1 Joule of Energy

[Tecstatic]

Industry won't let that kind of destabalizing technology compete. Electric hybrids incorporate a bit of the concept but outright high COP car will take time.

But, the point is that for practical application, the open system simply allows energy to be dissipated over a longer period of time until it diminishes.

It isn't perpetual motion. It is simply able to recycle energy over and over and over and over to do more work with dissipation happening during each cycle.

Regenerated energy from brakes on a hybrid is already applying this. Rolling downhill using "gravitational potential" that is adding potential to the battery bank and that charge didn't come from the gasoline.

Doesn't matter if it cost fuel to get to the top of the hill, we aren't getting out what we got back in by going down the hill. What we did was burn gas or electric and what we got back out of that was the actual climb to the top of the hill. Anything we get back on the roll down is free charge from nature (gravity) and that work added to what we started with is an increase in COP.

Probably still under 1.0 because the gas engines are so very inefficient but would be interesting to do the actual numbers taking into account all the free regenerative braking, etc...

I consider all statements 100% true.

I'm sorry to say it, but every paragraph in your last message is incorrect to a degree.

ABC, I know from DrStifflers thread that you are a bright and skilled guy.

But I have difficulty understanding how you can accept that the basic SEC exciter works with a CEC (COP) around 3, when you don't accept the basic principles behind the operation of open systems.

Maybe it is worth considering in a quiet moment.

The hard to read writings of Hector are very giving, and well supported by experiments, if you have the patience. Hectors diode plug is able to harvest up to approx. 40% of the virtual power in a LC circuit non-reflective to the source.

[QUOTE=Jbignes5}
No matter what until you understand we live on the earth in a closed system
[/QUOTE]

From Tesla, others and now also DrStiffler we know scalar waves can not be shielded, and that scalar waves can transport energy wirelessly from one location to another.

How can you talk about the earth as closed systems when scalar waves exists ?
What about the sun and the radiation measured from far galaxies. Closed system ?

This will be my only post in this thread. Although Aaron perfectly holds his position despite the "uphill" struggle, I just wanted to add my tiny bit of support.

However I will read the thread as Aaron has used many good arguments on the way.

Eric

[ABCStore]

"Rolling downhill using "gravitational potential" that is adding potential to the battery bank and that charge didn't come from the gasoline."

Yep. The car got to the top of the hill by magic. We all know that.

We lift an apple and the gravity pulls it back down, for free! WOW

We compress a spring and it expands back for free!

You know, this "free work" used to be called "slavery". Think about it.

ABC

[Aaron]

Newton's Cradle

It would be interesting for clasical thermodynamics to be not able to describe this system. But it is well known what happens. And it is describable and well defined.

Classical thermodynamics has a flawed description since this toy is an open system. There is no such thing as a closed system if there is interaction with gravity. That rules out pretty much everything. But for practical purposes, a flashlight turned on is open to gravity and that wire is open to space/time, etc... but we know it is a closed system for "practical" purposes.

But this toy and other systems that do take advantage of the fact that gravity assists in the intended function of the system is open. Equilibrium thermodynamics (closed system thermodynamics) can never apply in this circumstances.

I don't see much use in this toy for producing energy at this point for anything practical like moving a car - Veljko has that handled in a similar manner, just different geometry.

This toy is only for entertainment and to show a point. It demonstrates the principles of a ball bouncing or even a coil collapsing then ringing. You pay once but you get the work of all the peaks accumulated...and all those added are more than the input.

[Aaron]

magic crackpot science

Yep. The car got to the top of the hill by magic. We all know that.

We lift an apple and the gravity pulls it back down, for free! WOW

We compress a spring and it expands back for free!

That's cute. I'm sure you know full well I have never implied such a ridiculous scenario. Very curious as to why you would take what I have clearly explained and contorted it into such a ridiculous context.

The car didn't get up the hill by magic. It takes X joules of energy of burned gas or electricity from the battery bank to get the car to X height on a hill. The climb up the hill IS WHAT WE GET OUT OF the joules we put in to it.

Then AFTER we have expended all that potential, a new gradient is established. Car rolls downhill, with a certain resistance (air/road) to diminish the gravitational potential but all the distance traveled on the decent is NOT work that we get back out of getting the car to the top of the hill.

We ALREADY got what we put into it and that is the actual ascent to the top of the hill.

It is a fact that it requires x joules to get the car to a certain height and by the time it is at that height, that x joules necessary ARE ALL DISSIPATED. The roll down the hill is NEW potential entering the system to add to distance traveled and battery banks charged up.

You're right, we lift the apple and gravity pulls it back down for FREE. That part you got right

Exact same situation, it requires 1 joule to lift the small apple to 20cm. Again, it REQUIRES 1 JOULE to lift it to 20cm. Why in the world does the math say it requires 1 joule to lift it 20 cm? Because THAT MUCH WORK is REQUIRED to get it to that height. That means you have to BURN/DISSIPATE/LOSE 1 joule of energy to get it to that height.

That means at 20cm, there is no more of that 1 joule left. When the apple is released, that is NEW gravitational potential coming into the system. We are NOT getting out what we put in. It is a very, very, very, very simple concept to understand. We ALREADY got out what we put in. 1 joule in and we got the LIFT out of the apple to establish a new gradient. Then release the apple and any work done from this point on is FREE energy from nature. All that work after releasing (impact heat, rolling on ground, etc...) is work that didn't come from our 1 joule.

Remember, it REQUIRED the one joule to get it to 20cm. So any work after the drop is added to that 1 joule and is over 1.0 COP. Period.

You're right. We compress a spring and it pops back for free! lol

If it requires 1 joule to compress a certain spring so much, you ALREADY get out of it what you put in....that COMPRESSION IS WORK. That compression is what we get out of the 1 joule. That is why it REQUIRES 1 joule to do a certain amount of compression. We dissipate that entire 1 joule to compress the spring so when compressed, there is nothing left of that 1 joule, it is gone never to be seen again.

Then when the spring pops back, any work that is done is work that didn't come from the 1 joule required to compress it because that 1 joule is already gone. Add both and it is more than 1 joule. Over 1.0 COP.

IF you want to claim that you are getting back out what you put in, and the math says it requires 1 joule to lift the apple to 20 cm. If you get back out what we put in, then the classical argument REALLY IS CLAIMING THAT THE APPLE MAGICALLY APPEARED AT 20CM WITHOUT EXPENDING ANY ENERGY TO DO SO!

It is apparent what science is the crackpot science and it is classical thermodynamics.

Not only is it a complete and total failure in logic and reasoning, it includes magical elements of an argument that allows work to be done without expending any work!

[Aaron]

@tecstatic

Hi Tecstatic,

I really appreciate your support! Great to see others that see it!

[Tecstatic]

Hi Aaron.

Your welcome. and thank you for the huge effort running this forum.

Although I have seen the light in some areas, this subject is a bit overwhelming, lots of lessons still needed to be learned.

Eric

[Aaron]

case against it?

There is a much stronger case for gains in a system compared to the unsubstantiated claims that it is impossible.

[Inquorate]

proof that cop>1 is possible

@Aaron - I completely support your propositions re the constant gain required by the wheelworks of nature.

Here's proof of gain.

YouTube - quick comparison; mass repeater v not

YouTube - capacitor spontaneously filling with sec 15-3 turned off

YouTube - sec exciter energy gain (NOT RF)

I refuse to argue the point, and will instead say we need to argue not the possibility of cop>1, but the method of reliably achieving it...

Love and light

[elias]

Generating energy from gravity alone

Hi,

It is possible to GENERATE energy by using gravity alone.

The ball falls down, and does work, but we need a way to return the ball up again, to repeat the process, so we use water for this purpose, and use its pressure to generate electricity, the deeper our water container is the more energy the water generates by "falling" or its pressure to be exact. Now at some point the energy generated exceeds the amount of energy required to boil and evaporate the same amount of water that generated that energy. So, we know that steam can go up by itself and so it does and we can also take that heat back to the top and make the steam become water again. So this becomes a perpetual electricity and heat system.

This system can be easily deployed in a high building and make energy free by using the gravity alone.

The concept of free energy is so obvious in nature, we have been totally brain-washed in school that makes it hard to see these obvious solutions to the energy crisis we are in.

Elias

[boguslaw]

We may look at the problem from different point.
Either 1 joule input cause 2 joules work done , or 1 joule input was used twice.

It's the usefulness of method. You can push apple on flat table or using the same force lift it above ground.
You can throw a mass for example a stone , or just make the same weighted Boomerang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and throw it using proper method.

The fact is that some effects are impossible without knowledge of correct method. You can throw an apple up and while it is in air throw another one, then catch the first and repeat process.
Juggling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The same process is impossible on flat table.
One may say that two apples in air are in resonance while at the table they move without connection.

[Aaron]

more out than in

We may look at the problem from different point.
Either 1 joule input cause 2 joules work done , or 1 joule input was used twice.

In either case, in an open system, both would be more work in joules done that we had to input.

I think it is 1 joule that causes more to be done (leveraging the input from the environment).

I don't think it can be the same joule used twice because the initial input to do the lift on an object, compression of a spring, etc... is dissipated through the resistance that was encountered by the lift or compression, etc... so none of it is left and none of it is stored.

[Jbignes5]

I'm sorry for the post again...

I couldn't help myself.

Aaron could you please drop the I know everything act and listen to this little bit of wisdom. You can not possibly know everything that governs what we see on earth here. If you do then please explain gravity for me. Or magnetism for that matter. Or how an atom stays together? Or what powers gravity for that matter. One thing for sure is that no one truely knows for a fact what these are. Even our brightest minds in all our history have struggled with the concepts I have asked you to answer. So could you possibly explain so, to the exact laws that governs each of these and how they interact with each other? Please be exact so that I might become the brightest person on the earth like you pretend to be. I tell you this, We think we know but until we can explain to the nth degree that it draws energy from this and it is 100% conversion of this energy then you don't know anything.
Taking your approach, if one gets an apple into outter space it would be oblitterated because we have taken it out of the system that supports it. It would not float forever since we all know that water in outter space act much differently then in an atmosphere. This is much akin to satalites in outer space. When calibrated on the earth to be perfect time keepers they found that once outside it's system it was designed to run in the clocks had to be updated everyday for the rest of the time it was to be there. Why because time apparently moves slower in outer space then it did when it was designed for inner space. Those are the GPS satalite I am talking about and now there is a team that makes sure they are calibrated several time of the day and night.
We think we knew what we were doing but we didn't. We didn't know everything about that system. The system could be thought about in layers and each layer has a destinct boundry. Once you cross that boundry things change. If it was truely an open system then the laws would have been the same on earth as in space but in reality it is not. Why, because the "system" is different. The earths system has layers as well. Under water, inner earth, regular atmospheric and higher elevations all have different laws appllied to them. Go too far and they change the parameters. If it was that easy all we would need to do is drop a pipe into the depths way down and let the extreem pressures down there blow the water up into space. It doesn't work that way and probably all you would net is a balance.
Now there are some strange things happening in kick back phenomena of coils but I bet my life on it that there is a balance to that phenomina if we knew everything about the governing laws of the mechanics behind it. But since we don't we could never say what the true COP of that device in that system is. We have no idea about the effects of using the device to extract these "energies" because we have no clue what it is all about. Some of the parameters are known but I bet a majority of them are not!
That is why I don't believe in any "open" system ideas because we don't know all the factors to make such an assertion. This is the same thing we did with gasoline. We leaped before we knew anything about what harm it is doing to our planet. And the circle completes. Now that we know, we are scrambling to fix or repair what we have blindly done.
Lets look at your poster child Rosemary Ainslie. Good idea but do we know what energy it is funneling in? Do we know what effects drawing such energy on a mass scale would do? NO... We don't even have a detector for such energy but you are content to say it is an open system ignoring the fact that anything in our system tends to goto balance if it balances in nature it is a system. Meaning it is causing a negative somewhere from something. Thats your gain and much like gasoline did to us decades later, We WILL find out the hard way. Instead of being a true scientist and finding out everything you can about this "energy" you are touting the accomplishment of cop17 but at what cost? You must know everything about this energy so fess up. What are the down sides of shifting massive amounts of this "energy".
Lets pose this to you. In order for Dams to generate the power they can make the must create great pressures by blocking the natural flow of water to create an artificial lake behind the wall of the dam. Whats the cost of that to the natural order of that streams and surrounding natural system that was before the dam was there? It completely obliterated the natural order and destroyed the area where the lake was formed. Did we care about that, hell no, we were getting what we wanted, power!, at little cost from the point of view of the owner. We completely changed the system that was there. and it cost us a precious natural system.
This is a reality check for everyone doing this Aaron's way. Know from what you are taking. Know everything possible or later it will come back around. Haven't we learned from history or does it even matter to you?
Your system is based on your view but I say your view is out of context. You need to know what you are using and what it costs before you propound that it is cop anything.
Weather you believe it or not there are many many examples of stories that come from this field of successes but with dire or unexplained circumstances. Ranald Brant being one. Weather it is a made up story or not it is not hard to think that there is a reason for such a story. Tesla was a brilliant man but he didn't have anyone really telling him he couldn't do what he did. And he didn't have all the answers. But one thing he did was always try to find out more about what he was doing or looking at. His entire life was about constantly learning of his trade and when he though it was safe he released it but he has been quoted as saying that he regretted doing some of his inventions because it turned out to be dangerous. Thats why he didn't release most of the ones dealing with radiant energy. Because he didn't know more about it. And when he did I think he had it destroyed because it caused great harm or would in the long run.
I am gonna do work on the Rodins coil but you can bet I will have controlled and accurate testing of the device and effects on the environment around the device including controls of what effect it has on matter including the living kind before I get too far into my experiments.
You guys are messing with high voltage and high frequecies have no idea of what you are exposing yourself to without proper shielding. It is a well know fact that high energy emf bursts and magnetic fields are detremental to living beings. It can cause Illness (the cancer kind among many), nausia, paranoia and hallucinations to name a few. If you are going to be an experimentor at least have the decency to yourself to take precautions and ensure your well protected.

[Aaron]

common sense

And your name is - mr anonymous?

First of all, it is a fact any open system out of equilibrium which an apple falling or a ball bouncing is produces MORE work than the operator inputs. Take it or leave it. I had to go no further than your first sentence.

[jeanna]

Please pardon my intrusion.

I have a beautiful example of at least 2 forms of free energy on my desktop background picture.

jeanna

[Jbignes5]

First off

The reason why you went no further then the first sentence is that the arguement I presented is true. Just like the old engeneers you shun what you don't want to believe. Thats fine but the "open" system is not an open system. The apple when in your hand or what ever you use to hold it is the originating system. You agreed that movement or falling of the apple does not mean that it is expending energy when falling. In fact the potential of the end result is a rather complicated calculation based on the distance dropped and mass related along with several other calculations as well like surface area and wind resistances. Where is your energy gain and what energy are you comparing? Your view is skewed only to back up your claims and the problem is most of this can be explain in the traditional way. You need to know all the facts and all the effects, like energy transducers and the efficiency of them to take the energy and transduce it to another form. When you don't know all the parameters you are only guessing.
I guess the best analogy is the Rodin coil. For the wieght of copper and the way it is wound it nets 60% more magnetic interaction at it's core. Are we getting more out then in? Maybe. Is it a more efficient transducer for magnetic forces I think so. The problem is we don't know about the real scale of these aparatuses to know it's true efficiency. When we do we have to re adjust the efficiency scales to account for this. It in effect becomes the new standard to compare. The old style gets worse in efficiency as the new becomes the new high or near perfect.
Your view has to broaden as you go along because as we learn more we find we were in error about the range of efficiencies. Instead you have come up with a more obtuse way of describing what you don't understand and that only goes to confuse the masses instead of enlighten them.
You seem to be smug in your view that you are in fact correct in your view that there are open systems and to tell you the truth, from what I have seen with my own eyes, you couldn't be any more wrong. Taken outside of that closed system your open systems fall apart. Take for example a motor generator that exibits more out then in. given the fact that it is run in the air it has less of resistances as if it was run underwater and I bet if it was it would fail to produce enough to get over those additional systems properties. It would fail hence not a truely open system is it? If your system was tuely open as you said it was it would include everything in that system and thats not being done. There are costs associated with gravity and we know nothing about it at all. We just take for granted that what we see is just that. It doesn't make sense yet because we don't have all the factors. Our view is not broad enough yet to see all the factors but you are sure quick to exploit that you know it all. You are taking the unknown and adding it in without knowing what it takes to get that effect. The source is hidden and so is the results of you getting your "open" system to work. There is a cost and some day we will know what that is but until we do you should be very very careful about making assertions that you have no clue about.
It is very clear that you don't understand that just because you set an avalanch in motion with one jewel of energy that the resulting destruction of the city below it is the direct result of that action. That is just one of the costs. You might think it is all open and free but it is not. It took masses of energy to get the snow there and it took very little to set it in motion. The end result is disaster. It also took masses of energy to build that city and with 1 jewel of energy you destroyed it in the blinking of an eye.
It is all one closed system with membranes if you will seperating the systems. Yes some systems can communicated across vast seperations but they are all enclosed into one system. Whats the extent of those systems? I doubt we will ever have a full understanding of that.
But you seem to have it down. Hey care to explain what exactly and atom is comprised of including all sub components? Take the "Electron" as an example. Go ahead and explain that to the people here. How do you know you are correct? We can't even see it? Does it exist? Who knows? You?