The ultimate secret of free energy: Split the postive AND the negative

[Jbignes5]

This is the kind of goof-ball response that is completely ridiculous and is
100% proof that you are either not willing or able to comprehend anything
I said. Or, you have some other agenda to post this garbage in order
to disrupt a real conversation. Only a fool will fall for this. You obviously
cannot be taken seriously in an manner whatsoever and I hope that nobody
does.

Compressing the ball is the same as a spring being compressed and as I
said, that is creating a potential difference. It will then rebound, which IS
what it means to return to it's original shape. You obviously choose to
ignore anything that I actually did say.

Again, to infer that I said something as stupid as what you are claiming
is so pathetically laughable that I'm at a loss for words and you obviously
have no idea what COP is even a ratio of - originally intended for heat
systems, it is a proper ratio between all the output work compared to
what we had to pay for. That takes about a 5th graders level of math
in order to divide those two numbers.

That is fine, it goes to show that you blatantly refuse to read anything
I wrote and is a complete waste of time to have any meaning discussion
with you.

Please don't reply to me or make any more reference to me as you are
completely dedicated to twisting my words and misleading people by
making false claims about what I said.

Not that I didn't see that coming Aaron the post I did above is in support that you are not including all the input and are not understanding that the flow that is already there is not associated with you in the least bit. It has a lot to do with the ball which is a converter of that momentum as it hits the ground. If you somehow figured out how to include the ball in your "system", which it is not, then you might be able to claim there is a cop to that "System" COp is directly related to the system you are trying to compare it to a likewise "system"

I also refer you to the definition in which it was intended to compare:

The coefficient of performance, or COP (sometimes CP), of a heat pump is the ratio of the output heat to the supplied work.

You have transposed the ratio and expect it to say the same thing. You have also changed the terms and expect it to mean the same. Obviously when confronted with this you think I am personally attacking you and I am not But you love to insult me don't you. A little holy then though wouldn't you think?

And here is where this comes from:

Coefficient of performance - encyclopedia article about Coefficient of performance.

These definitions are very very specific as to what it is to define and thats the ratio of the output heat when compared to the input of work. Since these type of heating or cooling devices operate on a motion of the fluid inside of a tube it takes a force to move that fluid and pressure as well to get a desired output of heat from that same process to be radiated from the same tubes.

If one was to look at the system of a heat pump one would come to the conclusion that it is a overunity device and I assure you it is not. That input comes from somewhere else and just because you think you caused that energy to form you have very little to do with that other then provide a channel for it to interact with your system if that was the case in the falling ball example you defend so dearly.

The only one who is trying to deceive people or appear to do so is you in my honest opinion. I have merely tried to show you that you are not including all the inputs to that example and then say hey i get more then i personally inputed. Really.. You omit things because we can not currently explain what gravity is and how it operates then say it appears that its output is more then the input which you fail to include the extra input in your computations which I will include for you now as the term (x). So any extra work you perceive actually needs +(x) to the input which should make no more output then is in.

[Slovenia]

Latest PDF Update for This Thread

I have attached the latest PDF update of this thread.

[Aaron]

@Jbigness

If you don't know the simple fact that if I deform the ball that it will return to it's original form when you take the applied pressure off then you are misleading yourself.

This is the kind of goof-ball response that is completely ridiculous and is
100% proof that you are either not willing or able to comprehend anything
I said. Or, you have some other agenda to post this garbage in order
to disrupt a real conversation. Only a fool will fall for this. You obviously
cannot be taken seriously in an manner whatsoever and I hope that nobody
does.

Compressing the ball is the same as a spring being compressed and as I
said, that is creating a potential difference. It will then rebound, which IS
what it means to return to it's original shape. You obviously choose to
ignore anything that I actually did say.

Again, to infer that I said something as stupid as what you are claiming
is so pathetically laughable that I'm at a loss for words and you obviously
have no idea what COP is even a ratio of - originally intended for heat
systems, it is a proper ratio between all the output work compared to
what we had to pay for. That takes about a 5th graders level of math
in order to divide those two numbers.

That is fine, it goes to show that you blatantly refuse to read anything
I wrote and is a complete waste of time to have any meaning discussion
with you.

Please don't reply to me or make any more reference to me as you are
completely dedicated to twisting my words and misleading people by
making false claims about what I said.

[Jbignes5]

here is an interesting read...

Quote "Actually, all electromagnetic devices are drawing energy from the
vacuum (whether the engineers recognize it or not), but that ability is severely limited by the use of symmetric circuits and loading (as prescribed by the revised Maxwell equations) which cancel out much of the source energy."

The reference:

http://www.newenergymovement.org/Electromagnetic_Energy_GrandChallenge_v2.pdf

[Jbignes5]

please Aaron...

If you don't know the simple fact that if I deform the ball that it will return to it's original form when you take the applied pressure off then you are misleading yourself.

You are not the one responsible for that the ball is. And you are not responsible for that structure rebounding back to it's original form and state. Thats very very simple logic. The ball is the ball because of it's composition. It will react to the deformation all on it's own without any input from you or else it would drop and stay where it is with no bounce.

It stores the energy in the deformation of it's structure. In all effect converts it to the deformed state and then converts it back to inertia by the elasticity of the material. These are well know facts.

Again
"By stating that according to me the ball has a cop of infinite if it was
put in space and pushed - that is YOUR explanation and erroneous
interpretation of what I said - not mine."

It is not erroneuos to change the environment the ball is in to see if what is going on is related to the ball or the environment. If the test fails and of course it does in this case then all of what you are seeing is not inputted by you! You failed to include the environmental costs and additional input(environmental) in your calculations. You lump everything together without knowing anything about the whole system.

Lets say that in fact it costs nothing to have the ball travel. but it does count when you have to fight gravity on the way up and get a free push on the way down. If you lump them all together that nets zero or near zero, very little when all the resistances like wind are figured out and fighting gravity where that is plausable.

That is what I have been saying is that the rubber or whatever material the ball is made out of is a very good storage of inertia through the deformation of the balls material. When you deform it, it will push back. This push back is not because of you it is internal to the ball and it only has a capability to convert the forward momentum into potential based on how much that material is deformed.

A little test will prove this. Deform the ball on the ground by 1 joule. Now let it go if you could find a way to do that and see how high does the ball rebound. Certainly not back to your original position. This will give you a litmus test for it's converting ability. And I bet once you know that you can see it's efficiency to change the 1 joule into rebound strength you would throw you analogy out the window.

All you would need to do is apply that efficiency to the first drop and check it. I bet they will match. The ball is probably around 70-90% efficient but with all the other resistances they subtract from the balls new potential point or what it can attain on a rebound. So the cop from the 1 joule mark would in fact be 1 minus resistances of falling through the medium of the environment and subtracting it's less then 100 percent efficiency of converting forward inertia to an opposite inertia.

What it took you to get the ball in the first place to that 1 joule level is nothing but a donation. You have said that the ball does not store the potential which is very true in this case because as balls work you need to have a deformation of the ball to do that.

You are forgetting that you are not connected to the ball at all. Now the ball does bounce according to it's design but that has nothing to do with the 1 joule you inputted. If the ball was attached to the same mechanism you chose to raise it and it did the exact thing then yes you are staying connected and reaping the work. But you are not.

Lets try for another analogy and see if this makes sense to you.

We have a coil. We pulse the coil with real current. What do we get back in the form of emf? Is it the same as you put in? Whaaaa it isn't? Why? It was transformed or converted. When you create a bubble in space and it collapses what is received is pure voltage with very little current... Hmmmm... Or it is very very different then we understand. When we pulse the coil it organizes the field. This organization is current heavy meaning that we are supplying the charges to make the field stronger. On the other hand the natural field or environment is pretty disorganized and not so many charges are there in abundance when compared to our well organized and charge filled supply. What we get back from that field is much different because the charges are not organized and are free flowing. But there is a second half to this natural supply as is in our supply and that is voltage. You ever heard of voltage leads current? thats because it takes some time for the charges to gain the momentum to move if we supply the voltage for an extended time to get it moving. Once moving it self organizes it's path and is attracted to the voltage potential we provide through that organization of the medium.

Now when looking at the pulse we get back it is no where near the time to attract real charges into our coil. The potential that forms from the bemf pulse is very very short in time. Way shorter then would be needed to start a flow of the real charges in the environment around our coil tword that potential. The potential being the difference of the coils ends. One being very positive and one being very negative from the resulting bemf rushing into the coil from the environment.

What if we could maintain the potential or difference of the coil and figure out a way to tap or intercept the charges before it got to that coil. The flow of charges I bet would be so high that streamers would be seen going to the tap or interceptor. This is an environmental reaction of the charges effect as it travels through the medium.

Lets say a tube diode was used because if I am correct the current or real charges would be dense. Since normal means would burn up we need a better capability to separate the charges from the environment when splitting the charges from the voltage potential. Tubes are great for that because they get rid of the environmental losses through a vacuum. Meaning it has less to interact with and can be guided with safety of the components with out interacting with air or other gases as it gets separated.

Now as in the real world if one adds depth to a river it has the ability to channel more away from the source. We need to uncover a spring or something to make the flow never ending or resupply what we take if it has limited ability to do so itself. Well thats a cycle and if we go beyond that cycle it will dry up the lake feeding the river. In this case it is a little different then my example. We have a source and we separate that source from the flow. We still need to maintain that source but not as much if the river was still connected.

This is where is gets mighty different then the example in nature but it has the same effect. We found out that the in of charges of a new cycle were being attracted through our diode. we must now have an out. The original cycle of the lake is through any source of water reaching it. Rain, springs that we added and that maintains the source. but it also radiates water in a cycle. So we can look at it like a resupplying source. The river is a tap of that source and when the condition of that whole system are just right it will last a pretty long time from an already self sufficient source. The out must include the harness or load and the outlet. If we arrange the outlet just right it will create a flow between the inlet and outlet and become self sufficient once a flow is established. So we use one cycle to drive another, all using the environment and our system. The environment has always been the supply of free charges. It is the lake that we live in. The sea of motion.

You want to argue semantic thats fine but the example you gave for that arguement is flawed. It neither describes what cop is or even includes all the variables of the environment. Cop wasn't designed to describe open systems like generating from an already established flow because the input you do not supply.

Lets look at the analogy of the lake again and see what effects or costs are associated with it flow. Since we added more supply by uncovering a spring we have changed the dynamics of that source if we did not balance that alteration by increasing the streams ability to handle the increased flow it would have changed the whole ecology of that established flow or cycle. For miles it would change the environment and destroy wild life and change the whole ecology to get what we want. This is the case for man. Why spend more to make the miles away ecology which is closely tied to that flow not effected by deepening the channel which carries our increased flow. Heck why not just make a dam but that shifts the damage to the lakes environment.

This is what man does. All for the sake of a few dollars. Massive changes in the ecology like that can make a few species move or even die out. Why? Because they don't care about that, all they care about is the potential to make money.

[Aaron]

@jbigness2

You say when the ball hits and deforms it "stores energy". Come on!
That is nonsense! You cannot "store energy", period, ever! Energy is
dissipation and loss in the system. Watt hours on a circuit is energy
and is work and dissipation and loss. You are actually saying that
watts would be storable.

The ball getting compressed is no different than charging an
electromagnetic coil. You are creating a potential difference in it so
that there will be a rebound which can be put back to use and
reestablish another potential difference. And it can do it over and
over and each time there is a small diminishing of the potential
difference (unless we inject only the loss on each cycle and keep the
full amount of work by only paying a small fee of the loss).

If you can send a pulse into a coil and get it to oscillate. The peak is
highest at the start and slowly diminishes on each cycle until it
dwindles down to nothing. This is like common sense for most anyone
looking at waveforms.

I spent a lot of time analyzing the difference between the area of
waveform below the ground line compared to the top. But just looking
at the common sense nature of it, it is roughly 50/50. 50% above
zero and 50% below zero. Obviously a bit less on one side or the other
in reality but for the most part, it is fairly even.

You're only getting a 50% bounce back on each side because it is allowed
to get inversely negative by almost an equal amount but that isn't
going to cut it.

For example, my 40 gram ball only goes 17% negative and not 50%!
So it bounces back up to 83% of the original height on the positive
side of ground!

So you can actually add up a bunch of positive work in the forward
direction from a very small input of the initial lift.

From the BEGINNING OF WORK to the END OF WORK - that is what
defines the system of anything that you put in work and you keep getting
work back over and over until it dwindles down to nothing.

So the entire system encompasses our LIFT and EVERY BOUNCE until
the ball comes rolling to a complete stop. From complete rest to
complete rest. From equilibrium until it reaches equilibrium again.
From the time we pick up the ball from a dead rest on the ground to
a certain height until the balls bounces, rolls and comes to a stop.

EVERY BIT of work there from our lift to the bouncing and rolling of the
ball until it stops is ALL INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF WORK WE DID.
And the ONLY INPUT that is considered in the equation is what did it
take to initiate the system - the lift! That is it.

The entire work done in joules including the lift, every bounce height,
etc... is all considered total work done. Our lift is the ONLY input we
had to expend to get it started. total work divided by our only input
= the cop of the system, period, end of story. The ball is about
a 7.0 cop and there is no amount of fairy dust that will change that.

The only way this idea is wrong is if the math is wrong. The math
is not wrong, it does tell how much is needed to lift the ball to begin
with. What is wrong is the meaning assigned to it in order to keep
everyone hoodwinked to the fact that infinite potential is all around
us all the time but we are normally hypnotized by the misdirection
of the magician who points his hand in one direction while the other
is doing something else. "Move along - nothing to see here folks!"

Misdirection, they're never been able to hide nature from being nature
but they sure can hoodwink the masses by specifically engineering
paradigms that they want the masses to perceive nature by! And ram
it through the very education system that takes money from them
through grants in order to produce stuides that supports the grant
money provider's agenda!

What a racket!

And you say the ball stores the loss and the ball
stores dissipation as it is getting compressed? That is exactly what is
meant by storing energy and you DID say it stores energy when it is
deforming! That isn't happening in this lifetime or the next. There is no
ENERGY being stored. Only dissipation and then a re-establishment of
another potential difference as a FACT. It is like compressing a spring.
You're creating a potential difference. It took WORK to compress it.
Then it gives back work when released for a sum total of more work than
is required to compress it (talking about compression work and work
it gave back - add them up).

The force imparted on the mass of the ball IS the resistance of 16%+
dissipation with my ball. That force creates a potential difference and
it rebounds

As the ball meets resistance, the free gravitational potential is finally
able to encounter real resistance from the ball itself as the ball is
compressed against the ground. All that resistance is
DISSIPATION/WORK/ENERGY. NONE of that is getting stored - it is
dissipated back into the environment/vacuum!

At an 83% rebound height (efficiency of the ball) - 17% is losses.
Probably a fraction of 1% is lost in air resistance at only a height of
a meter. 16%+ some is being LOST (not stored) by the dissipation of
impact of the gravitational potential opposing the now slower moving
mass (protons) of the ball itself.

That impact compresses the ball to a certain degree (100% of
gravitational potential - (minus) the losses of 17%) - meaning the
ball will get compressed to a proportionate degree in order to create
an asymmetrical potential difference (like a compressed spring) that
allows it to rebound to 83% of the previous height we lifted it to!

NOT THE SAME HEIGHT - but 17% less - meaning there is loss and there
is not way the ball is ever going to bounce to the same height or a
higher height!

100% of the potential to cause this ball to come up to 83% of the
height came 100% from FREE from gravitational potential and NONE of it
came from our initial lift. What we put into the initial lift is GONE
when the ball reached its peak or 1 meter in the example given.

If it takes 0.392 to lift it to a meter. The math says it will have 0.392
joules of potential energy at that height. The gravity provides the 0.392
joules of potential and encounters 17% loss on the way down and on impact and
it rebounds to 83% of the 1 meter height or 83 cm.

Your deformation questions are irrelevant and are distracting from the
points I make. You start with 100% of the "potential energy" at any
given height and when you drop it, there is air resistance and impact,
and that takes away from that 100%. Whatever is left will be realized
in the corresponding height that came from the corresponding amount
of compression on the ball. That compression in and of itself is NOT
a loss of energy. Only "energy" was lost during the compression to
establish the potential difference.

And please don't bring up semantics, this isn't a perspective issue, it is
a common sense one.

You say there is no opposition to my input. You have got to be
kidding!!!??

There is the downpushing gravitational potential which causes a REAL
MEASURABLE FORCE on the object as it is lifted against gravity (9.8)
9.8 close to earth anyway.

You take a 40 gram ball and move it against gravity and you have
0.392 N of force and you multiply that force by the height and at
1 meter is 0.392 joules. If you don't understand that it actually takes
joules to lift a ball against gravity and you claim that there is nothing
to oppose my input of lifting the ball, then you need to stop right
there.

You even admit that when I take my hand away I cannot contribute
any more input to the ball. Obviously! So any further work is FREE.

You think you can isolate the rest of the ball's bounces from the initial
input of what we put in? IT IS THE SAME SYSTEM. WORK IS BEING
INSTIGATED AND LEVERAGED BY OUR INITIAL INPUT THAT IS ABOVE
AND BEYOND WHAT WE PUT IN.

Don't try to pretend that on each bounce is it's own system and that
they are all isolated from each other and they're all separate systems
from the input lift to begin with! Didn't you try that before?

You are doing your best to sprinkle pixie dust in people's eyes. I hope
nobody falls for it.

This is not my opinion - you simply need to go do your homework and
stop wasting everyone's time with this total and complete
misinformation. I am posting facts that are substantiated by
not only empirical evidence but is so much peer-reviewed published
academic/scientific literature that I could bury your for years in references
if you had the intellectual honesty to follow up on it and it is all common
sense once the distinctions are pointed out.

@EVERYONE - if you are watching these discussions, please find out
the facts for yourself. Do a simple search and research the keyword
in google for: non-equilibrium thermodynamics

This is what Jbigness is stating:

He claims that all the successive bounces are a separate system
from my input and is therefore disconnected from my input - in a way
that means all the work in the successive bounces can never have
any connection to the input lift.

That means that if you put in 10 joules in an electrical system and
by its nature it gives you 70 joules worth of electrical or mechanical work
that you cannot consider that circuit a cop of 7.0 and it is not producing
more work that you put in to it. That is because he claims that after
you supply a certain input, everything else that happens from that point
cannot be considered as coming from the input!

At perfect efficiency, it would take 745 watts to make 1 horsepower.

So he is saying that if I had some pendulum machine - something in the
spirit of Velijko's oscillator - and it had some kind of pendulum thing that
turned some wheels that turned wheels and turned a motor - and if
I could put a 74.5 watt burning motor on the input and have this
machine amplify it to have a 1 horsepower shaft at the other side -
he is saying that all that pendulum swinging wheel turning stuff is work
but we can't say that the input caused that work.

That is like saying we lift a pendulum and it starts swinging and all those
swings after are a completely different system from our initial lift and
cannon be considered a part of the same system and we cannot make a
ratio (cop) of all those swings in joules compared to the initial input.

And he is saying there is nothing to oppose the initial lift! So there is
no gravity now!

You state clearly:

"How can you include the balls successive bounces if it stops in between each bounce?"

LOL, come on! lol - that is the same thing as when a coil oscillates
and it swings negative. The lowest it goes doesn't have to be zero volts,
it can be negative before it swings positive. But when it hits the
negative voltage in its negative swing, it stops right then just before
it rebounds positive! AND YOU INCLUDE ALL THE OSCILLATIONS!

That is the whole point to "free energy" and over 1.0 cop systems Jbigness!
You can't be serious! That is the whole point - the moment it stops
right before it rebounds is the beginning of the cycle when it "regauges"
itself!

The point to these systems is that we only have to input a very small
amount of work which is intelligently leveraged to keep producing
work in rhythmic impulses over and over and over with each time having
a small diminishing of rebounding because of the losses and between each
cycle, it comes to a dead stop right before it rebounds - COMMON SENSE!

If we don't want to just let it diminish, we then supply only 17% input
when the ball gets to 83% of the original height to bring it back to
1 meter and we can continue that to the end of time and on each cycle
we are are getting as much work back as if we had actually lifted
it to the entire meter again and again and again but only have to lift it
17 cm instead of a meter - to get a meters worth of work over and
over and over! WE ONLY HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS!

[Aaron]

@jbigness

I would say the cop of the ball is 1.

It Stores that energy in a deformation of the balls structure at some point it can not store anymore and rebounds with what it could store in it's structure based on the composition of that material.

There is no outside opposition to your input. Pushing the ball with 1 joule of force will net a never ending journey of the ball. Does that mean you have an infinete cop. Well from your point of view yes and that is wrong.

Raising the ball working against gravity is not imparting an inertia to the ball or anything else for that matter from your own words because it comes to a rest. Anything that happens to the ball afterwards is only the reaction of the environment when the conditions are met, meaning it has to enter that environment. At that point you have separated from the ball you can not impart any more "input" nor can you take away anything and that is because of that separation.

As for the cop and regauging you mention. When the ball hits the surface and gets the deformation, <-storage of energy in it's material, the ball stops. ... Just like it enters the environment the first time this is where it starts again. How can you include the balls successive bounces if it stops in between each bounce? <======= ????????

This is why this example is a poor choice for any cop measurements if cop was related to this at all. For all we know movement of any body in space doesn't cost a thing. The establishment of it's inertia cost everything and you were not responsible for it's acceleration nor it realization of it's potential. The environment is responsible and is the receiver if any gain are to be established which I highly doubt there would be gains because the ball stops eventually.

Hmmm... just read back a lot of pages and I was the one who brought it up Aaron. I am sorry about that. But my arguement is still in play...

Jbigness, you're putting words in my mouth... you really are. You're either
on a mission to misinform everyone or you simply have not been able to
comprehend anything I said.

By stating that according to me the ball has a cop of infinite if it was
put in space and pushed - that is YOUR explanation and erroneous
interpretation of what I said - not mine.

Only if the ball bounced to the same height each time or higher would
the cop move in the direction of infinity and if you think anything I said
has anything to do with that, you're completely mistaken.

I said each successive bounce has 13% dissipation - according to the ball
I used - you are contorting and twisting my words and the context
that I used them in.

I have very, very, very, clearly stated, repeatedly even, that on
each bounce, it goes to a lower and lower height. But each time it
is bounced to any height, it is 100% factual that it requires a certain
amount of work in joules to accomplish each and every lift from the
ground. You cannot argue that fact.

You also cannot argue the fact that if you added up all the joules of
work that the math says is necessary for the weight of the ball to be
lifted against gravity to a certain height, it is MORE than what the
math says is required to lift it initially, period. PROVE IT WRONG.

Post the math, the height of each bounce, etc... just DUPLICATE THE
EXPERIMENT and don't give me your opinion. Post the RESULTS based
on actually doing it, THEN give me your opinion on it and not before
you're actually educated on what we're talking about.

This is because even an open system "contributes to the entropy
of the universe." Each bounce is less and less.

I have even had
someone try to state that if it worked the way I stated that the ball
would bounce higher and higher each time. That just goes to show the
immature level of mental comprehension and if they really are not that
far gone in the mental realm, then they are disinformation specialists
that are simply being overly ridiculous in order to simply make noise and
drown out the facts.

You just have to make up for the losses if you want it to keep performing
the same work for a fraction of what it took to get it going. This is an
indisputable fact.

I argue the points, you are the one that tries to bring me as a person
into the picture. Usually, when someone has nothing of value to add
or say they attack the person. You brought me into the picture and
brought up my book that is "set in stone". As if you had any room
to speak for what my own personal opinion is!

You have no right to claim how or what I think when you can't even
analyze the situation properly. The average person would say you're
talking out your you know what.

Anyone that has my book has read in the very beginning the following
sentence:

"This book is an explanation of my own model of the universe and is
fairly balanced in philosophy and science. It is an exploration in
imagination as well." - page 24

EXPLORATION IN IMAGINATION...

Set in stone huh? I don't know how many hours you spend searching
for things that either validate or destroy your very own belief system but
I actually spend a significant amount of my own time doing just that.

All of this is an exploration in imagination - at least for anyone that has
at least one small iota of honesty within their being. That applies to
EVERYONE.

A portion of my model is inspired by Tom Bearden and if you want to
debate some specifics, I have the references in actual published
academic literature for virtually each and every point and based on your
comprehension of what I have posted, it wouldn't do you any good.

You did insult me Jbignes and there is no way around it and it was
uncalled for. I stuck to the points that you and Lamare are posting
and never even brought YOU up because I do have something to say
about each specific point that is mentioned. I hunt and peck for
line items in people's posts and address each thing with a systematic
logical method (methodological).

You simply cannot post something that is contradictory in nature or
illogical and think it is going to get past the radar.

I admire and respect Lamare. We're on the same page "for the most part"
but there are some technical points that I disagree with and I state why
and have no need to disrespect him as a person. Even though I don't
agree with all his points, what I appreciate most about him and his work
is his excitement and passion - and I consider myself to be extremely
passionate and I think if more people got constructively passionate
about all this, we'd all make this world a better place much faster!

I was admiring your passion and excitement too until you chose to
personally attack me because you disagree with my posts that stick
to the points.

So discuss the points and leave the person out of it - namely me, do not
insult me or pretend you know what ideas I have that are "set in stone"
or anything else about me personally. You really have no idea.

And the reason I bring any of the bouncing ball, cop, etc... examples
are because the moment something is posted and for it to even be a
valid statement or analysis, the very premise of it is going to be based
on having the proper definition of potential and energy. And if I see
something in the explanations that are open for discussion, I'm going
to bring up the distinctions of what potential and energy are in terms
that are rigorously scientific, factual and logical. It only takes intellectual
honesty within a person
to see it, get themselves out of the way and this: res ipsa loquitur, literally.

So to the points - you say the ball is 1.0 COP. That means you get
as much out as you put in and if there are losses, it is made up in
an exact equal part from free environmental input. If you put in 10 joules
then you are saying we'll get 10 joules of work out of it.

Here is an indisputable definition of potential energy of an object at
a height according to conventional science:
The best test preparation for the ... - Google Books

"Thus, a 100kg boulder at the top of a 25 meter high cliff would have
an

(potential E) = (100) (9.8) (25) = 24,500 joules

100 kg X 9.8 gravitational rate X 25 meters = 24,500 joules

That means if that boulder would be dropped, it would perform
24,500 joules of work.

That's nice and everything but if the boulder was sitting on the ground
next to the cliff and the question was asked - "How much work would it
take to lift a 100kg boulder up against gravity to 25 meters?"

The answer would be 100 X 9.8 X 25 meters = 24,500 joules.

Therefore, according to all of this, if I lifted a 100 kg boulder to 25
meters it would REQUIRE 24,500 JOULES IN WORK TO LIFT IT. And if I
let go of this 100kg boulder at 25 meters, it would then give me 24,500
joules of work. I put in 24,500 joules of work and got 24,500 joules
of work worth of lift and when dropping it I got another 24,500 joules
of work for a grand total of 49,000 joules of work. That is a cop of 2.0.

IF and that is only IF the "science" and "math" wants to claim that if
a 100kg object was lifted to 25 meters that it would "store" 24,500 joules
of potential energy and it took me 24,500 to lift it, that means, literally,
that IF there was 24,500 in potential energy when I got it to 25 meters,
IT ACTUALLY TOOK ME ZERO (0 JOULES) OF ENERGY TO LIFT IT TO
BEGIN WITH AND IT GOT TO 25 METERS WITH ZERO LOSS!! lol

That is common sense. The math says it takes X joules to lift an object
to a certain height. IF that is true, then there CANNOT be any further
joules in potential energy available after the lift!!! If there is even 1 joule
of work done AFTER THE BALL REACHED THE PEAK, the math is wrong!

It would then have to be joules to lift + x amount of stored potential and
that would have to be predictable before hand but we don't say up
front it takes such and such to lift it and there will be such and such
amount of work that happens after we let go.

We know for a fact that joules of work is done when we let go of the
object after lifting it into the air. We know for a fact it takes a certain
amount of joules to lift it to begin with. So we know for a fact that more
work is being done than the math says is required to lift the ball to
begin with. And therefore, we know for a fact that there is MORE work
being done by the time the ball rolls to a standstill than was required to
lift it to begin with.

The distinction I lay down is that the math is right! It is correct in
only showing how much it takes to lift it. And AFTER the lift, there is NO NEED
for any of our input to be "stored" - it is pointless and redundant and
I don't think God would create such a blatantly foolish. Instead,
you get the lift from your own labors and FREE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL
comes into the picture to do more joules of work and NONE of that
gravitational potential was supplied by us, it is free from nature.

Again, the LIFT of the ball in and of itself - the LIFT IS THE WORK we
get from the required joules to lift it.

[Jbignes5]

I have stated the case...

If you want to state your case, state it for or against any of the points
that anyone is posting. But don't pretend that you have anything to
teach me when you use a lot of words but say nothing!

I don't need your help and I never asked for your help thank you very
much and if I ever do, I'll ask you for it. I don't need or appreciate your
condescending snide remarks and your holier than thou attitude.

STATE YOUR CASE but leave me out of it!

For example, when I post to Lamare, who actually does describe things,
I argue his points but I leave him out of it. Use your common sense
and decency to do the same.

What does your poor example of "your" definition of cop have anything to do with this topic. There is a thread already started with the exact title and problem you like to site that you authored. Yet here it comes again in a thread that was going along great where you have to put the same example yet again.

I would say the cop of the ball is 1. What gets realized as it drops gets converted very efficiently by the balls material. It Stores that energy in a deformation of the balls structure at some point it can not store anymore and rebounds with what it could store in it's structure based on the composition of that material. You input was to only get it to a desired distance above the ground. Sorry but that was purely donated because as you said it means nothing to the ball. The potential at that point is merely a calculative method that we could predict the outcome if it was to be dropped. Your input has been wasted. What happens to the ball after the point that it disconnects is purely the balls advantage. Since you are not riding in it or on it is pointless.

You are not attached to the ball so no matter how many times that ball bounces it means nothing to what it took to get it to the starting position or even relates to how it transforms the energy it does realize through inertia when it hits the surface into a resulting bounce back up. Did you even test the ball to see how much 1 joule of energy does to deform it and how much it converts that deformation back into it's inertia going the opposite direction?

A better test of your example would be to deform the ball from the ground level and record you results. That way you actually give the energy or impart a potential to the ball itself through the deformation of it's structure and then record your results. Just dropping it into another environment does nothing for your input you suggest you are imparting. Take for instance space outside of our planet. The reason things will go forever in the perfect space is that there are no outside resistances. There is no outside opposition to your input. Pushing the ball with 1 joule of force will net a never ending journey of the ball. Does that mean you have an infinete cop. Well from your point of view yes and that is wrong. When that ball does meet opposition that joule will be less and less as it travels but that does not mean that the inertia you provided gets any bigger in fact it will get smaller. You gave it or imparted it with your joule of energy into inertia of it's mass by pushing it.

Raising the ball working against gravity is not imparting an inertia to the ball or anything else for that matter from your own words because it comes to a rest. Anything that happens to the ball afterwards is only the reaction of the environment when the conditions are met, meaning it has to enter that environment. At that point you have separated from the ball you can not impart any more "input" nor can you take away anything and that is because of that separation.

As for the cop and regauging you mention. When the ball hits the surface and gets the deformation, <-storage of energy in it's material, the ball stops. Meaning it comes to rest in an instance of time after the deformation. This is where you are supposed to reguarge meaning it's potential minus all the resistances(materials, shape, etc.) on the way is the new potential value. Just like it enters the environment the first time this is where it starts again. How can you include the balls successive bounces if it stops in between each bounce?

This is why this example is a poor choice for any cop measurements if cop was related to this at all. For all we know movement of any body in space doesn't cost a thing. The establishment of it's inertia cost everything and you were not responsible for it's acceleration nor it realization of it's potential. The environment is responsible and is the receiver if any gain are to be established which I highly doubt there would be gains because the ball stops eventually.

Aaron as for the comment of holy then though attitudes you might want to look in the mirror. You are not open to new ideas nor are you open to someone suggesting you are in error. If someone points something out to me that I might be in error about I take it with all the intention that the other person suggested it in, in good faith. You on the other hand like to start crap in an unrelated thread which a thread made by you was started already. You want to aregue that then take it to your thread. I did not start this and for some reason you think it is sooo important to bring this bad example up.

Hmmm... just read back a lot of pages and I was the one who brought it up Aaron. I am sorry about that. But my arguement is still in play...

[Aaron]

@jbignes

You know I spent a better part of a week trying to help Aaron understand the concept. Although I was quite young in my quest to figure this natural phenomina out I lacked the full understanding to argue about that poor example. Aaron truly believes that what is our electricity is the same method or composition or process that goes on in nature. It is not the same process and the energy is quite different. It is the unseen process of the electrical that we know and the seen process that happens without plugs in nature.

Take for instance gravity. It does not operate on electricity but somehow we think everything does. The measurements in gravities situation do not convert well to the energy formula's that we have come to understand in our invention of electricity. The concept that bodies in space can have a dual measurement of both the electrical and this unseen cause and effect is most confusing to most who try. They mix terms from one into the other and then when it doesn't compute they modify those terms to fit the example so that it makes sense to them without having to change the methods they currently understand. This is a translation error because they do not see this process and then can not understand the outcome. Instead of trying to understand they do not look at all the examples around them and say we must start over when it does not conform to our current understanding and push their ideas over and over again to somehow show people that what they wrote fits in this context. I assure you they do not. I am sorry that Aaron has wrote in stone his thoughts (e-book) but just because you did does not make it right. Just looking at the natural I know this is wrong.

If you want to state your case, state it for or against any of the points
that anyone is posting. But don't pretend that you have anything to
teach me when you use a lot of words but say nothing!

I don't need your help and I never asked for your help thank you very
much and if I ever do, I'll ask you for it. I don't need or appreciate your
condescending snide remarks and your holier than thou attitude.

STATE YOUR CASE but leave me out of it!

For example, when I post to Lamare, who actually does describe things,
I argue his points but I leave him out of it. Use your common sense
and decency to do the same.

[Aaron]

gravity and electrostatics

gravity is exactly the same as the electric field. It is a standing electrostatic wave, just like the ones you see in the cymatic experiment.

IT IS DYNAMIC, IT FLOWS!!!

And you have to account for that energy flow. It is like the wind blowing along the sail of a boat. When you move the boat against the wind, you have to press against the pressure created by the wind on your sail. But do you store potential energy in the boat by doing that?

So, what is the difference between lifting a ball and moving a sailboat against the wind?

Nothing, really....

So, what is potential energy?
Nothing but a simplification of the energy exchange between an object and a flowing energy source. A simplification that gives nice results, as long as you stay within the limits of the simplification.

Lamare,

Gravity is a "standing electrostatic wave?"

Yes, gravity sure is dynamic but gravity is not in itself electrostatic
even though electrostatics can increase or decrease the effect of
gravity.

The gravitational potential itself is the same "substance" that an electric
field is made of and is the same stuff that a magnetic field is made of.
But gravity isn't electrostatic itself any more that it is magnetic.

When you create an electrostatic potential, you're just having a "static"
potential at the terminals of a dipole completely open - that isn't a "wave".

For example, when
I was doing one test at Peter's it was an attempted replication of
Tay Hee Han's water cell, which splits water by using a high voltage
electrostatic field just sitting there without current flowing. I applied
enough super corona dope to the cell's plates to act as a strong enough
dielectric to restrict about 80,000 volts. Therefore, I can build up the
electrostatic potential at both plates, which had about a 0.5mm gap
and there was 100% current restriction. No spark, nothing, just a sitting
high voltage electrostatic field.

That "field" is composed of vacuum potential which has had its symmetry
broken and had it positive and negative charges separated and polarized,
which then move to their respective terminals at the high voltage side
of the ignition coil.

The gravitational potential is that same vacuum potential, which has been
displaced by the mass of the planet and it is rebounding back to where
it was displaced pushing down on the mass it encounters on the way.
That vacuum potential IS dynamic, yes, and IS flowing, yes, but it is not
an electro"static" standing "wave" itself.

That is like saying scalar wave, which is an oxymoron but it is common
enough that people understand what is being conveyed.

An electrostatic field is made up of the vacuum potential just as the
gravitational potential is the vacuum potential, which is the same stuff
that makes up the magnetic field of a magnet.

Now an electrostatic field for a fact can reduce the downward push of
the gravitational potential. If you apply a very high voltage + to the
top of an aluminum shell, the shell will rise against gravity. This is
because the high voltage positive which is made up of polarized and
concentrated positive charges from the vacuum to begin with and these
repel the downward moving positive charges of the gravitational potential
deflecting them AROUND the shell of the shell instead of letting them
push down on the mass that makes up the shell meaning there is less
push on the mass of the shell meaning it will weight less and will
reduce weight or lift in the direction of the + on the shell.

The effect is two fold. The deflected aether around the shell plus the
atomic matrix of the material of non-ferrous metals can polarize to give
less restrictive channels through the material for aether to flow. But that
is another topic and can be done with microwaves as well.

When you say this:

"So, what is potential energy?
Nothing but a simplification of the energy exchange between an object and a flowing energy source."

Potential energy means the potential for energy to be exhibited, which
is work but is not work in and of itself. Work has not been accomplished
yet.

When there is that "energy exchange", it is the object encountering
resistance to the gravitational potential for example and that is work
and that is loss or dissipation. But during the activity of working by
producing losses and dissipation, it is no longer potential energy but
energy. We can point at it and say the potential is now being energetic
but is no longer potential (at the points of dissipation).

Energy/loss/dissipation/resistance = source charge becomes disordered

It is either in a state of potential (non work) or it is in a state of energy,
which is the potential meeting a resistance but it is not and cannot be
both "potential energy" it is a contradiction. It is a contradiction if using
it to describe the work part of the process but you can say "potential
energy" to describe energy that has not manifested yet.

So if there is no interaction that happened yet, it can be potential energy
or a potential for energy to exist. But when there is interaction between
potential and a mass and there is resistance, you can say there is energy
being exhibited - it is no longer potential at that point, it is actual work
in and of itself.

The wind hitting the sail is Tom Bearden's analogy and goes to show
that the ENTIRE flow is the Heaviside flow of vacuum potential flowing
over the wire. And what is known as the Poynting flow is only the part
that hits the sail.

The Poynting flow is taught as being all the potential
there is even though it is a very small speck in a cross section of time
and they call that all the potential. When in reality, the Heaviside flow
is like the wind, which is really all the potential flowing over a wire
even though 1/11 trillionths or so is what gets attracted to the electrons
into the wire pulling the electrons out of orbit causing them to do their
couple inches per hour jiggle dance towards the positive terminal.

The textbooks claim that the only potential there is - is that small
sliver of the Heaviside flow while pretending that all the rest of the flow
is insignificant just because it isn't being put to use. It isn't being used
so lets stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist - that
is the logic used by conventional academics and is evidenced by the
pure unadulterated junk in the textbooks.

So, the Heaviside flow is all the wind and the Poynting flow is that
small sliver that happens to be hitting the sail.

Now if you're moving against the wind in a boat, there is dissipation, but
thankfully, the wind may keep blowing regardless of how much your
sail is being put to work.

My only experience with a sail on the water is windsurfing once in
Half Moon Bay in Montego Bay, Jamaica - BEAUTIFUL! So, I'm an absolute
novice with a sail and the wind - however, I get the common sense
concept of how to propel forward against the wind so forgive the following
description since I have none of the sailing jargon.

When you power the sail with your input by moving it appropriately in
relation to the wind, that wind is free for sure, no question about it,
but at end, I was WORE out! That means I was NOT getting a free
ride.

If we drifted with the wind, we're using
"free energy" from nature. But if we're moving against it direct or at
whatever angle, it is anything but free! It is a direct resistance to
the work we intend to accomplish and there is no potential difference
that is repeatedly being established.

IF you could initially turn the sail so that you start to go and then you
could let go and the pressure against the sail could somehow feed a
mechanism that would constantly and FREELY regauge itself or turn the
sail back and forth a bit in a rhythm to pick up speed and drop and
pick up speed and drop all by itself because it is intrinsic in the design,
then I would agree with you that it is the same as the bouncing ball
analogy but until then, it is completely different.

The boat wouldn't have to do it nonstop all by itself in order to qualify
as using the wind to propel an object against itself. If you put in certain
work and got it going to max speed you let go and from that point,
the sail was adjusted back and forth but each time it dwindled down,
that is fine, because you're getting more work in movement of the boat
than what you contributed and that would be a true non-equilibrium
system that can regauge itself or reset it's own potential difference at
any given moment.

Now if a ball fell without ever hitting the ground, that would be like wind
hitting a sail where the boat drifts with the wind.

I haven't thought much about it before, but it is only a matter of creativity
to have some kind of Velijko type mechanism connected to a sailing
structure to accomplish just this. Yes, it still requires some periodic
input but is over 1.0 cop.

[Slovenia]

Eric Dollard Document Collection

Hi Lamare,

Thanks for sharing your wonderful Eric Dollard document collection. There are some fantastic entries there and it's all in one place.

Best Regards,
Slovenia

[Jbignes5]

I refuse to get into this argument..

You know I spent a better part of a week trying to help Aaron understand the concept. Although I was quite young in my quest to figure this natural phenomina out I lacked the full understanding to argue about that poor example. Aaron truly believes that what is our electricity is the same method or composition or process that goes on in nature. It is not the same process and the energy is quite different. It is the unseen process of the electrical that we know and the seen process that happens without plugs in nature.

Take for instance gravity. It does not operate on electricity but somehow we think everything does. The measurements in gravities situation do not convert well to the energy formula's that we have come to understand in our invention of electricity. The concept that bodies in space can have a dual measurement of both the electrical and this unseen cause and effect is most confusing to most who try. They mix terms from one into the other and then when it doesn't compute they modify those terms to fit the example so that it makes sense to them without having to change the methods they currently understand. This is a translation error because they do not see this process and then can not understand the outcome. Instead of trying to understand they do not look at all the examples around them and say we must start over when it does not conform to our current understanding and push their ideas over and over again to somehow show people that what they wrote fits in this context. I assure you they do not. I am sorry that Aaron has wrote in stone his thoughts (e-book) but just because you did does not make it right. Just looking at the natural I know this is wrong.

Again I will refer to Tesla: "What I strove for seemed unattainable, but a kind fate favored me and a few inspired experiments lifted the veil. It was a revelation wonderful and incredible explaining many mysteries of nature and disclosing as in a lightening flash the illusionary character of some modem theories incidentally also bearing out the universal truth of the above axiom."

"In his experiments he dwells first on some phenomena produced by electrostatic force, which he considers in the light of modern theories to be the most important force in nature for us to investigate. At the very outset he shows a strikingly novel experiment illustrating the effect of a rapidly varying electrostatic force in a gaseous medium, by touching with one hand one of the terminals of a 200,000 volt transformer and bringing then other hand to the opposite terminal. The powerful streamers which issued from his hand and astonished his audiences formed a capital illustration of some of the views advanced, and afforded Mr. Tesla an opportunity of pointing out the true reasons why, with these currents, such an amount of energy can be passed through the body with impunity. He then showed by experiment the difference between a steady and a rapidly varying force upon the dielectric. This difference is most strikingly illustrated in the experiment in which a bulb attached to the end of a wire in connection with one of the terminals of the transformer is ruptured, although all extraneous bodies are remote from the bulb. He next illustrates how mechanical motions are produced by a varying electrostatic force acting through a gaseous medium. The importance of the action of the air is particularly illustrated by an interesting experiment."

These were written from lab notes of actual experiments. Why are we going down the same road when it has been done for us. We have the direction, it was given to us. All we need to do is do the same thing and listen, watch and record the results. If one looked at the all of the experiments of Dollard or who ever one can see that these were already done and a basic explanation of the cause and effects were already suggested by a man that lived over 100 years ago. Again it has been done, the ground work has been laid and yet we cling to later descriptions of a system created by the same man and later discounted as being most unnatural when he realized that it isn't how nature operates.

I'll give you the link to all of Tesla's writings for reference. It's not a complete account but I have found it a most enlightening read.

Selected Tesla Writings -- Table of Contents

I can't wait to get access to the undisclosed writings that are now in his museum. What a treasure....

[lamare]

Hi all,

I posted a little comment on Royal Dutch Shell plc.com :

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

I must stress that this is a work in progress, but the basic stuff is there for everyone to see, for free. No strings attached.

May become interesting:
royaldutchshellplc.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

royaldutchshellplc.com is a Royal Dutch Shell gripe site and blog operated by Alfred and John Donovan, who engaged in several marketing campaigns with Shell during the 1980s and early 1990s. The father and son duo believe Shell violated intellectual property agreements and filed several law suits against Shell prior to starting several websites critical of Shell, including royaldutchshellplc.com. The site has been oft quoted in news sources and is known for its activities as an Internet leak and forum for Shell whistleblowers.

Update:

Zoinks! - I'm now at the front page:
Royal Dutch Shell plc .com


"IS THIS A HOAX?" they ask.
No, it is not.

[lamare]

And everything would "wind down" if there was the transformation you
talk about because it does not allow for extra external input into the
system. It sustains for the fact that the potential differences are
constantly being re-established over and over on each cycle. The
"transformation" of the SAME energy from one form to another leads to
non stop dissipation without allowing the system to "re-gauge" itself to
to speak.

If you lift the ball 5 feet in the air, it is claimed that you are storing
potential in the ball and when you let go of the ball, you only get out
what you store in it.

If you lift a 40 gram ball for example to 1 meter, it requires 0.392 joules
to lift it to that height. And according to conventional wisdwom, you can
only get out of the system what you put in.

However, if the ball hits the ground and bounces up to 83 cm (83% of
the 1 meter), it required 0.325 joules to lift that same ball to 83% of the
height, which is 83% of the initial joules required to lift it to 1 meter.

On the second bounce, if it goes 83% of the 83cm, it will rise to 69 cm.
It requires 0.270 joules to lift it to 69 cm.

The first bounce of the ball required 0.325 joules to get it to 83cm.
The 2nd bounce of the ball required 0.270 joules to get it to 69cm.
The total joules of measurable actual lifting work done on the 1st and 2nd
bounce is 0.595 joules.

It only required 0.392 to lift it initially to the 1 meter yet 0.595 joules
of work were done on the 2nd and third bounce.

When they say you get out what you put in - you get out x amount based
on the potential you store in to the system. Well, it's bogus.
What you get out of your own input of 0.392 joules of work to lift it to
a meter IS THE ACTUAL LIFTING OF THE BALL ITSELF. And at that point,
all your input is GONE - dissipated - back into the vacuum.

IMHO, what you miss here is the realisation that gravity is exactly the same as the electric field. It is a standing electrostatic wave, just like the ones you see in the cymatic experiment.

IT IS DYNAMIC, IT FLOWS!!!

And you have to account for that energy flow. It is like the wind blowing along the sail of a boat. When you move the boat against the wind, you have to press against the pressure created by the wind on your sail. But do you store potential energy in the boat by doing that?

So, what is the difference between lifting a ball and moving a sailboat against the wind?

Nothing, really....

So, what is potential energy?
Nothing but a simplification of the energy exchange between an object and a flowing energy source. A simplification that gives nice results, as long as you stay within the limits of the simplification.

But don't tell me the energy (which isn't even a thing it is an adjective to describe potential moving from one potential difference to another while having losses along the way) - the energy itself is not undergoing a change from one form to another.

In one way, it does. It changes from flowing ether, electrostatic energy, into the movement of the ball, kinetic energy.
In another, it doesn't, cause the ball is matter, which is nothing but localized electromagnetic waves on a pile, which is nothing but flowing ether. So, the flowing energy contained in the "external" ether (with respect to the ball) is transferred into the a change of the movements of the "internal" ether of which the ball consists.

[lamare]

I'll leave you with this quote from Eric Dollard:

"There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energyE is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency" - Eric Dollard

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

You may be right and Eric Dollard may be wrong, but my money is on
Eric Dollard and others that have a clear insight into how invalid
conservation of energy is.

For those interested, this is where you can find this quote:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/1631-peter-whatever-happened-eric-p-dollard-3.html#post90090

Further, I have uploaded everything I could my hands on about Eric Dollard to my website: Bestandsoverzicht van /pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/


Let me add that the fact that units exist that produce electric energy seemingly out of nothing does not mean that the law of conservation of energy does not hold. It may just as well mean that you just haven't identified the real source of your energy. For the time being, I am pretty confident the law of conservation of energy is valid, which could mean that Eric missed what Turtur has calculated and that is that the electric field continously exchanges energy with the vacuum. I do agree that there is no matter - energy equivalent. Matter is nothing but an electromagnetic wave and gravity is nothing but an electrostatic phenomenon. All the energy resides in the ether, in the shape of the electric and magnetic fields.

Let me also add that given the posts in this thread that suggest that we are probably dealing with a fractal-like reality, we should be able to consider every level of reality according to the same laws of physics. The ether is the same kind of thing as matter is, which happens to have fluid like characteristiscs in this part of the universe. Now if the law of conservation holds on the level of galaxies, planets down to normal mechanics and chemistry, then if we are dealing with a fractal like reality, it should also hold on the small scales. I just don't see why wave phenomena at macro scale should behave differently then on ether scale.

Now that does not mean I am not open for arguments, but so far, I am not convinced at all the law of conservation of energy is flawed. You just have to make sure you identify *all* energy flows at hand.