The best way of giving further impetus to this development would appear to be for the inventor to stay well away from Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

That's not the only place he should stay well away from. He should also avoid restaurants in Grove City, Ohio (see article and link below). Oh, and for those of you who believe in flipping the bird to Big Business, the New World Order, the Illuminati or the whoever-else, you can buy the device for $1,500.

Speaking of conspiracies, if no aircraft hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, and that the building was brought down by demolition charges as these conspiracy theory imbeciles claim, then WHY do we have eyewitness videos of aircraft crashing into both towers, and why was there airplane wreckage at Ground Zero?

Will someone please enlighten me on this? It's kind of hard to keep up with the world when you're permanently sealed into a black armored life-support suit.The Water Car (Tells about his murder)
Stan Meyer said he trusted in angels to protect him, but in March 1998, Stan was poisoned and died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town of Grove City, Ohio. According to his brother Steve, the U.S. Government came to Stan's home a week after his murder and confiscated his car, which got 100 miles per gallon of water, and they stole all of his research equipment which he had used to develop the new technology.
Stan had been threatened many times and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corp. Stan said he was offered a billion dollars from an Arab to basically shelve his idea but he said, "No, this technology is for the people."Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corp.s The Military was going to use this technology in their tanks, jeeps, etc. He had patents on his invention and was ready for production. Only $1,500 to equip your car! See the Videos above.
Stan made the gas as he drove, no hydrogen tanks, no fuel cells, no need for Shell Hydrogen Stations. He spent 30 years of research all on his own.
So what is happening with Stan's Great Invention of the 20th Century!! Absolutely nothing. Are they manufacturing his invention. NO, Why not? because it would solve all the world's problems today. That is NOT how politics work, MONEY is the ruler here. Common Sense is NOT for humans, only good for OUTLAWS & so called terrorists.? Huh? We live in a time when good is spoken of as evil and evil spoken up as good. Why do I say that because it is true. We were told the US twin towers was taken down by airplanes, when the truth is, it was taken down by C4 explosives. William Rodriguez holds the master key, he was there that day, he lost his job and 250 of his friends and colleges. Connect the dots, it is that simple. Sorry to have shocked you and made your face turn red, but Building #7 came down in 7 seconds, not reported in the 911 commission report. No planes hit that building, only a few offices fires happened

Perseverance!

Edgar A Guest
Someone said it couldn't be done !
But he, with a chuckle, replied,
That "Maybe it couldn't, but he would be one
who wouldn't say so till he tried"
So he buckled right in with a grin on his face
if he worried he hid it
Somebody scoffed "Oh you'll never do that"
At least no one ever has done it
But he took off his coat and he took off his hat
and the first thing we knew he'd begun it.
With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin
without doubting or "quiddit"
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn't be done and he did it
There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done
There are thousands to prophesy failure
There are thousands to point out to you, one by one
that dangers will assail you
But just buckle in with a bit of a grin
Then take off your coat and go to it
Just start in to sing as you tackle the thing
That cannot be done, and you'll do it

Every now and then someone comes along with claims of having found Maxwell's demon and ways and means of thwarting the laws of thermodynamics one way or another. The linked articles and references are rife with seems, and other qualifiers just in case they are unable to make the Ammonia Butane Ambient Heat Motor do it's stuff.

The diagram is too muddy to deciper so it is pretty but pretty much useless.

Love your poem !!

Can't .... not .... look ... end of the world machine ... must ... look. Ahrg!!!!

Oh no... not again. Tom Kasmer is mentioned in the article. He lurked here at CR4 for a while (tkasmer) with some outlandish claims for his hydrostatic transmission. Seems he has now truly gone over to the dark side.

Lovely. Actually I have been sad at the recent lack of free energy posts. I find it most entertaining. I really should get out more.

Not that reverse entropy doesn't exist mind you, that's what life does and it does so by increasing entropy locally. I foolishly thought I had an original thought "anti-entropic" I called it. But a quick search of Wikipedia revealed that in 1943 Erwin Schrödinger coined the term negentropy from "negative entropy" to describe processes of life.

Oh well, I'll keep trying.

If you enjoy reading about "free energy", then check out the link in my first post. It actually allows you to download the blueprints for the vehicular onboard hydrogen generator and engine. What say everybody here each builds his own, then altogether say "UP YOURS" to the big oil companies who are killing anyone who discovers "free energy".

Sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding. Actually I enjoy toying with free energy people. It's a bad habit I know but one that is so hard to resist, they make it so easy.

It's funny when a free energy guy runs out of weed!

I think that's when they get really cranky. It's harder to sustain the denial when not hallucinating.

anybody who thinks that entropy can be reversed should just look at my wife's home office. I tell you, entropy can not be undone by either the laws of physics or matrimony....

Can Entropy Be Reversed? Maybe or maybe I should say yes and no. By strict definition no.There is no perpetual motion (and probably no tooth fairy),but perpetual motion is not what we're talking about . One ton of A/C=12000 Btu I don't have the numbers in front of me so forgive me if I make a mistake,the math works out in a A/C unit to getting 4.73 Hp heat exchanged for about 1 1/8 hp input to the system. Its not something from nothing,in this case taking energy from the sun and coverting it to a more useful form for our needs, is no different than wind turbines or mirrors.

but perpetual motion is not what we're talking about

Actually, perpetual motion is what Kasmer is talking about. On his Peswiki page, he describes a perpetual motion machine, in which the output is plugged back into the input for self-sustaining operation:

Another capability is the Hydristor heat pump/generator. This Hydristor package will use Freon type technology which currently returns 300% of the input electrical power in the form of low grade environmental solar and geothermal heat. The Hydristor will raise the return from 3 times to fully ten times. The energy harvested from the air, water or ground will be sent to an available Stirling engine which converts 40% of the applied heat energy at 300 degrees F into direct shaft horsepower. The Stirling shaft now drives an electrical generator to create 3.5 Kw output per 1 Kw input. The last step is to 'pull the wall plug' and quickly plug the output into the input and the system is self sustaining with useable energy left over. You now have 'free energy' with true Zero emissions.

Hello KEN

I could be wrong but I would define perpetual motion as you did self-sustaining operation,there can be no outside energy input. Remove the external heat source it will stop, I think. IF placed in a totally isolated environment in theory the device could scavenge it's own waste heat( Maxwell's demon maybe damned),in reality I don't think so. Heat pumps have about a 4 to 1 return energy return in ideal conditions and drop toward unity at freezing temperatures. Also the greater the delta t is between internal and external temperature the more energy required per BTU transfered,about 1HP per ton for A/C to as much as 3HP per ton for a low temp box. I did the math a couple of years back, I think you could use a heat pump to extract energy from a relatively low temperature and convert it into a usable form, however the way my math worked out it's power input to output ratio would barely exceed unity under ideal conditions. I told it to Wilbur and I told it to Orville, and I'm telling it to you it will never fly. However I've been wrong before. If you hear a noise in the background it's me beating my head against a wall because this thing works and somebody else is getting rich instead of me!

Hello Tkasmer

Sorry this reply is so long in coming, somehow I missed your post. You provided a lot of information in your reply and will take some time for me to digest this, I think you've taken a big step by explaining that this is not a perpetual motion machine. While I can certainly understand the skepticism expressed by some, I believe the technology of low-grade heat recovery is worth investigating.

As I'm sure you know the HVAC industry is phasing out many of the current refrigerants not only for environmental reasons but also for efficiency,the new 410A machines are outperforming comparable R22 machines partially because of decreased frictional losses in using POE oils instead of mineral oils, at least thats how I understand it. I've heard claims of equipment that provides 1 ton of cooling for every 1/2 horsepower input into the compressor although as yet I've been unable to locate anything approaching that efficiency.

Obviously even at that efficiency the machine I envisioned becomes much closer to being viable . One of the problems that I came up with in my thought experiment on the machine I envisioned would be optimizing the pressure temperature curve of the refrigerant (or perhaps I should say working fluid) to maintain peak efficiency at varying outside air temperatures, I would be interested in knowing how you are approaching this problem.

It would be a shame if a viable technology got thrown out with the 100 miles to the gallon carburetors,the fuel line magnets, and more free energy scams that I can remember. The November 2007 scientific American contains a article on newly viable copper rotor electric motors that are 93% efficient, I assume generators would also benefit from this technology, I mention that because every little bit of efficiency gained any place in the type of system you're talking about helps. The only thing I know for certain is we're running out of time in developing alternate energy sources. If nothing else you have shown me that I've got a lot of reading to catch up, while I'm not running out to buy padding for the walls (that I may end up beating my head on) the technology is well worth watching.

If it were possible to make a heat engine that could operate on ambient heat by concentrating it, then in would not violate any laws of thermodynamics. It would simply do so by increasing the entropy locally. As far as we know so far, life is the only naturally occurring entity that concentrates energy by increasing entropy locally. Anentropic is how it is referred to in thermodynamics. Plants are simply machines that operate on sunlight. Their trick is efficiency. It, therefore, does not seem totally implausible that another machine, were it adequately efficient, could mimic this trick using ambient heat. The trick is gathering a lot of it and doing so with exceptional efficiency. However, you might be better received if you deleted your ambiguous references to the laws of thermodynamics and instead couch your descriptions in acceptable scientific terms. Chances are virtually 100% that if you indeed can make your machine work that it will not be necessary to explain it in any other terms than those we have found to be true beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Why swim upstream and garner opposition by using circumspect language? You don't need any violation of any known laws, just exceptional efficiency. Whether that is attainable is the only argument and you may find it helpful to make that your approach.

Oops, the correct term should be "negentropy" not anentropy.

Well I don't mean to endorse any obvious violations of known laws at all. Really I'm just thinking out loud. Now just ask yourself, how does a plant (tree, vegetable etc.) perform useful work? Well, it does so by absorbing energy from the environment and then emitting slightly less than it absorbed netting a slight retention of energy in the process. Now what do we do? We cut the tree down and burn it to heat our cabin. Tell me now, did we not just extract useful work from an environmental energy source? In this case it was sunlight but what about solar collectors that boil water and make electricity? No one argues that doesn't work. What are we doing? Collect heat from the environment, exhaust some of it and net some as a negentropic gain that can be used in a more highly ordered fashion. Now, if it were feasible to collect over a broad area, ambient heat and then to exhaust a portion of it, and this is key, at a different location, then what makes this implausible? It is no different from the machinery of a plant or a solar collector. Now granted, ~1000 watts per square meter may be more to work with but the idea is still the elemental heat engine. Take energy at a higher temperature, exhaust it to a low temperature reservoir and net a little utility. How about the little light powered spinner things in the evacuated glass bulb? Same principle, take ambient energy, exhaust it to a lower energy reservoir and net motion. Obviously not too useful but entertaining and so that is some utility.

Now clearly the thing that makes any of the things that we know as useful work is that they perform at an adequate level of efficiency. Is this guys machine efficient enough? Even if it worked would it be worthwhile as anything beyond a curiosity? I have no idea. I am only attempting to broaden my thinking about these sorts of things and see how what does work goes about doing so. This is how we have made many discoveries, observe and model nature.

Thank you for the insightful and intelligent comments. I am very accustomed to swimming upstream. I will take your points to heart and I especially appreciate the 'local entrophy' comment. I believe I am doing the right thing and I will continue. I believe the Hydristor will completely change the future for the better. Thanks Tom

Thanks Ken for taking the time to post your very thorough rebuttal to Tom's wild claims. I agree with every word you wrote. On the Yahoo free_energy forum, we have seen many scams over the years. It is important to challenge such scam attempts openly, hopefully helping some decent but less scientifically literate folks avoid losing their money.

After giving it more thought, I realize that I over-reacted to Tom's over-unity claims. I should not have publicly implied that Tom was attempting a scam.

I retract my offensive comment, and sincerely apologize to Tom for posting it.

I still remain skeptical of his over-unity/2nd law violation claims, but since I do not know his thoughts, I have no definite way of knowing whether he made honest mistakes or intentional misrepresentations. Until I have clear reason to think otherwise, I should assume he has sincere intentions (since I do adhere to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"). I will try to retain a more open-minded attitude in the future.

Tom:

Please don't take my criticism of your approach as a personal attack: I am uncomfortable only with your ideas as presented, not you. Perhaps, after all, I am reading something into what you have said or written that is not your intended meaning.

Also, when I said that "no one here is prepared to read hundreds of pages overturning conventional science" I didn't mean that the several hundred page book required to present enough evidence to over turn the first and second laws of thermodynamics would be uninteresting. Rather, this online forum does not lend itself to posts that long. Certainly, if you are willing to post evidence or thoughts here of any type whatsoever, those posts might be welcomed by many here, if they conform to CR4 guidelines. Although I've posted a lot on CR4, I don't in any way represent the membership as a whole, and as I hope you know, the term Guru means only that I post a lot -- it could all be nonsense.

So don't feel I am trying to discourage any legitimate effort you may be making to advance science. And don't be afraid to run your ideas past others here. I can certainly refrain from commenting on your posts, to give you a break from comments you no doubt see as negative.

If you succeed in creating a machine which outputs 3.5 kW from a 1kW input, I will be among your loudest cheerers.

Good Luck,

Ken

This is NOT perpetual motion guys! A commercial heat pump will reach a gain of 3 (called coefficient of performance or COP). Electrical power is supplied to run the compressor and the cold Freon gas is sent to the outdoor heat source which is air or water (coming fron the Sun!) or ground water under the soil which is a mix of solar input and geothermal. These systems have been commercially available since 1950 and they work. Again, for every kilowatt of input, a harvest of 3 kilowatts in BTUs is sent indoors to heat your house and your electric bill is cut in half or by 2/3. I don't know of anybody who calls this perpetual motion because there is a third element (Sun) feeding energy into 'the box' in addition to the electrical input and the electrical input enables the capture or harvest of up to 3 times the electrical power level.

If the 350 F heat output of the 'hot' exchanger were applied to a 40% efficient Stirling engine (40% at 300F), there would result 1.2 horsepower of Stirling shaft rotating power output per 1 Kw fed into the Freon compressor. If you now connect an electrical generator to the rotating Stirling shaft, 'maybe' you would get 1 horsepower (746 watts) of output and this would not run and be self sustaining.

Using the Hydristor to replace the inefficient 'expansion valve' where compression mechanical energy is thrown away, not to mention the molecular friction loss of Freon molecules screaming through the tiny hole called the expansion valve, and at very high speeds, the overall system performance is substantially raised. I am estimating a COP of 10. I have filed a new provisional patent which describes improvements which will raise the COP to 20. If 1 Kw is supplied to the Hydristor Heat Pump, 10Kw BTU equivelent solar air or water borne heat is harvested and sent to the Stirling where 40 % is converted into shaft horsepower (about 3 Kw) and an electrical generator at 90% will create abaout 2.7 Kw of electrical power. This power can be switched to the input and the system will run as long as the Sun burns, providing 2.7 Kw per 1 Kw recirculated to the input. Obviously there are controls which I'm not going to discussas they are intellectual property.

The wording of the Second Law says I can't do this but they didn't know about high tech issues like this in the 1800s. This is not perpetual motion in the strictest sense of the word. An example in nature is Niagara Falls. The Sun heats the water and the vapour 'rises' against gravity (effectively water is running uphill) and rains on the hills and fills the Great Lakes. The gravitational drop runs electrical turbine generators and 'Voila', free electricity! This too will stop when the Sun stops burning.

NOT PERPETUAL MOTION!!!!!

The Hydristor Freon system mimics Niagara Falls and Iam calling the technology

"Niagara Falls in a box'

Systems like this will oneday power cars FOR FREE and will not make EMISSIONS.

Tom Kasmer 4-12-2009

If it were possible to make a heat engine that could operate on ambient heat by concentrating it, then in would not violate any laws of thermodynamics.

This sounds incorrect. I would say that extracting energy from ambient heat *would* violate the second law of thermodynamics if the method involved no temperature differential (a hot source and a cold sink). And what does it mean to "concentrate" ambient heat? I could compress ambient air and thereby increase its temperature, and use this higher temperature to run a heat engine. But the energy required to compress the gas would exceed any energy produced. Many scientists and amateurs have already considered using heat pumps (because of their COP > 1) to violate the second law. If it was so easy as Tom claims, surely we would have seen replicated proof by now.

I understand. However the essential requirement for netting useful energy is to have a high temperature reservoir that you can flow to a lower temperature reservoir. In a very large scale where the sun is part of our local environment we use that high temperature reservoir and exhaust it to the low temperature reservoir of our more local environment. Thermal energy stored in our local environment must go somewhere, ultimately it is radiated into space. This may not be a heat flow of adequate magnitude to develop a useful means of extraction, I don't know. Perhaps we just don't know how to be that clever yet or maybe it would never be practical but we seem to do ok with wind power which in a way is a means of extracting some of the less direct effects of the ingress of solar power. So there you go, you have the wind. Could there be a form of wind power that used, instead of a large rotating blade, a very large gaseous heat exchanger? Look ma, no moving parts! I'm just trying to think a bit outside the box here, not jump in the same box with the perpetual motion crowd. Maybe there is a way to use wind power, just in a different way, for example? I am just asking, is there not some possibility to obey the laws we all know and love, and simply find a method that may open some new opportunity to harvest low grade energy such as wind in a way yet unthought of.

however impractical (now, eh?)

attempts are to synergistically find other balance within something of a mirror image of the "law"

but I do not see in as law-opposition: as for while "concentrating" "gathering" "moving" media to some differencial-(temp or pressure, etc) requiring less energy than what can move in to a moved media of a difference

HI Rcapper; you wrote (If it were possible to make a heat engine that could operate on ambient heat by concentrating it, then it would not violate any laws of thermodynamics). I could be wrong it looks like you're seeing what I'm seeing. I don't see a violation of thermodynamics. Ken backs up his position with numbers and I think that his own numbers of 4 to 1 energy returned would at least indicate that a self-sustaining machine would be possible.

I hope you'll forgive me for making what possibly should have been a general post in my reply. I'm sure Ken will be reading this and I'll ask his forgiveness as well as everyone else's for posting an abbreviated bolognium guesstimate. 1HP= 2544 btu. Assuming a 1 hp compressor equals 1 ton of air conditioning, and also assuming that the four to one return includes a parasitic loss of the fan on the outdoor heat exchanger (about 1/16 hp power per ton) leaves me with about 10,000 BTU surplus.
10,000 BTU input into a 30% efficient engine leaves me about 3000 BTU, 3000 BTU input into a 93% efficient generator leaves me about 2790 BTU, of which I will need to put 2500 BTU back into my system to regenerate. Leaving me with a net surplus of 290 BTU. My Rube Goldberg machine should supply enough surplus energy to heat up about a half a gallon of coffee. Could be wrong not a physicist just a mechanic and I'm not saying that it could be built just that it's possible. Of course there a lot of unknown variables, the first of which would be represented by efficiency divided by Murphy. I wouldn't consider my machine to be perpetual motion, just the world's most expensive coffee pot. Ken or anybody else feel free to disagree with me or show me my errors, I've certainly been wrong before.

Hi YWroadruner:

Here's a link to look at. Hyperphysics is put up and maintained by Georgia State Univ, and it is extremely well done. You can follow the links as far as you want into this.

Heat pumps of COP 4, 5, 6, or even their theoretical maximum do not operate at over unity -- they are not a key to a perpetual motion machine. Dreaming and wishing will not make perpetual motion happen, as far as I can tell. Saying that you can plug the input into the output and have the system continue to run is precisely equivalent to saying that you've created a perpetual motion machine -- in fact it is the classic test. A heat pump with no pumping losses at all cannot operate at over unity.

Anyone who has created such a thing need only submit it for the million dollar prize for a working perpetual motion machine. Spending time here promoting such a thing would put the prize at risk -- now would not be the time to delay. I'd love to see Tom claim that prize.

Hi Ken....... I'm back! Just kidding, I ran into some interesting information while I was on the for RayPac website getting some boiler control diagrams.
http://http://www.raypak.com/jumpPool.cfm?target=heatpumpchoice.htm

RayPac features a heat pump pool heater with a COP of 5.5. This is the highest efficiency rating I have seen to date in terms of an operating machine. Just thought I would add to the conversation and stir things up a bit. I know we must agree to disagree on at least a theoretical possibility of what we are discussing which I would not refer to as perpetual motion merely a heat recovery or if you will a heat concentration device. And to clarify I'm not saying such a machine could be built I'm just not sure it couldn't. Thought you and some of the others might be interested in the current state of the technology.

Pre-Heating by usable ground-loop gle's ECL's ratios WITHOUT compressors NOR heat pumps in 20f to 25f ambient's run about :

half of a million to 600,000 BTUH per 10 horse power (motor inputs under 34,000 btuh) recirculation system to a radiator in make-up air streams in to buildings and things like paint booths and blow-up-domes over tennis courts, etc, already having capable ventilation fans and blowers COP is over ~ 40k input to 500 mbh (or seen represented kbh) is better than 12:1, eh?

Hydro-Temp Corp of AR (USA) , Mike Jones and Steve Hudson

Maritime / Nordic (CAN) Glen Kaye

beyond more common DeserAire, etc, common hotel, -pool heaters with reheat coils

are over 6+ COP's when using 100% Domestic or Pool HW heating with simultaneous COOLING / dehumidification MODE; and used without loop circulation at that time heating HW

GeoThermal to near-grade ditches and boreholes and wells / open streams, etc., as GHP's of many brands rated EnergyStar(tm) , now variable compressor rated; and since the late 70's three-staging dual compressor, with oversized heat exchangers and like reverse-cycle chillers have had COP's over 6's in heat recovery, ERV, and are running over 30 years, same compressors, in central-cooling while ice-melting and perimeter heating applications.

These ratings do not include such heat recovery nor 100% On-Demand Hot Water Heating in cooling like Hydro-Temp patented in 1981

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=most_efficient.me_geothermal_heat_pumps

Sustainables CR4 , no over-unity or "free" energy device was described at all:

Pre Cooliing , Process Cooling was more so later understood by only a few significantly a result of , and however poor the English:

Pre Cooling - heat-sinking is within an electrical energy savings compared to refrigeration chiller inputs @ total utility $ of 84%-90%. Those would be in to ratio's of over 9 to 1 of the relative horsepower of refrigeration to the resulting refrigeration/cooling used by industry since the 70's or earlier... + ; and in 50f to 60f conductive soil conditions and/or ponds, lakes, streams - just not about "anchored barges on flowing rivers":) -eh?

Observed electrical Industrial and Process Cooling COP's of are around 10; ~

and in other words 27 to 31 "Tons/hour" ( 360,000 btuh ) of process cooling with a 1500w to 900 watt ( 3600 btuh ) recirculation system of in to a common 12 circuit x 1" PE 3408 11ft deep pond -ground-coil summer-to-winter, respectively, as found in 10 to 20 "ton" geothermal systems for attaching to water source heat-pumps...[ BUT NOT WITH ANY HEAT PUMPS GTHP's/GHP's OR CHILLERS for as connected to the gle- pond cooling system ].

NOT "FREE" ENERGY AT ALL

but I say used-energy just within a media that is MOVED. (we never created nor ever 'moved' heat or any energy, nor 'made'/'produced' energy, as it is going to do that by harmonious complexities beyond the limited human "intelligence we search for" in just putting a media in a differential-place.) :) >

Tom Kasmer here, I've been busy. Is Niagara Falls electrical generation 'perpetual', (free and lasting until the Sun burns out!)? The system I have proposed and patented simply is a higher C.O.P gain Freon heat pump which eliminates the decompresion loss and molecular 'shear friction' loss and attains a much higher gain.

I can buy a Freon heat pump with a gain of 3X. If I use 1.0 kw from the power company, I can harvest 3 kw from the solar heat in the air or water PUT THERE BY THE SUN during daylight hours in the form of air or water temperature. I can also buy a Stirling heat engine from MTI in Albany, New York. Their Stirling converts 40 % of the applied heat energy at 350 F into shaft horsepower, or 1.2 kw output. The addition of an electrical generator (90%) to the Stirling output shaft results in 1.08 kw of output. Theoretically, one could quickly disconnect the power company and substitute the generator output and the rig might run self sustaining. There would be no extra output left over to power anything. This is with existing hardware. The Hydristor gain will certainly be greater than 3X and I am estimating 10X. This is not and never has been advertised as 'perpetual motion' just as Niagara Falls is not perpetual motion. The Solar energy is the third element fed into the box. If the Hydristor system were put into a box in the cold of outer space, it would not run. The Hydristor heat pump is not and I have never claimed it to be 'perpetual motion'. It is simply mimmicking Niagara Falls solar energy recovery.

The Second law was drafted by Carnot in 1824 and the Freon heat pump was unknown at that time. The language of some versions of the Second Law is in conflict with modern Freon heat pumps and they work. All I am doing is increasing the heat recovery efficiency.

Tom Kasmer

Tom Kasmer here, I've been busy. Is Niagara Falls electrical generation 'perpetual', (free and lasting until the Sun burns out!)?

Hello Tom, I admire your perseverance in trying to explain why the device you discuss is not a perpetual motion machine. But I think that this discussion needs clarification of a very specific point. Most people (even scientists and engineers) do not realize that their are two types of perpetual motion machines, each type corresponding to which one of two thermodynamic laws would be violated. The vast majority of proposed devices are those that would, if they functioned as claimed, violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of total energy in a closed system). Bessler's perpetually unbalanced gravity wheel is a one of the more famous examples. The less common type of perpetual motion machine instead allegedly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (non-decrease of entropy in a closed system). Let's call these perpetuum mobile of the 1st and 2nd kinds, respectively.

I agree with the vast majority of scientists and engineers that a perpetuum mobile of the 1st kind is so unlikely as to be essentially "impossible" (i.e., if such a device seems to function, then it must draw its energy from some hidden here-to-fore unknown phenomena like cold fusion/zero-point energy/parallel universe etc, but not simply ex nihilo from "nowhere").

But proposals for perpetuum mobile of the 2nd kind should be examined more carefully, since these have a seemingly less-infinitesimal probability of success in that they don't violate the 1st law. Violation of the 2nd law seems somewhat less outrageous than a violation of the 1st law (at least to a small subset of academics) because 2nd law violators "simply" concentrate existing thermal energy rather than creating energy from nothing. When skeptics respond to 2nd law violation claims, I ask that they point out a specific technical issue where the device should fail, instead of the vague blanket rejection routinely applied to 1st law violation claims.

Now on to the specific question I alluded to: does the device in question operate off of an temperature differential? If so, it is simply a heat engine. If not, it would need to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Does the Hydristor rely on a temperature differential? (i.e., a hot sink and a cold sink) If so, then does its energy efficiency exceeds the theoretical Carnot efficiency? That would definitely make it very interesting.

If it does not need a temperature difference, but instead converts ambient heat (at uniform temperature) into work, then it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- making it a perpetuum mobile of the 2nd kind.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I ask a simple yes/no question becuase I sincerely want to know.

Dr John Jones and Michael Rice PE ME achieved a couple percent and gave up on low pressure steam turbines in refrigerant in differentials of 0f days in Dayton to there 54f soil "conductions"

in 1979, interestingly

today process or pre- cooling and pre- heating with just a fluid circulator hit 10+ COP's and $ 100,000 delivers over half a million btuh near 20f days , from 52f ditches.

Pre coolers of $ 100,000 are delivering 100 to 150 tons of net usable chill.

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/11/thermoenergetics_can_hydraulic.htm

However argued: About the 330% to 600% +, more heat energy than 100% electrical COP of 1:1 to COP's of 3.3 to 6+ to one,

where is there any "free" energy or perpetual motion thereof?

Appears as only an incomplete movement of some media (gas, vapor, liquid) withing temperature and/or pressure differentials to complete some usable representation of moving a/another media for useful work. -Practicality aside or not, what is the outcome this year?

It's a Christmas miracle. At least the Kasmer guy is designing it for the right car:

"Having done the design, I am now working on the financing of several prototypes for a Ford Expedition and a DeLorean DMC-12."

Make sure you put Einstein in the passenger seat for the test drive.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but I'd have to see it to believe it.

Even seeing it might not be sufficient for me to believe it...

Half of what I see and a quarter of what I hear, maybe

He gets Gore's Nobel prize, I'll buy one.

Brad

Actually I saw a demo' that purported to reverse entropy years ago.

A fixed transparent cyinder, had a similar cylinder mounted within it, this cylinder could be rotated by a handle...the small gap between the two was filled with clear gel...A spot of coloured gel ( abot 20mm across) was injected into the middle, As the handle was turned the spot became a smear and dissapeared.

On reversing the rotation the smear was reassembled into to spot ! It was quite a fun demo......

Del

maby the spot was lost from veiw because the refraction of the light in the cylinders

THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.