Are there other methods self sustaining energy

[zoe407]

My question is are any other means to produce a self sustainig power source that is enviroment friendly like SEG (Searle Effect Generator) http://www.searlsolution.com/technology.html

 

I know that SEG is simply a converter of ambient electrons to usable electrons. I basically want to use Proffessor Searle concept but not his design, dont want to copy him.

[Klaynos]

SEG looks like it is probably a hoax.

 

If I were you I'd look at wind or water turbines.

[swansont]

The Searle effect is nonsense. Quantum snake oil. "any other means" is a the wrong thing to say because this is not a means.

[zoe407]

I cant agree with SEG being a hoax or quantum snake oil because I fermly believe that everything in existance is electrical in some way because of its atomic structure, since everything is made up of atoms and they have an electric charge whether it be positive or negative. How I see it we are surrounded by an invisible web of electrons "just floating around us" every second of the day, so I find it hard to believe that this ocean of electromagnetic energy cannot be harnessed for a plethora of applications.

Edited April 16, 2013 by zoe407

[CaptainPanic]

[...] because I fermly believe [...]

 

Well, we can't really argue with that, can we?

 

Seems this discussion is over before it got started. Do you mind if we close the thread, since a belief is not a discussion topic?

[zoe407]

Well, we can't really argue with that, can we?

 

Seems this discussion is over before it got started. Do you mind if we close the thread, since a belief is not a discussion topic?

Alright ignore what I said about I firmly believe, because my aim was to start a discussion on possible methods of producing a self sustaining generator. The only reason I said I believe it to be possible is because no one has been able to show me any concrete proof that it is not possible.

 

SEG looks like it is probably a hoax.

 

If I were you I'd look at wind or water turbines.

Wind and water turbines are impressive but not efficient because you dont get the actual amount power in which you produce. You tend to lose some power because it is lost as heat, friction, and other things as well.

[Moontanman]

 

Alright ignore what I said about I firmly believe, because my aim was to start a discussion on possible methods of producing a self sustaining generator. The only reason I said I believe it to be possible is because no one has been able to show me any concrete proof that it is not possible.

Zoe, in science positive evidence is required for all positive claims...

Wind and water turbines are impressive but not efficient because you don't get the actual amount power in which you produce. You tend to lose some power because it is lost as heat, friction, and other things as well.

This would be true for any power source Zoe...

[swansont]

Energy can not be created, nor can it be destroyed. This stems from the laws of physics not changing over time.

 

Nobody is going to be able to "prove" that it's impossible, because of the inductive nature of the question; you can't prove a negative. What we do have are laws of physics that have been put to the test for around 150 years that tell you that it's not possible.

[CaptainPanic]

Alright, let's talk about this Searl generator. As some others mentioned, proving something cannot work is not possible, so instead, I will merely ask some questions, and I will make a few observations. I must then leave the conclusions to you.

 

First of all, the website just doesn't mention where the electrons should come from. If they are from air molecules (nitrogen, oxygen) then there should be a measurable flow of air in and out of that device. I read that the machine should have a cooling effect on its environment and on itself, but a quick calculation shows that the cooling should be of such magnitude that prof. Searl should have severe signs of frostbite all over his body. If this machine is 15 kW of power, it should be marketed as an airco, not as free energy. Your average air conditioner has a power of 2-3 kW. The chilling effect of this device should be very noticeable.

 

If they are some free-floating electrons then air should be a plasma (not just a gas). Logically, air should then conduct electricity. I wonder why nobody seems to be able to find these electrons. If there were indeed electrons that can interact with moving and turning magnetic fields, wouldn't it be logical that these electrons should interfere with many other systems?

 

From the website itself:

Where as the Second law of thermodynamics states that in a "'closed system" disorder grows and less energy is available for work. The SEG functions on the bases of an "open system" as is life, windmills, hydroelectric's, solar cells, etc.

 

Fact of the matter is the 2nd law does NOT apply to "open systems"; it is a typical mistake by self-proclaimed experts to say otherwise about the SEG's energy cycle.

This is false. There is no such thing as an "open system". If your system is open, then you simply did not choose the boundaries of the system correctly. That energy will come from somewhere. Even Searl seems to agree on that. So, my only question is: where does it come from, and why doesn't Searl have a clear answer about that?

[zoe407]

http://youtu.be/5d1GO7rqg6Q

This is a link to a youtube video on the SEG it provides some info that, I think is quite interesting. Im not going voice my thoughts on this video, I'm merley posting to see and read your logical and rational opinions on the information contained in the video and sources that pertain to it.

 

 

P.S

Nothing is impossible, unless the state of your mind belives its impossible

[Endy0816]

Just to note, most posters here dislike video "proofs". Serious time sucks.

 

 

There is ambient electricity. The problem is tapping it in an efficient manner.

 

Mainly thinking Telluric currents, Earth's magnetic field and your neighborhood leakage. Mostly low energy sources or come with high inefficiencies.

 

The easiest issue to pinpoint in SEG is that the permanent magnets would lose energy. You certainly could get something to spin for awhile running off them, but it wouldn't go on forever.

 

For that matter if you did have a free energy source that for whatever reason required magnets, electromagnets would be more reasonable to work with instead.

 

 

 

...and there are some impossible things. You cannot breath in a vacuum no matter how much you believe.

 

Your thoughts can impact reality and your perception of that reality, but reality still has the final say.

[zoe407]

I have another video for you guys, this SEG is a mock up so it is externally powered but they explain their reasoning for this.

http://youtu.be/GqPhwuakcLM

 

The link below this text provides some validation of the SEG its not a video, but a technical report. The website rexresearch.com

Heres the link: http://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htm

 

I hope this information spikes your curiosity, it did for me.

[Endy0816]

 

In December 2000, one of the best physics journals in Russia , "Technical Physics Letters," published an article by VV Roshchina and SM Godin's "Experimental study of physical effects in dynamic magnetic system." It seems that the members of the editorial board of the article did not look hoped to conclude the reviewer. Meanwhile, even a quick look is enough to understand that it can be published only in some anthology of science fiction. Indeed, in a short note mentions the anti-gravity (the weight of the unit during the experiments subsided from 350 kg to 250 kg), and a "magnetic walls" found at a distance of 15 m from the axis of the apparatus, the magnetic field strength with distance from the axis does not decreased, and other miracles. To the credit of the editorial board, I must say that in the pages of his magazine she apologized to readers for publishing this article. And one more little detail regarding the mentioned article. It is published on behalf of the Institute of High Temperatures, however, the latter to these "studies" has nothing to do. And such a facility at the institute has never been. By the way, this kind of forgery - it is standard practice pseudoscience.

 

Original page - translated

 

 

Fraudsters! Just who I would want to lend credibility.

[zoe407]

I also dislike video "proofs", but never watched them thinking that they are actual proof. But more as another tool of information that if I come across something I didnt hear or read about before, I turn around and research it without going to any sites like youtube

 

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins130625.html#JvQMIdlGwHT1HiF3.99

Just to note, most posters here dislike video "proofs". Serious time sucks.

 

 

There is ambient electricity. The problem is tapping it in an efficient manner.

 

Mainly thinking Telluric currents, Earth's magnetic field and your neighborhood leakage. Mostly low energy sources or come with high inefficiencies.

 

The easiest issue to pinpoint in SEG is that the permanent magnets would lose energy. You certainly could get something to spin for awhile running off them, but it wouldn't go on forever.

 

For that matter if you did have a free energy source that for whatever reason required magnets, electromagnets would be more reasonable to work with instead.

 

 

 

...and there are some impossible things. You cannot breath in a vacuum no matter how much you believe.

 

Your thoughts can impact reality and your perception of that reality, but reality still has the final say.

To raise new questions, new possibilites, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science

Albert Einstien

What kind of person or group would benfit from promoting a psuedo science, but I will take your warning into consideration though.

But still think the concept of the SEG itself is still viable, I just haven't gained a true comprehension of it yet, but when I do being deterred by a psuedo science will have no effect on me.

 

Also at the end of the day my hypothesis is that the SEG or sceince and math behind is viable and feasable to the needs of the world, and as with any hypothesis it needs to tested, tested, tested, again and again to remove all possible doubt.

Edited October 16, 2013 by zoe407

[Endy0816]

I also dislike video "proofs", but never watched them thinking that they are actual proof. But more as another tool of information that if I come across something I didnt hear or read about before, I turn around and research it without going to any sites like youtube

 

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins130625.html#JvQMIdlGwHT1HiF3.99

 

To raise new questions, new possibilites, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science

Albert Einstien

What kind of person or group would benfit from promoting a psuedo science, but I will take your warning into consideration though.

But still think the concept of the SEG itself is still viable, I just haven't gained a true comprehension of it yet, but when I do being deterred by a psuedo science will have no effect on me.

 

Also at the end of the day my hypothesis is that the SEG or sceince and math behind is viable and feasable to the needs of the world, and as with any hypothesis it needs to tested, tested, tested, again and again to remove all possible doubt.

 

 

Advertisement dollars, promotional books, kits, research funding, etc.

 

Big business selling people snake oil. I'd do it myself if I could stomach the hypocrisy.

 

 

Einstein also said, "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."

 

 

The 3 laws of thermodynamics are the rules of the game. Within those rules you still have a ton of room to maneuver. There are real world novel energy sources you could apply your intelligence to instead.

 

Microbial, human bio-energy, tidal, etc.

 

Pseudoscience will just rot your brain.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Endy0816