Jones, I don't expect you to agree, believe or understand. But I have established that it is possible to pull energy from generators and motors by inductive pickup, pickup that would by conventional standards be a rebelliously loose coupling but is made stronger (uni-directionally) by certain qualities.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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 > >
