Is It Possible To Create Free Energy?

[laforgej 0]

You need to know some things about energy. Think about it putting a dynamo in the axles of vehicles would only make you car engine work harder, using more gas, not an efficient way to produce energy.

Burning your own fat for energy... interesting but painful gross and fat does not hold a terribly large amount of energy, it would be comparable to burning animal fat or vegetable oil.
Dynamo in your shoes... Another interesting idea but your legs would have to work harder to produce the energy. Are you willing to turn walking into a huge workout just to get a few watts?

As for a way of harvesting energy from nuclear fission, I doubt that we can create and control nuclear fission on earth so why don't we use an already existing form of nuclear fission, the sun.

Have a look at my post on the antimatter form. I have a theory about a solar energy collecting station that would orbit the sun and store it's energy in the form of antimatter
post 36 at http://forums.xisto.com/topic/42193-my-idea-to-keep-antimatter-in-a-matter-container-using-fans-in-all-directions-to-keep-it-in-place/page-3#entry298659

[matak 2]

i just hope that nobody is going to try to build a giant powerplant based on magnets, beacouse that could lead to end of the world. don't ask why, try to figure it out yourselfes

[keri-j 0]

1. I believe technically you cannot "create" energy and 2. It would only be free if you didn't need to buy any equipment like turbines or electronical devices.

 

As I understand (I'm only 13, bear with me here), Energy can neither be created or destroyed, but it gets transfered. I haven't learnt this at school yet, so I might not be so accurate here.

[matak 2]

1. I believe technically you cannot "create" energy and 2. It would only be free if you didn't need to buy any equipment like turbines or electronical devices.

 

As I understand (I'm only 13, bear with me here), Energy can neither be created or destroyed, but it gets transfered. I haven't learnt this at school yet, so I might not be so accurate here.

 

well energy is not created it is transformed or transfered from one form to another.

 

transformation of energy is when there is mechanical contact to change forms of energy.

 

transfer of energy is when energy transfers from one form to another without direct contact, like heat to steam.

 

well, at least that's what i think..

 

but it would be smart if you would ask your professor about this couse i'm not really sure is it true...

Edited December 14, 2006 by matak (see edit history)

[quakesand 0]

I've got an idea that maybe won't work.A little twist rub can make a fire, right? This makes fire unlimited.Oxygen can make fire big and work just like oil but just weaker.Oxygen can be recovered by trees.Oxygen is free everywhere.By absorbing oxygen and then mix it with fire will make the fire larger and stronger enough to make strong energy!By non-stop charging these energy, we can make a whole bunch of energy strong enough to power a car,a plane and anything, all it needs is time, to charge.I do not trust nuclear fusion because it's very dangerous.If you have a container enough strong, it also can't stand everything, what goes in has to come out, it will leak if something is bent a bit or not right.

[squeaky 0]

You have a very creative way on thinking of ideas that would help our society and future, but you need to know the facts that come with it. Inforunetely, Science tends to prove things otherwise, and in this case, this is true. When you said "Rotating motion + dynamo = electricity,' this would no be possible because the needed force to spin the dynamo would be taken from the car's efficency of the car. Vehicles already have alternators that is attached to the engine and constantly charges on idle and while the vehicle is being driven. If you think about it, if you want to make electricity by having a group of men push a generator around and around, and you had another generator (the rotating tires of the vehicle) it's going to take more energy and work from the men to keep it going. This would result in more CO2 and energy needed, similarily to the vehicle. The vehicle would use more fuel, and put out more CO2 and other elements of the vehicle it must use more of to work harder. So, I like your ideas on new ways to make things more efficient, but I'm sorry, the scientist tested it and it doesn't work. Keep up the good thoughts though!

[matak 2]

You have a very creative way on thinking of ideas that would help our society and future, but you need to know the facts that come with it. Inforunetely, Science tends to prove things otherwise, and in this case, this is true. When you said "Rotating motion + dynamo = electricity,' this would no be possible because the needed force to spin the dynamo would be taken from the car's efficency of the car. Vehicles already have alternators that is attached to the engine and constantly charges on idle and while the vehicle is being driven. If you think about it, if you want to make electricity by having a group of men push a generator around and around, and you had another generator (the rotating tires of the vehicle) it's going to take more energy and work from the men to keep it going. This would result in more CO2 and energy needed, similarily to the vehicle. The vehicle would use more fuel, and put out more CO2 and other elements of the vehicle it must use more of to work harder. So, I like your ideas on new ways to make things more efficient, but I'm sorry, the scientist tested it and it doesn't work. Keep up the good thoughts though!

well vehicles produce much much more energy than they need. you see if engine has 100 HP (horse power), it is equal to 75 kW of energy.. do you know how much is that? lets say that average AC unit needs about 5kW of energy, computer needs about 1kW of energy.. i don't know how much does refrigerator or stow needs but i don't think that it is more than 5 kw 10 or max 20Kw.. So you see practically one car is enough to produce energy for the whole house.

But car pollutes very much. Last info i saw was that Opel Tigra made in 1995 has about 173 g/km of CO2, that is way too much...
Edited December 15, 2006 by matak (see edit history)

[Forbez 0]

To all those who say there is no such thing as free energy, are probably right. But i think coming close to free energy is a sure thing. But why not just use the earth for power, instead of burning. Use the wind around us, use the water we have. Thats totally free to use. But I was thinking of a way of getting free energy, if you had a round circle. And it had water in it. And the water would go down one side, and spin the wheel, and when it reach the bottm it would go though a tunnel. Which water can only go though and not backwards. Once then it would fill the other side up, overflow and pour down the tunnel again.I think they use this one little toys. I have no clue, but I have been thinking of that for ages.

[FLaKes 0]

I saw this product the other day that is a wind generator, which was really small, it costed about 8000 dollars but it would generate you electricity and your electricity bill would be a whole lot cheaper. Studies say that you get your investment returned in about 8 years, and after that its free.

[communitykat 0]

What about Tesla? He came up with free energy in 1901. He put a clear insulation layer on a shiney metal panel (sort of like solar panels). The panel harnessed radiant energy from the sun and the cosmos. The panel was wired to one side of a capacitor and the other side of the cap. to the ground. It even ran at night. I think there are a lot of ways to harness energy, depending on what you need the energy for. It is more difficult to come up with ONE energy source for all energy needs. We need local sustainable energy sources. It is very efficient to have households run off of solar, wind and compost.

[salamangkero 0]

What about Tesla? He came up with free energy in 1901. He put a clear insulation layer on a shiney metal panel (sort of like solar panels). The panel harnessed radiant energy from the sun and the cosmos. The panel was wired to one side of a capacitor and the other side of the cap. to the ground. It even ran at night. I think there are a lot of ways to harness energy, depending on what you need the energy for. It is more difficult to come up with ONE energy source for all energy needs. We need local sustainable energy sources. It is very efficient to have households run off of solar, wind and compost.

I'd be first to admit I was not acquainted with that technology. However, I must concede that it will work if its energy was dependent on cosmic rays. After all, we are constantly bombarded by near light-speed particles from somewhere in the cosmos, even more so at daytime. The tiniest bit of these particles could generate substantial energy, when properly harnessed and converted.

 

Then there is also the constant, soft glow in the sky called the microwave background radiation. Anyone have any idea whether microwaves can power anything?

[krtbs 0]

In thermodynamics, the term thermodynamic free energy is a measure of the amount of mechanical (or other) work that can be extracted from a system, and is helpful in engineering applications. It is a subtraction of the entropy of a system ("useless energy") from the total energy, yielding a thermodynamic state function which represents the "useful energy".In short, free energy is that portion of any First-Law energy that is available for doing thermodynamic work; i.e., work mediated by thermal energy. Since free energy is subject to irreversible loss in the course of such work and First-Law energy is always conserved, it is evident that free energy is an expendable, Second-Law kind of energy that can make things happen within finite amounts of time.In solution chemistry and biochemistry, the Gibbs free energy change (denoted by ΔG) is commonly used merely as a surrogate for (−T times) the entropy produced by spontaneous chemical reactions in situations where there is no work done; or at least no "useful" work; i.e., other than PdV. As such, it serves as a particularization of the second law of thermodynamics, giving it the physical dimensions of energy, even though the inherent meaning in terms of entropy would be more to the point.The free energy functions are Legendre transforms of the internal energy. For processes involving a system at constant pressure P and temperature T, the Gibbs free energy is the most useful because, in addition to subsuming any entropy change due merely to heat flux, it does the same for the PdV work needed to "make space for additional molecules" produced by various processes. (Hence its utility to solution-phase chemists, including biochemists.) The Helmholtz free energy has a special theoretical importance since it is proportional to the logarithm of the partition function for the canonical ensemble in statistical mechanics. (Hence its utility to physicists; and to gas-phase chemists and engineers, who do not want to ignore PdV work.)The (historically earlier) Helmholtz free energy is defined as A = U − TS, where U is the internal energy, T is the absolute temperature, and S is the entropy. Its change is equal to the amount of reversible work done on, or obtainable from, a system at constant T. Thus its appellation "work content", and the designation A from arbeit, the German word for work. Since it makes no reference to any quantities involved in work (such as P and V), the Helmholtz function is completely general: its decrease is the maximum amount of work which can be done by a system, and it can increase at most by the amount of work done on a system.The Gibbs free energy G = H − TS, where H is the enthalpy. (H = U + PV, where P is the pressure and V is the volume.)There has been historical controversy: * Among physicists, ?free energy? most often refers to the Helmholtz free energy, denoted by F. * Among chemists, ?free energy? most often refers to the Gibbs free energy, also denoted by F.Since both fields use both functions, a compromise has been suggested, using A to denote the Helmholtz function, with G for the Gibbs function. While A is preferred by IUPAC, F is sometimes still in use, and the correct free energy function is often implicit in manuscripts and presentations.

[krtbs 0]

The experimental usefulness of these functions is restricted to conditions where certain variables (T, and V or external P) are held constant, although they also have theoretical importance in deriving Maxwell relations. Work other than PdV may be added, e.g., for electrochemcial cells, or f ˑdx work in elastic materials and in muscle contraction. Other forms of work which must sometimes be considered are stress-strain, magnetic, as in adiabatic demagnetization used in the approach to absolute zero, and work due to electric polarization. These are described by tensors.In most cases of interest there are internal degrees of freedom and processes, such as chemical reactions and phase transitions, which create entropy. Even for homogeneous "bulk" materials, the free energy functions depend on the (often suppressed) composition, as do all proper thermodynamic potentials (extensive functions), including the internal energy.Name Definition Natural variablesHelmholtz free energy A=U-TS\, ~~~~~T,V,\{N_i\}\,Gibbs free energy G=U+PV-TS\, ~~~~~T,P,\{N_i\}\,Ni is the number of molecules (alternatively, moles) of type i in the system. If these quantities do not appear, it is impossible to describe compositional changes. The differentials for reversible processes are (assuming only PV work) dA = - PdV - SdT + \sum_i \mu_i dN_i\, dG = VdP - SdT + \sum_i \mu_i dN_i\,where μi is the chemical potential for the i-th component in the system. The second relation is especially useful at constant T and P, conditions which are easy to achieve experimentally, and which approximately characterize living creatures. (dG)_{T,P} = \sum_i \mu_i dN_i\,Any decrease in the Gibbs function of a system is the upper limit for any isothermal, isobaric work that can be captured in the surroundings, or it may simply be dissipated, appearing as T times a corresponding increase in the entropy of the system and/or its surrounding.

[jamers 0]

Free energy is not created, it simply exists. Don't need to be a genius to know that no matter how much math you do it's impossible to prove that every molecule, every ion, every prticle in the universe has or ever will stand still at the same time. So as long as there is motion you will have all the free energy you want. Just put up a solar panel or windmill or water wheel.

Google "John Hutchison" or go here for starters http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/
you will be amazed at what you learn is going on around us as we speak.

One thing he has invented is a simple way to create a battery with an extremely long life by crushing some quartz rocks and mixing in something else, maybe an acid or something, then shake it up and it lights a little bulb. He did this on TV real time and it worked! Rocks that he found at the edge of some downtown buildings flowerbeds for crying out loud. Here we have multiple sources of new technology for energy and instead of taking an interest in that to help save the planet we have some people going to war to steal oil from other countries instead.

[Dooga 0]

I find the concept given by Steorn very interesting, yet it doesn't seem to make sense to me. While I just have average knowledge on Introductory Physics, it doesn't seem to make sense that energy can be indefinitely produced without having it transfered from somewhere else. The system would have to have no wear or tear, and it will have to forever function without any chemical changes such as corrosion etc. and will not depend on gravity etc. Bizarre... if this energy exists, why are humans the ones to start it up? Perhaps it's just a really really long oscillating pendulum or something :PAlthough the only free energy we have right now is just the fact that lots of energy exist even if all the humans died on the earth, for example, energy from the sun, energy from wind and water, and gravity. I think that's enough energy for us to last a few million lifetimes.