-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
The final cut of TMC Podcast #34 is available now with topics timestamped. We covered Tesla's rollercoaster prices, Toyota pushing junk science, Mike's new Model 3, Optimizing track mode for snow driving, FSD V11 apparently coming by the end of this week, and more. You can watch and check out the chat replay on YouTube.
Massless Energy Charger
- Thread starter Anisa
- Start date
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
Anisa, I thought I'd chime in on this. I've got a Ph.D. in electrical engineering with emphasis on power systems. My life is devoted to the study of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity and everything related to it. Plenty of forum members can personally vouch for this since I speak at TMC Connect and have numerous publications with hundreds of citations. I am going to disprove this technology using power system economics, since it's far easier for people to grasp.
First there are laws in this country. Laws that say if you have a generator, and can produce electricity, the utility has to buy from you. There are also deregulated markets where anyone can build a generator, and sell electricity into the market. If this technology actually worked, someone would build the generator and start making infinite, free electricity. They'd be able to sell it, and get rich. They'd build more generators with the money, and make more money in the process. They could make so much that they'd displace every other generation source in the world. The question is, are they?
You'll try to argue that some cartel conspiracy is fighting the tech, because they've sunk their money into outdated technology, but this is also flawed, because the patent has expired. If I own tons of oil fields, and I can make a fortune on newly discovered free energy, which is cheaper than my oil, I'll just cut my losses and make a bigger fortune on the free energy. The oil is still very useful for synthetics and chemicals.
If no one is making a fortune off of a freely available technology that promises to allow you to make a fortune in electricity if it works, then it doesn't work and you're arguing that the capitalists aren't really that greedy.
First there are laws in this country. Laws that say if you have a generator, and can produce electricity, the utility has to buy from you. There are also deregulated markets where anyone can build a generator, and sell electricity into the market. If this technology actually worked, someone would build the generator and start making infinite, free electricity. They'd be able to sell it, and get rich. They'd build more generators with the money, and make more money in the process. They could make so much that they'd displace every other generation source in the world. The question is, are they?
You'll try to argue that some cartel conspiracy is fighting the tech, because they've sunk their money into outdated technology, but this is also flawed, because the patent has expired. If I own tons of oil fields, and I can make a fortune on newly discovered free energy, which is cheaper than my oil, I'll just cut my losses and make a bigger fortune on the free energy. The oil is still very useful for synthetics and chemicals.
If no one is making a fortune off of a freely available technology that promises to allow you to make a fortune in electricity if it works, then it doesn't work and you're arguing that the capitalists aren't really that greedy.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
deonb
Active Member
As a matter of fact I do have a dozen or so granted patents that are being in use by active products today - at least one of them is used by over a billion people daily. They're boring, but they're used in working products at least.
I'm happy to PM proof to anybody on here that have made a substantive contribution to this forum that are willing to glance over it and vouch for my above statement. (e.g. Johan or someone else willing to take a quick look? Will take 10 seconds). But like I said before - I don't trust you enough to not stalk me on social media.
However, credentials and background beside the point. I don't care if you're 9 years old as long as your idea makes sense.
The fact is, they attempted to publish a schematic. I can understand if you don't personally know how to read a schematic, but I'm telling you as someone with an engineering background that that schematic is B/S.
But you don't have to trust me on this, find any of your friends with an electronic or engineering background and ask them to interpret it for you. Heck - they don't even need to interpret the whole thing. You can ask them one question - what is an example part number for the "vibrator", or alternatively what is the design for it? Don't even have to go anywhere else with the schematic (which, by the way, is also an open circuit, so it's already busted just based on that).
Last edited:
Electric700
Active Member
There are things yet to be discovered. If you can build a working prototype that is powered by background radiation (e.g. cosmic rays), then perhaps consider patenting the technology. Afterward, build a company and revolutionize the energy industry.
A solar/background radiation panel would be amazing if it could generate sufficient power in the daytime and at night (the nighttime energy would come from the background radiation).
A solar/background radiation panel would be amazing if it could generate sufficient power in the daytime and at night (the nighttime energy would come from the background radiation).
Thank you for your response. Your argument demonstrates the technology is not at the commercial deployment stage. I agree. I have no basis on which to dispute the data observed by the author who built and operated the device. There is a huge difference between the author's experimental device, and a system ready for commercial deployment. Significant engineering and funding are needed to produce a commercial device. Only recently has significant funding become available to develop these types of devices, which were previously suppressed.
I'm sure there are several members of this forum who use massless energy to power their Teslas. Photons are massless energy, and are easily converted into electricity. Probably won't work if you stick it in the trunk though.
Another example is a crystal radio. No local power source, yet it can power an earphone enough to hear AM radio. Free massless energy from radio waves, a little lower in frequency than photons.
Neither of which give you enough power for a Tesla.
The only thing the U.S. patent office cared about when I was submitting patents was if the idea had already been patented. Any other question is handled in court if necessary. I think plenty of perpetual motion machines have been patented.
Another example is a crystal radio. No local power source, yet it can power an earphone enough to hear AM radio. Free massless energy from radio waves, a little lower in frequency than photons.
Neither of which give you enough power for a Tesla.
The only thing the U.S. patent office cared about when I was submitting patents was if the idea had already been patented. Any other question is handled in court if necessary. I think plenty of perpetual motion machines have been patented.
deonb
Active Member
Seeing that the author's experimental device does not, and cannot ever exist, it's not a difference - it's a divide-by-zero error.
If the device does not exist, where did the author get the observed data?
Are you accusing him of fraud? Consider your answer carefully.
deonb
Active Member
They don't really mean massless as in photons & gluons - they mean aether.
They would have even less credibility if they keep using the word "aeather" all over the place, so they say "massless energy". It means aether.
Don't confuse what they talk about with physics.
Last edited:
deonb
Active Member
Pulled it out of a bodily orifice that's best kept unseen.
Yes, absolutely, 100%, unequivocally so, I'm accusing him of fraud, and I've done so many times on this thread before already.
He isn't just an idiot, he is an outright snake oil salesmen. A swindler, a bamboozler, a confidence man, a hustler, a scammer, a hoaxer, a trickster.
I've shown above what his source of income is. If you disagree - show us the device.
Patience grasshopper. Many people are working hard to ensure you get to see (and eventually use) such a device. Not snake oil salesmen; honest people.
Last edited:
deonb
Active Member
What are we waiting for? The laws of physics to change?
I tried that once. Had all kinds of experiments to try and disprove the laws of thermodynamics. And then I turned 7.
Similar threads
