A Perpetuum Mobile Machina is possible...

shazuga said:
According to the laws of the thermodynamics such device is not possible...
I have created a device that does not break any physical law, in addition this device does not depend of thermoelectrical processes but of mechanical and electromagnetic processes.
Click to expand...
OK, so you don't have a science problem -- voilá! But your lack of the machine today is what? An engineering problem? Doesn't matter. When you unveil a working PPM, you will be more famous than Jesus.

I love these perpepmo threads.
 
Is it that you have tied a piece of buttered bread to the back of a cat?
 
I doubt much that has read all the theory and the calculations that served me like antecedents to the invention.

Is logical to spend 2 MWh to produce 150 or 300 MWh?

That something does not exist does not mean that it is not possible to be done.
In addition the present technology allows to construct this machine...
 
You still haven't addressed the problems of the induced magnetic force which opposes the generator motion, the internal resistance of the batteries, and the need to periodically replace the batteries with new fully charged ones.
 
Been there . . . done that . . . yawn . . .

Just to rub it in . . .

perpetualmotion2.gif
 
My vote is to see a prototype. But I'm not counting on it; I'm not getting any younger, and life is short...

On a side note:

ynot said:
Been there . . . done that . . . yawn . . .

Just to rub it in . . .

[qimg]http://www.accommodationz.co.nz/perpetualmotion2.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

ynot, I just realized that a full ten minutes had gone by while I stared vacantly at the spinning wheel (and your avatar didn't help much either!).

I have to go lie down now because I feel dizzy. :hypnotize
 
shazuga said:
I doubt much that has read all the theory and the calculations that served me like antecedents to the invention.

Is logical to spend 2 MWh to produce 150 or 300 MWh?

That something does not exist does not mean that it is not possible to be done.
In addition the present technology allows to construct this machine...
Click to expand...

Then why waste time putzing around on this board? You are going to be insanely rich! You could hire Bill Gates to mow your lawn! Get out there and build it. We will be the first ones to tell you we were idiots for not believing you. As soon as you have a working model, every bank in the world will be ready to loan you money to go into production.

I read your site, and can see you've spent an enormous amount of time analyzing this. Unfortunately, you've made an assumption that negates everything. Here's a quote from your site:

The levitation also suppresses the friction (contact between surfaces). Due to this, the energy to rotate the rotor of a generator is minimum. And will be necessary only 4.7 kWh to generate a force sufficient to rotate the shaft of the turbine to more than 2,000 rpm, transferring that mechanical energy to the generator rotor of the electricity (Figure Nº 3; item 9) enormous amounts of energy will be produced, with a near power or superior to 150 MW, which would surpass to the benefits of present wind turbines and it would be equaled to the thermoelectrical turbines efficiency.
Click to expand...

Apparently you aren't aware that when an electrical generator has a load on it, it requires more input power to rotate the shaft. I'll concede that your calculations may be correct (not that I think they are, it's just that your next mistake is so fundamental and glaring that it is the only one worth discussing) up to the point where you say "enormous amounts of energy". As soon as you draw current from your generator, the input power required to turn the generator will increase. The best that LL can do with the same concept is 90% efficiency. So even though you can eliminate friction in the bearings, you can't eliminate the decelerating torque cause by the electromagnetic load. The power needed to overcome this torque will ALWAYS be more than the power being drawn from the generator. Right now, we can do no better than to get 90% of the input power as output power. Hardly perpetual motion.
 
Batteries don't have enough internal impedance to affect its efficiency. Even a small lead-acid cell will have an impedance of around 0.005 ohms. Of course, the cell does lose energy and the amount is defined by the charge/discharge efficiency. This means you put in a certain amount of energy but you get out less. A cell with charge/discharge efficiency in the low 90's is considered to be very efficient, so right away, you're losing 10% of your energy by introducing the battery energy storage system.

The battery system will also need power electronics to charge the battery from the generator. A battery just can't be charged with raw rectified AC current. There needs to be some control of the charge or else the battery might overcharge and explode. There will be losses associated with the power electronics. Also, power electronics will be required to convert the DC electricity stored by the battery into AC electricity supplied to the utility power grid. These days, modern switching electronics have efficiencies in the 90% range. This means you lose 10% of the energy going into the battery and another 10% coming out.

With all of these efficiencies taken into account, the battery storage system can have at most an overall efficiency of 73%. It might be possible to find a special battery chemistry that is more efficient, or a new sort of power electronics with higher efficiency but the overall efficiency will improve by only a few more %.
 
shazuga said:
That something does not exist does not mean that it is not possible to be done.
Click to expand...

No, the fact that it's not possible means that it's not possible.

Shazuga, where does the extra energy in your machine come from? Every engine on earth works either by converting one form of energy to another or by converting matter to energy. In both cases, one cannot leave with more than one started. Where does the "extra" in your machine come from? How is it called into being? What was it before it was available electrical energy in your machine?
 
hgc said:
Moonbeams.
Click to expand...
No, it's a cheap knock-off from China. :D

Seriously, I don't thjink he understands the question. He doesn't view energy as a real object, but as a concept. Like bank records: you just move a decimal place and poof! you've created wealth!

:D
 
All I can say is what the others have said. There are reams of hypotheses and proposals on how to generate free energy. Some of them sound plausible except to an expert physicist.

But none of the theory matters... what matters is getting one working. Get it to run, and you've got instant fame, fortune, and wealth. Without one, you have bubkis. You're not going to get any of us excited about yet another free energy hypothesis. There have been too many. Only results matter.
 
Yahzi said:
No, it's a cheap knock-off from China. :D

Seriously, I don't thjink he understands the question. He doesn't view energy as a real object, but as a concept. Like bank records: you just move a decimal place and poof! you've created wealth!

:D
Click to expand...
Oh, like the "energy" that is so much the currency of woo studies of all kinds? For sure that kind of energy is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. But then it doesn't keep the lights on either.
 
The best thing about this thread so far is that I can now spell perpetual motion machine in another language, though which one I'm not sure.
 
You are in the correct thing, exist many variables that to solve, in the case of the batteries for the movable section a solution would be to excite the electromagnets by means of an arc of energy in the superior part.
The energy to activate the turbine must thus come from a source like a diesel engine or something, but this is only required to activate the device. To make electrical energy by means conventional if we know to do it. On torque, clear that resistance to the movement exists, in this circular case, but that energy is substantially inferior not to have friction between surfaces.
On the generator without friction, Tesla already constructed it, and I do not believe that that factor can prevent that this device is constructed.
And although this device can spend half of the energy that will produce, is equally viable.
And they are right on a thing, and is what I am looking for, I am looking for investing and technicians to construct this device.

And while the technology must be used to create energy, this never will be free...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom