Let me talk about "free energy", too.

Seems the post of free energy is gone. I'll talk about free energy here too.


In daily life free energy might mean "energy for free in expenses". In physics, free energy has a different meaniing.

For a system in thermodynamics, we have a state function enthalpy, H, which is related to another state function G, (Gibbs) free energy, and entropy, S, as shown by Equation 1.

H = G + TS (1)

where T is the absolute temperature (in K). For a process, the change of these state functions are shown as in Equation 2.

Δ G = Δ H – Δ (TS) (2)

If this process is in constant temperature and constant pressure, then we re-write Equation 2 into Equation 3:

Δ G = Δ H – T Δ S (3)

where Δ G is the difference of free energy, or change in free energy. Δ H equals to the heat effect in this process, and Δ S is the change in entropy. Here, this Δ G is the most possible energy you can exploit from a system in a process.

An exothermic chemical reaction can convert the heat energy into electricity. For example, the oxidation of hydrogen as in fuel cells, can give out heat. At a constant pressure (1 atm, 298 K), 1 mole of hydrogen can generate heat of 286 kJ (Δ H = -286 kJ) upon combustion, this is called the chemical energy of hydrogen. However, when hydrogen is used in fuel cell, you cannot exploit all this 286 kJ and change it into electric energy because it need to deal with the entropy change (Δ S = -163.2 J/K = -0.1632 kJ/K ), you can only obtain a portion of it, as shown in Equation 4.

Δ G = Δ H – T Δ S = -286- 298*(-0.163) = - 237 kJ

This shows that only 237 kJ out of 286 kJ of the chemical energy, or, 83%, could be possibly converted into electric energy. This is the theoretical energy efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell. The rest of the energy is inevitably dissipated into the environment. There is no way we convert the chemical energy in a 100% efficiency (I am not saying that no 100% efficiency in other conversions. Say, electric energy could be converted to thermal energy in a 100% efficiency. That depends on the individual process. Please refer to a physics textbook for details). That portion of energy that can be converted into electricity is therefore called (change in) free energy.

If it should be very helpful for SOMEGUY34 to learn some college physics course, or more specifically, thermodynamics.


[edit on 6-3-2008 by fuelcell]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by fuelcell]

reply to post by fuelcell


Indeed, and all that energy spend trying to fool people could much more productively be used tinkering on something (like a fuel cell) that will actually work!

I agree. A lot of smart guys really waste their talents in doing something like that.

NIce to see some on here do actually understand physics and science.

I'm also very glad that you didn't prove you know these ideas by giving us random thoughts and mentioning you are german and your grandfather is german so you are more intelligent. You know who else thought like that? :-)

Anyways I'd like to add that there have been many many brilliant people spend their lifetimes on these theories and ideas. Nothing is impossible but it is very doubtful that someone is going quickly be able to prove these laws wrong with jsut a casual idea.

I do believe there are things about physics and the universe in general that we do not yet understand. I bet someday certain "laws and theories" will be proven wrong. But it will have to stand up to scientific inquiry.

His idea of gaining energy is flawed at best

Energy cannot be gained only extracted. at at most with 85% efficiency.

Current renuable energy sources take naturally occuring energy.

Best Option for a large amount of cheap energy is stick some hydro plants under niagra falls. or any larger waterfall for that matter.

Flawed is too good.

he simply took what other people were saying in speculation and then claimed it was his idea.

I mentioned turbines in hydroelectric plants and the next few posts he suddenly mentioned turbines. Someone said they are using the pressure in psi and the next post he claimed he knew of the PSI principle.

Geothermal, wind, solar and hydro are the best bets we have today. Perhaps someday someone will invent some new idea. I think we would be best to focus on the most efficient. We should get effiecent before we get free

reply to post by dascro62


Thanks for encouraging. I agree that we need to respect the physics law although I don;t think that we should be slaves of those laws.

The problem of the thread we discussed on is that an obvious piece of incorrect idea is gaining or trying to gain "financial". Quite some brand new ID's are registrated to advocate... I don't like that.

reply to post by mace778



Yeah. We need to respect basic physocal laws. For any conversion from thermal energy to work, such as electric energy or other power, the efficiency is below 100%.

reply to post by dascro62


I also believe some day people might find new ways of solving the energy crisis. That 's why we are all working so hard toward this goal. Howeever, this need tremendous efforts.

Well I actually think we are not working hard enough towards the goal. I'd like to see a project on the scale of the mathatten project to solve our energy worries. Or at least find an alternative to oil.

reply to post by dascro62



I'll talk about some background of vaious options of alternative oil program maybe, next week. We do have some programs available in the world.

Yeah I work in that field.

Anyways I really haven't seen a viable alternative to oil. Yes some things will work, but I think for it to catch on it needs to have similiar advantages. Nothing I've seen is quite ready for mainstream. At least nothing I've seen.

Nice explanation fuelcell! I can see you are well-versed in physics, and that can be a rare thing today. I want to test you, however...

The thermodynamic principle you refer to is applicable in a closed system. That is, any intervention from outside that system affects the equations. That said, I see energy in action all around me:

An object falls from my hand to the ground. The object is undergoing an acceleration of approximately 9.8 ft/s/s due to the gravitational forces acting between it and the earth. This can be explained in that I used energy to lift the object to its height before dropping it, thereby storing potential energy energy in the object that is transferred upon dropping it into kinetic energy. But consider an asteroid in space. Does it have potential energy? With an absence of forces preventing it from moving toward the earth, it still does not move toward the earth. Should it come closer through some other means, it will begin to experience an acceleration toward the earth. Where did that potential energy come from?

In the water cycle of our planet, warm air will absorb water from the oceans and lakes. The water vapor then ascends into the atmosphere and if the containing air is cooled (loses energy), the water vapor will condense and fall as rain, having kinetic energy. No energy was used in the evaporation process, other than the energy that was transferred from one water molecule to the other to allow one to form waer vapor. The air actually lost energy as it was cooled. So what form of energy was used to lift the water and thereby cause it to contain potential energy?

If you take a piece of iron and subject it to a magnetic field, it will become magnetized. Once you remove the external magnetic field, it will lose (most of) its magnetic field. however, certain materials (Neodymium, for instance) can be magnetized and will retain their magnetic field long after the initial magnetic field is removed. In this state, the new magnets can exert a force on ferric materials, causing them to move through a distance, thereby producing work and energy. Where does this energy come from?

Just a few queries to keep you thinking and the thread going. If we keep thinking about these things, perhaps we can come up with a new energy source.

TheRedneck

reply to post by dascro62


So, we are colleagues. Hello to you.

Oil is so excellent we really have a hard time to obtain something in the near future that can truly match it. But FT synthesis and methanol to gasoline, as well as Bioethanol/butanol/diesel can provide some supplement. It is impossivle to really substitute oil in the enar future.

reply to post by TheRedneck


OK. I'll tak e the test.

As for the stars moving, it is beyong today's theory. People can have big bang to explian some. But the first propulsion is uncertain. Religion people say that it is the GOD.

As for evaoporation, external energy should be provided, say, the sunlight in the case of evaporation in the ocean, or wind energy. Of course, the internal energy in the water body, such as tidy, can also provide a part of the energy for the evaporation. Otherwise, only a small vapor of water could exist to keep an equilibrium.

As for the magnetic energy. It is provided from the first "magnetization".

What i talked about is from a closed system. You are right. Those are indeal situation. And that provide a guidance as to the extent or degree a process could possibly go without external interference. It also provide guideline to if a process is achievable or not. It won;t tell us how you do something. That leaves a lot for us to do.

You are very welcome to test and stimulate. Thanks.

Now I have to leave for a meeting.

"Over-unity" is something that may indeed be possible. There are some "irons in the fire" right now that may equate to an over-unity type of device with some tinkering on the applied design.

But the focus should be on novel ways to capitalize on previously untouched energy. I, personally, am a big fan of nanogenerators. I also see a "shotgun" approach being possible.

using solar arrays on the roof, nanogenerators embedded in the building material, thermoelectric materials covering the outside. Throw enough weapons at it, and you can get "free energy" by capturing previously untouched energy.

i think i may be able to explain the asteroid energy question!

an oblect on a table has potential energy when slid off the table the barrier to kinetic energy is removed and and the object gains kinetic energy while losing the potential ernergy.

When the object hits free-fall speed it ha reached equilibrium with its surroundings.

Kinetic Energy cannot increase due to the surrounding resistance (air).

With the asteroids they have even less of a barrier to potential energy due to the very low pressure.

The initial movement may have been caused by an explosion - therefore the energy from the explosion turned in to kinetic energy for the asteroid. asteroids have potential energy because they can be pulled by the gravitational pull from the Sun/Planets/Moons.

This way of increasing kinetic energy from potential energy is used today to "slingshot" around round the moon to reach higher speeds.

This is all a case of the same amount of energy just converted from one type to another.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by mace778]

What about the unlimited supply of energy coming from the sun 24-7.. We don't need to "create" energy, but receive whats already been given to us in generous supply...

Originally posted by chromatico
Indeed, and all that energy spend trying to fool people could much more productively be used tinkering on something (like a fuel cell) that will actually work!

Great, another avenue for those mongers to charge for fuel when brown gas could be produced at home for next to nothing.

Originally posted by fuelcell
I agree. A lot of smart guys really waste their talents in doing something like that.

Take a look at what ravi (utube) did with Stan Meyers wfc. Math won't help explain that.. At least in its current state. Time well spent if you ask me...

Anyone remember that guy named Tesla? We had it in our hands 100 years ago, but greed destroyed it. Get rid of the greed and you will have all the energy you can handle..

Quote-

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity….. anything you can imagine we already know how to do.”

Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works

Well I dont know what part of tesla's work you are referring to exactly. But i will say this. Tesla, as most brilliant people, was slightly eccentrc. In his last several years he became slightly disconnected from reality. He spoke to a white dove daily. he started to make some out of this world claims. Many of which have been tested and proven false. However some of his claims were still true.

Having said all that, I know we are on a conspiracy site so most people think in that manner. But do not underestimate the curiousity, stubbornness and intelligence of scientists today. i very highly doubt that the goverment could silence all of them. If tesla wrote of an idea then I am willing to bet someone has attempted it. This is not to say these coverups never happen. I think in current times, the goverment would be following these claims and try as they might, they can't hide everything. And thanks to those same eccentric scientists (like tesla was) we can be sure that we would be hearing of this research in the private sector.

reply to post by dascro62


You underestimate their capability. Take a look at NASA. Do you really think they can't do better than rocket propulsion? There's a reason, well a misconception really that we shouldn't make these technologies known for reasons that it could do more harm than good. Advanced technologies like these could be deadly in the wrong hands, but so is polluting the earth... Just as the invention of the gun could give a huge advantage and benefit, it can also do a lot of harm in the wrong hands. Then you have powers like the oil cartel doing all they can do destroy the one thing which could destroy them. Better believe if you come up with something good you are gonna have unwanted guests knocking at your door, either to buy you off, or smudge you out like the rest.

Originally posted by dascro62
But do not underestimate the curiousity, stubbornness and intelligence of scientists today. i very highly doubt that the goverment could silence all of them. If tesla wrote of an idea then I am willing to bet someone has attempted it.

Remember just last year mit talking about their success in duplicating Tesla's wireless transfer of electricity? That only took 100 years...I don't know what experiment you are referring to that was proven false, I'd like to see them. I do know that just cause someone couldn't make it work, doesn't mean Tesla didn't do it. Going from just the patent isn't easy. Especially when not all neccessary information is contained within the patent.

I admire people like Boyd Bushman who purposely look in places that nobody looks. Of course what he has developed will be locked away in the black as with the rest of the wonders developed by black programs.
www.youtube.com...