well, everyone saw that you were not interested in this subject and that you did not believe in it, and that you had no scientific basis to prove it: it is easier to prove something that does not not exist rather than trying to move forward!
with that, we got it right, I think you can let the others work now.
by the way, do you believe in cop> 1 heat pumps? it's on another post, if you're interested ;-)
100% water engine (again)
Hi Jonule,
No need to continue in this tone ...
To answer anyway ...
For PACs with a COP greater than one, this is perfectly correct. But that has nothing to do with "free energy" or overunity. You can even go up to an infinite COP when the hot and cold sources are almost at the same temperature.
It is not really on the "econology posts", often interesting, but of which it is not the vocation, that you will find all the scientific elements to explain it, but in the 1st book of physics come dealing with thermodynamic machines.
I let the competent and modest people like you continue their studies and their antinuclear and surunitary theses particularly well supported, and especially open on the founded arguments and contrary to what they consider true.
Bye bye.
No need to continue in this tone ...
To answer anyway ...
For PACs with a COP greater than one, this is perfectly correct. But that has nothing to do with "free energy" or overunity. You can even go up to an infinite COP when the hot and cold sources are almost at the same temperature.
It is not really on the "econology posts", often interesting, but of which it is not the vocation, that you will find all the scientific elements to explain it, but in the 1st book of physics come dealing with thermodynamic machines.
I let the competent and modest people like you continue their studies and their antinuclear and surunitary theses particularly well supported, and especially open on the founded arguments and contrary to what they consider true.
Bye bye.
0 x
I think that you have a critical mind, but that you do not leave enough chances to these technologies which will hopefully break through one day.
that's right: me I'm waiting for the last
good continuation
Remundo wrote:It is not really on the "econology posts", often interesting, but of which it is not the vocation, that you will find all the scientific elements to explain it, but in the 1st physics book came dealing with thermodynamic machines.
that's right: me I'm waiting for the last
good continuation
0 x
Remundo wrote:It is not really on the "econology posts", often interesting, but of which it is not the vocation, that you will find all the scientific elements to explain it, but in the 1st book of physics come dealing with thermodynamic machines.
Surunity is not conceivable in a "closed" system in the name of the principle of conservation of energy. No one will contradict you.
On the other hand, from the moment when there is a circulation of electric charges, the system is no longer closed, it communicates with its environment. The energy involved is no longer just that of the circuit, but that of the universe. And there the sovereign principle is no longer that of the conservation of energy, but the conservation of the charge. However, the two are sometimes incompatible, this is the principle used in a transmitter. This causes a violation of the law of conservation of charge, and suddenly the circuit "eliminates" the energy that has become unwanted in the form of electromagnetic radiation. There is indeed conservation of energy, but at the level of the entire universe
On the same principle I do not exclude that a circuit is forced to "call for help" the surrounding electromagnetic energy to keep its charge at all costs. This is what must have happened in the American "Z-machine", where researchers are still scratching their heads to find out where their 400% yield comes from.
0 x
Hello Crispus,
Um ... really no one
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE. The 2 principles remain valid. The total charge of the universe is conserved just like its total energy.
That surprises me ... In all the experiments, in particular those of collisions in relativistic kinematics (very harsh conditions for matter), we have always observed the conservation of energy and charge. Finally ... you never know ...
A radio transmitter Ah well, then the antennas do not check the conservation of the charge? Some run away . (big pun intended for those who follow me ... ) Ah, I'm carrying a little ... Sorry I'm teasing
Electromagnetic emissions are based on the vibration of the charges in the antenna. These oscillate under the action of an alternating voltage and therefore undergo an alternating acceleration. This forces them to radiate to convert the stirring energy (of electrical origin) into electromagnetic radiation, to respect the conservation of energy, with Joules losses of course ...
Or maybe it's a "quanthomme" transmitter . But there, I am not competent ...
So there, you raise an interesting question ... And there, to say the least, it's smoky ... Americans are sometimes very good at putting together "stories" and bamboozling other nations. If they had really discovered the overunit with their Z-pinch, they would have hastened to put a lead cap on it and immediately affect their best scientists to understand the "schmilblick".
Instead, they dumped the stuff on pasture in scientific magazines and Wikipedia ... Strange no
Moreover, on their "400%", it is not clear to what this report relates ... What input and output energies ???
Because every day, there are those who make 400% of return: Those are the plumbing heating engineers with a heat pump, or yourselves with your fridge (respectively home thermal input / compressor power, and fridge thermal removal / compressor power) ... All that to say that each time, we don't really know what we're talking about on the Z-pinch, which is also very interesting.
@+
Crispus wrote:Surunity is not conceivable in a "closed" system in the name of the principle of conservation of energy. No one will contradict you.
Um ... really no one
By cons from the moment there is circulation of electrical charges, the system is no longer closed
TRUE
it communicates with its environment. The energy involved is no longer only that of the circuit, but that of the universe
TRUE
And there the sovereign principle is no longer that of the conservation of energy, but the conservation of the charge.
FALSE. The 2 principles remain valid. The total charge of the universe is conserved just like its total energy.
The two are sometimes incompatible
That surprises me ... In all the experiments, in particular those of collisions in relativistic kinematics (very harsh conditions for matter), we have always observed the conservation of energy and charge. Finally ... you never know ...
this is the principle used in a transmitter. This causes a violation of the law of conservation of charge, and suddenly the circuit "eliminates" the energy that has become unwanted in the form of electromagnetic radiation. There is indeed conservation of energy, but at the level of the entire universe
A radio transmitter Ah well, then the antennas do not check the conservation of the charge? Some run away . (big pun intended for those who follow me ... ) Ah, I'm carrying a little ... Sorry I'm teasing
Electromagnetic emissions are based on the vibration of the charges in the antenna. These oscillate under the action of an alternating voltage and therefore undergo an alternating acceleration. This forces them to radiate to convert the stirring energy (of electrical origin) into electromagnetic radiation, to respect the conservation of energy, with Joules losses of course ...
Or maybe it's a "quanthomme" transmitter . But there, I am not competent ...
This is what must have happened in the American "Z-machine", where researchers are still scratching their heads to find out where their 400% yield comes from.
So there, you raise an interesting question ... And there, to say the least, it's smoky ... Americans are sometimes very good at putting together "stories" and bamboozling other nations. If they had really discovered the overunit with their Z-pinch, they would have hastened to put a lead cap on it and immediately affect their best scientists to understand the "schmilblick".
Instead, they dumped the stuff on pasture in scientific magazines and Wikipedia ... Strange no
Moreover, on their "400%", it is not clear to what this report relates ... What input and output energies ???
Because every day, there are those who make 400% of return: Those are the plumbing heating engineers with a heat pump, or yourselves with your fridge (respectively home thermal input / compressor power, and fridge thermal removal / compressor power) ... All that to say that each time, we don't really know what we're talking about on the Z-pinch, which is also very interesting.
@+
0 x
Remundo wrote:It is not really on the "econology posts", often interesting, but of which it is not the vocation, that you will find all the scientific elements to explain it, but in the 1st book of physics come dealing with thermodynamic machines.
Ah! Remundo! eternal skeptic!
yes you are right to be very critical of information
conveyed on forum ...
but on "free energy" you may have to revise very beliefs?
you can watch here:
http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/345311.html
0 x
Hi Remundo,
It is not easy to instill doubt in a faithful disciple of the official scientific religion. I was like you a few years ago. But I preferred to join the clan of heretics rather than skipping over a bunch of promising topics. You too may be infected, run away while it's time
Sorry for the "shortcut" on the transmitter and thank you for the operation reminder, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that an electromagnetic machine or a Pantone reactor for example are not closed devices (see the many posts on ionization on this). But I see you already "know" ...
Unfortunately, the "scientists" questioned about the Pantone reactor consider it with contempt on a purely thermodynamic level (Carnot inside), and miss out on a precious subject of experiments. Suddenly it is do-it-yourselfers like us, more preoccupied with the future of humanity than with sterile research on "the front big bang" who struggle with the study on a low budget.
Obviously we are talking about the same things but not in the same terms. In an electromagnetic circuit, the charge or the flux are conserved, but the energy sometimes has trouble following ... No matter how it leaves the circuit, it is radiated because it could not remain there without disturbing the conservation of the load. Point.
On the other hand the energy remains in the universe, it is a commonly accepted fact, even here
I offer you a "thought experiment" since you do not seem to see the usefulness of the experiment. This is what our current researchers do too often, whose simulation software systematically gives the "expected result" since we designed them for that. It's less messy, less risky ... But blah, no surprise.
Take a capacitor (ex: C = 100 µF), charged under U = 100 V, then connect it to a second identical capacitor, initially discharged, through a superconductor (no Joule effect in play).
It remains to calculate the load and the initial and final energies (Reminder: Q = CU, W = CU² / 2) and conclude.
Knowing that a capacitor is an ordinary conductive / insulating (or empty) / conductive sandwich, this is a scenario which can occur commonly in nature (except for the joule effect, which nibbles a few%), not only in the lab.
After theory you have to move on to experimentation ...
Designing a Gillier-Pantone is not easy for everyone, on the other hand if you have an hour (say 4 if you are clumsy) therefore discreetly mount a WITH on your vehicle, and compare performance and consumption before / after . It's (almost) free, reversible and totally invisible, you can do it in secret without fear that your "gullibility" will be laughed at. To avoid crying out for deception in the event of bad editing, still follow the protocol proposed here:
http://vortex.francophone.free.fr/viewsujet.php?id=136
For the part, it is this banal experience (WITH 4 at Quanthomme) which definitively ruined my confidence in the official science and the technology which accompanies it ... If our scientists can perfectly describe and model a vortex by characterizing it by ... its vorticity! ... explaining with certainty its origin is something else. When I read the Wikipedia page dedicated to Ranque effect, I find the commentary on the inexplicably high yield of the device smoky:
Clearly, yes the COP of the tube is inexplicable, but "fortunately" compensated by the mediocrity of the compressor device.
Or how to sweep away a mystery that begged to be studied more closely ... How small
Our science uses models which are satisfactory in most cases. But if the experience puts theory at odds, the researcher's duty is to review his copy, not to sit on his "titles of nobility", as is unfortunately too much the case today ...
It is not easy to instill doubt in a faithful disciple of the official scientific religion. I was like you a few years ago. But I preferred to join the clan of heretics rather than skipping over a bunch of promising topics. You too may be infected, run away while it's time
Sorry for the "shortcut" on the transmitter and thank you for the operation reminder, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that an electromagnetic machine or a Pantone reactor for example are not closed devices (see the many posts on ionization on this). But I see you already "know" ...
Unfortunately, the "scientists" questioned about the Pantone reactor consider it with contempt on a purely thermodynamic level (Carnot inside), and miss out on a precious subject of experiments. Suddenly it is do-it-yourselfers like us, more preoccupied with the future of humanity than with sterile research on "the front big bang" who struggle with the study on a low budget.
Obviously we are talking about the same things but not in the same terms. In an electromagnetic circuit, the charge or the flux are conserved, but the energy sometimes has trouble following ... No matter how it leaves the circuit, it is radiated because it could not remain there without disturbing the conservation of the load. Point.
On the other hand the energy remains in the universe, it is a commonly accepted fact, even here
I offer you a "thought experiment" since you do not seem to see the usefulness of the experiment. This is what our current researchers do too often, whose simulation software systematically gives the "expected result" since we designed them for that. It's less messy, less risky ... But blah, no surprise.
Take a capacitor (ex: C = 100 µF), charged under U = 100 V, then connect it to a second identical capacitor, initially discharged, through a superconductor (no Joule effect in play).
It remains to calculate the load and the initial and final energies (Reminder: Q = CU, W = CU² / 2) and conclude.
Knowing that a capacitor is an ordinary conductive / insulating (or empty) / conductive sandwich, this is a scenario which can occur commonly in nature (except for the joule effect, which nibbles a few%), not only in the lab.
After theory you have to move on to experimentation ...
Designing a Gillier-Pantone is not easy for everyone, on the other hand if you have an hour (say 4 if you are clumsy) therefore discreetly mount a WITH on your vehicle, and compare performance and consumption before / after . It's (almost) free, reversible and totally invisible, you can do it in secret without fear that your "gullibility" will be laughed at. To avoid crying out for deception in the event of bad editing, still follow the protocol proposed here:
http://vortex.francophone.free.fr/viewsujet.php?id=136
For the part, it is this banal experience (WITH 4 at Quanthomme) which definitively ruined my confidence in the official science and the technology which accompanies it ... If our scientists can perfectly describe and model a vortex by characterizing it by ... its vorticity! ... explaining with certainty its origin is something else. When I read the Wikipedia page dedicated to Ranque effect, I find the commentary on the inexplicably high yield of the device smoky:
According to the second principle of thermodynamics, it is impossible to cool a cold body thanks to another warmer without spending energy. This is what this device seems to do! By considering the whole system, compressor and Ranque-Hilsch tube, it becomes clear that it is the compressor that provides this work. The fathers of thermodynamics can sleep peacefully ...
Clearly, yes the COP of the tube is inexplicable, but "fortunately" compensated by the mediocrity of the compressor device.
Or how to sweep away a mystery that begged to be studied more closely ... How small
Our science uses models which are satisfactory in most cases. But if the experience puts theory at odds, the researcher's duty is to review his copy, not to sit on his "titles of nobility", as is unfortunately too much the case today ...
0 x
Remundo wrote: Americans are sometimes very good at putting together "stories" and bamboozling other nations. If they had really discovered the overunit with their Z-pinch, they would have been quick to put a lead cap on it and immediately assign their top scientists to figure out the “schmilblick.” Instead, they threw it off. in the past in scientific magazines and Wikipedia ... Strange no
hi Remundo
Nothing very strange in all this. If you followed the history of the Z-machine (see the site of JP PETIT) you will understand better how the Americans could let the info escape. On the other hand, an unexplained release of energy is not necessarily a sign of excess unity. There may have been an unidentified fusion reaction between impurities lying there. In any case, currently, the lead screed seems well put.
But hey, we get out of the subject, there ...
Last edited by Cuicui the 05 / 02 / 08, 17: 50, 1 edited once.
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 18 Replies
- 8135 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
06/09/22, 00:50A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 730 Replies
- 145685 views
-
Last message by Eric DUPONT
View the latest post
24/11/23, 13:45A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 13 Replies
- 7648 views
-
Last message by Janic
View the latest post
20/06/21, 15:14A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 42 Replies
- 30937 views
-
Last message by Lilieth78
View the latest post
20/05/18, 15:32A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 23 Replies
- 22032 views
-
Last message by Ahmed
View the latest post
27/02/17, 19:56A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
Go back to "Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 97 guests