something i do not understand about energy

[neil field]

hi guys

this may seem dumb to ask but im doing a ou course and have become stuck with a concept in energy and hopefully you guys will be able to enlighten me on it so here it is

all things that exist can be destroyed to my knowledge so why can energy not be destroyed and only changed? if this is so doesnt that mean the universe will last forever just change to a different form from time to time?

[AlvaroHN]

Energy is what everything is made of, mater is made of atoms which are energy, so when you burn a piece of paper you are not destroying it, you are just changing it, the energy of the paper is transmuted but not destroyed.

About the universe... is a big question isn't? Who really knows what the universe is? No one. Only theories.

best,

Alvaro

[neil field]

ok makes a bit more sense now thanks

[ckurtz]

Our knowledge of energy consists solely of deducing from the movement of matter that something exists that causes the movement. We call that something energy.

We can then describe different attributes or characteristics of motion depending on the category of matter involved and then refer to that as a different form of expression of energy, such as thermal energy, electrical, etc. But that doesn't mean the fundamental form of energy changes, it is just a reference to a change in its expression.

This is the same situation that Newton found himself in regarding his concept of gravity. He could describe some of its effects, but he couldn't explain what it was.

Tesla describes matter as consisting of swirls of aether, much like a tornado is simply a construct form from a swirl of thin air. In that sense an argument could be made that matter is energy, but it seems a little more involved than that.

Tesla did not agree with Kelvin's theory of universal entropy, or the heat death of the universe. His belief in a dynamic gaseous aether predisposes closed systems in general, and if you think about the constant background energy that is impossible to block his view certainly seems correct. If there are no truly closed systems so called over unity devices certainly are possible if they are tapping energy sources somewhat removed from what we consider as normal. A lot of this comes down to a belief or dis-belief in a dynamic aether.

[Niklag]

Generator....

Did anyone came across with a working generator...? or every single YouTube it's pure BS all I realize so far that they try to sell book's /Information and Blueprints that not one can confirm that it's one or Two of these that are real working.....!!!!

Our knowledge of energy consists solely of deducing from the movement of matter that something exists that causes the movement. We call that something energy.

We can then describe different attributes or characteristics of motion depending on the category of matter involved and then refer to that as a different form of expression of energy, such as thermal energy, electrical, etc. But that doesn't mean the fundamental form of energy changes, it is just a reference to a change in its expression.

This is the same situation that Newton found himself in regarding his concept of gravity. He could describe some of its effects, but he couldn't explain what it was.

Tesla describes matter as consisting of swirls of aether, much like a tornado is simply a construct form from a swirl of thin air. In that sense an argument could be made that matter is energy, but it seems a little more involved than that.

Tesla did not agree with Kelvin's theory of universal entropy, or the heat death of the universe. His belief in a dynamic gaseous aether predisposes closed systems in general, and if you think about the constant background energy that is impossible to block his view certainly seems correct. If there are no truly closed systems so called over unity devices certainly are possible if they are tapping energy sources somewhat removed from what we consider as normal. A lot of this comes down to a belief or dis-belief in a dynamic aether.

[Faraday88]

hi guys

this may seem dumb to ask but im doing a ou course and have become stuck with a concept in energy and hopefully you guys will be able to enlighten me on it so here it is

all things that exist can be destroyed to my knowledge so why can energy not be destroyed and only changed? if this is so doesnt that mean the universe will last forever just change to a different form from time to time?

In my understanding Nothing is forever...even Physics changes....Just a thought!
Rgds,
Faraday88

[Aaron Murakami]

Just my 2 cents but it is impossible to understand energy when it is though of as a thing.

The aetheric source potential is the thing and energy is just a verb to describe the dissipation or disorganization of organized source potential - that's it.

A battery "breaks the symmetry" of the source potential in "vacuum space" - that is the same as a dipole polarizing the aether.

Once it is polarized, it can move to the points of potential difference and move over a circuit for example back to a lower potential and any resistance it meets on the way simply causes that organized potential (Heaviside flow over a wire) to become disorganized and it dissipates back to space.

So the reality is that energy only is and always is being created and destroyed on the spot as energy isn't a thing... Energy = work and work is not a thing. Work is a verb to describe the destruction of electricity. Work describes how many joule seconds per second are being dissipated... that isn't a thing. It is the organized source potential or aether that is the real thing and when that thing is being disorganized, we measure energy.

The source potential comes right into a system with different potential differences established as a polarized flow and then depolarizes right back into space.

So there is no such thing as conservation of energy - nothing is conserved. The energy manifests at the point of any resistance that causes work to be done and it demanifests at the point that work was done. Energy didn't transform into anything else since it isn't a thing that can transform anyway. The source potential or aether is what is the thing and even that doesn't transform into anything else either. It is either symmetrical and unorganized or chaotic or it is ordered, asymmetrical or polarized and that is it.

When it is polarized and does work in one circuit, it simply goes back to being what it was before - just disorganized so it is still really the exact same thing it was before it was polarized.

When work is done, the act of energy dissipation disorganizes it. But in that system, if it were to regauge itself (create a new potential difference by its own devices), that simply repolarizes the aether in its environment that comes in and then disorganizes right back to space. It is totally NEW source potential that came into the system and did work - none of the source potential that did work in a prior cycle was conserved.

Each act of work destroys the energy right back to space and each work cycle afterward is brand new potential that comes in and then gets "destroyed" right back to where it came from in counterspace.

There is no conservation of energy, no conservation of momentum, and energy always is and only is being created and destroyed on the spot.

[Dave Wing]

Just my 2 cents but it is impossible to understand energy when it is though of as a thing.

The aetheric source potential is the thing and energy is just a verb to describe the dissipation or disorganization of organized source potential - that's it.

A battery "breaks the symmetry" of the source potential in "vacuum space" - that is the same as a dipole polarizing the aether.

Once it is polarized, it can move to the points of potential difference and move over a circuit for example back to a lower potential and any resistance it meets on the way simply causes that organized potential (Heaviside flow over a wire) to become disorganized and it dissipates back to space.

So the reality is that energy only is and always is being created and destroyed on the spot as energy isn't a thing... Energy = work and work is not a thing. Work is a verb to describe the destruction of electricity. Work describes how many joule seconds per second are being dissipated... that isn't a thing. It is the organized source potential or aether that is the real thing and when that thing is being disorganized, we measure energy.

The source potential comes right into a system with different potential differences established as a polarized flow and then depolarizes right back into space.

So there is no such thing as conservation of energy - nothing is conserved. The energy manifests at the point of any resistance that causes work to be done and it demanifests at the point that work was done. Energy didn't transform into anything else since it isn't a thing that can transform anyway. The source potential or aether is what is the thing and even that doesn't transform into anything else either. It is either symmetrical and unorganized or chaotic or it is ordered, asymmetrical or polarized and that is it.

When it is polarized and does work in one circuit, it simply goes back to being what it was before - just disorganized so it is still really the exact same thing it was before it was polarized.

When work is done, the act of energy dissipation disorganizes it. But in that system, if it were to regauge itself (create a new potential difference by its own devices), that simply repolarizes the aether in its environment that comes in and then disorganizes right back to space. It is totally NEW source potential that came into the system and did work - none of the source potential that did work in a prior cycle was conserved.

Each act of work destroys the energy right back to space and each work cycle afterward is brand new potential that comes in and then gets "destroyed" right back to where it came from in counterspace.

There is no conservation of energy, no conservation of momentum, and energy always is and only is being created and destroyed on the spot.

Aaron,

Have you tried this? I have and am not sure what is exactly going on with the high potential across the low potential side. It appears a percentage of the high potential is passed through the load into low potential side. What is your view on this?

-Dave Wing

[Faraday88]

Aaron,

Have you tried this? I have and am not sure what is exactly going on with the high potential across the low potential side. It appears a percentage of the high potential is passed through the load into low potential side. What is your view on this?

-Dave Wing

Hi Dave,
The Circuit arrangement is alternate Charge -Discharge-Charge-Discharge. But mind you it is not in the normal sense of Charge and Discharge, S1 and s2 must be/are in quadrature (180 phase shift), this arrangement evokes higher potential in the Circuit i.e. more than the source Dipole (battery)..again the process assumed running indefinite in switching wise..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[ckurtz]

Ted Chiang's 'Exhalation' is a great retelling of the story of Lord Kelvin's erroneous theory of the eventual Heat Death of the Universe through a sci-fi tale of a doomed robotic race living in a hermetically sealed environment. Their only energy source is compressed argon supplied through outlets which they use to fill up tanks, or lungs as they refer to those for individual use. The problem is that the pressure in their environment is gradually equalizing with the pressure at the supply outlets and once that happens regardless of what the pressure, or energy content of the argon, all work, and their lives, will stop. *(http://tedchiang.blogspot.com/)

All of which is to say that work is not really another word for energy, but rather for the degree of difference or dis-equilibrium between energy states, or if you will the potential to do work. It makes no difference in regards to work, if one side of the equation is at 4,500 psi and the other at 4,485.3 psi, or, as in the case of an atmospheric engine at sea level, if one is at zero and the other is at 14.7 psi; the amount of work will be based on that 14.7 psi differential and only that. The amount of overall energy involved in the first case is much greater than in the second but the potential for work is the same. And when the equation becomes equalized in neither case is any energy lost, all that has been lost or 'destroyed' is the 'potential' to do work, and since work is a rather abstract concept it is of no consequence if it be destroyed or created.

Energy may be 'nothing' in the material sense that we can't put a lump of it on a scale, but that is far from being nothing. We can't weigh Life either but it, whatever it may be, exists regardless - perhaps I should have referred to the aether here instead of Life but Life as a concept is more poetic... Much of what is wrong with established Science stems from the Malta Doesn't Exist Syndrome, meaning that because our senses and abilities are not adequate to perceive the nature of something it is dismissed. Einstein waged his masters' crusade to eliminate the aether from scientific thought by promoting the nothingness of space which he then proceeded to bend and warp and dig gravity wells into but after all was said and done ended up with only the meta-physical nothing he started with. And the sooner people like me quit referring to that sorry sob the sooner he can be consigned to the Black where he belongs and the mention of his name will elicit the proper response of nothing. Which reminds me of Jayne figuring out his percentage of profit after a long drought of income, saying something like: 'Let's see, 10% of nothing is - wait for it: Nothing!' - the Brown Coats WILL rise again!

[Aaron Murakami]

Aaron,

Have you tried this? I have and am not sure what is exactly going on with the high potential across the low potential side. It appears a percentage of the high potential is passed through the load into low potential side. What is your view on this?

-Dave Wing

Is the switching as Faraday mentions - 1 and 2 alternate? Or is 1 closed and 2 is just pushed intermittently?

[ckurtz]

Did anyone came across with a working generator...? or every single YouTube it's pure BS all I realize so far that they try to sell book's /Information and Blueprints that not one can confirm that it's one or Two of these that are real working.....!!!!

Sure, most hydro-electric generator systems are free energy devices, so are wind generators. Free energy generators abound from sail boats to passive solar water heaters to wood stoves using wood from your own trees. Petroleum from wells is also a free energy source as unlike electrically produced fuel such as MagneGas, good ole Mother Nature is responsible for its existence not us, we just harvest it and prepare it for use - and generally the more convenient this preparation makes it the greater the non-free aspect becomes.

It just so happens that most 'free energy' sources are rather dispersed and what people really mean when they refer to such things is some magically compact device like their iPhone, instead of a thousand acre wind farm, which will supply them with unlimited energy without having to pay for it.

But if someone actually understands how to accomplish this and builds a working reliable convenient device their life tends to get suddenly unpleasantly complicated if they are overly active in advertising their success. Successful crooks have learned to launder their ill gotten gains through legitimate businesses to hide their real activities. For instance where I grew up the dairy business, like cattle raising, had its ups and downs and it was a rare dairy that stayed profitable year in and year out. One that did used corn silage as their primary cattle feed - place smelled like a brewery from a mile away - a covered corn silage bio-mass heats itself and ferments even in the winter you see. Which happened to be the secret of their profitability as in fact the other side of their business model was a somewhat illicit alcohol production plant which 'bottled' its product in aluminum beer kegs which were shipped under false floors in their cattle semi-rigs all over the region to be used to create low cost product for bars, etc. - not all that labeled stuff is genuine but after a couple of shots who cares.. Which reminds me that one of the most successful discos at the time owed its success to the cocaine its owners handled - they probably sold the real labeled stuff but being crooks who knows.

So, if you want to find a real working free energy generator get to know some one who has a middling successful business such as a restaurant or spa or independent motel chain and has never gone bankrupt...

The only example I know of an over unity device that overcame being labeled as such and made it as a for real commercial product is James Griggs' Hydro Dynamics, Inc. company in Rome, Georgia that manufactures: "The ShockWave Power Reactor - The Patented Next Generation Reactor Using Cavitation for Process Intensification, Mixing, Increased Mass Transfer and Scale-Free Heating." But then he and his brother didn't market it as a free energy generator, neither did they give it away for free - they spent about a million of their own funds and years of hard work to develop the system.. http://www.hydrodynamics.com/. Also, check out www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm

[Dave Wing]

All caps start out empty S1 is closed until C1 equalizes, S1 is now opened then S2 is closed. Voltage will equalize between caps, even though the light is lit until equalization. The thing is there is no difference if I use a light bulb or just a heavy gauge wire in place of the bulb, the finished voltage result will be the same regardless, which in itself is interesting.

To me it appears to be the same thing as John's splitting the positive. Do you have any ideas what is really going on here?

-Dave Wing

[Dave Wing]

I spent a few hours with that circuit today and a stop watch. I removed the bulb and put in a 470 ohm resistor in place of the bulb and timed the discharges of C1 directly to ground through the resistor until 1 volt was reached. This took roughly 33 seconds to do.

With the second test I discharged C-1 through the resistor and directly across the C-2 capacitor until the voltage nearly equalized, then I switched, on the fly both C-1 and C-2 in parallel across the load. This took almost 35 seconds to discharge down to 1volt.

After these tests there seems to be no difference or conservation of energy in this setup at all. It took 2 seconds longer on the second test because of the voltage ( pressure loss) while the two capacitors were trying to equalize in the first half of the test before I switched on the fly to discharge C-1 and C-2 in parallel across the load.

So in splitting the positve as it stands, with manual switches has no benefit at all. There may be benefit to using a transistor to switch at a high frequency in this system... I don't know and will have to perform this test next.

Another test that will have to be done is to rotate the batteries either at a low or at a high speed as John's diagram suggests one needs to do. With the 3 battery set up, it is half of a Tesla Switch so I am not sure if the batteries still need to be rotated within the Tesla Switch as well but it may need to be done there as well? Time will tell as this experiment advances onward.

Any comments welcome.

-Dave Wing

[Aaron Murakami]

Dave, a thread in Energetic Forum reminded me of this - check this out: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-question.html

I need to look at the diagram again here later.

I did comment on this in the other forum - not enough hours in the day, but need to get the below project cranked out:



I'm working on a circuit that works on the differential between two negatives with a common positive so is like splitting the negative - just the opposite of the splitting the positive. Looking at the flow moving over the wires as a gas under pressure, positive voltage is a pressure and negative voltage is a suction, literally. So if you have a difference between two suctions, you have a potential difference even though it is negative with a positive current - meaning what is between those points is a cold current since no positive voltage multiplied by a positive current is negative watts.

I've done the basic tests in the past and had a validation that someone took this quite far. I'm doing a test right now and if I can show that this is what is between these points and can power a load without the load being reflected back to the front, then it just might be the simplest demonstration of real "cold electricity" that I've seen. A load between these points should drop below ambient temperature.

Anyway, fingers crossed - if my basic demo unit coming together demonstrates something interesting, then I'll be presenting this at the conference. Even if it doesn't do as expected, I might present it anyway because the switching method is something that hardly anyone has ever seen and it is very, very simple.