Skip to comments.
Scientists Claim To Tap The Free Energy Of Space
For the People ^
| Richard Walters
Posted on 10/04/2004 9:23:57 AM PDT by -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-170 last
To: -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-
161
posted on
02/06/2010 11:14:07 PM PST
by
Sloth
(Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
To: Paradox
Thanks for the link. Bump for later read.
162
posted on
02/07/2010 12:12:24 AM PST
by
Captain Beyond
(The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
To: -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-
Scientists Claim To Tap The Free Energy Of Space by Richard Walters.
Is “For the People” magazine Chuck Harder’s former publication?
http://www.chuckharder.com/
163
posted on
02/07/2010 2:50:11 AM PST
by
Las Vegas Dave
(To anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a Liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: aruanan; SunkenCiv
lit match (small input of energy) + gasoline vapor = explosion (output of energy greater than input)
No, you are releasing energy in the chemical bonds. The energy is conserved.
To: AdmSmith; SunkenCiv
No, you are releasing energy in the chemical bonds. The energy is conserved.
You're missing the point of the author's superficial understanding of the conservation of energy. In the overall, universe-as-the-system view, there is conservation of energy; you can't take out of a system any more energy than you put into it. From a practical and local point of view, however, we're always seeking to discover the means by which the input of a small amount of energy on our part can be used to release (usually via oxidation) or to exploit (usually via juxtaposition of an artifact with a natural force--windmills, watermills, hydroelectric dam, solar panels, etc--or the concentration and arrangement of a natural substance by technical means, such as "fuel" for a nuclear reaction) a much greater amount of energy to then be used to our advantage. People too often characterize "conservation of energy" to mean, "We can't get any more energy out of a system than we put into it." This is simply not true. We're constantly devising systems by which our energy input is considerably less than what we get out of it. This is the difference between cheap and expensive energy.
165
posted on
02/07/2010 5:59:51 AM PST
by
aruanan
To: aruanan
You are free to use any definition that you want. I stick to the one that is useful for science and engineering.
To: Question Liberal Authority; -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-
Names, dates, places or it is all just BS.
To: Las Vegas Dave
168
posted on
02/07/2010 7:15:06 AM PST
by
Quix
( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
To: aruanan; AdmSmith
169
posted on
02/07/2010 8:50:40 AM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Happy New Year! Freedom is Priceless.)
To: escapefromboston
not Atlantis...their rivals in Lemuria...
170
posted on
02/07/2010 8:40:05 PM PST
by
stefanbatory
(Weed out the RINOs! Sign the pledge. conservativepledge.org)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-170 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson