Are we back online? Here is an curious anecdote from PESN that leads up to the recent South African reputed OU (Bedini-like) device:
http://pesn.com/2009/11/12/Child_rides_on_free_energy_Boyce_watkykjy1/ A colleague had raised the issue of how the inventor could have been merely "extending the range of a battery", if over a year he never recharged it from the grid but instead on 35 occasions he hooked it up to a Boyce hex-controller, which operates as a "self-charger". This must be OU, correct? If not, what technique can provide more than 35 times as much energy as the rating on the battery? Having given this some thought (and you must watch all his videos to grasp all of this) - I think it is remotely possible to do this feat without invoking "overunity" - but only if the battery has actual chemical energy which is significantly more than its stated level when fully charged, and only if a novel way exists to optimize redox reactions of these reactants. In fact, such a novel way does exist, but can it be extended to this situation? This is a bit of a stretch but bear with me. It does involve one 'leap of faith' but no miracles, which is easier to swallow than massive overunity from LENR ! (at least 60% easier to swallow for the skeptics !) Lets imagine that an el-cheapo $13 SLA battery like this one powers the child's car: http://www.amazon.com/FB12-7-Batteries-com-Sealed-Battery-Electronics/dp/B00 099DV30/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1329504888&sr=8-2 which is 12 volts and 7 amp hours or 84 watt-hrs. Let's say the child could get about 4-6 hours out of the battery in the toy car, spread over a few days of serious damage to furniture - and after this, she has drawn down the battery to a level where it needs a recharge. Yet- this scenario happens over and over on each of the 35 recharges for a year - and is never charged from the grid till then. In a year, this amounts to a putative gain of something greater than 35:1 based on the 'faceplate' of the battery ( 84 watt-hrs), since we must also deduct the amount of energy expended to "recharge" itself. After a year, we can imagine that it does finally require a full recharge from the grid. Yet we know the 84 W-hrs of the stated faceplate capacity is far less than the real chemical energy involved. But what is the highest chemical energy which is remotely imaginable - if (big IF) we have a novel chemical energy extraction method that goes beyond redox but not far beyond? To wit: let's imagine that in our example - this battery has within its capability when completely utilized in a novel manner - about 60% of the chemical energy of coal. This is more than lead should have, on paper, but do not forget we are extracting this energy in a novel way which is not limited by redox potentials as normally understood and is more Helmholtz and less Gibbs -still chemical in that it only involves valence electrons; but they are used in an optimum fashion which cannot be done by redox alone. The spiked reverse pulsing must also be used periodically or all bets are off. IOW, since Pb is heavy and does not normally have 60% of the energy of coal, our leap of faith in this example, is that the Bedini style of back-EMF pulsing on the reactants is able to derive chemical energy in a new way, but still using only valence electrons - so really we are more concerned on the bottom line with its actual mass than anything else. As long as net energy extraction does not exceed normal chemistry as epitomized by hydrocarbon combustion, then we are technically not invoking overunity, or LENR. Coal has about 870 W-hr per pound when combusted. We are thus imagining that lead when used in this new way has about 522 W-hr per pound. This battery has about 6 pounds of reactants and if fully extracted, its (hypothetical) energy would then be about 3.2 kWhrs IF this new method gives us 60% of the energy of a 6 pound mass of coal. This is a factor of about 38 times greater than the original faceplate capacity of the battery but is only 60% of the chemical energy which "could be" contained in the mass of the battery (when chemistry is employed). When a new method of extracting chemical energy from lead is employed, we can achieve this level and it violates no Laws or CoE. Get it? Can you spell R-A-T-I-O-N-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N in a more elaborate way? Dunno, but there is the odor of rat in there somewhere :-) Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
