Interesting??

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

From another website – **LINK**

Any thoughts??

rgds

Bill

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

[Harry WilkesParticipant @harrywilkes58467]

Wait for someone else to decide if it's worth a £1 to look

H

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

Why bother, go straight to the source.

**LINK**

More snake oil. The only interesting thing is that people still believe this c**p.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

£1 to look ????? Is there a paywall? None from here.

The article looks at the use of rare earth magnets used (in opposition ?) to generate useful power.

Does this work?

**LINK**

rgds

Bill

[mike TParticipant @miket56243]

Ha ha, When I worked for BAE SYSTEMS we had a mad inventor guy who contacted us, offering to reveal the secrets of 'Magnets of the push kind' , which he had just invented, if we paid him a few quid.

Mike

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

I always assumed that monopoles were a sci-fi construct but a quick search shows that they are an accepted requirement for unified theories and searches are on-going…..?

As for this chaps 'earth engine' it has to be a con but one wonders where the financial reward is – perhaps like the moller flying car it's all about shareholders throwing money at him for as long as the con can go on…

pgk

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

youtube is full of faked perpetual motion machines.

The world is full of the gullible who want to believe in flat earths, faked moon landings and anything that breaks the 'dogma' of science.

N.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

We know it can't be true because if it were, the oil companies would have bought up the patents and buried them for all time, just like they did with the engine that runs on water, the engine that runs on petrol vapour etc etc .

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

From the vantage point of 'O' level General Science nearly 70 years ago, I bow to all of the above. However, I seem to remember that the world of professional Physics can prove that the bee is incapable of flight (or was it some other insect?) Just saying

rgds

Bill

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 18/05/2019 22:03:50:

youtube is full of faked perpetual motion machines.

The world is full of the gullible who want to believe in flat earths, faked moon landings and anything that breaks the 'dogma' of science.

N.

I find the rise of anti-science, hatred of technology, and the deliberate rejection of facts quite worrying. Listened to a chap on the Radio recently explaining with utter conviction that it was most important to be in touch with your conscience. Snake Oil thinking isn't going to fix global warming!

I suspect it's more to do with power than gullibility. People don't like being ordered about, they don't like knowing they're ignorant (as we all are), and they do like the idea understanding doesn't matter because specialists sometimes make mistakes too. It's so much easier to believe everything is 'simples' than it is to understand challenging subjects well enough to debate them sensibly, or to expose one's own shortcomings. That politician may be a obvious bozo but I'll vote for him because he talks my kind of bollocks!

Alas poor humanity. Ignoring facts has a long history of ending in tears…

Dave

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

You'r right Bill. it's the bumble bee, nobody told the bumble bee it couldn't fly.

Over the years we'v had numerous experts on the Stirling Engine Forum with ideas of how to get more out of a Stirling Engine than they put in.

Ian S C

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 19/05/2019 12:09:08:…

…It's so much easier to believe everything is 'simples' than it is to understand challenging subjects well enough to debate them sensibly, or to expose one's own shortcomings.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect at work: "… people with substantial, measurable deficits in their knowledge or expertise lack the ability to recognize those deficits and, therefore, despite potentially making error after error, tend to think they are performing competently when they are not …"

That's the science of it.

[Simon Williams 3Participant @simonwilliams3]

"Earth Engine operates on the same principle as the ‘Slingshot Effect’ space travel phenomenon," (Quote taken from their web site, link above).

Which would be fine, except the sling shot effect to which they refer does NOT violate the Law of Conservation of Momentum, nor Energy. So much for that explanation!

And the fact that this has absolutely zilch to do with the hypothetical existence of a magnetic monopole simply compounds the felony.

At least snake oil might have had a placebo effect.

Rgds Simon

[Brian O’ConnorParticipant @brianoconnor49474]

To slightly misquote H L Mencken, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem – neat, plausible and wrong".

B

[JAParticipant @ja]

People, even educated people, WANT to believe in this stuff.

Perhaps it is to escape reality but it is rather terrifying.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

My original posting was looking for comments or a reasoned rebuttal (which I was totally incapable of providing) in a forum with many well qualified to do so. Pity it didn't happen!

However back to the source and this was posted :-

"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haraka

As a kid I thought I had invented a similar type of system,but it required the geared intervention of an interrupter plate that blocked magnetism …..That was after my attempt to square the circle. (which also went down in flames) .

I also had the same idea as a kid, what is interesting is that I was in college before I finally found an answer to where the 'hidden loss' was that would keep it from working given lossless mechanical perfection, probably not exact but close enough:

Any material that can block magnetism will have induced eddy currents that will create a drag, hence the action of moving the interrupter plate requires more energy than it would if not in a magnetic field.

Even though I knew it would not work I asked various science teachers what the flaw was and none had an answer other than it would not work. I figure out the answer on my own while taking some long forgotten course.

One of the reasons that the 'inventors' of free energy devices get as far as they do is that they rely on the classic "show me why it wont work" (other than conservation of energy of course) rather than proving it will work.

As to Steorn, I believe they may have genuinely thought it was real, my theory on why it failed outside demos is that they were unknowingly tapping energy from the slightly unbalanced magnetic fields of a nearby high tension transmission line. "

Thanks to MurphyWasRight

rgds

Bill

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

If you believe in quantum theory, then there is a very large amount of free energy in the vacuum. Anyone that can extract it will make a fortune.

A good many startling advances in science have been made by people who are not experts in the field. maybe they have a wider perspective than blinkered specialists.

Andrew.

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

The steam engine was invented , built and used in many forms without any knowledge of thermodynamics, in fact the science of thermodynamics was based on the study of working steam engines. The electric motor was invented by Michael Faraday, who was a well trained book binder who was employed by Sir Humphry Davy to write up and bind his notes. Science and scientists have a very poor record of invention of anything in common use today. It is the people who constantly test the laws of physics and experiment that make the breakthroughs, those who stick within the orthodxy of science discover nothing.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 20/05/2019 20:07:54:

The steam engine was invented , built and used in many forms without any knowledge of thermodynamics, in fact the science of thermodynamics was based on the study of working steam engines. The electric motor was invented by Michael Faraday, who was a well trained book binder who was employed by Sir Humphry Davy to write up and bind his notes. Science and scientists have a very poor record of invention of anything in common use today. It is the people who constantly test the laws of physics and experiment that make the breakthroughs, those who stick within the orthodxy of science discover nothing.

A very unfair criticism of science because the goal of science is understanding, not inventing! It's other people, like engineers, who exploit scientific understanding by inventing new things or improving old ones.

Dave

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

Science makes progress by dreaming up silly ideas and trying to prove them wrong by doing experiments. The ones that survive are often very useful. Humphrey Davy by the way invented an oil lamp that saved the lives of countless miners.

[DanielParticipant @daniel]

It is a truism, that one will never have something for nothing.

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 20/05/2019 21:07:05:

Posted by Phil Whitley on 20/05/2019 20:07:54:

The steam engine was invented , built and used in many forms without any knowledge of thermodynamics, in fact the science of thermodynamics was based on the study of working steam engines. The electric motor was invented by Michael Faraday, who was a well trained book binder who was employed by Sir Humphry Davy to write up and bind his notes. Science and scientists have a very poor record of invention of anything in common use today. It is the people who constantly test the laws of physics and experiment that make the breakthroughs, those who stick within the orthodxy of science discover nothing.

A very unfair criticism of science because the goal of science is understanding, not inventing! It's other people, like engineers, who exploit scientific understanding by inventing new things or improving old ones.

Dave

I don't see it as unfair, pointedly accurate perhaps, science is often understanding for the personal satisfaction of the curiosity of an elite, who never put that understanding into practical use. It can also be the development of very efficient new poisons to kill pests and weeds without any consideration of the future effects. Our entire electrical system was brought to the point it is in today by a small group of brilliant engineers, Tesla, Heavyside, Maxwell and Steinmetz are the main ones, and their work has been advanced very little in the years since their passing, and also no one ever heard of them, except perhaps Tesla. Einstien on the other hand is universally known, and much of his work is theoretical and obscure (and possibly wrong, they are only theories!), he got his Nobel prize for a paper on the Photoelectric effect, which he neither discovered or put to use, he merely "quantified" it. Tesla called Einstein a "Fuzzy haired crackpot" Science, as in the "understanding of the universe" is important, but going to the moon "because we can" turned out to be a pointless waste of resources.

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

Phil, I'm not sure where to start on your tirade. Maxwell was far from being an engineer, but his scientific contribution was pivotal. Hertz, Marconi, Armstrong, Shockley, Parsons, Edison, Morse, Strowger, Bardeen & Brittain, Shannon, Bode, Wiener, Berners-Lee, Turing, ………the list of key contributors to modern engineering science, some engineers and some scientists goes, on and on. Every experimental test of relativity has confirmed it to high precision, and GPS would not work without relativistic corrections. Properly understanding semiconductors to design better devices needs quantum physics. He did more than "quantify" the photoelectric effect he recognised that it implied a fundamental change in our understanding of what light is, which led to quantum electrodynamics. Thank to that we understand molecular structures and can do chemistry computationally, as just one example. Though Tesla was a bright chap and of course made us realise that DC power distribution was a dead end, he wasted years on his ideas for wireless power distribution.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 23/05/2019 09:13:00:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 20/05/2019 21:07:05:

Posted by Phil Whitley on 20/05/2019 20:07:54:

… Science and scientists have a very poor record of invention of anything in common use today. …

A very unfair criticism of science because the goal of science is understanding, not inventing! It's other people, like engineers, who exploit scientific understanding by inventing new things or improving old ones.

Dave

I don't see it as unfair, pointedly accurate perhaps, science is often understanding for the personal satisfaction of the curiosity of an elite, who never put that understanding into practical use. …

Our entire electrical system was brought to the point it is in today by a small group of brilliant engineers, Tesla, Heavyside, Maxwell and Steinmetz are the main ones, and their work has been advanced very little in the years since their passing, and also no one ever heard of them, except perhaps Tesla. Einstien on the other hand is universally known, and much of his work is theoretical and obscure (and possibly wrong, they are only theories!), he got his Nobel prize for a paper on the Photoelectric effect, which he neither discovered or put to use, he merely "quantified" it.

Gosh Phil, we must agree to disagree. That seems a warped view of science and scientists to me! It's a dangerous view too, because our economy can't exist without scientific method. It's fire the goalkeeper because he never scores and he lets a few in.

Einstein is a good example. At the end of the 19th century most scientists thought a complete understanding of Physics was in sight. It appeared that Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Magnetism and Electricity were nearly complete with nothing else to study. Only a few anomalies like black body radiation, why the sun is hot, and the photoelectric effect needed to tidied up. As it turned out, these are doorways to new vistas of investigation and studying them made 'High Technology'. Semi-conductors rather than Steam Hammers.

I suppose Einstein's paper on photoelectricity could be written off as elitist, but the work ignited Quantum Mechanics, without which – for instance – GPS wouldn't work. Another theory – Relativity – led to an entirely different insight without which GPS wouldn't work either, and to the potential of Nuclear Weapons. He discovered new worlds of thought and the extent of his genius is 100 years later most people, including me, are incapable of grasping all the concepts.

Einstein got the Nobel Prize for Photoelectricity because his theory of 1905 was confirmed experimentally in 1914. (Experimental confirmation of theory was essential before a Nobel Prize would be avoided.) His other work is much harder to prove experimentally, and although parts have been confirmed in the real-world, it remains a Theory. Einstein was not satisfied the theory is complete or necessarily correct, but so far, with modifications, it's holding up. But, like 19th Century Physics, there are a few embarrassing anomalies to be explained… Failure to find an end is the nature of science, the goal is disciplined enquiry, analysis, and understanding, not making better mousetraps.

Tesla and others made Electrical Distribution practical, and it is the system we have today. But their achievement wasn't the end of the story by far; they did not deliver the internet!

Science, Mathematics, and Engineering are close relatives. When Bessemer invented his world-changing converter, joy turned to misery when customers bought expensive blast furnaces and found they made brittle crap. A job for the chemists, who discovered that the problem lay in high levels of Sulphur & Phosphorous found in some ores. (By chance Bessemer had tested with uncontaminated ore.) Once the cause was understood, chemistry quickly provided the answer by recommending a flux based on science, not guesswork.

Interestingly, not the end of quality issues with Bessemer steel. The modern process blows Oxygen rather than Air because chemists eventually found Nitrogen, normally inert, can react in tiny quantities to make mild-steel brittle. The problem was subtle, and no way could an engineer or furnace-man have fixed it.

Edison gets the credit for being the first to methodically organise scientists, technicians and mathematicians into teams working on sophisticated goals. His approach blurs the distinction between specialisations. Engineers and scientists both make extensive use of advanced maths. Engineers use scientific method and scientific facts to solve practical problems, and experimental scientists have to be good engineers.

The lone inventor is all but extinct. Individuals still have good ideas, but most easy to make inventions have already been done. (Unlikely I shall get Artificial Intelligence working on my dining table.) Instead, most R&D is done by collaborating specialists working in teams, including accountants! And when they've done the R&D, they will almost certainly need a production engineer and practical men to make it work.

Dave

[Author]

Posts