Don't think that you would be personally concerned by every reply that I post! 
Follow the thread:
"I do have many OU devices around the house. example: solar cells..."
EM, reply#183
This was the point I challenged when you begun to reply me.
You Quoted me and informed me solar cells are not OU so why shouldn't I reply that I didn't mention solar ? You follow the thread, if someone else made the comment quote them not me.
What don't you understand in: apparently closed system?
A circuit with a capacitor and a resistance inside a Faraday cage is an "apparently closed system" when we deal with currents and voltage. The fact that the ZPE, the heat, or any fairy dust could interfer with the system is not false but not relevant. Once the system is defined, if you observe the capacitor charge while there is no energy source in your system, you may say there is "OU" and then search for the source outside.
We define arbitrarily what we call our closed system. The fact that it is not really closed is an irrelevant objection. At the contrary, it's the key point to be able to define OU when we consider that energy creation is impossible (which is your viewpoint). When the system is defined and only if it is operationally defined, you may say if the system produces more energy that it consumes. If it produces OU, you may say that it is probably not really closed. And from your specifications of the system, you know the interface with the outside, and so you may search for an energy flux crossing the frontier.
Sounds like a "
Pseudo closed system to me". Any system that allows energy out of the system is not closed, it is that simple.
It's not that I don't understand what apparently means. I wanted you to give a real life example, you can keep your fairy dust in your fairy pouch, no one mentioned it but you.
Are you a fairy ? You keep mentioning fairy dust for some reason.
Your definition that OU is only when there is "more energy out than energy "we" put in" is a complete uselessness if you don't specify to which system it is relative in order to be able to qualify what is "in" and "out"! Mine, which is also that one arising from EM's post and following is operational: you can use it experimentally. Yours is a nonsense by lack of precision and by absence of operational relevance, it's not even a definition but an unexpoitable fuzzy banality.
In this sense, when EM says that there is OU in solar cells, he is right if he excludes the sun from his system.
Now, once the energy source is well known, imho we must include it in the definition of our system when the system use it, and so the system becoming "solar cells + sun", it's not OU. OU is relative.
I didn't say that was my definition I said it was the only one that can make sense, which is true in my opinion especially considering there are only
pseudo closed systems.
A closed system by definition cannot allow energy out or in, when a system fits that description it is closed in my opinion otherwise it is
open as it must be if energy is leaving.
Two is OU. so is three. Practically all our energy comes from the Sun anyway.
Can you give me an example of an actual closed system where no energy can leave or enter the system ?
Anyway you can define your systems, but I will define mine. All my systems are open.
Over unity meaning over 1, can have the valid meaning of over the amount we put in we get out, over 1, ummm, get it ?
Now that is my definition, maybe others as well. If asked I can clarify anytime without being sarcastic or trying to put people down.
In my opinion a closed system would be almost impossible, except for the entire Universe.
You might be a very smart individual Ex. but you are so far up yourself you get dirty fingers when you stroke your own ego.
I'm sorry but I think you serve no purpose here but to put people down. You continually try to put words into peoples mouths
and attribute to them things they did not say or mean, you seem to have some kind of problem.
Get off your high horse, or can't you find the ladder you used to get on it ?
Simple question. Can you give me an example of an "actual closed system", one that does not allow energy to leave or enter the system ?
You affirm there is such a thing as a closed system the burden of proof is with you, describe a real life example of an actual closed system.
..
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Aether Vortex Energy Converter (AVEC Device): Full Disclosure (Read 266821 times)
