I just came across this video, and it gave me some thoughts. I think this guy is making fun of us in a good way, and he's right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15V0gUXUPko
By dint of talking nonsense and regularly failing to produce FE, the free energy proponent looks like a complete idiot to competent people, and so does the free energy researcher until he changes his method.
The rejection of academic science and its method, the reasonable doubt of scepticism, and its replacement by the repetition of faith in FE, the acceptance of magical machines because their authors seem sincere, conspiracy theories, urban legends, even alien theories, is a total dead end.
I'd better present an original setup and talk technique, some will say? Especially since I have some. To talk technique, yes, but to whom? To the 90%+ of the FE movement who don't see any difference between a magnetron, for example, and absurd devices that never worked as claimed like Bearden's MEG, or who believe that Lenz's law can be circumvented with puerile setups? What would be the point? What would their analysis bring? They have no analysis but opinions. Or should I also pretend like them to have a revolutionary idea or claim abnormal results with a banal montage, to maintain the buzz, generate interest and laudatory but unfounded comments?
And don't tell me I'm negative. Wanting to introspect and draw conclusions from our failures is positive for progress. Continuing to present fiddlings that don't work as claimed, thinking you're a new Tesla, is negative.
What is positive would be the considerable strengthening of our demands for proof and the elimination of the 90%+ of nonsense claims and incompetents and parrots who ruin our business and make us look ridiculous and unsuccessful to the outside world, which is what the video shows and what we really are until the mindset changes.
The sectarian despotism of the 90%+ of FE believers against the 10%- of sceptics who challenge them and cannot be heard is to be fought. Faith has never produced machines or medicines. Technology has always come from sceptics and pragmatists, they are the only hope for FE, question of method.
First, we must be careful to avoid association fallacy. Just because there are scammers online making fake videos for clicks doesn't mean every fringe science researcher is automatically a scammer.
But you are quite correct that much of the community is not very rigorous in their science. Or at least not as much as they could be for a given skill level.
I think a good approach is to encourage the community to try and use more useful observations and measurements.
We should ask the right questions to encourage more detailed and rigorous observations and experiments. It will help them better understand the principles they are working with. As the angel of truth told Descartes: "the conquest of nature is to be achieved through number and measure".
The other aspect to improve I think is encouraging a principles-first approach. To start with a hypothesis or mechanism-of-action and then to ask and explore how that principle or mechanism might be implemented and proven or falsified. Again, encouraging rational induction+deduction based on what they may already know.
Without understanding the correct principles-of-operation for a given system, one will tend to have more failure than success.
Interestingly, Electroboom demonstrated this when attempting to build his first 'tesla coil' earlier this year. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJg9J81acY)
He was focused purely on transformer action and winding ratios, and without understanding the critical importance of the dielectric field component and system impedance in these coils, his results were subpar to say the least. I happened to be experimenting with a single Tesla Extra coil that same morning so it was hilarious to see the results side-by-side ;D
F6FLT
QuoteAnd don't tell me I'm negative. Wanting to introspect and draw conclusions from our failures is positive for progress. Continuing to present fiddlings that don't work as claimed, thinking you're a new Tesla, is negative.
What is positive would be the considerable strengthening of our demands for proof and the elimination of the 90%+ of nonsense claims and incompetents and parrots who ruin our business and make us look ridiculous and unsuccessful to the outside world, which is what the video shows and what we really are until the mindset changes.
The sectarian despotism of the 90%+ of FE believers against the 10%- of sceptics who challenge them and cannot be heard is to be fought. Faith has never produced machines or medicines. Technology has always come from sceptics and pragmatists, they are the only hope for FE, question of method.
I think it's important to look at the big picture...
So 90% of FE claims may be nonsense?.
-75% believe the Earth was created from nothing in a matter of days 6000 years ago.
-75% believe they are immortal and nobody actually dies.
-50% are cheating on there spouse and have substance abuse problems.
-75% of individuals cheat on there taxes.
-86% claim they know little or nothing about science.
-Oddly, if breaking any law makes someone a criminal over 99% of all people are criminals by definition.
Which begs the question, should we be worried about what others think considering the stats above?. I mean who are they to be judging anyone given the facts?.
So let's be honest, considering the real state of the world the FE community is on the low end of the crazy scale. The greater majority are pretty descent people just looking for answers...
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.17, 09:12:21
or who believe that Lenz's law can be circumvented with puerile setups? What would be the point? What would their analysis bring? They have no analysis but opinions. Or should I also pretend like them to have a revolutionary idea or claim abnormal results with a banal montage, to maintain the buzz, generate interest and laudatory but unfounded comments?
I have to believe that you are referring to me here as I'm the one pointing out the possibility of defeating Lenz with my "childish" setups with RLE. I thought I had given a proper analysis but in the event I was misunderstood, let's take a look at the attached classical sim.
Here we have a HV version of a device that involves a constant current inductor L3 and a constant voltage source V1 and a transformer made up of L1 and L2 with a low k factor.
L1 charges to ~135ma in the first 9us of the cycle and then discharges it's energy back to Vs and is seen to return to ~0ma at the end of the cycle at 17.993us. From the plot math we see that the net input energy drawn from the supply Vs during this complete cycle is 700.34nJ.
V1 is exposed to the clamp currents of L2 and L3 during the second half of the cycle and this results in an energy of 5.545uJ.
L3 starts the cycle at 100ma and ends the cycle at 103.18ma. This results in a net energy gain of (.10318^2-.1^2)*.025/2 = 8.076uJ .
L2 starts the cycle at 100ma and ends at 45.09ma. This results in a net energy loss of (.1^2-.04509^2)*.0015/2 = 5.975uJ .
Neglecting any additional losses in the switches and inductors which would actually show up on the gain side, we have an energy loss of 700.34e-9 + 5.975e-6 = 6.676uJ, and an energy gain of 5.545e-6 + 8.076e-6 = 13.621uJ resulting in an apparent COP = 13.621/6.676 = 2.04 . Small numbers true, but it is the concept here that is important.
One may notice that there is no internal self-capacitance added to any of the inductors. This is acceptable because there is a technique that eliminates these capacitances but that is for another time.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.10.17, 16:28:46
...
So let's be honest, considering the real state of the world the FE community is on the low end of the crazy scale. The greater majority are pretty descent people just looking for answers...
AC
They are not looking for answers, they already have them.
Free energy, either they already have it, that's what they say, or if they don't have it, it's the fault of science and scientists who haven't understood anything, unlike the geniuses of FE who have understood everything and if it doesn't work, it's not their fault, it's because there are good reasons they invent and once solved, it will work, that's faith.
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.17, 17:23:40
I have to believe that you are referring to me here as I'm the one pointing out the possibility of defeating Lenz with my "childish" setups with RLE. I thought I had given a proper analysis but in the event I was misunderstood, let's take a look at the attached classical sim.
...
It's true that you dispute Lenz's law, but frankly, I wasn't thinking of you especially when I was talking about the 90%, because I know you are a skilled experimenter.
But physics goes beyond electronics. I would like to be wrong of course, but I know that Lenz's law is inviolable at least by such a simple device. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that the proof has to match the claim, and that only a self-sustaining closed system can justify talking "for sure" about a COP>2. The details of the measurements do not make the energy balance formula correct.
If your COP is > 2, as we are in electricity, not in thermal or mechanical systems where losses are high, looping such a system should be relatively easy.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.17, 19:25:35
It's true that you dispute Lenz's law, but frankly, I wasn't thinking of you especially when I was talking about the 90%, because I know you are a skilled experimenter.
But physics goes beyond electronics. I would like to be wrong of course, but I know that Lenz's law is inviolable at least by such a simple device. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that the proof has to match the claim, and that only a self-sustaining closed system can justify talking "for sure" about a COP>2. The details of the measurements do not make the energy balance formula correct.
If your COP is > 2, as we are in electricity, not in thermal or mechanical systems where losses are high, looping such a system should be relatively easy.
I would agree that measurements alone do not prove excess energy and that a self-running device is the only reliable proof. Properly done measurements however should be able to indicate whether one is headed in the right direction or not.
Unfortunately, this device does not lend itself to self running because of the low energy levels. I mean just the mosfet gate dissipation's would eat up the excess energy even when using resonant drive techniques.
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.17, 20:07:32
I would agree that measurements alone do not prove excess energy and that a self-running device is the only reliable proof. Properly done measurements however should be able to indicate whether one is headed in the right direction or not.
I agree. This is a good clue for the researcher.
Quote
Unfortunately, this device does not lend itself to self running because of the low energy levels. I mean just the mosfet gate dissipation's would eat up the excess energy even when using resonant drive techniques.
Pm
When the levels are low, the precision of the measurements is less, and artefacts can become prevalent. So there is a lot of work to be done to improve the system to eliminate doubt. And in my experience, when you do that, that's when you notice the error. :(
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.17, 20:07:32
I would agree that measurements alone do not prove excess energy and that a self-running device is the only reliable proof. Properly done measurements however should be able to indicate whether one is headed in the right direction or not.
Unfortunately, this device does not lend itself to self running because of the low energy levels. I mean just the mosfet gate dissipation's would eat up the excess energy even when using resonant drive techniques.
Pm
And in the end, the process probably won't be 'free' any more than solar power or wind or hydro power are all free. It'll be gathering energy from some external source that is naturally replenished (whether you call it free electrons or aether or virtual photons or special relativity/etc).
@Hak
The working principles you list, most people agree, I think. But when we want to decline them in an operational method, or to put them into practice, the problems begin.
We see that it is useless, because faith is the strongest. If I present Lenz's law as a relativistic effect, which it also is, i.e. an effect related to the relative speed of moving charges, we understand that since it is relative, it does not depend on whether the charge is in the source circuit or in the load circuit, they influence each other. And nobody will object. But this will be ignored, and the next day you will find the same nonsense about Lenz's law. One prefers to believe in simple, pleasant and extraordinary things, than in more complicated, annoying, but real things.
In experimentation, it is the same. Moreover, the one who can help also has his own research, and it is not his job to do the basic checks that should precede any claim of OU or abnormal effect. It is exhausting but above all it is useless, because a mind who wants to believe is not open and that is why he has not made these elementary verifications. He does not challenge his own experiment.
Only the strict respect of the scientific method allows the working principles to be fruitful, but the scientific method, the 90%+ don't care about it, even fight it. So we have no rational method, anything can be asserted, the requirement of proof is frowned upon, the 90%+ want to believe in the OU or other miracle in their measurements. They think that in order to provide help, one should first believe in their stuff! Needless to say, the skeptic who asks for a little more evidence but could help, will end up being called a troublemaker and asked to go elsewhere.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.17, 20:24:10
If I present Lenz's law as a relativistic effect, which it also is, i.e. an effect related to the relative speed of moving charges, we understand that since it is relative, it does not depend on whether the charge is in the source circuit or in the load circuit, they influence each other. And nobody will object. But this will be ignored, and the next day you will find the same nonsense about Lenz's law. One prefers to believe in simple, pleasant and extraordinary things, than in more complicated, annoying, but real things.
A principle has more weight if we can describe conceptually what can be done with it, or how it might explain/model another credible system/observation. Or if we could describe/model something apparently non-conservative using plain electrical engineering or physics formulas/concepts.
The more articulate we are and the more success we can demonstrate, the more people will begin to think using that mechanic/perspective, and the more ideas+experiments will emerge from it. :)
I am really curious about your relativistic interpretation of Lenz law and hope you articulate the potential ramifications and experiments that can be done with it sometime ???
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.17, 22:45:37
A principle has more weight if we can describe conceptually what can be done with it, or how it might explain/model another credible system/observation.
...
If we do so-called "research", it means that we are no longer in the basics of physics but in more complicated things.
The problem is not in the concepts at the limit of what is known, but in the basics. Knowing the basics is the prerequisite to claim to do "research", and the basics are far from being mastered by those who claim to do research and get OU. How do they expect to distinguish new things if they ignore the mundane? They spend their time confusing the two and wasting everyone's time, especially those who can explain it to them and whom they often do not want to believe.
Helping with research, okay. But mastering the basics is not something you learn on a "research" forum. It's by reading courses, learning the basic laws of physics, and trying to understand without prejudice against science why they were established the way they were. If you come here pretending to do research and you don't understand the difference between force and work or don't know the definition of an electric field, or even what a field is as a general concept, like most of the 90%+, you don't belong in "research" but in tinkering, you have to go back to school.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.17, 22:45:37
...
I am really curious about your relativistic interpretation of Lenz law and hope you articulate the potential ramifications and experiments that can be done with it sometime ???
The compatibility of electromagnetism with special relativity was obviously a goal of Einstein, so it is not surprising that both theories work.
Both theories predict the same phenomena in experiments, only the explanations differ, not the effects. So there is no experiment to propose that would have different effects, and this is fortunate.
Relativity, from the point of view of understanding, not necessarily of calculation, is conceptually simpler and more direct, the effects between charges being reduced to the transformation of the coulombic field of one, seen in the frame of reference of the other, which makes obvious the reciprocity of the effects of electromagnetism, like Lenz's law.
This does not prevent the conservation of the notion of magnetic field to link relativity to classical electromagnetism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity .
Moreover, electromagnetism by relativity is the only one that is exact in the case of gravity, otherwise in curved space it is necessary to use modified Maxwell's equations.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 08:37:15
Helping with research, okay. But mastering the basics is not something you learn on a "research" forum. It's by reading courses, learning the basic laws of physics, and trying to understand without prejudice against science why they were established the way they were. If you come here pretending to do research and you don't understand the difference between force and work or don't know the definition of an electric field, or even what a field is as a general concept, like most of the 90%+, you don't belong in "research" but in tinkering, you have to go back to school.
Everyone has different styles of learning. For me, I read the books and saw the charts and formulas, but it didn't actually make sense practically until I started building things on the bench. To see inductance and resonance firsthand and see how things like frequency affect transformer saturation. I probably learned more practical skills in a week of tinkering than in a semester worth of physics.
An amateur can still be useful to the community too because they're actually building things. Perhaps they will have an experiment you wanted to do but didn't have the time or components, or maybe they stumbled on a configuration that you never considered because on the surface it might seem nonsensical.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 09:07:10
The compatibility of electromagnetism with special relativity was obviously a goal of Einstein, so it is not surprising that both theories work.
Both theories predict the same phenomena in experiments, only the explanations differ, not the effects. So there is no experiment to propose that would have different effects, and this is fortunate.
Relativity, from the point of view of understanding, not necessarily of calculation, is conceptually simpler and more direct, the effects between charges being reduced to the transformation of the coulombic field of one, seen in the frame of reference of the other, which makes obvious the reciprocity of the effects of electromagnetism, like Lenz's law.
This does not prevent the conservation of the notion of magnetic field to link relativity to classical electromagnetism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity .
Moreover, electromagnetism by relativity is the only one that is exact in the case of gravity, otherwise in curved space it is necessary to use modified Maxwell's equations.
It's also worth noting that the principles of special relativity have coexisted with aether models in the past. Today there seems to be a battle, an either-or dichotomy, but the dichotomy doesn't really exist since the formulas largely stay the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
One fringe of SR I find interesting is that of mass. That an electron has physical mass while a photon only has inertial mass. The implication being that a solar cell turns massless energy into mass-energy, while an LED converts mass-energy (electrons) to massless energy (photons). Leads to all kinds of interesting thought-experiments.
We should really start a deeper thread exploring the potential exploits and loopholes in this field. ;)
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.18, 13:26:10
Everyone has different styles of learning. For me, I read the books and saw the charts and formulas, but it didn't actually make sense practically until I started building things on the bench. To see inductance and resonance firsthand and see how things like frequency affect transformer saturation. I probably learned more practical skills in a week of tinkering than in a semester worth of physics.
Tinkering certainly helps a little to understand the theories and laws of physics, but very little because it would require thousands of experiments, those done by the pioneers of physics from Galileo to Bohr via Ampere and Einstein. We would have to be as clever as they were in every field, as each one was in his own. No one has the time, the material means or the intellectual means.
If you limit yourself to tinkering without really studying the laws and theories of physics, you will understand almost nothing of your experiments.
QuoteThat an electron has physical mass while a photon only has inertial mass. The implication being that a solar cell turns massless energy into mass-energy...
I'm sorry, but what you say doesn't make sense to me. The mass/energy equivalence is strict, the only thing we can say for the photon is that it has no rest mass, and since it doesn't exist at rest, it's a truism. But it does have mass, gravitational as well as inertial, since it is deflected by stars, by the sun for example, or black holes.
Quote
An amateur can still be useful to the community too because they're actually building things. Perhaps they will have an experiment you wanted to do but didn't have the time or components, or maybe they stumbled on a configuration that you never considered because on the surface it might seem nonsensical.
It is true. Amateurs are, for example, responsible for discoveries in astronomy or radio.
But how many discoverers are there? Well under 10%. Much less than 0.01%. And what proportion of physics is due to them? Even less!
It is pretentiousness to think that the tinkerer in his garage, with whom we can identify, will revolutionise the laws of physics. Even Tesla, who was not a tinkerer in his garage but a highly competent engineer, contributed a lot to electrical engineering, but nothing or almost nothing to physics. Tesla's law does not exist in physics.
So the tinkerer in his garage hoping to find "loopholes" in physics, let me laugh. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that it would take a luck of the devil, and that millions of more qualified and curious people, including a majority of academic scientists, would have a much better chance than him to discover them.
We are here to try this chance, but let's not be so ridiculous as to believe that we would have assets when we only have handicaps, starting for the 90%+ with ignorance of physics.
The academic who never looks for "free energy" will need the Devil's Luck to find it.
What will happen is that a tenacious person of limited skill will find something (like Faraday), and academics (like Maxwell) will explain how it really works.
This is already happening with Centraflow's device.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.18, 16:08:29
The academic who never looks for "free energy" will need the Devil's Luck to find it.
What a strange idea! They are looking for every possible way to produce energy. But unlike the free energy researcher, they are able to exploit what they find. And if it's not completely free, like wind or solar, they still use it, and it works. And fortunately, otherwise if we had to rely only on FE researchers, we wouldn't have electricity yet.
Quote
What will happen is that a tenacious person of limited skill will find something (like Faraday), and academics (like Maxwell) will explain how it really works.
This is already happening with Centraflow's device.
Your fairy tale, we'll talk about it when households no longer need to be connected to the power grid.
Get real, Grumpy!
F6FLT
QuoteTinkering certainly helps a little to understand the theories and laws of physics, but very little because it would require thousands of experiments, those done by the pioneers of physics from Galileo to Bohr via Ampere and Einstein. We would have to be as clever as they were in every field, as each one was in his own. No one has the time, the material means or the intellectual means.
If you limit yourself to tinkering without really studying the laws and theories of physics, you will understand almost nothing of your experiments.
Your post sounds like your have never even read the original works of any of the scientists you speak of. I liked Faraday's literature because we was really curious, quirky/flaky and an avid tinkerer. He even spoke of anti-gravity and supposed they would solve the problem in his lifetime. Faraday also took a keen interest in the ancient Sanskrit texts like Tesla and many others at the time and believed it contained scientific knowledge. As well, he all but admitted he stumbled onto the process of induction while tinkering in his lab. The old, I wonder what would happen if I do this scenario.
In fact all that was ever required to discover anything new was curiosity and the desire to find an answer to a question. Like Faraday, I have this coil and it has this strange field, I wonder if said field could effect other things nearby like another coil... wala induction. Nobody should believe the nonsensical story that he studied physics/equations for years, deducing every conceivable cause and effect which led him to this single experiment. He was tinkering with everything to learn how stuff works and his experiment happened to work out.
I have also had many experiments concerning FE which happened to work out. Nothing was ever planned and it always started with an idea or question with no clear answer. In fact the only reason I did the experiment was because I had no idea what would happen, it was an enigma. I knew X should happen, I also knew Y should happen, however Y contradicts X. It was an enigma because the result should be XY or nothing and both results seem to contradict conventional wisdom. Sometimes a discovery can be that easy and it starts with an ambiguous question with no clear answer...
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 15:51:14
I'm sorry, but what you say doesn't make sense to me. The mass/energy equivalence is strict, the only thing we can say for the photon is that it has no rest mass, and since it doesn't exist at rest, it's a truism. But it does have mass, gravitational as well as inertial, since it is deflected by stars, by the sun for example, or black holes.
If I'm not mistaken, the consensus view is that:
* electrons have both inertial and gravitational mass, and can only
approach C in any given system.
* photons have inertial mass but no gravitational mass, and travel
at C in a given system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/active-gravitational-mass-of-the-electron
The apparent fallacy appears to be that inertial and gravitational mass are treated as equivalent, even though they have different properties.
If we also assume that gravity propagates at exactly C, we start to see asymmetries that can arise from this. Like photons that only emit gravity waves in one direction. And in the case of electrical circuits, we arrive with an apparent 2-way exchange between inertial mass and gravitational mass (albeit extremely small-scale).
(Note: I bear no attachment to these views or induction personally, I'm just exploring the limits and logic of the model as it is presented to me. :P)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 17:30:32
What a strange idea! They are looking for every possible way to produce energy. But unlike the free energy researcher, they are able to exploit what they find. And if it's not completely free, like wind or solar, they still use it, and it works. And fortunately, otherwise if we had to rely only on FE researchers, we wouldn't have electricity yet.
Your fairy tale, we'll talk about it when households no longer need to be connected to the power grid.
Get real, Grumpy!
If "they" were looking at every possible way to produce energy, we would not be having this conversation. They only look at ways that receive the necessary funding, like fusion.
It's you that should "get real". The reality of FE is passing you by because you decided that free energy cannot exist, and won't take the risk of believing the claims of a non-peer-reviewed engineer.
Centraflow built more than one device the produced more energy than supplied, hundreds of watts with only a few milliwatts input. The device is reproducible, scalable, and as real as a solar panel or battery.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.10.18, 18:01:48
F6FLT
Your post sounds like your have never even read the original works of any of the scientists you speak of.
...
I rarely see a post from you without you sharing your beliefs about what those you are responding to would or would not understand, would or would not know, would or would not read...
In addition to the unfounded content, this practice is a bit annoying and pretentious (you don't know anything about me, contrary to what you imagine). For me it is background noise. I don't intend to reply to posts that start like that anymore, no point. My person is not the subject.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.18, 18:05:54
If "they" were looking at every possible way to produce energy, we would not be having this conversation.
...
Seriously, you think the energy problem is so simple that if scientists had already started working on it, they would have found a trick for free energy by now?
No one finds the trick because, quite simply, the problem is complex. You only think that everything is possible when you know nothing about a question, that's the case of the neophyte. Then the neophyte who progresses because he learns, becomes disillusioned, and understands that things are not as simple as he thought. The problem is to remain a neophyte who does not learn anything.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 19:29:58
Seriously, you think the energy problem is so simple that if scientists had already started working on it, they would have found a trick for free energy by now?
No one finds the trick because, quite simply, the problem is complex. You only think that everything is possible when you know nothing about a question, that's the case of the neophyte. Then the neophyte who progresses because he learns, becomes disillusioned, and understands that things are not as simple as he thought. The problem is to remain a neophyte who does not learn anything.
Do we have working fusion reactors now? Are we any more disillusioned than those scientist who work on fusion reactors?
I provided Centraflow my contact information and signed his NDA. I am not disillusioned, I am learning from him and others like him who believed the TPU was a real working FE device.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.18, 19:37:45
Do we have working fusion reactors now?
...
Non sequitur.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.18, 18:05:12
If I'm not mistaken, the consensus view is that:
* electrons have both inertial and gravitational mass, and can only approach C in any given system.
* photons have inertial mass but no gravitational mass, and travel at C in a given system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/active-gravitational-mass-of-the-electron
The links do not say that the photon has "no gravitational mass". It does. The fact that it is deflected by masses is proof of this. Mass and energy are equivalent.
If you imagine that science says otherwise, be more specific and point to an exact paragraph in academic science.
Quote
The apparent fallacy appears to be that inertial and gravitational mass are treated as equivalent, even though they have different properties.
...
This is not true. Would you be a genius above Einstein to assert the opposite of what is the basis of general relativity?
If your theory is correct, GPS will no longer be able to function, as it makes clock corrections according to GR. This is a pity. lol
No experiment has succeeded in invalidating the equivalence principle, and there have been some! It would be nice if you started there to prove Einstein's stupidity.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 19:46:38
Non sequitur.
Are we more disillusioned than those scientist who work on fusion reactors?Centraflow has built a working free energy device in less than 2 decades of research.
The first attempt to build a fusion reactor was in 1938:
Kantrowitz and Jacobs of the NACA Langley Research Center built a toroidal magnetic bottle and heat the plasma with a 150 W radio source. Hoping to heat the plasma to millions of degrees, the system fails and they are forced to abandon their Diffusion Inhibitor. This is the first attempt to make a working fusion reactor.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.18, 20:36:12
Are we more disillusioned than those scientist who work on fusion reactors?
It is a problem of technology, of development. The theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
There is no FE theory.
Quote
Centraflow has built a working free energy device in less than 2 decades of research.
...
And what is he waiting for to spread it around the world?
We don't need free energy in so-and-so's house. We need it everywhere.
This is another difference between the FE movement and academic science, the inability of the former to produce a technology.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason is that whoever thinks he sees OU is either mistaken or lying to us. :)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 21:10:17
It is a problem of technology, of development. The theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
There is no FE theory.
And what is he waiting for to spread it around the world?
We don't need free energy in so-and-so's house. We need it everywhere.
This is another difference between the FE movement and academic science, the inability of the former to produce a technology.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason is that whoever thinks he sees OU is either mistaken or lying to us. :)
Hopefully, barring technical difficulties, we will know soon, on both accounts.
I have an idea I want to try soon, based on several claims, but easy enough to try out. If it works, I'll open-source it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 19:46:50
The links do not say that the photon has "no gravitational mass". It does. The fact that it is deflected by masses is proof of this. Mass and energy are equivalent.
I agree that is the most
consistent explanation, but then why do papers and textbooks reference photons as massless particles and electrons as mass particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
https://www.science.org/content/article/incredible-shrinking-photon-mass
https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-would-be-the-effects-of-light-having-mass/
QuoteSystems whose four-momentum is a null vector (for example, a single photon or many photons moving in exactly the same direction) have zero invariant mass and are referred to as massless.
QuoteThe rest mass of the electron is 9.1093837015 × 10−31 kg
Quote
If your theory is correct, GPS will no longer be able to function, as it makes clock corrections according to GR. This is a pity. lol
This interpretation does nothing to invalidate SR, it just presents what seems to be an asymmetry in the system. Photons being affected by mass but possessing no mass would represent a one-way action.
This is not
my theory, I'm just reading what the books are saying and extrapolating potential ramifications from it.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.18, 23:49:41
...
This interpretation does nothing to invalidate SR, it just presents what seems to be an asymmetry in the system. Photons being affected by mass but possessing no mass would
...
What don't you understand about the mass/energy equivalence?!
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.18, 21:45:35
Hopefully, barring technical difficulties, we will know soon, on both accounts.
...
In conclusion, you don't know anything about the system except what the author says, there is no third party reproduction, but you claim that it does have FE. Since your analysis is not supported by facts, it is a simple opinion to which I can therefore oppose mine: he thinks he has FE or is about to have FE but does not have it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.19, 15:38:00
In conclusion, you don't know anything about the system except what the author says, there is no third party reproduction, but you claim that it does have FE. Since your analysis is not supported by facts, it is a simple opinion to which I can therefore oppose mine: he thinks he has FE or is about to have FE but does not have it.
I can say the same about fusion. You say that the theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
Since 1938 scientists have worked to harness fusion, and we don't have it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.18, 21:10:17
It is a problem of technology, of development. The theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
There is no FE theory.
At the moment, but I choose to believe that Centraflow is correct and truthful. You could have been part of the effort to replicate the device and prove or disprove his claims, but you have chosen not to participate.
It is only a matter of time before your home will be powered by fusion or a FE device.
Edit:
How Close Are We To Unlocking The 'Limitless' Energy Of Nuclear Fusion?https://www.ief.org/news/how-close-are-we-to-unlocking-the-limitless-energy-of-nuclear-fusion
Since the concept of nuclear fusion was discovered in the 1930s, experiments have been ongoing, and today there are around 20 fusion reactors in the world, all striving to reach the extremely high temperatures needed for long enough make fusion happen. In China, in January 2022, the EAST reactor broke the record for the longest sustained nuclear fusion with temperatures of 126 million degrees Fahrenheit - roughly five times hotter than the sun – sustained for 17 minutes.
China's EAST reactor is being used to test the technology for the ITER reactor in the south of France, with some estimates now forecasting it could begin working as soon as 2025. The company (Tokamak Energy) has said that it is on track to produce commercial electricity from nuclear fusion by 2030. The UK has also recently launched the STEP project (Spherical Tokamak for Electricity Production), aiming to develop a reactor that will connect to the national energy grid in the 2040s. Edit:
https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
ITER is designed to produce a ten-fold return on energy (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not capture the energy it produces as electricity, but—as first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain—it will prepare the way for the machine that can.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi5v4at5ez6AhXskokEHVN0CVwQFnoECAgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FITER&usg=AOvVaw3I4Wjsq5aSjY05CkHe8kOO
The initial budget was close to €6 billion, but the total price of construction and operations is projected to be from €18 to €22 billion; other estimates place the total cost between $45 billion and $65 billion, though these figures are disputed by ITER.Centraflow's device is less than $1k and the gain is in the 100's.
You call FE researchers "fools"...LOL!!! :D ;D :o
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.19, 15:27:50
What don't you understand about the mass/energy equivalence?!
I don't understand how mass-energy equivalence and massless photons both can coexist. On the surface it seems contradictory.
The literature (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4369.msg101567#msg101567) states that the gravitational mass of an electron and an equivalent-energy photon are not equal to each-other. So then what happens to the 'missing' gravitational mass when an electron is converted to a photon in a light bulb? :o
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.19, 16:17:58
I can say the same about fusion. You say that the theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
Since 1938 scientists have worked to harness fusion, and we don't have it.
Lie or total ignorance of the subject. The fusion has already been realized, the experimental progress is regular, and the theory is indisputable, which is why we have this experimental progress, while we have nothing at all equivalent in free energy.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/228373/major-nuclear-fusion-milestone-reached-ignition/
Quote
At the moment, but I choose to believe that Centraflow is correct and truthful. You could have been part of the effort to replicate the device and prove or disprove his claims, but you have chosen not to participate.
Not only do I not have to prove anything about what has been asserted without proof, but I can deny it without proof.
You still haven't understood the principle of the
burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)).
Since no evidence or proof of concept has been provided by Centralflow, I have no more reason to be interested in it than I do in the hundreds of other OU claims that are floating around the Internet, which never come to fruition, and which Electroboom rightly mocks.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.19, 16:49:59
I don't understand how mass-energy equivalence and massless photons both can coexist. On the surface it seems contradictory.
The literature (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4369.msg101567#msg101567) states that the gravitational mass of an electron and an equivalent-energy photon are not equal to each-other. So then what happens to the 'missing' gravitational mass when an electron is converted to a photon in a light bulb? :o
You say anything and give links to academic sites that do not confirm what you say at all. If I were to use your method to the extreme, I would tell you to go and see there (https://google.com) why what you are saying is incorrect.
I asked you to be specific but you seem unable to express in your own words and with a minimum of formalized analysis why "it seems contradictory". If you try, not only might we be able to answer you, but you might even understand for yourself why it is not.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.20, 12:06:28
You say anything and give links to academic sites that do not confirm what you say at all. If I were to use your method to the extreme, I would tell you to go and see there (https://google.com) why what you are saying is incorrect.
I asked you to be specific but you seem unable to express in your own words and with a minimum of formalized analysis why "it seems contradictory". If you try, not only might we be able to answer you, but you might even understand for yourself why it is not.
I check online and 4 different sources offer four different explanations. When the experts can't agree with each-other, that's usually a good sign. ;D
The overall theme among them seems to be that photons are not really particle per-se, but instead perturbations that have the abstract property that appears like a particle (like a smoke ring traveling through the air).
And since photons and electrons are directly convertible, it implies the photon-electron exchange is a longitudinal interface between conventional matter and space-time/aether/4d tensor density perturbation.
I'll start another thread for deeper analysis into potential 'loopholes' and not clutter this one any further. :P
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.19, 16:49:59
So then what happens to the 'missing' gravitational mass when an electron is converted to a photon in a light bulb? :o
Electrons are not converted into photons in a light bulb. An ammeter will verify that the same number of electrons enter and exit the light bulb.
Photons are emitted as electrons return to lower orbits in excited atoms.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2022.10.20, 15:33:24
Electrons are not converted into photons in a light bulb. An ammeter will verify that the same number of electrons enter and exit the light bulb.
Photons are emitted as electrons return to lower orbits in excited atoms.
PW
Makes sense. Thermionic emission would be a different story, though.
The interesting story about photons is that because they propagate at the same speed as gravity, the gravitational field they would possess would be semi-directional. The photons would be 'invisible' when moving directly towards or away from a particular object.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.21, 01:48:39
...
The interesting story about photons is that because they propagate at the same speed as gravity, the gravitational field they would possess would be semi-directional. The photons would be 'invisible' when moving directly towards or away from a particular object.
This is not the case, that is why the frequency of photons change when they approach or move away from a mass. Their potential energy increases or decreases, which is reflected proportionally by their frequency variation (because E = h.ν).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.21, 07:54:59
This is not the case, that is why the frequency of photons change when they approach or move away from a mass. Their potential energy increases or decreases, which is reflected proportionally by their frequency variation (because E = h.ν).
The 'sonic boom' highlights why the gravitational mass of a photon would have to be somewhat directional if it exists, because the wave cannot travel faster than its displacement in space.
So we end up with a situation where a photon's mass is dependant on the angle it is being observed from.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.10.19, 16:17:58
I can say the same about fusion.
...
You can say anything, like comparing atomic fusion with the hypothetical free energy of Centralflow.
The worst thing is that when fusion works and we are still waiting for Centralflow's free energy, you will still believe in it.
When faith replaces reason and reasonable doubt, there is nothing left to discuss, everything is arbitrary.
F6FLT
QuoteYou can say anything, like comparing atomic fusion with the hypothetical free energy of Centralflow.
The worst thing is that when fusion works and we are still waiting for Centralflow's free energy, you will still believe in it.
When faith replaces reason and reasonable doubt, there is nothing left to discuss, everything is arbitrary.
It's debatable and nothing is ever as cut and dry as many like to make it out to be.
Yes I believe Centraflow has something however I don't know because I have no first hand proof. By the same token I believe in fusion and the possibility of cold fusion however again I have no first hand proof. In both cases I would have to see all the data and demonstrable proof for my belief to become stronger. As such a belief is more a matter of acceptance and the degree to which we think something may be possible, not a be all end all as many imply.
I also have another belief that only a person who doesn't understand the conservation of energy would claim something has violated it. The assertion that the COE must have been violated by a FE device just because the source of energy is uncertain is absurd. It's really no different than the countless other uncertainties we find in science and physics. Where did the energy come from?, the only honest answer is we don't know but we do know it must have come from somewhere. This is true because logically we cannot define "nothing" as an absence of everything then claim something came said nothing.
So when we hear anyone claim any device "must have violated the COE" we can be pretty sure they don't fully understand the COE.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.10.21, 22:13:58
F6FLT
It's debatable and nothing is ever as cut and dry as many like to make it out to be.
Yes I believe Centraflow has something however...
Everything is "debatable". The problem is that we are not in religion, we have to get out of the beliefs to have operational results. When we debate, we must know how to conclude, to draw lessons, to keep what is in conformity with reality and to throw away the illusions.
The question is not to have a "cut and dry" opinion on the possible FE of Centralflow, because the claim is unfalsifiable in the sense of Poppers. It is impossible since we have no access to the device, nor to the measurements made, nor to the measurement protocol, nor to the verification of its implementation, nor to any means of duplicating it.
To deny his device as I do according to the words of Euclid "What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof", is not to present a clear-cut opinion, it is to present an opinion as unfounded as the one that claims without providing proof, that there would be FE in his device. The only major difference is that the burden of proof lies solely with the author of the first claim.
Until we understand this, we have not understood the words of Euclid.
QuoteThe assertion that the COE must have been violated by a FE device just because the source of energy is uncertain is absurd...
I don't understand this position. If there is apparently OU, then the conservation of energy is apparently flawed, so either the laws of physics that predicted it are wrong, or there is a source of energy at work that is not identified. What would be a third possibility?
F6FLT
QuoteEverything is "debatable". The problem is that we are not in religion, we have to get out of the beliefs to have operational results. When we debate, we must know how to conclude, to draw lessons, to keep what is in conformity with reality and to throw away the illusions.
Ah, so you want conclusions and conformity?...why?.
For tens of thousands of years countless people just like you wanted the same thing which was never realized and never will be. Thus your asking the wrong questions and the impossible which may explain your dilemma...
QuoteThe question is not to have a "cut and dry" opinion on the possible FE of Centralflow, because the claim is unfalsifiable in the sense of Poppers. It is impossible since we have no access to the device, nor to the measurements made, nor to the measurement protocol, nor to the verification of its implementation, nor to any means of duplicating it.
I have known Mike for years and may or may not have worked with him on some projects in the past which led me to believe he is a man of integrity and purpose. On the other hand, I don't know you from a hole in the ground...
QuoteTo deny his device as I do according to the words of Euclid "What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof", is not to present a clear-cut opinion, it is to present an opinion as unfounded as the one that claims without providing proof, that there would be FE in his device. The only major difference is that the burden of proof lies solely with the author of the first claim.
Until we understand this, we have not understood the words of Euclid.
Indeed but I'm not Euclid, I'm a Scorpio, really enjoy beer, fishing and farming, I really love electricity and the more exotic the effects are the more I like it.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.10.26, 00:55:49
F6FLT
Ah, so you want conclusions and conformity?...why?.
...
Why? Because I want free energy products that work, not stories about free energy, not stories about people who supposedly have it, not science fiction, not illusions but devices like all the devices I use here at home, products of science and engineering.
That said, I don't prevent anyone from being interested in the fantasies around their free energy utopia, nor from being satisfied with them. On the other hand I don't understand why I find them here, I thought we were doing technical research related to the physical sciences, not research on myths related to the human sciences.