Free energy
- Thread starter crazeeeeeem
- Start date
- Status
By exerting more energy than is contained in the heat that you push uphill.
I expected something like that. Even after two or three people tried so hard to explain it to you in that thread, you still don't get it - do you?
Ever heard of something called COP - Coefficent Of Performance? It's a term used, among other things, to rate heat pumps. A COP of three means that for one unit of energy used, three are delivered at the output of the device. Most systems used for residential installations have a COP of 5 - 8.
So I'm still waiting for your explaination of how it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Can't figure it out?
crazeeeeeem
Registered Senior Member
Same applies regardless of VOP
From http://www.arcade-electronics.com
The Velocity Of Propagation or VOP is the speed at which an electrical signal passes through a cable. The VOP is usually expressed as a percentage, where the denominator is the speed of light. Thus, in a cable with a VOP of 90, an electrical signal will travel from one end of the cable to the other at 0.9C.
Reasons why the measurement is not precise
Since the VOP is an electrical property of the cable, whether or not the cable is coiled or straight effects the VOP value.
Also, the manufacturer only tightly controls the VOP in cables that are designed for transmitting high speed electrical signals. Thus the VOP for cables like Romex, and bell wire vary greatly, from batch to batch and manufacturer to manufacturer.
While VOP's are technically a number like 67.345, they are almost never expressed with more than single digit precision, e.g. 67.
Even so, using ShortStop to get within the right ballpark is an immense time savings, especially when you remember that most failures are at a junction and wires are almost never run in a straight path to begin with, they always have bends and loops.
The following table lists many cable types and their associated VOP's (both straight and coiled). Additional VOP`s may be found on our VOP - by Manufacturer page.
Note 1: The VOP for THHN wires inside a conduit varies greatly based on the overall contents of the conduit. For 8 to 16 guage wires in 1/2 inch to 1 inch conduit, the VOP is approximately 77, with a range of 70 (crowded) to 84 (sparse) depending on how crowded the conduit.
Note 2: With double twisted cables such as CAT-5, where the individual pairs are twisted around each other, the length of each of the pairs is slightly different. In CAT-5 cables, this difference from the shortest wire to the longest wire is approiximately 3%
Your links provided no information whatsoeverabout VOP that I could find.
The generally accepted number for an electrical signal's propagation through a conductor is a MAXIMUM of about 2/3 c - roughly 200,000km/sec. I've NO idea where you are getting these weird high numbers.
Hype, this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. Now that this has happened, can "free energy" be far behind?
Fantastic! Now get used to it. I'm newly employed as a solar-power technician. So far as I know, your corporate masters are having extreme difficulty regulating and taxing sunshine.
Oh, your plan might work, if not for the quick thinking of:
"Have you ever seen the sun set at 3 p.m.?"
Burns unveils his most dastardly scheme of all to the town; the construction of a giant, movable disk that would permanently block out the sun in Springfield, thus ensuring the residents constant use of electricity to earn massive profits for his nuclear power plant.So you see, we've thought of everything!
D'Oh!
Probably because I don't speak bullshit.
I doubt if you know a single law.
So you have a word for BS. It doesn't make it true. It takes more energy to push a given amount of energy uphill than you get out of it, period.
The blog linked in the OP states that a current circulating in a superconducting ring can induce charge via a coil in another circuit, thus obtaining 'free' energy.
I guess they didn't think that the coil would act as a resister and take energy from the super conductor, thus depleting it's charge.
I guess they didn't think that the coil would act as a resister and take energy from the super conductor, thus depleting it's charge.
There is actual transfer of energy. This is just another version of the electrical transformer.
MetaKron: "This is just another version of the electrical transformer."
...And just another version of a scam.
...And just another version of a scam.
Exactly! At least MetaKron could understand the basic action of that device.
But he still seems to think that heat pumps are a scam even though there are hundreds of thousands onf them in service. And he won't even attempt to try and explain how they work! Ha-ha-ha!
Hasn't got a clue.Exactly! At least MetaKron could understand the basic action of that device.
But he still seems to think that heat pumps are a scam even though there are hundreds of thousands onf them in service. And he won't even attempt to try and explain how they work! Ha-ha-ha!
You're one of the people who makes modern science a disgusting head game.
A long time ago my physics text explained to me that heat won't move uphill unless you expend more work to push it uphill than you get out of it, and that this was an ironclad law, and that anyone who told you different was scamming.
What you are telling me is the same thing as telling me that a certain type of so-called perpetual motion machine works, even though calling it a perpetual motion machine is wrong, because it actually uses stored energy, the heat found in whatever it extracts the heat from. I've seen Sterling engines on the net that worked on warm water and condensed ice on their cold side, which meant that they actually created their own cold side. And that is the thing that you are going to turn around and tell me is impossible, you nobody.
So you are going to tell me that when I have two of the same thing, one is wrong and one is right.
This is why I would just as soon you went to hell.
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
If you can transfer heat in bulk uphill using 5 to 8 times less energy than is contained in that heat then you have broken the second law as expressed this way. There is an apocryphal list of many processes that violate this law but you wouldn't care even if I could find it.
Again, this would not actually be perpetual motion because it would take one form of stored energy and convert it into another.
Now I've got the complete picture. I can violate the second law of thermodynamics simply by doing creative accounting and back-sassing the laws of physics. Don't worry, you won't figure out what that means before I have my patent.
If you can transfer heat in bulk uphill using 5 to 8 times less energy than is contained in that heat then you have broken the second law as expressed this way. There is an apocryphal list of many processes that violate this law but you wouldn't care even if I could find it.
Again, this would not actually be perpetual motion because it would take one form of stored energy and convert it into another.
Now I've got the complete picture. I can violate the second law of thermodynamics simply by doing creative accounting and back-sassing the laws of physics. Don't worry, you won't figure out what that means before I have my patent.
Last edited:
I honestly don't care that you don't fully understand the principles of refrigeration that are employed in heat pumps and that they actually work as described - moving 5 to 8 or more times the heat from one area to another compared to the energy needed to make them operate.
As I said earlier, there are hundreds of thousands of them in service (including in large, industrial settings) and the customers are quite happy with them. But I'm sure not going to be bothered with explaining it to you - you are free to do your own research on the matter and have any opinion you want.
Of course it doesn't. But apparently you think it does, right? Do you even realize that the ordinary kitchen refrigerator - according to your viewpoint - violates the second law (in principle) since it moves heat from an area of lower concentration to one of a greater concentration.
Of course it doesn't but you would appear to think so, based on it's results.- Status