The bistander thread

[bistander]

Never said that

Obviously, otherwise it would have been demonstrated.



The point is that it is an indiputable demonstration of more work output than electrical input, which according to nuts and bistander is impossible.

Aaron,

I never said that. From my first read of the MIT article my opinion was similar to that expressed by padova and restated in my post up a few on this page. Turion often misquoted me and others like Matt accused me of statements I never made. Fortunately we have a record of what I posted.

Regards,

bi

[Aaron]

open system thermodynamics

Thank you Padova,

I was going to mention or point out the same when it was my turn. Effects are a billion times smaller than Aaron claims (pW, picowatts, not mW, milliwatts). Also, it needed elevated temperature, 135°C. There is also this, quote from paper.

see paper for equation


This is a complex, and well done, paper. The part which I quoted above leads me to believe that this phenomena is similar in nature to a heat pump where one deals with COP for the system rather than device (converter) efficiency. In support of my observation, note the author's definition in paragraph one.
Throughout the paper the authors use wall-plug efficiency.

This research is from 2012. If it had indeed proven a break in conventional foundations of physics, I would have though there would be quite more activity surrounding it. I try to keep abreast of developments in the field and this was the first time I have heard about it. Although interesting, I've spent way more time on it than I would have liked.

Aaron,
You have your own definitions of words and terms which I tend to use in the old fashioned conventional manner. Often it seems like we speak different language. So, to be clear, talking about COP, I use this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coef...of_performance

Regards and I hope this addresses your concerns,

bi

My mistake picowatts - true laws of physics don't discriminate. pw, mw, or megawatts - a true law will apply equally to all scales and a led powered by picowatts is far from a "quantum" scale where things get weird but only for conventional physics. With aetheric unified models, there is a seamless transition between the subatomic world and large masses - no contradictions and it accounts for everything that erroneous, conventional physics cannot.



Elevated temperatures - by bringing that up, you only support what I've already said that overunity systems do not produce more than what goes into them, the produce more than we have to input meaning there is extra input from somewhere else.

For heat pumps, obviously the overunity comes from free environmental heat, which moves all by itself toward the cold. My use of COP is 100% identical to what you posted at wikipedia, one of the greatest misinformation tools in the history of information but for benign topics, its acceptable.

I am not using my own definition of COP. COP is conventionally applied to heat pumps. It is extremely short-sighted to believe COP does not apply to non-heat pump systems because all other open systems still have a ratio between work done compared to what is required to run the system. Does anyone believe there has to be a new term used for each and every system to describe the output work to OUR input work ratio? It would obviously be ridiculous to suggest such a thing.

From your good old wiki site:


The equation is:
where

• is the useful heat supplied or removed by the considered system.
• is the work required by the considered system.

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


Simply, COP again, is the useful or desired work output by the system divided by the work WE have to input. It does not include the free input from environmental systems. COP = Q/W is the proper formula to show the output work done compared to what we have to pay for on the input for EVERY open, non-equilibrium thermodynamic system such as the MIT LED. The COP, which is 2.30.

So where do you get the idea that I'm using my own definition? I'm using it 100% in alignment with what the ratio demonstrates.



A child puts in 1 part work to get a kite airborn and 9 parts of wind input comes in over a period of time for 10 parts total input. If 1/2 of all that is lost in bad kite design, friction losses, etc... that means only 5 units of useful, desired flying work was done. 10 TOTAL input with 5 total output = 50% EFFICIENT.

5 units of useful, desired kite-flying work were done for an input of only 1 from the operator of the system, which is a 500% NET GAIN in work compared to what the kid put into it. 5 units of work (Q) divided by 1 unit of work required to operate the system (W) = a cop of 5.0. Is anyone blind enough to believe that we have to create an entire new term to describe the exact same ratio relationships between intended work done and required work on the input that we have to provide?

Don't pretend something is lost in translation, I have given very clear explanations of my use of COP vs Efficiency and if you have been confused by such simple concepts, then it is your comprehensions that is troublesome - not the words that I am using.

The MIT LED test has both an efficiency and COP - efficiency is difficult to calculate because it is difficult to measure how much free environmental heat is being input to the LED. The COP is easy to calculate because the input is known and so is the useful work done.

Classical thermodynamics doesn't even apply to this system because it is an open, non-equilibrium thermodynamic system. Classical thermodynamics actually doesn't apply to closed systems either because there is no such thing as a closed system.

COP is properly defined in this video excerpt:

https://emediapress.com/2017/02/27/o...ter-lindemann/

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3N9oHNrZiA[/VIDEO]

You're idea of helping others "find the truth" is actually an attempt to dissuade people from believing anything different from what you believe. It is evidenced by the entirety of your posts in this forum. That mentality is a dime-a-dozen and many like you have come and gone over the years and here we are still making progress.


The MIT LED DOES violate conventional physics because it is only admitted that over 1.0 COP applies to heat pumps and the MIT is not a heat pump - it is an electrical circuit and electrical circuits are "banned" from having free environmental input. The heat pump analogy I have already given you and nut job plenty of times and now you are suddenly stating the same analogy as if it is some revelation that you had. You are a clown.

The MIT LED is an ELECTRICAL circuit with a COP of 2.30, which is a direct violation of your conventional beliefs. More work done than the required electrical input. You can wiggle all you want - bottom line is the MIT LED experiment itself flushes you nonsense down the drain and you're such a snake, you're trying to make it look like its all a normal operation.

[Aaron]

classical nitwit science

If you look at the conservation laws in my link, you'll see they do not conflict with your dissipative structures. But I'm sure the generator will abide by those conservation laws. Other systems; I recognize may fall outside the conditions stated in the conservation laws.

And the study and expansion of fundamentals in physics does not invalidate all preceding work. Newton's laws still work well enough to get a craft to rendezvous with furthest objects in the solar system or calculate the trajectory of projectiles.

Regards,

bi

Conservation is a mythical concept that doesn't apply to any energy system in the world. It is ignorance to the supreme degree. Work done is always dissipated to the environment and if the system is open and cyclic, the work done goes to creating a new potential difference that allows new source potential to energy to do more work. There is no such thing as transforming energy from one form to another.

There is no conservation in conventional or low to no drag generators. What you're sure of is a religious belief, not science.

A flashlight is the quintessential "closed" electric circuit. You turn it on and the dipole moves towards equilibrium until the light goes off. It is ONLY a closed system for one purpose and one purpose only - it is considered closed because the flashlight is not designed to make use of any environmental input and that is it. However, that flashlight circuit is open to heat, gravity, light, sound, space/aether, etc. but it has no mechanism to turn any of that into free environmental input - that is the only reason it is to be considered a closed system. The practical/casual use of "closed" does not mean it is a truly closed system.

What thermodynamics apply to the flashlight? Non-equilibrium thermodynamics because regardless of the practical use of open or closed to describe it - the true energetic reality is that of an open system. Throw that flashlight into 1 foot of fresh fallen snow and see how fast that light goes out. If it was a closed system as far as the physics is concerned, the light would stay on as long as it would at room temperature or at above the boiling point of water. This is an indisputable example that the "closed" electrical circuit has free interchange with its environment. EVERY "closed" system has free interchange with its environment as well - not just this one example.

Open system non-equilibrium thermodynamics DOES invalidate classical thermodynamics because it invalidates its entire use as being the end-all, be-all explanation of how a system cannot have move output than input. And, that is the nonsense that cynical nitwits keep spewing about the entire world of free energy not even knowing that the thermodynamics they keep pointing to have no application to non-equilibrium free energy machines!

[Aaron]

nonsense

Aaron,

I never said that. From my first read of the MIT article my opinion was similar to that expressed by padova and restated in my post up a few on this page. Turion often misquoted me and others like Matt accused me of statements I never made. Fortunately we have a record of what I posted.

Regards,

bi

Nonsense - it is implied by the underlying premise of your counterclaims.

[bistander]

What?

Nonsense - it is implied by the underlying premise of your counterclaims.

I do not understand. I state my position and claims clearly. I imply what I write, only, nothing more.

bi

[bistander]

Agree

Aaron,

On MIT experiment, I agree with you. I believe the authors.

Although the Peltier heat exchange of the injection process is highly nonuniform, on average the device remains very slightly cooled so that in steady state the thermal energy required to pump the emitter flows in from the ambient environment. The net cooling power Pcool is given by the difference between the emitted optical power and the input electrical power and is shown in Fig. 4(a).

Ambient energy enters the device and contributes to the output or useful work done, making the COP 2.33. I say this clearly before, and now. I am sincere.

bi

[Aaron]

i acknowledge your acknowledgement

O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

As far as an electric generator, I do not believe anyone had devised, as of yet, a method to tap that environment to gain energy to produce higher electric power than the mechanical power delivered on the shaft by the prime mover, aside from transients. It was such claims made by UfoPolitics showing up on search engine results which brought me to this forum in the first place. He was much talk and no proof, although he tried. With electric machinery, I know what I'm looking at. But you know what? That's why I'm here. I long to be proven wrong. That's how I learn. That's why I bug Turion. I don't want to belittle him or hurt him in any way. I want to help him. I'll gladly help him prove me wrong. I'd love to. But I can't if he doesn't show me the end results he claims.

So LEDs and semiconductor devices in conditions like the MIT experiment are outside my expertise. So are heat pumps although our home uses geothermal. I don't know much about those dissipative systems of money, or people, or biology that you mentioned. But I do know how electric motors and generators work. I thought I might be able to help in that regard.

Take it or leave it.

bi

Thanks, I appreciate that you are able to admit the obvious.



Of course it came from the environment (artificial or not - still externally sourced).



But environmental input isn't always the only extra input in an overunity device or maybe it is. Some of this input may come from reactive elements within a system that do not appear to be externally sourced, but we're easily fooled.



There are many things in nature or in the man-made world where work is being performed, but there is a dominating fictitious belief that work is not being done according to conventional physics and mathematics when work clearly is being done.


It is claimed that gravity can do no work or that magnets can do no work, but elementary school math can show that they do.


In a few months, the ability to realize what this "hidden" work is will be more attainable by more people.



If you have an inductor with a permanent magnet at the core and that inductor was charged but is not switched off, as the magnetic field collapses, the magnetic field of the permanent magnet is partially pulled off of the magnet and that adds to the emf that causes a voltage spike. The active vacuum or aether instantly replenishes what the permanent magnet contributed so that is an example of how a magnet can contribute potential to do work. There are many other examples - this is just one.



I believe you believe mechanical work hasn't produced more electricity in a generator than it takes to move a prime mover and I'll leave it there for now. I have no argument about what you do not believe.




This is a simple analogy most people can relate to and understand. The foam is not necessarily wasted even though you pay the power company for reactive power - you don't get to use it.

But it is a great example - the foam is "phantom power" or "reactive power" and to convert it to real power that can do work, just wait a few minutes and let the element of TIME turn it into real power that you can actually drink.



You can pour that beer at a very low power factor by pouring it in to a very large mug to compensate for the volume of foam from 2 feet above the mug thereby creating maybe 95% foam or reactive power and 5% real power, but if you wait long enough, you will have 100% real power that will fill your stomach with not air, but real beer. What changed to make that possible?



Something to think about anyway.

[Aaron]

nuts

O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

If nutcase wants to retract his condescending insults and admit what you have in a succinct way, without wiggling all over the place, I'll let him back in. He probably doesn't want back in anyway since there this forum has nothing to offer him since he already has it all figured out. He's banned so how can he respond? Not my problem but the offer is there. Maybe he can be unbanned for 1 day to give him the opportunity to do this. But his admission of the simple MIT study has to go further than yours since the intrinsic implications of the results are equal to his claims that physics would be in turmoil if such a thing could exist, which of course is pure nonsense. In any case, I'm open.

[bistander]

@Turion

Turion,

I'll get back to you in a couple days. Spent more time than I should here lately.

bi

[Aaron]

Dynaflux Alternator

Another generator, one of the rare patents given for a low drag generator that generates over 200% in electricity compared to what the prime mover requires. The Dynaflux Alternator invented by Jim Murray, one of the most important engineers ever.



Dynaflux Alternator by Jim Murray


[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp2gOqe2-DU[/VIDEO]


In the video, you can see when the lights are switched on, the draw hardly goes up - maybe a few percent showing a massive cancellation of Lenz's Law.



Patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US4780632A/


Later application with different language about reduced Back EMF https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130187580A1

[Aaron]

Dynaflux Alternator

Keep in mind some elements are not disclosed in the patent as a matter of normal business. He does disclose those missing pieces in the presentation he gave at our conference several years back on the subject.



Jim Murray's Transforming Generator is another overunity technology he patented years ago.

[Cloxxki]

Deeply disappointed

If nutcase wants to retract his condescending insults and admit what you have in a succinct way, without wiggling all over the place, I'll let him back in. He probably doesn't want back in anyway since there this forum has nothing to offer him since he already has it all figured out. He's banned so how can he respond? Not my problem but the offer is there. Maybe he can be unbanned for 1 day to give him the opportunity to do this. But his admission of the simple MIT study has to go further than yours since the intrinsic implications of the results are equal to his claims that physics would be in turmoil if such a thing could exist, which of course is pure nonsense. In any case, I'm open.

Aaron,
Please feel free to ridicule and ultimately ban me as well if that's the way you intend to rule your forum. Take my other cheek now that you've taken the opportunity away from IamNuts.

You've been schooled on very primal misconceptions and outright errors. You even got your units wrong. Seems you never even considered to be in the wrong, which is perhaps the more elemental error in science.

You go out of your way to insult a contributing clear-headed member and accuse them of all the things you are doing to a much greater degree, over honest or dishonest lapses of knowledge or reason. It's fair game for you to insult but when your waffling is addressed, that's a ban? The psychology faculty library in my town has an aisle devoted to that.

I've seen some mess online before, things can get heated, I know. I've seen inflated egos, people with authority issues and power abuse on any scale. Your conduct rarely impressed me when I was here more frequently, being one of the reasons I've stayed away. This time you surprise me. I sincerely hope there are no tragic personal developments at the foundation of your conduct.

This is no way to treat any person, not even if they are wrong and misbehaving. Insult have not place, period.
Let alone in this case where you seem to have it terribly wrong. Scientifically and especially ethically.

I'd like to make my stance and encourage you to apologize for all your misconduct above. Don't make me spell it all out for you, I bet you know what you did unless you have a legitimate personality disorder to excuse yourself for.
If you don't want to look into the mirror, by all means focus your wrath on my persona in stead and spare those who are able to contribute scientifically. I'll be your martyr, please don't let your personality and insecurities prevent your forum to contribute to the betterment of humanity.

All the best to you and your readership, should they decide to stay.

If you elect to ban me for daring to speak out to the supreme leader, these will be my famous last words.

[BroMikey]

Aaron,
Please feel free to ridicule and ultimately ban me .....

If you elect to ban me for daring to speak out to the supreme leader, these will be my famous last words.

Aaron has the duty to enforce the fairness rules of decent communication
between members. Where is your project? Why are you here? In other-
words if all you want to do is argue? That is not fair for those who are
offering hard data thru experimentation that costs thousands of
dollars to obtain.

The purpose of research. Calling out to one another like a howling
animal trapped in the woods is not. Disagree if you must and by all
mean back it up with something other than an opinion?

Now Bi and others, including myself have been upset with hot shot
Turion for not giving us all of us secrets on a silver platter. In the
beginning when NUTJOB starting insisting Turion cough up all his
proof I admit I kind of liked that, however calling out Liar, Liar
made me repent til I was nearly ashamed for entertaining such an
idea.

People have a right to selectively release their personal data without
the fear of repercussion. Aaron is highly respected at this forum for
doing his job keeping order.

NUTJOB (HEISNUTS) uses this handle that shows intent anyway. he
had an agenda. Nobody is banned for disagreeing so get off that
hobby horse. Feeling sorry for NUTJOB? Not me.

The other gentlemen (BI) did the right thing and I say hats off to any
man who humbles himself. NutJOB would not.

[Aaron]

@cloxxi

Cloxxi,


If you want to leave, feel free to leave.



I gave nuts and bistander countless opportunities in the 3 battery thread to stop the disruption, off topic posts, insults, etc. and they both refused.



They want to make demands of other members, then it can be a two way street - they can see what it is like to have demands made of them, that's very fair and balanced.



As evidenced by nuts' refusal to address anything that was posted for the specific purpose of debunking all his claims that physics would be in "termoil" because of x, y and z - yet he was incapable of acknowledging how x, y and z existed and these are references even acknowledged by mainstream science. What little he even posted in response to the references was constantly condescending - and constantly ignoring me and posting to others while referring to me as if I'm not here. I don't have to put up with that.

Giving someone a chance to prove they're not a troll is not waffling. Nevertheless, you helped me make up my mind. iamnuts will not have any opportunity to come back in. Thanks.

He was very disrespectful many times to myself and others in the 3 battery thread, he kept posting things that were off topic about the large switches for massive DC power, etc. and when I asked how they're relevant, he becomes disrespectful and tells me in an extremely demeaning and condescending way that I have something to learn? That is not a "contributing clear headed" person at all and if you think that is clear-headed, maybe you need to look in the mirror because you have your glasses on backwards. Without you acknowledging any of those disrespectful posts by him to me and others, it seems you just stepped in here in the middle of a conversation and actually do not know the entire context. No - the amount of times he insulted me and others has been too numerous - he should have been banned a long time ago. Plus he kept posting irrelevant nonsense when I asked him to stop posting off topic posts - that is a slap in the face to ask him that and then have him give me the finger because he wants to do things his way??? I'm way too lenient and have received complaints about him wondering why he is still in the forum - same for bistander. The only thing I did wrong was not ban him sooner.

He owes me and other members an apology, not the other way around. Since when it is ok for the provocateur to victimize someone and suddenly, they are the victim? That is not ok cloxxki and I don't appreciate that you believe it is.

With the way he has conducted himself all those times and you have a problem with me even entertaining the possibility of letting him back in? There is something a bit off with that perspective.

[bistander]

Frequency

... What determines the frequency? Size of the rotor. Number of magnets on the rotor, and speed of the rotor. ...

You have a synchronous generator. The frequency is equal to the RPM divided by the number of pole pairs. That yields cycles per minute. Use a factor of 60 seconds/minute to get frequency in units of cycles per second, or Hz. Size of rotor does not appear in the equations. When you use RPM for the "speed of the rotor", size drops out.

Aaron says disagreement is acceptable but he objected to my persistence about proof of claim. So I'm not about to go there. But I remind you that all this mag neutralization, speed-up, cogging, etc is misdirection because it is unrelated to the issue.

bi