Skip to comments.Irish company challenges scientists to test 'free energy' technology [Oh Yeah!]
Posted on 08/18/2006 7:37:36 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Nope. The orbital period of the planet you are using.
It depends on how it is slowed. This is not a scalar.
The bottom line is that equilibrium must be obtained to maintain a stable orbit. So if the orbital tangential speed is decreased without changing any other factors, the corresponding centrifugal acceleration will be lower. Given that the masses of the two bodies (sun and planet) have not changed the gravitational force has not changed, so the planet will 'fall' towards the sun.
It is why skylab is no longer intact. It slowed down. Came home.
Note, a green Ar/Ion laser spins mine like crazy. :-)
No. But I can imagine the plot. ;o)
The far left will not be happy.
Agreed. Was being a bit silly with my post. Should have qualified that.
Reminds me of Joseph Newman...saw him on Johnny Carson many, many years ago...his perpetual motion machine. http://www.josephnewman.com/
BTW, as you impart energy into a satellite to lift it to a higher orbit, the satellite's velocity decreases.
Pay no attention to these Irish pretenders. In my la-BOR-a-tory, I'm working on a device that is not only a perpetual motion machine, but it also travels faster than light, enables time-travel, and it seems to overcome gravity as well (still studying that angle). But it only works if you've been taking my Eternal Life Elixirtm, which is the real opportunity for investors.
I understand your point, but if these guys, while in the process of doing something else, observed a phenomena that they were not expecting, that defies the laws of physics as we know them, and they cannot explain it, and it is reproducible; is it not worthy of study?
I'm sure it does. I don't know how many times I've heard, "So and so has looked at this and they think it's a valid process.", so I understand the reluctance to consider these contraptions. What bothers me is to enter these threads and watch how many people completely dismiss a proces knowing absolutely nothing about it.
I think I aluded to this earlier, I think 99.99999999% of these things are bogus. I'm just not sure we should dismiss that 0.000000001% or even give the appearance of it.
Thanks for the response.
Perpetual Motion Breakthrough!
I have one of those little rotating thingies. They're powered by evil spirits.
Why are they bothering Physicists? It's not Scientists generally that are in control of venture capital money. If this is factual Investors will pony up the money for the further development. Has a patent been applied for on this process?
I should also add, after further review of their website, that they are willing to pay the direct costs associated with the review/validation process. This appears to be a legit, existing company that does work in other fields.
The scientists are to validate the technology. They don't appear to be asking for money up front and are going to pay the direct costs for the validation. If it proves out they will license it to others to develop.
They also claim that thay have a patent pending on the technology.
LOL! As If.
It don't work that way. Free energy nuts, creationists, ufologists, homeopathists, crystal healers, etc, etc, etc, never ever take a debunking, however sound and thorough, as a reason to "move on".
On the contrary, it's only a publicity (and often a fund raising) opportunity, and a signal to embrace the role of victim.
Just watch. That's exactly how this will go down.
I'm just a homeschooling mom and not an engineer. All I know is it worked and I gave the kids an A.
I would like to build this fan with my kids. Can you post some details? Or email me: mkaplan at kapcom.com. Thanks.
The tennis ball comes over the net at you, and is slowing down. You hit it with your moving racket, which is heavier than the tennis ball and send the ball back over the net at speed greater than it had before you hit it. In the probe planet case the probe spends more time in the planets gravitational field inbound than outbound due to the initial relative motion of the planet, so more momentum is transferred by gravity to the probe.
Where do they say this? My reading of the article says, "....issued the challenge for 12 physicists....". I can't find where they will pay for anything.
They also claim that thay have a patent pending on the technology.
I have now read the article twice. Where do they claim to have a "patent pending"?
They also say, "....We have had scientists come in, test it and, off the record, they are quite happy to admit that it works....". Which "Scientists"? Who are they? Is this one of them............?
ping for later
Are you series!? This could be Hugh!!
"Light waves are energy. Sound waves are energy. Heck, everything in our universe is energy vibrating at different speeds. Electrons are buzzing all over the place. There must be some way to tap it without blowing ourselves up. There has to be some way to manipulate it to our advantage. Somebody is bound to figure it out sooner or later."
Heck is right. We already tap into this existing energy alot. We can collect light from the sun and convert into electricty or use as stored heat. We can tap into rivers flowing by force of gravity and convert into mechanical motion or electricity. We can tap into geothermal sources of heat or tap into wind and convert into electricity. We can tap into heat produced by nuclear reactions and convert into electricity. The list goes on and on. We need more work being done on better battery storage technology so we can make better personal use of the energy that is out there.
This is some serious Irish Bull.
Thanks for the comments.
Cold fusion doesn't violate the laws of physics. This "free energy" device sounds like it does.
I keep telling my wife that..............
"The exposed magnetic field may be used to perform work (eg interact with other magnetic fields to move objects)
It sounds like these guys may be trying to sell this;
From the Museum of Unworkable Devices
The Classic Magnetic Shield Engine
A reader informs us that a device of this sort was given as an extra credit homework problem by an MIT professor back in 1985. Chris Cheng, a high school student from Sydney, Australia, sent us a simple version, from which this one evolved through a process of tinkering.
How it's supposed to work.
Magnetic shielding materials are available. They aren't perfect shields, but for the purposes of this motor they don't need to be perfect.
A freely rotatable armature in the center consists of a permanent magnet partly covered with a magnetic shield (solid black). The shield has openings at the right, near the poles. An outer ring has magnets in a radial array with their north poles inside, firmly fastened to a rigid frame. These magnets are long, so the south poles are at a considerably greater radius than the north poles. The magnetic field from a magnet pole decreases in strength with distance.
The shield apertures permit each armature pole to "see" only a couple of the magnets of the outer ring. Each armature pole is affected primarily by the north poles of the ring, those being nearest. Therefore, in the position shown in the picture, the N pole of the armature is repelled, experiencing a force to the left. The S pole of the armature is attracted, experiencing a force to the right. These two forces make a couple, which rotates the armature clockwise.
Classic simplicity! If you wanted to improve it, those outer magnets could be swung up or down so they were in a cylindrical array of magnets with their axes parallel. Then a similar armature could be placed in the plane of the S poles, operating on the same axle as the armature in the plane of the N poles. This should double the power output!
We caution the reader that this machine has details that could be subtle and difficult to analyze in detail. Gauss's and Stokes' laws in vector calculus form may be required for a full analysis. However, this machine has a simple and fundamental flaw that can be appreciated even at the introductory physics level. "
It doesnt work.
And the energy can be used to to move you around the magnetic field.
You know, you can get free energy by carrying an object 150 miles above the earth and dropping it also.
Kind of like the people who develop get rich quick schemes, then sell them.
Why did these "Scientists" only make "off the record" statements?
You are not one much for punctuation, are you?
Could it be there weren't any? Nah... LOL
But not the whole farm, because I can offer for sale Buckingham Palace and Big Ben to the first person to call me on 1-800-TAKEMYMONEY!
I understand this stuff very well. Read my later post. I worked as an orbit analyst with NASA and still "do" orbit design work as required. I was trying to be funny, but obviously I fell flat on my face.
So at the end of each Shuttle mission, when the crew applies thrust against the direction of motion to slow down in orbit, it's really not deorbiting at all? Hundreds of astronauts must be accumulating on some secret base on the Moon.
Here, I'll help you out. The Challenge
Isn't this similar to the claims made by monopole generator proponents?
And yes, I could have worded it differently upon retrospect. You do know an orbiting body has a slower velocity with a higher altitude? And indeed that requires a Delta-V (for a satellite) to accomplish that feat. Often a Hohmann transfer orbit.
hrmn. if it exports energy, it must be acquiring it from somewhere.
nothing wrong with magnetic field induction yielding electricity - hell, that's basically a radio receiver.
conceivably, something could convert passage through magnetic field of the earth into electricity.
barely conceivably, a mechanism could convert more of the earth's magnetism into electricity than is used in its propulsion.
of course, it would have some (immeasurably small) impact on the magma current which produces the magnetic field to begin with.
not "creation of" energy, but on its face looks like "free" energy.
Check out using a tether in orbit for power generation.
I think you've re-invented the Aurora Borealis.
1. does it work?
2. how long until it hits the energy in-out break-even point (equals/exceeds amount of energy needed to loft its mass into orbit and maintain that orbit)?