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.

 

Practical Guide to Free Energy Devices

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I have a challenge to my fellow ATS'ers.

Can you look over the many devices I am ready to present to you and can you or do you think such a device could be made made into a working ,productive model?

I have a few ideas but before I go into it,I want you to look over these designs and think about it.

Now,were are not talking about survival situations which you improvise on current tech,but with using new, unproven ideas to use.

Here is the link with a few quotes taken from it.

www.free-energy-info.co.uk...


The purpose of this web site is to provide you with an introduction to a series of devices which have been shown to have very interesting properties and some are (incorrectly) described as 'perpetual motion' machines. What's that you say - perpetual motion is impossible? My, you're a difficult one to please. The electrons in the molecules of rock formations have been spinning steadily for millions of years without stopping - at what point will you agree that they are in perpetual motion?




So, why don't electrons run out of energy and just slow down to a standstill? Quantum Mechanics has shown that the universe is a seething cauldron of energy with particles popping into existence and then dropping out again. If E = mC2, then we can see that a tremendous amount of energy is needed to create any form of matter. Scientists remark that if we could tap even a small part of that energy, then we would have free energy for our lifetime. The Law of Conservation of Energy is undoubtedly correct when it shows that more energy cannot be taken out of any system than is put into that system. However, that does not mean that we cannot get more energy out of a system than we put into it. A crude example is a solar panel in sunlight. We get electrical power out of the panel but we do not put the sunlight into the panel - the sunlight arrives on its own. This example is simple as we can see the sunlight reaching the solar panel. If, instead of the solar panel, we had a device which absorbs some of the energy which Quantum Mechanics observes and gives out, say, electrical power, would that be so different? Most people say "yes! - it is impossible!" but this reaction is based on the fact that we cannot see this sea of energy. Should we say that a TV set cannot possibly work because we cannot see a television transmission signal?




Patent 1: Howard Johnson's magnet motor patent 4,151,431. This patent describes a powerful motor which it claims can power an electrical generator.


Many patents on this site,take your time look it over.

Thanks,
K
edit on 1-4-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


That's a lot of information to look through. I'm afraid I'll have to get back with you on that.

Is a week too long?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by kdog1982
 


That's a lot of information to look through. I'm afraid I'll have to get back with you on that.

Is a week too long?



Take as long as you need.
And thank you for the interests in this.
It seems it has been ignored.
K



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Cool.

Zero point energy has held a fascination for me since I first heard about it several years ago. I believe, given enough time, someone will crack the code, so to speak, and learn how to tap into it.

Something else I think would be a plausible energy source is gravity. I've made a few failed attempts at creating a gravity powered device. I haven't given up, though. Currently, I have a design idea that came to me as an inspiration out of the blue one day. Haven't gotten around to trying to build it, yet.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Also,and I don't want to scare anyone off with this,but there has been a concern about those inventors and they have mysteriously died.
I want to debunk this one and could use some help in that also.
Here is a link to those that supposedly gave they're life for the cause.

peakoil.com...

Not saying it's all true or anything,but something definitely worth looking at.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by N3k9Ni
 


Ah,the zero point energy.
funny you might bring that up,cause I don't recall that being in the link.
But I could be wrong in that thought.

Quantum mechanics predicts the existence of what are usually called ''zero-point'' energies for the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic interactions, where ''zero-point'' refers to the energy of the system at temperature T=0, or the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system. Although the term ''zero-point energy'' applies to all three of these interactions in nature, customarily (and hereafter in this article) it is used in reference only to the electromagnetic case.


www.calphysics.org...

I have heard it mentioned before.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


The electrons in the molecules of rock formations have been spinning steadily for millions of years without stopping - at what point will you agree that they are in perpetual motion?

Usually "perpetual motion" is used for hypotetical machines that can do work indefinitely. Electrons in the molecules of rock formations are not doing any work. Motion is not work, the change of motion is. See Newtons first law of motion, known for over 300 years.


So, why don't electrons run out of energy and just slow down to a standstill?

Someone missing the most basic understanding of physics. See above.


Should I continue?


The Law of Conservation of Energy is undoubtedly correct when it shows that more energy cannot be taken out of any system than is put into that system. However, that does not mean that we cannot get more energy out of a system than we put into it.

More energy cannot be taken than put into, but more can get out then put into. Yeah...


We get electrical power out of the panel but we do not put the sunlight into the panel - the sunlight arrives on its own.

More nonsense. Light is doing work on the solar panel.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
This looks really interesting. I'm surprised it's not getting more attention. I've bookmarked the page and am going to peruse through it and see what's there. I'm not an engineer but my husband is pretty savvy with that stuff, I'll let you know what he thinks.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Fascinating stuff, many thanks for the link and info.

One Love



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join