unlimited free energy

needpeace1988: I saw a video of cpu producing free energy by itself when even nos of arc shaped magnets put on the edges....but the cheapest and best source is Tesla's radiant energy reciever.

LiptonCambell: There's no such thing, but there's certainly alot of great ideas on the horizon.

Like a machine that collects the energy from the movement of waves, or another one that absorbs the energy from footsteps- imagine how much free energy can be gained from putting those in high traffic areas?

alpossmar82: Thorium matrials could be the great link to maintaining better efficiency in Wind turbines, effectively being a type of thorium reactor itself.

needpeace1988: two patents has already been made by tesla.about free energy.google it out..any one i m gonna build one for me.

alpossmar82: /Use of clean green energy has its advantages but somewhat more of political p.o.v. Combinations of both COal, wind and nuclear particular Thorium is means of a world peace the future.

tonytwist15: Energy could have been free a long time ago, and it won't be free as long as there are people finding ways to make a profit out of it. Even if mankind managed to find a true source of unlimited energy, we would still be selling it to others. Now, if we're talking about independence from the power grid, that will probably be achievable in the next couple of decades. Solar panel efficiencies are rather low, right now, but they could double or triple their output in the next 10-15 years, and there's a lot of work being done in the field of capacitors to store the energy for nighttime use. In the meantime, electronics are now built with energy use in mind. Just take cell phone chips. They are built to have higher performance AND use less energy.

All this being said, I don't think energy independence has a whole lot to do with the future of world peace. If we're not fighting for oil, we'll fight for something else.

lori100: “All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
― Nikola Tesla---------------------------------

lori100: Free-Energy Devices, zero-point energy, and water as HHO fuel

www.free-energy-info.com‎

Easy to understand descriptions of more than a hundred different free energy generator designs with detailed plans and constructional suggestions------------------------------------------------"-There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more. " – Dr. Theodor C. Loder III
0---------------------------------Theodor C. Loder, III, Professor Emeritus at the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire. He outlined the importance of these concepts in his paper titled Space and Terrestrial Transportation and Energy Technologies

alpossmar82: The promise of thorium salt fluorides for alternative fuels has hit a constant lapse for the last 20 years. Antarticia was a believe the promised lands for Thorium reactor technology apart from MArs type of mining exploration.

Corwin: I'll just point out that the OP if this thread is referring to "Free Energy", which is a term used by crack-pots to describe the workings of their "Perpetual Motion Engines", which according to the Laws of Thermodynamics are IMPOSSIBLE.
--- Not to be confused with "renewable energy" sources such as Hydroelectric, Wind, or Solar power.

The above video post by Lori is a perfect example of one such impossible device... a motor powered by a generator, powered by the original motor... this breaks both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
The same applies to "water as hydrogen fuel" -- the amount of energy required to separate the hydrogen from the water is greater than the energy produced by using the hydrogen as fuel -- which means that the hydrogen produced is more of a "battery" of sorts. An understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics makes this very clear.

The First Law of Thermodynamics -- "Conservation of Energy"
-- Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only converted from one form to another.
Or in other words, "there's no such thing as a free-lunch".

Second Law of Thermodynamics -- "The Entropic Principle"
-- The entropy of any energy system cannot decrease... or in other words, energy always flows from the greater energy source to the lesser to reach equilibrium, with the net amount of energy either remaining the same, or decreasing through leakage from the system (often in the form of heat) or friction (or resistance) within the system (also ending up in the form of heat).
Or in other words, "there's no such thing as a free-lunch".
---------------

Something to keep in mind... the only truly "free" energy is that which comes from our Sun... the Earth has been powered by this free-energy source for the last 4.5 billion years.
All sources of energy that humans tap into (with the exception of nuclear energy) are SOLAR.

Wind Power -- the winds are powered by the heat from the Sun.

Hydroelectric Power -- the cycle of water evaporation and condensation (known as rain) that fills our lakes and rivers, and flows through our Hydroelectric dams, is powered by the Sun.

Fossil Fuels -- these prehistoric coal and oil reserves are merely stored sunlight. Millions of years ago, plants grew and used the Sun to power photosynthesis, turning water, air (esp. CO2) and sunlight into complex hydrocarbons. As the plants died, these hydrocarbons became layers in the Earth's crust. The largest fossil fuel reserves were once the floors of vast rainforests, where a large concentration of life flourished and died.
When we burn fossil fuels we are merely releasing the stored sunlight energy that created them.

tonytwist15: I think the term "free energy" is as much about not having to pay your electricity bill as it is about renewing your sources of energy. "Free" energy could exist, if we simply stopped making a profit off of it, if power plants were entirely nationalised and the power given for free to the people. It "could" be feasible, but I've learned never to trust bureaucrats, and even worse, the governments that employ them.

Corwin: But it costs money to generate power. It costs money to build a power-plant, it costs money to operate a power-plant, it costs money to keep the grid up and running. Even if power companies sold their power at cost, and made no profit, we would still have to pay the cost of what it takes to produce and distribute.

Or who do you think should pay... the government?? Where do you think THEIR money comes from? I comes from us. You want to have no electric bill, and pay higher taxes instead? If that was the case, you might be paying the same as the guy next door with the bigger house who uses twice as much as you. Would that be fair? You should be thankful that you only pay for what you use, monitored carefully on your meter... and be thankful that power generation is private-industry, and NOT rationed out by the government with a phantom-cost pulled from your taxes.

Think man!!

lori100: In the not too distant future , all homes will have their own free energy unit.....

duncan124:
Why can't all we share?

tonytwist15: Money is a human construct. It can be de-constructed. I'm not saying it's easy to do. Just that the concept of "free energy" is possible. Just imagine how far along sciences would be if it had all always been about pure research, rather than a function of various social constructs, most notably money and religions. Imagine if we had been even more smothered by religions and cash-strapped by corporations seeking profit rather than advancement and betterment, and that science had advanced at a crawl. There will come a time when the light of distant galaxies won't even reach us, because of the expansion of the universe accelerating. Imagine if we had waited until then to build a telescope and study the universe. We would know nothing, because the knowledge would simply be out of our reach, or simply relegated to the ranks of myths. "There used to be lights in the sky"...

All I said is that energy could be "free", in the monetary sense. It could. It's the exasperation over the cost of energy that leads naive people and their gullible youtube followers to seek alternatives. "Free" energy devices are more about freeing yourself from relying on the power grid than it is about summoning energy out of thin air. I agree with everything you said about the laws of thermodynamics. Those machines that make claims about outputting more than the energy inputted are utterly ridiculous, and the idea of making one is utterly ridiculous as well. But people go to serious lengths in their illusory quest for freedom.

Think man... thanks for the condescension.

Corwin: Yes Lori... we will soon revoke the Laws of Thermodynamics, and we will all have magical "energy units" that somehow pull energy directly out of our asses.
(read above post about the Laws of Thermodynamics )

If you want free-energy, put up some solar-panels... but those cost money too, and take years to offset the money you save by taking yourself off of the grid.

duncan124:
Yeah save the environment and give us free money, or at least electricity tokens.

Corwin: @ Tony -- So... you don't think Economics is a "real" thing? You don't think that profit/greed helps motivate the advancement of technology?
Tell that to Bill Gates.

I suppose the fix to all of Humanity's woes seems so simple to somebody with no understanding of Economics... just eliminate the monetary system altogether... great idea... except that civilization has been founded on it since there first were civilizations. It all began with large-scale agriculture. If we all grew our own food, and each provided for ourselves everything we needed, we wouldn't need money.
Humans once lived like that.... it was called the early Stone Age, and we lived in small pockets of Hunter/Gatherer tribes.
But even the Stone Age Hunter/Gatherers exchanged things of value for goods and services... such as rare shiny metals and rare pretty stones (gold and diamonds for example). Bartering is Human nature, and is what evolved into Economics.

But there was a system dreamed up by this guy, where money and greed were pretty much done away with.... it was called Marxist Communism... we just "share" everything, workers control the means of production, power in the hands of the people.
Oh... but, newsflash.... it didn't work. Any political system like that is an illusion, with power ultimately falling into the hands of a Military Dictatorship, and the people living as slaves.

tonytwist15: Economics have helped the advancement of science, but only up to a point. There's a thing called optimisation, you know. When the research becomes too expensive, the corporation happily leans back and enjoys its profits. The optimisation of the system is geared towards the profit, not the advancement of science. I'm sure there could be a system out there that would be optimised for science, while not ignoring the profit altogether. It's not corporatism that took man to the moon, but they still benefitted from it. It's not corporatism that built the LHC to further science. And I think we need a little more of that. And corporations can still make a profit off the new technologies created.

We're not going to eliminate the monetary system, and I never even suggested we should. I simply said that people seeking free energy are not doing so to further science, but for economical reasons. That's why I've emphasised the word "free" so many times.

And being as arrogant and condescending as you are, I hope we never have to talk again. Good day, sir.

Corwin: So.... I would be less arrogant and condescending if I didn't attempt to explain to you how the world really works, and instead pretended to agree with your simplistic notions? I suppose that would be more pleasant for you, but not very honest of me, and not very educational for you.
-------------

So... you think we put men on the Moon just for kicks, and to feed our scientific curiosity?
BOLLOCKS... we put men on the Moon as a display of power/force during the height of the Cold War... and rode there with tools forged with the intent of mass genocide. And wars have just as much to do with Economics as anything else.
Why haven't we gone back to the Moon? Because there's no longer any profit in it.
Why haven't we sent men to Mars? Because we're not trying to beat the Russians there.

NASA does do a lot of exploratory missions that are solely Science oriented, like the deep-space probes and planetary exploration... but on a shoe-string budget. The government throws them a frickin' bone now and then, but it's the military-funded missions that keeps NASA in business. The US spends 10,000% more on their military than they do on pure Science. The scientific advancements with the biggest possible pay-off are the ones that get the biggest funding.

And that Hadron Collider, even though it's the largest most advanced piece of hardware ever conceived and built, it was many countries who pitched in a little each... and a bargain compared to the possible new avenues of scientific advancement it may present.
Was this just for kicks and to feed our curiosity? Hardly... governments don't throw large chunks of money into something that they don't see possible profit in. New Science means new Tech... new weapons... and increased political strength.

Everything is in some way profit motivated.... even International Aid... sending millions to a country stricken with disaster -- good for international relations -- good for appearances -- good for business -- good for profit.

We wouldn't even HAVE electricity piped into our homes today if there was no way for someone to make a buck off of it.
How about the entertainment industry? Do you think those Hollywood producers spend millions making movies, just for the sake of making us happy? Nonsense... they do it to make a buck.
How about Health Care? In my country this is paid for by the government. Is this done for the sake of our individual happiness? No.... it's done because healthy workers are more productive workers, and this increases the country's GNP... in other words, it's profitable.

Money makes the world go 'round..... and NOTHING is free... except maybe the air we breathe. (Give it time)

lori100: NASA has been warned to stay away from Mars and the moon by ....guess who... .they also destroyed several of the failed mars probes.....(aliens that military witnesses have seen..)

Corwin: And now we're going to discuss aliens and government conspiracies.

lori100: ok....if you insist.....

lori100: When this interview was filmed in October 2000, Dr. Eugene Mallove was Editor-In-Chief of the magazine Infinite Energy and Director of the New Energy Research Laboratory in New Hampshire. He holds two MIT degrees in Aeronautical-Astronautical Engineering and a Harvard Doctorate in Environmental Health Sciences (Air Pollution Control Engineering). He has broad experience in high-technology engineering at companies including Hughes Research Labs, TASC (The Analytic Science Corporation) and MIT Lincoln Laboratory. Dr. Mallove was the Chief Science Writer at MIT when the cold fusion story broke in March 1989, and he resigned in 1991 after his requested investigation into the altered cold fusion data at MIT (which helped to discredit the whole subject) was not properly done. The marginalization by the scientific establishment of the cold fusion topic bears strong resemblance to the similar marginalization of the ET/UFO topic: both have been ridiculed and defamed because they break established paradigms. As Dr. Mallove states in this interview, "There is nothing worse...than suggesting to academic physicists in particular, and academics in general, that they are not only wrong; they are disastrously wrong, catastrophically wrong." --------------

Corwin: Well, the concept of Cold Fusion is an intriguing idea... I for one would like to see something come out of this sort of research. But practical and feasible Fusion energy would still not be free... it still requires Deuterium (an isotope of Hydrogen), and even though we can (and do) mine the oceans for Deuterium, it exists naturally in sea-water at only 156 parts per million. i.e. Deuterium is an expensive fuel.

Another possible practical Fusion reactor that is on the drawing board uses Helium-3 as a fuel... this isotope is almost non-existent here on Earth, but is very abundant on the surface of the Moon. So let's say that we build Moon bases to mine Helium-3, and find ourselves with a virtually unlimited new energy source.... it still won't be free... I imagine that the mining and import of isotopes from the Moon would be rather expensive as well.
-------------

But your last post isn't really about the development of Fusion Energy... you're simply suggesting that the technology already exists and is being suppressed by the powers that be.
At a time when we are all desperately seeking alternative energy sources (including the powers that be), this notion is preposterous.

lori100: Dr. Mallove^^^----stated 'there is serious criminal activity.....citizens are being denied their constitutional rights'....to cold fusion energy........he said patents on it will go through the patent office , and have , but only if they don't call it 'cold fusion'.......not preposterous....I have posted about scientists who have been murdered or fear for their life because of the energy knowledge they have that would destroy the gas/oil industry...and all energy companies currently dominating......