PDA

View Full Version : Official Silence About Free Energy


galexander
07-16-2010, 12:15 PM
Putting aside the dogmas of orthodox physics, there is an abundance of evidence that proves that free energy exists in direct contravention of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Take for example the simple case of capillary action. A fluid rises up a capillary tube of its own accord as a result of the surface tension in the meniscus of the fluid. And yet no energy is expended by either the capillary tube or the fluid within the tube in raising the weight of fluid concerned.

But if work is done in raising the weight of fluid up the inside of the capillary tube, where does the energy come from? For the Law of the Conservation of Energy to apply energy must be drawn from a “reservoir” somewhere within the system of fluid/capillary tube and yet this clearly does not happen.

It is interesting to consider at this point that the Law of Conservation of Energy cannot in anyway be derived from first principles, it is merely an assumption. For the early physicists it was tempting to assume that such a principle applied and in many situations Conservation does seem to apply. However just because Conservation applies in some situations, it is not logical to assume that it must therefore apply in all situations encountered in the observable universe. Its much like stating the following, “Because all the swans I have ever seen are white, all swans must therefore be white.” Of course there is such a thing as a black swan which native to Australia.

Consider also an additional example: A large meteorite in outer space becomes captured by the Earth’s gravitational pull. It begins to hurtle towards the Earth and passing through its atmosphere its immense speed causes it to burn up and when eventually it strikes the ground it leaves a crater and causes a seismic shockwave which is felt for miles around.

It is obvious that the meteorite gained a significant amount of kinetic energy from the Earth’s gravitational pull and it was this energy in the form of velocity that caused it to burn up, cause a crater and create a seismic shockwave. But logic would dictate that if the Earth’s gravitational field gave energy to the meteorite surely an economy should be involved where the energy given to the meteorite should exactly equal what was lost by a central reservoir? However the Earth’s gravitational field does not lessen after such an event and neither does the Earth’s mass decrease. So where does the energy come from?

Classical physicists got around this problem by stating that before being captured by the Earth’s gravitational pull, the meteorite already possessed ‘potential energy’ which was simply converted into kinetic energy on the way down. But is this nothing more than a theoretical bodge?

Considering the evidence that free energy must exist in theory, how could we go about harnessing it for useful purposes? I am certain there must be many, many different ways of doing this, the only significant obstacle in the way is dogma. How many physics professors are there out there who are willing ‘to stick their head above the crowd’ and speak out on such an issue?

But surely the existence of a free energy which evidently permeates the entire universe is a golden opportunity for mankind who is now living on a polluted planet where the oil prices are spiralling ever higher and higher? Unfortunately it seems we live in a world where the leading economies are hopelessly addicted to oil and where government advisors are completely indoctrinated by outmoded and half-baked principles.

jane doe
07-17-2010, 11:24 AM
Most economic positions are based upon the the intent of monopoly. If free energy cannot be harvested thru congress to a corporate monopoly, it won't be provided for all the people.

BlueAngel
07-17-2010, 07:29 PM
Most economic positions are based upon the the intent of monopoly. If free energy cannot be harvested thru congress to a corporate monopoly, it won't be provided for all the people.

FREE ENERGY cannot and will never be harvested through CONGRESS to a coporate monopoly because it is FREE.

Thus, the reason it is hidden from public knowledge and the point of Gale's post.

In any event, we thank you for your input.

FallaciesAbound
07-18-2010, 03:25 AM
Wow, I havent seen misunderstanding of physics like that since my parents made me go to a Baptist elementary school.

Capillary action, though on the surface appearing to be spooky, is really quite simple. Water has very strong intermolecular attractions that come into play. This is why you have surface tension, and is the reason that water forms a meniscus. It is this intermolecular attraction that draws the liquid up the tube until it achieves equilibrium with the gravity pulling the liquid down. There may be a way to harness the energy of the molecular attraction, but it is a pretty tiny force all things considered. I doubt you will be driving a car on it anytime soon.

The meteorite problem is a bit thornier, give how it was presented. So maybe for the sake of clarity I should simply re-write the narrative the correct way. A meteorite that is caught in the Earth's gravity well certainly does receive quite a bit of a boost to its kinetic energy, but so does the Earth. Just to a lesser extent. Remember that the force exerted is the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. So while the meteorite gains energy due to gravitational acceleration, so too does the Earth, but to a far smaller degree owing to the far larger mass of the Earth. The energy isnt drained out of some reservoir like draining a battery, because gravitational attraction is a fundamental property of all matter. In fact, the Earth's gravity well becomes a tiny bit stronger after impact because the meteorite's mass is added to that of the Earth's.

Now we already do take advantage of gravity to provide huge amounts of power. In fact, most of Las Vegas is powered in such a manner. Its called hydro-electric. Dams make use of gravity to generate their power, and do it quite efficiently. Of course you have to get the water up there first, and nature provides this part. So really, even hydro-electric is actually solar powered.

Gravity can also be used in storing energy. The excess energy from solar cells can be used to pump water uphill behind a dam to be released later for power generation. Renewable energy companies have been doing this for years

jane doe
07-19-2010, 06:27 AM
In any event, we thank you for your input.

The input is free energy, the internet connection is not. The energy is free, yet the obtainment is not.

galexander
07-19-2010, 11:48 AM
Wow, I havent seen misunderstanding of physics like that since my parents made me go to a Baptist elementary school.

Capillary action, though on the surface appearing to be spooky, is really quite simple. Water has very strong intermolecular attractions that come into play. This is why you have surface tension, and is the reason that water forms a meniscus. It is this intermolecular attraction that draws the liquid up the tube until it achieves equilibrium with the gravity pulling the liquid down. There may be a way to harness the energy of the molecular attraction, but it is a pretty tiny force all things considered. I doubt you will be driving a car on it anytime soon.

The meteorite problem is a bit thornier, give how it was presented. So maybe for the sake of clarity I should simply re-write the narrative the correct way. A meteorite that is caught in the Earth's gravity well certainly does receive quite a bit of a boost to its kinetic energy, but so does the Earth. Just to a lesser extent. Remember that the force exerted is the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. So while the meteorite gains energy due to gravitational acceleration, so too does the Earth, but to a far smaller degree owing to the far larger mass of the Earth. The energy isnt drained out of some reservoir like draining a battery, because gravitational attraction is a fundamental property of all matter. In fact, the Earth's gravity well becomes a tiny bit stronger after impact because the meteorite's mass is added to that of the Earth's.

Now we already do take advantage of gravity to provide huge amounts of power. In fact, most of Las Vegas is powered in such a manner. Its called hydro-electric. Dams make use of gravity to generate their power, and do it quite efficiently. Of course you have to get the water up there first, and nature provides this part. So really, even hydro-electric is actually solar powered.

Gravity can also be used in storing energy. The excess energy from solar cells can be used to pump water uphill behind a dam to be released later for power generation. Renewable energy companies have been doing this for years

I think FallaciesAbound its a simple case of your not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Trying to blind us with pointless scientific detail isn't much use at all.

In the case of the capillary tube you still didn't explain where the energy reservoir came from or whether it could be depleted. In fact you didn't even DENY that free energy was possible in the example since you claimed it wasn't powerful enough to run a car on.

As for the gravity example, having the Earth accelerate as well just makes the situation worse. You now have twice as much energy to explain away. Presumably the Earth itself had 'potential energy' when it accelerated towards the meteorite?

BlueAngel
07-19-2010, 07:08 PM
The input is free energy, the internet connection is not. The energy is free, yet the obtainment is not.

Did I just hear some needy person seeking attention say something?

Nah.

Didn't think so cause she's Jane Doe and she's dead.

jane doe
07-20-2010, 02:19 AM
Didn't think so cause she's Jane Doe and she's dead.

:p your behavior is funny and entertaining.....well done 'in deed'. :)

FallaciesAbound
07-21-2010, 01:52 PM
Do you even bother to research a little to see if the question you asked can already be satisfactorily answered? I did explain where the energy comes from, but you missed it somehow. So.....

"The cohesive forces among the liquid molecules are responsible for this phenomenon of surface tension. In the bulk of the liquid, each molecule is pulled equally in every direction by neighboring liquid molecules, resulting in a net force of zero.The molecules at the surface do not have other like molecules on all sides of them and consequently they cohere more strongly to those directly associated with them on the surface. This attraction between molecules forms a surface "film" which makes it more difficult to move an object through the surface than to move it when it is completely submerged."
"Surface tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension) pulls the liquid column up until there is a sufficient mass of liquid for gravitational forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_force) to overcome the intermolecular forces."

It is surface tension that causes the liquid to draw up the tube. There may be a way to harness this energy in some way, but it is a very tiny force which is only cabable of moving a few milliliters of water a few centimeters. IT does not seem likely that this will ever comprise any substantial power source.

As for your reservoir idea of energy....it doesnt really work that way with gravitation. Imagine I throw a baseball at a target. Chemical energy in my muscles is converted into kinetic energy to move my arm, and some of this energy is transferred to the ball. As the ball travels through the air, some of the energy is also transfered in the form of friction. Ultimately the ball strikes the target, and the original chemical energy has been converted to kinetic. This is where you are getting your "reservoir" idea, and it is perfectly accurate in this arena.

Gravity works a little differently. All matter distorts the fabric of spacetime and attracts all other matter. What determines the strength of the attraction is the mass of the objects and the distance between them. There is no conversion of energy really, so there is no "reservoir" to be depleted. Every atom of matter in the universe is constantly attracting every other bit of matter in the universe, simultaneously. This attraction causes an acceleration as two objects get closer and the force of gravity increases. This causes an apparent increase in the kinetic energy of the objects, but this is coming from the attraction itself and not the conversion of energy from one type to another. Since gravitational attraction is an essential property of all matter, there is no reservoir to drain or account for.

BlueAngel
07-21-2010, 11:13 PM
:p your behavior is funny and entertaining.....well done 'in deed'. :)

Yes.

Ha, ha.

I do agree.

My behavior is funny and entertaining and well done, "in deed" and as serious as serious can be.

:p

galexander
07-22-2010, 12:10 PM
:p your behavior is funny and entertaining.....well done 'in deed'. :)

This might just be a set-up but has someone just been caught using Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)?

'In deed'.

galexander
07-22-2010, 12:19 PM
Do you even bother to research a little to see if the question you asked can already be satisfactorily answered? I did explain where the energy comes from, but you missed it somehow. So.....

"The cohesive forces among the liquid molecules are responsible for this phenomenon of surface tension. In the bulk of the liquid, each molecule is pulled equally in every direction by neighboring liquid molecules, resulting in a net force of zero.The molecules at the surface do not have other like molecules on all sides of them and consequently they cohere more strongly to those directly associated with them on the surface. This attraction between molecules forms a surface "film" which makes it more difficult to move an object through the surface than to move it when it is completely submerged."
"Surface tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension) pulls the liquid column up until there is a sufficient mass of liquid for gravitational forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_force) to overcome the intermolecular forces."

It is surface tension that causes the liquid to draw up the tube. There may be a way to harness this energy in some way, but it is a very tiny force which is only cabable of moving a few milliliters of water a few centimeters. IT does not seem likely that this will ever comprise any substantial power source.

As for your reservoir idea of energy....it doesnt really work that way with gravitation. Imagine I throw a baseball at a target. Chemical energy in my muscles is converted into kinetic energy to move my arm, and some of this energy is transferred to the ball. As the ball travels through the air, some of the energy is also transfered in the form of friction. Ultimately the ball strikes the target, and the original chemical energy has been converted to kinetic. This is where you are getting your "reservoir" idea, and it is perfectly accurate in this arena.

Gravity works a little differently. All matter distorts the fabric of spacetime and attracts all other matter. What determines the strength of the attraction is the mass of the objects and the distance between them. There is no conversion of energy really, so there is no "reservoir" to be depleted. Every atom of matter in the universe is constantly attracting every other bit of matter in the universe, simultaneously. This attraction causes an acceleration as two objects get closer and the force of gravity increases. This causes an apparent increase in the kinetic energy of the objects, but this is coming from the attraction itself and not the conversion of energy from one type to another. Since gravitational attraction is an essential property of all matter, there is no reservoir to drain or account for.

A large oak tree uses capillary action to daily raise gallons of water to its leaves and yet the tree expends no energy at all in lifting this weight.

You say the energy comes from surface tension and attraction between molecules (which is self-evident) but the point is where does this energy come from if conservation is to apply?

The simple logic is therefore that this energy must come from a 'reservoir'.

You say gravity is curved spacetime but please don't forget this is just a theory which not necessarily everyone agrees with.

If there is no 'reservoir' from which the energy comes from in the case of gravity, doesn't this prove that free energy exists?

Q.E.D.?

FallaciesAbound
07-22-2010, 10:38 PM
Ah, so you are one of those that confuses "Just a theory" with "Just a hypothesis". I used to be one of those.

Actually, trees dont use capillary action to raise the water from root to leaf. This would be quite impossible, since the highest you can go with capillary action is about 30 ft. Trees use a combination of hydrostatic pressure and osmotic interchange to move the water up.

As for what creates the surface tension which drives capillary action, you should have simply googled intermolecular attraction.

London dispersion forces (Instantaneous dipole/ induced dipole)

Main article: London dispersion force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force)
The London dispersion force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force) otherwise known as quantum induced instantaneous polarization (one of the three types of van der Waals forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force)) is caused by instantaneous changes in the dipole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole) of atoms, caused by the location of the electrons in the atoms' orbitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital). The probability of an electron in an atom is given by the Schrödinger equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation). When an electron is on one side of the nucleus, this side becomes slightly negative (indicated by δ-); this in turn repels electrons in neighbouring atoms, making these regions slightly positive (δ+). This induced dipole causes a brief electrostatic attraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_force) between the two molecules. The electron immediately moves to another point and the electrostatic attraction is broken..
London Dispersion forces are typically very weak (see the comparison below) because the attractions are so quickly broken, and the charges involved are so small.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction#cite_note-0)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intermolecular_force&action=edit&section=2)] Dipole-Dipole Interactions

Dipole-Dipole interactions, also called Keesom interactions after Willem Hendrik Keesom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Hendrik_Keesom), are caused by permanent dipoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole) in molecules. When one atom is covalently bonded to another with a significantly different electronegativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity), the electronegative atom draws the electrons in the bond nearer to itself, becoming slightly negative. Conversely, the other atom becomes slightly positive. Electrostatic forces are generated between the opposing charges and the molecules align themselves to increase the attraction (reducing potential energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy)).
An example of dipole-dipole interactions can be seen in hydrogen chloride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_chloride):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Dipole-dipole-interaction-in-HCl-2D.png/200px-Dipole-dipole-interaction-in-HCl-2D.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipole-dipole-interaction-in-HCl-2D.png)
This is not an example of hydrogen bonding (see below) because the chlorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine) atom is not electronegative enough.
Note that almost always the dipole-dipole interaction between two atoms is zero, because atoms rarely carry a permanent dipole, see atomic dipoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole#Atomic_dipoles).
Often, molecules can have dipoles within them, but have no overall dipole moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dipole_moment). This occurs if there is symmetry within the molecule, causing the dipoles to cancel each other out. This occurs in molecules such as tetrachloromethane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachloromethane).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intermolecular_force&action=edit&section=3)] Hydrogen bonding

Main article: Hydrogen bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond)
Hydrogen bonds are a stronger form of dipole-dipole interactions, caused by highly electronegative atoms. They only occur between hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) and oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen), fluorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine) or nitrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen),[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction#cite_note-1) and are the strongest intermolecular force. The high electronegativities of F, O and N create highly polar bonds with hydrogen, which leads to strong bonding between hydrogen atoms on one molecule and the lone pairs of F, O or N atoms on adjacent molecules. The high boiling point of water is an effect of the extensive hydrogen bonding between the molecules:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Hydrogen-bonding-in-water-2D.png/200px-Hydrogen-bonding-in-water-2D.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen-bonding-in-water-2D.png)
For quite some time it was believed that hydrogen bonding required an explanation that was different from the other intermolecular interactions. However, reliable computer calculations that became possible during the 1980s have shown that only the four effects listed above play a role, with the dipole-dipole interaction being particularly important. Since the four effects account completely for the bonding in small dimers like the water dimer, for which highly accurate calculations are feasible, it is now generally believed that no other bonding effects are operative.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Hydrogen bonds are found throughout nature. In water the dynamics of these bonds produce unique properties essential to all known life-forms. Hydrogen bonds, between hydrogen atoms and nitrogen atoms, of adjacent DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) base pairs generate intermolecular forces that improve binding between the strands of the molecule. Hydrophobic effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobic_effect) between the double-stranded DNA and the solute nucleoplasm prevail in sustaining the double-helix structure of DNA.

As for gravity, sure, you can certainly glean some energy by properly utilizing it. Hydro-electric dams for starters. But remember, the energy from those comes from the sun ultimately. Hopefully you can see how.

galexander
07-23-2010, 12:11 PM
Ah, so you are one of those that confuses "Just a theory" with "Just a hypothesis". I used to be one of those.

Actually, trees dont use capillary action to raise the water from root to leaf. This would be quite impossible, since the highest you can go with capillary action is about 30 ft. Trees use a combination of hydrostatic pressure and osmotic interchange to move the water up.

As for what creates the surface tension which drives capillary action, you should have simply googled intermolecular attraction.

London dispersion forces (Instantaneous dipole/ induced dipole)

Main article: London dispersion force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force)
The London dispersion force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force) otherwise known as quantum induced instantaneous polarization (one of the three types of van der Waals forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force)) is caused by instantaneous changes in the dipole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole) of atoms, caused by the location of the electrons in the atoms' orbitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital). The probability of an electron in an atom is given by the Schrödinger equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation). When an electron is on one side of the nucleus, this side becomes slightly negative (indicated by δ-); this in turn repels electrons in neighbouring atoms, making these regions slightly positive (δ+). This induced dipole causes a brief electrostatic attraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_force) between the two molecules. The electron immediately moves to another point and the electrostatic attraction is broken..
London Dispersion forces are typically very weak (see the comparison below) because the attractions are so quickly broken, and the charges involved are so small.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction#cite_note-0)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intermolecular_force&action=edit&section=2)] Dipole-Dipole Interactions

Dipole-Dipole interactions, also called Keesom interactions after Willem Hendrik Keesom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Hendrik_Keesom), are caused by permanent dipoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole) in molecules. When one atom is covalently bonded to another with a significantly different electronegativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity), the electronegative atom draws the electrons in the bond nearer to itself, becoming slightly negative. Conversely, the other atom becomes slightly positive. Electrostatic forces are generated between the opposing charges and the molecules align themselves to increase the attraction (reducing potential energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy)).
An example of dipole-dipole interactions can be seen in hydrogen chloride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_chloride):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Dipole-dipole-interaction-in-HCl-2D.png/200px-Dipole-dipole-interaction-in-HCl-2D.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipole-dipole-interaction-in-HCl-2D.png)
This is not an example of hydrogen bonding (see below) because the chlorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine) atom is not electronegative enough.
Note that almost always the dipole-dipole interaction between two atoms is zero, because atoms rarely carry a permanent dipole, see atomic dipoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole#Atomic_dipoles).
Often, molecules can have dipoles within them, but have no overall dipole moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dipole_moment). This occurs if there is symmetry within the molecule, causing the dipoles to cancel each other out. This occurs in molecules such as tetrachloromethane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachloromethane).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intermolecular_force&action=edit&section=3)] Hydrogen bonding

Main article: Hydrogen bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond)
Hydrogen bonds are a stronger form of dipole-dipole interactions, caused by highly electronegative atoms. They only occur between hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) and oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen), fluorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine) or nitrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen),[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction#cite_note-1) and are the strongest intermolecular force. The high electronegativities of F, O and N create highly polar bonds with hydrogen, which leads to strong bonding between hydrogen atoms on one molecule and the lone pairs of F, O or N atoms on adjacent molecules. The high boiling point of water is an effect of the extensive hydrogen bonding between the molecules:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Hydrogen-bonding-in-water-2D.png/200px-Hydrogen-bonding-in-water-2D.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen-bonding-in-water-2D.png)
For quite some time it was believed that hydrogen bonding required an explanation that was different from the other intermolecular interactions. However, reliable computer calculations that became possible during the 1980s have shown that only the four effects listed above play a role, with the dipole-dipole interaction being particularly important. Since the four effects account completely for the bonding in small dimers like the water dimer, for which highly accurate calculations are feasible, it is now generally believed that no other bonding effects are operative.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Hydrogen bonds are found throughout nature. In water the dynamics of these bonds produce unique properties essential to all known life-forms. Hydrogen bonds, between hydrogen atoms and nitrogen atoms, of adjacent DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) base pairs generate intermolecular forces that improve binding between the strands of the molecule. Hydrophobic effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobic_effect) between the double-stranded DNA and the solute nucleoplasm prevail in sustaining the double-helix structure of DNA.

As for gravity, sure, you can certainly glean some energy by properly utilizing it. Hydro-electric dams for starters. But remember, the energy from those comes from the sun ultimately. Hopefully you can see how.

Thank you for blinding us with scientific detail once more.

However you forgot to tell us where the energy ultimately comes from on a molecular level for the Law of Conservation of Energy to apply.

If you can't then the energy must be 'free'.

FallaciesAbound
07-23-2010, 05:58 PM
Thank you for blinding us with scientific detail once more.

However you forgot to tell us where the energy ultimately comes from on a molecular level for the Law of Conservation of Energy to apply.

If you can't then the energy must be 'free'.
Actually, I did. I am sorry, but if you cant read a few paragraphs, you will never understand complex ideas. THe simple, and wildly incomplete answer is, that it is the asymmetrical intermolecular attraction that occurs at the surface of the liquid. In water, the hydrogen atoms are always trying to bond to the oxygen atoms in other molecules. Because it is already firmly bonded to its own oxygen molecule, there is not enough energy to actually bond, but there is enough for a fairly strong attractive force to exist. Your definition of "free" energy seems to me to be a bit skewed. As I said, you could theoretically use this as a very small energy source (ever put a drop of soap on a toothpick and watch it move on the surface of calm water?) but that is about the only application for it.

Hope that was simple enough for you.:D

BlueAngel
07-23-2010, 09:04 PM
This might just be a set-up but has someone just been caught using Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)?

'In deed'.

Please elaborate further, Gale, if you can, as to why you consider Jane Doe's use of the words "in deed" as Neuro-Linquistic Programming and what problem this presents for you, if you do, "in deed" have a problem with it.

galexander
07-24-2010, 03:59 AM
Please elaborate further, Gale, if you can, as to why you consider Jane Doe's use of the words "in deed" as Neuro-Linquistic Programming and what problem this presents for you, if you do, "in deed" have a problem with it.

You're the one who claims to be a victim of mind control and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, not me.

galexander
07-24-2010, 04:01 AM
Actually, I did. I am sorry, but if you cant read a few paragraphs, you will never understand complex ideas. THe simple, and wildly incomplete answer is, that it is the asymmetrical intermolecular attraction that occurs at the surface of the liquid. In water, the hydrogen atoms are always trying to bond to the oxygen atoms in other molecules. Because it is already firmly bonded to its own oxygen molecule, there is not enough energy to actually bond, but there is enough for a fairly strong attractive force to exist. Your definition of "free" energy seems to me to be a bit skewed. As I said, you could theoretically use this as a very small energy source (ever put a drop of soap on a toothpick and watch it move on the surface of calm water?) but that is about the only application for it.

Hope that was simple enough for you.:D

I strongly detect that you are attempting to hide behind a cloud of scientific obscurity.

I put the question to you again: does capillary action drain these molecules of energy causing them to measurably cool for example?

BlueAngel
07-24-2010, 11:26 AM
You're the one who claims to be a victim of mind control and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, not me.

I asked YOU a question, GALE, about a statement YOU made and not about any statement you claim I have made regarding NLP.

galexander
07-25-2010, 04:07 AM
I asked YOU a question, GALE, about a statement YOU made and not about any statement you claim I have made regarding NLP.

Doesn't the very fact that you keep repeating "in deed" give the game away?

You obviously think its a joke as well.

BlueAngel
07-26-2010, 04:07 PM
Ah, Gale.

I think you're confused.

It was Jane Doe whom you said was repeating the words, "in deed" and inferred that she was using NLP programming, but now you're saying that I'm repeating the words "in deed."

HUH?

Please, Gale, try to remember that which you write so I don't have to remind you.

I think it is you who considers it a game and a joke inasmuch as I inquired of you as to why you considered that Jane Doe was using NLP programming through the use of her repetition of the words "in deed" and you have not yet answered other than to insinuate that since I'm a mind control victim and, because you believe I've spoken about NLP, I should answer the question that I posed to you.

Sorry, pal.

But, that's not the way it happens around these parts.

You accused Jane Doe of using NLP programming with her use of the words "in deed" on numerous occassions.

I asked you to explain.

You didn't.

Instead you deflected.

Now, you, sir, are called to task and not me.

You made the claim that Jane Doe was using NLP progrmaming with her use of the words "in deed."

You made the claim.

Now you need to explain it.

Explain why you think the words "in deed" as used by Jane Doe on numerous occasions are considered by you to be NLP programming.

Don't deflect my question to you unto me.

galexander
07-27-2010, 11:56 AM
Ah, Gale.

I think you're confused.

It was Jane Doe whom you said was repeating the words, "in deed" and inferred that she was using NLP programming, but now you're saying that I'm repeating the words "in deed."

HUH?

Please, Gale, try to remember that which you write so I don't have to remind you.

I think it is you who considers it a game and a joke inasmuch as I inquired of you as to why you considered that Jane Doe was using NLP programming through the use of her repetition of the words "in deed" and you have not yet answered other than to insinuate that since I'm a mind control victim and, because you believe I've spoken about NLP, I should answer the question that I posed to you.

Sorry, pal.

But, that's not the way it happens around these parts.

You accused Jane Doe of using NLP programming with her use of the words "in deed" on numerous occassions.

I asked you to explain.

You didn't.

Instead you deflected.

Now, you, sir, are called to task and not me.

You made the claim that Jane Doe was using NLP progrmaming with her use of the words "in deed."

You made the claim.

Now you need to explain it.

Explain why you think the words "in deed" as used by Jane Doe on numerous occasions are considered by you to be NLP programming.

Don't deflect my question to you unto me.

Everything I have said so far on the subject is quite self-evident and not in need of further explanation.

You will not succeed in hounding further information out of me, mainly because there isn't any available.

BlueAngel, you are clearly wasting time AND space.

And I would directly contradict what you have just said, you DID repeat "in deed" and in a mocking, sarcastic manner, indicating quite plainly that you didn't take the subject seriously at all.

jane doe
07-28-2010, 09:32 AM
2 characters.

galexander
07-28-2010, 11:50 AM
2 characters.

And a third considering you said it in the first place.

"In deed".

And I should have pointed out to BlueAngel that not only has this discussion been a waste of time but also a waste of 'ENERGY'.

BlueAngel
07-28-2010, 05:13 PM
And a third considering you said it in the first place.

"In deed".

And I should have pointed out to BlueAngel that not only has this discussion been a waste of time but also a waste of 'ENERGY'.

You started the discussion.

Therefore, you can blame yourself for wasting your time and energy.

BlueAngel
07-28-2010, 05:29 PM
Everything I have said so far on the subject is quite self-evident and not in need of further explanation.

You will not succeed in hounding further information out of me, mainly because there isn't any available.

BlueAngel, you are clearly wasting time AND space.

And I would directly contradict what you have just said, you DID repeat "in deed" and in a mocking, sarcastic manner, indicating quite plainly that you didn't take the subject seriously at all.

You haven't said anything about NLP that is self-evident because, as you said, you don't know anything about NLP so, how on earth could you possibly point out anything about NLP that is self-evident when, in your own words, you don't know anything about it?

Confused much?

I'll say.

You just figured Jane Doe was using NLP with her repetition of the words, "in deed," even though you don't know anything about NLP.

Okay, whatever, Gale,

I guess all of this somehow plays into your theory that the Space Shuttle and ISS don't exist.

Delusional?

Obviously, you don't take the subject of NLP seriously, because you don't know anything about it.

You are clearly wasting time and space, Gale, because, when I questioned your accusations about Jane Doe using NLP, instead of expounding, you tried to detract by pointing your finger at me because I used the words "in deed" one time and because I WAS a mind control victim, you somehow thought I was responsible for elaborating as to your suggestion that Jane Doe was using NLP.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works around these parts, pal.

You suggested that Jane Doe was using NLP; you pointed it out; I questioned you; you are the one who needs to answer and not me.

As I said, you can try to detract by pointing your finger at me, but, it is not I who suggested Jane Doe was using NLP.

It was you.

If you didn't have any further information available about NLP other than randomly suggesting a member might be using it, and didn't want me to hound you further, you shouldn't have stated what you did.

Clearly, you know not of what you speak.

That, my friend, is the only self-evidence you have provided.

BlueAngel
07-28-2010, 05:31 PM
Jane Doe responds, "2 characters."

Gale responds, and a third considering you said it in the first place.

Okay, whatever.

BlueAngel
07-28-2010, 06:03 PM
Here's a suggestion, Gale.

Next time you insinuate that a member of this forum is using NLP, as if it is detrimental, you need to be able to explain what NLP is and why this apparently presents a problem for you or anyone else.

Otherwise, you're just wasting this forum's space.

jane doe
07-29-2010, 09:07 AM
And a third considering you said it in the first place.

"In deed".


You haven't researched the posts between Blue Angel and myself. I used the term "in deed" after Blue Angel.

I have also used the term "2 characters" because I tried to erase my post and the notations required me to write 2 characters. :p

Blue Angel, do you have the copywrite for "whatever" same as "huh?", copywrite Blue Angel.

galexander
07-29-2010, 12:38 PM
You haven't said anything about NLP that is self-evident because, as you said, you don't know anything about NLP so, how on earth could you possibly point out anything about NLP that is self-evident when, in your own words, you don't know anything about it?

Confused much?

I'll say.

You just figured Jane Doe was using NLP with her repetition of the words, "in deed," even though you don't know anything about NLP.

Okay, whatever, Gale,

I guess all of this somehow plays into your theory that the Space Shuttle and ISS don't exist.

Delusional?

Obviously, you don't take the subject of NLP seriously, because you don't know anything about it.

You are clearly wasting time and space, Gale, because, when I questioned your accusations about Jane Doe using NLP, instead of expounding, you tried to detract by pointing your finger at me because I used the words "in deed" one time and because I WAS a mind control victim, you somehow thought I was responsible for elaborating as to your suggestion that Jane Doe was using NLP.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works around these parts, pal.

You suggested that Jane Doe was using NLP; you pointed it out; I questioned you; you are the one who needs to answer and not me.

As I said, you can try to detract by pointing your finger at me, but, it is not I who suggested Jane Doe was using NLP.

It was you.

If you didn't have any further information available about NLP other than randomly suggesting a member might be using it, and didn't want me to hound you further, you shouldn't have stated what you did.

Clearly, you know not of what you speak.

That, my friend, is the only self-evidence you have provided.

I would like to make the following points:

1. I never claimed to be an expert on Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

2. Why should I be obliged to explain to all what NLP is when it can be found easily enough on the internet?

3. I would like to remind you this thread is NOT on the subject of NLP but on FREE ENERGY.

Please.

BlueAngel
07-30-2010, 09:30 PM
You haven't researched the posts between Blue Angel and myself. I used the term "in deed" after Blue Angel.

I have also used the term "2 characters" because I tried to erase my post and the notations required me to write 2 characters. :p

Blue Angel, do you have the copywrite for "whatever" same as "huh?", copywrite Blue Angel.

Yes.

I do have the copywrite for "whatever" and "huh."

There isn't any research required between our posts, Jane Doe, in order to come to any conclusion regarding your use of the words "in deed" whether you used them after me or not.

The communication between YOU and I is irrelevant.

(i.e., it reveals nothing).

As I advised Gale, don't attempt to point YOUR finger at me for that which clearly belongs to you.

You used the words, "in deed."

I didn't.

Again, another deflector.

The same as Gale.

Please explain your statement that you used the words "in deed" after BlueAngel.

Can't wait for this one.

BlueAngel
07-30-2010, 09:37 PM
I would like to make the following points:

1. I never claimed to be an expert on Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

2. Why should I be obliged to explain to all what NLP is when it can be found easily enough on the internet?

3. I would like to remind you this thread is NOT on the subject of NLP but on FREE ENERGY.

Please.

Points are noted.

However, since YOU are the MEMBER of CC who, on this thread, accused Jane Doe of using NLP, you are RESPONSIBLE for explaining why you are under the impression that Jane Doe's repetition of the words, "in deed," suggested to YOU that she was using NLP; what NLP is and why you believe that NLP is not a GOOD thing.

I would like to remind you that YOU are the person who interjected the subject of NLP in this thread.

Therefore, I suggest you remind yourself that NLP isn't what this thread is about and that you should refrain, in the future, from commenting about another subject matter on a thread which does not include that matter, if you do not desire a discussion about that subject matter to ensue.

BlueAngel
07-30-2010, 10:54 PM
Jane Doe,

You have stated that your response, "2 characters," was in answer to a prompt you received from the forum to include two characters, because you tried to erase your post and this is what the forum requested.

My suggestion is that the next time you find yourself in this predicament, it would be beneficial if you would explain such instead of writing "2 characters" as if you are responding to another poster's comments.

The amuzing part is that Gale responded to you as such:

"and "a third," considering you wrote it in the first place."

galexander
07-31-2010, 10:07 AM
Most economic positions are based upon the the intent of monopoly. If free energy cannot be harvested thru congress to a corporate monopoly, it won't be provided for all the people.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy by monopolists which would technically be illegal?

Microsoft for example has had problems from the monopolies commissions.

In theory, at least, the government would be on the side of Free Energy if, of course, it could be proved it did exist.

galexander
08-02-2010, 11:48 AM
Points are noted.

However, since YOU are the MEMBER of CC who, on this thread, accused Jane Doe of using NLP, you are RESPONSIBLE for explaining why you are under the impression that Jane Doe's repetition of the words, "in deed," suggested to YOU that she was using NLP; what NLP is and why you believe that NLP is not a GOOD thing.

I would like to remind you that YOU are the person who interjected the subject of NLP in this thread.

Therefore, I suggest you remind yourself that NLP isn't what this thread is about and that you should refrain, in the future, from commenting about another subject matter on a thread which does not include that matter, if you do not desire a discussion about that subject matter to ensue.

Just to let you know BlueAngel, I happened to see an excerpt of "The X-Files Movie" recently where Fox Mulder questions a contact and asks him if he has been involved in "kiddie porn".

Didn't you accuse me of being involved in the production and distribution of child pornography on the basis that I had used the expression "kiddie porn" which is a term that only insiders of the industry use?

So presumably the script writer of The X-Files must be involved in child pornography himself?

I think not however.

Bad luck BlueAngel but nice try though.

BlueAngel
08-02-2010, 09:18 PM
Just to let you know BlueAngel, I happened to see an excerpt of "The X-Files Movie" recently where Fox Mulder questions a contact and asks him if he has been involved in "kiddie porn".

Didn't you accuse me of being involved in the production and distribution of child pornography on the basis that I had used the expression "kiddie porn" which is a term that only insiders of the industry use?

So presumably the script writer of The X-Files must be involved in child pornography himself?

I think not however.

Bad luck BlueAngel but nice try though.

I NEVER accused you of being involved in kiddie porn.

Get your facts straight before you accuse another of accusing you of something of which they did not accuse you.

Bad luck, Gale, but nice try.

P.S. Need I remind you that you, yourself, have again strayed from the topic of this thread.

BlueAngel
08-02-2010, 10:55 PM
Are you suggesting a conspiracy by monopolists which would technically be illegal?

Microsoft for example has had problems from the monopolies commissions.

In theory, at least, the government would be on the side of Free Energy if, of course, it could be proved it did exist.

I can't believe you title your thread "Official Silence About Free Energy," suggesting there is a conspiracy to hide it and then say that if it were proven to exist, the government would support it.

Please tell us who you think is suppressing the reality of FREE ENERGY that you say exists.

galexander
08-03-2010, 11:58 AM
I NEVER accused you of being involved in kiddie porn.

Get your facts straight before you accuse another of accusing you of something of which they did not accuse you.

Bad luck, Gale, but nice try.

P.S. Need I remind you that you, yourself, have again strayed from the topic of this thread.

You obviously have a short memory.

And, to answer your second point, I could hardly create a new thread for this single comment.

galexander
08-03-2010, 11:59 AM
I can't believe you title your thread "Official Silence About Free Energy," suggesting there is a conspiracy to hide it and then say that if it were proven to exist, the government would support it.

Please tell us who you think is suppressing the reality of FREE ENERGY that you say exists.

I was using rhetoric.

At the best of times the government has a slight case of split personality.

BlueAngel
08-05-2010, 02:09 AM
I was using rhetoric.

At the best of times the government has a slight case of split personality.

Your response in no way was about the government having a split personality and it wasn't rhetoric, either.

It was exactly as I called it.

Another contradictory post by Gale.

BlueAngel
08-05-2010, 02:11 AM
You obviously have a short memory.

And, to answer your second point, I could hardly create a new thread for this single comment.

I don't have a short memory.

However, you apparently have no memory.

Long or short.

You said I accused you of being involved in kiddie porn.

Provide back-up or refrain from accusing me of something of which I did not say.

galexander
08-05-2010, 12:39 PM
I don't have a short memory.

However, you apparently have no memory.

Long or short.

You said I accused you of being involved in kiddie porn.

Provide back-up or refrain from accusing me of something of which I did not say.

You're either an unconvincing liar or have a psychological condition.

BlueAngel
08-06-2010, 07:56 PM
You're either an unconvincing liar or have a psychological condition.

I'm an unconvincing liar or have a psychological condition because you can't provide evidence wherein, according to you, I said that you were involved in "kiddie porn."

Okay, whatever.

BlueAngel
08-06-2010, 08:14 PM
You obviously have a short memory.

And, to answer your second point, I could hardly create a new thread for this single comment.

If you can't find the thread to which your comment relates and find it necessary to post an off-topic reply on a thread which addresses another subject matter, I would suggest, as I have previously, that you refrain from reprimanding other members for straying off topic when they respond to your comments when you are the poster who initiated the stray.

galexander
08-07-2010, 04:34 AM
If you can't find the thread to which your comment relates and find it necessary to post an off-topic reply on a thread which addresses another subject matter, I would suggest, as I have previously, that you refrain from reprimanding other members for straying off topic when they respond to your comments when you are the poster who initiated the stray.

For all I know you have already deleted those posts.

BlueAngel
08-07-2010, 08:22 AM
For all I know you have already deleted those posts.

I highly doubt it.