Free energy machine powered by gravity. BRAZIL

Originally posted by boncho
If it's being powered by gravity it's not a free energy machine, nor is it perpetual energy. Every hydro dam out there is the same thing. Also not free energy, also not perpetual motion.

How is it not perpetual motion? Once it starts going it shouldn't stop.... unless you somehow know that gravity is going to suddenly disappear on us?

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by litterbaux
Even if this machine works it will only be a matter of time before the energy giants either pay him to turn the machine into scrap metal or kill him outright.

This is the world we live in.

Actually, I could more imagine the energy giants buying the tech (assuming that he got it to work) and finding a way to charge us more for the electricity it produces that the energy we are supplied with now.
i.e look at wind generated electricity - it is generated for free but we are asked to pay more for it (here in Australia anyway) based on the grounds that it is 'green' energy.

Wind turbines are free now? WOW! So which part became free all of a sudden, was it:

A. The rare Earth metals that cost a literal fortune per multi-kilo?
B. The steel which makes up the massive pillars or blades, as well as the gearing?
C. The engineering design and work that goes into the steel for functionality?
D. The efforts of raising into place and moving beforehand?
E. The maintenance of the machine and distribution of the electricity?

Can you PLEASE tell me which one of these things is free so I can just go out and get it myself? I'll say I'm building a wind machine, get it for free, sell it on the open market = become billionaire.

Thank you by the way, you have solved all my financial worries for the rest of my life.




Unless...!

Perhaps if you re-read my post you will see that I only stated that the electricity they generate is free. The same can be said of solar, hydtothermal (natural steam) and hydro electricity. i.e they are designed to create electricity from a natural, renewable and yes, free energy source.This is opposed to coal, gas, nuclear powered plants etc where there is an actual cost in the fuel needed to generate the electricity.

I at no point said that the cost of building said wind turbine and associated infrastructure needed to get the electricity into the national grid was free........

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by boncho
If it's being powered by gravity it's not a free energy machine, nor is it perpetual energy. Every hydro dam out there is the same thing. Also not free energy, also not perpetual motion.

How is it not perpetual motion? Once it starts going it shouldn't stop.... unless you somehow know that gravity is going to suddenly disappear on us?

Well, as I mentioned before, perpetual motion by definition is a non-working thing. If you have a gravity device, eventually it will run out of juice. But more importantly, the reason gravity works as it does for hydroelectric dams, is because the sun is doing the real work by evaporating water and bringing it to higher altitudes. Or in some case, glacier melt is freeing up potential energy.

But gravity itself is not really usable energy. It's potential energy. And to get the potential energy from gravity you need to create kinetic energy using thermal, electrical or chemical energy.

Think of it like and elevator reaching the top of a building. You need something to power the elevator to the top. Whether it be chemical (An explosion to shoot it up to the top, rockets on the side of the elevator car, etc) or thermal, (a fire burning and inflating a balloon which brings the elevator to the top) or electrical, (electric motors from a battery store), or even nuclear (a nuclear power plant pushing up the elevator which kind of transfers to electrical first)...

Okay, so you see the different forms of energy there are? Some are - and some are +. Yes, potential energy is there for gravity. But it's a - type of energy. And you need + type to charge it, essentially.

The hydroelectric dam uses the nuclear energy in the sun, to provide thermal (sun evaporates water to a higher plain) where the water is able to run downhill, essentially allowing the potential energy store in the water+gravity, to become kinetic energy.

Make sense?

In other words, this thing wont work.

Useful source.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by litterbaux
Even if this machine works it will only be a matter of time before the energy giants either pay him to turn the machine into scrap metal or kill him outright.

This is the world we live in.

Actually, I could more imagine the energy giants buying the tech (assuming that he got it to work) and finding a way to charge us more for the electricity it produces that the energy we are supplied with now.
i.e look at wind generated electricity - it is generated for free but we are asked to pay more for it (here in Australia anyway) based on the grounds that it is 'green' energy.

Wind turbines are free now? WOW! So which part became free all of a sudden, was it:

A. The rare Earth metals that cost a literal fortune per multi-kilo?
B. The steel which makes up the massive pillars or blades, as well as the gearing?
C. The engineering design and work that goes into the steel for functionality?
D. The efforts of raising into place and moving beforehand?
E. The maintenance of the machine and distribution of the electricity?

Can you PLEASE tell me which one of these things is free so I can just go out and get it myself? I'll say I'm building a wind machine, get it for free, sell it on the open market = become billionaire.

Thank you by the way, you have solved all my financial worries for the rest of my life.




Unless...!

Its the fuel that's free. These cost are there with anything we do.

reply to post by markosity1973

Perhaps if you re-read my post you will see that I only stated that the electricity they generate is free. The same can be said of solar, hydtothermal (natural steam) and hydro electricity. i.e they are designed to create electricity from a natural, renewable and yes, free energy source.This is opposed to coal, gas, nuclear powered plants etc where there is an actual cost in the fuel needed to generate the electricity.

I at no point said that the cost of building said wind turbine and associated infrastructure needed to get the electricity into the national grid was free........

Sorry to burst your bubble but the electricity that is generated is not "free". Solar, hydro or wind.

There is an actual cost to many things surrounding the production of energy in those means. An ROEI is used to calculate how much energy goes in, to produce how much energy goes out.

Your point is that wind, water, and the sun, are not tradable commodities. You can simply say that. By no means is there no cost associated with the forms of energy you are talking about. There are environmental costs, energy costs to set up the systems (which can be calculated in fossil fuel amounts usually because it takes fossil fuels to get them going) etc.

SO what you meant to say, is the energy source for X, are not tradable commodities.

That's great. It speaks nothing on their viability or their effectiveness.

And by no means, are they free. The electricity they generate is not free.

reply to post by The Asgard

Its the fuel that's free. These cost are there with anything we do.

The post I was responding to was the following:

i.e look at wind generated electricity - it is generated for free but we are asked to pay more for it (here in Australia anyway) based on the grounds that it is 'green' energy.

You are correct in more than one way, the fuel is not a tradable commodity, (free) and it is relatively unhindered in the environment, another kind of free (freely available.)

However, the post I was responding to was clearly speaking about the economic aspects of the net energy provided, by stating that Australia charges more for it, even though it's "free".

I clarified the misuse of context.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
How is it not perpetual motion?

Why do you think it is?

Once it starts going it shouldn't stop

What a silly claim, ever heard of friction?

reply to post by boncho

Thankyou for your lesson in economics Your point being?

The actual cost of these things is extremely diluted by the reliability, service life and actual income they produce. i.e Some very old hydroelectric dams are producing very cheap electricity now if looked at from an accountant's point of view because the original capital investment in them has been paid off long ago, the cost of keeping them running is dwarfed by the income they generate and the actual capital value of the dam would far exceed what was paid for it thanks to inflation. They also have an as yet undetermined lifespan but will continue to generate electricity for longer than we live based on the assumption that no natural disaster destroys them.

The money that is made over and above the cost of the original construction,payment of loans and ongoing running costs is called profit. A lot of these older hydroelectric dams are almost generating pure profit these days, as the cost of staffing and maintaining them is very low compared to the actual money they make from all those megawatts.

So, yes you are right, nothing is free, but some things come mighty close.

reply to post by markosity1973

Well, the sun's energy ain't free. In a billion years or more, it'll be too hot to live here probably. And even if it's not, eventually it'll swallow us up and then finally explode and/or implode.

Then our sun, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

Right now, what's so amazing, is there's a tiny sliver of light reaching earth from the sun. The sun is like a soccer ball 60 feet from something the size of a 'o' on this screen.

The sun's energy is the closest thing to free that we know, I think. But you know, with every productivity gain, we up the anty. So we'll never be satisfied no matter how much energy we have.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by markosity1973

 

Well, the suns energy ain't free. In a billion years or more, it'll be too hot to live here probably. And even if it's not, eventually it'll swallow us up and then finally explode and/or implode.

Then our sun, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

Right now, what's so amazing, is there's a tiny sliver of light reaching earth from the sun. The sun is like a soccer ball 60 feet from something the size of a 'o' on this screen.

Broadly speaking, all of life on earth is living on solar credit.

edit on 20-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

In a billion years, humanity with have either long perished or have developed to the point where we have the technology to leave the planet for a better one.

The energy we get from it right now is for our purposes 'free' - it is freely available, it would be here anyway if we were not harnessing it for generating electricity and does not cost anything.

To say that the sun will go supernova in a billion years, therefore the energy we harvest from it now is not free is just ludicrous. The sun will do what the sun does irrespective of humanity's activities. Harnessing some of that energy and converting into electricity in the ways we do today has no direct effect on the sun's future whatsoever.

reply to post by markosity1973

The energy we get from it right now is for our purposes 'free' - it is freely available, it would be here anyway if we were not harnessing it for generating electricity and does not cost anything.

To say that the sun will go supernova in a billion years, therefore the energy we harvest from it now is not free is just ludicrous. The sun will do what the sun does irrespective of humanity's activities. Harnessing some of that energy and converting into electricity in the ways we do today has no direct effect on the sun's future whatsoever.

Saying it's free because it's freely available is ridiculous. Until you can harvest silicone, metal, or anything else needed to create a solar array for free, it just aint free. Solar cells and solar arrays have lifespans. It costs energy input to create them.

Up until recently, almost all of them didn't even produce enough energy to make them economically feasible.

Meaning, if it takes 2.5 gigawatts to produce a solar array that only has a lifespan of 15 years which only produces 3 gigawatts, I am only getting 1 gigawatt for something that might cost a million or two to create.

So explain how that's free? As long as solar energy needs equipment and that equipment has a lifespan, having a free fuel source means dick squat.

reply to post by markosity1973


Damns don't come without downsides. One being environmental cost. The other, is the reality that most of them were installed into poor countries with IMF loans simply to put them into debt, with no real plan of being beneficial to the country or the economy. While being detrimental to indigenous industry or culture (by destroying large sections of arable or usable land).

The energy we get from it right now is for our purposes 'free' - it is freely available, it would be here anyway if we were not harnessing it for generating electricity and does not cost anything.

To say that the sun will go supernova in a billion years, therefore the energy we harvest from it now is not free is just ludicrous. The sun will do what the sun does irrespective of humanity's activities. Harnessing some of that energy and converting into electricity in the ways we do today has no direct effect on the sun's future whatsoever.

www.internationalrivers.org...

So again, we have freely available fuel as your version of "free". What point that has is beyond me. It's not "free energy" as in the original coining of the word, which describes something unfeasible.

Gas too, is "free" in your terms. Because gas energy, for the last century, was cheaper than all types of energy. No kidding.

At one point, coal and sweet crude, was cheaper than any energy produced. Simply because of how much wells were producing. If you are speaking economic costs, than that to is "free".

You have to make up your mind. Either it's free cause it's freely available but difficultly convertible, or it's free because its cheap (see cheap:low cost:not free).

Why can't people just give up the "free" part. It's not. It's like a 10 year old wanting a pet dinosaur.

reply to post by markosity1973

The energy we get from it right now is for our purposes 'free' - it is freely available, it would be here anyway if we were not harnessing it for generating electricity and does not cost anything.

There's a planet full of diamonds. Free diamonds!

www.space.com...

~$heopleNation

Hmm, me thinks the afforementioned big energy companies are pushing an agenda here

So..... To make a long story short, we are now saying that

1) Free diamonds on another planet means that free energy is a myth
2) Because solar panels are diificult and still relatively expensive to make that hydro dams are irrelevant
3) All this talk of carbon input vs free energy out means that nothing, absolutely nothing can be classified as green energy.
4) That because some poor nations borrowed heavily to make hydro dams, every single on in the world is a waste of money and none of them are economically viable? How about the Hoover dam? What about NZ? MOST of their electricity comes from hydro dams, the last one being completed in the 1980's They have more water than they know what to do with over there.
5) Because the sun is going supernova in a billion years or so, there is some kind of cosmic solar tax that makes the energy it produces no longer free.

As far as point three goes, what about hot rocks technology? This simply involves a not very carbon intensive hole being bored down to where the crust is hot and pumping in water, then using the steam generated to create electricity.

Hot rocks in Australia

This machine will never see the light of day. The powerful oil and banking cartels as well as the military industrial complex will never let anyone loosen their stranglehold on oil worth trillions of dollars that flow into their coffers.

If they do, that would be the end of the Rothschild empire and the Builderbergs! It would be goodbye to their aim of building a New World Order to control humanity.

Friction aka... Heat. The bain of all "perpetual motion" designs. Lossy systems can never sustain themselves, at least not in this version of the universe.

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
This machine will never see the light of day.

That is because it will not work as claimed....

reply to post by boncho

Perpetual energy and free energy are words created to describe something not possible.

Can you show me where you got that info from, or is that just your opinion?

I don't get if it's a simple misunderstanding of English or is it just people's unwillingness to let go of childhood notions.

The company is Brazilian, so you could be right, but I'm guessing they have looked further into it than you have so perhaps you could pipe down abit and wait n see.

Why must you incorrectly describe well understood concepts??

Why must you try to belittle me for incorrectly describing well understood concepts? You have only stated what it isn't. Can you elaborate on what it is they are attempting to build? Or do you only Ooze negative connotations today?

Jump off that high horse boncho, you haven't seen the finished machine yet, so all your naysaying it won't work is just opinion, I've seen contraptions that turn on their own, and keep going with the use of gravity pulling weights, what makes you so sure this machine will not work....whatever it is called?

Usually some very dramatic happenings arise that mysteriously end the projects and equally shrouded in mystery are the empty pockets of anyone gullible enough to invest into the ______. I won't say it, I'll let you figure out the blank.

Sounds like you are describing a bank.

I wonder how much "free energy" a system such as this could generate if you had to first subtract the energy that went into manufacturing in the overall total energy calculation.

If we are talking a multi million dollar materials bill alone; then this will need to generate a lot of electricity before it breaks even.

It's got to be said as well; surely anyone out there wasting money on "Free"energy generation without using the Sun as at least a contributing factor is probably doing it wrong.