Unlimited Free Energy - Now

[gallo]

Quote by: dilligras Yeah? Well, then, perhaps you could enlighten me as to which prototype you built before you would accept E=mc2 as a viable theory?

I'm not sure how old you think I am, but E=Mc^2 was pretty much settled before I was born. Of course, the question of relativity actually has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Quote by: dilligras And where are the prototypes with which you proved your position on ANY scientific issues here?

But, of course, not all positions on scientific issues require a prototype. However, assertions that have been shown to be wrong without exception in the past are always subject to question. I'm not saying that any of your claims are wrong. I'm just saying that you need to show that you are right.

Of course, I didn't demand a prototype (if you actually know what that is). I only relayed the requirements of the US Patent office. Either you can comply (but it's much too expensive) or you can't.

Quote by: dilligras Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, pardner.

And please don't wet your pants and blame it on me.

[dilligras]

May I assume that since you answered my post that you read all the pertinent explanations of how the motor works?

For some reason, I am skeptical.

[gallo]

Quote by: dilligras May I assume that since you answered my post that you read all the pertinent explanations of how the motor works? For some reason, I am skeptical.

So you have a working prototype? Good for you! You'll make billions.

Actually I didn't bother to read the Internet links about your marvelous machines. Until you can produce some results, I doubt them. In that case, you'll make millions, since I have no doubt that you have invested everything you have. I have not, since I doubt the fundamental physics. My loss.

[dilligras]

Quote by: gallo I'm not sure how old you think I am,

I hadn't thought about it before, but judging from this post I'm now answering, I would guess about 17.

but E=Mc^2 was pretty much settled before I was born.

Settled? Oh....I see. You just want to ridicule anything new that comes along, without even reviewing it. Once the same ilk of "scientist" that ridiculed Einstein has accepted it, then you will deign to submit your approval........no doubt while STILL unreviewed by yourself. :rolleyes:

Fair enough. Just don't engage me on this topic again until such time as you can answer a few questions about Newman's Unified Theory. I will not respond to ignorant bloviating, posing as authority.

Once you have familiarized yourself with the topic (no, not the laws of physics......I am willing to believe you already have a passing aquaintance with them) I will be glad to have you address your position vis a vis your belief that Newman's machine violates the laws of physics, I am truly eager to see you prove it.


As you were.

[gallo]

Quote by: dilligras I hadn't thought about it before, but judging from this post I'm now answering, I would guess about 17.

Thanks. I'm actually 8.

Quote by: dilligras Settled? Oh....I see. You just want to ridicule anything new that comes along, without even reviewing it.

No. I'm asking for some actual evidence. You know, in this case an actual working prototype.

Quote by: dilligras Once the same ilk of "scientist" that ridiculed Einstein has accepted it, then you will deign to submit your approval........no doubt while STILL unreviewed by yourself. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what some 'ilk of "scientist" that ridiculed Einstein' means. Moreover, I'm not of how it it relevant to this discussion. Please explain.

Quote by: dilligras Fair enough. Just don't engage me on this topic again until such time as you can answer a few questions about Newman's Unified Theory.

I see. so You answer my questions with obscure questions.

Quote by: dilligras I will not respond to ignorant bloviating, posing as authority.

In other words, you can't answer my questions. Thanks for your admission if ignorance. What does "bloviating" mean? Is that English? Does that differ from educated "bloviating"? Why has posed as authority? You, certainly. Have you been "bloviating"?

Quote by: dilligras Once you have familiarized yourself with the topic (no, not the laws of physics......I am willing to believe you already have a passing aquaintance with them) I will be glad to have you address your position vis a vis your belief that Newman's machine violates the laws of physics, I am truly eager to see you prove it.

The obligation is not mine to prove. I stand on the laws of thermodynamics. If you think that some sort of machine can violate those laws, then it is up to you (and/or Newman - whoever he may be) to demonstrate that it is true.

Your grasp of the question seems to fall below comprehension. I'm not saying that your machine isn't possible. I'm saying that I don't know since you haven't produced such a machine or any evidence that such a machine is possible. In other words, I doubt it until you produce the goods.

Why do you feel the need to insult with one who asks you to support your assertions? Are you that insecure?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: gallo You actually did what?

You asked if I accounted for inertia, friction, and resistance.

I actually did... with "actually" being used to emphasize that I considered it.

Quote by: gallo And you figured it out and know that it is possible while all of the scientists and engineers who work for various energy companies have never proposed such a device. Those companies have the money.

Scientists and engineers that work for various energy companies are probably also daunted by the cost. Or not allowed to pursue it... after all, how would energy companies make money if it were free?

Quote by: gallo I'm sure that if your scheme were in the least possible that you could get up the money, at least on a small scale - say a working prototype that could operate for 6 months.

And do you think I didn't try?

Quote by: gallo Do you know what entropy is? Are you claiming that the 2nd LoT is incorrect? (Yes you are.)

You ask me if I'm claiming it's incorrect, and then you answer the question. That's stupid.

And it's not claiming anything is incorrect.

You know how electromagnetic generators work, right?

You're not "creating" anything.

You're using a magnetic field to push electrons. That's all there is to it.

The energy is already there.

The current manipulation of magnetic fields and motors would result in a generator that could power itself with electricity to spare.

That doesn't violate anything, it just takes advantage of the enormous potential of magnetic energy.

[Autolykos]

My question is, why would there be any conspiracy against energy abundance? It can't be to gain extra wealth, because the wealth gained by energy abundance would dwarf any wealth to be gained by energy scarcity. So what does that leave us?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Because you need to ask how that energy is generated, and who makes the money there.

A good example of this is what happened when I was in the Air Force. We were all talking about the best way to stop roadside IED's from blowing up and wiping out convoys.

The IED's in question were nothing more than bombs strapped to cell phones. Ring the phone, the bomb blows up, so you can be a long ways away and just have to dial a number.

We proposed that since a cell phone has to constantly check to make sure it's connected to a cell to just scan for broadcasts in the cell phone frequency bands and if a signal was detected to flood the area with white noise to prevent the phones from being dialed.

The idea was turned down because some general was getting a nice fat kickback to propose some other new technology that could disable the IED's from afar.

Marines push for solution to roadside bombs in Iraq North County Times - North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County News
Roadside bombs targeted in U.S. defense bill North County Times - North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County News

Especially that second one... billions of dollars to do nothing more than flood the frequency bands so that the bombs either go off prematurely or not at all.

---

Just a lengthy example of how certain solutions are suppressed because of money in a small number of pockets.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: gallo Good luck with all of your right math and right combinations of magnets and wiring. Now that you have all of that worked out, you need to find a mechanical engineer (convince him that the math, magnets and wiring all work out) to help with the design, build a working prototype, and submit it to the US Patent Office. After it has actually worked for 6 months and produced more energy than it consumes, then you might actually be granted a patent. By the way, perpetual motion devices are the only sort for which you actually need to submit a working prototype. The US Patent Office has learned quite well. They actually know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is and the meaning of entropy. By the way, in your calculations, did you allow for such things as inertia, friction, and resistance? I bet you did.

I am with Gallo on doubting the practicality of the vast majority of such devices.

There is only one working device that I know of that appears to be perpetual motion. This is the Finsrud sculpture:

Three Articles on the Finsrud Perpetual Motion Sculpture

My understanding is that there is considerable doubt that this device is truly a closed system. However, I am not aware of it having been convincingly debunked.

Nevertheless - The vast majority of these types of device simply will not produce appreciable energy. Mythbusters did an excellent program on free energy, where they tested a number of such devices. The over-unity device they tested was useless. A device that turned a wheel using sunlight did work, but not nearly enough to produce real power.

I think we are going to see some clever methods of producing power in the near future, but I seriously doubt we will see any over-unity devices or zero-point energy devices in our lifetimes.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonce The current manipulation of magnetic fields and motors would result in a generator that could power itself with electricity to spare. That doesn't violate anything, it just takes advantage of the enormous potential of magnetic energy.

But they never work.

These types of devices are touted everywhere, but they are never shown to be able to power themselves. There is always some reason why they cannot demonstrate it now, or men in black suits trying to shut them down, or some other line of BS the keeps it just out of reach.

But, if you donate money to them, they might get closer to being able to demonstrate them...

I have looked into it quite a bit, and over-unity magnet devices never actually work.

[Fonceai]

Did you read about the Steorn machine?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Did you read about the Steorn machine?

I just read it.

They are on the cusp of making it available, after it passes the tests from a jury of scientists...


I have read from other companies who were also on that same cusp.


I have read from zero companies who have crossed over that cusp, and actually generated proof.

[Fonceai]

They have the proof, they are inviting scientists and such to come validate it themselves so it doesn't appear to be just some random nonsense.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai They have the proof, they are inviting scientists and such to come validate it themselves so it doesn't appear to be just some random nonsense.

That is what they say...

I will believe when I see it, and think it unlikely until then. I have been down this road too many times to have anything but doubt.

I am willing to be convinced, but currently am highly doubtful.

[Fonceai]

Fair enough.

But do you think it's at all possible?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Fair enough. But do you think it's at all possible?

The term free energy is used in two different ways.

1) over unity - something from nothing

2) Easily available abundant energy

I think 1 is impossible, but 2 will likely happen within our children's lifetimes.

[Fonceai]

Let me put it this way...

Over-unity isn't something from nothing.

It's simply a process that generates more energy that it takes to run the process itself. Enough energy and then some more energy. It is, technically, impossible.

But this ties into matters of perception.

Magnetic energy is still not completely understood. While a device might appear to make more electricity than it takes to run it, it might be taking advantage of higher amounts of magnetic energy.

So the more accurate question is that do you think it will be possible to utilize magnetic energy in such a way that a generator can power itself and still have excess electric energy?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonce Over-unity isn't something from nothing.

I think it traditionally has meant that, though. The idea being that you get more out than you put in, without any additional outside source of energy contributing to the output.

Magnetic energy is still not completely understood. While a device might appear to make more electricity than it takes to run it, it might be taking advantage of higher amounts of magnetic energy.

A stable magnetic field does not generate energy, though. There has to be some sort of motion through the field, or fluctuation in the field so that it is moving across a wire.

Anyway...

People have been touting free energy from combinations of magnets and wires for decades. Somehow or other, it never quite seems to work out.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Autolykos My question is, why would there be any conspiracy against energy abundance? It can't be to gain extra wealth, because the wealth gained by energy abundance would dwarf any wealth to be gained by energy scarcity. So what does that leave us? - Rob

Except that this energy technology would eliminate much of the profits of oil companies, simply because it is a cheap source of energy that has nothing to do with oil patch expertise, and would therefore cause that entire industry to suffer tremendous downsizing, NOT TO MENTION THE LOST TAX REVENUES that big government politicos will defend with their very lives.

They could still make plastics and things, but ALL their energy profits would be eliminated, just as the use of whale oil was eliminated when the use of petroleum became widespread.


Carry on.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am with Gallo on doubting the practicality of the vast majority of such devices.

Doubt is good.......dismissal without investigation is nuts.

There is only one working device that I know of that appears to be perpetual motion. This is the Finsrud sculpture:

Newman's machine has NEVER been promoted as a perpetual motion machine........any idiot knows that when you involve rotating shafts you are going to involve friction.

Designating his design as such was merely a ploy by the nimrods at the Patent Office who fear the impact on the economy by the elimination of so much energy infrastructure, IMO.

I would not only suspect some of them of having taken oil patch kickbacks, I would not be surprised to discover that some there obtained their positions through the influence of that industry.


As you were.