|
Post a reply ||
Back to Alternate Energy Resource Network - Comments - Forum
Dear Mr. Krieg: I am challenging your challenge
Submitted by David Middleton <Handyguy1@verizon.net> on 04/Jan/2008
Message:
editors note*open letter to Eric Kreig of www.phact.org
forwarded from David Middleton
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: http://www.sparkmuseum.com/MOTORS.HTM
“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 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 ratio.
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 scienceshareware.com.
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 apparatus.
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
Handyguy1@verizon.net
Replies to this post
|