I have created a free energy plant.

I offered the same thing. He played the same games with me through our personal email as he did here. He said he would only talk through the phone but then didn't know his own phone number. he said he was in CA but the phone area codes were in oregon.

After pushing him for real information he eventuly told me that the secret is a turbine.

He obviously was playing a game.

Originally posted by StellarX

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.

The second law states NOTHING of the sort and neither does the first or the third. Even if they did they are dealing with ISOLATED systems which means it would rarely if ever apply in this universe.

You obviously don't know anything about thermodynamics.

reply to post by dascro62


Turbine?

Not exactly, I believe it's called the 'Free Energy Turban'. How it works, we're not exactly sure, but someone said it has to do with whirling dervishes or something. HTH.







(the above is a parody and not a slam on any nationality or religion).

Originally posted by dascro62
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.

I am objecting to the claims i find to be unreasonable or just not accurate. I don't give the OP the benefit of the doubt as i am not so easily taken in by nonsense.

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.

Before we look at the laws shouldn't we try to find out if there are in fact any sense to his rambling?

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.

The burden of proof falls on those who came up with the laws, not those who do not believe in them.

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?

I have no idea how he wants that to work...

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.

So would i...

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 :-)

Sure some of the people who were witnesses to the functioning of some the patents i gave may have been deceived or actively taking part in the scheme but which of them and what evidence do we have and for which cases?

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

And i just want you to save your outrage for outrageous applications of interesting ideas and not to label such a wide area of research and physics such.

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.

Why lay such a heavy burden of proof on someone who seems at best deluded, and certainly uneducated, and then employ his apparent stupidity to discredit such a complex and relatively well documented history?

I do not share the skepticsim that you do that college students and professers are stuck in the past.

They are not 'stuck' as much as they are well indoctrinated to avoid the ridicule that will follow if they make inquiries into certain fields. Scientist also need to get their degrees and then to feed themselves and their families so they have as much to lose as the rest of us by questioning authority and trying to go against convention.

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.

They are for the most part trying to prove what they are paid to prove and once you know who's paying them it's no surprise that they come up with such absolute nonsense that gets well covered while the good research goes unrewarded and ignored for as long as they can arrange it.

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.

Anyone who thinks encrypted email is going to save them is pretty stupid to start with. If they care to watch what your doing it's probably best not to attract added attention by trying to be secretive!

Stellar

Originally posted by 2 cents
You obviously don't know anything about thermodynamics.

And i believe exactly the same thing about you. Are we going to deal with specifics or are you content just abusing laws to suit your particular bias?

Originally posted by dascro62
Are you positve you have an understanding of the 2nd law? Please if you do please explain it to me?

I am pretty happy with the standard definition but if you don't know how to find those just pick the first one that you do find and quote it so i can tell you if i agree with it or not. Funny how i am the only one actually citing sources yet your the one questioning my abilities. Just fascinating how by questioning convention i must suddenly 'prove' that i understand it... What do you think i believed before i started investigating the matter? Right...

It should be easy assuming you do understand this as well as you claim to.

From what I get you don't believe the laws of thermo?

I don't have a problem with the laws of thermodynamics as i do not have any need to question them to defend my opinions/beliefs in this area.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by 2 cents
You obviously don't know anything about thermodynamics.

And i believe exactly the same thing about you. Are we going to deal with specifics or are you content just abusing laws to suit your particular bias?

First I was being about a specific as it gets.

My personal bias? Have you even read my previous post explaining efficiency, over unity, free energy? I KNOW a hell of a lot more about this subject than you seem to.

You CANNOT get 100% efficiency from any energy collecting device, PERIOD.

I have an idea rather than doing 'a drive by' on my post why don't you tell me what the second law of thermodynamics IS and what it means and why my examples in my previous post are biased and wrong?

Here I'll do it for you

"The second law of thermodynamics is an axiom of thermodynamics concerning heat, entropy, and the direction in which thermodynamic processes can occur. For example, the second law implies that heat does not spontaneously flow from a cold material to a hot material, but it allows heat to flow from a hot material to a cold material. Roughly speaking, the second law says that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time, and consequently less concentrated energy is available to do useful work. Energy dispersal also means that differences in temperature, pressure, and density even out. Again roughly speaking, thermodynamic entropy is a measure of energy dispersal, and so the second law is closely connected with the concept of entropy."
- source, en.wikipedia.org...

What does all this mean? It means that you can't keep all the energy in a closed system for work. There are always losses. Therefore, you cannot get 100% efficiency in energy extraction, much less over 100%.

and here is more on the subject of Entropy and the second law

"Entropy is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work."

"An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time"

"This means that there is no possibility of an isolated "perpetual motion" system"
- source, en.wikipedia.org...

I was trying first to inform someguy and then a few others on the subject matter of free energy, over unity and the like. But I don't see any reasoned, intelligent responses coming from someguy or stellarx.

The laws of thermodynamics are firmly established. They are used to design devices THAT ACTUALLY WORK all the time. The laws have been proved beyond any doubt. The burden of proof that these laws somehow do not apply to our universe rest with those making such outrageous claims.

The End


[edit on 8-3-2008 by 2 cents]

reply to post by StellarX


Well you attack everyones use of the standard definition of the 2nd law. Maybe it is the real world that application that confuses you.

Yes you provide sources. You provide some questionable sources for your conspiracy theories to discredit accepted scientific theories.

Your posts are generally lacking in any type of information. Mostly just knee jerk reactions to things you apparently do not like to hear.

The standard definition is available on countless websites. If we both are aware of that is it worth the effort of posting it here?

Originally posted by dascro62
Well you attack everyones use of the standard definition of the 2nd law.

Because you , and they, keep misrepresenting what it says and or suggests!

Maybe it is the real world that application that confuses you.

Maybe you just can not understand in what sort of systems those laws were intended to describe. The Earth is NOT a closed or isolated system.

Yes you provide sources. You provide some questionable sources for your conspiracy theories to discredit accepted scientific theories.

I provided patent papers from official patent sites with newspaper articles of the time that dealt with the specific inventors and their machines. For someone who does not want to read or think every source is 'questionable' while they go about avoiding addressing any specific claims made therein.

Your posts are generally lacking in any type of information. Mostly just knee jerk reactions to things you apparently do not like to hear.

For someone who don't even know how to apply the laws of thermodynamics you should not point fingers at posts for lack of 'content'. Much better not to have much content than to actually misrepresent such basic laws.

The standard definition is available on countless websites. If we both are aware of that is it worth the effort of posting it here?

Many of which i have visited to discover and compare the general intent or what modern scientist presume from it. So why don't you post ten or fifteen definitions or derivatives to prove that you are in fact here to discuss substance and not just appeal to a twisted version of convention in defense of your beliefs?

Stellar

reply to post by Badge01


Since my post was deleted and my endeavors for truth being the equality of love were mocked through utter misunderstanding, I will attempt to re-create this post without it being deleted again since it contained very valuable information.

I really don't have time for this stuff and I've seen much worse posts than mine flying around, so perhaps you should go take care of those. Anyway, moving ahead.

Time=space. Space is 3 dimensional. Time is not a dimension of itself because it is space. Time and space are one. The universe is a 3 dimensional immeasurable singularity. You can't take space and time and then separate them and make 4 dimensions when they are same thing to begin with.

There are 3 dimensions in constant motion and that is that. 1 dimensional and 2 dimensional objects are mathematical concepts that are graphed in pre-algebra etc. They hold no truth in reality. It takes a 3d universe ot draw that 2d shape. It takes a 3d piece of paper to draw it on and it takes a 3d measurement of ink/graphite to be drawn with and the graphite/ink is 3d after drawn no matter how small its measurements may be after scraped or dabbled onto the paper.

There aren't 4 dimensions and there aren't 11 dimensions. Before you go calling someone a pseudo scientists again (which is obviously ok for you to do, but when I say it back my posts are deleted bad moderation) you should first disprove what they are saying and try to actually prove what you are saying.. which is nothing but psuedo science. Fairy tale and science fiction trying to be placed into real science.

Hopefully this thread stands. I'll speak my mind and I have yet to break the T&C, and I didn't in my last post either. And I still stand behind my statement: emtions do not sway, only truth persuades mind. Emotions only obfuscate the way things are perceived and the way that they are taken, including words, which obviously got my post deleted because the moderator must have thought that I was angry and attacking when I was merely using sound and crisp logic to coutner the claims made against me and against science.

And p.s. I'm very familiar with the T&C. VERY. And moderator, you broke it through mocking/attacking me. That was very unnessecary. You can't enforce rules that you yourself are not going to be held to. That will only incite anger among the users, at least those that have a brain to see it. If this is how people are going to be treated and how I am going to be treated, just let me know, or ban me now, because my posts sure won't improve with such disrespect being circulated.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by SomeGuy34

I will bring all of this hell to an end, and when this team has formed, I will forever be known as a prophet,

I have watched my whole life nothing but human error, falsities --

See my reply to your post Here.

But in the meantime, nothing will change.
New egos bring about the same stuff, just dressed up differently.

You have to understand what the ego is, and once you do then you can uncover it in all of its guises. I suggest any of Eckhart Tolles audio books. You want a new earth, ironically his audiobook "a new earth" would be a start.

For more background on where Im coming from, see the reply I made to your other post...link above.

Peace

dAlen

- if just one side of the mind is groomed (science, etc) then we will be doomed to repeat history. You make change by changing the inside first.

Originally posted by 2 cents
Here I'll do it for you

So you will go as far as wiki? Thanks for spending all that time...

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase

www.allaboutscience.org...

Applying this knowledge to nature, physicists found that the total entropy change (change in S) always increases for every naturally occurring event (within a closed system) that could be then observed. Thus, they theorized, disorder must be continually augmenting evenly throughout the universe. When you put ice into a hot cup of tea (aristocrats of the Victorian era were constantly thinking of tea), heat will flow from the hot tea to the cold ice and melt the ice in the beloved beverage. Then, once the energy in the cup is evenly distributed, the cooled tea would reach a maximum state of entropy. This situation represents a standard increase in disorder, believed to be perpetually occurring throughout the entire universe.

www.physlink.com...

here are several equivalent statements of the Second Law that rather insightful:

1) During a process, if the system begins and ends at the same state, it is impossible that heat is completely turned into work.

2) Heat flows spontaneously from a hot object to a cold object.

3) The change in entropy is equal to the change in the heat along a reversible path divided by the temperature.

4) The entropy of an isolated system will always increase in a spontaneous process.

The last definition is essentially the one you are recalling.

The idea that entropy is disorder is not quite right and its unfortunate that this concept has been held onto so long.

www.physlink.com...

The law stating that in any chemical or physical process, the entropy of the universe tends to increase.
www.biochem.northwestern.edu...

One way of stating the second law of thermodynamics is:

In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.

One way to view this is that adding heat to a system causes the molecules and atoms to speed up. It may be possible (though tricky) to reverse the process in a closed system (i.e. without drawing any energy from or releasing energy somewhere else) to reach the initial state, but you can never get the entire system "less energetic" than it started ... the energy just doesn't have anyplace to go.

physics.about.com...

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (in Classical Thermodynamics)

Here is how Maxwell explains the second law (Theory of Heat, p. 153).

Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature. Clausius, who first stated the principle of Carnot in a manner consistent with the true theory of heat, expresses this law as follows: -

It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature.

Thomson gives it a slightly different form: -

It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.

www.tim-thompson.com...

Maybe that helps and you owe me the thirty minutes you refused to spend towards a defense your misconceived ideas.

What does all this mean? It means that you can't keep all the energy in a closed system for work. There are always losses. Therefore, you cannot get 100% efficiency in energy extraction, much less over 100%.

And yet in the definition you have employed it states quite clearly that this is the case for a ISOLATED system. Do you know what that means ( and that the Earth is no such thing) and if so why can't you seem to comprehend the implications?

and here is more on the subject of Entropy and the second law

"Entropy is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work."

"An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time"

"This means that there is no possibility of an isolated "perpetual motion" system"
- source, en.wikipedia.org...

ISOLATED. Neither the Earth nor any natural system on or in it are in fact ISOLATED. What about that is so very hard to understand? The second law is a THEORETICAL law based on the presumption that we could first find a isolated system to study. As far as i am aware we have never had the opportunity to find such a system and thus had no way of truly validating the fundamental accuracy of the second law.

Here's what some others had to say about the implications when isolation is not in question.

R: So? What’s your point?

A: That we should be aware that the second law isn’t dominant immediately in all situations. It is short-sighted to concentrate on the fact that energy of the right type and large enough quantity can break or destroy all physical objects. Everything is NOT quickly falling into decay or collapsing all around us because there is some dread defect that is inherent in all matter. There is no "law of disorder" written into the nature of things in the world. It takes energy to cause wood to rot, oxygen and moisture before steel will rust, it takes earthquakes or tornadoes or gravity to make houses collapse or slide downhill. The second law tells what energy tends to do sometime in the future -- and, though I admit that in many cases (like a hurricane!) the future can be only seconds, I think you have to admit that in many cases the future can be billions of years.

Fortunately, because it is only a tendency and not an immediately executed edict, it can often be easily postponed or used to our advantage for a brief time or for a mighty long time.

www.2ndlaw.com...

You may have noticed the words "closed system" a couple of times above. Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, available energy has decreased and entropy has increased as required.

Let's call this kind of entropy thermodynamic entropy. The qualifier "thermodynamic" is necessary because the word entropy is also used in another, nonthermodynamic sense.

www.panspermia.org...

According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the "law of maximum entropy production" or "MEP" and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws. This site provides basic texts, articles, links, and references that take the reader from the classical views of thermodynamics in simple terms, to today's new and richer understanding.

www.entropylaw.com...

I was trying first to inform someguy and then a few others on the subject matter of free energy, over unity and the like. But I don't see any reasoned, intelligent responses coming from someguy or stellarx.

You can not even inform yourself as to the nature of a closed system , and it's absence on Earth, so i suggest you stop trying to help the rest of us while you inquire as to why the second law seems much less important when it's read and understood as a whole. Intelligent responses they may not be but given the fundamental ignorance revealed by many here about what a isolated system is not ( the Earth) i can hardly seem very intelligent. As talking to one year olds makes any person sound pretty idiotic so it is in this case. Until you can get some basics strait i have little chance of revealing what i think or believe about the more complex implications of the second law...

For anyone unaware; the conversation has apparently moved over to "The start of discovery, internally, and, Magnetic Warfare".

It includes the another mindblowing "Schematic". I'll let you be the judge.

In fairness, I feel I should also point out that he openly admits (in this MP3) "the whole water-plant deal was just to throw you all off in the first place".

As he said earlier, he's full of it.

[edit on 3/9/08 by redmage]

Continued

The laws of thermodynamics are firmly established.

Not apparently firmly enough for you to have been educated in their proper application.

They are used to design devices THAT ACTUALLY WORK all the time.

And doctors managed to 'save' lives by amputation long after the theories existed that would have allowed saving the same lives without doing so. . There is a VAST difference between engineering realities ( you could just keep working and trying until it works reliably as Edison and others did) and the laws that attempts to describe the reality and principles involved therein.

The laws have been proved beyond any doubt. The burden of proof that these laws somehow do not apply to our universe rest with those making such outrageous claims.

The End

Few laws have been proven beyond any doubt and most are consistently being refined or adapted for special circumstances or in one way or another. The burden of proof relies on those who wish to tell humanity that no further inquiry are required because a certain thing is understood as well as it ever will be. I for one do not ascribe to the notion that there might even be such a thing as complete understanding ( it presumes a chance event with no intelligence to skew fundamentals at certain times) and pity both those who have found god or those who look for him just beyond the next theorem.

Stellar

From the beginning of this thread it sounds like someone just invented the never ending toilet. What I don't get is what a toilet is going to generate power for? Lights?

Anyway sounds like bottom basement material. Stuff scientists have many concepts on. What's up with that? If you have a solid idea the best thing would be to start is where it's being started at. Why not start where most of it comes from, universites that deal with this sort of engineering. Check it out.

Free energy is all over the place. Even here at ATS. Why bring it here?

Do you really think that your going to get away with this?

Free energy?

You do realize that the government will not allow this to ever happen. Your invention will either be destroyed or stolen. If your lucky you'll live to tell about it.

In the meantime if you find out any word on solar panel prices dropping. Hook me up.

reply to post by WISHADOW


DAMN straight someone did.





=D

reply to post by WISHADOW


DAMN straight someone did.





=D

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by Badge01

 

And p.s. I'm very familiar with the T&C. VERY. And moderator, you broke it through mocking/attacking me. That was very unnessecary. You can't enforce rules that you yourself are not going to be held to.
[edit on 9-3-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

The same thing happened to me a while back. I was a little "offensive" in a thread I had created and eventually a mod deleted my entire thread!!!

I wrote them about it asking them to give me my thread back, but with the "offensive" parts removed. ......I later received a reply telling me how pointless that would be considering that (I forget their exact words, but they were "offensive" to say the least) my thread was full of "offensive" material and that removing all of it would leave my thread devoid of anything at all.

reply to post by StellarX


You claim I don't know how to apply the laws of thermo? Please prove that. I have proven this many times over. I have made a career of this.

Patents do not prove anything. You can get a patent that doesn't work. Its happened plenty of times.

All you have proven is that you will never intelligently debate or discuss ideas. I will sum up your next post to save you the time.

"I am right with my off-the-wall theories and ideas and everyone else including einstien, tesla, and hawking are wrong. I will provide no proof of this but please believe me and forget about those proven ideas"

Did that work well enough for you?

Moderation is good here I'll state.


when it gets to out of control they will lay down the law.


However, Dascro, I can't see your post right now, you'll get a reply sometime.