Take your pick: Free Energy is Valid or is Not Valid?

[Chet]

Depending upon who you are and what responsibilities you possess.

Yesterday's conversation that I posted with AI on the topic of local versus global
conservation analysis turned out to be a very interesting discussion because AI
ended up admitting that conservation of energy is only half the story.
But by government and other public officials admitting to only *that half* and no
other,
they erroneously conclude that free energy is not possible.
Whether that be by direct or indirect means,
they can only provide direct means because if they admit to indirect,
then they admit to the other side of the problem,
which is conservation of charge.
So they give us this erroneous picture of reality that perpetual motion machines,
by definition,
are cut off from their environment,
yet they produce power.
That's so bogus, it's pathetic.
But that's because they have to not admit to the other half of the equation,
conservation of charge.
And that forces them to create a very unrealistic situation
to be ballyhooed because it's very easy to ballyhoo something that's unrealistic
because it's unrealistic.
So why not ballyhoo it?

But something more reasonable like conservation of charge *and* conservation of
energy as two non-duplicatable,
non-overlapping laws cannot be ballyhooed very readily.
In fact, it can't be ballyhooed at all.

Now,
I recall asking AI maybe a year or two or three ago,
what law can be mathematically stated as a mathematical equation would describe and
vindicate this so-called conservation of energy law?

Well...
There isn't any, AI admitted.
But then I asked, well, what comes closest?
Because the simulator,
what does the simulator operate off of that would come closest to conservation of
energy?
Oh, Kirchhoff's laws.
And I thought, well, that doesn't make sense when I looked at them (back then).

Well,
now it does make sense because
only Kirchhoff's current law, its equation for current,
has to do with conservation of energy.
While the other half of the story,
conservation of charge,
is vindicated by Kirchhoff's voltage law.

So AI almost gave me the right picture back in the day,
but not totally accurate, because it was only one half of the story.
And now I'm convinced because I can see it's valid,
but only because it's not half of the story anymore.

So...
All you physicists and engineers out there,
beware of this oversight on behalf of your profession,
your so-called profession,
and the public servants,
our government,
you know,
the U.S.
Patent Office taking leadership from you.
Please be aware of this oversight because it now validates parametric amplification
In a way that looks to the layperson like free energy was valid all along,
just nobody wanted to admit to it.
Well, it's not valid because it's not the whole story and it's more complicated than that
if you're just looking at the superficial end result and the superficial instigation and
nothing that goes on in between the two.

So, of course, to a layperson, free energy looks like it's true.
And for all intents and purposes, it is, from their standpoint.
But to an engineer or physicist who asks to validate to themselves and explain to
others,
such as government personnel,
such as the U.S.
Patent Office,
what does this all mean?
No, free energy is not possible.
You know, it all depends upon who you ask.
You either get the complicated version, "no", but there's more to it than that, or...
You get the simplistic version.
Yes, it's true.

Take your pick.


You get to decide whether Free Energy is Valid or Not Valid based on the simplistic or the technical view.

Here are the posts which lead me to this conclusion. They are placed in reverse chronological order:

A Theoretical, Overunity, Electric Heater Simulated in LTSpice: AVG'd COP is 1.9 to 1! (over a period of ten seconds)

Testing the COP of an LTSpice Simulation for Overunity

Local vs Global Energy Conservation Analysis

Exploring Extended Electrodynamics and Maxwell's Missing Components

Parametric Resonance Modeling in LTspice

Rethinking Reactive and Real Power

[Bud]

Is this a poem or what?

[Haenk]

Is this a poem or what?

No. This is just verbal diarrhoea.

[SteveThackery]

Yesterday's conversation that I posted with AI on the topic of local versus global

<ENORMOUS SNIP>

Take your pick.

 

And a round of applause for Chet, who has excelled himself once again! Never mind the quality, just look at the quantity!

[paul cotter]

Chet has been busy prompting AI to hallucinate. I only glanced at some of it as life is too short. Free energy is categorically ruled out by Emmy Noether's theorem and there is no way round that restriction in this universe. I again point out Chet's misunderstanding of reactive power: if one attempts to use reactive power to do work there is immediately a deficit of real power from the system which has to be supplied or the oscillation will collapse, immediately. Chet's problem is that he does not understand these concepts but thinks he does- a classic case of Dunning Kruger. I am quite willing to spend my time helping anyone to understand electrical engineering but the difficulty here is that Chet does not want to learn as truth will ruin his pipe dream of free energy. PS I again ask Chet why is he bringing this nonsense here to a website that is a scientific forum where he will only receive ridicule? I think I know- all the free energy/overunity sites that were previously active have now dried up having failed to produce a picowatt of power and there is nowhere else to go. No one has ever produced any free energy and no one ever will.

[Electrodynamic]

here we go

[Chet]

misunderstanding of reactive power: if one attempts to use reactive power to do work there is immediately a deficit of real power from the system which has to be supplied or the oscillation will collapse, immediately.

What does that have to do with Conservation of Charge, aka: Kirchoff's Voltage Law?
What does that have to do with the consequences of the alterations of capacitance at resonance with a tank circuit?

I ask these pair of questions prior to any consideration of real power since that's getting ahead of the narrative and real power is the least significant part of the narrative.

The gist of these conundrums begins with the fourth installment of this narrative:

Local vs Global Energy Conservation Analysis

in which I ask a question containing this snippet:

it’s the charge which reactance recycles, not the energy

If you don't read anything else (leading up to this point in the narrative, then begin reading from here, forward, because this is the juicy part.

[Haenk]

PS I again ask Chet why is he bringing this nonsense here to a website that is a scientific forum where he will only receive ridicule?

Unfortunately, that is a bad (for us) side effect of "how the internet search engines work". Backlinks to Chets' nonsense blogs (and I think I saw money involving stuff somewhere) from EEVblog will push the search ranks of Google and other search engines, which will increase the "reputation" and recommendation rate, which indirectly turns into monetary value.
That's why I (repeatedly) asked the mods to remove his links to not further promote his "works". I'm totally fine with leaving the (non-)discussion intact, though argueing with a KI-driven lunatic is "something else".

[Xena E]

Yesterday's conversation that I posted with AI on the topic of local versus global

<ENORMOUS SNIP>

Take your pick.

 

And a round of applause for Chet, who has excelled himself once again! Never mind the quality, just look at the quantity!

And here's the meme to go with that Steve.

[paul cotter]

What does that have to do with Conservation of Charge, aka: Kirchoff's Voltage Law?
What does that have to do with the consequences of the alterations of capacitance at resonance with a tank circuit?

I ask these pair of questions prior to any consideration of real power since that's getting ahead of the narrative and real power is the least significant part of the narrative.                Good grief!, meaningless questions that are "not even wrong".

[LogicDude]

Tell a free energy fanboy that an inductor can in theory "output" an infinite amount of charge and they will go go-go-ga-ga.

Free energy is not valid.

I just checked and I am very sad to learn that James Randi passed away in 2020.

https://youtu.be/c0Z7KeNCi7g

[Xena E]

Unfortunately, LogicDude, free energy is valid! it's laying around everywhere. The catch is that it costs money or effort to harvest it 😉

As for the notion behind free energy from reactive power particularly, the basis of that quack research is not so much free energy as energy theft. One off-shoot example of that discussed before being the extracting of power from a commercial power grid, circumventing a utility wattmeter by use of reactive circuits claiming it as free power from resonance or some such naive bollocks.

[TimFox]

There is also stored energy that can be mined, such as subterranean geothermal.
Calling it free is equivalent to the dollar contents of my savings account being free to me:  not the same as the money which grows on trees.

[Xena E]

There is also stored energy that can be mined, such as subterranean geothermal.
Calling it free is equivalent to the dollar contents of my savings account being free to me:  not the same as the money which grows on trees.

Good example! However if the cost of raw energy is not mentioned, the "free energy" nut jobs will use the argument to ride you into town.

If I stop on the roadside and cut up a fallen tree to take home for my wood stove, to me that's free energy (ignoring my time and gas for the chainsaw), but that's not what these people are claiming. They really believe there is free money growing on trees which is their overunity claim.

[LogicDude]

Unfortunately, LogicDude, free energy is valid! it's laying around everywhere. The catch is that it costs money or effort to harvest it 😉

As for the notion behind free energy from reactive power particularly, the basis of that quack research is not so much free energy as energy theft. One off-shoot example of that discussed before being the extracting of power from a commercial power grid, circumventing a utility wattmeter by use of reactive circuits claiming it as free power from resonance or some such naive bollocks.

There is a great free energy project for some bold minds out there!  And cheap cheap cheap.

Get a big garbage bag, dark green or black.  In the morning, put two layers of cardboard out on your lawn.  Put the garbage bag on top of the cardboard layers and fill it up with cold water.  Stick a flexible plastic tube in the top of the bag and seal it all up with a tie wrap.

Wait until the end of the day and voila, free energy!  Hot water like you just can't believe.  Have a coffee.  The bag focuses the quantum vacuum flux and acts as a conduit and resonating chamber for bosons, mesons, and morons.  Tom Bearden took this one to his grave.

Tell everybody because I am sure that they are going to get me now!  I hope that I live until tomorrow.

[Xena E]

Tell everybody because I am sure that they are going to get me now!  I hope that I live until tomorrow.

Wow! You are truly the Canadian "Maxwell Chickumbutsu" prepared for the ultimate sacrifice to bring the world real free energy 

[paul cotter]

Hi Xena, I just want to point out that the trick of confusing a power meter with highly non-sinusoidal current works with a cheap power meter- a quality unit will read the active power accurately, regardless of waveform distortion. Chikumbutsu, another scammer, I did not realise you were so well acquainted with this field or error. I have been following these gobshites for ~20years after hearing the word "overunity" on a sketchy tv channel. It's my warped sense of humour.

[Electrodynamic]

Unfortunately, LogicDude, free energy is valid! it's laying around everywhere. The catch is that it costs money or effort to harvest it 😉

Why is it unfortunate that free energy is valid and laying around everywhere?. It's fortunate the Sun supplies 173,000 terawatts daily for free otherwise we wouldn't exist and the Earth would look like the moon. It's weird more people don't get it, every form of energy we know of on Earth other than nuclear and geothermal comes from the Sun. Yet many nut jobs claim solar energy doesn't work

[Xena E]

Unfortunately, LogicDude, free energy is valid! it's laying around everywhere. The catch is that it costs money or effort to harvest it 😉

Why is it unfortunate that free energy is valid and laying around everywhere?.

It's unfortunate to claim that it doesn't exist was my meaning.

(because)...the free energy nut jobs will use the argument to ride you into town...

It is true overunity that can't possibly happen.

Unfortunately there are instances where it looks like overunity is occurring where people just do not understand the process of conversion... the downwind faster than the wind craft is one example.

Another that a lot of people don't understand is how heat pumps work. I find it frustrating not being able to explain to those individuals the process involved when their preconceptions prevent them from using their intellect to study what is actually happening, and realise having an open mind is not being gullible.

However.

Cases of con merchants claiming special processes of harvesting free energy are another method to defraud the gullible...Chickumbutsu's car that runs on radio waves is an idea that is a fraud of scale.

Another one that came out a couple of years ago was a company that said it had developed a microwave (magnetron) based water heater for domestic hot water and central heating. They claimed massive efficiency improvements over resistive heating element and electrode boilers.

For every mug out there there's a grifter ready to take their money.

I really don't get bothered about the you tubers that demonstrate their perpetual motion generators to get views for income, at least they're not robbing anyone directly... I see that as entertainment.

But, then there's the real deluded nutters that actually believe what they're pedaling and don't appear to have a financial fraud angle. I find those people both amusing and pitiable in equal measure.

[Xena E]

Hi Xena, I just want to point out that the trick of confusing a power meter with highly non-sinusoidal current works with a cheap power meter- a quality unit will read the active power accurately, regardless of waveform distortion. Chikumbutsu, another scammer, I did not realise you were so well acquainted with this field or error. I have been following these gobshites for ~20years after hearing the word "overunity" on a sketchy tv channel. It's my warped sense of humour.

Your first point I'll let go as this is a public forum and I wouldn't want to give anyone any ideas

As for being aware of the field of error, my last job included having to review presentations by people "looking" for manufacturing business partners for new products. Every so often we would get these blarney boys, (and occasionally girls) pitch up to garner some interest in their pet project... they'd have also usually done the rounds of the universities as well... it was just to get a list of impressive associates to take to the bank for a business loan...

Some of it was absolutely hilarious. See the previous post for one example, (the microwave water heater).

Meeting the con artists in person makes you want to study the behaviour. Finding people like Forbes online makes you wonder how many of these fucked up individuals are free to walk the streets.

[Chet]

Tell a free energy fanboy that an inductor can in theory "output" an infinite amount of charge and they will go go-go-ga-ga.

Charge can't output. Nor can an inductor output charge. Charge is mere bookkeeping and must always tally to zero. Charge is voltage drop. Charge cannot be spent. Charge cannot be lost nor leaked. Charge is retained.

The resistance of a wire, which may be straight (as in a transmission line) or if it is wound into a coil form is another matter. It must output heat due to its resistance...not due to its inductive impedance.

Free energy is not valid.

Correct. But the endless recycling of charge could spawn an eternal plethora of energetic events depending upon the severity of the event and its frequency which can approach infinity without ever reaching it.
So, free energy per event is not free. But over time is another matter!

[paul cotter]

Chet appears to answer "correct" to the statement that free energy is not valid. Hmm, a strange turn of events, is it not? However he has attached an "end of argument" link(don't go there!!) which goes down a warren of rabbit holes where reality holds no sway. All very confusing.

[Stray Electron]

All very confusing.

  ALL of Chet's posts are confusing! He will say one thing and then directly contradict it!  Like they say, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull S**T!

[Haenk]

He will say one thing and then directly contradict it!

Split personality - a rare case of threefold split, I assume? KI, Chet #1 and Chet #2. Triple power to waste your time.

[Electrodynamic]

Xena E

It is true overunity that can't possibly happen.

I would agree even though the majority of the population wouldn't. The greater majority believe the universe was created from nothing by an omniscient being. By definition their omniscient being must be considered an alien yet most laugh at the idea of aliens. We are strange beings.

Unfortunately there are instances where it looks like overunity is occurring where people just do not understand the process of conversion... the downwind faster than the wind craft is one example.

Agree and prefer the term extra energy. For example, not long ago everyone though a dull grey chunk of metal called uranium was worthless. Then we learned about atoms and electrons. Now we can power or vaporize entire cities simply by harnessing the energy contained within the chunk of metal. As such it's impossible to determine where we could be 200 years from now. Certainly not where we presently are and progress waits for no one.

Another that a lot of people don't understand is how heat pumps work. I find it frustrating not being able to explain to those individuals the process involved when their preconceptions prevent them from using their intellect to study what is actually happening, and realise having an open mind is not being gullible.

I found it's always a two way street. I follow the Feynman technique and if we cannot explain something in simple terms anyone can understand we don't understand it well enough. As Feynman said, "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool".

For example, I like baiting people with term "radiant matter" because I replicated the effect and know exactly how it works. Yet initially I always get the proverbial eye roll when I bring it up. So I break the problem down to the level and language of the person I'm speaking with. I explain the problem on their level not mine and it usually works. For example, the supposedly complex effect of radiant matter can be reduced to the electrostatic forces on two like charged foam balls covered in tin foil which anyone can understand. There is no need for big words or math to explain it if we actually understand what is happening on the most basic level. Ergo, the onus is on us imo.