[QUOTE=Robert;1498138]Steorn
[QUOTE=Robert;1498138]Steorn
Wow is all i can say...
Its possible, ive seen a 450% efficient air conditioning/heater unit, you put in 1kW of energy, get 4.5kW out
dont think its real.. if it was it would have been everyware but this is the first times ive seen it :P
People have been researching it for a long timeQuote:
Originally Posted by XcvcX
Let's w8 and see :P
if it true only when the oil is all spent some1 will try it (i don't think oil companies will let their monopoly go away like wise).
if its false then its just getting your emails to sell :P
btw magnets and magnet fields are not free energy.....the belief that magnetism comes from nowhere is wrong....a magnet will and does eventually lose it's power.
i can create a magnet just by putting a piece of steel on electric current....so how come something that was created spending electricity is free? electricity comes from power plants (excluding nature fenonems) power plants spend resources.
if you want i can go in technical details but this way i think its easy to understand
My dear Robert, you mistake Stargate Atlantis 'science' for REAL science. A zero-point generator takes energy directly from quantum distortions in our own universe. The process is complex, but would hypotethically produce an almost unlimited suply of energy. Problem is we have currently no way to test the hypothesis, let alone build working generators based on the principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert
As for the article, it does describe no measurable decrease in ambient energy levels, which would be correct for a zero-point generator. As far as solar energy concerned (someone above mentioned it), that DOES decrease ambiant energy so can't possibly be whats being proposed here.
Anyone who's having problems with the words I use will most likely be unable to comprehend what I'm saying anyway, so I won't bother using terms everyone here can understand - call me an elitist bastard if you may :P
I'm not sure, i read about ways in which in theory you could have pretty much infinite energy, but that was only as a power supplier, you would still need batteries and all to power such things as phones, as it would be way to big to make that in a phone.
Question is it real, like others i truely hope it's real, but i tend to not believe in it untill there is hard evidence, if it is real then it would change the world in so many ways that you couldn't imagine it.
So no, i don't think it's real, but let's hope i'm wrong.
Meh something that lee would love :D
keep in mind we do not need infinite energy not at least till we can improve the efecency of our machines energy is not the real problem theres is a lot of energy out there....the problem is how efecient are the mechanism that work with that energy we don't use the wind energy to make our car move because there isn't any effective way of doing it!
one of the main problems of today is overheating of planet due to polution, polution only happens because we can't (example) use 100% of the energy that the gasoline provides to our car if we'd use 100% there would be no left overs (like CO2 etc...etc....).
what we need is a resource of energy that doesn't end, and that we can make machines that work 100% eficient.
related to that site and what they claim to have, they have found nothing new until the can prove that all the energy that their method provides can be 100% absorved and even so it might not be worth it...
No we don't need it, but it would safe a lot of money, the power bills are insane over here, we pay like triple of what we paid 10 years ago.
I'm thinking those scientists should have another look at their formulas because I sense a division by zero there :tp:
I want to believe for what a leap in technology it'd be, but I'm sceptic.
That the diffrence between laws and theorys. The theory of relativity is constantly evolving, hense the theory of special relativity etc. Laws dont change, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaRcAntiX
What ya talking about stargate isnt real, ofcourse it is!!! Plausable diniability!Quote:
Originally Posted by FragFrog
:p
Anyway imo i dont think we should be fking with our own universe, its only going to turn out bad. Think nuclear reactor overloading but instead we blow up the entire universe >_ >
Still it wouldnt be creating energy, it was already there we would just be pulling it out of *nothing*. The article says they are breaking the laws of thermodynamics so i doubt its zero point. Honestly i dont know what it is, hell i doubt they even have anything...
Imagine, though, if such a device that could just pull energy out of "nowhere" was on the way , everything would be possible, because we'd never need the term cost-effective anymore. If we have an infinite supply of power, what in the world would have a price tag anymore? In preparation, I recommend avoiding investments in gold or anything as easily created by turning some energy into matter.
the problem of pulling something out of nowhere is this imagine the universe as a room and you keep putting that stuff that came out of nowhere inside of that room....one day that room will fill up
You're forgetting our universe is actually expanding, ie, the room is getting bigger all the time.. ;)
As for the mental picture of zero-point energy: imagine a metal bar. Now, imagine 2 huge bulldozers pulling at the bar from each side, both with exactly the same amount of force.
Now, we would see the bar as standing still. but just imagine what'd happen if we cut loose one side of the bar! It would be propelled with enormous amounts of energy towards the other bulldozer - what if we could use that energy?!
This, basicly, is what quantumfysicists are trying to do: create a small enough distortion that vibrates and gains momentum at each swing untill you have an incredible amount of energy coming loose. Energy that was already there, but never visible to the naked eye because it was constantly being canceled out. The power of the sun in the palm of your hand, to quote a good movie :) Seeing how that energy was not available before, it would pretty much be like creating it from out of nowhere - ofcourse without actually breaking any laws of thermodynamics, but the device itself would output more energy then whats being led into it, so it would _appear_ to actually do break the law of energy conservation.
As for dangerous side effects like blowing up our entire universe: unlikely, but not entirely unpossible as far as I know. But like I said, even the theory on this stuff isn't anywhere near complete, let alone pracitical applications :)
Nah, I assume whatever can be created can also be broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by GriffinHeart
As proposed on the forums related to this site, I'm also open minded towards the idea that energy conservation law might simply be an example of something larger and more general. I know jack about physics but as far as I know there could well be a gap there allowing change in overall energy levels by opening a gate to another dimension or what not. :juggle: Basically I think our knowledge so far is still too limited to claim something is impossible. There are many things even scientists admit they know of, but don't understand.
How much do we know of energy anyway? Let this assumption that everything existing and non-existing boils down to same essence, a part of which we view as energy, be known as the negatave theory. Even emptiness must be of the essence. :thumbup:
That theory already exists, its called quantummechanics :P
How can you create energy with no energy ? thats just wrong .. its prolly a scam or those guys got drunk and said " lets just say we got free energy and make money"Quote:
Originally Posted by Negata
If they somehow made a way to create a Fission reactor.... (aka spiderman-2) *cough* i dout can really happen, at least in this milenia *cough*
Whoops! I have this bad tendency of inventing stuff just to find out it's already there. :( Some day though, one of of my ideas will be a new one. If not, what the heck would I be here for?Quote:
Originally Posted by FragFrog
Powergen EnergyLab
:P anyone wanna submit it there and instantly win?
im begining to think its more and more a hoax based on their forums.
Yes, they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert
What you're implying is a dogmatic approach to historical knowledge (refusing to change an idea simply because it's always been the best-known explanation before now). Thankfully the scientific method, when followed, is not vulnerable to this flaw (though individuals and cultures are, so sometimes it can take a little while for the new knowledge to be absorbed and become common). When this kind of revolution of thinking involves something fundamental to a particular field (in this case, energy/physics/etc... sorry I don't know what the right class of science theory would be), it is sometimes called a paradigm shift. It is natural for people, even intellectuals and experts in the relevant field, to be very resistant to paradigm shifts until there is overwhelming evidence (which these guys haven't even come close to providing yet...). You seem to misunderstand the nature of how the scientific method operates, and how the collective body of scientific knowledge evolves as new information is introduced.
Perhaps this will help:
HTH. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
Actually, fusion reactors already exist. There is an experimental one in England somewhere, and a bigger one is currently being build in France.Quote:
Originally Posted by fortytwo
Only they do require the input of fuel in the form of deuterium, and use a process to convert mass into energy (using Einsteins famous equation e = mc^2), thus it isn't really drawing energy from nothing :)