It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Universal Energy Source

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:44 AM
An energy source effectively is whatever gives us energy...a fuel being something we collected ... an energy reserve that is expended.

So what is the only "true" energy source? That "thing" which can't be depleted.

The Sun is often referred to as an energy source but it is a temporary thing like all other fuel sources.

Is the true energy source "mass"? "gravity"?

Discuss?

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:28 AM
There is no true energy source. If you want to think of it in that fashion, then you need to think in math.

If you add 1 to 2, where does the 1 come from? It must come from somewhere else... some other related equation.

With water power, we're taking energy away from the falling water. It slows down as it hits the turbines.

Gravity is a constant power - it's not limitless, but it does not give up any power to do what it does. When the water is stopped from falling, it hasn't lost the power of gravity. The power of gravity keeps it where it is, prevents it from bouncing back up the dam. The power came from the water falling, not the power of gravity. The fall is there because of the cliff/dam.

Free Energy doesn't exist. But we can get better and better sources - sources that are bountiful and nearly limitless. When we burn gas, we're turning an ever so small amount of mass into energy. When the Atom Bomb goes off, we're getting a smidget more of the mass to turn into energy. In fusion, it's just a parcel more. In matter and anti-matter, the exchange is complete. It's true, anti-matter and matter reactors would be amazing at cranking out huge proportions of energy. A golf ball sized piece of anti-matter could demolish the entire city of Houston and set nearly all of its parent state aflame.

But where would we get the anti-matter? We would need to find either naturally-occuring anti-matter, or find a way to easily turn normal matter into anti-matter. Because as it currently stands, we need to put even more energy into making the anti-matter than we get out of it.

Even if we could easily turn normal matter into anti-matter, it would be almost, but not quite, limitless. We'd have a huge supply of energy, nearly limitless... but it still would have its limits.

No, free energy does not exist - only energy from sources and methods far unlike anything we're used to.

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:51 AM
Anti-matter seems like the "ultimate" in energy sources, Yarium. But, there is another energy source that is well, alot more plausible. Cold fusion. Yes, we can currently, we have the ability to create fusion reactions with particle accelerators. But, the idea behind "cold fusion" is to create a stable enviornment in which to create fusion reactions. THe one thing that makes fusion so nearly limitless is the fact that in fusion reactions, one needs only to blast small particles from every-day elements at other particles from again, every-day element. This, in turn, creates a radioactive element. In normal nuclear fission reactors, which are your every-day nuclear reactors, you need to find and mine and exctract and purify radioactive substances, which are as rare, or rarer in some cases than gold. With cold fusion you could take just about anything and get power from it (Like the Hydrogen in the H-bomb). Voila! Cold fusion. The only problem is controlling the reactions. Fusion reactions are much, much more hard to control than fission reactions. As seen in the H-bomb. Harnessing the power of Fat Man and Little Boy was hard (and dangerous) enough.

So, I don't know about anti-matter, considering it is still basically a theory. But cold fusion seems like it would be the next big step in energy production to me. Finding an efficient way to do that would make high energy bills a thing of the past, if they even exist.

Maybe we'll solve the gas problem by making cold fusion cars, like nuclear powered naval ships.
I think I'll just stick to the much less-volatile gas, myself.

0