I Need Your Opinions

[PaulLowrance]

Hi bobo,

It's been my observation that the science community does not like the title "free energy" because it gives them the impression the inventor claims "perpetual motion" or getting something from nothing.

I think "free energy" should mean just what it describes; i.e., less cost of device and maintenance the energy is free. By that definition a solar cell is a free energy device. I can easily get free energy 24/7 from one foot of copper wire. It's not that much energy, but it's still energy and it's free from thermal noise.

So there are free energy machines, but perhaps nothing yet that has been proven to defy any present laws of physics.

Paul Lowrance

[dingbat]

are you telling me that "There has not been a single claim of free energy that has withstood that requirement" is a completely accurate statement? 
 

i have been looking at all information i can find.  i regret that i consider the statement accurate at this time.  paul makes very good and valid points about the semantics of 'free energy'.

a heat pump is a very amazing device.  it extracts energy from the air around it in a very efficient way - allowing more heat output than electricity put in.  this can be considered 'free energy' in a sense.  under the right conditions you get several times the amount of heat output compared to electric input.

i wish that people who are zealots for finding 'perpetual motion' would put their energy in finding things that are just a little better.  many devices that incrementally improve existing technology becomes significant very fast in the big picture.

it also bothers me greatly that people who believe in 'free energy' will not allow the possibility that it may not be possible.  conversely, many scientists will not consider the possibility that it may be possible.  in my opinion neither position can be currently proven (hence i agree the people you are arguing with - no device that i know of meets the claims that steorm makes.)  i believe that free energy may be possible, and it may be impossible - there is no other rational position to take until someone demonstrates such a device and allows it to be scrutinized.

many people make statements like 'it has to be possible'.  i assert that it does not have to be possible.  it might be possible, but it also might not be possible.  we can't say for sure it is possible until someone legitimately proves that it is.  we will never be able to claim with certainty that it is impossible because we can never prove that we have exhausted all attempts to find it.

so (in my opinion), to claim with certainty it must be possible is irrational, and to claim with certainty that it must be impossible is irrational.  therefore my official position is that it might be possible, and it might be impossible.  until i see it happen, my position will not change.

[PaulLowrance]

i have been looking at all information i can find.  i regret that i consider the statement accurate at this time.  paul makes very good and valid points about the semantics of 'free energy'.

Hi dingbat,

I'm curious if you or anyone has a better name for this. Lately I've tried to drop the term "free energy" and like to use "unlimited energy."  I guess there's "COP >1" but that just don't sound right, lol.

Perhaps we all need to agree exactly what the term should mean. For me it simply implies that the energy itself does not cost anything less the cost of the actual device and any maintenance of course. We all know a solar cell cost money, and you have to periodically clean it and perhaps even fix or replace it after a decade or two, but the actual energy is free. So in that sense it's "free energy."  What about "heat pump?" It implies there must be air or an object that is hotter than room temperature. So that term just don't work. "Perpetual motion" is out of the question. Personally I don't like the definition "overunity" (no offense Stefan!!) because that's the same definition as perpetual motion. Another possibility is a term that I came up with called "Energy Mover." It implies that a device simply moves energy. It could be any type of energy from vibrating room temperature molecules to quantum foam or ZPE to even space or time. :-)

Paul Lowrance

[dingbat]

im not good with names.  i think sterling allen does a pretty good job of avoiding sounding crazy because he goes down the path of "tapping some unknown source".  he doens't give it a name, but he does a good job of explaining that he is not talking about violating the conservation of energy laws which i think is very important.  if 'free energy' - the perpetual motion kind - is ever achieved, i think it will be because of some unknown source.  it won't be because of a violation of conservation rules - my opinion.

cop>1 is descriptively more acceptable to me than overunity or free energy, but i agree it doesn't sound good and most people don't know what it means.

even overunity is ok with me if it is qualified by cop and not 'efficiency'.

[dingbat]

vfe = virtual free energy!