unlimited free energy (Page 5) Corwin: Ummm.... "Food ate for powering bicycle is food one must eat to live. Cost is not substantually more..." Seriously?? Tell that to a competitive cyclist. Those guys carb up like you wouldn't believe before a race. When you sit around and do nothing, you're not burning many calories... riding a bicycle for any distance burns a LOT of calories. Compare the price of a couple of cheeseburgers and a box of Mac & Cheese to a cup-full of gasoline... that half-liter of gas would take you the same distance as that competitive cyclist traveled during his race. Another example - if you took $4 worth of gasoline, vaporized and oxygenated, and contained in a vessel (say, a steel drum), then ignited it, say, in your kitchen... you would reduce your home to a crater full of splinters and boards, in a split second. Give a handful of strong men some crowbars and sledgehammers and have them produce the same results by hand... those guys would burn one heck of a lot more than $4 worth of cheeseburgers. Another example - let's say you were powering your home with a small gasoline generator - let's say about 5 horsepower. And let's say you decided to replace that generator with human slaves that some Egyptian Pharaoh was selling cheap on Amazon, and you made your slaves run on treadmills to power your home. We'll even level the playing field here, and say that these slaves require no sleep and can run on the treadmill 24/7, just like your gas generator. It would take at least a dozen men to produce 5 horsepower, and with the carbs they would burn, you would spend 10 times more on cheeseburgers than it would cost to top up your little gas generator every day. And if you think that they would be burning the same calories on their day off, while they sat on lawnchairs and sipped margaritas, you would be sadly mistaken. -------------- Wind and solar? Let's not mistake "free" energy with "renewable" energy. It costs money to generate wind and solar energy. We could possibly power our individual homes that way and take them off of the grid... which would be far from "free". The problem is not our homes, but industry, which requires far more energy than we could ever produce that way... cover every square foot of available space on Earth with wind-turbines and solar-panels, and you would still fall far short of demand. (I didn't come up with these numbers, the Department of Energy did). -------------- Why is nuclear power more damaging to the environment than pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? Do you have some stats on this? The problem with nuclear waste isn't about how damaging it is to the environment, but rather how dangerous the waste can be when it falls into the wrong hands and is used to make weaponry. Nuclear power is a political issue, not an environmental one. The nuclear disasters that have happened over the last century were a result of poor design, not a danger that is necessarily inherent to generating nuclear power. And if we can master Fusion nuclear power, there won't even be any nuclear waste to worry about... they will be powered with Deuterium from seawater, and the by-product will be Helium. Still not free though. --------------- Oh, and regarding perpetual motion, you stated "The models that even come close offer very small amounts of usable energy." There ARE NO MODELS that come close... not even "very small" amounts of usable energy. The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot be broken, not even by a "very small" amount. (Edited by Corwin)  quarks: Commuting 20 km Auto commute 20 km Petrol: €1.48 per litre Distance: 20 km Fuel Efficiency: 5 litres per 100 km (47 mpg US) Fuel Consumed: 1 litres Fuel COST: € 1.48 Cycle commute 20 km Cycling 20 km takes me 1 hour roughly Rate: 20 kph Calories burned cycling 20 kph for 60 minutes is 326 Bread is 66 calories per slice Slices of bread consumed: 4.939 slices rounded to 5 Loaf of bread cost: €2.04 Loaf of bread has 42 slices Cost of bread per slice €0 .04857 rounded to .05 5 slices of bread cost €.25 Fuel COST: €.25 Cost of auto commute is €1.23 more than cycling. Cycling leaves money for peanut butter. his has much calories for more cycling. ( : Many foods cost more than bread. Many have more calories. Most eat same amount cycling or not. Mostly cycling would keep people slimmer. Fuel per km driving is in general more than food per km cycling. Competitive cyclist spends much on food. Competitive auto racer spends much on fuel. Them athletes and spend much on food also. Driving auto this way burns calories. Compare competitive to competitive. Commuter to commuter. quarks: More expensive food could flip results. Driving does not cost 0 calories of food though. Also most eat more calories than them burn. If one eats 2000 calories them have enough fuel to cycle 20km and do other daily activities. I commute everywhere by bicycle. Saying it would be cheaper for me to buy fuel for auto is what I challenged. How much more does average commuting cyclist spend on food verse auto commuter? Bicycle commuter buys €0 in fuel. I do not think bicycle commuter would eat enough less to make up for cost of fuel if them quit riding bicycle and drove auto. Not mean create energy from bicycle. Only was thinking of average commuter. This being on seperate subject is my fault. Was not clear. Also did not know you meant competitive cyclist or for energy to power home. Take myself for example. Usually ride bicycle 120 km per week. I eat same regardless. Last week when on holiday my food intake was not less. Did not ride bicyle once. Did not spend less euros than week prior when commuted to school and work. Also spent zero on petro both weeks. If had driven some euros would be spent on fuel. Of course tour cyclist riding 120 km in one day eats very much more than me. Agreed that human energy is very expensive. Labour force is proof of this. On individual level it is less an expense to ride bicycle than drive car. Excluding if commute is very much far. Then time is greater issue than fuel cost. Thinking if commute is 20 km a day that driving would save enough in food cost to pay for fuel does not seem logical. No way would I eat enough less to compensate fuel cost if drove to work and school. Maybe would be less thin if drove. -------------- Missunderstanding about perpetual motion. My English is much poor. We agree it is not possible have this. Mean like small model that can run off own energy for months. This eventually needs energy loss replenished or stops running. There is tiny one in science class. Them tell me it is closest thing to perpetual motion but is not perpetual. It uses counter weight and other principles. Heavy side is always downward motion side. This sustains enough energy to not show observable to human eye energy loss. In one sitting can not watch this slow down. In time this stops as energy is transfered in minor friction. Also force of gravity costs some energy. It is not harvestable energy. It requires initial energy to begin it moving. There is not energy gain just much slow energy loss. --------------- Was not aware of nuclear power without waste. In long run it was my thought eventually waste would be in excess. If there is too much nuclear waste this will destroy Earth. You have more confidence then me that people will not continue make mistake. More meltdowns is likely. Or as one in Japan from Earth quake. Possibly CO2 would destroy Earth faster. I must be wrong then. Here we have hydropower which does not emit CO2 or have nuclear waste. This of course is not free to produce. ---------------- Never did I state wind and solar was free. Stated both has setup cost. Also stated harvesting enough solar power and power from windmill to run home seems unlikely to have only setup cost. Neither is free. No energy is free besides on small level solar. One can make oven for cooking that uses solar and is free. This is not convenient or practical. Initial cost of material to build is not free. Not sure if one can use solar and wind for just their home and not have costs after setup cost and maintnance cost. Seems one would need live primitive for this. ---------------- Clarification: I do not believe in free energy or energy from nothing. Do think for normal use bicycle is cheaper to ride than auto even if only cost is petrol. Even for competitive. Take cost of fuel for motocross race (not that them have no food cost) compare to cost of food above normal consumption for mountain bike race. Millions of youth with no funds ride bicycle each day and eat same regardless. This is skinny kid verse fat kid. Not expensive kid to raise verse cheap kid. My calorie intake is 2100 per day as state recomends regardless if I ride bike or take bus. Burning 326 of it on bicycle keeps me fit not cost more. Bus is free in my country but cost someone taxes for fuel. Not against driving just personally do not have funds to do this. On holiday is cost getting there or cost of food most funds spent? Corwin: Well, where I live, gasoline is around 90 cents a liter... and when I do the math, I would require around 700 extra calories to cycle for 20 km. Three slices of bread just ain't gonna cut it... I'd need at least 2 cheeseburgers - that's about $7 at McD if I want the equivalent convenience of buying a liter of gas.  There are people out here who roof their homes with solar panels, and they actually generate surplus that is metered and purchased from the power company. The set-up cost is eventually offset by the money saved in electric bills and the surplus energy sold... not free, but the important point is that a home like that is one more home that is off the grid. As far as nuclear meltdowns are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, the meltdowns that have occurred in the past century were a result of poor design, and many hard lessons were learned. We have several newer designs of fission reactor that are meltdown-proof. Nuclear waste is only dangerous if it gets into the wrong hands. And once we develop fusion reactors, there will be no waste at all... in fact, the helium by-product is a much needed and dwindling resource. Fusion power (which we have yet to master) is mankind's only real hope for future large-scale energy production, and it's not because our CO2 emissions will destroy the planet - they won't - CO2 will only alter the climate (that CO2 came from and existed in the atmosphere millions of years ago, and the Earth was doing just fine back then). The problem is that fossil fuels are a limited resource that will run dry. quarks: Corvin but some cheeseburger must be eaten anyways yes? What confuses me is it as if person driving car to work not eat or only eat calories needed to sit in auto and at desk. Good point that fuel is very expensive where I live. You must weigh much more than me (error by me that being much small means cycling burns few calories) or maybe cycle much faster the 20 kph to burn so much calories. This brings up valid point all bodies are not equally efficiant on bicycle. Also all autos do not get excellent fuel mileage as the one I used in illustration. Sorry if it seems arguing. Still not sure how fueling car to drive to work is cheaper than cycling there. If going four blocks many will not eat more to cycle there. But auto will burn some fuel. Guess most eat more if cycling. My diet stays same just am much fitter when cycling. Also very valid point that eating something as fastfood is much more cost than eating sandwich at home. I do know that my food intake stays same but if had auto could not afford fuel for it. True cost of driving auto should also include insurance and auto itself. Though I could not even afford fuel if auto was free. That is not energy issue. Maybe low funds. Nuclear power sounds better than was thinking. Maybe this is great answer. Possibly something else is even better that will be discovered. My only fear is mistake and accidents happen. Many countries responsible and will have policy to prevent accidents. Others will cut cost and be reckless. Maybe not though. I trust your information on this. As my previous view was based on no facts. Corwin: Well... you are an interesting student... you must decide at some point who your teachers will be.   chronology: 'Hydrogen Powered Trucks'. At the moment only operating in California, and not likely to be national any time soon. With lower fuel costs and lower maintenance costs there is not much not to like about Hydrogen class 8 rigs. The real advantage of Hydrogen Trucks in California is their power. While diesel engine Trucks struggle and wheeze to climb hills, Hydrogen Rigs just glide up inclines with no effort at all even with full loads. They produce no emissions apart from drops of water from their exhaust and are virtually silent.  alpossmar82: Some renewable forms of generating electricity are known to only cut even like wind turbines high maintenance costs forcing pharmaceutical associated like health care, buildings and some out patients high risk to sign up to compensate costs, dependent of proximity to turbine system. European groups are protesting wind turbine tech for contributing high cost DC line infrastructure development, (Edited by alpossmar82) alpossmar82: Defining free energy could be power and energy , nuclear free could mean nuclear power, (Edited by alpossmar82) Corwin: @chronology -- The problem with hydrogen powered vehicles is that the hydrogen is merely a form of battery, NOT an energy source we can harvest. Splitting water into hydrogen requires energy... producing enough hydrogen to power all of our vehicles would take a tremendous amount of energy... so where is this energy supposed to come from? Which leaves us back at square-one. Corwin: Drinkable water isn't a problem if we have a source of energy to desalinate sea water or purify tainted water. Which brings us back to square-one again. (Post deleted by quarks ) quarks: deleted my last post as it was much rudeness. I am young and make many emotional mistakes. Hope all who seen it can forgive. I have much love for all and wish see all views and ideas.  airdrie50: ye we can reuse our energy if we make a effort this needs political and personal use .the same as we can reuse metal . in the last hundred years we have raped the planet. and done untold damage. You may feel powerless but you are not.  LiptonCambell: Lol conservation isn't going to stop the rape buddy....only lower populations will do that.... Corwin: I'm not a very conservative person by nature... but I have been keeping my raping to a minimum.  | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
