Birth Control: The world's population needs to be reduced in number don't you think?

Should there be global laws to stop the human population increasing and reduce it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 36.4%
  • No

    Votes: 17 38.6%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 11 25.0%

  • Total voters
    44
Ah great, there is always a point in every thread like this where someone throws all the principles of science out the window with some magical device that will save the world.

I think I'll step down from the position of reigning skeptic and let someone else handle this.... for the most part :p

I'm just going to point out a few things. There isn't some magical illuminati controlling scientific progress... if a device that could practically create energy from nothing was invented, it would have been bigger news than some sketchy draw-up for a device that obviously isn't scalable or economically feasable. Nobel prizes would be awarded and every physicist in the world would be talking about it.
 
http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ch&LG=fr&DB=EPD&PN=US6362718&ID=US+++6362718B1+I+

Page 11:

"FIG 8 is a graphical view of a coefficient of performance, defined as the ratio of the output power to the input power, for each of the measurement points shown in FIG. 7. At each measurement point, the output power was substantially higher than the input power."

I admit that yes, the conspiracy theory of this technology being covered up is just that, a conspiracy theory. But you cannot dispute that this US Patent is definitely a demonstration of a device that puts out more energy than is put in. There is nothing burned or consumed in this process, a small amount of power is used to start the switching of the electromagnetic field, and then the device perpetuates itself, generating energy in the process. And this is useable electrical energy, not just random noise.

I was not trying to say there is any kind of scientific truth. What I was saying is that the scientific community has always had difficulty dealing with ideas that refute the current theories. Think Galileo, think Darwin. OK, there may have been religion involved in those cases, which is a whole different story, but with every major scientific discovery there are thousands of scientists ego's and reputations at stake if the discovery is accepted.

The fact that this patent has been issued, this technology is proven, this device creates energy where before there was none, and yet very few know about it, only leads me again to state

The only reason humans will ever have a problem accessing resources, is because other humans are stopping them.
 
I mean, there could be many reasons why this technology is not being implemented. Perhaps it is just a cost issue, I don't know. It's been a while since I've read around this subject, tomorrow I shall try and root out some links about why there are not just practical considerations preventing this technology from 'hitting the mainstream' as it were.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward173.htm
Some more new energy patents. All of these devices are variations on the theme of over-unity efficiency coefficients, ie more energy is obtained than is put in.
 
NotaMongoose said:
I was not trying to say there is any kind of scientific truth. What I was saying is that the scientific community has always had difficulty dealing with ideas that refute the current theories. Think Galileo, think Darwin. OK, there may have been religion involved in those cases, which is a whole different story, but with every major scientific discovery there are thousands of scientists ego's and reputations at stake if the discovery is accepted

That is the entire basis of science. Until something is proven with ample data, it has to be denied...
That is what differentiates science from philosophy and metaphysics, nothing is accepted until it is meticulously proven.
 
fair enuff, they do mention the greater than unity power coeffifcent in the text, but I still don't think that there being a patent on it proves anything. I don't know that much about patents, but I don't think they go around and personally check that each invention does what it's supposed to. It is interesting that several people appear to be convinced enough that it does work, but it smacks a bit of "perpetual motion machines" developed in the past which have always had their downfall.

Maybe I missed something, but why haven't they produced a large/multiple versions of it? Why aren't they powering their house/factory/state with it? The profit they'd make from infinite energy production would easily offset production costs!
 
http://www.lutec.com.au/
There you go. "We anticipate the first products to be available for purchase by the end of 2005."

They're trying: even if they fail, it's another device that offers use of the same technology, this time in a more commercial setting. There will be more. There probably are, this is just one I have found.

There is no energy crisis. There's just an economic crisis, and a power crisis, because these technologies represent a pending major economic shift in the world away from oil companies.

That is all. We will not run out of energy. There is enough to go round, no matter how big our population gets.
 
Now that looks cool!
And it's made by an Aussie so much more believable! :p (just kidding - I'm Aussie myself :Smile3: ).
I'm very intrigued actually. And I think I'm starting to see where the confusion was coming from. As you know, according to physics "law" the creation of energy out of nothing is impossible... but this site explains that the machine includes permanent magnets, and the energy comes from them. So no physical laws are being violated. As they say, once the magnets run out (1300 years!!) it will stop making energy (though they admit various other components have a much short lifespan due to wear and tear).

I'll be very interested to see how much it costs. Curious to know how it works too, as to me the description sounds like an electric motor.

And I do agree that it's the distribution of energy which is a large part of the problem. Of course, the rich want to possess/control it.

Oh, another point about the "oil crisis" though, is, as Reconstructed was saying, or quoting somewhere I think, petroleum is used for a lot more than just energy, so its increasing price could have a lot of other effects on society than just increasing petrol prices.
 
It's difficult to find an explanation that is easy to understand, about how all this works. The easy to make misconception is that this technology is somehow manufacturing energy. It is not: it is simply harnessing the all-permeating background energy of the universe (the aether, if you like). How it does this is a little beyond me, as I know little of electrodynamics. I'd just suggest reading about it to give an idea how it works. The lutec device uses the same ideas as the MEG generator though, as far as I can tell.
 
Just for note, zero point energy (free energy is quite correctly a misnomer) doesn't actually violated
the laws of physics at all. Rather it is a querk of quantum physics, that allows the extraction of energy from
another point in the system that isn't local to the system of extraction. The other main hypothesis suggests
that there is a sub-space background of energy which can be tapped, through means of a energy potential
well. I personally am more inclined to go along with the former.
Whether the laws of physics allow for the superluminal transference of energy as well as information,
has yet to be verified experimentally, though things are looking promising.
And remember it has only been in the past few years that Bell's theorem has moved from being a hypthetical
idea to experimentally proved phenomena. Things changes...
And as for the other things fossil oil is used for, may I suggest that the use of plant oil can be used in most of the
current processes to make such wonderful things as plastic, rubber, tar, and other totally misnamed
petro-chemicals.
 
Reconstructed said:
Ah great, there is always a point in every thread like this where someone throws all the principles of science out the window with some magical device that will save the world.

I think I'll step down from the position of reigning skeptic and let someone else handle this.... for the most part :p

I'm just going to point out a few things. There isn't some magical illuminati controlling scientific progress... if a device that could practically create energy from nothing was invented, it would have been bigger news than some sketchy draw-up for a device that obviously isn't scalable or economically feasable. Nobel prizes would be awarded and every physicist in the world would be talking about it.

I agree.

I had some bloody fool trying to convince me that the Earth was a sphere the other day.

Bloody heretic.

He told me I'd have to wait a couple of hundred years for an explanation as to why the people in New Zealand don't fall off...
 
NotaMongoose said:
It's difficult to find an explanation that is easy to understand, about how all this works.

Another difficulty is that it's difficult to prove or disprove something if you don't have all the details. I guess we just have to wait and see if anything eventuates. Would be nice if it does. But we might have to wait until someone sails a ship round the world to New Zealand (or Australia) without falling off.
 
LOL @ Ott, thanks for that

:jump: woo! some support at last. SEEE, I'm not just a crackpot. Well, perhaps yohde is one too, then we're crackpots together at least, and I'm not alone.

I'm keeping my eye on any companies I might be able to invest in. Imagine having stock in one of these companies when the technology matures!
 
and loads more Free Energy audio from a US radio show 'ThisWeekinFreeEnergy' here

http://pesn.com/ThisWeekinFreeEnergy/

"Weekly five minute blurb in the tradition of Paul Harvey covers subject matter that is of strong interest to everyone today -- energy solutions that make a difference"
 
There is nothing wrong with optimism, it just has to be rational.

I personally feel that a lot of the so called free energy devices that are always scheduled for implimentation at some vague "future" date give the false impression to a lot of people that the world's energy problems are just going to vanish in time to save us from fossil fuel shortages. Even if breakthroughs in physics are made in our lifetimes that allow for a scalable, economically feasable device that can produce enough energy, it will still take decades to fully test it and build the infrastructure to make it usable. Remember that most scientific articles on sources of free energy like cold fusion are talking about devices that are prototypes. They cost lots of money and need expensive technology as well as extremely experienced people to build, only work efficiently in laboratory conditions, and haven't been tested extensively for safety and durability.
Who is to say how long we have until fossil fuels run out? I would personally rather start thinking of alternatives like more reasonable civic planning and personally adaptable renewables in case physics can't find an answer in time. If one of these devices makes a breakthrough and all our energy problems are solved I'd absolutely love to see some so-called "crackpot" get the nobel prize they would undoubtably deserve... but, as they say, better safe than sorry.

I think this thread was about birth control at one point. :?
 
This thread was about birth control at one point

And the discussion moved on to discussing whether we can support an ever increasing population. There are three(ish) limiting factors: food, space and energy. Food is just a question of logistics, energy won't be a problem, and we can terraform the moon / mars when we run out of space!:tongue1:

So no need for birth control!

:Grin:
 
I felt it was more about population control than birth control. Birth control is more to do with the practicalities of contraception, whereas population control is political. But hey.
 
Cold Fusion?


It was the most notorious scientific experiment in recent memory - in 1989, the two men who claimed to have discovered the energy of the future were condemned as imposters and exiled by their peers. Can it possibly make sense to reopen the cold fusion investigation? A surprising number of researchers already have.

Almost four stories high, framed in steel beams and tangled in pipes, conduits, cables, and coils, the Joint European Torus (JET) claims to be the largest fusion power experiment in the world. Located near Oxford, England, JET is a monument to big science, its donut-shaped containment vessel dwarfing maintenance workers who enter it in protective suits. Here in this gleaming nuclear cauldron, deuterium gas is energized with 7 million amperes and heated to 300 million degrees Celsius - more than 10 times hotter than the center of the sun. Under these extreme conditions atomic nuclei collide and fuse, liberating energy that could provide virtually limitless power.

Maybe.

High-tension lines run directly to the installation, but they don't take electricity out - they bring it in. For a few magic seconds in 1997, JET managed to return 60 percent of the energy it consumed, but that's the best it's ever done, and is typical of fusion experiments worldwide. The US Department of Energy has predicted that we'll have to wait another five decades, minimum, before fusion power becomes practical. Meanwhile, the United States continues to depend on fossil fuels for 85 percent of its energy.


Many miles away, in the basement of a fine new home in the hills overlooking Santa Fe, New Mexico, a retired scientist named Edmund Storms has built a different kind of fusion reactor. It consists of laboratory glassware, off-the-shelf chemical supplies, two aging Macintosh computers for data acquisition, and an insulated wooden box the size of a kitchen cabinet. While JET's 15 European sponsor-nations have paid about US$1 billion for their hardware, and the US government has spent $14.7 billion on fusion research since 1951 (all figures in 1997 dollars), Storms's apparatus and ancillary gear have cost less than $50,000. Moreover, he claims that his equipment works, generating surplus heat for days at a time.

Storms is not an antiestablishment pseudoscientist pursuing a crackpot theory. For 34 years he was part of the establishment himself, employed at Los Alamos on projects such as a nuclear motor for space vehicles. Subsequently he testified before a congressional subcommittee considering the future of fusion. He believes you don't need millions of degrees or billions of dollars to fuse atomic nuclei and yield energy. "You can stimulate nuclear reactions at room temperature," he says, in his genial, matter-of-fact style. "I am absolutely certain that the phenomenon is real. It is quite extraordinary, and if it can be developed, it will have profound effects on society."

That's an understatement. If low-temperature fusion does exist and can be perfected, power generation could be decentralized. Each home could heat itself and produce its own electricity, probably using a form of water as fuel. Even automobiles might be cold fusion powered. Massive generators and ugly power lines could be eliminated, along with imported oil and our contribution to the greenhouse effect. Moreover, according to some experimental data, low-temperature fusion doesn't create significant hazardous radiation or radioactive waste.

Most scientists laugh at these claims. "It's pathological science," says physicist Douglas Morrison, formerly employed by CERN in Geneva. "The results are impossible."

Yet some highly qualified researchers disagree.


George Miley, who received the Edward Teller medal for innovative research in hot fusion and has edited Fusion Technology magazine for the American Nuclear Society for more than 15 years: "There's very strong evidence that low-energy nuclear reactions do occur. Numerous experiments have shown definitive results - as do my own."


John Bockris, formerly a distinguished professor in physical chemistry at Texas A&M University and a cofounder of the International Society for Electrochemistry: "Nuclear reactions can occur without high temperatures. Low-energy nuclear transformations can - and do - exist."


Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International: "I am absolutely certain there is unexplained heat, and the most likely explanation is that its origin is nuclear."


Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer, futurist, and funder of Infinite Energy magazine: "It seems very promising to me that nuclear reactions may occur at room temperatures. I'm quite convinced there's something in this."

Statements like these prompt an obvious question: If nuclear fusion can be demonstrated in anyone's basement workshop for a few thousand dollars, and could revolutionize society - why haven't we heard about it?

We have. On March 23, 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced their discovery of "cold fusion." It was the most heavily hyped science story of the decade, but the awed excitement quickly evaporated amid accusations of fraud and incompetence. When it was over, Pons and Fleischmann were humiliated by the scientific establishment; their reputations ruined, they fled from their laboratory and dropped out of sight. "Cold fusion" and "hoax" became synonymous in most people's minds, and today, everyone knows that the idea has been discredited.

Or has it? In fact, despite the scandal, laboratories in at least eight countries are still spending millions on cold fusion research. During the past nine years this work has yielded a huge body of evidence, while remaining virtually unknown - because most academic journals adamantly refuse to publish papers on it. At most, the story of cold fusion represents a colossal conspiracy of denial. At least, it is one of the strangest untold stories in 20th-century science.
 
Reconstructed said:
There is nothing wrong with optimism, it just has to be rational.

That all depends upon your definition of "rational".


To a creationist, the idea that the Earth was created in seven days by a man with a beard is perfectly rational.


I'm suspicious of the word "rational" - it is too nebulous to have any real meaning.
 
Back
Top