Free Energy - Perpetual Motion Machines (pt 1)

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358


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.

 


From the creation of the universe. The rest of your question (demands?) doesn't make sense. It's like asking for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich made out of mayonnaise.

And yes, the half a million physicists around the world, are just a handful of idiots.

Dear lord.




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
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...



No you did not. You quoted your ideas of the efficiency of collecting hydrogen. You did not in any way quote any figures on the efficiency of burning gas, oil etc. There was no comparison at all. As usual, just a one sided swipe at something new.

BTW, what has efficiency got to do with the fact that we could run the world on a non-polluting technology and we could do this now. Why does this have to be efficient. In fact we are not wasting solar radiation as heat, quite simply we are only using part of the energy. If we did manage to use close to 100% what in fact would happen is that we would severely damage the environment in the locale of the panels. In my world that is not in my best interest. You also have not looked into the latest methods of assisting hydrolysis with frequencies transmitted through the water.

So, where are your figures for oil burning and please add some weight for the destruction of the environment. The gulf disaster should be your starting point.

Instead of being this horrible naysayer with half truths and scientific mumbo jumbo, how about coming over to the light! try to use your mind to solve the problems instead of just shooting them down with pseudo science. May the force be with you. Accessing the zero point field is the path to free energy.

P



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

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by pheonix358


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.

 


From the creation of the universe. The rest of your question (demands?) doesn't make sense. It's like asking for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich made out of mayonnaise.

And yes, the half a million physicists around the world, are just a handful of idiots.

Dear lord.


ROFL. The answer to my question is FROM THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE!


Is that the best you got man! Is that it. Half a million physicists around the world are pondering this question and as yet have no definitive answers but .......... Boncho rides to the rescue. This energy comes from the creation of the universe.

Hey, let's call this the God particle, ........ o wait, already taken!

ROFLMAO

P

edit on 29/10/2012 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
LOL!
Boncho got his ass handed to him in another thread so he had to start his own thread and try to continue to promote his nonsensical assertions with cult like zeal... All of his assertions have been soundly refuted here for those interested.

The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

I will not repeat them all again as it is his tactic to just ignore any refutation and continue repeating the same BS over and over.

We have been extracting free energy from the perpetual motion of Niagara falls for nearly a century and from the sun too. He has to redefine it into his narrow little definition to make his argument and has gone to great lengths to try and say electrons spinning for millions of years in inanimate rock is not perpetual motion unless it does some work LOL! First it's proof of concept proving perpetual motion exists and is possible, and everything that does any real work is made up of electrons! Show us the electron that has ceased motion...


Also he says energy from the sun and gasoline are the same... Show me the rivers of Gasoline that we can just tap into with out have having to input anything into it like the suns rays or the Niagara River? Gasoline is man made using more energy then we get out of it. the Suns energy is provided by nature free for the taking all we have to do is tap into it using Solar panels. Hardly the same but he will argue it harder then religious zealot. Anyways check the link as i said and all this has already been argued and Boncho found wanting...

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



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358


Hey, let's call this the God particle, ........ o wait, already taken!


 


Well here you are mocking a common misperception about the Higgs Boson. Which is fine, because that's what this thread is really about, addressing ignorance about misinterpreted scientific principles and the popular culture surrounding them:


Higgs is an atheist, and is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle",[36] as he believes the term "might offend people who are religious".[37] Usually this nickname for the Higgs boson is attributed to Leon Lederman, the author of the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, but the name is the result of the insistence of Lederman's publisher: Lederman had originally intended to refer to it as the "goddamn particle".[38]
[edit]


en.wikipedia.org...

Peter Higgs never intended the particle to be called the "God particle" and Lederman was going to call it the goddamn particle because it was so hard to find.



He refused to be drawn on whether the discovery proved there was no God, stating the name ‘God particle’ was a joke by another academic who originally called it the ‘goddamn particle’ because it was so hard to find.


www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


ROFLMAO you spent all that effort to refute .......... a joke!

Way to go! Now, where are your figures on the efficiency of the oil industry?

Come on mate!

P



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358


Is that the best you got man! Is that it. Half a million physicists around the world are pondering this question and as yet have no definitive answers but .......... Boncho rides to the rescue. This energy comes from the creation of the universe.

 


Yes, the current models suggest that all matter/energy came about during the creation (or manifestation) of the universe.

If you have something to enlighten all us idiots, then by all means, please do.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Niagara falls is in actuality an example of solar power. The sun heats the ocean, clouds form, clouds travel over land causing rain at high altitude, water collects in streams and rivers eventually flowing over Niagara falls and eventually reaching the ocean where the sun heats the oceans and around we go.

It will keep going until the sun explodes. Is this long enough for us to say it is perpetual motion. In my personal view, perpetual motion, going on longer than my lifetime is, to me, perpetual.

The term perpetual motion is a term grasped in ignorance by the naysayers to perpetuate their own silly notions. This aids the Multinationals who exist only to continually drain the financial resources of ordinary families.

P



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by pheonix358


Is that the best you got man! Is that it. Half a million physicists around the world are pondering this question and as yet have no definitive answers but .......... Boncho rides to the rescue. This energy comes from the creation of the universe.

 


Yes, the current models suggest that all matter/energy came about during the creation (or manifestation) of the universe.

If you have something to enlighten all us idiots, then by all means, please do.


The current models? Boncho, for the sake of heaven man! They are models! That is all they are! It is not science! These are just ideas.

Say it like it is. Why is it so hard for you to admit. WE JUST DON"T KNOW!

You accuse me of wonky science, but when I throw you on the ropes the best you can do is throw models and theories at me. These things are not science. They are scientists using their imaginations to try and come up with possibilities. That is all they are.

Where are those figures!

P



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by boncho
 


Way to go! Now, where are your figures on the efficiency of the oil industry?

Come on mate!

P




Originally posted by Hawkiye
Also he says energy from the sun and gasoline are the same... Show me the rivers of Gasoline that we can just tap into with out have having to input anything into it like the suns rays or the Niagara River? Gasoline is man made using more energy then we get out of it.


EROI is energy returned on energy invested, essentially showing what you get from harvesting a source of energy minus what you expended to get it.



You will notice, that hydroelectric is at the top. Because of the continuous weather patterns that move water to a higher elevation (potential) which then runs down hill through the dams (kinetic) it is one of the most efficient means of energy production. Unfortunately, just as there are drawbacks with all means of energy production, hydroelectric has its own as well.


Large hydroelectric facilities have historically caused significant environmental damage including reservoir flooding, sedimentation, destruction of fish and wildlife habitats and greenhouse gas emissions.
*

You will notice on the EROI chart that second to hydro is coal. Which makes sense given that coal requires very little preparation to be ready for its use in energy production. It's not much different than chopped wood ready to be burned.

In third place we have Oil. Which goes against the misconception purveyed in this thread.



Also he says energy from the sun and gasoline are the same... Show me the rivers of Gasoline that we can just tap into with out have having to input anything into it like the suns rays or the Niagara River? Gasoline is man made using more energy then we get out of it


If you notice on the EROI you will see that solar and photovoltaic cells are near the bottom. It takes more energy to get the same energy out when compared with oil. If we take that into account and reread your above quote Hawkiye it leaves us with only a few options:

1. You are a troll.
2. You are intellectually dishonest.
3. You are ignorant.
4. You don't actually read anything in threads that you participate in but believe your opinion to be more valid than anything posted in response to you.
5. You possibly suffer from a medical condition in which case the readers should not take your actions negatively.

So in conclusion, oil and gas, which you said take more energy to "make" then we get out of it, is actually the third highest when it comes to energy returned on energy put in.

And another figure shows that the efficiency is somewhere around 85%.


In a 2008 report, Argonne National Lab estimated that the efficiency for producing gasoline of an “average” U.S. petroleum refinery is between 84% and 88% (Wang, 2008), and Oak Ridge National Lab reports that the net energy content of oil is approximately 132,000 Btu per gallon (Davis, 2009).


gatewayev.org...

Earlier I addressed pheonix358's idea to harness solar, change into hydrogen and use that as fuel:

100 MJ Solar energy x40% eff. - 40 MJ Hydrolysis x70% eff- 28 MJ Hydrogen Gas = This is pretty simple, 100 MJ of solar energy is 28% efficient in your idea. Oil, far better.

So in the past Hawkiye has said solar and wind is "free energy", I guess you will have to broaden your personal definition to include oil & gas seeing as it is more efficient than the two of them.
edit on 30-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

has gone to great lengths to try and say electrons spinning for millions of years in inanimate rock is not perpetual motion unless it does some work LOL!


Actually no I didn't. Perpetual motion, where it is doing work in an closed system is impossible. As far as perpetual motion (which you don't see a difference as you think 1 = the other) -as in, perpetual movement, is only calculable if we know the fate of the universe. Perpetual being infinity.

As far as electrons being in perpetual motion (movement), I never said they weren't, I said that they are just not moving in the classical sense. They are in a QM state. They do not break the laws of entropy, which is why the electrons don't "orbit" or "spin" around the nucleus. If you watched the videos I posted earlier, you would have realized why that is.

If you consider what particles are doing "movement" or "motion" that by all means, you can say they are doing so perpetually. But unless you can be in 5 places at once, or your perpetual motion machine that you claim exists can be in 5 places at once, it has no relation to the macro world, or more specifically, what you are trying to prove in the macro world.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





If you have something to enlighten all us idiots, then by all means, please do.



Some idiots who shall remain nameless refuse to be enlightened or even listen...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


Show me the rivers of Gasoline that we can just tap into with out have having to input anything into it like the suns rays or the Niagara River?

 


I have to address this line again separately because of the irony I see in it. I do concede that hydro is extremely efficient. At the same time, not as readily available as oil & gas however. Since we are talking about "tapping" into energy reserves, let's take a look at the history of oil and just exactly what a gas well is. (Since you mentioned rivers and all).


According to George E. Totten, the earliest known oil wells were drilled in China in 347 CE. They had depths of up to about 800 feet (240 m) and were drilled using bits attached to bamboo poles.[1] The oil was burned to evaporate brine and produce salt. By the 10th century, extensive bamboo pipelines connected oil wells with salt springs. The ancient records of China and Japan are said to contain many allusions to the use of natural gas for lighting and heating. Petroleum was known as burning water in Japan in the 7th century.[2]


Amazing that over 2000 years ago the primitive (sarcasm) people's of the globe tapped into underground rivers of energy.

You can consult the diagram below if you were unaware of what they look like.



I'm not really trying to argue that oil is the greatest energy resource we have out there, or that it is the be all and end all. Quite frankly, it's not renewable so that is damn obvious. Something else that is clear, is that we have been extracting oil with extremely low EROIs, going after wells that would never have been touched 50 years ago, as well as the tar sands and fracking, which give very low returns on energy. Still enough to make it worthwhile in a business and consumer sense, but far too much impact that it should be considered acceptable.

I never argued that sun, wind or hydro was "free energy", however, if you are to argue that they are, you must include oil in along with it. Oil though, is declining even though it is being used in greater amounts than ever. When you think of a bell curve, you realize why that makes perfect sense.

Alternatives do need to be realized and realized soon. For the generations before us that were in the beginnings of oil dominance, the vast oil supply must surely have seemed limitless. In the pioneering and prospecting days, wells would get flared and just be left to burn off, simply because someone didn't want to extract it, or a complication arose.

Oil in that time, has a great EROI, but now that nearly every large well in the world has been discovered, it's only going to get harder and harder to retrieve.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



Actually no I didn't. Perpetual motion, where it is doing work in an closed system is impossible. As far as perpetual motion (which you don't see a difference as you think 1 = the other) -as in, perpetual movement, is only calculable if we know the fate of the universe. Perpetual being infinity.


A closed system is a faulty model there are no closed systems in nature. Niagara falls is perpetual motion and it is a an open system where nature inputs the energy...

Solar energy is an open system where the sun inputs the energy etc etc. That's why your definition of perpetual motion is ridiculous. (since I know you will turn this into a definition argument)

A windmill is an open system where the wind inputs the energy...

Zero point energy is a an open system where the zero point field inputs the energy.


As far as electrons being in perpetual motion (movement), I never said they weren't, I said that they are just not moving in the classical sense. They are in a QM state. They do not break the laws of entropy, which is why the electrons don't "orbit" or "spin" around the nucleus. If you watched the videos I posted earlier, you would have realized why that is.


Doesn't matter spinning is just a figure of speech they are in perpetual motion no one said they had to be orbiting a nucleus...


If you consider what particles are doing "movement" or "motion" that by all means, you can say they are doing so perpetually. But unless you can be in 5 places at once, or your perpetual motion machine that you claim exists can be in 5 places at once, it has no relation to the macro world, or more specifically, what you are trying to prove in the macro world.


Yet you still claim perpetual motion is impossible oh that's right in your untenable closed system...Sigh! I have already proven it or rather Tesla proved it by hooking up a turbine to the wheel works of nature i.e. Niagara falls. Or a solar panel in the sun. No need to be in 5 places at once and the water of the river does not orbit a nucleus and neither do the suns rays... You're like a fish in the ocean saying there is no free water...



edit on 30-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Op here's the problem with your logic and why you so adamantly defend it....to you: Perpetual = Infinity. That's the fault in your logic my friend...Perpetual ≠ Infinity.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


A closed system is a faulty model there are no closed systems in nature. Niagara falls is perpetual motion and it is a an open system where nature inputs the energy...

 


It is not a faulty system. It is simply what it is, a closed system. You can build one, so it exists. It is also part of thermodynamics, as is an isolated system (of which probably none exists-unless possibly the universe itself-)

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings.

It is with the understanding of things like closed systems, that give us understanding of other systems, and thermodynamics in general. This is why perpetual motion (in the classical sense) is not possible, because it is speaking about a closed system, and it is confirming, displaying the effects of entropy.




Solar energy is an open system where the sun inputs the energy etc etc. That's why your definition of perpetual motion is ridiculous. (since I know you will turn this into a definition argument)


You define things at your own whim for reason only you know. If I wanted to call pizza orange juice, I wouldn't expect everyone in this thread, and everyone I interact with to also refer to it as orange juice, but that is exactly what you are doing.




Zero point energy is a an open system where the zero point field inputs the energy.


You have no clue what zero-point energy is. You've read a bunch of free energy blogs, and up until a few minutes ago you were under the impression that are global oil supply was based of negative net energy values. (Physically impossible)


"One should not take this vacuum energy too literally, however, because the free-field theory is just a mathematical tool to help us understand what we are really interested in: the interacting theory. Only the interacting theory is supposed to correspond directly to reality. Because the vacuum state of the interacting theory is the state of least energy in reality, there is no way to extract the vacuum energy and use it for anything.

"It is a bit like this: say a bank found it more convenient (for some strange reason) to start counting at 1,000, so that even when you had no money in the bank, your account read $1,000. You might get excited and try to spend this $1,000, but the bank would say, 'Sorry, that $1,000 is just an artifact of how we do our bookkeeping: you're actually flat broke.'

"Similarly, one should not get one's hope up when people talk about vacuum energy. It is just how we do our bookkeeping in quantum field theory. There is much more to say about why we do our bookkeeping this funny way, but I will stop here."

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense. The idea of zero-point energy is that there is a finite, minimum amount of motion (more accurately, kinetic energy) in all matter, even at absolute zero. For example, chemical bonds continue to vibrate in predictable ways. But releasing the energy of this motion is impossible, because then the molecule would be left with less than the minimum amount that the laws of quantum physics require it to have."


www.scientificamerican.com...




Doesn't matter spinning is just a figure of speech they are in perpetual motion no one said they had to be orbiting a nucleus...


So do you believe sub atomic particles move with classical mechanics or do they abide by quantum mechanics?




Sigh! I have already proven it or rather Tesla proved it by hooking up a turbine to the wheel works of nature i.e. Niagara falls. Or a solar panel in the sun. No need to be in 5 places at


With this definition the Chinese did the same when they were pumping oil out of the ground. You claim 1 hundred years is evidence of perpetuity so given that the Chinese were using Oil & Gas over 2000 years ago this would agree with your position?

By the way, what happens during an ice age, or if the great lakes dried up. Is Niagara Falls still perpetual?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Boncho, why do we have to use the most efficient means. If you include in your arguments how the oil was formed the oil would be at the bottom of the list.

The oil industry is a massive polluter. All the way from massive oil rigs, to the oil refineries and way down to your car's engine. A chain of pollution if you like. It is not sustainable!

Shifting to solar / hydrogen means that there is no pollution at all. None. It also sustainable for millions of years. Why does it have to be efficient? It works.

If you had bothered to read the wealth of information and study the results of many researches you would find a great deal of information that is simply constantly being suppressed. The problem is that they will not fit into what you have been taught in school. Lift your horizons!

When you put in a graph in a thread it is nice to put in the source. Frankly it looks suss to me. Solar is a no brainer, it should have won hands down.

P



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Well Boncho thinks he just won the argument with the book he wrote trying to convince himself he is right. One thing the Oil propaganda fails to add into the graph is the fact the ICE is only 20% efficient in burning the gas after all the energy expended to drill it is pump it transport it refine it and transport it again. After all that it has about a 20% negative EROI...

As for a Solar panel being a negative EROI well that is a misnomer too it is really only a negative ROI for several years and that is changing because prices are coming down and once a panel it built it can be used over and over indefinitely theoretically as long as it does not get damaged. Where as gasoline is burned once and is gone forever... A little reason and logic dissipates propaganda like the sun evaporating the morning dew...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Op here's the problem with your logic and why you so adamantly defend it....to you: Perpetual = Infinity. That's the fault in your logic my friend...Perpetual ≠ Infinity.


Perpetual:

a : continuing forever : everlasting

-

I gave alternative definitions, but the actual meaning of the word is forever, eternity, infinity.

-

If you want to cite the alternative definitions that's fine. The only reason this continues into semantics is because Hawkiye claims that if

a) something is perpetually moving,

then

b) a perpetual motion machine is possible

-

This is the position that keeps getting rehashed over and over. And every example of perpetuity has been countered. The electron argument, I am still waiting to get a response as to whether or not Hawiye believes QM is valid or perhaps we should contact MIT and ask them to throw out their textbooks.

Even with saying that the QM state is perpetually moving, that's fine, but it still obeys the laws of thermodynamics and therefore again, does not prove the existence of perpetual motion machines. Which is where this thread stemmed from, two other arguing that case.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


fter all that it has about a 20% negative EROI...

 


There would be no oil/gas industry if this were the case. Did you care to show your math?




As for a Solar panel being a negative EROI well that is a misnomer too it is really only a negative ROI for several years and that is changing because prices are coming down and once a panel it built it can be used over and over indefinitely theoretically as long as it does not get damaged.


Where did I say that solar had a negative EROI? And you do realize that this is calculated into the figures right? Yes it takes a few years of energy worth to create them, just as it does power plants, nuclear plants and wind, as well as hydroelectric dams, as well as oil rigs, and everything used to transport the fuel.

Did you think people forgot to point this into their figures?

Solar

Unfortunately, solar panels have a limited lifespan, so they will only be able to produce so much energy,

Where as gasoline is burned once and is gone forever...
, you know, just as when the gasoline is burned, just as when the oil is all burned you wouldn't have the materials to build solar cells anymore...

Link





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join