ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags electricity , Karpen's Pile , perpetual motion

Reply
Old 3rd January 2011, 11:54 AM   #1
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,754
Karpen's Pile. I think this story reeks of BS.

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2010/12/25/karpen-pile/

A "battery" that's been producing electricity since the 1950's....



This sounds like total BS. I wonder if this qualifies for the MDC.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 12:13 PM   #2
Weak Kitten
Graduate Poster
 
Weak Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,909
There is an off chance that it is still running on the original charge and what it has been doing just doesn't take a lot of energy. Possible, but not entirely likely.

Why is it that these things always seem to be the work of a single person in some backwater corner of the world? Most verifiable developments these days are the work of a group of people who communicate their developments to the rest of the world on a regular basis.
Weak Kitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 12:43 PM   #3
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Sounds like something simular to the Oxford Electric Bell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell

In which case 60 years is well short of the record.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 12:54 PM   #4
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,754
in which case it's just a battery using it's charge to keep the pendulum in motion. Not very impressive to me.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 01:06 PM   #5
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Yeah, if it won't run my iPod I'm not interested.

In reality, it looks like this 'on the verge of woo' story has been designed to generate publicity more than electricity. It is apparent from the information in the story that the museum need funds to pay for proper security.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 01:20 PM   #6
fetchbeer
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
It is apparent from the information in the story that the museum need funds to pay for proper security.
If it really worked as infinite free energy they would just use it to run their lights and then they wouldn't have a power bill and could afford security.

But it's just a massive battery moving something tiny as it slowly discharges. You could probably do something similar with a capacitor, or thermocouples even, and have a bit more intriguing device.
fetchbeer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 01:51 PM   #7
Weak Kitten
Graduate Poster
 
Weak Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,909
Originally Posted by geni View Post
Sounds like something simular to the Oxford Electric Bell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell

In which case 60 years is well short of the record.
Oh, that's actually quite interesting. I wish they would figure out what's in the piles though, it sounds silly saying they don't know what they are composed of.
Weak Kitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 04:43 PM   #8
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by Weak Kitten View Post
Oh, that's actually quite interesting. I wish they would figure out what's in the piles though, it sounds silly saying they don't know what they are composed of.
Would be hard to do without damageing the coating. X-ray might give you a hint but unlikely to be completely clear. I doubt it's a priority for anyone though.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 06:41 PM   #9
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,767
bonus points for the article mentioning zero point energy as an explanation!
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2011, 08:46 PM   #10
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by Weak Kitten View Post
Oh, that's actually quite interesting. I wish they would figure out what's in the piles though, it sounds silly saying they don't know what they are composed of.
Swollen veins in the lower colon and rectum.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 01:50 PM   #11
MitchEEPhys
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2
Why is it so hard to believe that something that pulls a small amount of energy out of an unknown source exists? I personally have not seen this device, but if a patent exist and one example exests and scientist have examined it and concluded that it is working without offering its energy source; why can't it be true?
Just because we don't currently understand it does not mean that it is wrong. Our model for the atom is wrong (ask any current research physicist) but we have a good idea which is working for most of the experiments we preform. Yet we only understand 5% of what we know exists in the universe (reference standard model). I would be hard pressed to say anyone has found a perpetual energy machine; but I am inclined to say that someone has or soon will find a source or rather a machanism which energy from an abundant source; say like vibrations of heat of the atoms or background radiation etc. None of these would pull energy from nowhere, they would just seem to do so without an understanding of the full energy in the closed system. And if we find an abundant source which lasts a long time (as say the sun) would you allow the statement "free energy" to be used?
MitchEEPhys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 02:12 PM   #12
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,237
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
Our model for the atom is wrong
It is? In what way?
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 03:00 PM   #13
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,853
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
Why is it so hard to believe that something that pulls a small amount of energy out of an unknown source exists? I personally have not seen this device, but if a patent exist and one example exests and scientist have examined it and concluded that it is working without offering its energy source; why can't it be true?
My boy, I have a good quality cast iron tower in Paris you may be interested in...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 03:38 PM   #14
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
Why is it so hard to believe that something that pulls a small amount of energy out of an unknown source exists? I personally have not seen this device, but if a patent exist and one example exests and scientist have examined it and concluded that it is working without offering its energy source; why can't it be true?
Just because we don't currently understand it does not mean that it is wrong. Our model for the atom is wrong (ask any current research physicist) but we have a good idea which is working for most of the experiments we preform. Yet we only understand 5% of what we know exists in the universe (reference standard model). I would be hard pressed to say anyone has found a perpetual energy machine; but I am inclined to say that someone has or soon will find a source or rather a machanism which energy from an abundant source; say like vibrations of heat of the atoms or background radiation etc. None of these would pull energy from nowhere, they would just seem to do so without an understanding of the full energy in the closed system. And if we find an abundant source which lasts a long time (as say the sun) would you allow the statement "free energy" to be used?
No.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 05:57 PM   #15
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
Why is it so hard to believe that something that pulls a small amount of energy out of an unknown source exists?
Because such an action violates physical laws as we understand them; laws that have been verified time and time again.

Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
I personally have not seen this device,
So you're just speculating.

Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
but if a patent exist
Utterly irrelevant.
Many patents have been issued for perpetual motion machines and other such junk; the issue process does not involve any form of scientific evaluation.

Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
and one example exests and scientist have examined it and concluded that it is working without offering its energy source;
Details of the examination please.
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
why can't it be true?
It could. It's vanishingly unlikely that it is. The reluctance to allow proper examination is not a good sign.

Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
Just because we don't currently understand it does not mean that it is wrong.
The fact that, as I stated previously, "free energy" violates physical laws that have stood up to real scientific examination indicates it is.
Of course it could simply be a very low drain on a common battery.
Or a fake.

Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
Our model for the atom is wrong (ask any current research physicist)
I have. She laughed at you. We have several models of increasing complexity and accuracy.

Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
Yet we only understand 5% of what we know exists in the universe (reference standard model).
Really.
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
I would be hard pressed to say anyone has found a perpetual energy machine; but I am inclined to say that someone has or soon will find a source or rather a machanism which energy from an abundant source; say like vibrations of heat of the atoms or background radiation etc.
Go study some physics please.
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
None of these would pull energy from nowhere, they would just seem to do so without an understanding of the full energy in the closed system. And if we find an abundant source which lasts a long time (as say the sun) would you allow the statement "free energy" to be used?
No. Solar energy is limitless neither in magnitude nor duration. We already have solar power converters.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2011, 06:51 PM   #16
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,003
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2010/12/25/karpen-pile/

A "battery" that's been producing electricity since the 1950's....



This sounds like total BS. I wonder if this qualifies for the MDC.
Karpen's Piles stink!!! (I'm too busy to make a parody thread on this.........)
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 12:16 AM   #17
MitchEEPhys
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2
re

The standard model is wrong in the sub atomic structure. The models we have break down and do not hold up when trying to verify the higher energy states. This is one reason why we are looking for the so called "God particle". We understand the interactions between atoms quite well and have a good idea (model/math wise wave function). And we even have a somewhat good idea about some of the (sub atomic) particle interactions, but not all and they don't measure in the proper places given their suspected mass and energy states within the wave functions as we have them identified. If you believe that we fully understand the atomic and sub-atomic models throughly, then why are a number of nations funding CERN to the tune of billions of dollars a year?

Since you state that the Sun would not be identified as a "free energy" device, then could you accept that sometime in the past or most certainly in the future that an unidentified source could very well be supplying the energy which while might not be infinite (as the Sun is not infinite, but certainly will last long enough to satisfy any length of time for you, your children, grandchildren, etc) but sufficient? If it last through my lifetime, it would satisfy my def and certainly avoid electric bills I might incur.

Yes I am speculating that his device is running as stated, but there seems to be good evidence that qualified individuals have examined the device and found it to continue to produce an output without recharge or additional acid.

I understand your skeptisism to accept such a device, and I do not know if this pile is one, but I would like to think that I have an open mind (well educated [degree wise] in engineering and physics) to understand the limits of our understand and allow the possibility if there is an even slight chance. And for the record a "heat pump" is by def a free energy device; provided free means no expense. The cost of energy paid for is less than the output of the device to heat a home within the boundary of thermal limits of the unit.

Last edited by MitchEEPhys; 17th January 2011 at 12:25 AM.
MitchEEPhys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 02:00 AM   #18
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,361
Wave those hands much?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 03:37 AM   #19
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
 
Andrew Wiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,915
This is a simple primary battery. Referring to it as a thermocouple or thermopile is misdirection, and there's certainly no need for zero point energy or 'quantum' effects. It's the same thing you could do with alternating disks of copper, zinc, and paper, in a bath of vinegar, but more durable. Some folks out there may remember doing things like that in grade school science class, if you had a fun teacher.

You could do this with any two metals, and just about any electrolyte. In most cases such a battery degrades quickly, as the metal disks react with the electrolyte even when no electrons are flowing. Early batteries of this type were called 'plunge' batteries, because you 'plunged' the battery into the electrolyte when you needed electricity, and lifted it back out when you were done, to keep it from dissolving. This battery has cleverly worked around that by using metals that don't react quickly with the electrolyte.

In this case, if the article is to be believed, it looks like the metals are gold and platinum, and the electrolyte is sulfuric acid. I think this is plausible. Both gold and platinum dissolve only very slowly in acids unless under extreme oxidizing conditions, in which case an oxidizing agent like fuming nitric acid or concentrated hydrogen peroxide oxidizes the metal and then the oxides dissolve in the acid. Those conditions aren't present in this example, so these metals are relatively inert in these conditions, and the reaction is very slow.

It looks like this battery has a fair amount of cells, though I couldn't really find an image clear enough to count them. That makes coming up with a reaction rather difficult. Assuming that they're accurately reporting the 'one volt' output, (exactly one volt?) there are some places where gold and platinum are close enough to each other in the electrochemical series to make a one volt battery with twenty or thirty cells plausible. Without the battery to study, the exact construction and reaction are going to remain a mystery, and it doesn't sound like the museum has any interest in letting this be studied.

It sounds like they're measuring the electrons flowing from the cell with some sort of ballistic galvomometer arranged as a motor. These draw very little current, and even then the article implies that the battery has to recharge between turns of the motor, so it has a mechanism that turns it off after each swing. This is consistant with the idea that this battery operates by very slow reactions.

I see that some folks have already brought up the oxford electric bell. This is the same sort of battery, in that it has electrodes in very unreactive conditions. In that case, the electrodes are probably something quite far apart on the electrochemical series like copper and silver, and they're thin, so that there can be lots and lots of them. Similar examples have hundreds or thousands of layers. The low reactivity conditions are achieved by it being a 'dry pile' in which the electrolyte is at a very very low concentration.

If I recall, the oxford electric bell produces a fairly high voltage at almost unmeasurable current. It's basically a source of 'static electricity' to run a small 'franklin's bell'. You can run a franklin's bell from the current that leaks from the screen of a television; they don't draw much current at all. The low reactivity conditions, combined with the low current draw mean that these things run 'forever'.

No mystery here, and no practical power source either. You'd have trouble making either one of these light an LED.
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells
Andrew Wiggin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 03:48 AM   #20
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,965
Originally Posted by MitchEEPhys View Post
The standard model is wrong in the sub atomic structure. The models we have break down and do not hold up when trying to verify the higher energy states. This is one reason why we are looking for the so called "God particle". We understand the interactions between atoms quite well and have a good idea (model/math wise wave function). And we even have a somewhat good idea about some of the (sub atomic) particle interactions, but not all and they don't measure in the proper places given their suspected mass and energy states within the wave functions as we have them identified. If you believe that we fully understand the atomic and sub-atomic models throughly, then why are a number of nations funding CERN to the tune of billions of dollars a year?

Since you state that the Sun would not be identified as a "free energy" device, then could you accept that sometime in the past or most certainly in the future that an unidentified source could very well be supplying the energy which while might not be infinite (as the Sun is not infinite, but certainly will last long enough to satisfy any length of time for you, your children, grandchildren, etc) but sufficient? If it last through my lifetime, it would satisfy my def and certainly avoid electric bills I might incur.

Yes I am speculating that his device is running as stated, but there seems to be good evidence that qualified individuals have examined the device and found it to continue to produce an output without recharge or additional acid.

I understand your skeptisism to accept such a device, and I do not know if this pile is one, but I would like to think that I have an open mind (well educated [degree wise] in engineering and physics) to understand the limits of our understand and allow the possibility if there is an even slight chance. And for the record a "heat pump" is by def a free energy device; provided free means no expense. The cost of energy paid for is less than the output of the device to heat a home within the boundary of thermal limits of the unit.
Have you any evidence for this pile of unsupported assertions?
Solar converters and heat pumps tape pre-existing energy sources and are no different in principle than any other power source.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.