Free energy, the myths and legends, and reality.

[Thor.]

Yes but its one way to produce clean energy with out any harmful by products. Steam is what comes out the other end.

I found something interesting on Youtube Nitinol????

 

 

Interesting :blink:

 

Edited January 16, 2014 by Thor.

[colourwheel]

 

Forgetting your Newton... While you could theoretically create a flow of moving water in 0 gravity, that flow of water would not continue moving for ever even if left on its own since the flow of water would still be slowed down by the friction of moving against whatever surface you had, internal forces (heating or cooling) or just simply contact with whatever molecules might be present within containment. As soon as you obstructed this fluid in any way, such as a water wheel, magnets, or any other known means of getting energy from kinetic motion, you would be introducing a force counter to the inertia and would cause the flow to slow down even more.

 

Then you could create a series of bipolar transistor amplifiers that branches off the same current flow within the same circuit being produced by the "watermill" to be channeled back to the original source to help keep the continuous motion so the same device that is producing current will indefinitely stay in motion regardless of any counter force being produced from friction or anything else that would try to slow the motion down. The circuit would actually be looped in such a way the device would end up powering itself in zero gravity... Which is why circuits like this are probably very common now being used for space satellites to help keep them selves powered in addition to solar panels... or am maybe I am wrong to think such things exist today. But then again before 1998 an ion engine was "only" science fiction...

Edited January 16, 2014 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

zero gravity...

 

...does not exist in the known natural universe, and certainly not in low earth orbit. A device that loops power back to itself in the way that you describe is subject to limiting forces like gravity and friction, even in space. Nothing can remain in motion "indefinitely" by any known natural phenomena or artificial machination. A satellite has a finite amount of potential energy in its batteries, and can harness a finite amount of solar energy limited by the duration of the suns reaction (measured in billions of years, but still finite). No energy is being created or destroyed at any point. It is only changing its state.

[Vagrant0]

 

or am maybe I am wrong to think such things exist today. But then again before 1998 an ion engine was "only" science fiction...

 

Before we go further on that line of thought... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_engine

 

They've been dabbling with it as an application since the 50's in various designs, and this was common knowledge enough for an up-start film-maker to incorporate their mention in relation to a prominent spacecraft of their franchise back in the late 70's. The Twin Ion Engine Fighter...

 

Even if it wasn't until the 90s that practical application was proven, it still existed for a long time as something that was definitely feasible, based on existing physics research, enough that money was being actively spent to develop it. It may have been featured in science fiction, but the science behind it was sound since its inception.

 

The thing is, with the exception of some things regarding fringe physics (such as string theory, extra dimensions, ect). Virtually everything can be expressed in mathematical terms to explain how you might get some desired output from a given input. In relation to the generation of electricity, you need output in the form of heat (radioactivity), kinetic force, or ultimately electromagnetic force in order to cause motion of electrons in a "conductive" material. By means of heat, this is energy being lost by one material and being transmitted to another which in most cases, expands creating kinetic force. By means of kinetic force, this is motion that is present within a material which is colliding with another material, transferring that motion, which, in most cases turns a magnet. My means of electromagnetic force, you have a magnetic field which is either alternating at a given frequency, or which is mechanically turning, that in turn causes the electrons of a material to be repelled or attracted, creating a flow of electricity by means of the differential between the attracted or repelled state. At all points of this chain, there is energy lost due to friction between moving parts, gravity, or internal attractive forces, even within wires there is a related loss of energy. For a perpetual energy device to actually work, it would need to not only output energy, but also produce and return more energy than it loses due to the interaction of its mechanical components. Transformers don't increase total yield, they just change the shape of it so that it can be used differently with less loss. Outside of discovering some new method of harnessing energy, there is simply no mathematical basis for infinite energy. Granted, not an exert in this field, and probably did a poor explanation, but most of this is backed up with facts.

[colourwheel]

 

Nothing can remain in motion "indefinitely" by any known natural phenomena or artificial machination. A satellite has a finite amount of potential energy in its batteries, and can harness a finite amount of solar energy limited by the duration of the suns reaction (measured in billions of years, but still finite). No energy is being created or destroyed at any point. It is only changing its state.

 

Not sure why you keep on this idea about "creating energy", I have never advocated anything about creating energy through out this entire thread... Also It is possible to create devices that would "indefinitely" remain in motion, even on earth.....

 

For now you could just stay with my "watermill" idea and place it in a bath tub full of water.... siphon the water through "hoses" and then place the end of the "hoses" directly above the "watermill" high enough to create the force to keep the "watermill" in motion... theoretically you would have something that would stay in motion "indefinitely"

Edited January 17, 2014 by colourwheel

[Thor.]

Or just get some Nitinol. :yes:
Your average Paper clip uses Nitinol, your ticket to free energy easy.

 

 

\

Edited January 17, 2014 by Thor.

[Vagrant0]

Or just get some Nitinol. :yes:

Your average Paper clip uses Nitinol, your ticket to free energy easy.

 

Sorry, power source in this case would be the hot water coupled with the kinetic potential created by bending it into a non-naturalized state.

 

Indefinitely doesn't mean infinitely, indefinitely just means until whatever associated loss of energy catches up with the amount of energy being created causing everything to stop. In the case of a gravity powered watermill as suggested, you would need to create a force to counteract gravity, friction, ect initially and maintain that force by means of passing what little amount of gravity is generated by the water falling and hitting the blades of the water wheel. A single pull siphon may start the process, but will not cause it to be continuous as the pressure of the suction will eventually equalize. Manually lifting a tub of water to start the process means contributing an equivalent amount of potential energy from an exterior source, which while it may give an initial presumed gain of energy, will eventually fall into entropy.

 

You cannot get something from nothing, at most you might be able to get something from somewhere you never realized you had access to.

[Thor.]

Its memory Alloy, it always remembers its last state. The trick is to make the catalyzer produce its own hot water source next to a Ocean, with a constant stream of water to produce its energy requirements. The trick is to make it efficient enough to produce more energy then its using to produce that hot water.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Thor.

[TRoaches]

Not sure why you keep on this idea about "creating energy", I have never advocated anything about creating energy through out this entire thread... Also It is possible to create devices that would "indefinitely" remain in motion, even on earth.....

 

For now you could just stay with my "watermill" idea and place it in a bath tub full of water.... siphon the water through "hoses" and then place the end of the "hoses" directly above the "watermill" high enough to create the force to keep the "watermill" in motion... theoretically you would have something that would stay in motion "indefinitely"

 

I'm keeping on that idea because it is the topic of the thread. The watermill that you are describing is a very old idea. It is not theoretical. Similar devices were being built hundreds of years ago...

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/WaterScrewPerpetualMotion.png

 

They do not work. The best that can be achieved is a device that, once "charged" with some form of potential energy, can continue to do work for an long time, whatever that is. The important part, with regards to the idea of "free" energy, is that the machine will eventually stop, without exception, according to every bit of theory and experimental data that exists on the subject. If there is a method of violating this principle then it only exists outside of the public realm of science, or it is yet to be discovered at all by humans. I think either of those scenarios are possibilities, and I tend to suspect that various military have been building devices that utilize this kind of next-level physics for some time. I think its a more plausible explanation for most UFO sightings than the prospect of alien visitors, and supported by a quick glance at the world economy and the one product that has more potential to cause the price of everything else in the world to rise and fall: ENERGY. Currently, the primary source of all of that energy is oil. The people who control the bulk of that oil are by all accounts an influential lot, monarchs etc. It would not be in their interest to let the whole world figure out that we don't need to derive so much of our energy from burning stuff.

 

At this point in our history we most commonly harness energy by burning something to create heat, then use that heat to move something (do work). Even a scientific pinnacle like rocket launching into space is basically a machine that produces heat from burning fuel. It is a very elaborate extension of a primitive human building one of the first camp fires. The camp fire was the first example of humans harnessing the potential energy of a fuel source, and an orbital launch is perhaps the latest and most advanced version of the same technology. Atomic energy was a big leap because it was a completely new way to unlock the potential energy stored in a fuel source, with much higher energy yield per quantity of fuel than any combustion generator. It was still, however, utilizing heat as a method to do work. I think that the big secrets of next-level physics, kept secret by the aforementioned military and political powers, are able to do work without relying on heat in any way but instead by altering the mass of an object.

Edited January 17, 2014 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

 

 

Not sure why you keep on this idea about "creating energy", I have never advocated anything about creating energy through out this entire thread...

 

I'm keeping on that idea because it is the topic of the thread.

 

"Creating energy" has never been the topic of this thread.....

 

 

 

I think its a more plausible explanation for most UFO sightings than the prospect of alien visitors, and supported by a quick glance at the world economy and the one product that has more potential to cause the price of everything else in the world to rise and fall: ENERGY.

 

UFOs? serious?....