And back to the topic: Telluric currents are also a possible source of free energy for a few light bulbs. 
Yeah, I believe I read about that in an issue of Paradigma.
Just in case it's not clear (we might not all be White Wolf fans):
Topic: Perpetual motion device - Free Energy - Do you believe in it? - page 7. (Read 14027 times)
January 19, 2013, 11:22:24 AM
Yeah, I believe I read about that in an issue of Paradigma.
Just in case it's not clear (we might not all be White Wolf fans):
January 19, 2013, 11:15:42 AM
They don't just slap some magnets and "scientific" stuff together, test what it does, and try to come up with "explanations" afterwards.
This does happen sometimes. It happened to me last year (without magnets, tho 
) when I built two tesla coils and found out that wireless (via ground) energy transfer between the two is many times more efficient than radiative energy transfer. Internet is filled with crackpot explanations to that and I wasted half a year of my life just to figure it out. Stupidest thing being that without these crackpot explanations making a mess out of a simple phenomenon I probably would have figured it out myself very fast.There's also one thing I've found out by experiment that I haven't found an explanantion to. An U shape steel core electromagnet and a steel bar connected to it, activated with a high current pulse. The steel bar attached at the point of activation stays strongly attached even after the short pulse if over and power source disconnected. If forced apart they will no longer attach. Nothing significant, just interesting
And back to the topic: Telluric currents are also a possible source of free energy for a few light bulbs.
January 18, 2013, 04:14:25 PM
Quote
He gives a personal endorsement statement, as well as some theories about where the energy might be coming from.
Yeah, that's not how inventors and scientists work. They come up with ideas on how to create motors and energy generators using actual real physics, discovered and tested by others before them, then they build their machines with very specific expectations, and then they test to see if their ideas and hypotheses were correct.
They don't just slap some magnets and "scientific" stuff together, test what it does, and try to come up with "explanations" afterwards. Crackpots do that. Besides, if these guys build something, test it, and their tests show that it's putting out more energy than it's taking in, the correct conclusion isn't "free energy" or "over-unity," it's " your testing equipment is broken."
It's also something these guys do: http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Sons_of_Ether
January 18, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
Quote
He gives a personal endorsement statement, as well as some theories about where the energy might be coming from.
Yeah, that's not how inventors and scientists work. They come up with ideas on how to create motors and energy generators using actual real physics, discovered and tested by others before them, then they build their machines with very specific expectations, and then they test to see if their ideas and hypotheses were correct.
They don't just slap some magnets and "scientific" stuff together, test what it does, and try to come up with "explanations" afterwards. Crackpots do that. Besides, if these guys build something, test it, and their tests show that it's putting out more energy than it's taking in, the correct conclusion isn't "free energy" or "over-unity," it's " your testing equipment is broken."
January 18, 2013, 03:31:46 PM
Pure energy systems websites are filled with pseudoscience. Linking to their wiki is not good evidence.
January 18, 2013, 02:51:34 PM
Fire, the actual yellow or blue flame you see IS plasma. Just as different materials turn to solids, liquids, and gasses at different temperatures, they turn to plasma at different temperatures as well. Nor does it have to be particularly hot, as neon lights are technically plasma too.
Good point. But if I understand what the guy is doing, He's basically making a tritium neon light, and then using that as the core of the reactor. After a little more research, I found that shielding wouldn't be a problem, as the decay is beta particles, which could be blocked by paper shielding. (or just left unshielded, it's blocked by skin)
I still say LFTR would be more economical.
January 18, 2013, 02:41:10 PM
+1 what cbeast said
January 18, 2013, 02:38:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXT7DNKnL8s
"Klaatu... verata... n... Necktie. Nectar. Nickel. Noodle."" - Ash
"Klaatu... verata... n... Necktie. Nectar. Nickel. Noodle."" - Ash
January 18, 2013, 02:35:22 PM
Getting a patent doesn't prove anything scientific. If they had been published in IEEE, that would've meant something.
Sure, I can read their claims and news, or I can just read the following
And laugh at them and their believers.
Sure, I can read their claims and news, or I can just read the following
Quote
http://www.keshespace.com/
We have proved through the systems we have developed that have an internal structure similar to the dual core of the Earth, that gravity is created by the interaction of magnetic fields within the different cores of the planet.
We have proved through the systems we have developed that have an internal structure similar to the dual core of the Earth, that gravity is created by the interaction of magnetic fields within the different cores of the planet.
And laugh at them and their believers.
January 18, 2013, 02:27:54 PM
Fire, the actual yellow or blue flame you see IS plasma. Just as different materials turn to solids, liquids, and gasses at different temperatures, they turn to plasma at different temperatures as well. Nor does it have to be particularly hot, as n neon lights are technically plasma too.
January 18, 2013, 02:13:26 PM
He has spent the years since then completing a system for the production of gravity and energy using a radioactive hydrogen-fueled reactor that is clean and safe.
Um, the only "radioactive" way to use hydrogen is to fuse it.
He has covered all aspects of the design of a new plasma nuclear system from the very beginning to its present stage. This has included the design, the fuel, the testing and practical applications.
Oh, plasma! OK. Except "plasma" is just a fancy word for "fire," so I guess his reactor just burns hydrogen. Why the hell is that radioactive? Bullshit alert level rising.
In September 2004 he was invited by a leading western country, through its government office organizations, to present his technology for evaluation.
From November 2004 to March 2005 his technology was under consideration by scientists at a university.
From November 2004 to March 2005 his technology was under consideration by scientists at a university.
What country? Is it in the Americas or Europe? What government office? What scientists? What university? Was it a diploma mill? Were the scientists even in the same field of research? Why so vague??? Bullshit levels critical!
100% agreed here, the lack of details makes it smell like urban legend.
January 18, 2013, 02:02:58 PM
He has spent the years since then completing a system for the production of gravity and energy using a radioactive hydrogen-fueled reactor that is clean and safe.
Um, the only "radioactive" way to use hydrogen is to fuse it. Hydrogen is the lowest level element (1 proton, 1 electron), so any energy from it would have to be either from nuclear fusion, or burning it with oxygen. Only the fusion is radioactive. Did he actually figure out how to make a fusion reactor? If he did, he's ahead of every other scientist on the planet... Warning: Bullshit detected.
He has covered all aspects of the design of a new plasma nuclear system from the very beginning to its present stage. This has included the design, the fuel, the testing and practical applications.
Oh, plasma! OK. Except "plasma" is just a fancy word for "fire," so I guess his reactor just burns hydrogen. Why the hell is that radioactive? Bullshit alert level rising.
In September 2004 he was invited by a leading western country, through its government office organizations, to present his technology for evaluation.
From November 2004 to March 2005 his technology was under consideration by scientists at a university.
From November 2004 to March 2005 his technology was under consideration by scientists at a university.
What country? Is it in the Americas or Europe? What government office? What scientists? What university? Was it a diploma mill? Were the scientists even in the same field of research? Why so vague??? Bullshit levels critical!
Keshe bottle plasma energy = dude just created a very basic acid battery, no different from a potato or lemon school science fair battery. Contrary to his claims, we understand where electromagnetism and gravity come from really well.
January 18, 2013, 10:51:32 AM
I don't think free energy is impossible. Our experimental and mathematical modelling requires closed systems by definition, but in reality nothing exists in a closed system. The standard model doesn't hold up at the edges of our observational capabilities, especially when we use vast amounts of computational data to see new and unexplainable relationships. We have plenty of energy here and now for any conceivable purpose, but when it comes time to conquer the Universe, I'm sure we'll discover how to utilize Planck energy. It still may not be free, but there is evidence of power beyond our current understanding.
January 17, 2013, 04:21:44 PM
How much would you bet that it works or doesnt?
This topic is aimed at mainly:
myrkul
Rassah
Is this video a scam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR6Qait2JGY#t=3m12s
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdLA4w3w58
This topic is aimed at mainly:
myrkul
Rassah
Is this video a scam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR6Qait2JGY#t=3m12s
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdLA4w3w58
To get back OT:
I can't believe the number of of posters who actually bothered to watch the vids before posting. I haven't, and won't be wasting my time.
Perpetual motion machines are impossible. There's no video evidence I'll accept without an accompanying re-examination of the laws of thermodynamics (for laughs).
January 17, 2013, 01:37:28 PM
I think the number of folks who truly and completely understand global economics is very small. That single subject on its own would need a lifetime dedicated to it just to have a hope of completely understanding it, do you think we should dedicate ourselves to that level of understanding for every subject a child becomes curious about to ensure we never lie to them?
No, I think we should explain to them as much as we already know, and if they have more questions, explain those as well, as opposed to oversimplifying because "they're just kids, so they wouldn't get it anyway." That's what my parents did, anyway (explain everything in as much detail as possible I mean). I still remember the lecture while walking with mom to the metro station on the properties of light, it's multiple wave frequencies, how they reflect at different angles when sent through prisms, and how prisms could be made of glass or water, and clouds are essentially a collection of millions of little prisms, when my 5 year old self asked, "Mom, where do rainbows come from?"
The idea, or hope, is that you can give your kids as much of your own knowledge as possible, so that they can start from where you are at, and continue expanding their knowledge beyond that, instead of dumbing things down for them, and hope they get to your level when they have "grown up."
But if you don't dumb things down for them, they won't be good little slaves when they grow up!
January 17, 2013, 01:32:01 PM
I think the number of folks who truly and completely understand global economics is very small. That single subject on its own would need a lifetime dedicated to it just to have a hope of completely understanding it, do you think we should dedicate ourselves to that level of understanding for every subject a child becomes curious about to ensure we never lie to them?
No, I think we should explain to them as much as we already know, and if they have more questions, explain those as well, as opposed to oversimplifying because "they're just kids, so they wouldn't get it anyway." That's what my parents did, anyway (explain everything in as much detail as possible I mean). I still remember the lecture while walking with mom to the metro station on the properties of light, it's multiple wave frequencies, how they reflect at different angles when sent through prisms, and how prisms could be made of glass or water, and clouds are essentially a collection of millions of little prisms, when my 5 year old self asked, "Mom, where do rainbows come from?"
The idea, or hope, is that you can give your kids as much of your own knowledge as possible, so that they can start from where you are at and continue expanding their knowledge beyond that, instead of dumbing things down for them, and hope they get to your level when they have "grown up."
January 17, 2013, 11:22:37 AM
Money is maybe a good example of where that has gone wrong, as far as I know schools still introduce the concept of money to children using the gold and asset backed systems and later expand the story into the basics of fractional reserve banking. Maybe I was a dumb kid but at that stage it started looking like Greek so the gold backed system stuck in my head as the foundation of money.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly to plan.
January 17, 2013, 09:18:40 AM
Why would someone explain to a child that money is just something to buy TVs and candy, as opposed to explaining what it is, how it came about, and who is in control of it now? I think dumbing down things for kids is part of the reason for all our problems today 
Telling stories is just making up hypotheses. Anyone can make tons of those, and they are entirely useless. Just stories. It only becomes science when you actually start to test them.
Agreed. Would it be fair to say that orbiting planets and electrons are just stores of energy (kinetic, atomic, etc), like a battery or a spinning gyro, and not perpetual motion machines?
Yes and no.
A perfect store of energy IS a perpetual motion machine.
All mechanism that store energy are motion machines.
Wether they are to be considered 'perpetual' is a relative case.
The practical definition of a perpetual motion machine is a machine that doesn't need an external power source to operate for an indefinite ammount of time.
If I were to build a machine so efficient that the heat death of the universe would occur before it spun down of it's own accord, would that be a perpetual motion machine?
Jump to: