Team Ninja Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Team Ninja Bulletin Board > The Lounge > Science and Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 6th August 2002, 11:41 PM
jema jema is offline
Ninja Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Swindon,UK
Posts: 11,772
I still come back to the basics... if it works then why isn't it catching on? free energy is .... well it's FREE energy. If a device can be built that generates a watt for fre then you can build a million and have a power station! IT HAS NOT HAPPENED!

jema
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 7th August 2002, 12:17 AM
dnar's Avatar
dnar dnar is offline
Ninja Taisa
Rigid Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: usAtralia
Posts: 1,533
Well a lot of patents have already been bought out by oil companies. I once had a list of patents owned by Texaco, patents on very efficient combustion engine replacements.

Its appears that the inventors of such devices do very well on buy-outs and then the death threats stop also LOL.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 7th August 2002, 06:31 AM
jema jema is offline
Ninja Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Swindon,UK
Posts: 11,772
Patents are publically viewable, so the cat would be out of the bag, and there are plenty of Counries like say Cuba who ain't too bothered by Patent law or "death threats"....
So sorry but whilst I know patents are used by corperations more to strifle inovation that promote it, there are some things that could not be silenced.

jema
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 7th August 2002, 04:56 PM
prokaryote's Avatar
prokaryote prokaryote is offline
Ninja Taii
Prince among Kings
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado USA
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally posted by jema
I still come back to the basics... if it works then why isn't it catching on? free energy is .... well it's FREE energy. If a device can be built that generates a watt for fre then you can build a million and have a power station! IT HAS NOT HAPPENED!

jema
Let's get back to the basics then. Please explain to me how is the energy "free" when no conservation laws (in 4-D) have been violated. Also, please explain how point charges are able to produce EM fields ad-infinitum without expending energy and how virtual particles are allowed to come into existance on a whim and disappear with no energy police pulling them over for conservation law violations.

Your claim that because something isn't globally in production, therefore it must not be true is somewhat puzzling to me. Lasers have been able to be produced since the beginning of the universe, yet upto the 1950's none had existed. Therefore, according to the same logic, I could have stated in 1700 (or 1949) that lasers and the science behind them are an impossibility because they don't exist now and are not in widespread use. If the science were true there'd be millions of them around right now.

I believe that what you're calling "free" energy has happened and that you're surrounded by it and even typed this message using it. As far as catching on, disruptive technology/science takes much time to overcome human inertia and undergo the test of the "scientific method".

The first level of which is the blind refutation of a contrary idea. Next comes the appeal to "truth" as explained by currently accepted models, laws or paradigms. Then comes the attempted refutation through experimentation to show that there must have been a mistake in experimental or observed results. If an idea has withstood testing up to this point, then in come the revisionists, where the old, accepted law is revised and contorted to attempt a fit or explain away the observed data. Lastly, there's the stallworths who'll refuse to accept the new paradigm based on some sort of appeal to emotion or faith. All of these scientific methodology filters are needed to test a new idea prior to acceptance as the latest version of the "truth'.

The LAD example that I had discussed is a prime example. It is the current version of the "truth", yet it is ignored by main stream statistics practitioners (theorists know it to be true, so we're on the third stage). The LAD/MRPP method is currently about 20 years old and is being used by at least the USGS (US geological service), USFS (US forest service) and the USFW (US fish and wildlife service). These groups use these "new" methods because they must operate in a data space that is not at all conducive to useful results being generated using the old Gaussian methods. As an aside, the LAD/MRPP method has the Gaussian methods as a special case.

So to make a short story very long, all that I'm saying is that the supporters of the MEG idea have put up a strong argument (in my opinion) for the possibility, theory and existance of a device to harness the energy inherent in space-time curvature, so it would be worth our time to at least subject it to the rigors of the second and further levels of scientific study/methodology. Outright refutation based upon dubious logic amounts to an unsubstantiated opinion (of which everyone is entitled to), given the current level of contrary "evidence".

prok
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 7th August 2002, 10:45 PM
jema jema is offline
Ninja Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Swindon,UK
Posts: 11,772
Sure science csn lag for all sorts of reasons, look at the attempts to rewrite the history of powered flight and discredit the Wright brothers for example....
But this is being touted as a bit more than a theory, e.g. as something demonstratable... it is not a case of something that can be denied. You tell me the earth is flat and I will in a practical sense have a hell of a job disproving it tell me you can create energy in a new way and forget the 40watts previously mentioned, you show me 4watts and I will easily be able to prove/disprove it.


jema
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 23rd September 2002, 06:57 AM
prokaryote's Avatar
prokaryote prokaryote is offline
Ninja Taii
Prince among Kings
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado USA
Posts: 872
Okay, have sent a site and patent link to a pal of mine who's the director of tech development at one of the major disk drive makers. He read over the patent quickly and said basically that it's a bunch of hooey.
Here's a couple of quotes regarding the MEG, patents (US) and PhD's in general:



"I didn't look at it in detail, but basically they are feeding induced
current back into the coils that provide the force to the magnet, thus not
requiring any input energy! It's about time we get something from nothing.
From what I have heard, there are numerous perpetual motion patents out
there (along with 3 room temperature superconductor patents)."



"You would be surprised what has been patented. Keep in mind that there is
not a collection of physicist and engineers of notable talent that review
these things. A lot of the review members are engineers practicing law (or
lawyers practicing engineering). Deriving energy from the space-time
continuum sounds pretty impressive to some. Also, patents don't mean squat.
They are legal tools for suing each other if something is made that sells
for money. That is the key point; it must make money. Anyone can grab a
patented idea and build it (and test it, and/or reverse engineer it). It is
only when it sells for money that infringement takes place. So I guess if
the patent review members are confused, it is better to give out the patent
and let it be solved in the courts later, if necessary. If the patent is a
joke, then it will never be an issue in court! BTW, I am more disappointed
by PhDs than any other professional group I deal with for being complete
idiots."



Also, just today, I saw a reference to the same MEG in Scientific America and it was not in a pleasant light. I also seem to recall a mention of the method that the power was being measured (RMS, Root Mean Square) that is totally outside the bounds of using RMS. RMS only applies to sinusoidal waveforms (a look at the graph of power output shows that this is definitely not the case) and power is power is power; Watts aren't averaged. I think that the use of RMS to calculate power is like using Newtons method to approximate the area under a curve, but using very large rectangles that vastly overestimates the area. That being said, and since I trust my friend's knowledge of electro-magnetic theory above anyone else that I know (including the profs at the local university), my mind is made up.

Just my two cents worth at this point. I still say that the less ersatz ideas that challenge traditional values deserve scrutiny prior to out of hand rejection. Once a logical counter argument can be launched and disproves the idea, it's time to move on. And no, I still haven't gotten an answer as to what makes up any type of field and how does it tranfer information without using energy.

Cheers,

prok.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 23rd September 2002, 03:25 PM
jema jema is offline
Ninja Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Swindon,UK
Posts: 11,772
Fair play to you for investigating and admitting it was bollux, but I would make the point that there are hundreds of these and other not disimilar scams out there, a lot of them will use enough psuedo science to flummux me, you and 99% of the rest of the general population You can't check every one.
Hence I fall back on core scepticism, this does not mean dismissing new science at all, it simply means a "show me" attitude. e.g. in the case of free energy devices, I want to see that 40watt light bulb working before I will credit it with being anything other than a total scam.
I am actually of the fundermental belief that there may well be sources of practically "free" energy. With the science of 100 years ago, no one could have conceived of Fusion despite looking at it every day! becuase it simply does not occur in the tactile world. There may be some really clever ways to play about with things at the sub-atomic level to extract energy, such as matter/anti-matter that don't occur naturally at all. However I'm pretty well convinced that we will not see free energy from Heath Robinson devices with fangled coils operated by failed used car salesmen

jema
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26th September 2002, 01:23 PM
phoenix phoenix is offline
Ninja Taii
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Third wheel on the right
Posts: 886
The important thing here is to clearly define the differnce between free energy devices, perpetual motion devices environmental collectors and batteries.

A true free energy device is one where you can plop the box in a environmentally sealed room and see an energy output.

With free energy devices its important to remember that whilst providing the device with an initialisation charge is OK, it should by definition run without any connection to any other forms of power source, the moment you need to add a full time mains connection or a battery it is NOT a free energy device. If a device did truly produce free energy then it would run itself PLUS ahve power to spare.

On the otehr hand a perpetual motion device is very similar to a free energy device only it produces a cyclic mechanical motion which would run infinitely without dissruption., again a initialisation charge is permitted, but the main diffference is there is noexcess energy avaiable to tap for other purposes.

Both the above are either impossible or at the very least extreamly unlikely, the laws of physics on this matter are truly inviolate!

Environmental collectors are however a reality, a waterwheel is a device that collects the kinetic energy of water, there are also wind turbine, solar pannels, geothermal generators, tidal generators,

Electro magnetic collectors dont seam unlikely, and would fit inside this category, howevr the theories and approach are flawed.

Electro maganetic energy (excluding light) exists in our environment for reasons. either its put ther deliberately (radio waves microwaves etc) in which case using these waves to generate power is in fact theft as such a device would reduce the power of these waves. or, they are there by accident, in which case there is a device (TV, microwave) that is using existing energy to generate stray electromagnetic energy, in which case the elegant solution is to reduce the EM emmissions.

Batteries are the final classification, these are mearly a repository of energy, and it takes more energy to produce a battery than it would ever give out.

Most batteries as we undestand them are chemical working off an electrolytic process, but you can also include hydraulic accumulators, hydroelectric dams, Dinorwig pump storage powerstation in North Wales is an excellent example of a battery.
__________________

P4 1.5Ghz 384Mb Win XP, P4 2Ghz 512Mb Win 2000, Dual P3 1Ghz 512Mb Win 2000, Celery 400Mhz 256Mb Win 9H8, P2 333 384Mb NT4
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27th September 2002, 01:44 AM
dnar's Avatar
dnar dnar is offline
Ninja Taisa
Rigid Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: usAtralia
Posts: 1,533
The MEG is going into production next year, according to this:

http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm

10kW - I can't wait to see this....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 27th September 2002, 05:46 AM
prokaryote's Avatar
prokaryote prokaryote is offline
Ninja Taii
Prince among Kings
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado USA
Posts: 872
We'll, for this one dnar, I'm with Jema and I'll believe it when I see it.

Although, I sincerely hope that you'll be able to prove me wrong, for the world's sake.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 27th September 2002, 01:56 PM
phoenix phoenix is offline
Ninja Taii
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Third wheel on the right
Posts: 886
Show me one working without a constant external Power connection THEN and only then will I waste time trying to build one!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12th April 2006, 09:02 AM
tonenolan tonenolan is offline
Grasshopper
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: mars
Posts: 1
elo
phoenix et all


something very interesting in this video, @ about 29mins. Two rods comprised of different number of elements, nothing else!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...027760&pl=true


and then there's this;

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/new...41_PerendevTV/

and if NASA's looking into getting their own projects 'off the ground' then there has to be something in 'magnetic-powered-whatevers'.
I guess the secrets out, so get your patents in now!!!


tone
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12th April 2006, 07:53 PM
Rusty Rusty is offline
Owner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 11,390
Not another SPAM'er
__________________
RUSTY


Team Ninja Forever : Once a Ninja, always a Ninja - Team Ninja

"I'm a SAS NINJA"

Drafted to the SAS
Dump of the day in Folding@Home   Dump of the week in Folding@Home   Dump of the month in Folding@Home  
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 20th August 2006, 07:31 PM
Fizban Fizban is offline
Ninja Taisho
Truth Seeker
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Black Country,M6J9,UK.
Posts: 2,231
lol, it's been great reading this thread for 10 mins.

We'll find out all the great stuff from 50 years of discoveries once oil runs out.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 29th June 2010, 09:15 AM
gmesthermax gmesthermax is offline
Grasshopper
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: new york
Posts: 1
free energy magnetic generator

There is no such thing as free energy - even solar... the sun power is free for you to use - but in order to do so you need to install a $30,000 system on the roof of your house. magnetic generator is also claimed to be free - and they say the cost is very cheap - according to this site: http://topmagneticgenerator.com - but I find it hard to believe that such a device really exist - if this was the case we would see it commercially available
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.