Free Energy - Perpetual Motion Machines (pt 1)

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Codex Free Energious





Threads pop up all the time with the latest and greatest free energy, perpetual motion machines, and token threads describing something to do with Nazi's, anti-gravity and limitless energy machines.

Although, quite often there is a lot of arguments washed in semantic debates and misunderstandings. I thought this thread could be a place to clear up common misconceptions about sound scientific ideas that are taken out of context or misconstrued for peoples own personal goals.

I'll start by reminding everyone that in the nearly 500 year history of the concept of perpetual motion machines there have been none that got anywhere off the drawing board. Which, given the claims by many that they are easy to build, readily available (yet hidden for some reason) they would be extremely profitable given that a machine that can do work, at little or no cost, can produce either electricity or any product that uses electricity in construction/fabrication for almost nothing. (HUGE PROFITS!!) -Recommended reading

If you have the time, use this thread and add to it as you see fit, it would be great if we can consolidate information on free energy/perpetual motion/etc, so there is a quick reference point.

1. Definitions.

Free Energy

There are a few definitions when it comes to "free energy" and there are also a few personal ones made up by people as they see fit. I will list a couple common ones:

Thermodynamic Free Energy -

The thermodynamic free energy is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes in engineering and science. The free energy is the internal energy of a system minus the amount of energy that cannot be used to perform work. This unusable energy is given by the entropy of a system multiplied by the temperature of the system.


Thermodynamic Free Energy is describing the available energy in a system. Not so much "Free" as in no cost, but free as in what's left.

eg. How many hands do you have free right now?

Free Energy (Suppression conspiracy) -

In this context, the term "free energy" is not well-defined, and should not be confused with thermodynamic free energy. Generally, it is used to refer to purported transformative technologies which have the potential to dramatically reduce personal energy costs with relatively little capital investment.


Here the definition gets a little ambiguous. Proponents of the idea of "free energy" often change the definition as they see fit. In some cases it will mean, free energy as in no cost to the user, which is only describing the monetary value of the hypothetical energy source. Alternatively, it could be meant to say the energy is free because it is drawn from a limitless reserve, basically, coming out of nowhere. Related to a scientific model that abides by the laws of thermodynamics, that doesn't make much sense. As the old saying goes, you don't get something for nothing.


In the first case, as we all know, everything has a cost in this world. Society, as long as it uses money, put value on everything. And even if there were no money, value could be reflected in other things as well. In any case, even though rain falls from the sky, it still has a cost to it. and for convenience it has an extremely high cost.

Some might say that the sun and solar panels is "free energy" because it just keeps reloading your batteries and you don't have to pay after the initial investment. Which is a weak argument, since the suns rays are a limited source of kinetic energy, which is then stored as potential energy in your batteries, which will go on to be kinetic energy when you do something with them...

This is really no different than gasoline, which at one time was kinetic energy, and is now potential energy, which will become kinetic energy when it powers your car and perhaps potential energy again if you drive up a hill... Both solar panels, and equipment for extracting and refining oil, need energy output to create them.

If solar power is "free energy" so to is gasoline...

-

In the second meaning, the laws of thermodynamics does not allow it in the scientific model. There are different types of energy in the universe (potential, kinetic, and rest) heat loss and inefficiencies in energy conversion, will never let you gain transfer energy at 100% efficiency. So you will continuously need more input.



The total energy of the universe consists of the energy due to the motion of all the particles (called kinetic energy), the energy that is stored because of the gravitational forces between the particles (called potential energy), and the energy associated with the mass of all the particles (usually referred to as rest energy).

The key feature to bear in mind is that the gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity. You can see this by realizing that in order to separate two objects, one has to overcome the attractive gravitational force and this requires one to supply positive energy from outside. This is why launching satellites into space requires such huge amounts of positive energy supplied by fuel, in order to overcome the negative gravitational potential energy of the satellite due to the Earth's attractive force.
*


If you get usable energy from water running downhill (gravity - ) you will not get enough energy created to pump that water back to the top of the hill (+). Entropy always increases or remains constant.

See Energy and Work. - A good example. - Further reading.

Entropy basically says that heat likes to go where it's cold. And it will do that as much as possible. Because that happens, heat waste happens in every form of energy transfer.


The second law is a bit more complex than the first law, but basically it says that any time you do work, including any time you make an energy transformation, some of the starting energy is going to be lost as heat. So when you drive a car some of the gasoline's energy is lost right a way as heat, some gets turned into mechanical energy to move the car. Even some of this mechanical energy is also lost as heat. For instance if you feel your car's tires at the end of a trip they will be hot from friction with the road. This heat is an energy loss and is a consequence of the second law.

Source

-


edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Perpetual Motion (Machines)

Perpetual Motion -

Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2]


Perpetual motion is kind of like a thought exercise in the scientific world, because the very description is describing something that can't exist because of very well tested scientific laws.

Perpetual motion in science is usually referring to some kind of isolated system that is doing work (or capable of) forever without an external input of energy, which therefore cannot exist. However, some people who argue for the validity of "free energy" will use the idea of perpetually moving objects to justify the possibility of "free energy".

Two of the most common arguments for the reality of perpetual motion (objects moving perpetually) are:

Planets = Sort of, kind of, not really:


Strictly speaking, planetary orbits are not perpetual motion. As the planet (and their star) rotate around their common center of gravity, they emit gravitational waves. Those gravitational waves drains the planet/star orbital system on energy so the planet eventually get's closer and closer to its star.

Now this orbital decay due to gravitational wave emission is ridicoulusly small so it has only been measured for extreme systems like binary neutron stars (which are heavy and may orbit each other within minutes, seconds or just a fraction of a second). Our planet Earth is subject to gravitational wave emission as well, but the orbital decay is so small that it in practice won't affect earth within the Suns lifetime, instead of Earth spiralling into and being devoured by our Sun, it will rather be our Sun (turning into a red giant) which extends beyond the current orbit of Earth and thus devours it.

So even by cosmological timescales, planetary motion around a star will go on for a long time, e.g for the lifetime of a sun-like star and beyond.
*

Bodies in space moving via kinetic energy, will maintain motion until it preforms work. eg. Stopping. Some could argue that a rock floating through the vacuum of space is perpetually moving (so long as it never runs into something) which, for the most part is true, but eventually, it probably will and it won't be perpetual anymore.

Perpetual being, infinity.


Electrons =

The idea that electrons are "spinning" around their nucleolus like little moving planets. One could argue that this is a form of perpetual motion as the electrons are not really staying in the same place, but at the same time, one could also argue that electrons aren't really "moving" as in the way we know it.

Enter Quantum Mechanics.

Things that happen on the microscopic and macroscopic levels happen much differently. Just think how we are surrounded by air, but go closer and that air is an atom*, closer and you will see a nucleus with protons and neutrons and electrons*, once we are here it is pointless to start talking about sizes as size becomes immeasurable* but there is indeed more more to look at (so-to-speak) at the subatomic level*, but an in depth look is probably not needed for this description. More here in YT video.

So why aren't electrons considered perpetual motion? They are always moving!

In some ways you kind of, sort of, could argue that it's perpetual motion, or that the subatomic layers are perpetual changing their positions. But the point of this argument is kind of moot because it doesn't relate to the macro world we live in. And, QM is still governed by the second law of thermodynamics. So any real push past the simple notion that they are always moving, which would lend weight to something in the macro world moving the same way (macro objects acting as waves? Can you point some out to me?) is kind of pointless.



Landauer’s erasure principle has been considered controversial in physics ever since he proposed it in the early ’60s. Was it a new law of physics or just a consequence of some already existing laws? Our new paper argues that in quantum physics, you can, in fact, erase information and cool the environment at the same time. For many physicists, this is tantamount to saying that perpetual motion is possible!


You don't say?


Quantum physics seems to allow us to have a cake and eat it, in that it allows us to erase information and cool the environment too.

But this, luckily for the second law (though not for would-be inventors of perpetual motion machines), is not the case. Landauer’s insight is still fine, and erasing information adds entropy to the environment. What saves the second law is that, in quantum physics, entropy can actually be negative. Adding negative entropy is the same as taking entropy away.


Oh shucks.

[Source

Perpetual Motion Machines

This one will be relatively quick. Perpetual motion machines are hypothesized machines that somehow can power themselves in a closed system. If a hydroelectric dam could get enough energy to pump the water back to the top, and continue the process, it would be one, but alas, entropy kicks in and it wouldn't be able to get the water to the top again, always resulting in a net loss.

And what about things in nature that seem to go on forever?


Machines which extract energy from seemingly perpetual sources—such as ocean currents—are capable of moving "perpetually" (for as long as that energy source itself endures), but they are not considered to be perpetual motion machines because they are consuming energy from an external source and are not isolated systems (in reality, no system can ever be a fully isolated system).
*

The history of these things go back hundreds of years, and people have been selling the idea since they were first thought up. Unfortunately, they are just a thought exercise, as they can't exist, which has been demonstrated through science.


Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2] It can also be described as "the motion of a hypothetical machine which, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear".[3] There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics.
*

That's all I got for now.
edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
If you are intent on arguing the idea of electrons perpetually moving, which is fine so long as you are not trying to compare it to our macro world, I like this explanation:


The impossible kinds of perpetual motion machines are those from which you can extract usable energy and the system continues exactly the same way as it did before the energy was extracted, providing an infinite supply of energy. These certainly don't exist. But systems in which the components are constantly in motion and never slow down do in fact exist. The electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms are in effect little perpetual motion machines, at least in one construe of what those words mean, because they are perpetually in motion. But energy cannot be extracted from motion of such electrons if they are in the "ground state" (and most atoms are) because there are no lower-lying energy states allowed by quantum mechanics. If the electrons are not in the ground state, you can extract useful energy, but then the atoms go into lower energy states until they reach their ground state, from which no further energy can be extracted.


van.physics.illinois.edu...

I'm going to cross post more on the idea of electrons as considered to be 'perpetual motion'


Regarding electrons:


Well, even ignoring the fact that you can't
*see* an atom -- it isn't "macroscopic" by any stretch of the imagination
-- there is one small problem with "perpetual motion" in an atom that
emerges from the quantum-mechanical haze: specifically, if you consider an
atom with a single electron (that is, hydrogen), according to quantum
mechanics its ground state has no angular momentum associated with it. In
other words, the electron doesn't "go around" the nucleus -- indeed, there
is no definable or measurable "motion" at all.

I don't know if this answers your question, or if it just leaves you with
more issues than answers. I recommend that you look at any college physics
textbook, as a starting point. Look especialy at sections relating to Work
and Energy, Friction, the Laws of Thermodynamics and (if it is included)
models of the atom


www.madsci.org...



The picture you often see of electrons as small objects circling a nucleus in well defined "orbits" is actually quite wrong. As we now understand it, the electrons aren't really at any one place at any time at all. Instead they exist as a sort of cloud. The cloud can compress to a very small space briefly if you probe it in the right way, but before that it really acts like a spread-out cloud. For example, the electron in a hydrogen atom likes to occupy a spherical volume surrounding the proton. If you think of the proton as the size of a grain of salt, then the electron cloud would have about a ten foot radius. If you probe, you'll probably find the electron somewhere in that region.


van.physics.illinois.edu...
edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
*

This one seems kind of pointless to me. Is something happening down there? Yes. Does it relate to anything in the macro world? Not really.
edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Excellent read and work up, I can't wait to finish it when I get back from the dr.
Thanks for your effort!

ps energetic yes, but she's far from free, I'll take the bmw
edit on 29-10-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Bodies in space moving via kinetic energy, will maintain motion until it preforms work. eg. Stopping. Some could argue that a rock floating through the vacuum of space is perpetually moving (so long as it never runs into something) which, for the most part is true, but eventually, it probably will and it won't be perpetual anymore.


BUT.......If NOTHING in the universe is stationary, then perpetual motion must be the norm ?...........No.

And afaik there is no evidence for your "Probably"



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


everything moves at the speed of light , or not at all.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by boncho
 





Bodies in space moving via kinetic energy, will maintain motion until it preforms work. eg. Stopping. Some could argue that a rock floating through the vacuum of space is perpetually moving (so long as it never runs into something) which, for the most part is true, but eventually, it probably will and it won't be perpetual anymore.


BUT.......If NOTHING in the universe is stationary, then perpetual motion must be the norm ?...........No.

And afaik there is no evidence for your "Probably"



Yes, you have a good point. Everything is moving in the universe and therefore is perpetual in motion (sort of). I think the angle I was trying to get was the one that reflected a constant or steady or unchanged rate of motion (Although this becomes debatable when considering the ultimate fate of the universe).

a la, laws of motion.


First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero).[2][3][4]


en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion

As far as my "probably", well, given that a small bit of matter is attracted to large gravitational fields* as its travelling through space, my "probably" is a pretty good probability. So unless you can chart out a course to ensure it never colliding with something, it would not maintain its given motion.

However, I concede that if you including the motion of whatever body it impacts, it would still be in motion. Just not the same rate that it initially set out with. (But then again we go back to the death of the universe.)


Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe
*

Remember perpetual means ∞.

edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Is there such thing as perpetual motion?

That really depends on the ultimate fate of the universe. Perpetual, being infinity, is never ending. So if the universe ended with the big crunch, you could argue that all the movement preceding it was not really perpetual.

Theories on the fate of the universe.

Regardless, as I brushed upon earlier, the term "perpetual motion" in regards to physics is speaking specifically about a system that is not possible.


perpetual motion, the action of a device that, once set in motion, would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it. Such devices are impossible on grounds stated by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
*

Although you can also refer to it as a state, which, when cross-sectioned out of time, has the attributes of perpetual motion. Like our discussion about celestial bodies floating through space:


per·pet·u·al mo·tion
Noun:

A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.

edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Yea yea...

I will still try
I will still search

No matter how much YOU try...

And "IF" i make it/find it...I´ll let you know...
Promis



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
I'm going to cross post more on the idea of electrons as considered to be 'perpetual motion'
Here is even more on that idea which involves superconductivity and not electron orbitals specifically:

www.superconductors.org...

Superconductor: An element, inter-metallic alloy, or compound that will conduct electricity without resistance below a certain temperature. However, this applies only to direct current (DC) electricity and to finite amounts of current. All known superconductors are solids. None are gases or liquids. And all require extreme cold to enter a superconductive state. Once set in motion, current will flow forever in a closed loop of superconducting material - making it the closest thing to perpetual motion in nature.
In the deep void of space it might be pretty easy to keep the superconductor superconducting, but it's quite a task here on Earth. I think CERN's electric bill exceeds a million dollars a month and a lot of that power is used in refrigeration to keep the superconductors cold enough to superconduct.

But the idea of something moving forever isn't so helpful to free energy enthusiasts if there's no way to do anything with it, like get energy out of it. Once you do that, it doesn't move forever anymore...it slows down according to the amount of energy extracted...which makes me wonder....

The Earth is already slowing down its rotation due to the tidal forces. If mankind utilized lots of energy from tides, will that cause the Earth's rotation to slow down even faster? The Earth is pretty big so we'd have to use a lot of energy, but it might be possible.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur


The Earth is already slowing down its rotation due to the tidal forces. If mankind utilized lots of energy from tides, will that cause the Earth's rotation to slow down even faster? The Earth is pretty big so we'd have to use a lot of energy, but it might be possible.

 



This braking is caused by tidal friction. Throughout the earth's history tidal braking has played, and it will continue to play, a dominant role in the rotation. Currently the secular change in the rotation rate increases the length of day by some 2.3 milliseconds per day per century
*

It's barely noticeable as it is, however there would be a calculable difference:


Tidal movement causes a continual loss of mechanical energy in the Earth–Moon system due to pumping of water through the natural restrictions around coastlines, and due to viscous dissipation at the seabed and in turbulence. This loss of energy has caused the rotation of the Earth to slow in the 4.5 billion years since formation. During the last 620 million years the period of rotation has increased from 21.9 hours to the 24 hours we see now; in this period the Earth has lost 17% of its rotational energy. While tidal power may take additional energy from the system, increasing the rate of slowdown, the effect would be noticeable over millions of years only, thus being negligible.


Source

The only thing I didn't agree with in the second article is that they classify tidal force as a renewable energy source. Most other sites don't classify it as such given that once rotation is gone... It's gone.

Mind you, humans probably won't see that day, and chances are the sun will consume the planet before it happens.

-

The biggest draw back with tidal power is the impact on marine life, and the unreliable timing of tides. Similar to the problems associated with wind and solar. Sunny and windy days are needed...
edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


The biggest draw back with tidal power is the impact on marine life, and the unreliable timing of tides. Similar to the problems associated with wind and solar. Sunny and windy days are needed...

From my experience tides are quite reliable regarding their timing. The effects on marine life can be minimized greatly by design. Example www.bbc.co.uk...

Imho tidal power is comparable to geothermal power. It is primary constrained by the location.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Ring current in a superconductor! Haven't thought of this one.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
The only thing I didn't agree with in the second article is that they classify tidal force as a renewable energy source. Most other sites don't classify it as such given that once rotation is gone... It's gone.
I agree completely. I don't see how it can be called renewable, it's just a very massive persistent source that we think we can only drain slowly.

But if we can drain the Earth of billions of years of oil reserves in only a few hundred years, we might be able to have more effect with tidal power than we currently think. At current levels the effect may be insignificant, however I'm thinking longer term. With more population, fossil fuels depleted, and far more tidal power units than we have today, the effect may be more significant in the future.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
OP you are your own worst enemy.

To ensure success of your argument you have had to resort to YOUR insistence that perpetual motion machines must last for infinity. That can never happen. Just thinking of the life expectancy of a set of ceramic bearings makes your argument a big success. It can't be perpetual motion because the bearings will give out.

When faced with the fact that electron movement can be viewed as perpetual motion you resort to moving the goal posts. So I have to believe you as opposed to what has been taught for almost a generation. What, are all those teachers from high school through university lying to all their students when they say electrons rotate around the nuclease. One electron in your example becomes a cloud. What, did it break up into little bits!

On to the solar system! Eventually it will all slow down! Therefore it is not perpetual motion. Prove it! Name just one planet that has done it. In all the cosmos, name just one!

If your arguments have to be this shaky then I don't have much faith in what you are saying.

www.free-energy-info.co.uk... has many many examples of experiments and devices that can provide energy without ongoing costs.

Right now, today, we could have a green, cheap energy system with world wide coverage. But we won't get it. because THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PROFIT!

Consider, solar panels - create electricity - separate H2 and O - Store the hydrogen - use the hydrogen in fuel cell engines where the hydrogen recombines with O2 to form water. No pollution, sustainable.

That example is just the tip of the ice-berg, an iceberg that you never want to see. You are part of the problem, I prefer being part of the solution.

P



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358


To ensure success of your argument you have had to resort to YOUR insistence that perpetual motion machines must last for infinity.

 


No, it depends on how you are defining the word.

Perpetual movement - regular English - something that goes for infinity. Infinity is infinity, simple as that. Because we are not sure of the fate of the universe it's hard to argue this one.

Perpetual movement as the properties of a state - This would be to say that something travelling in a vacuum under the laws of motion (inertia) that will not interact with other matter will be in a state of perpetual movement (until disturbed). It's very reasonable to use this as a definition that outlines certain laws of physics, like inertia.

Perpetual Motion Machine - The classic scientific definition that basically rules this out for it's not possible because of entropy.

-

What goal posts am I moving here? I am covering all the different understandings and meanings of the word.

-


When faced with the fact that electron movement can be viewed as perpetual motion you resort to moving the goal posts. So I have to believe you as opposed to what has been taught for almost a generation. What, are all those teachers from high school through university lying to all their students when they say electrons rotate around the nuclease. One electron in your example becomes a cloud. What, did it break up into little bits!


I didn't realize high school physics was the be all and end all in the scientific world. The Bohr model is very useful, but it is not considered to offer a proper understanding of sub-atomic properties:


The Bohr model is a relatively primitive model of the hydrogen atom, compared to the valence shell atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics, before moving on to the more accurate, but more complex, valence shell atom
*

Watch the two following videos for understanding.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

As I said, I'm not moving goal posts. When was the last time you woke up and saw a fermion staring back at you in the mirror? QM still abides by the laws of thermodynamics, which is why electrons don't spin in circles. Trying to relate something that happens on the sub atomic level, and comparing it to the macro world, as if it would lend weight to the notion of a perpetual motion machine, is quite simply idiotic.




On to the solar system! Eventually it will all slow down! Therefore it is not perpetual motion. Prove it! Name just one planet that has done it. In all the cosmos, name just one!


Is this the only way to prove it?




If your arguments have to be this shaky then I don't have much faith in what you are saying.



Depending on what argument you think I am conveying. I am only speaking about definitions and interpretations in this thread.




Right now, today, we could have a green, cheap energy system with world wide coverage. But we won't get it. because THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PROFIT!


Already addressed in the OP, zero cost = maximum profit. It's very simple. I suggest writing the GMATs, I have a feeling you may find it hard to get a decent mark though.




Consider, solar panels - create electricity - separate H2 and O - Store the hydrogen - use the hydrogen in fuel cell engines where the hydrogen recombines with O2 to form water. No pollution, sustainable.


Solar panels do not "create electricity" so much as they convert solar radiation (kinetic) to stored (potential) energy. They do so with terrible efficiency as most is lost in heat. *

So at 40% efficiency, you then have stored electrical energy in batteries, which you suggest making hydrogen a process that usually gets you 70% efficiency.

100 MJ - 40 MJ - 28 MJ, then the efficiency of burning hydrogen. You may as well just burn some oil. Your idea, might be useful if done in the desert and hydrogen was a storage medium. As the desert produces more usable light than where most solar arrays are. Which also makes it impossible to carry the load conventionally. But I still don't think the math makes it feasible.
edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Haven't read the entire (interesting) thread yet..but



Both solar panels, and equipment for extracting and refining oil, need energy output to create them.

If solar power is "free energy" so to is gasoline...


is of course correct, but the big difference is that gasoline is made from non-renewable sources which will soon be depleted (oil, coal etc...)..while we don't have to worry about the Sun's energy output for some millions of years.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The scary part of this is that I don't think you are a troll. You actually believe the fairy tales. You speak of models and theory but out of these ideas you quote hard facts and try to brow beat others.

Answer this for me, where does gravity get it's energy and where do sub atomic particles get their energy from. Come on, nice easy questions. I want facts for answers, not someones theory or model that you and a handful of others claim as correct in an almost religious fervor.

The answer is you don't know. Science does not know. But, when someone says they have empirical evidence that they can tap this energy source you go bonkers and you enter a state of deep denial. Why do you do this.?

P


Edit to ask. Why would I want to use batteries? The energy out of the solar panels is stored in the hydrogen. If you want to look at efficiency look at the efficiency of getting fuel ready for your engine. Now that is an inefficient system, but hell yea, there are great profits to be made.
edit on 29/10/2012 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29/10/2012 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
Haven't read the entire (interesting) thread yet..but



Both solar panels, and equipment for extracting and refining oil, need energy output to create them.

If solar power is "free energy" so to is gasoline...


is of course correct, but the big difference is that gasoline is made from non-renewable sources which will soon be depleted (oil, coal etc...)..while we don't have to worry about the Sun's energy output for some millions of years.


Correct, and solar has far greater potential in the long run, once efficiency increases, storage mediums are improved upon and of course the fact that the sun is constantly shining, (renewable as you said).



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358


Why would I want to use batteries? The energy out of the solar panels is stored in the hydrogen. If you want to look at efficiency look at the efficiency of getting fuel ready for your engine. Now that is an inefficient system, but hell yea, there are great profits to be made.

 


Was there something wrong with my math there? I just showed how using hydrogen as a storage medium was less efficient than burning gas, oil...






new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join