Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo
Do you know anything about electricity? The output duty cycle is 100%. The input duty cycle is somewhat less. If it is too challenging for you, simply divide the instantaneous power out by the instantaneous power in and divide by the input duty cycle. Please do not speak to me again. Your are hereby filtered. Terry On 5/19/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo > Michel, ma belle, > > His input power is 23.52 W/pulse x duty cycle. Duty cycle is 4 pulses > per cycle x 0.028 sec/cycle over 1.5 sec/cycle or 1.76 W. COP = 2.38 Terry my lovely, It's not 1.5 sec/cycle but 1.46 cycle/sec (87.6 rpm), so your computation overestimates the COP by a factor 1.5*1.46. Paul got it right in the caption, with those data the input power comes out as 3.84 W. > These were not the figures he had when we had it optimized. Poor girl > has degraded significantly. Plus, Paul changed the bulb (I told him > to use a resistor) which changed the load. Since bulbs are poor > linear resistors and generators are poor linear sources the numbers > changed. > > Here is the analysis done Oct. 26, 2006: > > "Your data indicates that E.M.I.L.I.E. is driving a load via a > permanent magnet generator with 10.48 V at 0.805 A or 8.44 W (RMS). > > The data also indicates that EMILIE is consuming 4 pulses per cycle at > an average voltage of 19.06 V at 1.78 A or 33.93 W for the duration of > each pulse. The pulse duration is indicated to be 25.39 ms. The > rotation rate is 87 RPM or 1.45 RPS. Thus the RMS power consumed is: > > 33.93 W x (.02539/1.45) = 0.594 W per pulse x 4 pulses per cycle or 2.38 W." Which would indeed make a COP of 8.44/2.38=3.55 (>3 as you claimed) but this is wrong too and for the same reason. Paul should of course have multiplied the energy per rotation by the RPS (1.45) to get the input power, instead he divided by 1.45, overestimating the COP by 1.45^2 this time. Michel > I prefer to work in MKS energy, Paul wanted the calcs done in power. So be it. > > All data is from the storage scope in CSV format . . . not the setup > shown in the vid. I have said data; but, I would need permission to > share it. > > The old girl has been mothballed before she fell apart totally. > There's a new girl in town. :-) > > Terry > > On 5/18/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dear Terry, >> >> You are suggesting the electric power out of the generator is more than 3 times the electric power consumed by the motor. If so, there would indeed remain no serious obstacle to self-powering (which you had already announced as imminent 1 year ago), since converting the output voltage to the input voltage can be done with at least 80% efficiency, which would make the overall loop gain largely overunity: 3*0.8=2.4. >> >> Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case, Paul Sprain says in the caption: >> "The input power is 3.84 watts and the output from the generator underload is 7.81 volts @ .536 mA or 4.18 watts." >> This would make the overall COP closer to 1.1 (4.18/3.84), which obviously would still be a remarkable achievement if confirmed, but might not be enough for self-powering. >> >> A detail: in the caption he has made the same confusion between joules and watts I had pointed out last year: >> "The electro magnet uses 19.6 volts @ 1.2 amps for 28 ms or .658 watts per pulse." (should be joules) >> >> More to the point, I see the EM voltage is the same as last year (about 20V), the pulse duration hasn't changed either (28 ms), how come the current has gone down from 2A (which as you will remember I had estimated underestimated by a factor of 5 to 10 for two independent reasons) to 1.2A? >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo >> >> >> > ...Based on power measurements >> > this configuration had a COP of over 3.0, INCLUDING THE GENERATOR >> > INEFFICIENCY. >> > >> > Terry >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo
- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo > Michel, ma belle, > > His input power is 23.52 W/pulse x duty cycle. Duty cycle is 4 pulses > per cycle x 0.028 sec/cycle over 1.5 sec/cycle or 1.76 W. COP = 2.38 Terry my lovely, It's not 1.5 sec/cycle but 1.46 cycle/sec (87.6 rpm), so your computation overestimates the COP by a factor 1.5*1.46. Paul got it right in the caption, with those data the input power comes out as 3.84 W. > These were not the figures he had when we had it optimized. Poor girl > has degraded significantly. Plus, Paul changed the bulb (I told him > to use a resistor) which changed the load. Since bulbs are poor > linear resistors and generators are poor linear sources the numbers > changed. > > Here is the analysis done Oct. 26, 2006: > > "Your data indicates that E.M.I.L.I.E. is driving a load via a > permanent magnet generator with 10.48 V at 0.805 A or 8.44 W (RMS). > > The data also indicates that EMILIE is consuming 4 pulses per cycle at > an average voltage of 19.06 V at 1.78 A or 33.93 W for the duration of > each pulse. The pulse duration is indicated to be 25.39 ms. The > rotation rate is 87 RPM or 1.45 RPS. Thus the RMS power consumed is: > > 33.93 W x (.02539/1.45) = 0.594 W per pulse x 4 pulses per cycle or 2.38 W." Which would indeed make a COP of 8.44/2.38=3.55 (>3 as you claimed) but this is wrong too and for the same reason. Paul should of course have multiplied the energy per rotation by the RPS (1.45) to get the input power, instead he divided by 1.45, overestimating the COP by 1.45^2 this time. Michel > I prefer to work in MKS energy, Paul wanted the calcs done in power. So be > it. > > All data is from the storage scope in CSV format . . . not the setup > shown in the vid. I have said data; but, I would need permission to > share it. > > The old girl has been mothballed before she fell apart totally. > There's a new girl in town. :-) > > Terry > > On 5/18/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dear Terry, >> >> You are suggesting the electric power out of the generator is more than 3 >> times the electric power consumed by the motor. If so, there would indeed >> remain no serious obstacle to self-powering (which you had already announced >> as imminent 1 year ago), since converting the output voltage to the input >> voltage can be done with at least 80% efficiency, which would make the >> overall loop gain largely overunity: 3*0.8=2.4. >> >> Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case, Paul Sprain says in the >> caption: >> "The input power is 3.84 watts and the output from the generator underload >> is 7.81 volts @ .536 mA or 4.18 watts." >> This would make the overall COP closer to 1.1 (4.18/3.84), which obviously >> would still be a remarkable achievement if confirmed, but might not be >> enough for self-powering. >> >> A detail: in the caption he has made the same confusion between joules and >> watts I had pointed out last year: >> "The electro magnet uses 19.6 volts @ 1.2 amps for 28 ms or .658 watts per >> pulse." (should be joules) >> >> More to the point, I see the EM voltage is the same as last year (about >> 20V), the pulse duration hasn't changed either (28 ms), how come the current >> has gone down from 2A (which as you will remember I had estimated >> underestimated by a factor of 5 to 10 for two independent reasons) to 1.2A? >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo >> >> >> > ...Based on power measurements >> > this configuration had a COP of over 3.0, INCLUDING THE GENERATOR >> > INEFFICIENCY. >> > >> > Terry >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
Michel Jullian wrote: You seem to be running a very nice scam, Joseph :-) You're a great showman in any case, so spectators aren't entirely robbed. Michel - Original Message - From: "JNPCo." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 AM Subject: [Vo]:***VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 5/17/07 A NEW SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IS DEMONSTRATED IN MOBILE, ALABAMA! The video.google.com link below features a new demonstration of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine technology and fulfills the promise made by Joseph Newman in April 2007. The amazing results of this new energy technology as shown in the video speak for themselves! Contact Joe Nolfe at (205) 835-9022 for further details about the energy machine technology. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6157958993884349118&q=joseph+newman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.josephnewman.com It's not a scam but man can that man woffle. All Newman needs is a hair cut and a public relations spacialist with a wip to keep him on topic and people will find he has made a few interesting discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: In all this time wouldn't you expect him to have found out by himself, or at least to have been told by someone, how siphons work? This exchange reminds me of some characters I've come across in my quest for the illusive free energy machine. Several years ago we Vortexians were "treated" to the rants of a man, I called him Mad Jack. He had a box which would run three motors. Jack was looking for an affirmation that his box was producing energy. During the discussion it emerged that it had burned out two utility transformers. Bill finally tired of his rants and banned him. Then there is Dennis, the scam artist, Lee. I can safely label him as such, with no fear of criticism from Bill, because he is a convicted swindler. He's big on demonstrations involving motors too. He was supposed to pay us a visit here in the Twincities a few months ago. Actually it's the "investors" (suckers) in his various enterprises who pay. During the circus with Mad Jack I mentioned the test for energy production proposed by the late Otto Schmitt, who said, "tell them to heat water." I can still remember the rant that this evoked from Jack. Motor based demonstrations are a great tool for energy scammers for several reasons. One is the rated amperage which assumes a full load. Another is inherent inefficiencies in the system. NASA developed a voltage clipping technology which was marketed as the Green Plug. As for Joseph Newman, I don't question his mental ability. I do question his sanity, and his veracity. For one thing he announced that he is the Messiah. This was after he ran for President and filed a Writ of Mandamus (alleging prejudice) against a federal judge. Then there is the matter of the second and third Mrs. Newman, who are mother and daughter. When he brought his dog and pony show to the Tesla Society meeting my friend approached the stage with a digital VOM, Joseph was not pleased. OTOH, his machine did impress Roger Hastings, PhD physics. I think that he is producing excess energy, the magnetic cooling is proof of that. His life story would make one hell of a movie, even better than the Paul Brown Story. It is difficult to judge. Some people are unable to learn anything, and immune to rationality. Many hardcore opponents of cold fusion seem incredibly stupid to me, but I think they honestly believe what they say. A few are intellectually dishonest. One, Taubes, told someone (Ed Storms, I think it was) that he does not know or care whether his statements about cold fusion are true. I gather his purpose was to sell books. I heard Taubes interviewed on National People's Radio. Some one, I assume an LENR researcher, called in and asked him if he knew the definition of flack, Taubes replied that a flack is something put there to obscure the matter. The caller then replied, "Taubes you are a flack." They cut him off of course, both the People's Radio and TV networks march to the beat of a hidden drummer. What they hope to gain by this mystifies me. Taubes is licking the hand that feeds him, which some people prefer to poverty. That is unethical, but it is more crazy than dishonest. My guess is that he sees himself as a writer of science fiction, or amusement, like these people who make television programs about haunted houses. Hey Jed, I love haunted house shows. The local CBS affiliate was running one where they took thermo imaging cameras in. It was great fun, I regret that they quit running that series. If you doubt the phenomena there are people who will take you to spots where you can feel the cold for yourself. Hum, if we could trap the phenomena and set up an energy flow. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
