Is Free Energy Or Electricity Possible? PMAs or Cosmic Rays can free energy be done

[ScepterDonFetti 0]

I've heard that Nicola Tesla created something similar to a solar panel that could producefree electricity from the cosmic rays that run rampant throughout our universe.I've also heard that a man named Dennis Lee created a free energy device that runs onpower harnessed from permanent magnets.I myself have come up with an idea that I believe will produce free electricity from aPermanent Magnetic Alternator.Scientists contest that these technologies are impossible!What do you think?

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

I think the currently theorized about methods are, potentially, 'impossible' meaning those exact methodologies are not ones that would work. Personally I haven't tried to theorize why they would or would not work, but with an oil-centric society as we currently live in I imagine if an unending power source was possible someone would make it. Sure they would still sell it but they would be able to market it cheap and as a 'green' solution and would become a super-rich man/woman in no time.That said, I don't really believe an infinite power source would be impossible I just cant fathom it. I doubt 'free' energy will ever be the case because, really, I assume whoever makes the devices that can generate the power will in fact charge regardless of how cheap it is for them.I remember reading about how much energy is absorbed from the sun by the surface of the earth and how it could easily power the planet if it was harnessed properly. That concept has always been one to interest me, as well as perpetual motion machines that manage to work a turbine or whatever similar concept device to generate power.

[jimmy89 0]

You cannot get anything for free (unless its web hosting ). As Jeigh said, we are an oil-centric society and we need the power. We cannot run large cities of the small power we gain from solar and wind power!

[ethergeek 0]

We cannot run large cities of the small power we gain from solar and wind power!

Are you joking? The solar cells we have now operate at something like half a percent of efficiency. Which means for every watt of incoming solar energy, only 1/200 of that energy is actually able to be captured, where more is lost in the conversion and storage.

We're working on more efficient cell arrays, and when the efficiency goes up solar power will be a much more viable solution to meet our energy needs. People who say that we can't do it really have no idea how much energy the sun radiates, even through the atmosphere. The fact is, with hydrogen fuel cells powering cars, and the solar generation powering the electrolysis needed to create the gas, we can quickly reduce the amount of fossil fuels we're using.

[Miles 0]

I don't see how it can't, in theory. For instance, as in the first post, permanent magnets should somehow be able to have electricity generated from them. And then you could consider making a machine that generates electricity from walking. In fact, in typing this we are providing a source of energy that could probably be harnessed, too. Nearly everything we do can be used to generate electricity, and whilst technically not free since the energy comes from somewhere in the first place, it's just getting a little unused energy. Thinking right now, heat could be extracted from people exercising and collected to produce steam for a turbine. The list goes on and on. I'll stop here.

[altimit 0]

What we can also do is utilize the electricity generated by human brains.Imagine the possibilities! Millions of these people, all in a stasis of sorts, living in a simulated reality---going on their day-to-day lives, walking, chatting, going to work---while unbenknownst to them, we utilize the power being produced by their brains for processing and actual electric operation!However, there are always those who contradict innovation. I figure they might work together to produce a city underground where we are unable to reach them and harness their brain potential.I'm sure we'll find a way around this though. We can build a drill. WE'LL BE RICH!

[tansqrx 0]

This one just keeps popping up. I file this under the perpetual motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion) category. Basically put you can never get an object that moves forever because there is friction and you violate the conservation of energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_Energy). When most people think they have the perfect free energy system they usually forget about friction and efficiency. Friction is everywhere. If you have two surfaces making contact then you have friction. If you have any surface making contact with air then you have friction. Friction leads to heat and heat is a loss of energy. You may think it is a large scientific conspiracy to hide a perpetual motion machine but I see hundreds of examples everyday of thermodynamics working and I have yet to see one example where it doesnât.I believe that solar power is the closest thing that we have to âfree energyâ but it does have a cost. As said before, solar panels are very inefficient and the process required to make them is rather nasty. Solar cells are based on silicon fabrication which is quickly becoming one of the largest âtechâ polluters.The simple fact is economy. Oil is cheaper and as long as oil is cheaper than alternative fuels it will be the dominant player. The oil companies are starting to see that threshold even now. As the price of gas rises people are starting to turn to previously too expensive fuels such ethanol and hydrogen. Even if you get past the oil problem you still have coal which some say is many more times abundant than oil.

[trinifawk 0]

As many people know, nothing really does come free! It takes time and money for people to invest in these types of technologies, tons of resources and manpower, and of course scientists don't work for free! I think that efficiency should be the move for the future, as the natural resources for oil and gas energy should run out in a matter of decades. Solar power is a great idea, and nuclear power is most possibly going to be the driving force of the future. I heard the president of the USA talk about nuclear power being the wave of the future, and I think that he's right. But to come back to topic. If you put the time and effort into creating technology that would enable energy to be created freely, you would most likely want to be rewarded with money for your efforts. Plus, energy can't just be created (according to theory). It can be transformed from one form to another. So, the cost of creating energy would be the transformation of another type of energy.

[toby 0]

Imo, all your poll answers are probably true.Cosmic rays don't really get down to us. If we were able to use them, even if they made less power than tidal or waves, we'd probably be fried. Nuclear ftw, France makes something like 70% of its energy from them, and there was an amazing article in the Mensa magazine about the waste, something like over 30 years, one nuclear power plant can use the same 750kg of safer-than-uranuim over and over again, whereas a 100Mwh/y coal would produce millions of tons of carbon. There's details I've forgotten.. I'd hope someone else on these forums get this magazine.

[ethergeek 0]

As said before, solar panels are very inefficient and the process required to make them is rather nasty. Solar cells are based on silicon fabrication which is quickly becoming one of the largest âtechâ polluters.

Solar cells have something like a 2 year ROI energy-wise and 10 year ROI moneywise. Not bad given the solar cells can generate electricity for well over 50 years. And the technology is only getting better and more efficient.

Solar power is a great idea, and nuclear power is most possibly going to be the driving force of the future. I heard the president of the USA talk about nuclear power being the wave of the future, and I think that he's right.

Actually, if you heard Bush say it, NUCULAR power is the wave of the future. Seriously though, that too is a finite resource.

Cosmic rays don't really get down to us. If we were able to use them, even if they made less power than tidal or waves, we'd probably be fried.

Putting the collectors in space or on the moon would be ideal for this...now to get the power from there to here...

[wutske 0]

solar cells at 0.5% ? Imho they are a lot more efficient than you think, the latest generation of solar panels could reach 30% (or something near that, at least it was a lot more than 0.5%). That doesn't take away that they're still very expensive and even with governement support it takes too long before the investment becomes profitable.The term 'free' energy is something I don't like to use, I'd rather think about ecological/green energy, because that's what it actualy is that we're looking for.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

I'm very sure that the oil companies have a hand in this because they have already killed the electric car, which was spurring up in California before the oil companies forced GM to take them off the streets. Thus, I'm pretty sure they are doing the same thing to some sort of advancement and maybe even COLD FUSION! If we ever reached cold fusion, one power plant might provide enough energy to power the whole planet. Including parts that don't have power right now if we can make it that efficient. However, no one knows how far we can produce until we have reached absolute cold fusion (without losing any heat at making energy).xboxrulz

[ethergeek 0]

solar cells at 0.5% ? Imho they are a lot more efficient than you think, the latest generation of solar panels could reach 30% (or something near that, at least it was a lot more than 0.5%).

I should clarify...the current production generation (what most solar technology is at this time) functions at that efficiency. Yes, more efficient ones are available, but not yet in widespread use. Think of those Caltrans call boxes with the solar panels on top. That's an example of what I mean by "widespread use".

[ethergeek 0]

I'm very sure that the oil companies have a hand in this because they have already killed the electric car, which was spurring up in California before the oil companies forced GM to take them off the streets.

Well, that was part of it...the EV-1 failed primarily because it wasn't cost effective to maintain and produce parts for, and they had R&D costs to recoup, so the car was priced over the price point of the target demographic of consumers. The oil companies did indeed make it difficult however...since they partially fund R&D for vehicles that run on fossil fuels (which is part of why the zillions of ford locusts on the road are so cheap) and they would not fund research and development for the EV-1 (though government grants for renewable energy helped).
I'm eagerly anticipating availability of the Honda FCX outside of California. The FCX is a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle that apparently will ship with a hydrogen manufacture system that runs on natural gas (though I can't factually comment on the efficiency of this, I'd speculate it's fairly low, given how much energy is needed to break the hydrocarbon bonds in natural gas) that runs in your garage (so I've heard). It claims a top speed of 100mph, so I'll need to keep my gas car for freeway driving, but something that has a 400 mile range...the FCX is incredibly hard to beat. The most impressive aspect of the technology I think is the emissions: *pure* water.

[wutske 0]

Well, that was part of it...the EV-1 failed primarily because it wasn't cost effective to maintain and produce parts for, and they had R&D costs to recoup, so the car was priced over the price point of the target demographic of consumers. The oil companies did indeed make it difficult however...since they partially fund R&D for vehicles that run on fossil fuels (which is part of why the zillions of ford locusts on the road are so cheap) and they would not fund research and development for the EV-1 (though government grants for renewable energy helped).
I'm eagerly anticipating availability of the Honda FCX outside of California. The FCX is a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle that apparently will ship with a hydrogen manufacture system that runs on natural gas (though I can't factually comment on the efficiency of this, I'd speculate it's fairly low, given how much energy is needed to break the hydrocarbon bonds in natural gas) that runs in your garage (so I've heard). It claims a top speed of 100mph, so I'll need to keep my gas car for freeway driving, but something that has a 400 mile range...the FCX is incredibly hard to beat. The most impressive aspect of the technology I think is the emissions: *pure* water.

Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles won't become popular untill you can refill them everywhere you want. It's nice that the FCX comes with a hydrogen manufacture system ... but what use is it if you're 500miles away from your garage and the fueltank is empty ?
The electric car has the same problem, yes, you can recharge it everywhere you want it ... but who's willing to give their electricity away for free ? Another problem is that 'refilling' such car takes a lot of time, probably several hours.

Only a few people are willing to pay more money to get less in order to save the environment. I even doubt the idea that many people think about CO2 emission when they buy a new car (and if they do so, it's probably because they think more about taxes than about the nature ).

Back to the 'free electricity' debate . Cold fusion would be nice technology the way you represent it . If one cold fusion station can provide enough electricity to power the world then it's probaly efficient enough to create enough hydrogen to power cars. The only that's left is getting rid of all the oil-consuming engines that are now in use (and that would take a lot of time + it would create a lot of waste too)