Taken from another thread.

This is a common fallacy, "the claimed invention violates the first law of thermodynamics, which is also known as the principal of conservation of energy, stating the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant"

Uhm, I have a few questions...

1)You falsely claimed, "the claimed invention violates the first law of thermodynamics" but also infer nothing can violate it. So which is it?, did the invention violate something you claim cannot be violated or did it not?.

2)You falsely claimed, the first law of thermodynamics is also known as the principal of the conservation of energy, which is a fallacy. Thermo(heat)-dynamics(motion) is only one form of energy not the same as others like Electro(electric field)-dynamics(motion). In fact, the Conservation of Energy applies to any and/or all forms energy could theoretically take not only something as primitive as heat. You do not seem to understand basic physics or the nature of your claim.

3)You falsely claimed, "the claimed invention violates the first law of thermodynamics, stating the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant". First you would have to prove a truly isolated system can actually exist which you cannot. Second, the patent never claimed the invention was an "imaginary" isolated system which cannot exist. Third, in all open systems which the invention obviously is the total energy is never constant.

I get tired of people too dense to understand basic logic and reasoning.

Logically, they cannot claim "something" violates a law which they also claim cannot be violated because it's a direct contradiction. They could claim the invention violates the first law of thermodynamics but then they would have to explain exactly how, show a direct connection between heat(jiggling atoms) and any other forms of energy present and how all this relates to the invention/process specifically. There not even remotely intelligent enough to do this so of course they generalize using fallacies.

AC

something about of question for cancellation of the law of conservation of energy: Response of the Russian Academy of Sciences [08.2023] about the proof of the absence of the law of conservation of energy

in short, in two words, it is a matter of someone arguing that scientists did not take into account the magnetic component in the interaction of two point charges )
quote from the document:

On pages 100 - 108 of this work It has been proved that the existing law of conservation of energy in
electrodynamics is incomplete: it does not take into account the real effect on a
moving electric charge of the magnetic component of the Lorentz force, which
in some important cases violates the law of conservation of energy in
electrodynamics. The consequence of this violation is the dependence of the
magnetic component of the Lorentz force on the velocities of electric charges.

Most will agree with the conservation of energy, but we can all look for ways to harvest energy elsewhere.
Say, there is some burn left in car exhaust gasses. We build an efficient air filter that harvests molecules, and we stick the whole thing on a gas powered vehicle. On the highway when the air is sufficiently "combustable" we engage the filter and collect the particulates in a tank. If the octane number is similar enough to our usual unleaded, we might as well mix it into the main tank. Especially when there is a particularly bad traffic jam, we may end the drive with more range left than we started, and it's fuel level and energy density based. Nothing violates conservation of energy, we just borrowed from a vast but less accessible source.

In this (hypothetical?) example we know where the surplus is going to to be coming from.
With many proposed or claimed inventions, the source is "vague" at best.
A lot of great work can be done to reduce losses, and we've seen that in regular cars over the decades. Less heat is rejected per kg of basically the same fuel, and more useful work is extracted. In that particular example there has always been a lot of wasted heat to get more work from, but in many processes there is just a high level of efficiency already. Battery electric cars, some are thrown together very badly and seem to lose a lot of energy, but generally, you can't even theoretically get 50% more work from them by tweaking the drivetrain.

Now which proposed sytems have a clear resource that's being tapped? Turning one molecule into a lighter one with spare energy to put to use, that'd be nice. Ideally not via heat rejection (sorry fusion) as that's inherently inefficient unless it's heat we're after. We sit on a 12,000 km ball of mostly molten lava, so heat isn't the most scarse thing, I'd say.

Stanley Meyer claimed to be drawing in...electrons was it, to make his car engine run on water as sole input? Is that a viable way to increase potency of the chemical reactions exploited? Where did that energy come from, and how was it replenished at that source?

something about of question for cancellation of the law of conservation of energy: Response of the Russian Academy of Sciences [08.2023] about the proof of the absence of the law of conservation of energy
in short, in two words, it is a matter of someone arguing that scientists did not take into account the magnetic component in the interaction of two point charges )

My few words as a comment:
- Real Russian Academy of Science was .. -  o yea .. historical event from the soviet past.. still remembered..
   and dinosaurs too.
I would say:
-if he who listens listens fully, then he who listens becomes he who understands. _(Ptahhotep)
Physics needs something to stand on - and to move it to the new model you need to  create  one first..

________________________________________
 

As an expert in energy systems I basically ignore the conservation of energy in my work.
AC

Listening never gets you in trouble but talking can _{(Mike Tyson)}
So  do not talk too loud  about it.
_________________________________________

My point was to show that the people claiming a FE device must violate the Conservation Of Energy o
AC

FE is  simply  Energy for Free - normal everyday event as energy exchange from one form to the other.
Wesley

Conservation ....:

or not,R&teste model D ?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Pavel+imris&IN=&CPC=&IC=
6,.,7.,8.,9.,11.,15.

wmbr
OCWL
p.s.: a now R.I.P. slovakian,dissident,has had to migrate ( poste Prager Fruehling) to the U.S.A.,left the U.S.A.         went to F.R.Germany its FNL,Ex-G.D.R.(wife family origin,v.Barnim)
        ' German Wehrmacht-soldiers treated his mother during WW2 .......',the only time seeing him crying,         when he told about,as 85+ old man
        Prussian Academy,Russian Academy,American Academy : for him,as physicist ,no difference        Political : enemies !

Similar like :

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=556524961&q=silan+sand+energy&oq=silan+sand+energy&aqs=heirloom-srp..

http://www.rexresearch.com/plichtasilane/plichta.html
Unlike hydrocarbons, silanes use both the nitrogen and the oxygen in air for combustion

?

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/asche-zu-asche-sand-zu-sand-a-879b4d8d-0002-0001-0000-000017817519

. Die großen Autohersteller von DaimlerChrysler bis Ford preisen das Element deshalb schon als Nachfolger des Benzins.
Solar grade silicium costs : 5-8 US$/Kg ,ic combuston engine grade combustion process silicum ? 1-2 US$/Kg ?


A new ' desertec' : instead solar panels installation ' silane GW power plants' in the african,arabian,south U.S.A.,.... deserts ? Saltwater to potable water or hydrogen and oxygen production by dissolution ?

Surplus salt to saltfiber to salt fiber foil on frame   for space covering : greenhouses in desert  !?

wmbr
OCWL
p.s. : back to dis-/agree from ' conservation of ...'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jeans_law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem
In an Universum with billions of galaxis never thinking ' human-small'
         
Uni-versum or Paralleluniversum or Multiversum/Polyversum

And I continue to insist that there is no need to achieve huge COP. It is enough to slightly exceed unity. And in the case of loop, the output power will grow indefinitely. If it is not artificially limited.

Yes and No !
The device with closed loop  C.O.P. 1,01,harvesting the energy outside has the power2device gain ratio 0,01
The device with C.O.P. 2,0 power2device gain ratio 1,0 = 100 times more economical !
Not the output per cycle is growing,the output over all work time accumulated clearly yes,storaged or used  !
wmbr
OCWL

There was wrong. corrected.