A clever fellow named Gabriel claims:
QuoteFriction heater running in my house
There is a light oil between the disks, that gets hot.
He writes at EF on 31 Oct 2012: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12565-friction-heater-running-my-house.html
QuoteQuote
This friction heater I have built costs me around 5 cents a hour to run @ 14 cents a kilowatt. The inside temp of my house is at 70F day and night, the out side is around 30F to 10F. That would be a delta T between 40F and 60F. My house is around 1250 sq. ft.
Here is my youtube Chanel where I post my videos on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQjPSsIWDvg&feature=plcp
Also a thread at OU with additional info:
http://www.overunity.com/13068/friction-heater-running-in-my-house/new/#new
Not necessarily claimed to be tapping a previously unused energy source; but interesting. I'd like to see measurements of input and output energy.
First the JR crossover by LS, now this! lots of cool stuff going on.
Happy experimenting.
--Steve
Friction heating is a fascinating study.
We're all familiar with how rubbing the hands together
can make them warm and also the mischievous "Indian
Burn" that we received as schoolchildren. We've seen
how friction can start a fire and create sparks and have
even heard that certain welding devices make use of
friction to join metals.
Fluid (hydraulic) friction is not as well known to most
but it is out there. (http://www.google.com/patents/US4685443)
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.11.29, 01:06:28
Fluid (hydraulic) friction is not as well known to most
There is a good description in Patrick's book:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter14.pdf
under Frenette's heater
Also, useful discusssion here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12565-friction-heater-running-my-house-2.html
Quoteheard that certain welding devices make use of friction to join metals.
Indeed Li Ion & Li PO4 prismatic cells have aluminium tab's which are ultrasonic friction welded, the heat is so localized there's no damage done to the cell structure and membrane.
It must drive all the dog's in the area mad ;D
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12565-friction-heater-running-my-house.html
One more black box to add to the useless collection of hundreds of "free energy devices sustained by strictly nothing except the author's claim".
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.30, 07:36:53
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12565-friction-heater-running-my-house.html
One more black box to add to the useless collection of hundreds of "free energy devices sustained by strictly nothing except the author's claim".
Now, there's a job for you, Exnihiloest.
I'm sure you can get plenty of platters out of old hard drives. The world is awash with old
CDs and a length of M15 screwed rod can be got from builders' merchants.
You could drive it with an Adams; a beefy SG might do it, but I doubt it.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.11.30, 12:26:34
Now, there's a job for you, Exnihiloest.
I'm sure you can get plenty of platters out of old hard drives. The world is awash with old
CDs and a length of M15 screwed rod can be got from builders' merchants.
You could drive it with an Adams; a beefy SG might do it, but I doubt it.
When one faces an alleged free energy device, there are two possibilities :
- the author provides full details, schematics, protocol of measurement and the measurement data, eventually evidence of self-running: thus an analysis of the device is possible as well as the duplication if no flaw is seen (typical example: Steorn Orbo. There was a flaw that we could discover in the measurement protocol).
- the author says: "my black-box produces more than it consumes but I don't give any useful information" (patent pending, threat by men in black or oil industry, non-disclosure clauses with partner and so on). Then why did he make an announce? Money, egocentrism, play... One may close the case right now. Even if the claim was true, what is rather unlikely, the lack of information would prevent from duplicating the device, so no need to waste time.
The device in question here is of the second kind. It's amusing to see the guy enjoying to be the center of interest on the other forum, and duping the others and perhaps, himself. History Repeats Itself. It's terrible to see that the Mylow's story and many others will have been for nothing.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.30, 14:06:55
When one faces an alleged free energy device, there are two possibilities :
- the author provides full details, schematics, protocol of measurement and the measurement data, eventually evidence of self-running: thus an analysis of the device is possible as well as the duplication if no flaw is seen (typical example: Steorn Orbo. There was a flaw that we could discover in the measurement protocol).
- the author says: "my black-box produces more than it consumes but I don't give any useful information" (patent pending, threat by men in black or oil industry, non-disclosure clauses with partner and so on). Then why did he make an announce? Money, egocentrism, play... One may close the case right now. Even if the claim was true, what is rather unlikely, the lack of information would prevent from duplicating the device, so no need to waste time.
The device in question here is of the second kind. It's amusing to see the guy enjoying to be the center of interest on the other forum, and duping the others and perhaps, himself. History Repeats Itself. It's terrible to see that the Mylow's story and many others will have been for nothing.
I think you have fairly well nailed the state of such devices and their "inventors".
A simple calorimetric test by putting the entire device in large cardboard box that will have
fixed losses to ambient, and comparing temperature rise within vs a
resistor "control" adjusted to the same exact power usage. This would tell the truth about such devices, including all heat generated by the belt, motor etc.
Power factor will have to be accounted for in the case of the motor, but this is dead easy with the number of excellent and inexpensive Wattmeters available in the market. The air in the box would have to be lightly stirred (not shaken LOL) to insure even distribution of the heat to the walls of the box.
A cheap dual readout indoor outdoor thermometer can be used to read the box internal temperature and normalize for ambient temperature.
So for a total cost of about $30 these things could be fairly accurately compared against a resistive "control" and claims verified or denied.
As a first cut, the "fixed loss to ambient" method will vet the losers rather quickly. More exacting simple test and measurement can be performed if it is an extremely close race to the resistor, but this is food for another rant.
Why do people make it so complicated and mask everything in obscure measurement? I think they do enjoy the spotlight.
It is interesting to note that at the very least this device must be 100% efficient because it's purpose is to generate heat and any inefficiencies or losses will manifest as such. Thus the very law which states we cannot get any more demands we cannot get any less and the system starts at COP 1. Now if something should change or something should act different in the system which we are not aware of, like a heat pump effect for example, then the output could change.
Time will tell.
AC
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.30, 14:06:55
When one faces an alleged free energy device, there are two possibilities :
- the author provides full details, schematics, protocol of measurement and the measurement data, eventually evidence of self-running: thus an analysis of the device is possible as well as the duplication if no flaw is seen (typical example: Steorn Orbo. There was a flaw that we could discover in the measurement protocol).
- the author says: "my black-box produces more than it consumes but I don't give any useful information" (patent pending, threat by men in black or oil industry, non-disclosure clauses with partner and so on). Then why did he make an announce? Money, egocentrism, play... One may close the case right now. Even if the claim was true, what is rather unlikely, the lack of information would prevent from duplicating the device, so no need to waste time.
The device in question here is of the second kind. It's amusing to see the guy enjoying to be the center of interest on the other forum, and duping the others and perhaps, himself. History Repeats Itself. It's terrible to see that the Mylow's story and many others will have been for nothing.
Actually, if you read the forum thread links I provided, you will find plenty of detail, such as:
QuoteThe Top, bottom plates are made out of 304 SS .500 thick or 1/2inch
Shims: also made from 304 SS @ .1875 thick or 3/16inch
The Drive discs and the stationary discs are made from mild steal @ .0625 or 1/16inch
I had them laser cut from Brill metal works out of Medford Or. ( they did the work and supplied the metal cheaper then I could buy the metal so it was kinda of a no brainner to have the do that work for me
the drive shaft it 5/8 bar stock from Ace hardware
Oil: 100% organic soy been oil from Wal-Mart
the heater take about 1 US gal. to fill up
I am running 24 discs total so that is 12 drive disc and 12 stationary discs stacked up in between the drive shims and the stationary shims.
The discs spacing is .0625 or 1/16inch between the drivers and stationary
Stationary Disc: OD @ 7.75inch with a 1.5 hole is the center.
Drive Disc: 7.00 inch with a 5/8 hole in the center for the drive shaft to slide through with a keyway slot cut out to hold the discs."
-- later, Gabriel recommend light mineral oil instead.
See also cut-away drawing by a poster at EF.
(below)
Further, Gabriel has posted some operation data, not scientifically rigorous yet, but I'm trying to see what I can do about that.
I suppose you guys can sit back and take cheap pot-shots if you wish, not lifting a finger to even READ what has actually been given freely on other forums.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.02, 18:51:04
Actually, if you read the forum thread links I provided, you will find plenty of detail...
...not to forget the page on RexResearch:
http://rexresearch.com/frenette/frenette.htm
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.12.03, 15:44:55
...not to forget the page on RexResearch:
http://rexresearch.com/frenette/frenette.htm
At Rex I did not see any OU claims validated.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.02, 18:51:04
Actually, if you read the forum thread links I provided, you will find plenty of detail, such as...
...
My point of view is: it's by far not enough. Don't you even see what is missing?
If you think that it's enough,
DIY!
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.12.03, 17:25:57
My point of view is: it's by far not enough. Don't you even see what is missing?
If you think that it's enough, DIY!
While you sit back and take the derogatory pot-shots?BTW, I am doing experiments.
Dr. Eugene Mallove was one of the independant testers and was murdered for what he knew. He did not find anything extra in this device but kept at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Mallove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Mallove)
@PhysicProf: Eugene went to university of Utah.
@all
The forest produces enough splinters. Let us worry about the logs in our own eyes first. :-X
The Rex Research pages show some meticulous testing of the friction type heater and is a good read.
These devices have been around a long time, but have never successfully been marketed or shown to produce excess heat. Maybe that is a good thing, saving some folks from wasting lots of money where a resistive heater will do the job in a far less expensive fashion.
There is always a chance that someone will stumble upon a device constructed in such a way as to produce excess heat using friction machines, but so far it has not seemed to have happened.
I think a cavitation heater might have a better shot at OU if fusion temperatures could be achieved when the bubble collapses.
QuoteQuote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-12-03, 20:34:18
While you sit back and take the derogatory pot-shots?
BTW, I am doing experiments.
A scientific attitude implies to welcome objections, you should think to that. So as previously said, if you don't see what is missing for duplicating Gabriel's experiment, don't hesitate to ask, you will save time.
I hope that your experiments will be done more carefully than the previous one where you saw overunity where there was not. Good luck and please, no more premature announcements Wink.
Quote from: ION on 2012.12.03, 22:47:08
...
There is always a chance that someone will stumble upon a device constructed in such a way as to produce excess heat using friction machines, but so far it has not seemed to have happened.
I think a cavitation heater might have a better shot at OU if fusion temperatures could be achieved when the bubble collapses.
I agree. Bubble fusion is very credible, with neutrons emission and new atoms creation. Nevertheless I'm not aware of excess heat reports in this field. It seems that until now, the number of active bubbles is not enough for heat to be measured with a calorimeter.
@EX:
I don't mind evidence-based, constructive objections. Ad Hominems not welcomed. I have claimed "evidence for" but not ou, and that I'm still scrutinizing and experimenting -- there is a difference in the scientific community.
QuoteSo as previously said, if you don't see what is missing for duplicating Gabriel's experiment, don't hesitate to ask, you will save time.
OK -- I'll bite, I'm asking you, "what is missing for duplicating Gabriel's experiment"?
PS -- I think your previous post is restored just as it was; sorry I hit the wrong button, did not mean to edit just to reply as I'm doing here.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.04, 16:55:02
@EX:
... I have claimed "evidence for" but not ou ...
Sophism. It's a shame that you insist.
There was not the least evidence but a severe mistake explainable only by a lack of experience and competence in electronics, followed by a premature claim. It's not this way that science is built and progresses. The deontology requires much more verification and modesty before parading on the least media.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.04, 16:55:02
...
OK -- I'll bite, I'm asking you, "what is missing for duplicating Gabriel's experiment"?
...
One of the missing things is the least evidence of anomaly concerning a possible overunity.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.12.04, 19:14:18
One of the missing things is the least evidence of anomaly concerning a possible overunity.
Funny. No, there is evidence given in those threads -- I provided the links.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.04, 20:15:08
Funny. No, there is evidence given in those threads -- I provided the links.
"evidence:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign"
(thefreedictionary.com)
There is none evidence at your links. I'm curious to know what you call "evidence" of OU in this device. Would you enumerate some of them taken from your links?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.12.04, 20:31:43
"evidence:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign"
(thefreedictionary.com)
There is none evidence at your links. I'm curious to know what you call "evidence" of OU in this device. Would you enumerate some of them taken from your links?
REALLY? You know, I don't plan to do your homework for you EX. But if you will be patient, replications are underway. Oh, are you planning to do a replication this time, some actual experimenting??
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.04, 23:45:19
REALLY? You know, I don't plan to do your homework for you EX.
...
I've no doubt about that. I didn't even see that you do yours.
Once again you have affirmed that there was evidence of OU, given at your link, but you refuse to justify your affirmation when one asks you. So it must be concluded that it was just noise.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.12.05, 07:27:45
Once again you have affirmed that there was evidence of OU
Over at EnergeticForum, in the first post of the thread, he says that his device
cost him 5 cents per hour to run and kept his home as warm as toast.
Local electricty costs 14 cents per KWH, apparently.
Therefore his device is running at a power level of approximately 330 watt, i.e.
about half a dozen 60 watt light bulbs.
This must point to overunity, and furthermore, OU at a high rate.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.12.05, 12:53:09
...
This must point to overunity, and furthermore, OU at a high rate.
To take his word for it, is an "
evidence" of overunity? If someone would simply affirm to have a solid state device powered by a AAA batery and that outputs 10KW continuously for three month, would be an "
evidence" of overunity? I know that my English is not very good, nevertheless not bad enough to ignore that there are other words to qualify this kind of speech with a considerably higher chance to be right: outright fiction, lie, swindle, gross error...C.C
Evidence in our domain would be: to specify the measurement protocol, to provide the data. Of course it's not enough, it's more a weak clue than an evidence, but at least a minimum that we have not here. It is required before beginning any duplication (except for those who have time to waste or don't know how to prioritize their experiments or studies according to the credibility of the claims).