Free energy source actually found

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L50x35d ... =emb_title

This man suspended a wire 300ft off the ground from a kite. The wire then powered a radio and a LED light.
Apparently the earth's atmosphere holds a charge at all times, the higher off the ground you measure , the higher the voltage is.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu ... 00%20volts

I heard the earth holds 11 volts? Or was it 1.1 volts. I can't remember. It is something to do with how crystal wireless radios work?
It has been known about for many years. Is not strong enough to power much but it can be used.

The wire held enough electricity to shock the man in the video when he touched it.

Im wondering what would happen then if you had a 300 foot tower made of metal. wouldnt that produce a lot of electricity?

Mainstream science says the earth's atmosphere holds 'current' or whatever word accurately describes the electricity in the air.

My brother does various experiments as he used to be an electrician. As I understand it, the current is in the earth or near the earth (?) but there is something about harnessing it in the air. I don't know a lot about the details except that telwgraph posts with phone lines used to make use of it to help their current get through over distances from what I heard and it had something to do with running a cable up to the top of the pole?

Someone who knows about these things can say more as I am only going by what I have heard from various sources and I do not know a lot about it. If I need to know I ask my brother but he can easily lose me in his technical knowledge of such things.

Though a different thing, it brings to mind this experiment from the Space Shuttle years,
https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html
"
The space tether experiment, a joint venture of the US and Italy, called for a scientific payload--a large, spherical satellite--to be deployed from the US space shuttle at the end of a conducting cable (tether) 20 km (12.5 miles) long. The idea was to let the shuttle drag the tether across the Earth's magnetic field, producing one part of a dynamo circuit. The return current, from the shuttle to the payload, would flow in the Earth's ionosphere, which also conducted electricity, even though not as well as the wire.
"

To be honest, it is cheaper to just pay the electric bill then NASA trying to get free energy as the cost of sending the shuttle up and the equipment is way more then someone going down to the post office to pay the electric bill now and then.

Yeah that makes sense that telegraph poles would use it.

In school and college they never mentioned this, they just promoted the idea of 'cant get something for nothing' and electricity can only be generated from 'work'

The issue is that though it is free energy, as with most things the costs and difficulties in harnessing it make it less worthwhile to make use of it compared to using things like fossel fuels or even more powerful, nuclear. Nuclear is one of the most amazing sources of power created by simply cutting an atom in half! Just sharpen ones pen knife...
Seriously though, nuclear is the ultimate fuel source if one takes the immense power obtained from what is a single process.

This "Free Air Power" fluctuates too much, and lightning is a constant hazard.  Nearby power lines can also alter the value, and even active house wiring can make it seem like "Free Power" is being generated.

If an antenna could be erected high enough to bypass these hazards, it would have to be as much as 50 km (kilo-meters) tall.

At 50 km, the potential is about 400 kV (kilo-Volts), but the available current is only about 10pA (pico-Amps) per square meter.  Because P = E x I, this means the available power is about 400nW (nano-Watts).

(0.4 x 10^6)Volts x (1A x 10^-12)Amps = (0.4 x 10^-6)Watts = 400nW

I have seen many people demonstrate this alleged "Free Power" phenomenon before, almost always when the person giving the demonstration was asking for a few tens of thousands of dollars to further his back-yard research.  Those of us EE professionals who pointed out the flaws and tricks inherent in the demonstrations were called "shills of Big Energy" (and much worse) by the quacks giving the demonstrations.

As another point of interest, even though free energy devices (and perpetual motion machines) do not exist, they can be patented both in the United States and in Canada.  Neither country requires a working model of a machine as a condition for obtaining a patent.  Thus, there is no requirement that the machine actually work.

There are mechanical machines that come pretty close to perpetual motion in that they can run for a good while before they eventually come to a stop, but the issue here is that even if such a device can go for an hour or more it is little more than a curiosity because no sooner does one attempt to harness this movement to put it into some form of practical use, the minutest bit of additional friction be it through mechanical or magnetic (Electrical) means, the slight friction is enough to bring such machines to a halt.
So as a curiosity, some of the best of those machines can run for ages before they eventually stop, but the practicality other than the visual delight is just not available to be harnessed.

Better to power a waterwheel from a river or stream or a windmill than build a perpetual motion machine as a waterwheel or a windmill are a far more successful way to harness the energy... Water keeps running downhill towards the sea. Kinetic energy for the use of!

As a heat source for the use of, plutonium (Have I spelt it right?) offers great potential, though is said to need careful handling.
There is something rather "Odd" about nuclear power in that I am wondering if we are given the whole picture of truth.

We are not being given the entire and truthful picture about nuclear power, especially by those pushing the idea that nuclear power is clean, safe, and inexpensive; it is none of these, especially in the long run.

Is like trying to handle fire but on a much larger scale multiplied! What amazed me was that nuclear submarines can go for 25 years on the one fuel source before it needs to be changed. This I found to be amazing and made me think about the potential. Of course, one needs to be safe. No point in using a fuel source if one does not survive to be able to make use of it.

You can say the same about wind and solar. Those of us who are still around can look forward to dealing with the toxic solar waste catastrophe in roughly a decade, something many, many times worse than the nuclear waste problem ever would have been, as we simultaneously enjoy third world-tier power grids thanks to the windmill craze.

Are you referring to the "Solar Radiation" with which that solar cells are alleged to contaminate the environment?

I haven't heard of that before, actually I don't know what that means. Light pollution? I am referring to the lead, cadmium, antimony and various other toxic compounds that go into the construction of standard solar panels, they are very difficult to recycle, so it will likely just have to be stored somewhere out of reach of people and the elements, much like nuclear waste. In comparison to nuclear about 300 times the toxic waste per energy unit is produced. The worst part is that it is said that the cadmium (known carcinogen) in particular is washed out into the ground water by rain over the lifespan of a solar panel, causing future problems even before the panels reach end of life.

. . . and into every other electronic device on the market.  What is your point?