Free energy

Science > Physics > Free energy

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"mike3"
Date:	09 Jul 2007 03:14:54 PM
Object:	Free energy

free as in not requiring MONEY, not as in it breaks the law of
thermodynamics.
Free energy is energy that
1. needs little MONEY and RESOURCES
2. produces significant quantites of power without significant
environmental harm
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Free energy	10 Jul 2007 10:20:49 AM

On Jul 9, 3:14 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

free as in not requiring MONEY, not as in it breaks the law of
thermodynamics.

Free energy is energy that

1. needs little MONEY and RESOURCES

2. produces significant quantites of power without significant
environmental harm

That, along with Mom and apple pie, are of course wonderful notions.
The trick, of course, is actually doing it. There is a trillion-dollar
industry devoted to doing that, as it turns out, and you are welcome
to find a job in that industry and move it in the right direction.
So far, there are wonderful prospects, like solar power and geothermal
power and fusion power --- but so far, they do better in the second
criterion than in the first.
PD
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: Free energy	11 Jul 2007 04:11:25 AM

On Jul 10, 9:20 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 9, 3:14 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

free as in not requiring MONEY, not as in it breaks the law of
thermodynamics.

Free energy is energy that

1. needs little MONEY and RESOURCES

2. produces significant quantites of power without significant
environmental harm

Surely, but that is my definition of the term, free energy.
Whether or not I could do that I would not know. And I'd
rather not get a job with a big oil company that seems
hellbent on greedily wasting resources. The whole
point of free energy is to minimize environmental harm
and not to increase it. I'd rather start my own company.
Now if #1 could be achieved along with #2 we'd have
an oil replacement...
But first I'd need to get a degree in physics or engineering.
But how to pay that tuition when you only get like $3000
a year of annual income? We discussed this once on
another thread called "Free energy???" (I think, note the
question marks) and you said that one does not and it is not
a good idea to, concentrate on becoming a millionaire first...
So how to pay that tuition?
.

User: "PD"
Title: Re: Free energy	11 Jul 2007 05:27:10 AM

On Jul 11, 4:11 am, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But first I'd need to get a degree in physics or engineering.
But how to pay that tuition when you only get like $3000
a year of annual income? We discussed this once on
another thread called "Free energy???" (I think, note the
question marks) and you said that one does not and it is not
a good idea to, concentrate on becoming a millionaire first...
So how to pay that tuition?

Here are two options to consider:
- Apply for four hundred scholarships and hope for two or three, which
would enable you to enroll at a 2nd tier state school, which is often
just fine for undergrad credentials, and then work like hell to make
yourself attractive for a professional program like an engineering
degree or a physics graduate school. There are a lot of students who
live on $3000/year and still manage to pay their tuition.
- Get a job in an industry at the bottom and consistently aim yourself
for involvement with groups in the company whose members mostly have
professional degrees, such as engineers, chemists or physicists. Make
your involvement with those groups so valuable that the company will
fund your education to further your career. This happens quite
frequently.
PD
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: Free energy	19 Jul 2007 07:57:14 PM

On Jul 11, 4:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 11, 4:11 am,mike3<mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What sort of things would one "work like hell" on, anyway?

- Get a job in an industry at the bottom and consistently aim yourself
for involvement with groups in the company whose members mostly have
professional degrees, such as engineers, chemists or physicists. Make
your involvement with those groups so valuable that the company will
fund your education to further your career. This happens quite
frequently.

PD

User: "Benj"
Title: Re: Free energy	09 Jul 2007 03:34:13 PM

mike3 wrote:

free as in not requiring MONEY, not as in it breaks the law of
thermodynamics.

Free energy is energy that

1. needs little MONEY and RESOURCES

2. produces significant quantites of power without significant
environmental harm

At least unlike most tree-hugging green people, you are asking the
right questions!
Most ecco-tards cannot understand the word "quantity".
Actually Oil comes pretty close "free energy". It's in the ground for
free, and you get it for the cost of pumping it out and shipping it to
where you are! And there is LOTS of energy in oil!
The problem is that oil is a limited resource that is due to run out.
And as the Shah of Iran pointed out years ago, Oil is far more useful
as a future commodity for things like chemicals, plastics and other
products than simply burn to heat your butt in winter. It's stupid to
use it as a fuel given the utility of oil for the future of mankind as
a source of chemicals etc.
So that said, what is left? Not much! Wind? Water? Not enough energy
there. Solar? A good start but probably would require panels in space
or alternatively huge increases in conversion efficiency.
Oh I got it! How about we run everything on Alcohol from corn!!!
Typical gibberish coming from the propagandists on the nightly news.
Truth is it takes MORE oil to make alcohol from corn than if you
simply burned the oil! Plus it greatly increases the price of food as
an unintended consequence!
How about nuclear. Normal nuclear reactions create lots of radioactive
waste and the source of fuel is limited just like oil is. The waste
can be dealt with. You just haul it to some useless place on the
planet and dump it there forever. (My vote is for Alabama). Breeder
reactors have promise in that the geological fuel limitations might be
solved but technology isn't there. Neither is fusion technology.
Neither is "cold fusion" which is being fought precisely because it
does have potential.
Bottom line, we aren't in a bind yet, but a bind is not far off and
the inventions we need to solve the problems haven't been created yet.
And let's talk about the implications of this. When oil production
"peaks" and it's clear we are starting to run out, there will be a
HUGE scramble among nations to grab the last oil for themselves to
ride out the coming dark ages. The result will doubtless be total
nuclear war and could actually result in NOBODY left to need any oil!
<sigh>
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: Free energy	11 Jul 2007 04:01:24 AM

On Jul 9, 2:34 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

mike3 wrote:

free as in not requiring MONEY, not as in it breaks the law of
thermodynamics.

Free energy is energy that

1. needs little MONEY and RESOURCES

2. produces significant quantites of power without significant
environmental harm

Sorry but oil is not free energy, since it requires a lot of money to
pump it and ship it, plus it causes a good deal of environmental
harm (eco cost, not just monetary cost).
.

User: "malibu"
Title: Re: Free energy	09 Jul 2007 06:11:37 PM

On Jul 9, 2:34 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

mike3 wrote:

free as in not requiring MONEY, not as in it breaks the law of
thermodynamics.

Free energy is energy that

1. needs little MONEY and RESOURCES

2. produces significant quantites of power without significant
environmental harm

At least unlike most tree-hugging green people, you are asking the
right questions!
Most ecco-tards cannot understand the word "quantity".

Actually Oil comes pretty close "free energy". It's in the ground for
free, and you get it for the cost of pumping it out and shipping it to
where you are! And there is LOTS of energy in oil!

The problem is that oil is a limited resource that is due to run out.
And as the Shah of Iran pointed out years ago, Oil is far more useful
as a future commodity for things like chemicals, plastics and other
products than simply burn to heat your butt in winter. It's stupid to
use it as a fuel given the utility of oil for the future of mankind as
a source of chemicals etc.

So that said, what is left? Not much! Wind? Water? Not enough energy
there. Solar? A good start but probably would require panels in space
or alternatively huge increases in conversion efficiency.

Oh I got it! How about we run everything on Alcohol from corn!!!
Typical gibberish coming from the propagandists on the nightly news.
Truth is it takes MORE oil to make alcohol from corn than if you
simply burned the oil! Plus it greatly increases the price of food as
an unintended consequence!

How about nuclear. Normal nuclear reactions create lots of radioactive
waste and the source of fuel is limited just like oil is. The waste
can be dealt with. You just haul it to some useless place on the
planet and dump it there forever. (My vote is for Alabama). Breeder
reactors have promise in that the geological fuel limitations might be
solved but technology isn't there. Neither is fusion technology.
Neither is "cold fusion" which is being fought precisely because it
does have potential.

Bottom line, we aren't in a bind yet, but a bind is not far off and
the inventions we need to solve the problems haven't been created yet.
And let's talk about the implications of this. When oil production
"peaks" and it's clear we are starting to run out, there will be a
HUGE scramble among nations to grab the last oil for themselves to
ride out the coming dark ages. The result will doubtless be total
nuclear war and could actually result in NOBODY left to need any oil!
<sigh>

tap gravity
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Free energy	09 Jul 2007 06:36:53 PM

malibu wrote:

tap gravity

Waste into a small orbiting back hole. Good suggestion John!
.

User: "malibu"
Title: Re: Free energy	09 Jul 2007 07:09:08 PM

On Jul 9, 5:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

malibu wrote:

tap gravity

Waste into a small orbiting back hole. Good suggestion John!

No, I was thinking more along the
lines of a massive vertical belt attached to a
generator.
Beside one of the sides of the belt would be
given off a note that would affect the material of the belt
at the location it was focussed so as to de-randomize
its atoms' response to gravity- making it more responsive to gravity
in a direction other than vertical and less responsive in the
vertical direction. It will therefore be gravitationally lighter
and the other side of the belt will be heavier. The belt now will turn
continuously generating electricity, and a small amount of
that is chanelled into producing and maintaining the note.
It's possible you just have to find the right
note for the right matter. The Egyptian priests were said to strike
the
block with a rod and it would move easily a distance.
Some of the downed UFOs have tuning-forks attached
to tesla-like coils, I've read. If the response of single atoms to
gravity is NOT instantly omnidirectional (and how can it be),
but dependent on atom orientation, and if atom
orientation can be affected by vibration, why not?
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
.

User: "mike3"
Title: Re: Free energy	11 Jul 2007 04:06:35 AM

On Jul 9, 6:09 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

On Jul 9, 5:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

malibu wrote:

tap gravity

Waste into a small orbiting back hole. Good suggestion John!

Atoms' response to gravity is not "randomized", it is
predictable. Unless you want to argue about some
sort of quantum gravity. However I do not see how
making it more/less "random" would do anything --
and furthermore according to Heisenberg's principle
you cannot make one variable less "random" without
making others more "random".
Giving off grav. waves (the only thing that can
influence gravitational interactions) is not going to
help and you need to be shaking chunks of neutronium
to make it work.
Finally, gravitational interactions obey the universal
law of conservation of energy due to Noether's theorems,
and this is an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.
Ie. this will not work.

It's possible you just have to find the right
note for the right matter. The Egyptian priests were said to strike
the
block with a rod and it would move easily a distance.

Ah, now I see what you were after, a "note" as in
vibration of the matter.
Making the matter vibrate is NOT going to anything
except create a tuning fork. Tuning forks do not
have any magical energy-generating capacity.
If they do, I'd like you to explain how to make it
happen.

Some of the downed UFOs have tuning-forks attached
to tesla-like coils, I've read. If the response of single atoms to
gravity is NOT instantly omnidirectional (and how can it be),
but dependent on atom orientation, and if atom
orientation can be affected by vibration, why not?

UFOs with tuning forks?
OK, so you ARE saying you are talking about a
tuning fork. But I've tried vibrating all sorts of things
and no magic free energy has been observed. I
think this scheme is a dud.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atomhttp://users.accesscomm.ca/john

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	13 Jul 2007 09:02:58 PM

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184144795.333309.124230@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hi
The stright tube is plunged verticaly in the water of see.
Both ends of this tube are open.The tube is filled of the
water
To explane problem ,on the first we install the motopump
on the top of tube.
Nextly ,useing compressor the water is removed from inside of tube outside
to see.
The cmpressor do the work W
dW = F dh =ro gSHdh -ro gShdh
W = ro Sg(Hh -hh/2)
where H -deep of plunged of tube in the see
This work W must be equal kinetical energy Ek.
Ek= W
mvv/2 =ro Sg(-hh/2 + Hh) ,where m=ro S(h+L)
v= sqrt(g(-hh +2Hh)/(h+L))
v =sqrt(g(-h+2H)(1+L/h))
v =0 if h=0 and v=0 if h =2H
v =sqrt(g(-HH+2HH)/(H+L))=sqrt((gHH/(H+L )
v =sqrt(gH) ,if h=H and if L=0
This speed of water in the tube is it maximal speed in
this case.
On the level of water in the see (H=0),on the end of
tube , the moto-pump is installed,
Motopomp is working and lifting this speedy water on hight h1 over level of
water in the see with velocity
v=sqrt(gH)
So kinetikal energy of equal Ek=mvv/2= mgH/2,
where the work of moto-pump is equal w1=mgh1.
In the end we have free energy because
(mgH/2)/mgh1=H/2h1 and H>2h1
For instance,if H=1000meters and h1=10meters
Efficiency of system is equal 5000%
It is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.
.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	15 Jul 2007 12:30:33 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:m9Wli.37148$tB5.14361@edtnps90...

S-crossection of tube.

This work W must be equal kinetical energy Ek.
Ek= W
mvv/2 =ro Sg(-hh/2 + Hh) ,where m=ro S(h+L)
v= sqrt(g(-hh +2Hh)/(h+L))

v =sqrt(g(-h+2H)(1+L/h))
v =0 if h=0 and v=0 if h =2H
v =sqrt(g(-HH+2HH)/(H+L))=sqrt((gHH/(H+L )
v =sqrt(gH) ,if h=H and if L=0
This speed of water in the tube is it maximal speed in
this case.
On the level of water in the see (H=0),on the end of
tube , the moto-pump is installed,
Motopump is working and lifting this speedy water on hight h1 over level
of water in the see with velocity
v=sqrt(gH)
So kinetikal energy of equal Ek=mvv/2= mgH/2,
where the work of moto-pump is equal w1=mgh1.
In the end we have free energy because
(mgH/2)/mgh1=H/2h1 and H>2h1
For instance,if H=1000meters and h1=10meters,
efficiency of system is equal 5000%
It is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	16 Jul 2007 07:36:01 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ZQsmi.44250$tB5.29173@edtnps90...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:m9Wli.37148$tB5.14361@edtnps90...

S-crossection of tube.

If power P1 of motopump is equel
P1 10 MW
then we can obtain the power P =500 MW

It is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	10 Sep 2007 12:49:03 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:R9Umi.49815$xk5.20236@edtnps82...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ZQsmi.44250$tB5.29173@edtnps90...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:m9Wli.37148$tB5.14361@edtnps90...

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184144795.333309.124230@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hi
The stright tube is plunged verticaly in the water of sea
Both ends of this tube are open.The tube is filled of the
water
To explane problem ,on the first we install the motopump
on the top of tube.
Nextly ,useing compressor the water is removed from inside of tube
outside to the sea.
The cmpressor does the work W
dW = F dh =ro gSHdh -ro gShdh
W = ro Sg(Hh -hh/2),
where H -deep of plunged of tube in the sea,

S-crossection of tube.

If power P1 of motopump is equel
P1 10 MW
then we can obtain the power P =500 MW

It is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	11 Oct 2007 07:56:59 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:jsfFi.27187$bO6.22329@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:R9Umi.49815$xk5.20236@edtnps82...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ZQsmi.44250$tB5.29173@edtnps90...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:m9Wli.37148$tB5.14361@edtnps90...

S-crossection of tube.

This work W must be equal kinetical energy Ek.
Ek= W
mvv/2 =ro Sg(-hh/2 + Hh) ,where m=ro S(h+L)
v= sqrt(g(-hh +2Hh)/(h+L))

v =sqrt(g(-h+2H)/(1+L/h))
v =0 if h=0 and v=0 if h =2H
v =sqrt(g(-HH+2HH)/(H+L))=sqrt((gHH/(H+L )
v =sqrt(gH) ,if h=H and if L=0
This speed of water in the tube is it maximal speed in
this case.
On the level of water in the see (H=0),on the end of
tube , the moto-pump is installed,
Motopump is working and lifting this speedy water on hight h1 over
level of water in the see with velocity
v=sqrt(gH)
So kinetikal energy of equal Ek=mvv/2= mgH/2,
where the work of moto-pump is equal w1=mgh1.
In the end we have free energy because
(mgH/2)/mgh1=H/2h1 and H>2h1
For instance,if H=1000meters and h1=10meters,
efficiency of system is equal 5000%

If power P1 of motopump is equel
P1 10 MW
then we can obtain the power P =500 MW

It is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	06 Nov 2007 07:45:41 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:vDzPi.10946$G25.8520@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:jsfFi.27187$bO6.22329@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:R9Umi.49815$xk5.20236@edtnps82...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ZQsmi.44250$tB5.29173@edtnps90...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:m9Wli.37148$tB5.14361@edtnps90...

S-crossection of tube.

If power P1 of motopump is equel
P1= 10 MW
then we can obtain the power P =500 MW

It is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	18 Nov 2007 03:13:36 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:9N8Yi.10628$h57.10064@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:vDzPi.10946$G25.8520@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:jsfFi.27187$bO6.22329@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:R9Umi.49815$xk5.20236@edtnps82...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ZQsmi.44250$tB5.29173@edtnps90...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:m9Wli.37148$tB5.14361@edtnps90...

S-crossection of tube.

If power P1 of motopump is equal
P1= 10 MW
then we can obtain the power P =500 MW

There is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	24 Nov 2007 06:50:33 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4W10j.7593$Ji6.5605@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:9N8Yi.10628$h57.10064@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:vDzPi.10946$G25.8520@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:jsfFi.27187$bO6.22329@edtnps89...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:R9Umi.49815$xk5.20236@edtnps82...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ZQsmi.44250$tB5.29173@edtnps90...

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:m9Wli.37148$tB5.14361@edtnps90...

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184144795.333309.124230@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hi
The stright tube is plunged verticaly in the water of sea
Both ends of this tube are open.The tube is filled of the
water
To explane problem ,on the first we install the motopump
on the top of tube.
Nextly ,using ths compressor, the water is removed from inside of
tube outside to the sea.
The cmpressor does the work W
dW = F dh =ro gSHdh -ro gShdh
W = ro Sg(Hh -hh/2),
where H -deep of plunged tube in the sea,

S-surface of crossection of tube.

This work W must be equal kinetical energy Ek of

.. the water, when compressor is removed from
the top of the of tube.

Ek= W
mvv/2 =ro Sg(-hh/2 + Hh) ,where m=ro S(h+L)
v= sqrt(g(-hh +2Hh)/(h+L))

v =sqrt(g(-h+2H)/(1+L/h))
v =0 if h=0 and v=0 if h =2H
v =sqrt(g(-HH+2HH)/(H+L))=sqrt((gHH/(H+L )
v =sqrt(gH) ,if h=H and if L=0
This speed of water in the tube is it maximal speed in
this case.
On the level of water in the see (H=0),on the end of
tube , the moto-pump is installed,
Motopump is working and lifting this speedy water on hight h1 over
level of water in the see with velocity
v=sqrt(gH)
So kinetikal energy is equal Ek=mvv/2= mgH/2,
where the work of moto-pump is equal w1=mgh1.
In the end we have free energy because
(mgH/2)/mgh1=H/2h1 and H>2h1
For instance,if H=1000meters and h1=10meters,
efficiency of system is equal 5000%

If power P1 of motopump is equal
P1= 10 MW
then we can obtain the power P =500 MW

There is needed the turbogenertor ,obviously
E,W.

User: "Gieniu"
Title: Re: Free energy	05 Dec 2007 08:22:30 PM

"Gieniu" <warendag@telus.net> wrote in message
news:tF32j.3539$HH2.38@edtnps82...