|
6
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: the guy who started IKEA
|
on: December 28, 2014, 03:40:23 AM
|
i watched a documentary on youtube about the 1%. his name is Ingvar Kamprad. the guy is worth 53 billion. 90 million a day is not that hard to believe for a guy who is worth 53 billion.
53 billion! Tell him to diversify into Bitcoins. Wouldn't that be nice...even if he only threw a couple hundred million at us haha  THE GUY IS NOT WORTH 53 BILLION! For the fifth time. He's worth 3.3 Billion EUR - 4.1Billion USD. And he definitely doesn't make 90 million a day! I hate it when people regurgitate wrong info told by very stupid reporters. |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: the guy who started IKEA
|
on: December 27, 2014, 06:56:24 AM
|
Absolutely ridiculous. No one deserves that much money.
And who are you to say that? Give me one example of a person deserving money. Money are not given by merit. Anyone who can make money deserves it. Doesn't matter what you think. About the 90 million a day - its bullshit. He doesn't make 1/10 of that. After taxes HIS CORPORATION makes ~70 million EUR/day. However when the pay salaries, taxes, expenses of all sorts he is left with 6Million EUR/day. Thats not PROFIT though. Its revenue. It's an accumulated revenue since the company was started. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: the guy who started IKEA
|
on: December 25, 2014, 08:45:27 PM
|
i watched a documentary on youtube about the 1%. his name is Ingvar Kamprad. the guy is worth 53 billion. 90 million a day is not that hard to believe for a guy who is worth 53 billion.
Edit: as per wikipedia - "Net worth US$4.1 billion (June 2014)[1]" Ikea has a revenue of 28 billion euro. But not just for 2014. That's the whole net worth of the company. Net income for 2013 is 3.3 billion. Don't get financial data from shows on TV, unless you watch bloomberg. Worth 53 billion means the market cap of his company. It's a fictional (comparative) term. It doesn't mean he has 53 billion cash. Making 90 million a day is impossible. Apple makes less than that. And Ikea cannot compare to Apple. |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: I know there is no such thing as 'free energy' but what if it was possible?
|
on: December 23, 2014, 01:45:04 PM
|
And again, I ask, why don't you make one of those yourself? Why are there dozens, if not hundreds, of these inventions, and not a single guy shares the technical details or instructions for how to build it, and no two people ever seem to build the same type of device?
And before you say "money," we have crowdfjnding and loans. Raise or borrow some money, build one at home, use it to power your neighbors' houses and charge them for electricity, then use that money to pay back investors or bank. Very easy, but no one in the entire world is doing it. Why?
Again - there is lack of funding of these people. First. Yes there is! Random people on the internet raised $55,000 for some guy to make a potato salad on Kickstarter. I'm sure they would donate way for than that for something as awesome as a solution to the world's energy problem. Yet no one seems to ever be able to raise any money. It's as if they know that they can't prove their invention works to potential investors. Second - read my previous posts. The romanian guy's invention would cost you 1000$ to build yourself, but he needs a finished demo, to be able to patent it.
Why doesn't he borrow $1,000, build it himself, use it to power his house, and use the money he saves on not paying for electricity to pay for the patent? Even better, hook his neighbor us, and charge him half of what the power company charges. He'll earn enough to pay off the $1,000 loan and pay for a patent in no time. And why are all these free energy invention guys such greedy assholes? Every single one of them claims they won't share the technology, because they want to patent it first. Did Satoshi patent bitcoin? Did Linus Trovalds patent Linux? Give the give of free energy to the world, and you will be praised and taken care of for ever. Hell, you'll even win a Nobel Prize, and that's a lot of money. It's as if the patent thing is just an excuse all of these guys use for not explaining how their system works, so they don't have to be held accountable or be xaught lying. Arguing that there is no free energy is stupid. Einstein (a very smart man) said that no energy is lost in the Universe, it only shifts from one form to another.
Yes. The full quote is "Energy can not be created or destroyed." Energy can only shift from one place to another, or be converted into and out of matter. When you run a motor, or use a conventional energy device, you are shifting energy from coal/wind/gravity/sun/nuclear fission into energy that moves your motor or heats something. When you create a "free energy" device, you are not shifting energy, you are creating energy out of nothing. If we humans knew how to close that cycle any mean for energy generation would be 100% effective.
It doesn't matter how much knowledge we aquire, generation would never be 100% effective. There is always friction to overcome, even if it's from light glowing on the device, or magnetic fields from surroundings and the planet interfering with motion. However, we are limited as human beings. We think we know everything, and in reality we know squat
Scientists and physicists who actually know about this stuff (and anyone else who is educated enough) know they don't know everything. That's why their actual job is figuring out things they don't know. People who don't know jack shit make claims like "We think we know everything, " and then add, "in reality we don't know anything" to make themselves seem intellectually superior. If there was no Oil we would be living in the dark ages right now - no electricity, no hot water, no running cars. Don't you think that's pathetic?
Not sure where your going with this, but most electricity in US is generated from coal. Must of it in Europe and Japan is from nuclear. If there was no oil, chances are we'd be driving electric cars, but I doubt we'd be in the dark ages. I watched an interview with one Kiril Chukanov. He said that he invented a ball lightning electric generator that outputs 10 times more than used electricity, and when turned into the cycle releases to the electric network 3.5 times more electricity than used - so 100kW is turned into 350kW. He also said that the bigger the ball lightning - the larger the output. He said it can be done upto 1,000,000 x and a clear output of 350,000 times more than used - if you input 100kW you would be able to support a whole country, but It will be huge and will cost as much as a Nuclear Power Plant. But it's 100% green and free of fuel payments.
I watched that interview. Note that everything is based on what he says, nothing is explained, and (this is the most important part) he has to plug it in to get it working, and then turns it off. Why not turn it on, plug it into itself, and just let it run indefinitely? Asmi pointed put a while ago in this thread, why do all overunity machines have to be started up, and then shut down, instead of being allowed to run under their own power for ever? Making a prototype would take much time and money. 1000$ would be if you already know what to do. And the guy from Utah already has funding. He is building a prototype in Canada for an Oil company. He received millions, but needs billions to create a market applicable machine. Physics is not simple you know. It's delicate. Also dangerous he works with pressures of up to 100G. That's why you can't do it in your home. You need a lab and team of scientists to do that successfully. Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. He said that it needs power to start. But a part of the produced power would go for powering the unit. That's the tricky part. How to conserve the produced power while unit is off. Of course he will not reveal his full idea on youtube. Someone would steal it. Oldest trick in human character. Do you really think that the Universe runs on Oil and electricity, and that there is no free energy running it? Who does then? The Uber Space People? Its obvious that the Universe does not need an engine to run for billions of years. It's just that our tiny brains are incapable of dealing with it. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: I know there is no such thing as 'free energy' but what if it was possible?
|
on: December 23, 2014, 06:00:07 AM
|
There is this guy from romania. He was in the DW news in October. And he made sort of a dynamo ran engine, that used weights. Weights were welded onto metal bars and they were just "free" spinning, based on Earth's magnetic field, creating electrical energy using magnets. Nothing else. And it's an early stage of development. Here is another invention, that might give you more perspective - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUOnYxRcDHU. A Bulgarian guy that lives in Utah. There is such thing as free energy. It's what drives universe. And people have nothing to do with it. We just have to learn how to master it. And again, I ask, why don't you make one of those yourself? Why are there dozens, if not hundreds, of these inventions, and not a single guy shares the technical details or instructions for how to build it, and no two people ever seem to build the same type of device? And before you say "money," we have crowdfjnding and loans. Raise or borrow some money, build one at home, use it to power your neighbors' houses and charge them for electricity, then use that money to pay back investors or bank. Very easy, but no one in the entire world is doing it. Why? Again - there is lack of funding of these people. First. Second - read my previous posts. The romanian guy's invention would cost you 1000$ to build yourself, but he needs a finished demo, to be able to patent it. He wouldn't give you his idea, before he's sure he's going to cash in on it. That's normal. But If you can produce 1kW infinitely for 1000$ I think its way worth it. Since I am not a physicist I cannot do it myself. But I can build it myself if I had the plan and parts. That's what I meant in my posts. Arguing that there is no free energy is stupid. Einstein (a very smart man) said that no energy is lost in the Universe, it only shifts from one form to another. If we humans knew how to close that cycle any mean for energy generation would be 100% effective. However, we are limited as human beings. We think we know everything, and in reality we know squat. If there was no Oil we would be living in the dark ages right now - no electricity, no hot water, no running cars. Don't you think that's pathetic? I watched an interview with one Kiril Chukanov. He said that he invented a ball lightning electric generator that outputs 10 times more than used electricity, and when turned into the cycle releases to the electric network 3.5 times more electricity than used - so 100kW is turned into 350kW. He also said that the bigger the ball lightning - the larger the output. He said it can be done upto 1,000,000 x and a clear output of 350,000 times more than used - if you input 100kW you would be able to support a whole country, but It will be huge and will cost as much as a Nuclear Power Plant. But it's 100% green and free of fuel payments. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: I know there is no such thing as 'free energy' but what if it was possible?
|
on: December 22, 2014, 01:24:21 PM
|
I watched this documentary about a European engineer (I think Romanian) who invented an electrical generator, that uses the Earth graviational field to produce 200W of electricity. All materials used were basic - rotors, weights, dynamos etc.
This is called a dam.  No. A dam uses water, not gravity and costs billions. This thing you can make yourself and uses no external fuel or another costly force to run. But it's not surprising that there is lack of funding for this kind of inventions. You can make a cheaper dam for 200W output, and if the dam's not using gravity then the water wouldn't be there right? I was thinking the dam uses earth .. now you got me confused. Not me. There is this guy from romania. He was in the DW news in October. And he made sort of a dynamo ran engine, that used weights. Weights were welded onto metal bars and they were just "free" spinning, based on Earth's magnetic field, creating electrical energy using magnets. Nothing else. And it's an early stage of development. Here is another invention, that might give you more perspective - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUOnYxRcDHU. A Bulgarian guy that lives in Utah. There is such thing as free energy. It's what drives universe. And people have nothing to do with it. We just have to learn how to master it. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: I know there is no such thing as 'free energy' but what if it was possible?
|
on: December 21, 2014, 07:25:42 AM
|
I watched this documentary about a European engineer (I think Romanian) who invented an electrical generator, that uses the Earth graviational field to produce 200W of electricity. All materials used were basic - rotors, weights, dynamos etc.
This is called a dam. No. A dam uses water, not gravity and costs billions. This thing you can make yourself and uses no external fuel or another costly force to run. But it's not surprising that there is lack of funding for this kind of inventions. |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: I know there is no such thing as 'free energy' but what if it was possible?
|
on: December 20, 2014, 03:52:04 PM
|
I know this is a science forum and not a forum for conspiracy theorists but I have always been intrigued by the idea of a world where everyone has access to 'free' energy. What impact would it have on the world? Would it solve 99 per cent of all problems?
Actually, you know shit. Energy in the Universe does not evaporate. It goes from one form to another. The fact that we (humans) don't know how to use the infinite energy of the Universe, doesn't mean that there won't be a way for us to USE (not manufacture) free energy. I watched this documentary about a European engineer (I think Romanian) who invented an electrical generator, that uses the Earth graviational field to produce 200W of electricity. All materials used were basic - rotors, weights, dynamos etc. What you also need to know is that Tesla invented back in the 1900s a method of wireless electricity transmission. His main financier, however was one of the biggest producers of copper wiring and he stopped his funding. Of course when there is a matter over trillions of dollars rich people wouldn't just go with new methods of free energy. That would ruin everything for them. In 100 years they will probably "invent" (consider pull ot of a safe) a new way for free energy, but they will still sell it to people, just for 10 times lesser amounts of money than now. If anyone could produce, sell and distribute their own energy, then the center of power would shift. And power is more addictive than any drug, or money. |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Answer the question above with a question.
|
on: December 20, 2014, 03:44:56 PM
|
shouldn't we go with this fork, since it's more interesting?
Let's get rid of all the quotes, shall we? Only if, "Are you going to tell me why my former quark pic won't load?"  This thread has taken a paltry direction has it not? Do we need a more blue-sky approach to knowledge-based logistical consulting ? Do we need more "Do-we-need"s? |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why is Africa stuck in the stone age?
|
on: December 19, 2014, 11:47:21 AM
|
|
Socialism, greed and the shaman tradition.
Socialism - most of the countries in Africa with small exceptions are socialist countries. Meaning that their ideology is in a total clash with modern world. It's obsolete, corrupt and covered in mold. Although they claim to have free market it's based on "who has what" policy, not on the "who did what", or "who spent how much to make that much". It's basically a right of the born rich to get richer and it's forbidden for the poor to elevate in the social staircase. And no, thats not capitalism. That's neo-socialism.
Greed - no need to write much about it, but there are billionaires in Africa, who are billionaires because they steal from their own countries. Mostly government officials - also product of the Socialism.
Shanam tradition - IDK if that's a correct term for it, but even to this day, people in Africa listen first to the shaman of their tribe, and last to anything else - officials, family members, etc. So there are tribe chiefs and shamans, who own vast amounts of money (hundreds of millions of dollars) and several fiancees, multiple golden cars etc, while their tribesmen starve (literally). They claim to have right over people's lives and lands, have armies of kids with AKs who are stoned on meth and are ready to kill at command.
That's why. And it's a vicious cycle. A magic circle that cannot be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
