--- Mark S Bilk wrote: > Otherwise, that sad Pelton wheel with only six flat blades could not possibly turn a generator with enough force to power the high-speed pump. Almost all of the power in the water stream would be wasted. The whole system would probably put out much less than a tenth of the power fed into it. There's no way it could be over-unity.
Yes - that is the reaction in a nutshell of most of us (on a initial quick read). IOW most of us will assume that the results must be faked. I did too. But that actually makes little logical sense either. >From the PESN site mentioned by Esa, Francis Giroux figures that the pump must use at least one half horsepower (372 watts) and the light bulb at least 40 watts... The shaft looks like it is turning at about 250 rpm, and to get 400 watts, he needs at least 300 ft lbs of steady torque. And also as to the big issue: "Why bother with a water pump at all. Why not just hook up an electric motor to the generator for the closed loop?" The water cycle - if missing - would "logically" eliminate one loss-source in the 'loop' & increase output. Answer: Hardy himself supplied that - and rather succinctly when he said that he tried it and it didn't work! IOW he is basing everything simply on the fact that it does work, and apparently Sterling Allan (or surrogate) is going to travel there to MA to see it work this weekend. Moving-on to the off-chance that it does work as claimed, and that the capacitors are not the reason it works - but that the illogical method of "water conversion" through the nozzle turns out to be the sine-qua-non of operation ... then the $64 question is "where is the excess water energy coming from"? If the pump did supply some cavitation, then those who know of Griggs work, will opine that the excess could be a result of the cavitation itself. That is why I mentioned Griggs in the initial posting. However, we do not even know that there is cavitation in the pump he uses, much less that cavitation could be gainful to such a degree. Jones
