Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Graham2001

    Graham2001 Active Member

    Back in the 1990's Australia's main electronic hobby magazine 'Silicon Chip' did a similar thing with a box of flashing lights that was supposed to cure cancer, it turned out to be a very simple circuit (Which they published.) fitted with about $5 worth of electronics, the retailers were asking for $100.
     
  2. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Couldn't watch that. They guy is just too frantic.
     
  3. Maverick

    Maverick New Member

    What if these people aren't tuning the generator to run at its resonant frequency? Could this be the reason that it doesn't produce more power than what is being put in?
     
  4. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    No.. the only way you can PROVE that a system like this is putting out more energy than its getting IN, would be to start the system with the power supply, and then REMOVE the power supply. At that point, the system (since its creating its own energy) should continue to run by itself... but it wont, because it cant once the capacitors discharge. It has nothing to do with quantum vacuums or anything of that nature.

    QVs are a great idea, but the systems required to run something like that cant be built in your back yard. The guys that came up with the idea that they even exist havent been able to build the facilities needed to test them. There's no way you could buy off the shelf junk and slap it together in your back yard.

    Dont misunderstand, Id love to see a system that would allow people to get off the dependence of fossil fuels, but until crackpots quit trying to pass off quackery and half baked scientific ideas as reality, the REAL stuff is going to be seen in the same light.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  5. Maverick

    Maverick New Member


    That didnt answer my question. This device gets power from electromagnetic frequencies that run through the atmosphere (i.e.: gamma, xray ect.). If you've ever followed Tesla's actual work or read his patents you would know that he succeeded in making a device that ran off of this energy. Now I'm not saying this is that device, but the operation of it generating power from these frequencies is totally possible. To the common eye, a machine that runs off of this "invisible energy," if you will, seems like it is producing more energy out than what's being put in.

    I think the key to this device is tuning it to the machine's natural electrical resonant frequency. At this frequency, the amplitude of the device spikes dramatically upward and hence the electromotive forces would also spike because with more amplitude means more magnetic flux. If something is acting on that flux to produce more power, it becomes a generator.

    Thoughts?
     
  6. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    That you didn't actually watch the debunking video? Because you don't need to make up physics to explain the device. It's perfectly well able to do what was claimed without exotic power sources.

    You're aware of course, being conversant with atmospheric EM propogation as you are, that x-rays and gamma rays don't travel particularly well in the atmosphere due to absorption?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Maverick

    Maverick New Member


    Whether or not they travel well or not, they are still present. With those high energy waves, even a minimal amount of them would be more than enough to power something like this.

    You still aren't getting this. We all know that a material has a resonant frequency at which it vibrates. Great, right? Well what if you went further and found the frequency at which that material moves electrons across its surface? Or even if you found the frequency at which that material creates magnetic flux. Is this not electricity as we know it? It is a theory, I know, but that isn't all that hard to prove. It's just hard to prove where the frequencies are coming from, which is why everyone thinks Tesla was a mad scientist. This was his life's work: electrical resonance.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  8. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    I'm saying your theory is irrelevant to the operation of the device in the above video, which could produce the observed results without such handwaving. The math is all in the video, if you want to look.
     
  9. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Thick enough. If the theory isn't that hard to prove, I personally would be doing it and making a name for myself.

    But vibrational resonance and electrical resonance are two different phenomena, and even tesla understood that if you want to send power over long distances you use radio waves, because the attenuation is less than for high energy radiation. We'll leave aside the effects of such radiation on humans, which would almost certainly be damaging in order to match the power in an AA battery.
     
  10. Maverick

    Maverick New Member


    I understand they are two different phenomena but all frequencies are electromagnetic in nature. You don't have to produce any more gamma or xrays than what is already in the atmosphere, you just have to collect them.

    The theory is hard to prove because it is difficult to make a circuit that can tune to those extremely high frequencies. Although difficult, it is not impossible.
     
  11. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Not all frequencies are electromagnetic. Sound is not electromagnetism, nor is it created by electromagnetism. Yet it has a frequency.

    If there was enough density of high energy photons in the lower atmosphere to do real work, we would all be dead of radiation poisioning. It would take on the order of 10^19 low energy x-rays to equal the power in a single AA cell. Fewer higher energy photons, of course, but the potential radiation risk increases more than linearly with the energy per photon, so it would be more dangerous the higher the average energy.

    The reason we aren't already harvesting the gamma and x-ray radiation is that it would be a paltry amount of power even if it did work.
     
  12. Maverick

    Maverick New Member

    I guess I worded that wrong. I meant to say all frequencies operate in the electromagnetic spectrum and can be created with an electric circuit. Sorry about that.

    So what if it's not operating on known frequencies? I read a few articles about a "zero point energy." These articles were trying to prove what Tesla was trying to tap into for power applications. They basically stated that all things in the universe spin in this "spiral shape." We see it when water goes down a drain or when leaves spin from the wind or in the solar system and galaxies all around us. All these articles stated was that these frequencies also spin in this highly efficient pattern and that if it can be tapped into, you have a basically unlimited source of energy.
     
  13. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Zero point energy is not what popular imagination says it is. It cannot be mined. Even a perfect vacuum has pairs of virtual particles popping in and out existence all the time. They constitute energy, ephemeral as they are. So a perfect vacuum has what amounts to a very low level of static even when there is no usable energy. This is the zero point energy. It is the energy left over even after all energy possible to extract has been extracted.

    It would be useful if you stuck to a single conceptual power source instead of leaping from one to another. It just seems like grasping at straws otherwise.
     
  14. Maverick

    Maverick New Member

    Ok so what if the spirals aren't zero point energy but are something completely different?
     
  15. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Then it becomes even more clear you're spitballing, and don't really understand what you're talking about. You don't get to just redefine your terms on the fly when you realize you're wrong.

    You're grasping at straws here. If you want to find a new physics you need to understand the old physics first. That takes more effort than reading articles on ZPE. It takes math, and lots of it. I never finished my physics degree, partially, but not entirely, because I couldn't handle the math.
     
  16. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    No, everyone doesn't think Tesla was a mad scientist.

    Most people familiar with his work recognize that he was a great mind, but that he also probably did not
    have physics-defying super-secret inventions that will be awesome...if we only somehow re-discover them.

    Doesn't it strike you as odd that the finest scientists--in this most advanced age--can't come up
    with a device that mines all this supposedly easily available free energy floating all around us?
    Untold riches would go to whoever could do so, never mind fabulous esteem within the scientific community.

    And yet guys on YouTube claim that they know the true secrets, and, damn it, if they could ever just get their
    damned magic device "tuned," :confused: they'd be able to show everyone. Now, does that seem believable to you?


    p.s. Even this interesting "electromagnetic harvester"
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...r-that-gathers-free-electricity-from-thin-air
    is really just converting energy from nearby man-made devices...not collecting
    energy "from the Universe" as many YouTubers seem to think is a pretty easy trick :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Maverick

    Maverick New Member


    I'm not "spitballing". This is a theory and you are striking it down because I coined the wrong term (zero point energy). Honestly, why do you have to be such a "Debbie Downer"? I'm just trying to theorize what could possibly make a machine like this work.

    No one likes Math. Math sucks.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Then you're not doing physics. You're daydreaming. Without a mathematical underpinning to your ideas, they are not a theory. They are unfounded speculation. Feel free to continue if you want, but don't act surprised when people who have invested their lives in understanding how the universe really works don't give you the time of day. *shrug*

    Edit: I can't include myself in that group, to be clear.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Bottom line is Free Energy is like cold fusion and all the other great pipe dreams of science. Stuff that could be possible at some point in the future given our ever increasing understanding of quantum physics, but at the moment is either theoretically or practically impossible. And this isn't mainstream science 'covering up' or ignoring the idea, it's mainstream science doing real science and saying 'that wont work' or 'that is not yet practical'. Believe me there is fame, fortune and Nobel prizes galore awaiting the scientist who does crack free energy, but the very fact that the idea isn't being pursued with any great vigour by the scientific community shows that, at the moment at least, such goals are unobtainable and not worth chasing outside the world of the advanced theoretical side of science. And the theoretical side of physics is nothing but a lot of very very hard sums.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  20. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    That's your answer, that's why people are being debbie downers. You're trying to engage in an almost purely mathematical field of discussion with this as your mathematical credentials.

    And you are spitballing, no matter how you try to cut it, even without using the wrong terms. You started your claim with the words, "Well what if..." without regards to what the math or science says about what comes next, because math is hard.

    Many will also brand him with the cardinal sin of science: He lied about results. Sometimes in fantastically childish ways, like claiming he destroyed his lab and damaged the neighboring building and repaired it all himself before anyone found out but the machine that did it only works when he's alone in his lab at night.

    Whenever dealing with some supposed revolutionary lost Tesla invention, it's important to remember that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Maverick

    Maverick New Member

    Um... wait a minute here. You are trying to call me out with not doing math but you can't handle it either? [...]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2015
  22. Santa's sidekick

    Santa's sidekick Active Member

    You find this sort of thing in every discipline: many people don't want to spend a decade of their life studying the subject in universities, so they turn their intelligent minds to it, and read a little and think a little, and quickly become convinced they know better than every trained academic researcher. You see this in economics, climate science, sociology, psychology, and, as here, in physics.

    Once a upon a time, when you could be a great intellectual by dint of a sharp mind alone, such people would have wound up in history books; but today, when there are many sharp minds and libraries full of technical literature for every field and sub-field, you can't expect to be in the forefront of anything without decades of serious study and research. I've spoken to so many 'coffee economists' (I always seem to come across them when they're drinking coffee) who wouldn't be able to read the 'empirical methods' (usually, math) section of a well-written, simple paper, but who believe they have valuable insights into the 'advantages' of the gold standard; I'm sure the same happens for anyone engaged in serious academic study.

    The media and 'pop intellectuals' contribute to this by boiling everything down to simple, easily accessible articles and books. In and of itself this is great; but when highly intelligent neophytes read them, they often come away thinking they understand as much as an active PhD in the field, and are entirely unaware that they have no inkling of what serious study of the field is like.

    A shortcut to nowhere can be quite tempting.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Maverick

    Maverick New Member


    Sorry for trying to put some ideas out there? Look I read stuff and present the ideas. Sorry I can't post complex mathematical formulas online.
     
  24. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    I'm trusting in those that can. I trust in the self-correcting nature science to lead us to the answers you are groping about for, if they exist. I'm also conceptually familiar enough with basic concepts to make reasonable judgments about what makes sense. And what you've proposed so far doesn't pass muster. I doubt it would be accepted by the scientific community at large, and ultimately the burden of proof is on you to show it should be.
     
  25. Santa's sidekick

    Santa's sidekick Active Member

    If this machine can actually work, why doesn't its inventor write a paper documenting it and send it for peer review and publication in a physics journal?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  26. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    Could you please give me a reliable source for this assertion?
    The idea of collecting energy from electromagnetic radiation through resonance seems a bit odd to me because you can resonate with only one frequency at a time. Of course we know how to pick up electromagnetic radiation. You use a tuned circuit. Using capacitors and coils the circuit resonates with a frequency inversely proportional to the square root of the self-induction and the capacity.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  27. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    1. What do you mean by unknown frequencies?
    2. Spiral spinning mostly (if not all the time) originates from the combination of angular momentum and a source or sink of energy. The solar system is a bad example, becuase the planets are not spiraling at all. Stuff (stars etc.) in a spiral galaxy is not spiraling either. They rotate in Keplerian orbits around the centre. In doing that, they cross a spiral shaped standing wave pattern (a bit like sound waves) causing condensations and dilutions of matter.
    3. Frequencies are not entities that can spin or spiral in any way. A frequency is a number. It tells you how many times something occurs in a given time. Electomagnetic and other waves going up and down or around or something like that f times per second, have a frequency of f Hertz.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    What does this mean? A machine has a resonant frequency equal to 1/2pi*sqrt(L*C). I don't see what is natural about that or how a machine can be tuned to its own resonance frequency. When you talk about amplitude you need to specify what this amplitude is about. The amplitude of the alternating current? The amplitude of a standing wave?
    What do you mean by something acting upon a magnetic flux? A generator works because an external force acts upon a conductor, moving it in a magnetic field in such a way that the Lorentz force causes the electric charges to move. The technical development of this principle leads to coils moving in a magnetic field and you can associate the induction voltage with the rate of change of the loop flux. Nothing can act upon that flux, again because the flux is just a number, not an entity.
     
  29. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Or even just run some open and above-board public demo's where all questions are answered, all equipment is able to be inspectd, and anyone can go away and copy it!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Like I have said before, even supposing this technology WAS real and WOULD work if they could tune it. If they haven't tuned it yet and never have, IT DOESN'T WORK. SO don;t make youtube videos saying how you have broken the old paradigms of physics etc until you have actually done something.

    Once it does work, it would be easy to prove for not too much money.
    Assuming you already have a computer, you can just buy an additional 6TB hard drive for £200 these days, and even if you spent an additional £500 on the machine, it wouldn't be THAT ridiculous.
    You can buy a decent webcam for under a tenner, and you can download free software called ispy.. to record continuously (saving in 15 min chunks) onto the 6TB hard drive which would be enough for MONTHS of video. If you pay AU$7.95 a month for a subscription, you can also host the feed from your cameras to a website (This one apparently costs Mick no more than US$200 a year ) so people can just log in and see this miracle machine doing work and powering itself with no external power source. You can invite other scientists round to examine it to make sure you haven't got a car battery or diesel generator hooked up somewhere and have them examine it on camera too.

    The fact that so far, no one has EVER demoed ANYTHING actually working, and at least one of the groups claiing to have built such QEGs, give you basic plans cheap and then trys and sting you for several hundred dollars for a Skype consultation when yours inevitably doesn't work is a bit fishy. Even worse when you have to have had several of these "consultations" before you are then allowed to voluntarily donate a minimum of £200,000 to have a demo of their working machine. (see post #165 of THIS thread. )
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  31. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    Is it not simply a case of Hitchin's Razor

    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

    Or more colloquially put as, "Take a dump or get off the toilet"

    Simply show it working - not rocket science is it

    (Or maybe it is!!!!!)
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2015
  32. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    There are devices that do this and are very common: they are called gamma ray spectrometers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_spectrometer

    The basic principle is that high energy particles (gamma rays/X-rays) interact with certain material (typically a sodium iodide crystal) and produce small flashes of light. These are measured by a photomultiplier to create a voltage that is measured. So there you go - electricity from cosmic rays! The devices cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and use more energy to run than they generate from the photomultipliers.

    You can much more easily harness cosmic energy with a solar cell for a few dollars. Just because gamma/X rays are energetic doesn't mean you can use that energy easily. The amount of total energy in cosmic radiation is minute in comparison with the visible-infrared energy from the sun. If the "device" was simply connected to a small solar cell and a rechargeable battery if would run for months or years (until the battery reached its cycle lifespan).
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  33. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    I should have said, "The amount of total energy in cosmic radiation is minute at the Earth's surface in comparison with the visible-infrared energy from the sun."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    The cosmic radiation that the Earth recieves consists mainly of protons (89 %). Almost all of these and EM-radiation from UV-C up to gamma is absorbed in the ionosphere (and the ozone-layer); what we detect on sealevel is mostly secondary particles that originate from collissions with atmospheric molecules. The amount of gamma- and X-ray-radiation is effectively nil.
     
  35. Rongram

    Rongram New Member

    Hi Everybody

    Stumbled onto this forum and found this post quite interesting.

    First I would like to say as seen in the reply's, that it always amaze me how short sighted some people are and then just bash everything as they cannot comprehend what they see.

    The theory's that are out there are all possible.

    Now before a person bash everything as scams, go look at the world political control system and the people behind them. Energy corporations do not want any form of free energy out to the general public. Why? They will be out of business.

    Nikolai Tesla's inventions was smothered from inception by the people in power. In the early Days power distribution was massive business. ( Imagine Today if all of a sudden all homes need power cables installed.. Let's leave that one there)

    Hendry Ford was one of the people that acquired most if not all Tesla's inventions. They simply locked it away.

    In the last 100 Years all over the world if somebody came up and actually do the THING called EFFICIENT ENERGY. They were all of a sudden quiet and started living like kings.

    In Today's World it cannot be kept under the blankets. Information spread too fast.

    Now the big question again where are Tesla's inventions or what are left of them. This include his Patents.

    Today we look at another Guy. Elon Musk. Do you know this Guy??? One of his company's is The Tesla company. He somehow procured Tesla's inventions.

    Question now is. Why do he not flood the market with free energy. Answer is: He is funded by NASA and ENERGY corporations as well as US Government.

    The Tesla BATTERY that Elon Musk call ( THE POWER WALL) combined with Solar is hitting the market soon. This is a great free energy source,, but at one huge investment to Consumers. This will still give them ongoing business as panels will have to be replaced and systems needs to be maintained.

    Back to the original post: You can call them what ever you like, fuel less energy, self contained energy, self drive generator or QEG no matter what you want to call them.. Simple fact is the concept are working.

    We have already some in the field. We are busy sorting some minor details and for sure will continually better the product.

    The range are from 5,5kw single Phase 230vac. and 15kw to 500kw 3 Phase 400vac.

    Again call it what you like, fact is We do not use external power source to drive the plants.

    Correction; we do use a battery to start the system. Once it reach resonance the system is self supported.

    Must mention: We do have some issues with the 15kw, but this will be sorted in the next Month or so. We first thought to not make the 15kw, but it will be a very popular size.

    The first attempt the input was 60% against output. This would have made the machines expensive. Later on the input went down to 25%. Well I leave you guys at that. The guys even reduced that.


    OK, NOW YOU CAN BASH ME TOO.
     
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Prove it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    This line alone is clearly nonsense.

    If the input was "60% against output", then how would the machines be expensive? You would be getting 100/60 = 1.67 times as much energy out as you were putting in. That in itself would be a miracle and make you rich and famous, if it were true.

    If they work, I assume your power bills are now zero?


    Any evidence of this? Musk called his electric car company Tesla Motors, because the cars use an AC motor based on Tesla's design. It's a motor, which converts electricity into motion, with less than 100% efficiency. That's all. Musk certainly doesn't claim to have the secret of free energy.

    Furthermore:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Tesla_Motors
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  38. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    I personally don't think that a lot of people in free energy schemes are intentional frauds, I think they just don't understand (or perhaps believe) the physics of AC current or Conservation of Energy. The former is fairly complicated and requires a working knowledge of the difference between a projection to the real axis vs the real-imaginary plane. The latter is, like it or not, a Law of this Universe. I think the approach many of the free energy believers tends to be more "religious" than scientific in nature.

    They didn't "go" anywhere: here is a list of Tesla's patents with links to the patents themselves.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, I think a lot of them have the attitude that "We can go from 75% efficient to 90% efficient - we just need to get the same efficiency improvement again and we'll be over unity!"

    Sadly it doesn't work like that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  40. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    Nikola Tesla lived to the age of 86 between July 1856 and January 1943 and Henry Ford lived till 83 between July 1863 and April 1947. He only survived Tesla by a handful of years. Now assuming patents become available after the inventor passes away (they don't, by the way, but thats what I assuming you are inferring), Henry Ford has suffered several health complications by 1943 including "several cardiovascular events (variously cited as heart attack or stroke) and was mentally inconsistent, suspicious, and generally no longer fit for such immense responsibilities". And for the last 20 years of his life he had been President in title only, having little influence on the board or day to day decisions on running his company. When, where and how did he manage to acquire most, if not all, of Tesla's inventions?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.