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.

 

Irish company challenges scientists to test 'free energy' technology

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
This is hilarious. Free energy does not exist and it never will. Let's review the basic laws of thermodynamics that everything in the universe plays by:

1 You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).

2 You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

3 You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

There are more complex definitions, but these should be sufficient for now.
It came from here.

You have to do work to get energy. The energy has to come from somewhere. Guess what, the best you can hope to do is break even, ever, period, end of story. You have to spend energy to get energy, this often done by burning something. If it exists in this dimension, it plays by these rules. Losses (friction, drag, wear) prevent you from breaking even. Welcome to Entropyville. You have to draw energy from somewhere to make energy. Perpetual motion is... um... no.

You want free energy, look up. Day or night, you can harvest energy from what's up there. That's your best source. You're yanking the energy from the sun or the moon and using that. Tidal power, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, geothermal these are the closest things to free power you can get. Or you can grow your source and produce something with it (like making alcohol to burn).

Hell I worked on a project to provide basically free energy to the planet. But I'll be damned if I didn't have spend a lot of energy to get the stuff in place. Once the paper is published I can refer you guys too it, but until such time it's not leaving my computer. Don't worry it should probably be within the next month.




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
So if all of those rules are true, how are we here ? Where did we come from ?

Anything is possible I think.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
This is hilarious. Free energy does not exist and it never will. Let's review the basic laws of thermodynamics that everything in the universe plays by:


It's just a theory but thanks for elevating it to some kind of universal law that will never be broken.


1 You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).


Only in a closed system where we have well established boundaries. We do not know of such a system and our only possible suspect is the universe itself at this stage.


2 You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).


Typical nonsense now proven completely false. Myron Evans....


3 You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).


Pffft.


There are more complex definitions, but these should be sufficient for now.
It came from here.


And added complexity does nothing to make them any more true than they are.


You have to do work to get energy.


Since when?


The energy has to come from somewhere.


Define ' somewhere'.


Guess what, the best you can hope to do is break even, ever, period, end of story.


And that's easily refuted by every living organism around you.


You have to spend energy to get energy, this often done by burning something.


Magnets? Every dipole in the universe?


If it exists in this dimension, it plays by these rules. Losses (friction, drag, wear) prevent you from breaking even.


Only in a theoretical closed system


Welcome to Entropyville. You have to draw energy from somewhere to make energy. Perpetual motion is... um... no.


Perpetual motion is already assumed by our science community as they can not explain even one dipole in this entire universe based on their current 'facts'.


You want free energy, look up. Day or night, you can harvest energy from what's up there.


And in terms of human life spans one can easily call the sun a perpetual energy machine.


That's your best source.


Not the best source but certainly the one that takes the least human intervention.


You're yanking the energy from the sun or the moon and using that. Tidal power, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, geothermal these are the closest things to free power you can get.


It may be the closest you can come towards understand free energy but it's in fact not the best example when you done the required research.


Or you can grow your source and produce something with it (like making alcohol to burn). Hell I worked on a project to provide basically free energy to the planet. But I'll be damned if I didn't have spend a lot of energy to get the stuff in place.


But given time and low operating cost it does become basically free.


Once the paper is published I can refer you guys too it, but until such time it's not leaving my computer. Don't worry it should probably be within the next month.


Sure and until then i hope you can defend your extremely conventional understanding in the absence of ignorance on my side.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

It's just a theory but thanks for elevating it to some kind of universal law that will never be broken.

Ok, prove them wrong. Point me to a reputable journal article, paper, or source that says otherwise and is reviewed by a body of peers with an understanding of the field of thermodyanmics.


Only in a closed system where we have well established boundaries. We do not know of such a system and our only possible suspect is the universe itself at this stage.

Uh, you define your own boundaries when you do engineering. Your internal combustion engine is a closed sytem. Saying closed or open system is irrelevant, you still have losses that prevent 100% efficiency.


Typical nonsense now proven completely false. Myron Evans....

Again, I'll believe this if you provide a source.


Pffft.

Absolute zero is unattainable. Even if you got it there when you tried to measure it would no longer be absolute zero invalidating your test results.


And added complexity does nothing to make them any more true than they are.

They're not true? That's news to me. Damn all that money for an engineering education with people experienced in this field was for naught. This is nothing more than a flame war without proof.


Since when?

Always, you burn fossil fuel to get steam power to get electricity to run a light bulb. You burn your own energy to pump water to get potential energy. The sun undergoes fusion putting out light, plants undergo photosynthesis to get energy, you eat the plant and extract energy. There are a lot of losses along the way.


Define ' somewhere'.

See above.


And that's easily refuted by every living organism around you.

Actually, it's not. They have to get energy and molecules from somewhere. There are losses like heat output, friction, etc. that mean they don't break even. You can only get a certain amount of energy from something, some of that is naturally wasted.


Magnets? Every dipole in the universe?

Sitting in a magnetic field won't get you anything. You have to move in it which costs energy and you don't have perfect energy conversion.


Only in a theoretical closed system

See above.


Perpetual motion is already assumed by our science community as they can not explain even one dipole in this entire universe based on their current 'facts'.

You're going to make me break out an electromagnetics book aren't you. I'll get back to you when I find my book.


And in terms of human life spans one can easily call the sun a perpetual energy machine.

The definition of perpetual motion means FOREVER, so the sun is not a perpetual motion machine.


Not the best source but certainly the one that takes the least human intervention.

The natural sources are the closest thing to free power.

[quoteIt may be the closest you can come towards understand free energy but it's in fact not the best example when you done the required research.
Required research? WTF mate?


But given time and low operating cost it does become basically free.

No, there's maintenance, stationkeeping other things. There's no such things as a free lunch. There will always be some cost associated with getting this power.


Sure and until then i hope you can defend your extremely conventional understanding in the absence of ignorance on my side.

The paper should be up on the AIAA website in a few months. We (my boss and I) have to apply to a conference at this point. As for conventional understanding, sorry if the universe works a certain way governed by physical laws. Based on the 3 or 4 dimensions we're in, these are the laws we're governed by.

There's a good reference for you.
Cengel, Yunus A. and Boles, Michael A. Thermodyanmics: An Engineering Approach 4th Edition McGraw Hill 2002



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
QuietSoul: thanks for the link to the patent ... it might be unrelated though. It's for a low-power electromagnet though; not a big deal.

LordOfBunnies: spot on.

ATS is a great conspiracy board, with a current trend away from critical analysis. This "free energy" idea is nonsense, of course, as anyone who has studied science can tell you. Why Steorn is doing this is the more interesting question, because a nice website and ads in The Economist can cost serious bucks.

Their claims are silly - free energy and perpetual motion will never exist. Some people don't accept that statement, so look at others Steorn makes:

1) Scientists have confirmed their claims, but refuse to go on record. I've known several university professors (my dad was one), and any one of them would LOVE the publicity of bringing this forward. Even their website says they've had over 3,000 scientists sign up in just 6 days.

2) Can anyone come up with ANY such discovery that invalidated the last couple hundred years of scientific thought? I can't ... relativity, quantum physics, black holes, string theory ... those are extensions to current theories, and new discoveries, but they didn't blow away any old beliefs.

People/companies making outrageous claims should provide outrageous evidence, else they're properly considered shams. And we shouldn't take the "let's wait and see" approach - apply some critical thinking and ATS will continue to improve.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I can't wait until the work will be almost nothing campared to what energy we get out of it. I hope it comes sooner rather than later because I HATE paying three bucks a gallon! I am going to go insane if this doesn't change soon.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
Hell I worked on a project to provide basically free energy to the planet. But I'll be damned if I didn't have spend a lot of energy to get the stuff in place. Once the paper is published I can refer you guys too it, but until such time it's not leaving my computer. Don't worry it should probably be within the next month.


It wasn't funded by Naval Weapons, was it?



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
Hell I worked on a project to provide basically free energy to the planet. But I'll be damned if I didn't have spend a lot of energy to get the stuff in place. Once the paper is published I can refer you guys too it, but until such time it's not leaving my computer. Don't worry it should probably be within the next month.


It wasn't funded by Naval Weapons, was it?


Actually it was funded by the Indiana Space Grant Consortium. The plan is basically to place some sort of colony factory on the Moon. This would make parts from the silicate that forms a plurality of the Moon's surface. This would then be made into things like solar panels and other pieces to harvest solar energy. After this it would be shot at earth where a giant solenoid would capture the payload. I worked on the trajectory and capture of the payload in a feasibility study. I needed to design orbits, capture plans, the solenoid, and the logistics of the operationThe parts would then be assembled into large solar panels and beam the power back to earth in the form of low density microwaves. These things would be like a square mile, but out in geostationary orbit. Apparently my boss, the EE and a Senior Engineer for Packer Engineering, has done the math on the solar panels. He found its about 5x as efficient to harvest the energy in space than on the earth.

The conference the paper is going to be sent to is in July. I'm not very comfortable discussing the research until the paper is in the AIAA's hands. 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, that's the conference. It's in my hometown anyway.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Interview with these guys in the UK's Guardian newspaper today:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Pretty well balanced and not a hatchet job.

At first these guys seemed to be breaking the mold with the way they have behaved. The advert in The Economist could have cost them up to $100,000, so they are not messing around and they appear to be properly qualified engineers. I was intrigued.

However since then they have slipped right back into model: refusing to show design plans (why? If they have a patent then they own it), refusing to publically demo it, claiming that it will take months/years before they can release it for production (again, why? If it works and you have a patent then just start selling it to customers).

They also claim that lots of highly qualified engineers have tested it, yet none of the engineers will confirm this, even off the record. Any scientist that genuinely believed it worked would be leaping up and down to join them and go down as one of the greatest figures in the history of science. Yet they strangely won't say a word....

My heart also sank when I found out what they were claiming their device was: some artfully positioned magnets. We haven't seen that thousands of times since the 19th century have we?

Them selecting their own "jury" of scientists to judge the device is hilarious. Can you imagine if the court system worked like this? The accused would just be able to select their own jury to try them? I don't think many people would get convicted. They should just demonstrate it to James Randi, who has already offered to test it and give them a $1M if it works as stated. This also wouldn't take "up to a year" to arrange, as they claim setting up their "jury" would. It would also convince everyone without leaving any doubts.

I think the view of Martin Fleischmann at the end of the article is interesting, as he thinks the existing theories are "not adequate", but still thinks their claims are rubbish:



The rest of us can only wait and see. In the meantime, I ask Martin Fleischmann, the cold-fusion scientist, now 79 and retired, what he thought of the Steorn project.

"I am actually a conventional scientist," he says, "but I do accept that the existing [quantum electro-dynamic] paradigm is not adequate. If what these men are saying turns out to be true, that would be proof that the paradigm was inadequate and we would have to come up with some new theory. But I don't think their claims are credible. No, I cannot see how the position of magnetic fields allows one to create energy."


I can't either.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
what about z-energy and virtual particles?

There is a theory that the void is not void at all: it is filled with virtual particles that disappear as soon as they appear.

Maybe if we tap into that, we may have free energy.

Wasn't there a topic in ATS about a group of japanese scientists that wanted to produce a new universe out of these virtual particles?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies

Actually it was funded by the Indiana Space Grant Consortium. The plan is basically to place some sort of colony factory on the Moon.


Sweet! No, I was hoping you were discussing another project. Not that there's much hope of one of the other guys showing up here, I guess.

Nah, if you were on a somewhat similar sounding NW project I was going to try to get you to inadvertently describe the project without (hopefully) giving you enough clues to figure out who I was.

Some things are tough not to discuss. If I could get YOU to do it, then I'm not in trouble.
Tom don't like making big rocks into little ones.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Hell if the project is ITAR controlled then I sure as hell don't know about it. I basically told my boss the project was feasible. The rest of it, as far fetched as it sounds, isn't my problem. I'll be more free to discuss it when it gets published somewhere. February 23rd is the day I'll know if I got accepted to the conference which is in July. Whatever that's off topic.

I think because you're interacting with these three(4) dimensions we call home you'll probably have entropy losses that may or may not overpower the need power, but that's very advanced physics and math and I'm a lowly undergrad.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Nah, it's not ITAR. It started off in NRL, but was unexpectedly successful, if that makes any sense. So it made one of these instant level changes from non-classified to full SCI, but they had to move it out of the base it was in and change (most of) the personnel to do it right.

NW ended up with it for a logical reason I can't describe.

It's not 'woo-woo' in the sense that Steorn is. More like something no-one expected to be more than a very interesting exercise with a lot of knowledge gained when it failed... only it didn't.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I do have a little more physical stuff to say on the subject so I can put free energy theories to rest. In order for a device to be 100% thermodynamically efficient, there must be a temperature of 0. This is in absolute scales like Kelvin and Rankine. This means it is not technically possible to have 100% thermo efficiency because you cannot reach absolute zero. Thus it is not possible to ever have more than 100% efficiency as that would violate damn near every physical law we know of in the universe. This would result in energy addition to our universe at absolutely no cost, thus violating the most basic of principles: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Now if you want to open a dimensional portal to another universe and rape it for resources, well that's just weird.

There's a finite amount of energy and mass in the universe. Our physical laws tell us that eventually the whole thing will settle out to some sort of uniform energy state. Entropy keeps eating away and getting bigger. That's what scary stories for engineers children need to be. The entropy monster chomping away at the universe.

For those interested, magnetism is based on the movement of electrical charge. In a permanent magnet (look on your fridge), the electrons spin in a similar direction causing a magnetic field to form. So magnetism is based on the kinetic and electrical energy of atoms, its a byproduct if you will. In order to utilize a magnetic field to get energy, you have to move something through it. This will cause a charge to be induced in the wire or whatever you're using and you'll get current. Even using magnetics and the greatest schemes in the world, they are less than 100% efficient because of forces, drag, field loss over time, etc.

You can get energy from natural processes around you, and that is as close to free energy as you can likely get. I know there's some brilliant scientist working towards 100%, but ever person with an engineering degree will laugh at you if you say you have a device which is more than 100% efficient. At any rate, science is fun
.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
So if all of those rules are true, how are we here ? Where did we come from ?
Anything is possible I think.
This is exactly why Creationists think Evolution (not adaptation) is asinine. Creating something from nothing is against the rules. Hell, "the Big Bang" isn't something from nothing; it never was.

If such a machine is ever proven, then some of the Creationists would start thinking about Evolution, and taking it seriously. You can't get something from nothing; you can't get life from non-life; things wear down. Break it, and there's something to talk about.

Plus, when looking at possible, you've got to look at probable. There's even a rule out there that basically states it's got to be so measureably probable before it's even possible.

Anyway, if such a machine worked, I'd want to know why first.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichiKami
ATS is a great conspiracy board, with a current trend away from critical analysis. This "free energy" idea is nonsense, of course, as anyone who has studied science can tell you.


Actually it's widely admitted that tapping ZPE would not break any known law or even any they can imagine. There is nothing unscientific about either LENR or ZPE and you best get to studying the physics you pretend to understand before continuing to make your ignorance so widely known.


Their claims are silly - free energy and perpetual motion will never exist. Some people don't accept that statement, so look at others Steorn makes:


Actually established science already openly acknowledges 'perpetual motion' when they claim that magnets do no work. Every dipole in the universe is already a 'perpetual motion machine' according to what science refuses to admit.


2) Can anyone come up with ANY such discovery that invalidated the last couple hundred years of scientific thought? I can't ... relativity, quantum physics, black holes, string theory ... those are extensions to current theories, and new discoveries, but they didn't blow away any old beliefs.


Neither does cold fusion or ZPE but that does not prevent them from not being talked about much these days. I am sure i could make a extensive list of breakthroughs that invalidated large areas of scientific thought as science still goes in a great many directions to waste human energy and resources. I don't have a list ready and i really do not want to waste time on bogus arguments anyways.


People/companies making outrageous claims should provide outrageous evidence,


That's completely nonsense as the truth needs no radical proof for the open minded. A science establishment that is not interested in discovery at the cost of some confusion is not worth a damn thing. I DO have a list of great scientific discoveries that have been suppressed for centuries and decades at a time.


else they're properly considered shams. And we shouldn't take the "let's wait and see" approach - apply some critical thinking and ATS will continue to improve.


Critical thinking is no excuse for disregarding whole regions of science due to one's own ignorance. Do your own investigation and stop relying on a science establishment that does not accept anything knew unless it's thrown at them wrapped around a brick.

I can prove the reality that is cold fusion and the very hard science proving not only the possibility of tapping ZPE but the devices and people who have managed it.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Actually it's widely admitted that tapping ZPE would not break any known law or even any they can imagine. There is nothing unscientific about either LENR or ZPE and you best get to studying the physics you pretend to understand before continuing to make your ignorance so widely known.

Yes, ZPE exists, but its on a quantam level. I'm willing to bet that in order to harvest said energy you'd actually have to spend more energy to get it.


Actually established science already openly acknowledges 'perpetual motion' when they claim that magnets do no work. Every dipole in the universe is already a 'perpetual motion machine' according to what science refuses to admit.

Have you ever wondered why science refuses to admit something? Mayhaps because said thing is not true? If you're referring to a magnetic dipole, it's not a perpetual motion machine. Permanent magnets degrade over time, entropy causes the spins to change and the magnetic field to become less powerful.


Neither does cold fusion or ZPE but that does not prevent them from not being talked about much these days. I am sure i could make a extensive list of breakthroughs that invalidated large areas of scientific thought as science still goes in a great many directions to waste human energy and resources. I don't have a list ready and i really do not want to waste time on bogus arguments anyways.

Cold fusion is a joke, I know of one guy who thought he had it, but when they looked at his calculations they were all wrong. There's a vast difference between suppressing technology and getting it laughed off stage. Many of these things, like Steorn, have no proof to back themselves up. Many of these technologies are half-cocked and have no basis in reality for how they work. I would love for these things to work, but it requires proof which no one provides.


That's completely nonsense as the truth needs no radical proof for the open minded. A science establishment that is not interested in discovery at the cost of some confusion is not worth a damn thing. I DO have a list of great scientific discoveries that have been suppressed for centuries and decades at a time.

We're talking about science here. Presenting a device that has no proof is going to get you laughed off stage anywhere. Science is not religion, going on faith is not a viable option. Here's one for you: There are aliens living in the crud under my left big toe. I can prove it too, but I can't show you the proof. Do you believe me?


Critical thinking is no excuse for disregarding whole regions of science due to one's own ignorance. Do your own investigation and stop relying on a science establishment that does not accept anything knew unless it's thrown at them wrapped around a brick.

I can prove the reality that is cold fusion and the very hard science proving not only the possibility of tapping ZPE but the devices and people who have managed it.

Aye, and do they have any proof of their works? The internet is a wonderful place, but you can't believe everything you read on websites. There's a reason there's a validation step research. You have to be able to prove the math you used was right. I caught myself in a big problem this summer after I went back to validate my work. A little rework and it was fine, but you have to make sure the work is correct.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
Ok, prove them wrong.


Science already did and i suggest you research your ignorance before asking so openly for public embarrassment.


Point me to a reputable journal article, paper, or source that says otherwise and is reviewed by a body of peers with an understanding of the field of thermodyanmics.


It's accepted so according to popular logic the burden of proof is on you when you disagree with accepted science. Get cracking.


Uh, you define your own boundaries when you do engineering. Your internal combustion engine is a closed sytem.


HOW can it be closed to energy losses! Is the energy conversion rate 100% efficient? Is the process at fault or is the system simply not as closed as you suggest it is?


HONDA CHAIRMAN TAKEO FUKUI

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

—Reported in Wall Street Journal
July 25th, 2005


Go figure ...


Saying closed or open system is irrelevant, you still have losses that prevent 100% efficiency.


What i SAID is that we do not know of any system in this universe where there is neither energy nor mass transfer across boundaries. Study relativity.


Again, I'll believe this if you provide a source.


I do not have to prove what is accepted. Your ignorance is your own problem.


Absolute zero is unattainable. Even if you got it there when you tried to measure it would no longer be absolute zero invalidating your test results.


Absolutely zero IS not unattainable and they frequently do it.. You can obviously not get rid of the ZPE so the point is rather moot and we need not drag Mister Heisenberg into this discussion.


They're not true? That's news to me. Damn all that money for an engineering education with people experienced in this field was for naught. This is nothing more than a flame war without proof.


Flame war it can be if you want.
Electrical engineering students learn plenty of things that make them useful under the current energy paradigm but claiming that what they know is all there is is quite strange. Do you suggest we have no engineers in a certain field until we have solved each and every problem in the field? Should we revoke electrical engineering licenses till we figure out what energy is or everyone involved physics till we figure out how magnets keep clinging to your fridge for decades? I think not and i think the argument is completely ludicrous.


Always, you burn fossil fuel to get steam power to get electricity to run a light bulb.


Actually you burn the fossil fuels only to create the magnetic field that keeps separating the source charges from which the energy really flows. That is ALL fossil fuels do and it's not actually the source of any energy; the dipole in the generator is the true gate.


You burn your own energy to pump water to get potential energy.


Which you got very nearly for free since you do not make rain or plant anything in some areas of the world. No free lunch? You go to be kidding me...


The sun undergoes fusion putting out light, plants undergo photosynthesis to get energy, you eat the plant and extract energy. There are a lot of losses along the way.


All from sources you did not have to 'encourage' to yield the energy. Why now suddenly demand that we can not get energy as easily from the vacuum around us as all dipoles in the universe already do?


Actually, it's not. They have to get energy and molecules from somewhere. There are losses like heat output, friction, etc. that mean they don't break even. You can only get a certain amount of energy from something, some of that is naturally wasted.


We do not spend anything to get ZPE or this universe so it's rather silly to claim that the losses are problematic against some prior tally sheet. We seem to be getting a great deal of energy from the sun ( a great deal is naturally wasted in terms of the Earthly ecosystem) so what sort of losses are we really talking about here? Why do you assume the source we will be extracting this energy from can not supply it in as great bounty as the Sun? Have you seen the calculations for what sort of ZPE exist in a cubic inch of matter/'vacuum'? As the universe expands every inch still supposedly has the same ZPE so just go figure out how you can fail to get many free lunches from that!


Sitting in a magnetic field won't get you anything. You have to move in it which costs energy and you don't have perfect energy conversion.


WHAT? Take a fridge magnet and hold it close to your fridge? Who spent the energy that moved it towards the fridge? You hand in fact gained momentum so feel free to explain how that all happens without any work getting done as our current physics tells us.


You're going to make me break out an electromagnetics book aren't you. I'll get back to you when I find my book.


Your going to need very many more than one as our science establishment still battles with this problem or is pretending to do so with great expertise.


The definition of perpetual motion means FOREVER, so the sun is not a perpetual motion machine.


Agreed but how relevant is that information knowing that it's supposedly been doing what is currently is for 4 billion years? So if we can build devices that can extract energy from the vacuum for 4 billions years ( and a few trillion watts later) and then fail you will still have some sort of fundamental problem with it being a perpetual motion machine? We KNOW that there is no fundamental theory in science that makes tapping ZPE impossible and considering the energy involved why even bother making the perpetual motion argument as if it it's relevant in the human experience?


The natural sources are the closest thing to free power.


The Sun provides nearly all sources of energy on this planet ( Geothermal/tidal/wind/solar) and we know it wont run out soon. Why hate the messenger that suggest there are a virtual sun in each cubic inch of matter just waiting to be exploited?


Required research? WTF mate?


All the stuff you did not learn about at university.


No, there's maintenance, stationkeeping other things. There's no such things as a free lunch. There will always be some cost associated with getting this power.


I have had many free lunches in my back yard ( Various fruit trees ) so i have always found the notion quite strange. You may not realise it but our whole world is based on the vast 'free lunch' that is our sun. The argument against the free lunch NONSENSE is based on the assumption ( very unscientific at that) that we somehow constructed the sun at great expense to humanity. It's just basically nonsense and it should stop.


As for conventional understanding, sorry if the universe works a certain way governed by physical laws. Based on the 3 or 4 dimensions we're in, these are the laws we're governed by.There's a good reference for you.
Cengel, Yunus A. and Boles, Michael A. Thermodyanmics: An Engineering Approach 4th Edition McGraw Hill 2002


The universe does work in a certain way so why discount vast realms of scientific understanding that explains phenomenon not currently understood?

www.cheniere.org... should go a long way towards enlightening( imo) you. Hold on to your seat and try keep your eyes open.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Absolute zero is unattainable. Even if you got it there when you tried to measure it would no longer be absolute zero invalidating your test results.


Absolutely zero IS not unattainable and they frequently do it.. You can obviously not get rid of the ZPE so the point is rather moot and we need not drag Mister Heisenberg into this discussion.


According to wikipedia, absolute zero has never been reached.


In 1848, William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin proposed an absolute thermodynamic temperature scale in which equal reduction in measured temperature gave rise to equal reduction in the heat of a body. This freed the concept from the constraints of the gas laws and established absolute zero as the temperature at which no further heat could be removed from a body. Absolute zero has never been reached, and it appears it never will be, although some have come remarkably close. Absolute zero may be asymptotically approached like the speed of light, but never attained.

...

It can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics that absolute zero can never be achieved, though it is possible to reach temperatures arbitrarily close to it through the use of cryocoolers. This is the same principle that ensures no machine can be 100% efficient.

Absolute Zero - Wikipedia




WHAT? Take a fridge magnet and hold it close to your fridge? Who spent the energy that moved it towards the fridge? You hand in fact gained momentum so feel free to explain how that all happens without any work getting done as our current physics tells us.


But surley magnets lose their magnetism over time?




The universe does work in a certain way so why discount vast realms of scientific understanding that explains phenomenon not currently understood?


Thats a contradiction... u can't explain something that isn't understood


[edit on 29-8-2006 by john_bmth]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

StellarX: Actually it's widely admitted that tapping ZPE would not break any known law or even any they can imagine. There is nothing unscientific about either LENR or ZPE and you best get to studying the physics you pretend to understand before continuing to make your ignorance so widely known.


MichiKami: ATS is a great conspiracy board, with a current trend away from critical analysis. This "free energy" idea is nonsense, of course, as anyone who has studied science can tell you.


Hi StellarX, I'm sure this is all very frustrating for you. Remember the old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and try not to embarass yourself too much. Once you're a bit older and wiser (ie, out of high school) you'll be far better equipped to particpate in ATS discussions. I especially enjoyed how you "could" refute my statements, blablaBSblabla but failed to do so.

So to address everyone else: assuming you agree that this company's claims are bogus, why are they doing this? The out-of-pocket costs are significant. Just looking for suckers to "invest" in their company is my best guess. What's yours?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join