I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?

Hi Navbou,

Originally posted by navbou
1) People who have studied physics. They are not absolute truths - ask any physicist- but explain the world around us pretty damn good.

No absolute truths? Want to take a moment to reconsider?

2) Math makes all the rules.

???

3) Who really knows, so why care? Join the community and find out. I'm found none yet. Plenty of scientists are independent from government and universities.

Independent and unfunded and i hear building particle collide rs at home is all the rage these days.

4) Trust me free energy would be worth more than any fossil fuel on this planet.

To individuals it might be worth great savings but would this device be hard to create? What sort of production base would you require and who could make what sort of profit?

No one would want to suppress it because it would cost no money to make energy and you can sell it. A business man's DREAM!

You are presuming that you can still sell energy, why? Also would these devices be difficult enough to make to prevent others from simply building their own or at the very least building similar devices and selling the energy themselves? I do not think you understand the full implications of what is commonly meant when 'free energy' inventors talk about their desktop machines! Perhaps if you imagined every house with a device perhaps the size and general cost of a electric geyser ( and perhaps not much harder to construct) you may understand what is intended?

Actually think about what you are saying. This is ridiculous. Free energy = Impossible. I urge you to learn some math and physics so you can understand the real truth. Just get educated.

By 'free energy' no one with half a mind, or any kind of education in the sciences, is saying 'created from nothing' but saying that just like life on earth exists because of the 'free' energy of the sun so we intend to tap similar energy flows that have so far simply not been exploited. Also people who keep suggesting that there is no such thing as a 'energy' free lunch on at least the planetary scale should be treated with just about the same contempt as they treat those who for scientific or other reasons believe that there should be more direct ways of tapping into energy flows than employing wind/thermal or hydro electric or solar means.

Why are seemingly only the most laborious and expensive ways of 'generating' electricity encouraged or practiced?

Stellar

PS AIM: Why try to break 'laws' when when the laws most commonly used as reasons why over unit is impossible is misrepresentations or misunderstandings of them?

I have posted this for years running but here it is again:

This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

Perhaps Feynman's summary and conclusions are just hopelessly out of date , and i am merely asking people as generally ignorant of physics as i am, but no one on ATS have even begun to address the questions i have posed trough posting these clippings.

reply to post by Aim64C

Now - if you were to do something -different- not just a circuit - but some kind of new device - or field arrangement... then at least we have something to test that hasn't already experimented with ad-nausea.

So you will agree said ZPE gen will be non-mechanical? That said, I agree that it will be a new device, one not developed yet, that will be able to detect the ZPE energy field.

In fact. all we need is a solution from quantum mechanics that points us in the right direction.

You want to test a quantum field, I want to show that it exists. There's a ton of speculation involved here. I'll pause.

reply to post by Hellhound604


The current rail gun fires at mach 7 because it is not long enough to fire anything faster.

You know it's funny how many people were so quick to jump on the idea I posted.... including a journeyman electrician.... (funny thing buddy I was an apprentice electrician who's dad is a journeyman electrician and if you know as much as he knows about electronics I think I'll actually do the experiment myself just in case... Now if you want to tell me how to wire a house or a 3 phase motor buddy I'll be all ears but as an electricians you are beyond your pay grade to be poo pooing a Circuit design. You're an ELECTRICIAN not an Electrical Engineer! There's a big difference buddy.) BUt hey I know everyone's gotta be big and bad on the interweb and to someone who doesn't know what electricians actually do calling yourself a journeyman electrician sounds like it carries some weight. For those of us that actually know what an electrician is and what an electrician DOES it just makes you look SAD.

For the record the ainslie circuit has MULTIPLE successful replications and is being tested by a University in South Africa currently.... Oh and did I mention there is a paper dedicated to the circuit being considered for IEEE publication? Hmm.... Maybe you don't think the circuit is anything special because you're not QUALIFIED to have an opinion on the subject and are just talking out your dash.

reply to post by Druid42

So you will agree said ZPE gen will be non-mechanical?

ZPE is akin to Maxwell's Demon. I honestly think we'll have that cracked open within the next 50 years. My goal is on genuine over-unity.

I think that the clues to how to make it happen will sit within the "breaking" of the universe - forcing more energy into a given area than should be possible. Exactly what will happen is entirely speculation - but I think that it will give clues to how the universe came into existence to begin with (if there is a "T0" ... only our human concept of time and causality presuppose there should be).

You want to test a quantum field, I want to show that it exists. There's a ton of speculation involved here. I'll pause.

I'm not entirely attached to many theories. Math is an art derived from observations. I just want to build something that makes a highly condensed ball of universe-challenging hatred... and see what it does.

My education and somewhat formal mannerisms can obfuscate the rather simplistic, primal basis for my pursuits. I like things that go boom.

Of course, I also like highly intricate and elaborate patterns - and believe a combination of "big boom" and shaped 3d EMF will be key to controlled emission of exotic particles (or even "synthetic" particles) and form the basis for controllable energy-to-matter conversion.

I'm not looking at any specific theory... it just makes sense to me that the forces involved will influence each other in such a way as to produce some kind of controllable reaction.

So yeah I don't expect anything but ridicule and an air of superiority from those who do nothing but ridicule the ideas of others.... because while it's easy to ridicule it's not nearly so easy to actually stick your neck out and propose an actual idea of your own. At the end of the day everyone who's saying nothing can be improved don't even try are the reason why the world isn't a better place than it is.

You can either choose to be a part of the solution or you are, by default, a part of the problem!

Now back to the Ainslie circuit. My only concern about the ainslie circuit is that it would be fiendishly hard to scale up, and tuning individual circuits could get really old really fast! But if it works it's still something that should be considered carefully and who knows it could be made into something useful with enough ingenuity.

reply to post by GhettoRice

You obviously don't understand that Volt and Amps only equal watts in a PURE resistive circuit, with the caps and inductor coils you have in their you get and RLC circuit where your Amps and Volts equal your "Apparent" power or Spower and not Wattpower.

Why don't you try reading the thread and catching up to where we are. It was a measurement error, but nothing like what you described. Furthermore, the methods used by Steven Jones to measure the output with the advanced scope he was using were fully conclusive. The question, rather, is did he fake those results. And finally, the Steven Jones circuit is a modified joule thief fool. It is similar but not the same.

reply to post by Six6Six

If it were so simple you would be in a bit of trouble. Check your local laws THOROUGHLY and you will find that any attempt to build such a device MAY be illegal.

Pffttt, if that is even true (which I highly doubt), then the law can go screw its self for all I care.

reply to post by roguetechie

You know it's funny how many people were so quick to jump on the idea I posted.... including a journeyman electrician.... (funny thing buddy I was an apprentice electrician who's dad is a journeyman electrician and if you know as much as he knows about electronics I think I'll actually do the experiment myself just in case... Now if you want to tell me how to wire a house or a 3 phase motor buddy I'll be all ears but as an electricians you are beyond your pay grade to be poo pooing a Circuit design.

Here's the thing with me.

I give you a fair shot to explain yourself. If you can't do that - then you get told you're being retarded. If you can't articulate your own intellectual process... how can you expect to be shown respect in an intellectual discussion?

For the record the ainslie circuit has MULTIPLE successful replications and is being tested by a University in South Africa currently...

Would you care to take a look at what the Ainslie Circuit actually is?

Oh and did I mention there is a paper dedicated to the circuit being considered for IEEE publication? Hmm.... Maybe you don't think the circuit is anything special because you're not QUALIFIED to have an opinion on the subject and are just talking out your dash.

This is where articulation comes into play, son.

The Ainslie circuit does not produce an over-unity phenomena or function as some kind of "Zero Point" device.

Recently, there was a post about a light-emitting diode that illuminated with twice the power that was put into it, electronically. The LED used thermal energy and converted it to light using electrical power.

The Ainslie Circuit produces a curious phenomena where resistive heating is an order of magnitude higher than expected in the circuit. At least - according to what I've heard about it.

The key thing here is that it uses a specifically structured inductive resistor.

Electromagnetic fields are something of an enigma in electronics - something I've said for a while. They are difficult to image - particularly dynamic fields. They are just as difficult to simulate in a computerized environment. We can mathematically define how devices operate that use them - and can even show how they interact at a subatomic level (to some degree or another). But it's a bit more obscure in the grand scheme of things. The effects of coil shapes in dynamic systems that work around geometrically arranged standing wave-forms (or other wave-forms) has considerable potential in power regulation, conversion, and storage applications.

Now. Like I said - this is where articulation comes into play.

You don't speak the language, and have considerable difficulty articulating (even in very basic terms) what it is you're talking about. You just want to spout off about one thing or another.

I will give you props, however. You've alerted me to something I did not know about. It's a curious phenomena that has some potential for making some quantum-mechanics model break-throughs when taken in conjunction with one of the recent discoveries of a "Maxwell's Demon" made out of graphene and some metal electrodes (provided that can be verified further).

reply to post by roguetechie

Now back to the Ainslie circuit. My only concern about the ainslie circuit is that it would be fiendishly hard to scale up, and tuning individual circuits could get really old really fast! But if it works it's still something that should be considered carefully and who knows it could be made into something useful with enough ingenuity.

Its application is, unfortunately, very limited.

Its real value sits in further analysis of its function. Finding the source of the additional energy that results in the ohmic heating stands head and shoulders above the application of the excessive heating phenomena.

Because, basically, you're looking at being able to heat homes with electrical power at a fraction of the typical energy costs (... sort of... the circuit itself doesn't seem to lend itself well to a linear scaling of power and size). There might be a few niche applications for it in industry... but the real value will be figuring out where it's pulling any additional energy from.

And I'm going out on a limb, here, and assuming all of this is perfectly legit. There's enough level-headed talk about it that I'm somewhat comfortable operating off of that assumption.

Just a quick test of the thrust/force created by the V alignment when a magnet is placed near the cylinder:



At this point I'm mainly being held back by my lack of a decent rod/bar magnet. As you can see in the video the best thing I could find was some old round magnet I pulled out of a speaker.

reply to post by Hellhound604



"THE" rail gun currently only has a top speed of mach 7 because of the current length of the magnetic rail. The speed of the projectile is only limited by the length of the barrel.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Would work great if the magnets were bigger by about ten times and the top of the v thingy had a bike gear on it connected an alternator and light bulb, you would have INEXPENSIVE UNLIMITED ENERGY. Free if you already had the materials.

Originally posted by Democide
For thos who say free energy doesnt exist, well this is obviously a falsehood. All atoms exist using perpetual motion, its the energy that keeps electrons in thier orbits.

Tapping into this energy however is the tricky part.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion, not even for the atom. Everything in the universe suffers from entropy,
the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant. Constant entropy is still entropy. There is always a loss of energy in every system that is irrecoverable since there is always a resistance, whether is is radiated heat, or nuclear decay, and cannot be recovered completely by the system to sustain the system forever.... ala perpetual motion.

All elements will theoretical deteriorate over time.

Every element has one or more isotopes that have unstable nuclei that are subject to radioactive decay, causing the nucleus to emit particles or electromagnetic radiation.

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus, akin to the solar system and planets. They are bound to the protons by electromagnetic force. They vibrate at different energy levels in specified shell radius locations around the nucleus called an atomic orbital.. Each location defines a higher or lower energy level, called a quanta.

The electron cloud is a region inside the potential well where each electron forms a type of three-dimensional standing wave—a wave form that does not move relative to the nucleus. This behavior is defined by an atomic orbital

reply to post by ringlejames


Well I might do that next if it works and I decide to scale up this device. And you don't need an alternator/generator, you just need to place a coil near the rotating magnets.

reply to post by charlyv

Every element has one or more isotopes that have unstable nuclei that are subject to radioactive decay, causing the nucleus to emit particles or electromagnetic radiation.

An "isotope" is not the same as the original element, it has extra neutrons which cause it to become unstable, because it disturbs the neutron-proton balance. Some elements are perfectly stable and never decay. Furthermore, our planet could theoretically revolve around the Sun for an infinite amount of time because there's no air friction in space. But obviously that wont happen because the Universe changes, the Sun will lose mass over time and eventually explode/implode, amongst other things. But perpetual motion is absolutely possible in an environment such as space. The problem is, if you tried to extract energy from that motion you would cause the device to slow down and stop moving. Just as if you tried to extract motion from the Earths movement around the Sun you would cause the Earth to slow down and it would eventually spiral into the Sun. I explained all of this on another thread a few months ago.

You are right I don't speak the language very well... I'm a first year mechanical engineering studeent still slogging through my generals, but to me the ainslie circuit deserves to be looked at because it's been replicated and is producing more heat than it should to a level that might be useful.

Beings as the OP wants to build a free energy device and this is producing way more heat than it should I think it qualifies.

THis is why I brought it up is it actually fits the OP's stated objective and is plausible.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by charlyv

 

Every element has one or more isotopes that have unstable nuclei that are subject to radioactive decay, causing the nucleus to emit particles or electromagnetic radiation.

An "isotope" is not the same as the original element, it has extra neutrons which cause it to become unstable, because it disturbs the neutron-proton balance. Some elements are perfectly stable and never decay. Furthermore, our planet could theoretically revolve around the Sun for an infinite amount of time because there's no air friction in space. But obviously that wont happen because the Universe changes, the Sun will lose mass over time and eventually explode/implode, amongst other things. But perpetual motion is absolutely possible in an environment such as space. The problem is, if you tried to extract energy from that motion you would cause the device to slow down and stop moving. Just as if you tried to extract motion from the Earths movement around the Sun you would cause the Earth to slow down and it would eventually spiral into the Sun. I explained all of this on another thread a few months ago.

edit on 13-5-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

All elements , through entropy, or external forces will eventually become their isotopic versions. Stability implied as "forever" is impossible. Billions of years is not forever.

Furthermore, our planet could theoretically revolve around the Sun for an infinite amount of time because there's no air friction in space.

There is gravitational drag, a resistance which will eventually cause anything in orbit around anything else to decay over time. Again, no such thing as perpetual motion, It would not matter if the sun lasted forever.

reply to post by charlyv

All elements , through entropy, or external forces will eventually become their isotopic versions.

No they wont, because an isotope generally arises via the artificial process of ADDING neutrons to the atom. That doesn't typically occur in nature as far as I know.

There is gravitational drag, a resistance which will eventually cause anything in orbit around anything else to decay over time. Again, no such thing as perpetual motion, It would not matter if the sun lasted forever.

Actually you are wrong. Take a small ball into space and spin it. It will float there spinning forever were it not disturbed. There is no gravity involved in this example. It's simply a free spinning object in open space. And it will continue spinning forever because there is no atmosphere or air friction in space. So now tell me that object will stop spinning.

reply to post by roguetechie

THis is why I brought it up is it actually fits the OP's stated objective and is plausible.

I might take a look at it later, but as you may have noticed I am currently working on the V-Gate.

And to anyone who thinks I might be ignoring their ideas, I'm not, I'm just busy trying to build what I'm currently working on. I'll try other ideas once I'm finished.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by charlyv

 

All elements , through entropy, or external forces will eventually become their isotopic versions.

No they wont, because an isotope generally arises via the artificial process of ADDING neutrons to the atom. That doesn't typically occur in nature as far as I know.

There is gravitational drag, a resistance which will eventually cause anything in orbit around anything else to decay over time. Again, no such thing as perpetual motion, It would not matter if the sun lasted forever.

Actually you are wrong. Take a small ball into space and spin it. It will float there spinning forever were it not disturbed. There is no gravity involved in this example. It's simply a free spinning object in open space. And it will continue spinning forever because there is no atmosphere or air friction in space. So now tell me that object will stop spinning.

edit on 13-5-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Look, what you are saying is in direct violation of the first and second law of thermodynamics. I am not trying to insult you in any way, but you just do not understand entropy. Pure and simple. Nothing is truly stable and there is always an entropic instability in EVERYTHING in this universe that makes the idea of a perpetual motion machine absolutely impossible.

Your space example does not take into account the gravitational drag that the entire universe puts on everything, as well as the nearest galaxy, star, planet or moon. It does not take into account the effects of photons moving every which way, cosmic rays, magnetic flux in the space-time continuum or hundreds of other forms of energy and gravity anomolies that can and do produce instability in any and all system. Understand entropy, and you will be set free from this. We can go about this all night, but you will just have to come out and say that you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, and we can end this conversation there.