[richardc]

This machine sounds to good to be true.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm

[richardc]

Another link

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm

[Jack]

Yes, definitely too good to be true.

As da Vinci said: "Oh, ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists."

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Without lying, I bet I could come up with a motionless electromagnetic generator.

Take a conventional motor, and then have it push against a piezolectric material. Ignore the initial transient, and you will wave a "motionless" source of electricity.

no lie

[ZPF4TF]

I think it has something to do with open ended thermodyanmic systems, not the closed type. So it maybe is possible to extract energy from the vacuum. One needs to ask the following question:

Where does a charge gets it's energy from to maintain it's electric field?

Unless I am mistaken, most physicists cannot answer that question, or say it is irrelevant. I have nothing against physicists mind you, but we need to explore all alternatives aggressively.

[MarkR]

I like the following statement that the author of that page makes:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')n most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than the heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad

[MarkR]

Haha. Oh man, I can't believe I didn't spot this earlier.

The guy's measurements of output power are wrong by a factor of 10. He's systematically miscalibrated his current measurments so that they are 10 times the actual value.

So his circuit which draws 5W of power, and has a '20W' output, is actually only producing 2 W.

[Hegel]

When I heard about this type of stuff in 97, the first question that came to my mind was: What are we going to do with all that "free" energy?

[duff_beer_dragon]

Free energy is the same mechanism as immortality -

immortality is your soul staying inside your body and constantly renewing it, most people don't get their early questions etc answered as to what this all is, and why this all exists ect, so there is no incentive for their immortal soul to stay here, they progressively move out of their physical being and eventually die (soul leaves body) ;

free energy works on the same principles as that - the life-force, heat, aetheirc stuff, whatever it is named - is made to stay.

[djd]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkR', 'T')he guy's measurements of output power are wrong by a factor of 10. He's systematically miscalibrated his current measurments so that they are 10 times the actual value.

[chris-h]

First law of thermodynamics

Energy cannot be destroyed or created.

Second law
Entropy will always increase in a closed system.

Meaning in plain english that the ability of a machine to produce useful work is always decreased unless the machine has an energy input from somewhere.

So no perpetual energy machines are possible.

[Permanently_Baffled]

If energy cannot be created , how come the universe is here?

[duff_beer_dragon]

I don't know what sort of dumbasses you people are used to dealing with, but what you posted in reply is insane when compared with your reasons for using it as if it counters what I wrote ;

1. it is not up to me or anyone else to produce proof for you, based on your criteria of what constitutes proof -

you have made a leap in deductive thought by not seeing that your own basis of rules has never been proven true.

Think about what you asked me there - how, with your method of measure, can you prove whether someone is immortal or not? If they outlive you then you aren't going to be able to measure it anymore because you will be dead - does your belief system allow for communication with the dead, maybe by an EVP detector? So we can keep you updated on the progress......

2. Thermodynamics? well since you brought it up........

"energy cannot be destroyed or created" - really? you went back and checked how the universe began, if it did begin (see concept of infinity if that's a problem for you).......hmmmm, wouldn't that 'law' contradict the Big Bang for example - an act of some kind of creation of energy......

what is the definition of energy in use here anyway - because that 'law' could be used to state categorically that no-one ever dies and so immortality is a law - what is the difference between a dead body and a live body, given that there are those who die "of natural causes" - what changed and stopped them being alive? are you admitting, if energy can't be destroyed, that it moved outwith their body then?


"Second law
Entropy will always increase in a closed system.

Meaning in plain english that the ability of a machine to produce useful work is always decreased unless the machine has an energy input from somewhere.

So no perpetual energy machines are possible."


What is a closed system? How can you input energy from outwith a closed system - where does this energy come from if it can't be created? how is the energy in the closed system destroyed ( if that is what you mean by it being no longer useful ) if it can't be destroyed - according to the other law there.

A closed system to me = infinity ; a closed system by it's own description cannot have anything outwith it feeding into it, then it is no longer closed, it is open to something else outside of it.


Your arguements are as useless as the Michaelson-Morley experimement was useless in determining if there was an ether or not ; you don't look for an aether by measuring wind speeds alongside Earth rotation,

even a recent Scientific American or Nature edition had a Kirlian photograph on it's front cover - that's more to do with what the aethers are - go check it out on a search engine for example - people with amputated limbs that can still feel sensory input from their ghost-limbs are not making it up - their aura photo, like a Kirlain photo shows, can still show up their body intact. It is physicly gone but the blueprint is still there.

[chris-h]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('duff_beer_dragon', '
')
2. Thermodynamics? well since you brought it up........

"energy cannot be destroyed or created" - really? you went back and checked how the universe began, if it did begin

[chris-h]

Since i cannot edit

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')How can you input energy from outwith a closed system

[MarkR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('djd', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkR', 'T')he guy's measurements of output power are wrong by a factor of 10. He's systematically miscalibrated his current measurments so that they are 10 times the actual value.

[duff_beer_dragon]

That's not a closed system ; I already covered that. It's open, if it were truly closed then it would be using it's excess heat output, for example, and inputing it back into the circuit ( or system ).

Your other point, I already covered that too - you are presuming to know how the universe began -

by your own standards that makes you as nutso as anyone making any claim that you say is invalid,

anyone can devise a system that other people have to learn first, that proves various things to be true - within it's own laws, self-referencing does not constitute proof.

For you to say to me that you know how the universe began and what it is doing, is insane - how long have such high powered telescopes been availible? ( ok, excepting the info. in books such as The Crystal Sun that details ancient Egyptian lenses for glasses and eyepieces, such as telescopes ) and - isn't there that other thing, about how if you are looking at light over certain distances away that you are really looking at a thing back in time, the way it used to look, not the way it is now?

It's common sense - how can you feasibly claim that you know what every possible everything in the whole universe is up to? You can't, and I wouldn't use a formula or series of laws of that type to back such a claim up.

I like to deal in what is known to exist ; we know fine well that all kinds of things exist, that are explained via some ways of thinking, but not by others. To ignore any phenomena is not scientific, at all. Remainly truly sceptical is fine, but real sceptics of a science kind are not leaning one way or another way. Every law or assertion that can be stated, is made up at some point by a person. So by that rationale, anything that a person makes up is equally as-valid. All this means is that if you have enough clout then you can make everyone measure themselves by your laws - which is ok, unless your laws aren't about finding out truth.

There isn't anything wrong with science, just some of the ways it has been used - same as with religion - nothing wrong with it per se.

The People - whom you must convince ultimately - will go with what feels right. Because that is the same as knowing what is right. Consider that inventions can come from intuitive thought process, we've all heard of leaps in deductive reasoning. People have been here, living their lives, for at least 6000 years in high civilisation ( Sumer ) - a brief phenomenon in the last 200 or so years, that claims to be able to explain the universe entirely - with no room for any changes or revision to it's assertions - isn't going to be popular - especially when it co-incides with a not very good lifestyle for the majority of the people here at his time. They have ancestors, they know what it was like for them, they know what they believed in.

Try not to be so centered in old-Europe as if no other civilisations ever existed.

Most folk believe in angels, it won't matter what laws are made up. They Know.

[djd]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('duff_beer_dragon', '
')1. it is not up to me or anyone else to produce proof for you, based on your criteria of what constitutes proof

you have made a leap in deductive thought by not seeing that your own basis of rules has never been proven true.

[djd]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('djd', '
')However, actually employing this as a debating tactic is generally a cop-out. Besides, our civilization is built on realism - and if you'll accept arguments in other systems, I've got a gold-making machine I want to sell you. Sure, other people will tell you it doesn't work, but all you have to do is believe in it and it will work for you.

[gg3]

There's no need to argue ontology or epistemology here.

Just get a prototype you can play with on your own workbench, and make empirical measurements.

Ultimately that's my acid test for anomalous energy device claims: "Can I sign an NDA, examine your prototype, and make my own measurements?" Staged demonstrations don't cut it: there has to be willingness to allow the device to be independently examined and tested.

I think most of these anomalous or advanced-physics energy claims are the result of honest mistakes (and a good number are deliberate fraud). But one can't a-priori rule out the possibility that somewhere, someone might actually have something useful; theory is not a substitute for measurement. (One might also ask the question, What's the best use of R&D funding?)