Can Sound Waves Boil water at overunity efficiency with specific frequency of sound?

No, it wouldn't. If you consider random thermal energy as 'useful energy' then burning it or fusing it gives you a 100% efficiency. Using it as a fusion fuel means its a more compact fuel source but that's nothing to do with efficiency.

Efficiency = Useful energy / Total energy. However much you wish to bend or ignore this it isn't going to change. If a car can only turn X Joules in every 100 Joules of energy released by a fuel, its X % efficient. Doesn't matter how many 100's of Joules a fuel has, the efficiency is the measure of how much of that the engine turns into useful work. If burning a gallon of gas gives you X Joules of useful work, while fusing gives you X+1 that doesn't mean the fusion engine is more efficient, it means it is a better energy extraction mechanism in terms of total energy. But if all it can muster is 1 Joule improvement then it'll be wasting VAST amounts of energy as heat or radiation. That's less efficient.

Newton, considered by many to be at the very least in the top3 scientists ever believed in Bible codes and alchemy. Doesn't mean I do. Josephson, who won a Nobel Prize for his PhD thesis, believes stuff about our minds creating the universe (quantum mechanics and conciousness and all that), doesn't mean I do.

The fact a great many people, with access to a lot of nifty bits of lab equipment, haven't reproduced this Dr. Puharich's work in the suppsed 40 years since he came up with it (and if its patented, it must be explained in detail, enough to replicate) instantly makes me question his claims. I'm not an experimentalist but I'm no slouch when it comes to physics and I happen to work in a physics department with lots of the aforementioned bits of nifty lab equipment, all of them manned by people who tinker with nanomaterials, liquid crystals, Josephson bridges (of the Nobel Prize winning thesis) and everything inbetween. And given there's no massive global conspiracy about keeping the secrets of the universe from the great unwashed and dithering masses (because if there is, where's my damn kick back!), I'm led to the conclusion that people like Dr. Puharich prey on the just mentioned unwashed, dithering masses, who all in all are almost scientifically illiterate, as this thread has demonstrated. As such, he's finding the gullible idiots out there (and there's plenty) and conning them. After all, you can fool some of the people all of the time. Unfortunately, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Some of us have actually gotten past 7th grade.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought you left already? I was asking a real science question about a topic relevant to this discussion. I just want to know what the fuck cavatation is..so I better my knowledge of the subject matter. My physics knowledge isn't much more than a 7th grade level, and I was just trying to learn something. I didn't direct this question to you, but to anyone reading.

I hope you get banned soon.

Please go fuck yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fact a great many people, with access to a lot of nifty bits of lab equipment, haven't reproduced this Dr. Puharich's work in the suppsed 40 years since he came up with it (and if its patented, it must be explained in detail, enough to replicate)


Actually you are wrong. Read and understand the Puharich patent. Then read and understand the Meyer patents.

I am not sure how it could have been replicated and demonstrated any more than it was.

Given the fact that in order to obtain a patent on a so called free energy device it must be demonstrated to the patent office, I think we can safely assume Meyer did as he claimed.

Now if you look a little beyond the patents themselves, you will see that both Meyer and Puharich used the same base technology which is superheterodyne.

Given the fact that we are NOT TALKING ABOUT A CLOSED SYSTEM and comparing one level of efficiency as compared to the other, if would be impossible to use your definition.

I am an experimentalist and so I do not claim patents don't exist when they do, replications have not taken place when they have or thermodynamics and the terms and equations that go with a closed system apply when they don't.

And lastly, one of your quotes comes to mind:

Perhaps you un the UK should add research skills to your grade school lessen plan.

EDIT -

If car A gets 10mpg and car B gets 40 mpg, car B is 400% more efficient. Since second law does not apply to an open system with an external fuel source, your definition or use of efficiency is incorrect and out of place. I really can't make it any more simple that that.

Physics does not own the word efficient. It is used differently in different places and the term was used in a context where the term was appropriate. You usage is not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that rule is a fairly recent addition in order to prevent the almost constant stream of "I've got a machine which violates the laws of nature" patent claims. And even then there are cases which have slipped through the cracks.

The patent office requires a machine to have been running continuously, without external connections (ie not plugged in) for a year.

How precisely is this not a closed system? And its always possible to use the definitions of efficiency I've used.

Suppose you have your free energy machine in a box and its got a plug you plug a 100W light bulb into. You turn on the machine and the light bulb and let it run. After a while you notice that the box the machine is in is warming up slightly. Why? Because its not 100% efficicient. Some of the energy its getting from whatever its power source is is not being turned into electricity, the useful energy. Suppose you measure the amount of thermal energy the box is giving off (IR camera or something) and you find its 100W (humans give between 50 and 100W off in thermal energy so it doesn't need to warm up much). Therefore for every 100W of electricity it makes, it makes 100W of heat. Wasted heat. Therefore its 50% efficient.

I have not had to know the energy source, the energy conversion methods or the total available energy for that, I just have to know the amount of waste energy and the amount of useful energy. The definitions of efficiency still apply.

I get the distinct impression you aren't even trying to apply these definitions of efficiency because you don't want to accept that these so called free energy machiens are not super efficient.

Now when I call myself a physicist, I do so because I engage in methodical research, I have qualifications to back up my claims of knowledge, I'm employed by a university and I have published work coming from my research. When you call yourself an experimentalist, I get the feeling you're not using it in the same capacity I might to describe people down the corridor from me. Are you employed by a research lab? Are you publishing work? If so, what and where and when? Or are you a guy messing around with a blow torch in his garage?

Something tells me I've got more research to my name than you have to yours.

It still applies. You're basically saying I cannot measure things like 'useful energy' and 'wasted energy' in a system. I don't know how efficienct the generator making the electricity which comes to my house is, but I can still tell the efficiency of my kettle by the amount of the electric power it consumes which ends up as heat in water.

The fact you are unable to apply the definitions due to ignorance or apathy doesn't mean other people have your short comings.

 

yes, you can say car B is 400% more efficient than car A.

okay, but i don't see how my use of the word efficiency is out of place.
we can haggle words all day, the fact of the matter is that no process generates more energy than what is used to generate that energy.
conservation of energy i believe its called.

 

AlphaNumeric,

Get over yourself and enough with the pie in the sky examples. Go back to page 7 or so where I made my first post. Start there at the beginning and see what is being discussed, it is the ultrasonic water heater.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06iCfowinUM

The electric energy going in is one energy source - a 9 volt battery. The water that is cavitating and undergoing sonofusion is converting mass (water) into the atomic energy contained within the mass.

Now how can you suggest that the water being used as a fuel source combined with a battery constitute a closed system? That would be impossible.

Now that we do not have a closed system, i.e., it consumes batteries and water, second law does not apply.

And since second law does not apply, it is not 100% efficient nor is it a free energy machine. However, it is many times more efficient than any conventional method of heating water due to the fusion aspect of the cavitation.

BTW - Thomas Edison was self trained, Tesla was a psychic and Russell was hit by lightning and became one too. They all contributed a great deal to science. I don't recall them waving their diplomas and patents in the air to prove they were smart. The work spoke for them.

As you claim to be British, here is an extract from Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin regarding Stan Meyer and his water car.

http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf

There is much more information available but I have better things to do than research for you in an effort to cure your magical thinking of disbelief. It has been my experience that you can't fix that. If you want to publicly call him he and I liars, feel free to post your personal contact information with your insults. The internet is forever.

 

AlphaNumeric, it's become clear to me that we're dealing with someone that isn't nearly as educated/smart as he thinks he is. Once he succeeded in deluding himself into believing he could make up his own half-baked definition of efficiency - AND also simply compare energy output from a nuclear reaction to that of an ordinary chemical reaction and claim it was MORE efficient! - I've broken off all contact with him.

I'm more than satisfied to just write him off as a complete loss since we can't seem to get him to understand anything. Might as well let him stew in his own ignorant juices since he appears to not care for the truth.

 

I really wish you would live into that read-only, you keep claiming you will over and over. What's wrong, afraid if he actually figures out what is being discussed he will have to agree?

• You are the guy that said electrons have nothing to do with cavitation.

• You were the guy that didn't know about sonofusion. In fact, you were the guy that claimed the only way to have 100% efficient was though fusion but we were not there yet.

• You were the guy that cited second law on an open system with an external fuel source.

I don't know who you are and don't care. What I do know is that you are not what you intimate. You are someone that has made 6000 posts to this web site and doesn't seem to have any integrity or much knowledge of science.

What you do seem to have is a specialty in slamming anyone that threatens the status quo of big oil and central banks using all the tricks that are used to do that.

 

How is giving an explicit explaination of how the word 'efficiency' still applies to the cases you claim it doesn't 'pie in the sky'?

As for getting over myself, its my experience that the people who say that to me are generally guilty of precisely the thing they accuse me of. As I commented, I've got plenty of legitimate reasons to call myself a physicist. I asked you what makes you think you're an experimentalist. Funny how you didn't answer. Are you having trouble admiting you're unable to justify your claims/views about yourself?

I am confident in what I know, because I've put a lot of effort into knowing it. I rarely try to project the image that I know more than I actually do, I have no need to and I see little reason to. Cranks view the fact I know a fair bit as me believing myself all knowing. No, it just appears that way compared to how little you know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll readily admit the limits of my knowledge in various areas, it just happens that because cranks are so ignorant, my limits are almost invariably way beyond theirs. To a crank, there's little difference between 'knowledgable' and 'all knowing', relative to their knowledge.

So I'll ask again, what makes you call yourself an experimentalist. What work have you published and where?

So you're telling me a battery and a bucket of water isn't a closed system? Suppose I put your machine in a box and wired it so that the energy from the fusion is converted into electricity by some little steam turbine thing (or whatever you wish to use). This is, in effect, an electric generator. It requires a fuel, because the water is not an unlimited energy source, so just like you put petrol in a petrol generator every now and again, you have to put water into this device (the battery can be recharged via the generator, like a car battery is from the petrol). Now suppose I plug in something to this generator, doesn't matter what, a kettle, a TV, a talking Santa doll. Or better yet, a power meter which reads the voltage and current coming from the generator (and thus the power output in the electric current). Same as my last post, if I measure the electric output to be X and yet the heat output from the generator is Y then (ignoring other waste energies like sound) the efficiency ratio of the generator is X/(X+Y) (times 100 if you want percent).

The generator's efficiency can be measured, because we can measure its electrical output and its total energy output. That's ALL you need. For it to be impossible to measure somethings efficiency, you basically have to be unable to measure the work it does.

It applies whenever you aren't replenishing the water and battery. Suppose I put in a battery and a fresh tank of water into this generator. It has some kind of entropy level. I turn it on for a while, it does something like power a kettle, a car, that Santa doll. Then I measure the entropy again, it will have increased. The energy which was in the nice form of the water particles is turned into random thermal energy by the generator (which will produce heat) and the device plugged into it.

Anything which uses fuel, cars, kettles, people, can be considered a closed system, along with some quantity of fuel. The car runs, the kettle boils, we live and at the end of it you still have the 'machine' but your low entropy fuel is now high entropy thermal energy. The second law is demonstrated.

And the fact you couldn't tell me your work shows you have no work to speak for you. And Tesla a psychic? This another one of your unsuppported claims? And I never said its impossible to contribute to science without having a degree. However, I struggle to think of a contributor to the formal theories of physics in the last century who didn't. And amateur experimentalists are contributing less and less as time passes because while in Faraday's day you could probe the limits of physics with stuff lying around, now you need a lab, particular equipment and a lot of time.

So, again, where's your methodical work which speaks for itself?

Why would my nationality have any relevence to whether or not I thought Anthony Griffin's comments about a water car were worth listening to? Besides, he is not a scientist and as such has little in the way of valid scientific evaluation. As his little CV at the end of that pdf says, he spent his career over seeing the construction of war vessels, he wasn't the guy doing the R&D for new engines or new means of energy generation, was he? And he certainly wouldn't be the first person to rubber stamp a slightly hair brained idea which would never get off the drawing board due to being fundamentally flawed. The pdf mentions ZPE, a quantum field theory concept I am familiar with, since that's what my research is in, quantum field theory. So unlike the majority of people reading that pdf, I don't get bamboozled by terminology and buzz words.

In the past I've looked at Youtube videos of all these water cars. All of them specifically avoid talking about the details of the science and none of them are reproduced by independent labs. Part of the scientific method is to document your methods carefully so that if you see any new phenomena it will be reproducable, not only by yourself but by others. Without this ability to reproduce results, they are called into question. In 40 years, water cars have gotten nowhere. And with the amount of funding being poured into alternative energies ever increasing as the Western World realises oil is running out, why has the technology behind the water car become mainstream?

There's two possible answers. A massive conspiracy across the globe, crossing national borders, ideologies and funding methods. Or its a load of crap. What a tough one.

If you can link me to an independent, reputable lab, such as one run by a major university or a well known R&D company (such things as Lockheed Martin perhaps?) which reproduces the results you claim, showing a car running on nothing but a small battery (which is not the underlying power source) and a container of water undergoing fusion, I will happily put my hands up and say "I was wrong, this technology is viable". Until then what evidence do I have apart from people who can't answer direct questions about their work and the science?

Besides, I'm hardly a lone voice, am I? Ask 99.9999% of physicists the viability of things like using ZPE to power a car or over unity efficiency and they'll say its either impossible or utterly beyond current technology. If you claim to have a working machine, they'll ask for proof, as I have. I have yet to see any. So in effect, has not the fact you've gotten nowhere in 40 years already proven my claim for me? You've supposedly had a working device for 4 decades but the inventor is still completely unknown, noone has replicated the technology and all during an ever increasing energy crisis where the next big energy technology will make billions, if not trillions?

You provide me with your published works and independent verification of this water engine by a reputable lab and I'll have no problem apologising and saying I'm wrong. It's just that the weight of evidence is against you and like a good light scientist I don't change my views without evidence.

 

You are the one that made the claims regarding your qualifications. My only claim was that I experiment. I would add to that that I work at it roughly 12 hours a day usually 7 days a week and have been working on the same project for nearly two years. What I am working on etc. is none of your business but loosely related to the subject.

Suppose we don't make analogies and just take the device being discussed as it is. It is more efficient than conventional methods of heating water - That is what I am stating. I am not going to let you put words in my mouth, reframe the argument, use analogies, etc. The ultrasonic method being considered is many times more efficient. PERIOD!

Wiki - The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

I have no problem with that statement. Fully in agreement.

The cavitation heater is not in a box with a cat in a closet with an imaginary steam generator attached to it. It is what it is and it is not an isolated system. It is fed externally with electricity and water.

It is 100's of percent more efficient than gas or electric heating. PERIOD!

PS - I didn't write the Griffin piece, it was Griffins words I assume and I don't care if you believe in water cars the Easter bunny or anything else.

Herman P Anderson also invented water fuel. He was a physicist and inventor and also consulted with NASA and the US Airforce on some of our country's most important Top-Secret projects. Herman worked closely with Dr. Wernher von Braun testing hydrogen powered rocket engines, and he also worked with engineers at the Skunk Works and JPL. His car was licensed with the state of Tennessee and is located at the water fuel museum.

Now I could believe some anonymous person on the web and think... gee...
Dr. Puharich, Stan Meyer (who's who inventor of the year two years in a row, a man with over 50 patents, a man that invented card lock banking, sonar devices, etc. ) Herman Anderson a slew of others all pretended they broke Faraday's law.

- or -

Or I could trust my own eyes and the years I have researching this and other subjects relating to unconventional energy conversion. I took a vote on my end, and you lost.

PS - Stan Meyer dropped out of high school to go to work for Battelle Labs when he was 17. But he was an American high school drop out.

I am done discussing this since you people clearly have an agenda other than the search for the truth and that is what science is.

 

And anyone who is a regular in the science forum knows that I am not lying.

so nothing to show for your work and unable to point at publications/results. Just checking.

No, it's not. If fusing water releases X Joules and only Y<X goes into heating water, then its X/Y efficient. Immersion heaters are near 100% efficient when you calculate the fraction of the electric energy pumped into them which ends up as heat in water.

Using water as a fusion fuel isn't more efficient, it's more concentrated and there's a lot more of it.

So you consider the entropy of the water which is to be fed into it and the entropy of the system generating the electricity. Or you give some measure of entropy to electrical energy. A kettle turns the low entropy energy of electricity into the high entropy energy of thermal energy. Sure, it's not a closed system but if you consider the entropy of the energy before its gone into the kettle and after its come out, it's clearly increased.

You seem to have a somewhat myopic view of things, having trouble understanding anything outside the definition you read on Wikipedia. Take a course in statistical mechanics.

If burning some quantity of gas releases 100J of energy and 98 of them end up in the water, said gas boiler would be 98% efficient. You cannot be 100% more efficient than that. You can extra more energy from say the methane if you had some machine which could fuse the carbon and hydrogen into oxygen, but its efficiency would then be measured by the amount of released fusion heat gets into the water. Its efficiency would not be the measure of how many times more energy you get by fusing a methane molecule than burning it. That's not efficiency, it's a measure of fuel energy density. Chemical combustion cannot release the same energy as nuclear fusion so you cannot measure their efficiencies as heating methods by the same yard stick of energy output. You are simply making up your own definitions and trying to deceive people.

So you cannot provide me with any external lab verification for any of your claims? Not one independent source which can replicate any of these myriad of decades old patents which you claim work but which are nowhere to be seen.

Tell me, if the technology is so easily reachable even in the 70s and if these people are employed by government agencies, why isn't the technology out there? Why aren't tanks in Iraq fuelled on water, rather than burning through 3 gallons of petrol a mile? While are aviation companies collapsing left, right and centre because of kerosene prices? Why is the US terrified about energy independence and the fact every year it pumps trillions of dollars into the pockets of OPEC members, who are some of the most extreme muslim regimes in the world and some of which openly fund terrorism? If the US has this technology and it isn't being surpressed, why isn't it being used? Why didn't the 6 Day War spike in oil prices roll out this technology? Why didn't $4 gas make it mainstream? Why is it nowhere to be seen?

Because it doesn't exist.

And I do not attempt to keep myself anonymous. But its my general experience that the people who demand I say who I am are the people I'd least like to involve in my actual day to day life. My views are my own and I make no pretence about speaking for any institution I am or have been affiliated with in any official capacity whatsoever.

I asked you to provide independent verification of your claims. You couldn't. Given anyone interested in "the search for the truth and that is what science is. " should ask for evidence, the fact you cannot prove me with any shows that you have none. It's the first question you are asked by journals or scientists, to provide a backup for your claims, with the more fantastic a claim requiring more evidence. You claim to have a solution to the energy crisis which either currently or will very soon grip mankind (cheap, clean, unlimited energy is the answer to global warming, energy security, pollution and recycling) and yet you can't offer anything to support that but "But he's a well known inventor" and "He's a member of the Navy". So if the inventor is so well known, why hasn't his invention of possibly the greatest thing ever hit every major news paper? When someone lied about cold fusion in the 80s it was everywhere. For about a month. Yet the people you talk about arent in the papers.

You accuse me of not engaging in "the search for the truth and that is what science is" because I don't blindly believe you and I ask you for evidence. Somewhat hypocritical I'd say.

 

I just couldn't let that go. The Jews run the oil and money rackets on the Earth. The Saudi Royal family which controls OPEC are actually Jewish and their treck through history is well documented.

The Israeli Mossad does false flag terror attacks across this globe to start wars blaming others. Israel has two oil pipelines pumping muslim oil to Israel since the Iraq wars which has do to do with the "spike in oil prices" since they also control the stock markets and central banks as well.

Here in the US, 100% of my tax dollars go to the central bankers to pay a debt on money they did not loan but rather printed out of thin air.

One of the objects of the Project for a New American Century conspiracy was a means of funding Israel that did not depend of the US. That along with their illegal nuclear weapons makes them a regional super power.

There is so much oil on the market right now, they are finding it difficult to find places to store it. Now is the price of fuel low?

Suppression? Puharich was found dead at the bottom of the stairs a few years ago. During lunch with NATO officials (and a couple of unnamed middle eastern men) Meyer proclaimed he had been poisoned and died in the parking lot on his way to the hospital.

The thermodynamics BS is not designed to help scientist talk to each other, it is designed to to keep scientists from talking about economic free energy devices such as water fuel.

The biggest conspiracy ever conceived is that their are no government conspiracies and their are no more enslaved people than those that do not even know they are.

 

Wait!

Do I hear Banjos?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Initially I thought you were just a dumb person who didn't understand physics and didn't want to open a book. Now I know you're a delusional wacko.

Considering I'm a scientist and I've talked to other scientists about statistical mechanics, I can categorically say it does help us talk to one another and describe a great many things. My particular area when it comes to entropy is black hole entropy and its relation to field theory. Notions like the laws of thermodynamics, canonical ensembles, partition functions, Boltzman distributions, Gibbs free energy etc have been applied to a great many things involving solid state mechanics. Those concepts also permeat through to other areas of physics. Partition functions are used in quantum mechanics for instance. There's libraries full of information on all these concepts, experiments validating them, testing them, developing them, interlinking them. And a great deal online. But given you've obviously lacking a firm enough grasp on reality to understand those things, I'm sure you're unaware of them. But the fact you don't grasp them doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

But hey, I'm attached to a university, perhaps I'm 'one of them' and my posts here are an attempt to prevent you telling the world about 'the truth'? Maybe I'm a government agent, in league with the aliens who gave The Illuminati the technology used in 'water fuel' but don't want the general public to know about it?

Or maybe you're just a dithering idiot.

 

And the "Woo of the Week Award" goes to.....(opens envelope) Elvis! Please come accept your gold plated aluminum foil hat.

The Saudi Royal Family is Jewish? Sweet. Thats some first class, grade a woo right there. I guess the Muslim world is going to be PISSED when they find out.

I guess the Mossad were behind 9/11 too?

I wonder how they build that with no one noticing?..and where is all that oil going? Haven't seen too many oil tankers pulling in to Jerusalem.

I'm sure the spike in oil prices had nothing to do with zealously greedy investors over speculating the oil futures market. Yeah right.

If Jews control the stock market and the banks, wonder why they sold themselves all those re-packaged subprime morgages, sold as investment grade securities? Boy they really screwed the pooch on that one...All of those banks closing....lots of good Jews lost their jobs.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

HA!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good show, Mac.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not only has the dummy shown that he knows little about real science, he's now proven that he's a certified FRUITCAKE also!!!!!! (Heh-heh!)

As I heard on a cartoon show long ago, "What a maroon!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hey Mac, your ass called and it wants your head back!

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Saudi-royal-family

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

The Jews were warned though Odigo to quietly evacuate prior and I could paste information all day about that one. Here is another - "The information related to israel and 911 is classified and I can not disclose it. - Carl Camron Fox News"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/israelis-arrested-9-11.htm

But hey, don't take my word for it, listen to the cops on 911.
Mossad Truck Bombs on Sept 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4

Pretty sure most of the world noticed the two large pipelines that terminate in Israel. Maybe you are just unconscious? BTW - Jerusalem is not on the coast.

The Rothchild pipeline was seen to be activated before the troops hit Baghdad on weather infra red birds. Notice how US troops are stationed along that pipeline? Ask one what they did in Iraq and they will tell you "we guarded a pipeline."

http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1118

http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com/articles/p/82/article/714/

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/finance/9460948.asp?scr=1

Actually it did. Those speculators and the companies they control don't exactly have Irish last names.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9042

"As I noted in my earlier article, (‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’), ICE was focus of a recent congressional investigation. It was named both in the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce's hearing in December 2007 which looked into unregulated trading in energy futures. Both studies concluded that energy prices' climb to $128 and perhaps beyond is driven by billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE. Through a convenient regulation exception granted by the Bush Administration in January 2006, the ICE Futures trading of US energy futures is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, even though the ICE Futures US oil contracts are traded in ICE affiliates in the USA. And at Enron’s request, the CFTC exempted the Over-the-Counter oil futures trades in 2000."

Lost their jobs? We lost out jobs, they are in the process of stuffing trillions of our tax dollars in their pockets. Here is the current headline from Drudge right now.

"SENATE MOVES TO GIVE FDIC $500B LOAN"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630125365247061.html

Can you guess what Sheila Bain - Head of FDIC and the board of directors all have in common?

Man you suck at flaming. Every single point you tried to make was untrue. and fully rebuffed.

Do you do counterintel for a job or is that just how you are?

 

Sooooo... A kettle on the stove powered by electricity from an external source is an "open system" but a kettle sitting on a table being powered by electricity is a closed system.

A partially open system is a little like being partially pregnant which is what your analysis is of the device being discussed.

Second law does not apply and entropy is irrelevant which is where my argument began and now ends.

Keep taking those classes, I'm sure it will pay off someday.

I don't know anything about lizard people or shifting shape people but maybe you need to see someone about that.

Maybe you could tell a cop he is one of those lizard people and then he can give you a ride in his car to some place that can help you. Be sure and yell it good and loud in his face. Cops do not listen very well, like you.

 

AlphaNumeric - You lost the argument when you argued that entropy was what determined if second law applies. What determines if second law applies is where it is an open or closed system and there is no in between open and closed.

No amount of trying to create hypothetical additions to the device being discussed will change the device or the second law in reality. It will however produce a lot of entropy in a thread.

Given the fact that it is open system, then the efficiency label you wrongly apply does not fit. However the definition that I and others perhaps put forth that compared one method or apparatus to another is correct.

I don't expect you to have the integrity to admit you were wrong.

 

Clearly you are not well versed in statistical mechanics, because you have trouble going beyond what I have explicitly said to understand what I am saying.

The kettle is not a closed system, since its fed power. But if we include the electricity its fed into our consideration, then we have a closed system. The entropy of the electricity and kettle increases because it becomes thermal heat and a kettle. Savvy?

Already has thanks. I'm a published physicist. Remember you saying something about letting ones work speak for itself? Well I've got such work and you haven't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll add sarcasm to the list of things you don't understand.

Where did I say that? Besides, I repeatedly explained how the examples you give of systems where entropy, efficiency and thermodynamics doesn't apply actually DO have thermodynamics applied to them. You never retorted that.

And how can I have lost the argument when you cannot retort any of my criticisms about there being no evidence, no independent verification and no development of these free energy systems, despite being 40 years old? The grander the claim, the more important evidence is and you make some very grand claims and offer no evidence at all. Instead you fall back on the utterly delusional claim that there's some kind of conspiracy which involves the Saudi royal family, one of the strictest muslim groups in the world, actually being Jewish. That's another very grand claim you offer zero evidence for.

Science has the really weird thing of requiring evidence. It's a concept you seem completely unfamiliar with and yet you complain I'm the one not interested in true science. What you actually mean is I'm the one who doesn't blindly follow grand claims from people with no evidence.

So there's still no evidence for any of your claims about this technology, no independent verification, no demonstrations to third parties of a machine running for a year without needing a fuel, nothing at all which backs you up?

See, even if I were wrong about closed/open systems, its all irrelevent to the fact you cannot provide evidence the technology you claim exists exists. So your basic argument falls apart.

And you obviously don't have the integrity to admit you can't provide any of the evidence I've asked for.