the first free energy machine in the world

[ckaihatsu]

The Lutec 1000 is the first free energy machine to be developed to commercial stage anywhere in the world.

The Lutec 1000 generator will produce up to 1000 watts of DC electricity twenty four hours a day, every day, which will be stored in a battery bank and then inverted to AC power and connected directly into the home or business.

http://www.lutec.com.au/index.htm

[orwellcommie]

We've Done it!  We've DONE IT, the Capitalist Petrol currency is finally defeated!  We must make sure the scientest who has developed this invention are kept safe and secure.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry to spoil the End-of-Capitalism parties -- I was just thinking of throwing one myself -- but here's something I forgot to think of:

This doesn't stop people proposing motors which are driven only by magnetic fields.  These motors have rotors which are pushed or pulled most of the way around a circle by some arrangement of magnets.  There's nothing impossible about this, but the designers then expect the rotor to suddenly ignore the magnetic field and to complete the cycle.  This gets the rotor back to its starting point after delivering a net output of energy.  This is impossible.

http://phact.org/e/z/freewire.htm


So I'll stay skeptical, but the urge is there to see if another revolution-facilitating technology, like for energy especially, is around the bend....

[turnoviseous]

I thought this thing was actually functioning already. From what they say on their site, one would think we are days away from having free electricity..oh well :=).

[redjordi]

there are two concepts mixed up here, one is that of an (impossible) permanent motion machine, and the other one about "free" energy. this is impossible because a certain amount of energy is always lost through friction and therefore any machine tends towards a state of equilibrium, not of perpetual motion. even the website describes this machine as lasting for ten years (only).

in fact you could distribute energy for free even now, as long as the workers controlled the power stations as part of a planned economy. I read somewhere that one of the obstacles of capitalist restoration in Russia was that there were no individual meters for gas and electricity in the blocks of flats and therefore it was difficult and costly to introduce a system to charge people for these basic utilities. though this is not an absolute obstacle obviously, the capitalists will certainly have found a way around this!

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by redjordi

in fact you could distribute energy for free even now, as long as the workers controlled the power stations as part of a planned economy. I read somewhere that one of the obstacles of capitalist restoration in Russia was that there were no individual meters for gas and electricity in the blocks of flats and therefore it was difficult and costly to introduce a system to charge people for these basic utilities. though this is not an absolute obstacle obviously, the capitalists will certainly have found a way around this!

Hehe, I remember this as well. 7 years ago, i lived in a flat with my mother and people paid for heating this way: there was one meter per block, so the whole cost got divided between people equally (not regarding how much one actually used).

But here there was "no problem" in this matter after restoration, because here it was this way all the way back in Stalinism as well - here heating and electricity was never "free", there was only a "weird way" of paying for it.

Jordi, what do you mean when you say "in fact you could distribute energy for free even now, as long as the workers controlled the power stations as part of a planned economy"?

[redjordi]

"Jordi, what do you mean when you say "in fact you could distribute energy for free even now, as long as the workers controlled the power stations as part of a planned economy"?"

what i mean is that under a democratically planned socialist economy there would be no need to ask for payment for basic services (thus getting rid of quite a lot of unnecesary bureaucracy)

redjordi

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by redjordi
"Jordi, what do you mean when you say "in fact you could distribute energy for free even now, as long as the workers controlled the power stations as part of a planned economy"?"

what i mean is that under a democratically planned socialist economy there would be no need to ask for payment for basic services (thus getting rid of quite a lot of unnecesary bureaucracy)

redjordi

Yes. I thought you somehow implied that it would be "free", ie. "void of value". Obviously even in workers´ state laws of value work.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, at the risk of seeming totally apolitical and -- worse yet -- a total dupe -- here is a link to a purportedly *free-energy* device which has received a U.S. Patent.

Can we collectively turn our backs on the U.S. petro-dollar hegemony now? Could it all come crashing down?

http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm


Chris



--



___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com,
rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, substancenews.com,
socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com,
moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info,
blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[Karl Belin]

Hey comrades,

All of these "free energy" devices are, unfortunately, etremely inefficient. There is one that generates electric power through radio waves. The problem is, it takes more energy to run the machine than it collects. This is the problem with all of these devices, as someone pointed out earlier - machines move increasingly toward a state of equilibrium.

The perpetual motion device has plagued pseudo-scientists for thousands, perhaps millions of years. The laws of thermodynamics will not allow a machine to be perpetually motivated. I'm still a fan of water-wheels with generators attached, or wind mills. I think that 20 or 30 years after the revolution, we'll see hundreds or 10s of hundreds of windmills on the old idle plots of land that will generate a huge chunk of our power.

[ckaihatsu]

Karl, comrades,

I appreciate this discussion, especially since global warming and alternative-energy discussions seem to be getting a new hearing in this O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation -- thanks, Ari Fleischer!) -dominated political atmosphere.

Certainly a truly perpetual-motion machine is a contradiction in terms, since we know that the earth's atmosphere will interfere with inertia of motion. A wheel, once set in motion, will continue spinning endlessly in the frictionless void of outer space, but here on earth it will rub up against molecules of air and eventually grind to a halt.

You bring up an interesting example, though, Karl -- that of water wheels. Could we say that water wheels demonstrate perpetual motion? It would seem so at first glance, since they are turning continuously, but we know better than to call them that since we understand that the larger (atmospheric) dynamic of gravity-powered water is the source of the energy being harnessed by the water wheel.

Similarly, to someone who knows nothing about fossil fuels a car would seem to be in perpetual motion, unaware that an energy conversion is going on, from the latent (potential) energy stored in gasoline to the kinetic energy of pistons churning and wheels turning.

A third example would be the plastic drinking bird toy that seems to demonstrate perpetual motion if one did not know about how the toy interacted with the larger atmospheric environment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird

So my point here is that we live in a unique biosphere which is teeming with energy due to the presence of our solar system's sun. How we tap and convert some form of this energy into usable energy -- say, electricity -- is really the crux of the issue.

And, of course, we have to consider economic and political factors, including why some energies, primarily fossil fuels, are used and not others.

But at the heart of any conversion process is the simple fact that one form of energy is being converted to another form, and hopefully efficiently, with as little friction and heat generated as possible, since that takes away from the usable energy produced.

For those at the fringes of energy development the question is: What is the source energy, and what is the destination (usable) energy?

I have read some material which says that one kind of energy can be used sparingly to leverage larger quantities of some other kind of energy. It would be similar to using a couple of sheep-herding dogs to herd large numbers of sheep, for profit.

[From TECHNOLOGIES OVERVIEW:]
The refrigerator in your kitchen is the only "free energy machine" you currently own. It's an electrically operated heat pump. It uses one amount of energy (electricity) to move three amounts of energy (heat). This gives it a "coefficient of performance" (COP) of about 3.
http://www.free-energy.ws/background.html

I hate to be idealistic in the slightest, but perhaps there is a realistic possibility for providing a simple machine to the general public -- in the here-and-now -- that will enable people to tap sufficient supplies of existing energy for their own needs, thus taking us out of the grip of the energy industry. It seems to me that that would be fairly revolutionary, and could facilitate revolutionary political movements as well.


Thanks, take care all,

Chris







___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com,
rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, substancenews.com,
socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com,
moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info,
blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[Karl Belin]

One example I can think of is new lighting technology. Light emitting diodes (LEDs) produce an almost immeasurable amount of waste heat (in fact, waste heat cannot be detected from them without EXTREMELY sensetive devices). These LEDs can be placed on a simple circuit board and produce the same wattage of a standard light buld on less energy (I don't know the exact figures) and produce virtually no waste heat.

So, I would assume that these LED lights have a pretty efficient COP. Also, I on't think that they can burn out. If made widely available, these lights would revolutionize lighting and seriously cut down energy costs, not to mention cut back on wasted materials in light bulb production.

[ckaihatsu]

Glad to have the feedback, Karl -- it's always beneficial to have refinements in technology, and I personally like the trend of miniaturization that's been taking place since the advent of the transistor.

To put this discussion into a political context, I can't help but wonder if there's a technology that would be inherently *revolutionary*, similar to the dawn of mass production of household goods.

This is not to let capitalism off the hook, but if we could solve the household-energy issue it just might rival the printing press as a paradigm shift, one that could liberate regular, working-class people from wage-slavery, no matter where they are in the world.

Just a thought (and keep 'em coming, everyone!)...

[Karl Belin]

A quick note on wind turbines:

I was just watching this TV show, "House of the Future". It demonstrated the power of a "consumer wind turbine". When the wind was blowing at 10 mph, it generated 100 watts of power. When the wind speed increased to 20 mph, it generated 800 watts. That is really amazing to me.

So, with the farms alone, we could power the entire country. But, if each person had their own turbine, we could reduce the land space taken up by wind farms and devote that to food and other things.

Today, unfortunateley, "consumer" turbine cost around $3,000, something not many workers can pay. Plus, you have to assemble them yourself, which takes renting a crane. That is even MORE expensive.

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, I'd like to recommend the upbeat documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" to everyone.

I just saw it, and the website is ev1.org -- there's extensive coverage of Stan Ovshinsky who is a pioneer in thin solar cell film. He says something to the effect that revolutionaries should look into solar energy. It's a point well taken here, given the dual hegemons of the oil industry and US government debt/currency.


Chris








___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com,
moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
MySpace: www.myspace.com/ckaihatsu