Does free energy piss you off?

inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Does free energy piss you off?

 I've wanted to start a group devoted to pseudoscience in the form of snake oil inventions, such as free energy. I figure it'd also be a good way to advertise RRS as well since skeptics and non-believers tend to run in the same groups. So far I have a forum, but I'll want to start a podcast or other content oriented thing at some point. Any suggestions? I know I'm going to need some advertising and an electrical engineer/physicist with some free time, heheh.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Yah, that sounds like

Yah, that sounds like fun. One thing that I see is that when I am logged in, I can see the mod room. Is it part of your plan to just make the first bunch of recruits into mods? If not, you may want to fix that.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:Does

inspectormustard wrote:

Does free energy piss you off?

Actually you know that urine has properties that make it a great source of energy? That's right: peeing in your gas tank might actually do something in the not too distant future.

 

The Solution to the Energy Crisis: Urine

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:

 I've wanted to start a group devoted to pseudoscience in the form of snake oil inventions, such as free energy. I figure it'd also be a good way to advertise RRS as well since skeptics and non-believers tend to run in the same groups. So far I have a forum, but I'll want to start a podcast or other content oriented thing at some point. Any suggestions? I know I'm going to need some advertising and an electrical engineer/physicist with some free time, heheh.

Maybe I didn't get it, but are you against the free energy? Wouldn't it be better to support it, instead fighting against it as a pseudoscience? Because, believe it or not, we all need it. This civilisation will not survive a few decades without free energy, together with most of living things in this world. At the same time, the free energy is the most illegal, thus the most dangerous thing in this world, dangerous to an individual. It is probably the greatest threat to the worshipped status quo. Almost everyone rich or in power today would lose everything, if the free energy would become public. All control based on scarcity of anything would fail. This is why it's naive to expect the free energy as a comodity on market. It breaks all the rules.
Even if a free energy would be ever invented, (which I think it is) it would never have a chance to get on the free, public market. Partially, thanks to a great disinformative campaign. (see: pseudoscience)
I can't imagine an environment more vulnerable by the free energy than the current world.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
 Actually, Lumey, the only

 Actually, Lumey, the only species that give a damn about free energy or even cheap energy of any kind are humans and the species dependent upon them.  If we ceased to exist or fell into barbarism, the natural world would bloom in a way it hasn't in centuries, after a short dip, obviously.  Chernobyl in the Ukraine, despite all of the toxicity from the disaster, is experiencing tremendous fecundity in native populations up and down the food web.  

The complaint against free energy is simple.  I don't need to explain that to you.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Yah, that sounds like fun. One thing that I see is that when I am logged in, I can see the mod room. Is it part of your plan to just make the first bunch of recruits into mods? If not, you may want to fix that.

 

 

Heheh, I'm still screwing with the setup, but yeah I could really use some more mods. I take it you're A. Einstein? 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:inspectormustard

EXC wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

Does free energy piss you off?

Actually you know that urine has properties that make it a great source of energy? That's right: peeing in your gas tank might actually do something in the not too distant future.

 The Solution to the Energy Crisis: Urine

 

Har har har.

 

That's pretty interesting though. Gross, but interesting.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Maybe I didn't

Luminon wrote:
Maybe I didn't get it, but are you against the free energy? Wouldn't it be better to support it, instead fighting against it as a pseudoscience?


The problem is that it IS a pseudoscience, Luminon. Inspectormustard IS, in fact, a scientist in training, and all you need to figure out that free energy is a pseudoscience is math. That's it. All you need is math.

That's why the people who can do math can design stuff that works, and people who can't have yet to produce anything that actually runs on "free energy".

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Yah, that sounds like fun. One thing that I see is that when I am logged in, I can see the mod room. Is it part of your plan to just make the first bunch of recruits into mods? If not, you may want to fix that.

 

Heheh, I'm still screwing with the setup, but yeah I could really use some more mods. I take it you're A. Einstein?

 

Yah, guilty as charged, not that that was all that hard to figure out.

 

Anyway, Luminon, you really ought to give up the whole free energy thing as a loss. Let me explain:

 

I actually know someone who is doing industrial level free energy. He gets all of the materials that he needs for free and he doesn't charge his customers for the resulting energy. The rub is that it is not really free.

 

He is an electrical engineer with our national guard and he has inked a contract with a startup company that has figured out how to make cost effective solar electric panels. They give him a percentage of what comes off the production line for free and he uses them to set up solar farms outside of military bases in the desert of the American South West. He has already taken his first base nearly half off the commercial power grid.

 

However, this company is paying to make the stuff, paying to install the stuff and paying for the regular maintenance on the stuff. By doing that, they get a huge promotional value because they can use the project to demonstrate how good the product is to real paying people. What they make is a proved winner that investors can look to to see that it is good and the money is beginning to come in to scale up production.

 

In a couple of years, this will, with some luck, become a good way to provide energy at a rather lower cost that other forms of energy but in the end, there will be paying customers to provide a return to the venture capitalists who are banking on this deal working out.

 

Even so, whatever the technology for providing low cost energy may be, someone is going to have to pay to make the stuff. That is as close to free energy as anyone is ever going to get.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon,You must realize, I

Luminon,

You must realize, I would hope, that the aspect of 'free' energy that makes it a pseudoscience is that it would violate one of the most fundamental and well-established principles in science, the Law of Conservation of Energy, closely connected with the First Law Of Thermodynamics.

Most of the proposed mechanisms for producing free energy shuffle energy around between various forms in the hope that somehow there will be some extra amount left over that can be harvested as net output.

The other type claims that they are extracting energy from some other 'dimension', or some vast reservoir of energy, such as the energy of free space, so not violating the conservation of energy. These last versions violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics - IOW to harvest energy for some useful purpose, it must be in some more concentrated form than that in the general environment, so that some can be diverted to do 'useful' work, such as generating electricity or moving a vehicle, boiling water, etc., before letting it disperse into the general thermal energy of the environment.

If any of these devices could be conclusively shown to actually work, science would embrace it, as opening up a whole new area of research, such as are always being keenly sought by genuine scientists.

Unfortunately for the Free Energy enthusiasts, the explanations of the principles behind their ideas typically reveal really basic misunderstandings of the relevant science. The long history of these ideas failing to produce even one working device that can pass the most basic tests suggests that it is likely to be a waste of time investigating them, until one appears with a sounder theory behind it, or at least an unambiguous demonstration, which really shouldn't be that difficult.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


GermanMike
Blogger
GermanMike's picture
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
I am an electrical engineer.

I am an electrical engineer. And there is free energy all around us. It is called Solar Energy it the Sun will continue to deliver it for a further couple of billion years.

 

So 'free energy' in the sense of 'energy that comes without a bill is very scientific.

-----------------------------------------------------

Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
GermanMike wrote:I am an

GermanMike wrote:

I am an electrical engineer. And there is free energy all around us. It is called Solar Energy it the Sun will continue to deliver it for a further couple of billion years.

 

So 'free energy' in the sense of 'energy that comes without a bill is very scientific.

 

But if we switch to solar power now, the sun will run out in 3032

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Luminon,You

BobSpence1 wrote:

Luminon,

You must realize, I would hope, that the aspect of 'free' energy that makes it a pseudoscience is that it would violate one of the most fundamental and well-established principles in science, the Law of Conservation of Energy, closely connected with the First Law Of Thermodynamics.

Most of the proposed mechanisms for producing free energy shuffle energy around between various forms in the hope that somehow there will be some extra amount left over that can be harvested as net output.

  Indeed, the Law of conservation of energy applies only for closed systems. The free energy technology is not a closed system.
 

BobSpence1 wrote:
The other type claims that they are extracting energy from some other 'dimension', or some vast reservoir of energy, such as the energy of free space, so not violating the conservation of energy. These last versions violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics - IOW to harvest energy for some useful purpose, it must be in some more concentrated form than that in the general environment, so that some can be diverted to do 'useful' work, such as generating electricity or moving a vehicle, boiling water, etc., before letting it disperse into the general thermal energy of the environment.
Well, I have heard that there is more energy in cubic milimeter of vacuum, than in a whole star. Btw, I have studied the mechanism behind one of these inventions - MEG, and it's an interesting thing, if it actually works. I can't test that, I'd need some special iron/aluminium alloy just for the output "electron pump". But basically, it is about an existence of other energy in the circuit, independent on electron flow. The alloy is supposed to delay the electron flow for 1 ms, (normally it's like 1ns) and that energy, which spreads by the speed of light, should in meantime get caught in capacitors and get sent further, before the circuit is shut down before another milisecond. You see, it requires some really special parts, capable of working at such a high frequency and voltage.

BobSpence1 wrote:
If any of these devices could be conclusively shown to actually work, science would embrace it, as opening up a whole new area of research, such as are always being keenly sought by genuine scientists.
Yes, but the decisions about financing, production and distribution are not made by scientists. They're made by people dependent on making things stay as they are. And here we are, more than 200 years from the discovery of automobile, having invented nothing better in terms of power vs. cost. In real world, free and efficient things are forbidden. Things are purposedly made to be expensive, inefficient, uncompatible with latter and earlier versions, and almost immediately obsolete. This all has only one positive effect - the profit, but not for us. Free energy is the greatest threat to this system. The market is not about a free trade, it is about making us stay consumers. This is why the market is against free energy.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Unfortunately for the Free Energy enthusiasts, the explanations of the principles behind their ideas typically reveal really basic misunderstandings of the relevant science. The long history of these ideas failing to produce even one working device that can pass the most basic tests suggests that it is likely to be a waste of time investigating them, until one appears with a sounder theory behind it, or at least an unambiguous demonstration, which really shouldn't be that difficult.
Well, I don't know. There are some other opinions, like this

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
GermanMike wrote:So 'free

GermanMike wrote:

So 'free energy' in the sense of 'energy that comes without a bill is very scientific.

Solar energy comes with a hefty bill. Producing solar panels is expensive and produces a lot of nasty chemical byproducts. Using solar towers wastes most of the energy in transmission and storage. Solar energy simply costs more per kilowatt-hour than most other forms of producing electricity.

The sun is giving it away for free; but converting that energy into electricity and distributing it to peoples' homes is very costly. At the moment it is prohibitively costly.

For that matter: nuclear decay of uranium and thorium is giving away a lot of 'free' energy. And per kilowatt-hour nuclear powerplants are much cheaper than even the cheapest form of solar power (solar towers). If we wanted enviromentally friendly energy that is actually cheaper than using coal power plants, we would use nuclear. But nuclear is politically unpopular: so we will stick to coal and very half-heartedly explore other forms of energy production.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:For that

Jormungander wrote:

For that matter: nuclear decay of uranium and thorium is giving away a lot of 'free' energy. And per kilowatt-hour nuclear powerplants are much cheaper than even the cheapest form of solar power (solar towers). If we wanted enviromentally friendly energy that is actually cheaper than using coal power plants, we would use nuclear. But nuclear is politically unpopular: so we will stick to coal and very half-heartedly explore other forms of energy production.

Have you been following NIF?

https://lasers.llnl.gov/

I think in the long run this is the solution. But pretty technically complicated. LLNL really screwed up with cost overruns and delays. But they finallly are able to experiment with it.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Interesting project.  JET

Interesting project.  JET works already and ITER will work much better.  Good too see other projects going on, but using lasers seems ...weird.  We'll see if it works.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


GermanMike
Blogger
GermanMike's picture
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Indeed, the

Luminon wrote:

Indeed, the Law of conservation of energy applies only for closed systems. The free energy technology is not a closed system.

Fail.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies just to closed systems. Conservation of energy applies to all systems whether closed or open.

Luminon wrote:

 Well, I have heard that there is more energy in cubic milimeter of vacuum, than in a whole star. Btw, I have studied the mechanism behind one of these inventions - MEG, and it's an interesting thing, if it actually works. I can't test that, I'd need some special iron/aluminium alloy just for the output "electron pump". But basically, it is about an existence of other energy in the circuit, independent on electron flow. The alloy is supposed to delay the electron flow for 1 ms, (normally it's like 1ns) and that energy, which spreads by the speed of light, should in meantime get caught in capacitors and get sent further, before the circuit is shut down before another milisecond. You see, it requires some really special parts, capable of working at such a high frequency and voltage.

And I heard that there is more intelligence in a cubic milimeter of vacuum than in Sarah Palins whole brain.

>I simply needed to do that joke, it was irresitable<

The statement you just made makes no sense, because if you look at a vacuum and if you look at matter both are indeed not that different from each other. An atom consists mostly of nothing and an extremely small nuclei plus some even smaller electrons.

When you put 2 different metals together you get a galvanic voltage. That's nothing new that's well known. And that electrons and photons move slower through materials than they would move through the vacuum is also nothing new.

And I looked that MEG thing up. My head hurts from so much bad  nonsensical babbling about electrodynamics from people who show that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

If such a MEG would work it would be known. It would be the greatest invention of all time. That's nothing that any conspiracy could keep secret. Just imagine for example the militaristic uses. And how many soldiers would get to know this generator. It would be humanly impossible to keep that secret.

Luminon wrote:

Yes, but the decisions about financing, production and distribution are not made by scientists. They're made by people dependent on making things stay as they are. And here we are, more than 200 years from the discovery of automobile, having invented nothing better in terms of power vs. cost. In real world, free and efficient things are forbidden. Things are purposedly made to be expensive, inefficient, uncompatible with latter and earlier versions, and almost immediately obsolete. This all has only one positive effect - the profit, but not for us. Free energy is the greatest threat to this system. The market is not about a free trade, it is about making us stay consumers. This is why the market is against free energy.

The free market is especially in the field of engineering very merciless. Efficient things aren't forbidden. If you would want, you could get a heat-pump tomorrow. Or you could buy an electric car. Or a stirling or wankel engine.

All those inventions have the advantages and disadvantages. And usually the inventions that are for sale to normal customers are those who befit them best. A nice example for that are tools. Tools (electric drillers e.g.) that you can buy in do-it-yourself stores for home purposes are usually much less durable than professional machines. That makes sense for usual customers because they don't need to buy a professional machine for twice or 3 times the money if they want to drill 10 holes at home

-----------------------------------------------------

Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
GermanMike wrote:The 2nd Law

GermanMike wrote:

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies just to closed systems. Conservation of energy applies to all systems whether closed or open.

I think you understand how I mean it. An open system can use very little energy to make several times more energy, by taking it from somewhere. Open systems have COP > 1. They are not mere consumers, which always have COP < 1.

GermanMike wrote:

And I heard that there is more intelligence in a cubic milimeter of vacuum than in Sarah Palins whole brain.

>I simply needed to do that joke, it was irresitable<

Joke appreciated Smiling

 

GermanMike wrote:
And I looked that MEG thing up. My head hurts from so much bad  nonsensical babbling about electrodynamics from people who show that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

If such a MEG would work it would be known. It would be the greatest invention of all time. That's nothing that any conspiracy could keep secret. Just imagine for example the militaristic uses. And how many soldiers would get to know this generator. It would be humanly impossible to keep that secret.

OTFG*. I don't know how many times do I have to explain it. It is very easy to keep a free energy device secret, because almost nobody really believes that they do exist. And the rest can be easily silenced. Everyone believes that if these devices would exist, they would be the biggest hit of the season and everyone would already have one in their basement. They would sell very easily, right? But if yes, what then? The world we have today is a dystopia. People are not free, they are either very poor, or they are consumers of the shitty mainstream culture. They have to work all the time to pay for the energy and all other things which are made thanks to the energy. The rest of the day they either sleep, or watch TV. But if the energy is suddenly free, people get an increasing degree of freedom. They will be able to see more of things around them, and they will want to change them. And no system likes changes. The system is paranoically afraid of the people and their activities. Specially, their mental activities. They will think: "Why should I go to work?"  "Why should I buy this or that?" "Why nobody helps these skinny people overseas?" The people who designed our way of living don't like these questions. Would you like your food talking back? This is how they think.

And reputedly, there are also somewhere in Vatican these eschatologic religional crazies, who want to bring the world to the verge of destruction and maybe a little bit over. They believe that this will bring forth Jesus and all his singing angels and they'll go to Heaven.

*) T = their

GermanMike wrote:
  The free market is especially in the field of engineering very merciless. Efficient things aren't forbidden. If you would want, you could get a heat-pump tomorrow. Or you could buy an electric car. Or a stirling or wankel engine.

All those inventions have the advantages and disadvantages. And usually the inventions that are for sale to normal customers are those who befit them best. A nice example for that are tools. Tools (electric drillers e.g.) that you can buy in do-it-yourself stores for home purposes are usually much less durable than professional machines. That makes sense for usual customers because they don't need to buy a professional machine for twice or 3 times the money if they want to drill 10 holes at home

Yes, yes, but all these things will have COP < 1. They all consume electricity or they're not very efficient in their production. Nuclear power-plants are praised as almost-free energy, but it is not so. They require uranium which is technologically diffcult to purify, they produce radiation in ocassional but frequent leaks, and then, all the burned out uranium must be processed and stored somewhere. Somewhere, where we all will pay for it with our health. So there is nothing for free, anywhere. Our society seeks to commercialize everything. A free energy is something radically different. It is too much efficient - enough to make this system obsolete. Just think of all the industries. Power plants, oil and coal drilling, car industry, but also farming, ecology, traffic, and so on. Nothing would be left unchanged. Advantages of one nation over another would be erased almost overnight. Third world, the one big colony and milch cow, would say no and  raise a middle finger. Billions would demand to be heard. This is something that our market system, or better said, pyramid game, doesn't want to allow. Maybe some day, bit by bit, but not tomorrow. One day, maybe. Until then, we're supposed to wait and some are supposed to die by millions.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Conservation of Energy is

Conservation of Energy is not dependent on a closed system. It simply means that in any process, energy out must be equal to energy in. It simply looks at flows of energy and conversion between different types of energy,

I think you are confusing it with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, regarding Entropy, which specifically refers to a closed system, in which entropy cannot decrease. Entropy is not as clearly quantifiable as energy, we can mainly identify change in entropy accompanying some flow of energy.

The devices which do just move energy around, or claim to get extra net energy by processes like splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning it, explicitly violate Conservation of energy.

You cannot have a system cycle thru some other set of states back to the original state and output energy along the way, without energy being extracted from somewhere outside the system, but many scientifically ignorant 'free energy' enthusiasts keep trying to work around this fact.

Even if there is an enormous amount of energy in space, it cannot be not be harvested for producing useful output unless there are concentrations of it which can be converted into useful work as it is dissipated into the general background. The total amount of energy in the universe has remained the same, but the amount of 'usable' energy continues to fall, in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The latest nuclear processes utilize all but a few percent of the Uranium, and so do not require extreme purification or leave massive amounts of waste. They are still relatively expensive to construct, and still do have some radiation risks, but do seem to offer a massive amount of energy from known sources of uranium.

Fusion may yet become viable.

Solar requires efficient storage and transmission technologies to be viable, but there is progress on both those fronts. Photovoltaic silicon cells is much more expensive than it need be, because the bulk of silicon processing has been for the electronics industry, which requires extremely pure silicon. Power generation can work with far less processing and should be quite a bit less expensive in large scale production.

There is no reason whatsoever to expect any process for extracting useful energy from the energy of free space, even if possible, to be necessarily easier or cheaper to implement than fusion or nuclear.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Interesting

Thomathy wrote:

Interesting project.  JET works already and ITER will work much better.  Good too see other projects going on, but using lasers seems ...weird.  We'll see if it works.

They avoid the plasma containment problem. The whole fusion reation and release of energy from it takes place in like 20 nanoseconds. Neither methods have yet produced a net energy release such that they could run a power generating plant.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:OTFG*. I don't

Luminon wrote:

OTFG*. I don't know how many times do I have to explain it. It is very easy to keep a free energy device secret, because almost nobody really believes that they do exist. And the rest can be easily silenced. Everyone believes that if these devices would exist, they would be the biggest hit of the season and everyone would already have one in their basement. They would sell very easily, right? But if yes, what then? The world we have today is a dystopia. People are not free, they are either very poor, or they are consumers of the shitty mainstream culture. They have to work all the time to pay for the energy and all other things which are made thanks to the energy. The rest of the day they either sleep, or watch TV. But if the energy is suddenly free, people get an increasing degree of freedom. They will be able to see more of things around them, and they will want to change them. And no system likes changes. The system is paranoically afraid of the people and their activities. Specially, their mental activities. They will think: "Why should I go to work?"  "Why should I buy this or that?" "Why nobody helps these skinny people overseas?" The people who designed our way of living don't like these questions. Would you like your food talking back? This is how they think.

And reputedly, there are also somewhere in Vatican these eschatologic religional crazies, who want to bring the world to the verge of destruction and maybe a little bit over. They believe that this will bring forth Jesus and all his singing angels and they'll go to Heaven.
 

Ok stop with the bullshit here luminon, this is so full of bullshit here, that your eyes are brown from it. Why keep it secret if it benefits the military so much better than the currect format of using energy? This makes no sense, since the military would take full advantage of it. Second you want to keep it out of the hands of the regular population, charge and arm and leg for it and patent it, I mean come on my 11 year old niece and smell the bullshit you just typed here. It's all a matter of controlling it but keeping it hidden? for what purpose since it had a major benefit for a government entity and as such would lower the monetary cost of energy of such said military that they could free up the money for other military requirements.

Oh and the how many people are you gonna silence for this? Exactly how? As well if there is a fully functioning or the plans for a fully functioning free energy device, what is the use for keeping this quiet? Why would everyone have one in their basement if I say I patent it and charge oh i don't know, 500,000 per device lets say? That alone keeps it from the hands of the poor. Heck I could charge 2 million for it and still make money. Your logic make no sense at all, I mean none at all.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Have you been

EXC wrote:

Have you been following NIF?

https://lasers.llnl.gov/

I think in the long run this is the solution. But pretty technically complicated. LLNL really screwed up with cost overruns and delays. But they finallly are able to experiment with it.

I had not heard of it before. But until nuclear fusion is viable and cost effective; it won't hold much place in energy policy. It is a good potential source of energy without the waste left over from nuclear. But first lets see it actually work, then we can debate the merits of implementing it as a replacement for coal.

Seems pretty cool though.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Interesting project.  JET works already and ITER will work much better.  Good too see other projects going on, but using lasers seems ...weird.  We'll see if it works.

They avoid the plasma containment problem. The whole fusion reation and release of energy from it takes place in like 20 nanoseconds. Neither methods have yet produced a net energy release such that they could run a power generating plant.

True.  I just meant that JET has shown that that method can work.  When ITER is up and running, it's expected to break that threshold and net more energy than it takes to maintain the fusion.  It will also last longer (the fusion).  It would be great if NIF works too.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


GermanMike
Blogger
GermanMike's picture
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:  OTFG*. I

Luminon wrote:

 

 OTFG*. I don't know how many times do I have to explain it. It is very easy to keep a free energy device secret, because almost nobody really believes that they do exist. And the rest can be easily silenced. Everyone believes that if these devices would exist, they would be the biggest hit of the season and everyone would already have one in their basement. They would sell very easily, right? But if yes, what then? The world we have today is a dystopia. People are not free, they are either very poor, or they are consumers of the shitty mainstream culture. They have to work all the time to pay for the energy and all other things which are made thanks to the energy. The rest of the day they either sleep, or watch TV. But if the energy is suddenly free, people get an increasing degree of freedom. They will be able to see more of things around them, and they will want to change them. And no system likes changes. The system is paranoically afraid of the people and their activities. Specially, their mental activities. They will think: "Why should I go to work?"  "Why should I buy this or that?" "Why nobody helps these skinny people overseas?" The people who designed our way of living don't like these questions. Would you like your food talking back? This is how they think.

I don't know your monthly energy bill. But if it is really that high that you can't enjoy culture other then mainstream culture or can't give to the poor you should really consider getting fluorescent lamps and new energy efficient electrical equipment.

The price of a kWh of work/energy has never been as low during mankinds history as it currently is. When you look at the history of craftmenship and industrialization you will realize that the price of work/energy has fallen during most periods of history. And in most cases it was to the benefit of the whole population. There is really no reason to believe that free energy wouldn't be just as good.

Luminon wrote:

And reputedly, there are also somewhere in Vatican these eschatologic religional crazies, who want to bring the world to the verge of destruction and maybe a little bit over. They believe that this will bring forth Jesus and all his singing angels and they'll go to Heaven.

As there are also crazies of that kind in evangelical churches, muslim mosques and jewish synagoges.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.


GermanMike
Blogger
GermanMike's picture
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Solar

Jormungander wrote:

Solar energy comes with a hefty bill. Producing solar panels is expensive and produces a lot of nasty chemical byproducts. Using solar towers wastes most of the energy in transmission and storage. Solar energy simply costs more per kilowatt-hour than most other forms of producing electricity.

The sun is giving it away for free; but converting that energy into electricity and distributing it to peoples' homes is very costly. At the moment it is prohibitively costly.

For that matter: nuclear decay of uranium and thorium is giving away a lot of 'free' energy. And per kilowatt-hour nuclear powerplants are much cheaper than even the cheapest form of solar power (solar towers). If we wanted enviromentally friendly energy that is actually cheaper than using coal power plants, we would use nuclear. But nuclear is politically unpopular: so we will stick to coal and very half-heartedly explore other forms of energy production.

 

You can't throw in solar energy from panels and compare it with solar energy from towers. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of Solar Towers is, that is uses directed parts of the sunlight (those that make shadows) to concentrate them and therby create very high temperaturs. This makes those plants effienct where there the light consits by a large part of directed light.

In the northern and southern parts of the globe the light has to pass a longer way through the athmosphere and theyby gets dispersed more. That highers the percentage of diffuse light and thereby makes solar panels (that can also use that light) more effective. Another constraint to those panels is that the work the more efficient the cooler they are. So whether Solar Towers or Solar Penals are more effective depends on the geographical position you are in.

The raw material for solar panels is that expensive because right now the Solar Industry uses byproducts of the Electronics Industry. With the growth of the Solar Market it will get more and more attractive to produce Silicone just for solar panels which then doens't need to be that pure again.

 

When it comes to Nuclear Energy: It is that cheap because it is highly subsidezed. The Nuclear Companies dwell on free research that they got delivered, they don't have to pay insurances that would pay for the costs a major hazard would do to the environment and don't have to pay the tremendous costs of maintaining the nuclear waste dumps for the thousands of years needed.

When it comes to climate friendly, supporters of nuclear energy like to forget the carbon emissions that are caused by the production and refining of uranium. And furthermore totally stay mute on the high health risks for the workers in uranium mines.

It's not some political prejudice against nuclear energy that keeps so many people in power from supporting it, it is that fission technology has huge disadvantages and hidden costs attached

-----------------------------------------------------

Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
@Jormungander: 1) I don't

@Jormungander:

1) I don't think I've seen a nuclear project that wasn't way over budget, so the "cost-effective" argument is a bit on the weak side. I mean, I understand that a nuclear plant produces far more energy than any other type of plant, but it does so at an incredible financial cost.

2) Transmission and power quality are clearly the big issues when dealing with a centralized system. For solar panels to work -- as they do in certain well-documented test cases in Germany -- the power grid would have to be adapted to a distributed system, rather than purely centralized. As you say, transmission is prohibitively expensive, given a centralized plan.

@Luminon:

1) Please, oh please read a physics textbook. Hell, even do the experiments yourself. "Free energy" would be disastrous, because it implies that we would have found a way to somehow multiply energy magically, and given that power, it would be no time at all before we destroyed the earth. Excess energy would mean excess heat, so it's a good thing we haven't discovered it. It would be impossible to keep secret, because the discoverer would most likely blow his or herself up inadvertently.

2) Elecrical engineers don't just do stuff on paper, like physicists. They actually work with all kinds of conductors, etc., and know their limits. Turns out the math doesn't lie, for the most part. Some of the harmonic stuff actually does, in fact, produce an effect, but those effects have been understood since the late 19th century. They don't produce "over-unity", they just allow for things like greater transmission distances (AC power).

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Ok stop

latincanuck wrote:

Ok stop with the bullshit here luminon, this is so full of bullshit here, that your eyes are brown from it.

My eyes are already brown. Always were.

latincanuck wrote:
Why keep it secret if it benefits the military so much better than the currect format of using energy? This makes no sense, since the military would take full advantage of it. Second you want to keep it out of the hands of the regular population, charge and arm and leg for it and patent it, I mean come on my 11 year old niece and smell the bullshit you just typed here. It's all a matter of controlling it but keeping it hidden? for what purpose since it had a major benefit for a government entity and as such would lower the monetary cost of energy of such said military that they could free up the money for other military requirements.
Yes, military would take full advantage of it, but also all other militaries, and then all civilians. Then, there would be no point in warfare, no reason for toiling endlessly in repetitive, dull jobs, and no reason to tolerate the imperfections of the world. To keep the old order of things, energy can not be free for anyone.

latincanuck wrote:
Oh and the how many people are you gonna silence for this? Exactly how? As well if there is a fully functioning or the plans for a fully functioning free energy device, what is the use for keeping this quiet? Why would everyone have one in their basement if I say I patent it and charge oh i don't know, 500,000 per device lets say? That alone keeps it from the hands of the poor. Heck I could charge 2 million for it and still make money. Your logic make no sense at all, I mean none at all.
Silencing can be done by various ways. For example, by threatening the person or by bribing the experts who are supposed to test the device and publish the result. Doubting of the inventor's impeccability, degree of education, or scientific claims is also possible. Or that person can receive no significant support from the scientific community. I think that Tom Bearden is a good example.

There is currently such an offer as you describe, with similar prices, but in euro. It is intended for directors of big or middle-sized industrial corporations. However, it is risky. It's for those, who can risk a million euro just to make the distributors talk to them. By risking, I mean giving out a number of bank account where the million is, so there is a danger of having it hacked somehow. Further tenths millions of euro are needed to order the devices in industrial numbers, but for that they offer a physical demonstrations and measuring of the devices as the customer likes. The price of energy is about 1 000 euro per kilowatt. An associate of our group passed this information forward to his friend, a businessman who showed some interest. Therefore, I will not spread the website adress to not attract any further attention of this kind to our group. If someone here has a control over some big industrial company, I can give the adress privately, but I don't feel like publishing it. Of course, you're free to use Google.

GermanMike wrote:

I don't know your monthly energy bill. But if it is really that high that you can't enjoy culture other then mainstream culture or can't give to the poor you should really consider getting fluorescent lamps and new energy efficient electrical equipment.

I have a laptop and I donate to UNICEF Smiling

GermanMike wrote:
The price of a kWh of work/energy has never been as low during mankinds history as it currently is. When you look at the history of craftmenship and industrialization you will realize that the price of work/energy has fallen during most periods of history. And in most cases it was to the benefit of the whole population. There is really no reason to believe that free energy wouldn't be just as good.
The free energy would be good - but too much good. I will use an example of my country. Currently, the economy, finances, government, justice, diplomatic relations and so on, that's in awful state, at least in my state. (pun intended)  This is still going on and people are unable to do anything with it. They are terribly disencouraged and demoralized. This makes the participation at elections very low. And low participation plays for big parties. Therefore, in a demoralized society, the people in government have their chairs sure. And this is why there can be no democracy without participation. The politicians are then almost unremovable, even if they behave like rednecks.
Here, even if the electricity is reputedly relatively cheap, other forms of energy are getting terribly expensive. Specially gas and coal. People massively switch to furnaces on wood. I'd guess the price for energy per year here to be about 1500 dollars, which is a lot, if the most usual salary here is about 1/4 of the average salary in USA. (650 dollars per month)
You see, free energy in such an environment would free a lot of people's money and time, which they would probably use to participate in public life more and that would bring an increase in voting participation. This would mean an end to the fixed stars of our political sky. It isn't that long since former Czech premier, and chief of the leading party, Jiri Paroubek, had his propagational tour. He and his whole party got bombarded with eggs in every city of the tour. The nation's opinion is clear and angry. And so it is in many other countries. If people will get a degree of freedom or desperacy, they will change things.
 

GermanMike wrote:
Luminon wrote:
And reputedly, there are also somewhere in Vatican these eschatologic religional crazies, who want to bring the world to the verge of destruction and maybe a little bit over. They believe that this will bring forth Jesus and all his singing angels and they'll go to Heaven.
As there are also crazies of that kind in evangelical churches, muslim mosques and jewish synagoges.  

Yeah. I don't mind if they go to the churches, mosques or synagogues, or to Heaven, but I surely do mind if they go to important positions at public offices.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Yes, military

Luminon wrote:

Yes, military would take full advantage of it, but also all other militaries, and then all civilians. Then, there would be no point in warfare, no reason for toiling endlessly in repetitive, dull jobs, and no reason to tolerate the imperfections of the world. To keep the old order of things, energy can not be free for anyone.

Again free energy does not equal winning a battle, it means lowering the cost to use equipment. There are military applications that never make it the public, and many more take year if not decades to get out, so again this comment goes out the door really. "Free energy" for the military does not equal military might, it just means really lower cost. If you can explain to me how "Free energy" would some how stop a bomb from exploding, or an enemy from shooting someone, I would love to hear it. Just because the military had a device that gives them free energy, meaning lower cost to operate their equipment does not some how negate the fact of warfare is fought using that equipment, the energy does not stop it from happening, nor the lack of energy, it just mean they need new equipment to fight.

Quote:

Silencing can be done by various ways. For example, by threatening the person or by bribing the experts who are supposed to test the device and publish the result. Doubting of the inventor's impeccability, degree of education, or scientific claims is also possible. Or that person can receive no significant support from the scientific community. I think that Tom Bearden is a good example.

any company worth it's salt would jump on this, if it actually worked, if I had a working device for free energy, the money that could be made is amazing, and I could charge whatever I wanted, even to the people because I need to get it to them some how, it's never FREE per se, especially in our world, everything has a cost

Quote:

There is currently such an offer as you describe, with similar prices, but in euro. It is intended for directors of big or middle-sized industrial corporations. However, it is risky. It's for those, who can risk a million euro just to make the distributors talk to them. By risking, I mean giving out a number of bank account where the million is, so there is a danger of having it hacked somehow. Further tenths millions of euro are needed to order the devices in industrial numbers, but for that they offer a physical demonstrations and measuring of the devices as the customer likes. The price of energy is about 1 000 euro per kilowatt. An associate of our group passed this information forward to his friend, a businessman who showed some interest. Therefore, I will not spread the website address to not attract any further attention of this kind to our group. If someone here has a control over some big industrial company, I can give the address privately, but I don't feel like publishing it. Of course, you're free to use Google.

again bullshit, any major company, or major financier would not have to show they have a million dollars, you think GE would have to show someone they have millions in the bank account? Or maybe sir Richard Branson? Bill Gates? or various other multi-billion dollar companies or investors? I highly doubt that at all, shit I have been in deals were 20 million dollars crossed the table and NO ONE had to show their bank accounts. If it gets hacked so what? Lawsuits can put a halt to any sales of such said devices. Your basically making a major conspiracy that makes no sense since there is tons of money to be made from this, even if it cost people the same price as they are paying now, the company distributing the energy would make tons of money because there is a negligible cost to run the devices.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Again free

latincanuck wrote:

Again free energy does not equal winning a battle, it means lowering the cost to use equipment. There are military applications that never make it the public, and many more take year if not decades to get out, so again this comment goes out the door really. "Free energy" for the military does not equal military might, it just means really lower cost. If you can explain to me how "Free energy" would some how stop a bomb from exploding, or an enemy from shooting someone, I would love to hear it. Just because the military had a device that gives them free energy, meaning lower cost to operate their equipment does not some how negate the fact of warfare is fought using that equipment, the energy does not stop it from happening, nor the lack of energy, it just mean they need new equipment to fight.


Perhaps I didn't explain it enough. What is the cause behind most of the fighting? Injustice, poverty, scarcity, and so on. Free energy can solve these problems. Mentally healthy people who have their basic needs provided do not have to fight or be fought. Oil-based wars can become past, and oillust politicians as well. The problem is in powerful individuals with heads full of psychopathy, ambitions and complexes.
Of course, there are conflicts of greed, racism and revenge, like in Palestine, eastern Europe, Congo or Rwanda. These will be probably solved much later and with global cooperation.
 

latincanuck wrote:

any company worth it's salt would jump on this, if it actually worked, if I had a working device for free energy, the money that could be made is amazing, and I could charge whatever I wanted, even to the people because I need to get it to them some how, it's never FREE per se, especially in our world, everything has a cost

I hope so, but it's a new thing and it's not simple to gain the trust of both sides. (the provider and the rest of directors) The devices are sealed and reverse-engineering them is risky, as it would mean to get the trade relationships suspended, until the company will pay a nice sanctions. Everything is kept for maximal profit and safety of the manufacturer, so the current conditions are a bit unfair and suspicious. Such a project of bringing down the monopole of energetic industry needs to be led very carefully, so it won't be suppressed. Hopefully, one day they will flood the market with hundreds of thousands of these devices, then the genie will be out of the bottle and nobody will take it back.

latincanuck wrote:
 again bullshit, any major company, or major financier would not have to show they have a million dollars,  you think GE would have to show someone they have millions in the bank account? Or maybe sir Richard Branson? Bill Gates? or various other multi-billion dollar companies or investors? I highly doubt that at all, shit I have been in deals were 20 million dollars crossed the table and NO ONE had to show their bank accounts. If it gets hacked so what? Lawsuits can put a halt to any sales of such said devices. Your basically making a major conspiracy that makes no sense since there is tons of money to be made from this, even if it cost people the same price as they are paying now, the company distributing the energy would make tons of money because there is a negligible cost to run the devices.

You aim too high. The bigger the customer is, the less secrecy. Also, the intended customers are industrial companies, not software or music magnates. So, the goal is to have someone just big enough to have the money, but not too much, to stay out of public attention. A company with rather small management you probably never heard about, unless you do the business for years in some specific industrial area, like pipes, heating, high-voltage electrotechnics, and so on. Things like publicity or lawsuits are the worst thing you can do here. The company I know about basically demands a modest customer (in American terms) to get involved in trust-based transaction of finances and personal data. They are very careful and they want only those people to their club, who will show that they can be trusted and that they will not call the cops, whatever happens. If you call this a conspiracy, you're pretty much right. It is.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Perhaps I

Luminon wrote:


Perhaps I didn't explain it enough. What is the cause behind most of the fighting? Injustice, poverty, scarcity, and so on. Free energy can solve these problems. Mentally healthy people who have their basic needs provided do not have to fight or be fought. Oil-based wars can become past, and oillust politicians as well. The problem is in powerful individuals with heads full of psychopathy, ambitions and complexes.
Of course, there are conflicts of greed, racism and revenge, like in Palestine, eastern Europe, Congo or Rwanda. These will be probably solved much later and with global cooperation.

How does free energy solve the problem with fresh water?, Land? Greed?  Poverty? scarcity of food? Energy will simply give them that energy, what they do with it, and what can be done is a different issue. I can give you a device that can give you all the energy you want. you still need land to grow food, you still need fresh water, and you still need some way to get the poor people out of their misery,......free energy doesn't do that. Of course you mention greed, racism and revenge, free energy doesn't solve this and probably never will.  Old injustices will still need revenge and you can give the people all the energy you want it won't solve this.

I don't c how free energy can help stop wars. Oil based wars sure, then again we really have had only 2 major oil wars, both happened in Iraq. Population control, food control, water control, money control all this free energy does not solve. You thing free energy could solve the issues in North Korea? Your wrong it's not about energy there, it's about power. You believe free energy could solve the problem of Iran's issue with Israel? Nope it's not an energy issue. You think that free energy will solve the issue the muslim fanatics have with the west? Nope it's a religious ideology not an energy issue.

As for the rest regarding money I am not going to bother with it. If I had a free energy device I can already tell you I know how to make the money off it and as for reverse engineering problem, lawsuits and eventually it will get out anyways, make as much money as possible before that.


GermanMike
Blogger
GermanMike's picture
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
With respect to the original question

It finally starts to do so.

-----------------------------------------------------

Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:How does

latincanuck wrote:

How does free energy solve the problem with fresh water?, Land? Greed?  Poverty? scarcity of food? Energy will simply give them that energy, what they do with it, and what can be done is a different issue. I can give you a device that can give you all the energy you want. you still need land to grow food, you still need fresh water, and you still need some way to get the poor people out of their misery,......free energy doesn't do that. Of course you mention greed, racism and revenge, free energy doesn't solve this and probably never will.  Old injustices will still need revenge and you can give the people all the energy you want it won't solve this.

I don't c how free energy can help stop wars. Oil based wars sure, then again we really have had only 2 major oil wars, both happened in Iraq. Population control, food control, water control, money control all this free energy does not solve. You thing free energy could solve the issues in North Korea? Your wrong it's not about energy there, it's about power. You believe free energy could solve the problem of Iran's issue with Israel? Nope it's not an energy issue. You think that free energy will solve the issue the muslim fanatics have with the west? Nope it's a religious ideology not an energy issue.

Water? Desalination, distillation and pumping from the underground. Land? Underground excavation. Scarcity of food? Heated greenhouses. These are the answers. Population control is a good thing, but it's impossible to achieve, if there is not a social stability and peace in the region. And as for money control, global ban on financial speculation, creation of interest-free currency and arresting of the Wall Street gang would be a good start.
As for the Iranian problem with Israel, let's say that changes in the world could somehow weaken the global military influence of United States, which then could stop buying Israel everything they want to terrorize Iran Smiling Also, worldwide embargo and diplomatic silence on Israel could also help.

The wars are caused by a small minority in population. These people are dangerous opportunists and possibly psychopaths. Something like  Slobodan Milosevic, or George Bush jr. They ride on the wave of unequality. If one nation has a problem, then they lead it against someone else, who is reputedly responsible. Preventing that tactics requires a global plan to erradicate extreme poverty and injustice. An important part of that is a breakdown of global economic system. This system is not about market, it's something between a pyramid game and a weapon of mass destruction. I know how it sounds like - is there anything that doesn't have to be changed? I doubt that.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
congrats Luminon

You just answered the question, and free energy solves none of those, because all of those require additional equipment that needs to be bought. No money no equipment.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
soldering

 Wow, I look away for a few days and the thread just blows up, haha.

 

Couple of things: I made another post elsewhere calling for specific devices - be it free energy (free as in nutty, GermanMike, not free as in solar/wind/hydro), anti-gravity, time-travel (hey, could be fun) - which I hope to try out in a video series. I can read circuit diagrams as long as they're not much bigger than a guitar amp, and I know some people at the school who might be interested in helping me out with some equipment. I've also got a buddy who follows the pseudoscience stuff pretty close. I'll be finished with a software project I've been working on for a local company this week, so I'll have some money to buy equipment, like a new fireware card for my camera.

I figure there's just a couple of simple tests I can do to show that a given machine fails to give off energy, but circuitry is not exactly my specialty so I'm gonna need a hand there. Especially if it involves cutting out pieces of paper on oscilloscopes and weighing them to integrate, which sounds wonderfully photogenic. My main goal is to keep everything simple and straightforward so there's no confusion.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 There was an episode of

 There was an episode of Mythbusters which tried out a few free-energy devices, with entirely unsurprising results...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:  There

BobSpence1 wrote:

 There was an episode of Mythbusters which tried out a few free-energy devices, with entirely unsurprising results...

 

Yeah, I saw that one. They tried the Minto Wheel, the G-strain amplifier, one of apparently several different kinds of Bedini Motor, and a device that's supposed to harness radient energy. That last one was apparently based on one of Tesla's patents, US Patent 685,957 Apparatus For The Utilization of Radiant Energy, where he pretty much says that it'll be able to use cosmic rays for power. It seems like a lot of so-called overunity electronics are based on Tesla's patents which, while he did give us many things, a lot of those things just aren't as good as some of the things we have now because other technologies have improved. Still others seem to be bat-shit crazy.

 

It's also kinda funny that there are several kinds of Bedini motor. Nobody can figure out how it's supposed to be built, and any time someone builds one a bunch of the nutters complain that it doesn't look right.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Tesla also created a lot of things that we had no idea how to use until the last 50 years or so, when we "rediscovered" it through his work.

 

 

You have to have some respect for the man. We wouldn't have alternating current without him.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Tesla also

ClockCat wrote:

Tesla also created a lot of things that we had no idea how to use until the last 50 years or so, when we "rediscovered" it through his work.

You have to have some respect for the man. We wouldn't have alternating current without him.

True, we owe him a lot. Most of the really odd stuff comes in much later in his career, where I think his ambitions took over and his zeal to overcome Edison took him over the edge.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:You just

latincanuck wrote:

You just answered the question, and free energy solves none of those, because all of those require additional equipment that needs to be bought. No money no equipment.

It looks to me like a demagogy. You think I can speak for the whole 3rd world if they have or haven't money for equipment, or what?  Well, then some have the money, some not, and some will have, once they don't have to pay for energy. Satisfied?


inspectormustard wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Tesla also created a lot of things that we had no idea how to use until the last 50 years or so, when we "rediscovered" it through his work.

You have to have some respect for the man. We wouldn't have alternating current without him.

True, we owe him a lot. Most of the really odd stuff comes in much later in his career, where I think his ambitions took over and his zeal to overcome Edison took him over the edge.

My information is that Tesla had to defend the alternate current from Edison... If it would be Edison's last word, we'd have light bulbs, but not the alternate current. But I don't think Tesla would be any zealous, quite oppositely, he did hide a lot of his inventions, because he thought they were too dangerous for the world.

 

One of things we owe to Tesla are "tachyonized" (trademark) materials. They have healing and vitalizing properties. In USA, there's David Wagner and in Europe there is a Swiss manufacturer with analogous products, but 3x cheaper, resilient, and permanently functioning.

 

Our group is a strictly local vendor of the Swiss company, and we have a lot of positive feedback from the customers. There had been practically no complains and nobody of about 200 customers ever wanted to return the money, which is of course an option. Our customers are professional healers who buy whole sets of tablets, old people with chronical health problems, and common people who ocassionally get sick, injured, or they need to recover quickly after sporting. I personally have used them with great success to recover from work in one day, without them typically the pain lasted longer than the weekend.

 

Wagner, in his book did some experiments, for example, he picked two yucca plants, one had some "tachyonized" sand in soil, and the other not. Needless to say, the "tachyonized" plant grew much bigger.

 

This is all based on one Tesla's patent, though Wagner's technology is a bit altered and has much lesser quality, mainly because the materials are supposed to get spent for commercial purposes. Of course, it's not a free energy device, but it should utilize the radiant energy, or as Wagner says, "tachyons".

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
As I understand the theory

As I understand the theory of free energy: the source of all electric charge is the vacuum. The electric charge does not appear by vapor, radiation, fossil fuels or wind. All these energies basically serve to turn a generator's arbor. The generator produces the electric charge by disrupting the balance in local vacuum. It creates a dipole in the electric device, where the electric charge comes from the locally disturbed vacuum. As long as the dipole (and imbalance in the vacuum) exists, the energy flows.

The creation of dipole requires energy. But what a conventional generator always does? It uses the uneasily gained energy from the vacuum to destroy the dipole almost in the same moment. The energy is returned to vacuum, the local imbalance is balanced, and the dipole, the gate to vacuum energy is lost. Such a device will always have COP < 1.

We must abandon  the primitive method of disturbing the local vacuum by turning a big, heavy turbine. Why couldn't we affect the local vacuum directly, without mechanical movement? But production of a true free energy device requires a different approach to electric circuit. The very idea of a circuit is questionable, because the returning part of the circuit is, what destroys the dipole. It is acceptable for appliances, but not for free energy generators. The dipole must not be destroyed.

BRB.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:

Luminon wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Tesla also created a lot of things that we had no idea how to use until the last 50 years or so, when we "rediscovered" it through his work.

You have to have some respect for the man. We wouldn't have alternating current without him.

True, we owe him a lot. Most of the really odd stuff comes in much later in his career, where I think his ambitions took over and his zeal to overcome Edison took him over the edge.

My information is that Tesla had to defend the alternate current from Edison... If it would be Edison's last word, we'd have light bulbs, but not the alternate current. But I don't think Tesla would be any zealous, quite oppositely, he did hide a lot of his inventions, because he thought they were too dangerous for the world.

 

One of things we owe to Tesla are "tachyonized" (trademark) materials. They have healing and vitalizing properties. In USA, there's David Wagner and in Europe there is a Swiss manufacturer with analogous products, but 3x cheaper, resilient, and permanently functioning.

. . .

This is all based on one Tesla's patent, though Wagner's technology is a bit altered and has much lesser quality, mainly because the materials are supposed to get spent for commercial purposes. Of course, it's not a free energy device, but it should utilize the radiant energy, or as Wagner says, "tachyons".

Non is quisquiliae iterum. I suppose that would be interesting to investigate. I hope it has nothing to do with the hypothetical faster-than-light particles known as "tachyons" (though it seems tachyon is too common a word to tradmark, so takion was used instead) which by all accounts should only appear in the most extreme circumstances in the universe or individually on extremely rare occasions.

While it seems the only way to find out anything about Wagner is to purchase his book, but I did find a few excerpts from a guy name Fred Pulver:

"The Tachyon Field is extremely dense. This density cannot be measured because it is a negative state, mirroring the universe of positive density which we inhabit. The theory of negative density is supported by an observable phenomenon: a perpetually expanding physical universe which is brought into being through pressure exerted by expansion of the invisible one. Pressure exerted by the Tachyon Field upon our physical universe indicates the existence of an invisible, highly dense universe, the Tachyon Field."

If this is what Wagner's stuff is like, I'm in for a real treat. This first exerpt amounts to non causa pro causa, in the sense that the expansion of the universe is by no means an inducation of a particular hidden field. Any number of other fields could cause it, as well as it being caused by something other than a field. Further on he wrote:

"Tachyon theory is holistic because it accepts the notion of two interdependent universes which are actually indivisible: the visible, sub-light speed universe and an invisible, faster-than-light one. Tachyon theory also substantiates omnipresence, a purely metaphysical concept. God is omnipresent (simultaneously existing everywhere). Omnipresent existence can only occur at faster-than-light speeds, since slower-than-light travel takes time to cross space. Therefore, omnipresence can only be an attribute of a Tachyon Universe where time and space are uniform."

In many ways this is worse than the last. It uses a fallacous premise to imply and support an equally fallacous premise. Because omnipresense, tachyons? A non sequitur.

Luminon wrote:

As I understand the theory of free energy: the source of all electric charge is the vacuum. The electric charge does not appear by vapor, radiation, fossil fuels or wind. All these energies basically serve to turn a generator's arbor. The generator produces the electric charge by disrupting the balance in local vacuum. It creates a dipole in the electric device, where the electric charge comes from the locally disturbed vacuum. As long as the dipole (and imbalance in the vacuum) exists, the energy flows. 

The source of all electric charge is not the vacuum - it is merely the absence of electrons in one place and the presence of electrons in another. If by vacuum you mean vacuum flux, or quantum foam, no - electrons positron annihilation occurs all the time but has nothing to do with charge in every situation I know of. I'm not sure you know what a dipole is, because you're using the term incorrectly. Dipolar objects do not create energy any more than mechanical springs do.

Luminon wrote:

The creation of dipole requires energy. But what a conventional generator always does? It uses the uneasily gained energy from the vacuum to destroy the dipole almost in the same moment. The energy is returned to vacuum, the local imbalance is balanced, and the dipole, the gate to vacuum energy is lost. Such a device will always have COP < 1.

We must abandon  the primitive method of disturbing the local vacuum by turning a big, heavy turbine. Why couldn't we affect the local vacuum directly, without mechanical movement? But production of a true free energy device requires a different approach to electric circuit. The very idea of a circuit is questionable, because the returning part of the circuit is, what destroys the dipole. It is acceptable for appliances, but not for free energy generators. The dipole must not be destroyed.


BRB.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that:

1. Electric charge (dipole) is the result of perturbations in vacuum flux.

2. Energy is thus derived from the vacuum via electric charge (dipolarity).

3. The discharging of a source (such as a battery) restores the vacuum to its normal state.

4. Restoring the vacuum results in loss of the ability to retrieve energy.

5. There is a way to maintain electric charge (potential energy) despite the use of electric charge to produce work (kinetic energy over time).

6. In order to do this one simply does not disrupt the electric charge (dipole).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The source of electric

The source of electric charge was the Big Bang which generated all persistent sub-atomic particles. The vast bulk of electrical charge is carried by electrons (negative) and protons (positive).

Vacuum fluctuations do not generate electron and proton pairs. They produce particle/anti-particle pairs, such as electron-positron pairs. Positrons are not the carrier of positive charge in actual electrical circuits.

The most famous example where the pair are prevented from recombining is Hawking radiation at the event horizon of a black hole, where one of the pair disappears into the black hole, and the other appears as radiation from the black hole. This does not produce a net increase in available energy, since the net effect is to reduce the energy/mass of the black hole - in fact this mechanism is theorized to explain that very small black holes will 'evaporate' in a short time.

That is an outline of the actual theory around these particles.

There is no theory that has this effect as involved in conventional energy generation at all.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The source

BobSpence1 wrote:

The source of electric charge was the Big Bang which generated all persistent sub-atomic particles. The vast bulk of electrical charge is carried by electrons (negative) and protons (positive).

Vacuum fluctuations do not generate electron and proton pairs. They produce particle/anti-particle pairs, such as electron-positron pairs. Positrons are not the carrier of positive charge in actual electrical circuits.

The most famous example where the pair are prevented from recombining is Hawking radiation at the event horizon of a black hole, where one of the pair disappears into the black hole, and the other appears as radiation from the black hole. This does not produce a net increase in available energy, since the net effect is to reduce the energy/mass of the black hole - in fact this mechanism is theorized to explain that very small black holes will 'evaporate' in a short time.

That is an outline of the actual theory around these particles.

There is no theory that has this effect as involved in conventional energy generation at all.

My friend says what Luminon is talking about comes from Tom Bearden (http://www.cheniere.org/). He's describing him to me now, and it does sound pretty crazy.

Oh, the "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," it comes full circle. I'm gonna fill him in on the takion-thingy now.

EDIT: Found this thing on David Wagner. Kinda speaks for itself:


GermanMike
Blogger
GermanMike's picture
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
@inspectormustard I fear he

@inspectormustard

 

I fear he is really talking about those hyphothetical faster-than light particles.

 

Behold the miracles of capitalism: Something that has never been seen, nor tested, nor shown any effect in this universe what soever can still be sold.

There are a couple of those bullshit-devices around whose only effect is to make the ones who produce them richer.

-----------------------------------------------------

Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:Non

inspectormustard wrote:

Non is quisquiliae iterum. I suppose that would be interesting to investigate. I hope it has nothing to do with the hypothetical faster-than-light particles known as "tachyons" (though it seems tachyon is too common a word to tradmark, so takion was used instead) which by all accounts should only appear in the most extreme circumstances in the universe or individually on extremely rare occasions.
...
In many ways this is worse than the last. It uses a fallacous premise to imply and support an equally fallacous premise. Because omnipresense, tachyons? A non sequitur.

By any means, I don't defend the idea of tachyons. I think that in the sense which Wagner uses them, it's a marketing mumbo-jumbo. I study and practice esotericism - which is a science and philosophy of the evolution of consciousness. It contains a complex, but elegant cosmology, which unifies and explains all well described paranormal phenomena (like alternative medicine) and also tinkers with physics.  Some physicists were well versed in esotericism, for example, David Bohm. (and it helped him with his research)
According to this worldview, the healing energy of so-called "tachyonized" products has it's origin described a bit more specifically, (but in special terms) and affects the body in the same way as many other methods of alternative medicine - by stimulating the nerve and endocrine system. As for the special terms, there is a fundamental conception of "realm", or "frequency", or "vibration", of energy and matter, which must be unified with the scientific terminology. This relates to a quote of N. Tesla, ‘When we start to study non-physical phenomena, we will progress more in ten years than we have for centuries.’

inspectormustard wrote:
 

The source of all electric charge is not the vacuum - it is merely the absence of electrons in one place and the presence of electrons in another. If by vacuum you mean vacuum flux, or quantum foam, no - electrons positron annihilation occurs all the time but has nothing to do with charge in every situation I know of. I'm not sure you know what a dipole is, because you're using the term incorrectly. Dipolar objects do not create energy any more than mechanical springs do.

I'm sorry, I was in hurry. I didn't mean literally electric charge, but electromagnetic field energy and EM potential energy. I don't know about vacuum flux, possibly yes. I don't speak in precise terms of physics, but in a simple, figurative laic terms which describe, rather than define. As for the dipole, it's not an object, it's a relationship between local vacuum and the generator. This relationship is similar to a water flow in connected vessels. The local vacuum is brought into unbalanced state and it's trying to get balanced - so it gives out the energy to it's dipole - in the generator. The generator must have a special construction, which will not allow the local vacuum to get balanced, so it will continue to give energy, like a reservoir with a hole in it. The thing that surely destroys the dipole, is an electron flow. The electron flow from a generator must be prevented, at least this is how the output controller of Bearden's MEG works. But there must be better solutions than the one in MEG.

inspectormustard wrote:
 

Let me get this straight. You're saying that:

1. Electric charge (dipole) is the result of perturbations in vacuum flux.

2. Energy is thus derived from the vacuum via electric charge (dipolarity).

3. The discharging of a source (such as a battery) restores the vacuum to its normal state.

4. Restoring the vacuum results in loss of the ability to retrieve energy.

5. There is a way to maintain electric charge (potential energy) despite the use of electric charge to produce work (kinetic energy over time).

6. In order to do this one simply does not disrupt the electric charge (dipole).

1) Basically yes, but the electric charge is NOT the dipole. The charge (or EM energy, or the output) is a product. The dipole is, where the energy of vacuum flows, in order to balance itself. It's the same effect as with opening a reservoir full of water. One pole is the unbalanced vacuum. The second pole is, where the energy from the first pole flows. (into the generator) This relationship between a generator and local vacuum is, what I call dipole.

2) Right, except of the point 1), not electric charge, but imbalance. The magical process which makes the imbalance in vacuum is the good old induction, various forms of it.

3) Nope. When you discharge something, the local vacuum already was in a balanced state. It balances it's energy with surrounding vacuum, just like when you throw a water from a bucket on the lake surface, it doesn't leave a heap of water there, and vice versa. The vacuum behaves surprisingly similarly like a reservoir of water. (I'll perhaps explain later)

4) Yes.

5) Well, yes and no. If you define the electric charge as a concentration of electrons, then no, because electron flow is forbidden. In my opinion, there is a controversy on what the electric charge is. I think that electrons are only one of many mediums for an electric charge - or what are we are talking about. Perhaps we don't mean the charge, but EM potential energy.
In MEG controlling circuit, the energy from vacuum is gathered in a capacitor, while there occurs no electron flow whatsoever. (prevented by a truly curious method) This way the electric charge is not drained away - otherwise it would, because MEG is a soft source, it can't be burdened directly by any appliance.

6) Yes, except of the point 1) (dipole != electric charge) But it's not simple, considering that all the electrotechnics had developed in an unsuitable design since Tesla's times.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Vacuum

BobSpence1 wrote:

Vacuum fluctuations do not generate electron and proton pairs. They produce particle/anti-particle pairs, such as electron-positron pairs. Positrons are not the carrier of positive charge in actual electrical circuits.



Ah. Thank you, Bob. I always appreciate a fresh breeze when knee-deep in bullshit.



Seriously, who comes up with this garbage? And why oh why does every pretend scientist start off with "at one point, everyone thought the world was flat"? No, everyone fucking didn't. Pythagoras and Aristotle both knew that the world could only be spherical, given the math involved (lunar eclipses, etc.) That's the majority of written Western history, wherein we find many, many early examples of people knowing the world wasn't flat. Obviously there were idiots, but 2500 years ago, it was clear as day to those who used mathematics that the world was roughly spherical. Math saves the day again, bitches.



Anyway, back to the "play the game of life" guy. There's no reason to dress up legitimizing people's good feelings as "science". It might be more appropriate to tell them that it's okay to feel good. That's what he was doing anyway. Unfortunately, because of how it's framed, the effect of his presentation will lose its effect shortly, whereas addressing people's feelings allows for more permanent change.

Note the doctorate from The California Institute of Special Investigations into Nonsense, or whatever. If that's accredited, then I should start putting PhD after my name, too, because I read this book one time. What a douche.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:My

inspectormustard wrote:
My friend says what Luminon is talking about comes from Tom Bearden (

http://www.cheniere.org/

).



Join us next time, when legitimate math (the 1957 Nobel Prize given to Lee and Yang) is warped into something mystical by people who are mathematically illiterate. I'm sooooo surprised right now.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:1) Basically

Luminon wrote:

1) Basically yes, but the electric charge is NOT the dipole. The charge (or EM energy, or the output) is a product. The dipole is, where the energy of vacuum flows, in order to balance itself. It's the same effect as with opening a reservoir full of water. One pole is the unbalanced vacuum. The second pole is, where the energy from the first pole flows. (into the generator) This relationship between a generator and local vacuum is, what I call dipole. 

2) Right, except of the point 1), not electric charge, but imbalance. The magical process which makes the imbalance in vacuum is the good old induction, various forms of it.

3) Nope. When you discharge something, the local vacuum already was in a balanced state. It balances it's energy with surrounding vacuum, just like when you throw a water from a bucket on the lake surface, it doesn't leave a heap of water there, and vice versa. The vacuum behaves surprisingly similarly like a reservoir of water. (I'll perhaps explain later)

4) Yes.

5) Well, yes and no. If you define the electric charge as a concentration of electrons, then no, because electron flow is forbidden. In my opinion, there is a controversy on what the electric charge is. I think that electrons are only one of many mediums for an electric charge - or what are we are talking about. Perhaps we don't mean the charge, but EM potential energy.
In MEG controlling circuit, the energy from vacuum is gathered in a capacitor, while there occurs no electron flow whatsoever. (prevented by a truly curious method) This way the electric charge is not drained away - otherwise it would, because MEG is a soft source, it can't be burdened directly by any appliance.

6) Yes, except of the point 1) (dipole != electric charge) But it's not simple, considering that all the electrotechnics had developed in an unsuitable design since Tesla's times.

Jeb (my friend) says you're more or less quoting Tom Bearden though it seems to me you diverge with him in certain respects. Jeb wants me to get equations, so if you could find some equations with supporting literature (that link with the pdf had equations, but it didn't specify what it meant by the terms) that would help us investigate. 

Also, have you personally constructed or do you have access to this MEG thingy?

Also found this on http://www.cheniere.org/ :

"Factoid:  Energy from the Vacuum is NOT zero point energy, since the latter is an observable state and the vacuum energy is nonobservable."

If that's true, there's no way we can test this stuff and, I think, it wouldn't even work since running something that uses vacuum energy would be observing vacuum energy similar to the way we observe the value for zero point energy (roughly, the lowest possible energy in an area).


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:Jeb

inspectormustard wrote:

Jeb (my friend) says you're more or less quoting Tom Bearden though it seems to me you diverge with him in certain respects. Jeb wants me to get equations, so if you could find some equations with supporting literature (that link with the pdf had equations, but it didn't specify what it meant by the terms) that would help us investigate.

The literature (articles) I had available, did not contain any equations, they are probably not necessary. If I remember, Bearden used some original Maxwell's equations gone through Laplace's transformation, but I might be wrong. The articles focused on the description of mechanism, theory for dummies and schemes of the device.
You could be really interested in the homepage of J. L. Naudin, the Bearden's co-worker. It's full of free energy devices. As for MEG, it's here
Btw, in what respect I might differ from Bearden? I write mostly from my several years old memories. I have a good memory, but not flawless.

inspectormustard wrote:
Also, have you personally constructed or do you have access to this MEG thingy?
I and one my former classmate (very good at electrotechnics) have tried to build it, but we didn't. The problem was in materials. The MEG needs a special core (expensive and diffcult to order) and some common, but big and expensive permanent magnets. But the real problem is the controlling circuit. We had no idea where to get a degenerate semi-conductor alloy. Here's the infernal machine: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tbfrenrg.htm Theoretically, you could plug that thing into a socket and then gather energy without paying for it Smiling As I understand it, MEG is just a smart way of multiplying the energy. It's clever and useful, but the essential thing is the collector.
I actually made my high school graduating work on the free energy devices. I passed without a problem, probably because nobody understood what the work was about Smiling

inspectormustard wrote:
  Also found this on http://www.cheniere.org/ :

"Factoid:  Energy from the Vacuum is NOT zero point energy, since the latter is an observable state and the vacuum energy is nonobservable."

 If that's true, there's no way we can test this stuff and, I think, it wouldn't even work since running something that uses vacuum energy would be observing vacuum energy similar to the way we observe the value for zero point energy (roughly, the lowest possible energy in an area).

Yes, it's probably not ZP energy. I understand the vacuum energy as the energy of some higher realm. I have a vague, unfinished hypothesis on what exactly the "realm" is in terms of physics, but for that I will need some help, (probably from MichaelMcF, he'll know what I mean) because my brain starts to wheeze. I'm rather a right hemisphere dweller.

Well, if Bearden is right, then any product of electromagnetic induction is an observed vacuum energy. However, it's probably impossible to measure how much of it it's there, when the vacuum is in balanced state. Theoretically, we could measure the energy of local vacuum by draining a lot of it at one moment. But the vacuum behaves as a water reservoir. I have read, that a big local disturbances in vacuum may produce EMP waves which can fry all electronics around. This is why it's impossible to build a really big MEG. When you open a big hole in dam, all water starts flowing to it, but the hole is still too small to let all the water through, and the excessive water collides with the dam. The same thing happens when closing the dam. This is an analogy of how MEG could create the EMP wave, if it would be built really big. However, MEG is rather primitive thing, there already must be more sophisticated devices which avoid this effect. For example, by slower, gradual increasing or decreasing the output.
I'll try to read the whole letter later.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Yes, it's

Luminon wrote:
Yes, it's probably not ZP energy. I understand the vacuum energy as the energy of some higher realm. I have a vague, unfinished hypothesis on what exactly the "realm" is in terms of physics, but for that I will need some help, (probably from MichaelMcF, he'll know what I mean) because my brain starts to wheeze. I'm rather a right hemisphere dweller.

Vacuum energy (as it's generally understood) is just the background radiation left over from the big bang - it's the smallest amount of energy one can have in an area and is pretty much untappable. I say pretty much because it fluctuates in the form of quantum foam, wherein particles borrow energy and then annihilate eachother. Jeb and I have argued about this, and I stand by the idea that there is no way to destabilize the random events (such as via the casimir effect, which is just a force) such that there is more energy than when you began.  In fact, he nocticed I was writing this, and we're arguing again.

Luminon wrote:

Well, if Bearden is right, then any product of electromagnetic induction is an observed vacuum energy. However, it's probably impossible to measure how much of it it's there, when the vacuum is in balanced state. Theoretically, we could measure the energy of local vacuum by draining a lot of it at one moment. But the vacuum behaves as a water reservoir. I have read, that a big local disturbances in vacuum may produce EMP waves which can fry all electronics around. This is why it's impossible to build a really big MEG. When you open a big hole in dam, all water starts flowing to it, but the hole is still too small to let all the water through, and the excessive water collides with the dam. The same thing happens when closing the dam. This is an analogy of how MEG could create the EMP wave, if it would be built really big. However, MEG is rather primitive thing, there already must be more sophisticated devices which avoid this effect. For example, by slower, gradual increasing or decreasing the output.
I'll try to read the whole letter later.

The vacuum energy has been, more or less, measured. It varies is proportional to the cosmological constant.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
riiiiiiiiiight

riiiiiiiiiight