Clean Unlimited Energy

DRBUZZ0 said:
well...clean unlimited energy isn't actually *completely* against the physical laws of the universe.

there's nuclear fusion, which can be done, but never at a good enough efficiency to overcome all the energy needed to contain and induce it.
Click to expand...

The French and friends are betting 18Billion that their next prototype will work. It is based on an English experimental model that, when it was running, was the single biggest load on the power grid.
 
( post 100 )
Its not a vortex.
It works from presser in the main chamber which drives the device.
 
a_unique_person said:
The French and friends are betting 18Billion that their next prototype will work. It is based on an English experimental model that, when it was running, was the single biggest load on the power grid.
Click to expand...

If I remember properly, that was a Tokamak reactor, which used magnetic fields to confine the fusion plasma. I don't have much faith in the design becoming viable. Even if you could do better than break even with it, it's inherently a very complicated and large system that could not be done at a reasonable price.

Electrostatic confinement has always seemed a lot more elegant to me, but unfortionately the limitations of such systems don't allow for any kind of efficiency that would result in net power gain. Also, it doesn't scale up well.

As I said: fusion power is within the bounds of scientific laws. Of course, whether or not an effective reactor could ever be built remains to be seen.
 
allmee1 said:
I have added the plans to my site check it out.
(www . unlimitedenergy . i8 . com)
Please comment
Click to expand...

I have been communicating with 'allmee1' about his device, and now that he has been kind enough to make his ideas public, I suppose that it is all right for me to do likewise.

Here is what I just e-mailed him:

The additional data really helps!

However, I must tell you that your idea will not work because energy loss due to the friction will soon cause your system to run down and stop rotating.

There is the friction that occurs due to the rotating component. Even the most highly accurate and best rotating parts have some amount of friction. While new materials and manufacturing techniques (such as UHMW plastic and highly accurate ball bearings) have done a great deal to minimize friction of these sorts of parts, never the less, the friction has not been reduced to zero.

There is also the friction due to the water flowing through pipes in your machine. To explain, even water flowing through a pipe will generate some amount of friction work; although in this case, I would expect that the amount of energy loss due to friction will be small, it is still non-zero. To illustrate, that is why one person can easily paddle a large and fully loaded canoe when on the water, but it takes considerably more effort for that one person to drag that same canoe across the ground.

There are also other elements that would prevent it from being a perpetual motion machine such as non-uniform weight and size distribution. If the mechanism was just a bit unbalanced, then as the rotation is induced, then some amount of wobble would be induced which would rob you of the energy needed to maintain the rotation.

Finally, I have to tell you that it will take more energy to produce the water pressure necessary to induce the rotation of the device that would be produced by the rotation of the device. Even if there is a way to capture and harness 100% of the energy produced by the rotation of the mechanism (which is impossible), then that still would not be enough energy to generate the water pressure necessary due to the friction problems outline above and the fact that are not any mechanical devices which are 100% efficent.

In short, what you need to make this device work is:

Something that can function without any friction whatsoever (which is impossible), AND
Something that is perfectly made and balanced in terms of size and weight (which is also impossible), AND
Some sort of pump that is 100% efficent (which is also impossible).

Sorry, but there is just nothing like this in existence.

I think you would be better served if you gave up this idea and spent your time doing something more productive.

However, I do appreciate how you have shared your ideas.

Thanks much and care!

Steve Kimble
Charleston, WV
Click to expand...
 
allmee1 said:
( post 100 )
Its not a vortex.
It works from presser in the main chamber which drives the device.
Click to expand...
The central fault in your device is that when the water moves from the central column into the nozzles, it has to swing through a larger circle, so to maintain velocity, it will have to be accelerated. The energy needed for this equals the the energy gained from the centrifugal force.

Net result: Zero minus losses.

Sorry.

Hans
 
Allmee1, why do you think that it will be easier to make a computer model of this device than it will be to actually make the device?
 
MRC_Hans said:
The central fault in your device is that when the water moves from the central column into the nozzles, it has to swing through a larger circle, so to maintain velocity, it will have to be accelerated. The energy needed for this equals the the energy gained from the centrifugal force.

Net result: Zero minus losses.

Sorry.

Hans
Click to expand...
That and also you lose all of the energy you put into accelerating the water once it leaves your device.

It takes energy to raise the water against gravity
It takes energy to spin it through an increasing radial distance
It takes energy to flow it through the pipings
It takes energy to fight the friction of all moving parts.

There are a ton of loses and as ladwig pointed out, you don't prove anything from a computer model, since
1. It'd be complex to model
2. you can't account for all of the real factors that come into play
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
If I remember properly, that was a Tokamak reactor, which used magnetic fields to confine the fusion plasma. I don't have much faith in the design becoming viable. Even if you could do better than break even with it, it's inherently a very complicated and large system that could not be done at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

I believe that some small experiments have generated power in Tokamaks, but they are a little tricky to scale up, mainly due to problems making magnets perfectly enough. In my opinion, I think inertial containment is the most likely to be practical on a large scale. However, it seems an awful lot of effort to spend trying to build fusion reactors when there's a perfectly good one floating around in the sky.
 
Ladewig said:
Allmee1, why do you think that it will be easier to make a computer model of this device than it will be to actually make the device?
Click to expand...
Very good point indeed! However, I suspect that, like most people, our friend has no idea what it takes to make a computer model that simulates a mechanical function even reasonably well.

Even if you have a program designed for just that kind of simulation, defining the model is going to be a very complex task.

Also, I have a nagging suspicion that he thinks it will be more likely that a computer model works than a real model. I have to disappoint you there, however, Almee1: Since the theoretical flaw, as I explained, is obvious, even a simplified simulation that ignores various losses will show that your device doesn't work.

Hans
 
Cuddles said:
However, it seems an awful lot of effort to spend trying to build fusion reactors when there's a perfectly good one floating around in the sky.
Click to expand...

With a slight derail, there is some encouraging news on the solar power front.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/B...Cell_Surpasses_40_Percent_Efficiency_999.html

Boeing says it's solarcell manufacturing subsidiary Spectrolab, has achieved a new world record in terrestrial concentrator solar cell efficiency. Using concentrated sunlight, Spectrolab demonstrated the ability of a photovoltaic cell to convert 40.7 percent of the sun's energy into electricity.
Click to expand...

Comments on the reductions in costs, but no hard numbers on current economics.
 
allmee1 said:
I have added another design
Click the NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that will not work either.

There is the friction in the spring, the hinge (or "miter gear" as you call it), and the part that slides about.

Try doing this, suspend a bit of weight from a rubber band, then start the weight oscillating up and down. You will notice that the soon the oscillations get shorter and shorter, and eventually stop all together.

The same sort of thing will occur with your new design, however it will happen sooner since there is so much friction in your system.
 
You have received a lot of feedback about your water model.

(1) Allmee1, do you now understand that your water model won't work?

(2) Allmee1, why do you believe that you will change the laws of physics? Do you understand that people have been designing perpetual motion models for over 500 years and none have worked?
 
Probably "water under the bridge" by now (so to speak), but Allmee, have you heard the saying "water seeks its own level"? It looks like you think the larger volume of water in the center part will cause a net pressure increase in the smaller parts (the propellers). It won't. Imagine you have less water than full, and the thing is stationary--the top of the water in the center part will be the same height as the top of the water in the arms--there is no pushing.

If I'm wrong in assuming what you think, can you explain why you think water will behave the way you show it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom