1 Watt in 2 Watts Out .. hmmm ??

[Lars Clausen]

Anyone have any experience with stuff on this site?

http://jnaudin.free.fr ?

(The interesting stuff is found at the links almost at the bottom of the page...)

This guy built some practical and very credible circuits based on theories through time, set out to break our preperception of what's technically possible. And i must say some of it looks convincing, even if it may be impossible according to our 6th grade highschool lecture.

A slightly more commercial site, but still fantastic, if true :

www.cheniere.org

At least interesting reading! Check it out.... You will find links to the background stuff on the site as well.

Who will be first with a powerless GC ?

[SY]

Naudin is a well-known fraud. Any time you see the phrase "Free Energy," put your hand over your wallet.

[Lars Clausen]

Well i stumbled on the Naudin site in search of material about Viktor Schauberger. An Austrian who did some interesting things with water, including production of free energy, antigravitation etc in 1930 - 1950's. Obviously could also be hoaks, but then on the other hand i think any real scientist would admit there are too many things that even modern science simply doesn't cover.
So who knows, one or two of the incredible and impossible experiments performed by some kitchen hobbyist somewhere, just might work.....

100 years ago people would laugh if you were to explain about computers, color TV, rockets to the moon, bubble plastic, internet, etc.
It would also be logical if 100 years from now into the future, some technologies that are inconceivable or unacceptable to science at our present stage, would become part of our everyday life. Some paths must clear, to make the technology of the future. I think silicon chips, nuclear power, oil and even money in the deep future will have as little practical use as horse carriages, vacuum tubes, and bi-planes. Fun to play with yes maybe, but practically obsolete.

If just one way of making free energy is possible, or extracting it from water or .... you name it, would obviously have a fantastic impact on global economy. And since free energy could actually tip the global economy in favour of third world countries, there would obviously be strong political interests to keep such technology top secret. Not saying the technologies presented by Mr. Naudin are nessescarily workable. However this type of technology just might exist, and so i think it's best to keep an open mind, and a good curiosity with you at all times...

One example where economic interests supresses a technical solution in benefit of rich and poor countries alike, and in open play, is the Kyoto treaty.
American scientists have already devised a technical solution to hothouse gases, based on biological absorbtion. But that is completely non-interesting to politicians.

The problem must not be solved, because then we can not use it to our political purposes.

Now i'm not personally convinced that global heating is at all connected to hot house gases, as it has been shown that fluctuations in solar activity also correllates precisely with the global temperature changes. But just assuming the gases actually have an effect, the rich countries can according to the Kyoto treaty buy CO2 concessions from the poor countries, so preventing them from ever getting a good and healthy industry.

This is modern politics for you folks....

So the point is, if some guy were to invent a "free energy" source that just happened to work, i would be pretty sure his technology would be shut up by economic interests.

Thus proving your point SY .. if it worked it would be top secret..

[SY]

Many people have bet against the laws of thermodynamics. They've all lost. If you keep your mind too far open, people like Naudin will throw all sorts of garbage in there.

If I told you that I had a one liter container of water that could pour out two liters, you'd think I was nuts. That's what they're claiming. Your computer works, your color TV works, the Mars explorer works, bubble plastic works, the internet works, all because of our understanding of the basic laws of physics.

[Lars Clausen]

Having an open mind is not the same as believing anything. It is more like first listening, then maybe studying and evaluating, and after that possibly writing it off. Maybe getting some inspiration on the way.

If you just subscribe to the logic that anything that can not be proved mathematically or supported by a known physical law, is therefore impossible, then knowledge becomes your limiting factor. Some laws were made hundreds of years ago, by people observing apples fall to the ground. Good at their time, but maybe there is more to it....? Some physical laws are tools to model what we can observe in experiments, not the whole truth about their subject.

Plenty of inventions have come to light, simply because the inventor didn't know that science had already theoretically proved his idea impossible. The kitchen steel sink is one well known example of that.

Physical laws are revised as experiments prove them in some ways inaccurate, it's an every day thing.

After all what is really constant in our universe? Change....?

[Sch3mat1c]

All I know is that the physics on that page, aren't. "Atrocious" doesn't begin to describe the inaccuracies, in even the mere terminology and usage, let alone the actual "science" itself!

Tim

[osey]

Whilst Im a true realist, and that page is indeed rubbish as far as Im concerned - do not believe that classical physics is the be all and end all.

Physics has been 3 major revolutions int he last couple of centurys alone, and the advent of quantum mechanics has caused us to take a long hard look at some of the classical notions established.

Experiments have shown that otherwise apparently unconencted particles located 1000s of miles apart CAN interact with each other, particles can and do suddenly move unexplainably in space and time.

Whilst time travel is accepted as non sensical, the notion that there may be an infinite number of worlds existing at all possible moments in time has not... It cannot be proved nor disproved.

Anyway the point is this: I agree with thermodynamics - energy can not be simply 'created'. but what about obtaining enegy from another point int he universe, or even another universe itself? It would be 'free' for all our intents and purposes? I do not advocate this theory but merely point out that classical physics is not the answer to everything.

Some pretty amazing things are coming our way in the next 500 years I would say. If you want a hint of what im on about, try finding the quantum mechanicans interpretation of the famous wave/particle double slit interference pattern.

[tpenguin]

Originally posted by SY
Naudin is a well-known fraud. Any time you see the phrase "Free Energy," put your hand over your wallet.

A fruad?? That can't be. I went to his site, and he single-handedly inventedcold fusion . It has a picture, so it must be true.



I always figured it would be complicated, but apparently, all you need is a little water, some potassium carbonate, an old thermos bottle, and a source of high-voltage DC. Naturally, any reaction or change you observe must have been caused by fusing hydrogen atoms, after all, what else could possibly occur when running electricity through water and an electrolyte?

What I don't understand is how such a brilliant physicist could fail to take such things into account as the fact that he says he has > 200VDC running through two very thin wires, the bridge rectifier (which everyone familiar with power supplies should know gets very hot) is contained inside a small, sealed, disposable plastic container where it has absolutely no air flow and nothing but a small ammount of air into which to dissipate heat, meaning that it is unlikely it could sustain such loads for nearly two minutes. And furthermore, he does not seem to know that becuase he used a bridge rectifier directly with no filtering caps, he is feeding an AC squarewave through the mixture rather than direct current. Also, because the electrolytic solution, itself acts as a capacitor, it will make the actual power consumed by the circuit dificult to measure.

Also, when calculating the energy output in Joules, he takes into account only the volume of water and its specific heat, completely ignoring the other substances that have absorbed thermal energy. He also claims that "We know that we need 2260 J/g to vaporize water," but this is simply not the case. In order to vaporise 44g of water at 80&degC, you need only add 4.184 x 44 Joules per gram. If the average Delta T of the entire solution was 17&degC, then (guessing a specific heat of 2 J/gK for potassium carbonate solution and assuming the jar mass is about 400g) the approximate thermal output would be around 55KJ, roughly equal to what he calculated to be the input.

And the last thing I'm going to point out is that he assumes the entire change in mass is the result of boiling, while neglecting the fact that running current through water causes it to decompose into hydrogen and oxygen gas by electrolysis. This is likely to be fairly significant given the electrical energy passing through the water. By the way, I'm no brilliant physicist myself, so my "corrections" are likely to contain errors, but most of the problems are from the lack of any real data he provided on said "experiment."

[SY]

Through all the revolutions in physics, one thing has stood every test ever devised and every change in our theoretical structure- the laws of thermodynamics. There's not going to be a perpetual motion machine.

For a fun read, folks ought to check out Bob Park's "Voodoo Science." Professor Park is a well-known physicist, former president of the American Physical Society, and writes in an accessible, humorous, and entertaining style. He goes through quite a few of the perpetual motion hucksters (most notably Joe Newman and Dennis Lee) and skewers the Utah cold fusion guys, with whom I was uncomfortably close. Some of Professor Park's articles and his weekly columns are available free at the www.aps.org website, but you ought to buy the book.

[SY]

Experiments have shown that otherwise apparently unconencted particles located 1000s of miles apart CAN interact with each other, particles can and do suddenly move unexplainably in space and time.

Whilst time travel is accepted as non sensical, the notion that there may be an infinite number of worlds existing at all possible moments in time has not... It cannot be proved nor disproved.

You're probably thinking of EPR-like stuff, where collapsing the spin wave function of one of a pair of particles collapses it for the other. That was originally a gedanken experiment that Einstein and coworkers came up with to show how ridiculous quantum theory was. So ridiculous, in fact, that this stood up to experimental test. Goes to show ya. Note, though, that nonlocal phenomena like this cannot be used to transmit information nor energy faster than the Einstein limit.

Anyway the point is this: I agree with thermodynamics - energy can not be simply 'created'. but what about obtaining enegy from another point int he universe

We do it all the time. Like when I pump gasoline into my car or put batteries into my kid's Teletubbies music box. Or eat.

or even another universe itself? It would be 'free' for all our intents and purposes?

Well, a guy you agree with said that the many-universe hypothesis can't be proved nor disproved. So that means you can't get energy from it (else you've proved it, eh?).