Does free energy piss you off?
Posted on: July 22, 2009 - 4:38am
Offline
Does free energy piss you off?
I've wanted to start a group devoted to pseudoscience in the form of snake oil inventions, such as free energy. I figure it'd also be a good way to advertise RRS as well since skeptics and non-believers tend to run in the same groups. So far I have a forum, but I'll want to start a podcast or other content oriented thing at some point. Any suggestions? I know I'm going to need some advertising and an electrical engineer/physicist with some free time, heheh.
- Login to post comments
Yah, that sounds like fun. One thing that I see is that when I am logged in, I can see the mod room. Is it part of your plan to just make the first bunch of recruits into mods? If not, you may want to fix that.
=
Actually you know that urine has properties that make it a great source of energy? That's right: peeing in your gas tank might actually do something in the not too distant future.
The Solution to the Energy Crisis: Urine
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Even if a free energy would be ever invented, (which I think it is) it would never have a chance to get on the free, public market. Partially, thanks to a great disinformative campaign. (see: pseudoscience)
I can't imagine an environment more vulnerable by the free energy than the current world.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Actually, Lumey, the only species that give a damn about free energy or even cheap energy of any kind are humans and the species dependent upon them. If we ceased to exist or fell into barbarism, the natural world would bloom in a way it hasn't in centuries, after a short dip, obviously. Chernobyl in the Ukraine, despite all of the toxicity from the disaster, is experiencing tremendous fecundity in native populations up and down the food web.
The complaint against free energy is simple. I don't need to explain that to you.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Heheh, I'm still screwing with the setup, but yeah I could really use some more mods. I take it you're A. Einstein?
Har har har.
That's pretty interesting though. Gross, but interesting.
The problem is that it IS a pseudoscience, Luminon. Inspectormustard IS, in fact, a scientist in training, and all you need to figure out that free energy is a pseudoscience is math. That's it. All you need is math.
That's why the people who can do math can design stuff that works, and people who can't have yet to produce anything that actually runs on "free energy".
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yah, guilty as charged, not that that was all that hard to figure out.
Anyway, Luminon, you really ought to give up the whole free energy thing as a loss. Let me explain:
I actually know someone who is doing industrial level free energy. He gets all of the materials that he needs for free and he doesn't charge his customers for the resulting energy. The rub is that it is not really free.
He is an electrical engineer with our national guard and he has inked a contract with a startup company that has figured out how to make cost effective solar electric panels. They give him a percentage of what comes off the production line for free and he uses them to set up solar farms outside of military bases in the desert of the American South West. He has already taken his first base nearly half off the commercial power grid.
However, this company is paying to make the stuff, paying to install the stuff and paying for the regular maintenance on the stuff. By doing that, they get a huge promotional value because they can use the project to demonstrate how good the product is to real paying people. What they make is a proved winner that investors can look to to see that it is good and the money is beginning to come in to scale up production.
In a couple of years, this will, with some luck, become a good way to provide energy at a rather lower cost that other forms of energy but in the end, there will be paying customers to provide a return to the venture capitalists who are banking on this deal working out.
Even so, whatever the technology for providing low cost energy may be, someone is going to have to pay to make the stuff. That is as close to free energy as anyone is ever going to get.
=
Luminon,
You must realize, I would hope, that the aspect of 'free' energy that makes it a pseudoscience is that it would violate one of the most fundamental and well-established principles in science, the Law of Conservation of Energy, closely connected with the First Law Of Thermodynamics.
Most of the proposed mechanisms for producing free energy shuffle energy around between various forms in the hope that somehow there will be some extra amount left over that can be harvested as net output.
The other type claims that they are extracting energy from some other 'dimension', or some vast reservoir of energy, such as the energy of free space, so not violating the conservation of energy. These last versions violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics - IOW to harvest energy for some useful purpose, it must be in some more concentrated form than that in the general environment, so that some can be diverted to do 'useful' work, such as generating electricity or moving a vehicle, boiling water, etc., before letting it disperse into the general thermal energy of the environment.
If any of these devices could be conclusively shown to actually work, science would embrace it, as opening up a whole new area of research, such as are always being keenly sought by genuine scientists.
Unfortunately for the Free Energy enthusiasts, the explanations of the principles behind their ideas typically reveal really basic misunderstandings of the relevant science. The long history of these ideas failing to produce even one working device that can pass the most basic tests suggests that it is likely to be a waste of time investigating them, until one appears with a sounder theory behind it, or at least an unambiguous demonstration, which really shouldn't be that difficult.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I am an electrical engineer. And there is free energy all around us. It is called Solar Energy it the Sun will continue to deliver it for a further couple of billion years.
So 'free energy' in the sense of 'energy that comes without a bill is very scientific.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
But if we switch to solar power now, the sun will run out in 3032
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Solar energy comes with a hefty bill. Producing solar panels is expensive and produces a lot of nasty chemical byproducts. Using solar towers wastes most of the energy in transmission and storage. Solar energy simply costs more per kilowatt-hour than most other forms of producing electricity.
The sun is giving it away for free; but converting that energy into electricity and distributing it to peoples' homes is very costly. At the moment it is prohibitively costly.
For that matter: nuclear decay of uranium and thorium is giving away a lot of 'free' energy. And per kilowatt-hour nuclear powerplants are much cheaper than even the cheapest form of solar power (solar towers). If we wanted enviromentally friendly energy that is actually cheaper than using coal power plants, we would use nuclear. But nuclear is politically unpopular: so we will stick to coal and very half-heartedly explore other forms of energy production.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Have you been following NIF?
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
I think in the long run this is the solution. But pretty technically complicated. LLNL really screwed up with cost overruns and delays. But they finallly are able to experiment with it.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Interesting project. JET works already and ITER will work much better. Good too see other projects going on, but using lasers seems ...weird. We'll see if it works.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Fail.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies just to closed systems. Conservation of energy applies to all systems whether closed or open.
And I heard that there is more intelligence in a cubic milimeter of vacuum than in Sarah Palins whole brain.
>I simply needed to do that joke, it was irresitable<
The statement you just made makes no sense, because if you look at a vacuum and if you look at matter both are indeed not that different from each other. An atom consists mostly of nothing and an extremely small nuclei plus some even smaller electrons.
When you put 2 different metals together you get a galvanic voltage. That's nothing new that's well known. And that electrons and photons move slower through materials than they would move through the vacuum is also nothing new.
And I looked that MEG thing up. My head hurts from so much bad nonsensical babbling about electrodynamics from people who show that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.
If such a MEG would work it would be known. It would be the greatest invention of all time. That's nothing that any conspiracy could keep secret. Just imagine for example the militaristic uses. And how many soldiers would get to know this generator. It would be humanly impossible to keep that secret.
The free market is especially in the field of engineering very merciless. Efficient things aren't forbidden. If you would want, you could get a heat-pump tomorrow. Or you could buy an electric car. Or a stirling or wankel engine.
All those inventions have the advantages and disadvantages. And usually the inventions that are for sale to normal customers are those who befit them best. A nice example for that are tools. Tools (electric drillers e.g.) that you can buy in do-it-yourself stores for home purposes are usually much less durable than professional machines. That makes sense for usual customers because they don't need to buy a professional machine for twice or 3 times the money if they want to drill 10 holes at home
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
And reputedly, there are also somewhere in Vatican these eschatologic religional crazies, who want to bring the world to the verge of destruction and maybe a little bit over. They believe that this will bring forth Jesus and all his singing angels and they'll go to Heaven.
*) T = their
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Conservation of Energy is not dependent on a closed system. It simply means that in any process, energy out must be equal to energy in. It simply looks at flows of energy and conversion between different types of energy,
I think you are confusing it with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, regarding Entropy, which specifically refers to a closed system, in which entropy cannot decrease. Entropy is not as clearly quantifiable as energy, we can mainly identify change in entropy accompanying some flow of energy.
The devices which do just move energy around, or claim to get extra net energy by processes like splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning it, explicitly violate Conservation of energy.
You cannot have a system cycle thru some other set of states back to the original state and output energy along the way, without energy being extracted from somewhere outside the system, but many scientifically ignorant 'free energy' enthusiasts keep trying to work around this fact.
Even if there is an enormous amount of energy in space, it cannot be not be harvested for producing useful output unless there are concentrations of it which can be converted into useful work as it is dissipated into the general background. The total amount of energy in the universe has remained the same, but the amount of 'usable' energy continues to fall, in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The latest nuclear processes utilize all but a few percent of the Uranium, and so do not require extreme purification or leave massive amounts of waste. They are still relatively expensive to construct, and still do have some radiation risks, but do seem to offer a massive amount of energy from known sources of uranium.
Fusion may yet become viable.
Solar requires efficient storage and transmission technologies to be viable, but there is progress on both those fronts. Photovoltaic silicon cells is much more expensive than it need be, because the bulk of silicon processing has been for the electronics industry, which requires extremely pure silicon. Power generation can work with far less processing and should be quite a bit less expensive in large scale production.
There is no reason whatsoever to expect any process for extracting useful energy from the energy of free space, even if possible, to be necessarily easier or cheaper to implement than fusion or nuclear.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
They avoid the plasma containment problem. The whole fusion reation and release of energy from it takes place in like 20 nanoseconds. Neither methods have yet produced a net energy release such that they could run a power generating plant.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Ok stop with the bullshit here luminon, this is so full of bullshit here, that your eyes are brown from it. Why keep it secret if it benefits the military so much better than the currect format of using energy? This makes no sense, since the military would take full advantage of it. Second you want to keep it out of the hands of the regular population, charge and arm and leg for it and patent it, I mean come on my 11 year old niece and smell the bullshit you just typed here. It's all a matter of controlling it but keeping it hidden? for what purpose since it had a major benefit for a government entity and as such would lower the monetary cost of energy of such said military that they could free up the money for other military requirements.
Oh and the how many people are you gonna silence for this? Exactly how? As well if there is a fully functioning or the plans for a fully functioning free energy device, what is the use for keeping this quiet? Why would everyone have one in their basement if I say I patent it and charge oh i don't know, 500,000 per device lets say? That alone keeps it from the hands of the poor. Heck I could charge 2 million for it and still make money. Your logic make no sense at all, I mean none at all.
I had not heard of it before. But until nuclear fusion is viable and cost effective; it won't hold much place in energy policy. It is a good potential source of energy without the waste left over from nuclear. But first lets see it actually work, then we can debate the merits of implementing it as a replacement for coal.
Seems pretty cool though.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I don't know your monthly energy bill. But if it is really that high that you can't enjoy culture other then mainstream culture or can't give to the poor you should really consider getting fluorescent lamps and new energy efficient electrical equipment.
The price of a kWh of work/energy has never been as low during mankinds history as it currently is. When you look at the history of craftmenship and industrialization you will realize that the price of work/energy has fallen during most periods of history. And in most cases it was to the benefit of the whole population. There is really no reason to believe that free energy wouldn't be just as good.
As there are also crazies of that kind in evangelical churches, muslim mosques and jewish synagoges.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
You can't throw in solar energy from panels and compare it with solar energy from towers. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of Solar Towers is, that is uses directed parts of the sunlight (those that make shadows) to concentrate them and therby create very high temperaturs. This makes those plants effienct where there the light consits by a large part of directed light.
In the northern and southern parts of the globe the light has to pass a longer way through the athmosphere and theyby gets dispersed more. That highers the percentage of diffuse light and thereby makes solar panels (that can also use that light) more effective. Another constraint to those panels is that the work the more efficient the cooler they are. So whether Solar Towers or Solar Penals are more effective depends on the geographical position you are in.
The raw material for solar panels is that expensive because right now the Solar Industry uses byproducts of the Electronics Industry. With the growth of the Solar Market it will get more and more attractive to produce Silicone just for solar panels which then doens't need to be that pure again.
When it comes to Nuclear Energy: It is that cheap because it is highly subsidezed. The Nuclear Companies dwell on free research that they got delivered, they don't have to pay insurances that would pay for the costs a major hazard would do to the environment and don't have to pay the tremendous costs of maintaining the nuclear waste dumps for the thousands of years needed.
When it comes to climate friendly, supporters of nuclear energy like to forget the carbon emissions that are caused by the production and refining of uranium. And furthermore totally stay mute on the high health risks for the workers in uranium mines.
It's not some political prejudice against nuclear energy that keeps so many people in power from supporting it, it is that fission technology has huge disadvantages and hidden costs attached
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
@Jormungander:
1) I don't think I've seen a nuclear project that wasn't way over budget, so the "cost-effective" argument is a bit on the weak side. I mean, I understand that a nuclear plant produces far more energy than any other type of plant, but it does so at an incredible financial cost.
2) Transmission and power quality are clearly the big issues when dealing with a centralized system. For solar panels to work -- as they do in certain well-documented test cases in Germany -- the power grid would have to be adapted to a distributed system, rather than purely centralized. As you say, transmission is prohibitively expensive, given a centralized plan.
@Luminon:
1) Please, oh please read a physics textbook. Hell, even do the experiments yourself. "Free energy" would be disastrous, because it implies that we would have found a way to somehow multiply energy magically, and given that power, it would be no time at all before we destroyed the earth. Excess energy would mean excess heat, so it's a good thing we haven't discovered it. It would be impossible to keep secret, because the discoverer would most likely blow his or herself up inadvertently.
2) Elecrical engineers don't just do stuff on paper, like physicists. They actually work with all kinds of conductors, etc., and know their limits. Turns out the math doesn't lie, for the most part. Some of the harmonic stuff actually does, in fact, produce an effect, but those effects have been understood since the late 19th century. They don't produce "over-unity", they just allow for things like greater transmission distances (AC power).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
There is currently such an offer as you describe, with similar prices, but in euro. It is intended for directors of big or middle-sized industrial corporations. However, it is risky. It's for those, who can risk a million euro just to make the distributors talk to them. By risking, I mean giving out a number of bank account where the million is, so there is a danger of having it hacked somehow. Further tenths millions of euro are needed to order the devices in industrial numbers, but for that they offer a physical demonstrations and measuring of the devices as the customer likes. The price of energy is about 1 000 euro per kilowatt. An associate of our group passed this information forward to his friend, a businessman who showed some interest. Therefore, I will not spread the website adress to not attract any further attention of this kind to our group. If someone here has a control over some big industrial company, I can give the adress privately, but I don't feel like publishing it. Of course, you're free to use Google.
Here, even if the electricity is reputedly relatively cheap, other forms of energy are getting terribly expensive. Specially gas and coal. People massively switch to furnaces on wood. I'd guess the price for energy per year here to be about 1500 dollars, which is a lot, if the most usual salary here is about 1/4 of the average salary in USA. (650 dollars per month)
You see, free energy in such an environment would free a lot of people's money and time, which they would probably use to participate in public life more and that would bring an increase in voting participation. This would mean an end to the fixed stars of our political sky. It isn't that long since former Czech premier, and chief of the leading party, Jiri Paroubek, had his propagational tour. He and his whole party got bombarded with eggs in every city of the tour. The nation's opinion is clear and angry. And so it is in many other countries. If people will get a degree of freedom or desperacy, they will change things.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Again free energy does not equal winning a battle, it means lowering the cost to use equipment. There are military applications that never make it the public, and many more take year if not decades to get out, so again this comment goes out the door really. "Free energy" for the military does not equal military might, it just means really lower cost. If you can explain to me how "Free energy" would some how stop a bomb from exploding, or an enemy from shooting someone, I would love to hear it. Just because the military had a device that gives them free energy, meaning lower cost to operate their equipment does not some how negate the fact of warfare is fought using that equipment, the energy does not stop it from happening, nor the lack of energy, it just mean they need new equipment to fight.
any company worth it's salt would jump on this, if it actually worked, if I had a working device for free energy, the money that could be made is amazing, and I could charge whatever I wanted, even to the people because I need to get it to them some how, it's never FREE per se, especially in our world, everything has a cost
again bullshit, any major company, or major financier would not have to show they have a million dollars, you think GE would have to show someone they have millions in the bank account? Or maybe sir Richard Branson? Bill Gates? or various other multi-billion dollar companies or investors? I highly doubt that at all, shit I have been in deals were 20 million dollars crossed the table and NO ONE had to show their bank accounts. If it gets hacked so what? Lawsuits can put a halt to any sales of such said devices. Your basically making a major conspiracy that makes no sense since there is tons of money to be made from this, even if it cost people the same price as they are paying now, the company distributing the energy would make tons of money because there is a negligible cost to run the devices.
Perhaps I didn't explain it enough. What is the cause behind most of the fighting? Injustice, poverty, scarcity, and so on. Free energy can solve these problems. Mentally healthy people who have their basic needs provided do not have to fight or be fought. Oil-based wars can become past, and oillust politicians as well. The problem is in powerful individuals with heads full of psychopathy, ambitions and complexes.
Of course, there are conflicts of greed, racism and revenge, like in Palestine, eastern Europe, Congo or Rwanda. These will be probably solved much later and with global cooperation.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
How does free energy solve the problem with fresh water?, Land? Greed? Poverty? scarcity of food? Energy will simply give them that energy, what they do with it, and what can be done is a different issue. I can give you a device that can give you all the energy you want. you still need land to grow food, you still need fresh water, and you still need some way to get the poor people out of their misery,......free energy doesn't do that. Of course you mention greed, racism and revenge, free energy doesn't solve this and probably never will. Old injustices will still need revenge and you can give the people all the energy you want it won't solve this.
I don't c how free energy can help stop wars. Oil based wars sure, then again we really have had only 2 major oil wars, both happened in Iraq. Population control, food control, water control, money control all this free energy does not solve. You thing free energy could solve the issues in North Korea? Your wrong it's not about energy there, it's about power. You believe free energy could solve the problem of Iran's issue with Israel? Nope it's not an energy issue. You think that free energy will solve the issue the muslim fanatics have with the west? Nope it's a religious ideology not an energy issue.
As for the rest regarding money I am not going to bother with it. If I had a free energy device I can already tell you I know how to make the money off it and as for reverse engineering problem, lawsuits and eventually it will get out anyways, make as much money as possible before that.
It finally starts to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
As for the Iranian problem with Israel, let's say that changes in the world could somehow weaken the global military influence of United States, which then could stop buying Israel everything they want to terrorize Iran
The wars are caused by a small minority in population. These people are dangerous opportunists and possibly psychopaths. Something like Slobodan Milosevic, or George Bush jr. They ride on the wave of unequality. If one nation has a problem, then they lead it against someone else, who is reputedly responsible. Preventing that tactics requires a global plan to erradicate extreme poverty and injustice. An important part of that is a breakdown of global economic system. This system is not about market, it's something between a pyramid game and a weapon of mass destruction. I know how it sounds like - is there anything that doesn't have to be changed? I doubt that.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
You just answered the question, and free energy solves none of those, because all of those require additional equipment that needs to be bought. No money no equipment.
Wow, I look away for a few days and the thread just blows up, haha.
Couple of things: I made another post elsewhere calling for specific devices - be it free energy (free as in nutty, GermanMike, not free as in solar/wind/hydro), anti-gravity, time-travel (hey, could be fun) - which I hope to try out in a video series. I can read circuit diagrams as long as they're not much bigger than a guitar amp, and I know some people at the school who might be interested in helping me out with some equipment. I've also got a buddy who follows the pseudoscience stuff pretty close. I'll be finished with a software project I've been working on for a local company this week, so I'll have some money to buy equipment, like a new fireware card for my camera.
I figure there's just a couple of simple tests I can do to show that a given machine fails to give off energy, but circuitry is not exactly my specialty so I'm gonna need a hand there. Especially if it involves cutting out pieces of paper on oscilloscopes and weighing them to integrate, which sounds wonderfully photogenic. My main goal is to keep everything simple and straightforward so there's no confusion.
There was an episode of Mythbusters which tried out a few free-energy devices, with entirely unsurprising results...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yeah, I saw that one. They tried the Minto Wheel, the G-strain amplifier, one of apparently several different kinds of Bedini Motor, and a device that's supposed to harness radient energy. That last one was apparently based on one of Tesla's patents, US Patent 685,957 Apparatus For The Utilization of Radiant Energy, where he pretty much says that it'll be able to use cosmic rays for power. It seems like a lot of so-called overunity electronics are based on Tesla's patents which, while he did give us many things, a lot of those things just aren't as good as some of the things we have now because other technologies have improved. Still others seem to be bat-shit crazy.
It's also kinda funny that there are several kinds of Bedini motor. Nobody can figure out how it's supposed to be built, and any time someone builds one a bunch of the nutters complain that it doesn't look right.
Tesla also created a lot of things that we had no idea how to use until the last 50 years or so, when we "rediscovered" it through his work.
You have to have some respect for the man. We wouldn't have alternating current without him.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
True, we owe him a lot. Most of the really odd stuff comes in much later in his career, where I think his ambitions took over and his zeal to overcome Edison took him over the edge.
One of things we owe to Tesla are "tachyonized" (trademark) materials. They have healing and vitalizing properties. In USA, there's David Wagner and in Europe there is a Swiss manufacturer with analogous products, but 3x cheaper, resilient, and permanently functioning.
Our group is a strictly local vendor of the Swiss company, and we have a lot of positive feedback from the customers. There had been practically no complains and nobody of about 200 customers ever wanted to return the money, which is of course an option. Our customers are professional healers who buy whole sets of tablets, old people with chronical health problems, and common people who ocassionally get sick, injured, or they need to recover quickly after sporting. I personally have used them with great success to recover from work in one day, without them typically the pain lasted longer than the weekend.
Wagner, in his book did some experiments, for example, he picked two yucca plants, one had some "tachyonized" sand in soil, and the other not. Needless to say, the "tachyonized" plant grew much bigger.
This is all based on one Tesla's patent, though Wagner's technology is a bit altered and has much lesser quality, mainly because the materials are supposed to get spent for commercial purposes. Of course, it's not a free energy device, but it should utilize the radiant energy, or as Wagner says, "tachyons".
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
As I understand the theory of free energy: the source of all electric charge is the vacuum. The electric charge does not appear by vapor, radiation, fossil fuels or wind. All these energies basically serve to turn a generator's arbor. The generator produces the electric charge by disrupting the balance in local vacuum. It creates a dipole in the electric device, where the electric charge comes from the locally disturbed vacuum. As long as the dipole (and imbalance in the vacuum) exists, the energy flows.
The creation of dipole requires energy. But what a conventional generator always does? It uses the uneasily gained energy from the vacuum to destroy the dipole almost in the same moment. The energy is returned to vacuum, the local imbalance is balanced, and the dipole, the gate to vacuum energy is lost. Such a device will always have COP < 1.
We must abandon the primitive method of disturbing the local vacuum by turning a big, heavy turbine. Why couldn't we affect the local vacuum directly, without mechanical movement? But production of a true free energy device requires a different approach to electric circuit. The very idea of a circuit is questionable, because the returning part of the circuit is, what destroys the dipole. It is acceptable for appliances, but not for free energy generators. The dipole must not be destroyed.
BRB.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Non is quisquiliae iterum. I suppose that would be interesting to investigate. I hope it has nothing to do with the hypothetical faster-than-light particles known as "tachyons" (though it seems tachyon is too common a word to tradmark, so takion was used instead) which by all accounts should only appear in the most extreme circumstances in the universe or individually on extremely rare occasions.
While it seems the only way to find out anything about Wagner is to purchase his book, but I did find a few excerpts from a guy name Fred Pulver:
"The Tachyon Field is extremely dense. This density cannot be measured because it is a negative state, mirroring the universe of positive density which we inhabit. The theory of negative density is supported by an observable phenomenon: a perpetually expanding physical universe which is brought into being through pressure exerted by expansion of the invisible one. Pressure exerted by the Tachyon Field upon our physical universe indicates the existence of an invisible, highly dense universe, the Tachyon Field."
If this is what Wagner's stuff is like, I'm in for a real treat. This first exerpt amounts to non causa pro causa, in the sense that the expansion of the universe is by no means an inducation of a particular hidden field. Any number of other fields could cause it, as well as it being caused by something other than a field. Further on he wrote:
"Tachyon theory is holistic because it accepts the notion of two interdependent universes which are actually indivisible: the visible, sub-light speed universe and an invisible, faster-than-light one. Tachyon theory also substantiates omnipresence, a purely metaphysical concept. God is omnipresent (simultaneously existing everywhere). Omnipresent existence can only occur at faster-than-light speeds, since slower-than-light travel takes time to cross space. Therefore, omnipresence can only be an attribute of a Tachyon Universe where time and space are uniform."
In many ways this is worse than the last. It uses a fallacous premise to imply and support an equally fallacous premise. Because omnipresense, tachyons? A non sequitur.
The source of all electric charge is not the vacuum - it is merely the absence of electrons in one place and the presence of electrons in another. If by vacuum you mean vacuum flux, or quantum foam, no - electrons positron annihilation occurs all the time but has nothing to do with charge in every situation I know of. I'm not sure you know what a dipole is, because you're using the term incorrectly. Dipolar objects do not create energy any more than mechanical springs do.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that:
1. Electric charge (dipole) is the result of perturbations in vacuum flux.
2. Energy is thus derived from the vacuum via electric charge (dipolarity).
3. The discharging of a source (such as a battery) restores the vacuum to its normal state.
4. Restoring the vacuum results in loss of the ability to retrieve energy.
5. There is a way to maintain electric charge (potential energy) despite the use of electric charge to produce work (kinetic energy over time).
6. In order to do this one simply does not disrupt the electric charge (dipole).
The source of electric charge was the Big Bang which generated all persistent sub-atomic particles. The vast bulk of electrical charge is carried by electrons (negative) and protons (positive).
Vacuum fluctuations do not generate electron and proton pairs. They produce particle/anti-particle pairs, such as electron-positron pairs. Positrons are not the carrier of positive charge in actual electrical circuits.
The most famous example where the pair are prevented from recombining is Hawking radiation at the event horizon of a black hole, where one of the pair disappears into the black hole, and the other appears as radiation from the black hole. This does not produce a net increase in available energy, since the net effect is to reduce the energy/mass of the black hole - in fact this mechanism is theorized to explain that very small black holes will 'evaporate' in a short time.
That is an outline of the actual theory around these particles.
There is no theory that has this effect as involved in conventional energy generation at all.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
My friend says what Luminon is talking about comes from Tom Bearden (http://www.cheniere.org/). He's describing him to me now, and it does sound pretty crazy.
Oh, the "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," it comes full circle. I'm gonna fill him in on the takion-thingy now.
EDIT: Found this thing on David Wagner. Kinda speaks for itself:
@inspectormustard
I fear he is really talking about those hyphothetical faster-than light particles.
Behold the miracles of capitalism: Something that has never been seen, nor tested, nor shown any effect in this universe what soever can still be sold.
There are a couple of those bullshit-devices around whose only effect is to make the ones who produce them richer.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
According to this worldview, the healing energy of so-called "tachyonized" products has it's origin described a bit more specifically, (but in special terms) and affects the body in the same way as many other methods of alternative medicine - by stimulating the nerve and endocrine system. As for the special terms, there is a fundamental conception of "realm", or "frequency", or "vibration", of energy and matter, which must be unified with the scientific terminology. This relates to a quote of N. Tesla, ‘When we start to study non-physical phenomena, we will progress more in ten years than we have for centuries.’
2) Right, except of the point 1), not electric charge, but imbalance. The magical process which makes the imbalance in vacuum is the good old induction, various forms of it.
3) Nope. When you discharge something, the local vacuum already was in a balanced state. It balances it's energy with surrounding vacuum, just like when you throw a water from a bucket on the lake surface, it doesn't leave a heap of water there, and vice versa. The vacuum behaves surprisingly similarly like a reservoir of water. (I'll perhaps explain later)
4) Yes.
5) Well, yes and no. If you define the electric charge as a concentration of electrons, then no, because electron flow is forbidden. In my opinion, there is a controversy on what the electric charge is. I think that electrons are only one of many mediums for an electric charge - or what are we are talking about. Perhaps we don't mean the charge, but EM potential energy.
In MEG controlling circuit, the energy from vacuum is gathered in a capacitor, while there occurs no electron flow whatsoever. (prevented by a truly curious method) This way the electric charge is not drained away - otherwise it would, because MEG is a soft source, it can't be burdened directly by any appliance.
6) Yes, except of the point 1) (dipole != electric charge) But it's not simple, considering that all the electrotechnics had developed in an unsuitable design since Tesla's times.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Ah. Thank you, Bob. I always appreciate a fresh breeze when knee-deep in bullshit.
Seriously, who comes up with this garbage? And why oh why does every pretend scientist start off with "at one point, everyone thought the world was flat"? No, everyone fucking didn't. Pythagoras and Aristotle both knew that the world could only be spherical, given the math involved (lunar eclipses, etc.) That's the majority of written Western history, wherein we find many, many early examples of people knowing the world wasn't flat. Obviously there were idiots, but 2500 years ago, it was clear as day to those who used mathematics that the world was roughly spherical. Math saves the day again, bitches.
Anyway, back to the "play the game of life" guy. There's no reason to dress up legitimizing people's good feelings as "science". It might be more appropriate to tell them that it's okay to feel good. That's what he was doing anyway. Unfortunately, because of how it's framed, the effect of his presentation will lose its effect shortly, whereas addressing people's feelings allows for more permanent change.
Note the doctorate from The California Institute of Special Investigations into Nonsense, or whatever. If that's accredited, then I should start putting PhD after my name, too, because I read this book one time. What a douche.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Join us next time, when legitimate math (the 1957 Nobel Prize given to Lee and Yang) is warped into something mystical by people who are mathematically illiterate. I'm sooooo surprised right now.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Jeb (my friend) says you're more or less quoting Tom Bearden though it seems to me you diverge with him in certain respects. Jeb wants me to get equations, so if you could find some equations with supporting literature (that link with the pdf had equations, but it didn't specify what it meant by the terms) that would help us investigate.
Also, have you personally constructed or do you have access to this MEG thingy?
Also found this on http://www.cheniere.org/ :
"Factoid: Energy from the Vacuum is NOT zero point energy, since the latter is an observable state and the vacuum energy is nonobservable."
If that's true, there's no way we can test this stuff and, I think, it wouldn't even work since running something that uses vacuum energy would be observing vacuum energy similar to the way we observe the value for zero point energy (roughly, the lowest possible energy in an area).
You could be really interested in the homepage of J. L. Naudin, the Bearden's co-worker. It's full of free energy devices. As for MEG, it's here
Btw, in what respect I might differ from Bearden? I write mostly from my several years old memories. I have a good memory, but not flawless.
I actually made my high school graduating work on the free energy devices. I passed without a problem, probably because nobody understood what the work was about
Well, if Bearden is right, then any product of electromagnetic induction is an observed vacuum energy. However, it's probably impossible to measure how much of it it's there, when the vacuum is in balanced state. Theoretically, we could measure the energy of local vacuum by draining a lot of it at one moment. But the vacuum behaves as a water reservoir. I have read, that a big local disturbances in vacuum may produce EMP waves which can fry all electronics around. This is why it's impossible to build a really big MEG. When you open a big hole in dam, all water starts flowing to it, but the hole is still too small to let all the water through, and the excessive water collides with the dam. The same thing happens when closing the dam. This is an analogy of how MEG could create the EMP wave, if it would be built really big. However, MEG is rather primitive thing, there already must be more sophisticated devices which avoid this effect. For example, by slower, gradual increasing or decreasing the output.
I'll try to read the whole letter later.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Vacuum energy (as it's generally understood) is just the background radiation left over from the big bang - it's the smallest amount of energy one can have in an area and is pretty much untappable. I say pretty much because it fluctuates in the form of quantum foam, wherein particles borrow energy and then annihilate eachother. Jeb and I have argued about this, and I stand by the idea that there is no way to destabilize the random events (such as via the casimir effect, which is just a force) such that there is more energy than when you began. In fact, he nocticed I was writing this, and we're arguing again.
The vacuum energy has been, more or less, measured. It varies is proportional to the cosmological constant.
riiiiiiiiiight