Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Science
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-16-2010, 12:15 PM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Question Official Silence About Free Energy


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.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-17-2010, 11:24 AM
jane doe jane doe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 356
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-18-2010, 03:25 AM
FallaciesAbound FallaciesAbound is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 125
Talking Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-19-2010, 06:27 AM
jane doe jane doe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 356
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-19-2010, 11:48 AM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by FallaciesAbound View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-20-2010, 02:19 AM
jane doe jane doe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 356
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Didn't think so cause she's Jane Doe and she's dead.
your behavior is funny and entertaining.....well done 'in deed'.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-21-2010, 01:52 PM
FallaciesAbound FallaciesAbound is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 125
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

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 pulls the liquid column up until there is a sufficient mass of liquid for gravitational forces 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2010, 12:10 PM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane doe View Post
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'.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-22-2010, 12:19 PM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

Quote:
Originally Posted by FallaciesAbound View Post
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 pulls the liquid column up until there is a sufficient mass of liquid for gravitational forces 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.?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-22-2010, 10:38 PM
FallaciesAbound FallaciesAbound is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 125
Default Re: Official Silence About Free Energy

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
The London dispersion force otherwise known as quantum induced instantaneous polarization (one of the three types of van der Waals forces) is caused by instantaneous changes in the dipole of atoms, caused by the location of the electrons in the atoms' orbitals. The probability of an electron in an atom is given by the Schrödinger 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 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]
[edit] Dipole-Dipole Interactions

Dipole-Dipole interactions, also called Keesom interactions after Willem Hendrik Keesom, are caused by permanent dipoles in molecules. When one atom is covalently bonded to another with a significantly different 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).
An example of dipole-dipole interactions can be seen in hydrogen chloride:

This is not an example of hydrogen bonding (see below) because the 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.
Often, molecules can have dipoles within them, but have no overall 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.
[edit] Hydrogen bonding

Main article: Hydrogen bond
Hydrogen bonds are a stronger form of dipole-dipole interactions, caused by highly electronegative atoms. They only occur between hydrogen and oxygen, fluorine or nitrogen,[2] 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:

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]
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 base pairs generate intermolecular forces that improve binding between the strands of the molecule. Hydrophobic effects 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.