Free energy?

Aepervius said:
... i bet none try the obvious stuff : if you have a eff > 1, just hook back the item itself. Or if for some reason you can't do it to itself, just build two and hook back one in the other, then sell the FRE ENERGY back to energy company (hook the grid) then use the money to buy 2 more, sell the electricity etc...

Within a few year those guy would be so stinkingly reach that they could spit on bill gates and other top milliardaire.

Think two second logically and ask yourself why they never do it.
Click to expand...
Exactly the way to approach such claims. If it works, how come nobody's working it?

Self-winding watches have a USP, and defy no laws of physics. Self-powering mobile-phones (and iPods,etc), drawing energy from the same kinetic source, may well be possible. It would be a Unique Selling Point in a very competitve market. So how come nobody's kicking down doors to see this technology in action? Because of scientists' prejudice? Puh-lease!
 
Dilb said:
VSEPR is an approximation due to the diffuculty of proper quantum mechanics solutions. Phosphorus pentafluoride doesn't follow VSEPR either.
Click to expand...

Granted VSEPR is an approximation. It is nevertheless a very good one. PF5 certainly adopts the geometry predicted by VSEPR. As does XeF2 and XeF4, and all of the xenon fluorides and oxides. Personally, I think it is astounding that simple electron counting and simple Platonic solids can predict actual molecular geometries. VSEPR is usually quite definitive for main group compounds.

As a previous poster noted the bonding in the noble group complexes is nothing special and they are "simply" regular 2 centre, 2 electron bonds. And the simplest noble gas compound is He2+, spectroscopically observed but not isolated.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Notice #3: Even a device that could suck heat energy out of the surroundings would be in violation of thermodynamics and would qualify as a free energy device.
Click to expand...
Could you expand this a bit? I thought that this was what air conditioners do?
 
jimtron said:
400 scientists apply to test claim.

(Sorry if this has already been posted).
Click to expand...
This, combined with the common reaction in this thread, is exactly why it was smart for them to publish the ad in the Economist rather than a scientific journal (if they believe their claim is even remotely true). Go to any scientist, tell her that you have developed a free energy machine, and she will tell you to f*** off and not waste her time.

But, make a big splashy announcement, professional looking video, etc. and 400 scientists (now 2750 according to their website) line up to test it and prove you wrong. So much better than finding the one crackpot with a PhD from Mail In University to endorse your product.

So, IF one has actually made a free energy device, I think this is EXACTLY what you need to do.
 
Thanz said:
Go to any scientist, tell her that you have developed a free energy machine, and she will tell you to f*** off and not waste her time.

/../

So, IF one has actually made a free energy device, I think this is EXACTLY what you need to do.
Click to expand...

Well, no. If one has actually managed to make a free energy device, that person will find it very easy to convince scientists. Since the device works. Demonstrably. Repeatedly. Making it a fact.
 
Kaarjuus said:
Well, no. If one has actually managed to make a free energy device, that person will find it very easy to convince scientists. Since the device works. Demonstrably. Repeatedly. Making it a fact.
Click to expand...
I agree that that is how you convince the scientist. But the challenge is getting the scientist to even look at the device in the first place. That is where this Economist tactic comes in - getting reputable (hopefully) scientists to take the time to look at it.
 
Thanz said:
I agree that that is how you convince the scientist. But the challenge is getting the scientist to even look at the device in the first place. That is where this Economist tactic comes in - getting reputable (hopefully) scientists to take the time to look at it.
Click to expand...

I think many scientists would readily look at a purported free energy device just for the entertainment value. I am not a scientist, but I would be delighted to see one working, even if I know it's just nonsense.
 
Kaarjuus said:
I think many scientists would readily look at a purported free energy device just for the entertainment value. I am not a scientist, but I would be delighted to see one working, even if I know it's just nonsense.
Click to expand...
Could you find 2750 of them who are willing to look at it for entertainment value? Probably not. I still maintain that this tactic is great for getting as many scientists testing your device as possible, very quickly. And if you have invented such a great thing, that is what you want.
 
Cyphermage said:
Exactly like Xenon Fluoride. For years, every chemistry book in the world said "The Noble Gases form no compounds, because their electron shells are full." Then someone acually tried to make some compounds, using fluorine, which forms compounds with every other element of the periodic table. Quelle surprise!
Click to expand...

Do you know WHY textbooks said "Noble Gases form no compounds"? I'll give you a hint: this statement was in chemistry textbooks long before the concept of "electron shells" was ever envisioned.


Noble gas compounds are bound only by Van Der Waals forces, in which the electric dipole moments that the electron clouds induce in one another have a small attraction to each other.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Very wrong. XeF2, for example, is held together far, far, far more strongly than can be accounted for by using van der Waals or electrostatics. No, the bonding in noble gas compounds is generally good old molecular orbital theory (albeit generally with lots of electrons). Look up things like "3-center-4-electron bonding" for example. It's pretty straightforward MO theory.
 
anor277 said:
Granted VSEPR is an approximation. It is nevertheless a very good one. PF5 certainly adopts the geometry predicted by VSEPR. As does XeF2 and XeF4, and all of the xenon fluorides and oxides. Personally, I think it is astounding that simple electron counting and simple Platonic solids can predict actual molecular geometries. VSEPR is usually quite definitive for main group compounds.
Click to expand...

In the same way, it is always amazing to me how well symmetry and topology can be used to predict MO properties. In fact, Hueckel theory is basically an exercise in graph theory (and can be made a lot easier by using graph theory)

BTW, XeF3- does not conform to VSEPR, but that is because it is nominally diradical and therefore runs into other issues (like Jahn-Teller distortion)
 
Thanz said:
Could you find 2750 of them who are willing to look at it for entertainment value? Probably not. I still maintain that this tactic is great for getting as many scientists testing your device as possible, very quickly. And if you have invented such a great thing, that is what you want.
Click to expand...
Nope. He has already had several scientists to look at it, remember? What he needs is sombody with some magic letters after their name to go on the record and say it works. For a fee, of course. This is a great way to advertise for some broke PhDs, willing to sell their integrity for a fistful of Irish pounds. After that has been taken care of, it should be a little easier to get some "investments" or scam people in some other way.
 
I can't believe anybody is so altruistic as to create a device that not only will change the course of civilization, but be worth a million, billion, squillion dollars and the first thought is to make Bill Gates their pool boy, but to give it away.
 
Fronzel said:
I can't believe anybody is so altruistic as to create a device that not only will change the course of civilization, but be worth a million, billion, squillion dollars and the first thought is to make Bill Gates their pool boy, but to give it away.
Click to expand...
They are not giving it away. They are trying to get scientific affirmation of their invention, which they still own, as they realize it is worthless without it.
 
Ririon said:
Nope. He has already had several scientists to look at it, remember? What he needs is sombody with some magic letters after their name to go on the record and say it works. For a fee, of course. This is a great way to advertise for some broke PhDs, willing to sell their integrity for a fistful of Irish pounds. After that has been taken care of, it should be a little easier to get some "investments" or scam people in some other way.
Click to expand...
No, I completely disagree. If all you need is some rent-a-scientist who cares not about his reputation, you find one of those on the side. You do not take out an ad in the Economist asking anyone who wants to to test it.
 
Thanz said:
No, I completely disagree. If all you need is some rent-a-scientist who cares not about his reputation, you find one of those on the side. You do not take out an ad in the Economist asking anyone who wants to to test it.
Click to expand...
How do you suggest finding a rent-a-scientist? I would suggest getting some media attention, hinting at large sums of money being involved, and asking scientist willing to endorse your product to step forward. Check, check, check... ;)
 
anor277 said:
Granted VSEPR is an approximation. It is nevertheless a very good one. PF5 certainly adopts the geometry predicted by VSEPR. As does XeF2 and XeF4, and all of the xenon fluorides and oxides. Personally, I think it is astounding that simple electron counting and simple Platonic solids can predict actual molecular geometries. VSEPR is usually quite definitive for main group compounds.

As a previous poster noted the bonding in the noble group complexes is nothing special and they are "simply" regular 2 centre, 2 electron bonds. And the simplest noble gas compound is He2+, spectroscopically observed but not isolated.
Click to expand...

Really? I must be thinking of something else then (or it was an oversimplification). The theory given in my high school chemistry was
1) All atoms want 8 valence electrons, except for the smallest.
2) Non metals share electrons so they increase the number around them to 8
3) Metals give up electrons so their inner 8 surround them.

Given that, P is 3 electrons short, we'd predict it would form PF3. Noble gases have 8, so there's no reason for them to form a bond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom