1 Joule of Energy

[Aaron]

over 1.0 cop system

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.

Just for a reference, anyone can follow up on the references:

Chemistry 1977

Ilya Prigogine - Nobel Lecture

Basically, in Chemistry and other systems, 1 + 1 can equal 3 instead of 2. Not just in concept but in actual results backed by experimentation. The word SYNERGY in the English language and I'm sure other languages have heir own word for it is a word that implies something, which violates thermodynamics. The combined results is more than the sum of each individual part. That means there is other input that didn't come from the apparent contributing sources.

I first learned of Prigogine's concept about 8 years ago in a health book that discussed open dissipative systems. I was shocked later on to learn of the implications of it as it relates to energy systems.

Here is a govt souce admitting more work done compared to fuel consumed - it is misleading as it doesn't use cop but EF as energy factor but this is an authentic example:

This defines energy factor:
Energy Savers: Determining Energy Efficiency of Storage, Demand, and Heat Pump Water Heaters

"The energy factor (EF) indicates a water heater's overall energy efficiency based on the amount of hot water produced per unit of fuel consumed over a typical day."

EF accounts for standing losses and cop doesn't.

This page:
Energy Savers: Estimating a Storage, Demand, or Heat Pump Water Heater's Costs
shows an example of a heat unit that has an EF of 2.0.

Please don't be mislead by their math of showing cost effectiveness because cost is irrelevant in the fact that 2 parts of water is heated for each 1 unit of fuel. That is 2 times the work done for 1 unit of work input.

So with EF and with losses, there is STILL 2 times more heat produced for each 1 unit of work input.

It is possible of course to have a over 1.0 cop unit that is less cost effective than a lower cop unit it if is expensive technology, etc... but nevertheless, it is producing more heat in the water than fuel consumed. But the point made is there are units producing more heat than fuel source consumed.

Here is one example of a hot water heater heat pump.

Household heat pump water heater KF80-A/150 Household heat pump water heater CN;

It has a COP of 4.5 or more. That means there is 450% more heat produced than joules of energy in electricity that it takes to run it.

A typical hot water heating element may need 3000 watts and with a heat pump, it can produce the same heat for around 600 watts. The heating element only uses the current to produce heat very efficiently almost or sometimes even considered 100% efficient - since dissipation in the form of heat is what is actually desired. A heat pump unit at 600 watts does the same heat for 4~5 less input because it uses free environmental work in the form of heat movement that we don't have to pay for but it does contribute to WORK being done in a measurable way.

No magic here and any true "free energy" machine operates the same way but in the case of electromagnetics, etc... it is environmental input like gravity (mechanical oscillator), time potential, quantum potential from vacuum space, etc...

[Jbignes5]

ok then...

Fine you made another terminology for efficiency deamed cop. Now that you have done that lets look at the example of putting a underwater generator on a propellar in a river. It cost us time and materials for making the unit. But it generates 30kilowatts a day for ever after that from tidal forces of the river. You have spent nothing to get that other then the time and energy of making the generator. Where is that energy comming from? Shall I take you down the road of everything that generates that power only to find out it is being converted from one form to the other. You are disassociating everything else from your equations and only saying from our input we get this. But the energy is still being converted from one form to another.
Lets look more into this since you seem to think it is all for free.
If the moon wasn't there would we have tides? NO. The moon causes the tides to flow and we have thought of a way to extract a tiny little portion of that energy from that natural converter (Tidal forces) <- Gravity/magnetism/centrafugal, of the planets natural conversion process to extract that energy. Yes it happens because of the rotation of the moon around our own planet for which we have no input. But That doesn't make it free. It has it's own costs for which we are not fully aware of. No one can say that they know everything about anything right? just because we can tap a tiny bit of a sources does not make it viable to include the results in the eqation and say it is for free. Or that we get more out then in since we had nothing to do with the conversion process other then putting a prop into the river. If there was no moon there wouldn't be anything to tap. If there was no wind from the solar heating of the earth from the sun, meaning no sun then there would be no wind. These have costs that you are not including in your equations at all.
And there seems to be a mysterious force behind electricity as well that has the same costs associated with it but we have no clue as to what it is or what the costs are. For the heat pump it seems to me that they are thermal super conductors that were discovered much like permanent magnets are magnetic superconductors. Yes they appear to be OU but I bet there are looking like that because of a fundamentally smaller component that lays beneath the conversions. <- that is the source and one source that has eluded us from detecting. Until we understand more about that component (get facts) I refuse to issue definitive statements about such an activity that we know nothing about.
You might believe you are right but until you know you are it is still a theory that you hold to be true. You know nothing about the conversion process because you know nothing about the source. Until you know facts about it you can say whatever you like and no one will believe you. You need the facts to be able to make it a solid and accepted theory of which no one has the facts. Most of what has been done on this forum is in the direction of finding out what are the facts behind this mysterious source and how it can be tapped. Estoling you know it is there without providing clear facts about the area you are talking about will only get you riddiculed.
We can debate this on a daily basis but until you put the facts with proof for all to see you are just thumping your beliefs for all to hear. I am not saying you are wrong or right what I am saying is a picture says a thousand words.

[quantumuppercut]

Arrrrrrrrrggggggggggg

Momentum and kinetic energy is different!

momentum is the speed and movement of the object. Kinetic energy is a pure pulse force. This pure pulse force has 2 pulses in both direction and is mv^2, not 1/2mv^2. This direction is perpendicular to momentum direction. When moving around a circle, this is the centrifugal force, when moving straight line, it distribute radially into all direction. When collision, it becomes a huge pulse force. Kinetic energy is sound, magnetic. Momentum is mass movment. Momentum is conserve. Kinetic energy is conserve.

Back to the apple problem. If you keep bring it up against gravity and extract work on the way down, at most it can only be unity. You MUST NOT bring the apple straight up against gravity. You must accelerate them side way to the velocity require, then use the centrifugal force to redirect them upward. We've been doing that with airplanes ever seen. Thrust sideway and use lift to bring it up. What is lift? Lift is the CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. Look at the air plane wing design or even all wind turbines. That thing is half a circle. The reason they don't use exactly half a circle is they try to maintain the air attach to the wing to extract a bit more centrifugal force. The mathematical model has everything to do with law of momentum conservation and Coriolis accerlation. I've worked out the majority portion of it. The unification of gravity and electromagnetic is almost complete. The incompleteness is the ego of humanity to let this come true. It has everything to do with spiritual.

[Aaron]

cop vs efficiency

If there was no moon there wouldn't be anything to tap. If there was no wind from the solar heating of the earth from the sun, meaning no sun then there would be no wind. These have costs that you are not including in your equations at all.

I'm not creating a new measurement of efficiency. COP is established and known reality in engineering, physics, etc... Some geothermal heat pumps are close to 10.0 COP!

I have given a very clear example of what efficiency is and what COP is. I would encourage you to re-read my posts about it because I have already addressed the points you are making.

The wind for example IS in the equation if you are talking about EFFICIENCY.

The wind for example IS NOT supposed to be counted in COP.

Efficiency is the TOTAL input EXACTLY like my example. OUR own work PLUS the free work from external sources that WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR. It will always be 100% or less.

COP is comparing the output with only what WE have to input into the system. It is called leveraging free work from nature. It is irrelevant that the moon influences the tides or that the sun is doing work to put light on a solar panel or any other form of work. This is known and the fact that it takes work to do all those things is NOT being ignored or discounted. But leveraging a LOT of that work with a tiny bit of work is the entire point.

There is no unknown yet to be detected energy in heat pumps. Cold pulls heat towards it for FREE.

Many people say and think that heat moves to the cold but it doesn't. Heat isn't psychic and doesn't automatically know how to seek out cold. It is the cold that determines the path for heat to follow. The cold is a low potential sink like a suction and by virtue of that, heat will roll towards it - and it does this for free (free to us - natures foots the bill).

"Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." Tesla

[Aaron]

joules to lift a ball

Is anyone here able to post a graph of a ball for example with a certain weight that is lifted to various heights. Lets say 3 feet or 36 inches. The ball weights about 15 grams and is lifted to 36 inches over 1 second and then released.

How many joules is required to lift that ball to 36 inches?

24 inches? (over .66 seconds)

12 inches? (over .33 seconds)

[ABCStore]

Here's a hint: in physics, never ever jump to real numbers while discussing theory!

Again, ideally, if you used up x joules to bring the apple up, you can only extract x joules back while it falls down. Period.

ABC

[Aaron]

@abc

Here's a hint: in physics, never ever jump to real numbers while discussing theory!

Again, ideally, if you used up x joules to bring the apple up, you can only extract x joules back while it falls down. Period.

ABC

Thanks, I'm interested in doing what I want and first of all, you do not know why I'm asking about the #'s and how it applies to experiments I ALREADY have run.

Your physics have produced circuits and other systems that CANNOT do what mine can do so I might have a little insight into things that go above and beyond what you have been taught and what you believe.

Duplicate my self running oscillator to demonstrate that your HINT may be based on knowledge that I have. I posted that video, it is your turn.

[ABCStore]

No need to scream and yell.
"Self sustaining by ground potential keeping caps charged up." - quote from Youtube description. Hardly self-running...

Anyway, I don't see how it is relevant to the original statement?

ABC

[Aaron]

joules to lift a ball

Emphasizing words is not yelling - it focuses the attention on the intended point.

The voltage potential on a ground rod is only voltage potential. There is NO current flowing from it

I mention it to simply point out that your opinion gets you your results and my opinion gets me mine - and it is self running and I get work from potential without current because I know what the energy is and I know what potential is.

Why not post the answer to my question about joule requirements and the ball?

Everyone wants to gripe about theories are theories - show proof.

My ideas and theories (I call it a theory because I have seen nothing that refutes it for a long time now) predict that if I do certain things in circuits I get certain results and you know what? I build them (that means I actually do experiments and not just talk about them) and they do what MY theories say will happen, which is different from what the textbooks say will happen.

[Vortex]

Aaron,
What if you used
Hydrostatic Pressure & Buoyancy force to do the lifting?
Could you not lift more for less and extract energy during the
lifting as well as the falling?

could you please look at
Hydrostatic Pressure & Buoyancy force
Thank you
Randy

[BinzerBob]

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?

The apple starts at ground level (it can not go down into the ground, ground is taken as an arbitrary zero height just for convenience).
When you lift the apple the energy you obtained from eating another different apple some 30 minutes earlier goes into increasing the height of the apple say 20 cm. When the apple is raised to this point it now has gravity potential energy. It has the ability to do work if it falls or is lowered from this say 20 cm height.

If you let the apple rest on a 20 cm high ledge the apple will continue to have this gravitational potential energy.

If the ledge has a trap door to it that suddenly opens, the apple begins to fall. As the apple begins to fall it increases speed. As it increases speed it drops more and more. now two things are happening when the apple is falling.

The gravitational potential energy is converted to kenetic energy. At the point that the apple now hits the ground level the gravitational potential energy is now zero, but at the same time just before impact to the ground the Apple kinetic potential energy is now slightly less than 1 Joule (there was some air resistance that stole some small energy). This energy all came from the energy that you put into the system and the energy came from the food you ate and the air you breath (chemical / biological energy).

As the apple was falling energy was being stripped from the system in the form of air resistance (and thus heat generation). When the apple hits the ground many things happen. There is sound gererated which requires energy, there is heat generated which requires energy and along with heat generation there is plastic deformation of the apple and maybe also plastic deformation to the ground which also will produce some heat and requires energy to do... Now when the system comes to a rest Kenetic Potential energy goes to zero and there is heat energy generally added to the environment. This heat energy increases Entropy of the universe. Entropy is always increased and not ever conserved.

There is no gaining of any energy at all. This is just a clasic example of principle of conservation of energy.

Someone else might be able to explain this better than me. Especially a concept of Entropy.

[Aaron]

joules to lift a ball

Thanks Binzerbob, I understand what entropy is but if I could get the answer to this, it might simplify what I'm trying to convey.

The ball weights about 15 grams and is lifted to 36 inches over 1 second and then released.

How many joules is required to lift that ball to 36 inches?

24 inches? (over .66 seconds)

12 inches? (over .33 seconds)

[Aaron]

Clarification

If anyone can answer that ball question, that would be great.

To see this through, lets get back to the apple.

1. Apple is laying on ground.
2. You expend 1 joule of potential over whatever time and lifted an apple 20cm.
3. The apple has stored potential energy, gravitational potential.
4. The apple is released, hits the ground, rolls and stops.
5. The apple in equilibrium now has 0 joule of potential energy in terms of gravitational potential.

We used one joule to lift the apple and when it is released and falls then rolls to a stop, there is no more potential left. It took 1 joule and after its journey up and down there is nothing left.

Is this basically what everyone is saying?

[Aaron]

apple lifting

The apple starts at ground level (it can not go down into the ground, ground is taken as an arbitrary zero height just for convenience).
When you lift the apple the energy you obtained from eating another different apple some 30 minutes earlier goes into increasing the height of the apple say 20 cm. When the apple is raised to this point it now has gravity potential energy. It has the ability to do work if it falls or is lowered from this say 20 cm height.

If you let the apple rest on a 20 cm high ledge the apple will continue to have this gravitational potential energy.

If the ledge has a trap door to it that suddenly opens, the apple begins to fall. As the apple begins to fall it increases speed. As it increases speed it drops more and more. now two things are happening when the apple is falling.

The gravitational potential energy is converted to kenetic energy. At the point that the apple now hits the ground level the gravitational potential energy is now zero, but at the same time just before impact to the ground the Apple kinetic potential energy is now slightly less than 1 Joule (there was some air resistance that stole some small energy). This energy all came from the energy that you put into the system and the energy came from the food you ate and the air you breath (chemical / biological energy).

As the apple was falling energy was being stripped from the system in the form of air resistance (and thus heat generation). When the apple hits the ground many things happen. There is sound gererated which requires energy, there is heat generated which requires energy and along with heat generation there is plastic deformation of the apple and maybe also plastic deformation to the ground which also will produce some heat and requires energy to do... Now when the system comes to a rest Kenetic Potential energy goes to zero and there is heat energy generally added to the environment. This heat energy increases Entropy of the universe. Entropy is always increased and not ever conserved.

There is no gaining of any energy at all. This is just a clasic example of principle of conservation of energy.

Someone else might be able to explain this better than me. Especially a concept of Entropy.

Hi Bob,

You had me until I got to the end.

The apple requires 1 joule (over whatever time) to lift it 20cm.

When the apple is lifted, 1 joule over whatever time worth of work is done, complete and we won't mysteriously recover 1 joule back in our body when the apple is stopped on the ground and we won't get this 1 joule of potential in the apple or any part of 1 joule in the apple when it comes to a stop so we expend 1 joule and when the apple stops, there is nothing left. There is no net gain in potential energy left in the apple when it stops.

There is losses against air resistance, etc... when the apple was lifted so the gravitational potential in the apple at a resting height of 20cm is going to be less than the 1 joule we put in. The air resistance imparts a friction on the apple, which is "heat" (potential energy in joules or fractional joules being put to work) that dissipates into the environment that we will never get back. And this adds to the entropy of the universe.

Let's say there is a 10% loss for an easy example so it may have 0.9 joules of gravitational potential.

Up until this point, do you or anyone else agree with what I have written?

The numbers are just ballpark but is a simple example - but is this so far consistent with the classical understanding of entropy and whatever other rules and/or laws explain the apple lifting, work done, entropy, etc...?

[Aaron]

Bueller, Bueller, Anyone?

Bueller, Bueller, anyone?