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.

 

Turkish Inventor Ready to License Free Energy Motors and Generators for Production

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 





I didn't say that a Pendulum would swing forever - obviously, it doesn't.

I only said that moving it the same amount with your bare hands without making use of Gravity would cost a lot more energy.


Actually, if there was no gravity, you wouldn't need to expend anywhere near as much energy to get the pendulum started. And if there was no friction, you would need even less. You would also get commensurately less energy from it if you attempted to power something from the spring.

Consider that the pendulum on a clock serves only to regulate the time, not power the clock. The clock is powered by the weights (or the spring or the electric motor that replaces the weights) and the pendulum gets a little kick at each 'tick' and each 'tock'.

The weights return exactly the amount of energy expended to 'load' them (or to wind the spring or to run the motor). The act of loading the weights (or winding the spring) converts kinetic energy in your body (which your muscles provide by converting potential to kinetic) to potential energy in the weights (or spring). Running the clock converts the potential energy in the weights (or spring) to kinetic energy as heat, motion and the tick-tock sound).

The equation is identical for an electric motor, even if the original load is more remote.

For a weighted clock, gravity is NOT adding any energy to the system, it is 'merely' enabling the conversion from potential to kinetic and resisting the conversion from kinetic. For a clock with a spring or an electric motor, gravity doesn't even enter in to it.

And yet every clock has a pendulum, no matter how it is powered (in some clocks the pendulum is a vibrating crystal or a particularly consistent radioactive isotope.

Ultimately the energy is coming from the sun.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Your exposition is incorrect. In the inertial frame of reference, such as a stationary observer on Earth (an approximation but not a bad one for our purposes), a satellite will solely experience the pull of gravity and no other forces. Zero, zelch, nada. And that's why it goes around in orbit. If you swing a stone tied to a rope, in circles, again it will be only the tension of the rope. The "centripetal" etc forces are used to simplify treatment of mechanics in non-inertial systems, but this is not essential. So again, an orbiting body is directed by only ONE force.


You are WRONG cut the string the stone would shoot off in a straight line same with a body in orbit it wants to go in a straight line becuase of its FORWARD VELOCITY but gravity pulls it towards the suface switch off gravity (cut the string ) object would shoot of in a straight line.


How does what you said make buddhasystem wrong? He's right, even though what you said is true, other than the part about him being wrong.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 




But meteors and things that come to Earth from elsewhere in the solar system fall to Earth from the atmosphere as well, and NO energy was spent to put them up there.


It didn't take any energy from the Earth sub-system to 'put them up there'. But it did take energy to create them and to put them in motion.



You absolutely CAN get "something for nothing" with Gravity.


No, you absolutely CAN NOT get "something for nothing" with Gravity.

However, you can use gravity to convert potential energy to kinetic energy. Hydroelectric dams are the most outstanding illustration of this. But the energy is ultimately supplied by the Sun which evaporates water into the atmosphere and transports it to the lakes behind the dam.

As far as a hydroelectric dam is concerned, ocean water is at Zero Point. Sure there is still energy there in convection and tidal currents, but the dam cannot access them. The dam needs energy to be added to the water so it can extract it again in a form that is useful to us.

That is NOT "something for nothing", the Sun is a direct independent nuclear reactor and the ultimate source of all energy on Earth. Gravity is a tool we use to convert energy from one unusable form of kinetic energy (water above sea water) to another usable form of kinetic energy (stored electricity).


[edit on 22/6/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
No, you absolutely CAN NOT get "something for nothing" with Gravity.


But, WHERE does this "force field" called "Gravity" come from in the first place?

According to buddhasystem, it doesn't need or use Energy, so it comes from Nowhere.

A Force Field, that comes from Nothing.

Something, for Nothing.......



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I have sent two emails to them. My family owns a big bus transportation business and we are interested in alternative fuel solutions to reduce one of our main costs, which is diesel.

I told them we would test their technology and that if it works, they would be become millionaires, since Brazil has the world's biggest system of public bus transportation of passagers.

Got response from the first email, but weeks have passed since my second email and there is still no response. I don't believe in people who don't work professionally and I sense no professionalism from them.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 





But, WHERE does this "force field" called "Gravity" come from in the first place?


The bending of Space-Time by mass.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by henriquefd
Got response from the first email, but weeks have passed since my second email and there is still no response. I don't believe in people who don't work professionally and I sense no professionalism from them.


My guess was that they didn't want testers, they wanted people to send them money for license agreements whether the technology worked or not.

Thanks for the update on your e-mails, that hasn't disproven my guess yet.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   


But, WHERE does this "force field" called "Gravity" come from in the first place?



Originally posted by rnaa
The bending of Space-Time by mass.


So Space-Time is actually made of Energy then? It's not just complete Empty Vacuum? I mean, if it can bend, then it must be made of something, right?

Hmm......



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
So Space-Time is actually made of Energy then?


Your questions were cute for a while, but now it's time for LMGTFY:

www.lmgtfy.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I can see why 'free' energy is such a tempting idea. I mean it's free. People have been chasing this idea for thousands of years, using every possible combination of magnets, electrical fields and rotating mechanisms. None have yet been proven to work, and most that are 'discovered' are merely variations on other failures.

There is a simple reason for this, one that you don't need any physics education to understand, just some experience of life: Nothing is ever free.

In life as in physics, you only ever get out what you put in and even then it's taxed.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My question is perfectly legitimate.

How can Space-Time "bend" if it's not made of anything?

In order for Space-Time to "bend", it must be made of something. And all things in the Universe are made of Energy.

So in order for Space-Time to "bend", it must be made of Energy.........

But wait, isn't that what Wheeler, and Bearden, said in the first place?


Here it is again:

www.cheniere.org...



The energy density of the vacuum potential is enormous, even mind-boggling. While scientists have estimated that energy by various means, a reasonable calculation is given by Wheeler and Misner in their Geometrodynamics. In that calculation, Wheeler and Misner apply the formalism of general relativity to the zero point energy of vacuum. The fabric of space appears as a turbulent virtual plasma consisting of particles whose size is on the order of Planck's length—some 10^-33 cm. The energy density of the electric flux passing through each particle is enormous: It is 10^93 grams per cubic centimeter, expressed in mass units (i.e., the energy per cubic centimeter has been divided by c2).


[edit on 22-6-2010 by cupocoffee]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
My question is perfectly legitimate.


All your questions are perfectly legitimate.

The problem is, you're asking questions about very basic things like what certain words mean, such as the following:

work
energy
force
momentum
angular momentum
gravity
space-time

etc

Your questions indicate that you don't seem to be familiar with the standard accepted working definitions of what these words/terms mean, so again, that makes them legitimate questions, but legitimate for typing into Google so you can learn their definitions. Once we all understand common definitions, we can have discussion about how those concepts can yield energy and solve all our energy problems. But trying to discuss them without having a common understanding of what the terms mean is pretty fruitless.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hey, I freely admit that I'm not a physicist or a scientist.

But I've still managed to show that space must be full of energy with all my inane questions and roundabout arguments



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hey, I freely admit that I'm not a physicist or a scientist.

But I've still managed to show that space must be full of energy with all my inane questions and roundabout arguments


You didn't mention the "Zero-point energy"

Zero-point energy


Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have and is the energy of the ground state.

Zero-point energy is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space. When the term is used in this way, sometimes it is referred to as the quantum vacuum zero point energy.

As a scientific concept, the existence of zero point energy is not controversial although the ability to harness it is. In particular, perpetual motion machines and other power generating devices supposedly based on zero point energy are highly controversial and, in many cases, in violation of some of the fundamental laws of physics. No device claimed to operate using zero point energy has been demonstrated to operate as claimed. No plausible description of a device drawing useful power from a source of zero point energy has been given. Thus, current claims to zero point energy-based power generation systems currently have the status of pseudoscience.[8]

The discovery of zero point energy did not alter the implausibility of perpetual motion machines. Much attention has been given to reputable science suggesting that zero point energy is infinite, but zero point energy is a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go, thus none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero point energy.


So no you really haven't shown what you claim to have shown, but nice try!

How about a nice Atmos clock? It never needs winding, never needs any batteries or electricity, it just keeps running and running with no visible energy input driving the pendulum. And best of all, it doesn't even violate the laws of physics and they are already manufactured and sold.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes the zero-point energy or vacuum energy is what I'm talking about, but I disagree with Wikipedia's stated conclusion that none of the devices have been shown to work.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


You disagree based on what evidence?

And how can the energy state of a vacuum go below the lowest possible energy state it's already in?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You disagree based on what evidence?


There are all the legendary inventors who were rumored to have something that worked such as Tesla, Moray, Kron, Sweet, Searl etc.

There are the Disclosure Project witnesses who claim to have worked with these systems in classified projects.

Many, many people claim to have successfully replicated the various Bedini motors.

The Keppe motor is making big waves in Brazil and internationally.

The inventor who is the subject of this thread and his company are said to be highly credible.

Blacklight Power claim to have an overunity system and they have already licensed out the technology to at least six companies.

There's plenty of evidence out there already. Evidence isn't the problem IMHO.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by henriquefd
Got response from the first email, but weeks have passed since my second email and there is still no response. I don't believe in people who don't work professionally and I sense no professionalism from them.


My guess was that they didn't want testers, they wanted people to send them money for license agreements whether the technology worked or not.

Thanks for the update on your e-mails, that hasn't disproven my guess yet.


That doesnt make sense. Money doesnt grow on trees and nobody is going to invest on a new technology without seeing it tested infront of them. I'm not a tester. I am an investor. I am talking about a serious business here.

Our bus companies have a yearly cost of USD 15,000,000 worth of diesel consumption. And we only have 1,000 buses. There are more than 150,000 buses in Brazil. So, multiply those 15,000,000 to 150 and you get an estimated yearly diesel consumption worth of USD 2,25 billion dollars!

That means we dont need FREE ENERGY. I dont need any mumbo jumbo either. Give me a 20% cost reduction and you save almost half a billion dollars to the whole system. get a 20% cut on the value of the reduction and you would be making 50 million dollars a year. And that's with a 20% reduction on the cost of diesel. I am not even talking about FREE ENERGY.

So, I am talking here about investing in his technology.

Here is a good example:

Today, I have visited ANOTHER company that is trying to sell Facial Recognition software to bus companies identify their passengers. We've tested the software and it works great. That system is gonna save us almost USD 1,000,000 a year in the city of Ilheus, in the state of Bahia. It's gonna be the first city in Brazil to use that technology and it's gonna spread like wildfire to the whole country.

The company making that software will make millions. And we will save millions. Everybody wins. That's how things are done in the grown up world. In the professional world. In the real word.

And that is why, to me, those turkish inventors are full of bs, because I asked them many technical questions which they didn't answer. They said their technology could be used in both hybrid and autonomous fiull electric buses, but when I replied asking for more details, no answer.

Those are not professionals. A professional would have answered my questions and taken this opportunity asap.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by henriquefd]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
would be nice if it was true, but i doubt it!

when will these "free-energy" guys realize they SHOULDNT talk about their work UNTIL
its so far in the hands of the public that it cant be stopped or bought out?

I smell people fishing for donations and grants!



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Your exposition is incorrect. In the inertial frame of reference, such as a stationary observer on Earth (an approximation but not a bad one for our purposes), a satellite will solely experience the pull of gravity and no other forces. Zero, zelch, nada. And that's why it goes around in orbit. If you swing a stone tied to a rope, in circles, again it will be only the tension of the rope. The "centripetal" etc forces are used to simplify treatment of mechanics in non-inertial systems, but this is not essential. So again, an orbiting body is directed by only ONE force.


You are WRONG cut the string the stone would shoot off in a straight line same with a body in orbit it wants to go in a straight line becuase of its FORWARD VELOCITY but gravity pulls it towards the suface switch off gravity (cut the string ) object would shoot of in a straight line.


No Sir I'm not wrong, as simple facts like this are typically learned at age 12 or 13, and I'm unfortunately already much older and have had plenty of time to ponder on this.

If you cut the string the object would indeed shoot in a straight line because the force that had it in "orbit" (tension of the string) is gone. Without force applied, the momentum is conserved, which in this case means the object will move along a straight trajectory at constant velocity.

Please re-read Newton's laws, it's a lot of fun.

PS. Bodies do not "want" to go anywhere, they aren't animate objects, FYI.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join