Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[exnihiloest]

Your post is so large...

but by far not as large as your first post and not as large as your reply.

SchubertReijiMaigo's reply is better than mine and much shorter. I agree with him. Instead of long speeches, the "OU makers" should present working and duplicable machines according to SchubertReijiMaigo's diagram.
In other cases, doubts and even rejections should be the reply to their not proved and not provable claims.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

I'am currently save some money and (try to trade the financial market) to invest in my own labo because I 'am student, 23 years old and no revenue...
I want to replicate some devices that they have a solid background theory  not some delirious and exotic theory... Thane Heinz Transformer should be a good candidate and compatible with my diagram... The main theory is separation of the magnetic field path and avoid secondary back emf draw more current in primary... This device is not OU device but a converter of so called "reactive power" in "real power", so you don't create or destroy energy you convert it.
Even if you tap into a unlimted source you create nothing, you convert a portion of the infinity only... Remenber:  Infinity/2=Infinity... Better: Infinity/Infinity=Infinity...
Energy is closely linked with time, Energy is movement, Energy is dynamic, Potential is static ( Ying-Yang) LOL, so that's what a magnet glued to a fridge is not a work but a stored energy, this is potential energy against the gravity. The energy is dissipated when the magnet droop on the ground. A good proof of this is the electrical mesurement: for example the KiloWatt/Hour. That's mean you dissipated one Kilowatt in one hour, energy and time is very close like space and time. So voltage is potential and current is a certain quantity of electron flow against the time (Amper/hour)...
Some invention have great chance of OU AND SELFRUNNING, the Bitoroid, the Rotoverter, eventually the TPU (but this device suffer of lack of information and have numerous exotic theory around it...) Rosemary Ainsly, may be a good stuff to ( it collect some inductive spike and convert in heat ) but I'am a little scetic here because coils storage some energy and does'nt create/destroy anything or they must be interact with the environment (ZPE ?)...
Sorry fot this huge message and my poor "Frenchy" English, but this is my view of OU phemnoma and OU device.
PS: I'am not here to discredit OU devices but I have a more the Scientific approach in the research, I don't tell OU is impossible and perpetual motion is an heresy, but if a OU device exist, once again you may able to close the loop and run it for the "infinity and beyond"...

[pauldude000]

@Schubert

Concerning various devices .. precisely.

I have worked on the TPU issue for awhile, and some of the hydrogen production techniques show promise from what I have seen. Consider the TPU for example. The build, though somewhat cryptic in it's description has far more information available than most any other device I have encountered, and yes theories about it's workings abound by the same amount as researchers.

Truthfully, that is a good thing.

To replicate a thing, you have to form a hypothesis as to why it might work, then apply said hypothesis to your build to test. Positive results lead to the formulation of a tentative working theory from the original hypothesis.

I know just enough about the TPU after what... two years or so... to know that it's operation is PROBABLY frequency dependent, but that it is also MOST PROBABLY a combination of frequencies (complex waveform).

Stumbling onto the exact waveform will be next to impossible. Comparable to shooting ten 12ga shells into the air to hit a single airborne virus particle. Not gonna happen unless you get lucky.

As a hobby therefore.... fine.. Kewl. As an valid avenue of research for ME? Not any more, as I too want an actual replication, not to spend the rest of my life hoping to get lucky.

Were the two years spent wasted? OH HECK NO!!!! I have come across so much interesting stuff on my scope, and have personally witnessed through my own search so many interesting , though not necessarily useful or practical field phenomena. Some which I cannot easily explain through my previous knowledge base. I intend to examine each of these in close detail, to see if anything about them has worthwhile merit.

Big statements? Not really. I suppose anyone serious about the TPU and similar devices can make similar statements. The caveman digging the pit in the yellow dirt, making a fire, then using old dry buffalo manure to start a new fire the next morning... Jumping back and yelling "What the heck" when the sparks fly. Happy accidents.

New to science? Possibly not.
Unexplainable in the long run? Definitely not.
New to me? Absolutely.

The search can truly be worth the effort expended.


Now, the cute little magnet is a different story... :-)

Stored energy or "potential" energy is by definition not doing any work.

A magnet however is continuously doing work. That little fridge magnet is constantly expending a precisely measurable amount of energy for every second it sticks to a vertical surface to overcome the downward acceleration imposed upon it by gravity.

That energy has to come from somewhere, and has to be considered as expended, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics are being violated, just like ANY other object doing the same thing.

I chose the magnet example quite purposefully, as it is NOT easily just "explained away", and anyone whom has a physics background readily understands the implication.

By the very definition of perpetual motion, it qualifies.  :-)

The simple permanent magnet is truly an awesome potential power source when the magnitude of it's stored energy is considered. To put this into perspective, how many watt hours of power would be required to hold the same mass against gravity for the same energy expended by that....

cute...

elegant...

magnet?


Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

If anyone ever meet an "OU maker", let me know as I have not. There is no such thing as "OU". Meeting someone whom can accomplish the impossible would be interesting.

So far, I have never seen a "long speech" here, which is by definition 6 pages or more. This is a forum. Forums are by nature for "discussion", while labs are for "work", so do not be surprised if I discuss things. :-)

@all

Proven... Provable.

Proven... to whom... YOU? What pray tell IS "proof". What constitutes "evidence"? These questions on the surface sound stupid and deflective, but are not. They are in fact questions which science has very strict concepts for.... which if you cannot answer, then nobody CAN prove anything to you which you do not already want to accept.

This needs to be addressed, as too many abuse these concepts, especially those whom claim to understand them. Fpr the average man to whom this is not a chosen vocation slips in vocabulary, term mis-usage, or other minor faux-pas are easily forgiven, but to those whom take upon themselves the credibility and authority that comes with the position of scientist, there is little excuse as they have been trained to understand these things.

The same Baccalaureate or Phd., which they wield as a sword is their own accuser so to speak. They are held to a different standard or degree* towards precision of thought. (* Pardon the pun. :-) ) 

1. A "Claim" is an assertion.... a statement made concerning something. (As a "claim" can be quite literally be about anything, therefore the definition is quite loose.) A scientific claim is a claim concerning the nature, processes, or fabric of the natural universe.

I can claim I like hot dogs, but that has nothing to do with science.

2. "Evidence" is any repeatable and demonstrable datum. Evidence often precludes a claim, and is often confused with "proof".  Evidence does not have to even be associated with any particular claim.

One does not have to know that there even is such a thing as gravity to see it's evidence. Merely drop a rock, and the evidence is there. Thousands of years of drooped rocks precluded scientific claims of the existence of a "force" called gravity.

3. "Proof" is a demonstration of the validity of the claim through providing evidence.

Proof does not have to be "extravagant", at least according to scientific method that is, just repeatable. Cumulative evidence is also proof, as multiple evidence of a thing does not have to come from one source. It can be physical evidence of any sort. Photographs, video, public demonstration ALL count as proof.

Hearsay, anecdotal evidence, assertion, or the actual claim itself is NOT a proof.

4. "Falsifiability" determines whether the proof is indeed valid ACCORDING TO THE CLAIM IT SUPPORTS. THROUGH the actual falsification process, it may be determined as a true/false according to the claim, but only THROUGH SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Falsification is not someone saying it is false... that is merely another empty assertion. :-)   
-----------------

Let me give an example of falsification, and the describe an assertion IN science.

5.4857990943(23)×10âˆ'4 u is the measured mass of an electron with the precision of 2.1 X
10-9. ( http://www.physik.uni-mainz.de/werth/g_fak/publication/16%20-%20New%20determination%20of%20the...%20-%20Haeffner.pdf )

If I boldly that an electron's mass is exactly  5.4857990943(23)×10âˆ'4 u... then I am almost certainly wrong.

The precision factor means that it is between +/- .0000000021 from that number. Let's put this in perspective. .00054857990943 may vary from 0.00054858200943 (5.4858200943 X 10-4) to 0.00054857780943 (5.4857780943 X 10-4), and that is the closest to which it can be measured. In actuality that is a very wide variance.

I can state it is approximately 5.486 X10-4u without it being a hollow assertion, but to state exactly any number as certainty is but a guess as it is not falsifiable. The measuring means will not allow for accurate falsification of such a claim.

To make ANY claim scientifically without evidence is non-falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific claim.
-----------

Science is not in the business of dealing with non-scientific issues, therefore someone making a bald claim, or a claim outside the boundaries thereof, should not be either outraged or emotionally wounded if they make an assertion without evidence and are therefore ignored.

Science is also not the process of becoming emotionally attached to a scientific concept, therefore a professing scientist should not become outraged or emotionally wounded if a favorite notion is challenged.

By very nature of science, ANY idea or concept as proposed by ANYONE is fair game for open debate, discussion, and the process of falsification. In science, there is no such notion as "taboo" or "sacrosanct", unless science has transformed into a religion. (A chastisement.)

If you cannot approach a given topic with cold hard logic, instead of illogical emotion based opinion, then I seriously ask you why you even bother pondering? You already know that you cannot solve any logical problem without logical thought.

If you refuse to use logic, can I suggest a vocation change, as you have chosen incorrectly?

(IE Skeptics.... do your job and quit whining about it. YOU chose to investigate these claims, so INVESTIGATE them using science. Notice the acid? )

Paul Andrulis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,  it's an interesting thread you've got going here.  I hope it doesn't just die.  I wonder if the truth of the matter is that we all acknowledge 'dark energy'?  On some deep subliminal level.  And this reach of ours to exceed those energy barriers is to somehow bring this force into wider consciousness.  It amazes me that a whole branch of physics has actually proved that there's this force - and like all forces - it then needs its own 'particle' - which they've yet to find.  And yet a far larger branch of physics absolutely dismiss this evidence.   In effect, our theorists are at war - in a kind of polite scientific sense. 

That facts are that if and when this 'force' or this particle - eventually intrudes into our text books it will - first and foremost - deny every constraint imposed in those earlier chapters - relating to thermodynamic laws.  I foresee the time when people will look back on this history as a kind of muddled interlude where this 'dark force' was simply giving us all occassional glimpses of its actual potential.  And that potential seems to be infinite.  It's exciting times.  My only concern is that the 'dark force' as named - is unfortunate.  It holds really unhappy connotations relating as it does to all kinds of 'evil'.  Better to call it what it is.  Aether energy. 

But I do see this as a kind of 'birth pang' - and I  do think that we all rather obsessively sharing our understandings of this - on these kinds of forums - precisely because we're sort of playing the role of 'mid wife' - and sort of helping it along.  Certainly it's got enormous resistance in those upper echelons of theory and theorists.  And this keeps it away from the lay public who'd otherwise find it enormously comforting.  Especially in view of the sad condition of our poor planet which is sytematically being poisoned.  It's that lack of knowing about these theoretical discoveries which I feel is unfortunate.  Since when have we ever been so reluctant to take new concepts on board?  Historically that has always been mankind's redemption.  We just need to open the mind better and maybe get a new perspective on this.  And then.  In God's name, let's use all that energy.  It's theoretically and practically required. 

Regards,
Rosemary