bad idea

[V4Vendettas]

seems legit tbh. why no ones ever belive in betters

[1713578470]

1713578470

[1713578470]

1713578470

[1713578470]

1713578470

[MoonShadow]

Wow, sounds great!!!!!! Don't sell machines at $5000. Sell the license to GE at $1 billion please!!!!!!!!!!! Write a paper about your invention and you will get a nobel prize!!!!!!!!You will be named as a hero of mankind!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm about to burst the bubble of both the original poster and of those who are trolling the original poster due to the abject impossibility of conservation of energy.  If this is what I think that it is, 1) it's not a 'free energy' or over parity device and 2) it's already patented, but the details of how to do it is considered so dangerous that it's been redacted long ago.  Hardcore government types, who wouldn't give a moments thought to the risks involved with global warming, will be more than happy to burn you at the stake should  they discover you know how this device works.  This is because, once I explain the device, the risks to life on Earth should be obvious to any rational person.

As the scientificly educated here have already pointed out, a closed system cannot produce more energy than it requires to operate.  These are the two laws of thermodynamics that prohibit 'free energy' devices from working, as there must be a higher energy state to lower energy state even occuring in order for (useful) energy to be harnessed.  Said another way, there must be an energy flow from a condition of high energy into a lower energy state sink.  Once the two states are of equal potential, the ability to harness useful energy is lost.

So, in general, let me explain how this device "works".  (Full disclaimer, I've never seen this device actually produce over parity, only the credible theory on how it could, and why it would be bad even if it never achieves over parity)  The device is basicly a magneticly levitated flywheel, of mostly non-ferrous construction, with an array of magnets embedded into it's outer ring.  The array of magnets are aligned in all three axis.  Some of these magnets are used to keep the device leviated and centered, while others are used as an inverted brushless motor armature.  The entire device needs to be in a near total vacuum to reduce friction, for it needs to spin very fast.  Now, I've just described a magneticly levitated energy storage device, and one that has been invented and reinvented by multiple people, but has not and will not ever reach mass production.  Not because it doesn't work well for that use, but because of the (largely unintentional, and theoretical) side effects of large number of these fast spinning magnetic disks on the surface of the Earth. 

Here's the problem in a nutshell, the only way to build such a maglev flywheel is to have it spinning parrallel with the surface of the Earth, as there are many reason why any other oriantation is difficult to build.  The disk, being basicly a flat, spinning magnet can and does, however small the effect might be, interact with the magnesphere of the Earth itself.  This fact, taken alone, means that the magnetic field of the Earth is a drag on the motion of the spinning disk, as the disk is a moving magnet inside another stationary magnetic field.  Relative motion is what creates electomagnetic current.  This is how most people would look at this.

However, the magnesphere isn't the only magnetic field of concern.  The Sun also produces a magnesphere, which interacts with the Earth's.  It is thus theoreticly possible for such a disk, of the perfect set of size and rpm's, at an unknown resonate frequency, to draw an incrediblely small amount of momentum from the relative motion of the Earth's field spinning inside of the Sun's, even while itself sitting on the face of the Earth and not in any real motion relative to that field from a macro viewpoint.  This would be akin to those quantum level 'eddys' that plague researchers trying to develop room temp superconductors.  This would be a rare and unlikely event if the device was not tuned specifily to do so, but if tens of thousands were built for electic vehicles, or any other reason, the odds that someone will, by accident or intent, stumble across the perfect resonate frequency required to draw off large amounts of 'free energy' from unkonw sources increases.  That source would then be the spinning of the Earth itself.  Obviously, this occurs naturally, and the spinning of the Earth does gradually slow down on it's own.  Ever wonder how the Earth's spin could slow, even though it's an object spinning in open vacuum?  This is how.  The observation is known as the Corrillus (sp?) effect.  Taken to it's logical conclusion, such magnetic objects spinning in open space eventually 'lock' their spin to their orbit, thus presenting only one face to their host object.  We have a number of celestial examples of 'locked' moons in our solar system, not limited to out own.

Now, obviously, drawing momentum off of the rotation of the Earth itself would be a very bad thing, if it were to ever to occur as a matter of course.  A collection of tens of thousands of such devices, used over generations, and the slowing of the Earth could become considerable.  Granted, the momentum of the Earth is astronomical compared to the energy needs of humankind, but once this kind of tech were loose, there is no way to know for certain if it can be used to spin up the Earth later on.  The long term effects on terrestial life would be unpredictable at best.

Then again, an extra hour each day might help me to get things done.

[Big Time Coin]

Wow Moonshadow you just upped this thread to a whole 'nother level.  What is your opinion on these theories:

1) Mars had intelligent life on it, millions of years ago, that reached an advanced stage of civilization far beyond our own.  Much metal was mined and brought to the surface.  But science destroyed the magnetic field of Mars that protected it from the Sun.  The atmosphere and life on that planet was destroyed without the magnetic field to protect it.  All turned to rust and eroded to dust, leaving no trace.

2) Tesla was trying to build a power generation/storeage device that used the entire planet earth as the resonator, essentially turning earth into a tesla coil.  Not only did he cause an explosion at his Wizard Tower lab while doing experiments on this project, but he also caused a giant explosion in siberia when the huge electrical currents exploded underground fuel deposits.

 

[MoonShadow]

Wow Moonshadow you just upped this thread to a whole 'nother level.  What is your opinion on these theories:

1) Mars had intelligent life on it, millions of years ago, that reached an advanced stage of civilization far beyond our own.  Much metal was mined and brought to the surface.  But science destroyed the magnetic field of Mars that protected it from the Sun.  The atmosphere and life on that planet was destroyed without the magnetic field to protect it.  All turned to rust and eroded to dust, leaving no trace.

I'd bet that Mars had life on it at one point, but I have no opinion about the intelligent part.  I'm still not sure that there is intelligent life on Earth.  As a aside, what if humanity evolved on Mars, and we are refugees.  That would explain the missing link issue.  I have no idea, just speculating.

The atmosphere of Mars was most likely lost because the molten (reactor) core failed criticality, and thus plate technonics failed.  The Earth wouldn't have an atmostphere to speak of either without the replacement effects of volcanos.  Given enough time, the vast majority of gases would be absorbed into chemical molecules until the pressure was no longer sufficient to maintain liquid water, at which point the oceans would slowly boil away into near space.  This would have occurred over millinia, and can't reasonablely be called a catastrophe, as it would have been long forseeable by intelligent creatures.  Can't be stopped, can be avoided.  It's possible that the life cycles plants and animals could slow down this process of atmostphere loss, but I'd doubt it.

2) Tesla was trying to build a power generation/storeage device that used the entire planet earth as the resonator, essentially turning earth into a tesla coil.  Not only did he cause an explosion at his Wizard Tower lab while doing experiments on this project, but he also caused a giant explosion in siberia when the huge electrical currents exploded underground fuel deposits.

To say that Tesla was a mad genius was an understatement.  The idea of turning the entire Earth into a tesla coil begs the question, what then is your low-energy sink?  In the case of a normal Tesla coil, it's the Earth and the energy source is the ambiant electromagnetic spectrum.  As far as the Earth as a whole, there is a substantial ambiant electromagnetic specturm to draw from, but where then would it go?  You still need a flow of energy in order to draw useful work.

The story about the explosion in siberia that destroyed his massive attempt to build a tesla coil, although plausible considering we now know that there is a great deal of natural gas in Siberia, still sounds like a cover story to myself.  The tower was destroyed, but it was more likely that it was destroyed by actual explosives.  There were many people who were afraid of Tesla actually succeeding, in much the same way that people today are afraid of the supercollider succeeding in creating a naked singularity.  Silly, to be sure, but fear of the unknown is a powerful motivator; and Tesla had some well heeled enemies anyway.  Not the least of which was the founder of General Electic.

And natural gas doesn't explode while in the ground, because there is no oxygen.  If there were enough oxygen to burn it, then the natural gas wouldn't have formed as it did.

[Kansattica]

So... how's that machine to turn trolling into electricity going?

[BombaUcigasa]

Now that is a great picture!  I have always wanted to have exactly this picture.  It immediatly shows why gasoline is used in cars (over lower energy density options).  Where did you get this diagram?

Wikipedia. You can get a low to mid level understanding of any person/object/process/event just by reading a short article. In some cases, you can reach meta analysis and an overall summary of years of personal studies in just minutes.

Due to breach of trust and gross negligence by Sirius and Theymos who recklessly transferred my private and personal data on this forum to a Japaneze company without my permission I am leaving this forum and deleting all my posts. Goodbye.

Due to you being an asshole about 0-day exploits that happen to even top security companies who spend millions of dollars on research and development for security, I will be glad I won't have to read your idiotic posts in the future.

[BombaUcigasa]

Rosenthal's Measurements: Negative Result Reports

Engineers Reporting Negative Results: Rosenthal and Cole ~  Ian Bryce
Report by Sterling D. Allan   (March 8, 2003)

Engineers, Walt Rosenthal and Parke Cole were invited to measure the Lutec1000 in January 2001.  Their measurements showed results showed 28% efficiency.  The exchange was amendable, despite the negative test results.  Rosenthal stated, "I walked them through the calculations carefully so they would understand, but they didn't want to believe the results."  Test entailed a dynamometer measuring output the motor, powering with power supply from wall producing DC volts, optical shaft encoder on end of shaft to measure rpm.  Results showed 50 Watts power going in and 14 Watts equivalent of mechanical power coming out.
 

[/quote]
When purchasing solar cells, you should look into the producer's specifications sheet for the voltage/current charts and the power curve.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/SolarCell-IVgraph3-E.PNG

By assuming you will get maximum voltage when you have maximum current draw you may get the wrong numbers, making a converter apparently display over-unity efficiency. Only when charting the output against loads between minimum and maximum, are you able to calculate efficiencies for the device, according to usage scenarios.

You cannot create energy from nothing

How did the Big Bang happen then? Everything came from nothing. Nothing goes in, everything goes out, you can't explain that!

[BombaUcigasa]

It is thus theoreticly possible for such a disk, of the perfect set of size and rpm's, at an unknown resonate frequency, to draw an incrediblely small amount of momentum from the relative motion of the Earth's field spinning inside of the Sun's, even while itself sitting on the face of the Earth and not in any real motion relative to that field from a macro viewpoint.  This would be akin to those quantum level 'eddys' that plague researchers trying to develop room temp superconductors.

1. Lots of ifs and buts, not even a theoretical model, just a make-believe story about how the Sun's magnetic field can have higher intensities than our Earth's magnetic field at ground level. Allow me to smirk.

2. You seem to conveniently forget or knowingly exclude the magnetic field depletion from the "fuel" magnets that are constantly moving through powerful magnetic fields. These magnets will decay their power orders of magnitude faster than your perfectly aligned solar magnetosphere resonating positive feedback field increase. Do you understand this?

3. Supercooled materials, or even a supercooled machine of similar design COULD work at close to 100% efficiency, but certainly not over, again, same reasons as above. A non over-unity machine is useless, and maintaining supercooled temperatures requires significant power. It's useful if you want to transmit power over long distances, but this use scenario is not profitable.

Again, people seem to forget that "big magnet" can magnetize "small steel piece", but they never think that the big magnet is affected as well. And we're talking about a machine that uses all strong magnets. Nothing really vanishes, everything transforms.

[organofcorti]

Again, people seem to forget that "big magnet" can magnetize "small steel piece", but they never think that the big magnet is affected as well. And we're talking about a machine that uses all strong magnets. Nothing really vanishes, everything transforms.

I'd like to iterate, if I may:

[Gabi]

You cannot create energy from nothing

How did the Big Bang happen then? Everything came from nothing. Nothing goes in, everything goes out, you can't explain that!
[/quote]

Argument fallacy, you are implying that the big bang created things from nothing and that then it is still possible to do the same

We cannot explain the big bang, easy. Does this means we can create energy from nothing? No. So, stop trolling 

[phelix]

So... how's that machine to turn trolling into electricity going?

ahh... the famous troll energy 

[terrytibbs]

Great, where do I send my money?

Btw, whereabouts are you in Aussie?

That will be fifty trillion ixcoins, please!

LOL

[PatrickHarnett]

http://www.ripoffreport.com/electronic-manufacturers/lutec-australia-pty/lutec-australia-pty-false-dis-cwa92.htm

fools and money = parted

[TiagoTiago]

Australia, eh? I wonder if i can find among their granted patents a "method and apparatus for attracting and capturing tooth fairies"...

[SgtMoth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g59cGTswGCI

[Cussmob_CUE]

A perpetual motion machine by any other name still smells like shit. 

[BadBear]

You cannot create energy from nothing

How did the Big Bang happen then? Everything came from nothing. Nothing goes in, everything goes out, you can't explain that!

Argument fallacy, you are implying that the big bang created things from nothing and that then it is still possible to do the same

We cannot explain the big bang, easy. Does this means we can create energy from nothing? No. So, stop trolling 
[/quote]

Of course we can't, God did, and in 7 days too.  It's amazing!

[indicasteve]

[MaGNeT]

I thought scams/fraud is not allowed on this forum?

[madnod]

http://trollscience.com/image/f/full/8dff6ab64e09451e30476175170f9ec0.jpg