There is another possibility which probably seems absurd from a logical perspective.
What counts above all is the INTUITION that a perpetuum mobil is impossible. All the formal concepts and laws of physics merely serve to affirm the intuition. However, the laws and concepts do not prove or replace the intuition. perhaps it is possible to violate CoE in such a way that the intuition remains true, although I admit it is a struggle to imagine how it can be logically possible because it would involve NEW concepts of motion. Harry On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that > Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by > inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and > publishing the results. > > This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers > are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where > Carnot efficiency enters the picture. > > There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO), > and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be > paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer. > > Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality > to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has > minimal gain should allow Thanes to "close the loop" by the simple expedient > of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and > generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable > proof! > > I must add a "DOH [slaps forehead]" to my objection here - given the > circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this > objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that > this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected conclusion > that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release - > which is the same-old, same-old BS. > > However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an > anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini "battery anomaly" then > that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until > he performs the obvious kind of "real" test and attempts to close the loop > with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to give > him any credit at all. > > I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is > obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove > that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP > 1.2 or less - > to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of setup > beyond all doubt ... > > Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same > scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as > being any kind of "good company" for the failure of TH, however... we expect > more and it is lacking. > > Jones > > From: David Roberson > > I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in > this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from > that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that > the laws of physics need to be rewritten. > > I viewed one video on the site that described why a > different time constant for the generator inductor was so important. It was > elementary inductor theory and explained nothing at all. They will have a > difficult time trying to get knowledgeable engineers to believe in this one. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 6:52 pm > Subject: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims > Thane Heins continues with his bold claims. > > This is the second video of four videos with a total length > of 3 hours. > > ReGenX generator demonstration, Part 2 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrk_7MSSQMw&feature=related > > At 11 minutes into this video he says his device has been > tested by > the NRC (National Research Council of Canada) and will be > tested again > by the NRC in the first week of April. > > The third video includes interviews with five observers, > including the > editor of EV World, a wind power consultant and some > interested > investors. > > Harry >
