Author Topic: Another Free Energy craft project  (Read 3804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ogden

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 727
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2018, 12:33:55 am »
People watching these videos earns money for their creators, which is almost certainly the purpose for which they were created.

Right. Seems like "free energy" (besides funny cats) is top selling topic on Youtube. Particular video got 5mil hits during 6months, another "CD-based free energy device" during slightly more than one month got 110k already. Most popular EEVblog video took 5 years to get 1.1mil :)

Maybe Dave shall think about "free energy" clickbait in debunking series?
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4503
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2018, 07:47:55 am »
If I had any business sense (and less of a conscience) I'd make free energy videos, or audiophool products, or something involving "AI" or "blockchain", there's a sucker born every minute...
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2690
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2018, 06:39:28 am »
If I had any business sense (and less of a conscience) I'd make free energy videos, or audiophool products, or something involving "AI" or "blockchain", there's a sucker born every minute...

C'mon. Go the whole hog. Cryptocurrency mining using free energy from cats chasing each other through treadmills with AI guided fricking lasers!

Editted to add: Oh, and get AvE to do the commentary - I'd watch.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 06:41:03 am by Cerebus »
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1686
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2018, 09:16:38 am »
Make sure and destress afterwards with homeopathic sedatives. 
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  3 Channel Audio mixer with DAC, BT, pre-amps and h/phone amp, WS281x LED controller Version 2 5V/5A w/Atmega328, FY6600 Power supply, 5A DC Load (Still!)
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 6801
  • Country: au
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2018, 01:36:14 pm »
Editted to add: Oh, and get AvE to do the commentary - I'd watch.

 :-+   :-+   :-+
 

Offline station240

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 662
  • Country: au
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2018, 11:06:28 pm »
People watching these videos earns money for their creators, which is almost certainly the purpose for which they were created.

So watch them with an Ad Blocker on, eg uBlock Origin. NO ads = no money for fake science.
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4251
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #31 on: February 14, 2018, 11:07:18 pm »
A click or view is enough to propel bollocks. Just walk away.
 

Online VEGETA

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 955
  • Country: jo
  • I am the cult of personality
    • Thundertronics
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2018, 12:33:20 am »
After all these scams, even from companies and so on.. I came to the same conclusion that I had before: The only free energy is solar energy.

Yes, it is literally "free" energy because you get it for absolutely free, it is just that you have to get some equipment to be able to get it which is understandable since we are in worldy life not in heaven yet.

I wonder why they don't call it free energy, if they do, then these scams will just disappear.

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1686
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2018, 12:42:19 am »
Yes, it is literally "free" energy because you get it for absolutely free, it is just that you have to get some equipment to be able to get it which is understandable since we are in worldy life not in heaven yet.

You can be guaranteed governments will soon find a way to tax it.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  3 Channel Audio mixer with DAC, BT, pre-amps and h/phone amp, WS281x LED controller Version 2 5V/5A w/Atmega328, FY6600 Power supply, 5A DC Load (Still!)
 

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 654
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2018, 07:44:35 am »
   
I wonder why they don't call [solar PV] free energy, if they do, then these scams will just disappear.

The capital cost of magnet motors would be far lower than solar arrays IF they worked. Plus, they would not be dependant on weather or time of day. Just a pity they don't.  :'(

The major cost of solar or wind is not so much that of the generating equipment but that of energy storage or backup capacity to cover outages. Any scheme which gave continuous power would be a better option. Which is why I think we should put money into thorium research.
 

Offline John Heath

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 437
  • Country: ca
  • 2B or not 2B
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2018, 06:28:31 am »
The really large scale use of fossil fuels only started around 1950. Remember that prior to WW2 only the 'first world' nations were industrialized. Now, heavy industry is just about everywhere. Yet, the recent warming trend began in 1910. An effect cannot begin before its cause. If that seems to be the case, then the theory is faulty.

The CO2 level has increased from 270ppm to 400ppm. The amount of warming that should cause, if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas, is easily calculated from Arrhenius' equation of infrared absorbtion. There is no mystery about that, it's a relatively simple equation. Yet, how often do you see a climate propagandist going through the calculation?  NEVER! Why not? Go figure.

The actual equation output is about 1.7C. Which is significantly more than the warming which has been observed.

However, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. There is more than ten times the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. As with resistors in parallel, you cannot just add the effects of greenhouse gases working in parallel. Consider a  10k and a 1k resistor in parallel. If the 10k resistor goes out of tolerance by, say, 10%, how much difference does that make to the overall value? 10%? Nope. More like 1%.

In the atmosphere, if an infrared photon leaving the surface has been deflected (absorbed then re-emitted in a different direction)  ten times by water vapour molecules, then it makes no real odds if the same happens once more with a CO2 molecule. Each time there is a 50/50 chance of it being re-emitted upwards or downwards. Increasing the number of molecules beyond a certain point where most photons are deflected a few times enroute through the atmosphere, has little effect on those odds. That point is reached with about 40ppm concentration, for CO2.

You can experiment with the variables here: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

Notice how tiny a change in the absorbtion band is caused by changing CO2 from 400 to 270ppm.  (There is another CO2 absorbtion band not shown here, but it is not relevant to outgoing radiation. Also we call it absorbtion but scattering would be a better term. Absorbtion, because a dark line in a spectrum results when one wavelength in a beam of light is scattered around while the rest travel in a straight line.)

Prof. Nahle of Monterey has calculated that the mean free path of an outbound photon, between encounters with a  CO2 molecule, is a few tens of metres at 400ppm. That is a surprisingly short distance for such a low concentration of gas molecules, but the proof is well documented. It is therefore unsurprising that further increases in CO2 concentration have only a small effect on the number of photons which escape the atmosphere to space.  Its consequences match the results of Arrhenius' equation and MODTRAN, so the evidence is overwhelming that it is correct.

The IPCC claim that this tiny effect of CO2 will be increased by 'feedbacks' in the climate system to several degrees Celsius. There are two problems with this hypothesis. Firstly, creating stable gain by positive feedback is extremely hard. Secondly, since there is no known way that the presence of CO2 could itself trigger a feedback,  the input to AND the output from any such feedbacks would have to be the air temperature.  Therefore, this is like having an opamp with the + input directly connected to the output, or a better illustration might be a guitar amo on which the guitar and speaker are connected by the same pair of wires. (Don't try it, you'll blow it.) Commonsense tells us that such an arrangement cannot work. As soon as you have slightly more than unity gain, the whole thing oscillates uncontrollably.

When I challenged a climate scientist over this, he replied that the feedbacks in climate science are not the same as those in electronics. To which I said that feedback is a concept in the broader sphere of physics, not specifically in electronics. Therefore if he means something other than  the physical concept of feedback, then he is simply repurposing the word to have an undefined meaning.  In which case he might as well call it whatever he likes, phlogiston, aether, or whatever, because it means nothing.

The alarmists claim that the science regarding greenhouse gas effect is settled, and that no debate is possible. Well, they are right. It was settled over 100 years ago and has not significantly changed since.

Thing they avoid mentioning is, the settled science doesn't support their claims.

Without going into too much detail, sea level rise claims are similarly based on a true principle, but the figures are out by factors of thousands.

Ocean acidification claims are worse. They typify propaganda. They are expressed that way to make them sound scary. If it were accurately stated that the alkali in the oceans was being neutralised, leaving something nearer to pure water, would that be scary?

That's even before you consider how small the change in alkalinity is.

Science is about measurements. If there are no measurements, or no proof of where those measurements came from, then it is not science.


Add on. We just finished a mini ice age only 10,000 year ago. Where I am sitting there was ice 1 mile thick only 10,000 years ago. Of course the climate is warming as we are on the tail end of the last ice age. Only 300 years ago you could walk across from Canada to the USA as lake
Ontario would freeze over in the winter. Not today as it does not freeze over. We were not burning fossil fuels 300 years ago but the planet was still warming to recover from our last mini ice age.

With CO2 at .3 percent plants are starving as they build themselves from CO2 not the dirt. If CO2 doubles plants will gobble it up fast just as they are doing now. The end result is more plants more life. We are not heading for worse times rather better times
as we continue to recover from the last mini ice age. Change is not always bad.
 

Online GerryBags

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 268
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2018, 07:09:49 am »
Talking of mini-ice ages, we are may well have one heading our way as we speak. We are entering the Eddy Minimum, which like the Dalton, Oort, Maunder minima is named for the guy who spotted it and will result in global cooling, with only a couple of places (like Alaska) which actually become slightly warmer during periods of glaciation.The data from the Greenland ice core project are fairly unequivocal; it is part of a natural climate cycle.

 Also affecting the likelihood of future cooling is the Earth's magnetic field reversal which is weakening our magnetosphere. When the sun's field also flips during the Earth's much slower process it can lead to vast incursions of galactic cosmic rays which cause the nucleation of persistent, highly reflective cloud layers. This increase in albedo cools the atmosphere and cause more precipitation. The GCRs also cause increases in vulcanism, and this can warm the oceans as well further raising the albedo, putting more moisture into the atmosphere to fall as precipitation.

This is how runaway glaciation can start.
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2018, 10:49:40 am »
Wow, the crazies are out in force!  Next time I need advice on electronics... I'll ask a climate scientist  :-DD

The thing I realized from the climate change "debate" is that climate change is not the biggest threat to the future of civilization, the biggest problem is that humans are just too damned stupid to survive.
Bob
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4251
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2018, 06:48:22 pm »
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4503
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2018, 08:45:55 am »
People watching these videos earns money for their creators, which is almost certainly the purpose for which they were created.

So watch them with an Ad Blocker on, eg uBlock Origin. NO ads = no money for fake science.

As far as I know, Adblock doesn't prevent being counted as a view. Besides, what is the benefit of watching them? Time has value, personally if I'm gonna watch a video I want it to be something educational or at least interesting.
 

Offline XYZVector

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 7
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2018, 01:56:53 pm »
Hey forget the CO2 what about all the waste heat these IC engines dump out there radiators? Nobody talks about this, or brakes turning kinetic motion into heat. That has to be good for a few hundredths of a degree. Co2 is a green house gas but what about methane? All those cows mcdonalds is rasing to slaughter they must fart a-lot of tons of methane into the air. No I think climate change is the sum of our entire footprint on the environment. To single out just one gas is ignorant and it is not very scientific. Yes it is getting warmer but it is also getting colder. The weather is getting more chaotic, and this is caused by greater temperature deltas.

Enjoy the Weather!!!

Oh 1 + for the free energy CD I have always been wondering what to do with my old CD collection

 :-DD :-DD
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4503
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2018, 04:41:11 pm »
I have wondered about the heat output from burning fuels although I've never seen any data. I suspect it's relatively small compared to the amount of energy from the sun so it may not have much effect. Burning a candle is not going to warm you up nearly as much as putting on a coat or getting under a blanket.

Methane does get brought up, it's a popular argument from the hard core vegan crowd. The thing that bothers me most about that is all that fuel (methane) just floating uselessly up into the air.
 

Offline riyadh144

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 48
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2018, 07:12:22 pm »
I have been wanting to read on climate change for a long time, and try to analyze the arguments for both sides from reputable scientists.

This thread will take me through the rabbit hole now and I will be putting a few weeks into readings, and then I will come to a conclusion.

But anyway for a sustainable future we need renewable energy, and for limiting the pollution so the whole world wouldn't have the Beijing quality of air we need renewable energy.
 

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1686
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2018, 03:32:09 am »
On the "Global Warming" 

Is the world getting warmer?  Yes.  100% The datasets have been peer reviewed extensively, including a large study by MIT into how different datasets where normalised etc.

Is it CO2 that is causing it?  Well, it fits, but the twist is when you warm water it releases CO2, when you cool it, it absorbs CO2, so is the earth warming due to CO2 rise, or is the CO2 rising because the earth is warming?  Then again I don't think it matters as the two effects for a positive feed loop.

Is it main made CO2?  This is where it gets a little more "bleeding edge".  They have analysed the isotopic ratios of CO2 and found that a percentage of it is likely to be man made.  They have given estimates as to what portion of warming may caused by that.

The issue with climate science is while there are hard facts such as CO2 traps heat, an awful lot of the sceince is written with words like, "Suggests", "Likely", "Indicates", "Could be", "might be", "may be".

The other issue when you get to the IPCC et al, is the horrid toxic mix of science and politics.  Two things that never go well together, one is the pursuit of truth through experiment, the other is the pursuit of power through bullshit.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  3 Channel Audio mixer with DAC, BT, pre-amps and h/phone amp, WS281x LED controller Version 2 5V/5A w/Atmega328, FY6600 Power supply, 5A DC Load (Still!)
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2690
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2018, 04:12:26 am »
The issue with climate science is while there are hard facts such as CO2 traps heat, an awful lot of the sceince is written with words like, "Suggests", "Likely", "Indicates", "Could be", "might be", "may be".

A problem is that with any sufficiently complex system is that scientists tend to, quite rightly, use cautious, qualified phrases when making pronouncements about them. To the politicians, to whom certitude about cause and effect comes too easily and often with little regard for complexities, the truth, and other confounding issues, this sounds like more than just residual uncertainty. If a scientist is 90% certain, they will use cautious words, if a politician is 55% certain and there are votes or donations in it, they will talk in "black and white" terms. It's a clash of cultures.

The politicians want a sure bet; the economic consequences of taking strong action on climate change if it's not necessary are very significant, the cost of failing to act if it is necessary is disastrous. Politicians can see the value of the "precautionary principle" if it's about something that they don't like or see political risks in doing, say legalising drugs, they fail to see the value of it when it's about something they are supportive of or see political risks in doing, say banning something that makes money.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline HalFET

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 325
  • Country: be
  • Warranty void at time of purchase
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #45 on: March 07, 2018, 06:39:42 pm »
Well, that video has a redeeming feature: it has given me fresh ideas about what to do with old CDs.

For instance, a few SMT LEDs and it would make a nice Christmas ornament.
I'm not sure how easy soldering would be. Perhaps conductive glue onto some tape...

Hmmmmm....you are right. I don't think polycarbonate would have the same heat resistance  capabilities of FR4!!  :-[

Use SnBi58 solder wire, I'll send you some if you want to give it a try. I soldered on polycarbonate with it all the time.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf