This blog explains free energy and its availability today

http://overunityenergy.blogspot.com

Darn, instead of making tonnes of (almost) free $, someone has invested time into blogging instead of patentwriting and selling inventive arse to corporations. Strange choice. Oh well, sharks of capitalism certainly will tear that blog appart looking for "juice" fairly soon.

I've wasted enough time with Steorn's cryptic website (http://www.steorn.com/). Does anyone here know what the operating principle is? For a "free energy" source, they are being very elusive about the means to their extraordinary claims. Since it's impossible to compare what they're hiding with the known laws of thermodynamics, I'm left with a more basic axiom:

If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.

I've wasted enough time with Steorn's cryptic website (http://www.steorn.com/). Does anyone here know what the operating principle is? For a "free energy" source, they are being very elusive about the means to their extraordinary claims. Since it's impossible to compare what they're hiding with the known laws of thermodynamics, I'm left with a more basic axiom:

If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.

I looked at it just long enough to visually discover one fatal flaw. One machine had a superconducting ring carrying an electrical current which flowed through a coil inducing a current in an external circuit. The "inventor" obviously doesn't know enough basic physics/electricity to relalize that places an inductive load on the ring and will quickly use up all the power in it.

I would assume any other devices they present would have equally stupid flaws that would be apparent just by looking at or reading about them. I've no time to waste on such pure nonsense.

THEY claim to have found the holy grail of nerd desires....

a way to draw energy directly from magnetic fields...

since these magnetc fields are due to orbitable electrons which are forever in motion... if we could draw energy from a magnet...

we might cool it... or simply slow its Molecular orbiting electrons...

having rermoved some energy.. the electrons would return to energy levels which are dependant on the temp of the enviorment.

so... while i believe it could be done in some way....

i see nothing which tells me or shows me they actually have it worked out.


but...

im not surprised... if i discovered it, i would keep it top secret until i found a really big investor.

-MT

I've wasted enough time with Steorn's cryptic website (http://www.steorn.com/). Does anyone here know what the operating principle is? For a "free energy" source, they are being very elusive about the means to their extraordinary claims.
The inventors are deliberately keeping it from the public until the 22 scientists chosen to verify their claims have completed their experiments.

It simply doesnt matter what the general public thinks.

Nevertheless they have scheduled a public demonstration in London this July.

The inventors are deliberately keeping it from the public until the 22 scientists chosen to verify their claims have completed their experiments.
Or alternatively they are keeping it as secret as possible for as long as possible to get as much money as possible before it's shown that it's total rubbish. By which time it will be too late for the investors to get their money back...
It simply doesnt matter what the general public thinks
.. so long as they're gullible enough to invest.

Or alternatively they are keeping it as secret as possible for as long as possible to get as much money as possible before it's shown that it's total rubbish. By which time it will be too late for the investors to get their money back...
I believe the owner has stated in the recent interview video on the Steorn site that they are not soliciting investment until there is a scientific verdict on their tech...who knows?

This from the Gizmag site which is following the story:

"Steorn is not a new company; it was previously responsible for some elegant innovations, and though it is not a good financial performer it maintains a decent client base, which would disappear completely should this free energy initiative fall through. There was also the full page ad in The Economist – if it is a prank, it is a very expensive one, and if it is a scam they have not as yet asked for any donations. Finally there are the 22 renowned scientists engaged to test the machine; scientists who could possibly seek compensation from Steorn if it is proven to have deliberately misled them. Among the well of possible outcomes there are two more worth a mention – Steorn is honestly mistaken in its belief, or Steorn is absolutely correct. Until July though, all we can do is sit back and wait. Unless there are any bookmakers willing to tally the odds of the possible outcomes, in which case it might be possible to make this historic milestone...more interesting."

Or alternatively they are keeping it as secret as possible for as long as possible to get as much money as possible before it's shown that it's total rubbish. By which time it will be too late for the investors to get their money back...

.. so long as they're gullible enough to invest.

Exactly!!! :D

If you'd like to check out the King of the free-energy rip-off crowd, have a look at Jean-Louis Naudin. He was chased out of France by angry investors who lost everything they'd advanced him, was sued by the attourney general of New Jersey (Naudin lost and was driven out of state) and several other notable "events. "

For look at his latest scam, take a peek at this: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:cgYxbFxGEcUJ:www.ctglabs.com/TEP_1_1.htm+%22j+naudin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

I think the blog speaks for itself. You claim is not as good as the likes of Nikulov, Felsenstein, Magnetic Power Inc and Steorn. There is free energy.

I think the blog speaks for itself. You claim is not as good as the likes of Nikulov, Felsenstein, Magnetic Power Inc and Steorn. There is free energy.

Science has acknowledged that Zero-point energy exists - but a level FAR to low to ever be useful.

So I repeat - there's no such thing as useful free energy.

You must have missed my post early on where I completely blew their superconducting ring/generator out of the water! That funky little idea looks like something a kid of 10 would come up with. And I'm betting none of their other stuff is any better. (Actually, I know it can't be any better.)

Question, since you seem like such a devoted believer in their junk - do you actually know anything about thermodynamics???

Just wondering where you are going. Do You know anything about thermodynamics?

Just wondering where you are going. Do You know anything about thermodynamics?

Yes, quite bit actually. But the better question is do YOU really know anything at all about it? It would appear not, since you believe in free energy.

Free energy... how many laws of physics does that break exactly?

Free energy... how many laws of physics does that break exactly?

Laws are made to be broken...

Laws are made to be broken...

I can't believe I just read that. :bugeye: Physical laws are quite different from manmade legislation.

I can't believe I just read that. :bugeye: Physical laws are quite different from manmade legislation.

methaphysics?

Physical laws are descriptive, man made laws are prescriptive.

methaphysics?

Yeah - either that or just simple fraud. ;)

Alright, tell me, which law of physics got broken? And be specific

Alright, tell me, which law of physics got broken? And be specific

I am messing with you guys, but I actually believe nothing can be interpreted as the ultimate truth, there is no such thing. The laws of physics probably cannot be broken in Earth, but you are not considering the infinity of the Universe and the infinite possibilities intrisic in this property.

Well instead of putting the blinders on people, why not fight for this then? Why send the watch dogs? Why jab me with something dissolved in DMSO. Are we back in the bad old days of the nazis?

Alright, tell me, which law of physics got broken? And be specific

OK, I'll be VERY specific: the second law of thermodynamics and parts of the others. Do you have even a remedial understand of them?

It is well known that there are people hired for a specific purpose, some good. some evil. For instance, maryyugo aka penny aka ???. So when you write, I tend to wonder, are you one of them. A natural thing. Why? Well its because you tend to rubbish everything without any evidence, rationality, or even thought. It usually starts with trying to discredit someones understanding of chemistry or physics. Neither I might add, you have any knowledge off, however you mince your words. by the way, the guy who jabbed me told me his name was John (a false name given by John's to night workers), and his wife name was Vicky. Want a better description?

It is well known that there are people hired for a specific purpose, some good. some evil. For instance, maryyugo aka penny aka ???. So when you write, I tend to wonder, are you one of them. A natural thing. Why? Well its because you tend to rubbish everything without any evidence, rationality, or even thought. It usually starts with trying to discredit someones understanding of chemistry or physics. Neither I might add, you have any knowledge off, however you mince your words. by the way, the guy who jabbed me told me his name was John (a false name given by John's to night workers), and his wife name was Vicky. Want a better description?

Egad! What sort of nonsense is this? :bugeye:

Free energy... how many laws of physics does that break exactly?

Laws are made to be broken...

Ye canna break the laws of physics!

Beam me up, Scotty.

Ye canna break the laws of physics!

Beam me up, Scotty.

I posted this at ZDNet...

The body of information we call science is akin to a grain of sand on a beach. Try this..

Assume a magnetic wave at the surface of a superconductor ring is
traveling at a velocity of 90% the speed of light.

The speed of light is about 300 million meters per second and 90%
of the speed of light is 270 million meters per second.
If the wave can be measured at a distance of 130% the radius of
that ring, than it is moving faster than light.

Since angular rotation is
ω = 2Π / T = 2Π f = V / r

The angular speed for all parts of the wave is the same. From the
equation above the relationship between velocity of the wave at the
base and at the top and their radii is
Vtop / (R + r) = Vbase / R
Vtop = Tangential velocity at top of wave
Vbase = Tangential velocity at base of wave
R = radius of circle at base of ring
r = radius of ring at top of wave

This means that
Vtop = Vbase x (R+r) / R
= 270 million m/s x 130 /100
= 351 million m/s
= 117% the speed of light.

+++

It isn't unusual to go through life in a daze, unbelieving in
everything that makes this world good. My eyes have taken me to
unusual places and times and sometimes, if I open them just that
little more, I see just that more light.

I posted this at ZDNet...

The body of information we call science is akin to a grain of sand on a beach. Try this..

Assume a magnetic wave at the surface of a superconductor ring is
traveling at a velocity of 90% the speed of light.

The speed of light is about 300 million meters per second and 90%
of the speed of light is 270 million meters per second.
If the wave can be measured at a distance of 130% the radius of
that ring, than it is moving faster than light.

Since angular rotation is
ω = 2Π / T = 2Π f = V / r

The angular speed for all parts of the wave is the same. From the
equation above the relationship between velocity of the wave at the
base and at the top and their radii is
Vtop / (R + r) = Vbase / R
Vtop = Tangential velocity at top of wave
Vbase = Tangential velocity at base of wave
R = radius of circle at base of ring
r = radius of ring at top of wave

This means that
Vtop = Vbase x (R+r) / R
= 270 million m/s x 130 /100
= 351 million m/s
= 117% the speed of light.

+++

It isn't unusual to go through life in a daze, unbelieving in
everything that makes this world good. My eyes have taken me to
unusual places and times and sometimes, if I open them just that
little more, I see just that more light.

The entire problem lies with your very first assumption - the magentic wave cannot travel anywhere near that speed.

Go back and do some more basic research and then try again.

And by the way, you still haven't explained how those "wonderful" devices you linked to can manage to get around the second law of thermodynamics. Can't do it, can you? :D

OK, I'll be VERY specific: the second law of thermodynamics and parts of the others. Do you have even a remedial understand of them?

Do you? I would like to see that.

You started here by tearing down your own reputation (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64349) very badly. You gave yourself a reputation as a total butthead from the gitgo. Perhaps you should spend more time showing people that you have some little bit of intelligence.

Do you? I would like to see that.


Yes, I do - what would you like me to explain to you?

Yes, I do - what would you like me to explain to you?

Use references. Also, show me how those principles have been proven.

Use references. Also, show me how those principles have been proven.

OK. Basically, it states that heat will always move from areas of higher concentrations to areas of lower concentrations.

References? Sure - here's about a million and a third of them: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&q=second+law+of+thermodynamics

And scattered all throughout are descriptions of how those principles have been proven - time and again.

So you are saying one or both of the following:

You take your understanding of physics from google, or alternatively, you can't organise your thoughts sufficiently to answer a question posed to you. Any experimental experience at all? Maybe if left to you, real Physicists will get a book and a note saying "finish this and I will give you a PhD".

So you are saying one or both of the following:

You take your understanding of physics from google, or alternatively, you can't organise your thoughts sufficiently to answer a question posed to you. Any experimental experience at all? Maybe if left to you, real Physicists will get a book and a note saying "finish this and I will give you a PhD".

None of the above - I feel no responsibility to launch into a multipage explaination of what is taught in even the most basic of physics courses all around the world.

And as to you, I see you STILL refuse to defend those "free energy" devices against the most basic of scientific principles. Quit stalling and trying to use diversions - either put up or shut up.

OK. Basically, it states that heat will always move from areas of higher concentrations to areas of lower concentrations.

References? Sure - here's about a million and a third of them: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&q=second+law+of+thermodynamics

And scattered all throughout are descriptions of how those principles have been proven - time and again.

In other words, you can't explain them.

OK. Basically, it states that heat will always move from areas of higher concentrations to areas of lower concentrations.

References? Sure - here's about a million and a third of them: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&q=second+law+of+thermodynamics

And scattered all throughout are descriptions of how those principles have been proven - time and again.

And you are the dipwiddle who had to go on and on and on about an argument in which I stated, essentially and according to scientific principles, that it should take more energy to push a certain quantity of heat uphill than one might expect to get from trying to use that heat.

In other words, you can't explain them.

Sure I could but I'm not interested in being your teacher. From what I've seen of you here, you have a very limited capacity for learning and I don't want the job. Ugh! :bugeye:

And you are the dipwiddle who had to go on and on and on about an argument in which I stated, essentially and according to scientific principles, that it should take more energy to push a certain quantity of heat uphill than one might expect to get from trying to use that heat.

See what I mean about limited capacity for learning!?! I remember well reading that thread - and apparently you STILL are denying how heat pumps work. Wow!! :shrug:

Either the law has been broken or you don't understand how heat pumps work.

Grow up.

Either the law has been broken or you don't understand how heat pumps work.

Grow up.

Fine. Let's hear YOUR version of how they work and how they broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

Hang on a minute, how do you pus heat energy uphill?

Hang on a minute, how do you pus heat energy uphill?

By exerting more energy than is contained in the heat that you push uphill.

By exerting more energy than is contained in the heat that you push uphill.

I expected something like that. Even after two or three people tried so hard to explain it to you in that thread, you still don't get it - do you?

Ever heard of something called COP - Coefficent Of Performance? It's a term used, among other things, to rate heat pumps. A COP of three means that for one unit of energy used, three are delivered at the output of the device. Most systems used for residential installations have a COP of 5 - 8.

So I'm still waiting for your explaination of how it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Can't figure it out?

The entire problem lies with your very first assumption - the magentic wave cannot travel anywhere near that speed.
Same applies regardless of VOP

From http://www.arcade-electronics.com (http://www.arcade-electronics.com/jte/jovial1001html/JTE%20-%20Velocity%20of%20Propagation%20description.htm)

The Velocity Of Propagation or VOP is the speed at which an electrical signal passes through a cable. The VOP is usually expressed as a percentage, where the denominator is the speed of light. Thus, in a cable with a VOP of 90, an electrical signal will travel from one end of the cable to the other at 0.9C.
Reasons why the measurement is not precise
Since the VOP is an electrical property of the cable, whether or not the cable is coiled or straight effects the VOP value.

Also, the manufacturer only tightly controls the VOP in cables that are designed for transmitting high speed electrical signals. Thus the VOP for cables like Romex, and bell wire vary greatly, from batch to batch and manufacturer to manufacturer.

While VOP's are technically a number like 67.345, they are almost never expressed with more than single digit precision, e.g. 67.

Even so, using ShortStop to get within the right ballpark is an immense time savings, especially when you remember that most failures are at a junction and wires are almost never run in a straight path to begin with, they always have bends and loops.

The following table lists many cable types and their associated VOP's (both straight and coiled). Additional VOP`s may be found on our VOP - by Manufacturer (http://www.arcade-electronics.com/jte/jovial1001html/VOP%20Listing%20-%20by%20Manufacturer.htm)page.



Note 1: The VOP for THHN wires inside a conduit varies greatly based on the overall contents of the conduit. For 8 to 16 guage wires in 1/2 inch to 1 inch conduit, the VOP is approximately 77, with a range of 70 (crowded) to 84 (sparse) depending on how crowded the conduit.
Note 2: With double twisted cables such as CAT-5, where the individual pairs are twisted around each other, the length of each of the pairs is slightly different. In CAT-5 cables, this difference from the shortest wire to the longest wire is approiximately 3%

Same applies regardless of VOP

From http://www.arcade-electronics.com (http://www.arcade-electronics.com/jte/jovial1001html/JTE%20-%20Velocity%20of%20Propagation%20description.htm)

The Velocity Of Propagation or VOP is the speed at which an electrical signal passes through a cable. The VOP is usually expressed as a percentage, where the denominator is the speed of light. Thus, in a cable with a VOP of 90, an electrical signal will travel from one end of the cable to the other at 0.9C.
Reasons why the measurement is not precise
Since the VOP is an electrical property of the cable, whether or not the cable is coiled or straight effects the VOP value.

Also, the manufacturer only tightly controls the VOP in cables that are designed for transmitting high speed electrical signals. Thus the VOP for cables like Romex, and bell wire vary greatly, from batch to batch and manufacturer to manufacturer.

While VOP's are technically a number like 67.345, they are almost never expressed with more than single digit precision, e.g. 67.

Even so, using ShortStop to get within the right ballpark is an immense time savings, especially when you remember that most failures are at a junction and wires are almost never run in a straight path to begin with, they always have bends and loops.

The following table lists many cable types and their associated VOP's (both straight and coiled). Additional VOP`s may be found on our VOP - by Manufacturer (http://www.arcade-electronics.com/jte/jovial1001html/VOP%20Listing%20-%20by%20Manufacturer.htm)page.



Note 1: The VOP for THHN wires inside a conduit varies greatly based on the overall contents of the conduit. For 8 to 16 guage wires in 1/2 inch to 1 inch conduit, the VOP is approximately 77, with a range of 70 (crowded) to 84 (sparse) depending on how crowded the conduit.
Note 2: With double twisted cables such as CAT-5, where the individual pairs are twisted around each other, the length of each of the pairs is slightly different. In CAT-5 cables, this difference from the shortest wire to the longest wire is approiximately 3%

Your links provided no information whatsoeverabout VOP that I could find.

The generally accepted number for an electrical signal's propagation through a conductor is a MAXIMUM of about 2/3 c - roughly 200,000km/sec. I've NO idea where you are getting these weird high numbers.

I've wasted enough time with Steorn's cryptic website (http://www.steorn.com/). Does anyone here know what the operating principle is? For a "free energy" source, they are being very elusive about the means to their extraordinary claims. Since it's impossible to compare what they're hiding with the known laws of thermodynamics, I'm left with a more basic axiom:

If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Hype, this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. Now that this has happened, can "free energy" be far behind?

Fantastic! Now get used to it. I'm newly employed as a solar-power technician. So far as I know, your corporate masters are having extreme difficulty regulating and taxing sunshine.

Fantastic! Now get used to it. I'm newly employed as a solar-power technician. So far as I know, your corporate masters are having extreme difficulty regulating and taxing sunshine.
Oh, your plan might work, if not for the quick thinking of:
http://op-for.com/mr%20burns.jpg
"Have you ever seen the sun set at 3 p.m.?"
Burns unveils his most dastardly scheme of all to the town; the construction of a giant, movable disk that would permanently block out the sun in Springfield, thus ensuring the residents constant use of electricity to earn massive profits for his nuclear power plant.

So you see, we've thought of everything!

D'Oh!

I expected something like that. Even after two or three people tried so hard to explain it to you in that thread, you still don't get it - do you?

Probably because I don't speak bullshit.


Ever heard of something called COP - Coefficent Of Performance? It's a term used, among other things, to rate heat pumps. A COP of three means that for one unit of energy used, three are delivered at the output of the device. Most systems used for residential installations have a COP of 5 - 8.

So I'm still waiting for your explaination of how it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Can't figure it out?

I doubt if you know a single law.

So you have a word for BS. It doesn't make it true. It takes more energy to push a given amount of energy uphill than you get out of it, period.

The blog linked in the OP states that a current circulating in a superconducting ring can induce charge via a coil in another circuit, thus obtaining 'free' energy.

I guess they didn't think that the coil would act as a resister and take energy from the super conductor, thus depleting it's charge.

The blog linked in the OP states that a current circulating in a superconducting ring can induce charge via a coil in another circuit, thus obtaining 'free' energy.

I guess they didn't think that the coil would act as a resister and take energy from the super conductor, thus depleting it's charge.

There is actual transfer of energy. This is just another version of the electrical transformer.

MetaKron: "This is just another version of the electrical transformer."

...And just another version of a scam.

MetaKron: "This is just another version of the electrical transformer."

...And just another version of a scam.

Exactly! At least MetaKron could understand the basic action of that device.

But he still seems to think that heat pumps are a scam even though there are hundreds of thousands onf them in service. And he won't even attempt to try and explain how they work! Ha-ha-ha! :D :D Hasn't got a clue.

Exactly! At least MetaKron could understand the basic action of that device.

But he still seems to think that heat pumps are a scam even though there are hundreds of thousands onf them in service. And he won't even attempt to try and explain how they work! Ha-ha-ha! :D :D Hasn't got a clue.

You're one of the people who makes modern science a disgusting head game.

A long time ago my physics text explained to me that heat won't move uphill unless you expend more work to push it uphill than you get out of it, and that this was an ironclad law, and that anyone who told you different was scamming.

What you are telling me is the same thing as telling me that a certain type of so-called perpetual motion machine works, even though calling it a perpetual motion machine is wrong, because it actually uses stored energy, the heat found in whatever it extracts the heat from. I've seen Sterling engines on the net that worked on warm water and condensed ice on their cold side, which meant that they actually created their own cold side. And that is the thing that you are going to turn around and tell me is impossible, you nobody.

So you are going to tell me that when I have two of the same thing, one is wrong and one is right.

This is why I would just as soon you went to hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

During the 19th century, the second law was synthesized, essentially, by studying the dynamics of the Carnot heat engine in coordination with James Joule's Mechanical equivalent of heat experiments. Since any thermodynamic engine requires such a temperature difference, it follows that no useful work can be derived from an isolated system in equilibrium; there must always be an external energy source and a cold sink. The second law is often invoked as the reason why perpetual motion machines cannot exist.

If you can transfer heat in bulk uphill using 5 to 8 times less energy than is contained in that heat then you have broken the second law as expressed this way. There is an apocryphal list of many processes that violate this law but you wouldn't care even if I could find it.

Again, this would not actually be perpetual motion because it would take one form of stored energy and convert it into another.

Now I've got the complete picture. I can violate the second law of thermodynamics simply by doing creative accounting and back-sassing the laws of physics. Don't worry, you won't figure out what that means before I have my patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics



If you can transfer heat in bulk uphill using 5 to 8 times less energy than is contained in that heat then you have broken the second law as expressed this way. There is an apocryphal list of many processes that violate this law but you wouldn't care even if I could find it.

Again, this would not actually be perpetual motion because it would take one form of stored energy and convert it into another.

Now I've got the complete picture. I can violate the second law of thermodynamics simply by doing creative accounting and back-sassing the laws of physics. Don't worry, you won't figure out what that means before I have my patent.

I honestly don't care that you don't fully understand the principles of refrigeration that are employed in heat pumps and that they actually work as described - moving 5 to 8 or more times the heat from one area to another compared to the energy needed to make them operate.

As I said earlier, there are hundreds of thousands of them in service (including in large, industrial settings) and the customers are quite happy with them. But I'm sure not going to be bothered with explaining it to you - you are free to do your own research on the matter and have any opinion you want.

I understand the principles quite well. The thing is, you're going to claim that this doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I understand the principles quite well. The thing is, you're going to claim that this doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Of course it doesn't. But apparently you think it does, right? Do you even realize that the ordinary kitchen refrigerator - according to your viewpoint - violates the second law (in principle) since it moves heat from an area of lower concentration to one of a greater concentration. :D Of course it doesn't but you would appear to think so, based on it's results.

Like I said, use creative accounting and it appears not to violate the second law. The fact is that the second law is true only in severely limited cases.

Like I said, use creative accounting and it appears not to violate the second law. The fact is that the second law is true only in severely limited cases. And you are still an asshole

The second law is true and applies in ALL cases without exception.

And name calling gets you nothing but another infraction report.

Here's an idea: file a class-action lawsuit against GE, Carrier and all the other big makers of heat pumps for deceptive advertising and false perdormance claims. And don't forget all the hundreds of outlets that sell them and all the HVAC companies/cxontractors that install them, too. Since you have the "facts" on your side you stand to win millions!

The second law is true and applies in ALL cases without exception.

And name calling gets you nothing but another infraction report.

Here's an idea: file a class-action lawsuit against GE, Carrier and all the other big makers of heat pumps for deceptive advertising and false perdormance claims. And don't forget all the hundreds of outlets that sell them and all the HVAC companies/cxontractors that install them, too. Since you have the "facts" on your side you stand to win millions!

I wonder if I can ban your nonsensical tripe from replying to me.

I wonder if I can ban your nonsensical tripe from replying to me.

What are you talking about???? :mad: That reply was CLEARLY not a response to YOU!!!! Go away.

The second law is true and applies in ALL cases without exception.

And name calling gets you nothing but another infraction report.

Here's an idea: file a class-action lawsuit against GE, Carrier and all the other big makers of heat pumps for deceptive advertising and false perdormance claims. And don't forget all the hundreds of outlets that sell them and all the HVAC companies/cxontractors that install them, too. Since you have the "facts" on your side you stand to win millions!

What name-calling? I didn't see any name-calling. Did anyone else see any name-calling?

No, the manufacturers of heat pumps have achieved what would be called perpetual motion (although wrongly) were they to use it to generate electricity, and they have proven the invalidity of the 2nd law.

What a ridiculous argument (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm). The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Heat pumps are just thermal-energy transporters between separate systems. Just as you can carry coals to Newcastle, you can argue back and forth about the implications of carrying thermal energy from A to B all you like. But there's nothing mysterious in the pumps I happen to install as part of geothermal home heating systems, nor is their mystery in our refrigerators, in our air conditioners, etc. There's nothing to argue here, except a parsing of terms.

Then the 2nd amendment to the laws of thermodynamics only applies to other than real-world systems. Thus it is wrong to say that the 2nd law forbids the existence of machines that employ a certain form of perpetual motion.

Torturing Read-Only is fun.

What name-calling? I didn't see any name-calling. Did anyone else see any name-calling?

Right! I happened to see it JUST before you edited it out.

No, the manufacturers of heat pumps have achieved what would be called perpetual motion (although wrongly) were they to use it to generate electricity, and they have proven the invalidity of the 2nd law.

That doesn't even deserve a comment.

MetaKron: "it is wrong to say that the 2nd law forbids the existence of machines that employ a certain form of perpetual motion."

No it's not. By definition, a "perpetual motion machine" is a pipe-dream that only exists in fantasies ignorant of basic physics. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines) among other sources chronicles the convoluted history of these recurrent hoaxes.

PMMs (Infoplease): (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838481.html) A machine that would produce more energy in the form of work than is supplied to it in the form of heat would violate the first law of thermodynamics, which is a special case of the law of conservation of energy (see conservation laws, in physics), and is known as a perpetual-motion machine of the first kind. A machine that would completely convert heat from a warm body into work, without letting any heat flow into a cooler body, would violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is concerned with entropy changes, and is known as a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind.

1st Law of Thermodynamics: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics)The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body; temperature differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out and that work can be obtained from these non-equilibrium differences, but that loss of heat occurs, in the form of entropy, when work is done.

Heat Pump Basics from How Stuff Works. (http://home.howstuffworks.com/question49.htm)

Let's not confuse commonplace, functional devices like heat pumps with quackery.

Right! I happened to see it JUST before you edited it out.

That doesn't even deserve a comment.

I don't see how you happened to see an insult. It wasn't visible when I looked back at the message. I did see a formatting error or two to edit. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Considering your first message on this board, it's funny as hell to watch you twisting at the end of this line. :D

Hypewaders, all you understood out of that was "quackery" and that poorly.

Then refute what I "misunderstand" point-by-point:

PMMs by definition violate the laws of thermodynamics; are quackery

LOT-1 Conservation of Energy

LOT-2 Entropy and Work

Heat Pump operating principles

I don't see how you happened to see an insult. It wasn't visible when I looked back at the message. I did see a formatting error or two to edit. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Considering your first message on this board, it's funny as hell to watch you twisting at the end of this line. :D

Bull! It was there and I clearly saw it - you've NO credibility with me anyway.

Twisting???? Not at all. I'm not even the least bit inclined to try and explain away your foolishness over thermodynamics and how heat pumps actually work (which, in truth, is quite simple and requires NO "creative accounting" as you called it).

I suppose you also think that pumping oil to the surface of a well requires more energy than you can recover from the oil, eh? Yeah, that's a different topic entirely but it perfectly parallels your lack of understanding about heat pumps.

Clearly saw what? Did you edit it out? You quoted something, was it in there?

Clearly saw what? Did you edit it out? You quoted something, was it in there?

Stop trying to be cute and acting so innocent. You called me an asshole and then edited it out yourself - so of course it didn't show up in the quote.

As I said, your personal integrity was already shot to pieces with me before I even made my first post. And all you've done since - like this little episode - just reinforces that.

I'm sorry. Honestly, when I read over my last few messages to you, I couldn't see anything except where I said that you really should go to hell. I don't know what else you "plainly saw."

You're also trying to tell me that the 2nd law works outside of closed systems when you want it to.

Are you sure the insult isn't in that quote at the top of this page? If you give me ten dollars I might tell you what I did.

I'm sorry. Honestly, when I read over my last few messages to you, I couldn't see anything except where I said that you really should go to hell. I don't know what else you "plainly saw."

You're also trying to tell me that the 2nd law works outside of closed systems when you want it to.

Are you sure the insult isn't in that quote at the top of this page? If you give me ten dollars I might tell you what I did.

Not the least bit interested. End of story.

It's in the quoted material but it's not in the messages that I wrote. How did that happen, Read-Only? Did you edit it in?

If you don't want people to play games with you, don't start shit with them.

It's in the quoted material but it's not in the messages that I wrote. How did that happen, Read-Only? Did you edit it in?

If you don't want people to play games with you, don't start shit with them.

Oh, give it up. You aren't about to bait me into dropping to your level so you might as well quit trying - or just keep on, if that suits you. I really don't care what you do or say since so little of it is believeable anyway. And no - there is nothing edited in - can't you even read it?

You don't know how you could see it and no one else could and how come you can't see it now, so you're pretty simple-minded. Also, I don't think that it is possible for you to rise to my level.

The fact is that the heat pump is an example of a perpetual motion of the first type. It requires an actual input of energy at the cold side, but that fact didn't keep people from writing the definition of a perpetual motion machine of the first type.

You see, my method of insulting you is like trying to explain a scientific concept to you. It's there but you can't see it.

The second law is true and applies in ALL cases without exception.



Including open systems, which means most real-world cases?

I hear that read-only needs to grow a set.

Real science comes out of experiment.

Since the so called "law of conservation of energy" is not well understood, it is probable that we don't understand the other so called laws.

Real science comes out of experiment.

Since the so called "law of conservation of energy" is not well understood, it is probable that we don't understand the other so called laws.

Who says the law of conservation of energy isn't well understood? You??????

Then try doing a little real studying for a change.

We have people saying that the second law of thermodynamics prevents one kind of "perpetual motion." Basically, the extraction of work from a heat source without using a cold sink.

Then we have people saying that the second law only applies in closed systems WHICH ARE NOT REAL-WORLD CASES.

That's where I stop listening to BS.

But this dude is full of shit. Talking about how he got stabbed with a needle and injected with poison. Sure buddy becuase the government knows about your plan on free energy.

BS how would they know if he hasnt told anyone except his wife and who the hell is going to beleive her and how is her word going to reach the government.

It's a scam.

Any time I have read it, the Second law is only a generalization, or a trend but not a fixed law as say "opposite charges attract" would be, and becomes more true with macroscopic systems, and less true for microscopic.

However, it seems this thread is about the concept of a perpetual motion machine that actualy creates energy, and thus I think discussion of the second law is fairly irrelevant, as perpetual motion machines of this kind would break the first law primarily...

As for the actual machine itself... I dont see any evidence to sudjest this could create energy... greate we have a superconductive ring and a transformer like device, but where is the energy created?

Edit: furthurmore, the OP sated that this energy is available today? Where is it? I havnt seen it in stores, offered by any energy comapny I know, I havnt seen advertisments for it... It appears it's less available than a game console is the day before launch.

-Andrew

The second law is true and applies in ALL cases without exception.

And name calling gets you nothing but another infraction report.

Here's an idea: file a class-action lawsuit against GE, Carrier and all the other big makers of heat pumps for deceptive advertising and false perdormance claims. And don't forget all the hundreds of outlets that sell them and all the HVAC companies/cxontractors that install them, too. Since you have the "facts" on your side you stand to win millions!

Do you even know how a heat pump works?

Okay there's two coils the conderser(outside) and evaporator(inside). Now during the summer it's in cooling mode. Which means The Evaporator absorbs the heat and is then pushed oops I mean sucked outside into the compressor. the compressor pushes the refrigerant into the condenser and the conderser releases the heat via coil and fan. Causing subcooled liquid which is then pumped through a TXV (a valve that controls refrigerant flow to the evaporator) The TXV is kinda like a restricion in a way and causes sub-cooled liquid refrigerant to turn into a gas in the evaporator. This cools the evaporator and because warm air is attracted to cool air it is soaked into the metal coils of the evaporator and then the heat is transferred into the refrigerant and the cycle starts over again.

Now heat pumps have a special valve for heating mode, all this valve does is reverse the refrigerant flow when energized, making the condenser the evaporator and the evaporator the condenser.

he would be laughed at in court.

But this dude is full of shit. Talking about how he got stabbed with a needle and injected with poison. Sure buddy becuase the government knows about your plan on free energy.

BS how would they know if he hasnt told anyone except his wife and who the hell is going to beleive her and how is her word going to reach the government.

It's a scam.

Which dude is that?

Do you even know how a heat pump works?

Okay there's two coils the conderser(outside) and evaporator(inside). Now during the summer it's in cooling mode. Which means The Evaporator absorbs the heat and is then pushed oops I mean sucked outside into the compressor. the compressor pushes the refrigerant into the condenser and the conderser releases the heat via coil and fan. Causing subcooled liquid which is then pumped through a TXV (a valve that controls refrigerant flow to the evaporator) The TXV is kinda like a restricion in a way and causes sub-cooled liquid refrigerant to turn into a gas in the evaporator. This cools the evaporator and because warm air is attracted to cool air it is soaked into the metal coils of the evaporator and then the heat is transferred into the refrigerant and the cycle starts over again.

Now heat pumps have a special valve for heating mode, all this valve does is reverse the refrigerant flow when energized, making the condenser the evaporator and the evaporator the condenser.

he would be laughed at in court.

Evidently you missed a LOT!! I know very well how they work - I've installed them and worked on them. What you failed to catch is the the person that post was aimed at (and in response to) claims that they don't work.

Please be a little more attentive next time. And go explain it to HIM - he's the one that seriously needs help. In fact, his words are that heat pumps only work by "creative accounting."

Evidently you missed a LOT!! I know very well how they work - I've installed them and worked on them. What you failed to catch is the the person that post was aimed at (and in response to) claims that they don't work.

Please be a little more attentive next time. And go explain it to HIM - he's the one that seriously needs help. In fact, his words are that heat pumps only work by "creative accounting."

Yeah I actually realized that after I posted.

Meh.

I had put too much work into it to just delete. I'd figure the dude would see the post anyways...

Which dude is that?

The guy with his own blog claiming he knows how to create a free energy device.
The link to his blog is posted in the original post.

That's the dude Im talking about.

Thank you, I should have thought of that.

Don't even get me started on free energy.

The second(?) law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it only changes in form.

Since all matter is always moving we see that energy is everywhere. All suns/stars put out extremely powerful light radiation, x-radiation, gamma-radiation and finally high frequency radio radiation. There is so much high frequency radiation in the space at the tip of your nose that you'd lose your mind if you tried to comprehend the power of it.

Stars resonate their power like a large radio transmitting tower, except when its coming from a supermassive object like a star it also happens to be super powerful and it penetrates all matter because the frequency is far too high to interact with most atomic matter, unless of course you match the frequency of the wave with the propper technology.

The stars in the universe are all powering eachother by resonating eachother, no energy is lost since no energy can be lost or destroyed, it is always changing in form, kinda like how water changes forms in the water cycle from oceans/rivers/lakes to vapor and then it turns into particles forming clouds until it rains again. To say that free energy DOESN'T exist would be like saying that after water is heated and vaporized it is "lost forever."

In electromagnetic theory you cannot make a magnetic field without an electric current and you cannot have an electric current without a magnetic field, so wouldn't it then make sense that magnets are merely accessing some hidden force with their polarized molecules in order to convert some hidden electric field into a magnetic one which will never go away until the magnet loses polarization. Its just so perfect.

Don't even get me started on free energy.

The second(?) law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it only changes in form.

Since all matter is always moving we see that energy is everywhere. All suns/stars put out extremely powerful light radiation, x-radiation, gamma-radiation and finally high frequency radio radiation. There is so much high frequency radiation in the space at the tip of your nose that you'd lose your mind if you tried to comprehend the power of it.

Stars resonate their power like a large radio transmitting tower, except when its coming from a supermassive object like a star it also happens to be super powerful and it penetrates all matter because the frequency is far too high to interact with most atomic matter, unless of course you match the frequency of the wave with the propper technology.

The stars in the universe are all powering eachother by resonating eachother, no energy is lost since no energy can be lost or destroyed, it is always changing in form, kinda like how water changes forms in the water cycle from oceans/rivers/lakes to vapor and then it turns into particles forming clouds until it rains again. To say that free energy DOESN'T exist would be like saying that after water is heated and vaporized it is "lost forever."

In electromagnetic theory you cannot make a magnetic field without an electric current and you cannot have an electric current without a magnetic field, so wouldn't it then make sense that magnets are merely accessing some hidden force with their polarized molecules in order to convert some hidden electric field into a magnetic one which will never go away until the magnet loses polarization. Its just so perfect.

That makes little sense - a little but VERY little.

Thermodynamics makes no such statement. You're talking about the conservation of mass/energy.

Stars "resonate"? The radiation "penetrates all matter?" Stars "power each other?" Magnets are "accessing some hidden force?" Please - gimme an break! There's no basis for that!

To say that a star doesn't resonate would be like saying its not moving, its not transmitting. Just look at our little ol'earth, hundreds of lightning bolts are striking its surface every second of its existence, this would entail that even the little ol earth has a resonating frequency of some great magnetude.

In a lightning storm, an agitated atmosphere with high winds and circulating water particles generates some extremely high voltage lightning. Now look at the sun, its the same thing but on a super-massive scale, solar flares many times larger than earth are always errupting from it, its surface is liquid and is always moving and gyrating, this is SO much movement of matter it causes more friction than you will ever be able to comprehend. More friction means more high voltage charges, more charges and discharges of electricty mean higher frequency resonation.

It is apparent that Read-Only doesn't know jack about high voltage radio transmition, frequency, and radiation.

To say that a star doesn't resonate would be like saying its not moving, its not transmitting. Just look at our little ol'earth, hundreds of lightning bolts are striking its surface every second of its existence, this would entail that even the little ol earth has a resonating frequency of some great magnetude.

In a lightning storm, an agitated atmosphere with high winds and circulating water particles generates some extremely high voltage lightning. Now look at the sun, its the same thing but on a super-massive scale, solar flares many times larger than earth are always errupting from it, its surface is liquid and is always moving and gyrating, this is SO much movement of matter it causes more friction than you will ever be able to comprehend. More friction means more high voltage charges, more charges and discharges of electricty mean higher frequency resonation.

It is apparent that Read-Only doesn't know jack about high voltage radio transmition, frequency, and radiation.

To the contrary - it's quite obvious that you know very little about it. I actually spend decades working with microwaves, waveguides and many different types of radio transmitter/receiver equipment. And I've had a valid radio license ever since 1965. Not an amateur license, either. I'm fully qualified to operate ANY commercial radio or TV station in any U.S. territory.

You are the one that has NO idea what "resonance" means - your use of the the term (and the other things you said about stars, etc.) is totally wrong.

I can hardly believe you folks would make twenty posts on a dumb subject like this! Come on guys! Free energy? Would we bother with one on "perpectual motion" or how about just one that claims Santa Claus really exists? ---or the tooth fairy!

You should all hang your heads in shame!:eek:


charles,

I can hardly believe you folks would make twenty posts on a dumb subject like this! Come on guys! Free energy? Would we bother with one on "perpectual motion" or how about just one that claims Santa Claus really exists? ---or the tooth fairy!

You should all hang your heads in shame!:eek:


charles,

I agree. The "free energy" crowd is a die-hard bunch, though. Very similar to the ones that believe in perpetual motion, alien abductions, talking to dead people and the like. They will never stop believing because they WANT to believe. (And I imagine they also believe in "free lunch" as well.) :D

Ahh Read-Only throws out his credentials in one last attempt to stop my logic on the facts of reality.

Tell me Read Only, do you like this crude oil rape which has been going on our mother earth for so long? Maybe some one in the crude oil rape arena pays you to discredit free energy talk? hahaha

To the contrary - it's quite obvious that you know very little about it. I actually spend decades working with microwaves, waveguides and many different types of radio transmitter/receiver equipment. And I've had a valid radio license ever since 1965. Not an amateur license, either. I'm fully qualified to operate ANY commercial radio or TV station in any U.S. territory.

Ahh Read-Only throws out his credentials in one last attempt to stop my logic on the facts of reality.

Tell me Read Only, do you like this crude oil rape which has been going on our mother earth for so long? Maybe some one in the crude oil rape arena pays you to discredit free energy talk? hahaha

I stick to what I said previous:

To say that a star doesn't resonate would be like saying its not moving, its not transmitting. Just look at our little ol'earth, hundreds of lightning bolts are striking its surface every second of its existence, this would entail that even the little ol earth has a resonating frequency of some great magnetude.

In a lightning storm, an agitated atmosphere with high winds and circulating water particles generates some extremely high voltage lightning. Now look at the sun, its the same thing but on a super-massive scale, solar flares many times larger than earth are always errupting from it, its surface is liquid and is always moving and gyrating, this is SO much movement of matter it causes more friction than you will ever be able to comprehend. More friction means more high voltage charges, more charges and discharges of electricty mean higher frequency resonation.

Ahh Read-Only throws out his credentials in one last attempt to stop my logic on the facts of reality.

Tell me Read Only, do you like this crude oil rape which has been going on our mother earth for so long? Maybe some one in the crude oil rape arena pays you to discredit free energy talk? hahaha

What a goofy claim!

And speaking of credentials, what do you have? Anything besides a big mouth and your favorite word (resonance) that you don't even understand?

And you've yet to present any "logic" at all. Care to try yet again?:bugeye:

In a lightning storm, an agitated atmosphere with high winds and circulating water particles generates some extremely high voltage lightning. Now look at the sun, its the same thing but on a super-massive scale, solar flares many times larger than earth are always errupting from it, its surface is liquid and is always moving and gyrating, this is SO much movement of matter it causes more friction than you will ever be able to comprehend. More friction means more high voltage charges, more charges and discharges of electricty mean higher frequency resonation.

Actually I beleive the sun works like this.

The sun's core gravity is so strong that the electrons of the atom collide into the center of the atom(nucleus), But because matter can never touch a huge force is created and the atomm explodes apart. Repelling each other in opposite directions.

Actually I beleive the sun works like this.

The sun's core gravity is so strong that the electrons of the atom collide into the center of the atom(nucleus), But because matter can never touch a huge force is created and the atomm explodes apart. Repelling each other in opposite directions.

I suppose you either don't know about nuclear fusion or don't believe it works. Right?

I suppose you either don't know about nuclear fusion or don't believe it works. Right?

Don't know... never read about nuclear fusion.
I just thought to myself how would the sun work.

That was what I came up with.

Don't know... never read about nuclear fusion.
I just thought to myself how would the sun work.

That was what I came up with.

OK. Then you might want to spend just a little while reading about it because that's actually what's happening in the Sun. For starters, try the following link - and it's not really necessary to go through all the math to get the general idea, so don't let that bother you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Windmills are free energy machines for example.

Energy can't change form, it can only be created and destroyed. It can change form too, but change is just the appearance of constant creation and destruction.

Wait, I thought it meant free energy as in it is actualy creating energy...?
Isnt all energy 'free' then? It costs moeny for a solar panel, for a windmill etc... and it costs money for electricity. And surely this 'device' would cost money if it were real and produced. Whats the difference, one doesnt have to continue paying for the panel and mill after the initial investment?

Also, no you got it backwards: energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change form. In changing form it may 'appear' to be created or destroyed but it isnt.

-Andrew

Wait, I thought it meant free energy as in it is actualy creating energy...?

Exactly, and windmills create energy. You may think that they receive their energy from the wind, but the wind comes from nothing, so it's creation of energy.

Also, no you got it backwards: energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

It's backwards in all the books you've been reading, but just because it's backwards does it mean it right?

It's impossible that anything could change because the present moment is all that exists, and it has no duration, so nothing has time to change.

If things could change we wouldn't need to make movies that consist of unchanging pictures, we could make real motion, not just illusions.

Yorda:

Exactly, and windmills create energy. You may think that they receive their energy from the wind, but the wind comes from nothing, so it's creation of energy.

No. Wind is caused by the Sun heating up the air.

No. Wind is caused by the Sun heating up the air.

You may think that the wind is caused by the Sun heating up the air, but the heat of the sun comes from nothing, so it's creation of energy.

And then you say: "No. The heat is caused by nuclear fusions."

And I say, you might think that nuclear fusions cause the heat, but the nuclear fusions are caused by nothing, so it's creation of energy.

Continue and soon you reach the limit of your understanding, and realize that all energy comes from nothing (ignorance), because there is nothing else...

Continue and soon you reach the limit of your understanding, and realize that all energy comes from nothing (ignorance), because there is nothing else...
I see, so your argument rests soundly on the logical falacy ad ignorantiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
Every example clearly shows that energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is empirical evidence to support this.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the creation of energy, not for us to show you every form the energy changed from.
However, the beginning of this chain of causality, if your wondering, is that the energy was created with the universe, and thus from the perspective of any observer inside the universe, it has always been there.
But dont think that just because it was created with the universe means it can be/is still created in our universe.
So you still have to show proof of it being created, in our universe right now, and thus adding more energy than existed in it a moment ago.

-Andrew

I see, so your argument rests soundly on the logical falacy ad ignorantiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

No argument can rest on anything but ignorance, words, nothing, because nothing the source of everything. Nothing can be known because everything is "something" which means that we don't know what it is (ignorance), and we can never know (because everything is something)... we can only think we know.

But dont think that just because it was created with the universe means it can be/is still created in our universe.

If it could be created "then", why couldn't it be created "now" anymore?

Nothing can be created in the past because the past is only a memory, a thought.

No argument can rest on anything but ignorance, words, nothing, because nothing the source of everything. Nothing can be known because everything is "something" which means that we don't know what it is (ignorance), and we can never know (because everything is something)... we can only think we know.

No of course we cannot actualy know anything, however that does not make us ignorant. Moreover, this actualy makes you ignorant compared ot the rest of us if you choose to discard what you have to gain knowlege. Most use what they can to try and find knowlege (senses, language, emotions etc..) If your argument simply rests on the fact that we do not ultimatly know anything, theres no point in any debate, so you can stop wasting our time. People know this, it's old, and no premisis to support any argument, as that would mean any argument is just as correct.

Read the link if you dont understnad what "argument from ignorance" means.
I can make an argument that my shirt is red. My eye's say its red, my friend confirms this. That is an argument, not from ignorance. One from ignorance would be that: I say it's red because you can't see it to prove otherwise. Or the prime example: "You can't prove unicorns don't exist, so they do."

If it could be created "then", why couldn't it be created "now" anymore?
Simply because it was created with our universe, not within it.
As I said, show me an example to counter it, or your argument is still ad ignorantiam

-Andrew

As I said, show me an example to counter it, or your argument is still ad ignorantiam

I already showed you. Windmills.

I already showed you. Windmills.
...It was already explained to you why this was false.
As I said, you can trace the changes of energy back to the beginning of time and never see it created within our universe. From the perspective of any observer inside the universe, it has always existed, and always will.

-Andrew

Why couldnt the sun be a continuing cycle of nuclear fission? Much like the water on the earth has a continuing cycle of vapor and liquid.
Nuclear Fission happens in the middle of the sun and the components of the atom are blown apart, but because the suns gravity is so strong it recombines the broken atoms before they can leave the surface of the sun.
A continuing cycle of broken atoms being blown apart away from the center and whole atoms being drawn back down to the sun's core to be blown apart again.

The lighter elements release energy through nuclear fussion, however it requires energy to split them apart (nuclear fission) the heavier elements release energy through fission, but require energy to be fused. Thus, you can't actualy gain energy by fusion and fission of the same material. So, since the sun outputts it's energy as EM radiation, once it has fused all it can, it has no energy to split it back again.

-Andrew

Someone asked me what I thought of the Steorn demo (appears to have been stopped). Well I did read that it went for 4 hours. Remarkable if the system is the same as a SC ring.

The lighter elements release energy through nuclear fussion, however it requires energy to split them apart (nuclear fission) the heavier elements release energy through fission, but require energy to be fused. Thus, you can't actualy gain energy by fusion and fission of the same material. So, since the sun outputts it's energy as EM radiation, once it has fused all it can, it has no energy to split it back again.

-Andrew

The sun releases energy so how does that interplay with the sun not being a continuing cycle of nuclear fission? Once it releases enough energy/mass by light and radiation. It will lose the strength of it's gravity to a degree that it would not be able to continue it's current cycle of fission and will grow to a red giant and start another but weaker cycle of Nuclear fission.

I don't know though I never really read about fusion. It's just hard for me to see two nucleons fusing together and releasing energy. Especially since I thought it was a law that particles could never physically touch each other. But even if it was possible than it would take more energy to fuse nucleons together then the release of power. If it was possible the release of energy would equal a tiny bit of energy left over of what could not be fused together.

The sun releases energy so how does that interplay with the sun not being a continuing cycle of nuclear fission? Once it releases enough energy/mass by light and radiation. It will lose the strength of it's gravity to a degree that it would not be able to continue it's current cycle of fission and will grow to a red giant and start another but weaker cycle of Nuclear fission.
But stars die, thus it is not truly a continuing cycle: it ends somewhere. The more massive the star, the more massive the elements it can fuse, but eventualy it wont be big eanough to fuse anything, and hence dies.

don't know though I never really read about fusion. It's just hard for me to see two nucleons fusing together and releasing energy. Especially since I thought it was a law that particles could never physically touch each other. But even if it was possible than it would take more energy to fuse nucleons together then the release of power. If it was possible the release of energy would equal a tiny bit of energy left over of what could not be fused together.
Think of a log, your outside camping. It takes allot of work to get that log burning initialy, but once you do, it outputs more energy than it took to light it, plus you can add more logs and sustain the reaction, thats essentialy what stars have done. Eventualy, you run out of logs/trees and your fire dies, just like the star runs out of fusion material.
Whats happening in the nucleus of an atom is, under high preassure and tempuratures, the nucleons are so close together the Strong Nuclear Force is abble to take effect and bind them together, releasing stored potential energy in the process (eg as EM radiation, and heat.) You will have to do your own reading if you want a better understanding of the physics.

-Andrew

But stars die, thus it is not truly a continuing cycle: it ends somewhere. The more massive the star, the more massive the elements it can fuse, but eventualy it wont be big eanough to fuse anything, and hence dies.


Think of a log, your outside camping. It takes allot of work to get that log burning initialy, but once you do, it outputs more energy than it took to light it, plus you can add more logs and sustain the reaction, thats essentialy what stars have done. Eventualy, you run out of logs/trees and your fire dies, just like the star runs out of fusion material.
Whats happening in the nucleus of an atom is, under high preassure and tempuratures, the nucleons are so close together the Strong Nuclear Force is abble to take effect and bind them together, releasing stored potential energy in the process (eg as EM radiation, and heat.) You will have to do your own reading if you want a better understanding of the physics.

-Andrew
I never said it was an infinite ongoing cycle. The sun is constantly releasing energy which comes from mass.

Does Nuclear fission not create EM radiation and heat?

Plus when you burn a log the compounds that made up the log are separated and released. Doesn't seem anything like nuclear fusion to me.

I cannot believe that people are actually entertaining this conversation

I cant believe you are not entertaining this. There proof is clear

Proof of what?

I cant believe you are not entertaining this. There proof is clear

There? Where?

But this dude is full of shit. Talking about how he got stabbed with a needle and injected with poison. Sure buddy becuase the government knows about your plan on free energy.

BS how would they know if he hasnt told anyone except his wife and who the hell is going to beleive her and how is her word going to reach the government.

It's a scam.

Riigggght..... Well guess you wont know for sure until you get all of us into the same room. Why not do that? I am willing if you are.

The world is full of dangerous people. You only get to meet them when they want something.

I would just like to say that i am not opposed to finding zero point energy. The argument that energy can be created nor destroyed really isnt valid here because your wouldnt be creating energy just moving it from one place to another..

I have always dreamed of an energy source that was not dependent on on other "active" energy sources, such as the earths magnetic field, solar, wind, otherwise.. but one that relies on simple fuel such as waste by-products recycled from items that we use every day or a readily and abundantly available fuel source such as garbage, seawater, possibly even the air we breathe ? anyways, i dont have much education along these lines.. or any for that matter, but hey, i am not trying to profit here.. just trying to get the ideas and minds of those who could actually figure something like this out flowing in a new direction any thoughts ?

i started a new thread to open up discussion along these lines but i cant post a link yet :)

I know that superconductor based energy systems, anecdotally called free energy exists. And this because some people jumped when i started publicising it.

The facts are available to anyone should they look around them more closely. Why a superconductor? Well it has no resistance. So its quite easy to imagine a superconductor ring conducting an electromagnetic pulse. Since its a ring, shouldnt the pulse continue for some time?

I know that superconductor based energy systems, anecdotally called free energy exists. And this because some people jumped when i started publicising it.

The facts are available to anyone should they look around them more closely. Why a superconductor? Well it has no resistance. So its quite easy to imagine a superconductor ring conducting an electromagnetic pulse. Since its a ring, shouldnt the pulse continue for some time?

Superconductor systems are NEVER refered to as free-energy devices! Where did you pick up that bit of nonsense??????? They are expensive energy-storage devices, nothing more, and the energy induced into them is generated by conventional means.

Again I ask: do you know ANYTHING at all about basic physics - or are you just making it up as you go along???

I had a revelation...

You know how some people talk, like, alot. Like yak-yak-yak-yak-yak and they just will not shut up? That's free energy. Put a generator to that person's jaw and they may be able to light up your local neighborhood! And the energy is free! Free energy! Free energy! Now please don't tell too many people, the G-men might come to my home and put poison in my food! But at the same time, the world must hear of my revolution, so I will make a website that the whole freaking world can see! That makes perfect sence! Free energy! Imagine, dream, of free energy! OMGweeeeeeeeee, free energy!

^^ Plug that man in!

Superconductor systems are NEVER refered to as free-energy devices! Where did you pick up that bit of nonsense??????? They are expensive energy-storage devices, nothing more, and the energy induced into them is generated by conventional means.

Again I ask: do you know ANYTHING at all about basic physics - or are you just making it up as you go along???

Knee jerk!

I know that superconductor based energy systems, anecdotally called free energy exists. And this because some people jumped when i started publicising it.

The facts are available to anyone should they look around them more closely. Why a superconductor? Well it has no resistance. So its quite easy to imagine a superconductor ring conducting an electromagnetic pulse. Since its a ring, shouldnt the pulse continue for some time?
I work with superconductors and studied them in graduate-level university classes. I am not aware of how they could be used to generate free energy. Yes, a pulse of electrical current will travel through a superconducting loop forever if you leave it alone - but if you try to extract energy from it the pulse will slow.

Indeed, a superconductor carrying a pulse can be thought of much like a satellite orbiting a planet (eg the moon orbiting earth.)
Sure you have a nice amount of kinteic energy not going anywhere, but its not free. If we try to extract this energy what happens? The orbit decays to the point where the satellite crashes into the planet it was orbiting.

Similarily, any attempts to extract energy from the pulse will induce resistance on our superconductor. In order for us to get energy from the pulse, the pulse must do work. If the pulse does work it slows down. If it keeps doing work, it eventualy stops. Now we need a new pulse, which requires energy to be put back into the system. Thus we gained nothing. (Infact, we problably lost some energy since our system wont be perfect and thus energy will escape as heat for example.)

-Andrew

What these scientifically-illiterate nutters seem to miss is that their theories would surely have been picked up by someone else if they had any truth in them. Especially when they're very simple .

What these scientifically-illiterate nutters seem to miss is that their theories would surely have been picked up by someone else if they had any truth in them. Especially when they're very simple .

Right. It's only because they've learned a little science (VERY little, indeed!!) and now think that's all they have to know. Sad, pitiful, and pathetic, really.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

yep.. its real.. and theyre killin people.. lol

What these scientifically-illiterate nutters seem to miss is that their theories would surely have been picked up by someone else if they had any truth in them. Especially when they're very simple .
Indeed. These people presumably are aware that there are specialists who spend decades studying these topics. Why oh why would someone think that they could read a few web pages or pop-sci books about a subject and come up with ideas that the experts missed? Sure, it’s theoretically possible that it could happen, but any thinking person should realize that the odds of it happening are very close to zero.

yeah sure.. like splitting water into hydrogen.. i had that friggin idea by myself in the 7th grade.. (i have only a high school education.. some of our greatest thinkers didnt even have that) its been being done for 40 years.. do it too well and your dead.. lol

I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE OPEN TO NEW IDEAS NO MATTER WHO THEY COME FROM , IF ITS TOO FRUSTRATING FOR SOME OF THEN YOU GO TO ANOTHER POST..

yeah sure.. like splitting water into hydrogen.. i had that friggin idea by myself in the 7th grade.. (i have only a high school education.. some of our greatest thinkers didnt even have that) its been being done for 40 years.. do it too well and your dead.. lol

I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE OPEN TO NEW IDEAS NO MATTER WHO THEY COME FROM , IF ITS TOO FRUSTRATING FOR SOME OF THEN YOU GO TO ANOTHER POST..

Really? Even when it's something very old and well understood like your hydrolysis idea? Or even worse, when it's something totally stupid that they will spend a lot of time and effort on rather than being told (and with an explanation given) it's a red herring????

You would be doing them both an injustice and disservice. Much better to help them by telling them the truth.

yeah sure.. like splitting water into hydrogen.. i had that friggin idea by myself in the 7th grade.. (i have only a high school education.. some of our greatest thinkers didnt even have that) its been being done for 40 years.. do it too well and your dead.. lol

I'm not sure what you mean here. I actually almost used this as an example of one of the common ideas that people seem to "discover" and them make a big deal over. Lots of people seem to think that you can use electrolysis to split water, then burn the H2 and O2 to get back more energy than you put into making it. For some reason it never occurs to them that if it were possible, people would probably be doing it already.

AND I REITERATE.... theres also a 100 more like it..


http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

AND I REITERATE.... theres also a 100 more like it..


http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

You've proved nothing.
Why?
It was because of your unawareness of what you have to do to get the atoms of a water molecule to separate.

Energy
You need energy to make H20 molecules into separated hydrogen and oxygen molecules. You cant make energy on something that takes energy.

ignorance is bliss i suppose.

in a hybrid you can use the passive electrical energy generated by the motor, wheels brakes etc, to fuel the hydrogen generation..

Except, that this energy will always be less than the amount you put in. The engine has to work harder to charge the battery than it would if there was no charger attached.

If I put 10J of electrical energy to split some water, I now have 10J of chemical potential energy minus whatever I lost as heat in the wires. So lets say I lost 1J of heat. I have 9J of potential energy. Now I burn this in a combustion engine and get 9J of 'rotaional' energy minus whatever I lost as heat (lets say another joule) so 8J of energy put into rotating the main axel.
This energy is then transfered into
1. the wheels.
2. the battery to recharge it.
So lets say I get 2J charging the battery minus whatever I loose as heat (1 joule again) I now have 1J sofar back in the battery to replenish the 10 I started with.
Next the wheels: I put 6J into the wheels to make my car move, loose that 1 to heat, get 5J moving the car forward. Loose another joule to wind resistance, before I get to a stop sign (gotta push that mass of air outta our way.) now have 4J. I put on the brakes, and they re-absorbe some of that energy, minus some lost to heat. 3J goes back into the battery.
I now have 4J in the battery, from the 10J I started with. I use this 4 Joules to split some water and the process repeats, each time with less energy (untill there isnt eanough to move the axel.)

You cannot create energy with electrolosis. Water is not an energy source.
-Andrew

in a hybrid you can use the passive electrical energy generated by the motor, wheels brakes etc, to fuel the hydrogen generation..

"Passive electrical energy?????" What on earth are you talking about?

Those who do not understand the most basic principles will never understand intergrated systems (or much else, for that matter) - unless they study more. Indeed, for them - just as you said - ignorance IS bliss. They can make ANYTHING happen - possible or not. (And them they sit around wondring why no one is using their wonderful "invention.") :rolleyes:

do you even know where you are ?

I work with superconductors and studied them in graduate-level university classes. I am not aware of how they could be used to generate free energy. Yes, a pulse of electrical current will travel through a superconducting loop forever if you leave it alone - but if you try to extract energy from it the pulse will slow.


So you are saying that you should be able to slow the pulse down to nothing. Is it reversible? Can you speed the pulse up? That way you could build a device to slow the pulse and speed it up again. Why? Well I dont know. Your bs prompted me to write this.

So you are saying that you should be able to slow the pulse down to nothing. Is it reversible? Can you speed the pulse up? That way you could build a device to slow the pulse and speed it up again. Why? Well I dont know. Your bs prompted me to write this.
Yes it's reversable, if you put energy back into the system, the pulse would speed up (of course im assuming here our pulse speed is proportional to the amount of energy it contains.)
Yes you could build a device to slow and speed it up, but you would have to take out and put back in equal amounts of energy, so you would not gain any energy (infact you would probably loose it to heat, since the process wouldnt be 100% efficiant.)

-Andrew

So you are saying that you should be able to slow the pulse down to nothing. Is it reversible? Can you speed the pulse up? That way you could build a device to slow the pulse and speed it up again. Why? Well I dont know. Your bs prompted me to write this.

Guess what? Your statement, "Well, I don't know" is the most accurate thing you've said here. And there is no BS in what he told you, you're simply displaying how little you actually know.

Energy is placed in a superconductor by only ONE means and it's extracted in exactly the same way - electric induction (electrical transformer principle). It cannot be sped up or slowed down because it always travels at a constant speed. It can be intensified (added to) or reduced (by inductive extraction) but that's it.

do you even know where you are ?

Do you not know how to use the quote feature? We cannot tell who you are talking to. :bugeye:

I may not be a super genius like most of the other people here but i can say that if i read the original blog correctly it was about using zero-point energy.....I have read a well known book called "Black Order" by James Rollins. It explains in great deal about this energy and the type of energy produced because the Nazi's were very much into this thing. But a lot of their research was lost at the end of the war in an effort to protect the secrets.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I actually almost used this as an example of one of the common ideas that people seem to "discover" and them make a big deal over. Lots of people seem to think that you can use electrolysis to split water, then burn the H2 and O2 to get back more energy than you put into making it. For some reason it never occurs to them that if it were possible, people would probably be doing it already.

I'm glad that there are people who are willing to take a look. All things considered, even basic tenets of science should be challenged on a level playing field regularly.

I'm glad that there are people who are willing to take a look. All things considered, even basic tenets of science should be challenged on a level playing field regularly.

But the truly important thing is that they have already been challenged over an over - and have always come up wanting. Why continue to beat dead horses? Move on to something new and with possible promise and not waste time, effort and personal energy on things that have already proven to have no merit? The problem is that every so often a new guy comes along and thinks he's the very first one to come up with what is actully the same old tired ideas.

But the truly important thing is that they have already been challenged over an over - and have always come up wanting. Why continue to beat dead horses? Move on to something new and with possible promise and not waste time, effort and personal energy on things that have already proven to have no merit? The problem is that every so often a new guy comes along and thinks he's the very first one to come up with what is actully the same old tired ideas.

I will tell you why. It is because people like you can't even keep the laws of thermodynamics straight in your heads and you can't explain them in any manner that approaches clear. You put on arrogance instead. You're one of the dead horses. And beating you is definitely emotionally rewarding.

I will tell you why. It is because people like you can't even keep the laws of thermodynamics straight in your heads and you can't explain them in any manner that approaches clear. You put on arrogance instead. You're one of the dead horses. And beating you is definitely emotionally rewarding.

That bunch of tripe doesn't deserve a reponse so I won't.

I've told you before quite clearly that I have no personal interest in educating YOU. However, I will help others at every opportunity.

So you are saying that you should be able to slow the pulse down to nothing. Is it reversible? Can you speed the pulse up? That way you could build a device to slow the pulse and speed it up again.
Yes and yes.

Yes and yes.

How do you do that, Nasor, by changing the temperature slightly? I was under the impression that the speed never varied.

Yes it's reversable, if you put energy back into the system, the pulse would speed up (of course im assuming here our pulse speed is proportional to the amount of energy it contains.)
Yes you could build a device to slow and speed it up, but you would have to take out and put back in equal amounts of energy, so you would not gain any energy (infact you would probably loose it to heat, since the process wouldnt be 100% efficiant.)

-Andrew

I was making a small and very dry joke. The pulse does not slow down like a satellite. On the other hand, if it did, maybe we can incorporate it into a Symbian

By the way, I've given up responding to read-only. Its a spoiler. Expect them to pop out. Love to have a look at the ip's responding to this post.

That bunch of tripe doesn't deserve a reponse so I won't.

I've told you before quite clearly that I have no personal interest in educating YOU. However, I will help others at every opportunity.

Thus sayeth the maggoty corpse of a retarded equine.

you want free energy? biological genetically engineered muscled creatures that spin wheels to produce electricity...eat junk...die in a week and reproduce with babies eating their predecessors...and so on.

you want free energy? biological genetically engineered muscled creatures that spin wheels to produce electricity...eat junk...die in a week and reproduce with babies eating their predecessors...and so on.

Alternatively, since we are talking about bioenergy, we could plug read-only into a waste to energy convertor. Wouldnt matter which orifice. They all seem the same anyway.

Alternatively, since we are talking about bioenergy, we could plug read-only into a waste to energy convertor. Wouldnt matter which orifice. They all seem the same anyway.

Talk about a waste - that post certainly was. All it got you was an infraction. Don't you have at least SOMETHING half-way intelligent to say? Insults help no one.

Talk about a waste - that post certainly was. All it got you was an infraction. Don't you have at least SOMETHING half-way intelligent to say? Insults help no one.

Wow that was quick. You monitoring my computer? I count from time of sending to time of writing this about 2 minutes. At least I have a fan club, if its only a knee jerk reactor

Wow that was quick. You monitoring my computer? I count from time of sending to time of writing this about 2 minutes. At least I have a fan club, if its only a knee jerk reactor

Nope. Just pulled up a list of the latest posts and there it was.

Fan club?????????????? Don't flatter youself! I doubt anyone here would come within MILES of qualifying as a "fan."

And again I ask: Do you have anything intelligent to add to this thread???

Why don't both of you stop the useless bickering immediately and have a normal conversation? By the way, that is a rhetorical question.

Tristan

Why don't both of you stop the useless bickering immediately and have a normal conversation? By the way, that is a rhetorical question.

Tristan

Well thought I might have a bit of R&R considering I get harassed everyday for over a year now by things like RO

Why don't both of you stop the useless bickering immediately and have a normal conversation? By the way, that is a rhetorical question.

Tristan

No bickering on my part, simply responding to an insulting post and asking for intelligent information in it's place.

Back on topic: free energy always has been and always will be a waste of time, effort and resources. Well-proven scientific principles have clearly shown that you cannot get something from nothing. Those who believe in free energy are forever doomed to grasp at imaginary straws - forever beckoning them forward while rewarding their efforts with nothing.

Well thought I might have a bit of R&R considering I get harassed everyday for over a year now by things like RO

You consider me a "thing?" I'm a human being and deserve the same respect as anyone else here. That just gained you another infraction report! That was just worthless trolling.

Please come back to the subject or move on to something else.

No bickering on my part, simply responding to an insulting post and asking for intelligent information in it's place.

Back on topic: free energy always has been and always will be a waste of time, effort and resources. Well-proven scientific principles have clearly shown that you cannot get something from nothing. Those who believe in free energy are forever doomed to grasp at imaginary straws - forever beckoning them forward while rewarding their efforts with nothing.

You keep saying well proven etc etc but thus far you have not come up with a shred of evidence. You have proven nothing, show nothing and rest your evidence on nothing. Whats more, anytime someone mentions "free energy", you jump up with verbiage that means nothing (hence calling you a knee jerk reactor seems apporpriate)

You keep saying well proven etc etc but thus far you have not come up with a shred of evidence. You have proven nothing, show nothing and rest your evidence on nothing. Whats more, anytime someone mentions "free energy", you jump up with verbiage that means nothing (hence calling you a knee jerk reactor seems apporpriate)

ALL of the basic principles are well-proven and are at work in devices ALL over the Earth and in space. What more evidence could an intelligent mind want?????? My evidence rests in things all around you - where does YOUR flimsy evidence exist, eh? Can you present us with a single WORKING model of a free energy device? I don't mean a link to some wacky website or video - I mean a real physical thing! Do you have one??????

It not a knee-jerk reaction at all - it's being able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

How do you do that, Nasor, by changing the temperature slightly? I was under the impression that the speed never varied.
Sorry, that was me using sloppy wording. You can reduce the energy and magnitude of the pulse. Yeah, the current will always travel at the same speed.

You know, people who support the alleged mainstream