another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

OK Rosemary,

Which signal would need to be connected to point "G" in the diagram to turn the BULB ON and make it fully glow?

"A" or "B"?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Currently, it's the existential question that I ask to myself... 


IE: 1) You have a device with a COP of 10: Yeah the device is great !!! 
      2) BUT, your device is about only 10% efficiency about the conversion process (Friction, bad   
          coupling, Heat, Impedance mismatching, [put whatever you want here...] )   
      3) Despite your COP 10 when you try to get the juice you have only 1 since 90% of energy is wasted !!! 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IE:  1) You have a COP of 1.5 but 90% efficiency conversion, you get: 
       2) 1.5*0.9 = 1.35...   
       3) Despite your 1.5 only COP you have 0.35 totally free, 1 to self loop, and 0.15 in losses...
           

Dear Schubert,

Where do you get those numbers?  From Poynty?  I've explained this.  We measure an INFINITE COP - which means that it FAR EXCEEDS the level required for qualification for Poynty's prize.  And we generate well in excess of 100 Watts - as required and depending on the tuning of the apparatus. 

You are more than welcome to try and 'self loop' that circuit - or some variant.  But to loop any part of it to recharge those batteries that you recommended would require the generation of current out of NOTHING.  Which, I explained, exceeds our claim.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[mscoffman]

@poynt99 (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?

That depends...On whether thermalized heat is part of the gain loop or not. If the input and
output is electricity then only a very small gain will be usable in a loop via a serial connection
of gain units. If too-small a gain, then one has to consider whether environmental sources of
energy are somehow aiding a nearly 100% efficient device.

If heat is in use then you have to consider the inverse Carnot efficiency of a (perfect gas)
heat engine. Carnot efficiency is like a mathematical limit that other technologies,
not dependent on a perfect gas, can generally approach.

Carnot efficiency depends on the difference between the hot side and cold side
reservoir sources and for room temperature low side and a flame high side it
approaches 33% (like an ICE engine). To offset heat engine looses in such a loop
a gain of 3x would generally be sufficient. Heat not participating in 33% conversion
is waste heat that the low side reservoir will need to dispose of to keep it's
temperature from rising. So you can see that the presents of heat in the loop
is generally a very undesirable requirement, if one ultimately wants upgraded
energy.


:S:MarkSCoffman

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

@Rosemary:

Don't worry this is just an example for Cloxxki.
Even with a ridiculous COP if the efficiency is good, you can do it !!!

If you can get an infinite COP (I guess your input is 0) N / 0  = Infinity... (That's why mathematician say it's "impossible" you have a singularity here)...

Self loop is the finger in the nose you can get even Nobel for that !!!

Regards, Schubert.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@poynt99 (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?

Hi Cloxxki,

You're not familiar with Poynty's work.  Look up his paper.  You'll see his own simulations confirm that we're dissipating in excess of 100 Watts with a negative wattage product.

That's why he's had to re-invent science.  He can't deny the evidence.

Kindest again,
Rosemary