Max Loughan Boy Genius Or Something More?

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: crayzeed
When I see children like him I see a child that's been controlled all his life. A child that's never seen a childhood. Really sad I think.

I would submit that a young person of great intelect or IQ per se, does not adhere to what is considered normal childlike behavior, thus is satisfied by learning and contemplation rather then games and playtime.

And I would submit that he hasn't invented a free energy device at all--just like every other crank of whatever age during the last couple of centuries. Where's the beef?

Boy Genius Invents a Free Energy Harvesting Device

He made his electromagnetic harvester, or as he calls it, “The Generator”, using a coffee can, two coils, a spoon, and some wire. The entire device cost less than $15 to make.

There are more sources, just a basic search...

Oh, please. If this is real it ought to be ubiquitous. Just wait. Next it will have to undergo "development" before it's ready for market. The only problem with this device is that it violates the laws of physics. Apparently some journalists don't have that basic scientific knowledge. When this thing can power a house, let us know.

a reply to: schuyler

So being that this is over a year old why has Boy Genius not started powering everything for free?

a reply to: Jubei42

You think the powers that be won't kill children? Have we even counted the kids Obama has droned? Sex island? Kids starving to death daily and we spend billions on the military so we can kill more people more efficiently.

You need some thicker skin.

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

Would those invoking Tesla would include Dr. Patrick Flannigan?

Yes. Including his "Atlantis Power Crystals" or Pyramid razor blade sharpener or whatever hokum he's marketing this year.

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
There are more sources, just a basic search...

Dump the sand out of the coffee can and let's see the battery he's got in there.

Seriously, you're not going to "collect static energy and thermal energy" with that, and a can half full of sand isn't going to rectify RF. Not that you've got that much RF in the area. The power density of radio waves in his backyard isn't going to do that. More, you can't just "collect thermal energy" - you have to extract the energy from a temperature differential. With something. Which he hasn't got.

a reply to: RiptKeys

Maybe I do, but whatever you think I need is in pale comparison to what I think you need

I guess we're missing a small point...

Harvesting energy is not the same as accessing usable energy...

I read some of the comments before checking any link/video yet...

Sorry for the knee-jerk, does it charge batteries?

Apparently this device is a modified passive crystal radio receiver

It is powered by electromagnetic waves received by a wired antenna. So you need a man-made power source to operate this device

originally posted by: Jubei42
Apparently this device is a modified passive crystal radio receiver

Well, he's talking it that way. But in truth, you would never have an RF power density that would let you light up a string of LEDs like that, unless you're being fried up by an AESA. Which is how you know this is bullcrap.

a reply to: Bedlam

He probably included a capacitor in his circuit and has to charge it first before he can light up the leds

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: Bedlam

He probably included a capacitor in his circuit and has to charge it first before he can light up the leds

The available power due to RF is in the microwatts. He's got a battery hidden in the can.

a reply to: Bedlam


I have a question what is your position on this?

SUMMARY OF FOUR TYPES OF MASSES AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF NEGATIVE MASS: The proposed ZPF perspective associates very definite charged particle-field interactions with each of the four fundamental masses: inertial mass, active vs. passive gravitational mass and relativistic rest mass. It is important to be clear on the origin and interrelation of these “masses” when considering something as fundamental as the possibility of altering inertial (or gravitational) mass.7


(Invited Presentation at NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop, NASA Lewis Res. Ctr., Aug. 12–14, 1997)

Inertial mass is seen as the reaction force due to the asymmetry of the perceived ZPF in any accelerated frame. A flux of ZPF radiation arises in an accelerated frame. When this flux is scattered by the charged particles (quarks or electrons) within any object a reaction force is generated proportional to the acceleration and to the proper volume of the object. This immediately rules out any science-fiction-like possibility of “negative mass” (not to be confused with anti-matter) originally hypothesized by Bondi (1957). If an observer moves to the right, the perceived motion of the surroundings must be to the left. There is no other rational possibility. Thus the flux scattering which is the physical basis of inertia must be directed against the motion since the (accelerated) motion is into the flux: an object being accelerated must push back upon the accelerating agent because from the point of view of the object the radiation is coming toward it, which in turn points back upon the accelerating agent. Active gravitational mass is attributed to the generation of secondary radiation fields as a result of the ZPF-driven oscillation. Passive gravitational mass is attributed to the response to such secondary radiation fields. Finally, the relativistic rest mass in the E = mc2 relation reflects the energy of the ZPF-induced Zitterbewegung oscillations. Mass is the manifestation of energy in the ZPF acting upon charged particles to create forces.

THE NEED FOR A QUANTUM DERIVATION: Clearly a quantum field theoretical derivation of the ZPF-inertia connection is highly desireable. Another approach would be to demonstrate the exact equivalence of SED and QED. However as shown convincingly by de la Pen˜a and Cetto (1996), the present form of SED is not compatible with QED, but modified forms could well be, such as their own proposed “linear SED.” Another step in the direction of reconciling SED and QEDis the proposed modification of SEDby Ibison and Haisch (1996), whoshowedthat a modification of the standard ZPF representation (Eqs. 13a and 13b) can exactly reproduce the statistics of the electromagnetic vacuum of QED. This gives us confidence that the SED basis of the inertia and gravitation concepts is a valid one.

www.zpower.com...

Music break....

originally posted by: RiptKeys
a reply to: Jubei42

You think the powers that be won't kill children? Have we even counted the kids Obama has droned? Sex island? Kids starving to death daily and we spend billions on the military so we can kill more people more efficiently.

You need some thicker skin.

Either that or the kid claiming to violate the laws of physics with a cup and a bit of string is full of it.

In summary: "It sure would be nice if someone could solve quantum gravity for us". You have to read it in a Slim Pickens voice.

a reply to: Bedlam


At point would be that in order for gravity to exist it would need a quantum equivalent.

Casmir effect guns due to a process that allowed to amplify the effect.

a reply to: Bedlam

The slim pickens post in reference to nasa or haisch, rueda, putthoff et al or the boy wonder with the phony free energy device.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The paper. It pretty much wanders around and says it would be nice if someone would do a lot of physics.

a reply to: Bedlam

Which paper the florida gazette ir the haish et al thingy
You gotta forgive me im a bit unseated at the moment after having spent an hour stuck in traffic cause someone wanted to come to town shut down half the city to go do a fundraiser when that person should be in their office doing their freakin job before they are booted jan 20th.

a reply to: Bedlam


Your problem is that you are assuming boundaries within nature.