Free energy?

"Captain! We're nearing sales!"
"Bravo Ensign, you're going to be paid well for this."
"'Lo sir, off the starboard, we're getting roll!"
"What is this, that it is?"
"Captain! The Boson mates are rallying the seaman! We've terribly upset them this time!"
"What? Tell them to get back to work!"
"Captain, they're revolting! The Enginmen have abandoned their posts! Fires are rapid!"
"Fires, Ensign?!"
"Captain, the fermion fighters say they can't be bothered!"
"Christ, they're supposed to be... ugh! We're sinking Ensign! Cling to me!"
 
Last edited:
Cyphermage said:
Exactly like Xenon Fluoride. For years, every chemistry book in the world said "The Noble Gases form no compounds, because their electron shells are full." Then someone acually tried to make some compounds, using fluorine, which forms compounds with every other element of the periodic table. Quelle surprise!
Click to expand...

VSEPR is an approximation due to the diffuculty of proper quantum mechanics solutions. Phosphorus pentafluoride doesn't follow VSEPR either.

Cyphermage said:
Noble gas compounds are bound only by Van Der Waals forces, in which the electric dipole moments that the electron clouds induce in one another have a small attraction to each other. This bonding mechanism was poorly understood back when there were no known Noble Gas compounds, and the tendency to think of all bonding in terms of ionic and covalent led people to exclude the possibility.
Click to expand...

And metalic bonds, though I suppose chemists don't usually care about those.

Cyphermage said:
I always think of this whenever people say things about the Second Law of Thermodynamics or mass/energy conservation or overunity generators.
Click to expand...

The difference here being that conservation of energy is the strongest theory in science, and the second law is based on statistics. Where as Pauling predicted noble gas compounds might exist 30 years before they were made.
 
Dilb said:
The difference here being that conservation of energy is the strongest theory in science, and the second law is based on statistics. Where as Pauling predicted noble gas compounds might exist 30 years before they were made.
Click to expand...

Obviously I should get in on the ground floor and predict overunity generators might exist, perhaps leading to my undying fame 30 years in the future. :p
 
Yoink said:
What I'm getting at is this: say you suddenly discover that you have a source of infinite free energy in your pantry (no, not your pants!). From the point of view of maximizing your economic advantage (let us assume you're averagely selfish) would you be wiser to incorporate, patent, and market and leave the scientific community's confirmation to follow? Assuming that what your discovery revealed was a fundamental aspect of the physical world that could be exploited in a number of different ways, could you in fact develop a patent that would prevent other people from exploiting the same thermodynamic loophole without needing your approval? Might you gain some patent-protected time by going directly to market before publishing your findings?
Click to expand...

On the Question of Patents, a lot depends on where you want to patent it. Some countries give you a "grace period" (typically 6-12 months) after a public disclosure like publication to file for a patent, others demand "strict novelty", in which any prior publication bars you from getting a patent. So if you did develop such a device, it would probalby be best to file before you publish, to ensure you don't lose some rights.

One thing with a patent is, you don't have to know exactly how a device does what it does, so long as you can show it actually does it. Theory quite often lags behind a practical demonstration. Consider the high-temperature superconducters that were discovered about the same time the cold fusion thing was brewing up. We didn't have a theory as to how they worked, but anyone who sat down and tried it could see that they did work, unlike the cold fusion business.

Also, with something that's as new and revolutionary as this would be, you're often granted a very broad patent, that reflects your contribution to the art. Later developements in a mature field are often granted much narrower patents, as more things are considered to be obvious as more is learned. So you could get some pretty good protection, I expect.
 
Cyphermage said:
Exactly like Xenon Fluoride. For years, every chemistry book in the world said "The Noble Gases form no compounds, because their electron shells are full." Then someone acually tried to make some compounds, using fluorine, which forms compounds with every other element of the periodic table. Quelle surprise!

Noble gas compounds are bound only by Van Der Waals forces, in which the electric dipole moments that the electron clouds induce in one another have a small attraction to each other. This bonding mechanism was poorly understood back when there were no known Noble Gas compounds, and the tendency to think of all bonding in terms of ionic and covalent led people to exclude the possibility.

I always think of this whenever people say things about the Second Law of Thermodynamics or mass/energy conservation or overunity generators.
Click to expand...

I am not an inorganic chemist, but I recall that the bonding in XeF2 does involve electron sharing. Three molecular orbitals are formed. The bonding and nonbonding are filled, the antibonding is empty. The net bonding is strange (two electrons shared in a three-atom bond) but positive. This results in a stronger bond than a Van der Waals interaction.
 
Horatius said:
On the Question of Patents, a lot depends on where you want to patent it. Some countries give you a "grace period" (typically 6-12 months) after a public disclosure like publication to file for a patent, others demand "strict novelty", in which any prior publication bars you from getting a patent. So if you did develop such a device, it would probalby be best to file before you publish, to ensure you don't lose some rights.
Click to expand...
In the UK any prior disclosure of the idea can make a patent pretty iffy:
If you are thinking of applying for a patent you should not publicly disclose the invention before you file an application because this could be counted as prior publication of your invention. Any type of disclosure (whether by word of mouth, demonstration, advertisement or article in a journal), by the applicant or anyone acting for them, could prevent the applicant from getting a patent. It could also be a reason for having the patent revoked if one was obtained. It is essential that the applicant only makes any disclosure under conditions of strict confidence. (Source)
Click to expand...
I think that pretty much the same law applies in all countries that are signatories to the European Patent Convention, which includes Ireland. The point is moot though. According to Steorn's website, "the technology is patent pending", so it looks as though they've already made an application.
 
We need a couple of magicians on that panel.

There was a guy in India claiming to make petrol from herbs. (No cooking , no heating Just shake herbs in water for two minutes and Hey Presto!!)

Took a lot of people in. Then someone analysed the petrol and found - Tetra Ethyl Lead!!

Guy was later jained for stealing and selling petrol.

Any halfbaked magician could probably have caught him.
 
paiute said:
I am not an inorganic chemist, but I recall that the bonding in XeF2 does involve electron sharing. Three molecular orbitals are formed. The bonding and nonbonding are filled, the antibonding is empty. The net bonding is strange (two electrons shared in a three-atom bond) but positive. This results in a stronger bond than a Van der Waals interaction.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was thinking of the bonding in condensed noble gases, not the bonding in compounds that they form.
 
Mojo said:
In the UK any prior disclosure of the idea can make a patent pretty iffy: I think that pretty much the same law applies in all countries that are signatories to the European Patent Convention, which includes Ireland. The point is moot though. According to Steorn's website, "the technology is patent pending", so it looks as though they've already made an application.
Click to expand...

Well, the EPC is a bit more forgiving than that, but not as forgiving as we are here in Canada. The EPC rules on prior disclosure are at:

http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar55.html

So you can have a 6 month grace period, but only for certain types of disclosures.

As for the Steorn's patent pending, I haven't found anything on this yet. That isn't too surprising as there's usually an 18 month delay between filing and publication, so it may be filed, but not published yet. I did find one earlier application of theirs, filed in the US and under the International Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in Sept. 2005. See the US application at:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html

and search on number 20060066428

This one looks legitimate. It's some sort of magnetic switch, and seems to work on principles similar to those I've seen in fiber optic switches. So they do seem to have done some serious work....Or they're really laying some ground work to look legitimate ;)
 
The terms "greater than unity output" and "over 100% efficient" have only ever been used by those in the perpetual motion community. If such a device existed it's efficiency would be found, in the same way as any other device, as the ratio of it's actual output to the theoretical maximum output and would never be over 100% efficient since this contradicts the definition of efficient.

Any person making these claims must have read about or been involved with other people who worked on perpetual motion. Since all previous claims have been either misunderstandings of basic physics or outright fraud, all claims involving these terms must be suspect. Any person genuinely developing an entirely new technology would presumably use their own new terms, or at least those of mainstream science, not those of proven frauds.
 
I am here to state that I have stumbled upon a way of getting completely free energy in a way that flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyone believe me? Of course not. So why believe this bunch? Does owning a company or hiring some engineers or putting an advert in a paper make their claim better than mine? All we have from them are words - claims that they can do X, claims that unamed scientists have validated their claims, claims that they will demonstrate it. And absolutely nothing else.

If it were a weird loner from Idaho the press wouldn't even report it. Only some perceived status and a publicity stunt have us talking. I remain entirely skeptical.
 
Splossy said:
Anyone believe me? Of course not. So why believe this bunch? Does owning a company or hiring some engineers or putting an advert in a paper make their claim better than mine? All we have from them are words - claims that they can do X, claims that unamed scientists have validated their claims, claims that they will demonstrate it. And absolutely nothing else.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. There's also the claim that the scientists are too frightened to admit it works.
 
Cuddles said:
The terms "greater than unity output" and "over 100% efficient" have only ever been used by those in the perpetual motion community. If such a device existed it's efficiency would be found, in the same way as any other device, as the ratio of it's actual output to the theoretical maximum output and would never be over 100% efficient since this contradicts the definition of efficient.
Click to expand...
The often-cited "Coefficient of Performance" (CoP) is similarly a perversion of a measurement applicable to heat pumps and refrigeration machines. Perpetual motion pushers wish, of course, to use adequately convoluted language, which usually entails the appropriation of legitimate jargon, to obscure the fact that what they're really saying violates much well-established science.

But then, technical precision is no impediment to a sufficiently motivated perpetuator of perpetual motion.

'Luthon64
 
There was Joe Newman and his energy machine (still on the web).

Then there was this guy, perhaps 5? years ago, who made national headlines after he reported he discovered how to stop gravity. And in the photos were objects hovering in his lab. But somehow, the guy forgot to document all the procedures that led to this discovery, and he was never able to replicate it.
 
Iamme you are a believer, aren't you ?

Well I can produce the anti gravity thingy, and send you a film. Hint : just glue the desk on where you "leave" the object standing upside down, then put a magnet in all object you want to "fly" and one below the desk. Then without EVER showing your body remove the magnet under the desk while filming the object. TADAM !!!! You have an object on film which seems to fly up. Only in reality it fall down.

As for the other free energy scam, they are just that. Or people not being able to really calculate efficiency. Oh and before you start with a "maybe but this guy on the net said...", well I have a bridge to sell you. None of those guy with free energy have a peer review on how they get the effect, or even a peer review of the item to show efficiency > 1, and i bet none try the obvious stuff : if you have a eff > 1, just hook back the item itself. Or if for some reason you can't do it to itself, just build two and hook back one in the other, then sell the FRE ENERGY back to energy company (hook the grid) then use the money to buy 2 more, sell the electricity etc...

Within a few year those guy would be so stinkingly reach that they could spit on bill gates and other top milliardaire.

Think two second logically and ask yourself why they never do it.
 
Kaarjuus said:
In the US Patent Office, you can skip the showing part as well.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah, I meant "show" in a philosophical sense....or something:D .

That's one of the problems with the present day patent systems. We don't have the resources to actually test any of these things, so we're usually required to accept their assertions at face value, usless we can clearly show why we shouldn't. It's left up to the courts, who have the power to compel witnesses, and who can cross-examine experts, to ultimately decide if a patented device works.

Although the USPTO does occasionally get it right. Click on the "Image File Wrapper" tab to see the history of a related application. Don't ask me why they didn't have this guy examine the first one too. If you look at the examiner's reports and the responses, you can get a feel for how much work it is to refute these sorts of applications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom