MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Maybe there is some truth in this Free Energy claim?

Bob Russell · 07-09-2007, 02:24 PM

Here's a BBC article. Hopefully not a repeat...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6283374.stm

But this pompous professor seems to be confused about the difference between an energy source and a perpetual motion machine. We've seen a lot of deluded people be wrong about perpetual motion machines and the conservation of energy, but can't he admit the possibility of energy created usefully from a system that transforms energy from a useless state (e.g. a tiny bit of mass) into a useful state (e.g. current flow or motion)?

I don't think these guys are onto anything either, but I am not ready to rule out a fanciful future energy source. We already know that nuclear energy works (with many problems, of course), and it doesn't contradict conservation of energy.

Energy doesn't need to be scientifically "free". It just needs to cost us something that isn't precious. If it can run on a supply of ordinary dirt, I think we'd be pretty happy with the energy source, even if it wasn't a perpetual motion machine. The sun is a pretty effective energy producer, even if it's not a perpetual energy source.

This guy just needs to come down off his high horse, step out of the news spotlight, and start thinking like a real professor!

07-09-2007, 02:24 PM	#36
Bob Russell Recovering Gadget Addict Posts: 5,381 Karma: 676161 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Device: iPad	Here's a BBC article. Hopefully not a repeat... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6283374.stm But this pompous professor seems to be confused about the difference between an energy source and a perpetual motion machine. We've seen a lot of deluded people be wrong about perpetual motion machines and the conservation of energy, but can't he admit the possibility of energy created usefully from a system that transforms energy from a useless state (e.g. a tiny bit of mass) into a useful state (e.g. current flow or motion)? I don't think these guys are onto anything either, but I am not ready to rule out a fanciful future energy source. We already know that nuclear energy works (with many problems, of course), and it doesn't contradict conservation of energy. Energy doesn't need to be scientifically "free". It just needs to cost us something that isn't precious. If it can run on a supply of ordinary dirt, I think we'd be pretty happy with the energy source, even if it wasn't a perpetual motion machine. The sun is a pretty effective energy producer, even if it's not a perpetual energy source. This guy just needs to come down off his high horse, step out of the news spotlight, and start thinking like a real professor!