Generator without fuel engine

Ok, I have read a few more paragraphs of the patent application, which I yet again quote from;

• The invention described herein when any such similar element is placed within it produces an increase of some 20 percent in thermal inertia or temperature output in the desired direction, the invention has no power source and is a new means of manipulating several known physics effects simultaneously to create a new physics interaction or dynamic. The accelerator does not claim to defy the laws of thermodynamics just defy the known outcomes, it simply does what aeroplanes do, defy the laws of physics and the thermodynamics of gravity. A 747 cannot when placed vertical on a runway, takeoff, the weight and gravitational factors against the applied power of the engine is too much for the engines to lift. Yet we fly.

Now, I'm getting close to just deleting this and not wasting any more time. After reading the paragraph above the only conclusion that can be drawn is the author of the patent document hasn't got a clue what they are talking about or basic understanding of physics.

A 747 doesn't fly because the engines supply more thrust than the mass generates under the effect of gravity. The weight is overcome by the lift created by the wings, the engines just supply the thrust to accelerate then maintain a forward speed that allows the wings to create sufficient lift.

For smeg's sake you the hell do you think a glider or sailplane, without any form of propulsion or engine, remain airborne for hours, covering up to 2,000 km after it has been released from the tow plane or winch.

I always bet those fellas who come here to open these arguments already invested in their hourly folly, and only then, when becoming self-conscious about the prospect of their investment, open a discussion here, in hope that the expected stir will result in some learned opinion to encourage them.

Alas, this is not likely to happen due to something we like to call here "The Laws Of Nature"

Ohhhh....What a shame !

Your system claims that at a flow rate of 60 liters per second and heating element drawing 850 watts the temperature rise with your system was 20° C while without it the rise was only 15° C.

Ok the amount of energy that is required to heat something is governed by the specific heat of that particular substance multiplied by the mass and rise in temperature. In other words

Where

• C = specific heat of the substance
• M = mass of the substance
• ΔT = Temperature rise

The next part of the calculation requires that we calculate the mass of the air rather than its volume so

Where

• M = Mass
• V = Volume
• Ρ = Density

The density of air varies according to temperature, barometric pressure, moisture content and composition by a typical value is 1.168 kgm^-3. The Specific heat of air also varies according to the composition but again a typical value is around 1.0012 Jg^‑1°K^‑1.

We can now combine the equations above to calculate the energy required to heat the 60 liters per second as follows

So that means you are claiming that without the feedback loop you are expending 850 Joules (850 watts for 1 second) to supply 1,052 Joules to the air and when you have your feedback system in place you end up producing 1,403 joules from the same 850 joule input.

First off this tells us that the first reading is garbage and the figures are totally suspect as there is more energy getting into the air as is being supplied by the system. Since we do not have a good base line to measure and compare against then the entire claim doesn't add up to anything.

There is also something else and that was the statement

• On a technical point the effect does not work with the fan situated outside of the loop on the ambient end, whilst extending the opposing end duct 5 does remove some of the low pressure duality effect, it does not force feed the loop intake due to the size of the opening by comparison to the volume of flow.

That tends to worry me somewhat and tends to indicate that the heat generated by the motor that is driving the fan has not been included in the total power consumption in the divice.

The only conclusion that can be draw from you documentation is that since the initial base line figures are already exhibiting a efficiency of greater than 1, none of the figures can be looked at or viewed with any sort of reliability.

Next step. You must supply considerably more information about the ambient conditions, total consumption of energy including the fan, and readings of the temperature, humidity and air pressure at numerous places along the entire length of the device including before the primary intake and final output.

My guess is that the discrepancy is caused by two things:

1. The inefficiencies in the fan result in a good proportion of the energy being supplied to that fan ending up as heat in the air passing through the system.
2. Energy from the ambient air being taken up through the mechanism. As the fan is causing a reduced pressure in the intake section of the device the air will cool due to the temperature loss. As the air is now cooler than the surrounding air it is capable of absorbing some of that energy giving and end result that is slightly greater than would be normally expected.

There is just not enough information to say that you have found something that defies the laws of thermodynamics and my guess is that when all the measurements that are required are taken the end result will not be a system that operates at an efficiency greater than 100%

Now enough is enough, I have wasted way to much time on yet another energy from nothing perpetual motion machine that on close inspection is full of inconsistencies, and incomplete data.

If there are any glaring errors in the data and equations above please feel free to correct them.

Eskimo writes: "Actually, you are all wrong,..."

Uh huh.

Apparently it doesn't take much to convince you, Eskimo. You certainly didn't do a patent search to verify this technowigger's claim to have submitted a Provisional Patent Application. If you had, you would have discovered (much to your chagrin) that the Australian Patent Office has no record of www.surphzup.com's Provisional Patent Application #2007906794.

An expanded search of all public Australian Government databases likewise turns up nothing. Got that? NOTHING. Furthermore, "surphzup" does not identify himself by name anywhere in his dubious "Provisional Patent Application." Personal identification is required on all such applications and this information is made public. Australian Provisional Patent Applications and their attendant Technical Details submissions are likewise publicly available in standard form and on the Internet. No such PPATD could be located on any of the Australian Government's servers, nor on any of their public databases. Nary a word. No provisional application, no technical details, no patent/patent-application number, no name. Nothing.

Lastly, even the most cursory scan "surphzup's" Proof page reveals no proof whatsoever. None. Just hollow claims that he'd discredited the Laws of Thermodynamics, plus a buttload of other scheisse.

Claims are not proof, Eskimo, just in case you're unable to make the distinction. Scammin' Sam offers no proof anywhere on his website. Just putative claims to lure chumps like you into his fold.

And you fell for it.

-e

-e

I did found the application of this patent in the montly report of the Australian Patent Bureau.

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/epublish/content/olsPDFDownload.jsp?pdfJournalId=366

But as you also can read the file that is downloadable from the website mentioned by the Eskimo (I would not dare to cal him inuit as this would offend the real Inuit) is not a patent application but a (bad) marketing and sales document.

No patent contains a bio of the inventor and his other achievements. No patent contains real measurement data.

After all: nice lecture on how ridiculous these claims are but of no value for the future.

Actually, I have one of these. It works great! Let me know if anyone wants the plans...

Vermin, I simply couldn't resist:

A new THREAD altogether?

My impression of The eskimo has taken a distinct nose dive as according the his personal data he hasn't even bothered to log in since he posted his one and only post to date.

I don't mind helping people that are willing to learn regardless of how much time it takes

However, when somebody comes out with a statement like

"Actually, you are all wrong,"

and then doesn't even have the decency to log in again and see what people have written in response takes such a hit in the opinion stakes that they would be looking up at a snakes……

Well you get the idea. So The eskimo show me that I am wrong and pay all those that have participated the respect they paid you and read what has been written in response to your post.

That's a trigonometric support bracket but it's useless without the trigonometric support bracket mounting plate and special bidirectional tricyclic hexabin nuts with the double inverse thread that is needed to attach it to the renunculatorator where it prevents the fantabulator from being overloaded by the trigonometric feedback forces.

Will modify it accordingly to rectify all conflicting criteria.

Why won't this work?