Open Systems

[MileHigh]

Tinman, using the concept of boundaries for analyzing these types of systems is absolutely real and is a common practice.  Your problem is that when you encounter something new that you never heard of is that you will reject it out of hand.  Then the concept has to be pushed and reinforced on you over and over until you eventually accept it.

Instead of just rejecting a concept because don't understand it and you want to reject it and you don't like it, why don't you accept it and then try to use the concept to advance your own argument?  It's up to you to make an effort to learn instead of this push-back all the time.  I have seen you reject legitimate concepts over and over just because you are not aware of them.  Every time you put up a barrier, all that you do is slow yourself down.

It goes right back to five or more years ago.  You were making very very simple circuits and demos and almost every time you were convinced that your latest demo was "something that conventional electrical engineering does not understand."  It was never the case, ever.  I think you know Mongrel Shark on YouTube.  About 1 1/2 years ago I got into a discussion with him.  He is a nice guy but he was just beginning his exploration in electronics.  I said a few things to him that knocked him off balance because he wasn't understanding.  He said something like "I don't have the time to teach you" and then he blocked me.  He was making all of the classic "free energy electronics experimenter" mistakes because he was believing a lot of the BS myths out there.  There is nothing more frustrating than seeing a guy that is so sure of himself but he may have only touched a scope for the first time three months before.

Before you discount the concept of setting up boundaries for analyzing systems, why don't you spend a few hours looking the material up online and reading about it and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps?  Your regular push-back only is to your own detriment.  Mark is not perfect, but he really knows his stuff.  Why should he have to expend 10 times the energy to get you to absorb a concept as compared to a conventional classroom setting where the teacher teaches the material once and then the student does his own follow-up work to learn and fully understand the material?  The student may come back with some follow-up questions which is fine, but the student doesn't just sit there and push back.

MileHigh

[MarkE]

There you go again with inffering things i never said

The double counting is exactly what you are doing.

But here is a little something for you to ponder. Take a large glass jug,and place one solar panel behind the other. In front of the first solar panel place a light bulb.Cover the glass jug so as no ambiant light can get into the jug/reflect onto the solar panels.Switch on the light bulb and messure the avaliable power from each solar panel. The second solar panel wont have any where near as much as the first solar panel(the one opposite the light bulb)Right?.
Now,fill jug with water,and redo test.

The point was that whatever incident light is intercepted by one solar panel is not available to another solar panel no matter what you do.  If you construct optics to redirect light towards a second panel and/or redistribute light that gets to the first, whatever light that strikes the first panel after the reconfiguration will still not be available to the second panel, or any other load.

Your boundaries are junk. As can be seen in your diagram,you just place them where ever you think will help you debunk anyones idea's.

In order to evaluate energy balances, one needs to define a boundary around what they are talking about.  Once they do, then the relationship:  E_IN - E_OUT = delta E_STORED always holds.  The diagram showed nine of the 16 possible boundaries.  The other seven were left off as only a convenience to the drawing which is why the annotation states that the drawing only shows some of the combinations.  You are free to establish any combination of elements and try to show an exception to the above relationship.  When you correctly state that the battery and lamp are balanced, you neglect that balance requires that the energy lost from the battery must exit the combination of the battery and the lamp.  That some of that energy makes its way to the solar panel and eventually the resistor does not create energy.  The energy that goes to the solar panel from the lamp is not available to do anything else.

Please show me(and everyone here) that placeing a solar panel near a light bulb,and placing a load across that solar panel, reduces the output of the lightbulb,and/or increases the energy input to that light bulb.Show me this,and then we'll talk. You cannot.

Why in the world do you think anyone needs to argue against your strawman?

Insted you come up with all these mythical themes like boundaries.The !!boundary! is around each system-as i explained. When one system dose not impart or reflect on another,then that boundary is set.We have two sepperate system's,and one feeds off another without interference.

Are you of the strange opinion that anyone has been telling you that the earth's impact on sunlight is anything other than to:  a) Cast a shadow in the forward direction of that sunlight, and b) scatter some of it off in other directions?  All of this discussion came about from your assertion that gas in your apparatus is able to drive your ram without losing the energy that the ram imparts to the outside world.  As has been explained to you in this discussion many times now, the gas loses the energy that does work in the outside system, just as surely as the sun loses the energy that it emits.  That is when you offered your double counting of energy emitted by a battery powered lamp, and the electrical energy evolved from a solar panel exposed to that lamp.

lets do a little more math here.
an incandecent bulb is about 5 to 6% efficient at converting electrical energy into light.
So a 5 watt bulb would put out around 300mW of light power.
A solar panel at best is about 17% efficient at converting light energy into electrical energy. So from our 300mW of light energy,we would see 17% of that converted into electrical energy.This means that we should only have around 51mW output from the solar panel at best if we cover the whole bulb in solar panel. So we need only achieve 1 volt over an 18 ohm load from our solar panel

What is this trivial exercise supposed to prove?  Are you going to be amazed if you get say 60mW from a solar panel from 5W into your light bulb because you misinterpret the solar panel's specifications?  You will still have a situation where every bit of heat and light emitted by the bulb was supplied by your electricity source.  You will still have a situation where every bit of electricity and heat output from the solar panel is a result of the incident radiation striking it.  You will still be no closer to creating support for your idea that you can perform external work with your ram without first expending that energy from the gas in the cylinder plus pressure vessel than when you started.

[MarkE]

Tinman, using the concept of boundaries for analyzing these types of systems is absolutely real and is a common practice.  Your problem is that when you encounter something new that you never heard of is that you will reject it out of hand.  Then the concept has to be pushed and reinforced on you over and over until you eventually accept it.

Instead of just rejecting a concept because don't understand it and you want to reject it and you don't like it, why don't you accept it and then try to use the concept to advance your own argument?  It's up to you to make an effort to learn instead of this push-back all the time.  I have seen you reject legitimate concepts over and over just because you are not aware of them.  Every time you put up a barrier, all that you do is slow yourself down.

It goes right back to five or more years ago.  You were making very very simple circuits and demos and almost every time you were convinced that your latest demo was "something that conventional electrical engineering does not understand."  It was never the case, ever.  I think you know Mongrel Shark on YouTube.  About 1 1/2 years ago I got into a discussion with him.  He is a nice guy but he was just beginning his exploration in electronics.  I said a few things to him that knocked him off balance because he wasn't understanding.  He said something like "I don't have the time to teach you" and then he blocked me.  He was making all of the classic "free energy electronics experimenter" mistakes because he was believing a lot of the BS myths out there.  There is nothing more frustrating than seeing a guy that is so sure of himself but he may have only touched a scope for the first time three months before.

Before you discount the concept of setting up boundaries for analyzing systems, why don't you spend a few hours looking the material up online and reading about it and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps?  Your regular push-back only is to your own detriment.  Mark is not perfect, but he really knows his stuff.  Why should he have to expend 10 times the energy to get you to absorb a concept as compared to a conventional classroom setting where the teacher teaches the material once and then the student does his own follow-up work to learn and fully understand the material?  The student may come back with some follow-up questions which is fine, but the student doesn't just sit there and push back.

MileHigh

Thanks, but I think some pushback is critical and IMO should be encouraged.  The road to hell is paved with expert opinion.  I think it is misuse of authority that most turns people off about school.  I know it pissed me off to no end.

Critical thinking demands that evidence rules the day.  I have continued to engage Tinman because I think he really wants to learn the truth.  I also harbor the hope that others watching his journey learn a thing or two from it:  Better critical thinking skills, perhaps some better understanding of physics, and that learning is about gathering and testing data.  It isn't about mindlessly accepting what anyone dictates no matter what their supposed authority might be.  If a time comes that I conclude it is a lost cause, then I will simply stop engaging him.

[MarkE]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1028220616493488320

That's step one.  Next one has to find a way to employ that apparent exception.  So far it's no dice.

[tinman]

If you construct optics to redirect light towards a second panel and/or redistribute light that gets to the first, whatever light that strikes the first panel after the reconfiguration will still not be available to the second panel, or any other load.  Once they do, then the relationship:  E_IN - E_OUT = delta E_STORED always holds.  The diagram showed nine of the 16 possible boundaries.  The other seven were left off as only a convenience to the drawing which is why the annotation states that the drawing only shows some of the combinations.  You are free to establish any combination of elements and try to show an exception to the above relationship.  When you correctly state that the battery and lamp are balanced, you neglect that balance requires that the energy lost from the battery must exit the combination of the battery and the lamp.  That some of that energy makes its way to the solar panel and eventually the resistor does not create energy.  The energy that goes to the solar panel from the lamp is not available to do anything else.Why in the world do you think anyone needs to argue against your strawman?Are you of the strange opinion that anyone has been telling you that the earth's impact on sunlight is anything other than to:  a) Cast a shadow in the forward direction of that sunlight, and b) scatter some of it off in other directions?  All of this discussion came about from your assertion that gas in your apparatus is able to drive your ram without losing the energy that the ram imparts to the outside world.    That is when you offered your double counting of energy emitted by a battery powered lamp, and the electrical energy evolved from a solar panel exposed to that lamp.     

In order to evaluate energy balances, one needs to define a boundary around what they are talking about.

let me guess-it is you that will define this boundary? lol

You will still have a situation where every bit of heat and light emitted by the bulb was supplied by your electricity source.

That is correct,and that same accounting is true regardless of wether the solar panel is there or not. If i switch on a light in an empty room,the light will consume X amount of energy,and will disipate that same amount of energy. If i place a chair in the room,has any of the before mentioned values change in regard to energy in and out of that light bulb?-->no.

You will still have a situation where every bit of electricity and heat output from the solar panel is a result of the incident radiation striking it.

That is correct,but it still is an accounted for energy,and dose not reflect on the source.

You will still be no closer to creating support for your idea that you can perform external work with your ram without first expending that energy from the gas in the cylinder plus pressure vessel than when you started.

No energy is lost when the ram is used to perform work on the open system.The energy contained within the vessel and ram will remain the same regardless of wether a resistance is placed on that ram or not.

Are you going to be amazed if you get say 60mW from a solar panel from 5W into your light bulb because you misinterpret the solar panel's specifications?
Are you suggesting or implying that i didnt take into acount the wave lengths of light that the solar panel will opperate on,or the wave lengths of light that the incandecent bulb put's out? That would be your mistake.

As has been explained to you in this discussion many times now, the gas loses the energy that does work in the outside system, just as surely as the sun loses the energy that it emits.

There are no losses,only transformations-->maybe you should place some of your boundaries around these systems that you consider to be !!loosing!! energy,and then you will see that the energy is still there-->it's never lost.

The double counting is exactly what you are doing.The point was that whatever incident light is intercepted by one solar panel is not available to another solar panel no matter what you do.

Unless of course you have transparent solar panel's. Let me guess,you think there is no such thing?.

What is this trivial exercise supposed to prove?

The posabilities within.