On 15/05/2011 01:47, RussellMc wrote:
> so far, no clear, easily constructed, consistently
> reproducible and "well enough" understood "over unity" device has ever
> been demonstrated publicly. Not ever.

There won't be.

Electrolysis and then hydrogen burning has a net loss. Theoretically it=20
can only reach unity.
1) Losses Electrolysis stage:
resistive losses in wiring  and power control circuits
recombination of 2x H and O to  water
Leakage of hydrogen

2) Losses in burning:
Mechanical losses of motor (bearings, valves etc)
Control Electronics
Leakage
Incomplete combustion
Thermodynamic losses of engine design/

However you can cheat...

For example if burning fuel in an engine is incomplete or in some way=20
delivering less than the maximum theoretical stored energy, then some=20
process or catalyst (or combustible  combustion enhancer) could give you=20
more mpg (or kilometres per litre). No laws are broken. A turbo charger=20
is an example of "cheating". It doesn't give you anything for free. It=20
can raise efficiency by reducing waste energy. You are not getting=20
extra. just better less than 1 efficiency. Of course historically turbo=20
chargers may be optimised simply to get most power for same size engine=20
and this might even reduce efficiency, it lets you feed more fuel and=20
air than otherwise possible. Same with a Wankle Engine, does impressive=20
Power for size but is actually less efficient (maybe there is a sealing=20
issue)

I'm sure there are ways of getting closer to 1. But any over unity=20
device will simply be found to be using stored energy in an un-obvious=20
fashion (like a power station with its own oil or gass well hidden in=20
the middle). Or the self winding watch.







--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.