Kapanadze and other FE discussion

[stivep]

All these misunderstandings are due to excessive formalization.
Any formal concept does not fully correspond to the real one. Formalization was invented by people to make life easier.

In average I agree.
However   most of us don't speak Chinese and Chinese  who don't speak English  can't understand what you writing about.
So it is the level of the reader who has or has not -a problem with understanding  without  formalization
Wesley

[stivep]

OK Wesley, Let's put it another way.
The atom has been vibrating for billions of years. Therefore it is a perpetual motion machine.

the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!
Motion of an electron is regulated by its energy level. Energy of electron is not an electron constant property  but its variable.
That energy  is regulated and comes from interaction of an electron with outside world. Collision of an electron with energy of positron  destroys  the electron  and in results its properties stop to exist - the end  products is two photons in opposite direction.
Electron  is not permanently associated with an atom and can  be separated from it e.g. by interaction with a photon.
And unlike an  electron  -photon doesn't have mass it moves at speed of light and doesn't behave as  an electron.
However due to  electron duality it can act as a wave or as a particle...electron is also not a property of a nucleus but its current guest
( depends on its energy level)

For  a rejected by science perpetual motion machine you need  constant energy value and constant energy use  -no changes  and no losses.
Electron  is under  constant energy fluctuation  any time  all the time  e.g. temperature

That what makes gold is not electron but nucleus

Gold is the 79th element of the periodic table and bears the symbol Au.
Gold's nucleus is made up of 79 neutrons and 79 protons, making it very heavy and dense
why-is-gold-golden.

Talking with some students confused in  physics I like to add that generalization and simplification is  just first step however student must be remembering that in reality
Bohr atom  will be totally rejected by him in the near future as nothing in it  is true but  for the time being it is good for 10 years old  boy and maybe some  adults too..

text  explaining that confusion is here :
_{Note: -the  article is  quite old.}

Now, what should we teach first? Should we teach the correct but unfamiliar law
with its strange and difficult conceptual ideas, for example the theory of relativity,
four-dimensional space-time, and so on? Or should we first teach the simple "constant-mass" law,
which is only approximate, but does not involve such difficult ideas?
The first is more exciting, more wonderful, and more fun, but the second is easier to get at first,
and is a first step to a real understanding of the first idea.
This point arises again and again in teaching physics.
At different times we shall have to resolve it in different ways, but at each stage it is worth learning
what is now known, how accurate it is, how it fits into everything else,
and how it may be changed when we learn more.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html
Wesley

[rakarskiy]

Thank you for your comment.
getting more energy net contradicts  models and rules in physics as energy must come from somewhere.
So it is not important  to us what you have till you present it , prove it,  brand it and you can't even patent the mechanisms in physics as there are no patents for natural phenomena and its mechanisms. You can only  patent  applications.
Till than such  claim is rejected.

COP >than 1  can't be seen at the output as a NET VALUE.
and can't be utilized in real world.
Example  with Refrigerator is not the proof, but just a look  one of components inside of the the  complex phenomena
Wesley

Wesley, you are ignoring electromagnetism, and this particular thing is already a priori OverUnity!

The magnetic field of a magnet, what do you think, what kind of Energy?

Energy is the derivative of power with respect to time, a purely mathematical substance. Power consists of Force and speed for mechanics Pk=Fv, current and voltage for electromagnetic system Pe=IU. The current strength (I, A) is not a flow of electrons, but a vortex magnetic field, Voltage / EMF (E-U, V) between potential contacts, this is an electric vortex field, the effect on the conductor cross section is an electromagnetic field ( https://rakatskiy.blogspot.com/p/emf-and-current-in-conductor.html ). Science operates not with the "electrical energy" parameter, but with the "electromagnetic field energy" parameter, is this news to you?
Any generator with a ferromagnetic core uses a magnetic field amplification element in the core ( https://rakatskiy.blogspot.com/2022/06/magnetization-of-steel-magnetic.html ), which is like not OverUnity. Further use is already a purely engineering issue.

Therefore, there is "Science as a kind of activity for the study of the universe" and there is "Permissible science" for the "herd of vegetables" who do not want to think.

Good discoveries!

[kolbacict]

For  a rejected by science perpetual motion machine you need  constant energy value and constant energy use  -no changes  and no losses.
Electron  is under  constant energy fluctuation  any time  all the time  e.g. temperature

But if we cool a certain body (environment) ? Without initial temperature difference.
The internal energy of a substance is always directly proportional to its temperature.
So we can take some of the energy from the substance and use it. Or is that also impossible?
Only this is difficult to implement constructively, but that's another question.

[Sergh]

The atom has been vibrating for billions of years.

The problem is that we don't know what the price is.
All vibrations of a single atom since the beginning of time.
Or all the statistical variants of vibrations and fluctuations that occur when matter moves through time from the beginning to today.
One can imagine our Universe as a huge atomic icebreaker that moves through the ice of spacetime.
Although what is the use of these vibrations for us, if the energy is not spent? If we use this energy, then the state of the atom changes, its potential energy decreases.
Inside the thermos flask, the water is hot, but outside it is cold and does not warm the hand. You can make tea from hot water, but then the thermos will be empty.

Only this is difficult to implement constructively, but that's another question.

No, it's the same question. You can transfer energy from one place to another, but it is impossible to get more energy out of it than you spent. 
The Carnot cycle does not allow. And the growing entropy of our space.
Nothing will happen if we do not go beyond our space-time continuum.