Whitecrab wrote:Even if we were to believe them, magnets run out (or require power) and these things will need oil lubrication!
Aside from the technical aspects along with the fact we would need to overhaul our entire civilization for this new source of energy, have you considered the consequences of humans truly gaining access to free, limitless, energy?
MattSavinar wrote:Aside from the technical aspects along with the fact we would need to overhaul our entire civilization for this new source of energy, have you considered the consequences of humans truly gaining access to free, limitless, energy?
Would this not just put the crisis off until we have depleted another key resource - or perhaps several key resources? The earth does have a carrying capacity. If we have already exceeded that capacity, more energy will allow us to exceed it even further. If we haven't exceeded it yet (unlikely) "free" energy will certainly allow us to do so.
Of course, at that point, our population would be higher. And when it finally restabilizes, it will restablize at a level lower than it would have had the crash begun with an initially small population.
If we had access to limitless energy, what would stop us from laying the planet bare? I suspect we would consume everything in sight.
I mentioned this in a private email to Dr. Eugene Mallove prior to his murder. He stated it wouldn't be a problem as we could colonize space.
As much as I admire Dr. Mallove, I thought the idea of moving hundreds of millions, if not billions of people off the planet as a "solution" to resource depeletion a tad bit impractical.
Metaphorically: lets you give an 18 year old $1,000,000 and he proceeds to ruin his life. Drugs, gambling, all the things an immature person would do when given abundant money - which is a good metaphor for energy.
Once he begins to deplete his bank account he may start looking for $10,000,000
Given the manner in which he handled $1,000,000, I wonder what he will do if he (miraculously) gains access to $10,000,000? I'm guessing it will only amplify the character faults that caused him to handle the $1,000,000 so recklessly.
We are at the "peak" of the oil age and are closer to destroying ourselves then ever before. Aren't you a bit concerned that if given access to an even more powerful source of energy we will just continue on the same path?
The result may not be as beautiful as you anticipate.
I ask you: what is the funadmental problem we face now? Is it that we don't have enough energy? Or is it that we have a fundamentally flawed system and the flaws are becoming apparent because we are now running into energy shortages?
If the problem is not enough energy, then finding another source might be the way to go.
If the problem is that the system is fundamentally flawed, then finding another source of energy will just put the crisis off into the future.
At that point, the "restabilization process" will be even more ghastly.
Matt
Hydro wrote:Yet when changing energy from one from to another, you can in effect, "create" energy.
Combining gravity and kinetic energy converted into electricity, could in fact produce some sort of semi-perpetual motion machine.
MarkR wrote:Those 'free energy' links are not very exciting. While I wish for the hypothetical 'perpetual motion' machine, I fear that we will never see one.
The 'products' showcased above are little more than scams.
The enviroenergy 'gravity' generator is nothing but a grossly overcomplicated version of a perpetual-motion idea that has been around for centuries - putting weights on one side of a rotating wheel, and then taking them off before they rise. Fine, but how do you get the weights back up again?
The perendev magnetic motor is more interesting, but permanent magnets are not a source of energy. Again, this is the latest in an innumerable list of attempts to produce a permanent magnet driven motor. Note that the only video/photos you get are of the motor starting to spin. There are no videos or demonstrations of the motor actually running and doing work (or even running at idle).
Magnets can loan you some energy - a piece of metal can be attracted to the magnet, and useful energy can be extracted from the motion. However, you need to give that energy back in order to pull the metal away from the magnet again. All this talk about 'focusing' magnetic fields is just nonsense - it would be equivalent to saying that it would be more efficient to launch a space rocket horizontally because it would experience less gravity.
Indeed, I've even seen some scams who have claimed that this energy in permanent magnets is free. It's not, it has to be added during manufacture. When a unmagnetised 'blank' is charged it takes magnetic energy from the 'charger'. If that is an electromagnet then there will be a slight increase in power consumption as the magnet charges.
There is much 'scientific' interest in 'overunity' devices - mainly on internet forums/newsgroups. So far, no one has ever demonstrated such a motor/turbine. A lot of people get confused by not understanding energy measurement.
People claiming to have demonstrated new 'electrolysis' devices often overestimate hydrogen production, by not taking into account, gas temperature and moisture content (these devices frequently produce much steam due to pitiful efficiency).
I've seen people run alternators but fail to measure 'power factor' on the output - e.g. they think the 10 A at 110 V coming from their generator is supplying 1100 W, when it might only be supplying 500 W.
If we had access to limitless energy, what would stop us from laying the planet bare? I suspect we would consume everything in sight.
Hydro wrote:How does our energy supply dictate how we interact with nature? Government policies on pollution, de-forestation and CO2 emmissions are what is the problem.
I don't see how unlimited free, non-polluting electricity could pose any threat the the environment.
What is the difference between an $8000 magnetic machine that produces electricity 24/7 versus a $20000 wind generator that produces electricty when the wind is blowing? Neither have a bad impact on the environment.
MattSavinar wrote:Hydro wrote:How does our energy supply dictate how we interact with nature? Government policies on pollution, de-forestation and CO2 emmissions are what is the problem.
I don't see how unlimited free, non-polluting electricity could pose any threat the the environment.
What is the difference between an $8000 magnetic machine that produces electricity 24/7 versus a $20000 wind generator that produces electricty when the wind is blowing? Neither have a bad impact on the environment.
Because unlimited, free energy will allow us to consume every resource on the planet and for our population to just keep growing.
Our population will continue to grow until Planet Earth is "standing room only."
Even if my apartment has free energy, it still only has one toilet. If I had 15, 20 people living here, we'd have sh-t all over the living room.
Matt
Users browsing this forum: theluckycountry and 90 guests