Free energy?

[Iamme]

He basically says that there's been theoretical underpinnings for free energy from magnets for over a hundred years, ...

Hmmmm. We know that magnetism in it's OWN right is a form of energy. (Right?)

And we also know that moving water is a form of energy in it's own right. We create hydro-electric dams all over the world. Are not THESE a form of perpetual motion? Science obviously says no. But for what reason? Most of the powerful rivers and dams do not dry up. The facility harnesses the free energy for years to come. That is good enough for me. Or is it because any perpetual motion machine can't have any source of power powering it? If THAT is the case... I think then that the definition is stupid.

Same with the energy produced by stars. If you can make a device that spins using only solar power...why isn't THAT classified as perpetual motion? Because the 'source' (star) is creating the energy?...or, is it the fact that the star may die out in a number of billion years. Either way...*I* think of such energy as perpetual.

 

[Iamme]

I have worked on making a magnetic device spin on it's own (25 years ago...but failed). This was in my younger days when I thought I could think of something and retire at 30.

Let me ask you all this: *IF* someone came up with a compound or some barrier of any sort that could stop magnetism...and put this barrier strategically on the magnetic motion machine such that the magnet was trying to pull the machine (in a circle or in a line)... but as it pulled, the barrier moved along also, being attached to the machbine...such that the machine could not stop nor try to go backwards...but always tried being attracted to the uncovered (no barrier) magnet ahead...such a device might work. And if it did...what would you call this?

 

[Ririon]

Hmmmm. We know that magnetism in it's OWN right is a form of energy. (Right?)

And we also know that moving water is a form of energy in it's own right. We create hydro-electric dams all over the world. Are not THESE a form of perpetual motion? Science obviously says no. But for what reason? Most of the powerful rivers and dams do not dry up. The facility harnesses the free energy for years to come. That is good enough for me. Or is it because any perpetual motion machine can't have any source of power powering it? If THAT is the case... I think then that the definition is stupid.

Same with the energy produced by stars. If you can make a device that spins using only solar power...why isn't THAT classified as perpetual motion? Because the 'source' (star) is creating the energy?...or, is it the fact that the star may die out in a number of billion years. Either way...*I* think of such energy as perpetual.

Interesting suggestion for a change in the English language. What term do you suggest for what we now call perpetual motion machines?

 

[Horatius]

Well, not necessarily. However, it's up in the air.

Many processes are "one way". For example, a steam engine turns water into steam. Trying to "run it backwards" doesn't really work.

However, a lot of the one-directional nature of processes is a result of thermodynamics. A free energy machine, by definition, violates thermodynamics. So, you may be on to something here.

Well, it's been a long time since I learned about conservative and non-conservative fields , but what I was thinking is, what they're claiming is a non-conservative field that produces energy, rather than dispersing it. Let's call it an "uber conservative field" or just uber field so we know what we're talking about.

So what we can see from the linked article, for a path in a conservative field that starts and ends at point A (a complete circle or some such path) produces zero work. The Uber field, in contrast, will produce non-zero work. However, if we run the integral in reverse, we'd expect a sign change as shown, so running a reverse circle from A to A should destroy energy. Or am I out to lunch on this? If there's anyone more current on the math that would like to take this on, I think it might be useful.

 

[Horatius]

And we also know that moving water is a form of energy in it's own right. We create hydro-electric dams all over the world. Are not THESE a form of perpetual motion? Science obviously says no. But for what reason? Most of the powerful rivers and dams do not dry up. The facility harnesses the free energy for years to come. That is good enough for me. Or is it because any perpetual motion machine can't have any source of power powering it? If THAT is the case... I think then that the definition is stupid.

Same with the energy produced by stars. If you can make a device that spins using only solar power...why isn't THAT classified as perpetual motion? Because the 'source' (star) is creating the energy?...or, is it the fact that the star may die out in a number of billion years. Either way...*I* think of such energy as perpetual.

From the point of view of practicality, they may be "perpetual", but what they really are is just one portion of a much larger (and naturally occuring) energy system. The larger system is still subject to the laws of thermodynamics, we just exploit a locally available flow of energy to do our own work.

If these guys ever do produce something, it won't be "really free" free energy. It will simply be a new way to tap into a previously undiscovered source of energy, which again, when the whole system is considered, will likely still be subject to thermodynamincs. In fact, if you look at what they actually say, that's pretty much what they're claiming.

Think of it this way. If you were to show someone from 200 years ago a radiothermal generator, they'd probably think it was a perpetual motion machine, as they would have no knowledge of radioactive decay, and so would not be able to identify the source of energy. The difference is, with an RTG, it's obvious that it works, while these guys have never shown anyone an unambiguous demonstration of energy production.

 

[Dilb]

If these guys ever do produce something, it won't be "really free" free energy. It will simply be a new way to tap into a previously undiscovered source of energy, which again, when the whole system is considered, will likely still be subject to thermodynamincs. In fact, if you look at what they actually say, that's pretty much what they're claiming.

That's painful to read, and I'm not sure they are even claiming anything that reasonable. To quote

Any dipole (such as a permanent magnet) or charge (such as an electron) pours out EM energy in all directions at the speed of light — and hence produces a continuous "free electromagnetic wind". If we leave it intact, the dipole or the charge will pour out such energy indefinitely. The dipoles and charges in the original matter of the universe have been doing it for some 15 billion years, and they are still doing it. So the process does not "run down". Every charge and dipole in the universe exhibits giant negentropy, producing all that EM energy and the EM fields and potentials in nature. Yet for more than a century we have designed and built only entropic systems. We have steadily despoiled the biosphere in the process.

Which is so painfully stupid on so many levels. In fact, I'm pretty sure every single paragraph has some sort of serious error or misconseption.

 

[Aepervius]

That's painful to read, and I'm not sure they are even claiming anything that reasonable. To quote


Which is so painfully stupid on so many levels. In fact, I'm pretty sure every single paragraph has some sort of serious error or misconseption.

Actualy start with 1 onception per SENTENCE s more like it . They start by confusing the concept of force/field/work/energy.

They are trying simply to justify their machine by speculating that a free energy source exists. because if it exists their machine can reasonably tap it whereas if NONE exists they have a slight problem .

 

[Aepervius]

way to warp word...

Either way...*I* think of such energy as perpetual.

But it is NOT, it obey the law of CoM&E. Once the sun dies out, your system is broken. So it is a long winded phenomenon, but it ain't perpetual, none the slightiest for whatever definition of perpetual you use (unless unlike the definition used by most human your dfinition looks like "whatever was there before the birth of iamme and after the death of iamme is perpetual if this is the case then a lot more stuff long lived like some turtle with a potential of 90+ years of life is perpetual.... kinda stupid.).

Every system we know, even at the biggest scale like solar systems, run down when it givesoff energy. *heck* even proton are supposed to have half life, so unless I am terribly wrong in the very very long run, there won't be much left of the universe itself...

 

[Horatius]

That's painful to read, and I'm not sure they are even claiming anything that reasonable. To quote


Which is so painfully stupid on so many levels. In fact, I'm pretty sure every single paragraph has some sort of serious error or misconseption.

Well, yeah, I wasn't suggesting that they're anything close to correct, but they do claim to be tapping into a source of a flow of energy, like a waterfall or sunlight. It's just one that no one with any real education would believe exists.

That's how they get around this problem in their own minds. If we disagree with them, they think, we're the stupid ones.....

 

[Cyphermage]

Wrong. Very wrong. XeF2, for example, is held together far, far, far more strongly than can be accounted for by using van der Waals or electrostatics. No, the bonding in noble gas compounds is generally good old molecular orbital theory (albeit generally with lots of electrons). Look up things like "3-center-4-electron bonding" for example. It's pretty straightforward MO theory.

Yes, I ackowleged this error about 30 messages up in the thread.

 

[Iamme]

Interesting suggestion for a change in the English language. What term do you suggest for what we now call perpetual motion machines?

I don't have a problem with the term, per se. It just seems strange that something like hydro-electric is not considered perpetual when we know that the river will keep producing the energy for as long as the dam holds up. I haven't heard of too many dammed rivers drying up, either.

Maybe we could call such energy as being 'semi-perpetual motion', if we were to coin some term.

I was ready to submit, but just thought of something very key here. Obviously, with something like a dammed river to create energy, it requires energy to make the dam. I guess that as long as over the long haul, more net energy is produced by the dam than all the energy that went into creating the dam...that then we would have a 'net-energy producing system'. Hey...that right there is a decent term...eh?

 

[Iamme]

But it is NOT, it obey the law of CoM&E. Once the sun dies out, your system is broken. So it is a long winded phenomenon, but it ain't perpetual, none the slightiest for whatever definition of perpetual you use (unless unlike the definition used by most human your dfinition looks like "whatever was there before the birth of iamme and after the death of iamme is perpetual if this is the case then a lot more stuff long lived like some turtle with a potential of 90+ years of life is perpetual.... kinda stupid.).

Every system we know, even at the biggest scale like solar systems, run down when it givesoff energy. *heck* even proton are supposed to have half life, so unless I am terribly wrong in the very very long run, there won't be much left of the universe itself...

A 15 billion year sun or dipole is a bit more perpetual, I'd say, than the 90 year old turtle, or Iamme's life span. Especially if you consider relativity with relativeness to our life span.

I think if we get hung up that something isn't perpetual because it will evennnnntually die out in 15 billion years is in essence eliminating any possibility of the word perpetual.

But we are somewhat deviating from the claims made by the machine's creator. If we simply consider some source, like a sun, which produces x amount of energy, and it keeps producing it...but a little less each year, let's say...then one realizes entropy at work and this sort of displaces in one's mind the thought of true perpetualness, when you are also thinking about how it is running down, at the same time. But this guy claims to have net power of 285%? An actual gain? That is like some whole new ballgame and goes even beyond perpetual. This is "perpetual-plus".

 

[Ririon]

A 15 billion year sun or dipole is a bit more perpetual, I'd say, than the 90 year old turtle, or Iamme's life span. Especially if you consider relativity with relativeness to our life span.

I think if we get hung up that something isn't perpetual because it will evennnnntually die out in 15 billion years is in essence eliminating any possibility of the word perpetual.

But we are somewhat deviating from the claims made by the machine's creator. If we simply consider some source, like a sun, which produces x amount of energy, and it keeps producing it...but a little less each year, let's say...then one realizes entropy at work and this sort of displaces in one's mind the thought of true perpetualness, when you are also thinking about how it is running down, at the same time. But this guy claims to have net power of 285%? An actual gain? That is like some whole new ballgame and goes even beyond perpetual. This is "perpetual-plus".

OK, let me fix this for you. Take what you call perpetual motion, and call it renewable energy. Then take the "whole different ballpark perpetual-plus" stuff and call THAT perpetual motion. OK? That's what most people do, anyway. The point with perpetual motion is NOT that it runs forever (for all practical purposes.) It is the bit where it breaks the laws of physics that makes us skeptical...

(Crossing fingers... )

 

[Horatius]

I don't have a problem with the term, per se. It just seems strange that something like hydro-electric is not considered perpetual when we know that the river will keep producing the energy for as long as the dam holds up. I haven't heard of too many dammed rivers drying up, either.

Well, there's Lake Mead, formed by Hoover dam, that's drying up pretty quickly. The white line shows where the lake level used to be. From my visit a few years ago, they have had to move the marina at least twice to keep up with the shore line.

 

[Iamme]

It is the bit where it breaks the laws of physics that makes us skeptical...

You mean like the law that says you just can't spin a magnet in an orbit around a center of steel and expect it to keep goiing indefinitely...say for even 20 years?

 

[Iamme]

Well, there's Lake Mead, formed by Hoover dam, that's drying up pretty quickly. The white line shows where the lake level used to be. From my visit a few years ago, they have had to move the marina at least twice to keep up with the shore line.

You mean to tell me that the actual trend is of this lake drying up? And it's not just some cyclic thing where in say 5 years heavy rains and snows will replenish the lake?

Over how many years have they noted this trend of the lake losing water? And what do they attribute the loss to? Letting too much water out of the dam? Evaporation? The combination of the two that can't keep up with the water pouring into the lake from rains and melts?

 

[Horatius]

You mean to tell me that the actual trend is of this lake drying up? And it's not just some cyclic thing where in say 5 years heavy rains and snows will replenish the lake?

Over how many years have they noted this trend of the lake losing water? And what do they attribute the loss to? Letting too much water out of the dam? Evaporation? The combination of the two that can't keep up with the water pouring into the lake from rains and melts?

Well, I'm not sure, I was only visiting it, I'm not from around there. But the area is growing in population, and so there's constantly increasing demand for water, and I do think it has been drier than usually the last few years. I expect that you don't go moving the whole marina just for temporary changes. It really was quite dramatic to see. Click here to see what it looks like. In the background of the thrid photo, you can just make out the old pier at the old lake level, and the new marina in the foreground. Look here for a discussion of this as well.

 

[Ririon]

You mean like the law that says you just can't spin a magnet in an orbit around a center of steel and expect it to keep goiing indefinitely...say for even 20 years?

No. That's not a law of physics. That's a law of Iamme. Different thing.

 

[JayT]

Analogy Of A Perpetual Motion Machine

A perpetual motion machine is like an animal that eats nothing but its own poop over and over again and lives forever, never needing any other source of food after its first meal.

This is exactly how a perpetual motion machine works and exactly why it won't work.

 

[Horatius]

A perpetual motion machine is like an animal that eats nothing but its own poop over and over again and lives forever, never needing any other source of food after its first meal.

This is exactly how a perpetual motion machine works and exactly why it won't work.

Now this I like. I don't think I've ever heard it expressed so clearly before!