friction. it's why there's no such thing as 1:1 or better energy efficiency yet.



that last bit about the $1 and good vibes was from The Simpsons when Homer found an autodialer in the trash.



as for the battery thing, have you seen a charged battery swapped out and become the power source to charge and even bigger battery yet? or have you just seen a pair of gauges where one needle is higher than the other? of course the receiving end is going to have a higher 'charge' than the provider, one is expending energy, the other is static. when that first part happens THEN and ONLY then do you actually have something revolutionary, until that happens all you've got is another bottle of Dr. Neptune's Fantastic Elixir for all that ails you.

'back EMF' sounds about as solid as anti-matter. so it's capturing a reverse electromagnetic field? how does that actually work? where's the actual science? it's not like a positive EMF field is actually different than a negative EMF field, only whether or not it's heavier with protons or electrons.

i'm going to ask my friend about that the swapping of batteries. will get back to you.

sound good, as much as i crap on this kind of stuff it WOULD be awesome if one of these devices actually panned out.

but i had a friend who for the entirety of the last decade never once missed an opportunity to try to 'educate' me on these new devices and revelations about the world. not once did he actually have something tangible that stuck, not a single time did he ever repeat a claim, because he always found some other theory that disproved his earlier claims of a breakthrough between visits.

not once did he ever clue into the fact that he was scamming himself.

the inherent greed fueling every single one of these revolutionary devices should be enough of a flag to see that they're scams. ($10-12 million to build a commercial prototype? how about a few hundred million home sales at $400 a pop just in north america alone).

also, how big are the batteries involved? comparable to a car battery? 9 volt? AA?

....all with battery backup, and not every country favors the nuke sub. China is hard on for diesels, and I know France, Germany and Israel still rock them pretty well too. Diesels are a lot sneakier, and smaller as well.

Im pretty sure all nuke subs have a backup diesel as well.

What I like about Wikipedia is that it provides the exact opposite of controlled information: volunteers write the articles and anyone who logs in can edit them. The information is not controlled by a single authority, but rather incorporates the wealth of knowledge of regular people all over the world.

Since the Wikipedia articles are not reviewed by experts in given fields, the chance of errors is higher than with a peer-reviewed journal, but citations are provided so that you can look at the original sources of information, making many of the articles quite scholarly, I feel.

I suggest this article by Tom Napier, which points out problems with "perpetual motion" machines (which appear to have greater output of energy than input), and criticizes observations of input and output needles as a source of "proof" that the "free energy creating" device is actually doing what the creator claims:

I'm just saying why would they use nuke power if they already had a free energy system on board? It doesn't make any sense.

They have to surface with the diesel to recharge the batts, thus sacrificing sneakiness. Nuke subs can remain submerged indefinently, the only problem is running out of food. I don't know if I would consider it being free energy.

i've been putting this off, cuz it's probably going to be a long one. so here goes:

to mr.dave: my friend has not swapped batteries out for a bigger one. the reason being that he needs what is called a "deep cell" battery, which apparently is necessary for the purpose of starting with a battery which has been 100% drained. they cost $200, and apparently he will be getting one soon, so more on that later.

the batteries he's using are 12V.

$10-12 million for a commercial prototype is a pretty solid deal. car manufacturers like ford and dodge put upwards of 500 million of r&d into their engines alone every year, and engines have been around for a long time.

concerning the term "back EMF," i looked into it, and it's not actually a term. BUT, it is used in Bedini's patent descriptions, as it was the only way the patent office could circumvent creating new science in order to describe the phenomenal behaviour of his devices.

concerning the "inherent greed" serving as the driver for such projects: that's pretty f*uckin black and white man. no offense, but you saying that says more about you than it does the people involved in these projects. take bedini. he doesn't want ANYTHING for the information he provides people. he just wants people to build them instead of creating arguments based around a science which is not yet fully understood.

and then take a look at the rest of the world, which is based FUNDAMENTALLY on what you are casting blame on free energy freaks for, which is capitalism. "inherent greed" can easily be viewed under the light as something inherently human (something i flat out don't agree with, but cite as testament to the fact that people in today's world equate their time with as many means as possible that they can acquire the stuff of life with), and to say that these people (the free energy freaks) are somehow more abominable than anyone else when they ACTUALLY TRY to SELL their product (note that many of these people want no light shed on their personal lives, because free energy machines are what is known in the world of economics as "disruptive technology" and happens to be one of the things black-ops and the CIA might kill you for) to make a living, is flat out ignorant.

in the world we currently live in, you invent something great, you make a killing. and if you don't invent something and you're not in a certain kinda bloodline, then you're just a b*tch like the rest of us, scrambling to PAY THE ENERGY BILL.


on to vegangelica: again, you put too much trust in the providers of information. wikipedia is a mindf*ck. it's a novel idea. except the powers that be have this thing on their side called the federal reserve bank (which, if you don't know, you SHOULD KNOW is a PRIVATELY OWNED INSTITUTION), and that bank can give them money to do whatever they want whenever they want (if you disagree, consider the size of america's debt. that is UNPAYABLE, yet they can still funnel billions of fiat currency into the system at their will). what they want (for one thing), is for people to adopt an idea of the world that is unchanging and lends itself to ignorant social proclivities. again, wikipedia is a great idea. but when someone has the resources to tend to an outlet for usable information which is created in a open-source framework, that framework is no longer open-source. the mere fact that it claims to be open-source is candy for the taking for the makers of what we know as truth.

concerning Napier: i didn't read the article. i've already heard those arguments. the term "back EMF" is used in the patents to describe the process by which this device captures radiant energy. it's funny that Napier says in what you quoted that normal batteries can recharge a bit on their own, because that's his intuition stating plain and clear that energy can be tapped right from the environment.

more on back EMF: again, words not actually describing what is going on in the machine, or even a characteristic of the machine. it DOES work something like this though: the magnets on the rotor are all facing north out. when the space between them passes over the electromagnet, something switches somewhere from north to south very fast, and this produces a surge that is something like 700 volts. that's a big surge of energy apparently, and one that doesn't drain the input battery accordingly. this means that the non-conventional circuit happens to be arranged in such a way that is acts as a conduit for cold energy, having a larger output than one might assume. as far as how this energy is actually drawn into the output battery, that's where i get lost.

i'm sure there's more to come.

I think your failing to see the point of the wikipedia article. the fact is patents ARE created on items which either aren't complete or never completed. The IDEA is patented to protect the eventual product. Also, the surge of electricity isn't coming from the environment as you speak but is a "fluke" so to speak...
As for the magnets switching poles quickly and that creates free energy that can be captured, than why dont roller coasters like V2, which use LIM's which use powerful electro magnets to pull than repel coaster cars to accelerate etc etc.... why doesnt this rapid changing of poles create capturable energy?

i have no idea. do you know for sure that it doesn't create "capturable" energy? is it possible that we just don't know how to capture it?

as far as the patent topic, i'm just going to call that a moot point, being that if people can get patents for things that don't work, then patents just have no place in this conversation.

indeed, i apologize if it was myself who brought it up in the first place.

EDIT:

and, fluke? so, first you admit to the presence of this unexplained spike in energy, and then you deny anything resembling a possible explanation (ie. a radiant, cold, (a)etheric or "environmental" energy tap) on the grounds that your label for the spike is simply synonymous with "anomalous"? gimme a break!