though it may be possible to tap power from the Earth's magnetic field, or something like that
You can't get energy out of a magnet. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a small permanent magnet, or a planet sized magnet. I know they are weird and mysterious, being able to attract things without anything visible, but magnets are just springs that work on a different level. You can pull apart a spring and have it snap back together, just like a magnet, but you can't get energy out of just the spring any more than you can out of just a magnet. Any "energy" you may see out of it is the energy that was applied to it earlier (pulling it apart) that is being released. I don't know how to put it any other way, other than magnets don't have any energy in them to give. |
|
|
|
Also, monopole magnets aren't known to exist.
We figured out how to make a monopole magnet using superconductors back in early 2000's. It still requires a lot of energy to work. |
|
|
|
How much would you bet that it works or doesnt? This topic is aimed at mainly: myrkulRassahI would bet $6,000,000,000 USD and the life of the betters that free energy is not possible. The energy always has to come from somewhere. And sorry, it can't come from a magnet. I don't know where some of the guys here got the idea that you can get energy out of a magnet by slowly demagnetizing it, but that's simply not true. A magnet is just molecules lined up in a specific way. You can't get energy out of that any more than you get energy out of a crystal or from just lining up magnets on the floor top all face the same direction. |
|
|
|
*sigh* god damn I hate that asshole...  |
|
|
|
No, I do not. Energy can not be created or destroyed. It's a law. And I have a doctorate level education in this subject (though not an actual degree), so keep asking away. That video is of a simple motor. The wires on either end of the coil have the insulation stripped on one side, and the nails have electricity hooked up to them. Here's a video of how it works http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=it_Z7NdKgmY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dit_Z7NdKgmY |
|
|
|
|
Karl Marx saw this exact same problem, when he saw that we do not have enough tractors and enough farmers to produce all the food needed to feed all the people that will soon be born (and the world population was only around 1 billion back then). He saw the exact same issue, and had the exact same concerns as you, and that was one of his main reasons for coming up with the solution he called communism.
Of course, 100 years later we have robotic tractors that require very few farmers to operate, and advances in chemicals and genetics that allow us to grow much more food from the same amount of space. Don't forget, we have barely tapped the power of the sun. Worst comes to worse, we'll all live off solar panels, and eat algae grown in vats in the sun. As others have said, still plenty of space here.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention wealthy countries that have good reproductive healthcare and comfortable living tend to have zero, or even decreasing population growths. No need for anyone to die; just make whether to have a child or not more of a choice.
|
|
|
|
so maybe that one is a scam, but all the rest of the videos online?
i'll try to build a different one
Electro magnets work because the electricity is making the magnetic fields in the magnets move. In permanent magnets, the magnetic field is standing still. It's "permanent." Unless you can figure out how to make a permanent magnet with a moving magnetic field, you'll never be able to build a free energy machine. |
|
|
|
What is this ING deposit? like a online based company has checking accounts?
ING was the second online-only bank after NetBank, at a time when online banking was somewhat in its infancy, and the general idea was that all banks should have buildings and bank branches. By being entirely online, ING was able so save a lot of money, and offer free checking with lots of free features, as well as savings accounts with the highest interest rates in the country. They also for a time allowed you to use any ATM for free, and even reimbursed you the $1.50 ATM cash withdrawal fees many ATMs charge. Another feature was that they bragged about being able to fire their customers. In other words, if you called and complained too much, or had too many overdrafts, they would cancel your account and kindly ask you to go elsewhere. Basically, they advertised themselves as a bank for tech-savvy, responsible types. They have gone a little bit downhill since, mainly with their savings rates and such, but I still use them as my main bank. Their ING P2P feature allows you to wire money to anyone else for free, which takes 2 to 3 days for external transfers, and instantly between ING customers. Bitfloor allows you to send them money using your ING account for free, but since they don't have an ING account themselves, it takes 3 days. |
|
|
|
how is a magnet not free energy? does the magnet 'wear out' as its used?
The magnet is as much an "energy" as gravity or a coil spring. It only pulls something together when you pull it apart. In other words, it can store a little bit of energy if you pull two magnets apart, and use it up when you let the two magnets come back together, but you can't get energy out of setting up magnets in some weird configuration any more than you can out of stretching rubber bands in the exact same configuration. The only reason electricity, actual energy, works from magnets is because a mechanical force can use magnets to shove electrons around inside a wire. Mechanical energy (usually a steam engine) moves magnets around, those magnets attract electrons and move them inside a wire, and magnets on the other end of the wire are attracted to the same electrons, and move after them too. In a way, it's exactly like a pulley system: move the wheel on one end, and it tugs at the ropes and moves the wheel at the other end. That's how all electrical motors work. All that the magnets do is attach themselves to electrons. The energy to move those electrons has to come from somewhere, and it's not the magnets themselves. |
|
|
|
...government is not a for-profit business like private enterprise and they has a different mindset when dealing with public issues and common good.
...
I like how he says that incentives work when NO ONE is challenging that. He does allows for things like moral values and national duty as proper incentives to help and make a government work.
Ok, so, why is one person's sense of "moral values" and "national duty" more correct than another's? Are you saying that those who work in the private sector, or even business owners themselves who are running for-profits, can't have moral values or a sense of national duty? Or are you claiming that any addition of money (profit) corrupts morals and duty? Do you think government employees work for a sense of morals and duty, or do they work to earn a living? And what happens what a government employee's moral values or sense of national duty do not agree with your own? I.e. what happens when someone from the government says one thing is correct (ban gay marriage, invade random countries), but you don't think that is moral or good for the country? You can't vote the employees out, but they have the power to force you to live in a way you don't think is right... Or, to keep it on the topic of weapons, what if you think that having at most 5 nukes is enough to keep us safe, but the government insists on building 20,000 of them, in the process creating enough destructive force to obliterate the planet, and then having to waste billions to keep the weapons safe and secure, while creating problems such as environmental pollution, and greatly increasing the risk of nukes available for theft or accidental detonation? All democracy/military here, no profit incentives. How do you deal with that? (Personally, I don't think anyone in a free-market society would stockpile nukes, since it's just a waste of money) |
|
|
|
After reading through this thread I still have absolutely zero clue what "capitalism" means.
The only clear thing about it is that nobody is using the same definition.
Amen to that! Perhaps history has the answer? At some point the Russians had their Communism, so in the spirit of competition, the Americans had to find a name for their "Capital...-ism"? Even what Russia had wasn't actually communism... |
|
|
|
[Aren't the porcs doing something like this up near Grafton? That I could really get into.
Yeah, I heard about the porcs first. I think the difference is these guys are of the apocalypse survival variety (slightly nutty in my opinion, especially with so much emphasis on needing to shoot guns and rifles to stay there). From what I know, the porcs are just more NAP/Libertarian as opposed to prepper. Would be interesting to see both communities get established and see how they compete. |
|
|
|
|
I thought it was a bit too "patriotic" as well, and weird that they are as concerned about recycling, especially when in a SHTF collapse situation that would be paramount to staying self-sufficient, but yeah, seems interesting. Totally expecting it to fail though.
|
|
|
|
|
Will be interesting to see how the loans go after the recent jump from $13.80 to $14.3. IS there a list of loans with outstanding balances, repayment history, delinqneucy info, etc anywhere that's conveniently available?
|
|
|
|
You should ask the question, what safeguards would be different than for a private company. Vastly different and more secure. Many things make some people different than others.
People in the government that are in positions to have access to sensitive areas like nuclear weapons and technology are vetted, monitored and routinely moved around. Genetics and mental disposition are another two obvious answers to what makes someone different than another, but I assume you know that.
I'm not asking how people are different, I'm asking how two people, who might otherwise be the same with the same interests, are different from the fact that one works for the government, and one works for a private sector? (while not defending what they do, private military companies have quite a lot of training, vetting, and security as well, as do nuclear power stations). What I am trying to get at is that you seem to be perfectly ok with allowing some people to own nukes, while not allowing others, and since I'm sure "because they work for a government" is not your ONLY reason for that claim, I'm wondering what the other reason, besides under what system of bureaucracy they work, that is. And if the entire reason some people whould have nukes and some shouldn't IS only because some people get their paychecks from government and some down, I want to know what makes the people working for a government different from those who do not? (besides being underpaid and likely undesrkilled I mean) |
|
|
|
1. This is where you need to take in the current situation and when we are talking about someone like this, it is all the matters. Like I said, this cat is out of the bag. I would rather have the current governments safeguard the nukes then proliferate them to a point where someone who is dis-satisfied decides to use them and kill innocent people to try and prove a point or achieve their goals.
And, again, what makes a person working for the government different from a person working for a private company? 2. Why do you think the person would say anything, another speculation with no reason to believe that it is the case. Maybe the person selling it, gets informed about its end use and supports it so they are glad it happens. Another option is that it could change hands. I never said this was an anarchy state only problem, where did you get that from? You are so caught up in your idea of Anarchy that you assume someone who doesn't support it is so colored in their thinking that they would think in that manner. I keep seeing interesting patterns debating with you all, quite interesting.
So... Your only concern then is with making sure that only some people being allowed to have nukes and not others... I guess in that case, same question again: what makes those some people different from others? |
|
|
|
First Issue:
Because of the destructive nature of nuclear weapons, obviously I would rather no one have them. But in reality, the cat is already in the bag and because competing nation states have nuclear weapons in their possession, they would likely never relinquish them all because of the fear the another nation state was lying and held some back in their possession. As for unstable people getting access that are in government, you should research the current safeguard we have in place so that only a few men have the ability to arm and launch nuclear weapons and those people are vetting quite harshly and are given continual physiological evaluations you mental stability.
And we can't have everyone agree not to own nukes and police each other for it, while having a private defense force in charge of keeping out outsiders, whom we entrust with owning a nuke for deterrent reasons because...? Second Issue:
That is an assumption they would be found out, if you know what your doing you could be covert about it. There are small tactical nukes are are as small as a suitcase. Also in your example, you gave a price tag so I had to assume that person was purchasing it from somewhere not building their own. Building your own it a whole other ball game and is very hard to mask because of the equipment needed, power consumption and raw materials. You really need to understand, covert action happens everyday and it is effective more times than not. History is filled with examples (that we know of) and it is only decades if not longer that we find out, or we seize records and read about them after the fact.
If someone sold someone a nuke, then they know whom they sold the nuke to. If one of those nukes does go off, either whoever sold the nuke will have told everyone whom they sold that one to, or they would be held responsible. And yes, the price tag is the estimates cost of a nuke on the black market. But, regardless, why is covert action and black market suitcase nukes a problem in anarchy state, but not a problem in government controlled state? What makes people with a government paycheck different or better than people with a private company paycheck? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
