[dsenette]

developed certain generator configurations that appeared to be over 100% efficient.

sorry...nothing can be 100% efficient...there is ALWAYS a loss somewhere...either through friction or something... (also..how do you get to be above 100% efficient? does it do your taxes too?)

[Advertisements]

Theres a difference between supressed technology and impossible, gravity drives are an urban myth, supressed technologies are Hydrogen fuel cells and certain types of fusion engine nuclear space drives those were suppresed, devices that defy the basic laws of thermodynamics laws that if proved wrong would mean that almost nothing on the planet works the way we think and can directly observe it doing so.

The laws of thermodynamics arent theories, you can argue relativity and quantum mecahnics you CANNOT really argue with the laws of thermodynamics they are LAWS of nature some things in science arent theories and thermodynamics is one if it were false things like nuclear reactor, combustion engines anything that involves particle reactions or miving parts would simply not work.

Also it is a myth that people though the world was flat almost nobody though that, not all though it was completely round in fact it was at the time of columbus thought to be pear shapped or oblique sphere, not perfectly round(columbus didnt beleive it was perfectly round, which it isnt anyway its an oblate spheroid).

You may be correct about textbook geniuses however this particular bit of science is basically what every child is taught in its simpler forms from the first day of being taught science i personally have worked with and seen the laws of thermodynamics, particularly since i study primarily chemistry and chemical engineering these being the principles these disciplines are based upon and i work with all the time i find it hard to believe that they no longer apply.

Also there is very few things in science that can prevent you frmo getting your PHd based on your research work as long as you can prove what you say, not being able to prove something you acertain to be truth is one of the only reasons not to get your phd that and cheating, being published well thats about to the publication they can put in what they want however the scientific community is an open one if you want to show people your work nothing stops you.
A machine that can produce energy out of nothing fundamentally opposes that, i have no problem with a machine that perhaps is very efficient and is harnessing energy that is not perhaps obvious, eg magnetism or gravity(a gravity engine or drive would also not produce free energy hydro electricity is driven by gravity it isnt free its just very cheap) you cant create energy its that simple.

And Dsenette is also correct nothing absolutely nothing is 100% efficeint it is also a law of thermodynamics, never in the history of mankind or the known universe is there any device or reaction that is 100% efficient.

You can supress some things, however you take a trained scientist, someone who has devoted most of their years to science and show them a device that breaks the laws of physics you would have to kill them not to tell everybody and anybody.

White papers are usually freely distributed it makes no sense to make it register only for academics.

Edited by warriorscot, 21 August 2006 - 01:30 PM.

[warriorscot]

Theres a difference between supressed technology and impossible, gravity drives are an urban myth, supressed technologies are Hydrogen fuel cells and certain types of fusion engine nuclear space drives those were suppresed, devices that defy the basic laws of thermodynamics laws that if proved wrong would mean that almost nothing on the planet works the way we think and can directly observe it doing so.

The laws of thermodynamics arent theories, you can argue relativity and quantum mecahnics you CANNOT really argue with the laws of thermodynamics they are LAWS of nature some things in science arent theories and thermodynamics is one if it were false things like nuclear reactor, combustion engines anything that involves particle reactions or miving parts would simply not work.

Also it is a myth that people though the world was flat almost nobody though that, not all though it was completely round in fact it was at the time of columbus thought to be pear shapped or oblique sphere, not perfectly round(columbus didnt beleive it was perfectly round, which it isnt anyway its an oblate spheroid).

You may be correct about textbook geniuses however this particular bit of science is basically what every child is taught in its simpler forms from the first day of being taught science i personally have worked with and seen the laws of thermodynamics, particularly since i study primarily chemistry and chemical engineering these being the principles these disciplines are based upon and i work with all the time i find it hard to believe that they no longer apply.

Also there is very few things in science that can prevent you frmo getting your PHd based on your research work as long as you can prove what you say, not being able to prove something you acertain to be truth is one of the only reasons not to get your phd that and cheating, being published well thats about to the publication they can put in what they want however the scientific community is an open one if you want to show people your work nothing stops you.
A machine that can produce energy out of nothing fundamentally opposes that, i have no problem with a machine that perhaps is very efficient and is harnessing energy that is not perhaps obvious, eg magnetism or gravity(a gravity engine or drive would also not produce free energy hydro electricity is driven by gravity it isnt free its just very cheap) you cant create energy its that simple.

And Dsenette is also correct nothing absolutely nothing is 100% efficeint it is also a law of thermodynamics, never in the history of mankind or the known universe is there any device or reaction that is 100% efficient.

You can supress some things, however you take a trained scientist, someone who has devoted most of their years to science and show them a device that breaks the laws of physics you would have to kill them not to tell everybody and anybody.

White papers are usually freely distributed it makes no sense to make it register only for academics.

Edited by warriorscot, 21 August 2006 - 01:30 PM.

[admin]

i have no problem with a machine that perhaps is very efficient and is harnessing energy that is not perhaps obvious, eg magnetism or gravity(a gravity engine or drive would also not produce free energy hydro electricity is driven by gravity it isnt free its just very cheap)

The problem is with "thin-air" gravity and magnetic energy machines. The ones that claim to create energy without moving mass. I believe that's what this latest machine claims. E=mc2, energy as we know it always has a relative mass. The larger the mass, or the faster the movement, the higher the energy.

A hydroelectric [bleep] is a gravity machine, it captures the energy of gravity pulling on a mass of water. A generator is a magnetic machine, it captures the energy of moving magnets. A wind turbine captures the energy of a mass of moving air molecules. Wind is caused by thermal differences, so in effect wind energy is a form of solar energy. Even light involves a moving stream of photons. Electricity is moving electrons. Can you think of energy that doesn't involve mass? Therein lies the problem.

[dsenette]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn
http://en.wikipedia....erpetual_motion

[warriorscot]

The thin air part is what gets me as well, it all comes down to a mass as you say it takes going down to levels we dont understand to observe energy without apparent mass, back in the real world here its not possible he says constructing and manipulating magnetic fields i dont have a problem with that bit because as you say its essentially the same principle of anyother electrical generator but its where the power source comes from, i suppose it is theoretically possible to harness magnetic fields like the one that surrounds the earth but you would say if it did that anyway. Why create a mysterious device and not explain it they could give some rubbish explanation that sounds basically ok sell a few and then come out with the whamy they invented perpetual energy makes no sense, seems like some elaborate hoax they are probably going to sell the details of everyone who registers to some mailing list and spyware companies for cash and run of to the polynesians.

So little information on its basis of operation, what does it harness for its energy other than magnetic fields, thats nonsense they just put a crypticaly applied the reason any electrical generator technology works how most electronics work for that matter, they are all manipulation and creation of magnetic fields of some sort.

Perpetual energy, its just nonsense, and no company that invents perpetual energy would be in financial trouble you could box it up call it a magic electricity machine and sell them for millions a piece to the military why ask for approval and ratification by other scientists, it does totally stink of a scam.

[dsenette]

It depends on where you're standing.

http://www.alaska.ne...arthsociety.htm just for fun

[warriorscot]

I had heard such people existed but never believed anyone was that stupid.

You know it would be quite funny to offer to take the chairman to space and observe a round earth, and then if he was indeed wrong he gets to be pistol whipped on TV by all the united nations. I wonder if he would say yes.

[MsSmilie]

It's tongue in cheek, has to be!

Or we could push them off the edge of earth....I didn't read it all....do they think there are edges? do they think its square like a tile?

I expect they just have a great sense of humour.

[warriorscot]

You get some weird people about.

[†Gladiator†]

there is a myth busters episode regarding the myth of free energy and they busted every one of them. But there are some interesting concepts out there, cars that runs on compressed gas, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. But i believe that all we need the sun. It's the cleanest & most powerful energy source in the world. I truly believe that lots of governments are intentionally impeading the development of clean and renewable energy due national intersest (oil.). Sooner or later we will run out of coal, oil, lumber, natural gas. So why don't we switch towards green energy now instead of being forced to do so when it's the last option? Geothermal energy also has plenty of potential.

[dsenette]

I truly believe that lots of governments are intentionally impeading the development of clean and renewable energy due national intersest (oil.). Sooner or later we will run out of coal, oil, lumber, natural gas. So why don't we switch towards green energy now instead of being forced to do so when it's the last option? Geothermal energy also has plenty of potential.

i agree with the fact that governments/corporations are putting a hold on alot of nifty stuff that could be helpfull...for obvious reasons...but...we wont be running out of oil in the near future ( it will happen...but...you cannot stop the wheels of progress..and a breakthrough will be made by the time we do run out)...as the situation get's to be something of a "do or die" situtation we will see a massive explosion of new technology (alot of which you'll probably hear "yeah...we've perfected this in like...2010...but we couldn't market it untill now...2050" or something like that)

[†Gladiator†]

that's exactly my point, why wait for the do or die? Even if we have found infinite amound of oil we still shouldn't use it. Why? because it's not clean. Smaller european countries already produce over 50% of their energy using renewable sources. My government... much my disappointment decided to invest a huge chunk of money on nuclear power plants instead of providing insentives for citizens to switch to clean energy like other countries do. it takes $60000 cdn for a house to be compeletely off the grid and run on wind/solar/geothermal a big investment for most ppl, but the high price is caused by the lack of major development and competition in this field. If the price per household goes to $30000cdn and the government pitchs in with some tax rebates etc. most new houses would be equipped to generate their own power. We can than phase out most of the big power plants and keep a handful of hydro electric plants running for back up. It all comes down to the $, the price of oil is way higher than what it's suppose to be and the profits just pours into the hands of the wealthy. These ppl have great infulence on government policy (we would all love to believe that a democratic government works for its ppl, but i think those times have long passed). Oil = money = power It's not politics but simple economics. Oh and.... i would be willing to bet if every family in China and India owned a car we would be out of oil very very soon. or at least the price of oil will be so high that you will buy a oil plan and they would give you the car for free. We can't just think about what happens in our life time, because do we want to be remembered as the genereation that took the path of evil and left the entire planet in shambles?

[warriorscot]

Nuclear is a very clean energy source sure the output material is radioactive but its a big planet and it isnt radioactive forever modern reacotrs output very small amounts of radioactive waste compared to "clean" energy its much more economical. Alot of clean energy sources arent all that great wind farms are an eyesore and they are actually not very clean because they prouduce large amounts of pollution in the construction solar panels are even more polluting to make. It also depends on energy uses for the home some use more than other most systems for providing homes there own sustainable power are very large cumbersome and difficult to maintain unless you have a fair bit of land and dont mind a huge windmill and solar panels on your roof and in your garden your fine but most people dont want that some soler power to power AC on warm countries is fine but it becomes less practical in cities and areas of hostile weather(wind generators dont work in strong or gusty wind) and geothermal energy is complex it requires alot of work and money even if its got a convenient natural source of which there arent many places with that convenience. Hydroelectric power plants also arent usually capable of large scale continual generation like many think they are some will like the Hoover and three gorges because they are on rivers but they have a limited lifetime and are most definately not clean, and upland HEP like we use in scotland and most highland countries with money is for storing energy from powre plants at low use times for the peak time they are essentially big batteries as they have to pump water back to the resevoirs at night and during the day.

Saying we should all switch to clean energy is fine but there is still a long way to go with the technologies before they become close to practical. And ive dont alot of research on the technologies and i go to one of the worlds formost clean energy research institutions there is alot of clean energy research companies on campus so i know how far off practical technology for everyone is from green sources.

It will be a long time before large scale power generation is a thing of the past if ever because there are advantagous to large scale powerplants.

Oil is a finite substance and many companies rely on it but the biggest oil companies, fuel oil isnt the big products or development avenues anymore they are actually investing heavily in alternative energy, oil companies dont sell oil they sell energy and consumer products thats what people often forget when oil gets to expensive they stop using it and switch to something more profitable.

Oil supplies are abundant but they are getting scarce with the current use the only reason most of the worlds biggest oil fields arent on the last legs are recent new technologies to pump out the dregs, and many oil fields wont last another decade, alaska is fast becoming a bad place to be and the arabian oil fields cant satisfy demand for all that long at current levels.

Ive seen the REAL numbers on the lifetimes of the fields not the ones the politicians look at which are highly optimistic some are even so far as being total fairy tails. Oil wont run out in the next twenty years but inside ten we wont be using it, its uses will be limited to aviation, some commerce and the military, the only things seen by us will be plastics from oil as a fuel its not going to be practical as its going to have to last a while and the oil companies have recognised this.

Alot of families in india and china do own cars, they are actually a big problem pollution wise because they are too poor for effiecient cars mind you at least they dont have the choice of using unefficient cars. Its also impractical for many families in largely 3rd and 2nd world areas to own cars.

[warriorscot]

BT is really bugging me today with this internet.

Edited by warriorscot, 22 August 2006 - 10:02 AM.

[†Gladiator†]

Alot of families in india and china do own cars, they are actually a big problem pollution wise because they are too poor for effiecient cars mind you at least they dont have the choice of using unefficient cars. Its also impractical for many families in largely 3rd and 2nd world areas to own cars.

No not really.... if by a lot you mean less than 2 % of the population. And those 2% own way nicer cars than average americans. China + India =1.3 billion+1.1 billion=2.4 billion if every family owned one car.. that would be 3/4 billion cars. and trust me 3/4 billion cars require a lot of gas. And the chinese economy is developing to the point that soon every family would own a car and to say that it won't have an effect on the supply and demand of oil is just ignorant. If you look at the price of metal in the last 4 years you would see a large increase in price that is solely due to the heavy demand by China. Pollution wise china and india do have problems, but they are in the development stage, a stage that all first world countires have gone thorugh. Most of the pollution is industrial unlike western countires where cars are the main culprit. I would say that the smog in beijing is actually a lot less severe than the smog in Toronto. In terms of nuclear power. I do not see it as a good alternative. First when i am talking about the switch to cleaner power i am speaking in a global perspective. Not every country has or will have nuclear power. And i know that they are quite safe, but seriously if you had a choice between living in a town that has a nuclear plant vs. a town without which one would you choose? Radiation is minimal but it's still higher than normal. Wind farms are eyesores? ok i would rather get use to the sight of windfarms than be breathing in pollutants from coal fire plants. People think alternative energy is impractical, well that depends on looking at the long term vs the short term. I have seen houses that runs on solar energy and it just looks like a normal house, that rural town ship invested in a small wind farm and it supplies power to the entire town. They even sell some of their excessive power to sourrounding cottagers.

I am not arguing I just feel that the right attitude is the first step towards a greener planet.