1 Joule of Energy

[Joit]

There is a cause to the waves. Take the moon out of the equation and you loose the waves. We do not understand the back ground causes and effects and what it would do to suck in mass from the effect. You ever heard of feed back?

That is sick.
Even, that the Moon is not the Cause for the Waves.
Take a Geysir for example, when it explode, and you stand beside,
do you really think there is a Feedback to the Source?
Maybe your Body, what slowly dies, is feed back to the Source, yes,
but the Geysir wont care, if there is something outside, when it explodes.

At last, you maybe wanny tell us, how healthy the conventional Way of Physic is, and Free Energie cannot exist and Peoples stop looking for it.

Yeah, we all see, how good you are, destroy the Enviroment systematically,
mostly lead into the wrong way, and
found any 10 Years a new Science, how Things are now, and the old Insights are outdatet.

But wait, one more Chance for you, seems you mess the Term Free Energy
with something, what is new created or just there, what someone need to catch.
It is not, its plain said, the Energy, what you can create without someone will put a Meter on it.
Not like you Guys almost think, its something new, mystically.

Else, its not worth to discuss further with you, because you turn the Points,
how you like, that they serve you.

[Allcanadian]

@jbignes5

In nature it has a system and when we block that system or divert too much of it it destroys that ecology that is neccesary for 100's of species to survive in that local environment. Keep that thought going and apply it to everything we do and you see that all those little damages add up to massive results all comming back on us. HIV, N1H1 and a slew of other ailments are the direct results of destroying natures ways of keeping those contained as we loose the natural containment of those viruses they flail wildly out of natures control as we are seeing today. This is a direct proof of this concept and if we do not learn from our mistakes and find a passive way to get what we need then it has only one ending.

You better be careful with all this talk of nature like it knew what it was doing or someone might accuse you of talking hokey pokey magical nonsense, like someone did not so long ago in this very thread, lol.
AC

[Aaron]

potential energy

Instead of reading what they are trying to convey to you in context you take one thing out of what they say and say thats inpossible. Lets say that potential is a variable. The potential is a name for a variable that can be calculated but all the data present. It is not a physical thing only the holder for all the data associated with that object falling. When they say they store it it is much akin to a program storing variables in a holder. This holder is call the potential. as the potential is realized the potential get the data calculated and balanced with the realized distance. In this case acceleration is also included and only a certain amount of accelration can be realized in a given distance.

So you admit the conventional physics is dealing with an abstract and imaginary concept of potential, which the calculations are also for an imaginary of "stored" potential that doesn't exist, etc... And therefore, nothing is every "stored".

So, you're right, nothing is "stored" in any object when lifting it. Just like when the object falls, you are NOT getting anything out of it that we put in since everything we put in was dissipated in the lifting of the object.

The whole concept of getting out what we put in is FALSE and is even evidenced by your acknowledgment that:

1. The energy we put in is ALL GONE when we let go of the object.
2. NOTHING is stored in the object.

Therefore, common sense shows that all work done AFTER we let go is NOT from anything we put into it but is from the environment and this gravitational input is FREE.

The lifting of the object IS what we get out of the joules we put in and any work done after the fact is FREE WORK in measurable joules of energy.

That free work in JOULES of energy added to the joules we input sums to a total amount of MEASURABLE joules of work that EXCEED what we put in.

Your claim that the system ends when we let go is absolutely FALSE - as the SYSTEM is TOTAL WORK DONE by the ball from the time it was initially moved from a resting state until it goes back to a resting state. From a state of equilibrium back to a state of equilibrium.

If you do not understand this and want to make your own definitions of what a system is, you can do so, but you are deceiving people.

The CONCEPT of the systems that I am explaining are NOT my creation and as you griped about before, they're not even Bearden's explanations. The branch of non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems goes back before 99% of anyone in the free energy field today knew the difference between a transient spike and a railroad spike.

You assume I am just making this up but that is because you have refused to expand your frame of reference to include ALREADY ESTABLISHED science that is already very well known and acknowledged throughout many fields of science - especially physics.

I provided REFERENCES for all the concepts I am talking about and you have provided ZERO - nothing but pure rhetoric based on a misinterpretation of even the classical thermodynamics. Go look up the references I provided in this thread...I posted MANY of them..PAGES of them.

Please post some references by credentialed academics at well-known universities that says the system stops when we let go and a brand new one beings when the ball starts to drop. Can you PLEASE post just a handful showing where they are agreeing with your analysis?

I have already posted numerous references showing many examples from academics at the "highest" levels basically telling exactly what I'm telling you.

[Aaron]

post your references please

No matter what until you understand we live on the earth in a closed system

That is your quote from:
http://www.energeticforum.com/62244-post119.html

Earth is a closed system huh? We already went over this. Sun, all sorts of cosmic radiation, space dust pulled into the Earth, gravitational influences from other bodies, etc...

That one single quote of yours tells everyone exactly what your standpoint is and how it relates to the reality of any system. Since you believe that, you would probably believe anything such as whatever the book tells you.

Here are the references I posted about natural and open non-equilibrium systems that all totally and completely violate classical thermodynamics.

http://www.energeticforum.com/60277-post46.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/62111-post102.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/62158-post110.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/62159-post111.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/62161-post113.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/62162-post114.html

I'm still waiting for a few references from you from the academic world showing that the earth we live on is a closed system and that once the ball is let go of, that system ends and a new one beings when the ball starts to fall.

Again, please back up your separate systems idea with some sort of reference from credentialed physicists or other scientists from some universities that the average person would have actually heard of. You elected yourself as the resident skeptic for this thread and topic, PROVIDE REFERENCES.

[Jbignes5]

How about you provied references to your claims

I don't need to prove anything. You on the other hand have something to prove. Back up your claims not with imaginary free energy. Where is the energy comming from that you call free. Where is the source. When you find it that is a system. It is a system that does something with the energy that is there. That system has a cost for which if you include it in your system you must know everything about it to say if it has costs for changing the energy you call free into another form. I have never said I was a classical physicist. Not once have I said that. But there are observations that classical physics can describe acurrately. Although they don't know the whole picture they are as accurate as the math that describes it can be.

I have to appologize to Allcanadian. I am sorry. It just felt like everyone was ganging up on me and sometimes that makes me not read the entire post. For that I am sorry.

Aaron that is why I said you think you know everything. You don't look at the context of my entire post and after you doing so, for so many posts I did the same out of my frustration. You refuse to see anything I have validly argued simply because you act like the very "Classical" thinkers out there. You shut off you thinking when it starts to drift from your own opinion of whats going on.
I didn't say that the system that the ball drops into is new. it is the environments system. There is no way to measure or even connect the "output" you have because it is not in your system. When the ball falls it enters the environments system. Which I might add is giving the ball the potential in the first place. If the environments system was missing a component then like gravity then there would be no potential at all and there would be zero gain of anything. Thats proof enough. A system is a connected group. Once you loose connection it enters the system of what is present around it. Thats why I call it the environmental system. Thats simple logic.
I tried to touch on how these system interelate. It is like an onion. With many layers and some systems have many layers as well. When you created your system or method to lift the ball yes it has potential but you are not storing energy either. Your input is not connected to the ball either. We both agree on that. You have admitted the ball or apple does not store any energy what so ever. So that means your input has nothing to do with the ball or apple. What you are doing is creating a method to lift an apple then switching how you see your system and including things that have nothing to do with that system.
You have no output plain and simple. You are the one that said that your energy expendature ends when the ball stops. Well the ball stops at the end of your input. Then it falls into the environments system. There is no difference if you had moved the ball to gain a potential difference or not. once you stop and disconnect from your original system the only benefits or gain are in the environments system. You must stay connected to have an output. Which you do not do.
Anyways I have stated my thoughts if you want to ignore them like so many classical thinkers as you say then you are no better then them. What they do not undertand they shun or ignore. What you refuse to listen to or even think about you skirt around and argue semantics. Words are defined in our society for a reason. You want to stay ignorant to thier meanings then so be it. But don't tell others that thier definition which is taken right from the source is not right when it is taken from the context of those well established meanings that we all accept.
And as for your conspiracy theories about the man changing those meanings to confuse others well... It is funny that when anyone in this field gets called out they suddenly spout about men in black comming to thier door and telling them to not bother. It is funny how you mentioned that in one of your posts. That does not make you point valid or instill faith that you are open or even sane enough to have a conversation with you about this subject.
Conspiracies are for people who try to justify the way they think or for the actions they did. Look at Mylow and you will see that what you did was just like him.

[Aaron]

resources

I don't need to prove anything. You on the other hand have something to prove. Back up your claims not with imaginary free energy. Where is the energy comming from that you call free. Where is the source. When you find it that is a system. It is a system that does something with the energy that is there.

I didn't say that the system that the ball drops into is new. it is the environments system. There is no way to measure or even connect the "output" you have because it is not in your system. When the ball falls it enters the environments system. Which I might add is giving the ball the potential in the first place. If the environments system was missing a component then like gravity then there would be no potential at all and there would be zero gain of anything. Thats proof enough. A system is a connected group.

Do you mean you CANT prove anything? There is an argument here about what the very nature of an open system is and you do not even know the definition. PROVIDE REFERENCES showing the earth is a closed system or that anything similar to what we are talking about is a closed system. You want to debate with me and then tuck your tail between your legs and run off hiding behind "I don't need to prove anything." - there are words that describe this behavior but honestly, it is exactly what is to be expected from any skeptic that can't walk their talk, can't provide references, make multiple assumptions for the other party then runs away.

You pretend that what I am saying is false in concept and REFUSE as indicated above to prove one single academic reference backing your point of view.

Where does the energy come from for free? How ridiculous can you get? Dropping a ball allows FREE energy from gravity to ADD potential to the SAME system allowing it to do more work and the gravitational potential IS FREE to us and doesn't cost us ANYTHING.

By virtue of the very existence of a mass, there is AUTOMATICALLY a FREE asymmetrical push that does work and is FREE.

A new system or a different system like an environment system is IRRELEVANT to the point. You claim when letting go of the ball, the system that INCLUDED the input energy there ends. LOL that is crazy talk you know?

That means that anything happening after that has ZERO INPUT ENERGY that was paid for. lol

I gave you very specific examples of a merry go round, etc... that according to you, the moment we let go, the input energy cannot be added to the work being done by the merry go round turning...meaning that you have thrown open systems out the window, you have thrown closed systems out the window and you have indeed absolutely created the most crackpot system in the world where the merry go round is turning and the energy that was put into it to get it turning cannot be included in the efficiency or the cop. I think that you literally are loosing it if that is actually what you believe.

That is why you "have no thing to prove" because there aren't even any conventional references that agree with you!

You claims about the separate systems is disinformation and is distracting people from the truth.

Your claims that COP can only relate to heat pumps is also nothing more than absolute disinformation that is also misleading people away from the truth.

If you are right about one system ending and another beginning, the PROVIDE SOME REFERENCES! You cannot because they DO NOT EXIST in any credible resource.

Basically, if you're not willing to provide references when you claim that I am posting false information, then walk the talk and back what you're saying or do not argue with me. Claiming that what I'm saying is false and REFUSING to provide any reference to your futile effort in debunking the truth is cowardice plain and simple.

[Aaron]

cop accepted for non-heat pump systems

Jbigness, another set of references showing that you have been trying to mislead people all along that COP can only apply to heat pumps.

"Inside this website:
Thomas Jefferson Lab National Accelerator Facility
Is this paper:
Introducing the Practice of Asymmetrical Regauging to Increase the Coefficient of Performance of Electromechanical Systems
http://www.jlab.org/~abdellah/walter.doc

Abstract--This paper introduces an asymmetrical regauging physics used to increase the coefficient of performance of a specially designed electric motor. The coefficient of performance terminology, a review of gauge theory, and an examination of discarding the Lorentz condition to achieve asymmetrical regauging are presented.

The energy transfer of electrical machinery is generally described using the term “efficiency”. Efficiency is defined as the power output divided by the total power input from all sources. The underlying assumption when defining the energy of any system is that all the energy input is from an identifiable and measurable energy sources(s). In an ideal system the efficiency would be one. The equation for efficiency ([IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif[/IMG]) is normally stated [2] as
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image004.gif[/IMG][Watts]. (1)
Coefficient of performance is a broader energy transfer term that defines the measure of energy output divided by the operator’s energy input. COP is used to describe any machinery that has additional energy input from the environment. For example, COP is commonly used to describe the energy exchange of heat pumps[3] or solar collectors. Unlike the term “efficiency”, the COP can be greater than one. See Fig. 1 for the energy flow diagram. The following equation defines COP mathematically.
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image006.gif[/IMG][Watts]



Of course this is on other websites as well, but why would an accelerator lab associate itself with anyone using COP for anything other than heat? lol

Can you believe that??? A NON heat device using COP ratings? They must have been reading this thread and took my idea... Do you think Jbig?

Do you know what regauging is? Each time the BALL BOUNCES and goes back in the air, the system has REGAUGED itself and created a new potential difference (a smaller one than the previous bounce) but nevertheless, a NEWLY established potential difference where MORE work is done and EACH TIME there is a newly established potential difference, the system doesn't stop and start from one point to the next...it is the SAME system that grows, and grows, and grows, until everything is dissipated.

ASR is asymmetrical regauging...
" Further ASR is any process that changes the potential energy of a system and also produces a net force in the process [6]

That paper is from:

M. Walters, A. Homaifar, M.R. Zolgahdri, A. Ahmidouch*

Center for Power Electronics Systems

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

*Department of Physics

North Carolina A & T State University

Greensboro, NC 27411 USA

Now, Jbigness, can you read that is from a DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS using COP to describe COP for an electric motor - you might want to contact them and let them know that you don't approve of this and that they're completely wrong according to you and that the entire conventional physics world is backing your claims.

In the introduction, it defines the following:

The term coefficient of performance (COP) is introduced to adequately describe the energy transfer of these motors. GO LOOK AT FIGURE 1 IN THAT DOC.

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

Techno-economic evaluation of water pumping windmills in India ...

where Cp represents the coefficient of performance of the wind rotor, ρa the density of .... where ηe represents the efficiency of electric motor pumpset. ...
inderscience.metapress.com/index/PNEFE5XMJQMQQT4L.pdf

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

CDM potential of windmill pumps in India

electricity replacement (by the substitution of electric motor pumps) ...... PšvŽ ¼ 1=2 CpraAv3 where Cp represents the coefficient of performance of the ...

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

Renewable energy technologies for irrigation water pumping in ...

Coefficient of performance of windmill, Cp, Fraction, 0.25 ... Overall efficiency of electric-motor-pumpset, ηp,emp, Fraction, 0.52 ...

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

P = 0.5 x rho x A x Cp x V3 x Ng x Nb

That is the windmill power formula. Cp is coefficient of performance. Again, nothing relating to heat.

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

Feasibility Study: Generating Electricity from Traditional ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
and thus keep the coefficient of performance (Cp) close to its maximum. ..... the addition of an electric motor to move the chain as changes in the wind ...
www.norfolkwindmills.co.uk/pdf/B_the_Crest.pdf

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

Renewable energy technologies for irrigation water pumping in ...

fraction) the overall efficiency of electric motor pump, h ... (in fraction) the coefficient of performance of the wind rotor, r ...
eprint.iitd.ac.in/dspace/bitstream/2074/1465/1/purohitren2005.pdf - Similar -
by P Purohit - 2005

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

SITE SPECIFIC OPTIMIZATION OF ROTOR / GENERATOR SIZING OF WIND ...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
machines use wind sensing equipment and electric motor drives to align the nacelle and ..... CP is the coefficient of performance of the wind ...
smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/.../martin_kirk_a_200612_mast.pdf

Georgia tech using coefficient of performance for something non-heat related.

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

Wow, so it is very interesting the "ONLY" (in your words) sources you can find for coefficient of performance relates to heat pumps. How convenient for you.

I have no problem finding references of cop relating to heat pumps AND cop relating to non-heat pump devices being discussed by energy companies, universities and in articles in peer-reviewed journals, etc...

Please don't cloud the meanings here that the reference of Cp as coefficient of performance... cop is the literal abbreviation and Cp is the math notation - so please don't try to claim they are 2 different meanings. lol

The overwhelmingly obvious fact across the credentialed academic world in energy sciences is that COP is THE proper term to be used to discuss coefficient of performance and coefficient of performance simply has meanings that extend beyond your own belief system. It simply describes work done compared to what work was necessary to initiate the system or input work necessary to keep it going. COP simply does NOT account for environmental free energy input as efficiency does.

[Jbignes5]

Heh

Funny you site papers... What is a paper? It is written for peer review... it is nothing based on facts only thier observations. It is a PEER REVIEW paper nothing more and nothing less. You can find tons of papers stating whatever you like. It doesn't mean it is accepted and it doesn't mean it is the facts.

Also I see alot of statements in those papers Saying SYSTEM For which you do not have. Need I remind you of what the definition of a system is? CONNECTED GROUP. You disconnect your system from the ball. That is a fact! End of Discussion.
Now do you want to argue the facts about the "Environments COP". For which you have no idea of the inputs and output but for the fact that you can see the results.
Cite all the papers you want but when you do not actually read those papers in context you loose. There is no way to measure the enivironmentals input so how could you calculate the efficiency or even anything about that system. They are attempting in my opinion the impossible. Since we know very little about what drives gravity except for a few theories none of which they can agree on they are making generalizations that they can not back up. So they know the cost of gravity then? I am telling you there is not one person alive that knows that!
Like I said you system is seperate from the environments system. The only connection you have is gravity and only on the way up because you keep the connection to your device. When the ball disconnects from the device thats where your system ends and the environment that it drops into begins. There is no difference weather your ball drops or a stone at that point.
We don't know enough about the environments system to even be able to tell it's cop. because that would mean you know the costs to get the gravity. there has to be an input. And sadly if you want to guess thats upto you. And sadly if the peer review lets that slide, which I highly doubt it will, it will be a sad day.
Taking a term from one area and redefining it for another is what you do best. You even admitted that yourself. It does nothing to keep spreading it until it is accepted and becomes fact. But I doubt it will ever become fact. It is based on the idea that they can explain everything about gravity and they can't at the moment. Thats the great thing about scientists they have great theories but they are based on nothing but observations and not facts. Only thier perceptions of what they think should be facts.
Soo keep trying to say that peer review papers are the facts and no one wins. A paper is not accepted until the peer review process accepts it. Just because someone puts a paper in for review does not make it a fact.
It doesn't matter anyways your system falls short because there is no output. No link to the output does not make it a system which must be linked in order to be in that system.
Maybe cop is starting to be accepted maybe it isn't. but in it's definition it must be a system. A device if you will. how can you associate cop outside of your system? Does that mean anything moving is also associated? If it doesn't belong to your system the it is in fact outside of that system.
This is what I have been saying all along. Even if you get a device that takes in this "energy" there is a cost for taking it out of the system it is in. That is an accepted concept. Take energy from a battery and it depletes it's reserves. Use a battery in such a way that it removes that energy without depleting the reserve and you change the fundamental way it works until it replaces that energy. Bedini your guru showed you this! Learn from his teachings. Take a thousand batteries and use the method that the cromwell converter uses to extract that fundamental energy from the material it is made of and you have a whopping problem. Did they study the long term affects of doing that? Absolutely not. Is it dangerous? I am thinking it is very dangerous as Ronald Brandt apparently found out.



It is also funny how you would site the very people you accuse of dis-empowering you.

I would also like to make a distiction that a system=device=machinery. Meaning connected and taking in or recieving energy. Your device is a lifter only. You did that Yeeeeaaaa! Lets cheer! After the ball rolls off your device falls apart. The ball is no longer connected or in contact with your device=system=machinery. It in effect is a seperate device because of that disconnection, and it then enters the environments system. The only gains or losses are the balls gains or losses and not your system. Nice try though.

[Aaron]

what's the difference between cop and efficiency?

We don't know enough about the environments system to even be able to tell it's cop.

There is no way to measure the enivironmentals input so how could you calculate the efficiency or even anything about that system.

That is the entire point to COP of the SYSTEM is that it does NOT include environmental input that is completely free REGARDLESS of how much or how little the free input is. It ONLY takes into account how much energy WE had to input into the system compared to TOTAL OUTPUT. However, we DO account for work being done that is made possible by the environmental input and that ADDED to what we put in (still SAME system whether you like it or not) - can be MORE than what we put in ourselves.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what the difference between COP and efficiency is.

Efficiency is irrelevant because no matter what, any system (both open and closed) that is moving forward in time will always be 100% or LESS, period.

What they are attempting is impossible? Like I said, it is obvious you don't even know what you are arguing for or against because you don't even know the difference between cop and efficiency.

Please don't post anything else in this thread that I started because you are doing everyone a diservice by spreading false information based on opinions about something that has NOTHING to do with this thread. You don't even know the difference between cop and efficiency and you proved it by all your comments.

Again, do NOT post in this thread again. I started this thread and I set the rules for it. If you post anything else, I will delete it. You're welcome to go post in the thread called: A case against overunity - so don't try to claim you're being censored.

[Jbignes5]

Sorry it wouldn't let me edit my last post.

Well look at this and tell me the distinction of cop and efficiency.....

A geothermal heat pump operating at COPheating 3.5 provides 3.5 units of heat for each unit of energy consumed (e.g. 1 kWh consumed would provide 3.5 kWh of output heat). The output heat comes from both the heat source and 1 kWh of input energy, so the heat-source is cooled by 2.5 kWh, not 3.5 kWh.

A heat pump of COPheating 3.5, such as in the example above, could be less expensive to use than even the most efficient gas furnace.

A heat pump cooler operating at COPcooling 2.0 removes 2 units of heat for each unit of energy consumed (e.g. such an air conditioner consuming 1 kWh would remove heat from a building's air at a rate of 2 kWh).

The COP of heat pumps (300%-350% efficient) make them much more efficient than high-efficiency gas-burning furnaces (90-99% efficient), and electric heating (100%). However, this does not always mean they are less expensive to operate. The 2008 US average price per therm (100,000 BTU) of electricity was $3.33 while the average price per therm of natural gas was $1.33.[1] Using these prices, a heat pump with a COP of 3.5 would cost $0.95[2] to provide one therm of heat, while a high efficiency gas furnace with 95% efficiency would cost $1.40[3] to provide one therm of heat. With these average prices, the heat pump costs 32% less[4] to provide the same amount of heat. The savings (if any) will depend on the actual cost of electricity and natural gas, which can both vary widely.

[Aaron]

@jbig

The COP of heat pumps (300%-350% efficient)

I asked you not to post anymore. Tell you what to do? This is my thread, I started it and if you don't want to respect my wishes, leave the thread. I have no problem with you posting in other people's threads or even starting your own.

I have no issue with anyone that wants to give an HONEST debate but you are simply MAKING STUFF UP out of thin air, insulting the intelligence of everyone in this thread and asking myself and everyone to believe that you have any intention whatsoever at having a debate based on facts.

Your 2 posts that you posted when I asked you not to.....reveal that you really don't know what you're talking about - and if you do, you are a misinformation agent with the purpose of obfuscating the truth.

COP of heat pumps are 300-350% efficient?

No, 100% of EVERY heat pump in the world are UNDER 100% EFFICIENT for the fact there is dissipation happening contributing to the entropy of the universe.

But they can be OVER 1.0 COP and under 100% efficiency at the same time because COP AND EFFICIENCY ARE DIFFERENT and you have proven over and over and over, that you do not even know what the difference is.

You are therefore wasting everyone's time in this thread, move on and don't post again. Unless you have the courtesy to go educate yourself to even know the difference between what is even being discussed, DON'T POST IN THIS THREAD. I will simply delete them. There is a thread as I told you about a case against overunity, GO POST THERE or elsewhere - your absolute misunderstanding of this entire subject is not welcome here by me. There may be others here that appreciate your point of view but they'll have to read it in another thread.

I personally have a zero tolerance policy to misinformation. I have given you ample opportunity to post references - not only do you fail to do so, you REFUSE to so goodbye.

[Aaron]

cop vs efficiency

Funny that is wikipedia's example of cop. That was not my definition and if it differs from yours then maybe you are using it out of context.

Here is my proof of what I am saying is not misleading:

Coefficient of performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And another one
Heat Pump
and yet another but wait this says the higher the cop the higher the efficiency wow a direct link
PowerPedia:Coefficient of Performance (COP - PESWiki)
and another
Coefficient of Performance

Wikipedia is your authoritative reference? That is the most cooked resource on the internet! lol

The higher the cop the higher the efficiency. Yes, up to 100% efficiency is theoretically possible and no more (if time is flowing forward) while the cop can climb above 1.0.

Direct link? You said 300-350% EFFICIENT...basically, again, you simply don't even know the difference between efficiency and cop. You have EQUATED cop and effieincy with your statements, which are 100% false and misleading and represents a total and complete misunderstanding of the subject at hand. Nice try but no cigar.

Again, I have no issue with debate and disagreement but I have no tolerance for the outright spreading of misinformation, which you continue to do.

I specifically left out Peswiki references because it is obviously a biased reference FOR free energy. I posted references from POWER COMPANIES, UNIVERSITES, ETC... I like Peswiki but I haven't posted references that are biased towards my own viewpoint.

[Aaron]

made up claims

What did I post hmmm...

You posted: That cop and efficiency is the same thing.

You posted: That the earth is a closed system cut off from any other input.

You posted: That when an energy input source initiates a system to produce work and that system is allowed to GROW that the input work must be cut off and be unattached to the effects they produced!

You posted: That you REFUSE to prove anything or provide any references.

hmmm... that is what you posted.

You claim a bouncing ball has no cause for the ball to be bouncing, a merry go round has no cause to be rotating and anything else has no CONNECTED cause that got it going since you claim that the input is cut off from what happened after the fact. You CANNOT claim the person that lifted the ball to begin with is the cause of the ball bouncing because you don't allow for that input to be included in that system...so essentially, you claim the ball starts bouncing on its own without any input necessary to get it in the air to begin with.

There is more, but that is sufficient.

The references I posted are NOT openly in favor of "free energy" technologies, they simply are using cop to show the coefficient of performance for windmills, etc... NON heat related systems. They are simply providing their information as facts and not as some method to endorse or promote cop being used for "free energy" systems. This simply shows that your claim, like virtually every other claim you have made is completely fabricated and made up.

[Joit]

Thinking back to Feedback to Source, its anyhow still funny.

So, when you actually prevent Energy from the natural flowing, then its a feedback to source?

Then, Peoples, put AWAY your sunshades out from the Sun, because you prevent the Sun from shinning,
same as for the leaves from Trees, or even put the Trees Away,
and DONT build Houses, you prevent the Wind from blowing, make the Mountains flat, that the Wind can flow better,
and let us live in a Corner from a Cave, because, when we move,
we move Air through the Air, what can cause a baaad incalculable Effect.

Beside, Brandt even said, 'IT DONT WORKS, DONT REBUILD IT'
Why dont Quote This?

But the Truth is, actually, there is not anywhere a really closed System,
and the Laws of Thermodynamics are therefor a Bunch of Garbage.

[Aaron]

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of systems in an electromagnetic field

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of systems in an electromagnetic field

S R de Groot 1961 J. Nucl. Energy, Part C Plasma Phys. 2 188-194 doi: 10.1088/0368-3281/2/1/330

PDF (526 KB) | References | Articles citing this article

S R de Groot
Lorentz Institute, University of Leyden, Leyden, NetherlandsAbstract. A review is given of some applications of thermodynamics of irreversible processes to systems in the presence of an electromagnetic field. The conservation laws of mass, momentum and energy and the entropy balance equation are developed for mixtures without and with electric and magnetic polarization, and also for systems in which the momentum transfer between some of their components is inhibited.
Print publication: Issue 1 (1961)