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 Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
My hubby and a friend are working on a windmill system with a NiFe battery storage system. The research and setup is expensive but the dividend is the freedom that comes with being able to harness our own energy. It is not "free" as it relies on wind - I doubt there is truly free energy. When our systems are up and tested, we will help our neighbors who are interested in getting off the grid.


edit on 8-12-2010 by GirlGenius because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How does producing energy useing a chemical reaction prove Einstein wrong???

BTW, that's assuming it works, which is not proven...


According to SR, the reaction they are using to generate the power is impossible.


I invite you to demonstrate this point, i.e. how the reaction they use is impossible due to SR.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well, know who I'd call an idiot in this thread,
and it aint Einstein...


I move to nominate this as the quote of the year.
Amen.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The topic of this thread is "Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again", so discussion should be focused on that.


ArMap, it's a little hard to focus on somebody's very real obsession with denigrating Einstein, which permeates 1,000 threads of same provenance.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   



That's not free energy. That's a chemical reaction. There is energy being released through that reaction. Someone has to gather the fuel and transport it. Once again, it is not energy from nothing. General Relativity stands.

A water wheel is closer to energy for free than this is. Even a water wheel has to have a source of energy to harvest. Free energy would require no fuel. It would have to come in the form of infinite motion. Of course, to have infinite motion you would have to create and object that accelerates forever, under the influence of some fundamental law of the universe. If it didn't accelerate forever, as soon as you took energy from it it would fall out of balance and begin to stop.

It wasn't obvious when Einstein suggested it, but it's pretty obvious now.

One could even argue that an infinite motion machine still isn't really free energy, because it is still feeding off the force applied by this fundamental universal force.

Ironically, General Relativity itself suggests the only REAL potential for virtually limitless energy. Zero Point!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
OK lets see.

Rowan University confirmed it
They didn't confirm anything, except they don't know what's going on. Listen to about 5 minutes in the video you posted in the OP. The Rowan University professor states:

"If you actually look at the chemistry before and after, there's no significant way to tell what chemical reaction occurred"

You call that confirmation?

He also says they heat up a substance and it releases energy, like oil or gas would, so there's nothing remarkable about heating up a substance and finding it releases energy. That's how the internal combustion engine operates.


Harvard CfA run spectrographs confirmed it
Have you got a link to Harvard's website confirming this?


They have multiple licensing contracts with private power companies
I'll give them a contract too, if they come up with something that works, I'll buy it. If they agree to those terms there's a contract, but it doesn't mean much.

Regarding the pdf, it would be nice to see a peer reviewed result. They've been making this same claim for many years now, and that's the best they have? It reminds me of cold fusion claims, Pons and Fleischmann presented all kinds of data too. In the end that doesn't mean much if nobody can replicate the results.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Dude, what's your problem? Einstein's theories worked and described our observations for a great number of decades. There only seems to be a dogma about Einstein because his theories seemed correct for so long; nothing was going against them.

And I've yet to understand how this means space isn't bending.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


I understand the passion with which you speaking for Einstein, but it is probably true that he was somehow somewhere a puppet of the powers.
That may not discount his brilliance, but does hugely discount his credibility.

Talking about REAL geniuses, Nicola Tesla is the one shining right above everyone.
But no one gave him or gives him due.

The way the world we live in works.

Anything you believe is true, is probably true... and that applies to everyone.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by letmeDANz
 


Nice reply, that is what I was going to say. The mainstream media discredited Tesla to an extreme extent, Tesla did not like Einstein or Edison because of their ideas(theories), or lack of.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I wouldn't get your hope up just yet these guys have been making claims since 2008. Chances are good since they tried to go the commercial route and patent route this tech will get bought and shelved or it will takes years for it to reach and benefit you and me. I hope I am wrong but there is a pattern for these type of announcements over the years/

There is a number of promising technologies out there and one day one of them will make the break through hopefully soon. However I have been following the alternative energy field for years and seen dozens of announcements like this never pan out for one reason or another.

Also don't be so hard on Einstein thats what scientist do they form theories based on all the information that have and try to prove them and we eventually arrive at the truth after lots of trial and error. Most of the great inventions of our time were only arrived at after following many dead end paths and then eliminating those paths.

I agree Tesla was much more significant then Einstein still I wouldn't condemn Einstein for his mistakes they are part of the process of elimination. I would condemn more the orthodox scientists that are not open to the possibility he was wrong and condemn everyone else who doesn't agree with them and try to stifle thier voices. it is not Einstein's fault these idiots were so closed minded.

Here is more information on Blacklight Power: Blacklight Power


edit on 8-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
I wouldn't get your hope up just yet these guys have been making claims since 2008.
I agree not to get your hopes up but the 2008 is understating it if we are talking about the claims of Randell Mills. Here's a five year old article from 2005:

Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head


* The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2005

It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.


But that's understating how far this goes back:

Power source that turns physics on its head


Nov4-05, 06:15 PM

What is important about that 25 years is that this hoax has been debunked many, many times - including with public humiliation - in those 25 years. It is surprising, the gullibility of a "science correspondent", that allows this guy to lay-low for a few years until people forget that he's a crackpot, then resurface with exactly the same claim that he had before.


So if I'm reading that correctly and the source is correct, the hoax goes back maybe 30 years to 1980?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by badw0lf
Meh, free energy is possible right now, all you need is an extension cable and a silly neighbour and you've got yourself free energy.

And if you're a good enough neighbour yourself, you can convince her to get the internet using wireless, which effectively gets you free internet too.

Nothing is free.

No matter how must you spend on convincing people it is.



Yeah, I use the term in a lose sense here.

It isn't really "free", its just really really cheap.

The energy released in the reactions is 'free' energy in the sense that it gives back far more than you need to put into it. The closed systems they are talking about building could be classified as perpetual motion machines.

More energy comes out than you put in.



edit on 8-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


If I put semtex in ajar and set it off electrically I can account for all my input of energy and get huge energy peak too.. Don't be so quick to yell See everybody was pigheaded and stupid since Newton...
edit on 8-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The same could be said about WW2, if Germany had won the war, there would be no cold war, no Vietnam, no Korea, no gulf war part 1 and 2. We would be so far technologically advanced than we are now, what with all the nazi (rocket) scientists all alive and working together. It doesn't mean that we should all go around ridiculing the allies



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This Blacklight Power thing has been going on for years and years and in all that time there has not been one amp of provable power generated. But, of course, you can invest in the company. Like all these so-called free energy devices, let's see one power a light bulb just once.

But it never happens. There's always 'more research' to be done. If you believe that, Jesus is coming Real Soon Now as well.

And I think I'll stick with Einstein until someone with a little more erudition can prove him wrong. I doubt his reputation is in any danger from a poster on ATS.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



According to SR, the reaction they are using to generate the power is impossible.


OK, so what, I expect cheap/free energy tomorrow?
How long to PROVE the theory?

How long to get it out to all?
Will they release the details so all can do it free??


It is proven.

They are producing power with it right now.

Looks like they are figuring out how they are going to bring it to market at the moment.

I'm sure they will patent the technology so you'll be able to see everything by visiting the patent office. It sounds like they are going to try and make small generators with it. The original intent was to make large scale power plants using steam turbines, but it appears they have decided against this.


edit on 8-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


"Looks like they are figuring out how they are going to bring it to market at the moment."


So they have 9 PhD's in the company, have proven Einstein wrong but don't know how to bring this to market.

Maybe it's because it doen't actually exist.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
Meh, free energy is possible right now, all you need is an extension cable and a silly neighbour and you've got yourself free energy.

And if you're a good enough neighbour yourself, you can convince her to get the internet using wireless, which effectively gets you free internet too.

Nothing is free.

No matter how much you spend on convincing people it is.


edit on 8/12/2010 by badw0lf because: I cant afford a spelling checker, are there any free ones that WROK?

Well so far we can still breath air free.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GirlGenius
My hubby and a friend are working on a windmill system with a NiFe battery storage system. The research and setup is expensive but the dividend is the freedom that comes with being able to harness our own energy. It is not "free" as it relies on wind - I doubt there is truly free energy. When our systems are up and tested, we will help our neighbors who are interested in getting off the grid.


edit on 8-12-2010 by GirlGenius because: (no reason given)

Also you can only put them where you are allowed many who want wind power can't get a permit.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You know, It doesn't matter if Einstien was right or wrong. He was a brilliant man.

How about showing him a little bit of respect?


He's a retard that thought space could bend and led us down the wrong path of science for nearly a century.

He's the worst human being to ever walk the face of the earth.


Seriously, WTF? Einstien may be wrong but lets not forget that he was hypothesizing about something that no people or instruments (known of) had ever experienced. To get anything right is rather incredible wouldn't you say? Worst human being ever...wow...why would you say that? Me no understand

edit on 12/8/2010 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks for the links.

You should click through before posting otherwise you might embarrass yourself.

For example, one of the stories linked in the thread you highlighted:

www.space.com...


"Something real is generating energy there," said Dan Mears, president of Technology Insights, an energy technology consulting group in San Diego that investigated BlackLight for a year in 1996 on behalf of Oregon electric utility PacifiCorp.

"We were convinced there was excess energy being produced by what he was then calling 'hydrocatalysis,'" Mears said. So convinced that the team leader left to work for BlackLight for a year before moving on to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, he added.

PacifiCorp signed on, and was followed by the Mid-Atlantic utility Conectiv.

Now Morgan Stanley Dean Witter wants to usher BlackLight to an initial public offering.



Still, Mills has his supporters along with detractors. John Farrell, a chemist who was department chair at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania when Mills was a student, said he finds Mills' deterministic model of the atom more useful than the probabilistic paradigm of current quantum theory.

Farrell became convinced of its rectitude when soft X-rays and extreme-ultraviolet, or "black-light," emissions Mills' theory predicted for transitions to lower hydrino states "perfectly matched" five spectral lines detected in the dark areas between stars, known as interstellar media. That data was gathered by University of California at Berkeley astrophysicists Simon Labov and Stuart Boyer a decade ago from a probe carried by a "sounding rocket" to the edge of the atmosphere.

"The probability of that happening was just enormously small unless Randy was right," Farrell said. The transitions also correspond to unexplained spectral lines produced by the sun's corona, he said.

Similar spectral lines from BlackLight cells were confirmed by Johannes Conrads, the recently retired director of the Institute for Low Temperature Plasma Physics, a national laboratory in Germany. Additionally, hydrogen plasmas created by the BlackLight process require "astonishingly" little energy to initiate and decay far more slowly than they normally should when input power is cut, Conrads said.

Conrads said he hasn't embraced the hydrino theory, but "the more you have from this pattern, the higher the probability you've found something. It's not trivial and I have not seen things like this before."



Here's another layman's explanation of Mills' theory:


'South of the South Pole'

Hydrogen, with one electron and one proton, is the simplest atom and the most studied. Quantum theory describes the electron orbit of hydrogen in isolation as being in the "ground," or most stable, state with a binding energy with the proton of 13.6 electron volts and a potential energy of 27.2 EV.

That orbit can't be lowered, only inflated to unstable higher radii when energy is added. Trying to take hydrogen's electron below the ground state is like "trying to go south of the South Pole," Park quipped.

Steven Weinberg, a 1979 Nobel laureate in physics at the University of Texas at Austin, seconded Park's certainty.

The idea of the ground state "is a fabulously well-tested mathematical theorem. I would bet my life on it."

The electron's position should be seen as a "cloud" of probabilities extending from the nucleus itself out indefinitely that collapses into it's most probable orbit when observed, Weinberg said. While "of course a theory can be wrong," and "we don't turn a blind eye to anomalies...you don't throw away 75 years because of an anomaly you don't understand. As far as we know, quantum theory is rigorously valid. I have no idea what would replace it."

The Mills model treats the electron as a definable object that can be manipulated. The electron, in his conception, travels as a two-dimensional disk of charge and wraps around a nucleus like a fluctuating soap bubble. He calls the bubble an "orbitsphere."


For the record, I don't think Mills is 100% correct with his theory either, however it is grounded in classical physics and makes a faaaaaaaaar better attempt at explaining matter than the current insanity of quantum theory.

If more physicists took Mills approach to physics we would be light years ahead of our current knowledge, which amounts to nothing more than fantasy fiction.

I'm sure you will poo poo the findings though, as you have ignored everything in the OP thus far.

edit on 8-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Some interesting comments on Dr Mills:




On December 01, 2010 6:08 AM MST, New Energy Congress member, Leslie R. Pastor wrote:
Thank you Sterling! And Happy Birthday!

Your reporting on Blacklight Power (Dr. Randell Lee Mills' Company in New Jersey) is an item that I am uniquely familiar with. It was brought to my attention by Antony C. Sutton D.Sc. in 1999 by way of his FTIR publication. His Future Technology Intelligence Report was cutting edge reporting, and it irritated the "control" paradigm immensely. Dr. Sutton died in 2002.

Antony C. Sutton D.Sc., was particularly alarmed when he realized that very highly placed pressure was applied to suppress any attempt by Dr. Mills to successfully launch his 'novelty of fact' as a fully completed 'novelty of theory' application. That was over ten (10) years ago. That pressure, successfully removed Dr. Mills' original US Patent. Expunged! It was removed as error. Never mind that the claims were successful, honest and forthright. Dr. Mills was obliterated, in his ideas, and in his attempt to bring alternative fuel systems to the United States.

The people that suppressed Dr. Mills, were the same individuals who suppressed Thomas Valone, when he attempted to host a COFE at Commerce and then at State (Department of). This skullduggery is significant, and rampant throughout the Government. If you will recall, that Cold Fusion received similar treatment, and LENR took a backseat for over twenty (20) years, while the people of the United States have been subjected to Climate Gate, Global Baloney, and the unmitigated gall of the "Carbon Credit" crowd.

Dr. Peter Zimmerman deliberately buttonholed the former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright stopping the advancement of public presentation at State by Thomas Valone. Dr. Peter Zimmerman received his marching orders from Dr. Robert Park as documented by Antony C. Sutton.

Never mind that LENR is real science and real technology, it was deliberately destroyed by our own US Government.
Dr. Randell Lee Mills fortunately was protected by the high level members of his Board of Directors, (one of which was the recently deceased Rear Adm. Kelleres). Fortunately, Dr. Mills has independent means, methods of securing the appropriate advance of his technology.

By now it should be realized that the so-called "Peer Review System" is a sham, a deliberate obfuscation of the truth, and that it is and should remain a significant obsolescence of the past. As you know, Eric Krieg participated in that obscenity known as the Hydrino Study Group, of which Peter Zimmerman was a major participant. Eric Krieg acted as ombudsman. Dr. Mills valiantly defended his theory, his evidence and his US Patent; All to no avail, the powers that be were determined to suppress him, his technology, and his application of that technology. By the grace of God, he has succeeded. According to Antony C. Sutton what Dr. Peter Zimmerman and Dr. Robert Park participated in was TREASON, against the United States, its people, and its US Constitution.

That is why I do not entertain 'naysayers' and 'obfuscators' whose only intent is to malign, denigrate and to hinder advancement of significant technologies that would free the people of the United States from such tyranny, and they are still at it, even now. The "Control" Paradigm is REAL, as is the conspiracy to destroy all 'novelty of fact' and 'novelty of theory' systems.

Documentation/Reference:
www.zpenergy.com...
www.zpenergy.com...
peswiki.com...
irectory:Blacklight_Power
pesn.com...
www.svpvril.com...

Dr. Peter D. Zimmerman
en.wikipedia.org...
cstsp.aaas.org...
www.fas.org...
www.ppionline.org...

Dr. Robert L. Park
en.wikipedia.org...
bobpark.physics.umd.edu...
www.suppressedscience.net...

The Control Paradigm

pesn.com...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join