Dollard Reward

[exnihiloest]

Just put 25 cents into those little toy machines and get a rubber
bouncy ball. Lift it to a meter and drop it on a hard floor and record
all of the results.

I asked the question because I did this test and it failed. Like a damped oscillation, there is a weakening of the bouncing therefore no overunity can be demonstrated by this way.

Could you present us your own measurement, photos or videos? May be we had not the same bouncy balls.

[Aaron]

@exnihiloest

I asked the question because I did this test and it failed. Like a damped oscillation, there is a weakening of the bouncing therefore no overunity can be demonstrated by this way.

Could you present us your own measurement, photos or videos? May be we had not the same bouncy balls.

You are joking - there is supposed to be a smaller bounce each time and if you think anything else is claimed, you are living in la la land.

[OrionLightShip]

If you are unwilling to move forward, then move backwards and see post #55

Orion,

Reading over your requirements.

1. Given this long discussion and your statement "I don't care if it's overunity" (in regards to ambiguity associated with that term - i hate that term too, it means nothing, absolutely nothing...) ... ... ...

Do you care WHERE the energy comes from?

I guess what I am saying, truly is: Do you care if the energy comes from the unknown, the known, the explainable, or the unexplainable... because quite frankly, you've left yourself open to any of the above, it would appear.

2. You require that it be scalable. That can mean different things. There are implied meanings perhaps, but the definition itself is pretty open. For example a font is scalable if it doesn't lose definition when made larger. Then again, nobody cares how much extra ink it takes to get there. Can you clear that up?

3. I don't see any uptime requirements or sustainable duty cycle requirements? No efficiency requirements, nor reliability requirements.

If it sound like I'm being an ass, I'm not trying to, but... it seems like you took about ten minutes to figure out the requirements for reward. Plus, you are anonymous, which, you know, makes the entire thing pretty ridiculous... but nonetheless...

What I am trying to elude to here is, for example IT WOULD SEEM...

You are not precluding the use of existing technologies, because you have said nothing of the sort?

You are not requiring that the device actually work for any length of time beyond proving that it meets your given mathematical criteria, so it need not be a power producer per say, it may only be a short lived demonstrable effect or phenomenon?

You are not restricting derivation of power from any, of many, sources such as wind, sun, wave, sound?

It need be scalable, so if it looks the same bigger, we're good to go?

And finally if my heat collection device that requires only a 9V battery to run a PIC processor and a few relays, and electronic valves to move ammonia from one state using the heat of the sun into an environment that shows a net removal of ten times the energy equivalent in btu's per hour (than watts from the 9V battery out) by cooling a cooler (measurable by heat loss) only to return to a spot deep in the ground to recombine into a liquid... that runs only in the daytime, but isn't a problem because you did not say it'd have to had to run any length of time... ... ... wins your contest ... a contest held by no one in particular with no funds proven to exist anywhere ... what about my intellectual rights and provisions for non-disclosure of methodology?



I'm reading your criterion over and over and it would seem, at least --- you might want to spend another ten minutes on the contest?

^^ as an added note of good intent ^^

I'm not saying you are a scam artist,

I am merely saying if you expect people to take you seriously, please put time into your contest business plan. When you offer thousands of dollars publicly, it's like anything else, it should come with some effort towards credibility, security and a great deal of clarity.

And if I seem annoyed, and you're wondering why some random guy might be annoyed, consider the fact that many people come here to learn about a topic that is so utterly blackballed from existence elsewhere that (at allaboutcircuits.com for instance) they cannot even -breathe- a single word of any topic that remotely relates or smells of OU, or FE, before they are shut down. Given that, the credibility of this site relies on us not presenting ourselves in a fashion that smells of a scam or swindle, and the only thing that truly keeps a site like this up, period, is it's owners/operaters willingness to do so, which is probably directly proportionate to their ability to stomach the crap that floats on by, day to day. Some of us really do appreciate it, and begin to wonder how long they might actually bother. So we all should try to present ourselves in a manner that preserves, just that; their tolerance - to some degree, anyhow. Thanks

[kcarring]

@Orion

Fair enough I apologize. You probably didn't need to read that. I missed #55, and thus my entire post was out of line, again.. I apologize. I'll delete it, it's irrelevant.

[OrionLightShip]

@Orion

Fair enough I apologize. You probably didn't need to read that. I missed #55, and thus my entire post was out of line, again.. I apologize. I'll delete it, it's irrelevant.

Actually, I didn't bother to read it. So many false conclusions have been drawn about me, I don't even care anymore. Thanks for the apology though, it sounds sincere enough.

Orion

[exnihiloest]

You are joking - there is supposed to be a smaller bounce each time and if you think anything else is claimed, you are living in la la land.

There are two ways for demonstrating overunity of the bouncy balls: either the balls don't stop bouncing, or they stop and their final position shows a larger increase of their potential energy than the energy for powering the speaker.
If the first point is discarded, then where is the evidence of the second one?

[Aaron]

efficiency vs cop

There are two ways for demonstrating overunity of the bouncy balls: either the balls don't stop bouncing, or they stop and their final position shows a larger increase of their potential energy than the energy for powering the speaker.
If the first point is discarded, then where is the evidence of the second one?

Before making such silly comments, please learn the distinction between efficiency and COP.

[Mark]

Using the bouncing ball analogy is silly! Show me a bouncing ball doing some "actual" work.

[Aaron]

@Mark

Using the bouncing ball analogy is silly! Show me a bouncing ball doing some "actual" work.

What is silly is that you're unable to understand it Mark.

1. As ball falls, resisting air as it falls is work.
2. As ball hits ground, heat is caused, possible damage to ground or ball, etc...
3. Compression of the ball itself is work.

I find it alarming that you are so easily willing to not recognize that all of these examples are work, which is resistance, a most basic form of work being done.

I use the ball example because of the simplicity of it and it is not just an IQ test, it is an intellectual honesty test.

Something so simple of an example "just can't be true" because people have a hard time with things that have been in front of them the entire time that they have always misunderstood.

Your argument of it if there is work or not isn't even valid - as it has been clearly stated, if aether is dynamic and has a downward moving component that can impart a push or form of traction or drag on mass, then my argument is completely sound.

The real argument is if aether is as I describe above and it doesn't matter if the aether is "particle" like, tubes, etc... as long as it has the properties described, the description of what the ball experiences is sound.

Arguing if there is work being done, that the ball bouncing is a closed system, lol, etc...are all trivial distractions from simply addressing the premise of it as the parts of the model are congruent with respect to each other.

I'm not going to argue with you Mark even if you want to laugh at me for saying a bouncing ball is demonstrating work. I like you and respect you but you are showing me to be someone other than who you portray yourself as. You are stooping to the level of the james randi types.

[exnihiloest]

Before making such silly comments, please learn the distinction between efficiency and COP.

I know the difference. You remark is not fair, not related to my question, and irrelevant for the debate.
If you don't know how much energy is put in the speaker and how much potential energy is gained at the end by the balls, you can't affirm that there is overunity (assuming we stay in a scientifical deontology).

So once again, what is your demonstration?

[Aaron]

efficiency vs cop

I know the difference. You remark is not fair, not related to my question, and irrelevant for the debate.
If you don't know how much energy is put in the speaker and how much potential energy is gained at the end by the balls, you can't affirm that there is overunity (assuming we stay in a scientifical deontology).

So once again, what is your demonstration?

The comment is 100% relevant to what you say.

The reason is because being over 1.0 cop - is summing all work done compared to input - there is a diminishing amount of potential on each cycle. Wanting the ball to bounce higher each time simply shows just like I said, that you have no idea of the difference between efficiency and COP.

Saying the ball has to bounce higher is saying it has to be over 100% efficient to be overunity, which is completely FALSE.

Refrigerators are over 1.0 cop (overunity and are quite a bit UNDER 100% efficiency).

Again, please learn the difference.

[exnihiloest]

The comment is 100% relevant to what you say.

The reason is because being over 1.0 cop - is summing all work done compared to input - there is a diminishing amount of potential on each cycle. Wanting the ball to bounce higher each time simply shows just like I said, that you have no idea of the difference between efficiency and COP.

Saying the ball has to bounce higher is saying it has to be over 100% efficient to be overunity, which is completely FALSE.

Refrigerators are over 1.0 cop (overunity and are quite a bit UNDER 100% efficiency).

Again, please learn the difference.

You are very confusing. You assertion was:
"But in reference to the ball and the refrigerator, both demonstrate more measurable joules of work done compared to the measurable joules of work put into it"

I asked you the proof concerning the ball and I see you got into a discussion about the cop and you didn't answer the question, obviously because you are unable to provide the demonstration, neither the experimental one, nor the theoretical one.

You have observed an entropy decrease in a closed system (the box of the bouncing balls). Well this is known for 140 years. See Boltzman's work. None physicist denies the possibility to decrease the entropy of a closed system, the refrigerator is one of the proofs of concept. Now, if we include the heat energy from the environment and the energy to power the heat pump, we also know that in a cycle of a refrigerator, the entropy of the whole system is increased. In the every day life, we don't care, because we consider that the world is a big heat reservoir that can receive or provide as much heat energy as we want, but we must remember that in any case, we increase its heat energy every time we extract useful work.
So when you say that there is "more measurable joules of work done compared to the measurable joules of work put into it", the sentence is irrelevant if you don't say accurately what is the observed system and its boundary.
In the basic case of the balls the energy is provided by the speaker. If we suppose that the electrical generator is 100% efficient and that the electrical to mechanical energy transformation by the speaker is 100% efficient, then the potential energy gain of the balls is equal to the electrical energy for powering the speaker. It is not thermodynamics. No heat is involved. This case is by no means related to an heat pump, Cop has no meaning here.