Why 'Free Energy' Will Never Work

[German_EE]

We seem to see on a regular basis devices that are supposed to provide 'free energy', these devices use a variety of technologies and have wonderful names but they all have one common attribute, they don't work. You cannot generate energy from nothing, it has to come from somewhere, and this is a rule that cannot be violated.

So, let us look at one example of a 'free energy' device.

Take a DC motor, attach the shaft of the motor to a DC generator, wire the output of the generator to a battery and wire the battery to the motor. The whole thing forms a loop and is the basis for all sorts of 'free energy' systems. So what happens? Your motor will probably start to turn but over a period of time (depending on the size of your battery) the speed will decrease until the battery is discharged and the motor stops again.

Why does the system not run forever?

In one word the answer is losses, but as this is the EEV Blog Forum we need some more detail.

1) The battery supplies energy to the motor. All batteries have internal resistance and this resistance means that some of the battery energy is dissipated as heat and energy is lost heating the surrounding air.

2) The motor turns but, even with good bearings, there is friction, and this friction is turned into heat energy. The windings of the motor have resistance (as do the brushes) and this generates more heat rather than useful movement. Note that the motor is not silent, generating this sound energy also consumes electrical power.

3)  The generator turns but, even with good bearings, there is friction, and this friction is turned into heat energy. The windings of the generator have resistance (as do the brushes) and this produces more heat rather than useful movement. Note that the generator is also not silent, generating this sound energy also consumes electrical power.

4) Finally, the wiring of the system has a small but measurable resistance leading to more useful power being turned into heat.

Fiddle around with this for as long as you like, but as Cmdr Scott used to say, "you cannot change the laws of physics". All systems (including closed loops) have losses, these losses produce wasted heat and energy is therefore lost to the environment. Add a DC-DC converter? losses, why do you think the heatsinks are there? Add permanent magnets? Then you get either no change or losses as you try to oppose a magnetic force somewhere, and there is no such thing as a monopole magnet unless you consider some VERY complex work done about a year ago http://phys.org/news/2014-01-physicists-synthetic-magnetic-monopole-years.html

So, the next time someone appears to have come up with a 'free energy' device look carefully at their design and work out where the losses are, then walk away.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

[EEVblog]

[KerryW]

Free energy is everywhere, as is perpetual motion.  All you have to do is eliminate the artificial "closed system" requirement.

Solar power, wind and running rivers will be generated and uselessly dissipated as long as the sun shines.  Tidal forces as long as the sun and the mood move around the Earth.    Radio waves, cosmic "rays" and neutrinos constantly bombard us.

Who is to say what other potential energy sources are around us, unseen and untapped?

Of course, the burden of proof is on the inventor (and I'm not holding my breath).  Any such discovery will be obvious once made, and take the world by storm.  Don't show me a glowing LED, show me a car driving from NY to LA.

[Seekonk]

Free Energy will be around as long as the general public gets its understanding of science from the movies.

[German_EE]

I did of course neglect to mention solar, wind and hydro electric power because the main focus of the article was the 'magic box' that is supposed to solve all of our energy needs. However, solar power collection will reduce by a tiny amount the quantity of sunlight falling on the Earth, wind turbines will tap the energy from wind and you only need a pair of eyes to see the effects on a river when it is dammed for hydro-electric power. The energy obtained is therefore not free in the literal sense as it is removed from the source.

However, the Star Trek reference has provoked a number of amusing comments. One board member pointed out in a PM that on a regular basis Cmdr Scott insisted to Capt Kirk that the laws of physics could not be broken, then at the end of the episode Lt Sulu flicked a switch and USS Enterprise zoomed off to the next planet at a speed faster than light.

[zapta]

However, the Star Trek reference has provoked a number of amusing comments. One board member pointed out in a PM that on a regular basis Cmdr Scott insisted to Capt Kirk that the laws of physics could not be broken, then at the end of the episode Lt Sulu flicked a switch and USS Enterprise zoomed off to the next planet at a speed faster than light.

The 'laws' of physics merely represents our current understanding of reality. They get evolve as we deepen and refine this understanding. Nothing is sacred about them.

As for free energy, practically speaking it doesn't need to be free, cheap enough is just as good, just as computation cycles these days.

[jucole]

the main focus of the article was the 'magic box' that is supposed to solve all of our energy needs.

and one of the best 'magic box' devices I've ever read about has to be the amazing 'Moray radiant energy device';  you'll notice I didn't say 'free energy' there ;-)

[Dave Turner]

At first glance one might assume that solar energy is free and in truth it is probably the closest to reality.

Let's face it with the exception of geothermic energy all useable energy on Earth is derived from our Sun. Energy received from outwith our solar system is miniscule in comparison, at least according to current understanding.

Assume that we could deploy enormous efficient solar collectors both on earth and possibly even to the extent of creating a Dyson's sphere; what effect would the absorption of the energy which otherwise would stream into space, have on the spacial locality in the long term? Greenpeace in space!

Just speculating.

[dannyf]

The answer depends on what you mean by -free-. With the right -free-, it is quite possible to have -free energy-.

At a high level, it is possible to have something out of nothing. -white holes-, ling theorized to exist, is an example. Or the creation of our universe.

Again, everything hinges on your definition of -free-.

[Alex30]

Solar farms in orbit using a space tether or beamed energy would provide an enormous amount of energy that could provide for most of civilizations needs... Only it doesn't exist yet.

[zapta]

Solar farms in orbit using a space tether or beamed energy would provide an enormous amount of energy that could provide for most of civilizations needs... Only it doesn't exist yet.

And it's not free.

[coppice]

All the energy we use is free in a similar sense. Its there, you just need to harvest it and make it available in a practical form for consumers. The price we pay is essentially that cost of getting the energy to the consumer in a usable form. Some forms of energy can be harvested essentially forever (e.g. direct solar) and some will run out quickly (e.g. oil). You might say we need to pay heavily for oil rights, but land for a solar collector doesn't come cheap, either. You might say things like oil are heavily taxed, but governments need revenue. A big enough shift from oil to direct solar energy would see heavy taxes placed on direct solar energy. The only fundamental differences between these sources of energy are whether they will run out soon, whether they offer a stable supply just when the energy is needed, and what environmental impact they have. Hydro power probably scores the best across those three categories, but even there we are only just getting to grips with its environmental impact after nearly a century of use.

[coppice]

Solar farms in orbit using a space tether or beamed energy would provide an enormous amount of energy that could provide for most of civilizations needs... Only it doesn't exist yet.

Isn' t the space tether an essential precursor to such a solar farm? How else would it be practical to get enough equipment into orbit? It seems carbon nanotubes might get us into the ballpark of being able to build such a tether, but the figures I have seen still show a gap between material strength and requirements.

People have been proposing the space energy farm idea, for either peaceful or military purposes, since people first started to look at the possibility of space travel. Only the military ones have ever looked plausible, as their needs are so much simpler.

[Alex30]

Solar farms in orbit using a space tether or beamed energy would provide an enormous amount of energy that could provide for most of civilizations needs... Only it doesn't exist yet.

Isn' t the space tether an essential precursor to such a solar farm? How else would it be practical to get enough equipment into orbit? It seems carbon nanotubes might get us into the ballpark of being able to build such a tether, but the figures I have seen still show a gap between material strength and requirements.

People have been proposing the space energy farm idea, for either peaceful or military purposes, since people first started to look at the possibility of space travel. Only the military ones have ever looked plausible, as their needs are so much simpler.

Well its all hypothetical but I would say not necessarily because if beamed energy and a reusable SSTO (Single stage to orbit) vehicle is developed which can deliver medium sized payloads into orbit, putting lots of solar panels in orbit and other maintenance requirements would be rather cheap.

There's a few high efficiency rocket engines in development. One such example is the SABRE engine which should be able to reach near orbital velocity in the upper atmosphere (I think it works like an aerospike) and then change fuel modes to conventional liquid rocket fuel allowing it to get into orbit.

Only problem is it sounds like a good way to get kessler syndrome (eek)

[monksod]

there is no such thing as a monopole magnet

What if...you glue two bar magnets together, end-to-end? wouldn't that give you 2 north poles, or 2 south poles? 

[Zero999]

there is no such thing as a monopole magnet

What if...you glue two bar magnets together, end-to-end? wouldn't that give you 2 north poles, or 2 south poles? 

With a south/north pole in the middle!

[SeanB]

If you can find a monopole you will get a free trip to Stockholm, and a hotel room as well. Kind of like the Higgs, but even rarer.

[Sigmoid]

However, solar power collection will reduce by a tiny amount the quantity of sunlight falling on the Earth

WHAT?!! Srsly... -.-; 

The rays of the sun hit objects on the ground, which absorb and reflect those rays, heating up in the process. All a solar panel does is convert some of the absorbed energy into transmittable electric power.  That power is going to eventually be transmitted and used, in the end all of it ending up as heat - whether we want it or not. (In the same vein, too many sunbathing lizards would freeze the planet?  )

Also, as in recycling trash doesn't reduce the amount of trash generated by society (which is a priori to recycling), solar panels have no effect on the amount of sunlight the Earth gets.

However, the Star Trek reference has provoked a number of amusing comments. One board member pointed out in a PM that on a regular basis Cmdr Scott insisted to Capt Kirk that the laws of physics could not be broken, then at the end of the episode Lt Sulu flicked a switch and USS Enterprise zoomed off to the next planet at a speed faster than light.

Well, the laws of physics cannot be broken, but they can be worked around. Gravity is a law of physics, and people still do build airplanes. There IS serious scientific theory on the possibility of warp drives.

[Seekonk]

It never ends.  I just saw this on another board and it is new to me..... Gravity Generator
As follows:

3 arms made out of rods at 120 degree with each other in a vertical plane(in wind mill they have the blades).
These arms shall be fitted with 3 heavy balls at their ends (calculations needs to be done to derive their weight).
Once put in rotation it starts rotating at its own. (Of course there will be a retardation in motion due to
i) system inertia
ii) frictional loss and
iii) air resistance)
There is a small motor coupled to the shaft of this GRAVITY GENERATOR which is given pulse after each rotation(derived from the generated power). This input power is just sufficient to overcome the 3 types losses mentioned above. The NETT power available is the usable power.

[Mechatrommer]

who says wind, river and solar is free? yes its free god given into the nature (or replace term god with the "nature" and the term nature into "universe" if you prefer that). yes its free because its already there to tap, heck even dinosaur waste is free, its just we like to call it "non renewable free" energy section or class. but once you make the setup to tap it its not free anymore. the damn thing in the river cost billions to construct and many souls to maintain there need wages. from time to time i'm considering the cost of buying solar system for my home, in the end its more economical and free of mind to use the grid from the damn service.

i believe similarly with other untapped/unknown free energy such as magnet or what not. soon when we realize how to tap it, either government will take over and/or boom the price through "economics subject" self-balancing mechanism or the technology/ manufacturing itself will cost many kidneys. energy cannot be created, it only can be transferred by other form of energy. there is no free energy (in absolute reality of human mind and body frame of reference)... you have to work for it. "free" is only a deceptive or perceptive term.

btw, i dont think putting "free energy" thread in begineer section is a good idea, it can be a controversial topic similar to other ancient artifact subjects discussed in general section... people like to describe terms based on there perception/dogma/doctrine/brainwash way.

[c4757p]

btw, i dont think putting "free energy" thread in begineer section is not a good decision, its a controversial topic...

...among nitwits. Otherwise it's an interesting discussion topic at most.

[pickle9000]

Free energy is used by marijuana grow ops all the time. Just bypass the kwh meter and all the power is free.

[tszaboo]

I sometimes charge my phone at work. That pretty much sums up the free energy available on the world.

[Jeroen3]

We cannot produce energy, we can only convert it.

Most solar/coal/oil/gas energy plants convert kinetic energy into electrical energy.
(They all work with steam turnbines)
Some solar plants convert photon energy.
We can also convert heat into electrical energy using peltier elements.
And last but not least, convert chemical energy into electrical energy with batteries.

Free energy suggest you do not lose energy or matter, ignoring Einsteins most important rule.

[dannyf]

ignoring Einsteins most important rule.

as if his rules cannot be ignored.

[monksod]

Isn't gravity continuous ie keeps applying force forever? What about planets & moons? They don't need constant jet thrusts to keep them in stable orbits, like artificial satellites. Isn't gravity free energy? Of course... how do we harness it... 

[Zero999]

Isn't gravity continuous ie keeps applying force forever? What about planets & moons? They don't need constant jet thrusts to keep them in stable orbits, like artificial satellites. Isn't gravity free energy? Of course... how do we harness it... 

No, it isn't an endless supply of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

[denelec]

Isn't gravity continuous ie keeps applying force forever? What about planets & moons? They don't need constant jet thrusts to keep them in stable orbits, like artificial satellites. Isn't gravity free energy? Of course... how do we harness it... 

Force and energy are two different things.

W = F x d   =>   Work (energy) = Force x distance

That why you can't extract infinite amount of energy from gravity or magnets.

[denelec]

However, the Star Trek reference has provoked a number of amusing comments. One board member pointed out in a PM that on a regular basis Cmdr Scott insisted to Capt Kirk that the laws of physics could not be broken, then at the end of the episode Lt Sulu flicked a switch and USS Enterprise zoomed off to the next planet at a speed faster than light.

Faster than light travel doesn't break the laws of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

So Star Trek is still a reasonable view of the future... 

[dannyf]

Isn't gravity free energy?

High school level physics can answer that question.

[Scotophor]

It never ends.  I just saw this on another board and it is new to me..... Gravity Generator
As follows:

3 arms made out of rods at 120 degree with each other in a vertical plane(in wind mill they have the blades).
These arms shall be fitted with 3 heavy balls at their ends (calculations needs to be done to derive their weight).
Once put in rotation it starts rotating at its own. (Of course there will be a retardation in motion due to
i) system inertia
ii) frictional loss and
iii) air resistance)
There is a small motor coupled to the shaft of this GRAVITY GENERATOR which is given pulse after each rotation(derived from the generated power). This input power is just sufficient to overcome the 3 types losses mentioned above. The NETT power available is the usable power.

So, taken to its simplest form, turning a wheel by using a motor to overcome losses = free energy?

[miguelvp]

Isn't gravity free energy?

High school level physics can answer that question.

Hydroelectric is based in gravity to produce energy, but it needs solar to evaporate the water and wind (solar based as well) to distribute the clouds so that it rains again in the mountains so it keeps the rivers flowing.

But it's not free because someone must build and maintain the turbines, generators and the grid in general; and for that you need materials and energy to build them.

But nature is for all purposes a self running system. But this is just a simplistic view of a very complex system that it's self regulating by nature.

[zapta]

Isn't gravity continuous ie keeps applying force forever?

Yes, it is. Free energy for lifetime is a very simple matter. Take two rocks, A and B, lift rock A and place it on B. Now rock B has energy forever.

More details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

[Gall]

The things get even more interesting...

It is quite easy to make semi-perpetual motion without any obvious sources of energy. I can make this with Nd supermagnets. The idea is, make things move by slowly consuming the potential energy of the magnet. The magnet acts like a battery and is degaussing slowly. The energy is not really free of course, it's the energy that was necessary to produce the magnet. Many electromagnetic "free energy generators" DO work and DO charge their batteries, but the energy is not really FREE.

[HighVoltage]

I read an older physics book from the early 1900th and the physics professor who wrote that book, claimed that "everything" in physics had been discovered.

Well, history teaches us, that we as a human race have been wrong before on almost all aspects of physics and chemistry. Many times we had to replace and extend our knowledge beyond our believe system. Why should this be over now. Hopefully we will get some good surprises in the future. I would expect something great to happen in the field of energy conversion. Not the stupid pseudo science new age stuff that we read about almost everywhere, no, some real science based new development. 

[max_torque]

Contrary to popular belief, the principal issue with "free energy" is nothing to do with science and engineering, and everything to do with Economics.  In fact, the concept of "free" in monetary  terms simply does not exist.  IE everything you do has a cost, even if that is sitting in front of the telly (because you could be using that same time to actively earn money, and hence, sitting doing nothing is "costing" you, and hence not free!)

So, even if you make a system that can somehow capture energy, even if you make it from parts you found in a dumpster (i'm think of you here Dave ;-) then it has cost you time. Time which you could have used to earn some money to simply buy that energy from another source.   So, the real crux of the matter becomes the ratio of cost to reward, no matter if that cost is actual money or your time.  Hence, these so called "free energy" systems that seem to harvest tiny amounts of power, are actually nothing like free.
  In fact, they make Grid power, generated by electricity companies look incredibly good value.  I mean, here in the UK, i can buy a kWHr of electricity for something like £0.12.

 Imagine trying to generate that yourself?  Here's an example:

On my bike at can manage to output around 150W continuously, but it's extremely hard work.  To generate 1kWhr, i'd have to sit on my bike (with a alternator attached) and even at some mythical 100% efficiency, pedal like mad for 6hrs 39 min to generate that!  And let me tell you, NO WAY would i do that for just 12pence........  ;-)

[zapta]

On my bike at can manage to output around 150W continuously, but it's extremely hard work.  To generate 1kWhr, i'd have to sit on my bike (with a alternator attached) and even at some mythical 100% efficiency, pedal like mad for 6hrs 39 min to generate that!  And let me tell you, NO WAY would i do that for just 12pence........  ;-)

You will also need to eat more to cover the lost calories, especially if you do it daily and then the initial investment and wear and tear of your contraption.

[Zero999]

On my bike at can manage to output around 150W continuously, but it's extremely hard work.  To generate 1kWhr, i'd have to sit on my bike (with a alternator attached) and even at some mythical 100% efficiency, pedal like mad for 6hrs 39 min to generate that!  And let me tell you, NO WAY would i do that for just 12pence........  ;-)

You will also need to eat more to cover the lost calories, especially if you do it daily and then the initial investment and wear and tear of your contraption.

Yes, the extra food (over 3300kCal extra calories per day on top of what you already need) will cost more than that the power you'd save and cost the earth more too. Such a level of exercise is also bad for your health and you need to be careful to avoid malnutrition too.

[dannyf]

he physics professor who wrote that book, claimed that "everything" in physics had been discovered.

That "professor" is making a religion out of science.

Just like our global warming nuts,

[Gall]

I read an older physics book from the early 1900th and the physics professor who wrote that book, claimed that "everything" in physics had been discovered.

Well, history teaches us, that we as a human race have been wrong before on almost all aspects of physics and chemistry. Many times we had to replace and extend our knowledge beyond our believe system. Why should this be over now. Hopefully we will get some good surprises in the future. I would expect something great to happen in the field of energy conversion. Not the stupid pseudo science new age stuff that we read about almost everywhere, no, some real science based new development.

The professor had right... to some point.

It is true that everything at certain technology level is discovered (almost always). That means, in early 1900s everything was discovered in the fields of mechanics, electricity and optics. Newer discoveries have been made in the fields of nuclear amd solid state physics. The same is still true now: everything is discovered in most "usual" physical fields, and all things that are still unknown are nearly inaccessible at our present technical level. Everything is discovered in the range of distances between size of an atom and size of the Earth, in the range of energies up to 10s of GeV and in the range of speeds from picoseconds to many years. All things that are not yet discovered reside outside of these ranges, i.e. in deep space or at extremely high energies.

This means that there is no single combination of usual things like electronic or mechanical components that violate the known laws of physics, unless these things are extremely large (larger than the Earth) or produce very high energies (higher than the LHC). You may however discover new laws by watching natural large objects like stars, as they are large enough to go beyond our "everything-is-discovered" range.

[Mechatrommer]

It is true that everything at certain technology level is discovered (almost always).

it was believed atom is indivisible. now everything of that belief deserve to be in the dustbin, or what they have discovered sometime ago was rubbish, no?

You do not see in the creation ... any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? ... Then return [your] vision twice again. [Your] vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.

[Jeroen3]

We are only starting to discover what single-atom layers of graphite (and other stuff) can do.
And we are almost out of Moore's law, of which I'm sure we'll be able to supersede if we change our conservative view on the problem.
Meanwhile we have to wait for that one smart guy with an epiphany.

[Gall]

It is true that everything at certain technology level is discovered (almost always).

it was believed atom is indivisible. now everything of that belief deserve to be in the dustbin, or what they have discovered sometime ago was rubbish, no?

No, it wasn't. It was believed to be indivisible by chemical means, but this is still true.

Every physics law has certain limits of validity. Every law is absolutely correct within these limits. We don't know what's beyond the limits of the known laws of physics but we know exactly what the limits are. This is like a geographical map: we don't know what's outside the area we've explored so far, but we know exactly how much we've explored, and we know exactly that the existing part of the map will not be affected by any future explorations. New laws of physics do NOT make old discoveries rubbish. They just adhere to the borders.

[Gall]

We are only starting to discover what single-atom layers of graphite (and other stuff) can do.

But this is not new! This has nothing to deal with new laws of physics. All the properties of graphene are fully predictable from the laws of quantum mechanics. The same laws predict the impossibility of "free energy" and many other interesting things like superconductivity.

[miguelvp]

Well, they didn't know that gravity affects time so all those formulas they had are just approximations.

[dannyf]

Every law is absolutely correct within these limits.

Probably not. You should view such 'laws' as approximation to what we observe. "Approximation" means two things here:

1) fitness is part of our judgment: new theories tend to find more observations better.
2) fitness also means you could have co-existence of multiple theories, sometimes incompatible with each other.

we know exactly what the limits are.

Probably not.

[Gall]

Every law is absolutely correct within these limits.

Probably not. You should view such 'laws' as approximation to what we observe. "Approximation" means two things here:

1) fitness is part of our judgment: new theories tend to find more observations better.

Not so. The accuracy IS one of the limits. Each physical law sounds like: "If the value of X lies between Xmin and Xmax, then Y could be determined by the equation Y=Y(X)  with at least dY accuracy."

2) fitness also means you could have co-existence of multiple theories, sometimes incompatible with each other.

That is incorrect. There is no incompatibility at all. In the area where several theories co-exist, they all give exactly the same predictions, just with varying accuracy. For example, the theory of relativity predicts all the effects of classical mechanics, as well as wave optics predicts all the effects of geometrical optics. This fact is widely used to check new theories, as all old theories are well-proven within certain limits. There are absolutely no incompatibilities between the proven 19th century theories and the modern ones. (We do not take into account the old hypotheses that had no proof at all, like the hypothese of phlogiston).

we know exactly what the limits are.

Probably not.

Believe me, we do. This is one of the most important things in a proof of any new theory. And that's what I learned to do for 10 years. 99% of the modern physics is about determining the exact limits. We are very careful about this. If unsure, we always take the worst case. But even the pessimistic case of modern physics covers everything one could build without very special equipment like high vacuum pumps or gigawatt power sources.

[Dave Turner]

If we as as the human race ever truly believe that we know everything then comes the question - why bother!

I prefer to believe that there is, and always will be, more to learn about 'Physics'

It is, in fact, dangerous to believe anything different. Galileo, amongst others, could have told you about that! Yes I do know that his persecution was for religious reasons. Religious! In an ideal world one should be able to challenge the status quo. In our world it takes money to challenge the scientific establishment. Possibly another word for religion these days?

I choose to be open minded, work with what I can and prey for a Cochrane or similar.

[dannyf]

they all give exactly the same predictions, just with varying accuracy.

Sounds like the socialist saying: "we are all equal, except that some of us are more equal than others",

True and profound,

[Rick Law]

Hmmm...  This sounds too much fun to not put in my two cents worth.

First, I think we are all in agreement that from a monetary sense, energy that doesn't cost money is a pipe dream.

Second, free energy (in the sense of breaking the first law of thermodynamic: i.e. law of conservation of energy) could be possible but harnessing it may not be possible.  Vacuum energy, if extractable, would indeed be energy free from the law of conservation of energy.  Steven Hawkings' theory on Black Hole evaporation is well accepted.  If black holes can do it, we may be able to do so as well.

Basically, quantum mechanics allows for "borrowing from nature."  Particle & anti-particle pair can "randomly appear" and then annihilate themselves.  If we can some how create something that behaves like a black hole and captures the anti-particle before it annihilates the normal particle, we can some how use that anti-particle to generate energy later.  While capturing the anti-particle, we would emit Hawking's Radiation.  Hawking's Radiation would also be "free energy" if we can harnessed some how.

One theory of the source of The Big Bang is such randomly appearing kernel of energy.  Assuming the "random kernel of energy" is correct, it follows that the whole universe is running on borrowed energy.

Someday, perhaps physics may find the borrowed energy (in this universe) actually come from some yet to be found phenomenon (in this universe).  Until such time, such "randomly occurring kernel of energy" giving me "an anti-particle for later use "would be by today's laws of physics "free".

they all give exactly the same predictions, just with varying accuracy.

Sounds like the socialist saying: "we are all equal, except that some of us are more equal than others",

True and profound,

Lastly, I think "we are all equal, except that some of us are more equal than others" is not a socialist saying, but instead it is a saying about the socialist and socialism originated by George Orwell, Animal Farm, seventh commandment.

Rick

[Gall]

Second, free energy (in the sense of breaking the first law of thermodynamic: i.e. law of conservation of energy) could be possible but harnessing it may not be possible.  Vacuum energy, if extractable, would indeed be energy free from the law of conservation of energy.  Steven Hawkings' theory on Black Hole evaporation is well accepted.  If black holes can do it, we may be able to do so as well.

Unrelated. Black hole evaporation does not extract vacuum energy and does not violate the conservation law. Short-term fluctuations in the vacuum are permitted as lons as their mean value is zero.

The law of conservation of energy comes from the symmetry of the Space and the Time. They both are VERY symmetric in usual conditions. Theoretically, it may be possible to violate the symmetry, but not on the Earth and even not near Sun. One would need to consume at least the entire Solar System in order to change the Space and the Time significantly. The connection between the symmetry and conservation laws is known as "Noether's theorem" and is proven to be always correct (it's mathematical and not physical).

Basically, quantum mechanics allows for "borrowing from nature."  Particle & anti-particle pair can "randomly appear" and then annihilate themselves.  If we can some how create something that behaves like a black hole and captures the anti-particle before it annihilates the normal particle, we can some how use that anti-particle to generate energy later.  While capturing the anti-particle, we would emit Hawking's Radiation.  Hawking's Radiation would also be "free energy" if we can harnessed some how.

Not quite true. We have to have enough energy in order to capture the anti-particle successfully. In the case of a black hole the energy of its gravity field is consumed in order to do that. The overall energy balance is zero. This is easy to calculate if you know how to use quantum field theory.

One theory of the source of The Big Bang is such randomly appearing kernel of energy.  Assuming the "random kernel of energy" is correct, it follows that the whole universe is running on borrowed energy.

Not quite so. The energy conservation law strongly depends upon the uniformity of the Time. Right now the Time is pretty uniform, and it has been pretty uniform for at least one billion years. There is no evidence that this uniformity will disappear in the next billion years (and this would, to our best knowledge, destroy the entire Universe, so we definitely do not want this to happen). The Big Bang was about 20 billions years ago. The Time was very special at this time. It was at least non-uniform, and it is possible that it did not exist at all before the Big Bang. So yes, it is possible that the law of conservation of energy has been violated for a short time.

The modern point of view at the energy conseration law is as follows. Yes, you can "borrow" energy, but only for a short time. They are in inverse proportionality, and the coefficient (per particle) is
in order of Planck constant. The more energy you take, the smaller will be your "loan time". If you try to borrow too much energy for too long time, you will fail.

[Alex30]

Someday, perhaps physics may find the borrowed energy (in this universe) actually come from some yet to be found phenomenon (in this universe).  Until such time, such "randomly occurring kernel of energy" giving me "an anti-particle for later use "would be by today's laws of physics "free".

This is too much fun lol... I read a book by a theoretical physicist a year or two back and he suggested a theory that I really liked in regards to this. He hypothesized that black holes act like worm holes and could link two points in our universe together (even if it scrambles anything passing into pure energy), but the interesting suggestion was that they could actually link multiple dimensions together too. Maybe the energy from the big crunch in one universe (or other extremely high energy event) bled through into our reality and caused the big bang? Perhaps its possible that white holes exist and are ejecting energy into our universe from other dimensions?

[dannyf]

I prefer to believe that there is, and always will be, more to learn about 'Physics'

Philosophers have long struggled with 1) what's "knowable" and 2) if we can exhaust all of "knowable".

I don't think there is an answer on that, yet,

He hypothesized that black holes act like worm holes and could link two points in our universe together

The other end is a white hole,

there is also a concept of if the laws of universe is constant across dimensions - both geographic dimensions as well as time. And if it is not, what's like in a universe where the laws are changing.

All fascinating stuff that's beyond the comprehension of those who think we have full understood the world around us.

[G7PSK]

Why free energy will never work? I will tell you why- If someone ever invents it someone else will invent a way to charge for it or tax it or a patent troll will pop out of the woodwork, therefore it will not be free.

[Alex30]

Why free energy will never work? I will tell you why- If someone ever invents it someone else will invent a way to charge for it or tax it or a patent troll will pop out of the woodwork, therefore it will not be free.

Reminds me of the famous argument JP Morgan had against Tesla's wireless electricity technology... "Where do we put the meter?"

[Dave Turner]

And the rarely documented 8th and 9th layer of the OSI - money & politics respectively.

[Zero999]

Second, free energy (in the sense of breaking the first law of thermodynamic: i.e. law of conservation of energy) could be possible but harnessing it may not be possible.  Vacuum energy, if extractable, would indeed be energy free from the law of conservation of energy.

Of course it's impossible to harness it because it would certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics. The same law which stops us from using the heat energy around us to power a generator or using the heat moved by a heat pump to power said heat pump.

In order to do something, there needs to be an energy differential. There's a lot of heat energy in the ambient environment but without something at a significantly lower temperature we can't use it because it doesn't have any potential.

I don't see how anyone can believe in free-energy. I think most people believe it isn't possible to suddenly magic objects and substances out of nothing but energy seems to be a bit more of an abstract concept for many people to understand but so-called free-energy is really the same thing.

[westfw]

There's an immediate corollary that a "new" energy generation mechanism MUST postulate "new science."  Sure, the better scams throw in terms like "zero point energy" and such, but a surprising number of people fall for clever arrangements of falling weights or magnets... :-(

[Rick Law]

Second, free energy (in the sense of breaking the first law of thermodynamic: i.e. law of conservation of energy) could be possible but harnessing it may not be possible.  Vacuum energy, if extractable, would indeed be energy free from the law of conservation of energy.

Of course it's impossible to harness it because it would certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics. The same law which stops us from using the heat energy around us to power a generator or using the heat moved by a heat pump to power said heat pump.

In order to do something, there needs to be an energy differential. There's a lot of heat energy in the ambient environment but without something at a significantly lower temperature we can't use it because it doesn't have any potential.

I don't see how anyone can believe in free-energy. I think most people believe it isn't possible to suddenly magic objects and substances out of nothing but energy seems to be a bit more of an abstract concept for many people to understand but so-called free-energy is really the same thing.

I think we need to think outside the box here to imagine what I was imagining.  It is not so much how we can break the laws of physics, it is more so how can we leverage the known weaknesses of these laws and harness it for our own use.

By staying inside the box, Law of Conservation of Energy will apply.  A random appearing particle pair will and must annihilate itself.  The energy to capture the anti-particle will require and must use more energy than one can subsequently recover.  Hawking's evaporation will "balance" by loosing as much mass as the energy it emits - if we stay in the box of energy conservation.

If you are at the event horizon of a black hole,  why is it that your energy needs to balance with either side of the horizon?   Within a Planck's length of the mathematical/theoretical horizon, anything can happen.  It is wild.  Time is uneven.  "Here" and "there" have no meaning.  Beyond certain point and under certain circumstances, Laws of Thermodynamics needs not be obeyed.

Breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics at least for a split-split-split second (Planck's length divided by c, about 30-40 zeros after the decimal if memory serves) is by all measure perfectly all right.  At that time scale or at that distance, anything can happen.   Quantum effect starts dominating well before PlanckLength/c.  How can we leverage that?  We don't know yet.

Entangled particles certainly can transmit information faster than the speed of light.  Could the entanglement survive crossing an event horizon?  Can we make use of that?  We don't know yet.  Laws of Physics (we know today) can be broken - Physics already pointed at some of the fringes of where these laws become wobbly.  Can we do something with it?  We don't know yet.

So, if we imagine we can (like the big bang) borrow energy from outside this universe or somehow break away from the view of inside the box -- just imagine if we can somehow make things happen and exploit the known weaknesses of the constraining laws some day...

Absent that ability to "borrow energy", we are doom to a dark future.  Trillion trillion years from now, the expansion of universe will cause the nearest object from us to recede faster than the speed of light.   (Whoever this "we" means trillion trillion years from now, and where ever this "we" happens to be)  Even if we mastered fusion, we don't have a star near by.  In fact, we don't have a star in the sky because the nearest star is receding away faster than the speed of light.  So it would be a dark and empty sky.  Depressing.

What is more depressing is, when I was in high school, I know what it means to get from here to there.  After a few years of college, I don't even know what "here" or "there" means.  Well, unlike some Physicist, at least I am sure my cat is alive...  I think..

[dannyf]

Entangled particles certainly can transmit information faster than the speed of light.

On top of that, if one particle falls into the black hole but its entangled counterpart stays outside, that particle's state will reflect the state of the particle that's falling inside of a black hole. ie., it is possible to transmit information out of a black, and by definition, across time.

That's assuming that particle entanglement is real.

[Gall]

So, if we imagine we can (like the big bang) borrow energy from outside this universe or somehow break away from the view of inside the box -- just imagine if we can somehow make things happen and exploit the known weaknesses of the constraining laws some day...

Surprisingly, we know the necessary conditions to do that. (Necessary doesn't mean sufficient, so this only means that it is impossible to explore weaknesses of known laws unless certain conditions are met). The optimistic conditions are as follows:

- The device should be larger than the Earth, OR
- The device should accelerate individual particles up to 100s GeV of kinetic energy.

There are absolutely no weaknesses that may be exploited unless at least one of these conditions is met. It is still theoretically possible to find a hole in constraining laws, but it is known and well-proven that no holes exist in a certain range. Since this explored range is very big nowadays, any device that goes beyond them has to be huge and expensive, like the LHC. Certainly not something one could make at home.

[Mechatrommer]

i wish i can call the "black holes" as "ascending stairways"

[dannyf]

borrow energy from outside this universe

Energy is never an issue for our universe: there are plenty of (visible) matter / energy in the known universe, or even on earth to last us to the end of humanity.

That's not counting the dark matter / dark energy - 90% of our universe.

We we lack, temporarily, are particular forms of energy, limited by existing technology (and human stupidity).

Humanity's demise, in my view, is likely the result of humanity itself (wars for example) and/or artificial intelligence.

[c4757p]

No, intelligence is in demand - artificial intelligence will just supply that demand so all the smart guys can sit back and relax. What'll ruin us is artificial stupidity. It'll leave so many people with nothing to say* that we'll quickly see the complete demise of human language.

*At least, I hope

[magetoo]

One theory of the source of The Big Bang is such randomly appearing kernel of energy.  Assuming the "random kernel of energy" is correct, it follows that the whole universe is running on borrowed energy.

One other theory is that the net energy of the universe is exactly zero.  Which makes sense, since everything we know about physics says that the equation has to balance and you can't create something out of nothing.

I came across this observation in a book by a Nobel laureate whose name escapes me at the moment; the basic idea is that all mass and energy in the observable universe balances out with its total potential energy.  Or something like that.

So if the universe were to fall back into itself, we'd end up with nothing.  (And we'd be dead, which would be inconvenient if we wanted to take measurements.)

Entangled particles certainly can transmit information faster than the speed of light.

If you can show that in an experiment, I believe that there might be a prize in Stockholm with your name on it!  Everything I've ever seen makes it seem like every little crack in our understanding of physics has a corresponding snag that makes it impossible to exploit.

Yes, entangled particles seem to "know" instantaneously what the other is doing, but no, it is impossible to exploit this to actually send information.  When you measure first particle A and then particle B, all you ever see is that "particle B had state X all along and it never changed".

[dannyf]

the equation has to balance

A = B > 0 is a balanced equation.

Total energy of 0 would require the existence of "negative" energy, difficult to envision today.

entangled particles seem to "know" instantaneously what the other is doing, but no, it is impossible to exploit this to actually send information.

The first part of your sentence suggests that FTL transmission of information is possible. The fact that we cannot do it today is irrelevant.

Faster than light is not impossible, particularly in quantum theory - there're observed cases where particles arrived at their destinations before they left their origins for example.

What it suggests, or rather confirms, is that Einstein's theories are fallible, and are nothing but a better approximation of the universe around us. He recognized that and tried for the rest of his life trying to present a unified framework, unsuccessfully.

Unfortunately, many "well educated" people take his theories as the ultimate truth.

[magetoo]

A = B > 0 is a balanced equation.

Sure.  If you read the whole paragraph, it's pretty obvious it's not one that is relevant though.

entangled particles seem to "know" instantaneously what the other is doing, but no, it is impossible to exploit this to actually send information.

The first part of your sentence suggests that FTL transmission of information is possible.

"seems" and "suggests" are the key words here.  It seems that it ought to be possible.  Certain demonstrations suggest that there might be mechanisms that would make it possible.  But nothing ever pans out, and every experiment confirms an absolute upper speed limit for the transmission of information.

Faster than light is not impossible, particularly in quantum theory - there're observed cases where particles arrived at their destinations before they left their origins for example.

And you can even send light pulses through optical fiber faster than c too, under certain circumstances.  The headlines practically write themselves!  (I don't remember the details, something to do with the pulse shrinking in duration and changing in wavelength, or something like that.)

But it turns out to be impossible to encode information onto those pulses in a way such that it arrives earlier than it would traveling at c.  Everything we've tried suggests that information just can't travel faster than c, even if we can show corner cases where light and particles do.

What it suggests, or rather confirms, is that Einstein's theories are fallible, and are nothing but a better approximation of the universe around us.

QFT.  Better approximations is what we got, and what we'll get in the future too.

And I think I'm at my limit of wine-fuelled physics discussion now.  Good night!

[miguelvp]

entangled particles seem to "know" instantaneously what the other is doing, but no, it is impossible to exploit this to actually send information.

The first part of your sentence suggests that FTL transmission of information is possible.

"seems" and "suggests" are the key words here.  It seems that it ought to be possible.  Certain demonstrations suggest that there might be mechanisms that would make it possible.  But nothing ever pans out, and every experiment confirms an absolute upper speed limit for the transmission of information.

Faster than light is not impossible, particularly in quantum theory - there're observed cases where particles arrived at their destinations before they left their origins for example.

And you can even send light pulses through optical fiber faster than c too, under certain circumstances.  The headlines practically write themselves!  (I don't remember the details, something to do with the pulse shrinking in duration and changing in wavelength, or something like that.)

But it turns out to be impossible to encode information onto those pulses in a way such that it arrives earlier than it would traveling at c.  Everything we've tried suggests that information just can't travel faster than c, even if we can show corner cases where light and particles do.

...
And I think I'm at my limit of wine-fuelled physics discussion now.  Good night!

Sound very Spooky to me.

Also I would love to see a tablet from the 1930's since there was nothing else to discover they should have one around  (tong in cheek comment of course).

[Rick Law]

At our current level of knowledge, using entangled particles or to capture randomly occurring anti-particle are just imagination.  Then again, had Einstein stayed in the box, wave particle duality may still not be known.  So, dreaming, however far-out of the box, could be a good exercise.

If we accept "Conservation of Energy" in this universe, we must also explain the source of that random kernel of energy that drove the "big bang" and we can't explain that.  We can merely bring in multiverse to support Conservation of Energy, or that energy was preexisting some how.

We know that something can come from nothing.  Experiments has shown that.  Particles appears from random kernel of energy can be observed.

If one is to accept multiverse, that opens the possibly to use the known or suggested cracks in the physical laws to use black holes to dispose entropy.  With black hole disposal, now we can imagine some day we can lower entropy on this side of the universe, and dispose of the required corresponding larger increase of entropy into the black hole.  Now that would imply "free energy" can be created; "free" in the sense of cost to this universe.

If the some of the "brane" theories are right, some poor suckers in another universe on an intersecting membrane to ours will be our garbage dump.  Our lost entropy is their gain...  They may be wondering how come their form of "dark energy" seem to dissipate at an alarming rate and they would be worrying about the upcoming "big crunch."

Damn, some times, I wish I can be in a trillion-year coma, wake up, and really learn about the universe then.

[miguelvp]

If we accept "Conservation of Energy" in this universe, we must also explain the source of that random kernel of energy that drove the "big bang" and we can't explain that.

Simple, time exists in the Universe but it doesn't outside of it. It's just a perception that's all we are.

Thanks father time!

[Mechatrommer]

We know that something can come from nothing.

who said that? its a violation of belief to most people here and there (esp on sensitive and unproven matters). maybe your term is not that accurate. more accurate term in my opinion is.... We know that something can come from "something that is not yet known"

If the some of the "brane" theories are right, some poor suckers in another universe on an intersecting membrane to ours will be our garbage dump.  Our lost entropy is their gain...  They may be wondering how come their form of "dark energy" seem to dissipate at an alarming rate and they would be worrying about the upcoming "big crunch."

or maybe they can see us we cant to them? it is us who got alarmed. well thats just hypothesis

Damn, some times, I wish I can be in a trillion-year coma, wake up, and really learn about the universe then.

i believe your wish will come true, same with the rest of us and me  its just trillion-years in awake time is just like yesterday in sleep (comma) time. its relative..

[Zero999]

We know that something can come from nothing.

who said that? its a violation of belief to most people here and there (esp on sensitive and unproven matters). maybe your term is not that accurate. more accurate term in my opinion is.... We know that something can come from "something that is not yet known"

I think we all know what he meant: it's impossible for an ordinary human (what ever resources they have access to) to create something out of nothing, whether it be energy or mass. It's not possible to magic objects or energy out of nothing and if you're trying to bring religion into this then GTFO; don't wreck the thread!

A closed system will always reach an equilibrium and slow to a stop: entropy always increases.

On a very small scale, things may seem to go against the second law of thermodynamics, for very short periods of time but on a larger scale, over a longer period of time, entropy always increases. For example, take a chamber filled with a gas, at a constant temperature and pressure, the molecules will be moving around at random. If you zoom in, it may appear as though it's perpetual motion, since the particles are moving around continuously and aren't slowing down, but when you zoom out, the average speed of the gas is zero so it isn't possible to extract any work from the system.

[dannyf]

-We know that something can come from nothing.  Experiments has shown that.  Particles appears from random kernel of energy can be observed-

Energy is something so the fact that particles came out of energy does not support the notion that something can come from nothing.

The only possibilities are big bang and white holes. In the case of big bang, we don't have definitive proof that our universe came from nothing, as our theories don't get to time zero. All we know is that our universe came from something. And it is possible that that something is nothing.

[dannyf]

As to god or creationism, we don't have proof that god created the universe, nor do we have proof that god didn't create the universe.

As a matter of fact, this could very well be one of those unknowable unknowns.

[dannyf]

This discussion is interesting in that it shows that however seemingly close shut questions may become quite uncertain.

This is particularly true for really simple questions.

Some years ago I went to a seminar on the structures of our universe - why is our universe the way it is, why the universal constants take on the values they do, why is the speed of light 300000kmps, ....- it is mesmerizing to see how wildly lack of consensus the discussion was, as science is supposed to be.

Simple questions tend to be very difficult to answer.

[HighVoltage]

The deeper we go in to the rabbit hole, the more mysterious it will get.

I just read an interesting math book on Eratosthenes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

This guy calculated the diameter of the earth a couple hundred years BC
Quote:
He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stades, or the length of stadia during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.He created the first map of the world incorporating parallels and meridians, based on the available geographical knowledge of the era.

Essentially we know so little at this time, of what is really going on.
But we believe, we know so much.
Who knows, what has been invented in the background and it will never be made public, because it has been militarized or something else. We just don't know.
 

[dannyf]

-Essentially we know so little at this time, of what is really going on.
But we believe, we know so much.-

Scary but wise words.

I agree. Unfortunately, it is precisely people who know little that think they know a lot.

That's how we got all those talks on science being settled. The religionization of science.

[Mechatrommer]

-Essentially we know so little at this time, of what is really going on.
But we believe, we know so much.- ...
I agree. Unfortunately, it is precisely people who know little that think they know a lot.

usually... those people who REALLY made the study or observation know how mysterious and messy it can get, how little we know. but what they already know for certain they tell other people, the layman people. these layman people that think we know alot.

[Rick Law]

We know that something can come from nothing.

who said that? its a violation of belief to most people here and there (esp on sensitive and unproven matters). maybe your term is not that accurate. more accurate term in my opinion is.... We know that something can come from "something that is not yet known"

I think we all know what he meant: it's impossible for an ordinary human (what ever resources they have access to) to create something out of nothing, whether it be energy or mass. It's not possible to magic objects or energy out of nothing and if you're trying to bring religion into this then GTFO; don't wreck the thread!

A closed system will always reach an equilibrium and slow to a stop: entropy always increases.

On a very small scale, things may seem to go against the second law of thermodynamics, for very short periods of time but on a larger scale, over a longer period of time, entropy always increases. For example, take a chamber filled with a gas, at a constant temperature and pressure, the molecules will be moving around at random. If you zoom in, it may appear as though it's perpetual motion, since the particles are moving around continuously and aren't slowing down, but when you zoom out, the average speed of the gas is zero so it isn't possible to extract any work from the system.

[RL: I added bold to some text in the reply]

re: "A closed system will always reach an equilibrium and slow to a stop: entropy always increases."
Our understanding today is that beyond the event horizon, stuff inside black hole has no influence in this universe other than gravity.  So, it is attractive to think of "dumping entropy increase" into the black hole.  Is it theoretically sound?  I am not sure enough research has been done yet to say yes or no.

re: "On a very small scale, things may seem to go against the second law of thermodynamics, for very short periods of time but on a larger scale, over a longer period of time, entropy always increases."
Leveraging these "leaks" in the physical laws, and coupled with using black hole as dumping ground is exactly how we can in theory create energy out of nothing.

That it is broken for split-split-split second can be shown in simple math if you accept some basic physics assumptions:  If +Energy occur here, for -Energy to occur elsewhere takes time.  It takes (distance/c) for -E place to "know" a +E occurred.  So for the duration of (distance/c), we are borrowing energy or loaning it out.  Except of course if Entangled Particles can transfer info faster than c, we may no longer have a loan period.  That is why Entangled Particles got into my earlier rely.  It may seem like a side track but it was not.

These law can be broken for a trillionth of a trillionth of a femtoSecond - at least Quantum Mechanics said so and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle agrees.  So, can we stretch the time out?  Time at Planck's scale is at best ill-defined anyhow.

If "big bang" is right, that "randomly occurring kernel of energy" was expanded beyond collapse during the (two or more) "inflation" phases.  Since big bang can extend the "energy loan" and scale via naturally event, extending artificially is theoretically possible.

That the universe has a zero-sum energy is a hypothesis for convenience - to make our physical laws more congruent.  We don't know that for a fact and we don't even have any supporting evident - just the gut feel that it should be.   "Create a universe to experiment on" is hardly feasible so we may never know.

[dannyf]

We know very little about the creation of a universe so it isn't an impossibility that we can indeed create a universe.

A man made black hole, particularly a micro black hole, on the other hand, is entirely possible.

[westfw]

Essentially we know so little at this time, of what is really going on.

Of course, this is exactly the sort of quote filtered down from scientists who are talking about subtle details of esoteric phenomena, to lay people with sub-median IQs, that allows "free energy" scams to succeed.  "scientists admit that they don't understand everything, therefore it is reasonable for you to believe that my unusual arrangement of oddly-shaped wire coils might succeed in extracting usable energy from <insert buzzwords  here.>"

No.

[Mechatrommer]

...and if you're trying to bring religion into this then GTFO; don't wreck the thread!

what do you smell? didnt somebody say this topic is fun? free energy thread becomes larger than LHC or particle physics discussion. yeah sure we have few topnotch physicists/mathematicians around here or do you just listen to stories?

We know that something can come from nothing.  Experiments has shown that.  Particles appears from random kernel of energy can be observed-

and then i repeat... lack of understanding or instrumentation or mathematical prove doesnt necessarily means its "nothing". saying it as "nothing" is what religionism or marketing talking, but from science side of people. if one cant understand the origin of an "energy" or how particle anti-particle form/anihilate, then dont just fill the gap and say its "nothing". because i think we all agree that we/science will continually improve hence making mistakes by blunt conclusion/approximation such as "atom is indivisible". its nothing just because it cant be observed or not in the mathematical equations. scientists and mathematicians will continue to work on this but claiming that "something is from nothing" is enforcing the idea that "god does exist" because ideally "god is from nothing" and there is no hard proof that its "nothing", we just dont know, havent formulated it, or not "given" any slight clue about it. ps: "random" in science is a similar term as "i dont know" in laymans word.

[jfiliaul]

I guess it depends on what you definition of free is? If you mean a perpetual motion machine you're right but if you mean FREE as in cost, you are wrong i would say... wind turbines harness energy from a source we don't have to pay to make so in that case its free after it pays for the cost of the turbine.... just my 2 cents....

[Stonent]

Even solar is technically a finite resource. Sure, it will take billions of years before the reaction dies out but it will still happen. Maybe we just need to invent our own personal sun that we can stick inside a reactor that keeps bouncing between hydrogen and helium in a fusion reaction.

[Alex30]

I agree. Unfortunately, it is precisely people who know little that think they know a lot.

Only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing - Socrates

Probably the first quotable quote I learned back when I was a kid watching Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure haha

[dannyf]

Only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing - Socrates

Very profound, and paradoxical too.

[Rick Law]

Only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing - Socrates

Very profound, and paradoxical too.

Hmmm...  mathematical more than paradoxical.

(very small number) divided by (very very very large number) = (a number rounded to zero).

Socrates is more of a mathematician than I thought.

(Chuckle chuckle...)

[Syntax_Error]

Even solar is technically a finite resource. Sure, it will take billions of years before the reaction dies out but it will still happen. Maybe we just need to invent our own personal sun that we can stick inside a reactor that keeps bouncing between hydrogen and helium in a fusion reaction.

Category/Type 2 civilization. Disclaimer: I have no evidence. The following is pure opinion: I believe we will get there someday. It may be difficult to believe now, with all the current issues of our world and civilization, but I think we will get there someday. Many many monumental changes will need to occur before this one happens, but I think we will get there. Someday.

[eas]

Free energy is everywhere, as is perpetual motion.  All you have to do is eliminate the artificial "closed system" requirement.

[...]running rivers will be generated and uselessly dissipated as long as the sun shines[...]

Unless you are a fish, or you fish, or you eat fish, or bears, or...