A steam generator with possible over unity

[hagent]

http://www.rexresearch.com/schaeffe/schaeffe.htm


I found this very interesting. Even if it doesn't put out more energy than it takes in and only is %98 percent efficent it's still a tremendous break through.

I wonder if the concentration of natural occuring heavy water may have anything to do with the variences in output power.

Although I can't imagine that there would be enough energy at the molecular level to create fusion.

The last paragraph was of keen interest.

I want to know what you guys think!

[larry cottrill]

I like that very much. If nothing else, it's a neat story of someone pursuing a "little thing" (i.e. the water hammer effect) hardly noticed by others except as an annoyance. Beautiful - I wish them every success with it.

L Cottrill

[Washout661]

Could this be the effect of releasing energy stored in the water molecule? ie electrons dropping to lower energy levels within the atoms. This could be analogous to the HeNe laser where one atom is excited by RF and then passes the energy by collision to the other which emits at the appropriate frequency. Shockwaves causing electrons in the molecule to drop energy levels and convert this into vibrational / kinetic energy - temp increase. Would possibly explain the >100% efficiency as you are releasing energy in the water.
Or I could be talking mince!

[leo]

This one is new to me, perpetual motion / free energy have my interest for a long time.
most are unworkable devices, but sometimes there is some doubt, there seems to be something in centrifugal forces and fluids, there is a story of a man who droved a car with a hydraulic pump/motor combination.
I have found a lot of links.
Here is one of them, the say the can deliver a heating system with more than 200 % efficiency.

http://www.undaltd.com/description.pdf

[tufty]

If it was able to produce more energy that was put in, the motor itself would be excess to requirements, except for starting.

What it does sound like is a nifty device that produces steam in an ingenious and relatively efficient manner. That's good, in of itself. No need for "over unity" claims; they work against you, as the article itself showed. If h'ed gone to people with the simple phrase "I have a way of making superheated steam that is more efficient than the way you have, here, look"...

Simon

[marksteamnz]

Indeed, a 20-horsepower electric motor is an energy source, but later tests and more sophisticated equipment showed that the power out -- in the form of steam -- was greater than the power in from the electric outlet source -- an engineering impossibility, but a fact nonetheless!

This is complete unmitigated horse shit! You CAN NOT violate the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws. They are self derived for ANY system in ANY universe no matter how weird.
Sorry but arses like this twit need a kicking.
You can get a patent for anything it doesn't mean it works.

[hagent]

Mark your funny!

There is a very small chance that some sort of cold fusion might be happening and in this way the device would not be violating any laws.

Also remember that these people did spend an awfull lot of money to have the unit tested by credible people.

Again it doesn't matter if it's over unity, I'm just really happy about 98%+ effeciency.

I would love to build one of these but I don't have a machine shop, or the money to pay someone else to make it.

Cheers

[marksteamnz]

Opps!! should have pointed out one more flaw. Electricity such as a kettle element used to boil water is in fact 100% efficient because this is only energy transfer and the delivery device (the element) is inside the water. There are no losses in the transfer as the electricity doesn't leak anywhere or not get used. The only losses are from the lack of insulation of the container.
As for cold fusion.....still waiting. There is a pretty devastating book written about the Pons and Flieshman fiasco.

Mark your funny!

There is a very small chance that some sort of cold fusion might be happening and in this way the device would not be violating any laws.

Also remember that these people did spend an awfull lot of money to have the unit tested by credible people.

Again it doesn't matter if it's over unity, I'm just really happy about 98%+ effeciency.

I would love to build one of these but I don't have a machine shop, or the money to pay someone else to make it.

Cheers

[larry cottrill]

You CAN NOT violate the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws. They are self derived for ANY system in ANY universe no matter how weird.
Sorry but arses like this twit need a kicking.
You can get a patent for anything it doesn't mean it works.

Sorry to butt in, Mark, but I'll posit that while what you say here is true, it misses the point. No one was saying that energy was being created from nothing! The claim is that there is some hidden potential energy that ends up being converted to heat - that is a completely different thing from violating the laws of thermodynamics.

I worked with structural, mechanical and electrical engineers every day for nine years. Do you know what efficiency they say a good air-to-air heat pump gets under ideal conditions? FOUR hundred percent! How can this be? Because they define efficiency as the usable energy out divided by the total energy you have to apply to get it (per unit time, in both cases, of course). Using this definition, we allow for the fact that the heat output has been scavenged from outside the designed system. Of course, a physicist would find this definition of efficiency to be ludicrous - but to an engineer, who is comparing it to the pretty "weak" 100 percent efficiency of resistance heating, it makes perfect sense.

The same thing is happening here. Heat is being evolved from some unknown source, it is NOT being created on the spot. Whether this unknown source is cold fusion (which I doubt) doesn't matter in terms of practical application, just as it doesn't matter to me all winter long that I'm being warmed by heat harvested from sub-freezing outdoor air! (As long as it works, of course. If the power goes out, I go back to burning wood.)

L Cottrill

[Mark]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mIPHqOPM-1M& ... ed&search=

[tufty]

The same thing is happening here. Heat is being evolved from some unknown source, it is NOT being created on the spot. Whether this unknown source is cold fusion (which I doubt) doesn't matter in terms of practical application, just as it doesn't matter to me all winter long that I'm being warmed by heat harvested from sub-freezing outdoor air! (As long as it works, of course. If the power goes out, I go back to burning wood.)

The point is that the enrgy has to be coming from somewhere, and that, although the man has obviously invented a marvellous device for converting water to steam, which appears to have a very high level of efficiency, it quite simply cannot be generating more power than it consumes. Somewhere in his calculations, he's missing something.

Now, there's nothing wrong with missing something per se, and his device certainly appears to have fairly large merits on its own. However, when you start opening your mouth and saying "over unity", people start tapping the sides of their heads and calling for the men in the white van to take you away to a room with padded walls.

A far better approach for him would surely have been to say "look, this is a nifty thing, and it somehow generates more power in steam than I am putting in in terms of electricity; I don't believe it's over-unity but for all practical terms it might as well be, and it's dead efficient at creating hot water". As it is, he's fscked up his chances of ever being taken seriously, and potentially relegated an important energy saving device to the annals of crackpot science.

For complete crank cred, he should hook the output of his "pump" to a tesla turbine, use that to drive the pump and use the excess power to generate high frequency AC. He could then use that to "crack" the output condensate from the turbine into "brown's gas", and we can all have antigravity cars that run on hydrogen and reduce nuclear waste to mere harmless scrap in the process. Something like that, anyway, I'm sure I've missed out some crank theories there, but hey.

Simon

[larry cottrill]

Simon -

Well, I have to agree completely. A lot of your success depends on how you present your findings. In general, you should never try to present an engineering achievement as a "scientific breakthrough". Especially if you're successfully using some principle you understand just well enough to use it for a particular purpose.

In this case the problem is, the underlying source of the extra energy is not directly discernible, and that gives it a "scientific" point of interest. But, a LOT of good things have been perfected and marketed successfully without the inventor understanding how it all really works. There is substantial evidence (WITHIN the patent documents!) that Lee DeForest had no idea what really went on inside the triode vacuum tube - but his name is on the patent, and he benefitted handily from it. If I remember rightly (and this may be doubtful), his claim to the idea was challenged in court by those who did basically understand it, but unsuccessfully.

L Cottrill

[hagent]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mIPHqOPM-1M& ... ed&search=

Thanks Mark for that video!

I wonder if we can buy these for our house and how much it would cost?

Thanks again,

[El-Kablooey]

Wow, they are only about 30 miles from me...

[marksteamnz]

Nope. A heat pump transfers energy i.e. something gets hot and at the same time something gets COLD.
This idiot invention relies of smoke and mirrors to fudge the basic point that if you churn water it gets hot. To test properly you need to do a calorimetry test plus have a good understanding of power flow in AC circuits. Measuring steam flow, temperature rise of the water etc and then calculating the energy produced has too many sources of error plus the number of inventors who have "proved" over unity motors while not understanding power factor correction and AC power measurement must be in the 1000's.
Claiming hidden energy is a second law violation. TANSTAAFL.

SNIP
Sorry to butt in, Mark, but I'll posit that while what you say here is true, it misses the point. No one was saying that energy was being created from nothing! The claim is that there is some hidden potential energy that ends up being converted to heat - that is a completely different thing from violating the laws of thermodynamics.

I worked with structural, mechanical and electrical engineers every day for nine years. Do you know what efficiency they say a good air-to-air heat pump gets under ideal conditions? FOUR hundred percent! How can this be? Because they define efficiency as the usable energy out divided by the total energy you have to apply to get it (per unit time, in both cases, of course). Using this definition, we allow for the fact that the heat output has been scavenged from outside the designed system. Of course, a physicist would find this definition of efficiency to be ludicrous - but to an engineer, who is comparing it to the pretty "weak" 100 percent efficiency of resistance heating, it makes perfect sense.

The same thing is happening here. Heat is being evolved from some unknown source, it is NOT being created on the spot. Whether this unknown source is cold fusion (which I doubt) doesn't matter in terms of practical application, just as it doesn't matter to me all winter long that I'm being warmed by heat harvested from sub-freezing outdoor air! (As long as it works, of course. If the power goes out, I go back to burning wood.)

L Cottrill[/quote]