free energy? possible? expert pls come in

Originally posted by Fromabove
Now, if you could diminish or cancel out the resistance factor, then you could possibly produce more energy than you would consume. But, the laws of physics being what they are it's unlikely to be done.

exactly this.

We never create energy we can only convert energy.

a power station is fueled by something.

an electric damn is converting environmental energy into electrical energy (technically solar powered using the water as the energy storage device and gravity as the method to convert it to electricity)

moving energy around from battery to motor to battery, is just that, moving it.

Originally posted by korgmeister
sorry for my noobie ness. its been a while i had been thinking, suppose you get a 9v rechargable battery and use it to power a mini generator that produce 12 v. then you use the output to charge back the 9v..and you still have excess of 3v left..

would the generator continue to run infinitely? and the excess 3v would be considered free energy and can be use infinitely?

edit on 17-5-2013 by korgmeister because: typo

The problem is that energy cannot be created/generated, but only CONVERTED.

So..your generator would need to be able to "generate" AT LEAST as much energy which is needed to drive it. Of course that would be pointless, but even that would not be possible since every circuit/device etc. will have some loss of energy already..means it will output LESS energy than put in.

To have an "energy creating device", the device would have to output more energy than is needed to operate the device, but where is the energy coming from?

Even if your device could turn the 9V into 12V, the 12V would either have less amperage, or it would only be able to create the 12 V for a short time. No matter what, the end result will always be that the total energy out will be less than the one in, therefore you cannot get an endless cycle where free energy is created.

If you realize that energy only can get converted from one state to another, it's actually easier to understand why such machines cannot work. The device can be as elaborate and look as impressive as you want, at some point I could just ask "where does the extra/new energy come from?" and you will see the problem...

Energy consists in two basic forms, energy in motion and energy at rest. When you convert energy it becomes what is called work. Whenever "work" is done, some of that energy will be radiated out as heat, light, or some other form so that you will never get the full "potential" that you started with. There will always be loss. The universe always seeks to balance itself out.

There is the possibility that you could get a 99.99 percent conversion source but you would still have the bleeding that happens with energy. What people never think about is that everything is somehow connected to everything else. For instance, the cup of water I have is on my table, which is on my floor, which is on my house foundation, which is on the earth, which is in the solar system, which is in the galaxy, which is in the universe. I know, it's mind boggling to say the least but it's a fact. All atoms come into contact with other atoms. But energy will attempt the shortest route to balance that it can.

Now, in a theoretical motor generator, you would need a closed loop where as a process of work, energy is bled back into the original source and added to the generator that powers the motor. To accomplish this you might need magnetic force. And this is why so many are trying to unlock to association between what makes a magnet do what it does in holding potential energy in place yet having motion in the filed lines, and electrical force (emf). Somewhere in there is the key to success and the person who finds it shall be very rich indeed. But no has been able to find it yet. None have overcome the balance problem. The laws of physics remain true and firm.

reply to post by korgmeister


no - and here is why

your 9v battery has a capacity , typicaly expresed as Ah [ amp hours - ie a 5Ah battery will deliver 5 amps for one hour , 10 amps for 30 minuites , 1 amp for 5 hours etc etc ]

using this battery to " drive a mini generator " producing 12v would mean that to deliver 12v output -in a perfect LOSSLESS world , this would require that your battery load [ amps ] = 1.3 times the " mini generators " output current

it " appears to work "

now welcome to the real world due to internal resistance a 5Ah battery cannot actually deliver 5A for 1 hour - as it discharges it heats up - increasing resistance - thus you encounter your first loss - battery discharge efficiency

now we move onto your " mini generator " - this too has a co-eficient of efficiency [ 92% efficiency = 0.92 ] your second loss

going back to your 9v battery - you encounter the 3rd loss - charging ineficiency - ever noticed that batteries on charge get hot ? - thats because the charger dilivers more energy than the battery stores [ internal resistance again ]

thus - by the time the curcuit is complete - the generator output is incapable of charging the battery at a faster rate than the battery is discharging - thus the system eventually totally discharges the 9v battery

and your experiment is deemed a failure

reply to post by ignorant_ape


^^^^ This.

Generating electrical voltage is easy, you can grab voltage right out of the air with simple antenna, getting the voltage to drive a "load" is something else all together.

I can produce voltage with magnets and copper all day long but that doesn't mean I can actually supply "power" to drive a circuit, this needs to be remembered when ever you go alternative energy hunting on you tube.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Very true. But unlike water, electical currents are created as soon as a loop of copper is in a variating magnetic field. Which opens up many, many doors. I suspect Tesla was unto something in exactly this area. Sure, he believed in obsolete things like aether (he was before Einstein), but nevertheless, many of his devices provided incredibly accurate solutions to the problems I faced when meditating about external-intervention-less electricity generation. Some of us suspect that because electricity can be generated rather easily, there are ways to make sure energy isn't dissipated and actually self-accelerates, by lowering the machine's consuption threshold and augmenting the machine's generative capabilities.

This thread is most stimulating - I'm starting to be really eager to wire up my design and try to (respectfully) prove our point (mine and the OP and the others). I'd like to at least give it a try, if you guys know what I mean.

Meanwhile, consider this. Let's say you have a spring. This spring's push is multiplicated by the presence of quite a few gears, just like in those old mechanical clocks. But instead of making a needle turn on a face, this clockwork makes a copper coil spin at high speed inside a strong magnetic field provided by permanent magnets. The spinning creates the variation in the field inside the wires. Electrons flow, and you get a few volts, with no effort. This would seems like free energy, but it's not ''free'' in the sense that it'll last forever. At one point the spring will reach its initial shape, and the gears will stop turning, causing the gen to stop producing. And the permanent magnet, if it's kept in a temperature above 0 degrees K, will slowly but surely lose their magnetic properties.

Still, the bright side is, it provided electrical output... without any electrical input. A lesson must be learned from that.

I think it's very possible to create an electrical version of this clockwork, which doesn't need someone to reset the spring - instead, part of the electrical output would do this for us, and the whole thing would seemingly provide ''free'' output (because we didn't have to do it ourselves). A kind of electrical equivalent to a spring, but which needs only but a tiny fraction of the accumulated energy to reset (this is possible only after reducing all energy dissipation, for instance by creating magnetic fields instead of springs, just like in a motor). And this is the general direction of my designs. Only a few things are in the way - for instance, I'm still wondering where to put the diodes to prevent the capacitor from misbehaving, and how to divert the excess not back to the loop but to a power plug, but at the same time make sure that the loop's energy level stays constant, and with minimum resistance.

Another thing I always think about when free energy is discussed is how that energy is supposed to get to each building, charge cars, etc. If we still need a power plant to be built and maintained along with an infrastructure to deliver/distribute the energy then we will still be paying for energy for all the upkeep and expansion. What do you all think? I think there are quite a few people out there that hear "free energy" and think it has to do with cost and not how it is created.

reply to post by l0vedim0


Yeah, I agree, I'd think you'd still pay. The ideal would be that each people can construct their own. Kinda DIY.

reply to post by swanne

Very true. But unlike water, electical currents are created as soon as a loop of copper is in a variating magnetic field.

Whenever a current is so created, it is at the expense of mechanical energy; it takes energy to move a conductor through a magnetic field. In the system the OP described, he is using electrical energy to create motion in a loop due to the magnetic field inside the motor; he is using that motion to induce electrical energy from another magnetic field; he is then sending that electrical energy back to the motor.

Some of us suspect that because electricity can be generated rather easily, there are ways to make sure energy isn't dissipated and actually self-accelerates, by lowering the machine's consuption threshold and augmenting the machine's generative capabilities.

"Some of us" includes me.

Nothing is to be gained, however, from repeating the same experiment over and over; it has failed every time it has been tried, and it has been tried a LOT. The only way to advance research into over-unity is to understand what has already been done and why it failed. Otherwise, we're spinning tires but going nowhere.

Tesla did this. He studied what had already been done and tried to understand why it worked or did not work so he could improve it. That's why he was so successful at his inventions. My advise to anyone working on this is to first learn what you are working with (electricity, magnetism, mechanics) and proceed from there.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by Biigs
electrical energy does not work like that.

I would try to explain but you should probably just read this first.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Your link simply states things about basic electricity, but does not disprove directly the OP's suggestion. I think using amperes instead of volts would be a better way to look at the OP's suggestion. Ampere is the amount of electron charges in one second, which is more relevant to this topic here.

The OPs idea is simply bunk because of entropy.

If I hook up a battery with X amount of power, if I use 5/X to recharge the battery, while draining 5/X, eventually, it all goes to zero.

You are still stuck with a set amount of energy reserve in the battery.

ie.

1 9V battery contains roughly 500mAh Source


Ill explain a little easier.

Lets say we have a magic battery, it has 1000 watt hrs in it. (As opposed to the milliamp hours.) It's AC not DC. I'm just using this because it's easier to relate to.

A watt hour is:

watt hour
Web definitions
a unit of energy equal to the power of one watt operating for one hour.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

1 watt for 1 hour. All of us probably had a 100Watt lightbulb in our house before. SO take that 100 Watt lightbulb, plug it in to our 1000Wh battery, and the bulb can be lit for 10 hours.

No matter how much energy you divert back into the battery, the amount of energy in it stays the same. A "generator" is not really generating anything unless it's taking a fuel source and turning it into usable energy.

IE:

A can of gas has X amount of energy in it, burn it, it powers a turbine and usable electricity comes out of it. The gas has X amount of energy in it, the conversion of gas to electricity is not that efficient, so it will be X-60% (Or whatever), so now you are left with X - whatever percentage you are losing in conversion.

Once it's converted though, lets say you have that 1000Wh, it will power your bulb for 10 hours. There's no way of getting more energy out of can of gas, or the battery you store it.

It's limited to begin with.

Is this a fair explanation?

Originally posted by swanne
As long as you got something to turn the gen, you can get electricity.

That generator is going to push back. The more power you try to take from it, the harder it is to turn. It takes more power to turn it than you get from it. If you gear it up to run twice as fast, it resists twice as hard - that mechanical leverage works both ways.

really thanks to all of you for such wonderful reply!!

now suppose we use the battery to power a motor first... which rotates at constant speed, and then add some crank, belt and some gear on the generator

when it turns on, the gear running will running at low speed at first..but gradually switch increase to higher gear and eventually the generator will turn much faster and quicker than the motor, so eventually the generator produce more electricity .. then channel the electricity output back to constantly charge the battery. and excessive voltage output would be considered infinite?

would this work?

reply to post by swanne


i get the sinking feeling that you do not understand the principle of torque

this is best rectified using the analogy of a bicycle

with a 14 speed racing bike - in 1st gear on the flat - it is impossible to atain a good speed - as you cannot pedal fast enough to rotate the back wheel at the desired speed

in 14th gear - on a very steep hill - you cannot input enough force to the pedal to turn the crank

thats torque in a nutshell

and thats why gearing the alternator ` to make it go faster ` is not going to create a greater output than the input

POWER remains the same [ actually gears have a co eficent of efficiency - so gearing the generator will actually decrease input power [ recieved at the generator ]

To the OP, no, you can step up the voltage from your 9v battery to 12v using some kind of DC-DC converter, but you are always getting loss of charge through the components used to provide the boost. If you are talking about using typical existing electronics, then no, your idea won't work because of the inefficiency of the conversion components. That 3+v doesn't come for free!

Originally posted by swanne
Plus, even small capacitors have a bit of resistance. Some big capacitors leak their energy in the form of X-rays.

Really? cool!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
"Some of us" includes me.

Nothing is to be gained, however, from repeating the same experiment over and over; it has failed every time it has been tried, and it has been tried a LOT. The only way to advance research into over-unity is to understand what has already been done and why it failed. Otherwise, we're spinning tires but going nowhere.

I agree 100%. So far every "conventional" motor/generators (those you see the most) were inadequate for our purpose. These were done a hundred times and always failed. To succeed we must think out of the box... REALLY out of the box. And this can be hard sometimes.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by swanne

 

i get the sinking feeling that you do not understand the principle of torque

this is best rectified using the analogy of a bicycle

with a 14 speed racing bike - in 1st gear on the flat - it is impossible to atain a good speed - as you cannot pedal fast enough to rotate the back wheel at the desired speed

in 14th gear - on a very steep hill - you cannot input enough force to the pedal to turn the crank

thats torque in a nutshell

and thats why gearing the alternator ` to make it go faster ` is not going to create a greater output than the input

POWER remains the same [ actually gears have a co eficent of efficiency - so gearing the generator will actually decrease input power [ recieved at the generator ]

Naturally. That was just an analogy using examples in an ideal world (aka, without resistance, dissipation, etc.). I think magnetic fields have alot more application. I think I found a way to eliminate all dissipation but I need to test it first, and I don't have the perfect equipments but I can try.

Thanks for the analogy nevertheless! It was a pretty good one

Originally posted by yampa
Really? cool!

Yeah, but only the high-voltage ones can do it.

High voltage vacuum capacitors can generate soft X-rays even during normal operation.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

And these caps can be pretty dangerous to work with. It'll empty its charge into whatever - or whoever - closes the circuit by touching its leads. Even caps as obsolete as the Leyden jars could deliver a shock.

Originally posted by korgmeister
really thanks to all of you for such wonderful reply!!

now suppose we use the battery to power a motor first... which rotates at constant speed, and then add some crank, belt and some gear on the generator

when it turns on, the gear running will running at low speed at first..but gradually switch increase to higher gear and eventually the generator will turn much faster and quicker than the motor, so eventually the generator produce more electricity .. then channel the electricity output back to constantly charge the battery. and excessive voltage output would be considered infinite?

would this work?

edit on 18-5-2013 by korgmeister because: rephrase

edit on 18-5-2013 by korgmeister because: (no reason given)

The laws of physics, entropy, and bleeding will prevent you from doing what it is that you want to do, But, let's for the moment try to build the unimaginable motor generator. Here's what you need to accomplish.

1. You will need conductive material to use as wire that will allow electrical energy to move at 100% freely to prevent any loss from resistance, heat, etc.

2. You will need to construct a motor that will not resist the magnetic force being induced to turn the motor so that you can get a maximum of 100% of "work" out of it in order to turn the generator. This will also have to be considered for the torque effect on the belts, etc.

3. You will need a generator that can produce at least .001% more power (amps) than it takes for the motor to operate and the battery can supply. Even the tiniest amount is enough to produce more than is consumed. This generator has to use the method as in #1 and #2 in order to achieve a maximum output of 101%.

4. Your battery must be made of non-resistant materials that can hold a charge like a capacitor and yet release the charge like a battery. The charge should have a retainment rate of 99.99% so that the electricity feeding into it can resupply the loss to make equilibrium, and thus satisfy the universal laws of conservation and balance.

The only problem is, is that we don't have these materials to work with and so we are left wanting because in theory we could do it but in reality we can't, not yet.

But perhaps materials that can tap dark energy and use dark matter will change all that. We know that both react to normal matter in some way, so there are materials that could do it, but we haven't discovered them yet. Such use could turn our Tesla world on it's end. We shall just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by korgmeister .. then channel the electricity output back to constantly charge the battery. and excessive voltage output would be considered infinite?

No, because it is harder and harder to turn that generator as you draw power from it, and worse as you gear it to be faster. And the motor has to be provided at least that much power, and then some, to turn the generator. So it's a losing game.