jamius.com

sjvsworldtour wrote:Ah, I could talk on this a lot, but please don't discourage people from learning for themselves. When I was more into math I liked to derive equations to see why they work. Was it a waste of time? I don't think so.

Sorry. I don't think deriving the equations was a waste of time, because it taught you how they work. However, theorizing about something is different than doing it. If anyone built these machines they want to work they'd see that they wouldn't work. Do the experiment and look at your results instead of just thinking how it could work. Science moves a lot faster that way. Take Jaimie for example, he thinks of something, builds a prototype, sees where it is and isn't working, then builds another one.

I did ponder perpetual motion at one time. I built a car out of two DC motors using something called "Capsules" if I remember correctly. One DC motor was powered by a battery and drove two wheels, and the other two wheels turned another DC motor (generator). The generator then charged the battery. I took it into class and fought with my teacher that it would work if I had the right gearing and an actual generator instead of a DC motor. I actually thought I would make it work. I remember telling my friends my teacher was stupid cause he didn't see that it would work.

As time went on, I realized that it would never work. There are frictional losses in everything today, and the energy I put in won't be equal to the energy that comes out. Heck, you could hook a DC motor directly to the best generator in the world and you'd still not be equal on the in and out. So, I guess you're right. Discovering it for yourself is much better than being told. However if it would have been explained to me that it wouldn't work, I would have understood a lot better, and quicker. And it wouldn't have taken me years to figure out that it wouldn't work.

The motor driving a generator is a good example, especially when you factor in losses from heat, friction, etc.

But there is something else that can occur here. You could end up improving efficiency, which isn't a bad thing at all. My counter argument here would be that a simple flywheel would always be more efficient than a motor hooked to a generator. More complex is not necessarily always better.

corrado33 wrote:Yes, and even with our advances in science we've never disproved the law of conservation of energy. With today's energy crisis, don't you think we would have figured out free energy if it was possible?

Maybe it's just really hard to figure out.

corrado33 wrote:If it is possible to get energy from nothing... where does it come from? If we constantly got FREE energy, where would it go? We'd be flooding our "system" the earth with energy just floating around. Do you think it'd just disappear? Just take the time and think about it. Magic does not exist.

All very good questions. Thinking about these kinds of things is great, it can lead to new ideas we have never thought of before. Maybe magic does exist? I don't believe it does, but you can not discount it as a possibility, unless of course you know everything.

corrado33 wrote:just because you've thought of it doesn't mean it does exist.

Absolutely true. I never suggested that it did exist, just that it might. We don't really know.

corrado33 wrote:The FACT is, there is hundreds, maybe thousands of years of scientific evidence to backup the law of conservation of energy, and NONE to disprove it. Not even a HINT that it may be false.

Yet.

Here is an excelent place to start to understand this scientific way of thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... and_belief
Those concepts and ideals can reach into every aspect of your life.

Jaimie even touches on this in his ABC Honesty video:

Actually, the conservation of energy was disproven long ago once nuclear power came into play. Before that, you are correct. The conservation of energy was assumed to be an irrefutable fact. Nuclear reactions caused it to be amended to include matter. We learn more and the facts change.

Jaimie does explain the philosophy well, although I do believe he would place the likelihood of over-unity much closer to zero than 100. I think that is all we are bantering back and forth about. I do consider it very unlikely, but I don't believe in discouraging people from learning. So it is basically say why I believe what I believe and move on, which I really need to do:)

Now, over-unity is bunk in my book, but I won't discourage others from pursuing it either. Follow yer folly, dangit! I sure do...

Have you heard of Flynn Parallel Path Magnet Technology? It's may or may not be real, many people who don't understand the principle make claims that it's an example of over-unity, but actually it appears to be simply a new way to make a more efficient electric motor by combining permanent magnet motor and brushless D.C. motor technology.

What is suspicious is that the technology has allegedly been bought and would seem either be stuck in development, or is being sat on by the people who own it. There are a few fairly convincing examples though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEvAOe2BBNQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs4GXH5Q3Rk

There are also rumors that it's available commercially in some new battery powered hand held tools, but I have not heard of that being substantiated. Allegedly, the manufacturers are hiding the fact for some reason. I hate to think that that could be true, if it exists this technology could contribute greatly to energy efficiency and alternative transportation!

Here is a website with a brief rundown. Check out the really basic experiment in figure 3:

http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/energy21/magnetictechnology.htm

That's one experiment I've been meaning to get to, but I already have a plethora of piniatas. Simple stuff, I certainly couldn't explain the results if it does work without looking to the explanation offered by Flynn...

i found this on the interwebs the other day, looks pretty nifty, if you lived out in the woods like Jaimie is and wired a few together you could get some nice power, granted It's simply the tree sap reacting with the metal. It's called a battery. And there are more efficient ways of making one, But i still think its an okay concept as you could keep the tree's alive and tap into a natural source of Energy.
Oh and im also thinking about making a solar Iphone/ipod charger, my ipod is pretty old like Jaimie's (actually i think we have the same one!) so in theory it should work with that, and also more modern versions like the iphone/ipod nano etc. any advice on how to get started? preferably cheap and able to ship to the UK/be in the UK, preferably England. i saw Jaimies video on it but wonder if theres anything more recent.
Jack

There is a good reason people are providing caution about over-unity. Over-unity tends to be a scam. What is really happening in every case I have seen so far is that a system is put together so that energy is stored, such as in a flywheel. It doesn't take much energy to keep the flywheel turning assuming it has very good bearings. You then see someone applying force to keep the flywheel spinning and they say look how much energy is in the flywheel and how little energy I am putting in to get that much spinning energy. We, the problem here is that the energy they are putting in is basically being summed up, while the energy being consumed is basically that lost through heat in the bearings. Yea, it is much easier to keep something spinning than it is to start something spinning. So when you see the video saying compare how much energy I am putting in to how much energy there is in the flywheel, remember that the flywheel is storing energy just like it was a battery.

Certainly investigate things for yourself, but make sure you understand energy and don't give someone money to fund the new miracle over-unity machine. All the cases I have ever seen are someone using the fact people don't understand where energy is going in and coming out of the system to fool them into investing. Of course, you also have the fake videos:)

The best source of energy is energy efficiency. It's always cheaper to reduce waste than to produce new energy from whatever means you want to. Once that is dine then you try and go for "green" power.

Air source and ground source heat pumps are just ways of making electric heat more efficient. I have an air source heat pump in my home and it uses about $250 worth of electricity per year to heat my house. Ground source heat pumps also uses electricity but even more efficiently. This is not the same as geothermal energy like they use in Iceland.

Wind and solar electric generation works better, in financial terms, on an industrial scale so you won't save money with these technologies but you will help save the earth. That is of course unless you build your own hardware!

In any case start with energy efficiency (unsexy things like insulation, air sealing, heat recovery air exchangers, drain water heat recovery systems, eliminating unneeded electronics, etc....) before trying to produce your own green power.

corrado33 wrote:It's the outside the box thinking that is needed. Like harnessing the power of the waves, or the ocean currents. That kind of stuff is what we need to think of. Even harnessing the power of bacteria that eat CO2 and produce O2 (if such bacteria existed) would be cool.

Actually, the one of oldest organisms on Earth do this and without them, there would be no life as we know it. They started producing O2 like 3,5 billion years ago. Wikipedia says they account for 20-30% of the global photosynthesis (accompanied by a citation needed) and their output is like 450 TW! I'm not sure about the numbers, all I know is that they're pretty awesome!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria#Carbon_fixation

So...

What do you plan on using the charged car batteries for?

Sounds like a good system to start with.

Keep us updated.

D.