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.

 

"Free Energy" machines

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
You know , every time I read about a new free energy device , the first argument that comes out is the laws of thermodynamics but I never hear the argument of the Laws of Supply and demand.

A case and point is the salt water machines. Again the first argument is the laws of thermodynamics . who cares , the fuel supply is overly abundant and inexpensive to obtain. A hell of a lot cheaper then most ( if not all ) petrochemicals.

The point I am making is that , yes there is the laws of thermodynamics , but the laws of supply and demand also have to be taken into account when reviewing these "inventions"

Thank you for your time.


[edited to correct spelling]

[edit on 22-1-2008 by ADVISOR]



MBF

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Exactly how many people have become billionaires from producing these "free energy machines"? Read this, maybe it will explain a little to you.

Thermodynamics

Some laws just can't be changed. But, if there is a huge market for some stupid idea and people want to just hand me huge amounts of money for something that doesn't work, yep I'll start producing something for them.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MBF
Exactly how many people have become billionaires from producing these "free energy machines"? Read this, maybe it will explain a little to you.

Thermodynamics

Some laws just can't be changed. But, if there is a huge market for some stupid idea and people want to just hand me huge amounts of money for something that doesn't work, yep I'll start producing something for them.


from what I`ve heard the people who do invent it are all dead.
free energy does exist in many different forms.
( the term FREE ENERGY is a bit of an oxi-moron,
it always comes from somewhere.)

zero point is real, vortex mechanics can prove this.
if you can access the zero point then it can be used for
an extremely efficient doubling circut of waves.

www.markorodin.com...





[edit on 20-1-2008 by Maya432]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I remember seeing "this guy" on the Johnny Carson Tonight Show back in the 70's who claimed to have made a perpetual motion machine that basically created electricity from electro magnets spinning within a gyroscope.. it only need a small amount of electricity to get it going and then it looped back on itself to keep it going while the rest of the energy went out to power his home... his problem? he couldn't get a patent because it broke the first law of thermodynamics... energy output can not exceed input... i wonder whatever happened to that guy... though i remember him saying he'd been approached by the big energy companies to buy it... he probably sold it and it now sits on a shelf in the basement of british petrolium headquarters... just below where the queen sleeps....


MBF

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
It is not all that difficult to make something that appears to do great things to people that are not all that educated in the engineering field. All you have to do is show a pretty picture and add a lot of fluff and big words and concepts and people will think you some great something.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MBF
It is not all that difficult to make something that appears to do great things to people that are not all that educated in the engineering field. All you have to do is show a pretty picture and add a lot of fluff and big words and concepts and people will think you some great something.


Ohh you mean just like the black holes we cannot see or detect...but have seen some great artist pictures of...

Just like the socalled curved space, witch oohh by the way we dont know what exactly curves and we cannot see it...but we have seen some nice pictures of it and made some nice forms to back it up...

Just like the Nuclear factories producing oooh so much Energi, but infact only makes use of about 1% of the energi input, but we can see that it works oh so well...

Just like the particle accellerators buildt for billions of $ look so nice and technical, and yet fail to do anything, but to find socalled new elements witch only exists for like a split nano second....

oohh yes... the uneducated people are easily fooled... and by looking at the world... so is the socalled educated people aswell...

No device will be put to the market, aslong as it will be competitive, to the allready established warmongering powerhungry energy barons of this planet, They are allready in control of the alternative energy production methods like wind and water energy.

This way, they can keep selling energy and say "we are doing something to stop poluting", when the fact is, that they could stop the burning of fossil fuels and the production of nuclear waste within a year, if they really wanted too...but there is simply no money and therefore no power in it.

Talk about showing a pretty picture and add a lot of fluff and big words... your more right than you know...



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I think the Laws of Thermodynamics need to be reviewed and renamed to the 'Theory of Thermodynamics'.

Back when these so called 'laws' were written we had no idea that Zero Point Energy existed and our technology wasn't of todays standards. I believe that if it wasn't for these 'laws' we would have had an over-unity device (in the context of more output energy than input) made about 1970 but no because of our foolish mistakes of naming something a law instead of a theory we don't.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
The laws still hold firm and why wouldn't they?

The premise is that total energy in = total energy out
That includes all forms of energy IE chemical, mechanical, thermal, electromagnetic, sound, light etc and the basic purpose of a machine is to convert energy from one form to another to suit the intended use of the output.

There are abundant resources of 'free' energy available for conversion but all comes down to how much it costs to convert that energy to something usable like mechanical or electromagnetic energy. Currently conversion of the chemical energy of fossil fuels is the most cost-effective process.


MBF

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess


Ohh you mean just like the black holes we cannot see or detect...but have seen some great artist pictures of...


They can be detected.



Just like the socalled curved space, witch oohh by the way we dont know what exactly curves and we cannot see it...but we have seen some nice pictures of it and made some nice forms to back it up...


I think gravity does that.



Just like the Nuclear factories producing oooh so much Energi, but infact only makes use of about 1% of the energi input, but we can see that it works oh so well...


The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan only released about 10% of their available energy. Nothing works at 100% efficiency.



Just like the particle accellerators buildt for billions of $ look so nice and technical, and yet fail to do anything, but to find socalled new elements witch only exists for like a split nano second....



Their purpose is to split atoms into their basic parts so we can learn what they are made of and how they are put together.



oohh yes... the uneducated people are easily fooled... and by looking at the world... so is the socalled educated people aswell...


If you will go back and read what I wrote, I said "educated in the engineering field". Even educated people can fall for these tricks if they don't understand some basic engineering principals.



No device will be put to the market, aslong as it will be competitive, to the allready established warmongering powerhungry energy barons of this planet, They are allready in control of the alternative energy production methods like wind and water energy.


I can't say I disagree with you here.



This way, they can keep selling energy and say "we are doing something to stop poluting", when the fact is, that they could stop the burning of fossil fuels and the production of nuclear waste within a year, if they really wanted too...but there is simply no money and therefore no power in it.


They could. I could produce enough electricity to power the entire country cheaply and renewable, but I'm not in with the little group that's in power.



Talk about showing a pretty picture and add a lot of fluff and big words... your more right than you know...


I know.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
law of thermodynamics??
um .....you mean its actually A LAW?? like in
"you can`t do that because ITS AGAINST THE LAW????????????

NO.........NO................Come on....is that really true?

this world is mad
this world is mad

now I have no doubts what so ever anymore about
the real FACT of over unity devices.
and the zero point would seem an amazingly efficient
source of power...probably unlimited if one knows how to
manipulate it.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Maya432]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   


um .....you mean its actually A LAW?? like in
"you can`t do that because ITS AGAINST THE LAW????????????


Ugh, no one is saying its like that. A scientific law is simply an observed fact about the universe that has never been shown incorrect in experiment within its domain. Thus when people are skeptical of claims of free energy, it is because such a thing has NEVER been shown to be possible. If someone wants people to believe in their claim of free energy, the burden of proof is on them. The reason patents aren’t awarded to people who have designs for free energy devices is because so many people file such claims in an attempt to scam people, using the patent to give them the appearance of credibility.




You know , every time I read about a new free energy device , the first argument that comes out is the laws of thermodynamics but I never hear the argument of the Laws of Supply and demand.


Just because there is a demand for something doesn’t mean it is possible to get the appropriate supply.




zero point is real, vortex mechanics can prove this.


You don’t need vortex mechanics to prove that the zero point field exists. And you still can’t extract energy from it.




Ohh you mean just like the black holes we cannot see or detect...but have seen some great artist pictures of...


If the concept of black holes were an attempt to fool people, they would have thought of a cooler name then black hole. It is evident that it is the pseudo scientists who rely more on cool sounding names like vortex mechanics, and plasma cosmology.

Anyway, this doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of free energy, just jabs at modern science.




No device will be put to the market, aslong as it will be competitive, to the allready established warmongering powerhungry energy barons of this planet, They are allready in control of the alternative energy production methods like wind and water energy.


A free energy device actually could generate a lot of power and wealth. If one of those energy barons did come across such technology, they could easily use it to become extremely powerful. And if they really do have the power to suppress such technology as you imply, then they would also have a power to keep the true nature of the technology itself a secret, and essentially be the only one capable of providing such cheap energy.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtc1967
A case and point is the salt water machines. Again the first argument is the laws of thermodynamics . who cares , the fuel supply is overly abundant and inexpensive to obtain. A hell of a lot cheaper then most ( if not all ) petrochemicals.

What I don't think you understand is that in order to use salt water as a fuel, it has to be separated into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. The amount of energy it takes to do this is more than the energy you get back when you use the hydrogen and oxygen when it burns. So it is not a free energy device and the law of thermodynamics is not broken, so there isn't any argument.

The demonstrations I've seen of water devices that inventors claim puts out more energy than is put in have never shown any data to support it. The energy going is is easy enough to measure, but it is difficult to measure the energy as it is burned as fuel. The measuring equipment involved is beyond the budget of the average inventor. They just assume it does because they can weld with it or whatever. It is impressive, but that doesn't prove it is has more energy coming out than what is put in.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
Ohh you mean just like the black holes we cannot see or detect...but have seen some great artist pictures of...


There are objects observed even now that are prime candidates for containing black holes:
en.wikipedia.org...


Just like the Nuclear factories producing oooh so much Energi, but infact only makes use of about 1% of the energi input, but we can see that it works oh so well...


What the heck are you talking about?


Just like the particle accellerators buildt for billions of $ look so nice and technical, and yet fail to do anything, but to find socalled new elements witch only exists for like a split nano second....


You seem to possess large amounts of ignorance when it comes to forming a judgement about anything scientific. Particle accelerators that cost billions of dollars are not used to produce "elements" (smaller machines are used for that). Large accelerators are used to produce and study fundamental phenomena and particles. And it's an amazingly interesting field, if you care to read about it. Accelerators do not "fail to produce" -- they in fact produced a startling amount of knowledge about this world and forces that operate in it.



oohh yes... the uneducated people are easily fooled... and by looking at the world... so is the socalled educated people aswell...


On behalf of educated people... News flash... no we are not so easily fooled



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by eRauzed
Back when these so called 'laws' were written we had no idea that Zero Point Energy existed and our technology wasn't of todays standards.


Conservation laws are always related to fundamental symmetries. If you detect that momentum is not conserved, then you have discovered non-uniformity of space. If you find that energy is not conserved, than you have discovered non-uniformity of time. So far we haven't seen ANY of that. Please try to understand that this has NOTHING to do with "our technology wasn't of todays standards". It's a lot deeper than that.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I have a free energy machine, and I have the certificate to prove it, but I will not be sharing that here for obvious reasons, my words of advice are, if your smart enough and motivated enough and do your home work, you can have one too, easily.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
What I don't think you understand is that in order to use salt water as a fuel, it has to be separated into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. The amount of energy it takes to do this is more than the energy you get back when you use the hydrogen and oxygen when it burns. So it is not a free energy device and the law of thermodynamics is not broken, so there isn't any argument.


You just demonstrated what the op was talking about...

There are ways to separate water with very little energy, yea the late Stan did it, and so have others...I hate how people keep saying that like Stan Meyer never existed and all these guys today aren't doing it right now...

Tell me this, how much energy does it cost you to electrolyze water with solar panels......................................................................................................

Wind, solar, oceans are all free sources of energy... And there's a lot better machines which convert aether directly to electricity. Maybe one day when we are not ruled by greedy tyrants, these sources will be available and access will be given to those technologies. In the black world I'm sure this is all child's play.

Inventors seem to only think of themselves and money/ patents..That is why you don't see these devices in the public realm. If an inventor were to open source their device over the internet, we would all have free power in a matter of minutes. Money gets them every-time..



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
There are ways to separate water with very little energy, yea the late Stan did it, and so have others...I hate how people keep saying that like Stan Meyer never existed and all these guys today aren't doing it right now...

Tell me this, how much energy does it cost you to electrolyze water with solar panels



you created some messy logic here... What does "very little" energy mean, when it comes to separating H and O out of H2O? Is this amount smaller that what is subsequently released in burning them back into water??

And your solar panel -- what does it have to do with free energy? It's a renewable source all right, but you'd be kidding yourself if you didn't know different between "renewable or cheap source" (monetary aspect) and "free energy from vaccum" (perpetuum mobile aspect).



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
You just demonstrated what the op was talking about...

There are ways to separate water with very little energy, yea the late Stan did it, and so have others...I hate how people keep saying that like Stan Meyer never existed and all these guys today aren't doing it right now...

Yes I've seen the videos to, and no where does he give any information on how much energy it took, only that it is very little. And when did I say he didn't exist? I hate it when people put words in my mouth.

Please explain how my post demonstrates what the op is talking about. He said that the first reason given that free energy isn't possible is the law of thermodynamics, and I said that there is no argument when the device hasn't been proven to be a free energy device.



Tell me this, how much energy does it cost you to electrolyze water with solar panels......................................................................................................

Wind, solar, oceans are all free sources of energy...

A free energy device is usually meant to mean a device that produce more energy than it uses or is over unity. What you are describing is slightly different. That would be energy for free, and is very feasible and does not violate the law of thermal dynamics.

In fact if you are interested, here is information on an inventor that proposes this very idea. Stanford Ovshinsky is the inventor of a new solar panel and would like to use it to build a prototype hydrogen refill station near where I live. He has more patents in this field than anyone and guess what? He is still alive.

[edit on 1/22/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
the inventor of a new solar panel and would like to use it to build a prototype hydrogen refill station near where I live. He has more patents in this field than anyone and guess what? He is still alive.



Right, and Google is funding a lot of breakthrough research in panels and other renewable sources. It's been discussed here. I haven't heard of any attempts on Larry's and Sergei's lives, thank God.

Decadent credulity (C) DogHead 2008



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys

Ugh, no one is saying its like that. A scientific law is simply an observed fact about the universe that has never been shown incorrect in experiment within its domain.


The keyword here is within its domain... And you boldly claim that it is observed facts about the universe that lay ground for theese laws... However the truth is, that it is a theoretical asumpsion about the universe, and that the law only have been obseved under certain domains, witch leaves other domains open to not aply to the law.



Thus when people are skeptical of claims of free energy, it is because such a thing has NEVER been shown to be possible. If someone wants people to believe in their claim of free energy, the burden of proof is on them. The reason patents aren’t awarded to people who have designs for free energy devices is because so many people file such claims in an attempt to scam people, using the patent to give them the appearance of credibility.


This is true, there are so many scammers out there, and the word "free Energy" is also wrong, it should be named "alternative energi" to first off all, make standard scientist interested instead of repulsed.

And i dont believe any demonstration have been ever shown to show proof of gravity to function in the way standard science use it... as either newtonian or Einstein related..but still they use it as they see fit.
But please do direct me to a physical model of standard science gravity replication...I do believe several "gravity push" models have been made...



You don’t need vortex mechanics to prove that the zero point field exists. And you still can’t extract energy from it.


From a Vortex mechanical view you don't need standard science's models to prove the zero point field either as it is well proved in vortex mathmatics and models.
And you cannot claim that all possible experiments have been done with zero point fields or vortex mechanics.



If the concept of black holes were an attempt to fool people, they would have thought of a cooler name then black hole. It is evident that it is the pseudo scientists who rely more on cool sounding names like vortex mechanics, and plasma cosmology.


I never claimed that it was made to fool people...I claimed that people was easily fooled by it.
And I still believe the theory stands and falls with gravity... and since no standard science gravity model can be proved, then I can look for other models to explain the phenomenons in the sky for me.



Anyway, this doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of free energy, just jabs at modern science.


I'm no Bokser, but yes... standard science could need a good slapping now and then




A free energy device actually could generate a lot of power and wealth. If one of those energy barons did come across such technology, they could easily use it to become extremely powerful. And if they really do have the power to suppress such technology as you imply, then they would also have a power to keep the true nature of the technology itself a secret, and essentially be the only one capable of providing such cheap energy.


Do you really believe that Energy Barons have any entention of producing more energy than at the present day?...
They would have a hard time keeping up the prize of energy, if people knew they could practically make it for free, via alternative methods.
And that is the whole issue here...there is no money in it for the energy barons and hence no power...However as you state, they could hold it secret even if it was in use.

---


Originally posted by buddhasystem

There are objects observed even now that are prime candidates for containing black holes:
en.wikipedia.org...


Yes..objects that are "prime candidates", if the "black hole" scenario was actually true...
However no proof of this exists what so ever... only indications and theories...
Besides... the whole "black hole" theory have changed several times already, to make it fit the observed scenarios, witch indicates that its foundation is weak and false.



What the heck are you talking about?


Im talking about the energy potential stored in the nuclear waste products of both low and high level radioactive waste, witch is the ugly byproduct of this hazardous way of energy production.
There have been calculations to prove that when taking the waste into account, the efficiency is lower than low, 1% of the energy produced is used, rest is waste.
Ill see if i can find an online link to theese calculations.


You seem to possess large amounts of ignorance when it comes to forming a judgement about anything scientific.


And you seem to possess a large amount of arrogance toward critics of established science. And there is a difference in criticism and ignorance if you didnt know?


Particle accelerators that cost billions of dollars are not used to produce "elements" (smaller machines are used for that). Large accelerators are used to produce and study fundamental phenomena and particles.


Define what you mean of fundemental phenomena please? When I said elements, I ofcourse meant particles, and the supposed "matter", made after the socalled "Big Bang".


And it's an amazingly interesting field, if you care to read about it. Accelerators do not "fail to produce" -- they in fact produced a startling amount of knowledge about this world and forces that operate in it.


I have read a great deal about it, and also know alot of what they try to figure with theese experiments, such as:
- The Higgs mechanism, witch is basically a form of superconductivity in the vacuum
- Extra dimensions, as they think is indicated by theoretical supposed gravitons
- the nature of socalled dark matter and energy
- Answers to why, the socalled weak gravitational force is so weak compared to the socalled other fundemental forces

And this is of top of my head... so please don't go the typical standard science way, and assume, that i don't know anything or never care to read standard science...cause frankly...it's getting old

But please explain the phenomenon of "cold electricity" to me, since your so well educated? I'm looking forward to a standard science view.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join