# Free energy

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by crazeeeeeem, Apr 29, 2007.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### kevinalmRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
993
That and the misconception he has that an em wave is somehow travelling around in a circle outside the wire, parallel to the direction of current flow.

3. ### crazeeeeeemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
174
And I repeat myself. Information is faster than light.

Please reread. I said that the information contained in the rate of change of magnetic field is faster than light.

This can be shown in both a three dimensional world sense and in the sense of a two dimensional world (much as the special theory is seen).

It requires a bit of thinking.

5. ### crazeeeeeemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
174
What do you mean? A pulse that can be measured by its magnetic field is travelling around the superconductor.

Messages:
10,296
Not at all. And repeating your error does not somehow make incorrect information become correct. Neither does it require a bit of thinking, it requires a bit of non-thinking while ignoring physical principles.

You've done nothing in this thread except make one major blunder after another - each of which has been immediately shown to be nonsense. Just how long to you intend to keep trying to push this foolishness? No one but you will ever believe or accept your mistakes as fact.

8. ### kevinalmRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
993
Yes, inside the conductor there is an electical pulse traveling around the loop at ~.6c. But outside is a different matter. You have magnetic flux expanding out of the wire and contracting back into the wire as the pulse passes. The polarization of the field causes the emitted em wave to peak in the inward and outward radial direction and to tend to zero in the forward and reverse current flow direction. In essence what you have is a moving emition point travelling at .6c around the loop, continuously emitting wavefronts that propagate away from the point of emition at c.

Messages:
10,296
Actually, Kevin, I believe it's closer to 0.7c. The common figure used is "approximately 2/3c." But that's minor point indeed, and should not detract from what you've correctly said. (The poor guy really doesn't have a clue as to what HE'S talking about - it's all incorrect.)

10. ### KlippymitchThinkerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
699
To the guy that thinks the steorn device is going to work.

Have you ever seen this science toy. A magnetic levitating top that levitates over a magnetic base? After awhile the magnets interaction with each other and the spin of the top causes the air between them to heat up. After a shot period of time it has heated the air around itself to a point that it tips and drops out of the air.

A magnet's gauss strength is relative to it's heat. A magnet can lose all it's strength if heated to a certain point. The top drop out of the air because the air was heated by the spin of the top(friction from air) and eventually reaches a point where it cannot sustain itself and drops.

The same apply's to the steorn device. The magnet will spin but eventually will stop once enough friction is created.

Messages:
10,296
Verry good, Kippy - nice post!

And that's precisely the fate of ALL free-energy devices if something else doesn't stop them first, that one surely will.

Edit: I just wanted to add that have you noticed? The Steorn device has dropped COMPLETELY off the radar. Neither the company nor anyone else has mentioned it again since that failed demonstration. It's dead.

12. ### kevinalmRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
993
Yeah, I knew it was something like 2/3c so I used .6c for the sake of arguement.

He really is in the dark. I bet he doesn't realize that even if em radiation loss is zero (which it won't be) and you don't extract energy with a pickup loop, the pulse will still degrade to a constant dc uniformly around the loop with a timescale of milliseconds or less. Frequency dependance of propagation and Forrier decomposition of the pulse waveform.

13. ### guthrieparadox generatorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,089
I'd love to get a bunch of people together and go and "interview" the MD and others involved in that. It would make a wonderful piece for a newspaper or book.

Messages:
10,296
Yes, it would. You could give it a short title that means, in essesnce, " Know that you've really got something before telling the world that you do."

15. ### andbnaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
316
First, I have a rotating laser on earth, and a reciever on the moon. The laser is rotating in such a way that it points at the reciever once per cycle.

Do you think the light from this rotating laser will reach the reciever on the moon in: more time, less time, or equal time as a stationary laser which was pointed at the moon??

Extra info: The timer will start when the rotating laser is pointing at the reciever. The timer for the stationary laser will start the moment it's turned on.

-Andrew

16. ### KlippymitchThinkerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
699
What does that have to do with information being faster than light?
The information you sent never went faster than the speed of light. It would be impossible considering the medium your using to transfer your information is a laser.

Messages:
10,296
I believe that's his whole point, Klippy, that changing the rate of the EM radiation discharge has no effect on the time it takes for the information to reach the source. The transit time of the laser beams are identical, of course.

The OP believes, for some strange reason known to him alone, that it does. He just keeps repeating that same bit of nonsense over and over without realizing how foolish that idea is! It's enough to make most of us wince in pain and it's impossible to understand how he could even think such a thing.

18. ### crazeeeeeemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
174
You have done nothing in this thread except ... nonsense

19. ### crazeeeeeemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
174
First question you should ask yourself is
1. Is a laser the same as a magnetic pulse?

Once you get past that then we can discuss further

20. ### crazeeeeeemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
174
Hang on, where does the magnetic field start and where does it end? This is the crux of the issue. I say that your submission that the manetic field somehow has a very precise boundary is actually not what we observe.

Even your thinking about what actually you would see as the magnetic pulse travels around the superconductor is not currect.

The magnetic field is not discrete lumps but continous. I think the idea of quantum theory, no doubt from your voluminous readings is not quite real.

My guess is that you need to consider the measurement device ie its mechanism and how it works.

21. ### crazeeeeeemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
174
Strange, if we go back over this thread, the accusation that I am speaking rubbish suddenly looks like an accusation of yourself.

PS: pretending to be other users does not fool anyone. The proof of what I am saying is here in Malaysia. The people at my condominium, the bar and many others know of the person that stabbed me. I doubt he will be able to get to KL again without someone observing him.