Clean energy sources
-
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
-
Time will tell. Just a thought! In order to protect these inventions, patents will have to be granted. This means that FULL data will be available to the public. At this stage the facts will come the light ... excuse the pun.
Mike
-
@mike lucey said:
patents will have to be granted. This means that FULL data will be available to the public.
Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
-
@mike lucey said:
Time will tell. Just a thought! In order to protect these inventions, patents will have to be granted. This means that FULL data will be available to the public. At this stage the facts will come the light ... excuse the pun.
Mike
And that is where it always falls apart...
-
Mine
-
Very good DE, on both posts! Also I thought of the palendrome, "Dogma: I am God." speaking of opposites.
Seriously now (there's no "serious" emoticon) I'd say Tomasz at least has done some homework. For myself I never thought cold-fusion was some kind of scam. I thought it was a bona fide line of scientific research that is found so far to not be feasible under relevant conditions.
-
@mike lucey said:
Time will tell. Just a thought! In order to protect these inventions, patents will have to be granted. This means that FULL data will be available to the public. At this stage the facts will come the light ... excuse the pun.
One has to remember that patents applications are usually written in the way to protect the idea of the design and to disclose important details to make it really work.
@remus said:
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.
Just stand in a position of a scientist who invents something that produces energy apparently from 'nothing'. If you would mention it to your superior, wouldn't you immediately be treated as a geek. Would you put all your career just to fight all those unconvinced?
This guy is fighting more than 30!! years to make his invention, confirmed by scientists, to the public.
http://www.josephnewman.com/
Almost everyone treats him as a insane man chasing his dreams, but he has made several WORKING prototypes. Scientists has confirmed that his engines display extraordinary properties.As SU Forum can hardly keep any discussion serious, there is something way lighter and presented in an easy to digest fashion
[flash=425,344:3fdtow7z]http://www.youtube.com/v/gTAqGKt64WM[/flash:3fdtow7z]
Extremely simple device that amplifies the current, so you can lit a LED using 1.5V DEAD! battery. It is easy to replicate. It is a amplifier similar to Magnacoasters unit.
Tomasz
-
Cant watch the video, as i'm at college, but with relation to the rest of your post:
If i was him i would approach the whole issue from a more traditional point of view i.e. presenting the idea as an anomaly in the current theory. Thus he is openeing up the idea for investigation in a more traditional manner without being labelled a crackpot.
Of course it shouldnt have to be like that, scientists should treat all ideas equally and investigate them all without prejudice. But then they have to discriminate to an extent, there simply isnt enough time to investigate everything. Thus they tend to throw away the ideas that seem particularly lacking.
Essentailly what i am trying to say is Mr. Kanarev is not doing himself any favours by saying "What everyone else has found is wrong, what i have found is right." (paraphrased)
-
The Joule Thiefs were good
Is there such a thing as 'hidden' energy around the place that we are discovering? Could this be the answer? -
@remus said:
Mr. Kanarev is not doing himself any favours by saying "What everyone else has found is wrong, what i have found is right." (paraphrased)
You are right, but if there would be something obvious in front of your eyes, that you have really put your all knowledge to research it and it would give you aways same results, you would come to a conclusion... it does really work! There would be no much space for a compromise. I am right or they are.
@mike lucey said:
Is there such a thing as 'hidden' energy around the place that we are discovering? Could this be the answer?
Joseph Newman teaches, based on his experience and working prototypes, that there is a magnetic field being created in a conductor when a current is going through it (nothing new). The longer the conductor (wire) the longer it takes for an electricity to go through the whole length (obvious thing). The electricity in just a 'catalyst' and it is not a source of magnetic field (something new). The magnetic field comes from particles in a (copper) wire that has aligned their own magnetic filed (something new). When one would open the circuit to stop the electricity doing a whole loop back to a source (battery) then no energy would be lost since the loop has not been yet closed. In such a case a magnetic field has been already created. The collapsing field, due to absence of the current, produces a reversed current (something well known). There would be no big influence on the battery capacity since the current didn't manage to close the loop.
I think that in Joule Thief there is this reversed current being trapped and probably small self-induction occurs in the toroid. I have seen a replication of the circuit using bigger toroid and it was able to light a CFL light bulb using two AA batteries (3V in total). It is a 'hardcore'
material for real enthusiasts and I don't want to do all homework for you! Tomasz
-
@unknownuser said:
@mike lucey said:
Time will tell. Just a thought! In order to protect these inventions, patents will have to be granted. This means that FULL data will be available to the public. At this stage the facts will come the light ... excuse the pun.
One has to remember that patents applications are usually written in the way to protect the idea of the design and to disclose important details to make it really work.
TomaszThe patent must describe the invention in such details as can be understood by a man "skilled in the art". This will mean anyone can make it from the patent, except that they will be prevented from doing so in the countries that have granted the patent.
-
@petercharles said:
The patent must describe the invention in such details as can be understood by a man "skilled in the art". This will mean anyone can make it from the patent, except that they will be prevented from doing so in the countries that have granted the patent.
Not quite; they would be prevented from making them for profit without permission of the patent holder. Patents do not stop anyone making something patented. They require the maker to have permission from the owner, usually of course granted in exchange for money. Nothing stops someone from getting a patent and allowing cost-free licenses. Or even - so far as I know at the moment - refusing all licenses and thus preventing the thing being made by anyone. Now, if only I could have had a patent on the core of Word, so I could stop it from driving a billion people insane...
-
The universe is teeming with energy: it's just the 'catching it' in a way that you can use it that's difficult.
Talk of 'efficiency' and >100% is something of a red-herring. Think of the well tried and proven 'heat-pump'... for every kW of electricity you use to run it you get 3+ kW of heat out of it. That's 300% 'efficiency' if you use that terminology. It's normally called COP = Coefficient Of Performance. Clearly the device has 'produced' considerably more energy than you've put into it. It hasn't made it by magic, it's just moved it from somewhere else and concentrated it - after running it you'll now some ground-water (or other 'source') that's a tiny bit cooler AND a few litres of water in you building that's now a lot hotter. Same energy - but moved and concentrated where you want it.
I don't think anyone disagrees that a heat-pump works - after all fridges and air-con use them all the time !
Although I can't envisage the exact details, it might be possible to contrive a device that does something similar with forms of energy other that basic 'heat'.
Imagine a device that uses electricity from a battery and seems to produce more electricity than the battery uses - 'impossible' the sceptics say, however they are looking at a closed and limited system... What if the device could somehow take a tiny bit of the energy in the earth's magnetic-field (or some other field - solar-wind or whatever you can imagine), that's so little out of so much that it had an imperceptible effect on the whole thing; and that device then somehow moved the potential energy and concentrated it into useful power... After all there are zillions of Watts of energy landing all over the earth from the sun AND the earth's magnetic-field and radioactive core-heat output: we just need to catch it and concentrate it where we want it to be...
.
-
@tim said:
Not quite; they would be prevented from making them for profit without permission of the patent holder.
My understanding from the UK is that profit does not come into it
@unknownuser said:
Patents do not stop anyone making something patented. They require the maker to have permission from the owner, usually of course granted in exchange for money.
True
@unknownuser said:
Nothing stops someone from getting a patent and allowing cost-free licenses.
True, but then why spend all that money on a patent! Just publish it in the public domain
@unknownuser said:Or even - so far as I know at the moment - refusing all licenses and thus preventing the thing being made by anyone.
Except by the patentee himself
@unknownuser said:
Now, if only I could have had a patent on the core of Word, so I could stop it from driving a billion people insane...
Of course you can only enforce a patent if you've got deep pockets. Be prepared for others to, claim prior art, launch an application for revocation, produce it in countries you couldn't afford to patent in, just ignore you and let you sue if they've got money and you haven't, etc, etc
Advertisement