggested ROIR it was meant to be a practical garage version of COP for Electromagnetics. IF I by some miracle get my latest brain fart working and get electricity from neos in by oscillating the stable magnetic fields between alternating paths and get usable power I'm sure as hell not going to add the bemf to the emf and claim cop 2 off the bat. I'm going to get the output transformed to match the hertz and voltage of the original input and divide the output by the input. That can leave a lot of room for improvement in the transforming process but that is a separate issue. getting a 1.05 ROIR would mean something if I'm catalyzing from a magnet with a 20% tolerance in design strength then it should last 200 years.

[cikljamas]

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.
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.

I agree:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNAQkM1FchQ

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWYNydtrC0

3. Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

[thx1138]

It seems the immutable "laws" are falling right & left

Well, maybe it's just April Fool's day but check out these articles. When does a cold body give up heat to a warmer environment? Never? Apparently not. And one of the interesting aspects of that is a bidirectional "arrow of time" or negative entropy as, I think, Tom Bearden describes it.

Nanoparticle Temporarily Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Maybe time’s arrow needs ergodicity as well as entropy

[thx1138]

A field ( male + ) slower, more mass
Velocity: 186,000 m/sec
Mass: 1850 / cm2

B field (female -) faster, less mass
Velocity: 202,000 m/sec
Mass: 1257 / cm2

magnetism : 330,000 m/sec

What proportions do we observe here?

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” - Nikola Tesla

[Aaron]

regauging and why it is important

too many people measure the input of apples then show the output of oranges and expect no one to argue the result one way or the other. Also, I've noticed something about Bearden his terminology WAYYY to up there to effectively communicate with normal people. Even people communicating on the same level will use accepted but non precise terms that cause fallout in effectively passing on new concepts. In the case of the bouncing ball how many times can the act of dropping the ball again restart the original drop condition in height? It can have a COP of 800% and still not meet that condition as most of the force measured is unavoidably wasted in your example. Regauging is simply a term to try to explain away that unavoidable waste while still looking smart. Percentage of efficiency is also faulty, as to truly determine efficiency you would have to know every unknowable variable about every process in the last model ever designed to compare against he first this includes "laws" of physics yet unraveled involving the subjects. In short COP is for people who want to jack up the numbers. When I suggested ROIR it was meant to be a practical garage version of COP for Electromagnetics. IF I by some miracle get my latest brain fart working and get electricity from neos in by oscillating the stable magnetic fields between alternating paths and get usable power I'm sure as hell not going to add the bemf to the emf and claim cop 2 off the bat. I'm going to get the output transformed to match the hertz and voltage of the original input and divide the output by the input. That can leave a lot of room for improvement in the transforming process but that is a separate issue. getting a 1.05 ROIR would mean something if I'm catalyzing from a magnet with a 20% tolerance in design strength then it should last 200 years.

In an open dissipative system, the output is not directly proportional to the input since environmental potential enters the system to do work in addition to what we had to input. In that sense, the input is apples and the output is oranges because what goes in not the same energy going out. The input is dissipated to simply create new potential difference and the new potential difference allows other disconnected source potential to come in and do work. (no transformation of energy from one form to another).

What is questionable about what Bearden says in regards to these subject? I respect his work and understand the principles that he teaches and they are really very simple in concept. He does sometimes use 20 pages to explain something can can take 1 page but if you notice, the references he cites are often longer than the actual paper! Eric Dollard disagrees with Bearden and thinks he is a misinformation agent - I don't agree with all the conspiracy stuff Bearden talks about because there is no way for me to verify it either way, but when it comes down to very basic fundamentals of how this all works, they are both saying the same thing and all evidence shows they are right and the conventional models are absolutely wrong because they can't account for what is actually happening.

Bearden says the dipole breaks the symmetry of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum. Eric says the aether is polarized. Bearden says this virtual photon flow from the positive terminal of a dipole that moves over the wire is the Heaviside flow. Eric says the flow is moving over the wire with the wire acting as a waveguide for that aetheric flow. Both state that the electron current is not leaving the dipole (like a capacitor or battery), the list goes on. They both deserve Nobel Prizes in my opinion for their own contributions - for Bearden, it is solving the "source charge" mystery, which conventional science is completely clueless as to what it really is to begin with. Potential differences cause the aether to polarize, come into the points of potential differences and then do work by encountering resistances that dissipates it back to a symmetrical state or state of equilibrium in the active vacuum. 100% of every instance where there is potential energy > work done > disordering of that potential energy killing the dipole = there are no exceptions to this universal principle that has ever been observed - mechanical, chemical, magnetic, etc...

You're argument about the ball example is actually not arguing anything I said. What you are describing is that you do not see how entropy is prevented with comments about the ball going back to the original height - that would indicate there are no losses and all real free energy systems have losses. That is not what legitimate overunity process are about, it is about delaying entropy through regauging processes. Regauging is a word to sound smart? lol

That means the system resets itself with a new potential difference where if the losses are not made up, the potential difference will be less than the cycle before but allows more free environmental source potential to come in and do work so the total amount of work done is beyond what we had to contribute. That is evidence of an open dissipative system or non-equilibrium thermodynamic system. As long as it is open to the environment, environmental input will come into the system keeping it from coming into equilibrium so soon meaning entropy is delayed, not prevented so total work done is in excess compared to what we put in.

COP is an accurate representation of this and all heat pumps have a COP rating showing that the work done in heat movement is x times more than then energy we used to turn the compressor in heat equivelant. COP accurately shows overunity and if it is inflating what is happening, it would be inflating what heat pumps are doing and that is not the case. Since it is not the case with heat pumps, it is not the case with non-heat pump non-equilibrium systems since they are analogous to each other.

A flashlight circuit is a closed equilibrium system. Although it is really an open system to gravity, light, heat, etc..., it has no mechanism built in to turn any of that environmental input into usable work so it is a closed system because of that reason. It starts with a certain potential difference at the terminals of the battery and as long as the switch stays on constantly until there is no potential difference at the battery terminals, the energy dissipation is happening at a rate that regardless of how linear or non linear the discharge graph is constantly in the downward direction. The movement is in one constant direction towards equilibrium. There is no regauging because the dissipation is simply powering a resistive load steadily in a downhill fashion - there is no method to create a new potential difference in any cyclic manner, which means that new environmental potential cannot contribute to doing more work thereby delaying entropy. Knowing what regauging is not, is as important as knowing what it is. It isn't to sound smart, it is an understanding of what needs to be done in order for a system to do work over a longer period of time than our own personal input would allow.

With the Veljko oscillator, we give small input on the pendulum while the hammer does 3-5 times more work than our input. Each cycle, the whole lever rocks and each time it is lifted up on one end, a new potential difference is established. What makes a new dipole within the system in a cyclic manner??? The very mechanism of how energy is dissipated in the system. In a flashlight, the dissipation does not cause a cyclic regauging process in Veljko's oscillator it does.

Real free energy systems use their own dissipative processes to create new potential differences within themselves so that new environmental potential, gravity - heat - light - wind - etc... can enter and do more work since there is a new potential difference. That is what regauging is with these systems - that isn't to try to "sound smart" as you claim - the proper use of the term by someone demonstrates an understanding of how "free energy" systems actually work - regauging is one of the primary requirements that need to be met for overunity results. If there is no regauging process to create a new potential difference within the system's dissipative processes, you are stuck with your original input and COP will always be 1.0 or less, period.

Thermodynamics has been extended since 1977 to include open dissipative systems and it is a shame hardly anyone understands what it even means or what its implications are. Understanding these principles IS Free Energy 101 and without understanding this, people might as well throw spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks. When we do understand these principles, we can intentionally engineer a system that gives overunity results without having to rely on anyone's specific build, schematic, etc... understanding the principles of open dissipative systems and regauging processes within those dissipative events is EMPOWERMENT.

Armed with this knowledge, anyone can walk into any shop and build a simple mechanical amplifier, electromagnetic circuit, etc... out of their head that gives 2-3 times more work than we have to input. How can we create a mechanism where the actual dissipation of energy in the system is used to regauge itself / create a new potential difference? Anyone that can answer that question has just created a mechanism for a non-heat pump over 1.0 COP system. This isn't some mindless word game - this is teaching someone how to fish and it isn't something that needs to stay mysterious or have a bunch of new terminology or principles developed in order to describe it. And it has worked just fine for everyone I know that has results including myself.

That question above is probably one of the most important questions anyone can ask themselves that wants to build a "free energy" machine.

Efficiency doesn't require knowledge of every unknowable process. The main issue I have with efficiency is that most people don't realize what it shows. If we put x input into an electric motor and it is 95% efficient, 95% only describes our DESIRED work, which is turning of the shaft. 5% is losses in heat, etc... but what isn't said is that 100% of the input has converted to work. 95% is mechanical work we want and 5% is heat work, which we didn't want, but nevertheless, the motor was 100% efficient in turning 100% of our input into work. 100% of our input was dissipated as real measurable energy.

"I'm sure as hell not going to add the bemf to the emf and claim cop 2 off the bat."

That isn't an analogy to the 2.0 cop example I gave. The bemf is SIMULTANEOUS to the forward or applied emf. If you have 10 volt in and 9 volts in bemf, the motor is running on 1 volt.

With a SEQUENTIAL process, the up and down are not cancelling each other out or the ball would never move or it would take 100 joules to lift it to a height that should only take 90 for example and that isn't what is happening.

When lifting the object, the real analogy to the bemf is that you lift it up against gravitational opposition - not the up then down. Your analogy is actually not representative of what I said.