1 Joule of Energy

[Aaron]

cop

The term COP is simply a coefficient of performance and applies as appropriate to each system. With a Bedini setup, there is no compressor and the only only things to consider is work done compared to work leaving the input battery, which is to be considered the only input we have to pay for.

The term has been used for quite a while in the "free energy" field and what it represents has been has been understood. At least by those that are not claiming over 100% efficiency.

[Aaron]

how many joules?

I think if anyone dares to answer the following question will see that there is no valid argument against COP 1.0 for a ball falling.

Q1) How many joules of work is required to lift a 10 gram ball to 36 inches in 1 second?

Q2) How many joules of work is required to lift a 10 gram ball to 24 inches in 0.66 seconds.

Many classical explanations of what work and energy is supposed to be have been given. But still, there has been a complete evasion of answering anything that will jeopardize that viewpoint and belief.

[Jbignes5]

And then answer this.

How many jewels of work does it take to let the ball fall. None... after you wasted the 1 jewel you have no further input into the system. Hence why you can't claim anything to do with the output. Thats like saying niagra falls generators were in effect infinete in cop. This term was not meant to follow electronics but only from the conversion of mechanical to heat transfer of the superconducting liquid. How do you compare the two? Between that system and your changed variables like input energy vs output work done. Unless you know the tranfering calculations of everything that the equation is representing how do you know you are using it the right way?
You mentioned also about planting a tree witch is niether a good example or even remotely close since the tree itself is it's own system you are claiming any work after it leaves your hand as the result of what you did. And it isn't that way my friend. The tree would have grown anyways if it had the right copnditions for it to grow. Lets say that one tree drops a seed on the ground and grows. There you go explain why that the tree grew even without your "Help". It is it's own system and you cannot claim the results because you had nothing to do with that system operating at all other then dropping it into a hole.
The same thing goes with gravity. It is a part of a system that we still don't understand but for the fact that a rock falls weather you are there to push it into motion or it falls because the right conditions are met. After you stop interacting with the object that doesn't mean you had anything to do with it bouncing or otherwise after it because you disconnected yourself from the equation letting the other system take over. And frankly thats why it has been so hard to produce anything that even remotely seems OU in the mechanical world but for a rare few examples like using superconducting materials you need to stay in control of the aparatus to even harness anything you want from that process. Of course then you got another long set of variables and resistances associated with the other system as well when you try to go aound what nature tries to do and harness energy from that. Like I said before you or even we have no clear idea why gravity does what it does . There have been some good theories but thats as far as we are getting because seeing the force behind the force or even whats causing the force eludes us atm. It's the same thing as magnetism although we are reaching better conclusions about it we don't fully know about it to say for a definete fact that that is why it works the way it works.
You on the other hand seem to think that just because you raise the apple that you caused the avalanch and yes you triggered it but you definetly had nothing to do with the outcome because you were not connected to it to gather or even control the situation. You were outside of the system controlling it so there is no cop other then you lost 1 jewel and donated it to the environment. You have to remember that you are the observer then after you let the ball go or apple fall the rest is the environment that has anything to do with it after that and not you. The results would end the same weather you dropped it or it fell from a 20cm heigth. How do you claim cop on the one with no input then? infinete?

[Aaron]

how many joules?

This is exactly what I mean. Nobody that believes in the classical training is simply able to answer the question. Your prove my point everytime you answer differently.

I think if anyone dares to answer the following question will see that there is no valid argument against COP 1.0 for a ball falling.

Q1) How many joules of work is required to lift a 10 gram ball to 36 inches in 1 second?

Q2) How many joules of work is required to lift a 10 gram ball to 24 inches in 0.66 seconds.

Many classical explanations of what work and energy is supposed to be have been given. But still, there has been a complete evasion of answering anything that will jeopardize that viewpoint and belief.

[Jbignes5]

here is the reason I didn't answer.

I am not a scientist with the calculation to your problem. I never said I was and don't really care what it is. Everything that I have been answering is actually from knowledge gained by watching nature and knowing the few terms that you throw around and manipulating the situation to look like you have anything to do with the outcome. Many times you pose retorts to my plain logic that is either illogical or simple don't relate to the topic. And what you do is exactly what I did to your post which is to ignore it.
The problem is exaclty what I said in my previous post. You are taking measurements from your system then releasing it into another system and claiming your system does more. And it doesn't. You go as far as to convert another term(cop) from another system (heatpumps) to prove you are right and to tell you the truth you are not right. Yes it would be nice to know the cop of a system lets say in electronics but we don't know the parameters that should go with the cop system. Well we do but they are not always there to complete the computation.
It is funny but that is the entire reason I took this stance on this. You read something from like Bearden who is entirely theoretical in his approach and try to apply the one thing that would prove his theories. The problem with that is there is no connection between your system, lifting the ball, apple and rock to the dropping of said object or even the tree growing. Once you claim the outcome of an unrelated system you are in error because the system that is showing a gain is outside of your system of input ie arm and hand holding object. Thats the real problem of an open system. And thats why it has been real hard to find anything that can be associated with your input in making an aparatus. Once the system encloses the object the object is tied to that system.
Now there have been cases that don't exhibit this trait because it maintains the connection without interfering with the outside systems openess. I refer you to the one magnet no bearing bidini motor. We have noticed that the connections can be made to be near zero loss because of the magnetic vortexes created as connectors to the satalite magnets. This has some promise because we can now put the statalites just outside of the main rotors sphere of influence and still get a reaction from the statalites magnets.
As usual I have listened to your input and have given you a reply. Lets see if you ignor my retort because it might upset the world you are living in. See there is a difference in my posts from yours in that atleast I try to explain why I feel this way and what I know that backs up what I think I know. You on the otherhand tend to listen the theory gets put down and you are trying to get another example to back it up which gets shot down again. Then you put up a very scientific computation trying to upstage others when the plain truth is system to system they are totally unrelated. When gravity takes over you are not doing any work at all and even disconnect yourself from the system that took the object up then rely on the object to show any gains. And that is wrong. How can you claim a result if it is an open system or even unrelated? I would say that your example shows that you wasted 1 joule because you let the attachment to your lifting agent come apart from the object. if there was a string attached to the ball or other way of staying connected to do something to recover that energy then you could have a system that is connected and could claim something about it but you didn't. Even then it would change the dynamics of your system drastically and you would end up loosing more then you gain I bet.

[Aaron]

thermodynamics

Yes it would be nice to know the cop of a system lets say in electronics but we don't know the parameters that should go with the cop system.

It is funny but that is the entire reason I took this stance on this. You read something from like Bearden who is entirely theoretical in his approach and try to apply the one thing that would prove his theories. The problem with that is there is no connection between your system, lifting the ball, apple and rock to the dropping of said object or even the tree growing. Once you claim the outcome of an unrelated system you are in error because the system that is showing a gain is outside of your system of input ie arm and hand holding object. Thats the real problem of an open system. And thats why it has been real hard to find anything that can be associated with your input in making an aparatus. Once the system encloses the object the object is tied to that system.
Now there have been cases that don't exhibit this trait because it maintains the connection without interfering with the outside systems openess. I refer you to the one magnet no bearing bidini motor. We have noticed that the connections can be made to be near zero loss because of the magnetic vortexes created as connectors to the satalite magnets. This has some promise because we can now put the statalites just outside of the main rotors sphere of influence and still get a reaction from the statalites magnets.
As usual I have listened to your input and have given you a reply. Lets see if you ignor my retort because it might upset the world you are living in. See there is a difference in my posts from yours in that atleast I try to explain why I feel this way and what I know that backs up what I think I know. You on the otherhand tend to listen the theory gets put down and you are trying to get another example to back it up which gets shot down again. Then you put up a very scientific computation trying to upstage others when the plain truth is system to system they are totally unrelated. When gravity takes over you are not doing any work at all and even disconnect yourself from the system that took the object up then rely on the object to show any gains. And that is wrong. How can you claim a result if it is an open system or even unrelated? I would say that your example shows that you wasted 1 joule because you let the attachment to your lifting agent come apart from the object. if there was a string attached to the ball or other way of staying connected to do something to recover that energy then you could have a system that is connected and could claim something about it but you didn't. Even then it would change the dynamics of your system drastically and you would end up loosing more then you gain I bet.

Actually, we do know the parameters to measure cop in electrical systems and it has been addressed countless times in this forum and elsewhere for years. Joules of work paid for in a supply battery, etc... compared to joules of work in output (in battery charging, mechanical, etc...).

There is nothing theoretical about being able to compare output with our input. It is quite tangible and if it is not, then basic math is useless.

If you don't see the connection between a tree growing, an apple falling or a ball bouncing in terms of input we pay for and total work done, then that is where the misunderstanding comes from. You want to see them as all completely different types of systems, however, you want to use the exact same thermodynamics to cover all of them. Something is wrong with that I think.

It sounds like someone's reality is being upset and it isn't mine.

There is nothing theoretical about counting WORK DONE. lol

If it takes 10 joules in lifting work to bring an object to a meter over x time, and the object is dropped and it bounces up to 2/3 height for example, that is LIFTING WORK that can be counted as well. 2/3 over 2/3 the time, lets say 6 joules of lifting work and you cannot argue that it doesn't take work to lift it on the second bounce.

It is very simple non-theoretical math, addition:

10 joules of work done in the first lift
+
6 joules of work done in the second lift
--------------------------------------
16 joules of work total done

If we expended 10 joules on the first lift,
that is 10 joules of work we put in and
16 joules of work was done. That is over
1.0 cop, you can deny it, you can justify
why it isn't true, you can change reality
conveniently to fit your viewpoint or
anything else but it does not change the
truth.

If we lift an apple to 20cm, we EXPENDED
1 joule in work. When the apple drops,
even if it doesn't bounce, heat is created
when hitting the ground and that is work
that is ADDED to the 1 joule in work ALREADY
done. 1 + extra work is MORE than 1 joule
of work demonstrated by putting in only 1
joule.

When we release an object and let it free fall.
I NEVER said the fall in itself is work. It is not
work because the object is MOTIONLESS
in freefall relative to the flow of gravity. Therefore,
the gravity is exerting no force on the protons
that make the mass of the object.

When it hits the ground, there IS force exerted
on the object and that is potential being put
to work and dissipated in the resistance. That
work is REAL WORK and when you add that WORK
to what we put in to lift it, it is over 1.0 COP.

You can say when we let go of the object, there
is another system, but that is amusing because
that means you are also claiming there is no
conservation of energy. If it is a totally separate
system, then you can't say we are storing
any kind of gravitational potential when we lift
an object, which would be impossible to do since
that is a totally separate system. If it is a totally
separate system, then when we lift the object,
100% of lifting energy is dissipated. That is one
system in your definition and your definition is
actually quite magical where suddenly a totally
separate system has an object suddenly floating
in the air and how did it get there? You can't
say we put it there since it is unrelated energetically.

You would be doing yourself a service by studying
non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems. NET Systems
and it is a NET system for a reason It is apparent
that anyone that persists in the illusion that conventional
thermodynamics apply to the systems that I have
described have no idea what they are:

"non equilibrium thermodynamic systems" - Google Search

Here, one nice little review of a book discussing NET systems
by someone at some university:

Over the summer, I read Into The Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics and: Life (U. Chicago Press) and was immediately taken by the "Second Law" approach to systems theory: How energy flow and gradient reduction imperatives create and maintain non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems (NETs).

His argument is that in order to degrade gradients in the most efficient manner possible, complex systems will emerge. Increased complexity enhance the system's dissipative properties, hence such open systems tend to grow as long as a gradient is present. The book mentions several examples of NET: Bernard cells, Taylor vortices, hurricanes, life itself, larger ecosystems.


---------


That is the kicker - open systems grow as long as a gradient is present. Each time a ball bounces, the systems is "regauged" and a new gradient is formed, which allows for more work to be done again...the ball lifts (work) and it falls (impact is work), again and again and again. It simply is a more efficient way to dissipate energy with an open system.



You can also find COUNTLESS resources by the worlds TOP thermodynamic masters of the world. Prigogine, etc...


All natural systems are basically non-equilibrium systems that over 1.0 COP and any free energy device is simply an attempt to duplicate life and other natural systems.



Again, ANY system that regauges itself and establishes a new gradient or potential difference is an open system that gives more work that what was input.


It is just a more efficient way to dissipate energy.



These things have ALWAYS been here and around us and we have been using these systems since the beginning of time. It is only the classical misunderstanding that conventional thermodynamics applies across the board to all systems is where the trouble is. Anyone that refuses to allow
themselves to see this maybe never will and I'm not going to convince anyone with that mindset.


We simply have to grow up and mature our understanding enough in order to get out of the dark ages and realize that the understanding of thermodynamics have undergone a radical transformation with the understanding of non-equilibrium systems and it is already recognized by academia at many university levels. I'm saying nothing new, just what has already been know for years.

[Jbignes5]

Two things wrong in my opinion.

You are counting work done in the system and adding them together. First off the work being done is by your system. Your arm or whatever. Thats an entirely different system then what takes over once you let the ball go. How can you take the work you did and add it to the work another system did that you have no connection to? You cant take two unrelated systems and claim the results as yours from both systems. Your input to the system was 1 joule. One you let go the potential is in the ball not your system of lifting the object. It changes to the environmental system which if it had been there already and dropped for unknown reasons you couldn't claim the resuls as well. You in effect cause more work to be done but didn't maintain the connection because the ball fell out of your system and entered the environmental system. Just because you move a ball in space once it goes you cannot claim the results Like seemingly going forever. in fact your cop is then in effect a - number because once it left your system, that is where the ownership goes to the system that takes it over. Just because you don't have the connection anymore.
It would do you a better service to actually look at it from this viewpoint. If you make a device that device is a system. If it draws in the environment I will capitulate that it is OU. Thinking that your system is actually more very complex systems added together isn't the way to go. Systems are integrated and can have multiple components but but very definable restraints. If they were related in the way you are looking at it how do you define your system. like I said the environment is a constant in the equation because you can only modify your system you can't modify the environments. You can modify your apple and make it alluminum and get the effect of the electric glider but that is in another system beyond your control. Ie space, air or whatever. The environment is paying the cost of doing said work not you the envioronment is also netting the gain if any. Unless you have a way to magically (magnetically) make that connection and get something back you got nothing once it leaves your 20cm. In fact you have donated to the natural background environment which reaps the benefits of said action. You already agreed that once you set something in motion doesn't mean it is work. If it is not work then you get squat. In fact unless you are saying you are the environment, any gains are for the environment and not you.
It's not hard to see how you came to your conclusions but what is hard to see is that you pretend what I am saying is not worth concidering.
Now onto the fact that you seem to think that the ball isn't worth concidering as being the object of work and gains. The ball has been transfered to the environment which the potential<-is for calculating the predictive events at certain distances when gravity<-a constant at near earth distances pulls on that mass and weight with a predictable amount. When it falls it will realize a certain percentage, also predictable of the full force at anywhere in the fall. Once the ball terminates against a surface that potential get translated to stress the ball due to the drag of gravity on the ball. Since the configuration of the ball is hollow to design specs it crunches down till it expends enough potential so the potential is near the material rebound break point. Now give the type of material and design of the innerds of the ball it has losses as well. These losses are more apparent when the ball rebounds since it looses more potential and fails to achieve the same distance as once it left your system. The amount of potential takes a less of a hit because the ball's material is design to force back with less energy expended. Kinda like a super conductor material but not so super. Going up it looses energy due to gravities resistance to let it go, as well as air and other resistances whatever they may be. These are all predictable once you know all the parameters.
The only way I see anything real is by harnessing nature itself and tapping the energy that way. A better way to see it is if I take the ball and apply a force that cuases it to rebound to my system, hits it . If I could get more energy from the impact then yes you could claim the results but thats not what is happening in your example is it?

[Aaron]

not separate systems

Jbigness,

It would be helpful to readers if you put spaces between your paragraphs.

First of all, it is ALL the same system.

This is what is mean by a system that GROWS when the potential difference (gradient) is maintained.

Energy expended to lift a bouncy ball for example. When it is dropped, gravitational potential is turned into work when the ball hits the ground, regauging the system so to speak. It bounces back up in the air and that is more work done and that re-establishes a gradient or potential difference. Ball drops, gravity gives input ball bounces back up working and new potential difference is established. The system GROWS and each time it is THE SAME SYSTEM and this is very well established in non-equilibrium thermodynamics!

ALL the work done is added together because it is accepted that it is all one system. When the ball is flat on the ground, to get the system into motion, only our input was needed and compared to all the work done, the work done because of environmental input being added is GREATER THAN 1.0 COP.

This is an indisputable fact of science.

This isn't some fringe science. This is completely acceptable to the greatest minds in the world in physics and THERMODYNAMICS. Go study who all the top thermodynamicists are, write them all a letter explaining your viewpoint of all these separation of systems and see what kind of response you get. I dare you.

They will give you the exact answer I gave you. You lift a ball and it drops and keeps bouncing, that is all one system.

From the time the ball is moved from a resting position on the ground UNTIL it is at a resting position on the ground again, that is all ONE single system.

Your claim of separate systems is exactly why most people have never seen over 1.0 COP system is because they don't even know what one would look like.

Put a skate board on a half pipe, push it up to one side and let go, that is over 1.0 cop because more work is being done than was required to lift it to its initial spot when letting go. It rolls up the other side then back and loses height each time then stops. All the lift is work more than what we had to input.

The powers that be have never been able to stop reality from being reality. They have only been able to hoodwink the masses from seeing it.

Again, don't take my word for it. Go see who the top thermodynamicist are and share your separate system classical viewpoint with them. I guarantee the you will never see the world the same again.

[Jbignes5]

I'm sorry but no.

It works exactly as i have stated in nature and that is the natural law. It is not one in the same system and if it was then the negative drain of us taking from that system would throw all of nature into chaos. The way you explain it is that after you lift the board your input get multiplied by your outcome. It does not because your input was a gift to get the natural process moving. You get nothing from it and never will because when you try to harness anything it destroys the system to which you want to extract that energy.
My view is nothing more then the way nature exists. I am sorry that you seem to think that is should be any different then what is occurring around is every day. You ideas of some far fetched reality that doesn't exists poses a definete problem the the safety of man kind. We exist because the natural process works. Weather we are there or not it works. You on the other hand think that nature is there for us. We can neither command it nor polute it without doing MAJOR damage to that system. Hasn't 2000 years shown you anything at all? Why exactly do you think we are in the mess we are in right now?
We sure could use it if we knew how it worked and making up theories, because that what it appears to be doing without hard evidence is dangerous at best. Acting on the theories is even more dangerous without having a good understanding of the system we are trying to extract from. You do realize we are talking about the very energy that holds everything together right? Because thats what the aether, Radiant energy is. You have no clue if you are correct same as the next guy who has 20 million years of university teaching.
You show your ignorance by taking little pokes at me and now I see why. I mean if you can't match the arguement then throw some stones that will always prove you right.
As for my typing up my thoughts. Well I guess thats my style. I write with passion and I try to think outside the box unlike you who makes the box so big that he cannot see beyond your theoristic world.
The funny thing is all I see and hear from you is what you heard from Bearden and the likes. Sorry to say but theories are just that theories. Until you have the observation that prove what you are talking about and I mean observations that are complete with all the variables for all to see then you got nothing.
The second joke is you don't even read and think about what I said. You are not open to observations that contradict your opinion meaning you are biased to the facts. I at least talk in verbatum of your opinion and at least read your theories and reply to them. I do not refer you to others to send your thoughts about this because I am willing to debate this with you. If man was wrong about what electricity was and is what do you think man got this right. For god sakes not one scientist can agree on what is an electron or even if there is such a beast. Why is that?
What I was trying to say is that you are supplying the potential which you pay for by lifting it. If gravity was out of the picture that means nothing would happen. Gravity is the environment. Not something you can control and certainly not something you could include from outside your system (Meaning the lifting of the ball). Once you let the other system take it there is nothing you can do to change the fact that a rubber ball will fall at a predictable rate and within certain perameters the same impact and resulting bounce. You did not form gravity and you certainly don't contol gravity. The ball is only been supplied with a certain amount of potential that will not get realized unless you do let it go. If you lift a ball to 20cm and never drop it do you get anything from it? No. When you disassociate yourself from the experiment there is no result that you can claim. Letting go of the ball does just that. It leaves your system and enters the environmental system for which you can not gain any benefit from. If you try to attach a coil and magnets to the ball it changes the outcome and you get basically a loss. Theoretics can only get you so far. The real world is telling you that. weather you listen is up to you I guess. But the facts are sure pointing the other way.
Open systems are just that, open. Without you getting anything from it. If you make a device that includes the environment then you affect that environment. Sometimes with devastating effects. History tells us of this and actually history warns us of the dangers. If you are bright then you might actually see there is some sage logic in what I say. No one knows what Aether is. No one knows what Radiant energy is. Just think about the position we are in now. We didn't think and we certainly didn't know this was gonna happen or just didn't care I guess. And I see you are of that mentality. We need to know more about this before opening the box or poof it won't matter after that.
As for now I am just about out of the passion it took me to state my and human kinds position. I don't pretend to have ambassidorship for human kind but I am one of many.

[Aaron]

thanks for your feedback

You're right and countless of physicists are wrong, Nobel prize winner is wrong, advanced university departments are wrong, advanced governmental energy departments are wrong...and you're right. You know better than all of them together according to you.

Thanks for you feedback.

[Jbignes5]

Lets educate you.

Try loking at this series and see what has been proven. YouTube - Keshe 1 intro and gravity
This is a 5 part series. please watch them all and then we will continue this debate.

This is exactly what I have been talking about with systems specifically stated. These are not only in theory but actual experiments have been done to show they have a better understanding of what is going on. And if you listen very closely you would see some have touched on what is at the root or the manifestation of the root of this phenomina, PLASMA!
Please if you really want to know then give this a chance for you to understand what we are dealing with here.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that no matter what your credentials you still can be wrong. Example given Steven Hawkings and black hole theories. After 20-30 years he finally admitted he was wrong about his theory of destruction of information. Even the brightest minds we have can be wrong. Heck even I can be wrong but this sure does link up with all the other stuff about this phenomina acting like gas or fluid dynamics and how systems interact.
Even Tesla himself thought that it was a gasous or fluid dynamic to the experiments he did.

[Aaron]

non-equilibrium thermodynamics

I'm telling you facts that are already accepted by ESTABLISHED physics. I'm not talking about 100% undergrad conventional physics. This is what the seasoned professionals in thermodynamics have known for years.

You say your way of looking at things is because you are looking at how nature works. But it is anything but.

Here is a fact. Classical thermodynamics has NEVER described nature. It only describes closed systems and there are no closed systems in nature. Those thermodynamics always described man-made systems that don't allow extra input.

Here is another fact. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics includes hurricanes, life, trees, planetary movement, etc... NET is the only thermodynamics that ever has actually, finally described natural systems that are open like all systems in nature.

If you want thermodynamics that actually describe natural open and living systems that GROW, it is non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

If you want thermodynamics that explain nothing but closed systems that are designed to kill themselves off quick, use conventional thermodynamics.

Again, a bouncing ball is over 1.0 cop. You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

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

Here is a basic start for you from Wikipedia - not an authoritative guide by any means, but popular enough to have a good basic blurb:

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics time-dependent thermodynamic systems, irreversible transformations and open systems. In contrast to most physical theories that rely on thermodynamic equilibrium, most systems found in nature are not in equilibrium. Real systems are not isolated from their environment and are therefore continuously sharing energy with other systems. This sharing of energy includes being driven by external energy sources as well as dissipating energy.



Non-equilibrium systems cannot be studied with all the tools of equilibrium thermodynamics such as entropy production,

If you do your homework, you'll be able to recognize over 1.0 COP when you see it.

[BinzerBob]

I'm telling you facts that are already accepted by ESTABLISHED physics. I'm not talking about 100% undergrad conventional physics. This is what the seasoned professionals in thermodynamics have known for years.

You say your way of looking at things is because you are looking at how nature works. But it is anything but.

Here is a fact. Classical thermodynamics has NEVER described nature. It only describes closed systems and there are no closed systems in nature. Those thermodynamics always described man-made systems that don't allow extra input.

Here is another fact. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics includes hurricanes, life, trees, planetary movement, etc... NET is the only thermodynamics that ever has actually, finally described natural systems that are open like all systems in nature.

If you want thermodynamics that actually describe natural open and living systems that GROW, it is non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

If you want thermodynamics that explain nothing but closed systems that are designed to kill themselves off quick, use conventional thermodynamics.

Again, a bouncing ball is over 1.0 cop. You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

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

Here is a basic start for you from Wikipedia - not an authoritative guide by any means, but popular enough to have a good basic blurb:

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics time-dependent thermodynamic systems, irreversible transformations and open systems. In contrast to most physical theories that rely on thermodynamic equilibrium, most systems found in nature are not in equilibrium. Real systems are not isolated from their environment and are therefore continuously sharing energy with other systems. This sharing of energy includes being driven by external energy sources as well as dissipating energy.



Non-equilibrium systems cannot be studied with all the tools of equilibrium thermodynamics such as entropy production,

If you do your homework, you'll be able to recognize over 1.0 COP when you see it.

I must admit. I only know the bouncing ball in terms of closed thermodynamics. This is what was brain washed into my head over and over again.

But from a clasical closed thermodynamic system it is clear about the bouncing ball (I like your experiment).

Take your bouncing ball experiment and assume raising the ball to the drop point is 1 joule of energy. If there are no loses the ball will bounce up to the drop point over and over again forever. Even in this case when the ball is bouncing forever there is still only 1 joule of energy at all times in the defined system. So with no losses no friction, no noise, and the ball bouncing up and down forever if one was to add the energy of kenetic potential, gravitational potential oh and the elastic potential energy stored in the ball the net result is always 1 joule. You can not get away from the 1 joule. That is the total energy of the system.

When the ball has hit the ground and is stopped momentarily as it changes direction, the 1 joule is stored in Elastic Potential energy (the ball is like a spring).

Classical thermodynamics seems to describe the bouncing ball very well.

[Jbignes5]

I'm telling you facts that are already accepted by ESTABLISHED physics. I'm not talking about 100% undergrad conventional physics. This is what the seasoned professionals in thermodynamics have known for years.

You say your way of looking at things is because you are looking at how nature works. But it is anything but.

Here is a fact. Classical thermodynamics has NEVER described nature. It only describes closed systems and there are no closed systems in nature. Those thermodynamics always described man-made systems that don't allow extra input.

Here is another fact. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics includes hurricanes, life, trees, planetary movement, etc... NET is the only thermodynamics that ever has actually, finally described natural systems that are open like all systems in nature.

If you want thermodynamics that actually describe natural open and living systems that GROW, it is non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

If you want thermodynamics that explain nothing but closed systems that are designed to kill themselves off quick, use conventional thermodynamics.

Again, a bouncing ball is over 1.0 cop. You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

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

Here is a basic start for you from Wikipedia - not an authoritative guide by any means, but popular enough to have a good basic blurb:

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics time-dependent thermodynamic systems, irreversible transformations and open systems. In contrast to most physical theories that rely on thermodynamic equilibrium, most systems found in nature are not in equilibrium. Real systems are not isolated from their environment and are therefore continuously sharing energy with other systems. This sharing of energy includes being driven by external energy sources as well as dissipating energy.



Non-equilibrium systems cannot be studied with all the tools of equilibrium thermodynamics such as entropy production,

If you do your homework, you'll be able to recognize over 1.0 COP when you see it.

Ok so watching a few lecture videos is way to, what exactly? Why is it that you can not even watch them and actually learn something new. Because you and everyone you hold so dear in your world would start to fall apart. I get it now.
Not even a mention about what I tried to show you. A) That it can be explained better thru those videos. B) That theories are just that theories until proven realative. The problem is most of this field is just that Theories. Not matter what you claim them to be they are ones interpretation of what they think is going on.
On the other hand the video I tried to get you to view, in my mind shows a better picture and even goes to explain the unexplainable. GRAVITY. You want to say I need to learn but it is you that needs to step back and look at just why you didn't watch the lectures.
Again no mention about my post because you tend to replay your last comments as proof. Hawkings is concidered one of the most brilliant men alive today and guess what he was wrong too.
Have you actually wondered how gravity manifests? The video give a good plausable explaination of what gravity is. Ignor it if you want but there are better ways to get energy out of the system if you only knew about the system you wanted to get energy out of safely. Not with 20k volts not with 1 million volts but no volts at all or very little. You need to understand the very nature of nature to figure out how the cycle works and the cycles parts. You break that cycle and it all comes crashing down.
Nature is a system, it is a very closed system. Touch one thing and it changes everything after that eventually looping back to the start. Inject pollution and it polutes everything eventually. Take too much out and species go exstinct. Such too much of what nature is without returning some and all hell breaks loose.
Nature, gravity, magnatism (electrical), Take any one of these suck the very essence of what makes it up and you get fluffy matter. Weak bonds will allow matter to rip apart. If plasma (aether) is what is below everything and we mine that destructively, ie 20k volts, forcing matter to give it's aether energy (Plasma) without returning it would be devistating to the environment.
Give the videos a chance and just watch them. Let it perk in your head and think back to Tesla's work and his descriptions of Radiant energy. You will begin to understand that what the guy is saying is just about right. I shure would explain the spark gap phenomina or even the plasma spark experiments. It would even show you how magnetics fields are the key.
You sure are very closed minded for a person that is the moderator of this board of free thinking people.

[Jbignes5]

I must admit. I only know the bouncing ball in terms of closed thermodynamics. This is what was brain washed into my head over and over again.

But from a clasical closed thermodynamic system it is clear about the bouncing ball (I like your experiment).

Take your bouncing ball experiment and assume raising the ball to the drop point is 1 joule of energy. If there are no loses the ball will bounce up to the drop point over and over again forever. Even in this case when the ball is bouncing forever there is still only 1 joule of energy at all times in the defined system. So with no losses no friction, no noise, and the ball bouncing up and down forever if one was to add the energy of kenetic potential, gravitational potential oh and the elastic potential energy stored in the ball the net result is always 1 joule. You can not get away from the 1 joule. That is the total energy of the system.

When the ball has hit the ground and is stopped momentarily as it changes direction, the 1 joule is stored in Elastic Potential energy (the ball is like a spring).

Classical thermodynamics seems to describe the bouncing ball very well.

Somehow I believe he keeps comming back to the more the ball bounces the more work is done. But he already said just because the ball moves doesn't mean it is work. That ball has the storage tank(virtual). It is defined by it's mass and weight<references to the gavitation equation, The balls speed when it hit is calculated into the mass weight computation=total gravitational force on the ball at impact. Subtract friction, heat and material losses + gravity pulling back down on it and you get the tanks potential to lift the ball again. The energy in the balls impact was transfered to the material and deformed much like a spring. When it bounces back up that potential - all the air resists and everything else it takes to go back up will make the new potential (virtual tank) reset when it stops going up. There is nothing magical about what is going on and is easily explained. Aron doesn't think about the components in the example he gave at all. You can't claim a cop on the amount of times it bounces and I bet without missing any of the resists it would equal 1 joule as well. The balls ability to rebound given a certain materials composition also was not included. The materials change the outcome and there is no real way to calculate the energy needed for the balls ability to rebound. What if the material allowed it to go twice as high as another material used in the system "as you call it".
@Aron: As for an open system There is no such thing. Especially in nature. In fact Aron you don't even look at the whole thing. If you did one could see that everything on earth goes in cycles. It one big system inter relating with other systems. Effect one and the rest will be effected eventually. Haven't we learned that by now?
Obviously your mind is set and no matter if I did the experiments in front of you and you could see it, you still would be singing your song. I have listened to your arguement which was open systems. You never really read anything I posted, you just bible thump your tripe.
I think this debate is over because in order to have a debate it would be nice for you to comment on my thoughts as well. But it is, you are right and I am wrong before even listening to the case I stated.