Harry Veeder wrote:
On 28/10/2007 9:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
On 28/10/2007 11:41 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Speed is not power. Power is speed times force.
Torque is not power. Power is rotational velocity times torque.
A simple lever can produce more _force_ than is applied to it, and a
simple chain and gear drive -- such as on my bicycle -- can produce far
more _speed_ at the output (the wheel) than the input (my feet on the
pedals).
What's more, a capacitor can produce far more _power_ out than _power_
in ... but only for a little while. The interesting question isn't
whether the machine can produce a lot of "speed" or "torque" or "force"
or even "power" -- the question is whether total /energy/ out is larger
than total /energy/ in.
Why is energy more important than power?
Well, it's not exactly more important. But "energy" is what you pay
for, literally and figuratively; power is the /rate/ at which energy is
delivered. This is, perhaps, a somewhat technical and nit-picky point.
Energy is a commodity i.e. a social construct, because it can be bought and
sold. Energy is derived from momentum, but momentum is not for sale because
it wasn't created by man. Momentum is an aspect of creation, our common
heritage.
I don't understand your point here. Mankind didn't create the coal, nor
the gas. Energy sources are all part of our common heritage.
Momentum, close relative of kinetic energy, can't be "bottled" and so
can't be sold. The kind of "energy" that is sold is all potential, not
kinetic, because "motion" can't be packaged.
"Drawing the line" is act of inclusion AND exclusion. OU
systems exclude energy storage systems. A sincere and skilled
OU inventor will take pains to exclude energy storage
devices as components of his system. So unless you have reason to believe
the inventor is a fraudster or is delusional, it is unfair presume a hidden
store of energy in his system.
Now you are being very unfair to a lot of experimenters, I think! In
many cases it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to exclude all
energy storage devices from the system under test.
Cold fusion experiments involve pumping substantial amounts of energy
into heating liquid (which stores energy) and electrolyzing water (which
also stores energy, in the form of chemical energy) and loading D2 into
palladium (which also stores energy).
Power -- that is, instantaneous energy out -- during, e.g, sporadic
"acute" recombination events at a catalytic recombiner, can be orders of
magnitude above energy in. The only way to get a handle on what's
really going on is to use some sort of integrating calorimetry, in order
to measure total energy out versus total energy in. This is one reason
CF research is difficult.
Work involving motor/generator/battery systems, which often seem
tantalizingly close to OU, can be very hard to break apart at the cable
leading to the batteries. In particular, if it's the /batteries/ that
appear to be showing an OU effect, it is /impossible/ to eliminate the
energy storage element from the system under test, because it /is/ the
system under test! Consequently, in such systems it is also necessary
to look at the total energy budget rather than the instantaneous power
levels to determine if the system is OU.
As I said, if the system includes a flywheel, storage batteries, or
large capacitors, then the peak output power can easily exceed the peak
input power, and it's necessary to look at the total energy budget over
the course of the run (from zero charge back to zero charge) to see if
it was over unity.
If the system performed according to the flow chart, the maximal difference
between output power to input power would be the salient measure. Pumping
the system for power is an unfair methodology to asses whether the system is
OU or not.
I don't understand what you mean by "unfair" here.
If the system under test is a lead-acid battery, then it's the /only/
way to assess the OU claim.
