1 Joule of Energy

[Aaron]

questions

Hi Jbignes5,

Gravity isn't a constant any more than light is a constant. Gravity and light are averaged. Light is slower by mass and faster away from mass.

Anyway, I have a couple questions for you for now.

Question 1: If it requires 1 joule to raise a small apple 20cm, accounting for losses, about how many joules would you actually have to expend in order to get that apple up? 1.1, 1.2, 1.3? Just a simple guess is good for the example.

Question 2: To raise that apple, do you consider that to be work performed?

Question 3: Once the apple is raised to 20cm and is sitting there, would you say that it has 1 joule of potential energy (close enough estimate)?

Question 4: Is work being performed when a leaf blows in the wind?

[sebosfato]

Oh boy

Guys you should come back to school.

You forget that when you raise up the apple you are just accumulating potential energy not doing any other work. When you drop it you have this energy potential transformed into kinetic energy. The gravity is a constant not a variant. The work you needed to do to raise the apple was the same work gravity will need to do to bring the apple down of course if you raise it more you are going to have more energy potential and if you drop it you will have more impact because the final speed is greater but not OU. You are not considering the speed or how long you are applying the 1 joule to raise up the apple. So you are confusing you mind. Energy applied.

If you take 10 sec to rise up the apple with 1 joule and drop it you are going to have an impact of little less than 1 joule but concentrated in a fraction of second depending on the apple flexibility.


regards

[Aaron]

accumulating potential???

You forget that when you raise up the apple you are just accumulating potential energy not doing any other work.

You're saying if I take an apple from the floor and raise it 20 cm, time is irrelevant in this point, that no work is being done? It is only accumulating potential?

So lets say 10 people are pushing a large rock up a hill, no work is done? The rock is simply accumulating potential energy?

[Jbignes5]

Well

Well since no one has a better take on it then newton lets derive what he knew on the subject. No one is the one definitive source on gravity since no one has a clear understanding about it from the source everything is a theory at best about it. But looking at the facts lets assume like the rest that newton was mostly correct.
Gravity can be thought of as a constant when near earth is in the equation. Most would agree on that.

1> Getting an apple 20cm off of the ground lets say for the exacmple given would be 1 joule.
2> Yes gettinjg the apple upto 20cm is work performed.
3> given the constant of gravity at near earth, I wouldn't have the foggiest what is stored in the apple. Since I think it isn't the apple doing work when it falls it doesn't store anything it only has the potential to do a certain amount of work for it's weight if it gets let go.
4> Yes work is being performed by both wind, surface area of the jeaf with lift from said wind and eventually flowing with the wind to rest on the ground by the pull of->gravity. But not by the leaf at all.
Here are my questions?
1. When you are calculating 1 joule of energy what are the equations? What are your factors?
2. When an apple drops what is doing said work?
3. with my earlier example in mind explain to me how the ball is storing the energy to use to do the ramp example.

What I was saying is that the potential of the weight lifted to 20cm will fall with no energy being used. the potential is only realized when it hits, strikes or insert your usage here minus the wind resistance of the surface area of said item. If you have it fall and it rebounds then it has to extract any potential to go back up hence why it is always less then the level it started at minus the impact energy. Also depending on the balls structure as well even the material it is made with. ie Superballs.
You start with a net input the drop looses alittle due to resistances then minus the impact and you have the correct potential for it to ga back up if it is designed to rebound. If it doesn't rebound then all the potential left is wasted in the impact and the results of that impact.

[Jbignes5]

You're saying if I take an apple from the floor and raise it 20 cm, time is irrelevant in this point, that no work is being done? It is only accumulating potential?

So lets say 10 people are pushing a large rock up a hill, no work is done? The rock is simply accumulating potential energy?

No time is relevant and thats one thing you didn't include in your equation. And yes it is only potential energy from the laws of gravity. You could accurately predict the end point based on the weight of said rock and from the surface area of said rock.
If one couldn't predict the outcome then shuffle board and other games based off that would be impossible to do.
I concider anything to have potential energy in these situations because if the rock doesn't ever move again it has done nothing. Gravity weight and time are the three true factors in any example of newtonian laws.
Without any of those factors you have nothing. eg Space concept. When something is set in motion in space will it stop, barring the fact that it has a true path with no influences? And what is missing from that example? Gravity?

[Aaron]

turning over the applecart

There are a few things that can be deduced by the collective answers if everyone has part of the right answer. lol

You forget that when you raise up the apple you are just accumulating potential energy not doing any other work. When you drop it you have this energy potential transformed into kinetic energy.

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.

Adding gravity increases the joules imparted to it but decreases the energy used to fall with the potential energy used at the end when it stops to do "work". The fall is not work performed by the apple but by gravity the energy stored from the lifting of said apple is done at the end minus air resistance that is where you loose stored energy from the mass equation. Thats why a ball falling only goes halfway back up. It takes more to fight gravity to get back up and air resistance plays as well.

Basically an apple goes up and an apple goes down.

But there is no work being done raising the apple and with gravity, there is no work being done on the way down. A joule went in and a joule went out - while no work is being done at all!

Not sure if there is something wrong with that picture or not.

Sebosfato, the apple is working against gravity on the way up, air resistance, etc... this is dissipating energy. Dissipation in itself is WORK, which is evidence that potential is moving from one potential to another and potential moving from one potential to another is energy. With 1 joule of work put into the apple to move it up, over 1 second (time is irrelevant for the whole concept in this thread but we'll say 1 second), there will be a bit less than 1 joule of potential energy in the apple once it is at 20cm. Are you SURE that there is no work being done to lift an apple? Because if no work is being done, it is logical to deduce baed on this opinion that it should then require 0 joules of energy to lift it to begin with.

Pierre, I agree that work is done in 2 directions. Up and down.

Jbignes, the point of gravity imparting energy to the apple is the whole point to this thread. You say because of the gravity, energy use is decreased. Yes - energy from our own input is decreased because we are using environmental input to do work that doesn't come from our own initial 1 joule input.

Any assumption that this extra work I talk about is coming from the 1 joule is something that I haven't claimed. The point is that there IS work done in both directions - up and down.

Anything falling will hit air resistance and air resistance dissipates energy - energy dissipated IS WORK - it is not potential. This dissipation is part of nature's method of bringing the system into equilibrium by moving one potential to another (which is energy) so energy is there when the apple is falling. Where the potential comes from to perform this work is 100% irrelevant - if work is done, work is done period and it doesn't matter where the source of potential comes from. In this case, gravity is assisting.

On the way up, the apple hits air resistance and air resistance dissipates energy - energy dissipated IS WORK - it is not potential (potential is "stored" as it goes up at the SAME TIME that there is dissipation of potential in the form of resistance. This dissipation is part of nature's method of bringing the system into equilibrium by moving one potential to another (which is energy) so energy is there when the apple is rising.

In BOTH cases, up and down, WORK is being done.

Charing an electromagnetic coil is voltage working against impedances and resistances and there is work being done. The equivelant in the apple example is the apple is moving up against gravity and any other resistance, which is the same as a coils impedance and/or resistances. WORK is done. A magnet on a rotor can move or be pushed and an apple is moving. This movement is work.

When the power is taken way from the coil, the inductive spike comes back (all this stored potential) apple at 20cm or a coil charged to saturation or less. That spike can perform work by being put through resistive wire, which causes efficient dissipation into heat. Or it can be put in a capacitor - stored potential, which can then light a bulb, charge a battery, etc...

The apple falling because of gravity's downward PUSH is the same as the tendency for a magnetic field in a coil to collapse and push back.

Work is done in both directions. In a collapsing spike, 100% isn't recovered normally so there is a certain amount of loss - resistance/dissipation/work.

Gravity helps cause work to be done and that work didn't come from the 1 joule of energy potential stored in the apple after it was raised. That is work we did NOT have to pay for and as my original question is: HOW MUCH WORK IS DONE TOTAL?

I didn't say how much work is done from only our input of 1 joule.

HOW MUCH WORK IS DONE TOTAL? That amount is MORE than we contribute.

Please don't get in the trap of believing that for something to be considered work that it has to come from our initial input of 1 joule because that is false.

[Aaron]

appletime

Since I think it isn't the apple doing work when it falls it doesn't store anything it only has the potential to do a certain amount of work for it's weight if it gets let go.

If it doesn't rebound then all the potential left is wasted in the impact and the results of that impact.

The apple doesn't have to do work for work to be performed while the apple is falling.

Yes, the impact could be heat by the impact, which is work being performed.

Actually, the time is irrelevant in this example because the CONCEPT is that an apple is raised and doing it over a period of time is implied. The apple didn't go from 0 to 20cm in zero time.

I'm fully aware of what the time factor does - it is simply increasing energy density when compressing the movement into smaller and smaller units of time this is why the spike is such high voltage in a coil when it collapses because the rate of change is so fast.

[Aaron]

gravity is NOT a constant

Gravity is NOT a constant just like light is NOT a constant.

All objects do NOT fall at the same rate. This is mainstream educational brainwashing.

All non-ferrous metal objects fall slower than ferrous metals or other materials for example. As a non-ferrous metal object like an aluminum sphere falls, it cuts through the earth's magnetic field inducing counter currents that repels the aluminum slowing its descent. This is a 100% indisputable fact proven by even conventional labs. The difference is small but nevertheless, ANY difference destroys the concept of a CONSTANT.

[Jbignes5]

No no no.

Dude what the material has no bearing. You are talking about apples but then talking about ferrous and non ferrous. Yes ferrous materials are gonna fall faster because of the magnetic attraction.
And I tell you Aron gravity is a constant at near earth. It does fluctuate but that fluctuation is null compared to the gain. You are talking about electrical theories and non electrical theories. You can't mix the two. Yes an alumninum apple will fall differently compared to the real apple. Those fall into the knowing the factors and resistances are that factors. Given two items perfectly the same you get the same results in the same conditions. Yes they vary from run to run but that isn't the point.
Yes time has alot to do with it. Here is why. Without time what do you have? It is a measurement that we use to give distance thru witch we compare two objects that are not the same given the weight and surface area. The apple doesn't do work but have a surface and weight value. Then gravity takes over and pulls tha apple down based on weight and air resistance based on surface area and shape.
What happens when you don't raise it but it is there? Then apple is sitting on a shelf it grew there and disconnected from the tree. When it fell what do we say then? Gravity is and environmental affect. Put that same apple in space and it stays in that spot forever. The weight and other factors including composition affect how it falls how long it takes and what happens when it gets to the impact site. You didn't pay for gravity to pull it down even though gravity is doing the work it had nothing to do with how much it took to put it there. it is only based on the weight and other factors as to how much potential it has on impact.
"The constant of proportionality G is known as the universal gravitational constant. It is termed a "universal constant" because it is thought to be the same at all places and all times, and thus universally characterizes the intrinsic strength of the gravitational force."
However until someone says that they have the true theory of what is going on we have no other choice but to believe the current theory. And one cannot prove a theory wrong with a theory only with facts. So what are the facts.
You spent 1 joule of energy getting 20cm. You let it go and gravity takes over and predictably it falls at a certain rate hitting the ground and bounces away slowly bouncing till it stops. Each bounce gets smaller and smaller because each impact is taking away from the distance it has to drop from the next climb. Each impact is a fraction of what the first was. Gravity has a certain effect based on wieght, time, shape and distance from the target. I have expanded my thinking here because of you bringing up additional subject like compositional effects as well. But I did take the engineering mode and say other resitances also.
If as you say near gravitational constant is not that then wacky way out things would happen when you did the falling test every day. Which it doesn't. Yes it fluctuates but it is relatively impossible to detect the differences.
Back to the inductive annomalies you talk about. This has not really been explored like you talked about much until now. This stuff was generally ignored because it was to hard to explain. Comparring Gravitic effects to Electrical effects are pointless. Yes both areas have quirky effects but Gravitic effects don't play in inductive electronics. Thats because electrical theories are wrong. They were as well you know surpressed because of the difficulty to explore them in the theories that were proposed some hundred years ago. What we are now exploring on this forum are what I suspect that electricity is really based off of. Like electricity is actually composed of secondary emmisions from the true source. How can you mix one set of theories into another and expect to be taken seriously flabbergasts me.
Also to be correct I didn't say gravity wasn't doing work. What I did say is that it is an evironmental effect. You did the original work to lift the apple not gravity. When you let it go gavity does the work minus resistances not matter what they are from air composition or whatever it gets subtracted from the net of how much the apple weight and the surface area distance and time it takes to strike the target and anything else you can think of as a resistance the same thing could be applied to magnetics but then that is an acceleration effect added to the net.
Hmmm Apiffany.... So you mean from the initial drop it might rebound 5 times with a total net of more then what it took to raise it. Hmmm.... But are you sure that it is more then 1. And how would you harness that? Was your analogy always pointed to the ringing effect of inductive electronics?

[Aaron]

thermodynamics

You are talking about electrical theories and non electrical theories. You can't mix the two.

However until someone says that they have the true theory of what is going on we have no other choice but to believe the current theory. How can you mix one set of theories into another and expect to be taken seriously flabbergasts me.

Joule dealt with heat dissipating in a resistor and everyone wants to apply that to everything else as an equivalent and honest way to deal with potential and energy phenomena with apples raising and falling and everything else - and you want to post about me mixing things together? Talk about being flabbergasted!

Based on your logic, it is no more appropriate then to associate a heat joule to objects moving, etc...

I think it is common sense what the gravitational push (since it isn't a pull) is but that is for another thread.

Sorry but based on the bogus explanations in the books if thermodynamics is thermodynamics based on the conventional rules then the CONCEPTS ARE 100% IDENTICAL with simple common sense - and comparing lifting an apple against gravity - like compressing a spring - is identical to charging an inductor that stores a charge that wants to discharge back in the opposite direction. If you're unwilling to see that, then it is by choice and not because of it not being there.

The entire concept of what work is based on a joule applies to HEAT and attaching the concept of the joule to objects moving, electromagnetics, etc... is ridiculous. It almost appears accurate, but EXPERIMENTS show that is a fairytale. Those thermodynamics don't apply across the board to everything to begin with.

If conservation and the 2nd law is violated in an electric circuit, those two laws cannot hold up elsewhere as laws but only conditional parameters that only apply in some instances and objects moving up and down against gravity are NOT necessarily one that they do apply to as equivelants.

Joule formulated everything he did to be consistant with the bible and to promote an anti-evolutionary viewpoint that there is no innovation (evolution) apart from the creation of God. Everything he did was through this filter to show that since there isn't this innovation (negentropy) - it has to be only entropy.

Joule said: "‘it is manifestly absurd to suppose that the powers with which God has endowed matter can be destroyed any more than they can be created by man’s agency’"

That was his primary viewpoint and is consistent with the formulation of the first law of thermodynamics.

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

"He showed that ‘work can be converted into heat with a fixed ratio of one to the other, and that heat can be converted into work.’

Joule’s principle of energy conservation formed the basis of the first law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be changed from one form into another."


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

Energy is NOT changed from one form into another.

When something moving impacts something else, the kinetic energy for example is NOT changing from kinetic into heat energy on impact if it is something that hits the ground with a thud and instantly stops for example.

Potential will be determined by how much of a potential difference there is from one point to another. That potential enters the system at that localized place and is not transferred from another object.

When an object like a clay ball hits the ground, it's own potential difference has been equalized locally. If that clay ball hits another ball on the ground and that other ball starts to roll, NONE of the POTENTIAL or energy is transfered TO the other ball at all! The other ball is hit, which simply causes a potential difference in its own relationship with its environment and when that ball rolls, the potential that is available to that ball doesn't come from the clay ball, it enters that ball LOCALLY at that point so there is no changing forms of energy.

The energy manifestations of the clay ball falling simply triggered a SEPARATE manifestation of energy that came into play locally in the other ball that was sent rolling - and is NOT the same energy that simply changed form.

This for example is why Beraden says a powerplant doesn't contribute 1 watt to the grid because it isn't a transfer of energy. You create a dipole to create a separation in charges and that potential energy breaks the symmetry of its own LOCAL region where the potential moves in and becomes energetic when it can move to a lower potential when the loop is closed.

A apple sitting at 20cm high is simply an example of broken symmetry and that much breakage is a separation - or is causing a certain gradient for that apple. That apple hits the ground and hits another ball is simply causing that other ball to encounter a condition of broken symmetry, which is the potential difference that enters the system at THAT point and that potential did NOT come from the first apple. They are simply triggers for each other and are NOT energy sources that give energy to something else.

Energy is not transfered as the first law of thermodynamics states.

And the second law is just as bogus.

If you put 10 joules of work into throwing a light weight paper ball into the air and a gust of wind (environmental input) carrys it for 1000 miles, there are many, many, many magnitudes of extra work being exhibited in that paper being blown which far exceeds the 10 joules of input. This is common sense and is totally consistent with the commons sense concept of non-equilibrium open systems.

Gravity is a wind and at 20cm, is simply blowing an apple a shorter distance.

Each individual manifestatin of energy because of the potential available is manifest at its local area and did NOT transfer from somewhere else.

This is not about semantics it is about what is actually happening.

Joule believed that dropping a weight on water directly converts mechanical energy to heat in water and this is surely NOT what is happening.

[ABCStore]

A locomotive is pulling 10 cars. By your logic every car is "doing work"...
Am I wrong?

ABC

[Aaron]

work

ABCstore,

I am just saying that work is performed.

But in any case, at each place of contact on the cars behind the locomotive like the wheel on the track, heat under the wheel is a manifestation there that was triggered by the locomotive pulling it and there was no changing of forms of energy from coal into motive force of the locomotive to pulling the car that caused the wheel to move on the track.

When you crank a dynamo with your hand, that mechanical work is NOT being converted into voltage and current. Turning the dynamo creates potential differences breaking the symmetry locally causing the movement of potential from the vacuum to move to each point of the dipole to move over the circuit. None of that came from the hand turning, it came from outside the circuit.

[Jbignes5]

I agree to an extent.

Then by your definition the cars at rest still continue to trigger the heat? The trigger is the motive force causing Friction, not some mysterious force outside of that. Rubbing two metals together does that. And yes you can transform one energy to another. A simple experiment will show you that two dis simular metals twisted around each other when heated produce electricity. It's an age old experiment about 150 years old.
On your second point then a capacitor would produce all the energy you wanted just having a potential applied across it? The simple act of turning the dynamo is in fact causing the potential otherwise turn it once and have limitless energy. It doesn't work that way on that scale. Maybe on a quantum scale but this isn't quantum sized. rules that govern the quantum world don't apply outside of that scope. Or else the magic energy forever device would have surely been created by now.
You and Bearden talk theories to try to disprove the current theories but like I said you cannot disprove the current thinking until you actually provide the facts. Think of it how you want but that is why things have not changed. You have a new take on it fine, but show the facts. Saying your wrong I am right is not a fact make. Let me break out the 150 year old tretise on electricity and magnetism and then read the facts. Because everything they shown in the book also has been done and shown to work exactly like they describe. Way before leedskalnin which he ripped from it, way before Tesla which I think drew from the concepts of the information they had back then even.
Let me find the link again..
The book is a pdf on the net take a look. Do a search for davissmanualofma00davirich.pdf

Even back then they talk about the back spike. Even back then they knew about changing heat to electricity and about creating magnets with striking soft steel and permanent magnets by striking hard steel. It all about how one thing channels or converts energy to another form.
You state "If you put 10 joules of work into throwing a light weight paper ball into the air and a gust of wind (environmental input) carrys it for 1000 miles, there are many, many, many magnitudes of extra work being exhibited in that paper being blown which far exceeds the 10 joules of input. This is common sense and is totally consistent with the commons sense concept of non-equilibrium open systems." ok so when there is no wind did it travel that far? Just because you set in motion something that goes a mile doesn't mean it is overunity. It seases to become dependant on your input then it isn't because of your control of that item. The wind did the work which you have no control over. Just because a Glider can glide 100-200 miles doesn't mean it is channeling energy up the wazzoo. It is using an affect or gravity and surface area to manipulate the altitude with lift. Nothing big about that.

[Aaron]

thermodynamics, etc...

Then by your definition the cars at rest still continue to trigger the heat? The trigger is the motive force causing Friction, not some mysterious force outside of that. Rubbing two metals together does that. And yes you can transform one energy to another. A simple experiment will show you that two dis simular metals twisted around each other when heated produce electricity. It's an age old experiment about 150 years old.
On your second point then a capacitor would produce all the energy you wanted just having a potential applied across it? The simple act of turning the dynamo is in fact causing the potential otherwise turn it once and have limitless energy. It doesn't work that way on that scale. Maybe on a quantum scale but this isn't quantum sized. rules that govern the quantum world don't apply outside of that scope. Or else the magic energy forever device would have surely been created by now.
You and Bearden talk theories to try to disprove the current theories but like I said you cannot disprove the current thinking until you actually provide the facts. Think of it how you want but that is why things have not changed. You have a new take on it fine, but show the facts. Saying your wrong I am right is not a fact make. Let me break out the 150 year old tretise on electricity and magnetism and then read the facts. Because everything they shown in the book also has been done and shown to work exactly like they describe. Way before leedskalnin which he ripped from it, way before Tesla which I think drew from the concepts of the information they had back then even.
Let me find the link again..
The book is a pdf on the net take a look. Do a search for davissmanualofma00davirich.pdf

Even back then they talk about the back spike. Even back then they knew about changing heat to electricity and about creating magnets with striking soft steel and permanent magnets by striking hard steel. It all about how one thing channels or converts energy to another form.
You state "If you put 10 joules of work into throwing a light weight paper ball into the air and a gust of wind (environmental input) carrys it for 1000 miles, there are many, many, many magnitudes of extra work being exhibited in that paper being blown which far exceeds the 10 joules of input. This is common sense and is totally consistent with the commons sense concept of non-equilibrium open systems." ok so when there is no wind did it travel that far? Just because you set in motion something that goes a mile doesn't mean it is overunity. It seases to become dependant on your input then it isn't because of your control of that item. The wind did the work which you have no control over. Just because a Glider can glide 100-200 miles doesn't mean it is channeling energy up the wazzoo. It is using an affect or gravity and surface area to manipulate the altitude with lift. Nothing big about that.

Vacuum energy really isn't a mysterious outside force and there is quite a bit known about it even though it is still very exotic to most people. You can say these are just theories but if you follow up on the references, there are experiments to back it up. If you notice in Bearden's papers, the references are often times takes up more space than the paper itself.

I have a personal friend (not Bedini) that was given papers by Bearden of course which had Bearden's ideas and it predicted certain outcomes if certain things are met. Based on that paper, my friend (mechanical engineer) and his partner (high level ee) built working devices that are way over 1.0 cop. Unfortunately, you only have my word to go on this but I only bring it up because it is one very specific example of Bearden's theory showing results. I don't agree with everything Bearden believes but he is right on the money with so much.

Joule's idea that energy is transforming from one form to another is 100% pure speculation. The only thing he knows for sure is that with certain energy in one system that triggers another system (falling object, then water) that there are losses, which seem to coincide with an amount of heat produced in water.

I have zero dispute that from one system to the next there is energy being dissipated. In both open and closed systems, energy is dissipated. But observing that from one part of the cycle to the next there is a reduction in work being done and assuming it is the same energy energy being transformed is really pure speculation and assumption not based on fact.

It is just some evidence that opens up the possibility and that is all it is is a possibility with a specific level of probability of being correct. However, because there have been many advancements in physics and other related sciences, we know so much more now.

The concept of a system being open to environmental input like gravity, heat, light, time, the quantum flux (aether), etc... shows an amazing paradigm that reveals not only the possibility but nearly a requirement for other input to enter a system that is unable to equalize. This isn't a crazy idea, it is Noble prize caliber concepts - 1977 Ilya Prigogine on open dissipative systems showing that an open system can output more than WE put in meaning there is other input from elsewhere.

Windmills, solar cells, paddle wheel, a swing or pendulum or even a ball falling are all open systems that allow for free environmental input to enter the system and contribute to the input.

Again, I believe one of the major mistakes many people make that are not familiar with non-equilibrium systems is that they hear "more out than we put in" and automatically jump to the conclusion that "that is impossible because nothing is over 100% efficient. We can't have more out that what goes in."

The distinction that too many people miss is that open systems are 100% efficient or under (no perpetual motion) but can still output MORE than we had to contribute. This is really a scientific fact and it is ironic that the concept of COP was need to describe how heat pumps for example can produce more work in joules of energy than joules of energy in electricity that left the wall. My refrigerator is probably producing 400% more joules of work than joules of electricity to run it - because the movement of the heat is basically free, which is work and we don't have to pay for that. But the output is still less than the COMBINED total of the electrical work and the heat work. This system absolutely produces more out than WE put in.

A Bedini energizer that recovers 90% electrical can easily have 15% of mechanical work, which is 105% of our input. The overall system in this example is 90%+ efficient (still under 100% efficient) but the cop is 1.05. That is MORE work being done that joules of energy that left the input battery. Most people don't even add the mechanical work when looking at how efficient their Bedini machines are.

I see how many people refer to the concept that if we understood or could prove a system that gives more work than we paid for, then we would have done it. Well, many of us already have because these concepts are more accurate than the "laws" in the books.

For example, I posted this long ago,
YouTube - Self Running Bedini Oscillator
Over time the cop rises towards infinity because after one small input, nothing else is needed to be input because it is self powering and self-sustaining and the loop is "pseudo-closed" - feeding the output back to the input without the circuit seeing a closed circuit. This is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over 1.0 COP - way more work being done to charge and discharge that coil than what I had to provide in the first small investment of charge into the run capacitor.

It isn't good for anything practical other than to show that thermodynamics is a joke and that the theory on open systems is not just a theory but it is in fact the only way to replicate how nature is behaving.

You or someone mentions Newton but please realize that Newton REQUIRES that an object stay in perpetual motion unless something acts upon it. NOTHING in the "law" requires that something act upon it.

cont...

[Aaron]

thermodynamics, etc... , part 2

part 2:

In situations where it seems like dissipation is a must, an opposite force can be used to produce forward work instead of totally adding to the dissipation.

With the concepts in martial arts like taking a blow coming towards you, stepping out of the way and using it against the attacker to help push them in the same direction they're already going is using this type of principle.

Capturing the inductive spikes and reusing them is like electromagnetic jujitsu. Veljko's oscillator is taking the counterforce and using it to produce work in the FORWARD motion adding to the total amount of work done instead of dissipating it by that much.

You mention about my dynamo example. Turning the dynamo isn't transforming our own store of potential that came from the pancakes we at in the morning into electricity. Our turning the dynamo will have losses - our hand moving against air and gravity, bearing friction on the crank, etc... and the work that we wind up with in motion of a magnet moving in a coil or whatever arrangment will be able to cause a certain amount of potential difference (establishing a dipole) to be created, which will determine how much "electricity" will be able to flow. The moment the potential differences are created electro/magnetically, that does break the symmetry of time/space at the physical location of the coil/circuit. With broken symmetry, the quantum potential has a "hill" to roll down over the circuit with a certain pressure (voltage), which will cause a cetain amount of current to move in the opposite direction.

Our potential from our pancakes never transformed into electrical energy. The potential entered the dynamo at the dynamo and flowed over the wire as "electricity". Sorry, but there really is no transformation of one form to the other. This is a VERY difficult concept for classically trained individuals to not only understand but accept because it is truly paradigm shattering.

One potential in one system that triggers another is simply WORKING to establish another potential difference in the next system (yes with some losses) and depending on the system, it may have more or less potential difference compared to the system that established it. And with it's own potential difference, the appropriate amount of potential is manifest locally in that own system and did not come from the pancakes.

If we look at energy or potential as a thing, the "thing" that is either energy or potential in the pancakes are NOT the same "thing" that is the energy or potential. It isn't even the same piece or thing transformed, it is a totally different "thing" that entered the system locally.

A ball sitting on a board flat on the ground is in equilibrium and for practical example purposes, has no potential energy. Lifting one end of the board will break the symmetrical nature of lying flat on the ground. Now we have a condition of broken symmetry where there is a potential difference between one end of the board and the other. The steeper the gradient or incline with its own associated height, the more potential energy the ball will have. So the "quantum" concepts of breaking the symmetry of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum are COMPLETELY relevant and applicable to the physical world as the board lifting example demonstrates.

One final thing for this post: You say:

"You state "If you put 10 joules of work into throwing a light weight paper ball into the air and a gust of wind (environmental input) carrys it for 1000 miles, there are many, many, many magnitudes of extra work being exhibited in that paper being blown which far exceeds the 10 joules of input. This is common sense and is totally consistent with the commons sense concept of non-equilibrium open systems." ok so when there is no wind did it travel that far? Just because you set in motion something that goes a mile doesn't mean it is overunity. It seases to become dependant on your input then it isn't because of your control of that item. The wind did the work which you have no control over."

This is the point but you may have missed it. If there is no wind, the paper doesn't travel that far and if you put in a few joules of energy into throwing a paper into the wind that blows it miles - that is WAAAY overunity.

Actually for a distinction - the word overunity is an oxymoron like military intelligence is an oxymoron. Overunity means there is more than everything pretty much and that word doesn't describe anything that has anything to do with free energy (over 1.0 cop systems).

I do recognized the commonly intended meaning of the word and what it represents.

The wind CONTRIBUTES its work to our input work.

If we put in 10 joules and there is 990 joules in work input from the wind, that is a TOTAL input of 1000 joules of work. How much work actually went into making the paper move over many miles? Lets say the system is VERY INNEFICIENT - lets say against wind, gravity, etc... there is 80% losses. That means that only 200 joules of work was actual movment of the paper.

800 joules in losses, this is a HORRIBLY inefficient system.

However, 200 joules of work was performed in this system but our personal input was 10 joules. That is 200 joules in work performed divided by 10 joules WE had to input, that equals 20 TIMES. That is COP 20.0 yet it still has only 20% efficiency. Do you see that you are discounting the wind as something out of our control but you must undestand that the environmental input that we do not have do pay for is a very legitimate form of energy input to be added to our own in order for work to be done. In this example, 20 times or 2000% net gain in joules of work performed for our small 10 joules investment.