Snake oil

[TimFox]

A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use.
(source:  MIT News, October 26, 2011)
Perhaps we should make use of a small fraction of that to charge our batteries.

[total-selena]

A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use.
(source:  MIT News, October 26, 2011)
Perhaps we should make use of a small fraction of that to charge our batteries.

They forgot about the wind. Wind turbines and solar panels are an annoying idea that requires a lot of oil to implement and maintain. Where will you get the oil? There are few left in Russia.
Aviation and cargo transportation also for batteries?
It is better to think about horse traction than electric vehicles.

[TimFox]

You're the expert, but a lot of guys would think first of photovoltaic...

[TimFox]

Nonsense.  From  https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030   (US Dept of Energy):
"In 2017, the solar industry achieved SunShot’s original 2020 cost target of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar power three years ahead of schedule, dropping from about $0.28 to $0.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Cost targets for residential- and commercial-scale solar have dropped from $0.52 to $0.16 and from $0.40 to $0.11 per kWh respectively."
Including the capital cost of physically-impossible free energy, how much would it cost?
Even in the oil-blest state of Texas, the private sector is investing real money in solar and wind power generation, and the market share of electric vehicles in the US continues to increase, limited mainly by the installation of charging stations.

[coppice]

Nonsense.  From  https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030   (US Dept of Energy):
"In 2017, the solar industry achieved SunShot’s original 2020 cost target of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar power three years ahead of schedule, dropping from about $0.28 to $0.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Cost targets for residential- and commercial-scale solar have dropped from $0.52 to $0.16 and from $0.40 to $0.11 per kWh respectively."
Including the capital cost of physically-impossible free energy, how much would it cost?
Even in the oil-blest state of Texas, the private sector is investing real money in solar and wind power generation, and the market share of electric vehicles in the US continues to increase, limited mainly by the installation of charging stations.

Add in the required storage, and the cost and complexity of solar mushrroms. There's nothing more misleading then energy costs quoted by their advocates.

[TimFox]

Another official report, quantitative rather than hand-waving, that includes storage:
https://www.nrel.gov/news/video/lcoss-text.html
The text transcribes the video for those of us who don't watch videos online.
If something works now, and is not unreasonable in price at present, the history of technology would predict that it gets more economical as development continues.

[Kim Christensen]

They forgot about the wind. Wind turbines and solar panels are an annoying idea that requires a lot of oil to implement and maintain. Where will you get the oil?

Oil, wind, hydro electric, etc... Guess what? It all came from solar energy in the first place!
Even nuclear fuel such as uranium was created by "solar energy" from long dead stars that fused hydrogen into the heavier elements before they went Nova billions of years ago.

There is no "free" energy. We need to use the energy that the environment provides us. This is why I don't understand the rightwing hatred of wind/solar/tidal energy. Why ignore sources of energy that can replace or supplement our finite supplies of oil? If you can burn 1 barrel of oil to make a wind/solar/tidal plant that can produce more energy than just burning that 1 barrel of oil, why wouldn't you do so?

[TimFox]

Solar is the closest thing to "free" energy.
There are economic interests involved in the politics of energy supply:  oil companies have a free-speech right to advocate against their competition, but the listener should consider the source in political controversy.
An interesting post from the State of Texas government about solar power in Texas:  https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2018/april/solar.php

[total-selena]

There is no "free" energy. We need to use the energy that the environment provides us. This is why I don't understand the rightwing hatred of wind/solar/tidal energy. Why ignore sources of energy that can replace or supplement our finite supplies of oil? If you can burn 1 barrel of oil to make a wind/solar/tidal plant that can produce more energy than just burning that 1 barrel of oil, why wouldn't you do so?

In order to get 1 watt from solar panels, you must first spend 10 watts of oil in production and logistics. That's the problem. Solar panels are low resource fun.

And free energy generators are real devices, and they are the future. In 1000 years your opinion will change.

[total-selena]

Solar is the closest thing to "free" energy.
There are economic interests involved in the politics of energy supply:  oil companies have a free-speech right to advocate against their competition, but the listener should consider the source in political controversy.
An interesting post from the State of Texas government about solar power in Texas:  https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2018/april/solar.php

Solar panels lose their output quickly. They need to be changed after 5 years. I can't agree that they are almost free.
No panels can provide, for example, the production of aluminum in Krasnoyarsk or nickel in Norilsk (there is no Sun at all). The first is powered by a huge hydroelectric power station. The second from the tanks with diesel fuel.
But if we do not need aluminum and nickel, then we can light our houses from solar panels and enjoy life a little, until the panels have lost their efficiency.

[coppice]

Solar panels lose their output quickly. They need to be changed after 5 years. I can't agree that they are almost free.

Only really bad panels go downhill that fast, but they do have a limited life. They do need replacement. Nothing is free. A world with less oil consumption is a world with a greatly increased mineral consumption. Only less people or shittier living conditions (i.e. what everyone had before 1769) really reduces overall impact.

No panels can provide, for example, the production of aluminum in Krasnoyarsk or nickel in Norilsk (there is no Sun at all). The first is powered by a huge hydroelectric power station. The second from the tanks with diesel fuel.

So, we smelt in countries with lots of reliable sun, and build the plants insulated enough to keep the molten material molten through the night.

But if we do not need aluminum and nickel, then we can light our houses from solar panels and enjoy life a little, until the panels have lost their efficiency.

Aluminium production has gone backwards in ecological terms. It used to be the energy for it was largely hydro in places with lots of hydro power. Now its mostly produced in China, and they have such a huge demand for power for industry that most of it currently comes from dirty sources.

[PlainName]

In order to get 1 watt from solar panels, you must first spend 10 watts of oil in production and logistics. That's the problem.

If that's so (and it seems a bit low to me), it's a one-off cost. You don't spend that for every watt the panel generates. And, if you think about it, the same applies with any power generation - you're going to use resources to make the stuff before even starting it up. At least with solar there is no ongoing supply costs (for instance, digging up and transporting coal or drilling and transporting oil, etc.).

And free energy generators are real devices, and they are the future. In 1000 years your opinion will change.

Firstly, you're going to spend watts or whatever in making your free energy device, just like with solar. Unless you can explain how they spring into existence fully formed. And you'll be spending all that again on the next one because the first one didn't quite work as expected. And... repeat.

Currently, solar is as free as it gets. All you pay for is infrastructure, which you will pay regardless of what you call your energy source.

Second, what you think of as free energy - that is, an infinite supply that never runs out - isn't possible unless you move to another universe with a completely different set of rules.

[total-selena]

Aluminium production has gone backwards in ecological terms. It used to be the energy for it was largely hydro in places with lots of hydro power. Now its mostly produced in China, and they have such a huge demand for power for industry that most of it currently comes from dirty sources.

Most of the aluminum is produced in Russia, right next to the aluminum ore deposits. And electrolysis is produced from hydroelectric power plants.
Of course, it is possible to bring breed to China and supply electricity from Russia, but this nonsense is from the free energy sector.
You may not know, but Russia gives electricity and gas to China 4 times cheaper than it costs in Russia. Suppose in a year we will change the government and stop the robbery of the country. Can you imagine the consequences in the world?

[TimFox]

Fusion power generation does not violate physics, but has yet to be reduced to practical application.
Solar and wind power generation have now reached the state where they are not only practicable, but attract capital investment from profit-minded enterprises.
Free energy violates a general rule of the universe that you cannot win.

[total-selena]

Firstly, you're going to spend watts or whatever in making your free energy device, just like with solar. Unless you can explain how they spring into existence fully formed. And you'll be spending all that again on the next one because the first one didn't quite work as expected. And... repeat.

Currently, solar is as free as it gets. All you pay for is infrastructure, which you will pay regardless of what you call your energy source.

Second, what you think of as free energy - that is, an infinite supply that never runs out - isn't possible unless you move to another universe with a completely different set of rules.

Free energy generators exist in our reality. It's just that fools and academics are talking. The first, because they "taught physics." The second because they wrote physics, and now they do not want to admit their mistakes.
That's why I say that the situation will improve no earlier than in 1000 years, when people become wiser.
By understanding real physics, the generator can be soldered in one day. But of course, those people who show videos mostly lie.

[TimFox]

PV, wind, and hydro power are practical methods for exploiting the huge flux of power from the sun, which will not abate in 1000 years.
Free energy is an hallucination.
Feel free to invest in the practical application thereof, but remember that I told you so.

[total-selena]

This is a free energy generator circuit. It will not work if you do not understand what functions the elements perform. Keep in mind that electric currents and flows work simultaneously in the circuit. I'm not sure if the translator will correctly translate "electrical flow"

[Kim Christensen]

This is a free energy generator circuit.

 

EDIT: My wife glanced over and noticed the mason jar that I didn't recognize at first. Now it makes perfect sense! 

 

[total-selena]

The contents of the jar have racked the brains of thousands of people around the world since 2009, after demonstrating a generator with an output of 4 kW. Units guessed. And now they're laughing at the rest.

[PlainName]

It will not work if you do not understand what functions the elements perform.

It only works for believers and for anyone else it's a dead circuit?

Don't think that's awfully practical.

[total-selena]

When you know there is no need to believe. It works around the clock, without sun and wind. Just as it worked for N. Tesla, and on the same principle.

[Bud]

If this is a free energy circuit, why does it need the Tr transformer and connection to 220V ?

[total-selena]

If this is a free energy circuit, why does it need the Tr transformer and connection to 220V ?

For start.

[Bud]

Then it will consume energy for which you have to pay. Therefore it is not free.

And what is the deal with 4 kW, why is the limitation? Why not 4 MW or 4 GW?  There is a lot more of free energy out there, I want all my free energy.

[TimFox]

The claim, not supported by physics, is that one can "start" the circuit by applying power, then disconnect the source, and the circuit will continue to supply useful electrical power to a load indefinitely without further additional input energy.
Such a claim would be easy to prove, if true, but also easy to fake by surreptitiously supplying power to the circuit.
The interested reader should search for independent third-party evaluation of these devices (rather than believe the inventor's own claims).
Another form of hypothetical device is a black box that outputs more power than input to it ("over-unity").
Again, carefully check the demonstrations to ensure that the two powers are measured correctly (which is not as easy as it sounds, for other than DC at both ports).