“Devices based on energy from spacetime are now being marketed commercially in great numbers, and there is great demand for them.”
If they are, then the salesmen are guilty of fraud.
“An example is LENR. Energy from spacetime is not perpetual motion, it is not energy from nothing.“
If only there were proof, but there isn’t any (worthy of the name) so it is just another perpetual-motion scam, like that of Ron’s friend, John Searl.
“The easiest way to see this is that in the original Einsteinian general relativity, the lagrangian is based on the infinitesimal line element. This is very well known.”
So why do crackpots alone think that this is proof? What exact mechanism is at work?
“Any person who mindlessly insists that these devices are perpetual motion should be subjected to the most severe criticism because they know nothing about basic physics. In fact they should be ridiculed as luddites.”
Quite the opposite: any academic who claims that they are not just fraudulent perpetual motion scams should have all of his research results audited, as he is obviously incompetent. But let’s cut to the chase. If Ron and his friends claim that energy from spacetime is not perpetual motion, that thus implies that they can in fact recognize blatant perpetual motion machines when they see them. But can they? Consider these old blog posts:
“The Newtonian torque in the lab frame is the sum of the torque as measured in the molecule fixed frame plus the vector product of angular velocity and angular momentum in the laboratory frame. So the torque in the molecule fixed frame is the torque in the lab frame minus omega vector product J (see Marion and Thornton (sic) or any good text on classical dynamics). These are the usual rules of classical dynamics, and they should be applied to the Bessler wheel. Unfortunately, there is no design available of the Bessler wheel, only guesswork.”
Ron on Bessler Wheel, 31st August 2008.
“Obviously it is difficult to decide if this pendulum connected to the lever can gain energy from the gravitational field or not. To my opinion this can be reduced to the question whether the energy pulse impinging the ambos is contained in the classical description of the system or not. This is the same as for the Bessler wheel. Theoreticians should try to solve this question.”
Shame of Siemens’on ‘Harnessing Gravitational Potential’, 7th September 2008
“The question which perhaps can be answered without detailed calculation is whether the free-falling part of mass motion in the Bessler Wheel is part of the system or not, i.e. if we have a closed (conservative) system or not.”
‘Shame of Siemens’ on Bessler Wheel, 31st August 2008
So here we have the same clowns who claim to have disproved EGR discussing the archetypal mechanical perpetual motion machine as if it might be a viable source of energy! Again Ron puts in a strong bid to become the most notorious ‘academic’ crackpot that the world has ever seen. What a feather in the Welsh cap.