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.

 

Here we go again!! Another free energy machine.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I watched the "proof of concept" video and have to wonder if they are measuring the power correctly. If you have seen it, they show how they have AC power (from wall outlet?), which goes through a transformer, then a rectifier to power the motor. They measure DC current and DC Volts for a power input of 4.5 Watts with antiquated meters. On the output they are measuring AC current and AC Volts and calculate 15 Watts of power, for a gain of over 300%. But they did not mention if the AC measurements were in RMS or peak values. You need the AC values in RMS in order to calculate power. Also the voltage and current after the rectifier would not be a constant value without filter capacitors and a regulator, so using slow analog meters to take the measurements, will also not give the correct readings.

Using cheap analog meters is an old trick to show over unity and fool people who have never taken electrical measurements. I would like to see this motor myself and take measurements with an oscilloscope or digital meter that show the current waveform.

Everyone knows the best way to prove over unity is to connect the power output to the power input and see if it keeps running. So if the generator puts out AC power, they should be able to connect the output power to the rectifier instead of getting power from the transformer. This would close the loop and if the motor kept running that would be perpetual motion. But they don't do this, so I am skeptical of the results in the video.




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Yes, and everytime someone builds one of these machines (people have been building permanent magnet "perpetual motion" machines for over 100 years) they can never get more energy out of the device than they put in. They might claim they can, but always under inspection it never works. Here is a patent for one from 1979:
www.newebmasters.com...


To be fair their not really "perpetual motion" machines as we know where the energy it draws on comes from. The problem with these machines is not how much energy they generate but intercepting it without destroying the source or otherwise disrupting the process. That is the key and that is what very few people have been able to manage so far. Calling these machines perpetual motion machines would logically have to lead you to calling every charge and dipole in the universe a "perpetual motion machine."

The assumption fundamentally comes down to the decision that a windmill is a "open system" ( thus allowing energy or mass flow over boundary) and that these machines are "closed systems" and does not. There is no logical basis for this claim in science and it is simply based on the assumption that there is no active vacuum that could power these machines. If you have heard of virtual particle's you would know ALL about thow active the vacuum really is thus leaving you with no real foundation to call these machines "perpetual motion " machines. The only question you should be left with is how this virtual 'energy' can power this 'energy-mill'.


If this works then why isn't the inventor the richest man in the world? They have had 26 years to get it sorted.


Why do we not have solar powered cars? There are plenty of reasons why techonology never makes it to the market not even mentioning all the devious one's.

To go back to the site's claims:



They will both perform the same task, that of holding the ten kilos off the floor. The electro-magnet, however, has needed to be fuelled by electricity provided by a generator of some kind - it could be hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, coal or oil - and has cost a large amount in terms of energy. Much work (in the scientific sense) has been done to provide the constant electric current necessary to maintain its magnetic hold on the steel girder.

Now take notice, the permanent magnet has not needed to be energised by an external source, it has done the job for “free” using only the magnetism it contains to perform the same job. The clue here is in the title of “permanent” magnet.



If you think this through you can see the fallacy. The magnet stuck to the steel beam isn't actually doing anything, no more than a rock that rests on the floor is doing any work. Great - it's stuck, but to break it away so that that you can let it re-stick again you have to do some work, either via an eletrical current or manually pulling it off. And what's the total gain? Nothing. If you can show me some theory, or even a practical device that refutes my statement I would be very interested.

It is the equivalent of trying to generate energy from a rock falling endlessly down a hill with no bottom. That is impossible.


If that rock rest's on your toe you would probably argue that it is doing SOMETHING!
The rock is in fact expending energy ( doing work if you will ) to attract the earth with and where that energy comes from no commonly accepted scientific theory can currently explain.



Can you tell me one difference between this description and one for a normal electric motor? As that is what these guys always end up when they have finished - a normal permanent magnetic motor.


Well if that is what they finish up with their really not doing anything special and their not going anywhere. Why talk about it? I never set out to defend the machine in question just some of the principles that may apply.

Here is a list of Devices and prosseses i will vouch for and defend.


Well it was the First Law of Thermodynamics I had in mind. But just working from first principles as well. I know that the first law applies to closed systems, but do you have any reason to think that the Lutek generates energy from somewhere else other than it's own components? The site makes no such claim....


Is that not like asking what drives a windmill or how solar panels can work? The Lutec will seek to capture and store the energy flow that the magnets extracts from the active vacuum. That is what permanent magnets do and it's just a question of wether their machine will succeed in capturing the energy extracted. Do windmill builders have to tell us what drives global weather patterns?



Well come on now, it's not just my opinion, it's well established scientific theory. I would love it if you could find one engineer or physicist working for a major (or any) university who would disagree with my "opinion"


Well why is working for a major university a qualification of truth or intelligence? Did scientist suddenly start working for those in the last century? Is this not like claiming that scientific institutions has never been wrong before? Do history suggest that scientific change came about as result of scientific schools and institutions deciding to change their minds or was it mostly the outsiders and mavericks, who were so often kicked out by these self same groups, who broke new ground and changed the world? You know the answer to this as well as i do .

I can go make a list for you if really thing it important....


Those pesky physical laws eh? If you have a look at the site some of the people discussing it are engineers who work with motors, they say in very practical terms why such a device never generates free electricity.


Well they WOULD have to say that otherwise they would look rather dumb would'nt they! Is this not like asking the church wether Jesus really lived? No scientific law i know off openly contradicts the claims made by "free energy" proponents. The laws used as qualification for 'perpetual motion' machine claims are easily shown to be misunderstanding or misrepresentation of those laws.

All i ask is for some sketicism when scientist says things are impossible. How often have they been right so far on that score? Wich such a track record both of us would have shut up long ago!


Stellar



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Assuming that this machine would be real (Which I still think is a hoax), the batteries do not have anything to do with the free energy device expect for storing the energy in the form of electricity. So your comment does not make any sense.



Great post and thanks for doing your dispassionate best to stay open minded!
Shining example of the role a moderator should assume.


Stellar

[edit on 14-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus
A class in thermodynamics would help alot of you out...perpetual motion machines just aren't possible. If you understand how engines works, you'll understand efficiency. Read up on ya entropy...


If your more specific i might be able to help point out what is possible and what may be. Understanding how engines work is not really important considering the massive ammount of energy the average car engine extracts from fuel. Anything as inefficient as the average car engine likely points out that we do classica physics is kinda hopelessly flawed....

So state your claims and 'facts' that you will base your arguments on and we can get started.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by T_Jesus
A class in thermodynamics would help alot of you out...perpetual motion machines just aren't possible. If you understand how engines works, you'll understand efficiency. Read up on ya entropy...


If your more specific i might be able to help point out what is possible and what may be. Understanding how engines work is not really important considering the massive ammount of energy the average car engine extracts from fuel. Anything as inefficient as the average car engine likely points out that we do classica physics is kinda hopelessly flawed....

So state your claims and 'facts' that you will base your arguments on and we can get started.

Stellar


Understanding the engine is crucial, there is only so much energy that can be obtained from the fuels combustion engines use. What perpetual and free motion maniacs are trying to say is that internal change does not matter, is irrelevant and can be manipulated by their pseudo-science.

What do you think is flawed about classic physics?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
A combustion engine and a magnetic engine aren't the same things. It's a bit unfair to call these folks "maniacs," but I would like to see the engines in action.

Thermodynamics, I read some of it. Too full of technical jargon for me to stay interested, and I just don't have the time to look up all the words right now. It's not completely necessary to my understanding of engine mechanics anyway.

Troy



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
To be fair their not really "perpetual motion" machines as we know where the energy it draws on comes from.

Well I should have said attempted perpetual motion machines, as they don't actually work. If the Lutek worked as described then you could attach the power output to the power input (as Hal9000 pointed out) and the machine would run perpetually. You say "as we know where the energy it draws on comes from", and from looking at the demos the energy is coming from a wall socket, and nowhere else.



The problem with these machines is not how much energy they generate but intercepting it without destroying the source or otherwise disrupting the process.

And what energy is it generating exactly?



Calling these machines perpetual motion machines would logically have to lead you to calling every charge and dipole in the universe a "perpetual motion machine."

A dipole is not a machine, so logically it wouldn't. A machine, by definition, has moving parts and the motion results in the transfer of heat through friction and air resistance - this results in a loss of energy by the device.



Well if that is what they finish up with their really not doing anything special and their not going anywhere. Why talk about it? I never set out to defend the machine in question just some of the principles that may apply.

Well the thread is specifically about the Lutek, and the poster asked if it was a hoax. I have laid out why I think it cannot work.



Here is a list of Devices and prosseses i will vouch for and defend.

You keep trying to plug Tom Bearden, but this is an interesting article on his work, and on permanent magnet type devices in general:

www.strangehorizons.com...

It is interesting to note in the article that "permanent" magnets are not really permanent:



A conventional battery transduces chemical potential into electricity. This new device transduces magnetic potential into electricity. The device's permanent magnet is depleted in a controlled fashion. Eventually the magnet goes dead and the current stops flowing

And it goes on to point out that these magnets have to be made by using a certain amount of energy and that they will eventually wear out (the more you use them the quicker they wear out). The question is can you get out more energy than you put in? Also can you extract more than a tiny amount of power from them? Nobody has demonstrated that yet.

I am not denying that there might be some way to tap into the enormous amounts of energy that swirl around us in the universe, and hopefully we will one day be able to do it. However these permanent magnet devices appear to be a dead end.



Well they WOULD have to say that otherwise they would look rather dumb would'nt they! Is this not like asking the church wether Jesus really lived?

No it isn't. Science, unlike religion, is based on testable theory and experimental data, and it is constantly changing.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Understanding the engine is crucial, there is only so much energy that can be obtained from the fuels combustion engines use. What perpetual and free motion maniacs are trying to say is that internal change does not matter, is irrelevant and can be manipulated by their pseudo-science.

What do you think is flawed about classic physics?


Understanding engines is NOT crucial as we are dealing with scientific principle's here; reality can not be altered to suit how you want to build your engine.

Well i can not speak for all the 'maniacs' so please respond to what i said instead of what others have said. Internal charge is important so why not focus on what really generates the much talked about charge?
I think there is a great deal wrong with classical physics but it's not like i discovered the flaws so do save your anger for someone better qualified?

Here is a list if if i have not posted it here before.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Well I should have said attempted perpetual motion machines, as they don't actually work. If the Lutek worked as described then you could attach the power output to the power input (as Hal9000 pointed out) and the machine would run perpetually. You say "as we know where the energy it draws on comes from", and from looking at the demos the energy is coming from a wall socket, and nowhere else.


Well i do not think we should throw the baby out just because the water is filthy.
As i said i do not want to get involved in defending certain machines or people in the main as i do not know these people, their motive or for that matter how much they really know. I am here to try introduce what i (think) have learnt about physics and how these principles makes machines like these possible. My comment about the Lutec mainly reflects the fact that we are both in the same boat when it comes to speculating on wether that machine really works. Neither you or me can prove or disprove their claims based on observation alone and the best we can do at this distance is try discover wether the principles are valid.


And what energy is it generating exactly?


Well the machine itself is not generating anything and the main purpose of the elaborate construct would be to keep the dipole(S) intact and then intercept and store the energy flow from the active vacuum. Any generator in the world powered by a shaft works in exactly the same way and all those fossil fuels that go up in smoke does nothing other than create a dipole from wich energy flow from the active vacuum can then the intercepted. If we could keep the dipole intact by other means we can skip the fossil fuel burning part entirely as it does not actually power anything you see in this world.


A dipole is not a machine, so logically it wouldn't. A machine, by definition, has moving parts and the motion results in the transfer of heat through friction and air resistance - this results in a loss of energy by the device.


Wether a dipole is a machine or not does not matter nearly as much as the fact that we can observe it emmiting EM energy. Your claim is true for a isolated system, or machine, but in nature ( this universe) we only have open systems. As you well know a open system allows for mass/energy transfer across it's boundary.


Well the thread is specifically about the Lutek, and the poster asked if it was a hoax. I have laid out why I think it cannot work.


And i am trying to explain why i think the scientific principles that allows for these, and many other types of , machines have been known and in use for at least a century to some scientist. This specefic machine has no bearing on wether the sciencetific princeples behind the idea is good or not.


You keep trying to plug Tom Bearden, but this is an interesting article on his work, and on permanent magnet type devices in general

www.strangehorizons.com...


Well i am reading his book so excuse me if i make frequent references to his well reasoned arguments....


The article you posted is rather long and rambling without anything of any use being said. He even managed to start off on the wrong foot.

Newton's very first law goes as follows.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

So basically we have perpetual motion right there as something can keep on moving without doing any work. Why makes perpetual motion impossible beside misuderstanding basic principles? Obviously there is those pesky external forces but that does not logically lead to perpetual motion being impossible. If we can control or regulate the external enviroment, and forces that interacts on these machines, there is no problem with the notion of perpetual motion as long as these machines also intercept and store energy freely flowing from every charge in the universe.

That article really does not seek to discover anything and he clearly knows far far less about physics than i do. If i knew all that much that would not be a problem.
If you really want i can spend the time to point out some more serious flaws and more bad reasoning that seems to be the basis of his arguments.


It is interesting to note in the article that "permanent" magnets are not really permanent:


Well classical science has a hard enough time explaining permanent magnets and the fact that they are. Since he claims otherwise it's just another reason not to take him seriously. How long have you had that fridge magnet of yours? Currently no theory in science explains how it does that to start with and certainly not how i keeps doing it.



A conventional battery transduces chemical potential into electricity. This new device transduces magnetic potential into electricity. The device's permanent magnet is depleted in a controlled fashion. Eventually the magnet goes dead and the current stops flowing


Theories are good and all but do you see him explaining where the magnetic potential of permanent magnets come from to start with? If these magnets can stick to your fridge for as long as they do what can a larger one do for the same duration?


And it goes on to point out that these magnets have to be made by using a certain amount of energy and that they will eventually wear out (the more you use them the quicker they wear out). The question is can you get out more energy than you put in? Also can you extract more than a tiny amount of power from them? Nobody has demonstrated that yet.


I posted a list earlier that proves that even the in the US it has been proven over and over again that there are many processes by wich more energy can be extrated than was spent. The one's he suggested has to be made but we do not need those and i clearly had alot of straw at the start for his article.
Just as a fridge magnet keeps doing work ( not according to classical science thought) so can this because it is not feeding off itself by off the active vacuum around it.


I am not denying that there might be some way to tap into the enormous amounts of energy that swirl around us in the universe, and hopefully we will one day be able to do it. However these permanent magnet devices appear to be a dead end.


Well i hope i have the understanding to explain why i believe ( and imagine i can prove) these machines can do exactly that.


No it isn't. Science, unlike religion, is based on testable theory and experimental data, and it is constantly changing.


I agree; science should, unlike religion, change to reflect what observation shows. Currently we have huge flaws in the classical systems that are simply AVOIDED with anyone trying to solve these flaws with new theories being attacked for being cranks and worse.

"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thing, whereas it should be just the opposite."

— Dr. Thomas Gold

New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."

— John Locke

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."

— George Bernard Shaw

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

— Albert Einstein

Anyways

Stellar



[edit on 15-11-2005 by StellarX]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Frosty
Understanding the engine is crucial, there is only so much energy that can be obtained from the fuels combustion engines use. What perpetual and free motion maniacs are trying to say is that internal change does not matter, is irrelevant and can be manipulated by their pseudo-science.

What do you think is flawed about classic physics?


Understanding engines is NOT crucial as we are dealing with scientific principle's here; reality can not be altered to suit how you want to build your engine.

Well i can not speak for all the 'maniacs' so please respond to what i said instead of what others have said. Internal charge is important so why not focus on what really generates the much talked about charge?
I think there is a great deal wrong with classical physics but it's not like i discovered the flaws so do save your anger for someone better qualified?

Here is a list if if i have not posted it here before.

Stellar


I still say understanding the engine is very importan when you are talking about fuel economy or power generation. How can it not be? IT the application of science on a working body.

As for your list, the first answer to the first question is wrong, I have even posted what gravity is. Many of the question's answers do not make any sense and everything on the site seems to border on the fringe.

And some of these have nothing to do with Newton's mechanics. Even if you haven't discovered the flaws, you think they are there, could you explain them?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Double post....

[edit on 15-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I doubt it's free energy but you never know. Sometimes I think about what would happen if someone really did build a working free energy machine somehow? Would they be bought or killed by people with great interests in seeing that free energy doesn't make it to the masses? Would it be written off as another scam or looked over as too good to be true or would people embrace it and the make the best of it?


One idea I had for a cheap but not free energy machine is to use a pellet stove to heat water and drive a steam turbine. With oil and nat gas prices increasing lots of people have been installing wood or pellet stoves. THey generate lots of heat, but a lot of it seems to go to waste. I was thinking if there was some way to use that excess heat to boil water to create and drive a small turbine that could create electricity it might be a cheap energy source at least in the winter when the stove is being used anyway. It probably wouldn't make enough to power a house, but when used in conjuction with other technologies like solar, wind and hydro power it could provide near free energy.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   


Well the machine itself is not generating anything and the main purpose of the elaborate construct would be to keep the dipole(S) intact and then intercept and store the energy flow from the active vacuum. Any generator in the world powered by a shaft works in exactly the same way and all those fossil fuels that go up in smoke does nothing other than create a dipole from wich energy flow from the active vacuum can then the intercepted. If we could keep the dipole intact by other means we can skip the fossil fuel burning part entirely as it does not actually power anything you see in this world.

Sorry, but this just comes across as regurgetated pseudo-scientific nonsense. Can you actually explain what this means? I have no idea.

By the way: I hadn't tried looking a Tom "I'm right everyone else is wrong" Bearden's site for a while. From investigating him the past I had assumed he was incompentant/severly misguided or just a plain hoaxer after cash. However he now seems to be a fully paid up member of the silver foil hat brigade. He has all makes all sorts of claims that foes of the US (he is not entirely clear on who these are, but the Japanese mafia get a mention) are using "scalar" weapons to manipulate the weather in the country! They are also using these weapons to set off earthquakes etc. He has also posted pictures of normal clouds saying they are evidence of "weather engineering". And you want us to take this guy seriously as a scientist? Hmmm. At least he seems to have stopped claiming he has a Phd (the company he bought it from went bankrupt I believe)

The fact is that his Motionless Electromagnetic Generator does not work. Or at least does not work as anything other than a transformer. If it achieved over unity he could just connect the output to the input and leave it running with no other power source. He could then slap that on the desk of an electrical engineer and have them spluttering into their ciruit boards.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Wether a dipole is a machine or not does not matter nearly as much as the fact that we can observe it emmiting EM energy. Your claim is true for a isolated system, or machine, but in nature ( this universe) we only have open systems. As you well know a open system allows for mass/energy transfer across it's boundary.


A dipole occurs within polar covalent bonds when the center of the positive charge does not coincide with the center of the negative charge. It is also an atenae.



So basically we have perpetual motion right there as something can keep on moving without doing any work. Why makes perpetual motion impossible beside misuderstanding basic principles? Obviously there is those pesky external forces but that does not logically lead to perpetual motion being impossible. If we can control or regulate the external enviroment, and forces that interacts on these machines, there is no problem with the notion of perpetual motion as long as these machines also intercept and store energy freely flowing from every charge in the universe.


So long as nothing exerts force on the object, but when you attempt to draw energy from that object, you will exert force and slow its process down. This is only true for a vacuum of gravitationaless space. Here on earth, inertia is limited by gravity.



Well classical science has a hard enough time explaining permanent magnets and the fact that they are. Since he claims otherwise it's just another reason not to take him seriously. How long have you had that fridge magnet of yours? Currently no theory in science explains how it does that to start with and certainly not how i keeps doing it.


My education of magnetics isn't too great, but I assume if you take some chemistry and physics courses you might be able to take in enough information to make that claim without having everyone laugh at you. It takes years to learn and master the fundamentals and advance theories in physics and chemistry. It took Newton years to develop the calculus necessary for his Principia. I don't think you can simply read one book and then make these claims without showing any of your own mathematics and mechanical explanations.

Ferromagnetism comes from passing cobalt, iron and nickel through magnetic fields, or their alloys.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
And classical mechanics might not explain everything, which it does not.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
I still say understanding the engine is very importan when you are talking about fuel economy or power generation. How can it not be? IT the application of science on a working body.


I mentioned fuel economy because the average combustion energy extracts so little energy from the fuel it consumes.... As i said before engines are not important as they are simply built according to our current understanding of physics. Whatever engines currently do is simply NOT important as that can change immensly as our understanding of nature grows.


As for your list, the first answer to the first question is wrong, I have even posted what gravity is. Many of the question's answers do not make any sense and everything on the site seems to border on the fringe.


You posted what you thought gravity was but your 'explanation' in fact explains nothing. Well they may not make sense to you but what does that prove or suggest? The limits of your imagination or understanding certainly will not make reality any less complex so why by your own admission tell us that your out of your depth?


And some of these have nothing to do with Newton's mechanics. Even if you haven't discovered the flaws, you think they are there, could you explain them?


Well the list i provided deal with many uresolved issues in science and i never suggested it was limited to newtonian mechanics. The point of science is to refine understanding and thus we seek to make the basics as non-contradictory as possible before moving on. I have some ideas of my own but i mainly work from reference material of prominent scientist.

Anyways!

Stellar


[edit on 16-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I mentioned fuel economy because the average combustion energy extracts so little energy from the fuel it consumes....


When the combustion happens it drives the pistons up due to the pressure, the gas needs to escape. I am not to sure that it 'extracts' energy as it 'gives' off energy.


As i said before engines are not important as they are simply built according to our current understanding of physics. Whatever engines currently do is simply NOT important as that can change immensly as our understanding of nature grows.


And our current understanding of physics will leads us to believe that the gasoline converted explosively into a gas must be released. Whether their is a valve or a piston to drive up it will be released in an explosion ripping apart the engine if the pressure is too great. This is in reference to one of Newton's laws stating there must be a reaction.



You posted what you thought gravity was but your 'explanation' in fact explains nothing. Well they may not make sense to you but what does that prove or suggest? The limits of your imagination or understanding certainly will not make reality any less complex so why by your own admission tell us that your out of your depth?


This is an issue with english and grammar. My explanation was dead on for what graivty is. The question must be worded wrong because you seem to be looking for why is gravity, not what is gravity.



Well the list i provided deal with many uresolved issues in science and i never suggested it was limited to newtonian mechanics. The point of science is to refine understanding and thus we seek to make the basics as non-contradictory as possible before moving on. I have some ideas of my own but i mainly work from reference material of prominent scientist.


So then what does the large scale of relativity have to do with the intermediate scale of Newtonian mechanics?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Credit Bearden with the principle's and me with the wording in this instance.


One should always take care when quoting Bearden.

None of his theories have passed any peer review, and years after claiming to be near production with his free energy machine he still has not even shown a public demonstration.

He may be right in some of what he says, but most is his own misunderstanding of quantum physics.

You still must balance out the equations so a free energy machine would need to create negative entrophy somewhere else in the universe, and that is what makes it impossible.

BTW- Zero point is simply the energy that remains at absolute zero.

It is not some majical force that you plg into.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
None of his theories have passed any peer review, and years after claiming to be near production with his free energy machine he still has not even shown a public demonstration.


And I think that is at the heart of the matter here. On his website he blames the fact that electrical engineers can't understand his science and therefore can't (or more likely refuse to attempt to) build his machine. Which is a bizarre state of affairs. Why can't he build the machine himself and start running his house of it? He would save quite a bit in fuel bills if nothing else.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
A dipole occurs within polar covalent bonds when the center of the positive charge does not coincide with the center of the negative charge. It is also an atenae.


Well covalent bonding is an intramolecular form of chemical bonding
but since your first love is apparently verbosity here goes! In the simplest case , two separeted charges of ussually equal magnitude and of opposite sign. More generally, a localized positive charge or charge distribution, and localized negative charge or charge distribution , such that the net charge summation is zero, while the positive and negative charge distribution do not precisely superpose point to point but only on average.

In regular physics electrical charge however has no proper definition; something that is not contradictory in this case. As is well known in particle physics, due to the opposite charges on its end, a dipole is a broken symmetry in the virtual photon flux of the vacuum. By definition of broken symmetry , this means that some of the virtual energy flux continuesly absorbed from the seething vacuum by the charges of the dipole is not re-radiated as virtual energy. Instead, it is integrated coherently and re-radiated in 3-space as real emmited EM energy, establishing the fields and potentials associated with that source charge or source dipole. The dipole is therefore the most fundamental true "negative resister" since it freely and continuesly recieves EM energy in unusable form, transduces in into usable form , and re-emits it in usable EM form.

And thus we have permanent magnets.


So long as nothing exerts force on the object, but when you attempt to draw energy from that object, you will exert force and slow its process down.


Energy is not being drawn from the "object" as it is merely a funnel that must be maintained and if that can be done at a smaller energy cost than is gained from intercepting and storing energy EM energy flowing from the "object".


My education of magnetics isn't too great, but I assume if you take some chemistry and physics courses you might be able to take in enough information to make that claim without having everyone laugh at you.


I will make whatever claims i like and if you are not interested in refuting them properly ( or unable or just lazy) you can laugh all you want as long as you know that i am long past the point where i will stop asking question just to spare myself some embarrassment. If you want to invest in trying to educate me in good proper physics i would appreciate all efforts poor suffering ignorent that i am.


It takes years to learn and master the fundamentals and advance theories in physics and chemistry. It took Newton years to develop the calculus necessary for his Principia. I don't think you can simply read one book and then make these claims without showing any of your own mathematics and mechanical explanations.


Since scientist spent their entire lifetimes learning and still turn out to be wrong most of the time ( for scientific progress to happen the fast majority had to be in agreement and still wrong) i reckon chances are good i am going to say some things i will have to correct in long run. If i remember correctly that is pretty much science summed up. Well i read alot of physics books over the years and certainly very many more with references to scientific principles. I also happened to go to school and we did some there aswell. Turns out even the basics they tough me in high school is dead wrong in many instances. That explains well why physics is in the sad state it is.

Shall i quote some of the most prominent scientist in the field that will support my claims on the state of physics and eletromagnetism?


Ferromagnetism comes from passing cobalt, iron and nickel through magnetic fields, or their alloys.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
And classical mechanics might not explain everything, which it does not.


I got that the first time and my point with classical physics was not that it does not explain everything ( wich is obvious) but that it explains even less than you have been led to believe.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well covalent bonding is an intramolecular form of chemical bonding

So is ionic bonding as well as a few others.




In the simplest case , two separeted charges of ussually equal magnitude and of opposite sign.


That would sound like part of polar covalent bonding to me, not sure what you means by opposite signs though, could you explain? Are you refering to oxidation numbers or spin? And are you refering to atoms of nonmetallic or metallic properties?



More generally, a localized positive charge or charge distribution, and localized negative charge or charge distribution , such that the net charge summation is zero, while the positive and negative charge distribution do not precisely superpose point to point but only on average.


Not quite sure what you mean, but this sounds like nonpolar to me and as so will not have a dipole moment.


In regular physics electrical charge however has no proper definition; something that is not contradictory in this case. As is well known in particle physics, due to the opposite charges on its end, a dipole is a broken symmetry in the virtual photon flux of the vacuum. By definition of broken symmetry , this means that some of the virtual energy flux continuesly absorbed from the seething vacuum by the charges of the dipole is not re-radiated as virtual energy. Instead, it is integrated coherently and re-radiated in 3-space as real emmited EM energy, establishing the fields and potentials associated with that source charge or source dipole. The dipole is therefore the most fundamental true "negative resister" since it freely and continuesly recieves EM energy in unusable form, transduces in into usable form , and re-emits it in usable EM form.


Wait a second. Why are we now talking about particle physics? Can we keep it on the quantum, this is confussing me. Why does it have to have a photon flux, weren't we talking about electrons or is our electron dropping in energy? Virtual photon flux sounds rather made up as it does not seem to fit in with the dipole moment. I am not sure what the rest means.



And thus we have permanent magnets.

That didn't seem to explain ferromagnetism to well, but...


Energy is not being drawn from the "object" as it is merely a funnel that must be maintained and if that can be done at a smaller energy cost than is gained from intercepting and storing energy EM energy flowing from the "object".


So what is the hairbrain scheme to 'funnel' this energy? It's not listed very well in any of these free energy or per motion articles I have read or is there somewhere more specific? If the energy is funneling out, it would exert an opposite and equal force on the body.




I will make whatever claims i like and if you are not interested in refuting them properly ( or unable or just lazy) you can laugh all you want as long as you know that i am long past the point where i will stop asking question just to spare myself some embarrassment. If you want to invest in trying to educate me in good proper physics i would appreciate all efforts poor suffering ignorent that i am.


Your claims have no math behind them. My claims do, they even have simple math. I can tell you the maximum amount of electrons possible in a shell (principle q#) is 2n^2 and the possible max number of the subshell (angular momemtum) in a shell is n - 1 and the ranges of the magnetic number goes from -l to +l. What can your claims state? Where is the math and the mechanics behind these claims that comes from these books you have read.


Since scientist spent their entire lifetimes learning and still turn out to be wrong most of the time


That's true, but it is part of the process and why Einstein thought he was such a fool for having a cosmological constant (I think this was because Hubble told him about the red shift?). Aristotle thought heavier objects fall at a faster rate than lighter ones from the same spot. Niels Bohr had his doubts about attainable chain-reaction fission.


Well i read alot of physics books over the years and certainly very many more with references to scientific principles. I also happened to go to school and we did some there aswell. Turns out even the basics they tough me in high school is dead wrong in many instances. That explains well why physics is in the sad state it is.


What physics books have you read? Tom Bearden?

Why is physics in such a sad state? It's a great time to be a physicist with the topics of quantum computing, superconductivity, solid state and plasma phsyics, etc...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join