Author Topic: Free Energy is just a bad name...  (Read 225479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Free Energy is just a bad name...
« on: February 03, 2016, 11:18:08 pm »
Just to let you guys in one a little secret...

Free energy is possible, it just gets a bad rap. If you do not think so, just remember how old crystal radios use to work....no battery supply. Nikola Tesla is still way ahead of his time...he and others have successfully tapped into the quantum vacuum, or ether. If you do not know of this, please read up. Why do you think Wardenclyffe project was shut down? Why do you think such a great inventor died broke?

Some of this knowledge is valuable, do your own research. I can give some clues and examples of non-typical devices. Also, if you think free energy is BS....Please look at the Casimir force...research it....the quantum vacuum can do REAL work on particles....open system thermodynamics...For all those who say it breaks laws of physics ...no...ask yourself...is the Universe as a whole an open or closed  system?

I have countless examples of anamolous devices, not all over unity  per se, but it is definitely possible and backed by quantum physics theorectically...

I have many examples of overunity devices, I suggest you research Jim Murray and his SERPS technology....there is alot from the Tesla patents that are still not understood including Radiant energy...Also Steinmetz with his papers on oscillating currents are very interesting....Please ask for clarification or additional information
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2016, 11:29:21 pm »
Ok, I'll bite.

If you do not think so, just remember how old crystal radios use to work....no battery supply.
What radios used to work without  batteries?

Nikola Tesla is still way ahead of his time...he and others have successfully tapped into the quantum vacuum, or ether. If you do not know of this, please read up.
Proofs?

Why do you think Wardenclyffe project was shut down? Why do you think such a great inventor died broke?
Because he was wrong about real world physics? The same reason all other "great" overunity inventors are broke? Their problem is investing into garbage instead of a good physics book.

I have countless examples of anamolous devices, not all over unity  per se, but it is definitely possible and backed by quantum physics theorectically...
Give one, for instance?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 11:31:00 pm by ataradov »
Alex
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8221
  • Country: 00
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2016, 11:29:43 pm »
conservation of energy works in a closed system, which you will never find in reality.

Another way to put it, you will always find "free" energy to you. It is just that "free" energy isn't quite free to somebody else.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Online Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7990
  • Country: gb
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2016, 11:30:44 pm »
Ok, I'll bite.

If you do not think so, just remember how old crystal radios use to work....no battery supply.
What radios used to work without  batteries?

Crystal radios. Seriously, look them up. It's not free energy, though, it's usually transmitted at great cost.
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2016, 11:33:24 pm »
Crystal radios.
Well, ok. Wireless charging is also a real thing. There is a megawatt transmitter on the other end of the link :)

Or the point is that you can put coils under power transmission lines and get "free" energy this way? That's not "tapping into the energy of a vacuum", it is stealing.
Alex
 

Online Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7990
  • Country: gb
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2016, 11:34:18 pm »
Crystal radios.
Well, ok. Wireless charging is also a real thing. There is a megawatt transmitter on the other end of the link :)

Indeed. There's 'free' and 'free'.

By this definition of free, my wifi is free internet. Oddly enough, it costs me a fair bit to keep it turned on every month, and I had to pay money for these access point thingies.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2016, 11:36:35 pm »
Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....

I mentioned already SERPS by Jim Murray as a device with unique power properties.

Most of all...the universe is an OPEN system...look at estimates of quantum vacuum energy...on the order of 10^113 Joules per cubic centimeter....thats a ridiculous amount of "ambient energy".

Please look up the Casimir force and Casimir effect for a proof of concept....remember the quantum vacuum is always in the background...sea of energetic "virtual" particles...
 

Online Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7990
  • Country: gb
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2016, 11:37:59 pm »
Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....

So where did those radio waves come from?
 

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2016, 11:38:14 pm »
....and like I said...free energy is a misnomer...but the possibilities with vacuum energy are just now being investigated
 

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2016, 11:39:44 pm »
Ok...I can do that too:

Casimir force....where does the force come from? please dont selectively choose to ignore facts
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2016, 11:39:56 pm »
Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....
That's  real world physics, we can calculate exactly how much power will be received. No quantum overunity required.

Most of all...the universe is an OPEN system...look at estimates of quantum vacuum energy...on the order of 10^113 Joules per cubic centimeter....thats a ridiculous amount of "ambient energy".
Lets establish terminology. What are open and closed systems in your opinion?
Alex
 

Online Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7990
  • Country: gb
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2016, 11:42:33 pm »
Ok...I can do that too:

Casimir force....where does the force come from? please dont selectively choose to ignore facts

I don't know, I'm not big on quantum field theory.
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2016, 11:43:11 pm »
Casimir force....where does the force come from? please dont selectively choose to ignore facts
It does not really matter where it comes from. My (and yours, I presume) understanding of physics is not good enough to discuss this topic.

Do you have a proposal on how to use this force to create work? If not, then what is the point of discussing it?
Alex
 

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2016, 11:44:08 pm »
I dont do opinions. Every scientifically literate person knows what an open and closed systems are...no energy or mass exchange between itself and other system is closed.

If you are not big on quantum field theory....read up! The vacuum is doing the work!
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2016, 11:44:46 pm »
The vacuum is doing the work!
Praise the god!
Alex
 

Online Monkeh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7990
  • Country: gb
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2016, 11:44:57 pm »
If you are not big on quantum field theory....read up! The vacuum is doing the work!

It's theory. And so far.. no practical use of the casimir effect. No facts other than a force we don't understand exists.
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2016, 11:46:45 pm »
Gravity is also a force. Why not focus on it? I guess by now even the stupidest of overunity nuts have some understanding of how gravity works.

So it is a turn of a vacuum now.
Alex
 

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2016, 11:47:35 pm »
Are you kidding me? Point of discussing it? Oh, I dont know...maybe a whole new energy paradigm lol....

...and yes I have a BSc in Mathematical Physics, so I do understand it well enough to discuss it...

A force we dont understand or YOU dont understand?

and thanks ataradov....your input was enlightening and insightful
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2536
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2016, 11:47:47 pm »

Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....

Yes, but it takes a radio tower consuming thousands of watts of power for that crystal radio to work. Keep in mind the crystal set is only able to capture a minuscule amount (in the order of milliwatts) of that power, so it's very inefficient.

So, it's not pulling energy from the ether. Now, I know what you're going to say: "But, timb! When you're not tuned to a station you hear static!" Yes, that's true, but static is cosmic background radiation and has virtually no power. Keep in mind you don't hear static on a crystal radio; you only hear it on an actively powered set. That's because the background radiation is such a small amount of energy, it can't provide the power to activate a crystal radio.

Short answer: You're wrong.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2016, 11:51:10 pm »
Everyone is focused on the crystal radio like it was the only comment I made. Any one else wanna ignore the whole Casimir effect thing again???
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2016, 11:52:35 pm »
Any one else wanna ignore the whole Casimir effect thing again???
What practical use do you propose of Casimir effect?

And if you are just saying that there is some poorly understood thing out there and some time in the future it can be used for good, then OK, point taken. What's next?

I'm just an MSc, but my penis is bigger :)
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 11:54:17 pm by ataradov »
Alex
 

Offline suicidaleggroll

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1453
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2016, 11:54:04 pm »
Are you kidding me? Point of discussing it? Oh, I dont know...maybe a whole new energy paradigm lol....

It's just a force.  There are a lot of forces...gravity, magnetism, pressure (and vacuum), etc.  Using that force to do consistent work has always been the hard part.

Gravity can certainly do work, push a boulder off of a cliff and see what it does, but it's not over-unity.  In order to "reset" the system you have to lift the boulder back up onto the cliff, expending significantly more energy to do so than you got out of the boulder when it fell.

Same with magnets, they can attract or repel very well, but to reset the system so it can happen again requires you to expend even more energy than you got out of it.

Pressure can do work too, release a filled balloon and you can watch it fly around the room, but it takes more work to refill the balloon than you got out of it when it flew around.  Vacuum is the same way.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 11:57:40 pm by suicidaleggroll »
 

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2016, 11:54:54 pm »
Oh yeah I got my M.Eng already too. Going for PhD soon too.

If you cant understand how quantum vacuum doing work on a system with no external input...doesnt matter how big your penis is lol :-DD
 

Offline Deco56Topic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • !
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: ca
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2016, 11:56:19 pm »
Yes it is a force. It is just one example of a ether type force...how to harness this is a future engineering problem...
 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2016, 11:59:15 pm »
how to harness this is a future engineering problem...
Do you propose we all drop everything we are doing and jump on solving it? We are not stupid, we don't want to die broke :)

People have been trying to "harness" power of gravity for a long time inventing all sorts of perpetual motion machines.

I also like how obvious scam term "perpetual motion" is replaced by a more reputable "overunity" :)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 12:00:52 am by ataradov »
Alex
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf