Power ratio over one
- Dear Mr. Krieg:
I am challenging your challenge. My claim: is to have built a
working, proof of concept apparatus that clearly shows a power ratio
over one. I am specifically stating that the first law of
thermodynamics is incorrect. It is possible to get more power out
than what was used to produce it. Power out divided by power in =
power ratio. This apparatus clearly has a power ratio over (1) one.
Your proposed test protocol is severely flawed on several levels.
Let's do some critical thinking on your expected output requirements.
History shows that a marketable apparatus is not made on first
attempts, on this type device. The ideas and theories go through
constant change, from different people, over time. Reference:
"Most sources cite Faraday as developing the first electric motor, in
1821. In fact, it was not until about 1875, that Gramme and Siemens
eventually developed modern, efficient motors, after the fundamental
principles became better understood." How many people and years is
that? Your requirement is, "one thousand five hundred watts" right
off the bat. This implies fuzzy emotion, not critical thinking. Most
certainly, a critical thinker would understand this concept.
"Free Energy" HOOK IT TO ITSELF AND MAKE IT RUN FOR MONTHS, AND DO
USEFUL WORK WITH NO ADDITIONAL MEANS OF INPUT (SELF RUNNING).
Your fabricated test protocol is baseless. What exactly are you
testing for? How long the bearings last? You dreamed up a "test",
based on a made up "word", for an imaginary "device" that "doesn't
exist". There is something strange (Woo) about that. Then you have
the audacity to strut around proclaiming that no one has taken your
test yet. Did you get a peer review on this fabricated test protocol
first? Of course you didn't. It may look reasonable on paper; it may
even sound reasonable, but nonetheless faulty thinking. If the
apparatus stopped 1 day into the test for unknown reasons, in that
one-day span, did the apparatus show an over (1) one power ratio or
did it not?(Proof please) By how much either way? (Proof please) Was
the first law of thermodynamics violated or not? (Proof please)
Exactly how many experimental devices that you have bad-mouthed, have
you personally tested with this protocol, or any protocol? In the
real world, one complete cycle is the preferred test duration. Would
you explain to me, how a hundred years ago, measurements were exact
enough to base laws on, but in modern times it is too difficult to
measure with that same amount of accuracy; Isn't that the premise of
Please note: 1 watt going into the device from a cell, and two watts
simultaneously coming out of the device, is a power ratio over one,
even if the input is a cell that diminishes in power output, until
the device stops. Hooking the output to the input before
understanding the principal is fuzzy emotion. Don't play the game
that a device like this cannot be measured by conventional means.
There are smart, competent, engineers, professionals and lay people
that are very capable of measuring my claimed device. It does not
take special scientists, or equipment. All your nonsense
notwithstanding, we are both measuring for the same thing power
A data recorder is a tried and true method of obtaining instantaneous
voltage and amperage values. Voltage is measured at the terminals.
Voltage measurements taken across a precision resistor, gives
amperage. The instantaneous values are recorded to disk along with
the waveforms. The instantaneous measurement values are opened in
Excel. With a few formulas, RMS and average calculations are computed
on one cycle, to ascertain the power factor. From there it is a short
step calculating the power ratio. Using this well accepted,
accurate, form of measuring, the numbers will speak for themselves.
No need to interpret anything that is what RMS is all about. This is
a straightforward test procedure that anyone can reproduce (which is
of the upmost importance). I am using a Dataq 158UP, four channel
Data recorder, and 2W 0.05 Ω Caddock SR20: Precision current sense
resistors. Check out the perfect example of the setup at
I have something to put up. It is physical, you can see it, you can
touch it, you can make it start and stop, you can adjust it and most
importantly you can test it. What exactly do you have to put up? No
history lessons or "we wouldn't be where we are today" stuff please.
If you "think" about it, all you have is antidotal stuff, peppered
with assumed/ postulated/ extrapolated and guessed. You, my friend,
do not have any "proof" whatsoever; to back up the assertions you
make about the first law of thermodynamics being 100% accurate and
incorruptible. What you have is a bunch of old dusty ideas and call
them laws, the arrogance to believe they can never be changed, and,
the audacity to criticize, to the point of fanaticism, anyone who
dare suggest differently. Have I missed something?
I have read your web pages and your fanaticism on hooking the output
to the input is pure fuzzy emotion. Don't even ask. You're absolutely
right about the water test, no way. Do you know how many variables
are involved? How many times did you use the word "if" in that very
short description of the test? The reproduction of the test would be
a nightmare. Seems as though you are "hung up" on spikes. Not to
worry, there isn't any. Even if there were spikes, with a data
recorder there are ways to deal with it. All the bases are covered,
A cynic is the mirror image of the person they feel compelled to bad-
mouth. The cynics deal in fuzzy emotion ("no you can't . liar"),
their target also deals in fuzzy emotion, "yes I can, you just don't
understand" (a marriage made in heaven). The few real skeptics
say "just show me something, anything, somebody, anybody," then
proceeds to analyze the something/anything with critical thinking,
not fuzzy emotion. Does this make any sense? Are you a "cynic or a
skeptic? A skeptic would jump at the chance to test this working
This is open source so there is no problem there. The only thing
separating us is your agreement on the data recorder. Oh, the only
thing you did get right was the description, "over 40, long haired,
cigarette smoking, garage tinkerer" what are the odds, Good job! I
just as soon not spar to long and get to the test; after all, that is
where the proof is!
Happy New Year!
- --- catboat15@... wrote:
> conditions. Then our lower temperature reservoir isradiant refrigerator
> our earth and atmosphere.
> This too is limited to about a few degrees above the
> freezing point of water
> under favorable conditions. (I know it sometimes
> gets colder in some places, but
> I am talking about normal year round conditions.)