>

Hello all,

> Dear Bill,

>

> At the start of your website, the definition of COP is in error.

> There is a very real difference between the efficiency of a system and

> the COP of that system. You defined efficiency! Efficiency is the

> useful energy out (or useful work out) divided by the total energy

> input to the system from all sources (environment and/or the

> operator-arranged and paid for input). No system can exhibit

> efficiency>1.0, because it would have to create energy from nothing

> to do that. The energy must be input from one or more sources.

>

> The COP is a ratio that compares "what you get for what you yourself

> have to pay for". It's the useful energy out (or useful work out)

> divided by the energy that is input to the system by the operator and

> paid for by him. If one gets the environment to input some of the

> energy, and more than enough to pay for the internal losses of the

> system, then the system will exhibit COP>1.0. If one gets the

> environment to input ALL the energy, then the COP is infinity (a

> finite output divided by zero operator energy input is equal to

> infinity).

>

> A common windmill has an efficiency usually of 50% or less, but a

> COP = infinity. A waterwheel, sailboat, charge or dipole, and solar

> cell all have COP = infinity. A solar cell, e.g., may have an

> efficiency of, say, 17% or so, which means it wastes some 83% of the

> energy that is input to it. However, since the environment (the

> sunlight) inputs all the energy and the operator does not input any,

> it still has a COP = infinity. A common home heat pump usually has an

> efficiency of some 50% or so, but will have a COP = 4.0 or so, under

> decent conditions.

>

> So "efficiency" means how well the system processes its input energy

> --- all of it, from whatever source. The "COP" is something like a

> benefit-to-cost ratio, comparing what you get out to what you

> yourself have to pay to get it.

>

> The two terms are quite different things, even when the operator

> inputs all the energy, the environment inputs none, and the two

> numbers are the same, efficiency expressed in percentage and COP

> expressed in a decimal. A common electric motor attached to the power

> line you are paying for, e.g., may have an efficiency of 40% and also

> a COP = 0.40.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Tom Bearden

>

In earlier post in this forum I compared the MEG workingprinciple with the

workingprinciple of a eatpump.

Tom Bearden repeats this in his response above.

Now comes the problem I have had with the MEG all this time.

A heatpump can work like a perpetuum mobile when combined with an energy

generator driving the shaft of the heatpump.

However this only works when the energy level it takes it's heat from is

higher than the energy level the generator gives his energy to.

Like with two altidudes (waterfall), with two temperature levels (heatpump)

or two pressure levels (windmill).

Now Bearden seems to say that the magnet delivers this energy gap between

both the poles of the magnet and our "non-magnetic" environment.

In Bearden terms the magnetic pole is the potential.

However this is no prove at all that energy flows between magnetic

potentials. It could well be a waterfall without any water.

Maybe a magnet is much like a stretched elastic-band. When you stretch it

you create a potential but the only working energy you can get out of it is

the working energy you have put in to it to create the potential in the

first place. Why would a magnet be any different?

Maybe any of you can take away my sceptisism?

Webdrifter>

(heatpump)

> >

> > Dear Bill,

> >

> > At the start of your website, the definition of COP is in error.

> > There is a very real difference between the efficiency of a system and

> > the COP of that system. You defined efficiency! Efficiency is the

> > useful energy out (or useful work out) divided by the total energy

> > input to the system from all sources (environment and/or the

> > operator-arranged and paid for input). No system can exhibit

> > efficiency>1.0, because it would have to create energy from nothing

> > to do that. The energy must be input from one or more sources.

> >

> > The COP is a ratio that compares "what you get for what you yourself

> > have to pay for". It's the useful energy out (or useful work out)

> > divided by the energy that is input to the system by the operator and

> > paid for by him. If one gets the environment to input some of the

> > energy, and more than enough to pay for the internal losses of the

> > system, then the system will exhibit COP>1.0. If one gets the

> > environment to input ALL the energy, then the COP is infinity (a

> > finite output divided by zero operator energy input is equal to

> > infinity).

> >

> > A common windmill has an efficiency usually of 50% or less, but a

> > COP = infinity. A waterwheel, sailboat, charge or dipole, and solar

> > cell all have COP = infinity. A solar cell, e.g., may have an

> > efficiency of, say, 17% or so, which means it wastes some 83% of the

> > energy that is input to it. However, since the environment (the

> > sunlight) inputs all the energy and the operator does not input any,

> > it still has a COP = infinity. A common home heat pump usually has an

> > efficiency of some 50% or so, but will have a COP = 4.0 or so, under

> > decent conditions.

> >

> > So "efficiency" means how well the system processes its input energy

> > --- all of it, from whatever source. The "COP" is something like a

> > benefit-to-cost ratio, comparing what you get out to what you

> > yourself have to pay to get it.

> >

> > The two terms are quite different things, even when the operator

> > inputs all the energy, the environment inputs none, and the two

> > numbers are the same, efficiency expressed in percentage and COP

> > expressed in a decimal. A common electric motor attached to the power

> > line you are paying for, e.g., may have an efficiency of 40% and also

> > a COP = 0.40.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Tom Bearden

> >

>

> Hello all,

>

> In earlier post in this forum I compared the MEG workingprinciple with the

> workingprinciple of a eatpump.

> Tom Bearden repeats this in his response above.

>

> Now comes the problem I have had with the MEG all this time.

>

> A heatpump can work like a perpetuum mobile when combined with an energy

> generator driving the shaft of the heatpump.

> However this only works when the energy level it takes it's heat from is

> higher than the energy level the generator gives his energy to.

> Like with two altidudes (waterfall), with two temperature levels

> or two pressure levels (windmill).

is

> Now Bearden seems to say that the magnet delivers this energy gap between

> both the poles of the magnet and our "non-magnetic" environment.

> In Bearden terms the magnetic pole is the potential.

>

> However this is no prove at all that energy flows between magnetic

> potentials. It could well be a waterfall without any water.

> Maybe a magnet is much like a stretched elastic-band. When you stretch it

> you create a potential but the only working energy you can get out of it

> the working energy you have put in to it to create the potential in the

Hello,

> first place. Why would a magnet be any different?

>

> Maybe any of you can take away my sceptisism?

>

> Webdrifter

>

>

Something else came to mind.

The COP of a heatpump maybe 4.0 when transforming energy to a higher

temperature level.

However when used as a motor a heatpump works exactly the other way round.

It is now transforming energy to a lower temperature level with a COP 1/4

thus 0.25

The MEG seems at it's best comparable with a heatpump working like a

motor.....

Right or wrong?

Webdrifter