So you want Free Energy?

reply to post by Symbiot


Build one dude.
let us know how you go.
Thanks.

Originally posted by mbzastava
this is actually quite funny that you countered with its discovery date. even wikipedia won't help you there, as it does not describe plasma as actually being accepted as a 4th state.

Huh?

Plasma_(physics)

Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter.

Plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume.

Plasma is often called the fourth state of matter.

Originally posted by mbzastava
And by recently, since i graduated college in 06 and till then had never been TAUGHT that plasma was a 4th state of matter, I can say is pretty damn recent.

Dude, it was certainly being called the fourth state back when I was in high school, circa 1994.

The fourth state of matter: plasma (1962)

Atoms and the universe: an account of modern views of the structure of matter and the universe (1956)

Surprisingly little is known about the properties of this fourth state of matter, considering that most of the matter in the Universe.

Proceedings of the symposium on "High temperature--a tool for the future" (1956)

[W]which justifies the introduction by physicists of the new concept of "thermal plasma" as a fourth state of matter.

reply to post by nataylor


It doesn't mater what you remember you heard it being called since 1994. Please answer the challenge:

cite a physics textbook used today which clarifies plasma as the 4th state after gas, liquid, solid...

understand that its not the theoretical physics establishment we are worried about here. i know the idea of plasma as 4th state has been around for over 100 years, that doesn't mean our school systems are teaching that. just look at all the people here on ATS that don't know. Even if they understood the words "yes its a 4th state", they don't know what implications that holds...

Originally posted by mbzastava
cite a physics textbook used today which clarifies plasma as the 4th state after gas, liquid, solid...

Kaplan GED 2009-2010 Edition: Complete Self-Study Guide for the GED Tests (2009)

The GED test... you know, the test people take to get the equivalent of a high-school diploma.

Plasma is one of the states of matter

Introductory Chemistry: An Active Learning Approach (2009)

Another state of matter is plasma

Nuclear energy: an introduction to the concepts, systems, and applications (2009)

The plasma is often called "the fourth state of matter."

Physical Science Experiments (2009)

Two less common states are plasma and Bose- Einstein condensate (BEC).

Science Stories: Science Methods for Elementary and Middle School Teachers (2009)

Plasma is the stuff of which stars are made, and it is the most common state of matter in the universe.

Encyclopedia of Physical Science (2009)

... plasma the state of matter that is similar to a gas...

Is that enough? I could keep going.

Now you cite a textbook that says plasma isn't a state of matter. If you can't, I can only assume you 1) were given a poor education or 2) have a poor ability to recall information you were taught. Ready... set... GO!

reply to post by cupocoffee

All I am suggesting is that we (we as in, the ATS community) get a few kits and test them out. I was even willing to donate the kits for testing. I am trying to donate the damn things, not sell them!

That's really good of you cupocoffee.

It's a great idea, if the funds are available. I'm just a poor family man, so i can't spare a bean...i tend to scavenge magnets and parts from old electronics items or ask engineering friends for favors, so i'm afraid i couldn't contribute any cash, but i would certainly be up for having a bash at testing a kit in collaboration with other 'like minded' members.

Classic that you said in an earlier post that the debunkers always say something like 'I don't need to build / buy / test a unit blah blah blah, because as if on cue that is almost exactly what rnaa said a few posts later.
(actually he/she said

Well, I don't need to build a "school-girl motor"

And if this 'amazing Randi' or whatever he calls himself these days is so confident that Bedini is a fraud, and is apparently a wealthy bloke, why doesn't he simply buy a kit and test it out as per instructions?

Pretty simple.

And for what it's worth a house can be run on a 12 volt supply...seems like some people on here have never heard of an inverter. Not that you really need one, as there are many 12V lighting systems, consumer electronics (TV's, refrigerators, microwaves etc) even air con units...what do they think their cars run on 110/240 volts too?

reply to post by Matyas

(Originally posted by cupocoffee) Well, I don't agree with you. That would be awfully stupid, for Bedini and Friedrich to sell a $4000 unit that doesn't work and totally ruin their reputations.

And your reply;

That is what their reputations are built on. What seems stupid to you is actually quite intelligent.

Forgive me, but can you expand on this a little please?

I have racked my brains, such as they are, and for the life of me i cannot fathom how you can equate selling what you believe are dud units with intelligent marketing or building a positive reputation?

How does that work?

Originally posted by spikey
And if this 'amazing Randi' or whatever he calls himself these days is so confident that Bedini is a fraud, and is apparently a wealthy bloke, why doesn't he simply buy a kit and test it out as per instructions?

Pretty simple.

I can't speak for Randi, just myself. But the reason I wouldn't do it is, Bedini isn't making any claims about the kit except that you can experiment with them, so what?

The problem is if you buy a kit and put it together and it doesn't work, you will get two responses:
1. the guy selling it never made any claims about what it can do, so it can't "fail to work" as promised, since they made no promises, and
2. They can always claim that it takes some tweaking and since this is the first kit you've built, you're too inexperienced to realize all the intricacies of how to "make it work".

Also, why would Randi want to buy a kit to prove to himself something he already knows, it won't produce free energy? This would be exhibiting the very behavior he is trying to discourage among others, which is sending money to someone for a device that science says will not work. That would make Randi an extremely bad role model indeed.

The NASA scientists I mentioned a few posts up have the right idea, they want the inventor to send them their test data which meets certain requirements, then they will decide if the inventor has met their criteria for a device which looks promising so they can verify it. Asking the verifier to build the machine the inventor claims works seems like a very bad idea to me for the reasons I just mentioned.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne: I do believe the only the only way to get free energy is from the Sun.
Arbitrageur:
Even if solar panels are only 30% efficient, it's still better than burning fossil fuels in the long run as the sunshine will last much longer than our coal and oil reserves.

Well you know me I'm still thinking there are a few untapped methods we should search for.
The so called voltage potential focusing methods that work so well for one inventor might work
in various forms.
Given the tremendous hype HAARP gets I'd think more powerful creations might exist to solve
a few energy shortages.

Originally posted by spikey
And for what it's worth a house can be run on a 12 volt supply...seems like some people on here have never heard of an inverter. Not that you really need one, as there are many 12V lighting systems, consumer electronics (TV's, refrigerators, microwaves etc) even air con units...what do they think their cars run on 110/240 volts too?

In concept, true, and I have run things on an inverter, but there is a problem with low voltage systems like 12 volts. The maximum wiring length in a car is quite limited, and the electrical loads in the car aren't that great, meaning you can get by with 12 volts without having to use any big fat wires to carry the needed current over short distances.

You don't have those factors working in your favor in a house. The maximum loads are greater, and the distances wires are run are greater, meaning you would need some big fat wires to wire your house to run on 12V, not impossible, just not very smart or efficient from an engineering perspective.

And as I recall the inverter I used gave me a really crappy picture on my TV when I plugged my TV into it, so it is supposed to work in theory, and it sort of did, but not very well. I only paid a few hundred dollars for the inverter and there may be better ones out there, so that could be one possible solution. I think part of the problem with my inverter is that the waveform is not perfectly sinusoidal which is what 120V appliances are designed for, and with many appliances it doesn't matter, but with the TV it DID matter.

I think the RV and motor home manufacturers would have tackled a lot of these engineering problems, seeing as how the RVs are not connected to the grid permanently so to speak. I would think if they could run everything from 12V, they would do it, but they don't do it, not, I suspect, because it's impossible, but because it's impractical. For example:

rveducation101.com...

When you plug into the proper campground
electrical source it will supply power throughout your RV. You must have a 120 Volt AC
power source if you are going to use the microwave, roof air conditioner, the refrigerator
in the electric mode and the 120 Volt electrical outlets.
For the most part everything else in the RV works off of 12-volt DC power. When you’re
plugged in at the campground the 120 volt AC current is converted to 12-volt DC current,
by the RV’s converter, for the items in the RV that work off of 12-volts. Some of these
items are the overhead lights, the furnace fan, the fan over the range, the vent fan in the
bathroom, the water pump, LP gas leak detector, stereo, and the refrigerator when it’s in
the LP gas mode.

But the appliances like the refrigerator, you say can run on 12V, this guy says typically don't, I think I can guess why:

If you’re not plugged into an external power source you can still use the 12-volt DC system if you have a 12-volt deep cycle battery or batteries on your unit. As long as the battery or batteries are charged you can use everything in the RV except the microwave, roof air conditioner, the refrigerator in the electric mode and the electrical outlets.

Just look at the crappy specs on some of these 12V appliances: For example:

www.outdoorgb.com...

Roadmate 12 Volt Microwave Oven

* Input power: 750 watts
* Microwave power output: 450 watts
* This item draws approx. 65 amps on full power

WARNING! This piece of equipment must be fitted directly to the vehicle's battery. Under no circumstances must it be connected to a power source via a lighter socket.

450 watts? From a 750 watt input? That's pretty low wattage and only like 60% efficient (my 1100w microwave uses 1500W so is over 70% efficient.) And they do give you a warning about hooking it up directly to the battery but they don't mention that if you don't use gigantic fat wires to do so, a lot of the power will just end up heating up the wires, very inefficient and possibly dangerous if the wires get too hot. So yes there are 12V appliances, but from what I can see, the ones that need to draw a lot of power aren't very practical. So that may be why many RVs and motor homes use 120V for the most electrically demanding appliances (according to that source), they work better and are much more practical to wire.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

In concept, true, and I have run things on an inverter, but there is a problem with low voltage systems like 12 volts.

And don't forget the Tesla - Edison wars over AC versus DC!

What's the point here?

All energy is essentially free for the taking, but there will always be some sort of cost involved - at the very least time materials & effort to build and maintain whatever means you use to harvest that energy.

Of course the best devices are the ones that individuals can use to get off the grid, thus eliminating all the middle men who distribute the energy as well as all those government entities who tax it along the way.

Where I live we use hydroelectric power which is free as long as there is enough rain to keep the reservoirs full on a timely basis. The free ends when we have to pay for all the maintenance of the generators & transmission facilities to deliver that power to where it is needed.

Even if one installed wind power & solar energy panels (free energy devices that actually work) you still have to pay for the initial setup & the regular maintenance. While that might eliminate some of middle men & taxman temporarily, the bottom line is nothing is ever perpetually free.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


You skirted the point I wanted to make.

There will indeed always be some cost/work/energy transfer in maintaining a practical energy system.

When I hear the phrase 'free energy', I like to think 'freedom energy' ...

There is no doubt, it is the doorway to it's namesake.

reply to post by atlasastro


I have a few projects I'm working on currently and the physical construction of this device is not actually one of them. At some point in the near future I hope to work on this some more, unless someone beats me to it which would be welcomed. As important as new methods of generating energy are there is something else I find to be of the utmost importance at this point in time.

reply to post by nataylor


here goes nothing...

your first link is an example question. the question itself is trying to make you understand; the statment made that "plasma is a 4th state of matter" is not considered an explicit fact. it is an assumption.

your second link is in fact a chemistry book. all we have here giving notice to plasma is a short sidenote. two sentances long, out of an entire chapter for the states of matter... and also notice how "Solids, Liquids, and Gases" are explicitly defined over and over again, with images and such, and yet nothing for plasma. what, they couldn't draw plasma? understand that in all of these texts, plasma is considered a subset of "gases", albeit one that requires extreme temperatures to produce (observation rebuttal to follow).

from your third link, another text book. "The plasma is often called 'the fourth state of matter.'" Notice how the text itself puts "fourth state of matter" in quotations? notice how that sentance says "often called"? Does any of that sound like a definitve law of physics to you?

your fourth link is a text book, though from the style of its contents i would not immediately assume this is a text that is administered in schools, possibly a 3rd party study guide. I would prefer to have some more context with this submittal. HOWEVER, the book itself is published in 2010... i think that would be considered "recent", no? (i don't know why your link says 2009, but hey thats recent enough too =P) this text actually does give plasma merit in its two sentences. the language is much clearer "a lesser known state".

your fifth link is another book (not text for students, but background information for a teacher), a 4th edition published in 2010, with its first edition in 2005. Since I do not have the 1st edition for comparision (to see what they said about plasma 5 years ago...) i will have to date the conclusivity of its findings at an average of 2007.5, another recent hit. this text actually makes a definitive statement "In addition to solids, liquids, and gasses, scientists have identified two other states of matter:". Now you are thinking here we go, he is going to define plasma as a 4th state, right? WRONG! "Plasma is the random array of very hot matter - GASES so hot..." again, a subset of gases... goes on to say "Plasma is the STUFF of which stars are made." ROFL really? Stuff? Thanks i didn't know that...

you sixth link i could not read, it seems i have run out of available views on google books. but since you linked it as 2009 i will take that as a recent hit.

so out of six total links, 4 flopped, 1 backed my point for being recent and somewhat conclusive, and 1 remains unknown. What is certain is that you did not read your own garbage before linking it here. i would appreciate it if you did your own research from now on.

so i will leave you with another simple observation:

There is a binding theory that connects the first three states of matter. from solid to gas the inputs are pretty linear. increase energy, observe LATENT HEAT requirement for phase transition, ENTER NEW PHASE! this is why the first three states work for us.

Enter plasma. written accounts would have you believe that plasma is so hot and so volatile that it can only exist in places such as the sun or in nuclear reactors. yet the definition remains a super hot charged gas. there is no latent heat boundry observed, atleast not one i have read about...

a simple electrical arc. the white flash which you see with your eyes, is not electricity. that is plasma. lightining that you see is plasma. that is the gases of our atmosphere being turned into a highly charged soup of its own atomic particles. and it happens without a source of intense heat, pressure, or fission. all it took was electricity. a simple hand crank can generate enough potential to create an electrical arc across two electrodes. talk about latent heat requirements...

by observation i can say that plasma is not the same as gas. it is not even in the same league as the other states of matter. i would call it a 4th state of matter in the sense that it was the 4th to be discovered, and not the 4th in binding defnitive succession to 1-3.

peace,
mbzastava

reply to post by mbzastava


What does any of this arguing back and forth about plasma have to do with Free Energy?

reply to post by cupocoffee


it started as a tangent to one of my previous points. that acceptance of new theories is possible and actually happenning... then we split off into wether or not it was new theory. =/ sry for derailing

reply to post by mbzastava


LOL no worries. Me accusing you of hijacking the thread would be like Pot/Kettle

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Even if one installed wind power & solar energy panels (free energy devices that actually work) you still have to pay for the initial setup & the regular maintenance. While that might eliminate some of middle men & taxman temporarily, the bottom line is nothing is ever perpetually free.

edit on 6-10-2010 by verylowfrequency because: gr

not necessarily. it is not that difficult to maintain either of those technologies yourself. as far as conventional technologies go, multiple points of effeciency are being addressed by various industries. this gives us electromegnetically levitated bearings, and vacuum sealed high-speed rotors that will soon be within average consumer price ranges.

i believe engineering as a whole is shifting from its perspective of pre-determined obsolecence to one of permanence. the innovations i listed above, coupled with a "insert free energy converter here" will give you endless power you can maintain yourself (or maybe even not have to) for very very long periods of time.

i am personally studying chemical battery solutions on my free time as a sustainable and owner-maintainable reservoir for off-grid solutions.

Article:_The_role_of_the_ plasma_with_a_heterodyne_resonance_mechanism_in_overunity_devices

This is why i talk about plasma, and that there is much more to it than we know.

"The scientific analysis based on the new Ether-like model reveals the existence of two types of space energy..."

"1) Not only the device but the working environment is also important because the energy does not come from the magnets but from space. The magnets have a specific functional role.
2) The process of energy extraction involves a specific quantum mechanical mechanism that takes place in properly activated plasma (Chapter 13, section 13.4 of [1]; section 2.3 of [2]).
3) The plasma must be properly created and activated (Chapter 3 of [2]) in order to obtain overunity."

There is more in the article, but he does end up referencing his own material linked from amazon >_< still, i'd much rather entertain this line of thought seriously for a short time, than follow a blind elementary faith to my grave.

I've seen these around a lot. There is no free energy. Really. If there were, these items would be built to grand size and powering our cities.

Instead of concepts and drawings, make the thing and have a committee of physics professors from a reputable university verify that the device is truly generating more power than it consumes.

Frankly, I think if they did they would lose their jobs.