A Perpetuum Mobile Machina is possible...

shazuga said:
I have already begun the steps to construct the first prototype.
Click to expand...
What steps, exactly? You've bought materials? You've drawn out schematics and other plans? You've got the money in the bank?
 
There is an error in the calculations to determine the potential energy of the Transrapid train. I have used incorrect units (meters per minutes instead of meters per seconds). :(

I remember, this is my first problem to determine if this invention can use little energy to generate much energy...
 
Hi shazuga,

You calculated the energy consumption of the Transrapid system as 4.7kWh per kilometer. Using a 300 km route, that gives 1400 kWh of total energy spent.

The Watt-hour is a unit of energy and means 3600 joules. It's not some energy "per hour".

When the train is moving, it has only 26 kWh of kinetic energy, 1/2*15 ton*(400 km/h)^2. So, most of those 1400 kWh were spent to power the system and to overcome air resistance and other losses during the trip.

In your calculation, you divide this kinetic energy by one hour. The result (26 kW) is the average power that you could (in principle) extract from the train for exactly one hour. After that, the energy is gone. The train stops.

This last point is crucial, because you are multiplying the power by the number of hours in one year. But your system cannot sustain that power output for one year, just a single hour.

Is this clear? Can you tell us where you disagree with this?
 
An inventive friend said to me: Everything is mathematically correct, but nobody will not listen to you.

You must construct it...

That is my crossed now... To find investors to construct it...

Thanks for its support...

Happy Holidays!!! :D
 
shazuga said:
An inventive friend said to me: Everything is mathematically correct, but nobody will not listen to you.

You must construct it...

That is my crossed now... To find investors to construct it...

Thanks for its support...

Happy Holidays!!! :D
Click to expand...

Well, the math may well be right, it's just the physics that are wrong. I'm glad that this friend convinced you of what a number of other people said: no one believes you, so go build it and see what goes wrong for yourself.

HOWEVER... Before taking other people's money, please keep in mind that your basic idea has been tried before by other people and has always been a failure for reasons already mentioned here. Perhaps you should try building a prototype yourself using cheap low efficiency components. You will either make something that loses energy more slowly than expected and it's time for a more expensive test, or you will see the problems that have been mentioned in this thread and you will not have wasted a bunch of people's time and money.
 
Folly said:
Well, the math may well be right, it's just the physics that are wrong. I'm glad that this friend convinced you of what a number of other people said: no one believes you, so go build it and see what goes wrong for yourself.
Click to expand...
Isn't it nice that tens of people in this thread patiently explained that the physics were wrong, but a single friend that says the mathematics is right is enough?

Confirmation bias at its best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom