Posted by daestrom on August 14, 2010, 2:13 pm
News wrote:
>
>
>> scale. I'm skeptical, since the dissolved solids have to go 'somewhere'.
>
> Scale will not migrate from a hotter liquid and build up on a cooler
> metal surface.
>
So where do the dissolved solids go?
> There is more to the hydrosonic pump that what they are stating.
> Results in the field are superior to resistance heating.
Apparently not in *all* cases. The phenomenon is not always
reproducible (a sign of instrumentation problems). And Griggs never
makes such a claim.
They are
> simpler, merely being a simple pump.
Only in some warped world is an electric motor and a spinning rotor
inside a casing considered 'simpler' than a strip of resistance wire.
Such a statement is just plain silly.
daestrom
Posted by News on August 14, 2010, 3:36 pm
> News wrote:
>>
>>
>>> scale. I'm skeptical, since the dissolved solids have to go
>>> 'somewhere'.
>>
>> Scale will not migrate from a hotter liquid and build up on a cooler
>> metal surface.
>>
> So where do the dissolved solids go?
I believe they stay suspended.
>> There is more to the hydrosonic pump than what they are stating. Results
>> in the field are superior to resistance heating.
> Apparently not in *all* cases. The phenomenon is not always reproducible
> (a sign of instrumentation problems). And Griggs never makes such a
> claim.
The Russians who use the domestic version say their heating bills dropped
substantially when moving over from immersed resistance heaters. The Yusmar
unit operates differently than the Griggs unit.
>> They are
>> simpler, merely being a simple pump.
> Only in some warped world is an electric motor and a spinning rotor inside
> a casing considered 'simpler' than a strip of resistance wire. Such a
> statement is just plain silly.
There is no separate pump the heating and circulator are all in one small
unit. No resistance heaters to burn out. Having a hydronic system with a
resistance heater and pump by definition consumes more energy - two
components consuming energy. And more complexity. So much for being a
warped. Duh! I but I know about heating systems.
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/descrip.html
Posted by daestrom on August 14, 2010, 8:25 pm
News wrote:
>
>> News wrote:
>>>
>>>
<snip>
>>> There is more to the hydrosonic pump than what they are stating.
>>> Results in the field are superior to resistance heating.
>>
>> Apparently not in *all* cases. The phenomenon is not always
>> reproducible (a sign of instrumentation problems). And Griggs never
>> makes such a claim.
>
> The Russians who use the domestic version say their heating bills
> dropped substantially when moving over from immersed resistance heaters.
> The Yusmar unit operates differently than the Griggs unit.
Your link below states that the owner was *not* able to substantiate the
over-unity claims.
> <snip> Having a hydronic system
> with a resistance heater and pump by definition consumes more energy -
That's a faulty 'definition'. Having two separate components does not
mean it consumes more energy. Obviously a standard circulating pump
does not draw as much power as a hydrosonic pump.
I put it to you that a pump designed for highly efficient movement of
water (i.e. a standard circulating pump) and a heating element that is
100% efficient probably out-performs a 'pump' that is designed to heat
the water more than move it.
> http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/descrip.html
Hmmm...
The reports from the link you provided tell a different story:
http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/potapov.txt
http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot2.txt
http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot3.txt
http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot4.txt
http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot5.txt
These all show efficiencies down around 80% and lower.
In all of these, the author was unable to reproduce the claimed
over-unity performance, despite numerous variations in the system
configuration.
So while the Russian manufacturer claims over-unity performance, it
would seem it's some sort of 'secret' that can't be reproduced.
daestrom
Posted by News on August 18, 2010, 9:09 pm
> News wrote:
>>
>>> News wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
> <snip>
>>>> There is more to the hydrosonic pump than what they are stating.
>>>> Results in the field are superior to resistance heating.
>>>
>>> Apparently not in *all* cases. The phenomenon is not always
>>> reproducible (a sign of instrumentation problems). And Griggs never
>>> makes such a claim.
>>
>> The Russians who use the domestic version say their heating bills dropped
>> substantially when moving over from immersed resistance heaters. The
>> Yusmar unit operates differently than the Griggs unit.
> Your link below states that the owner was *not* able to substantiate the
> over-unity claims.
>> <snip> Having a hydronic system
>> with a resistance heater and pump by definition consumes more energy -
> That's a faulty 'definition'. Having two separate components does not
> mean it consumes more energy. Obviously a standard circulating pump does
> not draw as much power as a hydrosonic pump.
> I put it to you that a pump designed for highly efficient movement of
> water (i.e. a standard circulating pump) and a heating element that is
> 100% efficient probably out-performs a 'pump' that is designed to heat the
> water more than move it.
>> http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/descrip.html
> Hmmm...
> The reports from the link you provided tell a different story:
> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/potapov.txt
> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot2.txt
> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot3.txt
> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot4.txt
> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot5.txt
> These all show efficiencies down around 80% and lower.
> In all of these, the author was unable to reproduce the claimed over-unity
> performance, despite numerous variations in the system configuration.
> So while the Russian manufacturer claims over-unity performance, it would
> seem it's some sort of 'secret' that can't be reproduced.
The maker does not. NASA tested it - whether the tests were correct is
another matter. The users claim over-unity as their electricity bills
dropped by 1/3.
Posted by sno on August 18, 2010, 10:47 pm
On 8/18/2010 5:09 PM, News wrote:
>> News wrote:
>>>
>>>> News wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> There is more to the hydrosonic pump than what they are stating.
>>>>> Results in the field are superior to resistance heating.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently not in *all* cases. The phenomenon is not always
>>>> reproducible (a sign of instrumentation problems). And Griggs never
>>>> makes such a claim.
>>>
>>> The Russians who use the domestic version say their heating bills
>>> dropped substantially when moving over from immersed resistance
>>> heaters. The Yusmar unit operates differently than the Griggs unit.
>>
>> Your link below states that the owner was *not* able to substantiate
>> the over-unity claims.
>>
>>> <snip> Having a hydronic system
>>> with a resistance heater and pump by definition consumes more energy -
>>
>> That's a faulty 'definition'. Having two separate components does not
>> mean it consumes more energy. Obviously a standard circulating pump
>> does not draw as much power as a hydrosonic pump.
>>
>> I put it to you that a pump designed for highly efficient movement of
>> water (i.e. a standard circulating pump) and a heating element that is
>> 100% efficient probably out-performs a 'pump' that is designed to heat
>> the water more than move it.
>>
>>> http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/descrip.html
>>
>> Hmmm...
>> The reports from the link you provided tell a different story:
>>
>> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/potapov.txt
>> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot2.txt
>> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot3.txt
>> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot4.txt
>> http://earthtech.org/experiments/yusmar/pot5.txt
>>
>> These all show efficiencies down around 80% and lower.
>>
>> In all of these, the author was unable to reproduce the claimed
>> over-unity performance, despite numerous variations in the system
>> configuration.
>>
>> So while the Russian manufacturer claims over-unity performance, it
>> would seem it's some sort of 'secret' that can't be reproduced.
> The maker does not. NASA tested it - whether the tests were correct is
> another matter. The users claim over-unity as their electricity bills
> dropped by 1/3.
NASA tested it...???.....I believe if you check all nasa did was help
grigg's discover why the bearings on his device were failing...they did
it under transfer of tech program they had going...they determined what
kind..??...type of materials the bearings needed to be to handle the
heat....
hope helps...have fun.....sno
--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
>
>> scale. I'm skeptical, since the dissolved solids have to go 'somewhere'.
>
> Scale will not migrate from a hotter liquid and build up on a cooler
> metal surface.
>