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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


If you wanna see some hydrogen power loke at this:
Source

The Moller's Atomic Hydrogen Generator (MAHG) is fully based on the Irving Langmuir discovery. In the MAHG, the hydrogen is merely dissociated and recombined and can therefore be recycled over and over again without consuming more hydrogen than the quantity used to start with.


Then imagine it on a larger scale...




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
My response was to people saying it takes more energy to electrolyze water than you get out of it, calling it worthless and nonviable. The solar panel to electrolyze water was just a way it could be done using free solar panel energy, so in "reality" separating water doesn't cost you any energy does it? So why is using this method so frowned upon? Its way better than gas... You would fill up at home, using the solar panel to provide this fuel. What would it cost to fill up? Nothing...I live by the ocean so..

And to Hal, all I hear is how Stan Meyer was a hoax and its just freaken irratating and sad............Thats what I was talking about, (not to you personally).


Originally posted by buddhasystem

Yes I wove two different things in there.. Its energy that's already there..Forget about creating something from nothing...Why do that when we have unlimited power flowing through the air as we speak, which will be instantly replenished as you take it in. The energy is all around us..whether we can accept it is a different story.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432
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]


Hehe, yea people love to quote the laws of physics, especially when they are broken.
Remember when the earth was flat? I mean man-made knowledge is always correct and never changes..



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 

Hello Bluess, I looked over the info in that link you provided, but it is complicated and would take some time to really evaluate it. I tried looking at the data in the worksheet but without a better explanation of what the readings are, I can't verify the power calculations are right. The worksheet has two numbers for volts and two more for current. I don't know what that means.

A couple of things that I see immediately are that there is a pump and fan running with 120V AC and I don't think the power consumption of those are being considered. Another problem is the meters being used for voltage and current measurements. Those hand held and analog meters are not the best equipment to use. The reason is that it is possible that they don't measure properly especially when measuring AC voltage and current. They measure properly with clean sinusoidal waveforms within the bandwidth of the meter, but cannot measure reliably with abnormal waveforms and even worse with DC pulse waveforms. It looks like DC pulse is being used on the input power because they show a screen of the waveform. This would need to be measured with a high speed data acquisition setup, and the power calculations done correctly.

Regarding the power output, the input and output temperature readings are shown with the water flow, but I don't see how they relate to the output power. There is no way to verify if it is calculated correctly. It looks like an interesting system, but I think by the time you take all the power consumption into consideration, there won't be a net gain.

I will put this on my to do list to look into it more when I have time.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
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...


For all you know, the Sun could be a hologram, and I can be an android from the Galaxy. Everything is "indication" and "theory", but there are good ones and there are godawful. The black hole theory falls in the first category, while me being an android and all those free energy engines are in the second (crap) category.


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.


That's silly. Theories are NOT religious dogmas, and will constantly be improving as more data becomes available. Classical mechanics worked to a degree, then came special relativity. It doesn't mean that either is "weak" or "false". Keep these words until you have to describe the free energy device.




efine what you mean of fundemental phenomena please? When I said elements, I ofcourse meant particles


You did? Well maybe you meant something else alltogether, how do I know.


I have read a great deal about it, and also know alot of what they try to figure with theese experiments


And yet you complain that these billion dollar machines do not do much!



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


If it's "cold fusion", the following link will do nicely:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
My response was to people saying it takes more energy to electrolyze water than you get out of it, calling it worthless and nonviable. The solar panel to electrolyze water was just a way it could be done using free solar panel energy, so in "reality" separating water doesn't cost you any energy does it? So why is using this method so frowned upon?

Nobody is saying that using solar panels to generate electricity for electrolysis to produce hydrogen is frowned upon. If you go back the the original post they are referring to using salt water as a fuel and that people say it is not possible because of the law of thermodynamics. Even in the title the reference to free energy refers to the claims made by some inventors that a system can be built that uses water to generate power and uses less energy than it delivers. What you are talking about is entirely different. Solar panels use energy from the sun to generate electricity and still takes more energy to do the electrolysis than the energy output of the hydrogen that it makes. Yes it is clean, but is not considered a free energy device. I can't be any more clear than that.



And to Hal, all I hear is how Stan Meyer was a hoax and its just freaken irratating and sad............Thats what I was talking about, (not to you personally).

I understand your frustration, but that is no reason to take it out on me. You are obviously passionate about the subject of using cleaner fuels and getting away from oil and in that respect I agree, so I am not the enemy. I am just trying to explain that things are not always how they appear.

I have looked at the videos of Stan Meyer, and his electrolysis machine is very impressive. It does electrolysis in a very fast rate, but unless you know how much power is being used or how much power you get out, you just can't claim it is over unity. I would love to see a device that can do that. I have built my own attempts at over unity, but the reality is it is is not as easy as people claim, and if they do I always see problems with how they are taking their measurements, and when dealing with thermal energy it is very difficult to measure properly and most backyard inventors don't do it correctly if at all. I am not saying Stan Meyer's work is a hoax, because I think he believed that it worked even though in reality it was not over unity. My definition of a hoax is someone who knows their claim is not true, but lies to people anyway. I don't think Stan Meyer was in this category, but that doesn't mean he was right.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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


If it's "cold fusion", the following link will do nicely:

en.wikipedia.org...


LMAO..good one...eeerhh do you even understand the concept and experiments involving "cold electricity"?

The article of cold fusion you linked to have nothing to do with the "cold electricity" produced with electric currents and magnets what so ever!

Has nothing to do with the linked phenomenon to "cold electricity", witch is overcharging of powersources instead of discharging!

This is enough proof to me, that you have just dismissed any research regarding anything outside standard science, without even looking into the issues.
Yet you always postulate that critics of standard science, are un-educated and never bothers to read standard science.

How ironic...and annoying...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   


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.


That doesn’t help your argument. If it was applicable only in small systems then you’d have a point, but its not. Its not limited to small systems, its limited to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. This means that every quantity of energy stays in existence, and you will observe this for as long as you keep looking at it. Its only when you don’t bother to keep track of it all that it doesn’t apply. The laws aren’t theoretical, they are observed, that’s how they were created, based on what was observed. And that’s why they still exist, based on what we continue to observe again and again and again.




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.


The word alternative energy is already in use, it refers to non traditional sources like solar and wind power.




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.


I’ve shown you the evidence in a previous thread.




From a Vortex mechanical view you don't need standard science's models to prove the zero point field either...


My point is that you don’t need to invoke other theories when you talk about the zero point field. We already know it exists.




...as it is well proved in vortex mathmatics and models.


And those mathematical models are?




Do you really believe that Energy Barons have any entention of producing more energy than at the present day?...


Of course all of this depends on the nature of the free energy devices but if it produce cheap enough energy, then the lower prices would increase consumption and increase profits, especially in the long run. Even if they don’t lower prices, the decreased cost to produce the energy would still make them much richer. And if the energy barons have the ability to suppress free energy to the extent that is claimed, then they would also be able to protect the secret. And by protecting it, they could be the monopoly of the source, make other sources financially unfeasible, and eccentially make the world economy dependent on them.




LMAO..good one...eeerhh do you even understand the concept and experiments involving "cold electricity"?


If you don’t want to be misunderstood, why don’t you provide some links that you think best describes this cold electricity.




This is enough proof to me, that you have just dismissed any research regarding anything outside standard science, without even looking into the issues.


What proof? You’ve hardly provided any proof aside from some low quality websites. I’ve given you far more evidence then you’ve provided us. Do I smell a double standard here? If there was actually evidence, it wouldn’t be dismissed.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Here is a thought that was raised by Arthur C. Clark, who is an advocate for free energy. What if we were able to invent something to produce free energy? Imagine that if energy was free and everyone had all the energy they wanted. What do you think would happen? People would waste it and the Earth and our atmosphere would have to absorb all this free energy. I am sure it will have an effect on global warming.

How about building a runaway free energy device to use as a bomb? Everything that generates energy can also be used as a weapon.

I just wonder if any of you have considered this.


MBF

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I keep seeing people on here talking about splitting salt water into hydrogen and oxygen. That isn't how it works. If you split salt water by hydrolysis, you don't get hydrogen and oxygen, you get hydrogen and chlorine gas and produce sodium hydroxide (caustic acid).



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys

That doesn’t help your argument. If it was applicable only in small systems then you’d have a point, but its not. Its not limited to small systems, its limited to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. This means that every quantity of energy stays in existence, and you will observe this for as long as you keep looking at it. Its only when you don’t bother to keep track of it all that it doesn’t apply. The laws aren’t theoretical, they are observed, that’s how they were created, based on what was observed. And that’s why they still exist, based on what we continue to observe again and again and again.


Why do you mention size? I never said anything about sizes, I said "under certain domains" as there are differences in closed and open systems. And you have no way of proving the universe to be a closed system, so any theoretical observation regarding the universe as a closed system are no better than the ones considering the universe an open system.
Show me where you have observed the universe to be a closed system?



The word alternative energy is already in use, it refers to non traditional sources like solar and wind power.


And it should be expanded to cover all polutionfree and energysaving non traditional sources.



I’ve shown you the evidence in a previous thread.


no.. you have never shown a physical model of the newtonian or Einstein related gravity. But please do so in this thread...I'm looking forward to it.



My point is that you don’t need to invoke other theories when you talk about the zero point field. We already know it exists.


Yes... but you see it the standard science explanation, is not only in contradiction with their own precious "first law of thermodynamics", It also fails to take into account Why this zero point is created, and doesnt concern themselfs with what patterns are used to create it or the outcome.



Originally posted by Bluess
...as it is well proved in vortex mathmatics and models.

And those mathematical models are?


You can learn about them here: markorodin, and before you call it "psydo-science", please be aware that wellknown scientists have allready acknowledged it, people like:
Dennis Watts, Hans Nieper, Keith Watson, Oscar Hu, Russell P. Blake and many more.



If you don’t want to be misunderstood, why don’t you provide some links that you think best describes this cold electricity.


If you dont understand what I am talking about, all you have to do is ask.
And I was trying to get Buddhasystems explanation off it, since he seemed to be the standard science expert on the subject.
But maybe you can provide an explanation to the phenomenon of cooled coils and overcharged powersources in electric current production, using only an electrical powersource,electric circuits and Magnets?

Your standard science should ofcourse have this phenomenon well discribed somewhere and I'm looking for the standard science view on theese phenomenons


Originally posted by Bluess
This is enough proof to me, that you have just dismissed any research regarding anything outside standard science, without even looking into the issues.

What proof? You’ve hardly provided any proof aside from some low quality websites.


I was talking about Buddhasystem referring me to "cold fusion" when I asked him to explain "cold Electricity", I wasnt talking about proof that I have provided. Again if you don't understand me just ask for an explanation.
And if you think the websites I have linked to are low quality,That would be your point of view only.
Jean Louis Naudin is internationally recognised, so if you cant look at his work, due to his website design, that will be your loss.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 

I just curious Bluess, you seem to like to talk a lot about the theoretical aspect of free energy, have you ever built one? Have you ever built a model and taken real measurements and verified any of these claims? I also notice that you ignored my last two posts. Care to comment on those?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
LMAO..good one...eeerhh do you even understand the concept and experiments involving "cold electricity"?


I just did some research and I believe that now I do! The cold electricity works like this: a few charlatanes assemble a collection of scientific-sounding gibberish that the scientifically challenged people can swallow with modest effort. One fine example of this crap "science" is this:


To Summarize — Radiant Energy as herein used is that energy existing in the lumineferous medium of the Universe, kinetic and exercised in wave transmission and rendered sensible by conversion of its energy into a detectable frequency


Lumineferous medium! Surely that must contain a lot of energy!
And of course it all almost works:


Ninety percent of the project is completed. The remaining ten percent does not present any more difficulties than the standardization of a few highly specialized and intricate tubes and measuring devices, coupled with further routine research engineering in mechanical construction or prototypes of the unites for economy, efficiency and lasting qualities when produced commercially.



Then they charge the sheeple $29.99 to explain the deep mysteries they puportedly found:

www.free-energy.ws...


So indeed it is a miraculous discovery. They get money out of thin air! (that's a figure of speech because cash comes from the pockets of the gullible).


This is enough proof to me, that you have just dismissed any research regarding anything outside standard science, without even looking into the issues.


Why, I looked into the "issues" and found this astounding piece of alternative "theory":


The universe is singing and this symphony or frequency is what keeps every part of the universe and every atom in its proper orbit


Hello...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I am amazed at the types of free energy systems being discussed in this thread. What I am curious about is how many of you remember or have even heard of my FE system which I posted here on ATS?

(www.abovetopsecret.com...)
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by graysquirrel
 


I just read your thread. Your system won't work. It's based on wrong premises. Your picture of the molecule colliding with the wall is oversimplified and ignores the energy the molecule transfers to the wall. In addition, whatever velocity you can hope to impart to the gas, is insignificant compared to thermal velocities, so the fact that the gas is moving is moot.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Just as i suspected you failed to understand, learn or explain the concept of "cold electricity" and instead used links and examples not even related to cold electricity, or comming from any source i have posted.

Why do you do this?

Is it a try to undermine my credability, to avoid having to expose you own lack of skills and understanding?

Just face the facts that standard science don't have all the answers, and will never obtain them, aslong as they imprison themselfs to certain experiment/medium dependtend rules, witch they falsily regard as universal rules.

There where once a time when scientists where thrilled to have their theories and experiments criticised and challenged.
They would look into claims made by the nonscientific community and make test to challange existing models gladly.

This is true science, where you always challenge and test existing models and correct the flaws, instead of accepting flaws because they fit into the system.

Standard science today seems to be spending all their communication with the nonscientific communities, defending their allready established models and dismissing anything that doesnt follow their viewpoint.

This is a shame. It has left a cap between potential new discoveries and the standard Big Bangers.

However people are getting wealthier here in Europe, and many private people are experimenting on their own. This is actually what it has come to... private people having to spend alot of money in scientific research that the standard scientific community wont even look into... Only because it could tilt or atleast require big modifications to established models.

One most take into account the billions of $ spend on education and founding, of the institutes and people, who have build/collected all the established models of standard science.
- Do you think they are interested in loosing funding because their models are flawed?
- Do you think they would have a hard time defending the billions of $ already put into their flawed models?
- Do you think its a coincidence that standard science, is only in favor of models like: sun is a nuclear furnace, explosion of the Big Bang, gas objects in space, Thermodynamic laws etc... or could it be related to the fact that they are indeed depending on fundings from Energy barons of the Oil, nuclear and electricity industry?
- Could there really be some central bankers controlling worlds economy and protecting their control by supressing anything that could be a potential danger to their power?

When producing energy most people think of one powersource of for examble electric currents, to supply a load. However there can exist inventions, where you transform and combine powersources to compliment eachother, to produce electricity, leading to a lover powerinput needed compared to standard electric currents, to supply the same load.

Cold electricity is a phenomenon related to:
transfering electric current in certain pulse patterns, combined with magnetic forces, into certain rotational energy, in a looped system witch creates a "reversed pulse" of electromagnetic force, resulting in better use of input power, overcharge of input powerunits, cooling effect of electromagnetic coils and powerunits, instead of heat, longer durability compared to normal AC currents.

Now you should be able to find an examble or two on the internet yourself.
And this is not related to Joseph Newman, just so you wont use him in your next attack on my credability.

But i suspect you don't need any links to anything, and can explain the phenomenon from a standard science point of view.

Good luck



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


First, thanks for taking the time to read my thread. Second, I am sorry, but you don’t understand it right. ST’s organize the air molecules creating a pump which draws energy from the air its self. The out put air has a lower temperature then the input air. The increase in the kinetic energy of the air equals the loss of heat from the air.

Oh, by the way it all ready is working.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by graysquirrel
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


First, thanks for taking the time to read my thread. Second, I am sorry, but you don’t understand it right. ST’s organize the air molecules creating a pump which draws energy from the air its self. The out put air has a lower temperature then the input air. The increase in the kinetic energy of the air equals the loss of heat from the air.


I see so you are really breaking the first law of thermodynamic. I actually understood your description just fine, it's just that it won't work.


Oh, by the way it all ready is working.


Well, can we arrange a visit to check it out? On a neutral territory, so to speak.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Because the increase in kinetic energy of the air equals the loss of heat from the air the first law of thermodynamics is not violated. Its the second law having to do with entropy which is being broken.

The latest and best performing ST device I have is reserved for an engineering student friend of mine. She wants to give it to one of her engineering professors. You can imagine how productive this can be. However, one of the byproduct of doing this type of real hardware research is that one ends up with a big pile of old devices which have out lived there experimental usefulness. I would be happy to ship you the best one off this pile. If you could provide me with a anonymous mailing address then I will anonymously ship you an ST. An anonymous address could be either some post office box or perhaps you could convince some hotel to receive a package anonymously for you



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by graysquirrel
 


You seem to be doing an incredible feat in breaking not one but three laws:

en.wikipedia.org...

In addition to that (assuming that's still possible, which I really doubt it is) there is turbulence in the boundary layer that dissipates both energy and the logic behind the apparatus construction.

I'll try to figure out a way to receive a working example of the machine. Thanks for the offer! I do appreciate it.





[edit on 24-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join