Something for(from) nothing?

possibilities are only limited by lack of inspiration(true breath of angels). I will be following this thread with bated breath..

Countless numbers of people have tried and keep trying with no success. That pesky old 2nd law of thermodynamics. Even so, if you can find a material that will completely block magnetic fields without being attracted to them then you are home free. The rest is mere mechanics.

John

Stop. Take the time to get yourself a good physics book. Excellent ones are available at your Community College book store. And read!!! Energy is conserved, and when transformed from one form to another it's always a downhill process... My mum couldn't understand why a windmill on the outside of a car couldn't recharge the car with "free" energy.

Read and understand that there is no conspiracy about this. It's just a matter of the nature of the Universe you live in.

Sorry!

People are a selfish, religous, unrational species. The powers that be, do cover-up very much technology.

Energy from no where is highly unlikely, but there's many sources of energy, some may be unknown yet.

Some claims of overunity machines (overunity in the sence of mechanical, electrical, heat, etc input)

Steon.com

- last said they don't know where the energy comes from

- use the "lag" effect in magnetisum

Stanley Meyers

- Uses a kind of electrolisis that he says gains energy from breaking down atoms into other elements

There's much more, check-out overunity.com, oupower.com, and their forums.

Pseudoscience is always easy to believe in because science takes a lot of work to understand, which most people are not willing to do.

"some people come to the fountain of knowledge to drink. Others come merely to gargle."

-Unknown

Mrsz/Mr vermin,

very well said it is easier to believe than to make the effort to understand.

In the early 1970s I remember reading a story in a technical magazine/news letter but my memory is not 100%.

The story was: the physics department at some tech university had set up some kind rotating ball in a container that was a closed volume with a vacume environment that was super cooled and I think the ball was supported by a magnetic field. There was a small window in the container to visually observe the spinning ball but the window was closed all the time and only opened periodically to measure the spin rate. They correlated the spin rate loss with the time the window was opened but it was not understood. The experiment had run for at least 2 years (or more) and the window was only opened every 6 months. Some tech reporter want to publish info about this "perpetual energy" experiment so they waited for the next scheduled 6 month observation. During the observation, they let the reporter take a camera photograph with a flash through the window.

Guess what!!!! (auwww shittt) the ball came to a sudden halt and stopped rotating.

Appearently light coming through the window removed the energy in the system.

And everybody lived very unhappily ever after.

--So don't open the photo darkroom door----you'll let all the dark out!!

this conjures up yet another tangent. 2 rooms, one filled with sunlight, the other devoid of all light. 1 door seperates the 2. You're in the 'light' room and open the double-hinged door into the dark room. The light spills into the dark room illuminating it somewhat...objects become discernable. You're in the darkroom, can't see a thing and open the door into the light room. The dark does not spill into the light, there are no shadows cast, objects remain illuminated. This suggests that its important to be in the 'light' (at least some of the time) and that the 'dark' initiates trepidation.

Light is matter. Dark is the absence of light and therefore the absence of matter. Yet matter exists in a dark room! I don't know why that should matter! LOL (now back to serious work)

Ahhh, but it does matter...This analogy pertains to a lack of lateral thinking in the subject of this thread; 'Something for(from) nothing?. Take the well-trained race horse, blinders on streaming for the finish line..so focussed and driven. Yet, the race is over pretty quickly and the well groomed oval pretty unassuming. Tangents are ticklers..I'd rather be human.

PB,

That's a nice image you post. Can I get a copy??

MidniteFighter

Right-click the image you see, and save at your convenience.

As in:

.

Hi seekingtheprize,

Sir Roger Penrose has shown us the way to the prize.

See my Blog post on "free energy" from a black hole.

Hi seekingtheprize,

First off welcome to CR4. Finding a workable renewable energy source is a vital problem that we need to work on as a number one priority. However, it's vitally important that you separate fiction from fact and not waste your time on flights of fancy that have no chance of succeeding.

"Does anyone know of research or experiments in the area of "perpetual energy generators" or propulsion motors that fall into this field of theory?"

At CR4 we regularly get people that claim they have the design for or have successfully constructed a machine that produces energy from nothing. This link will take you to a list of posts that contain the term "perpetual motion". Most of them are well intentioned people that just don't understand the science behind their invention sufficiently to understand what they are seeing or doing. However there are some scam artists that are only after a way to take your money.

For a perpetual motion machine to be possible you are asking us to believe that all the science and engineering that we have used to build everything from a match to the space shuttle and put a man on the moon is all wrong. You are saying that none of us know what we are really doing and that everything that we have built was just a lucky guess.

Truthfully, who do you think is correct, the guy in a shed that has little to no training as a scientist or engineer or millions of successful scientists and engineers over several generations.

"The switch he turned on has yet to be accomplished by anyone to this day, or if it has been done it's been destroyed by the powers that be to keep us all slaves to our dependency on our present source of energy like gas ,electric, climacteric, nuclear, hydro, solar(I think you get the idea)."

Most governments cant even agree on which side of the road to drive on or how far apart railway tracks should be, put bluntly the level on ineptness at high levels in business and government is staggering.

With the sort of incompetence that is so obvious government and business would have about as much chance of pulling of a conspiracy of the magnitude you are suggesting as you have of giving birth to a fully grown bull elephant.

Conspiracy theories are just that theories and pulling one of is extremely difficult. I just cant see the current crop of lunatics that are the powers to be being able to pull something like this off.

"What is left?"

Put simply, plenty of things. My blog "An Engineer's Look at the Future of Energy" is looking at any technology that may help reduce or dependence of fossil fuels. You can see a list of the technologies that I plan to start discussions on and links to discussions that have already taken place on the blog's index page.

Well said Masu,

I am always amazed that people willingly ignore basic physics and at the same time believe that world changing secrets can be kept from the world at large. And not just one, but dozens of secrets on the same basic scheme. Time after time.

The weird thing to me is that the "believers" on any subject you care to name always task the unbelievers to "prove" that it's false as opposed to them proving irrefutably that it's true.

Well said Masu

It's always fun to look at the various schemes though, the prototypes are often extremely well made and are elegant machines in their own right. Plus, there's that pleasant feeling of acomplishment that comes when you spot the fundamental fallacy.

I've noticed the inventors are usually clever people, but they lack the humility to go back to basics and really understand the science involved. I suppose that it's easier "know" you're right and just assume everyone else in the world is either a fool or part of an evil conspiracy.

Jeff

Masu, Do you know how to train a flea?

the whole is only as good as its' parts.

It is possible to get what at first glance seemto fill all the requirements, but as soon as you want to do some work with the machine it all falls apart because when you remove any energy never mind how little this tips the balance and stops the machine.

If you could make a fritionless machine working in a vacuum, it might just be possible to make a more effient machine whose losses are small enough to seem to be a perpetual mchine, but don't expect it to do anything useful. All movement generates losses in friction, windage, and heat. The effiency is the energy put into a machine versus the work achieved. 1000W in 800W of work 80% effient. 20% losses.

God did say 'let there be light`.

All you have to do is ask him how he did it.

Otherwise, I guess you're out of luck.

If people did not dare to try the 'impossible' we would still be living in caves . My own bit of insanity is trying to trisect angles ; I understand and accept that it can not be done , but i persist. Why my curiosity ? - probably similar to yours - because it's impossible . To silence any giggles , I've learnt more Trigonometry than I would have from a shed-load of books and discovered a world of esoteric delight such as the 'Tomahawk' , 'Morley triangle' ,....

Pursue your research I say .You'll learn something whatever the truth.

some very notable work started in sheds...We live in a perpetual machine, time. I wonder why we feel the compelling urge to trap things, label them and make them smaller...? Curiosity is powerful. So is the enigma of conciousness.

According to modern big bang theory, the universe was created with no energy. Figure out how to start your own universe, and you've got it.

Why do you need it to be free? There is plenty of energy in this universe. Why not try to capture some of it, like with a solar panel or wind generator? After the initial investment, it would be free energy to you.

is it possible to store H2 and O2 in water like CO2 is stored in pop? Create it in water under pressure, then use negative pressure to take it out?

On the other hand, I assume that you could dissolve H₂ and O₂ in water, like CO₂ in soda pop. However, I wouldn't want to get anywhere near it with a match! There's always bound to be some gas coming out of solution. If lit, it might cause a catastrophic release. And I wouldn't shake it too much either!

H₂ and O₂ are stored in water. As H₂O!

See replies number 6 and 15. I have been working on an experiment very similar to the one described in post #6. This is the first time I have ever heard of other similar experiments and I have arrived to this nearly same end of thought on the entire subject after contemplating and studying these ideas for about 40 years. The difference between my experiment and the one you described is that mine incorporates a unique application of something I discovered in some earlier experiments and my application of a theory of the beginning AND continued energy of the universe. Curiously, it doesn't appear to violate any known physics laws either. And even though I belive I am on the right track, I don't believe it will or even could be accomplished by mankind, even if actually possible. Overunity obviously would or could never work either. Don't stop asking the questions though. 90% of the world has faith in something that they don't actually believe physically exists! "Go Figure". If we all stop believing in and chasing the impossible, then we will never fathom more than what is considered possible today. As for your conspiracy theory, I think we have all heard them all. Yes, fact is most often stranger than fiction, and most of us only know what we are told by the media, but, if the government or private industry is withholding some great discovery, it is only to the demise of our entire species, not to mention all governments and industry as well. What I fear of this impending destruction on our planet is not the total destruction of the planet itself, it is simply in the near or even possible total extinction of mankind. Our planet will certainly outlive us and even heal the carnage we have bestowed upon it. Our "times end" on Earth though, may even be approaching faster than we even yet realize. We know that to continue down the same road while the remainder of third world countries strive to be like us, will certainly hasten the onset of cataclysmic weather patterns, and possibly usher in an extreme change to mark the rapid commencement of a new 100,000 year ice age. We know naturally it is coming, and far more sooner than later, but our effects certainly make a difference. Therefore, it would be contrary to private sector economies to withold this great knowedge, as no matter what they propose as long term economic models of their buisness plan, there would always be a black empty hole at the end and witholding this information in light of all the information on the subject that we posses today, would be ludicrous.

The only threat to these people are other people, because they have plenty of room underground to live, this is what I've come to believe after the 80+ hours of online video's I've watched over the last 9 months. They might have trouble launching nuc's though so there's hope. Fight the power, we need better energy, and local currency, and banking.

As anyone that watches the only "true" news source knows, the world economy is supported by the Pazuza and box tops!

A word of caution:

The definition of a 'con':

"Find someone who wants something for nothing. Give that person nothing for something."

A little circumspection goes a long way.

You gotta be kidding right? What a waste of server space on what I though was an engineering forum. C'mon can we please limit the perpetual motion/free energy crap here. It makes laughing stock of the CR4 forums.

Regarding people posting about "free energy" on CR4, get used to it. Most people have a very poor understanding of science. Combine that with the common tendency towards paranoia, and naturally many people believe the misinformation and scams perpetrated by "free energy/over-unity" proponents.

Why can't I find a working model of any of the dozens of perpetual motion machine claims mentioned on the internet? Because of the "Big Conspiracy" against free energy enforced by Big Oil/U.S. Gov/Military/Jews/Grey Aliens/etc? Sorry, that excuse doesn't work since Venezuela, Iran, Brazil, France, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc have absolutely no reason to cooperate with such a wide-scale coverup (or are we supposed to believe that the U.S. controls all of these governments?! Ha!). The laws of physics constitute the only "conspiracy" against free energy/over-unity devices.

On the bright side, a good fraction of the people bringing up the subject of "free energy" are sincerely curious, and are open to learning some science to explain why such schemes don't work. Some of these proposed devices are tricky to bebunk (pointing out the specific flaw rather than merely quoting thermodynamic law), and actually provide very good material for science lessons. For some helpful information, please visit the following web sites:

Museum of Unworkable Devices
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Free Energy Yahoo group -- skeptical discussion list (don't need to join to read posts)
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

First, when the Soviet Union discovered a large deposit of diamonds, De Biers waltzed right in, gave their pitch to the Russians and they fell right in line.

Second, if anyone is behind this conspiracy, I think it's the Subgeni!!!

First, when the Soviet Union discovered a large deposit of diamonds, De Biers waltzed right in, gave their pitch to the Russians and they fell right in line.


How does your statement above relate to the topic of this thread? I don't see any connection. Did you offer it as support for the claim of a world-wide conspiracy to suppress free energy technology, or did you intend it as a joke?

Just in passing, it was another take on:

that excuse doesn't work since Venezuela, Iran, Brazil, France, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc have absolutely no reason to cooperate with such a wide-scale coverup (or are we supposed to believe that the U.S. controls all of these governments?! Ha!)

I beg your pardon! I've been running my computer on free energy for several months now, and I can tell you definitely tha

Mine is free too - The neighbours are a bit puzzled about theirs though . Nothing to do with me insatalling a new fuse box for them of course.

...gas ,electric,climacteric,nuclear,hydro,solar

Don't forget coal, wind, wave, stream, etc.

Clearly, we have numerous sources of energy. Sunlight alone can supply the needs of the world for the foreseeable future. We already have "perpetual" energy, in the form of the sun. We do not have, and will not have, machines that run on magic. Why would we waste our time hunting for them, if there are so many other pressing issues?

If we are hoping for miracles, then why not cure cancer with a snap of the fingers? Why not eliminate hunger? Why not stop wars. These are all things that our best scientific minds agree are achievable. "Over unity" and "perpetual motion" machines are things our best scientific minds agree are only fantasies. Why start with the ludicrous ideas, when there is so much work to be done to reduce real human misery.

Perpetual energy,as we all know is impossible right?

Of course. Then why pursue it? Magicians can show us some pretty convincing tricks, but only the most naive among us believe it is really "magic". Why the urge to believe in perpetual motion/over unity magic? Why spend time working on such concepts? Imagine the good the Dennis Lees and Stanley Meyers of this world could be doing if they were working to cure cancer instead of working to fleece the public.

Sure, you can be a naysayer: "Scientists are just a bunch of nitwits!" But why not think positively? Embrace science and do something productive. For those with an energy interest, work on improving solar cells or build a 150 mpg car. For others, cure cancer. Cure obesity. Feed the hungry. House the homeless.

Chasing "perpetual motion" or "over unity" devices is not productive. Read what our best and brightest scientists have to say. Spend some time at MIT, Stanford, Cornell, Georgia Tech, Cambridge. You won't find much support for "perpetual energy generators".

If you have some sound ideas, then write a grant and do the R&D.

http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

In addition to being an alchemist, Isaac did some work with perpetual motion machines, too. Leonardo DaVinci did too, and variations on his machine show up today as "brand new."

My point exactly Ken - would these people have achieved the useful things they did without the flight of fancy they found in pseudo-science. I think not . Creative thought requires breaking free of conventional dogma . The alchemy may have come to naught , but it helped Newton develop his brain . In that sense , looking into perpetual motion is not wasted time . I don't advocate anybody selling wife/children/house for this , but some dabbling in the 'absurd' is no bad thing . A question of balance I think.

The only thing I have to add is that Newton was also a chemist, and in those days if you came up with a new chemical compound, part of your description had to include taste!!!

Newton, towards the end of his life was a raging nut case, and modern physician who look at the historical record seem to agree he showed all the signs of heavy metal poisoning of several different types.

Newton's Madeness : ISBN 0 7472 3635 6

The term "plumb crazy" means Pb crazy.

I'm already 'mad-as-a-hatter'

I think the re-appearance of 'free-energy' and 'perpetual' posts are really a blessing in disguise:

It represents a protest/a latent cry for help:

"Give me the energy to be free" Oh Lord.

We could throw a party and poach some politicians

with pen on paper we could sign some pertinent petitions

while pointing fingers poking fun creating limitations

we could never hold hands for the egos' inhibitions

are far more reaching, far more wrenching than those ripe conditions

necessary for the truth; God's mighty repetitions

The bugger was mad about Leibniz who snatched his crown-work (infinitesimal calculus) from under his nose.

Heading the royal mint gave him plenty of opportunity to revenge, on his free-time at the regal expense.

He was both a nut and a nut cracker.

Creative thought requires breaking free of conventional dogma .

I think there is no area of human activity in which dogma is less present than in the practice of real science. (Sure, there are loads of "scientists" who simply mouth the words of others, and who forget that theories exist to be verified or overturned.) At perhaps the other extreme, where dogma rules, is in religion. The force of dogma is so strong in religion that people kill one another because of differences in belief, as supported and reinforced by dogma. (For true believers, religion is entirely static -- there is nothing but dogma, no room for interpretation... it is written.)

Every day where real science is practiced, people work to turn over the conventional wisdom, to discover something new, and to put it out there for competition with other ideas. It can be thrilling. Some theories seem outlandish at first, especially to those unschooled in the subject matter. (For example, do I place a lot of faith in string theory? No. But that is, in large part, because I don' t have the background to really evaluate it. But I felt somewhat the same way when first studying some aspects of relativity that made me squirm. Now, we have ample evidence, in things we can hold in our hands -- like GPS receivers -- that Einstein's views on time were right on the money.)

In Isaac's day, alchemy was indistinguishable from chemistry. Isaac did not dabble in pseudo science. (There was no "flight of fancy." His work was hypothesis, trial, observation... endlessly.) What he worked on, for his time, was real science. In DaVinci's day, working on a perpetual motion machine was real science. Today, recreating his machine in hundreds of slightly different permutations, is not real, productive science, any more than doing hundreds of experiments to disprove F=MA is real, productive science. It is simply mental masturbation. One might just as well try to prove that storks deliver babies.

We still work on understanding how lead can be changed to gold. If we thoroughly understand and can master the changing of uranium to lead, then why not lead to gold? We continue to improve our understanding of things at the small end of the scale, (e.g., nanotech) but we have a long, long way to go. We have evidence that one element can change to another. We have no evidence that we can get more out of a system than we put in. Better to work on alchemy than perpetual motion machines.

Science is one of our best ways to free ourselves from dogma.

Physicists have known for years how to change lead to gold. It's just that it would cost about a million dollars an ounce.

You wish! You cannot even get to make an ounce. Milligrams maybe, if you've invested enough.

Not to mention all that evaporated platinum and diamond fragments created in nuclear detonation.

What a waste.

I am confused by your comments here (Today, recreating his machine in hundreds of slightly different permutations, is not real, productive science) and lower down (Every thoughtful fourth grader "designs" a perpetual motion machine).

I think our main differences on this issue are probably semantic . However , 'fact' is only 'fact' at a given point in time . Lord Kelvin (appropriately enough ) used what he considered to be fact to say flight by heavier-than-air machine was impossible. He would have presumably (if holding your position) told the Wright brothers not to waste time fooling around at Kittiwake.

Learning is a sequence of folly. This debate is certainly perpetual even if (as I agree) the machine is not .(at present or near future)

In advance, please forgive the following string of generalisations, to be expressed here:

...flight by heavier-than-air machine was impossible...

I can't see your point Kris: Do you think Kelvin was ignoring the bird's ability to perform the magic, being animals, not machines, or did he attribute their flight to some divine power behind the scene?

I would suggest instead, that our vision of what's viable, being tied to our given knowledge and current technology.

This does leave the current explosion of attempts to contrapt silly machines to a general widening ignorance of science, in the specific sense that current graduates somehow grasp science as a kind of voodoo, able to perform "magic" beyond any rule, or they take it as a bold human attempt to enforce nature with man's rules.

Either way, this is blunt ignorance, relying on the assumption that since man "invented" science he can bend it to his arbitrary whim, or as a very fundamental confusion between discovery and invention.

Something is very wrong here, and no good-willing attempt to dampen it, will change the apparent gloom arising here. Sorry.

This is not like a saloon-chat where semantics may invoke a new angle on the subject to enlighten us, thinking anew.

This is more like the first cracks threatening to lead to a widening fissure.

- Our mere survival relies on knowledge and Technology.

- Technology relies on basic science in it's purest form.

- When basic science is impaired by voodoo-assumption, it leads to a deteriorating phase, where technology creators understand less and less of their own making.

- - This indeed is the current situation: Graduates who remember perfect calculus, with no clue of the real clockwork behind nature's behaviour. The other way around, though not ideal is still better, this way, further generations would not loose grip of basic, practical thinking. Calculus is a tool, not an objective.

Well put. Very well put.

- - This indeed is the current situation: Graduates who remember perfect calculus, with no clue of the real clockwork behind nature's behaviour. The other way around, though not ideal is still better, this way, further generations would not loose grip of basic, practical thinking. Calculus is a tool, not an objective.

Sadly, that has been my sense as well. I sat on a review committee for a Cornell University senior project. These people are among our best and brightest. I was impressed with their public speaking abilities and confidence, but otherwise was horribly disappointed.

Just a minute ago, I happened upon the "bb and burglar" challenge question. If you haven't read that challenge question, you should. It is a duplicate of a similar question that is in many physics texts. To get the "correct" answer, a student must throw out all he knows about how one aims a soccer ball, a basket ball, or a bb gun. To get the "right" answer, the student is forced to assume that, when the question says "You point the gun..." or "You aim the gun.." it means "You ignore the gun's sights and anything you might know about shooting, and instead align the centerline of the barrel with your target..." Even an ordinary jock, without any formal physics training, can tell you that to get the ball into the soccer goal from 75 meters out, he has to kick it very high. My sixth grade daughter knows that. So when you aim a shot or a gun, you compensate for trajectory.

The "standard" answer to the burglar (and monkey) question is patently idiotic. What if the burglar does not jump? Of course, you hit him, given reasonable skill. The standard answer has the bullet dropping far below. So how is it that when he jumps the physics turn to magic, with the bullet following a different trajectory than it would had he not jumped???

Several people responding to the challenge question were passionate in their claim that the burglar would be hit by the bb. Apparently they didn't give a moment's thought to what might happen if the burglar did not jump.

The CR4 "official" answer presents plenty of math. Completely wrong and unnecessary for the problem at hand. I suppose dimwitted nit pickers would say: "But the question says you point the gun. Doesn't that mean you align the centerline of the barrel..." No, it does not! If you subsequently pull the trigger, that means you aimed the gun. If you took no effort to aim the gun, then you would certainly not hit the burglar, because you'd be way off to the right or left, as well as up or down.

As you say, calculus (and math in general) is a tool. A tool that is useless in the mind of someone who can't think a clear thought.

I wish I could say it is amusing to read the more passionate "standard" answers. But it's not. It's depressing. If people here are clueless about the simplest physics, imagine how dismal the situation is in the population at large.

The other way around, though not ideal is still better...

It is better, isn't it? If things were the other way around, most people would have said: "Let's think for just a second. What happens if the burglar does not jump?" Sadly, this same problem is in textbooks (usually with a monkey dropping from a tree) and the "correct" answer is that he gets hit after he drops down.

Firstly Yuval , I see absolutely no reason to use the word 'sorry' when presenting a point of view , especially when done so eloquently and sincerely.

The essence of my labouring this point is that I think fruitless activities , such as trying to create perpetual motion machines have great educational value. I could spend hours explaining mechanical principle to a student , but they would learn far better by physically experimenting and getting to grips with expressing the conclusions formally on their own. I once had to show a bunch of University students a simple lab experiment to measure Young's modulus . Not one of them could use a dial gauge , and worse , they had no inclination to simply pick the thing up and figure it out. I had to spend half an hour (!) showing these future Engineers how to do something any normal 12 year old would probably realize . Why ? - they lacked the courage to look at and question the world around them. If I had told them the moon was made of cream cheese they would of accepted it as fact. When the got to struggling with how to mount the gauge so that they could measure how a beam deflected , they all wanted to position it in a clamp to read zero. Not one could comprehend that the shown initial value was irrelevant , we were measuring change in position.This lot would have benefited from being dumped on their own with some simple experiments to do - possible and impossible. There is a gigantic chasm between being taught and learning.

I don't know Kelvins explanation of bird flight - simply that with his god like laws he implied something unworthy , and by virtue of his position damned anyone who thought otherwise.

It's fair comment to imply that Engineers exist to implement known fact , but the boundaries of science and engineering are not nicely defined. The fact that undergraduates start off so poorly equipped has nothing to do with impossible goals that they previously heard of - it is down to lousy analytical skills resulting from a culture that encourages lazy learning and an inability to think for themselves.

Calculus is a tool , but further calculus is also an objective . That can not be left purely to a 'scientist' who may not appreciate it's intended use. If we restrict our vision to what's viable with current knowledge , then we put on enormous blinkers (and a large chunk of cr4 would be simply deleted )

Re kens posting below (please excuse the single answer Ken , but I think you and Yuval are of a like mind on this + my ability to type lengthy replies is limited due to visual problems ) : people get scammed all the time , and not just by bogus engineering. This is wrong in anybodies book. However , as Emerson said 'It is impossible for a man to be cheated by anyone but himself' - The oldest cons in the book rely upon peoples greed (monetary or otherwise ).

Much as I enjoy this topic , and the elegant points you both make , I think it is perhaps time to call time on it and accept they we have different takes on it. I don't think any of us are going to shift much in opinion (which is in the important sense the same anyway - perpetual motion is not possible , but can be deployed as an educational tool).

Thank you both Gentleman , I must move on for now.

Are you catching "AC fever?"

"Trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current" - letter to Niagra Falls Power Co. By gueeeess who ?

LORD KELVIN ! << kneels down in worship>>

I prefer the Oz flavour combined with DC.

Oh , that AC. I thought you were oscillating in a hyperlink .

It was my fun way of getting you to run around . Come to think of it ...>>no don't go there Kris<<Ha ! I love it. We used to have a great kids TV show called Runaround - it was like the retro game Maxwell (somebody referenced this recently , and I just can't remember a companion game that shipped with it - both about fyzykes)

...trying to create perpetual motion machines have great educational value...

Point well taken into account. I think I understand where you're coming from, although I may have another gist in my education.

...moon was made of cream cheese they would of accepted it as fact...

A point I was trying to raise myself.

...simply that with his god like laws he implied something unworthy...

Until the late 18th century, science was indeed an attempt to supply the Church with an alternative explanation to reality, with the inclusion of divine intervention, in such a way as not to embarrass it's dogma publically.

As a consequence or even otherwise, and until the time of Faraday and Maxwell, most prominent scientists were publically admitted devout. It was the culture of the time.

Today, the mere terms of "God" and "Divinity" has a different connotation, since the church is established as a moral guide, not as an authority on explaining reality, especially not with clocks and rulers, if you get my gist here.

We (the human race) have grown a bit, to place the elements of creation, in more appropriate order, priority, and therefore, meaning.

From that point of view, I try to stress that, the coherent, deep understanding of basic, pure science, is critical for the further evolution of technology, in a world of shrinking resource-base.

Our generation is the one to make the (unrelenting) effort of guiding youngsters to deeply understand, not just grasp, that science is not some voodoo-magic for the chosen few who were blessed with the right chants, but a methodology of repeatable measurement coherent rational, not a fad of a few secret-knowing wizards.

Agreed . So are we still friiieeennds ?

Good !. If you'll excuse this rhetorical question

Friends are nothing to do with opinion. Friends are emotion, not ratio. Don't you know that by now? How old are you? Ten?

10 and 3/4 . ner ner ne ner ner !

3/4 ,hear me ,3/4 ,blllluuuur.

dont care, ner

takin' my ball home.

tellin' mummy ' bout you

ner ner and doublr ner

yuvals a stinky poo

i dint care

im goin to tell everyon!

I dont care

liar liar pants on fire

ha ha ha ha ,

u cant stop me

blah blady blah bah

yuvi is a luni

see if im boverd

ner ner ne ner ner

krisi dusny caaare

my spellins be ter

ha ha he ha ha

Tadaaaa!

Nice bike ,shame about the peddles

Without the '!' Tadaa caould be interpreted as TTFN , see ya , bye bye , farewell , hasta la vista , ciao........

Now look what you've done !

Well, because it's only GUI here and not video, all we can do to culture-cross here is stick to our intention, and have some faith in the sixth sense.

I know, I know, I tend to get carried away by the simplest of attention-grabbers. What can you do. One has to come to terms with the way he was created.

You're one of my favorite writers here, or haven't you noticed other's reaction to your stuff? Just be yourself, that's plenty.

That's what I try to do here, instead of trying to express something I may think people want. This I have enough of, at home, here in the tiny, stressed, uptight, Israel.

I think he's talking "dog" years.

Now you're in on it ! Calling me a lowly curr .

I'm not paranoid - you are all out to get me .

I'm very sensitive you know . NOT .

ya darn varm'nt

>> I am confused by your comments here (Today, recreating his machine in hundreds of slightly different permutations, is not real, productive science) and lower down (Every thoughtful fourth grader "designs" a perpetual motion machine). <<

The comments are saying different but mutually supportive things: 1. Reproving laws that have been proven many thousands of times does not advance science. 2. There is educational value in learning these laws of physics.

DaVinci already showed why perpetual motion machines do not work. So did Newton. So have physics teachers, millions of times. For science to be productive (in other words, to advance our general knowledge of the way things work), there comes a time when we have to lay to rest endless replications aimed at disproving a theory that has effectively become law. So, endlessly trying to disprove (for example) F=MA seems to me to be unproductive; the overwhelming preponderance of evidence says the theory is correct, and even intuition lends additional support. Will the sun "rise" tomorrow? Yes. It may be fun to say, "well, maybe it will... maybe it will not" -- but no one will take you too seriously*. But trying to prove that it will not rise seems counterproductive, given the huge number of things that would be more productive and more interesting to work on. Arguing for useful perpetual motion machines is arguing in favor of disproving the law of conservation of energy.

The situation with a child is quite different. There, the child is discovering, for himself, some of the laws and principals of physics. The experience is productive as a learning tool, but not as a means to advance science. (Even Einstein did little at age 8 to advance science.) So, is making "perpetual motion" machines appropriate for someone with a fourth grade education? Sure, they learn from it. Is it appropriate for someone with a college education? No, they should know better.

For fun and entertainment, such things are great. But many (most?) of the people who are doing "work" in over-unity machines are doing it with 1. the belief that, if they can just build the thing carefully enough, and reduce friction enough** they will succeed, or 2. the belief that, if they can titillate enough, they can make money scamming people. On this site we've had real scammers (such as a guy who appropriated Dennis Lee's*** picture of a motor-generator to illustrate his own money-making scheme (we caught him, so he changed it) . Unfortunately, lending support to the first class, also lends support to the second -- which is perhaps larger. The people in the second class need only say "Engineers on CR4 see real promise in the work" to further their schemes. A person in the first class, who visited CR4, lamented having spent $2000 on his Peredev motor -- and, to him, that was a large sum of money. Perhaps better that he should have bought a physics text.

Ranting on...

What is disturbing to me is that there is a profound lack of understanding of basic science in the US (and to a lesser extent, elsewhere in the developed world). (Therefore, I am not terribly supportive of furthering that lack of understanding by suggesting that we should re-research perpetual motion machines.) That lack of understanding leads to gullibility. And that gullibility leads to public policy that is dangerous. The "hydrogen economy", for example.

Most people in the the US think hydrogen is just another fuel: dig a well, and you've got it. Perhaps 1% understand that it takes more energy to produce H2 from water than you get back by burning it or by using it in a fuel cell. Add to that the phenomenal hurdles in storing and distribution, and H2 does not look like a plausible near-term solution to our energy woes -- at the very best, it is simply a storage medium fraught with numerous problems that are absent in, for example, batteries. Take a president who has no understanding of science and a strong interest in continuing to use petroleum, and add a gullible public with no understanding of science, stir briskly, and out comes the "H2 economy." Great recipe for slowing development of the many near term solutions to our energy woes.

Re Kelvin: The fact that every great discovery or invention has its naysayers does not mean, in any way, that all naysayers are wrong. Most great inventions also have many yaysayers -- but they get lost in history. In the Wrights' days, many people were working on powered flight, and gliders had already shown that of course (to those involved) powered flight is possible. Of course we can cure cancer, given time and budget. Of course we can reverse the rotation of the Earth, through telekinesis alone. Or can we? While it may be fashionable to say the all reality is subjective, we know there are things that have a very very low probability of success. An over-unity machine is one of those things.

Should we promote gullibility or scepticism? An astonishing 80% of the US population believed, a couple years ago, the Saddam Hussein had some direct connection to 911. The 600,000 Iraqis killed as a direct and indirect result of the Iraq war would have been better off if there were more skepticism.

*Sure there is only some probability of that occurrence, as any quantum physicist will tell you...

** Friction has almost nothing to do with it -- virtually all of the perpetual motion machines presented through history don't work even in the complete absence of friction. The fraudsters (see http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter:Replications:Panacea) use this as a distraction. Re the rotorverter, the scam artist says you MUST re-grease the bearings of a brand new Baldor motor, to reduce friction. In a motor-generator unit that produces (variously) 4:1 to 12:1 output:input wattage, it would hardly matter what grease you use. The "efficiency gains" are many orders of magnitude greater than the tiny differences from one grease to another. (I'm ignoring the fact that Baldor has very good reasons for using the grease they do -- and that the replacement grease might actually degrade performance.)

*** Dennis is a convicted fraudster, but is still in business, and is launching a stadium tour throughout the US, where he hopes to (and probably will) sign up numerous dealers for his power generation scheme. Of course, it costs money to "get in on the ground floor of this opportunity". ($50,000 per dealership, for each of 2000 dealerships.) To be successful, he need not sell a single piece of hardware.

Ken, this is so unfair. They stole my idea, patented in 1542:

As can be clearly seen, mine not only look much better, but it actually works

BTW, there is a very nicely built replica of DaVinci's machine in a museum (in London, I think). Having seen it, I built one for myself, connected a used car alternator, and gave it a spin. As you can anticipate, there was initially an overspeed, but now I keep the thing loaded all the time to keep the output within reason. I've been using the current produced ever since to run my small shop. I guess I could build a bigger one and run a small city. I wonder if there'd be any commercial potential? My fear, of course, is that if I let people know about this, the technology will be suppressed.

My only fear is the potential for "China Syndrome" from perpetual motion!!!

I worry about that too, but when I run her (Bertha) hard, I keep a hose nearby. The coupling to the alternator sheared once, and the speed went up so fast that all the little weights flew out through the side of my shop. Found some in the next county. Now, I have a good sized shotgun aimed at the thing, and if the monitoring system senses an overspeed, ol' Bertha automatically gets blasted to smithereens, before it can do any damage to the neighborhood.

Worry

We would all have to agree with your post, at least for the most part. The only exceptions being that real research into this seemingly impossible notion could actually impart improvement in the efficiency of known and viable systems, the other I withhold for a completely different discussion, but just to say that all of mankinds laws of physics are known not to be appllicable to everything, everywhere within our universe, and therefore, not absolute.

who said anything about magic? You think the sientists know so much about our univers? What's dark matter that makes up 96%, why's space-time curve around black holes, and maybe planets, why is a photon both a wave and partical, is the electron a partical or a cloud, what's space-time, what's magnetic feilds? Don't some of those things that scientists claim, seem like "magic" to you? Does it show they know enough about everything to know what's impossible?

You'll believe almost anything from the scientists without proof, it's like believing in a Religion because the priests say so, you underestimate the masses stupidity, there's 12 million mormans in the world, and millions more follow other stupid religions like that, and they believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is, even though they know religion was just a way of control in the past, pope had his own army, associated with tyrants, and they think it's all better now, because of the "Modern world." Communications, and technology has improved for both the masses and the surpressors.

that's my post, wasn't logged-in

..if your horse is dead, for goodness sake-dismount.

Hi Buzneg,

Your logic seems circuitous. You say:

who said anything about magic? You think the sientists know so much about our univers? What's dark matter that makes up 96%, why's space-time curve around black holes, and maybe planets, why is a photon both a wave and partical, is the electron a partical or a cloud, what's space-time, what's magnetic feilds? Don't some of those things that scientists claim, seem like "magic" to you? Does it show they know enough about everything to know what's impossible?

Universe, dark matter, space time curvature, black holes, planets, photons, electron particle and cloud... all of these are things about which I would no nothing, were it not for science: they are not proof that science does not work... they are proof that science does work. Go back just a few generations, and many people still believed the "heavens" were a sphere centered around the earth. Millions of people still believe that these points of light billions of miles away have a profound effect on our personalities and activities, per astrology. Some even wax quasi-scientific and talk about gravitational effects, not aware that a truck in the next county has more gravitational effect upon you than any star. There remain a few prescientific cultures around the world, and for them, a light bulb is perceived as magic. That perception does not make a light bulb's operation magic.

So no, not one of those things seems like magic to me. They are all things about which I know relatively little. But I know scientists and the scientific process, and I am willing to take some things on faith, or upon reading the results of experiments -- even if I have not participated in the experiment itself. I've never been to the moon, but I am certain it exists.

Does it show they know enough...

There is no group "they" among scientists. Astrophysiscists know more about planets than biologists do. By virtue of having studied the related science, my doctor knows more about metabolism than I do. Perhaps some people "believe almost anything from the scientists without proof," but I do not. In a given day, the pricipal of conservation of energy is demonsrated to me perhaps 10 times (in accute awareness) and in thousands of little ways that slip by unnoticed. F=MA is demonstrated every time I move. In the thousands of experiences I've had in which I've thought about the physics involved, not one has made me think the the principal of conservation of energy is wrong. I've talked to no one in universities who suggests that it is fundamentally wrong in such an obvious way as to permit over-unity devices.

Of course scientists are not all-knowing! Most would say, "That's the whole idea!" But there is much that has become "known" through science. To simply throw ones hands up, and say "Well, they're just scientists. What could they know?" is insulting to scientists, some of whom are my friends, and many of whom are deeply admired by me and others. To then, in addition, suggest that the principle of conservation of energy is somehow bogus, and that therefore over-unity machines are possible or probable is to profess a belief in magic, or whatever else you want to call the antithesis of science. Why pick something so obviously improbable. Why not at least work on string theory, if you want an almost impossible intellectual challenge? Einstein would heve been thrilled to come up with an over-unity machine. Is it likely that all of Einstein's and Newtons work will be overturned in someone's garage?

There are plenty of areas in science that are difficult to understand, even when the scientists understand them well. Why do the over-unity folks pick something that is so easily understood to not work, and then claim that it does, without any evidence. If they have this desire to work at the fringes, then why not time travel... or combining plants and animals? Why not, for example, corn that can walk home with you from the grocery store, and cook itself, fresh off the stalk? Wouldn't it be great to have really fresh corn-on-the-cob? That is a more probable scenario than producing an over-unity machine.

Can we prove that something is impossible. Of course not. Can we say with reasonable certainty that certain things are impossible? Sure. Every thoughtful fourth grader "designs" a perpetual motion machine. There have been billions of failures. Is there a likelihood of success? Read a physics book. Research the relevent fotnotes.

what I mean is that we know very little, and what we do know is often proven wrong, or different latter, so there's immense possiblity of advancement. Scientists know too much about science and too little about money, it's the relationship between the funders, and the scientists that make this technology not come out. "The missing secrets of Nikola Tesla" on google video, is a perfect example.

Non of the overunity claimees that I know of claim that conservation of energy is wrong, some don't even know why their machine works, others say it's taking energy from matter, yet others say it's from an unknown source, and it "appears" to break conservation of energy.

yes most overunity claims are probably hoax's or falsities, but you wouldn't throw a box of apples out just because of a few (many?) bad ones. It's worth checking every apple in this case, but ofcourse the money men don't fund that, even though it's very cheap to travel, and check out a machine.

I went to a club the other night where all the ladies were wearing "falsities." Does that count?

Ken, I am simply attempting to acquire knowedge of how or why this next thought is wrong so I can get it out of my head. I also am using the term "science" in be inclusive of any or all the disciplins of science.

We know, or at least believe, that our laws of physics do not apply past the event horizon of a black hole. If our laws don't apply there, then conservation of energy is not a relavent scientific arguement that perpetual motion is not occuring beyond the event horizon of the black hole itself. therefore, a black hole is the only scientifically concievable way perpetual motion may be known to even be possible within our universe. In understanding that statement, scientific understanding, reasoning and knowledge are used to prove the possibility of perpetual motion, not disprove it.

To go even a step further consider the following points:

If a black hole were in fact a perpetual motion "machine" creating more energy than it is using then it would be creating more matter as well, e=m.

if the universe is expanding, the matter and energy for expansion would have to come from somewhere, as in, if matter is growing then so is energy and visa versa.

If the universe started out in singularity, only 1 thing, at our localized big bang or another one (I believe a big bang occured in our neighborhood 14 billion years ago, just not one that started everything that is), then everything else would have to be made from that one thing.

If the black hole is a perpetual motion "machine" then the universe is made up of an ever growing infinite number of that one thing.

if the one thing the black hole creates is energy, then the entire universe is made up of energy. (yes when it slows it "becomes", as we percieve it, matter).

just as food increases our bodies energy, which in turn is used for life, our body's cellular structure is "duplicated" with the increase in energy, then with an increase in energy to the "1 thing" that makes up everything, it concievable would duplicate itself.

The perpetual motion of a black hole then would be caused by the universes attempt to "balance" matter and energy. The balance point would be the speed of light, and the method of balance would be velocity as the "weight" of matter would be constantly balancing at a black hole with the "energy" the black hole creates.

In November, the Chandra telescope found "new" stars forming just outside a black hole. That "energy" had to come from somewhere.

If I recall the month correctly, in a December CERN newsletter, mathmatical calculations for superluminous velocity were diseminated.

I have heard other explanations, but a simple explanation of Dark energy is that it is energy traveling at greater than the speed of light.

Again I have heard other explanations, but a simple explanation of how the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, (simple logic says acceleration would indicate an increasing energy), is by this same theory.

The possibilities then become endless.

If you know of or know where to find scientific evidence or understanding to show what I stated in the second paragraph is not true, please share it with me. I sincerely want to get these notions out of my head, but with real understanding, not just references to scientific laws that all of science itself doesn't believe to be applicable.

Although we don't pretend that physics works within a black hole, we do know that the black hole plays by our rules in our Universe. For example, the mass that seems to be removed from our Universe by the black hole is replaced by Hawking radiation. The output of Hawking radiation increases over time until the black hole explodes (implodes?) and completely leaves our Universe, but not before giving a whole lot of mass and energy back.

That's why Mr. Hawking has Newton's chair.

I understand what you are saying, and you are certainly at a disadvantage to fully understand my thoughts on this, as it would take weeks to type it all in an understandable manner. But with that in mind, to say "we don't pretend that physics works within a black hole, we do know that the black hole plays by our rules in our Universe" still leaves open "possibility". A black hole can play by our rules in relation to the rest of the universe, but doesn't have to within its own realm. Radiation is high energy particles, right? In my previous post, I explained the possibility, and even how, high energy particles are created at a black hole. I backed this up with the observation of the chandra telescope. One difference I see between hawking radiation and what I propose is simply I am offering a consistant and logical method and physical explanation of "how" this occurs and actual observations of the results of the release of these high energy particles from the black hole. btw, I did predict this discovery by Chandra early last year. My biggest problem is that my understanding of the subject is enough to accurately predict things such as Chandras discovery of the new star formations just outside of a black hole, but from a purly scientific point of view, doesn't agree with known laws of physics, of which I do believe and have faith in! talk about being confused

Well, kind of "yes" and "no."

It was "suspected" by astrophysicists that stars formed in relatively quiet corners of the galaxy, were they could form in relative clam. Chandra showed that there was another way stars could be formed. By smashing a lot of gas and dust together that was orbiting rapidly about the suspected black hole in the center of our galaxy. Also, these black hole created stars are by no means members of the main sequence. They tend to be fairly short lived blue giants, and it's doubtful that this form of star creation could give rise to a planetary system.

The other thing that Chandra showed was that a lot of the matter that was thought to fall into the hole was actually getting radiated out into space as super-heated jets of matter, hot enough to give off large amounts of x-rays.

One last thing: I think the jury is still out on whether light (if that's what you mean by energy) is a particle, high energy or otherwise. Certainly, if it is a particle, it still has no rest mass to speak of.

thank you for the insight and information. although it hasn't closed the books on this subject for me, it has shed some light on it. speaking of light, that certainly is foder for many more threads.

But I know scientists and the scientific process, and I am willing to take some things on faith, or upon reading the results of experiments -- even if I have not participated in the experiment itself.

Ken, thanks for your well-reasoned posts. I agree with everthing you wrote except for the quoted statement above. You should have used the word "trust" instead of "faith". Trust must be earned through good reputation -- if we caught a scientist spreading misinformation (whether intentionally or not), we would quickly lose trust in that person. In other words, we only have trust in an information source if that source has a good track record -- this is not "blind" trust.

Faith, on the other hand, definitely is blind (definition of "faith": acceptance of a premise as true despite the complete lack of supporting evidence). Those with religious faith are expected to maintain faith even when faith brings no positive results. Consider the biblical story of Job. Or for those not familiar with Job, consider the case of a religiously devout person whose terminally ill parent suffers a slow, painful, and humiliating death (e.g., terminal brain cancer). We can *logically* understand why such a person might lose faith in "God", but of course the Priest/Rabbi/Imam would scold this sad person for losing faith (because. unlike the scientist, "God" is supposed to be exempt from any need to do anything at all to continue deserving loyalty).

On the Free_Energy Yahoo group, a person named Bob Lerwill argued that religion and faith are equally valid because "both depend on faith". When I pointed out the error of this arguement (by pointing out the crucial difference between trust and faith), he suddenly fell silent (too proud to acknowledge loss of the debate, or maybe still struggling to come up with a counter-arguement?). I truly think this point deserves serious attention.

And all this coming from a cult member?!

In response to my post comparing science and religion, Vermin wrote:

And all this coming from a cult member?!

At first I assumed Vermin was joking. But now I wonder if he meant it literally. Vermin, please explain what "cult" you think I belong to?

None! I have Bob's book too, and the really scary (freaky?) part of it is that the more you know about comparative religions the more you see in Bob's book!!! I'm talking really esoteric stuff that the average person would never see.

Smoke your pipe, get thee slack!

I wrote:

On the Free_Energy Yahoo group, a person named Bob Lerwill argued that religion and faith are equally valid because "both depend on faith". When I pointed out the error of this arguement (by pointing out the crucial difference between trust and faith), he suddenly fell silent (too proud to acknowledge loss of the debate, or maybe still struggling to come up with a counter-arguement?). I truly think this point deserves serious attention.

I meant to write:

Lerwill argued that religion and *science* are equally valid because "both depend on faith".

Quite true, trust is a much better word for my intent.

On the Free_Energy Yahoo group, a person named Bob Lerwill argued that religion and faith are equally valid because "both depend on faith".

I'm assuming you meant to write that Lerwill argued that "religion and science are equally valid..." I agree (with you): this point does deserve serious attention. Where I live, our science textbooks used to carry warning stickers that said something to this effect: "This textbook presents just one theory about the origin of species..." Creation science is anything but science. If people want to believe in any one of the 100 different creation stories, that's perfectly fine with me. If they, on the other hand, want to impose their own particular and narrow view upon my kids, then that is not at all OK. Is religion valid? Perhaps. Is religion a valid alternative to science? Hardly.

I have two kids, and I find it hard to look at either one as an inherent sinner. When I see a one-year old, I cannot help but see that kids have an inherent desire to reach out and please others. I believe that if that natural response is left undisturbed, the adults growing from these kids will naturally want to help others. Religion, other than those that teach that humans are inherently sinful, can serve to foster cooperation, and build upon that inherent trait -- the inherent goodness and worth of individuals. In practice, some do. Many don't, and instead actively foster a sense of separateness -- a sense of us vs them.

Enough ranting.

I've often pondered the esoteric concepts of sin and evil. I read a book once (yes once) called The Nature of Evil. It was written by a biologist that had seen all sorts of animal behavior. Strange, he never could come up with a good definition of evil. The only thing he could find was extreme selfishness as something approaching evil.

Of course, the opposite was considered virtue. From everything I've read and seen in life, it seems as though animals (including man) are somewhat selfish.

"I'm gunna get mine"

"Do unto others before they do unto you."

"Get a job!"

I've even noticed this behavior in black birds. While, they hang together in an association, if a treat is offered, the question of who gets the treat is settled quickly and violently.

Furthermore, there is the example of the tribe in Africa that was so beset by famine that children were abandoned at three to fend for themselves. It was such a intense life or death experience that everyone was for themselves.

All of this brings me to believe if humans were raised as animals, they'd act as animals. The loving, caring, and giving nature you talk about is something that's learned through example - both to the child and toward others. I think we really pick that up from our up-bringing. And you might ask "So who started us on the good-guy path in the first place?" Possibly, the pressure to live communally, but, then again, isn't that the business of religions - at least in the start?

I'm not voicing a belief in God, Christ, Buddha, or any other religious figure or faith. It's just that I think religions get started when someone looks around and suddenly shouts "Ya know, we really don't have to treat each other like animals!!!"

All good observations. Of course, with human behaviour, things are impossibly complex (string theory is a walk in the park, by comparison). So I find it easy to agree with Kris's post below (essentially, that evolution demands that babies are charming) as well as yours. After all (speaking from the experience of having had two babies in the house -- who have since grown into miniature adults) if babies weren't charming, we'd choke the ever-lovin-crap-out-of-em on sleepless day three!

Ants and bees (and Japanese corporations ) are marvels of cooperation.

In disasters, people give up on their learned differences and pitch in and help. (Buddhists would say that people allow their Buddha natures to dominate at these times when they act without really thinking.) American military doctors work on injured "enemy" insurgents right alongside wounded Americans.

Of course, religions differ dramatically from one to the next. It's very difficult to imagine a Tibetan Buddhist taking up arms to fight Christians, for example. So I shouldn't lump all religions together as fomenters of evil. But history shows that most religious sects do, in fact, take up arms to kill those of other religious sects. (Most ironic is when one sect kills members of another when they both reference the same book -- as in Ireland. Thou shalt not kill -- unless, of course, you have the urge.)

Some emerge from religious training unscathed: my most admired figure, Dr. Martin Luther King, did so. My own brother has a doctorate in divinity from Yale! And in many respects, he's not a nut case. So, I think your view of religion may be a bit more balanced than mine.

Yes, I agree that evolution did make babies cute. Also, I agree with your observations of human altruism, but, remember, these are acts by people that have been raised with altruistic values. Most people seem to think that the rest of the world somehow acts as we do in America, Canada, and Western Europe. However, I assure you that this is not the case in many second and third world countries! Child-soldiers, child-prostitution, ultra-sound co-opted to determine whether a fetus is a boy or girl, a man legally kills his wife in Brazil because she wouldn't make him breakfast...

Closer to home, I have friends in post-Katrina Louisiana. Not only was altruism rare in that nightmare, but even our own Federal government refuses (at least grudgingly so) to practice altruism toward the hurricane victims.

There are cultures in this world that do not hold altruism as one of their main tenants. For example, one culture stays balanced and survives on the concept, "OK, I'll take your abuse for now. Then, someday (if I'm lucky), I'll be the boss, and it will be my turn to make people's lives miserable." Surprisingly, this system based on something other than altruism actually works, I guess it relies on the fact that people will wait in line if they believe the payoff is big enough.

An interesting example from our own past... Slavery in the South took most of the jobs away from poor whites. The plight of the average white worker in the South was rather miserable, yet they were the ones that rabidly supported slavery. At that time, a slave cost approximately $95,000.00 in todays money. So why did the out-of-work whites support slavery? Because they all held the belief that "Someday! Maybe someday, I too will be able to afford a slave, and then I'll be in fat city!" Altruism was not present in this origination, at least as far as blacks were concerned.

I also agree that established religions are really a ball of snakes in themselves! You won't get an argument from me there. What I was trying to communicate, is that in the beginning of most of the world's great religions, some person stepped forward and made a cultural comment on the behavior of man in their local region. What later happened to those observations is a real mess. No argument here. Bleck!!!

Please don't think that I'm a pessimist. I'm not. I have great faith in mankind. I just believe that for the most part we really need to keep a good eye on those situations that foster altruism and those that don't. And guide our children toward the light.

For example, one culture stays balanced and survives on the concept, "OK, I'll take your abuse for now. Then, someday (if I'm lucky), I'll be the boss, and it will be my turn to make people's lives miserable."

I puzzled for a second or two re what culture you were talking about... and then realized you were describing the US congress.

And guide our children to the light.

I could not agree more.