|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
 Posted - 02/17/2008 : 14:02:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JustMe
Hey Dave! Is it late where you are? Because your post makes no fucking sense. |
What doesn't make sense? I asked you how long you would tolerate obviously nonsensical claims. I pointed out that scammer-vs-idiot is a false dichotomy. And I took you to task for boasting about your skepticism while you engaged in (and asked us to ignore) fallacious thinking. I'll be happy to explain further if you need more help parsing what I wrote.
|
Okay, it's 36 hours later and it still doesn't make any sense, fucking or otherwise.
The false dichotomy wasn't mine, it was bngbuck's, so why direct this at me?
On fallacious thinking, the arguments were a) the devices have undergone two years of testing; b) the man is not stupid; c) no one who has seen the device directly has been able to explain the acceleration *yet*; d) there is no evidence that he is trying to scam anyone. I confess I don't see how those arguments fail to support the conclusion "Let's wait and see".
Further on fallacious thinking, how does a guy who runs a website that purports to be all about the worship of "skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact" come up with "if somebody told you I can fly by flapping my arms, how many failures would you need to see before you began to ignore the claims?". That's a logical fallacy pot pouri! I get to pick! Weak metaphor? Sweeping generalization? I mean, just...come on.
This is *not* like every other OU type claim that's ever been. It's all very public and open, comparitively speaking. If nothing else, it's a fascinating opportunity to see how these things unfold and peek into the minds of those that can shape these stories. Heins made a couple email exchanges with a couple of different academics available at overunity.com. It was so interesting to see the contrast between what I can only characterize as a gushing response by a physicist and and engineer associated with U of T, and the mild contempt of a pretty patronizing MIT back in 2006. The latter exchange ended with the one liner "MIT aint' interested". So what changed? This stuff is interesting. Not everybody here lets this stuff just be interesting, and that's a shame. |
| Edited by - JustMe on 02/17/2008 14:09:18 |
 |
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 15:11:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Ok, I just ran a google on it and found a lot, very little of it any help. Here's Wikipedia's: Theory and Criticism
Mechanically, the device appears to be an induction motor with a magnetic material placed inside the rotor core.[10] Heins believes that the device's potential may rest in its atypical manipulation of back EMF. A more detailed description of the device may be found in the patent application, minus supporting figures.[2]
Critics of the system have pointed out that the system described by Heins simply demonstrates a change in the motor's hysteresis drag, increasing the speed of the rotor but not producing any energy.[11] In other words, when the rotor exhibits acceleration following a specific electrical short-out, the device is merely more efficiently converting the input electricity to mechanical energy than in the other test configurations.[12] [13]
|
The article also notes that he's applied for a Canadian patent but was turned down. Also, he's started something called Potential Difference Inc. and this is an interesting development. A company implies a product and franchises, and other means of transfering wealth from one purse to another. My bullshit detector hasn't gone off yet, but it's awake. After all, history tells us that a great many, very smart people have been gulled a great many times.
Our Thane may indeed have developed a more efficent motor and if so, hooray & well done! But I think we can safely state that he has not raped & pillaged the Laws of Thermodymanics down there in his cellar.
|
Through an intermediary on overunity.com Thane said the 2003 patent application referenced was "an old idea that lead up to what he had now and was outdated". The application was abandoned. The wiki entry also attributes claims of 7000% effeciency to Heins. After speaking to Heins, the same intermediary said "Regarding the claim on the webpage of of 7000% efficiency, this was incorrect. The author of this blog was jumping the gun on releasing this information and shouldn't have. The 7000% efficiency is based on a measurement made by an undisclosed person in Russia who did not make power factor into account. Once power factor is taken into account, it is less than 100% efficient." Finally, Potential Difference appears to have no actual website, despite wiki referencing one. The videos were posted on the largely unrelated website of his University of Ottawa collaborator, but they are no longer available there.
You gotta love three errors in a two paragraph wiki entry. The above information has been available for almost a week. I've been watching, and wondering when wiki will catch up.
Thane did say (again on overunity.com through the intermediary) that he had eliminated hysteresis as an explanation, though he didn't say how. One debunking theory that interests me is "No Useful Output" here: Perepiteia Generator by Potential Difference Inc
In new video avaialable, Thane has some difficulty initally producing the effect on a motor/permanent magnet assembley until he adjusts the speed downward. The "No Useful Output" article calls the effect "weak" and suggests it is produced only becuase the motor is operating so far below capacity, so it was notable to me that the demonstration may have indeed shown some sensitivity to speed. But really, what the hell do I know.
On a final note, you seem to imply that Potential Difference is a new development. He actually incorporated in 2005, as noted in the second Toronto Star article you posted.
Edited to fix overly long link. Please see our FAQ on creating a hyperlink to other sites.
Kil |
| Edited by - JustMe on 02/17/2008 15:17:36 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 15:17:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JustMe
All the results he's shared publicly on his devices that use the principle are well under 100% efficiency, but he's made clear that he thinks he can get there given his belief that the system demonstrates a conservation of energy violation. And maybe he can, and maybe it does. I'm pretty skeptical that 2007 marks the year we'll look back on as the one where we finally knew everything there was to know about the physics. |
I'm pretty sure that we know far from everything about physics. But claiming OverUnity generator, or even a violation of the conservation of energy is freaking huge.
Would I like to live when such discoveries are made? Hell, yes.
Do I think it likely? No. I'm both a dreamer and a realist. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 15:22:39 [Permalink]
|
I'm both a dreamer and a realist.
|
Everything an effective skeptic should be then. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 15:30:06 [Permalink]
|
| In new video avaialable, Thane has some difficulty initally producing the effect on a motor/permanent magnet assembley until he adjusts the speed downward. The "No Useful Output" article calls the effect "weak" and suggests it is produced only becuase the motor is operating so far below capacity, so it was notable to me that the demonstration may have indeed shown some sensitivity to speed. |
This does confirm my suspicion about the difference in drag in the induction engine. An induction motor operating far under its normal operating voltage/current will have a dramatic drag (compared to it's rated speed determined by the frequency of the supplied power) which would result in a drastic increase in rpm if it's efficiency is increased. Especially if the load on the engine is relatively small to begin with.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 16:13:31 [Permalink]
|
| Thane Heins has registered over at overunity.com and is now participating directly in their forum as "Heinstein". He's answered a number of questions, except mine about the change in MIT interest, which does't seem quite fair since I'm over here defending his honour. :) At any rate, if anybody here has some questions it might be an opportunity to get them answered. Again, the hot thread over there seems to be here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4047.240.html |
| Edited by - JustMe on 02/17/2008 16:14:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 17:04:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JustMe
Thane Heins has registered over at overunity.com and is now participating directly in their forum as "Heinstein". |
That's 10 points.
From a prior post:| Okay, it's 36 hours later and it still doesn't make any sense, fucking or otherwise. |
Then how could you possibly argue against it? Yet here you are...| On fallacious thinking, the arguments were a) the devices have undergone two years of testing; b) the man is not stupid; c) no one who has seen the device directly has been able to explain the acceleration *yet*; d) there is no evidence that he is trying to scam anyone. I confess I don't see how those arguments fail to support the conclusion "Let's wait and see". |
a) So what?
b) He doesn't have to be stupid to be mistaken.
c) Argument from ignorance.
d) He doesn't have to be a scammer to be mistaken.
Indeed, let's wait and see if he can come up with evidence of any effect at all. There's no reason to do anything else, including giving "Heinstein" any benefit of any doubt. These sorts of things are liberally sprinkled throughout history, why should Heins be treated any different from the hundreds who've come before him and failed?| Further on fallacious thinking, how does a guy who runs a website that purports to be all about the worship of "skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact" come up with "if somebody told you I can fly by flapping my arms, how many failures would you need to see before you began to ignore the claims?". That's a logical fallacy pot pouri! I get to pick! Weak metaphor? Sweeping generalization? I mean, just...come on. |
Yes, please do "come on." The metaphor was necessary. There is no generalization. You refused to answer the question, continue to lump on more fallacious thinking, and still presume to lecture on skepticism while insulting me by using the word "worship."| This is *not* like every other OU type claim that's ever been. |
And now you, who have admitted to not knowing jack about electronics, have judged the claims to be unlike every other OU-type claim that's ever been. Parading your ignorance will not lead to people here taking you more seriously.| It's all very public and open, comparitively speaking. |
Seen that before. It's not new.| If nothing else, it's a fascinating opportunity to see how these things unfold and peek into the minds of those that can shape these stories. |
For you, perhaps.| Heins made a couple email exchanges with a couple of different academics available at overunity.com. It was so interesting to see the contrast between what I can only characterize as a gushing response by a physicist and and engineer associated with U of T, and the mild contempt of a pretty patronizing MIT back in 2006. The latter exchange ended with the one liner "MIT aint' interested". So what changed? This stuff is interesting. Not everybody here lets this stuff just be interesting, and that's a shame. |
"Interesting" is what leads to people losing money. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 18:12:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's 10 points. |
So I guess the fact that the word "information" doesn't appear on your list of SFN virtues was not just an oversight.
| presume to lecture on skepticism while insulting me by using the word "worship." |
Sorry. Does "give lip service to" work?
|
| Edited by - JustMe on 02/17/2008 18:15:48 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 18:18:04 [Permalink]
|
Can anyone explain to me if there's any meaningful difference between 102% efficiency and 7000% efficiency?
Once you beat unity, provide a little feedback, and voila, you've got infinite amounts of energy coming your way soon.
I'd still be skeptical, but what I'd be more impressed with is a statement along the lines of "It's got greater than unity gain, but should saturate at around X amps for a unit of Y dimensions, based on this design". It'd at least show they were thinking. Or at least they could mention that 7000% was due to somethingorother saturation for this particular device.
Of course, as long as you can build lot's of 'em, the scaling thing isn't too much of a big deal, provided the energy/volume density is completely atrocious.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 02/17/2008 18:18:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 19:49:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JustMe
So I guess the fact that the word "information" doesn't appear on your list of SFN virtues was not just an oversight. |
The guy calling himself "Heinstein" is "information?"
Besides, the Crackpot Index is information.| Sorry. Does "give lip service to" work? |
If you apply it to yourself. What's the problem here, anyway? You think Heins should be given some latitude, in spite of the history of these sorts of claims, of which you are admittedly ignorant. It's clear why you think we have problems, and not you. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that I agreed with your "let's wait and see" advice, you're just looking for a fight.
Look, neither Wikipedia nor the media are reporting Heins' claims accurately, as you pointed out. I have no idea what his claims are (my earlier posts were obviously based on incorrect media reports), and I'm not sure if even Heins can clearly articulate any claims, but you think it's "interesting." On the basis of such interest, he's starting companies and trying to get money from investors. But without clearly-articulated claims, it's questionable whether his contraption has any practical purpose at all, so why should anyone invest? Investments will clearly allows Heins to put food on the table, but what else will they provide? Where's the business plan that's going to provide a return to the investors?
Perhaps that's why he's been trying to get investors for two years with only limited success: he can't tell people how he'll spend their money and offer them an ROI. And if not, then there's nothing "interesting" there at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 20:07:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Can anyone explain to me if there's any meaningful difference between 102% efficiency and 7000% efficiency?
Once you beat unity, provide a little feedback, and voila, you've got infinite amounts of energy coming your way soon. |
You can't feed it back like that, just like you can't force a 60-Watt bulb to draw more than half an amp. The input goes to a motor, which you could probably over-drive to some extent before burning it out, but let's assume house current.
Let's say a hypothetical over-unity motor/generator deal draws 1,000 Watts. If it's 110% efficient, then its output provides 1,100 Watts. Connecting output to input will allow you to run the thing forever and draw an extra 100 Watts of power off. But that's it. The motor won't draw more than 1,000 Watts without you ramping up the voltage (which will make it melt), so the feedback loop doesn't provide infinite energy.
At 7000% efficiency, it'll drive itself and offer an extra 69 kilowatts for your use. Put a few of those babies in a basement closet and you can take your home off the grid forever. Except that by that time, the power company itself has already built monsterous versions of the device, and so will be offering hassle-free power at 1/100th the current rates, and you won't have to keep the bearings lubed or listen to that annoying hummmmmmm. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 20:47:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You can't feed it back like that, just like you can't force a 60-Watt bulb to draw more than half an amp. The input goes to a motor, which you could probably over-drive to some extent before burning it out, but let's assume house current. |
I guess I should have pointed out that I wasn't specifically referring to this particular contraption, which has obvious limitations.
I get the per-device limitation, it just seems that the peddlers rarely talk in these terms, probably through ignorance, generally.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Let's say a hypothetical over-unity motor/generator deal draws 1,000 Watts. If it's 110% efficient, then its output provides 1,100 Watts. Connecting output to input will allow you to run the thing forever and draw an extra 100 Watts of power off. But that's it. The motor won't draw more than 1,000 Watts without you ramping up the voltage (which will make it melt), so the feedback loop doesn't provide infinite energy. |
Yeah, by feedback, I was referring to using multiples of the critters, with some feedback keeping them going. (ETA: I was also imagining various complex trees of them starting each other and such, but that's all entirely unnecessary, some simple switching and a bunch of them in parallel would do just fine). Poor explanation on my part. I apologise, it did look as though I was referring to conventional positive feedback.
Mind you, if the greater than unity generator was a simple, put energy in, get energy times 1.something out, the single device positive feedback system ought to work, subject to some constraint of the particular device.
I realise that most of the devices that turn up in the news have mechanical bits, but theres no reason why that ought to always be the case. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 02/17/2008 20:50:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 22:12:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I guess I should have pointed out that I wasn't specifically referring to this particular contraption, which has obvious limitations. |
I was trying to grant JustMe the benefit of not suggesting that Heins' thingamabob is an over-unity device. Frankly, I have no idea what it is anymore. But I wanted to talk about feedback as it applies to any over-unity generator.| I get the per-device limitation, it just seems that the peddlers rarely talk in these terms, probably through ignorance, generally. |
Agreed.| Yeah, by feedback, I was referring to using multiples of the critters, with some feedback keeping them going. (ETA: I was also imagining various complex trees of them starting each other and such, but that's all entirely unnecessary, some simple switching and a bunch of them in parallel would do just fine). Poor explanation on my part. I apologise, it did look as though I was referring to conventional positive feedback. |
No need for apologies, we're blue-skying it, right?
The feedback loop is actually this: you use the extra power from one device to help power the tools to build a second device, and so on. After a while, the cost to produce the devices drops dramatically because you're using them to power ore-mining and smelting operations, so you take some of the massive profits and buy farms and build homes for your employees, dropping their wages and thus further dropping the cost to produce devices. And then you start dumping funds and nearly-free power into automation, still further reducing your costs by reducing your labor force.
Eventually, your only cost to build is the comparative pittance you pay your fat, clothed and housed workers so that they can go buy stuff you're not producing, like home theater systems, sex toys and Ferraris. Of course, there's no reason you can't make them, too, so you start doing so, super-cheaply, and thus you find you can not only give your workers everything they need, but almost everything they want, too (and the rest they can barter for with your over-abundance of luxury goods).
So now you're making power, food, housing, clothes, porn, cars, books, computers, etc. all for zero actual production cost for your workers, and you realize you may as well start giving it away to the general populace, too. In fact, you may as well "hire" all the people you'll need to run the machines to feed, clothe, house (etc.) all the people in Australia, because "hiring" them only involves building free houses and handing out free food and goods, which is what you're doing anyway. Hell, what are borders, anyway, in a scenario like this? Why not "hire" enough people to blanket the Earth with your free stuff?
Eventually, most of the population is out of work but not caring about it, because your robot trucks are dumping tons of product at every street corner. Science becomes free to be wholly impractical, just a quest for knowledge whether it has any utility or not. Doctors are still in demand, but now they no longer care about "practice building" and instead truly focus on their patients' needs - especially since insurance is a thing of the past. Doctors do what they do because they really want to help, and they've got a skill where all the free electricity and automation in the world can only do so much good.
Of course, by this point in time you've realized you've made a grave mistake. And I'll leave to someone else to pick up where this rambling leaves off...
Mind you, if the greater than unity generator was a simple, put energy in, get energy times 1.something out, the single device positive feedback system ought to work, subject to some constraint of the particular device.
I realise that most of the devices that turn up in the news have mechanical bits, but theres no reason why that ought to always be the case. |
Well, every putative over-unity device is going to have some limitations. Even if it's all solid-state, too much input voltage makes for popping transistors and smoke-emitting diodes.
I am right in saying that one cannot push amperage, correct? How much current a device draws is going to be dependant upon the input voltage and the load. Increasing the voltage can increase the draw (depending upon circuitry), but simply trying to shove more electrons down an input wire without increasing the voltage isn't going to work. I mean, how could you get a lightbulb to draw more than 60 Watts without bumping up the input voltage? A single lightbulb on a 15-amp circuit isn't ever going to draw 15 amps.
Now imagine instead an over-unity waterwheel/pump system. In this case, 110% efficiency means that feeding the waterwheel at 1,000 gallons per minute grants us the ability to pump 1,100 GPM up to the top of the waterwheel again. With this system, the feedback will be multiplicative. At least up to the capacity of the waterwheel buckets (at which point the water overflows the sides and adds no power to the pump) or the pipes running water back up to the top (pipe diameter places a limit on flow), or even the resevoir pond the pump is drawing from (when it runs dry, the pump can't pump). So, if the lowest capacity in all the parts is 2,000 GPM, you can start the system with just a trickle of water and the feedback would quickly bring it up to capacity (saturation, as you said, John). Of course, there would be other mechanical limitations, too, like bearing heat and whatnot, but this is a system in which the feedback would supposedly work. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 22:32:57 [Permalink]
|
And then I see this week's What's New:1. PERPETUUM MOBILE: THIS YEAR LIKE EVERY YEAR.
I probably missed a few, but I estimate that every year I see about five perpetual motion machine claims. You may recall Steorn, the Dublin company that assembled a jury of scientists to evaluate its 2006 claim of generating free energy from "rotating magnets" (WN 25 Aug 06). In 2007 the company went belly-up. The first one this year is the Perepiteia invented by Thane Heins of Almonte, Ontario, who fits the mold perfectly. The 46-year old Heins is not scientist; he dropped out of an electronics program, but earned a chef's diploma. The secret? "Rotating magnets." His wife took the children and left over his obsession with Perepiteia. "I have mild dyslexia and don't do well in math," Heins told the Toronto Star, "so I don't do well in school." But wait, two weeks ago an MIT Electrical Engineering Professor, Marcus Zahn agreed to view a demonstration. Heins held a permanent magnet a few centimeters from an induction motor - and it speeded up. Wow! The Toronto Star contacted Zahn, who said it surprised him. WN is trying to reach Zahn. And Heins is somehow unique... at least according to someone ignorant of the field. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Super generator? Perpetual motion? Another grift?
