Thermodynamics

[Farmhand]

If after the initial lift, the ball is bounced to 83% or 83 cm, that means
that you only have to input 17% to make up the loss to get it back to
the meter. From then on, only putting in 17% will get you an entire
1 meter of lift until the end of time. In many circuits, all you have to input
is enough to make up the loss while it outputs the full amount (just for
inputting the loss) - same difference.

It depends how you look at it, with an LC circuit having the L in a close
magnetic coupling with another L "secondary" which is providing energy to a
load the oscillations I think would be less than an LC "uncoupled to a load"
as more load is added more energy taken from the LC and more energy needs
to be provided as well as the losses overcome.

Only an uncoupled (very loosely coupled) or unloaded LC will oscillate freely I
think.

I never said the ball is giving you useful work to power lights, etc... but
the point is - how much work is demonstrated in measurable joules of
energy and if you add it all up, is it more than we put in? In a bouncing
ball, the intended work is to have a ball that bounces. That is very useful
work for a ball that is intended to bounce.

In that case if it is bouncing you want, it should be compared to a loss-less
or ideal ball bouncing which returned to it's original height.

You seem to be comparing it to a ball that does not bounce and dissipates all it's
energy with one impact.

The term "useful" is subjective and only applies to what we personally want
work for and has nothing to do with the fact that other work could be
happening.

An incandescent bulb is 10% efficient - we only say that because it gives
us 10% light and 90% heat so the efficiency is 10%. The useful work
we WANT is light so it is 10%. But the fact is that it is 100% efficient
because we get 10% light and 90% heat. Whether or not we want the
heat is irrelevant - 100% of the input we put into the bulb is converted
to work and work is work measurable in joules of energy.

If it is a resistive heating element that gives no light, it is 100% efficient
because the useful work we WANT is heat - therefore all of the power
we put in is converted to heat, then it is 100% efficient.

Yes but I think C.O.P is defined by useful work done or intended work done.
I have no use for heat from a light bulb so it is a loss.

But of course in a resistive heating element (non inductive), there is no
rebounding, resonance, bouncing back, etc... it is a straight short circuit
that has no chance for recovery. I know an incandescent bulb filament
is an inductive resistors but for all practical purposes, we're not getting
any recovery and it might as well be a straight wire resistor.

Yes that is true, but the resistive element is not the whole system it is only
one part of a system.

I don't want to comment on the Ainslie circuit because I'm not familiar with it.

Cheers.

[Aaron]

system comparisons

In that case if it is bouncing you want, it should be compared to a loss-less
or ideal ball bouncing which returned to it's original height.

You seem to be comparing it to a ball that does not bounce and dissipates all it's
energy with one impact.

Yes but I think C.O.P is defined by useful work done or intended work done.
I have no use for heat from a light bulb so it is a loss.

Comparing a ball that can bounce to one that dissipates everything
on one drop (like a ball of dough) - it legit because it compares two balls
that have different levels of efficiency in recovering x amount.

The balls ability to rebound - elasticity or whatever anyone wants to call
it is the equivelant to a recovery circuit on a pulsed electromagnetic
circuit that gets recovery. The better the recovery the more it is like
a more bouncy ball - the worse the recovery, the more it is like a metal
ball or dough.

This is simply like comparing any other two like systems that are maybe
5% and 83% efficient. Or 1% 90%, etc... it isn't a requirement to compare
one of these to 100% any more than it is required to compare two
different Bedini builds. One may be 70% and one may be 90%. It isn't
necessary to compare to a Bedini 100% efficient build that doesn't exist.
But if there is a 100% ball or Bedini circuit (efficiency not cop), all the
comparisons are still showing the same comparison.

There is a certain percent of efficiency needed like on a heat pump
compressor to get the cop over 1.0 and it doesn't have to be 100% which
no common refrigerator is. If under a certain efficiency, the system won't
be over 1.0 cop while I don't know the exact efficiency of my refrigerator,
it is a safe bet that it is between 2.0 and 3.0 even though the compressor
draw from the wall doesn't have to be 100% (a ball that returns to the
same height).

I don't have use for heat on a bulb either unless this is providing heat and
light for a night time swimming pool. Other than that, heat is just wasted
but is still work being performed. The incandescent won't show over 1.0
cop because there isn't environmental input contributing to the general
nature of the circuit to make light - but a bouncing ball is open to the
environment and is able to make use of free gravitational input.

[LetsReplicate]

You are unwilling to spell it out in an equation.

I'll ask one final time if you are capable of answering the question, which
you are only evading with rhetoric.

How many joules of energy (work - the active process) are dissipated
when lifting a 5 gram ball to 1 meter?

Please don't confuse people with ramblings of jargon and nonsense.

Just answer the simple question:

How many joules of energy (work - the active process) are dissipated
when lifting a 5 gram ball to 1 meter?

Okay, and I'll answer it with the "simple math" so you can follow the units:

The potential energy of holding the ball at 1m at the start:
Ep = mgh
where m is mass in kg, g is 9.8 m/s^2, and h is 1m.
Ep = 0.005kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 1 m = 0.049 (kg*m^2)/s^2 = 0.049 joules.

To find the squared velocity it will be traveling when it reaches the ground, we use the equation:
v^2 = vo^2 + 2a(x - xo)
where vo is the initial velocity; a is the acceleration: 9.8m/s^2; x is the destination: 0 m; and xo is initial position: 1m.
v^2 = 0^2 + 2*9.8m/s^2(0-1m) = -19.6 m^2/s^2

The time it will take to fall is given by:
v = vo + at and where vo=0 : t = v/a
where v is the current velocity: (the positive root of v^2 so we don't have to resort to imaginary numbers, which are extra vectors) 4.427 m/s; a is acceleration: 9.6m/s^2; and t is time in seconds.
t = (4.427 m/s) / (9.8 m/s^2) = 0.451 seconds.

and the kinetic energy before the first bounce is given by:
Ek = 0.5 * m * v^2
where m is the mass in kg, and v^2 is -19.6 m^2/s^2
Ek = 0.5 * 0.005 kg * -19.6 m^2/s^2 = -0.049 (kg*m^2)/s^2 = -0.049 joules.

That's with zero entropy. As you can see the energy input is equal and opposite to the energy output assuming no loss. So let's assume a 10% loss of energy per bounce to account for bounce losses and air friction; and also assume the ball bounces straight back up so there are no extra vectors to account for. That means our upward kinetic energy will be 0.049 joules * 0.9 = 0.0441 joules.

The speed the ball will leave the ground after the first bounce is given by:
Ek = 0.5 * m * v^2 or: v = (Ek / (0.5 * m))^0.5
v = (0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 / (0.5 * 0.005 kg))^0.5 = (0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 / (0.0025 kg))^0.5 = (17.64m^2/s^2)^0.5 = 4.2m/s
Note that the velocity is positive, not negative because it's traveling the opposite way now.

Since this will all be converted back to potential energy at the peak of the bounce we can use the Ep formula to find the peak height of the first bounce:
Ep = mgh or: h = Ep / (mg)
h= 0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 / (0.005 kg * 9.8 m/s^2) = 0.0441 (kg*m^2) / (0.049 (kg*m)/s^2) = 0.9 meters.

The time it will take to reach the peak of the first bounce is given by:
v = vo + at and since v=0: t = vo/-a
where vo is the initial velocity of the bounce.
t = 4.2m/s / -9.8m/s^2 = 0.429 seconds
Note that the acceleration is negative in this equation because the ball is slowing down, not because it takes a negative time.

So the v^2 just before the second bounce will be:
v^2 = vo^2 + 2a(x - xo)
v^2 = 0 + 2 * 9.8m/s^2 (0-0.9m) = -17.64 m^2/s^2

The time it will take to fall on the second bounce is given by:
t = v/a
t = 4.2m/s / 9.8 m/s^2 = 0.429 seconds.
Note that the fall time is equal symmetrical to the rise time because the acceleration is the same, so it lands at the same speed it bounced at.

and the kinetic energy before the second bounce is given by:
Ek = 0.5 * m * v^2
Ek = 0.5 * 0.005kg * -17.64 m^2/s^2 = -0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 = -0.0441 joules
As you can see, assuming no air losses of energy, we don't lose any energy in the air, but we don't gain any either.

So you can see how the energy is switching back and forth between potential and kinetic, right? The amount of energy in any given bounce of this ball is then given by the equation:
Ek(bounce) or Ep(peak) = 0.049 joules * 0.9^n
where n is the current bounce number and 0.9 is the bounce efficiency.
The height of any given bounce is then given by:
h(peak) = 1 meter * 0.9^n

So we're clear on all that? Good, because now it get's complicated. The problem is that you've defined power wrong in this system, it is not "joules", it's "watts".

Work (energy changed, aka power) done by a system in physics is given by:
W = delta E / delta t
Where W is the work done in watts, delta E is the change of energy joules, and t is time in seconds that it took to change the energy. That means that amount of work done by the ball is ENTIRELY dependent on what time it is.

The work done at the first bounce is:
0.049 joules / 0.451 seconds = 0.109 watts
The amount of work done from the start to the peak of the first bounce is:
(0.049 joules - 0.0441 joules) / (0.451 s + 0.429 s) = 0.0049 joules / 0.88 s = 0.00557 watts
and the amount of work done from the start to the second second bounce point is:
0.049 joules / (0.451 s + 0.429s*2) = 0.049 joules / 1.309 seconds = 0.0374 watts
Notice how we have more power at the first bounce point than at ANY of the other bounces or peaks. And given that in the theoretical system that ball never actually stops bouncing, the "total work" calculation would be done with t approaching infinity, resulting in "approaching zero work". Power can not be calculated in this transient, system because of the oscillation between the vectors.

You are the one who was mistakenly adding up the energy of each bounce as a separate system. The energy vectors are not the power, they are analogous to voltage (potential) and kinetic (current).

[Aaron]

potential

I can appreciate the fact that you are on some hunt for free energy and
that you want to spread the word about it, yet you are looking for it with
foil over the end of your binoculars.

Each cycle of a bounce is a self ordering process by basically regauging
itself - creating a new potential difference to allow new and fresh
gravitational potential to do work. It is just re-establishing a new dipole
over and over again where each time the dipole is weaker and weaker.
As all open dissipative systems do.

Can you even spell out a few examples of an open dissipative system so
we know you even have the proper frame of reference to operate from,
which gives you a little credibility as far as having room to comment?
It is indisputable that natural systems are such systems and you're
techno-academia (as Schauberger would say) method of classical
dissecting of such as system is translating Greek with Chinese.

Your math is only correct if conservation of energy is an accurate law
and if there is no environmental input.

I do know that a joule second (or any time) is watts and that
is power but you also show your blind spots by believing in the fictitious
conservation of energy as does "replaced". Power is watts consumed.
You can get work without consuming watts. Your belief is not a requirement
for it to be so.

You can think your little wink on the negative time is cute, but you are
personally incapable of pulsing a DC battery through a mosfet and
getting a negative amperage leaving the battery - meaning the battery
is actually getting charged while powering the switch and the resistor
grows COLD. You can't get these results but you are convinced you're
qualified to understand them? It is irrelevant if you have a mathematician
from Oxford or anyone else from any university with any degree because
if none of you can build anything that gets the results that myself or
others can get - what does that say about your understanding?

Honestly, you don't even know what encompasses work - because you don't
even know that you can have the results of "amperage" without any
voltage by getting negative work between the difference between
two negative lines. This means you can power an electromagnet and
perform WORK by repelling or attracting a rotor with no voltage and
only current. No voltage multiplied by current = no watts. When you
realize that work is not in lockstep with a dissipation of
power, you will start to make progress instead of impressing yourself with
equations that are in the 9th grade physical science books. All of this
works without ohms law even being part of the equation. And I'm not
talking about the inductive resistor experiments.

You are hooked on the myth that work done is somehow in lockstep with
measurable watts and it is not. Repeat.

A permanent magnetic is the most natural example of current with
zero volts. But I am talking about an electromagnet getting charged
with no watts consumed in the coil.

"Notice how we have more power at the first bounce point than at ANY of the other bounces or peaks. "

Really? Are you serious? All that time you spent on your reply lead you
to that conclusion when the entire time I have plainly pointed that out
to you from the beginning. You make false arguments like the others
stating something so blatantly obvious so that anyone that sees it will
think - gee, he doesn't get that? This is the method of operation that
all James Randi types operate with.

There are so many that have come before you and there will be plenty
that come after you with the same worn out methods. You act like you
are on the search for free energy while being dedicated to looking for it
with blinders on.

If you can actually show one simple demonstration that you can make
a circuit do something that is isn't "supposed" to do, you might have a
little credibility when it comes to presenting yourself as even knowing
how to analyze any of this.

Please show me you can charge an electromagnetic coil to cause mechanical
work with no watts consumed. If you can do that, you are
qualified to comment. Until then, you will go off believing that for work
to be done that watts need to be consumed.

At some point, I will post an experiment that will shame the classical believers. It has been reviewed by a few credible members and they
laughed at the simplicity. After a common thief took credit for one of my
developments, I became gunshy about sharing anything new but who
knows.

[Aaron]

clarification

"When we deal with network analysis, we assume that all current flows in a loop from the positive terminal of a power source to the negative terminal. While this simplifies things greatly, it ignores the idea that eddy currents (sub-loops) in the circuit can be designed to cancel current draw from the source. It is entirely possible according to the original math theory that a linear “negative resistor” might exist if the reverse eddy current of a component exceeds its forward current. As voltage across the negative resistor increases, the resistor will actually provide power instead of dissipating it. There have been several negative resistors created historically, however all of the evidence for their existence is somewhat anecdotal."

@Letsreplicate

That is from your website - you actually believe that post or is that just
quoting someone?

[Aaron]

inductive resistor comments

@Orion, Last thing for now - on he cooling circuit, when you combine underpowering the 555 and get into one of the non linear tuning zones as the mosfet self oscillates - you can still change the waveform by adjusting duty cycle and frequency - in the non linear zones, current drops as you increase voltage - like the negative resistance zones in certain transitors like 2n222, mjl21194, etc... The resistor is then a source of power instead of dissipating it just like the quote on lets replicate site says. I'm just wondering who is stating that the current goes from positive terminal to the negative one - is she saying it or is she quoting someone? Also, when making heat, it was WAY more efficient when I bypassed the mosfet's own intrinsic diode with my own high speed diodes. The difference was up to 25% or more reduction in power for the same heat. It made a huge difference. It goes to show the intrinsic diode in the fet is slow junk. I was using irfpg50's I think. There were a lot of tricks like this that I used and I think Glen maybe the only one that was doing anything like this too possibly. That diode is what shuttled the inductive spike from the inductive resistor back to the battery after each time the switch was turned off. I did these tests from a couple cycles per second up to a ghz. I also sent that spike to caps and did my feedback tricks like I did with my self running oscillator.

[OrionLightShip]

non-linearity is certainly where one would expect to find magic. non-linear optics known for creating super-luminal phenomena...etc.

I never thought of negative resistance being good for anything except creating an oscillator. Obviously, I was wrong.

I don't understand why, if you can make this happen why you don't publish. Except for all the bad publicity and defamation of character that might come your way. I would have to do it anyway....just to get it out there.

build it, stabilize it, and I will take the heat....it needs to get out there in the real world doesn't it?

@Orion, Last thing for now - on he cooling circuit, when you combine underpowering the 555 and get into one of the non linear tuning zones as the mosfet self oscillates - you can still change the waveform by adjusting duty cycle and frequency - in the non linear zones, current drops as you increase voltage - like the negative resistance zones in certain transitors like 2n222, mjl21194, etc... The resistor is then a source of power instead of dissipating it just like the quote on lets replicate site says. I'm just wondering who is stating that the current goes from positive terminal to the negative one - is she saying it or is she quoting someone? Also, when making heat, it was WAY more efficient when I bypassed the mosfet's own intrinsic diode with my own high speed diodes. The difference was up to 25% or more reduction in power for the same heat. It made a huge difference. It goes to show the intrinsic diode in the fet is slow junk. I was using irfpg50's I think. There were a lot of tricks like this that I used and I think Glen maybe the only one that was doing anything like this too possibly. That diode is what shuttled the inductive spike from the inductive resistor back to the battery after each time the switch was turned off. I did these tests from a couple cycles per second up to a ghz. I also sent that spike to caps and did my feedback tricks like I did with my self running oscillator.

[OrionLightShip]

hell, I got one better than that....we will submit a paper to nature with the proof of breaking of the laws of thermodynamics by Steven Jones.

He knows how to fade the heat.

Orion

[Aaron]

misc

This is on letsreplicate own website - not sure if she wrote this or if
she is quoting someone:

"When we deal with network analysis, we assume that all current flows in a loop from the positive terminal of a power source to the negative terminal. While this simplifies things greatly, it ignores the idea that eddy currents (sub-loops) in the circuit can be designed to cancel current draw from the source. It is entirely possible according to the original math theory that a linear “negative resistor” might exist if the reverse eddy current of a component exceeds its forward current. As voltage across the negative resistor increases, the resistor will actually provide power instead of dissipating it. There have been several negative resistors created historically, however all of the evidence for their existence is somewhat anecdotal."

The above underlined is only one idea of a negative resistor and doesn't
apply to all negative resistances that may have nothing to do with
a resistor.

But current flows from negative terminal over circuit to positive. It is the
voltage that moves from positive to negative - unless there is other
context that isn't there.

Anyway, I published countless hours of all this and most immediately after
each and every test for a long time. Almost all is online right in this forum
in the cop 17 threads. It was a huge learning process. What led me up
to the cold results is all there. What isn't is just a continuation of that
where I got it to get colder but is pretty much the same. Before I had
to spend a lot of time on the other things, I the direction I was going to
move towards was capacitive discharges into the inductive resistors.

There are other benefits to negative resistances. If you have a capacitor
such as 400v at 3uf or so and charge it up then discharge it, it can only
discharge so fast because of various impedances. I can't find the chart
right now but just imagine a graph - vertical is voltage and horizontal
axis is time. You will see a line start at the top left 400v at 0 time and
it will go roughly down to the bottom right at 45 degree angle - just
roughly but good enough to display the concept. Basically it will look
like this: \ but not so sharp of a decline.

On the plasma ignition setup, the first 2/3 of the voltage is made to
discharge almost straight down (almost instantaneous) and the last 1/3
will then go over at an angle.

So for the top 2/3 of the voltage, the resistance that the discharge would
normally experience has been removed and it isn't discharging into a
positive resistance, it is being pulled from a negative resistance.

What happens is that the discharge time increases the energy density of
the discharge way faster than it is "supposed" to be able to.

Here is a simple example of negative resistance.

If you have a tunnel and you throw a paper airplane into it in order to
make it fly though, it is being pushed into a positive resistance. The plane
hits resistance and it probably will not go straight through but instead will
have its trajectory disturbed and it will curve upwards and hit the top
of the tunnel or will bank right, left or straight down. That is positive
resistance such as the losses a capacitor discharge will experience
during a normal discharge.

If you have a tunnel and you create a suction on the output by placing
a fan on the other end and blow away from the tunnel - and you throw
the plane into the tunnel, if the air is moving at 5 mph and you throw
the plane at 2 mpg, the plane will be pulled trough the tunnel without
all the normal resistances and will go all the way through. Even if it hits the
top or sides, the air movement will cause it to make it all the way through.
That is negative resistance such as the gains a capacitor discharge will
experience during a discharge into a negative resistance that actively
pulls it "out of the capacitor".

Suction from the backside will always be more efficient than pressure in
from the front side.

Example - if you open two windows in a house on opposite sides and you
place a fan at one and blow into the house to get some circulation,
that fan will cause a lot of chaotic air flow before the air can get some
to push out the exit window. As soon as the air is pushed in from the fan,
it will cause a lot of "eddy currents" and a lot of turbulent air flow is
created, which is very inefficient.

But if you take the exact same fan and blow it out one of the windows,
it will suck air from the least resistant path from outside the house which
is the other window.

If you take a stream of smoke and blow it into the house, you'll get smoke
spread all over the place. If you put a source of smoke out one window
but have a fan at the other window blowing out, it will suck the smoke
directly to it instead of the smoke.



Example of a basic plasma ignition method.

The voltage of cap on right side is of course too low
to jump a gap. But when it is connected as shown and
you discharge the HV ignition coil over the gap, that
ionizes the gap to make it conductive enough that the
capacitor will discharge over the gap, even if it is only
400v. But that's not it.

Positive voltage is pressure and negative is a suction.
The high voltage of the ignition coil output is normally
associated with it's accompanying low current.

The low voltage of the capacitor is normally associated
with it's accompanying high current.

When you do the above plasma trick, as the high voltage
goes over the gap, the high current of the cap is moving
towards it. That high voltage positive is attracting the
current from the negative side out of the cap with a stronger
attraction than the 400v from the cap meaning that the
high voltage is being associated with a current higher
than it normally would be causing a type of synthesized
energy gain.

The resistance of the cap is removed in my opinion because
of the high voltage is attracting the current from the cap at a
speed way faster than its own ambient discharge - the resistance
is removed - for at least 2/3 of the caps charge.

The why is debatable but it is was my aetheric gas model that predicted
the results I got without trial and error when I knew that I could remove
all the secondary power supplies that everyone else was using and I
could use one power source - a CDI cap on the front end. I didn't point
it out but in that diagram above, I can remove the cap on the right (booster
cap) and just use the cdi cap on the front to BOTH initiate a HV discharge
AND act as the high voltage low current source. Anyway, voltage
component only being polarized and pressurized aether moving from
positive terminal to negative. That positive voltage is attracting current
towards it by pulling electrons (if they even exist) out of the copper wire
towards the positive terminal (where conventional current comes from
and not from a battery - battery only being dipole).

Even though the why is debatable - and I like my own model and everyone
is free to believe their own - the fact that the discharge of the cap
doesn't see the normal resistance is not debatable. A coil can be
made to charge at a speed much faster than it is "supposed" to also.
The rise time of the coil is ACCELERATED because the impedance
of the coil is also negated when it is in series with the plasma
circuit that mixes the HV from the ignition coil with the high current from
the cap.

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

Anyway, on the watts/work, they are not the same as some claim.

The coil in a circuit gets charged only by the movement of current
through it and not by the "consumption" of watts. The watts
measurable on a circuit is NOT an indication of the work, it is only
showing what was WASTED while work was being done.

And many talk about using voltage without current (voltage potential)
only - but there is also the ability to use current without voltage. Both
are cold.

[LetsReplicate]

I can appreciate the fact that you are on some hunt for free energy and
that you want to spread the word about it, yet you are looking for it with
foil over the end of your binoculars.

A poor insult. Just because I understand what is actually happening, and that disagrees with you, you decide to insult me... Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge for people who's arguments aren't supported by reality.

Each cycle of a bounce is a self ordering process by basically regauging
itself - creating a new potential difference to allow new and fresh
gravitational potential to do work. It is just re-establishing a new dipole
over and over again where each time the dipole is weaker and weaker.
As all open dissipative systems do.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you refute the existence of kinetic energy then? If so then you must re-derive your base equation using calculus to eliminate the assumption of the second law, and the assumption of vectors. Until you can manage that you're on par with those people that thought the moon was made of cheese.

Can you even spell out a few examples of an open dissipative system so
we know you even have the proper frame of reference to operate from,
which gives you a little credibility as far as having room to comment?
It is indisputable that natural systems are such systems and you're
techno-academia (as Schauberger would say) method of classical
dissecting of such as system is translating Greek with Chinese.

Lidmotor's "Penny" is an open dissipative system because of the coil configuration, this is true of all self-exciting oscillators. This ball would not be unless the ground was shaking.

Your math is only correct if conservation of energy is an accurate law
and if there is no environmental input.

The math you did to find the potential energy makes the same assumption. It's intellectually dishonest to disregard everything you disagree with. If the ground were shaking, there would be an environmental input of energy when the ball bounced. In your example the only input of energy is the initial drop.

I do know that a joule second (or any time) is watts and that
is power but you also show your blind spots by believing in the fictitious
conservation of energy as does "replaced". Power is watts consumed.
You can get work without consuming watts. Your belief is not a requirement
for it to be so.

Then show me the calculus by which you derived the equation and I'll believe you. Until then, I'm going to go with the math as it was derived honestly, and can be verified by experimental data. Don't believe me? Actually bounce the ball, measure all the bounce heights, and calculate the energy of each bounce. You will see that functions by the exact formulas that assume the existence of the second law, which is also known as all of Newtonian Physics.

Watts are more complicated than you think they are. They are a measure of energy dissipated, but they are also the measure if energy gains because they are the area of combined vectors.

You can think your little wink on the negative time is cute, but you are
personally incapable of pulsing a DC battery through a mosfet and
getting a negative amperage leaving the battery - meaning the battery
is actually getting charged while powering the switch and the resistor
grows COLD. You can't get these results but you are convinced you're
qualified to understand them? It is irrelevant if you have a mathematician
from Oxford or anyone else from any university with any degree because
if none of you can build anything that gets the results that myself or
others can get - what does that say about your understanding?

The resistor getting "cold" is your CLAIM, not an established fact. Claims are always 90% bull****, show me evidence with enough data for replication. Yes, I am qualified to understand them, odds are you are actually using energy from your battery to cause the cooling (the case in rf cooling: the input energy "disrupts" the heat while it's out of phase).

Honestly, you don't even know what encompasses work - because you don't
even know that you can have the results of "amperage" without any
voltage by getting negative work between the difference between
two negative lines. This means you can power an electromagnet and
perform WORK by repelling or attracting a rotor with no voltage and
only current. No voltage multiplied by current = no watts. When you
realize that work is not in lockstep with a dissipation of
power, you will start to make progress instead of impressing yourself with
equations that are in the 9th grade physical science books. All of this
works without ohms law even being part of the equation. And I'm not
talking about the inductive resistor experiments.

Yes, and the ball can roll across the ground without having any potential energy, what's your point?

, well you don't seem to understand the practices of basic high school physics. Negative work comes about when an oscillator is sourcing stored energy, which happens often in inductors. What you fail to understand is that this negative work is the result of the vectors changing direction. Heat is still dissipated by inductor while the inductor sources energy.

You are hooked on the myth that work done is somehow in lockstep with
measurable watts and it is not. Repeat.

No, you are hooked on the belief that your quote-mining of derived physics equations is somehow valid to your belief system.

A permanent magnetic is the most natural example of current with
zero volts. But I am talking about an electromagnet getting charged
with no watts consumed in the coil.

A magnetic field is not current, it is first order derivative (acceleration) of current. A permanent magnet has no current unless the field moves, at which point it will produce voltage and current from the emf. An electromagnet can't be "charged" without current; and the current doesn't happen without the potential even thought the potential is just shifted in time (phase angle). In an inductor, potential leads current by 90 degrees. The two parts of the signal are at different places in time so calculating "power of this moment" is deceptive.

"Notice how we have more power at the first bounce point than at ANY of the other bounces or peaks. "

Really? Are you serious? All that time you spent on your reply lead you
to that conclusion when the entire time I have plainly pointed that out
to you from the beginning. You make false arguments like the others
stating something so blatantly obvious so that anyone that sees it will
think - gee, he doesn't get that? This is the method of operation that
all James Randi types operate with.

Explain to me how YOU THINK energy vectors work then, please be specific, and provide your calculations.

The point is that it's THE SAME ENERGY that is being converted between potential and kinetic, not "new energy" on every bounce.

There are so many that have come before you and there will be plenty
that come after you with the same worn out methods. You act like you
are on the search for free energy while being dedicated to looking for it
with blinders on.

It's not really free energy if there is no energy gain. Energy gain can be tricky to calculate, but I know how to do it if it exists.

If you can actually show one simple demonstration that you can make
a circuit do something that is isn't "supposed" to do, you might have a
little credibility when it comes to presenting yourself as even knowing
how to analyze any of this.

No circuit will EVER do ANYTHING that it's isn't "supposed" to. An electrical circuit IS A VECTOR CALCULUS EQUATION and will always act like one. That does mean you can configure the circuit for a "negative result", but I've never encountered a properly working "negative result", and neither have most other electrical engineers even the ones that a desperately seeking "free energy" like Dr Steven Jones.

Please show me you can charge an electromagnetic coil to cause mechanical
work with no watts consumed. If you can do that, you are
qualified to comment. Until then, you will go off believing that for work
to be done that watts need to be consumed.

Can't be done, just because the current if out of phase with the voltage does not mean there is no power input. See: Let's Replicate Free Energy Devices, Overunity Devices, and Tesla Devices If by "mechanical work" you mean a flywheel then your argument is laughable because the flywheel is the mechanical equivalent of a capacitor. A flywheel with magnets is a mechanical capacitor that provides emf, which produces a voltage while it produces current (again, out of phase).

At some point, I will post an experiment that will shame the classical believers. It has been reviewed by a few credible members and they
laughed at the simplicity. After a common thief took credit for one of my
developments, I became gunshy about sharing anything new but who
knows.

I look forward to seeing it. Let's Replicate will ensure you are given credit for it, I just want to see it working.

"When we deal with network analysis, we assume that all current flows in a loop from the positive terminal of a power source to the negative terminal. While this simplifies things greatly, it ignores the idea that eddy currents (sub-loops) in the circuit can be designed to cancel current draw from the source. It is entirely possible according to the original math theory that a linear “negative resistor” might exist if the reverse eddy current of a component exceeds its forward current. As voltage across the negative resistor increases, the resistor will actually provide power instead of dissipating it. There have been several negative resistors created historically, however all of the evidence for their existence is somewhat anecdotal."

@Letsreplicate

That is from your website - you actually believe that post or is that just
quoting someone?

I wrote that, it's true. I am fully aware of sub-loops, and I'm aware of how to deal with them. Show me system that has a linear negative resistance sub-loop (which I am qualified to identify and calculate) and I will remove the part about them being anecdotal.

The only one that is currently talked about is a carbon resistor that uses a principle akin to blowing air over a bottle to cause an eddy current. I have yet to see the layout of this resistor so that it can be replicated. Also, according to testing reports: it does not breach unity by sourcing, making it on par with a tunnel diode.

Negative resistance antenna components are common RF antenna design, they all still take input energy to drive, but the current requirement drops off as the voltage increases.

[Aaron]

@letsreplicate

Lidmotor's "Penny" is an open dissipative system because of the coil configuration, this is true of all self-exciting oscillators. This ball would not be unless the ground was shaking.

If the ground were shaking, there would be an environmental input of energy when the ball bounced. In your example the only input of energy is the initial drop.

Negative work comes about when an oscillator is sourcing stored energy

I've never encountered a properly working "negative result", and neither have most other electrical engineers

Can't be done, just because the current if out of phase with the voltage does not mean there is no power input.

I look forward to seeing it. Let's Replicate will ensure you are given credit for it, I just want to see it working.

The only one that is currently talked about is a carbon resistor that uses a principle akin to blowing air over a bottle to cause an eddy current. I have yet to see the layout of this resistor so that it can be replicated. Also, according to testing reports: it does not breach unity by sourcing, making it on par with a tunnel diode.

Negative resistance antenna components are common RF antenna design, they all still take input energy to drive, but the current requirement drops off as the voltage increases.

Your little condescending winks, etc... sure seem like insults to me.

Kinetic energy exists - energy simply being the movement of a higher
potential to a lower one via resistance - that resistance is dissipation and
is work. Energy is only an adjective to describe the event of organized potential disordering through dissipation into unorganized potential.

Ground shaking is not a qualification for the ball to be an open dissipative
system - if you think it is, you are forming your own definition to suit your preconceived belief of what one is out of convenience for your own arguments. The steady influx of free gravitational potential is what is keeping it from instantly coming into equilibrium - it is a clear cut open system and your denial of it is laughable.

Gravity is environmental input.

You claim: " In your example the only input of energy is the initial drop."

Please don't respond with technical rhetoric that does nothing more than obscure the pure simplicity of it. Plus, you haven't even comprehended what I said. The only input that I input is the LIFT, not the drop. That doesn't mean there isn't more input because there is - the other input is the POTENTIAL from the incoming free gravitational potential which cost me nothing. I'll trust that you made an honest mistake and are not trying to manipulate what I said - but it is difficult for me to believe how that was understood from anything I have said.

As the ball is dropping, the gravitational potential is not energy at that time, it is POTENTIAL since the ball is moving with the flow of the dynamic gravitational potential, the only resistance (work) the ball is doing is against air resistance, which is insignificant for this sample. That gravitational potential become energy during the impact - energy/work in the heat, impact and the compression of the ball is WORK and the lift of the ball back into the air is WORK. At the peak of the bounce, 100% of the potential contributed by gravity from the previous drop is GONE. No conversion. A new potential difference is established, which is a bit less of a potential difference than the previous bounce.

New gravitational potential comes in of x joules worth and THEN work is accomplished when the ball is resisted by the ground creating heat, etc... and compression of the ball and when the ball decompresses (rebounds) and goes back to x% of the previous height. At the peak again, 100% of all previous potential has been dissipated. Repeat...

There is another level of dissipation and recovery in between the drop and rebound but I'm not even bringing it up because if you don't believe that gravity is a source of potential and doesn't have to be a shaking ground then it is pointless.

Saying that I claimed the only input is the initial drop makes it look like you do not know the difference between energy and potential because the gravitational potential available to the ball falling from a certain height is only potential until the ball meets resistance.

My claim of the resistor going cold is a FACT. Verified by multiple qualified witnesses, accurate platinum thermo probes impervious to em interference and measurements done with a tds3054c donated to me by Tektronix for my experiments, etc... This is not some test done with junk equipment - the scope alone was over $10,000 and was one of the best on the market at the time and is completely capable of taking data at 10,000 samples per waveform if desired in order to do an integrated power analysis. The tests making heat on the resistor was easy to show that there is more in the recovery cycle than there is on the input cycle. Much of this was even witnessed, practically supervised, by a very high level professor that you and many people here would know his name.

The only part of any of the analysis that I didn't have time to learn was the spectrum analyzer (which was mostly used to see what frequencies were appearing when the circuit was able to switch lights on a touch lamp off and on across the room). That was more of a novelty, but fun nevertheless.

You claim: "Negative work comes about when an oscillator is sourcing stored energy"

There is no such thing as stored energy just like there is no such thing as stored potential. There is only a potential difference that allows dynamic potential to come in from the aether and when that potential imparts a push on any mass that is encountering resistance, then that is what dissipation or work or energy is. Energy and potential are not the same. Claiming energy can be stored is an illusion - that is storing an abstract concept. Energy is not a thing - it is not tangible. The reality is that potential is what is tangible aether while energy is an ADJECTIVE to describe the dissipation of organized potential into disorganized potential that goes back into the chaotic (not random) vacuum.

You claim: "A magnetic field is not current"

I talked about 2 different currents. A current that is moving through an electromagnetic coil will give an electromagnetic field and that field can do work, which is INDEPENDENT of measurable power drawn from the source.

The other current is a permanent magnet, which is magnetic current are simultaneously moving in both directions - meaning the north and south currents move against each other at the same time. Magnetic current is cold current and has no voltage associated with it. This magnetic current is moving, dynamic and is in "perpetual motion." That has nothing to do with current that is induced from a permanent magnet moving over a coil, which is current that has an associated voltage. You are disputing things that you don't even have the frames of reference for. You can even have magnetic current moving down a wire which gives an electric field perpendicular to the movement of the magnetic current - this is cold electricity or wattless power. Why you think your training is qualified to examine this doesn't make any more sense than an auto-mechanic that thinks they are automatically qualified to discuss combustion physics just because they work on cars.

All the references to being out of phase and being deceptive is equally ridiculous. We accounted for power factor so please stop trying to pretend that anyone reporting results that you're unable to get must be errors in analysis.

When my refrigerator is running, the power factor is 0.98 (nearly perfect) and that doesn't change the fact that it is still over 2.0 cop, overunity, twice as much work being done as is drawn from the wall, an open dissipative system, a non-equlibrium thermodyamic system and the ground isn't shaking. lol

"and neither have most other electrical engineers" - at least you admit some electrical engineers have "properly working" negative results.

"Can't be done" = famous last words

I think if you had a different approach to people making claims that you might find them more receptive to wanting to show you something. I have no doubts about your conventional qualifications and being able to apply it to conventional closed loop systems. Yes, I get all systems are open - even a flashlight closed loop circuit but the circuit is not designed to make practical use of any environmental input (light, heat, gravity, whatever) and is therefore considered a conventional closed loop system that is explained by your classical thermodynamics and other analysis. But you are making a huge stretch to try to overlay all of that on open systems that are intended to make deliberate use of environmental input - especially when you discount obvious open systems as not being open dissipative systems.

If you don't see that gravitational potential is the same potential that
appears as voltage potential on a circuit, then there isn't much we'll ever agree on.

Carbon negative resistor replication attempt: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cnr/cnrexp1.htm

Chung says her carbon negative resistor is not a true negative resistor but an "apparent" one. Whatever the point is, it still demonstrates negative resistance.

Fluorescent lights tubes are also have negative resistance as do spark gaps.

"Already around 1950, Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) had said that it should be possible to use magnetism as a source of energy. He added: "But we science idiots will never make it; it has to be done by outsiders" He fully understands the limitations trained academics have in their ability to accomplish anything outside of their training.

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla

[LetsReplicate]

I've got a headache, so forgive me for being blunt but:

Your little condescending winks, etc... sure seem like insults to me.

80% of the context of text is in the mind of the reader. If you feel that I'm being condescending, then perhaps you should analyze whether you are being overly defensive.

Kinetic energy exists - energy simply being the movement of a higher
potential to a lower one via resistance - that resistance is dissipation and
is work. Energy is only an adjective to describe the event of organized potential disordering through dissipation into unorganized potential.

...[removed due to 1200 character limit]...

You claim: " In your example the only input of energy is the initial drop."

Okay, provide the mathematical proof of the energy input. Show me where it comes from using MATH. If you can't do the simple math to prove yourself right, then you are most likely wrong.

Please don't respond with technical rhetoric that does nothing more than obscure the pure simplicity of it. Plus, you haven't even comprehended what I said. The only input that I input is the LIFT, not the drop.

You provided no lift because the ball began at 1m, had you thrown the ball up to 1m from the ground, that would be lift. I can't help by notice that you rail against other people's use of rhetoric while you're entire, overly complicated argument relying solely in on rhetoric. Perhaps you should solve that problem by doing some math.

As the ball is dropping, the gravitational potential is not energy at that time, it is POTENTIAL since the ball is moving with the flow of the dynamic gravitational potential, the only resistance (work) the ball is doing is against air resistance, which is insignificant for this sample. That gravitational potential become energy during the impact - energy/work in the heat, impact and the compression of the ball is WORK and the lift of the ball back into the air is WORK. At the peak of the bounce, 100% of the potential contributed by gravity from the previous drop is GONE. No conversion. A new potential difference is established, which is a bit less of a potential difference than the previous bounce.

...[removed due to 1200 character limit]...

Saying that I claimed the only input is the initial drop makes it look like you do not know the difference between energy and potential because the gravitational potential available to the ball falling from a certain height is only potential until the ball meets resistance.

The sad thing is that you are almost right, but the blaring errors in your very long-winded answers are self-defeating.

My claim of the resistor going cold is a FACT. Verified by multiple qualified witnesses, accurate platinum thermo probes impervious to em interference and measurements done with a tds3054c donated to me by Tektronix for my experiments, etc... This is not some test done with junk equipment - the scope alone was over $10,000 and was one of the best on the market at the time and is completely capable of taking data at 10,000 samples per waveform if desired in order to do an integrated power analysis. The tests making heat on the resistor was easy to show that there is more in the recovery cycle than there is on the input cycle. Much of this was even witnessed, practically supervised, by a very high level professor that you and many people here would know his name.

The only part of any of the analysis that I didn't have time to learn was the spectrum analyzer (which was mostly used to see what frequencies were appearing when the circuit was able to switch lights on a touch lamp off and on across the room). That was more of a novelty, but fun nevertheless.

What volume of water were you able to cool by how many joules? From what I read of your previous statements you refused to use a calorimeter to calculate the heat, which means you refused to use the proper testing method.

You claim: "Negative work comes about when an oscillator is sourcing stored energy"

There is no such thing as stored energy just like there is no such thing as stored potential. There is only a potential difference that allows dynamic potential to come in from the aether and when that potential imparts a push on any mass that is encountering resistance, then that is what dissipation or work or energy is. Energy and potential are not the same. Claiming energy can be stored is an illusion - that is storing an abstract concept. Energy is not a thing - it is not tangible. The reality is that potential is what is tangible aether while energy is an ADJECTIVE to describe the dissipation of organized potential into disorganized potential that goes back into the chaotic (not random) vacuum.

Incorrect rhetoric.

You claim: "A magnetic field is not current"

I talked about 2 different currents. A current that is moving through an electromagnetic coil will give an electromagnetic field and that field can do work, which is INDEPENDENT of measurable power drawn from the source.

The other current is a permanent magnet, which is magnetic current are simultaneously moving in both directions - meaning the north and south currents move against each other at the same time. Magnetic current is cold current and has no voltage associated with it. This magnetic current is moving, dynamic and is in "perpetual motion." That has nothing to do with current that is induced from a permanent magnet moving over a coil, which is current that has an associated voltage. You are disputing things that you don't even have the frames of reference for. You can even have magnetic current moving down a wire which gives an electric field perpendicular to the movement of the magnetic current - this is cold electricity or wattless power. Why you think your training is qualified to examine this doesn't make any more sense than an auto-mechanic that thinks they are automatically qualified to discuss combustion physics just because they work on cars.

Incorrect rhetoric.

All the references to being out of phase and being deceptive is equally ridiculous. We accounted for power factor so please stop trying to pretend that anyone reporting results that you're unable to get must be errors in analysis.

When my refrigerator is running, the power factor is 0.98 (nearly perfect) and that doesn't change the fact that it is still over 2.0 cop, overunity, twice as much work being done as is drawn from the wall, an open dissipative system, a non-equlibrium thermodyamic system and the ground isn't shaking. lol

*sighs* *shakes head* *moves on*

"and neither have most other electrical engineers" - at least you admit some electrical engineers have "properly working" negative results.

You read that into the statement, that's not what I said. Many of the engineers who think they have over unity forget the problem of vectors until the issue is brought to their attention. The most recent example of this was Dr Jones' Boost Oscillator. It got a lot of attention a few months ago, notice how he doesn't like to talk about it now? EVERYONE can fall into the vector trap, even the pros. (the Boost Oscillator is an open dissipative system too btw, and it lights LEDs quite efficiently despite it not being over unity)

"Can't be done" = famous last words

The last words of who?

I think if you had a different approach to people making claims that you might find them more receptive to wanting to show you something. I have no doubts about your conventional qualifications and being able to apply it to conventional closed loop systems. Yes, I get all systems are open - even a flashlight closed loop circuit but the circuit is not designed to make practical use of any environmental input (light, heat, gravity, whatever) and is therefore considered a conventional closed loop system that is explained by your classical thermodynamics and other analysis. But you are making a huge stretch to try to overlay all of that on open systems that are intended to make deliberate use of environmental input - especially when you discount obvious open systems as not being open dissipative systems.

I think that if you hadn't responded with the words "find it yourself" I'd have been a lot less critical of your claim. Battery cells do receive RF signals. Wrap a coil around a battery, then place your fancy scope on it if you don't believe me.

If you don't see that gravitational potential is the same potential that
appears as voltage potential on a circuit, then there isn't much we'll ever agree on.

Yes, that is correct, I actually have said MULTIPLE TIMES that potential in physics is equivalent to voltage. Do YOU understand that voltage is not power?

Carbon negative resistor replication attempt: The Chung's Negative Resistance experiment - ( 05-20-01 )

Chung says her carbon negative resistor is not a true negative resistor but an "apparent" one. Whatever the point is, it still demonstrates negative resistance.

Yup, that's the one. Did you notice from that data that it doesn't get "free energy"?

Fluorescent lights tubes are also have negative resistance as do spark gaps.

A fluorescent is a type of arc lamp which are the same as a spark gap. Spark gaps have inductance to them.

"Already around 1950, Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) had said that it should be possible to use magnetism as a source of energy. He added: "But we science idiots will never make it; it has to be done by outsiders" He fully understands the limitations trained academics have in their ability to accomplish anything outside of their training.

Semi-conductor theory, which COMPLETELY rewrote electrical engineering, did not begin until the 1960s. Electrical engineers are now trained with the capability to deal with negative resistance. This quote is highly outdated and no longer reflects reality.

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla

A quote-mine that makes it appear like Tesla rejected use of math, which is wrong. Tesla was able to back up all of his working experiments in theory as well as in his experiments. I share his view that science is not entirely mathematical and the math should reflect the experiments, not the other way around. You seem to be rejecting the math entirely however, which is to your detriment as it makes you more like Edison that Tesla:

“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.” - Nikola Tesla

I've only been trying to save you some labor...

PS - I'm not a "she": there are no girls on the Internet.

[Aaron]

@Geoffrey Ingram

I actually have said MULTIPLE TIMES that potential in physics is equivalent to voltage. Do YOU understand that voltage is not power?

Yup, that's the one. Did you notice from that data that it doesn't get "free energy"?

A fluorescent is a type of arc lamp which are the same as a spark gap. Spark gaps have inductance to them.

This quote is highly outdated and no longer reflects reality.

A quote-mine that makes it appear like Tesla rejected use of math, which is wrong. Tesla was able to back up all of his working experiments in theory as well as in his experiments. I share his view that science is not entirely mathematical and the math should reflect the experiments, not the other way around. You seem to be rejecting the math entirely however, which is to your detriment as it makes you more like Edison that Tesla:

“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.” - Nikola Tesla

I've only been trying to save you some labor...

PS - I'm not a "she": there are no girls on the Internet.

Geoffrey, are we having a conversation or are you only thinking about what you're going to say next?

Yeah, you expect the ball to have teleported to 1m spontaneously. It
took work to get it there from the ground.

Calorimeter is not necessary to prove a resistor is cooling. You are mixing
apples and oranges. How much energy or lack of energy to cool something
to a certain temperature is different than IF it is cooling or not.

A platinum probe is perfectly
fine for determining if there is a temperature change and has nothing to
do with a power reading. If it was not, then we would all have to swim in
water reading our thermometers in order to tell how hot or cold it is.
You are not able to separate a simple temperature reading from an
amount of work being done. Here is an example of one of your false
arguments to deceive and manipulate others into thinking I am arguing
something else other than what I actually am. Naughty naughty!

All you can say is "incorrect rhetoric" - all you're proving is that you are
completely indoctrinated into classical theory and that you have no room
for learning anything because you already know it all. You assume that the
theories that are the foundation of your belief system are correct. I used
to believe in the classical illusions until I knew better. I know when your
beliefs apply and when they don't. You think they always do!

Batteries receive RF? So does your body - try wrapping a coil around yourself and scope that. Christmas trees are green and some pharmacies are open 24 hours. Not sure what the point is of dispensing with random facts that don't tell anyone anything new or serve any purpose. I'm just joking to lighten up the mood around here but obviously! And 60hz AC emissions from the power lines or maybe 50 where you are, etc... those obviously need to be ruled out. In any case, another FALSE ARGUMENT
about something I'm not arguing to manipulate people into thinking I'm
arguing something other than what I am.

Voltage is potential? It's common sense from what I have written
in this thread and in hundreds and hundreds of posts throughout this
forum and in the
perpetual motion thread (which you read) that
I am perfectly aware of what voltage potential is, then you simply are
not able to comprehend the English language or you are just making
another one of your false arguments to manipulate people into thinking
I don't know that voltage is potential or that I am arguing against voltage
being potential.

Again, you are unable to comprehend English or you are intentionally
manipulating people into thinking I am saying something different from
what I actually said.

Here is the difference, I comprehend what you are posting but I disagree.
On the other hand, you disagree yet are unable to comprehend what I
am saying. If you are comprehending it, then you are a deliberately
setting out to spread misinformation by your chronic habit of false
arguments as all James Randi skeptic types like to do.

Heisenberg quote is perfectly applicable today. All I can do is have
compassion for you if you cannot comprehend the timeless wisdom in
what he said as meaning that someone that is so caught up in their
own technical field cannot see the forest for the trees! AND, I even
spelled that out after the quote but you missed it completely:

"Already around 1950, Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) had said that it should be possible to use magnetism as a source of energy. He added: "But we science idiots will never make it; it has to be done by outsiders" He fully understands the limitations trained academics have in their ability to accomplish anything outside of their training.

See that red sentence - that shows the point I was making had to do with
the inherent wisdom in what he said and I spelled it out too! Your argument
is that it is an outdated quote - meaning:

1. You lack basic comprehension (OR)
2. You are intentionally making a false argument about being an outdated
quote that has nothing to do with the purpose that I posted it that wasn't
just implied - I explicitly spelled it out! lol

And you expect anyone to hand anything over to you for testing?
Yeah right!

Seriously, you have a chronic addiction to making false arguments
such as pointing out that voltage is potential, when I have clearly spelled
it out as well as other false arguments that are the same as sprinkling
pixie dust in people's eyes (who are asleep) to convince them I am
speaking nonsense, when in fact I have stated the obvious same.

Yes, voltage is potential. I have spelled that out in hundreds of posts
throughout this forum.

Please spell out for the world - with a simple car battery at 12.6 volts,
a fully "charged" car battery, explain what causes the 12.6 volt
potential at the positive terminal in relation to the negative terminal?
If you read 12.6 volts on a voltmeter - where does that voltage
come from?

I didn't say Tesla rejected math by posting his quote. To claim that is
my point shows that you are incapable of rational thought or you are
deliberately making yet another false argument to manipulate people into
thinking I am saying that. I believe in math but reality defines the math
not the other way around!

Experiments and results PRECEDES the math and the nature of the
experiment can be known without a single equation. The math is only
going to put it into a technical context to measure the relationships
of different variables relating to the experiment but is NOT a requirement
to have a working understanding of the principles and observable facts.
You can believe that putting the horse before the cart is necessary
to be a "serious" scientist or engineer but that is why myself and others
can achieve results that you are unable to get yourself that you just
dismiss as measurement error do to bad power factor and other
assumptions. The entire flaw in the premise that you claim to be
qualified to measure something that shows overunity is that your
entire belief system prohibits such behaviour. You speak Chinese
and you want to test someone's French. What is wrong with that
picture???

You have to use an analysis method rooted in non-equilibrium
thermodynamics to measure an open system and if you aren't able
or willing to do that, you are simply setting people up to failure while
pretending to be some objective scientist that is only interested in
equally proving or disproving claims. It is laughable.

Furthermore, you make another false argument about the negative
resistors making it look like I am claiming overunity just because something
exhibits negative resistance. The only time I have stated I believe a
gain is happening in relation to a negative resistance is with the plasma circuits. And that isn't a negative resistor - just that negative resistance
seems to be apparent in the circuit - not the same thing.

I have also stated to Orion about the non-linear tuning zones of the
mosfet in this thread. There are areas where as voltage increases the
current drops. That in and of itself is not overunity, it just adds to some
efficiency and cop of the system. Now that negative resistance may be
enough to put it over 1.0 cop but that is not automatic that it is
over 1.0 cop just because there is a negative resistance zone in the
mosfet, transistor, etc...

Now, that is about 8 or so false arguments that you have made and that
isn't even all of them.

This is enough evidence to show you truly are not able to understand
simple English because how can any one misunderstand so many things
when I am using very simple language and very simple analogies. You make
another false argument by claiming my posts are overly complex when it
is you that appears to need to write down some equation in order to boil
water to make tea.

And IF YOU ARE able to comprehend what I'm saying, because it isn't
a secret, then you truly and honestly are making intentional false
arguments to steer people's attention away from what I am actually
saying. Shame on you.

I'll assume the best and that you just haven't been able to comprehend
my simple explanations and I'll try to do a better job in any future posts
and that perhaps you really do hope to see something extraordinary.

[Aaron]

@Geoffrey Ingram 2

But here are a few facts that I may be right or wrong on but first I'll post a quote of yours from the other thread to show where I'm coming from:

In the classical sense of "running in a closed system", "perpetual motion" does not exist,

but neither do "closed systems".

The "new definition" includes use of energy harvesting in order to maintain imbalance. This harvested energy can be anything from solar, to static electricity, to stray magnetic fields.

The universe will come to an end someday

aether is not an "electric field", it is the substance that gives rise gravity and magnetism which acts as a medium for light waves. A "electric field" is "pressure on electrons" that is the "grandchild" of aether, so it can't be attributed to the aether itself.

Aether is also a term that has several definitions which commonly get confused.

Technically yes, but that is only true because the universe also contains both ends of "time" and "time" is the product acquiring balance on a universal level, the imbalance will exist for as long as time does. By definition then, it would be perpetual. The classical definition of "perpetual motion" only exists on a universal level because the universe is the only truly closed system.

You believe:

1. All systems are open (I believe that too with the distinction that for the purposes of thermodynamics and practicality - a closed system is not designed to make practical use of environmental input while an open one is). This means you are admitting the bouncing ball is an open system.
2. You claim a bouncing ball is not an open dissipative system - you explicitly stated this. Yet, you believe it is an open system (since there are no closed systems in your words).
3. You say environmental input of an open system "can be anything from solar, to static electricity, to stray magnetic fields" - yet you conveniently leave out gravity.
4. You say a bouncing ball is an open system. You say a bouncing ball can only be an open dissipative system if the ground is shaking because only a shaking ground can add input into the ball. This means you claim gravity is not an environmental source of potential and therefore you claim that gravity is static and not a dynamically moving potential because otherwise, it would be included in the list of solar, static electricity, or stray magnetic fields. You didn't accidentally leave it out, your claims that the ground has to be shaking reveals your claim that gravity must be a static non-contributing potential.
   
5. You claim the universe will end some day - something you or I have no way of ever knowing yet you are so sure of it. The universe is expanding with acceleration and not deceleration, which is the opposite of entropy and as far as you and I actually know, the universe could go on living for infinity - nobody in their right mind can claim they know what will happen - because to do so epitomizes the arrogance of the human being to claim to know all known possibilities and probabilities of the entire universe. That is just completely laughable. That doesn't have anything to do with our debate but I quote this to show that you are completely willing to make ludicrous claims about something you are incapable of knowing in this lifetime.
6. "aether is not an "electric field", it is the substance that gives rise gravity and magnetism which acts as a medium for light waves." You admit aether gives rise to gravity and you admit "A "electric field" is "pressure on electrons" that is the "grandchild" of aether" You admit that aether is the source of gravity and you admit it is also the ultimate source of the electric field, magnetism and is the medium for light waves.
   
7. You claim solar is one of the possible environmental contributions to an open system #3. You claim that solar energy is made possible by the aether #6. You claim aether is responsible for gravity #6. Yet, you claim that gravity is not an environmental contributor to a bouncing ball that you admit is an open system but is not an open dissipative system.
   
8. IF gravity is a dynamic and flowing potential that is moving towards the direction of the Earth, it would crumble your entire argument about a bouncing ball not being an open dissipative system amongst other beliefs.

Now, do you agree or disagree with everything I posted in points #1~#8?
Please feel free to correct any misunderstandings but please notice I am
basing those on your own words that you have stated in this thread or
in the perpetual motion thread. I will look forward to your comments on
this.

By the way, your Tesla quote about Edison is irrelevant. You think you
need math to get to something quick without all the trial and error.
However, I almost never need trial and error because understanding the
principles allows me to go from scratch to the final result I need oftentimes
on the first try.

And you miss the point of what Tesla said: "knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor"

Little theory and calculation... that quote doesn't apply to you because you are 90%+ calculation and I'll just leave it at that.

You're trying to save me manual labor? Read the above, I can oftentimes
get to the final result that I'm looking for without having to scribble out
one single calculation. You don't have to believe it to be true. I was
very competent in advanced calculus 20 years ago in college and I
thank God that I never used it as a crutch to figure things out or else
I would be handicapped beyond belief in terms of building things that work.
It is false logic to assume that Edison's endless trial and error are required
by those that don't worship the calculator. You weren't trying to save me
manual labor - I ALREADY had the results without a lot of trial and error
you are struggling to find something to make a point about.

Your math and theories don't even account for what these experiments
show so your point is moot anyway.

There are no girls on the internet? I won't pretend to know what you mean by that but I'll take your word for it that you aren't a she.

But who is this that your website promotes using the username letsreplicate? Nice silkscreen behind you, I mean her.



That must be one of the partners on your team.

So who are you? Geoffrey Ingram?

Diana Lehua
Diana is the CEO of a software development company that has 18 years of experience with electrical engineering software for automatic test engineers. Project management, technical writing and software configuration control are some of her tasks. But her forte is user interface design. She has a B.S. in Computer Science and an A.S. in Electronics.


Geoffrey Ingram
Geoff has a B.A. and M.A. Honours Degree in Mathematics from Oxford University. He is a very talented software programmer who has been programming for over 25 years. His electronics experience is also with developing software for automatic test engineers. Some of the software he has written interfaces with electronic test equipment. He has also written embedded code for windmills.


So that is why you're so gung ho on math.


"THROUGH THE EYES OF A CARPENTER, THE WHOLE WORLD IS A NAIL."


I'll wait for you to answer points 1-8 to clarify if I'm misunderstanding

what you are saying. Your bio doesn't scream "I've done a lot of

experiments" with circuits to me - but I'll wait for your answers.

[Aaron]

@Geoff

Geoff,

I'm seeing what we do agree on. You're into tennis, I'm not but I did
have a table top arcade game in my house in 1979-1980 called breakout
but I don't think that counts.

It looks like you're maybe for Ron Paul even though I'm not sure you're American
but yahoo! Go Ron Paul. You just scored 100 points in my book.

You're into boosting intelligence possibly me too. But in ways that
wouldn't be believable to you though.

Your manager was involved with the Weston Price foundation. Very cool!
It wasn't you but that is still 100 points in my book. I worked with a MD
and someone that was an inventor - both were friend's with Linus Pauling -
the doctor was one of the original pioneers in orthomolecular medicine
and he practically demanded that I study Weston Price's Nutrition and
Physical Degeneration work - everyone should read that if they're
interested in health and nutrition.

Anyway, I think there is some promise here. Definitely some things we
agree on.

I think you wrote this 11 years ago:

High Performance Oracle

I hope you sell a million copies. I admire people tenacious enough to be
go getters to see a book through to completion and actually get it
out there whether it is paperback, digital, video, or whatever. It speaks
volumes, pun intended, about you.

It certainly is a good idea to not let a windmill twist a cord in half
but if you're going to deal with paper dolls, at least make the website
work.

So you were born in 1962 - you're 10 years ahead of me. I feel that
is probably about right unless you're masquerading as someone else but
I don't think so. If you tell me you're not Geoff Ingram, then there is
some anonymous goofball at lets replicate that doesn't have the courage
to associate their name with your claims. That probably doesn't match
you as you have nothing to hide and your bio speaks for itself I'm sure.

Conclusion - I think you are passionate about math, programming,
tennis and civil rights. Your background in programming as it relates to
test equipment doesn't mean you have the same experience as I do
with hands on experiments being analyzed by the best of the best
test equipment. Your calorimeter belief is still short sighted and is
predicated on the belief in conservation of energy. Others that I know
that do have results that you have never accomplished yourself
do not believe in conservation of energy and are qualified to test their
experiments to a level that would run circles around you as if you were
standing still. You are taking what you learned in the books and are
trying to overlay that on things you don't even have experience with.
I think you really do want to see something that violates your beliefs
but that is an effort in futility since anything you want to see isn't
possible in your paradigm. In any case, you seem like a good guy that
has good intentions but are mislead by your past experience thinking
that represents future results in a field outside of your expertise even
though you think it isn't. In any case, welcome to this thread and I'll
wait for you to post your comments to the 8 points I mentioned that
are deduced by the very words you "spoke" in this forum.

Looking forward to that!