>"it has been my experience that those that follow usually are not very well informed, to put it mildly, and that is where the danger is, as i see it.
Rather than have fresh minds, new to the energy production game, being caught up in such difficult and unattainable endevours, surely it would be better to have them pursue more mainstream thoughts and science. If not at least have them educated in the mainstream and then branch out if they like."
Interesting that you would somehow relate "danger" to personal study leading to EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of what I'm saying about so-called "over unity" devices.
Thankfully, Bob, you're only in a position to ARGUE and not to ENFORCE your ideas on the rest of thinking society.
Exactly WHO are YOU to be the one "steering" anyone away from doing some INTERESTING and UTTERLY HARMLESS experiments?
Motive?
I never intended to suggest that you are a "dull tool" (your words).
What I will say is that your preemptive, out-of-context thread showed all the earmarks of a "paid debunker" posting.
So, I figured I'd take the bait.
I've done enough business and seen enough of this sort of thing from the "other side" to know it when I see it.
Your methodology is "one half" of a basic sales technique.
First, you need to obliquely demonize your "competition" without DIRECTLY(posting in a specific relevant thread) attacking the "other product". A direct attack makes the salesman appear very petty in the eyes of the potential client, especially if he lacks a full understanding of what he's attacking.
So, the salesman uses subtle inuendo and phrases like "I believe that..", "it worries me that...", etc...
This makes him seem more humane, as if he's REALLY attempting to save the customer from some horrible suffering brought about by the competition's product, and doesn't want to be a "bad guy".
Your only mistake is that I'M NOT SELLING ANYTHING. I'm only posting things that are INTERESTING TO TRY.
My philosophy is, "DO AS YOU WILL WITH WHAT I'VE SHOWN YOU."
>"i also think that those of you that think along the same lines as i do, don't do so because of being led by anyone, but rather from your own experience and education."
Another excellent example of a basic psy-op tactic. By your logic, anyone that doesn't stay inside the box, like you, is a trouble-maker. In other words, YOU should be "leading" everyone because you are so fantastically "educated".
Bob, I gave YOU the SIMPLE EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS to follow. You won't do the experiment(s) because you're being PAID TO DEBUNK.
You're not here to search for any truth. You're only here to (subtly??) "steer" things your way (heh), and attempt to "block" any information that goes beyond the basic "wrap some wire and swing a magnet at it" type of power production.
SIDE NOTE TO THE NAIVE:
Companies PAY people to play and rate video games, stuff envelopes, solder circuits, and, YES, DEBUNK POTENTIAL COMPETING IDEAS. It's just business folks, not some sort of major conspiracy. Attempt to marginalize anyone that promotes something that might be detrimental to your company profits.
Oops! Guess it backfired, eh? Now, not only is the information staring everyone in the face. YOU brought the spotlight out on it! Congratulations.
Other things to think about...
http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters/0126.html
http://www.free-energy.cc/pdf/Self-Acting%20Engine.pdf
http://www.free-energy.cc/pdf/Thermodynamics.pdf
Anyway....
Here's the simple truth.
If I HEAT a 55gal drum full of water with solar power, or by burning a fuel, and I manage to put X btu's into that water, the temperature rises and the btu's are stored.
I can then use that heated liquid to drive the hot-side of a heat-engine with a large open-air heat-sink on it's cold-side. IDEALLY, the engine will run until that mass of liquid has given up all the stored heat above ambient air temperature.
This much is standard heat-engine science.
AT the same time, if that COLLECTED heat was from a heat pump, X btu's would be collected and stored in the water and for driving the compressor X/(C.O.P) btu(kw-hr equivalent) would be used. In other words, a FRACTION of the energy that was COLLECTED AND STORED is what's required to drive the system. VERY SIMPLE.
So, now you suggest that the drum full of heated water, the same temp as with the other sources, with the same number of stored btu's CANNOT drive the heat-engine.
Interesting stance you're taking.
>"and just to go straight up on the record here, as far as heat pumps go, yes they are more efficient than resistive element heating. But of course one should also consider that just about everything is more efficient than resistive element heating."
For the record, this seems to be a very curt cop-out in an attempt to side-step the basic science of what's really happening in a heat-pump system.
YOU do not display any understanding of the difference between "C.O.P." and "efficiency". "Efficiency" is a SUBSET of the total system "C.O.P.". This is basic heat-pump system mathematics, a BASIC fact of which you appear unaware.
For you to say "yes they(heatpumps) are more EFFICIENT...", is kinda like saying "Yes, I like that GUY, 'Jethro Tull'"
If you still aren't following the logic, here's what I mean.
- Any SINGLE component in the heat-pump system, or any other machine, has it's own EFFICIENCY for what IT SPECIFICALLY DOES.
- The combination of various, relatively INEFFICIENT sub-components CAN RESULT in an overall system that ABSORBS AMBIENT ENERGY while DIVERTING SOME OF THAT COLLECTED ENERGY TO DRIVE ITSELF.
Example:
A windmill that has very poorly designed blades might only absorb enough wind energy THROUGH THOSE BLADES to JUST break-even with it's bearing friction. Trying to load the generator would STALL the windmill. THIS would be close to a C.O.P.1 (unity) energy absorbing system. By improving BLADE EFFICIENCY, the system C.O.P. begins to rise above 1. That means that the wind (already there) gives energy to the blades. The blade efficiency(first stage power loss) determines how much of the intercepted wind energy is transferred to the axle. At the axle, SOME of that energy must overcome bearing friction (second stage power loss). The energy remaining is then sent to the generator and SOME is lost on internal loads(third stage losses). What remains is then sent down the wire to the house and SOME is lost in the wire (fourth stage). In the end, you have a bunch of INEFFICIENCIES in the individual components. BUT, you still have FREE POWER left after all the losses. This is how "C.O.P." works.
A heat-pump has the unusual capacity for COLLECTING low heat energy from one area, CONDENSING THAT HEAT into a smaller space at much higher temperature, and using LESS than that amount of heat energy to DRIVE the pump.
This is WHY the term "Coefficient of Performance" was coined in the first place.
The simplest definition can be found here.
"http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/ccar/glossary.htm">http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/ccar/glossary.htm
To put everything in perpective:
The refrigerant/compressor combo is the "windmill blade".
The heat engine to drive the compressor is the "axle bearing, generator, and transfer line losses".
If you have a C.O.P.=3 system and a 33% efficient heat engine, you have "unity energy collection". It's not a PPM any more than a windmill is. The energy is ALREADY IN THE ENVIRONMENT as HEAT.
If you have a C.O.P.=4 system with a 33% efficient heat engine, you have an "over unity collection" system, JUST LIKE A NORMAL WINDMILL.
A heat-pump, a heliostat, a windmill, etc..., are all VERY SIMILAR CONCEPTS, using DIFFERENT PHYSICAL SYSTEMS.
