I keep hearing more and more that free energy has been discovered and get the feeling that the environment will start to benefit big time in about 5 years. Has anyone else heard of potential break throughs in this area?
Free energy. Is it coming? How soon?
Its never coming! Theres no such thing as free energy. Yes you will hear crackpots, pseudo-scientists and conartists talk on and on and on about it and there "inventions"
Conspirator
What category is this one:
is it likely to be
(a)crackpots
(b)pseudo-scientists
(c)conartists
(d)Don't know yet
http://www.steorn.net/
What category is this one:
is it likely to be
(a)crackpots
(b)pseudo-scientists
(c)conartists
(d)Don't know yet
http://www.steorn.net/
That would require me doing research I don't feel like doing at the moment but just remember these three things if its sounds too good to be true, it probably is, theres no such thing a s free energy and if some one says they can make a free energy device and they ask for money to help development there most likely con artists.
To get a better understanding of psudo-science read these
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience
The Anatomy of Pseudoscience
I remember I had a podcast that talked about how to spot it but its long deleted and I can't remember and I have to find it.
Ah good, it was in the first feed I checked.
http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4037.mp3
To get a better understanding of psudo-science read these
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience
The Anatomy of Pseudoscience
I remember I had a podcast that talked about how to spot it but its long deleted and I can't remember and I have to find it.
Ah good, it was in the first feed I checked.
http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4037.mp3
"free energy" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. While there is plenty of opportunity for crackpots and snake oil salesmen to get involved, we should not ignore the fact that there are technologies out there yet to be discovered that will provide us with energy which is much cheaper economically than what we have today.
Of course, no energy source will ever be "free" in the sense that it can be had without any cost at all to obtain it. Some current candidates for the term "free energy" are the energy of the wind, falling water, tides, and Solar radiation. These are "free" in the sense that they are all sitting there, just waiting to be harvested, but of course there is a cost to harvesting them and that cost may be reduced dramatically if appropriate technology is developed.
Many people use the term "free energy" to refer to the idea of harvesting fluctuations at the quantum level, or they talk about "orgone energy", or they are referring to the research Tesla did on transmitting and generating energy through unconventional properties of electrical fields. Some of this is responsible, but "way out there" in terms of practical application. These theories have been exploited by many charlatans, causing great suspicion of anything connected with this type of research.
It may be noted that existing energy companies have some interest in slowing down or trying to control research in areas that might put them out of business. Yes, there are conspiracies to some degree in this area, as there are in any field where existing economic interests are being threatened.
Of course, no energy source will ever be "free" in the sense that it can be had without any cost at all to obtain it. Some current candidates for the term "free energy" are the energy of the wind, falling water, tides, and Solar radiation. These are "free" in the sense that they are all sitting there, just waiting to be harvested, but of course there is a cost to harvesting them and that cost may be reduced dramatically if appropriate technology is developed.
Many people use the term "free energy" to refer to the idea of harvesting fluctuations at the quantum level, or they talk about "orgone energy", or they are referring to the research Tesla did on transmitting and generating energy through unconventional properties of electrical fields. Some of this is responsible, but "way out there" in terms of practical application. These theories have been exploited by many charlatans, causing great suspicion of anything connected with this type of research.
It may be noted that existing energy companies have some interest in slowing down or trying to control research in areas that might put them out of business. Yes, there are conspiracies to some degree in this area, as there are in any field where existing economic interests are being threatened.
When we talk of free energy dont we mean, solar, wind, wave power as well as all the psudoscientific dream machines ?
Ok these machines/devices are not free to build, but the energy they convert from one form to another is free clean and abundant and almost inexhaustible
I have a wind-up torch , it cost £5 ,eventually it will wear out but in the meantime I dont have to buy batteries or pay for electricity to charge them, if the tourch is built of enough quality to last long enough to offset its initial cost it pays for itself , do I allready have a free energy device ?
Ok these machines/devices are not free to build, but the energy they convert from one form to another is free clean and abundant and almost inexhaustible
I have a wind-up torch , it cost £5 ,eventually it will wear out but in the meantime I dont have to buy batteries or pay for electricity to charge them, if the tourch is built of enough quality to last long enough to offset its initial cost it pays for itself , do I allready have a free energy device ?
I did read up some.
The site dose not give really any information on how it works. It dose say
"Orbo is based upon the principle of time variant magneto-mechanical interactions." (a use of techno babel (common amongst psudo-scientists)) But Wikipedea gives some more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbo
But as arguments against section. No evidence that it would work has been provided.
This podcast talks a little bit about some free energy claims (not the one you posted)
http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-13.mp3
They also talk about Rods and an interesting interview .
The site dose not give really any information on how it works. It dose say
"Orbo is based upon the principle of time variant magneto-mechanical interactions." (a use of techno babel (common amongst psudo-scientists)) But Wikipedea gives some more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbo
But as arguments against section. No evidence that it would work has been provided.
| Quote: |
| In view of the fundamental nature of the laws of thermodynamics within physics,[52] overwhelming evidence would be required to support Steorn's claim that these laws have been violated. No such evidence has been provided. |
This podcast talks a little bit about some free energy claims (not the one you posted)
http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-13.mp3
They also talk about Rods and an interesting interview .
There is two scenarios.
What is the reality?
First there is some substance in this project called Orbo at the link ( http://www.steorn.net/).
They certainly don't appear to be generating any money. There is no proof they have recruited
22 scientists but this whole website is unusual. There are u-tube videos showing the CEO on Fox.
They claim they have let the technology out to a select few.
Secondly If it's not true. What is their angle?
What is the reality?
First there is some substance in this project called Orbo at the link ( http://www.steorn.net/).
They certainly don't appear to be generating any money. There is no proof they have recruited
22 scientists but this whole website is unusual. There are u-tube videos showing the CEO on Fox.
They claim they have let the technology out to a select few.
Secondly If it's not true. What is their angle?
Videos and an apirence on a tv station means nothing.
It is a company and like any other company, all publicity is good publicity or they could have some large plan to con people out of there money by convincing them to invest money in the company for further development of the "technology".
You need to be more skeptical. There are allot of people out there making allot of false claims. Some of them are con artists some are convinced (for what ever reason) that something is true and will use any shred of evidence no matter how small to try and prove there beliefs even though there is a huge amount of evidence that says there wrong.
Be skeptical, don't just believe what you read.
It is a company and like any other company, all publicity is good publicity or they could have some large plan to con people out of there money by convincing them to invest money in the company for further development of the "technology".
You need to be more skeptical. There are allot of people out there making allot of false claims. Some of them are con artists some are convinced (for what ever reason) that something is true and will use any shred of evidence no matter how small to try and prove there beliefs even though there is a huge amount of evidence that says there wrong.
Be skeptical, don't just believe what you read.
Consp:
Lets watch this space. They are apparantly planning a big appearance in July to put the product(s) on display (London, England)
There have been other similar occurrences like this in the past by other syndicates and they have come to nothing.
They have caught my interest as there efforts are (to a degree) unique.
I will be suprised as well...
Lets watch this space. They are apparantly planning a big appearance in July to put the product(s) on display (London, England)
There have been other similar occurrences like this in the past by other syndicates and they have come to nothing.
They have caught my interest as there efforts are (to a degree) unique.
I will be suprised as well...
There will never be a such thing as free energy. That's like someone stating: Oh, I found a way to make cars so cheap and plentiful you won't have to pay for them!
Yeah right. Best case scenario, if someone develops a miracle energy source, the costs will go down... but they won't go to zero. There will be a significant cost associated with energy still, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either stupid, naive, or a con artist.
Yeah right. Best case scenario, if someone develops a miracle energy source, the costs will go down... but they won't go to zero. There will be a significant cost associated with energy still, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either stupid, naive, or a con artist.
We have 2 constant vectors, gravity and magnetism, why can't we design an device that would harness these 2 vectors eternally?
We can't design a device like that with technology we have today simply because of another constant vector: friction. Machinery is inherently going to rub against something, even if it's just air, and removing air from a system will also require energy to sustain the vacuum. And even in a vacuum, objects will still touch. If there were some way to transfer energy through a vacuum directly to another object for it's use, then maybe it would be possible. Until then, it will never happen.
People have been harvesting gravity for millenia (think water wheels). Unfortunately, if you are using gravity to make energy, you are extracting energy from whatever medium is experiencing the gravity. There's no way to use that energy eternally. There's only so much work that any given system can do. After it's used all it's potential energy it's just going to sit around until something comes and gives it energy. Even solar energy isn't technically 'free.' Some of that energy could've been used for photosynthesis, some could've heated the planet, and some would've been radiated into space. Also, wind power isn't free. It extracts energy from the wind, slowing it down. Large wind power arrays can have significant impacts on the downstream climate.
Of course, all matter has much more energy in it than we are cabable of feasibly extracting with current technology. Fusion power would substantially increase the energy available to us, provided some logistical issues can be taken care of.
Of course, all matter has much more energy in it than we are cabable of feasibly extracting with current technology. Fusion power would substantially increase the energy available to us, provided some logistical issues can be taken care of.
| wylieconlon wrote: |
| We can't design a device like that with technology we have today simply because of another constant vector: friction. Machinery is inherently going to rub against something, even if it's just air, and removing air from a system will also require energy to sustain the vacuum. And even in a vacuum, objects will still touch. If there were some way to transfer energy through a vacuum directly to another object for it's use, then maybe it would be possible. Until then, it will never happen. |
But gravity and magnetism can easily overpower friction!
Gagnar-Gravity and Magnetism themselves are infinite sources of energy. I don't mean harnessing something like water or wind, I mean creating a device which will perpetually use gravity and magnetism to create energy. I will first make a perpetual motion device, then create a device that would produce energy.
Last edited by EanofAthenasPrime on Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Ah, I see the logic there. It came to me in a flash of brilliance! 
| wylieconlon wrote: |
| Ah, I see the logic there. It came to me in a flash of brilliance! |
are you being sarcastic?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | ||
But gravity and magnetism can easily overpower friction!
Gagnar-Gravity and Magnetism themselves are infinite sources of energy. I don't mean harnessing something like water or wind, I mean creating a device which will perpetually use gravity and magnetism to create energy. I will first make a perpetual motion device, then create a device that would produce energy. |
The trouble is, gravity on it's own isn't energy. It's just a field with potential. In order to gain energy from gravity power, you have to extract energy from something experiencing gravity. You basically do this by getting in the way, but doing so extracts energy from the object. Sure, it can gain it's energy back as long as it's still experiencing gravity, but then you have to catch it again later, and eventually it's going to run out of energy (it'll hit whatever was attracting it). It wouldn't work to get energy out of an object orbiting a gravitational object, because doing so would reduce the velocity of the orbiter and cause it to crash. Likewise with electromagnetic forces. There is literally no such thing as free energy.
Even if a perpetual motion device were possible, it still wouldn't be an endless well of energy. Extracting energy from the device would slow it down. Again, there's only so much work a given system can perform.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| But gravity and magnetism can easily overpower friction!
Gagnar-Gravity and Magnetism themselves are infinite sources of energy. I don't mean harnessing something like water or wind, I mean creating a device which will perpetually use gravity and magnetism to create energy. I will first make a perpetual motion device, then create a device that would produce energy. |
Some common misconceptions here. Let me establish a few facts which might help in this : Here are two rules which I will go on to consider in a bit more depth....
- Under ideal conditions the electrical power output generated when you move a conductor through a magnetic field is equal to the mechanical power input needed to move the conductor. In practice there is always a loss of energy caused by resistive loss in the conductor and friction in the moving parts.[/i]
- Moving something in a closed loop (in either a magnetic or a gravitational field) neither gains or loses net energy. This is because you have to do work to restore the object to the position it was in before it was acted on by gravity or magnetism. This applies to all objects and therefore to any machines or parts thereof. Any system of perpetual motion (or 'over-unity' devices as they are known to physicists) must repeat a cycle or series of actions an infinite number of times. Since the object in question would therefore have to be restored to it's starting position before the gravitational or magnetic field operated on it, and since this must be done by putting energy into the system in some way, it is therefore impossible to design a closed 'machine' using either gravity or magnetism which does not loose net energy.[/i]
Induction of current involving a conductor in a magnetic field is often cited as a potential source of over-unity but this is due to a misconception by the person concerned.
If you have a uniform magnetic field (like between the poles of a horse-shoe magnet), and you move a straight wire through the field so that the field, the length of the wire and the direction of motion are all at right angles to each other, then a voltage is induced between the ends of the wire. In this simple example the voltage is equal to BvL volts. (where L is the length of the wire in meters, B is the strength of the field in Webers per squaremetre and v is the velocity of motion in metres per second).
The wire will now move freely in the magnetic field without further energy being input into the system and this strikes many people as a potential source of over-unity. When the wire is moving in the magnetic field, no further energy is being generated, but no extra energy is needed to keep the wire moving.
To do something useful with this set-up we have to connect the ends of the wire up into a circuit to produce electrical work, or harness the motion of the wire to produce mechanical work. How do we do this? With another wire, of course.
Ahhh...here's the first problem. The new wire will also be in the magnetic field and will, therefore, have a voltage induced. When connected to the first wire, providing the magnetic field is uniform, and unless the connecting wire is moving at a significantly different rate than the first wire, then the effect of connecting the two is that of connecting 2 equal potentials together - effectively our voltmeter reads zero, indicating no useful energy available since there is no potential difference, therefore no energy.
OK, you say, let's rig it so the connection is either in a different part of the magnetic field or is moving at a different rate than the wire we are trying to tap the energy from. We therefore get a small magnet and make a large loop with the connecting wire which takes it away from the magnetic field and therefore ensures that less voltage will be induced. This, though, limits the amount of time which we can generate voltage for any given value of velocity for the first wire - meaning over-unity is not possible since we would need to supply energy at the times when the loop was not producing current.
OK..let's do something else - let's spin a loop of wire in the horse-shoe's magnetic field. Twice each turn one side of the loop will, briefly, be moving in the opposite direction to the other. It will generate a voltage which adds to the first side's voltage rather than subtracting. Half a turn later the loop will be generating a voltage in the opposite 'direction'. If we connect the two ends of the loop to 'slip' rings we will see an output voltage which alternates as the loop turns. Not only can we measure the voltage but we can get a useful output,
Whey-hey....sorted? Well, not bad, we have just re-invented the alternator.
We can go further - connect the ends to a split ring around a shaft then use a 'brush' on each side of the ring to pick up pulses of voltage - which all have the same polarity. By adding loops at different angles, and connecting each to a pair of segments on a 'commutator', at any given moment the brushes will connect only to the loop which is moving fastest. This gives an almost steady output voltage. We have now re-invented the DC generator.
So is this a potential source of over-unity? No. As the wire moves it generates a voltage proportional to its velocity. When a current flows (ie when we try to extract energy from the system) the electrical output power is proportional to voltage multiplied by the current. But when a current flows in the wire it generates a force on the wire and this force acts to oppose the motion of the wire in the magnetic field - a reverse (or back) force.
The more current you take from the system the more the reverse force will oppose the motion of the wire and, therefore, the more energy you have to supply to keep the thing turning.
What we find is that the mechanical energy needed to turn the 'wire' is proportional to the reverse force produced by the current flowing in the wire and what we further find is that the mechanical energy needed to keep the wire turning is more or less equal to the electrical energy produced by the wire as it turns in the field. (In practice there is always a small loss caused by rotational friction, eddy currents and other mechanical and electrical effects).
This is great in one sense - it means we can convert mechanical to electrical energy very efficiently. It is not, however, a potential source of over-unity, since there is always a small loss and even if the system were 100% efficient with no frictional or electrical loss of any sort, we would have a machine that output exactly the same energy as was input - not more.
Bikerman
thanks for the science lesson. The website at http://www.steorn.net is unusually quiet perhaps they just discovered they reinvented the alternator.
thanks for the science lesson. The website at http://www.steorn.net is unusually quiet perhaps they just discovered they reinvented the alternator.
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Bikerman
thanks for the science lesson. The website at http://www.steorn.net is unusually quiet perhaps they just discovered they reinvented the alternator. |
I remain extremely sceptical about the Steorn claims for their technology but I believe the matter is currently being reviewed by a jury, which is great and would seem to indicate that they are serious about the product/technology even if it should prove fallacious (rather than being an out and out money making scam).
That said, here are the reasons for scepticism :
a) The jury will consist of 12 scientists chosen by Steorn. Totally unacceptable, in my view. Peer review is the only credible method of validation in my opinion and a peer review jury is NOT selected by the claimant.
b) They refuse to disclose the basic fundamental principles of science upon which the thing operates - I believe this is because they don't have an explanation. That in itself need not be a problem - it has happened before, notably with electromagnetism in the 1820's which Orsted demonstrated but could not explain - the theory did not arrive until Maxwell some 50 years later. The problem is that they have not demonstrated the effect - why not build a prototype and show it working, as Orsted did with electromagnetism. Their position (that they want to have a good theoretical explanation before they demonstrate it) seems to me to be disingenuous.
c) They say that they will not reveal details because they wish to protect their intellectual property. This rings hollow when they have also taken out very expensive adverts in the press and spent considerable money on a professional website to advertise their claims. If you want to protect your discovery you keep quiet until it is patented. Basic principles of physics have no intellectual property rights in any case.
d) They have published nothing in the peer reviewed journals at all - all their publications have been in the popular press and the internet, and they contain no details which can be verified, merely nebulous references and claims which cannot be checked.
These problems combine to present a textbook signature of one thing - pseudo-science.
They had a forum and one outspoken member of the forum was independently selected to view the technology, she came away convinced of their authenticity after previously expressing doubt.
Isn't it in one of the video's that they are saying they are going to have a public demonstration in London England in July 2007?
It's in the Five-minute Q1 update video, 13 April 2007
Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy ...
So quite recent
http://www.steorn.net/orbo/validation/
Isn't it in one of the video's that they are saying they are going to have a public demonstration in London England in July 2007?
It's in the Five-minute Q1 update video, 13 April 2007
Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy ...
So quite recent
http://www.steorn.net/orbo/validation/
| chasbeen wrote: |
| They had a forum and one outspoken member of the forum was independently selected to view the technology, she came away convinced of their authenticity after previously expressing doubt. |
The main point is that Steorn say:
| Steorn wrote: |
| Following three years of development, in August 2006 Steorn issued a challenge to the world's scientific community to test our technology and report the findings. The challenge was issued in a full page advert in the Economist magazine. Steorn took this unusual move after several third parties refused to allow private validation tests to be placed in the public domain. |
This is nonsense. If they had submitted a paper to (say) the journal of Applied Physics or one of the other reputable journals then it would have been peer reviewed properly - that, I suspect, is what they are trying to avoid. There is also the fact that their selected jury is paid a flat fee of Euro2000 each plus expenses up to Euro6000 and required to sign a fairly comprehensive confidentiality agreement. The main issue remains, however, that Steorn are choosing their own Jury. That just will not do.
| Quote: |
| Isn't it in one of the video's that they are saying they are going to have a public demonstration in London England in July 2007?
|
The only way I will take them seriously is if they either
- agree to put this in the normal scientific arena by publishing a paper in a reputable physics journal
- publish plans or documents which would allow independent construction and testing of the claimed effect, or
- demonstrate the effect in controlled conditions which are set-up, managed and operated by a reputable academic body such as a University, professional journal or similar.
Anything else is baloney.
I heard something about cheap alternative energy on TV. They've managed to produce electricity using metan (CH4).It's estimated that this mini power plants will hit our homes in 2-3 years and it will cost around 1000 Eur.As a plus it's environmental friendly.
| hiquality wrote: |
| I heard something about cheap alternative energy on TV. They've managed to produce electricity using metan (CH4).It's estimated that this mini power plants will hit our homes in 2-3 years and it will cost around 1000 Eur.As a plus it's environmental friendly. |
Metan (methane) has long been used as a power source and can easily be used to produce electricity. Methane is, by the way, the major constituent in Natural Gas.
Energy is free, it surrounds us everywhere, the hard and expensive thing is to transform it from one disordered form to another, ordered and useful, form
It is not the same 'free energy' than creation of new energy from nothing.
It is not the same 'free energy' than creation of new energy from nothing.
Let us get these points straight:
1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the question of a new free energy does not arise.
2. Any energy that is obtained after 'burning' of something else cannot be clean. It is like the human and animal body which does one of the closed and energy efficient combustion that could ever be achieved by man. Still the animals (including man) has to let out rejects.
3. If at all there is a conversion which is efficient without any side effects, then that happens in the plant when it converts solar into other form. Something like that has to come up before we can even dream of getting free energy. Secondly, such a case even if every component in it is free, man has the knack of make it costly. Like the ground. You will find one of the costliest resource today is space; not built up but just plain ground. Who created that anyway to charge for it? It is just man's exploitation of the situation that makes it costlier.
4. There is no way man would allow free energy to people like you and me. If no body charges that you will still have some kind of a tax charged by the government. Don't worry!
1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the question of a new free energy does not arise.
2. Any energy that is obtained after 'burning' of something else cannot be clean. It is like the human and animal body which does one of the closed and energy efficient combustion that could ever be achieved by man. Still the animals (including man) has to let out rejects.
3. If at all there is a conversion which is efficient without any side effects, then that happens in the plant when it converts solar into other form. Something like that has to come up before we can even dream of getting free energy. Secondly, such a case even if every component in it is free, man has the knack of make it costly. Like the ground. You will find one of the costliest resource today is space; not built up but just plain ground. Who created that anyway to charge for it? It is just man's exploitation of the situation that makes it costlier.
4. There is no way man would allow free energy to people like you and me. If no body charges that you will still have some kind of a tax charged by the government. Don't worry!
Most of the proposals discussed here are probably not helpful for producing cheaper and cleaner energy. While we need people to investigate all options, including things like better methane generators and radical new technologies, we should remain skeptical of success in most cases reported in the popular press.
Nevertheless, to overcome the greed factor in keeping energy expensive, we must have input from outsiders or we will be locked into the status quo with only minor and gradual changes, with no way to deal effectively with the challenges of global warming, pollution, and growing populations.
Nevertheless, to overcome the greed factor in keeping energy expensive, we must have input from outsiders or we will be locked into the status quo with only minor and gradual changes, with no way to deal effectively with the challenges of global warming, pollution, and growing populations.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Let us get these points straight: |
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| 1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the question of a new free energy does not arise. |
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| 2. Any energy that is obtained after 'burning' of something else cannot be clean. It is like the human and animal body which does one of the closed and energy efficient combustion that could ever be achieved by man. Still the animals (including man) has to let out rejects. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I am not sure how efficient the human metabolism is but I would be surprised if it was as efficient as you state. |
Overall metabolic efficiency is generally thought to be about 10% for endotherms. That is to say, about 10% of the biologically available energy we consume is used for constructive metabolic processes -- the rest is waste energy, mostly lost as heat. Ectotherms may be somewhat more efficient. For example, a given mass of prey food is able to sustain a couple times more aligator mass than lion mass.
I imagine humans fall rougly in line with the 10% rule.
Side note: the 90% energy loss happens at every change in trophic level. It takes rougly 10x the farmland to raise enough cattle to feed 100 people for a year than it does to raise enough vegetable matter to feed 100 people for a year. People who care about the environment and about global warming should consider cutting back on meat for this reason, among others.
Plants, on the other hand, are 60-80% efficient (I believe -- I could be remembering wrong) at harvesting sunlight. They are energy champions. Humans would have trouble matching that level of efficiency.
Thanks for that update - I was hoping someone would have the figures to hand. I think it supports my contention that human metabolism is not particularly impressive regarding efficiency..
I think if free energy is created, there will be a great War, against the Greed. I think with free energy, there will be no need for work or money, essentially humans will finally be able to classify themselves as non-animals (all other species constantly struggle to survive) In theory a device using the free energy could create food, power construction bots to create places to live, the only limit is the amount of mass. There would still be an overpopulation problem, and people would have to find matter in order to convert it (using the free energy) into more useful stuff. Indeed there may be a Great War.
There is a major problem with free energy. You are adding entropy into a closed system!
If this was possible (which it really shouldn't be. "Laws" of physics are usually fairly sound. Thats why they are called "laws"), you would have the small problem of heat death.
That is, the energy that your putting into the world eventually winds up as heat. On a global scale, this can add up to quite a bit of energy being pumped into the planet, not something we're really looking foreward to (global warming is bad enough as it is).
Bikerman->
Your not creating new free energy. If you consider the total amount of energy (including the energy form of all matter), it is still the same, just in a much nicer form to use
In terms of a simple power source:
If you could somehow harvest the worlds oceans for T2O, we could sit them in very large storage tanks and let them decay as RTG's. (Of cource, extracting energy from a small heat differential isn't overly efficient). (that and trying to extract it efficiently).[/quote]
If this was possible (which it really shouldn't be. "Laws" of physics are usually fairly sound. Thats why they are called "laws"), you would have the small problem of heat death.
That is, the energy that your putting into the world eventually winds up as heat. On a global scale, this can add up to quite a bit of energy being pumped into the planet, not something we're really looking foreward to (global warming is bad enough as it is).
Bikerman->
| Quote: |
|
'new free energy' is not only possible but a virtual certainty |
Your not creating new free energy. If you consider the total amount of energy (including the energy form of all matter), it is still the same, just in a much nicer form to use
In terms of a simple power source:
If you could somehow harvest the worlds oceans for T2O, we could sit them in very large storage tanks and let them decay as RTG's. (Of cource, extracting energy from a small heat differential isn't overly efficient). (that and trying to extract it efficiently).[/quote]
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| I think if free energy is created, there will be a great War, against the Greed. I think with free energy, there will be no need for work or money, essentially humans will finally be able to classify themselves as non-animals (all other species constantly struggle to survive) In theory a device using the free energy could create food, power construction bots to create places to live, the only limit is the amount of mass. There would still be an overpopulation problem, and people would have to find matter in order to convert it (using the free energy) into more useful stuff. Indeed there may be a Great War. |
How could free energy bring any of those?
We heard of a really interesting company that seemed to claim that they had discovered "Free Energy"
They are suppossed to be demo'ing this live in London England but the News part of the website seems dead.
http://www.steorn.net/news/releases/
They are suppossed to be demo'ing this live in London England but the News part of the website seems dead.
http://www.steorn.net/news/releases/
| Simplechat wrote: |
| There is a major problem with free energy. You are adding entropy into a closed system! |
| Quote: |
|
If this was possible (which it really shouldn't be. "Laws" of physics are usually fairly sound. Thats why they are called "laws"), you would have the small problem of heat death. |
| Quote: |
| That is, the energy that your putting into the world eventually winds up as heat. On a global scale, this can add up to quite a bit of energy being pumped into the planet, not something we're really looking foreward to (global warming is bad enough as it is). |
| Quote: | ||
|
Bikerman->
Your not creating new free energy. If you consider the total amount of energy (including the energy form of all matter), it is still the same, just in a much nicer form to use
|
Well, in a way you have a point but what we are doing is simply e=mc^2. We are converting mass directly into energy. This method of energy production is MASSIVELY more efficient than any other technology we could use. If we were able, for example, to convert a pencil completely into energy then the amount of energy would be (using e=mc^2)
If we approximate the mass of a pencil to be around 15 grams (of the top of my head) then that is 0.005kg. Multiply by 3*10^8 and then again and we get the amount of energy. I make it roughly 1300000000000000 Joules of energy. That would be roughly the equivalent of around 10 million gallons of Petrol just to put it in perspective for you.
You might rightly argue that it is not completely free but I would argue that it is as close as makes no real difference. Remember that the fuel for a fusion reactor could be quite simply made - from seawater for example. So imagine, 15 grams of seawater goes in and (realistically) several tens or hundreds of thousands of gallons of petrol in equivalent energy comes out. Not free, true, not from nothing, true, but damn cheap and plentiful I would say.....
| Quote: |
|
In terms of a simple power source: If you could somehow harvest the worlds oceans for T2O, we could sit them in very large storage tanks and let them decay as RTG's. (Of cource, extracting energy from a small heat differential isn't overly efficient). (that and trying to extract it efficiently). |
T20? Deuteron? RTG - RadioIsoTopeThermoElectricGenerator?
OK - got it....I still think fusing a few kilos of T20 might be a better option though ?
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
| chasbeen wrote: |
| We heard of a really interesting company that seemed to claim that they had discovered "Free Energy"
They are suppossed to be demo'ing this live in London England but the News part of the website seems dead. http://www.steorn.net/news/releases/ |
Ok, if they had "discovered free energy" why are they using the media and not publishing there claims in peer reviewed journals?
You should be very skeptical of any free energy claim that dose not go through and survive the proses of peer review.
Just to recap, they have released the technology to qualified scientists under a non-disclosure agreement. I was suprised at these contactual agreements between the company and the hand picked few that are currently (supposed to be ) validating the technlogy. They are only able to claim a relatively small amount of renumeration (6000 Euros for a maximum 30 days of review), You would have thought that the web site would be refreshed a bit to show current "Progress" with the validation procedure. 
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Just to recap, they have released the technology to qualified scientists* under a non-disclosure agreement. I was suprised at these contactual agreements between the company and the hand picked few that are currently (supposed to be ) validating the technlogy. They are only able to claim a relatively small amount of renumeration (6000 Euros for a maximum 30 days of review), You would have thought that the web site would be refreshed a bit to show current "Progress" with the validation procedure. |
*Slight amendment to that necessary I think. Qualified scientists? Says whom? How qualified?
And 1 additional development I find unsurprising
| Steorn wrote: |
|
We are experiencing some technical difficulties with the demo unit in London. Our initial assessment indicates that this is probably due to the intense heat from the camera lighting. We have commenced a technical assessment and will provide an update later today. As a consequence, Kinetica will not be open to the public today (5th July). We apologise for this delay and appreciate your patience. |
Is this going to be the biggest egg in the face incident of all time or are they going to come through with one of the biggest scientific break throughs of all time 
I'm glad you are following the story B,
It's time to pay the piper
I'm glad you are following the story B,
It's time to pay the piper
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Is this going to be the biggest egg in the face incident of all time or are they going to come through with one of the biggest scientific break throughs of all time
I'm glad you are following the story B, It's time to pay the piper |
My guess is that the answers are, in order; no (there have been larger howlers in the past), no (this will not prove to be a breakthrough).
I'm content to reserve judgement for the moment, though, and the moment I see some proper evidence I'll be happy to offer congrats.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
My guess is that the answers are, in order; no (there have been larger howlers in the past), no (this will not prove to be a breakthrough). I'm content to reserve judgement for the moment, though, and the moment I see some proper evidence I'll be happy to offer congrats. |
Whether free (commercially) energy is available or not, it would make better sense to come down to one form of energy utilisation. For example, the entire transport system could be based on electrical energy. No use of chemicals there for fueling your cars, etc., The entire civilisation should run on a single energy type. Advantage: Every other energy form could get converted to one effecient form. And tomorrow when you identify a new one, just bring that new energy back to electrical, for instance, and then keep using. There will not be any change and implementing a new free energy will also be not a big problem.
More modular, see!
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
|
Whether free (commercially) energy is available or not, it would make better sense to come down to one form of energy utilisation. For example, the entire transport system could be based on electrical energy. No use of chemicals there for fueling your cars, etc., The entire civilisation should run on a single energy type. Advantage: Every other energy form could get converted to one effecient form. And tomorrow when you identify a new one, just bring that new energy back to electrical, for instance, and then keep using. There will not be any change and implementing a new free energy will also be not a big problem. More modular, see! |
Several objections:
1) This will act as a brake on development of alternative energies since it will probably create unimaginably powerful monopolies and cartels - more powerful than the current oil example OPEC.
2) Related to this is the issue of energy dependance. Most countries try or would like to ensure that they are not dependant on one or two suppliers for their vital energy. With one source only I'm not sure exactly how this would play, but it might well centralise supply and control of supply and therefore increase the power of the supply side unreasonably.
3) It would be inefficient. If you decide to adopt electricity as a standard you have to generate it. So you still need power stations as you do now. At the moment transport is largely petroleum based. If you convert it all to electrical then there are 2 problems. 1) Where do you get the juice? From the power stations. Therefore what is the actual saving? You burn fossil fuel inefficiently to convert to electricity which must then be transported (more loss), stored (more loss) and finally used (perhaps 80% efficiency or thereabouts as opposed to petrol and 15%).
2) Electrical power for transport is still dependant mostly on battery technology. There is an inbuilt limit to the amount of power you can stuff into a battery and it always was much lower in density (ie less for the same amount of space) than petroleum. Petrol is around 13kW/h per kilogram. Factoring in the inefficiency (petrol is only about 15% efficient in most applications - like cars) you would be looking for batteries with around 2kW/h per kg energy density. I understand that Lithium/water cells have a theoretical density around 10kW/h per kg which makes that one possible option, and there are some excited noises surrounding a new Lithium Sulphur cell emerging as well...dark mutterings including mentions of 2.5kW/h kg have been heard, and if this is true (4 or 5 times what is currently possible) then this might well be a major breakthrough.. The technology is, I think, not quite here yet, but it could arrive very soon and is probably already on a lab bench somewhere....One factor that might become more important - batteries are made out of some nasty nasty stuff, so disposal might yet become a major issue....
Finally the idea of switching and bringing fuels back as needed sounds good but won't work. The UK, for example, closed pretty much all of it's coal mines under Thatcher. You cannot simply open them up again because they flood, the seams become unworkable, the infrastructure is lost, the skills are lost etc. That being said, there are rumours that coal might make a limited comeback here in the UK soon as the energy crisis really starts to bite. With oil and gas, the problem there is dishonest suppliers and unknown reserves. Shell, BP and the rest assure us that they have a century or more before they start to run out. I personally think that is baloney and based un-unrealistic assumptions about new finds and technological ways of squeezing more out of existing fields...If I had to guess I would say half that figure - 50 yrs - max, (and I think that is being a bit optimistic).
Implementing new energy is always a problem - don't underestimate that. Say your wish comes true and all cars suddenly go electric. First you have to kit yourself up to charge the thing. Buy a new toolkit to work on it. Garages have to retrain hundreds of thousands of mechanics; MOT stations have to completely retool and retrain; petrol stations have to find a role or close; traffic accidents in towns suddenly spike because kids don't hear the car that is going to hit them; spare parts suppliers worldwide have to retool and retrain - the list goes on. It's not an excuse for intertia, but you should never underestimate the demands of change (I speak as an IT person who has done just that in the past and got badly stung).
Why do you still have a qwerty keyboard on your computer? Do you know why the keys are laid out like that? To stop the old mechanical typewriters jamming two keys together. Put another way, your keyboard is designed to slow you down. In the electronic age that is simply daft but we still have the same keyboard because of the horrendous problems involved in retraining everyone on a new device and changing everything accordingly.
For those of you following the argument. The main issue was free energy. At the centre of the debate was the success or failure of a company that was claiming they had discovered perpetual motion machines using magnets. However improbable the company proceeded with these claims and when required to produce the goods this week. Failed to do so:
http://www.steorn.com/
"Whether free (commercially) energy is available or not, it would make better sense to come down to one form of energy utilisation. For example, the entire transport system could be based on electrical energy. No use of chemicals there for fueling your cars, etc., The entire civilisation should run on a single energy type. Advantage: Every other energy form could get converted to one effecient form. And tomorrow when you identify a new one, just bring that new energy back to electrical, for instance, and then keep using. There will not be any change and implementing a new free energy will also be not a big problem. "
What the above is suggesting by an earlier posting makes a great deal of sense because it would be a way of interfacing any new method of creating energy.
It could be implemented at a staggered rate.
I'm sure we can move on from burning fossil fuels. The Saturn 5 rocket burns a gallon of fuel very quickly. Consumption 5 inches per gallon.
(Saturn 5 rocket-Powered Apollo to the moon)
http://www.steorn.com/
"Whether free (commercially) energy is available or not, it would make better sense to come down to one form of energy utilisation. For example, the entire transport system could be based on electrical energy. No use of chemicals there for fueling your cars, etc., The entire civilisation should run on a single energy type. Advantage: Every other energy form could get converted to one effecient form. And tomorrow when you identify a new one, just bring that new energy back to electrical, for instance, and then keep using. There will not be any change and implementing a new free energy will also be not a big problem. "
What the above is suggesting by an earlier posting makes a great deal of sense because it would be a way of interfacing any new method of creating energy.
It could be implemented at a staggered rate.
I'm sure we can move on from burning fossil fuels. The Saturn 5 rocket burns a gallon of fuel very quickly. Consumption 5 inches per gallon.
(Saturn 5 rocket-Powered Apollo to the moon)
Well to make a free energy device we have to realize that the actual building of the device will not be free. Also a theoretical magnetic device some may argue is not truly free because the magnets will eventually lose their alignment however regular maintenance would be required of *any* machine so in
practicality the theoretical magnetic free energy device is a "free energy machine". Also the fundamental problem in creating a magnetic-gravitational free energy device is that magnetism and gravity are fixed vectors and are also static nodes of energy, and in order for their energy to be changed over time (ie. dynamically) external energy would have to be added thus making the concept of an gravitational-magnetic free energy dynamo difficult if not impossible.
practicality the theoretical magnetic free energy device is a "free energy machine". Also the fundamental problem in creating a magnetic-gravitational free energy device is that magnetism and gravity are fixed vectors and are also static nodes of energy, and in order for their energy to be changed over time (ie. dynamically) external energy would have to be added thus making the concept of an gravitational-magnetic free energy dynamo difficult if not impossible.
Just wanted to check in on the status of this "project". Their web site ( http://www.steorn.net/ ) still shows no update since the July 5 failure to begin a demonstration. It would appear that they have no more rabbits to pull out of the hat, and this is about as far as they can milk the idea.
On their "claim" page ( http://www.steorn.net/orbo/claim/ ) they say:
Either they have found a sloppy pr guy with a death wish, or they are real charlatans. They might say it "appears" to violate conservation, but if they believe it really does they are fools. I agree it is right to withhold judgment, on the assumption that they could have found a really novel principle with merit. It surely appears like pure snake oil though.
On their "claim" page ( http://www.steorn.net/orbo/claim/ ) they say:
| Quote: |
| The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. |
Either they have found a sloppy pr guy with a death wish, or they are real charlatans. They might say it "appears" to violate conservation, but if they believe it really does they are fools. I agree it is right to withhold judgment, on the assumption that they could have found a really novel principle with merit. It surely appears like pure snake oil though.
It must be Snake oil. The July 5th failure was because of the studio lighting affecting the demonstration. This reason appears to be even more unlikely than their claims of free energy and you'd have thought there would have been an update since July 5th.
The other possibility is that they may have been shut up I suppose.
The other possibility is that they may have been shut up I suppose.
We're not there yet, but we are getting closer:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46765
[/url]
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46765
| Quote: |
| Solar Cell Breaks the 40% Efficiency Barrier
St. Louis, Missouri & Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] A photovoltaic (PV) cell achieved a milestone earlier this week with a conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent. Produced by Spectrolab, Inc. -- a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing -- and funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the breakthrough could lead to PV systems with an installed cost of $3 per watt and produce electricity at a cost of $0.08 to $0.10 cents per kilowatt-hour. "The excellent performance of these materials hints at still higher efficiency in future solar cells." -- Dr. Richard R. King, Spectrolab, principal investigator The 40.7 percent cell was developed using a structure called a multi-junction solar cell. This type of cell achieves a higher efficiency by capturing more of the solar spectrum. In a multi-junction cell, individual cells are made of layers, where each layer captures part of the sunlight passing through the cell -- allowing the cell to absorb more energy from the sun's light. |
| chasbeen wrote: |
| For those of you following the argument. The main issue was free energy. At the centre of the debate was the success or failure of a company that was claiming they had discovered perpetual motion machines using magnets. However improbable the company proceeded with these claims and when required to produce the goods this week. Failed to do so:
http://www.steorn.com/
"Whether free (commercially) energy is available or not, it would make better sense to come down to one form of energy utilisation. For example, the entire transport system could be based on electrical energy. No use of chemicals there for fueling your cars, etc., The entire civilisation should run on a single energy type. Advantage: Every other energy form could get converted to one effecient form. And tomorrow when you identify a new one, just bring that new energy back to electrical, for instance, and then keep using. There will not be any change and implementing a new free energy will also be not a big problem. " What the above is suggesting by an earlier posting makes a great deal of sense because it would be a way of interfacing any new method of creating energy. It could be implemented at a staggered rate. I'm sure we can move on from burning fossil fuels. The Saturn 5 rocket burns a gallon of fuel very quickly. Consumption 5 inches per gallon. (Saturn 5 rocket-Powered Apollo to the moon) |
Um...do u think electricity is a natural resource? Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt Nuclear energy, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Tidal Energy, and GeoThermal energy primarily converted into electricity?
It Depends on what you DEFINE as FREE. It doesn't cost any money to get energy from the sun, but do u consider it free? It doesn't cost any money to get energy from the DAMs, you don't PAY for the gravity to drop the water really fast to the ground, would you consider it free? U don't pay for magnets to push and pull apart from each other, would YOU consider that as free?
| ThreeRight wrote: |
| It Depends on what you DEFINE as FREE. It doesn't cost any money to get energy from the sun, but do u consider it free? It doesn't cost any money to get energy from the DAMs, you don't PAY for the gravity to drop the water really fast to the ground, would you consider it free? U don't pay for magnets to push and pull apart from each other, would YOU consider that as free? |
You are so right...but with free energy (at least conceptually) everyone could have little portable hand held "free-energy devices", unlike Solar energy or DAM energy which depends on the weather.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | ||
You are so right...but with free energy (at least conceptually) everyone could have little portable hand held "free-energy devices", unlike Solar energy or DAM energy which depends on the weather. |
In the context of the initial thread " free energy" relates to none polluting fuel sources , free from pollution not free financially, power sources that benifit ( even if it is only by doing less damage ) the enviroment.
What would be the real benifit to mr average in having a hand held device if power was free and we have to assume limitless, is there any point in carrying around a device small enough to be built into any device you would want to use and carry with you anyway, thats not considering the expence such a device would cost...would it cost the price of a lifetimes fuel in one go ?
Theres been much discussion on the subject.
An amazing claim by a company who stated they had produced something using magnets that could one day replace the ICE in your car prooved fruitless. This company put a full page advert in the Economist weekly newspaper and their lifeless website seems to be all that remains of this particular free energy claim (July 2007).
I don't know if a device or devices that create free energy can be made, it's very close to another great challenge "perpetual motion" and this too has been neither prooved or disprooved.
We also considered a free energy device that could be dropped into another device (lets call it the interface) and this would produce electricity. The "interface" is not a free energy device but a device which converts energy into a widely used medium that current devices also use. (Eg: Hydro to domestic houses)
Remember a Japanese company actually created a car that runs on Electricity in 2003 so your car would be able to run on domestic electricity. So the pieces of the Jigsaw are out there. Question is have we got enough pieces to finish the puzzle..
I think the introduction or staggered introduction of this infrastructure could be mutually beneficial to the "mr average" and the economies of all countries:!:
An amazing claim by a company who stated they had produced something using magnets that could one day replace the ICE in your car prooved fruitless. This company put a full page advert in the Economist weekly newspaper and their lifeless website seems to be all that remains of this particular free energy claim (July 2007).
I don't know if a device or devices that create free energy can be made, it's very close to another great challenge "perpetual motion" and this too has been neither prooved or disprooved.
We also considered a free energy device that could be dropped into another device (lets call it the interface) and this would produce electricity. The "interface" is not a free energy device but a device which converts energy into a widely used medium that current devices also use. (Eg: Hydro to domestic houses)
Remember a Japanese company actually created a car that runs on Electricity in 2003 so your car would be able to run on domestic electricity. So the pieces of the Jigsaw are out there. Question is have we got enough pieces to finish the puzzle..
I think the introduction or staggered introduction of this infrastructure could be mutually beneficial to the "mr average" and the economies of all countries:!:
| chasbeen wrote: |
|
Remember a Japanese company actually created a car that runs on Electricity in 2003 so your car would be able to run on domestic electricity. So the pieces of the Jigsaw are out there. Question is have we got enough pieces to finish the puzzle.. I think the introduction or staggered introduction of this infrastructure could be mutually beneficial to the "mr average" and the economies of all countries:!: |
Our milkman ( probably the best part of 30 years ago) had an electric milkfloat , maybe in the next 30 years they will be run on fuel cells
Tumbleweed
Theres this link.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/
But the one I was talking about was a well known Japanese company that finished production in 2003.
I can dig it out for you if you want?
I think the car cost about $30,000 to buy but it otherwise appeared and performed like a typical family car on the highway motorway as long as you plugged it in and were satisfied with 200k a day...
Theres this link.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/
But the one I was talking about was a well known Japanese company that finished production in 2003.
I can dig it out for you if you want?
I think the car cost about $30,000 to buy but it otherwise appeared and performed like a typical family car on the highway motorway as long as you plugged it in and were satisfied with 200k a day...
Wow this discussion kind of got out of hand...
TBWD...
Actually it was the car. Please refer to that link in my last post...
Thanks a bunch
Actually it was the car. Please refer to that link in my last post...
Thanks a bunch
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Tumbleweed
Theres this link. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/ But the one I was talking about was a well known Japanese company that finished production in 2003. I can dig it out for you if you want? I think the car cost about $30,000 to buy but it otherwise appeared and performed like a typical family car on the highway motorway as long as you plugged it in and were satisfied with 200k a day... |
You dont have to convince me......as I said milkfloat blah blah..., we have had the technology a long long time , over one hundered years , but we dont have the political will or strength of character to take that step backwards, by that I mean slow the pace of modern life down as a society through those small individual sacrifices we would have to make
TBLWD
SAT
Look at this today though...
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
SAT
Look at this today though...
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
Free energy.. hmm, i think you would like to comment on this one. its a gravity based power generator! WAHH..incredible!!
Little Britain man turning gravity into power
LINDSAY – When he heard on television that gravity couldn't be used as a form of energy, Bob Kostoff set out to prove Discovery Channel wrong.
“I said, 'That doesn't make any sense,'” said the Little Britain resident, using dropping a cement brick from a standing height as an example.
If you were to place your hands a few centimeters off of the ground to try to stop it before it hits the ground, you wouldn't be able to because of the energy powering the bricks fall, he said last Friday.
With that concept in mind, Kostoff sought to make a 'perpetual motion machine' that could offer a clean, alternative source of power using gravity as 'fuel.'
After about four years of planning and development through trial and error – including about a year-and-a-half creating the designs on paper - Kostoff reached his goal.
He now owns the patent on the technology to prove it.
The result was 'The Gravity Powered Machine.' The self-sustaining engine provides as little as 10 foot-pounds of torque or as much as hundreds, Kostoff said, adding how its cost is less than half of a small wind turbine.
The machine – which only requires a little bit of start-up juice before it creates enough power to sustain itself - works much like a teeter-totter, using a series of sliding weights that, with the help of the earths gravitational pull, force the unit to continue spinning around in a circle.
Install a series of magnets in the unit and tens of thousands of watts of electricity can be produced, an amount that depends on the size of the actual machine.
“You can get off the hydro grid with one of these,” Kostoff told The Lindsay Post.
So far, about five of the units have been made. Once he got the concept down, he said he began fine-tuning the more cosmetic aspects of the machine, such as reducing noise.
“Once you figure it out, it's just about perfecting it,” he said.
A former employee of Matthews Conveyor who also ran his own computer stores in Lindsay and Port Perry, Kostoff hopes his new invention will eliminate the need for fossil fuels.
The machines can be used in a variety of applications, Kostoff said, because they produce electricity at no cost.
For example, he said the units can be used to generate the power needed for electrolysis, a process that creates hydrogen, a “free fuel” that could be used to power your personal vehicle.
http://www.thepost.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=679901
but i haven't seen the paper on international journals
. i dont believe it much. hehe
Little Britain man turning gravity into power
LINDSAY – When he heard on television that gravity couldn't be used as a form of energy, Bob Kostoff set out to prove Discovery Channel wrong.
“I said, 'That doesn't make any sense,'” said the Little Britain resident, using dropping a cement brick from a standing height as an example.
If you were to place your hands a few centimeters off of the ground to try to stop it before it hits the ground, you wouldn't be able to because of the energy powering the bricks fall, he said last Friday.
With that concept in mind, Kostoff sought to make a 'perpetual motion machine' that could offer a clean, alternative source of power using gravity as 'fuel.'
After about four years of planning and development through trial and error – including about a year-and-a-half creating the designs on paper - Kostoff reached his goal.
He now owns the patent on the technology to prove it.
The result was 'The Gravity Powered Machine.' The self-sustaining engine provides as little as 10 foot-pounds of torque or as much as hundreds, Kostoff said, adding how its cost is less than half of a small wind turbine.
The machine – which only requires a little bit of start-up juice before it creates enough power to sustain itself - works much like a teeter-totter, using a series of sliding weights that, with the help of the earths gravitational pull, force the unit to continue spinning around in a circle.
Install a series of magnets in the unit and tens of thousands of watts of electricity can be produced, an amount that depends on the size of the actual machine.
“You can get off the hydro grid with one of these,” Kostoff told The Lindsay Post.
So far, about five of the units have been made. Once he got the concept down, he said he began fine-tuning the more cosmetic aspects of the machine, such as reducing noise.
“Once you figure it out, it's just about perfecting it,” he said.
A former employee of Matthews Conveyor who also ran his own computer stores in Lindsay and Port Perry, Kostoff hopes his new invention will eliminate the need for fossil fuels.
The machines can be used in a variety of applications, Kostoff said, because they produce electricity at no cost.
For example, he said the units can be used to generate the power needed for electrolysis, a process that creates hydrogen, a “free fuel” that could be used to power your personal vehicle.
http://www.thepost.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=679901
but i haven't seen the paper on international journals
. i dont believe it much. heheThis is amazing if its true for more than one reason. Will comment later. Going to garage to get the ICE in my car fixed.
dac-I sent you private message
dac-I sent you private message
"Dac"
I have been to the website you suggested and the video there is more convincing than the ones at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/
Just to recap the ORBO technology had a HUGE investment which included a full sized advert in the ECONOMIST newspaper that cost a fortune.
Very intersting post. Thanks again...
I have been to the website you suggested and the video there is more convincing than the ones at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/
Just to recap the ORBO technology had a HUGE investment which included a full sized advert in the ECONOMIST newspaper that cost a fortune.
Very intersting post. Thanks again...
your welcome! it just caught my by surprise.. i think it was really a brilliant idea. if someone, only someone could do that. the world would be a better place! hehe.. im currently under laser microscopy group at the moment. i might consider energy research in the future
You can (or will be able to) buy your own solar panel or wind turbine. You buy it and there are no further costs .I don't believe in anything in this direction, although it would definitely be nice..
I have not seen anything hinting at the arrival of free energy. Solar panels and wind turbines are really expensive though, dwcnps, even though they don't need fuel.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7523320357359977994&q=water+burning&total=2050&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
That's a link to a video showing an American scientist who accidentally discovered that salt water can be burned very easily. The discovery is new and has a lot of potential. My math teacher last semester showed me this. It shows we certainly don't know it all and there's lots of ways to get power besides oil, nuclear, and other dangers or limited resources.
I personally like hydrogen power and solar power as good choices right now given the tech level of today.
That's a link to a video showing an American scientist who accidentally discovered that salt water can be burned very easily. The discovery is new and has a lot of potential. My math teacher last semester showed me this. It shows we certainly don't know it all and there's lots of ways to get power besides oil, nuclear, and other dangers or limited resources.
I personally like hydrogen power and solar power as good choices right now given the tech level of today.
This is a great discovery by the last poster. I'd heard the rumour but bot thougfht to look in Google u tube. I guess if you live next to the sea your laughing but in the video it looked like they mixed salt water with ordinary tap water. Anyone out there know how to generate radio waves? I've got to do something wioth my car in the workshop
Now one source of free energy has been discovered please go to the new forum.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-83154.html
If you don't believe it please keep blogging here...
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-83154.html
If you don't believe it please keep blogging here...
Yes, of course, I thing so, but the newest energy will be dangerous.
in what way
It will never come. There is nothing for free, especially not free energy. Even if it comes as “free” energy I’m sure we would pay it in some way.
What if there was free energy readily available with some pretty simple aparatus. You would not have to go to an outside provider?
| chasbeen wrote: |
| What if there was free energy readily available with some pretty simple aparatus. You would not have to go to an outside provider?
|
Don't deceive yourself. Free energy is a myth. It is as much a myth as anti gravity is, today! Fit for science fiction writings.
Dismissed in such a short sentence. Assumption you cannot get more energy out of something that you put into it. An Internal Combustion Engine is typically 30% efficient.
I don't know battery technology has no moving parts and some cars have been produced that run on it
I don't know battery technology has no moving parts and some cars have been produced that run on it
Free energy can become a commercial viability if we could position ourselves in the space outside and produce or convert the solar energy into electrical energy. Build a large channel that will carry down the electricity from that 'power station' to earth. then, yes, it is possible to produce very cheap power that could be called free energy.
But when will this be feasible? Anybody's guess.
But when will this be feasible? Anybody's guess.
rshanthakumar
Also what would be the incentive?
Your suggestion is an initially hugely expensive project but with low subsequent maintenance but huge returns.
Second question:-Why hasn't the project started yet?
Probably because the worlds financial stability depends on the revenues derived from the present infrastructure as regards energy consumption.
Eg:Tax revenue from petrol/gas to power ICE engines.
Also what would be the incentive?
Your suggestion is an initially hugely expensive project but with low subsequent maintenance but huge returns.
Second question:-Why hasn't the project started yet?
Probably because the worlds financial stability depends on the revenues derived from the present infrastructure as regards energy consumption.
Eg:Tax revenue from petrol/gas to power ICE engines.
| chasbeen wrote: |
| rshanthakumar
Also what would be the incentive? Your suggestion is an initially hugely expensive project but with low subsequent maintenance but huge returns. Second question:-Why hasn't the project started yet? Probably because the worlds financial stability depends on the revenues derived from the present infrastructure as regards energy consumption. Eg:Tax revenue from petrol/gas to power ICE engines. |
The reason is the one you have first - huge setup costs - I mean HUGE. Getting things into orbit is extremely expensive. It's a matter of economics not a global conspiracy. Until we have a cheap method of 'getting stuff up' then it will remain far more expensive to try this sort of technology than to use other fuels and energy sources. The shuttle is a busted-flush so that is out - you are left with liquid fuelled one-shot rocket technology which will always be too expensive for this type of operation. Probably the best answer is the one proposed by the late great Arthur C Clarke - a space elevator. If we could develop filaments strong and long enough (probably using nanotechnology to form carbon-40 'rope', or something of that ilk) then we could drop a 'rope' from geostationary orbit and use a simple elevator to get into orbit. The costs would then be trivial and we could start properly developing this type of orbital power technology. Until we have that sort of technology (or a cheap and reliable reusable shuttle alternative) then it will remain uneconomic.
| chasbeen wrote: |
| rshanthakumar
Also what would be the incentive? Your suggestion is an initially hugely expensive project but with low subsequent maintenance but huge returns. Second question:-Why hasn't the project started yet? Probably because the worlds financial stability depends on the revenues derived from the present infrastructure as regards energy consumption. Eg:Tax revenue from petrol/gas to power ICE engines. |
The reason is the one you have stated - huge setup costs - I mean HUGE. Getting things into orbit is extremely expensive. It's a matter of economics not a global conspiracy. Until we have a cheap method of 'getting stuff up' then it will remain far more expensive to try this sort of technology than to use other fuels and energy sources. The shuttle is a busted-flush so that is out - you are left with liquid fuelled one-shot rocket technology which will always be too expensive for this type of operation. Probably the best answer is the one proposed by the late great Arthur C Clarke - a space elevator. If we could develop filaments strong and long enough (probably using nanotechnology to form carbon-40 'rope', or something of that ilk) then we could drop a 'rope' from geostationary orbit and use a simple elevator to get into orbit. The costs would then be trivial and we could start properly developing this type of orbital power technology. Until we have that sort of technology (or a cheap and reliable reusable shuttle alternative) then it will remain uneconomic.
Arthur C Clarke was a great thinker. Some of the best ideas are the simplest. Whats got me always in this forum is the lack of exciting projects. The last one for me was Summer 1969 with Neil Armstrong. Everything since then has been less interesting as far as i'm concerned.
No free energy. Renewable energy sources, yes perhaps. Cheap energy, yes perhaps. Energy is not frihost.
I don't think free energy is and will be coming...!!! 
nivinjoy
Why do you think that then?
Why do you think that then?
| chasbeen wrote: |
| nivinjoy
Why do you think that then? |
But how can it be possible to come out with free energy idea...?? Any scientific substantiation...??? Just to know..??Please..??
I suppose I should have called the topic "nearly free energy"
Examples of cheaper energy
Cell (Battery) powered cars. They work and can be run at a fraction of the cost.
Wind Power
Combustion of Sea water. The Sea can be used as a source of fuel.
Examples of cheaper energy
Cell (Battery) powered cars. They work and can be run at a fraction of the cost.
Wind Power
Combustion of Sea water. The Sea can be used as a source of fuel.
I have the feeling everybody is a bit confused on this argument.
The first point is to have clear definitions. Defining batteries (which are an energy vector and not an energy source) as a "near free energy source" makes me have goose pimples.
First of all let's clarify one essential point: almost all energy we have on the earth comes from the sun. The only energy source allowing us to really produce energy on the earth is nuclear power. But on the long run, it is going to end quite soon. According to US Army reports, uranium will last about 40 years given the present techniques, after which forget about nuclear (at least in terms of fission reactions).
All energy comes from the sun because coal, oil, gases, are just organic by-products generated by photosyntesis, harnessing solar energy. It has been stored for centuries, and now we are just harvesting what was created by the sun long time ago.
These "sources" of energy are not renewable because their production cycle is way too long for us to be usable (we consume much mor than what can be produced in the same amount of time), so they are going to end up sooner or later (sooner for oil, about 75-90 years, later for coal, which would last 350 years at present rates of consumption).
Renewable sources are interesting because they are... renewable! Not all renewables are non-polluting though, and the "earth landfill" (the most important part of which is our atmosphere) is also finite, therefore we should choose non polluting renewable sources of energy if we want to grant a future to our children and their children and so on. However, all renewable sources are directly linked with sun radiation.
In this picture come the so-called "free energy sources". With this term one usually indicates sources of energy which are not linked with the sun radiation. I think it is a bit misleading to call these field of research as "free energy" because, even if they will one day be actually used, there is no indication that this will be free.
There are two big direction of research: one is the cold fusion field, and the other is the magnetic research field. In both cases, the sources of energy require... energy to work. In other terms, the sources of energy can only provide an additional quantity of energy output compared to the energy input. This means that to provide a reasonable quantity of energy these sources will require considerable investments in fixed infrastructures. The big energy players will therefore be in the picture, and nobody will get the energy for free, just forget it. That energy will never be more free than the solar energy, the wind energy or the hydro-power energy.
So stop dreaming and go immediately to pay the stupid bill!
The first point is to have clear definitions. Defining batteries (which are an energy vector and not an energy source) as a "near free energy source" makes me have goose pimples.
First of all let's clarify one essential point: almost all energy we have on the earth comes from the sun. The only energy source allowing us to really produce energy on the earth is nuclear power. But on the long run, it is going to end quite soon. According to US Army reports, uranium will last about 40 years given the present techniques, after which forget about nuclear (at least in terms of fission reactions).
All energy comes from the sun because coal, oil, gases, are just organic by-products generated by photosyntesis, harnessing solar energy. It has been stored for centuries, and now we are just harvesting what was created by the sun long time ago.
These "sources" of energy are not renewable because their production cycle is way too long for us to be usable (we consume much mor than what can be produced in the same amount of time), so they are going to end up sooner or later (sooner for oil, about 75-90 years, later for coal, which would last 350 years at present rates of consumption).
Renewable sources are interesting because they are... renewable! Not all renewables are non-polluting though, and the "earth landfill" (the most important part of which is our atmosphere) is also finite, therefore we should choose non polluting renewable sources of energy if we want to grant a future to our children and their children and so on. However, all renewable sources are directly linked with sun radiation.
In this picture come the so-called "free energy sources". With this term one usually indicates sources of energy which are not linked with the sun radiation. I think it is a bit misleading to call these field of research as "free energy" because, even if they will one day be actually used, there is no indication that this will be free.
There are two big direction of research: one is the cold fusion field, and the other is the magnetic research field. In both cases, the sources of energy require... energy to work. In other terms, the sources of energy can only provide an additional quantity of energy output compared to the energy input. This means that to provide a reasonable quantity of energy these sources will require considerable investments in fixed infrastructures. The big energy players will therefore be in the picture, and nobody will get the energy for free, just forget it. That energy will never be more free than the solar energy, the wind energy or the hydro-power energy.
So stop dreaming and go immediately to pay the stupid bill!
Firstly - we are not all confused - I'm not at all confused I assure you.
Secondly you are incorrect in the assertion that all current energy comes from the sun. There are a large number of nuclear fission reactors used for energy creation worldwide. This depends in no way on the sun (uranium cannot even be created by Solar means - it requires Supernovae).
Thirdly you are wrong in your assessment of current research. Cold fusion is regarded as pseudo-science by many, if not most, physicists. No repeatable experiments have demonstrated that it is a real phenomenon.
Fusion, on the other hand, is a very active field of research. There are various projects around the world concentrating on this type of technology. Projects include the JET reactor in Europe and the international ITER reactor.
I don't know what you mean by 'magnetic research'. There was a claim recently by an Irish consortium STEORN that they had produced some new energy source relying on magnetism. To the best of my knowledge it is hokum and I have seen nothing that would make me change that view.
Secondly you are incorrect in the assertion that all current energy comes from the sun. There are a large number of nuclear fission reactors used for energy creation worldwide. This depends in no way on the sun (uranium cannot even be created by Solar means - it requires Supernovae).
Thirdly you are wrong in your assessment of current research. Cold fusion is regarded as pseudo-science by many, if not most, physicists. No repeatable experiments have demonstrated that it is a real phenomenon.
Fusion, on the other hand, is a very active field of research. There are various projects around the world concentrating on this type of technology. Projects include the JET reactor in Europe and the international ITER reactor.
I don't know what you mean by 'magnetic research'. There was a claim recently by an Irish consortium STEORN that they had produced some new energy source relying on magnetism. To the best of my knowledge it is hokum and I have seen nothing that would make me change that view.
The current KNOWN uranium reserves wich are mined will last for 40 years there are some that aren't and there are of course also undiscovered place's in the world where there is uranium. Well last longer 100 years or so.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| The current KNOWN uranium reserves wich are mined will last for 40 years there are some that aren't and there are of course also undiscovered place's in the world where there is uranium. Well last longer 100 years or so. |
True enough but then you have to consider breeder reactor technology, which requires very little 'new' uranium. I do not wish, however, to hijack the thread into a discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear technology - that would be best done in a different thread, I think. The point was that not all current energy generation is solar-dependant and certainly not all future generation will be (unless you count the fact that fusion reactors are, to some extent, modelled on solar fusion)..
They did a special about free energy on the discovery channel awhile back it was actually quite interesting they featured things from a big spinning thing powered by nearly dead battery's? To a spinning ball on this circle thing with magnets or whatever.
The one that interested me for awhile was the ferris wheel example that this guy in France built it was basically a full scale implementation of an idea and it appeared to work.
It worked by always being heavier on one side, it had these glass bottles at the ends of the wheel when the glass bottles came to the bottom of the wheel they were pushed in closer to the center of the wheel when they got to the top they were pushed out so that one side the bottles were in and the other they were out making one side always heavier. The only scientific problem would be friction of the moving parts this would cause it not to work.
In a universe without friction it would work fine.
The one that interested me for awhile was the ferris wheel example that this guy in France built it was basically a full scale implementation of an idea and it appeared to work.
It worked by always being heavier on one side, it had these glass bottles at the ends of the wheel when the glass bottles came to the bottom of the wheel they were pushed in closer to the center of the wheel when they got to the top they were pushed out so that one side the bottles were in and the other they were out making one side always heavier. The only scientific problem would be friction of the moving parts this would cause it not to work.
In a universe without friction it would work fine.
coming from science background, i have a veeery hard time understanding the concept of "free energy" as it is used in this post. the process of splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen takes energy, which I assume is derived from the radio wave.
There are several scenarios I can think of.
1) The whole thing is a hype, and it turns out energy required to run the radio wave approximately matches the energy given off from the flame. In this case, what Kanzius discovered wasn't an alternate source of energy, but an interesting physical property of water/nacl solution.
2) free energy given off (as in deltaG) is indeed higher than energy required to emit radio waves, and NaCl is used as a catalyst: NaCl acts as a catalyst... nuclear or otherwise... i got nothing on this one. (although an outrageous hypothesis might be NaCl acts as a very weak nuclear catalyst which instigates nuclear reaction of water molecules which then gives off enough energy to drive the splitting of oxygen and hydrogen from water)
3) free energy given off (as in deltaG0 is indeed higher than energy required to emit radio waves, and NaCl is used as part of the reagent: then which small parts of salt (perhaps in form of redox) are used up, or small nuclear reaction (whether it be fusion or fission, your guess is as good as mine) happens with the na/cl ions themselves or in conjunction with water to drive the splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and water.
Whatever the truth is, whether it be one of my 3 predictions (of which the latter two are completely outrageous even for my standards. but hey, they're hypothesis based on what little information i was given from the video and other articles) or something completely different, there is no doubt what Kanzius found is a rather physical property.
There are several scenarios I can think of.
1) The whole thing is a hype, and it turns out energy required to run the radio wave approximately matches the energy given off from the flame. In this case, what Kanzius discovered wasn't an alternate source of energy, but an interesting physical property of water/nacl solution.
2) free energy given off (as in deltaG) is indeed higher than energy required to emit radio waves, and NaCl is used as a catalyst: NaCl acts as a catalyst... nuclear or otherwise... i got nothing on this one. (although an outrageous hypothesis might be NaCl acts as a very weak nuclear catalyst which instigates nuclear reaction of water molecules which then gives off enough energy to drive the splitting of oxygen and hydrogen from water)
3) free energy given off (as in deltaG0 is indeed higher than energy required to emit radio waves, and NaCl is used as part of the reagent: then which small parts of salt (perhaps in form of redox) are used up, or small nuclear reaction (whether it be fusion or fission, your guess is as good as mine) happens with the na/cl ions themselves or in conjunction with water to drive the splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and water.
Whatever the truth is, whether it be one of my 3 predictions (of which the latter two are completely outrageous even for my standards. but hey, they're hypothesis based on what little information i was given from the video and other articles) or something completely different, there is no doubt what Kanzius found is a rather physical property.
The standard free energy change might be enough to drive a boat already in motion.
Would it be possible for a vessel travelling on sea water to utilize the abundant resource that covers 70% of the earths surface
Would it be possible for a vessel travelling on sea water to utilize the abundant resource that covers 70% of the earths surface
 |