Here we go again!! Another free energy machine.

Originally posted by Frosty
I am not to sure that it 'extracts' energy as it 'gives' off energy.

My mistake; i should have said transmission of 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.

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.

Less than 30% of the fuel in most IC car engines are converted into torque. My point still is that this is irrelevant and mabye with some improvements to our physics models we could do better than 30%. Generators and motors are build according to CURRENT understanding and that's why we had horses pulling us around not long ago. Are you trying to suggest that we should have stuck to horses just to keep from changing our physics models and engineering capability?

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.

Gravity is the interaction between masses, so mass probably powers gravity"

"The phenomenon characterized by the physical attraction between any two material bodies of positive mass, specifically due to the trapped positive energy in the masses." Where that trapped energy comes from without ever depleting has never been explained. Basically classical physics has observed what gravity does but has never defined the power source gravity draws from. That was my question right from the start and it still is. You do not have to tell me something i can read in any textbook btw.

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

A great deal if we do not understand where the energy comes from that enables gravity to do what it does.

Stellar

[edit on 16-11-2005 by StellarX]

[edit on 16-11-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Less than 30% of the fuel in most IC car engines are converted into torque. My point still is that this is irrelevant and mabye with some improvements to our physics models we could do better than 30%. Generators and motors are build according to CURRENT understanding and that's why we had horses pulling us around not long ago. Are you trying to suggest that we should have stuck to horses just to keep from changing our physics models and engineering capability?

Well, that is just torque. The piston also drives up and hits a spark plug as well. There are other components of the engine which don't directly go into moving the tires as an end result. Changing from horses to the IC had everything to do with mechanics. IT wasn't until the Principia that the Engineering revolution began. We saw inventions such as the the steam engine, cotton gin, revolver, etc...

A more in depth study and publication of the study of physics is what allowed the change from horse to IC over many years (some parts of the world still use animals), not a change in physics itself. Galileo had some of the same ideas on gravity that Newton had in that they differed from Aristotle's and Copernicus's. Newton was also not the only one to have developed calculus at that time.
Classic mechanics is not based soley on just Newtonian principles but also Euclidean. It has been around in one form or another for quite some time.

It was really (truly) the mathematics which has lead to our current greater understanding of physics and chemistry and biology, specifically the calculus. The Greeks limited themselves by only using positive integers in their equations as did other natural philosphers of ancient time. Most of the mathematics up to Newton were limited (concerned) to quadratic equations developed to different degrees.

"The phenomenon characterized by the physical attraction between any two material bodies of positive mass, specifically due to the trapped positive energy in the masses." Where that trapped energy comes from without ever depleting has never been explained. Basically classical physics has observed what gravity does but has never defined the power source gravity draws from. That was my question right from the start and it still is. You do not have to tell me something i can read in any textbook btw.

It is just the way the question is stated. It should be stated 'Why does gravity happen and how?' Not 'What is gravity'.
Whether any form of mechanics can currently explain it or not does not mean it can never explain it an therefore it is flawed. Newtonian mechanics could not explain the perihelion of Mercury, but you know what? Einstein's Relativity did so. Up until about 30-20 years ago metathesis reactions had no explanations, now they do, I believe the chemists who researched the reactions found that there were carbenes(sp?) which allowed the switch between the cations and anions.

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

Well taking the limits of your imagination or understanding for the limits of reality will seriously retard your search for knowledge.
To sum it up: Batteries and generators themselves do not power circuits but only dissipate their available internal energy to do one thing: forcibly separate their own internal charges to form a "source dipole". Once the dipole has been formed, the dipole directly extracts electromagnetic energy from the active vacuum pouring the extracted EM energy out from the terminals of the battery or generator.

A little bit of that energy flow strikes the circuit and enters it by being deflected (diverged) into the wires. That tiny bit of intercepted energy flow that is diverged into the circuit, then powers the circuit (its loads and losses).
All the rest of that massive enery flow is lost to us.

By the way: I hadn't tried looking a Tom "I'm right everyone else is wrong" Bearden's site for a while.

When was the exact date in history that it became inpossible for a small group, or invidual, to be right with the massive majority being wrong? I am sure you are aware that the majority has for most of history always been dead wrong?

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.

" Assumed" being the key word as some serious investigation would have revealed the opposite. Mabye you should take a look at his credentials before making any more assumptions?.

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!

Yes and this makes him crazy or wrong how or in what way? I do not understand why not being properly informed about him can lead you to just disregard his claims? Is the idea not to establish someone's credentials before bothering to attack them?

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".

Wich is not related to what we are talking about here at all.
www.defenselink.mil...

Secretary of Defense Cohen actually said that :

"Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

Just to be sure what exactly qualifies you to decide what sort of cloud formations are normal? What evidence can you bring to the table if you are not qualified to make such claims?

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)

Well i ask you to investigate his claims and not just go around looking for sites telling you he is not qualified.

“Outside-the-Box” Technologies, Their Critical Role Concerning Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis.

"Dr. Thomas Bearden (Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army - Retired) is presently the President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc., a Fellow Emeritus of Alpha Foundation's Institute of Advanced Study (AIAS) and a Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS). He has a Science PhD, a MS in Nuclear Engineering, BS in Mathematics, with minor in Electronic Engineering as well as a graduate of C&GSC, U.S. Army and graduate of the U.S. Army Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering). He also has graduate courses in statistics, electromagnetics and numerous missile, radar, electronic warfare, and counter-countermeasures courses. He had twenty years of active service in the U.S. Army. His field Artillery, Patriot, Hawk, Hercules, Nike Ajax, and technical research experience was followed by nineteen years of technical research in re-entry vehicles and heat shielding, computer systems, C4I, wargame analysis, simulation and analysis, EW, ARM countermeasures, and strategy and tactics. He has spent more than 20 years personal research in foundations of electrodynamics and open EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with the active environment, as well as novel effects of longitudinal EM waves on living systems and founded the beginning of a legitimate theory of permissible COP>1.0 electrical power systems. He is the author or co-author of approximately 200 papers and books and has been connected with four successful COP>1.0 laboratory prototype EM power systems. He is one of the world’s leading theorists dealing with the hard physics of over-unity energy systems and scalar weapons technology."

I guess it is possible to go before a senate commision and lie about your credentials but is that your argument or were you just totally oblivious?

The fact is that his Motionless Electromagnetic Generator does not work.

Links to the source of your claims please.

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.

I see no reason to doubt his claims that the MEG has produced up to 100 times more power than was input and if you have some sort of problem with his credibility, despite all evidence to the contrary, that is your hangup and not ours. There are plenty of other researchers in the field making the same claims so i guess you better get cracking attacking each of them personall instead of looking at the science.

I just do not think your method is geared to discovering anything revolutionary....

Stellar

Originally posted by ArchAngel
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.

The besic premise of his work was validated LONG ago ( 1957) by the nobel prize given to Lee and Yang. Broken symmetry is the key and if you have issues with that take it up with the authorities in question. Saying non of his theories ( wich is giving him far too much credit anyways) have passed any peer review is admidding that you have done no research and have no bussiness questioning his or mine.

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

Pick the misunderstanding you feel surest off and please post it here.

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.

Wich is a complete misrepresentation of the science or theories in question here. Please state wich free enery machine you are talking about or whos' theory you are quoting and then how and why it is impossible.

BTW- Zero point is simply the energy that remains at absolute zero.
It is not some majical force that you plg into.

Knew that but thanks for trying to help! No one suggested any magical forces at work and if that is the tone your going to take we are not going to get along......

Stellar

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
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.

Actually he says that the last time they tried to get funding the meg was subjected to testing ( as the contract demanded) and even thought they provided strivt guidelines for use the classically trained EE"s promptly destroyed it. Now i know you will claim that it broke cause it's junk but i thought i would just supply one of the holdups and problems they encounter.

All electrical engineers are taught using the same bad science so if he says that there is problems in the mainstream engineering to understand his work why doubt it? I think it's rather easy to prove the earth is not flat yet people trained to believe it was put up a good fight anways. Now imagine the difference in complexity and the absence of laypersons being able to inflluence scientific trends and it's obvious how bad theories can be maintain as long as they currently are.

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.

Wich is what a average person would do mabye but i think we can agree his not one of those, right? How will he ensure it security for it at his home anyways? I think your not asking the right questions and it would help if you went back for some more reading on this subject....

Stellar

Originally posted by Frosty
Well, that is just torque. The piston also drives up and hits a spark plug as well. There are other components of the engine which don't directly go into moving the tires as an end result.

"Even the best internal-combustion engines still waste more than 80% of the energy created by burning gasoline."

Honda chairman Takeo Fukui

Changing from horses to the IC had everything to do with mechanics.
IT wasn't until the Principia that the Engineering revolution began. We saw inventions such as the the steam engine, cotton gin, revolver, etc...

Yes, and the moment we knew better we adapted ( or built) machines to reflect what we learnt or saw to be effective.

A more in depth study and publication of the study of physics is what allowed the change from horse to IC over many years (some parts of the world still use animals), not a change in physics itself.

Well reality never changed and it is as always our understanding of it that makes change possible. The point is that science as a institution resists change as if their current understanding is the limits of possibility. THAT is my point.

It is just the way the question is stated. It should be stated 'Why does gravity happen and how?' Not 'What is gravity'.

If i wanted to ask that i would have! Lets deal with my question wich comes very clearly stated that we do not know what "power source" gravity draws from. As i stated then this is a unresolved question if one understand the illogical basis of the classical answer to it.

Whether any form of mechanics can currently explain it or not does not mean it can never explain it an therefore it is flawed.

Quite true but why base so much of our current attempts at learning about the universe on such a flawed base? Why build in effect build on sand?

Stellar