A Heat Pump Is an Overunity Device?

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Can't you do better than that?

You refuse to acknowledge the history of suppression of technology, and your mantra is accusing researchers and innovators of being frauds and cheats.

Here is an example of Myron Evans, (connected to Bearden) suppressing people discussing the MEG.

Link

Myron Evans, one of Tom Bearden's fellow crackpots, has been on the
warpath lately. With strident though totally baseless threats of legal
action, he has succeeded in persuading Yahoo to shut down several Yahoo
discussion groups critical of Bearden's and Evan's bizarre theories
about physics.

One of those censored Yahoo groups, nut_meg, was mine. I set it up to
debunk the so-called "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator" (MEG), a
transformer with a permanent magnet stuck in the middle that was
supposed to "draw free energy from the vacuum" and produce more energy
than it consumed. Claims that it worked were based on ridiculously
flawed measurements. Merely pointing this out was enough to set these
guys off.

Since Yahoo is in business to make money, it has no backbone to stand up
against baseless threats like these. So we'll probably have to move the
discussion to USENET where it will be harder for Evans and his fellow
psychotics to censor.

Phil

You can go back to the creator announcing the group here

And when you look for the group, it doesn't exist.

As far as I know Bearden et al, have really not offered any valid evidence suggesting any likely suppression of their crap, or even made an attempt for reproducibility (besides Naudin, who, supposedly validated the Steorn fraud, which was found to be fraud.)

So as far as evidence of suppression, we have a singular case documenting the people you claim are being suppressed are suppressing others!

In the case of Bearden or the like, not getting accepted into peer review is not suppression, it just means their crap was rejected. Rejection is not suppression!

reply to post by Mary Rose

Actually, I meant that others might be actually evaluating but you're really just taking what they say as truth.

You are really just hooked by the possibility. That Bearden quote about the electric companies is just an appeal to emotion and here you are.

I'm curious is Bearden is right and that all energy comes from the vacuum, why does thermodynamics hold true to the human body. And why are we able to calculate caloric values for food, and for the energy it took from the sun to create the food, and the energy used by our bodies. Are we all sucking vacuums?

Human metabolism and thermodynamics.

Food energy, methods of analysis and conversion factors.

Calorie: The energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 kelvin. It is equivalent to 1,000 (small) calories.
APPEARS IN THIS RELATED CONCEPT:
Human Metabolism

energy: A quantity that denotes the ability to do work and is measured in a unit dimensioned in mass × distance²/time² (ML²/T²) or the equivalent.

According to you, all this is invalid.

Tom Bearden talks about the history of electrodynamics and what needs improvement:

Long story short. Lindemann never plugged the output back into input, and claimed a closed , sustainable system.
Heat pumps are efficient as hell, however, they are not PMM, as is any thermodynamic process.

Even in the impossible scenario where a system could produce enough energy to sustain itself, and offer no surplus that would be considered work, or over unity.... just to keep itself going.... There is the esoteric phenomena, which says that the fact that you are observing it implies a resistance that would make it fail. There is no such thing as a free lunch, at least in this universe.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Tom Bearden talks about the history of electrodynamics and what needs improvement:

Smerdley talks about cosmic microwave background radiation and perverts.



Bearden debunks his own notions, he claims that scientific understanding has basically been thrown off course because of certain ideas being left behind, but if it were true we wouldn't have seen about a dozen or more fundamental theories come about since then. If you want to look at the world what it would be like as Bearden as the scientific authority, basically check the dark ages, since he claims he proves all knowledge invalid without actually doing any work to prove it.

Mary Rose
Tom Bearden talks about the history of electrodynamics and what needs improvement:

So, the truth was fudged to make the equations easy and everyone since has learned the fudged version. Bearden understands the truth and with computers it would be easy to work out the equations but he can't because he can't use a computer.

Then he throws out another appeal to emotion, placing the blame on "evil" scientists who are turning science into dogma.

What a load.

Mary Rose
Tom Bearden talks about the history of electrodynamics and what needs improvement:

This makes more sense than Bearden....

Mary Rose
Tom Bearden talks about the history of electrodynamics and what needs improvement:

Hes purposefully misleading people classical electrodynamics isnt a fixed set of laws. Scientists know its wrong It was made easier to use and generally gives you the right answer. When you have to get into real science you use quantum electrodynamics. And hes ignoring all the work done in the quantum field and just saying look the classical model is wrong. Well of course it is but in most applications works just fine an electrician doesnt need to learn quantum mechanics when he can just use the classical model and be just fine. The only time it becomes necessary is discussing plasma and when some nut case decides hes built some perpetual motion machine in his basement. Its all ways a scam they all ways want investors and they skip town without a product.

reply to post by dragonridr


Be very careful with your definition of "wrong" as Mary will see this as evidence that supports we all poo energy from the vacuum.

Besides that nice post.

I am going back to Bearden's work here,

This is one of the great ironies in the history of science: All the hydrocarbons ever burned, all the steam turbines that ever turned the shaft of a generator, all the rivers ever dammed, all the nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, all the windmills and waterwheels, all the solar cells, and all the chemistry in all the batteries ever produced, have not directly delivered a single watt into the external circuit's load. All that incredible fuel consumption and energy extracted from the environment has only been used to continually restore the source dipole that our own closed current loop circuits are deliberately designed to destroy faster than we restore them.

Most electrodynamicists hold the opinion that extracting usable electrical energy from the vacuum is extraordinarily difficult. In fact it is a very simple thing to do and has always been done by our power systems anyway.

www.cheniere.org...

And since our bodies utilize chemical and electrical processes:

Human Voltage
Negativity is the natural resting state of your cells. It's related to a slight imbalance between potassium and sodium ions inside and outside the cell, and this imbalance sets the stage for your electrical capacity.
Your cell membranes practice a trick often referred to as the sodium-potassium gate. It's a very complex mechanism, but the simple explanation of these gates, and how they generate electrical charges, goes like this:
At rest, your cells have more potassium ions inside than sodium ions, and there are more sodium ions outside the cell. Potassium ions are negative, so the inside of a cell has a slightly negative charge. Sodium ions are positive, so the area immediately outside the cell membrane is positive. There isn't a strong enough charge difference to generate electricity, though, in this resting state.
When the body needs to send a message from one point to another, it opens the gate. When the membrane gate opens, sodium and potassium ions move freely into and out of the cell. Negatively charged potassium ions leave the cell, attracted to the positivity outside the membrane, and positively charged sodium ions enter it, moving toward the negative charge. The result is a switch in the concentrations of the two types of ions -- and rapid switch in charge. It's kind of like switching between a 1 and 0 -- this flip between positive and negative generates an electrical impulse. This impulse triggers the gate on the next cell to open, creating another charge, and so on. In this way, an electrical impulse moves from a nerve in your stubbed toe to the part of your brain that senses pain.

science.howstuffworks.com...

And since Bearden equates his version of "vacuum energy" to "zero point energy" (from what I can tell anyway)

The dynamic vacuum and its emanations are the unintegrated center of 21st Century physics. Psyche and matter interface where nothing becomes something. This light speed intersection where matter turns inside out (Zero Point Energy or ZPE)

www.paranoiamagazine.com...

We can, with deductive reasoning state that according to Bearden, the chemical and electrical processes (by the account of his first paragraph and highlighted text at the top) in our bodies, suggests, that we are all walking, talking free energy machines.

HOLY CRAP.

Where's my Nobel???

Open systems. A closed system is defined when a fixed volume is under study. There can be mass transfers as well as energy transfers across the boundary.

boncho
. . . it says a closed system can be defined when a fixed volume is under study. An open system is the opposite. The first sentence is defining the difference from closed to open . . .

So, you’re saying an open system is not defined by a fixed volume under study?

boncho
1. Carnot wasn't mistaken. Heat is converted to work (or vice versa). There is no way you can change this. Heat is calculable, and so is work. You cannot say Carnot was wrong, because there is too much empirical evidence to support it.

Lindemann said that Carnot believed: Heat itself is converted to work; therefore, all "working mediums" behave with the same efficiency.

He posted temperature-pressure charts for some industrial refrigerants. The charts illustrated the fact that pressure change in relation to the temperature range is different; that is, each compound is shown to be behaving differently. They don't all produce the same pressure increase as the temperature rises.

He said that this is common knowledge among HVAC technicians but that physicists seem to be ignoring this obvious fact.

Mary Rose

boncho
1. Carnot wasn't mistaken. Heat is converted to work (or vice versa). There is no way you can change this. Heat is calculable, and so is work. You cannot say Carnot was wrong, because there is too much empirical evidence to support it.

Lindemann said that Carnot believed: Heat itself is converted to work; therefore, all "working mediums" behave with the same efficiency.

He posted temperature-pressure charts for some industrial refrigerants. The charts illustrated the fact that pressure change in relation to the temperature range is different; that is, each compound is shown to be behaving differently. They don't all produce the same pressure increase as the temperature rises.

He said that this is common knowledge among HVAC technicians but that physicists seem to be ignoring this obvious fact.

Way to obfuscate. It's common knowledge among physicists too. It's called enthalpy:

Enthalpy versus internal energy[edit]

The U term can be interpreted as the energy required to create the system, and the pV term as the energy that would be required to "make room" for the system if the pressure of the environment remained constant. When a system, for example, n moles of a gas of volume V at pressure p and temperature T, is created or brought to its present state from absolute zero, energy must be supplied equal to its internal energy U plus pV, where pV is the work done in pushing against the ambient (atmospheric) pressure.

*

and don't forget chemists and thermochemistry.

Control volumes.

You really blindsided all the physicists with this one, they are all up in their ivory towers right now just hoping no one else bought the Lindemann DVD,

My consulting fee for a technology briefing is $250 per hour. Open System Thermodynamics is over an hour and a half, so $375 would be my fee for this much time. With a price this high, only a small handful of people could afford it. Instead, I need thousands of people to be empowered with this information to really make a difference, so I'm making this available for a nominal $17.

Aside from completely butchering thermo by taking energy potentials, thermodynamic states, thermodynamic cycles, coefficient of performance, efficiency, and completely shredding them into one giant amalgamated pot of goo, I am trying to figure out what this DVD has actually done for you?

Are you empowered yet?

I actually thought this was a joke, but this is your source material.

First, you'll learn the REAL history of the development of Thermodynamics, and where the errors are in these "Laws."

Next, I'll show you how heat, electricity, and mechanical energy can be conserved during their passage through a machine, and even recovered and used again to improve it's performance.

I'll show you how these are "general principles" that can be applied to increase the energy efficiency of any system or machine, from water distillers, to electric motors, to Stirling Engines.

Finally, I'll show you the complete method to accomplish Tesla's "ambient temperature heat engine", which has never been shown anywhere in public before!

"Open System Thermodynamics"

Since you can't properly do any of the above four I would suggest not only you ask for your money back but also look for some kind of prosecution into false advertising.

All Lindemann has done is take a dozen different principals that are not mutually exclusive and miss mash them together to confuse the average observer.

Mary Rose

Open systems. A closed system is defined when a fixed volume is under study. There can be mass transfers as well as energy transfers across the boundary.

boncho
. . . it says a closed system can be defined when a fixed volume is under study. An open system is the opposite. The first sentence is defining the difference from closed to open . . .

So, you’re saying an open system is not defined by a fixed volume under study?

I think you are referring to control volumes.

An open system is often called a control volume and its boundary and most specifically the boundary under scrutiny is called the control surface. Mass may flow across a control surface. A cylinder piston in motion may be a control surface.

In thermodynamics a system is a 3D region in space under study. A system can be an isolated, adiabetic, closed system or an open system and it is surrounded by a defined boundary.. The outside of the boundary is called the surroundings

For isolated system matter and energy do not cross the boundary..it is not influenced in any way by the part of space which is external to the system boundaries.

For adiabetic systems matter and heat do not cross the boundary..(energy in the form of work can cross the boundary)

...

For a closed system a fixed amount of matter which is enclosed by a boundary. Only heat and work can be transferred across the boundary.

For an open system matter, heat and work flow across the boundary.

A simple system is a system that does not contain any internal adiabatic, rigid and impermeable boundaries and is not acted upon by external forces.

A composite System is a system that is composed of two or more simple systems.

**

To be honest, you have confused the crap out of me. I even noticed a few pages back a made a egregious error in one of my diagrams. You have continuously taken a dozen principles and jumped from one to the other, or tried to mash them in to one mangled miss mash of garbage.

In a single sentence, you sometimes address multiple principles, or you bounce from one to another in your replies, the linear progression of your discussion in this thread is similar to someone reciting history (under the presumption of chronologic order) asking about WW2, Rome, Ancient China, Mayan, the industrial revolution, and then asking why we can't name the spoons each one used during the time period, and why are all the spoons not the same.

reply to post by boncho


Why don't you scroll up and refresh your memory about your response and see whether or not you're still confused because I've made you confused.

boncho
Heat is converted to work (or vice versa). There is no way you can change this. Heat is calculable, and so is work.

But is heat calculable and work calculable taking the fact that all "working mediums" don’t behave with the same efficiency into consideration, or not?

Am I making any sense?

Mary Rose

boncho
Heat is converted to work (or vice versa). There is no way you can change this. Heat is calculable, and so is work.

But is heat calculable and work calculable taking the fact that all "working mediums" don’t behave with the same efficiency into consideration, or not?

Am I making any sense?

Heat is calculable but it is translated into something usable in a thermodynamic system when converted to work. (If that makes sense.)

Heating your house, is not really considered a usable form of energy. Sure you need head, but you aren't doing any work with it.

www.nmsea.org...

There are many ways to calculate different values for heat, pressure, volume, etc. But the bottom line is until you factor in work, you are talking about potentials.

Suppose a system starts from an initial state described by a pressure pi, a volume Vi, and a temperature Ti. The final state of the system is described by a pressure pf, a volume Vf, and a temperature Tf. The transformation from the initial state to the final state can be achieved in a variety of ways (see for example Figure 17.2). In Figure 17.2a both pressure and volume change simultaneously. In Figure 17.2b the pressure of the system is first lowered while keeping the volume constant (this can for example be achieved by cooling the sample) and subsequently, the volume is increased while keeping the pressure constant (this can be achieved by heating the gas while increasing the volume).

If the pressure of a gas increases it can move a piston (this happens in an engine). In this case, work is done by the system as the expanding gas lifts the piston. On the other hand, if we increase the weight of the piston, work will be done on the system as the piston falls. The force exerted by the gas on the piston is equal to p A, where A is the area of the piston and p is the gas pressure. If the piston is displaced by a distance ds, the amount of work done can be calculated as follows:

teacher.pas.rochester.edu...

But is heat calculable and work calculable taking the fact that all "working mediums" don’t behave with the same efficiency into consideration, or not?

How do they not behave with the same efficiency? and what does that matter if none can reach greater than 1 efficiency? I want you to explain your positions from now on, because right here is an example of what I am talking about. You address some of the most basic principles, and entangle them with complex principles or gobbledygook you heard from watching Lindemann's $17 DVD (valued at $350?)

A propane engine and a gasoline engine do work at different efficiency values but that doesn't meant the energy in energy out isn't calculable to 0.

How is this different?

Let's see what we are up against. The Carnot engine operating betwen reservoirs at 311 K and 811 K has an efficiency of 62%. (Check this result.) A steam turbine operating between these same temperatures has an efficiency of 40%. Gasoline engines operate betwen the ambient air temperature and the temperature of the gasoline burning in the cylinder, say between 289 K and 1944 K. The Carnot efficency for these temperatures is 85%. But current gasoline engines achieve only about 30% efficiency, so the engineers have a long way to go. Even a perfect gasoline burning engine of this sort would still waste 15% of the fuel energy used, but we are presently wasting more than 2/3 of the energy of the fuel consumed. And that doesn't count the inefficiency of the vehicle itself, the energy lost to roadway friction and air drag.

*

reply to post by Mary Rose

heat and energy are well understood concepts by hundreds (if not thousands) of people.

You're not one of those people. neither are the people that you're quoting.

all energy can be accounted for. Total energy out is always equal to total energy in. This is an imutable law of Physics.
some of that energy in might be from none ordinary sources, and some of the energy out might be in friction, heat, sound, light, radiation, etc - but it can all be accounted for.
Unity = one in, one out.
'Over Unity' = one in, more than one out - is not possible.

end of.

boncho
You address some of the most basic principles, and entangle them with complex principles or gobbledygook you heard from watching Lindemann's $17 DVD (valued at $350?)

You need to drop that crap.

It's none of your business where I get my information from.

And pricing of educational DVDs is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.