ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 216 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Fuelless engine costs too much
Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 @ 13:04:54 UTC by vlad

General In the free_energy yahoo group eric krieg writes: People,

For those who want to solve the world's serious looming energy problems, I personally think the holy grail of a cheap solar cell is far more likely to discover than a wheel powered by gravity alone.

Another list was having a debate about the financial viability of solar voltaics. A person made a simple extrapolation based on today's numbers showing solar voltaics to not make good business sense. Phil [Karn] made the following cogent response:

Well, solar is indeed a bad idea, if:

1. You're greedy and totally self-centered, and don't consider it at all
important to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases and conserve fuel for
future generations;

2. You don't take advantage of the various government rebate and
buy-down plans in some states (e.g., California) that will cover up to
half the capital cost of these systems;

3. You think the price of electricity will stay the same or actually
decrease in the future;

4. You live in an area with remarkably low electric rates (here in
southern California, 9 cents/kWh *is* remarkably cheap);

5. You know exactly where to invest money in today's market and get a 6%
risk-free return;

6. You don't take advantage of time-of-use metering that can let you
sell most of your solar electricity to the utility at high summer peak
rates and buy back what you need at night at low off-peak rates;

7. You fail to consider that the system will continue to generate
electricity even after the loan is paid off. Most PV panels have 25 year
warranties and, if not physically damaged, will work more or less
forever, with no maintenance beyond an occasional hose-down;

8. You don't think it the least bit cool to generate your own
electricity instead of paying a utility monopoly whatever rate they
choose; or

9. You believe you have some sort of magical "free energy" gizmo that
will produce unlimited energy at no cost even though it has never been
shown to work, and would have to violate several firmly-established
physical laws to ever work.

--Phil

Message:
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:02:21 -0700
From: Phil Karn
Subject: Re: Fuelless engine costs too much

Tom Schum wrote:
>
> Recent file dated April 7 called "free-free-free..." takes the
> unsuspecting reader to http://www.fuellesspower.com, where you can buy
> plans on CD for as little as $150. If you want, for $300 you can get
> ALL the plans.
>
> That's a little bit too steep for me. I guess I am just not in the big
> leagues. There are some pretty pictures on the site, however, so maybe
> worth a visit just to see them.

Haven't you figured it out yet?

None of these "free energy" guys has *ever* built a machine that
actually works. But they don't *have* to work. They've figured out
another way to make money.

They simply sell books and CDs with "complete plans"!

Price your books and CDs well above your duplication cost so you make a
handsome profit, but don't price them so high that people will go to the
trouble and expense of suing you when they build your machine and it
doesn't work. Simply blame them for not building it right, or using the
wrong materials, or not operating it right, or not chanting the right
magic words, or whatever other excuses you can dream up. After all,
*you* didn't build his machine for him, so how can he expect any
guarantees? If he's stupid enough to buy your book or CD in the first
place, chances are he isn't a very competent builder anyway, so he'll
probably eventually give up and assume he just built it wrong and not
blame you.

But whatever you do, never, ever refund their money.

From the inventor's point of view, books and CDs on free energy have
another major advantage: they provide a nice soapbox for your
often-unconventional political views and elaborate psychological
delusions. They're always good for padding out the pages.

Joe Newman is the undisputed master of this technique, but it's since
been copied by many other free energy crackpots.

--Phil

Message:
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:39:58 -0700
From: Phil Karn
Subject: Re: Re: Are there any ? - and - How would we know ?

pulsed_ignition wrote:
>
> Before Einstein, scientists KNEW there were only 3 dimensions. If you
> do not see the science you know nothing about Plasma, and you are
> forgiven.

Nonsense. Before Einstein, we had 3 spatial dimensions plus time. After
Einstein, we still had 3 spatial dimensions plus time. No physical
machine nor natural mechanism suddenly started to work (or stopped
working) the instant Einstein wrote down his now-famous equations. On
that momentous day 100 years ago, engineers went about their jobs as
they always had. The universe continued on as if nothing had changed
because nothing HAD changed, at least not outside our human brains.

Einstein gave us humans a new mathematical representation of time *as
if* it were a fourth spatial dimension, albeit one that uses imaginary
numbers (based on the square root of -1) rather than real numbers like
the other three. Mathematics is a mental construct. It's just a tool
(albeit an extremely powerful and essential tool) of our human brains to
better understand the universe around us.

Einstein did not create any new physical phenomena. He merely gave us
some simpler and more comprehensive (and therefore better) mathematical
models that accurately describe numerous physical phenomena that had
already been observed by others, phenomena that didn't quite fit the
existing theories. He also predicted additional phenomena that had not
yet been observed, but could be observed and measured with properly
designed experiments. Nearly all of those new phenomena were quickly
confirmed by many experimenters, thus adding considerable weight to his
theories. The last remaining prediction or two is now being tested by
Gravity Probe B.

That's how science works.

So which exact physical phenomena have you (or anyone) observed that are
inconsistent with existing physical theory, but compatible with your
own? And what previously unobserved phenomena have you predicted with
your theory that have, in fact, been confirmed by multiple independently
replicated experiments?

If, as I strongly suspect, your answers are "none" and "none", then your
invocation of Einstein's name is totally meaningless. It shows that you
know very little about the true nature of science and just like to drop
famous names in an attempt to impress people who don't know any better.

--Phil





 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about General
· News by vlad


Most read story about General:
Z machine melts diamond to puddle


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Fuelless engine costs too much" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Fuelless engine costs too much (Score: 1)
by pulsed_ignition on Saturday, April 09, 2005 @ 16:19:53 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://diamondlube.com
As to your comment on my post about time as a dimension, it is you that are wrong again. As far back as using the sundial - -people have been aware of "Time." Although time was always been a reality before Einstein - nobody considered it "dimensional." Anyway, bicker all you want over trivial matters and leave me alone to do whatever I am now doing without all the nonsense BS about how everything is impossible, it is only beyond your comprehension.

Warm Regards,
Chris

I hope somebody really does invent a fuelless engine, even if it costs too much - it will relieve Eric of $10,000 and that sounds wonderful to me.



Re: Fuelless engine costs too much (Score: 1)
by mojo on Sunday, April 10, 2005 @ 13:32:19 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Time is not a dimension. It is just another complementary way of measuring space intervals.

The key to free energy and anti-gravity lies in utilizing EM fields to modify the structure of the basic scaler/vector/spin field potentails underlying space/time. The sub-key lies in the magnetic field/vector potenial/scaler potential.

mojo



 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.