Talk:Free energy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:22, 4 June 2009

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Note that some possibly relevant page history is located at Free energy (disambiguation).--Commander Keane 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs energy

Free energy is a superceded terminology. See Talk:Gibbs_free_energy and IUPAC definitions. 128.250.204.118 00:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IUPAC recommendation is that this parameter be called either the Gibbs energy, or the Gibbs energy function. 134.193.168.75

No Disambig cleanup

Articles related to "free energy" clarified and are articles which treat this item; The MoS breaks down here; MoS:DAB#Break_rules) 134.193.168.75 13:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each item needs to be shorter. I am not advocating that it be made as short as the examples on MoS:DAB. See [1], for example. I would do it myself but I do not think I have sufficient knowledge in the subject. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although most DAB pages are very brief, and that is as it should be, I really really do like the longer version of this page. This is in part because "Free energy" has a lot of cranky, pseudoscience baggage associated with it. The longer form of this page helps keep things in perspective. If DAB page rules are a problem, maybe we can move this page to Free energy (overview) or something like that? linas 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the whole DAB excuse. I think Free energy is more then worthy of it's own page? What is going on? A page with just links is very nice but where is the link to free energy article now? Or is the reader confused what I mean with free energy? The pages that link here suggest there should be a page here about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Free+energy&namespace=

Like John_Hutchison#Quantum_batteries makes mention of free energy. Should I pretend I don't know what it means? The Steven_M._Greer article mentions free energy. There is no confusion about the subject only a lot of negativity with heroic mass deletion of everything.

Here is a whole wiki about free energy. [[2]]

We have the history of perpetual motion machines where it is noted that it is also known as the history of free energy and history of over unity machines

But where is the article about today's free energy and today's perpetual motion machines? My problem is that I'm trying to write this free energy suppression article.

Arthur Rubin noted that linking to the free energy page was a self reference.

So, why not have any information about free energy on the free energy page?Go-here.nl (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've invented most of the new "definitions". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John_Hutchison#Quantum_batteries doesn't mention "free energy". It mentions zero-point energy.
Steven_M._Greer does mention "free energy", but only in the sense of what is suppressed by free energy suppression. The links could easily be fixed to point to that article instead.
http://peswiki.com/ doesn't mention "free energy", at least on the home page.
History of perpetual motion machines is probably in error in stating history of free energy. I see no source for the statement, nor do I believe it.

Your problem is that you are trying to write the free energy suppression article as if it were real. No credible (not to mention, reliable) evidence has been presented to support that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim I have invented the definition of "free energy"? How offending! *laughs*

Because you've invented most of the new "definitions".

First peswiki? "News - PESWiki" Big fat link "Free Energy News" at the top of the page? The url http://freeenergynews.com should also work.

Those are just a few websites mentioning "free energy", If you want more examples search: "free energy. Also give ""free energy suppression" a swing while discovering how google works.

No offence but do you think I can get a Nobel prize for inventing free energy? I kinda like the idea.

Gdewilde (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition mistakes and violation of neutrality

The energy from fantastical forces considered perpetual motion. These devices utilize quantum vacuum perturbation, quantum vacuum energy, rotating magnets, as well as some purported methods to crack hydrogen

That is not true. These things are not perpetuum mobile. Perpetuum mobile has its definition, and this is not it.

I am jumping through the articles and I see that paranoia and pseudoscience is everywhere. Please clean this up.

Endimion17, 1:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Error

There is a big big mistake. Free means "gratis" and "free source". Free energy, can mean also:

Gratis energy, the conception contained in the article.
Free source energy at low cost or at high cost. This is the conception intendently forgot in the article.

--Altermike 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Free Energy

"A perpetual motion machine, creating a source of energy that would violate the First law of thermodynamics."

For a start this statement is false. A perpetual motion machine is not free energy. A perpetual motion machine is a closed loop system that conserves the energy within the system with high efficiency. There are many perpetuum mobiles and none of them are considered to be free energy, nor do they violate the first law of thermodynamics.

I believe the author of the post was refering to so called "overunity systems" that many argue violate the first law of thermodynamics. Though the scientific comunity has yet to recognise a device that can effectively extract energy from quantum vacuum fluctuations (note. It IS recognised as being possible by the scientific community) there are many devices that use the same principle and work completely within the laws of thermodynamics, though still generate more energy than the energy required to run them.

The best example is a Heat Pump, such as found in refrigerators and air conditioners. It is very common for a heat pump to generate more than 3 times the amount of energy in heat than the required energy from the operator to run the pump. This is free energy that can be used to heat houses at a fraction of the cost of burning fuel.

The best way to describe this would be with Coefficient of Performance, often abbreviated to COP, COP 1 being unity and anything over COP 1 (eg. COP 3 for the above described heat pump) would be considered overunity.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the above quote is removed as it does not have any merit nor justification.

Furthermore, I would like to suggest that an additional, universally accepted definition of Free Energy is included on this page. I would suggest the following statement:

"A device that outputs more energy than the energy required by the operator to power the device (eg. Heat Pumps). Often refered to as COP>1 (Systems with a Coeefficient of Performance greater than 1) or Open Systems where the additional energy is extracted from an external source other than the operator."

This statement is verifiable, and I will provide sources if neccessary.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddha83 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide such a source? Oli Filth^(talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On which point? Buddha83 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition you suggested above. Oli Filth^(talk) 20:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. Would reputable websites do, or do you require published literature? This information is already on wikipedia, though I wouldnt use that for a source! haha! Buddha83 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess anything reputable is fine. The reason I'm hesitant on this definition is that (from a scientific point of view, rather than colloquial), it just doesn't sound that plausible as a recognised definition! Rather, it sounds a little to close to the Tom Bearden school of silliness. Although to disclaim, I'm no expert, so I'm happy to be wrong. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I find it difficult to respond to that statement. First I would like to point out that your opinion of the area of research Tom Bearden is involved in is only your opinion, and wikipedia is intended to be a source of unbiased information. I have my own views about the subject, but I want to keep this impartial. References : http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/generate_your_own_energy/types_of_renewables/ground_source_heat_pumps http://www.canren.gc.ca/prod_serv/index.asp?CaId=169&PgId=1023 The main reason I think the statement I provided should be included is simply as a replacement for the inaccurate statement already present. Perpetual Motion is by definition Motion that is Perpetual; not free energy as no energy can be extracted from it. And free energy by definition is Energy that is Free; energy that the operator doesn't pay for. Heat pumps are a perfect example of this principle, though any open system device, such as a solar panel, windmill, hydroelectric dam, etc provides Free Energy because the operator pays less than the output of the device. In fact, Perpetual Motion and Free Energy are complete opposites because Perpetual Motion requries a closed system and Free Energy requires an Open System. Buddha83 (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that what I said above is my opinion, but please also note the Wikipedia policy of WP:Undue weight. A fringe theory denounced by the majority of scientists who care to partake in a rebuttal should generally not be given the same level of exposition as "mainstream" science. However, my reference to Bearden above was purely illustrative, I didn't mean it to be the focal point here!

Back to the main point. Neither of the two references you provided above appear to mention the term "free energy" as far as I can see. As far as perpertual motion is concerned, the current Wikipedia article on it doesn't agree on your assessment, I'm afraid. However, either way, I'm not sure that dictionary-like definitions are suitable for a dismabiguation page (per WP:DAB), so I've removed all items that don't explicitly link to articles that include "free energy" in the title. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you have at least removed perpetual motion. Though if you simply want a page which has heat pumps refered to as free eenergy here is an article from the telegraph : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/06/19/nosplit/eagroun319.xml.

I do not feel the definition I provided had undue weight, as it refers to systems that are commonly accepted, and I believe that definition would be accepted universally. Though I do see where you are coming from. Buddha83 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open system is the trigger word. Physics doesn't allow for perpetual motion because physics applies it self to closed systems. All contraptions in the real world are subjected to the elements. So if you attach a flag to a pole it goes into perpetual motion. Scientists are all to quick to say "yes, but that is just wind energy". Of course we can also do things with geothermal energy. Scientists will say "yes, but that is just heat".

But if we are honest then big and small heat changes are both heat changes. So the zero point energy is just another heat fluctuation. Scientists cant build a closed system that excludes this energy source. Free energy is free energy, infinite small bits of power make for an infinitely large source.

In 1500 Cornelius Drebbel patented a clock powered by a perpetual motion device. This device used ambient pressure and heat fluctuations. The attempt at exclusion of heat engines from the definition of the mobile didn't apply it self until much later. But even today science has not managed to remove the heat from their ideal system. One can safely argue they will never accomplish to accomplish this. Zero Kelvin can only be approached. The idea of making solar panels was just as silly as the heavier than air flying machine was in 1800. Cosmic waves beaming their Radiant energy down from the sun onto some panel attached to a Leiden Jar? You could get a few good laughs at the local pub with that story.

But if we equate large and small heat fluctuations into simple uniform heatfluxuations then Cox's timepiece, Beverly Clock, Atmos clock and Cornelius Drebbels apparatus are all the perpetual mobile one could ask for. The white noise you can find on the radio dial is also broadcasted for free. You have the radio equipment to detect that. I think we can say that cosmic radio FM is also broadcasted in any real world system.

Zero point energy, the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may possess and is the energy of the ground state of the system.
Vacuum_energy, an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter.
radiant energy, or electromagnetic free energy.

All matter is in perpetual motion really. It would be a crank scientist to deny it.

Go-here.nl (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This version had information on the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy&oldid=2513105

Gdewilde (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

...are simple lists of specific pages that use the term. They are not really "content" pages themselves. It's up to the actual pages to define and instantiate various uses of that term. If "Page A" doesn't claim to be "foo" and doesn't specifically mention it, it's not appropriate for "foo (disambiguation)" to claim that "Page A" is a "foo". People need to look at the target page and know why they are looking there, not rely on the disabig page to explain the relevance. WP:DISAMBIG is pretty clear:

"disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title."
"disambiguation pages — non-article pages that contain no content and only refer users to other Wikipedia pages."
"Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article."

That means there needs to be content in the Page A comparable to a lead that explains clearly how/why it is "foo". Every page listed here must clearly explain why it is "free energy". It's not hard to do if there are WP:RS, but it needs to be there, not in the DAB page. Then its inclusion/exclusion on the DAB page is clear-cut. Again, it's not up to the DAB page to explain why a non-obvious DAB term is pointing to a certain target...any use of refs and rationalization here is not appropriate. DMacks (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested name change/new article

I would like to suggest that we change the name of this page to "Free energy (disambiguation)" and create a new "Free energy" article to discuss the type of "free energy" debated on the Free energy suppression page. It seems very odd to discuss the (supposed) suppression of something that has no definition - although maybe that's the point :)

Opinions?Prebys (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is the point. "Free energy", as used in this article (at least by the primary fringe editor), sometimes refers to working perpetual motion machines, sometimes to alternative energy, and sometimes to such nonsense as the 300 mpg carburator. A definition would probably make free energy suppression obsolete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this page should by called "Free energy (disambiguation)" and "Free energy" should point to Thermodynamic free energy since this is the most common and historically oldest use of the term. Free energy suppression should be renamed Free energy (fringe theory) or Free energy (pseudoscience) and expanded to include not just info about "suppression" but also a general discussion of the term in that context. Yilloslime (t) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably impossible to disentangle (alleged) "Free energy" from (alleged) "Free energy suppression" (otherwise, why can't I buy it on Ebay?), so for the time being, I'm trying to work the definition into the suppression page.Prebys (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay as it is. The term free energy has many uses, and the pseudoscience usage of the term is by no means the most common. Whether there should be an article on the pseudoscience concept of free energy as opposed to the pseudoscience belief that such energy sources have been suppressed is a legitimate question, but Free energy is not the appropriate title for that article if it were to be created. The current title avoids NPOV disputes over the article title. The proponents would probably object to a title like Free energy (pseudoscience).--Srleffler (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references

colloquially denotes energy with no or negligible feedstock cost

free solar energy literal, free telluric energy literal, free water energy literal, and " free wind energy literal

J. D. Redding 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources which could be used in the DAB page. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages should not contain nor require references. Dab pages have a special and limited purpose. The rules for how they are formatted are different from articles.--Srleffler (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. but the terms of variety free energy in laymen's terms is seen in simple searches and should be included. 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. What was missing was a link to Renewable energy. I have added this, and reformatted the page per the Manual of Style. Dab pages are special—they are to contain minimal content; just enough information for the reader to choose which link leads to the correct article.--Srleffler (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reddi's POV seems more related to propagating the term for Renewable energy sources[3]. You'll need a citation for that one Reddi, as it opens up the doors for oil men to say they call renewables "bullshit" etc... NJGW (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple months ago, some users (one of whom is now banned) were trying to insert this same link to renewable energy. At that time, User:DMacks pointed out that if "free energy" wasn't specifically listed as a synonym in renewable energy, then renewable energy shouldn't be listed on this page, and at that time, it wasn't. I see that for moment, at least, "free energy" is now listed over there, so while I personally remain highly skeptical that "free energy" is used colloquially in this context to any significant degree, as long as the editors over at renewable energy let it stand over there, I won't resist it's inclusion over here. Yilloslime (t) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that his game? Reddi's the one that inserted that at renewable energy at the same time he came here. He still hasn't provided a source over there... so I'll just be removing both unless there's some source in the next 24 hours. NJGW (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Yilloslime (t) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care whether there is a link to Renewable energy from here, but I do care that if there is an entry it should have the correct form for a dab page. Whenever possible, dab entries begin with the name of the linked article, and then a very brief description with no other links—just enough information for the reader to determine whether the linked article is what was sought. I left the "dubious" tag for the moment, but that should go quickly too.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to perpetual motion

Another editor questioned my edits on the entry for Perpetual motion. I feel this needs to be included because the term "free energy" in "free energy device" is ambiguous, and the latter article redirects not to Free energy suppression but rather to Perpetual motion. Per the Manual of Style, we do not usually pipe links or link to redirects on dab pages, but instead provide a direct link to the target article. Therefore, we disambiguate Free energy device by creating an entry that starts with a link to Perpetual motion. Another possible approach would be to instead put a link to the redirect Free energy device in the See also section. (This treats "free energy device" as related to but not ambiguous with "free energy". I would support that if other editors feel that would be a better solution in this case.--Srleffler (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I question the need for the link first because it is prominently linked from free energy suppression. The DABMOS states "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article." and "Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices."

If a link to perpetual motion is to be included here, I think that the proper entry should read:

Free energy device, a machine such as a perpetual motion device which is believed to exist or be possible by free energy suppression theorists.

This would be preferable to:

Perpetual motion machines, which would produce more energy than they consume

which doesn't even contain the term "free energy" at all. NJGW (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about just moving Perpetual motion down to the see also section? --Srleffler (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC) **Note that NJGW edited the text above after I replied. (This appears to be an innocent mistake.)--Srleffler (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of Free energy suppression. That is the only link. See "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article." Perpetual motion only mentions "Free energy" in a section entitled "Free energy suppression" with a "main" link back to that page. NJGW (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion - what about Perpetual motion devices, sometimes called "free energy devices" arimareiji (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with that solution too.--Srleffler (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW: Fair enough. I moved the entry down to "see also" essentially for this reason. Perpetual motion in the sense of a device that would produce "free energy" is clearly related to "free energy" in the pseudoscience sense, but perhaps isn't completely ambiguous with it. As I indicated above, I do strongly think it needs to be listed here, because Free energy device redirects to Perpetual motion.--Srleffler (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe I've figured out the main issue to this problem and how to solve it. Free energy device never should have been redirected to Perpetual motion in the first place (as can be seen in FED's history, in which FED is described as something completely different from a perpetual motion device). Since all the "free energy devices" that are notable are (or should be) mentioned at FESuppression, I have changed the redirect to there. Now we don't need a link to perpetual motion here (note again that perpetual motion is linked to prominently from FESupression).

For what it's worth, I strongly object to moving any mention of a perpetual motion device out of the same category as FESupression. NJGW (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverted edit to article by IP editor.

[4]

As a courtesy, above was the edit. The editor had attempted, apparently, to add a link to the currently blacklisted lenr-canr.org, at Cold fusion and then posted a whole series of complaints to related articles about alleged censorship. This was the only article edit, I reverted it because it's clearly inappropriate. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(lenr-canr.org doesn't have general "free energy" information, it's about low-energy nuclear reactions, which aren't "free energy," the energy, if LENR is real, would be the normal and known energy of nuclear reactions, which release energy from mass conversion, not from any of the hypothetical forms described. So this was completely inappropriate, and if there is a specific page to be cited there, then it could be considered whitelisting that link.) --Abd (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in the realm of...

somebody's interpretation, there exists free energy suppression pseudoscience, while in the realm of reality, there exists free energy suppression conspiracy 93.86.201.173 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conspiracy theory about a pseudoscientific belief. Both terms are accurate. The above section refers to science, so for parallel structure we refer to pseudoscience below. A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory is just redundant and pointless. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is "parallel structure" on this disambiguation page? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:CONSENSUS, then wp:BRD, then wp:WAX. Very important principles here that you still need to learn. Did you use to have a named account? NJGW (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:V and stop quoting WP:essays. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, you just keep avoiding the real issues. Like telling us which banned former user you really are. NJGW (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HAhahahaha, you are really funny. Can't accept the facts, like those presented in the first sentence above, and now you are moving to ad hominem. good job! 93.86.201.173 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess we'll be archiving this soon, since you don't seem to be saying anything beyond "I don't like those essays". NJGW (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the top of this section again. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see two google searches. What's your point? You can't just say "Google, so I'm right." NJGW (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have references for my claim. You only have few wiki articles. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) You have blogs and youtube videos. Refs look like this. NJGW (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you mean this and this? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've learned what an RS looks like. You are a quick study. Now, what's your point? NJGW (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 259: / Line 259: @@
 (undent) You have blogs and youtube videos.  Refs look like [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=pseudoscience+free-energy&btnG=Search this].  [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 :you mean [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=conspiracy+free-energy+suppression&btnG=Search this] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=pseudoscience+free-energy+suppression&btnG=Search this]? [[Special:Contributions/93.86.201.173|93.86.201.173]] ([[User talk:93.86.201.173|talk]]) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
+::Ah, I see you've learned what an RS looks like.  You are a quick study.  Now, what's your point?  [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)