RE: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Michel! I wish I remembered more, this was 42 years ago and recalled only when Jones started talking about splitting the positive. Another vauge memory from a more recent time; there was a gentelman that went by the name of Fred Epps and he did post to vortex and was a theoryotician that did a lot of work with J.L. Naudin. He was heavy into parametric oscillation/amplification and Naudins site at one time contained a lot of his material. I lost track of him when he refused to sign an NDA and NCA on a device I wanted to show him. If I remember right he thought I was wrong in wanting any agreements. Anyway his work came back to mind when I remembered the old coil relay demo, I thought of the parametric effect. Sorry I don't remember more, time is taking its toll. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive Ron, are you sure there was only one relay? With two relays and an inductor it's quite easy to make a step up (boost) switchmode converter, use the first relay as a switch to ground to ramp up the current in the inductor and the second relay as a rectifier (open it in the phases where a rectifier wouldn't conduct). Mmm, there is another possibility, use an electrolytic capacitor as the rectifier: it behaves as a capacitor with an antiparallel rectifier. One relay, one C, one L, yep it should work, nice trick. If it's what I think, the positive terminal of the capacitor (= the cathode of the diode, if indeed it was an electrolytic) was connected to the load battery, and its negative end (the anode of the diode) to the switch (whose other end goes to ground) and to the inductor (whose other end goes to the source battery). Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:41 PM Subject: [Vo]:Splitting the Positive Jones! You have posted reference to 'Splitting the Positive' as you were able to find on the great www, which is sparse at best for some reason and what is available is far from what I was shown decades ago. In my case I was able to observe a system in which two primary cells were connected as ( - to - ) and the working terminals were the two positives. (Similar to Aarons) The old technology of relay (contact) switching was employed in switching a tank circuit ( L and C )across the two + terminals. What I saw was an increase in charge in one battery and a decrease in the other. Knowing what I know today, I ask how this could have been possible, how did an oscillation determine which battery to drain and which one to charge. (There was not rectification in the circuit). It only consisted of a relay switching a tank circuit into and out of connection of the two + terminals. My first thoughts were on a voltage generation caused by a difference in the contact metals, which could act as a diode, but common sense would say this voltage would be so low it could not charge a primary cell. Another idea was that there was in some way an induction from the relay coil that was producing the charge. Over time, one battery did obtain additional charge and one lost charge in the same proportion, so it was not a leveling of charge. This is what I have mentioned in communications on 'splitting the positive' and it is indeed different from what seems to be available on the web. My memory can be classed as much as folk lore as any other. To this day I wish I had possessed the foresight to look into this further.
RE: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Edmund Storms said; the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to I know a vacuum tube much better than solid states as I was created far before the transistor and do understand there is little parity between the cell and a tube. How have you solved this problem? Look at the scope traces at the bottom of the CRE page on this site and let me know if you still think you overview is valid. Please make note of the battery charging along with the gas production. Please let me know if you still feel your overview remains valid? Thank you for the feed back... -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Richard, The diagram you give is similar to how a vacuum tube would be configured. Unfortunately, no relationship exists between the behavior of an electrolytic cell and a vacuum triode. For example, unlike the grid in a triode, the grid in the electrolytic cell does not act as a high impedance controlling element. Instead, it acts alternately as a cathode and anode with respect to the other electrodes, depending on the direction of current flow. Because of C1, the current flow is limited by the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to applied voltage. As a result, you have created two electrolytic cells in series that have a fixed charge that can flow. Depending on what kind of ions that are in the cell, some of this charge will decompose water and some will initiate other chemical reactions, most of which are reversible when current changes direction. It seems to me, the major problem involves measuring just how much energy is being delivered to the entire cell because the current and voltage will be out of phase and divided between several inputs. How have you solved this problem? Ed Stiffler Scientific wrote: If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here. The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it applies to current and not energy. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments:
RE: [Vo]:US Lost
I asked myself this question when we suffered the problem in Austin TX during a 'Juneteenth Celebration' where one segment of our population attacked and killed a person of a different segment (trying not to become labeled racisit), when the person came to the aid of a driver that hit a child with his vehicle. Granted this was a mistake on his part and the person to his aid had no direct involvement, yet it seemed similar to LA when people were being pulled from vehicles and beaten. There came my question, what would happen during the 10-15 years it would take to build back our agricultural infastructure? Not to mention we would all be nude when you cutoff that 80% of textile and finished goods imports. I was totally shocked in the last week where one day milk was $2.65gal and jumped over night to $5.34gal, now if our foreign supplies shut us down, is anarcy not a very real possibility? This was of course a question based on my observation and granted it may be to narrow or bised. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:US Lost no. not with teh population we have, without a massive reduction in quality of life, particularly for the top 10 percent, and THAT will never happen without revolution. On 6/21/07, Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to gain insight to the Vort's view on the following question. If the US could Seal all borders, nothing IN from anywhere, could we survive without anarchy? Would we become a starving, unable to self support nation? -- That which yields isn't always weak.
RE: [Vo]:US Lost
That's science fiction, needless to say. Yes I agree, we would be stupid to do this ourselves, yet what if we really pis__d of China for example? Your not going to change gears over night or even in a few years. We have given up Steel, Cooper, Aluminum, Textiles, to name some primary ones. Not to mention we and our animals are being poisoned. I purchased from a national chain pharmacy Cipro for a chronic infection and in reading the enclosed fact sheet, noted a number of spelling errors. Needless to say this was counterfeit. To say our imports could not be stopped is not in my mind impossible, albeit not our choice, or maybe our enemies could just poison us over a period of time. I do not believe we as a people are capable of turning around quick enough to prevent serious problems. The old school 'Uncle Sam Wants You' or be another 'Rosie the Riveter' inner responsibility is alive and well. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:32 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:US Lost Stiffler Scientific wrote: If the US could Seal all borders, nothing IN from anywhere, could we survive without anarchy? Would we become a starving, unable to self support nation? That's science fiction, needless to say. There is no way we would want to do such a thing. But I am sure a country the size of the U.S. could easily be self-sufficient. It was nearly self-sufficient for nearly all extraction (mining), industry, energy and other major economic sectors up until the 1960s. The only difficulty, at first, would be the supply of oil and other liquid fuel. The U.S. imports ~60% of its oil. The price of gasoline would soar to $5 or $10 for a while. People would make very rapid adjustments such as carpooling and video telecommuting -- as we have discussed here -- and the problem would be fixed in five years or so. I think there would be less disruption and suffering than people realize. I think we should immediately impose a $2/gallon tax on gasoline and make this happen, with much of the money used to reduce tax rates for people earning less than $30,000 per year. The other critical import that would hurt a lot more than oil in the long run is brainpower. Many of the most talented students at the top U.S. technical universities and at corporations such as Google are from foreign countries. Thomas Freidman described the graduation commencement at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute this year: Laughing and Crying By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: May 23, 2007 First I had to laugh. Then I had to cry. I took part in commencement this year at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, one of America's great science and engineering schools, so I had a front-row seat as the first grads to receive their diplomas came on stage, all of them Ph.D. students. . . . The reason I had to laugh was because it seemed like every one of the newly minted Ph.D.'s at Rensselaer was foreign born. For a moment, as the foreign names kept coming -- ''Hong Lu, Xu Xie, Tao Yuan, Fu Tang'' -- I thought that the entire class of doctoral students in physics were going to be Chinese, until ''Paul Shane Morrow'' saved the day. It was such a caricature of what President Jackson herself calls ''the quiet crisis'' in high-end science education in this country that you could only laugh. Don't get me wrong. I'm proud that our country continues to build universities and a culture of learning that attract the world's best minds. My complaint -- why I also wanted to cry -- was that there wasn't someone from the Immigration and Naturalization Service standing next to President Jackson stapling green cards to the diplomas of each of these foreign-born Ph.D.'s. I want them all to stay, become Americans and do their research and innovation here. If we can't educate enough of our own kids to compete at this level, we'd better make sure we can import someone else's, otherwise we will not maintain our standard of living. . . . By every meaningful measurement, the U.S. is dead last in First World education. Roughly 20% of the U.S. adult population has not graduated from high school. See: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf U.S. high school graduation rates are below half in many poor counties and cities. 1.2 million drop out of high school per year in the U.S. I do not know about the rest of the country, but the quality of public education in Atlanta is drastically different from one neighborhood to the next, and in most schools it is dreadful. There is no way the U.S. will survive as a major power or as anything other than an economic colony of Japan, China or the E.U. Ireland will soon have more native high-tech brainpower than the U.S. The U.S. also spends three times more than any other country per capita on healthcare, but by most standards we are dead-last in the first world, and far below places like Costa Rica and Cuba. The nation is in very serious trouble in three fields: energy,
RE: [Vo]:US Lost
Then why is a conglomerant in AU the cause of the high price of copper? I base my fact on national news which I admit may or may not be accurate, although it was reported that they indeed control copper resources, so if we are self sufficient then it is greed here :-) -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:US Lost actually, most us copper is still coming from arizona. On 6/21/07, StifflerScientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's science fiction, needless to say. Yes I agree, we would be stupid to do this ourselves, yet what if we really pis__d of China for example? Your not going to change gears over night or even in a few years. We have given up Steel, Cooper, Aluminum, Textiles, to name some primary ones. Not to mention we and our animals are being poisoned. I purchased from a national chain pharmacy Cipro for a chronic infection and in reading the enclosed fact sheet, noted a number of spelling errors. Needless to say this was counterfeit. To say our imports could not be stopped is not in my mind impossible, albeit not our choice, or maybe our enemies could just poison us over a period of time. I do not believe we as a people are capable of turning around quick enough to prevent serious problems. The old school 'Uncle Sam Wants You' or be another 'Rosie the Riveter' inner responsibility is alive and well. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:32 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:US Lost Stiffler Scientific wrote: If the US could Seal all borders, nothing IN from anywhere, could we survive without anarchy? Would we become a starving, unable to self support nation? That's science fiction, needless to say. There is no way we would want to do such a thing. But I am sure a country the size of the U.S. could easily be self-sufficient. It was nearly self-sufficient for nearly all extraction (mining), industry, energy and other major economic sectors up until the 1960s. The only difficulty, at first, would be the supply of oil and other liquid fuel. The U.S. imports ~60% of its oil. The price of gasoline would soar to $5 or $10 for a while. People would make very rapid adjustments such as carpooling and video telecommuting -- as we have discussed here -- and the problem would be fixed in five years or so. I think there would be less disruption and suffering than people realize. I think we should immediately impose a $2/gallon tax on gasoline and make this happen, with much of the money used to reduce tax rates for people earning less than $30,000 per year. The other critical import that would hurt a lot more than oil in the long run is brainpower. Many of the most talented students at the top U.S. technical universities and at corporations such as Google are from foreign countries. Thomas Freidman described the graduation commencement at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute this year: Laughing and Crying By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: May 23, 2007 First I had to laugh. Then I had to cry. I took part in commencement this year at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, one of America's great science and engineering schools, so I had a front-row seat as the first grads to receive their diplomas came on stage, all of them Ph.D. students. . . . The reason I had to laugh was because it seemed like every one of the newly minted Ph.D.'s at Rensselaer was foreign born. For a moment, as the foreign names kept coming -- ''Hong Lu, Xu Xie, Tao Yuan, Fu Tang'' -- I thought that the entire class of doctoral students in physics were going to be Chinese, until ''Paul Shane Morrow'' saved the day. It was such a caricature of what President Jackson herself calls ''the quiet crisis'' in high-end science education in this country that you could only laugh. Don't get me wrong. I'm proud that our country continues to build universities and a culture of learning that attract the world's best minds. My complaint -- why I also wanted to cry -- was that there wasn't someone from the Immigration and Naturalization Service standing next to President Jackson stapling green cards to the diplomas of each of these foreign-born Ph.D.'s. I want them all to stay, become Americans and do their research and innovation here. If we can't educate enough of our own kids to compete at this level, we'd better make sure we can import someone else's, otherwise we will not maintain our standard of living. . . . By every meaningful measurement, the U.S. is dead last in First World education. Roughly 20% of the U.S. adult population has not graduated from high school. See: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf U.S. high school graduation rates are below half in many poor counties and cities. 1.2 million drop out of high school per year in the U.S. I do not know about
RE: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity
I would love to answer, but I think Bill Beaty might be a tad upset with me. Just consider me one of those below average intellect people and ignore what I say and build you device based on your 'almighty correct theory'? -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity Just noticing some real obvious patterns in the alternative energy community. There seems to be a lot of hit run, lol. It has some negative impact, and therefore from here after I would like to have people close the discussion by confirming their error. Stiffler, You said, --- Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. --- Your key word, if places nearly 100% probability that you are suggesting my idea would only work if we could heterodyne down from the Thz range. Could you please confirm that you read my reply to your above statement and that you now understand heterodyne down from the Thz range is not required to capture appreciable energy from room temperature gradients? Thanks, Paul Lowrance Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi Stiffler, On a macro scale all matter contains a sea of temperature gradients. View two 15 cent millimeter size thermistors separated by say 1 inch and you'll clear see temperature gradients any place on Earth. Such gradients is usable energy, even with old heat-electricity technology. Such a device does not need to reach THz temperature gradients to capture free energy. In fact a slow reacting DMM is fast enough to see the evidence. That in itself is free energy. Not much, but some nonetheless. If you want more energy then make the heat-electricity device smaller, and more of them to cover the same area of course. Stiffler, there is no magic reaction time where such a device suddenly captures free energy from such temperature gradients. I'm a little baffled you would say, Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. Just below twenty THz is merely the average blackbody radiation frequency at room temperature. Indeed it's probably next to impossible to measure 0.1 Hz blackbody radiation with even the best leading edge equipment, but there is indeed easily measurable temperature gradients in the 0.1 Hz region. Perhaps you were thinking of blackbody radiation. My previous post discussed temperature gradients, not blackbody radiation. This is very obvious and simple physics. Of course it would require expensive equipment capable of making such nano size heat-electricity devices to produce significant electrical energy flow. Presently such devices are not so efficient, but good enough nonetheless. Here's one well known company that's about to release such an efficient solid state chip - http://www.powerchips.gi Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Paul, Your idea is viable if we had the ability to heterodyne down from the Thz range with an efficiency that would make sense in recovered useable energy. It is becoming more difficult than every to know what has been and is being researched due to the issue of now 'We Must Sell' our research papers. With hundreds of middlemen resellers of research and the US Government wanting to suppress everything because they are clueless, it is a wonder we even have research left in the US. We have plenty of bio research, but I think that has a different bent if you look at big pharma. So my 1/2 cents worth is, what can we give the common man now that is not under the control of some big corp? The TAPM is one such device as it can be build with some copper pipe and a hack saw, (maybe a few other minor thing :-) ), your 800W/m2 sounds great, but is there that you know of a way to tap it?? -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A sound way to turn heat into electricity No offense intended to anyone, but something must be said about the obvious. Did it ever occur to you people that such a device if made small enough and react fast enough could draw significant continuous energy *anywhere* on Earth day and night? On a micro scale there's a vast sea of significant temperature gradients everywhere. On a nano scale even more so. Just a few days ago I posted info on such an obvious fact of science. I'm just baffled how everyone misses the obvious! It is intentional? I don't get it, LOL. What's going on ... did/do universities play subliminal messages all day programming poor students at a young age to never consider such thoughts, LOL??? Regards, Paul Lowrance Stiffler Scientific wrote: Far from a new idea indeed,
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion - What am I missing
Jed, thanks for the informative response, but I do have a couple additional questions I came up with from what you said. Probably not. Once the researchers learn how to control the heat, it should not be difficult to scale it up. It has already been accidentally scaled up to macroscopic, Okay, but if we had a good way to use Heat, then why not apply it to the waste Heat from for example an ICE engine? Would this not increase the %eff of the ICE by a meaningful amount? Waste heat from power plants, chemical plants, geothermal and so one, why if it could be utilized is it not? I do not think it will take another 20 years to make it into a practical application. I think 2 or 3 years would suffice. This would be great, but someplace it all falls apart? For most of my career I have read of the promise of a better PV cell. Every time this is stated it is stated as; 'By Next Year', 'Pending Funding', 'Baring Manufacturing Problems', and you name it excuse. Seems to me we have enough Heat and 99% of it is waste, in other words not worth the cost of recovery. I still think we have the Cart before the Horse. If we could use Heat in an efficient way, we would have problem solved, but it appears that Mother Nature is blocking that effort. Anyway thanks for the answer, it did help in my basic outlook. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 3:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-L Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion - What am I missing Stiffler Scientific wrote: Okay it is proven that excess Heat can be obtained from one or more reactions, great!, but would this not be 20-30 years from any application of the result? Probably not. Once the researchers learn how to control the heat, it should not be difficult to scale it up. It has already been accidentally scaled up to macroscopic, useful levels by Fleischmann and Pons, Mizuno and others, mainly in uncontrolled explosions. There is no telling when (or even if) researchers will learn to control the effect, but it could happen next week as easily as 20 years from now, and after that breakthrough, I do not think it will take another 20 years to make it into a practical application. I think 2 or 3 years would suffice. Heat is great, but only if you live where Heat is important, I doubt I would care if I lived Hawaii. You are missing the point. Almost all of the energy we use starts off as heat. Heat is used in heat engines to produce mechanical energy. Some is used directly, such with automobiles. The mechanical energy from other heat engines is used to produce most of the world's electricity. A small fraction of electricity comes from the mechanical energy of falling water or wind turbines, and a very tiny fraction comes from photovoltaic cells, but most starts out as heat, and is converted with steam or gas turbines. Heat used for space-heating is only a small fraction of the total, and in any case, almost all airconditioning is done with electricity generated from heat. In the future, I expect that most airconditioners will be directly powered by heat sources, such as thermally activated absorption chillers. Is not the application of the confirmation of the discovery dependant on an additional technology that can make use of the result? All machines use energy, by definition. (An object that does not consume energy is not a machine. Some machines, such as a needle pulling thread, are so small they can easily be powered by people, but they all consume energy.) Nearly all machines on earth are powered by heat energy, mainly heat from coal. Every one of them can use cold fusion heat instead. The only thing that would be more useful than a heat-producing gadget would be one that produces electricity directly such as a magic magnetic motor. If such a thing exists, it will trump cold fusion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
For some simple examples of man on the street units, take a loog at the following. http://tristate.apogee.net/et/evthcop.asp http://www.heatpumpcentre.org/About_heat_pumps/HP_performance.asp http://tva.apogee.net/res/rehcop.asp -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 4:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) When you begin to use the heat from the hot reservoir (launch the Sterling) it would tend to cool down from the thermal watts you draw from it, but since simultaneously you pour more thermal watts into it than you draw from it it heats up instead, with the extra heat coming from ambient air. Jones may be right 40% may be overestimated for the Sterling's efficiency, let's use his figure 15% instead, but Ron may also be right that I grossly underestimated the heat pump COP. If indeed heat pumps can easily run at COP=9, the overall COP would be: 0.15*9=1.35 which would be even more overunity. Sterling draws 1000W heat from hot reservoir (not necessarily water BTW) and outputs 150W mechanical. Heat pump draws 150W*9=1350W from ambient air and outputs them to the hot tank. Net power into the hot tank: 350W Anything wrong with this Jones? ;-) (someone read by Jones please answer this post so he gets it, thanks) Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) What happens when you begin to use the hot water? Harry Stiffler Scientific wrote: ... Enough of that, I hope some one will comment on your idea as I have seen Heat Pumps easily fun at COP=9 and if I remember my reading can go to COP=12 (theory). If that is the case then maybe you have just not accounted for all of the loss that will take place. Indeed for Texas (most of it) a m2 of blackened copper collector can get you some real hot water. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical embodiment: Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), and through an appropriate quasi-lossless gearbox replaces the electric motor powering the compressor of an average performance house heating type heat pump (COP=3 conservatively), which therefore pumps 400W*3=1200W of heat from the ambient air to the hot water reservoir. 1000W out, 1200W in, surely there can be no doubt that after the initial joule heater kick this apparatus will run standalone, drawing its energy from the ambient air (cooling it so ventilation will be needed, by say a 10W fan), and providing nearly 200W continuous excess heat to the hot water reservoir? Does it make more sense now? ;-) -- Michel
RE: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.
Hogwash! You left out one major aspect; goodness will prevail in the long run. The government you speak of will one day be replaced with something wonderful. You're looking at an uprising in people against controlling governments. The people cannot be enslaved forever. There's coming a peace period on Earth, and your described government and people will be unwelcome. Not in my life time and not in yours if ever. But if I go first which I may well do, you can always say I was wrong. Unless you know some deep dark secret about a visit from the 'Little Green Men', I think you may be living in wonderland. If you can say with all the problems in the world and all the different beliefs that we will all come together, then I want what you are smokin :-) No disrespect ment, but what is the basis of you idea that sometning is close after all these thousands of years?? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question. John Berry wrote: Ok, let's say that one of us (I haven't BTW) finds out how to crack this Free Energy nut. And Antigravity, and Healing/Rejuvenation. By discovering a new branch of physics which makes the things above and more easily doable. Obviously like any technology it could be misused too. So what would you do? Would you release it to the world? (all of it? some of it? only the technology but not explain how they work even if you knew?) What might happen if you did? What would you do to ensure everything went as well as possible? What of the energy and health sectors that will be in short order eliminated? What if the world just isn't ready for this technology? Or would you try to present a new possibility that might inspire people to accept the technology in the right way? (if so how?) [snip] That's why I am working on my research, which only requires old classical physics. No dangerous advanced technology required. It merely moves ambient energy to an appliance. The appliance in turn returns the energy to the environment. Ambient energy is endless. Need more energy? Just blow more air across the heat sync fins. Here's an idea just how much is available. A single average size car gasoline engine can maintain thermal equilibrium while generating hundreds of kilowatts of energy if enough air is circulated through the radiator. Stiffler Scientific wrote: John! I have so many times on so many groups, voiced my view on what you question. 1) Free Energy will never exist. Hogwash! You left out one major aspect; goodness will prevail in the long run. The government you speak of will one day be replaced with something wonderful. You're looking at an uprising in people against controlling governments. The people cannot be enslaved forever. There's coming a peace period on Earth, and your described government and people will be unwelcome. Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question.
Harry! Where do you live anyway, and do you have more than a 100W light? :-) Here in Humble TX, during the summer I pay on average $320 per month for AC when I keep the temp at 77' with new 13 SEER AC units and solar screens, roof ridge vents, electric attic fans. So I guess the feds will be happy with taxing me on $60 a months instead of $320 month for energy? Good try Why do so many people think there is meaning behind 'Free', not for generations if ever and it will be 'Not Free' but Socialism. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Now what? An important theoretical question. I think this also resolves Stiffler's concern about government losing tons of tax revenue. If you remain connected, that $60 you get back from the power company can be taxed by the government. Harry Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Rather than taking off the grid, put power back into the grid. I think the cost would be much less. Get a 50 HP Steorn motor (and I now think I understand how it works, and it's simple), and drive a cheap surplus 50 HP induction motor above synchronous speed (induction generator). Your power meter will run backwards (I've tried it). You get to send the power company a bill for US$60.00/day :-) No electronics required unless you want the disconnect feature the power company requires to prevent back feeding in case of line down conditions. Even without the grid connection, an induction generator can be made to work with some capacitors (tried that too). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:28 PM Recently I was asked what a demonstation unit would cost to take a home off grid with a 2kW FE device that does not output 120 VAC @ 60 Hz. My initial estimates, including a proprietary FE device was $60k. Payback is now 34 years.
