Question:
opinionated question about free energy... easy ten points for the one with the best argument!?
Austin
2010-08-26 07:50:10 UTC
here's the deal, i think that free energy is possible, so far only through a motor made purely out of permamagnets and NO BATTERIES and no shifting fields. please do not describe how a traditional motor works... i fully understand them. what i want you to do is to debate the possibility of free energy. if you think its possible say so and why you think it is or vice versa. its an all out war and the one with the best argument wins. please by all mean prove me wrong, but do it with facts and have fun. please not to much fowl language, and nothing suggestive or racist.
Seven answers:
Bramble
2010-08-26 14:19:10 UTC
You should be much more precise and careful in your terminology especially if you wish to enter a debate. What you mean is not free energy but getting energy out without putting energy in - or at least more out than in - which is effectively energy creation.



Free energy is certainly possible, in fact it's all free. All the energy in the universe is in principle there for us to harness. It is all God-given at no charge. It just costs human effort and therefore money to go and get it and to convert or process it into whatever form we want, but basically the energy is free!



What is impossible, is to create energy from nothing, which is I think, what you mean. Likewise energy can't be destroyed. It's quite naive to enter into any debate about this, it's long since been killed stone dead by thermodynamics or physics if you prefer. The arguments in favour of a flat earth are more promising than any for energy creation.
Edesigner
2010-08-26 15:33:47 UTC
Austin..

Rare earth magnets and free energy are just blue smoke and mirrors. In our universe nearly all motion ,even electron flow, is resisted by a friction of some sort.I went back and read your paragraph on "transfers" ..In every transfer there is a loss..Here is a practical example::"Two men handing a bag of rice back and forth ,each time loosing one grain.The loss is hardly noticed but as time goes by the bag becomes lighter and lighter soon its empty"....this is true in everything electrical... If there was a machine or device where the E lim in > or = E lim out Newtonian physics could be thrown out the window. It may look good feel good or taste good but in the long term nothing is free,when it comes to energy production..Your next augment is fusion right, it's not "free" either and I use that word"free" loosely too. It may be that it is more sustainable under a certain set of conditions ......BUT qualifying the word "free" you will find as soon as you use a wire or a charged tube or an arc through the air, friction takes place and the fusion reactor where the "freebie" power is generated becomes just like all other generators in the universe. It takes more input than you can expect for an output. Also in making a machine I have one last thing . For it to be a machine it has to qualify and one of the qualifying factors is it must do work...which is a transfer of energy through a measured distance...and resistance to this energy applies to everything. Even if its really Really REALLY small...



Sorry I took the old standard road to moving bodies here. I'm a dreamer as well as a realist and I am also open minded enough to accept being wrong but as it stands mag-lev w/supercooled systems present the closest to a frictionless movement but even with all this it's not free ..So if you play you gotta pay...From the E
billrussell42
2010-08-26 15:19:27 UTC
Re item (3) You use the term "oscillation" where I think you mean rotating?



Depends on your definition of "free energy". The way you are using it, does not include wind and solar, as they have a source in the thermonuclear reactions in the sun.



You are getting something from nothing, as you would have no source of energy input and energy output. That violates the laws of thermodynamics, one of the very basic laws of physics.



People have been trying to make one of these machines for hundreds of years, a huge number of attempts. Yet not one worked. That should tell you something.



.
mariskalen kampf Strudl v.Wurst!
2010-08-27 22:11:39 UTC
Man, what is this obsession with the motor that runs with less energy than it absorbs? OK, lets ASSUME you invented a motor that "saves" more energy than it absorbs. There are several who claim that.



My questions to you and them are:



1. How much energy are you recovering?

2. Are you able to make the motor run by itself, i.e., disconnect it from mains?

3. Where is this energy coming from?



Nobody is questioning that there may be untapped energy sources all around us. It is just that nobody KNOWS how to obtain that energy, not even Tesla managed to do that.



Think of it this way. If there was a way in the universe to create energy out of nothing, the universe would have blown itself apart a long time ago.

.
Ecko
2010-08-26 16:38:17 UTC
Here is the straight physics story as far as I know:



Energy cannot be created or destroyed by us, the sun or the cosmos, but only converted from one form to another. The conditions for the creation of energy no longer exist.



Edit: Energy can be converted one form to another, but there are always losses. Some converts into forms we cannot use.



Most energy on earth comes from the sun. Ultimately all of it comes from the big bang, even if via a tortuous path of interstellar events, the evolution of suns, their destruction, and so on. Small amounts reach the earth directly from events in the cosmos, even direct radiation from events shortly after the big bang, but this is so spread out it is hard to detect, never mind utilise. There is plenty of evidence to support these theories, which is why they are theories, not hypothesis.



Almost all the energy we use is free. It is available in large amounts by intercepting direct radiation from the sun and converting it to plants, rain, heat or electricity, etc. Other "free" sources include gravity, fossil fuels, bio-fuels, nuclear fuels, wind, geothermal and so on. The actual energy is available from or stored by some other process, meaning we get the energy for the cost of extracting or collecting it only. This compares with energy stored in a battery or reservoir, which had to be paid for first.



Free energy as you mean is not so clearly defined, but generally means something about an alternative or high tech or little understood resource that has no mainstream acceptance, leading to conspiracy theories about why this is not accepted, ridiculed etc. The second link has as good an appraisal as I have seen. Typically we see terms like over unity, perpetual motion machines, zero point energy etc mentioned or implied. The third link explains zero point energy, a mainstream concept from Einstein.



While there are plenty of descriptions of free energy devices around on the internet, often based on electromagnetic gizmos related to generators, and gravity devices like wonky pendulums, there is little (or is it none?) evidence that they really work. It shouldn't be so hard for someone to prove the operation if it really works. Instructions for others to build and test the machine are a first requirement, so that its operation can be replicated, understood and analysed. Replication is the test of any experiment. It is usually somewhere around this point that things become vague, and drift off into weird statements, conspiracy theories about power companies or big oil or such like. The proof is in the evidence. If it really works there are plenty like me for example that would accept that it was possible. So far it depends on a leap of faith, which I just don't have. Some systems are just scams, get rich quick schemes for the gullible. I am sure at least some of the purveyors of alternative machines are quite genuine, but perhaps believe too much in their device. The second link lists several of the well known ideas, and some are about generators. Basically this is a case of put up or shut up, otherwise it is just going on about the wisdom of ancients, lost knowledge, pseudo science, conspiracy, whatever. If there are no instructions then there is no machine. See the fourth link for interest. It does have instructions, but no-one has made a prototype that works it seems. Incidentally having a patent is no guarantee of reality.



Another thing to consider is that there are real alternative engines, generators, systems that work on proven principals, but do not get taken up because they are not competitive with existing machines. One example that did take up a little was the Wankel engine. Basically it is the consumer/market perspective as well as the manufacturers who are resistant to these kind of developments.



If there is something that really works it would soon be taken up and become mainstream. Also I am certain that its operation would soon be understood. The understanding of this kind of thing is high. Also, it is always possible that something is being missed, like an ability to steal something from another dimension, but these things are pure conjecture, no evidence whatever.



In the end I think a lot of it is to do with the great ability we have to take things on faith, love conspiracy theories, and want to believe the impossible is possible. This is the very essence of magic, as illusion or as we fantasise about.



A fertile but parallel field is the field of medical devices working on mysterious principals like zero energy, or transistors connected in unusual (meaningless) ways. This field is more likely to involve scams though. Then we have dowsing, crystals. These all show how much we want to believe in fantastical things.



The truth is that the universe and what we know as most likely true or almost certainly true are fantastic enough as they stand.
?
2010-08-26 14:56:41 UTC
The laws of physics would have to be different than what we currently believe them to be, law of conservation of energy



The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.



in otherwords no such thing as a free lunch



(ps how can anyone be suggestive or racist discussing free energy? ;)
Nick S
2010-08-26 14:54:55 UTC
Go read the first and second laws of thermodynamics. This is not possible no matter what flashy words and magnets you stick together.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...