built better, and probably cleaner that most homes today....def. more energy efficient-

>> ^Memorare:
San Fran will be offing the vanity lights on the Golden Gate bridge, and hey for an hour i can do my part and play online games in the dark. However little it is, do Something.


I do find that amusing... continue using your pc/console, which uses 100s of Watts of power while turning off your light which (it is an energy efficient one isn't it?) uses, what, 10, 15W. Amusing indeed. What about reading a book for an hour... by candle light?

We plan to do this tonight, although I think we'll have to leave the night lights on in the kid's rooms, they do get a little scared... but yeah, we can live without lights for an hour... And hurray for Australia leading the way in yet another great initiative... dangit that it was Sydney, the bastards ... but hey, still Aussie

I can't see an advantage from having a foot like ours, compared to monkey-feet-hands. Yet somehow, small mutations such as straighter feet took place, and selective breeding led to our feet the way they are.

Well I wrote an extensive paper on "the selective pressures leading to bipedalism in the genus Homo", and trust me, there area lot of reasons why our hands and feet are more differentiated than other primates.

For the bulk of its evolution, humanity has been a fairly nomadic, hunter-gatherer race. Mainly, you can't walk upright very well or have a smoothly operating human knee if you also have an opposable big toe. Morphology facilitating bipedal locomotion conferred a number of survival and sexual selection advantages to a primitive human. Mainly:

1. Bipedal locomotion is more energy efficient than any other locomotor pattern... humans have better endurance for long voyages by foot than any other species, including horses, large cats, etc..
2. Walking upright exposes less skin surface area to UV rays
3. Walking upright allows the focussed use of the hands to carry things, protect young, gather food, etc..
4. Walking upright allows a greater field of vision and viewing distance, which is better for hunting as well as defending the tribe.

And so on...

You sir, just owned my ass. When efficiency is defined as such you are totally correct. But then again we run into a fuel issue. Now as it was pointed out to me, permanent magnets are not permanent. So if we label that device as 100-500% efficient, then yes we are saying it is indeed breaking the laws of physics. But when taking into account that it will eventually stop due to the fact the polarization of the magnets will no longer be sufficient to run it, then it is no longer perpetual, or 100 percent efficient. Keep in mind i never once said that it will run my house as good as they described it to. The rig itself might run for 5 years, but once you add on the resistance of powering an alternator, will it really work? I don't know.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
The first clip I removed from the Science channel because the news story is scientifically inaccurate and flies in the face of basic concepts of physics and engineering, and I downvoted it because it was scientifically inaccurate and also a piss-poor example of journalistic fact-checking. The second I removed because it was not scientifically interesting enough to belong in the Science channel. Magnetic repulsion, as pointed out and briefly explained by Flavio and Fission, is neither new nor renewable. (Check out the renewable energy article on Wikipedia to get a clearer idea of what the term entails.)

Since I don't have time to go point for point, I will instead provide an analysis of two sentences from a comment you made in conjunction with well-accepted concepts from physics and then allow you to view your sift and beliefs through this lens. Please read through it, because I think you might get something from it, as you seem like a reasonable guy. Let's begin:

In physics terms, energy efficiency is defined such that:
Efficiency = Output / Input

Now, let's think about the machine you sifted about. We'll assign the output of this magnet repulsion machine to variable a, and assign the input of the machine to b. From this, we can write:
Efficiency of the machine = Output of the machine / Input of the machine = a / b

You said: "They clearly point out that it [the machine] produces 5 times more energy than it consumes." This means the output of the machine (a) is five times that of the input (b). Using our variables in an equation, this mathematically is:
a = 5b

Thus, we can calculate the efficiency of the machine:
Efficiency of the machine = a / b

and since a = 5b, we can say by substitution:
Efficiency of the machine = a / b = 5b / b = 5

To get this efficiency in percent, we multiply by 100:
Efficiency of the machine = 5 x 100% = 500%

So we have just calculated the efficiency of the machine to be 500%.

Now, remember that you said: "No energy production method is 100 percent efficient." This is correct, and in keeping with the law of conservation of energy. It is impossible for any real-world machine to have an efficiency above 100%.

Thus it follows that the only conclusion we can logically draw is that the machine does not, in fact, create 5 times more energy than it consumes, QED.

You've been taken for a ride, and I sincerely hope the above will help you accept this.

I really wish I had one of these things. I mean, the simple programs are great, and it seems like it would be useless unless you had others like it in the area (much like those old attempts at portable gaming systems that you could use to challenge people with like models on the street), but I'd love to have one if it has a standard operating system and access to the internet.

Of course, the kiddy design use the removal of the handle and holes. If it were just a solid square, I'd love to get one. A good cheap laptop that you don't have to worry about damaging. You can pick one up when you need it, give it to a friend, make some use out of it if you're on the run, etc.

Plus, the energy efficiency is great. It'd be even better if the sides were made of solar panels, though.

Actually, if a straw-bale house is properly built and maintained, there shouldn't be an issue with decomposition -- they can easily last as long as a conventionally-built house. They cost around the same to build, yet are incredibly energy-efficient, are made from non-offgassing materials, and are impressively fireproof.

I know somebody who built a huge straw-bale home near where I live in Ontario, which gets pretty cold winters, usually averaging -15°C to -20°C. Construction was completed in the fall, and because he was still researching alternative heating options for the house, he hadn't installed a heat source by the time winter hit. He discovered that a small space heater in the living room was enough to heat the whole house.

At least in my part of the world, there doesn't seem to be any trouble getting building permission or insurance for straw bale houses. I've heard that they are even more widespread in the USA than here. As more get built, the building techniques will continue to improve and the costs will inevitably come down further as well.

Thanks for the video, Mink! I'm in total support of green living options.

I suppose he could have come up with a more energy efficient method of electrolysis, but that isn't what the report says. I cannot fathom how anybody could be so simple as to not ask about the energy input and output of the system.

Nice post, Clayton, that was well-written. Y'know, we have some enormous flywheels at my uni, they store energy for experiments at our plasma physics lab. I haven't seen them personally, but I've heard they're monstrous - supposedly, there's enough energy in one flywheel (about 600 tons) to roll it (assuming no obstacles or whatnot) to the nearest ocean.

Anyways, I've dropped you an invite to my Science collective, if you care to join. Cheers.

In reply to your comment:
“Yes, it could be done by a use of a simple cam and spring, but the point is that even with an extremely effiecient cam and roller setup you'll never get, or exceed, the energy required to operate it out of the system. It would require equal, 100% effieciency, or greater for operation. Remember that moving the single magnet back and forth is, at least in one direction, met with resistance. That restistence is surely greater that the energy output of the shaft of the wheel.

A few years ago I researched some of the most effiecient energy storage systems on the market, they use a high speed composite fly wheel and an electric motor/generator. They were contained in a vacuum, to eliminate air turbulence, and they use active magnetic bearing to levitate nearly reducing friction. Nearly, because even when minimized there are still sources of loss inherent in magnets, like magnetic hysteresis and eddy currents. I was pretty impressed, Active Power for example claims 98% energy efficiency. 100% or more is simply not possible. ”

Yes, it could be done by a use of a simple cam and spring, but the point is that even with an extremely effiecient cam and roller setup you'll never get, or exceed, the energy required to operate it out of the system. It would require equal, 100% effieciency, or greater for operation. Remember that moving the single magnet back and forth is, at least in one direction, met with resistance. That restistence is surely greater that the energy output of the shaft of the wheel.

A few years ago I researched some of the most effiecient energy storage systems on the market, they use a high speed composite fly wheel and an electric motor/generator. They were contained in a vacuum, to eliminate air turbulence, and they use active magnetic bearing to levitate nearly reducing friction. Nearly, because even when minimized there are still sources of loss inherent in magnets, like magnetic hysteresis and eddy currents. I was pretty impressed, Active Power for example claims 98% energy efficiency. 100% or more is simply not possible.

They could just be energy efficient...