Free energy, the myths and legends, and reality.

[TRoaches]

"Creating energy" has never been the topic of this thread.....

The topic is "free energy". If the energy does not have "cost" and is "free" then it does not have a typical fuel source. If it does not have a typical fuel source it is accurate to say that the energy is being created. The energy did not exist, but then it did! I really don't get why you are taking such issue with my use of the phrase "creating energy" as a layman's description of a method of performing work without burning fuel.

 

 

UFOs? serious?....

 

When discussing free energy UFOs are a much more sensible reference point than a perpetual motion machines based on gravity or inertia. This is because very credible people have reported witnessing silent UFOs that did not appear to be propelled by any thermal means, raising the possibility that there are other ways to perform work than those that the general public are aware of. In contrast, there is not a single credible person who has ever accurately testified to witnessing actual perpetual motion device.

[Vagrant0]

Its memory Alloy, it always remembers its last state. The trick is to make the catalyzer produce its own hot water source next to a Ocean, with a constant stream of water to produce its energy requirements. The trick is to make it efficient enough to produce more energy then its using to produce that hot water.

Again, this material doesn't work in the same way that you think it does. The quantity of water does not matter, the material itself only works for a limited amount of time before the memory component of it stops working. To put it more clearly, you have to stop thinking of it as a metal, and more like a rubber band. A rubber band has a natural state (slack), and an un-natural state (stretched). When kinetic force is applied to make that change of state, you are transferring that kinetic force into tension. When released that tension causes the rubber band to pull itself back to the natural state, but not completely. Every time the band is stretched, its natural state moves closer to its un-natural one as the molecular bonds which allow for that tension start to get weaker causing it to stretch, distort, or just break. The same sort of thing happens with Nitinol, and well, every other material that can store energy in the form of tension.

 

 

 

This is because very credible people have reported witnessing silent UFOs that did not appear to be propelled by any thermal means.

 

Erm, just because it wasn't belching exhaust, steam, or anything similar does not mean that it has to be using some revolutionary new power source. More over, I don't think any of these witnesses happened to have the measuring equipment required to judge if such a craft is generating any amount of heat, radiation, or magnetic fields... Much less be in possession of a modern, high-definition camera. Will give you that UFOs have more supporting evidence than perpetual energy, but would caution that this line of thinking might drive the topic too far off base.

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

Not sure why you keep on this idea about "creating energy", I have never advocated anything about creating energy through out this entire thread...

 

I'm keeping on that idea because it is the topic of the thread.

 

"Creating energy" has never been the topic of this thread.....

 

The topic is "free energy". If the energy does not have "cost" and is "free" then it does not have a typical fuel source. If it does not have a typical fuel source it is accurate to say that the energy is being created. The energy did not exist, but then it did! I really don't get why you are taking such issue with my use of the phrase "creating energy" as a layman's description of a method of performing work without burning fuel.

 

Mainly because you were the one who originally brought up this idea about "creating energy"...

 

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy"

 

Your idea of "free energy" is non-existent and is not what the topic was originally about....

Edited January 17, 2014 by colourwheel

[Thor.]

If you think about it, free energy doesn't mean prolonged sustained energy, the title only mention the free side of energy. The stuff that comes from a zero point one module like in Stargate.

 

Free energy exists, just muffled from the big oil and, and maybe something more sinister like absolute control. The economy is so fragile a free energy source would disrupt the world. But free energy in my mind, they still could simply charge that free energy with a cost to it, like they already are. That would defeat the purpose of free though, unless the public catches on and start creating their own.

 

Or you can go deeper in into that Alien scenario.

 

There are to many variables why free energy hasn't been advertised, or mentioned on all channels.

 

The only place right now you would ever here anything concrete about free energy is Youtube. The evidence is there, you just have to look.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Thor.

[TRoaches]

Erm, just because it wasn't belching exhaust, steam, or anything similar does not mean that it has to be using some revolutionary new power source. More over, I don't think any of these witnesses happened to have the measuring equipment required to judge if such a craft is generating any amount of heat, radiation, or magnetic fields... Much less be in possession of a modern, high-definition camera. Will give you that UFOs have more supporting evidence than perpetual energy, but would caution that this line of thinking might drive the topic too far off base.

 

If a flying device is witnessed by, lets say for example, a test pilot with extensive knowledge of both aviation and aircraft engineering, and that expert witness reports that the craft was achieving instant acceleration and deceleration beyond the capabilities of any known propulsion system then it seems silly to say "yeah but he didn't have a high speed camera" or equipment to measure radiation etc etc.

 

e.g. Gordon Cooper

 

 

Mainly because you were the one who originally brought up this idea about "creating energy"...

 

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy"

 

Your idea of "free energy" is non-existent and is not what the topic was originally about....

Free energy is EXACTLY what the topic is about. Why are you debating whether a thread entitled "Free energy" is actually about free energy? Thor started the topic, and he is very clearly talking about exactly the same meaning of "free energy" that I am talking about. He clarifies this quite clearly in his last post. Why don't you tell him that he is off topic as well?

 

The law of conservation of energy is a scientific law, meaning that it is meant to be broken. All scientific laws are eventually broken by an advancement in the field. Finding a way to violate that law is the essence of what it means to discover "free energy". Furthermore, you very obviously do not understand the law of conservation based on your earlier description of a perpetual motion water mill. You even posted the definition of "free energy" earlier in the thread. The definition that you gave is exactly what I am describing. It is a system that can turn fuel into work with at least 100% efficiency.

 

 

If you think about it, free energy doesn't mean prolonged sustained energy, the title only mention the free side of energy. The stuff that comes from a zero point one module like in Stargate.

 

Correct, it doesn't have to be prolonged. If an experiment were conducted where a device required 1 unit of energy to start up, contained 1 unit of energy worth of fuel, and was confirmed to be able to produce 2 units of energy worth of work it would be producing free energy, because some of the initial potential energy will be lost to various forms of resistance and dissipation.

Edited January 17, 2014 by TRoaches

[Vagrant0]

 

If a flying device is witnessed by, lets say for example, a test pilot with extensive knowledge of both aviation and aircraft engineering, and that expert witness reports that the craft was achieving instant acceleration and deceleration beyond the capabilities of any known propulsion system then it seems silly to say "yeah but he didn't have a high speed camera" or equipment to measure radiation etc etc.

 

e.g. Gordon Cooper

We already had that discussion about Aliens... It never went anywhere. So let's just not dwell on that end of things and deal with the facts of the matter.

 

First, a pilot may have basic understanding of aerodynamics, how a jet (or propeller) works, but that does not mean that they fully understand the science behind it to the same degree of people who actually designed those systems. Understanding those systems beyond a basic level is not necessary for operating the craft. This is why engineers typically were not test pilots after flight was proven (and why many engineers died horribly just trying to get off the ground). Better understanding than your average mook, sure... But not enough to fully access the inner workings of an unidentified craft from a single encounter. Even someone who was an expert would have trouble understanding how something worked when pressed against something they do not recognize at 30,000 feet.

 

Second, lack of information does not mean that information does not exist. Even with modern equipment, it is nearly impossible to judge distances, sizes, speeds, and direction of another object while you are traveling at speed inside another, with no frame of reference. Pilots rely heavily on radar and recognizing known models of aircraft in order to fill in the gaps. When it comes to craft which does not appear on radar, is of an unknown design, or which has features which might obscure shape (opaque or very reflective surfaces, dazzle paint, ect), it becomes a guessing game... intensified by the stresses of piloting a craft in potential combat. Human memory is flawed normally, and becomes significantly more so under pressure. In this case, lack of hot exhaust as a means of thrust could simply be because it was not describable in that situation, or because it was just not jet propulsion in the usual sense.

 

Third, we don't know all there is to know about lift, propulsion, or even energy systems. Most of what we do know is just based on those things that we know have worked and can predictably work if based on similar principles. There certainly may be other systems out there that are equally viable, just as you can have number systems which are not base-10. The problem however comes with compatibility. Nearly every electronic device made by humans has been designed around a system of positives, negatives, and neutrals. Even if we could discover a power source which did things differently, it would still need to convert back to the system which can currently be utilized. That whole Alternating Current verses Direct Current fiasco that was happening around 100 years ago and which still has effects to this day would be a pale comparison. Meaning that it doesn't matter very much what else is out there if it is not something we can utilize, produce on our own, or comprehend with the basis of knowledge that we currently possess.

 

Fourth, a handful of salt has enough nuclear energy to power a small city, that does not however mean that we have the capability to release, capture, and direct that energy efficiently. The key is not in the how, but rather how economical it is to produce the means to make it efficient. This is why your average combustion engine still only gets between 25-40 miles to the gallon. Sure, we could engineer an engine that has less mechanical wear, has less friction, less vibration, better compression, better energy reclamation from the hot exhaust, but it would just cost too damn much to manufacture and you'd only make the oil companies upset at you. Meaning that no matter what discoveries or solutions might be made, they still need to be something which actually works with reality.

[colourwheel]

 

The law of conservation of energy is a scientific law, meaning that it is meant to be broken. All scientific laws are eventually broken by an advancement in the field. Finding a way to violate that law is the essence of what it means to discover "free energy". Furthermore, you very obviously do not understand the law of conservation based on your earlier description of a perpetual motion water mill. You even posted the definition of "free energy" earlier in the thread. The definition that you gave is exactly what I am describing. It is a system that can turn fuel into work with at least 100% efficiency.

 

"Scientific laws" are not meant to be broken. For instance "The law of conservation of energy" it really can't be broken but the law has limits and can only be "changed". Giving you the benefit of the doubt, for any practical purposes, if virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are to be created, it will only be for a very short time. In cases of some other interesting physical effects too, there is no way this can be used to run any type of machine without energy input.

 

You push Newton’s laws of motion to the extreme, they stop being accurate approximations. That does not mean Newton’s laws are wrong, it just means they have limits just like every other law...

 

Another example, Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship; Voltage = V, Resistance = R, and Current= I. where as "V=(I)R" or "I=V/R" or "R=V/I" . To "theoretically" break "Ohm's law" you would also be breaking the laws of mathematics...

 

I think you might be confused with scientific theories. Scientific theories are meant to be proven or dis-proven which is completely different from Scientific laws. Still... would be interesting for you to post all these so-called "scientific laws" that have been "broken" by an advancement in the fields, since you claim "all" scientific laws are eventually broken.....

Edited January 18, 2014 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

We already had that discussion about Aliens... It never went anywhere. So let's just not dwell on that end of things and deal with the facts of the matter.

I stated earlier that I do NOT think that UFO sightings have anything to do with aliens, and that a more probable explanation for the mountain of credible sightings is that they are terrestrial military aircraft.

 

Military air crews, as well as ground and naval spotters, have been specifically trained to identify aircraft and estimate their speed and heading. If a trained spotter observes a flying object perform a maneuver that defies the limits of atmospheric flight powered by conventional means (i.e. accelerating or decelerating at a rate that would require massive amounts of force and generate enough g force to crush a human body) then it implies one of two possibilities:

 

A. the expert spotter is hallucinating or mistaken. In many cases there are multiple expert witnesses to these events, so they would all have to share the hallucination

B. the craft is being propelled by some unknown, unconventional method, given that the energy requirements of such maneuvering would be beyond the capabilities of any known propulsion system.

 

 

"Scientific laws" are not meant to be broken.

Yes, they are. They are meant to be scrutinized and tested forever. The eternal scrutiny of existing data is a central principle of science. Declaring any law of science to be eternal and unbreakable is to leave science and wander into the territory of dogma.

 

 

For instance "The law of conservation of energy" it really can't be broken but laws have limits and can only be "changed".

 

If can not be broken yet. Perhaps it will be some day, and a future generation will marvel at how primitive we were back when we lit fires to produce our energy.

 

 

Another example, you push Newton’s laws of motion to the extreme, they stop being accurate approximations. That does not mean Newton’s laws are wrong

 

Yes, it does. Newton's laws have been known to be wrong for a long time. In fact, even Newton himself acknowledged that they were incomplete.

 

 

would be interesting for you to post all these so-called "scientific laws" that have been "broken" by an advancement in the fields, since you claim "all" scientific laws are eventually broken.....

 

I can't post all of them because of time limitations and a character limit for forum posts, but I can list a few. You already mentioned Newton's laws, but there is also geocentrism, the entire body of work known as alchemy, flat earth, the "dance of the spheres", the "four humors" of early medicine, the early atomic theories that stated that the atom was the smallest possible particle, which was later replaced by the also erroneous law that protons, electrons, and neutrons were the smallest possible particles, and finally the grouping of all matter into one of the "three states".

[colourwheel]

 

Newton's laws have been known to be wrong for a long time. In fact, even Newton himself acknowledged that they were incomplete.

 

Newton's Laws are not wrong... Just because Newton himself acknowledged that they were incomplete does not prove they are wrong or broken...

 

For instance, Newton's law of gravity is not wrong, in macroscopic scales and at relatively low speed it predicts the movement of objects accurately. However, objects at microscopic scale near the speed of light will have to take into account time dilation, and General relativity helps describe these. Einstein tried to prove Newton was wrong but it doesn't break his laws, it only changed it to take into account to be applied at high speeds and very large distances, but within our known solar system Newton's law is clear....

 

 

there is also geocentrism, the entire body of work known as alchemy, flat earth, the "dance of the spheres", the "four humors" of early medicine, the early atomic theories that stated that the atom was the smallest possible particle, which was later replaced by the also erroneous law that protons, electrons, and neutrons were the smallest possible particles, and finally the grouping of all matter into one of the "three states".

 

The key word is "theories" in your example of geocentrism which was never a "scientific law" anyways...

 

But beside the point, scientific laws are not "meant" to be broken....

 

Also note "theoretically" if a scientific law is ever broken the science must change with it...

Edited January 18, 2014 by colourwheel

[Thor.]

Found something that might interest you.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/143026-fusion-power-at-home-or-how-small-science-will-defeat-big-science

 

Fusion done at home??