When you see a posting about a 'Free Energy' device, more often than not you'll see one of the following:
1) A device that takes part of its output and feeds it back into its own input, and claims to produce more energy than it consumes. 2) A device that appears to produce enough energy from air or water to run a vehicle, large generator, etc. 3) Machines that claim to rotate/reciprocate forever after initial momentum is applied, supplying enough additional momentum to produce 'Free Energy'. This phenomena is also known as Perpetual Motion.
I am going to ATTEMPT to show you why most of these are absolute bunk, and how to spot any new ones that pop up. You'll also be far more likely to spot a TRUE source of alternative energy that may come from legitimate but untapped sources.
ENERGY AND WORK.
What you are seeking with Free Energy is really Free Work. Energy (especially heat) is everywhere in unlimited quanitity, and like the first law of thermodynamics states, it cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. WORK can be extracted by the reduction of energy GRADIENTS (differences in energy or potential energy levels). When energy such as heat, pressure, electrical charge, masses in a gravitation field, etc. move from a region of higher energy or potential energy, work can be produced. Unlike energy, WORK, once extracted by reduction of an energy gradient CANNOT be reversed by a process within the same energy system. If you look at it this way, what we are seeking as "energy" CANNOT be created and MUST be destroyed. The whole universe including life itself is reducing energy gradients and will continue to do so until the entire universe reaches thermal equilibrium and DIES. When this happens there will still be the same amount of energy that the universe started with, but NO MORE WORK CAN BE DONE. Welcome to the cold hard reality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
QUALITY OF ENERGY
There is a related concept that needs clarifying, known as Quality of Energy. "Quality" energy creates gradients that are either very steep or very easy to extract work from. When we reduce an energy gradient to produce work, what we are doing is breaking up the original gradient into work (our % of efficiency) and other smaller gradients (inefficiency or energy loss, usually in the form of heat). Burning gasoline (an incredibly high quality source of chemical energy) in our cars produces mechanical work, and lots of heat energy. Heat energy is a random movement of atoms and molecules within matter. The hotter something is, the faster the particles move around. On a large scale (above a few micrograms) heat moves from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature. As it moves it further reduces any gradients to even lower levels.
On a microscopic level, a fluid or a gas that appears to have reached thermal equilibrium may in fact have millions or even billions of very minute temperature gradients. Many have tried to come up with a way to extract useful work from this phenomena, but so far nobody has. It has the lowest Quality of Energy of all. Using this energy would be like trying to get sufficient nutrituion from eating excrement and dirt. If someone comes up with a "Free Energy" device that exploits these microgradients, there will NOT be enough energy to operatre a vehicle or power a large generator.
HEAT REALLY ISN'T WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL ENERGY.
Why can't we just make a device that harnesses the random motion of thermal energy, thus reducing the temperature and creating a useful thermal gradient, getting work at the same time? This has also been theorized and experimented on for centuries. The problem is anything tiny enough to attempt to harness work from this random motion is subject to and a contributor to the random thermal noise as well. Brownian Ratches and motors come into the system with only their own potential energy, and won't produce any more work than the gradient of potential energy they came in with. Thermal Radiation can't be utilized because it is being randomly emitted in every direction and frequency, cancelling each other out. The only thing Thermal Radiation can do is increase the Thermal Noise in another mass of lower temperature, which is another way heat can be transferred to a cooler body besides convection and conduction.
ENGINES THAT RUN ON WATER OR AIR.
About chemical fuels and "burning water". We can use chemicals such as gasoline and alcohol to produce very useful temperature and pressure gradients. What is happening here is the chemical bonds are not very strong, and get excited enough to come apart with sufficient impetus from heat energy. This is realeasing more heat energy when combining with oxygen, thus perpetuating the process until the chemical fuel or supply of oxygen is exhausted. Chemical energy is potential energy. Some bonds release heat when made/broken, some absorb heat. Both can be used to create temperature or pressure gradients and produce work.
Water has a VERY strong bond. If fact, it has a STABLE bond. A stable bond doesn't release or absorb any energy when it is broken, it just breaks. In the case of water, it takes a LOT of energy to break the bond. The amount of energy released CANNOT exceed any energy used to break the bond in the first place
OPEN VS. CLOSED ENERGY SYSTEM.
Another thing that needs to be addressed is Closed and Open systems. A closed system contains only its own initial gradients. Once these are reduced to produce work, no more work can be produced and it grinds to a halt. Alternators that power their own motors, magnet/flywheel/shifting weight combinations, closed air/water/electricity circulators, etc. are ALL closed systems and CANNOT perform any work after their initial gradients are reduced.
Open systems are a completely different story. Here is where something that may appear to be free energy is possible, or as often is the case, someone is claiming to have made a Free Energy device which in reality is being operatred by a hidden or non-apparent energy source. Open systems have an energy system producing work, but functions by creating gradients with the environment around them. The work that can be produced by an open system is in fact UNLIMITED as long as the outside environment continues to provide its contribution. Solar power, wind power, thermal updraft towers, etc. all create work by reducing a gradient between their own system and the outside world. The Earth itself is part of a thermodynamic gradient between itself and our Sun. Claims of Free Energy that are an Open system do warrant closer inspection. It is possible to generate a small amount of electrical or mechanical power using nothing more than evaporation and atmospheric heat and currents, but the power produced isn't very much and would be impractical for many real world applications. Adam's propane tank generator that was attempted on the show was one such device. YES, it worked, but wasn't really useful.
When confronted with a Free Energy claim, you need to ask yourself these questions:
1) Is it an Open or a Closed system? Closed systems are doomed right from the start. If a device appears to actually operate and produce work, it is an Open system even though it may appear closed. A scam artist could be using light, heat, RF, electrostatic charge, or any number of energy sources to create a gradient within their "closed" system that does not appear to be there.
2) Does it appear to recycle something? This smacks of a Closed system, and if it functions then it is an Open system and you need to find the outside element of the gradient.
3) Does it produce a useful amount of work? I can sprinkle a fine powder on water and you can see the particles move around from brownian motion under a microscope for the rest of eternity. Yes, it is perpetual motion, but it is USELESS.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: kim g,
Very well written. Thank you for the information. A lot of people here say they are working on a "free energy" machine with magnets and I say it won't be fruitful, but you never know?
I have a magazine article from the 80's about Joe Newman (he's been at it for a while. The article is positive too, he actually fooled the magazine) and the method he uses is very convincing. One of his devices is in a plastic trash can connected to a huge neon sign that says "THINK." He will allow people to look inside the device and verify that nothing is charged/moving/etc. He will connect a small lantern battery to this device, then proceed to give some sort of speech. He will then turn on the device, causing the sign to light up. Then he will actually invite people to measure voltage and current both in and out of the device, and you WILL indeed see more wattage coming out than going in. After only a couple minutes he will end the demonstration.
However, if you take the sign's advice and actually THINK about what is going on, you can figure out the scam. When he connects the battery to the device, it starts operating immediately, NOT when he turns on the sign. During the time he is giving his speech, there are any number of things the device can be doing to store energy from the battery to release at a faster rate later. Flywheel energy storage is probably the easiest. When he finally turns on the sign, it appears to be producing more wattage than it is being supplied, but it actually isn't, it is simply drawing power that has already been stored while he was droning on. If his machine were allowed to run for very long the scam would be apparent, but he doesn't let that happen. What the people being conned don't realize is there is a difference between WATTAGE and WATT HOURS. Only Watt Hours is a true measure of the TOTAL amount of work that can be produced. Wattage measured at any given moment is only the amount of power being produced at that particular time. If you were to measure the total Watt Hours being put into the device by the battery, and the Watt Hours being put into the neon sign, you would then be able to see the output is less than 100% of the input.
One other thing you'll notice about ALL of Newman's devices (including a car he drives around an arena. That's right folks, he has duped an entire STADIUM LOAD of people) is that there is ALWAYS an external battery of some sort connected to it. If his machines were TRULY able to achieve more output than input, he should just be able to divert part of the output back into the machine and you wouldn't need the battery.
[quote] I can sprinkle a fine powder on water and you can see the particles move around from brownian motion under a microscope for the rest of eternity. Yes, it is perpetual motion, but it is USELESS.[/quote]
*** I must say that this is an impressive treatment of the topic of perpetual motion and free energy from the point of view of thermodynamics and you indeed had the sense, as all scientists should, not to be closed minded in that you acknowledged the phenomenon of Brownian motion as perpetual.
May I say however that the theories of thermodynamics limit themselves in a some ways that I think we should be wary of:
(i) Beyond the mechanical laws thermodynamic theory evidently does not go as far as to deal with the energy that matter 'IS' but limits itself to the form of energy that might be 'produced' when bonds between matter particles are broken as for example in chemical and nuclear reactions.
All their analyses of the cases they consider are correct but they still need to understand that neither matter nor the energy of which matter is made is destroyed in these processes of burning or of fission and the like.
ii) Work is defined in terms only of mechanical work that requires the movement of the point of application of force.
This, in my view, limits the thinking of scientist so that they cannot see that in the simple case of standing on the earth for example the gravity field is doing work and that the gravity field is not "reduced to produce work" in this case as they say so that "no more work can be produced".
So Brownian motion may appear useless but the same type of energy field that produces it is the same energy field that keeps us on the earth and that keeps planets in orbit. And for all practical purposes infinite amounts of work is done in these cases by gravity.
Further, this indestructible energy called gravity can be enhanced to be of practical use by the charging of objects that can in turn be used to power vehicles.
Now I have said in a very awkward way here what I have said in various ways in other places. But I am just trying here to tailor my views that they might be easier to follow according to the trends of thought expressed by the original author of this thread.
[quote]A closed system contains only its own initial gradients. Once these are reduced to produce work, no more work can be produced and it grinds to a halt... magnet, etc. are ALL closed systems and CANNOT perform any work after their initial gradients are reduced.[/quote]
*** In light of what I have said above, therefore, this is relevant to systems as defined by classical thermodynamic theory however there are closed systems that can virtually produce free energy that can be as practical as, and even more practical than, that produced by combustion of fossil fuels.
These closed systems are powered by an object charged with electrostatic energy [which is enhanced gravitational energy] and which others call 'vacuum energy', 'zero point energy', 'free energy' and the like.
The only way to "charge" an object with gravitational energy is to move it farther away from the larger mass it is attracted to. The object now possesses gravitational potential energy. However, the amount of work you can get from the potential energy will NOT exceed the amount of work it took to get the object there in the first place.
Brownian Motion is just another form of Thermal Noise, but noise that can affect the surface tension of a liquid so it has been given a unique name, but it is just thermal noise nonetheless. Please elaborate on how Thermal Noise produces energy fields that keeps us on the earth and keeps planets in orbit. I'm sure the scientific community would be thrilled that you have found a connection between gravity and Thermal Noise. Incidently, there is NO thermal motion of particles in matter that is at or near absolute zero, yet their attraction due to gravity (which we like to call WEIGHT) does not change. You might wish to explain this as well (then again you may not).
"Virtually" producing free energy is not the same as producing it.
Electrostatic energy is an accumulation of electrical charge. Gravitation is an attraction between two masses. If there is any connection between the two it is not significant enough to have been discovered. You might wish to elaborate on "enhanced gravitational energy" (then again you may not).
The experiments by George S. Piggott in 1904 merely concluded that an electrical charge can suspend a body counter to gravitational attraction. You can achieve the same thing by merely picking the object off the ground and holding it in the air. Yes, an energy gradient in the form of gravitational potential does exist between the suspended mass and the larger body (the Earth), but to produce work from this the suspended mass would need to be moved closer to the larger mass, reducing the gradient.
"Gravitational Energy" is yet another badly abused term that Free Energy proponents throw around without understanding what it actually means.
I like #2 free energy from the air to drive my car, that's a great Idea. I'll charge an electric/hydrogen car with a windmill electricity/hydrogen generator. Oh wait this thread is supposed to be about how free energy isn't possible. Never mind.
You see, I watched Mythbusters one time when they had a segment on Free Energy. I'm basing my school report on that.
For one of the experiments, MB hooked up a motor to a battery, which then (I think) used what u guys called a "Flywheel energy storage device". Basically it was an electrical circuit that recharged itself.
MB said they got all the information and plans off the internet. I've been searching to no avail. You seem knowledgeable on this topic, so could you please help me? Maybe you know the link to this particular electrical circuit.
It would be great for your report if you showcased a few "Free Energy" machines, showed what they claimed to do, and then explained why they don't work. Maybe you could even build one like they did on the show and show how it doesn't work. After your demonstration you can explain why it doesn't work and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
If you search Google for "free energy machine" you should come up with a number of things. The problem is the scammers make money by selling plans to build the machines, so you won't see the plans online. You won't find any completed machines either, because when you find it doesn't work, they really don't want you returning it. If you built it from plans, they can always claim "you built it wrong".
The simplest and most often seen one is the flywheel system we saw on the show.
A motor is connected to one side of a heavy flywheel, and a generator to the other side. You can use another DC motor, it will act as a generator. You can spin the flywheel by hand or disconnect the generator and spin it up to speed by connecting a battery to the powering motor, then disconnect the battery and connect the generator back in.
The theory is that the spinning flywheel will supply more energy to the generator than it takes to keep it going and the machine will continue to spin perpetually, even allowing you to draw some power from the generator.
The reality is the generator CANNOT provide more power to the motor than it takes to spin the flywheel. The machine will run for a while, but then slows down and stops because it can't get enough power to keep going.
[quote]The only way to "charge" an object with gravitational energy is to move it farther away from the larger mass it is attracted to. The object now possesses gravitational potential energy. However, the amount of work you can get from the potential energy will NOT exceed the amount of work it took to get the object there in the first place.[/quote]
*** This is keeping the debate at a very simplistic level because moving an object further away from another does not enhance any PROPERTY of the object and enhancing the object's properties is what I am aiming at when I refer to "charging" it.
Work is a transient phenomenon, it is done, but not possessed by an object so that the potential energy, which is a term devised to represent the capacity of an object to do work, is also Not a property of the object.
So with your permission I will like us to move away from thinking of energy in terms of the transients ke and internal energy, pe, and work done and start thinking of the kind of energy that is a property of, or better, the nature of matter.
It follows that my concept of charging an object with gravitational energy means literally enhancing its gravity field energy.
Further, I am sure you will agree that it is possible to charge an object with electrostatic energy. Well I am claiming that electrostatic charge and gravity are the same or that the electrostatic and gravity fields of an object are one and the same.
It therefore follows from what I have said that you can actually charge an object with gravitational energy and this does not mean moving it away from the other to which it is attracted.
This therefore is the angle I wish the debate to take, if you will, which means that you might wish to base your comments along the line of whether gravity and electrostatic fields are the same.
Such a debate can lead to the possibility of enhancing the gravity force that an object might exert by increasing both its 'mass' and 'charge' to give a practical source of energy that might yield 'free' energy.
At present our concepts in physics of a difference between charge and mass only allows us to increase the gravity force of an object by increasing mass so to get practical forces in this way the masses required will be prohibitive.
On the other hand we seem to view charge as being a surface phenomenon that cannot be enhanced by making the charged object more massive at a given voltage.
If we understand the similarity between charge and mass we should be able to use a 200 kg weight, say, charged with some 400,000 Volts of positive charge as an engine to propel a standard car with enough power to reach 150 Km/h in 100 m. Moreover, the car can be driven almost indefinitely, that is, independent of fuel CONSUMPTION. The only thing that will curtail the infiniteness of the energy supply is leakage of charge from the power device but not consumption of energy.
[quote]Brownian Motion is just another form of Thermal Noise, but noise that can affect the surface tension of a liquid so it has been given a unique name, but it is just thermal noise nonetheless. [/quote]
*** I am familiar with Brownian motion in gasses but not with fine powder on water. When you mentioned the case therefore I carelessly assumed that the motion of the particles were driven or aided by surface tension forces and you seem here to be confirming that this is in fact so by saying that it can affect surface tension.
My intentions however is not to dwell on whether surface tension is involved in the motion of the particles on water but like I said my reference to that phenomenon was just an awkward attempt I made to construe the example you gave of perpetual motion as being one that represented a case of infinite energy.
Surface tension forces nevertheless are gravity forces and are both capable in infinite work and are therefore infinite energy fields.
[quote] Please elaborate on how Thermal Noise produces energy fields that keeps us on the earth and keeps planets in orbit...[/quote]
*** I did not say Brownian motion produced the fields but that the fields produced it. As explained above, however, I said I might have erred in saying that Brownian motion is produced by surface tension energy fields even though you too seemed to be saying that it is in your earlier statements.
[quote] I'm sure the scientific community would be thrilled that you have found a connection between gravity and Thermal Noise...[/quote]
*** Actually I know exactly what causes gravity but unfortunately it has nothing to do with thermal noise as you might be hoping.
I can only guess that you might be one of those who believes that force is conveyed by sub-particles emitted by particles of matter and absorbed by others and you are hoping that some light can be thrown on this concept if a link could be established between thermal noise [which involves particles of materials] and gravity.
If that is what you are aiming at then sorry I have no good news since thermal noise does not generate gravity even though it is responsible for absorbing some of the powerful gravity force of a nucleus [which I think they call the 'weak force'] causing the remaining force outside of the object [which we call gravity] to be as weak as it is.
I am sweeping with a very broad broom in an effort to cover all that might be in your mind but you need not pay attention to the comments that you think are irrelevant to your line of argument.
So finally on this issue of particles of matter and their relation to gravity, although I have in other places dismissed the concept of trying to find a particle that carries force by saying that force needs no particle for its existence, I did that in the context of trying to disabuse minds of the concept that photons and other matter particles are responsible for transmitting force through space thereby causing force at a distance.
On the other hand force is in fact dependent on a so called particle, but if you can entertain my stretching of the imagination, that particle is as fundamental as Time, and Space and so is independent of them both. It is therefore of zero size and infinite energy capacity.
I think that this is far enough, maybe too much, theoretical physics to entertain your mind for now so I leave it here.
[quote] Incidently, there is NO thermal motion of particles in matter that is at or near absolute zero, yet their attraction due to gravity (which we like to call WEIGHT) does not change. You might wish to explain this as well (then again you may not).[/quote]
*** I can't think of a concept in physics that I would shy away from explaining but I think the above already explains it all.
[quote]"Virtually" producing free energy is not the same as producing it.[/quote]
*** I mean actually producing the energy but I say "virtually" because you need an object to hold the charge and that object has a cost attached to it. In addition, it takes a certain amount of energy to charge an object to the required potential which also has a cost attached to it.
Once this first object is charged it can be used to HELP charge many others by induction but the charges will all tend to leak from the objects and so cannot actually last forever irrespective of the best insulation. So all these are cost factors which means that the energy produced is not actually free.
In spite of these cost factors though the energy derived from the charged devices will not be of the order of 60% of the energy taken to charge them as it is with other devices. Neither will it be 90%, or 100% the input energy.
But how about 10,000% [an estimated figure derived from comparison with the shelf life of a similar device, a battery, with a shelf life of 1 year say]?
If you can get 10,000 times your input energy from a device which is a closed system, then I think that that can be referred to as "virtually" producing infinite energy.
[quote] Electrostatic energy is an accumulation of electrical charge. Gravitation is an attraction between two masses.[/quote]
*** You are here comparing two different things: you are comparing what electrostatic charge 'is' to what gravity does. What is better to say is that gravitational energy is an accumulation of mass.
If you had said that then I would have answered that charge is mass and I would have done so fully aware of all the questions that may be raised to the contrary.
[quote] If there is any connection between the two it is not significant enough to have been discovered. [/quote]
*** It depends on what we consider to be significant. To a fish there probably is no connection between ice and water that is significant enough to discover: for all intents and purposes fish need water to swim in so to them ice might be more like a rock or hard ground or cold glass.
In its simplest form we view gravity on earth as the force the earth exerts on objects in its present near neutral but slightly positively charged state.
On the other hand we view electrostatic force as the force that an object on earth, which is not at the same electrostatic potential as the earth, exerts on another object.
It follows that if we charge the earth positively and our weight increases we will say it is due to gravity but if we charge an object positively and its attractive force on a "similarly charged" object increases we will call that electrostatic force and not the enhanced gravity field of the object.
And mind you I am fully aware of the comments that will be made concerning my statements implying attraction between positive charges and I welcome anyone willing to try to debunk them as mythical.
The sun is plasma which means it is like a nucleus [a radioactive one] without orbiting electrons to absorb its gravity field. It is therefore like a very big atom of maximum positive charge [ie with no electron shells]. The massive gravity field it generates is therefore as one that is enhanced by charging or removal of its electron clouds and is therefore also its electrostatic positive field.
A lot of theory here but one clue to understanding these things is the fact that fixed atoms [as in solids] with 'fixed' electrons [as those in covalent bonds] CAN result in repulsion between positive charges due to nuclear vibrations that are [180 degrees] out of phase.
Positively charged liquids, plasmas, particles and electrovalent materials are quite capable of attracting each other.
quote] You might wish to elaborate on "enhanced gravitational energy" (then again you may not).[/quote]
*** Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to not respond because at some point in time I might need that privilege. I don't have need of it now though.
Concerning enhanced gravitational energy: for brevity, a photon is the fundamental particle of matter in my view.
A two dimensional slice of this particle will show up as a radial array of field lines that represent force acting at the center of the particle. These forces are all of the same magnitude [length] and so are in equilibrium. So far so good?
Like objects, two field lines cannot occupy the same place at the same time. It follows that, if we try to superimpose one slice of a photon upon an identical slice the field lines will push each other out so that the diameter of the slice that results will be twice that of either photon slice.
By now you must be lost because I haven posted a diagram but if you are not I will proceed.
A nucleus then is basically a superimposition of thousands of photons and so ends up being a dense core of field surrounded by pushed out field occupying the space thousands of times the diameter of the nucleus.
Now, a field line comprises 'particles' of zero size but infinite capacity for work as I mentioned in another post. These particles are "Force Particles" and can be visualized as taxis shuttling to and fro between points on a field line and in so doing they exert force [in the direction of the center of the nucleus] between the points that they straddle.
When an electron is brought to orbit the nucleus the Force Particles by bombardment provide the centripetal force that keeps the electron in orbit but by so doing are unable to service their route.
Particles beyond this location on the field line must therefore now extend their shuttles to service this route also and so there is a reduced attention to their original route as less time is spent there.
Hope you are still reading.
It follows that the strength of the field line beyond the location of the orbiting electron is reduced. The field lines beyond the electron cloud basically comprises the gravity field of an atom [there is, however, another reduction in the strength caused by the energy taken to bind the atoms together].
Seeing that the gravity field is so generated, when electrons are removed from atoms their strength is restored and this is what I refer to as an "enhanced gravity field" which clearly is also the electrostatic field of the atom.
You might have things you wish to agree with or things you wish to take me up on, but then again, to use your expression, you may not.
[quote]"Virtually" producing free energy is not the same as producing it.
Electrostatic energy is an accumulation of electrical charge. Gravitation is an attraction between two masses. If there is any connection between the two it is not significant enough to have been discovered. You might wish to elaborate on "enhanced gravitational energy" (then again you may not).[/quote]
*** I gave a long response to the above but there seems to be some questionable expressions so it has not yet been posted.
[quote]"Gravitational Energy" is yet another badly abused term that Free Energy proponents throw around without understanding what it actually means.[/quote]
*** If you are referring to me here it is not that I don't understand what "Gravitational Energy" means it is just that others don't and I have not explained it to them until now.
When that post referred to above is published you will see what gravitational energy really is, and not just from a mechanics point of view which only describes it in terms of some of what it does, but, from the point of view of what it is.
The powder is merely there to help observe the Brownian motion.
I wasn't "hoping" that Thermal Noise was generating gravity, I thought that is what YOU were saying.
Getting back to the ACTUAL subject here, let's assume for a moment that you CAN produce work from Brownian Motion or other Thermal Noise. The heat energy would be converted to work and other forms of energy and it would dissipate. It wouldn't be infinite unless you kept supplying heat energy, then it wouldn't be a closed system and it wouldn't fit within the realm of Free Energy.
Try and keep things simple and on the subject, that way I can understand what you are saying without resorting to illicit pharmaceuticals.
[quote]Getting back to the ACTUAL subject here, let's assume for a moment that you CAN produce work from Brownian Motion or other Thermal Noise... it wouldn't fit within the realm of Free Energy. [/quote]
*** I am not one who believes that Free Energy can be produced from any mechanical source, chemical source, or nuclear reaction.
We need not therefore be arguing whether Brownian motion [or fluid pressure] can give free energy: in my view it can't.
[quote] Try and keep things simple and on the subject, that way I can understand what you are saying without resorting to illicit pharmaceuticals.[/quote]
*** Haha! I'm sorry but I was not trying to send you crazy.
When you mentioned the "scientific community" I thought for a moment that I might have had the attention of some real scientific minds and was not about to pass up the oportunity to influence the future direction of science.
[quote]A nucleus then is basically a superimposition of thousands of photons and so ends up being a dense core of field surrounded by pushed out field occupying the space thousands of times the diameter of the nucleus.[/quote]
Yeah its actually a written report, but an expereiment is needed to get first-hand evidence. I've been searching for the designs on the internet (pretty sure MB said they got that one for free) and I thought you may have come across it before.
This flywheel, what exactly is it? Could I attach like a heavy circular thingymabob to the generator to act like a 'flywheel'?
. LMAO!
