| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 71834 | 2006-08-18 23:31:00 | Free Energy? | Renmoo (66) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 479285 | 2006-08-20 01:02:00 | we have to keep an open mind about whether energy can be obtained for nothing..... I was with you 100% right up to this gem Terry. To be absolutely free of misunderstandings and the taint of filthy lucre, surely this should read....."obtained from nothing"? I heat my home with free firewood, which I consider to be free energy, though I guess I could be nailed by my own argument because it costs me fuel to get it here and food derived energy to carry it from the firewood stack to the fire. Cheers Billy 8-{) :D |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 479286 | 2006-08-20 01:04:00 | www.metafilter.com "Beware of Geeks Bearing Gifts" |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 479287 | 2006-08-20 02:33:00 | Terry, I'm pretty sure it was Bertrand Russell who said: "You should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out." Billy, your firewood is not free energy. It might not cost you anything, but burning it releases part of the energy from the sun which went into growing the tree. Random Carnage's "Perpetual motion in its purest form is when something generates enough energy to perpetuate its own indefinite motion, but this is not necessarily needed if a "permanent" energy sourse can assist in the generation of quasi perpetual motion, unlimited energy for all practical intent, if not strictly pure." is absolutely correct. We are already doing this. Worldwide, there are quite a few powerstations, using water flowing down hill , wind, steam generated from oil, coal, or reactors, to turn turbines. Some even use the radiation from the sun directly, rather than stored energy such as in oil and coal and uranium, or even the stored potential (gravitational) energy of water which is at a higher level. pctek: a theory is generally accepted by the scientific community. An idea which is being "messed about" with is a hypothesis. ... I sometime think I would prefer to be ignorant, its easier. So it appears. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 479288 | 2006-08-20 02:34:00 | This is all getting rather tiresome.. >> Battleneter said>> "Tell me Graham, is it possible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light? Isn't there a certain well know law that says no? My point is, laws of physics have been proven wrong, and as recently as last year. Don't be so closed minded, the world was flat once, and you were hung for stating otherwise " << End of quote. This is Battles quote I'm taking issue with. I'm taking issue with his assumption of a "rock solid law of physics" that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, being demolished by recent experiments, and then somehow by having an open mind, using that unrelated argument to admit to the possibility of perpetual motion and free energy. (But note, I am not saying whether I "believe" or do not "believe" that anything can travel faster than the speed of light) There are certain "laws" that a solid line can be drawn under, and no amount of open mindedness is going to overturn them to allow perpetual motion and creation of matter/energy out of nothing. (Now don't start off on big bangs :) ) Of course humans will continue to believe in anything Regardless of what popular reading books may be quoted by Battleneter, the fact is that Einstein did not in his 1905 seminal paper on the Special Theory of Relativity say that nothing could travel faster than light. If Bats would like a reference then here is one: math.ucr.edu Now, returning to free energy, it is well known that UFO's have a limitless supply of renewable energy: www.youtube.com |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 479289 | 2006-08-20 05:32:00 | And Einstein took credit for his Theory anyway from his wife who did the hrad work. | pctek (84) | ||
| 479290 | 2006-08-20 22:50:00 | There are two unrelated topics in this thread, which is muddying the waters . Dealing with Einstein, the interesting experiment referred to by Battleneter still preserves e=mc2 . To date I'm unaware of any experiment which upsets this equation . To be specific, the pulses appear to travel faster than light - but the energy does not . Faster than light information transfer is not new . Quantum entanglement is a situation where paired particles affect each other instantaneously over any distance apart . If one particle drops into say, a positive state, it's partner elsewhere drops instantly into a negative state - even if it is on the other side of the Universe . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 479291 | 2006-08-20 23:10:00 | Battlenetter I think you are saying that accepted scientific theories are challenged and sometimes proven to be wrong . Absolutely correct . Nevertheless as Graham and Terry point out, there are certain theories which have been proven by countless experiments, which are fundamental . With regard to energy, you can't get out what you don't put in . So perpetual motion, at least on a classical physics basis, is impossible . That doesn't mean something akin to perpetual motion cannot be found . However this enters an esoteric area of physics and isn't for the faint hearted . I'm referring to vacuum energy which may be from where the Big Bang sprang from . In other words, from our perspective something came out of nothing . During every second virtual particles appear and evaporate in the Universe . If we could harness these virtual particles then from our point of view we'd be getting energy from nothing . However underlying all of this is the structure of the Universe which is hypothesised to be made of quantum foam . So the energy still has a source, even if it is in another dimension . All of which means that perpetual motion could look as if it were occurring but it wouldn't be genuine . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 479292 | 2006-08-20 23:11:00 | For continuation of the original topic, check this out: www.geocities.com "Adams has built a number of permanent magnet electric D.C. motor generators based on the principle outlined in this article, some of which have demonstrated an electrical efficiency of 690% and a mechanical efficiency of 620%. The devices run at room temperature. Any device that doesn't could not be running at over 100% efficiency, as heat is the major result of hysteresis losses that are induces in any conventional electric motor or generator. Radiated heat is a sure-fire sign that a power generator is not running over unity, as all heat radiated by such a device is wasted energy." One of these "devices" was demonstrated a couple of years back in Cairns, and a company alleged that it had a patent over the process. This was the subject of legal action by Adams, who placed the matter in the public domain in the late 1990's, as I recall. These "over unity" devices are capable of not only perpetual motion but of energy generation, if one believes the cases presented. But why do we not all have one in our house now we should ask? BTW, Adams lives in NZ. I would be interested in Terry's view on this. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 479293 | 2006-08-20 23:44:00 | You'd probably find adams motor on sites like Crank Net (www.crank.net) and Quack Watch (http://www.quackwatch.org). | Greg (193) | ||
| 479294 | 2006-08-21 00:37:00 | uh, I think the fact that no one (besides the inventer?) has been able to build a working model maybe why the Adams engine is nothing more then a site hosted at geocities. Now, If you want a real laugh, Look at this www.users.bigpond.com In a nutshell, Its all about the devine.... I got the link from Gregs links btw, great reading untill the brain gives up in disgust. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||