1 Joule of Energy

[Aaron]

intellectual honesty

Example given you move an object in space it takes 1 joule of energy to impart the movement and when you want to stop it it takes 1 joule of energy to stop. 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.

That's right but I'm not so sure you realize what you are really telling me.

1 joule to move the apple up. That is work done - entropy added to the universe. When it hits the ground, the impact is heat and that is work and is also adding to entropy of the universe. How much WORK was done? MORE than the 1 joule worth of work was done total.

The very fact that WORK IS performed when the apple hits the ground is 100% fact that work is being done above and beyond what our 1 joule of potential initially provided.

The efficiency of the system is less than 100% because when you combine OUR potential input and GRAVITY's potential input and we see the total WORK done...

Our potential + gravity's potential = TOTAL POTENTIAL input to the system. Total potential is MORE than 1 joule - we only had to input 1 joule. 10% of TOTAL potential is dissipated in losses (air resistance, etc...), then the EFFICIENCY of the total energetics of an apple going up and down is 90%.

Our work (lift/resistance) + Gravity's work (impact on ground, deformation of apple, etc...) = MORE WORK than our 1 single joule was capable of doing.

Winding up with 0 net joules of potential after the apple stops has NOTHING to do with the FACT that more work is being done that can be accounted for from our 1 joule input. Our 1 joule input cannot do any more work than the lifting of the apple against air resistance, etc... ANY work that is done AFTER that point is EXTRA work that we did NOT have to pay for. The apple's impact on the ground generates HEAT, which is WORK and that work came AFTER our 1 joule of lift and that WORK added to OUR work is MORE WORK than can be accounted for from 1 joule of potential we provided.

Everybody's default answer ADMITS this fact but everyone chooses by conscientious choice to refuse to see what it means.

It is not a matter of semantics, it is not a matter of seeing the glass half full or half empty, it is a matter of simply using common sense.

It is irrelevant that it is gravity giving potential because that potential AFTER our lift is capable of doing work when the apple hits the ground. That work added to work of lifting the apple is MORE than what the 1 joule input was supposed to do.

We leveraged free potential from nature to do MORE work than what our 1 joule could do on its own. That is OVER 1.0 COP - more work done than we had to pay for after the apple has stopped moving.

This is part of the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY that is lacking when analyzing the COP 17 heater of Rosemary's by some people. This is why people that don't believe in free energy will never see it. It is in front of everyone's eyes but everyone chooses to remain ignorant of the facts.

You pay 1 joule and that can only lift the apple - any work after that point is MORE work than the 1 joule was capable of meaning there is MORE work being done than potential WE provided to the system.

[Guest]

Well if it is COP > 1, then can we create a machine to harness the excess energy of the fall of the apple after is has been picked up, and use the same energy to do it all again? I think not.

Picking up and dropping an apple are two reverse processes, one putting energy in and the other getting energy out. A maximum COP of 1.

So I guess it comes down to what you define COP as. I see it like this...
We need energy in our everyday lives and that has to come from somewhere. It would be preferred if the input is small like a button cell battery and the output is large in the kilowatt range.

If something similar can happen with the apple, then it is indeed COP > 1, if not then it is a COP <= 1 system.

Isn't that what really matters?

[Aaron]

gain mechanism

COP has one meaning, ratio of work done compared to what we have to input into the system. COP isn't counting the free environmental work that we don't have to pay for.

If it takes 1 joule of work to lift the apple 20cm. Is that 1 joule supposed to be able to provide any more work? No, that is the point of the apple requiring 1 joule to lift it. That is simply, how much it takes.

If the apple falls down a tube, which compresses a spring loaded mechanism that will pop the apple back up to 10cm, how much potential is need to lift the apple 10cm? Obviously it is a fact that it does indeed take a certain amount of potential to lift the apple 10cm and lifting it 10cm is of course obvious work.

That work to lift the apple 10cm added to the work of lifting the apple 20cm (our 1 joule) means that we are getting more work done by simply having to input 1 joule than what 1 joule is said to be able to produce.

It is said the 1 joule can only lift the apple 20cm. ANY work done that comes after that is EXTRA work being done for FREE and in fact is a GAIN.

[Aaron]

apple lifting

Please do not think I am trying to say that you can lift the apple 20 cm and recovery energy that can bounce the ball or apple higher than 20 cm. That is impossible in this scenario.

Just that more work is being done total from a small investment of 1 joule. It is said that it requires 1 joule to lift the apple 20 cm. If there is any more lifting of the apple AFTER we lift the apple to 20 cm, that is work that is extra free work.

[Aaron]

energy and potential

Still no takers

Here is another flaw and another way of looking at it:

It "requires" 1 joule to lift the apple. If after losses the apple is at a resting height with 0.8 joules, the loss is 0.2 joules of potential or 20% loss. If you have ANY potential left, which there is 0.8 joules, the amount of joules that actually lifted the apple is only 0.2 joules! But is this the case?

Yes, it required the 1 joule but only 0.2 joules were used up to lift the apple. If you spend $1 and somehow end up with 80 cents in credit, your purchase only cost 20 cents. 80 cents can still be put to work.

What is going on here???

Gravitational potential is potential that exists by the downward push of the gravity, which is "streaming" and that potential to do work is NOT the same potential that came from us lifting the apple! lol

This is what gravitational potential is. The quantum flux of the vacuum space/time is the medium that light travels through. I call it the aether. It has both a positive and a negative charge.

The mass of an object displaces a certain amount of aether and the aether moves back in the direction of the center of the mass from where it was displaced. You push your finger into a balloon displacing a certain amount and that balloon pushes back to go back to equilibrium.

When it moves towards the middle from where it was displaced, its interaction towards the mass in the center causes "particles" like "electrons" to rise to the surface of the earth for example. So there is always that downward movement of the aether to the center and with the "particle creation", there is never equilibrium met so gravity continues to have a downward push.

The positive potential of the flux is positively charged. The proton of an atom is positive. When the positive potential of the flux hits a proton in an atom, it exhibits a push or repulsion.

On the downward push, it encounters a piece of wood which has a spacious atomix matrix compared to a piece of lead. The downward movement of the positive "virtual photons" pushes on the protons of the atoms that make up the wood and hold it to the ground. If it is 1 cubic foot, and you lift it, you are lifting it against this downward push.

If you have a 1 cubic foot of lead and lift it, there are a LOT more protons that are being pushed against and this is why it appears heavier...simply more resistance against the constant downward flow of the aether.

If you have any object at 20cm, the gravitational potential on that object is determined by the ability of gravity to exert a downward push on it for a certain amount of time indicated by the height and mass of the object.

The potential there is manifest locally and in live streaming time and totally detached from the the original 1 joule of potential we used up.

All we do when we lift it is use 1 joule with losses to establish a dipole or separation in potential difference between ground level and 20 cm and the potential there is there because of what I explained about gravity above.

Our potential in reality was fully dissipated. The potential at the apple at 20cm is not a changing of form of energy from or potential from our input. All that potential is gone and all we have is another dipole established, which can simply do more work.

Our input of lifting the apple is the apple's resistance against gravity, air, etc... when at 20cm, all that potential is used up.

Energy is a certain potential moving to another potential. The potential that was energetic in moving the apple is no longer there. The potential that will move the apple to the ground is totally separate potential that will be put to use when the trap door opens to let the apple fall. It isn't working to move an object in the direction of its flow but when it hits the ground... it does.

None of the energy or potential to be energy in the apple lifting has NOT transformed into anything else. It is gone and there is a whole new potential. The notion of the apple "storing" the gravitational potential is incredibly laughable because it isn't "storing" anything at all. The apple has no more potential within it than it had sitting on the ground. When the trap door opens, THEN, the positive potential of the downward flow of the quantum flux is able to impart a push on the protons in the apple to push it to the ground.

1 joule of work was done on the way up. With losses, the height at which the apple sits will have a certain amount of work done on it when it hits the ground, which is work that goes above and beyond the 1 joule of work that we expended.

The books cannot even correctly define energy and potential because they do not know what either one really is.

[Jbignes5]

Ok I capitulate...

Go ahead and make a cart with a genny on it.. roll it to the top and let her go... make all the energy you want. Yeah it will work.... Not... If it is moving only because it is falling it isn't work being done. You are trying to alter phsics and that don't cut it. Thats why I said gravity is a constant and with such a small drop that constant doesn't change much. The results is, just because it moves it doesn't mean it costs anything to move. Only the end results, The hit, makes any sense to subtract anything or add for that matter to this situation. In fact wind resistance takes away from the stored potential of the apples mass and weight. The slide down doesn't take energy to realize the potential. Also you have to understand that full acceleration of the wt./mass doesn't even get close to full speed. So there you have another problem with the time it takes to reach the hit it doesn't have full time to accelerate to it's full potential.
Somehow you are trying to say that gravity has a value in that statement and it doesn't but for the fact that it is a constant based off of wt./mass and distance traveled to figure out it's energy at impact. Anything that was "stored" From lifting looses some in the drop and then the impact. Thats it. Gravity is an invisible in this because of it being a constant. You fight it going up and it drops because it has potential filling up like a gas tank does. The farther it goes the more full it is as it is falling twords the end point.
Yes circuits tend to bend the rules as we are seeing. Maybe because there is something special about the way magnetism works. It has many harmonics and we I believe are breaching a new era. No one has argued that it is impossible to get more work out of specific magnetioc and electronic systems. I for one believe there is something there. Some have seen it and quietly took it into thier back pockets trying to hold on to a discovery that should benefit all man. That doesn't happen much does it? A few names I could mention but I will not to keep things pleasant. Nothing irks me so bad then to hear that someone doesn't want to let the cat out of the bag because it is "Commercial" in value. Why should something as such importance as that and it gets hidden and all we get are the toys. No Hey this is what it is and yes you can see it, like this. No we get toys and sold books about how not to do it. This is something fundamental and someone decided we couldn't learn of it. It, actually being an understanding of what we are looking for and how to use it. Now tell me the man doesn't know more then he is saying. He has been quoted in many places as saying you got the toys now go look for it. Radiant energy, Harmonic energy, Resonance and how to use them are the basics of the knowledge we seek. Someone found it and now it sits there doing what? End of rant.
But then there are others who document and record everything for thier fellow men and women and don't even blink an eye on what they have discovered and share it for the world to see. Bravo! When man finally realizes that the greed has to go then we will truely have harmony. What else would there be to fight about? As always we will have supression for both sides until this human condition is removed from our society. I highly doubt I will see it anytime in my lifetime. But this is a good start here.

[Aaron]

@Jbignes, energy and potential

Hi Jbignes,

I agree with your first statement that the fall in itself isn't work. The work is there when there is something for the apple to work against. Air resistance, etc..., which I have mentioned in my examples - always mentioning losses in air resistance, etc... There isn't work in the fall because the downward flow of the aether is not a resisting force to an object in it moving in the SAME direction.

There is no gravitational constant that is absolute, it doesn't exist. If it is, 2 solid aluminum balls or 2 iron balls or 2 balls of plastic, etc... doesn't matter (just identical)... if one is falling and spinning clockwise and one is falling and spinning counterclockwise - in the northern hemisphere, they will not fall at the same rate. One will fall faster and one will fall slower. A third identical ball would fall at a rate, which is half way between the other two balls. In the southern hemisphere, it will do the opposite. Now tell me how relativity stands up due to this fact. No matter how you look at it, "constants" have duped many people.

I agree with your third point though. Yes, just because something moves doesn't mean there is work. But, a few simple points must be considered. If an apple falls in a vacuum, there is only work when it impacts, rebounds, etc... but not during the fall. If the balls falls with air in the path, there is air resistance and that is work because there is heat by the friction dissipating energy and the dissipation is proof of work being done. And of course further work is done to stop the ball through impact, etc...

When lifting the apple, the protons of the atoms are pushing against the downward movment of the positive part of the aetheric flow. That is a resistance and is a dissipation adding to entropy. Part of the dissipated potential came from gravity and part came from us.

The aetheric potential resisted against the mechanical lifter (arm, crane, etc...) of the apple also providing potential that is dissipated in the lifting event. The dissipated potential was from the aetheric medium.

If we provided all the potential, it would be all gone after the lift and there would be no "potential" left over for the ball to drop and impact the ground. We know there is potential that came from an external source because after we are disconnected from the apple, there is potential from gravity that will do further work (if there is nothing under the apple that causes it to be in equilibrium with no potential energy for freefalling).

No energy was transformed into another form of energy. The potential that was moving to a lower potential (entropy) manifested locally at each point of dissipation. Energy never transformed from one form to another. There is potential that is dissipated at the point of dissipation. And any separation in potential difference - a broken symmetry situation - will cause the potential to inflow at its local point and it never was moved there or stored there by some other thing.

The "destruction" of energy is simply true graviational potential (aether flow) dissipating as disorganized an symmetrical aether back into time/space at the local place. The "creation" of energy is the instantly available aetheric potential at the point of any dipole or broken symmetry arrangment and when it is caused to move it is called energy. They are isolated events not transformation and one event related to the other will have their appropriate "ratios" of dissipated potential compared to each other. The first event the second to the third, etc... will have an appropriate amount of loss when establishing the new diople or broken symmetry position - the next even will have a bit less of an ability to create a broken symmetry situation and when that is dissipated, the next event, etc.... and so on. There is no transformation of energy from one form to the next.

That was an assumption and the assumption that there can't be a self-ordering process (establishing one broken symmetry arrangement after another) is plain wrong. Potential is expended and dissipated. Any potential difference that remains is making a separation in potential difference, which is a self-ordering process. That dissipates and is able to create another broken symmetry arrangment dissipating its own potential - and the new broken symmetry arrangement (with a lower potential difference) is yet another self-ordering process and so on.

Because that assumption is wrong by experimental evidence and simple common logic, anything that has a foundation on it is also wrong. You take out the bottom card on the house of cards and the whole thing falls. There are no exceptions. The nature of nature is as it is period and there are no conditions that we can make up for it.

This comment: "Also you have to understand that full acceleration of the wt./mass doesn't even get close to full speed. So there you have another problem with the time it takes to reach the hit it doesn't have full time to accelerate to it's full potential."

Are you telling me that after the apple is lifted 20cm that there is more potential "stored" in the apple when it is resting at 20cm than will be released from the time it drops until it stops?

Then you mention anything stored is released when it falls and stops.

There isn't anything being stored in the apple. This "storing" of "potential" is a phony concept. An apple sitting on the ground and an apple sitting at 20cm has the same potential energy available to it.

The concept of "storing" potential means that there is an increase in something intrinsic within the apple itself. An apple at ground and an apple at 20cm won't have any measurable increase in anything except that the one closer to the ground is in aether that is slightly denser than at 20cm so should show slightly slower time ticking, it is a little bit heavier, etc... if anything the actual potential in the real sense of actual potential and not an abstract term, the one sitting on the ground actually has access to a little more potential than the one at 20cm.

The concept of potential stored in an apple by lifting it to 20cm is based on an abstract mysterious concept that there is something to "STORE". This can't be further from the truth. What I have described is not an abstract mysterious concept.

I told you what the gravitation potential actually is and where it comes from. This is not abstract at all even though it is based on some theory but do you realize this theory predicts just about all gravitational phenomena?

If the apple is resting at 20cm, then relative to the shelf it is sitting on, how much potential is it storing then? Suddenly it has no potential being stored so the potential that is being stored has always been a figment of the imagination. You see the apple 20 cm from the floor and suddenly there is a mysterious storage of potential. When you see the apple 20cm off the ground but relative to the shelf, there is none! That is purely a matter of perspective that shows exactly the abstract concept of storing potential is an imaginary concept that has no basis in reality. The notion of potential energy being "stored" is completely based on what your frame of reference is and has nothing to do with any actual change that is a real part of the apple.

The apple is at 20cm. There is no real broken symmetry of that apple until the apple is pushed off the shelf or a trap door opens under it. Then the symmetry is broken, there is a potential difference that only now exists and will push the apple to the ground working against air resistance and against the ground stopping it causing heat by friction, etc...

When the apple is sitting on the shelf, it is in equilibrium. It is not moving and it cannot move. The equilibrium is only broken when the apple has the shelf pulled out from under it.

The aether is pushing through the object while it is sitting on a shelf 20 cm high just like it is doing if it is at ground level. There is no work being done on the apple while it is sitting on the ground or at 20cm because the apple is neither accelerating or decelerating so there is no real force that is manifesting.

So when the apple does have a path to the ground, the positive potential of the aetheric fluid is able to push on the protons of the atoms in the apple to give it a downward push and while in the fall, minus air resistance, there is nothing there for the apple to push against on its bottom side to create any resistance so that is why the fall in and of itself isn't work.

The gravitational potential is not potential energy to the apple until there is broken symmetry and there is no shelf under the apple so that it can fall. The very moment that happens, that is the first time gravity is ACTUAL potential energy that has the potential to be energetic and cause work and it was NOT potential energy while it is sitting at 20cm on a shelf.

When the apple hits the ground, there is something to push against. And the potential that is actually able to do work can now experience a resistance and the moment that resistance starts is when the gravitational potential is put to work by the resistance.

I agree with your comments on getting technology out. But I believe that the conventional viewpoint of energy and potential that you are sharing with me is what has kept you and others from seeing that machines that can produce more work than it takes to run them from OUR personal input (not including free environmental potential) are already here, the how to on several of them are in this forum as we speak.

The principles of electromagnetics, an apple being pushed up against gravity and coming down, the Velijko oscillator, etc... are ALL operating on the same principles I have shared in this thread. If you analyze the function of all of these things considering the gravitational model and it's potential and energy interactions, you will see nothing but consistancy and there is nothing but inconsistancy with the classical viewpoint.

I do believe in "as above so below". I believe that anyone with truth in their heart will recognize the truth when he/she sees it. And I believe that the natural principles of energy and potential are the same in any example where energy and potential is being used. It will be reflected in anything and everything.

Because electromagnetics has been known to "bend" the rules this doesn't mean it is limited to "electricity". If you look at not only all the "free energy" machines and their concepts but look at the electromagnetics and an apple rising and falling. Both are explained by my same explanation because I see the commonalitiesss shared between them.

The conventional understanding isolates everything and separates them so that one compartmentalized view will inevitably contradict the explanation of a different situation (electricity vs ball falling).

Part of the model I use unites both of these while the conventional model separates them.

There isn't much more I can say about it and there have been some very different view points. Most on the conventional viewpoint, which from each of those sharings are certainly for the most part all in synch with each others and just a very few that can see where the gains are coming in free from the environment.

What I explained above in that detail is the first time I have done so because this kind of sharing usually has some heated debate attached. However, it can all be logically deduced from the model that I have been sharing for a long time.

[Aaron]

ps

Go ahead and make a cart with a genny on it.. roll it to the top and let her go... make all the energy you want. Yeah it will work.... Not...

p.s. Your reply implies that I have suggested I can drop a ball and make it bounce higher than the height that I dropped it from. I have never said I can make as much energy as I want.

We are permitted to reap the benefits of free potential from nature that can do work for us over and over and over and over and over and each time there is a small diminished and add all the work together and it is more than can be accounted for from our personal input. How ever much this provides me is however much it provides me and I have to take it as the universe gives it to me. I have no say so in it and all I can do is leverage nature to the best of my ability.

This doesn't mean we can't have a machine that pours out abundance until infinity, and if it does, I still still tell you it is 100% efficient or less. I will never tell you it is over 100% efficient. I will however continue to assert the fact that there is more work being done than we had to input and all the other potential input that can do work for us came from the environment.

I have repeated several times about 100% efficient or less but over 1.0 COP. It is a very simple concept to grasp. Saying anything that implies that I am trying to say that a ball could bounce higher on its own once it is dropped is taking every single thing I have shared out of context.

[BinzerBob]

This is what I am saying yes

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?

Well yes this is what I am saying. But some things to consider.

When you lift the apple there are some loses in the chemical / biological conversion of food / air into energy so really it might take more energy than one joule from your body to lift the apple to a height of 20 cm (and also there is the energy consumed by the brain to think about lifting the apple).

But when you look at the apple at 20 cm height we can say the apple has the 1 joule of gravitational potential energy.

Really this whole mind experiment is about converting energy in the many energy forms or energy storage forms that exist (ie gravitational potential energy, then kinetic potential energy etc).

In this case I do not see anyone getting more energy out of the system than what was put in. And in this case we are getting out less useful energy than what was put in. I don't know what the useful part of the apple falling is. Maybe we want to cut the apple into two pieces and eat it? And where the apple falls maybe there is a sharp edge that splits the apple into two? But if so then maybe it is better to cut the apple into two pieces directly.

One also has to consider that Work (and energy) has a vector component in relation to direction of forces. So when you lift something up work goes in say and when something falls work goes out (but there are whole books on the subject and I am not the one to explain this concept).

[Guest]

Aaron,
Since we live on earth some things we take for granted so the bigger picture possibly becomes unclear.

You can redefine the apple experiment in permanent magnet form to shed some light on the subject. Place a large bar magnet on a desk, this is the "earth's surface". Stick a ball bearing to it, this is the "apple". Now see lifting the "apple" from the "earth" takes some energy from whichever source attempting to free it and when dropped potential energy is released and it can be harnessed.

The system has a maximum COP of 1 or you could call it syntropy.

[Aaron]

it is very simple

When you lift the apple there are some loses in the chemical / biological conversion of food / air into energy so really it might take more energy than one joule from your body to lift the apple to a height of 20 cm (and also there is the energy consumed by the brain to think about lifting the apple).

But when you look at the apple at 20 cm height we can say the apple has the 1 joule of gravitational potential energy.

Really this whole mind experiment is about converting energy in the many energy forms or energy storage forms that exist (ie gravitational potential energy, then kinetic potential energy etc).

In this case I do not see anyone getting more energy out of the system than what was put in. And in this case we are getting out less useful energy than what was put in. I don't know what the useful part of the apple falling is. Maybe we want to cut the apple into two pieces and eat it? And where the apple falls maybe there is a sharp edge that splits the apple into two? But if so then maybe it is better to cut the apple into two pieces directly.

One also has to consider that Work (and energy) has a vector component in relation to direction of forces. So when you lift something up work goes in say and when something falls work goes out (but there are whole books on the subject and I am not the one to explain this concept).

Yes, if it takes 1 joule to get it to 20cm, it takes more than 1 joule to do it because of losses. If it takes 1.1j to get it to 20cm, then at 20cm, is it considered to have 1j of potential energy?

When you mention: " I don't know what the useful part of the apple falling is."
The falling in and of itself is not work, the falling IS the gravitational potential that will do work when the apple hits the ground or something else. The useful part of falling is that the falling is gravitational potential the apple has access to. When the apple is sitting on a shelf at 20cm, there is zero gravitational potential.

If we put in 1.1 joule and get it to 20cm and it has "1j of stored potential" at that point...

lets say it will have 0.1 joule of loss from air resistance on the fall.

So the most potential is has on the moment of any impact is 0.9j.

If there is a spring under the apple and that 0.9 j is put to work to compress that spring, that is real work being done. Minus heat loss in compressing the spring, etc... lets say there is 0.8 j of stored potential in that compressed spring...when the spring bounces the apple up, lets say it goes to 15cm and lets say there is 0.1 j of loss in air resistance, etc..., then there are 0.7j of potential in the apple at 15cm.

It drops losses .1j of potential, compresses spring - heat loss, etc... to compress is .1j, then there are .5j in potential.

The spring bounces the apple up to a height of 10cm and loses .1 j on the way so the stored potential is now .4 j.

apple drops looses .1 in air resistance, loses .1 in spring compression but we'll just stop here.

In reality, the losses won't be the same on each trip, it will be less and less.

The apple was lifted 20cm (1.0 joule)
The apple was lifted 15cm (0.7 joule)
The apple was lifted 10cm (0.4joule)
------------------------------------
2.1 joules worth of work was done in the lift

and that does not even account for joules of
work that were done in losses, which whether
or not those losses are of use to us is irrelevant.
Work performed is work performed. But we'll
just stick to our "useful" work.

2.1 joules of work was done in lifting the apple.

We entered 1.1 joules of work and lost .1 in the
lift so at 20cm, there is less than we put in.
1.0. This is the only work we had to input.

So 1.1 input 2.1 output.

2.3 parts work divided by our 1.1 input = 1.90 COP (190% of what WE had to input).

Total efficiency - we input 1.1 potential, first gravity donation was 1.0 joules of potential, second donation was 0.8 j of potential in compressed spring potential, 0.7j of gravity potential, then 0.5 in spring potential, 0.4 in gravity potential:1.1 + 0.8 + 0.7 + 0.5 = Total potential input into this is 2.47 joules of potential.

2.1 joules of lifting work was actually done on the first lift we did and 2 more bounces up. But 2.47 joules of potential were totally given.

2.1 divided by 2.47= 85% efficiency.

85% efficiency is the efficiency of this system.

It has a COP of 1.9 meaning 1.9 times more work was done in lifting the apple than our 1.1 input, which is the only thing we had to put in to accomplish 2.1 joules of work in lifting the apple a total of 45 cm worth of lift.

So we were able to cause the ball to be lifted a total of 45 cm from 1.1 joules of input.

[Aaron]

cop is not efficiency

The system has a maximum COP of 1 or you could call it syntropy.

You have confused COP with efficiency.

[ABCStore]

Aaron,

falling dominoes would be a good example of what you're trying to say. You push one and any number of them will fall eventually.
What I don't understand is where are you going with this?

ABC

[Aaron]

dominos

Aaron,

falling dominoes would be a good example of what you're trying to say. You push one and any number of them will fall eventually.
What I don't understand is where are you going with this?

ABC

If we provided the potential to set ALL the dominos, that wouldn't be the same thing.

If we provided the potential to setup the first domino and nature was able to setup the rest, then you're making an accurate analogy.

Otherwise, it has been entirely taken out of context.

[BinzerBob]

A more realistic event would be

Lift apple to 20 cm and at this point has 1 joules of gravitational potential energy

Apple falls hits spring and bounces up to 10 cm

Apple falls hit spring and bounces up to 2 cm

apple falls hits spring and bounces up to 1 cm

Apple falls hits spring and bounces up .2 cm

Apple falls hits spring and does not leave spring surface.

So original height of apple is 20 cm

Spring was able to lift apple to 10+2+1+.2+0=13.2cm

It is simple to do this experiment and see what type of loses would be incurred. There is much losses in the spring and air resistance. I don't think you can allow the readers to believe the apple will be lifted more than 20 cm in total.