Thanks for the correction Dusk Eagle. Sorry about that, head went on the blink.
Computer Science Canada claims of free energy |
| Author: | Homer_simpson [ Fri May 08, 2009 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | claims of free energy |
i've seen a lot of bogus videos of people claiming to get free energy out of nothing but this one seems pretty interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5jtx0IFgQ http://www.lutec.com.au/how.htm |
|
| Author: | Vermette [ Fri May 08, 2009 11:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
Actually by the sounds of it he just built an inverter. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Fri May 08, 2009 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
He's powering an AC-generator with a DC motor. It sounds like there might be some new design choices that let the two components share physical parts; but the state-of-the-art for either is far from 100% efficiency, let alone beyond that. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri May 08, 2009 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
A good way to tell if some crazy inventor or sincentist cliams are true is to see where they published them. Did they submit there findings to a peer reviewd journel? Or did they just call a local news station and make clamins that break the laws of temormdynaicks and have no proof beyond a cool looking mashen. If they realy had somthing that was over unity they could plug it into it's self and it should run forever only geting faster and faster. Tho i have a fealing they would never try this test as it would likey stop in a few miniutes. Extorontary claims require extonratry evidence, not just a clip of a motor on a local t.v. station. Tony @ 8th May 2009, 12:09 pm wrote: He's powering an AC-generator with a DC motor. It sounds like there might be some new design choices that let the two components share physical parts; but the state-of-the-art for either is far from 100% efficiency, let alone beyond that.
Maybe but if you go from DC battery to DC motor to AC-generator to some other power using device, even at 100% efficiency your still only getting the same output of the orignal battery but AC. Also there is no way it could be 100%, there would have to be energey lost due to heat and firction. The fact that you can hear it running proves that there is some eneergey loss some where (some power is being turned in to vibrations witch cause sound waves), so the output has to be less then the battery witch you start with. It might be posible that his claims are being misreperstend and it realy is just a more efficient motor or a more efficient DC to AC conversion but it's deftaly not free enegery. |
|
| Author: | Homer_simpson [ Fri May 08, 2009 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
it's true i understand that according to physics nothing can run better than 100% efficiency, that's y i find it hard to believe. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Fri May 08, 2009 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
Sun + solar panel = free energy (after a one-time cost). Sun don't cost nothing, and only a few panels (no more than $5000 for the whole deal) could potentially take you right off the grid. Add a windmill or two and you're set. |
|
| Author: | matt271 [ Fri May 08, 2009 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
Homer_simpson @ Fri May 08, 2009 2:31 pm wrote: it's true i understand that according to physics nothing can run better than 100% efficiency, that's y i find it hard to believe.
why can nothing be over 100% efficient? because somebody in a class room told u that? what if nobody told u that, and instead, somebody told u this machine exists that is 440% efficient. how would you know the difference? i believe the machine either is fake, or it does work but its getting its energy from something. |
|
| Author: | Homer_simpson [ Fri May 08, 2009 2:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
matt271 @ Fri May 08, 2009 2:49 pm wrote: Homer_simpson @ Fri May 08, 2009 2:31 pm wrote: it's true i understand that according to physics nothing can run better than 100% efficiency, that's y i find it hard to believe.
why can nothing be over 100% efficient? because somebody in a class room told u that? what if nobody told u that, and instead, somebody told u this machine exists that is 440% efficient. how would you know the difference? i believe the machine either is fake, or it does work but its getting its energy from something. i said according to physics, meaning that according to our current understanding of the universe, however our species seems to prove itself wrong all the time its the beauty of science and the universe. |
|
| Author: | isaiahk9 [ Fri May 08, 2009 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
I'm betting it's a scam. An elaborate scam, but a scam nonetheless. Throughout the years there have been "perpetual motion" machines, one of which was believed to be "real" for more than year, earning more than $12 million, until somebody realized it was being powered by a little old man in the basement. Like Hacker Dan said, if they plugged the machine into itself, it would generate limitless electricity. That's just not possible. Oh, and I couldn't resist to add : @ matt271 : That's all poetic, and hopeful but is ridiculous, nonetheless. If the law of conservation of energy is flawed, then we would have to go back to the drawing board for almost all major physics concepts. If nobody told me that nothing can be 100% efficient, I would've figured it out eventually. |
|
| Author: | Homer_simpson [ Fri May 08, 2009 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
not to defend this machine but there's been a few scientists that were only recognized for their work after their as their work was deemed ludicrous by concurrent scientist(example: Nicola Tesla) |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Fri May 08, 2009 9:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
@matt271 You make an interesting point... one which you didn't intend to make. Ideas like yours are why education needs to be done better. You see people as being told stuff is possible, and there is no understanding behind it. So you see decrees, with no rationale, which understandably makes some people doubt education, scientists and so on. The reason why energy has to be conserved(except in nuclear situations), is because it is self-apparent when you consider certain things. Imagine you had a closed system, where no energy leaves, and no energy enters. Now, when energy is consumed in a reaction... its impossible to get all of it back. If you have a limited amount of energy, it eventually means the closed system runs down, eventually. This all rests on the idea that you cannot get energy back when it is used for a reaction. This is borne out. When you drop something, and it gains kinetic energy, the amount of energy it took to raise that object is either equal to or, more than the energy it gains from dropping. Some energy is lost to friction, to heat, to compression of the object as it falls. Because friction always exists, even at a tiny amount, all reactions, physical, lose energy. So the closed system runs out after awhile. A perpetual machine breaks that concept. This is why nothing can ever be 100% efficient. Every action causes a loss of energy to friction, somewhere, at the very minimum. And now you know! |
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Mon May 11, 2009 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in Physics, but what Zeroth said is wrong. The amount of energy in the Universe is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics). That means that energy is never lost nor ever gained. However, all transformations of energy result in an increase of heat energy (Second Law of Thermodynamics). When you rub your hands together, energy is not actually "consumed" by friction, but rather converted to heat energy, which is why your hands get hot. If these two laws are taken to be true, no perpetual motion machine can exist, and neither can limitless energy. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, no machine can be > 100% efficient. Likewise, taking into consideration the second law of thermodynamics, since any machine used to convert one source of energy to another (which is what all our energy stations do) increases the total entropy (heat energy), no machine can be exactly 100% efficient either. They all convert energy at some efficiency < 100%. (Note: the total energy is still the same, but the heat energy they produce is worthless and does not count toward efficiency.) |
|
| Author: | BigBear [ Thu May 14, 2009 7:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
Didn't Nikola Tesla devise a way to get free energy from the stratosphere hard to find credible information about his projects what with his death ray etc How stuff works is about the only credible source I believe and it has very little on his crazy invention like lasers etc |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Fri May 15, 2009 8:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
Thanks for the correction Dusk Eagle. Sorry about that, head went on the blink. |
|
| Author: | ecookman [ Fri May 15, 2009 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
lol I don't even have to look at the video or documentation about free energy to give this opinion. In order to have "free energy" we have to live in a theoretical world where friction doesn't exist and all mechanical/ electricity production is 100% efficient. |
|
| Author: | Homer_simpson [ Sat May 16, 2009 2:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:claims of free energy |
ecookman @ Fri May 15, 2009 8:16 pm wrote: lol I don't even have to look at the video or documentation about free energy to give this opinion.
In order to have "free energy" we have to live in a theoretical world where friction doesn't exist and all mechanical/ electricity production is 100% efficient. while this is most probably true, i wouldn't go as far as to say "I don't even have to look at the video or documentation", it is not the best approach to an idea. |
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Sat May 16, 2009 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
Following Occam's razor, which is more likely to be true: that a large portion of our scientific laws about energy and physics are false, or that this guy is a hoax? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If this guy has that, then he should have no problems being the center of the media spotlight, proclaiming his new and exciting invention which forces us to redefine the laws of physics as we know them. Until then, skepticism is the only reasonable attitude toward this invention. |
|
| Author: | Euphoracle [ Sat May 16, 2009 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
Dusk Eagle @ Sat May 16, 2009 9:13 am wrote: Following Occam's razor, which is more likely to be true: that a large portion of our scientific laws about energy and physics are false, or that this guy is a hoax? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If this guy has that, then he should have no problems being the center of the media spotlight, proclaiming his new and exciting invention which forces us to redefine the laws of physics as we know them. Until then, skepticism is the only reasonable attitude toward this invention.
You don't want to reveal anything before you get your patent. The patent offices don't issue patents for perpetual motion machines or anything thereof, which a "free energy machine" would fall under. Once they have secured their patent and therefore income, and it proves to be true, then we can live in happy magic fairy land with infinite energy. |
|
| Author: | ecookman [ Sat May 16, 2009 1:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
well said euphoracle |
|
| Author: | endless [ Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
sorry to bring this back, but yet another "free energy machine" has basically proven to be a marketing scam. http://gizmodo.com/5301033/independent-jury-rules-on-steorns-free-energy-machine-guilty-of-not-working |
|
| Author: | TheGuardian001 [ Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
It's not physically possible to get over 100% efficient, firstly because you always lose energy to friction, and secondly because you just can't get more out than what you put in. You can't use 1V of power to make 10V of power because you only have 1V where do you plan on getting the extra 9 from? it doesn't matter how you hook something up or what you run it through, if you don't add the extra energy, there won't be any extra energy. |
|
| Author: | apomb [ Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
Voltage is not power, but you have the right idea. because, you actually can get 10V out when you put 1V in ... its called an amplifier. There are even power amplifiers (ones that increase the overall wattage of an input). But alas, these amplifiers still require a DC source of some kind, in order for the transistor (or mosfet) to amplify the incoming millivolt or milliwatt or possibly even microwatt/volt. |
|
| Author: | endless [ Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
TheGuardian001 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:45 am wrote: It's not physically possible to get over 100% efficient, firstly because you always lose energy to friction, and secondly because you just can't get more out than what you put in.
You can't use 1V of power to make 10V of power because you only have 1V where do you plan on getting the extra 9 from? it doesn't matter how you hook something up or what you run it through, if you don't add the extra energy, there won't be any extra energy. Exactly, Conservation of Energy. In an isolated system, energy is neither created nor destroyed, it can only change from one form to another. On top of that, a machine isn't an isolated system, therefore the machine cannot even achieve 100% efficiency. But then that goes back to what matt271 was saying. Until we know everything about the laws of physics, we cannot prove that something like "free energy" doesn't exist. |
|
| Author: | TheGuardian001 [ Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: claims of free energy |
Huh... well I guess that just goes to show you how much attention I payed in physics this year. My point still stands if you ignore the wrong units though. Stupid friction filled world stopping us from having free energy. |
|
| Author: | ecookman [ Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
unless you did it with magnets in a vacuum but then it might be only like 99.999999999999... % efficent |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:claims of free energy |
Not even then: exerting a force unevenly across a single part of the device results in movement of particles against one another, resulting in friction, resulting in loss of energy. Even if we could somehow manage to transfer energy with 100% efficiency, we are still stuck without a way to capture energy "for free". Any device which purports to capture free energy and turn it into useful energy eventually turns out to simply be capturing some existing form of energy (often sunlight). None of the current modern theories of physics allows, at any level, for any kind of "amplification" device which produces more energy than it consumes. If such a device existed, it would violate most of the physics of the past several hundred years; although this is not a refutation of such a device, it is certainly strong evidence against its existence. These theories are incredibly precise and exact, and have made predictions that have come true time and time again; anything that contradicted them would be tremendously interesting but also deeply troubling. |
|