I came across a documentary that says a lot of technologies that could replace fossil fuels are being supressed. I've seen a lot of YouTube videos on this subject but this documentary is especially good. In this link... https://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=Nikola_Tesla/Videos ...you'll find this documentary. TESLA - Free Energy, The Race to Zero Point.m4v
If you are going to create a thread that involves downloading a 109 minute file to the computer and watching a documentary, it is customary to offer some sort of significant analysis as to why it is "especially good". Where is your analysis of this documentary, in scientific detail? A remarkably short piece of research finds the video on youtube anyway! TESLA Free Energy, the Race to Zero Point Physics, Suppressed Technology - YouTube Tesla's devices have never claimed to produce free energy, because that is impossible. Tesla the man has been built up by the "alternate" history population as the "god of science and invention", but his skill was in ideas, not implementing them, or their ongoing design. Tesla Debunked (edisontechcenter.org)
Tesla's work is only a small part of this video everybody. It covers the work of a few others. Watch it before you judge.
News alert: Nobody is going to judge it, because only a fool sits through 109 minutes of stupid batshit documentary. You were asked to add analysis to your OP because you claimed it was "especially good". The "eager audience" awaits your scientific insight to explain this assessment. Once again, why is it "especially good"? What little I watched was just a whole lot of nothing.
Possible sources of 'Free Energy': Harnassing it from gravity. We do this with tidal energy and geothermic energy, but its only 'free' insofar as what it costs to build and maintain the machinery that get energy from the tides and the geothermic temperature differentials, and thus far isn't very efficient large scale. Harnassing it from the Earth's magnetic field. This is what Tesla supposedly did, and I gotta wonder if doing this on a large scale would damage or reduce the earth's magnetic field, which is what makes life possible on earth, so we probably don't want to do that. I would imagine any energy we pull from earths magnetic field to power machines will be energy that isn't redirecting the more harmful patterns of solar energy away from us. Harnassing it from the sun. Solar power is already common. Like tidal, you have to invest in and maintain infrastructure to get the energy. This investment is not meaningfully different from fuel IMO. And technically, burning oil and coal is just the oldest form of solar power- we're burning energy that plants collected from the sun and animals collected from plants millions and billions of years ago that then died and stored that energy in chemical form underground. Its still solar energy. Harnassing it from other dimensions. This is one of the claims of the folks that say you can get more energy from burning H+O than it takes to split H from O- the reaction claimedly pulls interdimentional energy (on one side or the other) at the subatomic level. The H/O 'theory' (there isn't really much 'evidence' beyond suspect youtube videos and blogs by questionable garage DIYers) notwithstanding, I personally think harnassing energy from other dimensions is the most promising source of 'free energy' at some point in the distant future. All the other methods are just harnassing energy that we already use in some other form. Solar energy grows plants and keeps the planet from freezing- if we collect it all, we freeze and starve. The earths magnetic field sheilds us from solar radiation- weakening it could kill us all. Harnassing gravity on a large scale could result in the tides stagnating, the moon getting farther away or the earth spinning more slowly or who tf knows. But Free Energy in any form is a 'destabilizing technology'. Should a method that actually could make many/all individuals energy independent ever be discovered (or ever have been discovered), those that are wealthy and powerful selling (and controlling) energy have a lot of incentive to suppress it, by means of which may include buying off the discoverer to keep quiet, discrediting the discoverer so no one ever listens to or invests in them, or just making the discoverer disappear.
There ain't nothing free about having 2 cats Anyway, there are theoretical things we could do better like passive solar or even making solar heaters by painting crap black and hanging it out the sunny windows, but I don't think zoning and code enforcement people would approve.
I have watched a lot of the video so far, and the alternate energies of the 1980s and 1990s sure sounded far-fetched at the time, but we now have electric cars, and even hydrogen fuel cells are being played with. So it wasn't all bunk. We thought that we were so advanced back then! But that was so long ago now. And we are still zeroing in on the quantum technology that we need to understand before we can test this stuff and get a definitive answer to the reality behind many of these ideas. I think discovering whether the old ideas are real or not might take several more decades, but we are getting there. It's only a matter of time.
I really like your point that some ideas may look reasonably free (if you discount the technology required to gather it) but even then there can be longer term consequences. Energy is not free in physics.
That is a giant reservoir, to be sure. Plus, today's solar collectors aren't affecting the sun, obviously. So, even to TRY to affect the sun would take some sort of megastructure in the realm of sci fi.
We're not decreasing the energy of the sun by using what makes it to earth, the sun puts that off regardless of whether we use it or not. However, every photon we gather on earth to turn into voltage is a photon that doesn't help grow an apple or thaw some water. Granted, there's photons to spare, we could probably run society today off solar without noticeably cooling the planet or running out of food. But it would be a problem eventually. Or, by then, we'll have industry in orbit where we can capture photons that are currently being shot uselessly into space.
Earth's power needs are about what could be supplied by covering 1.2% of the Sahara with solar panels. https://www.borntoengineer.com/can-the-world-be-powered-by-solar-alone My guess is, that's not a practical solution. For example, that would leave huge transport issues and would require change toward using electricity. Too costly?? Just an idea of cost - not a suggestion on funding!!
Well, ya, I mean that's what we'd have to spend every 20-30 years (the lifespan of a solar panel), or after every sandstorm... Though maybe if we turn all that heat into energy the Sahara becomes less of a desert. Who knows.
I agree that this is NOT what a a real system would look like. I think the point is that the example gives some scale to what would be required - not guidance in how to build it. Musk is another who has come up with estimates of area needed to support American energy requirements, with solar along with the battery capacity necessary. I don't believe we'll ever limit to one source of power, but it's interesting to know the dimensions of the issue. At one time, people thought that solar is a joke. Hopefully, we are learning about what is possible, what has been working, how the technology is improving, etc.
Quantum energy is a strange one. Theoretically it is possible to "borrow" energy - particles coming into existence out of nothing. From another dimension, I'm sceptical on that. We then also have antimatter. We will ever be able to control any of this, who knows.
There was a plan a few years ago to create a solar farm in the Sahara and transport electricity under the Mediterranean to Europe. Little doubt if Gadiffi was still alive this plan would have happened Edit: just seen that this plan is being considered again
Any plan to put all generation in one place is more about control. Solar is best harnessed near it's point of use. DC doesn't move well across a grid. Our roofs would be the most convenient and efficient place to put solar panels for most. There is a better argument for wind farms, but no RE is always readily available.
Morocco's Ouarzazate Solar Power Station ships solar power over the Atlas mountains from southcentral Morocco to Europe. That facility uses at least three different solar energy designs. Two power links with Spain are being used.
I came across this video about cold fusion. Decentralize.TV - Episode 7 - July 27, 2023 - LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) can decentralize power production and provide abundant energy for all https://www.brighteon.com/8f7e11f5-7a3b-41c7-9d35-7e54ad9ef27c It looked like it was worth posting. Everybody knows the classic story: If there's something that's going to put the fossil fuel industry out of business, it's going to get suppressed. That might turn out to be what's happening here. My position is "I don't know". Here's some more stuff. Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...F8718D2D6ED30D41D60FF8718D2D6ED30D&ajaxhist=0 60 Minutes - Cold Fusion is Hot Again https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...30D41D60FF8718D2D6ED30D&view=detail&FORM=VIRE https://lenr-canr.org/
I think your position of "I don't know" is absolutely the right idea here. It's important that our methods of funding scientific exploration includes what would seem to be preposterous.
Time for a lesson in closed systems vs open systems. If we're talking about "cooling the Earth" then we are defining the Earth as a closed system that we need to radiate energy from. The energy produced by the sun is outside this closed system. It is part of the open system. The system we define as "the Earth" has mechanisms to radiate energy that enters from the open system (the sun). One of them is the Earth's albedo. This is the ability of the Earth to reflect energy from the sun back out into space. The primary concern of greenhouse gasses is that they lower the Earth's albedo, conserving to the Earth energy that could have escaped the closed system of the Earth. In point of fact, if we want the Earth to cool we want photons to be shot uselessly into space. Any time you conserve energy to the Earth that came from outside the closed system of the Earth, you are heating the Earth.
There's two very basic problems with this system. 1. Electrical devices are powered by a combination of electrical pressure (voltage) and the movement of charge (current). Voltage is the force that moves the current. Resistance is the force that voltage must work against in order to move current. Your goal in creating a system is for the majority of the resistance to exist within your load, (the work you actually want to accomplish). Resistance in the transmission of current from one location to another reduces the voltage at the load, which reduces the power available at the load. Since all transmission infrastructure has resistance that is directly proportional to length, having your voltage supply very far away from your load is a very bad idea because you waste more energy just getting energy to your load. To explain this problem I need to explain Ohm's law. and Kirchoff's law. Ohm's law tells us the relationship between voltage current and resistance. V=IR. Voltage (V) equals current (I) times resistance (R). Now let's imagine the entire energy grid is a single resistor in series with your load (a 100w light bulb). Cold, this 100w lightbulb has a resistance of 9.5 ohms. If we apply 120v to 9.5 ohms, ohm's law tells us that we should expect to measure 12.6A of current. As I said before power is voltage times current. We measure this in Watts. But there's a problem here. 120 x 12.6 is more than 1500W of power. Something's wrong. The bulb only uses 100W of power. The problem is that heat changes resistance. So we can calculate the hot resistance of the bulb if we calculate what the current should be at 100W. 100W / 120 V = .83A. And then we can find the actual resistance of the bulb from ohm's law 120V / .83A = approx. 145 Ohms. So the heat produced by the power used by the bulb caused the bulb's resistance to increase 15 times higher than when cold. A light bulb is not the only place this happens. Now, let's add another bulb in series with the first bulb. Voltage is used in producing power. Kirchoff's law tells us that the sum of the voltage differences around any closed loop in a circuit must be zero. What this means is that the entire amount of voltage of your supply must be used up in the loop of your circuit. What Ohm's law tells us then is that this voltage must be used in proportion to the resistance at each node that you measure. So if you apply 120 volts to 2 100w bulbs in series what we would expect is that each bulb would drop 60V. They have to share the voltage. Their resistance in series is cumulative. Meaning that when cold, the supply would experience 19 ohms of resistance. In an ideal world, together when hot the two bulbs would have 290 ohms of resistance, draw .41A, and use 50W of power each. This isn't the case in the real world. They will heat up, of course, but not to 145 ohms each because they don't get as hot as a single bulb. The key in this little lesson is that resistance causes a voltage drop. Loads in series with a resistance have to share the total voltage with that resistance. And lastly resistance changes as dissipated power produces heat. What do you think happens to the transmission lines as power moves through them? They heat. The heat produces more resistance. More resistance causes a greater voltage drop. A greater voltage drop reduces the power available at the end of transmission line. So in reality, those two bulbs have to share voltage with each other and the wires that supply them with current. When you actually measure the voltage across a bulb with an accurate meter you will always see less voltage than when you plug that same meter directly into the outlet. This is because some amount of voltage must drop in the wire. No problem though right? Just produce a higher voltage at the source to compensate for the voltage lost in transmission. 2. This is the second problem. The resistance felt by the supply is constantly changing as people turn on and off devices. In order to keep the voltage constant, the power company has to regulate the voltage of their supply in response to analog changes in the resistance of the load. This is called ramping. As the load increases they have to increase voltage to compensate. As load decreases they have to decrease voltage to compensate. If they don't do this, too much current will be supplied, or too little current will be supplied. Both are big problems for the health of the loads attached to the grid, and the grid itself. Why is this a problem for a solar farm? Because a solar farm produces most of its energy when people don't need it, can't produce energy when they do need it, and is incredibly difficult to predict production amounts from moment to moment. The energy it produces cannot be efficiently set aside for later, and it's incredibly hard to react to demand changes that take place thousands of miles away. These solar farms in the desert don't exist because they are good practical ideas. They exist because people are willing to spend money on magic beans and people are willing to sell magic beans.
Good point. But then the question is: is it possible to increase productivity without warming the earth? Given that productivity requires capturing energy that (ultimately) comes from the sun, whether its with solar panels or photosynthesis or just as heat, in order to use it we have to capture it, which warms the planet. At least until substantial production can be focussed off-world. FTR I'm all for global warming. We have a lot more land that we cant use because its too cold than too hot. The ideal temperature to maximize production efficiency is warmer.
It's not easy to calculate because calculations assume ideal discrete conditions but the world is analog. The only way to produce more work from the energy we have is to increase efficiency. If we collect more energy from outside the system entropy dictates that it will spread out within our closed system. Anytime you gather energy you must lose some. Anytime you move that energy to the place you want to do work you lose some. When you convert that energy to the type you need to do the work you lose some. When you control that energy to the amount you need and the direction you need it to flow you lose some. All of that energy you lose ends up back in the environment, the closed system of the Earth. The only way to reduce the heat of the Earth is to beam energy back out into space, or lock it into a chemical bond. The latter will cause people to eventually want to break those bonds to produce the energy they require...
