1 Joule of Energy

[Aaron]

I'm not a fan of Wikipedia but will post this reference because it is a widely accepted resource.

Here is something it says about 1 joule of energy.

Joule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Practical examples

One joule in everyday life is approximately:

• the energy required to lift a small apple 20 cm straight up.
• the energy released when that same apple falls 20cm to the ground.

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

Does this appear to say that you put in 1 joule of energy and get 2 joules of work back out of it?

If 1 joule is required to lift the apple, that is 1 joule of work and lifting that apple is work.

It says the apple releases 1 joule when the same apple falls back to the ground. Releases it in the form of what? If there is a bucket of water underneath, the water will absorb some, losses, etc... and some water will splash out. Any movement of the water requires work.

Therefore, if we put in 1 joule of work to lift the apple, we are getting back quite a bit of work. We lift the apple, which requires the entire 1 joule of work. Then more work is done after the apple descends.

So the question is - for that example of an apple rising and falling...

How many joules of work was eventually done AFTER the apple falls and is sitting still and there are no more events happening from that apple....quantum ripples throughout the universe don't count. lol

You input 1 joule to lift it.... was work done in measurable joules of energy from the point the apple stops rising, falls and comes back down to the ground?

[phi1.62]

While the apple generated one joule of energy by falling to the earth the apple required one joule of energy to lift it to the position from which it fell. Therefore, the net energy generated by the system is zero.

[Aaron]

not captured energy but totally expended

Yes, that is my point.

I'm not saying that there is a net gain in joules of energy captured in the end.

1. "the apple required one joule of energy to lift it to the position from which it fell"

2. "the apple generated one joule of energy by falling to the earth"

1 + 1 = 2 joules of energy in work were expended.
But only 1 joule of energy was required to get 2 joules of work done.

We input 1 joule of energy to lift the apple. Then 1 joule was generated in work that it took for the apple to fall to the ground. That is 1 + 1 = 2.

2 joules of work was done from 1 joule of work input.

[ren]

Yes Aaron, there it is in a nutshell

Gravity "inputs" for you, and when you take it into account, your net gain is visible.

Funny, I was just thinking of these today in a similar manner.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...n_s_cradle.jpg

Regards

[lamare]

2 joules of work was done from 1 joule of work input.

This is the exact same principle that has been used to explain the Tesla switch a few years ago on the Keelynet BBS, as I posted here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post59860

[Aaron]

open systems

Right, it is an open system where gravity is the environmental input adding to our own so it violates simple thermodynamics.

Happy to see Wikipedia promoting free energy concepts

[patmac]

Aaron

Really seems intersting, can explains the reason which Bedini Pendulum seems OU in his DVD EFTV #2, but if I invest 1 joule of energy to lift the apple 20 cm is not possible get the same energy, because if I produce 1 joule when the apple falls 20 cm to the ground, then to lift the same apple is necessary > 1 joule because gravity is pulling it to the ground then I need:

1 Joule to lift the apple - gravity pulling down the apple.

You affirmation is well but works inveting it:

If I push the apple to the ground from 20cm then I get:

1 joule of energy invested because the apple goes very fast to the ground + 1 joule of energy for free when apple normally falls to the ground from 20cm.

2 joules wasting 1 joule. the looses ocurrs to make the regauging to lift the apple to 20cm again. But is possible make a OU system in this way because we have to remembre that gravity is acceleration is not lineal 9.4 m / (sec X sec), so if we would getting higher the apple each time when pushing to the ground the apple using 1 joule and getting for free another joule from the gravity, is possible the next time getting higher the apple and recover more energy

[ABCStore]

Does this appear to say that you put in 1 joule of energy and get 2 joules of work back out of it?

No, it does not.

It says the apple releases 1 joule when the same apple falls back to the ground. Releases it in the form of what?

Deformation of the apple and the ground, friction losses, sound wave created etc etc

ABC

[Peter Lindemann]

Another Example

Hi guys,

I just got this new video clip from Veljko showing the difference between letting gravity roll a weight down an incline plane and imparting its momentum as an impact, and then using the exact same weight to let gravity swing the weight as a pendulum and impart its momentum as centrifugal force. The same weight, falling the same distance, produces 3 times more work in the second case.

Watch the film.

YouTube - Superiority of Pendulum Drive - Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy

Enjoy,

Peter

[Jacob S]

How much energy does it take to actually drop the apple? The process of dropping it clearly expends some energy, but I'm not sure how much.

[Pierre Monteux]

Hi guys,

I just got this new video clip from Veljko showing the difference between letting gravity roll a weight down an incline plane and imparting its momentum as an impact, and then using the exact same weight to let gravity swing the weight as a pendulum and impart its momentum as centrifugal force. The same weight, falling the same distance, produces 3 times more work in the second case.

Watch the film.

YouTube - Superiority of Pendulum Drive - Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy

Enjoy,

Peter

That's an interesting video. It definitely shows how inefficient the first method is. The second method comes close to using all the energy of the ball falling. If the force of the ball is broken into two paths, the horizontal force and the vertical force, the vertical force is entirely lost when the ball hits. The horizontal force is enough to overcome friction and move it 10cm, but that is all.

In the second method the addition of a third dimension allows far more energy to be conserved for further work to be done. You can't really see it, but on the first downswing it moves almost as far as it did in the first method. However as it fell, almost all of the energy was turned into rotational energy. The fact that the ball could swing back up on a near frictionless pivot (at least compared to the wheels) allow far more energy to be conserved. Each swing allowed more energy to be translated into forward motion.

Anyhow, on the original topic, the net energy of the apple is 0. The exact joule imparted to the apple by raising it is released again when it falls. The work done in the fall includes briusing the apple, making a noise, possible indenting the earth, or make ripples in a pond. If air resistance is counted, some of that energy would be lost to moving air, and it would take more than a joule of energy to impart a joule of energy to the apple, as some would be lost again in air resistance, although a negligible amount both times.

The total amount of energy released as work from the point the apple starts falling really depends one what the system is. If the apple stops at its starting point exactly, 1 joule of work is done only if something else doesn't start falling because of the apple. An indentation in the ground and bruising the apple would be one joule of work. However the apple splashing water out of a bucket would cause more work to be done, because the water would then fall the height of the bucket to the surface beneath it. Of course this is using the potential energy of the water in the bucket, not that of the apple. The apple itself should have a net of 0 energy.

[Aaron]

efficiency versus cop

No, it does not.



Deformation of the apple and the ground, friction losses, sound wave created etc etc

ABC

According to the wikipedia source, it says without argument:

Practical examples

One joule in everyday life is approximately:

• the energy required to lift a small apple 20 cm straight up.
• the energy released when that same apple falls 20cm to the ground.

It says:

energy required to lift a small apple 20 cm straight up
+ energy released when that same apple falls 20cm to the ground
---------------------------------------------------------------
2 joules of energy from the time the apple is lifted until it falls.


All of these things:
"Deformation of the apple and the ground, friction losses, sound wave created etc etc"

Deformation of apple - basically impact to the apple, sound, etc... those are all WORK in joules of energy or fractional joules of energy. 100% of all of this WORK in MEASURABLE joules of energy occurred AFTER the apple reached its peak, which by the time it reached its peak, it had ALREADY used up 1 joule that we had to input to raise it to begin with.

So, if we put in 1 joule to lift it and that much work is complete from the time we started to lift it until it reached its peak, ANY work that comes AFTER that is work in MEASURABLE joules of energy that we did not have to contribute and comes AFTER we already input 1 joule of energy.

And regardless of friction and other losses, if we put in 1 joule of energy and there is 10% loss against gravity, wind, etc..., then 0.9 joules of work was done in the apple lifting.

If 1 joule was generated by the apple falling, work being performed in the form of damage to the apple, sound, etc... and if losses on the way to the ground is 10%, then 0.9 joules of work was accomplished on the downfall.

That is a total of 0.2 joules dissipated back into the environment.

0.9 + 0.9 = 1.8 joules of energy in measurable work was accomplished and all we had to pay for was 1.0 joules of energy on the input.

That demonstrates 90% efficiency.
AND
That demonstrates 1.8 COP

1.8 times MORE work was accomplished than we had to provide, while gravity provided other input into the system.

There are NO laws of physics violated and this demonstration perfectly conforms to non-equilibrium thermodynamics as this is a very open system.

The system provided 1.8 times the amount of work compared to what was input yet it is still UNDER 100% efficient.

This is the distinction that needs to be widely promoted.

[Aaron]

what work was done

Yes, in the end AFTER the apple stops, there is a net energy gain of zero.

But, that is not the question.

The question, is how much work is performed on the whole trip.

1 joule of work was done on the way up to 20cm (with losses).

AFTER the apple is at the top, it then as 1 joule of potential energy stored, meaning is has the ability to perform 1 joule in work (minus losses).

Work was done on the way up.

Then after the apple has 1 joule of energy stored resting at the peak of 20cm, it performs more work until it comes to a dead stop.

Work on the way up and work on the way down.

MORE than the 1 joule of work input to begin with, yet is still under 100% efficient but OVER 1.0 COP.

[Pierre Monteux]

I see what you are getting at. However I think it is the same joule of energy being used.

Ignoring everything else, except for the apple and the ground. It takes one joule of energy to lift the apple. This does work on the apple, and the energy is changed from one joule of mechanical to one joule of potential energy.

The apple now falls, changing one joule of potential energy into all sorts of energy: sound, deformation, crater, ect.

The reason I say it is the same joule of energy, not two is there is no net work done on the apple. It is now back in its starting position. Energy was applied to lift the apple, which was indirectly transferred into sound, deformation, crater ect. The change is how the energy is stored, mechanical to potential to the rest.

The fall undoes the work of the lift. Energy went into the system during the lift, and left the system during the fall. That one joule of energy is used, or rather exchanged into other forms, but it is still one joule.

[morpher44]

relativity

Using relativity. From the apple's point of view it has done 0 joules of work since it didn't lift itself. It did zero joules of work falling. Hence the apple thinks it input 0 and got back 0. The apple notices nothing happening. :-)