Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83565
  • *Latest: holbin

  • *Total Posts: 514853
  • *Total Topics: 15319
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 22

Author Topic: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics  (Read 42199 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2010, 08:38:11 PM »
The qualifications of your speaking shall be determined solely upon the logic employed. Please feel free to contribute despite troll interruption.

I have to deal with autism on a daily basis, as my son is autistic. It is amazing how his fits resemble the attitudes of many supposedly intelligent individuals. If anyone is trying to start a fight (flame you), then follow my dear departed mothers advice..... Let them stick their heads up their proverbial rears and fight for air. :-)

If any flaming becomes a problem, I will approach Harti myself about it, as no-one deserves to live under a state of constant attack, verbal or otherwise.

Paul Andrulis
LOL  I approve your mother's sentiments and rather expected this would be your overall response.  Thanks Paul.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2010, 08:38:11 PM »

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2010, 10:20:28 PM »

----
(1)

If you wish to use the thermodynamic principle of work, then you need a "Transfer" of energy.  To go simple, I ask this question.  "Does a wire carrying current do work?" or magnetically speaking, does the core of a transformer do work?

See where I am having trouble?  IF the answer is "Yes", then the definition of work becomes useless for certain applications.  I'm NOT talking about the heat from the wire, here, as that IS a transfer, but to just basic flow with no resistance, like gravity!  This is where my problem comes in.  The resistance of the wire is what produces the work, and this is also where "Power" is lost in the Transfer.  There are better ways to say this, but I'm giving a basic try before gathering too much data.

--------
(2)

 (There's a can of worms for you.  Is the creation of a negative gravity field opposing, say, the earth's, the same as no gravity at all, or would the atheric density be affected?  For later discussion.  Just a thought provoker...)

----------
(3)

One last thing, before I go educate myself further so I can be a little more logical, If the magnet were transferring energy, wouldn't that require the magnet to weaken over time?  Many commercial magnets are even shipped with "Keepers" to prevent such loss by completing the flow circuit.  If the "Flow" were to cause "Transfer", or in this case "Loss" then the addition of the keeper would make the magnet lose More strength, rather than "Keep" the force within the magnet.  All I'm saying there is, the "Keeper" would or should be caller a "Loser", as continual flow would reduce it's energy content.


I had to break these down into point to keep everything straight in my own mind.

Point 1.

"Does a wire carrying current or the core of a transformer do work?"

"Losses", or non-useful work are still work. I2R loss in a conductor and hysteresis loss in a transformer core DO count as work, and produce specific and measurable amount of heat. The problem comes when trying to judge a system component outside of the system.

Let us apply this logically towards figuring COP for a simple electrical system. An oscillating RF signal of known power is applied across a circuit containing a mosfet and a step up transformer. The experimenter measures the power across the output leads of the transformer and then figures COP, of say .2.

Is COP truly .2?

Or, in disregarding the fact that the heat-sink for the mosfet is capable of boiling water. The fact that his shoddy transformer is hot enough to burn windings and the lead wires are starting to smoke, by the laws of thermodynamics does he not have to include the excess heat for a true measurement of COP?

How about the RF signal which the lossy transformer is dumping out into the environment which is making his wife's radio scream 25 feet away?

TRUE COP requires the accurate measurement of ALL power exiting a system, not merely the "usable" part.

Does not stating otherwise claim energy is being destroyed? (When in facts it is actively being transformed?)

You see the problem here.

-----------

Point 2....

You really tempt me Loner.... Tempting tempting but no go! :-)

For cryptic reasons you well understand, I think I will refrain from letting gravity/magnetism enter too deep into this conversation. To say interesting is an understatement though.

--------------

Point 3.

All permanent magnets DO weaken over time. Some a short time span in relation to a human life, others NOT so short of a time span. However, yes they do lose magnetic strength over time (entropy does apply.).

This is a very interesting point though. You ask a VERY good question on why a magnet retains the field using "keepers" longer than without. Very good point indeed.

I am going to speculate a little "working hypothesis" here.

Magnetism has its version of "resistance", which is reluctance. It has it's own version of impedance, capacitance, and conductance (magnetic permeability). It shares so many similarities with electricity that I think sometimes we assume it IS electricity subconsciously, in that we assume in all ways that it would react with said similarity.

Please bear with me a moment.

If a battery is connected across a dead short, the energy is quickly used up and the charge usage/time ratio is high. The battery then quickly uses up its stored potential, and the charge is neutralized.

If a battery is connected across a resistor, current flow is impeded, slowing down the rate at which the charge can flow from the area of high potential to low. The charge usage/time ratio is comparatively low.

YET, in a magnet we see the EXACT opposite if the magnet is considered as a "battery". Where "charge" is resisted, energy ratio is highest as the magnet loses magnetic potential rapidly.  (Magnet without keepers).

In a magnet with "conductors" placed upon both ends reluctance (resistance) is drastically reduced, giving us for all practicality a theoretical "short", yet it acts like an effective resistor is employed in the circuit as it reduces the power expenditure over time.

What it breaks down to is logically simple.... A magnet is simply not an electrical battery, and assuming it to react like one is illogical. Magnetism is NOT electricity, though they share some traits and often tend to be found together, and can be directly transformed as types of energy back and forth.

This is pure speculation but it could well be that magnetism is a localized environmental warping caused by the alignment of atoms by the direction of rotation of said atomes electron shells. An "excess" of the total number of electrons rotating in a general vector within the material. (I do know how nasty the implications of this could be if true.)

We assume and assert much concerning magnetism, but what we really know is quite little and tends to be logical speculation anyway as to it's root cause.

Now, if a magnetic field is viewed of as a substance in motion, and not at static charge at rest like a battery, then the "keeper" problem resolves itself.  Frictional resistance applied to motion uses MORE energy to sustain a particular motion than when friction is reduced.
 
What we are seeing with the keeper problem is then viewable as an electric charge in motion, with open air losses being equivalent in concept to I2R losses, or pwoer wasted due to the conductance of the conductible material.

There is actually a simple test logically. A magnet on the face of the fridge defying the force of gravity should therefore lose its charge more rapidly than one with keepers, or than one in open air. The question is therefore upon what time scale would such need to be measured?

Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2010, 10:24:05 PM »
The data's freely available - all over the place Paul.  Here's the link that I gave to Loner.  Nothing's been patented.  On the contrary - we all went to some trouble to ensure that it wasn't.  Be rather difficult even if I'd wanted to.  The fact is that we simply use a switching circuit and return rather more energy back to the battery than was dissipated at the load.  Right now we're developing an application on higher wattages. 

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Edited to amend the 'quote'

Thank you Rosemary. I have tons of mosfets gathering dust, and a scope I am willing to use.

Paul Andrulis

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2010, 10:24:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2010, 10:49:38 PM »
LOL  I approve your mother's sentiments and rather expected this would be your overall response.  Thanks Paul.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I learned a long time ago not to follow others mistakes..... The people performing the tests "messed up".

Bear with me, please, as this is not negative.

I read the paper with a quick once over, then noted the tests they were using trying to achieve a known "effect" of a specified waveform. These boys aren't too bright.

If you know the waveform, you no longer need to reproduce an "effect", you INDUCE the effect.

Basically inject the waveform as the control for the mosfet to force the effect, not meddle constantly to try to enable the effect into being.

Let me put this as an analogy. I could ring the liberty bell by tapping it over and over with a pencil hoping to find the right frequency of taps to provide it's self resonant Q frequency.... or I can hit it with a tuning fork of that particular frequency an let the bell do the rest.

I might have to reproduce this test myself. It would help to know what "waveform" they speak of, as a graphic is not included.

Edit ADDED:

Before I make this sound overly simplistic, let me clarify.

One of the various harmonics is liable to induce the rest. Inject single or double harmonics until you know the exact combination of this particular lock. Reproduction after that point is quite simple, as you know both the necessary components and the stimulative resonant frequencies..

The fact that they were searching for a "harmonic" automatically means resonance was involved. Q will quite liably destroy coimponents, but slightly off Q should give results.

For others reading, I have not enough data to automatically state that the paper or theory is correct.... NEITHER do I have enough data to state it as incorrect. One witness FOR the concept is that some authors of said paper are electrical engineers, and members of IEEE.

IEEE refusing the paper is a matter of peer review, and any notion of perpetual motion kills papers. IE personal preference could have played a large role, not relevance or accuracy.

Paul Andrulis
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 11:21:52 PM by pauldude000 »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2010, 11:22:13 PM »
Paul - I'd be sorry if this thread simply regressed to discussing the paper.  It's copiously discussed elsewhere.  But your analogy is good.  What we know is only that at certain frequencies one can get that required 'preferred oscillation' - or self resonance.  It's an intriguing waveform - sort of imposes itself on a background of chaotic oscillations which I believe is referred to as a parasitic oscillation.

The point is - if you read the introduction - that the 'effect' was required to prove a thesis.  The proposal is that current comprises magnetic flux and flux, in turn, comprises particles.  My own thesis on this proposes that these particles are magnetic dipoles - and they move to a condition of best balance.  The reason they remain hidden is based on this question.  How would we be able to find a particle if that particle were both smaller and faster than light?  In effect it would stay 'dark'.  I then propose that there can only be 3 dimensions of this - but that they share our own dimensions but not our own time frame.

But the point is that if, indeed, this current comes from the supply source AND from the circuit material - then it would be impossible NOT to exceed 1.  The surprise was to find that - in this rather exotic state of resonance - that one could actually return more energy to the battery than was initially supplied.  If you look towards the end of the paper you'll see that the waveform is, indeed, there. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2010, 11:22:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #50 on: October 17, 2010, 11:52:12 PM »
Paul - I'd be sorry if this thread simply regressed to discussing the paper.  It's copiously discussed elsewhere.  But your analogy is good.  What we know is only that at certain frequencies one can get that required 'preferred oscillation' - or self resonance.  It's an intriguing waveform - sort of imposes itself on a background of chaotic oscillations which I believe is referred to as a parasitic oscillation.

The point is - if you read the introduction - that the 'effect' was required to prove a thesis.  The proposal is that current comprises magnetic flux and flux, in turn, comprises particles.  My own thesis on this proposes that these particles are magnetic dipoles - and they move to a condition of best balance.  The reason they remain hidden is based on this question.  How would we be able to find a particle if that particle were both smaller and faster than light?  In effect it would stay 'dark'.  I then propose that there can only be 3 dimensions of this - but that they share our own dimensions but not our own time frame.

But the point is that if, indeed, this current comes from the supply source AND from the circuit material - then it would be impossible NOT to exceed 1.  The surprise was to find that - in this rather exotic state of resonance - that one could actually return more energy to the battery than was initially supplied.  If you look towards the end of the paper you'll see that the waveform is, indeed, there. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

A post or two on the subject will not hurt.

That is just it.... Page 14 of 16 does show what they refer to as "sub harmonic modulation", but it really shows nothing. The harmonics in question are far from the 425.2 khz drive frequency. Unless the scope range is adjusted, no details about the individual harmonics in play are evident.

To determine the main resonates, the scope should be cycled upwards slowly, noting the frequency of each STRONG resonant as it comes into range, then look for a pattern.

If you have a scope and a working circuit, by all means try this. All things assumed actual, the resonation is PROBABLY the cause of the energy transformation. (note this is an educated guess) It is not an "effect", but a catalyst.

Paul Andrulis

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2010, 01:11:46 AM »
There is actually a simple test logically. A magnet on the face of the fridge defying the force of gravity should therefore lose its charge more rapidly than one with keepers, or than one in open air. The question is therefore upon what time scale would such need to be measured?
interesting. is a hall effect magnetometer going to be sensitive enough to 'match' the magnets?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2010, 01:11:46 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2010, 01:55:22 AM »
interesting. is a hall effect magnetometer going to be sensitive enough to 'match' the magnets?

Unless someone has the budget for a SQUID or SERF it would have to do. :-)

Truthfully, it would (should) be sensitive enough with strong magnets to demonstrate the principle.

Paul Andrulis

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2010, 06:17:32 AM »
Paul, You're right to reference the various types of 'work' and that it all needs to be quantified.  And certainly it includes heat.  And I never realised that magnets lose their strength over time.   

Regarding this statement
I am going to speculate a little "working hypothesis" here.

Magnetism has its version of "resistance", which is reluctance. It has it's own version of impedance, capacitance, and conductance (magnetic permeability). It shares so many similarities with electricity that I think sometimes we assume it IS electricity subconsciously, in that we assume in all ways that it would react with said similarity.

And then this
If a battery is connected across a dead short, the energy is quickly used up and the charge usage/time ratio is high. The battery then quickly uses up its stored potential, and the charge is neutralized.

If a battery is connected across a resistor, current flow is impeded, slowing down the rate at which the charge can flow from the area of high potential to low. The charge usage/time ratio is comparatively low.

YET, in a magnet we see the EXACT opposite if the magnet is considered as a "battery". Where "charge" is resisted, energy ratio is highest as the magnet loses magnetic potential rapidly.  (Magnet without keepers).
I find these points intriguing.  I actually tried to measure the Ohmage of a permanent bar magnet and could not find any resistance.  I was told that the DMM that I was using applies a small fixed current flow to materials and the meaure of the resistance or Ohmage is the measure of that rate of current flow.  This means, presumably, that if a magnet has zero resistance then it would not impede the flow of current.  So.  A magnet at either side of a resistor in series with a battery supply - would also offer no added restriction to the rate of discharge from the battery - other than that offered from the resistor itself.

In a magnet with "conductors" placed upon both ends reluctance (resistance) is drastically reduced, giving us for all practicality a theoretical "short", yet it acts like an effective resistor is employed in the circuit as it reduces the power expenditure over time.
I never knew this.  Is it known that using magnets in this configuration actually increases the efficiency of a system?  Or have I misunderstood you?

What it breaks down to is logically simple.... A magnet is simply not an electrical battery, and assuming it to react like one is illogical. Magnetism is NOT electricity, though they share some traits and often tend to be found together, and can be directly transformed as types of energy back and forth.
Here I am not sure that your proof justifies this conclusion.  But I must say I agree with you in general.  The fact is that magnetism is not electricity.  But current flow definitely induces a magnetic field and that measure of that extruded field is, in turn, determined by the rate of current flow.   I think that they must, therefore, be related.  Perhaps it's in the angle of interaction.  Bear in mind if current actually flows from one terminal of a battery to another then it's still interacting at 180 degrees as does a magnet on magnet interaction.     

This is pure speculation but it could well be that magnetism is a localized environmental warping caused by the alignment of atoms by the direction of rotation of said atomes electron shells. An "excess" of the total number of electrons rotating in a general vector within the material. (I do know how nasty the implications of this could be if true.)
Indeed.  I absolutely agree that the valence condition of the atoms and the number of atoms inside that circuit material - determines the rate at which current can flow.  But this still does not therefore deny that current flow could still comprise magnetic flux or - as I propose - 'particulate matter' if indeed, flux itself comprises particles.

And theoretically - if flux did comprise particles and if these were being transferred through the circuit then there would be a far stronger case for total conservation of energy than is presently argued by our theorists.  I would have thought?

Just one point that may be relevant.  Just think about it.  An electric field invariably induces a magnetic field.  But a magnet on magnet interaction does NOT produce an electric field.  I was told - by one academic theorist that there is probably some electric interaction inside the body of the magnet itself.  But that's assumption.  It has NEVER been measured.  I see this as evidence that a magnetic field may be a primary field.  And, correspondingly then, the electromagnetic interaction is a secondary event.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2010, 06:17:32 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2010, 07:56:48 AM »
@Rosemary

I chose the words I used in those examples to demonstrate the similarity in concept between magnetism and electricity. Notice where I used "conductors" placed upon the ends of the magnets, I referred not to electrical conductors, but good conductors of magnetism.

I should have worded it differently I suppose.

Paul Andrulis

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2010, 08:01:35 AM »
Hello Paul  - nice to see you're there.

Sorry about that error.  I'm afraid if there's a wrong interpretation available on most facts then I plumb for it with the unerring instinct of the dim witted.   Bear with me.  And you're quite right.  But I had a sneaking suspicion I'd got that point wrong.  Let me know your thoughts on the other points.

And Art - if you're reading here - please comment on the one atom as opposed to two.

Kindest regards to you both.  I'm SO chuffed that we're talking physics.
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2010, 08:01:35 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2010, 09:11:39 AM »
Hi Loner, 

I just need to first reference this first  statement
PS to Rose, Magnet on Magnet movement does produce an electrical effect, and has been measured.  Technically, this is how generators operate, but for a simple test, a coil, embedded in ferrite, can be used.  There are MANY examples right in this forum, but I couldn't remember the specific posts, as I have enough trouble just remembering the information.  It's just the way I remember things, as data with probability of accuracy.  Date, time and location usually eludes me.
An induced magnetic field can - in turn - induce current flow.  But a magnet on magnet interaction - just that - does NOT induce an electric field.  This point has been tested.  I've found one paper on this - way back - and don't know where to look for it again.  Here the thesis was tested and the results ambivalent.  Here's the uncomfortable truth.  A changing electric field induces a magnetic field - at right angles - and so on.  A changing magnetic field induces an electric field - also at right angles - and also as you so eloquently put it 'blah blah'  LOL.   ;D

BUT you can change the position of one magnet against another - in an almost and theoretical infinite variety of ways - without inducing ANY measurable electric field.  For some reason - God alone knows what - our Great's entirely missed this point.  The only way to get an electric current induced from moving magnetic fields - is to induce it through some sort of 'carrier' medium - as, for example, in circuit wire and sundry components.  Else magnets interact with magnets really energetically.  They produce measurable interactions.  Measurable samples of work done.  And absolutely NO measurable electric field.

TO Rose, the One atom Vs Two.

Tough one.  I would have to accept several things to even contemplate this.  1)  IS there more "Energy" in the two.  2) Are the two "Bonded"?  3) Type of bonding (I'd accept classical examples, as in ionic or covalent.)  4) what type of energy form are we discussing?

So as to not look like a "Creep", I'll offer an "Opinion" and you may take this for what it's worth. 
1) Yes.  2)Yes.  3) Determines the added energy level.  4) MANY!

Describing the bond in classical terms, which I don't agree with, by the way, would indicate that the orbital paths would be "Greater".  Seeing that equal energy would alter the external structure, then force levels must change in order to preserve the basic structure.  I would have to then describe how "Heat" works to alter states of mass.  Not a simple situation, eh?
Right on Art.  You can burn down your house and thereby rather radically change it's 'bound' appearance - without altering any single atom or molecule in that entire structure.  Effectively you just change the locale of some of that material and rather radically alter it's overall bound appearance.  LOL. 

Were I to describe this from the wave point of view, it would be simpler, but I won't blab about that for a few more decades of research, as I don't like to look the fool, all the time.
Here's what I want to say about this.  For some reason our learned and revered need to be RIGHT.  What a horrible burden.  It denies them the enjoyment of exploring the very questions that we're doing here.  The fun of it is in the questions.  NOT in the grandiose grandstanding nonsense of being impeccably exact.  And may I say that it's such a refreshing PLEASURE to find the likes of both you and Paul - who both risk those questions.  If this thereby makes you or any of us fools - then that's a very flattering title - devoutly to be wished - so to speak. 

For a "Quick" wave def.  (I don't do this, but...)   Aether, Consists of dark "Matter", wave intersect is "Particle" of "Mass", ALL interactions definable, unification simple.  Not my theory, but I accept the possibility as the math and equations work better than classical, in ALL areas.  What do I know?  Just a real description is about 30 pages, but that's the concept, sorta.  Crazy, right?  We exist in this "Sea" of energy, so it both is and isn't intrinsic to mass as that's what mass is.  Is that a useful clue?  Again, Sorry.
I'm absolutely with you here.  Very exciting stuff.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2010, 10:18:36 AM »
The "Heat" in the wire is FROM the source of the electricity, not from the wire.

Interesting, and very precise. Some ideas require painting a full verbal picture, others a few well applied brush strokes.

The "source" of the electricity is not a capacitor or a battery either, they are merely storage containers, as is a "magnet". Actually, I doubt that a "storage container" is really accurate either from my own understanding, I suspect it is but a handy vehicle. However, the "source" would include breaking things down on the quantum level. The question is, is it really worth traveling into the world of pure speculation?  ???

Don't get me wrong... I can speculate. I just wonder if it is worth diving into quantum mechanics. Bad as chaos theory concerning the employment of circular logic as far as I have seen. :-)

Ohhhh Heisenberg......  If my mother hadn't taught me politeness......

Science is all too often like computer programming... GIGO

Sorry. (Some of the concepts in QM are astoundingly applicable.. others.......)

By the way Loner, as it applies.... mass IS energy..... :-)

Can you tell I am getting tired? (3:15 in the ole AM here)

I think I will shut up now, and get some sleep, so I may demonstrate the actual ability to connect logically 2 + 2 as equalling 4, and not viewing it as a mere equivalency.

Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #58 on: October 20, 2010, 01:25:03 AM »
Paul, I am with you 100% on all of that.  (especially that &$#& Heisenberg!)

As a professor at MIT once said:  "After so many decimal places, nobody gives a damm."   I think that could apply here, too.   ;D

Do you think that, Maybe, there is such a thing as "Too" critical in the thinking?  Maybe there is even a line where it crosses into skepticism, even if trying to not be a skeptic?  I'm not usually into flights of fancy, but this was quite a trip.

Here's hoping to enjoy further discussions, even if about mundane topics, as the intellectual stimulation was/is very enjoyable.

Art.

Sorry about the lateness of the reply, but between a cold, a mild case of bronchitis, and a trip to the doctor over a strep infection in my foot (fun day I tell you), I have been rather occupied.

As to "too critical" in the thinking... absolutely yes when you consider critical, as used in "critical thinking" does not refer to the usual use of the word: "disapproval" or "Negative".

Being "critical" of someone or their ideas is NOT employing "critical thinking".

"Critical" in the term "critical thinking" refers to the absolute necessity, importance, or centrality of logical thought, as used in "it is not merely necessary, it is critical".

Paul Andrulis

EDIT ADDED:

Do not feel too bad. Too many time where I examine my own statements, I find the circular logic which is indicative of an illogical statement. Critical thinking when applied is the serious attempt to check your concepts, as well as the obvious checking of facts and relevant data.

Skepticism can have is logical counterpoint as well, which is blind acceptance. Neither are balanced, nor particularly constructive. A good balance of both acceptance and positive skepticism are required for true logical thought.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #59 on: October 21, 2010, 01:52:01 AM »
Just a couple of point here Art,

First, Magnetism can exist in a vacuum, which kinda pulls the base force involved out of the "Mass required" bin.  All I mean to say by this is that, while Mass can hold magnetism, it can't be considered the "Source".  I hope this points to a few "Hard Learned" clues about the reality of the situation.  A "CAP" can be charged, but is not a source....  Mass can be "Charged", but, also, is not a source....  (Battery would be a chemical magnet and I haven't heard of mixing things to make one, yet.  I know of no "True" exceptions to that one yet, either.)

Not sure what you mean by 'mass'.  In any event what we measure in material mass - is certainly a response to a magnetic field.  I understand that a DMM puts out a small current and the resistance being measured is against that current flow.  That current, in turn, extrudes a magnetic field in that resistive material.  And that magnetic field comes from where?  Surely it must be sourced from inside the material structure?  Or is it assumed that current flow somehow halves itself so that some of it flows and the rest of it becomes an extruded orbiting magnetic field?  So.  If current flow results in extruded magnetic field - then where did those fields come from?   Frankly - this question applies whether the assumption is that current flow comprises 'charge' - whatever that means - or whether it comprises 'electrons'.  I wonder if the more appropriate question would be to ask whether magnetic fields themselves have mass.  You see - it would otherwise be a miracle of some extraordinary proportions - if we assume that the extruded magnetic field comes from nothing other than the flow of electrons - as is classically assumed.  That would be energy from nothing.  A whole 'field' emanating from nowhere - yet with measurable voltage - measurable potential difference -  and, capable, in and of itself - of inducing yet further current flow.  And all this from the arbitrary directional flow or movement of electrons - always assuming that electrons can even move in the same direction - which they can't.

And then - dare it say it, yet again - if magnetic fields comprise mass - then why can we not find a particle but are only able to measure the field?  My own reasons for this based on the thought that - just maybe - those particles in the field are too fast to be either seen or measured.  And the only thing that is too fast to be measured would be something that exceeds light speed.  You mention that 'dark energy' is something that is outside this topic.  I'm not sure why.  But I would put it to you that it is 'critically required' and this thread is about critical thinking. 

Here's where I goofed up with my "Current" question.  I didn't make it clear what I was asking.  To gather ALL information is the important part, as you say.  This is what I was saying as well.  The "Heat" in the wire is FROM the source of the electricity, not from the wire.
And then this point.  I'm not sure what you mean.  If the heat is from the source of electricity then it's from the battery.  But the battery can deliver current without - itself - getting hot.  I would propose that the heat is indeed, from inside the wire of the resistor.  One can induce heat inside a resistor which is placed inside a coil - from pure induction - no actual direct exposure to the material flow of current - no matter whether current flow comprises charge or electrons. 

Actually Loner - every time one tries to define magnetic fields or current flow - or energy itself - we're left with the sad reality that we need to 'speculate' on its material properties precisely because we cannot see the 'thing' itself.  It's essentially dark which has an uncomfortable correspondence to 'dark matter' - and 'dark energies' and I do, indeed, think that these things should be considered - in my humble opinion.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

OneLink