A Heat Pump Is an Overunity Device?

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

Mary Rose

Arbitrageur
So I don't think you can rely on manufacturers, distributors or their marketing.


We should be able to rely on the government to protect the consumer, but since the government is almost totally corrupt, we're out of luck there, as well.
Eventually they will shut down the bigger fraudsters.

Manufacturers say things like "We have the best product in the marketplace" even if they don't, because it's a non-specific claim in a legal practice known as "puffing".

But if they say "Our unit is 10% more efficient than any competitor's unit" they better have data to back that up because that's not a legal claim without good supporting data.



The government has this, it's called the "Energy Star Rating" www.energystar.gov...

In Canada as well. I am pretty sure when you buy appliances nowadays it tells you exactly how many kWh the unit pulls annually, so all you have to do is check your energy rates, (usually .09 to .13 per kWh) and voila, informed consumer.

The policy for "sustainable energy" and blah blah blah, whatever they call it today is all based around this. It seems like Mary is getting frustrated or angry because she has read to many free energy proponents say how everyone is trying to make her pay more for energy.

(Which isn't really true, bigger companies promote their high efficiency products, just that they are more expensive because of parts and R&D, which leads customers to the other end of the spectrum, crappy products, bad efficiencies and less than honest marketing.)

Seriously, because all the options are out there if you look for them. Many people simply don't care. They want the biggest baddest fridge and AC unit they can find, and they wanna come home and park their Dodge Hemi 5.7L in the driveway.

For people who are frugal, don't care about appearance, they can buy a Prius, save up for zero net or positive energy housing, etc.
edit on 21-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose


Overunity kicks in because there is an energy “superstar,” but it’s not overunity.

That is very much like Orwellian doublespeak.


 


Actually, it's the opposite. Like I said earlier perpetual motion is a scientific term describing something that doesn't work. There is 500 years or so empirical evidence to back this up. Free energy crowds created the term "over unity" the same reason the government changed out "torture" for "enhanced interrogation"… That my friend is doublespeak.

COP is COP. Simple as that. It's a scientific term, that has empirical evidence, and a sound theory behind it. I already explained how if you try and calculate efficiency with regular thermodynamics for a heat pump, you have to include the open energy source in the system (the sun), which gives you an efficiency to the tune of very small decimals.

On the other hand, the government has created policies to inform consumers, this is "efficiency" but not scientific efficiency. This is the kind of efficiency that calculates how much you get for what you pay for. And it isn't a bad system.

Yes, some systems are not as mainstream as others and they are lacking a bit, but then you have consumer groups to give you the low down. Buyers magazines. Companies like JD Power.

Hell, if you can spend days looking into Bedini motors, why can't you spend the same researching a major purchase for your home?



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
this is it right here.... the netzero home. Cuts out the utilities, the middle man!




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Bedlam
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.



Mary Rose
I have the video of a presentation by Peter Lindemann at the 2013 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology Conference entitled Open System Thermodynamics.


Peter Lindemann began his lecture with the statement that, having been in the free energy movement for forty years, he is quite familiar with the stance that “free energy is impossible because it violates the laws of thermodynamics.” (I'm not suggesting that heat pumps are free energy.)

He has run hundreds of experiments and thoroughly researched the works of the scientists whose work form the basis of the laws of thermodynamics as we (think) we know them, including Nicolas Sadi Carnot (1796 – 1832).

Based on his experience and research, Lindemann has concluded that Carnot was mistaken about Heat being converted to Work. I am watching and re-watching the video to take notes on how he supports that belief.

Meanwhile, here is another screenshot:



Is your statement that we extract exactly the amount of energy out that we put in the same thing as saying energy used by a system or process is equivalent to the energy dissipated by that system or process?



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

And with that, I feel inclined to remove this thread from my list.

No I must.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Why?



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Every power plant, internal combustion engine and any other source of power does this because that's the way things work.

His statement is SO blatantly a lie that it's hard to even know where to start.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Ive seen your threads you want so bad to believe that you can create energy from nothing. Look You can never get more work out of a system then you put energy in to it. It violates all known laws of the universe. Theres no work around no way to cheat the best you can do is find an energy source thats abundant like solar.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Why?

Everything that the charlatans say when they push overunity devices is EXACTLY like saying that they have a candle that you can light and it will burn forever without getting shorter.

That is why.
Now I am gone.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I guess I have to repeat my question, because I don't believe you've answered it.


Mary Rose
Is your statement that we extract exactly the amount of energy out that we put in the same thing as saying energy used by a system or process is equivalent to the energy dissipated by that system or process?



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
A 'heat pump' takes 'heat' from one location and moves it to an area of 'lower' temperature. That is all it does.

It requires a temperature differential between locations in order to work. At best, most optimistic viewpoints, it is attempting to achieve an equilibrium which once attained results in no energy transfer nor output.

Over-unity means it generates more power than it needs to operate and therefore can power itself while doing other work.

This isn't happening here, nor anywhere in the Universe.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

No it's not saying the same thing. Refer to the dictionary and my explanation in your atmos clock thread. I gave you an example of how a power generating plant must have 200 watts of fuel power input to light a 72 watt incandescent light bulb in your home. Here's the link and illustraiton:

www.nap.edu...


I picked a 72 watt light bulb example, because it's a doubling of the 36 units at the home in that illustration, to make the math simple, but it's close enough to a 75 watt light bulb to give you a practical close example.

We say energy out equals energy in according to the following equation:

Power in to coal power plant of 200 watts = 4 watts useful light energy + 196 watts dissipated energy.

So 200 watts in to the power plant in the form of fuel results in 200 watts out, but in that example we can say 196 watts has dissipated in the form of heat (mostly) comprised of:

124 watts dissipated at coal plant
4 watts dissipated in the power lines
68 watts dissipated in heat from the 72 watt incandescent light bulb

This leaves about 4 watts of useful light power coming from the 72 watt light bulb.

And yes the dissipated energy is normally considered waste, but it's not always wasted. In the winter, the heat from the incandescent bulb heats your home (partially) meaning your heater needs to provide that much less heat. I wouldn't say you're "re-using" the dissipated energy, but you could say you're using it as a perhaps unintentional auxiliary heat source.

In contrast, in the summer, your air conditioner has to work that much harder to offset the extra heat, so in that case it's not just a loss, it's a penalty also which adds 68 watts of cooling load to your air conditioner in addition to the 68 watts of heat from the light bulb, for a total of 136 watts.

So, by turning the 72 watt light bulb off in the summer, you can save 136 watts of electricity if you're running an air conditioner. Now to learn more about this, I'll be making a DVD series explaining how light switches can solve the energy crisis by getting a 136 watt savings from a 72 watt light bulb, be sure to watch for it! (just kidding but your hoaxer heroes say things just as ridiculous).
edit on 23-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Based on his experience and research, Lindemann has concluded that Carnot was mistaken about Heat being converted to Work. I am watching and re-watching the video to take notes on how he supports that belief.


Just for reference here, according to the National Professional Society of Engineers, in the past ten or so years, something like 300,000 new engineers have graduated in the United States alone. Around 2 million people or so are employed as professional engineers in the United States. There are many more employed in non-primarily-engineering jobs (computer science, consulting, etc).

There are slightly fewer physicists, but still probably a million or so in the US.

Extrapolating to the rest of the world, the number of physicists and engineers in the world is probably about 10 million. With somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 new ones produced each year.

Keep in mind, Carnot (and all the other founders of thermodynamics) figured out this stuff in the early 1800s. That's 200 years ago.

So are you really claiming that tens of millions of scientists over the course of two centuries haven't figured out that an extremely basic part of their field is wrong?

And, you do realize, that in science we don't exactly discourage people from figuring out if things are wrong? I mean, we literally hand out million-dollar prizes for that kind of thing.

And you're telling me that tens of millions of experts, being offered prizes of millions of dollars to prove things wrong and to come up with new things, did not figure this out, and incorrectly oppose it? That's absurd.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


No, it's not.

Here's why.

People who figure out things that are wrong with the status quo often have to put up with ridicule and loss of income because those who like the status quo insist on keeping things as they are.

Additionally, people who figure these things out and then act on them with inventions sometimes actually lose their lives over it.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose


Additionally, people who figure these things out and then act on them with inventions sometimes actually lose their lives over it.


 


Or so people claim when they are trying to sell you free energy ideas.

The reality is theres far more evidence to show that Moduli's statement is much closer to reality.

spie.org...

www.unesco.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.iun.edu...

And not only that, but the "Big" things you claim are killing off random people who "discover" all these suppressed things, most of them owe their bank accounts to scientific and engineering discoveries or progress.

As Moduli pointed out, by the sheer number of people related in the field do you think its actually possible to suppress something?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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"?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:59 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"?


Sorry second law of thermodynamics says thats impossible.The second law says have to add energy to a system to get more work, and the ratio of heat to work will never equal 100% due to energy expanding away from its source. Or another way to put it you cant break even because entropy.

physics.about.com...

edit on 11/23/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/23/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Mary Rose


The following two screenshots indicate an example of what Peter Lindemann is talking about:





He said the Regenerative Steam Distiller produces 7 or 8 times more distilled water for the same amount of hour input.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Hes clueless first there is the temperature of the water anything above absolute 0 contains energy. Then there is the atmosphere itself exchanging heat to the water. If the atmosphere was absolute 0 the device wouldnt function. Hes just transfering heat nothing more but people who try to make inventions very rarely understand the physics behind it.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

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

If you really want to understand this you need to study the example I posted which shows the difference in the dissipated power (196 watts) and the useful light power which is extracted (4 watts), versus the fuel power input of 200 watts. 196 watts is vastly different from 4 watts you seem to be mixing up the two in a very confused manner. The total power out of 200 watts is the sum of those two which matches exactly the input of 200 watts, not one or the other. I would say the useful light power extracted is 4 watts, which is nowhere near the 200 watts of fuel energy put in, so it is false that "we extract exactly the amount of energy out that we put in" since 4 is not exactly 200.

Reword that to say the sum of the extracted power out plus the dissipated power out is exactly equal to the power in, and then you have the law of conservation of energy which states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change (which is why 200 watts out equals 200 watts in).

If the system is not isolated, this law doesn't apply.
edit on 23-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join