ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 174 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Genesis Strikes Again
    Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 @ 20:14:21 GMT by vlad

    Devices technophile writes: Genesis puts up "test data" on one of their early prototypes. The problem is that whoever is writing this stuff still doesn't know the difference between a Watt and a Watt hour (power vs energy). The result is a table of "data" which is mostly gibberish, such as "404.05% More Gas Produced Per Watt Consumed". How exactly do you consume a Watt?

    http://www.genesis-scientific.org/technology_test.htm


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Devices
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Devices:
    Overunity magnet motor released !


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 4
    Votes: 2


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Genesis Strikes Again" | Login/Create an Account | 8 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by sparks35 on Monday, January 24, 2005 @ 23:27:20 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    consume
    con-sume'
    (ken-soom')
    1. devour; eat; destroy.
    2. use up; spend, as time.
    ------------------------------------------------
    I see no problem describing a watt as being consumed.
    ------------------------------------------------

    gibberish
    gib'ber.ish
    (jib'er-ish)
    inarticulate talk; nonsence.
    -------------------------------------------------
    The test data is not inarticulate;
    and is not nonsence.
    -------------------------------------------------

    Thanks for the Update technophile. But please let's study it a bit before making conclusions.





    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by Rob (rob@zpenergy.com) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 @ 04:48:40 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    I'll have to agree with technophile, you cannot consume a watt. Watt (W) is a power unit. You don't consume it. You use it, under a defined amount of time, where the integrated power then becomes energy (Ws = J).




    ]


    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by malc on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 @ 08:32:54 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mripley
    Pedantic semantics. I think if you were to tell the man in the street that his 2kw fire "uses" 2000watts he will assume he can give it back once he has finished with it!


    ]


    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by Technophile on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 @ 09:19:40 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    I realize that you can make assumptions that they really mean Watt hours, or kWh, and then look at the numbers from that perspective and get an idea of the efficiency of the process.

    My point was that anyone who has the least understanding of electricity would not have made this elementary error. Moreover, they made the same exact error in the original Genesis description several years ago, which was ridiculed on this website and others, and which they finally corrected. Now they make the same error again. Slow learners?

    In the early material they had a similar problem where they confused cubic feet of gas with therms. They said the typical house uses a few cubic feet of gas per day (instead of the correct therms per day), while the Edison device was purported to make hundreds of cubic feet of hydrogen per day(which amountd to about one therm). It took them over a year to finally get their numbers right on that one so at least they were making sensible statements (their truth is yet to be determined). Again an elementary error.

    Doesn't all this affect your opinion of their credibility just a bit?


    ]


    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by baldy on Thursday, January 27, 2005 @ 14:32:18 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Their credibility has been suspect for some time and this doesn't help. Tough to tell if this is Kelly speaking or Nejhala Shaw?


    ]


    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by Gewis on Thursday, January 27, 2005 @ 16:18:20 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Here's a good analogy that might be helpful.

    If 1 energy was distance, power would be speed. You can travel 1 mile by walking 1 mile per hour, or by driving 60 miles per hour. Either way, you've traveled the same distance, but one way did it with far more power.

    1 watt-hour is a measure of energy, the amount of energy added to a system if you had it under a power of 1 watt for the duration of an hour. (like the distance you'd travel if you went at 1 mph for one hour, by this analogy) If somebody asks you how far you went, and you tell them 60 mph, that's jibberish, right? Right. But if you say you traveled 60 mph for 1 minute, then we can figure it out. So Technophile is right here. Talking about the amount of gas created per power is silly unless we have a defined and constant time for each evaluative period.

    Scientists have terawatt lasers, but they only run them for a few femptoseconds. What does that mean? It means that you've got lasers that use up more power than all of New York City, but use less energy than a AA battery can hold.


    ]


    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 @ 13:11:16 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Exactly why 99.9% of the devices promoted by the spurious get shot down in scientific review. Fantastic claims, fuzzy details, bad math.



    Re: Genesis Strikes Again (Score: 1)
    by sparks35 on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 @ 22:42:48 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    technophile, and others,

    Thanks for the Electricity 101 Education regarding Watts (power) vs. Watt/Hours (energy). I do believe I understand the difference; and YES, would expect Genesis (with all their grand claims)
    to post test results that are, at the very least, free of elementary errors.

    Genesis seems to be able to maintain a great Website. (over many months). But, Yes..their
    technical credibility is lacking.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Speaking of numbers...ElectroDynaCat...?

    WHERE DO U GET THE... "99.9% of the devices promoted by the spurious get shot down in scientific review. Fantastic claims, fuzzy details, bad math."??

    Did you just pull 99.9% out of your hat???
    ----------------------------------------------------






     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.