Daily Planet's personal thread

[Jeffrey]

It isn't even sleight of hand. It's a kind of novel method of fudging the numbers.

Rossi's machine is basically set up as [water goes in at temperature X] -> [his machine] -> [steam and water go out the other side]. The key to the fudging is that Rossi assumes all the water going in is converted to pure steam at the other end, which thanks to waters high heat capacity and high enthalpy of vaporization, allows for this type of fudging.

So in order to calculate energy output Rossi compares how much electricity the machine is using to heat up the water vs. how much energy is necessary to turn it all to steam.

There's a lot of ways to prove that it isn't actually producing that much energy all of which are easily verified on the video.

1. You can calculate the volume of the steam Rossi's machine should be producing according to him with what you can see coming out of the machine. The entire room should be full of steam yet you can only see it is putting out less steam than a tea kettle.

2. Rossi's calculations assume 100% conversion to superheated steam. The steam coming out of the machine contains a lot of water and is not high temperature steam.

3. The water input can be adjusted so that not as much water is going in as he claims.

[DailyPlanet]

A real Bombshell, if this is a reliable report

The United States Navy has figured out how to turn seawater into fuel and it will cost about the same as gasoline.



This technology is in its infancy and it’s already this cheap? What happens when it’s refined and perfected?

Oil is only getting more expensive as the easy-to-reach deposits are tapped so this truly is, as it’s being called, a “game changer.”

I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green” technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this. Unfortunately, once this kind of genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in.

There are two other aspects to this story that have not been brought up yet:

1. The process pulls carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas driving Climate Change) out of the ocean. One of the less well-publicized aspects of Climate Change is that the ocean acts like a sponge for CO2 and it’s just about reached its safe limit. The ocean is steadily becoming more acidic from all of the increased carbon dioxide. This in turn poisons delicate ecosystems like coral reefs that keep the ocean healthy.

If we pull out massive amounts of CO2, even if we burn it again, not all of it will make it back into the water. Hell, we could even pull some of it and not use it in order to return the ocean to a sustainable level. That, in turn will help pull more of the excess CO2 out of the air even as we put it back. It would be the ultimate in recycling.

2. This will devastate oil rich countries but it will get us the hell out of the Middle East (another reason Republicans will oppose this). Let’s be honest, we’re not in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. We’re there for oil. Period. We spend trillions to secure our access to it and fight a “war” on terrorism. Take away our need to be there and, suddenly, justifying our overseas adventures gets a lot harder to sell.

And if we “leak” the technology? Every dictator propped up by oil will tumble almost overnight. Yes, it will be a bloody mess but we won’t be pissing away the lives of our military to keep scumbags in power

==

> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/12 ... s-big-oil/

[notorial dissent]

It comes under the heading of yes they can do it, in the lab, at a cost. The 900 pound puce or maybe that's chartreuse gorilla in the room is that it requires at least twice the amount of energy it produces to produce it. So it is neither green, nor remotely cost effective now or probably ever since the power to production cost both literally and environmentally is going to be higher.

Kind of like the QEG, cute idea on paper, otherwise not worth much. Those damn laws of physics just come back around and smack you in the ass every time!

[wserra]

Exactly as nd says. That's the problem with headlines; when they read "Turn seawater into fuel", most people think that means just scoop up some water, run it through a filter of some kind, and voila! Fuel. Hardly so. The process will take so much energy (and, for that matter, such an incredible volume of seawater) that it will be impractical on anything less than a nuclear-reactor-powered carrier. The Navy, of course. sees clear advantages which are hard to deny - having to carry far less aircraft fuel from port, having it in time of war even if supply lines are disrupted, a virtually inexhaustible supply, and so forth.

But this is in no way "energy from nowhere", or "cold fusion", or "changing the laws of physics".

[JamesVincent]

Also, pretty blatantly political.

[notorial dissent]

WES, pretty much spot on. I can see and agree why it is and would be extremely attractive to the Navy.

I think you point out the other factors I hadn’t even really gone in to, volume, scale, and production. Having not seen the actual calcs used to pull this off I can’t say exactly where that would go.

My suspicion, is that the volume of processing space, to handle the amount of water involved, along with the added size and upbuild of reactors in order to handle the power involved to do the process is going to have a marked, read MAJOR, cost on any ship using the process, as well as the increased amount of nuclear waste that the process will ultimately generate. So green doesn’t even really enter in to the equation.

As I said, nice idea in theory, not so much in the realm of practical.

[DailyPlanet]

My discussion with Andy K fits better on THIS thread
(1) AK wrote:
Weren't you arguing a short while ago that free energy exists and there may be machines that could access it? I'm trying to figure out where you are in relation to the fencepost.
(2) DP wrote:
Seeking The Truth - is my aim.
It is almost certain that Free Energy exists IMHO.
(If you believe otherwise, you need to do more research IMO.
Attack me on the thread set up for that purpose, if you like.)
But the QEG device is not a genuine Free Energy device for a whole variety of reasons.
Putting a pin in one device, does not mean that all are phony.
But the ones that are scams, should be "knocked on the head"

(3) AK wrote:
To date, EVERY alleged 'free energy' device has been proven to be a scam or just a wet dream on the part of the 'inventor.'

Simply stated, every 'free energy' theory violates one or more of the basic FACTS of physics.

Until such time as someone can come up with something that produces a usable power output while disconnected from all sources of power, the "measurements" and "demonstrations" all fall into the "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" category.

(3) DP wrote:
How could you know that?

There are many reports, some highly credible that:

+ Some parts of humanity are using advanced technologies, including free energy technologies, as part of a "Breakaway Civilisation"

+ Inventors who have come up with working machines have been bought out, or have their machines stolen, and been threatened.

These reasons are why the new trend towards Open Sourcing technologies may prove so important. Because it may allow a working technology to get out into the public before the machine is disrupted.

Of course, there remains a big risk that scams are being launched, and crowd funding is being misused. Hence, am am also watching closely the attempts to bring in a new more rigorous testing and evaluation of devices at an early stage - even as, or before some of the early funding is requested.

[LaVidaRoja]

Please post links to "many reports" WHO is reporting, WHERE are they reporting this, WHAT evidence do they offer? Remember -- reports that do not provide sufficient information for others in the field to be able to reproduce the results are neither verifiable nor accurate.

[AndyK]

(3) AK wrote:
To date, EVERY alleged 'free energy' device has been proven to be a scam or just a wet dream on the part of the 'inventor.'

Simply stated, every 'free energy' theory violates one or more of the basic FACTS of physics.

Until such time as someone can come up with something that produces a usable power output while disconnected from all sources of power, the "measurements" and "demonstrations" all fall into the "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" category.

(3) DP wrote:
How could you know that?
How? I've been following the 'free energy' and 'perpetual motion' claims for years. Every single one of them that has received any significant publicity has failed the most basic test: producing measurable power output when disconnected from all input power sources.

There are many reports, some highly credible that:

+ Some parts of humanity are using advanced technologies, including free energy technologies, as part of a "Breakaway Civilisation"
Citations? Perhaps ONE citation? And remember, "free energy" can not rely on any input of solar, wind, geothermal, or any other kind of energy. It has to stand on its own.

+ Inventors who have come up with working machines have been bought out, or have their machines stolen, and been threatened.
And someone's Aunt Tillie had her secrets for gardening on the moon suppressed in a similar manner. Again, NO ONE has ever demonstrated or even documented a working machine. Many of the failures have complained about some kind of outside interference, but that's just more conspiracy fodder. Think about it: If someone were to come up with such a source of power, there would be more people and nations clamoring to use it than there would be blockers.

These reasons are why the new trend towards Open Sourcing technologies may prove so important. Because it may allow a working technology to get out into the public before the machine is disrupted.

Of course, there remains a big risk that scams are being launched, and crowd funding is being misused. Hence, am am also watching closely the attempts to bring in a new more rigorous testing and evaluation of devices at an early stage - even as, or before some of the early funding is requested.

Irrespective of you -- and thousands of others -- demanding appropriate testing, the gullible hordes will buy into anything. AND, if you do get involve4d with demanding reasonable testing, YOU will become one of the "THEY" who are threatening, etc, the inventers.

[DailyPlanet]

+ Some parts of humanity are using advanced technologies, including free energy technologies, as part of a "Breakaway Civilisation"

Citations? Perhaps ONE citation?

Sure - here's a presentation by Richard Dolan, who introduced this concept:

(three years ago):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAFeah-FvUY

(a more recent interview):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CGG5gjsUNY

I will plan to post more later, when I have more time.

Keep in mind, the laws of logic suggest it will be impossible for you to prove:
"EVERY alleged 'free energy' device has been proven to be a scam or just a wet dream..."

Have you tracked every one of these devices?
That is impossible IMO.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Oh please, a guy who believes in UFOs? I'm not wasting an hour of my life listening to some nutter.

Have you tracked every one of these devices?
That is impossible IMO.

When someone comes up with a reason for changing the current laws of physics, I'm sure I will notice the announcement. Someone claiming to have done such a thing on the internet isn't the reliable source I will accept.

[DailyPlanet]

Arthur,

Your closed minded (and uninformed) approach makes it pretty clear that you are someone to ignore.

Richard Dolan has more knowledge of history and life in his pinky, than you hide in your thick skull.

[Pottapaug1938]

Ad hominem attacks on Arthur are no substitute for proof that someone's self-serving YouTube videos are supported by anything scientific.

If the laws of science say that there is no way, nohow that lead can be transformed into gold without an expense far beyond the amount of gold produced (in an advanced laboratory), I'm not going to believe anyone who posts a YouTube video or Web article saying that he has a handy-dandy new machine (for sale, cheap) which can do the job easily and plentifully. The same goes for "free energy" machines, which violate elementary rules of physics.

You want to persuade me otherwise? Well, then, submit your free energy device for scientific analysis by experts in the field, and then wait to see if any peer-reviewed articles say that the machine works. Until then, don't waste our time.

[wserra]

Richard Dolan has more knowledge of history and life in his pinky, than you hide in your thick skull.

From Dolan's self-description:

In his books, articles, and many interviews, Richard has analyzed the destruction of our political liberties as a result of the UFO cover-up, the possible nature of the non-humans themselves, what their presence means for our civilization, why he believes the cover-up will end within our lifetime, and what is likely to happen after that.

And then there's his "Admissible" - "The first-ever manual that shows you how to investigate UFOs, strange creatures, and the paranormal – like a professional."

They jiggle! They jiggle!

Try again.

[notorial dissent]

How could you know that? (re: AndyK comment)
Two things, FIRST and FOREMOST, the fact that NO ONE to date has been able to demonstrably come up with any kind of even remotely functional, that translates as REAL, process, and TWO, the laws of Physics do not support it. The old aphorism “There ain’t no free lunch”, really does apply here. There are undoubtedly easier and cheaper ways of producing power that haven’t been discovered yet, but the mechanics are going to follow a very specific path when they are whether the inventor/discovers wills it or no.

There are many reports, some highly credible that:
Where, by who? Verifiability and credibility of source and publisher count.

+ Some parts of humanity are using advanced technologies, including free energy technologies, as part of a "Breakaway Civilisation"
Again, where and by who?

+ Inventors who have come up with working machines have been bought out, or have their machines stolen, and been threatened.
And yet no one ever sees or reproduces these marvels. If one person had invented it someone else can copy it and/or reproduce it. The genius is in the discovery, not the manufacture. This is the information age, gossip travels around the world at the speed of light, nothing remains a secret unless it was never a secret to begin with. This remains the penultimate in Urban Legends, and for a very good reason, that is what it is. It is so much easier to claim that so and so stole my invention, so and so bought my patent and locked it away, so and so you fill in with your favorite story, rather than admit that it didn’t work, never worked/existed. The ginormousist hole in this story is that if someone invented it and then patented it for it to be bought/stolen, then the patent is still there and the device/process, whatever it is can be reproduced. Yet it never happens.

These reasons are why the new trend towards Open Sourcing technologies may prove so important. Because it may allow a working technology to get out into the public before the machine is disrupted.
Not really! This comes down more to a difference in philosophy and a sub-cultural paranoia than anything else. It falls back to the very old idea of “many hands make light work”. It is a nice idea, but while it has produced some results, I am not aware that it has really done much in the way of spreading either technology or ideas. The corollary to this is that many hands make a great muck of a mess of things, and I have seen that far more often than I have something of brilliance being produced. Or, to put it in simpler terms, the easiest way to kill something you don't like is to put its development into the hands of a committee.

Of course, there remains a big risk that scams are being launched, and crowd funding is being misused. Hence, am am also watching closely the attempts to bring in a new more rigorous testing and evaluation of devices at an early stage - even as, or before some of the early funding is requested.
That is precisely the main problem here, the scam potential, and the fact that these types of ideas appeal to a certain segment of the population who come with their BS discrimination sensors pre or intentionally disconnected and so are prime suckers for anything that meets certain buzz word criteria. The people doing this DON’T want any kind of as you put it “rigorous testing and evaluation” for the simple reason that their claims/scam won’t stand up to the light of day. Not to put too fine a point on it, Ron Van Dyke is and should be the poster child for this movement, as he has absolutely NO BS discrimination, and less sense, and seems to run automatically towards anything that common sense would indicate is nonsense.

I am not trying to denigrate your beliefs, and I am definitely not telling you to stop searching and questioning, but skepticism is a searcher and scientist’s best, perhaps only friend at times. It may not make you popular with the people you are looking at at the time, but it might just keep you from getting taken. If you are skeptical you will look closely at what is happening, what someone is doing, instead of taking it at face value and possibly being scammed or mislead.

[DailyPlanet]

I get it.
It is perfectly okay for Arthur to refer to me (or Richard Dolan) as a "nutter" without having examined his work in any detail, and not okay for me to respond to that attack by saying Arthur has a "thick skull" because he refuses to do so.

That may seem fair to some here.
But if that is the rules of the game here on Quatloos, I suggest you ban me before I start returning the fire of others here. I have other uses of my time than to act as a punching bag for people who made their minds up before they even look at the evidence or examine it fairly. (And I am certainly no crowd follower, happy to stand in line behind a group of people who all think the same way.)

If you want to examine credentials, then Arthur can lay his down, and we will compare them with Dolan's - and maybe mine too.

[Pottapaug1938]

How could you know that? (re: AndyK comment)
Two things, FIRST and FOREMOST, the fact that NO ONE to date has been able to demonstrably come up with any kind of even remotely functional, that translates as REAL, process, and TWO, the laws of Physics do not support it. The old aphorism “There ain’t no free lunch”, really does apply here. There are undoubtedly easier and cheaper ways of producing power that haven’t been discovered yet, but the mechanics are going to follow a very specific path when they are whether the inventor/discovers wills it or no.

There are many reports, some highly credible that:
Where, by who? Verifiability and credibility of source and publisher count.

+ Some parts of humanity are using advanced technologies, including free energy technologies, as part of a "Breakaway Civilisation"
Again, where and by who?

+ Inventors who have come up with working machines have been bought out, or have their machines stolen, and been threatened.
And yet no one ever sees or reproduces these marvels. If one person had invented it someone else can copy it and/or reproduce it. The genius is in the discovery, not the manufacture. This is the information age, gossip travels around the world at the speed of light, nothing remains a secret unless it was never a secret to begin with. This remains the penultimate in Urban Legends, and for a very good reason, that is what it is. It is so much easier to claim that so and so stole my invention, so and so bought my patent and locked it away, so and so you fill in with your favorite story, rather than admit that it didn’t work, never worked/existed. The ginormousist hole in this story is that if someone invented it and then patented it for it to be bought/stolen, then the patent is still there and the device/process, whatever it is can be reproduced. Yet it never happens.

These reasons are why the new trend towards Open Sourcing technologies may prove so important. Because it may allow a working technology to get out into the public before the machine is disrupted.
Not really! This comes down more to a difference in philosophy and a sub-cultural paranoia than anything else. It falls back to the very old idea of “many hands make light work”. It is a nice idea, but while it has produced some results, I am not aware that it has really done much in the way of spreading either technology or ideas. The corollary to this is that many hands make a great muck of a mess of things, and I have seen that far more often than I have something of brilliance being produced. Or, to put it in simpler terms, the easiest way to kill something you don't like is to put its development into the hands of a committee.

Of course, there remains a big risk that scams are being launched, and crowd funding is being misused. Hence, am am also watching closely the attempts to bring in a new more rigorous testing and evaluation of devices at an early stage - even as, or before some of the early funding is requested.
That is precisely the main problem here, the scam potential, and the fact that these types of ideas appeal to a certain segment of the population who come with their BS discrimination sensors pre or intentionally disconnected and so are prime suckers for anything that meets certain buzz word criteria. The people doing this DON’T want any kind of as you put it “rigorous testing and evaluation” for the simple reason that their claims/scam won’t stand up to the light of day. Not to put too fine a point on it, Ron Van Dyke is and should be the poster child for this movement, as he has absolutely NO BS discrimination, and less sense, and seems to run automatically towards anything that common sense would indicate is nonsense.

I am not trying to denigrate your beliefs, and I am definitely not telling you to stop searching and questioning, but skepticism is a searcher and scientist’s best, perhaps only friend at times. It may not make you popular with the people you are looking at at the time, but it might just keep you from getting taken. If you are skeptical you will look closely at what is happening, what someone is doing, instead of taking it at face value and possibly being scammed or mislead.

Skepticism is fine, up to a point; but it's not an excuse for swallowing every crackpot "alternative" hypothesis out there. You want me to believe that "free energy" machines exist and work as claimed? Fine, then. Show me objective, peer-reviewed proof from someone with no financial or other interest in the machine, and then we'll talk.

[AndyK]

If you want to examine credentials, then Arthur can lay his down, and we will compare them with Dolan's - and maybe mine too.

Okay.

Double degrees (both with High Honors) in BS in Electrical Engineering and BS in Physics.

What about yours?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Arthur,
Your closed minded (and uninformed) approach makes it pretty clear that you are someone to ignore.

Please try ignoring the laws of physics while you're at it.

Richard Dolan has more knowledge of history and life in his pinky, than you hide in your thick skull.

More knowledge of how to make up bullshit than I have, is about the only skill he shows.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It is perfectly okay for Arthur to refer to me (or Richard Dolan) as a "nutter" without having examined his work in any detail, and not okay for me to respond to that attack by saying Arthur has a "thick skull" because he refuses to do so.

I referred to him as a nutter not you, go back and read it again or I start putting up links for Adult Literacy campaigns. And he is a nutter if he believes in UFOs, only other believers won't think so.

.... for people who made their minds up before they even look at the evidence or examine it fairly.

What's the phrase? It's so wrong it isn't even wrong.
I haven't got the time or inclination to look at the "latest" UFO theory when all previous claims are either junk or hoaxes. If it is "different this time" then it will be covered by many outlets not just Time Cube Guy's website or whatever it is.

If you want to examine credentials, then Arthur can lay his down, and we will compare them with Dolan's - and maybe mine too.

I happen to have an obscure BSc in a technological subject but that is hardly relevant to my bullshit detection skills.