Free energy

Dotini

Premium
15,130
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
In other words scientists acting as teachers rejected something on valid grounds aggressively is somehow the same as a scientist studying the same thing themselves when they are not acting as teachers?
Didn't mean to give that impression. Merely to explain how I arrived at that headline. It's very likely that paid research scientists are investigating the apparent anomalous phenomenon. Currently it works, if at all, on an unusably small scale. It is an interesting, but probably not valuable way to spend money. Especially so if a suitable explanatory theory is not produced. Then it indeed would be woo.
 
12,250
Australia
Adelaide
GTP_Imari
The EmDrive seriously offended them; they had very strong and assertive reactions against it.

Do you think that some of that might have been misdirected anger from professional scientists seeing significant amounts of money and attention being put into researching a machine with no plausible mechanism and very sketchy preliminary results that appears to violate huge swathes of very, very well tested science while they're struggling to get funding for basic research?

I mean, that's gotta be pretty frustrating working for decades to further the understanding of humanity through hard work, and then random dude comes in with his garage abortion of a microwave mating a washing machine and starts getting actual research support and funding. Bit of a kick in the goolies for your average underfunded research scientist.
 

Dotini

Premium
15,130
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
Do you think that some of that might have been misdirected anger from professional scientists seeing significant amounts of money and attention being put into researching a machine with no plausible mechanism and very sketchy preliminary results that appears to violate huge swathes of very, very well tested science while they're struggling to get funding for basic research?

I mean, that's gotta be pretty frustrating working for decades to further the understanding of humanity through hard work, and then random dude comes in with his garage abortion of a microwave mating a washing machine and starts getting actual research support and funding. Bit of a kick in the goolies for your average underfunded research scientist.
Totally agree - except for the penultimate word. Instead of "research", I would use the term "academic". I imagine the commercial research scientist would work on anything he got paid for. But the scientist at the university lab? With public funding? Not going to happen?
 
12,250
Australia
Adelaide
GTP_Imari
Totally agree - except for the penultimate word. Instead of "research", I would use the term "academic". I imagine the commercial research scientist would work on anything he got paid for. But the scientist at the university lab? With public funding? Not going to happen?

Keep in mind that commercial research has to be funded too. A lot of research isn't immediately applicable to a product, or at the very least has long times to pay back it's investment. As such, a lot of commercial research is at least partially funded by governmental grants. Very large companies can afford to hire people on the hope that they'll produce something amazing, but middling to small companies typically cannot afford that risk.

Academic research is obviously almost entirely publically funded, and it's a constant frustration to academic scientists that they tend to spend as much time begging for funding as they do doing actual research. I believe in Australia something like 10% of grant applications get funded annually, and it's definitely on a downward trend.

Pretty much every field I can think of has areas where there's almost guaranteed interesting and useful knowledge, it's just that nobody has stumped up the time and cash to go and actually do the work. There's a lot of work filling out the gaps between the big, revolutionary discoveries, but it tends to go unnoticed.

Honestly, it's in large part because the funding allocations are mostly not decided by scientific types and your average Joe or Jane has quite a lot of the "if it ain't broke, why waste money trying to make it better" attitude.
 

ryzno

Slowest of the Fastest!!
Premium
5,548
United States
Dahlonega, GA
ryzno
Not sure if serious...
I am.
I'm literally thinking of a similar automotive style system.
There has to be an electric motor or generator that doesn't require an equal amount of amps to run. Also it would need a battery and something like a starter to get it going.
It's a little off topic from the OP but I can't see why it can't be done.
PS I passed my ASE in electrical, I do have somewhat of an idea of what I'm thinking, I don't have the time to make a diagram to show my idea or try it.
 
22,409
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
I drew a diagram.

I'm not a professional, mind, so the proportions or scale of the containment unit may not be accurate, but I think it's a decent representation of the sort of kinetic energy we're looking at.

20180411_190631.jpg

How is it?
 

Beeblebrox237

Two heads, no brains...
Premium
12,389
United Kingdom
Betelgeuse
Beeblebrox_237
I am.
I'm literally thinking of a similar automotive style system.
There has to be an electric motor or generator that doesn't require an equal amount of amps to run. Also it would need a battery and something like a starter to get it going.
It's a little off topic from the OP but I can't see why it can't be done.
PS I passed my ASE in electrical, I do have somewhat of an idea of what I'm thinking, I don't have the time to make a diagram to show my idea or try it.
Unless you've found a way of bypassing the laws of physics, it's not possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
 
952
Belgium
Belgium
I am.
I'm literally thinking of a similar automotive style system.
There has to be an electric motor or generator that doesn't require an equal amount of amps to run. Also it would need a battery and something like a starter to get it going.
It's a little off topic from the OP but I can't see why it can't be done.
PS I passed my ASE in electrical, I do have somewhat of an idea of what I'm thinking, I don't have the time to make a diagram to show my idea or try it.

I don't know what ASE means so please explain.
Now on your idea, think about it. If you use a motor that has Y amount of energy as output that means the genrator has NxY the energid with N beeing the efficiency of the generator so a number between 0 and 1.

So the power output of the generator is NxY=Z with Z<Y. Now the power input in the motor is Z with Y beeing MxZ where M is the efficiency of the motor beeing a number between 0 and 1.

This means Z should be larger then Y while had allready established Z beeing smaller then Y your motors input of energy will drop until eventually the machine stops. Depending on the efficiency of both machined the system will run for some time (while slowing down).
 
12,250
Australia
Adelaide
GTP_Imari
I am.
I'm literally thinking of a similar automotive style system.
There has to be an electric motor or generator that doesn't require an equal amount of amps to run. Also it would need a battery and something like a starter to get it going.
It's a little off topic from the OP but I can't see why it can't be done.
PS I passed my ASE in electrical, I do have somewhat of an idea of what I'm thinking, I don't have the time to make a diagram to show my idea or try it.

Please never work on anything electrical until you understand why your idea doesn't work. It is literally a fundamental concept.

Let's say you have a generator. It outputs 1kW. If this generator was somehow perfectly efficient, you'd need at least 1kW of energy in some form (chemical, kinetic, electrical, etc) in order to run it. Probably more, because generators aren't 100% efficient (as you'd well know if you've trained in an electrical field).

You're suggesting that you run it off an electric motor. This motor needs to output at least 1kW in order to run the generator. If that motor was somehow perfectly efficient, you'd need at least 1kW of energy in some form (chemical, kinetic, electrical, etc) in order to run it. Probably more, because motors aren't 100% efficient (as you'd well know if you've trained in an electrical field).

So assuming 100% efficiency in both the motor and the generator, you've got a contraption that can just barely power itself. But realistically, 100% efficiency is impossible. You have resistive losses, inductive losses, losses to friction and heat, the list goes on and on. The lack of 100% efficiency in anything is where the concept of entropy rears it's ugly head.

The reality is that for what you want either the generator or the motor would have to output more power than went into it in order to overcome the losses. Where does that power come from? As someone trained in an electrical field, you'll know that you can't just get power from nowhere. It needs a source. What is that source? Try and put a name on it.

Seriously, if you took thirty seconds to try and diagram what you're describing you'd see why it doesn't work. Assuming that you really do have at least a basic understanding of electrics.
 
22,409
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
The Three Laws of Thermodynamics:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
Whelp...I've got a different song stuck in my head now.
 

ryzno

Slowest of the Fastest!!
Premium
5,548
United States
Dahlonega, GA
ryzno
Please never work on anything electrical until you understand why your idea doesn't work. It is literally a fundamental concept.

Let's say you have a generator. It outputs 1kW. If this generator was somehow perfectly efficient, you'd need at least 1kW of energy in some form (chemical, kinetic, electrical, etc) in order to run it. Probably more, because generators aren't 100% efficient (as you'd well know if you've trained in an electrical field).

You're suggesting that you run it off an electric motor. This motor needs to output at least 1kW in order to run the generator. If that motor was somehow perfectly efficient, you'd need at least 1kW of energy in some form (chemical, kinetic, electrical, etc) in order to run it. Probably more, because motors aren't 100% efficient (as you'd well know if you've trained in an electrical field).

So assuming 100% efficiency in both the motor and the generator, you've got a contraption that can just barely power itself. But realistically, 100% efficiency is impossible. You have resistive losses, inductive losses, losses to friction and heat, the list goes on and on. The lack of 100% efficiency in anything is where the concept of entropy rears it's ugly head.

The reality is that for what you want either the generator or the motor would have to output more power than went into it in order to overcome the losses. Where does that power come from? As someone trained in an electrical field, you'll know that you can't just get power from nowhere. It needs a source. What is that source? Try and put a name on it.

Seriously, if you took thirty seconds to try and diagram what you're describing you'd see why it doesn't work. Assuming that you really do have at least a basic understanding of electrics.
I'm more trained in automotive diagnostics. I've run plenty of stereos and amps. I am also very good at fixing electric systems. My windows in my truck didn't work so I literally replaced the wires in the harness.(common early 2000s Ford Explorer problem)
I have a small idea about electric theories. They grazed over it... So don't bust my balls, I did say somewhat.
But looking at it from a stereo aspect. I was thinking of some way to amplify the power being input into the system.
But I'm just going to stop here cause these always end in me looking stupid...
 
22,532
United States
Arizona
HamiltonMP427
https://www.popsci.com/emdrive-engine-space-travel-china-success


The OTV-1 X-37B in April 2010, inside its payload fairing prior to launch
Role Uncrewed spaceplane
National origin United States
Manufacturer Boeing Defense, Space & Security
First flight 7 April 2006 (first drop test)
Introduction 22 April 2010 (first spaceflight)
Status
  • In service
  • 4 spaceflights completed[1][2][3]
Primary user

X planes have always been test beds and/or black projects. What does that have to do with free energy and the EmDrive? They test some super duty high end aircraft not science fiction.
 
Last edited:

ryzno

Slowest of the Fastest!!
Premium
5,548
United States
Dahlonega, GA
ryzno
Has the "plugging a power strip into itself" theory been put to the test?
Haha... We have transformers to reduce power, we have capacitors to provide extra power when needed and I did say it'd need some kind of power source to start itself. I give up... This reminds me of my drone carrying an umbrella debate just to be told I'm dumb then a few days later a company releases a drone with face recognition that can follow you...

Screw me. I did a little math on the resistance...
 
Last edited:

Dotini

Premium
15,130
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
X planes have always been test beds and/or black projects. What does that have to do with free energy and the EmDrive? They test some super duty high end aircraft not science fiction.
Simply, this Boeing orbital X-plane may be testing the EmDrive. China is testing EmDrive on the orbiting Tiangong 2.
...The China Academy of Space Technology claims it has got the EmDrive working in the lab, and has been testing it in space on the Tiangong 2 for several years. But governments can and do lie. Our X-37 program has been testing somethings secret off and on for years.
 
952
Belgium
Belgium
I'm more trained in automotive diagnostics. I've run plenty of stereos and amps. I am also very good at fixing electric systems. My windows in my truck didn't work so I literally replaced the wires in the harness.(common early 2000s Ford Explorer problem)
I have a small idea about electric theories. They grazed over it... So don't bust my balls, I did say somewhat.
But looking at it from a stereo aspect. I was thinking of some way to amplify the power being input into the system.
But I'm just going to stop here cause these always end in me looking stupid...

Haha... We have transformers to reduce power, we have capacitors to provide extra power when needed and I did say it'd need some kind of power source to start itself. I give up... This reminds me of my drone carrying an umbrella debate just to be told I'm dumb then a few days later a company releases a drone with face recognition that can follow you...

Screw me. I did a little math on the resistance...

Watch the first few minutes of the clip I linked.

Never be afraid to look stupid that's the way we learn. I'll be honnest I studied to become an engineer and choose to go for the technical route in high-school. Me and my mates asked the exact same question at age 14 we were corrected and explained why we were wrong. The question you ask is imo rather logical with just the very basic understanding of electricity (U=R.I). If you want to understand this you're going to have to look at poweroutput of electrical systems it'll make sense fast why it would't work. If intersted I'm willing to answer questions about it in a private message so your 'stupid' questions aren't public.

We as a society do make the mistake to equate ignorance for stupidity.



Like I said first few minutes ;)
 
12,250
Australia
Adelaide
GTP_Imari
But looking at it from a stereo aspect. I was thinking of some way to amplify the power being input into the system.

That's fine, so think about it from a stereo aspect. An amplifier does a simple thing, it takes a weak signal and outputs a stronger signal. To be even more generic, it takes an electrical impulse with very little power and turns it into one with much greater power.

But this isn't free. The amplifier needs to be powered as well. And the power to run the amplifier is much greater than the increase in power between the input and output signals. An unpowered amplifier does nothing, and so in order to get your amplification you're continually having to use power to run the amp.

Haha... We have transformers to reduce power, we have capacitors to provide extra power when needed and I did say it'd need some kind of power source to start itself.

Transformers do not reduce power. They alter the voltage at which an alternating current is delivered. There are losses in the system, but the primary purpose of transformers is not to reduce power, but to change the supply voltage to a circuit. That's why your town probably has big transformers scattered around at various places, to change the voltage from the hundreds of kV that are used for long distance transmission to the 110/220V for household and light commercial use.

Capacitors can provide extra power in bursts, but they also have to be charged up and they're not 100% efficient either. You have losses between the energy you used to charge it up and what you get when you discharge them. You don't get any extra power out of a capacitor, you only get the ability to modulate the timing which which that power is applied.

I give up... This reminds me of my drone carrying an umbrella debate just to be told I'm dumb then a few days later a company releases a drone with face recognition that can follow you...

This isn't that. This is basic scientific principles that you should be able to follow if you put in a little effort. The idea of an over-unity power generating device is solidly ruled out by our current understanding of physics.

It may still be possible, weird things have happened in physics before. But anyone who would attempt to propose a machine that would violate thermodynamics so blatantly should certainly have enough understanding of the current state of physics beforehand. One does not create a functional jumbo jet if one can't explain why a paper airplane works.

Screw me. I did a little math on the resistance...

See? Not so hard.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,438
United States
Mile High City
It may still be possible, weird things have happened in physics before. But anyone who would attempt to propose a machine that would violate thermodynamics so blatantly should certainly have enough understanding of the current state of physics beforehand.

It would be one of the most astonishing discoveries in the history of physics, so it would need an absurd amount of proof to overturn the absolute mountain of evidence that we have that says it shouldn't happen.
 

Dotini

Premium
15,130
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
It would be one of the most astonishing discoveries in the history of physics, so it would need an absurd amount of proof to overturn the absolute mountain of evidence that we have that says it shouldn't happen.
Should China and the US be pilloried and condemned for spending the money to test the concept in the lab and in space? Should we work to ensure that there are no more astonishing discoveries? Or should we encourage astonishing discoveries? Astonishing discoveries could be dangerous, both physically and to our belief systems.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,438
United States
Mile High City
Should China and the US be pilloried and condemned for spending the money to test the concept in the lab and in space? Should we work to ensure that there are no more astonishing discoveries? Or should we encourage astonishing discoveries? Astonishing discoveries could be dangerous, both physically and to our belief systems.

There's a difference between incentivizing astonishing discoveries (there's tons of money in free energy), and accepting them blindly. When your new discovery upsets all of engineering and science, it takes a lot to understand how it could be possible and how it can play with the body of evidence that exists. Only then will it be accepted. This is how science (and basically knowledge) works.
 

Dotini

Premium
15,130
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
There's a difference between incentivizing astonishing discoveries (there's tons of money in free energy), and accepting them blindly. When your new discovery upsets all of engineering and science, it takes a lot to understand how it could be possible and how it can play with the body of evidence that exists. Only then will it be accepted. This is how science (and basically knowledge) works.
There is much discussion and speculation that could arise, but the first one is this: If a discovery that could drastically shorten the travel time to Mars would be discovered to work and be practically engineered and applied to spaceflight, should it be put to use if it were lacking a theoretical understanding rooted in known science? Would that be tantamount to using forbidden magic to achieve human ambition?
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,438
United States
Mile High City
There is much discussion and speculation that could arise, but the first one is this: If a discovery that could drastically shorten the travel time to Mars would be discovered to work and be practically engineered and applied to spaceflight, should it be put to use if it were lacking a theoretical understanding rooted in known science? Would that be tantamount to using forbidden magic to achieve human ambition?

It's pretty tough to build something that works unless you understand how it's going to work and set out to build it that way. Otherwise you're just getting lucky, and that usually doesn't happen when you're designing and building something complex.
 
952
Belgium
Belgium
It's pretty tough to build something that works unless you understand how it's going to work and set out to build it that way. Otherwise you're just getting lucky, and that usually doesn't happen when you're designing and building something complex.

I agree on the other hand it kind of is how we learned about quantum mechanics if I'm not mistaken. (Double slit experiment or how do you spell it in english)
 

homeforsummer

Bonbonbonbons!
Premium
26,924
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Has the "plugging a power strip into itself" theory been put to the test?
I've got this great idea for putting a turbine on the roof of an electric car. Driving will spin the turbine, which charges the battery, which powers the car, which spins the turbine. Runs forever. Anyone have the number for Elon Musk?
 

Dotini

Premium
15,130
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
I agree on the other hand it kind of is how we learned about quantum mechanics if I'm not mistaken. (Double slit experiment or how do you spell it in english)
The fan-girl who hangs out at my fencing academy told me the other day the double-slit experiment has been debunked. :grumpy:
 
8,910
United States
Marin County
I've got this great idea for putting a turbine on the roof of an electric car. Driving will spin the turbine, which charges the battery, which powers the car, which spins the turbine. Runs forever. Anyone have the number for Elon Musk?

Direct exhaust injection?
 
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
The fan-girl who hangs out at my fencing academy told me the other day the double-slit experiment has been debunked. :grumpy:

If you forget the Trump hair and the jaw-dropping attempts at a Japanese accent... here's a video doing exactly that. Enjoy :D