A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Smokey

This is definitely my favourite subject.  Here's some examples of standard model absurdities.

E=mC^2.  A photon has zero mass.  Therefore - zero x the speed of light squared = ZERO.  Therefore a photon has NO ENERGY

Space is expanding at a uniform rate - yet galaxies collide. 

Interaction of particles with each other in a particle accelerator produce myriad forms of virtual particles with a combined mass that far exceeds the the number in the initial interaction.

General relatively determines that there is not enough gravity in a galaxy to hold star structures together.  Therefore they should be unravelling - or general relativity is wrong.

Or dark energy from dark matter is a reality which conclusion is ONLY supported by astrophysicists.  The rest of the science community consider this postulate as somewhat eccentric.

And so on. And so on.  It's a crazy world is the science world.  And what's even crazier is that I speak with absolute authority when I say that 6 collaborators invited every single electrical engineering academic expert in South Africa to a public demonstration of an over unity device - AND NOT ONE SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED THAT DEMONSTRATION.

So.  Science is NOT led by experimental evidence.  Nor is it founded in logic.  And the joke is that if you question the 'standard model' YOU and not THEY are considered eccentric.

Regards,
Rosemary

In fact here's my blog post on just this subject.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html
   

[pauldude000]

@Rosemary


ltns.


You want to know one of my favorites? The scientific energy/power scam.


You are putting 5 watts in and extracting 45 watts of energy out!!!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!


Hmmmmm..... Watts is not energy, it is power. Energy is measured in joules. Watts are joules over time. I can charge a capacitor with 1 watt of juice over a long period of time, then extract megawatts off in a single pulse. It is all a matter of energy over time.


If you store 1 joule of energy up over enough time to enable a stored 1000 joules, then release those 1000 joules in a few microseconds, then the wattage out is seemingly impossibly huge. The work which can be done with this pulse can also be astoundingly huge in comparison, as it can explode a wire releasing even MORE energy into the system in the form of a chemical explosion, which itself can do more work. The output BEFORE the chemical release caused by the explosion is still the initial 1000 joules. (In the proposed system, you actually have over-unity if you are measuring only the electrical used for the comparison.)


Yet the wattage comparisons would be off the chart in comparison to each other.


Again, wattage is NOT a measure of energy!   


Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in the possibility of overunity...... the equation does have to balance. I just have seen no evidence to support the retarded notion of the supposedly... allegedly... 'closed systems' in thermodynamics either. ALL energy comes from somewhere, and when released GOES somewhere, which means the evidence points towards unexplained phenomena....... IE new energy source(s).


Most scientists I have talked to just demonstrate their unwillingness to explore new potential energy sources. (IE do their supposed....  alleged.... JOBS.)
.


It is called 'mental laziness'. It is EASIER to ridicule or condemn then do the work of applying logical thought towards experimentation using scientific methodology to implement a realistic investigation.


Sorry. This actually was a rant I guess.


Paul Andrulis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And likewise @ you too, pauldude.

Very difficult to understand your complaint here.  It seems that you dispute ANY evidence of overunity here...

Most scientists I have talked to just demonstrate their unwillingness to explore new potential energy sources. (IE do their supposed....  alleged.... JOBS.)  It is called 'mental laziness'. It is EASIER to ridicule or condemn then do the work of applying logical thought towards experimentation using scientific methodology to implement a realistic investigation.

... all of which is implied to be unreasonable.   

And YET.  Here you show your own 'scepticism'...

You want to know one of my favorites? The scientific energy/power scam. You are putting 5 watts in and extracting 45 watts of energy out!!!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Are you not perhaps indulging in that mental laziness that you're assuming keeps our academics away.  I say this because you then go on to argue about the extraction and delivery of power that has nothing whatsoever to do with our claim - or indeed with the claim advanced by Sterling related to our mysterious South African inventors.

Here

Hmmmmm..... Watts is not energy, it is power. Energy is measured in joules. Watts are joules over time. I can charge a capacitor with 1 watt of juice over a long period of time, then extract megawatts off in a single pulse. It is all a matter of energy over time. If you store 1 joule of energy up over enough time to enable a stored 1000 joules, then release those 1000 joules in a few microseconds, then the wattage out is seemingly impossibly huge. The work which can be done with this pulse can also be astoundingly huge in comparison, as it can explode a wire releasing even MORE energy into the system in the form of a chemical explosion, which itself can do more work. The output BEFORE the chemical release caused by the explosion is still the initial 1000 joules. (In the proposed system, you actually have over-unity if you are measuring only the electrical used for the comparison.) Yet the wattage comparisons would be off the chart in comparison to each other.

And here

Again, wattage is NOT a measure of energy!   

And here

Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in the possibility of overunity...... the equation does have to balance. I just have seen no evidence to support the retarded notion of the supposedly... allegedly... 'closed systems' in thermodynamics either. ALL energy comes from somewhere, and when released GOES somewhere, which means the evidence points towards unexplained phenomena....... IE new energy source(s).

You are assuming that no-one - apart from yourself - understands the basis of computing over unity.  We do.  I assure you.  We all do.  It is the amount of energy measured to have been delivered by a supply source - against the amount of energy measured to have been returned to that supply source and that is dissipated over a workstation on a circuit.  You're equating stored and dissipated energy to the amount STORED in the first instance.  New science and indeed, the experimental evidence on these forums suggests that energy is not so much STORED as RE-GENERATED.  Surprisingly that's a REQUIRED RESULT from the simple application of Inductive Laws promoted by our standard model.  Some excessive corruptions have been introduced by our Kirchhoff enthusiasts that propose that the amount of energy returned and dissipated cannot - between them - exceed the amount of energy first delivered.  But that argument is not only disproved in ALL those claims that breach unity - but is also a REQUIRED CONDITION of Einstein's mass/energy equivalences.

I put it to you that our energy monopolists have done a good job in keeping this OBVIOUS fact from the attention of most of you electronic boffins.  Fortunately they do not arbitrate on fundamental physics.  Or, I should say, that WHEN they arbitrate - there are those with enough sense to ignore that arbitration.  With or without respect.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[pauldude000]

You misunderstand Rosemary, and it may well be my own fault for not wording it properly.


Over-unity is a term developed by scientists as a self negative, and not a term with meaning towards real science. It is a definitions game that is rigged to lose from the start, for the purpose of ridicule towards the uninitiated..


Consider this: You have two batteries in a circuit, of which YOU only switch one, and the circuit switches the other. Both batteries are calculated into the determination of power, and the result is at maximum unity.


Now, define the term unity so as to exclude the other battery, and you get over-unity. The term was created so as to demonstrate the inanity of the user. The user is claiming to create energy from absolutely nothing BY DEFINITION. IE is claiming magic. The very term was rigged for it. I perceive you as a very intelligent person, and both of us know that the equation balances every time. Technically a solar cell would fit the definition except the power source is known.


I am skeptical alright, and more than a little abhorred that science as a whole is willing to stoop so low. This is sophomoric horseplay in my book.


But since they are stooping now to such decidedly un-scientific words and concepts as scientific "consensus" and "debunking" I am not really surprised. (Consensus is a political or legal term, not a scientific term what-so-ever, and is not defined in any scientific dictionary. Technically science itself is and has been against consensus, as the consensus has generally been wrong every time throughout history.) Something is starting to smack more of religion than science.... within science as pertains to groups of scientists considered as a whole.


Perpetual motion also falls into the rigged category, in that the general principal is demonstrated everywhere throughout the entire universe, (systems in motion for extremely long periods of time despite known energy sources maintaining said motion.)  but is applicable only to man-made devices BY DEFINITION.


The definitions are rigged towards personal philosophies and presuppositions and not towards demonstrable evidence. Those scientists willing to even show open sympathy towards the concepts, or those using them, are ridiculed and castigated by those whom through their own actions declare themselves as the zealous protectors of the true faith.




To those doing these things I have this to say (not you Rosemary, I have read many of your posts, and this does not apply to a great many others here, amateurs, actual physicists, and E.E.'s alike.)..... Guess what? .... Science isn't a religion and doesn't NEED you to defend anything. Debunking has nothing to do with science but leaves the definitive taste of defense of dogma and doctrine. You demonstrate your own ego and nothing more. ANYTHING can be faked, just watch a movie sometime...... Fake nuclear blasts on TV will not make Hiroshima go away, and unless you know everything, in the amount of knowledge you do not know, many UNEXPLAINED things remain.... AND.... Scientific terms and definitions should be for the ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE... NOT.... for ridicule and debasement. I will state that you self appointed debunkers have provided at least one good thing though... A laugh. All this time I thought science was the search for truth.. Silly me.


Rosemary, I am on the side of you and everyone here that is actually searching for new power sources, or that finds interesting new things or poses new concepts (even though I may or may not agree with any particular one.). The people here, through their works, postulations, hypothesis, and theories actually demonstrate themselves to be ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, ridiculed by a sea of fanatically religious zealots using definitions and prestige as veritable whips.


(I think I have just become ostracized and banned as anathema by several groups....    Ooooops! If the shoe fits they can collectively just wear it. I am tired. Tired of lies and deception.)


Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

@Rosemary


I forgot one thing. I remember you having discovered something interesting, but remember nothing more about it. I am puzzled though as to why you thought I attacked your claim?? (I do not even remember what your claim is.) Who are these South Americans you referenced? On this I am lost.


I was responding in agreement to your statements in line with the topic of this thread, and added some of my own.