This might be OT, but ..free energy?

[Zendalar]

Ok. A scientist claims to have produced a device (seems very simple) that creates energy in vacuum from EM waves. Basically this is a transformer.

http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm

I really would like to know your opinions on this, and hope this wont be deleted (since no-body reads offtopic)

They are planning to build 2.5KW deviced and after 10KW, and maybe bigger....If this would be possible, this would change everything..i mean everything. Batteries, powerplants, combustion engines would become obsolete...

If this is true, there will be chaos among petroleum companies

[beepbeep]

Yeah right.

There was a buzz about cold fusion few years ago as well, but that was at least slightly scientific.

This is pure b******t ...

"Tapping Electromagnetic waves" ??? Give me a break...ever heard about antennae?

First of all, energy density of EM waves per m^3 isn't enough to spin a small fan, unless you are standing in front of radar, and even if it is, losses are horreneous.

And now the funny part:

"It's just that the energy is conserved in the fourth dimension, time, and not our 3-space world" ....


Hahaha...this is hillarious...

only in America!

[Aurel]

No beepbeep, not only in America. These experiments from Tom Bearden have been reproduced in France by Jean-Louis Naudin http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm, and there is also a US patent which is no bull$hit !
Do you have a phD in physics to categorically reject these theories ? And even if you had one, you would know that scientific theories live as long as someone proves them false. You would also know that the greatest obstacles to progress are :
1- Overcome the skepticism of the scientists who do not want to leave the comfort zone that established theories provide them, and will do whatever they can to trash new theories.
2- Overcome the pressure of oil lobbies that have absolutely no financial interest to see free energy devices on the market.
Do you think it makes more sense to go drilling for oil in Alaska rather than having more fuel efficient vehicles ? I don`t. This is non-sense.
So, if here in America, fuel efficiency is not even considered, forget about free energy !
But it does not mean this is bull$hit. I am a senior scientist doing research on energy storage,
and I try to keep an open mind on this topic. This is what research is all about ! BTW, I also happen to own a polluting fuel inefficent 78 SC, and I am greatfull for being in the US for that. But maybe one day, I`ll swap my 3.0 liter flat six for
a 400 hp magnetic generator ! LOL. It will not feel like a 911 anymore, but who can stop progress ?

Aurel
78 SC Targa

[Aurel]

Here is the working link :

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Aurel
No beepbeep, not only in America. These experiments from Tom Bearden have been reproduced in France by Jean-Louis Naudin http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm, and there is also a US patent which is no bull$hit !

I wouldn't consider the USPTO any sort of "gold standard" concerning the validity of scientific research. There are plenty of patents granted for absolute BS (ask any patent attorney). Unfortunately, neither is publication in a refereed journal, nor is single replication. Anyone that read the "water memory" paper in Nature years back can tell you that.

Scientists are sceptical by training, and for good reason. It is very easy for experimenters to make mistakes and introduce artifacts. Things are not accepted unless a number of people are able to replicate the results. This stuff looks interesting, but feels cold fusion-esque to me. I'm not a Ph.D. physicist (but rather chemist, and biological at that), so I'm not going to offer a theoretical debunking of the work, but merely point out that singular replication and a patent are not proof.

Then again, no theory can be proven, only disproven...ahh science!

[Kurt B]

From an acquaintance on the matter. I'm quoting him from an email. He's a fairly bright guy with a Ph.d. in EE from UCLA--which I think he received at 25 or 26. Anyway, here's what he had to say about it.

That's just a transformer, they're measuring the power wrong to get power gain. Power is voltage times current and a transformer trades one for the other. These guys are measuring input power and calculating output power by using output voltage times input current to get the WRONG answer.

Just flakes and weirdos. I especially like the comments about how hard their experiments are to duplicate and how you won't see the effects unless you "condition" your test resistors first (which they proceed to explain and any EE will recognize as the effective destruction of the resistor).

I also like the comments about how "all that's left" is to hook one up to drive itself, "which hasn't been done." Patents aren't awarded overnight, they've had years to hook the darn thing around but they haven't because, of course, it won't work.

-Zeke