[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:

in most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than the heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad

In other words, the actual energy output from the machine is a lot less than he claims it to be.

Well, could that mean that he has measured the power output incorrectly?

In fact, looking at his graphs of power, voltage and current there are a couple of anomalies - It certainly appears that he has measured the power in the 'actuator' coils incorrectly.

[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]

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.

I didn't spot this, and I still don't see it. Would you mind explaining how you deduce the miscalibration?

Free energy is the same mechanism as immortality -

Unless you can show that immortality exists, its sharing a mechanism with free energy doesn't support your argument for the latter. (Similarly, the statement "If A then B" yields no useful information unless I can prove BOTH the statement "If A then B" and A, in which case I have proved B.)

[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]

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

That easy.
The universe started with an overall energy level of zero and its energy level is still zero.
Gravity has a negative energy since you need energy to get out of a gravity field.
The total energy of the universe is still zero.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. First law is still valid.

For a more scientific analysis here

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... thing.html

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

[chris-h]

Since i cannot edit

How can you input energy from outwith a closed system

Its usually oil or electricity.

Closed system = engine , generator usually.

[MarkR]

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.

I didn't spot this, and I still don't see it. Would you mind explaining how you deduce the miscalibration?

Look carefully at the voltage and current traces at the output of his device. Note scale and the absolute values. The peak voltage is about 500 V on his V2.1 device. Current is reported as 50 mA (peak).

Now look at his circuit diagram. The load resistor is 100 kOhms.

Applying Ohm's law states that with a voltage of 500 V across this resistor the current will 5 mA.

I couldn't believe how someone could make such a simple mistake, so I re-read the site again, carefully. It seems he doesn't measure the output current directly - he measures the voltage across a small resistor. It appears uses a combination of a 10 ohm resistor and 1x and 10x oscilloscope probes. This gives several potential places for a simple mistake to slip in.

However, how could this simple mistake has persisted for nearly 3 years of experimentation?

I've now also had a chance to do some googling - it seems that this design is based very heavily on a design by Bearden, indeed it's essentially an exact replica. Guess how Bearden measured the output of his design?

[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]

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.

My point here was related to the logical structure of the argument. You and I were using the same rules, because we are both speaking English using its conventional grammer. That said, I used the wrong attack - you DO supply evidence of immortality (though not of any particular immortals). So NOW I'll dispute the equality.

And I don't mean proof in the mathematical sense - that would make the argument much easier since mathematical proof itself is informational in nature and could be presented - and agreed to be valid - on this forum.

Proof varies. I am not well versed in epistemology (the philosophy of how we know things) Those interested may refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Basically you MAY assert without proof that we operate under different epistemological theories. I generally use naïve realism, tempered by what I know of my perceptual limitations (e.g., if I need to know about someting small, I use a microscope; if I need to know about something uncertain, I use statistics).

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.

it is not up to me or anyone else to produce proof for you

Yes it is, if you want me to accept your argument.


P.S. Thanks MarkR.

[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.

Actually, that was really insulting. duff_beer_dragon did not deserve me saying that, and saying it makes me a hypocrite (since I was recently complaining about being insulted).

Having people make arguments along the lines of "well, the basis of what you believe is not proven" is something I find EXTREMELY annoying. Generally, I regard this as relativism taken to an absurd extreme: if everyone has "an equally valid point of view" then there is no such thing as truth.

The above quote was intended to be an example of how just about everyone starts beleiving in an external, persistant, consistent reality when it comes to investing money; I should have stuck with the classic, "I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying ..." and toned down the sarcasm.

[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?)