A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[MrAl]

Hi,

JimB:
Some good points for sure. I cant be sure if the original 'inventor' was saying that the toroid was not an inductor because it wasnt say a purchased inductor, but from the other points Dave brought up it seems that he didnt even realize that a wire through a core was already an inductor, and that was Dave's take on it too. We cant be perfectly sure you are right, but from the level of competence i have seen in the 'invention' i would not be one bit surprised if he did not even know it was an inductor of any kind. I just have to laugh a little.
Notice the claim for the wire was 'zero resistance' too, which implies that there was something magical going on, or as the author put it, "negative quantum energy". Maybe it was really meant to be a comedy but some people took it seriously (ha ha ha...etc.).

TV:
Well, i dont waste too much time with stuff like this myself, and as i had mentioned, i would have been satisfied to hear that the 'inventor' didnt know the toroid was an inductor, or that he tried to SAY it wasnt an inductor to avoid the obvious, that it was just a Brinkmann boost circuit with no special quantum effects at work.
What i do like to do however is debunk unreal spec's and claims on REAL PRODUCTS that are put on the market that you or i may purchase at some point in time and therefore could affect our everyday lives. My thread on soldering iron specifications is a good example of this. If i find something that i feel is going to mislead a fellow hobbyist, i like to make sure everyone everywhere knows about it. I try to be fair about my assessment too, where if there is something good about the product i like to get that point across too. You'll see this in my writing in almost everything i write. I'll post in the first place for the bad points, but also mention the pro's as well, if there are any worth mentioning of course.

 

[tvtech]

To the Ineffable All,

All of you should give thanks that no method of creating free energy at an unlimited power and sustainability level exists now, or appears to be universally available to anyone in the future. Otherwise, this planet Earth will be crisped or vaporized by mankind's "creative destruction" tendency sooner rather than later. Ratch

You OK Ratch?

You don't sound like yourself

Regards,
tv

 

[tvtech]

And so it goes...

Too direct, too open handed. I seem to have a natural ability to make people cross with me.

At least you know who/what you are dealing with. Never behind your back. Always in your Face.

Long day here. More power cuts tomorrow and lot's of stuff happening.

Regards,
tv

 

[steveB]

Ratch,

That comment reminds me of the old science fiction movie "Forbidden Planet".

 

[Ratchit]

Ratch,

That comment reminds me of the old science fiction movie "Forbidden Planet".

Good thing its realization is only fiction.

Ratch

 

[cowboybob]

To the Ineffable All,

All of you should give thanks that no method of creating free energy at an unlimited power and sustainability level exists now, or appears to be universally available to anyone in the future. Otherwise, this planet Earth will be crisped or vaporized by mankind's "creative destruction" tendency sooner rather than later. Ratch

To paraphrase, Ratchit, I never underestimate mankind's "destructive creation" capabilities...

(just googled "destructive creation": look's like it's an MS video game to be released this year).

 

[Ratchit]

To paraphrase, Ratchit, I never underestimate mankind's "destructive creation" capabilities...

(just googled "destructive creation": look's like it's an MS video game to be released this year).

I believe I said "creative destruction", insofar as meaning finding and developing new ways for mankind to destroy itself. No need to give anyone the means and ways to do that. "Destructive creation" sounds like a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp", mail service, government efficiency, etc.

Ratch

 

[cowboybob]

If one were to consider the "Big Bang" as the destructive creation, from the Singularity that was the seed, of our Universe (at least according to the current physicists' theories), then it is, so to speak, in our genes to self-destruct.

Pretty gloomy outlook, I'd say. As a friend of mine likes to say, "I think my brain is exploding!".

 

[Ratchit]

If one were to consider the "Big Bang" as the destructive creation, from the Singularity that was the seed, of our Universe (at least according to the current physicists' theories), then it is, so to speak, in our genes to self-destruct.

Pretty gloomy outlook, I'd say. As a friend of mine likes to say, "I think my brain is exploding!".

I don't think we know enough about the creation of the universe to make such a statement.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

I believe what Ratch is saying here is very sad, but unfortunately it's all too true. Some of mankinds inventions have taken us closer to a possible near complete destruction rather than any advancement in civilization.

In the case of free energy which Ratch was addressing directly, i can easily see the scenario where suddenly we can have any amount of (electrical) energy we want for a very small price. Then what follows is cities start using more and more of that energy day by day, and since now there is no limit the power dissipation issue would tend to be more ignored, and so the heating effect of all this dissipation would help to heat the earth even more than it is now. That would be bad for the long term climate of the earth. Some crummy side effects too, we might end up switching to mostly aluminum wire which would make it even worse, and i personally would hate to have to use aluminum wire for anything. But yeah the climate issue is the more important one. It bothers me that every time someone turns on an iPhone, starts their car, walks down the street, breaths, more heat goes into the atmosphere.

 

[Overclocked]

Hi,

I believe what Ratch is saying here is very sad, but unfortunately it's all too true. Some of mankinds inventions have taken us closer to a possible near complete destruction rather than any advancement in civilization.

In the case of free energy which Ratch was addressing directly, i can easily see the scenario where suddenly we can have any amount of (electrical) energy we want for a very small price. Then what follows is cities start using more and more of that energy day by day, and since now there is no limit the power dissipation issue would tend to be more ignored, and so the heating effect of all this dissipation would help to heat the earth even more than it is now. That would be bad for the long term climate of the earth. Some crummy side effects too, we might end up switching to mostly aluminum wire which would make it even worse, and i personally would hate to have to use aluminum wire for anything. But yeah the climate issue is the more important one. It bothers me that every time someone turns on an iPhone, starts their car, walks down the street, breaths, more heat goes into the atmosphere.

Then maybe its a good thing we have fossil fuels, as its leading us to be more concerned about our energy usage. Its possible that before we find some alternative energy source (besides wind and solar) that we must reach a point where the human race uses so little energy to become technologically advanced..However..

Theres a theory that says that in order for a society to become technologically advanced, its energy consumption must increase. The Kardashev scale is what Im referring to. We are just under a type 1 Civilization. If fusion ever does work out, I look forward to it being used for space travel, and hopefully not so much as a weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

 

[cowboybob]

I don't think we know enough about the creation of the universe to make such a statement.

Ratch

I guess you missed the operative word "If... "

Obviously, the unlimited availability of power, whatever the source or means, would be a disaster in any context.

As to this thread, the Physics is covered by this:
**broken link removed**

Although, no doubt, there remain untapped energy sources we can only imagine.

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

I believe what Ratch is saying here is very sad, but unfortunately it's all too true. Some of mankinds inventions have taken us closer to a possible near complete destruction rather than any advancement in civilization.

In the case of free energy which Ratch was addressing directly, i can easily see the scenario where suddenly we can have any amount of (electrical) energy we want for a very small price. Then what follows is cities start using more and more of that energy day by day, and since now there is no limit the power dissipation issue would tend to be more ignored, and so the heating effect of all this dissipation would help to heat the earth even more than it is now. That would be bad for the long term climate of the earth. Some crummy side effects too, we might end up switching to mostly aluminum wire which would make it even worse, and i personally would hate to have to use aluminum wire for anything. But yeah the climate issue is the more important one. It bothers me that every time someone turns on an iPhone, starts their car, walks down the street, breaths, more heat goes into the atmosphere.

I was not thinking about our demise coming from using too much nearly free energy in a peaceful manner. I was more concerned about inventing and using weapons that would be possible from having access to a hyper level of nearly free energy.

I think our climate change is just the natural cycle of hot and cold that the Earth has experienced throughout the ages. I also believe that the hype of man made causes is from scientific personnel and organizations that benefit from that hysteria. Man made climate change has put a lot of dinners on the table for a lot of people, so they don't want it to go away.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Then maybe its a good thing we have fossil fuels, as its leading us to be more concerned about our energy usage. Its possible that before we find some alternative energy source (besides wind and solar) that we must reach a point where the human race uses so little energy to become technologically advanced..However..

Theres a theory that says that in order for a society to become technologically advanced, its energy consumption must increase. The Kardashev scale is what Im referring to. We are just under a type 1 Civilization. If fusion ever does work out, I look forward to it being used for space travel, and hopefully not so much as a weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Hope, you say? I believe that two of the most impotent forces in the universe are "hope and prayer". They are the truly "weak forces". Now don't get me wrong. H & P do make a lot folks feel good, which is a benefit. But for really accomplishing something, like H & P'ing that mankind will choose the right path and direction, I think you will be disappointed.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

I was not thinking about our demise coming from using too much nearly free energy in a peaceful manner. I was more concerned about inventing and using weapons that would be possible from having access to a hyper level of nearly free energy.

I think our climate change is just the natural cycle of hot and cold that the Earth has experienced throughout the ages. I also believe that the hype of man made causes is from scientific personnel and organizations that benefit from that hysteria. Man made climate change has put a lot of dinners on the table for a lot of people, so they don't want it to go away.

Ratch

Hi,

I am not that concerned about new weaponry based on free energy being a big deal, because we have weaponry that already threatens the entire civilization on planet Earth.

The people that put forth the idea that man is not partly responsible for climate change ignore thousands of scientists that claim otherwise. In fact, they try to make it a social issue rather than a scientific issue. They would like to have a vote of some kind by people who know next to nothing about climate change in order to decide on climate change legislation. That would be similar to a bunch of newbies coming to this forum and wanting to take a vote on how much heat a MOSFET is generating in a particular DC to DC converter, and what all the causes of that heat are, based solely on what they 'feel' is right for the forums society. It's not a social issue, it's a scientific issue, and most scientists today that know enough about it to make a well informed decision say man is affecting climate change. And it's not that there are evenly divided opinions, the scientists that say yes outnumber the ones that say no by approximately 5000 to 1. If we cant believe them, then we might as well give up now.

 

[Ratchit]

I guess you missed the operative word "If... "

Obviously, the unlimited availability of power, whatever the source or means, would be a disaster in any context.

As to this thread, the Physics is covered by this:
**broken link removed**

Although, no doubt, there remain untapped energy sources we can only imagine.

"If" implies something that did not happen or probably will not happen.

The link states that mass and energy are equal. I don't believe so. Not all mass is equal to energy. They have an equivalance, but not an equality. For instance. take a kilo of uranium 235 and a kilo of lead. After the uranium finishes shooting off all its particles and radiation and finally decays to lead, it will be a micro micro gram less in mass according to m*c^2. That is the equivalence part. But a kilo of uranium 235 has had its nucleus boosted so as to make it unstable and prone to give off energy. That make it unequal to lead, because you cannot do anything to lead to get more energy out than you put in. Therefore, a quantity of lead and uranium can be equal in mass, but not in energy.

Ratch

 

[ronsimpson]

Scammers scam. It's been that way since the begining of time.

There is this man on TV in the afternoons. 1-800-send-money phone number. For a donation he will pray for you. Actually he does not pray much he just touches people and the pain goes away. I HAVE BEEN HEALED!

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

I am not that concerned about new weaponry based on free energy being a big deal, because we have weaponry that already threatens the entire civilization on planet Earth.

The people that put forth the idea that man is not partly responsible for climate change ignore thousands of scientists that claim otherwise. In fact, they try to make it a social issue rather than a scientific issue. They would like to have a vote of some kind by people who know next to nothing about climate change in order to decide on climate change legislation. That would be similar to a bunch of newbies coming to this forum and wanting to take a vote on how much heat a MOSFET is generating in a particular DC to DC converter, and what all the causes of that heat are, based solely on what they 'feel' is right for the forums society. It's not a social issue, it's a scientific issue, and most scientists today that know enough about it to make a well informed decision say man is affecting climate change. And it's not that there are evenly divided opinions, the scientists that say yes outnumber the ones that say no by approximately 5000 to 1. If we cant believe them, then we might as well give up now.

All the hydrogen bombs we have now are insignificant with respect to amount of energy from storms and other natural phenomena that occur constantly. I am talking about really large amounts of weaponized energy, like perhaps a directed and controlled gigantic solar outburst aimed at a country or continent.

The people that put forth the idea that man is partly responsible for climate change ignore thousands of facts that show otherwise. In fact, they try to make it a social issue rather than a scientific one. They would like to have a vote of some kind by those who have a financial interest in climate change to decide on climate change legislation. They should instead be required to prove their assertions and explain all the discrepancies that are present. It is both a social and scientific issue, and a consensus of opinion is not good criteria for judging the truth. Explaining the facts are. Furthermore, the motivation behind each opinion should also be examined.

Ratch

 

[cowboybob]

"If" implies something that did not happen or probably will not happen.

The link states that mass and energy are equal. I don't believe so. ...

"If" Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity hasn't been proven to your satisfaction this is, of course, your decision.

... The people that put forth the idea that man is partly responsible for climate change ignore thousands of facts that show otherwise. In fact, they try to make it a social issue rather than a scientific one. They would like to have a vote of some kind by those who have a financial interest in climate change to decide on climate change legislation. They should instead be required to prove their assertions and explain all the discrepancies that are present. It is both a social and scientific issue, and a consensus of opinion is not good criteria for judging the truth. Explaining the facts are. Furthermore, the motivation behind each opinion should also be examined. ...

On this we can agree 100%.

 

[Ratchit]

"If" Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity hasn't been proven to your satisfaction this is, of course, your decision.


On this we can agree 100%.

A theory can never be proven 100% correct, but some theories have a very high degree of correctness confidence. Einstein's TOR is one of them.

Ratch