Dr Steven E Jones: Open Sourcing His 20x Overunity Circuit
Paul D. Fernhout
http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-steven-e-jones-open-sourcing-his-20x.html
"Dr Steven E Jones demonstrates and explains his 20x overunity circuit
which has been been replicated already. The project is open source for
anyone. .... Unknown to many is that one of his other interests is in
proving overunity. He has been working on a special variation of the
"Joule Thief" circuit with which he has managed to achieve 20x overunity
performance. Firstly, he used a standard circuit to which he connected
a small LED and an AA battery. Running it overnight he found the battery
drained the next morning, but when he attempted the same experiment
again using the modified circuit he found that there was "no noticeable
change" in voltage in the battery even after powering the LED overnight
for some 12 hours. By all accounts the battery should have drained
significantly, certainly enough to be detectable."
And:
http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/
"Retired Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones is working on a simple
overunity circuit that he has seen go as high as 20 times overunity;
documented on a state-of-the-art Tektronix 3032 oscilloscope at Brigham
Young University producing eight times as much energy as was required to
run the solid state circuit. One of his friends, Les Kraut, has
replicated the circuit and also achieved eight times overunity."
I am not saying there is anything to this. I don't know and obviously it
sounds implausible. These kind of things are fraught with problems of
measurement errors, conceptual confusions, and so on.
What is interesting here is that rather than try to keep this all
proprietary, and trying to get investors, etc.. which is usually the
case and always smells scammish, the inventor in this case is sharing
the design and asking others to try it, with no expectation of money
changing hands to get the design. I think that is a big improvement in
the free energy / overunity community. It is both a step forward as
social contribution and a step forward for engaging peer-based
scientific scrutiny.
On the inventor from the second link: "Dr. Jones is the BYU professor
who was racing neck-and-neck with Pons and Fleishmann of the rival
University of Utah to the north, with his research in Cold Fusion, as
mentioned on his profile page at BYU.edu. He is even better known for
his documenting in peer-reviewed journals the replete thermite found in
the several dust samples from the World Trade Centers, proving that
controlled demolition was the cause that those three buildings fell at
free-fall and near-free-fall speeds. In our news, we featured a very
simple solar funnel that he and his students came up with to help
indigent peoples be able to cook with solar power. Obviously, he is not
a mainstream professor but is pushing the envelope. He sees the same
kind of signs of corruption and oppression in the energy sector that he
does in the U.S. government (which gave rise to the attacks on 9/11)."
Also from the second link: "Here is the two-part video (1 | 2) of Steve
explaining his circuit and measurement results as well as ideas for
scaling it up. Note how simple the circuit is. I'm guessing we're
looking at less than $50 in components and three hours to build this
one-off proof of concept circuit."
Again, I'm not saying this works. I'm not even saying all the stuff I
quoted is accurate (although it is accurately quoted as of this moment).
What I see here of interest is the social idea of the free energy
community linking up with open source and open manufacturing, as I
mentioned could be important here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
Although on that second page is the statement: "If you happen to get
involved in a commercial version of this open source project, selling
plans, kits, components, finished systems, licensing, etc., please remit
at least a 5% royalty to Steve's team who is helping disseminate this
information." I don't see an actual license for stuff there, but a
circuit diagram is there.
The buzzword sounding description: "The circuit is a derivation of the
"Joule Thief" circuit or a "blocking oscillator". His variation has an
LC-circuit feeding into the base of the transistor (which is unusual)
which regulates the resonant frequency of the device. He calls this
circuit a "boost resonator" because it resonates at a certain frequency,
and since the evidence shows that it somehow boosts the input power. "I
also found a way to 'tune' the efficiency, n, and to reduce the net
input power to nearly zero.""
Whether this works or not, at the very least, what someone will get out
of experimenting in this area is a respect for careful measurement. :-)
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
Windell H. Oskay
Paul D. Fernhout
> From:
> http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-steven-e-jones-open-sourcing-his-20x.html
> http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/
Discussions by people trying to replicate the effect are here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=2945efe3d074812f4624fbcce8743952&topic=853.0
The last page (someone suggesting it won't work):
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=2945efe3d074812f4624fbcce8743952&topic=853.75
However, others continue on trying to replicate it.
But what is important here is people have enough details to try to
replicate something...
I like that someone is trying to get a Spice simulation going of it. It
would be interesting to find the simulators said one thing and reality
said another due to some resonance issue. :-)
It has also occurred to me that could this somehow be some sort of viral
marketing campaign for Tektronix's latest oscilloscope? :-) Seems
doubtful, but the Tektronix name was mentioned several times in the
demonstration videos. I can also wonder how much of this could be an
artifact of measuring processes including with new features on a new scope.
Still, Tesla claimed all sorts of things about energy, and he did a lot
with oscillations. It is always possible there is something out there we
don't really understand about electrical resonance.
From:
http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/tesla.php
"... Although Tesla was not the first to discover resonance he was
obsessed with it and created some of the most incredible demonstrations
of it ever seen. He studied both mechanical and electrical versions. In
the process he created an artificial earthquake, numerous artificial
lightning storms, knocked an entire power plant off line in Colorado,
and nearly caused the steel frame of a sky scraper under construction in
Manhattan to collapse. Tesla realized that the principles of resonance
could be used to transmit and receive radio messages well before
Marconi. In fact, many knowledgeable sources now credit Tesla as the
inventor of radio rather than Marconi. This includes the Supreme Court
which in 1943 ruled that Tesla's radio patents had preceded all others
including Marconi's.
Tesla was a one-of-a-kind neurotic genius who had a profound
influence on our technology and culture. He was obsessed with germs and
the number three yet his inventions almost single handedly enabled the
creation of our modern AC power distribution system. He was a
contemporary of Edison and for a time worked for the famous inventor.
Unlike Edison (who Tesla considered something of a bumpkin), Tesla used
theory and calculations as well as experimentation to conduct his
research and was the more modern of the two in his approach. He was also
far more interested in pursuing his inventions for their own sake than
in becoming rich and famous.
Unfortunately, Tesla's obsession with pursuing grand ideas and
projects proved to be his undoing. He became convinced that energy could
be transmitted through the air without wires and spent a small fortune
on a demonstration project. He built a giant Tesla coil in Colorado
Springs which used electrical resonance to build up incredibly high
voltages and caused fantastic lightning shows. Unfortunately, his dream
of transmitting wireless power was never commercialized and, partly
because of it, Tesla ended dying a poor man . ...
Had Tesla been less eccentric and more interested in personal fortune
he would have avoided the grandiose projects which were his undoing. If
he had simply avoided making outrageous statements, he would have had
more scientific credibility and easily overshadowed Edison. Today, Tesla
would be far more famous and the subject of resonance would probably
receive far more attention in science textbooks. Resonance was certainly
one of Tesla's greatest passions and, like Tesla, seems almost too
mysterious to be real."
Lots of tradeoffs in life. :-)
And sometimes the same personal characteristics that help us in one
context may harm us in another...
Anyway, I can still wonder what things about resonance remain yet to be
discovered... Or rediscovered... :-)
mike
reporting unconventional experiments when they are open-source for
independent reproduction of claims.
I have also developed a complete lack of respect for the dogmatic
academic peer review process with their publish for profit academic
journals. At a conference last year on life extension, a cryo-
biologist had to ask that the cameras be turned off during his
presentation because he said that any cryobiologist advocating cryonic
will be discharged from some professional and scientific organization
for cryobiology.
This makes me wonder how many other professional organizations
exercise thought control over their members, so it discredits the
whole of conventional academia in my eyes, not to mention the grossly
excessive tuition at universities which has far outpaced the rate of
inflation.
s
Bryan Bishop
to moderator: please disregard this request. I see nothing wrong with
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Windell Oskay
If it helps your worldview, you are welcome to interpret my request to keep this mailing list on-topic and relevant as "the establishment" repressing you. But pretty please with sugar on top, take this garbage elsewhere.
Sent from my internet.
Andrew Back
> Paul and Mike: you're welcome to any opinions that you like. But this is a mailing list about open manufacturing. Even if there were any merit to this research-- and there is not --it would have no place here. Nothing is being manufactured, except maybe the data.
This is homeopathy with electrons - pure pseudoscience. The idea that
there is "free energy" well within our grasp and the only reason we
don't have it is due to global conspiracies is, well, about as
credible as David Icke's theories on reptilian shape-shifters ruling
the world. If paranoia and anti-establishment angst start to outweigh
reason and scientific understanding this is where you end up, and
before much longer you're barking at cars and pointing at aircraft
going overhead.
Regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Back
mailto:and...@carrierdetect.com
Alvaro F. Boirac
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
Paul D. Fernhout
> This makes me wonder how many other professional organizations
> exercise thought control over their members, so it discredits the
> whole of conventional academia in my eyes, not to mention the grossly
> excessive tuition at universities which has far outpaced the rate of
> inflation.
A whole book on that by an editor of Physics Today who got fired for
writing it:
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
The point I'm making is mostly that "open source" brings a new twist on
this issue of making what are usually seen as money raising scams that
revolve around keeping information hidden...
Paul D. Fernhout
> Nothing is being manufactured, except maybe the data.
At least two such devices have been made (or claimed, on video), with
further discussions by others making similar circuits (and failing to
replicate).
http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/
Even if just one device had been made, or even zero such devices, the
fact that the plans are openly available and can be discussed is what is
significant here.
Being open source completely changes the dynamics of some inventor
working in private hiding away ideas in hopes of patenting them or
having trade secrets. The very openness is what makes it possible to
approach this in a more scientific manner. The social dynamics changes.
If people want to mess around with simple circuits, looking into issues
of resonance and measurement, working in public from "open" plans, what
harm does it do? Except that, at worst, some people use up some free
time and some batteries and get a lot better at using oscilloscopes and
thinking about energy balance and measurement errors and so on? And then
are possibly more skeptical in the future of such claims?
How many suborbital hobby rockets have been made? What does one make of
the plans before they are launched and "proven" or even after they explode?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/23/0325225/Non-Profit-Space-Rocket-Launching-In-a-Week
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/31/1318217/Worlds-Largest-Amateur-Rocket-Prepares-For-Second-Attempt
""Last year, non-profit, volunteer-based Copenhagen Suborbitals failed
at launching what they call the world's largest amateur rocket, because
of a frozen LOX-valve. This year, the sea launch platform 'Sputnik' has
become self-propelled, eliminating the need for their home-built
submarine(!). Sputnik is on its way into the Baltic Sea right now and a
launch attempt is expected on Friday. However, one of the founders warns
that even if ignition should occur, it might very well look like this.""
Yet, chances are such rockets will completely fail. So what good are the
plans then? They are "wrong" -- an incorrect statement about engineering
and physics. Yet, drawing up such plans and building related stuff still
seems to me to be worthwhile to do, for the community and for the
learning and for the spinoffs, even if the plans for those rockets won't
work the way their inventors intended. And those plans may never work if
there are fundamental issues about materials, exhaust velocities, or
whatever that will make that impossible to achieve what goals the
inventors set. How many people are going to get excited about making
stuff by working on rockets even if the specific rockets may never
achieve their goals?
How much open source software is a big failure as far as getting used?
But, people may learn a lot of skills along the way.
I don't feel you have proved the case for harm in discussing such things
like resonant electronic circuits by those interested in them, in the
context that the plans and related discussions are "open" and so a
learning resource for others. Even if the expectation is that they
violate some "laws" of physics or thermodynamics.
How many really useful inventions have come out of people working on
stuff that could never work but had interesting implications and
spinoffs anyway? How many skills have been developed in pursuit of one
thing, only to be applied in something else?
In any case, messing around with a few electronic parts at low voltages
and low currents seems a lot safer than, say, trying to figure out how
an eCat works. :-) Which I would not recommend right now, as the risk of
radiation, hydrogen-related fires and explosions, toxic nickel nanodust,
chemical catalyst exposure, and so on. But Rossi's plans are not open
source, and he is getting patents related to that (or trying to), so it
is a totally different social dynamic.
Still, even there, I have no doubt people are trying to replicate such
things, so it is still fair to discuss, how can one do that as safely as
possible, while still discouraging it probably (at least for the home
shop, university shops used to dealing with hydrogen and nanoparticles
and radiation might be different).
By the way, on that impossible topic:
http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold-Fusion_Number-1_Claims_NASA_Chief/
"A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of
Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion
is taking place, saying it is probably beta decay per the Widom Larson
Theory. Repackaging the terminology to avoid embarrassment will not
erase over twenty years of suppression and the reality of cold fusion!"
I can wonder if "came out in support of" is stretching things though?
Although it is a comment made in this context:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/06/nasa-working-on-lenr-replication-and-theory-confirmation/
"Dr Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA�s Langley research center
told New Energy Times today that NASA is attempting a low-energy nuclear
reaction replication."
To say that Rossi's eCat is more "promising" than nano-plastic solar
power, as mentioned in the article, seems quite a statement?
If even NASA is exploring very-off-the-wall alternative energy systems
like related to cold fusion, and even saying they are more promising
than solar thermal, how can flaky-sounding alternative energy proposals
with specific plans be completely off-topic in a forum of people
interested in making things?
If you truly have faith in science as a process, then you have to have
faith that the mistaken chaff will be winnowed from the truthful grain,
eventually, by experiment and reflection, not by suppressing discussion.
Every alternative exploration becomes a chance to learn (or relearn)
about the fundamentals.
If you do not have time to help people learn those things yourself,
hopefully others might until that gets boring for them. Or, very
unlikely, true, until it becomes extremely exciting in the very rare
times the scientists are proven wrong, like about the earth going around
the sun, dirty hands being involved with causing disease,
heavier-than-air flight, amorphous semiconductors, higher-temperature
superconductors, or whatever else has changed over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discoveries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Examples_of_paradigm_shifts_in_the_natural_sciences
Are you absolutely 100% certain there is nothing interesting to discover
related to resonance and electronics ever in the future of humanity for
now until eternity? If so, how do you know that?
Maybe even if it does produce energy, this circuit will turn out to be,
say, a radio for ambient wi-fi?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2732-radio-emerges-from-the-electronic-soup.html
Even that might be an interesting thing to discover for explorers in
that area. For all we know, Rossi's eCat (if it works) may act as some
sort of radio receiver too... But collecting energy from some other
dimension somehow maybe through the Casimir effect?
And even if it is 100% true that resonance can not make weird overunity
things happen and there is nothing new to discover about them (you may
be quite right about that), isn't there value in people just personally
having some fun learning about resonance for those who have never played
with such circuits? Isn't pretty much anything that gets people playing
with building their own electronic circuits a good thing? Assuming they
don't become so disappointed they never make one again, of course... :-)
Eugen Leitl
> On 6/1/11 12:25 AM, Windell Oskay wrote:
>> Nothing is being manufactured, except maybe the data.
>
> At least two such devices have been made (or claimed, on video), with
> further discussions by others making similar circuits (and failing to
> replicate).
Please stop promoting free energy kooks and frauds.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Paul D. Fernhout
> This is homeopathy with electrons - pure pseudoscience.
Actually, I wrote part of an essay on why homeopathy works sometimes,
and sometimes even better than mainstream medicine. :-) Part of that:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Homeopathy_as_a_big_picture_example
"Now, I'm not going to suggest that all, or even most, homeopathy works
as advertised. But, please consider for a moment five plausible
explanations for why some homeopathic remedies may indeed work as well
or better as some mainstream drugs for the same condition. ... If the
placebo effect works, then why not use it to cure the cases where it can
be cured? ..."
The placebo effect, for example, is not pseudoscience. In fact, it seems
to be getting stronger. :-)
"Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to
Know Why."
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all
Let's say homeopathic remedies only work because the placebo effect
works, and the human mind can cause a lot of healing on its own. Is it
wrong for some people to help others activate their own minds in a
healing way? Even if it takes some mumbo jumbo?
But there are other reasons specific homeopathic remedies may work as
well that I list there. And sure, in general, I'd like all our medicinal
practices to be well understood, 100% safe and 100% effective and 100%
free-to-the-user. :-) But that does not seem to be where we are yet.
Before replying that homeopathy is still pseudoscience even if it works
sometimes, or that some homeopaths taking advantage of customers (which
no doubt happens), consider, as I wrote there: "In the case of mental
illness, psychologist Bruce Levine has written a whole book with the
thesis that most mainstream drugs for most mental illness are
essentially all placebos, and their side effects are part of how they
work, because when people feel sick from taking something that is
supposed to make them well, they think it must be working. So, there we
have, if he can be believed, and he cites studies, that the entire
psychopharmaceutical industry is based on the placebo effect."
His book:
"Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy,
and Community in a World Gone Crazy"
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
Yet, real solutions for mental difficulties, especially depression,
exist to some extent, like getting adequate vitamin D, eating more
vegetables, eating Omega-3s, eliminating junk food, redesigning our
physical and social infrastructure to promote mild exercise and regular
social interaction, increasing laughter, getting better sleep, getting
past spiritual crises, and so on. But there remedies that are, for the
most part, proven effective and safe, are generally passed over in favor
of drugs, in part as the essentially placebos-with-side-effects
prescribed by M.D.s are a lot cheaper to insurance companies (or at
least more profitable to some producers) than these other interventions.
That's a sorry state of affairs.
Another item on that theme from another source:
"The Depressing News About Antidepressants"
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-about-antidepressants.html
"Studies suggest that the popular drugs are no more effective than a
placebo. In fact, they may be worse."
Or, quoting Marcia Angell:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although
they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest
and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly
those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer
possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or
to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New
England Journal of Medicine."
That's the editor of a major medical journal saying not to trust the
studies because of all the conflicts of interest....
What does that say about the state of a huge sector of our official
medical system? Or that fact that the mostly DIY-remedies, like I listed
such as vitamin D or omega-3s or vegetables or getting more sleep, are
not emphasized?
Are placebos like most homeopathic remedies evil? If so, why do MD
psychiatrists get a free pass for prescribing things that are according
to Newsweek are sometimes *worse* than placebos because those
practicioners went to one set of schools, but homeopaths are villified
because they went to a different set of schools even though they may
often do less harm?
Actually, part of the reason from 100 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report
So, maybe it would be right to say that "pseudoscience" does a lot of
damage? :-)
But we need to revisit a lot of "science" that is pseudoscience perhaps? :-)
Anyway, a lot of these things are more complex than they appear at
first, especially given so much money and conflict-of-interest is
involved. The financial conflict of interest are real, even if they may
or may not lead to misstatements or bad conclusions.
I'm all for rooting out the rot of pseudoscience where ever it is. :-)
But I don't see how we can do that without open discussions and attempts
at replication and some systematic open collection and organization of
data points...
And of course, we need to accept that at some point values and
assumptions come into play that are not amenable to science, like Albert
Einstein said:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends,
since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only
answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which
act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals;
they are there, that is, as something living, without its being
necessary to find justification for their existence."
As I see it, part of the rot of pseudoscience is people making claims as
science about things that are more issues of values (like when
mainstream economists try to prescribe solutions as if they were
value-free rather than tell us about the implications of policies and
let people decide what values were important to them...)
Do these overunity resonance circuit of Dr Steven E Jones work? I'd tend
to agree with Windell as far as thinking that they almost certainly
don't (well, he might say "certainly" not "almost certainly" :-). And
even if it does, I would think there is some explanation like being a
radio receiver which prevents them from scaling. Still, I won't say I'm
100% sure.
As things to play with go, those experiments with a handful of parts and
a battery are cheap and seem to be just about as safe as they can get.
It would be easy to make one and demonstrate that Dr. Jones is drawing
the wrong conclusions from what he is seeing. I just don't see the great
harm in trying to replicate that.
The important point in that the inventor made the plans publicly
available, which is a huge difference from so many people who try to
charge for such plans. The social dynamics are so different. The
inventor in that sense is engaging in science, whatever one thinks of
the result. (Absent some hidden financial motivation like promoting some
manufacturer's oscilloscopes.)
Science is about trying to replicate things and then making sense about
all the data collected. Science is not about simply saying things won't
work for dogmatic reasons.
Granted, we all need to decide where to prioritize our own time use. I
can understand the frustration you or Windell might have with
pseudoscience. Believe me, I share it. :-) I just extend the label of
"pseudoscience" to more fields than many, perhaps. :-)
Anyway, I would not call the (then) Vice-Provost of Caltech, David
Goodstein, "paranoid" and "anti-establishment", but even he said, in the
1990s, in an essay related to testimony to Congress, and in relation to
socioeconomic forces effecting science that have only worsened since:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
"Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common. For example,
peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in
critical danger. ... We must find a radically different social structure
to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch. That
is not meant to be an exhortation. It is meant simply to be a statement
of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to
survive at all."
Again, the most important issue here is that someone with a
very-hard-to-believe claim (Dr. Steven Jones) has made the plans freely
available. That IHMO just shows a cultural shift in how people are
working in the field of overunity explorations. One can contrast that
with Andrea Rossi who has not made the eCat plans available (because of
a hidden catalyst).
A whole set of discussions and comments on open source and free energy
is here, btw, and a couple summaries of links on that page:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS
"Open source your free energy technology - Do you have a breakthrough
clean energy technology that could break the world's addiction to oil?
Thinking about open sourcing it? Consider the attributes of the ideal
project, likely sources of revenue, determining a fair ratio for revenue
sharing, and other tips and links. (PESWiki; Jan. 23, 2010) ...
Open Sourcing Free Energy Technology - Video of Sterling Allan's
presentation at the Gnomedex conference in Seattle on Aug. 11, 2007
talking about screening the best technologies, and using the open source
model to break the log jam on exotic, disruptive energy technologies."
That last point, that the open source model can "break the log jam"
seems most relevant here. It's hard for people to sustain claims for
very unusual devices if people come to expect to see the plans in a form
that allow replication...
So ultimately, if the cultural paradigm shifts more to open source, then
we may see a lot less free energy scams, and a lot more collaboration on
debunking (or duplicating) devices. I think the whole cultural dynamic
might shift on all that. I think it is shifting.
Now, that does not mean I believe any of the "free energy" ideas work
physically for sure. But it means that with an open source emphasis, I
feel the social process surrounding "free energy" research may be
improving in a way that any skeptic of "free energy" should applaud. :-)
If you don't want to try to duplicate the circuit, no one says you have
to. :-) If other people duplicate the circuit from the plans and say it
does not produce excess energy, I'd be curious to hear that. Still,
maybe someone will learn something interesting along the way, even if
the circuit does not perform as advertised. Most DIY experiments with
electronics are pointless in a productive sense, but we do them anyway
because they are amusing and educational and perhaps now social.
Related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens_%28book%29
"Homo Ludens or "Man the Player" (alternatively, "Playing Man") is a
book written in 1938 by Dutch historian, cultural theorist and professor
Johan Huizinga. It discusses the importance of the play element of
culture and society. Huizinga uses the term "Play Theory" within the
book to define the conceptual space in which play occurs. Huizinga
suggests that play is primary to and a necessary (though not sufficient)
condition of the generation of culture."
Somewhere along the line, like with the "Big Crunch" David Goostein
talked about, US science and scientists stopped being very playful. That
seems to me to be a great tragedy. One can only look to the DIY
community and hope that some of that playfulness can emerge in other ways.
I can practically guarantee that if enough people play with Dr. Jones'
circuit, that something interesting will come out of it. I just don't
know what. :-) Maybe just one newly minted highly-skeptical electrical
engineer who goes on to make great microradio circuits? :-)
Bryan Bishop
> At least two such devices have been made (or claimed, on video), withPlease stop promoting free energy kooks and frauds.
> further discussions by others making similar circuits (and failing to
> replicate).
--
Windell H. Oskay
On Jun 1, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> Are you absolutely 100% certain [...]
I am absolutely 100% certain that none of these discussions belong on the open manufacturing mailing list.
*Please,* if you cannot stay on topic, remove yourself from this mailing list.
-Windell
DoktorJ
electronic device does not belong on an open manufacturing mailing
list. Open manufacturing doesn't just involve non-electronic
devices. In the end, the plans for these devices, in their current
state, are probably useless. But the knowledge gained by playing with
and even disproving these devices absolutely belongs on this mailing
list. I can't think of a better place for it. Also, I'd like to add
that this list is called OPEN Manufacturing. If it starts becoming
censored based on whether a small number of members don't think a
given device will work, I'll go elsewhere.
Eugen Leitl
> Please explain to me how a discussion of a recently open-sourced
Please do not top-post and please trim your replies (message
unchanged below).
> electronic device does not belong on an open manufacturing mailing
These are not electronic devices. These are perpetuum mobile
machines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
> list. Open manufacturing doesn't just involve non-electronic
Open manufacturing does not include tedious dicussion of devices
which violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.
> devices. In the end, the plans for these devices, in their current
> state, are probably useless. But the knowledge gained by playing with
> and even disproving these devices absolutely belongs on this mailing
Absolutely not. Because we wouldn't do anything else for the
rest of our lives. You might be not aware of free energy kooks
out there, but I sure am. This isn't the psychoceramics list.
> list. I can't think of a better place for it. Also, I'd like to add
> that this list is called OPEN Manufacturing. If it starts becoming
> censored based on whether a small number of members don't think a
> given device will work, I'll go elsewhere.
Don't let the cyberdoor hit on your cyberass on the way out.
> On Jun 1, 12:40�pm, "Windell H. Oskay" <wind...@oskay.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> >
> > > Are you absolutely 100% certain [...]
> >
> > I am absolutely 100% certain that none of these discussions belong on the open manufacturing mailing list. � �
> >
> > *Please,* if you cannot stay on topic, remove yourself from this mailing list. �
> >
> > -Windell
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
Windell H. Oskay
> electronic device does not belong on an open manufacturing mailing
> list.
Okay. Let's go ahead and assume that the circuit diagrams that they
downloaded from the internet and re-released as "open source" really
will generate energy and will solve all of mankind's energy problems.
Are they discussing how to manufacture them? Nope-- it's just pure
research, and all using standard household materials (at least for folks
like us that have stuff like that lying around the house). When they
move towards manufacturing, it might become relevant for this list.
Is this research related to manufacturing technologies, open or
otherwise? Nope-- it's not. This could be on-topic for on an
open-source energy research mailing list, or an open source physics
mailing list, or maybe an open-source electronics mailing list, but
it's still simply not relevant to manufacturing.
> Open manufacturing doesn't just involve non-electronic
> devices.
Who said that it did?
I'm involved with manufacturing of open-source electronics, and in
open-source technologies for manufacturing. That's (some of) the stuff
that belongs on this mailing list.
> In the end, the plans for these devices, in their current
> state, are probably useless.
Nonsense. They keep people employed. That's useful, isn't it? Perpetual
motion research is a time-honored, profitable industry with nearly a
thousand years of history. (Corollary: It would be the *death* of the
industry if one of the devices actually worked. Think of all the lost
jobs!)
> But the knowledge gained by playing with
> and even disproving these devices absolutely belongs on this mailing
> list. I can't think of a better place for it.
I absolutely disagree with you. You *really* can't think of a better
place? I can think of dozens. How about forums for learning about
electronics, or ones for energy research?
> Also, I'd like to add
> that this list is called OPEN Manufacturing.
Uh, yeah, you noticed that too. So... how about moving it back to
talking about OPEN MANUFACTURING? (That would be my whole point.)
> If it starts becoming
> censored based on whether a small number of members don't think a
> given device will work, I'll go elsewhere.
Nice misunderstanding of censorship there. Doesn't matter whether or not
these given devices will work-- they don't belong here. Go fork
yourselves over to an open energy research mailing list if that's what you
want.
DoktorJ
time.
@Eugen Lefti
> Open manufacturing does not include tedious dicussion of devices
> which violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.
to closed loop systems. No device in the world is a truly closed loop
system. So, I would say that it's unwise to claim that any device
violates laws that can be affected by any and every type of energy in
the universe. 6 months ago, almost every person in here would say
that cold fusion (low-energy nuclear reaction) violated many accepted
laws of the universe, but now it's looking like that's not the case
and/or a different phenomena is occurring that looks like LENR but
works in a different way.
> Absolutely not. Because we wouldn't do anything else for the
> rest of our lives. You might be not aware of free energy kooks
> out there, but I sure am. This isn't the psychoceramics list.
despite huge amounts of evidence disproving it. You won't see me
claiming these devices do anything useful, though I also don't
immediately rule out that someone might one day find a way to harness
some small portion of the huge amount of ambient energy that passes
through our bodies and planet every day. When I refer to disproving,
I am talking about the rest of us, with a rational view of reality,
who accept that unexpected, but not unexplainable things happen, but
not very often.
On Jun 2, 3:42 pm, "Windell H. Oskay" <wind...@oskay.net> wrote:
> Are they discussing how to manufacture them? Nope-- it's just pure
> research, and all using standard household materials (at least for folks
> like us that have stuff like that lying around the house). When they
> move towards manufacturing, it might become relevant for this list.
every day, and most of what I see has nothing to do with actual
manufacturing, it is discussion of hacker spaces, home schooling, the
organizational failings of Reprap, Reprap moving to a new repository.
There is very little information about the actual manufacturing of
devices, but tons of related information. Personally, I like that
format, though some others may not. I just find it strange that it
suddenly becomes a problem, only when someone posts about something
most people (including myself) don't think will work. And as far as
I'm concerned open source energy and open manufacturing are so closely
related that discussing one while barring discussion of another is a
really inefficient way to proceed.
> > In the end, the plans for these devices, in their current
> > state, are probably useless.
>
> Nonsense. They keep people employed. That's useful, isn't it?
is not particularly useful imo. Open sourcing those plans so people
can go online and find documentation of all the people who tried to
build these things and disproved them, now that's useful.
> I absolutely disagree with you. You *really* can't think of a better
> place? I can think of dozens. How about forums for learning about
> electronics, or ones for energy research?
back to my previous point, the relationship between open source energy
and open manufacturing is so strong that I simply don't think barring
discussion of possible open source energy devices in an open
manufacturing group is the correct way to proceed.
John Griessen
> You won't see me
> claiming these devices do anything useful
[jg]Hmm....
"Keeping people employed by selling plans for otherwise useless devices
is not particularly useful imo."
[jg]Yep.
"don't think barring
discussion of possible open source energy devices in an open
manufacturing group is the correct way"
[jg]But you said "devices do anything useful" == NOT, so how are they
"energy devices" we could manufacture? They sound like experiment plans,
or the information selling game. There's no hardware shipping.
"There is very little information about the actual manufacturing of
devices, but tons of related information. Personally, I like that
format"
[jg]I've been doing some open hardware manufacturing and it is mundane hand work
so far, so not much to talk about. The fun thing is making a gamble on what the
world, (or a little slice of it you know about), wants, then executing a product
and selling it and seeing orders. I've just gotten orders from Australia,
UK, Netherlands and of course a bunch from the US for
a teeny niche product I've made:
http://ecosensory.com/tek/TEK_7K_FLEX-1.gif
and I have not even done a decent selling website yet so it's a little premature to brag on,
but there it is. That's probably why you see so little of open mfrg reports -- it's a
slow, low budget grind to get sales with a lot of development time in between.
This product is a kit, so as to stay in line with the low price low budget aims of
practical open hardware manufacturing as I see it.
The breakthroughs in manufacturing are finding the low cost suppliers that help
you make a profit. Today I took the maker's label on some 24 gauge UL1061 wire I bought
from a distributor for $23.50/1000ft and called the manufacturer and they sell direct
and will make me 10,000 feet for $14.60/1000ft in any color I send them a sample of.
It's seems as much about that as nifty design.
Before finding the distributor that would sell 6K ft. at $23.50/1000ft delivered
I was getting quotes of $18/1000ft but ridiculous shipping so it would have been $30/1K ft.
and worse. I got a gut feel they were acting like used car salesmen and ended up
getting a completely different price from one of them for coax cable just by
waiting them out for a week, then asking for price again with lowest cost shipping method.
So it's a real breakthrough to find a way around them completely and not have to deal
with China on a heavy commodity with high shipping costs relative to the commodity itself.
I'm thinking of ordering some parrot fish blue 24 gauge stranded wire next.
Anyone want some small kits of that for a reasonable mark up? I'm tapped into the
source now. 24 ga. is just right for durable insulation displacement
or screw terminal or soldered hookups of batteries and such to small circuit modules.
John Griessen
Paul D. Fernhout
> Last I checked the first and second laws of thermodynamics only apply
> to closed loop systems. No device in the world is a truly closed loop
> system. So, I would say that it's unwise to claim that any device
> violates laws that can be affected by any and every type of energy in
> the universe. 6 months ago, almost every person in here would say
> that cold fusion (low-energy nuclear reaction) violated many accepted
> laws of the universe, but now it's looking like that's not the case
> and/or a different phenomena is occurring that looks like LENR but
> works in a different way.
Thanks for the comments. And I may point out that your are reading an
obvious objection to overunity research (the second law of
thermodynamics) into the objections, almost certainly correctly, but
from a learning point-of-view, it would have been better if those with
objections could have stated the specific reasons for the objections
such as "violates the second law of thermodynamics" so people can learn
about such things, rather than others having to guess at the reasons for
the objections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Also, to cut the objectors some slack, this post follows on other
comments about Rossi's LENR eCat cold fusion device, so some people are
maybe primed to object more. Maybe otherwise, without stuff about the
eCat, reactions might have been different.
The rest of this just explores issues in understanding the limits and
benefits of applying the second law of thermodynamics in understanding
various types of now commonly accepted phenomenon.
---
To amplify on this point on thermodynamics, there are at least four ways
to explain getting more energy out of a system then you put in:
* The system is some sort of battery with energy (or matter which is
also energy) in it already;
* The system is open and capable of receiving energy from somewhere else;
* There has been some innocent-but-ignorant-or-careless error in
measurement, calculation, perception, or understanding of what is going on;
* There is some sort of active human fraud and intentional misdirection.
For specific systems, we can argue which one applies.
The advantage to having open source plans is that the last item,
intentional deception, is somewhat minimized. Although, of course, there
could be advertising dollars or something involved, even with open plans.
Let's consider some systems that could be seen as violating the second
law of thermodynamics to some degree in an overunity sense, but
ultimately we decide they don't.
When you burn a piece of wood in a campfire with a match to start the
fire, you get much more heat energy out then you put in (overunity).
However, we don't think that violates the second law of thermodynamics
because scientists have invented some notion of chemical energy in
chemical bonds that acts like a battery, and on a human timescale, a
campfire burns out in an hour and you can't generally make it burn again
with the same match. But still, as a key point, you got a lot more
energy out of the system for a time then you put in. So, we can see that
the issue of time duration is important (the "perpetual" in perpetual
motion). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that
over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential
equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of
thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase
of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The
second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable
energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called
perpetual motion of the second kind."
However, then the practical issue becomes as well, what timescales are
we talking in relation to a device?
Consider a geothermal power plant. You put a bit of power in to run some
pumps that pump water deep into the ground, and out comes a lot of hot
water, far more than from the electricity you put in. Again, overunity.
Now, we explain this by saying the Earth underground can be very hot
(even if few of us have been deep underground). The question is, how
long can you keep doing this? Apparently, for thousands or maybe
millions or possibly even billions of years. While opinions may differ,
the heat of the Earth either was stored there during the Earth's
formation from gravitational accretion of dust and asteroids and
planetoids, or it is the result of some nuclear processes (some may also
come from other sources mentioned later). Focusing on just the latent
heat of formation idea, we can tap that heat like a battery with some
special geothermal devices, and we could, if we wanted to, power our
civilization at current energy levels for thousands (or possibly
millions) of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
"The Earth's geothermal resources are theoretically more than adequate
to supply humanity's energy needs, but only a very small fraction may be
profitably exploited."
But note how we have to posit that the Earth has some huge reservoir of
heat that acts like a battery. There was probably a time hundreds of
years ago when this was not known. So, a geothermal plant would have
been considered an overunity device in that sense.
Now consider strange rocks that stay strangely warm for millions (even
billions) of years like uranium. Wow, what a weird thing. How can we
explain that violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Well, in the
last eighty years or so, physicists invented a "curve of binding energy"
idea. They propose what might seem at first ludicrous idea that there
are teeny tiny bits of stuff (neutrons and protons) that give off energy
when the either join or split with each other as larger assemblages in
certain very specific ways. So, the rocks stay hot as they change their
internal state in a very non-obvious way. Using that idea, we can build
devices in places like Fukushima that take electric power from the grid
(or backup generators when they are not submerged by tsunamis), use that
power to pump water through these hot rocks (or refined versions) and
get more heat out than we put in via electricity. But, no one now
considers this violating the second law of thermodynamics becomes some
long-dead men in white coats blessed the idea of a curve of binding
energy, and it looks like many related predictions hold up.
Now, consider an apparently physical perpetual motion machine. Jupiter's
moons go round and round the planet, same as our Moon goes round and
round a center-point just at the Earth's edge (as part of a two-body
system). There we what seems to be true perpetual motion. But why does
this not violate the second law of thermodynamics? Well, apparently
perpetual motion is OK as long as you do not try to extract energy out
of the system. Fine.
But what about the fact that Jupiter's moon IO seems to have active
volcanos and magma ocean?
"Scientists Discover Magma Ocean on Jupiter's Moon Io - TIME"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2071722,00.html
Or what about the likely water ocean on Europa or possibly other moons
of Jupiter?
"Jupiter's Moon Europa: What Could Be Under The Ice?"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213180823.htm
How do those moons stay so warm? Radioactive curve of binding energy
stuff? Or, more likely, it seems like tidal effects related to circling
Jupiter may be causing expansion and contraction that cause heating in
the Moons. Why are the NASA scientists no upset about this violating the
second law of thermodynamics? Well, they would probably just say that
some part of the physical system is slowing down, like the moon's
rotation around its own center is slowing or the moon's rotation in an
orbit is slowing or Jupiter itself is slowing in rotation, or something
like that. But on a practical basis, whatever instruments might someday
detect, that slowing in the perpetual motion of Jupiter's moons will
probably not be noticeable for millions of years. So, the case against
perpetual motion and energy production is more like, yes, if you have a
system in perpetual motion, you might be able to extract relatively
small amounts of energy regularly from it without anyone noticing much
for a long time (longer than humans have been recognizably human).
Another possible explanation for some of the heating of Jupiter's moons
might be that they move through an electrical field generated by Jupiter
somehow, but still then we may have something slowing, either the
movement of Jupiter and its moons, or the slowing of an electric field
in Jupiter, or maybe the slowing of gas particles as Jupiter cools.
Although that gets complicated, because what if Jupiter had nuclear
processes (fission, fusion, cold fusion) going on inside itself that
generated a magnetic field? Then its moons might be kept warm by nuclear
processes happening in Jupiter, and transmitted via electromagnetic
effects to the moons? Just speculation, of course.
We can next turn to the Sun. It seems to shine for a long time. Is it a
coal fire as was thought a long time ago? Seems like it would have been
burned out by now, some ancients calculated. Is it from the heat of
gravitational collapse? Is it from uranium? Well, in the past hundred
years, people have become enamored based on interpretation of various
forms of data that hydrogen fusion occurs in the sun and produces much
of the power. Still, we don't know for sure. There are other
explanations, but they are not so satisfying. Will the sun burn forever?
People think not. But the timescale is so long that it does not need to
effect human plans for millions or even billions of years. So, it is an
amazing battery if it does work that way.
The Rossi/Focardi eCat is another example of a "battery" in a way (if it
works). They claim hydrogen and nickel can fuse under the right
circumstances of heat, possibly electrical field, and catalyst, where
nickel plus hydrogen becomes copper. NASA is exploring this too, but
thinks it happens for other reasons. Related search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+rossi+ecat
But the hydrogen gets used up and the nickel gets transformed. So, while
one may argue over whether they are wrong that it works at all, there is
nothing there that violates the second law of thermodynamics if we
assume that it works the way it is described. (It may not work that way,
of course, as I will mention below.)
So, there we have several examples of "batteries" that all might be seen
to violate the second law of thermodynamics, but in exploring them,
scientists and engineers have come up with new ideas about how the
universe works, from chemical bonds to a curve of binding energy to
gravitational tidal effects to possibly other things. They were able to
do so because the ideas and data were in the public domain and could be
part of a scientific process.
Now, let us turn from "battery" ideas to "open system" ideas.
If I put out a solar panel in the sun, maybe with a battery powered
multi-meter measuring the electric output, I'm going to see a lot of
energy produced. How can that be? A black slab of silicon is generating
energy, seemingly infinitely. Every day at noon I measure the current
and voltage for ten minutes, and there is lots of energy being produced.
The small battery in the portable volt-meter certainly can not explain
this. Well, we now have a portfolio of battery ideas, so is the energy
coming from a chemical reaction as the silicon burns? Is it a nuclear
reaction related to uranium in the silicon somehow? Is it maybe caused
by the moon passing overhead and causing some flexing in the panel? Gee,
what could it be. OK, so some kid will come along and tell me, maybe it
has something to do with the sunlight arriving at the panel from the Sun
(which can be seen as a battery). So, we have an "open system" then,
with the Sun being the battery. Somehow the photons of the sun are
converted into moving electrons. So, the solar panel is then acting as a
sort of "antenna" for picking up energy from elsewhere in our universe.
By the way, if this is an amorphous semiconductor solar panel, for many
years scientists said just a few decades ago that would be impossible
since amorphous things can't be semiconductors by the then theory, but
Stan Oshinsky proved such scientists wrong. Did those scientists later
apologize for giving him a really hard time? I doubt it.
Anyway, so lets now wonder about how a crystal radio works. My father
built one as a boy about 85 years ago. I think his happiness building
one back then might have been part of why he was supportive of my
learning about digital electronics. I think I might have built one using
a RadioShack 100-in-1 electronics kit in passing, but I can't remember.
Crystal radios do not have a battery. They have a crystal and a coil and
an antenna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio
How can such a crystal radio work without a battery? Seems ridiculous.
The thing produces sound, which is a form of energy you could use to do
useful work of some sort. Does a crystal radio violate the second law of
thermodynamics? What if you had invented one a thousand years ago and
heard popping noises (the sound of the Sun?). What would people have
said? Where is the energy coming from?
Well, Wikipedia says: "A crystal radio receiver, also called a crystal
set or cat's whisker receiver, is a very simple radio receiver, popular
in the early days of radio. It needs no battery or power source and runs
on the power received from radio waves by a long wire antenna."
Ah, so apparently devices with antennas can convert ambient radio waves
(whatever those are?) into energy! But, of course, this can't violate
the "law". So, what happens here? I'm not an expert enough on that to
say, but presumably a crystal radio disrupts and weakens the radio wave
somehow so it propagates with less power. But, as the crystal radio uses
so little power, this effect presumably is not very noticeable. That's
why you need the special ear piece stuck in your ear, as your ear is
very good at picking up weak signals which is all you get from a typical
crystal radio.
Now, what about things like microwave transmission dishes? How do those
work? Or how can people at the Space Studies Institute propose to build
"rectennas" in corn fields that somehow produce power? You could got to
those big pieces of metal in the middle of nowhere, and day and nigh,
they would feel warm, and you could measure voltages and currents. How
could that be?
Well, I guess "produce" is the wrong word. SSI wanted to build big
satellites with solar panels in orbit around the Earth that beamed
microwaves down to the those metal rectennas. So, the rectennas would be
acting a bit like a crystal radio. They would be part of an open system.
See also:
http://ssi.org/solar-power-satellites/solar-power-satellite-art/
So, no laws violated, I guess. But only because we understand the notion
of "microwaves" now. In the early 1800s, how could we have explained a
rectenna farm? From:
http://www.articlesbase.com/home-improvement-articles/the-history-of-the-microwave-414770.html
"In 1946, Dr. Percy Spencer was quite intrigued when he was testing the
magnetron, a new vacuum tube, when all of a sudden the candy bar in his
pocket melted. This amazed him so much that he thought he would try
another experiment with popcorn kernels. He placed the kernels in front
of the magnetron and to his surprise they started popping."
Although the microwave radiation idea goes back to Maxwell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
"The existence of electromagnetic waves was predicted by James Clerk
Maxwell in 1864 from his Maxwell's equations."
But before that, rectenna farms would have been a total mystery.
No, consider again the sun. Is it a ball of compressed gas doing hot
fusion as most scientists think at the moment? Or is it a harder
iron-nickel sphere that ejects neutrons (from quantum boundary effects)
that might fuse at the boundary as cold fusion or fuse with each other
as hot fusion in the sun's photosphere?
http://www.thesunisiron.com/
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
Or is the sun just a receiver of energy like an antenna?
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory
Well, on a practical basis it does not matter too much right now whether
the sun is a battery or an antenna. Still, if the sun was mostly an
antenna, that might open the way to a different way of building energy
capture devices...
Could the eCat be part of such a new change in thinking about energy?
Could the eCat be some sort of antenna? We don't know. I like James P.
Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear" more and more in part for his
discussion back around 1982 of the socio-political consequences of
different views of the physical universe and related expectations about
how much energy humans could access.
Consider also the "casimir" effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
"In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir�Polder
force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical
example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few
micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a
classical description, the lack of an external field also means that
there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured
between them.[1] When this field is instead studied using quantum
electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual
photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force[2]�either
an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of
the two plates. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of
virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and
more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized
field in the intervening space between the objects. This force has been
measured, and is a striking example of an effect purely due to second
quantization.[3][4] However, the treatment of boundary conditions in
these calculations has led to some controversy. In fact "Casimir's
original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable
molecules" of the metallic plates. Thus it can be interpreted without
any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual
particles of quantum fields.[5]"
So, there we have a real measurable effect. Does it violate the second
law of thermodynamics? Look what scientists do there to get around that.
Scientists propose "zero point energy" and "virtual particles" and
"quantum fluctuations" and all sorts of other related stuff that you
could read all about if you looked at, say, CERN's annual reports for
all the billions of dollars they spend looking into (quantum) physics.
But, see, like with those permanently glowing rocks, the Casimir effect
does not break the second law of thermodynamics now because we have
invented a conceptualization around it -- matter out of thin vacuum so
to speak. And since matter is energy, then we could, in theory, maybe
figure out a way to create energy from the vacuum in one place, and get
rid of excess energy back into the vaccuum in another place. But, this
would not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the energy is
coming from and going to some mysterious other-worldy universe of
virtual particles many physicists think exists somehow all around us but
we are unaware of it. So, it all tidys up. The equations balance. But
then, what is the point of the second law of thermodynamics when we have
reached that view of the universe and have devices that can do such
things? Yes, to quote another famous law, "a body at rest tends to stay
at rest", but we can still build rockets.
Of course, things can be even weirder. If we are living in a simulation,
what if there is a debugger hook available? :-)
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Or does discovering such a hook or a bug mean the simulation would get
reset?
The discovery of all these physical things seemed at first to violate
the second law of thermodynamics, but in the end we think don't because
we expand our world view of "batteries" and "antennas". Still, the other
two issues, "errors" and "frauds", may well have played a part.
Were there measurement errors about nuclear processes by the Curies?
Were there early nuclear energy frauds long forgotten? I don't know, but
I would expect probably yes. And are the vast bulk of new findings
probably errors (and sometimes frauds)? Well, quite possibly. But, very
rarely they are not, as in the case of some of the things I outlined above.
So, back to this particular circuit with open source plans, developed by
someone with a history of peer-reviewed published papers on
"muon-catalyzed fusion", as well as some much more controversial writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
So, is this circuit of his a battery? Is it an antenna? Is it an error?
Or is it a fraud?
We can jump to whatever conclusions we want, including based on the
probabilities from personal past experiences. We can also just ignore
it. But he made the plans openly available, so we can also investigate
it if we want to figure out which of the four cases it might be. If we
are interested.
Now, obviously, many people think this is an error or fraud, so the
people who post on that are in good company:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/05/jones-overunityh.html
Some people are trying to replicate it though:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.0
One person suggests how to eliminate all sorts of errors, quoted at the
previous link:
"Motor Guy: This is a nice demonstration of measurement error based
delusion. Stray circuit and scope probe inductance cause invalid
measurements. Clean-up the measurements and the illusion of over-unity
will disappear.
First, get rid of the huge pick-up loop formed by the scope probes'
6" ground clips. This can be done by placing a 0.1uF capacitor across
the battery leads where they connect to the board, and using a coaxial
probe connection at that point. The coaxial connection can be arranged
by either cutting the probe off an old scope probe, or using a coaxial
cable with a BNC at both ends and a BNC connector in series with a 50
Ohm resistor soldered right at the capacitor that is across the battery
connection to the rest of the circuit. The 50 Ohm resistor is needed to
suppress ringing in the coaxial cable. Second, suppress HF current
flowing between the scope body and the circuit by clipping a bunch of
those clamp-on ferrite EMC filters over each of the scope probe cables.
Professor Jones can buy the clamp-on ferrites at Radio Shack for a few
dollars each.
The last problem that I see is that his circuit common should be
defined as the negative terminal of the battery, not the bottom of the
current viewing resistor. The reason for this is that the stray
inductance of the resistor and wiring to the battery creates spikes that
throw the measurements off. By setting the common at the bottom of the
battery a coaxial probe can be soldered across the resistor right at the
resistor body. Lead length between the resistor body and the negative
side of the battery pack connection where it is picked up by the
capacitor and voltage monitoring probe common must be kept to a minimum.
If Professor Jones is sincere, he will clean-up his measurements and
report the results. He can do so without spending more than $100. and a
few hours of time."
There were comments on the problems of using solderless breadboards with
analog circuits and other suggestions for soldering components to get
around any possible chance of inductance producing stray power.
Still, while those points may be true, changing the setup does not
explain in precise detail why the circuit has measurements as it is
claimed to have, whatever the reason is, even if changes can can make
the effect go away. Maybe this shows the need for better tools to
analyze electric currents somehow? Maybe something that could profile a
circuit's electro-magnetic field in 3D over time? :-)
Still, following Motor Man's approach, I could otherwise go to Andrea
Rossi with his eCat and say, look, you should not be using hydrogen as
it is to small to measure easily, so use Boron pellets instead because
we can count them. And don't use nickel as metal conducts heat too
readily to be easy to measure, use carbon instead because that is a good
insulator. And don't measure heat output, because that is easy to
miscalculate, measure photon output because we can see that easily.
And then when we are staring at a lump of coal with some pellets of
boron on it, and we don't see any light coming out of it, I could say,
see, I told you, there is no effect. :-) And Rossi could say, well, you
know, you are right, and go on to research solar panels or something.
Anyway, I just came across Dr. Jones circuit because I look for
eCat-related news every day, and many sites cover a lot of related
things. The eCat has a good chance of being real, this overunity circuit
probably has some error somewhere. Almost certainly. But, emphasis on
"Almost" given the history of science sometimes, though rarely, shows
the "imp" of the impossibility. :-)
Still, the Earth has a magnetic field powered by whatever -- we are
probably not 100% sure, latent heat diffusing, latent movement of magma,
radioactive decay, or something else, or some combination. Is it
possible someday someone will invent a device that could act as an
antenna and turn the Earth's magnetic field into power somehow, and use
it up like running down a battery? And then perhaps the environmental
implications of using up the Earth's magnetic field (like a battery)
will dwarf burning "fossil" fuels to produce CO2? Because what is the
environmental impact of slowing down or halting the Earth's geotectonic
processes? Nutrient cycling would come to an end on the planet. Mountain
building might stop. And so on...
So, maybe it is better if people do not try to replicate the circuit if
that is how it were to work, given the potential environmental issues? :-)
The bottom line. Science works through discussions of open designs and
working through replicating them. People suggest things they discover.
Others raise objections. People being human, emotions can get involved.
Emotions even have to get involved, even emotions that individuals and
topics should be completely censored for whatever reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error
"Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a book by
neurologist Antonio R. Damasio presenting the author's "somatic marker
hypothesis", a proposed mechanism by which emotions guide (or bias)
behavior and decision-making, and positing that rationality requires
emotional input. In part a treatment of the mind/body dualism question,
the book argues that Ren� Descartes' "error" was the dualist separation
of mind and body, rationality and emotion."
But it is also true that most engineering is about working from proven
designs or working within published specifications and theories to
optimize processes. Still, there is some back and forth between science
and engineering, as engineers may push the limits of things and do
experiments, and scientists may then generalize the results, and
engineers may use the generalized results to go further.
Wish I had more time to polish this, hopefully I have not said anything
scientifically or historically inaccurate, and have appropriately
caveated any speculation, but I need to move on to other things right now.
Andrew Back
On 4 June 2011 15:44, Paul D. Fernhout <pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
<<snipped ~4,500 words>>
What did that flabbergastingly discursive whistlestop tour of topics
ranging from crystal radios to conspiracy theory that we are living in
a simulation have to do with Open Manufacturing? AFAICT, nothing
whatsoever. Not a thing.
I would suggest that if you want to engage in discussion concerning
transmission line and radio propagation etc theory, that there are
*much* better lists for this. Such topics are very well understood.
E.g. yes, crystal radios work via the wonder of stealing tiny amounts
of energy out of the ether. However, very low voltages and
exceptionally low currents, and hence why they need to use high
impedance headphones. In any case, I shall not be drawn to digress on
this topic any further.
To me, open manufacturing means open source principles and
methodologies and tools and techniques that bring manufacturing within
the reach of the individual. So, I'd see 3D printers, desktop laser
cutters and CNC, associated licensing and legal matters, and
collaboration challenges etc as all on-topic. Whereas discussion about
how radio works and antenna/rectenna theory and magic free energy etc
systems as being decidedly off-topic. Even vaguely more on-topic
discussion about Linux or Arduino would still be off-topic, unless
there is a manufacturing link.
Lists for discussing anything interesting, weird and/or cool stuff are
all well and good. But I'd thought this list was specifically about
Open Manufacturing? I'm sure you must appreciate that dragging a list
with a very specific focus hugely OT will only serve to devalue it -
or at the very least for the people who joined because of "what it
said on the tin".
Finally, please don't try to convince me—or wear me down with sheer
volume of wordage—that what you're talking about is relevant to Open
Manufacturing. It simply isn't. It's about as relevant to the subject
matter as the information that I'm about to go and have some soup.
Paul D. Fernhout
> What did that flabbergastingly discursive whistlestop tour of topics
> ranging from crystal radios to conspiracy theory that we are living in
> a simulation have to do with Open Manufacturing? AFAICT, nothing
> whatsoever. Not a thing.
The point is that the history of science and technology has many
examples of devices or observations that violated then current
scientific dogma of how the world works, including the second law of
thermodynamics, and eventually (sometimes only decades later) the dogma
was revised and special cases were accepted, often leading to whole new
areas of research and invention.
As Arthur C. Clark wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Should we suppress any discussion here about, say, nanotechology, which
is "magic" in many ways?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_fog
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/05/3d_printing_get.html
http://nanotechnologytoday.blogspot.com/2011/03/3d-printing-method-advances.html
> To me, open manufacturing means open source principles and
> methodologies and tools and techniques that bring manufacturing within
> the reach of the individual. So, I'd see 3D printers, desktop laser
> cutters and CNC, associated licensing and legal matters, and
> collaboration challenges etc as all on-topic. Whereas discussion about
> how radio works and antenna/rectenna theory and magic free energy etc
> systems as being decidedly off-topic. Even vaguely more on-topic
> discussion about Linux or Arduino would still be off-topic, unless
> there is a manufacturing link.
Lasers are magic beams generally not found in nature. CNC is about stuff
made by magic elves. Collaborating with each other across the planet
through (liquid) crystal panels is magic if there ever was any. Or so it
would have seemed 100 years ago... Or even to most people about fifty
years ago. Or even thirty years ago:
"Watching Star Wars 28 Years Later"
http://www.marshallbrain.com/star-wars.htm
"What happened next is very hard to describe. Instead of "reliving the
magic", I was amazed (horrified?) to discover that Star Wars has become
as comical as a Flash Gordon movie. Looking at it today, just 28 years
after its release, it is impossible to watch the movie without laughing
at all of its anachronisms. From a SadTech perspective and a Robotic
Nation perspective, Star Wars has become impossibly lame."
I find it ironic that people (not just you) are citing their perception
of what this list is about to justify suppressing discussion of a device
with freely available plans.
I don't think it really matters much whether the device does what is
suggested by the inventor or not, especially when the big deal is
precisely that the inventor is "open sourcing" the plans rather than
trying to make money off of them. I would think those who actively
dislike such an area of research as one rife with errors and fraud would
applaud a shift there to greater openness, which minimizes the potential
for fraud and allows errors to be more quickly corrected. ANd that is
exactly what is going an about this "overunity" device, people are
trying to replicate it, people are discussing the plans and their
implications, people are pointing out possible sources of error or
misinterpretation of collected data, and so on. And it is happening in
days. What a difference from what might have happened fifty years ago...
Of course, this PESWiki page may indeed mostly be examples of bunk,
especially since many independent inventors are probably on the edge
psychologically to begin with, or certainly get that way after many
years of bucking the status quo, but it has an interesting statement
about human psychology of some inventors, none-the-less: :-)
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Suppression
"This page is a compilation of specific cases in which the emergence of
a new energy technology development is impaired in some way by an entity
outside themselves, whether it be a competing interest such as an oil
interest or an oppressive government, or some other faction whose
control over the people or whose monopolistic income will be impaired by
the emergence of the technology. There are however some hopeful signs
that a new succesful physics theory might deter the government's
misrecognition."
Although it is true that I heard about such a suppression (second hand,
from one of the designers, Stella Andrassy) in terms of an oil company
buying and bulldozing a demonstration all-solar home in New Jersey
several decades ago.
But the point is, when plans are made open source, they can be verified
much more easily. Contrast that with the Rossi/Focardi eCat, where the
inventor tries to patent the technology and keeps parts of it "secret"
for reasons of patents. A drive to profit may potentially put the
inventor at greater risk that just openly sharing the ideas and instead
hoping a bigger gift economy (or other societal improvement) is the
payback. That may be true for many classes of devices, not just
"overunity" ones.
From that previously linked PESWiki page, as a quotation that is
probably all-too-true, sadly:
""As I've said many times before in conference presentations I've given,
by far the greatest impediment to free energy technologies making it to
market � far worse than the "suppression" obstacles by dark forces � is
interpersonal conflicts � people that can't get along, or inventors that
are impossible to deal with on a rational basis. People who are "outside
the box", being Mavericks, often do not develop important social skills
because of their ostracism from the mainstream, making them very
difficult to interface with, making them their own worst enemy when it
comes to people accepting the great technology they might have given
birth to, making them all the more cantankerous and difficult to work
with, creating a vicious cycle that ends up going nowhere productive,
often resulting in yet another inventor taking his technology to the
grave with him." -- Sterling D. Allan, Feb. 10, 2010"
Making plans for devices "open source" helps to cut through that social
problem and lets other people try to make these devices or build on the
ideas. Whatever one can say about Steven Jones, he chose to make his
plan publicly available so others could improve on them. That, to me, is
a big part of what open manufacturing is about.
Still, it would be nice to have better tools for discussions in general
that allow collective tagging and filtering after a message was sent to
address the valid aspects of concerns you and others raise:
"The need for better communication tools & a semantic web (was Re
reprap-dev)"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/576771df555e729f
No two people are ever going to agree 100% on what a topic is about.
Paul Downey
> devices or observations that violated then current scientific dogma of how
> the world works, including the second law of thermodynamics, and eventually
> (sometimes only decades later) the dogma was revised and special cases were
> accepted, often leading to whole new areas of research and invention.
Fantastic, if true, but as many others have now politely said, this
hasn't anything to do with Open Manufacturing except it's a thing, you
could possibly manufacture in a some kind of open way.
So like others, I suggest you find a more appropriate place to discuss
this topic.
--
Paul (psd)
http://blog.whatfettle.com
Thomas Fledrich
But the point is, when plans are made open source, they can be verified much more easily. Contrast that with the Rossi/Focardi eCat, where the inventor tries to patent the technology and keeps parts of it "secret" for reasons of patents. A drive to profit may potentially put the inventor at greater risk that just openly sharing the ideas and instead hoping a bigger gift economy (or other societal improvement) is the payback. That may be true for many classes of devices, not just "overunity" ones.
But in the end I believe it is true when I have one right here making steam. Still I'd love to see it change the world.