I have had an idea for decades to create free energy. Never said much about it. The idea is simple.

you have a pipe and with it create a suction of water. The water spills out of the top of the pipe into the pool of water in which it started. Unless I am mistaken assuming the water in the pool remains constain this suction will go on for ever.

As the water spills back into the pool we have created a waterfall. As the water falls, you have it splash over and turn a generator.

This should create free energy. However, for any decent amounts I imagine the device would need to be quite large.

[quote]it will say free and seem free but it will still cost to produce and maintain[/quote]

*** That's why I said it was "virtually" free but for all practical purposes it is free: if you had to pay only 1% of the present cost for fuel for your car will that not be cheap enough to be considered "free"?

The problem is not with the actual cost but with the 'opportunity cost' of this type of fuel as outlined later on.

Roger

[quote]I'm all for the type of Free Energy you don't have to pay someone else to get.[/quote]


*** That's exactly what this type of energy provides in that every country will be able to produce its own energy without depending on other countries.

There will of course be the need for appropriate safety regulations since the high voltages being used in devices powered by this type of technology can be very dangerous.

On the downside, it is not that this type of energy is not of the High Quality you seem to believe hydrocarbon fuels to be since it will in fact be of superior quality, but the opportunity cost of it will invariably be high since it will be a threat to the oil and gas industry.

This is so because of the downstream industries that depend on crude oil and gas: asphalt for the construction of flexible pavements for roads,tyres for cars etc, plastic products and fertilizers etc.

These products will NOT be produced with the new energy ONLY technology and so if we take away the gains from the sale of energy from the hydrocarbon industry those Companies will have to jack up their prices on their other products to maintain profitability.

Therefore what we save on energy by using infinite energy technology we will pay for in tyres, roads etc.

These matters are of such great concern to me seeing also I belong to an oil and gas rich/ dependant Nation.


[quote] Perhaps even Profroger, once he wins his Nobel Prize for Bovine Scatology.[/quote]

*** If that's your opinion of what the recipients of this award have all been awarded for...


Roger

[quote]you have a pipe and with it create a suction of water. The water spills out of the top of the pipe into the pool of water in which it started. Unless I am mistaken...[/quote]


*** Well you surely are mistaken because the water will NOT spill out at the top of the pipe.

I am sure many will not even bother to comment on your post for its obvious flaw however I tend to try to make sense even out of what might openly seem as BS. If you use liquefied helium I see the prospect of your technology working seeing it has been proven by a recent Nobel Prize winner that this substance can climb out of a jar even without suction pressure.

Roger

[quote]If you use liquefied helium I see the prospect of your technology working[/quote]
I don't, and for oh-so-many reasons.

If I remember correctly water is able to be both a gas and a liquid at the same tempereatures under certain circumstances. If you could figure out a way to use this to your benefit just maybe you could use it to produce usable energy. Other than that I don't see any other way using just water.

[quote]If you could figure out a way to use this to your benefit[/quote]
Certainly you can use the energy in hot water, or steam, to your benefit. But you have to heat it first, so that energy has a cost.

"But you have to heat it first, so that energy has a cost."

That would be the hard part. It takes a jump in energy levels to transform water to it's different states. The best bet would be to use solar or geothermal power to heat the water to the temperature you need. And maybe create a vacuum around it so it could change forms easier.

It IS possible to get a small amount of energy from evaporation without having to add energy into the system, but if you can get solar power it will work much better. Water removes 580 calories of heat energy for each gram that evaporates. This can be used as the cool side of a temperature differential engine such as a Stirling engine. You machine would have to be quite large to get even a tiny amount of power. That is the drawback of using a small temperature gradient to produce power. The smaller the difference, the larger your machine has to be to produce the same amount of power.

[quote]I don't, and for oh-so-many reasons.[/quote]

*** Care to state some of them?

I myself have not given it too much thought but except for being impractical [ie unable to be a useful energy source due to scarcity etc] liquefied helium seems capable of continuously climbing up the walls of a container and falling back to a pool thereby producing infinite work.

Roger

Thevictim, if you were able to use the excess energy that is not needed to keep the water at the specific temperature that could help get more energy out of the system. I was thinking of using the kinetic properties of the water expanding and contracting though. Otherwise you are just adding an unneeded complication to a stirling engine.

I take it that the deviation from the form of infinite energy that I proposed above and the shifting of the discussion to this other proposal means that some are taking time out to try it out and to try to bust it as a myth.

I hope they will report their findings back to the group.

Roger

profroger,
Could you please sum up your ideas on how exactly to get the energy? I have read back through this thread acouple times and I don't believe I am understanding your ideas very well.

no.

[quote]I don't believe I am understanding your ideas very well.[/quote]

No Nobel Prize money for you, either.

"No Nobel Prize money for you, either."

Who me? I have already won it, the world just doesn't realize it yet.

[quote]profroger,
Could you please sum up your ideas on how exactly to get the energy? I have read back through this thread acouple times and I don't believe I am understanding your ideas very well.[/quote]

*** Obviously it requires someone qualified to try the experiment so I don't recommend that you do if you are not.

Simplified Steps:

(i) Charge an fixed object with high voltage: the sphere of a Van Der Graff generator charged to say 100,000 Volts should be appropriate.

(ii) make a small wheel [100 mm diameter 25 mm wide say] of paddles made from conducting material. The design of the wheel will be similar to the big wooden propellers shown on antique ships in movies.

** How to prevent arcing and sparking I leave up to the experimenter.

(iii) Mount the wheel on an insulating axis and bring into the electrostatic field of the charged sphere.

(iv) Insert an electrostatic shield (nearer to the sphere than to the wheel) so that it blocks off the field from half of the wheel.

All safety precautions taken, when the sphere is charged the wheel will spin "forever" and no flow of current or consumption of electrostatic or other energy will be required.

Roger

[quote]Who me? I have already won it, the world just doesn't realize it yet.[/quote]


*** Hahahah!!!
A jest sounds so much better when it bears elements of truth and yet sounds absurd.

Roger

That device will work until one of the paddles that has already been charged comes back around. The polarity will be the same and it will act against it. You will also lose charge from corona leakage, so it won't even be a 100% efficient use of the charge either.

Has the Finsrud moving sculpture ever been debunked?