Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/2/2002 4:06:28 PM EDT
[url]http://rense.com/general21/free.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 4:16:55 PM EDT
I'll call bullshit on this one. I haven't seen it in WalMart so it's obviously a lie.LOL If in fact this is true and functional and is scalable to be applied to automobile and household use, all that oil in the middle east is just toxic waste. In the facinating shit department, there is an automobile being developed in Italy that runs on compressed air. It is a 5 passenger van type vehicle and it's exaust is used as airconditioning. It uses about $1.90 worth of air to go 150Km if I recall. MIDI vehicle.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 4:17:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 4:32:39 PM EDT
I will participate in the 'second' round of financing ! (Or maybe the third.)
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 4:54:35 PM EDT
Zero Point Energy exists, but not in enough concentration to be usable. If it were in that large a concentration, our universe would not exist.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 4:59:05 PM EDT
No sh!t i remember see this same unit on 2 or 3 shows and the inventor said that the usa government officials wouldn't give him a patent , he also stated the the same officials would turn him in to the AG for fraud on the americian people if he tries to get another patent for the device that science said couldn't get that much enegry as this guy stated. IF i remmember correctly it was tlc or discovery that followed tyhis guy while he tested it and it showed he has a great power source. !st in line for 1
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 5:04:18 PM EDT
Looks like they finnally got a patent for him good goood goood !!!!!!!!!! [:D]
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 5:19:23 PM EDT
Veddy interestink. An extropic device, for real? I verified that the alleged patent is real, directly from the US Patent and Trademark office's website, [url]www.uspto.gov[/url] It's very well explained and extensively so, at that, and it gets pretty dense on both the theory and on the patent references. I don't doubt that the inventors believe in their product, but I question the basic assertion. I think that time will show that they are depleting the permanent magnets in their device, using magnets as batteries, in essence. Which by itself raises some interesting questions, because it doesn't take all that much energy to perform the initial magnetizing on even a rare earth supermagnet, under the right conditions. But wouldn't it be a kick in the ass if this was the real thing? I've wondered about magnets myself. Take two or more ring magnets and place them on a non-magnetic dowel, so they repel each other. It takes energy to hold something up. How much energy will be required to hold up the magnets? And how much energy is contained in the magnetic fields of those magnets? How long will they stay up before the magnets are demagnetized to the point where they can't repel each other against the force of gravity anymore? How much energy would they have been required to produce over their lifetimes? An interesting site. I await proof, or a debunking. CJ
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 5:29:57 PM EDT
It takes energy to hold something up.
View Quote
Not necessarily. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is the application of force over a distance. If nothing moves, no distance is covered and so no work is done and no energy is required. Example: An anvil is sitting on top of a sturdy table. How much energy is the table expending to hold up the anvil?
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 5:34:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kentstate4: Looks like they finnally got a patent for him good goood goood !!!!!!!!!! [:D]
View Quote
Kentstate, I have a question for you. It is off topic but I really would like to know. Do you actually own an AR15, or [i]any[/i] other rifle for that matter?? If you do, what type of AR? Do you know what the terms "CAR" or "Hbar" stand for pertaining to AR15s? Personnaly I highly doubt that you own any firearms.........period! Sgtar15
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 5:40:11 PM EDT
Over a long enough period of time, the table will yield to the weight of the anvil and it will slowly move downward, even discounting the possibility of deterioration of the materials of the table due to other than gravitational causes. The material slowly deforms. Large, heavy round objects that are left in one position for long periods of time develop flat spots at the point of contact with the surface they are supporting, and the supporting surface will develop matching dents. And then again, you could ask what the source of energy is for the motion of electrons around an atom. The exhibit 100 percent conservation of energy as best as we can determine. What separates subatomic activity from large scale activity, where one exhibits total conservation of momentum and energy while the other doesn't? It's a pretty deep subject, and I don't have all the answers...neither does anyone else as of yet. CJ
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 6:19:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
It takes energy to hold something up.
View Quote
Not necessarily. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is the application of force over a distance. If nothing moves, no distance is covered and so no work is done and no energy is required. Example: An anvil is sitting on top of a sturdy table. How much energy is the table expending to hold up the anvil?
View Quote
Alright, now you hold that same anvil over your head for an hour. Then you can come back and tell us how much work it was. [:)]
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 6:40:35 PM EDT
Did the rense.com page go up on April 1? I'm just saying... -kill-9
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 6:46:00 PM EDT
It's gotta work!!!! Didn't they have one of those on the side of the Back to the Future Train?!?!?
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 6:48:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 6:52:27 PM EDT
The only TRUE perpetual motion machine is a 15 year old male and a July 1991 copy of Hustler. MEET THE SPANK 'O MATIC 2002! [sex]
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:04:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2002 7:05:53 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
From the US Patent Site: [url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1='6,362,718'&OS="6,362,718"&RS="6,362,718"]Motionless electromagnetic generator[/url] Lengthy description, but buried in it was this statement in the "Summary Of The Invention Section": [i]"It is a first objective of the present invention to provide a magnetic generator which a need for an external power source [b]during operation of the generator[/b] is eliminated." [/i] [emphasis mine] Hmmmmm... interesting qualifying clause here, don't you think. More reading needed to see if it really says what it claims to say.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:10:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By kentstate4: Looks like they finnally got a patent for him good goood goood !!!!!!!!!! [:D]
View Quote
Kentstate, I have a question for you. It is off topic but I really would like to know. Do you actually own an AR15, or [i]any[/i] other rifle for that matter?? If you do, what type of AR? Do you know what the terms "CAR" or "Hbar" stand for pertaining to AR15s? Personnaly I highly doubt that you own any firearms.........period! Sgtar15
View Quote
Ouch!! [B)] ______________________________________________ "my other car is a perpetual motion device"
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:26:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
It takes energy to hold something up.
View Quote
Not necessarily. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is the application of force over a distance. If nothing moves, no distance is covered and so no work is done and no energy is required. Example: An anvil is sitting on top of a sturdy table. How much energy is the table expending to hold up the anvil?
View Quote
It may not be doing work but it is exerting a force and hence energy. The magnet which hovers has gravitational potential energy. The energy being supplied is equal to the gain in gravitational potential energy. Of course, in the example of two magnets,both manets will exert a force against one another.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:38:28 PM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:39:43 PM EDT
I've been lurking around here for a while, but here's something I can answer!
And then again, you could ask what the source of energy is for the motion of electrons around an atom. The exhibit 100 percent conservation of energy as best as we can determine. What separates subatomic activity from large scale activity, where one exhibits total conservation of momentum and energy while the other doesn't? It's a pretty deep subject, and I don't have all the answers...neither does anyone else as of yet. CJ
View Quote
Electrons orbiting atomic nuclei are tricky things. Forget for a moment about more difficult ramifications of quantum mechanics like the fact that that the position and momentum (think velocity) of the electron can never be known exactly (at the same time). One really cool thing about the system is that the energy comes in discrete chucks (quanta). These quanta are so small that you can't see them in everyday life. It would take billions upon billions of quanta to even register as heat or light to the human senses, so we don't notice 1 or 2 here and there. Electrons in orbit can't lose energy to dissipative sources like friction as a ball going around a circular track does. Since the energy has to come off in quanta, it can't just slowly leak away like in the macroscopic world. It can come off in the form of photons (which carry one or more quanta of energy), and that makes it move into a lower orbit around the nucleus. Now I just wish I had paid more attention in my Electricity and Magnetism class so I could understand this darned perpetual motion paper...
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 8:29:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Schnert: The only TRUE perpetual motion machine is a 15 year old male and a July 1991 copy of Hustler. MEET THE SPANK 'O MATIC 2002! [sex]
View Quote
LOL....that's pretty funny!!! And oh so true! Now that I am 37 I am happy that "it" still moves[;)] sgtar15
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 8:57:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2002 8:59:52 PM EDT by sr15]
I think this about sums it up:
IMHO, it is a waste of time to attempt power measurements of the MEG standard load resistors (that is, any linear resistive device) if one expects to see any excess energy. The output loads must be resistive (non-reactive) and nonlinear. The resistance must decrease with increasing voltage and the power must be calculated from the output voltage and current. Those of you powering up your MEG for the first time with pure resistive loads, will find the waveforms do not match Bearden's nor JLN's! Only with nonlinear loads and a properly "tuned" MEG will you see the near half sine current waveform in your primary coils. With nonlinear loads and a properly setup MEG, you will measure COP's >1 with the proper measurement tools and techniques. In general, the MEG seems to like voltage build up in the secondary windings before supplying current to the load! If so, this would seem to align with Tom Bearden's public disclose of this device! The problem now lies in the utilization of this excess power to do some useful work. It would appear to me that the MEG can be run with lower secondary voltages and properly designed loads and still yield COP's >1. In fact, this should be a focal point for anyone doing this project.
View Quote
from here: [url]http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megnot01.htm[/url] With the "proper" measurement tools and techniques I'm sure I could measure an efficiency over %100 too. I bet if you properly measure the power in and properly measure the power out, the calculated efficiency will be less than %100. Also, notice all of their loads are non-linear. Hmmm...
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 9:41:02 PM EDT
I remember seeing something like this not too long ago. They needed 1,000,000 homes to agree to let them hook the unit up at your house free of charge. The deal was that they would sell the unused electricity back to the respective power utility companies that they were bridged on to. The client whose house it was hooked up at, would get free electricity for as long as the unit was hooked up. I don't know if they finall got the million or not. I was pretty skeptical of the whole deal and politely declined the offer.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 9:45:23 PM EDT
When I saw his green teeth... and Steve saw he was Irish... WE CALLED HIM 'JOHNNY ROTTEN'!
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 9:47:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Schnert: When I saw his green teeth... and Steve saw he was Irish... WE CALLED HIM 'JOHNNY ROTTEN'!
View Quote
I'm glad I'm not the only one here who's seen "The Great Rock 'N Roll Swindle"!
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 4:19:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Originally Posted By Renamed:
It takes energy to hold something up.
View Quote
Not necessarily. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is the application of force over a distance. If nothing moves, no distance is covered and so no work is done and no energy is required. Example: An anvil is sitting on top of a sturdy table. How much energy is the table expending to hold up the anvil?
View Quote
It may not be doing work but it is exerting a force and hence energy. The magnet which hovers has gravitational potential energy. The energy being supplied is equal to the gain in gravitational potential energy. Of course, in the example of two magnets,both manets will exert a force against one another.
View Quote
If the table is using energy to support the anvil, where is the energy coming from? And where is it going? Shouldn't the table be getting warmer if it's expending energy to support the anvil? Certainly, the anvil has potential energy that it gained when someone lifted it off the floor and set it on the table. But now that it's not going anywhere, it isn't gaining any more energy.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:33:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By kentstate4: Looks like they finnally got a patent for him good goood goood !!!!!!!!!! [:D]
View Quote
Kentstate, I have a question for you. It is off topic but I really would like to know. Do you actually own an AR15, or [i]any[/i] other rifle for that matter?? If you do, what type of AR? Do you know what the terms "CAR" or "Hbar" stand for pertaining to AR15s? Personnaly I highly doubt that you own any firearms.........period! Sgtar15
View Quote
Why is it mandortory to own a firearm to post here or is this not still a free country [size=4]mr. hitler.[/size=4] For your info i own 7 rifles , 3 pistols and 2 revolvers if u are counting u turd!!!! hbar = heavy barrel car= collaspable stock maybe u would like to know what flat top means or that they are only offered on the 6700 up series pre and post-bans, which i do own 3 ar'15 2 are colts other is a shorty bush and which ones are match target or sporter huh ? maybe u should leave people alone sir. i just post here for info i don't by this weapons ban sh!t it all about keeping to the prices up and keeping fat lazy cops in a job!!!! so next time understand a post before u condem the postee or post!![:D]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:57:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [i]"It is a first objective of the present invention to provide a magnetic generator which a need for an external power source [b]during operation of the generator[/b] is eliminated." [/i] [emphasis mine]
View Quote
"Maybe' indicating an external power source is needed to 'start' the generator ??
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 10:21:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kentstate4:
Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By kentstate4: Looks like they finnally got a patent for him good goood goood !!!!!!!!!! [:D]
View Quote
Kentstate, I have a question for you. It is off topic but I really would like to know. Do you actually own an AR15, or [i]any[/i] other rifle for that matter?? If you do, what type of AR? Do you know what the terms "CAR" or "Hbar" stand for pertaining to AR15s? Personnaly I highly doubt that you own any firearms.........period! Sgtar15
View Quote
Why is it mandortory to own a firearm to post here or is this not still a free country [size=4]mr. hitler.[/size=4] For your info i own 7 rifles , 3 pistols and 2 revolvers if u are counting u turd!!!! hbar = heavy barrel car= collaspable stock maybe u would like to know what flat top means or that they are only offered on the 6700 up series pre and post-bans, which i do own 3 ar'15 2 are colts other is a shorty bush and which ones are match target or sporter huh ? maybe u should leave people alone sir. i just post here for info i don't by this weapons ban sh!t it all about keeping to the prices up and keeping fat lazy cops in a job!!!! so next time understand a post before u condem the postee or post!![:D]
View Quote
Sorry man, by calling him Mr. Hitler, by Godwin's Law you forfeit the match. SGTAR15 is the winner.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 10:35:58 AM EDT
Is this the answer to our energy crisis?...That we can finally get rid of all the Nuclear power plants and save the whale? Not long ago a group of MIT scientists was able to convert salt water into energy. It was big news and then nothing came of it. I don't see any BMW run on salt water do ya?
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:24:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: ... And then again, you could ask what the source of energy is for the motion of electrons around an atom. The exhibit 100 percent conservation of energy as best as we can determine. What separates subatomic activity from large scale activity, where one exhibits total conservation of momentum and energy while the other doesn't? .... CJ
View Quote
Actually, aren't atoms losing energy in the form of IR radiation? Finally all atoms will have expended all their energy, and the only energy left in the universe will be elecromagnetic only.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:35:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spearweasel: Sorry man, by calling him Mr. Hitler, by Godwin's Law you forfeit the match. SGTAR15 is the winner.
View Quote
So let it be written...so let it be done. Kentstate4, next step......grammar police!! sgtar15 PS I know exactly what you are....a conservatives friend you are not!!
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:51:56 AM EDT
[url]http://fortboise.org/patentwatch.html[/url] Patent Watch 29.Mar.2002 Did the USPTO just award a patent for a perpetual motion machine? US Patent 6,362,718 certainly looks like one. And the claims of the inventors, on pages such as MEG - "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator" reinforce the feeling. 500% efficiency, "energy-replenishing from the Active Vacuum" and so on. The Scientific American's article Exploiting Zero-Point Energy drily says "we don't think so." It's interesting to see sonoluminescence show up in that article, too. Here it's about zero-point energy, but there's been talk for some years about it being the ticket to desktop fusion, including a recent paper that Science Magazine accepted for publication. The forwarded email I saw about MEG included this breathless prose: "The first MEG units to be produced for sale will output 2.5 kilowatts of free electricity. Forever. They should be in production about a year from now. Facilities for manufacturing the device are being set up in an unnamed 'friendly nation.' This free electricity will flow indefinitely, without much, or any maintenance...."
Top Top