Energy: No Such thing as a Free Lunch

This is the first in a series of posts about free energy scams.  I've given several talks on the topic, one of which can be found here.  I'm hoping that writing these posts will get me back to that book on the subject that I keep saying I'm writing.

What do I mean by "free energy"? Although lots of people use the term, but there's no official definition.  For the purposes of this discussion, I'll use the term to refer to supposedly transformative technologies which:

• will dramatically reduce one's cost of energy for transportation and/or domestic use, say at leastFor example,   factor of four or more.
• do not require significant capital costs up front, usually paying for themselves in a year or less.
• don't involve a major change in lifestyle

Of course, it's not impossible that some great new technology will be discovered, but it's not likely going to be done by someone working in their garage.  The last discovery with a profound implication for energy was the discovery of radioactivity - over 100 years ago.

We'll go through some specific examples, but the fact is cars don't run on water, motors don't run on permanent magnets, and cold fusion isn't being covered up by the oil industry; it simply doesn't work.

The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden

IMDB Entry: here
Netflix?: yes
My rating (as a good movie): 5/5

This is exactly the sort of hidden hidden gem that makes me keep renewing my Netflix subscription.

It tells the little known story of Europeans (mostly Germans) who settled in the Galapagos Islands around 1930, and some of the mysterious events that followed.  I'll avoid spoilers regarding these events, but for me, they really took a back seat to the story of the settlers themselves.

The movie made me think of the saying "The common factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you".  For the most part, these people weren't looking for opportunity, they were looking to get away from civilization - and it's clear that in most cases, *civilization* wasn't the problem.

The story was based on original writings of the settlers and some people who visited the island, as well as interviews with children and relatives.  Based on the apparent ages of the children, the interviews were all done about 15 years ago, and sat in the can until the movie was released last year. There's a truly amazing amount of film footage and photography.

The movie primarily focused on the three groups who homesteaded to Floreana, the smallest habitable island in the Galapagos.  Given their unusual shared destination, it's remarkable how different these groups turned out to be.

The first couple was Dr. Friedrich Ritter and his companion Dore Strauch.  They both left their spouses to find paradise in the wilderness - which turned out to be a lot harder than they thought it would be.  Ritter was frankly a pompous ass, who saw himself as a great philosopher. Strauch clearly worshipped Ritter, and he clearly did not reciprocate.

The next people two arrive were the Wittmer family: Heinz, Margret, and their son Rolf, who came because they feared a war was coming.  They were impressive in their normalcy. The saw themselves as the Swiss Family Robinson, and largely lived up to that vision, becoming the most successful of the group, in spite of Ritter's dismissal of them as amateurs.

The final settlers on Floreana were a colorful woman who claimed to be the Baroness Von Wagner and her two male lovers, who were all planning to start a hotel.  Their arrival also signals the start of the tension, which leads to some of the subsequent developments.

There are also some discussions of settlers on the other islands, as well as some writings by a crew member on a research vessel that visited the islands more or less annually around that time.

This is something that had once been a common story in the world, but this was pretty much the last time that people could really "leave civilization" and strike out on their own - albeit in a small and obscure corner of the word, and I found that concept absolutely riveting. At two hours, some might find it a bit long, but it held my attention the whole time.

Highly recommended.

Heaven is Hell

IMDB Entry: here
Netflix?: not yet
My Rating (as a good movie): 4/5

OK, fair disclosure:  I know a lot of people involved with this movie, so maybe I'm a bit biased.  Nevertheless, I think that if you give this movie a chance, you'll be pleasantly surprised.  It really shows what you can do with a good script, good acting, a lot of creativity, and very little money.

The movie opens at the funeral of Faith, who we learn was a devoutly Christian woman.  After the funeral, we see her "wake up" in a Heaven that bears little resemblance to our preconceived notions.  It appears to be a post-apocalyptic battlefield, and Faith immediately comes under fire.  Without giving away any spoilers, I'll say she encounters some Biblical characters, both familiar and unfamiliar, and becomes involved in an epic struggle for the control of Heaven.

This is really low budget, independent moviemaking at its finest.  The script is unique and the acting is good.  There's genuine humor and genuine pathos.  Although it was clearly made with limited funds, the production quality is surprisingly good.  Luckily, Indiana and Illinois offered ample post-apocalyptic settings for the shoots.

I really hope to see more from these guys.

The Truth About Nikola Tesla

There's something on the internet called "Godwin's Law", which basically says that if an argument goes on long enough, someone will eventually bring up Hitler and/or the Nazis.  Similarly, in any discussion involving limitless free energy, someone will eventually bring up Nikola Tesla - and probably the Nazis as well (to describe you, when you tell them what idiots they are).

First, let's examine who Nikola Tesla really was - in the real world, where we all live. Tesla was one of the most brilliant and iconoclastic inventors of the late 19th and early 20th century.  He was born in the Austrian Empire in 1856 in what is now Croatia; however, he's ethnically Serbian, which is why he's on modern day Serbia's 100 dinar bill.

His research focused on electricity - specifically high voltage and high frequency electricity.  His most significant single contribution is arguably the realization that alternating current "AC" is a much more efficient way to distribute electrical power than direct current "DC", which was favored by Edison. This led to a protracted argument with Edison, which Tesla eventually won.  The key victory was when Tesla and Westinghouse won the contract to supply the lighting for the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893.

A fight he never really won was his fight to get credit for the invention of radio.  Tesla lectured about the possibility of using electromagnetic waves to transmit information as far back as 1893, and he designed a remote-controlled boat in 1898, which he tried to sell to the government.  In 1900, Tesla patented  a "system of transmitting electrical energy" and "an electrical transmitter".  When Marconi claimed to have "invented" radio in 1901, Tesla challenged him in court.  The courts issued a series of contradictory rulings, but whatever the legal standing, history remembers Marconi rather than Tesla as the father of radio.  This arguably helped trigger the bitterness that characterized Tesla's later life.

Tesla was obsessed with the idea of transmitting power using high frequency electromagnetic waves, and he designed and built an enormous tower to do so, called the "Wardenclyffe Tower" to do so.  There's nothing impossible or mysterious about this concept.  It's just that it's not economically viable.  Imagine if you had a bar that served beer by spraying it out of a sprinkler and then you would drink whatever you could catch in your glass.  It would be a lot of fun, but the bar could only make money if they either got their beer for free or the charge one hell of a lot for the glass.  It's the same way with transmitting power.  Most of the power would simply radiate away into space.  It would only work if electricity were too cheap to bother metering.

Tesla had other ideas for for energy, none of which would have worked.  In 1901, Tesla filed a patent for an "Apparatus for the utilization of radiant energy".  This was simply an antenna designed to capture ambient electromagnetic energy.  The problem is that this energy doesn't exist at a level that would be useful in any way.  Nevertheless, generations of free energy enthusiasts have latched onto this as one of Tesla's many contributions that have been lost or were stolen from us.  Of course, it hasn't gone anywhere.  All the drawings are still there at the patent office.  They simply don't work.

Tesla's ideas go beyond free energy.  Late in life, he proposed the idea of a particle beam weapon, which he referred to as "Teleforce".  Like his free energy device, all the drawing still exist, and also like the free energy device, it simply doesn't work.

Adding to Tesla's mystique is the fact that upon his death, the FBI order the seizure of all of his personal papers.  It's likely that the FBI believed Tesla's claims about his particle beam weapons, and seized his papers in the interest of national security. This has fueled decades of speculation about what was in the writings; however, given the nature of the things that are known, it's highly unlikely there were any major secrets in the lost material.

The fact is, everything Tesla did is well understood - not only in light of modern physics, but in terms of physics at the time.  In contrast, his more outlandish claims would require a significant modification of physics as we understand it.

It's unfortunate that someone who made as many genuine contributions to our lives as Nikola Tesla is instead remembered by so many for his more outrageous and unsubstantiated claims.

Phantasm IV: Oblivion (1998)

IMDB: here
My rating (as a bad movie): 5/5
Netflix: No

Wow, just... wow.

The first Phantasm was a classic. No one's quite sure why, because let's face it, the plot was pretty silly, but for some reason, it was just iconic.  The second and third were OK, nothing great, but entertaining.

This one was clearly conceived as the magnum opus, where everything would be "explained".  Of course that's not what happens...

The first problem is of course to get out of the certain doom at the end of the last movie.  If you recall, Mike (still called "boy" in his mid-30s)  is in the process of being changed into some sort of hybrid silver ball/alien thingy,  and Reggie is pinned to a wall by like a hundred of the killer spheres.  Mike apparently just walked away, and the Tall Man inexplicably lets Reggie go - and then spends the rest of the movie trying to kill him.  I don't know, maybe he's like a cat playing with its food.

After that, it's just a confusing jumble.  The main thread follows Mike as he develops super powers and travels back in time to find the origin of the Tall Man, who we learn was once a kindly undertaker named Jebediah Morningside around the time of the Civil War.  He somehow invents the tuning fork/portal thing, but how exactly this turns him into the evil Tall Man is never explained - nor is anything else.

A second thread follows Reggie, who wanders around, encounters a beautiful woman, and is once again sexually frustrated.  I know you're saying you've seen that before, but trust me, this time the end is...interesting.

As for Jody, the dead/undead/possible impostor brother, he keeps popping in and out, "guiding" Mike, but never really being much help, and generally just adding to the confusion.

Without giving away any spoilers, I'll just say nothing is ever really resolved or explained.

That said, there is a certain "charm" to the movie.  The atmosphere and the cinematography are pretty good, and most scenes alone work pretty well - if only they would all tie together into something even remotely coherent.

All in all, this has to be one of the most random, confusing, non-sequitur movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot, but I have to say, it's fun to watch just for the jaw-dropping "WTF!?!" of it.

It's a Disaster (2012)

IMDB: here
My rating (as a good movie): 4/5
Netflix?: yes

Interesting mash-up of genres that works surprisingly well.

The movie opens like a fairly standard rom-com.  We gather that a couple has recently started dating, and the woman is advancing their relationship to the point of inviting him to a regular "couples brunch" with her circle of friends.  The first exchanges at the door establish that this is going to be an "awkward" gathering.

Of course, you know if you read the description that things are going to change dramatically, and pretty soon this unlikely group of people is facing the end of the world together.

It's quite entertaining and definitely worth watching.  I'm knocking once the novelty of the plot wears off, it does start to drag a bit in the middle, and they fall back on some pretty well worn paths.  For example, if it's a spoiler that it turns out that some of the characters have slept with each others partners, then it's probably because you've never seen a movie before.

But don't worry, it rallies in the end and finishes strong.  Some people might not like the ending, but I thought it worked very well.

Rapture-Palooza (2013)

IMDB: here
Rating (as a good movie): 5/5 (good movie)
Netflix?: Yes

This is certainly one of my biggest successes when it comes to random Netflix picks.My first thought was that they copied the idea from This is the End, but it turns out that both came out at almost exactly the same time (this movie actually came out a few days before). I guess two people had the idea of making a rapture-themed comedy at the same time. What are the odds?I loved both movies, but this is a very different take on the same idea. Whereas the tone and the humor in This is the End were rather manic, the humor in this movie is of the deadpan "So this is the apocalypse?" variety, and it works very well, at least for me. On balance, I think I may have liked this one a little bit more.It sounds strange, but some of the humor comes from the fact that they stick a bit closer to the Book or Revelation, and there are a lot of "This really doesn't make any sense." sort of jokes. Anyway, it worked for me.I didn't find it as vulgar as some people seem to have, but maybe my bar is high. It goes without saying that it's extremely blasphemous, so if you take the (to put it bluntly) Revelation nonsense seriously, it may not be the movie for you. Otherwise...