Terms and Definitions

[Farmhand]

Hi all, I thought I would start a thread for the debate of Terms and Definitions of
things. I think if we can refer to a written definition and say this is what we are
intending to mean when we say something there will be less misunderstandings.

It really doesn't matter if there are more than one meaning for a term as long as
the intended meaning is stated or clearly implied by the context in which it is used.

I found this definition for energy.

Source:- Energy Definition.

The part in bold (my bold) makes no sense to me. How can they claim that
the sound and heat energy remain in the system ? A system must have
boundaries, unless they are referring to the entire universe as a system.

Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.
According to the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transform into another form. Two billiard balls colliding, for example, may come to rest, with the resulting energy becoming sound and perhaps a bit of heat at the point of collision.

The SI unit of energy is the joule (J) or newton-meter (N * m). The joule is also the SI unit of work.

OK so energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work.

From the definition.

Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work.

Now for that one sentence to make sense the terms "a physical system" and
"to perform work" need to be clearly defined.

What defines a particular "physical system's" boundaries ?

I think it is easy to see that the term "to perform work" means "any work" for
us this includes both useful work and useless work or work we don't want
done but can't avoid, "losses".

However I cannot see how the stored energy from a battery when
transformed into waste sound in a very loud device or the waste heat given
off by an overly inefficient device is retained in the system.

Can anyone explain this.

In my opinion the definition I linked above does not make much sense unless
the Physical system referred to is the entire universe.

So for us we should remember what is useful work and useless work. And we
should consider all our systems to be bounded only by the universe itself.
Therefore anything other than 100 % efficiency is impossible over or under.
There are only real world efficiency's as far as energy is concerned.

Considering the entire Universe as the boundary to all our "Physical Systems"
Overunity is in fact totally impossible. Logically. This is unarguable. An axiom.

Power is a different thing entirely. And efficiency's over 100% can be obtained
when power is used for the measurement of efficiency. Using power to
determine efficiency give a Coefficient of Performance value or C.O.P..

Well that's my opinion.

Cheers

[StweenyA]

Energy has the capacity to do work, not is.

Probably not what you're wanting, but T. Bearden's definition of energy is more accurate - in part:

...

Energy is normally defined as "Energy is the capacity to do work." That's totally false. Energy
has the capacity to do work, because work is correctly defined as the dissipation (disordering;
scattering) of energy (order). The scattering of energy is work. It is not energy! I.e., energy is not
definable as its own scattering!

T. Bearden - Final secret of free energy (1993)

[Farmhand]

Probably not what you're wanting, but T. Bearden's definition of energy is more accurate - in part:

Energy is normally defined as "Energy is the capacity to do work." That's totally false. Energy
has the capacity to do work, because work is correctly defined as the dissipation (disordering;
scattering) of energy (order). The scattering of energy is work. It is not energy! I.e., energy is not
definable as its own scattering!

T. Bearden - Final secret of free energy (1993)

OK, then what else can energy do ? Besides work that is.

[Farmhand]

Maybe the definition of "work" is wrong.

Maybe the definition of "work" should be.

Work: Work is the result of the dissipation of energy.

Simple. It makes sense.

Nothing has anything to do with what I want to "hear". My intention is to make
"sense" of things. I want to hear anything that makes sense. Not word games.

And I mean no offence.

The definition below says to me that my simple definition is fairly accurate.

Work Definition. Definition of "Work"

Definition: Work is defined (in calculus terms) as the integral of the force over a distance of displacement.
In the case of a constant force, work is the scalar product of the force acting on an object and the displacement caused by that force. Though both force and displacement are vector quantities, work has no direction due to the nature of a scalar product (or dot product) in vector mathematics. This definition is consistent with the proper definition, because a constant force integrates to merely the product of the force and distance.

The SI units for work are the joule (J) or newton-meter (N * m), from the function W = F * s where W is work, F is force, and s is the displacement. The joule is also the SI unit of energy.

Cheers

[Shadesz]

I'm not exactly sure how coming up with a politically correct definition helps us progress forward with our goal to achieve free energy?

[Farmhand]

I'm not exactly sure how coming up with a politically correct definition helps us progress forward with our goal to achieve free energy?

Well it can help a lot.

I don't think it has anything to do with politics.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy is correct if the "Physical System" is
the entire Universe.

But only if the Entire Universe is the "boundary" of the physical system.
Otherwise it is totally invalid. If argued correctly and the Word Overunity
avoided, Extra energy brought into a system could be proven easliy.

One of my points is the physical system "has" to be clearly defined before OU
can be claimed. I don't think any of us can accurately do that though.

But most of all it is not necessary to claim OU.

The "only" thing that matters to me is how much "total work" is expended "by
me" to get a certain amount of "useful and intended" work done.

We can call it what we like, and anyone can do as they wish, or say as they
like. But unless we can co-operate with common terms how do we understand
each other ?

I think it is very important to have some simple, understandable and accepted
Terms we can all use as a reference to them.

I was hoping someone else would make a list if ever one was decided on as
being a good simplified Definitions list, I doubt that will happen though.

I think it is important.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

The definition Tom used is not the definition I quoted.

The definition I quoted was.

Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work.

......

Not

Energy is the capacity to do work

as is the definition Tom used. Where did that definition come from ?

There is a big difference between those two Quotes.

Probably not what you're wanting, but T. Bearden's definition of energy is more accurate - in part:

Energy is normally defined as "Energy is the capacity to do work." That's totally false. Energy
has the capacity to do work, because work is correctly defined as the dissipation (disordering;
scattering) of energy (order). The scattering of energy is work. It is not energy! I.e., energy is not
definable as its own scattering!

T. Bearden - Final secret of free energy (1993)

..

[Farmhand]

VAR, Volts, Amps Reactive.

It seems to me only real power can be used. VAR is kinda like power sent back
to the source, if it was intercepted and used as real power then it would then
not be returned to the source as it would be consumed, therefore it would be
real power.

By definition reactive power cannot be used as far as I can tell.
Any power used is real power. It has to be. We cannot use imaginary power.

Volt-ampere reactive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This quote from Wiki.

Vars may be considered as either the imaginary part of apparent power, or the power flowing into a reactive load, where voltage and current are specified in volts and amperes. The two definitions are equivalent.

http://www.energymanagertraining.com...yaraman(1).pdf

This quote from above source.

Explanation for reactive power says that in an alternating current system, when the
voltage and current go up and down at the same time, only real power is transmitted
and when there is a time shift between voltage and current both active and reactive
power are transmitted. But, when the average in time is calculated, the average active
power exists causing a net flow of energy from one point to another, whereas average
reactive power is zero, irrespective of the network or state of the system. In the case
of reactive power, the amount of energy flowing in one direction is equal to the
amount of energy flowing in the opposite direction (or different parts -capacitors,
inductors, etc- of a network, exchange the reactive power). That means reactive power
is neither produced nor consumed

[Raui]

I'm not exactly sure how coming up with a politically correct definition helps us progress forward with our goal to achieve free energy?

Definitions are our boundaries, if you want to expand your boundaries start with your definitions. A definition by definition (no pun intended ) restricts what we observe or how we interpret what we observe. If I say that voltage is the speed of electrons flowing through a wire and amperes are the quantity of electrons flowing through a wire and then say voltage is the consumption or disappearance of magnetic lines of force and current is the consumption or disappearance of electrostatic lines of force these 4 definitions of 2 different phenomena describe the phenomena completely different using completely different concepts which evoke completely different ideas which leads to a entirely different understanding of how the thing we are describing behaves with the environment around it.

Raui

[Shadesz]

Alright I can buy the importance of definitions. My ba.

Farmhand, a standard FE dictionary is a good idea. I wonder if we could actually implement one...

[Farmhand]

I've got nothing against changing the wording of definitions, or things of such
nature so that they make more sense. Or are more easily understood.

Or even a simple definition and a complex one when needed.

If we are to minimize confusion we should have common accepted terms for
things. This field is far to complex not to do that, we want more people
interested not less. Things are not as complicated as they would first appear to
be, or need to be (most of the time) sometimes things do need to be very
complicated I do admit.

I think there are some who like the confusion. However once the confusion is
gone that won't be such a problem. So we needn't dwell on that.

[boguslaw]

Correct definition coming from correct understanding is A MUST. What important is the law of conservation of energy. It is true but we don't know what it is "conserving"
What is even more important : there is no law of conservation of work!
Is there ? I can't find it !

So, can we have more WORK from the same energy taken ? Hmm....

[Farmhand]

I would feel comfortable with claiming Over-unity in a sense.

But to claim Over-unity I would need to start with a certain amount of stored
energy say 100 volts in 500 000 uf of caps ( no battery), then, if after running a
device or arrangement for a period from that stored energy, and shutting off the
input (shutting down the device) I ended up with more stored energy than I
started with, say 120 volts in the same 500 000 uf of caps or a different
500 000 uf of caps or in some way I obviously had more "stored energy" than I started with.

Then I would feel comfortable claiming Over-unity.

[elias]

Definition is a reflection of the belief system

Can we define Definition itself?

What is definition? We can say that definition tells us what something means to us. So what is a meaning for something? Isn't it really related to how consciousness views the world? How it sees the world? Or how it perceives itself. This is difficult. But I think that it all boils down to BELIEF.

Consciousness cannot see outside its belief of the world, because a belief defines the world, so the world is seen as what belief has defined.

So there is no incorrect definition. One definition can be correct for someone, and incorrect for another one, it is all related to how they see the world. If they see lack, they will define things that agrees with that.

So Why are we seeing these new energies, because we are redefining everything in our reality. As our belief is changing so our outer world is changing.

This is a simple example, I can view Sun as an infinite divine source of energy, but also I can see it as an atomic interaction that is dying!

The way we see thing affects the way we use them in our reality. It is like using the energy of the sun depletes it. what an insanity, but that is what we learn in the OLD conventional wisdom and physics. We learn that everything dies, which is true, but when you understand that everything that dies only changes form, and never ceases existence, then that brings a totally different paradigm.

Energy is defined in way that it satisfies the overall belief system of humanity, but humanity is waking up to an infinite universe, so is the outer reality reflecting this bit by bit.

[Iotayodi]

Energy is defined in way that it satisfies the overall belief system of humanity, but humanity is waking up to an infinite universe

I agree. If the Aether or cosmos is the cause of current like some suggest there can be no real overunity. The understanding of dark matter or energy goes beyond crude copper coils.

Nobel prize in dark energy.
Edward Witten, a theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein’s old stomping grounds, called dark energy “the most startling discovery in physics since I have been in the field.” Dr. Witten continued, “It was so startling, in fact, that I personally took quite a while to become convinced that it was right.”

He went on, “This discovery definitely changed the way physicists look at the universe, and we probably still haven’t fully come to grips with the implications.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/sc...obel.html?_r=2