Knothead Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLek_3Hpwus&feature=player_embedded If it is real, is it scalable? Could it be used for generating electricity on a large scale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Yes it is cool, yes it likely works as shown, yes you could very likely make it larger or smaller, no, you could not use it to generate usable energy (it seems to barely have enough umph to keep itself going). AND LAST BUT NOT LEASTNo, this is not perpetual energy nor could it generate it. Which is why motors like this are dismissed as bs so easily by people...because some people tout these type of things as FREE energy or worse PERPETUAL energy...in fact it's merely using a permanent magnet as a battery. The magnets will eventually get weak and go dead just like any other battery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 I've seen better designs which are smoother, run faster, and would likely have force to spare....and I'm not ashamed to admit have great interest in motors that run only on magnets (been trying to sort out the details for thirty years now). But as in my post above, realistically you are not going to get the force out that the total force the magnets are capable of producing, and you will get less energy from a generator attached to such a motor than what was used to make the magnets and to magnetise them over the usable life of the magnets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knothead Posted March 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Yes it is cool, yes it likely works as shown, yes you could very likely make it larger or smaller, no, you could not use it to generate usable energy (it seems to barely have enough umph to keep itself going). AND LAST BUT NOT LEASTNo, this is not perpetual energy nor could it generate it. Which is why motors like this are dismissed as bs so easily by people...because some people tout these type of things as FREE energy or worse PERPETUAL energy...in fact it's merely using a permanent magnet as a battery. The magnets will eventually get weak and go dead just like any other battery. Bummer. :( I saw this; http://www.johnsonmotor.org/indexMb.php?tid=beck&d63c022bffc74a0fa33e08d45b9f5bf6= and actually listened to the whole thing :rolleyes: and thought there might be something to it. Should have known. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knothead Posted March 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) I'm starting to think that maybe we've been lied to. If this stuff is true, and it seems that it is. Why the hell are we all still using oil? :angry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_cFi_kKbJM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EObSJJ1PO4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qndWwQFHLYU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI-tjMBFWHo&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDe-e68IEPE&feature=related Edited March 10, 2012 by Knothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 I'm starting to think that maybe we've been lied to. If this stuff is true, and it seems that it is. Why the hell are we all still using oil? :angry: If it seems to you that perpetual motion machine schemes such as Stan Meyer’s “water engine” is true, knothead, I think you’re being persuaded by an old but pernicious hoax. Like most hoaxes, this one appeal to the victims’ “common sense” and lack of understanding of basic physics, often discouraging them from improving their understanding by accusing science text and educators of being part of a conspiracy to suppress “the truth” that conventional science is itself a vast, elaborate hoax. Oil, coal, other fossil fuels, and alcohol remain popular bases for energy storage systems because they have high energy densities, are easy to store, are readily available, and we have mature engine technologies to use them. Energy storage systems such as electric batteries and compressed air also have mature engine technologies and are readily available, but have lower energy densities (roughly 1/50th and 1/100th, respectively, that of oil) that limit their best current use to devices with lower power requirement than manned land, sea, and air craft, such as mobile communication devices and toys. Electric batteries are nearly competitive with fossil fuels for autos now, and I’m hopeful will become even more so within the next decade, but IMHO will not for higher power applications such as high-speed passenger and cargo aircraft and boats. As a quick look at the tables at the wikipedia link above shows, fossil fuels have far from the theoretical maximum energy densities of all materials. Nuclear fission is about 2,000,000 times as energy dense, but are rules out for widespread application primarily because their fuel can be used to make terrible weapons (not only explosives, but radioactive “dirty” poisons), so must be kept careful track of. Antimatter is about 4,000,000,000 times as energy dense as oil, but can’t yet be made and stores in more than minute quantities and at tremendous costs, so is in the realm of science fiction. I’m hopeful that fossil fuels will be decreasingly utilized over the next few decades. I’m nearly certain, though, that the new energy storage technologies that replace its will be among those present day science currently considers possible, not among those promoted by conspiracy theorists with poor understanding of basic physics. DFINITLYDISTRUBD and Moontanman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knothead Posted March 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 If it seems to you that perpetual motion machine schemes such as Stan Meyer’s “water engine” is true, knothead, I think you’re being persuaded by an old but pernicious hoax. Like most hoaxes, this one appeal to the victims’ “common sense” and lack of understanding of basic physics, often discouraging them from improving their understanding by accusing science text and educators of being part of a conspiracy to suppress “the truth” that conventional science is itself a vast, elaborate hoax. Oil, coal, other fossil fuels, and alcohol remain popular bases for energy storage systems because they have high energy densities, are easy to store, are readily available, and we have mature engine technologies to use them. Energy storage systems such as electric batteries and compressed air also have mature engine technologies and are readily available, but have lower energy densities (roughly 1/50th and 1/100th, respectively, that of oil) that limit their best current use to devices with lower power requirement than manned land, sea, and air craft, such as mobile communication devices and toys. Electric batteries are nearly competitive with fossil fuels for autos now, and I’m hopeful will become even more so within the next decade, but IMHO will not for higher power applications such as high-speed passenger and cargo aircraft and boats. As a quick look at the tables at the wikipedia link above shows, fossil fuels have far from the theoretical maximum energy densities of all materials. Nuclear fission is about 2,000,000 times as energy dense, but are rules out for widespread application primarily because their fuel can be used to make terrible weapons (not only explosives, but radioactive “dirty” poisons), so must be kept careful track of. Antimatter is about 4,000,000,000 times as energy dense as oil, but can’t yet be made and stores in more than minute quantities and at tremendous costs, so is in the realm of science fiction. I’m hopeful that fossil fuels will be decreasingly utilized over the next few decades. I’m nearly certain, though, that the new energy storage technologies that replace its will be among those present day science currently considers possible, not among those promoted by conspiracy theorists with poor understanding of basic physics. Craig, I am not smart enough to argue either way. I will admit that I have a deep seated distrust of those who wield the power in this world. Call me a nut. :rolleyes: I do know for a fact that I was driving a car back in the early eighties that got as least as good mileage than most of the hybrids on the market today. It was a Fiat. The advertizements today tout mileage in the thirties. That fiat was doing at least that good or better. I have a hard time believing that that is as far as the technology has or could have progressed in the last thirty years. I really do believe that the powers that be will do everything in their power to make sure that unless and until they have a corner on any new technology, they will prevent that technology from happening. But then I believe that there is a conspiracy against Ron Paul too. :P I really don't understand much of what Stan Meyers explained in the videos, but I have to think that some of the people in the audience must have. Why wasn't he challenged? How was the dune buggy running? Surely there must have been somebody around that could have busted him right off. But from what I could tell, there was a lot of interest in what he claimed to achieve. Even from the Pentagon. In the videos, he explained what he did. Was he lying? Was he just pulling stuff out of his a$$? That's why I posted it here. I figured that there were enough geniuses here that could explain how he was lying and not just tell me that I'm a nut for believing that the guy might have actually been onto something. I imagine that there must have been a lot of skepticism about Tesla's inventions and work in his day too. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Craig, I am not smart enough to argue either way. I will admit that I have a deep seated distrust of those who wield the power in this world. Call me a nut. :rolleyes: I highly doubt that you are not smart enough, possibly not well educated on the subject to argue either side. Not trusting the powers that be is not enough to make you a nut. Just remember that there people out there that would love to use this mistrust and a lack of knowledge to make a quick buck off you. Lastly remember that there is no such thing as free energy. It will cost in some way or another. Solar- equipment costsoil- fuel cost+the cost of the equipment to utilise it+ maintenance costs.Geothermal- equipment costs and maintenance+ permitsMagnets- equipment costs + replacement costs for the magnetsHydrogen- the cost of the equipment to make it + the cost of the powersource+ the cost for a containment method + the cost of maintaining the equipment + the cost of the equipment to utilise it.Compressed air- equipment costs + power costs+ equipment costs to utilise it Hydro- equipment costs+maintenance costs+ permits Wind- equipment costs + maintenance costs + permitsetc. Basically if someone is trying to tell you it's going to operate at no costs, you should automatically assume it's B/S. These people use some basic real physics (just enough to make it seem plausible to the average joe) and throw in a generous amount of slight of hand usually avoiding legitimate questions by claiming it's a proprietary part of the design they will only reveal to those that invest or buy the plans (this is a good cue that it's B/S). As to why no one "calls them out" in their videos, it's just like any other info-mercial they select the audience, they also edit the videos (would you include comments that reduced or totally eliminated your credibility and the likelihood of a sale) , and/or pay for their reactions. Very likely careful audience selection and editing deserve the most credit for the tube videos. I don't know if you've noticed but they never seem to recruit well respected members of the scientific community to investigate their work and they never appear in the videos. If it were me I seek out famous scientific minds and record them examining my invention and their verdict as to whether it is legitimate or not. Edited March 11, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 I imagine that there must have been a lot of skepticism about Tesla's inventions and work in his day too. :( There was. And largely it was because a lot of his inventions did not work. And in several cases investors lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on inventions that never even came close to delivering on his promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 LOL! love the vids!:lol: Anti spark back!?!? apparently he's never bothered to look at oxy/acetylene, oxy/propane welding equipment. anti-burn back (anti-flash back) equipment has been standard almost since the beginning and required by LAW since the forties. (Just happen to be a professional welder and no it don't pay as well as people tend to think) Plain ol water: three problems here he never mentions1. water has mineral impurities in it which will sooner rather than later clog any device which boils, evaporates, of converts the water into a gas of any sort. (folks familiar with boilers and steam engines know this fact all to well. Scale clogged boilers explode! and scale is the deposits left by the minerals in the water.)2. my water isn't free. My father has a well and lives on the shores of Lake Erie, his water is not free either. It costs money to pump it and pumps wear out so he will eventually need a new one which will also cost money.3. it costs money to remove the impurities from the water to render it clean enough to not leave scale. Seeing a pattern here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Craig, I am not smart enough to argue either way. I will admit that I have a deep seated distrust of those who wield the power in this world. Call me a nut. :rolleyes: I too distrust powerful people. However, I don’t think of people who understand physics at a advanced high-school/introductory college level to be powerful people. I’m one, and I’m not very socio-politically powerful. I’m also trustworthy – though, of course, you’ll have to trust me about that. ;) I do know for a fact that I was driving a car back in the early eighties that got as least as good mileage than most of the hybrids on the market today. It was a Fiat. The advertizements today tout mileage in the thirties. That fiat was doing at least that good or better. I have a hard time believing that that is as far as the technology has or could have progressed in the last thirty years. I too had a car in the 1980s that got highway millage comparable to today’s high-mileage cars. It was a 1978 Plymouth Arrow, a lightweight Japanese Mitsubishi import, and got about 45 MPG, driven smoothly at about 50 MPH (not conspicuously slow in those days of US nationwide 55 MPH speed limits) on overinflated tires. I mentioned it in this, this and this old post. While it matches a 2012 Toyota Prius in highway millage, you don’t have to mess with the Prius’s tire pressure to get this performance, and the Prius severely decisively beat my old Arrow and similar high-efficiency cars of its time in stop-and-go “city” driving. Like any properly engineered car with electric regenerative braking, the Prius actually gets better city mileage than highway (present EPA rating 51/45/50 city/highway/combined). I’ve first-hand experience (I borrowed a 2006 Prius for a few weeks) of getting 50 MPG in typical on/off highway commuting. I’ve found you have to be careful comparing car tech different by 25+ years, because of their significantly different requirements and features. For example, while my old Arrow got good fuel efficiency, it had much higher emissions of various regulated pollutants than even lower-efficiency present-day cars. It was also, like nearly all cars of its era, much less reliable, and required more periodic maintenance. In my Arrow’s case, it’s old-fashioned carburetor had to be adjusted at least every month or two, or I saw a drop in fuel efficiency. And don’t even get me started on the wear rate of the bearings in Mitsubishi’s MCA-Jet engine! :( I really do believe that the powers that be will do everything in their power to make sure that unless and until they have a corner on any new technology, they will prevent that technology from happening.While I’ve blatant experience with this, mostly in the computer software business (I’ve trustworthy first-hand account of a former Starfish employee who Steve Ballmer told, face-to-face, that he could either sell his software to Microsoft, who intended to never publish it, or M$ would quickly produce a similar product assuring and sue him, assuring the ruin of his company and software), I find it hard to get this view to agree with recent history, which has seen large companies in various technologies fail as new ones took away their markets with improved (in some areas, at least) technology. The “powers that be” – who are actual people, usually executives of large enterprises – don’t always cooperate with one another, so improvements in technology tend to be seized and quickly brought to market, either by new companies that then beat old ones, or by old ones trying to avoid being beaten. But then I believe that there is a conspiracy against Ron Paul too. :P There’re conspiracies against nearly every candidate for prominent US public office – the campaigns of competing candidates for those offices, in some cases their political parties, and the many PACs that oppose them. There are also conspiracies for them. In Rob Paul’s case, it appears that the conspirators who oppose him outnumber and outspend those who support him. Fun car and political talk, but back onto topic...I really don't understand much of what Stan Meyers explained in the videos ...I believe it was Meyer’s intention that people not be able to understand him, because he wanted them to believe his invention worked as he claimed, and at the same time believe that they could not understand why. In my experience, this is a common tactic indicative of a scam. People explaining legitimate, real science and technology can usually do so successfully to most high-school or beyond educated people. People who can’t explain their ideas, but passionately cajole us to believe them anyway, should be regarded with suspicion. How Meyer’s “water engine” is alleged to work is pretty simple. An electrolysis machine separates the hydrogen and oxygen in water (H2O). The hydrogen gas can then be burned in an ordinary piston engine. This is simple, uncontroversial technology. Electrolysis has been a known process since about 1800, and was a major commercial source of hydrogen gas by about 1870. Hydrogen has been burned in internal combustion engines since about 1805. Where Meyer’s claims departs from conventional science is that they claim that, through using weirdly described “resonating molecular voltage fields” (his 1990 patent can be read here, but is fairly nonsensical) and the like, the system can extract separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water using less energy than burning the hydrogen produces. This contradicts the last few centuries’ theories, and has never been credibly demonstrated (even by Meyer – see below). Though Meyer avoided calling his system a “free energy” or perpetual motion machine, insisting instead that it “used water” as fuel, it’s easy to see that, if his claims were true, it would be. When hydrogen burns, nearly all of it compounds with oxygen to produces water, so if a system’s electrolysis device used less energy than its hydrogen-burning engine produced, it could recycle its exhaust, producing energy with every cycle. but I have to think that some of the people in the audience must have. Why wasn't he challenged? How was the dune buggy running? Surely there must have been somebody around that could have busted him right off. But from what I could tell, there was a lot of interest in what he claimed to achieve. Even from the Pentagon. In the videos, he explained what he did. Was he lying? Was he just pulling stuff out of his a$$?In short, yes, Meyers was lying, fast-talking pseudoscientific gibberish to audiences he’d picked to contain only people with poor grasps of physics but either money and the willingness to invest in his scam, or journalists who could spread his fraudulent sales pitch. When some of these investors lost all their money and sued Meyer in Ohio court, Meyer first agreed, then refused, then was forced by the court to allow experts to examine his electrolysis device. When they did, they found no evidence that it did what he claimed – its electrolysis unit separate hydrogen and oxygen with more than 100% efficiency. His dune buggy could, presumably, electrolysize water and run its piston engine using the hydrogen produced, but needed lots of external electric power to do this, and having little hydrogen gas storage, could drive only short distances between such “rechargings”. As the whereabouts of the buggy is said to be unknown since Meyer’s 1998 death it may never be possible to debunk his claims with certainty. As for claims of “interest from the Pentagon”, I’ve seen no evidence that this anything but a claim by Meyer intended to convince potential investors that his invention was taken seriously by credible experts. I imagine that there must have been a lot of skepticism about Tesla's inventions and work in his day too. :(Tesla’s inventions that worked were quickly and widely accepted and developed. The ones that didn’t haven’t been accepted, other than by a weird fan following, yet, and are, I think unlikely to ever work or be widely accepted. What I like to think of as “Tesla 1.0” was an educated, experienced engineer who’s most successful inventions were for alternating current “polyphase systems” - generators, transformers, motors, wires and lights, patents for which he sold to Westinghouse in 1888 for $25,000 in cash, $50,000 is private GE stock, and royalties (contrary to popular stories, Tesla didn’t invent AC electricity – it was known, scientifically, in 1955, when Tesla was born). Westinghouse quickly developed these and other AC inventions into commercially successful systems, on occasion with Tesla’s paid assistance (contrary to popular stories, despite sharing little in its financial success, Tesla retained an good relationship with Westinghouse), eclipsing Edison’s competing, direct current systems (popular stories about bad feeling between Tesla and Thomas Edison, for whom Tesla worked from 1882 to 1885, are mostly accurate, as are ones about bad feelings between George Westinghouse and Edison – see the wikipedia article War of Currents for a decent summaries of this and references to others and more detailed ones). “Tesla 2.0” revealed the dysfunctionally eccentric parts of Nichola’s personality, as he used his the money and reputation gained in successes with AC power to pursue grand ideas that didn’t work, most involving the wireless transmission of electricity, a pursuit that consumed all of his money and much of his reputation. He was funded (about $150, 000) from about 1900 to 1904 by J. P. Morgan, who appears to have believed Tesla’s work would culminate in better radio communication than Marconi had recently demonstrated (for which he received the 1909 Nobel prize), but when Tesla’s work failed to succeed in this, he was nearly financially and reputation-ally bankrupt. His bladeless turbine design, while not ultimately technically or commercially successful, made Tesla enough money to keep working on turbine and other ideas for a few more years, but by 1916 he was effectively penniless, but retained enough reputation to live the rest of his life in reasonable comfort, despite his continued financial destitution, ‘til his natural death in 1943. (Tesla Universe’s Tesla Timline seems to me an affectionate and fairly accurate Tesla biography) Despite claim of having worked for NASA and the US Department of Defense, and holding 42 US and Canadian patents, I’ve found no evidence that any of Meyer inventions have been used to make anything useful. Certainly, none of them have been as useful as Tesla’s AC electric inventions. DFINITLYDISTRUBD and JMJones0424 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knothead Posted March 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Wow, thank you for the replies. I feel like one of those guys P.T. Barnum was talking about. :doh: :embarass: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knothead Posted March 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Well, I'm on a roll. :lol: May as well keep going. How about this one if you have the time? It, like the others seems to good to be true so I'm sure it probably is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv53K9MnDuM&feature=player_embedded Edited March 13, 2012 by Knothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) LMAO! yes to good to be true. and no it definitely does not work. Edited December 15, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Knothead "If it is real, is it scalable? Could it be used for generating electricity on a large scale?" It's not real. DFINITLYDSTRUBD "Yes it is cool...." Yeah, it does look cool. DFINITLYDSTRUBD "....yes it likely works as shown," It likely works as shown? No, it positively does not work as shown.... if it did it would be a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. DFINITLYDSTRUBD "....yes you could very likely make it larger or smaller...." Sure you could make it larger or smaller, but since it doesn't work it wouldn't make any difference. DFINITLYDSTRUBD "....no, you could not use it to generate usable energy (it seems to barely have enough umph to keep itself going)." Again, since it doesn't work, it won't generate anything (whether it appears to have enough "umph" or not). DFINITLYDSTRUBD "No, this is not perpetual energy nor could it generate it. Which is why motors like this are dismissed as bs so easily by people..." If it "works as shown" then , yes, it would be a perpetual motion machine. In order to continue turning there would have to be some additional input of force or friction would bring it to a stop. DFINITLYDSTRUBD "...in fact it's merely using a permanent magnet as a battery." It's "merely using a permanent magnet as a battery"? That's ridiculous.... where are you getting this stuff? DFINITLYDSTRUBD "The magnets will eventually get weak and go dead just like any other battery." Magnets are no more like batteries than they are like jelly beans. DFINITLYDSTRUBD "....and I'm not ashamed to admit have great interest in motors that run only on magnets (been trying to sort out the details for thirty years now)." Wow, thirty years huh? Trying to get a motor to run only on permanent magnets would make it a perpetual motion machine.... which would make you a perpetual motion enthusiast (even if you didn't know it). DFINITLYDSTRUBD "But as in my post above, realistically you are not going to get the force out than the total force the magnets are capable of producing...." Realistically you're not going to get any force at all out of any "motor" that "runs" on permanent magnets like "batteries". DFINITLYDSTRUBD "....and you will get less energy from a generator attached to such a motor than what was used to make the magnets and to magnetise them over the usable life of the magnets." Hah! This just gets better and better! Yeah man, you'll get less energy from a generator attached to a permanent magnet motor, a whole lot less, like none.... because there's no such thing as a permanent magnet motor. By the way, when considering input and output force, the energy expended producing the parts (magnets, nuts and bolts, plastic etc.) is not normally factored in as "input energy" to be compared to the ultimate "output energy" of a device or machine. Apples and oranges.... big time! Emile Edited December 15, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Atrollheis-because there's no such thing as a permanent magnet motor. Hey don't tell these guys that GEGMZAPEMDTEMCOOr any of the hundreds of other companies that manufacture and/or sell them Edited December 15, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.