I'd be giving the patents away...

Thanks e14 for pulling those articles.

I was able to read it when it was first posted and I had a good chuckle. While we have yet to understand all forms of energy exchange and the efficiency of most applications can be much improved on - there is no such thing as "free energy".

I believed that the Sun and Wind are "Free Energy"

So far most of the challenges to what I'll call the " Michael Hopkins energy recycling dongle" are based on a sort of common sense application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - which I like to generalize into the Universal Law of Everything - "There is no such thing as a free lunch".

However, and I raise this in the spirit of debate, it is not obviously a violation of the Second Law for a device to reduce the power consupmtion of a computer - we know that most of the power is wasted as heat and only a tiny amount is actually usefully emitted as visible radiation, sound or electrical signals.

The mechanism suggested by MH seems unlikely for the reasons suggested by Richard.

What I'm really interested in with this and other "controversial" observations is to explain why the observed phenomenon is apparently breaking laws of physics which seem pretty robust. Actual deliberate scams can also be interesting from an engineering point of view because their study can helps us improve our experimental and reasoning technique.

I'm not able to spare any more time for this right now (real work beckons) but I might get back to it later.

I hope that this thread has convinced  a few that it's much more fun to talk about than ban it.

MK

After my last post I thought of one other aspect that should be mentioned and that is efficiency. Many of our machines and electrical devices are inefficient in their use of energy. There is no violation of the laws of physics if something can be redesigned or tuned up to convert a higher percentage of the power consumed into useful results. It is however unusual for the efficiency of a device to be improved by simply adding an additional layer of complexity to it. I can think of few examples where efficiency is improved by simply adding to a device. If we have something that is out of tune or out of balance (poor design) we can improve efficiency by tuning the circuit or balancing the mechanical device with the addition of a capacitor, inductor, or weight. The device is therefore more complex and yet more efficient. The capture of spurious radiation and its return as useable energy would involve coupling to the spurious energy field and the further imbalance of the inefficient circuit. What you gain would be more than offset by the further loss of efficiency.

I suppose technically the sun and wind are not "free" energy in that there are losses in converting that energy to electricity.  ;-)

I've already explained the part that causes me to doubt the claims.  In

short, the author's to justify secrecy to protect a patent.  It's not how

patents work.  Add that to off-topic posting, promotion of a "technology"

that has been rife with fraud for decades, the fees for trying out the

dongle, and obfuscation of what is actually being done...  I use those as

the basis of my opinion (I'm allowed to have one).  I didn't call for

removal of the posts and I'm more than willing to perform any challenge as

long as all fees are waived and I retain total control of my analysis and

derivative content.

MK, it's illogical to challenge anyone to provide any further analysis of

the posts because there's very little "meat" in them.  I agree with another

poster, where they'd thought that the dongle might be changing run-time

settings in a Windows operating system, rather than harvesting energy from

a CPU.

- Tim

Roger,

I concur.  One of the things taught in basic electrical engineering is that

any energy conversion (mechanical to electrical, electrical to RF,

electrical to chemical, etc.) is at best 80% efficient.  From there, it

should be a simple power/time calculation to determine how much power needs

to be harvested.  Keeping in mind that the claims require harvesting of

"wasted" energy, that there's multiple energy conversion involved, and that

the dongle doesn't harvest the heat from the CPU (where much of the energy

consumed by the CPU ends up), the conversion process still remains suspect

(in my opinion).

-Tim

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion - no-one (as far as I know)  disputes that.

What I was trying to point out is that it is better to discuss (and disprove) things rather than to pull posts.

If the OP won't provide  a dongle for actual measurement it's hard to take his device at all seriously.

I'm interested that many of the arguments presented against the device working rely on assertions rather than evidence or fact.

For example - the device only has two connections, power and ground (which is clear from a photo) so it can't be affecting the laptop settings via USB.

You suggest that there is some limit to conversion efficiency

any energy conversion (mechanical to electrical, electrical to RF,

electrical to chemical, etc.) is at best 80% efficient.

but this just isn't true and there is no physical reason why it should be. (and in the spirit of scientific reasoning which I am defending, here is some evidence to back up my assertion : http://www.csiro.au/solutions/psz7)

Just for the record I don't think, (on the basis of casual application of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and some of the circumstantial evidence) that it will work.

MK

Guessing: the comparison involves different loads on the motor (i.e.,

comparing one output to the other).  My statement applied to conversions

between different forms of energy.  I'll withhold any further comment on

the topic as we're just chasing each others tails with this discussion.

I'd rather get back to experimenting.

Sometimes it's hard to let the other guy have the last word

But motor efficiency (in the context of the link I provided) is mechanical power out/ electrical power in.

MK

But motor efficiency (in the context of the link I provided) is mechanical power out/ electrical power in.

Funny I was thinking the same thing.

In the case of this device, it isn't converting energy from its electrical state, and I do know of DC to DC converts in the high 90's% of efficiency.

Test challenge

I still haven't heard back, and obviously there would be no cost to the testers, otherwise its not fair.

mark

DC/DC is still from electrical to electrical; although applicable in the context of the product discussed, I think packetgeek meant conversion from one domain to the other.  Anyway, he's wrong as ThinGap claims 95% efficiency: http://www.thingap.com/efficiency-and-smoothness/ and the CSIRO motors have way more efficiency than 80%.

DC/DC is still from electrical to electrical; although applicable in the context of the product discussed, I think packetgeek meant conversion from one domain to the other.  Anyway, he's wrong as ThinGap claims 95% efficiency: http://www.thingap.com/efficiency-and-smoothness/ and the CSIRO motors have way more efficiency than 80%.