A Heat Pump Is an Overunity Device?

Mary Rose
says it needs additional citations for verification

I would heed those warnings, including the link to the definition of mass flow, which has its own warning and sloppy definition. Both definitions seem sloppy to me.

I would use the terms along the same lines as the authors of this paper:
Open and closed-cycle mechanical vapour-compression heat-pump assisted sea-water purification systems
Using the sloppy definitions in the wiki, one might misconstrue both the open and closed system as open systems, but I think the authors of the paper use the terms correctly (or at least the way I would) to differentiate between open and closed systems.

Note NIST was just testing the heat pump, not a whole thermodynamic system, and the same heat pump could be used in either an open or closed system.

Arbitrageur
Note NIST was just testing the heat pump, not a whole thermodynamic system, and the same heat pump could be used in either an open or closed system.

Please elaborate on that.

Bedlam
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

I have at least one maybe two more nights on the customer equipment next break I'll try to give you a decent reply.

Is this still on your list of things to do?

Mary Rose

Bedlam
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

I have at least one maybe two more nights on the customer equipment next break I'll try to give you a decent reply.

Is this still on your list of things to do?

Doing patent searches tonight. I don't know if you ever use it, but petapator sucks butt worse than samuru. The old search engine was a lot better, this one doesn't work worth a crap. If I can dodge an old '75 Japanese patent, I'm going to pre-file the "electronimo", so far that one filing is the only pre-existing claim that is tough to contest.

eta: at least the Japanese patent is non-functional, which I can demonstrate. They could not have built it, and their examples fail to demonstrate a functional design. I can likely defeat their claims by showing that their examples do not support their claims and could not have performed the function they claim, and mine doesn't work that way. It would be nice not to have to have it come up though. It comes down to the phrasing mostly.

This guy lives up to his name:


Post

reply to post by Bedlam


The reason why I asked is that you're posting on my other thread so I thought maybe you forgot that you promised to give your views on open vs. closed thermodynamics and equilibrium vs. non-equilibrium.

(Actually, since I asked the question I've noticed that the Wikipedia article lists five categories of thermodynamic systems.)

The Peter Lindemann talk that I referenced in the OP is talking about the heat pump as an open-system thermodynamics device. Do you agree with that?

reply to post by Americanist


You're talking about ThoughtProvoker's theory on subatomic vibration?

Does it support the concept that a heat pump is an overunity device?

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

The reason why I asked is that you're posting on my other thread so I thought maybe you forgot that you promised to give your views on open vs. closed thermodynamics and equilibrium vs. non-equilibrium.

(Actually, since I asked the question I've noticed that the Wikipedia article lists five categories of thermodynamic systems.)

The Peter Lindemann talk that I referenced in the OP is talking about the heat pump as an open-system thermodynamics device. Do you agree with that?

Lindemann has a lot of cranky views. Mainly he's fishing for something esoteric enough you'll buy it as a coal re-burner.

Find me a truly open system. Mainly what they mean by that is that they want to define something that doesn't exist, usually some infinite heat source and an infinite heat sink that isn't there, and if you only would buy that they are somehow tapping into ZPE or vacuum energy (insert frantic handwave) then you will buy their open system thermo. Only you don't get that in the real world. Tom Bearden especially likes to toss that in as a preface to his transformer that would work, if only the Yakuza weren't promising to assassinate him if he reveals the ultimate secret.

eta: to give you a good post I have to go re-read it. My thermo these days consists mainly of designing heat sinks for my designs if I can't buy one to fit. But I'm doing patent searches. Posting on these threads doesn't require me to sit for a couple of hours re-reading thermo. I can post between run times on the search engine. Re-reading thermo stops me from possibly making some spare coin. So it's a trade off between my pecuniary interests and you. Hmm. Let me think about that one. Even better, it's a possible income stream fleecing the innocent and credulous. I usually balk at that but this one is a "Rad-Guard 2000" level thing. Only I'm going to actually do it instead of just snickering at the people trying to buy one from a faux website.

You might get a slot tomorrow.

Bedlam
Lindemann has a lot of cranky views. Mainly he's fishing for something esoteric enough you'll buy it as a coal re-burner.

No, he doesn't, and "coal re-burner" is not apt.

Bedlam
Find me a truly open system.

Why is "open" listed in the Wikipedia article? Are you at least familiar with the concept from your formal training? If so, what is your understanding of it?

Unity_99
I'm trying to read up on if a heat pump furnace is a kinetic type furnace using friction. Because that would be cavitation, or release of inner energy, basically electro magnetic flows and subatomic. It would also relate to the pistol shrimp.

Do you even know what cavitation is? This is a fully serious question.

Bedlam
Re-reading thermo stops me from possibly making some spare coin.

Nevermind, then, because that's not at all what I had in mind.

I was under the impression that you were quite familiar and could speak off the top of your head.

Mary Rose
Please elaborate on that.

This pdf shows three examples of closed systems and one example of an open system:

Open versus Closed Loop Systems

All could use the same heat pump. The difference is in how the external "plumbing" is set up.

In the closed loop system, as the name implies the fluid is in a closed loop and is recirculated over and over again.
In the open system there is no closed loop, and the same fluid is not recirculated.

It claims the open loop systems are more efficient, which is likely true when they are brand new, but it also cites some potential problems with them (I think it understates the potential problem of mineral build-up in the heat exchanger which can reduce efficiency over time, but at least they mention it).

The closed loop systems can be quite efficient if well designed and you're not constantly adding a source of new mineral deposits like with the open system, so the heat exchanger can maintain its efficiency better with less build-up of mineral deposits.

Mary Rose

Bedlam
Lindemann has a lot of cranky views. Mainly he's fishing for something esoteric enough you'll buy it as a coal re-burner.

No, he doesn't, and "coal re-burner" is not apt.

Yeah, he does. And it is. The over unity crowd are trying to sell you a coal re-burner. Only you won't buy that, so they trick it up. Bedini has magnet motors, Tom has a transformer. The Swiss ripoff artists have a Testatika. There are hordes of Joe cell freaks, and people purporting to run cars off of water. And it's all coal re-burners, shrouded in a layer of obfuscation.

Mary Rose

Bedlam
Re-reading thermo stops me from possibly making some spare coin.

Nevermind, then, because that's not at all what I had in mind.

I was under the impression that you were quite familiar and could speak off the top of your head.

Depends on if you want a real answer with some thought to it, or what's off the top of my head. Real answers without math for the technically untrained are tougher, believe it or not. A fast answer using calculus and algebra are pretty easy. The ones on Wikipedia are pretty accurate. But I don't think you are educated that way. So Bowldlerizing the math away for you is tough, if I put any effort into making it non-confusing yet accurate.

etaa: as an example, go look at the Wikipedia equations for the efficiency numbers for a heat pump and heat engine, you'll see (or would if you were mathematically astute) that they are two views of the same thing. No matter what you do, as efficient as a heat engine can be (Carnot's limit) you are going to find that working from a heat source into a heat sink that you can't make new energy, the best you can theoretically do is be the same, because it's the same math. That's a closed system. The reason they want to talk about open thermodynamic systems is, that's where they insert the shaggy dog. In an open system, you can make up any source and sink you'd like and they can have any properties you want. Only that doesn't work that way in a real world. And it's invariably where they insert the appeal to vacuum energy.

eta: For example, "open" and "closed" as far as thermo goes delineate the models you're using to get the problems to be solvable. In truth, all thermo systems are closed in a big picture. That is, your heat engines are working from a source and sink that are defined inside a contained set, e.g. I have a steam boiler that's essentially lossfree running from an input of x BTUs at a maximum temperature of y degrees C, sinking into a dump that's at z degrees C and with a thermal resistance of alpha etc. You can whup out the Mollier chart and figure out what sort of steam you will get, and the efficiency and so on.

A ground loop home heat pump with a limited sort of groundwater drift is more a closed system, because the pump's intake and output are also affecting its operation. It's sort of open because the air will move away and you have a LOT of air. But if you had a big enough heat pump to affect the local climate, it would be more closed.

The open system is a coal reburner guys like LIndemann are trying to ring in some sort of non-true external source and sink that are never depleted. And usually they'll say that their magic open system (Bearden is a prime example) is using vacuum energy for both the source and sink, and thus it will run forever with magic energy from no-where. Only he never quite gets around to explaining quite HOW his transformer hooks into vacuum energy (he does make an abortive attempt to claim Bohm as an explanation). The problem is, that's their MacGuffin. It's the sciency sounding shaggy dog that they get you to buy, and you do.

Mary Rose

Bedlam
Re-reading thermo stops me from possibly making some spare coin.

Nevermind, then, because that's not at all what I had in mind.

I was under the impression that you were quite familiar and could speak off the top of your head.

Any genius can speak off the top of his head, yet he might look back into or cite his notes if he was looking for a cogent answer to a specific question.

Everyone, be it scientist or layman, takes in a lot of information throughout their life. Master chemists will sometimes forget specific reagents in certain reactions but it does not mean they can't perform the reaction or have a good understanding in general about chemistry (a clear picture). Or that they lack the ability to decipher questions about chemistry whether or not it comes off the top of their head.

If you are looking for answers you should be appreciative that someone spent the time to present one to you, especially when they are trying to help educate you. And on the flip side, if they provide all their sources you can go back and see if you come to the same conclusion, which is much better than simply plopping down information without any context or reference. You should demand this from us all as it only helps encourage everyone to learn just a little bit more everyday.

reply to post by boncho


I actually spent an hour or so the other night trying to find a math-free yet technically correct website with lots of pictures and diagrams, maybe some animations or videos. I never found one.

There are a LOT of basic thermo websites discussing open and closed systems and heat engines and heat pumps, and why Carnot's limits exist, and how you can prove it, but none of them are going to be accessible to her because of the math. The really good ones are going to go off into DE and calculus, at best it's college algebra.

Bedlam
For example, "open" and "closed" as far as thermo goes delineate the models you're using to get the problems to be solvable.

To establish reality, correct?

Bedlam
In truth, all thermo systems are closed in a big picture.

So, the five systems listed in Wikipedia are just tools to solve a math problem? They're artificial constructs?

Bedlam
Only he never quite gets around to explaining quite HOW his transformer hooks into vacuum energy (he does make an abortive attempt to claim Bohm as an explanation).

So, it's not that vacuum energy is not energy, it's just that he doesn't explain how to your satisfaction.

Bedlam
There are a LOT of basic thermo websites discussing open and closed systems and heat engines and heat pumps, and why Carnot's limits exist, and how you can prove it, but none of them are going to be accessible to her because of the math.

There is no such thing as math that doesn't come from an observation in nature (or the lab).

If you can't give me the observation without the math to communicate it, okay.

Others can I'm sure.

Mary Rose

To establish reality, correct?...

So, the five systems listed in Wikipedia are just tools to solve a math problem? They're artificial constructs?...

In the vast vast majority of cases, you neither need nor want to consider everything that might be going on.
Thus, you determine what makes a difference and what does not, and eliminate the unnecessary bits. This is found out through observation and experimentation. For example, differential calculus depends on very close approximations. You get to chuck tertiary terms, and that's what makes it useful.

Unless you get into really oddball situations, you don't, for instance, have to worry about calculating curl and divergence for Navier-Stokes in laminar and turbulent flow in steam pipes for turbines. It's ok to use an empirically derived flow resistance number that rings in the terms as accurately as you might need.

Bedlam

So, it's not that vacuum energy is not energy, it's just that he doesn't explain how to your satisfaction.

It's also because that doesn't work that way, and he might as well be ringing in magic pixies. But it sounds all sciency so you buy it. That's why he and Lindemann love that open thermo claim.

By the way, it also doesn't produce energy. He uses another shaggy dog trick that Bedini also loves, it's a trope of the free energy crowd, and that's to use some sort of non-linear load that results in a lot of distortion, then they read the output with an RMS meter or scope designed for sine waves. Tada! Fake net gains. Tom got caught on that one, though.

Bedlam

There is no such thing as math that doesn't come from an observation in nature (or the lab).

If you can't give me the observation without the math to communicate it, okay.

Others can I'm sure.

Some things you can't see without calculations. That's why we build technical things using math instead of poetry.

Arbitrageur
In the closed loop system, as the name implies the fluid is in a closed loop and is recirculated over and over again.
In the open system there is no closed loop, and the same fluid is not recirculated.

Okay that's very helpful information.

I think it's very interesting that the .pdf calls the Open Loop System the efficient choice but the Closed Loop System the cost effective choice.

Bedlam
Thus, you determine what makes a difference and what does not, and eliminate the unnecessary bits.

Again, going back to five systems listed for thermodynamics: Only one exists, in reality, according to you?

Bedlam
Some things you can't see without calculations.

Not true.

If you see it, it has shape, and can be drawn with a picture or a word picture.