Perpetual motion/"free energy"

  • 301 Replies
  • 43540 Views
*

JohnBreckman007

  • 82
  • Shaken not stired
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2008, 02:08:57 PM »
Consider geothermal generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (coal, natural gas, oil, wood, nuclear [fission or fussion], hydrogen or any bio-mass nor do they use human power or animal power) to power the turbines that spin their generators producing electricity. The energy comes from heat generated by the compression of the matter in the earth's core transfered to the surface by hot water. By definition they are over unity energy, something current science says is impossible. They work however, and are accepted not to be in violation of any scientific law currently existing. Can you explain the contridiction? I can not with out saying that it is not impossible to make over unity energy and it is not impossible to obtain a useable work output either.

Consider consentrated solar panel generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (check list above) to power the turbines that dirve their generators to produce the electrical output they supply. The energy comes from the infered waves in sunlight concentred from a large surface area onto a small heat asorbing area that heats up a fluid in the asorbing material and transfer that to powering the turbines. They also produce over unity energy, and also are accepted to work. Like geothermal plants they are also not classified as over unity even though they clearly are in the sense that they achieve their power output from "nothing" well not nothing rather sun light but nothing in the sense they use no fuel.

Consider solar voltaic panels, they can power your home, your business and other items and if you have enough of them several homes or businesses. What is their fuel source? Absolutely none, they use visible light from the sun and convert that into a usable electrical energy output. With a battery system they can provide you with power 24 hours a day. You can even sell excess power to the power company from your house or business and make a profit. Over unity ernergy production again, also accepted to work, known to not use any fuel but not classified as over unity, why? That is because main stream science want to desperately hold on to their notion that over unity and perpetual motion is impossible, the great misleading preception!

Consider wind turbines, like all of the above over unity, gets its power from the wind absent any fuel source applied. Again accepted and over unity energy production yet not classified as such.

Consider Hydroelectric generating plants, over unity production of energy, gets the motive power from gravity flow of water. Accepted, used, produces over unity energy output used by thousands of homes and businesses but not classified as over unity. Why is this? To protect the laws of science? Clearly they work how can they violate a law of science? May be the right law of science is not made yet that explains them and works with the other laws of science. That will not be found as long as science says it is impossible in spite of the fact there are observances of actual working devices that give over unity energy thus are perpetual motion machines. They may not go on forever but they are still perpetual motion while they work.

It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #61 on: September 05, 2008, 02:18:20 PM »
Consider geothermal generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (coal, natural gas, oil, wood, nuclear [fission or fussion], hydrogen or any bio-mass nor do they use human power or animal power) to power the turbines that spin their generators producing electricity. The energy comes from heat generated by the compression of the matter in the earth's core transfered to the surface by hot water. By definition they are over unity energy, something current science says is impossible. They work however, and are accepted not to be in violation of any scientific law currently existing. Can you explain the contridiction? I can not with out saying that it is not impossible to make over unity energy and it is not impossible to obtain a useable work output either.

Consider consentrated solar panel generating plants, they provide power to thousands of homes and businesses. They use no power input in the form of fuel (check list above) to power the turbines that dirve their generators to produce the electrical output they supply. The energy comes from the infered waves in sunlight concentred from a large surface area onto a small heat asorbing area that heats up a fluid in the asorbing material and transfer that to powering the turbines. They also produce over unity energy, and also are accepted to work. Like geothermal plants they are also not classified as over unity even though they clearly are in the sense that they achieve their power output from "nothing" well not nothing rather sun light but nothing in the sense they use no fuel.

Consider solar voltaic panels, they can power your home, your business and other items and if you have enough of them several homes or businesses. What is their fuel source? Absolutely none, they use visible light from the sun and convert that into a usable electrical energy output. With a battery system they can provide you with power 24 hours a day. You can even sell excess power to the power company from your house or business and make a profit. Over unity ernergy production again, also accepted to work, known to not use any fuel but not classified as over unity, why? That is because main stream science want to desperately hold on to their notion that over unity and perpetual motion is impossible, the great misleading preception!

Consider wind turbines, like all of the above over unity, gets its power from the wind absent any fuel source applied. Again accepted and over unity energy production yet not classified as such.

Consider Hydroelectric generating plants, over unity production of energy, gets the motive power from gravity flow of water. Accepted, used, produces over unity energy output used by thousands of homes and businesses but not classified as over unity. Why is this? To protect the laws of science? Clearly they work how can they violate a law of science? May be the right law of science is not made yet that explains them and works with the other laws of science. That will not be found as long as science says it is impossible in spite of the fact there are observances of actual working devices that give over unity energy thus are perpetual motion machines. They may not go on forever but they are still perpetual motion while they work.

It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Lets call it by some new name, "RENEWALBE ENERGY" and disquise it. Let's see The Law of Conservation of Energy: “The total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but can not be recreated although it may change forms.” 
Energy can not be recreated, thus is not renewable! Unless you want to talk about growing plants every year to replace the ones you consumed from the last time you harvested. Then you are not renewing energy your only using a new source of sunlight to grow a new crop to replace the old one you already used.

Or does sunlight bounce back into space and then back again to be reused over and over again? Its over unity energy no matter if you call it the sweet name of renewable energy. It is only called that to hold to the claim that over unity and perpetual motion is free energy and thus is impossible. Instead of stating a misnomer call it what it is and take the lump that over unity and perpetual motion is possible. If not then keep contridicting yourself. Please I love the laugh.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2008, 02:23:32 PM »
Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2008, 02:25:09 PM »
isolated system

Solar panels, windmills, geothermal power stations are not isolated systems.  

They depend on an outside source of energy.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2008, 02:55:37 PM »
Quote
It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Are those the only requirements? Are magnets considered a natural energy source?


*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2008, 03:03:44 PM »
Quote
It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Are those the only requirements? Are magnets considered a natural energy source?


No, it took energy to create the effect. Also magnets do not have perpetual energy. Entropy in the magnet causes it to become misaligned.

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2008, 03:05:54 PM »
Quote
No, it took energy to create the effect. Also magnets do not have perpetual energy. Entropy in the magnet causes it to become misaligned.

Damn...

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2008, 03:12:38 PM »
I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.

I'm not sure what you're saying in your post... are you trying to say that solar power allows perpetual motion, or that it is simply a convenient source of clean, plentiful energy.  If the latter then I completely agree - you are essentially just tapping a tiny amount of power from a massive fusion power plant in the sky.

If you are saying the former, please refer to my previous post.

PS - Raist is right, 'permanent' magnets are highly ordered systems. Entropy kills them as much as every other source of energy, in the end.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

narcberry

  • 5584
  • Reason > RET
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2008, 05:32:22 PM »
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #69 on: September 05, 2008, 05:50:10 PM »
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?

The energy of the system is exactly the same, no energy is being output. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2008, 05:50:17 PM »
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?

At the risk of falling into a carefully constructed narcberry trap, I'll try to give you an answer... In GR, objects moving through space with no accelerations applied to them (some mystical 'perfect vacuum') follow geodesics - that is, the 'free fall' trajectory of an object. However, just as accelerating an electric charge emits electromagnetic radiation, so an accelerating mass creates gravitational waves.

This emission of 'gravitational radiation' means that masses will not carry on coasting forever - this includes the Moon, which in the absence of external intervention would eventually smash into the Earth (although it is more likely to be destroyed by the Sun before that happens). The time scale is so long since gravitation is actually an incredibly weak force, and the Moon and Earth have a huge amount of kinetic energy to disperse before any collision could occur.

As to the first part of your question - the Earth deforms space-time according to it's mass, then all other masses respond according to their local space-time curvature. It's disingenuous to think of an infinite number of 'springs' reaching from the Earth to all other mass-energy in the Universe.

*braces for response*
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #71 on: September 05, 2008, 06:11:49 PM »
Could RE'ers explain how their earth can constantly accelerate all matter in the universe towards it, without consuming energy?
IE, the moon orbits the RE due to a constant force the earth exhibits on the moon. How can the earth keep swinging the moon around for billions of years without tiring some energy supply?

At the risk of falling into a carefully constructed narcberry trap, I'll try to give you an answer... In GR, objects moving through space with no accelerations applied to them (some mystical 'perfect vacuum') follow geodesics - that is, the 'free fall' trajectory of an object. However, just as accelerating an electric charge emits electromagnetic radiation, so an accelerating mass creates gravitational waves.

This emission of 'gravitational radiation' means that masses will not carry on coasting forever - this includes the Moon, which in the absence of external intervention would eventually smash into the Earth (although it is more likely to be destroyed by the Sun before that happens). The time scale is so long since gravitation is actually an incredibly weak force, and the Moon and Earth have a huge amount of kinetic energy to disperse before any collision could occur.

As to the first part of your question - the Earth deforms space-time according to it's mass, then all other masses respond according to their local space-time curvature. It's disingenuous to think of an infinite number of 'springs' reaching from the Earth to all other mass-energy in the Universe.

*braces for response*
The moon has too much energy to be in a stable orbit. It will drift off long before it loses enough energy to crash into the earth. Even without energy loss it does not have a stable orbit. It is just temporarily circling us.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #72 on: September 05, 2008, 06:26:06 PM »
The moon has too much energy to be in a stable orbit. It will drift off long before it loses enough energy to crash into the earth. Even without energy loss it does not have a stable orbit. It is just temporarily circling us.

Fair enough! I was assuming a reasonably stable orbit to begin with, but I had read conflicting accounts of whether the Moon would eventually leave or fall back to Earth depending on how you take various solar wind/magnetosphere/gravitational wave emission/tidal dragging factors into account.  If you've read about it in any great detail I'm sure you're better informed than me, I've only really skimmed the literature on that one :)
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #73 on: September 05, 2008, 06:26:55 PM »
The moon has too much energy to be in a stable orbit. It will drift off long before it loses enough energy to crash into the earth. Even without energy loss it does not have a stable orbit. It is just temporarily circling us.

This is interesting.  Is there a time frame?

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #74 on: September 05, 2008, 07:53:01 PM »
Quote
Do you all not see, a fuel is a form of mass that is consumed while it releases energy and forms some other form of mass. Non-combustable energy is not a fuel source, it is an energy source yes but not a fuel source. "Lower water, get steam from heat use steam to power geothermal plant steam cools into water, steam is water, no change in mass. Wind is air, air blows past wind blade, imparts energy to blade, turns generator, get electricity, air leaves blade and is still air, no change in mass.

Fuel is what goes into a system and is used in some way to get energy out.  In a car its deisel, gasoline or electricity.  In a wind turbine the fuel is moving air.  Air goes into the system as wind, imparts some of its energy to the blades, turns generator, creates electricity, air leaves blade and is still air...but moving with less force.  

Surely you must see that no matter what you call the input energy carrying medium (air, geothermal, whatever), there is no free energy...it all has to come from somewhere.  I don't see how it matters here how we define fuel...you're harnessing an energy source in some fashion that reduces the input to create an output thats in a usable form.  You're not getting energy from nothing, its not perpetual motion.

Your right yet wrong, let me explain that. Air (wind) is the energy supply to a wind turbine, not the fuel supply. True it loses energy as energy is transfered to the blade of the wind turbine so it leaves the blade with less force. No mass conversion though thus not fuel, only applied energy to a conversion system. Electricity is also not a fuel, though it can derive from a fuel source. Sunlight is also not a fuel source, though it derives from a fuel source upon the sun.

Upon reviewing some dictionaries I can concede that the commonly accepted definition of "fuel" is a form of matter that is converted to another form in order to extract energy...typicaly through combustion, but also can be applied to radioactive decay (like in a nuclear power plant).  But this doesn't change my perspective in this discussion...it simply means that I'm using a term incorrectly.

Quote
If on the other hand you define perpetual motion as motion that continues with out an energy source intentionally applied by man or other intelligent being or gives greater energy output than is supplied by man or other intelligent being. I would have to say yes by that definition of perpetual motion it is possible. You will not get free energy, but you can get perpetual energy outputs until what energy that is causing that perpetual energy output is not longer available.

I don't think anyone can reasonably define "perpetual motion" the way you've suggested above...not if you use the word "perpetual" correctly.  What you're calling perpetual motion, the rest of the world calls renewabe resources.

After re-reading an reconsidering your earler posts I still say you are incorrect.  A geothermal plant does not produce more energy than it consumes, nor do wind farms or the solar panels on the roof of your house.  All of these things have energy inputs that are greater than their yield.  Energy and mass are conserved.

Quote
I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid.

What did the array cost to install?  You seem to be defining free energy in economic terms, not physics terms.  Your energy isn't free in either case...that solar array cost alot of money to purchase and install...typical roi on a pv array on a home is in the order of about 18-20 years.  Your system is so far from energy unity its not even funny...current photovoltaics operate somewhere in the range of 10% or less efficiency...the last actual panel specs I looked at when considering purchasing an array was about 4% efficient, I may be generous in my sugestion of 10% energy conversion on a commercially available pv array.  You're only looking at your electric meter and since you generate more power than you use, you're calling it perpetual motion...but its not.  Want proof?  Easy enough.  Go up on your roof on a suny day and lay your hand right on the middle of one of your solar panels.  If you're converting 100% of the sunlight hitting those panels to electricity then they will be cool to the touch...but if they're not converting all that solar radiation they'll be hot.

I think its great that you have an array that generates more power than you use...you're part of the energy solution here and thats fantastic.  But to call it a perpetual motion machine of sorts is absolutely not correct.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #75 on: September 05, 2008, 08:36:23 PM »
Your right yet wrong, let me explain that. Air (wind) is the energy supply to a wind turbine, not the fuel supply. True it loses energy as energy is transfered to the blade of the wind turbine so it leaves the blade with less force. No mass conversion though thus not fuel, only applied energy to a conversion system. Electricity is also not a fuel, though it can derive from a fuel source. Sunlight is also not a fuel source, though it derives from a fuel source upon the sun.
Please tell me you are joking.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #76 on: September 05, 2008, 09:00:43 PM »
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #77 on: September 05, 2008, 09:06:46 PM »
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D
Oh, you are dumb. I thought you understood me. Free energy has nothing to do with price. It is energy taken from no source. Solar power is not free energy. It is simply transforming available energy. I never said you couldn't get energy from the environment. Thank you for proving you can't keep up with a discussion.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #78 on: September 05, 2008, 09:23:56 PM »
isolated system

Solar panels, windmills, geothermal power stations are not isolated systems.  

They depend on an outside source of energy.

Ok lets assume for the sake of argument that your right. Actually I agree with your statement they are not isolated systems.

Now that we assume they are not isolated systems let's look at the Laws of science and apply them, shall we?

Law of conservation of energy: “The total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but can not be recreated although it may change forms.” Well toss that one out of the mix, sepcifically deals with isolated systems says so right in the law and we are not dealing with isolated systems.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: “The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” Well again, toss that one out of the mix as well as it also specifically deals with isolated systems and says so right in the law and again we are not dealing with isolated systems.

Ok two down, neither can be violated by a system that is not an isolated system, only when the system is isolated can they apply. So that leaves the First Law of Thermodynamics: “The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.”  Does that say an energy source that is present in the surrounding environment can not apply energy to increase the internal energy of a system? I can't find that any where in the First Law of Thermodynamics, but maybe I am over looking something so can you point out where it says that? Probably not becasue I am not blind and I read well. May not type so well but I read well when it is typed correctly.

Lets see, no violation to the Law of Conservation of Energy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not applicable to a system not in isolation and we are dealing with systems not in isolation. No violation to the First Law of Thermodynamics because energy from the surrounding environment can increase internal energy and be converted and yield an energy output.

Hummmm guess getting energy from the environment and converting it into the energy output of a system is allowable. Thus over unity in that system can occur because the environment is supplying energy that you don't have to to get the level of energy output. More out than you have to supply.  :o I said it again LOL Don't worry I have to say it again and again.






Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #79 on: September 05, 2008, 09:30:50 PM »
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D
Oh, you are dumb. I thought you understood me. Free energy has nothing to do with price. It is energy taken from no source. Solar power is not free energy. It is simply transforming available energy. I never said you couldn't get energy from the environment. Thank you for proving you can't keep up with a discussion.

If I am dumb, and I may well be, I would have to say your capacity for intelligence would be less than mine. Since you have failed to read, or just ignore the fact that I have long before this stated over unity is not free energy, it comes from an energy source that is provided by the surrounding environment. But you all want to keep calling it free energy so you can claim it is impossible. Gatta laugh at ya, really open your eyes and read all that I have said and you will see that I am right. When I say free energy it is to mock the foolish.

Or do you need a quote so you can find it?  ???

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #80 on: September 05, 2008, 09:39:16 PM »
Quote
It's renewable energy, not perpetual motion. Perpetual motion drives itself, it doesn't rely on existing natural energy sources.

Are those the only requirements? Are magnets considered a natural energy source?


No, it took energy to create the effect. Also magnets do not have perpetual energy. Entropy in the magnet causes it to become misaligned.

Ever wonder why the earth spins and the moon does not? And yes you can disorder a magnetic field and in doing so make the field weaker

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #81 on: September 05, 2008, 09:43:52 PM »
I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




I own a solar array, at the end of the month I get a check from the utility company my house is hooked up to, each and every month. I have no other generating unit on the house, I run all the electrical items I used to before the solar array was installed and I have added some other items as well. Is my house a perpetual energy house? Hummm I get paid by the utility company because I sell them more power than I use from them. More energy output from my house than my house uses as an energy input. Its atleast over unity. So if not by the solar panel then how? I get free energy, the proof is that I am on the same electric grid as someone that pays for their electricity and I get paid for my connection to the grid. That energy comes from the sun, some day that will burn out and then that will stop, will I be here when that happens? Probably not!

Solar panels must be over unity, in the sense that I do not supply energy or fuel to them, I use energy from the sun which is there for the taking "for free" if you want to call your self a believer that perpetual motion means "free energy". I say it is not free the sun makes it and costs some fuel on the sun to make it. I just use that energy as a free source to me here on earth and earth is a seperate system than the sun, but in a system that the sun is in.
The sun has a finite amount of energy that it gains by fusion. Leeching off the sun doesn't make it free (in the current meaning of the world).

I told you I was using sun light and that the sun used fuel to make that, and since it uses fuel it will some day stop. I agree its not free, its lucrative! I get money and power my house and you pay for your energy. BTW I did not even pay for the solar system, that was free from government incentives :)

So the sun gives me energy which I freely take and use my solar array to convert to electricity and power my house and send some out to the grid and get paid for what I send to the grid and the solar array was free so your right its not free its lucrative!!!!! Top that one, I guess I  will stop saying its over unity energy to overly lucrative energy and smile every time I get a check and you are still claiming I can not get over unity energy from environmental energy sources.  ;D
Oh, you are dumb. I thought you understood me. Free energy has nothing to do with price. It is energy taken from no source. Solar power is not free energy. It is simply transforming available energy. I never said you couldn't get energy from the environment. Thank you for proving you can't keep up with a discussion.

If I am dumb, and I may well be, I would have to say your capacity for intelligence would be less than mine. Since you have failed to read, or just ignore the fact that I have long before this stated over unity is not free energy, it comes from an energy source that is provided by the surrounding environment. But you all want to keep calling it free energy so you can claim it is impossible. Gatta laugh at ya, really open your eyes and read all that I have said and you will see that I am right. When I say free energy it is to mock the foolish.

Or do you need a quote so you can find it?  ???
Where have we claimed that it is impossible? We simply claimed that free energy is impossible. Examples including zero point energy. We also have said perpetual motion is impossible. Both of these things involve keeping/obtaining energy from a closed system.

I really don't see what you are trying to say other than I have solar power, it is free.

That is irrelevant to the discussion.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13146
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2008, 09:44:41 PM »
Was it so hard to just click "edit" instead of "reply"? Three posts in a row is NOT needed.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2008, 09:58:29 PM »
Was it so hard to just click "edit" instead of "reply"? Three posts in a row is NOT needed.

Quoted different posts did not want to confuse. Would you prefer I just put each one below the next in one post? I can manage that if you wish.
Quote
Upon reviewing some dictionaries I can concede that the commonly accepted definition of "fuel" is a form of matter that is converted to another form in order to extract energy...typicaly through combustion, but also can be applied to radioactive decay (like in a nuclear power plant).  But this doesn't change my perspective in this discussion...it simply means that I'm using a term incorrectly.
I don't think anyone can reasonably define "perpetual motion" the way you've suggested above...not if you use the word "perpetual" correctly.  What you're calling perpetual motion, the rest of the world calls renewabe resources.

After re-reading an reconsidering your earler posts I still say you are incorrect.  A geothermal plant does not produce more energy than it consumes, nor do wind farms or the solar panels on the roof of your house.  All of these things have energy inputs that are greater than their yield.  Energy and mass are conserved.

Your system is so far from energy unity its not even funny...current photovoltaics operate somewhere in the range of 10% or less efficiency...the last actual panel specs I looked at when considering purchasing an array was about 4% efficient, I may be generous in my sugestion of 10% energy conversion on a commercially available pv array.  You're only looking at your electric meter and since you generate more power than you use, you're calling it perpetual motion...but its not.  Want proof?  Easy enough.  Go up on your roof on a suny day and lay your hand right on the middle of one of your solar panels.  If you're converting 100% of the sunlight hitting those panels to electricity then they will be cool to the touch...but if they're not converting all that solar radiation they'll be hot.

Yes nuclear conversion is also a fuel type, fussion, fission, radioactive decay all change mass and yield energy in the process as well as combustion as well as non-combustion chemical reactions that release energy (i.e. exothermic reactions). Thanks for your correction.

Total applied heat energy to a geothermal plant is greater than energy output, that is correct, else they would not work. However, amount of energy you supply as heat is far less than energy output, the earth provides the majority of the heat energy. You just tap that heat energy and and provide a way it can apply to the plant's energy output. Greater energy output than what you apply i.e. Over Unity. It can be perpetual so long as the earth's core is a usable heat source. Pump water down, pump up hot water or get steam pressured up to surface and whala greater energy out put from turbine than pumping energy applied. Energy output = EO Total Energy Applied = EA Energy Supplied by You = ES Energy Supplied by Earth's Heat = EE

EO/EA=energy conversion efficiency and EA=EE+ES and EO/ES=unity efficiency unity efficiency greater than 1 is over unity. Energy conversion efficiency will never be greater than 1 (100%) unity efficiency can be less than or equal to or greater than 1. Total applied energy is what you supply and what earth supplies. When the energy sources are differentiated under unity - unity - over unity becomes clear. When they are not differentiated misunderstandings can occur like the one you made thinking that over unity is EO>EA Not so! That can never be but you can get more energy out than you apply and that is clear by identifying each energy input source. Taking what energy you apply in relation to the energy output which is the correct way to do it to determine over unity. This always identifies over unity energy outputs as comming from an energy source applied by the environment meaning they come from some energy source and are not free energy (comming from nothing). Nothing comes from Nothing, multiply by zero and you get zero, divide with zero as the numerator and you get zero as the denominator zero still would be zero for the answer. Nothing comes from Nothing. Only when you have energy coming from the environment can you achieve over unity energy outputs. Only when you have over unity energy outputs can you achieve perpetual motion that yields work. The first law of motion deals with perpetual motion when no work is achieved (net zero application of force).

A last note to your recent comment even if the panels converted 100% sunlight to electrical energy they would still be hot unless the resistance to electrical transfer was zero (0) resistance would heat them up due to electrical friction and that would reduce efficiency of the output to less than 100%. The correct statement would be they would have to convert 100% of the sunlight to electrical energy and have a resistance of 0 otherwise they will feel warm if not hot or very hot to the touch.

I love it, lots to debate :) I'm goning to have fun. So where to start? I guess at the top and work down sounds good enough.

Perpetual motion always loses to entropy in the end (if not something more mundane first).

Perpetual motion is impossible. 'Free energy' generation is impossible. Buy a solar panel and deal with it.




Where have we claimed that it is impossible? We simply claimed that free energy is impossible. Examples including zero point energy. We also have said perpetual motion is impossible. Both of these things involve keeping/obtaining energy from a closed system.

I really don't see what you are trying to say other than I have solar power, it is free.

That is irrelevant to the discussion.

You say free energy is impossible, I say it is not free energy, it comes from a source, but since you still say free energy I say the energy I get from sun light is free and demonstrate that it is free to me and yields me money to boot. You also say perpetual motion is impossible and define perpetual as keeping energy in a closed system. I say the First Law of Motion contradicts that. you say perpetual motion is obtaining energy from a closed system, I say you can get perpetual motion when you have a system that is able to gain energy from the surroundings, the system can be closed its just not an isolated system.

To illistrate further, solar arrays are not perpetual motion of themselves. You have to have a mechanisim doing work using the energy from them at least to make a perpetual system. This can only be when the solar array connected to the work output device using the energy from the array is exposed to sunlight 24/7/365.25. Then it would be perpetual until the the solar array or the work output device or both failed (broke, ceased to function) or until the sun burns out. If not exposed to the sun constantly then a battery system is also needed. The it would be perpetual until the solar array or the work output device or the battery or a combination of them failed or unitl the sun burned out. But by itself it is over unity in its energy output, but the energy output is less than the total amount of solar energy that falls upon the array. Over unity by the fact that the energy output is greater than the energy that I apply to the solar array. In fact I apply zero energy to the solar array beyond the energy that was used to manufacture it (I did not manufacture it but still energy was applied), ship it (I did not transport it from factory to house but energy was applied) and instal it (I did not install it but energy was applied). The energy that applies to it now is applied by the sun, I just use an installed method of capturing a portion of that energy and convert it into something I can use (electricity). As long as that works and the sun shines I get usable energy output. The device output if not already surpassed the total energy input from manufacture to installation will at some point surpass that level of energy input.

Check your local areas to see what funding sources are available to you to get an array for FREE. I am not saying every state has a program like that but many do and those that do not most likely have tax incentives to help and so does the federal government.

Raist reply #87 after this posting I can not quote by click looks like.

I started talking about perpetual motion and over unity energy outputs. I used the solar array as an example (known observation). OK. I intend to get back to discussing perpetual motion and over unity energy outputs. It all ties in, trust me. ( I know I know the two most feared words in the english language when used in conjunction with each other "trust" and "me").
 


« Last Edit: September 06, 2008, 12:12:57 AM by jehkque »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #84 on: September 05, 2008, 10:42:40 PM »
We were talking about free energy. You brought up solar energy. So I'm sorry we couldn't keep up with your logic. Then you decide to defend it.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #85 on: September 06, 2008, 04:09:02 AM »
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".

?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #86 on: September 06, 2008, 05:31:00 AM »
Quote
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".

Then what is gravity?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #87 on: September 06, 2008, 06:17:00 AM »
Quote
Perpetual motion is technically not possible: things don't run by themselves. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only conserved".

Then what is gravity?

If fail could be expressed as a 128-bit signed integer, you just overflowed back into win.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #88 on: September 06, 2008, 06:38:03 AM »
Then what is gravity?
Gravity is a conservative force. What's your point?

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #89 on: September 06, 2008, 07:37:01 AM »
Then what is gravity?

The curvature of space-time is the result of the existence of mass-energy.

Quote from: The GR Mantra
"Matter tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move."

You can extract work from gravity (hydro-electric plant) but entropy will always increase overall. Ultimately entropy always wins, hence gravity is not a source of perpetual work.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.