EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!

[elgonzo]

[...] hand woven by nude virgins on a tropical island audio cables [...]

I would love to be production manager in that company 

[Don Hills]

...  10kUSD/m crygenetically treated, hand woven by nude virgins on a tropical island audio cables) ...

At that price, they would have to come with a visit to the factory to see them being made.

[Howardlong]

I was just thinking today back to one of my first memories as a child, about five, when I wired up my Lego battery box, which had two pairs of terminals, in a way that I thought I would get it to recharge itself. As I remember it there was no marking of + and - in those days on the box, so it was 50/50 as to whether it was going to be a new set of batteries after half an hour or so of such activity.

And then a few weeks later, trying to figure out how to plug the same battery box into the AC mains. Luckily I was too young to be able to figure out how to open the L and N shutters.

On both occasions when I proudly told my father of my experiments I got a right royal bollocking for some reason. I'll get me old man to have a word with Mr Wing, maybe that'll work.

[donotdespisethesnake]

Our friend MrWing won't be playing any more. Sorry to spoil the fun but this has to stop some time.

I followed the Steorn saga for a while, and the thing I've learned about the free energy people is that their competence is inversely proportional to their persistence - and they are very persistent! They seem to develop a permanent "knowledge blindness" with a developed world view which seems quite coherent to them, but completely wrong, and resists any and all attempts at correction. I think they are sincere because no-one in their right mind could be such a perfect troll and for so long!

You might think it's only the complex concepts like relativity and quantum mechanics would lead people down into the rabbit hole, but magnetism, gravity and basic electronics all seem to be a draw for these people.

For an amusing "retro" take on Free Energy, have a look at http://www.besslerwheel.com/ - they sincerely believe free energy was cracked several hundred years ago, we just need to replicate the missing diagram. Perhaps to restore sanity, I also like to look at The Museum of Unworkable Devices.

But really, there is no way to engage with these people on any sane level.

[DanielS]

I just remembered one of my friends as a kid who got the idea of a self-propelled sailboat - a boat with a large fan blowing its own sails.

Not quite the same thing as free energy but if there was any net efficiency gain to be had that way, we would be blowing into sails instead of using direct propulsion. In a similar fashion, that childhood friend would not believe me when I told him his boat would not be going anywhere since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, with both being tied to the boat in his case and canceling each other.

[Richard Crowley]

I just remembered one of my friends as a kid who got the idea of a self-propelled sailboat - a boat with a large fan blowing its own sails.

Just turn the fan around.....

[EEVblog]

I am sure Dave could look at the stats on his Youtube rant to see if it is a good business venture to debunk more of them, in his unique style of course! 

While I'd love to see more dubious pieces of engineering (more free energy devices, 10kUSD/m crygenetically treated, hand woven by nude virgins on a tropical island audio cables) debunked, I'm afraid it would be like going after religion - the believers believe and will not be swayed by any quantity of rational argument, the nonbelievers already do not believe. But yeah, I'd love to see some more stuff put to the test/explanation...

I deliberately won't touch that subject on a technical level, because it's just not possible. Audiophoolery is an entirely subjective analog phenomenon, and no amount of measurement will prove to them it's bullshit. Even double blind A-B testing doesn't prove it to them, because they will refuse to be a part of it. You'd basically have to get the worlds most revered audiophool to take part, otherwise they'll just claim the person in the test isn't good enough.
Unlike for example the test that was done a few years back (forgot were) that proved HDMI cables didn't make a difference because it's digital they are able to exactly compare images at the end of the cable and analyse them, and they are precisely identical. No analog or subjective nature involved, it's 100% provable.

[polemon]

I am sure Dave could look at the stats on his Youtube rant to see if it is a good business venture to debunk more of them, in his unique style of course! 

While I'd love to see more dubious pieces of engineering (more free energy devices, 10kUSD/m crygenetically treated, hand woven by nude virgins on a tropical island audio cables) debunked, I'm afraid it would be like going after religion - the believers believe and will not be swayed by any quantity of rational argument, the nonbelievers already do not believe. But yeah, I'd love to see some more stuff put to the test/explanation...

If you're really interested in that, read some of the articles on hydrogenaudio.com. Every now and then, they'll take articles apart like "Analog - true lossless", and the kind of audio equipment you mentioned.

[Fungus]

I just remembered one of my friends as a kid who got the idea of a self-propelled sailboat - a boat with a large fan blowing its own sails.

They actually did that one on mythbusters  ...  and it works!  The boat moves forwards. 

Edit: Here's the video...

[Fungus]

10kUSD/m audio cables

I deliberately won't touch that subject on a technical level, because it's just not possible. Audiophoolery is an entirely subjective analog phenomenon, and no amount of measurement will prove to them it's bullshit.

You can definitely prove that no optical cable will make the sound 'warmer' or give it more 'bass extension'.

You don't even need a meter for that, only a blackboard: Changing random bits in a data stream can't possibly alter the frequency spectrum of the sound, binary data simply doesn't work that way.

Do the Pesky Facts make a difference? Nope. They'll go on and on about 'reduced jitter' or some such crap instead, Google "toslink cable review" and see for yourself.

"Jitter" is their safe-word as soon as anything gets technical. So long as jitter isn't zero their belief is safe (doesn't matter if it's 0.0000001% - that's still 'jitter' to them.)

Even double blind A-B testing doesn't prove it to them, because they will refuse to be a part of it.

Yep.

eg. James Randi offered his million dollars to the CEO of Pear cables if they could tell their $7000 cables from a piece of zip cord in an A-B test. They initially said they'd do it (presumably so the audiophool magazines could print "Pear cables CEO accepts the Randi challenge!!") then a month later they simply refused to take part:

http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html

[max_torque]

"Jitter" is their safe-word as soon as anything gets technical. So long as jitter isn't zero their belief is safe (doesn't matter if it's 0.0000001% - that's still 'jitter' to them.)

That always makes me laugh, i mean, has anyone actually worked out what the "source" jitter is?  I mean, say the guy playing the guitar or the piano or what ever, how accurately are they timing their actions?  I'd guess on a human scale, with lots of practice you could get "jitter" down to say 10mS maybe?  ;-)

[Fungus]

"Jitter" is their safe-word as soon as anything gets technical. So long as jitter isn't zero their belief is safe (doesn't matter if it's 0.0000001% - that's still 'jitter' to them.)

That always makes me laugh, i mean, has anyone actually worked out what the "source" jitter is?

TI makes USB DACs that automatically correct for any timing problem in the source datastream (eg. If your PC is sending the USB data at 48.001kHz) and reduce output jitter to almost zero. They call it "SpAct", I can't actually find a white paper on it but I assume TI know what they're doing.

eg. http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm2704.pdf

You can get $10 DACs on eBay which use that chip. They're about as good as it gets for a 16bit/48kHz USB DAC and are quite popular among audiophiles (not audiophools, obviously).

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=pcm2704

Note: Many of them are sold as PCBs with no case - makes it easier to swap the capacitors 

(around here we have: "Don't turn it on, take it apart!", over there they have: "Don't listen to it, change the capacitors!")

--

The other day I was reading a page written by somebody who claimed that CDs are the ultimate sound source and that all digitally stored/reproduced music is crap. Why? Because CD players play the bits back at whatever speed the plastic disc is spinning, therefore CD DACs have zero jitter. All you need is to get the speed of the disc roughly right and Bob's your uncle - perfect DAC timing!

It's hard to argue against the logic of that but the question is: Will you be able to hear the infinitesimal residual jitter in one of TI's jitter-correcting DACs?

And ... that's where the phoolery begins. It's better to not go there, not with a True Believer.

(We all know how many extra harmonics a badly timed rising edge can produce, right?)

[Tac Eht Xilef]

Ah, jitter ... whenever it comes up around me they get one chance to see if they can have a sensible discussion about clock recovery, time constants, bit/symbol sampling strategies, etc.

Just one.

Sometimes you can get them thinking, and with that bit of help can even work it out for themselves eventually.

p.s. I once got into a slap-down online with someone who insisted all commercial blu-rays were mastered at 24fps, and the disc was slowed down / sped up to play at the appropriate frame rate...

(Strangely, they did know about proper frame rate conversion, telecine, how DVDs were mastered in differing formats/framerates for different markets, etc, etc. But none of that mattered, because blu-ray was different...)

[Elfnet Gaming]

These free energy videos are the best lol
We all know whats going on in these circuit but whats so rich is the people who know nothing about what they're doing when they are building these things actually believe its free energy or some secret government or alien technology. This is the same bunch of people who wear tin foil hats and things the government puts listening devices in cheese...

[luky315]

I have another one: The Keppe Motor
http://www.keppemotor.com/institucional/?lang=en

“The Fundamental Mistake in Physics Is of the Equation of Energy with Matter”

Yeah. Right.

[Steve45N]

G'Day folks.  New-to-the-forum-guy here, but not Electronics.

A couple days ago I stumbled across Dave's video on the switch-mode 23 LED B.S. thingy. Your style hooked me...

Following Dave's links, I read the first thread with ManOfStone and balked at reading all of this thread, but I stuck with it like a trooper 'till the very end only to find out that DaveWing was killed!
Well, I'm crushed!

Those two guys: http://www.despair.com/believe-in-yourself.html 

Seriously, I was interested in seeing how it turned out, but when DaveWing kept throwing in a change of subject I got bored with a lack of any progress (teachers hate that).  I think it is that some folks feel superior when they can string others along.  Either they think TV reeks, as I do, and need a form of entertainment, or gain a sense of perceived self-worth stringing along folks smarter than they are.  ..."The Sting".
 [I don't troll YouTube, but I will occasionally explain things and, yes, I do stoop to a, hopefully clever, wisecrack @ times ... and, yes I was recently accused of being full of myself for wanting to explain things well.]

RE: http://www.despair.com/pretension.html 
     

Anyway. it kept me from wandering the streets for the last few nights.

Excellent video, BTW Dave.  A pleasure to hear another engineer on YouTube talking sense...and I did feel your pain of frustration. That type of discussion is the only thing I miss from working (Motorola 36+ years; Navy Tech 3yrs; eHobbyist ~59yrs ).
 Until I stumbled upon a few YouTubes about a year ago, I hadn't known that the free energy universe was so ...stupid? ...  and hadn't heard of things like the Joule Thief and the likes of Thane Hines...sigh.   [BTW I've designed REAL PWM motor drives]

Many years ago, a tech in my lab wanted to rework a small 4-cyl car engine to run off compressed air so he could run a compressor on it to re-fill his tank...sigh.

Yes, patents do not have to 'work' they only have to be 'novel'.  My son's a patent attorney.

I did, however, get some good entertainment out of this thread.

RE: Hydrawerk and the guy with the cooled monopole magnets and "magnetic particles" moving in the magnet...  Things a fourth grader would think.
I recall a few of my grade school misconceptions.  I was affraid that the 1A of a nice 12V 1A power supply would blow the snot out of a little one transistor oscillator that only needed a few ma.  Then, a friend wondered why in the heck would anyone want an amplifier with less than 100% efficiency.  After all, the whole idea of an amplifier is to get more out than you put in...right...?

That three battery thing from DaveWing was hilarious. "Split positives" & Power lost to ground.  What a hoot!
...................

My current Quixotic quest is the limitless number of wrong videos, papers (some by PhD's) and lesson plans that "explain" the "Bernoulli Principle" and Lift.  I got three removed so far.  Side hobby.
Some call it pathological science, my term is Lemming Science.  My other son is an Aeronautical Engineer. (yes, he *is* a rocket Scientist)  AND Pigs Fly Just Fine With Enough Thrust.
 [and, yes, I know the lemming story is an urban myth created by Disney, but nobody else does].

(other quests: k9dci.home.comcast.net)

Very experienced EE, teacher and Technical / Science Advisor @ Challenger.org. I may poke my nose in other people's business here once in a while...

--
'nuf fer now, Cheers, Steve
... Story for my students: I used to say that 'I know everything.'  A good friend took me aside and said that I should soften a little and develop a little humility.  I thought about it and changed to saying that 'I know everything, except how to be humble.'
...
A while later, that same friend praised me for changing my mantra and, thus, showing at least a little humility.  Cool !   I could say that 'I know everything.'

  http://www.despair.com/elitism.html 

[IanB]

My current Quixotic quest is the limitless number of wrong videos, papers (some by PhD's) and lesson plans that "explain" the "Bernoulli Principle" and Lift.  I got three removed so far.  Side hobby.

We've been there already, and it didn't turn out pretty:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/transitor-the-base-pin/msg575545/#msg575545

But anyway, hi, and welcome!

[helius]

You see, in physics and in science generally there is no answer to the question of why something happens.

I think that's in itself something of a simplification. Copernicus wasn't satisfied to track the movements of the planets across the sky, he wanted to know why they did that. Ptolemy could have told you just as well where to find Mars in the sky, given enough epicycles. The crucial difference wasn't the evidence, it was theory.

In general, evidence without a fully coherent theory is disqualified from being scientific. After all, there are mountains of evidence to support miracles by Mary, Mother of Christ. The Victorians had a word to describe people who relied exclusively on their evidence: "empirics". It meant a kind of quack, a charlatan.

[IanB]

You see, in physics and in science generally there is no answer to the question of why something happens.

I think that's in itself something of a simplification. Copernicus wasn't satisfied to track the movements of the planets across the sky, he wanted to know why they did that. Ptolemy could have told you just as well where to find Mars in the sky, given enough epicycles. The crucial difference wasn't the evidence, it was theory.

But the theory of the paths followed by planets is the law of gravity, which is simply a descriptive mathematical framework. We don't really know why gravity exists or why it follows those laws. We know how to describe the paths followed by planets with enough precision to predict exactly when and where an eclipse will take place, which is no small achievement, but we still don't know what gravity is or how to make it.

[Steve45N]

Hi Ian,

OH !  HELP ME UP !    I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING...

Thanks for the heads up (so to speak).

I will NOT go into it here, but if you want the real story, I can send something.

It is only the amateurs who debate that stuff.   What goes on around a wing is well understood , just like the electronics stuff on this forum and not too difficult to understand.  Just *why* this happens is actually due to the big bang, but *what* ain't that difficult, IF you know the fundamentals, just like in electronics, it all falls into place.

  As one of my friends used to say,  If you don't like the laws of physics you'll just have to wait for the next big bang because they may very well be different then.

I have a concept I call the "Floor of Understanding".  Each of us has some level down to which we need, can handle, or want to understansd any given natural phenomenon ... at.
 E.G Hot air rises suffices for some.  Another says, no, it doesnt and starts in with cold air, then another brings in buoyancy....  Each of these goes deeper and is correct, and not misleading...but bad bernoulli is crap.
..
At the Challenger Center I have to explain things to students from grade 5, or lower, on up and a good understanding of the whole story on many fronts is critical.  I will not simplify any science to the point that it is wrong.  YES, You must gloss over some things to stay level specific without being flat wrong and misleading..It takes some work that some are too lazy to do.   AND sometimes, you just have to say "I don't understansd it any better than this."

.  I heard it many years ago and it didn't satisfy me, but I was too busy with electronics to dig deeper.  The "Bad Bernoulli" story that fast air reduces its pressure is crap and few question the lack of agreement with fundamentals and thus follow the Lemming route and accept Tinker Bell.... 
I decided to put this fairy tale to rest (for myself) when I took over resurecting and supporting the full cockpit flight simulator our Challenger Center is so lucky to be the only to have....one.
  On the lift thing, I have found that each amateur tends to focus on only one aspect and ignore, or be ignorant of the whole story.  Some authoritative reading and a few discussions with a couple of experts gets you to the whole story. 

Now, full disclosure-wise, I have seen that the experts also tend to place just a little more emphasis on one pet aspect, and, there is indeed still discussion only on the very most esoteric details, but they do agree on all the the major phenomena that 'play nice' with Newton and (the correct) Bernoulli around a wing.   Are there some very esoteric details I still have to gloss over, yes.
Now that I think of it, just like the Stone guy and DaveWing having the proverbial dangerous little amount of knowledge -- every sofa spud is an expert on lift and free energy.... and then, there are those many who do understand real science.

Yes, I can and diserve to act arrogant about this, cuz I know....it took a year...  Fortunately, one of the leading aerodynamics experts volunteers at another Challenger center opening the door to discussion...he he.
 (;-)
Thanks again & Cheers, Steve
I do go on, don't I...

[coppice]

You can definitely prove that no optical cable will make the sound 'warmer' or give it more 'bass extension'.

Correct.

You don't even need a meter for that, only a blackboard: Changing random bits in a data stream can't possibly alter the frequency spectrum of the sound, binary data simply doesn't work that way.

Er, no. The errors on a typical digital cable, whether its copper or optical are far from random. They may be highly structured, or even 100% repeatable. The errors come from reflections and the frequency/phase response of the cable making bits either marginal or strongly flipped. Neither of those make the positions of the errors at all random, and if the bits are strongly flipped they can be near 100% repeatable. Try a few crappy HDMI cables with 4k video, especially cables more than a couple of metres long. Displaying a fixed image you will typically see twinkly patterns at specific places on the screen, and you can often find areas when the error pattern is solid, with no discernable twinkle at all.

[DanielS]

Unlike for example the test that was done a few years back (forgot were) that proved HDMI cables didn't make a difference because it's digital they are able to exactly compare images at the end of the cable and analyse them, and they are precisely identical. No analog or subjective nature involved, it's 100% provable.

Analog is provable too, just heed a high-resolution scope and audio spectrum analyzer: if you cannot measure the difference between ends of the cable with instruments that have at least an order of magnitude better accuracy than the average healthy human ear, you won't hear it either.

The problem with audiophools is that they have deluded themselves into rejecting scientific proof of their delusion and there is a whole industry that has grown around nurturing it.

[Smokey]

Sometimes these cookies are right on

[donotdespisethesnake]

My current Quixotic quest is the limitless number of wrong videos, papers (some by PhD's) and lesson plans that "explain" the "Bernoulli Principle" and Lift.  I got three removed so far.  Side hobby.

Heh, I did that for a while too. It helps that NASA have web pages to refer to.

The other memes that bug me are "scientists said heavier than air flying machines are impossible" or "scientists once proved bumblebees can't fly".

[leppie]

XKCD of today features the 'quantum vacuum'

http://xkcd.com/1486/