Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fuelless Engine Plans

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I would advise that you start on JL Naudin's webpage and just work from there to pick whichever device/proof of concept you seem most interested in. Since i am no engineer i try to concern myself exclusively with the theories behind the devices and the 'laws', that do not have to be broken for the devices to function, and do my best not to 'support' one device over another....

Either way i am always interested in what the engineering types have to say as long as they don't bother with claims that it 'cant be done/is impossible' when there are no logical reasoning/knowledge that invalidates the possibility.

Stellar




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


"And the sun is not , according to our current knowledge, employing a fusion process involving hydrogen. Thanks for taking part...."

err I didnt mention the sun.

I do not have the time to reproduce page after page of scientific principles /law for yo,sorry I do however suggest you start doing that for yourself...it is truly rewarding...I do not wish any bad will to anyone ,but i DO WISH to stop gullible people paying money and falling for this claptrap tbh,

CHALLENGE...build a device from the free pages ,thats not a water wheel or solar panel or windmill,test it ,do some provable experiments and produce the results so that others can try to replicate the experiment ...THEN post results here for all to see...What have you got to lose?

The best result (provable)for griggs device seem to be 93to 94 percent efficiency.Some thing to aim at.
QUESTION
If you manage to get an excess of +1 (101) percent energy or there are kilowatts of excess heat available, why doesn't Griggs simply use the steam to turn a turbine-generator and connect the output to the input -- thus getting a perpetual motion machine?

Naudin? Those overunity results? That's because Bearden and Naudin "redefined" what is voltage, current, power etc. and the multimeters are always hooked up wrongly" When you hook them up in YOUR experiment hook them up correctly for apples-to-apples comparison with conventional power circuits, there was never an overunity effect.

a list of claims of free energy....
www.phact.org...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 6-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 6-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 6-7-2008 by gambon]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
"And the sun is not , according to our current knowledge, employing a fusion process involving hydrogen. Thanks for taking part...."

err I didn't mention the sun.


If you don't understand the reference to hydrogen it may help to read your previous post and references to water.


I do not have the time to reproduce page after page of scientific principles /law for yo,sorry


That's not what i asked. I asked you to state , just one if your too busy for something more comprehensive, a current 'law' that negates the possibility of over unity.


I do however suggest you start doing that for yourself...it is truly rewarding...I do not wish any bad will to anyone ,but i DO WISH to stop gullible people paying money and falling for this claptrap tbh,


Thanks for trying to 'save me' from the 'bad people' but i am doing OK so far.
I have checked all the relevant laws and while some are being misused by ignorant lay people and self serving 'scientist' nothing contained in said laws really deals with over unity or energy extraction from the local environment.


CHALLENGE...build a device from the free pages ,thats not a water wheel or solar panel or windmill,test it ,do some provable experiments and produce the results so that others can try to replicate the experiment ...THEN post results here for all to see...What have you got to lose?


As i said i am no engineer and can't spare the time to replicate working devices when i not only know that nothing rules it out but understand that these devices have been built by various people since the turn of the last century. If you don't believe it's possible you may want to do some tests for yourself but i really have no need of any more physical proof.


The best result (provable)for griggs device seem to be 93to 94 percent efficiency.Some thing to aim at.


Can you tell me where you get that number from given the numbers i provided?


QUESTION
If you manage to get an excess of +1 (101) percent energy or there are kilowatts of excess heat available, why doesn't Griggs simply use the steam to turn a turbine-generator and connect the output to the input -- thus getting a perpetual motion machine?


According to Griggs and others the known conversion methods from steam mechanical are comparatively inefficient and his device , which he does not refer to as a over-unity machine to start with, does not have a margin large enough to be self powering.


Naudin? Those overunity results? That's because Bearden and Naudin "redefined" what is voltage, current, power etc. and the multimeters are always hooked up wrongly" When you hook them up in YOUR experiment hook them up correctly for apples-to-apples comparison with conventional power circuits, there was never an overunity effect.


According to you, yes. Thanks for giving us your opinion based on the presumption that you are aware of laws that in fact precludes what they claim. It is always funny when scientist worked in their various fields for YEARS without being called incompetent and worse only to suddenly descend to such gross errors the moment they diverge from the consensus beliefs.


a list of claims of free energy....
www.phact.org...


I understand that you have no interest in a objective look at these claims and it's on of the reasons i do not focus on devices but instead on the underlying principles. People such as yourself mostly claim that the devices can't be because there is supposedly a 'law' that forbids it so no matter how many they build or how many people use them you will likely find a way to believe that they are all just ignorant fools.

I do have a list of devices and inventors that are not listed there and strangely of the nine i have on my short list your list only dismisses two while never addressing any of the rest. Since it's by no means complete ( there have been hundreds of claims and certainly a good number of patents) there is not much use to it beside trying to tell us what you believe and since i already know your wasting your time with such speculative and dismissive attacks.

As i asked at the start i would like you to tell me which laws you, and a few other, have taken out of context and misrepresented in such a way that you can abuse it to defend your own self interested beliefs.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
You would assume that's the case wouldn't you?

And why wouldn't I? All you have shown is a photo of something that looks like a galvanic cell.



You might want to research Stubblefield and his earthcell.

Bit hard to find anything that says anything definitive on it - it sounds like a copper and a zinc plate buried in the earth producing a voltage - sounds like a classic galvanic cell, just like the ones we made at school.



According to scientists and their "laws" what Stubblefield achieved with his earthcell was unachievable..

...and what did he achieve? It doesn't appear to have advanced very far since 1928.



You are right, and I don't disagree about the water, "technically" it can't be "defined" as fuel.

You're talking like a lawyer now. If it can't technically be defined as a fuel then in what sense can it be? Philosophically?



Fortunately no amount of negativity will stop what's coming.
There's too many good people out there with the fire ignited, and no amount of ridicule, money or corruption will destroy that.

Great, I'm looking forward to not paying fuel bills. I'm not holding my breath waiting though.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


"Can you tell me where you get that number from given the numbers i provided? "

I didnt get it from the numbers you provided it was from experiments using a griggs device

heres a law it violates for you .."The first law of thermodynamics"

“ The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Wow. Guess that puts an end to this thread then huh mods?

Can we get a closer for it?


Lets just keep it open until every1 here has free energy



Stellar did u take the time to look at some of these free plans?
looking forward to try any out?

Originally posted by monolith444
I have built these motors and they work very well. creative science 50 hp engine? you build 1? was it hard, how long did it take?
Is it really as easy as the plans say?

Neo Christian: Dr salt water stated that he was seling his invention to any company to get fund to cure cancer.
later he claimed it was not over unity. you tested the radio wave tech and got any cool results? the burning salt water looks impressive, but no idea on power input.

AATS:
This Magnetic generator really does work. This idiot has no ideal how to make it properly. It's just a bit more complicated and can be found in operation on youtube.com .... I'm an engineer and I can tell you if it is bs or not. This is real people
You think its better to build 50hp feulless engine from creative science than a windmill?

If anybody would like to help me on my quest for a lil free energy pease add :
slatesloan@gmail.com
(you cant make money on me but wil keep you up to date on progress)
if you found interesting plans and are working on it let me know please.
if you made your own device and it works fine let me know .
Once I start on it i will post vids for every1 to see


great thing about these projects is you cant fail if you dont stop trying

Pimp my ride/my sweet 16/ com breaks every 15 min.
I put my TV at the trash so thats point 1 for the world.
now I have some free time and im gunna score some more!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Bit hard to find anything that says anything definitive on it - it sounds like a copper and a zinc plate buried in the earth producing a voltage - sounds like a classic galvanic cell, just like the ones we made at school.


Well, I'm glad you actually took time to look. Read what he says in his earth cell patent, and tell me what you think. His wording isn't so black and white, which will force you to read between the lines. He delicately weaves it in there. It's the pulsing of the voltaic pile which is the starter, although the energy produced from the pile configuration isn't used to power the load. Think about what the tertiary coil is for, and why he mentions a solenoid.

www.google.com...,M1


Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
...and what did he achieve? It doesn't appear to have advanced very far since 1928.


Thats kind of my point. Even today people have yet to replicate what he did. I tried but failed, but did see interesting effects with different configurations which lead me to believe that what he said was absolutely true. What did he achieve? A earth cell which would put out usable power without breaking down, channeling energy from the earth. He was running arc lamps, and also his own heater designed to work with this type of power (two metallic plates). When they found him deceased in his home, his heater was still on..People were coming up to his house thinking everything was ok, because they saw that his windows were fogged from the heater, little did they know he had been dead for quite some time. He also ran his wireless phone system on earth cells, which according to some were still working decades later when technically they should have been decomposed. This guy was running heaters, and lights off energy from the ground with little effort, something that has been forgotten, except by a few including that Thrapp fellow. Stubblefield was friends with Tesla, and I suspect Tesla received many ideas from him. To put it into perspective how advanced we think we are now, only just a few years ago were MIT finally able to replicate Tesla's wireless transfer of energy, even though MIT's version couldn't match Tesla's system given its tiny range. We can't even replicate what they did 100 years ago.
Stubblefield unfortunately took this knowledge to the grave with him, although did leave many clues. It was said these phone companies at the time we constantly trespassing on his property trying to steal his wireless phone technology, so he came up with a way to have bio-electricity from ones body trigger a mechanism to alert him to their presence. Very interesting innovative guy..


Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Great, I'm looking forward to not paying fuel bills. I'm not holding my breath waiting though.


I don't understand you. You say you have a million dollars to give for a energy device to run your house on, although it would take just a fraction of that money to get off the grid with existing commercially available technology.. If you truly want to get off the grid and you have that kind of money to invest, it should be a piece of cake.


[edit on 7-7-2008 by Freezer]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Hi Freezer,


Originally posted by Freezer
Well, I'm glad you actually took time to look.

I'm interested in this sort of thing.



Read what he says in his earth cell patent, and tell me what you think. His wording isn't so black and white, which will force you to read between the lines.

Sort of misses the point of a patent doesn't it? They are meant to be black and white - in fact if you can't reproduce what is claimed in them from the description then they aren't valid.

In fact any description of technology that is willfully obsure is suspicious. I will have a proper look a the patent later though.



Thats kind of my point. Even today people have yet to replicate what he did. I tried but failed,

Science is all about replication of experiments - if it can't be replicated then what's the point? It's just a nice story.



. He was running arc lamps, and also his own heater designed to work with this type of power (two metallic plates).

It really should read "apparently he was running arc lamps...". As with everything else to do with this interesting story it is all anecdote, not science. Apart from perhaps the patent, which as you say isn't much use.



We can't even replicate what they did 100 years ago.
Stubblefield unfortunately took this knowledge to the grave with him, although did leave many clues.

Again, if we can't replicate it then it's not much use, and impossible to judge whether it was real in the first place.



It was said these phone companies at the time we constantly trespassing on his property trying to steal his wireless phone technology,

More anecdote. All of it sounds like folklore to me to be honest.




Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Great, I'm looking forward to not paying fuel bills. I'm not holding my breath waiting though.


I don't understand you. You say you have a million dollars to give for a energy device to run your house on, although it would take just a fraction of that money to get off the grid with existing commercially available technology.. If you truly want to get off the grid and you have that kind of money to invest, it should be a piece of cake.

I don't want to buy solar panels (which would take decades to pay for themselves anyway) - I want Fire 2.0 - which is what this sort of technology would represent in terms it's effect on humanity.

It would probably be impossible for me to go off-grid anyway - I live in a >100 year old Victorian apartment in London where it's cloudy most of the time. Even hard core Green party members can't get themselves off the grid where I live.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
It really should read "apparently he was running arc lamps...". As with everything else to do with this interesting story it is all anecdote, not science. Apart from perhaps the patent, which as you say isn't much use.

Yes, I can't prove any of the Stubblefield devices, although I have duplicated something like his detector. I can set up a series of plates which can detect radiation off ones body. I'm actually not sure what is radiating from the body that actually triggers it, but it registers on my multimeter as a person comes within 5 feet. Curiously I learned this from earth battery experiments. I think the fact his wireless phone patents are undisputed should lend a bit of credibility, after all he is considered "the father of radio."


Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
It would probably be impossible for me to go off-grid anyway - I live in a >100 year old Victorian apartment in London where it's cloudy most of the time. Even hard core Green party members can't get themselves off the grid where I live.


You can still harvest energy from light penetrating the clouds. The older solar panels couldn't produce much power on a cloudy day, although newer ones are much better, although expensive. Maybe you can wait a bit, because nano-solar will hopefully bring their $1 per watt 80% efficient printed panels to the market. That will not only be economical, but very efficient with flexible versatility. I think they are on their way to making solar panels a viable option as opposed to paying monthly to the power companies. Also there's not only solar panels, but solar paint, solar windows, solar tiles and much more, and when combined should put you over the top. Heck, you could even electrolyze water from the solar energy and run a generator inside a sound proof box in the backyard. With a million dollars I could make a whole house an electric power plant.

Just stepping on a movable tile could produce energy. There are so many ways already, just not the most cost efficient at the moment, but considering it will pay for itself, with the added benefit of not having to depend on power from outside sources like grid failures is good enough for me. That solar house I linked earlier has paid for itself and he's also making money by selling power back to the grid. He's shown that its perfectly viable and cost worthy. If nano solar does what they claim they can do, it's only downhill from there.

www.nanosolar.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 

Thanks for the info Freezer.

I'm still sceptical about being able to go off the grid though - my brother-in-law is a pretty hardcore green and he hasn't managed it - he more concentrates on reducing his power consumption. This is probably key - more power from renewables and reduced energy consumption - meet somewhere in the middle.

In Germany they are building cleverly designed houses that don't need heating in the winter or cooling in summer - this is probably key. Germany are well ahead of most countries on this sort of thing though.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
I didnt get it from the numbers you provided it was from experiments using a griggs device


Can you provide me with a link to the test/claim?


heres a law it violates for you .."The first law of thermodynamics"



“ The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

en.wikipedia.org...


I think your making a whole host of presumptions. Here are some more definitions that may help to clarify the intent and full meaning of the first law.


The first law of thermodynamics basically states that a thermodynamic system can store or hold energy and that this internal energy is conserved. Heat is a process by which energy is added to a system from a high-temperature source, or lost to a low-temperature sink. In addition, energy may be lost by the system when it does mechanical work on its surroundings, or conversely, it may gain energy as a result of work done on it by its surroundings. The first law states that this energy is conserved: The change in the internal energy is equal to the amount added by heating minus the amount lost by doing work on the environment.

en.wikipedia.org...



The internal energy is just a form of energy like the potential energy of an object at some height above the earth, or the kinetic energy of an object in motion. In the same way that potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy while conserving the total energy of the system, the internal energy of a thermodynamic system can be converted to either kinetic or potential energy. Like potential energy, the internal energy can be stored in the system. Notice, however, that heat and work can not be stored or conserved independently since they depend on the process. The first law of thermodynamics allows for many possible states of a system to exist, but only certain states are found to exist in nature. The second law of thermodynamics helps to explain this observation.

If a system is fully insulated from the outside environment, it is possible to have a change of state in which no heat is transferred into the system. Scientists refer to a process which does not involve heat transfer as an adiabatic process. The implementation of the first law of thermodynamics for gases introduces another useful state variable called the enthalpy which is described on a separate page.

www.grc.nasa.gov...


So maybe you should spend the time required to familiarise yourself with the various types of thermodynamic systems instead of parroting complex laws that others have spent a little more time with?


Thermodynamics is conducted under a system-centered view of the universe. All quantities, such as pressure or mechanical work, in an equation refer to the system unless labeled otherwise. Thermodynamics is basically concerned with the flow and balance of energy and matter in a thermodynamic system. Three types of thermodynamic systems are distinguished depending on the kinds of interaction and energy exchange taking place between the system and its surrounding environment:

* Isolated systems are completely isolated in every way from their environment. They do not exchange heat, work or matter with their environment. An example of an isolated system would be an insulated rigid container, such as an insulated gas cylinder.

* Closed systems are able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system exchanging heat but not work with its environment. Whether a system exchanges heat, work or both is usually thought of as a property of its boundary.

* Open systems: exchanging energy (heat and work) and matter with their environment. A boundary allowing matter exchange is called permeable. The ocean would be an example of an open system.

In reality, a system can never be absolutely isolated from its environment, because there is always at least some slight coupling, even if only via minimal gravitational attraction. In analyzing a system in steady-state, the energy into the system is equal to the energy leaving the system [1].

en.wikipedia.org...


I still take issue with the presumption that we can truly arrange 'isolated' systems but at least you may now begin to understand where the true discussion is in fact taking place.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Just what part of the law of energy conservation don't people get?



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Here is a link to a website for a company in Australia called Lutec, which has designed and patented a magnetic generator that has a 440% overunity (i.e., it produces 440% more energy than is put into it). Check it out, it's real!

www.lutec.com.au...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by no name needed
Here is a link to a website for a company in Australia called Lutec, which has designed and patented a magnetic generator that has a 440% overunity (i.e., it produces 440% more energy than is put into it). Check it out, it's real!

www.lutec.com.au...


Yes, sure. Actual punctuation and grammar kept from that article (see below). I especially like the "the." construct at the end of a sentence. Must be some novel science behind such linguistic device.


There are a couple of other very interesting things that occur about this time that we won’t go into here, and the coils in the LEA remain at room temperature even with the coils outputting their maximum energy. So we have a rotor that continues to spin, it is now in Motion, the. The motion permits induction resulting in the wiring of the coil/s to become exited. The amount of inputted electrical energy expended that magnetises the steel core of the coils, and does a couple of other things not mentioned here, is a far less amount than the electrical energy produced by the same coils. The input is a separate circuit to the output. All the input energy is expended. The resulting electricity production proves once more Mr Faradays discovery.


A bunch of rubbish squarely aimed at ignorami.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Sorry Stellar , just posting quotes ,that if you read Agree with my posts ,NOT yours about states of energy isnt going to work.
Are you one of these conmen that tries to fleece people of there money ,You seem keen for others to spend theres,
But refuse my challenge of building a device ....I wonder why?
Im with scotty...no more from me, any one with the slightest nous ,can tell its horse **** by looking it up for themselves.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by gambon]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It is trully amazing is it not?
Ive said my piece lol ,you would have thought someone so convinced it would work would experiment and see if it did but no ,Havn't got the time to invent free energy lololol.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gambon

Sorry Stellar , just posting quotes ,that if you read Agree with my posts ,NOT yours about states of energy isnt going to work.


Gambon, you are absolutely right. And I don't think Stellar is a conman, he's just somebody who likes to "refute" tranditional science, in search excitement and feeling important. I call this "science pr0n".



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


I learnt a while ago not to debate with StellarX - he just spams until you give up. He always refuses to supply you with an actual device that might prove his claims though. Unlike some members I haven't actually put him on ignore, but I just flick past it all.

Lutec? Ah common, they aren't very good even for free energy hoaxers. Early on they got power and energy mixed up (surprisingly common) and I don't even think they were sure about volts and amps. Obviously they have Fire 2.0, but are just sitting on it a while looking for suckers, sorry I meant investors.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


cheers dude...Give someone enough rope and .....

"he just spams until you give up" ....yes but then he shoots himself in the foot by posting quotes contrary to what he/she is trying to prove...And i have plenty of time for that lol.good health to you chap.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Here is a news clip from Australia that discusses the magnetic generator. It certainly looks promising to me!




EDIT: to add this video

And here is yet another video that shows a much more simplified version, but theoretically the same principles apply.



[edit on 8-7-2008 by no name needed]





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join