Author Topic: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!  (Read 122521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31286
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #100 on: January 26, 2015, 10:09:13 am »
No serious researcher in the free energy field will claim he gets more energy out than total energy in. There is not such nonsense as overunity.

Bingo. You're welcome.

Quote
What you're missing is the ENVIRONMENT, that you presume to be empty. But if you would pull your head out of your quantum ass, you would discover the real life physics, not the one truncated and isolated from the environment that millions of children learned in school like robots.

I'm sure these days kids learn about quantum theory and all the various aspects of it. My son will.

Quote
You should apologize to all subscribers

You mean the ones that, by current count, gave 2777 thumbs up to 39 thumbs down, those subscribers?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31286
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #101 on: January 26, 2015, 10:13:27 am »
Dave, did you check the voltage going to the LEDs?  I think your efficiency is better than the 50% you said in the video.

Not accurately, no, but it's not going to be much higher than the 1.5V input voltage.
So yeah, it's probably going to be better than the 50% ballpark, but not by a huge amount.
Wasn't my intention to measure the efficiency at all.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31286
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #102 on: January 26, 2015, 10:29:35 am »
I just don't understand what you mean by "real life physics".

I think he's getting at quantum field fluctuations, the Casimir effect et.al
He seems to think that quantum theory and research it tarnished somehow by a macroscopic practical engineering video about energy conservation, how embarrassing  :palm:
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31286
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #103 on: January 26, 2015, 10:42:42 am »
Much respect also for the, in my view, respectful way you give feedback and comment to those who are completely ignorant or full of …
(solar roadways, grafeen capacitors, free energy etc). That must mean something, as i'm from the Netherlands and apparently regarded as being 'direct'  :)

Not respectful enough for many it seems, I get many complaints about my delivery and direct tactless nature.
My care factor is zero, my style is my style ;D
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31286
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #104 on: January 26, 2015, 10:44:47 am »
I'm very happy to see you using affordable gear in your videos (and i bet i'm not alone!)  big thumbs up for that  :-+ :-+ :-+ (actually it would be boring and annoying to see you probing a $2 circuit with a 1GHz scope :D)

A lot of people do say that, and yes I agree, it's probably not good to do a fundamental Friday video and use a 1GHz scope to probe an RC time constant.
So I am mindful of that, but ultimately I'm going to use whatever I feel like using at the time.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10661
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #105 on: January 26, 2015, 10:48:04 am »
Much respect also for the, in my view, respectful way you give feedback and comment to those who are completely ignorant
Not respectful enough for many it seems, I get many complaints about my delivery and direct tactless nature.

Nobody's forcing them to come here....

My care factor is zero, my style is my style ;D

Aussie.


 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31286
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #106 on: January 26, 2015, 10:48:32 am »
Interesting video, I didn't expect that a battery would be only discharged by a few percents with a short for a minute.

I've found that a very common misconception, that's why I wanted to make a point of that.
It's actually not intuitively obvious just how much chemical energy is contained in a typical AA battery, it's a lot!
A long time back I was going to do a video on showing how much energy is in a AAA battery, might still have to do that one.
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #107 on: January 26, 2015, 10:54:16 am »
Basic law, energy can be neither created or destroyed only change state
But matter can be transformed into energy and is in a battery even. Wherever there is a chemical reaction some matter is lost as heat energy, weigh the coal and air going into a power station and the ashes and fumes coming out and the difference in weight is the energy produced. So energy has mass and mass has or is energy. Put that together with the 3 batteries and fan and even if it was 100% efficient you will eventually run out of reaction mass ie. the lead and acid.

 :wtf: Man you need to read some Wikipedia before posting. Chemical reactions do not change matter into energy. They release potential energy stored in the chemical bonds. Mass to energy conversions only happen in nuclear reactions. Manofstone's stupidity must be contagious.
 

Offline rr100

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #108 on: January 26, 2015, 11:15:23 am »
It's actually not intuitively obvious just how much chemical energy is contained in a typical AA battery, it's a lot!
A long time back I was going to do a video on showing how much energy is in a AAA battery, might still have to do that one.

It depends what's a lot for you (it can be for example a 250W entry-level electric bike...).
But for LEDs yes, they can be extremely frugal, especially the red ones. I have a RED INOVA Microlight I bought in 2004 and I put it in the Chrismas tree way before Christmas - it was still on the original battery (in fact I didn't even had the faintest idea how to replace the battery, almost broke the damn thing). It kept going on for something like 2 weeks! The red LEDs of that type have some lower voltage and you can direct drive it with just one CR2032.

Then around New Year's Eve I put a new battery (not one of the "good" ones, I have some other thread where I'm complaining about the quality of current CR2032s, I've got a bunch of them, different types to test). Is stil lit (not really bright but you can see it). 3-4 weeks after.
 

Offline metacollin

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: us
  • Ocelloscopes. You know, for ocelots.
    • Electropimp
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #109 on: January 26, 2015, 11:39:24 am »
That was the best and most satisfying debunking video I've ever seen.  Right up there with Pen & Teller's Bullshit (a debunking show in the states). 

It is worth understanding these people though.  I see them not as irritations, but warnings.  And its something that happens so often, to so many people.  They get the spark of curiosity, and start experimenting or investigating.  At some point, experimentally do something they find amazing - but there is nothing amazing.  They simply possess a critically incomplete understanding of the physics behind an otherwise understood phenomena.  They are unaware of this incompleteness, and mistake cracks in their broken half-knowledge for something amazing, something world-changing, something everyone else missed.  But there is nothing there, there is nothing great, there is just unseen ignorance combined with optimism taken to a fault. 

They latch onto that idea, that feeling of something stupendous, and almost like the first hit from a crack pipe, they keep chasing after it with amazing focus and determination, and INVARIABLY, they end their own education.  They've decided they know enough, because they know all they need to know to chase after the next hit from the crack pipe of imagined innovation.  They know enough to have found this thing that everyone else missed - and believe detractors are blind to what they can see so clearly.  And the idea is always one of such hope, promise, and unknown ignorance that anyone else who knows too little to know better will simply see a hero.  Someone who is doing great work, will change everything.  So they act as such, and suddenly, you're hitting that crack pipe while a bunch of other crack heads cheer you on, tell you how heroic you are for smoking crack, all the vitamins crack has in it, all sorts of good stuff. 

And that, the (obliviously unwarranted) appreciation and praise and support and respect these people garner from other similarly or more uneducated people, often peers, friends, family as well as others online, is very powerful, I would imagine.  I don't know how easily I could give up something like that, honestly.  It's very easy to understand how, with friends and ignorance on their side, to see everyone debunking their 'discovery' or otherwise dropping phat knowledge bombs all up in their business as trying to destroy all that, as the enemy.

Thus, knowledge becomes the enemy, and learning comes to an end. 

I am glad for videos like this one and people like you, Mr. Jones, because maybe stuff like this will keep someone who might have enclosed their mind in that cage wrought of equal parts ignorance, good intentions, and emotional reinforcement, will keep learning how to think, and thus keep learning.  I would not wish anyone to lose out on the greater wonders of reality.  The people like ManOfStone will never feel the beauty and wonders and mystery of the real universe - in all its staggering enormity - wash over them.  They'll just chase after what began as an innocent flaw in their understanding. 

And for that reason, they have my sincerest and deepest pity. 
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 11:43:49 am by metacollin »
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov
 

Offline metacollin

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: us
  • Ocelloscopes. You know, for ocelots.
    • Electropimp
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #110 on: January 26, 2015, 12:27:14 pm »
Basic law, energy can be neither created or destroyed only change state
But matter can be transformed into energy and is in a battery even. Wherever there is a chemical reaction some matter is lost as heat energy, weigh the coal and air going into a power station and the ashes and fumes coming out and the difference in weight is the energy produced. So energy has mass and mass has or is energy. Put that together with the 3 batteries and fan and even if it was 100% efficient you will eventually run out of reaction mass ie. the lead and acid.

 :wtf: Man you need to read some Wikipedia before posting. Chemical reactions do not change matter into energy. They release potential energy stored in the chemical bonds. Mass to energy conversions only happen in nuclear reactions. Manofstone's stupidity must be contagious.

This is incorrect.  Mass *is* energy.  They are just two different ways of measuring the same thing.  Please follow your own advice and regarding wikipedia, only I will provide the specific article that confirms what I am saying.  There is no article to confirm what you've said, so your omission of a link is understandable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

E=mc^2.  If something is hotter, it's also heavier.  This is why objects with rest mass (or put another way, their intrinsic energy content) cannot reach the speed of light from *any* subjective inertial reference frame, because pumping more and more kinetic energy into the relativistic object makes other observers see it as having more kinetic energy, which makes it more massive, which makes it require even more kinetic energy to increase its momentum vector, which if added ups its mass even more...and it gets closer and closer but never quite reaches the speed of light.  But anything that releases heat is also losing mass, while whatever the heat flowed into has gained it.  The kinetic energy released in chemical reactions (or rather, change in enthalpy) is heat, which is more or less internal kinetic energy of a bulk mass of particles.  Whether its from the molecular forces accelerating stuff or a piece of an atomic nucleus pulled far enough that the residual strong force from the quart triplets is overcome by the electrostatic repulsion from other protons as in fission, or if protons are forced close enough that the residual strong force overcomes electrostatic repulsion to slam together, making hydrogen into helium like fusion or our sun, it's still kinetic energy, still heat, and mass is lost by that system, but moves into others. 

There is no 'conversion' of matter into energy.  Matter is energy, or rather, mass is simply a property of energy.  In fact, its generally inconvenient to represent objects using mass in astro or quantum physics, we use energy and momentum vector because it is much more intuitive and simplifies the math.  Since mass is relative and dependent on the frame of reference something is being observed from, we use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation , which amounts to the same information.  That's derived from the earlier link, so you should also read that one, as it continues why what you said is incorrect.  Also, from that, we can proceed to the Stress-energy tensor, from which the gravitational field in Einstein's field equations are directly built upon.  It drives home the point that matter, radiation, and fields of force (like electromagnetism) can all be broken into energy and momentum vectors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

So no, mass is not 'only' converted in atomic nuclear reactions.  Mass is a property or energy, and any movement of energy is also movement of mass. And as mentioned earlier, mass cannot be converted into itself (energy).  When you understand those articles and why what you said was nonsense, you'll be that much wiser.  Or you can simply ignore it - but then how are you any different from the free energy people ignoring engineers and science and willfully refusing to learn?  ...You wouldn't be.  So read up :)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 12:29:08 pm by metacollin »
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov
 

Offline DaveWing

  • Contributor
  • !
  • Posts: 35
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #111 on: January 26, 2015, 12:32:23 pm »
I never said there is any free energy involved... Just recycling what a load uses so it can be used more than once in a electrical system.  It does not have to be lost directly to ground as we have been taught.

What's ground got to do with anything?
This is all about losses in the load and battery internals as heat. This heat energy escapes your closed system, never to be returned. That very real energy comes from the chemical energy in your batteries.
You can capture some of that otheriwse wasted energy to put back into the system and charge the batteries, like regenerative braking does in electric cars, but you can't get it all back.

That is why I said generally... As I will concede that I do not have the proper scientific equipment to measure with such accuracy. But never the less I can and will show a large percentage of recovered energy that is normally lost in the system can be recaptured for later use.

Questions: How much energy does a 12 volt 1157 or 1156 bulb expend in heat and or photon losses in watts? Is it fair to assume that we can not show any input energy recovery from a simple light bulb?

-Dave Wing
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 01:09:10 pm by DaveWing »
 

Offline max_torque

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: gb
    • bitdynamics
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #112 on: January 26, 2015, 12:32:39 pm »
Much respect also for the, in my view, respectful way you give feedback and comment to those who are completely ignorant or full of …
(solar roadways, grafeen capacitors, free energy etc). That must mean something, as i'm from the Netherlands and apparently regarded as being 'direct'  :)

Not respectful enough for many it seems, I get many complaints about my delivery and direct tactless nature.
My care factor is zero, my style is my style ;D


And i for one, applaud your style!!

I treat these "free energy" idiots with the same disdain as those idiotic "moon landings never happened" morons.  Simply punch them hard, and fast, directly in the face.  After they have got back up off the floor and said "what did you do that for?" simply reply "What?"  i didn't do anything. When they say "yes you did, you punched me in the face" you say "no i didn't, never  happened mate".................................   ;-)

 

Offline max_torque

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: gb
    • bitdynamics
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #113 on: January 26, 2015, 12:42:25 pm »

 As I will concede that I do not have the proper scientific equipment to measure with such accuracy.

But never the less I can and will show a large percentage of recovered energy that is normally lost in the system can be recaptured for later use.

-Dave Wing


Have you any idea how stupid that statement makes you sound?

Let me give you a more understandable example, If i said the following:

    I cannot play, nor ever have played, the piano.

    Tomorrow i shall audition and win, the lead pianist part in the London Symphony Orchestra  .


You would rightly think i was a moron............



All you have "discovered" is that current flows between objects of differing potential, and that work can be done when a potential difference and current flow exists across an object.

I'm pretty sure you are not going to get a Nobel prize for that, being just, as it where, approximately 280 years behind Benjamin Franklin...............
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 12:45:46 pm by max_torque »
 

Offline DaveWing

  • Contributor
  • !
  • Posts: 35
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #114 on: January 26, 2015, 12:48:51 pm »

 As I will concede that I do not have the proper scientific equipment to measure with such accuracy.

But never the less I can and will show a large percentage of recovered energy that is normally lost in the system can be recaptured for later use.

-Dave Wing


Have you any idea how stupid that statement makes you sound?

Let me give you a more understandable example, If i said the following:

    I cannot play, nor ever have played, the piano.

    Tomorrow i shall audition and win, the lead pianist part in the London Symphony Orchestra  .


You would rightly think i was a moron............



All you have "discovered" is that current flows between objects of differing potential, and that work can be done when a potential difference and current flow exists across an object.

I'm pretty sure you are not going to get a Nobel prize for that, being just, as it where, approximately 280 years behind Benjamin Franklin...............

Can you answer the questions I asked?
Questions: How much energy does a 12 volt 1157 or 1156 bulb expend in heat and or photon losses in watts? Is it fair to assume that we can not show any input energy recovery from a simple light bulb?

-Dave Wing
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 01:08:02 pm by DaveWing »
 

Offline Terabyte2007

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 527
  • Country: us
  • It is purpose that created us... That defines us..
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #115 on: January 26, 2015, 12:56:42 pm »
I'm very happy to see you using affordable gear in your videos (and i bet i'm not alone!)  big thumbs up for that  :-+ :-+ :-+ (actually it would be boring and annoying to see you probing a $2 circuit with a 1GHz scope :D)

A lot of people do say that, and yes I agree, it's probably not good to do a fundamental Friday video and use a 1GHz scope to probe an RC time constant.
So I am mindful of that, but ultimately I'm going to use whatever I feel like using at the time.

I am all for the use and promotion of affordable gear. I was watching TheSignalPath Blog Youtube channel yesterday and saw a review of a Keysight MSO-S-Series scope fully optioned up, in what lifetime or alternate universe can any of us afford a 68,000 dollar oscilloscope! The probes alone probably cost as much as my scope!!! It was a good and interesting review but in reality not practical for most of us.

Eric Haney, MCSE, EE, DMC-D
Electronics Designer, Prototype Builder
 

Offline DaveWing

  • Contributor
  • !
  • Posts: 35
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #116 on: January 26, 2015, 01:18:06 pm »

 As I will concede that I do not have the proper scientific equipment to measure with such accuracy.

But never the less I can and will show a large percentage of recovered energy that is normally lost in the system can be recaptured for later use.

-Dave Wing


Have you any idea how stupid that statement makes you sound?

Let me give you a more understandable example, If i said the following:

    I cannot play, nor ever have played, the piano.

    Tomorrow i shall audition and win, the lead pianist part in the London Symphony Orchestra  .


You would rightly think i was a moron............



All you have "discovered" is that current flows between objects of differing potential, and that work can be done when a potential difference and current flow exists across an object.

I'm pretty sure you are not going to get a Nobel prize for that, being just, as it where, approximately 280 years behind Benjamin Franklin...............

Can you answer the questions I asked?
Questions: How much energy does a 12 volt 1157 or 1156 bulb expend in heat and or photon losses in watts? Is it fair to assume that we can not show any input energy recovery from a simple light bulb?

-Dave Wing

Look this is what we have been taught I posted it below... Straight from Wikipedia. So in light of that can we answer the last question... Is it fair to assume we cannot show a large electron recovery from the spent input electron current used during the operation of a simple light bulb?

-Dave Wing
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 02:21:07 pm by DaveWing »
 

Offline Tac Eht Xilef

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 516
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #117 on: January 26, 2015, 01:22:21 pm »
Can you answer the questions I asked?
Questions: How much energy does a 12 volt 1157 or 1156 bulb expend in heat and or photon losses in watts? Is it fair to assume that we can not show any input energy recovery from a simple light bulb?

Q1: It's unlikely anyone here can answer that off the top of their head - the usual approximations and/or datasheet values for those devices are close enough for most uses.

However, it is something that can be calculated relatively easily with a fair degree of accuracy at home or in a high-school-level physics lab. Want more accuracy? Go talk to a university or suitably-equipped metrology lab...

Q2: I dunno, you tell us? You're the one claiming you see energy 'recovery' with 3 batteries & a motor. In your 'experiment', where do you think the energy is being 'recovered' - the batteries, the motor, or both? Note: it's not necessarily the same place where you think you're measuring the 'recovered' energy...

(p.s. Its been fun watching this, but I'm off to bed...)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 01:24:01 pm by Tac Eht Xilef »
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3693
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #118 on: January 26, 2015, 01:27:44 pm »
Basic law, energy can be neither created or destroyed only change state
But matter can be transformed into energy and is in a battery even. Wherever there is a chemical reaction some matter is lost as heat energy, weigh the coal and air going into a power station and the ashes and fumes coming out and the difference in weight is the energy produced. So energy has mass and mass has or is energy. Put that together with the 3 batteries and fan and even if it was 100% efficient you will eventually run out of reaction mass ie. the lead and acid.

 :wtf: Man you need to read some Wikipedia before posting. Chemical reactions do not change matter into energy. They release potential energy stored in the chemical bonds. Mass to energy conversions only happen in nuclear reactions. Manofstone's stupidity must be contagious.
And that energy is mass,only a very small mass but mass none the less.
 The products weigh less. Energy has this much mass: E=mc2 <==> m = E/c2. Does not matter what kind of bonds it is stored in.
This is not relevant for most purposes but supposing you have your perpetual motion battery set up going on forever the result will be the disappearance of the lead and acid. All hypothetical I know but not rubbish.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 01:41:31 pm by G7PSK »
 

Offline boffin

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #119 on: January 26, 2015, 03:49:24 pm »
Dave; not to debunk debunking, but you talked about efficiency, and compared current to current to make the claim 50%.  However the voltage on the output (clamped at LED Von, 1.8V?) is somewhat higher than the input (1.5), so total power efficiency is probably a little higher than what you suggested.  Still the guys claims are just silly.


 

Offline grumpydoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2705
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #120 on: January 26, 2015, 03:59:14 pm »
Do the test below and see what happens...

How about you do the test and shows us the results. Make it a nice details youtube video please with full explanations of the measurements and how you are doing them.
Or just point out all the commercial systems that are built to explot this phenomenon....

Oh, I see......  >:D
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10661
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #121 on: January 26, 2015, 04:58:07 pm »
the voltage on the output (clamped at LED Von, 1.8V?) is somewhat higher than the input (1.5)

Yep, inductors do that. The output voltage rises to whatever the circuit needs when the magnetic field collapses.

I once built a joule thief running off a single AA battery and used it to light up a string of LEDs (ie. in series). You can easily get the inductor output voltage over 20 Volts to light up the LEDs.

 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11367
  • Country: lv
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #122 on: January 26, 2015, 05:05:29 pm »
Look this is what we have been taught I posted it below... Straight from Wikipedia. So in light of that can we answer the last question... Is it fair to assume we cannot show a large electron recovery from the spent input electron current used during the operation of a simple light bulb?

-Dave Wing
I just can't stop laughing at you. What electron recovery you are talking about??? That Wikipedia citation states that only 5% of energy get converted to the light in visible (to human eye) part of spectrum. All other energy will be radiated as Infrared light and transferred through thermal conduction / convection. There is no energy loss, it does not disappear, the thing is we get only 5% energy converted to the form we desire, while 95% gets converted to what we do not need. BTW what electrons are you going to recover while electrons never leave this circuit? They just flow through it.
 

Offline eneuro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1411
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #123 on: January 26, 2015, 05:38:40 pm »
@DaveWing  Free energy is everywhere most in heat - probably bad inductors were used in this @Dave experiment - toroid cores should be different - filled with quantum vacum which lowers down air temperature around those special cores and absorbs thermal energy, but this happends only at given frequencies, so @Dave have no chance to notice this-he didn't make temperature measurements around cores  and cores itself :o
You are right and I'm close to prove this in my enhanced version of this circuit shown in debunk video ;)

You are in a good shape to The Ig Nobel Prizes if you change those claims into more improbable research http://www.improbable.com/ig/     >:D

12oV4dWZCAia7vXBzQzBF9wAt1U3JWZkpk
“Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine”  - Nikola Tesla
-||-|-
 

Offline elgonzo

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
« Reply #124 on: January 26, 2015, 05:50:05 pm »
Or just point out all the commercial systems that are built to explot this phenomenon....
Oh, I see......  >:D

Just look at the Siemens Velaro train family, among them the fastest (and the whitest, if i may say) trains currently in service around the world. They just have two batteries with 280Ah. How do you think they can drive the trains at such speeds with those two meager batteries? Yes, they recycle the electron currents that went through a traction motor to use them again in the other traction motors.

Also note that the trains specifically have two batteries. The second battery is of utmost importance for the electron current recycling.

Go, and look into such a high-speed train for yourself. There are only these two batteries. If you don't believe, please show me the other big-ass batteries that would drive that train then...

And before you go and point out that there is a wire hanging above the train, i urge you to look again. Yes, there is a wire. Many clueless people have argued that this is somehow related to electron currents. But this is not the case - there is no battery connected to that wire. Nowhere. The wire is just a safety line to prevent the train toppling over when it derails in an accident -- similar to the safety line mountaineers use to secure them from falling off the cliff. You can even see the hooks on the roof of the trains that attach to the safety line...

Now, am i a smart person, or what?  >:D >:D
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf