Free Energy Generator

[arrie]

Imagine this: someone tells you they invent an electrical transformer that produces more power out, than power in. Do you need to truly start looking at the complex calculations of magnetism, permeability, and yes, even Energy transfer, and disproving the idea mathematically piece-wise?
Simple right? Prove it wrong.

Funny you should be on this topic again. I recently - some time ago, anyway - saw a specific make of lawnmower manufacturer sell a beautiful electric mower. It's quoted as the most powerful electric on the market, and operates at the highest allowable output Wattage allowed by government regulation - 3000W.
What a beaut.


Or so I thought - closer inspection revealed an max input of 2600W.


Now that is remarkable.
Maybe there is some dynamos hidden inside the wheels or something to generate the extra juice as you labour your backside off to push the thing.
I ended up buying the one - different manufacturer - that said - 2800W input and 2600W output. Now this is one tough lawn mover, believe me, I test it's torque and durability almost every time I use it.
Wonder how the other one would have faired.

 

[PhillDubya]

Maybe there is some dynamos hidden inside the wheels or something to generate the extra juice as you labour your backside off to push the thing.

I am sure the guys over there hidden away in the Over-Unity cave could come up with an explanation. Maybe one of its founders bought one recently and discovered....free grass cutting energy!!!!! Its infinite, 2.6kW in and 3KW out!!!, the more grass I cut, the more power I have to run my t.v that I connected to the top of the lawnmower to watch while cutting grass...uh oh, running low on energy, quick...give me some more grass to cut!!!!

Arrie,

How are you liking the electric lawn mower? I have seen other people use them and always wondered if they were really worth it?

It always seemed to me that gas couldn't be beaten when came to lawnmowers. They just need to build (or maybe me, or someone else on this forum) an electric riding lawnmower.

 

[TheBuzz]

You free energy guys really are fools. Do you really expect that I have nothing better to do with my time, than to figure out a way to illustrate to you, and I am assuming AllCanadian also, how those equations apply to EVERY thing regarding energy transfer? Do you have any clue as to how complex and, with how much time would be consumed for such a task? That is why the equations exist, that have BEEN PROVEN. Therefore if an idea like this foolish one of over-unity, violates those equations, you know that it is a BAD idea, and that it can't happen, without having to derive equations that are 15 pages long, because someone already has.

Imagine this: someone tells you they invent an electrical transformer that produces more power out, than power in. Do you need to truly start looking at the complex calculations of magnetism, permeability, and yes, even Energy transfer, and disproving the idea mathematically piece-wise?

No, you know that Pin = Pout in a transformer, and your done, it was PROVEN.

Therefore, they are either uneducated on transformers, or they are arguing against proven knowledge, using un-proven ideas, therefore making them fools.

Look, have you ever even studied higher level Thermodynamics?
Do you even understand those equations, in even the simplest terms?

If you did, you would understand that Perp. Motion/Unity Energy violates those equations, when they are violated you pass from "hey I know what I am talking about", to "hello, I am a Perpetual Motion Kool-Aid drinker." Today the flavor is.....




I don't know what any of that was supposed to mean.




Ein must equal Eout.

Look genius, the reason Einstein originally purposed that the energy was coming from the conversion of mass, WAS SO THAT HE DID NOT VIOLATE, I repeat, DID NOT VIOLATE THAT VERY EQUATION:
--> Ein = Eout.



Lol... He is just like the others, crams a bunch of unrelated facts into his head, paints the extrapolated picture he wants, and then comes out of the Over Unity cave to try and avenge all of the fellows back at the cave....



Look "Buzz", you seem to have it all figured out, correct? Then disprove this simple equation: Ein = Eout, in any way, shape or form, against any of those Over-Unity ideas. Whether it is the self replenishing battery, or the car that generates its own energy, or the reciprocal water-fall, or blah, blah, blah....its laughable.

Simple right? Prove it wrong.

*************END OF PhillDubya's diatribe*****************

You free energy guys really are fools. Do you really expect that I have nothing better to do with my time, than to figure out a way to illustrate to you, and I am assuming AllCanadian also, how those equations apply to EVERY thing regarding energy transfer? Do you have any clue as to how complex and, with how much time would be consumed for such a task? That is why the equations exist, that have BEEN PROVEN. Therefore if an idea like this foolish one of over-unity, violates those equations, you know that it is a BAD idea, and that it can't happen, without having to derive equations that are 15 pages long, because someone already has.

So you begin with the pedantic banter that people use where their intellect falls short.

I don't know what any of that was supposed to mean.

Ein must equal Eout.

Look genius, the reason Einstein originally purposed that the energy was coming from the conversion of mass, WAS SO THAT HE DID NOT VIOLATE, I repeat, DID NOT VIOLATE THAT VERY EQUATION:
--> Ein = Eout.

"What that is suppose to mean" is it is a thought experiment. How did a little capacitor in an h-bomb smaller than a car release the energy equal to 50MT?

You didn't try to apply those math equations and their derivatives to explaining that mass to atomic energy transfer or conversion. In fact, it is apparent you do not have the skills to even attempt it even if it were possible.

Look genius, the reason Einstein originally purposed that the energy was coming from the conversion of mass, WAS SO THAT HE DID NOT VIOLATE, I repeat, DID NOT VIOLATE THAT VERY EQUATION:
--> Ein = Eout.

Actually that was Maxwell with E=M. Einstein claimed the C2 aspect although it was actually his wife that thought of it.

Isn't it something that you can deny the reality of the largest man made energy release in human history and claim it is irrelevant to the subject at hand while you blindfold yourself in the willful ignorance of someone else's mis-applied math?

Your response speaks for itself. You seem to have plenty of time for that pedantic banter that you feel hides your ignorance, but no time for a intellectual discussion of the math equations you posted claiming they would prove someone else wrong. This is not electronics technology online, rather something quite different.

Your only response to my question was a question. You had an opportunity to respond to your claim and you failed the thought experiment as well.

So I will leave you drowning in your ignorance with a thought filter instead.

Your every thought should pass through this simple filter:

1. Knowledge is experience. - "the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association."

2. There are things that I know and things that I do not know.
That is what sanity looks like.

3. I do not know what I do not know.
That is what wisdom looks like.

4. A belief is a magical thought - accepting something as true without experience. A disbelief is also a magical thought - rejecting something that could be true when experience could be obtained.

You belief in someone else's math equation you can't apply, to a h-bomb you deny exists, which released the most energy mankind ever has released is nothing short of magical thinking and willful ignorance. Seek therapy.

We teach deer in the woods stories like hole flow theory to engineers since they don't need to know what electricity is in order to accomplish their mundane tasks and probably cold not grasp the details.

But in end, while you lecture others on limitations of an inductive element, you have proven you do not even know what electricity is.

 

[saturn1bguy]

Yes it was an edit typo. Fusion bomb = hydrogen bomb. Thanks for spotting that. I will edit my original so it is quoted properly and make an edit remark.

Alas, you didn't get my point at all. Your correction is as bad as the first. Not that I understand what your point is, but I thought I would help you clarify it so it might mean something to someone. What you said was "atom bombs which are not a nuclear bombs but an atom bomb." That's pure gibberish. Look at my rendering again, you missed the substantive part.

1 gallon of seawater has enough deuterium for a D-D reaction equal to the chemical output of 300 gallons of gasoline.

Firstly, I don't know if any of the data in the table you provided is even correct, but your 300 gallons above should be 1000 gallons, according to your own table (10^11-8 = 10^3 = 1000x).

Look, I'm not trying to be nitpicky with you. But you're addressing issues that require precision in all cases. But each time you state something it has to be corrected. Why is that? (A rhetorical question.) It seems to me this is often the case in these threads for some reason...

 

[PhillDubya]

*************END OF PhillDubya's diatribe*****************

Lol...

I assure you, there is no haste or abusive feelings towards your comments, more like humor.

"What that is suppose to mean" is it is a thought experiment. How did a little capacitor in an h-bomb smaller than a car release the energy equal to 50MT?

1. No energy is being created, no energy is being destroyed.
2. No mass is being created, no mass is being destroyed.

I will be perfectly honest with you, I have no clue as to the exact inner workings of an atomic bomb, and I will be willing to bet you don't either. Now, whether it is fusion, or fission, does not matter, those two rules I stated above are not being violated. AND, I can assure you, it is not all contained within a capacitor. You have GOT to be kidding me, that you actually think it all comes from a capacitor......had you any clue, you wouldn't have even brought up the capacitor. LOL...Do you also think that it is the fuse, that pops the firecracker?

In fact, it is apparent you do not have the skills to even attempt it even if it were possible.

Really? Which skills? Derivitive, Integral, Vector, and Differential Calculus, Analytical and Complex Geometry, Complex Algebra, Physics, Chem. or Thermo and Quantum Mechanics? They are all involved, and no, I cannot literally derive every single equation required to compute the energy transfer of an atomic bomb, I never claimed to, and taking those classes in a University does not assure that you can, especially when your major does not apply to such things. So no I don't have those skills, those skills are usually obtained by people with Ph.D.'s, one thing is for sure though, I damn sure have the skills to no better than to fall for perpetual motion.

So now that we have that out of the way, surely after you making a huge deal of something that I never claimed to be able to do, you yourself can educate me on the subject. Explain to me, and with use of the equations that disprove mine of course, that mass to energy transfer is NOT held to those laws, and their derivatives.

The burden of proof is on you here, you are arguing with some of the most well known equations there are, you are defying the entire scientific community with this B.S..

Isn't it something that you can deny the reality of the largest man made energy release in human history and claim it is irrelevant to the subject at hand while you blindfold yourself in the willful ignorance of someone else's mis-applied math?

Yep, your sanity is about as fruity as your over-unity flavored kool-aid; and now you can show me where in my text that I ever denied the existence of an atomic bomb.

Actually that was Maxwell with E=M. Einstein claimed the C2 aspect although it was actually his wife that thought of it.

I thought you were a troll, now I know it. You in no way proved any differently to what I stated:

"Look genius, the reason Einstein originally purposed that the energy was coming from the conversion of mass, WAS SO THAT HE DID NOT VIOLATE, I repeat, DID NOT VIOLATE THAT VERY EQUATION:
--> Ein = Eout. "

You just corrected me on the historical aspect of it, and who said what. Good job. Am I wrong though? Did neither Maxwell or Einstein not use that very equation: Ein = Eout in order to form the equation E=mc^2? The E=mc^2 equation allows them to stay within the parameters of the Ein = Eout equations, and maintain the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Funny how you didn't mention any of that as you were pretending.


Plain and simple:
1st Law of Thermodynamics cannot be violated, or else it is a type 1 perpetual motion machine.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Kelvin Planck and Clausius statements) cannot be violated, or else it is a type 2 perpetual motion machine.

If you, or any of your buddies in the Over-Unity cave are violating these laws, especially, if you don't have the mathematics or thermodynamics background to even support your statements, you automatically dismiss yourself from any intellectual conversations or arguments.

You guys are jokes to the scientific and intellectual community.

But in regards to comic book themes, and Saturday morning cartoons, you MIGHT actually be on to something there.

 

[saturn1bguy]

...and then comes out of the Over Unity cave to try and avenge all of the fellows back at the cave....

I've seen this cave before, in the movie, The Time Machine, where the Morlocks live. Once they give up on over-unity, they'll try for under-unity, the next great thing. Oh, wait...

 

[TheBuzz]

Lol...

I assure you, there is no haste or abusive feelings towards your comments, more like humor.

1. No energy is being created, no energy is being destroyed.
2. No mass is being created, no mass is being destroyed.

I never claimed anything to the contrary. Mass is being converted into the atomic energy contained in the mass, deuterium and lithium in the early devices.

I will be perfectly honest with you, I have no clue as to the exact inner workings of an atomic bomb, and I will be willing to bet you don't either. Now, whether it is fusion, or fission, does not matter,

Actually it does. It takes an enormous amount of energy to enrich uranium and produce the plutonium. So they become energy carriers. You are right, you have no clue.

You have GOT to be kidding me, that you actually think it all comes from a capacitor......had you any clue, you wouldn't have even brought up the capacitor. LOL...Do you also think that it is the fuse, that pops the firecracker?

I never suggest it was and it would be laughable for you to suggest I did. Perhaps you should get a big person to read it to you out loud.

Really? Which skills? Derivitive, Integral, Vector, and Differential Calculus, Analytical and Complex Geometry, Complex Algebra, Physics, Chem. or Thermo and Quantum Mechanics? They are all involved, and no, I cannot literally derive every single equation required to compute the energy transfer of an atomic bomb, I never claimed to, and taking those classes in a University does not assure that you can, especially when your major does not apply to such things. So no I don't have those skills, those skills are usually obtained by people with Ph.D.'s, one thing is for sure though, I damn sure have the skills to no better than to fall for perpetual motion.

So now that we have that out of the way, surely after you making a huge deal of something that I never claimed to be able to do, you yourself can educate me on the subject. Explain to me, and with use of the equations that disprove mine of course, that mass to energy transfer is NOT held to those laws, and their derivatives.

The burden of proof is on you here, you are arguing with some of the most well known equations there are, you are defying the entire scientific community with this B.S..

Yep, your sanity is about as fruity as your over-unity flavored kool-aid; and now you can show me where in my text that I ever denied the existence of an atomic bomb.

I thought you were a troll, now I know it. You in no way proved any differently to what I stated:

You just corrected me on the historical aspect of it, and who said what. Good job. Am I wrong though? Did neither Maxwell or Einstein not use that very equation: Ein = Eout in order to form the equation E=mc^2? The E=mc^2 equation allows them to stay within the parameters of the Ein = Eout equations, and maintain the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Funny how you didn't mention any of that as you were pretending.


Plain and simple:
1st Law of Thermodynamics cannot be violated, or else it is a type 1 perpetual motion machine.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Kelvin Planck and Clausius statements) cannot be violated, or else it is a type 2 perpetual motion machine.

If you, or any of your buddies in the Over-Unity cave are violating these laws, especially, if you don't have the mathematics or thermodynamics background to even support your statements, you automatically dismiss yourself from any intellectual conversations or arguments.

You guys are jokes to the scientific and intellectual community.

But in regards to comic book themes, and Saturday morning cartoons, you MIGHT actually be on to something there.

The first two laws of thermodynamics do not apply and here is why:
1st law - for a thermodynamic cycle the sum of net heat supplied to the system and the net work done by the system is equal to zero.

No energy was required to create the mass, the universe took care of that. The only required was the energy to convert the mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass and the universe supplied some of that so the net yield is OU.

Secondly, I don't see that part of the equations that cover mass to atomic energy conversion. Since you referenced that the first law as proof that a hydrogen bomb cannot exist or does not convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass, perhaps you can point out where that is.

I am still waiting for the proof from the first formulas you referenced so I won't hold my breath.

2nd law - The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

In a simple manner, the second law states that "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy" rather than decrease it. This can also be viewed as "heat tends to go from hot to cold, and not the other way around."


So? What is your point. The second law traces its origin to French physicist Sadi Carnot's 1824 paper "Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire" and you claim I am living in a cave? Does the term projection mean anything to you? Again, seek therapy.

The conversion of mass to atomic energy is a non-local process and the first three laws were written by men describing fire and steam engines, men who never talked on a phone, heard a radio or saw a light bulb. In other words, men who lived like cave men. No wonder they are your contemporaries.

Here is something that lives on the bottom of the ocean that figured out how to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass long before any of the creators of the laws of thermodynamics were born. Yes, we were all outsmarted by a crustation. Unfortunately, some still are.

The pistol shrimp.

 

[TheBuzz]

@ PhillDubya

My whole point is that there is a difference between energy transfer which you referenced and energy conversion which I referenced.

You don't know what you don't know. In your hubris, you assumed otherwise.

 

[blueroomelectronics]

I'm still waiting for my flying car.
**broken link removed**

 

[saturn1bguy]

Remember the flying car in The Man With The Golden Gun? Some dorky Plymouth or some such, with a couple of wings slapped on. I think it actually flew...hilarious. Here's something better?

Revealed: the 300mph flying carÂ*-Â*Car News | MSN Cars UK

 

[transistor495]

@ PhillDubya

My whole point is that there is a difference between energy transfer which you referenced and energy conversion which I referenced.

You don't know what you don't know. In your hubris, you assumed otherwise.

allcanadian,
Can you tell me y people didn't get success on this attempt till now? Everything is fake and some agreed their failure some not. Last week I've seen one person's perpetuum mobile machine in youtube with an iron ball on a track which claims on success. Is that also one of the million ones? Anyway if it is success that will be capable of powering anything endlessly. right?

Here's that YouTube - Perpetual Motion

My definition for a 'free energy generator': An extremely wonderful manmade machine which directly sucks energy from a deep unknown space which is the same source for all our universe that makes the machine to be considered itself as a universe and resides in the same universe, may extremely dangerous and tends to explode.... :-sorry I'm not able to continue. A ghost seems to be on my back hooooooo

 

[blueroomelectronics]

I think allcanadian has returned to overunity.com
But more importantly has anyone seen "hamster on a piano"?

 

[TheBuzz]

allcanadian,
Can you tell me y people didn't get success on this attempt till now? Everything is fake and some agreed their failure some not. Last week I've seen one person's perpetuum mobile machine in youtube with an iron ball on a track which claims on success. Is that also one of the million ones? Anyway if it is success that will be capable of powering anything endlessly. right?

Here's that YouTube - Perpetual Motion

My definition for a 'free energy generator': An extremely wonderful manmade machine which directly sucks energy from a deep unknown space which is the same source for all our universe that makes the machine to be considered itself as a universe and resides in the same universe, may extremely dangerous and tends to explode.... :-sorry I'm not able to continue. A ghost seems to be on my back hooooooo

For the record, I am not allcanadian and am the one that debunked him at overunity.com.

Secondly, to assert that some steel ball contraption proves that mass to atomic energy conversion is impossible is absurd. It would be like me stating just because you couldn't figure out how to breadboard a 555 means that there is no such thing as electronics.

Sorry dude, I have to live in the real world.

BTW- Can you point to one thing in this universe that is not in a state of perpetual motion and prove it? Didn't think so. I see rocks everyday that are hundreds of millions of years old and the atoms are still spinning away. I wonder why that is? I wonder what keeps those electrons from losing their energy, de-orbiting and crashing into the nucleus? I wonder what is supplying the energy for that motion? E=MC2 does not seem to have a loss or friction variable.

 

[Papabravo]

For the record, I am not allcanadian and am the one that debunked him at overunity.com.

Secondly, to assert that some steel ball contraption proves that mass to atomic energy conversion is impossible is absurd. It would be like me stating just because you couldn't figure out how to breadboard a 555 means that there is no such thing as electronics.

Sorry dude, I have to live in the real world.

BTW- Can you point to one thing in this universe that is not in a state of perpetual motion and prove it? Didn't think so. I see rocks everyday that are hundreds of millions of years old and the atoms are still spinning away. I wonder why that is? I wonder what keeps those electrons from losing their energy, de-orbiting and crashing into the nucleus? I wonder what is supplying the energy for that motion? E=MC2 does not seem to have a loss or friction variable.

Yeah. Quantum Mechanics is outside the normal range for most people.

 

[transistor495]

For the record, I am not allcanadian and am the one that debunked him at overunity.com.

Secondly, to assert that some steel ball contraption proves that mass to atomic energy conversion is impossible is absurd. It would be like me stating just because you couldn't figure out how to breadboard a 555 means that there is no such thing as electronics.

Sorry dude, I have to live in the real world.

BTW- Can you point to one thing in this universe that is not in a state of perpetual motion and prove it? Didn't think so. I see rocks everyday that are hundreds of millions of years old and the atoms are still spinning away. I wonder why that is? I wonder what keeps those electrons from losing their energy, de-orbiting and crashing into the nucleus? I wonder what is supplying the energy for that motion? E=MC2 does not seem to have a loss or friction variable.

This is much interesting.
I don't think Einstein's equation has any relation to the friction. It states that as per my knowledge - energy and matter are two different forms. If you can convert the entire matter into energy, it will be tremendous but not possible till now.
Burning of matter makes it converted into other forms of matter with loss of mass releasing a very small amount of energy.
Inside an atom, electrons are point particles with negligible mass(is there?) and charged. It's own electromagnetic field and thus the angular momentum is the reason for it's own spin and the orbital motion through a frictionless space(Am I correct?). Solar system is the best example. Sun pulls everything into it, but the result is orbital motion.

It is well known that through a frictionless space, a moving particle will move forever without any external forces. Here comes 'inertia'. Energy doesn't matter here. OK?

Angular momentum and inertia are the reason for all kind of electron spin. At a particular energy level(ie, orbit), the electron doesn't feel any external forces from outside or from nucleus. This level is defined by their wave functions. Am I correct or not?

I think you can create a perpetual motion device if there is 0% friction under some particular conditions. Here Ein=Eout. You cannot use a dynamo here because the electromagnetic induction machine creates eddy currents,back emfs thus heat etc(???).
That device will not be capable of doing anything as it will stop because of loss of energy. It will be an inertia driven machine.
Unity may be possible sometimes under cryogenic conditions, but overunity is impossible in this way.
How to convert the matter fully into energy? Research on this and it'll be a horrible invention and you will be rewarded with Nobel Prize.

I think an atomic clock is a good example for this. A small mass of matter makes it run for hundreds of years!
**broken link removed**
What I told are according to my knowledge and some assumptions. The nuclear structure is not a well established one yet.

 

[Hero999]

Here is something that lives on the bottom of the ocean that figured out how to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass long before any of the creators of the laws of thermodynamics were born. Yes, we were all outsmarted by a crustation. Unfortunately, some still are.The pistol shrimp.

Apart from that thing on YouTube I couldn't find any other sources so I don't believe it.

Yes, it's certainly possible to convert mass to energy, we've being using neuclear reactors for years. The problem is we haven't encountered a way of converting mass to energy that's 100% clean and safe and doesn't require any rare elements with unstable nuclei.

The only way you can convert some matter completely into energy is to annihilate it with antimatter and the latter takes a huge amount of energy so produce.


At the moment nuclear fusion of hydrogen seems to be the most promising but finding a way to produce a sustained controllable reaction limits its use to bombs.

 

[TheBuzz]

Thanks for the civil discourse, it is refreshing.

Apart from that thing on YouTube I couldn't find any other sources so I don't believe it.

@ HERO999
Yeah, don't believe your lying eyes... A belief and a disbelief are magical thoughts. See earlier post.

When I Google pistol shrimp sonofusion I get 198 hits.

When I Google pistol shrimp sonoluminescence I get 777 hits.

So... If using Google is over your head, this entire subject probably is too.

@ transistor495
Converting mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass is possible, has been done many times using an h-bomb. The energy released is overunity since the mass was not destroyed but converted into energy and that energy is bouncing around through the universe forever. The part where we get the energy gain is mass is stored and condensed energy and so half the work was done for us.

It does not require expensive or rare elements. The most abundant element in our atmosphere is nitrogen. Tesla liked to use a tube of high pressure nitrogen in is free energy device which he alluded to in his ozone generator. The electrical arc between the plates is a cavitation, a cavitation transmutes elements and mass is converted into the atomic energy contained within the mass.

The BETA radiation release is the mass to atomic energy conversion. When added to the energy going into the system, most of which is not lost - the combined energy leaves us with a net gain which most people term free energy.

The Gray tube is a good example of how to capture that.

Fe56 can also be converted. So while I do not think Thane Heinz fully understands where the energy is coming from, he clearly demonstrates an energy gain when he cancels Lentz law.

A shorted coil to produce a cavitation has been used to develop many validated free energy devices over the last hundred years. If you are interested in magnetics and efficiency puzzles, this is one that deserves a closer look.

My only point in posting here was that a hydrogen bomb (fusion) is a mass to atomic energy conversion and not just an energy transfer. I have discovered that all free energy devices constructed over the last hundred years all had one thing in common: They all used a cavitation to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass.
**broken link removed** which has been replicated again is a typical example. The high voltage arc converts a tiny amount of gas (mass) into the atomic energy contained within the mass.

But for the electronics person, **broken link removed**

Also, transistor495 I enjoyed reading your post. Fission, fusion and decay are very different processes. So the atomic clock is a nuclear battery but is a example of mass to atomic energy. Good one.

(I edited that previous line to include decay.)

You also might have a look at the work of Milo Wolf and his scalar wave matter electron structure, I think you may find that interesting since it clears up some of the errors with conventional theories.

 

[transistor495]

Yes, it's certainly possible to convert mass to energy, we've being using neuclear reactors for years. The problem is we haven't encountered a way of converting mass to energy that's 100% clean and safe and doesn't require any rare elements with unstable nuclei.

Exactly. This is what i meant. Convert water into 100% energy. Convert a stone into energy. Take it as a challenge

@ transistor495
The energy released is overunity since the mass was not destroyed but converted into energy and that energy is bouncing around through the universe forever..

ROFLMAOL. Be careful while walking, bypass energy clouds.

 

[Hero999]

Thanks for the civil discourse, it is refreshing.

@ HERO999
Yeah, don't believe your lying eyes... A belief and a disbelief are magical thoughts. See earlier post.

When I Google pistol shrimp sonofusion I get 198 hits.

When I Google pistol shrimp sonoluminescence I get 777 hits.

I know about sonoluminecence but it still hasn't been proven to cause nuclear fusion.

So... If using Google is over your head, this entire subject probably is too.

Your sarcastic tone only detracts from your argument, like all other free-energy advocates, you resort to flaming when people understandably react to your far-fetched claims with suspicion.

Converting mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass is possible, has been done many times using an h-bomb. The energy released is overunity since the mass was not destroyed but converted into energy and that energy is bouncing around through the universe forever. The part where we get the energy gain is mass is stored and condensed energy and so half the work was done for us.

No it's not over unity due to the mass energy-equivalence - mass and energy are really the same thing.
Mass energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following are examples of this being observed:

Give a particle more energy by accelerating it towards the speed of light and it gets heavier.

Light is bent by very strong gravitational fields.

Light (i.e. energy) can't escape from a black hole because it's 'too heavy'.

The total mass of the particles produced by a nuclear reaction is always less than before the reaction took place. This is actually true for all exothermic chemical reactions, it's just the mass loss is too small to measure, i.e. if you burnt a ton of natural gas (CH4) with exactly the right amount of oxygen for it to burn completely, the CO2 and H2O generated would weigh slightly less than the CH4 and O2 did before the reaction took place.

Mass normally doesn't just disappear and get converted to energy, at the moment the only thing known that causes this to happen is annihilation by antimatter. In all nuclear reactions observed so far the number of particles counted after the reaction is the same as it was before, it's just the total mass is less. If sonoluminescence causes a nuclear reaction then we should expect some other elements being formed e.g. helium to be generated and the same thing is true about tesla coils but I haven't heard of any evidence of this.

Even if such phenomena generate nuclear reactions then if they can't be harnessed it's totally useless.

If people have managed to harness this then why aren't there nitrogen power stations all around the world?

And don't give me that conspiracy theory nonsense about the oil companies suppressing sich a technology, if the oil companies were that powerful they would have been able to censor the debate about anthropogenic climate change by now.

 

[TheBuzz]

Sonoluminescence is one of the effects. Why would you use a terd going down a drain to describe what is happing in a toilet tank?

TheBuzz wrote:
When I Google pistol shrimp sonofusion I get 198 hits.

When I get to the tenth listing I click on the hyperlink **broken link removed**:

It states this in the article:

Dr. Richard T. Lahey, a professor of engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and an author of a paper describing the findings that will appear in the journal Physical Review E.

And this...:

Skepticism remains, but Dr. Lawrence A. Crum, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Washington who was highly critical of the Science paper, said the new work was "much better" and deserved attention to determine whether the effect could be reproduced.

"It's getting to the point where you can't ignore it," Dr. Crum said.

Now if you needed to go to wiki to learn E=MC2, which by the way makes my case, and you needed me to google that for you, then you once again make my case.

Hero999 wrote:
The total mass of the particles produced by a nuclear reaction is always less than before the reaction took place. This is actually true for all exothermic chemical reactions, it's just the mass loss is too small to measure, i.e. if you burnt a ton of natural gas (CH4) with exactly the right amount of oxygen for it to burn completely, the CO2 and H2O generated would weigh slightly less than the CH4 and O2 did before the reaction took place.


It is not a chemical reaction, hence the term sonoFUSION.

Hero999 wrote:
Even if such phenomena generate nuclear reactions then if they can't be harnessed it's totally useless.

They can, they have been and they are. Did you notice the Papp demonstration? The gray tube? Just two examples of harnessing that two different ways.

Hero999 wrote:
If people have managed to harness this then why aren't there nitrogen power stations all around the world?

And don't give me that conspiracy theory nonsense about the oil companies suppressing sich a technology, if the oil companies were that powerful they would have been able to censor the debate about anthropogenic climate change by now.


Just because you can't use google, does mean there is no google. Just because you have reading comprehension difficulties, does not mean the entire Earth is functionally illiterate.

Anthropogenic climate change? Last time I checked:

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. 183 Parties of the Convention have ratified its Protocol to date. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh Accords.”

They don't care what you debate, it is already a done deal. Now pay your carbon tax so the new global government (NWO - the 7th objective) can afford a international military force made of believer zombies to enforce the will of the neocons upon you. Most mind controlled zombies wouldn't have it any other way.

I am sure you are more qualified that Dr. Crum and Dr. Richard T. Lahey and many others.

Insert flushing sound here.