akarunway 1 #1 May 9, 2008 What will the startup cost be? To good to be true? Military uses? What do you (the brainiacs) think? http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm Sure could put OPEC outta business.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,241 #2 May 9, 2008 QuoteSure could put OPEC outta business. If it existed in the real world and not just Lala-land.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 May 9, 2008 It's from rense - that should be warning enough for youMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 14 #4 May 9, 2008 There is no such thing as "free engery". It is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. As for this bullshit arguement and device look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_Electrical_Generator Tom Bearden announced the arrival of the MEG technology (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) on March 26, 2002. This device was supposed to be in mass production by 2003, and claimed to produce unlimited energy from the vacuum, to answer mankind's power needs. It was promoted through JLNlabs[5], Cheniere.org[6], and an Egroup called "MEG Builders"[7]. The device was even written up in Vol. 14., No. 1, 2001, Foundations of Physics Letters[8]. As of 2006, the MEG was still not in production, and Tom Bearden claimed he needed about $11 million to develop it to a viable commercial form. [9] Bearden also admitted he had no working prototype, stating the 'last working demonstrator was promptly destroyed'. [10] He is nothing more then a scam artist trying to get money to fund something that does not exist. Also look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppressionYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 May 9, 2008 It seems to me that some sort of solar-heated Stirling engine would be about as close as you could get...or am I mistaken?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simonw 0 #6 May 9, 2008 yeah but "solar-power" is not free energy.... and it would probably be more efficient to just use solar panels Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 May 10, 2008 Quoteyeah but "solar-power" is not free energy.... and it would probably be more efficient to just use solar panels If the 10-30 megajoules of solar energy that strikes every square meter of the Northern Hemisphere daily isn't free energy, I don't know of anything else that could qualify. Current PV's are what? 15-20% efficient, if I remember some of BV's posts correctly. Stirling cycle engines claim up to 50% efficiency... I think it's worth a try.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,356 #8 May 10, 2008 20% for commercial PV panels, 45% for lab cells. Stirling concentrators are doing about 32% best case nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #9 May 10, 2008 Quote If the 10-30 megajoules of solar energy that strikes every square meter of the Northern Hemisphere daily isn't free energy, I don't know of anything else that could qualify. It's "free" in terms of "free lunch" you didn't pay for. The main problem, however, is the efforts needed to collect this energy.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites