We are not talking about a practical device yet ;-) but I imagine you wouldn't
draw the working fluid (not necessarily water) directly from the hot reservoir,
you would use a heat exchanger rather, and you would be allowed to draw a
thermal power equal to the difference between what the heat
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie Brown (sorry couldn't resist), why don't you just
try this scheme with a single resistor and diode in a good Faraday cage rather
than spamming us with it regularly?
Such a prototype wouldn't cost much compared to my Sterling engine + heat pump
scheme ;-)
Michel
A single diode would produce the least power for the least
overcome load. It is the hardest to measure and least
productive. It can be done but is overly academic.
Candidate abrasives for sandpaper can be tested by trying
one grain but practical surface smoothing isn't done that
way.
I am
Charles M. Brown wrote:
The Johnson noise produced in resistors is A.C. which will have an
average voltage of zero. A group of resistors will have act like one
equivalent resistor. Diodes in consistent alignment parallel will
conduct more Johnson noise current and less voltage when the
Well, not *totally* negative:-)
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/final_report.txt
On 3/5/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't take this the
wrong way, but I know with near 100%
On 3/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't take this the
wrong way, but I know with near 100% confidence that a highly motivative person
could get your research on the way within four months, top! In the mean time,
you could be thinking of ways to do this on your own by means
Michel Jullian wrote,
Sterling draws 1000W heat from hot reservoir (not necessarily water
BTW) and outputs 150W mechanical. Heat pump draws 150W*9=1350W from ambient air and outputs them to the
hot tank. Net power into the hot tank: 350W
The figure of COP=9 may have occurred in print, or in
Michel Jullian wrote:
To Paul: stop the ad hominem.
Michel Jullian wrote:
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie Brown (sorry couldn't resist), why
don't you just try this scheme with a single resistor and diode
in a good Faraday cage rather than spamming us with it regularly?
Terry Blanton wrote:
Tom's results can be taken as not significantly positive
rather than negative. A square array of 1,024 1N914
discrete diodes failed to produce a significant output to
a well crafted instrument amplifier using good low power
technique. The discrete diodes have low bandwidth compared
to the ~1
Charles M. Brown wrote:
Tom's results can be taken as not significantly positive rather than
negative. A square array of 1,024 1N914 discrete diodes failed to
produce a significant output to a well crafted instrument amplifier
using good low power technique. The discrete diodes have low
Jones; You are right about the unit being in a lab, yet one must be careful
as you say so you don't mix apples and oranges.
A number of off the street products do claim COP's greater than the LOX
production example, although one does indeed need to look farther than just
a statement of COP.
For
Charles Brown sez:
I am looking for people that sincerely want to
escape the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Seems there have been other recent claims just as provocative as Mr. Brown's
that have been made here as well.
Brown's statement, however, strikes me as one of the most curiously worded
Ron,
For example the Jandy Model AE 2500 claims COP 5.4, while the Ice Breaker
Model H100R is rated at 5.6 and its big brother at 6.1, or
http://www.sortprice.com/search-CQ-Pool_and_Spa-Heat_Pump which all have
claims of COP's that are higher.
Wow, I had no idea that they were getting that
On 3/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please forward the details regarding that photo?
Here's Tom's index:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/
Terry
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Charles Brown sez:
I am looking for people that sincerely want to
escape the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Seems there have been other recent claims just as provocative as Mr. Brown's
that have been made here as well.
Brown's statement, however, strikes me
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 3/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please forward the details regarding that photo?
Here's Tom's index:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/
Terry
Thank you. The first document I read, Final Report, May 6, 2006 (text) said,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would encourage more people to work on this research, as such research
is vitally important. Any highly motivated go-getter individual should
be able to get something going within four months time.
It might be worth adding -- given the confluence of overlapping
...
BTW, those who reply to Steven Vincent Johnson's email
please note the reply address in his email does not go
to vortex-l@eskimo.com So basically you'll think the
email went to everyone when in reality it would not.
If you reply then you'll need to change the To:
address to [EMAIL
OK thanks Jones, Ron et al. I could have gone on and on like this, describing
encouraging experimental results maybe, raising millions perhaps, but I'll put
an end to my little joke, which was in reality a challenge to the group's
thermodynamics skills, nothing against the two of you as I hope
Michel;
Being an old lazy man I have found that all efforts to separate the men from
the boys, ends up in two subsets that don't equal the whole. :-)
-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject:
Hi,
Has anyone replicated and studied Naudin's conditioned carbon resistors?
Naudin's scope shots show the resistance is not linear relative to resistance
current. That would be a very interesting effect to study.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
http://www.physorg.com/news91891899.html
New graphene transistor promises life after death of silicon chip
(image caption) Single-electron transistors carved entirely in a
graphene sheet. The central elements are so-called quantum dots
allowing electrons to flow one by one. The dots are
At first blush, I would wonder the effect as being a result of
micro-fractures in the carbon structure. Increasing voltage would (could)
change the current path and result in many different paths, additionally
being impacted by thermal changes cased by the current flow. This experiment
have many
I'll agree with Paul for once, LTSpice is truly excellent, not only free but
also one of the most accurate and fastest Spice implementations around. A must
have for anyone involved in EE. Graphical interface a bit surprising at first,
but quite efficient when you get used to it.
Can't vouch on
This guy puts his electrodes inside ping pong balls:
http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm
Terry
On 3/3/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unshackle and release the prisoner...
2W * 'kV/mm' * 'grams' = 2W * .9 * 10 = 18 W = 180 kW
Harry
Michel Jullian wrote:
I will
Michel Jullian wrote:
OK thanks Jones, Ron et al. I could have gone on and on like this, describing
encouraging experimental results maybe, raising millions perhaps, but I'll put
an end to my little joke, which was in reality a challenge to the group's
thermodynamics skills, nothing against
Borbas believes like many amateur physicists before him that he has disproved
the ion wind explanation, it's a long story he has been multiposting/spamming
several dozens of mailing lists with his uninformed theory. He doesn't even
realize that the air discharge implies an ion current, which
Charles Brown sez:
I am looking for people that sincerely want to
escape the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Out law the buying and selling of joules.
Harry
Michel Jullian wrote:
---
I'll agree with Paul for once, LTSpice is truly excellent, not only free but
also one of the most accurate and fastest Spice implementations around. A must
have for anyone involved in EE. Graphical interface a bit surprising at first,
but quite efficient when you get
Are you not one of the lucky ones!. I retired some three years ago to do
pure research with the ideas I had but never had time to follow. Had a nice
bank account that should have lasted until the end, but with scopes costing
$kk.00 and on and on (you know), I now think I might join the crowd and
Michel Jullian wrote:
My scheme simply can NOT work as I realized before I even posted it, because
the absolute max efficiency of a heat pump, which depends only on the absolute
temperatures of the hot and cold sources, is exactly equal to one over the
absolute max efficiency of a heat engine
Jones;
Why play with him, he is only learning to spread his wings?
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
Michel Jullian wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Borbas believes like many amateur physicists before him that he has disproved
the ion wind explanation, it's a long story he has been multiposting/spamming
several dozens of mailing lists with his uninformed theory. He doesn't even
realize that the air discharge implies
Michel Jullian wrote:
P.S. Oh yes I had forgotten my promise to Harry below, my comment was that
mv^2/r for the satellite can be thought of as a centrifugal force or as a
centripetal acceleration times mass depending on the frame (it changes sign
while going from the F side to the m*a side),
But he seems to have installed it in a bell jar. Whence the ions?
On 3/5/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Borbas believes like many amateur physicists before him that he has disproved
the ion wind explanation, it's a long story he has been multiposting/spamming
several dozens of
As far as I can tell he couldn't run below a certain pressure, ask him for more
details if you're interested, I am not.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a
Actually, Michel, no one was fooled
Wrong Jones, at least one person was: myself, between the moment I imagined the
scheme and the moment I realized it couldn't work :/ After that admittedly it
was hard to sound convincing :)
BTW your challenge/riddle beats me, can the thing be made OU after
On 3/5/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Borbas believes like many amateur physicists before him that he has
disproved the ion wind explanation, it's a long story he has been
multiposting/spamming several dozens of mailing lists with his uninformed
theory. He doesn't even realize
On a nanometer scale thermal properties are not uniform
even if the micro and larger scale temperature is uniform.
There are emergent thermal gradients and differences on a
nanometer scale scale. Therefore the Second Law is true
but subverted if using nano meter scale differentiation is
I have not believed that mirrors or lenses could
concentrate ambient IR because optical systems exchanges
working angle for magnification, a situation that doesn't
lend to preferential energy transfer. If experiments have
worked anyway, please share the results.
Aloha,
Charlie
David Thomson wrote:
End of discussion. You are irrational and brainwashed.
Well that seems to end the discussion rather thoroughly.
David Thomson wrote:
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should create a
vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Elements with an atomic
number greater than iron will
42 matches
Mail list logo
