Did you miss "enclosed, self feeding"? They do exist but they are the size of a small shed and cost around 20K just for the unit.No it's not a perpetual motion machine as I think you're envisioning it. They already exist, they're just large and expensive or relatively cheap and based on water flow from a river or stream (for individual usage). It's an enclosed system (self feeding) water turbine that I'm talking about.The point was it could take hundreds of years and trillions of dollars to perfect some form of alternative energy. I'd be more inclined though to try and develop some sort of small, inexpensive (relatively speaking) enclosed system Pelton Wheel technology that once turned on will power a house and itself. Combine that with solar and wind (where applicable) and you'd probably have more than enough energy.Missing the point? Looks like it.
Point is --- 1000s of products have been obsoleted by portable gadgets. Faxs, answering machines, watches, calculators, cameras, ect -- And the AppleWatch is a repacking of a remote control gadget. PRODUCT INNOVATION is virtually stagnant. MOST new consumer electronics is boring.
OTH -- Power Generation really hasn't changed much in 100 yrs. Wind is still turning a turbine, Solar is still the photoelectric effect.
You can OPTIMIZE your way out of the sun being at a useful angle for 6 hours a day or less by motorizing panels to track the sun. STILL leaves about 16 hours of NO POWER. And Wind will only be there on alternate Tuesdays, and Fridays and parts of Sunday.. That's what YOU'RE missing.
So no matter how big a tantrum the eco-nauts throw -- these 2 things are NOT alternatives to reliable power generation. They are peaker and supplement technologies.. Cannot EXPAND a system capacity with either or both of them..
You're talking about a perpetual motion machine. They violate the laws of thermodynamics, which means they are impossible.
How many home owners have flowing water on their property?