New Renewable based power generation system

Perpetual motion machines that violate the laws of physics. Heard it many times before - still no evidence beyond the imagination / lies of their creators. Based on the information you've provide. No value. Can you provide any real, proveable and repeatable data about it?

Simply put you don't need to post on an forum about it. Prove it works and the world will beat a path to your door with dollars, euros, yen, etc., in hand.

Mr. Leonard,

I am sure I speak for all when I express appreciation for the work you do, and I don't want to burden you with more. But surely there is some way to report such posts and have them dump into a special category of "Outside the Bounds of Physical Science," or some such polite term for BS posts, so that these people could have their own place to go without being given the respectability of the full forum, and only the original reader (or maybe two, following the GA process) who report(s) the post is/are inconvenienced by it.

That way those who enjoy bantering with these people are free to do so and know where to look, and the rest of can just ignore them.

Thank you.

emc, I like your idea of a "special category of "Outside the Bounds of Physical Science,". However, I must confess that I would visit that place because I sometimes enjoy the "comic relief".

No problem with that at all. Maybe you might even convert one or two back to reality. As I said in a much earlier, but less polite post in another, but similar thread,

"Could CR4 maybe have a separate mandatory category for posts which violate fundamental laws of physics? That way those who are interested in the freak show can enjoy themselves, and the rest of us don't need to be bothered. Thanks!"

Actually I was quite polite. I said, "Thanks."

Seriously for a moment, a separate category for such posts would reinforce the idea that they are not considered legitimate. You don't want to bestow the mantle of legitimacy on these people. It only encourages them.

Impact of course would be enormous if it was for electricity generation that could be linked to a shareable continental/global manageable electricalon demand drawable power grid...The cost of well derived oils/shale derived oils/coal derived oils etc would plummet..Potentially setting off global panic etc...However changing the direction of a fully loaded oil tanker is easier than changing the direction of the global economy but little nudges will do the trick over time...More info would be useful to comment and perhaps critic or try on ones own..No ideas are generated in a vacumn although efforts(patent types)are often made to keep ideas exclusive for x years..Sharing is ultimately better in my humble opinion but not necessarily monetarialy rewarding....Regards...Marty W.

"Actually what market value can be considered for such system ?"

The market value would be enormous, but, alas, what you propose is impossible.

Dear Sirs,

At first I would to thank you all for your comments. At second I would to share some more information about such system. I just would to add that I am actually not a sciencist BUT I think myself plenty much things are possible to evaluate, construct and utilize as WE as the "Public" know at the present. Therefore I share something more :

a) the "Whole" system shall be constructed in conditions disabling all opportunities to reach Thermodynamical equilibrium .In addition Non - equilibirum thermodynamical systems doesn´t have really much equations to evaluate, estimate and calculate the exact "system" properties.

b) the researches actually says that most "systems" of our surroundings are in None - quilibrium stage

c) as I know myself some of the Einsteins Thermodynamical Laws are breakable in such way but actually nobody has tried to do so yet. Furthermore as the recent researches shows there were some small errors in Einsteins Thermodynamical calculations and equations.

But I can agree with you all that Einstein´s thermodynamical Laws are for Equilibrium stages only or I am maybe wrong.

Finally I think myself everything can be proved only when it become evaluated, tested, etc and actually I don´t want to break the Laws of Physics but ... why not to try to do something utilizing the current high-tech knowledge to explore the unexplored...

Thank you

"Lin says that "some of these results are surprising to theorists," and as yet there is no satisfying theoretical foundation for why it works as it does. But the experimental results so far show that the method works."

The above is a quote from the following MIT site, more power out than put in, and methods found to work that are not fully understood. fusion future power generating system?

Regards JD.

Fusion does not violate the conservation of energy, because the larger principle is the conservation of mass-energy. Fusion converts mass into energy.

Hi emc_c:

Maintaining standards and credibility is important, and while individual have the right to point this out, when they believe things are not up to scratch, they are exercising their right to free speech, as do others. I agree that there is a correct place for some things, but we enjoy or involvement in this forum, and do not always stick strictly to being absolutely correct, when the post allows? We like to go outside the box, and explore other avenues of thought, and see how others think. I respect your opinions, and you come across as competent. I respect the management, as I'm sure you do, and I think they will act accordingly. I enjoy your post and answers, but don't enjoy the politics. This is not meant to be personal or offence.

With respect JD.

As a specific response to my post #9, your response #10 doesn't make sense. It doesn't address post #9 at all.

If your response #10 is in response to my posts #4 & #6, you should address yourself to Mr. Leonard. He is in charge, I am not. I merely voiced my opinion as to how I think things ought to be run, as have you.

While some mention of politics comes up from time to time in my posts, usually political philosophy as opposed to party politics, there is none of that whatsoever in this thread.

With regards to free speech, no one besides Mr. Leonard on this forum has free speech. The speech is regulated by Mr. Leonard or others in charge who decide what is appropriate, and what is not. Clearly a great degree of latitude is granted - more than I care for, frankly. But that is at the discretion of the forum owners. Freedom of the press is for the people who own the press, and only for them. Anyone contributing to the content of any media aside from the owners themselves does so solely by permission of the owner.

Oops, I did it again. There goes the political content.

Yes you are correct I did address it to post #9, which I should not have done, I apologise. I was just expressing an opinion. Professional people like your self contribute to this forum, and have expressed a dislike for this type of post, I would prefer that people like your self continue to contribute, and not play, oops Politics. Like you say management will make that decision. Looking fore-ward to reading your future posts.

Regards JD.

Greetings.

You are you have made history, you have made one of these questionable posts interesting. That happens when one gets involved. Good answer.

Regards JD.

emc, that was, by far, about the best post I've ever read. Truly moving. A simple GA doesn't even do it justice.

However, I'm not really sure of the point here. You vilify the cannon makers because they failed. Then you glorify Von Braun and Fokker because they succeeded.

I work in the Aero-space industry. About 100% of my job is to see that spec's, put forward by the powers that be, are met, to insure that proper safety procedures are followed. Often, these practices are not in line with the wishes of managers and accountants, however I must maintain a paper trail that inspectors are happy with.

Part of my job is that when you board an airplane, you can be sure that, at least on my end of it, procedures were followed, to ensure your safety.

On the other end of it, we produce parts for military aircraft. They are designed to kill people. I have no problem with this, as this is required to preserve our American way of life.

Yes, we all have to eat. But Von Braun and Fokker sold out to the the highest bidder, just like the cannon makers. The only difference is success or failure.

So, the cannon makers, Von Braun, and Fokker, didn't give a crap about who they worked for. They had no morals at all. Personal achievement was there only goal. Maybe I'm no better. Anything is possible when your hungry.

Bricktop and jd, thanks for the GAs.

I believe Bricktop slightly misinterpreted my post, however. The sin of the cannon maker was not designing a cannon that failed. It was designing a cannon for the wrong side. That it failed was incidental. The Turks won anyway, a good cannon would have simply shaved a few months off the end of Constantinople. I said he was a traitor to his land, his religion and his culture.

Fokker went to work for the enemy, after offering his services to his country. In his defense, I would say that while that was wrong, the good/bad differentiator was not as strong in WWI as in WWII. It isn't obvious to me that a world in which Germany had won WWI would have been a lot worse than having lost it. Fokker may have been a traitor, but if so quite marginally, nothing on the scale of the Hungarian cannon maker. Fokker tried to do the right thing. Clearly he should have stopped when rebuffed and not gone to work for Germany. But he wanted to build airplanes...

von Braun was no traitor at all. He was a German; he worked for the German war machine. von Braun may have had no problem with the Third Reich politically, I don't know. When he got to the USA, he immediately went to work building bigger and better missiles for the country that had just totally defeated his country of birth. Totally, as in the fire-bombing of Dresden. Then he went to work for, or rather became, NASA. At that point he likely was working on what he truly desired - aiming for the stars. For von Braun, the moon was a way station. After Apollo, he wanted to immediately move on to his next target, which was Mars.

My reading is that von Braun was totally apolitical; he wanted to build rockets. Anyone willing to bankroll him was welcome. I'm saying that can be problematic. On the other hand, not everyone has the combination of technical, organizational and sales skills to pull off landing on the moon. That's an understatement of gigantic proportions. folks. The man was a giant. I just used him as an example of what can happen when politics are ignored.

I work for a variety of customers, and some are military. I take pride in the weapon systems to which I contribute. Not as an end in themselves, but because they are built in the cause of freedom. As Bricktop alluded to, "Freedom is not free."

Dear Sir,

CR4 is NOT a science fiction dreaming forum I fed up with all the proposals coming more and more from quite intelligent people who do not have the knowledge to recognise where their errors are.

I even suggested one of them to make free an analysis of his system after he protected it.

The suggestion made for a special "zone" for such ideas I consider it as positive since the persons making the proposals will not feel aggressed when we shall tell them that the ideas are wrong. This zone will be visited by those who think same way and will give psychological support to the inventors. Unfortunately they so believe in their idea that you find yourself insulted (i enjoyed it) if you do not share their belief. I think it will be better for all participants and for CR4 if this futuristic zone will be created.

Dear Sir,

I agree with the points you have raised, when giving or seeking an explanation from the person concerned, difficulties arise. But I would have thought that raising the mature under New Technologies and Research, is not altogether inappropriate, in their mind that's what it is? I tried to raise in post #9, that even the best minds when working at the front line of technology, don't always have a rational explanations for why things work as they do. Some may think its guilt by association, but I see no problem with free speech in a public forum. I know it can be offensive, but being aware of the world around us, and the way other people think, is also healthy, for both parties involved.

Regards JD.

Seems like a good time to chime in. We have a good team of moderators who filter the tank here on CR4. There are certain things that we immediately purge - spam, hate speech, political or religious (or anti-religious) rants, and posts that just make no sense. Beyond that, everything is a judgement call.

When the question arises as to "science vs. quackery", I'm sure everyone who responded to this post would have differing views. Some view climate change as a dire threat, others see it as junk science. Evolution - some see it as science v. religion, others believe evolution is reconcilable with their religious beliefs. I'm sure the 10 micro-bloggers discussing this thread would not have consensus on either of those worldviews. Some would even view the position they disagree with as quackery. If this small group can't decide what is beyond the pale, how do we do that for the entire user body?

So where does that leave us with perpetual motion machines, HHO and the like? If the original poster seems to be selling something associated with these ideas or looking for monetary support, we shut them down immediately. We're not running an infomercial here - especially not for scam technologies. If however, the poster seems genuinely interested in discussing the topic for the sake of understanding the theory behind it, then yes we let it run. Even so, there are limits. If it turns into a sales pitch, or if when asked a simple pertinent question (how does it work? what's the input and the output?, etc.) the OP comes back with one of the following retorts:

1. I can't tell you or the government/company/shadowy agency will kill me.
2. Why do you hate the Earth so much as to question someone who wants to help?
3. I am following in (Tesla's, Einstein's, Feynman's, etc.) footsteps so I'm right (with no explanation to follow), you just don't understand.
4. I'm the Messiah...

it moves into the realm of utter bunk and we close it. That's not enough for some. We receive "Reports!" from some users at the simple mention of HHO. Other times we get CR4 messages from users who are upset that we've shut down a quack discussion, because they enjoy the repartee with the poster - so it does become a no win situation for the mods.

As to a section for "questionable science," - the science isn't questionable if you truly believe it, so who would post into it?

We are looking into improvements for the site that may alleve some of this by creating specific spaces for people to discuss items of personal interest at a lower level than the open forums. This change however is not going to come soon (if at all) as we would need to line up considerable resources to make the change.

I'll close with this final statement. If you find a post that you believe is questionable for any of the reasons discussed above, click the "Report!" button and let us know. At the very least the mod team will watch the thread and take care of any truly objectionable material.

Best wishes,
- Chris

Dear Chris Leonard

I just let you know that I am not selling nothing and I don´t even need any monetary support from anybody in here.

I just put some questions to see what could be expected.... IF...

The "thing" - technology is actually my and I will already receive support from such bodies intend to develop, evaluate.....the technology. I was only interested in reactions of engineers, scientists, etc even if I know myself the possible impacts of such successful NEW technology.

In addition I will not share information about such "thing" only which I will consider as shareable. I will receive full help of scientist who are interested if that concept actually works or not.

So basically I just wanted to know what is expected or predictable when it works...it´s so simple...

thank you

excuse me for my poor English

Just to let you and the mod squad know that I appreciate the job that you do.

CR4 is of value to me. and others that have been helped. I have gotten to meet some neat and knowledgeable folks from around the world here.Thank you.

milo

Interesting comments, thanks to all. Would anyone here be able to tell me why we can't turn steel to gold. I'm pretty sure we can make a good marketing strategy around it, and it will really help a lot of people. Just because no one else has ever done it doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, does it? You guys are engineers, aren't you. It is just going to take a real inventive mind. You must be closed to new ideas if you don't want to talk about it. Meanies.

i'm not sure actually..biologically we are constantly transmutating mater in to ourselves..and recent research has shown that biological reactions actually occur at ..yup..quantum speeds...so we at least are transmutating inputs into ourselves at a constantly huge rate and phenomenal complexity at that..so i suppose at the biological level if you could find a bacterium or other life form(archea and a new one recently making the rounds that i can't quite remember) that loves steel and its myriad atomic makeups while excreating gold as a waste particle and then discovery how to cull that gold..well then there you have it..alchemy does still exist we just can't seem to find it...peace and kindness..