You're repeating things that were already said. Refer to post #23 (wasn't even that far behind your post, for crying out loud).TechGuy said:
Come on, not that hard to actually read a thread before replying to it. And a thread being too long to read is not an acceptable excuse -- if you can't read the whole thread, don't post!
This is very likely to be my only post in this thread guys, so keep doing what you are doing. I've only read the first page. It IS possible to get the 'appearance' of more energy OUT of a system, than went IN. Wether the idea of 120 in and 15k out works is not the issue. The issue is having control over the radiative output of something that appears to be a 'positive feedback' system. It can be quite dangerous. Many have died from the radiative output of such systems, due to their willingness to experiment in a carefree and haphazard fashion.
Taking into account the other 95% of the universe that we don't yet recognize, it is possible. DARK matter. Very simple. It's a tangental dimensional-relational access thing. Heisenberg and planck, with wave particle duality thrown in and all mixed up in your mental tum-tum-tummy.
Figure it out. Once you get it, it's quite simple. Gravitation, etc, the rest fall in to place quite neatly. Very little in the field of energy, conversion, access, time, etc remains 'impossible' after that. At that point, it becomes a temporal issue in terms of casualty (interpretation of 'time, in this 'linear' and 'current' dimensional standpoint), as that's all that's left to understand. Ie, the temporality, within the context of the dimension you like to call the 'real world'.
See this week's 'New Scientist' cover article, the Jan 20th-26th issue. Einstien, as I knew long ago, finally starts taking a few public body blows. Nothing wrong with old einie, but he got a few things wrong, and othrodox science always seems to fall down the same hole as the lead crew - as they march in step. For far longer than nessessary.
Yah want free energy?
Here yah go.
Go back and do Pons and Flieshman's cold fusion experiments..and SUPERIMPOSE RF NRF ontop of the DC. Try the palladium resonance frequencies, for example.
The reaction will be nearly exploisive, if not downright explosive.
Taking into account the other 95% of the universe that we don't yet recognize, it is possible. DARK matter. Very simple. It's a tangental dimensional-relational access thing. Heisenberg and planck, with wave particle duality thrown in and all mixed up in your mental tum-tum-tummy.
Figure it out. Once you get it, it's quite simple. Gravitation, etc, the rest fall in to place quite neatly. Very little in the field of energy, conversion, access, time, etc remains 'impossible' after that. At that point, it becomes a temporal issue in terms of casualty (interpretation of 'time, in this 'linear' and 'current' dimensional standpoint), as that's all that's left to understand. Ie, the temporality, within the context of the dimension you like to call the 'real world'.
See this week's 'New Scientist' cover article, the Jan 20th-26th issue. Einstien, as I knew long ago, finally starts taking a few public body blows. Nothing wrong with old einie, but he got a few things wrong, and othrodox science always seems to fall down the same hole as the lead crew - as they march in step. For far longer than nessessary.
Yah want free energy?
Here yah go.
Go back and do Pons and Flieshman's cold fusion experiments..and SUPERIMPOSE RF NRF ontop of the DC. Try the palladium resonance frequencies, for example.
The reaction will be nearly exploisive, if not downright explosive.
If attempting the above experiment, PLEASE install a 'shut down' system on the experiment, that consists of an optic sensor system that initiates an immediate shutdown of the power to the system, if the optical sensor is triggered. That should be well enough time to witness the effect. It is a decent amount of matter to energy conversion, so the warning is warranted. It's like poking a hole in a highly pressured baloon, be careful. What you are doing, is you are pressuring the system with the DC, and then exiting it into resonance. Search around at different frequencies. Try not to die. etc.
KBK, I’m lost, but it make’s my hart go boom-boom-boom shake the mofo room.
So I might not after all having a bad dream.......... like most said
It’s like taking $120 and turns it into $15000 or $ 15000 billions.
It all depends on how you do it, most do not succeed in doing it.
I’ll check that names out, you’ve supplied
So I might not after all having a bad dream.......... like most said
It’s like taking $120 and turns it into $15000 or $ 15000 billions.
It all depends on how you do it, most do not succeed in doing it.
I’ll check that names out, you’ve supplied
jacquesl said:
It's like the guy who works at the bank and a customer walks up to him and says, "Monday, I came in here and opened up an account with fifty one dollar bills.
Then yesterday, I came in here and opened up a second account with 100,000 pennies.
Today, I would like to combine the two so I have a third account with $500,000 in it."
Okay, fair enough.
As long as we understand that there has to be a massive infusion of power from somewhere into this to make it work, we're on the same page. Just as the bank guy and the customer are on the same page if they agree that there has to be a big infusion in funds into that third bank account to bring it up to $500,000.
As long as we understand that there has to be a massive infusion of power from somewhere into this to make it work, we're on the same page. Just as the bank guy and the customer are on the same page if they agree that there has to be a big infusion in funds into that third bank account to bring it up to $500,000.
Why??
“I don’t want to get bitchy, but are we breaking the unbreakable laws of physics rather than the breakable practical problems”
There’s nothing unbreakable, we just don’t know how to break it, yet, we need to learn much much more, All those unbreakable laws of physics were made by human’s, it’s not impossible to break it, it will just take some time for our humans to learn more about everything, there’s not enough scientists in the world, the majority of people are wasting there life with ****, including me sometimes. Or simply, some just don’t care about the big bang, and why plants don’t grow on mars and why we life?
“I don’t want to get bitchy, but are we breaking the unbreakable laws of physics rather than the breakable practical problems”
There’s nothing unbreakable, we just don’t know how to break it, yet, we need to learn much much more, All those unbreakable laws of physics were made by human’s, it’s not impossible to break it, it will just take some time for our humans to learn more about everything, there’s not enough scientists in the world, the majority of people are wasting there life with ****, including me sometimes. Or simply, some just don’t care about the big bang, and why plants don’t grow on mars and why we life?
Sorry Netlist, I didn’t seen your post, its because of the banker, with his money Laundry example , yip it’s a bit starting to go topic it’s starting to go nuclear, but, KBK have brought up some nice info, I’m still busy checking it out, can you please move this tread just like it is, to “Everything Else” if it ok with you
One way or another the law of conservation of energy cannot be broken, even if you plug into your nieghbor's outside power socket with a long extention cord so that YOUR electric bill doesn't go up.
The extra power must still come from somewhere.
Energy is relative to Mass....E=mc^2, just like mass is relative to energy...m=E/c^2.
Simply put, you cannot create energy from nothing. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp.
This thread is now far from a legitamate discussion on power supply construction for audio amp.
The extra power must still come from somewhere. Energy is relative to Mass....E=mc^2, just like mass is relative to energy...m=E/c^2.
Simply put, you cannot create energy from nothing. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp.
This thread is now far from a legitamate discussion on power supply construction for audio amp.
CBS240, yip, I know energy must come from something, but there are some type of energy forms we don’t yet know to extract well, like heat for example, everywhere there’s heat or like magnets, but to do it, you must make the flux lines cut the coils to create a current flow, How about manipulate the magnetism in a transformer by letting it spick and then the current is taking away somehow it must be manipulated by forcing the load to keep the magnetism from falling in that cycle with the minimum current and with full load.
I think it impossible with the normal parts we use
Maybe, maybe not, I’ve been told by many people online that my idea is a piece of ****, just in cleaner words.
They are stuck with the basic formulas that I also know, I studied electronics. I build all of my stuff, amps, powder supplies, you name it. If someone gives me a blown power supply, I almost give him a kiss, well not real, lol, and then I use the old cables from the PSU’s in my projects that nice yellow red and black cables, I’m just having a problem in obtaining some of the parts.
Our life is a mystery, we don’t know why we are on this planet, but we here, also on mars, with some robots.
I think it impossible with the normal parts we use
Maybe, maybe not, I’ve been told by many people online that my idea is a piece of ****, just in cleaner words.
They are stuck with the basic formulas that I also know, I studied electronics. I build all of my stuff, amps, powder supplies, you name it. If someone gives me a blown power supply, I almost give him a kiss, well not real, lol, and then I use the old cables from the PSU’s in my projects that nice yellow red and black cables, I’m just having a problem in obtaining some of the parts.
Our life is a mystery, we don’t know why we are on this planet, but we here, also on mars, with some robots.
jacquesl said:
I thought it was the change in flux that induced current, but every transformer has only so much iron and therefore limit of flux available. If there was only the perfect material with near infinate flux capacity and room temperature super conducting wire, this would be a perfect world and our PS's would be smaller
Reality is, you have to work with what you have unless you have an infinate budget like G. W. B. seems to think he has....now there's an oxy-'moron' 
“you must make the flux lines cut the coils to create a current flow” sorry man, this was to be a generator example
Well, thank god, somebody, created a toriodal transformer and pumped 17khz into it, and now it’s getting smaller in size in because of the high frequency. I’m not sure if it has a higher temperate than a normal transformer.?
Well, thank god, somebody, created a toriodal transformer and pumped 17khz into it, and now it’s getting smaller in size in because of the high frequency. I’m not sure if it has a higher temperate than a normal transformer.?
Philosophy
Let's look to our wordings... I a always reading unbreakable laws of physics ....well may be there are unbreakable laws. But in this thread always when I read this phrase, then authors are meaning our MODELS, which we humans have set up in order understand our observations and make it possible to predict the consequences of an action.
Our models of the classical physics have proved often enough to match to reality, so that we tend to say unbreakable law. Or tend to say: It IS like this...
If we are honest this habit is unscientific. But it is practical and for daily technical work I do the same.
Looking to our models and their history, it becomes obvious that we usually expand our models as soon as we observe things that cannot expalined by the existing models. The model set is growing and seems to remain mostly consistant (..ok let's ignore some abnomalies...).
The law of conservation of energy is quite fundamental and I am not convinced that somebody really ever has observed something, which would violate, -even if many people are stating this. Most people who state this, do ignore that the conservation of energy is defined for a closed system only. Having a closed system is hard to guarantee in reality....
A perpetuum mobile is from my point of view quite unprobable, but I do not fully reject the idea.
Would a perpetuum mobile be good for us? Well... I would say... only if we can control it... If we cannot, then I would rate it as highly dangerous....
....and is remembering me to the oldest joke about humans.
Planet 1 meets Planet 2.
Planet 1: ' I feel awful. I am badly sick...
...
Planet 2: 'What's up?'
Planet 1: 'Rapid changes in the atmosphere, rapid movement of materials, mess in my heavy metals, my water is changing the color, unknown chemical reactions everywhere and some C overtemperature.
Planet 2: '
Sounds like homo sapiens. Don't bother. It will pass over within short time.'
Let's look to our wordings... I a always reading unbreakable laws of physics ....well may be there are unbreakable laws. But in this thread always when I read this phrase, then authors are meaning our MODELS, which we humans have set up in order understand our observations and make it possible to predict the consequences of an action.
Our models of the classical physics have proved often enough to match to reality, so that we tend to say unbreakable law. Or tend to say: It IS like this...
If we are honest this habit is unscientific. But it is practical and for daily technical work I do the same.
Looking to our models and their history, it becomes obvious that we usually expand our models as soon as we observe things that cannot expalined by the existing models. The model set is growing and seems to remain mostly consistant (..ok let's ignore some abnomalies...).
The law of conservation of energy is quite fundamental and I am not convinced that somebody really ever has observed something, which would violate, -even if many people are stating this. Most people who state this, do ignore that the conservation of energy is defined for a closed system only. Having a closed system is hard to guarantee in reality....
A perpetuum mobile is from my point of view quite unprobable, but I do not fully reject the idea.
Would a perpetuum mobile be good for us? Well... I would say... only if we can control it...
If we cannot, then I would rate it as highly dangerous........and is remembering me to the oldest joke about humans.
Planet 1 meets Planet 2.
Planet 1: ' I feel awful. I am badly sick...
...Planet 2: 'What's up?'
Planet 1: 'Rapid changes in the atmosphere, rapid movement of materials, mess in my heavy metals, my water is changing the color, unknown chemical reactions everywhere and some C overtemperature.
Planet 2: '
Sounds like homo sapiens. Don't bother. It will pass over within short time.'CBS240 said:One way or another the law of conservation of energy cannot be broken, even if you plug into your nieghbor's outside power socket with a long extention cord so that YOUR electric bill doesn't go up.
Energy is relative to Mass....E=mc^2, just like mass is relative to energy...m=E/c^2.
Simply put, you cannot create energy from nothing. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp.
(Just a general statement, not specifically aimed)
Ok. then a bit of logic here, then.
Did you know, that factually speaking..historically speaking..that your viewpoint on your mentioned points, has consistently and regularly been proven to be wrong..100% of the time?
Sometimes the odd 'law' holds for a few years, maybe a century..but eventually..they all get altered and or overturned..for a new understanding.
So don't get too teary-eyed and over attached to your physics textbooks. They are transitional. You'd be far better off understanding it that way.
Always remember this one: There are no 'facts'. There never were any facts. The one single fact that might exist, might..is that there are no facts. The very iea of a 'fact', with regards to 'science', is an entirely absurd oxymoronic point of expression. Why the very idea of science is to push forward into new understandings, gaining new ground and tossing aside the old and unworkable, in the face of the new. The problem is monkeys with desires to cling comfortably to emotionally based branches still exist...and we constantly have to attend to and deal with that. I'm not exempting myself from such a statement, either. We all fall down in our own ways. But, please, keep science out of it.
It is ALL theory.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.