PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[ltseung888]

Prof. Steven Jones,

I tried to put all relevant test data for a particular prototype in a single xls file.  Hopefully all my tests (and my students) will be in a similar format.

Attached is an example of a COP=74 FLEET prototype.  You are welcome to double check the calculations and analysis.

Continue your great research.  Enjoy the Divine Wine.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Professor, 
May I ALSO impose on you to answer Itseung.   I'm rather concerned that this appeal of his will be IGNORED and this because he is not dissipating the required 15 Watts - that you've retrospectively added as a qualification for your prize.  I'm sure he would not have gone to the trouble to ALERT YOU to this if he did not think that he - at it's least - qualified for CONSIDERATION of that prize.  The way you ignore him could be construed as being rather rude.  I'm sure that's not your intention.

And we would, all of us, like to know if you are endorsing Poynty Point's evaluation of the following circuit that the CORRECT MEASURE OF ENERGY IS AS HE CLAIMS 250 POSITIVE watts DISSIPATED BY THE LOAD and 250 NEGATIVE watts delivered by the battery supply?  SURELY NOT?  I'm rather concerned that this is the analysis you applied to Itseung's work.  In which case, perhaps you could defer to your own skilled experts on power measurement.  It seems that they WOULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

Which also means, UNFORTUNATELY, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, that we are OVER QUALIFIED for your prize.  Please advise us.  It seems that Itseung is not the ONLY one who is ignored here.

Prof. Steven Jones,

I tried to put all relevant test data for a particular prototype in a single xls file.  Hopefully all my tests (and my students) will be in a similar format.

Attached is an example of a COP=74 FLEET prototype.  You are welcome to double check the calculations and analysis.

Continue your great research.  Enjoy the Divine Wine.

I'll try and upload that circuit where Poynty Point insists that there's a negative wattage to be computed from the energy delivered by the battery supply.   It's rather catastrophically INCORRECT.  I trust that you realise this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

AS A POINT OF INTEREST (APOI)
I would point out that I'm only answering you here because you seem incapable of replying on our own thread.  Not sure if you can't find your way there with the link provided.  Or if you think it's more diplomatic to just ignore that thread.  Either way.  I have NO PROBLEM in using your thread as you prefer.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I possibly need to remind you about our claim.

We have experimental evidence that we are dissipating some very real energy at a load resistor - which is entirely without any measure of energy delivered from a battery supply source.  Effectively we're getting water to boil with no measured discharge of energy from a battery supply source.  But - as ever - this depends on those protocols that your expert colleagues have explained in their text books - and - OBVIOUSLY - in line with standard measurement protocols that were more or less ironed out by our greats. 

We certainly dissipate more than 15 watts - which is your nominal output requirement.

We are absolutely committed to Open Source,

Our experimental evidence has been widely demonstrated - certainly to in excess of 100 engineers.  But thus far, unfortunately, we have not managed to get an academic expert to the table.

The only question, very obviously, relates to that curious proposal of Poynty Point where he seriously recommends that we attribute the energy delivered by the battery to a negative wattage sum.  That rather contradicts the logic in power analysis - and it confronts a well developed chapter in our understanding of the transfer of electromagnetic energy that I believe cannot be endorsed in terms of our standard model.  Unless, of course, that you, like him - see merit in upending known physics.  In which case.  May I impose on you to explain these new and exotic theories?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[JouleSeeker]

Now you're talking, Rose:

We have experimental evidence that we are dissipating some very real energy at a load resistor - which is entirely without any measure of energy delivered from a battery supply source.  Effectively we're getting water to boil with no measured discharge of energy from a battery supply source.  But - as ever - this depends on those protocols that your expert colleagues have explained in their text books - and - OBVIOUSLY - in line with standard measurement protocols that were more or less ironed out by our greats. 

We certainly dissipate more than 15 watts - which is your nominal output requirement.

We are absolutely committed to Open Source,...

Wonderful -- so in the spirit of Open Source, I ask that you show the details of your measurements of output power ("more than 15 watts") and input power, including a video of the measurements being taken (real time, with device operating).  Inner details of the device itself can come later; suggest we start with the actual power measurements and check these first.

For water,
Q (heat added) = C * m * (Tf - Ti)     and so I'm requesting to SEE the actual data you have.
   Specific heat of water C = 4.186 Joule/g*deg-C

In the event of boiling, one would use (measuring the mass m evaporated away with some care):
Hvap (heat of vaporization) = 2260 KJ/Kg * m

Calorimetric measurements like this are great!  and I look forward to seeing your data, Rose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now you're talking, Rose:

Wonderful -- so in the spirit of Open Source, I ask that you show the details of your measurements of output power ("more than 15 watts") and input power.  Details of the device can come later; suggest we start with the measurements and check these first.

For water,
Q (heat added) = C * m * (Tf - Ti)     and so I'm requesting to SEE the actual data you have.
   Specific heat of water C = 4.186 Joule/g*deg-C

In the event of boiling, one would use (measuring the mass m evaporated away with some care):
Hvap (heat of vaporization) = 2260 KJ/Kg * m

Calorimetric measurements like this are great!  and I look forward to seeing your data, Rose.

Hello Professor, 

I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm.  I was beginning to think that you were deliberately ignoring our claim as you do poor Itseung's.  Anyway.  Let me see if I can put this as clearly as possible - mainly because I think clarity's important.  Wouldn't you agree?

Now.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is.  It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso.  On other tests we only manage to take the temperature of the element resistor to something that's mildly uncomfortable to the touch.  Not the kind of precision that I suspect you're looking for.  But that's not the thrust of our question.  As mentioned, I'm anxious to find out how you actually calculate the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery.  Here's our problem.  We are applying standard measurement protocols.  And for the life of us we cannot find any evidence of any energy at all - being delivered by those batteries.  Which leaves us with that rather puzzling anomaly of INFINITE COP.  Not  easily explained in terms of the standard model - unless, of course,  there are measurement errors.

WELL.  Here's the thing.  Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis.  If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker.  But what do I know. So.  What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG.  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak.  Actually that's possibly tautological.      In any event.  You know what I mean.  Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number.  And our claim will be defeated at the get go.  Actually, come to think of it.  ANYONE AT ALL - who ever tries to prove over unity in the future - and under these unconventional measurement conventions - will ALSO, inevitably, be left with something CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN UNITY. 

Please do clarify this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary