Kee Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) Seeing as this is relatively old (10 years) I was hoping i would find some for of progression of the technology but isn't this just fascinating? Unless of course i've been suckered in - anyone care to debunk? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFarLpkoGU http://www.lutec.com.au/lea.htm http://www.rexresearch.com/christie/christie.htm Couple of other great inventions that have seemingly gone unnoticed in this world with so much oil cash floating around ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWf9nYbm3ac Edited October 18, 2011 by Kee 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dworx Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) abandoned Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kee Posted October 18, 2011 Video said there was efforts to keep the tech in aus? Are you sure it went offshore? But seriously could you imagine that, an unlimited energy source - technology of the gods! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dworx Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) abandoned Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted October 18, 2011 I have a PDF thousands of pages long all about free energy devices... I don't know where I got it but I think it was linked from somewhere in this forum. It was written by a guy named "Patrick J. Kelly" and I'll try to upload it somewhere if you're interested? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CβL Posted October 19, 2011 If these worked, then I think you would find it quite easy to open up a giant "coal" factory and have nobody any wiser. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted October 19, 2011 Perhaps somebody already has O.o The book makes a clear distinction between free energy and perpetual motion though. It clearly states that none of the devices it shows are trying to break the laws of physics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CβL Posted October 19, 2011 Ah, okay. Interesting then. I will have a check. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zelly Posted October 19, 2011 preview of the Patrick Kelly ebook Chapter1.pdf Introduction, table of contents, magnet power) Chapter2.pdf (moving pulsed systems) Chapter3.pdf (motionless pulsed systems) Chapter15.pdf (time is of the essence, a must read by everyone) Chapter1.pdf Chapter2.pdf Chapter3.pdf Chapter15.pdf Chapter1.pdf Chapter2.pdf Chapter3.pdf Chapter15.pdf 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted October 19, 2011 Don't you think there are enough 'free energy'/'perpetual motion' threads on these boards? The scientific community is the most likely ally for the ethnobotany community because they look at evidence rather than having knee-jerk reactions, and are generally fairly progressive in terms of the politics they support. But threads like this do nothing to improve the image of this community in the eyes of scientists. Having a single thread on the topic is one thing, but having half a dozen makes the entire community look like kooks, and I think it is as bad for our image as have half a dozen holocaust denialism threads. Kee, why didn't you post this in the Lutec thread? Or the perpetual motion thread? Or the free energy/unlimited physics thread? Or one of the many others? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted October 19, 2011 Because free energy is NOT perpetual motion, it is the use of systems that put out more energy than YOU put in. Also the original post was a specific question... The thread has just degenerated. What about THIS? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted October 19, 2011 Because free energy is NOT perpetual motion, it is the use of systems that put out more energy than YOU put in. Also the original post was a specific question... The thread has just degenerated. What about THIS? The idea of an motor that runs without fuel and can power your house is clearly the same as perpetual motion. I don't know how you can see it any differently. The video you posted is actually quite different. He is talking about photoelectric power. That is actual science...and possibly has no place in a thread like this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sapito Posted October 19, 2011 But threads like this do nothing to improve the image of this community in the eyes of scientists. Self-censorship so we can fit in with the cool science kids? Surely any scientist with some worth is able to see that people have multiple interests and the idea of exploring/challenging accepted theories can be exciting? Is it really necessary to abandon all alternative thought in the hope of gaining allies? I think if you weeded out the non-science people form this community the numbers would drop significantly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted October 20, 2011 There's a big difference between having little interest in science - pottering around in your garden and enjoying talking about psychedelics - and being gullible or fraudulent. Like EG said about the WWII thread, this is not a conspiracy theory board, it is an ethnobotany board. And this particular forum is about sustainable technology, not pseudoscience. As I said in that thread too, I do not advocate imposed censorship, but a little bit of intelligent thought doesn't go astray, and I never said this shouldn't have been posted, just that it should have been posted in one of the other many threads on this subject. Having one thread on this topic and having half a dozen should not make any difference to the people who want to believe this stuff and talk about it, but as for how the outside world views this community, it's the difference between people maybe listening some of what we have to say, and people thinking that using psychedelics makes people gullible and stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sapito Posted October 20, 2011 Yeah I see your point and its fair enough. But I still dont understand why having talk about these things is so damaging. Free energy is talked about by all sorts of people, many of which dont take psychadelics and are not in anyway involved with this community, so why is it that the belief in the possibility of free energy would be seen as a fundamental part of the ethno community rather than simply an element of it? If the science community cant accept the variation in peoples interests are they really going to be that useful for helping out the ethno community? I would rather not have my hobbies recognised by the scientific community if it means I have to fit into some rigid mould so I look the part. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted October 20, 2011 The idea of an motor that runs without fuel and can power your house is clearly the same as perpetual motion. You clearly don't have your definitions right then. Perpetual motion indicates that a system can put out equal to or more than the amount of energy put in. Free energy instead suggests that more energy can be put out than YOU put in. A solar panel is an example of a free energy device. These aren't closed systems producing energy from nothing (perpetual motion machines would by necessity be closed systems), these are open systems that take energy from the environment around them to produce more energy than they require to run. Did you watch the clip I posted? It explains a concept of free energy generation through nanofibres, it's in development as collaborative work of many outstanding scientists and engineers. Apparently an example of such is a flywheel being rotated in pulses. The book suggests that the flywheel takes some energy from the environment around it in this situation and can be propelled faster than the energy required would suggest (if given constantly). I'm not advocating perpetual motion, nor gullability. The possibilities should be determinable with simple logic - bearing in mind that most of these aren't closed systems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted October 20, 2011 Did you watch the clip I posted? Yes I did. Did you read my response to that post in which I made it clear that what is described in that video is actual science? It's very different to the first video in the OP which is talking about a motor that can run with NO source of energy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted October 20, 2011 Humm, I think the newest post finder somehow skipped that comment. I apologise for my somewhat harsh response... I think it is important to note though that even if there is not an apparent source of energy, it could still be recieving energy from somewhere (surrounding environment). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted October 20, 2011 I think it is important to note though that even if there is not an apparent source of energy, it could still be recieving energy from somewhere (surrounding environment). That's true, and either a sound theoretical explanation of the physics behind the device or solid evidence that stood up to scientific scrutiny would convince me. But they're making the same claim that fraudsters make time and time again, that some device with magnets is somehow getting energy from nowhere (or some unspecifed source) and not only do people have to have a very poor understanding of physics to believe it, they also need to conjur up conspiracy theories about oil companies to explain why this technology isn't being implemented globally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SunChaser Posted October 20, 2011 Yeah the first clip is just entertaining propaganda, the big sky news (owned by Rupert Murdoch) logo on the bottom left should have given that away. The second clip is just showing experimental technology. It seems like a good idea, but it’s along way from being clean or free energy. Personally if I were a rich investor I wouldn’t be making any long-term investments in any new energy source that wasn’t extremely clean (green). I don’t think you could sell it to the public and it would end up becoming obsolete within a few years, as cleaner energy sources became available. That’s why I think it probably hasn’t taken off yet anyway. Also I don’t doubt the big oil corporations use their influence to hold back new technologies that would compete with them. But if free energy did exist I’m fairly sure there are many countries out there that would have scientists who would be aware it and using it to become the next world power. Peace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kee Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Don't you think there are enough 'free energy'/'perpetual motion' threads on these boards? The scientific community is the most likely ally for the ethnobotany community because they look at evidence rather than having knee-jerk reactions, and are generally fairly progressive in terms of the politics they support. But threads like this do nothing to improve the image of this community in the eyes of scientists. Having a single thread on the topic is one thing, but having half a dozen makes the entire community look like kooks, and I think it is as bad for our image as have half a dozen holocaust denialism threads. Kee, why didn't you post this in the Lutec thread? Or the perpetual motion thread? Or the free energy/unlimited physics thread? Or one of the many others? Yes because progressive and open minds to a world inclusive of new technology is comparable to holocaust denialism. If you did some of the research, you would reaslise that this isn't a 'perpetual motion' thread, and the machine in question does not run on 0 energy input but purely outputs more energy than is required for input by a substancial amount due to electromagnetic forces (correct me if i'm wrong). I get your point about the pseudoscience and the quality of the sourced video - but we're not all electro-magnetic engineers here and some of us would prefer a layman explaination rather than an indepth proof formula. At the risk of sounding naive, i'll draw similarities to (most) major scientific breakthroughs; in the sense that most, if not all of the developers of such technologies were considered dreamers, kooks, and pseudo-scientists by the apparently 'infallibale' mainstream scientific community. Remember when Galileo said the universe didn't actually revolve around the earth? When Tesla pushed for the supremacy of AC over DC? Edison's many inventions? The invention of radio? All shot down as unrealistic and improbable. Again at the risk of sounding naive I will infer that the reason you're seeing so many pseudo-science debates on this board is not because of the conspiracy-esque nature of an ethno board but rather attributable to the open-mindedness of the community. Sure, the white coats may look down their noses at us - but is that really something you should fear enough that it should stop you believing in progressive technology? I donno... This wasn't meant to be quoted scientific fact - rather just a point of interest about an Australian inventor. Edited October 20, 2011 by Kee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kee Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Oops, double post. Edited October 20, 2011 by Kee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted October 20, 2011 I've said my piece and didn't really want to get into a debate. In the past I've either ignored these threads or actually got involved in helping people understand why these things can't actually work. But I really did just think this was an unnecessary thread in the sense that your post would have been quite at home in one of the other threads. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zelly Posted October 20, 2011 Link to Patrick Kelly's online ebook v.19.2 released 15 Oct 2011: http://www.free-energy-info.com/ or http://www.free-ener...com/PJKbook.pdf (34 mb) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rabaelthazar Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) It's very different to the first video in the OP which is talking about a motor that can run with NO source of energy. Actually, in the first clip (or at least another one about the same engine) it states that they need to give it a jump start from a regular electric current but that it will run off that jump start for a very long time outputting more energy than was required to jump start it. I don't know whether the first clip is about a machine that is possible or not, but just had point out that I think you've missed a crucial point in regard to that machine. <edit - just went and re-watched. In the introduction it states "using magnets and a battery". <edit> Edited October 20, 2011 by Rabaelthazar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
