alt.energy.renewable

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
news:47F43107.1D9DCC73@iedu.com...
> News wrote:
>>
>> "David Williams" wrote in message
>> news:1207147266.916.1207134080@bayman.org...
>>
>> >-> Free energy and perpetual motion
>> >-> machines are not quite the same thing.
>> >-> There is a grey area between though.
>> >-> I would say this Coriolis is a
>> >-> perpetual motion machine. A freeenergy
>> >-> machine is a hydro dam. The energy
>> >-> to turn the turbine is free.
>> >
>> > The energy may be near enough unlimited and free to us, being derived
>> > ultimately from sunlight, but the dam, turbines, etc., cost a lot of
>> > money which might otherwise have been earning interest. The lost
>> > interest is an ongoing cost of obtaining the "free" energy.
>>
>> The capital cost of the machine is irrelevant. The cost is the energy to
>> operate the machine is the point. The cost of water to turn the turbines
>> is
>> nil.
>
> As a practical matter, the cost of the mechanism /is/ relevant -
> because if the resources to put it in place aren't available,
> then the system cannot be implemented. It is only after the
> mechanism has been put in place and the capital cost recovered
> that the cost /seems/ irrelevant.

The point is "free energy/perpetual motion". Either one will give useful
power when turning (well the free energy machines do). Cost of manufacture
is not an issue in this point. Free energy devices are around and have been
since the beginning of time.

> The energy itself may indeed be free, but the delivery system
> isn't - but if you can figure out a way to make it free, I'm
> willing to stand in line. :-)

The water can power anything not just turn a turbine. The old water wheels
turned big wheels that powered machinery. The energy to power the machines
was "free". It is quite simple to understand :)