The bistander thread

[bistander]

Turion,

Your screenshot quotes in blue are facts as I see it. We know to what I was referring but Aaron has told me not to speak about it, so I leave it.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

bi,
... How many people have YOU assisted in this search for truth? ...

Actually I try to assist everyone in search for truth. That was certainly the case when I reached out to you via PM.

Originally Posted by bistander

Hi Turion,

Thanks. This sounds very much like what I've read in your posts for the past two years. It is basically story telling, meaning subjective. To impress the technical savvy you need verifiable test data showing inputs and outputs.

Statements like recover 80-85% of what goes through the load and COP of 22 are enough to turn any rational examiner off. Stick with a simple device or system. Define it. Quantify inputs. Quantify outputs. Show that and we have something to talk about.

If your system includes energy storage, then it must be at the same state of charge at the beginning and end of the test. The only way to do that with batteries is at zero or full charge. Any partial SOC is a crap shoot to quantify the contained energy. This is why I've not paid any attention to these battery schemes which frequent this forum. That and the fact that I've used and tested thousands of batteries over the decades. I'm more interested in the electromagnetic machinery.

I hope my comments are helpful. That's my intent. I will try to help more where I can. It may be beneficial for you to follow Ufo's thread from post #2448 on.
Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

BTW, I wish BM would just go away.

Regards,

bi

And here.

Originally Posted by bistander

Dave, may I call you Dave?,

I noticed this. It is incorrect. The series (S) and parallel (P) connections are similar to cell connections in a battery. For 6 wires your options are:

6S1P for 6 x V and 1 x I,

3S2P for 3 x V and 2 x I,

2S3P for 2 x V and 3 x I,

1S6P for 1 x V and 6 x I.

4S2P isn't an option which fully utilizes all the copper. It amounts to 5 x S and 1 x I.

You're welcome to use this info any way you want.

Regards,

bi

You were receptive to my help back about a year or two ago. You even told me privately about that item you had tested. I left it be saying we'd discuss it when you were ready to go public. I figured you'd include your data (proof) at that time. Like I spoke of in the first PM above. So not long after, on citfta's thread you publicly disclosed it. I asked to see the proof or data. Things went down hill from there. You wrote volumes to avoid the one thing I asked. At first, I thought you sincerely believed what you were saying. But after repeated explaintion and references by me showing the errors in your logic, I did come to the conclusions that you quoted in blue. It's possible I'm wrong about you, but I am not wrong about the science.

Is it a lie if the teller really believes it is true? Regardless of what the teller believes, the listener still receives a falsehood or untruth. That's what I was dealing with attempting to get to the bottom of an obvious dubious account.

Just trying to help you find truth.

Regards,

bi

[BroMikey]

Originally Posted by Aaron

it is the manner in which you express it that is problematic.

Think it was Paul B. that said "TAKE NO PRISONERS" Thanks Paul

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Iamnuts

My story.
I must have been about 65 years old when I eventually managed to
make sense of special relativity. Wow! It sure was a real light bulb moment
for me.
That got me going, I found that there were several outstanding physisits
in the early to mid 20th. century. I began to learn a bit about quanta and
uncertainty and eventually I came across relativistic induction. The induction
explanation was probably bigger for me than SR, although of course they're
totally connected.
Perhaps as Aaron suggests, I have got mental problems, but I'm getting on
now and I'm not as mentally adept as a younger person.
I seem to remember the led thingy from way back, could have been something
to do with Pauli's exclusion. I'm sure a lot of this stuff is correct, but for tbe
likes of me it's far from intuitive.
One thing I have found is that measuing efficiency is where a huge amount
people go wrong. I've got a cheapo watch and it has worked for fourteen years
on its original button cell, probably out by a couple of minutes in all that time.
Now that is what I'd call efficient.

@bistander - I'm now making the same request of you as well as @iamnuts



I'm still waiting for a valid response re: MIT 233% overunity LED test. Writing it off as a measurement error or anything off is insincere. Measure input to an LED is about as simple as you can get. No other excuses.


In the 3 battery thread, you claimed you either "want to believe" or "want to see success", which Turion already has. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are sincere in wanting to see something that produces more work than we have to supply on the front, which is the underlying desire behind your posts.

Well, providing you with the MIT paper showing 70mw of light for only 30mw input does just that.

1. IF you were sincere, you would demonstrate serious interest in the results that are pretty much indisputable - they did it and it made international news and is accepted by mainstream as being legit. According to you, its existence is impossible, yet there it is.

2. IF you were sincere, you would have to admit it is not only possible but has been done and that your belief to the contrary is obviously incorrect.

Neither of these 2 responses happened because:

1. You are insincere and have no intention to do anything other that looking at things that you feel confirm what you already believe, which means you are a liar.

2. Your ego is fragile to suffer from such a blow or you are here with the solar intent to disrupt.

Would a sane and rational person who claims they want to believe or want to see something that produces more work than it requires on the input respond or act like you did by intentionally sidestepping it while posting things that serve only to distract from the matter at hand?

Or, would they acknowledge that they studied the material because it is so shocking such a thing exists and is admitted by conventional science, which according to you such a thing would put physics in turmoil and would have to admit their belief has been in error?

Obviously, a sane and rational person would do the latter.

For someone to react or not react the way that you did and with your ridiculous answer about the light "thingy" and reference some quantum garbage is someone that 1) does indeed have some kind of mental issue or 2) is very sane and rational and is here to intentionally disrupt and spread propaganda. Which one is it? I'm not interested in the "poor me" character of "I must be crazy" or other nonsense - nobody is naive enough to believe you are truly the poor-me type. Another characteristic of someone who is insincere and dishonest.

If you are unable to acknowledge MIT demonstrated a LED that produces 233% more light than it takes to power the LED AND that it violates what you claimed regarding the impossibility of such overunity devices by the time I look at this forum tomorrow, you're both gone. This forum has nothing to offer you obviously since none of it jives with what you believe so you will not be at a loss when you can no longer login and post.

Thank you both by the way, you have not helped me iron out how to deal with these matters from here on out and I'll do it in 1-2 posts from now on with future trolls. They can prove they are intellectually honest about what they say and if they do not, then they will be booted.

Yes, I get the post about lightweight batteries, etc. and while I agree with you on the practicality, my attention span is infinitely long and nothing you can say or do will distract me from booting you if you do not demonstrate yourself to be intellectually honest by complying with what is in red above.

And if you comply with my request above, the next will be in regards to open systems. 1) You will have to admit it was you who was wrong about dismissing what I said is an open system and that you did not know what an open system is actually defined as (while brushing it off as an energy management system, which is laughable and 2) You will have to admit that the entire branch of thermodynamics was extended in 1977 to include systems that produce more work than what is required on the input since free input comes from external sources.

Yes, it is reasonable to ask for proof of claims, obviously it makes sense to do that. But being reasonable myself and a being dedicated builder, if there are details given by someone making some claim and I have an interest in it, I'll do what a reasonable person will do - I'll build it myself and make the determination myself whether it is or isn't what is claimed. If I don't have the tools or don't have skills to do it myself but still want to know, I don't need to make it a long drawn out process of bugging the hell out of someone over and over and over by disrupting the flow of conversation and what is being shared with negative cynicism, etc. while demanding they provide me with what I want. I'll either move on to something that meets my criteria or I'll just wait silently until what I'm looking for is posted.

Please don't argue with me or complain about me making these demands of you - I'm giving you a condensed, cliff notes opportunity to experience what you both have done to Turion - actually bistander moreso. You expect others to prove their claims to you? Well, now you have the opportunity to prove your claims to me and others of wanting to help, being honest about what you are seeking, etc. or get booted.

I think that is an extremely fair exchange of energy don't you? You believe so strongly that Newton's 3rd law applies to everything - well, this is one thing in this forum that I will admit it applies to wholeheartedly!

[padova]

The researchers, Parthiban Santhanam and coauthors from MIT, have published their study in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

As the researchers explain in their study, the key to achieving a power conversion efficiency above 100%, i.e., “unity efficiency,” is to greatly decrease the applied voltage. According to their calculations, as the voltage is halved, the input power is decreased by a factor of 4, while the emitted light power scales linearly with voltage so that it’s also only halved. In other words, an LED’s efficiency increases as its output power decreases. (The inverse of this relationship - that LED efficiency decreases as its output power increases - is one of the biggest hurdles in designing bright, efficient LED lights.)

In their experiments, the researchers reduced the LED’s input power to just 30 picowatts and measured an output of 69 picowatts of light - an efficiency of 230%. The physical mechanisms worked the same as with any LED: when excited by the applied voltage, electrons and holes have a certain probability of generating photons. The researchers didn’t try to increase this probability, as some previous research has focused on, but instead took advantage of small amounts of excess heat to emit more power than consumed. This heat arises from vibrations in the device’s atomic lattice, which occur due to entropy.

It doesn't seem as the laws of physics were broken this way.

with respect

regards

[Iamnuts]

Aaron, a bit of advice. “Don’t waffle”. It’s a sign of insecurity.
Think about what you want to say and do it in a quarter of the words.
The led has been well explained by known science.
You would do well to study this from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechan...ical_analogies.

If you want me to quit altogether that’s fine by me, just say the word.

John.

[Iamnuts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kscgb

I don’t know if these links work for any of you but I find these discussions
fascinating.
John.

[ilandtan]

Originally Posted by Iamnuts

Hi bistander,
It’s quite easy to see that Aaron doesn’t understand basic relativistic
induction. You can argue ‘til the cows come home and it won’t get you anywhere
with him.
Someone worked out the regenerative braking for your car with the
known formulae and then another made the hardware. They put it together
and it works. That has been the case for millions of mechanisms,and when
done correctly,how many have failed to perform as predicted?
I was naive when I started the “free energy” search, I saw a Bedini presentation
and was hooked. Now,looking back I can see that it’s an industry, gullible
investors have been taken in for years.
John.

John, I am maybe contributing my dime store psychoanalysis but this is crux of your issue. You came lured by something free, and it didn't pan out that you could recharge your car with it... or something. You continue to regurgitate mainstream science with textbook accuracy. So you and Bi will be hard to argue with because what you represent is what we should accept, walk away with no arguments.

I can certainly not argue with the laws of thermodynamics, but If you came to this place experimenting, you should of noticed on your journey that everything doesn't work as described, and some of these technologies are not even touched on by engineering constructs. Google "wireless power transmission" and you see small devices. Why then was Tesla doing it on a large scale over a hundred years ago.

You might find comfort in the thought that Tesla was an eccentric, and creating technologies that were unreasonable, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.

George Bernard Shaw said “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man"

It would be a pity if you or bi get tossed out. The community needs pragmatists because discovery borders on insanity. This means that region needs to be policed by the whole, and it is not uncommon for some of the best and brightest to go way out there. That's when we start applying free thinking to Politics and Religion.

But being unreasonable is a great club, it's where we learn to fly. So please, don't have a one page search as your perspective. The solution may be on page 99 where I hope my solution will be some day.


Does "Free Energy" exist? Prove it.

Do you love your Dad? Prove it.

The belief is more significant than the reality

[bistander]

Originally Posted by padova

It doesn't seem as the laws of physics were broken this way.

with respect

regards

Thank you Padova,

I was going to mention or point out the same when it was my turn. Effects are a billion times smaller than Aaron claims (pW, picowatts, not mW, milliwatts). Also, it needed elevated temperature, 135°C. There is also this, quote from paper.

Although the Peltier heat exchange of the injection process is highly nonuniform, on average the device remains very slightly cooled so that in steady state the thermal energy required to pump the emitter flows in from the ambient environment. The net cooling power Pcool is given by the difference between the emitted optical power and the input electrical power and is shown in Fig. 4(a). In terms of the zero-bias resistance Rand the current through the device I, the net cooling power is given by

see paper for equation

Note that R is not indicative of a purely irreversible process as in an Ohmic resistance. At low bias, voltage and current are directly proportional and R, measured in ohms, represents their ratio. Equation (2) indicates that net cooling results from competition between a cooling process linear in current and a heating process quadratic in current. Here, low-bias LED operation is analogous to a thermoelectric cooler [24], in which Peltier heat transfer competes with Joule heating to realize heat pumping. In both devices a finite current maximizes cooling power, and at lower currents there is a trade-off between power and efficiency.
Moreover, as sources of irreversibility are removed from the LED, it acts as a reversible Carnot-efficient heat pump [19,25] operating between the lattice and the photon field.

This is a complex, and well done, paper. The part which I quoted above leads me to believe that this phenomena is similar in nature to a heat pump where one deals with COP for the system rather than device (converter) efficiency. In support of my observation, note the author's definition in paragraph one.

Here we report the first experimental observa-
tion of electroluminescence in which the ratio of detected optical power to supplied electrical power, known commonly as the wall-plug efficiency (or as the heating coefficient of performance), exceeds unity.

Throughout the paper the authors use wall-plug efficiency.

This research is from 2012. If it had indeed proven a break in conventional foundations of physics, I would have though there would be quite more activity surrounding it. I try to keep abreast of developments in the field and this was the first time I have heard about it. Although interesting, I've spent way more time on it than I would have liked.

Aaron,
You have your own definitions of words and terms which I tend to use in the old fashioned conventional manner. Often it seems like we speak different language. So, to be clear, talking about COP, I use this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coef...of_performance

Regards and I hope this addresses your concerns,

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Aaron

...
This is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system and is considered as such because the free environmental input for that system happens to be heat, which while it enters the system, it delays (not prevents) it from moving towards entropy or delays it from moving towards equilibrium. Therefore, it is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system and IS the very definition of an open system. Closed system thermodynamics does NOT apply to the MIT led study that shows gains above unity and the same applies to heat pumps, the same applies to chemical systems, the same applies to overunity magnetic or mechanical systems, etc.

...

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that that the academic world EMBRACES non-equilibrium thermodynamics and their application to open systems. It applies to economic models and even social models. When a community comes together with people, it is an example of reverse entropy and is a self-ordering effect - the exact same as all of the free energy systems - there is a self-ordering mechanism by which disordered potential enters the system as it is polarized and become ordered. It is negentropic while free input delays entropy - during that time, more work can be done than we have to pay for on the input.



https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ch.../1977/summary/


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ch...press-release/


These overunity systems ARE dissipative structures that operate in conjunction with their environment. Thermodynamics was advanced in 1977 but apparently, the whole world of physics forgot to personally inform you. It's possible your ludicrous, insane claims are correct and Nobel Prize winning science is incorrect, but I know where I'll put my money. The very existence and acknowledgement by physics and the academic world as a whole regarding open dissipative systems / non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems flushes your nonsensical, delusional claims down the drain.



https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ch...remony-speech/


"Prigogine and his assistants chose instead to study systems which follow non-linear kinetic laws and which, moreover, are in contact with their surroundings so that energy exchange can take place – open systems, in other words. If these systems are driven far from equilibrium, a completely different situation results. New systems can then be formed which display order in both time and space and which are stable to perturbations. Prigogine has called these systems dissipative systems, because they are formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment and because they disappear if that exchange ceases. They may be said to live in symbiosis with their environment."


If your complete misunderstanding of Newton and conventional thermodynamics applies to electrical systems, then it must apply to chemical, social and other systems. What you find is that your claims are delusional and have no basis in reality and this Nobel Prize winning material that is highly respected among all the top thermodynamicists in the world shows that your claims regarding equal and opposite reactions, etc. are pure nonsense and do not apply to all systems because if it did, these dissipative structures would not exist and they do.
...

Originally Posted by bistander

I think this covers it in detail.

Conservation Laws

bi
...

If you look at the conservation laws in my link, you'll see they do not conflict with your dissipative structures. But I'm sure the generator will abide by those conservation laws. Other systems; I recognize may fall outside the conditions stated in the conservation laws.

And the study and expansion of fundamentals in physics does not invalidate all preceding work. Newton's laws still work well enough to get a craft to rendezvous with furthest objects in the solar system or calculate the trajectory of projectiles.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

While web snooping/I mean searching/ for Tewari, I found this. https://www.magmovenergy.com/market/

Now I say it is fake. All it takes is $3 to 6,000 to find out for sure. I'm sure enough I'll keep my money. But might see if they can provide proof.

Anybody else know anything about them? Please fill us in.

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Aaron

@bistander - I'm now making the same request of you as well as @iamnuts



I'm still waiting for a valid response re: MIT 233% overunity LED test. Writing it off as a measurement error or anything off is insincere. Measure input to an LED is about as simple as you can get. No other excuses.


In the 3 battery thread, you claimed you either "want to believe" or "want to see success", which Turion already has. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are sincere in wanting to see something that produces more work than we have to supply on the front, which is the underlying desire behind your posts.

Well, providing you with the MIT paper showing 70mw of light for only 30mw input does just that.

1. IF you were sincere, you would demonstrate serious interest in the results that are pretty much indisputable - they did it and it made international news and is accepted by mainstream as being legit. According to you, its existence is impossible, yet there it is.

2. IF you were sincere, you would have to admit it is not only possible but has been done and that your belief to the contrary is obviously incorrect.

Neither of these 2 responses happened because:

1. You are insincere and have no intention to do anything other that looking at things that you feel confirm what you already believe, which means you are a liar.

2. Your ego is fragile to suffer from such a blow or you are here with the solar intent to disrupt.

Would a sane and rational person who claims they want to believe or want to see something that produces more work than it requires on the input respond or act like you did by intentionally sidestepping it while posting things that serve only to distract from the matter at hand?

Or, would they acknowledge that they studied the material because it is so shocking such a thing exists and is admitted by conventional science, which according to you such a thing would put physics in turmoil and would have to admit their belief has been in error?

Obviously, a sane and rational person would do the latter.

For someone to react or not react the way that you did and with your ridiculous answer about the light "thingy" and reference some quantum garbage is someone that 1) does indeed have some kind of mental issue or 2) is very sane and rational and is here to intentionally disrupt and spread propaganda. Which one is it? I'm not interested in the "poor me" character of "I must be crazy" or other nonsense - nobody is naive enough to believe you are truly the poor-me type. Another characteristic of someone who is insincere and dishonest.

If you are unable to acknowledge MIT demonstrated a LED that produces 233% more light than it takes to power the LED AND that it violates what you claimed regarding the impossibility of such overunity devices by the time I look at this forum tomorrow, you're both gone. This forum has nothing to offer you obviously since none of it jives with what you believe so you will not be at a loss when you can no longer login and post.

Thank you both by the way, you have not helped me iron out how to deal with these matters from here on out and I'll do it in 1-2 posts from now on with future trolls. They can prove they are intellectually honest about what they say and if they do not, then they will be booted.

Yes, I get the post about lightweight batteries, etc. and while I agree with you on the practicality, my attention span is infinitely long and nothing you can say or do will distract me from booting you if you do not demonstrate yourself to be intellectually honest by complying with what is in red above.

And if you comply with my request above, the next will be in regards to open systems. 1) You will have to admit it was you who was wrong about dismissing what I said is an open system and that you did not know what an open system is actually defined as (while brushing it off as an energy management system, which is laughable and 2) You will have to admit that the entire branch of thermodynamics was extended in 1977 to include systems that produce more work than what is required on the input since free input comes from external sources.

Yes, it is reasonable to ask for proof of claims, obviously it makes sense to do that. But being reasonable myself and a being dedicated builder, if there are details given by someone making some claim and I have an interest in it, I'll do what a reasonable person will do - I'll build it myself and make the determination myself whether it is or isn't what is claimed. If I don't have the tools or don't have skills to do it myself but still want to know, I don't need to make it a long drawn out process of bugging the hell out of someone over and over and over by disrupting the flow of conversation and what is being shared with negative cynicism, etc. while demanding they provide me with what I want. I'll either move on to something that meets my criteria or I'll just wait silently until what I'm looking for is posted.

Please don't argue with me or complain about me making these demands of you - I'm giving you a condensed, cliff notes opportunity to experience what you both have done to Turion - actually bistander moreso. You expect others to prove their claims to you? Well, now you have the opportunity to prove your claims to me and others of wanting to help, being honest about what you are seeking, etc. or get booted.

I think that is an extremely fair exchange of energy don't you? You believe so strongly that Newton's 3rd law applies to everything - well, this is one thing in this forum that I will admit it applies to wholeheartedly!

O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

As far as an electric generator, I do not believe anyone had devised, as of yet, a method to tap that environment to gain energy to produce higher electric power than the mechanical power delivered on the shaft by the prime mover, aside from transients. It was such claims made by UfoPolitics showing up on search engine results which brought me to this forum in the first place. He was much talk and no proof, although he tried. With electric machinery, I know what I'm looking at. But you know what? That's why I'm here. I long to be proven wrong. That's how I learn. That's why I bug Turion. I don't want to belittle him or hurt him in any way. I want to help him. I'll gladly help him prove me wrong. I'd love to. But I can't if he doesn't show me the end results he claims.

So LEDs and semiconductor devices in conditions like the MIT experiment are outside my expertise. So are heat pumps although our home uses geothermal. I don't know much about those dissipative systems of money, or people, or biology that you mentioned. But I do know how electric motors and generators work. I thought I might be able to help in that regard.

Take it or leave it.

bi

[Iamnuts]

This led thing is silly. It just seems to react with the environment.
What I wanted was an example of where the energy comes from when
there is a claim of no counterforce.
Where does the energy come from in a 3bgs?
I’ve never seen a proven mah.
I’ve been looking for about fifteen years now and seen many,many frauds.
John.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Iamnuts

Aaron, a bit of advice. “Don’t waffle”. It’s a sign of insecurity.
Think about what you want to say and do it in a quarter of the words.
The led has been well explained by known science.
You would do well to study this from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechan...ical_analogies.

If you want me to quit altogether that’s fine by me, just say the word.

John.

Thanks, you're banned.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by padova

It doesn't seem as the laws of physics were broken this way.

with respect

regards

Obviously, otherwise it would have been demonstrated.



The point is that it is an indiputable demonstration of more work output than electrical input, which according to nuts and bistander is impossible.

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Aaron

Obviously, otherwise it would have been demonstrated.



The point is that it is an indiputable demonstration of more work output than electrical input, which according to nuts and bistander is impossible.

Aaron,

I never said that. From my first read of the MIT article my opinion was similar to that expressed by padova and restated in my post up a few on this page. Turion often misquoted me and others like Matt accused me of statements I never made. Fortunately we have a record of what I posted.

Regards,

bi

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by bistander

Thank you Padova,

I was going to mention or point out the same when it was my turn. Effects are a billion times smaller than Aaron claims (pW, picowatts, not mW, milliwatts). Also, it needed elevated temperature, 135°C. There is also this, quote from paper.

see paper for equation


This is a complex, and well done, paper. The part which I quoted above leads me to believe that this phenomena is similar in nature to a heat pump where one deals with COP for the system rather than device (converter) efficiency. In support of my observation, note the author's definition in paragraph one.
Throughout the paper the authors use wall-plug efficiency.

This research is from 2012. If it had indeed proven a break in conventional foundations of physics, I would have though there would be quite more activity surrounding it. I try to keep abreast of developments in the field and this was the first time I have heard about it. Although interesting, I've spent way more time on it than I would have liked.

Aaron,
You have your own definitions of words and terms which I tend to use in the old fashioned conventional manner. Often it seems like we speak different language. So, to be clear, talking about COP, I use this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coef...of_performance

Regards and I hope this addresses your concerns,

bi

My mistake picowatts - true laws of physics don't discriminate. pw, mw, or megawatts - a true law will apply equally to all scales and a led powered by picowatts is far from a "quantum" scale where things get weird but only for conventional physics. With aetheric unified models, there is a seamless transition between the subatomic world and large masses - no contradictions and it accounts for everything that erroneous, conventional physics cannot.



Elevated temperatures - by bringing that up, you only support what I've already said that overunity systems do not produce more than what goes into them, the produce more than we have to input meaning there is extra input from somewhere else.

For heat pumps, obviously the overunity comes from free environmental heat, which moves all by itself toward the cold. My use of COP is 100% identical to what you posted at wikipedia, one of the greatest misinformation tools in the history of information but for benign topics, its acceptable.

I am not using my own definition of COP. COP is conventionally applied to heat pumps. It is extremely short-sighted to believe COP does not apply to non-heat pump systems because all other open systems still have a ratio between work done compared to what is required to run the system. Does anyone believe there has to be a new term used for each and every system to describe the output work to OUR input work ratio? It would obviously be ridiculous to suggest such a thing.

From your good old wiki site:


The equation is:
where

• is the useful heat supplied or removed by the considered system.
• is the work required by the considered system.

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


Simply, COP again, is the useful or desired work output by the system divided by the work WE have to input. It does not include the free input from environmental systems. COP = Q/W is the proper formula to show the output work done compared to what we have to pay for on the input for EVERY open, non-equilibrium thermodynamic system such as the MIT LED. The COP, which is 2.30.

So where do you get the idea that I'm using my own definition? I'm using it 100% in alignment with what the ratio demonstrates.



A child puts in 1 part work to get a kite airborn and 9 parts of wind input comes in over a period of time for 10 parts total input. If 1/2 of all that is lost in bad kite design, friction losses, etc... that means only 5 units of useful, desired flying work was done. 10 TOTAL input with 5 total output = 50% EFFICIENT.

5 units of useful, desired kite-flying work were done for an input of only 1 from the operator of the system, which is a 500% NET GAIN in work compared to what the kid put into it. 5 units of work (Q) divided by 1 unit of work required to operate the system (W) = a cop of 5.0. Is anyone blind enough to believe that we have to create an entire new term to describe the exact same ratio relationships between intended work done and required work on the input that we have to provide?

Don't pretend something is lost in translation, I have given very clear explanations of my use of COP vs Efficiency and if you have been confused by such simple concepts, then it is your comprehensions that is troublesome - not the words that I am using.

The MIT LED test has both an efficiency and COP - efficiency is difficult to calculate because it is difficult to measure how much free environmental heat is being input to the LED. The COP is easy to calculate because the input is known and so is the useful work done.

Classical thermodynamics doesn't even apply to this system because it is an open, non-equilibrium thermodynamic system. Classical thermodynamics actually doesn't apply to closed systems either because there is no such thing as a closed system.

COP is properly defined in this video excerpt:

https://emediapress.com/2017/02/27/o...ter-lindemann/



You're idea of helping others "find the truth" is actually an attempt to dissuade people from believing anything different from what you believe. It is evidenced by the entirety of your posts in this forum. That mentality is a dime-a-dozen and many like you have come and gone over the years and here we are still making progress.


The MIT LED DOES violate conventional physics because it is only admitted that over 1.0 COP applies to heat pumps and the MIT is not a heat pump - it is an electrical circuit and electrical circuits are "banned" from having free environmental input. The heat pump analogy I have already given you and nut job plenty of times and now you are suddenly stating the same analogy as if it is some revelation that you had. You are a clown.

The MIT LED is an ELECTRICAL circuit with a COP of 2.30, which is a direct violation of your conventional beliefs. More work done than the required electrical input. You can wiggle all you want - bottom line is the MIT LED experiment itself flushes you nonsense down the drain and you're such a snake, you're trying to make it look like its all a normal operation.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by bistander

If you look at the conservation laws in my link, you'll see they do not conflict with your dissipative structures. But I'm sure the generator will abide by those conservation laws. Other systems; I recognize may fall outside the conditions stated in the conservation laws.

And the study and expansion of fundamentals in physics does not invalidate all preceding work. Newton's laws still work well enough to get a craft to rendezvous with furthest objects in the solar system or calculate the trajectory of projectiles.

Regards,

bi

Conservation is a mythical concept that doesn't apply to any energy system in the world. It is ignorance to the supreme degree. Work done is always dissipated to the environment and if the system is open and cyclic, the work done goes to creating a new potential difference that allows new source potential to energy to do more work. There is no such thing as transforming energy from one form to another.

There is no conservation in conventional or low to no drag generators. What you're sure of is a religious belief, not science.

A flashlight is the quintessential "closed" electric circuit. You turn it on and the dipole moves towards equilibrium until the light goes off. It is ONLY a closed system for one purpose and one purpose only - it is considered closed because the flashlight is not designed to make use of any environmental input and that is it. However, that flashlight circuit is open to heat, gravity, light, sound, space/aether, etc. but it has no mechanism to turn any of that into free environmental input - that is the only reason it is to be considered a closed system. The practical/casual use of "closed" does not mean it is a truly closed system.

What thermodynamics apply to the flashlight? Non-equilibrium thermodynamics because regardless of the practical use of open or closed to describe it - the true energetic reality is that of an open system. Throw that flashlight into 1 foot of fresh fallen snow and see how fast that light goes out. If it was a closed system as far as the physics is concerned, the light would stay on as long as it would at room temperature or at above the boiling point of water. This is an indisputable example that the "closed" electrical circuit has free interchange with its environment. EVERY "closed" system has free interchange with its environment as well - not just this one example.

Open system non-equilibrium thermodynamics DOES invalidate classical thermodynamics because it invalidates its entire use as being the end-all, be-all explanation of how a system cannot have move output than input. And, that is the nonsense that cynical nitwits keep spewing about the entire world of free energy not even knowing that the thermodynamics they keep pointing to have no application to non-equilibrium free energy machines!

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by bistander

Aaron,

I never said that. From my first read of the MIT article my opinion was similar to that expressed by padova and restated in my post up a few on this page. Turion often misquoted me and others like Matt accused me of statements I never made. Fortunately we have a record of what I posted.

Regards,

bi

Nonsense - it is implied by the underlying premise of your counterclaims.

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Aaron

Nonsense - it is implied by the underlying premise of your counterclaims.

I do not understand. I state my position and claims clearly. I imply what I write, only, nothing more.

bi

[bistander]

Aaron,

On MIT experiment, I agree with you. I believe the authors.

Although the Peltier heat exchange of the injection process is highly nonuniform, on average the device remains very slightly cooled so that in steady state the thermal energy required to pump the emitter flows in from the ambient environment. The net cooling power Pcool is given by the difference between the emitted optical power and the input electrical power and is shown in Fig. 4(a).

Ambient energy enters the device and contributes to the output or useful work done, making the COP 2.33. I say this clearly before, and now. I am sincere.

bi

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by bistander

O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

As far as an electric generator, I do not believe anyone had devised, as of yet, a method to tap that environment to gain energy to produce higher electric power than the mechanical power delivered on the shaft by the prime mover, aside from transients. It was such claims made by UfoPolitics showing up on search engine results which brought me to this forum in the first place. He was much talk and no proof, although he tried. With electric machinery, I know what I'm looking at. But you know what? That's why I'm here. I long to be proven wrong. That's how I learn. That's why I bug Turion. I don't want to belittle him or hurt him in any way. I want to help him. I'll gladly help him prove me wrong. I'd love to. But I can't if he doesn't show me the end results he claims.

So LEDs and semiconductor devices in conditions like the MIT experiment are outside my expertise. So are heat pumps although our home uses geothermal. I don't know much about those dissipative systems of money, or people, or biology that you mentioned. But I do know how electric motors and generators work. I thought I might be able to help in that regard.

Take it or leave it.

bi

Thanks, I appreciate that you are able to admit the obvious.



Of course it came from the environment (artificial or not - still externally sourced).



But environmental input isn't always the only extra input in an overunity device or maybe it is. Some of this input may come from reactive elements within a system that do not appear to be externally sourced, but we're easily fooled.



There are many things in nature or in the man-made world where work is being performed, but there is a dominating fictitious belief that work is not being done according to conventional physics and mathematics when work clearly is being done.


It is claimed that gravity can do no work or that magnets can do no work, but elementary school math can show that they do.


In a few months, the ability to realize what this "hidden" work is will be more attainable by more people.



If you have an inductor with a permanent magnet at the core and that inductor was charged but is not switched off, as the magnetic field collapses, the magnetic field of the permanent magnet is partially pulled off of the magnet and that adds to the emf that causes a voltage spike. The active vacuum or aether instantly replenishes what the permanent magnet contributed so that is an example of how a magnet can contribute potential to do work. There are many other examples - this is just one.



I believe you believe mechanical work hasn't produced more electricity in a generator than it takes to move a prime mover and I'll leave it there for now. I have no argument about what you do not believe.




This is a simple analogy most people can relate to and understand. The foam is not necessarily wasted even though you pay the power company for reactive power - you don't get to use it.

But it is a great example - the foam is "phantom power" or "reactive power" and to convert it to real power that can do work, just wait a few minutes and let the element of TIME turn it into real power that you can actually drink.



You can pour that beer at a very low power factor by pouring it in to a very large mug to compensate for the volume of foam from 2 feet above the mug thereby creating maybe 95% foam or reactive power and 5% real power, but if you wait long enough, you will have 100% real power that will fill your stomach with not air, but real beer. What changed to make that possible?



Something to think about anyway.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by bistander

O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

If nutcase wants to retract his condescending insults and admit what you have in a succinct way, without wiggling all over the place, I'll let him back in. He probably doesn't want back in anyway since there this forum has nothing to offer him since he already has it all figured out. He's banned so how can he respond? Not my problem but the offer is there. Maybe he can be unbanned for 1 day to give him the opportunity to do this. But his admission of the simple MIT study has to go further than yours since the intrinsic implications of the results are equal to his claims that physics would be in turmoil if such a thing could exist, which of course is pure nonsense. In any case, I'm open.

[bistander]

Turion,

I'll get back to you in a couple days. Spent more time than I should here lately.

bi

[Aaron]

Another generator, one of the rare patents given for a low drag generator that generates over 200% in electricity compared to what the prime mover requires. The Dynaflux Alternator invented by Jim Murray, one of the most important engineers ever.



Dynaflux Alternator by Jim Murray





In the video, you can see when the lights are switched on, the draw hardly goes up - maybe a few percent showing a massive cancellation of Lenz's Law.



Patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US4780632A/


Later application with different language about reduced Back EMF https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130187580A1

[Aaron]

Keep in mind some elements are not disclosed in the patent as a matter of normal business. He does disclose those missing pieces in the presentation he gave at our conference several years back on the subject.



Jim Murray's Transforming Generator is another overunity technology he patented years ago.

[Cloxxki]

Originally Posted by Aaron

If nutcase wants to retract his condescending insults and admit what you have in a succinct way, without wiggling all over the place, I'll let him back in. He probably doesn't want back in anyway since there this forum has nothing to offer him since he already has it all figured out. He's banned so how can he respond? Not my problem but the offer is there. Maybe he can be unbanned for 1 day to give him the opportunity to do this. But his admission of the simple MIT study has to go further than yours since the intrinsic implications of the results are equal to his claims that physics would be in turmoil if such a thing could exist, which of course is pure nonsense. In any case, I'm open.

Aaron,
Please feel free to ridicule and ultimately ban me as well if that's the way you intend to rule your forum. Take my other cheek now that you've taken the opportunity away from IamNuts.

You've been schooled on very primal misconceptions and outright errors. You even got your units wrong. Seems you never even considered to be in the wrong, which is perhaps the more elemental error in science.

You go out of your way to insult a contributing clear-headed member and accuse them of all the things you are doing to a much greater degree, over honest or dishonest lapses of knowledge or reason. It's fair game for you to insult but when your waffling is addressed, that's a ban? The psychology faculty library in my town has an aisle devoted to that.

I've seen some mess online before, things can get heated, I know. I've seen inflated egos, people with authority issues and power abuse on any scale. Your conduct rarely impressed me when I was here more frequently, being one of the reasons I've stayed away. This time you surprise me. I sincerely hope there are no tragic personal developments at the foundation of your conduct.

This is no way to treat any person, not even if they are wrong and misbehaving. Insult have not place, period.
Let alone in this case where you seem to have it terribly wrong. Scientifically and especially ethically.

I'd like to make my stance and encourage you to apologize for all your misconduct above. Don't make me spell it all out for you, I bet you know what you did unless you have a legitimate personality disorder to excuse yourself for.
If you don't want to look into the mirror, by all means focus your wrath on my persona in stead and spare those who are able to contribute scientifically. I'll be your martyr, please don't let your personality and insecurities prevent your forum to contribute to the betterment of humanity.

All the best to you and your readership, should they decide to stay.

If you elect to ban me for daring to speak out to the supreme leader, these will be my famous last words.

[BroMikey]

Originally Posted by Cloxxki

Aaron,
Please feel free to ridicule and ultimately ban me .....

If you elect to ban me for daring to speak out to the supreme leader, these will be my famous last words.

Aaron has the duty to enforce the fairness rules of decent communication
between members. Where is your project? Why are you here? In other-
words if all you want to do is argue? That is not fair for those who are
offering hard data thru experimentation that costs thousands of
dollars to obtain.

The purpose of research. Calling out to one another like a howling
animal trapped in the woods is not. Disagree if you must and by all
mean back it up with something other than an opinion?

Now Bi and others, including myself have been upset with hot shot
Turion for not giving us all of us secrets on a silver platter. In the
beginning when NUTJOB starting insisting Turion cough up all his
proof I admit I kind of liked that, however calling out Liar, Liar
made me repent til I was nearly ashamed for entertaining such an
idea.

People have a right to selectively release their personal data without
the fear of repercussion. Aaron is highly respected at this forum for
doing his job keeping order.

NUTJOB (HEISNUTS) uses this handle that shows intent anyway. he
had an agenda. Nobody is banned for disagreeing so get off that
hobby horse. Feeling sorry for NUTJOB? Not me.

The other gentlemen (BI) did the right thing and I say hats off to any
man who humbles himself. NutJOB would not.

[Aaron]

Cloxxi,


If you want to leave, feel free to leave.



I gave nuts and bistander countless opportunities in the 3 battery thread to stop the disruption, off topic posts, insults, etc. and they both refused.



They want to make demands of other members, then it can be a two way street - they can see what it is like to have demands made of them, that's very fair and balanced.



As evidenced by nuts' refusal to address anything that was posted for the specific purpose of debunking all his claims that physics would be in "termoil" because of x, y and z - yet he was incapable of acknowledging how x, y and z existed and these are references even acknowledged by mainstream science. What little he even posted in response to the references was constantly condescending - and constantly ignoring me and posting to others while referring to me as if I'm not here. I don't have to put up with that.

Giving someone a chance to prove they're not a troll is not waffling. Nevertheless, you helped me make up my mind. iamnuts will not have any opportunity to come back in. Thanks.

He was very disrespectful many times to myself and others in the 3 battery thread, he kept posting things that were off topic about the large switches for massive DC power, etc. and when I asked how they're relevant, he becomes disrespectful and tells me in an extremely demeaning and condescending way that I have something to learn? That is not a "contributing clear headed" person at all and if you think that is clear-headed, maybe you need to look in the mirror because you have your glasses on backwards. Without you acknowledging any of those disrespectful posts by him to me and others, it seems you just stepped in here in the middle of a conversation and actually do not know the entire context. No - the amount of times he insulted me and others has been too numerous - he should have been banned a long time ago. Plus he kept posting irrelevant nonsense when I asked him to stop posting off topic posts - that is a slap in the face to ask him that and then have him give me the finger because he wants to do things his way??? I'm way too lenient and have received complaints about him wondering why he is still in the forum - same for bistander. The only thing I did wrong was not ban him sooner.

He owes me and other members an apology, not the other way around. Since when it is ok for the provocateur to victimize someone and suddenly, they are the victim? That is not ok cloxxki and I don't appreciate that you believe it is.

With the way he has conducted himself all those times and you have a problem with me even entertaining the possibility of letting him back in? There is something a bit off with that perspective.

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

... What determines the frequency? Size of the rotor. Number of magnets on the rotor, and speed of the rotor. ...

You have a synchronous generator. The frequency is equal to the RPM divided by the number of pole pairs. That yields cycles per minute. Use a factor of 60 seconds/minute to get frequency in units of cycles per second, or Hz. Size of rotor does not appear in the equations. When you use RPM for the "speed of the rotor", size drops out.

Aaron says disagreement is acceptable but he objected to my persistence about proof of claim. So I'm not about to go there. But I remind you that all this mag neutralization, speed-up, cogging, etc is misdirection because it is unrelated to the issue.

bi