The heatpump, with more energy out than in (FACT)

[ATT]

@Nabo00o

I'm posting a couple of charts that show the relationships you have to consider when dealing with 'air'.

The first (below) shows the change in air density as a result of the change in both temperature and pressure, obviously this can be used in a reciprocal fashion to show changes in any one of the three induced by changes in any other of the three.

Since air is a molecule made up of mostly nitrogen and oxygen, it has the same properties as any other molecule that has mass, i.e. it has weight, is acted on by gravity, reacts to heating and/or cooling by going into a more or less energetic state, conducts heat, etc. Air is treated as a fluid in mechanical systems (air-handling, HVAC, etc).

[ATT]

@Nabo00o

This second (psychometric) chart can be used to study the heat content of air specific to various environmental conditions. It is often used to extrapolate the heat-load imposed on air conditioning equipment but can, conversely, also be used to find the amount of heat available to heat-pumps.

I've colored the parameters used and presented an example that is easy to follow, you just need the temperature and humidity to deduce the enthalpy (heat content) and CFM required to deliver the desired amount of heat-transfer.

Edit: the chart was too big, will include a link after uploading to alternate server (have to fix a wrong-calculation, too).

[Nabo00o]

THanks for the chart, I know I have read somewhere else that if you heat up a certain volume of air from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius (and that it starts at normal water level air pressure) then its volume would increase with about 17 percent, I discussed this in the Maxwell demon tread with some other folks.

Also, it seems that I forgot to mention maybe the most important reason to why the equalizing method works (at least the way I think it works). You know what the water hammer effect is right? It is what happens when water flow is abruptly stopped. Since flowing water has a lot of momentum once started it will not just remove that magically if forced, the kinetic energy of the momentum will be converted directly into pressure, until it is somehow absorbed and dies out (in strong pipes this can happen with a lot of vibration instead of a bulk in the pipe).

Air does also have mass and thus momentum, even if it is a lot less than that of water, a pulse-jet does however prove the fact that it will tend to stay in motion for a while if it is moving, and therefore also resists a change.

Okey, the theory of the pulsing equalizer could be like this: If a large tank of compressed air 8 times that of the atmosphere is suddenly connected to a smaller tank or pipe so that no substantial loss of pressure in respect to the large tank does occur when it fills the smaller tank, an interesting but short lived effect can be seen: Air has momentum, and, as the pressure of the small tank approaches that of the large tank the momentum of the air forces its pressure to increase further. Eventually the kinetic energy of the air will have been almost 100% converted into pressure, and that pressure will be much higher that of potential pressure source.

Now if there was only a normal open connection between the two that increase of pressure would have gone back to its source. But, if there had been placed a one-way-valve there to allow air only to enter but not to leave the excess pressure would stay there.
As far as I could understand there should be two more valves there, one to let in normally pressurized air and one to send it back into the large tank. The idea being that the high pressure air and normal pressure air mixes and are then let back in, increasing the total amount of pressure and thus also the air in the tank.
This will then with minimal controlling losses be a completely self-filling air tank. 

The key word here as in many other "smart" technologies is 'sharp gradients'.
If this was done too slowly we could never have captured that effect, if we allowed the kinetic energy to be absorbed and then balanced no net change would occur, if we stop that symmetrical balancing function of the gas with a unidirectional pulse (one way only..... some think Tesla now I'm sure )  then a asymmetrical change in pressure will occur.

So, if we want excess energy in a system, we need to keep the usual balance or symmetry away from canceling out its available true source of energy (the ether) and allow for an asymmetrical energy exchange between the physical dimension and the ether energy dimension.

This is what I believe Tony, and I don't think it sounds very unscientific, or highly improbable, that the physically observable world isn't the only thing in existence. Try to explain thoughts, or light for that matter!
Light is a wave just like sound and water-waves are also waves, and they DO require a medium in other to travel...

Bye, Naboo

[ATT]

.

This is what I believe Tony, and I don't think it sounds very unscientific, or highly improbable, that the physically observable world isn't the only thing in existence.

OK, so how do we reduce this theory to 'nuts and bolts'? What's our starting-point?

You know, I'm not necessarily a die-hard physics evangelist; as I posted before, there's a lot more science doesn't know than that which it does.

However, if there's a demonstrable effect that has been overlooked (key word here is 'demonstrable'...), then the reasons for that outcome would have to be discovered and it might very well be that your intuitive viewpoint would be validated if this were the case.

Rarely is any 'breakthrough' the result of a single 'ah ha!' moment, it usually a culmination of small achievements, ultimately linked together to provide the next 'killer app' that no one saw coming, previously.

Often these smaller successes point the way to the next step as a project 'evolves'.

In any case, intuition, creativity and insight are integral to discovery. Remaining open to alternate possibilities is important and recognizing the value of not jumping to premature conclusions as to the nature of -anything- (remaining unbiased) is a must.

This is especially the case when the concept of 'belief' enters the scene; do the experiments, log the results, extrapolate the possibilities based on those results, continually form opinions (and re-form opinions) as discovery progresses until you have accomplished what you set out to do or found there is no solution in this direction.

In any event, all parties come away with having learned a great deal, there are no 'losers'.

Tony
.


 

[Nabo00o]

Agreed 

Thing is, this is not something I have to proof (or even can at this moment), as always before you start doing something practical, be it an experiment or something to make, you need to have some kind of of theory or assumption to base on your work.

But over to the experiments and proofs, I have read and learned enough by now to be capable of producing an electromagnetic unit which could extract energy out of the seemingly emptiness of space.
Problem is, I don't have all the equipment and faculty necessary to do it in a scientific verifiable experiment, also, I don't have a lot of money to spend.

This in itself is not a proof necessary to convince you, but it is a honest attempt to enlighten you.
I have never started building on larger projects without having some kind of theory and evidence to back it up. Still, I believe it is when we take those risks and make a go for something unknown that we can get a chance of exploring a whole new territory outside of what is known. Many of the big (practical) leaps done in science isn't done by following the standard textbooks. To discover something unknown we need to look beyond the borders of our present knowledge...

Still, some have shown the way forward towards the new unified or "united" science like Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein, both of which believed firmly in the existence of an ether. While Einstein said that the theory of relativity without the ether would be impossible, Nikola Tesla proved it in his many experiments, proving, that electricity in its fundamental nature is in fact nothing electrical, nothing consisting of electrons, but of a massless ether gas which he could in fact observe in his laboratory.

If you are interested in Tesla's experiments I suggest (like many others) that you read Gerry Vassilatos book: Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project Haarp and Beyond.

Naboo