Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

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<-----------!                       

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

[pauldude000]

@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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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'