It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Energy Technology

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
The toroid isn't the shape of the containment unit like the Tokamak, it is the shape of the plasmoid itself. EPS' technology involves plasmoids that are stable in low pressure akin to ball lightning. There is very little energy required to mantain the plasmoid and thus it is possible to get a more energy out than in by colliding either D+D(Deuterium+Deuterium), H+B(Hydrogen+Boron) or D+He3(Deuterium+Helium3). The entire process occurs in a Spheromak.


This company needs 10 million to get a product that could be marketed to the populus, however they are not beyond donations and I suggest you donate if possible.

What would you rather have a small reactor that produces no excess radiation and can be powered for a year of 2.2 pounds of fuel or ever increasing gas prices?




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by trinitrotoluene

Originally posted by YaYo
There has to be a plot stopping any new energy technologies coming into the market. I am talking about perpetual motion devices or "free energy", whatever you call them.


Here's a fundamental problem with a perpetual motion device. Let's just pretend we live in BizarroWorld and that such a device works. If you use the energy in that machine to power another, then the internal energy stored in the first machine will be removed and put into the other machine.

Remember that there is always friction, there is always the transfer of kinetic energy to heat, there is always some sort of loss of electrical power outside of your system. Even if you had a machine that perpetuated itself, it would lose energy by powering another machine.

Anyway, the type of people that invent a perpetual energy machine that really works DON'T go on conspiracy theory website forums to speak with a bunch of nutcases - they have PhD's and work in independent research labs and make bazillions of dollars.


""When one door closes, another opens".

You think science you know is perfected? According to history (which im sure you beleive in), modern science we are all taught has only been around for less then 100 years.

Do you have full faith and credit on everything you are told about the laws of science?






I can guarantee you, you are wrong.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by YaYo]


MBF

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I talked to a man that I know that is an aid to a senator about getting a grant for research for a renewable energy power production project that I have in mind. He told me that first, they don't give grants to indiduals for this, only to corporations. Second, as much as they hype alternate energy, they are not all that interested in coming up with new ways to produce power.

The problem is that we have too many people in power that have made their money from the oil industry.

My college education is in mechanical engineering so I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to power production. I'm not just some guy with an idea that just poped into my head. Some of my ideas, I have been working on for nearly 25 years. There are many many ways of producing power if somebody had the money to build the devices.

I feel that this country could be completely independent of imported oil in 10 years if it had the will to do so.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
There has to be a plot stopping any new energy technologies coming into the market. I am talking about perpetual motion devices or "free energy", whatever you call them.


:yawn: Frosty's Three Laws

What exactly makes you qualified to pitch ideas to NASA?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
What makes NASA qualified to say im not qualified?

NASA isnt superhuman. And looking at the state of our Military, our space program, and our nations energy, I would say they arent any smarter then I am. I wouldnt waste my time if they were. I was born a human being as far as I knew, which makes me potentially equally or far more intelligent then they are.

You dont need to be a corporation to pitch an idea to NASA. As long as you own a business. And anyone can start a business, including an individual. Goto google and search the NASA SBIR program and read about it. Sure there are alot of hoops you have to jump through, but it isnt impossible.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
What makes NASA qualified to say im not qualified?

NASA isnt superhuman. And looking at the state of our Military, our space program, and our nations energy, I would say they arent any smarter then I am. I wouldnt waste my time if they were. I was born a human being as far as I knew, which makes me potentially equally or far more intelligent then they are.

You dont need to be a corporation to pitch an idea to NASA. As long as you own a business. And anyone can start a business, including an individual. Goto google and search the NASA SBIR program and read about it. Sure there are alot of hoops you have to jump through, but it isnt impossible.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by YaYo]


That still doesn't explain what would make you qualified.
You are trying to pitch ideas of perpetual motion, no? NASA won't listen to a word you say, just read the link I posted in my last post. I would think an individual would need qualifications in the field of science or engineering in order to get any constructive feedback from NASA concering their energy ideas.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
What does a PHD know that you or I dont? What knowledge are they privelaged with that we are not? Am I banned from Amazon and Google all of a sudden?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
What does a PHD know that you or I dont? What knowledge are they privelaged with that we are not? Am I banned from Amazon and Google all of a sudden?


Please be serious about this or tell us your 'fantastic' idea. Mind you there have been hundreds since the 13th century with the same idea as you have.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
We have helium 3 :s? - thought our atmosphere burnt that gear up?
A plasmoid without a containment field? or if it does have a containment field what would it be like if not toroidal for a toroidal plasmoid?


Originally posted by Sigma
The toroid isn't the shape of the containment unit like the Tokamak, it is the shape of the plasmoid itself. EPS' technology involves plasmoids that are stable in low pressure akin to ball lightning. There is very little energy required to mantain the plasmoid and thus it is possible to get a more energy out than in by colliding either D+D(Deuterium+Deuterium), H+B(Hydrogen+Boron) or D+He3(Deuterium+Helium3). The entire process occurs in a Spheromak.


This company needs 10 million to get a product that could be marketed to the populus, however they are not beyond donations and I suggest you donate if possible.

What would you rather have a small reactor that produces no excess radiation and can be powered for a year of 2.2 pounds of fuel or ever increasing gas prices?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   


Ok here is a theoretical perpetual energy device.

What you have is a pendulum device that you may have seen in the 13th century. Except it uses modern day electromagnets.

The pendulum swings, when it reaches the stationary magnets on both sides, the attraction of magnetic forces is closest to opposite poles. So the pendulum is attracted to the magnets as it swings closer. At the same time gravity forces it to swing back to the other side.

AS the pendulum swings it produces electricity by using the mechanical energy to power a genrator which consists of turning a piece of metal inside a coil of wire. It then takes this electricity and stores it into two batteries.

The batteries then use a small amount of electricity to turn the magnets into electromagnets. This makes the magnets much stronger, and the next time the pendulum swings near the magnets, the attraction of the magnetic forces will be stronger, bringing the pendulum closer to the magnets and replenishing lost force as you see in a normal pendulum.

In theory the pendulum will swing forever because the stronger electromagnets will keep the pendulum from losing force. The magnets always are pulling them closer to the stationary magnets and will always be producing energy to sustain the electromagnets. The electromagnets are tweaked to not be so strong as to make the pendulum ball stick to the magnets.

It is then possible that this basic design would produce more electricity then it uses by using the absolute minimum amount of electricity to power the electromagnets and storing the rest.

Im sure if you built this, it would work.

This is a better approach then any half assed 13th century science I have ever seen.

Now you all owe me a million dollars and an apology.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]


MBF

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
This will consume more energy than it produces.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Where is your math.

Draw a draft and give me precise math equations for your specific draft dimensions.

This is a scientific debate not a kindergarten squabble. Intelligent discussion only.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Ok, so what I have discovered so far is that you came here to tell us you're a brainiac who discovered free energy, was turned away because of a JEW (Boy, you have no idea how my mod-control button finger started to itch), and that you feel that an organization of literal ROCKET SCIENTISTS are not qualified in turning your idea down.

To sum itup, I bothered to read the thread of a possible bigot with an HUGE ego who quite possibly came to the board looking for attention.

Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno, but if I am, I can't figure out for the life of me why you've bothered to tell us this bit if you don't feel like telling us the rest of the story. After all, if NASA is inferior to your talents, what makes you think we'd understand enough about it to steal your free power?
After all, compared to NASA, we can't even chase after the icecream truck without tripping several times!


MBF

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
Where is your math.

Draw a draft and give me precise math equations for your specific draft dimensions.

This is a scientific debate not a kindergarten squabble. Intelligent discussion only.


I haven't seen your math to justify your claims.

When you use your pendulum for the purpose of generating an electric field, you are creating a resistance on the pendulum which will slow it down. You will not generate enough electricity to overcome this. You can't generate more power than is put into the system.

Remember, "this is a scientific debate not a kindergarten squabble. Intelligent discussion only".



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Thomas:

The idea I pitched to NASA isnt so advanced that it could never be understood. Im not going to post it here, its long.

I entertained challenging the 13th century attempts at creating perpetual motion with pendulums.

But it is not similiar to what I am presenting to NASA. Just something I came up with off the top of my head. And my Jewish comment was only a reference to a book I read quite a while ago, I was reflecting on it. Heck some of my family is even Jewish.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MBF

Originally posted by YaYo
Where is your math.

Draw a draft and give me precise math equations for your specific draft dimensions.

This is a scientific debate not a kindergarten squabble. Intelligent discussion only.


I haven't seen your math to justify your claims.

When you use your pendulum for the purpose of generating an electric field, you are creating a resistance on the pendulum which will slow it down. You will not generate enough electricity to overcome this. You can't generate more power than is put into the system.

Remember, "this is a scientific debate not a kindergarten squabble. Intelligent discussion only".


Prove it.

I will present the math. In the meantime you can do the same, but I wont hold my breath.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]


MBF

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Exactly how much electrical physics do you have under your belt anyway? This is just basic stuff!!! Unless you have some way of beating the laws of physics that you can tell us about.???



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Ok, good answer, but I'll be watching you!


I'm glad you didn't post it if it is long, I just took NyQuill and a long formula would've sent me into a coma! Heck, something as simple as Kirchoff's Law could make my eyes glaze over!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   


We have helium 3 :s? - thought our atmosphere burnt that gear up?


Yes, you are correct! Helium 3 isn't available in any large quantity on earth, except for the minute amounts produced by nuclear reactors. I just thought I would include that possible fusion, if a moonbase is established in the future.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
I am an actual person trying to give the government the knowledge for a "free energy" device. Although I call it perpetual electricity, it sounds more appropiate. I did try pitching the vague idea to the Department of Energy in which they told me that "perpetual electricity" was not in their interest. They told me that they were only interested in nuclear, solar, and fuel cell technology.


Here's a thought. Why not hook this miracle gizmo up to the local power grid and not tell anyone. Then you can get paid for your troubles, and if it works, you can tell 2 freinds, and they'll tell 2 freinds, and so on, and so on and so on. After a while, your consortium can buy the country and governments from the current owners. The big oil companies.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join