Дети лейтенанта Шмидта от кавитации. Фоминский Л.П. и Потапов Ю.С.
Наука и мошенничество.

Качество узлов - (а всего было 21 дефект и ни одного полностью исправного узла.)

Теперь, эти установки продают, как восточных женщин, в парандже, так проще -


Мы принимаем все дополнительные и критические замечания, и ждем новых пополнений..

---

Новая статья -

Ю.Потапов из Молдавии изобрел генератор тепла, действующий на основе нагрева воды при прокачке ее насосом по замкнутому контуру. Генератор представляет собой отрезок трубы с камерой закрутки. Поток воды в камере сильно закручивается, нагревается за счет вязкого трения и через сопло поступает в трубу.Утверждается при этом:
энергия выделяемого в генераторе тепла в 3-4 превосходит затраченную электрическую энергию на привод насоса.
В газете "Деловой мир" (31.03.93) в заголовке большой статьи прямо так и написано:
"Теплогенератор Потапова: КПД 300%".
Как же г-н Потапов объясняет сей феномен? А так:
в воде есть неизвестный источник внутренней энергии, при прохождении воды через генератор эта энергия и высвобождается (!). Следовательно, налицо не просто "вечный двигатель", но гораздо круче!
Если даже предположить, что в воде, изученной многими учеными в течение веков, остался не замеченным источник энергии, который срабатываетименно в трубе автора, то сколько же раз можно сниматьэнергию с одного и того же объемаводы, проходящего по контуру сотни и тысячи раз? Иначе - сколькоже шкур можно снять с одногобарашка? В Кыргызстан попал теплогенератор Потапова ЮСМАР-1, с паспортом, как положено. Вокруг этого устройства начался ажиотаж, стали создаваться фирмы, намеренные затопить республику халявной энергией.Приглашали поучаствоватьи меня. Но как ввязаться в такое дело, будучи в здравом уме и твердой памяти? Предложил: давайте исследуем КПД. Нашлись деньги и работа состоялась.
Были экспериментально исследованы четыре теплогенератора.
Первый из них - ЮСМАР-1, с соблюдением всех эксплуатационных условий, по паспорту, чтобы не было нареканий. Когда механизм явления стал прозрачен, были сконструированы еще три собственных теплогенератора. Первое из этих устройств было гораздо более сложным, чем ЮСМАР, чтобы "выжать" из явления максимальный эффект, не стоя за ценой. Второе устройство было совсем простым, но оно работало прекрасно и при этом появилась возможностьоптимальной настройки под параметры насоса. А третья конструкция показывалась в действии на Международной ярмарке "Бишкек-94" и была отмечена Большо-ой-Почти-Золотой-Медалью. Чтобы по научному хорошо обработать результаты экспериментов, была создана математическая модель явления, учитывающая разные виды теплопотерь в измерительном устройстве. Решалось дифференциальное уравнение теплового баланса с неизвестными параметрами, которые методом наименьших квадратов подгонялись под эксперимент. И что же получилось по результатам исследований, в общей сложности, четырех теплогенераторов?
А то, что КПД не бывает 100% и тем более выше. Сколько затратишь энергии (например - электрической), в лучшем случае почти столько же энергии (например - тепловой) и получишь.
Отсюда, вчастности, следует: ЮСМАР - фикция!
Вернуться к этому вопросу вынудило то обстоятельство, что в последнее время опять в Кыргызстане появились люди, поверившие в очередной "вечный двигатель"! И в России в 1999 году существуют фирмы, рекламирующие теплогенератор Потапова...
Все еще существует неистребимая вера в "халяву"!

---

---

---

---

А вот и новые пополнения еще -

Preliminary Test Results on the Potapov Device
Scott Little
H.E. Puthoff
EarthTech Int'l

IntroductionA water-heating device developed in Kishinev, Moldavia by Dr. Yu. S. Potapov has been reported to produce a heat output up to 3 times greater than the energy required to drive it. A Russian physicist, Lev G. Sapogin, has offered a theory to explain this phenomena in his paper entitled, "On One of Energy Generation Mechanism in Unitary Quantum Theory". We obtained a Potapov device and conducted a series of energy balance measurements on it. No evidence of over-
unity performance was observed.ApparatusThe device we tested is known as a YUSMAR-2 to the manufacturer. Apparently, these devices are enjoying some acceptance in Russia as building heaters and the YUSMAR-2 is the second in a line of four models that they make. For this model, the manufacturer specifies an inlet pressure
head of 50 meters of water (71 psi) and a flow rate range of 12.5-23 cubic meters per hour (55-101 gpm).The device we tested consists of a largely cylindrical chamber with a tangential inlet that spirals gradually into the cylindrical body of the chamber. There is a main axial outlet that occupies most of one end of the chamber and a secondary, smaller axial outlet on the other end of the
chamber. The chamber is 2.5" in diameter and 1" high. The inlet port is rectangular, 1" high and 0.6" wide. The main outlet is 2" in diameter. The secondary outlet is about 3/8" in diameter. Outside the chamber, the inlet pipe is a cone which tapers from 2" pipe down to the rectangular inlet over a distance of 5". The main axial outlet immediately opens into a 24" long section of 2" pipe.As shown in the figure below, the device (marked with a "P") is mounted directly above a steel 55 gallon barrel. The exit pipe from the device was extended with 2" PVC pipe and a "no-hub" coupling to a total length of 38" of which approximately 4" is below the water level. The discharge was placed below the water level to prevent air entrainment in the suction pipe.The small line marked "bypass" connects the secondary outlet to the main exit pipe. This line appears to be an optional feature of the Potapov device. In the literature accompanying our YUSMAR-2, the bypass line is not shown. However, in a photograph we obtained which shows a device similar in size to the YUSMAR-2, the bypass line is clearly present. We conducted tests with and without this line.The inlet of the Potapov device is connected directly to the discharge of a 7.5 hp centrifugal pump with a straight 1.5" pipe (discharge port size) 16" in length. 2" PVC piping was used for the suction tube. The total lift in the suction line is about 22". In this configuration, the pump achieves a head pressure of about 60 psi (indicated with a cheap pressure gauge in the dischage line) and a flow rate of about 106 gpm (measured by letting the pump empty the 55 gallon barrel and measuring the fall rate of the water level). The electrical supply to 7.5 hp pump motor passes through a General Electric 3-phase watthour meter to permit measurement of the electrical energy consumed. This meter has a K of 10.8 which means that the wheel rotates once for every 10.8 watt hours (38880 joules) delivered to the load.A small immersible pump (not shown in the figure) is used briefly when starting the system to prime the main pump.The barrel was wrapped with 3.5" thick R-11 insulation batting and is situated on the platform of a 1000 lb scale so the water can be weighed.A high-accuracy glass thermometer (partial immersion type) with 0.1 degree Centigrade graduations is used to measure the temperature of the water in the barrel.Test ProcedureThe energy balance measurements were conducted by running the main pump for a certain period and measuring both the electrical energy consumed by the pump motor and the heat energy delivered to the water during that period.Prior to starting the test, the 55 gallon barrel was filled with ordinary tap water to within about 8" of the top and weighed (the empty weight of the barrel is known).Before starting the test, the main pump was operated briefly in order to bring the rotating wheel in the watthour meter around so the index mark was centered in the viewing port.Before starting the pump, the water in the barrel was stirred vigorously with a large wooden paddle and a temperature reading was taken by immersing the glass thermometer to the proper depth and waiting until the mercury appeared to be perfectly stationary for at least 30 seconds (i.e. had stopped moving).To start the main pump, the small priming pump was operated for about 1 minute to fill the piping system and the main pump. Then the main pump was started and the priming pump stopped within a few seconds. While the main pump was operating, revolutions of the watthour meter wheel were
counted.The main pump was stopped precisely when a certain number of wheel rotations had been completed and the index mark was again centered in the viewing port on the front of the
watthour meter. Immediately after stopping the main pump, the water in the barrel was stirred with the wooden paddle and another temperature reading was taken in the same manner.Results
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 starting water temp 25.60 29.60 25.95
ending water temp 29.95 33.90 27.90
water wt (lb) 366.5 366.5 341.5
wheel revolutions 100 100 40
bypass line absent present present
energy input (Mj) 3.89 3.89 1.56
energy output (Mj) 3.03 2.99 1.27
* overall efficiency 0.78 0.77 0.81(* see motor efficiency discussion below)Air temperature in our laboratory is typically around 27 degrees C. In test 3, an effort was made to conduct the test over a temperature range that would minimize heat losses to the air (i.e. the water was warmed from slightly below air temperature to slightly above air temperature). Presumably,
this is why the efficiency in test 3 is a few points higher than in test 1 and test 2.Test 2 was conducted about 1 hour after test 1, using the same water. Note that the water temperature fell only 0.35 degrees during that hour. The pump run in Test 2 was timed at 727 seconds. This time allows the calculation of the average power consumption of the pump motor: 5.35 kW. The motor manufacturer provided a
load curve for this motor which indicates that under this loading the motor should be 85% efficient (the efficiency vs load curve is very flat in this loading region).Error DiscussionThe errors associated with each of the critical measurements have been estimated as follows:delta-T 0.05 degree C (2.5% relative in test 3)
water weight 2 lbs (about .5% relative)
watthours .5% relativeThese errors are independent and would thus combine to produce an overall expected error of about 2.6% relative.ConclusionsThe Potapov device we tested did not show any evidence of over-unity performance in our tests. The observed efficiency is 4-8% lower than the rated motor efficiency. This difference is significant and is probably due to heat losses to the air and to the body of the pump, which were not
measured in these tests.Our test conditions closely matched the manufacturer's recommended operating conditions for the YUSMAR-2. Our head pressure was about 60 psi instead of the recommended 71 psi but our 106 gpm flow rate was at the high end of the recommended range (55-101 gpm). It therefore does not seem likely that we were "underfeeding" the device.We can find no explanation for the failure of this Potapov device to perform as reported (300% over-unity). It is possible that we have failed to meet some operating condition that is critical for the over-unity performance. We will be exploring other operating conditions in the future and we
welcome any suggestions for further testing.

читать дальше...