Lutec 1000 Free Energy Scam
John
website at http://www.lutec.com.au/
The Australian Skeptics investigated these guys. You can read their
report at http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf
What's really funny is that the Australian Skeptics seemed to be well
on their way to being permitted to test the machine, but the
"inventors" always had some lame excuse at the last minute why they
couldn't see it (locked door, lost key, etc.). Then they turn around
and say "Ha! The Australian Skeptics have never even seen the
machine, so how can they say it doesn't work?"
Amazing. I guess you can't keep a good scam down.
Boris Mohar
What bull!. If it runs 24 hours per day why does it need batteries?
Regards,
Boris Mohar
Dirk Bruere
"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cbf7580....@netnews.att.net...
That's always the pattern I have discovered when investigating such claims.
Dirk
Eric Hocking
Well the inventors totally demolished the Oz Sceptics article's author who
"already know(s) everything" by pointing out that "a bumble bee cant[sic]
fly according to mans[sic] rules and laws". This was used as evidence that
science is obviously wrong and that "We are dealing with something new
here."
I can only find an archived HTML Google page of part two of these articles
at
http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:rj2hyieQMs4C:users.bigpond.net.au/ortho
gonal/skep/lutec2.pdf+lutec2&hl=en
as http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec2.pdf does appear to
exist.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
SPAM TRAP:Replace "com" with "co.uk" to reply
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Eric Prebys
Boris Mohar wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:53:03 GMT, John_J...@hotmail.com (John) wrote:
>
> >The magic motor from the Loons in Cairns is back, and they've got a
> >website at http://www.lutec.com.au/
> >
All the usual crap. Are people really this stupid? (wait, don't
answer that). And if they really are that stupid, is it really
a crime to take their money?
Bottom line: if a generator produces more energy than it requires,
then you can rig it to run closed loop with no batteries - particularly
if it's 3000% efficient.
Any claim that such a generator *has* to work by charging and
discharging batteries is a scam at face value - period. No need to
bother investigating.
These perpetual motion kookaboos are forever coming up with
elaborate excuses why their 1000%+ efficient generators can't
run closed loop. Sometimes it's an AC/DC thing (which could
of couse be solved with a $20 and a trip to Radio Shack), sometimes
they "just haven't gotten around to it".
> >The Australian Skeptics investigated these guys. You can read their
> >report at http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf
> >
A very nice piece of work. I can only admire people willing to put
this much time into investigating something that was so obviously
an investment scam from the work go.
I only hope that their careful work prevents even one
person from handing over their retirement money to these frauds.
Unfortunately, it's more likely that the true believers will
continue to believe truly, and the rest of use knew it was
a scam anyway.
> >What's really funny is that the Australian Skeptics seemed to be well
> >on their way to being permitted to test the machine, but the
> >"inventors" always had some lame excuse at the last minute why they
> >couldn't see it (locked door, lost key, etc.). Then they turn around
> >and say "Ha! The Australian Skeptics have never even seen the
> >machine, so how can they say it doesn't work?"
> >
> >Amazing. I guess you can't keep a good scam down.
> >
>
> What bull!. If it runs 24 hours per day why does it need batteries?
>
> Regards,
>
> Boris Mohar
>
>
-Eric
Eric Prebys
John wrote:
>
> The magic motor from the Loons in Cairns is back, and they've got a
> website at http://www.lutec.com.au/
>
All the usual crap. Are people really this stupid? (wait, don't
answer that). And if they really are that stupid, is it really
a crime to take their money?
Bottom line: if a generator produces more energy than it requires,
then you can rig it to run closed loop with no batteries - particularly
if it's 3000% efficient.
Any claim that such a generator *has* to work by charging and
discharging batteries is a scam at face value - period. No need to
bother investigating.
These perpetual motion kookaboos are forever coming up with
elaborate excuses why their 1000%+ efficient generators can't
run closed loop. Sometimes it's an AC/DC thing (which could
of couse be solved with a $20 and a trip to Radio Shack), sometimes
they "just haven't gotten around to it".
> The Australian Skeptics investigated these guys. You can read their
> report at http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf
>
A very nice piece of work. I can only admire people willing to put
this much time into investigating something that was so obviously
an investment scam from the work go.
I only hope that their careful work prevents even one
person from handing over their retirement money to these frauds.
Unfortunately, it's more likely that the true believers will
continue to believe truly, and the rest of use knew it was
a scam anyway.
> What's really funny is that the Australian Skeptics seemed to be well
> on their way to being permitted to test the machine, but the
> "inventors" always had some lame excuse at the last minute why they
> couldn't see it (locked door, lost key, etc.). Then they turn around
> and say "Ha! The Australian Skeptics have never even seen the
> machine, so how can they say it doesn't work?"
>
> Amazing. I guess you can't keep a good scam down.
Well, maybe perpetual motion scams aren't "the oldest profession",
but it's been around awhile. I found this fun link on the
web
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html
-Eric
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Lancaster
>
> Bottom line: if a generator produces more energy than it requires,
> then you can rig it to run closed loop with no batteries - particularly
> if it's 3000% efficient.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
> Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
> WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, self running would be an exceptionally unstable state.
More likely to blow up or even supernova.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Eric Prebys
Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > Bottom line: if a generator produces more energy than it requires,
> > then you can rig it to run closed loop with no batteries - particularly
> > if it's 3000% efficient.
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
> > Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
> > WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nope, self running would be an exceptionally unstable state.
>
> More likely to blow up or even supernova.
>
Oh yeah, that must be it. Wouldn't want any supernovae in
Austailia, would we :)
-Eric
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
--
Don Widders
news:3CC04D8D...@fnal.gov...
>
>
> Don Lancaster wrote:
> >
> > Eric Prebys wrote:
> > >
> > > Bottom line: if a generator produces more energy than it requires,
> > > then you can rig it to run closed loop with no batteries -
particularly
> > > if it's 3000% efficient.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
> > > Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
> > > WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Nope, self running would be an exceptionally unstable state.
> >
> > More likely to blow up or even supernova.
> >
>
> Oh yeah, that must be it. Wouldn't want any supernovae in
> Austailia, would we :)
>
> -Eric
>
If you change your mind, please give two weeks advance notice in
sci.energy.hydrogen.
Don W.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
news:a9pa56$26g$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au...
> Well the inventors totally demolished the Oz Sceptics article's author who
> "already know(s) everything" by pointing out that "a bumble bee cant[sic]
> fly according to mans[sic] rules and laws". This was used as evidence that
> science is obviously wrong and that "We are dealing with something new
> here."
Please, Eric. Ignoring the fact that we now have a VERY good idea how flies,
bees, etc. fly (involves shedding air vortices, conserves momentum, all the
thick scientific stuff needed), it's hardly comparable to the discussion re.
the LUTEC engine. I don't think the Auskeptics and the LUTEChies would
disagree that a bumblebee does, in fact, fly, with no tricky, hidden gimmickry
or concealed power sources. It's easy enough to demonstrate.
It appears, assuming the skeps are giving a truthful description, that the
LUTECs are fooling themselves with their measurements, although it's hard to
evaluate that from here, since the LUTEC website gives nothing useful about how
actual measurements are done. The skeps claim that LUTEC has overlooked back
EMF in the motor circuit -- I've no idea what the LUTECs say about that; it
doesn't seem to be addressed on their website.
The only thing they address is the "unfairness" of the skep report, citing it
as the reason (excuse?) NOT to allow the skeps further opportunity to actually
observe and make _in_situ_ measurements on their machine. We've seen this sort
of thing before, unfortunately. It's classical science-fraud behavior. If
they had any genuine interest in having their box tested, they'd hire the
Australian equivalent of a licenced electrical engineer (entirely independent
of their company), with specialization and a good deal of experience in
electrical machinery and in both electrical AND mechanical power measurements
to make those measurements and assemble them into a report published under his
name and P.E. licence (equiv.).
That, plus publishing working details in an appropriate, reviewed professional
science or engineering journal, would be the path I would expect honest
inventors to take. They appear to be taking a path taken, all too often and
for good reasons, by frauds.
Both the inventors claim to be engineers, so they know the rules. If they're
playing outside the court, there must be a good reason for it. I also would
expect two fellows with the backgrounds they claim to know how to make
appropriate and competent measurements of both mechanical and electrical
parameters and, most certainly, to understand back EMF in a motor. The
measurements can be tricky, but back EMF is sophomore-level stuff.
Here's what should happen: A group of investors should ask LUTEC to allow them
to hire that independent engineer I mentioned earlier, and have him make the
relevant measurements with his own instrumentation. If LUTEC refuses, drop the
matter and walk away. If they go for it, send in the engineer. He should make
the necessary measurements, with no interference by the LUTEC folks, although
they may observe, and based on those, make his report to the investors. Based
on THAT, invest or walk away.
My (admittedly remote and poorly advised of facts) judgement is that someone is
being fooled. Maybe the LUTEC folks are fooling themselves, although that's
hard to believe, if their backgrounds are accurately described. (Maybe that
hypothetical group of investors should check to see if these guys have the
educations and experience they claim.) Anyway, what they're describing is a
perpetual motion machine of the second type, or an overunity machine, whether
or not they choose to call it that -- at least, is if it performs as
advertised.
The more I read of the LUTEC page, the more I'm convinced there's fraud in the
air here. It will be interesting to see how this thing falls out in a year or
so, as suck^H^H^H^Hinvestors begin to wonder what's happening with their money.
Next to last thing (penultimate point): If these guys really have made what
they claim, they deserve not only all the wealth they can amass from the
device, but the Dynamite Prize in Physics. If they're machine really works,
they'll probably get it. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Last thing (ultimate point): Asserting that the bumblebee argument "totally
demolishes" the skep's argument is, I'm sorry, a ridiculous assertion. Even if
the LUTECs have something really new (and they may, although I strongly doubt
it), such an argument is irrelevant and employing it is specious.
d
PS: Yumpin' Yeshua! Did I _really_ write all that? Time to go do something
useful!
d
--
Rap: the use of the human voice and mind as percussion instruments
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
RP Henry
>
>
> Here's what should happen: A group of investors should ask LUTEC to allow them
> to hire that independent engineer I mentioned earlier, and have him make the
> relevant measurements with his own instrumentation. If LUTEC refuses, drop the
> matter and walk away. If they go for it, send in the engineer. He should make
> the necessary measurements, with no interference by the LUTEC folks, although
> they may observe, and based on those, make his report to the investors. Based
> on THAT, invest or walk away.
>
What's all this talk about testing and investors?. The Lutec people
claim to have at least one working machine. They state on their website
that purchasers of their machine can sell the surplus power back to the
local utility. So they can show us thus: turn it on and start
collecting.
Don Lancaster
It is significant that the Lutec apparently made beginning EE student
fuckup 002-a rather than 001-a. That of ignoring a motor's back emf.
002, of course, requires much less skill than 001 of mixing up average
and rms.
Certainly should not have happened in, say, a seventh grade science fair
project.
Don Widders
news:3CC08B58...@tinaja.com...
Don L., I seriously doubt it was anything that innocent! In my opinion
these guys know exactly what they're doing and within a year or two they'll
be behind bars where they belong.
Don W.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
"Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote in message
news:uc1g7rg...@corp.supernews.com...
> Don L., I seriously doubt it was anything that innocent! In my opinion
> these guys know exactly what they're doing and within a year or two they'll
> be behind bars where they belong.
I think I agree, Don. In my present opinion, either they don't know what
they're doing -- and are lying about their educations & experience -- or
they're a pair of typical tech-gonifs. I'm becoming more and more certain of
the latter.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
> It is significant that the Lutec apparently made beginning EE student
> fuckup 002-a rather than 001-a. That of ignoring a motor's back emf.
>
> 002, of course, requires much less skill than 001 of mixing up average
> and rms.
>
> Certainly should not have happened in, say, a seventh grade science fair
> project.
It's possible, Don, but if we're to credit their alleged credentials, either
working alone should know better, and working together, this should no way have
happened at all. I'm having a hard time believing that these two clowns don't
know exactly what they're doing. And it ain't legal.
And they know it.
(All my opinion, of course. Send summonses to nu...@void.nil .)
Duke McMullan N5GAX
"RP Henry" <richard...@saic.com> wrote in message
news:3CC08AA9...@saic.com...
> What's all this talk about testing and investors?. The Lutec people
> claim to have at least one working machine. They state on their website
> that purchasers of their machine can sell the surplus power back to the
> local utility. So they can show us thus: turn it on and start
> collecting.
Yup. A few years in the marketplace is more convincing than a dozen refereed
publications. More convincing of WHAT is another question . . . .
"There's an investor born every minute." -- attrib. P.T. Barnum
John
<Duk...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>"RP Henry" <richard...@saic.com> wrote in message
>news:3CC08AA9...@saic.com...
>
>> What's all this talk about testing and investors?. The Lutec people
>> claim to have at least one working machine. They state on their website
>> that purchasers of their machine can sell the surplus power back to the
>> local utility. So they can show us thus: turn it on and start
>> collecting.
>Yup. A few years in the marketplace is more convincing than a dozen refereed
>publications. More convincing of WHAT is another question . . . .
I don't think he's talking about marketing the thing. I think he's
talking about *demonstrating* the thing.
The Lutec people could forgo the scientific journal publication that
so many free energy people badmouth, and instead simply hook their
machine up to the local utility and sell their free energy and make
money. A few years of bills from the local utility showing a net
credit for power being generated (i.e. more energy sold back than
consumed) would go a long way toward convincing people that the Lutec
isn't a fake. (But then, we'd have to inspect the property covered by
that bill and make sure there's no diesel genset hidden somewhere.)
The free energy people *always* have a path alternate to publication
in refereed scientific journals. They could always generate the free
energy and sell it. Strange that they don't, isn't it? ;-)
An aside:
Hey! Suppose I have an outlet in my apartment that just so happens to
be on a circuit on my next door neighbor's electric meter. Is there
any sort of circuitry I could build that I could plug into this outlet
*and* into an outlet on my own meter that would take energy from his
side and bring it over to my side? (Or would this be like trying to
siphon water between two reservoirs at the same level?)
Having the fridge, TV, and stereo plugged into this outlet has
certainly reduced my electric bill. But could I build some circuit
that would allow me to turn a profit?
John Riley
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>Don L., I seriously doubt it was anything that innocent! In my opinion
>these guys know exactly what they're doing and within a year or two they'll
>be behind bars where they belong.
Why do you think they chose Queensland -- the Deep North of Australia?
They once had a premier called Joh ( peanut farmer and bulldozer
driver by trade) who gave much taxpayer money to medical fraudsters,
guys who ran their cars on water, nuclear powerplants in the trunk and
whatever. Joh went to court once for a shifty electoral deal, and it
all got thrown out eventually, I believe. He was famous for sayings
such as "if you walk with on leg each side of the barbed wire fence,
you'll end up on the sticky fly paper". This was probably to a journo
who asked a question. Joh called holding a press conference "feeding
the chooks (chickens)" and he appointed his larger-than-life mate Russ
(who must've weighed 400 lbs) the minister for roads and horse racing.
He was emeinently qualified according to Joh. He owned racehorses and
a road gravel quarry :)
Life is great in the Sunshine State :)
ATB John
John Popelish
(snip)
> Hey! Suppose I have an outlet in my apartment that just so happens to
> be on a circuit on my next door neighbor's electric meter. Is there
> any sort of circuitry I could build that I could plug into this outlet
> *and* into an outlet on my own meter that would take energy from his
> side and bring it over to my side? (Or would this be like trying to
> siphon water between two reservoirs at the same level?)
>
> Having the fridge, TV, and stereo plugged into this outlet has
> certainly reduced my electric bill. But could I build some circuit
> that would allow me to turn a profit?
All it would take is a transformer with a turns ratio slightly more
than 1:1. It would step the 120 volts from his outlet to 121 or 122
volts, and dump power back into your outlet. From a physics view, it
would just circulate power around a loop between your two branches of
the same source, but to one meter, power would be entering the
customer's system, and to the other meter, power would be leaving the
customer's system.
The utilities use substation adjustable transformers to slop power
from one section of the distribution system to another this way, all
the time.
--
John Popelish
John Riley
wrote:
>An aside:
>
>Hey! Suppose I have an outlet in my apartment that just so happens to
>be on a circuit on my next door neighbor's electric meter. Is there
>any sort of circuitry I could build that I could plug into this outlet
>*and* into an outlet on my own meter that would take energy from his
>side and bring it over to my side? (Or would this be like trying to
>siphon water between two reservoirs at the same level?)
>
>Having the fridge, TV, and stereo plugged into this outlet has
>certainly reduced my electric bill. But could I build some circuit
>that would allow me to turn a profit?
>
I hope you're just joshin' us. I would regard bunkin' your meter as
I've known folks to do to cheat the electricity corp as bad enough,
but stealing from a neighbour is much worse IMHO.
ATB John
Richard Henry
My point is that they have no need to be looking for investors (or even
customers, for that matter) since they already claim to have a money
machine.
John Riley
wrote:
This always amazes me how these guys who've "discovered" a foolproof
system for the stockmarket, the Gee-Gees, the dogs or any other
gambling forum, are so keen to sell it to people to make money. Why
don't they use their own systen, and retire in riches?
ATB John
Don Lancaster
I've talked to legal types as to just where the line between monumental
stupidity and criminal fraud lies.
Sort of a prudent man doctrine.
Apparently its somewhere around one year after enough disinterested
outside sources clearly make it obvious that something is amiss.
The pattern is endemic to the pseudoscience mindset.
I think most of the frauds are usually deluding themselves as much as
their customers and genuinely believe in their product.
ken...@shangrila.net
John Riley wrote:
>
> I hope you're just joshin' us. I would regard bunkin' your meter as
> I've known folks to do to cheat the electricity corp as bad enough,
> but stealing from a neighbour is much worse IMHO.
>
> ATB John
It doesn't have to be like that. For example, I have what's called "time
of use" metering. That means that I pay much more for power during the
peak periods than I do for off peak. This is intended to encourage me to
use more power during off periods, and indeed it does. Now my neighbor
doesn't have this and pays a flat rate for use at any time, and this is far
less than pay for peak use. Now suppose I hook onto his system during peak
periods? I pay him for what I use and avoid paying peak period rates,
while taking advantage of the very low off peak rates. My neighbor, of
course, uses my power supply during off peak hours. Win-win, right?
robert luis rabello
ken...@shangrila.net wrote:
> It doesn't have to be like that. For example, I have what's called "time
> of use" metering. That means that I pay much more for power during the
> peak periods than I do for off peak. This is intended to encourage me to
> use more power during off periods, and indeed it does. Now my neighbor
> doesn't have this and pays a flat rate for use at any time, and this is far
> less than pay for peak use. Now suppose I hook onto his system during peak
> periods? I pay him for what I use and avoid paying peak period rates,
> while taking advantage of the very low off peak rates. My neighbor, of
> course, uses my power supply during off peak hours. Win-win, right?
No, that just makes TWO dishonest people instead of one. If you enter into
a contract with your utility provider, they do so in good faith that you'll
abide by the terms agreed upon. You might get away with such a scam, but that
doesn't erase the ethical problem created by the deed. It's better to store
extra power you purchase during off peak hours in a battery bank and use it
during peak periods, avoiding the higher rate entirely.
Your post read as though you were presenting a hypothetical situation. I
hope this is actually the case.
robert luis rabello
Eric Hocking
news:24%v8.105$zR6.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
> news:a9pa56$26g$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au...
>
> > Well the inventors totally demolished the Oz Sceptics article's author
who
> > "already know(s) everything" by pointing out that "a bumble bee
cant[sic]
> > fly according to mans[sic] rules and laws". This was used as evidence
that
> > science is obviously wrong and that "We are dealing with something new
> > here."
>
> Please, Eric. Ignoring the fact that we now have a VERY good idea how
flies,
> bees, etc. fly
<snip response>
> Last thing (ultimate point): Asserting that the bumblebee argument
"totally
> demolishes" the skep's argument is, I'm sorry, a ridiculous assertion.
Even if
> the LUTECs have something really new (and they may, although I strongly
doubt
> it), such an argument is irrelevant and employing it is specious.
Guess I'm going to have to work on my usenet sarcasm...
Brian Blandford
> sci.energy.hydrogen.
solving the amorphous silicon problem. Then we could tile Africa with
solar cells and we'd all get free energy.
Brian Blandford
Don Widders
news:fbc5061d.02042...@posting.google.com...
I thought we were already getting almost-free energy from Africa -- millions
of barrels a day! I'm not sure the Africans would appreciate us covering
their continent with solar cells. Besides, then you'd have to set up boron
recycling plants to turn the electricity into something shippable.
Don W.
Littlefish
Littlefish
P.S. I haven't yet too far away!!!!!news:3CC2DF01...@tinaja.com...
Littlefish
However current regulation technologies would have NO trouble in controlling
a O.U. device. We use feedback technology every day to stablise unstable
circuits every day.
The F117 is a very unstable design for a aircraft. Computer feedback adds
stabilty. A tactical aircraft MUST have a unstable design to make it nimble.
This is so much so that if computer feedback fails 99% of the time it will
fall out of the sky.
Littlefishnews:3CC04076...@tinaja.com...
John
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So every body has Judged this device!!! How many of you have seen it???
Its claims violate basic physical laws. The Australian Skeptics
offered to do detailed testing on the device and evaluate its
performance. Brits and Christie will not permit anyone to test it.
It's a no-brainer.
Peter Bowditch
>So every body has Judged this device!!! How many of you have seen it???
>Littlefish
I sent the following email to Lutec on 11 April. I guess when they
reply I will know where I can see one of these machines.
====
I was planning a feature article for the next edition of my web site,
The Millenium Project, dealing with perpetual motion machines and the
schemes that have been set up over the years to try to encourage
investors to finance these daydreams.
Someone mentioned the Lutec 1000 to me, and I wonder if you could
explain how your perpetual motion machine differs from all the ones
that have gone before. I notice that Joseph Newman has claimed that
your ideas are actually his, so perhaps explaining the differences
between his theories and yours might be a good place to start. I see
that the Keelynet people are enthusiastic about your machine, although
I assume that you are not using Keely's method of driving the machine
with compressed air stored in the frame and chassis.
I am a bit puzzled by your analogy which compares a permanent magnet
to an electromagnet to hold a weight, which seems to imply that
anything which can maintain something in position against the force of
gravity is some kind of an example of stored, available energy. I
assume that you do not extend this analogy to the screws holding the
light fitting to the ceiling above my desk. I realise that, in a
sense, they "store" the potential energy involved in raising the
fitting to ceiling height against the force of gravity, but you must
mean more than that trite explanation.
Is there a working model of your machine anywhere that can be observed
continuously for a meaningful amount of time? I don't mean just for a
few hours (Dennis Lee has been pulling that trick at his
demonstrations for years), but for several days, or even weeks,
watched by an independent observer. I realise that running an
over-unity machine without load could cause the thing to speed up to
the point where mechanical forces cause the components to fail, but it
should be possible to connect the output to some sort of braking
device to dissipate the energy produced. Perhaps it could be connected
to a dynamometer, which would serve the dual purposes of absorbing the
energy and providing a measurement of output at the same time. I
assume that you have run such a demonstration at some time in the
past, and I know many people who would be prepared to take shifts
observing your machine running without input (but producing excess
energy) over a period of several weeks or months.
Like everyone, I am excited by the idea of free energy. Australia
might have a lot of coal and sunlight, but a limitless source like the
Lutec 1000 could provide all the energy needed for desalination of the
water we need to turn the entire continent from desert into the most
productive agricultural land on Earth and to power our manufacturing
and mining industries. We could then use the fossil fuels exclusively
as feedstock to manufacture all the consumer and luxury goods that we
could ever want. No government of business organisation could not want
this, so there should be nothing standing in your way.
If it works.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
phobos
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> >
> > Bottom line: if a generator produces more energy than it requires,
> > then you can rig it to run closed loop with no batteries - particularly
> > if it's 3000% efficient.
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
> > Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
> > WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Nope, self running would be an exceptionally unstable state.
>
> More likely to blow up or even supernova.
That's nothing to worry about. Attach it to a dynamo; if it looks like
the feedback's getting a little out of hand, bleed off some energy and
sell it on to the national grid. Supposing necessary input is 100
units, at 3000% efficiency then output is 3000 units. OK, rig it to do
2,900 units of work (as I said, turn a dynamo to generate
electricity), and put the remaining 100 back in.
You certainly wouldn't want to put all 3000 units of energy back in, I
agree. Because then you'd get nine million units out on the next
cycle, then twenty-seven billion on the one after that, and eighty-one
trillion the cycle after that, and you ARE in trouble... Just keep it
putting out that nice steady 2900 units per cycle and you're all set.
But somehow I don't think you'd really be at any risk of getting a
runaway process, do you? ;-)
Don Lancaster
>
>
> You certainly wouldn't want to put all 3000 units of energy back in, I
> agree. Because then you'd get nine million units out on the next
> cycle, then twenty-seven billion on the one after that, and eighty-one
> trillion the cycle after that, and you ARE in trouble... Just keep it
> putting out that nice steady 2900 units per cycle and you're all set.
>
> But somehow I don't think you'd really be at any risk of getting a
> runaway process, do you? ;-)
Be the least little bit off (or even slow) in your negative feedback and
POOF!
If it was possible, it certainly would have happened by now.
We did have one earlier SEH contributor create that large hole in the
map between Utah and California where Northern Nevada used to be,
though. But that was more or less routine bad labwork.
Failed to qualify for a Darwin award, though.
Florian
> phobos wrote:
> > You certainly wouldn't want to put all 3000 units of energy back
> > in, I agree. Because then you'd get nine million units out on the
> > next cycle, then twenty-seven billion on the one after that, and
> > eighty-one trillion the cycle after that, and you ARE in
> > trouble... Just keep it putting out that nice steady 2900 units
> > per cycle and you're all set.
> >
> > But somehow I don't think you'd really be at any risk of getting a
> > runaway process, do you? ;-)
>
> Be the least little bit off (or even slow) in your negative feedback
> and POOF!
>
> If it was possible, it certainly would have happened by now.
What do you think causes the gamma-ray bursts that BATSE keeps
catching?
--
odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
Littlefish
is physically possible then our physics must be wrong. This is the stumbling
block most people don't want to change...there mind!!! I know that a few
people have had a close look at this device. I had a oppertunity a couple of
years before the official press release to have a first hand look at it. As
things panned out I had family commitments and I missed this oppertunity for
inspection. I was interested becasue I was playing with a similar device.
From my observations much of what I was taught at University is far too
simplistic and flawed in many aspects. It also doesn't allow for students
put forward good ideas, many times if it going outside accepted guidelines
causes severe scorn from the upper levels with the University.
Littlefishnews:3cc53c71....@netnews.att.net...
Don Widders
energy and getting rich beyond your wildest dreams, then all severe scorn
would immediately be replaced by envy and adoration. Don't expect to see
that happen in our lifetime.
Don W.
"Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Hoxx8.48036$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Chris Lightner
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
John
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3cc53c71....@netnews.att.net...
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:27:06 +1000, "Littlefish"
>> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So every body has Judged this device!!! How many of you have seen it???
>>
>> Its claims violate basic physical laws. The Australian Skeptics
>> offered to do detailed testing on the device and evaluate its
>> performance. Brits and Christie will not permit anyone to test it.
>>
>> It's a no-brainer.
>Well so do many Quantum Mechanical observations ... the point being "if" it
>is physically possible then our physics must be wrong.
And if my grandmother had testicles she'd be my grandfather.
>This is the stumbling
>block most people don't want to change...there mind!!!
If Brits and Christie would provide a reason for us to change our
minds, we probably would. If their device works, why won't they let
anybody test it?
>I know that a few people have had a close look at this device.
Name somebody with relevant scientific background and who is alive who
we may contact.
>I had a oppertunity a couple of
>years before the official press release to have a first hand look at it. As
>things panned out I had family commitments and I missed this oppertunity for
>inspection. I was interested becasue I was playing with a similar device.
Too bad.
>From my observations much of what I was taught at University is far too
>simplistic and flawed in many aspects. It also doesn't allow for students
>put forward good ideas, many times if it going outside accepted guidelines
>causes severe scorn from the upper levels with the University.
Strange. My experiences in academia would indicate that original
though is *encouraged* in most graduate programs.
Now, if you insist that "original thought" includes research into mind
control, antigravity machines, and free energy machines, I guess I can
understand how you would be disappointed with a university.
John
<vze3...@verizon.net> wrote:
>That darn Lutec battery mystery really sticks in your throat, eh Donny.
What mystery?
Duke McMullan N5GAX
> I don't think he's talking about marketing the thing. I think he's
> talking about *demonstrating* the thing.
You're right, John. Speed reading has its drawbacks. (-: :-(
> The Lutec people could forgo the scientific journal publication that
> so many free energy people badmouth, and instead simply hook their
> machine up to the local utility and sell their free energy and make
> money. A few years of bills from the local utility showing a net
> credit for power being generated (i.e. more energy sold back than
> consumed) would go a long way toward convincing people that the Lutec
> isn't a fake. (But then, we'd have to inspect the property covered by
> that bill and make sure there's no diesel genset hidden somewhere.)
>
> The free energy people *always* have a path alternate to publication
> in refereed scientific journals. They could always generate the free
> energy and sell it. Strange that they don't, isn't it? ;-)
Yep. That's always possible, and -- as you say -- it's strange that they never
do that . . . but not as strange as most of those folks seem to be. ;^)
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:3cc14b44...@netnews.att.net...
> Hey! Suppose I have an outlet in my apartment that just so happens to
> be on a circuit on my next door neighbor's electric meter. Is there
> any sort of circuitry I could build that I could plug into this outlet
> *and* into an outlet on my own meter that would take energy from his
> side and bring it over to my side? (Or would this be like trying to
> siphon water between two reservoirs at the same level?)
That sounds easy enough to do . . . easiest if both plugs are on the same side
of the 220V line. If not, you need a bigger and more expensive transformer.
Otherwise, a 5- or 6- volt transformer that can deliver several amps should be
adequate.
> Having the fridge, TV, and stereo plugged into this outlet has
> certainly reduced my electric bill.
Does it indeed? From "Suppose . .. .", which sounds pretty hypothetical, we
went to "Having . . . .", which sounds pretty realized.
> But could I build some circuit
> that would allow me to turn a profit?
Maybe, in the short term. In the long term, the power company's going to
insist on seeing what you're using to supply power into their lines, ESPECIALLY
if you're living in an apartment.
With any luck, you can plea-bargain it down to a misdemeanor.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:enhacu8aooj7t732g...@4ax.com...
> I sent the following email to Lutec on 11 April. I guess when they
> reply I will know where I can see one of these machines.
<Long, reasonable, well-written letter deleted>
That's unusually good, Peter. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Of course, it's doubtless a waste of time, too . . . . ;^)
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <pet...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:enhacu8aooj7t732g...@4ax.com...
>
>> I sent the following email to Lutec on 11 April. I guess when they
>> reply I will know where I can see one of these machines.
>
><Long, reasonable, well-written letter deleted>
>
>That's unusually good, Peter. Thanks for sharing it with us.
>
>Of course, it's doubtless a waste of time, too . . . . ;^)
Thanks for the compliment.
John Christie has now written to me:
> Hi Peter, you will, just like everybody else, have to wait and see.
>Incidentally, we dont take peoples money, we dont want it.
> Regards
>
>John Christie.
I am not sure that this is progress.
Fred Kasner
Let's see, intending to examine such a device but family matters
preventing it is as good as actually examining it? Why bother to even
claim anything about it if you just wanted to view it but never did?
This is the lamest claim I have seen from you.
FK
John
wrote:
>"Duke McMullan N5GAX" <Duk...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <pet...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>news:enhacu8aooj7t732g...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I sent the following email to Lutec on 11 April. I guess when they
>>> reply I will know where I can see one of these machines.
>>
>><Long, reasonable, well-written letter deleted>
>>
>>That's unusually good, Peter. Thanks for sharing it with us.
>>
>>Of course, it's doubtless a waste of time, too . . . . ;^)
>
>Thanks for the compliment.
>
>John Christie has now written to me:
>
>> Hi Peter, you will, just like everybody else, have to wait and see.
>>Incidentally, we dont take peoples money, we dont want it.
>> Regards
>>
>>John Christie.
>
>I am not sure that this is progress.
Actually, it is.
About a year ago when the Lutec thing first came on the scene, Brits
and Christie had set up a complex overseas banking scheme ("B.A.N.K.")
in Singapore, where "investors" could send their money to an anonymous
numbered account. Now their website (http://www.lutec.com.au) makes
no mention of this account, and in fact says they aren't accepting
money and have returned what money they did accept.
My guess is that these guys were busted for their fraud scheme. But
like all good True Believers they can't give up on their device, so
they'll just "wait and see". No doubt their friends and family still
have a lot of money sunk down this hole and will be waiting a long
time.
Has any of our friends Down Under seen anything in the media regarding
legal action against Brits and Christie? I can't believe they would
change their tone (regarding "investments") so dramatically unless it
was prompted by the authorities.
Peter Bowditch
I know something about this. I am on the committee of the Australian
Skeptics and when B&C canned their previous web site I was able to
find a copy of the content in a magazine for Ian Bryce (who wrote the
article for our magazine). The thing was doubly interesting to the
Skeptics because there was the perpetual motion machine and there was
also a potential financial scam.
>My guess is that these guys were busted for their fraud scheme. But
>like all good True Believers they can't give up on their device, so
>they'll just "wait and see". No doubt their friends and family still
>have a lot of money sunk down this hole and will be waiting a long
>time.
>
>Has any of our friends Down Under seen anything in the media regarding
>legal action against Brits and Christie? I can't believe they would
>change their tone (regarding "investments") so dramatically unless it
>was prompted by the authorities.
As far as I know, no legal action has been taken against them. For a
start, they are still in business. The appropriate authority is the
Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) and there is
nothing on their web site about Lutec. I know that ASIC has been
informed about Lutec and they mightily pound anyone who tries to raise
money without a prospectus, although there are ways around this for
certain types of investments. I suspect that the B.A.N.K. scheme was
dropped as soon as a light was shone on it and before any authorities
had the time to get involved.
Recent experience with the media in Australia (see
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/uniquewater.htm) suggests that
the only story about Lutec likely to get a run would be uncritical and
sympathetic. Much like the media elsewhere, I suppose.
Eric Hocking
<snip>
> I know something about this. I am on the committee of the Australian
> Skeptics and when B&C canned their previous web site I was able to
> find a copy of the content in a magazine for Ian Bryce (who wrote the
> article for our magazine). The thing was doubly interesting to the
> Skeptics because there was the perpetual motion machine and there was
> also a potential financial scam.
Peter, Just a follow up to previous posts in this thread. Where did part 2
(pdf) of the Oz Skeptics review get to? They have the first part on their
site...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf
Ray Vanlandingham
> "John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3cc14b44...@netnews.att.net...
>
>> But could I build some circuit
>> that would allow me to turn a profit?
>
> Maybe, in the short term. In the long term, the power company's going to
> insist on seeing what you're using to supply power into their lines,
> ESPECIALLY if you're living in an apartment.
Actually, your standard electric meter will only run in one direction, so
that you don't have people swapping the leads to run their meter backwards.
What is possible is to take advantage of the fact that most meters really
measure current, not power. This means that if you calculate the power
factor of your circuit, and add an appropriate sized capacitor (your fridge
and AC probably make the circuit inductive), you can reduce the power
factor of your circuit, and thus the amount of current you draw from the
line.
Of course, this also not advisable, as it will add a harmonic to your
circuit that would probably not be healthy for your electronics, and might
be noticed by the power company. It's also probably illegal.
Don Lancaster
Nope.
Watthour meters measure true watthours and largely ignore power factor.
UNLESS you purposely create a waveform with an exceptionally high crest
factor, in which case they will somethimes read slightly low.
Dan Bloomquist
Ray Vanlandingham wrote:
> Duke McMullan N5GAX wrote:
>
>
>>"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3cc14b44...@netnews.att.net...
>>
>>
>
>>>But could I build some circuit
>>>that would allow me to turn a profit?
>>>
>>Maybe, in the short term. In the long term, the power company's going to
>>insist on seeing what you're using to supply power into their lines,
>>ESPECIALLY if you're living in an apartment.
>>
>
> Actually, your standard electric meter will only run in one direction, so
> that you don't have people swapping the leads to run their meter backwards.
>
Not true, a watt hour meter measures power flow, including which way the
power is flowing. If you pump power back into the grid, the meter runs
backwards.
If you drive a pure inductance from the line, an amp meter will measure
a great deal more current than the meter would imply. The power gets
reflected. The IR loss between the inductor and the meter is what you
get charged for.
If you hook a scope up to measure the current and voltage at a motor
without a load, you will see the same thing. The current will be 90
degrees out of phase from the voltage. As you mechanically load the
motor, you can see the phases come together. The motor moves from
looking like an inductor to a resistor, it's pretty cool.
> What is possible is to take advantage of the fact that most meters really
> measure current, not power. This means that if you calculate the power
> factor of your circuit, and add an appropriate sized capacitor (your fridge
> and AC probably make the circuit inductive), you can reduce the power
> factor of your circuit, and thus the amount of current you draw from the
> line.
>
What power factor correction does is reduce the IR loss between the
motor and the meter by canceling the inductive load. On the other side
of the meter, it's the grid's problem.
Best, Dan.
Peter Bowditch
> Peter, Just a follow up to previous posts in this thread. Where did part 2
> (pdf) of the Oz Skeptics review get to? They have the first part on their
> site...
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf
Part 2 can be found at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lutec2.pdf
John Riley
<Duk...@mail.com> wrote:
Why the change in subject, Duke?
Are you inferring that socialism equals theft?
Socialism merely "regulates" the society by redressing the inherent
"theft" in the law-of-the-jungle "free market" :)
This man is stealing from his neighbour The sort of thing that
socialism is there to redress.
The law that proscribes stealing is a socialist regulation designed to
instil some fairness and safety in a community, and you wouldn't want
to do away with this, I guess :)
Ah, give us this day our daily stir :)
ATB John
ps The free marketeers have screwed up my newsfeed and I see very few
posts, about a day late. My ISP has listed itself on the stock
exchange and there is no money for the shareholders in Usenet, so they
just don't care about it.
Maybe Usenet will have to start a socialist co-operative - deja vu :)
Don Widders
news:2081257.U...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
solid state devices that make motors run more efficiently available from
Home Depot for about $30.
Don W.
alejandro.rivero
> "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
> news:2081257.U...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
> > measure current, not power. This means that if you calculate the power
> > factor of your circuit, and add an appropriate sized capacitor (your
> fridge
> > and AC probably make the circuit inductive), you can reduce the power
> > factor of your circuit, and thus the amount of current you draw from the
> > line.
> >
> > Of course, this also not advisable, as it will add a harmonic to your
> > circuit that would probably not be healthy for your electronics, and might
> > be noticed by the power company. It's also probably illegal.
> >
> I don't see how or why it would be illegal if properly done. There are
> solid state devices that make motors run more efficiently available from
> Home Depot for about $30.
Not the same case. In this case you are acually taking more power from the
power company, just avoiding to measure them because a nice trick in the
calculations lets you to avoid the calculus. Power depends of voltage and
intensity *and the phase between*. If the company neglect to measure the
phase, they get a wrong measure.
Eric Hocking
> "Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
news:<aa9auc$iu2$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>...
>
> > Peter, Just a follow up to previous posts in this thread. Where did
part 2
> > (pdf) of the Oz Skeptics review get to? They have the first part on
their
> > site...
> > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf
>
> Part 2 can be found at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lutec2.pdf
Thanks - didn't show up in a google search a week or so back.
Chris Matthaei
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:25:10 -0600, "Duke McMullan N5GAX"
><Duk...@mail.com> wrote:
>Why the change in subject, Duke?
>Are you inferring that socialism equals theft?
>Socialism merely "regulates" the society by redressing the inherent
>"theft" in the law-of-the-jungle "free market" :)
Socialism removes all incentive to even try to do good work. "For the good
of the people" is not a real human incentive.
Chris
Richard Bell
I think that it is only a problem if you add the capacitor in series with the
incoming line, and not in parallel. A clever person thought that they could
send more power over the Rockies to California if they series loaded the
transmission line to reduce its inductance (the maximum power through a line
is inversley proportional to its inductance [a linear function of its length]).
The resultant subsynchrous harmonics caused a torsional fatigue failure in
a turbogenerator shaft.
Actually, the meter is not a current measuring device, but a true power
meter connected to an integrating device. correcting your home to a
unity power factor will not significantly reduce your bill, except for the
resistance losses in your home due to carrying the reactive power load.
Reactive power is free and the utilities carry the cost of transmitting it
to the customer. That is why large industrial users of electrical power
pay a penalty if their power factor drifts too far from unity. One way to
work around the low powerfactor of induction motors and power electronic
devices is to replace some of them with synchronous motors excited to
produce, instead of draw, reactive power. Before really good switched
capacitor banks were practical, unloaded synchronous motors would be run
purely to provide reactive power (synchronous reactors).
James Hunter
John Riley wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:25:10 -0600, "Duke McMullan N5GAX"
> <Duk...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> Why the change in subject, Duke?
>
> Are you inferring that socialism equals theft?
>
> Socialism merely "regulates" the society by redressing the inherent
> "theft" in the law-of-the-jungle "free market" :)
Socialism does not do that.
Socialism is just a way of saying:
"Steel from the rich, and give to the richer".
The same way that physics is just a way of saying "duh".
Don Lancaster
>
> Not true, a watt hour meter measures power flow, including which way the
> power is flowing. If you pump power back into the grid, the meter runs
> backwards.
>
Not true is not true.
All utility watthour meters have had a mechanical rachet on them for
decades that prevents reverse motion.
Don Lancaster
>
> > Of course, this also not advisable, as it will add a harmonic to your
> > circuit that would probably not be healthy for your electronics, and might
> > be noticed by the power company. It's also probably illegal.
> >
> I don't see how or why it would be illegal if properly done. There are
> solid state devices that make motors run more efficiently available from
> Home Depot for about $30.
>
> Don W.
IEE 555-2 and 555-3 has long made it illegal in all European countries.
Will shortly be illegal in US as well. If not already.
That's what PFC is all about.
Dan Bloomquist
John Riley wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:25:10 -0600, "Duke McMullan N5GAX"
> <Duk...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> Why the change in subject, Duke?
>
> Are you inferring that socialism equals theft?
>
> Socialism merely "regulates" the society by redressing the inherent
> "theft" in the law-of-the-jungle "free market" :)
>
Hay John,
I found this:
www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/lifecycle_ch5.pdf
And my two cents...
"What is the difference between capitalism and socialism?
In capitalism, man exploits man. In socialism, it's the other way around."
Best, Dan.
Dan Bloomquist
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>Not true, a watt hour meter measures power flow, including which way the
>>power is flowing. If you pump power back into the grid, the meter runs
>>backwards.
>>
>>Best, Dan.
>>
>
> Not true is not true.
>
> All utility watthour meters have had a mechanical rachet on them for
> decades that prevents reverse motion.
>
>
>
I've never heard of this before. I can't see why they would bother. But
I checked a little.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/azstar/20020424/lo/_0_electric_bill_it_s_possible_1.html
Waiting for a call back from Navopache, (my electric company.)
Best, Dan.
Don Lancaster
Among other obvious reasons for the ratchet is that utilities buyback
wholesale, not retail (typically a 5:1 spread), so separate metering is
needed in both directions.
Buyback, of course, requires previous contractual arrangements.
Dan Bloomquist
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>
>>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>
>>>Not true, a watt hour meter measures power flow, including which way the
>>>power is flowing. If you pump power back into the grid, the meter runs
>>>backwards.
>>>
>>>Best, Dan.
>>>
>>Not true is not true.
>>
>>All utility watthour meters have had a mechanical rachet on them for
>>decades that prevents reverse motion.
>>
>
> Among other obvious reasons for the ratchet is that utilities buyback
> wholesale, not retail (typically a 5:1 spread), so separate metering is
> needed in both directions.
>
> Buyback, of course, requires previous contractual arrangements.
>
>
Electric utilities in California will now give retail credit to solar
customers who feed excess electricity back to the power grid. Known as
"net metering," this utility policy is implemented by letting your
electric meter spin backwards.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/greengrid/net_metering.html
Best, Dan.
John
wrote:
>"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message news:<aa9auc$iu2$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>...
>
>> Peter, Just a follow up to previous posts in this thread. Where did part 2
>> (pdf) of the Oz Skeptics review get to? They have the first part on their
>> site...
>> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/orthogonal/skep/lutec1.pdf
>
>Part 2 can be found at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lutec2.pdf
Peter, could you please see that a copy of this .pdf gets to the
Australian Skeptics, so they can fix their website? Thanks.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
That said:
"John Riley" <lizr...@wantree.com.au> wrote in message
news:qihhcuon0q7rmqn7c...@4ax.com...
> Why the change in subject, Duke?
> Are you inferring that socialism equals theft?
No, no. "Freelance socialism" is an old jocular phrase for theft -- you know,
"sharing the wealth", but in a DIY manner.
Not a term likely to be used by a socialist, dialectical or otherwise.
If you wish, call it "unlawful capitalism". ;^)
The fundamental reason for the change of subject, of course, was the change of
subject.
Harry Conover
It's amazing to me that even in 2002 there are still people alive
sufficiently ignorant to believe in, worse still to invest in,
ridiculous nonsense such as Lutec is pitching.
Harry C.
pet...@ratbags.com (Peter Bowditch) wrote in message news:<de221c39.0204...@posting.google.com>...
John Riley
<Duk...@mail.com> wrote:
Why the change in subject, Duke?
Are you inferring that socialism equals theft?
Socialism merely "regulates" the society by redressing the inherent
"theft" in the law-of-the-jungle "free market" :)
This man is stealing from his neighbour The sort of thing that
Richard Herring
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> writes
[top-posting corrected]
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:27:06 +1000, "Littlefish"
>> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So every body has Judged this device!!! How many of you have seen it???
>>
>> Its claims violate basic physical laws. The Australian Skeptics
>> offered to do detailed testing on the device and evaluate its
>> performance. Brits and Christie will not permit anyone to test it.
>>
>> It's a no-brainer.
>>
Name five.
>the point being "if" it
>is physically possible then our physics must be wrong.
You're claiming that this device has a special status which allows
fundamental laws to be violated. It doesn't work like that. Physics is a
set of interconnected theories which are consistent with *all*
experimental observation, past and present. If our physics were wrong,
it would have to be *consistently* wrong, and that would have
consequences (e.g. non-conservation of energy) which would be observed
everywhere. They are not.
We have a different word for alleged one-off, inconsistent, violations
of basic physics. We call them "miracles".
>This is the stumbling
>block most people don't want to change...there mind!!! I know that a few
>people have had a close look at this device. I had a oppertunity a couple of
>years before the official press release to have a first hand look at it. As
>things panned out I had family commitments and I missed this oppertunity for
>inspection. I was interested becasue I was playing with a similar device.
>From my observations much of what I was taught at University is far too
>simplistic and flawed in many aspects.
That may well be so.
--
Richard Herring
Littlefish
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:56:30 +1000, "Littlefish"
> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3cc53c71....@netnews.att.net...
> >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:27:06 +1000, "Littlefish"
> >> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So every body has Judged this device!!! How many of you have seen
it???
> >>
> >> Its claims violate basic physical laws. The Australian Skeptics
> >> offered to do detailed testing on the device and evaluate its
> >> performance. Brits and Christie will not permit anyone to test it.
> >>
> >> It's a no-brainer.
>
it
> >is physically possible then our physics must be wrong.
>
>
> >This is the stumbling
> >block most people don't want to change...there mind!!!
>
> minds, we probably would. If their device works, why won't they let
> anybody test it?
>
> >I know that a few people have had a close look at this device.
>
> we may contact.
>
> >I had a oppertunity a couple of
> >years before the official press release to have a first hand look at it.
As
> >things panned out I had family commitments and I missed this oppertunity
for
> >inspection. I was interested becasue I was playing with a similar device.
>
>
> >From my observations much of what I was taught at University is far too
> >put forward good ideas, many times if it going outside accepted
guidelines
> >causes severe scorn from the upper levels with the University.
>
> Strange. My experiences in academia would indicate that original
> though is *encouraged* in most graduate programs.
BUZZZT no they don't! Been there done that!
>
> Now, if you insist that "original thought" includes research into mind
> control, antigravity machines, and free energy machines, I guess I can
> understand how you would be disappointed with a university.
>
>
>
John
Jim Jastrzebski
<snip>
> Physics is a
> set of interconnected theories which are consistent with *all*
> experimental observation, past and present.
What about expansion of the universe. It violates the principle
of conservation of energy (more exactly it would if it were real)
and nobody protests. My paper, which explains why it is only
an illusion and so the principle is not violated can't be published
already for 17 years (except on internet where you can find it at
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3261.htm
if you are interested and cared to find a possible error that
would justify the idea that the universe is really expanding).
-- Jim
Littlefish
Littlefishnews:ucdhq3j...@corp.supernews.com...
> If these fraudsters really had a working device from which they were
selling
> energy and getting rich beyond your wildest dreams, then all severe scorn
> would immediately be replaced by envy and adoration. Don't expect to see
> that happen in our lifetime.
>
> Don W.
>
> "Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Hoxx8.48036$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Well so do many Quantum Mechanical observations ... the point being "if"
> it
> stumbling
> > block most people don't want to change...there mind!!! I know that a few
> > people have had a close look at this device. I had a oppertunity a
couple
> of
> > years before the official press release to have a first hand look at it.
> As
> > things panned out I had family commitments and I missed this oppertunity
> for
> > inspection. I was interested becasue I was playing with a similar
device.
> > simplistic and flawed in many aspects. It also doesn't allow for
students
> > put forward good ideas, many times if it going outside accepted
guidelines
> > causes severe scorn from the upper levels with the University.
Littlefish
come?????? I would still like to test the device and will continue to see if
things will fall into place. I have been working with a device that uses a
similar principle but has no moving parts and can be made from off the shelf
parts. I would like to get hold of some super caps for testing with though.
A couple of 339Volt 2500 Farad (Yes this is correct) super caps would be
good to test with.
Littlefish
"Fred Kasner" <fka...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:3CC791DD...@enteract.com...
> preventing it is as good as actually examining it? Why bother to even
> claim anything about it if you just wanted to view it but never did?
> This is the lamest claim I have seen from you.
> FK
>
Littlefish
"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:YOow79KV...@baesystems.com...
> In message <Hoxx8.48036$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Littlefish
> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> writes
> [top-posting corrected]
> >"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3cc53c71....@netnews.att.net...
> >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:27:06 +1000, "Littlefish"
> >> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So every body has Judged this device!!! How many of you have seen
it???
> >>
> >> Its claims violate basic physical laws. The Australian Skeptics
> >> offered to do detailed testing on the device and evaluate its
> >> performance. Brits and Christie will not permit anyone to test it.
> >>
> >> It's a no-brainer.
> >>
> >Well so do many Quantum Mechanical observations ...
>
> Name five.
>
> >the point being "if" it
> >is physically possible then our physics must be wrong.
>
> You're claiming that this device has a special status which allows
> fundamental laws to be violated. It doesn't work like that. Physics is a
> set of interconnected theories which are consistent with *all*
> experimental observation, past and present. If our physics were wrong,
No special status it is just our current physics doesn't recognise how the
energy is channeled and where the energy comes from. Even though it has been
known for many years that space if filled with heaps of energy.
Every airconditioner does this every day, however we KNOW that its energy
is just the heat/vibration in the air!!!!! So why can't we rectify the
vibrations in space to attain energy????? We just don't currently have a
device/tool to rectify /polarise the random energy flows. Maybe this is what
has been done with the Lutec 1000.
Richard Herring
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>news:YOow79KV...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <Hoxx8.48036$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, Littlefish
>> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> writes
>> [top-posting corrected]
>> >"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3cc53c71....@netnews.att.net...
>> >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:27:06 +1000, "Littlefish"
>> >> <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >So every body has Judged this device!!! How many of you have seen
>it???
>> >>
>> >> Its claims violate basic physical laws. The Australian Skeptics
>> >> offered to do detailed testing on the device and evaluate its
>> >> performance. Brits and Christie will not permit anyone to test it.
>> >>
>> >> It's a no-brainer.
>> >>
>> >Well so do many Quantum Mechanical observations ...
>>
>> Name five.
What, no answer?
>> >the point being "if" it
>> >is physically possible then our physics must be wrong.
>>
>> You're claiming that this device has a special status which allows
>> fundamental laws to be violated. It doesn't work like that. Physics is a
>> set of interconnected theories which are consistent with *all*
>> experimental observation, past and present. If our physics were wrong,
>
>No special status it is just our current physics doesn't recognise how the
>energy is channeled and where the energy comes from.
Masterly understatement. It doesn't even recognise that the energy
exists.
And that's because the criterion for recognition is empirical evidence,
not wishful thinking.
>Even though it has been
>known for many years that space if filled with heaps of energy.
Even if this were true, so what? Thermal energy is no use unless there's
a temperature *gradient*.
>Every airconditioner does this every day, however we KNOW that its energy
>is just the heat/vibration in the air!!!!!
An air-conditioner pushes heat against the thermal gradient. To do this
it needs a source of work, which is ultimately derived from heat flowing
down some other thermal gradient elsewhere.
>So why can't we rectify the
>vibrations in space to attain energy?????
Because "rectification" doesn't produce free energy. Read Feynman's
lecture on the ratchet if you don't believe me.
>We just don't currently have a
>device/tool to rectify /polarise the random energy flows. Maybe this is what
>has been done with the Lutec 1000.
"Maybe it behaves the way the credulous would like to believe" is not
what I'd call a convincing argument.
--
Richard Herring
Eric Hocking
> They are selling energy back into the grid from what I have heard!!!
There's a prehistoric monster in Loch Ness from what I have heard....
> Littlefish
> "Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote in message
> news:ucdhq3j...@corp.supernews.com...
> > If these fraudsters really had a working device from which they were
> selling...
<snip>
Dan Bloomquist
Littlefish wrote:
>
> No special status it is just our current physics doesn't recognise how the
> energy is channeled and where the energy comes from. Even though it has been
> known for many years that space if filled with heaps of energy.
> Every airconditioner does this every day, however we KNOW that its energy
> is just the heat/vibration in the air!!!!! So why can't we rectify the
> vibrations in space to attain energy????? We just don't currently have a
> device/tool to rectify /polarise the random energy flows. Maybe this is what
> has been done with the Lutec 1000.
>
Search on Maxwell's Demon. You'll find a good explanation of why you
can't rectify heat. That's not what a heat pump does.
Best, Dan.
Rick Russell
Littlefish <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No special status it is just our current physics doesn't recognise how the
> energy is channeled and where the energy comes from. Even though it has been
> known for many years that space if filled with heaps of energy.
> Every airconditioner does this every day, however we KNOW that its energy
> is just the heat/vibration in the air!!!!!
You might try following that 10-gauge electrical cord from the air
conditioner to the wall sometime.
The air conditioner _IMPARTS_ heat energy to the air outside of your
home so that it can remove heat from air the inside. This process
requires energy (hint, it comes from that electrical cord). It is
perhaps the simplest example of thermodynamics in action that you are
likely to find.
Rick R.
Littlefish
concertrated. The rectification bit was about harnessing ZPE not heat.
Littlefish
"Dan Bloomquist" <d...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3CCEA7D8...@spam.net...
Littlefish
energy you use in electrical input, then have a look at how much energy is
moved. The moved quantity is greater than the electrical input. This is
reflected in the Cooling rating printed inside the Unit. This process has
been used for 20 years to heat houses and in atmospheric hot water systems.
The total energy stored in one of these hot water systems is atleast 5 times
the electrical energy input. Why don't you have a look at some of these
devices.
Littlefish
"Rick Russell" <ri...@is.rice.edu> wrote in message
news:aao4to$3rg$1...@joe.rice.edu...
Littlefish
2 Why does a electron moving at a uniform velosity emit light where does
the
energy come from.
3 If Physics is so good why do we have the uncertanty principle.
4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
5 Why doesn't matter and antimatter explode on contact??
6 Why does iron when exposed to low gravity and cosmic radiation no longer
rust? Even thought the atomic structure hasn't seemed to change.
Littlefish
"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:m4KfWxJd...@baesystems.com...
Boris Mohar
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well well, my family comes first second and third. Where does yours
>come?????? I would still like to test the device and will continue to see if
>things will fall into place. I have been working with a device that uses a
>similar principle but has no moving parts and can be made from off the shelf
>parts. I would like to get hold of some super caps for testing with though.
>A couple of 339Volt 2500 Farad (Yes this is correct) super caps would be
>good to test with.
>Littlefish
Where would you get such caps?
Regards,
Boris Mohar
depauley
> 1 How do protons appear and disappear in free space.
Random fluxation in if space-time can create particle-anti-particle pairs,
never protons alone.
> 2 Why does a electron moving at a uniform velosity emit light where does
> the energy come from.
It does not in free space. Light is emitted only by interaction with other
matter
> 3 If Physics is so good why do we have the uncertanty principle.
The uncertainty principle comes from measuringt position and momentum using
electromagnetic radiation (eg. light). Any measurement transfers energy to
the system being measured (E=h? where ? is the frequency). Highet frequency
means higher resolution but more energy transfer, thus more change in the
system being measured.
> 4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
Radiation has a duality property (wave/particle).
> 5 Why doesn't matter and antimatter explode on contact??
They do. Absolutely!
> 6 Why does iron when exposed to low gravity and cosmic radiation no longer
> rust? Even thought the atomic structure hasn't seemed to change.
Iron rusts from contact with oxygen. Rust is iron oxide. Gravity and cosmic
radiation have nothing to do with it. All low gravity sitie currently
explored are practically free of oxygen.
Why not study a basic physics text. When you know nothing about a subject
your opinions are worthless.
> Littlefish
>
>
franz heymann
Littlefish <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eS8B8.3692$b5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> 1 How do protons appear and disappear in free space.
They don't.
> 2 Why does a electron moving at a uniform velosity emit light
It doesn't.
> where does
> the
> energy come from.
If you are thinking of Cerenkov radiation, the answer is that the
electron loses energy when it emits that radiation.
> 3 If Physics is so good why do we have the uncertanty principle.
That is an inherent part of the goodness of physics.
> 4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
It just holds its breath and goes for it.
> 5 Why doesn't matter and antimatter explode on contact??
It does.
> 6 Why does iron when exposed to low gravity and cosmic radiation no
longer
> rust? Even thought the atomic structure hasn't seemed to change.
Is that true?
Littlefish seems to think that the whole of physics can be discussed in
one single thread in this ng. He is wrong.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> No! A heat pump collects heat. It is never rectified just moved and
> concertrated. The rectification bit was about harnessing ZPE not heat.
> Littlefish
Please learn not to top post.
Franz Heymann
Don Lancaster
Uh, not even wrong, actually.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>"Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:eS8B8.3692$b5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
>
>electromagnetic radiation (eg. light). Any measurement transfers energy to
>the system being measured (E=h? where ? is the frequency). Highet frequency
>means higher resolution but more energy transfer, thus more change in the
>system being measured.
>
Uncertainty is an *inherent* wave property.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Duke McMullan N5GAX
harangued in message news:eS8B8.3692$b5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> 1 How do protons appear and disappear in free space.
Very rarely, that's how. I don't know the numbers, but pair-production of a
proton/antiproton pair has an extremely low probability. Pair production of up
quark-antiquark pairs are rare enough. TWO ups AND a down . . . .
As for how-meaning-the-underlying-mechanism, well, no one really knows, as far
as I'm aware. Quantum theory seems to demand it, and experiment shows it's a
real phenomenon, but I don't think anyone knows exactly _how_ it works. We can
calculate probabilities of pair production occuring, and the lab work in this
area shows the probabilities seem right on, within experimental error. A lot
of work goes on at improving the experiments and reducing the error.
When you get out onto the frontiers of knowledge, EVERYONE'S groping in the
dark.
> 2 Why does a electron moving at a uniform velosity emit light where does
> the energy come from.
??? It doesn't. The electron must be accelerated to emit light, by
interacting with other particles. Any charged particle will emit a photon when
accelerated, and the energy of the photon comes from the particle's kinetic
energy plus kinetic energy of the co-interacting particle. Mass/energy is
always conserved; momentum is always conserved. (As far as we know!)
> 3 If Physics is so good why do we have the uncertanty principle.
Physics is very good, and that's WHY we have the uncertainty principle.
Physics is our best description of observed natural laws. Uncertainty (more
generally, complementarity) seems to be built into the universe. See the 27
Apr 02 ish of New Scientist, page 27 for a discussion of some provisional work
which may impact significantly our understanding of the U.P.
> 4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
There is some mass present -- the m=e/(c^2) mass of the photon. It has no
"rest mass", but it does have some mass when propagating -- hence, light is
bent by a gravitational field. That does bring up a question about mass
(matter?) traveling at the speed of light, and that's getting beyond my ability
to answer. Perhaps a fer-real physicker could pick this one up.
> 5 Why doesn't matter and antimatter explode on contact??
As far as we know, they do. More exactly, there's particle-antiparticle
annihilation, in which the electron/positron or proton/antiproton or
neutron/antineutron or quark/antiquark pairs become gamma rays and start
heating things up.
> 6 Why does iron when exposed to low gravity and cosmic radiation no longer
> rust? Even thought the atomic structure hasn't seemed to change.
Source on this? I'm tempted to assert that it's because there's not a very
high humidity level in the space capsules, so there's little water to act as an
acid to the iron. Out here in the high desert, iron doesn't rust much at all
if you keep it out of the rain . . . what little rain there is . . . especially
this year. :-(
What's with these dippy questions, anyway? In particular, why phrase them so
antagonistically? A far more interesting question is why "Littlefish" behaves
the way he does. I suspect the answer lies in his slight understanding of
physics and science in general, and his even lesser understanding of himself.
(His understanding of English grammar is a bit shaky, too, if his questions are
any guide, but I doubt that contributes significantly to his (mis)behavior.)
Mildly irritated (and shouldn't be),
saict
<snip 1, 2 and 3>
<littlefish>
> > 4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
<duke>
> There is some mass present -- the m=e/(c^2) mass of the photon. It has no
> "rest mass", but it does have some mass when propagating -- hence, light is
> bent by a gravitational field. That does bring up a question about mass
> (matter?) traveling at the speed of light, and that's getting beyond my ability
> to answer. Perhaps a fer-real physicker could pick this one up.
<scowls> To littlefish: Your question assumes that mass is a
pre-requisite for travel. Where did that come from?
To duke: (Not like I'm a fer-real physicker, but....) It's true
enough mass units are used as a convenience to measure photons, but
photons properly have neither mass nor matter. You might say they
have a mass potential, in the form of the energy they carry. Energy
density, which seems to be the religion of the hydrogen group, is
infinite in a photon.
Graham Cowan
saict wrote:
>
> "Duke McMullan N5GAX" <Duk...@mail.com> wrote in message news
>
> <snip 1, 2 and 3>
>
> <littlefish>
> > > 4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
>
> <duke>
> > There is some mass present -- the m=e/(c^2) mass of the photon. It has no
> > "rest mass", but it does have some mass when propagating -- hence, light is
> > bent by a gravitational field. That does bring up a question about mass
> > (matter?) traveling at the speed of light, and that's getting beyond my ability
> > to answer. Perhaps a fer-real physicker could pick this one up.
>
> <scowls> To littlefish: Your question assumes that mass is a
> pre-requisite for travel. Where did that come from?
>
> To duke: (Not like I'm a fer-real physicker, but....
But Franz Heymann and Mati Meron --
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2223459843d&dq=&hl=en&selm=udaq07nje58pd3%40corp.supernews.com,
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3697909694d&dq=&hl=en&selm=WSeB8.8%24r4.926%40news.uchicago.edu
--
both are, or as near as
you're ever likely to see in sci.energy.hydrogen.
And they both posted before McMullan's (therefore) annoying comment.
-- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room!
Richard Herring
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> writes
Please don't top post.
>1 How do protons appear and disappear in free space.
What makes you think they do?
>2 Why does a electron moving at a uniform velosity emit light
What makes you think it does?
>3 If Physics is so good why do we have the uncertanty principle.
Wave mechanics.
>4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
Why do you think mass is necessary?
>5 Why doesn't matter and antimatter explode on contact??
What makes you think they don't?
>6 Why does iron when exposed to low gravity and cosmic radiation no longer
>rust?
What makes you think this is true?
--
Richard Herring
John Riley
Good answer, IMHO (and ignorant (me) -- but I have a pretty good idea
of what I don't know :)
But say I had this fantastic (in my eyes) idea, and all you guys shot
it down with "physics", then I might chime in with "How come physics
is so good if this this and that occur?"
If I didn't know any better :)
ATB John
ps How come you Murricans spell sulphur with an "f" but leave fysics
alone ? :)
TIM WARD
"John Riley" <lizr...@wantree.com.au> wrote in message
news:hv3hdu8r66r90vajm...@4ax.com...
> ps How come you Murricans spell sulphur with an "f" but leave fysics
> alone ? :)
Why isn't "phonetic" spell the way it sounds?
Tim Ward
TIM WARD
"TIM WARD" <tjw...@pe.net> wrote in message
news:Tb1C8.108$9_w.18...@news2.randori.com...
Sheesh. Obviously, I need an EDitor to check on how my words were spellED.
Tim Ward
Littlefish
"depauley" <depa...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:y5aB8.695$Ok3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eS8B8.3692$b5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > 1 How do protons appear and disappear in free space.
>
> Random fluxation in if space-time can create particle-anti-particle pairs,
> never protons alone.
twin particle anti particle pairs.
>
> > 2 Why does a electron moving at a uniform velosity emit light where
does
> > the energy come from.
>
> It does not in free space. Light is emitted only by interaction with other
> matter
Well how come this has been seen in the vaccum of space.
>
> > 3 If Physics is so good why do we have the uncertanty principle.
>
> The uncertainty principle comes from measuringt position and momentum
using
> electromagnetic radiation (eg. light). Any measurement transfers energy to
> the system being measured (E=h? where ? is the frequency). Highet
frequency
> means higher resolution but more energy transfer, thus more change in the
> system being measured.
It means that you can't examine this process if you are part of the system,
as osbservation effects the result.
>
> > 4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
>
> Radiation has a duality property (wave/particle).
People have dual personalities and are treated for that illness.
I still can't see the mass anywhere? Duality is bullshit, just a very
roundabout way to babble about something that escapes you.
>
> > 5 Why doesn't matter and antimatter explode on contact??
>
.
> They do. Absolutely!
No they don't, only certain compatible types of matter/anti matter release
energy.
>
> > 6 Why does iron when exposed to low gravity and cosmic radiation no
longer
> > rust? Even thought the atomic structure hasn't seemed to change.
>
> Iron rusts from contact with oxygen. Rust is iron oxide. Gravity and
cosmic
> radiation have nothing to do with it. All low gravity sitie currently
> explored are practically free of oxygen.
Have you ever examined iron that has been exposed the these conditions, I
think not. The cosmic radiation effects the vibrational harmonics of the
iron it effect is so small that we can't view this change, however it can be
detected by other means. It's characteristic frequency will change and
oxygen will not oxidise the iron.
>
> Why not study a basic physics text. When you know nothing about a subject
> your opinions are worthless.
Done that 20 years ago and in my opinion your current physics as taught in
schools and University is worthless.
>
> > Littlefish
> >
> >
>
>
depauley
>
> "depauley" <depa...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:y5aB8.695$Ok3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > "Littlefish" <Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:eS8B8.3692$b5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > 1 How do protons appear and disappear in free space.
> >
> > Random fluxation in if space-time can create particle-anti-particle
pairs,
> > never protons alone.
> you better have a closer look then because they do just appear and not as
> twin particle anti particle pairs.
>
observations repeated by competent scientists.
>
> >
> > > 2 Why does a electron moving at a uniform velosity emit light where
> does
> > > the energy come from.
> >
> > It does not in free space. Light is emitted only by interaction with
other
> > matter
> Well how come this has been seen in the vaccum of space.
Who, when and where? Was this repeatable?
> >
> > > 3 If Physics is so good why do we have the uncertanty principle.
> >
> > The uncertainty principle comes from measuringt position and momentum
> using
> > electromagnetic radiation (eg. light). Any measurement transfers energy
to
> > the system being measured (E=h? where ? is the frequency). Highet
> frequency
> > means higher resolution but more energy transfer, thus more change in
the
> > system being measured.
> It means that you can't examine this process if you are part of the
system,
> as osbservation effects the result.
>
Of course an osbservation effects the result! But the effect can be
examined. The uncertainty principle only limits the repeatability of the
experiment. For anyparticles visible to the naked eye, the uncertainty is
not detectable
> >
> > > 4 How can a EM wave travel through space if there is no mass present.
> >
> > Radiation has a duality property (wave/particle).
>
> People have dual personalities and are treated for that illness.
> I still can't see the mass anywhere? Duality is bullshit, just a very
> roundabout way to babble about something that escapes you.
>
What do people have to do with sub-atomic particles or photons? Matter is
necessary only for the propagation of mechanical waves such as sound. EM
wave propagation is entirely different.
> >
> > > 5 Why doesn't matter and antimatter explode on contact??
> >
> .
>
> > They do. Absolutely!
> No they don't, only certain compatible types of matter/anti matter release
> energy.
>
Each type of particle has a complementary anti-particle. It should be
obvious that an anti-electron cannot annihilate a proton. This has nothing
to do with matter antimatter explosion.
> >
> > > 6 Why does iron when exposed to low gravity and cosmic radiation no
> longer
> > > rust? Even thought the atomic structure hasn't seemed to change.
> >
> > Iron rusts from contact with oxygen. Rust is iron oxide. Gravity and
> cosmic
> > radiation have nothing to do with it. All low gravity sitie currently
> > explored are practically free of oxygen.
> Have you ever examined iron that has been exposed the these conditions, I
> think not. The cosmic radiation effects the vibrational harmonics of the
> iron it effect is so small that we can't view this change, however it can
be
> detected by other means. It's characteristic frequency will change and
> oxygen will not oxidise the iron.
>
Citation of experiment? Iron plus oxygen with water produces rust. Various
ways of processing the iron can reduce the rate of oxidation, but low
gravity and comsic radiation has not been reported as effective ways.
> >
> > Why not study a basic physics text. When you know nothing about a
subject
> > your opinions are worthless.
> Done that 20 years ago and in my opinion your current physics as taught in
> schools and University is worthless.
>
When did your opinions become laws of the universe? If this delusion
persists you should seek medical assistance.
> >
> > > Littlefish
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Paul Cardinale
By stating a need for unobtainable parts, he creates an excuse for not
being able to create the device. (Also, if such a part did exist, it
could hold 40 KWH* (almost exactly) of energy. That's enough to keep
a very beefy electrial load powered for long enough to convince many
suckers.)
Paul Cardinale
*That's probably how he came up with the very strange voltage spec. of
339 volts. Start with 40 KWH, pick 2500F out of thin air, calculate V
= 339.41 and round to in integer.
John
<Littlefish_au...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"depauley" <depa...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:y5aB8.695$Ok3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> Why not study a basic physics text. When you know nothing about a subject
>> your opinions are worthless.
>Done that 20 years ago and in my opinion your current physics as taught in
>schools and University is worthless.
Flunked out, huh?