Cheaper energy?

Why that is not possible! Balderdash!

(insert emo with wry grin saying I told you so)

cr3

Thats what they said to a lot of people throughout history! Just because you do not understand something it dosn't mean you have to deny the possibility. Spencer.

It is sarcasm. I told you so refers to the fact I have long supported exactly this line of thought. Revisiting old principles with new technological perspective.

BTW I am not supporting the claims of above mentioned company. Just sticking my tongue out there. I am willing to get it thumped.

cr3

Hi C-Rummel3, My apologies for misinterperating you. These people at Ecowatts are only utilising or freeing up the energy that is available. I did not say that it was free energy, all I said was that they could produce more energy out of what they had avilable! The problem with many people is that they cannot axcept that more energy is available if we try harder. Spencer.

I beleive it is only amatter of time before the compilation and utilisaton of old and new, materials, technologies and concepts will be melded into such a device where efficiency is at 100+%.

Pardon me, but isn't the first law of economics "There ain't no free lunch?"

Yep, and the 2nd is "You don't even get all you pay for" and the 3rd is "You're stuck in this restaurant forever."

No matter how much we wish, there is no magic that will give us unlimited free energy.

I love a conspiracy as much as the next guy but, if there really were all these over-unity inventions, Exxon-Mobile, BP, Citgo, or Shell would be selling us that energy.

Tom

Yes you are right, look at what has happend to the stirling engine. In the few short years from the first modern stirling engine was devised (1937 to 1970) they have reduced it's size by a factor of 125, and increased the speed and the power by a factor of 15. All this was possible due to modern materials and technology. Spencer.

Nothing is for free and you get very little for a few cents.

Questions including the bellow must therefore be asked.

What is the cost of the secret liquid?

What is the cost and quantity of the potash?

Do components of the secret liquid need replacement?

What is the by-products and how will it be disposed off?

Is it radioactive?

You express my sceptisism: to what amount of energy is it tested, for which timescale?

I will only believe this when the thing has worked for one winter. Without eating your tubes and needing replacement of the ingredient.

It could of coarse be a form of cold fusion, induced by the chromium and current density.

When something is discusses that resembles a perpetual motion machine, that basically runs on pixie dust.

There has to be more information so it can be tore it apart to the legitimacy of it, otherwise it's going to be hard to convince me.

Where did you get your information form, as the Ecowatts site says quite simply "The Ecowatts Thermal Energy Cell (TEC) is an electrolysis based energy cell that converts electrical power into heat at an efficiency significantly greater than that of a conventional immersion heater". Immersion heaters are not that efficient to begin with. Any more information (and website links) would be helpful as this may be promising.

Until then I think I will stick with the highly efficent and resource friendly solar hot water heater technology.

Immersion heaters are very close to 100% efficient. Almost all the electricity that enters them it turned into heat. A tiny fraction of a percent is radiated as EMI

That would explain the free energy claims.

heat pumps can have an efficiency over 100%, it depends on the temperature difference they operate across.

AFAIK immersion heaters are 99.99+% efficient. Solar heaters are about 50-60%, reradiation being the bugaboo. You can get solar higher, but then you need to run them cooler to get the max input gradient and minimize the reradiation. Since people usually want them for hot water, they do not do that. Of course, their energy is free and in a place with a lot of sun and no freezing, they are very good indeed

Please teach me how do you calculate the efficiency of a heat pump in order to get a result over 100%?

Hello Hottech - a heat pump can take in 1 kW mechanical power, absorb 2 kW heat power from a cold reservoir, and reject 3 kW heat power to a hot reservoir. So if efficiency is defined as heat power to the hot reservoir/mechanical power input, it = 3 or 300%. This really works (I believe efficiency can be higher than 3) but it doesn't violate the 1^st or 2^nd law.

It's the reverse of the case of a heat engine, where 3 kw of heat input needed to get 1 kW mechanical power output, or 33% eff. (actual eff of course depends on details like temperatures of hot and cold reservoirs and deviations from ideal conditions)

Cheers......Codey

Hello Codemaster.

Thank you for your input. I was afraid it's about some mysterious efficiency I wasn't aware of. However, it doesn't seem right to me to ignore any form of energy in a conversion process. It's like saying that an alternator takes 1KW mechanical power, absorbs 50W electrical power and rejects 800W electrical power. By "your" definition, in this case the electrical efficiency is 1600%! Any oyster technique leads to monstrous results especially for unexperienced folks. A Peltier junction can also be used as a heat pump and its efficiency is always calculated in the "old fashion" way.

I know you just wanted to explain what Aurizon said and I don't kill the messenger...

Regards,

Michael

Heat pumps are transporters of heat from one place to another. They consume energy and are subject to the typical carnot efficiencies on their intrinsic operation.

In essence they are compressors = reverse heat engines.

a gasoline engine is also a heat engine.

So if you look at a compressor and measure the energy input to the amount of energy stored in the compressed air you will get something like a gas engine efficiency. The heat of compression being wasted in that case.

With a heat pump you use the heat of compression to heat a living room with a radiator of compressed hot gas until it cools to the temperaturs of the living room.

You then take that cooled hot gas to an outside area and let it expand into another radiator which then becomes very cold, much colder than the outside air and absorbs heat from this outside air. You then compress it and it gets hot and the cycle is repeated in a continuous manner. They often call this higher than 100% total efficiency a "figure of merit", to avoid saying something is above 100% efficient.

there are some comments here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_efficiency

The heating business is a quite stupid buggy world: they defined the heat content of a burning process as the heat which can be extracted from the fumes without condensation.

Later they discovered that with this vapors (typically water) a lot of energy is thrown out of the chimney.

Now they have these condensation heaters and they can get more than 100% of the original specified heat capacity out of the fumes. In stead of revising the specification of heat capacity for condensation based systems.

The same is valid for the heat pumps: they give more heat than you stick in (at least the energy you need to pay for)

The same thing is happening here: from somewhere the system is getting energy and the researchers don't know from where it comes.

In the case of a heat pump it is not called efficiency; it is called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance.

Thanks Stinky Pete.

This makes more sense.

Immersion heaters are not that efficient to begin with.

Correct. Heat pumps easily outperform resistive heaters, achieving a COP of greater than 100% (but the overall entropy increases, so standard thermodynamic laws still apply -- no free lunch).

As for the Ecowatts claim, either they are mistaken/lying, or the process really works and exploits a here-to-fore unknown nuclear reaction involving chromium.

"As for the Ecowatts claim, either they are mistaken/lying, or the process really works and exploits a here-to-fore unknown nuclear reaction involving chromium."

Ah.... The secret ingredient! Now we are convinced that it really really works?

Add more output than input and there you have the perfect Over Unity or Zero Point energy conversion device.

Ah.... The secret ingredient! Now we are convinced that it really really works?

It would be very interesting if Ecowatts had discovered some new science, but based on the history of such claims, it seems far more likely that Ecowatts is lying or deluded.

Here we go again!

What will be the outcome this time? It's probably not a deliberate fraud, but rather self delusion based on a faulty understanding of the processes. If actual scientists (or engineers) from Nottingham Uni had seen something as ground breaking as this, they'd be publishing in every reputable journal they could find, not sitting quietly waiting for the device to be marketed. Remember "cold fusion" - real scientists, a plausible process but a huge difficulty in interpreting the results Jeff

These are usually frauds. the crooks try to sell it to non tech people and say they will make millions...all they need is a little research $$...they love that cash

Apply the basic principle of thermodynamics

1. Eneregy can neither be created nor desroyed . It can only be created from one form to another. So it is never possible as long as science exists. My friend dont give ur ear to such comments in mere future

I did not say that the company "Ecowatts" had devised a method of creating energy out of nothing! What I said was the this company had devised a way of getting more energy out of their unit than was originally put in. I can liken this to a nuclear bomb, in a conventional nuclear bomb one releases a small amount of energy to create an even greater amount of energy than was first put into the first detonation! The scientists of both York and Nottingham university believe that what is happening within this unit devised by Ecowatts is that it is tapping into a previously unrecognised source of energy stored at a sub-atomic level within the hydrogen atoms in water. The reason for not publishing this in a scientific journal as yet is because they want to understand what is going on, so that they get their facts right before publication. Spencer.

U mean to say that they have devised a system such that their efficicency is greater than 100 % . Till now theres no system which has efficiency greater than 100 %. Seems strange about their system.

Also the law of conservation of energy clearly states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed . It can only be converted from one form to another .

So where does this external energy come from . There will be some mechanisms which produce this energy through external means . So when you consider the input enrgy to the system u have to take into consideration the external means of energy also which they might have not considered.

If u see like that u will come to know that the output energy of the system is equal or less than sum of input energy to the system (including all external componenets)

There are no known systems that produce energy out of nothing! I do not think that you have understood what I am saying. I do know the laws of the conservation of energy, so please do not try to lecture me on this one! Spencer.

Spencer; Like in all other instances, you have run into the nasayers that are so learned, that nothing else can possibly exist or preform above or beyond the current crop. I just hope that the petrolium Cartels don't get their hands on another invention that will or has the potential to dip into their profits. I believe that there have been numerous inventions produced over the years that were, what is now called overunity only to have been snaped up and shelved by big oil. The latest being batteries that would make the average electric car go 100 miles or better,and recharge in minutes. Enough for my soap box.

Hi hilltopper. Yes you are so right, the problem is that they beleive in only their own faiths and whatever their governments and own scientists tell them. They cannot see the wood for the tree's. Spencer.

I believe that there have been numerous inventions produced over the years that were, what is now called overunity only to have been snaped up and shelved by big oil.

The "Big Conspiracy" hypothesis for the absence of verified over-unity devices makes no sense. First of all, why would all the countries on Earth cooperate with this conspiracy? I can't imagine why the governments of Brazil, Iran, France, China, and India (among many others) would want to cooperate just to make Big Oil happy. Does Big Oil really have the power to enforce its will on every government and citizen of the world? I don't think so.

Secondly, such a conspiracy could be easily defeated by a lone inventor with an internet connection. Just type up a detailed description, attach diagrams, and email it out to thousands of people -- poof!, the cat is out of the bag. Why has no one released the OU technology this way? Is it that 100% of all email is monitored and the ones revealing the forbidden knowledge are blocked? Sorry, this is not technically possible in real-time.

The "Big Conspiracy" excuse fails to convince. The real reason we have no verified over-unity devices is that no one has yet figured out how to make it work. Now I expect to hear the objection "there are lots of OU claims already publicized on the internet, so at least some of them must be true!" But if so many inventors have successfully released their OU information to the public, then obviously the "Big Conspiracy" must not be very effective.

Scapolie: I know you know what we all know.

However, making a discovery and explaining it are two different processes. I still don't understand why those scientists do not publish their discovery for peer review in terms of describing a reproducible experiment and let others to come up with ideas for explaining it. History of science is full of such examples. For instance, the uni-polar generator is a commercial product but still under study to explain what Faraday discovered so many years ago. We still relate this product to Faraday, so I see no concern for losing fame if there is any. Such an attitude delays the rapid deployment of any promising technology. You cannot patent a physical effect (the discovery of) but only a machine working on that principle. It looks like they have such a machine, so I see no reason for not publishing the physical effect.

Hmmm....Conservation of energy? I bet the extra energy is coming from a source not recognized. Someone mentioned a heat pump with a greater than 100% efficiency, The energy is coming from somewhere......I'd bet there is a chemical reaction happening somewhere in the process.

Come on, DAG, this is not "Salt water as fuel" thread... or is it?

Indeed!

When I was a little boy I contemplated perpetual motion and thought I had it. Then my dad taught me to analyze the input and output of systems. As an adult, I have learned that the best approach is to make sure you see the whole system. Then use energy inputs that are as cheap as possible (solar, waste heat, etc.) and make the energy transformations as efficient as possible. We don't need perpetual motion if we utilize our resources correctly....

That's the way to go!

Unfortunately, research money are many times the only goal and for this reason "research" has to be perpetual...

A clarification on post 20: the chemical reaction being not in the heat pump, but the "Eco-watts."

Wow! So now there is so much potential for energy generation that the home user will be able to pump more energy into the grid than it takes out. Brilliant! So, multiply by every home. Where does all that home-generated power go and who would want to buy any of it now? It's obvious - shops, offices and factories! So, install additional units in every shop, office and factory so they export power instead of import it. Who wants to buy it now? Electrically-powered air, land and water transport craft? OK, so now all these have an installation as well. So where does that power go now? Outer space?

Oh, yes. What was it now.... Got it!

Q = σ A (T₂⁴-T₁⁴), where

• Q = power dissipated by radiation
• σ = a constant
• A = Earth's surface area
• T₂ = Earth's surface temperature
• T₁ = the temperature of deep space

Isn't that global warming?

I smell a rat. <wheeze> Then I always smell a rat where I live.

i guess energy supplier will pay you to "waste" & "dump" this so called energy

Clever!

I'll take that extra energy and use it....a beneficial parasite (symbiosis).

I'm all for free lunch & all.

The ecowatts site has no working links, the about us section doesn't actually use anyone's name

Where do I send my money?

I suppose I have to join the cult 1st [member]

it would be nice to do the math on the whole system not just on the electrical part, probably just a nice little chemical reaction.

Hello, I am not an engineer - just a layperson interested in all kinds of advances in science.

About six months ago I read a book called 'Quest for Zero Point Energy', written by Moray B. King (who has a BSc in Electrical Engineering and a PhD in Systems Engineering). It's basically a review of various inventions which might be tapping Zero Point Energy. While I found it highly interesting, I have to admit that it was too scientifically dense for me to really understand the devices being described.

At the risk of sounding like a completely gullible idiot, maybe Ecowatts have found a way to produce one of these type of devices.

I would be very interested to hear what a proper engineer makes of Mr. King's book.

Regards, Erica

read a few of these to get a perspective.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22casimir+effect%22+%2B%22zero+point%22&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&amp;cd=1&q=%22casimir+effect%22&spell=1

Hi there,

I'm not only not a proper engineer, I'm not very proper at all according to my family. But, I know a little science and technology. Normally, I'm a big critic of crazy energy schemes, but I believe zero point energy is one of those ideas that we have to be open to. Personally, I suspect it is too short-lived to be of any use any time soon, but who knows? Certainly it does not seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that's a big plus in my book.

I've not read Dr. King's book, but I remain open to the possibility of some practical application of zero point energy. Ditto on Brownian motors. Neither of these ideas overturns established science.

Tom

"At the risk of sounding like a completely gullible idiot, maybe Ecowatts have found a wayto produce one of these type of devices."

And most likely NOT!

Ecowatts: Place your bets!

Google for "casimir effect" +"zero point" and get a number of sources of information
on the underlying THEORY. Not theory, not proven applications of said theory.

As mentioned elsewhere a genuine advance in physics and/or engineering is first placed in the recogonized scientific journals for peer review and confirmation.

Ecowatts is capitalizing on the theory to promote their magical device. Don't bet the farm on it just yet.

You can download a copy of a LANL paper on the casmir effect theory to read for yourself via google.

"British scientists working for a devlopment company, "Ecowatts", in West Sussex, England have developed a system whereby the output energy is higher than the energy that is put into it."

What is the rest of the story that was omitted from the above promotion article!

A 'new' version of the "Same ole Stuff ? ? ?"

Any self respecting engineer/scientist would have raised a red flag and started looking for the gimmick or hidden hot water heater. Most folks/organizations that are involved in promoting such a questionable operation have a vested interest in success and are subjects of self deception.

I've had enough of this I'm going to bang all your heads together!

secret liquid . Yeh...

My car produces loads of energy and I put virtually no energy into it..

I just fill up the tank every week with this Secret Liquid .

I'm off on holiday for a week on Monday.

If you havn't all stopped squabbling by the time I get back I'll make you all stay behind until you learn to play nicely...

Yes Miss!

Enjoy!!!

Del is on holiday.

Now we can start with the serious work.

If more energy was released then electrical energy put in then the electricity created a chemical reaction where energy was released in the form of heat. What will be the life of the device before the chemicals are depleted. What will be the hazards of the waste. Will the savings in electrical bills recoup the cost of the device over its life.

or, ...... would it have an unstoppable chain reaction.