http://junyor.disqus.com/The BlogenMon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:56 -0000http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-5083228<p>Hello, for a long time I read your blog, thanks for that that write interesting and useful posts.I consider that blogers it is possible to name many journalists.</p><p>Good luck</p>free ftaMon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:56 -0000http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939822<p>Ummm....</p><p>Unified wave theory is possible. It's just using an equation complex enough to model "everything" all at once. It will include the laws of thermodynamics.</p><p>This is, quite simply, a case where they're getting energy from somewhere other than what they're measuring or their equations are wrong. Those are the only two possible alternatives.</p><p>Well, other than God himself stepping in. I won't get into that, though.</p>BarrettMon, 21 Aug 2006 22:34:18 -0000http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939821<p>True, as the law of thermodynamics dictates that energy is neither lost nor gained, that being said one must realize that there are other factors that remove energy from a semi-closed system (exa heat or friction). With that being said I would have to agree with Codiac on that one, there is no such thing as 'free' energy. But with the introduction of M theory (basicly its the unified wave theory) I wonder what else is out there, I didn't even expect that such a thing could have been accomplished at this state.</p>OracleMon, 21 Aug 2006 18:24:13 -0000http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939820<p>So what, no free energy?</p>Brian JunyorMon, 21 Aug 2006 14:56:00 -0000http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939819<p>Okay, after having watched the video, I'm gonna have to say that there's an energy source that's being tapped somewhere that someone is missing in their analysis of this process. If I had to guess, I'd go with Occam's Razor and say that they aren't factoring in the energy required to generate and maintain the magnetic fields used to propel the particle. A variation on a mistake that has often left many engineering and physics students sitting around, scratching their heads, and saying, "WTF am I missing here?!"</p>BarrettMon, 21 Aug 2006 13:20:30 -0000http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939818<p>Bah.</p><p>Anyone who purports to have broken the laws of thermodynamics automatically loses all credibility with me.</p><p>If it turns out I am mistaken, I will, of course, retract that statement. However...</p><p>If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck.</p><p>Quack, quack.</p>BarrettMon, 21 Aug 2006 13:07:53 -0000