I have created a free energy plant.

woah dude!!!!

i didnt pick this name for any kind of pyschological purposes i dont really care too much about brains i just want some damn energy


nah it stands for Pounds per Square Inch Conspiracy lol he told me to use this name unless i could think of a better one.

i'm not his slave though im just a old friend i passed the mj to him for his first time practically, but no hes a good kid im only 2 years older than him.


however............

all I'm going to say is that in the past 5 minutes i've found a way to make his idea like WAY better.....and in theory i personally cant find any flaw in his idea yet, the continuous syphon must always be level but if we can move water and move it out at the same time like he proposed to me originally yesterday we can do good stuff people!!!


i will state that this machine is going to use a plethra of turbines and magnetic turbines in resonant energy factors based on some old tesla theories he's experimented with in his house and actualy he blew his own breaker up af ew days ago testing other stuff and had to buy a new one and install it.

but this is going to be good if it works, if it doesn't it will suck.


but i think it'll work, he says he's going to get some of the people he talked to on here to help, no money involved unless they want to help fund experiments.


but anyways no it should be cool it uses a lot of different stuff as ways of generating energy

Originally posted by PSICon

....based on some old tesla theories he's experimented with in his house and actualy he blew his own breaker up af ew days ago testing other stuff and had to buy a new one and install it.

Just for the record breakers dont blow up, they just disconnect and then you go and flip them back on again.

Thats why they make breakers.

But anyway, imo this is someone having a good time on the internet because if this was real he or her wouldnt be sitting in front of a computer all day. And if it is real whats with all the preschool games?

reply to post by earth2


no he fried a breaker on the breaker board


he backcharged energy into it, he didnt draw it

its with a whole different experiment


to be more specific, he almost caught his house on fire and "popped" the breakers breaker into pieces expelling a live circuit and causing a flash electrical fire

then he had to extinguish it

[edit on 6-3-2008 by PSICon]

SG34:s style of writing in some sense resembles "Nigerian letters", but
of course he may be serious and believe in what he is claiming. But if he is that genius he should be able developing his machine further himself.
But only a working model is proof of success in this field - not even the most clever reasoning is sufficient.

But saying "free energy" is known impossible by scientists, is not an argument against such machines. For instance no scientist can prove "2:nd Law" cannot be violated. It is just resting on reasonable
guesses about entropy at ordinary circumstances.

Maybe a kind of practical "free energy" machine already exists in the classical "Drinking Bird" - although not a "perpetuum mobile" of 1:st or 2:nd kind. I first thought SG34 might have had a solution using evaporation like this bird, in some way. Some researchers tried to
develope this "drinking bird" principle - maybe they succeeded too well...

"Drinking Bird" presented here

sci.vu.edu.au...

1. Confusion of 'to' and 'too', as with the OP
2. Posts are spaced with an abundance of double line breaks, as with the OP
3. Confusion of 'heil' and 'hail', as with the OP

I call fraud.

reply to post by M Grandin


I don't think we'll be seeing much more of SomeGuy34, at least not under that pseudonym. PSICon is [apparently] here for him in proxy. (Though some of us believe they are one in the same based on writing styles and some other clues. I actually think it's pretty obvious if you read through the thread, or you can just look at the past few pages and see what those of us who have been reading the whole thread have said.)

Honestly, I'm surprised this thread has lasted this long. It's a T&C nightmare, in my opinion, and even those of us who are trying to simply point out the obvious flaws in logic and the obvious ridiculousness of the whole shenanigan are probably about to feel the almighty wrath of the mods. The mods probably want to be careful about banning or even warning without very good cause, but 14 pages of this is starting to look a little...well, let's just say I don't see a bright future for this thread.

reply to post by TheStev


Heh, join the club my friend.

Originally posted by PSICon
he got the idea from a song by immortal technique i think what i posted above


hes crazy man

he has a minor in anthrapology

he is like, way out there though he's off on somethin right now.

i hope he aint smokin wacky tobacco too much cos when he was down on the coast he was partyin hella tough but he got out of here


im hangin out in my dorm, nuttin to do damnit so he called me up and told me a bunch of stuff that me and him had talked about along time ago......he told me to be secret but i he told me f it about 20 minutes ago


he is havin me do some mathmatics for him right now

That's from one of SomeGuy34's other threads. Just thought it was interesting...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/3/08 by an3rkist]

reply to post by an3rkist


hmm well i just saw the the point of no return and its a song we listened to in the day.

Originally posted by punkinworks

there is no such thing as free energy,

I suppose it depends on what you consider 'free' but in the most basic sense of the human experience both the sun's and geothermal energy are entirely free.

My physics professor used an idea just like yours to prove the laws of thermodynamics, and that there is no "FREE RIDE"

If he used such a stupid way to try to disprove 'free energy' he has no business teaching even conventional physics principles.

First off, there is no more energy available from gravity on an object (fluid in yor case)other than thegravitational potential energy.

And there are thought experiments that shows that we could generate free energy by tapping into the gravitational potential energy of planets and other systems. If anything we do not make rivers run downhill yet hydro plants gives us plenty of electricity.

If you take a ball, and roll it down a U shaped track, and if you ingore all the frictional losses then the farthest it will go up the other side is the sam height as it started, except you cant ignore the frictional losses.

Sure but what would happen if you could employ the heat and vibration generated by the friction towards generating gaining the energy that might later allow the ball to be raised for another cycle? Energy IS conserved and the idea that we must for all time construct systems that can not retrain and employ energy as it changes form is simply presumptuous and in my opinion stupid.

It wil lose energy and go as far up the track as it came from.

It does not lose it transfers.

With a fluid there ARE FRICTIONAL LOSSES, as it flows through a system.
That right there is the end of the story, as far as free energy goes.

You must be new here?

With a siphon a fluid cannot be raised above the level of the fluid itself .
Another end of story for your "free energy".

I don't have much hope for his idea either but given a proper slope and hydro electric power generation i really wonder why anyone presumes a net loss. Has anyone attempted to build such a circulating system and if not like that one why not something like the following.

James L. Griggs

www.rexresearch.com...
www.freepatentsonline.com...

Is that all made up and if so why has the racket not been 'exposed' by the mainstream science mafia?

It makes laugh when people think they have found a way around the most fundimental principles of physics.

It makes me laugh when people so arrogantly presume that we know which laws are in fact fundamental.

Stellar

Firstly im a long time lurker, this is the first time ive felt strongly (or confidant) enough to post.

Someguy wants to be a prophet? He WAS a prophet, prophet ezekiel or something similar till he got banned from here by a moddy for his rudeness, trolling and his abusiveness to fellow posters. The threads in the UFO forum somewhere, i aint wasting my time on him to go look for it. Now hes back using this name and possibly PSicon whatever as well.

Im going off this thread someguy, so dont waste your time with a personal attack on me, i just thought thought others should know who they are dealing with. This is my second favourite website on the net and the only downside to it are the occasional attention seeking fruit loops like yourself.

regards to everyone else

Originally posted by dascro62
Yeah free energy has never been true.

Just like the sun never revolved around the Earth vacuum and wind, tidal and solar energy has made life possible vacuum energy has always been around. The fact that we only recently started employing these sources to help us in no way means that god made them available yesterday.

I believe its the second law of thermodynamics you are stating. That there will always be certain "loses" in a system. This has always been the case.

Why do you 'believe'? Don't you know what it's about and if not why don't you study what the law is about instead of believing it? Can't we leave fauth for fairies, yeti's and gods?

I actually we've been able to come close, but we cannot eliminate all the loses, such as friction.

And dozens of patent holders would disagree with you. I have supplied a short list earlier and if you want to address those feel absolutely free.

It seems like he is proposing hydroelectric power generation, but somehow the water is climbing back up to altitude so it can fall through a turbine again? The problem is you can't make that water climb again. It will take some type of pump.

What do you mean it's 'somehow' climbing up the hill? Do you forget that hydro schemes 'generators' electricity which at least in theory may be enough to pump back the water and recirculate it? How many dams can you for instance build in one river given sufficient height and pressure? How much of the gravitational potential energy is in fact used when the water still rushes past at such high speed? Isn't this rather a question of 'money' and profit and not one of how free or not energy is?

I'm interested in how he is going to overcome these problems and laws

There is no fundamental problem in physics that prevents us from gaining more electricity from a system than is employed to start it or keep it going. If the electrical engineers were not taught how to build symmetrical systems ( where losses must always slightly exceed input so as to require more fossil fuel burning) we would not have a problem but since that's what they are told to do it's what we have to work with.

Stellar

Originally posted by dascro62
I would be more than willing to look over the plans here. I have a degree in physics and mechanical engineering. I am an energy researcher for an independent company.

The fact that you have so much conventional education just means we are lucky to have you given how hard they tried to tell you that this was in fact completely impossible.

Having said all that, there have been claims of free energy for years. None of them have proven to work out.

So you say but history makes liars of us all.


James L. Griggs

www.rexresearch.com...
www.freepatentsonline.com...

Minato

www.freepatentsonline.com...
www.rexresearch.com...

Bearden

USPO

www.rexresearch.com...
peswiki.com...:MEG

Alfred Hubbard

USPO Hubbard

www.rexresearch.com...

John Huston

USPO

www.rexresearch.com... Houston
www.rexresearch.com...

Meyers

www.rexresearch.com...
www.rexresearch.com... No us patent

T Henry Moray

www.rexresearch.com...
peswiki.com...:Thomas_Henry_Moray
www.linux-host.org...

Kawai

USPO

Tesla

USPO

freepatentsonline.com...
USPO

Joseph W. Newman

www.rexresearch.com...
v3.espacenet.com...

James H. Rogers

USPO

958,829, Method and Apparatus for Producing High Frequency Oscillating Currents. J. Filed Jan. 20, 1910.
www.rexresearch.com...

Start anywhere you like.

Again not because of goverment conspiracy or anything else.

Explain to me. if you like, why it would benefit any government on this planet to have such technology freely availble to the citizens it has always attempted to dominate by controlling access to energy and resources. In fact isn't the sole reason governments/ruling classes exists because they mostly represent those interest that already control massive resources and energy stocks and wish to keep it that way? Isn't their only legitimacy in the eyes of modern western ( and i don't mean American; western and northern Europe) society to manage our taxes , energy, in our name? Would we need such management if we had energy in abundance? Who's allegiance could the King or government buy in lands of plenty?

Simply because they are not true. Most are in violation of several laws of physics and/or thermodynamics.

I am no genius but the 'laws' normally proposed normally does not apply specifically or are simply misrepresentations of what should be understood about the term ' free energy'. Since we have long known ( at least fifty years in terms of scientific knowledge) what the source of this energy is it's hardly magic and the question really has become why it's STILL not exploited while tens of billions are wasted on high spatial energy fusion. Talk about throwing money in the water....

These are gone over endlessly by free thinking students and professional researchers so its highly unlikely anyone could silence all of them.

The same free thinking students and professionals who persistently fail to back the theories that takes fifty or a hundred years to become accepted as scientific 'laws'?

Sure...

* Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
* Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
* Baird, John L. (television camera)
* Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
* Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
* Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
* Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
* Galvani (bioelectricity)
* Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
* Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
* Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
* Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
* Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
* Goethe (Land color theory)
* Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
* Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
* Lister, J (sterilizing)
* Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
* Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
* Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
* McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
* Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
* Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
* Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
* Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
* Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
* Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
* Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
* Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
* Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
* Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
* J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
* Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
* Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
* Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
* Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
* Zweig, George (quark theory)

* Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)
* Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)
* Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by "spontaneous" childhood bruising)
* Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution's required competition)
* Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)
* Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)
* Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)
* Permanent magnet levitation ("Levitron" shouldn't have worked)

www.amasci.com...

The suppression of reality is very much a ongoing reality and if you are not aware of at least the history of this practice ( which can not be disputed) that does not say much for your education in the history of science. Since it's such a shameful history it's hardly surprising that it just does not feature in the curiculum.

So basically you may be highly intelligent and well educated while i consider myself just pretty knowledgeable; your not going to get away with BS me and i am not going to presume that i can get away with doing the same to you. If you can accept that this conversation will be more constructive than you may think.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by dascro62
Yeah free energy has never been true.

Just like the sun never revolved around the Earth vacuum and wind, tidal and solar energy has made life possible vacuum energy has always been around. The fact that we only recently started employing these sources to help us in no way means that god made them available yesterday.

I believe its the second law of thermodynamics you are stating. That there will always be certain "loses" in a system. This has always been the case.

Why do you 'believe'? Don't you know what it's about and if not why don't you study what the law is about instead of believing it? Can't we leave fauth for fairies, yeti's and gods?

I actually we've been able to come close, but we cannot eliminate all the loses, such as friction.

There is no fundamental problem in physics that prevents us from gaining more electricity from a system than is employed to start it or keep it going. If the electrical engineers were not taught how to build symmetrical systems ( where losses must always slightly exceed input so as to require more fossil fuel burning) we would not have a problem but since that's what they are told to do it's what we have to work with.

Yes there is its called the laws of thermodynamics.

What do you mean it's 'somehow' climbing up the hill? Do you forget that hydro schemes 'generators' electricity which at least in theory may be enough to pump back the water and recirculate it? How many dams can you for instance build in one river given sufficient height and pressure? How much of the gravitational potential energy is in fact used when the water still rushes past at such high speed? Isn't this rather a question of 'money' and profit and not one of how free or not energy is?

Uhmmm, no.
An example, The San Joaquin river in central california.
It has 7 dams in its fall from mammoth Mtn to the great central valley. a total drop of around 8000 feet over 100 miles.
There are also anciliary hydro projects like stevens creek and the kerkoff penstocks.
In the case of stevens creek and the kerkoff projects water is diverted thru huge pipes 60' in dia. from shaver lake elevation 5300' down to the river at Squaws leap elevation 2000 '.
They run the generators when demand is at its highest, during daylight hrs in the summer. Since demand is high the price garnered is also higher that average, basic economics,.
When demand is low like at night, they PUMP the water back up the hill to shaver lake, to release it again when demand is high and therfeore the price garnered is higher.
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT GET MORE ENERGY OUT THAT THEY PUT IN.
In the last several years, with the spiraling cost of electricity, they are no longer pumping watwer back up hill, IT COSTS TO MUCH.

This whole thread is a grand monument to IGNORANCE and they inability to understand the basic physical principles of the world in which we live.

Ignorance is alive and well on ATS

Originally posted by Donoso
Anyone else notice the absolute ridiculous mentality of the OP?

Hard to miss...

Anybody that disagrees with him gets put on the ever moronic ignore. The guy isn't happy that he can't magically pull efficient amounts of juice out of precisely nowhere, thus, he persists to live in his self proclaimed delusion because it's reassuring.

I understand that he may not know where the energy he may ( or probably really not) be observing comes from but why do you presume that such sources does not exist?

Where has the skeptical scrutiny gone? The basis of truth?

I keep asking myself that as pseudo intellectuals defend scientific norms on nothing much other than the fact that it happens to be a current consensus.

Have people forgotten that the universe doesn't care about our needs?

Conversely haven't people realised that the universe isn't doing it's absolutely best to get rid of us? Four billion years would be a pretty bad track record if that was in fact it's 'intent'! Why presume that energy must be scarce or so hard to tap when a universe of energy can barely be explained as anything other than a chance event? If the big bang is a cosmic change event, or god forbid , a mistake, then that's a great deal of wasted energy!

Just because a few people want free energy, that's not going to change the cosmos' laws of thermodynamics.

And just because a few people want to believe that symmetry reigns in a universe that we can't prove closed, open or otherwise does not mean we have to cut each other throats while annihilating all life on the planet in our efforts to dig up resources. If you enjoy your nihilism that's fine but at least some of us would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.

Why do you wish to change any of the known fundamental laws? Since when has that been a requirement for energy extraction from known sources? Do we violate the conservation of energy when we tap wind,tidal or solar energy? Why would we break fundamental laws when we tap into the sea of quantum energy that we now know to exist?

This guy is directly contesting something so fundamental and offers absolutely no evidence to support his claims.

But others have provided evidence and while his ignorance may lead you to think that fundamental forces are being questioned that needs hardly be the case!

Not to mention he claims himself to be a "prophet" and "above us mere humans", can't you see this is a silly troll?

So he seems crazy, big deal; those types are not hard to find on this forum so lets not pretend mock horror when they happen to escape from the UFO forums and try their hand at serious seeming topics! To be sure i don't expect him to ever contribute anything useful in terms of free energy engineering or theory but i can and will and i suggest you just start ignore him and find someone that isn't such a obvious punching bag.

Stellar

Energy is free in essence, the society we've become and the illusion of what it takes for us to utilize it is what causes the term and the attempt at harnessing "free energy", but in reality all the energy that we harness is free especially any not bound by the bars of money. It's not a matter of physics it's a matter of an economical, perceptive and monetary stew. You can't see out of the prison that holds you and until you do you'll not realize that all energy is free and so are you and yours.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by punkinworks
Yes there is its called the laws of thermodynamics.

And what pray tell are the exact objects that you will raise? If their the normal one's i suggest you just browse to resolve the question as those have been addressed in MANY places.

Uhmmm, no.
They run the generators when demand is at its highest, during daylight hrs in the summer. Since demand is high the price garnered is also higher that average, basic economics,.

That's basic CAPITALIST economics.

When demand is low like at night, they PUMP the water back up the hill to shaver lake, to release it again when demand is high and therfeore the price garnered is higher.

But there is no price attached to downhill generation over extended periods of time ( beside basic operation and maintenance) but pumping will actually take electricity that were freely generated on the downhill run. Are you suggesting that they are buying cheap electricity from coal plants for pumping the water back up or are you telling me that there is not enough water to keep the system circulating all hours of the day? How can it be profitable to spend some of your electricity for pumping when you could say rather increase your damning area and save on pumping?

THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT GET MORE ENERGY OUT THAT THEY PUT IN.

And how do you know that exactly? Not that i don't believe you but why do you know that for a 'fact'.

In the last several years, with the spiraling cost of electricity, they are no longer pumping watwer back up hill, IT COSTS TO MUCH.

How can hydro generated electricity be any more expensive than a few years ago? Did water become more costly or did the Earths gravitational field decline? Based on this i presume they must have bought cheap coal electricity to pump the water back?

This whole thread is a grand monument to IGNORANCE and they inability to understand the basic physical principles of the world in which we live.

No question about that.

Ignorance is alive and well on ATS

Absolutely.

Stellar

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Energy is free in essence,

Actually it takes a great deal of physical labour and resources to construct even tidal,wind and solar generating capacity just as it does to get oil or other resources out of the ground. Energy may very well be free but that does not negate the need for organized and intelligently applied work/construction to make any beneficial use of it.

the society we've become and the illusion of what it takes for us to utilize it is what causes the term and the attempt at harnessing "free energy", but in reality all the energy that we harness is free especially any not bound by the bars of money.

It will still take devices and thus intelligence and resources to tap into ZPE or vacuum energy so it will still require at least some initial sacrifices on our part.

It's not a matter of physics it's a matter of an economical, perceptive and monetary stew. You can't see out of the prison that holds you and until you do you'll not realize that all energy is free and so are you and yours.

But it IS a matter of physics and while those who benefit by capitalist accumulation economics certainly will not benefit by vacuum energy extraction for the masses it hardly invalidates the fact that free energy extraction must first be as physically possible as i believe it has been proven to be.

I don't much care for make believe nonsense about peace and happiness and how we are just all 'confused' out of attaining such.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Sure but what would happen if you could employ the heat and vibration generated by the friction towards generating gaining the energy that might later allow the ball to be raised for another cycle? Energy IS conserved and the idea that we must for all time construct systems that can not retrain and employ energy as it changes form is simply presumptuous and in my opinion stupid.

The thing that I would point out about what you said is this.

Energy is conserved. And if you took all the heat energy and vibrational energy losses and somehow used them to raise the ball back to its original height what good would it do? In such a system you cannot siphon off any energy for useful work - that is direct the energy elsewhere for something else, otherwise there would not be enough energy to raise it to its starting point again.

Getting all the energy from the ball, friction and so forth would be a 100% conversion of energy, which the 2nd law says cannot happen. More than that, getting all that energy converted and then the ball raised to its starting point without adding energy is what is considered 'over unity' that is over 100% efficiency.

Just Not Possible.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

I have to applaud the ATS members who have exercised considerable restraint on this thread.

In addition I applaud those members who have now become quite skilled in profiling.

It's easy to see how a 14 year old boy and log on and create a new account on an internet cafe or library and then generate enough replies so that people start to use a reverse of 'cold reading'.

This is when certain buzz words are thrown out and when people start to post ideas, those same ideas are fed back to them by the poster.

That way he doesn't have to know any theory, besides what one could look up on Wiki or the internet.

The problem is, basic mistakes are soon made.

The poster uses a term he doesn't understand, such as 'contactless bearings'. What he meant to say was 'frictionless bearings', but not actually having any 'device' it's easy to make this mistake.

In addition, the emotional reaction and the motives some become transparent as the user uses terms such as 'I'll continue to taunt the skeptics', and 'I'll smirk at my computer screen'.

The perpetual is related to issues of anger and control and not to the production of free energy.

I also applaud the OP for his clever use of the 'reverse cold reading technique' to provoke fellow members and cause them to lose control.

This thread has been very educational and as more people become skilled at 'profiling', it will become very difficult for these ploys to be used in the future.

Though this post does not specificall address the physics or chemistry of 'perpetual motion', it does address the methods used to present that information and is not, therefore, off topic.

Thanks.

Let me word it this way.

If you have a closed system with a starting state (a ball raised on a U shaped track). And that state changes due to some force (gravity). And the potential energy of that system is converted to kinetic, heat, and so forth (ball rolling down the track). The energy required to return that system to its state of original potential (ball on the other side of the track at same height) is the same as all the energy the ball/system produced in losing its potential energy (kinetic, heat, and so forth). If you could somehow recover all the energy lost to the environment (which you can't - 2nd law of thermodynamics) all you could do is restore the original condition. There would be no energy left that could be used for something else. If you did use that energy for something else you would not have enough left to restore the system. It would require more energy to restore the system. The exact amount that you just got. Do you see what I mean?

[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by 2 cents]

reply to post by StellarX



I'm not really sure what you are attacking my posts for. I tried to give the OP the benefit of the doubt but he has given me no details since then.

Yes I am very aware of the second law of thermo. But its difficult to tell what he is proposing so I believe the second law applies.

As I said before, I believe our laws may be disproven someday. But the burden of proof falls on the person who claims to be able to do so. not everyone else.

Hydroelectric power uses water falling to turn a turbine. He was proposing that the water is in a small closed system. So lets assume 50 gallons. When 50 gallons of water falls through the turbine how is it going to fall again? Aside from using the energy of the sun and earth like we do in hydroelectric power, we cannot make that water rise to an altitude again without using any energy. If he has a way then I am all ears.

It is possible to patent almost anything. It doesn't actually have to work. there is a patent for a fart gun I saw once. I'm not sure how they have enough pressure from farts but whatever, maybe they have special powers :-)

I do not intende to BS anyone and I don't think I have. I was simply skeptical of an outrageous claim.

You are right, one time I am sure I would have been skeptical that the earth was round. But those that made those claims had proof that made believers of anyone. I wished the OP brought such proof. He didn't however and I am forced to remain skeptical.

I do not share the skepticsim that you do that college students and professers are stuck in the past. Most question everything, yes they often fall back on theories until new ones are proven. But the graduate students and professors are constantly doing research and trying to prove new ideas and theories. Maybe I misunderstood your point though.

I understood the goverment would certainly take an interest. But what struck me as odd was the OP's concern was greater for the goverment than it was for his idea. He had many people at his disposal ready to help him but choose to place his concerns elsewhere. Me and OP were communicating in encrypted email and he constantly tried to say the goverment was going to intercept his ideas. Not that this isn't possible, but I think the goverment would need some actual information before it attempts to steal anything.


[edit on 7-3-2008 by dascro62]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by dascro62]