FREE ENERGY

Because there's no such thing as free energy.

You don't need to come up with a political/economic conspiracy theory.

You can just study physics. It's literally impossible.

>>19094456
>You can just study physics
You mean we can study the fake gimped version of physics they've custom tailored to fit the worldview they want us to have which contains none of the mechanisms required to piece together any of the principles/technologies that would allow humans to not be slaves?

Stop saying everything is a goddamn meme. It's not a meme. "Is a meme" is a meme.

>>19094456

CIA poster shitting up threads as pre usual

>>19094383
Because some jackoff would get the bright idea to put zero point energy* into a recursive loop, and turn the planet into molten slush.

For every creative engineer that thinks about ways to sustain the population, there's half a dozen WITHIN that population who just want to see the world burn. So neither of them get to handle ZPE.

>>19094383
Cause people wont get paid if there is a limit to ANYTHING. So....yeah humans really need to die off.

>>19094678
For example,

>>19094700
>So....yeah humans really need to die off.

Please note that my two posts in this thread are only how I saw the people of my world in the moment they were posted; the truth of my statements are subjected to change as the frequency of people who get satisfaction from ruining other people's world for them diminishes.

study the goldenmean.there is no free energy as we know it..... tengri shit belongs to the anonymous5 faggots from the chat.aliens get their energy from us

>>19094383
>you could sit cracking fertilizer out of atmo nitrogen and feed everyone forever
not entirely sure what you mean there.
but i assume you mean take nitrogen out of the atmosphere through high potential high frequency discharges. which Tesla holds a patient for, also a similar one for the production of ozone or O3.

>Please explain why free energy hasn't been used to reshape our entire civilization, /x/
well lets just say, it costs a lot to pay people to pull liquid exploding dinosaurs and other fossil fuels out of the ground, this means that it can be sold at an inflated price at each step of its journey to compensate for the labor use to get it. then there is the fact 80-90% of the world is powered by fossil fuels. if someone had that much of a grip on the market, why would they let it go.

most effective means of "free/green energy"is that of a generator. knowing that the internal combustion engine is designed to run off hydrogen, fossil fuels are just hydrogen bonded to carbon, this if nothing else leads to contamination and build up of carbon in your motor and its oil.
using a sufficiently sized fuel cell and the right electrolyte, one can run a generator off water, producing in excess of what it consumes

>>19094818
You're claiming Tesla has a patent for taking nitrogen out of the atmosphere and turning it into ammonia, using electrical discharges.

Where does he get the hydrogen?

>>19094456
>You can just study physics. It's literally impossible.
say i have a 5KVA generator, and i get sick of buying fuel for it, so i make a 12 volt 10amp hydrogen cell, that easily produces enough hydrogen to power the generator. now i hook this sell up to an inverter powered from my generator, using only a fraction of the power produced, i am able to power my fuel cell and there for the generator.
at the cost of merely keeping water and electrolyte topped up, as you would a battery.

>>19094643
ah, another enlightened one. i too, am an enlightened one. may i propose an exchange of knowledge? i've devised a formula that makes energy transfer 500% more efficient, but i'll only tell you if you got something worth in return...

>>19094838
>nitrogen out of the atmosphere and turning it into ammonia
no, just for taking nitrogen out of the atmosphere, not sure if he had a way to actually make it anything useful at that point, but, its seriously not that hard to get hydrogen, i sure witch his nitrogen collection apparatus, and a few things of my own, i could produce ammonia

>>19094383
>There'd literally be no reason not to

Greed is good, goy.

>>19094880
>If I had hydrogen, and I had nitrogen, I would make ammonia

And how would you go about doing that?

>>19094865
OK, now if you study physics, and do the math, you'll understand why you can't do that.

>>19094892
fucks me. It's not something i've looked into. but when there's a will, there's a way

>>19094900
>OK, now if you study physics, and do the math, you'll understand why you can't do that.
why not?
>because you can't produce more energy than your using? thermodynamics right
well though you are correct, im not actually creating energy, or transferring it, i am destroying bonds between hydrogen and oxygen, to bring out the volatile nature of hydrogen. which can be done with less energy than the hydrogen releases when combusted.

>>19094930
No, anon.

It takes the same amount of energy to break a bond as is released when you make that bond.

When you take hydrogen, and you burn it with oxygen, you produce a large amount of energy and you produce water. In order to take that water and turn it back into hydrogen and oxygen, the, hypothetically, it would take the exact same amount of energy.

If it helps, you can think of a spring. It takes energy to compress a spring, and then the same amount of energy is released when the spring relaxes. Again with a hypothetical perfect spring.

But no machine is perfect. So every time you go through this cycle, you lose a little bit of energy. So you burn that hydrogen and oxygen and it releases energy, but you can only collect some of that energy. Some energy gets lost. This means you have less energy to make the hydrogen and oxygen out of the water. Which means you'll have less hydrogen to burn, which means less energy to make more hydrogen, etc.

This is why you can never have free energy. This is why you can't have a perpetual motion machine. This is why you know everybody claiming a free energy machine is a fraud.

>>19094959
>It takes the same amount of energy to break a bond as is released when you make that bond.

If that were true, then H2 couldn't exist, because it's upstream from H20. But it turns out the universe is more compelx than a 1-dimensional river of energy, that only flows downhill. (The hill is a metapor for entropy.)

The physics you're using is from the 17th fucking century. What does that tell you?

So let's start from the beginning. If enery can't be generated from nothing, then the universe never came into existence, and reality isn't real. (And neither is the H2 that couldn't have come into existence, because 'muh entropy')

Good luck with that kind of "physics."

>>19094959
>When you take hydrogen, and you burn it with oxygen, you produce a large amount of energy and you produce water. In order to take that water and turn it back into hydrogen and oxygen, the, hypothetically, it would take the exact same amount of energy.
>thats why you use an electrolyte, it acts as a catalyst, which intern reduces the energy required..
regardless, generators use the energy exerted to drive a shaft, and harness the charged produced from oscillating magnetic fields through a coil. Which, although is co dependent on the amount of energy produced by the motor, is more dependent on the windings and magnets used in said generator. which works at great efficiency, even at low RPM, meaning they can be run off relatively small, fuel efficient single cylinder engines. powered through a hydrogen cell with the correct electrolyte, powered by a power supply powered by the generator, which by no means would puts the generator under any real load. Off my previous estimate, the cell would be about 120 watts, your kettle draws more power. producing enough hydrogen to power the small motor to spin the shaft.
i don't quite understand how people have so much problem with it. you not actually taking the energy from hydrogen, but instead using it to create motion, to harness energy from your AC motor.

>>19094977
It's nice to see the are some intelligent people out there still

>>19094977
>then H2 couldn't exist

Sure it could. You take the energy from some other system and you use it to make H2.

Sure, you've just robbed that energy from some other place. And it wasn't 100% efficient.

And eventually, over time, quintillions of years, you'll run out of energy from everywhere. And THEN H2 won't exist. Which is what physicists talk about when they bring up the heat death of the universe.

This isn't 17th century physics. It's just physics.

>>19095080
Okay. You did it. You solved free energy. How does it work?

>You take the energy from some other system and you use it to make H2.

Now do a quick tally on how much total energy exists every where--not just in the known universe, but also beyond that, including potential systems with light that hasn't even reached our coordinated yet. That's how much total energy have available.

>And eventually, over time, quintillions of years, you'll run out of energy from everywhere. And THEN H2 won't exist. Which is what physicists talk about when they bring up the heat death of the universe.

Nope. That only accounts for energy within a quintillion lightyears from here and now. That doesn't account for the energy that's a quntillion and ONE lightyears away, unless you think energy can travel faster than the speed of light.

If you want to bring FTL into this, I'm ready to go when you are. Just say the word.

>>19094865
If you don't understand the concept of efficiency, then rig this all up and observe for yourself.

>>19095080
>You take the energy from some other system
>And eventually, over time, quintillions of years, you'll run out of energy from everywhere.

there is no energy present in any system, body or mass other than that received from its environment, this is inclusive of the fabric of space itself. which implies a source of all energy in the universe, which means in some way it is possible to draw from the same source as the birth of the universe.
energy is but a potential, until it encounters forces and mass, then it must take form.

>>19095147
i've already done a small scale trial with salt water, an insulated bold and some gig washers, and could get a line trimmer to run using an old car battery that barely stores a charge. i know it could run a generator using at most 120 watts. i could do some fuel air ratio numbers up for you, then figure out how much hydrogen per second i will need, then we can figure out what the average output of the generator will be under these operating conditions(which should be no different than running it on unleaded, maybe slightly more power). then you will see, just how simple it really is. well i best get started

>>19095196
>then you will see, just how simple it really is.
Sure. So go ahead and get that 100% efficient engine designed and then become the single wealthiest and most powerful person on the planet.

>>19095157
This is correct.

Every action only occurs when there is exactly zero energy potential between moments. The method of using energy to enhance the probability of a specific action occurring (such as spinning a wheel in this example) is nothing more and nothing less than rotating the environment and brute force checking possible energy modes until the potential energy between the unmoved wheel and the moved wheel is exactly zero.

Tesla demonstrated this when he used synchronized vibrations to split objects in half. He simply located the energy mode whereby the solid object and the split object had the same potential energy relative to its environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yW5cyXXRc

>>19095218
You buyin'?

>>19094383
Give it 100-300 years and everyone will be genetically enhanced and we can't even imagine how wild shits gonna be; give it time.

>>19095196
>fuel air ratio
right so i don't have a motor here to get specifics off, so I'll just go with what wiki says is the highest output for unleaded which is 12:1 this is in terms of weight and is air:fuel and also takes into account for the non-combustible parts. using hydrogen would yield a much higher ration meaning less fuel to more air, but lets stick with this, since it is so grossly over estimating so for 12 parts of atmosphere we need one part hydrogen. I'm not going to go by weight, because that is just a little too complicated, just for the purpose of getting a point across, instead by volume lets assume a motor of lets say 163cc so to fit your thirteen parts in, each part is 12.53846153846154 cc to that's 150.4615384615385:12.53846153846154 its a 4 stroke and lets say it runs at 2500 RPM so to every 4 strokes there is 1 compression stoke, which means only 1 in 4 of these 2500 revolutions require fuel and oxygen which is 625 compression cycles per minute. so that means it will need 7836.538461538463 cc of fuel a minute. again gross over estimation of the amount of fuel since i switched from weight to volume, no motor could run with that much fuel in the chamber. with a well designed dry-cell, plates arranged similar to a battery, to achieve maximum efficiency through certain voltage ranges. specifically 12 v, now obviously the more surface area, the more current you are going to need and the more fuel you will produce. so lets just say we need a maximum of 10 liters per minute im not going to go into details here, but a cell to produce that volume would probably require somewhere between 3-400 watts lets just throw a wild figure in there say 1000 watts. which i know it doesn't, well maybe my insulated bold design might draw that much power to make that much haha. anyway now lets pick a generator with a motor similar to the one i am going off

>>19095400
. 2500W 5.5hp Honda GX160 Gasoline Portable Generator same size motor, and uses like a 7th of the fuel i calculated.(as i said gross over estimations). now at operating speed, still assuming my fuel air mix, and maximum power consumption of the fuel cell, we are still left with over half the generators capacity to produce current, while sacrificing no power

>>19095218
its not 100% efficient, you still consuming water and electrolyte, and eventually the plates will corrode. but it is not pollutant, and next to free financially to run. i don't like the term free energy, should be called green energy. it still consumes

>>19095481
>you still consume water and electrolytes

How? By turning them into what?

>>19095400
>3-400 watts lets just throw a wild figure in there say 1000 watts.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HHO-Dry-Cell-Big-62-Plate-8-10-LPM-Massive-Hydrogen-Generator-/292130946422
so okay i was a little wrong, but its still less than 2000watts. I we established that it does not need anywhere 10 liters per minute anyway but regardless, the generator could still supply the power needed and a little extra

>>19095533
2H2 O and O2 and the back into combinations of H2O and O2 plus whatever you use as your electrolyte. you just have to learn to balance chemical equations if you want to figure out what you will produce by using different electrolytes

>>19094456
>literally impossible.

Which of those two words don't you understand?