Free energy suppression

studiorat

uprising wrote: »

Interesting phone battery:

Fizzy Phone: Mobile Runs On Coca-Cola
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100114/tod-fizzy-phone-mobile-runs-on-coca-cola-870a197.html

"Ms Zheng said the prototype could run up to four times longer than a traditional lithium ion battery and has the potential to be fully biodegradable"

"Unfortunately, Nokia will not be developing the greenphone prototype further in the near future."

You supressed some information there...

But she added that bio batteries are being developed by large electronics companies and may be on the market in the next five years.

Maybe it's a false flag operation by Nokia scientists to suppress information on what they are really building...

BumbleB

A single coil electric guitar produces a/c current by induction when the string vibrates .Thats free energy.



By the way how did so many experts on magnets and magnetic flux and flemings right hand rule come together on the one thread ?.

I find it very hard to believe that someone from an Electrical/Electronics Engineering backround like myself would belittle Tesla.


Just curious ?.How many of you guys are actually engineers and could build the free energy devices ,I've looked at the schematics and I know I could.

indough

so guitar manufacturers have been witholding the secret to free energy production this whole time eh?

BumbleB

indough wrote: »

so guitar manufacturers have been witholding the secret to free energy production this whole time eh?

Yeah the edge has been witholding it since 1980.


*pocaluj mnie w dupe.

BumbleB

A lot of you are missing the point about Tesla ,Tesla so called inventions were patents .They were rough ideas which people drew inspiration from .

Leonardi da Vinci is credited as inventing the Tank and but he didn't sketch out a T-34 .
Marconi used Tesla's patents to create the radio.

Tesla was a visionary and a real forward thinker and these are the kind of people that allow humankind to progress move onward and upward .People with dreams aspirations and ambition .


Tesla is pretty much responsible for everything you see in your modern home ,Alternating current electricity ,remote control,flourescent lights and microwave.Show his legacy some respect.

studiorat

BumbleB wrote: »

A single coil electric guitar produces a/c current by induction when the string vibrates .Thats free energy.



By the way how did so many experts on magnets and magnetic flux and flemings right hand rule come together on the one thread ?.

But you need energy to make the string vibrate in the first place, so it's not. :pac:

Good point about Telsa, they were in fact only patents.

Undergod

BumbleB wrote: »

A single coil electric guitar produces a/c current by induction when the string vibrates .Thats free energy.

The string doesn't vibrate for free though, it takes energy to make it happen.

studiorat

Aw! Someone posted a link to a Veljko Milkovic 2 stage Oscillator. Then took it down just as I was rambling about pendilums and acceleration.

Really very interesting stuff, it's suppressed (posted) all over the internet everybodys building one by the looks of it. Very cool machine http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm

It's a mechanical amplifier...

espinolman

studiorat wrote: »

Aw! Someone posted a link to a Veljko Milkovic 2 stage Oscillator. Then took it down just as I was rambling about pendilums and acceleration.

It was me , i posted it here instead :
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055697660

Also it is in the panacea free energy suppression videos as being suppressed technology .

studiorat

espinolman wrote: »

Also it is in the panacea free energy suppression videos as being suppressed technology .

I'd say it wasn't fully developed yet, rather than suppressed. It's not a free energy device, it's a lever.

espinolman

studiorat wrote: »

It's not a free energy device, it's a lever.

But where is the energy coming from ?

RoboClam

espinolman wrote: »

But where is the energy coming from ?

He is supplying the energy by pushing it. The reason it works is through a combination of a lever and centripetal force.

As you probably know... "A lever can exert a large force over a small distance at one end by exerting only a small force over a greater distance at the other."

The equation to measure centripetal force is mv2/R Where M is the weight on the pendulum, V is speed and R is radius (This is for ideal pendulums, and doesn't take into account the mass of the string).

Here's an experiment demonstrating this http://homepage.mac.com/cbakken/weblabs/centforce.html

Once he stops pushing, friction takes over and the machine stops working.

BoredGuy

King Mob said: "And why would they suppress this technology when they stand to make absurd amounts of money from it?"

how do you propose power companies can make money from a product that gives energy for free? how exactly are they going to make money from this device? you can only sell em a device once, can't send bills every month.... duh. and i thought you were a clever little debunker!

King Mob also said: "And what leads you to this conclusion exactly?
Have you tested these "engines that can 1000 miles on a cup of tapwater"?

1000 miles on a cup may be an exaggerated figure but it is possible that water could be a useable fuel, you may not be aware of this but when petrol or diesel (hydrocarbons) are compressed and ignited in a combustion engine the petrol sperates into Hydrogen and carbon. It is the Hydrogen that provides the energy for motive power, the carbon and other petroleum products form emissions and carbon deposits in the internals of the engine. if you've ever taken an engine apart (which i doubt) you'd see this depositing of carbon for yourself. Petrol and Diesel are in reality just convenient, but not very efficient, mediums to transport Hydrogen.
Water may be broken down by electrolysis into Hydrogen and Oxygen (Hydroxy gas) and it can then be used to power (modified) combustion engines.

King Mob also said:
"Have you any source showing the inventor of such an engine died shortly afterwards let alone murdered to suppress the invention?"

google stanley meyer..

King Mob also said: "The free energy devices we're talking about are ones that are claimed to defy the law of thermodynamics."

If you'd bother to actually research these devices, not just plagerise opinion from sceptic websites and regurgitate your secondary school science lessons you'd understand that none of them claim to be violating the laws of thermodynamics, none of them claim to be perpetual motion machines. these devices have a high coefficient of performance.

King Mob

BoredGuy wrote: »

how do you propose power companies can make money from a product that gives energy for free? how exactly are they going to make money from this device? you can only sell em a device once, can't send bills every month.... duh. and i thought you were a clever little debunker!

By building the devices? By supplying the fuel? By maintaining the devices?
By offering to supply energy from the devices from a central hub rather than having the device in your house?

How do solar power companies make money?

BoredGuy wrote: »

1000 miles on a cup may be an exaggerated figure but it is possible that water could be a useable fuel, you may not be aware of this but when petrol or diesel (hydrocarbons) are compressed and ignited in a combustion engine the petrol sperates into Hydrogen and carbon. It is the Hydrogen that provides the energy for motive power, the carbon and other petroleum products form emissions and carbon deposits in the internals of the engine. if you've ever taken an engine apart (which i doubt) you'd see this depositing of carbon for yourself. Petrol and Diesel are in reality just convenient, but not very efficient, mediums to transport Hydrogen.
Water may be broken down by electrolysis into Hydrogen and Oxygen (Hydroxy gas) and it can then be used to power (modified) combustion engines.

Yes they are called hydrogen engines. they are not a secret. Several companies have built cars that run on the things.
Now hydrogen has several problems as a fuel source, which are reasons why it's never been used in a big way.
First it's expensive to produce as the electrolysis process needs a lot of electricity. Second it's hard to transport and use safely, much more so than petrol.

Now if you are to use this as a "free energy device", you run into more problems. Electrolysis using a car battery in the car as it's moving is horribly inefficient.
It much better to do so in large quantities in a separate machine then use the separated hydrogen in a tank in the car.
And if it's more efficient to use a separate device, why not use it to supply hydrogen to people who aren't bothered to produce their own or are worried about have large tanks of volatile gas lying around the home. You could charge for it as well.....

BoredGuy wrote: »

google stanley meyer..

Google "burden of proof."

BoredGuy wrote: »

If you'd bother to actually research these devices, not just plagerise opinion from sceptic websites and regurgitate your secondary school science lessons you'd understand that none of them claim to be violating the laws of thermodynamics, none of them claim to be perpetual motion machines. these devices have a high coefficient of performance.

Well would you like me to link to several devices out on the net which are claimed to be perpetual motion devices?

Have you considered the possibility that the devices being presented to you don't actually work as claimed and are being trumped up by people either running a good con or people who are just wrong?

BoredGuy

King Mob wrote: »

By building the devices? By supplying the fuel? By maintaining the devices?
By offering to supply energy from the devices from a central hub rather than having the device in your house?

The future of the poiwer grid is micrcogeneration.
If you kew the esb was generating energy for no cost would you be prepared to pay them? i'd rather have my own device.


Yes they are called hydrogen engines. they are not a secret. Several companies have built cars that run on the things.
Now hydrogen has several problems as a fuel source, which are reasons why it's never been used in a big way.
It's cheap and plentiful, which is why it's not widely used by shell, bp, etc..
First it's expensive to produce as the electrolysis process needs a lot of
electricity.
Again with the secondary school physics lessons, do you believe everything you were taught in school?
Electrolysis is very efficient when you know the resonant frequency of water and attuning the current to this frequency.
Second it's hard to transport and use safely, much more so than petrol.
It's no greater danger to transport than petrol, people drive lpg cars and don't blow up everyday.
Now if you are to use this as a "free energy device", you run into more problems. Electrolysis using a car battery in the car as it's moving is horribly inefficient.
It much better to do so in large quantities in a separate machine then use the separated hydrogen in a tank in the car.
And if it's more efficient to use a separate device, why not use it to supply hydrogen to people who aren't bothered to produce their own or are worried about have large tanks of volatile gas lying around the home. You could charge for it as well.....
A good idea.

Google "burden of proof."
If you can't put 2 + 2 together then that's your burden not mine..

Well would you like me to link to several devices out on the net which are claimed to be perpetual motion devices?
No, i know perpetual motion is bull****.

Have you considered the possibility that the devices being presented to you don't actually work as claimed and are being trumped up by people either running a good con or people who are just wrong?
Yes. However unlike you i don't view this subject as an excuse to engage my need to be right and feel superior. i have built some of these devices, therefore i know not all of them are cons. the power for the pc i'm typing at, and everything in my home comes from a combination of free energy devices. I haven't had an esb bill in 3 years since i have been off the grid. i run a car (converted toyota) on hydroxy gas and my girlfriends car on electricity.

You were good enough to dispel some illusions i had on another thread, and i singled your comments out here to return the favour (i'm not some keyboard warrior who gets kicks out of virtual arguements) so having done that you can make what you like out of this thread and choose to hold on to your self-righteousness and entrenched opinion, or not. i don't care.

alastair

BoredGuy wrote: »

i run a car (converted toyota) on hydroxy gas.

Which option fits best here? Bull****ter or dupe?

I'm going for bull****ter. And extra bonus points for the keyboard warrior reference.

King Mob

BoredGuy wrote: »

The future of the poiwer grid is micrcogeneration.
If you kew the esb was generating energy for no cost would you be prepared to pay them? i'd rather have my own device.

Sorry your point was that there would be no way for people to make money off free energy devices. I have listed several and provided a real world equivalent.
You are now moving to goal post rather than admit you were wrong.

And yes I would still pay esb for power even if they were generating it at no cost, as I personally lack the expertise to install, maintain and run such a device.

BoredGuy wrote: »

It's cheap and plentiful, which is why it's not widely used by shell, bp, etc..

Again with the secondary school physics lessons, do you believe everything you were taught in school?
Electrolysis is very efficient when you know the resonant frequency of water and attuning the current to this frequency.

Yes I do believe what I was taught in school (the bits that aren't gross simplicifcations). Do you believe everything you are told on the internet?

Now AFIAR the resonant frequency has ****e all to do with electrolysis. Can you explain how?

BoredGuy wrote: »

It's no greater danger to transport than petrol, people drive lpg cars and don't blow up everyday.

It's a gas at room temperature and will go off at a spark. With gasoline the spark has to be pretty big and then the fuel must actually touch the fire for it to spread. Furthermore hydrogen has to be keep pressurised.

BoredGuy wrote: »

A good idea.

Remember two posts ago when you said that the there was no way to make money from your free energy device?

BoredGuy wrote: »

If you can't put 2 + 2 together then that's your burden not mine..

the burden of proof means that those making the claim must supply evidence to support it. If you can't or won't be bothered outline the evidence, beyond "google it" why would anyone bother to follow it up?
Hell, why don't I just tell you to google why free energy doesn't work and be done with it?
Oh yea, it's a discussion board.

BoredGuy wrote: »

No, i know perpetual motion is bull****.

Well many of your fellow free energy supporters disagree with you. In fact they have claimed that the hydrogen engine you have in your car is one.

BoredGuy wrote: »

Yes. However unlike you i don't view this subject as an excuse to engage my need to be right and feel superior.

Well if you want to make sweeping generalisations about me, go nuts. Not particularly bothered to correct you.
But at least consider the possibility that I am actually interested in the topic, I just don't believe the same as you.

BoredGuy wrote: »

i have built some of these devices, therefore i know not all of them are cons. the power for the pc i'm typing at, and everything in my home comes from a combination of free energy devices. I haven't had an esb bill in 3 years since i have been off the grid. i run a car (converted toyota) on hydroxy gas and my girlfriends car on electricity.

Well last time someone had claimed similar (about thier car) it turned out they were being less than truthful (the car still used gas). And since you're probably not going to provide a shred of support for this, I have no reason to believe you.

BoredGuy wrote: »

You were good enough to dispel some illusions i had on another thread, and i singled your comments out here to return the favour (i'm not some keyboard warrior who gets kicks out of virtual arguements) so having done that you can make what you like out of this thread and choose to hold on to your self-righteousness and entrenched opinion, or not. i don't care.

well so far all you've argued is that the internet is right because you said so.
Look back over your argument and tell me if you honestly believe it's convincing?

I don't hold an entrenched position, I just require good solid evidence before I do. So you can see why CTers think I do have an entrenched position.

quasar2010

To create free energy you would have to break the first law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) which basically states you cannot create something from nothing and if you do then the mass of the Universe would be unmeasurable or infinite. Energy and mass are in essense the exact same thing and are interchangable but can never be created or destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
If you create energy from nothing then eventually such energy will end up as mass. Because there would be no limit to how much free energy the Universe could create then there would be no limit to the mass of the Universe which goes against just about every piece of scientific data we have.
If Joe Bloggs created free energy then he would increase the mass of the Universe himself. If nature created free energy willy nilly we would see the gravitational effect on the Universe with increased mass of Galaxies everyday and that is just not the case.
No one has ever broken the conservation of energy including nature itself so Joe Bloggs has absolutely no chance.

kirving

Just did a quick calculation, a diesel car doing 70mpg (3.36l/100km), would theoretically use about 130 x10^6 Joules of Energy to travel 100 km.

Cars today are unbelieveably effecient. At the end of the day, there will always be small effeciency improvements on the way, which car manufacturers won't release to the public until the next new car - thats perfectly normal.


Also, how do you propose to seperate the Hydrogen from the Water to use?
Oh yeah, I know - use electricity. (something isn't quite making sense here?)

Yes, there are more and more effecient ways of producing hydrogen being worked on every day, but and the end of the day, the goal is to use hydrogen since it can be used to fill a tank quickly, instaed of waiting for a conventional battery pack to charge. It's more natural to everybody to fill up their car, which would work better with current infrstructure. Battety Tech is coming on leaps and bounds these days.

"Free Energy" is complete rubbish. I'd love to know what science degrees the people who believe, and promote this have.

BumbleB

Kevin Irving wrote: »

"Free Energy" is complete rubbish. I'd love to know what science degrees the people who believe, and promote this have.

I dont agree with that statement ,I mean Tesla's way of thinking (and I'm simplifying it here) is that the earth was like one large dielectric and he was thinking of utilising that which is a fair idea.


Also the fact that the U.S authorities confiscated all his work after he died would indicate that there was some substance in his expirements.

Kippure

What happened to the Trinity Students that created a way of developing clean free energy. They disappeared.

BoredGuy

Batteries and generators do not power their attached circuits.. They expend their available internal energy (shaft energy input to the generator, and chemical energy in the battery) to force their own internal charges apart, making a source dipole. That is ALL that batteries and generators do.

They do not place a single watt of power on the external circuit, nor do they power any load. Instead the dipole receives vacuum energy (reactive power), transduces it into real power, and continuously pours out that energy along the circuit, filling all space. The circuit intercepts a tiny bit of that energy flow, and powers the load. Every electrical load and circuit is powered by electrical energy extracted from the vacuum. All electrical loads are powered by vacuum energy today.

Mahatma coat

3.36L per 100KM, I'd like to see a real world example of this magical efficiency.

to put it in context, my old 535 gets 14.3L/100KM, my 318 got between 8 & 9L/100KM, my Landcruiser running on Gas gets just over 9L/100KM, so what type of magical car is this???

I'm gonna predict what sort of Car you will respond with,

<deleted bit>

then I'm gonna delete this bit

and when you have responded exactly as I predict I will undelete it ad Go HA, Bolloxology

kirving

Sorry, I actually used American gallons doing the conversion from mpg, so yeah, it is about 20% off.

Still, It's hardy magical. I was refering to a VW Polo BlueMotion, which can do about 70mpg. There are plenty of cars which will do more than that too.

nullzero

I've ignored the pages upon pages of arguments to give my two cents. on the topic.

I think it's feasible to say that the people who currently make lots of money from processing and selling oil may well have the "next generation" of fuels under wraps so they can wring every last drop of profit out of the current system.

Pretty much in the same way that technology is to a degree drip fed to consumors.
I'd say there is suppsression of what we might call "free energy" methods.
You don't have to belive that the Annunaki are masterminding the whole operation to see the sens ein the argument.

It's not the most faustian of conspiracies when you think about it, it's just big business being what they'd call prudent.
Although both "sides" here would rather eat a dog sh1t sandwich before employing logic and finding a middle ground.

amacachi

This looks promising but it probably won't get the funding it needs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25FRpkbDxU

quasar2010

That's so funny

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

3.36L per 100KM, I'd like to see a real world example of this magical efficiency.

to put it in context, my old 535 gets 14.3L/100KM, my 318 got between 8 & 9L/100KM, my Landcruiser running on Gas gets just over 9L/100KM, so what type of magical car is this???

As a counterpoint to your examples

My dad drives a 2.0L diesel. Its nothing exceptional in terms of tech, but he considers it "expensive driving" if his average over a tank is worse then 5.0L / 100km. Where he spends most of the time doing rural as opposed to urban driving, he'll get about 4.5.

Take a smaller engine, and a car designed to be fuel-efficient and drive it in the same way....and I reckon there's no problem getting down to the 3.x range.

Mahatma coat

4.5 - 5L per 100K is about as good as I'd expect, and that'd be careful considered driving being mindful of consumption rates, theres no guarantee that you would save fuel with a smaller engine, as the motor would have to work harder to do the same tasks. Where the Joe Cell shakes things up is that suddenly your MPG increase factorialy, when I was runnin the 300SE with a Joe Cell the fuel economy was off the scale, if I had driven it like I Presume your father would have I've no doubt that it could have come in under the 1L/100KM marker, as it was before I totalled it I was gettin 3-5L/100Km, thats a bit of a Change from 10-15L/100KM, My friend with the Nissan Patrol tells me that he has recently discovered a new problem, the fuel in his tank is there for SO Long that it loses some of its effectiveness over time

robtri

bonkey wrote: »

Take a smaller engine, and a car designed to be fuel-efficient and drive it in the same way....and I reckon there's no problem getting down to the 3.x range.

Polo bluemotion car is rated at 3.3l per 100km.