Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Michel

Free Energy.

115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yona

Right you are my good man! we need a new type of solar cell, mabye with a slightly curved center to trap the heat heat also?? Mabye they could make a light/heat collector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thefounder

Actually, i believe the galaxy is exploding not imploding.. Anyways, most here don't know what they are talking about (sorry for sounding harsh and rude). Many alternative sources of energy exist, the laws of any science don't always apply, take nuclear physics and the best chemestry coarse you can, then take this up with me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

Lots of people say perpetual energy is impossible, but what about planets and other satellites? They keep on orbiting, but they dont have energy being poured into them, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander The Great

So is this possible: you have a tank of water above two water wheels, water flows down,making both wheels spin. One wheel generates electricity, and another generates the pump.

Also, using a huge antimatter explosion, could man focus that energy onto a wormhole in a vacum and enlarge it to decent size, wormhole lends right to a magnetar, and we put a 3 mile lond coil through and the magnetar could generate billions of mega-watts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Satellites and planets don't keep on orbiting. They lose energy due to tides and satellites have friction on the minute upper atmosphere. However, this isn't a good comparison because we aren't taking any energy out of the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

So is this possible: you have a tank of water above two water wheels, water flows down,making both wheels spin. One wheel generates electricity, and another generates the pump.

Look at it this way: let's say you have two pulleys 10 feet above you and you are raising a 10 pound weight on each pulley. So, you are using energy to raise a total of 20 pounds a distance of 10 feet.

Now you drop the weights, and let one of the 10 pound weights fall on the mechanism that generates electricity to be used outside of this mechanism, and the other 10 pound weight falls on a mechanism to bring the original weights back up to where they can do it again. Do you see the problem here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander The Great

I didn't think this book I read about free energy knew what they were talking about. :angry2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cebrakon

:yes: Creating perpetual energy is possible!!! :yes:

:lol: At last! A solution to the energy crisis! :D

:devil: To play devil's advocate for a moment, why don't all of our planes, trains and automobiles use such a device? :P

Cebrakon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michel

:lol: At last! A solution to the energy crisis! :D

:devil: To play devil's advocate for a moment, why don't all of our planes, trains and automobiles use such a device? :P

Cebrakon

It is is not a device for a plane or a car, but to produce the electric power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LobsterMan

i dont know if you guys have watched myth busters, but past claims up to now about perpetual energy machines are all bogus.. nothing that claims to work has actually worked.

now cold fusion thats something to talk about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smallpackage

Why can't we just make a pulley and put a weight on one side of the rope and a generator wheel on teh other and drop the weight repeatedly :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

How would this machine work exactly?

user posted image

The pump pushes down once, the platform rocks sideways and is kept going for a bit by the momentum of the water on top, and it pushes down on the two turbine thingies below it, one powers the pump again, and another goes off to create excess electricity.

I dont know, I just made it up now; I didn't really give it any scientific though, as I have no scientific thought on the matter :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wingman

Why can't we just make a pulley and put a weight on one side of the rope and a generator wheel on teh other and drop the weight repeatedly :)

I was thinking the same thing! Sure it would take alot of manpower, but I bet it could work... It's essentially the same thing as farming for energy (ethenol).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smallpackage

Or to keep it going have a strong thick trampoline under it to keep it pulling a few more times. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

:w00t:

Back here for a little, then off wanderin' again.

About MythBusters: those guys are the myth. To put it bluntly, they don't know their rears from gopher holes. If real engrs were doing stuff like those guys do, we'd never have got anywhere. Don't buy into their junk, it's a waste of time.

Been an electronics engr for many yrs. Am something of a cynic, and something of a skeptic. However, my skepticism also extends to conventional ideas and "laws" etc.

Everyone needs to think about some things: first, if something is obviously wrong, forget it and don't try to find a way around it; to wit, use a rechargeable battery to run a motor that drives a generator that charges the battery: simply won't work, so don't waste time.

On the other hand, consider a solenoid. We energize the solenoid, so it does its mechanical thing, then we deenergize it and it undoes its mechanical thing. Now what happens in this process? There is a magnetic field built by the coil, the mag field sucks the core into the field, holds it there, and when the field collapses, the core , being on a spring, relaxes to a deenergized state. OK. Now, any ee who's ever worked with coils and stuff knows that when you unhook the power source of this solenoid, that mag field collapse will produce whatever voltage necessary to dump the amount of power that was used to make the mag field (NOT to maintain it, to initially make it). Without getting into the math here, let's just say the solenoid required 10 watts to energize, and exclude the holding current. When we release the solenoid, the field collapses, and the output energy is 10W - copper losses - h losses. The ee working on this MUST design in a means to dump that energy, else his transistors, coils, and whatever else he's got in there is at risk, and believe me, without protection the very first actuation of that solenoid will remove some bit of electronics. Now, the application of some thought processes should clue some people in that here is a device which can feasibly be utilized in a bit different manner to do some very interesting things. In short, THE ENERGY USED TO ACTIVATE THE SOLENOID IN THE FIRST PLACE IS NOT LOST, IT HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A MAG FIELD AND THERE REMAINS UNTIL THE ACTIVATING FORCE IS REMOVED (THE HOLDING CURRENT). This is CONSERVATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY.

TO THOSE OF YOU who might dispute the above, I direct you to your nearest book of basic physics. Any questions?

As to the questions about why these "free energy" machines are not everywhere, I direct you all to the profit ledgers of the energy companies, to include who is own (in stock) by whom, such as the car companies, banks, etc. Indeed, where would the profits go if, for instance, we were driving automobiles that were 99% efficient vs the normal 20? Ask yourself another question: If you invented (actually, I prefer "discovered") a means by which an auto could be driven from LA to NY on $10 of gas, how long do you think you would last against a consortium of companies with trillions of $ in assets?

So, if you should discover something like the above (and there is a big time clue in the solenoid thing), my suggestion to you would be to keep it very much underground, since if you do otherwise, chances are you will be under ridicule and/or pushing daisies.

A side note: AQ1: Gee, mistuh ossifuh suh. 'Course it would never enter your 'mind' that not all have the same respect as your class has for itself: gentlemen by act of congress. Brass doesn't mean intelligence, it doesn't mean learning, it doesn't mean anything other than the one wearing it knew someone, unless the wearer is a mustang, and then there is some question about his common sense. As in most other aspects of this life, the ones who actually do are the ones that actually have, and the others are mere figureheads. Ah, shades of Ayn Rand! However, remember, the meek shall...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michel

i dont know if you guys have watched myth busters, but past claims up to now about perpetual energy machines are all bogus.. nothing that claims to work has actually worked.

now cold fusion thats something to talk about

You have a computer with the calculator. So why you do not check? If do not agree, specify WHERE there is a mistake in my calculations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richdog

I agree with walsingham17.... if this was legit then where is it? why do I not have one in my home supplying unlimited energy?

Because if it were possible it would never be allowed anyway. We pay bills to huge companies on a regular basis... having machines that created infinite energy would mean their extinction. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, shares etc etc would be wiped out... it would be a disaster.

I can seriously imagine any device such as these that are created are got rid of asap. Same goes for cars that do 3x-4x the mileage... what would that mean? People buying 3x-4x less gas... which would mean 3x-4x less profit for the companies, massive job lossses etc etc... that's just the way the world works.

Things like this have to be implemented when the economy is ready for it... eg: when natural resources are all but exhausted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shai_Hulud
In short, THE ENERGY USED TO ACTIVATE THE SOLENOID IN THE FIRST PLACE IS NOT LOST, IT HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A MAG FIELD AND THERE REMAINS UNTIL THE ACTIVATING FORCE IS REMOVED (THE HOLDING CURRENT). This is CONSERVATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY.
Of course energy was lost in the process, heat. What has this to do with perpetual motion machine? Electric motors have been using the phenomenon of Faradays law of induction to translate electricity into motion and vice versa for a long time, and your point is? Myth Busters have not made any unsubstantiated claims, i find their program to be educational and amusing. Did you say that Quantum mechanics violate the second law of thermodynamics? If you did back it please!Satisfy my curiousity. Im going to make the statement that All claims of perpetual motion machine or device are fraudulent or misguided. Btw, the planetary orbits are not perpetual, as we speak the orbit are degrading. Edited by Shai_Hulud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

Generally speaking, quanta do things classical physics finds not possible. do your research.

I got places to go, things to do and people to see, so I'll make this short.

Yes, there are losses, copper losses and H losses. So what? If the whole concept escapes you then I will not elucidate, since the whole concept you will find fault with anyway.

For some of you, there is a spark of understanding. In the 1980 version of EECIV 5000 pound cars with 460 ci engines were doing better than 30 mpg in town: where are they? You won't find records of those, yet they did exist, and you'll have to take my word for that, since I worked on the originals. By classical physics, smaller cars with smaller engines should do well over what those originals did, but they don't. Explain that by normal science.

Taking the stance that perp mot is fraudulent is an error in judgement simply because none of us has access to all knowledge. I can and have built several machines that appear to be perp mot machines. Some people are aware of those machines, and have paid well to keep them under wraps, including patents. Those machines bought me the ability to work the markets, a very nice diesel pusher, 2314 acres of prime forestland, and numerous other nifty little things, plus a posh retirement.

All the skeptics out there are welcome to take this apart and blast it and me as much as you like: the fact is that I work when and if I want, without the need for it, and the vast majority of you do work for your wherewithall. Another fact is that I am well educated, whether you like it or not. Another fact is that I am a member of Mensa, and damned few of you skeptics can make that claim (and yes, I could copy the membership card and print it here, but do you really think I would?).

I stand by my assessment of mythbusters. It is a waste of time, and that hour is better spent doing something of worth. Like thinking for oneself instead of taking the words of these critters as proving or disproving anything.

As stated: if it is obvious that something won't work, don't bother with it; if it is not so obvious, then examine it to see if perhaps it will.

Motors have certainly been used for a long time, but how thorough the understanding of those things is remains with a precious few (comparatively) people, since the construction thereof hasn't changed appreciatively for most of that time of use. To wit: one company I worked for produced motors using a set of formulae constructed in the 1950s and never changed. The formulae were based on an understanding that was fallacious but still worked. The answer is within any first physics book, yet that company would not change their ideas. Which was OK, because eventually it was my profit and not theirs.

Going on the road with that nifty mh towing that infiniti. And I'll be laughing at you skeptics the whole time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Skeptic Eric Raven

Generally speaking, quanta do things classical physics finds not possible. do your research.

I got places to go, things to do and people to see, so I'll make this short.

Yes, there are losses, copper losses and H losses. So what? If the whole concept escapes you then I will not elucidate, since the whole concept you will find fault with anyway.

For some of you, there is a spark of understanding. In the 1980 version of EECIV 5000 pound cars with 460 ci engines were doing better than 30 mpg in town: where are they? You won't find records of those, yet they did exist, and you'll have to take my word for that, since I worked on the originals. By classical physics, smaller cars with smaller engines should do well over what those originals did, but they don't. Explain that by normal science.

Taking the stance that perp mot is fraudulent is an error in judgement simply because none of us has access to all knowledge. I can and have built several machines that appear to be perp mot machines. Some people are aware of those machines, and have paid well to keep them under wraps, including patents. Those machines bought me the ability to work the markets, a very nice diesel pusher, 2314 acres of prime forestland, and numerous other nifty little things, plus a posh retirement.

All the skeptics out there are welcome to take this apart and blast it and me as much as you like: the fact is that I work when and if I want, without the need for it, and the vast majority of you do work for your wherewithall. Another fact is that I am well educated, whether you like it or not. Another fact is that I am a member of Mensa, and damned few of you skeptics can make that claim (and yes, I could copy the membership card and print it here, but do you really think I would?).

I stand by my assessment of mythbusters. It is a waste of time, and that hour is better spent doing something of worth. Like thinking for oneself instead of taking the words of these critters as proving or disproving anything.

As stated: if it is obvious that something won't work, don't bother with it; if it is not so obvious, then examine it to see if perhaps it will.

Motors have certainly been used for a long time, but how thorough the understanding of those things is remains with a precious few (comparatively) people, since the construction thereof hasn't changed appreciatively for most of that time of use. To wit: one company I worked for produced motors using a set of formulae constructed in the 1950s and never changed. The formulae were based on an understanding that was fallacious but still worked. The answer is within any first physics book, yet that company would not change their ideas. Which was OK, because eventually it was my profit and not theirs.

Going on the road with that nifty mh towing that infiniti. And I'll be laughing at you skeptics the whole time.

You sound a little hostile. I am a sceptic, but I do think there are engines out there that do incredible mileage. Hopefully one day someone will come forth with this. Probably not until the oil is nearly gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shai_Hulud
Generally speaking, quanta do things classical physics finds not possible. do your research.

I got places to go, things to do and people to see, so I'll make this short.

Yes, there are losses, copper losses and H losses. So what? If the whole concept escapes you then I will not elucidate, since the whole concept you will find fault with anyway.

For some of you, there is a spark of understanding.

And I thought we are engageing in an intellectual arguement. Physics is a speciality of mine, especially quantum mechanics. A unit the size of a quanta cannot be approximated as a small particle. Saying that "quanta defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is being intellectually dishonest, you are misleading the readers about things that cannot be compared. I have no way of seeing how faradays law of induction plays a part in free energy, the coil rapidly loses energy and the magnetic field decreases, at no point in time does the field increase in strength.

In the 1980 version of EECIV 5000 pound cars with 460 ci engines were doing better than 30 mpg in town: where are they? You won't find records of those, yet they did exist, and you'll have to take my word for that, since I worked on the originals
Do you think im gullible? Bring on some proof pls. You don't even explain your theories in the slightest.

Another fact is that I am well educated, whether you like it or not. Another fact is that I am a member of Mensa, and damned few of you skeptics can make that claim (and yes, I could copy the membership card and print it here, but do you really think I would?).
And what if we are all card carrying mensa members, is bringing this up relevant to anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gandalf2013

.

Edited by gandalf2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

And I thought we are engageing in an intellectual arguement. Physics is a speciality of mine, especially quantum mechanics. A unit the size of a quanta cannot be approximated as a small particle. Saying that "quanta defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is being intellectually dishonest, you are misleading the readers about things that cannot be compared. I have no way of seeing how faradays law of induction plays a part in free energy, the coil rapidly loses energy and the magnetic field decreases, at no point in time does the field increase in strength.

Do you think im gullible? Bring on some proof pls. You don't even explain your theories in the slightest.

And what if we are all card carrying mensa members, is bringing this up relevant to anything?

Careful with "intellectually dishonest" there, squirrel, and watch the quotes. Quantum physics is as thoroughly understood as mind control over body.

Since you claim to be so educated, explain to everyone why it is necessary to protect electronics from the discharge of the fields. And don't tell anyone that it simply goes away, for if you do, then your education is sadly lacking. You'll never get away with that when talking to an engineer.

Gullible? Wouldn't hazard a guess since I don't know you. Ignorant? Without question. Unthinking? Possibly have the ability for unhampered thought, but highly doubtful you use it. That's shown by your comments.

Proof? Damn, just look at the development of the ic engine! Original patents covered almost everything till recently, that's well over a hundred years! Even the "new" cvcc concept of Honda in the '70s was there. EECIV took the mechanics to a different level, which you are only beginning to see now: variable valve timing and lift; variable ignition levels such as dwell and advance; variable EGR; variable injection and injection timing; complete integration of driveshaft rpm, gear selection, road grade, throttle position, barometric pressure, oil pressure and temperature, ambient temperature, emgine temperature, etc etc etc. If you had any idea of the history of gas engines, you'd know of Pogue et al, the many (more than 75) patents for increasing efficiency of ic engines, the history of Kettering, Smokey Yunick, and the multi-fuel engine developed by engineers at Texaco in the '50s, and knowing these things, you wouldn't even make such a comment. Yes, ignorance is bliss, but commenting about things you just plain don't know is indescribably nonsensical.

Ah, yes, Mensa. During my conversations with Bucky Fuller (a past president of Mensa, but of course you probably know that, don't you?), when I was young and impressionable, he stated that always those of us with different ideas will come head on in contact with those who cannot think independently, usually "educated idiots". In view of your commentary, I have grave doubts of your eligibility to this erudite organization.

Now for ericraven. Yes, sir, I am quite hostile. For 37 years I had to deal with people whose main crap was "it can't be done" or something similar; they did, however, provide me with lots of good contracting jobs, since comments of the type put them out of the engineering market I was in: making new and different things no one else thought could be. When I built my first hybrid (many years ago, still running but with modernization), I bought time with an auto customizing firm to find actual required hp to run the car (gvw 3900 lb, with a large frontal area and little streamlining). Came out to a little under 11 hp at 55 mph on the flat I5 SE of San Jose (yes, Silicon Valley was my work area). With the small engines available, I was able to maintain approximately the same vehicle weight but with a genset and 14 hp electric series-wound, with 48vdc. Genset could be switched to series with the battery set for maximum power. Sold the car, but later the current owner and I switched to FET chopper motor control (vs mechanical chopper), regen braking, and installed a newer and more efficient genset optimized for one rpm, diesel. Weight increased, unfortunately, but for the better. Originally, I was able to run at slightly over 60 mpg; now, the fuel usage is (according to the owner) about 80 mpg, and overall motor control has improved (expected), plus higher speeds. Tried to get my hands on some of the sintered plastic batteries, but couldn't (those are lighter and have very good energy densities). Next, we're going to replace the original motor with a 19 hp series wound (lighter and designed for ev use), and replace some body parts with plastics to shave weight. We're shooting for over 100 mpg as a practical vehicle. Unfortunately, I can't put in my own motor, as I sold the rights for it, otherwise we'd be way above the target mileage.

To Gandalf: Exactly right, sir. Franklin was laughed at in France, Cugnot was thought an idiot, Ford was sued, Tesla was considered a nut, and the Smithsonian thought the Wright Bros were lying. But Franklin proved it, Cugnot built it, Ford won in court, and we now use AC and not DC, and obviously we fly a little bit. And how many others...?

Anyone who says 'it can't be done' is severely limiting his/her abilities, and needs to apply some common sense. Unfortunately, that is a quantity that is never taught in schools.

Now, I'm going away to roam around the southern parts, snow here today, don't need that, don't want that, had too much of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sanchera1978

Actually Richdog made a excellant point. its all about the money $$$$ Tesla was expermenting with this stuff back in the 1930's in colorado springs he discovered how to provide free electricty brought his findings to JP Morgan. Morgan asked him how much they could charge tesla told him he wanted to provide this fantastic invention for free to benefit mankind and thats all Morgan needed to hear to take away his financial backing from Tesla. It was wireless energy so we wouldnt have even needed all these powerlines. pretty sad how gready men have the power to screw the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shai_Hulud
Careful with "intellectually dishonest" there, squirrel, and watch the quotes. Quantum physics is as thoroughly understood as mind control over body.

Since you claim to be so educated, explain to everyone why it is necessary to protect electronics from the discharge of the fields. And don't tell anyone that it simply goes away, for if you do, then your education is sadly lacking. You'll never get away with that when talking to an engineer.

I am an honest person and lacking in tact. You testing me ^_^ ? I guess it is fair afterall, I did with you, but you failed to take it up, explain the underlying principle behind your perpetual motion machine or cease to make your claims. Since you are an Engineer I guess I have gotten away with it.

Fundamentally electronic devices operate via different "states" in solid state material, on or off. The simplest unit of the device is a transistor, it has 3 input, let me call them input output and the gate. By doping the input and output ends with different metallic compounds, we are able to generate an electric field to oppose electric currents across the input/output ends. The gate manipulates the electric field into allowing different "states" to past through. That is the essence of a pnp/npn transistor, however, all transistors operates via an electric field to control the states. By generating a strong electric field across an electronic device, we built up charges that screws up the operation, if it was large enough the charge might even destroy the integrity of the transistors that makes up the device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.