It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Free engery/Perpetual motion - an idea and a drawing

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
According to Wiki -


The second law of thermodynamics distinguishes between reversible and irreversible physical processes. It tells how this shows the existence of a mathematical quantity called the entropy of a system, and thus it expresses the irreversibility of actual physical processes by the statement that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.


So - I came up with this idea the other morning, and have not done any calculations (cause I am not very good with math), not done any testing (cause I am not very handy) nor have I spoken to anyone with extensive knowledge of physics (cause I do not know any such people).
But I have an idea – which according to the laws of physics shouldn’t work. But so far I have not been able to see why it shouldn’t. Maybe you can help me?

To see my concept click here - I am sorry I could not figure out how to upload it directly - and forgive me the crude illustration, I hope you will be able to figure out what i meant with it.

It’s a wheel (ferris wheel if you will), and because of the design there should always be more weight on the right side of the wheel than on the left – I think – and this should make it run.
I am not sure if it should run constantly. I imagine it might reach a maximum speed and at that point the weights will spin out and stabilize the contraption. So I think it would have a repeating fluctuation in speed.
I have not given much thought to the number of arms.
And I am well aware of the fact that entropy will eventually wear the machine down, at which point it will break and stop, so it isn’t a perpetual motion machine in the sense that it will run for ever, but it should produce more energy that it consumes.

Please, any thoughts? I am hoping that some of you might be able to debunk it, or add knowledge in some way or another. Feel free to ask me about it – but do not expect me to be able to answer in detail. English is not my first language and I do not know the first thing about this subject.




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


I had a similar idea based on a wheel and magnets. The attraction/repulsion of the magnets would spin it..


Great idea btw.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


There couldn't actually be more "weight" on the right side than the left, but there would be some added momentum when each weight swings down on its hinge.

When I picture it, however, I see one weight swinging down and then the machine coming to a resting stop. Guess you'd either have to run some equations or actually build it to find out though



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Nice drawing


But I could swear I've seen this thing

something like this


edit on 24-1-2012 by Hellas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
you will lose energy on the central point due to resistance and the main energy restoration seems to be the hammer moving which itself is not 100% efficient due to resistance in the air and probably energy converted into sound when the hammer strikes along with it bouncing several times once the hammer hits

theres probably alot more that someone with a physics degree could probably see and the calculations required



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Thing is, once you connect it to something that will give resistance, i.e- anything, it will simply die.


Something can't generate more energy than what it uses, so it will basically only be able to power itself, which is useless.

Good idea, though.

A starting point is a starting point.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
This has been invented, there is a guy in I think britain, who has built one the size of a faris wheel. So the idea is already there, unfortunately it does not produce enough torque to be of value.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


Hah, that look a lot like what I had imagined. Funny... Thanks.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Well, the thing about the weight is. That even though there is not any moe weight on one side than the other, it is of balance, constantly. Even if it were to stop the weight on the right side will always be further from the middle than on the left side, which should create more weight. I think... hah.. My head hurts.


Anyway - I am getting the overall feeling that it is an interesting, but already explored approach, with no real practical application.

Thanks for sharing guys.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unrealised
Thing is, once you connect it to something that will give resistance, i.e- anything, it will simply die.


Something can't generate more energy than what it uses, so it will basically only be able to power itself, which is useless.

Good idea, though.

A starting point is a starting point.


Lets say an object can at least power itself. Could you not add magnets or wires to the object that may be able to produce a field or generate electricity the same way a magnet does when running up and down wires?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
This design has been around for a while in one form or another. The problem is that while it appears to be off-balance, there is another aspect of force that tends to restore the balance.

As a weight starts motion slightly past top dead center, it will swing down and out. This creates a larger moment on the wheel than it previously had. The weight will continue to be extended until it reaches bottom dead center, at which time it will start slowly retracting as the wheel continues to turn. Close to top dead center, is is actually lying close in to the surface of the wheel instead of hanging down, and a little past the top dead center point, it will swing out again.

The offset is at the top of the wheel. Since the weight is lying against the surface of the wheel, it is still on the rising side past the point where the hinge is at top center. This means that there is more weight actually on the rising side than on the falling side.This additional weight counteracts the difference in momentum, and the wheel still balances.

To the person who mentioned magnets, take into account the forces used to move the components (weights?) into and out of the magnetic field. It will still balance, at least on every incarnation of that idea I have seen.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join