~Free Energy~

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2002 @ 03:44 AM
link   
www.world-famous.com...


I was looking up how to make solar cells on the internet and I came across this interesting site of links to other free energy machines. The ones that You Never Hear about from energy companies, and of course you don't.(Greed) Here is a funny(Above:aliens from Kladen), yet intriguing transcript (w/ pictures) of a video by David Hamel that explains principals of free energy. Has been debunked as a machine that makes 1/3 the energy put into it, but it could also be disinfo agents. No matter what anyone says, Tesla DID find free energy. It REALLY is out there. Our unidentified flying objects out there are using free energy. That is why the lights seem to go out in the cars, homes, planes, etc. because the electricity is drained from the appliances and absorbed by the u.f.o. or vice versa. Another interesting idea is the bermuda triangle. (Probably some huge base drawing free energy there as well, but that's another story.)

This is taken from an old elementary school book from the early 19th century(forgotten or suppressed knowledge?), it clearly show how mass is lost. The proton and the neutron are the colors in the trinity. The scalar is weight if there is more than 2 molecules. You must activate the negative and the positive.



While I don't completely understand how to make a free energy device, I wanted to pass this info on to you. This is AboveTopSecret isn't it? LaLaLaLa..Land.



Really good site on free energy here
~> colossus2.cvl.bcm.tmc.edu...



Wisdom is power and pass it on. Create your own machine and don't forget to tell me how you do it. Ha.


external image
US Patent#6392370
John Bedini and Thomas Bearden Have been working on these systems now for over 30 years. One is driving his car and keeps crossing the same river over and over. Then the light bulb in your head goes on, he begins to think what does this mean? It's "Natures Open System".

The very next thing to do is to stick a paddlewheel into the river, this is where we stop for we have just created a open system to the paddlewheel, everything from the shaft to the generator to your load is now in a closed path, but the river is "FREE" and "OPEN" What Electrical Engineers do is take the output of the river and bring it back to the input of the river and then pump the hell out of the paddlewheel to keep the river moving. "This is called closing the loop". With this type of system you can NEVER GET A >COP of 1 or BETTER




posted on Oct, 18 2002 @ 10:30 AM
link   
three cheers for home schooling...



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Tesla DID find free energy. It REALLY is out there??????

This is a typical confusion among the non scientists and non engineers.

TESLA was an engineer. He knew damn well that you can't get something from nothing. He was trying to BROADCAST energy and then use a portion of that energy to operate loads. This idea, one of his last, was doomed to failure because of the collosal ineffiencies involved. He never did complete the project and ran out of money.

Do not take Tesla's name in vain, and Do not assign every hair brain dufus idea to him. All you do is sound stupid.

Hablivilah



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

That is why the lights seem to go out in the cars, homes, planes, etc. because the electricity is drained from the appliances and absorbed by the u.f.o. or vice versa


Not exactly free then, is it?



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   

TESLA was an engineer. He knew damn well that you can't get something from nothing.


You're absolutely correct, and Tesla's radiant energy receiver does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. It acts similar to a solar cell, except that it's actually a grounded antenna that receives positively charged particles from within the atmosphere and stores them in a capacitor, as high voltage electrostatic charge, which needs to be down-converted to a low voltage and higher amperage for use, in say, an induction motor.

People don't often associate electrostatic charge with great amounts of energy, but remember, it is present in vast quantities. It just needs to be condensed and then converted into a useable form. This isn't perpetual motion.

In a simple experiment you can ground yourself, with say, an anti-static wrist strap, and you will become an antenna and a capacitor for positively charged particles seeking the closest route to ground. If you carefully disconnect yourself from ground you'll be charged with electrostatic.

The amounts of energy you can receive is then only limited by the size of your antenna and condenser.

The Wardenclyffe project (World Broadcast System) was not directly related to the radiant energy receiver.

edit: some typos.

[edit on 11-7-2004 by electric]



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
THIS IS A HOAX! the Proton was discovered in the 20th century!



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Jade i thought i was the only one who caught that...



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
"You're absolutely correct, and Tesla's radiant energy receiver does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. It acts similar to a solar cell, except that it's actually a grounded antenna that receives positively charged particles from within the atmosphere and stores them in a capacitor, as high voltage electrostatic charge, which needs to be down-converted to a low voltage and higher amperage for use, in say, an induction motor."


There is not enogh charge in the atmosphere to run a motor. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Whe we do have is radiated EM waves from manmade and natural causes that can be picked up by an antenna. You can barely pick it up with a crystal rectafier and an earphone.


Moishe



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Arg. Posts like this make me really sad. The laws of thermodynamics are very strict, and can't be violated. Free energy is a total myth, when it's not a blatant hoax. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world. "Perpetual motion", "Anti-gravity machines"... what the fudge? The first would require so many violations of so many basic principles of physics that a moderatley bright kindergardener with a couple of tennis balls could figure out that I'm not going to go into it, and as for the second... seesh, sure, I've got a way to make less gravity... kill off all the dense people on this earth.



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Free energy is a total myth, when it's not a blatant hoax.


A windmill is a free energy device, a solar cell is a free energy device, a fusion reactor is a free energy device, a hydroelectric is a free energy device. Even a non-rechargable battery is a free energy device.

It's free because the input energy is less than the amount of energy than you get out of it.

The idea of free energy is not getting something for nothing, it's harnessing energy that's already there. The main ideas at the moment focus on Quantum vacuum fluctuation energy (Zero-Point energy), which has to be there for Planck's equations to work, the Casimer effect, energy that is stored in magnets, solar and cosmic ray energy (or possibly electron neutrinos), cold fusion, fuel reprocessing, electrostatics and ions, chemical reactions.


The laws of thermodynamics are very strict, and can't be violated.


Mechanical, thermodynamic, and electrodynamic principles attempt to model nature. Nature doesn't model itself from our Science and Mathematics.

If you go ahead and describe the process by which your body obtains energy you may find something that doesn't exist in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Many people still think plants live off water.

Tesla showed, with a simple thought experiment, that it's possible to engineer around the laws of thermodynamics. He said, if you could build a pole large enough to reach from the ground to Earth's outer atmosphere, the heat exchange between the two ends would be enough to power a motor. He was describing the principles of his Cosmic ray receiver in thermodynamic terms.




There is not enogh charge in the atmosphere to run a motor. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Whe we do have is radiated EM waves from manmade and natural causes that can be picked up by an antenna. You can barely pick it up with a crystal rectafier and an earphone.


I'm not talking about radiated RF energy, I'm talking about high-voltage electrostatic, created as charge particles from the Sun make their way to the surface of the Earth. The Testatika machine is a famous electrostatic motor. There is also plans on the web to build a self powered electrostatic motor. The power output is very low, but it is still self powering. I will post a link to the plans if anyone is interested.


"In March 1971, Dr. Oleg Jefimenko proved that a wire held aloft by a ballon at 1200 feet altitude would provide 70 watts of high-voltage power to an electrostatic motor (an improved version of the Franklin motor) for as long as the ballon stayed at that altitude. The wire was a high impedance conductor; and the motor ran at 12,000 rpm or about 200 pulses per second. The motor was a small capacitance device; and had it been run at the impossible rate of 20,000 pulses per second (120,000 rpm) it might have drawn down some 7000 watts of free power !!" ( from the "Vindicator Scrolls" volume one by Stan Deyo, publishers: West Australian Texas Trading)


[edit on 27-9-2004 by electric]



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Electric, all the stuff that you just cited, windmills, fusion reactors, and Tesla's giant lighting rod don't violate the laws of thermo, for open system at least. All of that energy has to come from somewhere, and in the windmill it's just converting it from the motion of air in the atmosphere, itself caused by temperature diffrences caused by the sun's energy, which comes from the fusion of hydrogen. Same place where the solar wind which would power Tesla's thought experiment. Fusion comes from the strong nuclear force and the slight discrepancy in mass between two H nuclei and an He nucleus, thanks to our old friend E = mc^2.
I was talking about people who belive you can get energy out of nothing. I admit that thermodynamics is a bad way of putting it, to be more accurate I should have said "Conservation of mass-energy" or talked about symmetry. In none of the above is energy created from nothing... it's just converted from one form into another.

Zero point energy is the closest we're ever going to get to a "free lunch", but then again you're going to have lots of problems harvesting it. And besides, if you have an infinite amount of energy around from zero point fluctuations, and energy has an effect on the gravitational field, how are you going to prevent space from curing itself into a ball. Physicists now use theories of "supergravity" or string theory, but there's always to me been something highly suspect about subtracting infinities from infinity...



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Zero point energy is the closest we're ever going to get to a "free lunch", ...


What makes harnessing the strong nuclear force different from harnessing the quantum fluctuation, besides all the technicalities involved in extracting the energy? That is the point I'm trying to make. Harnessing zero point energy would be no less a "free lunch" than a fusion reactor.

The real problem of increasing energy supply is finding more cost-effective ways of harnessing the energy that's already there. If it was cost-effective for everyone to have a couple of windmills and solar panels, and efficiently store the output energy from these, it would be enough to meet most people's energy needs.

Free energy and perpetual motion are not really related to one another. It's safe to say that most people working in the free energy field are not trying to create a perpetual motion machine. It's this misunderstanding that has lead to a large amount of ridicule towards the entire field. People like David Hamel don't seem to do it much justice either.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Here is something to think about,

Electricity + Frequency = Radio Waves

Radio Waves + Frequency= Light Waves

Now Build a battery to store your Light energy. Maybe in say a Quartz Crystal.

Does this sound familar?

"Scotty! I need more power!"



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Electric says:

"The real problem of increasing energy supply is finding more cost-effective ways of harnessing the energy that's already there. If it was cost-effective for everyone to have a couple of windmills and solar panels, and efficiently store the output energy from these, it would be enough to meet most people's energy needs."

No. It would take a lot more than a couple of windmills and solar panels to store most peoples' energy needs, unless you cut your average energy consumption by at least 90 percent.

A one-square-meter array is capable of producing a theoretical maximum of 1kW of eletricity from a full sun, which means that here in Arizona, you have the potential for about 6 kW/day in the summer and 4 kW/day in the winter. But most commercially available PV modules are only about 15% efficient, so if you had an entire south-facing roof of PV arrays it'd provide about 72kW/day in the wintertime, more than half of which you'd not be able to use, because you'd have to store it in whatever efficient storage mode you have in mind.

Since the most cost-effective storage thing I can think of are lead-acid batteries, which have to be replaced every five years and leave you with tons (literally) of sulfuric acid and lead to dispose of, solar panels are simply not the way to go for your home electricity production.

And windmills are worse, because they're much more complicated and have a lot of moving mechanical parts to break down.

And, of course, it's certainly not "free"; since such a PV setup would cost about $50,000 with similarly high upkeep and maintenance costs, solar energy is not "free" by any criterion I can think of, which is really a shame.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Off_The_Street]

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by electric

A windmill is a free energy device, a solar cell is a free energy device, a fusion reactor is a free energy device, a hydroelectric is a free energy device. Even a non-rechargable battery is a free energy device.

It's free because the input energy is less than the amount of energy than you get out of it.


You are utterly and shamefully wrong. First you misunderstand the definition of free energy. The devices you have named require an input greater than the output.
The potential energy of the chemicals in a battery is greater than what we get out of them. If this was not the case, a battery could be used to power its own battery charger and never go dead
A windmill can not power the fan that drives it without a net loss of energy.
Hydroelectric plants can't water pumps large enough to sustain them.

Wind, water, and solar power all share a common source: the heat of the sun is what keeps these going. Without heat from the sun, the air temperature and atmospheric pressure would stabilize and the wind would stop. The water would stop evaporating and being carried to higher elevations to flow back down. The light to power solar cells would stop.
And the sun isn't free energy either. It burns fuel the way your car's engine does, except it's a nuclear reaction, not combustion. One day our sun will die because it is not free energy.




The idea of free energy is not getting something for nothing, it's harnessing energy that's already there. The main ideas at the moment focus on Quantum vacuum fluctuation energy (Zero-Point energy), which has to be there for Planck's equations to work, the Casimer effect, energy that is stored in magnets, solar and cosmic ray energy (or possibly electron neutrinos), cold fusion, fuel reprocessing, electrostatics and ions, chemical reactions.


I'm not going to delve into theoretical physics and say what is and is not possible in perpetuity throughout the universe, however I will say that you have apparently based part of your arguement on the fact that Planck's equations can't possibly be wrong, and therefore there couldn't possibly fail to be energy inherent even in a vacuum (which to my non-physicist mind would definately be something from nothing, and a violation of thermodynamics).
You also mention "energy stored in magnets". There is no more energy stored in a magnet than in any other matter, it is simply arranged in a certain way, giving the magnet negative and positive poles, which still cancel eachother as in all matter. Again i'm no physicist, but am i correct?

Your point on harnessing energy which is already there is somewhat valid. Solar energy, although it is not free, can in fact be a solution. The problem we have is simply that it is not viable at the moment. Fuel of some type will always be necessary, even if it's in the form of exposure to light or to some as yet known form of energy. Where I differ with you is the idea that we can practically use an antena and coil to gather enough stored energy from our environment to do a useful amount of work. Running a device on static electricity and a coil is like running a car on a windmill attached to a flywheel and a clutch. You MIGHT be able to keep it in continuous motion if you geared it right, but you wouldn't get enough power to be practical.



Mechanical, thermodynamic, and electrodynamic principles attempt to model nature. Nature doesn't model itself from our Science and Mathematics.

It is true that nature doesn't follow science, but science reflects nature, and therefore that which contradicts the laws of thermodynamics is most likely not to be possible. Your arguement here is essentially that because humans do not dictate what nature does, their observations of what nature does are useless. It is strange that you even bother to mention this though, since you maintain that the laws of thermodynamics are not violated by what you mistakenly call "free energy". (Ironically you are correct that they do not violate the laws of thermodynamics because you are incorrect about these things being sources of free energy.)



If you go ahead and describe the process by which your body obtains energy you may find something that doesn't exist in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Many people still think plants live off water.

Clarify the first sentence.
As for the second sentence: Only you think that. Everyone else here knows that plants use solar energy to stimulate chemical reactions. Like all living things, plants run on fuel, and use water to facilitate the use of their fuel.



Tesla showed, with a simple thought experiment, that it's possible to engineer around the laws of thermodynamics. He said, if you could build a pole large enough to reach from the ground to Earth's outer atmosphere, the heat exchange between the two ends would be enough to power a motor. He was describing the principles of his Cosmic ray receiver in thermodynamic terms.

We all know that creating a path between unequal stores of energy will create flow and that flow can be harnessed to do work. A giant pole from earth to space would certainly create a conduit for flow between unequal stores of energy, however it is not the most efficient way. I can only assume Tesla was illustrating a point, not calling for the construction of a pole to outer space. We are still talking about a glorified sail: it only gathers the energy which strikes it, transmits that energy inefficiently, and is limited in capacity by the structural integrity concerns of a miles-tall pole which has to handle large amounts of energy flowing through it. As for cosmic rays: where did you get that? Just pull it out of the sky (no pun intended)? Tesla said heat exchange, not the flow of cosmic rays. You could cover the whole planet with these poles if you want, but they won't be practical. Passively gathering energy, while efficient, is necessarily less productive than releasing stored energy in controlled conditions (such as in a combustion engine or nuclear reactor). Imagine the sun as a big engine that runs on fusion, and a nuclear plant as a smaller, weaker version. You'd rather set a sterling motor next to the big engine and run off that engine's wasted heat rather than building your own engine?




There is not enogh charge in the atmosphere to run a motor. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Whe we do have is radiated EM waves from manmade and natural causes that can be picked up by an antenna. You can barely pick it up with a crystal rectafier and an earphone.


This is absolutely right. Anybody who was ever REALLY interested in how their radio works has probably wondered why it needs batteries, since all the radio is doing is taking electrical pulses out of the air and channeling them to a magnet in the speaker. The answer is that even the energy which humans have generated and broadcast into the air is still far too weak to power the speaker. Like I keep saying- there may be a whole lot of stuff in the air, but you can only use what contacts your antenna, so dispersed energy is not a viable sollution.



I'm not talking about radiated RF energy, I'm talking about high-voltage electrostatic, created as charge particles from the Sun make their way to the surface of the Earth. The Testatika machine is a famous electrostatic motor. There is also plans on the web to build a self powered electrostatic motor. The power output is very low, but it is still self powering. I will post a link to the plans if anyone is interested.

I've never heard of a testatika machine however I am imagining something akin to a vandegraf generator. If they are similar, then they are not any more self powering than your car. If the flow of fuel stops, so does the generator. This limits the ability of even a very large on to the amount of air circulation it gets and makes it perhaps even less efficient than a windmill, correct?




"In March 1971, Dr. Oleg Jefimenko proved that a wire held aloft by a ballon at 1200 feet altitude would provide 70 watts of high-voltage power to an electrostatic motor (an improved version of the Franklin motor) for as long as the ballon stayed at that altitude. The wire was a high impedance conductor; and the motor ran at 12,000 rpm or about 200 pulses per second. The motor was a small capacitance device; and had it been run at the impossible rate of 20,000 pulses per second (120,000 rpm) it might have drawn down some 7000 watts of free power !!" ( from the "Vindicator Scrolls" volume one by Stan Deyo, publishers: West Australian Texas Trading)



Holy-Mutha-Freakin-Something. You can mirror this experiment simply by passing a magnet over a wire back and forth. The magnet will cause electrons to move along the wire. This is exactly the same as Tesla's hypothetical tower, and is useful but inefficient for the same reasons.
The wire gathered 70 watts of energy, sufficient to turn an electric motor 12,000 RPM (obviously if a load were attatched to the motor there would be some waste and you would get just under 70 watts of output). If the motor had turned 10 times faster, yes you would have gotten 10 times more energy (i'm assuming you meant that, and that 7000 was a typo). However you are forgetting that in order for that to have happened, the wire would need to have gathered 10 times more energy- the wire isn't spontaneously creating electrons- they must come from somewhere. This means that exposure to air (the surface area of the wire and the availability of charged air) will limit the ability of this method to generate power. Start multiplying the size of the motor and wire in your head now, keeping in mind that 70 watts is almost nothing. You end up with a huge pole and motor of colossal size to generate a relatively small amount of power.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by The Vagabond]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Let me clarify something first. When I say "free energy" I mean "free" as in "freely available to be harnessed." Nor am I suggesting this energy has no source, is infinitely available, or is a cost-effective alternative to any currently used energy sources. I thought that I had already made that clear enough.

I understand the processes by which stars emit thermal, light, and cosmic radiation, how the tidal forces come from the Moon's tug on the Earth. There's no reason to get into that. I am suggesting it's free energy because the energy inputed by the process harnessing that energy is essentially zero. You personally don't have to input any energy into the Sun to get something out of it. This is applicable to all the processes I have mentioned.

My argument is that people's interpretation of free energy and free energy devices are wrong. They're nothing more than alternative energy sources.

I used the photovoltaic and windmill dynamo example to illustrate a point. I did not say how large the PV array would have to be, or that methods even currently exist to store this energy efficiently. I wasn't suggesting it was cost-effective alternative to getting power from the grid either.


The devices you have named require an input greater than the output.


At what point did I try and present a case for 100% efficiency or overunity? I'm not suggesting it's possible to gather energy without loss. I am suggesting it's possible to gather small amounts of energy and store that energy until it builds up into more usable form. This is the basic principle of resonance.

I'm only describing what people in the free energy field are basing their inventions on. I personally don't do any experiments with zero point energy, or argue that Planck's equations are correct. I did make a point, however, that harnessing a quantum vacuum forces would be fundamentally no different than harnessing a nuclear force, besides the technicalities involved in extracting the energy, and the amounts of energy available. If you accept that, then you must argue that making use of the strong nuclear force is also in violation of the first law of thermodyamics. The second law is simply not applicable, since there's no thermodynamic entropy, it's purely electrodynamic.



Your point on harnessing energy which is already there is somewhat valid.

I'm only trying to dispell myths that free energy is all about getting something for nothing or creating perpetual motion.


As for cosmic rays: where did you get that? Just pull it out of the sky (no pun intended)? Tesla said heat exchange, not the flow of cosmic rays.


Tesla's radiant energy receiver are US patents 685,954 through 685,958. If you're looking for an explanation about cosmic rays or how Tesla discovered them, it can be found on the web.

I believe the rest of the rebuttle to my arguments can again be addressed by saying that I'm not trying to make a case for efficiency or overunity.

Charged particles seek their closest route to ground, as seen visibly by plasma discharge. The idea behind the cosmic ray receiver is really just providing ionized particles a quicker route to ground, and making use of the free electrons available. And yes, the amount of energy that can be aquired is proportional to the height and surface area of the receiver. It's mostly described in Telsa's radiant energy patents and T.H. Moray's book.

I'm not suggesting cosmic rays can provided a complete alternative energy source, but it's just one of several possiblities.

edit: "excessive quoting."

[edit on 4-10-2004 by electric]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Nikola Tesla did research free energy and even publicized it. The car ran with no fuel, only a special box which Tesla built.

google: Tesla free energy car

And when any of you "debunkers" trying to cite thermodynamics or the limits of electromagnetism can explain why permanent magnets can perpetually hover opposite another similarly charged magnet without disrupting the energy/matter equation or what makes protons and electrons orbit each other, then you can say there is no free energy. Until then, I don't think you really know what you guys are talking about. It's pretty easy to say "thermodynamics", but there are so many things that the worlds of physics and electrical engineering don't understand, so until conventional wisdom can completely explain every aspect associated with a unified field theory, don't say something is impossible. If you do, you're the one who looks like a fool, not the guy trying to figure it out.

It's not something from nothing, it's something from what we don't understand. Clearly, there is an abundant supply of gravity from the earth, the sun, from any celstial body with mass. Does that mean that gravity is using up the mass that creates it. It's a force which can alter the trajectories of satellites, planets, even galaxies! So I would consider it a form of energy, but it's generally looked at as a "side effect" of mass in the weightless vaccuum of space. Hydrogen radiation is another abundant resource in our universe. What if there's something usable in the mocrowaves of hydrogen radiation? What if the spinning of electrons is a "side effect" of an unnamed force? Maybe that force is what holds us together. literally. If discovered, would tapping into that force then be "something from nothing"? No, it wouldn't. Would it be free? Theoretically, it would be just as free as harnessing the sun's energy using a PV cell or wind, hydro, etc.. It's exactly the same, but currently, the scientific community doesn't understand this energy, therefore, the whole idea has a stigma of ridiculousness attached to it.

So, for all of you guys who refuse to believe in the potential that this technology carries, good luck. Because I would hate to have such a pessimistic and negative outlook on everything, especially considering all of the evidence for an energy breakthrough.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by ledbedder20]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constitution
www.world-famous.com...


David Hamel that explains principals of free energy.


[edit on 11-7-2004 by John bull 1]


I was first astonished by this guys acomplishments, so taking college level physics I was bounded to ask my professor what was going on. I asked him if this guy was for real and basically my professor ripped him another asshole. In the end my professor ended up emailing this David Hamel guy, questioning his false variable statements and he never responded. I think the guy's a fake.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20

And when any of you "debunkers" trying to cite thermodynamics or the limits of electromagnetism can explain why permanent magnets can perpetually hover opposite another similarly

charged magnet

without disrupting the energy/matter equation

or what makes protons and electrons orbit each other,

then you can say there is no free energy.

Until then, I don't think you really know what you guys are talking about. It's pretty easy to say "thermodynamics", but there are so many things that the worlds of physics and electrical engineering don't understand, so until conventional wisdom can completely explain every aspect associated with a unified field theory, don't say something is impossible. If you do, you're the one who looks like a fool, not the guy trying to figure it out.

supply of gravity from the earth, the sun, from any celstial body with mass. It's a force
So I would consider it a form of energy

Hydrogen radiation is another abundant resource in our universe.
So, for all of you guys who refuse to believe in the potential that this technology carries, good luck. Because I would hate to have such a pessimistic and negative outlook on everything, especially considering all of the evidence for an energy breakthrough.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by ledbedder20]


what is a charged magnet?

what energy/matter equation are you talking about?
Conservation of energy?

I thought electrons orbited the nucleus?

There's no such thing as free energy.

Especially with magnets, induced fields, ever heard of Lenz's Law?

When has a force ever been considered an amount of energy? I could punch through a wall with x amount of force, but still not create energy. Unless....maybe I created so much friction that my hands started the door on fire.


Where is this hydrogen you speak of?

You state a lot of things, they are interesting, but just don't match up.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
My dad invented a free energy machine. But it reqquired alot a fine tuning and he could'nt fine tune it just right. It makes lots of sense and if I explained it to you you would get it instantly. But alas I can't tell you, he's still fine tuning it.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join