Free energy perpetual motion machine.

Well now I've seen the drawings my first impression is that Robert Fludd would be pursuing legal action based on copyright infringement. The concept is 400 years old at least and a proven non-working principle.

A little math useful for evaluating potential hydro type installations is P=QGHn where:
P=kW
Q=water flow in m^3/second (1 m^3/sec = 1000 litres/second)
G=gravity 9.82m/sec^2
H=head in metres
n=efficiency (typically in the range of 0.9-0.95 for optimised design and construction)

Assuming the system discharges 1 m^3/minute (16.7 litres/second) and has a head of 1 metre, the best possible power output attainable will be:
1/60 m^3/sec x 9.82 x 1 x 0.95 = 0.155kW (155 watts)
Now assuming the pumping system is also 95% efficient, it will consume 155/0.95^2 = 172 watts so there's a net loss of 10% in the closed loop and that would be a sensational efficiency figure. The bottom line is that there will be no energy available to extract and the system will only run until the top reservoir is empty.

The idea's feasibility can be assessed without actually building the complete assembly as the make-or-break point is being able to pump the liquid back up using less energy than the turbine can realistically produce. IE for the above example that means raising 16.7 litres/second (about 4 gallons/sec) up 1 metre with less than 155W power input.

Use a river to keep the upper reservoir topped up and you've got a working idea
IE hydroelectric

Originally posted by Pepeluacho

The only machine that will is the magnetized oscillator where to harness magnetic power and convert it into free energy.

I presume you are referring to a "sweet triode". The physics is there, and some have made great claims . But, even it is unproven.

You may be able to incorporate a friction based generator powered by the magnetized plate.

An electrostatic generator?!? Really!!? Those don't produce enough power to do much beyond "look pretty". And, his system doesn't need the added friction. Friction generates heat, heat is loss.

@ Wifibrains,

The only problem with your design which has to be solved by you is that you should be sure that the rain wheels should be able to take the load of the generator coupled to battery as well as hollow screw.This comes in the criteria of "Overcommable resistance".This may be most biggest critical problem in this your's design which you should solve by innovative thinking.

The criteria for resistance system in my Invention/Gravity engine is:
1) first of all it should be overcommable.
2) it should be present only downwards and not upward.
3) The resistance system should be highly/reasonably efficient(output by input)
4) Amount of overcommable resistance should be reasonably large enough.
If the resistance cannot satisfy these conditions,then it cannot be used in my engine.

Hopefully you can apply this criteria suitably to your design with some modification.This is my sincier suggestion.

reply to post by Aman16


The Bessler Wheel was an elaborate hoax (one of many) and not really a good example to base principles and future developments on. Where can I see a working prototype based on the same idea? (it would be worthy of a Nobel prize if it existed)

And 'working gravity engine' ? where can I see one of those in action ?
What comes to mind is something a colleague demonstrated to me decades ago and the first impression was amazement because it appeared to have great promise until analysed very carefully. The apparent energy of it was sourced from the flywheel effect of its large rotating mass, energy that was stored in bringing the device up to speed so no magic at all unfortunately.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Aman16

 

The Bessler Wheel was an elaborate hoax (one of many) and not really a good example to base principles and future developments on. Where can I see a working prototype based on the same idea? (it would be worthy of a Nobel prize if it existed)

@ Pilgrum

Mine is not a bessler wheel.My research is discussed on the thread on Bessler wheel Forums.In what way I am different from most other Bessler wheel Forum members is others are trying to make illogical Perpetual Motion Machines where as I already have a properly wll proven documents on real logical Non-Perpetual Gravity engines.
Most of the gravity wheels on Internet are just Hoax ,but that does not mean that everything in the world regarding gravity engines is Hoax.Though I have got some good support from some forum member online friends,most forum members at Bessler Wheels Forum have really very bad concept in physics.

reply to post by Aman16


I have no argument with gravity being a source of power and I can prove it by simply dropping a brick on my foot The problem is that once I've utilised that energy (kinetic) to break a bone or two, it's exhausted and the brick is now at a lower potential energy level than prior to being dropped and, in order to restore that energy, I need to apply enough energy to overcome gravity and raise the mass to its original level. That energy input will always be greater than what the mass can provide in falling due to and endless list of losses. Eliminate all the losses (virtual impossibility) and the best possible result is equilibrium IE no net output.

Gravity is a great source of power and, on this island, we generate gigawatts of energy using it with hydroelectric machines. We take advantage of solar input (evaporation + rain) to get the water back up the mountain for us though so the cycle can continue.

Even if this worked, it would not be considered a perpetual motion machine, for it is not an independent or enclosed system that is free from external energy. You are right, this does defy the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which I must say, have lasted this long without being overturned...And so much has been based and built upon these laws, that it is unlikely they will ever be overturned, and the only way they would change is to be improved upon, and that isn't likely imo.

There really is no such thing as "free" energy where friction is involved, or even gravity. If we existed independent of gravity, air-friction, etc, this is do-able...But not on Earth. There will always be a trade-off when it comes to energy. I do applaud you for trying, but to overturn any law of physics you will have to have a deep understanding of those laws to begin with...I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it. Keep trying though, and maybe you will prove me wrong.

is basic physics no longer taught in schools ?

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Even if this worked, it would not be considered a perpetual motion machine, for it is not an independent or enclosed system that is free from external energy. You are right, this does defy the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which I must say, have lasted this long without being overturned...And so much has been based and built upon these laws, that it is unlikely they will ever be overturned, and the only way they would change is to be improved upon, and that isn't likely imo.

There really is no such thing as "free" energy where friction is involved, or even gravity. If we existed independent of gravity, air-friction, etc, this is do-able...But not on Earth. There will always be a trade-off when it comes to energy. I do applaud you for trying, but to overturn any law of physics you will have to have a deep understanding of those laws to begin with...I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it. Keep trying though, and maybe you will prove me wrong.

I do not believe in Perpetual Motion Machines,obviously.

BUT I do really believe in Real Non-Perpetual Gravity engines.

The problem is the way in which people relate Perpetual Motion Machines with Gravity engines.

I want people,not to relate "Perpetual "with "Gravity engines".

It is a wrong senseless belief in public that Gravity engines are Perpetual.

Most people wrongly and senselessly think that Gravity engines are perpetual.They are not using their brain while assuming this relationship.
That is why I call "Perpetual" as "Virus" killing people's ability to think.

Free energy only means it is free to consumer's pocket,but it is not free new energy really.It is the extraction of energy from nature.Wind,gravity,fusion,Vaccum Quantum energy are all examples of free energy.It only involves conversion and not generation .

reply to post by Pilgrum


I see what your saying, but still. I have a gut feeling our maths system as we know it is flawed. Natural cycles(circles) and time, are best and more accurately worked out on a system of12 as a unit as we now think of 10. 13 being like 11 is, or a new bigger 1. It's tough to explained but that's how it used to be. It's still like it with clocks and calendars. T ptb know this and use this cycle for their big business. January is newyear, but spring starts march, April. And so does their new tax year. They keep in sync and put us out. This is how they hold power. This metric maths system has us slightly off. I'm hoping the10/12 thing will work out that I can gain 20% on what you have come up with. I say this without knowing. It's what I feel. And I see this machine turning on its own and it's not complete yet.

reply to post by Aman16


I can see you are vry knowledgable in this subject. Here's what I'm thinking. If the screw being on top of the wheel creates the least resistance, then the best place for my alternator/ generator would be ontop of the screw, no? Again creating balance and the least risitance.

reply to post by Pilgrum


He could if I was to sell it. But I have no plans to do that. And he's been dead 400 yrs. if its got a patent on it, it means you can't sell it, but nothing says you can't copy and build your own, that's perfectly legal.

reply to post by 0mage


Actually I think it's exactly what the world needs right now. We need to become less dependant on these banks gov and corporations. The more we depend on them the more laws they will impose on us. If we ignore them, they have no power. It's starts with each and every person making the choice to be more responceable and less dependant. They think they own you becouse you think you need them.

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Aman16

 

I can see you are vry knowledgable in this subject. Here's what I'm thinking. If the screw being on top of the wheel creates the least resistance, then the best place for my alternator/ generator would be ontop of the screw, no? Again creating balance and the least risitance.

Yes if the system is designed in such a way that the upward resistance should not be offered directly to the pumping action of water upwards.
That is no obstacle should come in upward path of water pumping.

It's better if you can elaborate on your latest design do that we can suggest you few more things.Till now I have only analylised your first design.I will now try to analyse your newer designs/versions.

Basically the concept which I have suggested involves less resistance in upward Potential enrgy storage and more resistance in downward energy conversion.

The idea in my invention Analogy is to extend time spent by gravity to act on a heavy object by a few nanoseconds due to the slowing down of the heavy ball speed due to resistance offered.The more the time gravity acts at a particular height(H=H1),the more the gravity energy gained to overcome resistance (splashing the water resistance in analogous example given) as well to rotate the half cycle generator rotor.

From wikipedia,Analogy (from Greek αναλογία – analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target)

If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy.

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X,
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle,

95 percent working Gravity engines work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now how to do this is my secret formula in real engine,but some other intelligent people can use this principle efficiently.And believe me if and when this secret is out as a Official gazette document or Patent document,you people will continuously laugh at yourselfs that why you were not using such a simple valid concept before to power your homes for free of cost by using only gravitational energy.
Continuous laughing at yourself will not be good for your health and will make you Psychratic.

Here is an another way to satisfy the principle by" Concept of Change IN Displacement of heavy ball":

www.besslerwheel.com...

Will Gravity be really safe for using as our future energy source?
Discussion on:

www.conservegravity.org...

www.conservegravity.org...

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Please read www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

I see what your saying, but still. I have a gut feeling our maths system as we know it is flawed.

The decimal math system we use is just a tool for expressing values and observed relationships. It could be all done in whatever base you like other than 10 and the relationships & values would be the same in an absolute sense, just written differently. Now try to imagine a floating point system in base 2, 8, 12, 16 or whatever and it would be horrendous to manage although the systems which are powers of 2 are very popular with machines because they translate easily into binary and vice versa. Perhaps if we all had 12 fingers and 12 toes a base 12 or 24 system would have emerged but we're stuck with decimal for better or for worse (I think it's better personally).

The math system is fine and like any other tool, it's just a matter of learning to use it effectively.

Use that formula I quoted earlier to estimate your maximum output power and all you need to do is come up with a means of elevating the used water with less energy than is being recovered in generation. If pumping takes less than the generated power you have a net difference to exploit as output and most of this can be worked out on paper at low cost.

reply to post by Wifibrains


in your case , the answer is no then ?