/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14859190
fug, meant to post picrel in OP, but that's okay.

What do you guys think?
Do you think they might be lying to us about how it's impossible to harvest "Free" energy?

>>14859200
>Do you think they might be lying to us about how it's impossible to harvest "Free" energy?
Or do you think they genuinely believe it to be impossible?

Can somebody else debunk this for me? Thanks

>>14859632
>debunk this for me?
You can't debunk Free-Energy.
Because the real Frenergy was the frens we made along the way.

I know the /pol/ thread will probably die before anyone reads this thread, but in case you wanted to see any other discussion pertaining to this thread:
---> >>>/pol/395999024 <---

Nah, the only way for free energy is figuring out a way to interact with the fundamental frame of reference (if it exists)

You are the bees knees, frenanon. It’s a good thing you’re not my frenemy instead!

>>14860491
Or just tapping into cosmological electromagnetism or geoelectricity. It's not literally free energy (it runs out) but from the standpoint of a space-limited biological civilization it's about as unlimited as you could possibly need.

bump

>>14860586
Speaking of geo, what's stopping us from just digging deeper? The primordial heat beneath the ground is limitless

>>14862711
Literally nothing. There are some pilot projects trying it for municipal power in the US in non-volcanic regions.

>>14859190
I think on a different thread you asked me to format these with maids like I did with Mandlmaid's paper.

I am willing to do this, but I need you to format them into a paper instead of an image. It can be a fantastically shittily formatted paper, but it helps to see it rearranged the way you want it before I stick maids on it.

If you do that and put it on Research Gate I will reformat it into the SIFAE format.

>>14862711
>Speaking of geo, what's stopping us from just digging deeper?
From my knowledge of Minecraft, there is a layer of Bedrock that prevents you from digging any further.

>>14862747
>There are some pilot projects trying it for municipal power in the US in non-volcanic regions.
How far are hey digging?
Any success stories so far?

>>14862761
>I am willing to do this, but I need you to format them into a paper instead of an image
Alright, I'll try to retype a few papers later.
>If you do that and put it on Research Gate I will reformat it into the SIFAE format.
Thanks, I'm not an expert so I appreciate your professional help.

>>14862711
what's stopping us from doing this on the ocean bed?
The bedrock is MUCH thinner and you have a constant supply of cool water.

There is also the potential to combine this with natural carbon capture. How? Simply let the exhaust water (heated slightly) back into the ocean. The water originated at the seafloor, where nutrients are richest, after being heated, it'll rise in a column to the surface, where algae and micro flora will utilize the nutrient rich water, and bloom, thus removing carbon from the water. 90% of the carbon we pollute into the air ends up in the water, so this will have a positive effect on our atmosphere.

If you wanted to super heat the water into steam, you could even recondense it into desalinated drinking water.

I'm sure I could think of a few more good reasons for engineering a man made deep ocean geothermal vent ..... how about the fact that they can be used to mine minerals? Snails and shit have shells made of iron due to living in vicinity of these vents, so that means there's gotta be iron spewing out, right?

>>14862878
>how about the fact that they can be used to mine minerals?
That should probably be the highlight of your sale's pitch- picrel

But yeah, you could probably even devise a system of graduating pipes/valves that take the pressurized deep ocean water, and have it "travel" up where there's less pressure, and spin some turbines on the way.

I'm sure if you added some vortex mechanisms, and some properly shaped tubing, you could produce a self-propagating water cycle to harvest energy from.

>>14862868
>How far are hey digging?
>Any success stories so far?
The most success in the US has been in Utah which does have a thin crust and volcanism. But in Finland they dug down 15k feet for heat, which is pretty far and definitely constitutes the kind of depth you're imagining.
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/drilling-finlands-deepest-well-on-record-the-geothermal-well-at-otaniemi/

>>14863083
>Utah which does have a thin crust and volcanism.
What I mean rather is it has natural hot springs, so drilling can be done at nearer depths while hitting pockets of heat or natural hot water sources. As compared with most actively volcanic regions where it's used more often, like in Hawai'i.

I am bumping your thread fren because I think it is cute and I wanna see more of your inventions :D

>>14859190
OP, do you have discord? I'd like to be your fren on discord :)

>>14863176
>I am bumping your thread fren because I think it is cute and I wanna see more of your inventions :D
thx fren, appreciate it.
I don't remember my disc account info, but I'll make one and add you if you post yours.

Or you can reach me @ FlatishEarthSociety@protonmail.com

>>14863083
>But in Finland they dug down 15k feet for heat
Why did they want to dig there?
Isn't it harder to dig through the frozen ground?

>>14863176
>I wanna see more of your inventions :D
This thread from a couple weeks ago had some good discussions: >>14806713
>>14806713

bump

>>14863218
Because they wanted the power there.

>>14864776
>Because they wanted the power there.
That's such a Finnish thing to do.

>>14863223
>post not found

>>14865400
I think it must have 404'd today.

>>14859190
> I'm quite baffled
thread

>>14866073
You know...
One day, you're going to look back on times like these.
You're going to look back and think, huh, "I was completely wrong".

>>14862711
making deep holes is expensive

bump

>>14862711
>digging very deep is hard and expensive
>as you go deep enough to tend to pick up various corrosive shit or otherwise create fouling which isn't great for equipment
>area you're using for power generation tends to cool down because rock isn't a very conductor of heat

>>14867455
I can understand why it would be helpful to have access to endless supply of heat(especially in Snowland), but I was just under the impression that it's rather difficult to dig frozen rock.

>>14867455
>dig a single hole down to lava
>infinite steam
>heat every home and business with steam
Wow you just saved millions of dollars for your city every year.
Seriously why aren't more places doing this?

>>14867876
>Seriously why aren't more places doing this?
Because (((they))) literally do want people to be broke and destitute.
They want to be able to have the ability to scroll through endless catalogs of prebuscent ""escorts"" they can rent/buy for a loaf of bread.
They want you to be MANDATORY, human 'guinea pigs' for their Medical Experimentations.

The problem is, when you say stuff like this, it sounds so crazy and unsettling, that most people choose to ignore it and pretend like that's not happening.
So much evil exists in the world because people would rather just pretend like it's not true, than even acknowledging it happens, and they sure as hell wouldn't want to actually do anything to end the Evil.

It's because they are quite literally, just evil people.
Fortunately, they're also extremely dull and incompetent, so they can only do so much at a time.

bump for some reason

>>14867923
ok putler

thread, pls no kil

>>14867876
magma you mean? yeah well only some places like iceland can do that, elsewhere it's too deep. and you still have to deal with heavy fouling and corrosion.

There are a couple issues with various methods of collecting unlimited energy from the sun/the moon/the atmosphere/the earth.

First, how long it will take to pay for itself. Coal or oil power plants pay for themselves extremely quickly, but for some forms of energy it takes a long time to make the investment back so companies don't want to do it.
Next, is the cost per kW. Basically how much money it costs to make a unite of electricity. Here again, they need to compete with oil and gas which are pretty cheap. With something like offshore wave turbines you have to deal with salt water corroding everything, and plants growing on shit, and doing any maintenance work is harder if you need to go it underwater. Costs pile on. Geothermal is also costly per kW.
Another issue is how consistent it is. Solar and wind are really bad for this. If the sun just isn't out, there's no power. If the wind doesn't blow, no power. Storing power overnight is not a real solution, because you're going to have coincidence situations every year or so where it just happens to be cloudy for a whole week, especially in the winter it's an issue since the days are already shorter.

In conclusion, most "easy" ways of making power aren't used that much because they're less profitable than the alternative, and no company wants to take the less profitable choice unless they're literally force to do so by law.

>>14859191
You do know that your OP pic doesn't work because you've overlooked the energy used to load the balls into the chamber against the water pressure at that level?

>>14869695
>In conclusion, most "easy" ways of making power aren't used that much because they're less profitable than the alternative, and no company wants to take the less profitable choice unless they're literally force to do so by law.
Doesn't Petro get like $Trillions/year in subsidies?

>>14871598
>You do know that your OP pic doesn't work because you've overlooked the energy used to load the balls into the chamber against the water pressure at that level?
The point is to fill the balls with water while they AREN'T under any water pressure, because you load the balls in the chamber, seal the chamber, and then have some them roll along some railing where they some magnet "activates" the ball's lid- and then when the ball is sufficiently filled with water, some buoyant internal device is toggled to seal the ball's lid.
Then when "all" of the water from the chamber is placed inside the balls,
the balls are loaded into the "launch chamber"(depicted as the chamber with the balls filled with water),
and the launch chamber opens to let the water flood in, so the balls float up to the top;
where they are floated along a track which initiates their lid to dump the water back into the tank,
to then descend back to the ground level.

There are plenty of different systems and techniques that could be used to physically extract the "energy" produced by the balls, so there is a crazy amount of improvements that could be made, but in theory, I don't see why this couldn't be scaled up to massive powerplants.

Same with >>14859200
It could potentially be scaled up to have floating cities which can hover indefinitely without any fuel.

bomp

>>14872271
>Doesn't Petro get like $Trillions/year in subsidies?
No, but "green" energy does. The industry exists to scam the government.

>>14875339
>BigOil doesn't get Massive amounts of """investments""" from public/private sector
Did something change?

>>14875348
Your infographic shows that "green" scams are being funded by the elites to destroy White societies. You be the judge.

>>14875359
It just seems like a lot of ""Green"" groups actually have some interesting connections in regards to the Petro-Industry, primarily throughout SandLand.

Do you know what happened to the Western Oil Companies, and all kinds of infrastructure between ~1947-80ish, though technically has never stopped.
Like, for example, the Suez Canal has an interesting history just from the last ~1/2 century.

>>14875434
>It just seems like a lot of ""Green"" groups actually have some interesting connections in regards to the Petro-Industry
NTA but green shilling has always been a Big Oil side hobby starting all the way back with the WWF.

bump

>>14859190
hey op what makes you think the balls will empty of water?

>>14859191
>tidal energy converter
hey op this already exists lmao and yes it's free energy, problem is it's easier to burn coal

i invented a free infinite energy machine, basically you just enrich these cool rocks that gave me cancer a bit and then put them close together and they get all warm and you can use that for power!!!!!!!111eleven

>>14877199
>hey op what makes you think the balls will empty of water?
Good question, but we could create the balls to seal/unseal themselves with magnets and similar tricks.
At the very least, the amount of energy used to empty/fill the water will be less than the energy provided from the balls ascending/descending.

>>14877204
>hey op this already exists lmao and yes it's free energy, problem is it's easier to burn coal
I don't believe it's being properly utilized.
It would be like saying we don't need Swords because we have sharp sticks, or we don't need guns because we can just throw a rock.

>>14877211
>i invented a free infinite energy machine, basically you just enrich these cool rocks that gave me cancer a bit and then put them close together and they get all warm and you can use that for power!!!!!!!111eleven
Impressive. Why has energy been getting increasingly expensive then?

Kind of disappointing that there doesn't seem to be as much interest as I was wishing for, but hopefully by the end of the year these topics will have more engagement. Maybe I'll have to start making dedicated /generals/ for faster progress.
Anyway, thanks for the input and bumps frens.

>I'm also trying to put together teams for a rather large range of various Tech-Projects and Research&Development endeavors.
>I have notebooks full of projects for just about every field in existence, and possibly a couple new fields of study, so even though most of the projects are more geared for "Science/Tech", there's still plenty of 'art' projects such as helping to design VR/AR systems to help reimagine how we can create visual/audio artwork.

bump

>>14859190
Lol
>pumping water in and out of huge tower is free

I invented free energy. I made these black panels when hit by the sun generate power. Only work during the day though!!!!

>>14879591
>pumping water in and out of huge tower is free
Sorry, I think you must have prematurely replied, or perhaps misinterpreted your analysis, because that is not what is being proposed.

>>14879593
>I invented free energy. I made these black panels when hit by the sun generate power. Only work during the day though!!!!
That is impressive, but the proposals in this thread are actually not reliant on wind/temperature/sunlight.
But I do have some ideas that could utilize Solar, to possibly improve it's efficiency.

Anyway, thx for the bump though, do appreciate it.

Do you think it would be possible to build sophisticated whirpools near the north/south poles, which could function as energy generators as well as potentially provide the ability to act as massive fields of whirlpool vortexs-like a windfarm but for the ocean-, where if we set them up in key locations could form larger, mega whirlpools, which could then draw in substantial amounts of water from around the world, until the turbines are halted/reversed, and the water then floods back to the coastlines and bring about intercontinental flooding?

>>14859190
>What's the deal with hydroelectricity generators, specifically from "Wave/Tidal" type of power
"Electricity" is a "waveform", yes

>I'm quite baffled at how there haven't already been all sorts of "Free, Clean, Infinite Energy" devices set up, instead of trying to jump through Nuclear Hoops.
Because you need to create this "wave" in order for it to be "electricity" in the first place.

>>14879774
I think you're just misreading it because I didn't post the write image

>>14879816
I think you don't know how "electricity: The hertzian waveform" functions because if you did you would understand exactly why it cannot possibly be "free". For instance:

">So yeah, you can generate power from the balls floating up, as well as from them going back down.

Yeah, no shit. Instead of "balls" we use magnets instead. Still doesn't end up coming out for free.

>>14879848
>Still doesn't end up coming out for free
Why, because I don't have my energy loicense?

>>14879857
Mother nature doesn't dish a free lunch out. Winter comes to remind people like you who really runs things. Also:

>because I don't have my energy loicense?
If you don't have an energized busbar, no you are indeed not getting shit.

>>14879878
>Mother nature doesn't dish a free lunch out. Winter comes to remind people like you who really runs things.
Kek, that's like saying using boiled water or even just a dam hydroplant to spin a turbine is somehow cheating because its taking advantage of the fact that steam rises and water falls.

>If you don't have an energized busbar, no you are indeed not getting shit.
Is that before, or after I add the Uranium-XE?

>>14879918
>Kek, that's like saying using boiled water or even just a dam hydroplant to spin a turbine is somehow cheating because its taking advantage of the fact that steam rises and water falls.

>It's like saying any of that has to do with magnet wirelessly hovering over a dielectric.
Did you think it's the steam traveling through a solid copper line getting to you house to power your coffee maker?

>Is that before
Yes. How will your appliances work without the proper cycles per second? Do you think your coffee maker is somehow going to magically take the radiation emitted off your uranium and turn it into induction heat? It sure will! So long a you boil water with it and turn a wheel of magnets around a dielectric archform first.

>>14879963
>Did you think it's the steam traveling through a solid copper line getting to you house to power your coffee maker?
Do you think the balls in this system wouldn't be powering a turbine or something similar as they go up/down?

It's probably my fault for lack of communication, but these 'doodles' I've presented aren't final drafts of a completed design; they're more of a "theoretical premise" that I'm trying to establish that can then be created and further optimized.

>>14880151
Not the anon you're arguing with, but I'm struggling to get exactly how the rubber ball system proposed in the first post is supposed to work. From what I can understand, you have a large main tank, and a sealed unit at the bottom containing heavy objects that float. You open the sealed unit from the tank side, then generate energy from the objects floating up. The you take the objects out from the top of the tank and generate energy from them descending back down outside the tank to the level of the sealed unit. How do you then get them back into the sealed unit, and water out of it?

>>14880151
>Do you think the balls in this system wouldn't be powering a turbine or something similar as they go up/down?
Do you think "powering a turbine" has anything to do with a polarized copper wire or the manifestation of this phenomena you refer to as "electricty? Do you think burning,churning, and turning has anything to do with what's actually happening across hundreds of miles of copper, wireless breaks in between at multiple points in this system? Probably, which is why you believe the slow torpid rate of buoyancy can possibly manifest a current in this system.

You've more or less described a shake light, which the addition of water in the chamber which would make it even more of a pain in the ass to use, while also making it less efficient. Water doesn't just pump itself, it finds it's level. You need to introduce energy to make it not do that.

>It's probably my fault for lack of communication, but these 'doodles' I've presented aren't final drafts of a completed design; they're more of a "theoretical premise" that I'm trying to establish that can then be created and further optimized.
It's not so much that, you're just re-describing the way power is already generated. The "balls" are analogously the "electrons"

>>14880271
>but I'm struggling to get exactly how the rubber ball system proposed in the first post is supposed to work
The first mistake you made was trying to

>>14880271
>How do you then get them back into the sealed unit, and water out of it?
The sealed unit has 2 "chambers".
There's the "Launch Chamber", which is what opens to the water tank, and then there's the "Lobby Chamber", which is how the empty balls enter once they reach the bottom.
If anything, you could take the energy produced by the balls floating up to help pump the water out of the chamber and back into the water tank, and then just worry about harvesting energy from the balls descending.

I mean, imagine taking thousands of 100+pound, dense yet highly buoyant balls- or some kind of shape; and use them to provide an "endless" stream of "energy" that you can scale up and harness, and potentially even have exponentially favorable returns if the done properly.

>>14880381
>Do you think "powering a turbine" has anything to do with a polarized copper wire or the manifestation of this phenomena you refer to as "electricty?
What? I thought external "energy" was needed to 'spin/activate' the turbine fins, to rotate a rotor in the gearbox to then make AC/DC electrical currents? I'm obviously not an expert on the subject, but that's just my basic understanding of the mechanics of that.
>It's not so much that, you're just re-describing the way power is already generated. The "balls" are analogously the "electrons"
From my understanding of modern power generation; they require additional material to operate their generators, no?
I'm merely proposing a self-sustaining, clean, free, energy generator that could be scaled up to massive power plants with relatively little work.
Anyway, by having vortex/whirlpool types of generators, you could potentially use them as a type of battery similar to flywheels.
So between generating self-sustaining, harvestable energy, it could also be designed to store large quantities of energy as well.

>>14880698
>If anything, you could take the energy produced by the balls floating up to help pump the water out of the chamber and back into the water tank
No, you cannot, because pumping this water out takes more energy than you can gain from the balls floating up,

>>14880811
What, that sounds like nonsense; let's say you could attach 50lbs of weight to a ball, and it will still float.
Now let's suppose that the amount of water that fills the chamber to displace each ball is only like 5-10lbs of water per ball.

Surely 50lbs of buoyancy force would be more than enough to help move a few lbs of water, right?

>>14880811
>because pumping this water out takes more energy than you can gain from the balls floating up,
besides, you ""could"" technically create the balls so you can store water in them while maintaining buoyancy, if they were designed properly, the water filling/empty could even be an automated, passive/minimal-energy process to allow perpetual energy generation.

>>14880873
>What, that sounds like nonsense; let's say you could attach 50lbs of weight to a ball, and it will still float.
>Now let's suppose that the amount of water that fills the chamber to displace each ball is only like 5-10lbs of water per ball.
Those two assumptions are contradictory. If a 50lbs ball floats, then it displaces more than 50lbs of water. Otherwise it wouldn't float.

>>14880887
Certainly, but for each pound of water you store in them, you'll be displacing a pound of water. So you gain nothing.

>>14880904
>If a 50lbs ball floats, then it displaces more than 50lbs of water. Otherwise it wouldn't float.
Are you telling me a bucket of air(nothing), and a bucket of water weigh the same?

>>14880932
No.

>>14880939
>No.
That's not how water-displacement works, kek.
Density.
Buoyancy.
It's why things sink/float.

Which is larger (takes up more room spatially)?
>50lb Gold Bar
>25lb of Water
*the 25lb of Water will still displace "more space" than the 50lb gold bar*

>>14881024
>That's not how water-displacement works, kek.
>Density.
>Buoyancy.
>It's why things sink/float.
I don't think you understand how these things work.

>*the 25lb of Water will still displace "more space" than the 50lb gold bar*
Yes, it does, and that is why the gold bar sinks. An object floats if it displaces an amount of water that weighs more than the object itself. Thus, a 50 pound ball can only float if it is large enough to displace more than 50 pounds of water. Like the bucket of air, which weighs less than the water is displaces -- until you push it under, at which point it will start sinking.

>>14859190
Based energyman.

>>14881036
>Thus, a 50 pound ball can only float if it is large enough to displace more than 50 pounds of water
I think there's a lot of materials out there like rubbers that can weigh pretty hefty, but are also very buoyant in water.

I'm not saying the pic in OP is an exact schematic of the finished design, but besides relying on:
>muh 400 year old physics laws that have been proven wrong time and time again, but will continue to pretend like that never happened, and I will refuse to acknowledge the existence of anyone that doesn't believe Newton's Laws have remained intellectually undefeated throughout the centuries.
It seems like it could be set up with relatively little difficulties, right?

>>14881039
>Based energyman.
Thx fren, the jew shortciruits into a nuclear meltdown at the thought of the self-sufficient nrg-farmer.

>>14881036
I forgot to mention the most important part to the whole design!
The chamber needs to have specially designed doors- picrel.

>>14881087
>I think there's a lot of materials out there like rubbers that can weigh pretty hefty, but are also very buoyant in water.
There are no such materials. If a material is denser than water, it sinks. If it is less dense than water, it floats. An object that is a hollow container can float even if the walls are denser than water, because the average density between the dense walls and the contained air is lower than that of water; but a solid ball of rubber will only float if it is lighter than the water it displaces.

>>14880698
>What? I thought external "energy" was needed to 'spin/activate' the turbine fins,
Which has nothing do do with polarizing a copper line over and over
>to rotate a rotor in the gearbox to then make AC/DC electrical currents?
No magnets, you get nothing.

>I'm merely proposing a self-sustaining, clean, free, energy generator that could be scaled up to massive power plants with relatively little work.
Which is never going to happen, specifically because of how the archaic hertzian waveform you refer to as "electricity" is used and how you'll need to adapt your device to it.

>From my understanding of modern power generation; they require additional material to operate their generators, no?
Yes. To "operate": as in spin at a constant rate. Take the magnets away and...it still does this. Add the copper archform and magnets back in and voila! "Electricity", that is to anything that also has copper and magnets in it. What also happens is hysteresis because the magnets/copper resists this polarization, that is why you need pressure mediated torque to drive it. The set up you're suggesting doesn't have the torque and would have to be scaled up and utilize more material in step up transformers.

The reality is all "Green energy" faces the dilemma of "energy density" because of this reason. They do not have the torque/efficiency to ever be utilized to their full potential without wasting more money, material and ultimately CO2. But on paper, quantified in a controlled set up they "more efficient" because investors and normies only look at it the fossil fuel/CO2 perspective. What you don't look at it from is the very method you plan to deliver this "free energy" (though a waveform of loss and destruction).

>Anyway, by having vortex/whirlpool types of generators, you could potentially use them as a type of battery similar to flywheels.
We call them "hydroelectric plants"

>>14881135
Wouldn't it be easier to simply increase the power of the magnetic field until it magnetizes your body? Frogs survive such levitation. Can you?

>>14881120
>If a material is denser than water, it sinks.
Without being going into pedantics- yes, I agree.
>An object that is a hollow container can float even if the walls are denser than water, because the average density between the dense walls and the contained air is lower than that of water; but a solid ball of rubber will only float if it is lighter than the water it displaces.
Yeah, I'm thinking that the "ball" could have magnetic/pneumatic/hydrualic mechanisms to provide hinges/valves/beams/structure that can help provide the necessary shape/dimensions depending on what phase the "ball" is currently at in the system's process.

>>14881135
>No magnets, you get nothing.
As in, without magnets, you get no electricity right?
>Which is never going to happen, specifically because of how the archaic hertzian waveform you refer to as "electricity" is used and how you'll need to adapt your device to it.
Huh? What are you even talking about? I'm simply providing an alternative way to spin turbines, that can be set up anywhere, regardless of unpredictable, uncontrollable conditions like weather, and can even function without requiring fuel.
What you do with the "archaic hertzian waveform" seem kind of irrelevant.
>The reality is all "Green energy" faces the dilemma of "energy density" because of this reason. They do not have the torque/efficiency to ever be utilized to their full potential without wasting more money, material and ultimately CO2.
How do we know? The only people who say shit are the Oil companies and their puppet """Green Companies""", or Nuclear ""scientists"" who insist that just another $10Trillion over the next 10 years, and then we'll be 2 weeks away from clean, free, unlimited energy for everyone!
>What you don't look at it from is the very method you plan to deliver this "free energy"
Can we not just create a bunch of these power-plants? There's all kinds of infrastructure that could be created from the consumer to military/industrial scale.

>>14881181
>As in, without magnets, you get no electricity right?
Correct. Magnet, the object that is. Without "Magnetism" though you wouldn't get anything at all.

>Huh? What are you even talking about? I'm simply providing an alternative way to spin turbines
That's not free though.

>What you do with the "archaic hertzian waveform" seem kind of irrelevant.
You create "electricity" with it. In the case of "alternating current" 60hz("hertz" as in "Herztian" as in "named after Heinrich Hertz the discoverer of this specific waveform you refer to as "electricity). It's completely relevant, it's specifically what you're trying to achieve, nitwit. (Unless that is you can come up with a different waveform that's more effecient and won't fry your electronics that is)

>How do we know?
Why the fuck do you think we use gasoline in the first place? You think we didn't calculate batteries and windmills and whatnot? We had the entire US railway dependent on windmills at one point. Our telegraph lines were powered with earth batteries. The actual Nikola Tesla experimented with battery cars himself and called them a waste. You NEED the energy density in order to electrify hundreds of thousands of miles of various wires, windings of motors, etc.

The "Green way" is to do this process in reverse, take that amount of material, the space for it, the infrastructure to gather the energy dense enough to power...an insignificant amount compared to just burning a gallon of fuel in a combustion engine that can generate it in exponentially less space, for exponentially less waste, cost, everything!

You floating ball would produce power...under the prime conditions of the waste energy it would take to pump the water to fill the tank.
>no the water would just flow from a river
Again, why we use a hydroelectric dam. Only that's more efficient and can produce energy faster and more abundantly when it's needed.

>>14881298
>It's completely relevant, it's specifically what you're trying to achieve, nitwit.
I still don't understand why you seem to be insisting that the Electricity isn't "usable" for some seemingly random reason such as the turbines need to blessed with magic Holy Water or something.
As far as the actual turbine-generator goes, imagine it would function similar to a Hydro-Electric-Dam; the main difference being the ""Balls"" are used to help spin the turbines, as opposed to relying on a continuous stream of water from an advantaged height.

>You NEED the energy density in order to electrify hundreds of thousands of miles of various wires, windings of motors, etc.
>The "Green way" is to do this process in reverse, take that amount of material, the space for it, the infrastructure to gather the energy dense enough to power...
>an insignificant amount compared to just burning a gallon of fuel in a combustion engine that can generate it in exponentially less space, for exponentially less waste, cost, everything!

>under the prime conditions of the waste energy it would take to pump the water to fill the tank.
You just have to fill the main Water-Tank up once; and then you could design a system that bilges itself; which should provide an increased amount of passive, harvestable electricity compared to the energy actively required to continue operating.

>Again, why we use a hydroelectric dam. Only that's more efficient and can produce energy faster and more abundantly when it's needed.
Even so, doesn't this open up the possibility that you could actually transfer water from the bottom, back up to the top of the dam, by using a ""ball"" transport system?


Regardless of "Is it practical to completely shutdown the entire Petro Industry and replace it with 'Floating Balls' next week?", I think the fact that this design opens the possibility of rethinking our "Laws of Physics" should warrant further investigation.

>>14881341
>I still don't understand why you seem to be insisting that the Electricity isn't "usable" for some seemingly random reason such as the turbines need to blessed with magic Holy Water or something.
It's "blessed" in that the steam is what drives the pressures that necessitate turning a dynamo that's actually useful instead of pissing away most of it through the resistance of miles of wires connected to devices that only work some of the time.

>You just have to fill the main Water-Tank up once; and then you could design a system that bilges itself
There is no system that does this. Nature finds it's equilibrium. It's the same reason you can't just do what my troll physics pictures says or align magnets to always repel infinitely. It's pressure mediation, there's no infinite bottle exhaling the energy.
"Water finds its level" is a saying for a reason.

>Even so, doesn't this open up the possibility that you could actually transfer water from the bottom, back up to the top of the dam, by using a ""ball"" transport system?
Rain is free. Hydroelectric dams are put where there's typically always water flowing.

>Regardless of "Is it practical to completely shutdown the entire Petro Industry and replace it with 'Floating Balls' next week?", I think the fact that this design opens the possibility of rethinking our "Laws of Physics" should warrant further investigation.
The only thing with more energy density right now is nuclear. The "density" part is very important because that affects everything in regards to actual efficiency/Co2 production, what have you. Space isn't free either, having a smaller footprint and utilizing the most of the energy is always better than having a large foot print and wasting most of it.

>>14881388
>There is no system that does this.
Ok, let's play pretend.
Let's just pretend that it does become feasible to load the leftover water from the "Launching Chamber" into the empty "Balls" waiting to be filled with said leftover water.
Let's just say hypothetically, that we can do this using only 10% of the energy that is produced by the ball through it's cycle.

>Rain is free. Hydroelectric dams are put where there's typically always water flowing.
Rain/Hydroelectric-Dams are just Solar with extra steps.

>The only thing with more energy density right now is nuclear.
Anon, nuclear uses coal+steam technology for their power plants....

>>14862711
>>Speaking of geo, what's stopping us from just digging deeper? The primordial heat beneath the ground is limitless
Kek you dont need to dig
Just milk a volcano

>>14881662
>Just milk a volcano
Based and Volcunny Pilled
LLLAAAAAAA
PPPAAAAALLLLLLMMMMAAAA
CCCCCHHHHHAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNN

>>14881689
>fug, forgot pic

>>14881440
>Ok, let's play pretend.
This is the problem with reified pipedreams.

>Rain/Hydroelectric-Dams are just Solar with extra steps.
You don't just plug shit directly into a solar panel, that's not how it works.

>Anon, nuclear uses coal+steam technology for their power plants....
So does green energy. Also no a nuclear power plant does not burn coal lol, but it does make steam faster than it.

>>14881858
>This is the problem with reified pipedreams.
When I said "Let's play pretend",
I meant that more of a "Let's pretend our favorite color is blue",
not so much of a "Let's pretend unicorns and fairytales are coming to rescue us from the 7.256th-Dimension to help us go back in time and convince Hitler to ditch the 'stache".

>You don't just plug shit directly into a solar panel, that's not how it works.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Look, basically, I just don't trust a lot of the """experts""" regarding what is/isn't possible to make; especially if they have extreme financial incentives to make sure the answer always says "Impossible"....

I mean, if you want to keep giving $Trillions to the Green-Party and Big-Oil; so they can continue to raise energy prices, I can't force you to change your mind, especially if you're getting paid to have a pre-determined opinion on the matter.

But I believe in myself and others to create a self-sustaining NRG-enerator, more than I trust ""them"" to tell me record-high nrg-prices is how we know ""they're"" only 2-weeks away from finally creating perfectly controlled Nuclear Fusion Reactor after 1/2 Century of arguably negative-progress considering continually soaring prices.
>Dear Greta-Gang, please Bless us with the Physical Strength necessary to obliterate all the non-frens, and please grant us with adequate Mental Fortitude to properly cope with your toughest Clowns we encounter throughout our daily battles, and nightly struggle sessions.

>>14881936
>Look, basically, I just don't trust a lot of the """experts""" regarding what is/isn't possible to make; especially if they have extreme financial incentives to make sure the answer always says "Impossible"....
Define "energy". Define "electrification".

>I mean, if you want to keep giving $Trillions to the Green-Party and Big-Oil;
I want .50 cent/gal gasoline again, thanks.

So I'll probably have to make a new thread pretty soon before we hit the bump limit after I ask this question:
>
>
>
Is coffee good for you?

>Are you just going to scroll past without a frenly Bump?

I know no one actually cares, but I'm going to bump anyway...