On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder > >> In Thane Heins' system an input of kinetic energy > maybe required to keep the system creating more kinetic energy, > because the conversion of the created kinetic energy into electrical > energy destroys the kinetic energy that was created. > > Yes, that rings of Aspden's theory, but doesn't it forcefully argue for the > type of demonstration where the claimed OU device is interposed between a > very efficient motor and a very efficient generator? Both are kinetic > devices. This route is the simplest yet most important way that any inventor > can prove his claims: to "close the loop". > > For instance, I am fond of the CSIRO open source motor which always wins the > solar races in Oz:The > > http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Reducing-GHG/Solar-cars-use-CSIRO-motor > .aspx > > It is 98% efficient as a motor and can be rewired to be 95% efficient as a > generator. That includes windage, friction and copper losses. Thus the > combination will self-power in a rather dramatic way so long as the > electrical system connecting the two has a COP of at least 1.1 ... but to be > on the safe side, 1.2 may be needed. > > In either event the gain required can be so low in percentage terms that it > would be questioned by skeptics as measurement error - if only meters are > involved. Bottom line: there is no excuse for not employing this expedient, > since a self-runner is rock solid proof of the claim. Not to mention - very > dramatic proof. > > To fail to do so, after all these years, is essentially a tacit admission > that the device in question is not gainful. > > Jones
I prepared a more technical response, but I decided it wouldn't actually get my point across. There is philosophy of life that I think many people share -- No man is an island -- and by being connected we get back more than we give. It is not a wishwashy/illogical middle ground to say conservation of energy can be violated and still insist that buidling a perpetual motion machine is impossible. "Closing the loop" is equivalent to becoming disconnected, and this state will kill the device's creative power. Harry
