Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Practical Guide to Free Energy

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
yeah i remember seeing a circuit board with no batteries, magnets, or moving parts that was supposed to power a led indefinately. Seemed pretty easy to build to test for yourself. Ill provide a link to what im talking about when i get my computer, too hard to do all that on the kindle




posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
This thread is for discussing the devices or similar on that site which the site claims ARE NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES. Heck some of them have no moving parts... But you would know that had you read much of it. Have a little courtesy and take it to the other thread.



I think I'm understanding the difference of opinion in this thread.
You've taken ideas for machines which run forever, and which every single other person in the world calls "perpetual motion machines" and then say...

"No, they're not perpetual motion machines"

...and proceed to make up fantasy ideas on how they are powered externally, such as extraction of zero point energy.

Its a definition thing. Calling a perpetual motion machine a "zero point energy powered machine" is cute, but useless in the real world.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by hawkiye
This thread is for discussing the devices or similar on that site which the site claims ARE NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES. Heck some of them have no moving parts... But you would know that had you read much of it. Have a little courtesy and take it to the other thread.



I think I'm understanding the difference of opinion in this thread.
You've taken ideas for machines which run forever, and which every single other person in the world calls "perpetual motion machines" and then say...

"No, they're not perpetual motion machines"

...and proceed to make up fantasy ideas on how they are powered externally, such as extraction of zero point energy.

Its a definition thing. Calling a perpetual motion machine a "zero point energy powered machine" is cute, but useless in the real world.


The zero point energy field is real and observed by science. One could argue on whether it has been successfully tapped or not. But then again where does the energy that powers Niagara falls come from? It is a perfect example of man hooking his machinery up to the wheel works of nature as Tesla put it. It is certainly conceivable we could do the same with the zero point field. Still the argument is off topic for this thread take it over to the other thread mentioned in my previous post.

edit on 28-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Perpeptual motion violates the laws of physics. The site in your op makes specific claims about perpeptual motion. This is not a tough concept to grasp.


It is a tough concept for you apparently! The site claims none of the devices are perpetual motion arguing about perpetual motion is off topic on this thread. I started another thread for that argument. If you want to argue go over on that thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is for discussing the devices or similar on that site which the site claims ARE NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES. Heck some of them have no moving parts... But you would know that had you read much of it. Have a little courtesy and take it to the other thread.

From now on I am going to ignore your posts unless they are on topic, I suggest others do the same.

So we're back to the whole "defining terminology on the fly to suite our argument" thing? Jeez, you really must be running out of ideas. By all means, save yourself the bother of responding unless you have something of substance to offer (I'd put the chances of that at around 0%).



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I can't wait until these are available. I only have two 145 watt panels and on a good day generate 1,300 watts to my storage batteries. If their claims hold up, you should be able to have a fairly small one of these and generate 20,000 watts a day. Couple that will Edisons old nickle iron batteries, and you'll be set for life with no batteries to replace.

inhabitat.com...

www.beutilityfree.com...

No conspiracies or spooky stuff. Technology available now.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Gentlemen, this is getting nowhere!

I think there is a need for a "speculative technology" forum or maybe at least a "speculative" tag to allow members to discuss topics that conflict with current physics/science.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by davjan4
I can't wait until these are available. I only have two 145 watt panels and on a good day generate 1,300 watts to my storage batteries. If their claims hold up, you should be able to have a fairly small one of these and generate 20,000 watts a day. Couple that will Edisons old nickle iron batteries, and you'll be set for life with no batteries to replace.

inhabitat.com...

www.beutilityfree.com...

No conspiracies or spooky stuff. Technology available now.


Yeah this is good stuff. The cone solar is great. I know some kid discovered that making solar cells 3d greatly improved their efficiency I wonder if these cone cells are using that technology... Thanks for the link on the Edison batteries I have been lucky enough to acquire a few used ones but have not had the opportunity to test them yet. But from what I have read they are the way to go.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by davjan4
I can't wait until these are available. I only have two 145 watt panels and on a good day generate 1,300 watts to my storage batteries. If their claims hold up, you should be able to have a fairly small one of these and generate 20,000 watts a day. Couple that will Edisons old nickle iron batteries, and you'll be set for life with no batteries to replace.

inhabitat.com...

www.beutilityfree.com...

No conspiracies or spooky stuff. Technology available now.


Yeah this is good stuff. The cone solar is great. I know some kid discovered that making solar cells 3d greatly improved their efficiency I wonder if these cone cells are using that technology... Thanks for the link on the Edison batteries I have been lucky enough to acquire a few used ones but have not had the opportunity to test them yet. But from what I have read they are the way to go.


The cone devices work by "dumping" the entire load of electrons as they rapidly move from sun to shade. On a static panel, you just catch the "overload" as it were, of electrons. Only what "overflows" from the bucket, rather than the bucket emptying totally...
So, I wonder if one can position above a static panel slats of some sort, like a blind. Then rotate the slats of the blind assembly to put the static panel from light to dark rapidy to stimulate the total dump of electrons, much like the spining cone does.
You could power the spinning slats from the panel itself, or from a seprate tiny 5 volt panel hooked to a small motor.
Hmmm... While you may not get 20x the power, even doubling it would be worth it.
edit on 28-10-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Im gunna offer some reality shattering insight for you loons. Better sit down for this.

If there was a website that gave you instructions on how to become a billionaire, then there would be a lot more billionaires out there.

Edit: Incase it didn't sink home enough. Put it this way. My peers and myself went to school because we liked this kind of tinkering. We spent a lot of time and money learning the stuff you all obviously didn't. Now I make a living with the knowledge you should have learned. To actually support a healthy interest in science/engineering, the knowledge is required. Not the education per-say, just the actual knowledge.
You honestly believe I, or my peers are against getting rich? Or I don't want to win a nobel prize? Cause thats what your hypothesis implies.
If your junk had any merit or potential then half the guys working on sustained fusion, wouldn't.
edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by davjan4

The cone devices work by "dumping" the entire load of electrons as they rapidly move from sun to shade. On a static panel, you just catch the "overload" as it were, of electrons. Only what "overflows" from the bucket, rather than the bucket emptying totally...


You HAD to be paraphrasing something because that's a relatively wrong statement shrouded by a little truth. Summarizing science literature without the proper foundational knowledge almost always leads to being as it were, incorrect. The phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind


So can you source the info you were attempting to redistribute?
edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
I know some kid discovered that making solar cells 3d greatly improved their efficiency ...



Thats the urban legend and popular "underdog" story, but its simply not true.


Yuan ... never tried to imply that he invented the 3D solar cell.
Yuan based his research on some ground-breaking, graduate-level work on 3D solar cells done at Georgia Tech and Notre Dame.


link



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by hawkiye
I know some kid discovered that making solar cells 3d greatly improved their efficiency ...



Thats the urban legend and popular "underdog" story, but its simply not true.


Yuan ... never tried to imply that he invented the 3D solar cell.
Yuan based his research on some ground-breaking, graduate-level work on 3D solar cells done at Georgia Tech and Notre Dame.


link



Hardly a myth you conveniently left this out from the article you quoted:


He did create a new type of 3D solar cell that works for visible and UV light


So he did invent a new type of solar cell. Every invention is building on someone else's work that is a given why you would try and claim it is a myth just makes you that much less credible and exposes your agenda...



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hardly a myth you conveniently left this out from the article you quoted:

He did create a new type of 3D solar cell that works for visible and UV light

So he did invent a new type of solar cell.



If you'd mentioned that he made "a new type", then there wouldnt have been a problem, but you specifically said

discovered that making solar cells 3d

as per the original widespread story.

The simplest explanation here is that you read the story as it first came out, that he invented the 3D solar cell.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
You honestly believe I, or my peers are against getting rich?


Obviously you're already rich because they've paid off all of the scientists on the planet to not invent it, duh.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Im gunna offer some reality shattering insight for you loons. Better sit down for this.

If there was a website that gave you instructions on how to become a billionaire, then there would be a lot more billionaires out there.

Edit: Incase it didn't sink home enough. Put it this way. My peers and myself went to school because we liked this kind of tinkering. We spent a lot of time and money learning the stuff you all obviously didn't. Now I make a living with the knowledge you should have learned. To actually support a healthy interest in science/engineering, the knowledge is required. Not the education per-say, just the actual knowledge.
You honestly believe I, or my peers are against getting rich? Or I don't want to win a nobel prize? Cause thats what your hypothesis implies.
If your junk had any merit or potential then half the guys working on sustained fusion, wouldn't.
edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



It was closed minded fools that made Madame Curie's life hell. These closed minded fools were all scientists that derided, belittled and scorned her research. In the end they had to eat humble pie. They felt so utterly embarrassed that they gave her a Nobel Prize.

Barry J. Marshall, J. Robin Warren were also derided by closed minded foolish morons for many years because nothing could live in stomach acid. The fools were so wrong that they too had to give these two a Nobel Prize.
www.nobelprize.org...

There are a number of similarly foolish people in this thread that have such closed minds that it is scary.
You get a degree by regurgitating supposedly factual information back to the lectures and if you can stroking their ego's is quite useful for a few extra marks. Mindless fools spend an inordinate amount of money that they don't have to end up with a piece of paper that tells the world that they became quite good at regurgitation.

The vast majority of self made people did not have degrees. You see, it is the multinationals that employ these degree holders, bleed them intellectually dry and make all the money while the scientists are paid a paltry sum.

Who invented the compact disk? Phillips you say. No, it was two scientists. Phillips made the fortune.

You guys are sickening. Try having an idea that is not the result of regurgitation after regurgitation.

I do not suffer fools gladly.

P
edit on 29/10/2012 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Friends please ignore the trolls from now on it is obvious there is a concerted effort to disrupt any meaningful conversation on this thread and we only oblige them when we engage their rhetoric I am at fault for continuing to engage them just rehashing their same accusations over and over.

Here is a link to a cool book to thank all those who have supported this thread and been courteous whether you agree with the OP or not:

www.nuenergy.org...

Lets move on and maybe they will leave us poor deluded souls to our delusions...


I am currently trying to decide which device I will try to replicate first. I am leaning toward the simpler devices in chapter 3 with no moving parts so far. Anyone else like to share their leanings?
edit on 29-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Tis veeeeeelly funny...

If you try to look at this thread from a NONBIAS way...
You CLEARLY see problems..
One side is desperate to find novel ways to get of the slavery.
The other is desperate to keep them IN.

My view:I have no clue if the stuff works. I wouldnt BUY one
if i cant test it PROPERLY, and i dont think i would try to
BUILD one if there are no blueprints that is NOOBPROOF...(And verry! cheap)

BUT
On the other side, i wont belive anyone saying THEY DONT WORK either.
No matter how much you bang your heads in these threads.

So yes, a FORUM that speculates in these things would be nice.
NOT A DEBUNKING one.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
Tis veeeeeelly funny...

If you try to look at this thread from a NONBIAS way...
You CLEARLY see problems..
One side is desperate to find novel ways to get of the slavery.
The other is desperate to keep them IN.

My view:I have no clue if the stuff works. I wouldnt BUY one
if i cant test it PROPERLY, and i dont think i would try to
BUILD one if there are no blueprints that is NOOBPROOF...(And verry! cheap)

BUT
On the other side, i wont belive anyone saying THEY DONT WORK either.
No matter how much you bang your heads in these threads.

So yes, a FORUM that speculates in these things would be nice.
NOT A DEBUNKING one.


Thanks for being courteous!

IMO I don't think those of us willing to try replicating some of these are being desperate and nobody is selling any of those devices that I am aware of they are all open source. Most have free plans if not all. I have been at this a long time and seen enough to know some folks out there are quietly enjoying free energy (other then conventional like Solar and wind) because they have been harassed so much (and some threatened who tried to share with the world) that they just said screw it and use it themselves and gave it to a few friends and colleagues.

I do not care if anyone believes me or not I am not trying to convince anyone but these open source projects are out there for anyone to try for free or at least for the cost of parts which from my experience are usually pretty cheap. I built a working HHO device for under $200. Lots of people blow that much a month on totally worthless crap from China or Indonesia or where ever or even fast food... So Id say it is not a bad investment.. It may not be for everyone but sooner or later the idiocy of resistance will give way to reality and some of these devices will hit the market. I don't know how long that will take but the more of us that replicate things the sooner that is likely.
edit on 29-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The first one mentioned in Chapter 4 looks easy to get going as an experiment. It could also be combined with the one I think you are mentioning. That is you could combine a system based on magnetics with one based on gravity. Ensure all driving forces are pulsed and increase the flywheel mass. The only hard thing to obtain for the gravity based part is the balls. I would not make them out of lead, it is too soft and over time could deform. Stainless steel would be good, aka ball bearings, but in a say 45mm size would be quite expensive.

P



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by davjan4

The cone devices work by "dumping" the entire load of electrons as they rapidly move from sun to shade. On a static panel, you just catch the "overload" as it were, of electrons. Only what "overflows" from the bucket, rather than the bucket emptying totally...


You HAD to be paraphrasing something because that's a relatively wrong statement shrouded by a little truth. Summarizing science literature without the proper foundational knowledge almost always leads to being as it were, incorrect. The phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind


So can you source the info you were attempting to redistribute?
edit on 28-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


I can't find the source, but I'll keep trying when I get home. Meanwhile... v3solar.com...

I think this is some pretty breakthrough technology. Just 4 of these and power your home... Add a few wind turbines for cloudy days and you're set.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join