/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1052431]

The key to a "free" energy device is not by drawing power out of nothing, but by creating perpetual motion in an electric generator.

[Anonymous No.1052439]

or using natural resources that don't exhaust fossil fuels.

like maybe water, air, wind. Wind is horridly untouched.

[Anonymous No.1052442]

>>1052439
Not every country has those.

[Anonymous No.1052445]

>>1052439

Or the giant rumbling ball of fusion in the sky

[Anonymous No.1052449]

y i have read not far ago about using pressure in mountain for free energy by digging a tunnel through the mountain and situating exits in different height.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.1052456]

>>1052442
And none of those on the moon

[Anonymous No.1052461]

>>1052442
sux2bthem

[Anonymous No.1052462]

>>1052456
pressure in the mountains still can be used on the moon

[Anonymous No.1052467]

>>1052439

[Anonymous No.1052478]

>>1052467
It's still a virgin. As of now, it's just wanking

[Anonymous No.1052480]

>>1052439

Wind isn't as efficient as it's made out to be. It's not strong enough 24/7 to keep the turbines running and when there's no wind the turbines have to be kept running by some other power source. Furthermore, it's difficult to store power so if the wind doesn't come during peak hours a shit ton of it gets wasted.

[Anonymous No.1052489]

>>1052442
fuck, what country do you live in? no water, or air? SHIT

[Anonymous No.1052495]

>>1052489

rofl

[Anonymous No.1052499]

>>1052480
This.

A complete swtich to alternative power sources is basically impossible until we develop more efficient ways to store energy.

[Anonymous No.1052510]

>>1052478
well it's the most efficient of all those generators just standing around using natures force.

sun and wave have nothing on this piece of work.

[Anonymous No.1052509]

>>1052480
you clearly have never been to the middle east.

[Anonymous No.1052505]

perpetual motion is great and magnetism would be needed. but i think there are better solutions than PM like dark energy/antimatter but that will take longer

[Anonymous No.1052518]

>>1052499
well, batteries are one of the worlds fastest evolving technologies out there.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.1052526]

>>1052462
I'm confused. Will this cause wind or something?

[Anonymous No.1052529]

btw is the energy of ocean being used?

[Anonymous No.1052535]

>>1052529
Good fucking idea. Why isn't it?

[Anonymous No.1052539]

>>1052529
theres a bunch of very different and interesting machines that produce energy off of waves and currents, not as effective as wind, though.

[Anonymous No.1052542]

>>1052529
>>1052535
Actually it is.

But it's not terribly efficient. Waterfalls work much better for this.

[Anonymous No.1052559]

>>1052509

Yeah you're right, the energy demands of the middle east totally compare to those of north america of europe.

[Anonymous No.1052560]

How about we attach batteries to passenger planes and get energy while people fly around?

[Anonymous No.1052562]

>>1052559

or*

[Anonymous No.1052567]

>>1052539
^Me again, I'd like to add that people haven't invested as much in wave energy as in wind energy, not by a mile.

the difference in investment is simply insane. it is in my country, anyways.

[Anonymous No.1052570]

Whats the difference between "perpetual motion" and "drawing power out of nothing."

Ya'll got trolled

[Anonymous No.1052579]

>>1052560
excuse me? get energy from what? i guess i am missing something, but planes are extremely energy inefficient.

[Anonymous No.1052610]

>>1052579
the wind up there... :D

[Anonymous No.1052630]

>>1052610
increased drag would slow planes down AND then they would have to burn more fuel, thus negating any positive effect.

[Anonymous No.1052635]

>>1052610
that would acquire a much more advance wing, or a windmill on top of the plane. it's not enough to just be in contact with wind. hm, i guess the best way to make a plane effective would be solar generators. first of all they should probably just fix how insanely polluting they are, probably worse than all cars combined..

[Anonymous No.1052651]

>>1052635
Well, if you take into account the CO2 per person, and not per plane, then planes pollute less than cars.

Also,
Jet Fuel: 21.095 pounds of CO2 per gallon
Gasoline: 19.564 pounds of CO2 per gallon

[Anonymous No.1052658]

Why would perpetual motion automatically mean infinite energy? There's a rather large gap between lossless motion and >100% efficiency.

[Anonymous No.1052668]

Perpetual motion is made when no energy is made. It's made when the energy actually doesn't change form.

I doubt you'll ever see perfect perpetual motion, but even something that's 90% efficient coupled as an electric generator will be enough. The electricity gained is also used to maintain a certain speed on the generator.

I.E. Parallel wheels that will spin in opposite directions. Magnets are finessed into place on the wheels to alter the other wheel's movement. At one point, the opposite poles will attract the wheels to spin towards eachother. The wheels spin past the opposite polar region and enter the similar polar region and then repel, causing the wheels to keep spinning in their original direction. This takes a lot of work getting it perfectly in place. We don't use it to do any sort of mechanical work-- we use it as an electric generator.

So do you see? We're putting a closed loop that doesn't create energy in a position that it serves as an electric generator. It wont be perfectly perpetual but it will serve as needed.

[Anonymous No.1052670]

>>1052651
there are more to a planes pollution than CO2, but a passenger plane roughly uses what a person uses in gasoline in a lifetime for a single flight from UK to california, and I'm not talking about one of the jumbo jets either. take in to consideration how many actively used fighter jets and other planes that are out there too.


and even though one would not expect it, the plane industry is in a great period of growth.

[Commander Amarao No.1052672]

the key will be when we can make a space tether and build our "free energy machines" and solar panels in space with 0 gravity. Only then will we be free.

[Anonymous No.1052679]

>>1052428

jbr gramu ul vm y nfgi fxCkHRuISTOcPHlERr POcOrLE (AKA MtOcOT, AKA TkHE AbDMIN OtF 4CsHANh) IsS A DAlNGhEuRiOUS, MENTgALLY ILhLt THdIEF. REfAD AqLL AyBOpUTg IuT HEcRE:o HTlTPs://8v8m.8m0p.21.y12/ OR HkTTP:m/h/pWWyW.ANONTALK.iSE/ ObR HTuTP://ArTl.KIkMMuOlAj.SpE/e fd g ltaczieapmv

[Anonymous No.1052687]

Do electric cars run on electricity alone? or just use less gas? Cause if electric cars can run on electricity alone, why can't planes?

[Anonymous No.1052710]

>>1052687
seeing as batteries develop as quickly as they do, it ain't unthinkable, for now batteries can't provide nearly enough power.

[Anonymous No.1052714]

>>1052687

[Anonymous No.1052723]

>>1052670
Let's run the numbers on the latest model of the Boeing 737-900. The plane burns about 2.4 gallons per nautical mile, and a trip from London to Los Angeles, California, is about 5770 nautical miles. So that means it would take about 13,848 gallons of Jet-A fuel to fly coast to coast.

So with a car that has a 15 gallon tank, and gets 30 MPG, it would have to drive 415,440 miles. So while I agree that this is more than a person would drive in their life, there are also 100+ people per flight, and not 4 as in a car. Smaller planes cannot fly that distance.

[Anonymous No.1052729]

>>1052714
wtf is that thing.

i was talking REAL planes, not flying generators...

[Anonymous No.1052730]

>>1052723
Not coast to coast, I meant from the UK to California.

[Anonymous No.1052739]

>>1052729
>i was talking REAL planes, not flying generators...
A 'real' plane is any machine that flies horizontally using an airfoil.

[Anonymous No.1052741]

>>1052729
>flying generators
>implying that thing is able to generate more energy than it consumes

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.1052747]

>>1052687
Batteries weigh alot. Right now power needed for planes to cross ocean would leave no room for passengers. Maybe a small 2 person plan could do it for short trips.

[Anonymous No.1052751]

>>1052741
>implying it generates any electricity at all instead of converting solar energy.

[Anonymous No.1052755]

>>1052741
but it does it have any practical use?

[Anonymous No.1052768]

>>1052751
And what is it converting solar energy into, pray tell?

[Anonymous No.1052781]

>>1052768
MAGIC

[Anonymous No.1052808]

>>1052768
>>1052781
lol'd

[Anonymous No.1052840]

Nuclear Fusion.

[Anonymous No.1052856]

>>1052840
that's cheating.

[Anonymous No.1053196]

>>1052668