On 29/10/2007 11:06 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > 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.
Kinetic energy is not a relative of momentum. It is the first step in packaging momentum. > >> "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. It is extremely hard to not see the physical world in terms of energy storage devices. > 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. To clarify, I should have said instantaneous power out, instead of power out. Instantaneous power out cannot be confused with instantaneous energy out. > 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. > Measure how much energy is stored in the system. Then disconnect any power sources used in the measuring process and let the system run until such time the energy store would be expected to be so depleted that it couldn't possibly be powering the system. This requires an input of patience. ;-) Harry
