It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Free Energy: A matter of fact.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I'm going to assume that everyone who stumbles on this thread is aware of what the concept of free energy is, Im going to skip the intro.

It seems to me that people who work on free energy are trying to jump from point A to point B.

This is how technology usually develops.
Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> Improvement/Less Expenditure-> Expenditure Free

This chain can be seen throughout history. Take the Car for example.
Before the car, people walked (or rode bicycles or animals) everywhere. This involved energy Expenditure in the form of manual labor.
Then Da Vinci thought of the concept of "automatic transport."
When the car was finally invented, There was still manual labor involved to get it running. Filling the water, Winding it up, etc. It was still more convenient and economic than walking.
Now in the modern day we have basically eliminated manual labor involved in transport.

In other words:
Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> Less Expenditure-> Expenditure Free.
Walking -> Idea of driving -> filling water and Winding up car-> Get in and go.

Now onto free energy. The development of free energy SHOULD be no different than any other technology.
Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> Less Expenditure -> Expenditure Free.

We have electricity. It comes at a major price, these being excessive pollution and less output than input.
We have the concept of "Free Energy". The concept is that there is little to no pollution, and there is equal/more output than input.
????(Point missing)
We have Free energy.

IE: Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> ????-> Expenditure Free/Free Energy.

Why is the point missing? As I said earlier: "It seems to me that people who work on free energy are trying to jump from point A to point B." People are trying to develop free energy without first improving on what we have.
We simply cannot develop a technology without following the steps required.

Now knowing that, How can we achieve 'Free Energy'?
The answer is simple.
Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> ????-> Expenditure Free/Free Energy.
Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> Less Expenditure-> Expenditure Free.

As you can see, the ???? should be Less Expenditure.

Once again, lets take the car for example.
I'm no mechanic, but a basic concept of the car is this:
Fuel burns, causing the turbines to turn. The movement of the turbines creates energy allowing for the axel to move. The movement of the axel (and thus the tires) on the ground causes friction, allowing the car to move.

Alot of energy is 'wasted' in the transition between the turbines and the axel movement. We could simply attatch an electro-magnet/battery to the turbine, and store the 'wasted' kinetic energy as electical energy for later use. This would create a Self-Recharging Hybrid car. (and cut down pollution)
Cutting down and storing the 'wasted' energy would increase the total output.
It's THAT simple.

It's NOT free energy, but it IS an improvement on the method we currently use energy, Thus filling the ????, allowing for later development.

Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> Less Expenditure-> Expenditure Free.



Sorry if all that seemed a bit jumbled...but I have a habit of having trouble getting Ideas out on 'paper'.





posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Uh, not to pop your bubble, but cars don't HAVE turbines.

At any rate, if what you mean to say is, we should create more efficient vehicles, that's a good idea.

One of the things that makes hybrids more efficient is that they recover a portion of the car's kinetic energy during braking.

But you can't magically increase efficiency to the point that you no longer need fuel.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   


Uh, not to pop your bubble, but cars don't HAVE turbines.

Turbines.... Cars have Internal Combustion Engines aren't they the same thing?
As I said, I'm not a mechanic.





At any rate, if what you mean to say is, we should create more efficient vehicles, that's a good idea...

Nah, I was using the car as an example. We should develop technology to save, conserve and use wasted energy before we develop Free Energy.




But you can't magically increase efficiency to the point that you no longer need fuel.

No, not magically, but then that depends on what your definition of fuel is.
You can increase your efficiency on a bike by using gears, as apposed to not using gears.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear

No, not magically, but then that depends on what your definition of fuel is.
You can increase your efficiency on a bike by using gears, as apposed to not using gears.


Yet no excellence of design, or choice of gears, will make the bike pedal itself. That's what I'm saying. Making things efficient is a great idea, but won't create energy.

There are lots of examples of re-using waste energy, however, you have to remember that most waste energy is low-level heat. There are some tacky bits of thermodynamics that make waste energy less and less worth capturing as it goes down the scale.

For example, your bike idea. You, yourself, as the bike's engine, generate waste heat that is carried away (mainly) by evaporation, convection and radiation as you pedal. Waste energy at that level isn't worth recapturing to try to turn some tiny generator. It's just waste. The same with the energy lost as heat in the gears and chain of the bike, as sound emission etc. It's just not very useful.

At some point every energy source in the world ends up as low-level waste heat.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   


Yet no excellence of design, or choice of gears, will make the bike pedal itself. That's what I'm saying.

No, but having Gears on a bike is an Improvement. That is a start. A motorbike is even more of an improvement, as it has eliminated the Physical Labor involved. You might say that it "pedals itself." But it's NOT a bicycle. That is my point. Improvements must be made on current technology before technology itself change.
Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> Less Expenditure-> Expenditure Free.
Cycling -> 'Idea of using a pulley system'-> Cycling with gears -> Motorcycling.



There are lots of examples of re-using waste energy, however, you have to remember that most waste energy is low-level heat. There are some tacky bits of thermodynamics that make waste energy less and less worth capturing as it goes down the scale....
...At some point every energy source in the world ends up as low-level waste heat.

I don't see where your coming from. Are you supporting my theory or against it?
That is my ultimate point. We need to improve current technology before we can have free energy.

Waste heat? Thats not the only thing that is wasted. We could use friction and kinetic energy. These are not viewed as 'wasted' energy, but rather by-products of energy expenditure itself. We need to harness THAT before we can move onward.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
What you seem to be saying is that if you improve the efficiency sufficiently, you will eventually arrive at a point where the machine is so efficient it needs no further energy input.

"Energy Expenditure -> Concept -> Less Expenditure-> Expenditure Free."

This is analogous to saying that if I find better and better short-cuts from home to work, eventually I can find a short cut shorter than the straight line distance.

Improvements in efficiency are always a good idea. I agree with you.

However, not all energy input to a system can be recovered and reused:

"Alot of energy is 'wasted' in the transition between the turbines and the axel movement. We could simply attatch an electro-magnet/battery to the turbine, and store the 'wasted' kinetic energy as electical energy for later use. This would create a Self-Recharging Hybrid car. (and cut down pollution)"

So for that part of your statement, I disagree.

Friction is the process of conversion of kinetic energy to waste heat. I don't see how it's possible to derive energy from friction directly. You can do other things with the kinetic energy, such as stick it in a battery if you don't need it, that's what hybrids do, as I said earlier.

But if I'm understanding you right, your base argument is in order to get "free energy", one needs to improve on the efficiency of a system incrementally until it's better than 100%. That ain't going to happen.

To summarize, I agree with you that improving efficiency is good, except I add that at some point you hit a point of diminishing returns where it's not worth it to improve any farther.

I agree with you that it's nice to try to recover energy from a system, but I add that you can only do that under circumstances such as braking on a hybrid car. And that's not 100% efficient by any stretch.

I don't agree that you can eventually get more than you put in by improving incrementally until you're over 100% efficient.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Only if we had a automotive form!!!!!!!!!!! We can find out if this is possible and have more knowledge about these thing.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
See here and free energy

I do not think it takes that much energy to power a ufo.

And the stated repercussions are too extreme.

The energy from aether occurs in many forms but not anti-gravity, unless
its anti mass and anti-gravity means aether.

The best trubine is the Tesla turbine, I will find a post on it, and it is thought
to be able to power a car and perhaps a ufo. A hot gas like the neon from
the bar sign might go though and condense and get fired up again to power
a generator, connected to the turbine, that power coils or wheels to drive
around.

A aether is in the recombination of gases in this instance, anything else given
in the write up is imagination, and actually gives not even one example of
free energy that is known to be usefull or will be so earth shaking.

And the neon or diatomic or nobel gas mixture engine has a patent, but
I think using the Tesla turbine would be better.

Its saying how great everything will be when we know something that never
pans out.

turbine

From interview on turbine:





“Just what is your new invention?” I asked.

“I have accomplished what mechanical engineers have been dreaming about ever since the invention of steam power,” replied Dr. Tesla. “That is the perfect rotary engine. It happens that I have also produced an engine which will give at least twenty-five times as much power to a pound of weight as the lightest weight engine of any kind that has yet been produced.

“In doing this I have made use of two properties which have always been known to be possessed by all fluids, but which have not heretofore been utilized. These properties are adhesion and viscosity.

“Put a drop of water on a metal plate. The drop will roll off, but a certain amount of the water will remain on the plate until it evaporates or is removed by some absorptive means. The metal does not absorb any of the water, but the water adheres to it.

“The drop of water may change its shape, but until its particles are separated by some external power it remains intact. This tendency of all fluids to resist molecular separation is viscosity. It is especially noticeable in the heavier oils.

“It is these properties of adhesion and viscosity that cause the “skin friction” that impedes a ship in its progress through the water or an aeroplane in going through the air. All fluids have these qualities—and you must keep in mind that air is a fluid, all gases are fluids, steam is fluid. Every known means of transmitting or developing mechanical power is through a fluid medium.

“Now, suppose we make this metal plate that I have spoken of circular in shape and mount it at its centre on a shaft so that it can be revolved. Apply power to rotate the shaft and what happens? Why, whatever fluid the disk happens to be revolving in is agitated and dragged along in the direction of rotation, because the fluid tends to adhere to the disk and the viscosity causes the motion given to the adhering particles of the fluid to be transmitted to the whole mass. Here, I can show you better than tell you.”

Dr. Tesla led the way into an adjoining room. On a desk was a small electric motor and mounted on the shaft were half a dozen flat disks, separated by perhaps a sixteenth of an inch from one another, each disk being less than that in thickness. He turned a switch and the motor began to buzz. A wave of cool air was immediately felt.

“There we have a disk, or rather a series of disks, revolving in a fluid—the air,” said the inventor. “You need no proof to tell you that the air is being agitated and propelled violently. If you will hold your hand over the centre of these disks—you see the centres have been cut away—you will feel the suction as air is drawn in to be expelled from the peripheries of the disks.

“Now, suppose these revolving disks were enclosed in an air tight case, so constructed that the air could enter only at one point and be expelled only at another—what would we have?"

“You'd have an air pump,” I suggested.

“Exactly--an air pump or blower,” said Dr. Tesla.

“There is one now in operation delivering ten thousand cubic feet of air a minute. “Now, come over here.”

He stepped across the hall and into another room, where three or four draughtsmen were at work and various mechanical and electrical contrivances were scattered about. At one side of the room was what appeared to be a zinc or aluminum tank, divided into two sections, one above the other, while a pipe that ran along the wall above the upper division of the tank was connected with a little aluminum case about the size and shape of a small alarm clock. A tiny electric motor was attached to a shaft that protruded from one side of the aluminum case. The lower division of the tank was filled with water.

“Inside of this aluminum case are several disks mounted on a shaft and immersed in a fluid, water,” said Dr. Tesla. “From this lower tank the water has free access to the case enclosing the disks. This pipe leads from the periphery of the case. I turn the current on, the motor turns the disks and as I open this valve in the pipe the water flows.”

He turned the valve and the water certainly did flow. Instantly a stream that would have filled a barrel in a very few minutes began to run out of the pipe into the upper part of the tank and thence into the lower tank.

“This is only a toy,” said Dr. Tesla. “There are only half a dozen disks— ‘runners,’ I call them—each less than three inches in diameter, inside of that case. They are just like the disks you saw on the first motor—no vanes, blades or attachments of any kind. Just perfectly smooth, flat disks revolving in their own planes and pumping water because of the viscosity and adhesion of the fluid. One such pump now in operation, with eight disks, eighteen inches in diameter, pumps four thousand gallons a minute to a height of 360 feet.”

We went back into the big, well lighted office. I was beginning to grasp the new Tesla principle.

“Suppose now we reversed the operation,” continued the inventor. “You have seen the disks acting as a pump. Suppose we had water, or air under pressure, or steam under pressure, or gas under pressure, and let it run into the case in which the disks are contained—what would happen?"

“The disks would revolve and any machinery attached to the shaft would be operated—you would convert the pump into an engine,” I suggested.

“That is exactly what would happen—what does happen,” replied Dr. Tesla. “It is an engine that does all that engineers have ever dreamed of an engine doing, and more. Down at the Waterside power station of the New York Edison Company, through their courtesy, I have had a number of such engines in operation. In one of them the disks are only nine inches in diameter and the whole working part is two inches thick. With steam as the propulsive fluid it develops 110-horse power, and could do twice as much.”

“You have got what Professor Langley was trying to evolve for his flying machine—an engine that will give a horse power for a pound of weight,” I suggested.


Ten Horse Power to the Pound.
“I have got more than that,” replied Dr. Tesla. “I have an engine that will give ten horse power to the pound of weight. That is twenty-five times as powerful as the lightest weight engine in use today. The lightest gas engine used on aeroplanes weighs two and one-half pounds to the horse power. With two and one-half pounds of weight I can develop twenty-five horse power.”

“That means the solution of the problem of flying,” I suggested.

“Yes, and many more,” was the reply. “The applications of this principle, both for imparting power to fluids, as in pumps, and for deriving power from fluids, as in turbine, are boundless. It costs almost nothing to make, there is nothing about it to get out of order, it is reversible—simply have two ports for the gas or steam, to enter by, one on each side, and let it into one side or other. There are no blades or vanes to get out of order—the steam turbine is a delicate thing.”

I remembered the bushels of broken blades that were gathered out of the turbine casings of the first turbine equipped steamship to cross the ocean, and realized the importance of this phase of the new engine.

“Then, too,” Dr. Tesla went on, “there are no delicate adjustments to be made. The distance between the disks is not a matter of microscopic accuracy and there is no necessity for minute clearances between the disks and the case. All one needs is some disks mounted on a shaft, spaced a little distance apart and cased so that a fluid can enter at one point and go out at another. If the fluid enters at the centre and goes out at the periphery it is a pump. If it enters at the periphery and goes out at the center it is a motor.

“Coupling these engines in series, one can do away with gearing in machinery. Factories can be equipped without shafting. The motor is especially adapted to automobiles, for it will run on gas explosions as well as on steam. The gas or steam can be let into a dozen ports all around the rim of the case if desired. It is possible to run it as a gas engine with a continuous flow of gas, gasoline and air being mixed and the continuous combustion causing expansion and pressure to operate the motor. The expansive power of steam, as well as its propulsive power, can be utilized as in a turbine or a reciprocating engine. By permitting the propelling fluid to move along the lines of least resistance a considerably larger proportion of the available power is utilized.

“As an air compressor it is highly efficient. There is a large engine of this type now in practical operation as an air compressor and giving remarkable service. Refrigeration on a scale hitherto never attempted will be practical, through the use of this engine in compressing air, and the manufacture of liquid air commercially is now entirely feasible.

“With a thousand horse power engine, weighing only one hundred pounds, imagine the possibilities in automobiles, locomotives and steamships. In the space now occupied by the engines of the Lusitania twenty-five times her 80,000 horse power could be developed, were it possible to provide boiler capacity sufficient to furnish the necessary steam.”

“And it makes the aeroplane practical,” I suggested.

“Not the aeroplane, the flying machine,” responded Dr. Tesla. “Now you have struck the point in which I am most deeply interested—the object toward which I have been devoting my energies for more than twenty years—the dream of my life. It was in seeking the means of making the perfect flying machine that I developed this engine.

“Twenty years ago I believed that I would be the first man to fly; that I was on the track of accomplishing what no one else was anywhere near reaching. I was working entirely in electricity then and did not realize that the gasoline engine was approaching a perfection that was going to make the aeroplane feasible. There is nothing new about the aeroplane but its engine, you know.

“What I was working on twenty years ago was the wireless transmission of electric power. My idea was a flying machine propelled by an electric motor, with power supplied from stations on the earth. I have not accomplished this as yet, but am confident that I will in time.




posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I read in PopSci that there is some contest to make a 100 mpg car, and they're almost there. What they're using is a combination of weight reduction, aerodynamics, hydrolics, and possibly a battery to power it. One of them is tear drop shaped, and is said to be under $20,000 when it goes into production. It apparently also will get 300 mpg
. What the hydrolics do is store up energy, along with the possible battery, and then the car can actually use the battery/hydrolics to power itself for a certain amount of time. The internal combustion engine will still do it's fair share of work, though.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Did EVERYONE sleep thru high school physics..?? Newton, thermodynamics - ring a bell..??

As for 300mpg cars - calculate the energy content of 1 gal of gas. Now work back and compute how much mass that much energy can push for 300 miles at say 30mph. I'll even let you asssume a level surface with no aerodynamic drag and a 100% conversion of the gas energy to work. No anti-mater or nuclear though and you need to go at least 30mph - stick with internal combustion or turbine.... Good luck....



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Actually with cars, like a lot of things, people get caught up with fuel efficency etc, and miss the actual point - which is the big picture.

Point in case, the Toyota Primus. Everyone who knows about this car, a hybrid petrol, battery powered car thinks wow buy this car, save the environment and use less fuel!

The reality is that the energy used to make a car like this means that it is actually worse for the environment than a simpler, cheaper, less fuel efficient car.

A recent study on this ranked the Toyota Primus at around 70 in its list of top 100 list of cars that have the least impact on the environment. And I can tell you Toyota are are not too happy to hear it.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The whole problem with free energy though, is that it is completely
impossible.
You can't have a device that creates energy infinitely.

You can have dvices that can provide large sums of energy for a
very long time, but you can't have a completely infinite supply source.


However, if you use the term free energy and mean a lot of power
produced, with verey little power used to do so, than there's a
large gambit of devices possible, of which some our in use today.

For example, solar power, solar power is'nt something that will last
forever, since the sun will die in a few billion years, but right now,
we can build solar collectors that uise the sun to provide a vast
amount of clean and free (cash wise) energy.


And in the case tht someone go's and contradicts me by using a theo-
retical Zero Point Energy device, well even a ZPG (Zero Point
Generator) has a finite amount of power it can pull.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

You can have dvices that can provide large sums of energy for a
very long time, but you can't have a completely infinite supply source.


Like I've said before. We won't need to worry about free energy if we can just get cold fusion right.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofCinLA
Did EVERYONE sleep thru high school physics..?? Newton, thermodynamics - ring a bell..??

As for 300mpg cars - calculate the energy content of 1 gal of gas. Now work back and compute how much mass that much energy can push for 300 miles at say 30mph. I'll even let you asssume a level surface with no aerodynamic drag and a 100% conversion of the gas energy to work. No anti-mater or nuclear though and you need to go at least 30mph - stick with internal combustion or turbine.... Good luck....

I dont have a link, but I am certain I heard or read somewhere that gasoline VAPOR has the equivilent of one thousand sticks of dynamite, or there-abouts. Thats the VAPOR again, just so you dont misread it.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
"The whole problem with free energy though, is that it is completely
impossible.
You can't have a device that creates energy infinitely.
"

The atoms in air or nobel gases will recapture an electron any time and
all the time you energize it. Keep atoms from combining into molecules,
that seems to be the action involved in the perpetual theory.

There is a patent for a nobel gas mixture engine, so if it generates heat
to drive a turbine to power a generator to provide electricity to continue
sparking the gas, re charge the starter battery and provide more power,
then its an over unity device, gas is not exhausted and go until the parts
wear out.

Thats the only device I would consider, yet some isotope devices might
work giving direct electricity.

The Dort generator might work well on liguid compressed air and is told
to have been used by Germany via a patent that I have not seen as yet.
A vibrating inductor in a transformer air gap is supposed to be the power
generator, some sort of Faraday effect.

Yeah I have yet to see this in action, thats why its tied to ufo conspiracy
and suppression of electron technology, a Tesla favorite.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join