Let me talk about "free energy", too.

reply to post by 2 cents



I had 4 years in mechanical engineering. My specific field was power production. I had to come out to help my father farm because my brother fell in love, got married and left him holding the whole bag. Maybe he will get his divorce in a couple of weeks.


I still have bright ideas and start crunching numbers. I have a couple that are promising. Many times I have came up with an idea and think that somebody must have already thought of it then 10 or 15 years later I see where somebody has came up with this great idea that I had come up with years ago. Oh well!!!

reply to post by MBF


Yeah I have had this idea for about 4 years now. I have been trying to model it on a computer. Fortunately for me my father is a master computer programmer and has a masters degree in electrical engineering. So if I have any questions about the programming language (vb6) or techniques I just ask him.

I have often wondered if anyone else is working on the same thing I am. To tell you the truth I am surprised it has never been done before. It won't surprise me if someone comes out on the market with one next month and beats me to it.

reply to post by 2 cents



I know exactly what you mean. Some things are so obvious to me and others just cant see it.

When I was in college, personal computers had just came out. The college had only two Apple computers. One of my school friends sister was married to the guy that invented the computer modem. That was a while back.

I wish you all the luck in the world with your project.

reply to post by MBF


Thank you, and the same with your ideas. I will be disappointed if someone beats me to it, but in the end such an idea will greatly benefit people so I hope if not me at least someone will make it happen.

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

Just asking what amount of energy is spent to propagte an ice crystal,and is their energy released when it melts.
Crystalization has allways amazed me and i have since been intoduced to the idea of like,likes,like.and am even more intrigued by these nano partical studies.

Sorry these are studies of nano particals in water(cant remember the element used.

reply to post by 2 cents



I am wonder what/which projects you and 2 cent are referring to. But, good luck to you guys.


[edit on 9-3-2008 by fuelcell]

reply to post by mule skinner


Actually, when water freezes, it gives out heat, 80 calorie/g of water. When it melts, it absorbs the same amount of heat.

Originally posted by dascro62
Like i said before. I posted ideas that are accepted by the general scientific community. Please provide proof of your ideas if you expect me to believe them.

You told us what you presumed from commonly accepted 'laws' and i pointed out that you in fact came to the wrong conclusions. If that's due to a bad teacher or something that's fine but it's still just not true.

Also you seem to not be able to understand the overall "gist" of mine and others comments. I like most here simply want facts.

Here's some facts then.

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...

If you can prove your facts we will accept them.

Proof is mostly in the eye of the beholder and if the beholder refuses to look...

You are the one here with outrageous claims. Please provide sources so you can "enlighten" others.

Their only outrageous because you have decided that they can not be true. Since i have decided that you don't know what your talking about your criticism is obviously not of much use to me.

You said you weren't here to BS anyone. It seems like that is all you've done.

In your opinion. Please address the specific devices that according to your view clearly violated some laws. Funnily no laws were violated when one has a proper understanding of those laws but it just shows you how some parties will abuse the truth to suit their own interests.

Stellar

Originally posted by 2 cents
I would like to say this about energy use and supply in general.

All our devices that use or extract energy do just that they use or extract energy. We cannot create energy (1st law of thermo) as nothing can create or destroy it.

As far as we can tell, yes. Once again the basic premise is a universe that is isolated as anything other means all bets are essentially off.

Therefore, what we need to be doing as a species (when not motivated by greed) is find a way to harness or extract the endless energy that surrounds us in a cost effective manner.

For most of our time on Earth human beings lived as hunter gatherers without the accumulation of goods that is normally associated with greed. To suggest that the large majority of the worlds surviving ( only 500 - 1000 million are starving or undernourished) people are 'greedy' is to admit that you have bought into the capitalist propaganda that the problem is with humanity and not a small section that seems to have a hard time revealing human traits. What do you think would have happened in the average capitalist society ( almost all of them are) if people were truly greed and intent on getting their fair share in way they could? Can you imagine the chaos, death and destruction that would involve? No, human beings are hell bent on SURVIVAL and those few that have been co-opted into acting against their long term interest rarely think of themselves as greedy to start with.

I think there are many possibilities here for that, the sun, weather, earth's rotation, wind, waves, tides, earth heat energy, etc. And I think there are many people working on these ideas, me being one of them.

Sure they are and they have been for CENTURIES only to watch their best efforts being co opted and or destroyed by those who have over the eons learnt that the manipulation of others are best enabled by controlling access to energy and resources in general.

The chemical potential energy known as oil seems to have the whole focus of the planet right now - I think that is going to change.

Not any decade soon given the massive volumes of oil that remains. One one factors in the oil like substances and other derivatives we might sadly be stuck with this oil economy for centuries to come. That is most certainly what those who wish to keep their current power will attempt to do and i imagine they are probably going to be at least as as succesful as they have been so far.

Now having said all that I think relying on perpetual motion machines or over unity devices is a mistake. I don't think they exist or are even possible (they violate the 2nd law of thermo). I also don't think they are even necessary to solve our energy problems.

They do not violate the second law as the second and first laws deals with isolated systems. Since we have no evidence that such systems naturally exists anywhere in this universe, or that our universe is such, we are dealing with theoretical claims that is unlikely to be tested any time soon.

To me 'free energy' is having a cost effective (cheap) device that provides useful energy from an abundantly, freely available source.

And if the US government spent a fraction of the money it now spends on fusion research or , god forbid, employs some pentagon billions i am sure we could absolutely destroy the current price regimes for solar and wind power and create home systems that would not only be affordable to most Americans but allow them to continue consuming the same volumes of energy.

If solar cells were more efficient and not so expensive it would be a good example of what I am talking about. We need energy production or conversion at a local level, like in our back yards powering our houses. I and many others are working on such devices, I think it will happen one day.

But they are more efficient than is normally admitted and that's without the HUGE, MASSIVE subsidies all the other 'conventional' 'sources' have had. How much have been invested the nuclear energy and oil infrastructure by our so called leaders?

peswiki.com...lastic_Solar_Cells

Now I would like to bring up something I find interesting.
What force is it in the Universe that concentrates energy? In other words energy is already at higher levels moving to lower levels (2nd law of thermo). How did the energy get concentrated in the first place? The big bang? Is there a possibility that something is concentrating energy that we don't know about.

There is no such thing as 'lower' levels of energy. What the laws of thermodynamics essentially states ( as far as i can tell) is that a isolated system will moved towards thermal equilibrium; fewer and fewer potential energy reservoirs.

I know of no laws in physics to explain how energy got separated from high energy to low energy except for the big bang. If anyone has any ideas I'd like to hear it.

I don't even understand that question so feel free to take another shot at it....

Of course, I realize that what I'm talking about is something that would violate the 2nd law.

Why? Have you found evidence that the Universe is a finite 'thing' and thus essentially isolated? If not the second law can not and does not apply.

It just amazes me to think that all energy was concentrated at the big bang and has been following the 2nd law ever since. I mean what if the big bang didn't really happen? Something else would have to be concentrating the energy right? As you can tell this stuff fascinates me :lol

The universe is not intelligent and can not 'follow' rules. Unless you want to argue for a intelligently designed universe with a creator that is still intervening as he sees fit you should not employ such terms! Funnily modern thinking correctly focuses on the fact that increasing entropy results in more order ( galactic clusters, galaxies, solar systems and suns and planets and life ) not increasing disorder as some have managed to misrepresent entropy for the first century or so. It's very interesting to note how cosmologist have tried to make the big bang model compliant with the presumed laws of thermodynamics and i think it's one of those areas of contention that wont be resolved for some time to come!

Stellar

Stellarx, post all you want, its like talking to a brick wall. You know everything the rest of us just have to sit back in awe of your genius. I will not EVER be replying to your post so waste your keystrokes if you want.

Originally posted by 2 cents
Stellarx, post all you want, its like talking to a brick wall. You know everything the rest of us just have to sit back in awe of your genius. I will not EVER be replying to your post so waste your keystrokes if you want.

I am by no means a genius and as far as i can tell i have a low end university level IQ ( low 120's) with obviously does not naturally predispose me to any strokes of brilliance. What i DO think i am is pretty well read and if anything i think that is more useful and something that can empower a far larger proportion of society than a simple institutionalized ( one presumes that's the type of intelligence that suits their ends) test should.

If you don't want to talk to me that's just fine as i am not becoming better informed by discussing this issue with you. I would however appreciate it if you could play the devils advocate and harass some of the physics educated geniuses that you do know with some of the 'insane' statements and questions i have so far had the temerity , or lack of brute intelligence, to raise.

Thanks for playing.

Stellar

Try the ignore feature. Its working well for me. Though when someone quoted him in another thread i see that his attacks on me contiune.

Yeah that does work well. Now I don't have to see all that yellowish orange page after page, endlessly as if created by a perpetual motion machine.

In case anyone else is wondering why I was so short with Stellarx on this thread it is because it is really a continuation of what was happening in another thread about free energy.

I just think that it was pointless to keep discussing these things with stellar because no matter what I said it would just result in him pounding out more stuff on a keyboard endlessly arguing. Patents are not proof that the laws of thermodynamics don't work. And he seems to be under the impression that because you can try to analyze a system in a closed or isolated state that somehow that information becomes irrelevant to the real world because no system can be completely isolated. I'm not even sure what he trying to prove but I am sure nothing I could ever say would be satisfactory to him. Ah ... well at least they have the ignore ... bliss.

I am aware that energy dispersal, Entropy, is not exactly the same as thermal equilibrium. In other words, an evening in temperatures as all objects/matter tend to do (entropy), become the same temperature, is not the same as energy because the energy an object can hold, specific heat capacity, is different for different materials. Therefore two materials at the same temperature will have no energy flow between them however they may contain differing quantities of internal energy.

Now, what I meant earlier is, since the universe is constantly moving toward greater levels of entropy, energy dispersal. My thought was this, what caused the concentration of energy in the first place, so that it could be dispersed? Is the big bang responsible for this? And if the big bang did not happen then how does the energy become concentrated so that it may then be dispersed?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by 2 cents]

[edit on 10-3-2008 by 2 cents]

Originally posted by 2 cents
Yeah that does work well. Now I don't have to see all that yellowish orange page after page, endlessly as if created by a perpetual motion machine.

I am willing to reconsider the color scheme if it's particularly bothersome.

In case anyone else is wondering why I was so short with Stellarx on this thread it is because it is really a continuation of what was happening in another thread about free energy.

This is not a science fair or convention where you get to preach to the choir. If you don't want to talk about the issue at hand i suggest you create a bloq ( even ATS has those) and raise your personal disagreements with me there.

I just think that it was pointless to keep discussing these things with stellar because no matter what I said it would just result in him pounding out more stuff on a keyboard endlessly arguing.

So this is not about what i say but mainly because i have the audacity to respond to what you must consider your brilliant posts? Talk about arrogance...

Patents are not proof that the laws of thermodynamics don't work.

But as i have alluded to in a few times they may very well indicate that the laws of thermodynamics simply do NOT apply. The problem with your mentality is that you have decided to believe in the assumptions and presumptions have you have incorrectly made based on a misunderstanding of those laws. These laws do NOT prove that you can not get more electricity out of a dipole array than is required to start it up. The problem is not that the machines are against the laws of physics but that a few misguided , or plainly ignorant, have tried to defend their bias by appealing to laws most people simply do not understand.

And he seems to be under the impression that because you can try to analyze a system in a closed or isolated state that somehow that information becomes irrelevant to the real world because no system can be completely isolated.

The laws of thermodynamics are intended to apply to isolated systems and they can not apply to open systems where all the energy flows are not accounted for. Please do your best to study that specific issue as it's absolutely cardinal to any understanding of this field of investigation.

I'm not even sure what he trying to prove but I am sure nothing I could ever say would be satisfactory to him. Ah ... well at least they have the ignore ... bliss.

Since i consider myself very open minded i am sure there are very many things you could say that could lead to a more fruitful discussion. Since you seem hell bent on telling me that i am just stupid and don't know what i am talking about i suppose i will just have to keep talking until i have cleared up that specific misunderstanding you seem to have about me.

Just for the record i have no objection to be put on ignore but if you keep responding to my posts with what i consider to be nonsense i will probably keep trying to clarify my position while doing my best to either learn from what you know or educate you in what you just don't apparently want to consider.

Stellar

Fuelcell, I have a question maybe you can answer. I want to make 70-100% hydrogen peroxide and use it in a tiny rocket engine or energy dense battery. I know it is a bit more hazardous then pure oxygen at that grade.

I know that mixing O3 (ozone) with water will make hydrogen peroxide, I have access to high voltage and UV germ lamps, but no distillation setup (wouldn't want heat anyway). Is there a limit to the % grade I can get by using O3 and what are the limitations or does it just take a very long time?

I would ask in a U2U but I think that H2O2 is just as valid as hydrogen if its easy to make. Its not really free energy but it is a clean form of energy storage (reverts into water and O2).

reply to post by XL5


Thanks for trusting me. Generally we use at most 30% H2O2 in experiment. That is the highest concentration commercial product of hydrogen peroxide.

H2O2 is unstable, easily got decomposed. It is also regarded as a dangerous chemical. If you happen to have organic species in contact of hydrogen peroxide, it could cause an exploision. I would not suggest you to pursue higher concentration.

You can directly use ozone, which is also a strong oxidant and the products after reaction is not pollutant. However, ozone itself is cause perspiration problems so you need to proceed with care, with protective devices. And the concentration of ozone shouldnot be high. All operations should be done in a hood with perfect ventilation.

Any way, safety first.

If you like, you can U2U me in more details. I 'll try to see if I can give you some suggestion. When we do any new experiments, we always do a process safety review to assess the safety issues before starting anything different, and potentially dangerous.

Again, Safety first.

By the way, ozone does not readily react with water to form substantial amount of hydrogen peroxide (maybe trace amount). In municipal water plant, we use up to 15% of ozone to do water disinfection. No substantial amount of hydrogen peroxide is formed there.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Nice explanation fuelcell! I can see you are well-versed in physics, and that can be a rare thing today. I want to test you, however...

The thermodynamic principle you refer to is applicable in a closed system. That is, any intervention from outside that system affects the equations. That said, I see energy in action all around me:

An object falls from my hand to the ground. The object is undergoing an acceleration of approximately 9.8 ft/s/s due to the gravitational forces acting between it and the earth. This can be explained in that I used energy to lift the object to its height before dropping it, thereby storing potential energy energy in the object that is transferred upon dropping it into kinetic energy. But consider an asteroid in space. Does it have potential energy? With an absence of forces preventing it from moving toward the earth, it still does not move toward the earth. Should it come closer through some other means, it will begin to experience an acceleration toward the earth. Where did that potential energy come from?

You answered your own question, that energy comes from "some other means". You were not specific, it could come from the impace of another object (transfrerred kinetic energy) or some other means. The point is, the energy came from somewhere.

In the water cycle of our planet, warm air will absorb water from the oceans and lakes. The water vapor then ascends into the atmosphere and if the containing air is cooled (loses energy), the water vapor will condense and fall as rain, having kinetic energy. No energy was used in the evaporation process, other than the energy that was transferred from one water molecule to the other to allow one to form waer vapor. The air actually lost energy as it was cooled. So what form of energy was used to lift the water and thereby cause it to contain potential energy?

That energy comes from the sun in the form of radiant heat. I thought everyone learned that in elementary school.

If you take a piece of iron and subject it to a magnetic field, it will become magnetized. Once you remove the external magnetic field, it will lose (most of) its magnetic field. however, certain materials (Neodymium, for instance) can be magnetized and will retain their magnetic field long after the initial magnetic field is removed. In this state, the new magnets can exert a force on ferric materials, causing them to move through a distance, thereby producing work and energy. Where does this energy come from?

A magnet is formed when all the atoms in a substance are aligned properly. You are correct in stating we can create permanent magnets. However, It takes more energy to create those magnets in the form of electricity, that can be extracted from them. If you had a motor that ran off nothing but magnets and channeled all the energy from that motor into creating more magnets, you would run out of magnets because it takes more to create than you can extract from them.