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: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   

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.


What do you suppose they meant to say? Just change "closed" to "open"? Is an open system defined when a fixed volume is under study?




posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

There can be mass transfers in an open system, so that much matches up. However I'm not sure if it's really a requirement for the volume to be fixed, though in most examples it probably is. On p44 of this pdf are some definitions from an MIT course that don't mention anything about a fixed volume for an open system, and I would prefer these descriptions:

ocw.mit.edu...
ocw.mit.edu...

Thermodynamic Systems
TYPE (Example)

Isolated (The Universe) No energy and no matter may be passed through the boundaries

Closed (A free Pinball Machine) Energy can pass through the boundaries, but matter cannot pass through the boundaries.

Adiabatic (A perfect Thermos) No heat (and therefore no matter that can carry heat) can pass through the boundaries.

Open (An Aquarium) Both energy and matter may be passed through the boundaries


Here are several examples of open systems and they all have fixed volumes:

www.tech.plym.ac.uk...

However if for some reason you had a balloon in the system that expanded and contracted in each cycle and the boundary of the balloon formed part of the boundary of the system, I don't see why that can't be defined as an open system. But where are real examples like that? Hence the reference to fixed volume, even if it's not technically a requirement.
edit on 25-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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.


What do you suppose they meant to say? Just change "closed" to "open"? Is an open system defined when a fixed volume is under study?



No, 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, the second sentence is speaking about an open system.



Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.

Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact.

Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).


www.bluffton.edu...

As I said before the lines are arbitrary, but have great meaning when you are studying a specific function or mechanical device.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Mary Rose

Closed systems: A closed system is defined when a particular quantity of matter is under study. A closed system always contains the same matter. There can be no mass transfers across the boundary.


I suspect that that system is probably not well-understood, because I don't think that mass is well-understood.


I suspect that you don't understand, so you are trying to say that everyone else must be wrong because you lack understanding.

If you really want to learn thermodynamics you need to learn the math.

If you really want to debunk it, you need to do it with math.

Worldplay and even descriptions of thermo systems and principals get mixed up with the best of us, because they are all mathematical concepts and for us to all do this right we should all be sitting in front of a white board and putting our thoughts down. If someone makes a little screw up in their head (which happens often) the math sets it straight.

But if you want to continue on your debunking journey I hope the first thing you try to disprove is ∆U =W + Q , then you can move on to the rest…

www.sci.sdsu.edu...



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


If the observations that were made in the original experiments turn out to be incomplete or not quite accurate, the math associated with them will be wrong.

What's important is the experimentation, interpretation, and accurate theory upon which to base the math.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by boncho
 


If the observations that were made in the original experiments turn out to be incomplete or not quite accurate, the math associated with them will be wrong.

What's important is the experimentation, interpretation, and accurate theory upon which to base the math.


Actually no, math and theory is used to describe something and backed by empirical evidence. Thermodynamics is a unarguable fact. It is law.


are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
*

So there is no confusion on the last sentence, Newtonian physics being replaced by relativity is an example of a law being "overturned" but, newtonian physics still applies to the world around us in a different scope.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

boncho
Actually no, math and theory is used to describe something and backed by empirical evidence.


If the empirical evidence has been falsely arrived at because the experimentation was misinterpreted, the math and theory will be wrong.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Mary Rose

boncho
Actually no, math and theory is used to describe something and backed by empirical evidence.


If the empirical evidence has been falsely arrived at because the experimentation was misinterpreted, the math and theory will be wrong.




There is absolutely no way to misinterpret a basic experiment like turning on a lightbulb, then turning it off to see if the lightbulb is still on.

Or filling up a car and calculating the energy densities of the gasoline you put in, the friction and heat loss and then the kinetic energy used by the car.

However, if you are describing Bearden et al experiments, you might be on to something.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Mary Rose
If the empirical evidence has been falsely arrived at because the experimentation was misinterpreted, the math and theory will be wrong.

That applies to anyone making a claim which is why the scientific method requires reproducibility.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So, with 100 energy units in, we have at least 64 units of loss.

From “On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum” by Thomas E. Bearden:


What We Mostly Pay the Power Company To Do

Essentially we pay the power company to engage in a giant Sumo wrestling match inside its generators and to lose by killing the free extraction of energy from the vacuum faster than the wrestling process powers the loads.

We pay the power company to use only a "single pass" of the energy flow along its transmission lines and the consumer power circuits, and thereby to just "waste" some 1013 times as much available EM energy as the company allows us to "use".

Present electrical power systems simply repeat this travesty over and over, so that we are continually inputting external energy to the generator to restore the source dipole, and having to input more than we get back out as work in the load. That is why all conventional EM power systems exhibit COP < 1.0 a priori. The system is specifically designed to force itself to do precisely that, by killing itself faster than it powers its load.

Such an inane power system continually forms a marvelous extractor of vacuum energy, then turns upon itself suicidally. In an oil derrick analogy, the system continually destroys its own energy flow "well head" (source dipole) and does not capitalize upon it. That is rather like drilling an oil well, bringing in a great gusher, catching a little oil in barrels, burning half of the barreled oil to deliberately cap the well, then drilling another well beside the first one, forcibly recapping the second one, and so on.




edit on 11/25/13 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


From your link, and according to Bearden, my coffee maker that I just made a espresso with did so by extracting energy from the vacuum.

No wonder this Joe tastes so good, ZPE Coffeeeeeeeee!


Since the beginning, every electrical load has been powered by energy extracted directly from the vacuum, and not by the heat produced from all the hydrocarbons burned and nuclear fuel rods consumed, or by the energy from the hydroturbines and waterwheels turned by dams across streams, or by windmill-powered generators, or by solar cells, etc.


edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)




Mary Rose
reply to post
 


If the observations that were made in the original experiments turn out to be incomplete or not quite accurate, the math associated with them will be wrong.

What's important is the experimentation, interpretation, and accurate theory upon which to base the math.


And where is Bearden's experimental data on this?
edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
*Deleted post, because I had trouble checking the math in the data. (I believe completely due to the original error by Bearden/Naudin but I do not want to perpetuate something that isn't iron clad.)
edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Yes, one experiment is not enough.

My point is that we're evaluating our accepted laws of thermodynamics.

The video I referenced in the OP is Open System Thermodynamics. In it Peter Lindemann went through the entire history of theory on the nature of heat. Here is a screenshot:



He also went through the experiments that the accepted laws of thermodynamics are based on and gave his opinion, based on his thorough research and hundreds of his own experiments, about mistakes that have been made. As previously posted:



Again, the math that we have is based on interpretation of experiments. If the interpretation was wrong the math will be wrong.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes, one experiment is not enough.

My point is that we're evaluating our accepted laws of thermodynamics.

 


And what about thousands upon thousands?


Again, the math that we have is based on interpretation of experiments. If the interpretation was wrong the math will be wrong.


A slide does nothing to prove anything. You already posted Bearden's hypothesis and it is that everything we do comes from the vacuum. Me taking a poop and flushing the toilet uses vacuum energy according to Bearden. (Since all the required processes getting water to my house used electrical energy).

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.

If you could prove some other thing going on at the quantum level, it would not change Carnot's findings.

Prigogine has only 2 or 3 empirical tests supporting his ideas. It is a very specific field of thermodynamics and it never rewrote accepted theories or laws as a whole.


edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Thank you for your well-meaning advice but I'm very content and satisfied with my tutors, who are the movers and shakers of this world who think for themselves and don't accept the mainstream as an authority figure.
What exactly are they moving and shaking?

I see a bunch of apparently unfounded and in some cases obviously incorrect claims. Aside from moving and shaking some dvd sales, what real devices have been built in the real world to demonstrate that everybody else is wrong and the snake oil salesman is right?



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

boncho
And what about thousands upon thousands?


You missed the point.

The point is how experiments are interpreted.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Mary Rose

boncho
And what about thousands upon thousands?


You missed the point.

The point is how experiments are interpreted.



You cannot misinterpret 1+1 = 2.

First, we will agree that we attribute numbers and values to objects. Any nomenclature will due. You can use 一二王四五六七八九十 if you want, but we must agree that numbers, in the form of counting objects is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

So if 1 represents a singular object and 2 represents a duplicate, and 3 represents a triplicate.

If we have 1 coin, and we add 1 coin, we now have two coins.

You arguing that thermodynamics is wrong, is arguing that 1+1 doesn't equal 2.

(x) amount of energy, can create (x) amount of heat, and it can be calculated right down throughout the entire system accounting for every bit of energy involved. Simple as that.

What you are saying is like saying, well, I put 1 coin into the jar, and another, and there was three coins.



Thermodynamics is the study of the connection between heat and work and the conversion of one into the other.

This study is important because many machines and modern devices change heat into work (such as an automobile engine) or turn work into heat (or cooling, as in a refrigerator). There are two laws of thermodynamics that explain the connection between work and heat. But first, it must be shown how mechanical energy can be equivalent to heat energy.



Mechanical equivalent of heat

Experiments showed that the amount of heat created is proportional to the work done. This relationship is called the mechanical equivalent of heat and can be expressed by the equation:

W = JH

where

W is the work done in joules (J)
J is the relationship constant 4.18 joules/calorie (J/c).
H is the heat created from the work in calories (c)
Note: A calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water 1°C. It is not to be confused with a Calorie (capital "C") used in dieting.



www.school-for-champions.com...

If what you were stating is true, this would all have been found to be wrong somewhere along the line. There is nothing wrong with the interpretation.

Newton was essentially found to be lacking various understanding of physics, but it didn't make him wrong. It didn't mean his interpretation was wrong. It meant he was looking at it from a different perspective.

Yours and Bearden's statement that interpretation is wrong, and it disproves and lays waste to all of thermodynamics, means that QED already did that to almost every physics field there is. And all the scientists in the world were already disproven.


edit on 25-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Yes, one experiment is not enough.

Actually it means that that one experiment gives the same results time after time, when carried out by different people.


My point is that we're evaluating our accepted laws of thermodynamics.

We, huh?


Again, the math that we have is based on interpretation of experiments. If the interpretation was wrong the math will be wrong.

Again, the same applies to Lindemann and Bearden. What have they shown besides their "interpretations"? Without a real world application all they have is science fiction.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
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.

Have you ever read the original papers written by people like Maxwell instead of simply accepting what's in the textbooks today? That's the kind of thing that leads to the correction of errors, or the recognition of changes that were purposefully but unwisely made.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


OK I'm evaluating.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join