It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Free energy perpetual motion machine.

page: 11
11
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:54 PM

Exactly. All the science is already in place, so time can be spent on ensuring efficiency.

Granted it doesn't work so well at night, but the idea is to have an energy harvester.
Thermal energy->potential energy->kinetic energy->electrical energy
Something I can't use into something I can.

But you have to have an input of energy to harvest from, and that input has to be greater than the sum of the losses in energy of the system in order to get anything.

Perpetual motion machines don't work because we live in a world where energy always gets lost, as nothing can be 100% efficient. Even if 100% efficiency is obtained, no work could be done because all the energy is going into sustaining the cycle. After all, work is considered a loss of energy since it is being spent to do something and not sustain the cycle.

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:11 PM

I understand what you are saying, but I've turned one of these and I know it moved more than what it took to turn it. The water hangs in the bottom of the screw and moves up, the load is now on the centre of the shaft and transferred onto the top/bottom centre of the bearings of the shaft. Connect a lever to the shaft giving as much leverage as poss. The load is in the centre and the and I'll be adding weight from the edge so in theory my lifting power will increase.

flic.kr... ref no2

It's not breaking any laws. So how much energy is lost will remain to be seen. If it's less than what I'm gaining this machine will have free energy potential.

The hight the weight is lifted is less but it takes less to lift it. If my two circles are the right ratio a can get a perfect flow of water to run the machine on its own. But if I adjust my screw to be as small as poss I can move more as long as it doesn't exceed 50rpm. I can move 0.90 ltrs a sec, estimated, without taking into account loss of energy. That's 0.90kg+ per sec taking into account the kinetic energy of the water aswell as the weight. Plus the leverage, all looks good.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 05:16 PM

Plus I can put it in a glass dome with some mirrors and put it in the garden, collect the water tthat evaporates and make it even more efficient. It's getting there, lol, I can see it now rain water can be collected and diverted inside to keep it topped up lol
I know, even better a pyramid. Look at the chanells and tunnels in them in Egypt, put a similar design to mine in the layout with screws in the tunnels and wheels in the chambers, the "airshafts" would be the rain water inlets, wow maybe that's what they were.

flic.kr...

flic.kr...

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:30 PM

I can't wait to see this thing when you throw it together.
At first I was like "eh, another ats guy trying for free energy" but your determination will make me check back in.

Worse comes to worse it can be sold as art. You may build the sickest waterfall ever.

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:58 PM

If it don't work it's yours lol
thanks you, magamind and WMD. Use really pushed me to think about it but I still think itll work lol
edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:07 PM

hey look you can boil water with the sun.
+pressure and you can do a lot

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 09:06 PM

That's cool and could but usefull in making something like this. We get little nice weather in uk tho. But in hot dry country's this could work a treat.! In the pyramid design water would cascade down the grand gallery turning wheels then running into something mega hot. Steam would float back to the top, settle and repeat.
Could be fitted ontop and become the roof of a house.
edit on 23-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Wifibrains

I understand what you are saying, but I've turned one of these and I know it moved more than what it took to turn it. The water hangs in the bottom of the screw and moves up, the load is now on the centre of the shaft and transferred onto the top/bottom centre of the bearings of the shaft. Connect a lever to the shaft giving as much leverage as poss. The load is in the centre and the and I'll be adding weight from the edge so in theory my lifting power will increase.

I think you're missing the idea of the 'Archimedes Screw' and how it actually works. It provides a mechanical advantage (as a gearbox would) for lifting the liquid but without using any gears to do so. The 'gear ratio' is determined by the slope of the screw and the pitch of the helix. I can lift a V8 engine out of a car with one hand by using a block & tackle but I'm doing the same amount of work regardless of how much advantage the pulleys give me, it's just that my skeleton might not be up to the task of lifting it on a 1:1 ratio. The same applies to the Archimedes Screw where the amount of work is related to the mass moved how far per unit time.

Lifting a litre of water 1m in 1 sec takes as much work input for these devices as it would via any other method
so don't confuse the ease of movement (result of mechanical advantage that you compensate for by adding more movement/speed) with some sort of magical discovery.

(Just trying to save you the cost of an expensive basic physics lesson).

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:48 AM

Whats the lever doing for you, SORRY what do YOU think the lever is doing for you

Had a good look at your pictures IF you dont have enough FRICTION between the tyre and you water screw that wont turn, looking at the cups for the water on the wheel you wont have enough to turn the wheel in the first place.

You have to have FRICTION between the tyres and the screw and thats what will cause the massive fail!

edit on 24-5-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:20 AM

The way the screw works I will not be moving 1ltr up 1m per sec. It's much less than that. It you who does not understand. It will drop 1 ltr out of the top every second. But that water did not take 1sec to move from bottom to top.One turn on my bottom wheel gives me,3 rotations on my screw. The time it takes for the first puddle to reach the top will be 8-10 sec then it will be constant every sec.

Screw length aprox 1.8m
edit on 24-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:44 AM

By established maths, I estimate that 1 litre/sec falling 1.0m is good for about 8.8 watts with an optimised turbine design and I'm not talking about a simple wooden waterwheel. Pumping the 1 litre/sec back up 1.0m (after the pump is primed of course) will take around 11 watts with an extensively optimised pump arrangement. I assumed 90% efficiency for each of the pumping and generating cycles which is very generous for this setup (very low head and low flow). Notice the deficit of 2.1 watts between the generator and pump, the best you could possibly achieve is to make them equal at approx 9.8 watts each by eliminating ALL losses which is a virtual impossibility.

Actually getting excess energy from this is the real impossibility but I doubt you'll be taking any notice until it's conclusively proven by yourself. What could you have blown all that cash on other than this?

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:47 AM
I using the lever as an example of how leverage works for me in the bottom wheel. The load is in the centre and by adding weight to the edge it moves easy.
Let's say my screw is attattched at 9 o'clock on the wheel. As I move it up to 12 o'clock, the load moves from fig1 to fig 2.

flic.kr...

Still friction yes but no weight trying to push in the opposit deriction.

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:57 AM

Pump? It doesn't pump. It gently slides it up. And drops it in the header tank at about 1.2m. Flows out the bottom of the tank at the same rate. 1ltr/kg per sec. If this turns the wheels easily, I can choke the outlet from the head. Any water I can save is energy.
The screw will be holding 5 ltrs at any one time the screw will weigh aprox 10gk when loaded. Loads is balanced so is just friction and I got 1kg of water per sec max + kinetic energy of the water falling from a maximum height of 40cm.
edit on 24-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:01 AM
Also, a standard vertically mounted type water wheel in this low head application would be an instant losing proposition because the entire wheel must be kept clear of the maximum sump water level, resulting in a large head loss of at least the radius of the wheel itself. For peak output you'll need a turbine on a vertical shaft so that the centreline of the turbine is at the sump surface level and mounted in a 'draft tube' to maximise efficiency.

Not that I believe it will work but you need to give the best possible shot to eliminate any doubts.

You're lifting water from a lower level to a higher level and that's known as pumping regardless of how you do it. The amount of energy the pumping consumes is also well defined via several different methods because what you're doing is restoring the potential energy and you need to provide that energy which was released when the water fell down through the turbine.
edit on 24/5/2012 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:15 AM
Before you read further, please be sure, I do not want to stop you doing it, I just want to tell you, like so many others that you should do the basic maths for this in previous. Here´s why:

Wifi, I have been like you in some cases before I got my degrees. I know the fun of testing and making things work. But back then (17-19 years back then, no wife, no kids), I estimated, like you. I worked on a self driven, remote controlled, gattling gun (2-axis were movable) utilizing butan and propan and pressurized air as a propelland for shooting golf balls. Yes its one of the dumbest ideas but I got it working to the point I could test the fire and reload mechanism I estimated months into it instead of calculating the propper weights and slide ratio in just 15 minutes.

Do not ask, the debris field was devastating, I was bright enough to engage the ignition (scanner bulb converter+sparkplugs) behind a wooden wall and with a 15m extension cord for the old atari joystick I used (they have switches instead of potentiometers, makes it easy).

I do not say you will end with a bruised chest and debris in your face but you are bound to fail, just like me. Maybe not in an idiotic-epic manner like me but you will certainly.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

By established maths, I estimate that 1 litre/sec falling 1.0m is good for about 8.8 watts with an optimised turbine design and I'm not talking about a simple wooden waterwheel. Pumping the 1 litre/sec back up 1.0m (after the pump is primed of course) will take around 11 watts with an extensively optimised pump arrangement. I assumed 90% efficiency for each of the pumping and generating cycles which is very generous for this setup (very low head and low flow). Notice the deficit of 2.1 watts between the generator and pump, the best you could possibly achieve is to make them equal at approx 9.8 watts each by eliminating ALL losses which is a virtual impossibility.

Actually getting excess energy from this is the real impossibility but I doubt you'll be taking any notice until it's conclusively proven by yourself. What could you have blown all that cash on other than this?

Read his post, he´s so right!

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Wifibrains

Pump? It doesn't pump. It gently slides it up. And drops it in the header tank at about 1.2m. Flows out the bottom of the tank at the same rate. 1ltr/kg per sec. If this turns the wheels easily, I can choke the outlet from the head. Any water I can save is energy.
The screw will be holding 5 ltrs at any one time the screw will weigh aprox 10gk when loaded. Loads is balanced so is just friction and I got 1kg of water per sec max + kinetic energy of the water falling from a maximum height of 40cm.
edit on 24-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

So did you took the weight from the water in the cloud tank into your aproximations? The more water you have on top of it, the more pressure will be applied by the water that will fall down the pipes. Either way, you won´t gain a thing.

But I wish you luck and fun with that.

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:20 AM

I already have my header and wheels. I can use the numbers, and test with weights to see if it will work, i did try something and it looked real promising, so I stopped becouse I didn't want to sploil my surprise. The cups are on there for the experiment I carried out using weighed marballs, a wheel the size of my screw and a set of bathroom scales to gauge the load on the wheel 10kg. Kinetic energy was not taken into account and it began to turn.
edit on 24-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:23 AM

Clouds float. The tank doesn't have to be connected to the machine it can be on brackets on the wall, and not touch the machine. No pressure on anything. It flaots
Sorry misread your question. Yes this is something I can play with by chocking the outlet. The water will be dropped 1ltr per sec in the tank so I need to find away to turn it into a constant flow, with a funnelling system. Good question.

edit on 24-5-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:12 AM

Here is a quick math for you. You move 1 liter (1kg) through the whole system:

F= Force in Newton (10N = 1kg)
m= Mass of object in kg
a= acceleration (in this case gravity constant 9.82 m/s²

Moving water upwards:
Fup = m * a = 1kg * 9,82m/s² = 98,20N spend to lift the water, the best way (you did not choose this way)

So now its in the tank. It flows down again
Fdown(real) = m * a = 0.99kg (something evaporated on the way) * 9,82m/s² = 97,218N
Fdown(fiction) = m * a = 1kg * 9.82m/s² = 98.2N

This is the pure math, WITHOUT ANY LOSSES.
Now consider moving the screw and the wheel. You will have to spend energy into that, regardless how you "balance" it.

Real scenario:
Fup > Fdown.
In words, the Force you spend to take the water upwards was more then you get from Fdown.

YOUR fictional scenario to make it work:
Fup < Fdown
In words, the force you spend is smaller then the force you get. Or the other side, you get more then you paid for.

Explain me where that energy comes from without using the word balance and lever.
Because a lever is a lever. You pay the less amount of force you need with a greater distance you have to move the other end, plus the weight of the lever. Because a lever works that way. If you "balance" it out, its not a lever anymore. Do you get this?
edit on 24-5-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 06:24 AM
Another example:
You take a stone from the ground and place it on a desk. You need to spend energy to lift the stone.
The desk forces the stone to stay at it´s level because it puts more upforce to the stone then the stone will take downforce (gravity). This is for real, look at any force diagram.

So now you let the desk disappear. The stone will drop to the ground. You agree with that?
The weight of the stone and gravity will generate downforce. But only the amount of the stones weight.
You do not get back the energy you took for extra when lifting the stone with your hand (weight of your hand)

replace hand with archimedes spiral.
replace weight of hand with energy spend to move the parts.
replace stone with water (quite not the same because liquids tend to swing)

I hope you get it now.
edit on 24-5-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

top topics

11