Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 95
perpetual energy and other promising inventionsPage 3 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

life wouldn't be exciting then if we all admitted its limitations.


There is nothing exciting about beating your head against the wall to try and circumvent known and experimentally verified limitations. The excitement is discovering things that are unknown.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 96
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/4/2008 7:38:39 PM

So you don't get more energy from a nuclear bomb than what's put into it ?


Of course not. Calculate the binding energy difference between the 235U nucleus and the fission products (fission fragments and neutrons, including the kinetic energies). In fact, the efficiency is only a few percent of the theoretical yield. You seem to be forgetting that nuclear bombs were designed from the principles you are trying to refute.

When will people stop living like they're blind and deaf, and do some REAL research into things.


And you happen to know enough to know what REAL research is, exactly how? Fill me in. If I don't understand any of the physics or mathematics in your arguments, I'll go learn it before responding.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 103
view profile
History
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/9/2008 11:19:02 PM
Has anyone here actually googled what "zero point energy" even means?

*sigh*
 CzechLee
Joined: 2/13/2008
Msg: 108
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/21/2008 8:52:33 PM
First dome house - the igloo. Heating - a seal oil lamp. Insulation - snow.
Second dome house - olive growers in Italy. Heating - olive oil. Insulation- rock.
Third dome house = mentioned in your first posting. :-)

I think if you look at the first and second dome houses closely there is a reason why people who used them for thousands of years move away from them as soon as they get a chance. :-)
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 112
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/25/2008 9:59:42 PM
^ I think Egyptians harnessed energy using droves of slaves, rather than their megalomaniacal architecture. Yes, I got a bone to pick with those Egyptians. I have my time machine and 'boom stick' ready, and I'm gonna use em someday!
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 119
view profile
History
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/16/2008 6:46:53 AM
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/trash-or-waste-as-an-energy-source-history-and-arguments.htm
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 120
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/16/2008 8:10:28 AM
I've been working with what they described in Iron Man as the "Arc Reactor" (minus the nuclear power source). Essentially it uses several opposing magnetic forces to extend the life of the energy put in (perhaps that's worded wrong but it's the best I can describe it). You have a spinning cylinder using frictionless electric motor design, feeding energy into the outer casing, the magnetic forces allow it to transfer that energy into rotational force, then it's attached to a turbine to capture it again as energy. There's just the right configuration of magnetic that you can feed energy it produces back into itself (on a separate circuit from the main feed), allowing it to use energy put into the system to keep the motor spinning, but slowly die down based on how much is actually being used up. I guess you could call it a recyclers approach to saving energy. In the end your still consuming the same amount of energy, but your reclaiming a lot of energy that would otherwise be lost on the return trip to the power station you get your energy from (unless your relatively close to the power station). The in-feed is allowed to turn on and off based on measuring the amount of energy being returned to it (through a common ground line that everything using it is attached to), and the amount of energy that is being produced by the turbine.

Slowly as I tweak the configuration it's getting to be better, but still not a largely noticeable result of savings. My test set up uses a set of batteries (one for control, one for the test), running two identical car stereos playing the same music at the exact same settings, the "Arc Reactor" set-up gets maybe 2 or 3% more life than the control, which shows as minutes on the life of the battery (opposed to the seconds I started with). It's not a new idea, I've read up on several teams with actual funding to research the idea that's gotten better results than me, but still just not large enough savings to warrant the cost of production.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 121
view profile
History
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/17/2008 7:24:57 AM
My point was, it's hardly a new idea.

It's also STILL very inefficient. They're only looking to get enough fuel to run the trash trucks that harvest their feedstock, and the cost of running such an operation is significant. There are so many other, better ways to get us off our oil dependency... and *I* am not selling anything.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 123
view profile
History
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/18/2008 7:46:23 AM

I retract the statement that this water heater is overunity as stated in msg 79 and 110.

At the time their tests showed that it was. Subsequently independent tests showed that one of their instruments was making a wrong measurement and the official efficiency is actually 85%.


I applaud you for the honesty shown by retracting the statement.

I would also like to point out that the ... let's say "vigor"... with which you defended the claim against those to just wanted "independent tests" because you CANNOT have an efficiency above 100%... was a little extreme, considering that those people were exactly correct in calling for independent testing, and exactly correct in saying overunity is impossible based on the laws of physics and all previous human experience and scientific experimentation.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It would certainly speed this cycle up if those who spend so much time promoting these "extraordinary" technologies would demand some (ANY) proof other than a crappy youtube video BEFORE throwing them out on the table as the next savior of mankind.

Besides, 85% efficiency is pretty good. Why not promote THAT?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 124
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/18/2008 8:26:29 AM

I've been working with what they described in Iron Man as the "Arc Reactor" (minus the nuclear power source). Essentially it uses several opposing magnetic forces to extend the life of the energy put in (perhaps that's worded wrong but it's the best I can describe it). You have a spinning cylinder using frictionless electric motor design, feeding energy into the outer casing, the magnetic forces allow it to transfer that energy into rotational force, then it's attached to a turbine to capture it again as energy.


Magnetic forces do no work. The work is done by the electric field produced by a changing magnetic field. In particular, this means the losses occur through currents flowing through resistances (which isn't limitd to the windings, e.g. eddy currents in the iron produce heat.) Adding iron can only increase the places those currents can flow. The generic three-phase electric motor only loses energy through mechanical and electrical resistances. (The mechanical resistances can be the load or friction in the motor.) Typical efficiencies are better than 90%.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 125
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/18/2008 8:32:37 AM

Anyone who believes zero-point energy is fantasy is most likely an intellectual descendant of the folks who laughed at the Wright brothers for thinking they could fly. Tesla knew it ages ago. Lamoreaux (among others) proved the Casimir Effect is real over a decade ago. Just one obscure, anecdotal example in the grand scheme of findings in the field.


Anyone who believes zero-point energy can be used to do work doesn't understand the concept.


I'm sure you've heard of ITER in France? I'd imagine if the international consortium is prepared to invest 10 billion euros and as many years in construction there just might just be something to it don't you think? The Joint European Torus was was producing controlled fusion power in 1991.


And? Are you trying to prove those violate widely known and well understood physical laws or are you trying to prove you have no idea how any of things actually are supposed to work? You've done a great job proving the latter. I've already mentioned the term ``binding energy.'' Go look it up.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 126
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/18/2008 8:50:43 AM

but is ZPE free energy?


No. The zero point energy is the same everywhere and since it's the same everywhere, it can't be used for anything. If you could extract it, you would have to lower the zero-point energy which contradicts the assumptions from which it was derived. So, one has to first change the assumptions and come up with a different meaning of zero-point energy before it makes sense to talk about using it for anything. Unfortunately for the free-energy conspiracy theorists, doing that would necessarily lead to predictions about other things for which there exists a lot of data that would spoil their sales pitch.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 127
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/18/2008 8:55:10 AM

He stopped banging his head aginst this wall long ago.


It's still fun to pop in occassionally and refute the obviously ludicrous. Some of this stuff is just beyond ridiculous.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 128
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/18/2008 9:03:53 AM

Sorry, forgot to mention, they DO NOT contradict the laws of thermodynamics. Only the other 'known/taught' physics.


I happen to be familiar with ``known/taught'' physics (given that I've taught known physics, including thermodynamics.) Please point out precisely where the contradiction occurs and why you think it doesn't contradict thermodynamics. Don't be afraid to be brutal with the equations. I'm prepared to deal with the onslaught at any level you understand the physics, including complete ignorance.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 130
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/19/2008 9:15:48 PM
Please tell us your concept then.


My concept is the same as the theoretical concept derived from quantum theory. The zero-point energy is the ground state (lowest) energy of a system. It happens to be non-zero in quantum theory. Explain how you can extract energy from a system when the system is already in the lowest energy state it can be in. By definition, the zero point energy isn't the zero point energy if you can extract energy from a system.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

Good to know you are familiar with and have taught physics.

It comes in handy when crackpots are trying to baffle people with bullshit.

Anyone can learn and teach what is already known,

Let me know when you know enough about what is known to make a sensible comment about anything that isn't known.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 131
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/20/2008 11:10:04 PM

I fail to see where any of the info I posted from physorg.com is bullshit.


You do nothing but cut and paste disjoint chunks of text which you know nothing about in order to be troll. Post something intelligent and I'll take it seriously.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 132
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 11/22/2008 1:51:34 PM

If this is wrong then take it up with the guy/gal who put it in the wikipedia or change it to what it should be and/or please direct me to the correct info. Both of us can't be right.


No - the three of us can't be right. Your own reference to wikipedia states:


Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system.


So wikipedia agrees with what I wrote in msg 171 among other msgs. Stop trolling. You don't even bother to read the articles from which you cut and paste text, selected specifically to contradict what the articles really say by taking it out of context. You free energy guys are way too easy. Go find someone who can at least make a credible go at it to the level of an undergraduate fallacy.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 134
view profile
History
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 12/7/2008 7:04:44 AM

You'll need a bit more than popsicle sticks and rubber cement.
And it HAS been done, but it's not perpetual motion yet, but overunity.


Overunity, is, by definition, perpetual motion. You can extract energy from it without shutting down the system eventually. Perhaps what you really mean is, "nearly unity."


Take a look at http://www.mullerpower.com
or do a web search on Bill Muller and his generators.


And then wait approximately forever for any sort of controlled, accurate measurement of this supposed "overunity" generator. Remember how wrong you were on the cavitation water heaters, solomon? Once the actual controlled measurements were done, it was about 85% efficient. 85% is just about infinitely far from "overunity." Efficient, yes, especially for an electrically-driven water heater, but not over unity.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 135
view profile
History
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 12/7/2008 7:09:16 AM

Isn't methane a greenhouse gas? (and it stinks too)


Yes, and that's why burning it rather than releasing it into the atmosphere is a good idea. (Or perhaps you simply don't understand how greenhouse gasses "work.")

As for the smell, methane is completely odorless. It's the sulfur- and nitrogen-containing decomposition products associated with methane in rotting trash that smell bad.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 136
view profile
History
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 12/21/2008 9:36:14 AM
Solomon, I suggest you invest all your money in Muller Machines of any sort. Seriously. Put your money where your mouth is. I'd avoid selling them to anyone, though. Fraud is not something I'd want to flirt with... and those machines are a fraud.


If this fellow or anyone else even bothered to look at the site I quoted


Oh, I looked, and in that 1991 Square D report, they do not describe their methodology or protocol, and they make an overtly false statement in their conclusion, to wit: "The unit was opened for inspection and no evidence of an additional power source was found." I can see, in the published pictures, at least 2 possible sources of additional power, depending upon the test protocol. There is an enormous flywheel which can store significant energy in the device itself (so it would be important to know how long the test values were maintained, and whether they were from a dead stop of the machine), as well as a significant bank of capacitors which are capable of storing a fair amount of electricity, certainly enough to defeat a short-term load/test.

Show me a reproducible result, with "controlled, accurate measurement" by which I mean "controlled." Controlled for that capacitor bank. Controlled for the kinetic energy stored in the flywheel. Controlled for other factors that are not immediately apparent from the published pictures.


If this fellow or anyone else even bothered to look at the site I quoted they would have read the independant test that has already been done on this generator which DOES overunity.
Instead he prefers to ignore the true facts and perpetuate his own lies.
This is the typical way these people try to perpetuate misinformation, but all they do is really perpetuate their own lack of credibilityand show themselves up for the liars they really are. Why they bother to try BS people this way is beyond me because the true facts cannot be hdden.
They seem to think (I don't why) that people are going to take their word for what they say without actually checking the facts. I'm sure they don't realize that most people are not sheep and do not believe the first bit of BS presented to them.
Some of these people who have PhD's are deluding themselves greatly because some PhD's may have applied at the time but are now not worth the paper they are written on because most of what they have learned is superceeded by ongoing science which they have neglected to keep up with not to mention that much of what they have learned is censored so much (in science) that they may as well be doing PhD's in flat earth science.
Another dogmatic nonsense statement by another no-nothing troll


As for the ad hominem attacks... not at all surprising.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 138
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 12/25/2008 3:51:33 PM
There's probably plenty in money in funeral parlours or garbage collection and or recycling/disposal. At least they wont run out before oil derivatives.


Right. If you really believe your own press, have the courage of your convictions and invest in those devices. All of those things are so simple to manufacture that anyone with a lathe and milling machine could whip one up in short order. Therefore, it ought to be inexpensive and trivial to manufacture and sell the devices the devices and prove the rest of us are wrong. Let me know when you have a device for sale that you can prove works as clamed.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 140
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/7/2009 2:25:18 PM
Mainstream scientists (or most people for that matter) are NOT educated in antigravity, electrogravity research or gravitational propulsion systems.


As a scientist, I'm also not educated in the various ways alchemists believe they can turn lead into gold. Based on the science which has proven to be correct, my judgment regarding the potential for success in that endeavor is that it's nil, regardless of what secret materials are stirred into a special cauldron or the secret words one chants while doing it. Therefore, I choose to pursue my own path to discovery based on my own judgment and leave alchemy to those with the courage of their convictions to pursue it. If they don't believe in their own ideas enough to pursue them, they are just whining if they object to me pursuing my own ideas over their empty claims. In science, it's put up or shut up.

Scientists have done experiments in ``anti-gravity.'' I happen to know someone who did an experiment to try and determine if anti-protons ``fall up.'' Just because the experiments are created to exploit what is considered the best way to observe an effect instead of what you think is best, doesn't mean they aren't looking for the effect.


Physics has come to a standstill since quantum was added to the vocabulary and went off in an opposite direction.

John Wheeler wrote an article prior to his death in which he noted that quantum theory is responsible for 38% of the U.S. GDP, and growing. Pursuing theories which arise from quantum theory can only be considered a standstill by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.


Science has been responsible for more destruction of everything than any other disaster,

Science is the study of how nature works. If you attribute science and/or scientists to destruction then you are really pissed off at nature for giving us the means for destruction and/or scientists for discovering that. In addition, you are contradicting your own (rather empty) argument about science not being open to discovering anything new.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 142
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/7/2009 9:40:25 PM

However in the pursuit of science, some destruction occurs. Examples are many including the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as many 'peaceful' atmospheric atomic bomb tests....including the Aleutian Islands.


Politicians elected by US citizens made the decision to build and deploy atomic weapons. Many scientists were convinced it was necessary, but many were not. Few considered the goal to much to do with science.

Other examples which are relevant include the use of animal test models for a wide range of scientific tests including pesticides, vaccines, drugs, vivisection, et cetera.

Although that is a valid criticism of things which take place in ``softer'' sciences, that isn't really the issue here. As soon as you start making value judgments to determine if those things are justified, you're talking about things that are irrelevant to the natural sciences.
 fly_boy1
Joined: 10/10/2008
Msg: 144
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/17/2009 1:10:19 AM
Well I have worked on a variety of ideas, theory’s that involve free energy or cheaper energy. I am currently working on a perpetual motion machine but here is the deal. If I called up CNN tomorrow and told them my machine worked they wouldn’t come. For the past 1000 years 1000's of people have claimed to have a perpetual motion machine and all of them have been lying... If you friend does have a working machine tell him to start pumping power into the grid and then he will get noticed... Until then it’s not going to get noticed. Unless you have seen the machine running with no outside power source I think he is blowing smoke.

-Jim
 uvray313
Joined: 7/15/2007
Msg: 145
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 1/17/2009 10:19:38 AM
Energy production and use comes down to several basic principles.

Cost/benefit

Matching supply to demand or energy storage somewhere in between the two.

Energy transmission infrastructure

There are infinite possibilities but the devil is in the details.

The major difficulties facing alternative energy are existing hydrocarbon based infrastructure, oil/gas extraction subsidies, and a failure to account for the environmental costs.

Interestingly enough, most green energy technology to date was developed for practical reasons rather than environmental concerns. Denmark adopted wind energy for national security (to reduce it's dependence on imported energy) and Iceland, geo-thermal and hydrogen due to the high transportation costs of imported oil

Tidal/current based energy sources are definitely an option but an option among many facing the same obstacles.

Barry
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >