Rhong Dhong wrote:
"Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rhong Dhong wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> Rhong Dhong wrote:
>>> Here's what I've been able to glean from their
> site.
>>> It is self-powered. There is no input.
>> No it's not.
>
> Right. The ceo has said he does not know the source of
> the energy.
>
> It isn't anything obvious, so maybe it is something
> like Frank Grimer's gamma atmosphere. Whatever it is,
> it just goes on and on and on, even to powering a
> 550bhp motor.
[** They said it was a "550 hp unit". They didn't explain what
that meant.
Presumably it means either 550 HP _in_ or 550 HP _out_.**]
It's clear from the context that it is 550bhp out. There is
nothing that they can detect going in.
They never actually said that, as far as I can see. They waffle around
it but never quite come out and say it.
If they said it, that would mean they had closed the loop. But, as I
said, they have not asserted that they have _no_ input -- merely that
the input is not sufficient to explain the output.
They use a lot of very vague language, but try to find anyplace where
they actually say there is _no_ energy input. I sure couldn't find such
a claim. Here is what I found, on their "technology" page:
> [ ... ]
>
> Steorn's technology appears to violate the 'Principle of Conservation
> of Energy'
>
> [ ... ]
>
1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2. The operation of the technology is not derived from the
degradation of its component parts.
3. There is no identifiable source of the energy.
I would describe these statements as intentionally vague (what _IS_ the
COP value, anyway? They don't say!). However, in view of statement #1,
it appears to me that "the energy" in #3 can _only_ mean they have not
identified this value:
(output - input)
It seems clear that it does not mean there is no input at all. If there
were no input, statement #1 would be silly: COP=infinity in that case,
and nobody would describe it by saying "COP > 1". Furthermore, their
statement that it "_appears_" to violate COE would be equally absurd IF
they had no energy input -- there wouldn't be any "appears" about it in
that case.
But, they clearly _do_ have energy going in, and therefore they need to
base any such claim on careful measurements to determine how much is
coming out, versus how much is going in.
There are two key points here:
a) A heat pump has COP>1 but it has an identifiable source of the excess
energy (the exhaust air gets cooler).
b) You can't close the loop on a heat pump because it doesn't violate
either the first or second law.
Presumably, the gamma
atmosphere or something else is being tapped, but they haven't
been able to figure out what it is.
The unit is self-sustaining. Nothing needs to be 'fed' to it
to keep it running.
I could find no such statement on their website. As far as I can tell
they wave their hands a lot but nowhere do they claim to have closed the
loop.
Anyway, enough. I will grant you that their statements are vague enough
that, if you want to, you can interpret them to mean they have no energy
going in at all, but I remain unconvinced that that's what they mean.
