Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 523125
  • *Total Topics: 15575
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 5
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: Should “energy” be redefined?  (Read 917 times)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3339
Should “energy” be redefined?
« on: October 17, 2020, 07:35:13 PM »
What do we consider energy to be?




Is it the displacement of an object relative to water under Earth’s gravity as standard pressure at 1882’s Sea Level?


Is it the current BTU equivalent of our commercialized fuels and energy products?


Is it our relation of the Joule under theoretically ideal conditions?


Is it the work required to accomplish a given task?


—————————————————————————-


We can crush a walnut by hand. And measure some “energy” it took.
We can use a nut-cracker and use less energy.
But how much energy does it take really?


We can hook an engine up to power the nut cracker and decide that
it takes so many BTU’s to perform the task.


How about moving a 2-ton object up/down, side/side?
Can we equate that to a BTU?
How many BTU’s is required to lift an elevator full of people?


Now consider that same situation, with a counterbalance....


If i have 2x two-ton objects, perfectly balanced.
A child can move them anywhere they want.
Now place the walnut under one while it’s moving downwards
And the walnut was pulverized with incalculably small amounts of energy.


ThermoDyscammics was invented to keep your mind enslaved.
Keep you enslaved to the system you work for.




I’m not to make a child’s game of the whole of science, but let’s put things into perspective here.
Archimedes showed them how to do it in 300something B.C.
We built cathedrals and castles all over the planet with no machinery.
With internal grandfather clocks in every tower powering large grinding mills, and pumping water.




No power bills
No gas in the tank


Knowledge is a tool to divide those who are trained as slaves
And those that truly posses the knowledge.






Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Should “energy” be redefined?
« on: October 17, 2020, 07:35:13 PM »

Offline bistander

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2020, 03:55:08 AM »
".. electrical energy going through a DC motor.."
He's quoting himself in a reply to me.

I'd sure like to know Cadman's definition of energy. He won't tell me. He thinks it's funny.
Any help is appreciated.
Regards,
bi

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3793
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2020, 01:07:02 PM »
For example : Watt equates Joule equates Calori

Monolith Dome Institute :US conventional building construction 112 sqm or 1200 sqft
                     building area heating energy peak : 12000 Watt

Okay,the US has different climate zones,from sunny estates like Californis and Florida to less sunny estates in winter
like Idaho or Michigan : -20 Celsius and below

John Cletus Williams,lived in Georgia, US8059946, heating device inventor wrote some details about effectivity :

400 Watt electric consume for a 185 sqm or 2000 sqft house per hour

Taking MDI numbers 185/112 of conventional building area comparison  we can assume up to 18000 Watt peak heat energy need ,how much electric energy input ?

Can electricity -per se - and device dependent get * heat pump C.O.P. greater 1  * function ?
     1 electric Watt unit input = ? heat Joule/Calori/BTU units output



What does the promotor Allan Hegland maddsci.tripod.com/george

means with the Franco Jakelj electric motor performance :can outperform any existing electric motor now in use or undergoing testing by a factor of at least

                                1000 in terms of torque out  for Watts in , ......



Sincerely

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2020, 01:07:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline bistander

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2020, 02:25:41 PM »
Even google comes up empty on "Franco Jakelj electric motor".

And:
"For example : Watt equates Joule equates Calori"

Bad example as watt does not = joule.
Watt second = joule.

Regards,
bi

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3793
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2020, 02:40:44 PM »
http://maddsci.tripod.com/george/index.html


and W=   J/s     or      J= W/s     or            cal= W/s     

but :   P = J/t

Work( in Nm or J  ) is energy/time-unit related  but : W = F * s , F in Newton here s=strecke,distance ergo meter and not s for sec

and now : Raum-Zeit ,Space-Time  question :space unit ?
Can time becoming negative ,by comparison yes !
Can space become negative,beside expansion we have also compression,by comparison yes !

Gewicht,mass ? Before,after ? Wichte,specific mass ? Before,after ?

Gesetz des Dralls,what is physical *Drall* ? Angular momentum

Volume ! Specific volume ?


Hirarchy : power/Leistung  work/Arbeit   energy  force  pressure
 ;)
Sincerely

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2020, 02:40:44 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline bistander

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3793
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2020, 05:50:57 PM »
You are right,I did a syntax error by inversion !
When we think lingual * per/pro* and  translate it 1/1 we would have to write : /  for divided

and not  times or x or * , but what is here the pure arithmetical case !

W= J/s             J/s=Division     ergo side-inverted W*s=J        W*s =Multiplication

Pardon-moi !


To the Jakelj motor I have to comment :

I divide the Jakelj motor development from Mr.Hegland his project !
The possibility of such a performance we see as combination from

GB300311 Thomas Townsend Brown

A method of and an apparatus or machine for producing force and motion
and

DE3039176 Oskar Becker

Prime mover with magnetism and lever action- using numbers of electromagnet groups to form ring of groups
operating on single axis of rotation

Sincerely

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2020, 05:50:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3793
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2020, 12:18:38 PM »
Without real world parameter we are sometimes surprised about given values and the experience with them :


https://www.energie-lexikon.info/energie_und_leistung.html#:~:text=Die%20Grundeinheit%20ist%20das%20Watt,MJ%20%3D%201%20kWh%20pro%20Stunde.


11.08.2020
Ein Scooter mit Fahrer wiegt 100 kg und fährt ohne Widerstand eine gerade Strecke und eine 35° Steigung mit 20 km/h. Welche Leistung bringt er auf?
Antwort vom Autor:
100 kg · 9,81 m/s2 · sin 35° · 20 km/h · 1000 m/km / (3600 s/h) = 3126 W




translated :
08/11/2020


A scooter with a driver weighs 100 kg and drives a straight stretch and a 35 ° incline at 20 km / h without resistance. What is his performance?


Answer from the author:


100 kg 9.81 m / s2 sin 35 ° 20 km / h 1000 m / km / (3600 s / h) = 3126 W.


An Ex-SIEMENS headquarter inventor

http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=3003026&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en


This is not new. Unfortunately, in the past one made the fatal mistake of being guided by sales tactical arguments when choosing the nominal motor power, so a power rating of 1 hp was considered necessary in comparison to the average power of 50 to 100 watts of a person with 700 to 800 smoothly around the. Motors that were oversized by a factor of 10 required large and heavy batteries.


The inventive solution, which meets the aforementioned requirements, results from the use of a drive motor with permanent magnet excitation, which transmits its power to the tires via a friction roller drive on the motor shaft or to the wheel rims of the rear wheel, which is otherwise driven via pedal and chain, via a friction roller drive on the motor shaft. Such a friction roller drive can be technically reliably feasible if the electromotive drive power is limited to an order of magnitude of about 1 OO W in contrast to previous 800 watt electric bicycles. Due to the adapted dimensioning of the frictional connection (correctly selected spring preload, adapted material selection and shape for the friction wheel on the motor shaft), this type of power transmission also takes on the function of a safety slip clutch. When adjusted to the pressure spring a slip limit corresponding to z. For example, 1.5 times the nominal motor torque, it is not possible to load the motor and battery with more than 1.5 times the nominal current.

Nominal technical values / physical needed energy or power




https://www.energie-lexikon.info/energie_und_leistung.html#:~:text=Die%20Grundeinheit%20ist%20das%20Watt,MJ%20%3D%201%20kWh%20pro%20Stunde.


Work or power ?

original web-page texte :

25.03.2020
Ein mensch mit 80 kg Masse steigt in 3 Minuten in den 7. Stock eines hauses (Höhe je Stockwerk 3 m). Welche Arbeit verrichtet er dabei, und welche Leistung erbringt er?

Antwort vom Autor:
Arbeit: 80 kg · 9.81 m/s2 · (7 · 3 m) = 16,5 kJ.

Leistung: 16,5 kJ / (3 · 60 s) = 92 W.




google translator :

March 25, 2020


A person weighing 80 kg climbs to the 7th floor of a house in 3 minutes (height per floor 3 m).


                        Attention and caution about translator quality (also in textbooks)


google translator : What work is he doing and what is his work?

original sentence,german :  Welche Arbeit = work verrichtet er dabei, und welche Leistung = power erbringt er?


Answer from the author:


Work: 80 kg 9.81 m / s2 (7 3 m) = 16.5 kJ.


Power/ Output: 16.5 kJ / (3 60 s) = 92 W.

    -----------------------------



It is sometimes complicated to get the right detailed information and/or the detailed information right !

In Physics we have to work concentrated and with common knowledge ,


Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker -interview/Gespraech :

 about the polite partnership Lise Meitner/Otto Hahn :

Lise to Otto : Haehnchen,das verstehst Du nicht,das ist Physik !  ::)
Otto Hahn,later Nobel-Award granted : in Chemistry  ;)

Online Temporal Visitor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2020, 02:55:53 PM »

Re: Should “energy” be redefined?

First thought:
In truth for "energy" to "redefined" it would first have to be have already been defined, meaning "known" for what it actually "IS", in reality.
At this point in time it has never been publicly defined and remains an abstraction of the mind having differing meaning to all who ponder it.

Any "definition" of the word, or term of art depends on many very real obstacles dead ahead should one or even a group of like minded free thinking individuals make a go at it.

As a matter of fact one such attempt 20 postings ago was made by myself, in my own way, here: https://overunity.com/18188/iec-earth-engine-first-magnet-motor-installed-in-las-vegas/msg532866/#msg532866
JSYK: Not one ever even tried to fill in the blanks. Myself as a "realist" found that fact to be quite telling of what prevents others from doing so.

My own WORK, and comprehension of it allows reading between the lines of your posting/questions and makes me think (yes "I" have been wrong many times and even right as well) that you have reached or passed an a-ha moment as have I.

I like to be concise best I can be, for the fact; "Truth requires few words".

What do we consider energy to be?

Everything it is not.

Is it the displacement of an object relative to water under Earth’s gravity as standard pressure at 1882’s Sea Level?

Some may say so.

Is it the current BTU equivalent of our commercialized fuels and energy products?
Some believe it is.

Is it our relation of the Joule under theoretically ideal conditions?
Many swear it is.

Is it the work required to accomplish a given task?

You are getting warm but NO.

—————————————————————————-

We can crush a walnut by hand. And measure some “energy” it took.
We can use a nut-cracker and use less energy.
But how much energy does it take really?

Zero

We can hook an engine up to power the nut cracker and decide that
it takes so many BTU’s to perform the task.
Those fooled do foolish things.

How about moving a 2-ton object up/down, side/side?
Can we equate that to a BTU?
When one chooses to burn something doing so.

How many BTU’s is required to lift an elevator full of people?
None, but that depends on the wisdom and intelligence of the designer.


Now consider that same situation, with a counterbalance....

If i have 2x two-ton objects, perfectly balanced.
A child can move them anywhere they want.
Now place the walnut under one while it’s moving downwards
And the walnut was pulverized with incalculably small amounts of energy.
Been there done that 50+ years ago - when I couldn't calculate it either, that was then.
This is now.

ThermoDyscammics was invented to keep your mind enslaved.
Keep you enslaved to the system you work for.
Perfectly stated in TRUTH.

I’m not to make a child’s game of the whole of science, but let’s put things into perspective here.
Archimedes showed them how to do it in 300something B.C.
We built cathedrals and castles all over the planet with no machinery.
With internal grandfather clocks in every tower powering large grinding mills, and pumping water.
Science is to "know" which can be wonderful, but without WORK and wisdom people continue to perish.
Science alone cannot feed the people of this world.

No power bills
No gas in the tank
The powers that should not be will not like that, the ignorant masses will.
Neither will change the end result.

Knowledge is a tool to divide those who are trained as slaves
And those that truly posses the knowledge.
Wisdom "Trumps" knowledge as one with wisdom has the ability to apply knowledge to the significant problems man faces on a level of thinking other than the level by/at which they were "created". Knowledge is simply being in possession of simple information, not necessarily having any ability to do anything with it such as; WORK

A-HA; Can you read between the lines? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914
« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 05:33:21 PM by Temporal Visitor »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2020, 02:55:53 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline stevensrd1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2020, 04:28:39 AM »
Energy is a strange thing to define. There are so many forms of energy, and in fact everything is itself a form of energy or can be used as such, so it all can get confusing no doubt. I like to keep it simple in relation to electronics and think of energy in relation to this as simply the attractive or repulsive influence or nature of electrons. Not because this is a complete model but its a simplified way of understanding it. For example in my selfcharger experiments where I use 2 AA batteries to recharge 4 AA batteries while powering a motor. All Im doing is using the attractive and repulsive nature of electrons, given the stronger positive will always pull electrons from the weaker positive. So this is how the 2 AA batteries wired in series can recharge 4 AA batteries in parallel while still running a motor as well. And its this very nature that is the same nature used to recharge any battery by any means as the stronger positive will pull electrons from the weaker positive of the battery being recharged while the stronger negative will force electrons into the weaker negative or battery being recharged. And when this happens a battery recharges. You can see the revised video I made of doing just this at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEcj7oNWYY8

 

OneLink