COP> 1? Fact or Fiction?

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

Seek proof!

Did you check out either of these sites? I built cell and ran a generator on urine after reading about 4 girls in Africa doing this. Not COP>1 but Meyers claimed resonant breakdown of H2O was COP>1 (next project) Beer to urine too expensive and time consuming.

but Meyers claimed resonant breakdown of H2O was COP>1 (next project)

Meyers was a famous over unity pseudoscience scam artist, if you cannot tell the difference between his work (and other pseudoscience websites) and real science then how are you expecting to further your understanding and research?

This just sounds like a self promotion of over unity scams to me.

See the numerous previous discussions on CR4 on the subject of over unity and Pseudoscience.

Maxwell questioned accepted theory as not complete.

In the '60's neutrinos were postulated and detected, total behavior still not documented.

In 2002 Ainslie pulsed a wire wound resistor at resonance and the heat output was greater than the electric input according to ohms law. Extensive testing showed COP>17.

The HAARP project in Alaska and 'Hutchinson effect' has me questioning high frequency effects on dielectrics. Meyers said high frequency on a capacitor with water as the dielectric caused breakdown at resonance. I have experienced this with other materials as a radio amateur, so I will experiment to see what results are produced. Sine wave, square wave, sharp pulse all produce different effects on L/C circuits and the subtle changes of coil shape alters effects. Tesla proved this and some things are still unexplained by 'real science'.

If you actually believe Meyers and Hutchinson, then I doubt anyone here can help you.

Perhaps you should look at the numerous previous threads on CR4 on the subject of pseudoscience which is distinctly different from real science.

Every time I get involved in these discussions I waste my time and the poster doesn't seem to listen and learn for themselves to tell the difference. So believe what you want to believe, I hear water electrolysis and backyard cold fusion work well (with videos of multimeters to prove it).

Here's a good starting point --

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/impossible.htm

Tried the second link and wanted to watch for free (why paying for it really???)

It asked for my E-mail. Sorry but anything that starts likes this is doomed to failure.

It is either a scam or a money machine. There is nothing in it for me to gain.

So can not comment other than COP>1 is not possible in the physics sense. But since we can move cars around and other stuff we somehow already managed the impossible and can get things done. But not from nothing.

In terms of free energy, how about tapping your neighbors line? This is what I call free energy.

Is there any specific idea in this that sticks out and draws your attention where you need an explanation? Post it here and we have a look at it. (Lyn would say we sort it out!)

Have fun, its Friday after all!

Had a look at the first link!

If we can wrap it up like this:

"A crude example is a solar panel in sunlight. We get electrical power out of the panel but we do not put the sunlight into the panel - the sunlight arrives on its own. "

Then yes we are there already. Transform readily availble Engery and use it! Why not? Do it, go for it. This is how we do it. Wind, Solar, Waves what you like.

But dont read any further than above sentence.

Free Engergy does not exist! You have to invest in the system, produce it and maintain it. Nothing is free on this world.

I just lost 500 USD on fee by telling you my secrets!

"But dont read any further than above sentence."

Here in is the problem with which I wish to deal. We blindly accept what we're fed, and don't question. If you pick through the chaff, occasional grains of knowledge are picked up...example -in the chapter on pulsed systems...a pulsed reciprical solenoid motor, more efficient than conventional motors-no back EMF. Thought - rotary solenoid motor - 3 cores, 4 coils...no cogging, coils pulsed by mosfets controlled by a 3 dollar (US) Atmel microcontroller, an electric version of Wankel rotary. An efficiency gain of what? 70%? That's roughly what back EMF turns into heat. This would lighten an electric vehicles battery weight by 50% or lengthen its travel distance before recharge. Why are these things not being examined in our age of new technology? It would cost the energy corporations lost revenue, they buy up patents and stiffle technology that would cause us to use less of what they sell. Free energy may not exist, but more efficient use of what we have to convert the sun's 'free' energy does exist. Example 20% efficient solar electric panels vs. heat pumps w/ 400 to 600% efficiency. Why is this technology not developed?

Yep, you and kennynabb6 are sounding more and more alike all the time.

If any of this stuff worked, it wouldn't be a secret.

At least within the engineering community, it would go viral within a few hours. Nobody would be able to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

There is probably a lot of problems in this.

First of all you are dealing with web sites that for the most part don't use engineering approaches to technology. You seem to be looking for the one bit of good information in a bunch of BS. but how likely do you find gold in a piece of dung?

I don't agree with posters below that if it was worthwhile it would be out in the community. I think there is forces in big companies that prevent successful development of new technology as well as with the cheer amount of information nowadays available is still is possible that we overlook a screaming solution or whoever is chasing it is not successful in properly describing what needs to be done.

Regarding the sites you state you should know that most of us here do not blindly accept what is beeing fed to us. We do think and more so know the underlaying physical principles so we do not even believe a single minute these COP claims.

So you will get a lot of bad comments asking in this direction. Maybe but only maybe you'll find something you believe has been overlooked and offers a chance for increase of efficiency on those pages. It still will be a question off how much investment is needed and does it compare with the gain you will get.

Good luck in your research, but please never forget there is physics and we Engineers will look for the bascis principles in your concept first. So should you.

I have found many sites that want you email the thrivemovment site has a link to watch it without giving up anything on the lower right of page CHECK AGAIN you will find that this is worth watching

WALOOB.

Gee, I think you're on to something, since this is much more efficient than 'creating' energy by burning fuels, whydon't we develop something along these lines? Solar panels are < 20% efficient, heat absobtion panels >90% at lower cost. A small heat pump can transfer energy to run a gererator, which then run the heat pump. Once set up and running, can light and heat the house and provide power for other uses. The video at thrivemovement and chapter 15 of PJ Kelly's book explains why this isn't being done. COPs of >6 are possible with backyard junk. Why are we not pursueing this technology?

I think you're overdoing it a bit there! You can deliver more heat from the heat pump than was put in as work, but you can't then use that heat to generate more work, or no more than the original work, ignoring losses. If I haven't misunderstood your post.

Just tried heat pump in Google and got a Wiki article referring to COP 3 - 4. One of these days I'll learn how to add links to CR4 .

I'll have to go back through my notes, but a man spent 2 years in the california penal system for fraud before proving this is possible in court. He transfered the heat absorbed from appx 240 sqft of panel to run a pulse pump charging hydraulic accumulator, ran a hydraulic motor running a generator which then ran the heat pump. With a COP of 3-4 and efficiencies of todays motors and generators, using a 1hp transfer pump, that still leaves about 2hp of usable energy. And I say again, why are we not pursueing this technology? It holds more promise than direct conversion solar electric. The COP 3-4 figures are for systems using wells to gather or dump heat. Look at the heat gain figures with direct solar input.

You shuld contact kennyabb6.

You may have lots in common.

COP and efficiency are two different concepts. Efficiency is never greater than unity, but COP can be.