Tesla Switch

[mashersmasher]

perpatual motion violates the second law of thermodynamics that states

(from wiki) "In a system, a process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the universe."

or in other words more energy needs to be spent in a process then the end results it will produce (such as the power of gravity appon a river forcing it over a dam). you can get extremely close but you can't get perfect

 

[crashsite]

A Question of Parity

Instead of ragging on about closed mindedness, they should be presenting results. They never do. At least, results that are actually experimentally reproducible. But I am harking back to the scientific method...

That's absolutely true. In fact, by any reasonable definition of, "close mindedness" the attitudes of the pseudo-science crowd are that definition. That doesn't mean their views shouldn't be given fair consideration...when they actually have them (as opposed to mere wild claims and lots of whining).

Of course, the quacks have a reputation for being nut fringe. They work very hard to get it! That's the thing about reputations. Good, bad or indifferent, they are almost always diligently earned.

But, then getting back to the subject that seems to be a sore spot. Why are the pseudo-science types so scorned for their fantasy views of reality when the religious community is hailed and respected (even exalted) for exactly the same sort of behavior?

Since we seem to be swapping homilies here...isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander? If we, who pride ourselves on our adherence to, "scientific methods", are going to hold one group to that standard (and ridicule and revile them for falling short), shouldn't we hold everyone to that same stancard?

Hey, I'm just asking...

 

[Torben]

That's absolutely true. In fact, by any reasonable definition of, "close mindedness" the attitudes of the pseudo-science crowd are that definition. That doesn't mean their views shouldn't be given fair consideration...when they actually have them (as opposed to mere wild claims and lots of whining).

Of course, the quacks have a reputation for being nut fringe. They work very hard to get it! That's the thing about reputations. Good, bad or indifferent, they are almost always diligently earned.

But, then getting back to the subject that seems to be a sore spot. Why are the pseudo-science types so scorned for their fantasy views of reality when the religious community is hailed and respected (even exalted) for exactly the same sort of behavior?

Since we seem to be swapping homilies here...isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander? If we, who pride ourselves on our adherence to, "scientific methods", are going to hold one group to that standard (and ridicule and revile them for falling short), shouldn't we hold everyone to that same stancard?

Hey, I'm just asking...

Who is this "we" of whom you speak? You seem to be making assumptions about how some of us view religion.


Torben

 

[crashsite]

We have met the enemy and it is us...

Who is this "we" of whom you speak? You seem to be making assumptions about how some of us view religion.

This is not a religion or religious issue. The original posts for this thread were first, to ask about something that is generally deemed to be a perpetual motion type scheme. That was roundly (and, perhaps rightfully so) countered with condemnations of that scheme as well as all such schemes and their purveyors. That eventually led to my posts suggesting that all points of view should be considered but should also be made to stand on their scientific merits.

After a bit of "scrapping", I think the general concensus wrung out that when any concept is put forth, that claims to be based in reality, it must meet the stringent tests of scientific methods.

But, I took it one step further. If the perpetual motion advocates are not allowed to have their fantasy without condemnation from the scientific community and a requirement to meet science standards, should other fantasies, claimed to be real and true, be accepted without subjecting them to scientific scrutiny and methods? Things like religion.

Religion was my example but, it could have been any of a number of fantasies that people tend to engage in. Numerology, UFOlogy, wizardry and witchcraft, poltergeists and auras, reading of signs (palms, tea leaves, chicken bones, head bumps, etc.), tarot cards and Ouija boards, fetishes, lunar and celestial phenomena...and the list goes on...and on...and on...

My question (and it was posed only as a question) is whether "we" (those participating in this discussion as well as the scientific community and indeed even the world at large) would be well served to get our own houses in order as to what fantasies we are prepared to accept before we go around bashing anyone for their fantasies?

 

[Torben]

This is not a religion or religious issue.

The greater topic may not be, but if you apply it to religion then it becomes a religious issue.

After a bit of "scrapping", I think the general concensus wrung out that when any concept is put forth, that claims to be based in reality, it must meet the stringent tests of scientific methods.

But, I took it one step further. If the perpetual motion advocates are not allowed to have their fantasy without condemnation from the scientific community and a requirement to meet science standards, should other fantasies, claimed to be real and true, be accepted without subjecting them to scientific scrutiny and methods? Things like religion.

Speaking only for myself, I don't accept such things without proof. The problem is that these things cannot be proven, since religions often include rules which mean that if you attempt to test the religion (or its claims) then you will be deemed unworthy of being shown the truth. By this (supposed) logic your tests will always fail, rendering the claims untestable.

Religion was my example but, it could have been any of a number of fantasies that people tend to engage in. Numerology, UFOlogy, wizardry and witchcraft, poltergeists and auras, reading of signs (palms, tea leaves, chicken bones, head bumps, etc.), tarot cards and Ouija boards, fetishes, lunar and celestial phenomena...and the list goes on...and on...and on...

I do not believe these things. Nor do I disbelieve in them. They are simply not relevant. They cannot be tested. Therefore no verification is possible. Therefore they are irrelevant. If solid evidence that they are relevant appears and can be verified then that position will change.

My question (and it was posed only as a question) is whether "we" (those participating in this discussion as well as the scientific community and indeed even the world at large) would be well served to get our own houses in order as to what fantasies we are prepared to accept before we go around bashing anyone for their fantasies?

I'm not sure why it even needs to be discussed. If that's how you think things should be done, then that's the way you should go ahead and do them. I've got enough to worry about with managing my own personal interface with the world, without worrying about how other people cope with things. I'm simply not prepared to support pursuits for which there is no sound theoretical or experimental basis.

I think anybody should be allowed to hold any belief they like so long as it does not negatively affect anybody else. Do I think some of the beliefs are goofy? Absolutely. However:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That doesn't mean that if someone comes to me with an idea I think is crazy that I will not tell them that I think it is crazy, and why. Similarly I would not expect to be able to get too many people in a Baptist church to read Dawkins--it's a matter of venue. If a perpetual motion supporter/conspiracy theorist/zealot appears on a site like this one, which is based on the application of scientific principles, they must (and should) expect an uphill battle for acceptance of those ideas.

If you think religious zealotry is revered by members of this forum you should search in ****-Chat for some of quixotron's posts.


Torben

 

[crashsite]

The problem is that these things cannot be proven, since religions often include rules which mean that if you attempt to test the religion (or its claims) then you will be deemed unworthy of being shown the truth. By this (supposed) logic your tests will always fail, rendering the claims untestable.

Of course they're testable...unless you've bought into the religious dogma that they aren't.

But, by the same logic that I cannot, with 101% certainty say that perpetual motion is impossible, I cannot say that religion (or any other "fantasy" that people may hold) are not real or true. But, their claims are absolutely testable and, by any measure or application of the "scientific method", fail as surely as perpetual motion does.

I'm not trying to tell you (as an individual) what you should believe or accept as being real or true. Just that my belief is that, to be fair and honest, a person should hold them all to the same standard. You obvously disagree.

Would I defend, to the death, your right to disagree? Probably not. But, I would (and do) have the dedication and gumption to defend it in an internet forum!!!

I think anybody should be allowed to hold any belief they like so long as it does not negatively affect anybody else.

Even if you just limit it to the effects of religion in the world, how do you build a hard drive large enough to store this list? I mean that, literally.

 

[chadj2]

I dont understand what is the big fuss about the tesla switch being perpetual motion. I dont believe that anyone said the process would go on forever. The fact is that the tesla switch only claims to recapture a large percentage of energy which is used in each pulse provided it is the right type of load (i.e. inductive as in universal motor or dc motor) Recapturing energy is nothing new it happens each time you use a LC resonant circuit.

Chad

 

[Torben]

Of course they're testable...unless you've bought into the religious dogma that they aren't.

I'll buy that when you present a method to test for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being which does not want to be detected by empirical testing.

But, by the same logic that I cannot, with 101% certainty say that perpetual motion is impossible, I cannot say that religion (or any other "fantasy" that people may hold) are not real or true. But, their claims are absolutely testable and, by any measure or application of the "scientific method", fail as surely as perpetual motion does.

Again, please present a method. Individual claims of miraculous power may be tested but they would test only the validity of either a particular claim and/or claimant; they would not prove or disprove the existence of any particular force or entity.

I'm not trying to tell you (as an individual) what you should believe or accept as being real or true. Just that my belief is that, to be fair and honest, a person should hold them all to the same standard. You obvously disagree.

In a way, yes, but in truth, no--I agree. I simply see no point in arguing about that which cannot be tested.

Would I defend, to the death, your right to disagree? Probably not. But, I would (and do) have the dedication and gumption to defend it in an internet forum!!!

Yeah, that about sums it up for me too. I'd get together and argue this stuff for hours over beers too. If you're ever in the neighbourhood drop me a PM and we can bat armchair philosophy ideas around all night.

Even if you just limit it to the effects of religion in the world, how do you build a hard drive large enough to store this list? I mean that, literally.

Easy. If we limit the list to one belief system per person on the planet, then any modern laptop hard drive would suffice, if we didn't also have to store an entire history and methodology for each belief system. In that case we may have to shell out a few hundred or thousand more for a terabyte system. Still doable though.

More worryingly, who would want to build such a list? Big Brother might be interested.


Torben

 

[crashsite]

Maybe TV sets re really perpetual motion machines?

The fact is that the tesla switch only claims to recapture a large percentage of energy which is used in each pulse provided it is the right type of load (i.e. inductive as in universal motor or dc motor) Recapturing energy is nothing new it happens each time you use a LC resonant circuit.

Yes. Also, the flyback in a CRT sweep circuit (especially the horizontal sweep) is a good example of capturing energy and reapplying it later back into the same circuit to boost the next sweep of the beam.

 

[crashsite]

Eh?

If you're ever in the neighbourhood drop me a PM and we can bat armchair philosophy ideas around all night.

It wouldn't work. I don't speak Canadian and, I'm too darned old to learn...

 

[ArrowHead]

Yes. Also, the flyback in a CRT sweep circuit (especially the horizontal sweep) is a good example of capturing energy and reapplying it later back into the same circuit to boost the next sweep of the beam.

And you still aren’t going to get free energy like that.

 

[chadj2]

Well if you can recapture a good portion of your energy that you used in a pulse to a motor coil, that sounds like free energy to me. A motor coil is simply an inductor; it just stores energy and releases it. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is an induction motor. I believe those motor coils actually consume the magnetic field used to cause rotation.

Chad

 

[crashsite]

I'll have some more, later...

Well if you can recapture a good portion of your energy that you used in a pulse to a motor coil, that sounds like free energy to me.

It's hardly "free". It's just a way of "banking" some of the energy for use later. And, like a bank, there are always fees (and inflation) so you never seem to get all your money back.

 

[chadj2]

I agree you wont get all of your energy back from each pulse, but you can get a large percentage of it back. I guess it depends on what the definition of "free" is. I would consider it free because I was able to get rotational work done (which I can connect to some output mechanism) and I was able to get back a large percentage of the energy which I let the motor coil borrow. Compare that to an internal combustion engine where I am able to recapture almost no chemical energy once it has been used by the engine.

Chad

 

[philba]

I'd like to point out that the OP posted a link to a site where the title was "A practical guide to free energy devices". That says to me "Over Unity". Somewhere in that morass is a description of a tesla switch with the following text - "The important point to note is that the pulses were drawing energy directly from the immediate environment." Uh, suuure.

And as to "free energy" - you seem to be confusing the concept with efficiency. Increasing efficiency is a much more credible task than gaining "free energy". I suggest you purge the term from your vocabulary if you want most engineers and scientists to take you seriously.

 

[chadj2]

You are correct that I probably shouldnt use the term free energy. However, I am not too concerned about engineers taking me seriously. It seems that so many of the people with all of the alphabet soup behind their names are so well indoctrinated that there is no way to get more energy out of a system than you put in that even if a device was in front of their own eyes they wouldnt even entertain the thought that the device was real. Of course you most likely disagree with me but, devices capable of massive overunity are able to be produced right now. The only catch is that you have to build it yourself. If you were to try to sell such a device (assuming it wasnt a hoax) the parties which are so very powerful right now and stand to lose so much would move to stop you one way or another. However, it seems if you keep your head low and dont attract too much attention you are left alone with your devices.

Chad

 

[crashsite]

I'd like to point out that the OP posted a link to a site where the title was "A practical guide to free energy devices". That says to me "Over Unity". Somewhere in that morass is a description of a tesla switch with the following text - "The important point to note is that the pulses were drawing energy directly from the immediate environment." Uh, suuure.

And as to "free energy" - you seem to be confusing the concept with efficiency. Increasing efficiency is a much more credible task than gaining "free energy". I suggest you purge the term from your vocabulary if you want most engineers and scientists to take you seriously.

If I recall correctly, Tesla's "dream" (unrealized to this day) was the wireless transmission of power. That may be where the notion of drawing the energy directly from the environmnet may have come from.

And, yes. It's often a matter of perception and terminology. To be taken seriously you do need to apply the right termsn and concepts to your verbage. "Free energy" like a free meal aint free. Somebody, somewhere along the way has to pay for it.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

You are correct that I probably shouldnt use the term free energy. However, I am not too concerned about engineers taking me seriously. It seems that so many of the people with all of the alphabet soup behind their names are so well indoctrinated that there is no way to get more energy out of a system than you put in that even if a device was in front of their own eyes they wouldnt even entertain the thought that the device was real. Of course you most likely disagree with me but, devices capable of massive overunity are able to be produced right now. The only catch is that you have to build it yourself. If you were to try to sell such a device (assuming it wasnt a hoax) the parties which are so very powerful right now and stand to lose so much would move to stop you one way or another. However, it seems if you keep your head low and dont attract too much attention you are left alone with your devices.

You're just been paranoid - if any such system existed it would be in common use already - NOT by individuals, but by large corporations who would sell the power just as they do now.

All this rubbish about people been blocked and stopped when they supposedly create such a scheme is rubbish - it's just an excuse because the schemes have never worked in the first place.

All the big oil companies are spending a fortune on alternative energy, they know full well oil will run out, and they need something to take it's place to keep them in business.

 

[chadj2]

Well, of course we will have a difference in opinion as to the good will of these huge oil coorporations. But dont forget that the oil coorporations are not the only group that has a tremendous amount to lose from such a system. Think about the governements ability to tax your energy use. If you were to have your own source of energy it makes it much more complicated to tax that just like if you use your own well water or breathe your own air. Also think about the massive shift in your country's infrastructure as all of the sudden the power companies are unneeded. There is also the fact that there are entire countries that subsist on energy sales. The point is that these powers are more than strong enough to control certain coorporations from using certain energy benefits. For example, I am not one of those that believes that the automotive industry is bringing us vehicles that are anywhere near the peak efficiencies that they are capable of producing. I dont think this is an accident. Tell me of an industry or coorporation that is energy intensive that has the strength to stand up to some of the power brokers that I have listed above.

The bottom line is that I am probably not going to convince you that overunity devices exist, and I dont really blame you for thinking that way. I am 33 years old and I didnt believe in this stuff until about 3 years ago when I began experimenting with some of these concepts myself. It is amazing what you can stumble upon by accident. I would have serious doubts if I hadnt seen it with my own eyes and even then it is still hard to believe because it flies in the face of everything I have been raised to believe. I can tell you that for sure that some of these devices exist. I realize that there are hoaxes out there, and people that are making measurement errors with their o-scopes and meters, but there are real devices also.

Chad

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

The bottom line is that I am probably not going to convince you that overunity devices exist, and I dont really blame you for thinking that way. I am 33 years old and I didnt believe in this stuff until about 3 years ago when I began experimenting with some of these concepts myself. It is amazing what you can stumble upon by accident. I would have serious doubts if I hadnt seen it with my own eyes and even then it is still hard to believe because it flies in the face of everything I have been raised to believe. I can tell you that for sure that some of these devices exist. I realize that there are hoaxes out there, and people that are making measurement errors with their o-scopes and meters, but there are real devices also.

All the scammers and loonies make similar claims - they can't prove it, can you?.