1 Joule of Energy

[ovidonster]

question about apple lifting

Hello everybody,

I was thinking about Aaron quote from Wikipedia regarding the lifting of that apple:

what if the apple was lifted so high into the sky that it would be in outer space (out of the gravitational field of the earth)?
this means that we invested huge energy in the apple in the form of potential energy (since this lifting would require enormous effort);

but where is this potential energy then?
let's suppose that we bring the apple in the gravitational field of the moon, and the apple will fall, releasing its potential energy previously stored; will it be the same potential energy or it will be 6 times smaller (due to gravity of the moon smaller by a 6 factor)?

where is the rest of the energy we spent lifting the apple?

[Aaron]

closed systems are done

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

Ok, you had your last gasp.

You can't stop the truth. I posted real references. Not questionable references from "perpetual motion" claims - even though perpetual motion is required by natural forces but that is another issue.

Take care and good luck with your closed system projects.

[Aaron]

to the moon

Hello everybody,

I was thinking about Aaron quote from Wikipedia regarding the lifting of that apple:

what if the apple was lifted so high into the sky that it would be in outer space (out of the gravitational field of the earth)?
this means that we invested huge energy in the apple in the form of potential energy (since this lifting would require enormous effort);

but where is this potential energy then?
let's suppose that we bring the apple in the gravitational field of the moon, and the apple will fall, releasing its potential energy previously stored; will it be the same potential energy or it will be 6 times smaller (due to gravity of the moon smaller by a 6 factor)?

where is the rest of the energy we spent lifting the apple?

Great of of the box questions I think.

These are thought experiments but...corroborates with what actually happens.

If the apple is lifted into zero gravity and is let go, it will perpetually move for billions of years until something acts on it since an object in motion will STAY in motion until or unless something acts upon it. There is no requirement that something must act on it.

In zero gravity, there isn't any gravitational potential and the object encounters no resistance so there is no work being done for the object to stay in motion.

I have seen the classic viewpoint define kinetic energy as an object moving, so according to that, an object drifting in space has kinetic energy while at the same time, there is no work being done or resistance to work against. lol - Kinetic energy implies work is being done. So this seems to be a contradiction.

But all the joules of energy required to get it into orbit is used up to get it into orbit.

A rocket ship will require x amount of fuel to be burned and when in orbit, there is no recovery of that fuel so it is all dissipated.

Any object then moving into a gravitational situation will be acted upon by the gravitational potential pushing on the object towards the surface of the mass from where the gravitational potential was displaced from.

That is extra potential added to the system that we didn't pay for on the lift. It is provided free of charge from an external source - gravity of another object like the moon.

I don't see that the object stored potential that we put into it. The fuel or power source we used to lift the object into orbit was completely burned up getting the object into orbit.

There is sustained movement in the object until it hits the moon but is there any energy in that movement? There is no resistance to work against so in my opinion, there is isn't any work being done since here is no dissipation of energy in that movement adding to entropy of the universe.

If we lift an object 10 feet or 1000 feet, and the objects are in free fall when we let go, there will be an associated amount of gravitational potential that will bring them down. The 1000 foot one will have more of an impact than the one at 10 feet.

If we have the object leave the Earth orbit at 10mph or 1000mph, there will be an associated amount of free potential from the moon's gravity.

At 10mph approach to the moon, there will be less of an impact than the object approaching at 1000mph, which will have more impact.

It can be confusing to get this but the 1000mph object was like being lifted to a higher height. We spent more energy to get it to a higher or faster state and when letting go, we will have a higher bounce or faster impact that is proportionate to what we paid for. When I say proportionate, I don't mean equal...accounting for impact, bouncing, etc... it will always be more than what we burned to get it into the orbit. Or at least when adding the impact or bounce energy when it hits the moon, that is work being done that is added to our booster rockets burning fuel and combined is over 1.0 COP.

[Jbignes5]

But moving from one system to the other nixes your bubble in theory. You loose all potential when moving from one system to the next. That is exactly what I am talking about. All that potential that was there has now mysteriously disappeared when moving between the different systems.
To further prove my point of systems. Lets look at water in our system of the world. Water evaporates and gets released into the air, it then goes up and condenses making clouds. The clouds in the right conditions will release water in the form of rain back down to the ground. Rinse repeat and that is a cyclic closed system. Very simple form of nature. Gravity is also the same way. anything that is a system on earth is cyclic in nature. A tight nitt closed sytem that interact with other systems. Thermal systems work the same way with convection. Hot air rises looses heat and falls down as it cools. There is nothing one way about it or we would not have an atmosphere or anything else for that matter. The moon revolves around our planet causing the tides to rise then fall then rise again the next day.
If nature or anything in our solar system wasn't of this principle then we would not be here. everything revolves and interacts with each other because thats how nature works. Take one away and it all falls apart. Insert polution of one system and it polutes all of them eventually. I am of the old saying of what goes around comes around.
It's too bad that most people have disassociated themselves from nature. Because there are plenty more secrets that it will devulge if you know the priciples behind nature. And nature is based on everything you are looking for. If you would only open your mind to new ideas that actually describe acurately what is going on. It's funny but you OU guys screamed until you got your ideas heard and then they started to incorporate them but now you Aron are doing the very thing you scream foul about twords that mans clear explainations of what he believes and to a certain extent has proven by his own experiments with no external power applied.

[Aaron]

open systems

Water evaporating and condensing is a PRIME example of self-ordering that the universe demonstrates all the time.

Evaporation is dissipating of something that is ordered (body of water) and when it condenses, it reorders.

Cosmic rays help to break down moisture in the atmosphere (external input to help something happen) and then it condenses and exhibits reverse-entropy by condensing again.

That is water going into a mode of chaos into order into chaos into order, repeat.

Thanks for the perfect example of an open system that all the world's greatest minds would appreciate!

And the Earth is far from a closed system. We interact with solar radiation (external input), the earth receives x tons of "space dust" 365 days out of the year (external input), our earth is influenced by not only the Moon's gravity but the sun's and all the planets gravity...weak but nevertheless, external influence. Our Earth is influenced by various bands of radiation and other influences on the galactic level and where we are in relation to the rest of the milky way (external input) and on the whole, our galaxy is influenced by the rest of the universe (external input).

You can believe everything is in it's own little apartment tucked away and separate from everything else. That belief is emblematic of the consciousness that creates such a fallacy and such a problematic world.

All these natural systems are open. You can keep re-posting your opinion denouncing the greatest scientific minds in the world as well as common sense but it is an effort in futility.

It has ALWAYS been misinformation to let people believe it is only a few oddballs that believe in these over 1.0 cop systems that are modeled after natural systems. But you can see the greatest scientific minds in the world already believed that before most people ever heard of over 1.0 COP.

The game is up. The jig is up. non-equilibrium systems rule the universe and is exactly how God created the intricate workings of this amazing universe.

Anyone denouncing open systems is denouncing the very Power that created the universe in all its open system over 1.0 magnificence!

I will promote non-equilibrium systems as it relates to free energy technologies because it is not only the truth, it becomes quite common sense when understanding the distinction.

It is only the carnal mind of man that is tempted to make reason and meaning out of things based on judgment - to take things as they innately are and turn them into something that makes the ego feel safe.

These are the times right now that people either will wake up and realize the gifts that we have been given or deny the abundance and suffer in misery. I choose to see the light because I have a desire for truth within ever fiber of my being. I AM committed to TRUTH.

The word synergy means there is more in the combination than the sum of the parts. That is an over 1.0 COP concept.

Anything that earns interest is over 1.0 COP.

I'm not giving any opinions on any religious subject but even in the Bible, it discusses 7 fold effects, which is more coming back than going in.

No matter what you believe or what you see, everyone from the spiritual side of life to the scientific side of life, for many decades now are finally in agreement that the universe is a universe of abundance and 1 Joule of Energy - the title of this thread - will give us more back than we have to ever put in every single time.

The final piece of the puzzle is to enlighten the ignorance in regards to energy technologies and how they are no different. That has also been known for decades but has been so full or jargon and other distractions that the average person, such as myself, would never understand.

Now it can be understood in simple terms and all of this is simply a paraphrase of ESTABLISHED science at all the top academic levels. Accepted, published, respected, Nobel winning, and otherwise.

The only thing I see is:

A - Internal struggle with the truth. What you see to be the obvious is conflicting with your inner belief system and that is stirring up serious cognitive dissonance - which is normal. But whether or not you make the breakthrough is your choice.

B - Knowingly or unknowingly, you're part of a collaborated effort to delay the INEVITABLE. The enlightenment of mankind in regards to energy freedom. Mankind was NEVER destined to become slaves to an energy empire that has pulled the wool over people's eyes in the name of blood money profits and destroying our world in the process. It happened so we can know the difference, otherwise, we wouldn't understand what it is to appreciate abundance. If you have a vested interest in preserving the hoodwinking attempts, you should realize the game is over.

The TRUTH prevails every single time.

[Jbignes5]

Water evaporating and condensing is a PRIME example of self-ordering that the universe demonstrates all the time.

Evaporation is dissipating of something that is ordered (body of water) and when it condenses, it reorders.

Cosmic rays help to break down moisture in the atmosphere (external input to help something happen) and then it condenses and exhibits reverse-entropy by condensing again.


Answer) It is not cosmic rays it is energy gleaned from the sun. The sun is a system that outputs energy. We intercept the energy not by choice but by the system of our world. They interact with each other.


That is water going into a mode of chaos into order into chaos into order, repeat.


Answer) The water and the way it behaves is because of the system we have on our earth. Given the amount of air movement and energy gleaned from the sun interacting in our environment (system) the evaporation is nearly predictable. Nothing chaotic about it. Yes it will have more or less action due the the suns system wich effects the whole earths system. The earth is indeed a closed systems because as soon as you go outside the earth system the rules change. You can redifine it to fit your concept or match your statements in your book which defines your concepts on paper but it doesn't change the fact that nature is it's own system. The the fact of the matter is the earth is a very closed system. Yes it has outside interactions but the earths system is a set of rules and you can not change that fact.


Thanks for the perfect example of an open system that all the world's greatest minds would appreciate!


And the Earth is far from a closed system.....and on the whole, our galaxy is influenced by the rest of the universe (external input).

Answer) These systems you are talking about, well you have to redifine the whole system to a larger scale. Then the rules change as your observation point widens. The energy that is being used has been paid for by another system. You can't say it is free. yes it travels from one system to the next but the previous system paid for that energy not your current system. It might look like it is free but in fact something else channeled it or reorganized the energy to radiate in a 360 degree output. For which your system recieves a tiny portion to be used. Takje away the origin of that energy and the rest is very influenced, The rules change in your system.

You can believe everything is in it's own little apartment tucked away and ...in the world as well as common sense but it is an effort in futility.

Answer) They are as open as your own body's system. Yes they have influences on the system and your body has evolved to use the rules to grow but change the key influences and your system goes down. If it was as open as you said it would continue on but that is not the case at all. The only way a system could sustain itself would be for it to change the way it operates. evolution of our systems takes eons not days. And even if it changed instantly the rules have changed. Keeping with the same rules not changing them because our systems are set, it has drastic results. Moving our system into space would destroy the very same system because you go outside what the systems design allows it to operate. They still have the same parameters but once the environment changes poof it doesn't work anymore.


It has ALWAYS been misinformation to let people believe it is only a few oddballs that believe... people ever heard of over 1.0 COP.

Answer) Not everyone agrees in your redefined COP. Why because it lacks the scope to take into account that the energy being inputed doesn't have the costs associated with it. Yes the sun gets excess energy based on the suns system but the costs of that energy are locked in the suns system. Eventually it will run out. However long that might be.

The game is up... 1.0 magnificence! I will promote non-equilibrium systems as it relates to free energy technologies.

Answer) The problem is that you wrote a book and locked your choice. The systems are very seperate. The output has costs associated to the output locked in that system. There is no free energy persay. But you should be able to use the output to make a potential that can be channeled to use for energy generation much like you can harness the watter in a stream to generate electricity. Which would also have it's own Systems costs when touching the output of it's new system. It doesn't change the waters system and costs when you harness it but it does incur new costs along the way.

It is only the carnal mind of man.. I choose to see the light because I have a desire for truth within ever fiber of my being. I AM committed to TRUTH....

Answer) Maybe you are not getting my point. The potential energy input of 1 joule and where is your giving more back? You didn't try to get any energy back. In fact if you tried to get anything from that energy you would loose. Just because that ball as you say does more out it still has costs associated with it. And when you try to get anything back into your system by trying to harness it you loose it.

The final piece of the puzzle is to enlighten the ignorance....

Answer) So you make up more jargon to further confuse the situation. OU COP and such do nothing more then confuse yourself. You talk about open systems yet when looking at the scope of that system you fail to realize that the system has it's own ruleset to get the output. Hence it's own costs and rules to abide by. Just because it enters your system doesn't mean it is free.

Now it can be understood in simple terms and all of this is simply a paraphrase....

Answer) this is what I am talking about the old system was just the same way and your new system once proven wrong will go the same direction as you stated. You talk about a nobel prize like it is a validation of the facts and it is not. It is a peer given guesture and nothing more. Science once thought the world was flat. It was accepted in all the realms and was proven wrong by free thinkers. So you can tout all the citations and degrees but the fact of the matter is not one scietific group or person can agree on what is an electron or even if it really exists. So much for all the degrees and Nobel prizes.

The only thing I see is:

A - Internal struggle with the truth..

B - Knowingly or unknowingly....

Answer) You are describing exactly what I see you doing, exactly. Take A and B and in your situation thats what you are doing right now. When I look at what the guy has to say it makes more sense then your theory because it mirros exactly what nature is and does. If it didn't then all these aborations you guys are seeing is because of the rules being forced into a different configuration. Who know what the effects of this are because in our own stupidity taking the gas situation who would of thought that the natural proccess could get so screwed up as it is today. This is because of the thinking of people like you Aron. Do, before we look at all the consequences of said actions. And then faced with the reality of said consequences we blame anyone else that comes into the crosshairs because thats what greedy humans do.

The TRUTH prevails every single time.

Answer) The truth is never the truth. It is Only based on your observation of the events. Whats behind those events are the truth. And as we are finding out with the "truth" is, it is based on nothing but the end result. Thats where belief comes into play. Belief is the ability to know and not know for real. It is a human condition to believe in the unbelievable or unseen. And is not based on the actual facts behind the systems we are looking at.
I am very open to other theories that make sense and your open systems don't make any sense at all in nature. In fact it takes nature and ruins the very concept of interactions between systems. You couldn't get more heat if you change the setup you were talking about. It only works with the system that she has designed. Why? Because Thats the system she designed. Nature would not work if you changed the design. And introducing pollutants is just that. Chaning the design. Is nature getting screwed up? YES. Why? Because man is chaning the way nature operates by including design changing pollutants. No matter what your arguement is you will not be able to get rid of the fact of that. We are now seeing the results of that action. No further proof is needed and it will not change unless we throw out Ego's like yours and change the way we interact with nature. I can site 50 billion examples of how man is making a mess of nature and you can not refute it because the proof is there for all to see. But if we use natural design to harness and channel that awesome power much like in a niagra falls generator we can harness without doing much harm to nature and get what we need. But it is gonna take a major shift from the current thinking for it to be realized. You are doing a diservice to further the confusion of the waters of disinformation by taking a Theory and changing it into Facts without looking at all the facts of that system which are very much unknown at the moment.
It is a broad jump for Theory to fact. Of which your belief makes a broader jump to you are right befoire knowing the facts. Comparring the two Theories makes me see that no one is right. But looking closer at the Theories the man has a better understanding of the system behind yours or anyones for that matter that makes it feel more in tune with the natural systems behind the new system he brings to light.

[Aaron]

open systems rule!

I'm clear on what the underlying truth is.

The litmus test for natural truth is that a concept
will ring true across the board and can be applied
to virtually every scenario.

Economics, social organization, energy technologies,
geology, chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, etc...
Open system principles are self evident in all of
these and more.

Closed systems is isolated and conditional based
on convenience for the supporters of man-made
"laws."

I prefer to see the laws of nature as they are
and not how we want to twist them to fit our
needs.

[Jbignes5]

I'm clear on what the underlying truth is.

The litmus test for natural truth is that a concept
will ring true across the board and can be applied
to virtually every scenario.

Economics, social organization, energy technologies,
geology, chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, etc...
Open system principles are self evident in all of
these and more.

Closed systems is isolated and conditional based
on convenience for the supporters of man-made
"laws."

Answer) Absolutely wrong. closed systems can in fact communicate with each other thru the use of the substrate of all matter. But when you one way pulse that substrate you extract one way the energy that is there. You are circumventing the very process of nature to balance things. That is very destructive to the nature of all things.

I prefer to see the laws of nature as they are
and not how we want to twist them to fit our
needs.

Answer) You view of nature is skewed by the fact that you hold a belief and you will bend it to your demands. That isn't how nature works. In fact if human kind was not here the world would still operate on the very same rules, laws or whatever you want to quantify the limits of said systems. Thats why we are still in the situation today as we were in yesterday. Man refuses to let go of his greed and do the right thing. It is available to us to fix the situation but we do not, why? Why do you think there are creatures that are now extinct because man has changed it's environment by his quest to find energy. Because of the same greed that has troubled man from the begining. Over look or not pay attention to the whole system and the results is that other things go awry because of our greed.

By the way you stated that you would never change the beliefs or views of yourself and then state in another thread that you believe in being open minded because you have an open mind about scientific endevors. You contradicted yourself and now have invalidated any arguement you might have as being subject to being thrown out because of those statements.
I cross posted in the other thread to bring to light your shifts in your beliefs and cantradictions.
In fact if you look at the experiments you have done and experimented in all of them you state and unknow source that is hard to detect. Maybe the other half of the equation is also so hard to detect that it is of no consequence to the results you claim of OU COP or gain there of. I can't say that definetly that is the case but if the original aethric or Radiant energy is very hard to detect. How would you detect if there is another hidden negative to your extraction if you keep your mind closed about these matters.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Jbignes5, so I notice you fail to comment on the water pump water wheel self sustaining gravity augmented device that was posted on youtube. It is now obvious, yet again, after reading your posts we have another debunker. I guess its just an easier route to take, and dont we know humans prefer the route of less resistance and the so called power brokers love you all for it.

[Aaron]

open minded

By the way you stated that you would never change the beliefs or views of yourself and then state in another thread that you believe in being open minded because you have an open mind about scientific endevors.

I have never contradicted myself. Please don't put words in my mouth.

IF, and ONLY IF, there is some empirical evidence coupled with common sense backed by a lot of "credentialed" academics in established science that contradicts what my current belief is, I will adjust my point of view if my review of such claims stands up to my very critical tests.

You have given me nothing but your repetitive non-nonsensical rhetoric about all natural systems are closed and isolated from another.

I gave you an opportunity to post references to established academic publications and other works that even hints to even the most subtle semblance of sanity in what you are saying. You fail to provide any.

You post a youtube clip and I post references to the top most respected universities and presses in the world as well as referring to works by some of the most well known and respected scientists in the world.

Your pasts post, along with a few others, try to ridicule my posts here as being nothing more than just crazy theories with no basis in reality and is the same old stuff Bearden has been talking about.

You know what? Because of the OVERWHELMING references that I have posted in regards to the non-equilibrium systems... you can make it look like us believing in over 1.0 COP systems are crackpots...but you know what? lol

What is clearly evident is that the classical believers have been the real crackpots all along discussing classical thermodynamics that NEVER had anything to do with how anything in nature even operates! How ironic is that? Very!

I am extremely open minded. I offer my book for sale that has my own model in it... and then as a free bonus, I give away a document of Rosemary's Magnetic Field model that could possibly negate some of my own beliefs? It may contradict my ideas but it also may even supplement and enhance my own model in a seamless way.

I specifically left out magnetism and spin in my book because something didn't quite jive and it appears my spidey senses were right because from some that I get from Rosemary's model has put magnetism in a new perspective that really does enhance what my model is - most probably without contradiction!

How many people do you know with their own ideas supplement it with other people's ideas that may contradict their own? A closed-minded person wouldn't do such a thing. A closed-minded person doesn't want others to see a different point of view. I not only want others to see everything, I put it right in their mailbox

So again, don't put words in my mouth, don't take what I have said out of context, which you have done so with your various points throughout this thread that never even addressed any of my questions.

When you finally admit that there is other other work done after our input work is dissipated...you turn about face and run the other direction and scream that the systems are isolted from each other so the work can't be added together.

That can give someome mental whiplash!

What I see is that the truth has prevailed. The mystery of over 1.0 COP systems is no longer mysterious. Academics at the highest places in respected universities, etc... totally and comletely agree with the principles of over 1.0 COP systems as observation requires that it is a must.

The good work of Rosemary's circuit and Luc's circuit is the easiest proof that I've ever seen. Power measurements will be posted by many experimeters very soon and you can never put a cap on it.

[BinzerBob]

Hello everybody,

I was thinking about Aaron quote from Wikipedia regarding the lifting of that apple:

what if the apple was lifted so high into the sky that it would be in outer space (out of the gravitational field of the earth)?
this means that we invested huge energy in the apple in the form of potential energy (since this lifting would require enormous effort);

but where is this potential energy then?
let's suppose that we bring the apple in the gravitational field of the moon, and the apple will fall, releasing its potential energy previously stored; will it be the same potential energy or it will be 6 times smaller (due to gravity of the moon smaller by a 6 factor)?

where is the rest of the energy we spent lifting the apple?

This is interesting and something that I think I can understand. If you lift this apple into outer space, and let it go it will be attracted to the earth and fall. The system is the same as the falling apple 20 cm tall.

But this will only be the case if you lift it straight up. Now if you go into orbit then this is a totally different story and the apple will not fall down. For instance the space shuttle is in orbit traveling very fast in order to stay up there. The space shuttle is constantly falling but can not reach the earth because it follows as curvature way out there (that curvature of orbit).

But ya lift the apple straight up x thousand kilometers and it falls down back to earth. It might take some time, might burn up in the atmosphere.

I think the apple will always come back to earth unless you give it escape velocity (or escape energy). And in this case the apple keeps on moving away from earth never to return. But like I say, if you stop the apple it will be attracted to earth and will come back to earth. Unless it is so far away that another planet attracts it. But lets say for this mind experiment that moving the apple to a moon distance away is enough far. In this case the apple comes back to earth.... unless the apple is pushed at a rate to circle the earth once every about 30 days... then the apple will be in orbit and not come back. Just like the moon. The moon doesn't come back to earth.

Nice thought about this apple.

Hey you know I really don't know about open system thermodynamics and my head could spin and explode trying to read that branch of thermodynamics. But one simple question. If those theories explain that there is more than one joule of energy in the 20 cm high apple, then why are we not all running our cars by lifting the apple 20 cm high and letting it drop?

[Aaron]

driving cars with a bouncing ball

But one simple question. If those theories explain that there is more than one joule of energy in the 20 cm high apple, then why are we not all running our cars by lifting the apple 20 cm high and letting it drop?

Industry won't let that kind of destabalizing technology compete. Electric hybrids incorporate a bit of the concept but outright high COP car will take time.

But, the point is that for practical application, the open system simply allows energy to be dissipated over a longer period of time until it diminishes.

It isn't perpetual motion. It is simply able to recycle energy over and over and over and over to do more work with dissipation happening during each cycle.

Regenerated energy from brakes on a hybrid is already applying this. Rolling downhill using "gravitational potential" that is adding potential to the battery bank and that charge didn't come from the gasoline.

Doesn't matter if it cost fuel to get to the top of the hill, we aren't getting out what we got back in by going down the hill. What we did was burn gas or electric and what we got back out of that was the actual climb to the top of the hill. Anything we get back on the roll down is free charge from nature (gravity) and that work added to what we started with is an increase in COP.

Probably still under 1.0 because the gas engines are so very inefficient but would be interesting to do the actual numbers taking into account all the free regenerative braking, etc...

[ABCStore]

Aaron,

I'm sorry to say it, but every paragraph in your last message is incorrect to a degree.

Now, before you jump on me, I have a very open mind. I have built a number of working OU circuits based on Dr. Stiffler's design.

Our mission is not to dismiss classical physics but to find and explore new horizons.

ABC

[Aaron]

Newton's Cradle - Way over 1.0 COP



This toy is way over 1.0 COP. You lift one ball on one end and let go. It keeps the bounce going with a little energy diminished each time until it comes to a stop.

It requires x joules of energy to lets say lift one ball on one end 90 degrees from resting at the bottom. You let go and the ball on the other side moves maybe 90 percent or whatever. That comes back and the original ball goes out maybe 80 percent, etc... repeat. Add all the work in joules necessary to lift the ball at it's height each and every pulse until it stops and it is WAY more than the joules math requires to lift one ball once.

[BinzerBob]

The system

That toy the balls moving back and forth. This is all great and dandy, but how do we get any of that energy out of the system to do useful work like move a car? With the balls being moved back and forth that is it, that is the system. Ya one can say that the system has to include the earth because it is the driving force of gravity. So include the earth as the system.

Draw a picture with the earth and a small toy steel balls smacking back and forth. Now you have your thermodynamic system. Yes I agree there seems to be more than one joule of work done, but the energy is just being transfered back and forth from the various forms of potential energies.

As soon as we start to draft off some useful work you can now draw a small arrow out of this dotted line drawing and call that Work out of the system. When we pull the work out of the system in the form of say heat then the ball starts to slow down. Conversely we can define that we keep the heat inside the dotted line.

If the heat energy (this is say the friction of the ball against the air, and the heat when the balls collide etc) stays inside the doted line diagram then the system within the doted line will heat up. So the balls will slow down to a stop that one joule of energy will change from Gravity potential / kinetic potential energy to heating up the earth by say 1 joule or say 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 deg C.

It would be interesting for clasical thermodynamics to be not able to describe this system. But it is well known what happens. And it is describable and well defined.

If Open Thermodynamics tells us how to pull out the 1 joule of energy over and over again to do useful work then that would be something.

I want to keep an open mind about this. It is possible to define a system that counts more than one joule of energy with the toy example but one would have to define some weird one way gates. Like say only count energy when the ball goes up, don't count energy when the ball goes down. This is not getting us anywhere. The last time I dealt with energy although it is a scalar value, there is a sense given to it similar to a vector. So when something goes up energy is given one sense and when object goes down the opposite sense is given. We talk about energy but in many ways it is very much a vector quantity.... For instance when we deal with kinetic energies this concept is very important. I don't know how to properly explain this.