This quoted paragraph doesn't make sense. On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:01:50PM -0500, Phil Henshaw wrote: > What I found from http://www.free-energy.ws/ that fits the hype is: > > "In the simplest terms, free energy is any energy that is provided by > the natural world.
There is no energy _not_ provided by the natural world. > In science, energy is defined as "the ability to do > work". Well that is actually the definition of "free energy", as it is used by physicists. > Free energy is called by many names, such as renewable energy, > alternative energy, or non-conventional energy, to list a few. These alternate names are not equivalent. "Alternative" and "Non-conventional" are probably equivalent, but would also include things like shale oil, and underground gasified coal. These latter resources are obviously not renewable. Furthermore, I can do work with conventional sources of energy such as petrol, so the usual physicist's definition of free energy covers these as well. > Examples > of free energy technologies include a wind generator on a remote > homestead, or a solar panel on the International Space Station. But this > is only the tip of the iceberg. Free energy also includes amazing > technologies like a car powered by a water fuel cell, What is a "water fuel cell"? Chemically, there isn't much free energy in water, unless it is contact with sodium, in which case it is hardly renewable. > a battery charger > powered by the earth, It would be an unusual battery charger to be powered by geothermal energy. Geothermal projects generally involve drilling thousands of metres into the crust. > or a home furnace powered by permanent magnets. There isn't any free energy in magnets. At best, there is some potential energy, which is decidedly nonrenewable. > The best free energy systems deliver energy at no on-going cost to the > user, without detrimental effects to the environment, and at extremely > low costs for the maintenance of the equipment." > > They leave out the most important free energy source, though, the one > the IPCC and other governmental long rang plans are committed to having > us use for growing the economies by literally 10^15 times their present > size in real terms over the next millennium... The free energy of > ingenuity bye itself will simply make rapidly multiplying wealth > independent of the need for resources. Why is ingenuity an energy? > It'll probably take 50 years to > accomplish it, or so they think. As Bjorn Lomberg (author of 'Cool it') > explains, in 100 years it'll raise the average income of people in the > developing world to $100k per year. You can see how it is supposed to > work in the long published economic projections on which the world's > global warming plan is based. www.synapse9.com/design/ClimateLags.pdf > > > > Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > explorations: www.synapse9.com > -- "it's not finding what people say interesting, but finding what's > interesting in what they say" -- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Smith > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:32 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: [FRIAM] Zero-point energy and ESP was: "free energy" > > > > > > Guerin - > > > > Very well stated.... > > > > However, considering the source, it is very much more likely: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy > > > > Don't (ever) forget that "newage rhymes with sewage". > > > > The ever-recurring "zero-point energy" scam that people > > fool themselves with at least as often as perpetual motion > > devices. Or better yet, contrive perpetual motion devices > > which aspire to tap said "zero-point energy" > > > > In my apprehension, Zero-Point energy is nearly useless > > and therefore mostly boring except for the related Casimir > > effect which will likely play an important role in practical > > nanomachinery which does not necessarily exclude biology. > > > > In fact, is would surprise me if there were no significant > > nanoscale effects in biology. I don't track closely enough > > to have examples or counter-examples. It seems at least > > likely that the Van der Waals force is significant to > > biological processes. (shit, before I could hit "send" my > > parallel research discovered that Gecko glass-climbing is > > attributable to Van der Waals) > > > > It reminds me of the time I was at a party in Santa Fe and > > had someone ask me if I used "ESP" in my work. I told > > them that "absolutely, I use it all of the time!" Of course > > it took at least 15 minutes of mutual misunderstanding > > before I realized they were talking about > > "extra-sensory-perception" and I was talking about "easy > > structured programming" (a lab developed visual programming > > language pre-processor for Fortran which used ... if you can > > imagine... ascii-art diagrams of block-programs to design and > > self-document and make modular Fortran IV code! It parsed > > Whiles and Untils (comparison done at the end of the loop > > instead of the beginning) into if/then/goto structures > > similar to RatFor. > > > > I found some line-printer output from my ESP > > coding days while cleaning out my files... I should like > > offer it to some museum maybe... too bad I threw > > away my MANIAC manuals 3 moves ago! > > > > > > Damn... I'm old. > > > > - Steve > > > > - Smith > > > > > > > > On Dec 26, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote: > > > > > Free energy is the amount of energy in a system that is available to > > > do work. A > > > room with all its air molecules equally distributed will > > have energy > > > but no free > > > energy. If you put a heater in one corner of the room and a cooler > > > in an > > > opposite corner, this second system would have free energy and a > > > device could be > > > introduced to extract work from it. > > > > > > How living systems identify sources of free energy and construct > > > devices to use > > > it is a central question in complex systems research (or should be > > > more). Both > > > Boltzmann and Shrodinger suggested living systems struggle not for > > > energy but > > > for free energy. > > > > > > Here's a recent working paper abstract from Eric and Harold > > Morowitz: > > > > > > Harold Morowitz and Eric Smith have a very approachable working > > > paper on Origin > > > of Life: > > > http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/wpabstract/200608029 > > > > > > ABSTRACT: Life is universally understood to require a source of free > > > energy and > > > mechanisms with which to harness it. Remarkably, the converse may > > > also be true: > > > the continuous generation of sources of free energy by abiotic > > > processes may > > > have forced life into existence as a means to alleviate the > > buildup > > > of free > > > energy stresses. This assertion -- for which there is precedent in > > > non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and growing empirical > > evidence > > > from > > > chemistry -- would imply that life had to emerge on the > > earth, that > > > at least the > > > early steps would occur in the same way on any similar planet, and > > > that we > > > should be able to predict many of these steps from first > > principles > > > of chemistry > > > and physics together with an accurate understanding of geochemical > > > conditions on > > > the early earth. A deterministic emergence of life would > > reflect an > > > essential > > > continuity between physics, chemistry, and biology. It would show > > > that a part of > > > the order we recognize as living is thermodynamic order > > inherent in > > > the > > > geosphere, and that some aspects of Darwinian selection are > > > expressions of the > > > likely simpler statistical mechanics of physical and chemical self- > > > organization. > > > > > > -S > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:48 PM > > >> To: friam@redfish.com > > >> Subject: [FRIAM] "free energy" > > >> > > >> At a Christmas eve party here in Santa Fe (the city very > > >> different) , a number of new age or whatever folks were > > talking about > > >> "free energy" which they claimed was a scientific reality. Being > > >> somewhat of a sceptic and cynic, I cried out a Dickens' > > humbug. But > > >> thought I would toss this out to the FRIAM list to see if > > anyone knew > > >> anything about so-called "free energy". cheers Paul > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> See AOL's top rated recipes > > >> <http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000300000000 > > >> 04> and easy ways to stay in shape > > >> <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop000300 > > >> 00000003> for winter. > > >> > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, > > > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
