 |
|
05-09-2008, 07:53 PM
|
#121
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
|
Wow. Even scrolling through that site at high speed makes your brain creep out.
That seems to be happening a lot lately!
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
|
|
|
 |
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
05-09-2008, 08:03 PM
|
#122
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,764
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette
|
Wow what the heck.
|
|
|
05-09-2008, 08:38 PM
|
#123
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 15,736
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny
Wow. Even scrolling through that site at high speed makes your brain creep out.
|
Scary. I could feel my IQ dropping as I scrolled.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
|
|
|
05-09-2008, 09:43 PM
|
#124
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,767
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notmuchlonger
Would you call that "bump" drafting Nords?
|
For a limited time only!
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
Bogus. He lost a court case brought by the investors he hoodwinked:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by homestead
I suppose nuclear bombs also violate that same law since the energy going in is just a few pounds of tnt.
|
Hey, Homestead, here's a question:
When Gumby and I were on submarines we ran nuclear reactors to generate propulsion & electricity. We also ran (at least one) oxygen generator that hydrolized pure water (distilled from seawater). Both functions are horribly expensive, time-consuming, and manpower-intensive. Kinda dangerous, too.
If Stanley Meyers was on to something, would the Navy buy it?
Hint: the Navy still makes oxygen the old-fashioned way (by splitting oxygen & hydrogen) and propulsion still comes from splitting atoms. I don't think Mr. Meyers has any military contracts.
Personally I'm holding out for cold fusion...
__________________
*
Co-author (with my daughter) of “Raising Your Money-Savvy Family For Next Generation Financial Independence.”
Author of the book written on E-R.org: "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement."
I don't spend much time here— please send a PM.
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 12:24 AM
|
#125
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,549
|
CFB.... you missed my point....
I am not saying that THIS thing can work in our normal way of thinking... like you say.. the 'laws' we work under...
Back then the 'science laws' they knew were cast in stone would not allow for what we have today...
And we have science seem to say that they are missing 90% or so of matter (percent might be wrong... but 'dark matter')...
So if we can not even find the vast majority of the universe that we think is out there... how do we know that the 'laws' we are using are the actual final laws of science  They work today... but who knows what will be discovered in the future...
Under the laws we know are 'true', we can not go faster than the speed of light... but then we now have some theories that we actual can... and there might be some energy source that would be like cold fusion (which would not break the energy in vs out issue)... E=MC^2 has a lot of energy in a small amount of M....
Don't get me wrong... the guy is nuts...
PS... just throwing out a random thought.... but wasn't it our thinking awhile back that from the science that we 'knew' that a bumble bee could not fly? but it did...
I know... I know... bad arguments.... so what
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 07:41 AM
|
#126
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,880
|
Did you know that the TimeCube website is maintained by John McCain's Pastor?
__________________
Al
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 07:53 AM
|
#127
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
|
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 09:04 AM
|
#128
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Independence
Posts: 6,550
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl
|
Ah - had thought it was Dr.Bronner's evil twin.
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 09:16 AM
|
#129
|
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 21,830
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud
PS... just throwing out a random thought.... but wasn't it our thinking awhile back that from the science that we 'knew' that a bumble bee could not fly? but it did...
|
Yes, an effect described by Reynolds numbers, it comes into play with model airplanes. Basically it matters because if one halves the size of an airfoil the number of air molecules supporting it drop by three quarters because the area of the airfoil is reduced not by half, but by three quarters. Or something like that, it's been a while since I looked at it closely.
The effect is that scale model aircraft will never be able to duplicate the scale performance of the full size prototype. The model must be either much lighter, have a higher power-to-weight ratio, or have larger control surfaces. Many have a combination of all three. The math gets complicated quickly.
So, using aerodynamic formulas that work with man-carrying aircraft the wing area of a bumblebee is insufficient to support it's weight. The bumblebee didn't know that so it flew anyway.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 02:01 PM
|
#130
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 899
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever
Re drafting behind a semi on the highway--wouldn't that hurt the semi's MPG to be pulling you along? I could see some sudden stops on the truckdriver's part to deal with that problem....
|
No the guy in front actuals benefits also although not nearly as much as the guy in the back. I think that it reduces wake turbulence.
At least that is the way that it works for bicycles. I assume that it works the same for car.
MB
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 02:11 PM
|
#131
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 899
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud
Let's just say.... that there is no KNOWN way to have a perpetual motion machine....
If we took almost anything that we have in electronics today back a couple of hundred years they would have said something similar...
Take a 8GB USB drive... or even the TV... 200 years ago someone would have said... it is not possible!!! Why would anybody think that they could send a view of something from one place to another through thin air.... it is impossible...
NOW, are the guys who are doing these things now able to do it  NOT... but I would never say never....
|
Yes but they don't violate conservation of energy.
These "energy for nothing" schemes invariably violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Junior level ME and ChE students can usually identify the problem with them.
MB
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 02:36 PM
|
#132
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmloki
Ah - had thought it was Dr.Bronner's evil twin.
|
Funny, I used to use that stuff all the dang time when I was a regular backpacker in my teens. A couple of years ago I saw a bottle in Trader Joes and bought it. A few weeks later I started reading the label for the first time ever. Interesting. ALL ONE!
I noticed it wasnt ever for sale at TJ's after that either.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 07:53 PM
|
#133
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by laurencewill
I can push it in and ride for the 1-2 minutes at 800 rpm instead of 3000+ and save gas that way
|
I believe many newer cars shut down fuel injectors during deceleration to save fuel - and then resume fuel injecting when speed/rpm get down to a certain range.
I think they do this with both automatic and stickshift cars.
I have a Ford Taurus which does this. It is an automatic - so I guess there must be a lockup in the tranny that engages so the engine does not stall.
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 09:15 PM
|
#134
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,248
|
Well, just using some minor tweaks I've eeked out another mpg, that's 16 miles more a tank, hmmm, not thrilling. And since I'm not going to tailgate big rigs, take corners at 50 mph or overinflate my tires I guess I'll have to live with 27.5 mpg until the wheels fall off this car and I have to buy another. Only 40k on it so that will be a decade, most likely.
|
|
|
05-10-2008, 09:48 PM
|
#135
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 543
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords
For a limited time only!
Hey, Homestead, here's a question:
When Gumby and I were on submarines we ran nuclear reactors to generate propulsion & electricity. We also ran (at least one) oxygen generator that hydrolized pure water (distilled from seawater). Both functions are horribly expensive, time-consuming, and manpower-intensive. Kinda dangerous, too.
If Stanley Meyers was on to something, would the Navy buy it?
Hint: the Navy still makes oxygen the old-fashioned way (by splitting oxygen & hydrogen) and propulsion still comes from splitting atoms. I don't think Mr. Meyers has any military contracts.
Personally I'm holding out for cold fusion...
|
Stan Meyers died before he produced a product. I read his brother is working it now.
Military is known for using obsolete technology. When I got a tour of a SAGE facility (long time ago) they were using drum memory and vacuum tubes.
Also worked where we were sell oscilloscopes to military in the 70's, as of a couple years ago they were still building and fixing them.
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 10:17 AM
|
#136
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
|
Clearly the navy would prefer to operate a nuclear power plant on a number of their ships rather than implement an allegedly simple system that fits in a dune buggy and can be built at costs a homeowner can incur.
Besides, The Arabs offered him a billion dollars to hide the technology and he refused so what chance did the navy have? Seems he was too busy defrauding individual investors for $25k a pop up until The Government killed him and took all his prototypes, so not really a lot of time to put together an actual working product that someone could examine. I understand the dune buggy is now propping up a flying saucer at Area 51.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 10:22 AM
|
#137
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 15,736
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by homestead
Military is known for using obsolete technology.
|
You've got a point there, but that is primarily due to the extremely long design and construction process for things such as ships. Something this important would undoubtedly be considered for the newest submarines that are in the design stage today. I would also think that NASA would be most interested for it's new Orion project. Certainly the military has no commercial motive to suppress the development of such revolutionary technology.
This whole discussion reminds me of the time in 7th grade when I needed to find a project for the science fair. I read up on how motors and generators worked and had the absolutely ingenious idea to hook up a motor and generator on the same shaft, which would then spin forever. I was sure that no one had ever thought such a bold new thought before and that I would be justly famous. When I proudly explained my grand new idea to my dad, he explained electrical resistance and mechanical friction to me. I was most disappointed.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 10:24 AM
|
#138
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 14,183
|
You were just lacking enough faith...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire
...not doing anything of true substance...
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 11:27 AM
|
#139
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 22,818
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
This whole discussion reminds me of the time in 7th grade when I needed to find a project for the science fair. I read up on how motors and generators worked and had the absolutely ingenious idea to hook up a motor and generator on the same shaft, which would then spin forever. I was sure that no one had ever thought such a bold new thought before and that I would be justly famous. When I proudly explained my grand new idea to my dad, he explained electrical resistance and mechanical friction to me. I was most disappointed.
|
I guess that is just a phase that every kid who is interested in technology goes through. Apparently, some never outgrow it.
If you look at the blogs on tesla motors, posts keep popping up that they should put generators on the front wheels, put solar panels by the headlamps, put a windmill on the roof, etc, etc, etc to capture that energy.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by homestead
Stan Meyers died before he produced a product. I read his brother is working it now.
|
OK, I actually spent a bit of time going through some of those documents. Here's the run-down:
A) Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen is well understood. It takes X amount of energy to break the bonds.
B) Combustion of hydrogen and oxygen is well understood. It takes a small amount of high level energy to trigger it (a spark for example), the hydrogen and oxygen combine back together to form water, and energy is produced. The same amount of energy as it took in step A to break the bonds. The process can be repeated over and over again, but there is no free energy.
C) Meyer's 'invention' centers on the use of a resonant circuit to break the bonds. A resonant circuit adds all sorts of appeal, and a path to make the whole electrolysis thing sound like zero-energy magic to people who don't fully understand it. It is a bit of 'smoke and mirrors' approach to electrolysis, but you can't get something from nothing.
Here is how Meyer's fans present resonance:
A) A resonant circuit can keep running, 'swinging' back and forth at high voltage with almost no energy input. This is actually true.
B) The high voltage (pulsed DC) can perform the electrolysis of water. This is also actually true.
Here is where it falls apart. Once you try to do some actual work with the resonant circuit (like electrolysis), you need to replace the energy you take out. There is no 'free energy'. A mechanical analogy:
Once started, a pendulum will swing for a very long time with no energy input. It will go longer if you put it in a vacuum, or take other steps to reduce friction. You can also make it go 'forever' with a very small energy input (like a pendulum clock).
However, if you try to tap energy from the pendulum, it is going to slow down and stop, unless you put at least that amount of energy back in. Period.
Now, since electrolysis and combustion are well understood, and do not provide free energy, the only way that Meyer could do something amazing is to take advantage of some currently unknown process. But, the only unique thing I see in Meyer's approach is this resonant circuit. It is still electrolysis, a well understood process. The resonance, IMO, is just a distraction. It can't break the bonds any more efficiently, in fact, it takes energy to convert DC to pulsed DC, so it would be less efficient.
Again, since electrolysis and combustion are well understood, IF there was some way that a pulsed DC could perform the electrolysis more efficiently, I think current researchers would have been all over it years ago. There are just too many ways it could be used, too many applications for somebody to NOT already have described it and demonstrated it in detail.
Invest in this? Buy a lottery ticket instead.
wiki has some good entries on these approaches:
Free energy suppression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-ERD50
|
|
|
05-11-2008, 11:35 AM
|
#140
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 543
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
Now, since electrolysis and combustion are well understood, and do not provide free energy, the only way that Meyer could do something amazing is to take advantage of some currently unknown process. But, the only unique thing I see in Meyer's approach is this resonant circuit. It is still electrolysis, a well understood process. The resonance, IMO, is just a distraction. It can't break the bonds any more efficiently, in fact, it takes energy to convert DC to pulsed DC, so it would be less efficient.
-ERD50
|
I don't really want to argue about it anymore.
|
|
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|