Perpetual Motion behaviour claimed

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by t06afre, Jan 14, 2010.

  1. t06afre

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    [​IMG]
    Yesterday I read about the E-orbo in this forum. http://www.steorn.com/ It made me smile so it was worth the effort. But it also made me somewhat puzzled. What is the motivation behind those people claiming to have devices that shows Perpetual Motion behavior. Are they true scammers, or have they managed in some way to convince them selfs and their disciples. That the technology actually work. And from that point it is no point of return. They will only dig a deeper hole for them self trying to improve the impossible, and the persuade the sceptics. A more common way of speaking, will be to say that they have gone completely gaga.
     
  2. retched

    AAC Fanatic!

    Dec 5, 2009
    5,201
    312
    Perpetual motion is a lot like a religion. Once you have convinced a few believers (the ones with money), you can make a lot of money until it finally falls apart. People are still amazed by magnets and when they see something move on is own power, they think its going to make them rich and they invest...deeply.

    Your photo shows it all.
     
  3. t06afre

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    [​IMG]
     
  4. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    They seem to be implying more than perpetual motion. They claim over unity energy production with more energy released than consumed. They want to licence the technology to others who will be able to commercialize the technology. Hence, their motivation is money.

    When asked why they don't just take the output and feed it back to the input, in order to generate free energy, their answer is that they need a special battery to create proper current response, which is hard to do if you feed the power back. They claim that it should be possible to do if experts run with the technology.

    Basically, it's the classic "scam" story. As to whether they have deluded themselves and are victims of their own scam; that is hard to answer, or to prove.

    Prooving true over unity energy is very easy to do if you have something real. Simply start your machine with an energy source, route the output energy back to the input, and then remove the starting source. If the machine continues to do some significant real useful work for long extended periods of time, without energy loss within the system, then you've proved it. Note that the system must not lose internal energy, otherwise it is just an energy storage device (like a battery). It's so simple to do, but nobody ever does it. This simple method of proof should be a requirement not only for others, but for yourself. People can delude themselves even more easily than deluding others.

    The idea that it is hard to route output energy back to input energy is nonsense. There are very simple ways to do this if you have significant over unity power production. However, even if there is some reason why it's difficult to route energy back, solving that problem is just as important (or moreso) as the discovered effect, if you want to get free energy. If you can't route the output back and use it, then the technology is useless anyway.

    Let me apply Michael Shermer's Balony Detection Kit to their claim that this is evidence of free energy and that people should buy the rights of their technolgy and will be able to engineer working devices. I rate this claim as 6 or 7 out of 10 on the baloney scale. It's quite possible that if one digs deeper into the history of the people involved, 3 more points might be easily uncovered, but I'm giving them the benefit of my ignorance.

    1. How reliable is the source of the claim? Not enough data to judge.

    2. Does the source make other similar claims? Don't know.

    3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else? No.

    4. Does the claim fit with the way the world works? No.

    5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? No.

    6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point? Free energy is not possible, no effects that disprove this have been demonstrated.

    7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? No, they are using science as a tool to show interesting effects, but not trying to scientifically prove free energy is possible.

    8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence for the claim? No, only positive evidence of side effects.

    9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomenon as the old theory? No theory is provided at all. They say scientists will need to figure theories out later.

    10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim? Don't know.
     
  5. Paulo540

    Member

    Nov 23, 2009
    188
    0
    I love the 'testimonials from real engineers'

    notice how most of them are constantly looking away before every 'truth'

    lol.


    p.s. you shouldn't post a link, the government will make us all dissappear!
     
  6. t06afre

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    I suspect the so-called "real engineers'" are actors paid to do the job. I can not think an experienced engineer will do this, unless he/she are under a threat of death by being shot.
     
  7. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    It is quite possible to dupe real engineers and scientists. I once went to a lecture that was about how easily people can be deliberately or accidentally deceived. I saw this 20 years ago and the details escape me, but the shock I felt by the real life examples given are still with me to this day. One of the key points was about how experts are especially prone to deception. They believe their expertise makes them able to spot deception or flaws in logic. When they are unable to do so, they then conclude that the claim is correct. Or, perhaps they will simply state that they can't explain how it works, but that there must be something not understood. Either of these statements is useful to the people making the claim since it tends to lend credulity to their position.

    Also, every engineer and scientist is well aquainted with the history of true new discoveries. If we don't believe the unexpected is possible, then we might as well pack up our equipment and go into a different line of work. There is a real need to maintain an open mind if new discoveries are to be made. This is the crack that can be wedged open to allow an honest engineer or scientist to be fooled.

    Just look at the case of "cold fusion". Some very good and respected scientists came forward and showed they had results that seemed to mean something. They could find no flaws in logic or experiments and truly believed that they had something. They staked their reputations on a public release of the information, and then paid dearly when the claims could not be reproduced.

    There is a rule that guides us in these circumstances.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

    This law of common sense is needed by the layman and the expert, - both equally.
     
  8. Paulo540

    Member

    Nov 23, 2009
    188
    0
    ^ very well said
     
  9. Paulo540

    Member

    Nov 23, 2009
    188
    0
    After a full psyintific review, I have good news, and bad...

    Good news is, just in case you can't make 4 800mH toroids yourself and glue them to a Big gulp container, you can get in on the ground floor of this fantabulistical revolution, including full rights for only 500 Euro!

    Bad news... What bad news? pfft, y'all are such pessimists... It's all gravy baby! Buy now before this mother of all opportunities slips through your spiteful fingers!
     
  10. 3ldon

    Active Member

    Jan 9, 2010
    82
    3
    I work with a guy who believes you can get something from nothing.

    he had a 200 page notebook he would bring to work everyday, until he left it somewhere and we got our hands on it, it was full of crap he made up, chemical formulas with elements he made up... nitrogen powered cars.. magnet motors.. etc.

    The guy is a total air head, can't give you a straight answer to anything.
    But he is no scammer looking to make money, just completely deluded.
    He doesn't understand the first three laws of thermodynamics, nor how a refrigerator works, which I found rather surprising.
     
  11. VoodooMojo

    Active Member

    Nov 28, 2009
    503
    53
    back in high school(1966), a very good friend had a vision that he could crack the perpetual motion enigma.
    attached here is a basic concept of the revelation. There are probably 50 people in this forum that have contemplated this method.
    of course, back in the day, junk yards were full of cars with generators (not alternators) and voltage regulators (the kind with springs, coils and contacts, not 7812s). The cost was zero.

    44 years later he is still at it. Now he is chasing it on the molecular level, but at it none the less.
    I made fun of him, but wished him success. I assisted him, but with low expectations.
    I was after tangibles, logic and common sense. I have made it this far.
    He pursued wisps of fantasy with an undauntable optimism that if it is to be achieved, he would be the achiever.
    He has not yet captured the elusive dream but along the way he has earned degrees, has been awarded numerous patents, and has become a very learned and respected member of the scientific community.

    I have nothing but praise and admiration for those that chase the dream and devote energy and ability to the unexplainable or apparently unobtainable.

    I just refuse to finance them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2010
  12. t06afre

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    I think it is quite easy to be deluded, also be a victim of self-delusion. I once worked with a medical researcher. This researcher worked with an invention, that should be able to measure pain during general anaesthesia using skin conductance. For some years I created hardware and software for this person. Until I to my horror discovered that the so-called pain signal was nothing else than artificial signals caused by disturbance from other medical equipment. A thing I remember from this period was that then this researcher was contradicted, by other researcher testing the method. The contradiction was always brush aside, like they did not use the correct setting or methods, the researcher did not follow the protocol or had an unserious approach to work, and so on. Then the measurements done by this researcher did not appeared to be in accordance with this researcher theory, new theories where constructed so the results fitted to the existing theory. My fault was that I thrusted this researcher. My concern was to construct a working measurement system, not so much the measurement results. And most of the measurement results as I found out, was kept away from me or not shared with me.
    Even if this researcher has received about 141000 $ in government funding and private investments. I would not call this researcher a scammer. Because this researcher is a victim of a self-delusion that has able to mature for several years.
     
  13. retched

    AAC Fanatic!

    Dec 5, 2009
    5,201
    312
    True. Some people use drugs for fear of reality.
    Some people chase the unattainable for fear of poverty.

    People play the lotto thinking, "If i just hit it, I won't have a thing to worry about in life."

    Now engineers, unfortunately, have a bigger skill set to use (opposed to choosing aniversarys and kids ages for lotto) to try to hit their "lottery".

    If you put as much money into perpetual motion/energy projects as the lottery, you will win the lottery first.

    I makes more sense to play the lottery, the results will come sooner.

    BUT, it can be a heck of an education.
     
  14. t06afre

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    I found this quote on the net here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3251665
     
  15. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    That might solve the energy crisis.
     
  16. Paulo540

    Member

    Nov 23, 2009
    188
    0
Loading...