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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Free Energy - Perpetual Motion Machines (pt 1)

page: 3
6
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 03:08 AM
You can calculate oil vs. solar to see just exactly what you are getting as well.

Most solar is quoted at an EROI of 7.

So for every 100 MJ of energy in you get 700MJ back. *

Oil has been readily available with EROI of 70 in 2010. 70MJ in, 7,000 MJ back.*

Now even with the 20% efficiency you cited of the ICE, you still have more don't you? (electric car x80% efficiency) 1400 MJ vs 560 MJ

I don't even know the point of this exercise, I just get used to the idea of Hawkiye going in circles.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 03:18 AM
Your argument that Perpetual = Infinity, therefore perpetual cannot exist. Then by your same logic... Infinity thus cannot exist either. If you assert infinity exists; then you have to accept perpetual does as well...or else create a logical paradox. That is why Infinity ≠ Perpetual.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 03:39 AM

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-)

I did not say it is a faulty system I said "faulty model". You admit an isolated system does not exist so why base your model on it? This is typical nonsensical reasoning Academia cultists.

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.

Of course this is complete BS! I posted a dictionary definition supporting my assertion that the common meaning and use of perpetual was not forever but continuous or uninterrupted. It even gave an example of ones heart beating perpetually However since you could not refute the definition like a good little cultist you pathetically attacked it for being a dictionary often used by Christians (as if that somehow negates a common usage of the word LOL!) Because it was an older version of Websters. But that shows that my definition is the common usage of the word and been around much longer then the recent redefinition by the academia cult. It's Ironic since Science does not recognize "forever" as a scientific term... So perhaps you could define forever for us?

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)

Really so you are saying oil is over unity? Bbbbbut that is impossible...
I in fact refuted your oil propaganda. Zero point, back emf, Quantum field whatever it is called by several different names and I understand it far better then you. Here is a hint for you what is the energy that powers and animates your body hmmm? There is a little reality for ya... Maybe the idiot who wrote that BS article you posted trying to say there is nothing to Zero-point can explain that for us? You must of went to public school? That would explain a lot...

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

Poor Boncho always trying to isolate some point to catch me in desperately in hopes of trying to divert attention from his failed arguments and massage his deflating ego...Sigh! in a nut shell Sub atomic particles are modeled with quantum mechanics or physics that is generally what the study of the sub atomic is called... Atomic and above generally modeled in classical needless to say both observe motion... Nice try but no cigar... Give it up Boncho... (watch him desperately try to twist something into my very brief simplified statement declaring me wrong)

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?

Wow what a great analogy because we have wind and solar pumps and refineries to make them viable energy just like we do with oil... Oh wait... Sigh...

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

Yep it's perpetual right up until it stops. ;-) Don't you just love these guys they have to make up all sorts of imaginary scenarios trying to justify their failed models... Yeah we calculated that if you try it in the vacuum of space 300,000 miles from Mars on December 2nd while wearing black underwear it won't work therefore it is impossible at any time under any circumstances so don't even try...Sigh!

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 03:52 AM

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.

Its the most efficient means of making use of it. Oil will not maintain its position forever, because it keep getting harder to extract. Hydroelectric could have the top spot if it wasn't so limited to where it's feasible (which I believe nearly every good location has been exploited by now (some with major damage to the environment -Three Gorges-)

The reason we are so addicted to oil is because there is so much of it and its relatively easy to extract. It really doesn't matter how it was formed, the only efficiencies that are important are getting the energy in usable form. And of course REOI.

If you had a new system that harnessed solar at 99% efficiency, but it took 100 MW to produce 120 MW, your net energy would only be 20 MW.

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!

I never said it was, it's terrible that they are actually pumping out oil at ridiculously low energy return rates now. The problem, is the low efficiencies in other technologies, the capital for infrastructure and also limited opportunities to use these alternative energies.

Some people argue oil isn't running out, but the simple fact that they are tapping the oil sands, doing risky offshore drills, is a testament that we cannot keep up with increasing demand.

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.

Number 1, solar requires large amounts of capital because of the low return on what you put into it. Couple this with limited lifespan of the equipment, then when you suggest hydrogen, you are talking about energy loss in hydrolysis and storage/safety issues. If you use hydrides, now you are adding a chemical component to the system which also isn't renewable.

100 MJ Solar eff - 40 MJ hydrolysis eff - 28 MJ = This doesn't even include burning the hydrogen in a combustion engine which I demonstrated in another thread, is MJ for MJ, as efficient as gasoline.

But lets forget solar to hydrogen, because our efficiency is lower than current methods of production.

With today's technology, the manufacture of hydrogen via steam reforming can be accomplished with a thermal efficiency of 75 to 80 percent. Additional energy will be required to liquefy or compress the hydrogen, and to transport it to the filling station via truck or pipeline. The energy that must be utilized per kilogram to produce, transport and deliver hydrogen (i.e., its well-to-tank energy use) is approximately 50 megajoules using technology available in 2004. Subtracting this energy from the enthalpy of one kilogram of hydrogen, which is 141 megajoules, and dividing by the enthalpy, yields a thermal energy efficiency of roughly 60%

Given that the same energy in gas and hydrogen will get you roughly the same distance*

Well-to-tank, the supply chain for gasoline is roughly 80% efficient (Wang, 2002)

And gasoline will get you more energy at the pumps, making more economically viable. Not to mention hydrogen would require a massive retooling of pump stations.

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

Don't underestimate simply because I don't agree with nonsensical notions that come up. A doesn't make me B.

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.

I apologize. Here's the source. It;s simply the wiki on EROI. If you check other ones, you will run into the same thing. Hydro will go up and down, coal as well, depending on which ones included in the studies. Oil will always be near the top, and solar always near the bottom.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:10 AM

Here is an interesting article but long dealing oil EROI and comparing alternate fuels. If you are willing to read it gives a good summary of why the EROI models at the Oil Drum Websites are faulty.

I will prove that the EROI methodology is, not simply flawed, but unscientifically skewed to narrowly define energy input and output boundaries so as to favor fossil and nuclear fuels and simultaneously delegitimize renewable energy product cost effectiveness. It is most telling that the EROI documents and discussions at The Oil Drum web site are the ones that first show up when you do an EROI google search for fossil fuels and/or renewables. The claim of scientific objectivity in regard to fossil fuels at a web site called The Oil Drum can only be considered acceptable in a country like ours where the oil and nuclear lobbies control much of the narrative and just about all of the governmental policies energywise...

en.wikipedia.org... the credentialed scientists in the EROI study published at The Oil Drum’s credit, they appear to have used Joules and MegaJoules(MJ) in their energy units. Use your own imagination as to how objective it would have looked to claim EROI in ethanol and other renewables is too low in terms of “barrel of oil equivalent” units. Okay, so we’ve decided to use “J” units as the input and output energy units in the EROI formula. How do we know how much energy is in a given measure of gasoline? For you oldy goldies here, do you remember leaded gasoline? Gasoline was goosed (increased octane rating) by adding tetra-ethyl lead. Lead hurt the environment and caused serious health issues and developmental disorders for humans (and surely a lot of animals that were never considered in the studies) so unleaded gasoline became the norm with the lower octane rating. The reason I bring this up is because changes in octane rating change the activation energy needed to start the chemical reaction/explosion. A low octane gasoline technically has more energy than a high octane gasoline does because a lower octane rating requires less energy (lower energy of activation) for the reaction to begin. The energy density per mole in a high octane gasoline is assumed to be lower due to the higher energy of activation. This is a half truth. This half truth is used by the EROI experts to claim ethanol, which has a high octane rating, has a lower EROI than gasolene. Simply changing the compression ratio in an engine to a high compression makes ethanol equivalent in MJ/L to gasoline. But, of course, the Hall study arbitrarily stopped at the octane rating “energy of activation” differences between gasoline and ethanol with zero discussion of high compression engines. That was very convenient for gasoline EROI and very inconvenient for ethanol EROI. Furthermore the Hall study studied oil and “conventional” natural gas together in computing EROI:...

Any mathematician worth his salt can, given a standard upstream and downstream time frame from energy extraction of e.g. ten years before and ten years after, quantify all the above Energy Expended Inputs in Mega Joules per Liter. But because that would shrink the EROI numbers for all fossil and nuclear fuels to a fraction of 1, well below any justification there ever was for making use of these poisons, they won’t do it. Furthermore the improper use and interpretation of thermodynamics by arbitrarily assuming that things that go boom (rapid explosive oxidation) are the gold standard in defining energy per se, they have made important “energy of activation” and “reaction velocity” variables seem irrelevant. The science of hydrocarbon chemistry and nuclear fission benefits from this flawed view that the more HEAT density in an exothermic process, the greater the potential EROI. That’s certainly true with hydrocarbons and nuclear fuels. That is NOT true with renewables. The best example I can think of is the internal combustion engine. The purpose of this machine is to use the energy of the explosions in the combustion chambers to drive a piston and produce mechanical energy. An electric motor produces mechanical enegy without wasting over 80% of the energy input on useless heat. The internal combustion engine, not only loses massive amounts of heat energy in the burning of fuel, but also must use part of the mechanical energy from the combustion to cool the engine. The EROI experts will certainly acknowledge that an internal combustion engine is only about 20% efficient but they flat refuse to see that the electric motor, because it doesn’t produce all that useless heat energy, can do the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK FOR LESS ENERGY. They may counter that I’m playing thermodynamic games here and the electricity to power the electric motor is coming from a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant so I’m just passing the energy buck, so to speak. Again, that shows the prejudice of these EROI experts to polluting fuel sources. In the subsequent paragraphs I will show how world electrification complete with electric motors being the motive force in industry and transportation, can achieve exactly the same amount of “useful work” (at a minimum) now produced by fossil fuels with less energy inputs because the resource is PV, geothermal, wind and wave...

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

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

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:13 AM
One of the biggest problems with solar is storing energy and transferring load. Consider that transmission and distribution losses are around 6-8%, ** and then take into account that for solar to be maximized it needs to be far away from cities in desert or long periods of sun, with minimal smog.

We talked about this in another thread where, if in a standard location the solar array only operate for 10-12 hours, but if in perfect setting could operate for 14 to 16, why not do it at the latter and find a new means to store it.

The problem with arrays being out in the middle of nowhere is the loss in transfer through power lines. The longer the distance the more you lose.

So, myself and others on the forum kicked around the idea of hydrolysis. An extra 4-6 hours of daylight might offset the 30% loss in hydrogen production, not to mention the savings in distribution load, but that would probably only make up for storage, processing cost.

In any case, then something else came up in the forum, link here to the news article, this process claims a 70% efficiency and a storage medium. But the method of turning into something usable is kind of lost on me.

In any case, none of this may be feasible right now. But as soon as solar tech boosts its efficiency a little, and we perfect battery technologies, you will see a lot more support for these things.

As of right now, green tech cost taxpayers a few billion in failed projects.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:33 AM

I can tell you one thing though, it's common information that solar gives yields of 20-45% efficiency. It also pretty well known that oil has about an 80% efficiency from the ground to the pump. (refinery, etc.)

Also remember about oil that everything is used, hundreds if not thousands of products come from oil.

Those numbers right there give you an idea that oil is doing better, now calculate in how you can extract 10 000 of barrels a day from a well, this will give you 17,000 MWH (of crude) a day.

Largest solar park I could find.

3-10,000MW

Estimated total revenue: up to 80 billion Euros

Even on the sunniest days it's not going to keep up with the rig. And it takes "Estimated new job vacancies: 60,000" that many people to run it? I don't even want to think of the overhead. What about days without sun?

It doesn't compete. Yet...

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

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:34 AM
Where do transmission lines come into it! Every time your straw arguments are put down you introduce another speculative topic that has nothing to do with anything. Make the hydrogen in the same place you have the solar panels.

Your still harping on about efficiency as if that is the all important issue. Sunshine is free. It simply does not matter how much you use. Once you have the hydrogen you can pipe it just like you do any other gas.

You have no wish to try and see the opposing view. Not once have you acknowledged pollution and the devastation it causes to mother earth. It seems that you don't give a brass razoo.

P

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:39 AM

Originally posted by pheonix358
Where do transmission lines come into it! Every time your straw arguments are put down you introduce another speculative topic that has nothing to do with anything. Make the hydrogen in the same place you have the solar panels.

Your still harping on about efficiency as if that is the all important issue. Sunshine is free. It simply does not matter how much you use. Once you have the hydrogen you can pipe it just like you do any other gas.

You have no wish to try and see the opposing view. Not once have you acknowledged pollution and the devastation it causes to mother earth. It seems that you don't give a brass razoo.

P

Yes, I looked into this. I got about as far as almost running the mathematical models (getting someone else to do them actually), to see if it was economically feasible. The rough math in my head wasn't working. And I already explained in a post if you failed to read.

Solar arrays as of right now are often put in locations that does not optimize what they can get out of the sky. Either they are too close to cities or not in the right area they are missing out on hours of sunlight a day. If you want to move them to prime locations, that does not always mean there is going to be an energy customer next door. So you have a option of distributing the load through power lines, taking a loss, or find a storage medium, which if it involves energy conversion, is also going to incur a loss.

I feel like I'm talking to middle school kids here.

Picture doing due diligence for a company investment, now look at the alternative energies or ideas that come up, I find that's the best method..

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:44 AM

I ask you the simple favour of actually reading my posts and trying to comprehend them before coming back accusing of "straw man arguments", or any other nonsense you have been up to.

Where we were discussing the idea you mentioned earlier. I kicked around the idea later with an engineering friend of mine and we had some fun with it off the forums. Nothing really came of it. Never really looked that promising.

The reason I mentioned hydro lines, was in support of the ideas in this thread. Talk out your ass all you want, you and Hawkiye, but I'm done with you two cause it's like running a day care.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:46 AM

The purpose of this machine is to use the energy of the explosions in the combustion chambers to drive a piston and produce mechanical energy. An electric motor produces mechanical enegy without wasting over 80% of the energy input on useless heat. The internal combustion engine, not only loses massive amounts of heat energy in the burning of fuel, but also must use part of the mechanical energy from the combustion to cool the engine.

but they flat refuse to see that the electric motor, because it doesn’t produce all that useless heat energy, can do the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK FOR LESS ENERGY. T

Your source is bunk. Yes, they don't recognize electrical engines do so much work at such high efficiency, because the energy that powers those electrical engines is just as inefficient. So it balances out.

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

Although there is chatter in monthly numbers, the U.S. fleet of natural gas power plants is now achieving about 44 per cent efficiency.
*

You start with 100 MJ - gas eff 44% = 44 MJ - Load transfer loss on the grid - 8% = 35 MJ - Electrical engine 80% = 28 MJ

Factor in the cost of lithium for batteries, making the initial investment for a car more expensive. It will be cheaper refuelling, but that doesn't mean the grid could support everyone switching to electric car, or that the lithium supply would be able to accommodate it.

But since we were talking about EROI for capital energy production projects, I have no clue why the electric car even got mentioned here.
edit on 30-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:40 AM

Your source is bunk. Yes, they don't recognize electrical engines do so much work at such high efficiency, because the energy that powers those electrical engines is just as inefficient. So it balances out.

No your source is bunk..There see how easy that was... Sigh!

Of course you did not consider people generating their own electricity off grid... and it depends on the source of grid power in the area... And a host of other variables...

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:50 AM

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...

...perpetial motion of the Niagara falls...

Yeah right, because there is water moving, you know. I don't care about the details. There is something moving so it must be perpetual!!! Because, because it is my definition and I am right and you are wrong.

You free energy fanatics are so hilarious. Bwahaha!

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:28 AM
To get free energy you must get small coils, small magnets and a wireless energy transmitter, put them in Boncho's keyboard and then say...."hey Boncho, I have free energy!". I jest, I jest.

As an electronics eng. I still say there is some way to tap energy from some unknown source. Maybe black holes have some funky QM's going on in them where we can teleport energy from them, who knows. Heck, even if we found a way to turn atoms into energy with very little input, that would be free energy. I also think there may be a way to switch a magnetic field on and off without using much power at all, just like how a pockels cell works, only with a magnetic field.

That said, I think free energy is energy that is free even if it was gas you got at the pump because your employer pays for it.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:50 AM

Originally posted by XL5
To get free energy you must get small coils, small magnets and a wireless energy transmitter, put them in Boncho's keyboard and then say...."hey Boncho, I have free energy!". I jest, I jest.

As an electronics eng. I still say there is some way to tap energy from some unknown source. Maybe black holes have some funky QM's going on in them where we can teleport energy from them, who knows. Heck, even if we found a way to turn atoms into energy with very little input, that would be free energy. I also think there may be a way to switch a magnetic field on and off without using much power at all, just like how a pockels cell works, only with a magnetic field.

That said, I think free energy is energy that is free even if it was gas you got at the pump because your employer pays for it.

and thats were most of us agree with you.
If i have to pay for my "Free Energy" with
LESS pesos than what i pay for "THEIRS"
Id be a verry happy chap...
Now if i only have to pay ONCE for MY free energy.
All the better..

I stoped listening to you a long time ago...

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:11 PM

...perpetial motion of the Niagara falls...

Yeah right, because there is water moving, you know. I don't care about the details. There is something moving so it must be perpetual!!! Because, because it is my definition and I am right and you are wrong.

You free energy fanatics are so hilarious. Bwahaha!

Yeah Niagra has been flowing for hundreds or thousands of years at least. Electrons have been in motion for millions of years if not billions at which point will you accept that is perpetual motion? According to you cultists perpetual should not even be a word since it does not exist according to your narrow irrational definition and you call those who accept the reasonable and most common use of perpetual fanatics... LOL!
Gotta love these cultists anyone who does not accept their narrow irrational unscientific beliefs is a fanatic... Wow

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

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:28 PM

Yes, we get it. To you there is no difference between a fermion and water falling off a cliff. So what does that do for your free energy device? Can we see it now that we understand your deep understanding of the world?

In March 1848, ice blockage caused the falls to stop; no water (or at best a trickle) fell for as much as 40 hours.
Perpetual, just not in really bad winter conditions...*

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:00 AM

Originally posted by hawkiye

...perpetial motion of the Niagara falls...

Yeah right, because there is water moving, you know. I don't care about the details. There is something moving so it must be perpetual!!! Because, because it is my definition and I am right and you are wrong.

You free energy fanatics are so hilarious. Bwahaha!
Yeah Niagra has been flowing for hundreds or thousands of years at least. Electrons have been in motion for millions of years if not billions at which point will you accept that is perpetual motion? According to you cultists perpetual should not even be a word since it does not exist according to your narrow irrational definition and you call those who accept the reasonable and most common use of perpetual fanatics... LOL!
Gotta love these cultists anyone who does not accept their narrow irrational unscientific beliefs is a fanatic... Wow

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

Yeah, there has been water coming out of my water tap since I can remember. It must be perpetual motion!!!!

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:39 AM

Yeah, there has been water coming out of my water tap since I can remember. It must be perpetual motion!!!!

Amazingly you geniuses really believe perpetual could only mean forever which science does not even recognize as a scientific term yet your whole model is based on this unscientific term that it can only be perpetual if it last forever LOL! Clueless fanatical believers in irrationality indeed! And yet here you are 2 or 3 of you trying to ridicule the majority who does not "believe" your ridiculous non-sense... Oh please come on now and tell us one more time how perpetual can only mean forever and anything else is blasphemy and maybe we will all shut off our brains and believe as you do

Gotta love the academia cult worshipers...

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:27 PM

Originally posted by hawkiye
Oh please come on now and tell us one more time how perpetual can only mean forever and anything else is blasphemy and maybe we will all shut off our brains and believe as you do

Gotta love the academia cult worshipers...

Have you actually googled "Perpetual Motion Definition"? I mean, you like to go by the literal definition of perpetual and are trying to throw the variances used by society for everyday use as your primary argument. I figured you might want to be aware that Perpetual Motion, as a distinct term of its own, has it's own definition which quite clearly states a machine that will run forever.

You're wrong. Just accept it and move on. There's nothing wrong with alternative energy based on systems that are already running that we can take advantage of (like all of the solar powered ones you keep mentioning) They are indeed useful given the calculated longevity of the sun, but it is not 'perpetual motion' and you need to either acknowledge this, or just drop it, and move on.

new topics

top topics

6