[OT] Free Energy, for the people that think that it can be

Oh, come on. Everyony reading this group should know that EER is the solution.

-Ed

-- (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)

/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m {moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto} for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage

On Monday 11 October 2004 06:41 am, E. Rosten did deign to grace us with the following:

No, that's just free _storage._ You still have to _get_ the energy from somewhere. I do kind of like that "stop thinking, stop doing anything, and free up ALL that energy" - I think I'll try that for awhile. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Don't they have FlavoredCoffee in Brasil?

Mike Page escreveu:

No, or at least I never saw it.

-- Chaos Master®, posting from Brazil. "People told me I can't dress like a fairy. I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!" -- Amy Lee

The Evanescen(t/ce) HP:

E. Rosten escreveu:

EER is to store energy. You can't store 0. You need something to "kick up" the EER at least by giving it 1 then letting it store energy.

-- Chaos Master®, posting from Brazil. "People told me I can't dress like a fairy. I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!" -- Amy Lee

The Evanescen(t/ce) HP:

But EER STOreS+ eNERGy fROm di+FFUSE soURCES+ sO IT PRoviDes AlL+ ThE enErgY+

We don't need no coal We don't need no oil We don't need no real dielectrics We don't need no breakdown voltages We don't need no way of generating energy We don't need no physics We don't need no working shift key

Apparently not. Diffuse sources or something. I'm still trying to figure that one out (and so is Frank), although he seems convinced that one of will eventully.

-Ed

the

What always puzzled me is why, apparently anyway,

- no-one else has ever thought of the usefulness of high density low cost electrical energy storage,

- no-one else is working on the idea,

- a vague and simple notion on paper is actually of huge value,

- how collecting the vast diffuse energy seems to come for free,

- one person who doesnt grasp subject basics in fact knows better than the entire (and huge) existing chemical electrical energy storage industry,

- all of those of us who think we understand such a simplistic notion in fact dont get it at all.

and finally why Frank's poor excuses for failing to be able to answer any of the core questions aurrounding EER are actually convincing.

The whole EER phenomenon really demonstrates the power of the mind, in terms of how our thinking so totally dominates what comes of our lives, and how people can and do get themselves truly stuck in thought-sets.

NT

Crackpot-ism in general is, at least to me, a fascinating phenomenon; how some people can get totally wrapped up in a given idea such that they will promote and defend it against any and all contrary evidence or reasoning. It is, if I can use the word without causing offense, a form of "religious" extremism - holding a belief based solely on faith, and implicitly, then, due to a fervent desire that the belief be correct. In short, Frank (and others like him) believe as they do simply and solely because they WANT to, strongly enough - the belief is sufficiently necessary to their continued "happiness" that it will be irrationally defended to practically any degree. There are countless other examples - "free energy" seems to be especially popular these days, but the whole UFO, "occult," astrology, etc., fields also come to mind. Sci.skeptic is occasionally a fun place to hang out, at least for a short time - until you realize that you'll get a lot farther arguing with a brick wall.

You'd think that sooner or later, we'd figure this out and start to think about how to actually teach and encourage critical thinking skills starting at a very young age.

Bob M.

------------- His delusion is about entropy, and he doesn't realize it. He thinks that "diffuse" energy can be "captured" if you run around with enough little machines and just "do it". He doesn't understand that the little machines to do that always take more energy to run than they "sift out". He doesn't get it that the essence of energy is an energy concentration and an energy sink that can be used to cause a flow from one to the other, and that, without regard for such a sink, there IS NO SOURCE!

-Steve

My favourite of Frank's is having air scoops on a cat to generate a bit of energy from the air. And where does that energy come from in the first place...?

-Ed

Perhaps youre right. I had assumed with Frank it was a set of beliefs that knit together to produce his conclusions, beliefs that go round in rings, each supporting other of those beliefs, so that he can always cite reason for each individual belief. A thinking trap, a big circular argument effectively. But due to its size the circularity is not apparent as it cant all be taken in at one time.

But maybe its emotional instead or as well... I'm sure both exist in the wider world.

Alternative medicine often strikes me as being about this, people are willing to believe something because they so want it to be true. I dont mean to say all alt med, some is known to work etc, but certainly some of it seems to be nothing more than that.

Cosmetics ditto, even more so.

We have. Its the dullards that run our national education that cant work stuff out. State schooling here is a product of a long list of failures to understansd the real issues and the solutions, producing a list of missing important elements, emphasis on things of little relevance, and very low performing teaching methods.

The result is a tide of ignorance on important matters, and the emotional suffering it brings that we see over and over today. And also just poor academic performance. The fact that some individuals outperform the average by miles should tell us something about average teaching methods.

Even in unis theyre still using medieval teaching methods that were obsolete over a century ago, ie copying notes from a blackboard. In medieval times it was how books got published, the student copied it all down, and the resulting handwritten book would be chained in the local library for everyone to read. We have books now, hello! A student makes far quicker progress by reading the book than by spending much of the time trying to copy it all down, and not having time to study and comprehend it. And thats still happening at _universities_.

Its a remarkable world!

NT

Even when I studied in 1985, I remember wondering why they didn't just hand over photocopies of the course notes so we could spend effort thinking instead of copying.

Their argument was that students would skip lectures.

I think they'd be more inclined to attend if the tedium of transcription was absent.

K.

It is not only tedious, it is mind-numbing to the point that it's usually difficult to concentrate enough on the material to get anything out of it while you are copying. On the other hand, I always found taking one's own notes, by choice, from a book is beneficial.

Tom

Years ago, after reading a followup flaming that eer idiot, I instantly understood what was occurring and since, haven't really bothered with any of those threads. Why? Because it's a waste of time. If people would stop replying to the troll's posts, he would eventually go away. But since others won't stop, he continues to post his excrement, ad nauseum, to satisfy his craving for attention. >:-(

Yup. Students attend to learn. Noone makes them, they choose to attend because they want grades. If either printed notes were given out, or they work from a book, lectures would get through material twice as fast and with better comprehension. How exactly could that discourage students from attending? It really makes ya wonder!

And anyway, why would students need to attend a given lecture if theyre working from a book and the student has already read the chapter and understood it?

NT

Yes, but the lecturer will do that anyway. In a class of 100 students youre never going to get all 100 students that have read up in advance and understand it all, you still need the same lectures and lecturers.

Secondly this decision would rest with the uni, not the lecturers.

NT