The transformation of electric power into heat is 100% efficient. If Steorn used a less efficient transformation of electric power to measure output energy the OU estimate would be considerably smaller, and less impressive to developers.
History has shown that any device claimed to have a COP of 1.1 or 1.2 is summarily dismissed. Harry ----- Original Message ---- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Sent: Mon, February 1, 2010 9:12:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steorn's official Jan. 30th video > > At 07:11 PM 2/1/2010, [email protected] wrote: > > I smell a scam. Compute compute Eye Kearumba. The one way to prove over > unity is to get rid of the battery. Replace the battery with a capacitor to > supply a few seconds of storage if necessary and close the loop. > > Ah, but they will respond that they can't get the generator to generate > enough > energy, that they are only over unity when all the heat dissipation is > considered. > > I did finally look at most of the "final proof" video. I'll note that in the > last part (part 3 in the videos independently put up), one of their > replicators > identifies himself as such and points out that when Stoern has just presented > isn't likely to convince anyone, and he asks for the people present to show > their hands if they saw something that convinced them. > > The camera didn't show any response, but Sean quickly shut him up, said that, > obviously, he disagreed, and they should have a discussion later. > > I didn't see anything remotely convincing. It's all assertions with > "evidence" > that is very incompletely disclosed and quite fraught with possible > interpretation errors. The oscilloscope traces don't show anything but an > integrated energy removed by the pickup coil, which we already know would > take > place. I.e., if there is something accelerating the rotor, it must be > possible > to extract energy, and if it is extracted, it will accumulate. To understand > this and to be meaningful, we would need to know *how much* energy is being > accumulated. Not shown. What are the units in the display? I didn't see it. > It's > a calculated display, must be. But all they were measuring is current. To > convert that to energy, we'd need to know more. It was shorted. Frankly, I > don't > know how to calculate dissipation in that from current alone! > > And then we'd need to know the exact energy balance in the toroids and that > circuit. Without the kind of capacitor bank that's been suggested, there is > no > clear measure of that, it's extremely difficult to determine the energy > extracted from a battery during the process, the voltage doesn't change much. > With a high capacitance, the voltage would change enough to measure the > actual > reduction in stored energy, and this would be independent of waveform. > > With a complex waveform with high-current spikes, very difficult to calculate > dissipated energy from voltage and current, which is what they claim they are > doing, but they did not actually show the calculations. It would only take a > small error to cover up enough energy loss to the rotor to make it accelerate > a > little with each cycle. > > That they are using very low-friction bearings (magnetic bearings) indicates > that they need the ability to accumulate very small amounts of energy in the > rotor kinetic energy. > > In any case, they are claiming that the experiment in front of us in the > video > is running at over 300% efficiency. They claim that the battery energy is > entirely dumped as heat, and they might even be measuring that as > *substantially* true.. But to be sure that it is *actually* true, they would > need > very precise measurements and calculations and I don't see any sign that they > are doing what could be adequate. Hence having a way to determine actual > input > energy would be crucial. And then to determine actual heat dissipation would > be > as well. Again, while this isn't trivial, necessarily, it's not all that > difficult. The two measurements, if they appear to be equal, would establish > an > upper bound for whatever energy might be dumped into the rotor. I.e., if, > say, > the capacitor loss in voltage, calibrated, indicated 1.000 watts input, plus > or > minus 1 milliwatt, and heat was found at the same level with the same error, > we'd have an upper bound of 2 milliwatts or so (I'm not doing the actual > calculations, and it's not important that this be exact, because *they are > claiming that the rotor would be collecting two watts if the efficiency is > 300%).. > > Then we'd want a measure of the energy being accumulated by the rotor, and > there > are a number of simple ways to approach that. I suggested a pickup coil, > which > is what they actually used, but instead of shorting it -- which gives us far > less information, far more difficult to interpret, what would be done is to > set > the resistance in series with the coil to a value that just keeps the rotor > from > accelerating, at some speed deemed efficient, to be fair. Then the voltage > across the resistance and the current through the resistance would tell us > power > output directly, at the same time as we could measure power input. (Do I have > it > right that if there is a pickup coil connected to a resistor, the power > dissipated in the resistor will equal that dissipated in the coil? Seems to > me > that it would be. Same voltage, same current, same power as I*R.) > > This could, then, be a quite direct measure of output power vs. input power, > and > conversion efficiency would not enter into it. The conversion from rotary > energy > in the rotor to electrical energy in the coil would be 50% by ordinary > measures. > (I.e., output current from the coil, which could be used to power something, > would be 50% of the power lost by the rotor. Now, that's interesting, I > think. > It means that "300%" is actually, in terms of usable power, 100%. But in > terms > of heat generated, yes, there would be three times as much heat generated as > battery power input, which seems, er, unlikely. But that's the substance of > their claim, and if the claim is true, it should be trivial to demonstrate > *clearly.*) > > And one of their replicators thought that their demonstration was utterly > unconvincing, and he was right. > > So why would they spend all this effort on an unconvincing demonstration? I > assume they have a reason! __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
