It suggests they don't know how their devices actually work (if, indeed, they do), or where the extra energy really comes from.
It can also suggest that they prefer not to enter in that debate. Their patents don’t talk about efficiency, COP, or anything of that sort, they are patenting just heaters, and these things should get hot enough to be patented as such.
It can also suggest that they prefer not to enter in that debate. Their patents don’t talk about efficiency, COP, or anything of that sort, they are patenting just heaters, and these things should get hot enough to be patented as such.
I guess that's a more generous interpretation.
However, the patents (especially the second one) appear to be a hotch-potch of vague "plasma-ish" devices - without any particularly identifiable originality, or "inventive step" (many simply lifted from the quoted book chapter).
Note that neither have been granted yet, and are still pending.
https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2590083A/en?oq=PCT%2fEP2020%2f084425
This one filed by Ananda Shakti Technologies Ltd, a brass-plate company in Cyprus. I shared director with other entities.
Note that neither have been granted yet, and are still pending.
This is a reasonable strategy for a tech company. Just filing is relatively cheap and gives comfort to your investors. It also draws a 'line in the sand' (if done properly) by providing dated evidence for prior art.
Problem is a lot of people use patent lawyers to write their applications, and in my experience they are not the brightest creatures nor particularly good - amazingly enough - at working out where the real innovations are, or are keen to include the best bits of the tech under give-away names. For example, what the patent application calls the 'stabilising electrode' is a device specifically designed to do just that, keep the plasma bubble stable. If they had called it a 'monitoring electrode' or even a 'reference electrode' they would have revealed much less about its purpose but would still have it as a patentable claim.
Ah well, they are whisking e off to Porto on Wednesday for a close look.
Will they be demonstrating a "water cell" or the "air cell"? (or both?)
Display MoreRemember this comment from the BLP thread?
This illustration from ENG8 displays the same problem...
In each case, the CoP claimed to have been seen by the developers is far higher than that seen by the "independent validators".
Of course csicop-style skeptics will just say "that's because these so-called developers are liars". But that would be side-stepping the results from the validation labs - which were, after all, higher than one. Interestingly, for each test here, the labs were getting a CoP of under two - high enough to say that apparent extra power must be coming from somewhere.
What never seems to be examined in sufficient detail are the physical differences between the developers' own lab tests, and the tests carried out in the validators' labs. If you don't accuse the developers of outright lies, and the 5+ CoP was something that they had actually seen, then it comes down to the quote above.
- They are driving the cells in different ways - and not necessarily "drastically different", at first sight.
- Their instruments worked in different ways (different characteristics, different levels of immunity from electrical interference, etc)
- They carried out their calculations in different ways, and one method introduced errors.
What we do not know for these cases is how much of the developers' lab set-up has been transported to the validators' labs. Was it just the "cell"? Was it the cell, the power supply, and all ancillaries? Presumably the instrumentation was different, between labs, but by how much?
I know you and George will ask plenty of questions during your visit, Alan Smith , but I just want to remind you of this post from further up the thread. It would be interesting to hear why they think a cell can have a 5:1 CoP in one lab, but a 1.8:1 CoP in another.
this is the author of superunification next to his gravi-craft (it is not a joke)
not hard to figure and they don't even hide the fact that many people in the entourage are ex military. You can even see Rogozin (russian NASA ex boss). There isa fat chance that all this theory and devices are part of a subversion aimed to send western researchers on the wrong research path. All they need is to get us to build Tokamaks and study this bucket on wheels instead of building more say CANDUs
more anti-gravitation in action
actually the stool is also in a sense an anti-gravitation device as it cancel it out when you sit on it.
this one even more hillarious
At the beginning he demonstrates that very book which allegedly went into scientific basis for this company.
He claims that the dolly was flying vertically pulling 500kg with 2kW electrical input, that is two. Third, he claims he declined proposal to lead a team of 20 theoretical physicists (including Nobel laureates) somewhere in the west due to patriotism (and need to maintain his hobby farm in Bryansk I add).
Finally, he proposed Musk to cut energy expenditure for space launch by the factor of 100.
Later, during Q&A declined to go into any details citing his involvement with military research making Russian army #2 in Ukraine I guess.
one thing Leonov figured out for sure is that people tend to pay more attention to BS if it comes from Oxford and delivered in nice British accent. I was saddened when Jeremy Clarkson choose farming instead of fundamental physics for hos retirement gig.
I know you and George will ask plenty of questions during your visit, Alan Smith , but I just want to remind you of this post from further up the thread. It would be interesting to hear why they think a cell can have a 5:1 CoP in one lab, but a 1.8:1 CoP in another.
From my experience: COP is a calculated result from an experiment. In the case of my houses heat pump it is pretty indisputable - I'd either pay (even more) for the electricity or get cold. In the case of all of BLP's experiments the COP comes from careful measurements, comparisons, assumptions, etc, because the claimed excess energy is difficult to measure. BLP's devices, interestingly, have each one got more difficult to measure than the previous one.
To go from 5 to 1.8 you just need different assumptions. And I am willing to bet a few less assumptions and COP lies in a range that includes 1.
If BLP had what they claim they would be very rich, and very famous. My skepticism is that any of their systems over 25 years, if as they claim, would be extraordinary and wonderful. Instead of more carefully measuring the first one, they move on, and again, and again, each device completely different with different and more challenging issues in measuring energy in and out.
George Egely and his assistant setting up an Egely device in the ENG8 lab, Aviero Technology Centre, Portugal. Very busy here, so more on this later.
Alan could you do a quick sketch by ppt ? Also if you have the information about the flow need ?
The vortex dynamics are clever - the inlet air vortex spirals down the inner surface of the quartz glass containment, right against the glass and then bounces back from the bottom of the reactor and climbs up inside the 'down' vortex, passes the plasma arc and exits at (it is claimed) an anomalously high temperature.
This is ye olde Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube technology - from the 1930s.
This is in the ENG8 patent:
And this is on the wikipedia page for the Vortex Tube:
Note that on a normal RHVT hot air is ejected at the periphery, and cold air comes out of the centre nozzle.
The ENG8 air cell appears to create an electric arc in the central, reduced pressure, reverse flow, "cold region".
It sounds like they aren't ejecting any air from the usual "hot end" - but allowing it all to spiral back up and out of the centre nozzle.
By the way, there is no real proof that the gas goes down the tube and back up again in a RHVT - only that the centre pressure is lower than the peripheral pressure. If you close the "hot end" off, then you simply don't get any cooling effect at the central nozzle. It then becomes a "vortex throttle" - as used in some ventilation systems.
The only difference is that ENG8 stick a big arc up the middle, as far as I can see.
I think Bob Greenyer must be having a good laugh of satisfaction seeing these last posts.
thank you for the sketch… now what does that mean in your mind.. reduced pressure?? Could we imagine a kind of venturi effect? Now the metal parts are only the electrodes? The matter ? Thanks Frogfall 👍
Display MoreThis is ye olde Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube technology - from the 1930s.
This is in the ENG8 patent:
And this is on the wikipedia page for the Vortex Tube:
Note that on a normal RHVT hot air is ejected at the periphery, and cold air comes out of the centre nozzle.
The ENG8 air cell appears to create an electric arc in the central, reduced pressure, reverse flow, "cold region".
It sounds like they aren't ejecting any air from the usual "hot end" - but allowing it all to spiral back up and out of the centre nozzle.
By the way, there is no real proof that the gas goes down the tube and back up again in a RHVT - only that the centre pressure is lower than the peripheral pressure. If you close the "hot end" off, then you simply don't get any cooling effect at the central nozzle. It then becomes a "vortex throttle" - as used in some ventilation systems.
The only difference is that ENG8 stick a big arc up the middle, as far as I can see.
I think Bob Greenyer must be having a good laugh of satisfaction seeing these last posts.
Because?
