<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Junyor &amp; Company - Latest Comments in Free Energy?</title><link>http://junyor.disqus.com/</link><description>The Blog</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:56 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Free Energy?</title><link>http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-5083228</link><description>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. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Good luck</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">satellite</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Free Energy?</title><link>http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939822</link><description>Ummm....&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Well, other than God himself stepping in.  I won't get into that, though.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barrett</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:34:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Free Energy?</title><link>http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939821</link><description>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.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Oracle</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:24:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Free Energy?</title><link>http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939820</link><description>So what, no free energy?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">junyor</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:56:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Free Energy?</title><link>http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939819</link><description>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?!"</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barrett</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:20:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Free Energy?</title><link>http://www.junyor.net/2006/08/21/free-energy/#comment-1939818</link><description>Bah.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Anyone who purports to have broken the laws of thermodynamics automatically loses all credibility with me.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If it turns out I am mistaken, I will, of course, retract that statement.  However...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Quack, quack.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barrett</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:07:53 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>