hey guys wuts up..
Im new to this forum and the concept of free energy..
I am fairly new on electronics and theorists and energy laws as well..
but I do have designs in my head that came to me in a state-awakened dream.. No clue how it came upon me, but it just did..
So, here is some questions I have..
How would a free energy be decided to be free energy? I skimmed around the forum and saw some magnetic things to make something move.. is this free energy?
I also recently saw the post about steorns project, and couple of other inventors..
Another question I have is how would someone draw up energy by simple continuous rotation?
-For example, the magnet makes the sphere go in circles faster and faster, by putting a coil, would the coil be able to extract energy from the movement likewise as what is happening in a wind-energy technology?..
I have many more questions, but I think itd make my post more confusing, so please someone answer these in a simple basic language a joe-shmoe guy can understand?
Thanks
-Eminent
The term "Free energy" should be self-explanatory. Wherever we acquire it the total energy cost is less than what we put into it.
On doing it with rotating or some other kind of field?
The basic idea is that we live in a sea of energy? let?s call them particles for now. These are not usable because they are at the same potential as us. Kind of like there is a fast moving river and you are in it bobbing along. You don?t feel the current because you are moving the same speed as the water. If you grab a hold of something to stop then you feel it.
The idea is to change the potential of one point in this sea so you can measure the difference between that point and one still moving. If you can, you connect a light bulb and it glows. If it takes more power to make it happen than you get out then it is a waste of time.
Thanks for the definition of free energy..
Now about the light bulb power.. Ive seen the tpu(although I have no clue how that worked) and steorn where pure magnets and constant movement of objects were said to be able to make energy and displays enough power to light a bulb.. did they use some coil in the sides of the circle sphere to draw up the energy of deflection?
One may say, that identifying precise location of magnets to move the sphere in a constant motion IS more energy than energy input which is 0.. but I dont think that that maybe enough to power a light bulb?
Sorry If i may sound like if im rambling.. just trying to figure out, how things actually work..
Hi Eminent,
Welcome to OU.com!
:) not all things are known and it is a struggle to sort all the ideas out.
Physics (which this really is) has grown up over the last 2500 years or so with a big bag of toys and observations, fitting them together and arguing over how good the fit is.
There are some left-overs, which we are dealing with here.
First, up "energy".
The word is derived from "life" or "animus" - it means the property of being dynamic somehow present in things.
A rock just sitting there has no energy (in this view) - throw it, and it has energy of motion.
Forms of energy known today include:
matter (a complex condensate of massive energy)
motion (linear speed, spin, heat)
fields (electric, magnetic, gravity, weak, strong)
pressure
- think that is it.
These can all manifest together and separately, seemingly at random.
But there is one dominant idea: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
This arises for two reasons:
1. this rule seems to work for practical systems. If the energy sorces are totalised for a system, losses figured in, then the net total of energy never changes - yes, the form the energy is in might change - but once added up the total remains fixed.
2. early mathematicians looking at physics discovered if they made their equations reflect "total energy is fixed" - they got equations more likely to work.
Emmy Noether in 1915 went one further and developed a generic proof which has been hailed as one of the key results of the 20th Century - the reason behind why 1) and 2) cropped up so often (Einstien went so far as to call her a genius, regarding her work as above his own).
An upshot of this is that ideas of "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are now so dissed by formal physics that - the formal guys usually never hang around to hear, they run or cover the ears singing "Lalalallalalalaa" loudly.
Noether "law of Conservation of Energy" is as close to "faith" as exists in physics - conversely, people have lost position, respect and much $$$ for playing with failed energy systems (the whole "cold fusion" rumpus in the late 1980s destroyed careers).
Thus the phrase "free energy" is to MOST physicists no more sensible then "round square" or "helpless Dictator" (sometimes I feel the OU movement would do well to drop the phrase Free Energy just on baggage grounds).
:( so where does that leave us?
Either looking for unexplainable oddities which seemingly do not fit any explanation (like the TPU) OR trying to figure out some realm or well of energy we can make use of.
Finding a new well is the big hope - zero point energy has long been known now (it does exist; this is not a SciFi invention). Energy there is massive. But, where is "there"?
There is hope of a sort. Physics has deep problems right now, as it knows there is a loose end. Their systems have gaps, they do not tie together. So they suspect some profound problem exists in their work. The biggest simple issue is that - if energy is a true constant - why is there no single equation (Grand Unified Theory / Theory of Everything) which uses energy to show how everything is put together?
The biggest problem is that gravity is not at all understood; yes, it can be accounted and predicted - but what it is is unknown.
I have been wondering if overunity.com needs a suggested reading list; for someone in your position the path seems long indeed with no single pointer - just hundreds, most disagreeing.
:) be warned. In 1848 Maxwell complained that the number of new publications being written was so high - he could no longer keep up with the reading. And there are far, far more scientists about now. Backreading runs into tens of thousands of books.
Good luck!
Steve
Quote from: steve_whiss on July 14, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
An upshot of this is that ideas of "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are now so dissed by formal physics that - the formal guys usually never hang around to hear, they run or cover the ears singing "Lalalallalalalaa" loudly.
Great post Steve! Priceless!
=) that was some great read there steve.. I really enjoyed that..Now, I actually feel that I now know what this whole thing is about.. proving those physics wrong.. "Lalalala"< haaha gotta love that part..
Yes, you're right, when I first entered this forum, I felt like I was overwhelmed with all these different types of "things" but nothing to introduce me to what it is..
Now that you mentioned the 3 types of energy, I guess the best way for me is to focus on one of my interest.. I guess what Im really most interested about is combining fields(magnets) and motion.. Because this is what my design consist off.. where should I start my read? there are so many of them, I guess itll be great if you can point me to a right direction lol..
Thanks for a great point Mrmamos.. Ive read around the forum and I do believe on the better results of open source as in sharing and working with people is the best way to speed up technology.. But I also wonder how patent things work.. Do we have to read up on all the patent ideas and make sure not to do them as it is already patented?? is this allowed??
If people were to share new infos about new designs which isnt yet patented, what makes another person steal that idea and patent it as his/her own before it gets patented?? Can the person who actually made the first design do anything legally to claim his/her rights with the device/project?
Just some questions..
..patenting. well.
OK, if you have an idea and someone else patents it - and you CAN prove it was your idea + they stole it - you get to win a court case. If you can afford to go to court.
Why do people steal? The promise of money. To stop other people's progress. To horde breakthroughs. To be a economic weapon that THEY control vs. competitors. Ultimately, because there may never be a downside.
I'm going to ramble on about patents some.
The original idea was to stop people carrying ideas to the grave (many old / medieval concepts became lost on the death of the "master" who kept the secrets close to the chest). Progress was terribly hindered by this, a genuine drag on the economy.
Patents are now a double edged sword. To combat the hording of secrets, patents allow publishing works - so that the originator (= patentee??) can stake a claim.
But. It has to be original / non-obvious i.e. not already known .... in other words, a true advance and useful.
Who can tell if this is so? The patent office clerk cannot known all engineering, so the responsibility is up to the patentee (and common sense). A lot of patents get retrospectively thrown out.
Plus. IF a 3rd party starts infringing the patent - the original patentee gets to win a court case. Because THEY hold the patent. However, they must have the $$ to pay the legal people during the case - and, they might loose....
Like when Swan sued Edison over the light-bulb (courts of New York, 1878 if memory serves). Edison lost - as he was basically ripping off Swan's ideas.
// the light bulb idea was already known about 40 years - just stuff lots of power through most anything - it WILL glow! And melt / fuse.
The trick - stop the thing fusing; Swan had found a way and had patented it //
What did Swan do? (with the court) he entered into a merger of Edison's Co. with his own business. Essentially the courts handed Swan a chunk of Edison's $ss - because Edison had seen a way to become very rich and had lunged for it - on the back of someone else's work.
Now the other side of the sword.
All patents are inspected for strategic usefulness (military). All such strategic patents "disappear", the patentee has a binding order issued against them forcing them to yield all such technology, drop development and keep quiet.
The patent then never gets published.
Why? To stop the bad guys getting their hands on it. BIG case in point.....
Whittle patented the Jet Engine concept in the early 1930's - and this was picked up by Heinkel, simply by watching patents, looking for power plants for fast aircraft. Result - Nazi Germany picked up a new design for advanced engines - and flew a series of modern jets as early as 1938 (? think so) on. Germany could have rolled out a fleet of Me262 variants as early as 1941, but H decided to put $$ on the V2 rocket instead. Hm, the '262's that did fly really chopped up the Allied bombers - it was just that far ahead and simply unstoppable. H could have said - build them by the hundred!
Now, if that Whittle patent had never been issued, Heinkel would not have had a working start point for jet development; in practice no jet would have seen combat. This was a hair breadth thing - with fleets of 262's (which were buildable) the air war would have gone the Nazi way.
No Allied air-superiority = who knows? No big bombing campeigns, no crippled German economy, no Normandy invasion for sure.
Perhaps Russia would have collapsed, Britain loose in '42-3 and the Brit Empire (then 1/4 planet, including Canada) go Nazi. Roosevelt had an eye on the map when aiding Britain; the US might have faced Axis powers = rest of world including Continental American soil. Bad guys over the boarder + very high tech and a population of c. 600 million about the world to muster armies from? That's a bad sign. Roosevelt did not want that future. No wonder the scramble was on to make a nuke.
All because of a patent - this whole thing was a nightmare. Nowadays, the military ARE in the loop.
Thus we have a conundrum! Are FE devices real and suppressed by "the process"? If one turned up - we would be the last to know.
Anyhow, anyone can read and build something patented - the patent only protects "making money from the idea". You can build anything patented - for your own use - it's legal.
In the EU at least.
I just do not know about Open Source designs. Suppose a manufacturer spends $5 million to design and set up a production line - will they ever get their money back? With no patent protection, IF it sells others will rip the ideas off and undercut (not having to sponsor the development costs).
I think we need a new law, an open limited protection. Like, OS but 1st 10 years protected. Have not got my head about this yet; suspect it's 100% a legal invention thing.
Still thinking about a suggested reading list. It might be a very constructive idea; there are lots of books out there and many free downloads....
Good luck!
Steve
Nice Nice.. haha you guys always write such a great read replies..
Im really not afraid to "jump in" as I know im quite new at this and the probability of me inventing one that people actually want to steal is very slim.. I was just interested on how this open source can protect the originator of lets say a device that is still half baked(because of that persons newbieness).. Someone(the newbie) who have near by completed a project but still needed some tweaks in order for it to work.. Discussing it with the forum I find will be a great incentive to find help.. Now what if another person who knows alot more about electronics was able to figure out the tweaks needed, and patents it.. the newbie jus got screwed?
I guess the only way to protect or prove in the court that the idea was yours is by sending yourself a copy of the blueprint or documentations that you made via package and get it stamped by post office and do not open the package.. (I saw it in a movie hahaha)..
btw steve, i gotta say i enjoyed the history lesson haha.. I think by taking it[idea/device] to public like steorn did (like going to TV News etc) to get interviewed for the whole public to be aware off will decrease the chances that they can be shut down? but unfortunately with steorn, very unlucky situation happened.. lol..
you say that building something patented for own use is legal, but what if you built something you didnt know was patented and try to bring it out to the public, would you get sued for that??