Slashdot Mirror
News Media Scammed by 'Free Energy' Hoax
The General Electric corporate empire was scammed - they modified the story with a skeptical headline but otherwise left it alone. The AOL/TimeWarner corporate empire didn't have any problem with the story. The Environmental News Network, which probably should know better, didn't.
Now I know that wire stories are often run with minimal verification - each paper or website assumes that Reuters, or UPI, or AP has checked the story for veracity before it went out. And I know that reporters and editors can't be experts on every field of endeavor that they report on.
But this is Basic Science. The Three Laws (everyone loves the Second Law[1]) are not a new thing, and they're not going away any time soon. This should have been taught in junior high. There's a simple, well-known test that Reuters could have applied to this story: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". This claim is the most extraordinary of all - free energy, perpetual motion, whatever you want to call it, and it demands proof beyond question. Reuters is running this story based on an anonymous inventor. Is that extraordinary proof?
But wait, I said perpetual motion. The phrase "perpetual motion" is one which sets off alarm bells in people's heads, so the anonymous inventor was quick to head off that thought process:
"But he is keen to head off the notion that he has tapped into the age-old myth of perpetual motion. ``Perpetual motion is impossible. This is a self-sustaining unit which at the same time provides surplus electrical energy,'' he said."
This quote is simply embarassing. It parses to "Perpetual motion is impossible. This is a perpetual motion unit." The inventor must be snickering in his Guinness right now to have snuck that one past.
The story gets better when you read it several times. Three 100 Watt light bulbs created a drain of 4500 Watts, according to the nameless inventor. That would be an impressive feat all by itself, except that it's total nonsense.
The piece would have made a good humor article. A properly skeptical and properly educated Reuters reporter could have examined these claims, poked holes in them, and published a story that simultaneously reported on the claims and educated the public about why they are a load of hogwash. Too bad that's not what happened.
Maybe you'd like to take a crack at evaluating their claims? You think you can examine their device a little more critically than Reuters? Give them a call.
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy. To test this claim, I'll send a Thinkgeek t-shirt to the first person who finds a retraction of this 'free energy' story published by Reuters or any of the newspapers/media outlets that ran the original story. *Any* of them. I don't expect to pay out.
Update: 01/24 16:38 GMT by M : CNN has updated their story with a new headline and several new paragraphs at the end, which qualifies. A couple of people also noted that ZDNet appears to have taken their copy of the wire story down. Lucas Garsha was the first to email, so he gets a t-shirt. I wasn't clear whether the claim should be email or in the comments, so I'll also send a t-shirt to the first commenter noting this, which appears to be skia.
[1] This is a fine world that we live in, where I can find a website devoted to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Not only did he scam most news agencies, he drinks Guinness.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
How quickly we are to jump to wondrous conclusions. I doubt this is a real application of the zero-point effect. I guess all the news media personell who were working 12 years ago when cold fusion came out have moved on and weren't around to lend caution where it was needed?
max inglis
Someday, I'll live in a world where every child grows up with a decent science education and critical thinking is encouraged...
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
But the *$!? lameness filter won't let me type it in.
Carousel is a lie!
-- Homer Simpson
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
RedHat being bought out by AOL/Time Warner, a perpetual energy machine... the funny headlines keep flying. What's next? John Romero teams up with Jon Katz to create an ultimate Net-based first-player shooter that dissects the problems of big corporations in detail?
--Chag
I don't know about that assumption that the media/news outlets never do retractions. If you do read an actual physical newspaper, you'll see that usually on the editor's page they do print retractions and corrections.
It's quite possible that a) they don't even know that the story is wrong, b) no one has read and analyzed some tiny newstory from AP/Reuters/etc.. and c) no one has told them it's wrong.
Why don't you write your local paper that ran the story, and let them know? How else are they going to know to print a retraction/correction?
"If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness."
Nothing is more inportant than Guinness. Nothing.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
If you're going to draw the line, please finish it.
If you require "extraordinary proof" to refute science, why not define what you need? I agree that running a light bulb for three hours isn't that impressive, and this is probably a scam of some sort.
But on the same time, science demands that we ask "what if this is true?". If he really has a free energy device, what amazing thing could he do to prove that it works?
My own suggestion: go to an ivy-league school (heck, any college) and set the darn thing up powering something that causes a healthy drain. (*not* a lightbulb... well, maybe a strobe light or something that really sucks up the juice) and let it go until it stops.
Once the bulb stops, plug it into the wall and see if it starts. If it does, the invention's probably not free energy. If it doesn't, plug in another bulb and see how long THAT one lasts.
A year or so of healthy drain would be enough to prove free energy, don't you think? Or at least, enough to get the damn patent and immortalize the freakish invention.
Drat! Some domain squatter already snapped up secondlawofthermodynamics.com!!
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Well, doesn't this bring us one step closer to the Infinite Improbability Drive ?? Hmm ??
I wonder if the inventor will prove NP=P and provide a 2 terraherz processor that can be overclocked indefinitely with zero waste heat.
:-)
Personally, I think this story is a hoot!
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
"The 58-year-old electrical engineer, who lives in the Irish republic and intends -- for ``security and publicity-avoidance reasons'' -- to keep his identity a secret, has spent 23 years perfecting the Jasker Power System."
Ummm... Mr. Jasker... I think we let the cat out of the bag.
You, sir, are under arrest for violating the laws of physics. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, but having an attorney won't help you if you're stupid.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Next time you are handed one of those promotional AOL CDs with a "free 70 hours", here is your new retort:
"So is that Free as in Beer, Free as in Speech, or Free as in Energy?"
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
And to demonstrate how true it is, he's going to launch the Eiffel Tower to the moon! All he needs is someone to come up with several billion dollars to purchase the tower, to be given to his partne- um, that little man with the false-looking mustache and glasses over there...
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Let's not even get into that whole Cold Fusion fiasco!
;)
Maybe that Mendocino guy could use this to power the town without all that nasty electromagnetic radiation?
sulli
RTFJ.
Troll? Please note use of ;-) emoticon.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Looks like CNN ran the story also.
Boy does this story take me back ... when I was in 5th grade this concept was the basis for my science fair project. I was *convinced* that I could make it work somehow ... some of my prototypes were combination wind tunnels (powered fans) and windmills (turbins/fans generating power) with my hopes of somehow using the right combination of equipment to generate more power from the turbins than it required to operate the wind tunnel and tapping into the surplus. Boy was I a dumb naieve kid! I didn't know much back then ... but I knew I loved experimenting. I still remember being absolutely *crushed* and hating my science teacher when he tried to explain to me that it was impossible -- laws of conservation of energy and all that jazz. I just did not want to believe him.
:) I guess the folks at Reuters are about par on my mental development at 5th grade ... sheesh.
Ah well, to be young and inquisitive and stubborn
Groove Salad -- a nicely chilled plate of ambient grooves and beats.
I find my self lost, does this picture remind me more of a leftover from the old Dr. Who episodes, or does it remind me of a future battle-bots participant?
A long while back the U.S Patent office got so many of these "perpetual energy" machines that the office head put down the policy that the inventor had to submit a working prototype. The office would then set it going and if it was still running a year later, they would consider the patent application. This cut down on the number of applications considerably.
A two hour test run is bullshit. Let's see it run for 2 years in an empty room, then we'll talk.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Anyhow, the "inventor" claims that his machine runs only until it wears out. So you need to to replace it. So it is not energy at no cost.
s/jail/Faraday Cage/
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
How do you determine if it's really a perpetual motion machine?
Get one of these, sit back, and watch it operate!
17 months of power?
Great for California but think of the global warming when everyone starts to use it and can't give a damn about wasted energy.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
Wouldn't it be ironic, the one time slashdot takes a high headed journalistic stand, it's for a some crazy story that some time from now turns out to be true.
J
The CNN article that's linked to here is the one I read. While it seems silly they even bothered to run this story, they at least offered significant skepticism and the words of several expert-types who said it was probably a big load of crap. In other words, they don't need to correct themselves, because they never said "this is true".
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
I don't care what you do in yours.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
(Disclaimer: I still think this thing is a load of bullocks, but I still refuse to dismiss it without acknowledging that this person may or may have not done it. I'll believe it when he/she/it rips it apart and shows us how it works)
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
There have been a number of people working on 'free energy' for some time, and some have had a good degree of success. Check out http://www.nexusmagazine.com/freeenergy.html for a summary of some of them, and some links.
And this 'three laws' thing? How many other laws of science have been revised, updated or completely discarded after new discoveries were made? How about the phlygisten theory? Earth is the center of the universe? The single shooter theory? Perhaps these laws of thermodynamics are only valid within a particular context, and the free energy comes from outside that context?
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
Isn't that what a (non rechargable) battery does?
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
"The machine went on to run for around two hours while photographs were taken, with no diminution in the brightness of the light bulbs, which remained lit during a short power cut."
Is it just me or does that imply that this "power generator" was plugged into an electrical supply?
"Three 100 Watt light bulbs created a drain of 4500 Watts, according to the nameless inventor."
You are assuming that the machine itself would take zero watts to run. The 4500 watt drain was on the battery, which, because it had to be there in the first place, proves that the machine requires energy.
They also were very careful to say that it isn't perpetual motion. Returners isn't exactly a scientific journal: they didn't even attempt to explain how the machine actually worked. So you can quote the laws of thermodynamics all you want, but it means nothing.
There is no doubt that this story is fake, but is there any actual confermation of that, other than your overzelous commentary?
-Galahad
I have invented this awesome technology. I call it "battery bootsrapping". Just take any ordinary battery operated electrical device and start it up with the batteries in place. While the apparatus is running, remove the batteries. Voila! YMMV, but my palm operated for exactly 0.00013 seconds before dying... zero point energy!
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy.
All of the reports said "So and so CLAIMED to have done X and Y." Reporting a claim is not the same as getting a story wrong. I'm not saying that they SHOULD have published it but I don't see why they should publish a retraction...
This guy also has an add in Popular scince
Is it for real?
Supposedly it uses Rare earth magnets to make a generator that powers your house.
Isn't that always the case? It's a fine line between genius and lunatic. :)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
Oh sheesh, the article has been debunked by someone who insists that 100W bulbs always and only disperse 100W of power!
Nice. Do all your 6A fuses always pass 6A of current as well? Now that would be a feat that would equal the subject of this article.
A bulb's wattage rating simply tells you how much power is consumed with a 120V 60 Hz AC Source. Change the input, increase the voltage, make it DC, your power dispersion will go up or down accordingly.
Still think it's total nonsense?
Then you power three 100W light bulbs for an hour. That's only 0.3kWh, or probably close to $0.05 worth of electricity.
Upon demonstration to the reporters, the three batteries on the outside are left with an "increased charge". The machine put out more than it took in *.
The secret: Four car batteries are in the box. It's self repleneshing! Demonstrate this to enough reporters, using nwe external batteries each time, and it will run forever!!!
Sigh.
*Editor's Note: If only more women were like that.
I haven't read physics since highschool, but IIRC Watts measures power which is energy / time. So 300 Watts running for 2 hours 10 minutes would draw:
300 W * (130 * 60 s) = 2,340,000 Joules
to gain that many Joules in 10 minutes would take
2,340,000 J / 600 s = 3,900 Watts
which isn't quite 4,500, but not far enough off to make the numbers ridiculous.
Any physics majors willing to correct me?
It has been a pipe-dream of inventors since Leonardo da Vinci...
... and, apparently, it still is.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
that means I'll never have to stop to charge my Segway Human Transporter!!
I knew this had to be fake. The energy has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? :P
proton != antielectron
Reuters never said that they believed the inventor. They only reported what the inventor's claims were.
They never said it couldn't turn out to be a hoax and even reported that other claims later proved to be hoaxes.
`These claims come along every 10 years or so and nothing ever comes of them. They're all cases of 'voodoo science','' said Robert Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland.
They reported both views of the claim. Give em a break.
Quite frankly, in my experience at least half of the Slashdot stories about physics are incorrect, whether due to hoaxes, a submitter who didn't understand what he was talking about, or an editor who just had to stick in that sentence of his own to prove how smart he was.
When it comes to science news, I don't trust Reuters to get it right, but I do trust them a hell of a lot more than Slashdot. So stop crowing so loudly over someone else's embarrassment.
...can think of a half dozen ways to power a hundred watt bulb for ten minutes just off the top of my head (ding!)... Wait a second...
:)
Anyhow, why not? I don't think the Second Law ever mentioned anything about a machine from Robot Wars...
There is simply too much glass..
Fake news as promotion, or even just for the heck of it (as seems to be the case here) is great when it's done well, but you usually don't need to read more than a paragraph or two to get the joke.
:/
It's discouraging that something like this got by an organization like Reuters.
I wouldn't say that Reuters was completely scammed. They did, after all, put this page not in the Science,or Tech categories, but in the "Lifestyle" category, note that the link directly after the title is to "Ann Landers."
Their view of the thing seems to be along the lines of "Hey, some guy claims he saw the Loch Ness Monster and he's building a submarine to search the lake."
*snicker* According to the CNN report, part of the "evidence" that the 4 12V car batteries were recharged while powering 3 100W light bulbs was the fact that the voltage actually increased from 48.9V to 51.2V.
Could there be any other reason for the voltage (and voltage alone, not power) to increase?
Surely it couldn't be something as trivial as the batteries warming up.... or would that only occur to someone who knows of the (really dangerous) way to deal with a dead battery in cold weather - hook up the jumper cables then short them. If you don't succeed in blowing up the battery, you may have warmed it up enough that it will have enough juice to turn the starter.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed.
Just similar to magic show, we all know it is a hoax. How to uncover the ground truth is the interesting part right now.
This is just my wild guess. The voltage reading looks really dubious to me. I suspect that the system consists of 4 lead-acid battery connected in series and connected to an external power sources.
48.9/4 => 12.2 (voltage before)
51.2/4 => 12.8 (voltage after)
These figures are typical for lead acid for such a charging regime.
He may hide the external power connection through non-cable charging solution (e.g. IPT: inductive power transfer). Probably the only truth in this article is that cheater is (was) an electrical engineer.
He quotes AL GORE! (The father of the internet.) That should have been a clue.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
So this guy claims to have made a perpetual motion machine? Here are some examples of other "revolutionary" perpetual motion machines--which of course don't work. (from the website of Professor R.P. Feynman.)
The underwater spinning donut
A pulley-based system
and a piston-based machine
The article is a factual account of what the reporter saw, what the "scientist" claimed, and it includes a lot of balancing views pointing out fairly obvious things like the laws of thermodynamics, etc.. The chances of this guy breaking the laws of thermodynamics are infinitismal, but the article doesn't claim any more than that. It is clearly written with tongue planted firmly in cheek ("the most important Irish invention since Guiness"?), and maybe if Americans understood the concepts of "sarcasm" and "subtlety" more people would have got the joke.
You can check out this for the math behind Free Energy.
Ha! I kill me!
I can't believe Reuters published that. It's the sort of story that belongs on Slashdot, not respectable media outlets.
The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a ****in a closed system***, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with -- some is always wasted. This means that a perpetual motion machine is impossible ****for a closed system****.
However, this device does not work as a closed system. It interacts with the outside environment. It accepts heat and light from the outside environment. Theoretically, it is possible for the device to convert heat and possibly solar energy into mechanical or electrical energy. Solar cells do it all the time.
It's not the size of a dishwasher. It's the size of a dryer. In fact it opens a dimensional portal to what we here at the Illuminati like to call the HoZone. For those unfaimilar with the term, this is the place where socks go when you put a pair in the dryer and only one comes out.
In order to derice energy from the HoZone, you must first open a portal. This is a simple initial energy expense which many generators must spend. After that, a rod which you can think of as similar to a lightening rod is pushed into the hole and static electricity is generated as if you put an AOL CD in the microwave. A simple frequency to voltage conversion!
Now for the real secret. HE DOESN'T USE DRYER SHEETS. That's right! Many experiments in the past failed because the scientists added dryer sheets specifically designed to remove static cling!
I'm hoping that no one will take this secret and use it for world domination. Responsibility!
--
Mike
What's a rave?
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
3 car batteries drained by 3 100W bulbs in 1 1/2 minutes?! A 100W bulb running at 110V draws (P=V*I) less than 1 amp. 3 of them would draw no more than 3 amps. Sears DieHard deep-cycle marine batteries have capacities of about 100 amp-hours per battery, or 300 amp-hours for 3 batteries.
Neglecting any other losses or AC-DC conversions, and why not, because we're apparently living in a thermodynamically perfect world now, those 3 batteries would power those 3 bulbs for more than 4 days, not 1 1/2 minutes.
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
Wrong side of keyboard == qwerty imprinted on the right side of my face, instead of the left..
How about if the inventor of said device allows himself/herself to be locked in a hermitically sealed container with their invention powering a CO2 scubber/Oxygen Generator. Wait 24 hours and open up. Yes/No.
Succesful completion of this test would be extraordinary and get peoples attention.
I was just forced to watch 10 X-files episodes in a row. Every single one of them had the "extraordinary evidence" vanish just before the end of the episode.
They wouldn't have filmed the X-files if these stories weren't true. Reuters wouldn't have printed this story if it weren't true.
Maybe this inventor not only invented a perpetual power source, he also invented HEAVY electricity. Three 100 watt light bulbs for two hours is normally only 0.6kwh, but if he has discovered HEAVY electricity, then perhaps 0.6kwh of light electricity == 4.5kwh of HEAVY electricity. Maybe this machine can convert HEAVY electricity into light electricity. Imagine replacing the engine in your car with a big, shiny dishwasher and a bunch of 12 volt HEAVY electricity batteries. You could charge it up every night, and each day you could drive to work and not use any mains energy or petrol. Wow! What a dream this guy has had, I can't believe nobody ever thought of this before.
Being stuck at home with the flu and 15 DVDs of the X-files can be an enlightening experience. Open your minds, slashdotters.
the AC
You can tell this is a joke, when they say this may be a more important invention than Guinness. Ha!
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Reuters science folks are idiots, out and out.
For those who've forgotten they ran the scam story on the guys who got 100 to 1 compression on random data.
Consistently flawed, and never post a correction.
It crazy, these guys do news and you'd think they'd have a clue. Not a chance.
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy....
Alright, finally, Michael got his chance to vent. Feel good, doesn't it?
It wouldn't work without the Heisenberg compensator....
Karma: Non-Heinous
he 'lives in the Irish republic and intends -- for ``security and publicity-avoidance reasons'' -- to keep his identity a secret'
Seems to me like that is a real good plan. Otherwise some goverment would probably show up and steal his 'research'.
Not the fact that mainstream press went along with this fake crap of his but really discredit those who have been trying to do serious research at this subject.
Now when anyone mentions cold fusion or free energy, people would just laugh their asses off.
If people spend more time on serious research and less on stupid prank, may be cold fusion might be accpected as one of the possible technology to replace today's fossil fuels.
kawai
It would probably be irresponsible to pull some strings at the newspaper I work at to have a retraction printed just for the t-shirt, wouldn't it...
Oh well.
Username taken, please choose another one.
"A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed."
Why do I have the suspicious feeling that this amazing new "free energy" device is, in fact, a capacitor?
Emitting a steady motorized hum, the machine powered three 100-watt light bulbs for the duration
Really? Wow. 3 light bulbs, you don't say!
Come on, one and a half minutes?!?!?! maybe one and a half YEARS...
I'm a 2000 man.
(For those of you unfamilar, DOW-C was forced into bankruptcy by a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of women 'seriously harmed' by beast implants. After months of media coverage of the health risk of the implants, a study by the AMA completely debunked the notion that the devices were harmful.)
If you do, this kind of story will come as no surprise. The media has always had a kind of fetish for junk science (and similar garbage). You probably won't see much from the media if this device is proven to be crap (near certainty).
Certainly, no one in the media (except John Stossel, after the trial) bothered to say anything about the DOW-Corning case.
Also, don't hold your breath expecting for verification (or anything else) of even remotely scientific topics by the media. They can't even reconcile stories that they run.
For example, during the 2000 presidential campaign, there were a lot of stories on the detrimental effects of Mexican wildfires on the air quality of Texas, while at the same time the media was covering claims that Texas had the worst air quality in the US due to petrochemical emissions. Uh, well, which is it?
Does anyone else think this guy just hooked a couple of car batteries up to a few capacitors?
Money does not abide by the laws of thermodynamics.
Uh, Northen Ireland is the same thing. Ireland is a different country.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Free bridge discovered in Brooklyn.
Thanks for reminding me about K5... I hadn't visited them much since their server problems back in December. Now, about the K5 readers being "...taken in...", allow me to quote the first comment -- I think it sums things up perfectly.
-- END OF LINE.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
This isn't necesarily total hogwash. Let's think about this.
- 4 100W light bulbs/4500W draw on batteries
Don't assume the light bulbs are the only thing drawing power from the batteries. That's a large box and can hold plenty of other electronic apperatus.
- Surplus Energy
I certainly don't believe this energy is coming out of nowhere, but that doesn't mean it's not there. The machine could be drawing power from ambient heat, various radiation, or even chemical reactions with air/water/gasses.
This probably is a hoax, but let's give it a little more consideration before totally dismissing it. I'm curious to know what really is going on in that box. Even if(though) it's not creating power from nothing, it could still be a viable power source.
Anyone want to translate this into English?
---
THE CREDIBLE OPTION
The simplest description of the invention would be a self-generating module. Its application is universal, covering generating systems, automotive power and basically anything which requires a power source.
This invention relates to a system that provides for the self-generation of instant and constant electricity. Also the system provides for mechanical energy through the application of the generated electricity.
This is accomplished, by utilisation of existing and proven state of the art technologies, combining novel features and innovative assembly techniques.
The credibility of the system is definitively established and can be interpreted and demonstrated as being "the practical application of accepted techniques".
There are no stages in the operation of this invention that require any constituent component to perform at anything other than that being, within its capability or in accordance with its specification.
All the parts for this invention are in practical and productive everyday use. The methodology technique is accomplished by the innovative application in logical sequence of specifically selected constituent components whose performance compliment each other and function in co-operation.
Attainment is determined by the systematic mathematical application in the defined mode, of the accurately selected operational segments.
In reality the achievement of this invention adheres strictly with known, accepted and proven physics principles. It is emphasised there are no new discoveries disproving accepted physics laws. To reiterate there are no physics heresies, no physics contradictions and no ambiguous claims.
This invention is achieved by the application and utilisation of a capital energy source to create a prolific income energy system, with the consequential composition being a "controlled loop, self-generating module", that produces instant and constant mechanical drive power and or instant and constant electrical power. This invention is mankind's first income energy reservoir from a capital energy source.
Those are old tech. They've been used in Transporters for years as in this article. You will notice that, in this case, the Heisenburg Compensation is done with Elmers Glue to make the electrons stay still during transport.
--
Mike
I eat glue!
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
Put on your critical thinking cap for a moment:
First of all:"A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed. "
This makes absolutely no sense... a stun gun powered by a 9 volt battery can put out thousands of volts... and it really can cause quite a bit of discomfort- but it isn't putting out more energy than it had in the first place.
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
Batteries under load will show a reduced voltage.
Also, a warm battery will produce more voltage than a cold battery. Any car owner in winter will know this.
So maybe he froze the battery, checked it, ran the test, and then (once the battery was warm) checked it again.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Too bad the moderators won't get the reference. I nearly spit soda through my nose! You deserve to be modded up.
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
First off, do I believe this inventor has created something worth our attention? No.
However, claiming that it does not work because it's power source is zero point energy is short sighted and incorrect. Zero point energy is an actual true energy source that fills all of space. It is a consequence of quantum mechanics. If this inventor truly has harnessed zero point, it would work just like powering the light bulbs with a battery. Unfortunately, I've never heard of anyone really getting zero point energy to do anything useful.
It generates power until the hamster gets hungry and stops running.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Alex Chiu must be kicking himself over this one...
Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
Without extraordinary good proof, the three laws of
;-)
thermodynamics are accepted as the truth in the science community.
See how some graduate students extend its possible use
to the heaven and hell.
Try Googling for two wonderful gentlemen - Dennis Lee, and Joseph Newman.
Both run highly profitable businesses, marketing a, um, nearly-complete free energy machine.
Dennis Lee has been to prison a couple of times, Joseph Newman has married his secretary and her 8 year old. (Google for it, you'll find it). Yet, to this day, they both run multi million dollar businesses on this free energy idea. Why? Because people WANT to believe. And you can be 100% confident that Mr Anonymous Irish Inventor will be sitting on a nice cash pile any minute now...
A retraction is only issued when the reporter makes factual errors, e.g., reporting that "the United States is a kingdom comprised of 43 provinces, the largest of which is Guangdong Province." A retraction would be apropos in this instance.
Because the story is only relaying what this anonymous Irishman is claiming, a retraction of the claims -- however outrageous -- has no bearing here. An example of such a retraction-proof, erroneous statement would be, "President Bush has stated that he can increase the defence budget, cut taxes for the rich, and wind up with a surplus." Clearly wrong, in violation of simple arithmetic, and yet, no retraction is necessary.
So you're right. You won't be sending out the T-shirt! Thanks for tempting us, though.
A retraction by Reuters is not necessary unless the story is not true. I'm pretty sure this hoaxter made the claims, and Reuters merely reported the claims. Corrections are fine, like if Reteurs made a math error or spelled someone's name incorrectly. Wild claims are not a retractable issue because they are just that - claims. Not facts.
If this hoaxter who got national attention, too bad. But the job of a reporter is to report. Reuters did not make an extraordinary claim. The hoaxter did. Yes, Reuters looks stupid when reporting a hoax. Yes, if Reuters regularly reports hoaxes, people will seriously question whether it's worthwhile to read Reuters reports.
If you want analysis of the report, read a science publication. This report is no different than other legitimate reporting. Every day we hear about a *real* scientific study that tells us X causes cancer or X is good for you, and it's up to the public to interpret the news. A prudent person doesn't rush out to the grocery store to begin eating lots of X (or stop eating it) until the evidence is so overwhelming that it's accepted as fact.
A prudent person, when reading this Reuters energy article, would simply say, "OK, come back and tell me again after the invention has undergone peer review and the whole world is excited. Until then, I'll stay connected to the grid."
I suspect that the person is Peter Chambers, and I offer the following evidence:
1. The administrative contact for jasker.com is Peter Chambers.
2. A search on Google.com identifies a Peter Chambers as an alumni of Brunel University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, issued 1972. This is 29 years ago. If he got his degree when he was 29, not unlikely, that would make him the 58 year old unnamed inventor.
Just a thought, and it all hinges on the assumption that the two are the same Peter Chambers and that he got the degree at 29.
If it's bollox, I'm at my Karma cap anyhow, so I can afford to lose the points. With a cap of 50, there's no real reason to make every comment super insightful, seeing as how there's no reward once you get to 50.
You only have to read the last line to understand why and how Reuters came to run this story.
"If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness."
Typically Reuters. The seemingly offhand remark to Guiness - we all know the Irish love of drink and story - gives it away as nothing more than a filler piece for them!
Stoptional
There have been experimental demonstrations of the veracity of the Casimir Effect, in which two closely spaced parallel plates are driven toward each other by the pressurre created by the ZPF.
It still doesn't get around the laws of thermodynamics, however. Just becasue it's an exotic energy source doesn't mean the rules don't apply to it. It's just beloved by fringe free energy types becasue it involves the magic word 'quantum', and seems to spring from nowhere.
"Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate"
/. has the journalistic integrity of a high school newsletter. The ones published without an editor. Get over yourself.
oh please.
Unless the story has been seriously edited since first published, it's full of doubts itself. Just because they don't offer any scientific analysis of it doesn't mean they were duped.
inky
If the 3 100-watt bulbs draining 4.5 kilowatts didn't destroy the claim enough, his math isn't even right.
Even if he's using the literal definition of KW, and not the more widely used KWH, it'd be 300 watts per second * 90 seconds...or 27 KW. Where does he get 4.5 from? The only way I figure it is instead of mutiplying by 90 seconds, he did a quick multiplication. 15 * 300 is the only way I see to get 4500 there...anyone else?
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
if this thing will still work when they unplug it from the wall?
Modern physics theory says that there is a tremendous amount of energy in otherwise empty space. But no existing device can tap this.
I first read about vacuum energy in a book called Indistinguishable From Magic by Robert L. Forward.
Of course, if the brightest physicists in the world haven't been able to come up with a practical method for tapping vacuum energy, I don't for an instant believe that some guy who isn't even a physicist managed to figure out how to do it in his garage. And I certainly don't believe he'd be keeping its inner workings (or his identity or his location, for that matter) a secret if it was real. If this was real, and he published, he would win an instant Nobel prize. But he won't publish, because he's a complete fraud, and he knows it.
...is not about proof anymore. It's about money now.
It's hard to believe so many respectable publications ran the perpetual motion story, but we shouldn't be surprised; there have always been gullible people.
In fact, check out this guy's website: he's selling a book he wrote that explains the secrets of a true perpetual motion machine!
Fortunately, there are some sane people in the world too. Check out Professor Hibbert's Perpetual Motion Page, as well as Eric's History of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines and Prof. R.P. Feynman's Perpetual Motion Page
Reuters often puts stories on the wire before the AP does, but at a great cost. In general, Reuters stories are:
My rule of thumb in posting wire stories on washingtonpost.com was that I would treat Reuters stories as a "heads up" and then wait for the AP version. If no AP story appeared and I still wanted to post the story, I'd run it through a spellchecker and then subject it to careful scrutiny.
Something like this story could still get through, but the point is that news organizations should know to be more careful with Reuters.
Has anybody read this page? Wow, it's clearly a hoax just by the language. Here's a bit:
The credibility of the system is definitively established and can be interpreted and demonstrated as being "the practical application of accepted techniques".
There are no stages in the operation of this invention that require any constituent component to perform at anything other than that being, within its capability or in accordance with its specification.
All the parts for this invention are in practical and productive everyday use. The methodology technique is accomplished by the innovative application in logical sequence of specifically selected constituent components whose performance compliment each other and function in co-operation.
This is part of a brief description of the device. It's all like that.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Check out the utter bollocks here.
Even just reading that page is enought to realise that it's just quackery!
gadgetophile.com
Just for a second, let's say that these fools DID invent thier magical energy machine. Are they really the heros of the world? Not if they are trying to make a profit off of thier device. By keeping it secret, they would be worthy of a serious lynching, not a hero's parade. I am all for the progress of science and inventors getting paid for thier work, but when something like this comes around, it is simply too valuable to humanity to try and profit from. If the man who eventually finds the "cure" for cancer (not just a treatment, an actualy honest to goodness cure), or AIDS, or old age decided that he was going to only give it out to the highest bidder the world would be very very displeased. Free energy would transform the entire world forever. It would solve hunger (by providing palnts with energy for food, day and night, everywhere in the world), overpopulation (by providing the energy to get into space), poverty & crime (energy and money are interchangable, few realize this. When energy is free, economies will change on an astronomical scale), war (with limitless energy, everyone will have railguns, making even minor skermishes as pointless as thermonuclear war), everything.
If these men are telling the truth, they will go down in history as villians.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
You're right. We Americans obviously have no sense of sarcasm or subtlety. But at least we all have a firm scientific education.
HA!
However, a few years ago, I did read an account of a similar claim, but made by someone willing to give a name (don't remember who right now). He claimed to have a design using large gyroscopes to pull energy out of the Earth's rotation to generate power.
I agree that science holds many mysteries still but this claim holds all the hallmarks of a hoax. The 4 car batteries are an obvious tip off.
Inconsistent claims such as this: ``Perpetual motion is impossible. This is a self-sustaining unit which at the same time provides surplus electrical energy,'' he (the inventor) said
So the inventor claims that a perpetual motion (break even) machine is impossible but one that supplies surplus energy, well that's easy.
I want to see this guys electricity bills for the last 17 months.
First off... Laws were made to be broken.
Second, I'm going to reserve my judgement either way untill this device has been hauled into a credible (I.E. non-fossile-fuel paid) lab for testing.
Perhaps he actually did it, perhaps not. He may just be a nut, he may be the current version of Tesla.
As for his statement about perpetual motion... The story gives no idea if there's any motion at all in the mechanical sense. So, instead of just knee jerking and saying that it's a load of crap so it's not worth looking at, people should say "let's test the device and see if it does what the inventor says it does." Get that thing up on a platform, make sure there's no hidden power leads, have a disinterested third party take a look at the insides for batteries and the sort, and if it passes all those, run it under a load and see if it runs down. Would be quite a simple test, and more conclusive than the attitude of "You can't break the laws of physics so it's a load of bull." Over time in physics as with any science 'laws' are changed to fit what is currently known. A new thing/way pops up that violates those laws will require a complete rethinking of laws that scientists have come to consider unbreakable canon, and will cause them to have to throw out works of theirs that use the laws that have become invalid.
So, it's completely in the best interest of the fossile fuel industry, and 'big science' that this device be disproved using any means possible.
Before anybody takes it seriously enough to put it to the test.
-
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
What's holding the glue in place? Gravity? I personally don't believe in Gravity. The Earth just sucks.
Besides. The HoZone doesn't exist in Ireland. When's the last time you heard specifically of a case of socks being lost in the dryer? I've never heard an irishman explain that something missing has gone somwhere mysterious like socks in the dryer.... I think an interested third party is responsible for this discrepancy.
But this is getting too wagnerian for me so I'm gonna stop ranting.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Everyone knows that Dexter's grandfather discovered Free Energy.
[Insert pithy quote here]
On the other hand, is such a hoax any worse than the current hoax we all live under, the one that says that Oil is necessary for our survival and operation?
I mean, science and small companies have been operating clean coal and wind energy power at less than half the cost of oil or even natural gas for years now, and yet the media would have you believe we "have" to support the terrorists so we can get their oil.
So, given the general state of the media and its coverage of energy, and the gullibility of the American public on this matter, I don't see why it's so unbelievable they'd buy into a "free energy" scam.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The original article is placed in the "oddly enough" category. A category featuring tales of see-through clothes, sex shops and bigamy.
Methinks they got the kid on work experience to file this one.
If a square is really a rhombus, why aren't all triangles purple?
Turns out that this scam is actually by the editors of Social Texts who have been waiting all this time to get their own back on Alan Sokol.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Conclusion: Mr "Jasker" has invented a computer... 50 years too late.
This happened several years ago but that time it was some nut in his garage with a lego contraption. All the news organizations covered it in just the same way.
I can't resist: Cheap Irony: Are you now going to correct yourself on the subject of corrections?
Now, what merits a correction, that's lots of fun fodder for media analysis. Of course you won't have to pay out on the challenge, because this sort of article isn't the type of material that is thought to require a correction (but if you were fair, you'd send me a Thinkgeek T-shirt anyway for catching you out above :-)).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy.
Now wait just a minute. Every paper has a retractions section, and are usually very prompt in retracting things they get wrong. Your theory with all due respect, is completely and utterly wrong.
Slashdot occasionally will retract things, but I think "diligent" is going a little overboard. And the retractions slashdot DOES print are usually very vague and defensive (when was the last time you saw "We made a mistake and didn't research this enough"; it's usually "Uhh this may not be totally accurate").
Secondly, what exactly would they retract in this case? This is the story: "Irish engineer claims to have invented free energy machine". Which is totally accurate. Now most people here would agree that they shouldn't have even given this guy any attention, but the article does cast a lot of doubt on whether it works.
FINALLY, as someone who has worked with newswire feeds, I can assure you that they often DO run retractions, but these take the form of advisories along the lines of "Article portrays incorrect information; it should read ". It's up to the individual newpapers to decide how to handle it, whether to withdraw the article, correct it, or print a retraction.
I know I'm kind of going on a rant here, but this was a ridiculous claim. I like slashdot, but I really don't think the editors are entitled to take a high-handed position on editorial fact-checking. Look how often stories are summarized inaccurately, or old news is portrayed as new, or stories are repeated, or incendiary editorial comments are thrown in to skew the story.
...when our planet is constantly bombarded by more energy than we could ever need? The radiation (heat, light, and other forms) that hits our planet daily from our Sun could, when captured, easily satisfy our energy needs. In effect, we are already using that energy since most natural resources that we consume are simply stored energy from the Sun, locked up millions of years ago by biological organisms.
Reuters is more concerned with political correctness than they are with factual correctness. This is just one of several times in the last year I have noticed high bogon emissions coming from Reuters stories.
Remember, these are the halfwits that declared that Bin Laden & co can't be referred to as 'terrorists' on their wire, just for one really whacked example.
In the days of yore, papers couldn't afford to have reporters everywhere so when the telegraph appeared they created wire services. In those days papers didn't even pretend to be unbiased, eash town tended to have a paper unabashedly Republican and another just as blatently Democratic. However, since telegraph time was EXPENSIVE, it was impractical to send each story slanted several ways so reporters quickly learned that if they wanted the wire services to distribute their story it would have to impartial and at least appear factual because the wire service wasn't going to put out a story that at least half of their subscribers would reject.
Bandwidth is cheap now and 90% of journalists are Democrats. Most towns have one struggling newspaper (left leaning of course) and some clue impaired idiots on TV running whatever their network schleps over the downlink to round out the money losing news/SPORTS/weather program. So Reuters (and most others) can send out anything they damn well please and doesn't suffer for it. Facts? Screw that!
And now they wonder why readership/viewership is in a downward spiral. Nobody trusts the version of the 'news' put out by the establishment press, not even the left.
So now we have the Internet. Lets not screw it up as well, ok?
Democrat delenda est
Hey, if this is real, and the guy really did spend 27 years on it, I think he should get to profit on it. You don't like it, you want free energy? Go spend 27 years of your own - you know it's possible now (assuming this guy isn't full of !@#$), get to it.
Anyone check out the wording on the website? It sounds like it was generated with Emacs dissociated press. Now that is a prepetual source of gibberish.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
And yes, I realize that A Modest Proposal was a satirical political statementa and has an incompatible context (and was sarcastic in nature, unlike this post), but it still sounds good as a subject line, and was Ireland-related, sho up yersh. I gesh th'Guinnesh is gettin' to m'.
The article states: "the device can run indefinitely -- or at least until the parts wear out, adding that he has supplied all his own domestic power needs free for 17 months."
But, hold on... What causes parts to wear out, typically? Friction, or the heat energy that is associated with friction. At the very least, "wearing out" indicates a change in the physical or chemical characteristics of something. Change can only come through the transfer of energy. So, either the device is able to create not only enough power to light bulbs and keep itself running, but also extra power to wear out its own parts!! I guess it's too efficient for it's own good.
Holes in the story ALL OVER the place!
"It is impossible to divide a cube into two cubes, a fourth power into two fourth powers, and in general any power except the square into two powers with the same exponents,...I have discovered a truly wonderful proof of this, but the margin is too narrow to hold it."
He was a really clever guy, but that was really far out... =)
The difference of Fermat and this "inventor"-guy of course beeing that Fermat is/was a very merited scientist, and his credibility made it possible for him to sneak this one past.
Follow this link to check it out in more depth.
I found the Fermat reference really fun, but perhaps it's just us (ex) math types...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
"In a demonstration for Reuters, a prototype -- roughly the size of a dishwasher -- was run for around 10 minutes using four 12-volt car batteries as an initial power source. Emitting a steady motorized hum, the machine powered three 100-watt light bulbs for the duration."
It sounds like the box contained a bunch more batteries, and a DC-to-AC inverter (the "hum"). If the box contains 5 12V batteries, the 4 external batteries would be charged (at least initially). The combination of 9 12VDC batteries, could keep 3 100 watt bulbs going for a long time (probably at least a day, enough to wear out any news reporter).
It doesn't sound like much of a trick from the description.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
everybody click the 'inventors' site NOW!!!
Hamster Power
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
Already getting slow-downs here. Maybe they should try running their webserver with their free-energy machine.
Liberty in your lifetime
Yes! Thank you. And using Slashdot as an example of journalistic greatness is outrageously funny.
Past Slashdot Journalism achievements:
1) Reposting old stories as new
2) Falsely accusing companies of wrongs, and then instead of apologizing, just continue bashing them
3) Hey, how about that false XBox emulator they wanted us all to download and try out for them?
This site is fun, but the Wall Street Journal it ain't.
inky
I doubt that anyone here needs a point-by-point debunking, but just to show how fuking stupid the journalist was: "A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed." Not true. The article describes the place as "cold". Car batteries run on a process that requires ions to drift through a solution. I haven't done any calculations, but my gut tells me that the hotter the battery, the greater the open circuit voltage should be since the chemical processes producing the electricity will go faster. All they've proved is that the batteries warmed up during the test (assuming their voltage was measured with everything disconnected to ensure there was no fraud in the measurement taking), quite plausible since that's what batteries do when you use them. "which remained lit during a short power cut." Attach a fly wheel to a generator and motor. Cut power to motor, fly wheel continues to drives generator for a while. "``The draw on the batteries was estimated at more than 4.5 kilowatts. With any existing technology the batteries would have been drained flat in one and a half minutes,'' the inventor said." Ok, 4.5 kW, at about 50 V, you're talking about roughly 90 Amps of current! Considering that the power dissipated by the battery's internal resistance is I*I*R, you're talking about 91kW being dissipated by each battery if the internal resistance was 1 Ohm (1 ohm internal resistance is reasonable, isn't it?). Those fuking batteries should have exploded. All I have left to say is, "Reuters, you're about 2 months early for April fools day." BlackGriffen
My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy.
/. going to print a retraction of this obviously false statement?
So...is
Now I can check my email AND play solitaire at the same time!
--- Need web hosting?
They said the demo was using a "washing machine sized box" connected to the external batteries. You could hide a lot of stuff in a space like that!
Also, I don't remember any mention of what noises (if any) the machine made whle in operation. You would think the statement that it ran "until the parts wear out" would imply some kind of mechanical action that might be audible.
If they start selling them in the US with a one year money-back plan I might buy one - but I'm not going to be running down to the wal-mart every day to see if they're in stock yet!
.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
of course the article is wrong. you cant create energy out of nowhere, its impossible, in the same way that the earth cant possibly revolve around the sun. :)
scientific advances are normally made by people finding that the current rules that they have been adhering to have in fact been incorrect, regardless of the amount of 'proof' found to support the previous 'law'.
i dont have the knowledge to immediately embrace or dismiss the claims made, and from reading a lot of what has been posted, neither do most of the rest of you. its just fun to follow the first person to starting making it fun of it all like sheep.
i find it an exciting prospect to consider, just like the petrol car that was adapted to run on water.
never heard of it? what a suprise, it was taken to big business instead of to a media outlet and after a few 'strange' accidents was never heard of again, only to be made fun of by people who think that 'that possibly couldnt happen', when they know nothing about the subject (begin relevant conspiracy theory here). wish i had a link to point to.
you shouldnt be so quick to jump all over something just because you think you know better
[troll] leave that to the hardcore religious types [/troll]
Wow. Same post time, and user IDs just 3 numbers apart!
I call jinx!
They posted the Reuter's article under "Lifestyles" instead of "Technology" or "Science."
this reminds me of when i was thinking about a magnet device. You would have two vertical cylnders that stood parralel to eachother with strips of powerfull magnets on them, one of the cylnders would be the positive side of the magnet and the other would be negative. give it a little spin and the two cylnders repelling eachother should spin for a long time no? i never tried this out at all and i'm sure there's some explination why it would fail miserably so could someone please explain why this would not work??
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-- Homer Simpson
Sorry, I just had to do it
wish I could mod you up, but I've been replying on the same thing. Headline should have just been "Slashdot is smartypants, read on"
inkly
It was supposed to be an electric car that ran for a week without refueling at speeds up to 90 MPH. Tesla reportedly built a generator to demonstrate it that ran off of permanent magnets and vacuum tubes purchased at a nearby electronics store. He said the energy to power the car came from "the ether". The stories I've read have been a little mysterious, much like the man himself. This search found this link to an article about it.
I figure some jerk reporter was pecking some geek to provide him with some juicy info, and the geek made something up...
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
1. I unplugged a lamp from my desk and put it on top of the dishwasher;
2. Opened the dishwasher, left part of the lamp power cable hanging down;
3. Ran couple of short wires from 2 new Duracell 9V batteries to inside of the dishwasher;
4. Closed and locked the dishwasher making sure all 3 wires/cables got in while the lamp and batteries stayed out;
5. Put the lamp switch on the ON position;
6. Ran the dishwasher on a short wash setting.
The expected result (if the Jasker theory were true) was that
Actual resutls from the test:
From these results I conclude that perpetual motion is possible as demonstrated by my dishwasher; however, it doesn't generate excess power/electricity.
I don't know how many of you know about Mancow, a nationally syndicated broadcaster beaming out of Chicago, but he did a better job of messing with the media.
He sent out a press release stating that, to publicize his program, a set of billboard ads depicting the Juniors from last years' election (that would be Al Gore, Jr. and George Bush, Jr.) sparking up the large-sized blunts, to steal a line from Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.
He watched the media report on this; to his amazement, Fox News Channel, CNN, and all the local network affiliate newscasts all repeated, word-for-word, this news release.
Problem was, of course, it was untrue.
Now, before you say 'it's another cold fusion insident', think about fuel cell technology. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if any of the scientists who are currently working on fuel cells at least had a pilot light under their ass because of the concept of cold fusion. After all, fuel cells create energy from hydrogen and run cool, right?
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Ok. We have three 100W (watt) lightbulbs, and a drain of 4500W durring a two hour run. This means that the lightbulbs used 600W of power durring that time leaving 3900W used by the machine its self. There was a ten minute "startup" time using four 12Volt car batteries. A decent car battery has a capacity of 50Ah (amp hours, which is "is the amount of energy charge in a battery that will allow one ampere of current to flow for one hour"). So unless I calculated wrong, the "free energy" machine was able to take in about 3600W per battery (assuming the battery fully discharged, provided all of its rated charge, maintained a voltage of 12V and ignoring any internal resistance in the battery. And yes I know this is kinda a bogus number). A more likely/realistic output would have been about 1500W per battery. Multiply that by four batteries and you have "!gasp!" 6000W. Subtract the 4500W the machine consumed and you are left with plenty of energy. I'm not entirely sure about my calculation method here so prove me wrong. If the machine ran for a longer period say, a few days, and without the startup batteries, I might be impressed.
"I've figured out what's wrong with life: It's other people." -Dilbert
People correct others on the use of the word ironic. There are several accepted definitions, even if not accepted by pedants like Tattva.
got this off google, think it's pretty apt:
Different kinds of irony. The common form of irony (called situation irony) is when what is expected to happen is the opposite of what actually happens. It requires more then just that though for it to be really ironic. I heard a comedian do a skit about the Alanis Moriesette song and he gives a good example of what would actualyl be irony. In the song there is the line about being stuck in a traffic jam when you are already late. This is not ironic, it is unfortunate. But, if you were a city planner on your way to a convention about traffic congestion in order to give a presentation stating that the city traffic is fine and you got stuck in a traffic jam, then it would be ironic.
Now, dramatic irony is when the audience watching a play or movie knows more then the character(s) speaking the lines on stage. Like in Macbeth when Duncan says to Lady Macbeth "conduct me to mine host" not knowing that she plans to kill him and his host would thus be death.
Verbal irony is the one that is close to sarcasm. In fact, it is what most people think sarcasm is. Verbal irony is when you say one thing but mean something else (like the opposite). So if I were to say "Smooth move" when you messed up that would be verbal irony. This differs from sarcasm because sarcasm is biting speech intended to hurt (so it does not necessarily have to be ironic). It actually comes from a greek word meaning to "tear flesh".
I think Hawking would say this.
Thanks to the crew at www.mchawking.com we now know how Stephen feels about the second law; and by extrapolation, how he feels about "Energy from nothing".
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Measuring a voltage on the batteries AFTER the light bulbs were powered vs. during the powering of the light bulbs makes it sounds like the car batteries have internal resistance like any battery out there. This is commonly known as putting a load on a non ideal voltage source.
It wasn't so long ago that slashdot published this similarly ridiculous claim.
At the end of this story, michael notes how major news sources do not correct themselves as the righteous Slashdot does.
What exactly is this, however:
"Dozens of submitters, some of them quite credulous, have written in pointing to this Reuters story about an anonymous inventor who claims to have solved the universe's energy woes. It's amazing that Reuters ran this story. It's even more amazing that news media across the country are running it too."
The first part of this statement reflect upon Reuters with neutrality. Michael says the story is about an inventor who claims. Following this, Michael makes it seem like Reuters had placed their endorsement on the story by calling their posting of it "amazing". It's not so "amazing" that even reliable news sites post stories of claims. Reading the artcile shows its not so amazing. Reuters doesn't believe the scientist. Slashdot thinks Reuters does.
Michael whines about how people attack Slashdot editors' journalistic integrity, but here's an obvious example. Reuters was not scammed. Their integrity is intact because they retained bipartisanship in regards to the story. It's not their place to judge the claim as true or false. It is however their position to report the claim. News sources must be neutral so that the public can draw their own conclusions. Of course, the editors at Slashdot don't seem to understand this. They are extremely biased, and instead of letting the readers decide for themselves by simply reporting on the fact that news sites are themselves reporting such a claim, michael has drawn the conclusion that everyone believes it.
So keep whining about how we all flame you for not having integrity of the journalistic sort. It won't change how Slashdot does its reporting.
Why bother.
You people are just prooving that "Dog Bites Man" (which is real news, but happens often) does not make good news, while "Man Bites Dog" (the infrequent type of news that has no bearing on your life) is news.
Junk Food news is the weapon of the large media conglomerates. After all, if you're busy laughing at "Man Bites Dog", you're liable not to see the dog about to bite you, sneaking up, unreported, from behind.
Which is to say, if this story is so incredulous, why support and motivate the desire for the APs and Reuters of the world to print this kind of stuff? Do you think they are interested in bringing you news that affects your life, or more interested in bringing you news you lap up, laugh, argue over, and dis, and ultimately has no direct bearing on your life (until this thing hits mass production, of course).
"Old man yells at systemd"
Also, I thought Michael's whole "the media is retarded, I am a genius" thing was a little overboard. Did we really need a page and a half of his reasons not to read the article? Alright, enough from me..
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
> The office would then set it going and if it was still running a year later, they would consider the patent application.
So why don't they do this with software patents?
Isn't this kind of stuff supposed to be in New Scientist?
Man, they got scooped good!
There used to be a time when reporters and news people were intelligent with critical skills. It's obvious those days are gone and news have become Stone Philips. Do I really care if some news personality wears nice designer suits and has a personal stylist? Fck no. So called main stream journalism has no more credibility than the national inquirer. This is truly sad. I'm not even going to bother with the contents of that so called "news article."
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
i believe that the scientific term for this fellow is "hyper-nerd", a nerd that even nerds do not want to associate with. like that kid with really bad acne who always picked his nose. not many people realize this, but it's actually the hypernerd's fault that the nerd gets beaten up in high school for thinking that zork was cool, or being able to create digital porn in 16 bit color.
...and it's important. like the wheel. be sure to put that in there. as important...as...the wheel. thank you. ...want to see my moth collection? trust me...it's cool. and innovative. like the wheel."
"i built this innovative and important invention...but i can't tell you how it works. trust me, it's important. i know, i know,...ok fine. it takes energy...and makes energy from that energy. and has energy left over. now, wait, just trust me. it's cool.
I have no desire to reach nirvana.
4 car batteries at roughly full power = 48.9 volts. Device powers up, runs light bulb for 10 minutes. If this was a conventional electrical generator-odd as it sounds being powered by batteries-it would burn roughly .3kwh to power the 3 100w light bulbs for 10 minutes. Using electricity to generate electricity is not very efficient, yet there was a net gain on the original energy source. Device continues to run for another 2 hours. Again if it was a generator running off the car batteries this would have consumed those @15 times in those 2 hours yet yet the device continued to run. The article doesn't state that they ran 3 100w bulbs for 2 hours off 4 car batteries. It states they "started" a device that in turn generated roughly .6kwh and still had a net gain on the starter batteries.
.6kwh the light bulbs use during a 2 hour period.
There probably is another power source concealed within the device that falsifies the readings, however your math is totally flawed. I think it's a hoax as much as the next guy but your reasoning is off.
The article describes an electrically started generating device that returns a net gain. It doesn't say that 3 100w bulbs should drain 4.5kwh in 2 hours. It says that an electrically powered electrical generator would consume roughly 4.5kwh to generate the
Oh, good point!
I'd forgotten about the voting-on-stories bit over there. Probably because I just read, and have never bothered to create an account.
Still, to their credit, I wouldn't call their story as "gushing" as what I saw from Reuters via Yahoo. They come right out and ask "Discovery or Hoax?", as well as including the fact that critics call it "voodoo science." Their 'story' is also a simple paragraph with a link to Yahoo, versus an entire page.
The readership probably voted it up more to point out Reuters' stupidity than their own.
On a side note, I find it most suspicious that the 'machine' appears to be welded shut, and even more suspicious that the reporter didn't question the fact.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
The author of new super machine noticed, that it works especially well when placed above buried electricity cable or by the aerial electricity wire hangers. "The Zero Point energy loves our current electricity transports and seem to be attracted to them".
:)
In other stories today, Irish electricity company filed for chapter 11, citing as a reason mysterious drains of electricity from its systems at undisclosed location in Ireland. Company insider says, there were numerous sighting of a man with something, that looked like a washing machine, by systems, experiencing power drainage. He was not identified, and referred to in company's files as simply "an electricity pirate".
*the above story is completely fictious
Hyperom.com
Newspapers often print retractions. They just print them a week later buried on an inside page. (If you look carefully, you can often find them. Sometimes you can even figure out what they are retracting.)
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...but, it's old news...
It's called the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). It can run for years on a single supply of fisile material, augmented by uranium filtered from sea water. Not only is it, "an energy source that is unlimited," to quote its head of the project, Dr. Charles Till, but it is possibly the safest nuclear reactor ever designed. Unfortunately, anti-nuclear power activists bringing false claims before Congress in 1994 lead to the decommissioning of the project by then President Clinton.
The unofficial IFR site
A wonderful interview with Dr. Charles Till
Two quick and probably easy-to-obliterate points:
.. well, you need energy to set up winmills and to maintain them. That doesn't mean that they arn't able to collect more energy than it took to set up in the long run from a source that seems limitless (if inconsitant, in this case.) My point being, there's nothing in the laws of physics that says that this machine can't use energy to allow it to collect energy from other source (neutrinos? heat from the sun? i know, its a long shot .. ) that is so near being limitless that it might as well be, with such a small amount of energy required to get it going such that the energy required to maintain it or get it going is insignificant compared to the energy it creates due to it's ability to harness the yet-to-be-identified energy from an energy source that is 'outside the box' of conventional science.
... we've alot to gain by saying "Well, I'm skeptical, but I'll hear you out", and very little to gain (other than an evening's chuckle) from rediculing it before we're filled in on the details. Cell phones were invented 30 years before they became insanely well ingrained in society. This is in part due to people's perceptions and lack of desire to believe in anything that has the potential to significantly alter their world in ways they cannot fathom.
1) If the machine requires energy (my interpretation), then
2) Don't forget how many scientists/explorers were ridiculed in their day, unknown until years later, for thinking 'outside the box'. Gallileo, Columbus, yadda yadda. Some were jailed for their claims.
It's definately a long shot. Really long. The Segway was claimed, in its early days, to be an invention that 'revolutionizes' the world. Whatever. My only point is that society honours its live conformists (all the naysayers) and its dead troublemakers (Gallileo). I'm interested in knowing more. Calling it a hoax because you read a Reutors story (in which your whole issue is that Reutors knows nothing, so it's kind of a self-defeating judgement) only does a disservice and perhaps delays an important discovery in a world where we will only believe the crazy stories from institutions and people who've already gained our trust.
I'm only saying
"Old man yells at systemd"
Just realise, that for example, 10,000,000,000 neutrinos pass through our fingernail each second. Do you feel it?
But, of course, this claim is total BS, but it makes for a funny article.. ;)
Why, instead fo it, we do not invest the cost of B2 bombers program into Fusion research..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
It's a box with a lightbulb connected to something I bought at the grocery store named "Duracell". It has been running for 3 hours so far with no sign of dimming!
If that's not proof of perpetual energy, I don't know what is.
Try reading more carefully.
"Energy per unit time". Is not a second a unit of time? Maybe I didn't phrase it properly, but I'm guessing everyone outside of Alex Trebek can see beyond the usage of "per" in there.
Just change the damn kWH to kWS. If you weren't so busy trying to condemn me for the tiny grammar slip-up, you could have done the fairly simple math to figure out what was going on.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
I just can't help thinking of this quote from Carl Sagan as I read about this story:
"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at Newton. Of course, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
A search of their site says negative.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
If you have your view settings low enough to read this (or it somehow gets rated up by the people who do...)
look at
Eric's History of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines
lots of failures. Thats a given.
also there is how to become a Free Energy con man
I love the Simpsons.
Linux is so bad it's free and most people don't use it. But you have the source code, so it's your fault.
Future news: "The free-energy story was debunked when the machine tipped over and 100 hamsters ran for cover. Animal rights activists were outraged, and picketed for weeks"
If fuel is a part that wears out, then hey, it all makes sense... the batteries for starting it initially (electric start), the parts that wear out and need replacing to keep it running... this guy's invented the Honda generator!
It just goes to show, if you drink too much Guinness, you'll believe anything those voices in your head tell you. Hmmm, maybe it runs on Guinness...
"THIS INVENTION EFFECTIVELY GUARANTEES THE CONTINUITY OF MANKIND".
No, that would be sex.
No sig, sorry.
No sig, sorry.
What Reuters observed and concluded, and wrote, would be the most likely conclusions.
1) The black box, when connected to batteries, can increase the voltage by a significant amount - which probably means that more energy was in the batteries at the end of the trial.
2) Despite "creating" energy, it is may not be inherently a perpetual motion device. Perhaps it is only capable of a certain quantity of power, no matter the input power, which is not enough for it to sustain itself without an external power source. With a perfect battery, that would be perpetual, but we know there isn't such a thing. Also the device could be drawing any amount of current to operate, not just the power for the lights.
IMHO, Slashdot's conclusion that "Reuter's report is flawed" is flawed. However, there is something to be said for obeying the current laws of physics. I'm with the parent of this post. I think they used a system which already had a significant amount of energy in some form.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
One of these claims comes up about every year, and some papers print it. It's no surprise that there's another one this year. And there'll be another one next year.
max
It isn't wise for a parasite to kill its host...
I made that mistake once, get flamed 20 times and had a point of karma burned at the stake for it.
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
"Perhaps these laws of thermodynamics are only valid within a particular context, and the free energy comes from outside that context?"
Um why would there need to be an outside to that context if the laws of thermodynamics and conservation had an exception in the case of Jasker?
Hence your energy still comes from somewhere (the outside context you mentioned).
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
We, the "wise", and "in the know" of the world, quickly punish the "stupid" and "ignorant" media corporations and people that let this travesty of fact slip through. And yet, we will never reward, few ever even considering, those in the mass media who instantly saw and dismissed this as the rubbish it is. More media will dismiss this than acknowledge it, precisely because they can see it is clearly not something of merit.
:)
Yet, in this system, where intelligence in the form of denial is never rewarded, how can we ever expect the mass media to churn out the truth, in any extravagant form? Look at how we, on this forum, are lashing out at the media that fell for this dup (presuming, of course, that it, in all likelihood, is), yet we will turn around one day and ask "Why does every reputable media corporation cover the exact same material?"
Every media entity that has published this will get attention; I have noticed some magazines mentioned that I would never otherwise have known existed. They are being rewarded with advertisement for their folly. And yet, the media that sensed this folly and avoided it, are relatively punished.
Or so goes my rant.
It might have put Enron out of business.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
The Evening Heraled ( over here in ireland )has a picture of the machine
as well as a picture of "one of the inventors" however the real inventer wants to keep anonymous.
i wonder why
If I could ride my Segway all day, and not have to recharge it afterward, this might be real cool!
'Zero point energy has been proven to exist,' he told Reuters.
Yep, Zero Point is quite good... there's pretty much 'zero point' in his machine anyway...
Someday, I'll live in a world where every child grows up with a decent science education and critical thinking is encouraged... Violation of the eighth law of thermodynamics. Systems don't go from higher entropy to lower.
"Irish Inventor Says Cracks World's Energy Needs"
Crack is the world's energy need! Yes, your favorite ghetto drug can now provide power for the entire world! If you doubt me kind sir, please consider this. Have you ever lived around a crack infested area? Those jitters, aka the junkie shuffle, aren't a fluke! No indeed, they're positive proof of the perpetual motion principle at work! Yes, all we need is a giant hamster wheel, a lot of crack, and a lot of junkies, and we can power our great nation!
No no, don't laugh. Not only can this solve our energy problems, but we can solve the homeless problems also! Yes, put some food pellets and a water bottle in the cage along with the wheeel, and it's insta Habit-Forming-Trail!
Josh
FYI, you cannot use the "correct ratio of Volts to Amps" to control how much power you use.
The simple equations V=IR and P=IV help show this.
A light bulb is kinda like a resistor, just not perfectly linear. (V=IR refers to a linear resistor)
So, your light bulb has a fixed resistance, let's say. If you put 120 volts over it, then that will cause some current to flow. Similarly, if you force a certain current, like 1 amp through it, then that will require your current source to raise the voltage over the device so much.
You can do some substitution to get P=V^2/R. What makes your light bulb draw 100W is that at 120VAC, the resistance of the bulb happens to allow enough current to dissipate 100W of power.
So, increasing the voltage 4x to 480 volts would make the 100W bulb dissipate something like 1,600W, and you'd have 4x the current.
Either way, I don't think that's how they managed to use 4500 watts. =)
What everyone's got their undies in a twist about is that the article didn't lay into like a bunch of geeks with nothing to do.
Speaking of retractions, CNN ran a RH/AOL story that directly contradicts the RH/AOL story the Washington Post ran. (The news.com story over the weekend merely repackage the WP story). This seems like a more likely candidate for a retraction or clarification:
"We had only one not-terribly-reliable source, but we published anyway".
How come we ain't hollerin' about that?
when the audience watching a play or movie knows more then the character(s) speaking the lines on stage.
No, ironic is getting a lecture on proper usage of an English word by someone who couldn't pass a grade two English course.
A good page that describes battery theory is here.
Maybe someone with more chemical background then me can show that you could add materials to the battery while it is discharging to "increase" its overall capacity and charge level. I used to live with these equations and drop down for specific gravity readings myself when I was in the Navy but that was a long time ago.
Don't mix lead acid batties and salt water.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Ok This is not correct Tesla claimed to have been able to harness power from the earth. The earth does carry a charge and does have a magnetic field there the earth does have potential energy.
Tesla patents claim that by getting the correct receptor the power of earth could be tapped for free. This would make metering electricity impossible.
Interestingly he was never able to complete his experiment due to J.P. MORGAN. Morgan ended up controlling Tesla's patents and the Tesla Co. Morgan also a huge influence on Tesla during his life time. Morgan was making a lot of cash from inefficient power distribution and lighting. Morgan owned General Electric, US steel and Guegeniun Cooper Mines and some power companies like Niagara. GE made a Mint of Niagara Falls. All of these interested made Morgan huge profits due to inefficient technologies like the hot Edison light bulb. Tesla's cold and efficient flourescent light bulb patent was also controlled by JP Morgan. Thus it was a full 50 years until fluorescent light came out commercially.
So next time you pay your 'metered' power bill or change those crappy GE built hot light bulb reflect on economics or greed of capitalist like jp and there affect on history and SCIENCE!!!
Michael boasts that Slashdot corrects errors, while other media do not. I challenge him to correct or defend his mistakes that I point out in this post.
Sims claims that the second law [of thermodynamics] makes such a wonderful machine impossible. If as he says this "should have been taught in junior high," then I guess he did not go to a good enough junior high school. The experts quoted in the Reuters article are much more correct, "citing the first law of thermodynamics" instead.
An explanation, for those of you who also went to the wrong junior high: The second law states that the total entropy of any closed system cannot decrease. This limits the efficiency with which engines can convert heat transfer to work, and requires that heat transfer can only flow from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. These facts are sufficient to rule out a mechanical perpetual motion machine -- that is, a machine which recycles its energy continuously, never ceasing its motion. But this inventor does not claim to have built such a device.
What this inventor does claim is to have found an unknown source of energy. Such a device need not violate the second law. What it does violate is the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. I am not being pedantic here. A 19th century scientist looking at the plans for a nuclear power plant would say that it violates the first law, not the second law. In science, these details are important, and it is vital that you get it right!
Reuters: 1 -- Slashdot: 0
When Sims says that the device is indeed desibred as a perpetual motion machine, he is more-or-less correct. Possibly what the inventor tries to say is that his machine is not a perpetual motion machine of the second kind,which operates without energy input, thus violating the second law. But it is clearly a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which has some magical energy input, and thus violates the first law. I'll give Sims the benefit of the doubt here.
Reuters: 1 -- Slashdot: 1
Next Sims states that three 100 watt light bulbs cannot possibly use 4500 watts of power. In fact, he calls this "total nonsense." But the truth is, we know practically nothing about these bulbs and the way they are run. Are they incandescent? Fluorescent? Neon tube? We simply don't know. They don't appear in the picture Sims linked us to. But in any case, 100 watts is the power consumed by the bulb run at some particular voltage, such as 110 VAC, or whatever they use in Ireland. The bulbs could well be run at a higher voltage, and would consume more power that way. Obviously a filament bulb would burn out. Even a neon lamp might run into breakdown voltage! But there is a simpler explanation -- the inventor just has some other load in parallel necessary to the functioning of the machine (a wormhole generator, subspace stabilizer, or whatever wacky thing he uses to get his energy from). Sims is not totally in the wrong here, but he really cannot to call the inventor's claim "total nonsense" when we have no idea what the experimental setup was.
Reuters: 2 -- Slashdot: 1
Finally, Sims claims that Slashdot is different from "other media" because Slashdot "diligently correct[s] [itself]." Well, here is his big chance to prove this. If he doesn't want to change the bit about the wattage, that's okay with me. But his clear misapplication of the second law of thermodynamics is a glaring error which demands satisfaction.
"Irish Inventor Says Cracks World's Energy Needs"
So, there you have it. Crack cocaine will fix any future energy crisis. Need more proof?
- It has been a pipe-dream of inventors since Leonardo da Vinci, but has the secret of free energy now been found in Ireland?
Crack? Pipe dream? I think you see what they're telling us. So crack is good after all.
Using my toaster, two blueberry waffles and a six pack of Guiness (coincidence? I think not!), I've perfected time-travel.
It appears CNN has fallen for it too!!!
From http://www.jasker.com/article2.htm:
Sounds like the company is trying to cover their a$$es here by stating that their device is just a glorified battery!
Quantum mechanical proof that this device is impossible: the commutator of the Hamiltonian of a system with itself is zero. A non-zero result could only be obtained by an improperly defined Hamiltonian. (dE/dt = [H,H]=0 Q.E.D.)
*** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
Yeah, that's all we need. Giant gyrosopes robbing the earth of its rotational energy!
Obviously, this story was a fluff piece. Some fluff is okay, but as watchdogs of society and government, journalists should have more important things to do than give endless free publicity to inventors and their "secret" society-altering inventions, be they Jaskars, Segways, or Transmeta chips. Traditional news values are utterly predictable and easy to manipulate (e.g. "Arm the Homeless").
However, zero point energy, as far as I understand it, is one of those quantum weirdities that seem to defy Newtonian physics.
The device in question is not a closed system.
:). The inventor could possibly use a flywheel and a 'magnet ramp' (search google), with the batteries giving the flywheel the initial spin and power the 'magnet ramp'.
Like a solar cell recieves external energy from light, this box is receiving various forms of energy from the environment. E.g. Temperature fluctuations, gravity, or even AC from a wall outlet
Maybe it is a sterling engine. (again search google)
Mmmm... shiny silver box... did someone say donut?
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
This is not a hoax. I happen to have seen the device working, and I can tell you that it does create energy out of nowhere, something we've been taught that we cannot do. Just like turning lead into gold, which is also very much possible.
Actually, not only have I seen the device, but I once met one of the inventors. As a matter of fact, I know one of the inventors personally. To be perfectly honest, I am actually the lead inventor of this system. I'm going to market it and make a fortune that will make Bill Gates look like a beggar on the streets! I will use this device to create warp drive, and the conquest of the universe will begin!
OH WELL.
The Reuters story doesn't once say "this is true," either. In fact, they go to great lengths to explain why the guy is probably a crackpot.
I'd like to see a retraction from Slashdot on this one - since, unlike the Reuters story, the Slashdot story is actually false, in that it claims Reuters was wrong. But Reuters was scrupulously accurate - quoting the man's claims, then quoting experts, then explaining the claims and why they're unlikely to be possible, while never once stating that he's legit or even that it's very likely he's legit.
Can I get my T-shirt now? I'd like it signed from Michael, "I admit I was wrong, and futhermore, I don't understand the first thing about journalism. I expected all journalists to take my side in stories rather than presenting a balanced viewpoint. Now I see what an idiot I was."
Thanks.
Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.
... every 17 months, which I assume is due fatigue caused by either heat or friction, or both.
This power source, after being jump started, not only runs until it BREAKS, but replaces the energy required to jump start it, runs at full power until the end, and loses no output as those parts wear out, then BREAKS!
The MPAA and the RIAA will slap down on this one bigtime with some help of whatever cabal controls power. Energy shouldn't be distributed for free, you have to pay royalties to the people responsible for its creation! If this takes off what will happen to those poor starving energy monopolies of the developed world? Why they would lose their only source of income and be unable to finance their lobby groups and buy senators by the dozen. Why, Governments might actually start do things for people rather than big industry, we can't let that happen! It will destroy the world as we know it.
If Reuters science is this bad, makes you wander about the accuracy of their other news sources.
no need for oil anymore, well, for energy anyway... that means that the entire world economy would die out. middle east would be left with no source of income, big texas oil kings would be left with nothing, and everything that follows behind them will die out. capitalism would have failed and we would all be in search of what to do next.
and that's why i hope it's true...
greg
sig - .
To whoever invents the next great energy creation tool that seems to put out more than it takes in - could you please do the rest of us and yourself a favor.
Keep it to yourself
Use electrolysys to make tons of hydrogen
Become a billionaire by selling it on the market at below market rates.
And when you die, let the world know how you did it in your will.
Thank you
As others have pointed out, the Reuters story does not try to assign any credibility to the man claiming to have created a device that can create more energy than it draws in. It's called the NEWS NOT the FACTS. They just thought it was nice filler, no need to pop a blood vessel.
With that part out of the way, let me give a more reasonable analysis. The idea that a system can't produce more than it takes in is a very good one, it makes sense to a layman and a highly educated scientist. Remember though, for this law to be applied the system must be CLOSED. It is possible to extract energy from a source outside the physical confines of a device, Michael. Ever heard of solar cells? Wind turbines? OTECs? Tidal generators? The Hoover Dam? I'm not going to say this particular person has found another way to extract energy that already exists outside his system and use it to generate a current. But please don't be so pig headed, science is about analysing things using an established method. If it wasn't for reactions like yours maybe people would be more open to scientific testing of such devices (the ones that weren't would probably be scam artists or people afraid their idea will be stolen by unscrupulous corporations/governments).
One final note, humans can't yet replicate the reactions found in our sun. Does that mean we can't use the energy the Sun bombards Earth with or that it's pointless to try to replicate the process the Sun uses?
Who moderates the moderators? -- Not a sig.(Its so obviously fake I won't comment on that but the Reuters article makes the statement...)
A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed.
This is such a bad assumption. Now matter what your elementary electronics teacher told you voltage is meaningless without current. And especially in power sources, where the output changes depending on the load. Also just a single voltage and current reading wouldn't mean anything either you'd need a complete profile of the voltage and current over a very long time period before you could ever make a statement about a power supply.
Who,What,When,Where,Why, and How?
If they can't all be credibly answered, it shouldn't be passed off as newsworthy.
Do the newswires now compete with the tabloids directly?
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
Ummm...Actually...Bottled Guinness now comes with super cool widgets that not only keep it cold, but give it a perfect head.
For more info, either read my writeup about it Here on JesusGeeks.net or go straight to the source: Usa.guinness.com (it has a cool flash animation showing how the new widget (which uses nitrogen) works). Or you can go see Wired's story on the same subject. 13.5 million dollars in R and D went into bringing you cold guinness with a head.
So stop your whining!
The anti-salmon
since the definition of parts is still quite iffy, its very possible that the fact of running out of stored power destroys the parts.
Thus this article would be 'true', none the less its still retarded.
I live in a giant bucket.
I'm not suprised that most of the media were taken in. After all, journalism is where the kids that flunk out of ed school go. If anyone knows of any general news sites that were not taken in, please tell us.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
With a warp drive that compresses space ahead of your vehicle, and expands it behind your vehicle, you can break the 300,000,000 km/sec speed limit law. However you are still not travelling faster than light in any frame of reference you will arrive at your destination as if you had. You also won't suffer the relatavistic problems of near-light speed travel.
Their view of the thing seems to be along the lines of "Hey, some guy claims he saw the Loch Ness Monster and he's building a submarine to search the lake."
And I'm sure that would cause at least some curious people to follow him and get a look at the submarine that he's building. Except apparently Routers just took the guys word for it and didn't get a very good look at the machine. From the article, "In a demonstration for Reuters, a prototype -- roughly the size of a dishwasher -- was run for around 10 minutes using four 12-volt car batteries as an initial power source."
Size of a dishwasher, eh? Anyone get a good look at the picture of this "prototype?" If you didn't check the link out from the slashdot article, Look here for a look.
Funny, but the grass sure looks pretty big around that machine that's the size of a dishwasher. If that thing was the size of a dishwasher, I would think that the blades of grass wouldn't be that distinct in the photo. Looks more to be about two feet long and a foot / foot-and-a-half wide. I guess that they just have small dishwashers in Ireland!
Yea, the guy claimed he found the Loch Ness Monster and said he's building a submarine to search for it. Only thing is, when someone asked to see the submarine, he was shown a picture of a pop can painted silver.
It's OBVIOUSLY welded shut to keep the excess energy in! Conservation of energy in a closed system, right? Maybe that's just because systems haven't been closed ENOUGH, and it's just been leaking out the whole time! That welding job closed it up good and tight so it couldn't get out, Duh!
Good one, Michael. The irony, of course, is the still incorrect and misleading heading on the "Yahoo charges for searches" story not far below this one.
But anyway, I'm surprised not one bit by reporters not having a basic enough understanding of science to debunk this guy. It's pretty sad, really.
-Legion
HAHAHA...
O crap... wait... april fools day is over 2 months away... darn
Well... mabey we can get cmdrtaco to re-run this piece on the first so we can get another laugh at other's stupidity in posting fake news
CoyboyNeal is God
Simply try this Amazing machine for 30-days and if after 30-days you do not experience both a huge increase in the amount of energy produced along with longer lasting more intense kilowatt-hours, simply send the machine back to us and we'll refund you 100% of the cost including shipping. With this guarantee, our product must work for you... or we'll lose money on every sale!
Order Now!
Winner of the BURDETT RESEARCH "GOLDEN STAR" AWARD
RESULTS MAY VARY. NOTE: Go to here to be removed.
The demonstration they did was hardly conclusive. As a matter of fact, it's so vague that it pretty much fails to impress the most imaginitive person. The biggest proof that this is a hoax is how empty the 'demonstration' is. I find it difficult to believe that somebody who's so clever they can solve a problem that has been bugging scientists for such a long time, but they cannot do a demonstration that anybody could cobble together fraudulently. I am not electrically minded, but like some people that posted here already my first thought was that they built a capacitor.
Here's what bugs me, hoaxes along these lines are a dime a dozen. You'd think that somebody that's out to prove they invented something 'bigger than the wheel', they'd be loaded with tons of different demonstrations ready to go. I can imagine they'd at least have one big DEFINITIVE demonstration that'd make people go "wow!". But their choice... well I find it laughable.
Unfortunately, my 'proof' isn't very definitive either. I admit that. You'd think, though, that if they really invented such a big thing, they'd know that people would immediately be skeptical. Throwing in a demonstration that is hardly a measure of their claims would seem like a stupid move for a legitimate claim, and a likely move from a fraudulent one.
"Derp de derp."
Unfortunately it is not as good if you happen to know about quantum theory and hermeneutics. The problem with the Sokal article is that it is not actually as nonsensical as he claims. The Quantum mechanics pieces are pure bullshit, the hermenutics pieces are a cut and past job from other sources.
So the hoax does not actually demonstrate what it is meant to. The other problem I have with Sokal is that he is very happy to allow people to believe he is rubishing top rank continental philosophers like Derrida, in fact he only goes after figures that are marginal at best. The only front rank philosopher he goes after in 'Imposteurs Intellectuele' is Kristava, who gained respect for her early work rather than the later work he criticises.
Sokal is quite happy to admit that he does not demolish Derrida in private (we have exchanged email) but is quite happy to let the 'misunderstanding' continue in private.
What it really comes down to is that many theoretical physicists have to have this feeling that they are discovering absolute truth and thus have an irrational hatred of folk who tell them their idea is nuts.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
We Obey The Laws Of Thermodynamics!!
-Homer
Sadly, this thing hasn't been exposed yet, just dismissed on principle. Its a safe bet to call it a hoax/non-deliberate error, but journalistic integrity (which slashdot never had) would demand an examination of the device not just a general denial.
If michael would take of his James Randi glasses maybe he'd see that the articles themselves are skeptical and there isn't a need for a long "debunking" of something that's already pretty damn suspicious to begin with. Give people a little more credit and you'll be surprised how bright they are. Instead michael is patting himself on the back for providing the unwashed masses The Truth.
It is a VERY heavy beer.
have made the story much more believable for me. If, instead of using batteries as the power source, the guy used a potato; and instead of lighting up some 100 watt light bulbs, he powered up a laptop running Linux...playing some MP3s, while downloading more using a Linux Gnutella client.
Nobody around here would have fell for that, would they?
Success is the journey...not the destination
Ron Paul
to show the hog's being bathed,
/.!
"Don't assume the light bulbs are the only thing drawing power from the batteries. That's a large box and can hold plenty of other electronic apperatus" - like some BIG deep-cycle batteries and inverters.
"The machine could be drawing power from ambient heat, various radiation, or even chemical reactions with air/water/gasses." - Ambient heat? Look for frost. Radiation? Go look up the solar constant? See any p-v cells or heat exchangers? Neither did I. Chemical reactions - with what?
"This probably is a hoax" - it is.
"Even if(though) it's not creating power from nothing, it could still be a viable power source" - it is - look how much energy this one story released on
The onus is on the inventors to prove their claims, not on us to accept them.
True to bad form, Slashdot's lead-in to this link is a far more egregious example of bad journalism than anything in this article. What's with the spin on this making it sound like the entire news media is being totally duped here or that it's so amazing that someone at Reuters believes this is true? Reporting someone's claims doesn't mean you believe those claims. BTW, I hope Slashdot readers expect better of Slashdot. After all, wasn't that AOL/Red Hat rumor posted here? I hope the Slashdot moderators thoroughly checked the facts in that story before posting it here.
Interesting double-standard.
The tone of the article is largely skeptical, pointing out prior examples of such energy solution claims and talking (albeit too briefly) to a few experts who pointed out the problems with the claims. Seemed pretty balanced to me. Mostly the article is reporting the guy's claims and offering opinions of others which is perfectly legitimate reporting and doesn't necessarily mean the reporter believes what is being claimed. IMO, this isn't particularly bad journalism, but I can understand interpretting it that way if you are constantly watching for any reason to jump on the news media. They even end the article with what I view as a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Sounds to me like a few Slashdot readers need to learn a bit more about journalism before attempting to critique the media.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Michael says, "Now I know that wire stories are often run with minimal verification - each paper or website assumes that Reuters, or UPI, or AP has checked the story for veracity before it went out. And I know that reporters and editors can't be experts on every field of endeavor that they report on." Now wait just a darned minute! Though UPI was an exception, in its day, most 'wire service' is merely a way to share each other's copy. AP is an association of newspapers -- and other media -- on a network of each other's work. AP doesn't check that much because it is 'from a member'it's not their job. Reuters and AP have their own news staffs but it is in urban areas handling only major, international stories. The rest is picked up from some local publication. I only put this in, Michael, because you were trumpeting accuracy and urging each of us to make corrections wherever we see an error occur.
Those who would surrender freedom for security soon have neither.
The universe came from nothing right? All that energy came from nothing right?
I still reckon the guy has his head in a bucket of Guinness though.
It is worth noting that there is almost no currently accepted scientific paradigm on this planet that is older than about 100- 200 years. Remember that the entirety of physics was redefined by Einstein, among others, and Darwin (and friends) redefined biology a little earlier. Science is as dogmatic and as rigid as any other religion.
I recommend reading some of Tom Bearden's work for an interesting and slighlty more mainstream example of alternative energy systems.
http://www.cheniere.org/
technoshamanic resistance within hyper-transgressive ontology
According to the article, the device uses off the shelf parts and previously known principles to provide more energy than is put in.
The inventor does not claim to have made a perpetual motion device (that's an assumption that was made by Michael when he posted the story), he only claims to extract more electrical energy than is put into the machine.
I can think of at least one other device that fits into this category, and we all know about it: the solar cell is also "a self-sustaining unit which at the same time provides surplus electrical energy". You just take this little thing outside, and you get electricity out of it. Until it breaks.
There are other simple devices that take energy from something other than an obvious fuel (a PN diode will capture microwave energy - not much, but an array of them might be able to get a useful amount of energy)
I, for one, wouldn't assume that the machine is impossble or that it doesn't work just because I don't know the principles behind it. He may have invented a "Zero-Point Energy Cell" - like a solar cell, but it gets its' energy from a source other than solar radiation.
Don't be too quick to deny something that you have no knowledge of.
(that said, I'm not sure I believe the guy - I just don't think anyone posting on Slashdot has enough information to determine the truth of the matter).
- The Sigless Wonder
Hmm, looks like the media that uses news feeds from the AP may verify their sources ALMOST as much as the Slashdot editors do.
-miklm
It's amazing that Reuters ran this story. It's even more amazing that news media across the country are running it too.
Yeah, especially since [gasp!!] O.J.'s girlfriend is *missing*!
Makes you wonder where the hell the media's priorities are.
~Philly
lythe is right - none of the articles on MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo claim it's legit. It's not like GE is hawking these things on eBay - the reporters looked at the device, talked to scientists, and pretty much reported the claim. They never said it was true. /. gets no scoop this time (unless it's from the bottom of a shoe).
You know, there already exists a perpetual motion machine, which started at the beginning of time, and will end at complete entropy. It runs of gravity, heat, magnetic fields, even time itself. Anyone know what it is? The universe. Even it isn't perpetual. Just some food for thought.
-1, Disagree is not a valid option. Troll, Flamebait and Offtopic are not a substitute.
NEWS FLASH! A hick with a welder, some sheet metal, a couple car batteries and a lunatic claim is now considered /. material!
Michael, why are you so skeptical? Maybe you didn't notice but this is quantum physics. Quantum physics is currently a very hot buzzword. Everyone knows that anything is possible with buzzword technology.
You're supposed to wait until the hype wears off and quantum physics becomes old hat, like dotcom or something. Then it's time to be skeptical and say it won't work.
The Amazing MegaMod Thread (now >700 mods!!!) led to discussions with the editors initiated by CmdrTaco.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
I'd just as soon not immediately refuse to believe this just because "I'm such a clever guy and I know all the physics and you don't you silly clod."
I WANT TO BELIEVE!!! (This would be great for my space craft...)
But... look at this picture: http://www.jasker.com/image/machine1.jpg
To me, it looks like a little toy shot like a special-effect model so that it looks bigger... am I wrong?
An unnamed source stated this research was funded by Enron Corporation. When questioned as to how Enron plans to make money selling free energy, a spokesperson said "volume."
How about he writes up a patent application and publish the design so that others can try to duplicate the experiment? That's how actual science is usually carried out. Otherwise, anyone can hook up a fuel cell in a metal box to a light bulb, run 2 leads from it to a car battery, and get that bone headed Reuters reporter to believe that he's got a perpetual power source. Must have been a slow news day.
Irish Inventor Says Cracks World's Energy Needs By Kevin Smith
C'mon people, the story is *not* reality, but just a few missing pages from the script for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back!
Anybody want a peanut?
if someone presented an attempt at a proof of free energy using established formal methodologies, and showing a full understanding of the existing body of knowledge, one might be willing to sit down and give them the benefit of the doubt. But claims of breakthroughs in harnessing free energy invariably always come from individuals proposing new configurations of magnets, crystals, capacitors, or any other easily obtainable items with properties poorly understood by the ignorant.
Whenever the harnessing of a new source of energy will eventually take place, you can rest quite assured that it won't come through the banal realization that "oh, we've never tried arranging curiously strong magnets in the shape of the Number Of The Beast" or any other such nonsense.
-
This current claim is a heck of a lot like Joseph Newman's machine in 1984. Both worked on batteries... Both guys are paranoid...
A car battery is about 50Ah? at 12V with a stack of 4 is 2400Wh, so you could pull 4500W for ten minutes, and run the 300W of bulbs for nearly 2 hours without breaking any laws and still have a good bit of juice in the batteries. Since the batteries would be quite warm after a draw like that, the cell voltage might even be a little higher.
There is another possbile explaination. Notice the batteies are not fully charged to begin with? (A fully charged 12V battery will have nearly 16V across the terminals.) Every once in a while, a gizmo pops up that claims to rejuvinate dead batteries. These seemed to work best on old carbon batteries and you do not hear about them much anymore, but the effect was amazing. Hook a dead battery to the little gizmo and a few minute later the battery was cranking out juice again. And the gizmo was not transfering power to the battery. How did it do that?
Batteries often go dead with plenty of energy still trapped inside them. Some of this energy will come back if the battery is left alone for a while or a good hard smack will often bring a dead battery back to life for a bit. It also may be possible to bring a dead battery back to life by actually drawing power from it. It is not magic, but it has fooled a lot of people over the years.
A self-sustaining unit that provides any sort of extra energy is, tada, a perpetual motion machine. (Technically, any self-substaining unit by itself is one, without providing any extra energy, but, while that's slightly more possible than one that does, it's not anywhere near as useful.)
They basically said 'This isn't a flatblade screwdriver. It's a device with one end intending to fit into the groove in the head of a screw, and a handle on the other end which lets you turn it, which then turns the screw.'
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
My understanding of the mathematics of electrical science is... less than it should be. However, the reporter really shouldn't have needed a decent knowledge of science to know that this thing is bullshit. Even a very stupid person should at least raise an eyebrow when they're told, "These four car batteries would normally only power these three normal little lightbulbs for one and a half minutes". That's certainly what raised my eyebrow, even before reading the rest of the Slashdot story and seeing the kilowatt discrepancy brought up.
Science was not required to figure out that this story was bunk. Common sense was.
C'mon, you guys should be able to see what's really going on here! After printing out the article, pasting it on my wall, and drawing weird lines through it, I could clearly see that he was really sending secret codes.
I understand that life's not fair, just why is it never unfair in my favor?
erm, yeah, something like that.
Buckets,
pompomtom
"There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
While I don't know about the story in question, ZPE is not only proven, but Bell Labs and Lucient Technologies announced a couple of weeks ago that they're actually employing it in the manufacture of experimental nano-tech. You can read the press releases. You can see those three letters, "ZPE". So anybody who doesn't "believe" in free energy is now officially ignorant. Which means 60% (or more) of the posters on this thread can just shut their programmed gobs now, please & thank you.
Second. It's FREE energy. NOT perpetual motion. ZPE is based on ambient energy which has been previously un-advertised, (it's been part of human knowledge since around Tesla's time), and has remained untapped by the general public. (Of course, today it's only been given a status of working on the quantum level, and only because its the only fucking way nano-tech is going to work; industry needed the knowledge to become declassified. But there ARE working large scale versions of free power sources. Trust me on this.
--For fuck's sake! Why do you think Tesla, the inventor of AC power generation has been black-balled from history and science for the last half century? Use your massively over-rated nerd brains for half a second.)
Next point: Cold Fusion, (which does indeed work, btw), is again, NOT perpetual motion. It's simply a low temperature system of creating a fusion reaction. It's not magic. The logic behind the process is not wishful in any way. It makes solid sense. The only reason Cold Fusion has been so heavily resisted is that those in power don't want you to have it. --M.I.T. purposely fudged their results of a working Pons & Flieshman model during the big hoopala after the cold fusion paper was published. Several big institutions got the set-up working. M.I.T. fudged their results and used their clout to kill Cold Fusion and to maintain support for their hot fustion research programs; this was researched, documented and aired by one of the big news outlets. (CBS, I believe, made the hour documentary back in the early 90's.)
But the programming still sticks. It runs deep, and tech-geeks are prime targets, because even though they are only pawns, they remain in many ways, the engineers and keepers of today's reality.
As such, you can always count on the brain-mush factor in people. Slashdot is living proof. Tell them it's not 'cool' to believe in Cold Fusion and the low-ego morons around here will drop the idea like a hot rock in order to jump back into the safety of the modified truths sold to them since birth. --Why do you think you were fed so much 'science' learning channel crap when you were kids? It's because kids are easy to program. Most of the idiots here will argue till they're blue in the face to defend their childhood programming, which makes you no better than kids brought up in hard-core Christian communities. You insist that you choose through free will, but the truth is you've been brainwashed since birth.
-Fantastic Lad
Your instructor, I mean.
Voltage: this is a "potential difference", essentially, when charge moves due to voltage, it picks up energy such that energy = charge * voltage
Current: this is charge in motion. Current measures the amount of charge moving through a surface per unit time.
so you take some amount of charge, q, multiplied by some potential difference, V, and you get how much energy the charge picked up. If you know the current, I, for some time t, q = I*t. So the change in energy = I*V*t. Power is just the change in energy divided by how long that change took. Thus P = I*V.
As for V = IR, there isn't really a way to derive the relationship: Ohm's law is empirical (means that we simply observe that the current through something other than vacuum is proportional to the voltage applied to it, and the constant of proportionality is R).
Understand, I have brushed a ton of stuff under the rug, including a lot of calculus for time varying quantities, the fact that V/I (which should just be R) is sometimes dependent on the current and always dependent on the temperature. A really good reference on E&M is Electricity and Magnetism (or something like that) by Purcell.
BlackGriffen
Notice it wasn't put in the Science section? That's because this story was pure entertainment, not hard science reporting.
It's called an APC battery backup...
...and the APC is a lot smaller.
Big friggin deal
So someone created a metered capacitive discharge "backup" unit and threw in a motor to make noise for effect.
The stupid reporter could have used a simple equation to figure out how long the bulbs should have burned. (Way more than the ten minutes they watched them burm)
(watts of battery draw x number of minutes charged) / (4 bulbs * 100 watts per bulb) = number of minutes the friggin bulbs will burn.
Just remember, these are the very same "reporters" that make the news about politics and the environment and the economy.
The shiny metal case it comes in looks like an overclocker's wet dream.
Keep reading. Verse 5 mentions the that the Sea (a huge bowl) had a rim shaped "like a lily blossom", implying (as seen in one diagram) that the top edge of the bowl, where the diameter would most naturally be measured (by a rod-like device), would be larger than the diameter towards the main part of the bowl, around which the circumference was most likely measured (by a cord or string). Those assumptions are then consistent with a much more accurate value of pi.
The width of the brim, mentioned in verse 5 as being a "handsbreadth in thickness", may also be relevant. If the circumference was measured around the inner rim, and the diameter was measured from outer rim to outer rim, one gets a value of value for pi within a couple percentage points due to the thickness of the 'bowl', something a Jewish rabbi named Nehemiah pointed out around 150 AD.
Not that the bible is a mathematics text. Personally, I suspect they rounded some of those cubit figures off a bit. In science we call that "significant figures", right?
--LP
Firstly, a news agency is not excused from stupid reporting by inserting words like "claims" and "seems" in the appropriate places to qualify their statements. It's their responsibility to realize the guy is obviously a kook and not waste our time with it.
Also, it's high time news agencies accept the fact that when they report things, a lot of people aren't smart enough to evaluate the information and just treat is as gospel truth, ignoring the qualifiers because they're too subtle. Reporters need to analyse the information they're reporting on and provide a solid explanation of the principles involved.
I'm always astounded that reporters will go to great length to rehash all of the historical details that lead up to whatever they're reporting about, even if nobody on the planet with an IQ above single digits could possibly have missed it, but don't even bother to check the basic facts they're reporting *on*.
Politics is another subject about which reporting is particularly egrigious in this manner. Politicians make statements that are flat-out lies about verifiable topics, and reporters come along and report what they're saying without checking any of the facts. The unknowledgable reader comes away having heard only the lies and won't necessarily know it's bs.
It's high time that during elections newspapers should start running reports to the effect of "last night candidate A said this and that, and this is true but that isn't..." I'm sure it would improve the overall quality of our government if our elected officials were regularly called out for their lies.
But for science, it's even more inexcusable. If a reporter wants to report on somebody claiming to have broken the laws of thermodynamics, they should damn well stop to check it out before publishing.
If you look about the "About us" page for hydrogen.co.uk you'll see it's based in London. Since I'm heavily into the area and have never heard of such a trust the chances are it is a private venture run from his own home. The fact he is an h2net attendee shows him to be serious about hydrogen as an energy source. I suspect this one is a red herring.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
AUGH! That's not what I meant to do!
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
It was in the freaking Lifestyle section! A puffy entertainment piece! Humor. In your zeal to show how smart you thought you were, you guys neglected to see where it was located. If there ever was an argument for not educating people, you guys would be it.
Since the number of currently moderating users in the category "credulous morons" is evidently greater than that in the category "Jews with even a sub-rudimentary knowledge of Judaism," I guess I--of the second category--have to point this out:
"Divrei Yamim B" is " 2nd Chronicles," and you, parent poster, are either an insufferable asshole, or a subtler troll than your grammar would suggest. If it's the latter, good job. If not, become a Christian; you'll fit in better.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Its a bit sore that the reuters article depicts and even compares the 'so-called' inventors of cold-fusion with this Mr X. The inventors of cold-fusion where really carefull in publicising their work. They showed the complete scientific community their work and at first no one seemed to find a flaw in their setup. They media got the smell of it and then it became complete exarated. When finally the mistake was found they were one of the first to admit it. And now everyone talks 'bout those scammers from the cold-fusion. The scientific career of these people is complete ruined.
And now some weird guy in Ireland makes a machine which produces a whole lot of power. But refuses to give his name and let alone gives permission to check his apparatus!!
I'm quite sure that when one strips this machine their will be a load of car-batteries or other energy supplying stuff.
Energy just doesnt come for free!
-still struggles against the gravitational energy everyday
fleener, you are talking about legal responsibility. Yes a journalist can print any old crap as long as they are not knowingly libelling someone. There are plenty of tabloids that print nonsense, such as "World War II bomber found on the Moon" and "Wife turns hubbie into coffee table", with amusing faked photos. mshomphe is talking about a moral responsibility where if a news source presents itself as having integrity then the journalists should investigate their stories thoroughly and only print what they think is accurate and the truth. I can't remember who, but some prominent US tv personality stated that if Watergate happened today then it would never come to light unless presented as a soundbite to a news conference that provided free drinks.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Of course, dear old Michael Sims at slashdot, the unthinking man's James Randi comes down pretty hard on this one, saying
But in fact, it's Michael's assertion which is, well, embarrassing. If you will allow me the following unproven assertions:
- Michael Sims is capable of feeding himself.
- Michael Sims has a brain and nervous system.
- Michael Sims' brain and nervous system function in roughly the same way as other people's
and the provable medical truth that the nervous system of a normal human being produces low-level electrical activity, then it seems hard to escape the conclusion that Michael Sims is a self supporting system (ie, he can feed himself) which at the same time produces (small amounts of) surplus electrical energy.Of course, Sims isn't a wonder of nature; the electrical energy is produced from the chemical digestion of the food he eats. But nobody, least of all its inventor, made any specific claim that the Jaskers box was a closed system thermodynamically. For all we know, it eats flies. Or perhaps he's invented a cool way to separate out oxygen from the air to run a fuel cell.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Wasn't Tesla black-balled for making those damned coils that the Brotherhood of NOD used? Those bastards used to fry all my soldiers and vehicles in C&C. Of course, that's just the sort of blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative bastards. You sit there all day on your loathsome spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement! You hypocritical whining toadies with your colour tv sets, Tony Jacklin golf clubs, and your secret bleedin' Masonic handshakes! You wouldn't let me join, would you? You black-balling bastards! Well I wouldn't give you free energy or a perpetual motion machine now if you got down on your lousy stinking knees and BEGGED ME! --
--My purpose set, my will defined. Caress the air, embrace the skies.
I believe this is a hoax or a mistake for all the reasons given by others.
However, I also believe that the laws of thermodynamics may well not hold in their conventional formulation under certain extreme circumstances.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge we still don't know how to create a new universe to harness the energy produced in a Big Bang-type event.
Somebody needs to ship this brilliant Irish guy over to California to meet the "Wireless Free" wackos. Certainly his incredible new device wouldn't release any harmful radiation. I mean.. that might break the second law of thermodynamics or something! Hell, this amazing machine absorbes all the deadly cell-phone radiation within a 100 mile radius and simultaneously renders aspartame harmless! How? Sorry, I can't tell you. It's a secret. But honestly.. it does work! Hypochondriacs everywhere can attest to this. Just ask 'em!
You mean to tell me that media sources (like Slashdot) sometimes report information that isn't true? You mean to tell me that sometimes news outlets don't check their facts and sources before reporting or passing on information to the reading public? Say it ain't so!
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
No he isn't. He never makes the claim Sims attributes to him. He never says anything about what might or might not happen in a sealed box. That's my whole point.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
If not, why not?
If you have a convincing reason why not, why do you assume that someone else shares your definition of a self-sustaining unit, based on no evidence that this is the case.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Baz
"Unfortunately it is not as good if you happen to know about quantum theory and hermeneutics."
a .h tml
I`m sorry, but it IS bollocks - total bollocks. Yes, he cut and pasted stuff to make it look plausible, but it means nothing!
And he doesnt claim to rubbish philosophers - he rubbished a magazine for uncritically accepting something which looked like it made sense, without checking it. He goes out of his way, in many of his other articles, to make this clear.
Check out:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
especially
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/norett
It can go in the same pile as 'The most amazing loss-less compression breakthrough ever"
I hope the journalists who went to his house, checked their wallets when they left... those lepricorns can never be trusted
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Also, I think you're evading the key questions: was his hoax article total nonsense, or was it not? Did it deserve to be published in a serious journal, or did it not?
What it really comes down to is that many theoretical physicists have to have this feeling that they are discovering absolute truth and thus have an irrational hatred of folk who tell them their idea is nuts.
That's not the real point of contention. The issue is whether scientific theories are attempts at objective explanations, or if they're actually just social constructs.
--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
The "news" media are a bunch of morons. It's what you do if you can't get a job in sociology or at Macdonalds. They simply and credulously regurgitate anything they are given.
Have you *ever* seen something that you know about reported factually, accurately? No? In that case what on earth makes you think that *anything* in *any* of the news media outlets remotely resembles fact or what really happened? It's all complete fantasy.
Deleted
There was a great documentary about a device using the water hammer phonomenom to generate steam/power. The slightly crazed looking American guy who'd invented it had just installed one in a fire station and predicted that it would revolutionise the world in a few months.....now lets see that would have been around 5 years ago? Anybody heard anything since? "If I had a hammer...I'd hammer some water.."
Indeed! I've seen this dozens of times. Jimmy Whacko makes an outrageous scientific claim. Reporter interviews ten Respectable Scientists(tm), every one of whom says that Jimmy W is full of it. Reporter reports that Jimmy's ideas are "highly controversial"!!! Right... Among the 10 R.S.'s, there's no controversy at all...
WTF are you on about?
The journalist consulted opposing views from:
1) Robert Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland
2) William Beattie, senior lecturer in electrical engineering at Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland
Did you notice the article appearing in the "Lifestyle" section, rather than science? Did you notice that the article made extensive use of words like "skeptics" and "undaunted" and referred to the cold fusion debacle? Did you notice that it always referred to the claim in the conditional, as in its last line: "If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness"?
Did you even read the article?
The criticism of Reuters by michael is entirely unjustified here. He asks us to keep an eye out for retractions. What is Reuters going to retract? They accurately reported what had happened: some people have made an improbable claim that, *if true and that is unlikely*, could be revolutionary. Reuters consulted some experts who confirmed that it was unlikely; the journo reported seeing a demonstration that apparently supported the claims, but did not claim that the case was proven; the article discussed the context of claims about energy generation, noting that some contributors were serious and others were not. There is nothing to retract.
That JASKER POWER is an anagram for JAPE WORKERS.
dictionary.com meaning of Jape :
n.
A joke or quip.
I guess Michael doesn't read the wires much. Search on Google for something like this and you'll see tons of articles where the wires send out corrections, like this one where Prudential's market value was underreported by 90% at its IPO!! Gimme my shirt!!
Intelligent Life on Earth
NOT A HOAX! Not a scam! Using this incredible technology you can be making FREE ENERGY in your own home in less than a week!
"I didn't believe it, but it's true! In just one day I was making FREE ENERGY and powering all my heating and electricity systems! The power company didn't believe it when I called them and asked to be disconnected!" -- J.Whippins, NJ
The incredible Jasker electrical device is capable of replenishing ITS OWN ENERGY using nothing more than an ordinary car battery! For the low cost of parts you can buy at your local electrical store, you can charge your lights, electronics, appliances, even your home heating, for next to nothing! YOU'LL NEVER NEED TO PAY FOR POWER AGAIN!!
Just send email to jasker@really-secret-hideout.co.uk for information on how to get your first FREE ENERGY production kit delivered to your home! Hurry up and be the first!
Granted, I'm not an expert on local power consumption around the globe, but isn't that why we all have 110/220 switches on our Power supplies?
I suppose I could do a Google search, but then again, I'm not an editor..
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Slashdot often posts articles about these "new energy" devices. However, their energy has to come from somewhere else, typically a dirty "old energy" source.
Sounds to me like this guy belongs in the "Duff Book of World Records".
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
The problem is that it is quite reasonable for a journal that takes an article that is interdisciplinary to look at the part of the article that is in their domain and take the part that is outside on trust.
The media and yourself take it on trust that Sokal is telling the truth when he says he was lying. This is a somewhat odd position to take. But if you start by wanting to believe that the whole field is bollocks then you are likely to believe the assertion because you want to.
In private correspondence Sokal admits that the 'gobbledygok' is in the quotes he uses rather than the main text. And here the problem is that the quotes are 'bollocks' because Sokal claims that to be the case.
The other problem is that journals like Social Text do not claim to be edited like science journals. Nor is Social Text exactly a journal of the front rank.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"Excuse me, what's this cord hooked to the wall."
"Oh, well, uh, that's, uh, that's powering the house! Yeah, that's it!"
"But that's just a power outlet."
"Look over there!"
(running sound as Jasker guy runs off)
Hedrick, chief executive of a company set up with a view to licensing the device in the United States, said the technology shattered preconceived laws of science.
I wonder if ENRON has bitten yet?
[1] This is a fine world that we live in, where I can find a website devoted to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
/. for correcting thier ignorance.
/. mentioned on CNN two years ago.
It is a fine world that we live in, where CNN credits
Since publication of this story, CNN and other media have been criticized for falling for a clear hoax. According to popular technical web site slashdot.org the story is full of holes.
Never thought I'd ever see
--
Why can't you just post the headline? I don't want your opinions on jounalistic integrity. I can decide what merit the story has for myself.
It's "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters". Not, "News for nerds, and my half-baked opinion of the state of mass media".
Looks like CNN took you up on your challenge, Michael. And they cite Slashdot as the source of their new-found skepticism! Too funny!
Arthur C. Clarke addresses this in 3001: The Final Odyssey. Mankind had tapped zero-point energy, giving them free energy. Problem was, the release of all that energy had a way of significantly heating up the planet...
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I would ordinarily be annoyed that yet another perpetual motion scam has been posted to slashdot, but how is this any less credible than that "ultimate stem cell" story just hours before?
I'm really surprised at the hostility and shrillness displayed in most of the replies on this topic. I mean, yeah it is probably a hoax. I think it is a hoax, but I don't KNOW that it is a hoax. Most of the people commenting on this are coming on like they know something, like they have inside information or, more typically, they are just so smart that they know for sure. Especially the original poster, who implies the article has been officially revealed to be a hoax. It has not. What's the harm in keeping an open mind? After all, if it is real it solves a number of fundamental problems we are struggling with. I don't expect anything is going to come of it, but I would like to find out more, see a better demonstration of the devise. There is actually a credible person quoted in the Reuters news release who says it is possible the thing could be for real. This is Nick Cook, aviation editor for Jane's Defence Weekly. Last time I checked, JDW was a highly credible publication. The biggest objection to the credibility of the Jasker devise is that it can only function as advertised if it is violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The energy has to come from somewhere, right? Well, maybe it is coming from somewhere. I've done enough reading on zero point energy to know that breakthroughs are possible. Personally, I think we are at least ten years and billions of dollars away from a breakthrough, but history is full of individual inventors pulling rabbits out of their hats. So, like I said, I'd like to find out more.
from cnn.com story:
Is this story a hoax?
Since publication of this story, CNN and other media have been criticized for falling for a clear hoax. According to popular technical web site slashdot.org the story is full of holes.
"Three 100 Watt light bulbs created a drain of 4500 Watts", - it should be 300 Watts. The inventor comments that perpetual motion is impossible, but then says what he's created is a "self-sustaining unit" that generates surplus energy, surely just another name for the same thing?
Slashdot points out that this inventor's claim contravenes the second law of thermodynamics which states that in a closed system, any real physical process ends with less useful energy than it started with, some is always wasted.
In other words, a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
Not the best retraction I've ever seen, but it qualifies. Ok, where is my T-Shirt?
There is nothing thermodynamically or theoretically impossible about cold fusion. Nuclear fusion is well understood and experimentally verified. It just naturally happens under extremely hot/high energy environments, i.e. hydrogen bombs or the sun. Cold fusion is just the idea of doing regular fusion at low temperatures, which would require either an extremely slow cold "burn" with high enough local energy for the reactants but low energy overall, or a nuclear catalyst of some sort which lowers the Energy of Activation, like the CNO cycle (which enhances the reaction but only at high temperatures and thus wouldn't be good candidate for cold fusion).
In other words, theoretically possible, but damned if anyone actually knows how to do it.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Slashdot was quick to judge every other news source for printing this article but it seems that Slashdot was the only one to break any form of journalistic code of ethics with this one. The stories written about this new claim, say nothing more than that, some unknown scientist is making a claim and this is what he showed us. There was no qualitative analysis at all. Nothing to try and intentionally lead the reader into believing the scientist's claims. In fact, it even mentions that these claims have been made in the past and have been found to be nonsense. The only qualitative comment of any sort was the typical "if this is true it could change the world" comment, which is used in every scientific journal no matter how secure. Yet it was Slashdot who posted the title "News Media Scammed by 'Free Energy' Hoax". A title that intentionally misleads the reader into thinking that there is some evidence which disproves this scientist's claims. There was no evidence, however, only the pure conjecture of someone whos scientific credentials are questionable. If we read on, the very next post on stemcell research makes some very interesting claims. But, in normal Slashdot style, it was approached with just a hint of skepticism and a 'let's just wait and see the proof' mentality. As opposed to the previous post, who, despite all of its appeals for proof, had its mind already made up and was more than willing to tell you why. All this talk of the second law of physics, etc, etc. Perhaps the machine is able to produce energy from oxygen molecules? Certainly that wouldn't violate the second law of physics. But it is not this righteous and unbased denouncement that has me so amused. What has me amused is that almost every single Slashdot post followed suit in ridiculing the obsurdity of the claim. Again, not in a midly skeptical, probably-not, wait-and-see tone, but as if the scientific community had already issued its verdict on this as a fraud and that the mere _possibility_ of such a claim was so outlandish that it could be dismissed outright. Just another testament to the fact that people are sheep no matter where you go.
One of the few time I checked their web site there was an article about a VA Beach "Inventor" who created one of those "magic fuel line magnetic gas mileage booster" - just gas running thru a couple of perm mags, JC Whitney sells them; they come up every few years (once the last scam is forgotten) to bite the gullible - local govts have been known to buy them for school buses, etc. I wrote CSICOP about it and, probably coincidentally, someone wrote an article about similar claims.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Dear Michael I completely understand your eagerness to slash this piece of news, that has to do with a seemingly unrealistic idea. Let me ask you something. You blame major news agencies for not checking the story for veracity. In other words, they (news agencies) made a statement that lacked sufficient evidence. However, you made the same mistake, you eagerly jump to a conclusion that a story is not true (it is a hoax) lacking sufficient evidence that would support your point of view. I'm not sure what kind of degree of an education you possess. However, I (having a master degree in aerospace engineering) can say that based on all my knowledge I can not state that the story is not true. It doesn't take much intelligence to repeat the most known by average people Second Law of Thermodynamics left and right. I know the Law, however I don't dare to claim that I understand quantum physics enough to make 'impossibility' claims. There's been enough evidence in practice (PATTERSON POWER CELL) and in theory (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Casimir effect etc) to actually prompt us to thinking instead of sticking to well trodden dogmatic roads. May be it is time to do some reading of the science literature rather than headlines of the news? I would like to encourage you to use your God given wisdom and keep open mind instead of blindly following the letter of the law.
This story is in no way a "validation" of this supposed technology. I took it as one of those quirky people stories. I don't think you finish a serious news story with the words "...the most important Irish invention since Guinness". Jeez, don't be so concrete people.
Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
Maybe his domestic power needs are 3 100W light bulbs.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I agree. They are called "laws" of thermodynamics -- but that is a misnomer of course. The grand and wonderful universe we live in is not bound to obey the laws we make. These "laws" are merely concise descriptions of observed phenomena. We have observed that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius. We feel confident that if we go ahead and freeze a bucket of water every day it will always freeze at the same temperature. But water isn't freezing at 0 because we told it to. If one day water froze at -10 we'd have to go back to the drawing board and make a whole slew of new theories to explain why. That's what science is about, in a nutshell.
I'm very aware that many hoaxes are perpetrated of this stripe, and I have a large measure of skepticism when it comes to such claims, but as a scientist I'd have to say that "not proven" doesn't (at this time) mean "disproven" (again, at this time). It's conceivable that this machine is the real deal, for the simple fact that nobody knows yet what it does. As a possible solution that doesn't violate any known physics, what if the machine consumes something unobserved (as yet) for its power? Just because it might produce more electricity than it uses doesn't make it a perpetual motion machine, or necessarily a hoax. What if it eats matter, or gravity, or some other fuel? Until tests confirm or deny these things, it's unscientific simply to reject it with derision. Remember that until Einstein, there was a "law of conservation of matter" that was separate from energy. Although unlikely, it's possible this device is following the laws of physics in a completely unexpected manner. I'll wait until it's proven a hoax before I laugh too loudly, and I suggest all of you consider that as well.
Virg
In reality the achievement of this invention adheres strictly with known, accepted and proven physics principles. It is emphasised there are no new discoveries disproving accepted physics laws. To reiterate there are no physics heresies, no physics contradictions and no ambiguous claims.
So many people are ignoring what is quite obviusly the best source of free energy in the known universe - the past.
Think about it, there's all this stuff that's just sitting there in the past, which we could use for fuel.
But then if you mine the past, the present is degraded because the bastards in the future are doing it as well!
(This post dedicated to Douglas Adams, inventor of Past Mining)
"I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
Over the years they have won numerous
awards for their innovative advertising
campaigns.
This is just another example of it.
my 0.02 euro
A one banana problem.
(I`m not privy to any private correspondance between you and Sokal; then again, i`m only talking about the `public spectacle`).
I thought the quotes were just that - carefully checked references. I`ll admit i didnt check them myself, but then i`m not publishing anything, otherwise i`d probably have some form of peer-review. If thats not their style, then fair enough.
But i seem to remember (i`ve not read this for about a year now) that a lot of people got into a flap about it, defended the people he was `attacking` (thereby missing the point entirely).
I`ll be honest - i dont generally read the sort of wordy crap which he is taking the piss out of. It doesnt interest me. They seem to be using long scary words to hide the fact that they are talking shit. Far too retro. What problems does it set out to solve? Has it succeeded? Then again, i`m not a French Marxist - perhaps that makes all the difference.
So i`m not qualified to say that the whole field is bollocks. I`m not even sure what the field is called. But i`ve seen similar `stuff` when i`ve browsed books in art galleries, and i have a book about Frank Zappa (by Ben Watson) which sounds like its in the same peculiar basket, and they`ve only satisfied my irony glands - like checking out conceptual art pieces (installations, video art and the like), and not my heart or my brain.
Looks like some news editors at CNN read Slashdot and decided to post a retraction just this once... maybe so we can all get free Thinkgeek t-shirts. That's okay, I don't want one, just put the cost in a fund to find a source of zero-point energy.
"Is this story a hoax?
Since publication of this story, CNN and other media have been criticized for falling for a clear hoax. According to popular technical web site slashdot.org the story is full of holes.
"Three 100 Watt light bulbs created a drain of 4500 Watts", - it should be 300 Watts. The inventor comments that perpetual motion is impossible, but then says what he's created is a "self-sustaining unit" that generates surplus energy, surely just another name for the same thing?
Slashdot points out that this inventor's claim contravenes the second law of thermodynamics which states that in a closed system, any real physical process ends with less useful energy than it started with, some is always wasted.
In other words, a perpetual motion machine is impossible. "
First Law: You can't get somehing for nothing
Second Law: You get what you pay for
Third law: Hell, you can't even break even!
Grins -
--
.sig coming soon
Hehe when I was reading the artical two episodes came to mind.
1) Homers on the island for people who know to much. Didn't one of them admit to making the P/M machine?
2) " The guiness comment" The irish are known for a lot more then drinking.
or something like that anyway. Sorry for the non-exact quotes.
DP
Of particular interest to me, is Viktor Schauberger, who was an Austrian forester turned scientist at the turn of the 20th century (13th of June 1885 to 25th September 1958). Schauberger's motto was "observe and copy nature" and he claimed to be studying a different branch of technology. He said that all of the technology's we use are explosive, heat generating, outward moving technologies, but the technology he studied and worked with was implosive, cold generating, and based on the shape of the vortex. He had several acomplishments that are quite well documented, and interesting, and some day, I very much hope to re-create some of his experiments. He studied water, agriculture, and other things, applying information he gleaned from his native Austrian forests.
Supposedly, the Nazi's kidnapped him in World War II, and attempted to force him to work on creating a flying saucer, and many believe he came close. He had power-generators, as well. I've even seen supposed diagrams of how they worked, based on a special pipe, the shape of a Kudu Antelope horn. According to what I've read, Schauberger died in America, where he was tricked into coming.
I take no conclusions from this, except that many things are possible, and technology as we know it is not all there is. There have been other inventors people thought were wacko, including Nicola Tesla, but I haven't particularly studied him. I can only recommend the books on Schauberger (available at Amazon, I believe), and hope to see his work followed up.
Anything's possible, Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
"Since publication of this story, CNN and other media have been criticized for falling for a clear hoax. According to popular technical web site slashdot.org the story is full of holes."
Look out slashdot, you're about to get hit by the CNN effect!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I'm wondering why this post was modded up so high. It -is- quite long, I'll give you that, and rather entertaining from a Lone Gunmen point of view. Looking at the actual content, though, it's mostly made up of assertions, accusations, and insults to the intelligence of those who disagree with him. My bullshit detector immediately went off in two areas, though: talking about information "they" don't want you to know, and backing up his claim with the ever-popular pseudoscience phrase "trust me on this."
As to the actual science, I'm not nearly as sure of myself as he is, but I believe all experiments in ZPE have just returned very small amounts of energy in controlled lab experiments. As for cold fusion, there are some reputable scientific claims that it does actually create energy as well, but they are hard to reproduce (and therefore prove), not to mention that whatever phenomenon that causes what they do see is as of yet unexplained and could likely not even be fusion at all.
Personally, I must admit that I am interested in both subjects too. The former because ZPE does seem to have some promising uses in the (likely far) future, and the latter because the experiments in cold fusion have turned up some curious evidence, such as elevated levels of helium in a closed canister, and I'd kind of like to know what is really going on there, even if it is not some sort of miracle super reactor.
[insert witty quote here]
The news that they reported was NOT that somebody had invented a new perpetual motion machine. It was that somebody else was claiming to have done so, and since a big enough deal was made of it, it became news, no matter how `bogus' it was.
Reuters did do their part in showing that people were incredibly skeptical of this new invention.
Reuters could have taken the position of the patent office that perpetual motion machines are always bunk, but instead they decided to just report on the news as given, as well as giving conterpoints.
They weren't `taken' at all. They knew it was bunk.
It's not like this is a Segway...
MrRogers(2)
Heck, that's nothing. I built a perpetual motion machine as well, in my own home, with the help of my wife. He's 20 months old now and still burning far more energy than anyone could conceive.
Virg
Tell me...is it just me, or is this thread simply looking more and more like a chapter out of a book by Douglas Adams?
Quick! Someone get me an atomic vector plotter and a nice, hot cup of tea!
Take care here. In sophomore physics, they teach that the laws of thermodynamics apply in aggregate, not to specific types of energy. To wit, most people who read this article saw
electricity in -> lightbulbs on -> batteries charged -> more electricity out,
and immediately assume that because the device produces more electricity than it consumes, it's producing more power than it consumes, and these two statements are not the same. An a-bomb produces more heat than the starting chemical explosion adds to it, by changing matter into energy. Until you're certain this device isn't converting some other power source (gravity, matter, or who knows what), you can't claim to "know" anything about whether it works or not.
Virg
Never say stuff like:
"other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy"
That statement was so boldly false, incredibly overreaching and utterly arrogant that you should have been picking out t-shirt sizes the moment you hit the submit button.
And once again Slashdot puts it's foot in it's mouth and then acts like it can walk away without removing it.
inky
A dwarf on a bicycle :)
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Sometime in the very early 90s the first generation MPEG player for DOS from Xing Technologies was circulating as a shareware app. IIRC The BBS distribution file came with an enclosed demo MPEG file featuring blurry footage of an alleged perpetual motion machine (sort of resembled a rickety bicycle wheel with a glowing light bulb). Does anyone remember seeing this? I've not been able to find the archive file again, or determine whether it did in fact come from Xing.
"Watt per sec = W/s = ????"
I don't understand why you keep thinking I'm trying to divide the watts over time. There are 3 100-watt bulbs, every second they consume 300 watts. "Watt per second" isn't a unit I'm trying to define. I would just use "joules" if I wanted to do a scientific proof, but I was trying to keep it with the same term as the article was written. It's easier to point out the flaws there without changing the units, because either way, the underlying math is wrong.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
If the infinite improbability drive is virtually impossibility then it must be finite improbability.
If it's a finite improbability, we just need to know exactly how improbable it is (what ratio) and feed that number into the finite improbability device and a fresh cup of realy realy hot tea.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Just look for the germ of truth in these speculations. No need to deride anyone. There's so much energy available "out there"...the sun's energy creating plasma in the atmosphere to create the aurora, ...how do the typical interactions of the earth just existing create such massive energies as thunderstorms? (we know some of the mechanisms, but still don't know how)
Many "crazy" people have great inspirations, but just lack the ability to get their idea packaged up for the "real world". The messenger is essentially irrelevant...listen to the message.
Look for the diamond in the rough.
The field is called Hermeneutics, it is the interpretation of texts. It has its origins in Theology, in the Middle Ages interpretation of the Bible was everything. Dante's divine comedy is a four level alegory that applied the then trendy ideas of Hermeneutics.
In the early half of last century Heidegger applied Hermeneutics to the study of being. This lead to Satre's existentialism and to the work of people like Habbermas.
The significance of this work is that it forms an integral part of the design of the Web.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The classic example is: I have a sealed box of an odorous gas. I take it into a large room and open the box. The gas obviously will disperse and fill the room; this is predicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you look at the random motions of just one of these gas particles, it would look perfectly OK if you watched the movie "in reverse". However, it wouldn't look ok for the entire process to go in reverse. The reason is that it is incredibly unlikely that if a room is full of gas, then all the gas particles will, by chance, all move into the box in the corner. It is possible, but so incredibly unlikely you'd be waiting for many many times the age of the universe before it probably would happen.
Let's try that (or something similar) out with numbers: Let's take a 10 liter box of air at room temperature, normal pressure, and open it into a 5x5x4 meter room in vacuum.
We can get a crude estimate by saying that at some point in time, the position of an air molecule in the room is random. Let's figure out what's the probability of the air moving into the box.
From PV=NkT we get N=PV/kT=10^5Pa*10dm^3/(1.38E-23J/K*300K)=1E26 air molecules. The probability for one of them to be in the box is 10dm^3/(50dm*50dm*40dm)=1E-4. The probability for all air molecules to be in the box is 1E-4^1E26=1E-104.
If the air molecules move at such a speed that the places can be takes as random 1000 times per second (they don't), the probability of the air molecules being in the box for an instant during one second is 1 to a googol (10^100) against.
Let's get a picture of what a googol seconds is:
1. Take the whole history of the universe, and squeeze that into a ball 1mm in diameter. Cover the whole Earth with a layer 100 meters thick of those balls.
2. Squeeze that Earth into a ball 1mm in diameter. Cover the whole Earth with those balls 100 meters thick.
3. Then squeeze that Earth into a ball 1mm in diameter, and cover the Earth 100 meters deep with those balls.
There you would have approximately a googol seconds!
I doubt, therefore I may be.
The topic you're referring to at the center of the supposed red-hot controversy is the first law of thermodynamics, a.k.a conservation of energy. There is no "debate" on the reality of conservation of energy. It's one of the most well-established facts of our universe. The scientific community is not "sharply divided" on the theoretical possibility of perpetual motion machines (no matter how many posts you might find on that pillar of scientific discourse, slashdot).
In short, it's irresponsible for the journalist
to claim that there is a controversy here. It's inflating a non-story for pure sensationalism.
It happens all the time, and I think it's one reason science literacy is so low in our society.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Planesdragon's got the spirit. Science isn't supposed to be dogmatic, if you don't question assumptions then you don't get it.
I'll bet half the people complaining still believe lots of old, obsolete theories (laws!)such as the one that says mass is conserved (hint a sealed battery is heavier at full capacity than it is discharged and a spinning top is heavier than a stationary one.)
Rocky J. Squirrel
Did any one else think "battlebot" when they saw the amazing device?
"You like Chinese food." -Fortune Cookie
Those wacky, groovy, hairdoos
Table-ized A.I.
For 10 years I've been heating my home with a device that delivers 2 to 4 times more energy than it consumes.
Is it a perpetual motion machine? Certainly not.
Does it violate the Laws of Thermodynamics? Wrong again.
Its called a heat pump. It delivers 2 to 4 times as much energy in the form of heat than it consumes in electricity. How is this possible? A heat pump uses electricity to extract heat from the environment. More precisely, it extracts energy from random thermal fluctuations in the environment.
Probably the device in Ireland is a hoax. Certainly the Reuters article is non-critical, and raises many questions. But are we so narrow-minded that we are unwilling to consider such questions?
After all, the Casimir Effect has been studied for decades. It has been confirmed by experiment. Search on google for "casimir effect" or "electromagnetic fluctuations" and you'll find hundreds of academic references.
The reality of zero-point energy has been well established. When will a practical extraction device be developed? Maybe not this year; maybe not in 20 years. But to insist that it could never be developed seems foolish.
Cheers!
What's really funny: The guy in Ireland may truly be reinventing the wheel! What he's claiming to have done has been done years ago by inventor Joseph Newman right here in the good olde USofA. Probably the Irish guy read Joe's book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, then simply copied it and whammo, presto: instant Irish Energy Machine embellished with them 4-leaf clovers. Curiously-enough, I've followed Newman's work on and off over the years. I've read reports by physicists and electrical engineers that have repeatedly tested his units and signed affidavits saying they work as claimed. I've also read stuff by skeptics who attack Newman as having something that can't possibly work, yet those same skeptics have never actually test a unit for themselves. There's a lot of articles/etc. that Newman's has available --- you can see some of them for yourself at: http://www.josephnewman.com I have written their organization and been sent quite a bit of documentation about Newman's technology. Does he have something? I don't honesty know. I do know that he doesn't call it "free energy" nor does he claim to be "getting something for nothing." What he's claiming isn't "perpetual motion" --- but the bottom line is that he is claiming to be transferring mass to energy "electromagnetically" rather than through a fission reaction. He claims that the energy output generated from his motor/generator actually comes from the copper atoms of his conductor and that an external voltage input (with as little current as possible) is applied to basically align and realign those copper atoms and then cause them to release some of their energy. The following is from one website about Newman's technology: "In radically oversimplified terms, this is what happens when Joseph Newman throws the switch on his revolutionary Energy Machine: 1) An electrical current is sent through a very long (miles long) coil of copper wire, magnetizing it and creating a strong magnetic field. 2) Newman describes the mechanics of the magnetic field as "shells of force" composed of gyroscopic particles that move in a spiral pattern around the wire. Originally IN the wire, the particles expand outward and thus create the magnetic field. 3) When the particles form a magnetic field, Newman says, they are traveling at the speed of light in two directions - in the spiral pattern around the wire, and in their own normal gyroscopic spin. This gives him the right side of the E=mc^2 equation; the particles (mass) multiplied by the speed of light squared. 4) The machine operates in pulses; that is, the electrical current is continually turned on and off. This causes the magnetic field - in other words, the gyroscopic particles - to expand and collapse. 5) When the trillions of gyroscopic particles that have been released collapse back into the wire, some of them collide with other gyroscopic particles. Because of the nature of the gyroscopic spin, the collisions cause some of the loose particles to bounce off at right angles and thus not return to the copper atoms from whence they originated; those particular particles emerge at one end of the wire as electrical energy." I wrote the Newman organization and here's what some scientists have said about Newman: "The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale, commercial development of this invention." -- Dr. Roger Hastings, Principal Physicist, UNISYS CORPORATION "If the manner in which Joseph Newman conducted his experiments and the results were made known to the industrial or engineering community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or individuals possess the expertise and capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the apparent capability of his new concepts." -- Dr. Robert E. Smith, Chief, Orbital and Space Environment Branch, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA "You have opened an area in Astrophysics which may revolutionize the magnetic energy problems which is now the most paramount problem in future energy and space travel. I do believe with proper research funds, the results would not only be a great financial boom to your financiers, but would lead to developments that will be practical and beneficial to all mankind and develop a new step in science." -- Dr. E. L. Moragne, MORAGNE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. [Dr. Moragne was an electromagnetic pioneer in the development of the first atomic bomb.] I was also sent the following document: ___________________________________ FROM THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS: IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT A RESEARCH REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS (Volume 77, Issue 11, June 1, 1995, pages 6015-6020) PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, FURTHER VALIDATES THE WORK OF INVENTOR JOSEPH NEWMAN. TITLE: Increased Voltage Phenomenon in a Resonance Circuit of Unconventional Magnetic Configuration PREFACE: The behavior of an ICR (inductance-capacitance resistance) circuit with a moveable ferromagnetic core is discussed. The core is attracted by a magnetic field generated by an electric current resulting from the discharge of a capacitor in the closed ICR circuit. An unusual increase in recharge voltage, which was dependent on the magnetic configuration of the coil, was observed. This voltage increase does not conform to the mathematical simulation of the system. The possibility that a positive electromotive force was involved in this effect is discussed. The following is a particularly interesting statement from this article: "Generally speaking, it is expected that the total recharge voltage will decrease because this system produces mechanical output as the core moves. However, through a series of experiments, it was discovered that results depend on the magnetic configuration of the coils used in the circuit. In other words, for a certain kind of magnetic field, the opposite result could occur --- an increase in the average current and recharge voltage. To confirm the above observations, an experiment was conducted, which is described in this article." The following was one of the final conclusions presented in this article: "It can be postulated that the complex movement of magnetic flux generates a positive EMF, but the cause of the voltage increase is not clear." Through his research over the past 30 years and as demonstrated in his numerous experiments and working prototypes, Joseph Newman has presented a comprehensive explanation for the cause of the "voltage increase" described in the above article. I urge the reader to locate a copy of this research article from the Journal of Applied Physics, published by the American Institute of Physics, and review it for yourself. THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN 11445 East Via Linda, No. 416 Scottsdale, Arizona 85259 (480) 657-3722 end of document Bottom line: I think there is some anomaly occurring in these units that at the very least should be investigated by university labs or indpendent scientific labs. I like healthy skepticism, but it should be tempered with curiosity and a willingness to investigate an anomaly no matter how controversial it may be at any given time. Hell, that what's the scientific method's all about. Dave
"The following is "out of context" from considerable information presented previously in Joseph Newman's book.
Heat & The Three Laws of Thermodynamics
_______________________________________
Regarding Nikola Tesla's dream of a "totally new source of power": Tesla would only say that ".... the apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity with both mechanical and electrical features." Tesla said, "The preliminary cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the installation would be both permanent and indestructible."
Of course, the disagreements between Einstein and Tesla over the nature of "atomic energy" are known. What is interesting as a speculation would be Tesla's view (were he alive) on the relationship between his proposed "totally new source of power" and the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how such would relate to Einstein's concept of E = mc^2. With such a speculation in mind, the following is offered:
From the Chapter entitled, HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS: [I ask the reader to please forgive the fact that considerable preparatory discussion and documentation by Joseph Newman is omitted -- consequently, the conclusions that follow are posted somewhat out-of-context.]
"....Heat is electromagnetic energy (consisting of gyroscopic massergies*). Gyroscopic massergies* (or electromagnetic energy) comprise all Matter. Alterations in the heat (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter cause a change in the amount of (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter in accordance with E=mc^2."
*Nomenclature note:
It's been said that "learning is a result of understanding which is a result of good communication which is a result of a consistent language which is a result of good NOMENCLATURE."
For over 20 years, Joseph Newman has referred to the fundamental 'entities' creating (electro)magnetic fields as "gyroscopic particles."
Over the past 14 years, some individuals have expressed to their problem with the word "particle(s)." This word sometimes causes them to wonder "to what "particle" the "gyroscopic particle" belongs?" Some individuals have wondered how does the "gyroscopic particle" relate to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc...
Several years ago, others began substituting the term "masergy" for "particle." More than anything it represents a 'refinement' of one aspect of Joseph Newman's paradigm. To employ a completely new word has the advantage of disassociating its old usage from previously used words and their connotations....especially when Joseph Newman has described his "gyroscopic x" as being the fundamental unit out of which the larger units and sub-atomic "particles" are constructed.
The new term also immediately suggests the ongoing, simultaneous equivalence between "mass" and "energy" and that the important point (within the context of Joseph Newman's technology) is to focus on the word "gyroscopic," not the word "particle" or even the word "masergy."
Following a recent discussion with Joseph Newman about this issue of appropriate (and perhaps more explicit) nomenclature and he agrees with the new usage, with one slight correction (i.e., the addition of a second "s" to more explicitly indicate the "mass" involved). In other words, this "entity" is simultaneous both "mass" and "energy" --- and that its most important mechanical characteristic is its GYROSCOPIC nature.
So, henceforth, it is suggested that the "gyroscopic particle" be referred to as the:
Gyroscopic Massergy.
To continue quoting from Joseph Newman:
32. "I shall now proceed to constructively refute the negative doctrines that are a result of the present "Three Laws of Thermodynamics."
A. FACTS:
1. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding of the relationship between heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) and Matter.
2. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding that there is an energy relationship other than the simplicity of Work = Force X Distance, Power = Work/Time, and Force = Mass X Acceleration.
3. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without any knowledge, understanding, or anticipation of Einstein's equation of E = mc^2.
4. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without an understanding of Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Inertia, Matter, and Planetary Motion.
32-B. QUESTION: If none of these things were understood at the time that the Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived, how can these three laws be so "all encompassing" as to be capable of predicting --- on a seemingly "infallible" basis --- the "Doom of the Universe" and the "Total Impossibility of Perpetual Motion?" Those who made such predictions must have understood the mechanical workings of the Entire Universe.
QUESTION: Did they?
32-C. The "First Law of Thermodynamics" (1850) states:
"Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant."
The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most positive scientific statements ever made, although this was not the initial intent of this Law.
QUESTION: What does this Law say?
ANSWER: If one cannot destroy energy, this means that energy always exists. If energy always exists, one can always use it. The Facts have indicated to me that the gyroscopic particle composition of all Matter is totally in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics since it appears that the energy (spin speed) of the gyroscopic particle cannot be consumed.
32-D. The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" (1850):
The First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are incorrect! The Second Law of Thermodynamics represents a conclusion concerning the use of heat, based upon primitive, 19th century mechanical devices. The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" may well apply to such primitive mechanical devices, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the implications of E = mc^2.
As I have demonstrated earlier, many of the 19th century scientists believed heat to be only the result of motion. They did not understand that heat was simply the conversion of Matter into gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) as implied by the brilliant work of Joseph Black. Nor did they realize that heat (consisting of gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy) was convertible into Matter. They were completely ignorant concerning E = mc^2. In their ignorance, they would have said that anyone claiming such a statement was stupid. In my opinion, Joseph Black would have readily accepted the implications of E = mc^2.
In 1824, Sadi Carnot published a paper entitled "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat." Carnot had discovered that heat must flow "downhill," i.e., heat must change from high to low temperatures to perform work. Such a conclusion was based upon the observation of primitive inventions and has no real connection with the essential nature of heat or E = mc^2. Joseph Black understood the nature of heat as early as 1760 --- others did not.
By 1850, it was concluded throughout the scientific community that Carnot's discovery of a definite direction for heat flow laid the foundations for one of the basic laws of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law was first formulated in 1850 by the German physicist, Rudolf Clausius, who stated, "It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature."
The essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is this: heat will not flow of its own accord from a cold place to a hot one. Again, I repeat that this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the essence of heat and demonstrates a total lack of understanding that heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) which comprises all Matter and that E = mc^2.
In physics it is presently believed that this unidirectional flow of heat, as stated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, implies the "Doom (or heat death) of the Universe." I vigorously disagree with this unfounded statement! All of the facts now presented in science prove this close-minded statement to be totally incorrect! This negative statement has been an extreme hindrance to the diligent progress of science since it closes one's mind to creative thought and has succeeded in unjustly influencing young minds that were taught to accept it.
Electromagnetic energy is __perpetually__ changing from energy to Matter and from Matter to energy. [While I fully realize that the use of the word "perpetual" violates __current__ scientific taboos, I will do so anyway!] The gyroscopic entity I have described in this Book perpetually spins and travels at the speed of light in accordance with E = mc^2. Even if all physical Matter could become exactly the same temperature, the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) within Matter is still moving at the speed of light. Any Matter could still be caused to release its incredible electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy) composition!
A chain reaction could be induced within a mass the size of a planet, thereby causing the mass to release its electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy composition) at a rate as rapid as that of the Sun. The mass would then cause a source of heat greater than its surroundings which were retaining the major portion of their gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) composition within the physical boundaries of the materials. All heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter can release its gyroscopic massergies in the form of heat, light, electrical current, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic radiation, or in smaller quantities of its total physical form. However, it makes no difference in what form Matter is released, since it is always composed of gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy).
The reverse is also true: all gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) can be converted into physical Matter! Having a basic understanding of the ingenious properties of the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) composition of all Matter in the Universe, the mathematical law of probability tells me that the probability of the Universe undergoing a "heat death" is zero.
One of Joseph Black's important discoveries was that different substances have different capacities for absorbing or emitting heat (electromagnetic energy)!
EXAMPLE: If 1 kg. of iron at 80 degrees C. is immersed in 1 kg. of water at 40 degrees C., then the equilibrium temperature is found to be 43.7 degrees C. In other words, the same amount of heat (electromagnetic energy) has resulted in a much greater temperature change in the iron than in the water.
The same unfounded statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also used in present physics to have stamped the final label of "FUTILE" on the quest for "Perpetual Motion." I would agree that "Perpetual Motion" would be futile as long as one accepts the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as explaining everything in the Universe for all time. However, I challenge such validity. It is easy to recognize that in this sense, the Second Law has operationally been a deliberate attempt to close young minds who would be otherwise willing to question the "finality" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am sure that there are many who read this Book who have been so unjustly influenced. Please recognize that the conversion of physical Matter to electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) and from electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) back to physical Matter is "perpetual" throughout the Universe and this phenomenal energy change can be conceptually understood and technologically harnessed in the immediate future for the incredible benefit of humanity!
32-E. The "Third Law of Thermodynamics" (developed 1888-1902):
In 1902, measurements of the heat reaction of various substances were examined, and it was found that the free energies experienced an increasingly __small variation__ as the reaction approaches absolute zero.
This line of thought was initiated in 1848 by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). Knowing that when cooled one degree from 0 degrees to -1 degrees C. a gas loses 1/273 of its pressure, Kelvin reasoned that at -273 degrees C., gas should have no pressure and he called -273 degrees C. "absolute zero". Scientists at the time further reasoned that if "cold" is simply the absence of "heat," then there should be a point when there is absolutely no heat. This reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of understanding that heat is actually electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) which comprise all Matter and that E = mc^2. [Kelvin's knowledge is valuable, however, in terms of designing my Pioneering Invention where atom unalignment is important since heat causes random motion and rapid atom unalignment.]
In accordance with the above concept regarding the absence of heat, the Third Law of Thermodynamics was proposed. It states that every substance known to man undergoes entropy, i.e., a measure of the availability of energy to perform work that approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero (-273 degrees C. or -459.69 degrees F.).
Einstein's equation of E = mc^2 and the work I have accomplished prove that this statement concerning entropy is totally incorrect.
Kelvin's results are explained by my prior discussion that heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) loss from Matter causes the atomic entities to demand a smaller area. This is why gases lose pressure at low temperatures since they are becoming a liquid state.
The concept that cold is the absence of heat should be corrected as follows: Cold is simply a condition of less gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) in Matter. As long as one has Matter, one still has gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy or potential heat). Matter at -459.69 degrees F. STILL contains tremendous electromagnetic energy (or heat if properly released) or vast quantities of gyroscopic massergies spinning at the speed of light. Only when Matter is gone, is all potential heat gone. The mechanical essence of E = mc^2 is the gyroscopic-action-massergy which is the basic building entity of all Matter.
32-F. It is totally amazing to me that these three laws of thermodynamics have been so long accepted, knowing that their total premise is one of negativism which completely stops the creative thinking processes of a student who is motivated to question or discover a method for a better energy invention that would ultimately be of service to humanity. However, in spite of the negative intentions of those who developed it, THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROVES JUST THE OPPOSITE! It is a most positive, scientific statement.
Although this may seem superficially paradoxical, I will make the positive statement that "there is NO PLACE in science that negativism should be allowed to exist!" The entire history of science has proven over and over again that, whenever it has been thought that something was not possible, it later turns out to be possible. Therefore, as the facts have proven, science should put forth positive statements of hopes and dreams that will perpetually stimulate the creative processes of the human mind. In contrast, throughout my sincere, scientific efforts of nearly two decades, I have had to fight against many negative "scientific statements" that were and are wrong. Such injustice has not been unique to my efforts, but, on the contrary, it has been the common fate of most creative individuals throughout the History of Science......"
Joseph Newman
THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
11445 East Via Linda, No. 416
Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
(480) 657-3722
http://www.josephnewman.com
Sagan actually said "the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
...although a quick google search reveals this quote mentioning Gallileo and others as well, this seems to be the most prevalent and complete. Still no source though (perhaps you have one?)
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
If you put a plate of silicon outside, it generates energy. How? Well, we know that it's because of the sun. If we didn't know that, we might say it was "free energy". This device (assuming it works), could very probably be draining another source of energy that we no nothing about, so we think it's "free". It's draining something, but it's not draining anything that we know about. Or is it? One possibility is gravity...
> Let me rephrase: this device produces no more output of any form than is put into it in any form.
This is true, but the article and the builder of this device did not claim that it does, and the big stink on Slashdot stems entirely from erroneous assumptions that this claim was made.
By the way, just FYI, the fissile materials in an atom bomb are mostly not consumed (unless you mean consumed in the same way a car consumes gasoline, which is to say by conversion to a different chemical). When the fission reaction occurs, the material breaks down into daughter products, which releases energy stored in the nuclei of the original material. There is a very slight decrease in mass, which translates to an awesome amount of power simply because matter converts to a LOT of energy. However, most of the energy comes from the nuclear breakdown, not from conversion of matter. Still, the conclusion is that in fact, you are still right that no more energy comes out of the a-bomb than was put in (in terms of material).
Virg
Greatest invention since beer?
I mean I like beer as much as the next guy, but still.
That should have been the first clue.
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
Didn't I see this thing falling off of a ramp on Comedy Central last night?
Putting moderation advice in your
This is my favorite scheme... a large number of antenna are arranged and connected to L-C oscillator circuits which are set at harmonic resonation frequencies. The thing gains energy from background static radio waves, building up enough charge to periodically produce a spark. Its not free energy by any "physics" definition, but its free as in beer.
Unfortunately any resistance in the system really causes problems. And the resulting power output would be almost insignificant. Try simulating it with PSpice for some fun!
Clickety Click
Like a conventional nuclear reactor, the Newman technology (copied by the Irish fellow) is an OPEN system IF you consider that the copper conductor in his Motor/Generator serves the same purpose in principle as the uranium in a conventional reactor: energy is being released from the atoms of copper in the unit's conductor. If you want more info about that process, visit
http://www.josephnewman.com
or email JNPCo. for technical information