Lets Replicate | letsreplicate.com

[kcarring]

lol what a crazy thread. Good rant Farm. I'm still trying to figure out why the earth's gravity isn't responsible for the extra energy (potential) in the ball, and elastic potential for the (bounce).

LOL man do i feel stupid, must be time to go to sleep. hahaha

[Aaron]

free energy is everywhere

The point about conservation of energy in a closed system tells the truth. There are no truly closed systems and when potential is dissipated, it is always dissipated back into the environment (external from the device, etc...) - where the idea that energy dissipates stays in the system is ridiculous. To maintain the "closed" system claim of conservation of energy, we have to keep expanding the system as large as the space that the energy is dissipated to in order to claim the energy is maintaining the same. It is completely laughable.

The claim that gravity doesn't contribute relates to the laughable claim of "curved space" according to Einstein. It is claimed it is a static gravitational field. Being static means it is that way because bends it - however, being static means there is no reaction thus violating the third law but of course all the worshipers of the classical fundamentals completely ignores that. Space of course does have a reactionary element to it and pushes back in a dynamic way. Those pseudo skeptics do what is only convenient for them - ignore what doesn't make sense and preach what does make sense to them. It is hypocrisy.

I posted the basic junior high school physics equations that prove gravity does contribute.

Work = Force X distance (calculate that for the initial lift of a rubber ball to 1 meter). That is REAL WORK dissipated. You can see from lets replicate's response, he takes that work in joules and divides it by the time to get a power measurement of watts - meaning he just took all the work out of the end results since he took out the time. That is common for clueless skepticlowns to not know the difference between actual dissipated work and a simple power measurement.

So if you do the Work = Fd formula for lifting the ball - that is REAL WORK.

Then at the peak of the lift you have PE = mgh (potential energy = mass x gravity x height). It will ALWAYS be exactly the same number as how much work it took and even in the conventional books, it says that this work is transferred to potential energy with ZERO LOSS!

If you have the same amount of potential energy at the peak of the lift that is equal to the amount of work that took to lift it - well, that speaks for itself. When the ball is dropped, that potential energy will do the same amount of work that it took to lift it. That means the lifting work and the work that happens after the ball is dropped when added up is 2W or 2 times the work or cop 2.0 automatically (that includes the losses).

The statement that we get out only what we put in, is partially true. You put in 10 joules and you get out 10 joules. That means 20 joules of work is done and that can be simply calculated with basic equations that are in every junior high or high school physics book. But the catch, is that this only applies to EACH CYCLE. (each bounce cycle).

If you put in 10 joules to lift something that is real work dissipated. You then have 10 joules of potential that you wound up with AFTER you already dissipated the same amount of energy.

When you drop the ball, it will do work in heat, friction, etc... and if it bounces back up 80% of the height. 80% of the height will be 8 joules of potential energy at that height while it dissipated 8 joules to go to the next height. Therefore, there is 20% loss in heat/friction/resistance, etc...

LIFT W= Fd = 10 joules (1 meter)

PE = mgh = 10 joules of potential energy (evidenced by work done after ball is dropped in losses + next bounce upwards)

DROP LOSSES = 2 joules

NEXT LIFT W = Fd = 8 joules (0.8 meters) (if ball is 80% efficient in getting to 80% of the previous height)

PE = mgh = 8 joules of potential energy

Those 2 joules of losses in heat are still work dissipated but even if we don't add those, that is 1.8 cop.

Basically, the above cycle shows you get out what you put in.

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

But, you get out what you put in again on the next cycle

So at 80% efficient, the formulas predict that if the ball is at 0.8 meters the ball will have 8 joules of potential energy because 8 joules went into lifting it to 0.8 meters on the previous lift.

So PE = 8 joules, we can predict at 80% efficient that the ball will bounce to 0.64 meters and will have 6.4 joules of PE at the peak.

So, 8 joules of PE, we drop it and it gets to 6.4 joules of PE meaning that 1.6 joules were losses. So 6.4 + 1.6 = 8 joules of work dissipated from the 8 joules of PE that were there at the peak before dropped

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

It just goes and goes until the ball stops. That is all real work dissipated and proven by W = Fd = work = Force X distance

A skepticlown will claim there is not more work because it doesn't bounce higher each time, but that has nothing to do with it. We originally dissipated 10 joules in REAL WORK to lift it to a meter after that, it had PE to do MORE REAL WORK and on and on, which proves 100% conclusively that gravity is absolutely contributing potential that can be put to work and that a static gravitational field by being curved space is 100% incorrect, proven wrong by a stupid 25 cent rubber ball.

The skepticlowns will misdirect people's attention to the fact that it doesn't bounce higher each time in hopes that nobody will actually ADD up all the real dissipated W = Fd for each bounce, which when added up including how much we had to put in, will ALWAYS be over 1.0 cop. The rubber ball I used is over 8.0 COP.

W=Fd is showing work dissipated or it isn't. If it isn't, I'm wrong. If it is, I'm right. I believe it is irrefutable.

Anyone can do the math - unlike lets replicate who demonstrated himself to be completely incompetent to do so and shows a power measurement and claims that is how much work is done.

So far 100% of every skeptic that looked at the bouncing ball example is 100% dishonest because they simply will not do W=Fd on the initial lift and add up all the W=Fd for each other bounce upwards (all real dissipated work) add it up and compare to what we put in to lift it and it is more!

And the only ones that came "close" to being honest tries to redifine that you can't add each bounce together and consider that work done in the whole system!

It is absolutely no different than charging a coil to do mechanical work, you have a certain amount of potential stored in the coil that you can recapture, then put it back to work to do more work, store potential, get it back and do more work. Each time diminishes but the point is that you can add up all work done by one initial charge and it can easily be over 1.0 cop.

The ironic thing is that Newton's Cradle is actually overunity (over 1.0 cop). When you lift the first ball initially, you can see the height the ball on the other end goes to and that will determine its efficiency - by comparing that height to the height that you lifted the ball. Then calculate work on each cycle and compare it to the initial lift. Way over 1.0 COP! Nobody can prove it isn't with math because the math shows it is over 1.0 COP. There are calculations to show work of an object going up in an arc instead of straight vertical, just like it can be calculate work of moving something up steps where the object is being displaced horizontally across the step before being lifted up. In any case, Newton's Cradle is efficiency converting free gravitational potential to work over and over and over.

I would encourage everyone to simply do the experiment and math. Get a rubber bouncy ball, weight it, lift it to a meter and let go and just mark the height on only just the next 3-4 bounces. That is all that is necessary to overturn all the garbage interpretations in the books.

F = mg (Force = mass x gravity 9.81 ms/s)
W = Fd (Work = Force x distance or height lifted for lifting calculations)
PE = mgh (Potential Energy = mass x gravity x height)
P = W/t (Power = Work / time)

The only one not even needed is the P = Power measurement because it is 100% irrelevant how much time it takes to lift the ball or how long it takes to bounce upwards to each peak. Time is intrinsically embedded in the Work equation inside of distance. By moving the mass a distance, that automatically implies that time is passing. It doesn't matter if we lift the ball in a second or in a year, the amount of work done is the same. Only the power per second changes but the end results is the same amount of work done.

So with these 3 equations,

F = mg (Force = mass x gravity 9.81 ms/s)
W = Fd (Work = Force x distance or height lifted for lifting calculations)
PE = mgh (Potential Energy = mass x gravity x height)

thermodynamics is disproved when applied to any open system such as a bouncing ball.

Even most people that do believe in overunity where environmental input contributes to work done have a problem accepting the bouncing ball example because it is too simple. It is almost embarrassing that it is really right there in front of us the whole time but nobody is wanting to see it for what it is. The numbers don't lie.

So when myself and others believe that there are countless free energy machines all over the place, that is literal. It is not a problem to have free energy - the problem is psychological where the classical teachings of "you get out more than what you put in" are contorted to the point that we look at 4 fingers sticking up and actually believe there are 5 because we've been told that is so.

Even with the Bedini chargers, swapping batteries. You start with X in one battery that you paid for and when calculating all the work done when swapping over and over and over, it is WAY over 1.0 COP. People debate that it isn't but they simply don't look at it for what it is. Joules in versus joules out - it isn't any more complicated than that.

The Velijko oscillator - it is a sophisticated bouncing ball but instead of a simple opposition according to the third law of motion, the reaction actually causes work done be done in the forward direction! It is overunity.

There are too many examples to list - even the plasma ignition is overunity and only a few people get that.

There are so many free energy devices it is incredible! Free energy is literally falling out of the sky.

Anyway, for identifying shills, I lump them all together under the term of skepticlowns.

A pseudo-skeptic who is really a clown. There are quite a few and I know who quite a few of them are. Sites like quackwatch and other bogus pseudo-skeptic sites that work for big pharma, etc... are all over the place. Perhaps there needs to be a skepticlown watch site where full bios and evidence of skepticlown shillery are posted for all to see. lol

[Nadda]

Perpetual motion machines are literally impossible because they violate the laws of physics.

I would LOVE for you to breakdown telekinesis using the laws of physics lol.
PLEASE explain to me the mathmatical equation which reveals that its possible to make solid objects move in different rooms alone by themselves.
PLEASE explain to me the "law" of physics that accounts for the fact that electricity reacts and can actually pulse to human thought.
Think thats impossible? Then Maybe you should just keep quiet and stop trying to convince people of something until you yourself know whats real and whats not.

I know enough to realize that I dont really know anything at all. Maybe your not on that level yet.

[Aaron]

remote viewing defeats laws of physics

My remote viewing sessions here violate all those laws of physics:

http://www.energeticforum.com/psychic-paranormal/540-basic-trv-sessions.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/psychic-paranormal/540-basic-trv-sessions-2.html

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

As far a perpetual motion, relative to the Universe, nothing on and in the Earth has ever stopped moving since the beginning. Everything is in perpetual motion, has been and will be. If there is entropy that ends the universe, why is it simply accelerating faster the further out you go. That is the opposite of entropy, which would mean it would have to be slowing down the further out you go.

[kcarring]

"I know enough to realize that I dont really know anything at all. Maybe your not on that level yet."

I'm definitely on that level

LOL

Wayyy to on that level for my own liking. I've now seen some effects both in Bedini replications and Dr. Stiffler circuits that truly make me go huhh?

I don't make any claims because at the end of the day, I can't prove the energy in, vs. the energy out... and I've never seen ANYONE do it, because video seeing is not believing; simple as that.

But anyway:

@Aaron

Thanks for the 10 millionth explanation of the ball scenario. Someone is going to have to start paying you for that LOL you must grow tired of trying to explain it. It helps though, I don't know some people (like me) get things on the 237th time through LOL

I only have one question on that one:

If classical theory states an object can have elastic potential energy. Do you believe it? If it just remains, all the time... I mean.

Because classical science tells us the friggen ball bounces because of elastic potential energy.

My question is, if this energy is "not overunity" when does it end? I suppose it does end, if you bounce a ball for 45 years, will one day come... and... the sucker just won't bounce? it has no more bounce in it? I guess in a way a shock absorber or rubber frame mount exhibits that... but that in itself is a bit hard to grab, for me... seems overunity within itself.

I dunno!

[Aaron]

doing real measurements

I've now seen some effects both in Bedini replications and Dr. Stiffler circuits that truly make me go huhh?

I don't make any claims because at the end of the day, I can't prove the energy in, vs. the energy out... and I've never seen ANYONE do it, because video seeing is not believing; simple as that.

But anyway:

@Aaron

Thanks for the 10 millionth explanation of the ball scenario. Someone is going to have to start paying you for that LOL you must grow tired of trying to explain it. It helps though, I don't know some people (like me) get things on the 237th time through LOL

I only have one question on that one:

If classical theory states an object can have elastic potential energy. Do you believe it? If it just remains, all the time... I mean.

Because classical science tells us the friggen ball bounces because of elastic potential energy.

My question is, if this energy is "not overunity" when does it end? I suppose it does end, if you bounce a ball for 45 years, will one day come... and... the sucker just won't bounce? it has no more bounce in it? I guess in a way a shock absorber or rubber frame mount exhibits that... but that in itself is a bit hard to grab, for me... seems overunity within itself.

I dunno!

Hi Kyle,

This is a video of an example of a "Detailed Integrated Power Analysis" with a digital storage oscilloscope (DSO).

Detailed Integrated Power Analysis of Ainslie Circuit - YouTube

That is a $10k scope lent to me by the Tektronix company for my testing.

It can sample 10,000 samples per screen shot. You can have many waveforms on the screen of course or you can break it down to just 1 or 2 in case you want to prove there is more coming back under the line that is
going out over the line on a per waveform basis.

In the SG's with a transistor, there is no kickback to the power battery when the transistor shuts off - this just makes for easier measurement to see what is leaving the battery. Putting a scope across the battery will show little pulses a bit above the battery at the same frequency the circuit is running at IF there is kickback and I haven't seen it. It all goes to recovery.

Anyway, this is a legit way to measure how much power was drained from the input battery compared to what you get on the output. It doesn't have to be a guessing game on whether or not different systems are "overunity" or not.

Use this method to test input battery. Then compare to work you get from batteries on back that you swap to front or to power a load, you will see the reality.

I'll answer the elastic potential energy in another post.

[Aaron]

bouncing ball physics

Actually, I get a kick out of explaining the bouncing ball example because it is so simple, it is a big stick in the eye of classical explanations that is so "in your face" that nobody can refute it.

With or without "elastic potential energy" nobody can get around the fact that all dissipated energy the ball does can be added up and compared to the initial lift to demonstrate over 1.0 COP. I don't believe there is a human being alive or dead who can or has ever shown that all the real work dissipated in MEASURABLE work divided by the input initial lift is less than 1.0 COP. Nobody is capable of disproving this example because it is simply inherently true in every measure.

Skepticlowns go off on power measurements or redefining what a non-equilibrium system is to suit their misdirection purposes but anyone that is honest must simply agree that the ball going UP is energy dissipated, it is measurable and indisputably, all that work added up is WAY more than the initial lift.

As far as "elastic potential energy" - it doesn't exist. There is elasticity in concept but... There is simply the gravitational potential that will be able to create work out of thin air, dissipation back into thin air (no conservation of energy) and the effect on the ball by these are a compression of the ball, which will dictate how high it bounces for its own particular material.

If you have a 13 gram ball (0.013 kg) that you lift to 1.22 meters...

F = 0.013 X 9.8 = 0.1274 newton meters of Force

Work to lift this to 1.22 meters is W = Fd = 0.1274 X 1.22 = 0.155428 joules

The PE or Potential Energy = mgh or mass x gravity x height and will be IDENTICAL to the Work of 0.155428

Power is irrelevant of course.

Let's say this ball is 93% efficient - the highest claim I saw for the original superball, which is incredibly high. My 25 cent ball is 83% efficient.

The ball's ability to rebound after dropped is the efficiency of the ball.

If ball is dropped from a meter and bounces back to 70 cm, it is 70% efficient. The "elasticity" or "elastic potential energy" can be determined by this.

The entire classical argument of elastic potential energy is completely irrelevant anyway. Why? Because you already have a mathematically provable amount of energy that was dissipated by the initial lift of the ball.

When the ball bounces back up it does more work, etc... work is mathematically proven to be done after it is dropped so whether it is because there is elastic potential energy stored in the ball because it is compressed or not doesn't change the math that shows a bouncing ball is overunity.

In our example, the ball is lifted to 1.22 meters. So, if it is 93% efficient, it will predictably bounce to 1.1346 meters.

That means 7% was eaten up by losses in dropping friction against air resistance, impact heat, etc...

So if the work to lift it to 1.22 meters is 0.155428 joules of energy of real dissipated work-energy, 93% of that is 0.144548. We can verify this.

If it is claimed by me that it will take 0.144548 to lift a 13 gram ball to 1.1346 meters....

W = Fd = 0.013 kg x 9.8 gravity x 1.1346 meters = 0.144548 joules of real dissipated energy - verified perfectly by math.

So what happens is this...

1. 0.155428 joules of energy dissipated to raise 13 gram ball to 1.22 meters

2. 0.155428 joules of potential energy are available to do that much work all over again despite the fact that this is the same amount of work that was ALREADY expended to lift it to that height in the first place.

3. Ball is dropped and 7% of that that potential energy was dissipated in losses leaving 0.144548 joules of potential energy to do further work at the "peak" of compression of the ball.

4. The ball is compressed - it is NOT "storing" any potential whatsoever when it is compressed. It is simply a potential difference that is established in the ball which will have a proportionate relationship to the height it will bounce according to that 0.144548 joules of PE when the reaction pushes out and pushes the ball up into the air, which dissipates 100% of that 0.144548 joules of PE the moment it reaches the peak of 1.1346 meters. So none of that is stored in the ball when it is at the peak - the PE the ball has now is determined by the potential difference between it and the ground.

You compress a spring, it takes x work to do so. Spring then has some PE (not "stored" but is PE by virtue of the dipole created while spring is compressed). The spring is let go to do some work. Add up that work it does when it decompresses and add it to work taken to compress it. That is total work done. Divide that by joules of work dissipated to compress it to begin with and it is over 1.0 COP.

The bottom line is that if there is ANY work that is done AFTER we initially expend work to do something, it is automatically over 1.0 COP.

When looking at everything for what it is, I don't think anyone can find anything that is under 1.0 COP. This IS the way nature is.

Even a flashlight "system" is overunity. You expend 10 joules to charge the battery then the battery gives you light say 5 joules of light if it is 50% efficient. That is 15 joules of work done divided by 10 joules of work input - that is a COP of 1.5 (again with an efficiency of only 50%!).

The only question that needs to be asked is this... was energy dissipated to charge the battery? If so, that is work done and SO IS lighting the light. Adding them together is total work done.

The real difference between an open and closed system is that a "closed" system will be COP 2.0 max no matter what. You get not what you put in but you get an equal amount back IN ADDITION TO what you put in but that is it!

On a closed system you get 1 cycle, period. Whatever work you put in, you will get an equal amount of work back out of it so that work done is double. Any losses are still work, just undesired work. And desired work is not considered losses - but the fact remains, there is double work being done every single time/cycle.

There is one cycle with a flashlight, which is a closed system. You dissipate energy to charge the battery. Then the battery will give you an equal amount of work done in the form of losses (unintentional work) PLUS intentional work (the light of the bulb or whatever). Total input compared to total output will equal roughly 2.0 COP.

On an open system, there can be more than one cycle since the environment is contributing in a real way, which simply means the environment is constantly donating input to keep the system far from equilibrium, thus delaying the time until it does finally come into equilibrium.

[GSM]

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.

1. Energy can't be created or destroyed.
2. 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.

Hi Replaced,
So no energy can be created or destroyed then ?
And not even in a billion years will one of these be invented -

perpetual motion machine selfrunning - YouTube

actually energy can be created within a closed system, in exactly the same way as others have already done, esp Moray ...........

so PLEASE open your mind and stop believing the 'expert's' *lies*.

(When you understand the hows and whys of how this pendulum works, and how Moray plus others have generated energy in a box or from a breadboarded layout, then you too might become annoyed at the experts who have given themselves the right to corrupt the thinking of our young minds via "education".

[Aaron]

energy vs potential and the flawed laws of physics

The italicized quotes down below in my response are Dominic's.

I know that some of conventional science's laws are not complete yet.

Aaron, I am wondering what people mean by saying Energy is "the thing"?

In Europe you learn that energy is the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems. What do you think of this definition?

I have read this part like 3 times and have been pondering over it for quite some more time. Now, I don't see how this example proves a COP of 2.0 because:

If I lift a ball of clay to 1 meter, it was ME or any machine that did the work. So, I, or my machine first had to DO WORK in order to move the ball of clay to 1m height. So far, I haven't won anything. (actually, the balance is negative at this point) Because as you said, at 1 meter height, we have 100% dissipated energy. I totally agree with you and understand what you mean.

Now, on the university we didn't learn that Epot = m*g*h is the potential energy "stored" in the ball (that is, as you say, a miss-interpretation or "fraud"), but much rather the energy which is won after the ball drops back down to the ground due to gravitational acceleration.

As you say "NEW (not stored) potential comes from gravitational potential". I agree again. Thats exactly what you learn on European Universities.

next, you yourself said "Now, calculate the amount of REAL WORK done AFTER it was released, it was EXACTLY the same as the Force X Distance to lift it. "

Once again I agree.

But, now you're telling me to add up the work done to lift the ball (W= - F*D) and the work done by gravitational acceleration (Epot=mgh) to move it back down, and this is the point where i don't see why.

you are adding both works which were done as if they were both positive works and this way you would get "2.0" of course. But, then again, I wonder whether this is truly useful/logical because after all, the work done to lift the ball was NEGATIVE WORK done by myself (negative insofar that i haven't won anything, i had to perform work to bring the ball to this level!) so if I really added them as you suggest it would (should in my opinion) look like this:


W lift = - F*D (the minus expresses the work that I myself had to do first)
W pot = m*g*h

Now, if both as you say, are EQUAL (lets say 100J for example just for demonstration) and if I added them now, the mathematical result would be:

W total = -F*D + m*g*h = -(100 J) + 100 J = 0 J

==>>> W total = 0 J

So, according to these mathematics our Co-efficiency of Performance wouldn't exceed 1.0
(we have lost as much energy as we gained)

Practical example why I consider this first work done to lift the ball of clay as "negative" with the minus:
If I had a robot and programmed it in such a way that it lifts this ball of clay to 1 meter, my robot will require electrical energy first to do this! so at 1 meter of height, I have only dissipated (lost!) energy!

I hope that I have stated my point in such a way that it isn't confusing.



I agree with point nr.1.. Tesla has proven this years ago.
But, point number two? I also agree but where do people say this? if a student said this on my university at an exam he would FAIL right away! Perhaps its a matter of interpretation? This really makes me wonder.

anyways, I don't understand how "Energy transforming from one form to another is a hoax." Lets again take our Ball of clay as our example.

you stated that:


So essentially, you said that there is "heat", which essentially is Thermal Energy! Also, you said that there will be a deformation of the clay, which is the natural result of very strong vibrational energy of the atoms which again results in tremendously high breaking loads which exceed the binding energy of the clay's matter!

Now, I thought that gravitational energy is transformed into Vibrational Energy which at the same time increases the Thermal Energy of the object when the ball hits the ground.

My question here is, that if transformation of energy is a hoax, where does the gravitational energy go and where does the Thermal Energy and Vibrational Energies come from once the Ball of Clay hits the ground?

I am looking forward to receive an answer and learn more
Best regards from Austria!
Respectfully,
Dominic

p.s.: excuse me for this long post but I really put a lot of effort in this to make sure that my explanations and thoughts can be clearly understood

Dominic,

The answer to 100% of every question you have is explained explicitly or implied within what I already posted in the thread on Paul's talk but I'll go into it anyway. It can also be simply deduced by just observing natural phenomena.

I'll start by making a distinction of what you said - it is not that the conventional laws are incomplete - by virtue of there being a law, it is complete and whole and there is no such thing as an incomplete law of nature - otherwise, it wouldn't be a law. Many of the conventional claims are not just incomplete, they are completely wrong and we can examine this.

"In Europe you learn that energy is the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems. What do you think of this definition?" - as I have explained in my other posts, the definition you mention of energy being the ABILITY TO - well, potential is also an ability to thereby defining energy and potential as being the same but are not. They are not the same conceptually and they are not the same mathematically either. So what I think of that common definition, which is also the same in the American English dictionary is that it is completely wrong.

Energy isn't the ability to do anything. Energy is the actual dissipation of potential from one potential to the other and with dissipation, that means of course that real WORK is being done. If there is no work being done, there is no energy. When work is being done, there is energy. Work is the complete opposite from an "ability to" do something, it is the actual doing of something.

As you say, when the ball or whatever is lifted to a meter, 100% of everything we put into it is dissipated (MEANING THAT IF IT IS DISSIPATED, THERE IS NOTHING STORED IN THE OBJECT AT 1 METER OR ANY HEIGHT - I'm not yelling - this is just emphasis).

Now, if you calculate the force x distance on that object, we can see how many joules were "burned" to lift that ball. That is real work. Let's just say it took 1 joule to lift it.

"So far, I haven't won anything. (actually, the balance is negative at this point) Because as you said, at 1 meter height, we have 100% dissipated energy." You say we didn't win anything and are at a negative. That is incorrect. Being at a negative means we didn't get anything equal out of the work we put in, but we DID - it is an asset for our investment. We got an object to 1 meter - we got EXACTLY what we paid for. We paid to lift the ball and so we just got out of it what we put in and we haven't even accounted for work that will be done when the ball falls.

Your statement is only correct if we put in x joules of dissipated work on the object to lift it and then we find out it is still sitting on the ground. If that was the case, then yes, we are at a negative.

So it took 1 joule to lift it to a meter for example. What I'm saying isn't a matter of perspective, it is mathematically correct. For this object at 1 meter, we know that MxGxH will tell us how much potential for work there is available to us. Basically, all MGH tells us is how much work we will be able to get when the object is released from that height. Nothing is stored in the object, we simply created a potential difference and that potential difference (voltage) dictates how much gravitational potential is able to contribute to doing work.

We let go of the object and lets say it has no elasticity at all and simply falls and thuds when it hits the ground. That sound, heat, impact, etc... will be equal to 1 joule since MGH told us at that height, that is how much work will be done AFTER the object is released to come back down.

The INPUT into the system is 1 joule and the total work done is our 1 joule + 1 joule that gravitational potential contributed to meaning we have a mathematically measurable amount of joule seconds per second that were actually done in REAL WORK, which equals a total of 2 joules.

COP is the TOTAL WORK DONE divided by ONLY OUR INPUT NOT INCLUDING NATURE. So 2 joules of work done / 1 joule of input that we paid for = 2.0 COP.

Since the object had zero elasticity, it is 0% efficient in establishing a new dipole or potential difference between the object and the ground, since COP and efficiency of course are different measurements.

Of course efficiency is always a matter of perspective because it only accounts for DESIRED work while ignoring the fact that all losses are real work too, but just not what we wanted.

In any case, the above clearly shows how it is 2.0 COP.

Q1 = is F X D of the object being lifted to a meter REAL DISSIPATED WORK?
A = yes

Q2 = does M x G x H accurately describe how much work is done when the objects is released?
A = yes

Therefore, since both are YES, there are 2 joules of calculable REAL WORK that was done by only inputting 1 joule into the system.

This is the indisputable truth that Paul Babcock and all others have explained for many years - we put in 1 and we get 1 freebie back. Even in Paul's video he says we get a "freebie". This is always the case for each "cycle" the system goes through.

"Now, on the university we didn't learn that Epot = m*g*h is the potential energy "stored" in the ball (that is, as you say, a miss-interpretation or "fraud"), but much rather the energy which is won after the ball drops back down to the ground due to gravitational acceleration. As you say "NEW (not stored) potential comes from gravitational potential". I agree again. Thats exactly what you learn on European Universities. next, you yourself said "Now, calculate the amount of REAL WORK done AFTER it was released, it was EXACTLY the same as the Force X Distance to lift it. Once again I agree. "

I like what you're saying. You may not be aware of this, but do you realize how many "experts" claim that gravity is a static phenomena that CANNOT contribute any new potential to the system and when an object is lifted, it is storing potential that we put into it? It is as ridiculous as those that claim that magnetism cannot cause any work to be done - one of the main points to Paul's presentation is that it can.

I can't claim to know what is currently taught at the American universities, but I can tell you exactly what many self-proclaimed experts here think they know based on what they learned in American universities - because I hear from these ill-informed individuals all the time. And that is that gravity cannot contribute to anything.

In any case, with what you are agreeing with so far, from my perspective, half the battle is already won so to speak. But, for it to make complete sense to you, you would have to see that you are not at a negative when you lifted the object, because you DID get something that is absolutely there, and that is a NEW dipole or separation of potential differences between the object and the ground.

If you can see that you actually got real work when you lifted the object because what you got out of your work was the lift of the object in and of itself. And are therefore not at a negative. That is real measurable work. Then add that to the work when you drop it and it is 2X of what you put in.

[Aaron]

energy vs potential 2

You are answering your own questions here and agreeing with me actually:

"next, you yourself said "Now, calculate the amount of REAL WORK done AFTER it was released, it was EXACTLY the same as the Force X Distance to lift it. Once again I agree. "

Exactly! Since the REAL WORK done AFTER we dropped it is EXACTLY the same as what we used to lift it, that is 2X the work we put in, period.

Again - "you are adding both works which were done as if they were both positive works and this way you would get "2.0" of course. But, then again, I wonder whether this is truly useful/logical because after all, the work done to lift the ball was NEGATIVE WORK done by myself (negative insofar that i haven't won anything, i had to perform work to bring the ball to this level!) so if I really added them as you suggest it would (should in my opinion) look like this:"

You are ignoring the fact that it is not negative. The WORK done to lift the ball is REAL WORK in the POSITIVE. It is not negative work, it is positive work and the work done when the object is released is also positive. That is 2X compared to what we put in.

It is not just a matter of perspective. It is a mathematical reality and nowhere do negative numbers enter this equation.

I'm just asking for an intellectually honest analysis.

Q1 - was real work done to lift the object? Yes
Q2 - was real work done when the object was dropped? Yes

"W lift = - F*D (the minus expresses the work that I myself had to do first)
W pot = m*g*h"

That is a logical fallacy to assume the work is negative and is where the answer is. That negative is only there so that everyone learning that will believe that we only got out what we put in with a theoretical max of 1.0 COP.

The natural fact is that REAL WORK was done and REAL WORK IN POSITIVE TIME is a + regardless of how the establishment wants to manipulate the facts.

So, it isn't a matter of whether my examples hold up or not. It is a matter of whether or not you allow yourself to see that it is REAL WORK with TIME MOVING "FORWARD" and therefore, it is positive work no matter what. If you allow yourself to see it as it is instead of how they are manipulating it, then you have no choice but to agree with me.

Think about it - it is very, very simple.

If you have a battery and you power a coil, you get a magnetic field that can do work, repel a magnet, whatever the example happens to be. Then when the battery is disconnected, you are able to get back everything you put into it (minus the losses in recovery, which cover a wide range of %'s).

Are you actually going to tell me that you are going to calculate the charging of the coil as a NEGATIVE value? And then add the recovery as a POSITIVE value so that any excess is zeroed out and it appears that we only got out what we put in? It wouldn't just be incorrect, it would be intellectually dishonest.

Literally, negative work is reverse entropy by definition and by every sense of the term. Heat was generated by lifting the ball in the muscles, with the object going against air resistance, an arm connected to a pivot and bearing, etc... If there was negative work when the ball is lifted, there would be COOLING, which is the opposite of generating heat and to believe there is cooling or negative entropy would be laughable.

The negative sign on what you are showing is psychological manipulation by the establishment about the facts and has absolutely no relation to what is happening in reality. They are skewing the perspective in favor of not showing that in an open dissipative system (non equilibrium thermodynamic system) there is free potential from nature that adds to our own input that we paid for. This is crystal clear.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

Again, there can only be a real (-) with real work if it is negentropic and/or going backwards in time. This is self evident. The lift and the work on the drop are BOTH positive real dissipation that generate heat with time moving in the forward direction.

So from what I see, there are 2 distinct ridiculous manipulations by the establishment that achieves the same goal. One is more advanced than the other because it allows for gravitational input as a source of potnetial - the one you are explaining.

One manipulation says gravity doesn't contribute and you store potential in an object when you lift it and you get that out when you release the object. So you only get out what you put in.

The other manipulation says that gravity does contribute but as long as there is a minus sign and we call it "negative work" then it will at least admit that gravity does introduce new potential but there still will be nothing in excess and we still only get out what we put in.

"If I had a robot and programmed it in such a way that it lifts this ball of clay to 1 meter, my robot will require electrical energy first to do this! so at 1 meter of height, I have only dissipated (lost!) energy! "

That is incorrect, you created a brand new DIPOLE or potential difference, which is just like getting a new battery by spending money at the store.

What you are saying is not confusing. You do explain yourself very well. I don't know if you're native language is Austrian, but you are better with the English language in technical explanations that most Americans (that discuss this particular topic at least).

"anyways, I don't understand how "Energy transforming from one form to another is a hoax." Lets again take our Ball of clay as our example."

Transformation of energy assumes the conservation of energy. You can't have one without the other but you agree with the conservation of energy opinion that you reference that Tesla proves. If you lift an object, you dissipated 100% of what you put in when it reaches the peak. There is NOTHING left and there is nothing conserved. When the object is dropped and work is done, none of the energy demonstrated when we lifted the object has transformed into any of the energy demonstrated when the object is dropped.

We created a brand new dipole when lifting the ball and new gravitational potential enters the system, encounters resistance (real work) (potential diminishing) and that is NEW potential that exhibits energy when work is done. There was no transformation of the input energy into the output energy - they are disconnected from each other as far as the actual potential that was used on the input and on the output.

There is a RELATIONSHIP between the energy on the output compared to the input (which may or may not be directly proportional to each other) but a relationship is not a transformation between them. The relationship is that x potential was dissipated (energy) on the lift and x potential was dissipated after the object was released based on the dipole that was established on the initial lift. But there was no change in the FORM of energy from one form to another. We lift, we dissipate the potential back into the ambient environment. We release, we have new potential that comes in and then dissipates - again - back into the ambient environment. But the energy on the input and output were not the same didn't transform from one to the other.

The transformation concept is another psychological manipulation to cause people to see that what we put in is what we get out but still has no relation to reality. You even agree that we lift an object and there is 100% dissipation. That potential dissipated back to the environment. And because it did, it isn't transforming into dissipated potential (energy) when the object is dropped. Therefore, there is no transformation of energy from one form to another.

"My question here is, that if transformation of energy is a hoax, where does the gravitational energy go and where does the Thermal Energy and Vibrational Energies come from once the Ball of Clay hits the ground?"

I would personally ask where does the gravitational potential go instead of energy because energy is an adjective to describe the dissipation of potential. Potential is the source potential - call it aether, virtual photons, particles x, higgs boson particles, etc... whatever you want to call it, but those are what are tangible and those are what can come and go. The activity of those "particles" decreasing in their pressure (potential difference) is what we describe as energy.

You would have to explore the entire gravitational model that has been presented that is the genesis of this entire "argument". In a nutshell, Earth dissipates the aether and the aether rebounds back to where it was displaced pushing down on the mass of anything on Earth and is where the gravitational push comes from. It never meets equilibrium as this potential difference dissipates deeper under the ground (this of course is all speculation) and different particles are created like possibly electrons, etc... that rise to the surface of the Earth like artesian water (Tesla reference) so there is a constant downward flow.

Where the thermal energy comes from is far easier and is self apparent (from my perspective of course). As the gravitational potential is moving back to the center of the mass that displaced it (Earth), it will exert an electrostatic type of PUSH on the mass, which pushes it towards the ground. In free fall, there is not much resistance to the downward push and resistance of the air is negligible. When the object being pushed on by gravity in free fall is resisted (hitting the ground), that gravitational potential is no longer only potential but is not exerting a force on the object as it is resisted from falling any longer and that resistance is the object physically rubbing the ground at an increased level (stronger molecular rubbing) and that excites them to a higher "energy" level, which is essentially the exact same thing as shorting the dipole or shorting a battery. You are equalizing the dipole in a very short period of time. You are equalizing the dipole (potential difference). The height at which the object was determined how much gravitational potential can contribute to this heat, deformation, etc... that potential is being dissipated back to the ambient environment by encountering the resistances the object has with the ground.

In summary...

You ask if it is a useful perspetive, etc... useful would be a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, I believe it is useful to see things as they are and now how they are manipulated. The math agrees with my assessment as long as no manipulative negative signs are used because that only changes the perspective but does not actually demonstrate negative work. By seeing this as it is, we are able to actually understand the principles that any "free energy" machine operates under and why they do not violate any laws of nature as the currently claimed laws are wrong and are not just incomplete but are manipulated to prevent the self apparent nature of nature itself.

What I'm saying is not a matter of perspective.

Your example of putting turning the input work into a negative is a matter of perspective. This is self-apparent because you are doing real work that dissipates heat when the object is lifted and are not reversing entropy, which is what negative work is. To do negative work when an object is lifted LITERALLY means that gravity reverses and the object moves upward at negative resistance - that is the only valid case where it warrants a negative sign in front of it.

I'll look forward to hearing back from you.

[Farmhand]

When a ball is lifted in the air, it's kinda like just stretching the rubber band of a
slingshot in my opinion, the rubber band is like the gravity. When the ball is being
lifted you are doing work against the force of gravity, therefore giving it more
potential to be moved by gravity. When the ball is on the ground at rest,
gravity
is affecting it but it has no potential to be moved by gravity because of the
ground.

Now when the ball is released the it falls because of gravity but only because
you invested the work to make it possible. When the ball bounces, the energy
comes from the force of the ball compressing the material and/or air of the ball
this is a direct result of the ball being lifted and released. The energy for the
bounce is part of the energy gained from the drop. Otherwise it would hit the
ground and stop dead.

Is a spring over unity, is a balloon over unity, is everything that bounces over unity ?
They must be because they do what a ball does.

Cheers

[Space]

Dominic,

The answer to 100% of every question you have is explained explicitly or implied within what I already posted in the thread on Paul's talk but I'll go into it anyway.

Hi Aaron, let me thank you in advance for doing this. Your reply was far longer and detailed than I had expected. I read it more than once and spent quite some time (all day long actually) pondering and musing about its content. Now, If I still ask questions about the Ball of Clay example, please don't think that I am ignorant, or just don't want to change my perspective or something like that, it's just honest questions and thought's and I'm glad that I can finally ask some things in this area !

You say we didn't win anything and are at a negative. That is incorrect. Being at a negative means we didn't get anything equal out of the work we put in, but we DID - it is an asset for our investment. We got an object to 1 meter - we got EXACTLY what we paid for. We paid to lift the ball and so we just got out of it what we put in and we haven't even accounted for work that will be done when the ball falls.

With negative I meant that we had to put in energy first to achieve this height. We had to do work. So, our system dissipated energy to lift the ball and we have not gained any yet (this is what I meant with "we are at a negative"). Instead, as you say, we have created a potential difference. (i totally agree there!)
But this potential difference hasn't yielded us any energy yet, has it? Considering this whole example with the ball of clay, I was only concerned with "Do I get more energy out than I put in?"
because that's what COP>1 means to me. If someone tells me he has a device at home which has a COP>1 this means to me that he gets out more energy than he had originally put in to get it going. Am I right with this point of view about COP?

At least thats the way it is with the heat pump which usually has a COP of around 4 or 5.

I should have used an energy balance to explain what I meant and not put a minus in front of the work done. Sorry for creating this confusion.

We let go of the object and lets say it has no elasticity at all and simply falls and thuds when it hits the ground. That sound, heat, impact, etc... will be equal to 1 joule since MGH told us at that height, that is how much work will be done AFTER the object is released to come back down.

agreed !

The INPUT into the system is 1 joule and the total work done is our 1 joule + 1 joule that gravitational potential contributed to meaning we have a mathematically measurable amount of joule seconds per second that were actually done in REAL WORK, which equals a total of 2 joules.

I finally understand now what and how you mean it! Total work done is definitely 2 joules.. undeniable.

COP is the TOTAL WORK DONE divided by ONLY OUR INPUT NOT INCLUDING NATURE. So 2 joules of work done / 1 joule of input that we paid for = 2.0 COP.

Now, this sounds absolutely logical too but let me ask you a question. In this example, the total work done is an addition of the work done by 2 different "systems", which is, for one part, myself or a machine which lifted our Ball of Clay to 1m and on the other part, gravitation that pulled it down. so this basically means that it actually results in a COP which describes two independent systems together? I'm just wondering because I've never considered it that way.

That is a logical fallacy to assume the work is negative and is where the answer is. That negative is only there so that everyone learning that will believe that we only got out what we put in with a theoretical max of 1.0 COP.

So if we made an energy balance, and checked how much energy we really won, you would say that we won 2 times as much as we put in? (thats what I understand as COP=2.0). I hope I'm using the right terminology!

Maybe I just shouldn't see it from the perspective of "how much energy have I won"? Because if I don't consider the energy aspect, it is clear that after lifting the ball, I have, as you said, got exactly what I paid for (the new height)
.. but at the same time I have, in addition, created the potential difference which can provide extra work now, which is what you'd call a freebie.

So, it isn't a matter of whether my examples hold up or not. It is a matter of whether or not you allow yourself to see that it is REAL WORK with TIME MOVING "FORWARD" and therefore, it is positive work no matter what. If you allow yourself to see it as it is instead of how they are manipulating it, then you have no choice but to agree with me.

yes, I agree.

"If I had a robot and programmed it in such a way that it lifts this ball of clay to 1 meter, my robot will require electrical energy first to do this! so at 1 meter of height, I have only dissipated (lost!) energy! "

That is incorrect, you created a brand new DIPOLE or potential difference, which is just like getting a new battery by spending money at the store.

Yeah i created the new dipole, but will this dipole give me back more energy than my robot needed to lift the ball? (i think that is the crucial point I am thinking about all the time, really... I've been pondering about this aspect all day long)

By seeing this as it is, we are able to actually understand the principles that any "free energy" machine operates under and why they do not violate any laws of nature as the currently claimed laws are wrong and are not just incomplete but are manipulated to prevent the self apparent nature of nature itself.

O.k, so If I told you that I wanted to build one of the "free energy" machines being propagated nowadays, which ones would u suggest to build? (I have the possibilities and abilities to build)
From what I've read, starting with a Bedini Device seems a good idea, what do u think? In his patent Bedini claims that the device outputs more energy than what was put in to get it going. Have you eventually tested or built any devices where you'd say its definitely worth a try?

thanks again for your kind and detailed reply and please bear with me a little longer if I still haven't fully got it. some things are so totally new and it takes a little time to fully grasp it I guess.

Best regards,
Dominic

p.s.: I also read most of what you wrote in this thread before your answer, and I have to say that the example with the BOUNCING ball is much easier to grasp in regards to its COP! a really neat example actually!

p.s.s:you guessed correctly, English is my second language. Austria's native language is German.

[Aaron]

defining overunity

Yes, we created a potential difference AFTER we already demonstrated work. Then the potential difference allows MORE work so total work done is in an amount that is greater that our input. That by definition is over 1.0 COP and is "overunity" - even though the word overunity is incorrect, it is in common enough use that we know what it is supposed to mean.

Correct - the potential difference we created from our input work has not yet yielded us energy but it will when it is released. That energy it does yield us added to what we put in is at a total, which is more than we input. That is overunity.

Basically, did the lift contribute to the entropy of the universe? Yes.
And, did the work done after the object was released contribute to the entropy of the universe? Yes
Therefore, we sum all of that work/energy as being the total amount of work or entropy that was contributed to the entropy of the universe as a whole and it is above and beyond the total amount of entropy that we contributed to by lifting the object. That is overunity.

"Considering this whole example with the ball of clay, I was only concerned with "Do I get more energy out than I put in?"
because that's what COP>1 means to me. If someone tells me he has a device at home which has a COP>1 this means to me that he gets out more energy than he had originally put in to get it going. Am I right with this point of view about COP?"

There is a distinction that needs to be made. More out that we put in does not have to mean if we put in 1 that we get back more than 1 because if it did, then overunity would only be defined as being over 2.0 COP.

"Do I get more energy out than I put in?" To be more accurate in defining overunity, it would be "Do I get a total amount of work done that is more than what I had to put in myself?" If so, that is overunity.

There can be COP 1.1 and that is overunity. If we put in 1 and we get back 0.1, that is a sum total of 1.1 parts of work that were done to contribute to the entropy of the universe and is still overunity even though it is barely overunity.

I think the average heat pumps are lower than 4-5 COP. My refrigerator is overunity like everyone's but I would be lucky if my refrigerators is COP 3.0. It is probably closer to 2.5.

"I finally understand now what and how you mean it! Total work done is definitely 2 joules.. undeniable."

Yes, it is a mathematically measurable fact. And when comparing it to our lifting energy of 1 joule for example, we are at a COP of 2.0, which is overunity. Conventional science does not want you to see this natural fact.

"Now, this sounds absolutely logical too but let me ask you a question. In this example, the total work done is an addition of the work done by 2 different "systems", which is, for one part, myself or a machine which lifted our Ball of Clay to 1m and on the other part, gravitation that pulled it down. so this basically means that it actually results in a COP which describes two independent systems together? I'm just wondering because I've never considered it that way. "

No, it is one single system as a WHOLE. Even if is considered 10 different systems, you still only had to pay for input into the first system, then if you sum all the work in all the systems, it is way over what you put in - overunity. So even defining them as separate systems, the total work done compared to only what you paid for is still more and is still therefore, overunity. That is if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

"So if we made an energy balance, and checked how much energy we really won, you would say that we won 2 times as much as we put in? (thats what I understand as COP=2.0). I hope I'm using the right terminology!"

Look at a heat pump. Even if it is at a low 2.0 COP and you pay for 100 watt hours on the input but 200 watt hours worth of heat was moved, that is overunity. We "won" 100 watt hours worth of free heat movement - we just doubled our investment for free. This is the quintessential non-equilibrium thermodynamic system - or open dissipative system.

COP is just the total work done divided by only our input (we don't include environmental input in the COP). We only add environmental input in efficiency measurements and that is why efficiency on any overunity system even if it is COP 10.0 is still 100% or less because if there are any losses whatsoever, that is subtracted from the total. Even with no losses, it will still only be at a max of 100% efficient but the COP can be a wide range.

"Maybe I just shouldn't see it from the perspective of "how much energy have I won"? Because if I don't consider the energy aspect, it is clear that after lifting the ball, I have, as you said, got exactly what I paid for (the new height)
.. but at the same time I have, in addition, created the potential difference which can provide extra work now, which is what you'd call a freebie."

Saying "won" is pretty subjective. To just see it for what it is as best that we can, to be more objective, we need to just state the facts - total work done (ours and environmental) is more than what we put in - we can say these are facts and this is overunity as demonstrated in these examples.
But did we really win anything? Yes, any of the freebie potential contributed by nature by any new dipole we established is a freebie because it is AFTER our input is completely dissipated.

"Yeah i created the new dipole, but will this dipole give me back more energy than my robot needed to lift the ball? (i think that is the crucial point I am thinking about all the time, really... I've been pondering about this aspect all day long)"

What you are asking is in regards to a desire of having the free energy input exceed the same amount that we put in. But, that is irrelevant when it comes to being overunity (over 1.0 COP) or not. Why? Because it is possible to have 1.1 COP. If we put in 1 joule and only got 0.10 joules back, that is a total of 1.1 COP. That is overunity - not very impressive, but as a fact, it is still overunity.

What you are wondering is if you put in 1.0 joule and you get back 1.1 joule. That is 2.1 COP and is still overunity. 1.1 COP and 2.1 COP are BOTH overunity.

Having the freebie come back at more than just our input does not mean it is overunity and that 1.1 COP is not overunity. BOTH are overunity.

You can have a heat pump hot water heater for example at 1.1 COP if it is cold enough for whatever particular heat pump. It is still overunity and getting back only 10% of what we put in does not mean it is not overunity, it is just very, very low overunity. It is only 1/10th of what we put in but is still a freebie and total amount of work compared to only our input is MORE than what we put in.

When looking at nature for what it is, it is extremely difficult to not see that overunity is actually all over the place as every natural system is an open dissipative system while all the basic physics are based on closed system thermodynamics. It is pure comedy.

To be honest with you, the bouncing ball example infuriates so many people because they cannot argue with it and resort to name calling and attacking me, but they cannot argue the facts. Add up every FXD on every bounce upwards and compare it to input and the COP on a 83% efficient ball that weighs a few grams is over 8.0 COP. I actually measured it. It is already overunity after the first bounce.

There are MANY overunity devices discussed in this forum alone. The problem is that most people would rather believe what they were taught to believe instead of believing their own eyes or just doing the basic math.

The Veljko 2 Stage Mechanical Oscillator is an incredible example of overunity. All the FxD added up is way more than the initial input. It is simply a sophisticated bouncing ball utilizing free gravitational potential to do more work over and over.

The basic Bedini SSG is overunity. Even a moderate build can be COP 1.05~1.10 but you have to include the mechanical work of the rotor to see it. Even with the battery swapping method, which isn't ideal, that is way more COP because simply each time the battery on input is doing work, you add them all up on each swap and it is WAY more than what was used to charge the initial input battery.

As ironic as it is, the Newton's Cradle is overunity. Again, calculate the input lift of the first ball and then add up all the FXD on every single upward swing thereafter and it is WAY overunity! That is one fact that nobody can dispute. They can argue philosophy if they want but it only takes elementary math and simple junior high school equations to show that it is very much overunity at COP of over 10.0 for even an average one. That is a demonstration of over 1000% in real dissipated work compared to what we input.

So, Veljko mechanical oscillator and the SSG, those are 2 very basic overunity devices that you could build.

[Aaron]

dig a hole = magical appearance of countless joules of potential energy

Now when the ball is released the it falls because of gravity but only because
you invested the work to make it possible. When the ball bounces, the energy
comes from the force of the ball compressing the material and/or air of the ball
this is a direct result of the ball being lifted and released. The energy for the
bounce is part of the energy gained from the drop. Otherwise it would hit the
ground and stop dead.

Is a spring over unity, is a balloon over unity, is everything that bounces over unity ?
They must be because they do what a ball does.

Cheers

Hi Farmhand,

When the ball is on the ground, it is identical to a battery being shorted. Any available potential is simply neutralized. The gravitational potential is still dynamic and flowing through that object - constantly streaming - and the object is still in a mode of resistance.

It does not fall only because we invested work. What it does prove is that this is equating the work we get out with the work we put in. Here is why that is incorrect and I have used this example countless times.

Dig a 1 meter hole on a golf course's driving range. There can be 10,000 balls there as a vivid example. When you dig the 1 single hole, the example falls apart and so does every example in the textbooks.

Why?

Because you instantly created a potential difference between the bottom of the hole and EVERY SINGLE GOLF BALL. Not only that, you created a potential difference between the bottom that hole and every single car in the parking lot. You also "increased the potential" between every single pine cone in every single tree in the surrounding 20 acres and beyond. You increased the potential between the bottom of the 1 meter hole and every single person, dog, cat, squirrel, the contents of the pockets of every single golfer on the course, the airplanes flying by, etc...

What this demonstrates is that the potential available in an object at any height that we used work to lift it is NOT directly proportional to the work we put in unless the system is at a 0% bouncing or rebounding efficiency.

If so, the potential difference between the bottom of the hole would be limited only to as many golf balls or objects in an equal amount of work done to dig the dirt out of the hole.

There is only 1 exception that I know of where the output is directly related to what we put in, and that is if the object is 0% efficient in rebounding and it just thuds. Then there will be no more potential differences between the ground and the object and therefore, gravity will not contribute more work for free and therefore, the output will be equal to what we put in for a COP of 2.0. FxD to lift it and MGH will tell us exactly how much work we get when the object hits the ground with a thud. Still overunity.

It is psychological manipulation to equate the work that an object will do is only because of the amount of work we put into it. This is manipulation by the establishment and in reality, assumes 0% efficiency in rebounding - re-gauging, etc...

This is because the potential that conventional science deals with IS a matter of perspective (figment of the imagination) when in reality, the source potential (aether), is actually a real thing that imparts it's push on the mass of matter in order to do work.

We did a 1 meter hole - lets say the diameter is about 50% bigger than the diameter of a golf ball. And what, suddenly the MxGxH says that we just instantly created TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND OF JOULES OF POTENTIAL ENERGY "in" all those objects spread over the land that surrounds that one single hole. To suggest such a thing would be completely ridiculous and pathetic, but in realty, this is EXACTLY what conventional explanations are claiming.

"When the ball bounces, the energy comes from the force of the ball compressing the material and/or air of the ball this is a direct result of the ball being lifted and released. The energy for the bounce is part of the energy gained from the drop. Otherwise it would hit the ground and stop dead."

When the ball bounces, the energy/work comes from the force caused by gravitational potential pushing down on the mass of the ball when it hits the ground, which causes resistance against gravity's push on the ball. That resistance is the work and it was caused by gravitational potential.

You do mention the force of the ball compressing against the ground, but that leaves out the source of the potential to cause the force to begin with. It is from gravitational potential and is a completely different source of potential and is disconnected from the work we did to lift the ball. Hence, no conservation or transformation of energy.

"The energy for the bounce is part of the energy gained from the drop. Otherwise it would hit the ground and stop dead."

Not sure that this is complete.

What I mean by that is this...

Even if the ball, clay, whatever hits the ground with a thud and doesn't have any elasticity to rebound at all, the energy for the fall still comes from the gravitational potential imparting is push on the mass of the object during its drop. So whether it bounces or not, the energy in both cases still comes from gravitational potential as it drops.

If it doesn't bounce at all, the bouncing efficiency is 0%.
If it bounces 50% of the previous height, it is 50% efficient for example.

Efficiency is a matter of desire. If we are intending to have a bouncing system, the efficiency is based on how well it bounces.

If heat is our desire, then the ball that doesn't bounce is probably at about 100% efficiency in creating heat on impact.

At 50% bouncing efficiency, it is 50% efficient in dissipating energy on impact.

When the ball bounces, it still follows all the same natural phenomena.

The compression of the ball is simply establishing a dipole - the compressed part of the ball is at a potential difference in relation to the rest of the ball. The it rebounds and if there is a ground or wall to push off on, it will lift itself into the air. How high? It is based on the relationship to what MGH predicted then subtract heat losses, etc... and we can predict how high it will bounce based on the ball's own dipole. There is nothing that I can think of that is immune to this natural fact that is apparent in every single thing in existence.

We pay for input work, there are losses and the re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole. Work is done for free, there are losses and then there is another re-establishment of a dipole.

No open system with any kind of efficiency over 0% can escape this reality.

Since there are losses and the system is still under 100% efficient, the re-establishment of a dipole on every cycle will simply be at a lesser and lesser potential difference. That is why the ball does not bounce higher on each bounce but is STILL overunity.

"Is a spring over unity, is a balloon over unity, is everything that bounces over unity ? They must be because they do what a ball does."

Yes, a spring is overunity. You expend work to compress it. That is real measurable dissipated energy. Then you have created a dipole, which is what the compressed spring is. Then that will do more work. Total work done is MORE than we input and is over 1.0 COP or overunity.

The balloon example would have to be more specific.

Yes, everything that bounces is overunity.

But everything that doesn't bounce is also overunity but anything that does not bounce is also overunity at a COP of 2.0 limit because there is no new dipoles being established. You lift a blob of clay, you do work to do that. There is a new dipole established. Blob falls and doesn't bounce. The work in heat, etc... done was the same as the work that was done to lift it. That is 2.0 COP.

[jdodson]

@Aaron
thanks for your explainations, love your point of view on this.

@Space
Heres a depiction to visually see how a ball would produce COP 2.0.
Its a two step cycle, the first step gives you back the input work, the second step is overunity thanks to the freebie potiential difference we gave ourselves by lifting the ball in the first place.



If its a super bouncy ball that turns into a boat load of overunity lol