2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

266 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext

______________________________________________________________________________
| File Name : ANTIFLAM.ASC | Online Date : 05/09/95 |
| Contributed by : InterNet | Dir Category : ENERGY |
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
| Voice/FAX : (214) 324-8741 InterNet - keelynet@ix.netcom.com |
| WWW sites - http://www.eskimo.com/~billb & http://www.protree.com |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The following are some interesting comments regarding open-mindedness towards
alternative approaches, concepts and experiments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
physics.new-theories
Path: news.cc.uch.gr!news.forth.gr!ecrc!Munich.Germany.EU.net!Germany.EU.net!
howland .reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!openwx!eskimo!billb
From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Subject: Re: TMI device, free energy device ?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Message-ID: <D52uq5.3Cu@eskimo.com>
Sender: usenet@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <793832711snz@codesmth.demon.co.uk> <3isttf$2uf@news.uncc.edu>
<3ittji$hnu@sundog.tiac.net> <3jg2q0$l2m@homesick.cs.unlv.edu>
<3jhkps$j3h@sundog.tiac.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:51:40 GMT
Lines: 62
Xref: news.cc.uch.gr sci.energy:23613 alt.paranet.science:415
alt.sci.physics.new-theories:3201
To: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Subject: Re: TMI device, free energy device ?
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
physics.new-theories
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
In article <3jhkps$j3h@sundog.tiac.net> you wrote:
<delete>
: There's a big difference between being open minded and empty headed.
: Unfortunately, those that perpetuate the myth of perpetual motion, free
: energy, and other something from nothing devices fall into the later
: category.
I think you are making a basic error here. There are two phenomena you are
lumping together: perpetual motion and free energy. Perpetual motion is in
the same class as Maxwell's Demon devices: foolish to pursue.
But there's evidence here and there for devices which RECEIVE energy from an
unknown source. The ones I'm thinking of are not scams or hoaxes (where the
inventors had their lives wrecked by announcing their discoveries.)
It is entirely within the bounds of conventional physics that there could be
undiscovered mechanisms for converting matter to energy, for changing neutrino
flux into electric power, for building "tame spacewarps" to extract power,
etc.
A working "perpetual motion" machine is not very likely, but it is not
impossible. And if anyone ever comes up with one, it will quickly be renamed
"energy receiver" or some such. After all, everyone knows that "perpetual
motion" machines are impossible.
: Rejection of man's accumulated body of scientific knowledge isn't
: being 'open minded' -- It's being ignorant, stupid, or both.
This sounds like a cliche', but its true: those that pursued powered flight,
spacecraft, etc., were accused of the same thing. A few decades ago, planes
and spacecraft were foolish dreams, and any who worked towards them were
ridiculed. Only in hindsight are the true fools obvious.
: As I've said before, free energy scemes, perpetual motion, et al are fun to
: contemplate as logical puzzles or, at times, exercises in deception,
: however, anyone that beleves such devices are real, risks labeling
: themselves a fool.
....No, anyone who believes such devices COULD be real, risks BEING labeled a
fool by people who are ready to heap ridicule on others whose beliefs about
what might be possible differ from their own.
I think of it this way: in five hundred years, will mankind be using power
generators which extract energy directly from the vacuum? If so, will such
generators be based on discoveries that the researchers of today could have
made, had they just known where to look? Maybe.
And it's possible that someone today is looking right at the effects that lead
to these generators, yet discounts them as being measurement mistakes, since
energy cannot just come from nowhere!
--
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: news.cc.uch.gr!news.forth.gr!ecrc!Munich.Germany.EU.net!Germany.EU.net!
EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!
fiesta.srl.ford.com!pt9201.ped.pto.ford.com!pt9217.ped.pto.ford.com!
millerb
From: millerb@pt9217.ped.pto.ford.com (Bryan Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: TMI device, free energy device ?
Date: 7 Mar 1995 21:03:27 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Co., Powertrain Electronics
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3jihmv$5n0@pt9201.ped.pto.ford.com>
References: <793832711snz@codesmth.demon.co.uk> <3isttf$2uf@news.uncc.edu>
<3ittji$hnu@sundog.tiac.net> <3jg2q0$l2m@homesick.cs.unlv.edu>
<3jhkps$j3h@sundog.tiac.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pt9217.ped.pto.ford.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.cc.uch.gr sci.energy:23626 alt.paranet.science:416
alt.sci.physics.new-theories:3215
Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) appears to have written:
[snip snip]
>Rejection of man's accumulated body of scientific knowledge isn't
>being 'open minded' -- It's being ignorant, stupid, or both. As I've
>said before, free energy scemes, perpetual motion, et al are fun to
>contemplate as logical puzzles or, at times, exercises in deception,
>however, anyone that beleves such devices are real risks labeling
>themselves a fool. If it isn't immediately clear to you why this is so,
>you need to do more homework.
> Harry C.
Where does one draw the line on the definition of free energy? How do we
label energy created by wind or water motion? How does this vary from the
earth's magnetic fields (if I have been following this thread correctly...)?
I have no connection with these fellows nor their research. However, making
blanket statements such as there is no free energy is a bit bold. Yes, yes I
know. The laws of physics. If you read Penrose or Hawking you'll discover
that it ain't all been figured out yet...
cheers,
Bryan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: news.cc.uch.gr!news.forth.gr!ecrc!Munich.Germany.EU.net!Germany.EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.dsndata.com!backbone!
crcnis3.unl.edu! cse.unl.edu!romig
From: romig@cse.unl.edu (Phil Romig)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
sci.physics,sci.research
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 15 Mar 95 22:15:30 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <romig.795305730@cse.unl.edu>
References: <3jgamd$op0@acasun.eckerd.edu> <3jguql$qdn@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
<3jq4tt$ce6@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> <D5AI1A.56I@eskimo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu
Xref: news.cc.uch.gr alt.philosophy.objectivism:4726 alt.sci.physics.new-
theories:3272 sci.astro:58785 sci.physics:76471 sci.research:4904
fernando@eskimo.com (Fernando Loygorri) writes:
>I don't have the technical expertise to tell whether people like Lerner, Arp
>or Hoyle are right or wrong, but their books certainly point out clearly
>that the scientific research may be tainted by money, power and inflated
>egos.
I have been reading a collection of essays by Stephen Hawking and I think he
makes a good point on this topic. He says that few who understand the process
would deny what you said, scientific research is fraught with problems,
particularly egos. That's how it works.
The essay says that research in physics is a continuing cycle. A new theory
is accepted, which explains the world as we can see it. Over the years a
great deal of time and even emotion is invested in that theory. Then, as our
measurements of the world get better, cracks in the theory begin to show up.
Because we have so much invested we try to make the old theory fit, until it
becomes an ugly mass with stuff sticking out all over. Then along comes some
revolutionary new theory which wipes out all (or most) of the old, and again
provides us with a nice, clean way of looking at the world. Then of course it
all starts over again.
It's happened many times. I remember seeing a picture of mechanical system
that described the motion of the planets in the sky, assuming that they all
orbited the earth (let me tell you it was complex. They had things doing
figure eights that would make an ice-skater sick).
Then someone says "hey, let's try the SUN at the middle" and (100 years and
several excommunications later) we have a nice, simple system again. It
happened with Maxwell, it happened with relativity and it happened with
quantum mechanics.
I think the point is not that this way of doing things if flawed, but rather
that we need to be aware that we do have illogical attachments to the theories
we grew up with, so that when a new "revolutionary" one comes by we don't
totally reject it. What we want to avoid is the 100 years and several
excommunications. On the other hand our attachment to old theories does
provide a safety check, preventing us from accepting every new fangled thing
that comes down the pipe.
Hope this contributes something.
******************************************************************************
Phil Romig
romig@cse.unl.edu
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
- Edmund Burk
******************************************************************************
Vanguard Note
For those who continue to dispute not only the possibility of free energy
and perpetual motion, but the simple INDISPUTABLE fact of it, simply look
around you.
Current understanding of mass is that an electron continually rotates
around the nucleus of an atom by virtue of what power? Not only that, but
a similar mysterious force moves the planets in their orbits.
Is this not 'perpetual motion'? Why can we not learn to tap into this
same force and use it to drive the wheelworks of our machines, to produce
useable FREE (beyond the cost of the conversion devices) power?
There are numerous approaches; high voltage, back-emf, thermodynamic,
magnetic, mechanical, leverage, atmospheric electricity accumulations,
low-level mass conversion, etc..
We (all who participate in the info exchange in alternative science
researches) will eventually come up with something that will be shared
with the world through computer networks and snailmail networks.
At that time, we shall see the true colors of all these naysayers who have
some malicious ax to grind as they suddenly try to claim they always knew
it was just a matter of time. So please, break your neck, get your
negative comments and other flames documented in email and other file
forms.
When our people are flying without planes, powered by boxes that pull
energy directly from space, living hundreds of years without disease or
aging symptoms, colonizing other planets and visiting other star systems,
we who could see beyond 'laws' will look down and pity all those who chose
to never get off their knees in their subservience to science dogma.
Yes, there are lab queens, i.e. devices that have anomalous or peculiar
effects, sometimes unstable and which only work in a perfect environment
(IF THAT!), but we cannot ignore it or discount it because analysis of
such phenomena will gain us an understanding of how we can create, control
and use it in a practical sense.
It's all just a giant puzzle, with pieces coming from all over to help us
put it together. So, don't let some of these flamers get you down, think
about things FOR YOURSELF, talk to others who might offer clues or places
to get further informaion, experiment however you can and document it to
share with others. If we all share with each other, it will truly be just
a matter of time before we have a working device to blaze the trail to all
the subsequent improvements.
Jerry/Sysop/KeelyNet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------