Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

free energy is possible ???

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • free energy is possible ???

    i read lot of theory about nickolas telsa free energy ideas

    it is possible

    any proof?

  • #2
    I think that it is possible but people still are not allowed to use it. The thing is, free energy means no profit for big companies. However, I believe that people will be able to use free energy in near future.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sure it's possible, but is there any reason why it should be a priority? Most energy is used by industries anyway, and I think the current situation encourages energy efficiency which is a good thing. Would perhaps make more sense to offer individual services like electric public transport free of charge.

      Comment


      • #4
        Go to school! You must understand a couple of things about energy. First of all, energy was invented by people as a measure of the transformation of matter. What do you means free? Like perpetum mobile or what? It can not exist! Nothing is taken from nowhere and does not disappear anywhere! This is an axiom. But, we can think about one thing, how made this process better, because we have one problem - every transformation of matter has a part that turns into heat. When electrical energy rotates the electric motor turning energy into kinetic energy and a heat, how minimize heat?

        Comment


        • #5
          No free lunch, no free energy...sorry.

          Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.

          Comment


          • #6
            Offcourse(one way or the other,lol)

            Development(cost) and (predicted)profit are the biggest issues,lol. Thats where the politicians should come in......................................lol



            Mzzls
            Last edited by ughstupidagain; 05-15-2017, 04:54 PM. Reason: had too...........lol

            Comment


            • #7
              The short answer is a definite "yes".

              The laws of thermodynamics are merely descriptive of the processes, characteristics, and limitations of heat engines. If a process does not use combustion (i.e. does not utilize the flow of heat from combustion, or as in solar, thermal collection, through a device to do work and this is thence lost to a heat sink or as wasted thermal energy / friction) in order to power the production and transformation of thermal energy to mechanical / kinetic energy, a process can be engineered wherein energy may be, not "produced" but harnessed, virtually for free. The costs entailed would be mostly for the construction, production and maintenance of said devices and creating a distribution system for the electricity generated, either integrating them within the existing grids - perhaps not the best idea? - or implementing the devices within personal residences, office spaces, industrial centers etc. This is somewhat being done with solar (at less than a snail's pace).
              The catch here is to be able to free oneself from the "infernal" combustion paradigm. How difficult is it to free oneself of the preconceptions of their cultures' scientific biases? Extremely difficult!

              Also a developer of such technology has practical hurdles to clear as well as those of intellectual bias. For instance, a device which claims to be able to tap and transform an unlimited source of energy, such as gravity, to do useful work would be determined to be one of "perpetual motion" by the PTO ( Office of Patents and Trademarks - under the US Dept. of Commerce ). The designer must - without the offensive* legal power that a patent provides - research, design, test and manufacture prototypes. Then said device must be transported to, and left with, the PTO for one year. There it is dismantled and reconstructed to examine and prove the veracity of the claims in the patent application. During this period the device is inspected by representatives of each and every relevant governmental department. And, if the device is determined to have any significant military applications, the PTO has the power to slap a secrecy order on said application for 12 years. If the inventor were to try to obtain an international patent, say in Switzerland, they could face prosecution for divulging state secrets. Without a patent, which is a grant of monopoly ownership from the PTO, an inventor does not legally OWN their invention.

              Where could one safely do research on such a project? At a university? Clifford D. Conner, in his The People's History of Science, observes, "Two-thirds of research is now financed by companies. And much of this 'privatized' science is falling into the hands of ever fewer - and ever bigger - global corporations. The corruption of science is not confined to researchers who work directly for corporations. No less complicit are the university labs and government agencies whose ties to industry have bound them even more tightly into a single entity. Conflict of interest in science has become the norm of behavior, rather than the exception. The academic research milieu is generally acknowledged to be permanently and unabashedly linked to the private sector."

              Here in Hawaii, I was directed by our Proto-HUB ( an entrepreneurial incubator of sorts) to approach Hi SERF: Hawaii Sustainable Energy Research Facility. The placard over the door listed their affiliations: The University of Hawaii in partnership (LLC?) with Hawaiian Electric Company sponsored by the Office of Naval Research and the US Dept. of Energy. I choose not to go inside after reading that.

              Then the devise must be marketed. According to instructors of venture capital, large on-going concerns ( venture capital funds, corporations ) as a matter of course, operate under the assumption that patents are made to be challenged, re-engineered, or outright stolen. The patent will definitely be disregarded if the potential gains are significant enough as such institutions have immensely deeper pockets and access to legal departments, law firms etc. I said earlier that a patent only affords offensive legal rights. This means that the holder of the patent must PROVE that the accused willfully infringed on the patented device. The patent holder is NOT The defendant in this scenario but must mount, and pay for, their own offensive legal case against the infringing party. Hence, a patent, in and of itself affords no legal defense, merely offensive evidence of the accusation.

              If the electricity generated world wide in 2016 were sold at one half of what it is in Hawaii, this would represent a two trillion dollar market. If you were a corporation would this number be sufficient to induce you to disregard a POTENTIAL lawsuit?

              Does this begin to explain the dearth of devices which could overthrow the strangle hold which fossil fuels have over our globe? In my opinion it begins to.
              Last edited by AnnoDyneRx; 05-19-2017, 12:16 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Friends,

                We need to think about re-new-able energy, that does not pollute, and does not harm the world. I am glad at least some people are thinking about this. I live in the USA, we have WAYYYY to many cars..and traffic. its just not designed for like 100+ years from now.. We need small little electric taxis, that you just call from your phone, and they zip to your house and pick you up. This idea of every family owns a car is outdated.

                Solar..... we need to build our houses so the roofs face the sun. Wind, we can do this. Geo thermal, yep. also do-able.. long term.

                we need to keep pushing in these areas. that will make them better and cheaper.

                Thank you for sharing.

                dr. Darrell of Michigan.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We need controlled fusion. Solar, wind e.t.c. this is something for eko fools which whine about CO2 in the atmosphere white they eat chemical contaminated food.

                  The universe shows us how to create energy. Take two hydrogen atoms fuse them together to one helium atom and take the energy. This is they way how most stars create their light and heat. We just need incredible hight temperature and pressure for such fusion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hades, as last time you have visited Planet Mars with me on our dreamy UFO and you have seen energy is free there for everyone. So it is possible dude. (Think positive )

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      No, not possible. No matter what the energy source there is going to be a cost involved in collecting the energy. If you redefine "free" so that cost doesn't count then oil, solar, and hydrothermal are already free, but you've left meaning behind in setting your definitions.

                      Thermodynamics and the principle of the conservation of energy does relate (subjects I studied in becoming an industrial engineer awhile back). No process can create energy from nothing, more or less. Solar energy is a completely different thing; the sun just gives that off. A perpetual machine can't exist.

                      Solar is a cheap as "more free" energy gets these days; we can collect what's coming off the sun. Geothermal is not much different, collecting the heat of the earth, but the infrastructure equipment to do it is really expensive.

                      Devices that collect ocean wave energy are interesting; to some extent that must already work, and they'll keep with it until it's more practical. It's interesting to consider the source of that energy, part of it from the gravitational force of the moon on the earth (or is that just tides? I'm not a geologist). Someone might think: this is free, and unlimited, since the moon keeps circling, and an apparent violation of that law of physics. It must be the case that if we wait long enough the moon's orbit will eventually decay. I think we've only got 3 or 4 billion more years until the sun's normal life cycle causes it to make life on earth inhabitable so if it takes longer than that it wouldn't matter.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Hades91 View Post
                        We need controlled fusion. Solar, wind e.t.c. this is something for eko fools which whine about CO2 in the atmosphere white they eat chemical contaminated food.

                        The universe shows us how to create energy. Take two hydrogen atoms fuse them together to one helium atom and take the energy. This is they way how most stars create their light and heat. We just need incredible hight temperature and pressure for such fusion.
                        I'd go for thorium fision out of the tech that we have now. Thorium reacters can't blow up since the heat raises the temperature and with it the volume of the liquid medium.
                        Since the volume of the medium grows the density shrinks and with the lower density the chain reaction can't be sustained. At this point the medium cools down ,the volume shrinks the density grows and the fision goes on. Basically a self regulating system
                        Last edited by YaAtEeh; 05-29-2017, 07:59 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I do'nt think Tesla was an idiot -weel, he was a damn awesome genius in fact- and energy was one of his main subject so... I guess he wasn't talking about rapind the thermodynamic laws. On another hand, he had not given any proof of "free energy", so... it doesn(t exist.

                          Finally, I would say conspirationists are funny with that, but they are often telling crap, to not to say always.
                          Last edited by Sancta_Lux; 05-30-2017, 12:11 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            According to 2dn law of thermodynamics, yes, all the systems have free energy (from Wiki: Thermodynamic free energy, the energy in a physical system that can be converted to do work), but u can`t use 100% of it to do the work. But if you will avoid entropy - yes .
                            Last edited by AnastasiaAlice; 06-15-2017, 07:09 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by AnnoDyneRx View Post

                              (insert global conspiracy claims here)

                              Does this begin to explain the dearth of devices which could overthrow the strangle hold which fossil fuels have over our globe? In my opinion it begins to.
                              No. Just no. Stop and _think_ about what you are saying.

                              The laws of thermodynamics are not just "descriptive" they are fantastically well tested, and they are easily tested by anyone with an honest interest in the topic. In hundreds of years no one has ever demonstrated any event, process or phenomena that violates those laws.

                              Occam's razor: What's more likely: An airtight global conspiracy that's run for hundreds of years? Or that there are some perfectly ordinary con men and lunatics running around claiming that "free" energy exists in order to enrich themselves personally, either in dollars or in public attention?

                              Pretty simple really. In all of human history everyone who has ever claimed to produce free energy or have a technique to produce free energy has failed the instant the mechanism or proposal was tested against the evidence.

                              So what are the odds that the con men or wackos trying to sell you on the free energy scam are any different than any of their predecessors?

                              "Free" energy is fraud or delusion, and the absolute proof of that is that the only place you'll ever see the con men and delusional types making the claims is on the internet or in the backs of magazines. They *never* attempt to publish their great "theories" in peer-reviewed journals, and they *never* challenge the published science that contradicts their claims. They can't have it both ways, they either need to challenge the existing evidence with a nw theory that explains everything we already know *and* makes an additional prediction that the current theory does not - or else they have to present testable evidence.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...otion_machines

                              "The history of perpetual motion machines dates back to the Middle Ages. For millennia, it was not clear whether perpetual motion devices were possible or not, but modern theories of thermodynamics have shown that they are impossible. Despite this, many attempts have been made to construct such machines, continuing into modern times. Modern designers and proponents sometimes use other terms, such as "overunity", to describe their inventions."

                              Note the modern variations on perpetual motion usually end up with a criminal conviction for defrauding investors. They target credible people who don't understand pretty basic physics and they extract as much money as they can, always with promises of *huge* financial rewards and fame "just around the corner"

                              *That* perfectly explains the dearth of devices to challenge fossil fuels. They don't exist. That's Occam's preferred answer, the one with the fewest entities involved.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X