Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Power ratio over one

Expand Messages
  • ppmguy
    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
    Message 1 of 39 , Jan 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      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
      your test?
      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,
      my friend.
      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!
      David Middleton
    • Autymn D. C.
      ... radiant refrigerator radiant freezer moonbeam collector
      Message 39 of 39 , Jan 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- catboat15@... wrote:
        > conditions. Then our lower temperature reservoir is
        > 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.)

        radiant refrigerator
        radiant freezer
        moonbeam collector
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.