Archer Quinn
promised the world a working demonstration of his homemade free energy device called the "Sword of God" by June 20th, but it looks like we're getting a sneak peek a little early: Quinn's detailing the build on his blog, and it's just about as pigs-in-trousers insane as you'd expect. It's hard to even pick one quote as an example here -- Quinn rails on about how he destroyed his first machine because he didn't want Arab nations to starve without oil money but then a picture of Dubai's opulence changed his mind, how "gravity wheels" are perpetual motion machines, how Nikola Tesla presented BS theories, how Australian Nazis are reading his email, and on and on. Most importantly, however, he continues to update on how his project is going. We're not sure if he's done yet or what (it's not exactly easy to follow) but it looks like something's ready -- anyone want to bet if it works? We also have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
[Thanks, Curt]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
SiLo @ May 5th 2008 8:50PM
Really, do we have anything to lose other than our morale if we keep hope in this man? Summer around the corner.. gas prices are only expected to go up, up, and away.
Jordan @ May 5th 2008 8:55PM
We have our pride, ego, and sanity to lose.
Jordan @ May 5th 2008 8:55PM
We have our pride, ego, and sanity to lose.
Rafer @ May 5th 2008 8:55PM
YOULL SEE HE WILL BE THE ONE TO GET IT... AND HE WONT SHARE IT WITH YOU. HAHAHHAHAHa
Jordan @ May 5th 2008 9:13PM
Actually if you read the article, I didn't read it all, he starts telling you how you can make it, but he leaves out critical information so that nobody can patent it. He plans on making it so nobody can patent it by lending it to a friend. So that the entire world can have it. Of course, it will fail, so nobody will want one.
Sachin @ May 5th 2008 9:37PM
Thanks, Engadget. I had nightmares about this picture the first time you put it up.
And they said things are always better the second time around.
nikola @ May 6th 2008 12:03AM
Hey here's an idea. DO NOT TRY TO BOTTLE IT UP WITH EXCLUSIVE PATENTS. DECENTRALIZE THE KNOWLEDGE AND YOU WON'T BECOME A TARGET.
Start spreading it on torrent sites. Put up popular movies to share, and make sure all you details/plans in the same folder. After one quick weekend you spread it to thousands of people, who will continue spreading it. Then you become irrelevant as your death won't mean the end of the knowledge you contain. THINK SMART.
nikola @ May 6th 2008 12:25AM
What if someone came out with a device that drew unlimited energy from the constant motion of atoms present in the surrounding environment. You would probably call it a free energy device, but it would be based off sound science (which simply hadn't been publicly documented up to that point).
You people sound like idiots screaming and whining about impossibilities. Go back 50 years and tell them what you KNOW to be possible with nano-technology, and they would laugh your ass into a mental institute. In 100 years, people will be taking things for granted that you couldn't even dream could ever exist. Again, you all sound like morons.
Reader @ May 6th 2008 2:01AM
Nikola, what your explaining is thermal energy. The only way his device can work is if he manages to tap into another force/dimension that no scientist has yet to discover.
He also insults on of my favorite scientists that happens to share your name, so he's doubly lame.
Bobs @ May 6th 2008 3:22AM
I say we use a tesla coil on his nuts, so his insanity cant spread to the alredy stupid.
d840 @ May 6th 2008 5:42AM
@ Nikola:
Reader is right, the vibration of atoms is commonly known as thermal energy or as Internal Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy)
Furthermore, the vibration of atoms and molecules is NOT unlimited, so you would not be able "drew unlimited energy from the constant motion of atoms present in the surrounding environment". There would be a limit to it.
A good example of the type of technology you are theorizing about is called a steam engine. It takes heat from the surrounding area (especially the burner), and uses that thermal energy (caused by the movement of atoms) to make water evaporate (this occurs because of the increased speed of the vibration of the water molecules). This in turn, causes pressure which can then be converted into kinetic energy by a turbine of some sort, or by pistons.
Congratulations on inventing a steam engine! You've only figured it out 300+ years after Thomas Savery.
When you "harvest" energy from the movement of atoms, you know what that's called? Cooling it off. There is a limit to how cold things can get. It's called absolute zero. It is the point at which all molecular movement theoretically stops. Because there is a limit to how cold something can get, there's a limit to how much thermal energy you can take out of it. And because there's a limit to how much thermal energy you can take out of it, it is not an eternal, unlimited supply of energy.
Please go take a physics course so you can learn about thermodynamics. Then we wouldn't have to hear you spewing utter bullsh!t out of your ass about the "unlimited energy from the constant motion of atoms" before calling us morons for knowing the slightest thing about rudimentary physics.
Mike10010100 @ May 6th 2008 6:12AM
@ d840
...Or 2000 years after Hero. (The FIRST steam turbine, even if it was only a toy)
nikola @ May 8th 2008 7:26AM
You idiots, I was just using that as an EXAMPLE. I doubt any of you can even program a DVR, let alone comprehend the mechanics of extracting energy from the movement of atoms. Sorry, this is like going back 200 years and trying to debate nuclear fusion. You don't know what you don't know.
Konstantin @ May 5th 2008 8:52PM
This guy is something else... At least he's not hurting anyone.
asha @ May 5th 2008 8:55PM
and he should get points for using a reasonable about of 'recycled' (read as used) materials.
Ash R @ May 5th 2008 10:59PM
he's probably been watching the UK production "Scrap Heap Challenge"
I read through the site, it is a bit of maddness on the net, as with all perpetual motion machines they forgo the amount of friction withing the "machine" that causes the whole perpetual idea to go out the window.
Blackstar @ May 6th 2008 7:00AM
Ok, the way this works is: if he is in fact correct, the mega-corporations will then appropriate his idea to bury it, then have him assassinated in some easily dismissed way. If he's still breathing in a month, then we know he's full of crap.
Marco @ May 6th 2008 10:46AM
...yet.
Jason Metcalfe @ May 6th 2008 3:02PM
"he's not hurting anyone"
until the robots steal his invention and enslave us all. Tin-foil hats for everyone!
AlekZander @ May 5th 2008 8:52PM
What I hate most about these free energy stories whenever they pop up on Engadget or anywhere, is that one guy (and there's ALWAYS at least one) on the comments who's always like "Don't be so closed-minded. Give this guy a change. It's possible." and then goes on to spew some completely ignorant psuedo-physics as proof, lecturing everyone who's smart enough to have taken a high school science class and has actually heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Don't be that guy. Free energy is impossible. Deal with it.
Encoding @ May 5th 2008 8:55PM
Damn Alek, don't be so closed minded.
What do you have against free energy anyways? You also turn down free beer? Free love?
Sheesh.
Anonymoose @ May 5th 2008 9:17PM
ah, college. i remember accepting free beer. i remember accepting free love. and then i remember the free burning sensation when i peed. dirty sorority girls. good times.
CraigJ @ May 5th 2008 10:13PM
depends on your definition of free. Assuming you have to build a device to collect energy, nothing is free, however if you discount the cost of the device and only talk about fuel, then wind and solar, for example, are "free".
Having said that, anyone that believes in a machine the generates power by violating the laws of thermodynamics is completely bat-shit crazy.
maveric101 @ May 5th 2008 11:45PM
free energy refers to something that puts out more energy than is put in. by what we currently know about physics, this is impossible (the only way is to turn matter into energy [E=mc^2], which humans can't do (yet)). This guy is a quack. That said, god knows what we will discover years and years and years from now.
nick @ May 6th 2008 12:16AM
I notice you in every single one of these "types" of threads, with its electric cars, new solar tech, or alternate energy - and your posts are always sharply bitter, cynical, and condescending. I'd call you a hater but you seem hellbent on swaying the random reader's opinion. You much do get paid to do this, and by who? Seriously, because I did some searching and your doing the same thing on several other blogs/sites.
brett.m.lucas @ May 6th 2008 12:36AM
But Alex you do remember that Newton's Law of Gravity had to be revised by Einstein later on to fit his theory of relativity. In every day speaking the Law of Gravity still works here for systems on earth, but for Einstein's more complex systems in space it wasn't quite perfect. I'm not saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong, but what I'm saying is that we shouldn't take it as complete along with most laws we have. If anyone is curious on Chaos Theory then I would recommend checking out "Deep Simplicity" by John Gribbin.
Mike10010100 @ May 6th 2008 6:17AM
You know, at this point, it's almost stupid to say anything, as either you will be wrong now or wrong later. (I mean sure you could be right later if it doesn't work) At this point however, it would be best to just close your mouths and see what happens....
An interesting proposition (if not crazy)....let's see what happens.
Cargojack @ May 6th 2008 9:15AM
The problem here is due to psychology and linguistics and not physics. Just because a grammatical sentence can be constructed that seems to have a specific meaning does not mean that that sentence really means something or is true. We can construct the grammatical sentence: Energy can be derived from extracting it from subspace without any cost. That sentence is grammatical, but it is meaningless. Kooks and the naive whose extent of physics knowledge is a high school course and reruns of Star Trek often confuse grammatical sentences that they can construct with reality.
Eds @ May 6th 2008 12:03PM
@ maveric101
You're mostly right but we can turn matter into energy. In fact, that's how nuclear fusion/fission works. The energy from those reactions comes from the mass gap created when we split large atoms or combine small ones and is exactly defined by E= (mass difference) * c^2. However, even though that energy is enormous, it's still finite and not a true "free energy" device (aka a perpetual motion machine). All perpetual motion machines, by definition, violate the laws of thermodynamics which has proven to be impossible so far.
But hey, you never know, maybe string theory is right and we'll be able to tap into the energy of one of the other 7 dimensions.
Bsouid @ May 5th 2008 8:52PM
if you believe in science at all it is impossible. if it could be done it would have already been done by a team of researchers or something, not some guy sitting around at home.
amazing what people do for attention.
nikola @ May 6th 2008 12:15AM
Lets just assume for one minute that it HAS already been done by scientists? What would happen? They would be IMMEDIATELY be recruited by the military. The project would become top secret. And the leadership would have to weigh the cost of the entire world having access to free energy which would allow their infrastructures to fully mature and COMPETE with our own country. That alone would make them pause. Add in the corporate energy cartel, who has considerable political influence, and its over, no more free energy. Then its just a decision of keeping scientists around or having them buried 6feet deep.
stefan @ May 5th 2008 8:53PM
Sword of god?
At least any such device is more likely to exist than a god.
Mark @ May 5th 2008 9:52PM
No. It's really not. Whereas it's been proven that there is no such thing as free energy, there has been no proof for or against a higher being. Thanks for being a dipshit. And for the record, I'm an atheist.
nikola @ May 6th 2008 12:42AM
Ummm you can't disprove a concept. I can build a rocket to take me to mars, and fail, and everyone would know that doesn't mean it can't ever exist. Anyone would say a man can never have a child, and yet on Oprah a couple weeks ago there was a man, pregnant. There is always a go-between.
Their may be future innovations that meet the properties of you classify as "free energy" but within the scope of known science. It may simply be sparked by the discover of a new field of science.
br0wnc0w @ May 6th 2008 1:54AM
Wow nikola did I just read that right? You are using a transexual as an example?
Reader @ May 6th 2008 2:15AM
Men currently can't have children. That's that. Just because we call him a man, doesn't make him one. I'm not 'hating' on anyone's life choices here, just saying, your genetics dictate your sex. Genetics kinda precede human law...
And on the 'you can't prove there's no god' deal... Of course you can't, because you can't prove there is one in the first place. There's nothing to prove. It's all faith at that point.
Both the device and god are in the same league, since they would require discovering a new dimension/force that is currently impossible to detect and seemingly has no effect on anything around us. Maybe someday, but breaking the laws of thermodynamics will forever be impossible. That's not the same as saying 'free energy' is forever impossible, though.
Ysleiro @ May 6th 2008 11:32AM
If there is a God then he is clearly the creator of time and space and all that we know. Wouldn't it be safe to say that he can choose to be outside/inside of space. How can human beings (beings that are restricted by time and space) understand or discover something wich is outside of what they can possibly understand.
Just because we can only detect (x) amount of dimensions doesn't mean there aren't others out there.
The way I see it, I choose to believe in God because I loose nothing by believing in him (technically speaking I'm playing it safe). You on the other hand might get back handed if he feels you disrespected.
webon @ May 6th 2008 11:24AM
@NIKOLA
You lost all credibility while citing Ophra
Mutant @ May 6th 2008 12:00PM
The handy thing about trying to detect god you can aways say god can't be detected by science. Just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster does when people use science to detect him. He is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage
Timothy Sottek @ May 5th 2008 8:53PM
Our stupidity footprint is catching up with carbon.
Twitchy @ May 5th 2008 8:55PM
I laffed so hard, I's now touchin cloff, I swer.
RG man @ May 5th 2008 9:04PM
At least this guy doesn't look, nor sound crazy.
flyby @ May 5th 2008 9:37PM
Correction, he looks like a serial killer. And while it would be really cool if it worked, he probably wouldn't be the first to discover it. Who knows, we'll have to wait and see
Christian G @ May 5th 2008 9:05PM
Perhaps he just wants to attract attention... but for what exactly? ... and who?
The Grand Master @ May 5th 2008 9:06PM
Despite the fact its impossible, yada yada yada, how funny would it be if he was right?
Would it appeal to no-one else's sense of humour or irony if he actually managed to make a free energy machine?
Blacksheep @ May 5th 2008 9:17PM
It would be funny. However, even if he "defeats science" and reality somehow and actually does this, he will probably be killed immediately by the oil companies, chopped into pieces and buried in the Devil Rays future stadium, with all of his plans and machine.
Bob @ May 5th 2008 10:27PM
Its the Tampa Bay Rays not Devil Rays you insensitive clod! :P
Sachiejones @ May 5th 2008 9:09PM
this guy looks like ron jeremy... and im sure you know what he means when he mentions the "sword of god"
Jherez @ May 5th 2008 10:09PM
Lol you did not just say that...
Brett @ May 5th 2008 9:10PM
Australian Nazis.......
[Googles]...
Wow seems like they did actually exist. But i doubt they would be smart enough to hack his emails.