Announcement

**Aaron** · 01-16-2012, 06:07 AM

Geoffrey Scott Ingram - Letsreplicate.com

This is just to document one of the countless bogus pieces of disinformation Geoffrey Ingram is posting:

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

Yes, but you have in many cases you jump from hypothesis to conclusion, everybody does that, it is called confirmation bias. The cells are interesting but just because they "hover 2in above the ground" doesn't mean they are "anti-gravity" when it is MORE likely that they have a "lift" force that does not affect gravity. You can't go claiming it is anti-gravity when you have a lift force; that exact claim set back independent ion wind research (lifters) by more than 10 years and still confuses many people.

My post...

Originally posted by Aaron View Post

Geoffrey Ingram, you really should do your research before making such ridiculous analogies. Set back the lifter research 10 years?

Lifters ARE asymmetrical capacitors exactly like Townsend's experiments.

Even the US Army verified ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the force demonstrated. It is not a simple ionic wind force - there are effects going on that nobody can claim to know exactly what - and that includes YOU. Sorry, but not everything can simply be written off as some basic effect that fits your little box no matter how much you want to prove the Earth is flat.

Your self-proclaimed "expertise" is being revealed for what it really is bit by it in all the threads that you are "contributing" to.

Geoffrey Scott Ingram of letsreplicate.com's reply:

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

Well look what we have here... The prodigal troll returns to insult people that aren't me by claiming that they are me, it is such a poor method... I'm not supposed to talk to trolls, but you made an interesting point that is worth responding to.

The "orders of magnitude" claim is a VERY OLD rumor and lifters can be tested against gravity meters (a mirror falling in a "perfect" vacuum on top of, underneath and beside the lifters) which results in the conclusion that the lifters have 0 effect on the local gravity and the effect is entirely electrostatic induction and dependent on local particle density (if you'd read a book on the subject published after the cold war, you'd know that). The effect can also be used to "fly forward" instead of just "up", which implies a force and not gravity modification. Even if lifters have 3 times more thrust than could normally be predicted from ion wind, that doesn't magically make them anti-gravity, it means the MATH for ion wind needs to be modified to include plates of different sizes (and it has). The fact that they are asymmetrical capacitors does not mean they actually modify gravity, only that there is a force associated them that can lift the craft.

Half the people involved in lifter technology still genuinely believe that they are working with anti-gravity. Due to believing they are magical, they never progress beyond tabletop proof of concept toys. Lifters CAN BE self contained, and they SHOULD BE by now. The military has been flying B2 bombers (an advanced method) for more than a decade and yet not one independent researcher even has a self contained unit yet. The anti-gravity claim has prevented independent researchers from properly understanding how to scale the technology into anything useful. As it stands the independent research on the subject is still 60 years behind the military research.

He calls me a troll while he is the one demonstrating disinformation in a grand way. He calls this injecting "reality" into conversations? If this isn't disinformation, then he is simply completely ignorant...

1. Geoffrey Ingram claims the "orders of magnitude" claim is a very old rumor.

FACT: This document claims it and it is only from 2003, which is only 9 years ago. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416740.pdf This claims ion wind is three orders of magnitude too small to account for the force.

2. Geoffrey Ingram states: "if you'd read a book on the subject published after the cold war, you'd know that"

FACT: His idea of rational thought is to counter someone's statement with subversive stage magician's techniques of misdirection - reading a book on the subject published after the cold war? See FACT in point #1.

3. Geoffrey Ingram states: "The effect can also be used to "fly forward" instead of just "up", which implies a force and not gravity modification."

FACT: Whether it is altering gravity or not is irrelevant - this only take the focus off the fact that Geoffrey Ingram thinks it is simply ion wind and that claims to the contrary are only in old books that predate the cold war while being completely ignorant of relatively recent research while having the audacity to tell me to read something new.

4. Geoffrey Ingram states: "Even if lifters have 3 times more thrust"

FACT: For someone that claims to be such an expert, he is completely ignorant of the difference between 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE and 3 TIMES MORE. This is similar to Geoffrey Ingram claiming that an earthquake at 3 on the Richter Scale is 3 times more than 1 on the Richter Scale. Everytime it is pointed out that he is making completely ridiculous mistakes, he ignores it and moves on hoping people won't notice while misdirecting people's attention to something else.

5. Geoffrey Ingram states: "it means the MATH for ion wind needs to be modified to include plates of different sizes (and it has)"

FACT: Even if it has been updated to properly account for the forces involved, it doesn't change the fact that he is blowing hot air in points 1~4. One possible right doesn't overrule 4 definite bozo claims/mistakes. But he is implying that it has been updated since pre-cold war - was that before 2003 or after?

6. Geoffrey Ingram states: "As it stands the independent research on the subject is still 60 years behind the military research."

FACT: He is trying to imply what I said about 3 orders of magnitude is from some pre-cold war documents or books and is behind military research - even though the document that claims was from IS from military research - if the U.S. Army isn't military then what is? lol And 60 years behind? That is an Army paper from 9 years ago.

I agree that a lifter is not necessarily modifying gravity - though it could be because we don't know all the answers, period. And his above ludicrous comments are not those of a scientific expert but more of a clown. He is a James Randi wannabe pseudo-skeptic who is only here to maintain the flat earth society.

I will continue to refer to this user as Geoffrey Ingram until proven otherwise.

misc notes:

https://www.dstl.gov.uk/ British Ministry of Defense states this about lifters: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/docs/...nalScience.pdf

Mechanism generally considered in terms of ionic motion

However, has been shown that effect is independent of voltage polarity
Also calculations suggest that mass lifted by ionic thrust is more than an order of magnitude less than that observed.
Also weight loss observed prior to lifting

This was a report from 2005 - only 7 years ago - not pre-cold war.

They also work in a vacuum and the Mythbusters are not scientists.

"On the propulsive force developed by asymmetric capacitors in vacuum"

**Aaron** · 01-16-2012, 09:58 AM

Lets Replicate

Here are a few of the countless examples of Letsreplicate/Geoffrey Scott Ingram's disinformation campaign...

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

A magnetic field is not current, it is first order derivative (acceleration) of current. A permanent magnet has no current unless the field moves, at which point it will produce voltage and current from the emf. An electromagnet can't be "charged" without current; and the current doesn't happen without the potential even thought the potential is just shifted in time (phase angle).

A permanent magnet has moving current in it of bidirectional magnetic "particles". Emery Version - Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder - KeelyNet 06/05/03 6 amps of perpetual circulating current with 0 voltage potential meaning there is amps without volts meaning there is 0 watts of work being done to create the magnetic field going through the keeper. That is current making a magnetic field at 0 watts. Obviously there is some watts in the initial charge but after that, it sustains and is like what is happening in a permanent magnetic, internal circulating current without any voltage potential. Basically, "Geoffrey Ingram" has no idea what magnetism is, what this current really really is or what a permanent magnet is. He will only quote what the books tell him. "My daddy told me so, so it must be true" - that is the syndrome that Letsreplicate has.

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

You provided no lift because the ball began at 1m, had you thrown the ball up to 1m from the ground, that would be lift.

Everyone knows my bouncing ball example. It is irrelevant who agrees with my analysis of it but it is common sense that I have said from the beginning that I provide lifting work to raise it to a meter. He keeps reverting to there is no lift completely ignoring anything I say. He either has a learning impediment that is beyond his control or he simply is dedicated to ignoring what people actually are saying. I have stated so many times that x amount of work is done to lift the ball to 1 meter. This is an example of how he deals with the facts like a politician - by not even addressing anything said.

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

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.

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.
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.

You also don't specify how long it takes you to lift the ball in the example...

The ball could have been created on top of a 1m table and then fallen off to provide the same results.

All systems are open by classical definition? But everything he uses to refute open systems is based on equilibrium thermodynamics (closed systems). My bouncing ball example is used in the context that gravity is a dynamic source of potential that everything has access to and it is what supplies the downward push on objects to give the effect of gravity. And in the context of my example with the dynamic gravity model, he claims the ball is a closed system (closed off to gravitational potential). He claims only a shaking ground for example can be environmental input while gravity in a dynamic aetheric gravitational model cannot be environmental input! This is so ridiculously laughable I don't know what to say.

This kind of person simply cannot be taken seriously. He is like the guy in the 1984 story who holds up so many fingers on one hand but forces you to try to see another number of fingers.

He thinks time is a dimension on its own when it is only the streaming motion of the physical world through the aether and the "density" of the aether determines how fast or slow that is. The universe is contracting in reverse? Acceleration at the edges of the universe that we see is a contraction?

Aether doesn't contain energy that can be given to other things? First it isn't energy it is potential that is sourced from the gravitational potential. And second, his is trying to refute another model by using a yardstick based on his own belief system. Umm... there is a reason it is a different model.

He also believes that there is a different amount of work being done on the ball if I lift it fast or slow. The fact is that it doesn't matter if it is lifted over 1 second to a meter or over 1 year to a meter - the amount of work required to lift a ball to a meter is the SAME regardless of how long it took!

Again, another example of making an argument for something that is not even being discussed to throw people off from the rails. I have repeatedly stated that the bouncing ball example is to COMPARE INPUT VS OUTPUT work done. I have repeatedly stated x work is used to LIFT the ball to a meter and then work is done when the ball is released. He states it will do the same work if it fell of a table and was never lifted. That is true, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the entire example of comparing LIFTING WORK to work done after it is released. These false arguments are a habit of his that he assumes myself or others are too stupid not to notice that he does this. He argues things that have nothing to do with the point and actually detract from the train of thought. This is one of his primary MO's for his disinformation campaign.

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

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.

Don't call energy work?

How many fingers am I holding up? lol

The very meaning of what energy is...

1575–85; < Late Latin energīa < Greek enérgeia activity, equivalent to energe- >

Activity IS WORK. It is the opposite of potential work or potential energy. You first have potential to be energetic and when that potential is put to work, THAT IS ENERGY. You do not store energy, you do not even store potential energy. There simply is potential depending on the potential difference between 2 reference points and when those two points are move towards equilibrium, that potential energy becomes actual energy because energy IS work. He is such a self-proclaimed expert but doesn't even know what energy is.

He believes in conservation of energy - I don't believe it because it is a joke. He tries to define my model by his own definitions. What kind of loony tunes logic is that?

If you want to translate Chinese are you going to use a German dictionary?

Joules are NOT conserved energy. Joules is an amount of potential available by the potential difference. It is not stored. Potential is dynamic and freely available from the environment - gravity potential in the bouncing ball analogy - so being that potential is dynamic - THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT TO EVER BE STORED! There is a potential difference (dipole) - and then when the circuit is connected across the terminals, or the ball is dropped from a height (potential difference from the ground), etc... then the gravitational potential comes into play - it is NOT STORED.

I'm trying to dispute the 1st law? Gee Mr. Einstein, no kidding???

There is no conservation - all the potential that was "equalized" through work (energy) is dissipated back into the environment and none of it is conserved. When there is a new potential difference, BRAND SPANKING NEW potential comes into the system from the environmental input of gravitational potential, etc... I have repeated this over and over yet he insists conservation of energy must still be true. That isn't a conversation from someone trying to see someone else's point of view - it is a nincompoop who is repeating "pseudo-skeptics talking points" just like a politician that doesn't know how to think - they just repeat things like a parrot.

**Aaron** · 01-16-2012, 09:59 AM

Lets Replicate

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

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.

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.

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).

He is outright lying that his account wasn't approved - accounts here do not require approval and everyone knows it.

There is no energy stored in a capacitor. There is a potential difference, same story and the amount of work that can be done by the potential difference for a certain capacitor HAS a joules of potential equivelant. In any case, here is the conventional definition:

"The energy (measured in joules) stored in a capacitor is equal to the work done to charge it." Even according to this classical definition, it actually says it doesn't require any work to charge the capacitor because when you charge a capacitor, you have the same amount of potential energy in the cap.

Anyway, he says you can't store a joule. I never said you are storing a joule. The amount of potential energy a capacitor has when charged IS measured in joules. It is the amount of "charge" that is measured in coulombs. So Mr. Einstein here doesn't even know the difference between potential energy of a capacitor in joules and the amount of charge in coulombs.

"Geoffrey Scott Ingram"/Letsreplicate claims the battery chargers like Bedini's operate from back emf. This is beyond clown-like. It is the inductive spike that comes off the coil - that is completely different from the back emf.

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

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.

Whether I'm right or wrong is irrelevant. He completely reveals himself to believe that the Earth is flat just because the popular view says so. There were plenty of geniuses that proved with math that an airplane could never fly. He proves himself to be nothing more than a conformist that is here to do nothing more than create false arguments to derail a logical train of thought in order to detract from progress.

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

was created to explain the Michelson and Morley null result.

That's just too funny...

There are several major holes that you refuse to address, coulombs is one (you failed to address your error there),

Back emf was not what I meant there it was a typo, I use CEMF because it is the proper term. I was referring to the back EM spike, which is the inductive spike. Admittedly, I was typing quickly and when I do that sometimes there are typos that I don't catch. Good that you pointed that out and I'm glad you found it funny, but pointless for you to rant about.

He flat our refused to follow up on references given him about the existence of a DYNAMIC aether such as this and many others: http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf Michelson even confirmed this in 1929!

Um, on the coulombs, it was mr einstein who made the error of claiming that potential energy (future WORK) in a capacitor is measured in coulombs - it is JOULES. The amount of electrical CHARGE in the cap is what is measured in coulombs.

Here he backpeddals on calling it back emf that charges the batteries on the Bedini type chargers and then corrects himself to say he uses cemf instead (counter emf). Back emf and counter emf are IDENTICAL!

Lenz's law describes back/counter emf and that is NOT what the transient spike is. And his apology is even funnier. A typo? Using back emf instead of cemf? I laughed so hard at that one my stomach hurt when I first saw it.

Anyway, bottom line is that letsreplicate apperas to be nothing but a disinformation FRAUD. The ^.^ person claiming to be Pie who claims he is not Geoffrey Ingram is a charlatan. He may have experience with conventional systems but he is clearly out of his league.

He clearly doesn't know the difference between so many things he chastises other about - a super hypocrite.

He clearly...

doesn't know that a magnetic field has internal moving currents
engages in false arguments by ignoring my example that WORK is being done to lift the ball to a meter in order to have a comparison to output WORK - this is what detractors do - not honest people
doesn't know the difference between an open and a closed system
thinks that time is actually some independent dimension all unto itself
doesn't see how gravitational potential can give potential to an object to do work in the very model that has the premise of a dynamic aether that is the cause of the gravity to begin with
uses closed system thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) to debate open systems
doesn't even know that energy is work and chastises me for believing that
believes in conservation of energy
deliberately lies about having multiple accounts denied when there is no approval process to begin with at this forum - it is impossible to be denied access because moderators simply are not required to approve new members
doesn't even know that the potential energy "stored" in a capacitor is measured in joules while the amount of charge in the capacitor is measured in coulombs
believes that back emf is different from counter emf since he made a "typo" - thereby believing that back emf is back emf while counter efm is the inductive spike
clearly is a conformist that goes along with something just because it is a popular idea - a Flat-Earther who maintains the Earth is flat because the establishment says so. "My daddy told me so, so it must be true."
doesn't even know that Michelson himself confirmed in 1929 Dayton Miller's results that there is an Aether and that it is dynamic.
clueless about lifter science as indicated by his blunder-ful responses to me in the other posts
countless others but these are the fun ones...

The conclusion is that the LETSREPLICATE stooges have the above bullet-pointed beliefs and they are wholly incompatible with "overunity" science. They are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole (of the same diameter). The posts by letsreplicate specifically in response to me are filled with dishonesty and deceit. They are engaging in a dog and pony show and not a real honest discussion. My words have been constantly intentionally twisted and manipulated with several dozen false arguments that had nothing to do with what I said and everything to do with derailing the points I was making.

I do NOT believe that there is any sincerity whatsoever in their motive(s) because someone that is honest in their claimed intent will actually try to see another person's view instead of manipulating it. There are plenty of members here that are skeptical but they do not resort to this form of low-life manipulation.

My recommendation is to steer clear of these scoundrels.

**fan1701** · 01-16-2012, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Aaron View Post

My recommendation is to steer clear of these scoundrels.

Honestly I am glad you tossed them. Their only motive seemed to be to disrupt. It got really old listening to the spew from them. I thought you really spanked them good myself.

Probably they are paid to do so in an attempt to derail the energy future that is coming that they cannot stop.

al

**Aaron** · 01-17-2012, 11:13 AM

lets replicate skepticlown clownery

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

Watts are more complicated than you think they are. They are a measure of energy dissipated, but they are also the measure if energy gains because they are the area of combined vectors.

This reveals exactly what letsreplicate's expertise is on measuring work on the input versus work done on the output - the very essence of verifying "overunity", over 1.0 cop, etc...

This shows that the letsreplicate stooges are engaged in clownery (a new word to describe this kind of feeble-minded analysis by wannabe experts that think their conformist brainwashing has a place in the free energy field) - in other words, pseudo-skeptics or feeble-minded clowns engage in clownery.

Watts are NOT a measurement of energy dissipated and watts do NOT tell you if there are energy gains. Watts are a power measurement and is NOT an energy or work measurement.

To determine if a system is gaining energy compared to the input, you simply add up all measurable work (NOT POWER) dissipated in the system demonstrated - you do not compare power measurements.

The ball doesn't need to bounce higher each time because grown ups that understand what an open system is know the difference between simple open dissipative systems and perpetual motion - obviously letsreplicate is clueless as to what the difference is. He is beyond help - as none of this has anything to do with perpetual motion.

I can take ONE joule of potential energy and discharge it over a long enough period of time and it will be a small wattage pulse for that long period of time. Or, I can take the same ONE joule of potential energy and if I discharge it over a time that is small enough, it will be a MEGAWATT pulse for a much shorter period of time.

Notice that the amount of potential energy in joules that will be dissipated in real work is the SAME TOTAL amount of work. The length or amount of TIME did not make a difference - it only needs to have time, which is an inherent property of a force on an object over a distance!

So a few watts versus a million watts - can the effects be different from impulse energy or time compression? Of course. But does this change the amount of energy or work dissipated? NO!

A watt-second however, IS a measurement of energy or work done or energy dissipated.

Beware everyone, this is not just your average run-of-the-mill kind of clownery coming from letsreplicate, this is an example of a most magnificent form of clownery conducted by those that will be from here on out known as SKEPTICLOWNS - you read it here first folks.

A skepticlown is a pseudo-skeptic that tries to debunk things with bogus science and lies in order to prove the world is still flat.

The below quote is filled with more magical smoke screen pixie dust than any other skepticlown has demonstrated based on any level of clownery that I have seen at this forum so far.

Originally posted by LetsReplicate View Post

Okay, and I'll answer it with the "simple math" so you can follow the units:

The potential energy of holding the ball at 1m at the start:
Ep = mgh
where m is mass in kg, g is 9.8 m/s^2, and h is 1m.
Ep = 0.005kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 1 m = 0.049 (kg*m^2)/s^2 = 0.049 joules.

To find the squared velocity it will be traveling when it reaches the ground, we use the equation:
v^2 = vo^2 + 2a(x - xo)
where vo is the initial velocity; a is the acceleration: 9.8m/s^2; x is the destination: 0 m; and xo is initial position: 1m.
v^2 = 0^2 + 2*9.8m/s^2(0-1m) = -19.6 m^2/s^2

The time it will take to fall is given by:
v = vo + at and where vo=0 : t = v/a
where v is the current velocity: (the positive root of v^2 so we don't have to resort to imaginary numbers, which are extra vectors) 4.427 m/s; a is acceleration: 9.6m/s^2; and t is time in seconds.
t = (4.427 m/s) / (9.8 m/s^2) = 0.451 seconds.

and the kinetic energy before the first bounce is given by:
Ek = 0.5 * m * v^2
where m is the mass in kg, and v^2 is -19.6 m^2/s^2
Ek = 0.5 * 0.005 kg * -19.6 m^2/s^2 = -0.049 (kg*m^2)/s^2 = -0.049 joules.

That's with zero entropy. As you can see the energy input is equal and opposite to the energy output assuming no loss. So let's assume a 10% loss of energy per bounce to account for bounce losses and air friction; and also assume the ball bounces straight back up so there are no extra vectors to account for. That means our upward kinetic energy will be 0.049 joules * 0.9 = 0.0441 joules.

The speed the ball will leave the ground after the first bounce is given by:
Ek = 0.5 * m * v^2 or: v = (Ek / (0.5 * m))^0.5
v = (0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 / (0.5 * 0.005 kg))^0.5 = (0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 / (0.0025 kg))^0.5 = (17.64m^2/s^2)^0.5 = 4.2m/s
Note that the velocity is positive, not negative because it's traveling the opposite way now.

Since this will all be converted back to potential energy at the peak of the bounce we can use the Ep formula to find the peak height of the first bounce:
Ep = mgh or: h = Ep / (mg)
h= 0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 / (0.005 kg * 9.8 m/s^2) = 0.0441 (kg*m^2) / (0.049 (kg*m)/s^2) = 0.9 meters.

The time it will take to reach the peak of the first bounce is given by:
v = vo + at and since v=0: t = vo/-a
where vo is the initial velocity of the bounce.
t = 4.2m/s / -9.8m/s^2 = 0.429 seconds
Note that the acceleration is negative in this equation because the ball is slowing down, not because it takes a negative time.

So the v^2 just before the second bounce will be:
v^2 = vo^2 + 2a(x - xo)
v^2 = 0 + 2 * 9.8m/s^2 (0-0.9m) = -17.64 m^2/s^2

The time it will take to fall on the second bounce is given by:
t = v/a
t = 4.2m/s / 9.8 m/s^2 = 0.429 seconds.
Note that the fall time is equal symmetrical to the rise time because the acceleration is the same, so it lands at the same speed it bounced at.

and the kinetic energy before the second bounce is given by:
Ek = 0.5 * m * v^2
Ek = 0.5 * 0.005kg * -17.64 m^2/s^2 = -0.0441 (kg*m^2)/s^2 = -0.0441 joules
As you can see, assuming no air losses of energy, we don't lose any energy in the air, but we don't gain any either.

So you can see how the energy is switching back and forth between potential and kinetic, right? The amount of energy in any given bounce of this ball is then given by the equation:
Ek(bounce) or Ep(peak) = 0.049 joules * 0.9^n
where n is the current bounce number and 0.9 is the bounce efficiency.
The height of any given bounce is then given by:
h(peak) = 1 meter * 0.9^n

So we're clear on all that? Good, because now it get's complicated. The problem is that you've defined power wrong in this system, it is not "joules", it's "watts".

Work (energy changed, aka power) done by a system in physics is given by:
W = delta E / delta t
Where W is the work done in watts, delta E is the change of energy joules, and t is time in seconds that it took to change the energy. That means that amount of work done by the ball is ENTIRELY dependent on what time it is.

The work done at the first bounce is:
0.049 joules / 0.451 seconds = 0.109 watts

The amount of work done from the start to the peak of the first bounce is:
(0.049 joules - 0.0441 joules) / (0.451 s + 0.429 s) = 0.0049 joules / 0.88 s = 0.00557 watts

and the amount of work done from the start to the second second bounce point is:
0.049 joules / (0.451 s + 0.429s*2) = 0.049 joules / 1.309 seconds = 0.0374 watts

Notice how we have more power at the first bounce point than at ANY of the other bounces or peaks. And given that in the theoretical system that ball never actually stops bouncing, the "total work" calculation would be done with t approaching infinity, resulting in "approaching zero work".

Power can not be calculated in this transient, system because of the oscillation between the vectors.

You are the one who was mistakenly adding up the energy of each bounce as a separate system.

The energy vectors are not the power, they are analogous to voltage (potential) and kinetic (current).

Can anyone see what letsreplicate is defining as work? Dividing the time out of the end result for watts is completely removing the actual work dissipated out of the equation! lol

He even says work depends on the time, but then he removes time to give nothing but a power reading and says this is work dissipated!

What remarkable skepticlown clownery - say that 10 times really fast and you will have a sensation in your mind of what it is like to live as a skepticlown - isn't it frightening?!

All the red in his quote showing acceleration, etc... are all irrelevant to solving for energy dissipated. He is trying to get everyone to focus on hocus pocus slight of hand so that you take your attention off the fact that his results of x watts is nothing but a power measurement (not work dissipated or energy dissipated as in watt seconds for example)!

Before he shows his ridiculous claim of "the amount of work done is x watts".

I mean come on! You already have the amount of energy dissipated then he covers up how much work there is actually being done by dividing out the time!!!

You see, if you fall for letsreplicate tricks and you are led to believe that a power measurement is the amount of work being done, then you will never come to the right conclusion for anything. You have to leave TIME in the equation, which is already inherent in the WORK equation. As it travels a distance, time is built in and the length of time is irrelevant! Short time or long time, the amount of work dissipated doesn't change!

Whatever you get when you multiply Force X distance, that is how much work is dissipated - DO NOT FALL FOR LETSREPLICATE'S magic tricks (low level ones at that) and start believing that power is energy dissipated. He has exposed himself countless times as a fraud and a charlatan. He isn't even qualified to measure a flashlight.

Beware of skepticlown clownery - beware of letsreplicate. Appears to be a paid disinformation agent.

**GSM** · 01-17-2012, 06:03 PM

Clowns - no way !
They sincerely believe they are defending a *necessary* status quo.
Thus they offer help by controlling, and monitor by 'assisting'.

I have come across many before, and they cannot help but trip themselves up because they are blind to the slack in the rope offered for them to 'straighten' !

Thanks for your warning in the other thread Aaron, but the rope had already been thrown and grasped.

Actually, these sceptics do have a use, for if we or our ideas cannot hold up against them, then it would be us who need to think again.

Toughens us up Hey !
However, I am not long here, and don't know of Letsreplicate's history.

**pentarbe** · 01-18-2012, 04:37 AM

Geoffrey Ingram & Dianne Shook

Dear Aaron,

Please reply to my private message.

I have found something about Geoffrey Ingram and Dianne Shook that you will DEFINITELY want to know about.

**Aaron** · 01-18-2012, 11:01 AM

lets replicate can't analyze a flashlight!

Thanks Pentarbe - I wouldn't have guessed that!

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

Anyway, just to post this for permanent record showing the erroneous claims by the skepticlowns at lets replicate... here is a definition of work done (actual energy dissipated) by lifting an object... this is very basic:

This is grabbed from here: Gravitational Potential Energy | Zona Land Education
Work Done Lifting

Now, work is force times displacement. The force that you apply is equal to the weight of the object. The weight of the object is its mass times the acceleration due to gravity. And the displacement over which this work is done is the height of the lift.
So, the work done lifting an object is equal to its mass times the acceleration due to gravity times the height of the lift. This is summarized below:

W = Fd Work equals the applied force times displacement. W = Fgd The applied force equals the weight of the object. W = mgd The weight of the object equals its mass times the acceleration due to gravity. W = mgh The displacement over which the work is done equals the height of the lift.

As I have said, the WORK done is the same as the equation to calculate the potential energy that is there at the peak W=mgh. If you know the potential energy or PE, then you know how much work was DISSIPATED to get it to that height.

The skepitclownery (combination of skepticlown and clownery) from lets replicate states:

The work done at the first bounce is:

0.049 joules / 0.451 seconds = 0.109 watts

It is important to understand that work done is the 0.049 joules of energy in that example and not 0.109 watts.

This is very important to understand - BECAUSE it took 0.049 joules to lift a 5 gram ball to a meter in that example - that is 0.049 joules of potential energy that were dissipated through REAL WORK - ENERGY DISSIPATION - and it is very simple to calculate.

5 grams (0.005 kg) X 9.8 ms/s X 1 meter = 0.049 joules of potential energy DISSIPATED.

Here is where everything falls apart for the skepticlowns. Seeing that you DISSIPATED IN REAL WORK 0.049 joules of potential energy when you lift a 5 gram ball to 1 meter, HOW DO YOU WIND UP WITH ANOTHER 0.049 JOULES OF POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVED WHEN THE BALL IS AT A HEIGHT OF 1 METER? You just expended that much work!

All arguments about the existence of an aether, static or dynamic, open or closed system, conservation, etc... are all irrelevant. We just dissipated 0.049 joules worth of energy over an irrelevant period of time to lift it to a meter.

The $10 million dollar question is: WHERE DOES ANOTHER 0.049 JOULES OF POTENTIAL ENERGY COME FROM AFTER THE SAME 0.049 JOULES OF ENERGY WAS ALREADY DISSIPATED?

The answer is obvious but here are a few possibilities...

1. If there is 0.049 joules of energy required to lift a ball to a meter and you wind up with another 0.049 joules of energy, that means that it took 0 (ZERO) joules of energy to lift the ball to begin with. If you use 0 joules to lift the ball to a meter, then it is possible to have 0.049 joules of energy if conservation is real. Think about it - you just expended 0.049 joules to get to a meter and there is still 0.049 joules of potential energy that will perform more work when the ball is released - that means according to the conventional physics - it didn't take anything at all to lift it!

2. Really, it doesn't seem anyone has to get past point #1 above in order to see that something doesn't add up from the conventional explanation. But another possibility is that Work actually does =Fd and that we really did use up 0.049 joules of potential energy that was really dissipated meaning all the work we put into lifting the ball is completely gone. 100% dissipated. And the only way for there to be 0.049 joules of potential energy available to do work all over again is because it is new potential coming from gravitational potential that will be able to be put to work to do more work.

Conventional physics explanation, it is said that lifting energy is converted to potential energy with no losses. Am I the only one in the world that sees that this is one of the biggest cons in the history of science?

Conventional science says there is work done on the ball to lift it and all that work is magically transformed into potential of the same amount. So when that potential energy is put to work when the ball is dropped, that means you automatically get TWO TIMES the work for the price of one and that is true even if the ball is 0% efficient and doesn't bounce at all but just plops on the ground like a ball of dough.

You get the lifting work of 0.049 joules of dissipated energy over however much time it took. You then get 0.049 joules of dissipated energy when you drop the ball if the ball is 0% efficient and just flattens out without rebounding. This is a COP of 2.0 indisputably.

So far, 100% of all "skeptics" or skepticlowns have been unable to truthfully answer some very simple questions with honesty...

Q1 - HOW MUCH ENERGY, REAL WORK IS DISSIPATED BY LIFTING A 5 GRAM BALL TO 1 METER? To make it easy for the skepticlowns, the formula is W=Fd.

Q2 - HOW MUCH ENERGY, REAL WORK IS DISSIPATED ON THE NEXT BOUNCE TO 83% OF THE HEIGHT?

The truth is that if there is ANY work possible after we lift it to 1 meter and let go, the total amount of energy dissipated is more than what we put in. What we lift and what happens thereafter being added up as total work done is MORE than what we input.

Can any "skeptic" debunk this by simply answering the questions honestly?

The skepticlowns at lets replicate tried but dividing the energy dissipated by the time is only a power reading. That is just plain crackpot thinking and is more suited for a really bad comic book. And going off into endless irrelevant formulas on acceleration, pontificating on impulse energy, etc... is simply proof that they cannot handle the truth. They are emotionally incapable of coming to grips with the reality that everything they ever thought was the truth was a big bag of bologna.

**replaced** · 02-06-2012, 08:06 AM

Quick guide on why perpetual motion machines won't work

Here is a quick guide as to why perpetual motion machines will never work. Don't waste your time on machines that will never work.

Energy can't be created or destroyed.
The amount of entropy in a closed system will never decrease

For #1, there is no process that you can show me which increases the amount of energy in a closed system. For #2, any machine with any moving parts will produce friction which will suck energy that can be exploited from the machine.

Since you can't produce energy (1st law of thermodynamics) and any machine will lose energy because of friction (2nd law of thermodynamics), perpetual motion machines are absolutely impossible. Not even in a billion years will a perpetual motion machine be invented.

The reason why a perpetual motion machine has NEVER been invented yet is because it is absolutely 100% impossible in ALL circumstances. It's impossible because mathematical equations say so. In fact, the consequences of increasing entropy mean that ALL stars, life, and machines in the universe will eventually cease to function.

People said that going to the moon was impossible. But it wasn't impossible because it wasn't against the laws of physics. Perpetual motion machines are literally impossible because they violate the laws of physics.

**Aaron** · 02-06-2012, 08:34 AM

good bye

You need to join jamesrandi.com or something because you are clearly in the wrong forum Dianne Shook. You are nothing more than "letsreplicate" sidekick who is gone and so are you.

Insulting members telling them to go see a psychiatrist is unacceptable. (which is what you did in the other post, which is now deleted)

**shawnnweed** · 02-06-2012, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by replaced View Post

Here is a quick guide as to why perpetual motion machines will never work. Don't waste your time on machines that will never work.

Energy can't be created or destroyed.
The amount of entropy in a closed system will never decrease

For #1, there is no process that you can show me which increases the amount of energy in a closed system. For #2, any machine with any moving parts will produce friction which will suck energy that can be exploited from the machine.

Since you can't produce energy (1st law of thermodynamics) and any machine will lose energy because of friction (2nd law of thermodynamics), perpetual motion machines are absolutely impossible. Not even in a billion years will a perpetual motion machine be invented.

The reason why a perpetual motion machine has NEVER been invented yet is because it is absolutely 100% impossible in ALL circumstances. It's impossible because mathematical equations say so. In fact, the consequences of increasing entropy mean that ALL stars, life, and machines in the universe will eventually cease to function.

People said that going to the moon was impossible. But it wasn't impossible because it wasn't against the laws of physics. Perpetual motion machines are literally impossible because they violate the laws of physics.

I appreciate your candor. And the dogmatic principles which you have been taught or possibly teach are completely understood by everyone here. However every coin has two sides; every rule an exception. Let's take a look at the first. 'Energy can not be created or destroyed'...this is one way of putting it. The one that I heard is that 'matter can not be created or destroyed only changed.' So I guess we are on the same basic sheet of music. However, look at it from this point, if energy can not be created nor destroyed only changed then is it possible for energy to be 'exchanged' on an equal basis? My thoughts on this are...why not; if energy CAN be changed then it should be possible for it to be exchanged. After all this is what motors do...you put in energy in and you get energy out. But let's face it...the exchange is not equal and there is a lot of energy lost in the process...even nuclear energy, for as much electricity as it creates, still is only less than one percent efficient in its exchange. The more we learn the closer we get to a more efficient system. I have come to accept one thing that the first law of thermodynamics is true. However the exception to this rule, and its technically not an exception; it falls within the parameters of the rule, is that energy CAN BE exchanged. It does so naturally and therefore can be done through manipulation once the principles of the exchange are understood.

**shawnnweed** · 02-06-2012, 09:40 AM

Now for the second, which is entropy. Or chaos in a system, which we normally refer to as heat simply because a constant build up of heat will destroy anything. And this I can agree with as well. However, there are degrees of heat. If I placed a standard house match that burned eternally under a 6 inch thick metal vat holding 660,430 gallons of water (an Olympic sized pool) would you ever get the water to boil. As for my thoughts I would feel perfectly comfortable in diving in every day simply because I know that the water and metal will naturally cool itself through circulating the heated portion and it would never get hot enough to boil. Great amounts of circulating water would be the exception to the rule of entropy. remember that the water is in motion when circulating but dissipates heat; it doesn't build it up. So let us also be realistic and face up to a fact; the earth has been around a mighty long time and has a molten core that is hotter than the surface of the sun.(Sun's surface 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit; the earth's core is 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Almost all metals melt at a temperature of less than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The earth;s core is only 4,000 miles away; the only thing that keeps this whole planet from being a big molten piece of slag drifting through space is the sheer amounts of water which keep it cool. Yet without that molten core which provides us a nice magnetic field to keep atmosphere trapped in; and those bad cosmic rays out; this place would be just as lifeless as the moon. Why don't you do a calculation and tell me how long it would take for heat to pass through 4,000 miles of metal at 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit. My guess is if the earth all of a sudden became a solid slug of iron from the outer crust to the core that it would take just under an hour to turn this whole ball into a blistering inferno. A few hours after the electromagnetic field dissipates this place will be nothing more than the twin of Mars. I hope my point is well made that not all motion equals a build up of heat.

**mbrownn** · 02-06-2012, 09:53 AM

Lets keep this thread going

I think this thread is good for identifying shills

Ok if someone is genuine in their skepticism they will ask a genuine question, check the references and do the experiments. If not they will quote everyone they can, misquote and misrepresent, Its hilarious.

Thanks to Aaron for putting up with this.

**Farmhand** · 02-06-2012, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by replaced View Post

Here is a quick guide as to why perpetual motion machines will never work. Don't waste your time on machines that will never work.

Energy can't be created or destroyed.
The amount of entropy in a closed system will never decrease

For #1, there is no process that you can show me which increases the amount of energy in a closed system. For #2, any machine with any moving parts will produce friction which will suck energy that can be exploited from the machine.

Since you can't produce energy (1st law of thermodynamics) and any machine will lose energy because of friction (2nd law of thermodynamics), perpetual motion machines are absolutely impossible. Not even in a billion years will a perpetual motion machine be invented.

The reason why a perpetual motion machine has NEVER been invented yet is because it is absolutely 100% impossible in ALL circumstances. It's impossible because mathematical equations say so. In fact, the consequences of increasing entropy mean that ALL stars, life, and machines in the universe will eventually cease to function.

People said that going to the moon was impossible. But it wasn't impossible because it wasn't against the laws of physics. Perpetual motion machines are literally impossible because they violate the laws of physics.

This argument is old and worn out, you make assumptions and delude yourself,
even if your intentions are good.

Lets break it down then. If you are talking about perpetual motion as in a man
made machine that could run forever then yes, perpetual motion machine's
are in fact and of course impossible, no matter if they were to run under their
own power or even powered. They would break down even if supplied with a
perpetual energy source.

If your just talking about a machine that can run with no user input then your wrong.

You say.

For #1, there is no process that you can show me which increases the amount of energy in a closed system.

I say OK, but why must the system be closed ? And if the system was
closed how would the energy be dissipated if it cannot be destroyed and the
system is closed ? That would be impossible. Of course.

For #2, any machine with any moving parts will produce friction which will suck energy that can be exploited from the machine.

True, but this statement is made invalid if the system is open. And on what
level does moving parts extend to ? If using the environment parts of the
device could include air pressure or even air amongst many other things.

In fact, the consequences of increasing entropy mean that ALL stars, life, and machines in the universe will eventually cease to function.

This statement above would have to be one of the silliest and least thought
out statements in the post.

This is why. If energy cannot be created or destroyed then what EXACTLY
happens to all the energy in the Universe ? Where does it go smarty pants ?

Does it go to another Universe ? Because there is only one Universe of which
you are only aware of a very small part. The Universe is THE ONLY closed system.

The universe is eternal. And the laws of thermodynamics say it is so.

You talk as if you know all but you do not even understand that the universe
being eternal is an axiom and that the laws of thermodynamics back it up.

Stop twisting the observational laws of thermodynamics to suit yourself and
your distractive arguments.

Yes man made perpetual motion machines are impossible, even a child knows
that, very few if anyone here even talks of perpetual motion machines so your
post was invalid anyway. You are not a very good troll.

Announcement

Lets Replicate | letsreplicate.com

Lets Replicate | letsreplicate.com

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment