Thermodynamics

[LetsReplicate]

*sigh* another 3 long winded posts of pure rhetoric and ad hominem attacks against the wrong target... You are truly a master.

You managed to find the About page yet you refuse to believe I exist just because my name doesn't fit into your narrow belief structure? Typical of a charlatan, and it shows ignorance to unique ideas.

^.^ (pronounced “Pie”)

Trained in electronics and telecommunications, ^.^ was summoned from the darkest abyss of the Internet to explain “free energy” in a realistic, achievable way and put to rest the rumors spread by the many charlatans.

I am in charge of the technical information on Let's Replicate. I'm a counter-troll that fights "troll physics" (incorrect claims that don't match reality), I enjoy spirited, intelligent debate, the peer review process, and talking to people that aren't lost in a world of fantasy. I've built many working and non-working replications of assorted interesting, but predictable devices in the past and noticed that there was nowhere online where people could post them that they would always remain up and not be buried in forum threads, or lost in the bowels of YouTube with far fewer views than they deserve. Diana has asked to to attempt to remain "as civil as possible" when representing Let's Replicate publicly because I represent the entire staff, which I am trying hard to accomplish but makes me frustrated when dealing with trolls due to the pointless ad hominem attacks.

It is quite impossible to find out information about me that I don't provide since Goolgeing ^.^ is not permitted due to the limitations of search engine programing: one of many factors in my choice of the name. I don't seek recognition for my work; and I don't don't care about money: ideas are the real wealth, and the working ones need to be disseminated in a better way than they currently are.

I'm not a carpenter: I do industrial design engineering. That means I work primarily in a 4-dimensional visual environment (CAD, or my own head: both work because I've been doing this for long enough) to solve engineering problems so that the problem can be solved in real life. So if a person can give me a "visual equation" (which includes text, diagrams, schematics, any math equation, and some chemistry equations) for what they are trying to build/do, I can "see" (hard to describe how it works, but it's awesome) how to build it. Most of the time I don't need to "scribble out equations" either because I can "see" them working, but I am aware that it is sometimes a very necessary part of the process and I know that ignoring an aspect of reality does not make it go away. If it looks like a nail to me, you must have been talking about nails.

I have built many circuits, the picture below was built when I was in school for electronics engineering, it is the alpha prototype for a small signal digital oscilloscope that I designed and build myself. The wires are color coded by standard conventions and circuit area (yellow - input/calibration, blue - AtoD, orange - 16 bit bus, white - display). The maximum sample frequency of the design was up as high as 16Mhz but had to be cut back when the LED display was replaced with a microprocessor for the beta. The prototype was so awesome that it was featured in the school's "technology fair" which normally only featured "finished" projects. I never had the heart to destroy it to get the breadboard back (I just bought more), so it's just sitting in a drawer now.


On that note: I used to design biomass boilers and furnaces, which sometimes included heat pumps for air conditioning. At the time I was working with a heating engineer who would do all the heating/cooling energy calculations, but I did pick a little of it up. So, let's talk about why you have an neither an "apple" (Btu) nor an "orange" (joule):

• You don't give your starting or ending ambient temperature, nor do you provide a stable ambient air temperature for all of your data points.
• You don't provide accurate times for the cooling to allow energy calculation.
• You don't give the thermal mass of your probe.
• Air has a MUCH lower heat capacity than water and air circulation adds measurement error.

A "degree" is not an apple when it comes to heating or cooling, a Btu is:

The British thermal unit (symbol Btu or sometimes BTU) is a traditional unit of energy equal to about 1055 joules. It is approximately the amount of energy needed to heat 1 pound (0.454 kg) of water, which is exactly one tenth of a UK gallon or about 0.1198 US gallons, from 39°F to 40°F (3.8°C to 4.4°C).[1] The unit is most often used in the power, steam generation, heating and air conditioning industries. In scientific contexts the Btu has largely been replaced by the SI unit of energy, the joule, though it may be used as a measure of agricultural energy production (Btu/kg). It is still used unofficially in metric English-speaking countries (such as Canada), and remains the standard unit of classification for air conditioning units manufactured and sold in many non-English-speaking metric countries.

If you can't tell me how many Btus/joules of cooling you have, then you don't have any. Your claim is an anecdote, not fact (regardless of how many people that you claim saw it happen). So I say again, how many joules of cooling did you have? Your claim is that you have a "heat suction" (cooling) and are using it to produce electricity. I'm asking you to prove the cooling effect by use of a simple, standard test. That is not unreasonable and your staunch avoidance of a simple request is evidence that you probably don't have any "real" cooling because there is no logical reason why you would refuse the test if your claim is true. This a is major issue because unless you can prove the cooling, the extra electrical energy was likely from stray emf.

To answer your list:

1. Technically all systems are "open" by the classical definition. That allows for insufficient classification though, so if you want to say that: "a closed system is not designed to make practical use of environmental input while an open one is", that's fine with me. That does mean then that the in your example of the bouncing ball, it is a "closed" system then. The IDEA of the ball bouncing is an open system, in the example, it's a closed system.
2. Yup, that's right based on your explanation of "open dissipative systems". You said that they "avoid thermodynamic equilibrium", which is not the proper definition, but I'm willing to try to work within your understanding.
3. The force of earth's gravity being reduced to the acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 assumes it has a stable effect on the system at all times. Is is the means that potential energy is converted to kinetic and back again, but it is not an energy input per se. It is a derivative of force, not a force itself.
4. The ball does not normally leave it's equilibrium state (stationary) unless there is an an explicit energy input. For the ball to proceed into oscillation on its own ("avoid thermodynamic equilibrium"), the ground would have to be shaking or there would have to be some other sporadic energy input that is not disruptive to the oscillation but adds to or maintains it. That is an environmental input.
5. The universe contains its own "time" dimension, the universe will end when time does. The arrow of time is actually in reverse: the "past" is really the "future" so the universe is actually contracting in reverse.
6. Short answer yes with an "if", long answer no with a "but".
7. The simplified physics equations already account for gravity's ability to convert potential energy to kinetic energy. Ek = -Ep
8. The acceleration due to the aether rushing into and passed the ball is a "constant". Aether itself doesn't "contain" energy that can be passed to other objects, it is a vortexing downward current (like water draining out of a tank) that has its own momentum but does not have "electrical potential". It's hard to describe in words because people nit-pick the words used to describe the effect.

"Time" (t) = 0sec "when you drop the ball" because the ball has no kinetic energy at the moment it is dropped. You also don't specify how long it takes you to lift the ball in the example, or how long you held it for both of which make the initial lift work immaterial to the example. The ball could have been created on top of a 1m table and then fallen off to provide the same results.

I was
very competent in advanced calculus 20 years ago in college and I
thank God that I never used it as a crutch to figure things out or else
I would be handicapped beyond belief in terms of building things that work.

That's funny because what you are trying to do then is reject math entirely and "guess" your way to the answer. Doing that often leads to confirmation biases because you can not "check" your experiment using math. What makes you any more right then the nut-job who believes in the "time cube"? At least he has his own poorly derived math to prop up his argument. You are arguing the equivalent of the moon being made of cheese despite there being evidence to the contrary, as I've previously stated.

In order to reject the two-vector calculus that resulted from the Lorentz transformation of Heaviside's simplification of Maxwell's work, you'd need to understand the four-vector calculus that Maxwell was doing. I can assure you that four-vector calculus with "mixed observer" references that can't be reconciled with each other make Maxwell's math brain-bendingly non-intuitive for even the most seasoned mathematicians. Maxwell begin his work based entirely on trying to understand experimental data of Faraday. At least with two-vector calculus everything can be simplified to a single 2 dimensional graph with a common starting point.

"Advanced calculus" is a joke. When you can show that you know how to Laplace transform an LCR circuit diagram in order to produce the transient equations and accurately predict how it will react to a non-standard signal input within experimental error: I'll be more inclined to believe you understand the ramifications of multi-vector math. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong and the fact that it matches reality and is consistently verified by experiment proves it right. If even a single experiment is performed that doesn't match the math for it, new math is written to account for it: that's how people get themselves a Nobel Prize. The system works well in this regard.

If you somehow think that the equations you guess into existence better describe reality than engineering equations, by all means provide your mathematical proof. Geoff and I are capable of certifying its accuracy and bringing it to the attention of many engineers if it's right. Surely you will win a Nobel Prize for completely eliminating the need for calculus in the fields of engineering world-wide.

I'll let Geoff know you hold him in high regard while having utter disrespect for his hard-earned credentials and experience. We have other staff on Let's Replicate that are not currently listed on the about page, a few are engineers, many decline to provide their names due to the expectation of "free energy" troll attacks very similar to what you are trying to do to Geoff right now. As the owner of the forum wanting actual experts on a topics to provide any incite at all, you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm sure Geoff would be less inclined to post here himself due to these insults.

[OrionLightShip]

Funny how all of my threads end up in misplaced insults, bouncing balls, refrigerators, and magic coils that I will never prove myself worthy of seeing.

Even better, I don't have to be here for it to happen! My gratitude to LetsReplicate even if their words and efforts will never open an ear canal. There are those here, besides me and LetsReplicate who know but don't want to subject themselves, to endless circular logic and time wasted reading and typing. I know I am done with it, but I felt compelled to write this one last wasted bit.

You run a forum with good people doing open source work, while you wish to keep your work to yourself because someone once took your idea from you. Is that not what we are here for, to share our ideas and successes in hopes someone else will improve on it? You lament about not receiving credit for that stolen idea. Perhaps you didn't receive credit because you held the idea too closely. All that is needed is to publish it here first and the credit is yours. No one here is a thief.

You made claims to me that you could produce great results, then say I read that into your words and that really; someone else did the ten degree Fahrenheit magic. That's fine, language is always a problem. Then you suggest that I go spend thousands of hours to duplicate your work if I wanted to see it because of all the "tuning" required. Now you have told LetsReplicate that you have something so simple you could release that people won't believe it. Is that because during my attempts at a logical discussion with you; I did not prove myself worthy of that new bit of information? Does that mean you consider LetsReplicate to be smarter and better qualified than I to receive that bit of news?
Curse you LetsReplicate.

There is a huge disconnect here Aaron. If you believe you have something like proof of broken universal laws or proof of the Aether, then you should publish and have independent testing and peer review. That is how one receives credit for discovery, not holding it tightly to one's chest while repeatedly making claims and saying no one is qualified to measure the end result.

Orion

[Aaron]

@Orion

You run a forum with good people doing open source work, while you wish to keep your work to yourself because someone once took your idea from you.

I already told you the inductive resistor circuits are in this forum - go build them yourself.

[OrionLightShip]

I already told you the inductive resistor circuits are in this forum - go build them yourself.

Finally, a concise statement with accuracy and precision. Thank you. Eric will be happy this pointless discussion has ended.

[Aaron]

bogus classical "qualifications"

To answer your list:

1. Technically all systems are "open" by the classical definition. That allows for insufficient classification though, so if you want to say that: "a closed system is not designed to make practical use of environmental input while an open one is", that's fine with me. That does mean then that the in your example of the bouncing ball, it is a "closed" system then. The IDEA of the ball bouncing is an open system, in the example, it's a closed system.
2. Yup, that's right based on your explanation of "open dissipative systems". You said that they "avoid thermodynamic equilibrium", which is not the proper definition, but I'm willing to try to work within your understanding.
3. The force of earth's gravity being reduced to the acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 assumes it has a stable effect on the system at all times. Is is the means that potential energy is converted to kinetic and back again, but it is not an energy input per se. It is a derivative of force, not a force itself.
4. The ball does not normally leave it's equilibrium state (stationary) unless there is an an explicit energy input. For the ball to proceed into oscillation on its own ("avoid thermodynamic equilibrium"), the ground would have to be shaking or there would have to be some other sporadic energy input that is not disruptive to the oscillation but adds to or maintains it. That is an environmental input.
5. The universe contains its own "time" dimension, the universe will end when time does. The arrow of time is actually in reverse: the "past" is really the "future" so the universe is actually contracting in reverse.
6. Short answer yes with an "if", long answer no with a "but".
7. The simplified physics equations already account for gravity's ability to convert potential energy to kinetic energy. Ek = -Ep
8. The acceleration due to the aether rushing into and passed the ball is a "constant". Aether itself doesn't "contain" energy that can be passed to other objects, it is a vortexing downward current (like water draining out of a tank) that has its own momentum but does not have "electrical potential". It's hard to describe in words because people nit-pick the words used to describe the effect.

"Time" (t) = 0sec "when you drop the ball" because the ball has no kinetic energy at the moment it is dropped. You also don't specify how long it takes you to lift the ball in the example, or how long you held it for both of which make the initial lift work immaterial to the example. The ball could have been created on top of a 1m table and then fallen off to provide the same results.

Staff for an advertising blog? lol - ok, You hide behind a username

You conveniently gloss over and ignore 8 example of false arguments
that you made proving that you misunderstood, were unable to comprehend
or are intentionally making a false argument to manipulate others into
thinking I am saying something different that what I actually did.

Another false argument: "what you are trying to do then is reject math entirely and "guess" your way to the answer."

I never rejected math. I said concepts can be understood without having to express it mathematically. Your false argument only serves one purpose and that is to have people that aren't paying attention think "Wow, he rejects math?" You are manipulating people by doing this. Please stop this nonsense.

You said there isn't any cooling if you don't state how many btu's are involved. To detect that something is cooling is different than how much energy is involved with the cooling. I have countless graphs of the data on the inductive resistor experiments - there is cooling and no amount of troll sleight of hand will change that.

You can put a thermometer in a glass of boiling water and then put it
in a fridge and I can guarantee that a 5 year old can tell you there is a
temperature drop without being able to add 1 and 1. According to you
the child cannot claim there is a temperature drop because he doesn't
spell out in an equation to you how many btu's were involved. The child isn't claiming how much energy is involved in the temperature drop - he is only showing the level of the temperature drop.

More FALSE ARGUMENTS: "because the ball has no kinetic energy at the moment it is dropped. You also don't specify how long it takes you to lift the ball in the example

I never said the ball has kinetic energy the moment it is dropped. But by trying to counter me with that kind of argument, you are manipulating people into thinking I said that.

I clearly stated in my examples repeatedly that the ball is lifted 1 meter and that this is the input work we put into the system.

It is completely laughable that you ignore this. And how long it is held there is irrelevant because it doesn't change the height at which the ball is dropped from. The height and weight of the ball and the ball's recovery efficiency in Earth's gravity are the 4 main relevant factors to know how much energy is possible to be dissipated (work = energy) upon impact.

The impact energy is not in the ball, it comes from the environmental gravitational potential - if there is no resistance on the ball there isn't any energy.

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment. It applies rigorously to molecules and atoms as well as the largest heavenly bodies and to all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate disintegration." Nikola Tesla

How long it takes to lift the ball? Can you spell out how this changes the
amount of work needed to lift the ball? It can take 1 second or 1 year,
the amount of work the ball experiences will be the same.

Saying the results are the same if it fell of the table is another FALSE ARGUMENT - you are setting a record. That implies I am saying that there would be a difference if it was lifted or if it fell of the table. You are trying to hoodwink people with your stage magic while you have one hand waiving in the other direction while you're doing something else with the other.

Your attempt here takes the attention away from the point of the argument and that is the total work done compared to how much work was input to LIFT the ball - after it is dropped, we are not putting anything else into it. Trying to make an argument about the ball rolling off a table is proof that if there is a charlatan around here, it is you - the real troll.

The argument is input lift work compared to total amount of work done by the time the ball drops. Your belief of what the answer is and even mine is 100% irrelevant to the fact that THIS IS what the argument is about. Please leave your sleight of hand stage tricks in the circus tent where they belong.

And to clarify my perspective - the ball has no kinetic energy the moment
it is dropped - nor does it have kinetic energy during the fall! It is
irrelevant if you disagree or not. No, this does not mean I am automatically
right but you can't even debate me if you can't even follow simple logic
of what I am arguing. Bringing up what the formula says only proves you don't know how to listen to anything because you can't even see my argument in its entirety - that is your downfall and why you haven't succeeded in successfully building anything demonstrating "overunity". You are defeated before you begin.

Even this simple device is overunity and you're not qualified to even know why:



Gravitational potential is available as potential input into an open system such as a bouncing ball. You are so resistant to believe this - that is fine. The reason is clear. If gravitational potential is an admitted source of potential that can be used to cause work, then it yanks the rug out from under your entire house of cards and supports everything I say - it is your kryptonite.

It yanks the rug out from under conservation of energy, etc... the list is very, very long.

[Aaron]

bogus classical "qualifications" 2

I have DEFINED energy as being the active process of potential disordering
through dissipation (mass encountering resistance). You said you disagree
with that definition - whether you agree or not is irrelevant. Again,
doesn't mean I'm automatically right but you have to look at the context
that I am explaining everything and not argue what I say out of context
by selectively nibbling at bits and pieces - while never even seeing the
whole picture. Your method of argument is to grab the elephants leg and using that as the sole basis to describe the whole elephant.

Therefore, based on my definition, I am correct that there is no kinetic
energy in a ball falling. There is work done in a ball being
lifted since it is resisting gravity. But on the fall, the ball is motionless
relative to the downward flow of the aether. Relative to the downward
push of the aether (gravity), the ball is in complete equilibrium with the
gravitational potential.

There is no kinetic energy in the falling ball - there is however potential - potential being the max amount of work that could be performed
by the falling object once the mass of the ball encounters any resistance,
which will then allow work (energy) to be done by having the gravitational
potential at that moment be able to impart a push with a net positive
force (resistance) on the mass of the ball against the ground and the potential is then
dissipated to a certain degree from that push on the ball against the ground. That is where the potential to cause the work (energy) comes from (when dissipation is happening).

The amount of potential work that can happen on the impact + the next
upward bounce is described by the SAME formula mgh. But at the end of the next peak the ball comes to, all that potential has been completely dissipated and a new potential difference is created (height) which the same formula will show how much potential work is available for the next cycle based on the height of that particular peak.

I am not mixing potential with actual work. You however are stating there is energy when there is not.

And you believe as all classical thinking skeptics do that on the initial lift at 1 meter, you think the joules of potential work indicated will show how much potential work will happen for every single bit of work until the ball stops moving. I have no problem with the fact that this is what you believe and I understand your argument for it - and I realize it is based on the fact that you believe gravity cannot contribute any potential into the ball as it is bouncing. You claim a bouncing ball is a closed system. The world you live in is dead and unable to contribute work.

It should be clear, despite your mutliple false arguments (up to maybe over a dozen of them by now) - my belief is that gravity DOES input more potential into the system as I recognize that the bouncing ball is OPEN with its environment and can receive gravitational potential to do more work that delays equilibrium. Hence - the bouncing ball being an open dissipative system. The world I live in is alive, dynamic and can contribute potential to open systems.

You have to actually use the definitions of energy and potential that describe reality and your classical definitions do not do that. They are the same smoke and mirror dog and pony show that has been used for years to hoodwink the masses so that people are completely blind to the fact that there is unlimited potential all around us to do work.

By sprinkling pixie dusts in people's eyes so they are blinded to the fact that potential such as gravitational potential is environmental input, which the classical view supports a static gravitational "field"... you are a very confused person. Your analysis supports a static gravitational "field" - yet you agree gravity comes from the aether that is moving down. Yet you claim that the aether can't cause resistance on an object. Based on what you have admitted, there can be no gravity or inertia!
.
Potential defined: the aether is unpolarized potential - this is the source
of all potential. It is unpolarized because both the negative and positive
"charges" of the aether are in an equilibrium - like a homogenous neutral
gas.

As the ball falls, the ball only experiences a push on its mass by the aether
when the ground resists its movement. At that point, the flow of
gravitational potential, the positive component of the aether imparts an
an electrostatic push on the protons that make up the mass of the atoms
of the ball since it is no longer in freefall equilibrium with the aether.

What this means is that no work is being done while the ball is falling.
The only work that would be done is against the air resistance for example.
And as energy is defined as the process of dissipation of potential, the
ball is not dissipating gravitational potential while it is falling, therefore
there is no kinetic energy "in" the ball while it is falling.

Thank you for answering those 8 points. For the most part you answered them and I appreciate the fact you have the courage to admit that you believe a bouncing ball is a closed system that can receive no environmental input from gravity. I have no further questions

You see, to engage in peer review - it has to actually be done by my peers. You aren't qualified to analyze overunity systems because you don't even know what an open system actually is or what it encompasses - so you are not my peer, neither is Geoff and neither is anyone else at letsreplicate - nor is anyone else that thinks they are qualified who believes the same as you. That is not peer review that you and others are engaged in - a three ring circus more like - I have no problem showing my work to my peers that do have enough sense to understand what an open system is and they are qualified to confirm the claims or not. That doesn't mean they automatically agree or verify my claims, it means they are qualified to. I run my work by qualified people all the time and you - are not one of those people.

Our conversation is done. We can agree to disagree. Your case is stated and so is mine and your admission that you believe a bouncing ball under the influence of gravity is a closed system that cannot use gravity as potential - speaks for itself. Good luck to you and the rest of the "staff" at letsreplicate - I hope you find what you are looking for.

[LetsReplicate]

Staff for an advertising blog? lol - ok, You hide behind a username

Not an advertising blog, we provide real information and help for inventors working in the open source community. It will also be a list of "simple things you can build and test at home" which will allow replication feedback for the inventors. Inventors are permitted to do their own write-up (their own blog and category) in whatever manner they like and request test results from replicators. My job is to replicate devices, provide electrical math equations/information, and re-draw schematics and diagrams so they are easily understood by everyone, even the newbies. We're a free site so we're trying to break even Google ads, it's not like this site isn't doing the same.

That is not a username, it is my real name. I'm anonymous and yet not anonymous. I know, it's difficult to understand, but I do exist, I can assure you.

Your false argument only serves one purpose and that is to have people that aren't paying attention think "Wow, he rejects math?" You are manipulating people by doing this. Please stop this nonsense.

You are doing EXACTLY the same thing, don't baww about it just because you can't hold your own in a REAL argument, it makes you sound weak. I am simply calling you out on your false and dismissive statements. Refute my “false statements” with evidence and/or math if you don't think I'm right.

According to you
the child cannot claim there is a temperature drop because he doesn't
spell out in an equation to you how many btu's were involved.

If the same child were to tell me that "physics is wrong, this thermometer is overunity!!!" I wouldn't believe him/her unless he/she provided some experimental evidence. That is how science is done: experimental evidence FOLLOWED by confirmation using calculation, THEN peer replication and review to provide proof of the claim. Doing it any way other than that is dishonest.

The height and weight of the ball and the ball's recovery efficiency in Earth's gravity are the 4 main relevant factors to know how much energy is possible to be dissipated (work = energy) upon impact

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

It can take 1 second or 1 year, the amount of work the ball experiences will be the same.

One second: 0.049 Watts; One year: 1.552 nanoWatts, a VERY large difference there.

Trying to make an argument about the ball rolling off a table is proof that if there is a charlatan around here, it is you - the real troll.

Charlatan - noun - A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud

I have never claimed to have more knowledge than I can verify and am willing to share, nor have I claimed to be an expert on any topic, only saying what I have learned from experts. You are refuting the existence of established physics which is a collection of ideas created by people with more knowledge and skill that EITHER of us. By doing that you are claiming to have knowledge that they don't/didn't have. I do not fall under the definition of a charlatan; and unless you can prove your wild claims, and dismissal of established facts is right: you do.

And to clarify my perspective - the ball has no kinetic energy the moment
it is dropped - nor does it have kinetic energy during the fall!

Therefore you are refuting the existence of Ek=-Ep which is refuting the existence of kinetic energy (which is “motion”) entirely. By doing that you are also saying that electrical current, fluid current, and “mechanical flow” do not exist (because they are derived via the same math). This is all a house of cards, unless you are willing to do ALL your math from scratch and provide your prove. That will fail on basic logic though because any child can tell you that the ball must be moving if it is falling.

Again, doesn't mean I'm automatically right but you have to look at the context
that I am explaining everything and not argue what I say out of context
by selectively nibbling at bits and pieces - while never even seeing the
whole picture. Your method of argument is to grab the elephants leg and using that as the sole basis to describe the whole elephant.

If would greatly help you if you didn't completely define EVERYTHING and then try to prove you are right by using a equation that your argument refutes. It kind of makes the context impossible to reconcile with reality.

And you believe as all classical thinking skeptics do that on the initial lift at 1 meter, you think the joules of potential work indicated will show how much potential work will happen for every single bit of work until the ball stops moving. I have no problem with the fact that this is what you believe and I understand your argument for it - and I realize it is based on the fact that you believe gravity cannot contribute any potential into the ball as it is bouncing. You claim a bouncing ball is a closed system. The world you live in is dead and unable to contribute work.

It should be clear, despite your mutliple false arguments (up to maybe over a dozen of them by now) - my belief is that gravity DOES input more potential into the system as I recognize that the bouncing ball is OPEN with its environment and can receive gravitational potential to do more work that delays equilibrium. Hence - the bouncing ball being an open dissipative system. The world I live in is alive, dynamic and can contribute potential to open systems.

You have to actually use the definitions of energy and potential that describe reality and your classical definitions do not do that. They are the same smoke and mirror dog and pony show that has been used for years to hoodwink the masses so that people are completely blind to the fact that there is unlimited potential all around us to do work.

Misleading vividness is a term that can be applied to anecdotal evidence[1] describing an occurrence, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, with sufficient detail to permit hasty generalizations about the occurrence (e.g., to convince someone that the occurrence is a widespread problem). Although misleading vividness does little to support an argument logically, it can have a very strong psychological effect because of a cognitive heuristic called the availability heuristic.

Everything you say can be attributed to misleading vividness, these paragraphs are prime examples of it. You are trying to be far more leading to the readers than I am. I am only refuting your points with reality and allowing you to dismiss them when you can't provide a valid counter-point them because I'm not really talking to you, I'm talking to the readers indirectly.

By sprinkling pixie dusts in people's eyes so they are blinded to the fact that potential such as gravitational potential is environmental input, which the classical view supports a static gravitational "field"... you are a very confused person. Your analysis supports a static gravitational "field" - yet you agree gravity comes from the aether that is moving down. Yet you claim that the aether can't cause resistance on an object. Based on what you have admitted, there can be no gravity or inertia!

I hold several possible views of what "reality" is, you jumped to the conclusion that I'm "all about aether", that was a mistake.

If the aether is moving, the mass is moving with it: that is gravity. 2 vectors are needed at any level to move "up" to the next. This is supported by "standard" theory and doesn't refute any aspect of established science because I am not arrogant enough to believe I know more than the experts. Don't try to straw man my aether because you haven’t seen the full theory, and I haven't attacked your “dipole” theories once even though there is plenty I could say on the subject.

You see, to engage in peer review - it has to actually be done by my peers. You aren't qualified to analyze overunity systems because you don't even know what an open system actually is or what it encompasses - so you are not my peer, neither is Geoff and neither is anyone else at letsreplicate - nor is anyone else that thinks they are qualified who believes the same as you. That is not peer review that you and others are engaged in - a three ring circus more like - I have no problem showing my work to my peers that do have enough sense to understand what an open system is and they are qualified to confirm the claims or not. That doesn't mean they automatically agree or verify my claims, it means they are qualified to. I run my work by qualified people all the time and you - are not one of those people.

Wow, look at the unwarranted self-importance in this paragraph... It's positively oozing. Refer back to the definition of charlatan please.

Our conversation is done. We can agree to disagree. Your case is stated and so is mine and your admission that you believe a bouncing ball under the influence of gravity is a closed system that cannot use gravity as potential - speaks for itself. Good luck to you and the rest of the "staff" at letsreplicate - I hope you find what you are looking for.

*shrug* Good luck with whatever you apply your confirmation bias to confirm your theory to yourself.

[Aaron]

aetheric source of potential

Fair enough on the website - it just needs to pays for itself.

Username I refer to is "letsreplicate" that you use here on this website - but when going to your website, the lady has her picture for "letsreplicate" in facebook - there are 2 bios and neither is you according to you - so you are anonymous obviously - yet deceptive since your website does not spell out the other members, which could be done even if not reveling your identity. Without doing that, you could be Geoff while pretending not to be.

I'm not doing the same. I recognize the argument you are making for classical physics and the context you use things in. You however have repeatedly (almost 15 times) made an argument about something I didn't say, etc... you don't have to respond to this but please discuss what is being said instead of taking what I say out of context please.

Again, thermometer overunity? I didn't make an energy claim - I stated there is a temp drop, which there was. If it is rf cooling which is conventional so be it but it isn't from bad power factor where one phase is "disrupting" the heat. In any case - there is a temp drop - it will forever be debated what caused it - you have your ideas and I have mine.

I am redefining energy and potential to be consistent with an aetheric model of a dynamic gravitational potential rather than a static one.

You are misinterpreting the definitions. Energy is demonstrated work - it is not potential work. It is actual work. Work is dissipation of a higher potential to a lower potential that causes heat, movement, etc... when that work is done, you can say THAT is energy. That is the definition of energy. When potential is dissipated towards equilibrium, work is being done and when work is being done you can say "there is energy".

Joules are not conserved energy. (read the definition I am giving you - I could care less if you agree with them but you have to at least keep what I say in context). Joules are POTENTIAL work that could be done if that potential was reduced to a lower potential via heat, friction, etc... (work). It isn't conserved or stored - the amount of potential available (via gravity) is determined by the objects height - or a circuit's voltage potential differences, etc... I am showing in this model a SOURCE for the potential - not an abstract concept of "conserved energy" which means nothing.

What you are not understanding in what I'm saying - again it is irrelevant if you agree or not - you have to keep it in context - everything I am saying is completely consistent and makes sense but you keep altering what I'm saying.

It comes down to a very simple concept - gravity is dynamic and moving and can be a source of potential - gravity or not, it is the aether - the source of all potential - NOT an abstract potential but an actual bipolar set of "particles" for simplicity sake that make up the aether that can impart an electrostatic type push on mass of an object - again, doesn't matter if you agree - you have to understand it all in context otherwise every bit of your debate is premature without foundation and is inauthentic as a politicians promise.

The SOURCE potential is that aether that we experience on a daily basis mostly as gravitational potential moving through us from above to the center of Earth's mass pushing on the mass of objects on its way down.

I didn't say joules are watts but since you don't indicate a time reference to the watts, yes, joules are watts! lol Again, you somehow think I don't know the difference between potential and work because you don't seem to pay attention to anything - you are just quick on the trigger to respond to what I say before you even comprehend it is that I said dismissing anything I say from the entire context that I'm saying it.

1 volt x 1 amp = 1 watt. 1 watt for 1 second can be produced from 1 joule of potential. 1 joule of potential dissipated over the course of 1 second is 1 joule second or 1 watt second.

Energy IS work being produced - it is NOT the capacity to do work. The capacity to do work is what potential is - NOT energy. "Energy is the capacity to do work" is only the dictionary definition based on the classical explanation and doesn't mean it is correct.

There is a reason there is a term potential energy, that means the potential for energy to exist. First there is potential and then when work is realized there is energy.

Again, irrelevant if you disagree - you have to keep the definitions in the context of everything I say just like your conventional claims are in the context of the classical model. If you can't respect that, you are causing trouble instead of trying to help or look at anything objectively - because you can't even debate what I'm saying if you don't even pay attention to the whole picture.

IF you pay attention to what I say and IF you comprehend it, which it is very simple to do so - you will see it is consistent and that in whole it makes complete sense and makes sense IF THERE IS AN AETHER THAT HAS DYNAMIC MOVING PROPERTIES LIKE I SAY THAT CAN IMPART A PUSH ON MASS.

Your arguments that energy isn't work doesn't take the context into consideration and you selectively pick out bits and pieces and compare it to what you already believe and claim it is wrong. If you think that demonstrates any form of logical reasoning or rationality, you are only deceiving yourself and are acting like a clown.

Again, everything I say makes sense as a complete model and the only thing you can debate when all is said and done is the premise for my model and that is the aetheric interaction with mass, period. If the premise is wrong, then the model falls apart. If the premise is right, your entire model falls apart. I only say that you can debate it to concede some possibility that the classical model is right but the evidence of a dynamic aether is so overwhelming that it is amazing conventionally trained academia have allowed themselves to embarrass themselves for such a long time!

Both arguments rely on WHAT potential really is and where does it come from. I define it and you cannot prove me wrong. You can only point to references that say the aether isn't what I say it is. Yet I can point to as many or more references that give credit to what I say. And to be objective, you actually can't refute anything I say because of the evidence of the aether is so strong that even if you don't agree with you, you would have to have enough intellectual honesty to simply agree to disagree without being able to argue either way!

I'm not making an end run around anything. I give a very logical reason why there is no conservation of energy and it is completely consistent with my model as a whole. Work is done, there is dissipation of potential, and a new potential difference is established which will have an equivelant joules of potential of work that can be done. No conservation - only potential that is dissipated and a new potential difference is established that allows for more source potential to impart more push on mass for more work to be done, etc... no end run - it is completely logical and consistent and perfectly explainable by my model AS A WHOLE.

[Aaron]

aetheric source of potential 2

And your watt example is crooked and deceitful. If there are x joules of potential in a cap and that is discharged over 200 milliseconds - and you discharge the same joules of potential over 50 milliseconds (4 times quicker) you are simply making a sharper impulse for the SAME amount of joules of potential that you started with.

You're not doing more work - you are simply doing x work in shorter time compared to doing x work over longer time. In shorter time, you have more of an impulse, that isn't more work being done.

If you take a little photo-flash capacitor and can discharge it in a small enough time period, you'll have a megawatt of power. It doesn't mean more work was done! It means x joules of potential were dissipated in a very short period of time as opposed to less watts of power over a longer period of time. In both cases, the joules are the SAME!

1 joule of potential can give you 10 gigawatts if you were able to discharge 1 joule of potential energy in a small enough time. That doesn't mean more work was done if you took the same joules and expended it over 10 years.

According to you, the faster you do something, the more work you're doing for the same amount of potential that you start with!

You claim "Watts are dissipated work" - that is wrong! (see above)

A watt (voltage x amperage) = watts. That is only potential! You are missing an entire "dimension". If there is no time that you are multiplying the watts by, you still only have potential. If you have 1 trillion watts but no time, that is 1 trillion watts of POTENTIAL. When it is watts over a period of time, THEN and only then do you have any work.

If I have a heater that is known to draw 990 watts - and I have 110vac at my wall, I know it will draw about 9 amps. 110 x 9 = 990 watts but if the heater operates for 0 time, there is no work regardless of how many watts there are for the volts times amps.

And you, nor any other classicist, has proved that energy is conserved and you're saying I need to prove it isn't! lol Conservation of energy was originally conceived as a belief that it has to be that way without ever proving it!

Even if you say energy is potential, you still are not proving that it is conserved. Again, take everything I say into context as a whole and you see a consistency in the entire model.

You, having never proven anything you are saying and you can easily be a charlatan by definition. The equations for my model are virtually identical but are used in a different context with a different understanding of what the results mean!

mgh to you is potential energy stored in an object at a height.

mgh to me is the potential energy available at that object when that object finally encounters resistance - being that the potential comes into play when the ball impacts the ground for example and is NOT a "stored" potential when the object is at the height. The potential is constantly moving with the ball and when the ball hits the ground, the gravitational potential can impart a net positive force on the mass of the ball since the ball is being resisted!

You use the formulas to claim that you are proven right, but I can use the same formulas to prove I'm right when used in the context of my whole model!

Again, there is nothing you can dispute about anything I say in the entire context that I say it in - again, the debate rests on what the source potential is - if it is the aether acting as I say it does, everything I say is correct. If the aether doesn't do what I say it does, then the classical thermodynamics are correct.

Debating the definition of energy is trivial because I can type some random keys on my keyboard to state that this: dfiuqwqei will be defined as work being done. I can use dfiuqwqei or I can use the term energy because I think it is more suited for the purpose in addition to the FACT that my usage of energy is actually consistent with the origin of the word - while yours is not! You can NOT store activity - and activity is WORK!

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

According to you, you can store WORK instead of storing POTENTIAL WORK! lol

You cannot store energy any more than you can store work because work is activity! As I said, energy is work or activity and is not only suitable for my model, it is really what energy is while your definition stating that energy can be stored is an incorrect usage of the word.

IF you had an objective bone in your body, you would be able to come to that conclusion without me pointing it out to you but you are too busy rambling on about what you believe without being able to listen to anything anyone else is telling you.

So again, if you're not able to objectively look at what I tell you in its entirety, keeping it in its context, you are here to cause trouble and are trying to fake everyone out by claiming you're "here to help" being a fake "objective" person who is just trying to help people analyze what they think they have - I've heard that so many times by conventional skeptics that I'd be rich if I had a nickle for every one that has come and gone over the years.

Refuting motion entirely? That is pure ignorance - again, you have to take what I say in the context I give it in.

A falling object is only falling relative to an object on the ground for example.

An object that is falling is NOT EVEN MOVING relative to the downward flow of the gravitational potential that it is flowing with!!! That is why there is no kinetic energy in an object in freefall!

[LetsReplicate]

Username I refer to is "letsreplicate" that you use here on this website - but when going to your website, the lady has her picture for "letsreplicate" in facebook - there are 2 bios and neither is you according to you - so you are anonymous obviously - yet deceptive since your website does not spell out the other members, which could be done even if not reveling your identity. Without doing that, you could be Geoff while pretending not to be.

I can't control what the others on Let's Replicate say/do, I'm not the one who made the facebook account, Diana did (obviously). I actually tried to sign up here using my name (it does work with forums) several times over the past few years but was never approved for posting. So it was really you that forced me to use a different username.

You however have repeatedly (almost 15 times) made an argument about something I didn't say, etc... you don't have to respond to this but please discuss what is being said instead of taking what I say out of context please.

Based on what you have admitted, there can be no gravity or inertia!

You claim "Watts are dissipated work" - that is wrong! (see above)

It is bad form to complain about the use of an argument tactic while you are using it.

Also, the physics equation you are using to prop of your argument (Ep=mgh) is being taken out of context (because -Ek=mgh is also true). That is what I have said repeatedly and you dismiss it every time mistakenly claiming it to be a "false argument". Use of this physics equation alone is contextomy.

Again, irrelevant if you disagree - you have to keep the definitions in the context of everything I say just like your conventional claims are in the context of the classical model. If you can't respect that, you are causing trouble instead of trying to help or look at anything objectively - because you can't even debate what I'm saying if you don't even pay attention to the whole picture.

Neither of us is capable of being objective because we are having an argument, objectivity is for the readers, not us. You are rejecting the "classical model" in the same way that I'm rejecting yours. I don't have to disagree with you to argue with you, in fact I'm not in full disagreement, but that is irrelevant because you are refuting physics, and THAT is what I am disagreeing with.

You can believe in your aether all you want, but stop falsely claiming energy gains and electrical cooling unless you can PROVE IT. You have proven neither. You are the one making the claim here, so the onus probandi is entirely on you, not me. You can not meet the burden of proof here with rhetoric.

If you're assuming that kinetic energy doesn't exist in the ball; and that it exists in the aether, then what you're really trying to argue for is a "fluid dynamics" explanation. The Ep=mgh equation is Newtonian physics which are derived on the bases of the existence of the laws thermodynamics in a static aether. You might want to look into fluid dynamics if you want your argument to hold water.

The problem is that even if aether contains kinetic energy component, it needs to impart that energy to that ball. That would cause motion, which is kinetic energy.

Your arguments that energy isn't work doesn't take the context into consideration and you selectively pick out bits and pieces and compare it to what you already believe and claim it is wrong. If you think that demonstrates any form of logical reasoning or rationality, you are only deceiving yourself and are acting like a clown.

More like I'm pointing out to the readers that there are some serious holes in the theory that you can't gloss over simply by redefining them and insulting me. By pointing out holes that you can't plug, in invalidates your argument in the mind of an objective observer.

You are making (W*s) = (W), which removes the "time constraint" from the term "work" (W/s). That means that a stationary object (with no "activity") would be said to be "working" under your system. There are specific definitions for terms in engineering, if you don't play ball with the system then you can't use any part of the system in your explanation.

Again, everything I say makes sense as a complete model and the only thing you can debate when all is said and done is the premise for my model and that is the aetheric interaction with mass, period. If the premise is wrong, then the model falls apart. If the premise is right, your entire model falls apart.

Whether or not aether exists, you can't magically come from nowhere and say the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. If you think the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, then your model is wrong. When your model accepts the laws, then it will be closer to being a "complete model".

I'm not making an end run around anything. I give a very logical reason why there is no conservation of energy and it is completely consistent with my model as a whole. Work is done, there is dissipation of potential, and a new potential difference is established which will have an equivelant joules of potential of work that can be done. No conservation - only potential that is dissipated and a new potential difference is established that allows for more source potential to impart more push on mass for more work to be done, etc... no end run - it is completely logical and consistent and perfectly explainable by my model AS A WHOLE.

Except the mass itself no longer has ANY "momentum" (momentum = mass*velocity) because it has no kinetic energy (which produces velocity). That means the ball shouldn't bounce at all because there will be no energy to compress the ball and make it spring up since all its energy has been dissipated by the time it reaches the ground. That fact that the ball bounces at all disproves your model.

And your watt example is crooked and deceitful. If there are x joules of potential in a cap and that is discharged over 200 milliseconds - and you discharge the same joules of potential over 50 milliseconds (4 times quicker) you are simply making a sharper impulse for the SAME amount of joules of potential that you started with.

The energy stored in capacitors is given in coulombs, not joules. A coulomb is an ampere*second. A watt is a volt*ampere, which would make a watt = volt * (coulomb/second). A volt is a joule/coulomb so a watt = (joule/coulomb)*(coulomb/second) = joule/second. You CAN'T store a joule in a capacitor. You are claiming that you can put energy into a capacitor without there being an electrical charge involved, that is wrong.

According to you, the faster you do something, the more work you're doing for the same amount of potential that you start with!

That is how it works because power is an AREA that includes a time constraint. That is why power is deceptive when impulse is used, that's exactly how all those back EMF battery chargers work (and your ignition coil). Energy can be compressed into a pulse, but the voltage pulse and the current pulse don't happen at the same time. That means you have to regauge the pulses to the same time in order to determine the power. When you do that, you are forced to take into account the time between pulse in each vector, which is what makes the input power equal to, or greater than output power. THAT is the phase angle power problem.

A watt (voltage x amperage) = watts. That is only potential! You are missing an entire "dimension". If there is no time that you are multiplying the watts by, you still only have potential. If you have 1 trillion watts but no time, that is 1 trillion watts of POTENTIAL. When it is watts over a period of time, THEN and only then do you have any work.

The magnitude of the electrical charge of one mole of elementary charges (approximately 6.022×1023, or Avogadro's number) is known as a faraday unit of charge (closely related to the Faraday constant). One faraday is equal to 96485.3399 coulombs. In terms of Avogadro's number (NA), one coulomb is equal to approximately 1.036 × NA ×10−5 elementary charges.

The charge (coulomb) is the "potential", not voltage, and CERTAINLY not current. You're missing the part where amperes are made of moving coulombs (coulomb*second), which means it is not a "potential", it is a kinetic "current". So since you are discounting charge, you are the one missing several "dimensions" (vectors), not me.

You claim "Watts are dissipated work" - that is wrong! (see above)

I was trying to put that in terms you could understand since you are redefining everything; that was taken out of the context of that paragraph.

If I have a heater that is known to draw 990 watts - and I have 110vac at my wall, I know it will draw about 9 amps. 110 x 9 = 990 watts but if the heater operates for 0 time, there is no work regardless of how many watts there are for the volts times amps.

The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed.

For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt-hours (W•h), 0.1 kilowatt-hour, or 360 kJ. This same amount of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours, or a 50-watt bulb for 2 hours. A power station would be rated in multiples of watts, but its annual energy sales would be in multiples of watt-hours. A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 MJ.

At time=0 no current will have entered the heater. Claiming 9amps @ 990W using 0 time is false because a ampere is a coulomb*second. At t=0 no coulombs have moved yet, which means there is no current, and no heat (watts) have been generated, it's not all that hard to grasp really.

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

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.

You cannot store energy any more than you can store work because work is activity! As I said, energy is work or activity and is not only suitable for my model, it is really what energy is while your definition stating that energy can be stored is an incorrect usage of the word.

Energy isn't "stored", it is "conserved". "Stored" is a colloquialism to describe the term because it is easier to understand. Forgive me for trying to make it simpler for you to understand.

An object that is falling is NOT EVEN MOVING relative to the downward flow of the gravitational potential that it is flowing with!!! That is why there is no kinetic energy in an object in freefall!

That depends on your "ground reference" (which in the example you've defined as being the ground, or "0m"). The object IS MOVING CLOSER TO THE GROUND as it falls. You've just redefined your ground to be the falling object, in that case the earth would be MOVING toward object. You can define it either way, but the object is still moving.

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

[quantumuppercut]

People in here are great men, at least to me. Energy conservation has always been a subject of great interest as well as controversial even in the past. Rather than trying to get others to understand your view, we should try to understand other person's view more. It's not necessary to point out flaws on others thinking but rather to see what interesting from others view point.

What I think is this: People always said an object moving at 10 velocity and increase its speed to 11, you must add 11^2-10^2 = 21 units of energy omitting the constant. I do not think this is true. There must be a way to do this with 11-10 = 1 unit of energy. The more I think about this, the more it takes me to relative motion, momentum, energy, frame of reference. So while you guys debate about a simple problem of bouncing ball, you are solving something that even Newton and Einstein have problem understanding. Give others and yourself some slacks.

Me: If I drop a ball from 1 meter, how much energy do you put into for it touch ground?

Gravity: I only apply a force to the ball, do you want to know the amount of force over the time or distance?

[Farmhand]

The way I look at it, which is what I based my first post on, is when the ball is
dropped and bounces if it reached say 90% of the drop height it would be 90%
efficient, therefore if it reached 100% of drop height it would be 100% efficient,
and if it reached 110% of drop height it would be 110% efficient.

Imagine a perfect or ideal ball that does bounce back to 100% of drop height,
the ball is dropped by a super fast trap door it bounces once and returns to drop
height, when the ball is stationary at the original height the trapdoor shuts very
quickly so the ball cannot drop again, this would be unity.

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

Each fall from the maximum height of the previous bounce is the start of a
new event, a bounce, if the first bounce doesn't reach drop height it's under
unity. I don't think it matters where the energy comes from or the flavor of
energy it is, it's the performance that matters.

It really doesn't take a scientist to see that. If we define our terms like I did
above to define what I think unity is in this case, we can see each others
argument better.

Cheers

[LetsReplicate]

What I think is this: People always said an object moving at 10 velocity and increase its speed to 11, you must add 11^2-10^2 = 21 units of energy omitting the constant. I do not think this is true. There must be a way to do this with 11-10 = 1 unit of energy. The more I think about this, the more it takes me to relative motion, momentum, energy, frame of reference. So while you guys debate about a simple problem of bouncing ball, you are solving something that even Newton and Einstein have problem understanding. Give others and yourself some slacks.

I don't have a problem with people making wild claims without evidence. I do have a problem with people who claim that the confirmed and established theory is wrong and should be disregarded without hard evidence. If Aaron is correct about physics, then physicists, engineers and mathematicians are all "wasting their time". There are thousands of people that are classified as geniuses that have spent their entire lives working in those areas of research, and you can bet they understand how a bouncing ball works by now.

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

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

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

[OrionLightShip]

I think unity is in this case we can see each others
argument better.Cheers

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

Orion

[Aaron]

efficiency and cop and overunity

The way I look at it, which is what I based my first post on, is when the ball is
dropped and bounces if it reached say 90% of the drop height it would be 90%
efficient, therefore if it reached 100% of drop height it would be 100% efficient,
and if it reached 110% of drop height it would be 110% efficient.

Farmhand,

Your first paragraph of 90%, 100% and 110% efficiency are the correct definitions of what efficiency mean.

Overunity, however, is not defined by efficiency - over 100% efficiency would be encompassed by overunity. 110% would be overunity, however, that does not preclude a 90% efficient system from being overunity either.

If the total amount of work demonstrated is above the input - then it is overunity. The output work summed includes environmental input. When you divide that not by the total input of us + environment but only what we have to put in - the work demonstrated can equal more than we put in.

Just like a refrigerator is easily 2.5 cop or so. Our input is from the wall and that watt hours are converted into a btu equivelant as the input. The output is total heat moved in btu's + work done from the wall in btu's as total work done. Take that total and divide by the input we had to pay for and it can easily be 2.5 times the btu that we had to pay for. The refrigerator compressor could be 70% efficient for example but is still overunity. Efficiency and COP are not the same thing.

These are not new definitions or an attempt to redefine - these simply are the definitions of efficiency and cop.

Overunity is an oxymoron anyway but it is known what is intended by it. Unity being everything there is and being over everything there is makes no sense - that is an oxymoron like "military intelligence" lol

But accepting "overunity" as a term to describe a machine/system, etc... as something that outputs more than input is for practical purposes. But it can be over 100% efficient (if such a thing exists) - or overunity can be something that is under 100% efficient but is over 1.0 COP, which there are countless systems like this as every natural system in nature is such as system.