Free energy (37)

1 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-08-21 22:16 ID:g756oB0C
"in 1931, under the financing of Pierce-Arrow and George Westinghouse, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow was selected to be tested at the factory grounds in Buffalo, N.Y. The standard internal combustion engine was removed and an 80-H.P. 1800 r.p.m electric motor installed to the clutch and transmission. The A.C. motor measured 40 inches long and 30 inches in diameter and the power leads were left standing in the air - no external power source!

At the appointed time, Nikola Tesla arrived from New York City and inspected the Pierce-Arrow automobile. He then went to a local radio store and purchased a handful of tubes (12), wires and assorted resistors. A box measuring 24 inches long, 12 inches wide and 6 inches high was assembled housing the circuit. The box was placed on the front seat and had its wires connected to the air-cooled, brushless motor. Two rods 1/4" in diameter stuck out of the box about 3" in length.

Mr. Tesla got into the driver's seat, pushed the two rods in and
stated, "We now have power". He put the car into gear and it moved forward! This vehicle, powered by an A.C. motor, was driven to speeds of 90 m.p.h. and performed better than any internal combustion engine of its day! One week was spent testing the vehicle. Several newspapers in Buffalo reported this test. When asked where the power came from, Tesla replied, "From the ethers all around us". Several people suggested that Tesla was mad and somehow in league with sinister forces of the universe. He became incensed, removed his mysterious box from the vehicle and returned to his laboratory in New York City. His secret died with him!

It is speculated that Nikola Tesla was able to somehow harness the earth's magnetic field that encompasses our planet. And, he somehow was able to draw tremendous amounts of power by cutting these lines of force or causing them to be multiplied together. The exact nature of his device remains a mystery but it did actually function by powering the 80 h.p. A.C. motor in the Pierce-Arrow at speeds up to 90 m.p.h. and no recharging was ever necessary!"

2 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-08-22 00:29 ID:Heaven

The kooks all love Tesla. There's no end to the stories of things he supposedly did.

3 Name: Alexander!DxY0NCwFJg!!muklVGqN 2005-08-22 00:32 ID:Heaven

I can't take Tesla seriously after Psaiyan said "Rei looks gorgeous in this pic" in connection to a portrait of him. ; )

4 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-08-22 09:44 ID:o9fHwyNk

Supposedly Tesla was one of the earliest scientists
to be involved with actual experiments of improving evolution
through direct manipulation of human DNA, ultimately resulting
in the eventual birth of Vin Diesel.

5 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-07 20:16 ID:GJNM4F2d

>>4 it was quite an event, that birth of Vin Diesel. More to the point though, it is obvious that Vin Diesel is a reincarnation of the Terminator who in turn was a direct incarnation of the brainchild of Nikola Tesla.

6 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-07 20:22 ID:GJNM4F2d

the law of energy says that no energy can be free unless the costs are offset to premium payers. Technically speaking, energy would be free if we were to steal it. Morally and ethically we can get away with it if we can make it feasible that we didn't know we were stealing.

This is exactly what happened with Tesla, regardless of the myth: He was leeching from god knows where. Soon after though,he was contacted by some entity whose origin, form,nature and name are unknown (but we do know it spoke on behalf of god knows where) to stop taking that energy.

Voila case settled. Energy was free while it lasted.

7 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-12-07 21:33 ID:rdd0Rdlf

Huh, they are a lot of energies free for the taking, solar energy, etc. Where is the payback if I take a little Sun's energy?

One theory for Tesla's "free energy" I read is that he was using the dynamo energy generated by the interaction of the Sun and the Earth, or something like that. Right or wrong, the idea is that there is a colossal amount of unused energy being wasted around us.

As for why he stopped, it was because he didn't get sponsors. Industrials were still trying to get back their investments by milking his first inventions. Tesla said so himself.

8 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-08 03:38 ID:bvfVGTQ5

While I have no idea what >>6 is talking about it sounds appropriate for a thread about Tesla.

Free energy is "free for the taking" by its very definition. But you always deplete a reservoir and increase entropy.

9 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-12-09 15:29 ID:Heaven

Actually Tesla created the equivalent of a waterwheel that tapped the energy of Earth's motion through the coelestial aether. However, the resulting drag force was larger than he'd predicted, and after his experiments introduced a full extra day in 1892 (February 31, 1892 - google it), he was forced to stop his experiments. The original wheel is still on display in his home town of Smiljan. On special occasions, it is started up and let spin freely, without an load attached.

10 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-09 15:52 ID:3gGYc/Nh

Perhaps we should clarify the differences between energy and potential energy: They are not the same. There is a potential energy between the earth and the sun due to gravitational forces. The force of attraction between the earth and the sun balances the opposite force that exists on the earth due to its rotation around the sun.

Let everyone know that this is not an unlimited source of energy. Should anyone be able to invent a device that uses thes e forces to generate energy, than the potential energy decreases. This would lead to a bigger orbit and thus indeed extra days.

Obviously the >>9 story is ridiculous. The coelestial aether was found to be nonexistent. Read Michelson Morley experiment. Their findings were in fact crucial for the development of relativity theory. Also, if the wheel did create an extra day in february, that should have been existent in all other years. I think you're confused with the fact that in some years february has a 31st day anyhow because the earth doesn't orbit the sun in exactly 365 days, but a fraction of a day less, so every now and then astronomers have to factor in another day. Otherwise, historical positioning of the earth relative to the sun becomes a pain.

Let anyone who knows how to use the coelestial aether speak up.

11 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-12-09 16:07 ID:+MjLJzZW

Oh, for the sake of brevity I left out the part of how Tesla had to use the energy he'd stored up from the wheel (in a huge bank of capacitors - creating this was such a feat that the unit for capacitance is now named in his honour) to actually drive the wheel and restore the Earth's proper rotational period.

Of course, the transfer wasn't without loss, which is why years divisible by 100 do not have leap days any longer.

12 Name: jwgh 2005-12-09 16:08 ID:Heaven

Regarding >>10 : Of course Michelson Morley found that the coelestial aether was nonexistent. That's because Tesla destroyed the aether in 1892, paving the way for his invention of the wireless telegraph (and, later, cellular phones).

13 Name: jwgh 2005-12-09 16:16 ID:Heaven

One interesting thing about >>1 is that that box's dimensions embody the golden ratio of 2:1. The only modern automobile that I know of that uses the golden mean is the Ford Scion xTC.

14 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-12-09 22:06 ID:Heaven

( ´∀`)< ぬるぽ!

15 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-17 15:55 ID:fmHskCpg

>>12 either has a great imagination. Or worships tesla

16 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-17 21:54 ID:Heaven

what does ぬるぽ mean?

17 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-12-18 13:26 ID:Heaven

>>16 nurupo = null pointer = nonsense, balderdash, what are you guys babbling about?

18 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-19 04:24 ID:Heaven

>>17 well, at least this thread wasn't completely pointless

19 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-12-19 14:05 ID:Heaven

>>18 yeah but it derailed a few times.
..."was"? Hey it's not over yet. The subject is free energy.
We still haven't discussed various other free energy methods, like the one used in the mythical underground black trains.
Supposedly, they use hydrogen-chlorine fuel batteries to power generators to operate the trains. You mix chlorine and hydrogen, and the chemical reaction creates electricity. It's free energy because one can just keep separating and putting them together, and it keeps creating electricity.

20 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-19 16:40 ID:x5jUFA8Y

>>14 ga >>16 ga

21 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-21 04:05 ID:o0z5J82d

Free Energy is a myth.

22 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-12-21 13:19 ID:UVsLNR/d

>>21...? Wind doesn't exist? There is no sun? No tides? There are no Potential Differences anywhere?

23 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-21 15:46 ID:Heaven

>>21 probably meant energy that you can get without depleting any resource or taking it from somewhere is a myth.

24 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-22 15:10 ID:nk695mL5

The law of energy says no energy can be created or destroyed. Don't count on that law being broken anytime soon.

Free energy would imply that variable costs of converting some energy source into electricity or heat are zero. There is a fixed cost in the building of the device which does the converting. Unfortunately, maintenance is virtually always needed, so there are variable costs.

If in the long run the variable costs (and the spread fixed costs) approximate zero, then you might call the project 'free.'

>>19 Are you sure there are no costs incurred in separating the chlorine and hydrogen? I assume they use regular electricity for that. Meaning that the Hydrogen and Chlorine are merely energy carriers, not energy creators.

25 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-12-22 18:58 ID:UVsLNR/d

>>24 >Are you sure there are no costs incurred in separating the chlorine and hydrogen?
Hydrogen chloride.
The idea is that in those fuel cells, chlorine and hydrogen are mixed and electricity is created, as well as hydrogen chloride, which is then re-separated again into hydrogen and chlorine.

The unknown part is, yeah, how do they separate hydrogen and chlorine with minimal costs? The story I read didn't say.

26 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-12-23 12:55 ID:Heaven

> The unknown part is, yeah, how do they separate hydrogen and chlorine with minimal costs?

That's a "1. Steal underpants / 2. ??? / 3. Profit!" if I ever saw one.

27 Name: vv 2005-12-23 21:11 ID:2mU3tZUL

Would it really be wise to risk depleting the earth magnetic field to power your CAR considering it is the only thing which shields us from deadly sun/cosmic radiation ?

28 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-12-23 23:28 ID:UVsLNR/d

>>27 Well, it depends how long it takes.
If it takes a million years to reach dangerous levels, then yeah I'm willing to take the risk. :)

Way before that time we should be tapping new energies, like harnessing the power of black holes, the oscillations of the Universe, the potential differences between hyperspace and normal space, etc. etc.

29 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-23 23:28 ID:Xa47DTWq

No, it would not be wise to risk depleting the earth's magnetic field.

Confronted with a good marketing campaign, would American consumers happily do it anyway? Of course.

30 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-12-24 21:40 ID:Heaven

Free energy from Earth's magnetic field?

What next? Powering cars with hamster wheels? You'll get more power out of a hamster wheel.

Plus everyone wants a hamster.

31 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2005-12-26 16:52 ID:Heaven

I've seen the magnetic field idea suggested for generating power on satellites, by using long conducting tethers.

Somehow I don't quite see how tapping a satellite's kinetic energy for power generation is a good idea, though.

32 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-20 16:40 ID:9ViZmOUw,,1854305,00.html
"Sean McCarthy says that no one was more sceptical than he when Steorn, his small hi-tech firm in Dublin, hit upon a way of generating clean, free and constant energy from the interaction of magnetic fields. 'It wasn't so much a Eureka moment as a get-back-in-there-and-check-your-instruments moment, although in far more colourful language,' said McCarthy.

But when he attempted to share his findings, he says, scientists either put the phone down on him or refused to endorse him publicly in case they damaged their academic reputations. So last week he took out a full-page advert in the Economist magazine, challenging the scientific community to examine his technology."

33 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-21 16:56 ID:Heaven

Free energy? What's next, an aids vaccine? Oh wait...

34 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-23 12:23 ID:daZsbjfW

> refused to endorse him publicly in case they damaged their academic reputations

Yes, endorsing frauds usually does that to your reputation.

35 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-24 16:51 ID:lRr/Fc80

what the fuck? seriously?

36 Name: !WAHa.06x36 : 2006-08-25 11:09 ID:Heaven


Man, I thought nobody would ever fall for that troll.

37 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-08-26 16:53 ID:gv4aJfie


i see what u did there

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...