http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc

I had a question regarding Tom Bearden's paper on alleged flaws in the current Electromagnetic theory.  He makes numerous references to "COP>1.0 and COP = ∞ electrical power systems."  I remembered learning about COP in Thermodynamics, and luckily I hadn't sold my book back so I was able to look COP as applied to refrigerators, heat pumps, and heat engines.

I was suprised to find that there were SEVERAL examples of systems with COP > 1, leading me to question, "why is it a big deal if we have COP > 1?"  The COP is defined as Qout / Win, the ratio of output energy over the input work required to extract that energy from a source.  The maximum value is determined by the Carnot COP (not sure how that applied to electrical systems!).  Therefore it could not (theoretically) become infinite, although values larger than one are EXPECTED, at least in the heating / cooling industry!  Am I missing something here, or did Tom somehow confuse COP with efficiency!?

When the air goes out, it may carry a different amount of energy.

So the air is part of the energy transaction. ok

But what kind of energy are we talking about here?

To those who wish to truly violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and achieve overunity.....

The device must be in a CLOSED SYSTEM. Which, in reality no system is "closed", unless its in a sealed container, under vacuum pressure, placed in space away from gravity and shielded from light/heat/magnetism/ect
since we cannot actually construct a closed system here on earth, the 2nd law of thermodynamics can be (relatively) subverted - by simply taking energy from the environment, and adding it to the system. so that the system performs work.

MOST "UO" systems are of this nature - wether they use gravity imbalance, eather frequencies (constructive interference), ionic discharge,magnetic potential, or some other form of gathering their required energy - they are not in a "closed system".

Therefore, any arguments that the 2nd Law prohibits an OU device, or arguments that a particular OU device "violates" the 2nd Law are basically like pissing in the wind, since we are (in most cases) not dealing with a closed system and ALL systems interacting with our system MUST be considered.

There is a (relatively) infinite ammount of energy in our natural environment, many of which we have found several wonderful ways of extracting. Technically speaking, solar and wind systems are "OU", I think much of the problem we have with new energy systems is that people do not understand the source of the energy.

It's more a matter of communication than physics. We simply need to be able to explain the source of the desired energy taken in by a given system, and the scientific community is more than welcome to examine a given technology. It is words like "over unity", "perpetual motion", "fuel-less motor", and all the exciting ideas that are perpetuated throughout out area of study that drives real scientific consideration away.

If fame is what you want, then the Media is your best option, they loves to display "OU" devices, especially if you can come up with a new coin phrase like "zero point energy" or "aetheric extraction". But these things only slow our progress and make anyone with half a mind turn their heads in laughter.

If you can relate the energy in terms of known sources of energy, this can be examinined on the realistic playing field that the rest of science is founded upon. But to invent your own terminology, and add some hocus-pocus, flim-flam onto your device and proclaim that it violates the very laws of the physics we use to examine our universe just further seperates accepted science from the types of devices we experiment with. here.

So - if you find someone unwilling to examine the ideas you are portraying to them, it is most likely the way it is being presented, that causes them grief - due to the knowledge they have.
You see - this person can see a windmill, and he doesnt say "no that cant work, physics doesnt allow it"
because the windmill is explained as exracting energy from the moving air. If the windmill was explained as a device for extrapolating energetic forces from  geological pressure-imbalances, resulting in electrical output people would be rather skeptical until you could prove a working model.

the first windmill was explained as a device for utilizing the power in the wind (moving air), and thus was researched and designed to do just that, the very same device described as above never would any serious attention because it does not conform to our current model of science.

Who knowsn maybe in 50-60 years we'll have "harmonic aether tappers" sitting in our utility closet to power the house, but as of now, we need to be consistent with our current realm of human knowledge, so as to communicate with one another. 

I have not seen any device on this forum or several others, that proposes to violate known physical laws. regardles of what the media or critics try to tell you, there IS a source of energy if the device is displaying "OU".
and the device in question is performing just as our physics would have it do - because it is NOT in a closed system.

People always try to omit that from their discussion about the 2nd law, it is not ANY system, or ALL systems, it only applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. - i.e. a system which is impenetrable to outside energy.

a device that sits in an electro-magnetically, light-sealed, thermally-isolated box outside of any gravitational field
that produces unlimited ammounts of energy would be a violation of the 2nd Law,. but the technologies presented on this forum are no such thing, and should be given the full respect of any device which uses energy from another source to perform work.