Infinite self-generating electricity

[Mire Mare]

I read the first post, scanned a few responses and, well, I can't be bothered reading any more.

There's a lot of polemical crap spouted by pseudoscientists and their kin. Their work never stands up to scrutiny or anyone with the merest hint of a sceptical approach. They all want the same thing, fame.

Simply, energy CANNOT be created so perpetual motion cannot exist. Forget it. These scientists have understood magnetism? Sure they have - perhaps they'd like to write that up and have it peer reviewed.

Oh, and ignore friction in a system, any system, at your peril!

[The Angry Jock]

Tidal power has interesting possibilities but is unlikely to provide the sort of output to make it worthwhile. Consider this, the population of the country is heading towards 70 million. We haven't built any new nuclear power stations for a few decades, and the fossil fuel ones we've built have been small. We're predicted to face an energy shortage in the next few years as demand is creeping above supply and instead of doing something significant about it, we're faffing around with overly expensive windmills and technology that is probably decades away from being commercially viable.

The real problem with renewables is that most of the population is at the other end of country from where the best sites are, i imagine they'll suffer from pretty hefty transmission losses over that distance. On it's own Scotland could cover it's own needs and then some but to power the whole of the UK...that's a mammoth issue.

Nuclear isn't an option I disagree with but I beleive there are better, cheaper and safer ways to harness it.

[Joey]

One of the professors also claimed that he was imprisoned for a short time and his inventions were taken away by the government.

He should have done this and escaped...

[ReplayRetro]

You give "people" far too much credit.

lol perhaps, although what i meant was that people would be less likely to "accidentally" go bankrupt, of course those idiots who never stop spending would still exist

the laws of physics dictate that energy cannot be created. You can change energy from one type to another (kinetic to heat, for example) but not create it.

in my hypothetical scenario what i was trying to say is that perhaps the aim could be to convert magnetic "energy" into electrical, again it's not perpetual but in terms of theoretical science it could be interesting at the very least

I read the first post, scanned a few responses and, well, I can't be bothered reading any more.

Perhaps responding without fully understanding the conversation is ill thought out?

ignore friction in a system, any system, at your peril!

totally agree with you, every time this is done it always leads to problems, although if this was aimed at me (think i'm the only one who has really mentioned friction so far) i never said ignoring it was possible, even magnetic friction does exist (although im not sure if it does when suspended in a vacuum?)

Absolute bullsh1t I'm afraid.

Case Closed

[che_don_john]

It's estimated that we have only 30-50 years worth of fossil fuels left to use. If there was no alternative waiting in the pipeline then there'd be a huge panic (look how desperate people are to act now in order to stop potential global-warming/environmental problems that have been forecast for 100 years' time). But, no-one is panicking about the fuels running out, which leads me to suspect two things: either we have discovered sufficiently more fossil fuels which we can use; or we have an alternative lined up already.

[Mire Mare]

I read the first post, scanned a few responses and, well, I can't be bothered reading any more.

Perhaps responding without fully understanding the conversation is ill thought out?

ignore friction in a system, any system, at your peril!

totally agree with you, every time this is done it always leads to problems, although if this was aimed at me (think i'm the only one who has really mentioned friction so far) i never said ignoring it was possible, even magnetic friction does exist (although im not sure if it does when suspended in a vacuum?)

No. No, it's not ill thought out. Science discussion and debate is good, but this stuff belongs in a publication like The Fortean Times. The publishers of conspiracies and bullsh!t for years. Oh, wait! Look >> http://www.forteantimes.com/features/co ... tuity.html

I'm reminded of people that say it's ok to believe whatever they like as long as it does no harm to anyone else. Well ok, sure it is, just don't go around telling everyone else it's based on fact. Facts they made up! Don't take that personally, it's obviously aimed at those involved in the hoax and passing this off as science. Does anyone remember Graham Hancock? Author of Sign and the Seal, Finger Prints of the Gods, he even had a TV programme for a while. He was one such person who managed to become quite mainstream. He seemed desperate to be accepted by mainstream science and archaeology but his outlandish statements of fact made him out to be more of a witch doctor than a scientist. Of course the 'establishment were always against him and wouldn't see things from his perspective. He seems to have made a career out of his beliefs and those that want to believe in the cr@p he publishes.

There's a very good reason why 'findings' like the one that started this thread, and Mr Hancock's ideas, aren't discussed by orthodoxy and taught in universities, or published in peer reviewed journals, or even published in Physics World, and Sscott sums it up perfectly. Actually Physics World have covered some pseudo-science and it was appropriately and suitably derided.

Yes, magnetic friction does exist. Even in a vacuum. This has a number of practical uses in engineering although, I'm a physicist, Jim, not an engineer.

[ReplayRetro]

Personally i've always thought that theoretical science is important both the standard side and the interesting but often misguided "what if" side.
The what if side is based on working out different possibilities based on simple changes to established knowledge, so for example they might look at something from the point of view of something basic in the principles of physics being wrong and how that might affect other things and allow possibilities that would otherwise not be feasible to known science. Occasionally these people stumble across something which can actually be applied to reality because their methods are so out of the box and sometimes its that fresh look that makes all the difference

[joefish]

Personally i've always thought that theoretical science is important both the standard side and the interesting but often misguided "what if" side.
The what if side is based on working out different possibilities based on simple changes to established knowledge, so for example they might look at something from the point of view of something basic in the principles of physics being wrong and how that might affect other things and allow possibilities that would otherwise not be feasible to known science. Occasionally these people stumble across something which can actually be applied to reality because their methods are so out of the box and sometimes its that fresh look that makes all the difference

Yes, but it doesn't mean every crackpot who's completely failed to understand the current state of the art has anything worth listening to. If they think they have, they can present their findings and see if someone else can reproduce them. If no-one else can, then they can p*ss off back down their hole. Internet popularity does not make someone 'right' about anything. There are theoretical sciences. But the only ones that come up with anything interesting are the ones worked on by people who have a hell of a lot of past experience in practical and research science; not some random pot-head with a webcam.

What you're really trying to justify is the behaviour of the people who remain massively ignorant about a body of work in physics or some other science, and just come up with what they think is a better explanation for the tiny and obscure peculiarity they themselves are interested in. They then think the other 99.999999999999% of scientific knowledge should be overturned in favour of their tiny pet theory; whilst they selectively ignore how rubbish it is when applied to that other 99.999999999999%. Or that at the very least, it should be taught to kids in Kansas...

[Megamixer]

-One of the biggest impacts on the economy at the moment is the soaring cost of energy/fuel as this limits what the public can spend on goods and services, so cheaper energy = more spending money to put into the economy = more jobs = more people with spending money = more VAT contributions = reduced goverment debt

Maybe but I have little faith that fuel costs will drop if a greener/cheaper alterative is found. Just look at when petrol sometimes climbs during a strike/shortage scare and inexplicably doesn't come back down again afterwards (or takes absolutely ages to do so). Energy is one of those things where the companies have got you by the balls and you either pay or do without which we can't.

no-one is panicking about the fuels running out, which leads me to suspect two things: either we have discovered sufficiently more fossil fuels which we can use; or we have an alternative lined up already.

Given how slow governments like our own are at doing things or completely failing to get things done, I'd have to question that. I'm not saying that there aren't back-up plans in place but for example, plans for nuclear power-stations are often strangled by political nonsense and people complaining that they're dangerous (which in fairness, they could be if something goes wrong). That's not taking into account how progression as a human race is currently bogged down by a sh1t economy and complicated banking problems (look at the cut-backs to NASA for example, surely one of the most important exploration institutions on the planet). Looking at the bigger picture (and the future), all of that stuff seems irrelevant. Obviously it's how our system works so we have to deal with it as it is or chaos will spread but it would be strange if fuel ran out with no alternative purely because we were all so focused on who owed what to who.

The more I re-read my first post, the more I see it was a load of rubbish but at least it gets everybody talking at a time when some users are saying it's too quiet . Either way (and slightly un-related to this crazy topic), it's still certain that there are many discoveries and inventions kept in absolute secrecy that we may never know about. I know that 99.9% of things on the internet are utter rubbish and I'm no conspiracy theory addict but it's fun to wonder what's out there that we aren't told about.

[ReplayRetro]

for the record i'm 100% Pro Nuclear because yes it has it's risks but it also produces the most energy per £ of any currently used source as far as i'm aware?
Of course the real answer is Fusion but i don't realistically see it happening any time soon

[joefish]

The biggest problems with 'alternative' fuels is they cost a massive amount to get going. It may seem obvious that wind and waves are free, but fan blades and turbines are anything but. The cost of constructing and maintaining them doesn't come anywhere near the costs that can be recouped from the energy they do generate. Which is partly why energy bills are rising; to cover the ludicrous costs involved in building these things that all the shouty pressure groups think we should have. As for biodiesel production, it either means taking farm production away from feeding people and livestock, or it means clearing yet more forests.

Nuclear power stations are expensive too, it's true, but they're a lot safer than they used to be and at least they put out a decent amount of power. But by censored-footing around the looniest of the greens our energy industry is stalling; we have to buy power from abroad (i.e. from French nuclear power plants) and there's no money for fusion research, which could really change things for the better.

As for thinking some pratt on Youtube has the answer? God help us...

[SJ_Sathanas]

The whole issue regarding fuel is the perfect example of where politicans would make a genuine improvement but they don't. They like to talk about "leadership" and making "tough decisions" well this is the perfect example where a decision needs to be made and leadership enacted but instead everyone dithers and pulls in different directions because no one is quite sure whether we'll do x, y or z.

[ReplayRetro]

The whole issue regarding fuel is the perfect example of where politicans would make a genuine improvement but they don't. They like to talk about "leadership" and making "tough decisions" well this is the perfect example where a decision needs to be made and leadership enacted but instead everyone dithers and pulls in different directions because no one is quite sure whether we'll do x, y or z.

Totally agree! What the government lose in fuel duty by cutting it down they'd make far more back from me in VAT on all the things i'd buy with my new found ability to buy things

The biggest problems with 'alternative' fuels is they cost a massive amount to get going. It may seem obvious that wind and waves are free, but fan blades and turbines are anything but. The cost of constructing and maintaining them doesn't come anywhere near the costs that can be recouped from the energy they do generate.

But the cost of getting everyone in prison to run on a giant wheel generating electricity? yeah now we're moving forward, who's with me??? no? nobody? ok then

[nokgod]

But the cost of getting everyone in prison to run on a giant wheel generating electricity? yeah now we're moving forward, who's with me??? no? nobody? ok then

I'm dead set against that. You'd end up with a load of superfit prisoners. Who'd be able to catch 'em if they escaped? (this reminds me of the start of Conan as he goes from a skinny kid to a ripped Arnie, pushing that wheel around )

[Ferret Oxide]

Another problem is that the UK is the only country which has written into law a requirement to cut CO2 emissions by a certain deadline. Worse still, the target is 80%. It think the deadline is 2030, but I might be wrong about that.

Unfortunately the politicians have no concept of how we're going to do this. When quizzed, they just blather on about green technology creating new jobs and decreasing in cost. Oh, and say we'll be able to store CO2 underground (which we don;t have the technology for or understand the implications of).

So yeah, we're pretty stuffed when it comes to energy. Another area where we're going to encounter severe difficulties within our lifetimes. The list is growing quite nicely. Maybe we can burn it for fuel...