Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!
First off, i apologize for the slow reply. Life is busy, I can't spend as much time around here as i would like, sometimes.
For the sake of analogy, I had to think up a simplified example that could be visualised, and yes, that might work as a simplified example. Except if it was solely bicycles, rather than having a generator attached to each bicycle, then the maximum-leverage available is not being propely put to use, and might be an over-simplification.
This is the year 2016CE, when there is now supposed to have been over 65 years worth of scientific and technological-advancements, yet so many people in the population are working longer hours and cannot even afford their own basic needs in comparison to previous generations, the number of empty buildings out-number the total amount of homeless-people, and multitudes around the world are still starving. Venezuela, one of the richest countries in the world by the way, has been in severe food-shortage for the last several years in a row.
That makes me have to question : Has humanity gone backwards with its ability to use technology to increase productivity ? The tractor was an alleged invention that was supposed to allow one man to do the work of several-hundred manual-labourers. Less time consumed to provide/produce more for everybody. Bicycles without generators as leverage (metaphorically speaking), becomes like farmers without tools trying to produce food, and that is like working an 80-hour-work-week for something that should only take maybe 10 hours maximum or less if the most-efficient use of known sciences/technologies were combined.
The Earth has plenty of natural cycles and, for that matter, said so-called natural-cycles can also be duplicated via man-made efforts. Dams, for example, can direct water in such a manner to where there is constant-flowing water-fall (assuming no so-called natural-disasters like drought or other such calamities). With that having been said, I see absolutely no reason, what-so-ever, that systems cannot be set up to be able to provide free or near-free-electricity for entire populations, combined with distributed systems for food-production where first-world countries like Venezuela are not in a state of starvation similar to the third-world countries (keep in mind that I have made mention of the "over 65 years of scientific/technological-advancements" for a reason).
Let me try another example or analogy. Everybody agrees that "amplification" technology exists ? The volume of speakers can be amplified, the production of food can also be made to be self-replicating under the right conditions/systems/designs (kind of like how weeds amplify/multiply themselves), but why can that not also apply to energy or electricity ? Yes, yes, I am aware of the so-called 2nd Law of Thermo-Dynamics, the Conservation-of-Energy, but no system on earth can be truly enclosed (you will still have external-forces, with perheps the exception of things like sound-frequencies interfering with a sound-proof room/capsule, radio-waves going through a lead-surrounded room [and of course the classic-example of psychotronic-frequencies penetrating through tin-foil hats], you could still have magnetic or so-called gravitational-forces and even the natural atmospheric-pressure acting upon said systems, assuming that the systems-designer did not go all tin-foil hat such to the point of putting a bunch of lead and tin-foil and air-tight chambres around said systems).
Output-Amplification is basically going to be my Key-Word regarding F-E.
Aaalrighty then, here we go.
bike may have been an oversimplification. in my example, instead of generators, i was simply aiming for forward motion. you will notice that most examples of bicycle generators are stationary. That's important, but i'll get back to it.
Amplification is a thing. It works by adding power from an external source. amps on speaker systems require power for a reason. The amplification does not appear 'for free'. You agree that no system can be enclosed, but you focus on thing seeping into the system, gravity, energy from light or sound or air. What matters for efficiency is -loss-, however, not gain. Usually, this is most noticeable in friction. energy created from a generator isn't entirely in electricity. Some of it is created as heat, which bleeds out of our enclosed system, a net loss.
Back to your wind generator. You have one fan spinning in the wind, creating one unit of energy, the exact numbers in joules or watts or amps, etc, are unimportant. you attach it to one turbine, and it uses the wind energy to create electrical energy. but that friction comes in. The turbine creates a little bit less than one unit of energy, let's say .95. But now it's usable, we wire it through to the grid, that's usually how things go. You want to hook up two turbines, fine, let's do that. You still only have one unit of wind energy, though, so each turbine can only use half of that, they have to share. Except now, you have two turbines worth of friction, losing us twice as much energy, and with each turbine only running at half of what it can do, we aren't making any more than we did with one turbine. The total output now is .90 that we can wire in. Continue it along to twelve turbines, all powered off of one wind unit. same thing, less per turbine, more friction all around. .40 is now what we have to send to the grid.
But, you wanted to hook that back around to the start. So let's do that. What I know of engineering isn't enough to know what the math on that works out to for you, but even without all that, i can plainly see that your output to the grid is now .00. the power that you would be piping out for use by those that need it, you are feeding back into the turbines to get reduced by friction, again, and again, and again.
It's the exact same with the bicycles, whether or not there are generators on them. whether your legs are pedaling for one bike or twelve, the energy you are putting into the system is the same, and as you add more and more, it gets harder and harder to pedal, and you spin the wheel slower and slower. connecting the bikes to you or you to the bikes make no difference, eventually the friction is going to get so oppressive you wont be able to pedal at all.
The amplifier on the stereo, were we to add them to these analogies, would be another set of wind blades, or a second set of legs pedalling on the second bicycle. Yes, it increases the energy output, but those are the exact things your premise of free energy is attempting to avoid adding. you aren't doing more with the same input, you're adding input and calling it free energy.
Now, onto the more recent post about weather balloons. How accurate do you need? A wireless connection (Likely radio signals, before you point out that WiFi doesn't have the range) feeding information from a weather balloon, connected to an altimeter, and a thermometer. you receive data points about temperature at an altitude. Whether the balloon rises straight up or not seems irrelevant to me, as does how much time it takes to reach any given altitude. You read the altitude, you mark the temperature.
The use of specifically weather balloons make no real difference either, as you seem to have pointed out your mistrust in those in particular. If you built a ladder that tall, or made the readings from a plane or helicopter or rocket, you would receive the same readings at the same altitudes, a weather balloon is just cheaper and more mechanically feasible.
Cameras. I own a camera, this one in particular (
You must be registered to see the links
). I use it to record paintball. I don't believe i have a single uncut video that is more than an hour long, but i have spent an entire day on the field, and come back with more than six hours of total video, on a single charge. It also has a fisheye lens, which i agree is unfortunate, but tends to work better for recordings where you want to see more of the environment. I had been hoping to use it to show footage of those i marked, but alas, it was not to be.
I also own a spy pen i got from a catalogue for like, sixty bucks (Canadian, even), which i used as a prop for a costume LARP (Live Action Role Play) i participated in, and forgot to turn off. That one definitely has a single video extending more than an hour long. Sadly, the file itself has been gone for a few years, and also included me forgetting to turn it off when i used the washroom, so I would not be able to upload it for proof in any case.
And finally, the heat issue. 1500 Celsius is a lot, especially for electrical equipment, i agree. In response, I point you to youtube.
You must be registered to see the links
Man puts his foot in lava. Title isn't exactly correct, but between sandal sole and sock, his foot is less than an inch away. Google informs me that lava is generally around 700 to 1200 Celsius, not quite as hot as we want, but more than both electronics and the human body can generally stand, even radiating from a short distance away.
You must be registered to see the links
Most of the video is likely unimportant, but the image i've marked in the link is plenty. Camera in the man's hand (what is taking the image), and video camera inside of the helmet with him. The latter is more important. They wear that suit to protect themselves from extreme heat. In this case, it protects his GoPro as well. Point is, technology can be protected from that which can harm them.
