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

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: 514816
  • *Total Topics: 15318
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 5
  • *Total: 7

Author Topic: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics  (Read 42183 times)

Offline spinn_MP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2010, 10:33:08 PM »
Heh, I'm siding with OmniBot? Thanks for a good lough...

"It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form."
You think so?  :D

Guess what... You do the "17*ou" miracle, clearly.. Even with the Fet's (they used to do it with the bipolar transistors like 2955/3055... In the old days. Surely, with a help of a "555"...) ...

And, I'll change my mind.
Fair?

Nevermind...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2010, 10:33:08 PM »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2010, 10:37:40 PM »
Heh, I'm siding with OmniBot? Thanks for a good lough...

"It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form."
You think so?  :D

Guess what... You do the "17*ou" miracle, clearly.. Even with the Fet's (they used to do it with the bipolar transistors like 2955/3055... In the old days. Surely, with a help of a "555"...) ...

And, I'll change my mind.
Fair?

Nevermind...

LOL.  It has been done VERY clearly.  But you're on Spinn.  We're getting this done on campus - so this time there'll hopefully - be ready acceptance.  God know's it's needed.

But I'm definitely on for it.  Just hope you'll tame that malice when we show all that evidence.    ;D 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2010, 10:46:52 PM »
Heh, I'm siding with OmniBot? Thanks for a good lough...

"It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form."
You think so?  :D

Guess what... You do the "17*ou" miracle, clearly.. Even with the Fet's (they used to do it with the bipolar transistors like 2955/3055... In the old days. Surely, with a help of a "555"...) ...

And, I'll change my mind.
Fair?

Nevermind...


Yep  Yep........Promises Promises... no proof..then no point....It has been a good laugh....

Cough syrup for all?

 ;D
J.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2010, 11:12:25 PM by truthbeknown »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2010, 10:46:52 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline spinn_MP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2010, 10:47:32 PM »
LOL.  It has been done VERY clearly.  But you're on Spinn.  We're getting this done on campus - so this time there'll hopefully - be ready acceptance.  God know's it's needed.

But I'm definitely on for it.  Just hope you'll tame that malice when we show all that evidence.    ;D 

Regards,
Rosemary

Ok, ok... Just show your "all that evidence" of yours...

Regards and Cheers,

spinner

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2010, 11:17:12 PM »
Paul, in the hopes of getting this back on topic and abject apologies for that absurd diversion.

I get it that you consider a kind of 'motion' of the magnetic field - whether the magnet itself is moving or not.  Presumably then the flux is in motion?  I agree.  And I also agree that in as much as a magnet resists 'falling' from a fridge door - then it's definitely resisting the gravitational pull.  Since the gravitational pull is quantifiable, then presumably the amount of energy expended in resisting that pull equals or exceeds the force of gravity. That's surely quantifiable?

But when you talk about centrifugal force being the same as gravity - then I'm frankly lost.  I thought the centrifugal force inclines bodies to move outwards and away.  Where gravity - in contrast - pulls one inwards and towards.  What really puzzles me is that a rotating platform is proposed to be a possible 'artifiicial gravitational field' that would compensate for the required gravity on a space ship.  I can't get my head around it.  Unless the rotation is at some exotic axis to that artificial sense of 'ground' that's required.  In any event.  It's just one of many blind spots. 

I must say I've got my own take on the casimir effect which I also agree is a kind of magnetic flux - extraneous to the atom - that bonds atoms.  So.  I'm with you when you talk about atomic bonding.  It's just that I'm a bit pedantic and horribly simplistic.  So I actually envisage a kind of one on one field of flux particles that bind atoms together.  So.  Yes.  On this point I'm in absolute agreement - always assuming that we're talking about the same thing.  In effect the field would be actively holding or bonding with extraneous material - which is a kind of work.

And I'm not sure if we need acceleration to prove that work is being done.  Surely there's work in any self sustained orbit - such as our spin - or our orbit around the sun - or in the orbit of an electron - that you mentioned in your earlier post?  If it's moving surely that's proof of energy? - is what I think I'm trying to say.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2010, 11:17:12 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2010, 06:31:26 AM »
@all

Have not fallen off of the edge of the world.. yet. :-) Just absent from my compy all day......

(Paul pulls out a radiation meter and checks the RADS.)

Nope, not WWIII yet, but you sure couldn't tell here.

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

I take it then Rosemary that you have achieved closer to COP=1 then was thought possible? KEWL.

Holding the data back for a patent or are you sharing? (If so, point the way towards more info. I'm interested. I only bite on odd Tuesdays.)

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

@ the "others" (don't have a clue whom all)

Have you tried replicating yet? This is a yes or no answer by the way.

If the answer is no, then I point out my first an second main posts on this topic. Critical thinking at this point would state that you object irrationally, and in an unscientific manner.

If yes, then did it work? Have you asked for comparison of the original circuit? Have you tried to simulate the environmental situation? All yes or no answers.....

These things are what a -->real<-- scientist would do.

If you have done them, then maybe whatever is behind your arguments, whatever they are have merit. If not, then you have no more room to claim science than some dude with a beer in his hand at a trailer park claiming to have talked with Elvis.

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

@all

If this argument is to persist, please create a separate thread for it.

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

@Loner

I really hope that I am not that bad... :-( I do like to discuss things in depth, and everyone that knows me would admit that I am not the greatest with tact. All too many time other presume I argue when in fact I am having in my mind an awesome and enjoyable conversation.....

Am I too blunt? I cannot work on what is not self-evident. If it is the manner in which my brain processes data, this I may have a hard time with. I am serious, be truthful, accurate, and verbose. I am not made of glass, and my skin is calloused.

I am not attempting to browbeat anyone with logic. Such is irrational, and illogical.

By the way, definitions are in part the problem. You are sharp as a carpet tack.

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

@all concerning the magnet....... :-)

Loner, I hate to drop this one on you, but I knew someone would post it. It was a setup from point one.

MECHANICAL work involves motion (as described by physics)

WORK as described by thermodynamics (the subset of physics whom is extremely relevant here), however, is the energy transferred from one system to another, and is characterized by external mechanical constraints. 

It was a setup as I knew it would be associated with Newtonian physical principles, as soon as "motion" was brought in.

By physics (thermodynamics), a magnet indeed does work, as defined by the pressure applied to the surface of either the papers ot the fridge itself by the magnetic energy applied.

(Loner, I feel sorrow as I already know you knew this, but it was slipping your mind. I apologize again.)

Look up "Work Thermodynamics" for those interested in more info.

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

@Loner

Considering the relativistic aspects, you are right as this was a slam dunk no matter which angle I intended to come from, but though I was tempted, I am glad I passed up said temptation. You could have then added jack to a well chosen three letter designation for what I would have qualified for as an appellation then.

I intended thermodynamic application as the violation of energy laws are from thermodynamics anyway, and it leaves less room for valid argument.

Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2010, 06:55:43 AM »
I just thought of a loophole, and I am going to close that logical door before any purists get up in arms.

I am basing the "pressure" off of equivalence.

To measure the exact difference, set up an experiment where air is compressed, in such a manner that the magnetic field of the magnet presses upon a non-magnetic piston in a device of known initial volume/pressure. Such device must allow the magnet to approach the fridge to such a degree that the magnet holds its own weight against gravity, due to the geometric strength reducetion with distance of a magnetic field.

THEN you see the exact amount of work done by a particular magnet against a fringe using the formula:

dW = - pdV

The classic differential equation.

The same equation equivalence would describe the amount of work applied to a proverbial immovable object, where work (as energy) is transferred, but no motion is present, merely the transference of pressure.

I posted this as I realized that without the proof, I would have made an empty claim.

Paul Andrulis

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2010, 06:55:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2010, 08:36:34 AM »
Paul, in the hopes of getting this back on topic and abject apologies for that absurd diversion.

I get it that you consider a kind of 'motion' of the magnetic field - whether the magnet itself is moving or not.  Presumably then the flux is in motion?  I agree.  And I also agree that in as much as a magnet resists 'falling' from a fridge door - then it's definitely resisting the gravitational pull.  Since the gravitational pull is quantifiable, then presumably the amount of energy expended in resisting that pull equals or exceeds the force of gravity. That's surely quantifiable?

But when you talk about centrifugal force being the same as gravity - then I'm frankly lost.  I thought the centrifugal force inclines bodies to move outwards and away.  Where gravity - in contrast - pulls one inwards and towards.  What really puzzles me is that a rotating platform is proposed to be a possible 'artifiicial gravitational field' that would compensate for the required gravity on a space ship.  I can't get my head around it.  Unless the rotation is at some exotic axis to that artificial sense of 'ground' that's required.  In any event.  It's just one of many blind spots. 

I must say I've got my own take on the casimir effect which I also agree is a kind of magnetic flux - extraneous to the atom - that bonds atoms.  So.  I'm with you when you talk about atomic bonding.  It's just that I'm a bit pedantic and horribly simplistic.  So I actually envisage a kind of one on one field of flux particles that bind atoms together.  So.  Yes.  On this point I'm in absolute agreement - always assuming that we're talking about the same thing.  In effect the field would be actively holding or bonding with extraneous material - which is a kind of work.

And I'm not sure if we need acceleration to prove that work is being done.  Surely there's work in any self sustained orbit - such as our spin - or our orbit around the sun - or in the orbit of an electron - that you mentioned in your earlier post?  If it's moving surely that's proof of energy? - is what I think I'm trying to say.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Yes Rosemary, as Loner pointed out relativistically the magnet IS moving even though it is stationary in a particular frame of reference. "Frames of reference" are highly subjective in reality. I won't go too deep into this, but I shall think outside the box with you for a few minutes on this.

First of all forces are equivalent. Inertia and gravity for instance are considered "equivalent" as the differences between the two are indistinct and non-measurable. An object can be referred to as applying "pressure", when in fact it is applying "Negative pressure" or "pull". Yes, I was getting somewhat of loose with terms, but I was not desiring to appear anal, and the terns still apply.... practically speaking.

As far as the field itself "flowing", that should be self evident due to comparison to similar phenomena.

The main inexplicable (as in difficult to explain, not impossible) effect is that it chooses the path of least resistance in the exact same manner that electricity does while in motion. Most everything else has somewhat of a simple relegation towards a lack of flow as a static field. A static field is not moving or "flowing" therefore needs NO path whatsoever. More on this later.

Gravity, as a for instance does not care whether you are outside of a plane, or inside. It permeates and affects all things equally. When a plane is occupied, or a building, vehicle, or anything else, such concepts as resistance hold little meaning. The people in the plane experience the force of 1G  (equivalent inertial mass acceleration of 9.18 meters per sec  per sec).

Though you are sitting in the seat on said plane, you are experiencing the same acceleration applied by gravity, therefore you are compressing the seat material by the same equivalent force as acceleration. Applied force is the most basic possible definition of "work", which would be applicably definitive for all branches of science equally.

If the Newtonian ONLY definition of work were allowed, then heat would not do "work" by definition, nor would any pure energy concept of work be allowable under the constraints. Therefore, thermodynamics allows for the definition of work to be defined upon energy transference in a system. Otherwise, how would you determine the amount of work by say a light bulb? How about a laser beam? Strong or weak forces?

All these things do work, and it is amazing how selective people can be about to WHAT a definition is allowed to be applied based solely upon inference of the meaning of the outcome if permitted.

Such is the case of the magnet. If the rules allowed for other forms of energy are applied equally, then the magnet qualifies as doing work due to energy transferrence in the system.

ONLY if bias is shown, then a magnet does no work. Many may not like the statement or it's inherent implications, but it is true. Energy IS being transferred by a magnet attached to any magnetic material, or in the close presence of another magnet. The external effects ARE measurable not as POTENTIAL force or energy, but APPLIED force or energy. (In Newtonian terms kinetic energy not potential energy.)

A magnetic field is not potential or static unless it is isolated and not transferring energy to something else..   

This has no bearing upon the argument, as I do not include this as a postulate, and here is where I wander from the pack. I truly do not think a magnetic field IS static at all, but in in constant state of flow both within the magnet, and in space outside of the physical magnet body. Two possibilities come to mind, either a flow of photons or phonons, or a peculiar warpage of space. I state the second possibility as the formula for the strength of a "magnetic field" over distance share striking similarities with that for the strength of gravity.

Just a thought to make you go hmmmmm, but pure speculation and I put it forth as such...


Paul  Andrulis

Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2010, 12:09:37 PM »
Yep.

What, "Miss MosFet" is already threatening people with the legal ("I'll sue u!") stuff?
ROTFLMAO!!
...

At least the interest will be that she will have to prove she has a working device. Against her, the IEEE. Hard work for her.

When I asked on the dedicated thread if someone built successfully her device, no one replied but she. In flooding replies it was said that I had not to ask this because she had links to the web that would prove third party replications. The question was over :).

Then I received two private emails from two experimenters who failed in duplicating her device. One of them is very very well documented, with detailed diagrams, measurements... His author added that he had difficulties in publishing his results on the dedicated thread. It is not very surprising for the following reason.

Very incredible: there is a thread on this forum where the moderator is the author whose the device is discussed!

Can we seriously expect for the truth when someone is both judge and party?
With this case, we are fully in the debat on critical thinking.
An analysis of the situation with this method shows us that most of the symptoms of a scam are together in the case in question. It may also be the result of psychological problems, like denial (refusal to accept external reality) or distortion (a gross reshaping of external reality) or delusional projection...

« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 01:47:04 PM by exnihiloest »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2010, 12:09:37 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2010, 02:28:56 PM »
Paul - I'm afraid that exnihiloest and others will continue to hijack your thread no matter your request that they desist.  Certainly as long as I post here. Your options are limited.  Either we need to ignore their posts.  I'm game if you are.  Or I'll retire and just enjoy reading your posts from a distance - so to speak.  Take your pick.

The unfortunate truth is that he and truthtotell are the worst kind of troll.  Unlike TK or even / spinn - the two of them are somewhat intellectually challenged.  So.  To ask them to post elsewhere carries the inevitable consequence of either not being able to read it or not being able to understand it.  And this last post of his seems to show a total inability to put a logical sentence together.  It seems that what he's tried to gain in innuendo and implication - he's rather lost in simply making any kind of sense at all.  Extraordinary.  The one is as verbose and obtuse as the other is terse and obtuse.  Either way?   

Anyway let me know what you want me to do.  I'll fall in.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 ;D

May I add - and since you asked.  The fact is that there is, indeed, a thesis that required OU - the experiment that proved the thesis - and finally a full blown replication that proved the experiment.

But inevitably with that much familiarity with the experiment - the replicator was duly tempted by it's desirability.  He, the replicator tried to snaffle claim to the experiment as his own discovery but to do this he needed to deny the existence of the thesis.  So.  It became an attempt at internet theft which was duly quashed by sundry checks and balances available within the internet itself.

But the trolls follow my every post - which makes it difficult for me.  They really need to interrupt me.  The more so as they need to silence any reference I may make to advance an understanding of my thesis.  This would be counter their very best interests to keep the facts from the reading public here.  The thesis may prove too powerful.  Certainly the results from the experiment fly in the face of standard theory.  Fortunately Harti knows this and has offered me moderator status on my own thread to prevent it being unduly 'clogged' with their nonsense.  But I have no protection outside that thread.  And these interruptions are the consequence. 

Not a happy situation.

Kindest again,
Rosemary   



« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 02:54:29 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2010, 04:54:31 PM »
LOL, once again this is very simple to test a OU device: In the Rosemary Ainslie device: I think you can use it to boil water with the resistor, if you have a COP up to 17 you can run a steam engine (efficacity of 50%) and run an alternator and feed the boiler circuit... Like this:

!---->"Rosmary Boiler COP 17"-->Steam engine-->Alternator-->Load...
!                                                                        !                 
!---<---------------Regulator/UnitControl<-----------!                       

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2010, 04:54:31 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2010, 07:38:41 PM »
Loner,  Just a quick point here

Prime example, does Gravity do work to a non-moving object?  I can answer that one without a doubt.  Of course not.....  (Motion being defined here as relative to the center of gravity of the implied object/field.  I don't think I need to say more.)

If gravity is holding an object in a state of rest on the ground - surely that's work?  One has to apply energy to get the object to move.  And that applied energy needs to defeat that gravitational pull.  So technically?  An object at rest is still interacting - rather energetically - with the gravitational pull. 

Of course, I agree that a mag field is "Flowing", but until someone comes up with a "Magnetically Resistive" material, a magnet not in motion will not do "Work".

Your average fridge magnet must be continually interacting with the material in the fridge door - else it would fall.  Yet the magnet itself is NOT moving.  Surely?  And that interaction is either equal to the gravitational pull or greater - again, else it would fall.  If gravity exerts a continual force on all materials and that force can be used - as your example of a water tower - then by the same token - when materials are able to resist that force they must be working against that gravitational pull.  Technically the tower that holds up the water tank is also working against a gravitational pull.  It also is working.   

One last thing, before I go educate myself further so I can be a little more logical, If the magnet were transferring energy, wouldn't that require the magnet to weaken over time?  Many commercial magnets are even shipped with "Keepers" to prevent such loss by completing the flow circuit.  If the "Flow" were to cause "Transfer", or in this case "Loss" then the addition of the keeper would make the magnet lose More strength, rather than "Keep" the force within the magnet.  All I'm saying there is, the "Keeper" would or should be caller a "Loser", as continual flow would reduce it's energy content.
Good point Loner.  Effectively - whatever flux comprises - on your standard permanent magnet the amount of energy used in keeping it bound to a fridge door is - potentially - infinite.  Very interesting point.  Effectively a standard bar magnet is also a source of perpetual energy.  We're sort of flirting with some rather politically incorrect terminology here.  LOL

It's refreshing to be able to have such a conversation, without flames or malice.  This is the type of thing that makes for good science.

I realize this is "Off Topic",  as in it's discussing magnets, but I'm hoping the method of discussion is in line with the topic.  Let me know as I'll follow the lead wherever it goes....
I second this. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2010, 08:01:11 PM »
To me, the "Device" would be using some method for converting "Energy" (I won't define type, that's up to the inventor....) in to standard "Heat".  As most of us know, a standard heat pump has a COP of around 3-5, but no-one tries to say that's OU.  The important part of this device is What/Where is the "Energy" coming from, as "Heat" is not the only form that could be obtained...

So as to not sound to much like the complete skeptic, your setup WOULD prove that there was an external energy source being used, and is actually the most important part of the "Discovery" process.

Loner - consider this.  One isolated atom of iron - say - would have an energy potential that relates to it's mass.  Now.  Would two atoms have more energy together than one atom alone?  Theoretically the answer is no.  But in fact the answer is yes.  For example.  Assume that we have a single hydrogen atom - which like an iron atom - has certain valence imbalances.  Try and put two hydrogen atoms together and they'll repel each other.   Try and join two iron atoms and you'd have the same problem.  Iron filings do not naturally 'bond' with each other - any more than simple hydrogen atoms will share the same space.  In effect to get all that hydrogen into our early suns - and to get all those filings into an indentifiable shape requires energy.  And, if you took each atom apart again - step by step - you'd effectively require more energy again.   But in both instances - either in assembling them or in disassembling them - you do not actually change the atom itself.  You may, under chemical interactions - change some of the molecules in a given material - or even change their valence condition.  But the addition or substraction of more or less atoms or molecules - does not change the material.  It does not change the constituent parts of the atom.  It only changes the bound condition of the atom.  I propose that the bound condition of material is the result of hidden fields of energy.  And I propose that this is the dark matter that our astrophysicists are looking for.  In other words it is extraneous to the atom and present in all bound material.  It's just that when that material is conductive or inductive - then it can be exploited as current flow.  So.  Effectively the energy is, indeed, inside the material of the wire itself.  It is a hidden source of energy that has been widely exploited without ever being actually identified.

Regards
Rosemary.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2010, 08:31:58 PM »
@Loner

As far as I see it loner, we are APPLYING critical thought to this subject, so therefore I deem it "on topic". A  practical demonstration of the principles involved.

I really did miss these conversations with you and others Art, while I was away from the forum. You have the habit of conceptually keeping me honest, as well as addressing highly relevant issues with the topics themselves.

The definitions for work are semi-usable (adequate). Where I find the lack of logic is the concept that the definition is allowable here, but not there, when the observable demonstrable effects are similar if not the same.  If the definitions are allowable for one system, they are allowable for all similar systems. Error in definition seems to hinge upon a notion for "useful work", and not "work" itself. Wasted work is still work.

The water in the water tower required X energy to lift it from point A to vertical point B. Work was done to lift it. Yet, energy is constantly being transferred from the water to the tower itself, then applied to the ground below actively and constantly compressing the dirt. Geologically speaking this pressure would technically cause the tower to bury itself in the ground, as geology shows that due to the pressure the tower is constantly moving vertically downward. I bring up this point as a concept which is denied in one subset of science actively often has a necessary proponent in another area of study. However, the tower in physics SEEMS to not be moving, solely as the TIME SCALES upon which measurements are made are far too small.

If the concept is incorrect as applied towards physics, then it is untrue for geology as well. (I think the geologists would tell the stuffed shirts at this point to stuff it. :-) )

Resistance to a magnetic field is called reluctance. If a magnetic field encountered no resistance, the concept of "the path of least resistance" would be moot.

I will probably post again on reply, as I am going solely from memory Art, and I know I forgot to address some of the points you made.

-----------

@Rosemary

The qualifications of your speaking shall be determined solely upon the logic employed. Please feel free to contribute despite troll interruption.

I have to deal with autism on a daily basis, as my son is autistic. It is amazing how his fits resemble the attitudes of many supposedly intelligent individuals. If anyone is trying to start a fight (flame you), then follow my dear departed mothers advice..... Let them stick their heads up their proverbial rears and fight for air. :-)

If any flaming becomes a problem, I will approach Harti myself about it, as no-one deserves to live under a state of constant attack, verbal or otherwise.

Paul Andrulis



Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2010, 08:33:55 PM »
I take it then Rosemary that you have achieved closer to COP=1 then was thought possible? KEWL.

Holding the data back for a patent or are you sharing? (If so, point the way towards more info. I'm interested. I only bite on odd Tuesdays.)

The data's freely available - all over the place Paul.  Here's the link that I gave to Loner.  Nothing's been patented.  On the contrary - we all went to some trouble to ensure that it wasn't.  Be rather difficult even if I'd wanted to.  The fact is that we simply use a switching circuit and return rather more energy back to the battery than was dissipated at the load.  Right now we're developing an application on higher wattages. 

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Edited to amend the 'quote'

 

OneLink