I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?

Originally posted by stuthealien
reply to post by butcherguy

 

dude read it ,its about nasa using sterling engines with mirror arrays the sterling engine has a gas in and they consider it better then nuclear the link again for all you people
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870018131_1987018131.pdf this works why use anything else

I am aware of what Stirling cycle engines are and how they work, they have been around since 1816, when Robert Stirling invented the first practical model.

Are you denying that this is a solar power project?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Well, I have to say that I'm kinda impressed by that, if it's legit then that's the closest to a PMM I have ever seen.

It probably stops after a while, and it definately does when you try to generate power from it, otherwise he would've already hooked up a generator and let it spin longer than a minute.

no im not saying it is not solar but these are not standard sterling engines ,they are improved versions,surely the point is that they are free energy,i to have heard the magnet perpetual motion devices tend to get to a certain point and stop ,im pretty sure i can get round this ,guess i to have to build one to shut the shills up

reply to postal by ChaoticOrder


I read some stuff that the inventor had online. He stated that this is actually difficult to build, that weight of the wheel must be kept very low or it would not self-start. Apparently it will not handle added load, or he would have a video of it with a load attached!

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

OP, can you explain what you mean with "free energy device" exactly?

Can it run on a natural outside force, or does it have to run on its own parts, or both?

That is my thoughts exactly. What is the definition of "free energy"?

I see so many people proposing a something like a crystal set to pick up energy from radio waves, or solar, or geothermal. But that is in my mind not "free energy". There is a source for that energy that can be depleted.

Solar energy. Yes, we can use reflectors to focus the sun, we can use photosynthesis, we can use photovoltaics, but that is not free. It is like using radio-waves to transmit energy. The source is the sun, which is in effect a huge thermonuclear device.

Yes, you in principle you can build a device that taps energy from a nearby radio transmitter, but the moment that radio transmitter goes of air, your energy is gone. (In any case, that is how all radio receivers work. except for a crystal set, you just put more energy in than what you tap from the transmitter). The same applies to all wireless energy, whether it is inductive or EM waves.

Geothermal energy, wave energy, relies on physical processes going on in the earth. So, that is not "free energy" either.

For me, when I think about "free energy", I think about tapping quantum energy (vacuum energy), but nobody knows how to do it (yet), and I don't think we will be able to tap that with just a handful of electronic spares.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


so called experts in aerodynamics state that the bumble bee should not be able to fly BUT IT DOES.
just because we don't know how to make something does not make it impossible .

its simple just use a wind turbine and or solar pannels to charge batteries i have a golf cart that i havnt plugged in in 2 years to recharge it the wind recharges it constantly but if you want to take another route build a magnetic motor the plans are all over the net i have built small scale magnetic motors that could power an led but the magnets have to be in precise alignment to work correctly good luck
travis

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

 

so called experts in aerodynamics state that the bumble bee should not be able to fly BUT IT DOES.
just because we don't know how to make something does not make it impossible .

According to 20th century FOLKLORE, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight,

The calculations that purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.[34]

Additionally, John Maynard Smith, a noted biologist with a strong background in aeronautics, has pointed out that bumblebees would not be expected to sustain flight, as they would need to generate too much power given their tiny wing area. However, in aerodynamics experiments with other insects he found that viscosity at the scale of small insects meant that even their small wings can move a very large volume of air relative to the size, and this reduces the power required to sustain flight by an order of magnitude.[35]

en.wikipedia.org...

Try again.

Originally posted by Maxatoria
the nearest thing i can think of is to tie a cat to a pole and attach a slice of buttered bread to the cat's back and the cat will want to land on its feet and the bread will want to land buttered side down and will rotate constantly

Lol a rotating cat .
But OP good luck, over unity devices do work but are not entirely safe

reply to post by stealthmonkey

i have built small scale magnetic motors that could power an led but the magnets have to be in precise alignment to work correctly

You have succesfully built a perpetual motion machine that could power a lightsource form nothing?

Ok... MAJOR UPDATE here folks...

The circuit by Steven Jones (see page 2) DOES APPEAR TO WORK after I attached a larger toroid to the system. I am now measuring more watts out then what I measure going in. There's roughly 17.6 watts going in and roughly 18.2 watts going out!!! However, Steven did claim his circuit was showing an 8x over-unity so perhaps I need to tweak it some more or add an even larger toroid. I will create a video showing live measurements when I get some time.

EDIT: actually I think what I need to do is play around with my variable resistors like he was doing.

PS - the rechargeable batteries which I'm using for my camera are dead, but are currently charging. I'll try to get a video made within a few hours.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

There's roughly 17.6 watts going in and roughly 18.2 watts going out!!!

So you should be able to connect the output to the input and have it run.

But no one ever does. Why is that???

I think the way your are taking your measurements is incorrect.

Now I will admit I have not looked at the devise. But if any of the measurements involve a frequency component your meter is likely not reading things correctly. Meters are designed for a frequency range. Normally 60Hz.
No the brand name doesn't matter. I have a Fluke model 11 and it will not read above 200 Hz correctly.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


If the circuit produces more power than it uses, then why does it have to be hooked up to a battery in the first place?

reply to post by samkent

So you should be able to connect the output to the input and have it run.

But no one ever does. Why is that???

That is what I plan on doing next. Have some patience man, it's not as easy as it sounds.

I think the way your are taking your measurements is incorrect.

Now I will admit I have not looked at the devise.

Well take a look at the video on page 2. Steven shows results from a professional quality Tektronix scope, and he knows what he is doing. It's unlikely he would measure it wrong. BTW, we are dealing with a DC power supply in this circuit, all I'm doing is measuring the voltage and amps going in, which gives me the watts. Then I am doing the same thing for the power going out. And there is a small over-unity factor from what I can tell.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

If the circuit produces more power than it uses, then why does it have to be hooked up to a battery in the first place?

Well, ummm... how should I know. I'm simply reporting what I'm seeing. If I were to hazard a guess I would say some sort of resonation is taking place with help from the toroid and it's somehow interfacing with the zero-point field and injecting extra energy into the system. I really don't know though, all I know is what I see with my own eyes.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

That is what I plan on doing next. Have some patients man, it's not as easy as it sounds.

Why do you start with an energy source like electricity in the first place if you are looking for free energy?

If that is the next step in the plan, then why isn't this doctor showing us that. If it really is producing more power than its input, it wouldn't need a battery.

Btw, it's patience, patients are the other guys in the room with you.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

If that is the next step in the plan, then why isn't this doctor showing us that. If it really is producing more power than its input, it wouldn't need a battery.

Because the circuit obviously needs some sort of power source in order to produce the effect which causes over unity. If you watch both the videos (there are two parts) you will see he explains how he is trying to feed the output back into the input by capturing the output in a capacitor or something like that. It is much harder than it sounds, but I'm thinking of ways how it might be done.

Btw, it's patience, patients are the other guys in the room with you.

I already noticed my mistake and corrected it before you even made that post.

Just so people don't have to go back to this thread to see what I'm talking about, here are the two videos where Steven Jones explains his circuit:

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Because the circuit obviously needs some sort of power source in order to produce the effect which causes over unity. If you watch both the videos (there are two parts) you will see he explains how he is trying to feed the output back into the input by capturing the output in a capacitor or something like that. It is much harder than it sounds, but I'm thinking of ways how it might be done.

That wouldn't be hard at all, if he can measure the output he can also run a wire back to the input and override the battery once it is running and the "energy creating effect" is already there.

Seems pretty straightforward.

If it produces more energy than is put in it should be able to power itself. but it can't, it's just BS.

Why do you think this dr. is on youtube doing this.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


Not it's not that straight forward because doing what you said will create a short circuit and then if you remove the battery the system is already short circuited and it wont work. You need to be able to store the power out in a capacitor and then quickly remove the battery, then feed it back into the input, all before the capacitor discharges. It most likely can only be done with electronic switches or something like that.

Why do you think this dr. is on youtube doing this.

He is not on YouTube, that is a person from PESN who was interested in what he was doing and they took some footage to put on YouTube.