Why Aren't Revolutionary Propulsion Technologies Mainstream?

[tomsschulte]

hello people,
my name is tom schulte and I am from germany. I have some interesting links
for you. It would be nice if you would look at them

www.intalek.com
www.cheniere.org
www.stardrivedevice.com
www.disclosureproject.org

these websites tell you about some energie and propulsion systems that could
revolutionize our world. but why don't I read anything about these
technologies in a newspaper or on TV and can these technologies really work?
why don't these people get financial help to research their technologies
until they are market-ready? and why does no one use it? for example the
NASA or other companies

I would be glad if someone could look at these sites and tell me what's going
on. I would be the best if a physicist would look at the sites.

thank you very much.

tom schulte

 

[Cliff_J]

Overunity is the stuff of science fiction with a lot of liberty applied to the science part of that term. Now we're leaving behind concepts that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in order to walk down this path.

Quite simply, any device that can produce more output than its input seems to defy common sense doesn't it? Otherwise these would be new concepts and we'd have a lot of books to correct...

There's a few other threads here where the story is easy to predict when such claims are made. Its typically of some reclusive inventor, horribly underfunded and shunned by the scientific community, who has exploited some otherwise untapped power source typically revolving around magnetics. The vacuum is a new one, wonder how that fits in Maxwell's...

Hope that helps Tom, I personally leave the UFO stuff to when I watch an old episode of the X-Files.

Cliff

 

[The Glom]

No x-files necessary.

The terms '"free energy" and "over unity" are not really the same thing. The first just means you didn't pay for it. The second simply means that you had to pay SOMETHING, but then got MORE BACK in return. Every one of these terms comes down to one thing, the USERS PERSONAL INPUT and the USABLE OUTPUT. THAT is "where the rubber meets the road."

There are "energy potentials" everywhere in nature. Mankind has, traditionally, done everything he can to exploit whatever "sources" that he can to get some "free work".

Oil, when it comes up from the ground as a "gusher" could be considered "free energy" from our personal perspective. It's also WAY "over unity" because your INPUT to get the free flowing oil would be almost nothing compared to the BTU's you get out when you burn it.

Windmills are the same thing. YOUR INPUT is only the initial construction of the device and some periodic repair work.
The windmill itself has internal electrical resistive losses and bearing friction. So from a STANDARD EFFICIENCY rating, the equation goes like this...

(Total USER OUTPUT)/(Total Wind Energy Collected)

Usually less than 50% efficiency from that perspective of the wind energy required to produce a given amount of useful output.

You can step up to modern terminology and look at it from the "coefficient of performance" perspective, which would be a C.O.P.<0.50


Before scrutinizing any device, you should always firmly establish your point of perspective. Such as, looking at it only from the POV of the user, or looking at it from a "global" perspective where you figure ALL the energy into the system VS ALL the usefull output.

Again, the only practical perspective is that of the USER, since "users" are the end consumers of whatever devices are produced.


When you consider what windmill is actually doing, you'll see that it accomplishes two things.

1. It COLLECTS enough wind power to overcome it's own internal losses. In other words, it collects enough power to keep itself running. At a bare minimum, it's collecting just enough wind to keep itself running, UNITY. But, you want more than just that.

2. IN ADDITION, it collects "extra" energy that provides for turning the generator and sending power out to the USER.


To figure the C.O.P. from the WINDMILL'S PERSPECTIVE:

(Total USER OUTPUT)/(Internal windmill losses)


And from the USER's PERSPECTIVE:

(Total USER OUTPUT)/(Total USER INPUT)

So, for YOU the USER, the input is construction and repair work cost VS the total output YOU received over any given period of time. This C.O.P. figure tends to grow into some incredibly high numbers that go WAY above 1.


Now, make an attempt to very methodically read down through this page. Don't skip around or you'll miss the point.

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/index11.html

 

[enigma]

Tom, welcome to the forums.

In the future, please pick a single place to post a thread. If there are multiple threads open it quickly becomes impossible to hold a coherent conversation.

To all:
Please respond to this thread here.