RE: Free energy
Has anyone read Newton and the laws of thermodynamics?
Seraph
RE: Free energy
If I read the Wikipedia entry, does that count?
If you are suggesting that free energy is impossible 'cos Newton says so, maybe you should read the Wikipedia entry for Copernicus.
What science says is irrefutable truth is fine until somebody comes along and refutes it.
RE: Free energy
ORIGINAL: chupichulo
Wehave always been told that atoms are little bobbles of stuff with a nucleus and anything from one to 110 electrons orbiting around it. I've come across some who say this is an outmoded view and the findings of modern physics don't know whether theelectronis a particle or a wave etc etc. My conclusion is that nobody really knows what they are talking about.
Too true. All are theories, with the exception that some measurements have been made. e.g. They have managed to measure the nucleus of an atom compared with the overall size of an atom. (Imagine an atom as a sphere with a 100m diameter (easy to imagine asmost of us used to run 100m races at school sports). Now imagine a grain of sand 1mm in diameter in the middle of that sphere. That is the nucleus size in comparison to the size of the whole atom).
Science has not been able to actually see an electron although they have been able to photograph atoms using electron scanning techniques (search the web for "atom photographs" to see plenty of examples).
The different models of electrons around the nucleus has changed over time. The one we classically learn in school, mainly due to it's simplicity, is the Bohr model. Here's how it's changed over time...
1803 - Dalton model - Indivisible particle
1897 - Early atom seen as a "plum pudding"
1909 - Rutherford - Positively charged nucleus surrounded by mostly empty space
1913 - Bohr - Electrons in energy levels
1950's - Various researchers -Charge cloud model (present model)
The bohr model is not something to be dismissed though. Quantum physics shows that electrons can only exist at certain "quantum levels" around the nucleus, so although their exact position cannot be determined, the electrons are "known" (and I use that term lightly) to jump between differing quantum charge levels without passing through any intermediate level, i.e. they cease to exist in one level and appear in the other. (It's the same technology principles used in the creation of things like compact flash cards you use in digital cameras or the USB flash pens used on computers etc.; electrons jumping from one side of a barrier to the other without passing through the barrier. smart eh! ;))
Iftheelectrons are spinning round the nucleus, what powers them? The difference in their electric charge.
If you take basic particle physics principles, then there's no need for anything to "power" them. A particle in motion will retain its momentum until some other force comes along and alters it. At the level of the electrons they're motion is not being resisted by anything and so they have no reason to slow down, thus requiring no further "power" to keep them in motion. It's a bit like satellites around the earth in space. In theory they require no power to keep them in orbit as there is no atmosphere slowing them down. In reality, there are some very small things that slow them down such as the solar winds etc. and as such they usually have solar panels to give them enough power to just have a little extra boost when they need it (although a lot of them are just left to slow down and crash into the atmosphere)
And before you wonder what keeps the electrons in "orbit" around the nucleus, this is simply that the electrons hold a negative charge and the protons (in the nucleus) hold a positive charge, and just like magnets, the opposite charges attract.
The key to free energy, and this seems to me to be so obvious, is magnetism. I put two alike poles of a magnet together and they move apart. Harness that motion and you've got your free energy.
Eeee, if only it were that simple. To get the two magnets to come close enough together to cause a repelling motion requires energy to bring the
RE: Free energy
Raising the magnet to provide energy is thermodynamically inefficent. It is very similar to a hydroelectric dam when the water is sometimes pumped back to the top at nightime. It is useful as a storage mechanism for peak power but it takes more energy to pump it back up to the top than is gained by it falling.
Free enegy is a misnomer, as energy is neither created or destroyed. When coal is burnt energy is converted from one form to another and entropy increases. This is no different from nuclear energy be it fission or fusion. The energy given off by these processes is far greater but no more "free".
It is stastically improbable for Entropy to decrease in a closed system.
Perhaps in the future generations will learn how to tap other more exotic sources of energy such as the vacum energy of space however this will still increase entropy.
Stanley Meyer - hoaxer. Why not just go through a peer review because there is no basis to his claims.
Electron is a wave and it is a particle. These are models to help us understand how nature works. These models are correct to the extent that modern technology relies on our fundamental understanding, otherwise how would your computer, tv microwave etc work.
Seraph
RE: Free energy
ORIGINAL: seraphsleeping
Raising the magnet to provide energy is thermodynamically inefficent. It is very similar to a hydroelectric dam when the water is sometimes pumped back to the top at nightime. It is useful as a storage mechanism for peak power but it takes more energy to pump it back up to the top than is gained by it falling.
Yep, that's what I said. Although you can obtain the energy of the repelling magnets you have to overcome the amount of energy required to put them in position in the first place.
Free enegy is a misnomer, as energy is neither created or destroyed. When coal is burnt energy is converted from one form to another and entropy increases. This is no different from nuclear energy be it fission or fusion. The energy given off by these processes is far greater but no more "free".
I wouldn't strictly say that Free Energy is a misnomer. Yes, of course energy just converts from oneform to another, but you could say that harnessing solar power is Free (once you get back the cost (energy and moneywise) of creating the solar panel).
It is stastically improbable for Entropy to decrease in a closed system.
Indeed, but is everything a closed system? (If you want to talk about that I would suggest another thread ;))
Stanley Meyer - hoaxer. Why not just go through a peer review because there is no basis to his claims.
A little harsh to call dead people names methinks. No basis to his claims eh? That would require ultimate knowledge of everything that is possible, which I don't think you have do you?
Electron is a wave and it is a particle. These are models to help us understand how nature works. These models are correct to the extent that modern technology relies on our fundamental understanding, otherwise how would your computer, tv microwave etc work.
Indeed, and damn useful those models have been too.
Doesn't mean that they are accurate or fully correct, but they work for what we need them for.
Love and Reiki Hugs