Thermodynamics

[OrionLightShip]

I just need to understand what you said here, because it reads a little broken to me and I can't decipher what you are saying.

<<If the heating element goes cold by running "electricity" through it, what will your calorimeter show? A decrease in temperature - so how much work did you just calculate being done?


Are you saying I can't calculate the work done to make a coil lower it's temperature?

<<If I force that unit to make the resistor hot, you change it and lose
<<what it does. There is no point in that.



Did you not read my in the Coil thread where the magic in the coil need not be destroyed and that the work done to cool would be added to the energy gain of battery added to the heat gained by the battery and switching system?


<<Bottom line is you have no
<<method to measure how much work is being done because you don't
<<know how to measure negative work.



You lost me here....what negative work do I not know how to measure?


>>There is no direct/linear relationship between heat dissipated in a circuit and work being done.


What is the relationship then. If work is done where is the result of that work? If there is no result to measure then what good is it and how can you know it's there. Do you see it or feel it? I'm lost. I'm sure if I can find it, I can measure it.



>>You claim heat is the ultimate "lie detector" but the reality is that heat is >>the lie. You obviously believe in conservation of energy and as long as >>you do, you will never be able to know what

>>you're looking at in

>>unconventional circuits. You speak Chinese but want to use that to >>translate Greek.



Well, there is my problem! I believe in the Laws of Thermodynamics. I know there is unseen energy. I have seen demonstrations of great things in the sky. What I haven't seen is direct proof of man breaking these so called laws. Certainly, if you personally have measured temperature loss in a coil due to current and free of effects that would cause thermoelectric cooling, then maybe it is really breaking that law.



I am willing to take your word for that at this point. What I don't understand is why you think I can't measure it. I certainly have no way to measure the forces responsible, but I certainly can measure the result. If not please help me understand why.


Orion

[Rubberband]

Hello Orion, I don't know if this is some background on what you are discussing, or if it will mean anything, but have you read this? New Page 1

[OrionLightShip]

Thank you for trying to help. I have read Bearden before and watched videos. I do not hold with his theories at all, but I will take time to read it tomorrow.

Hello Orion, I don't know if this is some background on what you are discussing, or if it will mean anything, but have you read this? New Page 1

[OrionLightShip]

After reading a back post you wrote, I have changed my mind. I do not want answers to the above questions.


I never claimed to be a brother of light. I am not a self-righteous man. I only claim to have a spiritual healing experience that changed my view of life forever. I try to love everyone, but I fail in that. This is a tough planet to live on.


I simply can't sort through all of your words and understand them. When they are clear, I cannot decipher what you really mean. When your terminology is indeterminant, I am immediately lost.


Pulse battery conditioning was invented a long time ago when it was found to erase the charging memory problems inherent to NiCad batteries. I do not know who invented that.


You believe there is some kind of magic in the spark or bemf or in your coil. Perhaps there is.



I will never be convinced that I can't measure the end result and you will never be convinced that I can. I agree to disagree and wish to go on my way, stop wasting my time reading and typing, and start testing my capacitor theory. Perhaps someday I will be able to bring something positive and helpful to this forum.



I will never post after you again for fear you may respond.


Orion

[Rubberband]

More?

Maybe you saw this too?The Tom Bearden Website

[Aaron]

Orion,

I'll take this thread as a goodwill gesture that you really want to
discuss this with me peacefully since those are my quotes. I accept
and am only looking for the same and is why I even started to answer
the other questions in that other thread.

If there is no point in that thread, should I just delete it?

The only thing I will point out as far as the COP 17 claim is that I personally
think it was a measurement error. We (others also experimenting on it)
were mislead by someone claiming these results. We were not told the
truth about what she still had in her possession, what she could still get
or couldn't from people she worked with, pictures, paperwork, etc... it isn't
worth going into the details but suffice it to say that we were mislead.

Now that doesn't mean there isn't promise to the concept because we
saw all kinds of interesting things. cop 2.0 is about the most I saw with
heat - nothing close to cop 17. And like I said, a common heat pump
water heater is up to over twice the output as input so it wasn't worth
pursuing that much. Now if I saw cop 5, 6, 7+, I would be commercially
producing a hot water heater retrofit with submersible inductive resistors
with the circuit pulsing power into the coil.

A friend in Europe was doing some experiments along these lines and got
bigger gains that I did and I think the circuit was even more simple. In any case, towards
the end, I was just as intrigued with the cooling of an inductive resistor
if not more than than with heating. I consistently saw the temp drops when I was
using certain waveforms at certain duty cycle and frequencies at various
underpowered conditions with the 555 - meaning I was underpowering the
555 to which caused waveforms that were associated with the cooling.

The first time I noticed, the probe on the live resistor showed a 2C drop
while the ambient probe remained the same. These probes are impervious
to electrical interference by the way so goofy rf emissions or whatever will
not and cannot change the readout from these probes.

With further experimentation, I could get up to a 5C drop. That is almost
10F! That is like going from 70F to 60F or roughly 20C down to 15C. That
is HUGE. You could feel that the resistor was way colder compared to the
control.

Heat is dissipation or a disorganization or unpolarization of organized
potential through different resistances. The very process of that
disorganization is work. I am not making a
case for your belief that all of it can be reduced to heat that can be
measured in a calorimeter.

This is moving forward in time. Time not being a dimension at all but just
a gauge to describe movement of mass through the aether. The more
"dense" the aether, the slower the time - the less dense the faster the
time, etc... Anyway, the heat from a resistor getting hot is dissipated
potential that is simply "dissolving" back into the aether as unpolarized
and chaotic (not random) potential. While time is forward, the aether
can impart a positive resistance or "traction" on mass.

The work you can calculate in the above example is forward work in forward
"time" and you'll have positive joules of work that you can measure.

You say you are able to measure work by cooling as well, but that has
to come down to believing heat is being removed and this is a forward time
process as well that can show work in positive joules. If you calculate the
ambient temp in a fridge and then run the fridge to drop its temp, you can
likewise figure out how much work was done for that amount of cooling.

However, what if you have a circuit that has a resistor that becomes
cool - not because heat was removed, but because chaotic unorganized
aether in the vicinity of the resistor was made to self organize, and instead
of moving away from it, it moves towards the resistor and that is why
the resistor gets cold. Heat moving away from the resistor isn't the
active positive work, the potential that moves to the resistor is COLD
MOVING TOWARDS WARM. That is water running up hill. That is NEGATIVE
ENTROPY or NEGATIVE WORK being done. That is low potential moving
towards a high potential towards the resistor, over the circuit and to the
battery
instead of from the battery.

If you had the resistor in a calorimeter under these circumstances and
saw xC drop - you can use your formulas to determine that x amount of
work was done, which would be associated with the active removal of
heat which is a forward time positive work process. Active removal on
the part of the heat being the higher potential moving to a lower potential.

However, your calculations would be wrong since there was no positive
work being done. The resistor didn't become cold because the heat
on the resistor had a lower temp place to move towards. It became cold
because unorganized potential of the aether was moving backwards
at negative resistance and became polarized/organized at the circuit.
Basically, a self ordering process for chaotic potential. In this case, the
heat at the resistor dropped in temp because it's actions were dictated
by the cold and not the other way around. That means the heat was
passive being led by the cold. The heat didn't leave the resistor towards
a colder area. The ambient heat of the resistor decreased because
the circuit was reversing the direction of that dissipated potential.

The only place there was positive work done was in the 555 circuit.
The rest was negative joules of collected energy and not work in dissipated
potential. That is negative work.

The negative work in that resistor circuit + the positive work in the circuit,
which was closer to zero than the negative work = a net negative work
being done. The amperage on the circuit connected to the battery was
a net negative watts meaning energy is being returned to the battery.

So if you used a calorimeter to measure the cooling you would only give
a measurement of joules AS IF a conventional circuit created that cooling.
But the fact is that your measurement of positive work done does not
even apply to this circuit in these circumstances and is a dishonest
depiction of what actually happened.

You can't say it is an "equivelant" and is good enough because it is
comparing apples to oranges. It is entirely contrary to the intention of
the entire calorimeter experiment to begin with.

As you say, you believe in thermodynamics. You are saying you already
have parameters established that you want to work within.

[OrionLightShip]

Orion,

I'll take this thread as a goodwill gesture that you really want to
discuss this with me peacefully since those are my quotes. I accept
and am only looking for the same and is why I even started to answer
the other questions in that other thread.

Yes and Good

If there is no point in that thread, should I just delete it?

I would like to delete things I said about and to Eric Dollard because I finally see the genius behind his words, but deleting threads and things said is like redacting your lab notebook with black ink. It just isn't done in my world.

Things have a life of their own. It will fade to the back.


You can't say it is an "equivelant" and is good enough because it is
comparing apples to oranges. It is entirely contrary to the intention of
the entire calorimeter experiment to begin with.

As far as everything else you have said....we are forced to deal with what we are constrained to measure and use. If you say that heat moved to nowhere, then indeed something special is happening but does no one any good unless we find out why and maximize the effect with high efficiency.

With nothing more than anectdotal evidence and a finger point toward ainslee research, I will take your word for it.

As you say, you believe in thermodynamics. You are saying you already
have parameters established that you want to work within.

I am sorry that is was not clear that I was being flip. I believe by our own free will we trapped ourselves in space and time and are now being held here by the forces of darkness and deceit.

As such, we are forced to live under the falsehoods of Newtonian Physics until we can indeed tap into the true underlying physics that we all know exists.

I have, since 1981, had up and close personal experiences with beautiful technology flying in and out of my life every four or five years and always with independent third party verification.

I have sat in a field with six people and watched a ball of light appear from nowhere and fly 13 miles in less than 5 seconds from Mt. Adams straight into the field where we sat. It made a noiseless ninety degree turn into the sky with an apparent turn radius of 50 to 100 yards and come to a dead stop when it reached an altitude whereby it appeared as nothing more than a star.

I believe in our current physical laws as much as I believe in the tooth fairy, and yet we are forced to live with those constraints. I would not be engaged in a search if I truly believed in the classical laws.

ten characters

[Aaron]

more out than in

You can edit your own posts with the edit button.

I personally think the arguments are irrelevant to the topic and are more
of a nuisance.

I didn't say the heat moved to nowhere and the past reference when I
said out of nowhere, I put nowhere in quotes = "nowhere" as a general
reference to the common slang. To be more precise where it comes from
is the "active vacuum". You say you don't agree with Bearden - that is fine
but vacuum energy is a very accepted model in various fields of physics.
Regardless of the jargon, it is coming from the potential that is available
in space of a certain density. I like the term aether which is like a gaseous
fluid. And the ambient heat on the resistor is moving backwards in time.
I can't prove it but the evidence is showing a reversal in entropy, which is
a time forward - so if it is reversed, it is time backwards.

The aether is detectable and measurable and hasn't been theoretical for
a long time.

If we can't directly measure this time reversal on the circuit if that is what
is happening but we can logically deduce that with a net negative amperage
drawn from the battery - we know enough information to conclude that
conventional measurements aren't going to define what is happening.
It would be apples and oranges comparision - we just have to leave it open
to unknows or simply allow for negative work or negentropy in the
equations. That probably already exists - I'm not a mathematician.

The math to all of this is not in and of itself difficult - it is the context
of how it all relates to each other that is difficult in understanding the
formulas. I just know that experiment and observation of natural
phenomena comes first and math and jargon is secondary to describe
it in technical terms.

The negative work is real with negative amperage. And that isn't from
the meter hooked up backwards - many experiments have shown
this - not just mine so whether it is negative work or not I don't believe
is anecdotal. But I think is anecdotal evidence to claim time is reversing.
In my opinion, it is obvious but that is just my opinion.

Ainslie never did what I did - she was only in the heat production.

Well, the trap of the deception can be changed by flicking a switch of
how we perceive things instead of really having to develop something
new. Just like the conventional idea that we are storing potential in an
object that is lifted is deception because you can dig a hole next to a ball
but we didn't store potential in the ball by doing that or that we get out
what we put in, etc... Simply seeing it for what it is.

You said you have been wanting someone to break the laws of
thermodynamics but it has been. Regardless of all the heat connection to
thermodynamics - in general it is synonymous with the concept of not
getting out more work than put in.

The parameters are well understood as far as what is necessary to have
more out than in. Simply, any system that is open to receive free
environmental input in addition to what we put in can output more.

The distinction is that there isn't more out than in - there is more out
than we put in.

You plant a seed in the ground and it takes you a small amount of work.
Over the years that grows into a giant tree. There is millions or billions
times more work done than you had to input. That is overunity as every
natural system is. There is still dissipation but the net amount done is
WAY more than what was input.

In some electromagnetic systems same thing - the aether contributes
free environmental input that we don't pay for literally creating energy
"out of thin air" - meaning vacuum space filled with aetheric potential.

With open systems, our input is leveraged to get way more work done
than we put in. Gravitational potential, aether (same things in different
contexts in my opinion), wind, sunshine, etc... all free energy sources
that can power things. A solar cell is overunity because any output is
more than zero input that we have to input in to the system. If the
solar cell is 15% efficient, that is only the efficiency. But if we compare
how much we had to input compared to what comes out of it, it is
way overunity.

These aren't my definitions of what overunity is, it is what it means.
Efficiency and COP are different. COP made for heat systems but it is
still nothing but a ratio of input we pay for compared to output and this
same ratio applies to all these free energy machines.

I like the bouncing ball example because it is a big needle in the eye of
classical physics with their brainwashed explanations and a stupid 25
cent rubber ball breaks the laws of physics.

Lift a 5 gram ball or so to 1 meter and drop it - it bounces back up to
83 cm, which is 83% efficiency. When it gets to that height, it drops and
bounces back up 83% (based on the ball I used) to 69 cm. When it
drops and bounces back up about 83%, it gets to 57 cm.

If we use kilo X 9.8 X meter = joules of work

So 5 gram ball = 0.005 kg X 9.8 X 1 = 0.049 joules for the initial lift

Bounce number 1 is 83 cm = 0.04 joules

Even if I go no further, 0.049 joules was put into the ball for the initial
lift so 0.049 joules of work were done and we're supposed to only get
out what we put in? The first bounce alone was an additional 0.04
joules for a total of 0.089 joules of work demonstrated. 0.089 joules
of work DONE/0.049 input = COP of 1.816 or 1.816 times our input, which
is overunity.

Bounce 2 at 69 cm = 0.0338 joules
Bounce 3 at 57 cm = 0.0279 joules

So the initial bounce 0.049 + bounce 1, 2, 3, 4
0.049 + 0.04 + 0.0338 + 0.0279 = 0.1507 joules of REAL WORK
demonstrated from an input of only 0.049 joules.

0.1507 joules / 0.049 joules input = COP of 3.0755 or 3.0755 times more
work accomplished and demonstrated compared to what we put into
the system.

The most serious form of denial I have seen from someone that does
believe in the conventional junk says each time the ball bounces up,
that is a completely different system and you can't add those up.

The 25 cent bouncing ball proves conservation of energy is bogus as is
multiple other "laws". Why? It just takes seeing it for what it is.

You lift the ball to 1 meter initially and use 0.049 joules to do that. There
is no potential you are storing in that ball. 100% of that 0.049 joules is
used up in order to lift the ball. What you get out of the 0.049 joules
you put in to lift the ball IS THE LIFTING OF THE BALL in and of itself.

You then established a 1 meter separation between the ball and ground
and when it drops, free gravitational NEW potential then enters (not from
being stored) into the ball to impart a push on it and with 83% recovery,
the ball bounces back up to 83% of the original height. Energy is not
transforming from one form to another. You put in energy to lift the
ball and it all dissipates back into the environment. NEW potential enters
to do more work and that work is from potential that was COMPLETELY
disconnected from the actual potential used - new potential not stored.

I'm not saying the equation is wrong to determine gravitational potential
in joules of what it took to lift the ball - weight x 9.8 x height

But if you get out what you put in and you lift it and do 0.049 and
let go and if you only get 0.049 joules out - that means the ball can
never bounce and conventional physics is now claiming it took 0 joules
of energy to lift the ball if you get 0.049 out of it when releasing it!

[replaced]

Lift a 5 gram ball or so to 1 meter and drop it - it bounces back up to
83 cm, which is 83% efficiency. When it gets to that height, it drops and
bounces back up 83% (based on the ball I used) to 69 cm. When it
drops and bounces back up about 83%, it gets to 57 cm.

If we use kilo X 9.8 X meter = joules of work

So 5 gram ball = 0.005 kg X 9.8 X 1 = 0.049 joules for the initial lift

Bounce number 1 is 83 cm = 0.04 joules

Even if I go no further, 0.049 joules was put into the ball for the initial
lift so 0.049 joules of work were done and we're supposed to only get
out what we put in? The first bounce alone was an additional 0.04
joules for a total of 0.089 joules of work demonstrated. 0.089 joules
of work DONE/0.049 input = COP of 1.816 or 1.816 times our input, which
is overunity.

Bounce 2 at 69 cm = 0.0338 joules
Bounce 3 at 57 cm = 0.0279 joules

So the initial bounce 0.049 + bounce 1, 2, 3, 4
0.049 + 0.04 + 0.0338 + 0.0279 = 0.1507 joules of REAL WORK
demonstrated from an input of only 0.049 joules.

0.1507 joules / 0.049 joules input = COP of 3.0755 or 3.0755 times more
work accomplished and demonstrated compared to what we put into
the system.

The most serious form of denial I have seen from someone that does
believe in the conventional junk says each time the ball bounces up,
that is a completely different system and you can't add those up.

The 25 cent bouncing ball proves conservation of energy is bogus as is
multiple other "laws". Why? It just takes seeing it for what it is.

That is not overunity. A 25 cent bouncing ball will bounce less high than the last time it bounced because of friction. The word "Work" is used to describe a process, almost like a secondary quality. When the 25 cent bouncing ball hits the ground, the earth (or part of the crust) moves in about the same amount of momentum of the bouncing ball. If you were to take 2 balls, both weighing 100 lbs and were to chuck them toward each other at 5mph, both balls would create a sound and air vibration but the movement in general would stop. Does that mean that the energy was lost? no.

It's said that the net energy of the universe is about zero. Whenever you move an object one direction, you have to move mass at the opposite direction. Since the earth is so big, you don't even think of this happening, but it does. If you were on a small asteroid and you were to jump off of it, you just gave momentum the asteroid in the opposite direction of where you are going. So you are confused in thinking that the ball bouncing up and down doesn't create a somewhat equal and opposite force. The ball bouncing up and down does push the earth in the opposite direction which gets dispersed as kinetic energy in atoms moving in one direction.

If you were to have trillions of small 25 cent bouncing balls from the sun constantly hit the earth and go back into space, the earth would start to move away from the sun because each and every 25 cent bouncing ball would have an effect of moving the earth. It is just like each air molecule having an effect of moving you, if you are outside during a hurricane, each air molecule transfers some momentum to you.

It is sad to see people waste their lives trying to make machines that will never work. It's no different than trying to make 2+2=5.

[LetsReplicate]

Lift a 5 gram ball or so to 1 meter and drop it - it bounces back up to
83 cm, which is 83% efficiency. When it gets to that height, it drops and
bounces back up 83% (based on the ball I used) to 69 cm. When it
drops and bounces back up about 83%, it gets to 57 cm.

If we use kilo X 9.8 X meter = joules of work

So 5 gram ball = 0.005 kg X 9.8 X 1 = 0.049 joules for the initial lift

Bounce number 1 is 83 cm = 0.04 joules

Even if I go no further, 0.049 joules was put into the ball for the initial
lift so 0.049 joules of work were done and we're supposed to only get
out what we put in? The first bounce alone was an additional 0.04
joules for a total of 0.089 joules of work demonstrated. 0.089 joules
of work DONE/0.049 input = COP of 1.816 or 1.816 times our input, which
is overunity.

Bounce 2 at 69 cm = 0.0338 joules
Bounce 3 at 57 cm = 0.0279 joules

So the initial bounce 0.049 + bounce 1, 2, 3, 4
0.049 + 0.04 + 0.0338 + 0.0279 = 0.1507 joules of REAL WORK
demonstrated from an input of only 0.049 joules.

0.1507 joules / 0.049 joules input = COP of 3.0755 or 3.0755 times more
work accomplished and demonstrated compared to what we put into
the system.

The most serious form of denial I have seen from someone that does
believe in the conventional junk says each time the ball bounces up,
that is a completely different system and you can't add those up.

The 25 cent bouncing ball proves conservation of energy is bogus as is
multiple other "laws". Why? It just takes seeing it for what it is.

You lift the ball to 1 meter initially and use 0.049 joules to do that. There
is no potential you are storing in that ball. 100% of that 0.049 joules is
used up in order to lift the ball. What you get out of the 0.049 joules
you put in to lift the ball IS THE LIFTING OF THE BALL in and of itself.

You then established a 1 meter separation between the ball and ground
and when it drops, free gravitational NEW potential then enters (not from
being stored) into the ball to impart a push on it and with 83% recovery,
the ball bounces back up to 83% of the original height. Energy is not
transforming from one form to another. You put in energy to lift the
ball and it all dissipates back into the environment. NEW potential enters
to do more work and that work is from potential that was COMPLETELY
disconnected from the actual potential used - new potential not stored.

I'm not saying the equation is wrong to determine gravitational potential
in joules of what it took to lift the ball - weight x 9.8 x height

But if you get out what you put in and you lift it and do 0.049 and
let go and if you only get 0.049 joules out - that means the ball can
never bounce and conventional physics is now claiming it took 0 joules
of energy to lift the ball if you get 0.049 out of it when releasing it!

You had me agreeing with your underlying premise until you got to this example. Let's take a moment to understand why this isn't an "energy gain".

The rubber ball's energy can be described by 2 terms: potential and kinetic. When the ball is entirely potential (at the peaks), it has 0 kinetic energy; and when the energy is entirely kinetic (the bounce points) there is 0 potential energy. That means that if you were to plot the waveform of potential, and kinetic, the vectors would be 90 degrees out of phase with each other. The energy is the potential MULTIPLIED by the kinetic (which is provided by gravity, but is not the acceleration directly as the acceleration is the derivative of the kinetic), so the ball's total energy (work) can not be calculated in transience. To calculate the real energy of the system, you would need to multiply the TOTAL (integral) amount of potential, by the TOTAL (integral) amount of kinetic. Since this action requires vector calculus to accomplish, the derived physics formulas treat each bounce as a separate system, then add the energy of the bounces together. It is a highly simplified derivation of the physics involved in the system which actually requires the "area under the curve" and not the "current value of the curve". It's a very common misconception.

Power ONLY exists as an "area", "peak power" and "transient power" are mathematical lies, like the number of square inches on a chess board when you cut it diagonally and slide it one square (8*8=64 square inches vs 7*9=63 square inches, see diagram). Both vectors NEED to be exist, and be accounted for in order to calculate the system's energy. The energy of the ball has does drop linearly with number of bounces which is evidenced by is predicable, liner reduction in bounce height.



I have never seen a system that provides "cooling" (negative DC power) electrically. If you post schematics for one though, I will replicate it and fully test it under proper conditions.

[OrionLightShip]

I have never seen a system that provides "cooling" (negative DC power) electrically. If you post schematics for one though, I will replicate it and fully test it under proper conditions.

I respectfully second that request a second time

[Aaron]

boing

That is not overunity. A 25 cent bouncing ball will bounce less high than the last time it bounced because of friction. The word "Work" is used to describe a process

This is a false argument that "skeptics" have tried to make because they
don't even have the frames of reference through which these systems
operate.

You are arguing against perpetual motion (as in your other thread) that
has absolutely nothing to do with non-equilibrium systems that have a very
extended time until dissipation because of free potential coming from the
environment. In this case, that is gravitational potential.

For there to be a net energy gain does not mean it has to bounce higher
each time - that is ridiculous to think there is a perpetual motion argument
in an environment full of resistances such as a bouncing ball. Perpetual
motion claims have no place in a grown up discussion about non-equilibrium
thermodynamics / open dissipative systems and to argue against perpetual
motion is such an example is just as ridiculous as arguing for one.

For there to be a net energy gain apparent, you add up all the joules of
work done from the time you initially lift the ball, let go and by the time it
comes to a rest, you add up all work demonstrated and divide it by how
much you input by the initial lift. No amount of your smoke and mirrors
are going to change this basic fact - and it has nothing to do with
having to bounce higher each time and has nothing to do with perpetual
motion.

Non-equilibrium system STILL contribute to entropy of the universe as a
matter of indisputable fact but the dissipation can be greatly delayed as
constant environmental free input comes into the system to contribute
to more work above and beyond what was initially put into it to get it
going.

Here is a bare basic definition of an open dissipative system that is
so simple a child should understand it - the branch of thermodynamics
that explain these open dissipative systems is Non-Equilibrium
Thermodynamics or N.E.T. No magic and nothing to do with perpetual
motion.

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

open dissipative system (ōˑ·pen dis··pāˑ·tiv sisˑ·tm),n an organized system that continuously exchanges matter and energy with its surroundings to avoid thermodynamic equilibrium. Also called
dissipative system or
dissipative structure.

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

For anyone that can't comprehend this, it means the environmental input
helps prevent it from coming into balance!

For these simple systems, they will come into balance - after demonstrating
MORE work than was input. Entropy is greatly extended.

You lift the ball and let go - work is performed on each cycle. The loss
of dissipation when it hits the ground is not the only work done, that is
only what is wasted. But there is a small amount of waste in the lift
against air friction, etc... but almost insignificant compared to the impact
dissipation.

On each lift - the environmental input is fresh gravitational potential that
helps to do what???

"avoid thermodynamic equilibrium"

Because it is an open dissipative system that can be explained simply by
non-equilibrium thermodynamics that completely ALLOWS free input
to perform more work extending the period before it comes into equilibrium.

The bouncing ball performs 8 times the work compared to what was input,
violates nothing, is overunity and still has NOTHING to do with perpetual
motion.

Your belief is rooted in conservation of energy and a belief that everything
conforms to classical thermodynamics. Both are wrong and neither apply
to a bouncing ball. Nice try but you aren't even aware of the distinctions
between two separate branches of thermodynamics yet you think you
can explain open dissipative systems.

[Aaron]

go read what is already posted

I respectfully second that request a second time

You all can go search through the internet for schematics, etc... and start
from scratch on that.

I will caution you that it took thousands of hours to get those results and if
you or anyone else think you can just throw a circuit together based on the
schematic without spending time learning the nuances of tuning, etc... then
you're results will not be what I got and you'll blame me for it not working
because you didn't spent thousands of hours as well to learn the tuning.
I doubt you or "lets replicate" are willing to put that much effort into it and if
not, are only setting me up to take the blame for your own unwillingness to
do the work, which goes WAY beyond just putting the circuit together.

And that circuit is irrelevant to the point of whether a system can produce
more work than is input. A refrigerator does that and anyone that can't
see that have already made up their mind.

[Aaron]

work

Lets Replicate -

How much work does it take to lift a 5 gram ball to 1 meter on the
surface of the Earth?

[OrionLightShip]

Thanks! I honestly and sincerely only wanted to see the effect. thats all. thats it.

Orion