Why haven't you heard about this?

[VideoJinx]

Power your house for free, and never pay for electricity.

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2008/02/power-your-whole-house-with-your-own.html

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

Because if you open your fridge 3 times a day, you'll run out power.

 

[VideoJinx]

uhmm...no?

 

[Killface]

More youtube videos eh?

But i dunno.. seems pretty good to me. The average house consumes 8900 Kilowatts/hours of power each year.. and this one generates 1000 each day.

 

[MC]

What makes this any different than the thousands that came before it and possibly the thousands to come after it?

 

[VideoJinx]

Interesting quote, it produces 5 times as much power as it consumes and much more..

 

[Deman]

Interesting quote, it produces 5 times as much power as it consumes and much more..

Interesting. I'm curious to see how it fairs in independent testing as that's pretty much breaking one of the most basic laws of physics.

 

[Grega]

True the laws of physics dont really allow power to be gained out of nothing. You can only change power from one form to another. And during the change some of that power is lost. Meaning there is no way something can just make 5 times the power that is fed into it without Aand additional atleast 6 times bigger powersuply.

Besides youd need about 10 of those babys to produce enough electricity to power your house.

Now here is the alternative. A neighbour of mine built his own hydro power plant on the creek that runs past his house. A bit of maintenance and all that stuff and he has free power and more then he needs.

 

[DaRkOwNs]

silly forum-goers, laws are only the fabrication of mans corruption.

 

[Eon]

This item was already debunked on an episode of "Penn & Teller: Bull****!"

it was debunked pretty hard.

 

[Grega]

Even if you say that i still dont believe thats possible without a trick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

 

[kam!]

Alright, people have always clamied to be able to build a machine that would produce energy out of nothing.
They were always proven wrong. But not every idea is BS.
I wasn't able to educate ,yself in that direction, but do permanent magnets "lose" energy when they attract other objects?
My teacher in physics couldn't quite answer that question. If they don't lose energy, they could be a valid approach to
build a perpetuum mobile.

 

[Deman]

This item was already debunked on an episode of "Penn & Teller: Bull****!"

it was debunked pretty hard.

Well there we go then. debunked by independent study.

 

[Eon]

well, by debunked I mean they bought one and it didn't work.

 

[Grega]

Alright, people have always clamied to be able to build a machine that would produce energy out of nothing.
They were always proven wrong. But not every idea is BS.
I wasn't able to educate ,yself in that direction, but do permanent magnets "lose" energy when they attract other objects?
My teacher in physics couldn't quite answer that question. If they don't lose energy, they could be a valid approach to
build a perpetuum mobile.

That is in fact true. Magnets could work nicely converting rotation into energy. But the problems with that are maintenance. Youd have to oil the damn thing preety well in order for it to keep spining. The friction on the rotationary joint would constantly slow down the rotation. Meaning it would stop if the magnets were not strong enough. But permanent magnets are not strong enough to overcome such friction. So youd need to use electromagnets they would consume power and youd probably be back at square 1 with a maschiene that produces less than it consumes.

 

[harSens]

Alright, people have always clamied to be able to build a machine that would produce energy out of nothing.
They were always proven wrong. But not every idea is BS.
I wasn't able to educate ,yself in that direction, but do permanent magnets "lose" energy when they attract other objects?
My teacher in physics couldn't quite answer that question. If they don't lose energy, they could be a valid approach to
build a perpetuum mobile.

An object in a magnetic field has a certain potential energy. That is, the field can move it somewhere, converting the potential magnetic energy to kinetic energy. However, to put it back in the old position, you have to supply the same amount of kinetic energy. It's pretty much the same as dropping something from a table in a gravitational field. You'll have to provide the same amount of energy to put it on the table again.

 

[Damaera]

Please, excuse me if this is spam but: http://esforces.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62052

 

[VideoJinx]

well, by debunked I mean they bought one and it didn't work.

Could you show me this ?

 

[Eon]

Could you show me this ?

It's a showtime show, I don't have the DVD, or links to the part in question, so you'll have to pretend I'm telling the truth (but why would I lie? )

 

[Almighty_Gir]

Jinx, he doesn't really need to.

as soon as i watched your video i said "wait a second, someone's invented perpetual energy?!"

in other words, i shouted bull****; it's impossible to have something output an equal, or greater amount of energy than it consumes.


if you really want to "power your house", stick some solar panels, and wind turbines on the roof, and have the national grid route your home back into their system. it's what we've done here, and we pay almost nothing for our electricity now, because most of the time we don't use up as much energy as our house generates through our panels etc. but when we do go over it, we get charged. anything we don't use is put into the national grid, so we're credited for it.

thousands of people do it. but what you're suggesting, would break the fundamental laws of physics... then again, most of your threads revolve around things which are impossible.