Thermodynamics

[Farmhand]

Does that mean overunity is where we can see others argument better and give each other a hug??

Orion

No. I edited that post to include a comma, it reads better now, I could add
the word "then" before "we" so it would read, "If we define our terms like I did
above to define what I think unity is in this case, then we can see each others
argument better."

I never said the O word.

The same would go for any height it returned to if it could be caught at the peak of the rise.

When I said this above I meant whatever % of the drop height the ball stops
at after one bounce is the efficiency of the ball for bouncing.

Hugging is Unity, See.

Cheers

[Aaron]

impulse

We can compress input energy into a pulse (impulse) though . By doing that we are compressing vectors. Imagine a square that is 10 units, by 10 units. If we compress that into impulse we will have a rectangle that's 1 unit by 100 units. There isn't any more units of energy there per se, but you can do things with that 100 units that you couldn't do with 10 units.

Relating to your example: 10 units of constant input can not cause a velocity increase to 11, but if the system is low loss (like a flywheel, or resonant Tesla coil) then a 100 unit impulse can cause an increase in velocity by FAR more than 1 unit.

That is true. I have plenty of experience with impulse technology that proves it. It is simply compressing the SAME amount of work into a smaller time.

And I agree that you can do things with the impulse that you cannot do with the same work spread out over more time.

An example a 5 year old could understand is if you take hammer and tap it on a sheet of glass 10 times very lightly - the window won't give. If you take the same work and compress it into one tap, you shatter the glass.

There are benefits to the impulse but the amount of work required to lift an object to a meter are the same whether you lift it in a nanosecond or you lift it over a year.

[Aaron]

clowns claim back emf is the inductive spike

No kinetic energy = no momentum to cause a bounce. Please address that problem using your "whole model".

Never approved for posting? I'll try to overlook claims as dishonest as this as the forum automatically automatically approves registrations without review. If a robot spammer can get in the forum without approval, so can you.

You have made 12-15 false arguments that distort what I say and you have addressed zero of them. Since you are anonymous and I don't know what to call you, I'll use Mr. Randi since it is better than calling you anonymous.

Refuting physics as it is commonly accepted is the duty of any thinking person who sees obvious errors. You have done everything in your power to prevent a rational discussion about this by attacking each part before you even understand the full context. You have sidetracked this effort with your repeated false arguments. I didn't just claim you had false arguments, I spelled them out and you avoided them by your misdirection.

You say you are not in full disagreement - so tell me, what part are you in agreement with?

Electrical cooling - proven 3 years ago. Not by you but I don't care to prove it to you. It isn't even something that has much of my interest and hasn't for a long time. I'm focused on my current work and projects.

But as far as energy gains - the bouncing ball is sufficient - I need go no further than that with the model if you could only come down off your high horse long enough to hear it out instead of floating on your holier than thou "I'm qualified" cloud pontificating about the infallibility of your math formulas and jargon.

I'm very familiar with fluid dynamics and it resonates with the model I'm using as I've been discussing fluid dynamics for years in relation to the behavior of the aetheric fluid. Again, come down off your high horse and stop pretending that you are teaching me or anyone else anything new by defining impulses or fluid dynamics as if I don't know. BORING! That is one of the methods yo use to belittle others by pointing out the obvious as if you're teaching something new to someone to make it look like they don't know something that you do.

mgh is only Newtonian when it is used in the context of the classical viewpoint. Newton needed "space" to be still in order for his math to work IN ITS CONTEXT. mgh is only a PROPORTION between mass, gravity and height and this PROPORTION works perfectly well to describe potential work in an entirely different context of a dynamic aether. It is profoundly ridiculous and laughable to infer that the proportion between different variables such as mass, gravity and height can only be solely dedicated to one context. If you open your mind a little bit, you can see that it is really common sense.

I can use mgh all I want to describe potential work an object will do in an entirely different context that Newton never conceived of and based on a different model, I can say the formula proves I'm right! lol

The same formula applies! One in the context that you believe in and one in the context I use it in. The height in the model I am describing dictates the potential that is not available then but at a time in the future that enters the object upon resistance. The amount of potential work is properly defined by the same equation in both contexts. "Yours" and mine. But the when and how are different.

To even bring up that it is based on a static aether model when I'm talking about a dynamic one and therefore I'm mixing things while having the gall to suggest I should look up fluid dynamics only proves you are incapable of comprehending anything that extends past the tip of your nose. This is not an "ad hominem" attack - I just explained logically how mgh can easily apply (for the umpteenth) to a dynamic aetheric model.

And I didn't say aether contains kinetic energy component as you once again - 1) intentionally distort from what I said or 2) are unable to comprehend.

The aether contains the potential energy component that is then imparted to the mass when the mass meets resistance. Language is very important and you keep distorting the distinctions - once again, mixing energy with potential.

I said the aether is what will cause force on the mass when the falling mass encounters resistance. I said there is no kinetic energy in a falling ball. That is because a falling ball falling in relation to the source of POTENTIAL are motionless to each other. Just because the ball is moving doesn't mean there is energy since energy is work and there is no energy=work when the ball is falling with zero net potential as it falls with the potential. That means there is no gradient between the ball and the SOURCE OF POTENTIAL and therefore, there is no work = no energy.

Motion is NOT kinetic energy in and of itself - there has to be a resistance to the motion Mr. Randi in order for there to be energy=work.

If you are in deep space and you launch an object and it is going at a constant speed, there is no inertia and no work done and therefore no energy=work is happening.

How much energy is happening for a leaf to float on a river. Let's say there is no turbulence and it is a perfectly peaceful river - the leaf going with the river does NOT dissipate energy as it is moving with the river.

If the leaf accelerated past the water speed, it will do work to overcome the drag of the water holding it back. If the leaf slowed down somehow below the water's speed, there is work while it is resisting the flow of the water moving past it. But while the leaf is floating with the water at water speed - constant steady motion with the very medium that is carrying it, there is no work being done and there is no kinetic energy.

There are no major holes in the concepts I'm sharing - however, you prove to have a remedial level of comprehension evidenced by the chronic demonstration of making one mistake after another in comprehending something that is spelled out in very simple terms. It is proven by your childish attempts at assigning different meanings and context to the points I am spelling out. Mr. Randi, your actions point heavily to the possibility that you are actually involved in disinformation and have no intention whatsoever to "help" anything or anyone.

A stationary object is working? To claim that I am saying that is only further proof that what I say about your and your interpretation is correct.

There is no more work being done on an object sitting on the ground as there is work being done in an object moving through space at a constant velocity with no acceleration.

In both cases, the relationship between the object and the aether are the same. An object on the ground is still while the aether is moving. An object moving through space at constant speed has the same relationship with the ambient aether it is moving through. Both cases, no work being done because there is no "inertia"! And on top of your erroneous analysis you give the icon! Mr. Randi, thanks for the laughs.

Thinking thermodynamics, laws of motion, etc... are wrong doesn't make my model wrong. First of all, my model clearly demonstrates that conservation of energy is a farce. You can not find any holes in it - you only compare it to what you already believe so OF COURSE it will disagree with what you believe and then say there are holes. That is pathetic. The model relies on a dynamic aether that you cannot disprove and the model is consistent with that believe and is congruent in all its parts. And based on a dynamic aether with the model as explained, conservation of energy is wrong as is the classical definitions of energy and potential. You, Mr. Randi, are simply incapable of seeing that you cannot argue the pieces of the model - the only thing you can argue is the premise of it, which is a dynamic aether, which you cannot refute.

When my model accepts the laws it is more complete???! Your McCarthyism won't fly here - please try that somewhere else.

The ball bouncing disproves my model? Again, your statement proves your lack of ability to comprehend anything that is said - OR, you are so afraid for your house of cards to fall down that you are stooping to the lowest of levels in order to blow smoke in people's eyes hoping they won't get it.

You say: "that's exactly how all those back EMF battery chargers work (and your ignition coil)." - quoted by Mr. Randi of Letsreplicate

This is a grand display of IGNORANCE. Mr. Randi, you are so qualified, yet you are too ignorant to know that back emf voltage is always lower than the applied voltage. Back EMF is NOT the same as the inductive spike. You apply power to a coil and the back emf (lenz law) happens at the SAME TIME of the applied power. AFTER you disconnect power from a coil, THEN you get the inductive spike. They are not the same and it is this kind of ignorance and stupidity that keeps spreading around by people like you that confuse the truth - and apparently it is quite intentional. The inductive spike is NOT what lenz's law is, which describes the back emf! I just laughed so hard my stomach hurt. Literally, you are a comedian and you should keep your skills to repairing video players or flashlights because you have no idea what you're talking about!

hahah, hard to move on after that one Mr. Randi. "Lets Replicate" - you probably are Geoffrey and don't have the guts to associate your name with such foolishness. I'd put a clown or circus icon but I don't have one.

You sir are a clown. That is not an "ad hominem" attack, it is a fact when you claim it is back emf that is the same as the inductive spike! You make the same mistake as all amateurs. hahaha

The ball falling is not moving in respect to the potential source. It is moving in relation to the ground. Just because it is moving in relation to the gorund doesn't mean kinetic energy is happening because the ground is NOT the source of potential!

You say: "No kinetic energy = no momentum to cause a bounce. Please address that problem using your "whole model"."

Because energy is WORK. There isn't work in the ball falling. When the ball hits the ground, the aether imparts a push on the ball just like a leaf in the river that suddenly stops, there is drag between the water and leaf - just like drag between the aether and the object as it suddenly stops and compresses against the ground. The height it dropped from determines the amount of dissipation that will happen when the ball hits the ground and work in compressing the ball. That is how a ball can fall with no kinetic energy - as the energy does not appear until the sudden resistance against the ground and this is when the ball can compress in order to bounce.

Your use of "energy" is WRONG. You say you use "store" to make it simple for me. lol But you have repeated that you believe energy is NOT work!!! You said this and you have no idea what energy is and energy IS work whether you want to believe it or not.

Late Latin energia, from Greek energeia activity, from energos active, from en in + ergon work

[replaced]

Aaron, you're missing equations. I need equations to understand exactly what you're talking about because what your saying defies my logic.

Newton has his,
Equations of motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thermodynamic equations,
Thermodynamic equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einstein has his,
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where's yours? If you want to be taken seriously, you need equations to try and prove that what you believe is correct.

[Aaron]

@replaced

If you want to be taken seriously, you need equations to try and prove that what you believe is correct.

Diana, you're wrong.

You are simply incapable of interpreting anything said.

[Aaron]

Diana Lehuna & Geoffrey Ingram - Letsreplicate.com say:

If you are re-defining energy to be work (which is a logical fallacy called equivocation). When you do that “work” is no longer “dissipation”, it would mean “conservation”. “Watt * Seconds” (Joules) are NOT Watts. Watts are dissipated work, joules are conserved energy. Stop trying to call energy work and you'll get a lot further with your argument.

That is why power is deceptive when impulse is used, that's exactly how all those back EMF battery chargers work (and your ignition coil).

I just want to requote those for the record.

This kind of comedy is quoted by Diana Lehuna & Geoffrey Ingram:

Diana Lehua of Marina del Rey, California - aka Replaced

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 - aka Letsreplicate

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.

You claim you are neither Diana Lehuna or Geoffrey Ingram. However, you ARE one of them until you prove otherwise. Letsreplicate.com represents these two people and you are representing Letsreplicate.com, therefore, this is the same as Diana Lehuna or Geoffrey Ingram making every post you made since you represent them and if you're not them, then 3 people are simultaneously blowing smoke about being qualified to analyze overunity systems, you don't know how to define an open system - you say there are no closed systems, yet you say a bouncing ball is a closed system only because that maintains your smoke and mirrors - you mix your hand through the bag of deception and pull out whatever supports you in the moment, you claim the battery chargers and an ignition coil works from back emf. Your clownish statements are from an extraordinary type of clown, the kind that wears a rainbow wig with the colors of Diana, Geoffrey and a possibly anonymous troll.

Diana Lehuna & Geoffrey Ingram must take credit for every single one of your claims and quotes.

If you are re-defining energy to be work (which is a logical fallacy called equivocation). When you do that “work” is no longer “dissipation”, it would mean “conservation”. “Watt * Seconds” (Joules) are NOT Watts. Watts are dissipated work, joules are conserved energy. Stop trying to call energy work and you'll get a lot further with your argument. You are trying to dispute the first law here by making an end-run around it. To dispute the first law you must prove that energy is dissipated and not conserved, you have not done that yet.

That is why power is deceptive when impulse is used, that's exactly how all those back EMF battery chargers work (and your ignition coil).

1. You have claimed it is a logical fallacy to claim energy is work. Heat, motion with resistance (real kinetic energy), mechanical work, etc... are all ENERGY.

"Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy" according to a physics dictionary. Those are work and therefore energy is work.

Don't give me capacity to do work as a definition of energy because capacity is strictly defined as a POTENTIAL, which is the OPPOSITE of heat, kinetic or mechanical energy. Everything you state has contradictions.

Those processes are WORK. Those processes are dissipating potential through resistance. ANYTHING that brings high potential to low potential by way or resistances - moving the potential towards equilibrium meaning the potential is reducing in potential obviously is WORK. Heat is energy and heat is work. Kinetic energy is work. Mechanical work is energy. The very root of the word energy is activity and work. Claiming that it is a logical fallacy to claim energy is work means you think energy is potential. still Therefore, you claim heat, motion with resistance, mechanical work are all potential since all of those are energy! Diana Lehua and Geoffrey Ingram of Letsreplicate.com claim that energy is not work - they explicitly state that it is a logical fallacy to claim energy is work.

2. Diana Lehuna and Geoffrey Ingram of Letsreplicate.com claim that back emf is what the battery chargers and ignitions coils use, when they really use the inductive spike that is NOT the back emf.

Lenz’s law, in electromagnetism, statement that an induced electric current flows in a direction such that the current opposes the change that induced it. This law was deduced in 1834 by the Russian physicist Heinrich Friedrich Emil Lenz

Back EMF or Counter EMF is what Lenz's law is describing as happening when you swing a magnet over a coil or you charge a coil with a power supply. As the power is applied to "charge" the coil, there is a counter current that opposes the applied current - this opposing or back or counter emf is what prevents the coil from getting "saturated" instantly - the delay is from the back emf.

When you open the circuit, the resistance is high, the voltage will increase to try to ionize the open circuit gap to maintain current flow and you get the inductive or transient spike.

Even if you claim there is back emf on the swing back when the inductive spike is happening, that is still in opposition to the spike and it is the spike that is used to charge a cap, go to a battery or make a spark at a spark plug not the counter of the spike!

Charge coil > get back emf > open circuit > get inductive spike that charges battery, sparks a plug, etc... that is NOT back emf.

[LetsReplicate]

Never approved for posting? I'll try to overlook claims as dishonest as this as the forum automatically automatically approves registrations without review. If a robot spammer can get in the forum without approval, so can you.

It has been more than a year since I tired, I responded to the confirmations emails too (which took making 3 extra email accounts because I couldn't use repeats). Perhaps I was just unlucky...

You have made 12-15 false arguments that distort what I say and you have addressed zero of them. Since you are anonymous and I don't know what to call you, I'll use Mr. Randi since it is better than calling you anonymous.

My name is ^.^, I've said that already. But if you want to apply mildly-insulting pet names to each other, I'm going to call you: E=mc^2.

Its interesting how any point you can't refute becomes a "false argument" to you. I've readdressed many of them and you still dismiss what I say completely so there's no reason for me to reexplain them ad nauseam to "deaf ears". Many of the supposed "false argument" are inherent consequences of redefining that math to suit your model. I do understand the points you are trying to make despite them being worded such that make things far more complicated than necessary I just choose to ignore addressing the points I don't have questions/concerns about.

Before I continue, I would like to formally apologize to E=mc^2 and the readers for my incorrect usage of the word "work" with regard to physics. I primarily do electrical engineering in which "work" means the same thing as "power" (watts). I have been informed that is not correct, and so I'd like to correct my mistake and say: I'm sorry.

In physics, (mechanical) work is a scalar quantity that can be described as the product of a force times the distance through which it acts, and it is called the work of the force. Only the component of a force in the direction of the movement of its point of application does work. ... For moving objects, the quantity of work/time enters calculations as distance/time, or velocity. Thus, at any instant, the rate of the work done by a force (measured in joules/second, or watts) is the scalar product of the force (a vector) with the velocity vector of the point of application. ... The first law of thermodynamics states that when work is done to a system (and no other energy is subtracted in other ways), the system's energy state changes by the same amount of the work input. This equates work and energy. In the case of rigid bodies, Newton's laws can be used to derive a similar relationship called the work-energy theorem.

This does not affect my definition of "energy", which I did have correct. It does clearly state in the definition that work is a product of 2 vectors which does fit all of my statements that didn't involve W*s being equal to W, but those were primarily based on the term "dissipate", not the term "work". It would be easier on those of us who do engineering if those two definitions didn't overlap so closely together (1 equation apart). I'm much more in my element in electrical discussions.

It is interesting that they note it requires the first law in order to equate work and energy though.

Electrical cooling - proven 3 years ago.

You claimed BOTH cooling AND an energy gain. That can not be RF cooling because that requires input power and would not have an energy gain. So if you aren't referring to RF cooling, what are you referring to?

mgh is only Newtonian when it is used in the context of the classical viewpoint. Newton needed "space" to be still in order for his math to work IN ITS CONTEXT.

This is an indirect admission of using it out of context, which I will accept and stop bothering you about because you admit it and saying that it directly equates to your system. The consequence of that is that relates all physics math to your system, including Ep=-Ek. You are saying that objects are not moving though, it is only space that is moving. Doesn't that refute Newton then?

And I didn't say aether contains kinetic energy component...

It is an inherent consequence of the math. Since you are using a Newtonian physics equation to relate your aether to physics, then all existing established physics formulas would apply to your system unless you specially refute them. Something in this system must either be kinetic energy, or equate to kinetic energy in order for that math to work. If something equates to kinetic energy, then you've simply redefined the term.

That is because a falling ball falling in relation to the source of POTENTIAL are motionless to each other. ... That means there is no gradient between the ball and the SOURCE OF POTENTIAL and therefore, there is no work = no energy.

Motion is NOT kinetic energy in and of itself - there has to be a resistance to the motion Mr. Randi in order for there to be energy=work.

Wait a sec, the aether is always moving at exactly the same speed as the ball? (that is what "motionless to each other" means) In Ep=mgh you are allowing gravity to be an acceleration. That makes this not fit because acceleration means it is gaining velocity which means the aether must be moving at some speed that is faster than the ball in order for it to accelerate. That would mean that they are not "motionless to each other".

If there is no gradient, then there is no "density variation" in your aether, correct? How do you explain dark matter then? Also a density gradient better explains why vortexing occurs as well as the existence of Phi.

Ek = 0.5mv^2
That means velocity and kinetic energy are directly connected unless the object has 0 mass. How does your "resistance" fit into the math?

But while the leaf is floating with the water at water speed - constant steady motion with the very medium that is carrying it, there is no work being done and there is no kinetic energy.

You're saying that there is no "static reference" to compare the leaf to then? (from a static reference, there is motion) That means that to do any math involving this system takes a lorentz transformation, which has the most use in special relativity and was created to explain the Michelson and Morley null result. That's just too funny...

There are no major holes in the concepts I'm sharing - however, you prove to have a remedial level of comprehension evidenced by the chronic demonstration of making one mistake after another in comprehending something that is spelled out in very simple terms.

There are several major holes that you refuse to address, coulombs is one (you failed to address your error there), and the second is needless redefining and removal of kinetic energy. There are more, but that's all I'm addressing at the moment.

Thinking thermodynamics, laws of motion, etc... are wrong doesn't make my model wrong. First of all, my model clearly demonstrates that conservation of energy is a farce. You can not find any holes in it - you only compare it to what you already believe so OF COURSE it will disagree with what you believe and then say there are holes. That is pathetic. The model relies on a dynamic aether that you cannot disprove and the model is consistent with that believe and is congruent in all its parts. And based on a dynamic aether with the model as explained, conservation of energy is wrong as is the classical definitions of energy and potential. You, Mr. Randi, are simply incapable of seeing that you cannot argue the pieces of the model - the only thing you can argue is the premise of it, which is a dynamic aether, which you cannot refute.

I'm not refuting a dynamic aether, because I believe in a variation of it that doesn't require throwing out a few hundred years of experimental evidence and verifiable math. My aether accepts the laws of thermodynamics and still unifies quantum physics with normal physics. You don't need to redefine things just so you can call mundane processes as over unity.

I disagree with your need to get rid of thermodynamics just because you don't like doing math, not the aether.

This is a grand display of IGNORANCE. Mr. Randi, you are so qualified, yet you are too ignorant to know that back emf voltage is always lower than the applied voltage. Back EMF is NOT the same as the inductive spike. You apply power to a coil and the back emf (lenz law) happens at the SAME TIME of the applied power. AFTER you disconnect power from a coil, THEN you get the inductive spike. They are not the same and it is this kind of ignorance and stupidity that keeps spreading around by people like you that confuse the truth - and apparently it is quite intentional. The inductive spike is NOT what lenz's law is, which describes the back emf! I just laughed so hard my stomach hurt. Literally, you are a comedian and you should keep your skills to repairing video players or flashlights because you have no idea what you're talking about!

Back emf was not what I meant there it was a typo, I use CEMF because it is the proper term. I was referring to the back EM spike, which is the inductive spike. Admittedly, I was typing quickly and when I do that sometimes there are typos that I don't catch. Good that you pointed that out and I'm glad you found it funny, but pointless for you to rant about.

The ball falling is not moving in respect to the potential source. It is moving in relation to the ground. Just because it is moving in relation to the gorund doesn't mean kinetic energy is happening because the ground is NOT the source of potential!

That would be the same thing as having kinetic energy but you're needlessly changing the name of the vector to "gravity potential". Why not just leave the laws of thermodynamics alone? You're just making things more complicated than they have to be.

For example, if I pushed the ball along the ground, does that have kinetic energy? (since Ek = mv^2) If so, then why are you counting velocity from falling as being different from velocity from rolling?

Also, since your "potential source" is quite literally ALL of free space and moving with the ball, it makes doing math on this system extremely difficult. Why should I accept your aether over a theory that doesn't change the math?

[LetsReplicate]

I just want to requote those for the record.

This is the exact reason why I told them not to post their names, all is does it provide ammunition for troll attacks.

you say there are no closed systems, yet you say a bouncing ball is a closed system

Out of context. I said that according to YOUR DEFINITION of open and closed systems that THIS bouncing ball example was a closed system but A bouncing ball is an open system.

If you are re-defining energy to be work (which is a logical fallacy called equivocation). When you do that “work” is no longer “dissipation”, it would mean “conservation”. “Watt * Seconds” (Joules) are NOT Watts. Watts are dissipated work, joules are conserved energy. Stop trying to call energy work and you'll get a lot further with your argument. You are trying to dispute the first law here by making an end-run around it. To dispute the first law you must prove that energy is dissipated and not conserved, you have not done that yet.

There is more than one definition of "work". The "dissipation" (power) aspect is only connected to the electrical definition. The definition that implies energy also implies that it is conserved because of the first law of thermodynamics. My argument was that you were mixing the definitions up, which IS equivocation, and is correct according to the statements you made.

You do fail to properly address where the energy goes and why it comes back.

That is why power is deceptive when impulse is used, that's exactly how all those back EMF battery chargers work (and your ignition coil).

A typo, they happen. It's kind of funny that you accepted my impulse explanation by and followed it by an example that was more complicated than mine yet you refuse to accept the existence of the vectors that make up the system of engineering because you don't like math.

It's actually pretty sad that you have to be this underhanded just because your argument doesn't hold under scrutiny. "Don't look behind the curtain" and all that jazz.

The major difference between us is that I have the balls to admit when I'm wrong, correct myself, and apologize.

[quantumuppercut]

All of the vectors in engineering are the "areas" (integrals) of sub-vectors (derivatives). That means the energy input for any single sub-vector needs to "increase by the square" (exponentially) to provide a linear change in the vector.

We can compress input energy into a pulse (impulse) though . By doing that we are compressing vectors. Imagine a square that is 10 units, by 10 units. If we compress that into impulse we will have a rectangle that's 1 unit by 100 units. There isn't any more units of energy there per se, but you can do things with that 100 units that you couldn't do with 10 units.

Relating to your example: 10 units of constant input can not cause a velocity increase to 11, but if the system is low loss (like a flywheel, or resonant Tesla coil) then a 100 unit impulse can cause an increase in velocity by FAR more than 1 unit.

But energy is not a vector... or... is it? I think it should be a vector because that's the only way to describes its conservative nature. However, then we would run into another problem about the energy we currently define.

[LetsReplicate]

But energy is not a vector... or... is it? I think it should be a vector because that's the only way to describes its conservative nature. However, then we would run into another problem about the energy we currently define.

Yes, energy (Ek and Ep, or physics "work") are vectors. Power is the product of energy and frequency (inverse of time). The sub-vectors that compose energy are force and distance. The force vector is made of mass and acceleration.

Supporting references:

In physics, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. For example, the rate at which a light bulb transforms electrical energy into heat and light is measured in watts—the more wattage, the more power, or equivalently the more electrical energy is used per unit time.

In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

In other words, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform.

This logic extends both upward and downward to include every concept in engineering. That is how physics can be equated to electricity, mechanical engineering, and fluid dynamics: it's all in the vectors.

How does that cause a problem with the definition of energy?

[Aaron]

gravity isthe source potential for force on a falling object

Geoffrey Ingram,

All ^.^ looks like to me is

You are Geoffrey Ingram unless you prove you aren't - the male (not a she representative of lets replicate).

CEMF is incorrect as well and you equate cemf with the inductive spike - you're still wrong - lol, the transient spike is NOT back emf and it is not cemf or counter emf. It is called COUNTER emf because it counters the applied power as you charge the coil.

Sorry for using wiki as a real reference but it is for convenience:

The counter-electromotive force also known as back electromotive force (abbreviated counter EMF, or CEMF)[1] is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is caused by a changing electromagnetic field. It is the effect of Lenz's Law of electromagnetism. Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position.[2] Counter EMF is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current [1]. The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage.

Back emf IS cemf. cemf is still lenz's law and is not the spike.

You said: "Back emf was not what I meant there it was a typo, I use CEMF because it is the proper term."

You say CEMF is the proper term and that back emf is a typo. Actually back emf is a proper term for what Lenz's law describes. And there is a point to my "rant" about it and that is to highlight the fact that you are preaching the same mythology as countless skeptics before you who are not qualified for this field. Actually, there are many skeptics that realize the spike has nothing to do with cemf - they don't believe in overunity but they are also aware of the difference in such an elementary matter.

Now if you want to correct yourself to state that the battery chargers and ignition coil works on the back spike, transient spike or inductive spike - then fine, you will be correct but changing your story from "back emf" to "cemf" that you claims is the proper term for the spike is ludicrous and relegates your "qualifications" to those of a stage magician in a sideshow.

Yes, false arguments, you're up to about 20 by now. I have stated from the beginning in terms so clear a 5 year old can understand. The INPUT to the system is the work used to LIFT the ball. And the OUTPUT is all work done. The COP is the OUTPUT compared to the INPUT and arguing that the ball falling off a table will do the same work. That is true, but that is a false argument because it completely disregards common sense that you are discarding the example itself that the example states LIFTING work is the input being compared to the output. Again, your james randi sleight of hand misdirection. Don't tell me how honest you are to admit when you're wrong - you simply have never addressed any of the false arguments that have nothing to do with what I said, which dishonestly distorts what I did say, misleading everyone. You are a charlatan and a fraud whose goods are your services of "expertise".

Work is organized potential dissipating through various resistances as it moves towards equilibrium. It is the SAME in physics or electrical circuits. By even stating there are different definitions of it between electrical and physics shows how schizophrenic the classical explanations are. lol In my model, the same terms have the same definitions 100% of the time.

You claimed energy is not dissipated! That is another ridiculous claim that deserves another big laugh but I'll "conserve" my energy on that one.

"In physics, dissipation embodies the concept of a dynamical system where important mechanical models, such as waves or oscillations, lose energy over time, typically from friction or turbulence. The lost energy converts into heat, which raises the temperature of the system. Such systems are called dissipative systems. For example, a wave that loses amplitude is said to dissipate."

Ball hits ground and that causes heat, which is energy dissipation. The ball falling through air resisting air is heat and that is dissipation. The ball warms as the ball is compressed and that is dissipation. The ball bouncing is an oscillation that loses amplitude and dissipates potential as work/energy. You claimed there is no energy being dissipated - you need that false claim to be true because if it isn't, that means the amount of energy in the system actually is changing!

And I'm not making things more complicated. Your conventional model is schizophrenic with multiple contradictions and smoke and mirrors. What I am explaining actually simplifies it, shows an actual source for the potential and what it is as well as unifying multiple concepts.






Dissipate and work different? lol, again, schizophrenic cognitive dissonance between the conventional fields. Work IS the dissipation of potential through resistances.

What I have said does NOT require conservation of energy. Potential is dissipated through resistances back into the aether - it doesn't change form - it goes from organized to disorganized. Then NEW potential comes into the system when there is another separation of potential differences (ball lifted again).

I never claimed it was RF cooling - more lies. I clearly stated that according to someone else it may be rf cooling and I don't know that it is that. My belief it is working on reactive power that is pushing back harder than the applied power - irrelevant if you believe that is what is happening.

You're suffering from a delusion caused by the ideomotor trance you are in. The lights are on but nobody is home. You are endlessly repeating yourself like a parrot with earplugs in. mgh being Newtonian is meaningless. A proportion between mass, gravity and height still exist in an aetheric model. Just because it is an aetheric model doesn't mean the proportion between the three disappear.

You say: "Wait a sec, the aether is always moving at exactly the same speed as the ball? (that is what "motionless to each other" means) In Ep=mgh you are allowing gravity to be an acceleration. That makes this not fit because acceleration means it is gaining velocity which means the aether must be moving at some speed that is faster than the ball in order for it to accelerate. That would mean that they are not "motionless to each other"."

Yes, you're right. They are not motionless to each other as the ball accelerates to the ground but you have been put in a position to recognize something in the dynamic aetheric model that you have been deathly afraid to admit - and that is the fact that the ball is OPEN to receive gravitational potential that is imparting an active PUSH on the ball - and you have been claiming that in my model the ball is a completely closed system. You even argue it for me! See the underlined parts above. Thank you very much!

Before you claim that in my model the ball is closed to any outside input and now you make the argument for me that in my system, the gravitational potential is input to the ball after all. You just defeated your prior argument. If you keep this up, you might just wind up a convert.

It isn't at terminal velocity so it is accelerating.

mgh still perfectly applies and the aether's drag on the object as it pushes it down is just dissipating some of the potential that mgh describes. Everything remains intact as I said.

You finally admit kinetic energy is based on the relationship between the ball and aether and has nothing to do with its relationship to the ground as being "moving" as the ground is not the source of potential - you have just proved my point that the potential that causes work is coming from the ACTIVE downward push of the aether

Please don't quote the Michelson Morley experiment. Do you research: Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments that flushes everything you believe down the toilet. Don't just read that page, follow the references. Einstein always knew he was wrong.

And this proves your claims are nothing but parlor tricks:

[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 1]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 2]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 3]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 4]

What you are going to do predictably is come back with a response why they are wrong without spending time to research the history or delve into any of the references. Yet, you claim you have room to talk.

By posting those, I'm not implying they agree with me but it does show that your claims are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

You say: "Also, since your "potential source" is quite literally ALL of free space and moving with the ball, it makes doing math on this system extremely difficult. Why should I accept your aether over a theory that doesn't change the math?"

ALL of free space? Really, all of it? I believe there is a general drift of aether through outer space in a larger frame of reference and we are a sub frame of reference within that.

Doing math on this system for the examples so far work just fine with mgh even if you are emotionally unready to accept it. Same formula but with a different context. As I said, having dynamic aetheric model does not make the relationship between mgh go away and to infer that it does is only making a spectacle of yourself.

The downward motion of the aether is because it is near a mass (earth) that is displacing the aether and the aether is pushing back towards the center of the earth dynamically - as it flows to the middle is an unknown to every human being and there only only guesses but I believe there are various dissipations which never allows it to come into equilibrium. Various "particles" could be created that rise away from the center, etc... it would be a static gravitational aetheric potential instead of a dynamic one if it came into equilibrium, which it doesn't as evidenced by the very fact that objects move downward under the influence of gravity.

Also, a rotating magnetic field assists by actively PULLING the aether towards it than the simple rebound of the aether itself by the mass displacement - and by virtue of this, all static gravitational models are null and void.

[OrionLightShip]

No. I edited that post to include a comma, it reads better now, I could add
the word "then" before "we" so it would read, "If we define our terms like I did
above to define what I think unity is in this case, then we can see each others
argument better."

I never said the O word.


When I said this above I meant whatever % of the drop height the ball stops
at after one bounce is the efficiency of the ball for bouncing.

Hugging is Unity, See.

Cheers

I knew exactly what you said. I used your grammatical error to make a joke.

There is no hugging or unity here
only overunity...see....follow the bouncing ball

[Aaron]

mechanical amplifier

follow the bouncing ball

More out than in Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator - A Mechanical Amplifier - Veljko Milkovic - Official presentation

[OrionLightShip]

Not exactly how I want to spend my day...but I'm happy for third world economies that someone found a way to harness the "bouncing ball".

More out than in Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator - A Mechanical Amplifier - Veljko Milkovic - Official presentation

[quantumuppercut]

Yes, energy (Ek and Ep, or physics "work") are vectors. Power is the product of energy and frequency (inverse of time). The sub-vectors that compose energy are force and distance. The force vector is made of mass and acceleration.

Supporting references:






This logic extends both upward and downward to include every concept in engineering. That is how physics can be equated to electricity, mechanical engineering, and fluid dynamics: it's all in the vectors.

How does that cause a problem with the definition of energy?

The reason I see it as a scalar quantity because v^2 term cannot be negative. The total motion of the universe is from zero to infinity thus the kinetic energy should always be >0 . I think your reasoning is that within an absolute system, one can divide into sub systems and monitor energy in and out. Using sign convention, one can treats them as vectors. This is where I agree with you that we should see energy as a vector, hence, something relative so we can introduce negative energy coming in from the absolute frame of reference.