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"

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%.

mcb1 wrote:

... and I do know of DC to DC converts in the high 90's% of efficiency.

 

Right. That's marketing-speak. In general DCDC converters convert at "around 80%" efficiency. Then when you sweep the output current along the whole range, at one point you may measure "above 90%" efficiency. The marketing guys jump on this number and prominently place it everywhere they can. In reality, count on 80% and let yourself be surprised if possible.

The "80%" mentioned is a good ballpark figure. There are exceptions. Gas-powered central heating installations here in the Netherlands apparently achieve 107% efficiency according to the official efficiency-calculating-rules. If you WANT to go from electrical power to heat, that can easily be done with 100% efficiency.

On the other hand, going from chemical (gas) to mechanical power (moving car), you are lucky if you hit the 30%.

As another example of how "ballpark figures" work I use "0.8" as the density of "organic materials". Wood, gasonline, etc. I know there are woods that are so dense that they sink (i.e. >1.0). But as a ballpark figure this 0.8 still works quite well. (e.g. when they say an airplane had XXX kg of fuel on board).

mcb1 wrote:

... and I do know of DC to DC converts in the high 90's% of efficiency.

 

Right. That's marketing-speak. In general DCDC converters convert at "around 80%" efficiency. Then when you sweep the output current along the whole range, at one point you may measure "above 90%" efficiency. The marketing guys jump on this number and prominently place it everywhere they can. In reality, count on 80% and let yourself be surprised if possible.

The "80%" mentioned is a good ballpark figure. There are exceptions. Gas-powered central heating installations here in the Netherlands apparently achieve 107% efficiency according to the official efficiency-calculating-rules. If you WANT to go from electrical power to heat, that can easily be done with 100% efficiency.

On the other hand, going from chemical (gas) to mechanical power (moving car), you are lucky if you hit the 30%.

As another example of how "ballpark figures" work I use "0.8" as the density of "organic materials". Wood, gasonline, etc. I know there are woods that are so dense that they sink (i.e. >1.0). But as a ballpark figure this 0.8 still works quite well. (e.g. when they say an airplane had XXX kg of fuel on board).

Gas-powered central heating installations here in the Netherlands apparently achieve 107% efficiency according to the official efficiency-calculating-rules. If you WANT to go from electrical power to heat, that can easily be done with 100% efficiency.

That's because in the official rules (when efficinecy was much, much lower) they thought that the heat going through the chimney was neglectabe..... Now that that heat loss is reduced, you get more than 100% efficiency. It's more an calculation / definition error. 107% efficiency would mean you'd be generating energy more heat than is available in caloric energy in the gas...

Then when you sweep the output current along the whole range, at one point you may measure "above 90%" efficiency

Yes. And when your application permits, you can design to be in that sweet spot. So it's a marketing-overused, but not a lie.

It's not the "heat going through the chimney" that they neglected in the definition at first.

It's the energy that is contained in the water-vapour that goes up the chimney that they neglected. That can be recovered if you make sure the water condenses and you can leave the resulting water somewhere (a drain).

If you build a heat-pump, powered either by gas or by electricity, you can get even higher efficiency figures, well above 100%.

P.S; I fully agree with you to call the 107% situation a "definition error".

"I know there are woods that are so dense that they sink (i.e. >1.0). But as a ballpark figure this 0.8 still works quite well."

More common than you might think - as is well known to my poor dog. In the woods where we walk about half the sticks I throw in the river for her to fetch turn out to be sinkers. I'm trying to improve my manual density measurement skills but so far to little avail.

MK

Ouch.  Good thing the dog's density is a bit below 1.0,  Our dog would

attempt to recover the stick anyways.

Re. Dog  - ours makes the attempts but isn't good underwater.

MK

just found a better source of free energy on the pic basic forum

Électricité gratuite et infinie

enjoy