TheRadioBoard

i wanna ask the experts


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCY7tYDj ... re=related

_________________
31 years old now playing with crystal sets since 12 years old tweaking and tinkering and sharing ideas ever since...

It's a scam.

_________________
Secret of Electronics - keep the smoke _in_ the wires.

that IS what i was thinking you know free power is a joke in my opinion theirs NO SUCH THING AS PERPETUAL MOTION ESP,electricity
his there is possible mixed with impossible notice on his comment board
and i toyed to get my dc dynamotor to power it self


{ ITS IMPOSSIBLE } the only thing that i think can begin to pay for it self is ruffly over $1.000 of photo cells on the rooftop and battery's in your garage that die every 5 years or so give or take the care given old b+and- are recyclable for penny's per pound dead
-----------------
i try to keep the smoke tn the wires it just naturally seeps out when i least expect it

Uhumm.. I have to be very careful of what I'm saying here..
We can disregard those people on YouTube making generators invented a hundred years ago, believing that Back-EMF is ''free energy''. Well, I do not run around commenting on their videos, because I would rather see people doing experiments and learn things, like myself, instead of parking their brains in front of a TV and just accept things they are being told.

However. I do NOT believe that scientist of today really understand the whole universe and how it works, even if they want us to believe it. And maybe, just maybe, there really is some kind of ''Powerless Transfer'' of electric energy. Something in the understanding and equations of electricity that may have been overlooked

Some years ago, the scientific establishment laughed their butts off when they heard of some people that claimed to have ''Cold Fusion'' working. Today, we know that this IS real, but there are a lots of problems yet to overcome. For example: Only 75 percent of the experiments are successful, and they have yet to figure out why..

The obvious reality is that the sooner the impossibility of extracting "something from nothing" is accepted then the sooner will all these delusional hopes of "free power" perish. The foundation of science is predicated upon the conservation laws, the law stating that the energy in any closed system must remain constant being the most applicable here. While new methods of extracting energy from reactions, be they chemical or nuclear, are bound to be discovered, no equations, regardless of one's "imagination", can be reinterpreted to allow for the impossible.

Some years ago, the scientific establishment justifiably derided the impossibility of the "cold fusion" claims and time has proven their skepticism to be well founded. The recently observed CR-39 tracks are more likely to be produced by oscillating surface plasmons than the delusional dream of electrolytic fusion.

73's

you are rite about that the A bomb was a theory and it ended a never ending war

i am wandering what happened to the idea of making fuel cells cheaper and practical "120 years plus charge"

many think oil co. buy out patents for peanuts compared to oil its self

But what if that ''nothing'' really is something?


Yes, this is how we interprets the ''reality'' Right Now, with the historical fact in my mind, that the scientific establishment denied the possibility of human flying in a self-powered machine heavier than air, back in the the days when the Wright brothers challenged the ''Established Realities''.


http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800567822_4 ... df8d7f.HTM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090324/ts ... AaplEDW7oF

When you start measuring the "Q" of coils (even unloaded) you quickly realize how hard it is to get "something for nothing".

Golf, you are totally right.

Heavier than air manned flight was deemed to be impossible due to the perceived insurmountable engineering difficulties of having a means of propulsion with a sufficiently high power to weight ratio. In 1799, George Cayley understood the physics of flight and formulated the governing mathematics. In 1738, Bernoulli formulated his namesake principle which relates the fundamental relationship between the velocity and pressure of a flow based upon the conservation of energy of a fluid. The Wright brothers were able to affirm the physics of flight, then over a century and a half old, due to recent innovations in engine technology.

As I previously stated, considerable room for developing new means of harnessing chemical and nuclear reactions exists however this delusional hope of violating the laws governing reality is an utterly foolish and historically demonstrated exercise in futility. History shows no mercy to the fools who pursued perpetual motion.



As can be read here, this claim was justifiably categorized in the realm of "physics fantasies" especially in light of a more realistic explanation of "the key to the process was oscillating surface plasmons – waves of energy rippling through electrons on the surface of the electrode".

I think your missing my point.
To quote Rumsfeld:

However, if you read through to the end of the artcle, it says:

They said that the rough surface of the palladium on the electrode focuses the energy into small pits, where it can be transferred to a single electron. The high-energy electron can then shoot into the nucleus of a nearby deuterium atom and combine with a proton to release a neutron and a neutrino (European Physical Journal C, DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s2006-02479-8).

"Electrons and protons don't have trouble attracting," Widom told New Scientist, and he says the explanation conforms to the Standard Model of particle physics. He speculates that this theory could explain instances of exploding laptop batteries, and could be harnessed as an energy source – something Larsen's company hopes to commercialise.

So, while it may not be cold fusion, it does appear to still hold potential for a new energy source. To me that still sounds like something for nothing.

I agree with both DXer and Rune on differing points. In a closed system, you can't get something for nothing. However, there are still enough things we do not know, which allow for a different 'sink' compared to the 'source'. You just need to learn to control the flow of energy in your system. The first time man was able to create fire on his own, I doubt that anyone present thought some day in the future, you would be able to use that same basic energy to move people from place to place...

If I may jump in here and expound upon things I'm totally ignorant of. Suppossedly, all the nothingness of space that is in between all the stuff we can see and measure is not actually "nothing." The current cosmological theories say there is a lot more to the universe than meets the eye. (or radiotelescope) There is all this "dark matter" floating about. Can this stuff be tapped into as a source of energy? If so, would it be something that is not in the same system as Newton's laws?

Jim

There is a article and video posted on cbsnews.com about ''Cold Fusion''.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/ ... 52167.shtm
Yes Jim, but there are disagreements about the ''dark matter'' you are pointing to. Some scientists see this ''Dark Matter'' rather as the force that keeps the atoms macro/micro universe together in the space between the atoms or electrons. But now we are talking about obscure things like other dimensions and i believe ''Powerless Transfer'' too. If we could ''Harness the Universe'' in this way, there would be endless of possibilities.