Clean energy sources
-
I'll sell this technology for $20.00... shovels are a little more.
-
I thought it wouldn't be necessary to get help from a clown, but here we go.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
-
@unknownuser said:
They may sound as a pure nonsense to someone who doesn't know what vortex effect is. There are industrial applications of this principle in air-conditioning/refrigerators industry:
http://www.airtxinternational.com/catalog/vortex_tubes.php (Click on link about vortex tube)
and a Wikipedia page describing the effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tubeThe links describe vortex tubes that consume energy, not make it. Their inefficiency is the reason why they are used only in specialized applications.
@unknownuser said:
As you will notice there is no exact explanation of this effect. It means that the principles of the effect are not well examined.
That Wikipedia is short on the subject means nothing. I understand that the principles of fluid dynamics are quite well known, but that the mathematics are not for the faint-hearted (like me)
@unknownuser said:
achieve a state of a negative friction.
No such thing exists. The laws of thermodynamics must be obeyed, even by Irishmen
Anssi
-
@unknownuser said:
I thought it wouldn't be necessary to get help from a clown, but here we go.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Lighten up...
-
This is very interesting...!
I have absolutely no idea about whether this is pure nonsens or some unknown physic forces that we're yet to learn a lot about...?!?
I sure hope that some clever heads will be able to find a good alternative to oil and nuclear energy...
@anssi said:
No such thing exists. The laws of thermodynamics must be obeyed, even by Irishmen
Well... You can't know any better, Anssi, but Tomasz is from Poland, but is now living in Ireland... 
-
I present those things as something to take obviously critically. I find them simply interesting. One day it may appear to all of us that 'the Earth is not flat and it is spinning around the Sun, not other way round'.
Physics defends vigorously that the energy cannot be multiplied or destroyed.
Something from Dragons Den - Richard Willis took part in this show as a kind of 'protection', to make his discovery and a face known to wider public.[flash=480,295:ir1vtbli]http://www.youtube.com/v/vvfi9ZpXKOY[/flash:ir1vtbli]
And a quote from his webpage:
@unknownuser said:
Where the problem comes from is the fact that some of you have taken everything from a text book as law. The fact was in 1831 it was a rule made by a guy (Faraday) who like all of us was trying to understand how to make power.
In all those already presented cases probably we don't deal with a 'creation' of energy. It can be simply pulled out from a yet unknown source.
-
@anssi said:
The links describe vortex tubes that consume energy, not make it. Their inefficiency is the reason why they are used only in specialized applications.
The creators of AATE claim they have harnessed an energy of implosion, instead of explosion.
@anssi said:
No such thing exists. The laws of thermodynamics must be obeyed, even by Irishmen
Wouldn't be more true/wiser to write: "Such a thing is not known to the physics? According to it the negative friction does not exist."
There are people that claim that an inner portion of a fluid/gas being compressed in a vortex is gliding on an outer, of higher temp. and not so dense, layer.
I prefer keeping my mind open, instead of closing it in a closed loop of dogmas.
@unknownuser said:
energy. It can be simply pulled out from a yet unknown source.
[flash=425,344:yhw2y8d1]http://www.youtube.com/v/XE5g6x6OOb0[/flash:yhw2y8d1]
-
The fact of the matter is their is a mountain of evidence which suggests energy cannot be created and very little evidence to the contrary, so until someone conclusively shows that energy can be created i find it hard to believe.
-
@remus said:
so until someone conclusively shows that energy can be created i find it hard to believe.
I thought it had been shown that energy can be created from matter??
-
matter is energy, an important point to note.
-
Keep an open mind. But science is not dogma. I would say it is the opposite of dogma.
-
@pbacot said:
Keep an open mind. But science is not dogma. I would say it is the opposite of dogma.
catma?
-
@remus said:
matter is energy, an important point to note.
Some old bloke called Einstein wasn't it, and demonstrated by the Manhattan Project
-
Thats the chap
-
@remus said:
The fact of the matter is their is a mountain of evidence which suggests energy cannot be created and very little evidence to the contrary, so until someone conclusively shows that energy can be created i find it hard to believe.
There are more convincing scientific experiments that prove that the energy efficiency of some processes can higher then 100% (overunity).
Here is a link to Professor Ph. M. Kanarev's works presented in English
and an example of Low Current Electrolysis of Water where in conclusions one can read:@unknownuser said:
Energy efficiency index of the low current electrolysis should be refined, but in any case it will be greater than 10, that’s why there is every reason to think that a way to production of inexpensive hydrogen from water and transition to hydrogen energetic is opened.
Not only 'garage inventors', but also scientists prove that it is possible. If societies would only be more aware of possibilities in front of us, it would be easier to find the resources to push them out from labs.
-
<- my unconvinced face -
Some of this sounds a bit like the old Cold Fusion of the late '80's, or even ZETA from the '50's which I remember was going to give power so cheap it wouldn't be worth charging for it!
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7190813.stm )Ho, ho, ho
-
@petercharles said:
Some of this sounds a bit like the old Cold Fusion of the late '80's, or even ZETA from the '50's which I remember was going to give power so cheap it wouldn't be worth charging for it!
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7190813.stm )Ho, ho, ho
It sounds like the same old thing, and it is. Five minutes of Googling (the name Kanarev, for instance)brings up links to the same old cold fusion and Steorn etc. nonsense.
Anssi
-
@anssi said:
It sounds like the same old thing, and it is. Five minutes of Googling (the name Kanarev, for instance)brings up links to the same old cold fusion and Steorn etc. nonsense.
Steorn and cold fusion? You are mixing thing my friend.
Kanarev brings in most cases Low current electrolysis.@remus said:
<- my unconvinced faceWhat doesn't convince you? Graphics of the site? Calculations? Nationality of the author?
Prejudices... -
I probably am prejudiced, but i just find it very hard to believe that someone who has found a method for creating free energy has trouble getting his ideas out to the world.
All it would take is a working sample and he'd be sorted.
The following extract doesnt inspire a lot of confidence, either.
@unknownuser said:
Present days physics students are fooled by main stream physics teachers not only with respect to SRT but they hear other ferry tales about nature. This is one reason why physics students have problems in getting jobs in in-dustry and research institutions.
Our troubled world needs, for example, physicists, who build new useful devices or in-vent new methods for converting matter to energy (fusion does not work well and many people hate uranium) instead of looking for new crazy particles based on unproven theories.p.s. I will buy you a pint if the conservation of energy is shown to be wrong
Advertisement