New Energy

  • Thread starter Rebel
  • Start date

Rebel

I want to know every one's take on New Energy devices such as Zero point energy, hydrogen, and heat energy. Does the government and oil companies surpress these technologies? I sure think so what does every one else think
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Erm... why?
Why, unless they are a load of lunatics would they reject these things, which clearly offer them immediate dominance? Bush isn't too smart, but he isn't crazy either.

The only thing I see is not active suppression, but ignoring such research in favour of traditional, more reliable methods. The conspiracy theory seems rather irrational...

(BTW, ZPE is still in theoretical stages, whether useful work can be done is debatable. Hardly a "technology". Hydrogen fuel cells do receive funding, but they are really only energy storage systems, not sources. Heat? WTH do you mean? All our power generators are in effect heat pumps.)
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,848
5,038
Originally posted by FZ+
BTW, ZPE is still in theoretical stages, whether useful work can be done is debatable. Hardly a "technology".
It was my understanding that the principle that predicts the existence of ZPE (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) also says it is not harnessable. Harnessing it would change the quantity of energy in the universe and eliminate uncertainty.

In any case, a number of people have claimed to have invented ZPE power generators. These are all hoaxes. The tests needed to determine the validity of these devices are junior high science class level. But they always say more testing is needed (send money). Sure.

Bush has been touting hydrogen, but I'm afraid he's the victim of bad science advisors just like Reagan was with the space plane project. Like FZ+ said, hydrogen is not a power source, its just a decent battery. Its good as a battery only because it is light (compared to other chemical batteries) and the product is water (though the reactants are quite dangerous). Shifting our transportation energy to electricty would eliminate dependence on oil, but unfortunatly in the US half our electricity comes from coal. So the net effect is little or no improvement in environmental impact.

Essentially hydogren power is something environmentalits have picked up on as being a good idea, but they simply don't understand why it doesn't help. Environmentalists can't be bothered with science.

As for suppression of technology, its simply not possible. Through the internet, any idea can very quickly reach a billion people. Ever see Johnny Mnemonic? Its conspiracy theory, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:

Rebel

Well im mostly talking about technology that was developed by great scientist like Nikola Tesla and Thomas Townsend brown. I would never tell them they are false because Nikola developed a lot of things that we use now and also showed edison that he was wrong about AC electricity. A lot of tesla patents were rejected by modern day science just like eistien was when he was thinking of his great theories. Also Thomas brown was a scientist that developed a disc that can devy gravity when he worked for the military. But im reading a great book written by Nick Cook, he works for Janes Defense Weekly as an Aviation editor and the book name is The Hunt For Zero Poin and he talks about Zero Point energy and he is convinced that the government is covering up stuff.
 

Rebel

The other energy technology im going to explore is heat since there is no place on earth that can exhibit pure zero degrees celsius then that means that there is large amount of energy as heat so as long as it is above absolute zero then there is movement of atoms which means we have to find a way to convert heat into energy and give off pure zero degrees celsuis atoms if the device is to work as 100% efficient. But heat it seems to me is unexplored.
 

Integral

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,185
55
Perhaps you should read up on something called Thermodynamics. We know a great deal about "heat". It is the form of energy which pretty much drives everything. It is not even sort of clear what you are trying to say.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
I would never tell them they are false because Nikola developed a lot of things that we use now and also showed edison that he was wrong about AC electricity.
Einstein did not believe in modern Quantum Mechanics. Newton believe in alchemy. Aristotle believed that the rate of falling is porportional to mass. Each did great work. An argument of personalities is never valid. And I don't see why people would reject any such science, if they were valid. Science changes. The nature of science is that it changes.

The conviction of one man is irrelevant when we are talking about what is scientifically true. Some people are convinced the Germans are the master race. Are they right? Without proof, all these claims are without fundation.

Rebel, have you ever heard of a thing called the second law of thermodynamics?
 

Rebel

Ive only been studying physics for about year started by reading Stephen Hawking books so no i dont know what that law is i will look into it thanks. But im just saying if i told you something now you might think im nuts because science for our time will prove it wrong but when we have an understanding of it it actually might be true because our currrent vision of physics might be some what tainted by errors.
 

climbhi

Originally posted by Rebel
... there is no place on earth that can exhibit pure zero degrees celsius
Have you ever heard of Alaska?

Originally posted by Rebel
... we have to find a way to convert heat into energy and give off pure zero degrees celsuis atoms
Many people call these zero degree celsius atoms ice.

Originally posted by Rebel
...if the device is to work as 100% efficient. But heat it seems to me is unexplored.
Thermodynamics is pretty well explored, and you're the first part is false we cannot have 100% effeciency.

Perhaps in your quotes above you were meaning to say zero Kelvin?
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
Yet another victim of pop-science. Hawking should be stoned.

- Warren
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Indeed, Warren.

Originally posted by Rebel
Ive only been studying physics for about year started by reading Stephen Hawking books so no i dont know what that law is i will look into it thanks.
Forget those Hawking books; if you're just starting out, here are the names you really need:

Halliday, Resnick, and Walker
Anton

That would be a great start. Also have a look at my Physics Napster thread, if you're light on the buck$. There are free books there that you can print out.
 

Rebel

Why you guys dont like Stephen Hawking?
What is the measurement of kelvin?
Is that metric or standard?
 

climbhi

Originally posted by Rebel
Why you guys dont like Stephen Hawking?
What is the measurement of kelvin?
Is that metric or standard?
Kelvin is the absolute temperature scale. Zero Kelvin is the lowest temperature possible, all though we can never really get there, though we can approach it very closesly (I believe the current record is somewhere around 10-6 K). The Kelvin temperature scale and the celsius temperature scale change in the same increments (i.e. if the temp changes 1 Kelvin it also changes 1 degree celsius). However the celsius scale is "set higher." 0 Kelvin is about -273.15 C. Kelvin is the temperature used in the SI system.

As to why we don't like Hawking, its cause he oversimplifies science to get people to buy his books and make him famous. Way way too many people go out and read the Hawking best seller and think that afterwards they are the worlds physics-uber-genious despite the fact that, millions of others read it too, they have no formal exposure to physics or math and, don't even have a high school understanding of classical physics. Then they come here and float all sorts of pretentious crap based on what they read out of Hawking and are convinced they are right even though what they're arguing about is completely absurd. That's why most people don't like him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,848
5,038
Originally posted by climbhi
As to why we don't like Hawking, its cause he oversimplifies science to get people to buy his books and make him famous. Way way too many people go out and read the Hawking best seller and think that afterwards they are the worlds physics-uber-genious despite the fact that, millions of others read it too, they have no formal exposure to physics or math and, don't even have a high school understanding of classical physics. Then they come here and float all sorts of pretentious crap based on what they read out of Hawking and are convinced they are right even though what they're arguing about is completely absurd. That's why most people don't like him.
Hawking's goal is what you fault him for - simplifying the science to make it digestable by the masses - and its an admirable one. I think its pretentious to dismiss him based on his simplicity (and maybe a little arrogant).
 

Integral

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,185
55
I rather enjoy Hawkings books. He does a very good job of explaining his concepts. BUT, people need to understand that this type of presentation does not provide a depth of understanding. To get that you need to have the background math and physics. Arm chair physicist who have their education from coffee table phyiscs books simply do not have the understanding required to comprend the depth of the material.

BTW the book Tom sugested (Haliday & Resnick) is a very commonly used university freshman level calculus based physics text. Not quite as easly read as a Hawkings book but it is the correct starting point.
 

climbhi

Originally posted by russ_watters
Hawking's goal is what you fault him for - simplifying the science to make it digestable by the masses - and its an admirable one. I think its pretentious to dismiss him based on his simplicity (and maybe a little arrogant).
I didn't mean to fault him personally, yes its great that he gets people interested in science, what I was trying to get at is that somehow after people read the books they're left with this notion that they are incredibly brilliant at physics now becuase they read his book. I think this might be partially his fault (perhaps not making it obvious enough that "okay i'm giving it to you at baby food level") and mostly the readers fault. But anyway...
 

Related Threads for: New Energy

  • Posted
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
632
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top