Shameless self promotion.
SOURCE:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/315207-apple-analysts-perpetually-clueless
-
-
-
Nicu
While you generally cannot extend a rule like $5k / sq. ft. just like that, in this high traffic (and high median income) place, they may do even more. Especially that now they let you scan an item with your iPhone (+equivalents), pay with iTunes, and then grab it and leave, the flow should be much improved.
http://www.grandcentralterminal.com/info/demographics.cfm-
Birra
Your link depicts some amazing demographics. Having departed the station myself some years ago for an interview in White Plains I can attest to the apparent abundance of expendable income.
-
-
Birra
Interesting how closely this correlates using the number of employees assuming a reasonable salary.
300 x ($481,000 – $50,000) = $129,300,000
http://www.asymco.com/2011/12/08/how-productive-is-an-apple-store-employee/
-
-
For @rastard and @sb. The party is finally over for Apple. It was inevitable that Android’s superiority would cause developers to leave for greener pastures. Sell now.
-
SB
Funny. Even funnier, now I am apparently being lumped in with rastard as a pro-android zealot. A case of “if you ain’t with us, you’re agin us”.
-
conshmillo
Thing with the Android app development is that Android users are are not spenders. Developers for the same amount of work make much less developing for Android than by developing for iPhone. Apple users are usually well off and willing to pay more for a good product. It is much better demographic group for commercial success. It’s kind of Nordstrom/Wallmart equation. Android is going for volume and cheap where Apple is going for smaller more targeted group that is better off and can spend easier. So even if numbers are bigger for Android it doesn’t mean much in sales as Android must sell more of everything to earn the same amount as Apple does with smaller volumes. Also, if you read “10 Billion Android Applications Downloaded Means Nothing” at Forbes, you can see that Android numbers aren’t that clear either. Google is not stupid but I believe they stretched themselves too wide going into the Android and they will eventually pay for it.
10 Billion Android Applications Downloaded Means Nothing
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2011/12/07/10-billion-android-application-downloaded-means-nothing/
-
-
Windows deja vu! Ars is not pro Apple so even had to make the title accurate.
-
rastard
Err – back in 2009, researchers already presented a similar Botnet proof of concept — using iPhones: (http://mulliner.org/collin/academic/publications/ibots_malware10_mulliner_seifert.pdf)
Also, the original title was [more] accurate to begin with. In your usual enthusiasm to bash Android — you apparently missed this gem in the current article:
“Weidman said that on iOS devices, a similar botnet could potentially be distributed as part of a “jailbreak” package.”
-
Nicu
That’s why Apple does not encourage jailbraking. Have you ever heard of a corrupted system being safe ? Nobody can protect users from their active stupidity.
-
Birra
The rantings of a petulant child as @nicu so correctly pointed out. Yes if you are truly stupid you can jailbreak your iPhone and join the other petulant children. But most of us grow up and choose to throw away childish things. But toddle if you must.
-
rastard
The irony here is rich. You resorting to ad hominem attacks… like a child would — while calling me a toddler.
Would it have been too much for you to simply admit that all smartphone platforms can be susceptible to botnets under specific conditions? That’s exactly what Researcher Weidman did…
-
SB
Come on, Birra – name calling does not belong on this board – leave that for the Google board. Though you may find him irritating, it is clear Rastard is not stupid, or even childish. He is typically the only one who posts here who has a counterpoint to the pro-Apple sentiment which is typically expressed here, and does so reasonably well.
-
-
-
JPWatkins
“. . . simply admit that all smartphone platforms can be susceptible to botnets under specific conditions? That’s exactly what Researcher Weidman did…”
Not really.
When the “specific condition” is a design decision of the product and it is “susceptible” out of the box,” it’s not the same as when the user has deliberately created the “specific condition” by removing designed in security measures so as to create the “susceptibility.”
Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with childish name calling. -
rastard
and it is “susceptible” out of the box,”
1) Citation needed.
2) There’s little difference between an iPhone user casually choosing to jailbreak their phone without considering the potential repercussions of doing so, and an Android user casually choosing to install apps without considering the potential repercussions of doing so. The Android Market is replete with user reviews for each app, and also provides a clear statement of the permissions and access that each app had access to. Whether jailbreaking or choosing to install apps with broad/unnecessary permissions, users have deliberately chosen to make their phones vulnerable. Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a pretentious ass.
3) Every year, Macs and Safari seem to get hacked faster than all competing platforms at Pwn2own. Similarly, security researchers seem to regularly release reports calling out vulnerabilities in Apple produces which result in Apple bashers crawling out of the woodwork to claim that Macs aren’t secure. In response to those claims (and rightly so) people here immediately jump to Apple’s defense pointing out that these are merely proofs of concepts, research findings, and theoretical vulnerabilities, not real-world epidemics.
Yet when it’s Android and not Apple, these same proofs of concept, research findings, and theoretical vulnerabilities are all of a sudden real-world epidemics. Fanboy bias much? Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a… well… a fanboy.
-
JPWatkins
Rastard,
As often is the case, I pity your post, which reeks of desperation.
1.) The only citation needed is reality and critical thinking skills.
2.) Although your whole world view seems to rest on this point, it made me laugh out loud and is truly unworthy of any response. If you really believe this, we are scratching our heads in wonder. But if you are just saying it, how can we in good conscience read anything you post in the future?
3.) First, get the slightest smidgen of a basic education in critical reasoning. Then read the most basic information on electronic security. Finally, discard your obvious preexisting agenda and using your newly acquired skills, carefully read the facts around these accounts. You will discover that despite all the smoke and noise around theoretical and “proof of concept” hacks of OS X and iOS, the reality is, these platforms have never been exploited in any way (although third party software has sometimes produced vectors of exploitation.) Further, in actual “real world” computing, neither OS X nor iOS has never proven vulnerable to any exploit, (although OS X, users have occasionally succumbed to “social engineering” techniques.) One word in your assertion stands out, ” . . . Macs and Safari ***seem*** to get hacked faster than all competing platforms . . . ”
-
RE: your parting paragraph
You of course ignore the fact that I have not sensationalized or even posted anything about Android vulnerabilities. Yet you gleefully lash out at me. Nonetheless, there are many documented cases where both Android system vulnerabilities and the feral “system” of Android software distribution has caused serious harm to users “in the wild.” This is not “theoretical,” “research,” or “proof of concept.” It’s just a natural consequence of Google’s design and engineering decisions.-
rastard
“and it is “susceptible” out of the box,”
1) I’ll say again, citation needed. I’d like to see one reference from this security researcher’s findings (or any other for that manner) that indicates that Android phones are susceptible to botnets right out of the box (i.e. without a user having installed an app).
“The only citation needed is reality and critical thinking skills”
Evaluation and analysis of evidence is actually foundational to Critical Thinking. Your unwillingness to provide any evidence makes it clear that you don’t know the first thing about critical thinking, else you wouldn’t have offered up such a recursive response. You can hide behind all of the long-winded smokescreens and grandiose assertions about your superior intellect that you want, but all those do is reveal you to be a coward without the cognitive ability or critical reasoning skills to actually engage in a reasoned discussion.
2) Your basic reading comprehension apparently is lacking as well, because my point 3 above already stated that the theoretical security risks identified by researchers don’t actually manifest in real-world epidemics.
3) “You of course ignore the fact that I have not sensationalized or even posted anything about Android vulnerabilities”.
In your post just prior, you claimed that Android is “susceptible” [to botnets] out of the box”. That’s a post about Android vulnerabilities. Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a liar…
-
-
JPWatkins
People who read more than just blog headlines and who also have basic critical reasoning skills may find this recent academic article on smartphone malware of interest.
-
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~afelt/mobilemalware.pdf
-
The authors state in their introduction, “Our survey encompasses all known iOS, Symbian, and Android malware that spread between January 2009 and June 2011. We collected information about 46 pieces of malware in this time period: 4 for iOS, 24 for Symbian, and 18 for Android.”
-
And in the conclusion, “We also observed that none of the malware in our data set was approved by the Apple App Store, which indicates that human review may be an effective preventative measure for malware.”
-
[That's *zero* malware in the wild on unbroken iOS devices and 18 (and rapidly rising) on any Android device.]-
Nicu
Scientific data and discoveries never had any influence on religious people (regarding their object of cult).
-
rastard
Wow. I never thought I’d see the day where you would acknowledge that you were disregarding data and evidence because of your cultist affection to Apple. That’s really great!
Recognition is the first step to recovery…
-
Nicu
You got is, smart boy !
-
-
-
-
JPWatkins
Very true.
I can’t tell for sure if Rastard is religious about Android. It could be he “makes a religion” of something else, but I not sure what—contrariness, conflict, trolling, or maybe just a desire to “win,” “be right,” or be a “lone, rugged, individualist voice, alone on the frontier.” Or maybe it’s just what you say. I don’t know. -
rastard
Here’s a question perhaps you can answer. Have you ever posted *anything* here critical of Apple, or complimentary of Android in any way?
-
-
Some very interesting math which @nicu might appreciate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/nov/25/apple-tablet-context-npd
-
Nicu
One should also read this (linked in the article)
http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/fun_with_numbersIt doesn’t surprise me that analysts still don’t get it, nor that iPad is doing very well
http://seekingalpha.com/article/289447-there-is-no-tablet-market-only-an-ipad-market -
Birra
Thanks for the links @nicu. Your article is very absorbing and has one of the best comment discussions I’ve ever seen, lots of intelligent comments pro and con.
Anecdote:
I’ve been yearning to play the guitar for years, but it’s just too daunting. If I can’t get started quickly and see progress, I give up (not a good trait, but not unusual either). So a year ago I bought a top rated but inexpensive model along with a few books and picks. The first step was to tune it. Fail!
So it gathered dust until last evening when I came across GuiTune. Off came the dust literally. Sat in my favorite chair, put the iPad on the sounding board, and successfully tuned it in minutes. Of course on my first try I tuned it upside down. A quick reversal tune and I was on my way. Used the web to find a few Buddy Holly songs with accompanying chords and finger placements and I actually made some music. Being able to have the iPad sitting right on guitar was ‘magical’.
If only there was an app to callous my fingers. But I’ve now begun which was all I needed. The old saying “Once begun half done.” fits me and most others.
-
Birra
I also picked up GarageBand. Wow, for $5 dollars, it’s amazing. The Smart Guitar allows me to play when my fingers are too sore for the real thing.
My wife is slow to warm up to technology, but after taking the iPad 3G on a road trip where she loved navigating with maps (usable but needs the Apple touch) and looking at pictures of our first grandchild things have changed. She is an accomplished pianist who just had her mind blown by GarageBand. I’m awaiting the iPad 3 so I don’t have to fight with her for possession.
-
Nicu
Thanks
-
-
-
A post just for @rastard.
My take is like MDN. He thought that Apple Retail Stores would flop. In reality they are the single biggest factor in Apple’s growth. We don’t need Jimmy Carter as chairman of the bored (spelling purposeful).
-
Birra
Oh oh, just remembered I met this guy while doing a security review for Genentech. Milk toast personified!
-
Birra
Sorry, that was Amgen, mind is slowly eroding. My son worked for Genentech before he decided to spend his life playing video games. Finally made better money with the latter after starting as a lowly hourly tester. Was tough to give up the monster dollars for awhile.
-
-
rastard
Heh, I actually don’t think of Apple (the company) as being arrogant. Nor do I find their employees to be (I know loads of engineers who work there, and while they’re all *very* good (and justifiably would have reason to be arrogant), they’re all generally pretty humble and balanced).
The “pretentious, arrogant and supercilious douchebags” I previous referred to tend to simply be hardcore Apple fanboys — who unlike the Apple employees, generally have no foundation or accomplishment to justify it.
-
Birra
Not guilty, I did something worthwhile once, I think.
-
-
Richard
This is indeed a bit worrisome. We had a Professor who was a genius: whatever you proposed, he could spell out detailed valid reasons why it would not work. He was very, very, good, and never supported anything. Such people are dangerous. I hope AAPL is not in trouble with a wet blanket.
-
rastard
Before we continue to assassinate Levinson’s suitability for Apple based on 1 single position of his, it might be worth looking into what his other positions have been. Here’s one:
“He was one of the key people pushing for Apple to open up the iPhone to an App Store. “I called [Steve Jobs] a half dozen times to lobby for the potential of the apps,” Levinson told Isaacson. Jobs was reluctant to do an App Store because he didn’t want people mucking around with the iPhone.”
-
-
Apparently this is a reincarnation of RIMs failure. But many customers will waste $200 before realization sets in. Meanwhile AAPL will have to wait until Apple quarterly results arrive.
An aside are the predictable stories that battery life is still a problem. If you actually go to the Apple discussion forum you’ll find that very few folks were having problems to begin with and even fewer now. I won’t provide a link since bloggers are now using the numbers of views as their criteria as opposed to posts.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/14/amazon-kindle-fire-review/
-
Birra
I should have noted that the Kindle Ash is US only thus even less significant.
-
Birra
Oh, a telling moment will be Amazon’s quarterly report. The revelation that loss leaders seldom work will further take the PE from the rarified to the ridiculous.
-
Birra
The killer announcement will come along with the intro of the iPad 3. The iPad 2 will continue starting at $399. The Kindle Ash has set a losing price point for Android tablets. These two events will be huge.
-
Birra
Most complete review of the Ash and yes that’s the gist. Fun to read the Apple hateboy comments. Someone recently analyzed comments regarding the iPhone 4S battery life and concluded that 2/3rds came from Android fanboys, no surprise there.
-
Nicu
-
rastard
There are actually *some* positive reviews in there, that don’t agree with Birra’s assessment. Did you actually mean to post that?
-
Nicu
I do not mind when Apple’s competition does a good thing. The only good thing Fire achieves is a low price. And that will appeal to many people. But Amazon will suffer in the short term because they sell it at a loss. And many users are cheapskates (if not freetards) and Amazon will not recover their losses with those people. AMZN’s P/E is more than eight times that of AAPL’s. Apple’s profits grew more than 80% y/y and Amazon’s are shrinking and they may incur a loss this quarter.
I do not have enough margin right now (I own only calls and one sub-$1 stock and have been investing hard in those lately so not much cash left), but 2x short AMZN + buy AAPL is the closest you’ll ever get to an arbitrage (make money with no risk), if you can wait for it 6m-1y.
-
-
-
Birra
Further evidence that the Kindle Ash is really the Android Killer. Developers will gravitate to volume. But as @nicu indicated, these customers cheapskates, they will not pay for apps let alone Amazon Prime. Never were potential iPad buyers.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/11/14/kindle.fire.tops.in.android.devs.ios.still.ahead/
-
Birra
BTW, I buy a lot from Amazon, just got my wife a new sewing machine, she loves it and I love the price, no sales tax, and no postage. But never bit on Amazon Prime, offers me nothing except Amazon surpressing other sellers from their searches.
-
-
Birra
“All eyes are on the Amazon Kindle Fire to provide fresh competition for Apple’s iPad 2, today’s dominant tablet,” Melissa J. Perenson reports for PCWorld. “Not so fast: Beneath the Kindle Fire’s slick veneer and unparalleled shopping integration lies a tablet that fails to impress as either a tablet or as an e-reader.”
-
JPWatkins
I think the Kindle fire will be very successful in its own right, just not against the iPad.
They just aren’t competitors. as they are very different and occupy very different niches.-
Birra
Interesting that the Fire is a US only play as is the Nook, yet it seemingly is having world wide ramifications. Seems that the stock market hasn’t figured that it’s a net positive for Apple.
-
Birra
@JP you might want to rethink the possible success of the Ash. The developer of Instapaper reviews it and it’s not pretty.
-
JPWatkins
@birra,
No, I think you misunderstand me. It will be successful as a Kindle Fire, but probably not as a tablet. It’s just not a tablet. It’s in a separate class of some kind—”Reader +”(?)—but definitely not a real tablet. If it works well as a reader and does a few other things decently, while still being cheap, I see a lot of Kindle users going for it. (For a power reader though, it seems like it would be a sacrifice to give up that crisp, monochrome, e-ink screen.)
-
-
-
Nicu
I usually find MDN a bit childish in their comments, but here they got the best excerpts and reasonable observations
http://macdailynews.com/2011/12/05/usability-expert-jakob-nielsen-tests-amazons-tiny-screen-kindle-fire-a-disappointingly-poor-user-experience/
-
-
TSLA new all time high @33.45!
-
conshmillo
another new ATH @34.50!!
@nicu, I think they are officially running -
Nicu
I didn’t have internet Friday, traveling in Australia. Now I get my fix of wi-fi on a ferry in Sydney. I see volume was huge. I really hope this is just a preparation for the tsunami next week. Cheers, have a nice week-end all.
-
Nicu
Back “home” in Canberra. TSLA ATH $36.42 in Nov ’10 . I wonder if more selling pressure will be exerted around this value.
-
conshmillo
Forgot TSLA was already above 36. It’s a result of me not looking at charts older than 3 months. Yeah, I am sure it will hit some resistance there. Will need probably need few attempts and continuing good news to get past that.
-
conshmillo
MACD still at decent angle, but stochastic is way too overbought, I think this is going into the pullback from here for now. (33.64 at time of this post)
-
-
-
-
AAPL at lowest P/E in modern era (last 5 or more years) at 13.95 (the lowest was 13.98 from last quarter when it was a bit over $350).
So if anyone regrets not buying at $350 last quarter, or at $310 in June or at $78 two years and a half ago, here is your best bargain ever.
-
Birra
Is this due to Cramer’s double speak for his ‘Charitable Trust’?
http://macdailynews.com/2011/11/09/jim-cramer-times-have-changed-for-apple-stock/
-
Nicu
If a TV clown can push a $350B market cap 5% in two days, this is one shitty stock !!!
-
Birra
Another guess would be the stories that the Kindle Fire is stealing iPad sales. Unfortunately people forget that Amazon is US only. Expect Amazon’s loss leader approach is going to get very expensive.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/kindle-fire-seen-slowing-some-previously-planned-ipad-purchases/
-
conshmillo
What happened is AAPL broke it’s 50 day EMA on dailies and that pushed it through the major support line at around $390. What you want to watch for now is whether enveloping DJIA can hold it’s own 50 day EMA. Which is currently around 11,650. Right now it’s above it. If it holds, we should bounce and continue higher, if it doesn’t we could see same kind of drop on DJIA. EUR/USD already cracked. S&P500 futures are still holding same as DJIA. They all tend to move in tandem, so it’s kind of 50/50 chance now it will hold.
-
Birra
Thanks @Consh. As a math major I understand the numbers involved and the theory and I’m fine with applying a formula to a natural phenomena. But I have great difficulty believing that the value of a stock is in any way related to natural occurrences. It seems that it is more a matter of everyone using the same criteria to create a self fulfilling result. This in not intended to be contentious but simply an observation.
-
Nicu
Actually, the reasons why a rule is (most of the time) is verified are not so important as long as knowing and using the phenomenon works (not being a fundamental law induces a risk of the rule breaking at some point). You may be aware that our brains are flawed (most of the time for good reasons, like a blind spot in our eyes where we do not see a “hole”, the brain just fools us that we see everything), and most flaws in our logic are common. Those common flaws can give rise to “laws” of numbers in the market. Of course, until smart enough people will figure out ways to detect and avoid those flaws. When those who know are the majority, the laws will probably change. But waiting for half of the population to be super-intelligent and fully aware of their flaws and disciplined enough to take the right actions may take a veeeeery long time
-
Birra
@nicu you’ve made sense out of nonsense. Think I’ll move to the British Isles where they drive on the intelligent side of the road.
-
Nicu
-
conshmillo
Looks like a good read. Basically key to continuous success in life is asking self “what don’t I feel like doing today but I know is a right thing to do and then doing it.
On another note, vast majority people don’t do that so why anyone expects markets to be rational?
-
-
-
conshmillo
It is most definitely self fulfilling process. What happens is that traders (for big firms and independent) place stops in certain areas based on previous activity mirrored in chart. Some of them, like previous support lines or 50 day and 200 averages are more popular than others. So naturally traders will have more stop loss orders in these areas. (It’s like having more red pins in some places on the map) So what often time happens is when price gets close to these areas more and more stops gets executed and avalanche results. You can NOT actually tell if it will or will not go over. But what you can do is to recognize those areas and know that ODDS of something happening are increased. That itself ads to the self full filing prophecy as you too may take precautions steps. Then you have to devise a plan how to benefit from this POSSIBLE occurrences.
So this is more about the behavior than math.
A little more ranting. In general going under support line on price chart is considered weakening. There are traders that want to get out at the first sign of this weakening. But not every trader considers enveloping and correlating factors in their decisions. If NASDAQ is on the verge of breakout to the upside and AMZN is on the verge of going under of it’s most recent support line, AMZN drop will be probably short lived if NASDAQ will break out. I think best success is achieved when all possible enveloping and correlating technicals are considered.
-
-
-
Kit
Can anyone speak to the rumors of lessening iPad and iPhone demand? I’ve read plenty of anecdotal evidence that seems to show strong demand for the iPhone, but a couple of recent reports tell of Apple cutting back. As an investor that certainly worries me. Also, at other times of weakness in the stock, I’ve seen that money was flowing in, meaning that some were buying the dips. But not yesterday.
-
Birra
Apparently you can take what @Consh and @nicu have taught us and add FUD to arrive at our present situation. The intellect of most investors appears to be much the same as that of your average barbershop. The herd mentality forces them to treat all stocks in a uniform manner relying on a few lead sheep to guide them to better grazing.
So if you can plant a few stories like reduction in orders and the Kindle Fire sucking up potential iPad customers you can knock it down quite easily. Of course behind it all are those who make a ton by selling short which further depresses the stock. Those same short sellers will acquire your shares when it gets appropriately low making another ton with the ultimate slingshot stock.
So you are left with two options; use the knowledge that these are sheep and simply predict their path like @Consh and @nicu or stay long.
-
Kit
Here’s an idea: What we need is a site where people can go to report on how their local Apple store seems to be doing. Are products sitting on the shelves or flying out the doors? Do crowds appear to be thinning? No bit of data could be trusted on its own but in aggregate it might well prove useful and help people like Nicu better estimate earnings.
Who wants to set up this project for me?
-
conshmillo
That’s what technicals are for. You can see in them ALL that is happening not just traffic in the stores.
-
conshmillo
Right now euro, DJIA, and /ES (s&p500 futures) started their stochastic upswing and they are headed for another possible resistance line breakout on dailies. (before yesterday it looked 50/50). AAPL getting close to 20% on stochastic and MACD not having too terrible angle, I would expect it to start gaining again.
-
Birra
Good call @consh. If you have time, please continue a little play by play.
-
Kit
How would technicals capture this?
-
conshmillo
You may have a way of quantifying what’s going in retail stores, but that still doesn’t give you idea what shorters are doing, insiders are acting upon, news around the world are writing about Apple, etc. etc.
Price movement is reflection of total inputs combined. It’s a composite picture of all things that are happening. TA is a way of reading them.
-
Kit
I see what you are getting at but cannot understand on what grounds you would reject additional information. If I had access to Apple’s real-time sales figures, I think I could turn that into profitable trades. Sure, it does not tell me about the market and its participants, but it would prove invaluable information nonetheless. But perhaps I’m missing your point somehow.
-
-
-
-
-
-
You were right, Vilo, this is Apple all over again: “design by committee”, “form over function”, “a beautiful advanced alien artifact that arrived in the middle of the night.”
SOURCE:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/bucking-trends-tesla-goes-it-alone-on-plug-design/-
Nicu
When they will not be able to satisfy demand with Model S, buyers will be labeled as “religious”, “sheep” etc. because some idiots with big mouths just don’t get it.
-
conshmillo
If you read Jalopnik, any mention of electric car usually sparks hateful dismissive reaction. They still can’t make the distinction between DIY crappy design amateur made egg shell EV and real EV automaker that puts a lot of thought in every detail like Tesla. Degree of hate of some posters tells me they feel real threatened by it. Not sure why. Maybe it has political connotations and they fear that they would have to admit that global warming is for real. Most parroted argument I read is that electric cars are not really green because electricity is made from coal. I mean how much not going to where puck is going you have to be with backward thinking like that. Stop using !@#$% coal, turn Nevada desert into one giant solar power plant and be done with it. Another one is battery capacity. I don’t think they will eventually even run on batteries. But for time being two directions are happening. There are new ways of increasing the battery capacity popping up in tech magazines every days. On other side there are new advances in utilizing same amount of energy and getting more out of it. Regenerative breaking is one of them, electric energy from shock absorbers is another. And more are coming. There is huge “overunity” movement out there, and although classically trained members of religion of non-evolving science don’t believe in that stuff because of the existing laws of thermodynamics and such, I am 100% convinced that over unity devices are coming (in their autonomous form) as you can see them occurring already in nature. One just has to look.
-
Nicu
I hope you’re not talking about perpetual motion :p
This is not a case of science evolving, the nature should change its laws. Scientists are not investing rules and formulas, they are only learning (discovering) how the nature works. We do get it wrong sometimes, but not at that basic level anymore – otherwise the whole academic establishment would not worth a rat’s ass, but I can assure you this is not the case.-
conshmillo
What do you think are waves if not perpetual motion. It’s just not portable. Someone who really doesn’t want to see it that way will say that equipment you’ll have to use to elicit energy from the waves will wear off, therefor it’s not perpetual motion. Whatever makes them happy. And yes, overunity means you’ll get more out than you’ll put in.
-
Nicu
They are just leftovers from the thermal energy we get from the sun via radiation, just like wind, rain (thus hydroelectricity) etc.
-
Nicu
Even tidal waves, are from gravity of the Sun / Moon, so when we get the waves, the system loses kinetic energy (they are globally moving slower) so we get this energy as waves. All basic mechanical and thermal questions are answered and form a very solid and coherent system.
What we don’t know, are the limits: what happens on the boundary of the black holes, near the speed of light, is there some black matter that fills the universe etc.
The easiest path to (almost) infinite clean energy on Earth is to control fusion, that is, make the same thing that happens in the Sun, but in a controlled way so that we can get energy out. The other is solar power, but the economics and specifics (latitude, weather, night, energy transport, Chinese subsidies / strategy etc.) are killing us for the time being.
-
Nicu
That’s why I was quite excited about General Fusion (I hope I have shared the link), a startup that tries to do exactly that. They hope to have a functioning prototype of fusion machine that produces a little more energy than it consumes (a huge milestone) in about 3-4 years. Once you have that, everybody will knock at their door with mountains of cash (or they get killed).
-
-
conshmillo
-
Nicu
I’m aware that there are hundreds of approaches to energy. I was just talking about the Holy Grail of the industry, huge rapidly replicable energy source, independently of the region, climate, underground resources etc. You only need water for the turbines, but once you have unlimited energy, everything becomes possible.
-
conshmillo
not enough “reply” levels
I believe the final answer is wave-oscillation in combination with permanent magnets.
-
-
conshmillo
For me important part is that it’s there for taking. Whether the original cause is moon or thermal energy from the sun doesn’t matter so much. What matter is that it does exist in nature. Scale it down, replicate it and you have portable “autonomous” unit. But I do believe in other ways, like ever-increasing oscillation. Tesla was know to shake buildings with this. So no matter what scientific definition of origins is, I am interested only in the end result. Can you get out more than you’ve put in? When I provide 1 unit of energy to get things going (let’s say by pedaling), and nature provides 4 units of energy for free (wind,waves,sun,magnets etc.) in the end I’ll end up with overunity because although I had to spend 1 unit of energy, nature provided back many times over units of energy. Most basic example is the sail. You have to provide certain energy to get it at the right angle and hold it there. Then wind, with having the sail at the right angle will provide the rest. Overunity.
-
Nicu
That’s what I’m saying. You cannot get more than what you put in. Buildings or bridges that collapse is because by steady accumulation of energy, you make it oscillate at its specific resonance frequency and it just breaks down. It’s a weakness in some structures, not more energy than you put in. You could try to harness the infinitesimal energy in some small unit of volume and try to move a car. But it’s much less than putting solar panels on a Model S. A simple calculation shows that pedals would give more energy than the solar panels.
So what I say, instead of assuming there is a hidden energy and spend 100s of years searching for it (we can do that in parallel), let’s just try to squeeze the energy in a gram of hydrogen isotopes that would power New York for several days (maybe years, I do not know the numbers, only that it is huge energy). And not in a car or some miniaturized magical tech, but in a center with the right scale for the materials and apparatus that we know how to build. Even so, it’s a daunting task. And once we get that, it will simply be the discovery of fire + wheel in one, plus a rebate check. Our world would change in a few years in ways that we simply cannot imagine. Starting with the markets and the oil industry.
-
conshmillo
You absolutely can get more out than you put in. Look at swing. You provide the SAME amount of energy in the exactly right spot where swing is changing direction. Swing will increase at each oscillation until it will actually start rotate. You provide the same little amount of energy, the nature (gravity in particular) provides the rest.
You keep saying that this is not overunity because you are calculating energy of nature in. But that’s not overunity. Overunity is only about what YOU have to provide. What costs you. Sun is going to be there in next 50 billions years (if not, this conversation doesn’t matter anyway) so nobody can charge me for that. It’s there for taking, you just need instrument to convert it in electricity. But anyway my point is in overunity only what matters is how much you have to put in that costs you (coal, pedaling, oil whatever) if you provide 1 unit of real energy that cost you something and nature provide 4 units for free (no cost to you), you have overunity as you are getting 3 units for free and you had to pay for only one unit. And by paying I don’t mean money, I mean energy spent.
—
It’s not about hidden energy, it’s about how devices use the energy supplied to them. Combustion engines, even electric motors although many times better are painfully inefficient. Too much wasted energy. They are using energy available to them in the wrong way.
-
Nicu
What you describe is not more energy. It’s just the shape of the trajectory that changes. When you manage to make it increase rotation speed without providing any external energy, I’ll buy your gadget or you could sell it for any amount of money.
As for the energy that exists in nature, it’s true. But it’s not like a river, it’s more like a thin rain that we have to manage carefully to obtain a small stream and then take advantage of it. Fossil fuels are like small rivers, uranium is like the Nile and fusion is like a river of the width of the Atlantic (but clean and enough fuel source for hundreds of millions of years of global consumption).
-
GotWake
“You absolutely can get more out than you put in.”
Come on Consh!!!! You can’t really believe that statement.!?! When you come up with something that puts out more energy than you put into it, give me a call because I will take every dollar I’ve invested and can borrow just to buy a small piece of the company you start. Because we would make the market cap of Apple look like peanuts.
-
conshmillo
“When you manage to make it increase rotation speed without providing any external energy”
How can you say something like that after I said twice already that overunity is about energy you have to spend combined with free energy that nature will put in. I gave at minimum two examples of that (sail,swing) For one, nowhere I say you should not provide any energy input, so I do not understand why would you say the sentence like above. Particularly “without providing any external energy”. You’ll always provide some and through timing nature provides the rest.
Even with the nuclear, which I don’t like at all because it’s dirty you have to provide initial energy to get the reaction going and then you get the benefit of nature inputing it’s energy for free. I just believe you can do it better, safer, cleaner on a non-atomic level. Maybe I am too yesterday. I never liked nuclear and I never will. Fusion is just a variation of the same. -
Nicu
Fusion is indeed a nuclear reaction but is of completely different nature. There is no risk of thermal overruns or explosions. At any time, only fractions of grams or few grams of matter is involved so even if you bomb the site, the effect are completely negligible. Also, the waste (in very small quantities) is radioactive only for a few dozens years, after that it is completely inert. We know very well how to store limited quantities of stuff for up to 100 years. It’s night and day.
-
-
conshmillo
“We do get it wrong sometimes, but not at that basic level anymore”
Except of course when they don’t, then the religious aspect of denial kicks in.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/01102011-neutrinos-the-speed-of-light-and-scientific-“truths”-analysis/-
Nicu
This not basic level, and it’s not yet 100% clear if the experiment is correct. Those are interplays between particles and very large scale. That exactly what we do not know how to do: marry quantum physics with relativity (the general theory of Einstein about the geometry of the space-time).
-
-
-
-
conshmillo
Minato motor
http://www.rexresearch.com/minato/minato.htm-
Nicu
is that a “free energy” machine or just a very efficient motor?
the story is too long and well organized
how’s that it is so amazing and since 2004 it did not take over the world ?-
Nicu
“too long and well organized” – I mean filled with emotional blah blah, like an investment hoax, not like a scientific breakthrough
-
conshmillo
“how’s that it is so amazing and since 2004 it did not take over the world”
If oil is so inefficient why is world still running on it? I mean if you count in cost of wars to get it, it costs us what, like $20 a gallon?
Why Obama couldn’t change a shit?
Why is Howard Johnson motor patented in 1973 is not everywhere?
http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htmWhy AAPL is not at $470 with PE of 14.6? Just why?
And you can not read the article because it doesn’t fit in your current belief system?
come on!
-
Nicu
“free energy” is not a belief; it has been disproved rigorously enough so that I don’t even bother; if you think a negative proof cannot be done, try this:
you have three houses and three wells; draw paths from each house to each well so there are no intersections (on a sheet of paper, no bridges, tunnels, the back of the paper and so on) – once I have a proof that it cannot work, I don’t lose my time trying to solve it otherwise
-
Nicu
OK, I progressed far enough to confirm my fears, it was about “free energy”; the explanation is weak, harnessing a force (like gravitation) to produce energy (which is quite different – when I sit on my butt, there is a force that keeps me from falling to the center of the Earth, but that does not mean I can light up a bulb with that). And everything is related by another person that does not get it very well.
-
conshmillo
@nicu I guess you have to work more on your “misfit” part. Academic arrogance can be sometimes as bad as religious ignorance. Your drawing example is a very poor example because all of the variables are known in that simple sketch. Every novel invention was done by doing things different from how it was done before. Your simple picture puzzle has finite possibilities. Where free energy puzzle has unlimited possibilities. There are inventions that were already invented and inventions that weren’t invented yet that will lead to it. I personally believe it is already here. No matter how many video clips or links I will send you, your mind will not open. You already KNOW it’s impossible so why bother.
-
-
-
-
-
conshmillo
@gotwake
Did you even read what I wrote? Of course you can get more out than you put in. Old dutch windmill does it for centuries.-
Nicu
Both sailing and mills are wind power. We do that today but it’s not very reliable and it’s that fine rain that you have to harvest diligently.
-
conshmillo
wind,rivers,waves, magnetism, it’s all the same. I just used those as an example
-
-
GotWake
Let’s take or your swing:
You input energy at the top, gravity adds energy as it falls. After it passes the bottom, gravity starts to take energy out if the system. By the time you reach the same point on the opposite side any energy added from gravity has been removed from the system. The only thing left is the input energy MINUS friction losses. Energy at the end of each cycle is less than at the beginning. The system will stop unless you keep adding energy. Which would mean you ARE putting in more energy than you are getting out.
I have a degree in mechanical engineering. We can shoot holes in perpetual motion devices all day long.
-
conshmillo
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html#videolinks
“I have a degree in mechanical engineering”
that’s your problem And remembrer: Think Different!
-
GotWake
LOL, good dig on the engineering. The thing about “Think Different”, companies like Apple and Telsa think different, but they work within the boundaries of physics. Do you see a self-contained Macbook Air that never needs charging? Do you see a Model S that charges its own batteries and never needs charging after the first charge? Nope, they make systems more efficient getting as much energy out as possible. But, they all require you to put more energy in than you get out.
You can link thousands of websites and youtube videos claiming perpetual energy. But, here’s the link to any of those “technologies” in a commercial product.
http://www.sorryitdoesn‘texist.com
As far as the market being the same. It’s a zero sum game. The market doesn’t magically make more money. When you put in $1,000 and turn it into $10,000, someone just lost $9,000.
Consh is in his own ‘distortion field’. Let us know when you commercialize your perpetual motion machine. We will be waiting…………… and waiting………….. and waiting.
-
conshmillo
“The market doesn’t magically make more money.”
I know that very well. I do. And I do it very well – by entering it at right points during it’s oscillations.
—
“Do you see a self-contained Macbook Air that never needs charging? Do you see a Model S that charges its own batteries and never needs charging after the first charge?”
Absolutely. That’s exactly where I believe the puck is going. An not in that distant future. That said, let’s leave it at that we agree at disagreeing with each other. You guys are acting bit like Risky when told that AAPL is going to $300, but that’s all right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
BTW, I like your comment on my own distortion filed. LOL
-
GotWake
LOL, I thought you would like that.
-
-
-
-
-
conshmillo
What do you guys think trading is? It’s taking advantage of oscillations at a right time. If you look at DJIA for past 10 years you should not make any money. Yet if you continuously took advantage of many oscillations since 2000 at the right time you made millions. Or another way if you just invested and held for 10 years some variation based on DJIA you would be slightly up. If you took right actions at right times on many oscillations in that period, you would have many times over than what you have put in. Overunity. You’ve got out more than you’ve put in. Hey Nicu, you were close to that when you were hitting $420 on AAPL.
I don’t see the difference in physics. You can go with nature at right times in cycles and you’ll have wind in your backs so to say. Or you can go against it and be inefficient and you’ll spend much more energy.
Overunity is compound interest of energy!
-
Nicu
That money that you gain more than the market, you take it from someone who gains less than the market. There is no free lunch. In nature the problem is that is hard or it has bad consequences to harvest the energy available (a kind of Murphy law).
-
conshmillo
No, nature and market is the same. Just cycles and right timing
Nature just gains less when you take advantage (windmills will slow down the wind). But nature has much more coming right in the next wave. And so does market -
Nicu
Hope you are right about the marker because I’m prepared for that tsunami of buy / cover orders in TSLA. It’s looking good too, lately.
-
conshmillo
I really want Tesla succeed. I think we are already in the paradigm shift for car manufacturing. I think, as I said before, car making will be come more like computer building in 80ties. There still will be dominant 3 car makers but I think amount of smaller niche car makers will increase.
I think US should support this heavily. US has long car making tradition. It’s one of the industries US could rule the world again. It would also create a lot of domestic job opportunities.
-
-
-
-
conshmillo
Here is the guy in your backyard (France). For past 11 years all he does is looks for “free energy” claims on the internet and then he replicates every one that looks interesting. He doesn’t take author’s word, or video clip for it. He creates replica that either works or it doesn’t. Then he writes detailed log about making it and results. If you can stomach reading through the words like “free energy”, there is a lot of interesting stuff there because he has done many different projects over the years based on many different principles. Don’t pay much attention to the website style, he is one of those purely scientific types. Form doesn’t mean much to him. Enjoy.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/
-
Birra 1:29 pm on December 21, 2011 150 days ago Reply
Excellent article @nicu. After reading yours and the related links and comments I have found my favorite post.
‘Most importantly, I think, is that Apple people are continuously looking around for things that irritate them or piss them off. Then they analyze “what can I do to this to make my (and everyone else’s) life better?”‘
Remote control(s) piss me off. After being forced by Comcast to install a ‘box’ on every TV with an associated ‘universal’ remote control I find it necessary to use at least two complex remote controls to access even the simplist of functions like volume. Even then things don’t work. In one case even upping the volume to 100 is not enough and it must reek havoc with the set. No doubt Apple will be fixing this.
Nicu 1:47 pm on December 21, 2011 150 days ago Reply
thanks – I hesitated to publish after the second article by Horace
Bunratty 8:09 pm on December 21, 2011 150 days ago Reply
good job….always nice to have different concepts/projections/understandings etc.