The Dr. appreciates the prejudices and preconceptions regarding the nature of energy! :-)
Harry On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Dr Josef Karthauser <j...@tao.org.uk> wrote: > Yes, that's true isn't it. The whole closing the loop discussion is > predicated on all types of energy being convertible, which is another > statement of the conservation of energy. The whole over unity issue is that > either conservation is broken in some circumstances, or that there are other > energy sources that we have not previously taken into consideration. If it's > the later, then really it's not over unity, and closing the loop is ok. But > if it's the former, then we can't really prove anything by insisting that the > energy present can be converted into other types of energy, especially if > those forms are known to be conservative. > > Joe > > On 22 Mar 2012, at 06:40, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> The conversion of one form of energy into another form may involve a >> loss (destruction) of energy or a gain (creation) of energy depending >> on the type and direction of energy conversion. >> >> >> Even if a system is creating energy, the created energy would be >> destroyed as it is converted into another type of energy. By that, I >> do not mean the energy is simply lost to the environment because it is >> converted inefficiently. I mean the process of conversion literal >> destroys energy. In Thane Heinz's system an input of kinetic energy >> maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, >> because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical >> energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. >> >> Harry >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a >>> logical perspective. >>> >>> What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is >>> impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve >>> to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove >>> or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible >>> to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although >>> I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible >>> because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that >>>> Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by >>>> inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and >>>> publishing the results. >>>> >>>> This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers >>>> are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), >>>> where >>>> Carnot efficiency enters the picture. >>>> >>>> There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), >>>> and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be >>>> paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. >>>> >>>> Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality >>>> to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has >>>> minimal gain should allow Thanes to "close the loop" by the simple >>>> expedient >>>> of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and >>>> generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable >>>> proof! >>>> >>>> I must add a "DOH [slaps forehead]" to my objection here - given the >>>> circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this >>>> objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that >>>> this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected >>>> conclusion >>>> that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release - >>>> which is the same-old, same-old BS. >>>> >>>> However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an >>>> anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini "battery anomaly" then >>>> that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until >>>> he performs the obvious kind of "real" test and attempts to close the loop >>>> with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to >>>> give >>>> him any credit at all. >>>> >>>> I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is >>>> obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove >>>> that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP > 1.2 or less >>>> - >>>> to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of >>>> setup >>>> beyond all doubt ... >>>> >>>> Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same >>>> scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as >>>> being any kind of "good company" for the failure of TH, however... we >>>> expect >>>> more and it is lacking. >>>> >>>> Jones >>>> >>>> From: David Roberson >>>> >>>> I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in >>>> this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from >>>> that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that >>>> the laws of physics need to be rewritten. >>>> >>>> I viewed one video on the site that described why a >>>> different time constant for the generator inductor was so important. It >>>> was >>>> elementary inductor theory and explained nothing at all. They will have a >>>> difficult time trying to get knowledgeable engineers to believe in this >>>> one. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> >>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>>> Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 6:52 pm >>>> Subject: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims >>>> Thane Heins continues with his bold claims. >>>> >>>> This is the second video of four videos with a total length >>>> of 3 hours. >>>> >>>> ReGenX generator demonstration, Part 2 >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrk_7MSSQMw&feature=related >>>> >>>> At 11 minutes into this video he says his device has been >>>> tested by >>>> the NRC (National Research Council of Canada) and will be >>>> tested again >>>> by the NRC in the first week of April. >>>> >>>> The third video includes interviews with five observers, >>>> including the >>>> editor of EV World, a wind power consultant and some >>>> interested >>>> investors. >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >> >> >
