Clean Unlimited Energy

I do love the optimism of the "Warning must put brakes on" to prevent it from spinning ever faster and faster.

At least allmee understands that if you really did have a free acceleration (at no cost--coming from nothing), the result would be infinite power--not just a barely measurable bit.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
At least allmee understands that if you really did have a free acceleration (at no cost--coming from nothing), the result would be infinite power--not just a barely measurable bit.
Click to expand...

More properly, free acceleration is unbounded, not infinite, power. Not that that's much better, in terms of the physical impossibility of it all, but there is a difference.
 
Ho-Hum . . . Yawn . . . ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
733545788ecb51eef.gif
 
( post 117 )
The Miter gear is just two right angle gears try a internet search.
the spring is keeped at the same tesion at all times by the gear setup.
No rubder band effect.

( post 120 )
it spins at about 800 rpm.
 
allmee1 said:
( post 117 )
The Miter gear is just two right angle gears try a internet search.
the spring is keeped at the same tesion at all times by the gear setup.
No rubder band effect.

( post 120 )
it spins at about 800 rpm.
Click to expand...


Homework assignment: Calculate the number of joules generated if JREF board members' chains are attached to a gear and newcomers rank the chains at a rate of 4 times per day.

Unless something changes soon, I suggest that the kitten countdown be started.
 
allmee1 said:
Has any one tryed makeing ether of the devices yet.
Click to expand...
No.

The rest of us know enough basic physics to know that the devices won't work.

Hell, get a bucket, some copper tubing, some water, and a string and convince yourself that your water device won't work.

Attach the tubing to the inside of the bucket, and bend the tubes back over so any water that might come out of them will fall back into the bucket. Add water to the bucket and hang the bucket by the string. Give the bucket a good spin and see how long the "perpetual motion" lasts.

To quote my Kraut friends:
"Probieren geht ueber studieren."
 
allmee1 said:
Has any one tryed makeing ether of the devices yet.
Click to expand...

Not me!

While I have made quite a few things, I for one have better things to do than waste my time and efforts doing something that I know will not work.

However, if you want to make such devices, then I expect that you could find all of the materials at a good hardware and hobby store.

So have fun building and good luck!
 
allmee1 said:
I have updated the site abit.
Hopefully it is easier to understand.
Click to expand...

Okay...I read your site. I (pretty much) understand the basic concept. Spin the thing. Water sprays out. Goes up in the air. Falls down. Turns blades. Makes the thing spin more.

I can assure you 100% that it will not generate any kind of energy. Even if you could get it to "work" in the sense that the water does not just spill all over the place and actually does get shot up...it still will not continue on


Shoot the water up... let it come down. Zero gain in energy. Zero. You might as well just take a fly wheel and spin it. It will spin until all the energy is lost to friction. (which actually could be a while with a really good bearing).

This... this will do the same....only worse, because you're throwing water all over the place.

So there. Get the angles perfect.. collect all the water... account for vaporization. Doesn't matter. Zero energy gain. None.


I appreciate your inventiveness and enthusiasm. There's nothing wrong with having an exciting idea that doesn't pan out. If solving the worlds' energy problems is your ultimate goal, then by all means, go for it. I would suggest that the first step ought to be a couple classes in physics.
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
Okay...I read your site. I (pretty much) understand the basic concept. Spin the thing. Water sprays out. Goes up in the air. Falls down. Turns blades. Makes the thing spin more.

I can assure you 100% that it will not generate any kind of energy. Even if you could get it to "work" in the sense that the water does not just spill all over the place and actually does get shot up...it still will not continue on


Shoot the water up... let it come down. Zero gain in energy. Zero. You might as well just take a fly wheel and spin it. It will spin until all the energy is lost to friction. (which actually could be a while with a really good bearing).

This... this will do the same....only worse, because you're throwing water all over the place.

So there. Get the angles perfect.. collect all the water... account for vaporization. Doesn't matter. Zero energy gain. None.


I appreciate your inventiveness and enthusiasm. There's nothing wrong with having an exciting idea that doesn't pan out. If solving the worlds' energy problems is your ultimate goal, then by all means, go for it. I would suggest that the first step ought to be a couple classes in physics.
Click to expand...
Or one class in thermodynamics. Unfortunately, I know people think that scientists are missing something or are wrong about this. But they aren't. The discovery of it came FROM the development of engines. of generating mechanical energy. They simply created a set of principles that describe nature and these haven't changed.
 
joobz said:
Or one class in thermodynamics... But they aren't. The discovery of it came FROM the development of engines. of generating mechanical energy.
Click to expand...

You know it. A lot of things came from the desire to build better engines. Watt tried to use governors (not lost on introductory Control Systems classes), the study of thermodynamics developed from a desire to build better engines, etc.

I'd be interested in seeing somebody's system beat ideal Carnot efficiency:

1-(TC/TH)

temp in K

From wiki:

In a combined cycle plant, where both heat and work are desired products, thermal efficiencies can exceed 70% or so.
Click to expand...

Randi should make the competition easy ;) and use that number as a benchmark for PMMs...

:D
 
allmee1 said:
I have updated the No.5 invention.
Hopefully its better to understand.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there is no way that the simple tension spring used will be able to produce more energy than it is originally provided with.

You can test this yourself by going to your local hardware store and buying a low cost tension spring (which should cost about 50 cents), then fix one end to a table, ceiling or some other medium that will allow the spring to hang free.

After the above has been done, attach a small amount of weight to the free end and set the spring to oscillate up and down. You will soon see that that the oscillations become smaller and smaller, and eventually stop.

The same sort of thing will happen with your design #5 but it will happen sooner rather than later due to all of the friction at work in the moving parts of your machine.
 
Skeptic said:
That's OK. The patent office will refuse to patent any free energy device.
Click to expand...

More accurately, the patent office wilkl refuse to patent any free energy device without a working model. This appears to be why many PPM inventors are so paranoid and refuse to divulge details, since until they have built one they can't patent it, and if they explain it to anyone then the other person could build one first. Somehow they always seem to miss the fact that if they explain it to anyone, they will point out why it won't work.
 
Allmee1,
I was wondering, what has prevented you from developing a working model?
 
Thanks for the new diagrams, allmee. I think I now understand how the no. 5 device is supposed to work.

The basic problem here is that this is a "bootstrap" device; it pulls against itself. All the forces are actually in balance. It will not move.

An analogous device, which I can describe here without violating allmee's NDA, would be as follows: a weight is hung from a string wrapped around a spool. Assume the weight of the spool and string is negligible compared to the hanging weight. The spool will turn as the weight pulls on the string. The spool is also attached to a mechanism that raises the spool the same distance as the amount of string unwound from the spool. (This can be achieved by putting gears on the ends of the spool that mesh with a vertical rack.) So the weight stays at the same height the whole time. When the string is all unwound, a platform is placed under the weight to continue to hold it in place as the spool is allowed to descend the rack and wind the string up again, which takes no energy. Repeat. (If you're worried about lifting the weight of the spool being a factor, just add a pulley between the weight and the spool, and make the spool's travel horizontal instead.)

Actually, of course, the torque on the spool from the hanging weight will balance the opposite torque on the spool from the spool-raising mechanism, and the spool won't turn.

Allmee, examine the torques on your worm gear carefully. Make sure to include the torque on your main pivot from the tension of the spring, which is transmitted to the worm gear through the shaft from the miter gears. I think you'll find that they're balanced.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom