Adapting to an Emerging Paradigm

[Bob Smith]

I am starting this thread as a follow up to my response to a post made by Poynt99 entitled,  The Free Energy Researcher's:  POWER & CREED on the "Partnered Output Coils thread.  Here's the permalink (text will be posted below) . http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2760.msg45862#msg45862

Poynt99's POWER & CREED (P&C) statement  details  foundational elements for research in the area of so-called "electrical research" and  possible overunity, with integrity, accuracy in measurement, and responsible disclosure.    Poynt99 brings together principles to help guide the overunity researcher in ways that avoid common pitfalls and mistakes that create confusion and undermine collective progress in overunity research.  It's a well-organized overview that seems to be the fruit of a great deal of  knowledge, understanding and experience in this field. I would say it should be recommended reading for everyone embarking on research into this area.  

Subsequent to Poynt99's post, I stated that while agreeing with much of what his P&C statement   contained, I disagreed with how he expressed the relationship between efficiency and overunity in open systems.  User EvolvingApe (EA) asked me to state clearly my objection. I did so in general terms, noting that I would  start this thread for further discussion in order to avoid disrupting the Partnered Output Coils  thread.  Below, you'll find Poynt99's POWER & CREED STATEMENT, my response (Bob Smith) to it, Evolving Ape's response to me, and finally some thoughts and questions I put forward...  

Permalink:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2760.msg45862#msg45862
Meanwhile, on a senior member's suggestion, the following is from the "Power and Creed" document posted in the thread of the same name. This is a must read for Free Energy researchers, particularly for newer members to OUR.

The Free Energy Researcher's:
POWER & CREED
- A must read for those on the quest for Free Energy at OUR.
Prepared by: Darren Kozey (poynt99)
Document Date: 2009/12/13
Revision: V2.0
The Free Energy Researcher's: POWER & CREED

Preface
The world needs an alternative to conventional energy sources; dare we call this
alternative source "free energy"?

Free Energy research is alive and well on a number of public and private forums.
There are many people actively researching in this area; the vast majority of
which are younger and less experienced folks. This is fantastic and will hopefully
secure a better future for all. However, with youth and/or inexperience, often
comes over-enthusiasm and haste. Many times indeed, it is the experienced and
technically-trained researchers that fall into the all-too-familiar trap of letting
their excitement, hope, enthusiasm, or lack of know-how, get in the way of
better judgment.

To declare something extraordinary and make claims of "overunity" without solid
substantiating evidence or proof to back it up, does a great disservice to all on
the FE quest, especially when the claim turns out to be a false alarm or a
deception.

The aim of this document is to serve as a guide to help all FE researchers avoid
the pitfalls of making an unsubstantiated claim.
To follow is a creed by which I strongly encourage all to study it, understand it,
and above all...apply it!

Dedication
This document is dedicated to all the brilliant and determined minds working in
Free Energy research...all those in the present, the past, and the future.
Thank you for your tenacity and your commitment to the FE quest.

INTRODUCTION
Most claims of overunity turn out to be the result of erroneous assumptions,
measurement errors, nonexistent measurements, suspicious measurements, or
equipment limitations. As such, a short guide is needed that all FE researchers
can refer to and apply while conducting their research and publishing their
results. The following CREED, MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY,
and MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS (for electronics devices) sections
make up this guide.

It is by no means perfect or complete, but a starting point at least, and one that
would surely go a long way in avoiding much frenzy, anxiety, wasted time, effort
and money, embarrassment, flaming, loss of respect and integrity, and arguing
etc., for all interested parties involved. If only it can be followed.

THE FE RESEARCHER'S CREED
"As a Free Energy Researcher, I dedicate my knowledge and skill to the advancement
and betterment of human welfare. I strive for integrity, accuracy, and completeness in
my work and my releases to the public.
I pledge in conducting my FE research:
- To give the utmost of performance;
- To make no assumptions, no matter how "obvious" things may appear to me;
- To never jump to conclusions when apparent anomalies are observed;
- To investigate and strive to eliminate ALL possible sources of error BEFORE
making conclusions about any observed anomalies;
- To exercise due diligence in regards to fully understanding what I am doing,
and how I am doing it;
- To conduct my experiments, tests, and measurements in a scientific manner
and with the correct and most appropriate equipment;
- To strive for and take steps towards making COP measurements that are
flawless and accurate, while understanding and accounting for the
limitations and idiosyncrasies of my test equipment;
- To place integrity before ego;
- To post claims of overunity only when backed up with solid proof and
evidence in the form of fully documented, and accurate measurements and
test setup diagrams;
- To do my best in explaining and illustrating my disclosures, and be well-prepared
to answer any questions on things I may have overlooked;
- To seek advice, guidance, and review from my un-biased peers and those
with more technical know-how BEFORE I post any extraordinary claims of
overunity;
- To do my homework (all of the above).
In humility and with need for Collective/Higher Guidance, I make this pledge."

MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY
For anyone planning on disclosing something or making a claim, please use the
following as a guide to do so:
1) Decide and state what exactly you are about to claim:
Options here include:
a) 100% certainty you have achieved overunity.
b) You are not 100% sure and asking for help to determine if it is so.
c) You are only observing strange effects and you would like other users to
provide helpful feedback.
2) Regardless of which option fits your case, please provide in your post the
following minimum parts:
a) A complete drawing or schematic of your prototype or test setup.
b) A clear description of what the device or circuit is, what you think the
circuit is doing, or what you wanted it to do.
c) A list of references to any other devices or documentation you based your
device on.
d) A list of proper power measurements (see Power Measurements at OUR).
e) A photo of your setup is optional, but may be helpful.
3) For those with limited Free Energy Research experience, and/or electronics
experience, please post a request for someone to review your steps 1) and 2)
above BEFORE making your post and claim.
4) Refine all the above listed elements with the feedback received from the
more technically-experienced forum users.
5) Make your claims / disclosure post.

MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS
Accurate power measurements are probably the most difficult and least
understood, yet the most meaningful measurements to perform, especially in the
Free Energy circles. If one makes a claim of overunity and their measurement of
input power vs. output power is either not supplied, or is questionable in its
accuracy, no one will be interested in delving further into or inquiring about their
work...and rightly so.

Far too often researchers are fooled by assuming that their test equipment or
method is yielding true and accurate measurements, when more often than not,
this is probably not the case. In fact, most researchers probably don't
understand the basics of how meters work and what separates a truly TRUE RMS
measurement from an "average" one. The following is a quote from Bob
Paddock's "POWER MEASUREMENT" article linked at the end of this document:

"I had a need to make a power measurement of an unusual high-frequency wave form for an
application I was working on. Because of the esoteric nature the application had, I wanted to be
sure I would not be hearing the words "Measurement Errors".

Far too often I've seen others try to do high-frequency power measurements by looking at the
signal on their oscilloscope, or by using their bench multimeter without understanding its
specifications. Looking at a complex high-frequency wave form with a multimeter designed for
60-Hz sine waves simply does not give meaningful results."
[pony99: unless one is looking for the average value of a signal, then DC meters perform well in this task]

A great deal of FE research involves the use of non-sinusoidal, spikey, and noisy
inputs and outputs. As such there are some "precautions" one must take to
ensure that any measurements performed on such devices under test (DUT's)
will yield true and meaningful results. Devices utilizing or creating high frequency
components are especially susceptible to measurement errors and it is imperative
that this is understood. Special care and considerations are required in these
cases in order that good measurements can be obtained.
Please refer to the Power Measurements and High Frequency Measurements
threads for detailed information on performing accurate and obtaining
meaningful power measurements.

Following are some relevant terms that require definition and clarification:

OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS
An Open System is one in which power or energy from outside the device's
immediate domain, may be added to the system for free. This outside energy or
power is not the energy or power supplied by you the user to make the system
operate, but is energy or power supplied by the environment, universe, aether or
ZPF etc. This "outside" energy supplement is what makes "overunity" possible.
A Closed System is one in which no energy from outside the immediate domain
of the device can or will enter the system. The device sees only the energy or
power that you the user supply to it. Closed systems are therefore inherently
under, or at unity, but never overunity.

EFFICIENCY (η)
The efficiency of a DUT in a closed system, is simply the ratio between the
power converted by the device, namely "the output power", to the power
supplied to the device by the user, namely "the input power". Devices that
operate strictly in a closed system will always have an efficiency of 100% or less.
The efficiency of a DUT in an open system, is a little more complicated, but as I'll
explain, not necessarily relevant to FE research.

Strictly speaking, the efficiency of a DUT in an open system is computed the
same way as that for a closed system. However, it may be difficult if not
impossible to calculate, depending on the device and its overunity mechanism.
If for example your DUT requires 10 Watts of input power to operate, wastes 9
Watts of power in heat (as measured with a calorimeter with no load), but puts
out 100 Watts, the efficiency of the device is only a meager 10% ! In this case,
at least 99 Watts of power is freely entering the system from the "outside" and
being converted and output by the device, but the efficiency is still only 10%.
To say that this device has an efficiency of 1000% is simply not correct ! Even in
open systems, the efficiency can not and must not be higher than 100%.
So by all means, strive to make your energy device as efficient as possible, but
the real and meaningful FE quest is to obtain more output power than is required
as input power for the device to operate.

COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE (COP)
Again we must examine this parameter in the context of open and closed
systems.

In a closed system, the COP will be equal to the efficiency in a sense, but is
expressed as a ratio as follows: 1:1 (η=100%), 0.8:1 (η=80%), etc. So one
should conclude from the discussion so far, that the COP in a closed system will
never be higher than 1:1.

In an open system, the COP could be anywhere from 0.1:1 to 106:1. It all
depends on the efficiency of the device (with low COP's), and how much energy
or power is freely added to the system from the "outside" with a given input
power.

COP in open systems is computed by taking the ratio between the freely added
"outside" power (POopen), PLUS the output power (if any) supplied by the closed
system (POclosed), to the user-supplied input power (PI).
In equation form:

COP = (POopen + POclosed)/PI   OR  = POtotal/PI

Do we care if we are measuring collected open-system power PLUS closed system
power on the output? No. What we care about is obtaining more total
power on the output of the DUT, than we are supplying for device operation.

OVERUNITY
As already discussed, overunity is not possible in closed systems, and therefore
can only exist in open systems. Overunity then is achieved any time a device or
system exhibits a COP>1

continued...

[Bob Smith]

Bob Smith's response—

Permalink: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2760.msg45864#msg45864
Poynt99
I respect your opinions, and while I agree with much of what is in your statement above, I do not share your assessment of what constitutes efficiency (and therefore overunity) in open systems. I do not wish to argue about your statement, but simply to draw your attention to the fact that there might be others whose perspective differs from yours on the issue of overunity in this and other threads. Perhaps this is where things are getting hung up.

Can we find new parameters for framing further discussion and research which will allow this thread to progress fruitfully?  
Can we at the grass roots come up with a way of proceeding and collaborating, leaving freedom to researchers to express opinions and follow threads as they see fit?

Perhaps there needs to be a "credo" for this that enables us to navigate this current situation, which is an opportunity for furthering knowledge, research and understanding.
I would hope that censorship would be a very last, and hopefully never needed resort.
Bob

OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS
An Open System is one in which power or energy from outside the device's
immediate domain, may be added to the system for free. This outside energy or
power is not the energy or power supplied by you the user to make the system
operate, but is energy or power supplied by the environment, universe, aether or
ZPF etc. This "outside" energy supplement is what makes "overunity" possible.
A Closed System is one in which no energy from outside the immediate domain
of the device can or will enter the system. The device sees only the energy or
power that you the user supply to it. Closed systems are therefore inherently
under, or at unity, but never overunity.

EFFICIENCY (η)
The efficiency of a DUT in a closed system, is simply the ratio between the
power converted by the device, namely "the output power", to the power
supplied to the device by the user, namely "the input power". Devices that
operate strictly in a closed system will always have an efficiency of 100% or less.
The efficiency of a DUT in an open system, is a little more complicated, but as I'll
explain, not necessarily relevant to FE research.

Strictly speaking, the efficiency of a DUT in an open system is computed the
same way as that for a closed system. However, it may be difficult if not
impossible to calculate, depending on the device and its overunity mechanism.
If for example your DUT requires 10 Watts of input power to operate, wastes 9
Watts of power in heat (as measured with a calorimeter with no load), but puts
out 100 Watts, the efficiency of the device is only a meager 10% ! In this case,
at least 99 Watts of power is freely entering the system from the "outside" and
being converted and output by the device, but the efficiency is still only 10%.
To say that this device has an efficiency of 1000% is simply not correct ! Even in
open systems, the efficiency can not and must not be higher than 100%.
So by all means, strive to make your energy device as efficient as possible, but
the real and meaningful FE quest is to obtain more output power than is required
as input power for the device to operate.

[/i]

Evolving Ape's Response
Permalink:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2760.msg45933#msg45933

Quote from: Bob Smith on 2015-02-11, 18:37:33
Poynt99
I respect your opinions, and while I agree with much of what is in your statement above, I do not share your assessment of what constitutes efficiency (and therefore overunity) in open systems. I do not wish to argue about your statement, but simply to draw your attention to the fact that there might be others whose perspective differs from yours on the issue of overunity in this and other threads. Perhaps this is where things are getting hung up.

If you disagree with any part of Poynt99's statement please state clearly and concisely what you disagree with and offer a correction. The correction will be peer reviewed and if found relevant the original statement will be amended. If your correction is not found to be relevant the statement will remain as is. Science is not a matter of popular opinion, although many of today's scientists would have you believe so for their own personal benefit, this also applies to the many exploiting the gullibility of the general public in the free energy research field for their own personal gain.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures ( hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[4][5] An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[6] Experiments can take place in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order.

Quote from: Bob Smith on 2015-02-11, 18:37:33
Can we find new parameters for framing further discussion and research which will allow this thread to progress fruitfully?  
Can we at the grass roots come up with a way of proceeding and collaborating, leaving freedom to researchers to express opinions and follow threads as they see fit?

Sure no problem with that Bob as long as it is backed up by evidence in support of the conjecture. Without evidential backup it is nothing more than pseudo-scientific conjecture and should be treated as such, if this field of research is to maintain any credibility at all.

Quote from: Bob Smith on 2015-02-11, 18:37:33
Perhaps there needs to be a "credo" for this that enables us to navigate this current situation, which is an opportunity for furthering knowledge, research and understanding.
I would hope that censorship would be a very last, and hopefully never needed resort.
Bob

Furthering knowledge, research and understanding in this field demands hard study, lot's of it, no way around that. It demands correct terminology which comes naturally with hard study. It requires formulating a test plan, making prior predictions and then performing the experiment to observe the results. It requires high levels of professional integrity and data to accurately support your reported results. All of these things do not come for free Bob, you can either play at it and gain 15 minutes of illusory fame (and maybe a fat bank account) or do it properly and allow your developed technology to stand the test of time on it's own merit's.

Quote from: evolvingape on 2013-12-18, 19:28:42
Yeah I love this design too, it has thousands of hours of love devoted to it so far and the progress is pleasing. The experimental data has held to theory well and led to the structure, with many smaller proofs along the way providing the mini successes that keep you going. I have discovered some new possible integrations that I have had zero time to attend to, but they are interesting!

An example Bob, of correct procedure, and the real joy that can come from that. Do it right the first time, is my advice.

NOTE:  EA attached 2 flow chart diagrams of  the scientific method which can be pulled up at the permalink for this post.

[Bob Smith]

Let me say from the outset, I have no desire to trash anyone's statement (including Poynt99's).  And for the record, I believe  P99's statement stands on its own merits because it seems to uphold tried and tested principles – principles which user EA supported with his own detailed post (with a small addition from TinselKoala).  Others can verify this better than I.  That said, perhaps we can look at what we mean when we say certain things, and consider whether we need to re-articulate certain principles in light of changes in meaning – I'll come back to this, beginning in the second paragraph below.

I would also ask that this not be a discussion about who's right or wrong, or about EMJ's coils.  I would like this thread to be about building a better understanding of where the FE Community (for lack of a better term) is and where it can go.  In this sense, I would hope that this thread could be both philosophical and practical in coming to some common agreement about how to approach certain electrical phenomena that arise in these forums.

My disagreement is really with the current paradigm being used to describe relationships between open systems (and even so-called 'closed systems') and the external environment.  The heated exchanges that happened recently in the Partnered Output Coils thread lead me to believe that we are at a kind of impasse that has arisen because we have not yet developed a common language or shared/agreed upon understanding of electrical phenomena, and in some cases, even of certain phenomena's existence .  I feel we are attempting to communicate with models of understanding, concepts and language that need to be updated.  

As P99 and EA note, our integrity depends on a rigorous and reliable method –in this case, Scientific Method.    But both this method and the language of our research also have to be open to phenomena and concepts that a prevailing mainstream scientific worldview (paradigm) may not offer.  We may have to pay attention to those at the fringes and seriously consider what they're saying, even when it seems to fly in the face of all that we've been taught.

For example, I walked into an electronics store with Thane Heinz' picture on the wall with a newspaper article. They explained he was a regular customer.  I talked to of the attendants about "radiant energy."  He looked at me like I had two heads.  But even there, are we talking about Tesla' radiant energy as per his Patent 685,957 (Apparatus for Harnessing Radiant Energy), or are we talking about phenomena associated with a ###### setup?  Another example, when we talk about EM induction, are we speaking of "polarization of the aether," as Eric Dollard puts it, or simply the development of an "electromotive force across a conductor...exposed to a varying magnetic field? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction)   Can we even agree on the use of digital multimeters (or grounded oscilloscopes) when some researchers are reporting that they do not measure radiant energy (again, what is radiant energy, and what is its contribution to an open system?).  To continue, there are researchers who prefer to speak of electricity in terms of electrons; others preferring the language of waves and spin theory; some see cold electricity as a unique phenomenon while others believe it a manifestation of HV-HF AC.

I have barely scratched the surface, and some members of these forums who are more knowledgeable and experienced could go on for hours about these differences in view.  In short, at least in my estimation, we are crossing the threshold of a renewed and refined paradigm of language and concepts for doing research in many fields.  This moment of passage has its own growing pains and chaotic jostling which presents itself as an impasse because it's not being addressed as-is.  

I'd like to end with a few words about Thomas Kunh's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (U Chicago Press, 1970).  Kuhn emphasized that science progresses through radical (paradigm) shifts in the way scientists seek to explain, research and understand their field. These unite their adherents with a common approach to an area of investigation which in turn allows research to preceed "in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimagineable." (p. 24)  Such paradigms share the following two characteristics:  

1.   They are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity.
2.    Simultaneously, [they are] sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve. (p. 10)

Kunh noted that once a given paradigm no longer functions effectively (in defining a field of understanding and research), members of the scientific community will begin searching out new ways to research and solve problems.  The arrival of crisis thus "simultaneously loosens the stereotypes and provides the incremental data necessary for a paradigm shift." (p. 10)

Maybe we're in this moment of crisis; maybe we've been here the last 100 years.  

I'll stop here with a question:
How do we move forward to develop a shared language and conceptual framework for discussing theories, ideas, observations and findings in this so-called FE research field without alienating one another?
Is this possible?

Thanks,
Bob

[Matt Watts]

How do we move forward to develop a shared language and conceptual framework for discussing theories, ideas, observations and findings in this so-called FE research field without alienating one another?
Is this possible?

I think one thing we can all agree to is the concept of a self-runner or looper.  Once we have such a device that most anyone can replicate and test with/on, many doors will be blown wide open.


My gut feeling is that ALL systems are open systems.  I had this discussion with Aaron at one time and we agreed to disagree.

I have my reasons for this statement, many stem from Eric Dollard's lectures as well as discussions I've had with Ken Wheeler.  I'll leave this post with some examples I would like everyone to consider, starting with a capacitor.

What do we know physically about a capacitor?  We know if it has larger plate surface area, it has more capacitance.  What else?  If is has a smaller volume of dielectric between the plates, it also has more capacitance.  What does this "less is more" physical attribute tell us?

Could Eric and Ken be correct about the concept of Counterspace?  My hunch is yes.  An "open" system can harness energy from outside the system.  But that's not all, it can also harness energy from inside the system.  Where is "inside"?  Hmmm...  Maybe Counterspace...  Anyone ever been there?  I haven't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We can also go nuclear, LENR for example.  Energy within the atom, protons, neutrons, quarks, how small do you want to go?  It's really no longer a closed system when you are changing the inner fabric of the material you are working with.  You make Nickel turn into Copper and release energy along the way, by my definition, it's an open system.  In a closed system, you can't do that.  Period.  Nickel will always be Nickel, forever if it's a closed system.

Just a side mention, in a closed system, there would be no need to ever have to calibrate an instrument more than once.  Why?  Because it's closed.  Nothing can ever alter its operation.  But we know that is not true don't we.  Something does effect our instruments, no matter how much shielding we use, or how precise our controls are.

These are just a few of my thoughts explaining why I feel there is no such thing as a closed system, not in this world.

[TinselKoala]

I'll stop here with a question:
How do we move forward to develop a shared language and conceptual framework for discussing theories, ideas, observations and findings in this so-called FE research field without alienating one another?
Is this possible?

Well, when credence is given to people who are proven frauds, liars and plagiarists, in addition to being utterly _wrong_ many times over... that certainly alienates _me_. 


On the topic of the Partnered Coil thread, the main problem was that EMJunkie refused to state how he obtained the measurements that led to his OU claim. The only thing preventing proper evaluation of that claim was his attitude of non-cooperation, and his setting himself up in the position of a holier-than-thou guru with something esoteric to "teach". The information he did provide ultimately led me to the conclusion that his measurements were flawed in various ways, such as his failure to understand the use of his own equipment and his improper conflation of voltage and current measurements taken on different branches of a circuit, calling that "output power".  Unfortunately it isn't possible to confirm this conclusion of mine because.... he is uncooperative. Or was, before he ran away when the questions became more insistent.

A broken clock is right twice a day... unless it's digital and has gone completely dark. Some of the persons mentioned by name in a previous post are definitely "broken clocks" and the evidence for this is very clear.

I thought long and hard about making this post, revised it several times... even considered not responding at all out of self-censorship. Because I do agree with most of the statements about "open systems". Open minds about open systems are good, great and necessary. But the minds should not be so "open" that you let anything and everything in, including garbage, nor should they let your brains run out your earholes from being polluted by garbage and turned to mush.

[Centraflow]

I feel that measurements are the only way we can get to the truth, the problems are as TK has said, where are the original measurements taken! There are a few systems that are difficult to measure but not impossible, one of those is my SMD system of electrolysis as it contains a variable of energy coming from chemical reaction, this can be a grey area until you have worked with it as long as I have.

If you take a hydrogen cell, you are supplying H2 and O2 which combine and reorganise electrons to form water, but in the circuit that those electrons move, power is produced. Not OU, but the electrons have done you might say twice the work "lit a bulb and then recombined to form the water molecule", neither created or destroyed.

Consideration in the above has not been made to make the O2 and H2, though these days NG is used for the H2 and air for O2, where do we stop with this?

regards

Mike

[Allcanadian]

@TK

I thought long and hard about making this post, revised it several times... even considered not responding at all out of self-censorship.

I feel your pain brother and most of the time I write then rewrite then amend then delete and walk away. I have come to understand that right or wrong some lessons must be learned the hard way. We make our own mistakes and hopefully we learn something from them.

Because I do agree with most of the statements about "open systems". Open minds about open systems are good, great and necessary. But the minds should not be so "open" that you let anything and everything in, including garbage, nor should they let your brains run out your earholes from being polluted by garbage and turned to mush.

I find it strange when I look back, I started as an Engineer then fell down the rabbit hole known as Quantum mechanics only to dig my way out and fall down yet another sink hole known as Overunity. In the end I found it best to do my own thing and start from scratch because when what were doing is not working then this may be an indication that what were doing is not working. It is strange because everyone seems to be saying my way is the right way however they never seem to have any real success with it.

As such I found Poynt99's document was well written however I have no intention of jumping down another rabbit hole of rigid dogma's designed to limit my thoughts and creativity. Been there done that and I have found it generally starts with an oath to a creed, the forming of groups with secret hand shakes and funny hats followed by the rigorous running of circles.

In any case that's my theory, if what were doing isn't working then we should probably try something else.

AC

[ion]

Arguments over definitions are fine, but I don't think we need to argue about the shape of the table.

What we do need are a few good ideas to test.
Maybe we need to just agree on three devices to explore and determine if they are reasonable ideas. Then funds and staff can be recruited and we can move forward with build and test.


We certainly have enough test expertise on this forum and don't need fancy equipment capable measuring a few Microwatts of power out of the noise floor. One Watt of excess power is easily measured with bottom of the barrel equipment, or a simple thermometer. (go to my bench for more info)

I won't argue over definitions, I'll leave that to others, my time is better spent refining actual works in progress.

"See the people standing there
Who disagree and never win
And wonder why they don't get in my door"

From "Fixing A Hole", the Beatles

For now, I'm looking at Parkhomov, he has actual test data

[Allcanadian]

@Bob

My disagreement is really with the current paradigm being used to describe relationships between open systems (and even so-called 'closed systems') and the external environment.  The heated exchanges that happened recently in the Partnered Output Coils thread lead me to believe that we are at a kind of impasse that has arisen because we have not yet developed a common language or shared/agreed upon understanding of electrical phenomena, and in some cases, even of certain phenomena's existence .  I feel we are attempting to communicate with models of understanding, concepts and language that need to be updated.  

I agree 100% and found the language ambiguous if not downright confusing. The issue is that nobody seems to know what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic ) are fundamentally thus assuming they are a closed system is misleading. As if to say this electric system is a closed system but what is an electric field?, well I do not know...so how do you know it is a closed system?.

Now if the creed is to make no claims which cannot be proven then to say a system must be closed or open must be a violation of this creed as fundamentally nobody here knows because they do not know what the Primary Fields are fundamentally.

AC

[Chet K]

ION
Quote

What we do need are a few good ideas to test.
For now, I'm looking at Parkhomov, he has actual test data

end quote
and apparently so are others.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-02/06/cold-fusion-reactor

Runaways are a good way to measure too....

[PhysicsProf]

Parkhomov is a good example of seeking to tap a presently UNTAPPED source of energy.  I prefer this language, personally.

We actually know, in this case, the source of the energy -- it is nuclear potential energy, which we are trying to release.  

We are sometimes taught that any element above iron requires a supernova to produce; I've heard this.  However, if we look at the mass of the proton and the mass of, say, a nickel-62 nucleus, and somehow fuse them to form copper-63, we can do the math and see a different story:

p  1.007825 amu
Ni-62 61.928 amu
adding, we have an initial mass of:  62.93585 amu  ("atomic mass units")

If we can fuse the p to the Ni-62, we would get Cu-62 with a mass of
Cu-62  62.929 amu.

The difference is energy released, Minitial - Mfinal = 0.00685 amu = 6.38 MeV.

Going even higher in Z and mass, p+W-184 => Re-185,
mass difference = 184.958725 (initial) - 184.952955 (final),
so the energy released in this reaction is 0.00577 amu = 5.37 MeV.
Again, the fusion reaction is exoergic even for tungsten.

In these cases, the energy released comes from nuclear potential energy, that is, as the nuclei are re-arranged, we find that the final mass is LESS THAN the initial mass.  And the mass-difference "emerges" as released energy, according to

E = (Minitial - Mfinal) * c^2   (that's the way the Einstein equation is properly written).

Thus, one cannot argue that such fusion processes are impossible (in the earth or the lab) based on conservation of energy considerations.  Now the Coulomb barrier is formidable; but that is what we are testing in this research (including such phenomena as tunneling through the barrier).

[PhysicsProf]

  The diagram below shows the fusion reaction between a deuteron (2H) on the left and a triton (3H) on the right.  The products are an alpha particle (4He) and a neutron, which carry the energy released in the reaction as kinetic energy. We see that all the neutrons and protons presently initially are still there -- they are just re-arranged, which results in a freeing of nuclear potential energy.

Note that the total energy released in this fusion reaction is 17.6 MeV, one of the most energetic fusion reactions thus far achieved.

But the 1H (=proton) + 62Ni fusion reaction discussed also releases a tremendous amount of energy, 6.4 MeV per fusion.  

If this reaction can be achieved at near-room-temperatures, we are releasing a previously untapped source of energy in a very revolutionary way.  (Revolutionary to science and probably also to society; hopefully in a good way!)