# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: sm0ky2 on October 17, 2020, 07:35:13 PM

Title: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: bistander 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
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: lancaIV 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
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: bistander 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
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: lancaIV on October 18, 2020, 02:40:44 PM

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
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: bistander on October 18, 2020, 03:47:36 PM

Scam.

J= W/s

Wrong. J does not = W/s.

J = W * s

Regards,
bi
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: lancaIV 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
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: lancaIV 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 (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 (https://www.energie-lexikon.info/paschotta.html):
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?

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

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 (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 (https://www.energie-lexikon.info/paschotta.html):
Arbeit: 80 kg · 9.81 m/s2 · (7 · 3 m) = 16,5 kJ.

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

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?

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  ;)
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: Temporal Visitor 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

Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: stevensrd1 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEcj7oNWYY8)
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: onepower on October 23, 2020, 08:33:49 PM
Energy is easy to understand if put in the right context.

Energy = Work(Force x Distance) x Time

For example, The electrical Force in Volts x the Distance the electrons flow measured in amps gives us the work performed in Watts which we call power. However the Energy is (Work x Time), which is the power flowing in Watts x the Time it was flowing giving us the Energy in Watt-seconds or kW-hr's.

The Joule is simply a universal unit of Energy equal to one Watt/second. That is one Watt of work performed for a time period of one second.

The concept of Energy applies to everything on every level, a Force is applied to something causing the something to move a Distance and Force x Distance equals Work. How much work is done over a given period of time is Energy.

Regards
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: bistander on October 27, 2020, 09:53:19 PM
Hi onepower,

Energy is easy to understand if put in the right context.

Energy = Work(Force x Distance) x Time
...

I disagree. The standard definition is that energy is equal to work, not work times time. You often see the equation E = Ws which is saying that energy (E) = power (W) * seconds (s).

Work is not represented by the symbol W. Work is energy and carries the units of joules. A joule is equal to a watt second. 1J = 1W * 1s = 1Ws.

Work is equal to force times distance. Work in joules = force in newtons times distance in meters. Since work is energy, it is represented by the symbol E. So E (joules) = F (newtons) * d (meters). 1J = 1N * 1m. Joule = Newton meter.

...

For example, The electrical Force in Volts x the Distance the electrons flow measured in amps gives us the work performed in Watts which we call power. However the Energy is (Work x Time), which is the power flowing in Watts x the Time it was flowing giving us the Energy in Watt-seconds or kW-hr's.
...

Volts times amps is not work, as you state in the first sentence in the above paragraph. Volts times Amps is power. Power is not work, but is the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy is converted or transferred.

Power is represented by the symbol P. Power carries the units of watts (W). Electric Power, P, in watts (W) is defined as the electric potential difference, V, in volts (V) times the electric current, I, in amperes (A). Or P = V * I. Watts = volts * amperes. 1W = 1V * 1A.

Electric Energy is easily defined as power times time. Again electric work is same as electric energy and is equal to watts times seconds. Energy is often represented by the symbol W and carries the units of joules (J). [note: do not confuse the symbol W used as energy with the abbreviation W used for the unit of watt (unit for power)]

1V * 1A = 1W of power.
1W * 1s = 1J of energy.

A joule is equal to a watt second. Or in units, J=Ws. Not W/s.

A kilowatt hour is a measure or unit of energy equal to 3600000 Ws = 3600000J. 1kWhr = 1000W * 3600s = 3600000Ws = 3.6 MJ.

...
The Joule is simply a universal unit of Energy equal to one Watt/second. That is one Watt of work performed for a time period of one second.
...

"Watt/second" is an error. It is a "watt second". It is not watt per second. It is not power divided by time. "Per second" or "/s" implies a time rate, as in m/s meters per second (speed or the time rate distance is transversed. Energy is not a rate.

Power is a rate. Power is the rate at which work is done or the rate at which energy is converted or transferred. Power in watts is the rate of work or energy over time. Power(in watts) = energy(in joules) / time(in seconds). W = J/s. Or J = Ws.

But J does not = W/s. Since the watt (W) is a unit of power which is the rate of work (or rate of energy), a W/s implies acceleration of energy or J/s^2, joules per second squared, which is mostly nonsensical. The only place I've seen it appropriately used was describing how quickly a power generation station could come on-line.

...
The concept of Energy applies to everything on every level, a Force is applied to something causing the something to move a Distance and Force x Distance equals Work. How much work is done over a given period of time is Energy.
...

Your last paragraph is good until you say this "How much work is done over a given period of time is Energy."

Leave out "over a given period of time" and it's ok.

Regards,
bi
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: bistander on November 01, 2020, 09:31:39 PM
Just saw this come across a news feed. Interesting, so I thought I'd share.

Quote from:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-is-energy-is-energy-conserved.html?m=1

What is Energy? Is Energy Conserved?
Why save energy if physics says energy is conserved anyway? Did Einstein really say that energy is not conserved? And what does energy have to do with time? This is what we will talk about today.

I looked up “energy” in the Encyclopedia Britannica and it told me that energy is “the capacity for doing work”. Which brings up the question, what is work? The Encyclopedia says work is “a measure of energy transfer.” That seems a little circular. And as if that wasn’t enough, the Encyclopedia goes on to say, well, actually not all types of energy do work, and also energy is always associated with motion, which actually it is not because E equals m c squared. I hope you are sufficiently confused now to hear how to make sense of this.

A good illustration for energy conservation is a roller-coaster. At the starting point, it has only potential energy, that comes from gravity. As it rolls down, the gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, meaning that the roller-coaster speeds up. At the lowest point it moves the fastest. And as it climbs up again, it slows down because the kinetic energy is converted back into potential energy. If you neglect friction, energy conservation means the roller-coaster should have just exactly the right total energy to climb back up to the top where it started. In reality of course, friction cannot be neglected. This means the roller-coaster loses some energy into heating the rails or creating wind. But this energy is not destroyed. It is just no longer useful to move the roller coaster.

This simple example tells us two things right away. First, there are different types of energy, and they can be converted into each other. What is conserved is only the total of these energies. Second, some types of energy are more, others less useful to move things around.

But what really is this energy we are talking about? There was indeed a lot of confusion about this among physicists in the 19th century, but it was cleared up beautifully by Emmy Noether in 1915. Noether proved that if you have a system whose equations do no change in time then this system has a conserved quantity. Physicists would say, such a system has time-translation invariance. Energy is then by definition the quantity that is conserved in a system with time-translation invariance.

What does this mean? Time-translation invariance does not mean the system itself does not change in time. Even if the equations do not change in time, the solutions to these equations, which are what describe the system, usually will depend on time. Time-translation invariance just means that the change of the system depends only on the amount of time that passed since you started an experiment, but you could have started it at any moment and gotten the same result. Whether you fall off a roof at noon or a midnight, it will take the same time for you to hit the ground. That’s what “time-translation invariance” means.

So, energy is conserved by definition, and Noether’s theorem gives you a concrete mathematical procedure to derive what energy is. Okay, I admit it is a little more complicated, because if you have some quantity that is conserved, then any function of that quantity is also conserved. The missing ingredient is that energy times time has to have the dimension of Pla()nck’s constant. Basically, it has to have the right units.

I know this sounds rather abstract and mathematical, but the relevant point is just that physicists have a way to define what energy is, and it’s by definition conserved, which means it does not change in time. If you look at a simple system, for example that roller coaster, then the conserved energy is as usual the kinetic energy plus the potential energy. And if you add air molecules and the rails to the system, then their temperature would also add to the total, and so on.

But. If you look at a system with many small constituents, like air, then you will find that not all configurations of such a system are equally good at causing a macroscopic change, even if they have the same energy. A typical example would be setting fire to coal. The chemical bonds of the coal-molecules store a lot of energy. If you set fire to it, this causes a chain reaction between the coal and the oxygen in the air. In this reaction, energy from the chemical bonds is converted into kinetic energy of air molecules. This just means the air is warm, and since it’s warm, it will rise. You can use this rising air to drive a turb(ain), which you can then use to, say, move a vehicle or feed it into the grid to create electricity.

But suppose you don’t do anything with this energy, you just sit there and burn coal. This does not change anything about the total energy in the system, because that is conserved. The chemical energy of the coal is converted into kinetic energy of air molecules which distributes into the atmosphere. Same total energy. But now the energy is useless. You can no longer drive any turbine with it. What’s the difference?

The difference between the two cases is entropy. In the first case, you have the energy packed into the coal and entropy is small. In the latter case, you have the energy distributed in the motion of air molecules, and in this case the entropy is large.

A system that has energy in a state of low entropy is one whose energy you can use to create macroscopic changes, for example driving that turbine. Physicists call this useful energy “free energy” and say it “does work”. If the energy in a system is instead at high entropy, the energy is useless. Physicists then call it “heat” and heat cannot “do work”. The important point is that while energy is conserved, free energy is not conserved.

So, if someone says you should “save energy” by switching off the light, they really mean you should “save free energy”, because if you let the light on when you do not need it you convert useful free energy, from whatever is your source of electricity, into useless heat, that just warms the air in your room.

Okay, so we have seen that the total energy is by definition conserved, but that free energy is not conserved. Now what about the claim that Einstein actually told us energy is not conserved. That is correct. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but it’s not. Here is why.

Remember that energy is defined by Noether’s theorem, which says that energy is that quantity which is conserved if the system has a time-translation invariance, meaning, it does not really matter just at which moment you start an experiment.

But now remember, that Einstein’s theory of general relativity tells us that the universe expands. And if the universe expands, it does matter when you start an experiment. And expanding universe is not time-translation invariant. So, Noether’s theorem does not apply. Now, strictly speaking this does not mean that energy is not conserved in the expanding universe, it means that energy cannot be defined. However, you can take the thing you called energy when you thought the universe did not expand and ask what happens to it now that you know the universe does expand. And the answer is, well, it’s just not conserved.

A good example for this is cosmological redshift. If you have light of a particular wavelength early in the universe, then the wave-length of this light will increase when the universe expands, because it stretches. But the wave-length of light is inversely proportional to the energy of the light. So if the wave-length of light increases with the expansion of the universe, then the energy decreases. Where does the energy go? It goes nowhere, it just is not conserved. No, it really isn’t.

However, this non-conservation of energy in Einstein’s theory of general relativity is a really tiny effect that for all practical purposes plays absolutely no role here on Earth. It is really something that becomes noticeable only if you look at the universe as a whole. So, it is technically correct that energy is not conserved in Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. But this does not affect our earthly affairs.

In summary: The total energy of a system is conserved as long as you can neglect the expansion of the universe. However, the amount of useful energy, which is what physicists call “free energy,” is in general not conserved because of entropy increase.

Thanks for watching, see you next week. And remember to switch off the light.

--- end quote.
Notice the definition of "free energy".

Enjoy,
bi

Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: lancaIV on November 01, 2020, 09:49:12 PM
Walther Hermann Nernst
Josiah Willard Gibbs
Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker
and each  them their ' energy '- definition I would recommend !
Sincerely

Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: onepower on November 02, 2020, 06:23:29 AM
Bistander
Quote
I disagree. The standard definition is that energy is equal to work, not work times time. You often see the equation E = Ws which is saying that energy (E) = power (W) * seconds (s).

Wikipedia-
The work W done by a constant force of magnitude F on a point that moves a displacement s in a straight line in the direction of the force is the product.
W=Fs

It depends on our perspective, Work = force x distance, the electric field produces a force on an electron causing it to move a distance, is this not work by definition?.

Quote
Work is not represented by the symbol W. Work is energy and carries the units of joules. A joule is equal to a watt second. 1J = 1W * 1s = 1Ws.
If work is energy then why not use one term instead of two?. Obviously work is not energy because they have different definitions and the context matters.

Quote
Work is equal to force times distance. Work in joules = force in newtons times distance in meters. Since work is energy, it is represented by the symbol E. So E (joules) = F (newtons) * d (meters). 1J = 1N * 1m. Joule = Newton meter.

So if one newton of force acted on an electron causing it to move one meter (one newton meter) is it work, power or energy?. There was an electric "force" measured in volts and it caused an electron to move a "distance" which we measured as a current, is that not work?.

I get what your saying and I know how to do all the calculations I just choose not to because it's kind of pointless. So I purposely changed the context to make people think which obviously didn't work. You see if we could exist on the atomic scale watching particles move around like planets most of the terminology becomes a mute point. You could say, oh that's just a current as an electron the size of the moon zips past. Then I would say, so the best description you have for a massive body zipping by near the speed of light is a current or some simplified equation?.

I think this is the reason so many fail in free energy because there perspective is skewed and subjective. They say that object is just an object but in reality it's 1% particle/fields and 99% space full of EM waves. They also think common objects have no energy despite the fact that if we could liberate "all the energy" in something like an apple it could incinerate a large city. We seem to keep describing stuff as something we know they are inherently not for some strange reason.

I would submit most of the language and equations most use to describe nature and natural phenomena are basically a joke because it doesn't really describe anything. Which is why so many people seem so confused by the term energy. Regardless of the terminology only a change in force can cause a change in motion and the change in motion represents energy on every level we know of. As Einstein said- "nothing happens until something moves".

Regards
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: lancaIV on November 02, 2020, 12:29:12 PM
US5252176

e= m x c?
Nernst Waermetheorem

Bethe-Weizsaecker- or CNO-  Zyklus/cycle involved ?

How much Joule/calori per Watt ?

US8059946
+ the citing documents study from  espacenet and google f.e. CN application the description

and Henson/Cletus Williams devices  internal process ( hypothetical description ) comparison

Focus,focussieren / expansion/compression time/space in volume and velocity and speed

specific difference between Raumzeit/Space-Time and Zeitraum/Time-Space

Beside Physics- Nobel-Award in Stockholm same important  in Germany for Theoretical Physics the " Max Planck"-Medaille and for Experimental Physics the "Stern-Gerlach"-Medaille

Really entertaining is the discussion between Dr.Werner Heisenberg and Dr.Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker 1966
Theme : "Quanten-(Welt)Modell "included " ure  "-Nano-Welt-Atome--point of view

A little Nernst thermochemistry ( light effect ) + Heisenberg's magnetism and Bethe-Weizsaecker Zyklus quantitativ paaren with DD271578 to DD272727 and we get a huge 'focal point'-power source !

Orbital solar farmes sending by 'focal point' photonic energy to earth receiver,  photon to heat to electric converter

maritim saltwater to water/salt to hydrogen/oxygen decomposition platforms

industrial torch

or as military device (s-)melting weapons : vaporizer,plasmonizer
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: seychelles on November 02, 2020, 02:06:40 PM
GRAVITY IS THE REAL ENERGY MECHANISIM IN THIS UNIVERSE. MOST ENERGY IS GENERATED BY
BLACK HOLES. EVERY GALAXIES HAVE A BLACK HOLE IN THEIR CENTRES. IT IS THERE TO RECYCLE THE OLD STARS AND PLANETS
AT THE SAME TIME THEY CREATE A SWIRLING IN ETHER THAT CREATE TIME. TIME IS RATE OF CHANGE . OR MOVEMENT THROUGHT SPACE.
EVERY STARS ARE THE ASS HOLES OF THE BLACK HOLES. ENERGY IS EQUAL TO MASS TRAVELLING TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. ALL THAT THE
BLACK HOLES GOBBLE IS ACCELERATED TWICE FASTER THAN LIGHT ALL THE ELEMENTARY MATTERS IS DISASSEMBLED ATOMICALY TO HYDROGEN  HELLIUM. LITHIUM. BERYLIUM ECT.
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: lancaIV on November 02, 2020, 02:18:07 PM
Natural chemical/physical  versus enforced    elementare " Halb-Wert-Zeit" = elementary decay

Related Mendelejew(- Meyer) Period-System/-Tafel,-Tabel

Related ' atomic chemistry':
Jean Pierre Marie Chambrin REACTOR TO TRANSMUTE THE MATTER f.a. as WO8204096
from elements,stable to isotopes,un-/stable

1 input calori 100 x ,1000 x,100 000 x   multiplyer : dependence = ' ... cooling ..." from the device and internal process

::) Btw : is gravitation force linear straigth ,curvativ,ccw or cw ?
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 02, 2022, 04:51:13 PM
GRAVITY IS THE REAL ENERGY MECHANISIM IN THIS UNIVERSE. MOST ENERGY IS GENERATED BY
BLACK HOLES. EVERY GALAXIES HAVE A BLACK HOLE IN THEIR CENTRES. IT IS THERE TO RECYCLE THE OLD STARS AND PLANETS
AT THE SAME TIME THEY CREATE A SWIRLING IN ETHER THAT CREATE TIME. TIME IS RATE OF CHANGE . OR MOVEMENT THROUGHT SPACE.
EVERY STARS ARE THE ASS HOLES OF THE BLACK HOLES. ENERGY IS EQUAL TO MASS TRAVELLING TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. ALL THAT THE
BLACK HOLES GOBBLE IS ACCELERATED TWICE FASTER THAN LIGHT ALL THE ELEMENTARY MATTERS IS DISASSEMBLED ATOMICALY TO HYDROGEN  HELLIUM. LITHIUM. BERYLIUM ECT.

Does E=mgh in the Earth’s gravitational field?

We certainly can measure and compare potential energy across a field gradient
This one being vectored upwards
Such knowledge allows for the use of pulleys and levers.
We consider it to be conservative.

But what if there are two fields, with different properties?

One defined as an acceleration force with a time constant.
The other defined as a constant force, irrespective of time.

How does this change the scenerio?
What is the potential energy of an object suspended within these two fielda?

———————————————

Now - when we use our hands, we apply constant force
When we lift something, we can hold it still with constant force
Defined by the objects weight. Irrespective of time.

Gravity, on the other hand, accelerates the object every second

Why is it then, that our constant force can balance out the acceleration force?

——————————————

——————————————-

Here in this video:

Is shown a simple pulley & lever system
With the addition of a magnetic repulsion field at the fulcrum

Here is demonstrated that two opposing E=mgh energy quanties
are not equivalent when one of them interacts with two different fields.

The weight on the left being 57 grams lighter than the weight it is lifting
The same distance.

https://youtu.be/xOBZsCWMDzI (https://youtu.be/xOBZsCWMDzI)
(video shared by {edit} Synchro1)

—————————————————

Gravity is accelerating the two masses, and the constant force is applied at the fulcrum

This is the inverse of the archer quinn device, where in the constant force is applied at
the near horizontal, and gravity accelerates at the at end of the lever.

—————————————————-

Now think about the situation after the motion:

We have an extra 57 grams lifted to a height (defined arbitrarily by the mechanics)
and this requires 57 grams added to break the heavy mass free.

Note that the additional 57 grams only needs to be lifted the radius of
the effective magnetic interaction.*

The mass now has an E=mgh in excess of the input of 57 grams at whatever height we choose
minus 2x the radius of the magnetic interaction on your h value.

Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: Floor on January 02, 2022, 05:15:07 PM
' ' '
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: sm0ky2 on January 03, 2022, 10:50:47 PM
Now let's look at the inverse:

I Use the Archer Quin device as an example because the mechanism is identical
Just the opposite

the pushing magnets offset (most of) gravity, if we assume these to be the same magnets
in both devices, the force required to enter the field, as well as the pushing force resultant
remain the same.

In this case, the leverage comes from the radius of the wheel, rather than the double-lever
but they are exactly the same, mechanically speaking.

The pulling magnet offsets slightly more than the rest of gravity, but less than the
gravitationally induced momentum of the leveraged mass.
Thus it breaks itself free to fall again
the force required to break free is (by design) less than 1/2 of the rotational force.
(less than) The other half being designed to accommodate the Bloch wall entering the lower field.

This balance is as delicate as the proportional 2 weights in the Russian device.
For many of the same reasons

gravity is conservative
magnetism is conservative

But the two are NOT equivalent.
What we can extract is precisely the difference between the two, motion over time per mass

Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: pauldude000 on January 10, 2022, 08:44:22 AM
Hey Smokey, LTNS.

Gravity and magnetism are both functions of what you would call Einsteinian relativistic spacetime, or Maxwellian Aether if you prefer, I don't care. What I mean by the term "are functions" is literal. Neither one exists by itself, no more than are the concepts of amperage/voltage/resistance. They happen when a specific energy type flows and reacts with the surrounding medium. Mass itself is another function in that sense, and so is inertia. I am finding that constants themselves are usually even just functions. Hint, if the equation to figure something involves something else...

The problem is 1000AD thinking, when solid material meant solid, concerning 2022AD when we know that everything solid is actually, energy packets, strings and field interactions. There is no such thing as solid, as the concept itself is both extremely subjective and horribly outdated. Virtual particles are just unstable packets. Here they are, then poof, they are gone.

BUT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW! GASP! -- No it doesn't, it means that the scientists involved have disregarded the source of the energy, namely spacetime. The virtual particle -- real for the entire time it existed -- was converted, not created at inception nor destroyed at deconstruction. Particles themselves are energy based, basically speaking, a self propagating bubble of spacetime filled with a specific energy type, that would either resemble two BB's touching, or a 'cheerio' shaped object with a center point, not a hole. It is either a linear or a full toroidal resonant single wavelength folded back upon itself inside a chamber of spacetime, and I lean towards toroidal myself due to spin characteristics. (Best explanation I can give at this moment in time.)

Should the term be revised? Physicists who practice Theoretical Physics still debate the issue themselves, to this very day. The issue is not "cut and dried" as some would like to believe.

Some Physicists view it as a "thing", while others contend it is the "carrier or container" for a "thing". I personally call both energy and work self referencing circular logic tripe. In the simplest explanation, energy is the ability to do work, and work is the expenditure of energy over time and distance, when you remove the flowery BS that is applied by Physicists to explain the matter avoiding this principle.

Heck, the Physicists in question can't even recognize negative acceleration in certain instances, rofl. No, I don't have much respect for sophistry posing as intelligence anymore if you caught the sarcasm.

They can't even realize that their testing methods for COP are horribly inefficient (waste heat all over the place, whether talking electricity, flame generated heat, etc., to get the supposed caloric comparison for unity), so why expect them to get something right as simple as a good definition?

ROFL!

I find myself getting cantankerous and less tolerant of illogical BS in my subjectively old age.

To quote one physicist "...There is enough energy contained in one cup of spacetime to boil all the oceans on earth to steam." He has a clue as to what 100% thermodynamic efficiency actually is, whether he knows it consciously, or not.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
Post by: jdejean99@gmail.com on January 10, 2022, 01:53:43 PM
Our universe abides by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Free energy also abides by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What doesn't abide by the 2nd law of Themrodynamics is the Mainstream Gravitational ASTRO Physics model. The truth is the Big Bang never happened. The universe is very much alive. Every galactic center Plasmoid is connected to the universal current, every Star is connected in parralel to their galactic center Plasmoid, every planet is connected to their star. This is proven and has been for decades. This was common knowledge for the Ancients. But the CIA and FBI have done everything they could to muddy the waters and prevent anyone and everyone from drawing the realization between the 2. FREE ENERGY IS EXCLUSIVELY A RESLUT OF EARTH CONSTANTLY BEING FED BY THE GALACTIC CURRENT THROUGH THE NORTH AND SOUTH POLE WHERE THE EARTH THEN TRANSMUTES WHATEVER POSITIVE ENERGY IT CAN INTO MATTER SUCH AS LAVA, WHERE THE NEGATIVE ENERGY THEN EXITS THE EQUATOR AND GOES BACK TO THE SUN.

Again this has been proven/rediscovered since the early 1900s. The reason they didn't want you to know is because of the situation we are in right now .... We have come to the end of this 12,000 year Solar Magnetic cycle and over the next 10-29 years we will come to the creshendo of the magnetic excursion which will be accompanied by a Solar Micronova, just as we have seen with our 2 closest stars facing the galactic center(which luckily are really close to each other) both in the past 2 years.

To give you a quick yet definitive and undeniable proof of this reality I will refer you to Dr. PIERRE ROBITAILLE who is an MRI Pioneer and can be found on YouTube "Skyscholar". Dr. Robitaille proved with direct visual observational analysis ie Spectroskopy, that the Sun has a condensed matter liquid metallic Hydrogen surface. This can only exist if the universe is Electro-Magnetic as every single scientific observation ever has hinted at.
.Mainstreamers are the conspiracy theorists, as they follow a 100+ time debunked and fudge factor laced conspiracy theory that is gravity physics..... Electro-Magnetic Universe doesn't need no fudge factors and never has, nor does it need a 2nd law of physics, black holes, dark matter/dark energy, etc. All the fudge factors are just proofs of how far off gravity theory is from the true nature of our universe....

Whoever though that a big gaseous ball that came from dust could have synchronic cycles such as the magnetic excursion we are seeing right now and the resulting weakening Magnetic Shields on the Sun and all the planets simeautaneously with dust ball formed planets that orbit it? Whoever thought planets could orbit a star just with Gravity/A pull force???

This is all ties back to the elites removing and destroying the cap stones of the pyramids, to blind humanity of the true nature of our universe and of our own true nature!