Distinctions between FE Terminology

Author Topic: Distinctions between FE Terminology (Read 1670 times)

Topic Options

Excelsior

Distinctions between FE Terminology « on: 2023-01-25, 17:52:38 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 473

I see FE terms used in the wrong way, all too often..

Not necessarily on here, mostly elsewhere, however I have never seen a post like this so I felt it may be of use to the uninitiated.

I'm no grammar nazi but the confusion could well be adding to peoples' apathy regarding this topic, so here I offer my own simplified interpretations of these fundamental idioms, upon which you can then visualize in your own system.

Please elaborate if you feel it is necessary.
Or add to the list, if you've seen one that I have missed.
We should evaluate the meaning of these things deeply IMO.

- "Free Energy" : Energy which was "captured" in a system, which wasn't actively "paid" for by the user of the system.

- "Over Unity" : Having a COP of over 1.0 (1.01 would technically suffice. Energy type irrelevant. (Eg. Heat pump:COP4)

- "Looped" : Output feeds back into the input, making the device self powered (or not, think regen braking E. cars)

- "COP" : Coefficiency of performance AKA Overall energy in Vs. energy out (ALL systems have a calculable COP)

- "Efficiency" : How much of the input does the device inherently transduce into unwanted energy types (NOT : COP)

- "Magnets" : Room temp crystal superconductors of etheric media perturbations (yet to read a better explanation)

- "Conspiracy Theory" : An attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

My personal interpretation would be: a term that has become widely implemented to attenuate, if not entirely remove peoples' curiosity of anomalous, unexplained grievances committed throughout history in a convenient way, so as to diminish the possibility of investigation into them, for one reason or another, greed, subliminal instruction or otherwise.

Suffice to say, it's misused/highly overused, IMO
One cannot help but have these thoughts when confronted with the strongly conflicting information regarding the situation, that is available today.

« Last Edit: 2023-01-30, 01:29:05 by Renaissance Rising »

Dragon

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #1 on: 2023-01-29, 01:33:23 »

Jr. Member

Posts: 66

Quote from: Renaissance Rising on 2023-01-25, 17:52:38

- "Free Energy" : Energy which was "captured" in a system, which wasn't actively "paid" for by the user of the system.

Free energy is any energy that can be harvested, -- solar, wind, telluric, gradient etc.

- "Over Unity" : Having a COP of over 1.0 (1.01 would technically suffice. Energy type irrelevant. (Eg. Heat pump:COP4)

Over Unity implies a device that is creating energy - does not exist

- "Looped" : Output feeds back into the input, making the device self powered (or not, think regen braking E. cars)

Looped would fall into the over unity catagory

- "COP" : Coefficiency of performance AKA Overall energy in Vs. energy out (ALL systems have a calculable COP)

Coefficiency of performance designates an energy that is being extracted in conjunction with the energy that is being put into the device adding together as the total output. this could also, in part fall into the free energy area.

My comments above in blue are simply my opinions based on years of observations forming what is now my belief. I think we've all misused these terms over the years. By bringing clarity to our understanding allows us to focus on truth. Energy is everywhere, we need only find ways to harvest it.

F6FLT

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #2 on: 2023-01-29, 10:16:41 »

Group: Restricted
Hero Member

Posts: 2412

My definitions:

- "Free energy": energy obtained free of charge, for example from an inexhaustible source.

- "Over Unity": additional energy obtained at the output of a system, compared to that injected at the input, with a COP sufficient to loop the system. An insufficient COP for looping is incompatible with "free energy" as it will require paid energy to compensate (so a heat pump is not OU).

- "Looped": the output is fed back into the input, making the device self-powered and operating in real time.

- "COP": Coefficient of performance, i.e. the ratio of energy in to energy out.

- "Efficiency": ratio of useful energy produced to total energy at its origin, both including OU (this definition has the advantage of being compatible with non-OU systems. It allows the amount of heat lost to be known).

- "Magnets", "conspiracy theory"... These terms are already defined in everyday language, there is no need for twisted, esoteric and ideologically biased and closed redefinitions for the specific FE/OU domain.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

AlienGrey

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #3 on: 2023-01-29, 13:35:58 »

Newbie

Posts: 1606

Quote from: Dragon on 2023-01-29, 01:33:23

My comments above in blue are simply my opinions based on years of observations forming what is now my belief. I think we've all misused these terms over the years. By bringing clarity to our understanding allows us to focus on truth. Energy is everywhere, we need only find ways to harvest it.

So while your doing your mushroom effect with the in and out in the physical seance and burbling on about you cant make makr energy or distroy it your ignoring free electrons and charged partials that make up the environment we live in and whats dumped into it by existence like burning stiff heating and gas from rotting vegetation, energy supporting the the plaints existence and then there is the sun radiating energy down on the planet with out it everything on the planet would just ice over.

Sil

Hakasays

Definitions of Aether « Reply #4 on: 2023-01-29, 14:32:15 »

Hero Member

Posts: 603

One term often seen in these circles is the word 'aether'/'ether'. It seems to mean many things to different people:

Aether (ancient version) The skies above and around the Earth.
Aether (classic definition) Medium that conveys light through empty space.
Aether (updated definition) Medium that conveys energy/information across empty space.
Aether (Tesla) A compressible gas responsible for conveying electro-magnetic perturbations.
Aether (Lorentz-Poincaré) An all-permeating lossless medium responsible for relativistic and inertial inertial reference frames.
Aether (modern definition) A fantasy matterium that is mathematically equivalent to Lorentz, referred-to by the tensor 'space-time'.
Aether (Russel et al) A pre-hydrogen elemental gas that permeates the universe.
Aether (Dollard) 'Electricity is aether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is aether in motion'.
Aether (Hakasays) 'Aether' whatever it is, is quantified as the natural impedance of any given region of space.
Aether (common lecture/Youtube definition) "Magic."

I think the reason aether as a term catches so much flak is by how often it is used in an inarticulate manner. In many lectures/experiments it's often used as a buzzword synonymous with 'magic'. IE: used without any deeper articulation or explanation.

---------------------------

"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."

Dragon

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #5 on: 2023-01-29, 15:48:21 »

Jr. Member

Posts: 66

Quote from: AlienGrey on 2023-01-29, 13:35:58

So while your doing your mushroom effect with the in and out in the physical seance and burbling on about you cant make makr energy or distroy it your ignoring free electrons and charged partials that make up the environment we live in and whats dumped into it by existence like burning stiff heating and gas from rotting vegetation, energy supporting the the plaints existence and then there is the sun radiating energy down on the planet with out it everything on the planet would just ice over.

Sil

And the natural circle is complete....and never ending

F6FLT	Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #6 on: 2023-01-29, 16:25:56 »
Group: Restricted Hero Member Posts: 2412	Quote from: AlienGrey on 2023-01-29, 13:35:58 ... free electrons ... rotting vegetation ... there is the sun radiating energy down on the planet ... Very interesting, surely nobody knew about it. Thank you for this contribution which tells us a lot, even if it is not related to the subject (FE Terminology). --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Dragon

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #7 on: 2023-01-29, 17:56:17 »

Jr. Member

Posts: 66

Interesting how we define the terms as individuals....

Renaissance Rising
"- Heat pumps have COP:4+ right on the label, meaning they produce more "energy" out than in, by means of a trigger circuit. (pump & int. & ext. fans) that would make it over-unity to my perspective, they're just not looped, usually."

I don't see this as overunity at all... a heat pump extracts/harvests energy from the environment, the input energy is then added to the existing energy to increase the output potential. Your using a given input to extract/harvest an energy that already exists. If it were overunity then one could convert the excess energy to continue performing the task - thus requiring no outside source.

We can extract/harvest the existing energy from many different sources, convert it to the form of energy we need then it dissipates back to nature to do other tasks. We haven't created anything, our devices coax it into doing what we want or need then return it.

Personally, I've had more success creating circuits/devices that harvest energy from a given source as opposed to the "magic coils" that make their own energy...

F6FLT

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #8 on: 2023-01-29, 18:19:40 »

Group: Restricted
Hero Member

Posts: 2412

Quote from: Renaissance Rising on 2023-01-29, 16:40:07

...
F6: In the interest of particularity, I would conclude that we mostly agree given the polarizing context, on all the points made except the last two, and just parts of the previous.
Comparing out definitions there are slight differences not worthy of mention, however some more noticeable;
...

I agree.
In the case of heat pumps, we need to distinguish between "useful energy" and heat. This is the reason for the discrepancy in our definitions of OU.
If we consider heat as useful energy, then all common electrical devices have an efficiency of 100% because almost all losses are heat.
As we define efficiency as the ratio of energy minus losses to energy, and heat energy is part of the losses, this degraded energy must be considered differently from useful energy.

A heat pump does not produce useful energy, it moves thermal energy between the place of use and the outside environment, and for this it requires paying energy.
The OU can be defined by a COP >1 but only the COP for useful energy, excluding heat.

Regarding your last two definitions, they are not specific to free energy and based on prejudices not shared by all researchers. We don't need them to understand each other when talking about FE.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Hakasays

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #9 on: 2023-01-30, 02:57:43 »

Hero Member

Posts: 603

Quote from: Renaissance Rising on 2023-01-29, 16:40:07

@Hakasays: that's a good bit of info, thanks for typing it up. I never knew there were that many #interpretations of aether. It sort of proves my point in and of itself. My favourite is Dollards'. I like yours too - keeps it to the deducible.

Note that some I'm paraphrasing by memory, it's meant more to highlight the evolution and diversity of the term.

Quote

- Eric Dollard may have something to say about that in his "Energy Synthesis" lecture. Check it out.

That full lecture is here: https://youtu.be/cCJcU7INwnU
But the key takeaway is really in just these few minutes: https://www.bitchute.com/video/cDbKaW1849LD/

The extrapolation Eric makes from Steinmetz' papers is that dynamic parametric variation of inductance/capacitance can lead to thermodynamic asymmetries in which energy can either disappear (as hysteresis) or appear, depending on the phase-angle of the modulation.

But I think deeper discussion in this tangent would warrant its own thread as it's not really pertinent to a terminology thread.

---------------------------

"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."

Allcanadian

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #10 on: 2023-01-30, 17:24:28 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3054

On terminology...
Canada uses the metric system and electron flow notation.
To my knowledge only a few countries still teach the outdated
imperial concepts still used in the U.S. .

I found it odd anyone still used conventional flow notation because
it's just plain wrong. Which is why every more progressive country
stopped teaching it years ago. How could anyone even understand
electrodynamics when they think (+) charged Protons are magically
flowing in there wires?.

I find this really strange...

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Excelsior	Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #11 on: 2023-01-31, 13:46:57 »
Sr. Member Posts: 473	. « Last Edit: 2025-01-19, 01:02:25 by Excelsior »

Allcanadian

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #12 on: 2023-02-01, 02:30:19 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3054

Renaissance Rising

Quote

I suspect we have still yet to even scrape the surface of manufactured problem, of the "2nd law".
Despite the massive efforts already having been made.

It's debatable, the second law states...

Quote

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.

The first problem is that there is no such thing as heat and what were actually talking about is "atomic motion" or some jiggling atoms. Jiggling atoms in a sea of EM fields/waves in a perfect vacuum no less. Keep in mind the 2nd law relates more to simple closed systems and as we can see in the article it's infatuated with perpetual motion machines.

Another mistake relates to the concept of "temperature" which is simply an average of all the atoms jiggling. Not the ones jiggling the most near 100C or the least near 0C, only the average of them. Obviously if we could find a mechanism to discriminate between the atoms jiggling the most and the least ie. Maxwell's demon, we would be moving in the right direction. So the 2nd law relies on lumping many things together and ignoring most of the important details like what heat and energy actually are.

Once we understand what heat and energy actually are we can begin to understand there is no such thing as thermodynamics. If were talking about oscillating charged particles in atoms, within an EM wave field were actually talking about electrodynamics. I mean, thermodynamics is so generalized and far removed from what's actually happening it's basically meaningless. So when people say thermodynamics I tend to roll my eyes and think not this nonsense again.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Hakasays

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #13 on: 2023-02-01, 03:35:51 »

Hero Member

Posts: 603

Quote from: Renaissance Rising on 2023-01-31, 13:46:57

Hakasays: Would be good to see the thread manifest, if it isn't already. Always room for a new thread, no?
I suspect we have still yet to even scrape the surface of manufactured problem, of the "2nd law".
Despite the massive efforts already having been made.

Just watching your 2022 ESTC Preview on Tesla coils with Aaron M. - great stuff! Good to see people in several places.
I just started a YouTube channel of my own. Will be getting some content on there soon

Thanks for the kind words RR, and I look forward to seeing your your journey and progress as well.

I touch a bit in the Exploratory Mathematics thread, but some of the threads could be better articulated (and actually tested): https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4354.msg100793#msg100793

I would agree that 2nd law applies to closed/symmetric systems. As long as the properties remain static/symmetric, the results will be static/symmetric.
The reason heat pumps can operate COP^1 is because a property of space(volume) is being modulated with respect to time. That causes the secondary characteristics of heat+pressure to change, absorbing and release ambient energy from the environment at different parts of the cycle.
My belief is that modulation of the space property 'impedance' may provide an identical symmetry break in the electrical world. How exactly this manifests is TBD.

Quote from: Allcanadian

Another mistake relates to the concept of "temperature" which is simply an average of all the atoms jiggling. Not the ones jiggling the most near 100C or the least near 0C, only the average of them.

A 'modern' scientist might conclude a human is comfortably sitting at 72degF, when in fact his head is at -40 and his feet are at 180.

Statistics and averaging can sometimes obscure the truth rather than reveal it.

---------------------------

"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."

Allcanadian

Re: Distinctions between FE Terminology « Reply #14 on: 2023-02-01, 17:11:08 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3054

Hakasays

Quote

A 'modern' scientist might conclude a human is comfortably sitting at 72degF, when in fact his head is at -40 and his feet are at 180.
Statistics and averaging can sometimes obscure the truth rather than reveal it.

It was Faraday who gave us some insight into when many started making critical errors in judgement and simple mistakes.

As Faraday pointed out it's impossible to calculate everything that happens in even a simple matter/energy system. Every particle or atom has a different energy state also dependent on where it is within the system. So the only way to do any calculations is to ignore the majority of everything which is happening in reality and average or lump most things together. As Faraday implied, it's a gross approximation at best but it was the only way forward at the time.

Maxwell claimed the same thing in his lectures and said for expediency he will ignore all of the smaller details, all anomalies and only concentrate on the absolute basics. Then as is often the case many mistook Maxwell's basic approximation as the gospel and believed this was how nature actually works. It's really cool looking through the history of science in the literature, what people were doing and there reasoning behind it.

I have similar thoughts and don't recognize thermodynamics for similar reasons. At it's core were talking about motional charge carriers in oscillation within EM wave fields not something as primitive as heat. As such we can simply discard the primitive notion of "forms of energy" and recognize what energy is and what it's actually doing in reality.

My reasoning is not complicated, if we want to understand a free energy device we first have to understand what energy is and how it works.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman