How do I escape the assassins from the oil companies?

>>9117684
wear a helium mask. It will obscure both your face and voice, they'll never find you.

>>9117684
new question. I know all these perpetual motion machines are bs, but - could designing a machine like this while still using coal or oil or whatever be more efficent than a standard engine.

Like, i guess my question is, can modern machines that produce electricity be improved on by designing them in such a way that they use stupid shit like buoyancy to increase efficiency or whatever?

Or is it just a wast of time, since better ways of producing electricity by skipping the middle man (transforming energy from force, to rotational, to eletrical), such as using solar panals or electrostatic generators are just a better choice.

sorry for sounding like a doofus and not proof readying.

>>9117694
If you want random strangers to give good answers proof reading wouldn't be a bad idea.

The current fossil fuel plants are ~40% efficiency. While there are ways to increase that percentage (superconductors and whatnot) but the current system is probably just the best bang for the buck atm

>>9117694
>>9117708
As for the concept in the OP, a quick search tells me [math][spoiler]%The conversion efficiency of a hydroelectric power plant depends mainly on the type of water turbine employed and can be as high as 95% for large installations.[/math].
So it would probably not improve anything.

>>9117708
so basically, too expensive to be worth the upgrade? Kinda like, our current infrastructure determines what would be the best course of action vs what would be most effective or something like that?

So, new question. Is there ever going to be a better method for storing and transporting energy than using electricity and chemical batteries?

>>9117734
Better in what way? Batteries aren't anywhere near as good as gasoline in terms of energy density, for example.

>>9117751
like. Right now we transport energy through power lines in the form of electricity. Will we find some other way to transport energy that would be better from a "physics" standpoint?

And for storing energy, i imagine that would be shaped by what method we use.

For example, if we found out how to transport energy cheaper and faster with some other subatomic particle or something like that. Sorry for my scientific illiteracy/stupidity.

>>9117757
Using some other subatomic particle isn't very likely. The ones we're made of are the ones that don't decay quickly.

>>9117694
Hybrid cars literally recycle and store energy from braking. Also flywheels give spinning things more inertia. Hydroelectric dams will pump water uphill to for use later.

>>9117984
Any car restores energy from braking

>>9117757
>transport energy

chemical fuels. if you have power generation at a power plant of sufficient quantities, you could just make your own chemical fuels, then burn them efficiently in an engine. This concept often uses hydrogen fuel, but there would be a mathematical point where even making your own hydrocarbon chains would work.

It would be great if we had the energy production to do that, and if hydrogen played nice better.

>>9117751
We might get lucky with a new battery technology someday that has crazy awesome energy/kg ratio. Or maybe we will learn how to shoot harmless high energy microwaves long distances to far off receivers for cheap energy transmission. Who really knows.

Obviously the total winner would aneutronic microfusion, but that's just a sci-fi dream like aliums and time travel.