Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 165
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
They are breaking a fundamental law - nonsense, of course. Either they don't count all the energy expended, or they get instantaneous results rather than time-spanning ones.
What do you think about it? EFFICIENCY=30-50. Bullshit or not?
Quote:
The physical basis of the device is not described by the author.
Well, then there's nothing to talk about next - even if it is a US patent. And I'm not familiar with etherdynamics.
What if at the tip of the needle electrode there is a nuclear decay of the substance of the needle, due to the high density of the arc? How's that? Agree, you can make an error of 30-50%, and with difficulty, but to make an error of 30-50 times is a lot.
In our universe it is accepted that the efficiency factor does not exceed 1, if someone tries to assert the contrary - you need strong evidence :)
There are some energy conversion processes where the initial efficiency is incorrectly defined.
Consequently, when new technologies related to the same conversions appear, the efficiency may suddenly turn out to be greater than 1.0
:)
There are some energy conversion processes where the initial efficiency is incorrectly defined.
Consequently, when new technologies related to the same conversions appear, the efficiency may suddenly turn out to be greater than 1.0
:)
Like what?
Have you been banned from Google?
Contender:
There are some energy conversion processes where the initial efficiency is incorrectly defined.
Consequently, when new technologies related to the same conversions appear, the efficiency may suddenly turn out to be greater than 1.0
:)
COP is not "may suddenly turn out to be greater than 1.0". Anybody who proves otherwise is a loser who does not know the second law of thermodynamics.
DimaN - stop writing about perpetual motion machines. My answer to all your future posts about whether there is such a thing: "no there isn't". Your 9th grade physics textbook is a great help.
It's easier to learn how to control the energy of an entire galaxy, build a time machine anda Death Star than one of those trinkets whose fake videos are posted on YouTube.
Efficiency is not "can suddenly be greater than 1.0". And any individual proving otherwise is a dunce who does not know the second law of thermodynamics.
DimaN - stop writing about perpetual motion machines. My answer to all your future posts about whether there is such a thing: "no there isn't". Your 9th grade physics textbook is a great help.
It is easier to control the energy of the whole galaxy and build a time machine and a "death star" than one of those trinkets whose fake videos are posted on YouTube.
Can you read?
PS. I'm not "Diman".
Can you read?
PS. I'm not "Diman".
Vasily, I am not claiming that there are devices whose efficiency exceeds 1, I am sticking to the point of view that the efficiency of an infinitely large device is 1. If the efficiency actually exceeds 1, it only means that something important is not being accounted for for some reason.
For example, if the efficiency of a steam locomotive exceeds 100%, this means that no account is taken of the energy released from the combustion of coal during the chemical reaction in the furnace. Or another example, if the efficiency of a refrigerator exceeds 100%, it does not take into account the energy input from outside the refrigerating chamber, which is the case. Exceeding 100% efficiency is simply not accounting for something, something very important. That's the way it should be treated.
As for electric arc processes occurring at high electric current densities (arcs) and also processes occurring in a vacuum, everyone has long known that nuclear reactions, including those with energy release, take place there as well.