# Free Energy / Energy Harvesters / Perpetual Motion

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Members Lounge' started by Gryd3, Dec 10, 2015.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Gryd3

4,098
875
Jun 25, 2014
These devices are everywhere on the internet. They litter Youtube, instructables, and various forums.
Are they possible?

Lets take a quick look at each one, and point out some unfortunate truths. If you happen to know of one that works, please don't hesitate to build a working proof-of-concept, document the build and it's capabilities before you post. We all like facts, rules, and truths. If you can't construct it, don't ask us for help with it.

Free Energy :
While this has not been dis-proven, it has not been proven either. There is a great deal of things we don't know as a collective species. If you happen to tap into the nth dimension and begin to extract energy then document your work and findings. You should be able to determine the output capabilities. How much voltage, and current can the device put out? Can it actually power anything? Remember that a lemon and a couple pieces of metal can generate electricity. It does not have to be huge numbers to prove a point, but it does have to be backed up by facts and findings.

Energy Harvesters :
This is an interesting topic. Is it possible? You bet! Is it worth it? No... not really.
To harvest energy, you need an energy source. The energy source or sources will emit RF or a magnetic field that you can capture. Please keep in mind there is a rule that makes this device horribly difficult to work with... 'Inverse Square Law'. As you move away from the source, the amount of energy available to capture drops off at an incredibly sharp rate. Perhaps you can capture from multiple sources at once? Again... possible, but not probable. Think of waves in a pool, one kid making waves can be captured, two kids making waves ends up in the waves colliding. Once this occurs, you end up with a new wave that can't be completely harvested due to destructive addition of the waves. If both kids worked together, then you *could* end up with a much bigger wave. RF... much like all those kids in a pool, do not work together and the resulting noise is not suitable for harvesting. One other very important note here, is that any energy you do actually harvest and pull from the air, is no longer available for the intended purpose. eg. WiFi. If you manage to harvest half the power from WiFi, then half your house will be in a dead-zone, or the range will be reduced an incredible amount.
Please note that devices like Qi chargers and RFID tags can be looked at as a form of Energy Harvester, but please also make note that they need to be tuned to a very specific frequency of the source, AND have very very limited range.

Perpetual Motion :
Well, this one is difficult to talk about. It's been proven that the energy output is always lower than energy into a device. We operate in a world of 'conversions'. We use science and technology to convert energy from one form to another with various tools. Our bodies and many organisms convert energy from one form to another as well. Efficiencies vary greatly, but nothing we are aware of can currently output more energy than energy put in ( or even as much energy as was put in). In order to actually prove such a machine exists, you will need to be able to scientifically prove that there is no external source of energy. This includes light, electric or magnetic radiation.

Regardless of the details above. These topics are regarded as hoax topics, troll topics, or similar by the all of the scientific world and the majority of the general population. It would be a good idea to build, test, and document *your* device prior to posting about it. Asking questions about how to build one, or about how someone on Youtube did it (hint... they are hiding wires, or an induction type power source) then the post will most likely be locked.

Happy hunting, and all the luck to you.

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2015
Jomorrow, KJ6EAD, Alec_t and 4 others like this.
2. ### davennModerator

13,866
1,958
Sep 5, 2009
have moved this to somewhere more appropriate

did a couple of minor edits in the perpetual motion section and in the final paragraph

Dave

Gryd3 likes this.
3. ### hevans1944Hop - AC8NS

4,615
2,154
Jun 21, 2012
Good points, @Gryd3. Energy harvesters are only useful if your device uses minute amounts of energy. Some practical energy harvesting techniques include using changes in atmospheric pressure or changes in ambient temperature to produce extremely small charge displacements that can be stored on an extremely low-leakage capacitor. The stored charge is accumulated for long periods of time before being discharged to perform a task, such as a micro-burst RF transmission of stored data. Texas Instruments and Microchip make microprocessors that can take advantage of such minuscule quantities of energy by "sleeping" most of the time, while the charge is accumulating.

Don't even think about powering your Tesla Roadster, now or ever, with energy harvesting technology. Using an electric car to tow a windmill does not produce any net energy gain.

Gryd3 likes this.
4. ### cjdelphi

1,096
104
Oct 26, 2011
Wind is free energy
Solar is free energy

Well let's be honest, wind comes from the warming and cooling from the sun which makes wind...

So that leaves shifted down radio waves (on old TV sets, that white snowy pattern was once blinding white light from countless stars which over time it's wavelength has shifted down getting longer)

So unless it's light or radio, can anything else be truly free? (Wind is a byproduct of sunlight hitting earth)

Yes.. Hydro, but that relies on the moon's gravitational pull, hydro will struggle once the moon drifts too far away!

5. ### Harald KappModeratorModerator

11,655
2,696
Nov 17, 2011
Energy from radio waves isn't "free".

It may look like free energy to the one who taps it, but somewhere a radio tower is powered by an amplifier with a few 100 or 1000 Watt HF power to transmit the radio signal. When you tap this signal to draw energy, the radio signal is weakened and the radio tower has to output more power to achieve the same range.

Compare this to a light source which unimpeded may be visible for a kilometer on a clear night. Now put solar cells in the path of the light to tap the "free" energy. Will you still be able to see the light at a kilometer's distance?
Then consider that radio waves and light are both electromagnetic waves, only at different frequencies.

6. ### cjdelphi

1,096
104
Oct 26, 2011
I'm strictly talking about waves from space from all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum... from long wave to microwave and beyond

And because the air is full of different kinds of wavelengths I agree it would be hard to tap without theft... but in theory why not? Even if it meant a giant parabolic dish in the mountains ? But why not use a solar panel?

7. ### Gryd3

4,098
875
Jun 25, 2014
I guess the term 'free energy' needed to be defined a little more
I meant to put free energy in the similar classification as perpetual motion.
Although it costs no money to harvest, it does impede the source. This source could be wind, solar, or hydro. Collecting this and converting to other forms of electricity results in impeding the ability of others doing to same. You probably laugh at that, simply because of the scale we currently operate on, we have lots of wind, solar, and hydro to spare... but it's a limited quantity. You can collect only so much solar energy for example, and if you decide to put an extra panel in the back-yard over top of your wife's garden, you are going to hear about it
Let's for conversational sake, put solar, hydro, and wind in the successful energy harvesting category along with geo-thermal and other natural energy sources that are currently in place.

Jomorrow likes this.
8. ### davennModerator

13,866
1,958
Sep 5, 2009
solar panels are not cheap, neither are those big wind turbines on hilltops

nothing is free, it all costs you one way or another

D

Gryd3 likes this.
9. ### hevans1944Hop - AC8NS

4,615
2,154
Jun 21, 2012
Or, as science fiction author Robert Anson Heinlein often stated: TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Gryd3 and davenn like this.
10. ### hevans1944Hop - AC8NS

4,615
2,154
Jun 21, 2012
Hydro, as a short form of hydroelectric, usually refers to power generated by falling water, as in hydroelectric dam. The source of this water is of course evaporation from the oceans by heat energy from the Sun, falling as rain. It does not rely on the moon's gravitational pull. Perhaps you meant hydro power generation in its more generic sense, as power derived from moving water. This would of course include tides and ocean waves. Tides are indeed caused by the moon's gravity, but it would take a long time for the moon to drift away far enough to negate tidal action. And hydro in the sense of hydroelectric power generated by falling water, usually with the aid of a dam to impound a supply reservoir, has pretty much already been tapped out. There are not very many places left to build a dam to impound a reliable supply of water for hydroelectric power generation.

Last edited: Dec 12, 2015
Gryd3 likes this.
11. ### bigone5500

712
121
Apr 9, 2014
That sooo looked like a German word.

12. ### Jermzbot

4
0
Dec 13, 2015
This guy seems to have figured it out... Adam Trombly is an internationally acknowledged expert in the fields of Physics, Atmospheric Dynamics, Geophysics, Rotating and Resonating Electromagnetic Systems, and Environmental Global Modeling. In 1980 Adam and colleague Joseph Kahn designed and applied for patents for the Closed Path Homopolar Generator.

13. ### bigone5500

712
121
Apr 9, 2014

davenn likes this.
14. ### davennModerator

13,866
1,958
Sep 5, 2009

a good come back to the claim posted by jermzbot
which is obviously incorrect

15. ### bigone5500

712
121
Apr 9, 2014
I deleted the post immediately as I re-read the quoted text. For some reason I understood it differently the second time around.

I'd like to know how many millions of \$\$\$ have been 'stolen' from people who are simply ignorant to the way things work.

Gryd3 and davenn like this.

4,615
2,154
Jun 21, 2012
17. ### Gryd3

4,098
875
Jun 25, 2014
I knew someone who was on the chase for limitless alternative energy.
Armed with a thin slice of electrical knowledge, and just enough understanding that you can 'convert' energy from one form to another... he must've spent all his spare time and the family's money on his project.

No one can claim to know all there is to know about the subject, we are learning as individuals and as a species all the time. Perhaps he will find something no one else here knows or understands. My point is that I won't dismiss something that has not been proven... but I will dismiss something that has been disproved.
It's a subtle difference. Proof that this wont work vs. Proof that this will work.

I like to keep an open mind. I don't pursue this kind of thing, but I encourage learning any way I can to anyone who does want to. This is a major part of why I started this thread. It's not here to shame people, it's here to encourage research. REAL research, instead of linking a YouTube video or Instructables that someone wants to duplicate.
As it is, without posting all the physics and theories about why things don't work, we are still presenting other useful information.

I do thank you all for that by the way

18. ### bigone5500

712
121
Apr 9, 2014
I thought it was a law of physics or something that when you convert some form of energy to another you lose a bit of that initial energy in the process.

From that I think I can safely say that 'perpetual' type energy is never going to be achieved.

For someone to pursue 'free' energy they may or may not be wasting their time. Even if they never achieve their goal, they will have gained a priceless amount of knowledge along the way.

Gryd3 and davenn like this.
19. ### hevans1944Hop - AC8NS

4,615
2,154
Jun 21, 2012
First, we should all recognize that it is impossible to "prove" a negative statement. All it takes is just one counter-example to demonstrate the negative statement is not true, but until that counter-example is demonstrated the truth or falsity of the negative statement remains in limbo. So, to flatly deny that the extraction of usable energy from the vacuum, or whatever, is impossible is a non sequitur. And perhaps, if it were possible, then invested interests in other forms of energy production would indeed feel threatened, and perhaps conspire to suppress such technology, or at the very least attempt to assert monopolistic control of it.

So, again, we are stuck with the conundrum of how to prove a negative. If I state that no such conspiracy exists, then someone somewhere need only provide a "smoking gun" counter-example. Tossing out accusations that the Illuminati, or Big Oil, International Bankers, or the Bilderberg Group are responsible for the suppression of "free energy" is easy, but it is not proof. Nevertheless, it is appealing to conspiracy theorists to make such accusations. How about applying Occam's Razor to this problem: Does the absence of commercial "free energy" devices mean (1) such devices do not exist or (2) there is a world-wide conspiracy to suppress commercial "free energy" devices? Either choice is a possibility, but it is up to each of us to decide which is more likely or worth the investing of money, time, and effort to prove or disprove.

I have been intrigued about the possibility of "free energy" for many years, and have pursued on the Internet many lines of "research" claiming to have found answers. My quest began with the Casimir Effect which I first learned about in undergraduate school sometime in the 1970s. I must confess that trying to understand the Casimir effect was then, and still is, way above my level of incompetence in understanding quantum physics and quantum electrodynamics. But the salient fact I learned was this: the vacuum is somehow teeming with random, quantized, electromagnetic energy, all mostly adding up to nothing. The adding up to nothing explains why you can't stick a pair of wires into a vacuum and extract electrical power from them. The Casimir Effect demonstrates (without explaining) the force that occurs between two closely spaced, but uncharged, parallel plates separated by a vacuum. Clearly something macroscopic is going on here, even if I don't understand the quantum mechanics of it. By macroscopic, I mean the Casimir Effect can be demonstrated with physical apparatus you can actually see and the Casimir force measured. Contrast this to most quantum mechanical phenomena which occur on the atomic scale, such as the emission of a photon when an electron loses energy by "falling" from an outer shell to an inner shell in an atom.

There have been some pretty wild "theories" put forth to explain why current electrical engineering theory (to which I subscribe) is just plain wrong. Perhaps the most prolific advocate of this "new age" electrical engineering is Tom Bearden. Tom claims that conventional generators create an electrical dipole that in turn creates an asymmetry in the vacuum of space surrounding each pole, allowing the free flow of observable energy from the vacuum. I may have oversimplified Tom's explanation, so visit his website for clarification.

Unfortunately, conventional electrical engineering destroys this dipole (and the free energy) by allowing an electrical current to flow, Thus normal generators require a continuous input of energy to replace the energy dissipated by the electrical circuit when instead (at least according to Tom) the vacuum energy should be providing power to the load. He claims to know how to do this, and even has a patent that may (or may not) support his assertion.

I could cite other "researchers" in this field, but have never found any with actual products I could purchase on Ebay. For example, there is an electrolysis unit that, with the aid of a three-phase pulsed power supply, is supposed to extract power from the environment to produce so-called Brown's Gas, a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that can be burned in an ordinary internal combustion engine. This electrolyzer is so efficient that an IC engine can be run entirely on the combustible gas mixture with enough power left over to not only power a vehicle but to also, via an alternator driven by the engine, provide enough power to run the electrolysis unit. Of course you do have to provide a replenishment water supply, but this is probably cheaper on a tank-by-tank basis than gasoline.

All of the "free energy" schemes I have seen to date seem to rely on some sort of "impulse" either electrical, magnetic, or mechanical to liberate the free energy available in the vacuum. Bear in mind that given the huge amount of space between atoms and molecules, compared to the volume occupied by their nuclei, that we virtually live in a vacuum anyway... so maybe all of this is plausible. However, your mileage (or kilometers) may vary.

Gryd3 likes this.
20. ### Harald KappModeratorModerator

11,655
2,696
Nov 17, 2011
No, not to me . To me it looks more like Afrikaans.