It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Heat Pump Is an Overunity Device?

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
I don't recall saying either of those, and as dragonridr said it's not true.


I don't know what you mean by that.

Is there a misunderstanding about my original question to Bedlam?

What did you think I was asking Bedlam?




posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Yes you have a misunderstanding, which I tried to help you understand. But based on that last question, I apparently failed, despite my best effort.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 





Is there a misunderstanding about my original question to Bedlam?


I think your question to Bedlam is a misunderstanding of what he said.

Bedlam

No. A COP>1 does not imply an efficiency > 100%. It's not an argument about math or procedures, you can't interpret COP > 1 as overunity, because that's not what it's telling you.

If you had a perfect heat pump and a perfect heat engine, you would extract exactly the amount of energy out that you put in. Carnot figured that one out in the early 1800's.



For some reason you have omitted the highlighted portion of his statement in your subsequent questions.

I don't believe those perfect conditions exist and could be the start of your quest through the weeds. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'm sure someone will be kind enough to let me know if I'm off the tracks myself here.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Okay I'll ask you the same question, but I'll rephrase it:

Lindemann references a belief that “energy used” by a system or process is equivalent to the “energy dissipated” by that system or process.

Bedlam had stated that “we extract exactly the amount of energy out that we put in.”

Are Lindemann’s reference and Bedlam’s statement two ways of stating exactly the same law of thermodynamics?

If so, which law is it?

edit on 11/23/13 by Mary Rose because: Typo



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Mary Rose

Arbitrageur
No it's not saying the same thing.


Off the top of your head, can you tell me which law of thermodynamics is expressed in "we extract exactly the amount of energy out that we put in"?

Same for "energy used by a system or process is equivalent to the energy dissipated by that system or process"?


I will answer the original question Mary:
en.wikipedia.org...

1. Number one is the first law:


The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.


2. Number two is also, the first law:


It is also often formulated by stating that when a closed system has a change of state, and its internal energy is changed only by work and not by heat transfer, then the net amount of work transferred is the same for all arrangements of work transfer that are possible for that change of state. Also, when two systems, open to each other for transfer of matter and energy, interact but are otherwise isolated, then the sum of their internal energies does not change.



The second law explains why you can't violate this. Entropy dictates that a thermodynamic system will go to a state of equilibrium.

The heat pump, described by COP is not talking about efficiency. Because the heat pump is not doing work. A heat engine, does do work. And has loses because of it.

And once you have filled the car, or whatever it be with a set amount of fuel, it's a closed system.

The confusion with free energy is basically "inventors" claiming to have a system that's open, interacting with the universe is some manner, but they have no evidence to support such. Bedini et al, if they want to prove they have created some open system that sucks magical farts out of unicorns, they need to perform work to prove it, yet they haven't. And you then have to ask, why?



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

. . . the total energy of an isolated system is constant . . .

"Isolated" is the same as "closed," correct?



boncho
. . . a system that's open, interacting with the universe is some manner . . . no evidence to support such. . . . .perform work to prove it . . .


An open system doesn't just mean tapping the zero-point energy, correct? It can also mean utilizing temperature and pressure changes, as in the Atmos clock, or any ingenious design innovations that allow the re-use of or transformation of electricity in?



boncho
The heat pump, described by COP is not talking about efficiency. Because the heat pump is not doing work.


Isn’t it doing the work of heating your home?



boncho
And once you have filled the car, or whatever it be with a set amount of fuel, it's a closed system.


Doesn’t the fuel need to draw in something from the environment to be processed, thus actually functioning in an open system?



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Doesn’t the fuel need to draw in something from the environment to be processed, thus actually functioning in an open system?

You're dragging things out further then you need to.

Fuels do need to draw from the environment (processing takes energy) but once the gas is in the tank of your car it doesn't matter how long your car sits in the sun, gets hit by wind or em waves your not going to see any gain in your milage.

It is, from that point on, a closed system. You will not be able to get any more energy, at least no one has been able to prove that they can, then what is available by burning said fuel.

Taking an inefficient device, like the countertop distiller, and thinking up a more effiecient way to do what it does, is not an example of overunity.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   

daskakik
Taking an inefficient device, like the countertop distiller, and thinking up a more effiecient way to do what it does, is not an example of overunity.


For that particular example, what would be an example of overunity?



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

daskakik
It is, from that point on, a closed system. You will not be able to get any more energy, at least no one has been able to prove that they can, then what is available by burning said fuel.


Why can't changing the way the fuel is utilized make a change in the data?



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Overunity means only one thing, getting more energy out then you put in. If the average countertop distiller is 10% efficient and using heat recovery lets you get 7 times more efficiency then that would put you at 70% efficiency which means you are still putting in more than you are getting out.

Changing the way energy is used will make a difference in the efficiency of a closed system but nobody has been able to show that they have been able to get more out than what was put in.

It doesn't matter if it comes from zero-point, the ether or unicorn farts, if the extra energy isn't there then it just isn't there.

edit on 24-11-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   

daskakik
If the average countertop distiller is 10% efficient and using heat recovery lets you get 7 times more efficiency then that would put you at 70% efficiency which means you are still putting in more than you are getting out.


You're saying heat recovery is tantamount to the additional expense of increased electricity in?



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

No, the electricity in doesn't change. Recovery of wasted energy just makes the closed system more effiecient so that a greater amount of that same energy is used to the desired end, which means less energy is wasted, but at no time is there a greater amount of energy available than the amount put in.

edit on 24-11-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I don't understand why this thread is still going.

An air con unit/heat pump whatever you want to call it is not an overunity device. Anyone that knows about refrigeration will tell you the same thing.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   

daskakik
No, the electricity in doesn't change.


That's not what I asked you.

Overunity is a term that is used in reference to a device that gives back more than you had to spend to make the thing run.

What I'm asking you is:

Isn't the increased efficiency due to the recovery of wasted energy a way to get back more than you put in without spending more money with increased electricity in?

In other words, the electricity/energy put in, does remain the same and that's the whole point. That's what you're trying to accomplish.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 





Overunity is a term that is used in reference to a device that gives back more than you had to spend to make the thing run.


Link? Source? ANY rationale to support that notion of yours?

That is not what "overunity" means to most people that use the term.

If you want to lower the bar to that level go ahead but it then loses any value.

It's like awarding gold medals to everyone who competes in the Olympics because they're all "winners" just for trying.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

DenyObfuscation
Link? Source? ANY rationale to support that notion of yours?


Suppose you go first.

Provide a link to what most people mean when they use that term.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose


"Isolated" is the same as "closed," correct?


 


Yes.


In classical mechanics[edit]
In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, a closed system is a physical system which doesn't exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any force whose source is external to the system.[1][2] A closed system in classical mechanics would be considered an isolated system in thermodynamics.
*




An open system doesn't just mean tapping the zero-point energy, correct? It can also mean utilizing temperature and pressure changes, as in the Atmos clock, or any ingenious design innovations that allow the re-use of or transformation of electricity in?



Not really. Because zero point energy is the lowest energy state of a system. Meaning it describes the minimum energy point below which a thermodynamic system can never go.

*

Casimir Force on the other hand (which nearly all ZPE claims reference or are related to in some way, is a force.


In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. They are named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir.


No one as far as I know is saying Casimir is an limitless supply of energy. (unless maybe you are talking on the nano level.)




Isn’t it doing the work of heating your home?



Heat exchange is not work. Work or load, is resistance. You need to convert the heat to mechanical energy, or kinetic energy for it to mean anything. Take that heat and power something that gives resistance, than you have losses. It's so very basic and simple.


Doesn’t the fuel need to draw in something from the environment to be processed, thus actually functioning in an open system?


As another poster mentioned as soon as you close the cap on your gas tank you stop matter from entering the system (flow) and it's now closed. It has no other means of getting energy from it's environment, because it is not solar powered, nor does it power itself from temperature differences. (Its a gas engine not a stirling engine.)

But, even with gas flowing into it, you can still calculate the entire system. Refer to the diagram a few pages back. I can calculate values for my closed system-gasoline engine and my car, but I can go beyond that and calculate the energy taken out of the earth (in the form of oil) and hypothetically, I could attribute values to the sun, to the plants that consumed energy from the sun, to the decay of plants and animals that ate them, to the oil that formed with decay of their matter.

Essentially, nearly every system on earth goes back to the sun if you make the system large enough.
edit on 24-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Mary Rose

daskakik
Taking an inefficient device, like the countertop distiller, and thinking up a more effiecient way to do what it does, is not an example of overunity.


For that particular example, what would be an example of overunity?



We also explained this awhile back. Overunity was simply a means to say perpetual motion without having to say "perpetual motion" created by people who were looking to fund their little perpetual motion projects. I have searched for awhile now to find exactly where the term was coin, and it seems to be Bedini et al, or his fans that are responsible.

From wiki deletions:

speedydeletion.wikia.com...


The term, Overunity, is one of several terms, that refers to any device or

-system that appears to generate excess energy or produces energy in a way that
is outside of accepted science and that cannot be explained by standard means.-

It is among a group of terms, which include: Joule Thief, Excess Energy, Radiant Energy, Spacial Energy Coherence, and of which all refer to some type of free or unexplained energy source.


Basically Mary, the definition came about by people someone like you who refuses to believe that a heat pump is unexplained, or is confused by magnets.

So, even by "proper" definition, over unity is just something that confuse people but not do any kind of work.


Thus the clarification is that Perpetual Motion devices use kinetic energy to appear to generate energy, but that there are other devices which do not involve the use of kinetic energy. So, to say that "all" Overunity devices are Perpetual Motion machines is incorrect.


Kinetic energy is usable energy. e.g. Moving something. Powering something [laymen term of power]. Using energy, etc.

So you can keep your definition of "over unity" and even by definition by people who use it, it states that it is completely useless.
edit on 24-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose

Isn't the increased efficiency due to the recovery of wasted energy a way to get back more than you put in without spending more money with increased electricity in?

 


Money has no place as a variable in science. You are actually confirming my statement 100% now.

You can't have it both ways. Either over unity is a scientific hypothetical construction of something that cannot exist by definition, or you agree it is a marketing term used to confuse people, related to things like [laymen] efficiency and "money", which is just snake oil.

I can just as easily create the word, "Energy accrued mechanical boppity device." and call anything that plugs into a wall an EAMBD, want to buy one? Ours are 400% efficient because EAMBDs use a small percentage of energy to run compared to all other appliances. We are able to do this by completely disregarding any energy losses in the system.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

boncho
Not really. Because zero point energy is the lowest energy state of a system. Meaning it describes the minimum energy point below which a thermodynamic system can never go.


Yes, I know there is that discussion, too. There is research going on about whether or not zero-point energy can be tapped.

But it's not the discussion about overunity.

It seems what we've established now is that the term "overunity" is not even in the dictionary. It redirects to "perpetual motion" and that's a separate argument altogether from devices that put out more than they cost to run.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join