A Valuable Lesson? Debunking a non-"free energy" device with engineering

[dragon]

Yes. Because that is how "efficiency" is defined.

What you go on to talk about is something different and therefore should not be called efficiency in my opinion.

Regards,

bi

Electric Power Efficiency (·)

If we plug in a 100 watt light bulb which requires a 100 watt input then this is 100% "efficient" ? Then the standard for efficiency should be defined as our losses. In reality the efficiency should be (neg) -100% and we should strive to work it back from there to achieve something closer to unity. Efficient makes it sound good - it's good when its "energy efficient" because we're loosing less. If a unit is 80% "efficient" this means we are loosing 80% effectively and another 20% that is lost inefficiently.

This is where my confusion exists... if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 ) This would lead one to believe that it's over unity when it's not even close to unity. So then what is the COP of unity? What is the efficiency of unity? ( COP of infinity ) or ( zero % efficient )?

[ricards]

If we plug in a 100 watt light bulb which requires a 100 watt input then this is 100% "efficient" ? Then the standard for efficiency should be defined as our losses. In reality the efficiency should be (neg) -100% and we should strive to work it back from there to achieve something closer to unity. Efficient makes it sound good - it's good when its "energy efficient" because we're loosing less. If a unit is 80% "efficient" this means we are loosing 80% effectively and another 20% that is lost inefficiently.

This is where my confusion exists... if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 ) This would lead one to believe that it's over unity when it's not even close to unity. So then what is the COP of unity? What is the efficiency of unity? ( COP of infinity ) or ( zero % efficient )?

I think Efficiency is defined by how the Energy is Transformed into another form. as the Law of Energy conservation states, Energy can neither be created or destroyed only transformed, in your example a 100 Watt bulb (rated by some means) that you would have lit using only 50 watts of electrical input, and you can compare its lumination to a 100 watt bulb lit using 100 watts of electrical input, then your efficiency is right 200% as you have transformed 100 watts worth of lumens (rated by some means) using only 50 watts of electricity. so basically its somewhat measured using a "Standardized" conversion of different forms of energy (that could have been wrong).

I think the same, If you cannot self loop it, Its not unity. If it cannot power another load while self looped, its not Over unity. watts in to watts out is like measuring mechanical output of lifting something by hand and by lever and/or pulley, without considering the Lever/Pulley,
If you lift it by hand, low COP.
if you lift is by Lever/Pulley, High COP.
as you are spending less energy.

[mikrovolt]

Bistander that is very Very true about how you define something
can lead to disappointment within the context of the title and topic
sentence.

What dR-Green is pointing to is not really debunking.
In this case the video shows technique and methods of evaluation
that an electrically trained person might use.

At the end of the video David Jones demonstrates the use of
a good regulated power supply with readout and limiting.

Take a look at this patent on current limiting, figure 4
The patent claim explains the various flux paths and how the
flux is being controlled. Notice the winding between the cores is wound backwards.
Looking down subtitle Figure 4. you will see the word
superimposed flux and Bias flux.

https://www.google.com/patents/US8120457

My point is that David Jones is being informative
with regard to over unity but does not give merit to the nature of
new and useful ideas being examined but instead replaces a key part
in the circuit with a standard inductor. Is it valuable lesson to ask
someone with a T-shirt that reads " I only give negative feedback" ?

It is embarrasing and frustrating to ask however the scope of
evaluating the circuit is narrowed to the merits of the exotic
inductor. The strange inductor should be isolated and tested separately.
The engineer will only replace with standard and quantum vacuum ignored.

Showing the leds in a video can light more brightly needs to compare to a standard.
The lesson is that established methods remain established methods.

[med.3012]

It seems, to me, there is a lot of confusion about unity and over unity. What is unity? If we have a 100 watt input with a 100 watt output is this unity? Is this considered 100 % efficient?

I have a difficult time making sense of this... I see this as a 100% loss. Your converting all the energy into another form loosing everything you've put into it.
Unity, in my mind, is the point where you are running a load while the input required is zero,

i don't see this as 100% loss ! you still have it ! if you converting the electric power into light for example and there's no heat in the bulb we imagine all the electricity is transformed into light in this case there's no loss ,the same case in a transformer if it give exactly all the power you put in ,
running a load while the input required is zero can be done when a part from the output can drive the system but in this case we need much higher output than the input .

[dragon]

Your both right, bistander and ricards, in how the standard definition of efficiency is determined but it's misleading in terms of what people are trying to accomplish here. Knowing the difference changes your perspective in what your trying to accomplish.

A COP of 1 definitely isn't unity, a COP of 10 billion still isn't quite unity. Maybe it's not so much the measuring of input vs output, the input measurement pretty much tells the whole story... The focus then changes to how to maintain current in the circuit while reducing current drawn from the battery.

I'd say that just about everything you see on the web and youtube is far less than unity. The only real difference is the methods used to "recycle" or "harvest" wasted energy and/or utilize natural sources.

[bistander]

Cop

... watts in to watts out is like measuring mechanical output of lifting something by hand and by lever and/or pulley, without considering the Lever/Pulley,
If you lift it by hand, low COP.
if you lift is by Lever/Pulley, High COP.
as you are spending less energy.

You exerted less force but over a greater distance so the energy would be same. COP is typically used for heat moving systems.

What is the difference between efficiency and COP?
14 ANSWERS

Manikandan Sundar, Research Scholar
Answered Aug 22, 2014
Originally Answered: What is the difference between cop and efficiency?
There are two type of devices, energy converters and energy transfering devices. The efficiency of a heat (energy) transfering devices is called the coefficient of performance (COP) unlike the energy conversion devices. COP is also the ratio of Energy Output to the Energy Input like the energy efficiency.
In an energy converter, the output will be a portion of the energy input and it may be less than the energy input. Therefore, the efficiency will be less than 100% by the laws of thermodynamics. In an energy transfer device, the energy output is the amount of heat extracted from the heat source (Space to be cooled-in case of refrigeration). The extracted energy is not a portion of the input energy. The extracted energy can exceed the input energy. Therefore, the efficiency of an energy transfering devices can be higher than 100% without violating the first law of thermodynamics. Therefore, the name coefficient of performance.

From: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...ciency-and-COP

I like that fellow's explanation.

Regards,

bi

[dR-Green]

Is it valuable lesson to ask
someone with a T-shirt that reads " I only give negative feedback" ?

That t-shirt is awesome

What does negative feedback do in an amplifier or oscillator circuit? What is its benefit?

In contrast, what does positive feedback do?

I think the principle works just as well in the circuit as it does as an analogy in conversation and evaluation.

--

The video simply shows that a claim was made on youtube of "bending the laws of physics". Well, it's put to the test through standard engineering evaluation and debugging. It's found that the battery can supply more than enough power to run the circuit, thus not requiring any claims of free energy or bending the laws of physics to begin with. Simply, there never was any free energy, the circuit builder just failed to recognise what he was looking at, and falsely labelled it as free energy. So the question is, how many more claimed "free energy" devices are out there that are simply due to a lack of basic understanding? Wouldn't it be nice if 90% of the fake videos on youtube didn't get in the way of your finding useful information?

[bistander]

Inductor

Bistander that is very Very true about how you define something
can lead to disappointment within the context of the title and topic
sentence.

What dR-Green is pointing to is not really debunking.
In this case the video shows technique and methods of evaluation
that an electrically trained person might use.

At the end of the video David Jones demonstrates the use of
a good regulated power supply with readout and limiting.

Take a look at this patent on current limiting, figure 4
The patent claim explains the various flux paths and how the
flux is being controlled. Notice the winding between the cores is wound backwards.
Looking down subtitle Figure 4. you will see the word
superimposed flux and Bias flux.

https://www.google.com/patents/US8120457

My point is that David Jones is being informative
with regard to over unity but does not give merit to the nature of
new and useful ideas being examined but instead replaces a key part
in the circuit with a standard inductor. Is it valuable lesson to ask
someone with a T-shirt that reads " I only give negative feedback" ?

It is embarrasing and frustrating to ask however the scope of
evaluating the circuit is narrowed to the merits of the exotic
inductor. The strange inductor should be isolated and tested separately.
The engineer will only replace with standard and quantum vacuum ignored.

Showing the leds in a video can light more brightly needs to compare to a standard.
The lesson is that established methods remain established methods.

Sorry mikrovolt,

I see no novel or exotic device. It sounded like the circuit builder did not even recognize a wire through a toroid as an inductor. The presenter did an adequate job explaining that it was indeed an inductor and even calculated its inductance. So what if he then used an equivalent device?

Regards,

bi

[Aaron]

efficiency and cop

Efficiency is a subjective measurement depending on your desired work - not total work so it changes based on what you want it to be.

If your intended work is heat and a heating element dissipates 100% of the supplied potential, which manifests as heat, then the heating element is 100% efficient. If you have a car and the intended work is moving from point A to B, then the efficiency will be 20-30% as 70% is wasted in heat, etc... If you have an electric motor and the intended work is mechanical rotary motion, then you might have 90% efficiency if 90% rotary work is done and 10% is heat, but if you want 10% heat and 90% rotary motion, then you can claim it is 100% efficient.

COP isn't a "fancy" term, it is a ratio between desired work and what we have to supply not including free potential supplied by the environment.

Free energy or overunity machines are 100% efficient or less but have a COP of 1.0 or more. These are very well established concepts with no ambiguity.

However, many people don't know the difference between efficiency and COP and claim they have something over 100% efficient if it is "overunity" so they simply don't know the distinctions.

" if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 )" - Dragon

If you are able to fully light a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts, it's not 200% efficient. Efficiency will be 100% of less because there are always losses. The COP would be 2.0 and is different from the efficiency. It means you are getting twice as much work compared to what you put in - not including free potential from the environment. There will be environmental potential coming into the circuit because there has to be a source for the extra work that is above what you are supplying.

Here is 50 watts of bulbs lit to the max with a NET draw of a little over 1 watt.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6fpN6avIc[/VIDEO]

It does not mean 1 watt lit 50 watts of bulbs. 50 watts lit the bulbs on 1/4 cycle of the AC wave and in the return direction on the falling wave 1/4 cycle, it is about 49 watts. That means it is about 98% efficient.

Since the only loss is about 1 watt, that means there is almost 5000% gain in total work or a COP of almost 50.0

[BroMikey]

Efficiency is a subjective measurement depending on your desired work - not total work so it changes based on what you want it to be.

If your intended work is heat and a heating element dissipates 100% of the supplied potential, which manifests as heat, then the heating element is 100% efficient. If you have a car and the intended work is moving from point A to B, then the efficiency will be 20-30% as 70% is wasted in heat, etc... If you have an electric motor and the intended work is mechanical rotary motion, then you might have 90% efficiency if 90% rotary work is done and 10% is heat, but if you want 10% heat and 90% rotary motion, then you can claim it is 100% efficient.

COP isn't a "fancy" term, it is a ratio between desired work and what we have to supply not including free potential supplied by the environment.

Free energy or overunity machines are 100% efficient or less but have a COP of 1.0 or more. These are very well established concepts with no ambiguity.

However, many people don't know the difference between efficiency and COP and claim they have something over 100% efficient if it is "overunity" so they simply don't know the distinctions.

" if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 )" - Dragon

If you are able to fully light a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts, it's not 200% efficient. Efficiency will be 100% of less because there are always losses. The COP would be 2.0 and is different from the efficiency. It means you are getting twice as much work compared to what you put in - not including free potential from the environment. There will be environmental potential coming into the circuit because there has to be a source for the extra work that is above what you are supplying.

Here is 50 watts of bulbs lit to the max with a NET draw of a little over 1 watt.


It does not mean 1 watt lit 50 watts of bulbs. 50 watts lit the bulbs on 1/4 cycle of the AC wave and in the return direction on the falling wave 1/4 cycle, it is about 49 watts. That means it is about 98% efficient.

Since the only loss is about 1 watt, that means there is almost 5000% gain in total work or a COP of almost 50.0

Thanks for clearing this all up once again. I think probably we all lose
sight of these very ideas at times as we brain lock on the old school
teaching that matter can not be created. The thoughts of re-using the
same recirculated power is quite separate from the circuit losses.

And like you say, it is a matter of opinion, for instance a person running
a machine in Siberia needing the heat coming off his process would
be rejected by others using an air conditioner to keep the heat extracted
and would consider it a double loss.

[mikrovolt]

Sorry mikrovolt,

I see no novel or exotic device. It sounded like the circuit builder did not even recognize a wire through a toroid as an inductor. The presenter did an adequate job explaining that it was indeed an inductor and even calculated its inductance. So what if he then used an equivalent device?

Regards,

bi

The term I used to describe the part was exotic inductor
synonyms: foreign, nonnative, introduced, imported faraway, far-flung, distant, out of the normal.

Then to make that very clear I went on to describe it as strange.
In order to avoid being misunderstood or getting into a fight over
what it could be. So we introduce strange things carefully so they can
be understood in case it might just be a non-standard part.
Finally we test them separately in order to convey the concept
and provide those attributes that qualify them as not being standard parts.
That is why data sheets avoid confusion.

In this particular case we must assume without better description that
the part is standard. However it can be visually identified as the strange inductor.
It is also very possible that I edited it after it was read.

[bistander]

Inductor

That exotic or strange inductor in fact is very common. You might have one on the cable from your power adapter to computer. Sometimes called ferrite beads, chokes, filters, inductors; they're the same thing, used on both multi and single conductor cables.

bi

[mikrovolt]

There is a conflict of interest in assuming a single turn inductor
let's say 10 pico henries having large stack of ferrite would
benefit the brightness of a string of leds.

reviewing ferrite is time spent better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81C4IfONt3o

the nature of it being a (suppressor in the family of inductance)
a common filter found on cables that by nature removes
EMI from small signal oscillator needing help suggests
replacing it with a contrary many turn 10 mH inductor
is really just a very long conversation about Jones sarcasm rant.

[bistander]

Help

...

My point is that David Jones is being informative
with regard to over unity but does not give merit to the nature of
new and useful ideas being examined but instead replaces a key part
in the circuit with a standard inductor...

Mikrovolt,

Let's go back to here. What do you see as "new and useful" about an inductor consisting of a wire running thru a toroid core compared to a "standard" (as you call it) inductor of equivalent inductance?

Second question: What possible difference do you think the substitution of an equivalent inductor makes in the function of the circuit?

Third question: What do you mean by "conflict of interest"?

Three easy answers can help me understand what you're talking about. Thanks in advance.

bi

[mikrovolt]

I gave reference to a patent on how to document new and useful. The intention of educating in case someone does need to introduce
something strange. (short answer: not much merit without documentation)

We say "replace with standard component"
this is an electrical engineer colloquial regarding his procedure.
I am also being sarcastic in saying that is an appropriate replacement.

Conflict of interest is insertion loss impedance again not an appropriate
replacement because the equivalence in no way is close.

What else could Jones do ? I feel his rant but out there somewhere
is someone with a need to show merit. So data sheet and document.