Bill Schwab Posted April 6, 2002 Share Posted April 6, 2002 Guys and gals this seems too good to be true: http://rense.com/general21/free.htm but the patent and trademark office seems to this it's real: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...RS=PN/6,362,718 Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 It is too good to be true. There is no such thing as "Free Energy." However, there is such a thing as a patented device that cannot possibly work. The Physics community has critiqued the US Patent Office for decades because of its propensity to issue patents for devices that are - well - patently ridiculous. The hucksters peddling wonderous "Free Energy" devices wildly wave these patents about to prove "legitimacy," so they can bilk you out of your hard-earned dinero. Rarely will one of these "Free Energy" carnival barkers allow his device to be independently, scientifically tested in order to prove the device outputs more energy than it consumes. When proper testing is done, the devices fail, every single time. Not one of these devices has ever been proven to be more than wishful thinking. Ever. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 ...and, if there was a "new wheel" invented, it would be all over the legitimate news services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 define "legitimate", all news we see is merely propaganda. Think about it though, there have been fuel injection/caburation systems that could produce cars that attain 100 mpg, or more, but who owns those patents??? The oil companies. The trouble is, the people who have a vested interest in current oil and energy prices would likely stop at nothing to stop this, if it is for real. Don't misunderstand, I don't know if this "free energy device" is real and if it actually works. However, I won't discount it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 Setting the "free energy " thing aside...any "new wheel" type invention will be front page, headline news (and then it may be bunk). It won't be found on page 18 of the Kansas City Star. That is what I mean by legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 "Free Energy" devices violate the laws of Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics states that one can never have 100% efficient conversion of energy from one form to another. There will always be some loss. So, if we can never achieve 100% conversion, how can we have a device that does 105%? It just can't happen. Unfortunately, most people are no longer aware of this because of the death of science education in America. You certainly won't be getting it from any "reputable" news source either. I met some of America's next generation of journalists ten years ago and none of them could so much as add two numbers together. Furthermore, they were being blatantly encouraged by their professors to manufacture news and bias it in a fitting (read Leftist/Socialist) manner. So, the end result is certainly no surprise. The fallacy of "Free Energy" is not an opinion, a coverup, or a conspiracy. It's not about protecting oil company revenues. It's a demonstrable, testable, proven fact. That's the key feature of good science: testability. Most BE.com regulars are already good "scientists" in their own right. We wonder, then theorize. We make changes to our methods or form, grab our timers, head for the range, and TEST. What works is demonstrable and shows up on the timer and score sheet. The rest gets tossed in the garbage. Welcome to Science! For a breath of fresh air, head right over to: http://www.junkscience.org/ or http://www.csicop.org/si/ http://www.skeptic.com If you're in a well-stocked public library, check out the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. It deals with a lot of similar issues. I'll try to find a source that specifically deals with "Free Energy." The American Physical Society keeps tabs on a lot of these characters, so it shouldn't be too hard. E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 so much for thinking out of the box. I agree with Eric, generally. However, I think it is good that there are some people out there looking for "free energy" and trying to, perhaps, re-write some laws of nature, regardless of motive. That is progress. To relate it to our little world. What if everyone just accepted the original design (soup to nuts) of John Browings 1911??? We wouldn't have our modular S_I's, bull barrels, cone-comps or 9x's. All we'd be stuck with is .45 ACP and 7 rd mags (not that its a bad thing, I just happen to like my hi-caps). Sandy Strayer, Virgil Tripp, Dave Dawson, and George Smith (et. al) are our folks who dare to think out of the box, innovate and re-invent. Its no different than other disciplines. Just some have laws of physics and thermo to contend with. Remeber too, laws were meant to be broken. Look at the CH-46 Chinook (sp?) helicoper (not sure if the desgnation is right, but it the twin rotor helo that the Marines use). That big SOB is not supposed to fly (for reasons I don't understand), but it does. Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted April 7, 2002 Share Posted April 7, 2002 Hey, if anyone can make "Free Energy," I'm all for it. So far, everyone has failed. The laws of Physics aren't there to stifle anyone's creativity; they exist because they accurately describe the Universe as we know it. As soon as someone conclusively demonstrates Thermodynamics is wrong and designs an experiment that is repeatable by others, Science will happily renounce Thermodynamics in favor of the new theory. That is the process of science. This is different than creativity and engineering - the processes John Browning used. The snake-oil salesman of "Free Energy" and other bogus products always moan that "the Man is keeping me down" by throwing reality in their face, denying their genius. Far from it. Creativity is a key element of good Science. Relativity and numerous other foundations of science would not exist without it. Science is a lot like Representative Democracy. It's not perfect, but like Democracy, it's the best system we've been able to come up with. On the other hand, Wishful Thinking has proven itself to be a lousy system of both describing nature and as a system of government over and over and over again. The "Free Energy" and other perpetual motion device hucksters fall into one of two categories: the ignorant and the deceitful. Either they're too uneducated to know it can't work, or they just don't care. In short, good science is testable. Bad science is not. If you're gonna make a claim, ya gotta prove it. Like one of my profs used to say: "Show me, I'm from Missouri." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 well put Eric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Second law of thermodynamics- paraphrased- You cant even get out the amount of energy you put into a system. The Carnott heat engine is the ideal standard by which all others are measured against and it is imposable to reach this level of performance or actually build a Carnott heat engine. Carnott is always less that 100% efficient also. Even if someone were to prove the laws of thermodynamics wrong there would still not be free energy because greedy humans would always chare the other guy; Even if they are getting something for nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 hey...I hear their lighting farts down at the beach...BYOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm iprod Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 The only thing that is free of charge, is a used battery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 3, 2002 Share Posted May 3, 2002 Here's an update on "Free Energy" from Robert Park's What's new weekly email newsletter. Robert Park is employed by the American Physical Society to keep tabs on the happenings of science policy in Washington, DC. His letters are always informative and frequently rather entertaining. Subscriptions are free for the asking at: http://www.aps.org/WN/ 2. FREE ENERGY: PERPETUAL-MOTION HUCKSTER INDICTED IN KENTUCKY. Last Friday, Dennis Lee and his various screwball companies were barred from conducting business in Kentucky (WN 7 Sep 01). By Monday, a grand jury had indicted Lee on consumer-fraud charges. Each of the multiple felony counts could net him five to ten in the can. Other states are said to be lining up to file their own charges. Lee takes an old fashioned approach to free-energy scams, resurrecting failed perpetual-motion ideas from a bygone era, that still have the power to bamboozle the scientifically unsophisticated. He doesn't shy away from the term "perpetual motion," and doesn't bother with applying for patents. What he sells are dealerships. Delivery is just around the corner. 3. VACUUM ENERGY: HOW DO YOU PATENT A PERPETUAL-MOTION MACHINE? First, you never call it a "perpetual-motion machine." It has always been the policy of the Patent and Trademark Office to deny patents for perpetual-motion devices. So when the PTO denied a patent to Joe Newman for an "energy machine" that generated more energy than it took to run it, he sued the PTO claiming it was not perpetual motion. The energy, he said, came from conversion of mass according to Einstein's equation; his machine was slowly devouring its copper wires and iron cores. Newman lost, but his real invention was to invoke new physics to explain where the energy comes from. The new physics of choice these days is the zero-point energy of the vacuum. Thus, patent 6,362,718 (WN 5 Apr 02) is for a "motionless electromagnetic generator" that taps the energy of "longitudinal electromagnetic waves that exist in almost infinite abundance in the vacuum of space." Or to put it another way "energy is conserved in the fourth dimension, time." [in short, it's a load of crap. - Eric] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted May 17, 2002 Share Posted May 17, 2002 Actually, there is proof "free energy" occurred at least once because of the existence of the universe. Best guess is that all that exists now at one time was at a point called a singularity (infinite mass in zero space)and for reasons not known, exploded in the Big Bang releasing virtually unlimited energy. The laws that governed the "mass" that existed prior to that event are non-comprehendable in our reference frame. The laws of physics we have evolved as ht emass around us cooled. The point is, if the "big bang" could be re-created at a sub-atomic level, unlimited energy may be possible. It would require suspension of the laws of physics that presently govern us, but that is not necessarily impossible if applied to an infinitesimally small space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 18, 2002 Share Posted May 18, 2002 I am pretty sure the "big bang" was caused by a squib load...or, was it a double charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 It was a squib load followed by a double charge in a .357 magnum, by an old-time shooter now called "Lefty". The Kuhnhausen manual on SW published a photo of the gun remnats after that exact event.. That is one destroyed gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 "because greedy humans would always chare the other guy" "Chare"? Okay I give up. Usually I can figure out what someone's trying to say, even with typos, but I'm totally stumped this time. Help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 charge The post sounded much better in my mind. I just reread it and it did not sound like I had originally intended. I hope it made some sense to somebody other than me. (Edited by charles at 8:34 pm on May 23, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Ah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Quote: from bountyhunter on 4:47 pm on May 17, 2002 The point is, if the "big bang" could be re-created at a sub-atomic level, unlimited energy may be possible. It would require suspension of the laws of physics that presently govern us, but that is not necessarily impossible if applied to an infinitesimally small space. 1. It merely contradicts the laws of physics as we know them. It would not necessarily require the suspension of the laws of physics. 2. The Big Bang was probably caused by some Bozo looking for a cheap energy source who figured that his universe was created by the 'Big Kaboom' so he would just re-create it at the sub-atomic level as a source of unlimited energy. Oops! 3. Maybe the Big Bang was just the Big Kahuna lighting a fart?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now