free energy

[TylerDurden]

I respect the religious beliefs of others. Thats what free energy is to these people. a Religion.

Ja, mon. I might use the term "superstition". Not in the perjorative, but to the effect that no remotely plausible explanation or causal connection is offered.

While I don't exactly respect others' beliefs, I respect their right to believe whatever the hell they like. Then I ask them if they can make a clear distiction betweeen what they believe and why they believe it.

:?

 

[Malcolm]

I respect their right to believe whatever the hell they like. Then I ask them if they can make a clear distiction betweeen what they believe and why they believe it:?

I'm curious, Tyler. Can you elaborate a little?

 

[TylerDurden]

I respect their right to believe whatever the hell they like. Then I ask them if they can make a clear distiction betweeen what they believe and why they believe it:?

I'm curious, Tyler. Can you elaborate a little?

I find most people do not examine why they believe and confuse what they believe-in as why they believe it.

Why would I believe in a god?

Why would I believe in science?

 

[rf]

Nothing is impossible except violating the second law of thermodynamics, that that's what all these free energy things do...

Every religious adherent believes his religion is the one true one.

The `laws' of thermodynamics are currently quite sturdy and to be bet against with great caution. That doesn't make them impervious. The concrete floor is absolutely hard and impervious, we know this. We also now know that it's mostly empty space. It's pretty clear that we don't necessarily have the whole story on the second law of thermodynamics. Though it is standing the test of time so far.

Our ability to see and measure the physical world is limited and uncertain.

If you're betting on something pay attention to the current odds. But keep an open mind.

Richard

 

[Mark_A_W]

Nothing is impossible except violating the second law of thermodynamics, that that's what all these free energy things do...

Every religious adherent believes his religion is the one true one.

The `laws' of thermodynamics are currently quite sturdy and to be bet against with great caution. That doesn't make them impervious. The concrete floor is absolutely hard and impervious, we know this. We also now know that it's mostly empty space. It's pretty clear that we don't necessarily have the whole story on the second law of thermodynamics. Though it is standing the test of time so far.

Our ability to see and measure the physical world is limited and uncertain.

If you're betting on something pay attention to the current odds. But keep an open mind.

Richard

Ok, yep you are correct, I was perhaps going too far with my last statement. After all, Newtonian physics gave way to Relativity, and we know Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't mesh - there is something more to discover to unite them (Super String theory is the best bet so far). There is something missing, probably relativity will get hammered more than Quantum Mechanics

But I will be very, very surprised if the second law goes down.

However I don't respect the religious beliefs of others. Most of the time it is all an irrational load of crap that stops the advancement of a decent secular humanist society. HOWEVER I do recognise that a lot of (most?) charity work is done by religious organisations and I will donate to those that help (Brotherhood of St Lawrence, etc).

Dawkins is right. The sooner we get over this superstitious rot the better - did you see him getting stuck into the Water Diviners and Astrologers? Classic.

And you don't need faith to believe in science, there is evidence, a fundamental difference - a huge chasm of a difference.

 

[Diosky]

Ok you don't need faith to believe in science but you do to believe in religion?........What is the evidence that allows all science to be truth? Have you personally accomplished splitting an atom? Have you seen it done?...I am going to guess not likely. Now have you seen god/Allah/The Great One/etc? Have you seen a spirit?...I am also going to guess probably not. So now to assume something is untrue simply because you cannot see it and our current scientific instruments cannot detect does not necessarily mean it is not there. For example, the atom was though to exist long before we could actually use scientific instruments to prove it. Same goes for sub-atomic particles. I mean I could go on for ages with things that were either supposed or theoretically proven (gotta love that word because it basically means faith) before we actually had the ability to use instruments to either see or manipulate them. Magnetic fields are a great example as well. We still barely understand evolution and how/why it happens, but that doesn't stop if from being real. Can I prove that the second law of thermodynamics is flawed...no. But as was said, that doesn't mean its not. Nor does it mean that there is something we as human beings missed that would have negated it entirely in the first place. I do completely respect someone right to not believe in what I believe, understand the things I do, or even acknowledge my existence. That said I do find it sad when people close their minds to a possiblity simple because it violates THEIR beliefs. And trust me, believing that the second law of thermodynamics isn't flawed and there is no way to ever disprove it, that my friend takes a leap of faith.

 

[kbarrett]

I have a two word response:

Show me.


That's all. No arguments, no caterwauling about faith, religion, science, whatever.

Just show me. If you can get energy out of vacuum or whatever, I will lead the rush to your door. But I insist on testing the apparatus ...

I want evidence. If you have none, then stop bothering me. Everything else is crap.

 

[TylerDurden]

If belief in science requires a leap of faith, it's a small one...

Science relies on establishment of a body of supporting evidence.
Religion often relies on the opposite: denial of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Diosky]

Often science doesn't just require a small leap of faith. Often you regular Joe couldn't understand the principles behind what makes an nuclear reactor generate power, not in the truest terms. Same goes for many other commonly taken for granted scientific notions that the average person uses everyday. Yet they believe it works, and its not on a small leap of faith, at least no larger than for them to just as easily believe in God or anything of such nature. Don't mistake me as advocating God or religion in general, I am simply pointing the silliness of equating God to being any less believable than quantum physics. Both are based on theory, some would even go as far to say God has more physical proof than quantum physics does, though I am not about to waste time arguing that. Again I say that I could care less if anyone believes what I have to say or opens their minds a bit to the possibilities out there, but it does strike me odd to see on a forum with whom people that constantly are going against the norm would be so quick to discredit someones science simply because its not the norm. Does that not almost seem hypocritical? Almost along the lines when the first settlers arriving in North America advocating freedom of religion then burning someone for being a witch.

 

[JeffD]

I have to totally agree with many of you on this. I don't care what folks believe...so long as their beliefs align with mine.

All I know is that one cannot be a respectible Scientist AND believe in god...with the exceptions of Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Blaise Pascal, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, etc.

Talk about "free energy"...I'm feeling it right now - coming off this thread. :lol:

 

[lazarus2405]

it does strike me odd to see on a forum with whom people that constantly are going against the norm would be so quick to discredit someones science simply because its not the norm.

You misunderstand the issue. We are so quick to discredit not because it is against the norm, but because we are skeptical. Being far out of normal scientific research alone is no problem. Making far-out claims and having no evidence to support them is the problem. The burden of proof is on them to convince us, not for us to blindly accept their claims.

Being skeptical and being open-minded are not mutually exclusive. These days, most scientists are rather open-minded because of science's dynamic nature (as you said, how many times we've been wrong in the past), especially in the more exotic branches of study. However, that is tempered by critical inspection of new ideas. If the far-out idea works, it passes. Not before.

I am simply pointing the silliness of equating God to being any less believable than quantum physics. Both are based on theory,

You cannot just throw around the word theory. In science, "theory" has a very precise and demanding meaning, different from common use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

[rf]

The naysayers are troubling. Their defiant negativity, seems so uncalled for. So counter productive. Modern-day alchemists attempting to derive energy from thin air is not a bad thing. Why attempt to so forcefully disillusion them? Guidance and suggestions are one thing, angry pessimism is something else. Pessimists create nothing.

The alchemists were optimists. They may not have succeeded at their original goals, but they advanced science immensely. Good things come from forging ahead and trying new things.

Richard

 

[Diosky]

Just because wiki says word means something does not by any means mean it is the only meaning. Wiki will never be the end all for me, it is incorrect on about as much information as it is correct. Often words may have a different meaning from one person to the next depending on situation, where they were raised, etc etc. Not saying theory should ever mean "I swim with whales" but I am sure you get my point. Alot of good points I think came out of this whole thread though .

 

[truckerzero]

boy i guess i hit a nerve on this subject but lets not forget even if nobody can comeup with free energy we may discover other valuable info along the way and being a biker and a trucker i belive the journy is more important than the destination because of the things you learn along the way.in most likly hood there is no such thing as free energy but there probably are plenty of untapped energy sources out there and i would never dicoruage any one from following a idea they have even if does not stand a snowwballs chance in hell of working its still worth it for the learning process . for example viagra was a failed heart medication that was no better the other things on the market and the sticky stuff on the back of postit notes was a failed attept of making a super strong adhesive

 

[truckerzero]

ps this is my most active thread to date like i said i must have hit a nerve but debate is a good thing when both sides can offer their opinon and the diffrent sides can agree to dissagree but for the record im neutral on true free energy im from missouri and our motto thats on our license plate says it all "the show me state" ill belive it when i can buy it untill then keep tryin.

 

[truckerzero]

i belive this video is the proof of concept machine buy the same inventer featured on the sky news artical at the begining of this thread[youtube]89M9sZmq8_M[/youtube]

 

[lazarus2405]

Often words may have a different meaning from one person to the next depending on situation,

Exactly. "Theory" has a very detailed scientific meaning. I don't care how you use it outside of that context, but you cannot just throw around the word when discussing science.

Sorry, it's a peeve of mine. It angers me to no end when the life's work of thousands of individuals, our most prized gems of knowledge, can be summarily dismiss when someone says "it's just a theory".

...

Thanks for the video. Good to hear it from the inventor. Do you know of any outside testing done on his apparatus?

 

[kbarrett]

If his apparatus is 300% efficient, then why is he using outside power?

Surely, if it produced more power than it consumed, he could really impress us by using its own power to run the motor, and have it run the lightbulbs without any power input.

His DC voltmeters are being fed unfiltered ... put a smoothing capacitor across that output and things will look a little different.

Scammer ... or self-deluded.

If you try to run it off it's own output, it will wind down and stop.

 

[Drunkskunk]

If his apparatus is 300% efficient, then why is he using outside power?

Surely, if it produced more power than it consumed, he could really impress us by using its own power to run the motor, and have it run the lightbulbs without any power input.

His DC voltmeters are being fed unfiltered ... put a smoothing capacitor across that output and things will look a little different.

Scammer ... or self-deluded.

If you try to run it off it's own output, it will wind down and stop.

Statments like that are Blasphomy in the eyes of the Church of the Free Lunch.
"Pay Thoust Not attention to the man behindest the curtian"

 

[truckerzero]

what do you think of this demo seems to work if not a fraud[youtube]5rl1dI9YCi8[/youtube]

 

[TylerDurden]

If his apparatus is 300% efficient, then why is he using outside power?

Surely, if it produced more power than it consumed, he could really impress us by using its own power to run the motor, and have it run the lightbulbs without any power input.

His DC voltmeters are being fed unfiltered ... put a smoothing capacitor across that output and things will look a little different.
.

Indeed, one might wonder why the AC mains feeding the thing weren't metered... 8)

 

[kbarrett]

what do you think of this demo seems to work if not a fraud.

A Bedini-Cole "generator" is a hall effect motor mis-wired and being run at a fraction of it's capacity. Energy is being used up here, in the form of weakening/damaging the permanent magnets.

Power required to remagnetize the permanent magnets > energy being bled off into the capacitor.


If you look through all of the comments, the poster responds by ranting and accusing everyone who questions his device as an oil company hired gun.

 

[Mark_A_W]

If his apparatus is 300% efficient, then why is he using outside power?

Surely, if it produced more power than it consumed, he could really impress us by using its own power to run the motor, and have it run the lightbulbs without any power input.

His DC voltmeters are being fed unfiltered ... put a smoothing capacitor across that output and things will look a little different.

Scammer ... or self-deluded.

If you try to run it off it's own output, it will wind down and stop.

If it was 300% efficient it would very rapidly spin faster and FASTER. Completely out of control. In fact if the system as a whole was 100.000000insertafewmore00000001% efficient it would still get faster and faster and FASTER...

All a total load of bollucks.

And I'm with Laz on the theory meaning. A theory in science is a very precise thing - a BIG DEAL. Not an off the cuff suspicion.....like god. (Yes there's a little troll in me, and I watch/read far to much Dawkins).

We want proof. In an independent lab. Peer reviewed. No bullshit youtube videos.

 

[cerewa]

In linguistics, it makes sense to say that the definition of a word is whatever a bunch of people think the definition is.

But the trouble with applying that idea to this "theory" business is that, just because one thing gets called a theory and another thing gets called a theory doesn't mean they're the same thing!

I have a theory (in the informal sense of the word) that 99% of the stuff in this thread from both sides is utter BS. But my "theory" has nothing connecting it to the "theory of gravity" other than a word that starts with T and ends with Y.

 

[lazarus2405]

A theory in science is a very precise thing - a BIG DEAL. Not an off the cuff suspicion.....like god.

Well, depending on the theological framework, and on the requirements of evidence, god can be a theory in the technical scientific sense of the word. A simple uniting explanation for a variety of disparate phenomena, supported by evidence and with testable predictions.

Though, that requires definitions of evidence that are unacceptable in the scientific world.

But that is what separates a theory from a hypothesis in the end: evidence.