Self-Generator

Maybe we at least partially agree about this silence notion.

I do admit that I would like it better if the notion of free energy would silently fade away and stay in the trash heap of history; right next to unicorns, mermaids, leprechauns, and searching for the philosopher’s stone.

But… but… I just sent my brother off to the other end of a rainbow…

:frowning: no leprechaun gold…

i think i might of thought of an idea for a self generator you know those crank radios well if they have enough power to power it and if it doesnt just add a couple more :wink:

What I think that Mr blake is getting at is that we should stop trying to become inventors. stop trying to discover new things. that there is no hope due to what the scientific community says is true and what is false. science has proven to it’s self that it sometimes is wrong. there have not been any REAL advances in inventions in at least the past 60 years. yes weapons of destruction have been created yes power generation technology have been invented. what is everyone to do sit in a stagnate pool of unmotivated self propelling indivuals and have no desire to create or swim upstream and conqure the waterfalls that say swimming upstream is impossible. I agree that right now in our scientific world of knowledge that there is NO way that Free energy will ever work. but if that one person who is abstract enough to realise that maybe if you can zero degrees kelvin to make it work or maybe the semiconductor levitating device? think about it we have trains that run on a coushin of air. who would have thought?

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/03/magnet.html

Ahhh, the old liquid-nitrogen superconductor experiment. :slight_smile:

What’s happening in this picture is as a metal gets colder, it carries electricity more easily. Normally, when you drop the magnet over a piece of metal, it will just drop down and stick to it. But when you lower the temperature of the metal, as you drop the magnet onto the metal, a moving magnetic field next to the metal will create electricity to flow, which will then create another magnetic field, which will then in turn repel the magnetic force of the magnet, allowing the magnet to hover. Quite a mouthful, but that’s what happens. :wink:

The crazy thing about this is that almost any metal will do this as you drop the temperature of it. Even non-ferrous (non-magnetic) metals such as copper can cause magnets to hover above them if they are cold enough.

This principle was originally used to create magnetic-levitation trains in the 1970s, until the German company Transrapid developed a different (and more efficient) method of levitating the trains that did not need supercooled superconducting magnets. Just in the last five or so years did they finally perfect the maglev technology enough to use it in real-world applications, and the world’s first maglev train/monorail line opened in 2003 in Shanghai, China and reaches top speeds of 267 miles per hour, making it the fastest train in regular commercial service in the world.

Here’s a picture of the Shanghai train levitating several inches above the track. (It’s amazing considering these trains do not have any wheels, motors, engines, or moving parts of any kind! They just levitate above, and are propelled along, the track by opposing magnetic forces.) :cool:

thank you art, you took the time i didn’t have earlier to post the rest of my post about the train. and i should have went into a bit more discussion that it appears as a coushin of air, but it’s not what keeps the train moving and lev’ing. good job.

No - What I am getting at is that as we invent, we should remember that the reason that the thing we call the scientific method exists is because it is inescapable.

Sure the creative spark, the serendipitous realization that a connection exists between two phenomena, or the flash of insight - These do occur and are the history making moments we all marvel at.

But - To say that the existence of these moments gives one license to ignore repeatable experiments’ results that are consistent with both all other evidence and a sensible mathematical treatment of a subject - is to set up a false dichotomy.

The great leaps forward we sometimes make, are scientific advances because they do a better job of explaining or connecting phenomena. They are not make outside of science, they are made within science.

Rehashing this free energy topic is not insightfully making a new connection or investigating inconsistent experimental results. Instead it is repeating, once again, without any reason other than pure wishing (at least none stated so far), and without any new independent or dependent variables (if there are any they haven’t been named), an experiment that has been performed innumerable times before with the same result each time.

I’m not suggesting you stop inventing. I am suggesting that you start. We need more inventors. Please, please be a good one.

And… “Who would have thought?” Scientists, engineers, and businessmen; that’s who.

Blake
PS: Also, there have been fantastic scientific advances in the last 60 years - If you really need me to list a few I’ll gladly do it. To connect it to the maglev train topic, let me say that producing (relatively) high-temperature superconductors might be fairly high on the list.

that magnet link is awesome! i have never seen that before. so… cool… :slight_smile:

You are suppose to use the Low Heat or No Heat setting…

lol it still got too hot.

I wish to jump in here on Blake’s side for a moment,

Free Energy, given the current state of the Laws of Thermodynamics (specifically the second law) is impossible. Now, there may be situations (for instance at a real absolute zero) where these laws need to be added to or re-thought (vis a vis Maxwell or Plank).

That having been said, in this day and age, I would consider perpetual motion machines (not even free energy, just zero entropy) to have less scientific value than the theory of Caloric Fluid, The Plum Pudding model of the atom or the Luminiferous Ether.

As to the statement that there have been no inventions in the past 60 years:

1946: 2006 - 60 years

Before the Apollo Missions, Satellites, Semi-Conductors / Integrated Circuits, Shape Memory Alloys, High Temperature Super-Conductors, Lexan/Lucite/Plexiglas/Perspex and a myriad of other plastics, NMR / MRI, and I am sure a vast, vast number of other things which I cannot name at this moment.

Furthermore, these EM field / spinning disc based free energy systems have been thoroughly debunked and rest in science along with the “Tesla” free energy myths and the geo-centric theory of the universe (which at least sound more convincing).

Suffice it to say, that there are many other areas of physics which have not been well documented – a unified theory of gravitation, for example – which might, if one is wildly optimistic, even hold some of the answers to the questions asked by these free energy type apparatuses.

~ Christopher

P.S. While I could not find a citation for the following, I am pretty sure it is correct:

The US Patent Office no longer requires working demonstrations of anything EXCEPT zero or negative entropy schemes.

So my previous post wasn’t completely pointless?

well…it is possible looking at the standards you could crank it and provide tons of electricity to get it running and let it work on from there

Just a reminder to everyone: sometimes it is important to listen with your ears, and not with your mouth.

This is a very interesting discussion, and I urge any budding scientists/engineers to experiment with the concepts being discussed.

Failed experiments will still provide important results.
It is cool to think that some of the experiments I did as a young boy (exploring the world around me) would later correspond to things I learned in High School Physics. These same principles would then be further explained in University Physics. Then they would be FURTHER explained in higher-level physics classes.

As your education progresses you will add layer upon layer to your understanding of the physical phenomenon described above

Having said that:
There are still certain (physical) laws which cannot be broken no matter how much “innovation” is involved. :wink:

JV

WOW some scary and pompous information in this,

Thankfully others in history did not listen to rhetoric like this and continued on there quest to understand and improve things by actually experimenting with there ideas or theories. Thankfully people in the past took chances,

I surely hope your not an educator ramming this stuff down the throat of some future inventor or scientist making him or her feel that there efforts, dreams, ideas are wasted unless they work in an area you approve of.

  1. Thanks for the compliment - Sometimes folks dispute whether there is information in what I have to say :slight_smile:

  2. There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a) innovatively discovering a mismatch between evidence and theory, and b) generating evidence in the hope that a mismatch between it and some established theory will pop out of the new evidence.

This is a really, really, really important distinction to get straight early on so that you can be a more effective innovator down the road. In military terms, this concept is one of your force-mulitpliers.

I am trying to convey that the successful theories are around because they successfully explain the evidence we all have already accumulated.

Before developing a hunch that any very large body of evidence has been misinterpreted, I would hope that each/any innovator would carefully assess that evidence and look for hints of an inconsistency in the current interpretations. Should they spot one, they could then devise a repeatable experiment that would highlight/expose the inconsistency. At the end of their repeatable experiment they could begin the (often difficult because humans are involved) task of convincing the scientific community (or their robotics team…) that the status quo theories must contain a flaw.

To follow another process would probably result in a lot of wasted time; and life is too short to waste that much time in pursuits other than entertainment.

Following “the scientific method” doesn’t squash innovation, it focuses it where it is needed most and applies each innovator’s full mental crowbar’s force to a crack in the current theories. All I hope to hear from someone pursuing a Free Energy or similar activity is a description of which crack they have found in current theories. Use evidence to convince me that a crack exists and I’ll invest in your research.

Blake
PS: Thankfully others in history did listen to this sort of logic… They are called scientists. They often had to work hard to unseat outdated theories, but they knew they would be successful because the new theories they proposed did a better job of explaining the evidence the community had accumulated; and they knew their repeatable experiments would inexorably make their point for them.

There was typically very little “chance” or risk-taking involved in the science end of things.

Where risk-taking or “chance” enter the equation, if at all, is in business ventures that attempt to turn scientific discoveries into profit, or in paying for the expense involved in conducting an experiment whose outcome is uncertain (the first stab at why theories and data are inconsistent often isn’t right), or in the politics of deflating the egos of the folks advocating opposing interpretations… :slight_smile:

PPS: My approval is not involved. Mother Nature will do all the approving/disapproving and/or ramming that is necessary. If she doesn’t approve, nothing I or you or anyone else has to say about any subject will matter one iota. The universe is implacable (but fair).

PPPS: John - I’m going to borrow that phrase about listening with one’s ears. It definitely gave me a big grin.

Still, wouldn’t it make you sad if you had all that info and it turned out that free-energy is possible?

I’m gonna try!

When we are young, our parents and teachers tell us a lot of things. Some of these things – like who to vote for – can be taken with a grain of salt. Others things, like don’t jump off of cliffs are based upon a lot of real, solid evidence about the inevitable results of jumping off of cliffs.

Just as falling to your death after jumping off of a cliff is an inescapable result of gravity, energy loss in a closed system is an inescapable conclusion of thermodynamics.

That having been said, unlike jumping off a cliff, spinning some discs with magnets around will probably not kill you, so go ahead, try it out and see for your self, if you really do not believe all us “old farts*.”

Just don’t be angry when it does not work out.

~ Christopher

  • I use the term lovingly, of course

Airplanes are a way of temporarily escaping gravity right?

I guess airplanes proved you wrong once and im going to try to make that twice.