"Experiments can be falsified so only live performance with immediate verification could be accepted."
It seems to me that you misunderstand the requirement for fasification. The requirement for falsification means that for a premisse to be provable, it must be possible to design another experiment that would, if succeeding, prove the original premisse to be wrong.
As an example, "God exists" is non-falsifiable - you cannot design an experiment that would prove God does not exist. Therefore, the original premise "God exists" cannot be proven.
Jan
It seems to me that you misunderstand the requirement for fasification. The requirement for falsification means that for a premisse to be provable, it must be possible to design another experiment that would, if succeeding, prove the original premisse to be wrong.
As an example, "God exists" is non-falsifiable - you cannot design an experiment that would prove God does not exist. Therefore, the original premise "God exists" cannot be proven.
Jan
well fed! Time to just sit down, watch the show and eat popcorn
Ian, I hope you can easily refute my reasoning. (see attached file)
As anatech says, everything can be proved and refuted with the help of a simulator.
The ball is on your side.
Turtur's basic error is that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between force and flow.
The Casimir effect is real: if you place two plates close together in a vacuum, there is a small force pushing them together.
Turtur now makes the very elementary mistake: he proposes to replace one plate with a rotor with vanes and expects it to start rotating.
That's equivalent to placing a magnet in front of a windgenerator and expecting it to start rotating.
You'd think that a physics professor would not make such elementary errors.
Then again, it is impossible to teach someone something, if his livelyhood depends on his not knowing it.
Jan
The Casimir effect is real: if you place two plates close together in a vacuum, there is a small force pushing them together.
Turtur now makes the very elementary mistake: he proposes to replace one plate with a rotor with vanes and expects it to start rotating.
That's equivalent to placing a magnet in front of a windgenerator and expecting it to start rotating.
You'd think that a physics professor would not make such elementary errors.
Then again, it is impossible to teach someone something, if his livelyhood depends on his not knowing it.
Jan
It looks like you didn't realize that "God does not exist" can't be proven either.
But thanks for the laugh, everyone who participated. COP (Coefficient Of Performance) >1 not only has been proven but is mandated in many countries.
That regards so called "heat pumps", see https://learnmetrics.com/coefficient-of-performance/ for elementary explanation.
---
Example: We have a 1000W heat pump with a COP of 3.5. That means that we power it with 1000W, and the heat pump gives us back 3500W worth of heat. That’s a highly energy-efficient heat pump. It will boil almost 10 gallons of water per hour.
For comparison: A 1000W heat pump with a COP of 2 will boil less than 6 gallons of water per hour.
---
It's not a case of "free energy" as the process needs energy input. "Heat" regards photons - electromagnetic energy.
That heat pump is a pump, it doesnt generate 3500W of power out of 1000W.
It doesn't generate anything and is totally out of context here. Bad statement.
Edit: Would you say that a water pump 'creates' water'??
And, of course you can't prove that "God does not exist". That was the hole point.
For one moment I thought you would miss it, but, well done! - you actually did think for yourself. This time.
Jan
It doesn't generate anything and is totally out of context here. Bad statement.
Edit: Would you say that a water pump 'creates' water'??
And, of course you can't prove that "God does not exist". That was the hole point.
For one moment I thought you would miss it, but, well done! - you actually did think for yourself. This time.
Jan
Last edited:
Nowhere did I mention "the process generates energy". What matters is COP, which I mentioned.
You could have guessed or even read (when familiar with thermodynamics) that the effort of some physicists ONLY implies a way to design an electric equivalent of a heat pump. The terms used to interest investors (and idiots) are too obvious to miss.
You could have guessed or even read (when familiar with thermodynamics) that the effort of some physicists ONLY implies a way to design an electric equivalent of a heat pump. The terms used to interest investors (and idiots) are too obvious to miss.
Wrong again. The efforts of 'overunity' inventions like Turtur's are geared to create energy out of nothing. Input X watts, output Y watts where Y > X. Fundamentally different from a pump, heat or otherwise.
I'm amazed you still don't know the difference after so many pages and links and explanations.
Jan
I'm amazed you still don't know the difference after so many pages and links and explanations.
Jan
You should read properly: Turtur only proved energy from the vacuum in an electrostatic model, on the level of nanowatts. His theory shows the possibility of using "energy from the vacuum" but the requirements are too extreme outside a physics (engineering) lab. He produced simulations showing the proposed contraption could function so wants investment. The work implies using that claimed "space energy". That isn't a case of "energy out of nothing" but using a different reservoir than that used for heat pumps. Too subtle a difference for you too?
You mean, YOUR standards? Thanks for showing the state of "standard knowledge" again.
Again well meaning folks tried to warn you but in the end your money, time and effort are yours to waste as you wish. We are not interested nor gullible.
Warnings etc. much appreciated but being familiar with all kinds of fraud / scams / fake projects (on a time scale of over 50 years) I learned my way. In an earlier thread I mentioned to have collected much in case of availability issues, with the positive effect, now being able to build "power factor friendly" (more or less switching) power supplies with 3 (project abandoned) audio BJTs. The SET amp (with TTG-EL84PSE Parallel Single Ended) intended with tubes looks to perform (sim) much better with opamps and a MOSFET and will be built instead of tube version. So I also already have all the stuff required for initial experiments re "energy saving" projects. The final push was the "sudden" end of my "standard quality" 3 year old generator, despite regular service. The simultaneous damage (pic) of several parts was of such a kind that the cylinder head with everything involved (valves, springs, rockers etc.) has to be replaced. Apparently that happens often enough to offer it complete: https://generatorguru.com/cylinder-head-PB34535990-prebuilt-with-valves-and-rockers/
(at ~1/2 the cost of that generator).
