Comments are moderated before they will appear on the website, this is a manual process and may take some time. Please be patient.
Author Name is a required field.
Email Address is optional, but without one I won't be able to contact you back. It is never shown or linked on the website. You can always just email me if you'd rather not post a public comment. I generally reply in-line with a comment rather than email you back, unless I want to discuss something in private or off topic. Please check back to see when I reply.
Website URL is optional, if supplied the Author Name will be hyperlinked to this URL.
You may use wikitext in the body, preview may be handy here. Don't worry if you can't figure them out, just give me a hint what you want linked to what and I'll do it during moderation. Wikitext is not BBcode!
Spammers: Please don't bother wasting your time scripting up posts to this form. Everything is moderated, your post will never be seen on the web even transiently, there is no way to even view it by its internal ID, it will never be indexed. I will simply delete your post in the moderation interface. If I'm your target audience you're really on the wrong track; I'll never click on a URL in your garbage. The post content is not emailed to me (and I don't use a Win32 mail client anyway), I view the posts in plain text in the moderation interface so no clever tricks of any kind will make anything you type be interpreted by anything other than me, a human. Just give up and go elsewhere please!
29th April 2008 03:47
Alan,
Thanks for holding my feet to the fire and being open minded, I like that.
Here the Feynman account of the incident.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.htmlThe Feynman explanation does not hold water or explain anything. He is intimating that a hidden battery blew up because it was taken off the charger or because Papp worked with rockets in the past it was a fraud? How scientific...
The reality is Feynman did not expose a hoax and Caltech paid Papp in a lawsuit where a man was killed and others injured. That speaks volumes, follow the money.
Here is more info.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JosephPapp/index.htmlNow I seriously doubt that this information is in error and it could be verified quite easily since it is a matter of the court, or not.
US Patent 4428193
Here is a quote:
Brief History: In 1967, Joseph Papp built a modified Volvo engine to run on a sealed charge of noble gases in the cylinders. It was publicly demonstrated in Los Angeles in '68. The engine controls were run on 110 VAC wall current through an extension cord. Richard Feynman attended and pulled the plug; the engine continued to run for several minutes, but began running rough. Papp took away the plug from Feynman and plugged it back in. The engine exploded. One person was killed. Feynman accused Papp of using explosives to deliberately destroy the engine to keep the supposed hoax alive. Papp sued Feynman and Caltech, and Caltech settled out of court in Papp's favor. If explosives were used, Caltech would never have settled out of court.
Papp went on to improve the engine design until 1989 when he died. He did not fully disclose his invention, despite 3 patents and many business associates who helped him build several working engines. The USPTO required a certified dynamometer test in '83 that was done, and the third patent was issued in '84. The dyno results were in the neighborhood of 500 ft lbs of torque at 500 rpm and 100 hp.
Here are a few more references to my Feynman comment:
http://rohnermachine.com/Files/MysteryandLegacyofPappEngine.pdfI also wrote about the Methernitha. Do you really believe they built all those machines as some elaborate hoax? Now that would be a conspiracy theory worthy of the tinfoil hat award.
Just because we can't explain or replicate something does not mean it is a fake, it just means we don't know. It is that jump to the magical thought of knowing or being able to dismiss something that is the insanity of steer reviewed science these days.
A good example of mass to atomic energy conversion would be JL Naudin and his MAHG project:
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/index.htmThe H2 converts to H1 in the plasma cavitation and both heat and electric power are released. Naudin is only harvesting the heat.
A Russian scientist is doing basically the same thing in a quartz tube but harvesting the electrical energy and it has been replicated more than a few times. In fact, it was the first vacuum tube ever invented. The Gray tube is the same basic process.
This process is well known, understood and not pseudo science. Since 1 cubic mm of mass has an estimated energy equal to the power New York City consumes in a day, I doubt anyone would ever miss the mass. In fact, if you ever need a drop of free water or a free cubic mm of copper, I will gladly send you all you want if you pay the postage.
Since you have to pay for the postage and the mass is being converted to energy it isn't free energy but trust me Alan, it isn't four bucks a gallon either. :-)
This is the simple discussion that needs to take place regarding the term "free energy" to clear away the BS on both sides of the argument.
Another example:
F=MA
The law of force of force has three exceptions. One is if the mass is moving at or NEAR quantum speeds.
"Nobody ever thought of using an accelerator before" - Stan Meyer
People claim that Faraday's laws regarding electrolysis cannot be broken. In reality, they have been broken many times which allows for the use of water as fuel.
Stan Meyer's last words after a toast with NATO officials after he developed a water fuel system for the Humvee's was "I have been poisoned." He stumbled out to the parking lot and died.
Stan refused a 1 billion dollar buyout offer to keep it quiet and not move forward. Do you need me to send you photos of his final products he built for the military?
I will make you a deal: If you are as open minded as you claim, go rent the movie WHTDWK and after that I will share something privately with you that I have figured out. You will never look at electricity or yourself for that matter, the same ever again.
You will enjoy the movie, I promise.
28th April 2008 15:06
Ray,
I'm sorry, but I can't let you get away with this:
It is worth pointing out that Dr. Feynman once killed an onlooker at a free energy demonstration in an attempt to prove it was a hoax. The energy release caused an explosion killing someone instantly. Maybe that is one reason he is a bit more open minded?Feynman was one of the greatest minds ever to grace our planet. You better have a verifiable reference for this claimed event!
Personally I think you've been influenced by some very poor quality material, authored by people who are ignorant of basic Physics, or are extremely malicious with odd agendas (or perhaps just mentally ill). You'd do well to read/watch some of the fine educational material Feynman made during his unfortunately short time here.
Regards,
Alan
28th April 2008 14:55
Ray,
I don't hear any science here. Please post references to "over unity energy devices that have ... been verified". To my knowledge absolutely none have ever withstood peer review.
The only work called "what the bleep is going on here" I know is a political one, not a scientific one. There is the infamous pseudo-science nonsense "What the Bleep Do We Know!?". You might like to post some URLs where I can read up on the material you are talking about.
Science is all about refining our understanding of the universe. Science loves "hard questions", it asks them all the time, it has many that remain unanswered. It is OK to have doubts about things in Science, it thrives on challenge and change, but you must back up amazing claims with outstanding evidence or else all you have is Faith. That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about Science, especially in religious circles, it isn't about being "right" or "wrong", its about improving our model of the universe.
I have a very open mind, but to misquote Feynman, it is not so open that my brain has fallen out!
Regards,
Alan
28th April 2008 14:34
Correction... The movie is called "What the Bleep Do We know?"
If you just want to fix my last post that would be great.
http://www.whatthebleep.com/It is worth pointing out that Dr. Feynman once killed an onlooker at a free energy demonstration in an attempt to prove it was a hoax. The energy release caused an explosion killing someone instantly. Maybe that is one reason he is a bit more open minded?
28th April 2008 14:15
Dear Alan,
You wrote:
"I don't know what the heck the Aharonov-Bohm effect has to do with this topic? It is a non-local quantum field effect, interesting, but not a "creation" event, in any sense of that word. I guess it is the new "Zero-point Energy" for the free-energy freaks to talk about? What the heck is "electromagnetic cavitation"?"
You might rent a movie called "what the bleep is going on here."
It has some well known scientist like Dr. Mandelbrot, Dr. Feyman and other names you might recognize asking science some tough questions.
What is an electromagnetic cavitation? An electric arc is an electromagnetic cavitation.
All over unity energy devices that have ever been verified all have one thing in common, they all have produce cavitation and that is key to converting mass into its atomic energy.
The Methernitha for example: The arc takes place in the top of the coil cans and can be plainly seen in a photo. In one photo, you can see the back of the horseshoe magnet, they are wired so the charge is split between the legs, one North and one South.
The base Anarov Bohm experiment involves splitting an electron stream on the sharp face of a magnet, two AL reflectors and some brass mesh at the end.
This is a very dangerous experiment since it produces a persistent spin curl wave that can not be shielded and will remain for a time after power is removed.
It is detected with a solenoid not connected to anything which clicks even after power is removed.
I could go on with other devices that have been replicated and peer reviewed but it would be pointless.
I think I have figured out a few of the answers to the question they ask in "What the bleep is going on here?" One of them is the double slit experiment. It would take an open mind and a good understanding of Anarov Bohm to comprehend the information. It is something that I would prefer to keep to myself for now since the answer is going to really going to challenge science with some really tough questions. I want lay it out in a proper forum and in a well written text.
One thing I am sure of, it will create quite a debate for all.
28th April 2008 12:31
Ray,
I knew that comment would stir up someone in the Free Energy community. :)
Please don't feel I am bashing genuine research into alternative energy production, but I am completely sick and tired of hearing the same old pseudo-science crap on hundreds of web pages talking about water-fuels, over-unity, anti-gravity, conspiracy, blah, blah... If any of these devices were repeatable practical ways of generating energy the inventor would be the saviour of mankind (not to mention a billionaire over night).
There are two definitions of "free" energy for this discussion:
- Thermodynamic Free Energy
- Over-Unity/Perpetual Motion Energy
Thermodynamic Free Energy is extractable, something we can make use of doing real work. The other Free Energy appears to be a fantasy in this universe.
The real Free Energy isn't "free" in any monetary sense. It costs money/energy to acquire fuel and a machine to use it. Fuel in this context is the expendable part of the machine which contains the Thermodynamic Free Energy to be extracted and put to work. The fuel might be one or more chemicals, radio isotopes, etc.
The Sun releases nuclear binding energy from Fusion reactions. This is similar to Fission or Fusion nuclear weapons, or Fission reactors. Solar energy can be collected at reasonable efficiency using photovoltaics or thermal approaches, but this isn't "free" again, the sun has a finite (but relatively immense) life and solar cells also have a (much shorter) finite service life. Making solar cells takes a lot of energy; 20 years ago more than they output in their lifetime (but now they are capable of making more energy over their life than it took to make them).
The sun also made all our fossil fuels (according to the biogenic theory anyway). Millions of years ago early life forms soaked up the sun light at even worse efficiency than our current solar cells. They left us a huge pool of easily extractable and usable energy, and humans are using it up much faster than it was made.
Any of these energy sources are finite -> not free! The Free Energy I am dismissing is the kind of fantasy where you have a machine which you assemble once and it outputs energy forever, far more than all the Thermodynamic Free Energy the matter it is composed of contains. It is important to realise the "machine" in this context is the complete system - if the Sun is your fuel you need to include that too.
Solar and other nuclear systems are practically "free" once the cost of their initial construction is amortised over their service life. You could make the same argument over fossil biogenic fuels, except the available pool of fuel is somewhat smaller.
Eventually you'll run out of anything, Uranium, Thorium, Hydrogen right up to Iron. There is no magic infinite lake of energy in the quantum vacuum, that is a mathematical construct. As far as we know there is no way to "polarise" the quantum foam and extract energy from it. All we have is the thermodynamic disequilibrium of clumpy hot matter gifted to this universe by Inflation to make use of.
I don't know what the heck the Aharonov-Bohm effect has to do with this topic? It is a non-local quantum field effect, interesting, but not a "creation" event, in any sense of that word. I guess it is the new "Zero-point Energy" for the free-energy freaks to talk about? What the heck is "electromagnetic cavitation"?
Electricity is motion of charge. It lets us control energy flow with great subtlety, it is the basis for almost all our technology. I only wish we could control the other three forces of nature as easily. Electromagnetic fields are energy radiated away from from accelerated charges in the form of photons. Photons can interact with charges and accelerate them. This allows transduction between electrical current and EM radiation, we call it Radio and Optics.
Regards,
Alan
28th April 2008 02:11
Dear Alan,
I am a "free energy freak" but I get the measurement problems people are having. Everyone has to start somewhere and we shouldn't look down on someone that is just starting out. It is sort of like beating up a first grader.
Free energy is converting mass into the atomic energy contained in the mass. To suggest there is no such thing as a free energy device is to suggest there is no such thing as a hydrogen bomb. The largest energy release humans ever created was with a free energy machine and it was accomplished by government "free energy freaks" and some of the best scientists of the time.
A plasma is not so much a state of matter as it is matter in a state of change. The electromagnetic cavitation produces electron cascade and those electrons and subsequent energy release are a mass to energy conversion.
Anarov Bohm effect, which is what electricity is actually is created from, is the result of EM cavitation on the surface of a wire. Nanotech is quietly doing massive amounts of research on this subject (what quantum science calls "creation event") Notice they didn't call it "conversion event"?
The mass to energy conversion is produced by the electrons scraping and breaking mass. The electron split point and subsequent cavitation occurs behind the magnet/collector.
So you see the term "free energy" is used by academics to bash those searching for freedom from the oil men and bankers and it is used by the free energy researchers that lack an understanding of thermodynamics or Fourier analysis.
Oddly, both crowds are blind to that big bright free energy machine that powers our solar system reliably converting mass into energy. Our lives depend on a free energy machine.
Belief and disbelief are the same thing in that they are both magical thoughts. Here is what sanity sounds like:
There are things that I know and things that I do not know.
Here is what wisdom and intelligence sounds like:
I do not know what I do not know.
I enjoy your web site and information you provide and I hope you enjoy my push back from a "free energy freak" as well. I also hope you have the integrity to post my response.
We are all in the same boat and all trying to make the world a better place in our own ways.
All my best,
Ray
19th April 2008 02:50
I've played with negistors before and used them as very simple current controlled oscillators, but I haven't got the great idea to make regenerative receiver with it. Someone should definitely try that!
29th April 2008 11:45
Alan Yates wrote...