Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
David Thomson wrote: Hi Wesley, There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most deposits and fossils. I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils exist or they don't. And it is equally obvious that regardless of the actual dates, a rich biosystem did not occur at the same time as an Ice Age. The stability in that case would only be an illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of your reasoning? How do dating errors (not Michel's type of dating errors) cause the illusion of massive amounts of biomatter and diverse species? It is always safer to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's stable and die having discovered your error. More flawed reasoning. Are you telling me that if we don't understand how something works, we are charged with fixing it until we do understand? That is how problems arise, not how they are solved. This is exactly what the GW debate comes down to. There are people who distort their interpretation of the data to prove something is broken, and then seek to fix it. It is the process of fixing things that don't need fixing that actually breaks them. Nature knows what it is doing. The planet Earth does not need the arrogance of our feeble intelligence to fix the climate cycle. Even if we do succeed in altering the climate, such as seeding the oceans with iron, what happens when iron prices go through the roof and the seeding program is cancelled? The resulting huge whale population then starves to death for lack of food. Either that or the Japanese build up a huge market for whale products and drives them into extinction. There were people who played with pure sodium, and when it spontaneously caught fire, they threw water on it, which caused a major explosion. The climate change problem is serious enough without shortsighted humans trying to intervene. Even if we were successful in the short run, it is highly improbable we could keep up our efforts into the long run. The best way to survive global climate change is to adapt, which is the method preferred by all successful species. Dave Good points Dave. I can't explain the dating problems here, its a creationist debate essentually, there are other sites for that. Email me privately for those details. Suffice to say that I think the errors are large but the greenhouse effect should still be real. As for human action I think we tend to want simple answers to complex questions. Fertilizing the ocean is one such simple answer, far too simple. We need comprehesive ownership systems if we are going to farm the sea instead of just hunting it. Your correct, human arrogance is dangerous but there are times when inaction is equally arrogant and dangerous. The energy technologies discussed on vortex, peswiki, etc will help solve problems and give us the leway to fix the problems as they come. If greenhouse is not a problem then we loose nothing by going to alternative energy; assuming we are smart enough to keep the oil men and the coal miners etc from starving or rioting.
Re: [Vo]: To Paul Lowrance
Sorry for barging into someone else's letter... A quick question: We all seem to be fixated on excess energy. What if one of the many innovative (or potentially innovative) ideas were to result in an engine (a fairly simple engine) of some sort that ***didn't*** produce excess energy, but did have an overall efficiency of, say, three times that of the most efficient internal combustion engine? Wouldn't that be worth pursuing from a practical standpoint? P. At 12:36 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote: Paul Lowrance posted; Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your passive aggressive ways of life is better than my direct ways of life. Correct me if I'm wrong Paul, but you seem to believe that it is possible to reverse the 2nd Law with an electromagnetic machine. Nobody would be happier than me if yo were to demonstrate such a dingus. OTOH, many people have claimed to have done so, but AFAIK, no one has. You may have noticed my criticisms of several characters who have made their appearance on the FE stage. They include; The Russian Science Fiction Author, Alexander Frolov, The Vaporware Merchant, Peter Linderman, The Inventor Joseph Newman, The Doctor Tom Bearden. These people have been selling their information for years, but AFAIK, they have yet to demonstrate a working machine. These people are particularly aggravating to me because they are IMHO, selling trash. This critique does not apply to Chukanov, any researcher into controlled fission or fusion, and Mills, who seems to be producing excess energy, and whose explanations have a basis in sensible physical theory. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
Steven A Lawrence wrote:- Actually we're supposed to exercise a bit of restraint on this list and not shoot too many holes in theories even if they look like easy targets. At least, that's my understanding of the Vortex rules -- it's supposed to be a safe place to air ideas which are not fully baked, and criticism is supposed to be constructive, if possible, rather than destructive Yes, I was (reacting to provocation) rude too. I apologise to Paul. I'll still be very surprised if he ever fully bakes his idea...
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I just used the metric to find the proper distances.) I think we can stick to thought experiments and dump equations. Einstein said he didn't understand his theory once the mathematicians were done with it. To really understand the issues you can't use equations which are there to shortcut real comprehension. If you introduce FTL communication you also must introduce a preferred reference frame. Yup, and that's NOT SR! You are dancing around the problem by pointing out difficulties with the model of a train (among various other side issues), yet you could easily choose to not have each cabin mechanically connected to each other. I can easily counter all of your argument but it will be pointless and long. So let's get to the heart of the twin paradox. Basically SR states that the faster you travel the more time slows down, and yet it tries to do this without specifying 'Relative to what', because that's why it's called Relativity of course, all frames are equal, it's relative to each observer. This is of course impossible because each observer demands a different reality, but SR basically says 'Prove it'. Because communicating in real time between 2 different frames can seem challenging it might seem there is a point, however this is just an illusion. First it's not really about communicating, but rather knowing the rate that time flows for a different reference frame and instantaneous communication is merely something that would allow gaining such knowledge which is admitted to destroy SR if possible, if you can observe what the true rate of time is in the other reference frames and they can know your true rate of time then you will either see that time does not slow down or both will agree as to which frame time is moving the fastest (which frame is the most preferred or 'still'). Neither of these results would agree with SR, so the issue comes down to just how possible it might be to measure the rate of time in another reference frame. Now it is actually very easy and straight forward to measure the rate of time in another frame, the only thing that can seem to make it difficult is the Doppler effect, each moment each twin is further apart (or closer together on the return) causing the viewer to observe that time is moving more slowly or faster on the other ship than their own time. There are a few ways around this, one is that the moving twin could instead by orbiting the other twin (or simply spinning really fast while standing next to the other twin, or vibrating). Another is that the moving twin could be doing a flyby, this give a chance to measure both sides of the Doppler effect and a moment where they can share true instantaneous communication right as they pass. However the simplest way is to simply to have one twin hop in a space ship, accelerate to full speed in the blink of an eye and hold radio communications between the twins. Sure these communications will be strained by the Doppler effect, but if each twin tells the other twin the apparent rate of time (based on the transmission) relative to their own then they can compare numbers, if both see the other as say 23% slower (or 23% faster) then obviously neither are undergoing time dilation, it is all Doppler effect. (this could also be calculated and be found equal to the expected Doppler shift) If however they get different values then they can establish which twin is in the more preferred or still frame. SR couldn't really accept either event because is is based on ignorance of the rate of time in another frame. SR simply can't work because there is no way to truly stop someone from knowing the rate of time in another frame. Ok, now I'll answer some of your objections. You have big, big problems in this scenario, which you have not fully worked out. Work out all the details and the timekeeping problems go away, but the details are a mess. First of all a long object cannot accelerate simultaneously along its length, Incorrect, it is trivial to sychronize the clocks and each cabin has it's own means of propulsion as I said, the only thing you could claim would be that it would break into sections so naturally each cabin would be either unconnected or connected with something that can strech as required. The interesting problem you will have then is that if in a millisecond the entire train accelerates to .999 C then if you were in such a train you would notice the front of the train and the and caboose get further away because as far as you are concerned your cabin didn't shrink but rather gaps just appeared between cabins because the the who train stretched out at faster than C. because as soon as it starts to accelerate its parts (stretched out along its length) no longer share a single inertial frame. Furthermore, the whole thing must shrink due to Fitzgerald contraction,
RE: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
You enjoy the MIB part don't you? In all reality I don't believe they pay any attention to some one making claims unless there is a device or their expert University advisors get nervous. For the most part they sit back drink coffee and Red Bull, each donuts and get a big chuckle from all the fools. But, if you are headed to the local Flea Market to begin selling devices or have a semi loaded and headed to the Ace Hardware, I feel comfortable in the belief you will be contacted. SO enough of that, they are for sure rolling on the floor in cackles again. Your idea looks good at first blush, but not being my field I have nothing to offer in aid, yeah or nay. As concerns standard electrolysis in water I have a bit of knowledge and that says that Heat is more of a detriment than advantage. The whole object of trying to stay below the thermo-neutral voltage level is to not internally create heat. I have yet to realize where getting all those little molecules agitated has a benefit. Now for Heat in the classic cell it is assumed that we can pull ~49kJ from the environment with the remaining 281kJ coming from our electrical input. This in itself looks good in that there could be a practical approach to using that cooling, but it don't hold for long and is far to slow for practical usage. So what does that say about Heat, in my work keep it away, the cooler the cell the better (no not cold, or below ambient). Pressure within the cell must be factored in, the 3.7kJ used to expand the gas can be increased by increasing the internal pressure. What may seem off the wall to some that have not tried it, is the placement of electrodes just under the surface of the electrolyte. Enough of that, I hope some one will comment on your idea as I have seen Heat Pumps easily fun at COP=9 and if I remember my reading can go to COP=12 (theory). If that is the case then maybe you have just not accounted for all of the loss that will take place. Indeed for Texas (most of it) a m2 of blackened copper collector can get you some real hot water. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical embodiment: Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), and through an appropriate quasi-lossless gearbox replaces the electric motor powering the compressor of an average performance house heating type heat pump (COP=3 conservatively), which therefore pumps 400W*3=1200W of heat from the ambient air to the hot water reservoir. 1000W out, 1200W in, surely there can be no doubt that after the initial joule heater kick this apparatus will run standalone, drawing its energy from the ambient air (cooling it so ventilation will be needed, by say a 10W fan), and providing nearly 200W continuous excess heat to the hot water reservoir? Does it make more sense now? ;-) -- Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 1:30 AM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis) Oh I remember now, Jones doesn't get my posts for some reason. But surely others got them? Robin? Anyone? Or wait, did they... did YOU send the two posts back to me only Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis) I can't believe they let my post through, I KNEW it was a good idea to post it during a total lunar eclipse! As many as possible of you guys please let me know if you received it too, let they know the free energy revolution is on the march! Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:13 AM Subject: [Vo]: Loop closed? (was Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis) Jones, your musings prompted the following idea here: 1/ There exist well known mechanical-to-heat converters with a COP3, namely heat pumps used for heating purposes sucking the heat from ambient air: you get 3 to 4 times more heat out than the energy you have put in (probably much more since the figure I am quoting includes the sub-unity electrical-to-mechanical conversion efficiency of the heat pump's electric motor, of which we would have no
[Vo]: H2O2 Stability
This is right up the Jones alley :-) Jones; you mention in the last post H2O2 again and I know that is your preferred fuel? :-) Is there, I have looked, a commercial method to produce peroxide via a water electrolysis cell? What I see is that it is for the most part mass produced by reaction? Because of the unstable nature of H2O2 does not the yield have to be very high in a water cell in order to gain a significant amount? Just wondering as I have had great difficulty in the detection of the product in a cell even though I know that it is being produced during the reaction chain. I guess I am doing something wrong in looking for it, but I consider it to be a virtual product, its there and then its gone.
[Vo]: Re: Loop closed?
-Original Message- From: Michel Jullian Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), For whatever, I still do not get Vo mail authored by Michel Julian and a few other refular posters, so I hope that I am referring to the correct postter here. [side note: no MIB - this all goes back to adding the Vo to the subject line] OK Michel - if we are going to invent straw men to immolate, let's at least dress them in reality-clothes. This Stirling of yours must be alien technology ??) ... the one you mention as 40% efficient : LOL... whoa! is that some kind of silver-plated joke? Your heated water reservoir is at a kelvin temperature of little more than 400, giving a Carnot spread of only 100 degrees. OK... 102 degrees if the electrolyte is cooled by 2 degrees K due to electrolysis. Given the normal losses inherent in a Stitrling, this works out to efficiency= 15 % conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 150 W mechanical out In other words, the starting premise is so incorrect in reality, as to slant the whole argument - but curiously I will say this - if anyone can provide me with a Stirling engine which does, in fact, have a Carnot efficiency = 40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 150 W mechanical out when operating on 400 degree K heat, then: ... Yes! I will absolutely guarantee you a self-powered system can be based on such as system !! Jones
Re: [Vo]: To Paul Lowrance
Nick Palmer wrote: Steven A Lawrence wrote:- Actually we're supposed to exercise a bit of restraint on this list and not shoot too many holes in theories even if they look like easy targets. At least, that's my understanding of the Vortex rules -- it's supposed to be a safe place to air ideas which are not fully baked, and criticism is supposed to be constructive, if possible, rather than destructive Yes, I was (reacting to provocation) rude too. I apologise to Paul. I'll still be very surprised if he ever fully bakes his idea... Hi Nick, No problem and I apologize if I was too candor. It's just the way I am. If I say fuzzy logic then I don't mean it as a hand slap. If I say something like It takes intelligent people to capture energy from ambient temperature then I was not suggesting you are unintelligent. Hopefully people now understand my blunt personality. If I find the need to call any particular person unintelligent then I won't hesitate. Now that people know me a little better I hope we can all get along. It seems there are still two people who aren't talking to me. This seems like high school revisited. thomas malloy wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong Paul, but you seem to believe that it is possible to reverse the 2nd Law with an electromagnetic machine. Nobody would be happier than me if yo were to demonstrate such a dingus. OTOH, many people have claimed to have done so, but AFAIK, no one has. You may have noticed my criticisms of several characters who have made their appearance on the FE stage. They include; The Russian Science Fiction Author, Alexander Frolov, The Vaporware Merchant, Peter Linderman, The Inventor Joseph Newman, The Doctor Tom Bearden. These people have been selling their information for years, but AFAIK, they have yet to demonstrate a working machine. These people are particularly aggravating to me because they are IMHO, selling trash. This critique does not apply to Chukanov, any researcher into controlled fission or fusion, and Mills, who seems to be producing excess energy, and whose explanations have a basis in sensible physical theory. Hi Thomas, I can't answer for those people, but from the start of my research I've posted on many forums and displayed an opening message on my peswiki page, This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this project and research. I would not sell anything related to free energy until after I've *freely* published all detailed build instructions. First priority is to give the world free energy. If and only then will I *consider* starting a company to design and sell *improved* free energy devices, but I will always allow people to make their own device. Furthermore, if such a smoking gun arrives then I would encourage people or corporations to freely produce the initial free energy designs for those people who cannot make such a device. I can show you proof that it's possible to capture energy from ambient temperature. I'll post this information in a new thread titled Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: H2O2 Stability
Ron, Because of the unstable nature of H2O2 does not the yield have to be very high in a water cell in order to gain a significant amount? I have been getting some flak from associates for posting too much detail on this already. Our process is intended to go into the public domain soon - but only after an official entry has been made for the various prizes which are now being offered, or mentioned. One major prize is still in Congress, awaiting passage. This is a rather large incentive to keep the details under wraps for a while. A public domain release should be within a year IF we are able to perfect the system. It is designed for home, not factory, implementation, and must be robust without much maintenance. Actually there are many (too many) overlapping patents on this technology already, some from major players (with large legal staffs)and all we have done so-far is to pick-and-choose what technology to incorporate into an overall system or package that allows HOOH to be produced cheaply. It is not OU, but it is cheap. Those guys can fight out the industrial implementations in court - but what we need is a home system that anyone with mechanical skills (not the typical soccer-mom) can benefit from. BTW the best use for an automotive fuel is in conjunction with a separate ultra high efficiency electrolysis system - because that system can provide a source of pure oxygen as a side effect if it does not produce the HOOH itself. I will repeat some general details that I have already said publicly: yes, you are absolutely correct that the rate of formation, although almost instantaneous is of LOW concentration in the cell, because the best catalyst is two-way meaning that once a low equilibrium concentration has been reached, the system works against you so to speak - destroying the benefits. The trick is to use a continuous recycling or refluxing system to remove the product at slightly below equilibrium level - and then to enrich it immediately in an adjoining cascade. The second trick is to rejuvenate the catalyst cheaply (but that is easy to do). The major technical difficulty goes back to the issue of an appropriate separation membrane, and even that alone is not enough to enrich, as components are infinitely miscible. One needs to exploit several physical differences between HOH and HOOH to concentrate the product efficiently to the MGP level (45% HOOH) which is safe to store yet still robust as a monopropellant, especially when expanded with a little H2 pilot. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed?
oops... sorry for all the typos. My technical editor doesn't work on the weekends g In other words, the starting premise is so incorrect in reality, as to slant the whole argument - but curiously I will say this - if anyone can provide me with a Stirling engine which does, in fact, have a Carnot efficiency = 40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 150 W mechanical out when operating on 400 degree K heat, then: Of course this should read say 1000W heat in, 400 W mechanical out ... Yes! I will absolutely guarantee you a self-powered system Jones
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity here. Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is generally considered to be the seminal paper on SR was On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it covers a great deal more than the mass/energy equivalence -- in fact, it's a complete derivation of special relativity, couched in terms of Euclidean space with the Lorentz transforms written algebraically. There, you said it yourself, they are Lorentz transformations, not Einstein transformations. Lorentz developed a set of equations to explain Aether drift in a fluid Aether according to the non-null Michelson-Morley data. Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's work by writing a paper utilizing the transformation equations and not giving proper credit. Nevertheless, if you want to claim the Lorentz transformations part of Special Relativity theory, then that is a demon you have to deal with personally. I'm not going to go there as I do not question the validity of Lorentz's work, nor do I attribute Lorentz's work to Einstein. The only original contribution of Albert Einstein to Special Relativity theory is his equivalence of mass and energy, hence the celebrated equation, E=mc^2. In order to equate energy with mass, the rules of algebra had to be modified specially for Albert Einstein. I suppose this is why it is called Special Relativity theory. Einstein's equation is not an equation at all, it is a formula. Thus E and m are just empty variables, which could just as easily be x and y. There are two completely unrelated processes of logic used to befuddle physics students into believing E=mc^2 is an equation. First, it is pointed out that dimensionally E=mv^2 is a true equation, which it is for any one system of units. Then an unrelated bit of logic is applied saying that the maximum velocity of any object is the speed of light. So v in the dimensional equation is arbitrarily assigned the value of c, which breaks the rules of equality governing the dimensional equation (one side of the equation cannot be changed, without changing the other). But nobody seems to care about this sloppiness. To further muddy the waters, E is shown equal to m if c is arbitrarily assigned the value of 1. Once again, only one side of the equation is being changed, which violates the equality of the equation. The fact is, for any equation all variables must be in the same units. You cannot arbitrarily decide to multiply feet times kilograms without converting one of the units to the other system. Also, if E is equal to mc^2, then the following logic is true: E=mc^2 mc^2=mc^2 for c=1; m=m There is no equivalence of mass and energy, except if you make special provisions for breaking the rules of algebra. Since E=mc^2 is not a true equality, then every equation and theory based upon using E=mc^2 as an equality is falsified. Einstein's house of cards falls because the foundation was false. It may turn out that useful numbers were squeezed out of Einstein's work, but it was just a fancy card trick. Its usefulness is limited to a very few special situations, which explains why SR and QM cannot predict the same outcomes. Further, with regard to SR, if we use the equation as it is given, then the energy of a photon should be zero, because it has zero mass (unless you try to fix the problem by inventing a new kind of thought mass). Another big problem with the equivalence of mass and energy is that one is said to convert to the other in the case of nuclear mass deficit. The missing mass is said to have been converted to energy. But the equation shows that as mass decreases, the energy should also decrease. It is impossible that the same equation that equates mass and energy could predict that mass could be converted into energy, or that energy could be converted into mass. You can't have it both ways. Now I have just presented you with rock solid fatal flaws in Einstein's mass/energy equivalence theory. There was no equation to begin with, and even when the so-called E=mc^2 equation is used to explain mass deficit, it predicts the opposite of what we are told. No amount of logic in the later applications of Special Relativity can fix the fact that the foundation is non-existent. Now either you will completely ignore what I have said and start spewing all kinds of evidence in favor of SR, or you will do something that few others do and admit that I'm right. I suspect you will do the former. And if you choose to believe in SR, then the discussion has degraded from one of science to one of religion and I will not violate your right to freedom of religion. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
What happens when you begin to use the hot water? Harry Stiffler Scientific wrote: You enjoy the MIB part don't you? In all reality I don't believe they pay any attention to some one making claims unless there is a device or their expert University advisors get nervous. For the most part they sit back drink coffee and Red Bull, each donuts and get a big chuckle from all the fools. But, if you are headed to the local Flea Market to begin selling devices or have a semi loaded and headed to the Ace Hardware, I feel comfortable in the belief you will be contacted. SO enough of that, they are for sure rolling on the floor in cackles again. Your idea looks good at first blush, but not being my field I have nothing to offer in aid, yeah or nay. As concerns standard electrolysis in water I have a bit of knowledge and that says that Heat is more of a detriment than advantage. The whole object of trying to stay below the thermo-neutral voltage level is to not internally create heat. I have yet to realize where getting all those little molecules agitated has a benefit. Now for Heat in the classic cell it is assumed that we can pull ~49kJ from the environment with the remaining 281kJ coming from our electrical input. This in itself looks good in that there could be a practical approach to using that cooling, but it don't hold for long and is far to slow for practical usage. So what does that say about Heat, in my work keep it away, the cooler the cell the better (no not cold, or below ambient). Pressure within the cell must be factored in, the 3.7kJ used to expand the gas can be increased by increasing the internal pressure. What may seem off the wall to some that have not tried it, is the placement of electrodes just under the surface of the electrolyte. Enough of that, I hope some one will comment on your idea as I have seen Heat Pumps easily fun at COP=9 and if I remember my reading can go to COP=12 (theory). If that is the case then maybe you have just not accounted for all of the loss that will take place. Indeed for Texas (most of it) a m2 of blackened copper collector can get you some real hot water. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical embodiment: Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), and through an appropriate quasi-lossless gearbox replaces the electric motor powering the compressor of an average performance house heating type heat pump (COP=3 conservatively), which therefore pumps 400W*3=1200W of heat from the ambient air to the hot water reservoir. 1000W out, 1200W in, surely there can be no doubt that after the initial joule heater kick this apparatus will run standalone, drawing its energy from the ambient air (cooling it so ventilation will be needed, by say a 10W fan), and providing nearly 200W continuous excess heat to the hot water reservoir? Does it make more sense now? ;-) -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: To Paul Lowrance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can show you proof that it's possible to capture energy from ambient temperature. I'll post this information in a new thread titled Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy. You know how to get ice cubes to melt at room temperature?! Harry
[Vo]: Free Energy NOW!!
Jed will appreciate the new Steve Jones warm fusion invention. http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Steven_E._Jones_Solar_Funnel_for_Cooking Hey - it IS fusion powered, no?
Re: [Vo]: Hysteria over Window Motor
On 2/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One in this industry cannot help think this is a fraud. Let's hope it's the smoking gun. Unfortunately, it turns out that Mike hid a battery in his SSR. Busted! Terry
[Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Hi, This email will describe the simplest (as far as I know) method of capturing and storing ambient temperature energy. Hopefully those wanting to reply could first read the entire email since I'll address various possible questions later in this email. I was hoping at least someone would have answered my previously posted question to nail down their stance if they believe it's possible to capture and store energy taken from ambient temperature. Since nobody posted his or her stance I'll just go ahead and post the proof. This could be a fun ride, as debating experience shows most people won't be nailed, which allows them to weasel out of any situation, which is probably one reason there are so many formulations of the 2nd law. There's a well-taken 2nd law quote in the physics community by physicist P.W. Bridgman, There are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it. Personally it's not my present goal or interest to focus on the 2nd law. Truthfully, there are too many 2nd law formulations, as one physicist may adhere to a stricter interpretation than another. My only assertion is that energy can be captured from ambient temperature, and here is how. Here is a clear-cut method to demonstrate the assertion. Using a low noise high gain amp and oscilloscope view a resistors thermal noise. This is an extremely simple task. I would be more than happy to provide anyone legitimately interested individual with a simple circuits to view such noise. You will see the thermal noise voltage fluctuating in a random unpredictable fashion. Guess what, you are witnessing a direct conversion from ambient temperature energy to battery storage. A capacitor stores energy in the form of electric potential. So where's the capacitor you ask. All measuring devices from common amps to oscilloscopes have input capacitance. If you want more capacitance than simply place a small capacitor across the resistor. You will still see the thermal noise voltage, but the average rms voltage amplitude will decrease. There's now a total of 4 pF if your amp has 2 pF input and you add a 2pF across the resistor. Lets say at a given moment you see 10 mV across the capacitor. At that moment you could unplug the capacitor to claim your energy. LOL, indeed it's a small amount of energy, but it is true that you actually captured energy from ambient temperature. If you want more energy then simply make more devices. Please note I am not stating this is your smoking gun! This is ***MERELY*** to demonstrate the possibility, to let people know it is indeed possible!! If you have the money and technology such as IBM then it's possible to make trillions of such devices in a small area. One device could be a nanometer. One hundred trillion 2 pF capacitors at 10 mV each contains 10 mJ's of energy. If memory holds true, the human eye in complete darkness can see a flash of red focused light of less than 1 nJ. One 780 nm red light photon contains just 2.5E-19 J's! Ten mJ's may not sound like much, but it merely demonstrates that you can capture energy from ambient temperature. This is not the best method of capturing ambient temperature energy, but again it merely proves the assertion. Again, in the nutshell, a resistor generates thermal voltage noise. All measuring devices from common amps to oscilloscopes to multimeters always have a certain amount of capacitance. When you measured that thermal noise voltage that capacitor in the measuring device is charged to that value. You can also add your own capacitor across the resistor. Your capacitor would be completely discharged before you add it, but at any given moment once the capacitor is connected to the resistor their will be a certain charged voltage on the capacitor. At any given moment you could unplug the capacitor to retain such energy. You could perform the same experiment with an inductor since all measuring devices have inductance. What you do with such energy is your choice. One hundred 2 pF capacitors charged to 10 mV is very usable. That's equal to a 200 farad capacitor charged to 10 mV. You could discharge the cap energy to an inductor followed by a quick field collapse to generate appreciable amount of voltage across a smaller cap. Or you could place a percentage of the caps in series to increase the voltage, etc. etc. Skeptics may wonder just how much energy is required to unplug the capacitor. There is no theoretical limit. How much energy does it require to move a nanometer filament a fraction of a nanometer? History demonstrates that the amount of energy required from an electrical switch has drastically decreased. Consider the FET, which on average has roughly 1E+12 ohms DC resistance. Sure, the FET has capacitance, but that in itself is stored energy. This is akin to how much energy is require to stop an object. One might think it requires a lot pressure
[Vo]: Oil and Wind Mix
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/02/two_oil_giants_plunge_into_the_wind_business/ http://snipurl.com/1bzxu Two oil giants plunge into the wind business By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | March 2, 2007 WASHINGTON -- Two of the world's leading oil producers have almost overnight joined some of the biggest players in wind power in the United States, accelerating a trend of large corporations investing in the rapidly growing alternative-energy field. As global warming and clean fuels have gained more attention, Shell Oil Co. and BP have accumulated impressive credentials. Shell is one of the nation's top five generators of wind power, while BP's Alternative Energy group -- launched 16 months ago -- aims to develop projects that produce 550 megawatts of electricity this year, one-sixth of the projected US wind energy output in 2007. more
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Lets consider photovoltaic cells. Even at room temperature in complete darkness (no solar) there are visible light photons striking the cell. I calculate a 10 cm x 10 cm common solar cell would generate roughly 1E-30 volts. Not much voltage, lol, but still something nonetheless. Well Paul, you might find that you can accentuate that small effect by many orders of magnitude if you can get hold of a large parabolic mirror. These can be specialty coated for IR. Once again, it defies common sense, but such a mirror will focus and amplify ambient IR photons. Even in darkness. Although this is very inefficient, due to the long wavelength of this spectrum - it does happen and in IR astronomy, for instance, they can get many orders of magnitude amplification. Get hold-of an IR spectrum photonic cell and also an IR (coated) parabolic mirror and you can make you own demo of this - and make it a little more meaningful than ^-30 ... geeze - you need to get it up to where an affordable voltmeter will show something. Jones
Re: [Vo]: To Paul Lowrance
Philip Winestone wrote: A quick question: We all seem to be fixated on excess energy. What if one of the many innovative (or potentially innovative) ideas were to result in an engine (a fairly simple engine) of some sort that ***didn't*** produce excess energy, but did have an overall efficiency of, say, three times that of the most efficient internal combustion engine? Wouldn't that be worth pursuing from a practical standpoint? Absolutely, I have an engineer friend who says that he can do just that by injecting water. However, water or steam densification of the charge going into an ICE has been exhaustively studied. The efficiency does increase, but it's no where doubled, let alone 300%. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Jones Beene wrote: Lets consider photovoltaic cells. Even at room temperature in complete darkness (no solar) there are visible light photons striking the cell. I calculate a 10 cm x 10 cm common solar cell would generate roughly 1E-30 volts. Not much voltage, lol, but still something nonetheless. Well Paul, you might find that you can accentuate that small effect by many orders of magnitude if you can get hold of a large parabolic mirror. These can be specialty coated for IR. Once again, it defies common sense, but such a mirror will focus and amplify ambient IR photons. Even in darkness. Although this is very inefficient, due to the long wavelength of this spectrum - it does happen and in IR astronomy, for instance, they can get many orders of magnitude amplification. That's a good idea. Last year I spent a little time writing such a simulation program just to prove it to myself. The results agreed with what you say; i.e., you can focus blackbody radiation. Last year a gentlemen with connections to Nasa said a group inside Nasa not only knows about this parabolic effect, but built such equipment. Another person at overunity.com posted successful experiments of focusing such room temperature black body radiation, which resulted in above temperature. IMHO it's just silly to think we cannot extract energy from moving mass. Electrons traveling at ~1/200 c at room temp. As you agree, it is possible. Any cap connected to a resistor demonstrates this. Get hold-of an IR spectrum photonic cell and also an IR (coated) parabolic mirror and you can make you own demo of this - and make it a little more meaningful than ^-30 ... geeze - you need to get it up to where an affordable voltmeter will show something. Yes, lol, that's true, but the 1e-30 volts was another example of common visible light spectrum photovoltaic cell absorbing visible light black body radiation. The main example of my post was the capacitor and resistor example, which charges to *measurable* voltages levels. Although the aforementioned examples have very little to do with my main research, which is MCE (magnetocaloric effect), as the goal of such MCE research aims to generate kilowatts of power from a common silicon iron transformer. Don't get me wrong. I think such LED research or even Charles Brown's research is great! I'm just more interested in a device that anyone could build that for say a few hundred dollars that could generate kilowatts of continuous power in complete darkness. Regards, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]: Re: Loop closed?
Harry Veeder wrote: What happens when you begin to use the hot water? Harry It may be of interest to the proponents of heat pumps to hear of my experience of using a system in my 1st house in 1956! The system was built by Ferranti - a major electrical manufacturer in England - marketed as the Ferranti fridge-heater. I had our house designed around this system with a heavily insulated walk-in cold room which also housed the heat exchanger and compressor. The idea was to circulate the water, which was heated by the reversed refrigerator extracting the heat content of the items stored in the insulated room, through the indirect heating coil in the hot water storage tank. The theory was that in warm weather the cooling of the food storage room supplied enough heat to keep the domestic hot water tank at a predetermined temp. and maintain the temp of the food etc. at a safe level. In cold weather the Ferranti Engineers expected the process to continue with the food store simply getting colder in order to maintain the hot water at the set level. Needless to say they were wrong. What actually happened was that in warm weather the storage tank water rapidly reached the max. temp for safe domestic use, which cut out the compressor in the cold room, and the heat from outside warmed the food until hot water was drawn off in sufficient quantity to re-start the compressor. After a year of useless work by Ferranti and several replacement heat-pump units, the company withdrew the product from the market. I then installed a traditional gas-fired boiler for the hot water and a standard fridge in the cold room! The lesson here as I see it is to forget trying to balance out the hot/cold heat flows with a simple thermostat set-up, and rely on the inherent COP of heat pumps utilising a large enough source of heat to remove any possibility of imbalance. Norman Horwood
Re: [Vo]: Hysteria over Window Motor
I should point out that it is John Bendini's lab that demonstrated how the battery might have been used. Noone can reach Mike to verify he was hoaxing the motor. Terry On 3/4/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One in this industry cannot help think this is a fraud. Let's hope it's the smoking gun. Unfortunately, it turns out that Mike hid a battery in his SSR. Busted! Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed?
norman horwood wrote: The lesson here as I see it is to forget trying to balance out the hot/cold heat flows with a simple thermostat set-up, and rely on the inherent COP of heat pumps utilising a large enough source of heat to remove any possibility of imbalance. Ha! ... but had they only known about the miracle Stirling engine, the one which is supposedly 40% efficient with that kind of heat, then they could have diverted the hot water flow in the summer months to the Stirling, and used the power generated from it to offset the normal grid power bill... Sounds silly, and the devil is in the details, but if it were reliable, that kind of thing would definitely have a market in the USA. As Fred Sparber sez: most farmers will spend a dollar to save a dime but then again, he was referring mainly to Pennsylvania Amish farmers. But Brits can probably substitute pound and pence in there and get the same sentiment for the thrifty Scottish farmer, no? Jones
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was hoping at least someone would have answered my previously posted question to nail down their stance if they believe it's possible to capture and store energy taken from ambient temperature. Since nobody posted his or her stance I'll just go ahead and post the proof. This could be a fun ride, as debating experience shows most people won't be nailed, which allows them to weasel out of any situation, which is probably one reason there are so many formulations of the 2nd law. Nailing down someone's stance is not an effective means of persuasion unless someone's stance will lead them to commit a grave mistake which can't be undone. Harry
[Vo]: RE: H2O2 Stability
Jones; That more or less answers what I was looking for, I guess the concentrations are so low and the species does not exist long enough that an Iodide Test offers great enough sensitivity? One last question, at what point in your process are you able to detect the product, right after separation or after multiple steps of enhancement and are you assuming existence or what is the measurement methodology?
Re: [Vo]: H2O2 Stability
Ron, The starch iodide strip will work, but the problem is that colloid is itself so dark in color it distorts the apparent concentration. IOW it would would stain the strip even if there was nothing there but greener rather than bluer, so that it gives the impression of a higher concentration than is present. Since little colloid stays in the reactor and the first cascade stage is nearly clear again(by design) that is where we test. A three level continuous cascade is the goal, not yet achieved. We are still doing batches for reasons of cost. The end concentration can be closely estimated by density alone. Stiffler Scientific wrote: Jones; That more or less answers what I was looking for, I guess the concentrations are so low and the species does not exist long enough that an Iodide Test offers great enough sensitivity? One last question, at what point in your process are you able to detect the product, right after separation or after multiple steps of enhancement and are you assuming existence or what is the measurement methodology?
Re: [Vo]: H2O2 Stability
Meant to say all the colloid stays in the reactor Since little colloid stays in the reactor
[Vo]: Re: Loop closed?
Jones wrote Ha! ... but had they only known about the miracle Stirling engine, the one which is supposedly 40% efficient with that kind of heat, then they could have diverted the hot water flow in the summer months to the Stirling, and used the power generated from it to offset the normal grid power bill... Sounds silly, and the devil is in the details, but if it were reliable, that kind of thing would definitely have a market in the USA. Good point, but we are talking about the stone age here -1956 !! Anyway I'm not sure what would be the minimum back-feed to the grid required to support the expense of the control switchgear. I also forgot to mention another idiosyncrasy of this lousy system, namely that in winter the heat exchanger in the cold room became totally blocked with snow from condensed water vapour, reducing to zero any heat transfer! The Ferranti boys were too clever by half. Not long after this product failure the Ferranti group went belly-up, although they were partners with Bristol Aeroplane Co. in developing the very successful ramjet powered Bloodhound SAM (on which I had been working for the previous several years!!). Norman.
Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
When you begin to use the heat from the hot reservoir (launch the Sterling) it would tend to cool down from the thermal watts you draw from it, but since simultaneously you pour more thermal watts into it than you draw from it it heats up instead, with the extra heat coming from ambient air. Jones may be right 40% may be overestimated for the Sterling's efficiency, let's use his figure 15% instead, but Ron may also be right that I grossly underestimated the heat pump COP. If indeed heat pumps can easily run at COP=9, the overall COP would be: 0.15*9=1.35 which would be even more overunity. 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 Anything wrong with this Jones? ;-) (someone read by Jones please answer this post so he gets it, thanks) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) What happens when you begin to use the hot water? Harry Stiffler Scientific wrote: ... Enough of that, I hope some one will comment on your idea as I have seen Heat Pumps easily fun at COP=9 and if I remember my reading can go to COP=12 (theory). If that is the case then maybe you have just not accounted for all of the loss that will take place. Indeed for Texas (most of it) a m2 of blackened copper collector can get you some real hot water. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical embodiment: Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), and through an appropriate quasi-lossless gearbox replaces the electric motor powering the compressor of an average performance house heating type heat pump (COP=3 conservatively), which therefore pumps 400W*3=1200W of heat from the ambient air to the hot water reservoir. 1000W out, 1200W in, surely there can be no doubt that after the initial joule heater kick this apparatus will run standalone, drawing its energy from the ambient air (cooling it so ventilation will be needed, by say a 10W fan), and providing nearly 200W continuous excess heat to the hot water reservoir? Does it make more sense now? ;-) -- Michel
[Vo]: the Aether
I forwarded the email below, along with this comment to Hal Puthoff, who is interested in reading what David Thomsom or Steven has published on the Aether. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email raises some good questions about the Aether. Richard Hoagland of Enterprise Mission talks about Hyperdimensional Physics, the excess energy emitted by Jupiter and Saturn is coming from another dimension. , David Thomson wrote: Hi Stephen, On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General Relativity. Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general relativity in the absence of mass (flat background space). Say what?? GR was derived completely independent of SR. The link to SR was added later. The original SR paper aimed to show the equivalence of mass and energy. Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is generally considered to be the seminal paper on SR was On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it covers a great deal more than the mass/energy equivalence -- in fact, it's a complete derivation of special relativity, couched in terms of Euclidean space with the Lorentz transforms written algebraically. As far as I can see, there is one mistake in the paper, in the deriva --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Hysteria over Window Motor
i cant get the video to play. how long does he discharge? electrolytic caps have a discharge cycle, if its a quick flash, theres still some juice in there. On 2/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 2/17/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time will tell. But unlike the Steorn shenanigans and carefully inflicted drama, this time we will likely have a pretty good answer by next week. It looks like a Bendini variant. Reading the thread, the experimenter admits that the motor stops eventually when he removes the power. Mike's device runs on its ***OWN*** power. Mike has stated many times the motor runs until he deliberately stops the motor, which is usually several hours. One time Mike left the motor running over night to awaken to a broken motor. That 47,000 uF cap will keep it going for quite a while. If you would look at the video you would see Mike discharges the cap, gives a slight twist on the motor to get it going. You can clearly see the motor continues to accelerate significantly faster after Mike lets go. This is clearly the Smoking Gun ***UNLESS*** Mike is being deceitful. Only time will tell which is the case. Paul -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Hysteria over Window Motor
For several seconds On 3/5/07, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i cant get the video to play. how long does he discharge? electrolytic caps have a discharge cycle, if its a quick flash, theres still some juice in there. On 2/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 2/17/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time will tell. But unlike the Steorn shenanigans and carefully inflicted drama, this time we will likely have a pretty good answer by next week. It looks like a Bendini variant. Reading the thread, the experimenter admits that the motor stops eventually when he removes the power. Mike's device runs on its ***OWN*** power. Mike has stated many times the motor runs until he deliberately stops the motor, which is usually several hours. One time Mike left the motor running over night to awaken to a broken motor. That 47,000 uF cap will keep it going for quite a while. If you would look at the video you would see Mike discharges the cap, gives a slight twist on the motor to get it going. You can clearly see the motor continues to accelerate significantly faster after Mike lets go. This is clearly the Smoking Gun ***UNLESS*** Mike is being deceitful. Only time will tell which is the case. Paul -- That which yields isn't always weak.
[Vo]: Diode array 070304
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 internal electrons move from the cathode to the anode. A rectified residue of Johnson noise power will be aggregated on the buss sheets that merges the outputs of all the consistently aligned diodes, The anodes connected to one buss and the cathodes connected to a second buss. Aggregated D.C. power can be tapped from the busses while an equivalent amount of ambient thermal energy is absorbed. Last I heard, Paul agrees with this design. IIRC Jones Beene rejects it without comment, and I agree with Paul's further deductions that a resistor / LED array would convert ambient heat into light and Paul's other approach that a ambient IR photocell would convert ambient heat into D.C. electrical power where an extensive cathode would be the negative terminal. I believe that the diode array is the most practical method. I do not believe that lenses or mirrors will concentrate ambient IR. I applied for Branson's prize without spelling out that the way to use apply diode arrays to CO2 reduction would be to use diode arrays as air conditioners in tropical climates and use the resultant electrical power to decompose CO2; I mentioned that air conditioners would yield electrical power but I neglected to immediately tie this attribute to CO2 decomposition. I mailed my narritive in early Feb and have not received an aknowlegement or reply. Aloha, Charlie
RE: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
For some simple examples of man on the street units, take a loog at the following. http://tristate.apogee.net/et/evthcop.asp http://www.heatpumpcentre.org/About_heat_pumps/HP_performance.asp http://tva.apogee.net/res/rehcop.asp -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 4:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) When you begin to use the heat from the hot reservoir (launch the Sterling) it would tend to cool down from the thermal watts you draw from it, but since simultaneously you pour more thermal watts into it than you draw from it it heats up instead, with the extra heat coming from ambient air. Jones may be right 40% may be overestimated for the Sterling's efficiency, let's use his figure 15% instead, but Ron may also be right that I grossly underestimated the heat pump COP. If indeed heat pumps can easily run at COP=9, the overall COP would be: 0.15*9=1.35 which would be even more overunity. 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 Anything wrong with this Jones? ;-) (someone read by Jones please answer this post so he gets it, thanks) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) What happens when you begin to use the hot water? Harry Stiffler Scientific wrote: ... Enough of that, I hope some one will comment on your idea as I have seen Heat Pumps easily fun at COP=9 and if I remember my reading can go to COP=12 (theory). If that is the case then maybe you have just not accounted for all of the loss that will take place. Indeed for Texas (most of it) a m2 of blackened copper collector can get you some real hot water. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical embodiment: Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), and through an appropriate quasi-lossless gearbox replaces the electric motor powering the compressor of an average performance house heating type heat pump (COP=3 conservatively), which therefore pumps 400W*3=1200W of heat from the ambient air to the hot water reservoir. 1000W out, 1200W in, surely there can be no doubt that after the initial joule heater kick this apparatus will run standalone, drawing its energy from the ambient air (cooling it so ventilation will be needed, by say a 10W fan), and providing nearly 200W continuous excess heat to the hot water reservoir? Does it make more sense now? ;-) -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
I mean besides keeping the same water warm. e.g. what happens when you begin to use the hot water for washing? Harry Michel Jullian wrote: When you begin to use the heat from the hot reservoir (launch the Sterling) it would tend to cool down from the thermal watts you draw from it, but since simultaneously you pour more thermal watts into it than you draw from it it heats up instead, with the extra heat coming from ambient air. Jones may be right 40% may be overestimated for the Sterling's efficiency, let's use his figure 15% instead, but Ron may also be right that I grossly underestimated the heat pump COP. If indeed heat pumps can easily run at COP=9, the overall COP would be: 0.15*9=1.35 which would be even more overunity. 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 Anything wrong with this Jones? ;-) (someone read by Jones please answer this post so he gets it, thanks) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) What happens when you begin to use the hot water? Harry Stiffler Scientific wrote: ... Enough of that, I hope some one will comment on your idea as I have seen Heat Pumps easily fun at COP=9 and if I remember my reading can go to COP=12 (theory). If that is the case then maybe you have just not accounted for all of the loss that will take place. Indeed for Texas (most of it) a m2 of blackened copper collector can get you some real hot water. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical embodiment: Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), and through an appropriate quasi-lossless gearbox replaces the electric motor powering the compressor of an average performance house heating type heat pump (COP=3 conservatively), which therefore pumps 400W*3=1200W of heat from the ambient air to the hot water reservoir. 1000W out, 1200W in, surely there can be no doubt that after the initial joule heater kick this apparatus will run standalone, drawing its energy from the ambient air (cooling it so ventilation will be needed, by say a 10W fan), and providing nearly 200W continuous excess heat to the hot water reservoir? Does it make more sense now? ;-) -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
John Berry wrote: On 3/4/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I just used the metric to find the proper distances.) I think we can stick to thought experiments and dump equations. If you think you can understand the gedanken experiments without using equations, you are deluding yourself. If you think you can understand relativity without understanding and applying the mathematics on which it's based, you're deluding yourself. Throughout, you ignore the math and just assert things are bunk to prove them wrong. It's pointless to attempt to explain anything to you as long as you refuse to address the mathematics, and just use intuition and guesswork to prove things. You said, regarding relativity: I spent years learning it I find that very hard to believe, since you don't appear to have understood even the extremely basic concept of relativity of simultaneity, but instead just assert it is bunk. If you care to address the math -- and try actually _working_ _out_ some of the answers to the questions you raise, rather than just asserting that they can't be answered in SR because it's illogical -- we can continue the conversation. Otherwise it's pointless.
Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
David Thomson wrote: Hi Stephen, I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity here. Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is generally considered to be the seminal paper on SR was On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it covers a great deal more than the mass/energy equivalence -- in fact, it's a complete derivation of special relativity, couched in terms of Euclidean space with the Lorentz transforms written algebraically. There, you said it yourself, they are Lorentz transformations, not Einstein transformations. Of course. The first thing named after Einstein in the whole rigmarole of relativity, AFAIK, is the Einstein tensor. (There's also Einstein's summation notation, which is very useful, but it's more akin to a gadget than an insight.) He built on a structure which was almost complete already; many mathematicians and physicists actually contributed to the formation of relativity. I'm no historian of science, but what Einstein appears to have contributed to SR is the insight to realize that the math could be made to stand on its own, without a hypothetical ether. Furthermore, as far as I know, the final formulation of Lorentz's ether theory, which produces the same mechanics as Einstein's relativity, was not made until after 1905. But I may be wrong about that. In any case, as far as I know, the first complete presentation of SR in print, anywhere, was Einstein's 1905 electrodynamics paper. Lorentz had derived the transformations -- or at least _one_ of the two; I'm not sure he had the time transformation as well as the space transformation -- but if he had published a coherent theory integrating them I'm not aware of it. If you're aware of a paper by him which covers this, and which predates 1905, I'd be interested in it. Einstein's contribution to GR appears to have been the realization that Riemannian geometry could be applied to the problem of gravity, along with a general notion of how to proceed. As I'm sure you're aware Einstein wasn't the first to derive the Einstein field equations. If I recall the story right, after hearing a lecture by Einstein, Hilbert was inspired to work on the problem and actually cracked it slightly before Einstein. But AFAIK Hilbert never objected to Einstein getting the credit, as it was his intuition which led to the path Hilbert followed. Lorentz developed a set of equations to explain Aether drift in a fluid Aether according to the non-null Michelson-Morley data. Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's work by writing a paper utilizing the transformation equations and not giving proper credit. Oh, he didn't give him credit - I see. That's why he calls the transformations Lorentz transformations, to hide the source. Get real. Einstein knew Lorentz wrote them first and never denied it. Einstein's derivation was original, but he never claimed the transformations themselves as his own. See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Footnote 5: The equations of the Lorentz transformation... Gosh, he admitted right there, in print, that they were Lorentz's... Nevertheless, if you want to claim the Lorentz transformations part of Special Relativity theory, then that is a demon you have to deal with personally. I'm not going to go there as I do not question the validity of Lorentz's work, nor do I attribute Lorentz's work to Einstein. Do you refuse to use calculus because parts of it were attributed to Newton when Leibnitz should have gotten the credit? Do you even care? If not, why not? Why does it make such a difference to you who got the credit for relativity? The only original contribution of Albert Einstein to Special Relativity theory is his equivalence of mass and energy, hence the celebrated equation, E=mc^2. In order to equate energy with mass, the rules of algebra had to be modified specially for Albert Einstein. Care to explain that? There are no algebraic problems in special relativity, AFAIK. I suppose this is why it is called Special Relativity theory. Do you really not know why it's special relativity? Einstein's equation is not an equation at all, it is a formula. Thus E and m are just empty variables, which could just as easily be x and y. There are two completely unrelated processes of logic used to befuddle physics students into believing OK I guess I see really clearly where you're coming from. E=mc^2 is an equation. First, it is pointed out that dimensionally E=mv^2 is a true equation, which it is for any one system of units. Then an unrelated bit of logic is applied saying that the maximum velocity of any object is the speed of light. So v in the dimensional equation is arbitrarily assigned the value of c, which breaks the rules of equality governing the dimensional equation (one side of the equation cannot be changed, without changing the other). But nobody seems to care about this sloppiness. To
[Vo]: Re: Steorn Public Demonstration
Maybe they haven't raised enough millions from investors yet? :) http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/2007/03/busy-day-in-forums.html Michel - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:31 AM Subject: [Vo]: Steorn Public Demonstration . . . moved to July: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=50211page=1 and they don't know if it will be start/stop or cyclical?!? Terry
