Free energy systems: Infinite power???

hummm i was sufing the web today and i found this great site about all sorts of experiments with free-energy systems... the site claims that atleast some are more then 100% efficent, ( up to 500%) WHOA... hummm i remeber from physics thats impossible, but hey im keeping an open mind, was going faster then the speed of sound also considered impossiable just 60 years ago. anyway if these things work (drools with excitement) it would make powering a space craft ( or anything else) infinitly better.

its a good read anyway, look around other parts of this site its very intersting.

www.geocities.com...

[edit on 12-9-2004 by beyondSciFi]

Probably the effect comes from the Earth's magnetic field, but I do not think that this may be a revolutionary invention.

Do you think that during 150+ years nobody did this kind of experiment?

And the result of Bruce DePalma's invention was "12 volts DC at 10,000 amps while operating at 6,000 rpms" and the generator was 3 feet long, I do not see many uses for this. Also, 6000 RPMs is not that easy to achieve.

Also, the fact that the site also speaks about anti-gravity engines leaves me a bit sceptical.

ok some of the invetions dont work... lol... but that dont mean u have to discredit the idea. besides im sure the gov't did this kind of experiments and found out how to make the work, but if they released the info to the public this would be bad news for the world economy... imagine the whole oil industry going out of buisness, millions of ppl would lose their jobs.

humm some of devices MIGHT work... i dunno lol, still its a good read

Remember that is supposed to be a different way to make something that was originally made in the XVIII century.

When the dynamo and the generators where invented the oil industry was nothing like what it is today, so they did not have reason to hide the inventions, they had all the reasons to bring new ways of creating electricity not linked to other inventors from other countries.

some of the devices on the site are not based of dynomo and generator designes but the idea is the same, to generate electricty...

The first thing I suppose I ought to do is apologize in advance for flying off the handle, bercause it's websites like that that get me very upset.

It's not because every single perpetual-motion or "free energy" or "overunity" or "aether" or whatever machines are bogus; that's a given.

Think about it: these same kinds of devices have been pushed as being "right on the verge of large-scale production, and you can buy a distributorship right now! and, of course, they never go into production because of minor technical glitches which we're getting worked out and we'll have one for you Real Soon Now" or "the secret ruling cabal of the oil companies and reptoids are killing off all the scientists and suppressing this knowledge..." and so on.

The bottom line is that there has never been a single one of these devices that has ever hit the market. Ever. There has never been one of these devices which has been evaluated by scientists who were given the information on the theory and allowed to try to duplicate the results. Ever.

And it's not that a bunch of people get taken by some of the claims and pony up a couple thousand bucks for future rights that bothers me, either. What a person does with his own money is his business, not mine.

What does bother me, though, is that we as a society are addicted to hydrocarbon fuels for just about every aspect of our lives. This is a very bad deal for a lot of reasons:

First, there's a finite amount of extractable hydrocarbons. Whether we've passed the magic "peak oil" point is arguable; however, if we haven't already, we soon will, and then, as the need continues to rise (especially in India and the PRC) the amount available will go down, leading to incredibly high prices.

Second, as the amount goes down, the remaining will be more technologically challenging to extract, and the pollution costs of extracting and transporting it will also go up. Oil from oil shale costs a lot more than oil from caverns, because it's harder to get. Deeper drilling and more involved refining and transport issues make the chance of spills and accidents much higher. Think Exxon Valdiz on steroids.

Third, even if we do begin to really exploit our own oil in places like Alaska North Shore, offshore from the California coast, etc., we're still going to get most of our oil from other countries, which really exacerbates our balance-of-trade problems. Plus, we're spending huge amounts of our wealth on people who don't like us very much, and who probably pass a lot of that wealth to friends of theirs who try to (and succeed in) killing our people.

Fourth, It is damaging our ecology and killing us with pollution, including thinning of the ozone, mixing with water to form acid rain, eroding limestone buildings, and giving many of us chronic obstructive lung diseases.

In summary, you could spend two weekends and a spare Wednesday and not manage to come up with a worse source of energy thatn the one we are addicted to (and soon will be jonesing for): hydrocarbons.

And instead of working the problem to come up with a real-world energy solution that we must solve now or watch our whole culture slide into barbarism and death of probably 90 percent ot the world's population, so many people are wasting their time chasing "results" that don't even work and have never shown that there's the slightest chance that they will work.

Where's our sense of priorities?

yep i agree with u, the oil industry sucks and is damaging the ecology and enviroment. thats what would make free point energy devices so great IF they worked... no damage to the enviroment or animals in any way. and since they are free energy systems we could have an infinite power supply.
just beacuse we have not yet made any free energy systems doesnt mean we never will (maybe we have but is not made public, if it was made pubilc it was not take seriously). im just keeping an open mind MAYBE some of the things on this site are real and working...

We can start by using different energy sources to generate electricity. In Portugal 33% of the electricity is generated from hydroelectric sources, but Portugal has a lot of rivers.

Some years ago there was a plan to make an test with wave-powered generators, but I do not remember what happened. Being Portugal a country with 50% of the borders on the Atlantic Ocean, that way we could generate a lot of electricity.

Also, we are building the worlds largest photovoltaic plant, with a estimated production of 64MW, and we can already see lots of wind powered generators in some areas.

Being Portugal a country without any oil sources, we may only gain with these approaches.

Beyond and ArMaP, I have to tell you about a meeting I attended which I shall never forget. It was in the mid 1980�s, during �Earth Day�, a sort of environmental teaching holiday that used to be celebrated in the United States.

A food co-op in Tempe, which is a university town near Phoenix, Arizona, wanted to present a forum on alternative energy. They contacted a Systems Engineer who worked at a photovoltaic engineering and manufacturing company nearby. They asked him to discuss alternatives to the existing coal-fired and oil-fired generating plants with the goal or reducing dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the environment.

You can see that these two problems were also problems twenty years ago!

The engineer knew his alternative energy systems, and had done some project management with PV and hybrid systems in the desert southwest and Mexico and Central America. He had also taken enough business courses in college to be able to discuss things like �cost-effectiveness� and �amortization of startup costs over the life of the system� and things like that.

But what he didn�t understand was the psychology of his audience, and that was a disaster!

He arrived with a bunch of view-graphs (this was before laptops and projection displays) and started his show. He showed how PV worked and how it could be combined with wind turbines to provide power in many cases. He managed to keep the math simple, and everyone was hanging on his words.

But then, when someone asked him why we didn�t all use PV, he got into trouble. He mentioned that, since the PV modules were only about 10% efficient, providing electricity for the United States would take a PV array about the size of the state of Montana, once you factored in the extra modules that would be needed to provide the electricity for storage for subsequent use at night or on rainy days.

He explained that, since the arrays would cover the land, there would be no light and thus no life under them, which would be an environmental disaster. He also went into detail (with all the facts and figures) about how the most cost-effective storage medium was then (and still is) lead-acid batteries which have to be replaced every five years and what are you going to do with all that scrap lead and sulfuric acid?

The people were beginning to get a little upset. It wasn�t because they didn�t believe him, but that he was saying stuff they didn�t want to hear. He didn�t realize this, of course; he was just talking engineering talk and giving them facts.

The end came when one of the organizers of the forum, visibly upset, asked him what he thought the best solution to the energy problem. He replied that, when you take all safety factors into consideration, the best way to provide a lot of electricity to a lot of people with the lowest cost in pollution or health dangers was -- nuclear fission.

Dead silence.

The audience, like most people today, were completely ignorant of nuclear fission; they didn�t know the reasons why Chernobyl was such a disaster and why Three Mile Island wasn�t. They didn�t know the difference between a Fast Breeder and a Fighting Bulldog, and they didn�t want to learn.

They wanted to believe -- and needed to believe -- that a nuclear reactor could instantly Turn Into a Hydrogen Bomb and Blow Up and Kill Us All, or that it produced enough Toxic Waste over its Lifetime to Render the Entire State of Arizona a House of Death, and even if it didn�t Turn Into a Hydrogen Bomb and Blow Up and Kill Us All, just the Awful Radiation and Other Rays from it would Kill You as you Drove Down I-10 past it on the way to San Diego.

Can you imagine how that poor fool felt as he drove back to work? All he wanted to do was tell them the facts, backed up by numbers and data, because he thought (being an engineer and all) that they were interested in the truth, even if it might not be what they wanted to hear.

He learned a valuable lesson that day, I�m sure: engineers are great when they tell you what you want to hear, but not when they tell you what you don�t want to hear.

That same engineer would be around sixty now, nearing retirement age, learning too late, it seems, that people don�t like the truth if it�s not what they want to hear. It doesn�t matter if it�s people at a Tempe teach-in or people on an Internet forum that bills itself as �Denying Ignorance�.

�Plus �a change, plus c�est la m�me chose.� At least the engineer managed to learn that.

still no solution to our energy needs... aleast not for now... bahhh the ignorance of people as a whole is shocking...

Not true, beyond; there are solutions, and these are ones that actually exist.

First, we simply must convert most of our hydrocarbon burning plants to nuclear ones. Our N-plant designs, if followed, are safe, and, although the spent fuel is both toxic and radioactive, it can be cleaned up to a large extent by breeders, and the rest stored in a geologically safe location.

And even if there were an accident with the spent fuel, the number of people sickened and killed by hydrocarbon pollution is a large factor greater than fallout from a nuclear reactor, even if it experienced a melt-down.

The advantage of this is that we can take advantage of the existing power transmission infrastructure that covers the world.

Second, we must invest the time and money to improve the efficiency of PV modules to above 80 percent; this would make large scale daytime electricity generating for cracking water into hydrogen cost-effective.

With hydrogen this cheap, and with the newer fuel cells needing much less platinum catalyst, we could well see fuel-cell technology running all our automobiles within ten or fifteen years.

Third, we can work on systems that have been attempted and proven in small scale applications: Tidal-bore hydroelectric plants, in places like the Bay of Fundy or some of the Dutch Polders; and large Stirling-cycle engines operating off the seawater temperature delta on offshore power platforms.

Both of these technologies work and, with hard engineering, can become cost-effective.

We can do this, if we have enough sense to invest our resources right and stay focused on the task at hand.

There isn't enough uranium in the world to sustain electricity for the United States alone, what are we going to do about that?

Photovoltaic modules are innefficient and they cost energy and pollution to produce too. If we want energy from the sun, it's best to use the heat to create steam. A fresnel lens doesn't stop working after 10 years.

As for cars, there's no energy crisis now and there never was. Alcohol is a far superior fuel to gasoline, and vegetable oil is nearly as good as diesel while being FAR cleaner. Both can be produced in desert environments using plants that we normally regard as a nuisence for growing so fast in such great quantities.

In Brasil they use alchool to replace gasoline and vegetable oil to replace Diesel for many years. I do not know how the situation is, but some time ago I read that they had a problem to produce enough alchool.

Solar power was used by a Portuguese monk some centuries ago to make a solar furnace. It was so hot that the furnace melt, and he abandoned the project.

shbaz says:

"There isn't enough uranium in the world to sustain electricity for the United States alone, what are we going to do about that?"

If you went to the doe website's discussion of Uranium Reserves, located at
www.eia.doe.gov...
you might get some further insights.

"Photovoltaic modules are innefficient and they cost energy and pollution to produce too."

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a complete PV fan, but I am not sure of your definition of "inefficient". In some cases, e.g., microwave repeaters on remote mountain tops, electric cattle fences running off a capacitor bank, or daytime-only pumping to a water tank for subsequent gravity-feed water delivery, PV is a great approach. It's just not justified for large-scale use.

"If we want energy from the sun, it's best to use the heat to create steam. A fresnel lens doesn't stop working after 10 years."

True, and neither does a reflective trough that is a parabola in cross-section heating a metal pipe carrying the water and flashing it to steam.

Unfortunately, you are dealing with superheated, high-pressure steam, which requires some very involved engineering and some rather high-cost construction, as well as some pretty sophisticated water-recycling and safety equipment. Workable, certainly, but I couldn't say for sure if tha approach is cost-effective. And besides, you still can't generate electricity at night, which means the same old storage problems as with PV.


"As for cars, there's no energy crisis now and there never was. Alcohol is a far superior fuel to gasoline..."

Why? its specific heat is much lower.

And the "Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel"
( journeytoforever.org... ) says:

"Alcohol fuel can be an important part of the solution, but it is by no means a panacea. If all of the available agricultural surplus were converted to ethanol, alcohol would supply less than 5% of our motor fuel needs. Add the possibility of converting cellulose residues to ethanol and general biomass to methanol, and the most optimistic total falls short of 10% of our present needs! However, this is a very important 5 or 10% because it can be renewed each year, and each gallon of alcohol produced will save a gallon of oil."

"...and vegetable oil is nearly as good as diesel while being FAR cleaner."

I believe the same argument obtains here. You're talking about a lot of vegetables!

"Both can be produced in desert environments using plants that we normally regard as a nuisence for growing so fast in such great quantities..."

What plants do you have in mind? Jojoba? It's not fast growing at all, although it produces small amounts of very pure lubricant. However, the attempts in the late 1970's to commercially grow jojoba came to nothing; it simply wasn't cost-effective.

Russian Thistle? Fast growing, and good for making "Tumble-logs", but its specific heat is the same as most lignin-based plants: pretty miserable.

And besides, as someone who has lived in the Sonoran Desert for 26 years now, I am sensitive to the fact that there simply isn't enough water to grow that amount of alcohol-producing plants....

...unless you have a particular species in mind with which I'm not familiar.



[edit on 14-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]

OH NO ZERO POINT ENEGRY

THINKS OF FIRST GREAT DEBATE

:RUNS:
:GOES TO CORNER:
:SUCKS THUMB:
:CRIES: