He utterly dismisses the concept of "amphidromic points" without explaining why it's wrong. Even a cursory reading on the subject shows that several complex mechanisms are simultaneously in play:
The sun's tidal force on the earth.
The moon's tidal force on the earth.
Wave reflection off of coastlines.
Wave amplitude increase and propagation speed decrease as the wave passes over the continental shelf.
Each of these 4 effects creates its own wave pattern. What happens when you have different wave patterns in the same medium? They will constructively interfere at some points and destructively interfere at other points.
But Stolen History dismisses all of this because they think 1 small spot on the earth (New Zealand) doesn't conform. Not only does he not explain how New Zealand violates the principle of amphidromic points, even if he did demonstrate an anomaly, the presence of an anomaly does not discredit the entire theory. Of course, he also dismisses it all as "mainstream science", as if a fact's popularity or lack thereof determines its validity.
He then goes on to say that tides rotate around New Zealand "like a magnet". While magnetic fields can rotate, they do not have to. And just because A rotates like B does not mean that B causes A, or vice versa. This is such a weak argument that it doesn't even deserve to be called one.
Can water be moved with magnetism? Yes.
How strong of a magnetic field do you need? A minimum of 10 Tesla (T), and you need 16 Tesla to levitate a frog a few centimeters. Earth's magnetic field at sea level is 16 - 65 microTesla, about a million times weaker than that.
Earth's magnetic field is not strong enough to deflect any kind of diamagnetic material, and other forces (gravity, coriolis force, ocean currents, etc.) are going to overwhelm by several orders of magnitude any magnetic affect that could theoretically be present.
So not only does Stolen History make the colossal fallacy of assuming that one unproven anomaly discredits all the evidence in favor of gravitational tides, he doesn't even come close to providing a viable, testable, alternative explanation.
In other words, SH is not engaging in anything remotely approximating science. All he has are baseless accusations that the "mainstream" explanation is wrong and that his idea is right because (insert phenomenon here) "rotates like a magnet", even though magnets don't rotate unless an external force makes them. What external force is causing SH's magnet under New Zealand to rotate? No explanation is provided because it's a lot easier to spout of ideas than actually support them with evidence.
Moral of the story: when a website's premise is that substantial chunks of human history have been suppressed or erased (which is an untestable and unfalsifiable proposition), you can safely discredit any of their incoherent ramblings on any given subject.
‘Here's a crazy rabbit hole: Are there tides on inland bodies of water?
It turns out there are, but only when those bodies are SALTY. There are NO tides on freshwater bodies. And it appears that the saltier the body, the higher the tidal amplitude. There are NO tides in the great lakes (fresh) but observed tides in the dead sea, great salt lake, caspian sea, baltic and black seas.’
And I do believe there is enough evidence to prove that history has intentionally been misrepresented. The theories are at minimum q adjacent. Too many coincidences.
That site has a lot of people posting theories, some are easy to discredit, but there is a large amount that are incredible.
Thanks for putting so much thought into your response.
All done by me. Not a fan of AI since virtually all of them are heavily censored in what they can talk about. Plus I like forming my own opinions and doing my own research instead of Google telling me what I should think.
And it appears that the saltier the body, the higher the tidal amplitude.
This is contradicted by the amphidromic points that we discussed earlier. These points are places in the salty ocean where there is no net tidal rise since the forces involved effectively cancel each other out. So even salty bodies, or at least parts of them, can have virtually no tidally-induced motion.
There is another variable you are overlooking: size. The peak to trough distance of an (uninterrupted) tidal bulge is 1/4th the earth's diameter (about 10,000 km or 6,000 miles). Oceans are large enough to span these kinds of distances, so one side of the ocean is going to experience substantially different tidal forces than the other side at any given time. Even the largest lakes do not span a small fraction of these distances. Hence that differential in tidal force from one side to another is going to be smaller. A smaller difference in forces means a smaller net force on the water and, therefore, smaller tides.
Oceans are also all connected so the water can freely flow. This makes it easier for tidal waves to "follow" the moon. Lakes are landlocked and thus can't move as much.
In addition, one must also consider the effects of land tides. The earth's crust is pulled by tidal forces just like water is, just to a lesser degree. Land is more dense and can't flow or "pile up" like water can. Land tides have an average vertical movement of 30cm. So in the case of a landlocked lake, the crust supporting the lake rises and falls almost in tandem with the lake itself. Small relative motion between the land and the water once again results in smaller tides.
He has, in essence, built an infrared solar panel. Which is neat for the purposes of demonstrating that all objects emit some level of infrared radiation.
But he cites being able to charge your phone just by having it near your body. Let's see if that checks out.
The human body generates 40-220 watts per square meter from every day activities. Not all of that is going to be emitted as infrared, but let's say it is. Let's say you have a Monothermal device that is the same size as a power bank or smartphone. which according to Reddit is about 12.8 square inches for a 5.8" screen.
Plugging in all the numbers, this would generate 0.33 to 1.817 watts of power, or 0.33 to 1.817 Wh per hour. Smartphones burn through 6-7 Wh minimum, so at some point you have to recharge the phone anyway. Wall chargers and power banks employ much more power and are much more efficient than this set up despite being the same size or smaller.
Your Monothermal device would have to have a surface area of 0.0318 to 0.175 square meters, which are squares with side lengths of 17.8 and 41.8 cm respectively. You could carry those in your backpack, but not your pocket, and now the backpack is going to absorb a lot of that radiation and make the device less efficient.
We've been assuming that Monothermal works at 100% efficiency, which of course is impossible. Solar panels are 25% efficient at most at 25 C, and higher temperatures spell less efficiency. I don't see any reason why Monothermal doesn't behave the same way.
So far Lovell isn't necessarily wrong, just incredibly inefficient. He does go wrong by saying that his device "creates" energy. He may not have meant it that way, but that kind of phrasing has apparently caused multiple free energy communities to latch on to his company as the next energy revolution. As a general rule, when "free energy" types get hyped about something, it turns out to be a dud.
He also goes wrong by saying that his device works without a temperature differential. The photons of infrared released by the human body have to have a higher energy level than the electrons in the device in order for the device to receive energy. Otherwise either no energy transfer would happen at all, or the device itself emits its own infrared and loses energy. Since photon energy levels emitted by black bodies are proportional to that body's physical temperature (which is a decent enough approximation for any room temperature to human temperature object), his device must be stay colder than a human to extract energy from said human. But if it is in contact with the human to get the infrared, it will naturally warm up and rapidly lose its ability to extract useful energy. At best he is imprecise with how he uses scientific terms, at worse he doesn't understand basic concepts of thermodynamics.
His site has a chart detailing how much power Monothermal generates at each ambient temperature, but it does not show who tested it or what methodology they used. Some independent testing from multiple labs or end users would be nice.
At the end of the day, trying to capture and reuse waste energy or ambient heat will only get you so far. No process is 100% efficient; there will always be waste heat no matter what you do. Sometimes waste heat can be put to good use; Teslas use regenerative breaking, and combustion engines use some of their excess heat to heat the air in your cabin when you turn the heater on. But some applications are just too inefficient or impractical for certain use cases. Which is probably why Monothermal hasn't caught on anywhere and all of its testing data is from 20+ years ago.
No, this is not a good explanation at all.
He utterly dismisses the concept of "amphidromic points" without explaining why it's wrong. Even a cursory reading on the subject shows that several complex mechanisms are simultaneously in play:
Each of these 4 effects creates its own wave pattern. What happens when you have different wave patterns in the same medium? They will constructively interfere at some points and destructively interfere at other points.
But Stolen History dismisses all of this because they think 1 small spot on the earth (New Zealand) doesn't conform. Not only does he not explain how New Zealand violates the principle of amphidromic points, even if he did demonstrate an anomaly, the presence of an anomaly does not discredit the entire theory. Of course, he also dismisses it all as "mainstream science", as if a fact's popularity or lack thereof determines its validity.
He then goes on to say that tides rotate around New Zealand "like a magnet". While magnetic fields can rotate, they do not have to. And just because A rotates like B does not mean that B causes A, or vice versa. This is such a weak argument that it doesn't even deserve to be called one.
Can water be moved with magnetism? Yes.
How strong of a magnetic field do you need? A minimum of 10 Tesla (T), and you need 16 Tesla to levitate a frog a few centimeters. Earth's magnetic field at sea level is 16 - 65 microTesla, about a million times weaker than that.
Earth's magnetic field is not strong enough to deflect any kind of diamagnetic material, and other forces (gravity, coriolis force, ocean currents, etc.) are going to overwhelm by several orders of magnitude any magnetic affect that could theoretically be present.
So not only does Stolen History make the colossal fallacy of assuming that one unproven anomaly discredits all the evidence in favor of gravitational tides, he doesn't even come close to providing a viable, testable, alternative explanation.
In other words, SH is not engaging in anything remotely approximating science. All he has are baseless accusations that the "mainstream" explanation is wrong and that his idea is right because (insert phenomenon here) "rotates like a magnet", even though magnets don't rotate unless an external force makes them. What external force is causing SH's magnet under New Zealand to rotate? No explanation is provided because it's a lot easier to spout of ideas than actually support them with evidence.
Moral of the story: when a website's premise is that substantial chunks of human history have been suppressed or erased (which is an untestable and unfalsifiable proposition), you can safely discredit any of their incoherent ramblings on any given subject.
Sources on tides and amphidromic points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphidromic_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_in_marginal_seas https://www.briangwilliams.us/marine-ecology/tides.html https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/11-2-dynamic-theory-of-tides/
Sources on diamagnetic levitation and the magnetic field strength required: https://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation-explained/diamagnetic-levitation/ https://www.hellovaia.com/explanations/physics/electricity-and-magnetism/diamagnetic-levitation/ https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=diamagnetic-levitation http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/earthmag.html
This is a good write up. Was it by you or an ai?
What did you think about this portion?
‘Here's a crazy rabbit hole: Are there tides on inland bodies of water?
It turns out there are, but only when those bodies are SALTY. There are NO tides on freshwater bodies. And it appears that the saltier the body, the higher the tidal amplitude. There are NO tides in the great lakes (fresh) but observed tides in the dead sea, great salt lake, caspian sea, baltic and black seas.’
And I do believe there is enough evidence to prove that history has intentionally been misrepresented. The theories are at minimum q adjacent. Too many coincidences.
That site has a lot of people posting theories, some are easy to discredit, but there is a large amount that are incredible.
Thanks for putting so much thought into your response.
All done by me. Not a fan of AI since virtually all of them are heavily censored in what they can talk about. Plus I like forming my own opinions and doing my own research instead of Google telling me what I should think.
This is contradicted by the amphidromic points that we discussed earlier. These points are places in the salty ocean where there is no net tidal rise since the forces involved effectively cancel each other out. So even salty bodies, or at least parts of them, can have virtually no tidally-induced motion.
There is another variable you are overlooking: size. The peak to trough distance of an (uninterrupted) tidal bulge is 1/4th the earth's diameter (about 10,000 km or 6,000 miles). Oceans are large enough to span these kinds of distances, so one side of the ocean is going to experience substantially different tidal forces than the other side at any given time. Even the largest lakes do not span a small fraction of these distances. Hence that differential in tidal force from one side to another is going to be smaller. A smaller difference in forces means a smaller net force on the water and, therefore, smaller tides.
Oceans are also all connected so the water can freely flow. This makes it easier for tidal waves to "follow" the moon. Lakes are landlocked and thus can't move as much.
In addition, one must also consider the effects of land tides. The earth's crust is pulled by tidal forces just like water is, just to a lesser degree. Land is more dense and can't flow or "pile up" like water can. Land tides have an average vertical movement of 30cm. So in the case of a landlocked lake, the crust supporting the lake rises and falls almost in tandem with the lake itself. Small relative motion between the land and the water once again results in smaller tides.
Despite all this, tides actually have been measured at freshwater lakes; they're just smaller. Lake Ontario has 5cm tides. Source: https://www.rochesterfirst.com/weather/weather-blog/fact-or-fiction-do-our-great-lakes-have-tides-like-the-ocean/
Thank you for correcting me. What do you think about the Lovell Monothermal, I’d value your opinion on it.
http://www.lovellpatentedtechnology.com/monothermal/what_is_monothermal.html
He has, in essence, built an infrared solar panel. Which is neat for the purposes of demonstrating that all objects emit some level of infrared radiation.
But he cites being able to charge your phone just by having it near your body. Let's see if that checks out.
The human body generates 40-220 watts per square meter from every day activities. Not all of that is going to be emitted as infrared, but let's say it is. Let's say you have a Monothermal device that is the same size as a power bank or smartphone. which according to Reddit is about 12.8 square inches for a 5.8" screen.
Plugging in all the numbers, this would generate 0.33 to 1.817 watts of power, or 0.33 to 1.817 Wh per hour. Smartphones burn through 6-7 Wh minimum, so at some point you have to recharge the phone anyway. Wall chargers and power banks employ much more power and are much more efficient than this set up despite being the same size or smaller.
Your Monothermal device would have to have a surface area of 0.0318 to 0.175 square meters, which are squares with side lengths of 17.8 and 41.8 cm respectively. You could carry those in your backpack, but not your pocket, and now the backpack is going to absorb a lot of that radiation and make the device less efficient.
We've been assuming that Monothermal works at 100% efficiency, which of course is impossible. Solar panels are 25% efficient at most at 25 C, and higher temperatures spell less efficiency. I don't see any reason why Monothermal doesn't behave the same way.
So far Lovell isn't necessarily wrong, just incredibly inefficient. He does go wrong by saying that his device "creates" energy. He may not have meant it that way, but that kind of phrasing has apparently caused multiple free energy communities to latch on to his company as the next energy revolution. As a general rule, when "free energy" types get hyped about something, it turns out to be a dud.
He also goes wrong by saying that his device works without a temperature differential. The photons of infrared released by the human body have to have a higher energy level than the electrons in the device in order for the device to receive energy. Otherwise either no energy transfer would happen at all, or the device itself emits its own infrared and loses energy. Since photon energy levels emitted by black bodies are proportional to that body's physical temperature (which is a decent enough approximation for any room temperature to human temperature object), his device must be stay colder than a human to extract energy from said human. But if it is in contact with the human to get the infrared, it will naturally warm up and rapidly lose its ability to extract useful energy. At best he is imprecise with how he uses scientific terms, at worse he doesn't understand basic concepts of thermodynamics.
His site has a chart detailing how much power Monothermal generates at each ambient temperature, but it does not show who tested it or what methodology they used. Some independent testing from multiple labs or end users would be nice.
At the end of the day, trying to capture and reuse waste energy or ambient heat will only get you so far. No process is 100% efficient; there will always be waste heat no matter what you do. Sometimes waste heat can be put to good use; Teslas use regenerative breaking, and combustion engines use some of their excess heat to heat the air in your cabin when you turn the heater on. But some applications are just too inefficient or impractical for certain use cases. Which is probably why Monothermal hasn't caught on anywhere and all of its testing data is from 20+ years ago.