Perpetual Energy Machine Getting Lots of Attention 965
Many users have written to tell us about a magnetic machine promising "infinite clean energy". Engadget has the first picture of the device and is reporting that the announcement (along with a short video) of this supposed device will be released later tonight. "CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.' He goes on to say 'It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real.'" In my experience if something seems too good to be true it generally is. I wouldn't get your hopes up.
pft (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know where they're getting their energy from, but I cannot even fathom the possibility that it defies the law of conservation of energy.
A more open technology... (Score:2, Interesting)
Under the terms of a modified general public licence and for a nominal fee, Steorn's intellectual property will be made available concurrently to all interested parties, from individual enthusiasts to larger research organisations. Steorn is taking this bold move to accelerate the deployment and acceptance of its technology for both humanitarian and commercial products.
Re:Stop It (Score:5, Interesting)
We need a magnetic field. But isn't like there is a finite amount of energy stored that you are using up like a battery. The magnetic field is powered by a gravity generator and that generator is going to keep running whether you utilize the energy output or not.
The big question is how much energy would you have to draw from the earth's magnetic field it makes any significant different. When you consider how tiny the global energy demands are compared to the actual energy stored in the stable matter of earth, I have a feeling that the result will be a very substantial amount.
Re:Mr. Madison... (Score:5, Interesting)
"That's just completely incoherent - the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy in a closed system is constant OVER TIME. How can it possibly leave out time?"
Hell effing yes. dE/dt = flux through the boundary, that's conservation of energy. If the system is isolated, the righthand side is zero, but it is still a statement about energy AND TIME.
Rock on, you crazy thermo-knowing poster. Rock on.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
The only clear claim is that it's "magnetic" in nature. They have stated that they've created magnetic fields such that you can traverse them and arrive back at the same point with more energy, which is provably impossible in a static magnetic field. So they need a dynamic field - either through their own creation (which, I'm pretty sure, would still leave you in a zero-sum game at best), or through an external field changing like, say, the earth. They have played up the earth angle at times, speaking about fluctuations and comparing it to gravity in an article linked from TFA.
But a big argument against this line of reasoning is that they keep playing up how it breaks physical laws, and if this was the case it would be an extremely easy to understand concept, well in keeping with physical laws. The only catch is that the effect would likely be incredibly tiny, and they probably wouldn't get on the front page of slashdot with such a claim.
Still, it's possible we're all wrong and there'll be egg on our faces tomorrow. But I don't think I'll be putting my bets on that just yet.
New creation .. (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, Rudy Rucker [wikipedia.org] in the 'Edge Question' [edge.org] 2007: "Endless free energy will flow from the subdimensions. And, by using subdimensional shortcuts akin to what is now called quantum entanglement, we'll become able to send information over great distances with no energy cost. In effect the whole world can become linked like a wireless network, simply by tapping into the subdimensional channel."
CC.
Dead giveaway... (Score:5, Interesting)
Right across the top is their angle on events:
Between Shows > Our Next Show : starts July 5th, world's first free-energy demonstration
However, despite it being a piece of entertainment, the company are serious. See this story [www.rte.ie] from Ireland, where they are based: "The company stumbled upon the technology while working with wind turbines to power remote surveillance CCTV cameras for ATM."
They discovered it by accident! That's how all the best inventions are conceived.
Wanted: Anti-Stock (Score:2, Interesting)
I've seen it... (Score:1, Interesting)
Perhaps now that something similar may be commercially available, I can distribute some well deserved I told you so's....
Your all well aware Energy will always exist in one form or another, it does not disappear it just changes forms, all perpetual energy should take in my assumption, is one method of using the energy to power something, and the resulting transformed state of the energy to be converted to the original form, or a cycle of multiple transformations where the energy in its state is used and then whatever using it in that way converts it to is used again until it reaches one of the original forms in the cycle. Now thats just a blunt assumption by my very uneducated mind, so before you go on a flame war with the scientific inaccuracy/non technicality of that, keep in mind thats just a blunt unscientific theory of an uneducated person.
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:1, Interesting)
Really? I'm not saying he does, but I'm really interested in this evidence, can you give some examples?
Beware of this company (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stop It (Score:4, Interesting)
1. there must be a conducting fluid;
2. there must be enough energy to cause the fluid to move with sufficient speed and with the appropriate flow pattern;
3. there must be a "seed" magnetic field.
The magnetosphere is also the reason we're all still alive, and why Earth has an atmosphere. I can think of almost nothing more environmentally unsound than monkeying around with this field, of course this silly 'perpetual motion' machine will have a de minimis effect, but it's a bad precedent. If the field ever changes enough to endanger reason #3, we're cooked.
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been thinking intently about that subject for about 20-25 years now. I've even changed "sides" once (and haven't changed back). I daresay I've thought about it more than many or even most people. I only feel like I can maybe claim that because of how startlingly ignorant many people on either side of the issue seem to be of the other side. The theists I've known have typically had their minds completely closed to the other point of view, sometimes unwilling to think about themselves, and in a few cases ready to attack and/or ostracize someone who thinks too far outside the box. And the atheists I've known, for their part, have often rejected Christianity (which religion I mention because I live in the US, where it's the dominant religion) without having a good understanding of it, often naming some element of Christian theology as the reason they can't accept it when it turns out that element is something most mainstream Christian theologians wouldn't say is a legitimate part of Christianity.
I have a hard time thinking there is "really strong" evidence that God isn't real. "Really strong", to me, sounds too close to "compelling". I'm not saying there aren't some very good arguments in favor of the idea that God isn't real. But all the ones I've seen are based on some metaphysical assumptions (usually hidden assumptions) that someone is taking as self-evident even though there are logically defensible alternate views.
In case anyone thinks I'm saying the above because I support the other side, I should mention I don't think there is any "really strong" evidence for the existence of God either, which is part of why I'm an atheist.
Re:Use finesse (Score:5, Interesting)
And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake.
The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that does not make it more believable. Either it is a clever hack to extract energy from fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field (which I don't believe) or it is just a scam. That stuff about changing magnetic fields "faster than the universe can notice" is pure babble, it does not explain how you could generate energy.
To generate energy, you have to either
Just don't mix your matter and antimatter cold :-)
I've seen this pattern before (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone has been able to really make this work, well I'll be truely amazed.
Such a device does not have to be violating the laws of thermodynamics. For example, the device could be getting energy from somewhere via some mechanism we don't fully understand yet.
A hundred years ago nobody would have considered that you could get energy from mass via E=mc^2 and we'd be awfully arrogant as a species to think we have all of physics figured out.
Infinite energy and global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
consider the long-term ramifications of an
infinite energy source.
If there was all of this abundant energy available,
it would be put to work, and the net result is heat.
Lots of it.
Homo Sapiens has already proven they can't manage
what they have now.
An infinite energy source would likely result in
massive global problems, likely not survivable.
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:4, Interesting)
If atheism is similar to not collecting stamps, why is there not a specific word for people who do not collect stamps ?
In any case, weak atheism (lack of belief in a god) and strong atheism (belief that there is no god) are quite different, so referring to them both as "atheism" is very likely to lead to this kind of pointless arguments over semantics. Consequently I recommend either using the word "agnosticism" for weak atheism and preserving the word "atheism" for strong atheism only, or always specifying whether one is speaking of weak or strong atheism when talking about them. It will cut off the etymological crap and allow us to jump right to the religious flamewar ;).
Re:But you're a person of faith too (Score:1, Interesting)
But (playing devil's advocate) that's exactly what people of religious faith claim.
Hindus believe in karma. You do something bad, you will get bad karma and it'll eventually catch up with you, and in nearly all cases, this is true, wouldn't you say? In the times when it doesn't appear to be the case, it's either an internal struggle (that you may or may not find out about after the person is dead...we've all heard of private battles) or it'll show up in the next life.
Buddhists believe that the world is an illusion and if you're able to detach yourself from it, you won't suffer. This is true. If you don't give a damn about anything, you consistently won't suffer (by definition). The fact that complete detachment is impossible, is a matter of faith.
Various non-protestant branches of the catholic religion believe that life is a test where we "prove our worth" and that every hardship has a gift if you belief it exists. It's most certainly the case that we're tested in life. It's also obvious that if you look for meaning, you can either find it or create it. (e.g. if you lose a child due to drunk driving, you can dedicate your life to making sure it doesn't happen to anyone else).
I could go on through all the most common religions, but you get the point.
BTW, Newton's scientific method is a way of thinking...a conceptual model and there's nothing magical about it being any more correct than non-Newtonian models of thinking. It's inherently inductive (meaning, you might just not run across the counterexample yet) since falsifiability is crucial to scientific validation, you may end up proving something that is false (i.e. Godel's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel's_theorem [wikipedia.org] states that some thing just can't be proved false or true). It works well enough in the world to trust in it, but it's not God.
lots of ways to tap hidden power (Score:3, Interesting)
The Earth's magnetic field wanders. Use that.
There are various gyroscopic-like things related to the Earth's orbit and rotation, particlarly having to do with things not being all planar. Use that.
1.0 ** -64 seconds (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how fast you have to be.
I call bullshit on the ignorant article
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:4, Interesting)
First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite.
Before I address this, I need to clarify it, since obviously this is not a conclusion that would be reached by any modern logic (since, as mentioned there can be multiple infinite things). If, however, you assume that God has volume and takes up space, and "infinite" equals "encompassing all that exists" (which appears to be the kind of conclusion that a lot of early theologians seem to reach), then this is a lot more interesting a claim.
However, I see no real problem here. God could be present in every single atom and watching over every single particle interaction, but choosing not to participate in some - letting creation do its own thing, so to speak. In essence, creation would be made up of part of God, who chooses not to exert control over that part of himself, and instead let it work on its own. The major religions you speak of have no trouble with the idea that God can incarnate - how is this much different?
I don't see at all how the rest of the arguments follow the first one, but having addressed that first claim, we can move on.
Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with.
Or that you're definition of "state" is wrong. Time and space are one thing. If God is omnipresent, then he should be omnitemporal as well. All of the "states" of time could be one state - the perfect state in which God exists.
Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability.
Obviously the argument is for immutability, not perfection. It is taken as a given that perfection implies immutability.
This is a much better thought out argument, but still, ignores the omnitemporality of God. The *change* in those things implies change. Over the course of all time and space (which as I have said, could encompasses one "instant" of existance for God), there would be just one state. One set of thoughts, one set of emotions, one desire for the creation - in essence, one picture of all that is, was or will be. Of course, I can't really picture what exactly that means for an omnitemporal being, so I can't say how it works, other than that your definition of perfection can hold.
Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change!
I think I've pretty well established the flaw in this part.
It's very hard to logically reconcile these concepts while still believing that God sent his son to die for our sins, because he wants humanity to be saved.
I don't see a problem...I can draw in two dimensions, though I am three dimensional, and perceive a single point in a fourth dimension. The effect I can exert on a dimensionality less than my own shows a very different aspect than one would see if they could observe me in full. So in our religions, we see a God who cares about us in a specific moment - which is perhaps a limited aspect of reality.
It can be correct from the limited point of view that is available, though not enough to show a complete picture.
Coriolis machines (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes and No (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can believe that. I work at a place where salt is extracted from sea water via solar evaporation. Every bit of steel in the place--including stainless steel--is pretty thoroughly rusted. The amount of maintenance required to keep the machinery up and running is astonishing.
Right-On!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Everybody is cranking out lots of criticisms and such, but you just know everybody is still going to be paying attention on July 5th!
Typically with over-unity claims which actually make the news, there is a big press release and gab-fest, and then a few weeks later the inventor vanishes from view never to be heard from again.
I recall one gentleman in Japan, Kohei Minato, three years back who had managed to garner a lot of positive press with his funky spinning wheels. He had an Irish minister of some sort pay him a visit and descriptions of his free-spinning wheel [rexresearch.com] are really cool. (The coolest item is in the last fifth of the page at the bottom.) He generated some modest interest in 2004 when a journalist was significantly impressed with his work and published an article (copied at the link above). I wonder what happened to Mr. Minato. I've not heard a peep about him since then. If he's in jail, it's not the kind you get put in for fraud, because then there would be some record of his being prosecuted. Perhaps its one of those special prisons they have for people who dare to tap into some forbidden energy source the petrochem companies don't want anybody to know about. There are tales of inventors being kidnapped at gunpoint. I know a guy who worked for an agency whose job it is to kill scientists. But hey, shhhhh. Stuff like is entirely not real. I'm only joking. Really. Joking. Shhhh. Plausible deniablility. Cuz the guy is just gone. There's nothing on the man that isn't three years old.
Well, actually, I did hear one peep. There was a fellow inquiring after Minato, claiming to have last seen him in Japan in December of 2006. Apparently, Mr. Minato has been offered a production facility in another country. But that could be just the background noise of the grand ol' internet. Who's to say?
Anyway. . , if this Orbo thing is a scam, you can bet it's a great one. Their showing has been really patient and well-crafted thus far. I'm so happy they're still around a year after their first announcement. I mean, think about how much effort is being expended here; it involves a large number of people who are all towing the line. Scientists, and production staff, and PR people. If this is a scam, it's much, much larger than any other over-unity claim, which usually only involve one or two people working in a garage. According the the wonderful world of wikkipedia, Steorn invited a democratically selected member of a forum to visit their facility, and they wowed her with a bunch of smoke and mirrors. This is so rich! Damn, I'm excited!
I wonder, if it's all scammy, how they've worked out how to not go to jail for fraud? Is it illegal to lie to your investors? Maybe they'll all claim it was just an elaborate test of the PR abilities, a cosmic joke to see who they could fool, and that really, no money changed hands. Who knows?
Or if they've got some kind of device on their hands which draws energy from somewhere else, like the Earth's magnetic field as some have suggested, then. . , hey, is that cool or what? They've done enough high-profile press work to perhaps not get vanished. (Though I wouldn't count on it.) Either way, Steorn is putting on a helluva neat show. This is pulp science at its best! It reminds me of my favorite period in fiction; the late 1700's, early 1800's, when steam and flying contraptions and "Watson, get the pistols!" was the way science was conducted. A showing of a revolutionary new technology in an art gallery? Are you serious?! Well, damn, let me get my top hat and cane! These days are sorely lacking adventure in science. Too few pith helmets and too much slick corporate chrome.
So, rock-on, Steron! I can't wait to see what you pull out of your hat! And if you actually have something genuine, a word of advice: Opensourcing it would keep you from getting killed by the Bad Men. If you don't have
Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: (Score:2, Interesting)
What about concrete? There are some designs that make a concrete chamber placed half under water. When a wave rises, it compresses the air in the chamber, which in turn drives a regular turbine. If the water level sinks again, it pulls air in via the turbine, so you profit from both directions.
That way you avoid at least direct contact with the salt water. I can imagine the air carries enough salt water to corrode the turbine too, but much slower, plus it stays better accessible for maintenance.