Unlimited free energy?

[Pirates]

[video=youtube;XHAg25Ndk_k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAg25Ndk_k&NR=1[/video]

I saw this video and I thought it could work.
I havnt looked at any of his other links and I am not really the most knowledgeable about these things.

So, what do you think?
Is it all bullshit?

 

[TheMuffinMan]

Is it all bullshit?

Yes. there is more energy stored in the sunlight that's constantly hitting the earth than there is in generating electricity from the air. The problem with this process is that it is active and mechanical. It takes something and tries to build up enough to generate energy. By that nature, there is energy being input, to result in the output. Passive systems like solar and wind energy are much more likely to benefit us in the future, unless further research is invested in nuclear energy.

 

[Pirates]

Yes. there is more energy stored in the sunlight that's constantly hitting the earth than there is in generating electricity from the air. The problem with this process is that it is active and mechanical. It takes something and tries to build up enough to generate energy. By that nature, there is energy being input, to result in the output. Passive systems like solar and wind energy are much more likely to benefit us in the future, unless further research is invested in nuclear energy.

Ok thanks. So we cant get the heat energy from air?
Or is it just to impractical?

 

[TheMuffinMan]

His theory is that rapidly raising/cooling the temperature will "spark" electricity. So, how does he propose to rapidly cool the air? He is, by nature, going against the very fuel source that he talks about. He would have to input energy into a system to cool air that is constantly being warmed by the very sun energy he's trying to collect. Think of how much energy just goes into an air conditioner that's cooling your house from 90F to 70F. He also has no idea how Tesla Coils work.

He actually gets plenty of fundamental things wrong. For one, the sun doesn't heat the air, necessarily. For his argument to work, sunlight passing through the entirety of space would make Space really warm, because energy is passively travelling through it. In fact, what happens is that when the high-energy photons of the sun hit physical matter, there is energy transfer so that the matter itself heats up using the wavelengths that are absorbed. The air is warm because the physical matter of the earth has warmed and is, in turn, radiating the heat which hits our atmosphere and is trapped (greenhouse effect).

Another thing is that space isn't Absolute Zero, because nothing is really absolute zero. Time itself stops at absolute zero. Space is actually about 2-3 kelvin about AZ. though I suppose this is a nit-picky thing, if you read this guys comments he mentions the fact that he has no background in engineering or physics because it's just "propaganda and lies". He's clearly an idiot.

 

[Pirates]

His theory is that rapidly raising/cooling the temperature will "spark" electricity. So, how does he propose to rapidly cool the air? He is, by nature, going against the very fuel source that he talks about. He would have to input energy into a system to cool air that is constantly being warmed by the very sun energy he's trying to collect. Think of how much energy just goes into an air conditioner that's cooling your house from 90F to 70F. He also has no idea how Tesla Coils work.

He actually gets plenty of fundamental things wrong. For one, the sun doesn't heat the air, necessarily. For his argument to work, sunlight passing through the entirety of space would make Space really warm, because energy is passively travelling through it. In fact, what happens is that when the high-energy photons of the sun hit physical matter, there is energy transfer so that the matter itself heats up using the wavelengths that are absorbed. The air is warm because the physical matter of the earth has warmed and is, in turn, radiating the heat which hits our atmosphere and is trapped (greenhouse effect).

Another thing is that space isn't Absolute Zero, because nothing is really absolute zero. Time itself stops at absolute zero. Space is actually about 2-3 kelvin about AZ. though I suppose this is a nit-picky thing, if you read this guys comments he mentions the fact that he has no background in engineering or physics because it's just "propaganda and lies". He's clearly an idiot.

Ok. I understand that now.
But, because air isnt absolute zero, wouldnt it hold some accesible energy?

 

[TheMuffinMan]

The (heat) energy in the air is essentially second-hand. The majority of the energy coming from the sun will be transferred into the first solid piece of matter it hits, then that piece of matter will heat up from the energy transfer, and then radiate that heat into the air and have energy through entropic motion of air molecules.

So you see, why would we try to get energy out of heated air, when the air is only hot because of leftover energy from sun hitting matter? Skipping that and going right for that pure-sun energy is what solar energy is. Making it so that the first thing those rays from the suns hit are our solar panels, and making those solar panels as efficient as possible in taking that energy, is exceedingly more beneficial than trying to get energy out of the air.

 

[Pirates]

The (heat) energy in the air is essentially second-hand. The majority of the energy coming from the sun will be transferred into the first solid piece of matter it hits, then that piece of matter will heat up from the energy transfer, and then radiate that heat into the air and have energy through entropic motion of air molecules.

So you see, why would we try to get energy out of heated air, when the air is only hot because of leftover energy from sun hitting matter. Skipping that and going right for that pure-sun energy is what solar energy is. Making it so that the first thing those rays from the suns hit are our solar panels, and making those solar panels as efficient as possible in taking that energy, is exceedingly more beneficial than trying to get energy out of the air.

Because air is in caves, where there is no sunlight. You could also generate energy at night.

Do you think it could be practical or is it too little to bother about?

 

[TheMuffinMan]

An example to help you understand why the earth is hot: if every rooftop on the entire planet were painted white, the Earth's temperature would drop to the point of reversing what we know as "global warming". The reason? Colors exist because they are the wavelength of light that is being reflected by that piece of matter, and the color white reflects the most wavelength of light next to a mirrored surface. So by making it so that such a huge portion of the earth's surface area is reflecting energy from the sun, and not absorbing it (and thus, radiating heat from the absorption of energy), the Earth would cool down because it's surface is no longer as hot, and if the surface of the earth weren't hot, neither would the air.

I don't quite understand your point about caves.

 

[Pirates]

An example to help you understand why the earth is hot: if every rooftop on the entire planet were painted white, the Earth's temperature would drop to the point of reversing what we know as "global warming". The reason? Colors exist because they are the wavelength of light that is being reflected by that piece of matter, and the color white reflects the most wavelength of light next to a mirrored surface. So by making it so that such a huge portion of the earth's surface area is reflecting energy from the sun, and not absorbing it (and thus, radiating heat from the absorption of energy), the Earth would cool down because it's surface is no longer as hot, and if the surface of the earth weren't hot, neither would the air.

I don't quite understand your point about caves.

I know all that stuff.

My question is: Is it practical to get energy from the heat in air?

I dont really care how the air got hot in the first place. It is above absolute zero so it should have energy which may be obtainable. Im sure you know all this but I will say it to show you my understanding:

Absolute zero is a theory-state where a particle has no movement, no heat, thus no energy.
If something is above this temp, it has movement and energy.

All air on earth has this energy and, if we could harvest it, it would be almost unlimited. You could do it anywhere, at any time and it would be safe and cause no harmful waste.

 

[Professor Ven]

To get that energy you would need energy to get it; common sense tells me this. Solar power's swell, but then winter comes and, oh look, ze Sun is blocked by ze clouds! Wind power, only that it can never stay windy enough! Nuclear power, except it could cause a meltdown!

So enjoy humanity until the robots revolt against us

 

[TheMuffinMan]

Everything requires input energy for there to be output energy, the only worthwhile sources are those that net more than they use. Sure, by your definition, merely existing requires that you have energy in you, but you have to understand what is worthwhile and workable energy. From a physics standpoint, a rock sitting on the ground has no energy. For that rock to do absolutely anything but sit right there, on the ground, you need to act on it. Therefore, the fact that the rock has 490 degrees of heat in it is meaningless. From a biology standpoint, how much energy that rock has is similarly meaningless. If you were capable of digesting that rock, you would probably spend more energy trying to break apart the molecule of it than you would net kilo-calories of energy from it.

 

[Pirates]

Everything requires input energy for there to be output energy, the only worthwhile sources are those that net more than they use. Sure, by your definition, merely existing requires that you have energy in you, but you have to understand what is worthwhile and workable energy. From a physics standpoint, a rock sitting on the ground has no energy. For that rock to do absolutely anything but sit right there, on the ground, you need to act on it. Therefore, the fact that the rock has 490 degrees of heat in it is meaningless. From a biology standpoint, how much energy that rock has is similarly meaningless. If you were capable of digesting that rock, you would probably spend more energy trying to break apart the molecule of it than you would net kilo-calories of energy from it.

Ok alright I understand.

Thanks.

 

[TheMuffinMan]

To put it as simply as possible, the air has more energy when a breeze moves the hairs on your head, than the air does through ambient temperature.

 

[Pirates]

To put it as simply as possible, the air has more energy when a breeze moves the hairs on your head, than the air does through ambient temperature.

I know that. It is moving and has more energy.

I was just thinking you could take the heat energy from the air, like how the air would absorb the heat from me if I were outside right now.
But, instead of warming something up, you store it.

 

[Phoenix]

To summarize, heat sucks. Heat is what you get when you screwed up getting energy, and some of it is wasted. Heat is entropy, entropy is chaos. Basically, heat is going to destroy the Universe.

Heat sucks. You're looking for a way to reverse entropy. If you find it, you'd have saved the entire Universe.

 

[▽]

As energy in a closed system (in our case, the universe) is conserved, there exists nothing like free energy. The only possibility is conversion from energy which is a lot less intruiging.

On a side note, time doesn't stop at the absolute zero (as someone mentioned) but we get quantum effects. As the motion of particles is equivalent to temperature, their speed is zero (not quite, but approaches) at the absolute zero. Since there is a large certainty in the speed, particles starts leaping all about, leading to the certainty in their position being quite low, to the point of taking up several positions at once. Simply follows from heisenberg uncertainty.

 

[Pirates]

As energy in a closed system (in our case, the universe) is conserved, there exists nothing like free energy. The only possibility is conversion from energy which is a lot less intruiging.

I know that. But there would be more energy in the universe than we could ever use. It might as well be unlimited.

On a side note, time doesn't stop at the absolute zero (as someone mentioned) but we get quantum effects. As the motion of particles is equivalent to temperature, their speed is zero (not quite, but approaches) at the absolute zero. Since there is a large certainty in the speed, particles starts leaping all about, leading to the certainty in their position being quite low, to the point of taking up several positions at once. Simply follows from heisenberg uncertainty.

Wait, so particles still move in absolute zero?

 

[LongLiveLife]

It's called zero point energy. Basically, because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dictates that you can never know with arbitrary precision the exact state of a system (I may be smudging the details; sorry, I'm not a physicist), there must be a constant flux of energy, even in an apparent zero energy state. Thus, even in a perfect vacuum, there is a sea of particle-antiparticle pairs that simultaneously appear and annihilate each other.

 

[▽]

No, it's a bit more complicated then that. The movement you refer to is the clasical view of mechanics. In actuality, particles exhibit dual behaviour, both particle and wave-like. Now, on the macroscopic scale we see matter as discrete "lumps", whereas on the atomic level it's more abstract. The point is that particles can be seen as wave-like as well as point-like. This also requires us to talk about the probability of finding a particle at a certain location, it's wavefunction. Since the probability spreads over a certain length (we are only considering one dimension for simplicity reasons), there is no definitive location to pinpoint for a particle. One moment it is at point a, the next at point b.

That's some of the basics of quantum mechanics. Now take optics, in optics a photon (also showing dualistic behaviour) has a wavelength depending on the frequency (since the product of wavelength and frequency is the speed of the wave, in this case a constant) of the light. Longer wavelengths (and thus lower frequencies) mean photons posess less energy. If you consider the wavefunction of particles at the absolute zero, they have a lower speed. Since speed also is linked to energy (something that does carry from the clasical view), the particles wavelength (called the broglie-wavelength) is long (equivalent to optics) as it barely has energy in the absolute zero. The square of the absolute wave-function is the probability distribution in space and it is normalised, meaning it's surface area (when plotted in a graph) must be 1. For stretched wave functions this means a lower amplitude. which in-and of itself means the probability is approximately the same over a larger interval, meaning it will be found in several different position when observed. an electron that at room-temperature has a wavelength in the order of nanometres might extend into an order of millimetres at the absolute zero, which is a million times bigger. In fact, certain elements assume a new state, in which their wave-functions start to overlap, seeming to exist like a single particle.

Tl;dr it's all quantum mechanics in such extreme conditions.

@ longlivelife, you refer to a vacuum, which does invoke the heisenberg principle, implying the existance of virtual particle-pairs. The case she meant was about particles in absolute zero.