The bistander thread

[bistander]

Facts

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]

Truth

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.

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.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12439-re-inventing-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-82.html#post302711

BTW, I wish BM would just go away.

Regards,

bi

And here.

Dave, may I call you Dave?,

if I have just six strands, I can put four in series to increase voltage and leave the other two in parallel to increase the amps. Mix and match to get the most desirable output up to the limit of what the coil is capable of producing.

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]

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]

A True Equal and Opposite Reaction

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]

LED's efficiency exceeds 100%

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]

Waffle.

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]

Pertinent.

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]

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]

Required response

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

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/Coefficient_of_performance

Regards and I hope this addresses your concerns,

bi

[bistander]

Conservation

...
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/chemistry/1977/summary/

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1977/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/chemistry/1977/ceremony-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.
...

...

There is absolutely NOTHING in physics that 'describes in detail" why my generator won't work. There CAN'T be. Because it works.

...

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]

Magmov

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]

Comments

@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]

Silly.

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]

banned

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]

no violation

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.