# Free energy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolutely true. As soon as you allow current to flow in the pickup loop, the pickup loop developes its own time variant magnetic field. This field in turn (and of geometric necessity) couples back through the superconductive loop generating a back EMF which acts like a resistance, damping the pulse.

Yes, very true! That's just one of the common problems with energy crackpot nuts - they don't understand or even know about things like back-EMF and energy conversion losses. Pretty much everything they say is based on just a little knowledge with no appreciation whatsoever with all the other principles involved. Put into plain words, they are grossly ignorant.

(Not to mention that most of them are also delusional and paranoid as well. What a wonderful combination of human attributes!!!!)

I disagree, and I am quite sure most readers will; I assume they have a mild understanding of physics of course. As for your grammer: it is not top notch either, for instance; your scentance would indacte that my above post is preforming the action: "includng the grammar," which of course makes the final part: "is nonesense," completely nonsensical. Perhaps you should have added some commas?

I happen to know most things are measured inductivly. Perhaps you are reffering to the fact that I can detect a magnet from a distance away from it? If so, have you ever heard of the Photon?
......
-Andrew

Well what you are saying is nonsensical. Anyway for completeness, its the rate of change of the magnetic field that is faster than light.

From Faraday's law, E ~ dphi / dt

where dphi/dt is the rate of change of magnetic flux with respect to time.
E = electromotive force measured in volts

Well what you are saying is nonsensical. Anyway for completeness, its the rate of change of the magnetic field that is faster than light.

From Faraday's law, E ~ dphi / dt

where dphi/dt is the rate of change of magnetic flux with respect to time.
E = electromotive force measured in volts
That's fine, the magnetic field's rate of change can be as fast as you want, but that still does not allow information to travell faster than light, which means the propogation of your field (how long it takes for our instrument to feel the change) will still only be at most c.
So, still no FTL communications.

By the way, you appear to be the only one who thinks my posts are nonsensical, which means you might want to spend more time understanding what you read. Anyone who shares your opinion is free to correct me of course.

-Andrew

It's a bit premature to say that information can never travel faster than light. We have a propagation medium, which is probably space-time, and we have something that propagates. We don't even know for certain if electromagnetic energy is analogous to the wave that rides the top of water or the compression wave that makes sound, which goes much faster. I would vote for the compression wave, actually.

The rule actually is that information that depends on that medium and that type of propagated energy will only travel at the speed of light. If it goes faster than light we will be making use of different rules or different combinations of known rules.

It's a bit premature to say that information can never travel faster than light. We have a propagation medium, which is probably space-time, and we have something that propagates. We don't even know for certain if electromagnetic energy is analogous to the wave that rides the top of water or the compression wave that makes sound, which goes much faster. I would vote for the compression wave, actually.
A bit premature? We have no examples of any information travelling faster than light, and we have concrete theories supporting this law.
And we do know that EM waves (photons) are transverse waves (neither water nor sound, as sound is longitudinal, and water is both transverse and longitudinal.) It is easy to tell because of their polorization, something longitudinal waves cannot have, but transverse waves certainly do (ie, it's a property unique to transverse waves.)

The rule actually is that information that depends on that medium and that type of propagated energy will only travel at the speed of light. If it goes faster than light we will be making use of different rules or different combinations of known rules.
Say what? The fastest information can propogate is c, in a medium it tends to move slower.
Yes the law is falsifiable, but it hasnt been falsified yet, and there is no indication that it will be. Even Newton's laws were not all falsified; for example conservation of momentum.

-Andrew

That's fine, the magnetic field's rate of change can be as fast as you want, but that still does not allow information to travell faster than light, which means the propogation of your field (how long it takes for our instrument to feel the change) will still only be at most c.
So, still no FTL communications.

By the way, you appear to be the only one who thinks my posts are nonsensical, which means you might want to spend more time understanding what you read. Anyone who shares your opinion is free to correct me of course.

-Andrew

Hang on if the rate of change is "as fast as I want", and this information is conducted faster than light as shown in the theory, than why do you say that information cannot be faster than light? Surely the rate of change of a well defined signal is information. And if it travels faster than light, as proven, than its faster than light.

Whats the ambiquity?

As to the second comment, I was mirroring Hofsteader.

With electromagnetism the rate of change of a signal is still limited by the speed of light.

Hang on if the rate of change is "as fast as I want", and this information is conducted faster than light as shown in the theory, than why do you say that information cannot be faster than light? Surely the rate of change of a well defined signal is information. And if it travels faster than light, as proven, than its faster than light.

Whats the ambiquity?

As to the second comment, I was mirroring Hofsteader.

Because having as high a rate of change of a magnetic field at a point as you want has nothing to do with how fast the distant effect of that change is communicated. The distant effect of a change in the electromagnetic field travels at c in a vacuum. Less than or equal to c in material media.

Last edited:
Because having as high a rate of change of a magnetic field at a point as you want has nothing to do with how fast the distant effect of that change is communicated. The distant effect of a change in the electromagnetic field travels at c in a vacuum. Less than or equal to c in material media.

And in addition to that (which is totally correct) there's also a limit on how fast you can switch an electromagnetic field. And it's considerably less than c. An electromagnetic field is produced by moving electrons. Electrons are material things and you cannot reverse their direction of flow at a rate approaching the speed of light. So the whole proposal is bogus right from the start.

Because having as high a rate of change of a magnetic field at a point as you want has nothing to do with how fast the distant effect of that change is communicated. The distant effect of a change in the electromagnetic field travels at c in a vacuum. Less than or equal to c in material media.

What is your evidence? Research says that what you are saying is not true.

What is your evidence? Research says that what you are saying is not true.

Hah! Just what "research" says that it doesn't???? That's just plain nonsense!:bugeye:

What is your evidence? Research says that what you are saying is not true.

Well, let's see. About the mid to late 1800's there was this guy named Maxwell, and he developed this set of electromagnetic field partial differential equations.... geez, haven't you studied E/M theory at all? :bugeye:

Anyway, the rate of change of a magnetic field effects the intensity of the induced electric field curl but it has no effect on how fast it propagates away. And likewise for rate of change of the E field and the induced B curl.

Last edited:
Well, let's see. About the mid to late 1800's there was this guy named Maxwell, and he developed this set of electromagnetic field partial differential equations.... geez, haven't you studied E/M theory at all? :bugeye:

Anyway, the rate of change of a magnetic field effects the intensity of the induced electric field curl but it has no effect on how fast it propagates away. And likewise for rate of change of the E field and the induced B curl.

You are good at reading quotes. Try doing some real thinking. In my day, we didnt have to be spoon fed everything.

Yes, very true! That's just one of the common problems with energy crackpot nuts - they don't understand or even know about things like back-EMF and energy conversion losses. Pretty much everything they say is based on just a little knowledge with no appreciation whatsoever with all the other principles involved. Put into plain words, they are grossly ignorant.

(Not to mention that most of them are also delusional and paranoid as well. What a wonderful combination of human attributes!!!!)

Semmelweiss was considered to be delusional and paranoid too, and he died a madman.

You are good at reading quotes. Try doing some real thinking. In my day, we didnt have to be spoon fed everything.

I've got a question for you. Don't take it too personal but there's no one else here I can address it to. It's really just a generic thing and not at all intended to be abusive or insulting. OK?

Just what is it that makes some people think that they can get around many decades of experimentation and very careful measurements - all fully repeatable with NO variations found in the results at all? What makes a single individual - usually lacking in formal training, too - think they are somehow - all by themselves - smarter than ALL the highly trained professionals who have been working in these fields for years and years. What can make someone think they are smarter than ALL THOSE PEOPLE PUT TOGETHER???

I've got a question for you. Don't take it too personal but there's no one else here I can address it to. It's really just a generic thing and not at all intended to be abusive or insulting. OK?

Just what is it that makes some people think that they can get around many decades of experimentation and very careful measurements - all fully repeatable with NO variations found in the results at all? What makes a single individual - usually lacking in formal training, too - think they are somehow - all by themselves - smarter than ALL the highly trained professionals who have been working in these fields for years and years. What can make someone think they are smarter than ALL THOSE PEOPLE PUT TOGETHER???

Some of it is the attitude of people like you who are about half smart if that, and who seem to think that their degrees or their college hours towards a degree makes them smarter than if they actually knew a subject.

You think that you've set down ironclad rules and then when someone simply tries to find out what the laws of thermodynamics are, then hoo boy it's a can of worms. When someone questions you on that it's "woo-woo" like Daffy Duck.

Maybe it's because the whole of all of those people put together actually becomes less than the sum of its parts.

Maybe it's because science these days demands obedience instead of real thinking.

Some of it is the attitude of people like you who are about half smart if that, and who seem to think that their degrees or their college hours towards a degree makes them smarter than if they actually knew a subject.

You think that you've set down ironclad rules and then when someone simply tries to find out what the laws of thermodynamics are, then hoo boy it's a can of worms. When someone questions you on that it's "woo-woo" like Daffy Duck.

Maybe it's because the whole of all of those people put together actually becomes less than the sum of its parts.

Maybe it's because science these days demands obedience instead of real thinking.

That question was not addressed to you, neither did you add anything of value toward answering it. Thanks for nothing.

See what I mean?

With electromagnetism the rate of change of a signal is still limited by the speed of light.

Regardless, the model says that the information carried by the rate of change of the magnetic field is faster than light. I am willing to stand by it.

Didnt say it was well understood.

Regardless, the model says that the information carried by the rate of change of the magnetic field is faster than light. I am willing to stand by it.

Didnt say it was well understood.
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. Whether you stand by your model or not is irrelevant.
Also you seem to think the rate of change of a magnetic field determins it's propogation speed. It doesn't, which is where your whole problem lies.

-Andrew

Status
Not open for further replies.