Free energy machine powered by gravity. BRAZIL

page: 4
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliophant
 


Here, here. Well said.

Bravo.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   
For all those that think this is real......

" A company claims....bla bla bla"

Why wouldn't they just release it instead of saying we have one?

If you don't know the answer to that question, there is no hope for you and you probably believe in little aliens in spacecraft too.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   


With an interpreter on the line, I called the phone number on their site, but the owner, who would be best to answer any questions, is away for 15 days. The person we spoke with didn't know of any videos that show earlier prototypes that demonstrate a smaller version of the design in operation


Anyone other than me find this little tid-bit of info fascinating? Sounds more like the Brazilian way to say he has realised it won't work and run off with the investor's money to me.
edit on 20-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MadMax7
 


That was my commentary, as I had not seen the machine with my own eyes.

What the company says it quoted and shows in blue so people don't get mixed up.

What the company actually says are things like, we will, or, we have (and provide photos) blah blah blah.

edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains


Can you show me where you got that info from, or is that just your opinion?


 


Simple read the definitions of the word.


Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction."[2]



Free energy device, a hypothetical perpetual motion device that creates energy, thereby contradicting the laws of thermodynamics



en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


I do concede, there are legitimate uses of the word or phrase, 'free energy', yet, in the context it is normally brought up in this forum, it has to do with the pseudoscience version.

This thread also, was not based on economics, yet, the first occurrence of 'free energy' as a descriptive word, was in relation to the delivery and cost of electricity. So of course, that is the context I addressed.

If you want to niggle, and say how some uses of 'free energy' are legitimate, by all means. I concede. However, use them in that sense if that's the point you are going to make.

And to be honest, in most of its functions, it's quite a useless word. Misleading at best, outright fibbing at worst.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains


Why must you try to belittle me for incorrectly describing well understood concepts? You have only stated what it isn't. Can you elaborate on what it is they are attempting to build? Or do you only Ooze negative connotations today?

Jump off that high horse boncho, you haven't seen the finished machine yet, so all your naysaying it won't work is just opinion, I've seen contraptions that turn on their own, and keep going with the use of gravity pulling weights, what makes you so sure this machine will not work....whatever it is called?

 


It's a (mostly) closed system, the laws of thermodynamics will crush any attempt it makes to work. If there was water running through it, I'd say that have a good shot. Or perhaps if some fuel was being used. I already explained why it wouldn't work in an earlier post.

Different forms of energy. Potential energy is great, so long as you have something to turn that potential energy into kinetic energy. In this case, once the crankshaft turns, resistance is applied, it's just time before it stops. And that is even without a load.

There is a kind of metal that warps with great force under temperature change. Lets say you build that, it looks like a bunch of metal cogs, well, nope, actually produces some power. I think a few on ATS even tried making a motor here awhile ago.

In any case, it was thermal energy being used to release potential energy.

What do you have in the OP contraption, as others said, besides a really big office paperweight?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





I do concede, there are legitimate uses of the word or phrase, 'free energy', yet, in the context it is normally brought up in this forum, it has to do with the pseudoscience version.


Energy does not have to cost anything to create, that is yet another barrier we have placed between us and free energy. We choose to use money, but we don't have to, so free energy is not impossible, we have made it seem this way.

So we have to pay to build a machine, but if the creator gives it to someone else, free of charge, energy received will be free for as long as the machine lasts.

Saying its not free because you had to pay to build the machine is like saying its not free because the had to pay for the appliance you are using powered by the free energy. I see your point but it's a mute one IMO.

We just have to wait and see if it works. And what happens with the energy it produces if it does work. If it is given away it's free energy, if the owner keeps it, it might be the most expensive energy he has ever paid for.

It's not actualy a perpetual motion machine, it's a gravity motor that has perpetual motion.

Ps, sorry if you thought I was niggling, only you was strongly suggesting it won't work. Someone has to oppose you if it's to have a 50/50 chance.


No hard feelings.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   


It's a (mostly) closed system, the laws of thermodynamics will crush any attempt it makes to work. If there was water running through it, I'd say that have a good shot. Or perhaps if some fuel was being used. I already explained why it wouldn't work in an earlier post.


Your not giving the weights any credit are you? You don't know where they attatch to the machine or how they will apply pressure. Let's be honest, you don't know!

Why did the laws not crush this....




The laws did not come into play as this guy has batteries powering a small motor, but it spins because of the way the weight works.

edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
This is seriously one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on this website.

It's like hooking wind turbine to the front of a car, with the wind turbine spinning a DC machine, then connecting that DC machine to another DC machine which is supposed to turn the wheels.

Or connecting a battery to a DC machine, connected physically to another DC machine, the armature terminals connected back to the first DC machine, then expecting it to charge itself and / or spin faster and faster as the armature voltage increases.

Real life troll physics. Really no different to this sort of thing:



All that they have built here is essentially a massive shaft that will also lift and lower some weight. It's ironic because it would actually be less efficient than simply having a regular shift itself.

I think though, that all is not lost, because it really shows how a basic physics and critical thinking education is really needed.
edit on 20/5/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Your quite the optimistic aren't you!


There is barrier preventing people from trying these things, is it just a mental barrier? If it was claiming to be perpetual motion I think you would be right. However this machine uses weights, if magnets are used this could give extra push or pull where needed, the power the machine will produced would be much more than what would be required to power the magnets, so any excess energy would be free, no?


Magnetic perpetual motion machines have the same issues as gravity powered ones. Or rubber band powered ones, for that matter. It takes as much energy to lift as you get from fall. So no excess energy at all.

At least Steorn's perpetual motion machine had an interesting puzzle at its heart.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains


Your not giving the weights any credit are you? You don't know where they attatch to the machine or how they will apply pressure. Let's be honest, you don't know!

Why did the laws not crush this

The laws did not come into play as this guy has batteries powering a small motor, but it spins because of the way the weight works.

edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)


You kind of answered your own question there. As natty and energy saving as those weights are, they are never going to maintain motion without some kind of energy input. This is because of friction, pure and simple. It's a bold attempt at a great philosophy' but the photos so far show nothing to convince me it will power itself et alone a 30 kw generator



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by boncho
 





Perpetual energy and free energy are words created to describe something not possible.


Can you show me where you got that info from, or is that just your opinion?


That would be the laws of thermodynamics. Also, the fact that e=mgh is symmetric - it takes as much energy to lift something as you get when it falls. If you got more on the way down, this could work.But you don't, tout est fini.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Sorry - reverse double post?!
edit on 20-5-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains

The demonstration model, which is the size of a small house, allegedly will be able to produce 30 kW -- about enough to handle the peak load from two homes. Their website consists of one page showing the progress in building their demonstration model, along with some promotional advertisements that they have published in various newspapers.



So this massive thing is nothing more than a "demonstration model"?


Oh my, I think I was right, this guy has just invented the worlds biggest corporate desk toy.

The basic mathematics of this just does not stand up. This seems to be one of those instances where someone with little or no basic understanding of it has come to the conclusion he has a breakthrough that thousands of geniuses all around the world have just *missed*


Or, as I said before, he's just trying to con a lot of other idiots out of a lot of money. Seems strange to me that no one can get any straight answers about this project from the man himself, and there doesn't seem to be very much about him out there on the internet at all.

This guy doesn't seem to be a notable scientist, lecturer, inventor or anything else as far as I can see, but he thinks he's come up with a design that vastly more intelligent people haven't thought about?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Alas, much like Steorn, the dog will eat their homework at the last minute, should they ever have to demonstrate it in a proper way.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Aw, c'mon now guys!

We're getting into semantics here... sure, there's no such thing as "free" energy" if you mean energy with no cost to produce. There is such a thing as "free" energy if you mean energy produced from a source which does not consume a limited fuel supply to produce.

There's no such thing as "perpetual" motion if you mean motion which never slows or stops. There might be such a thing as "perpetual" motion if you mean motion that is self-sustaining from a source which does not require human input (such as refueling).

There's no such thing as "forever" if you mean time without end. There is such a thing as "forever" if you mean time so extensive as to last beyond imagination.

Here's the deal: either the darn thing works or it don't. That's the only two possibilities. If it doesn't work, what harm is done? The company is out a few million bucks and we go on to the next thread. If it does work, then we have a misunderstanding of Conservation of Energy just like we had a misunderstanding of the Laws of Motion pre-Einstein.

Our present knowledge is incomplete. here's some examples:
  • Is light a particle or a wave? It acts like both depending on the circumstances we observe it under.
  • What happens at the Event Horizon of a singularity?
  • Why is magnetism only observed as dipoles, electricity as bi-polar monopoles, and gravity as unipolar monopoles?
  • If opposites attract, why do negatively-charged electrons and positively charged protons maintain a distance between themselves in atoms?
  • What exactly is magnetism? What is the mechanism by which it operates?
  • What exactly is dark matter and dark energy? (Hint: we don't know... they represent an adjustment to gravitational calculations which do not agree with observed phenomena.)

Only one thing will resolve the questions in this thread: check it out. I'm doing that right now, running a static analysis on the forces involved. Anyone else that wants to know if this thing will work or not, feel free to run your own analysis and we'll compare notes afterwards. The forces acting on the shaft can be calculated based on the configuration and if those forces sum up something other than a zero moment about the shaft, that shaft will attempt to turn. If they sum to zero it will not. That's simple physics.

And it beats arguing over what the definition of "free" is...

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
If you can find a way to make gravitic potential energy asymmetric in h, you just won the Nobel.

And you can't just do a static analysis, btw. If so, you could just hang a weight on a moment arm, and say, look! Torque! And it would be, because your starting condition assumes that the system comes pre-loaded with gravitational potential energy.

Follow it a few cycles in dynamics. See if you can spot how lifting that weight back up to its starting point can be done with less energy than you got in lowering it. I'll wait.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by boncho
 





Perpetual energy and free energy are words created to describe something not possible.


Can you show me where you got that info from, or is that just your opinion?


That would be the laws of thermodynamics. Also, the fact that e=mgh is symmetric - it takes as much energy to lift something as you get when it falls. If you got more on the way down, this could work.But you don't, tout est fini.



This comes back to conservation of momentum, as I mentioned previously in the (what I now know is called) "Newton's cradle" - the desk toy with steel balls transferring energy from one end to the other.

Ultimately, momentum dissipates over time, due to the other forces acting on an object - such as friction or even gravity itself. I don't know enough about it, but I believe the notion of a closed system without any external forces acting on anything might create a constant movement when force is introduced, but then what is there to keep that force going? This seems like an unsolvable puzzle. I'm not clever enough for that lol

Either way, gravity might pull something down, but it needs the application of energy to get it to rise again. This guy seems to be suggesting that the gravitational pull on another "arm" will create that energy to raise the former arm to its upper position again... but this is not logical, because you would need MORE energy to than was created to raise that arm...

It would be interesting to see him starting that thing up, then the look on his face when he sees that he needs to APPLY energy to it to keep it moving.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains


It's a (mostly) closed system, the laws of thermodynamics will crush any attempt it makes to work. If there was water running through it, I'd say that have a good shot. Or perhaps if some fuel was being used. I already explained why it wouldn't work in an earlier post.


Your not giving the weights any credit are you? You don't know where they attatch to the machine or how they will apply pressure. Let's be honest, you don't know!

Why did the laws not crush this....




The laws did not come into play as this guy has batteries powering a small motor, but it spins because of the way the weight works.

edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-5-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



I have to laugh because he has a green wire that comes down from the electrical circuit and powers his tools, but then also has an AC to DC transformer connected to the machine. Oh well, where were we now, oh yeah...

You can't overcome what the universe has established as balance. It takes energy to use energy, and the by product is "work" and conservation of energy. There you go. That's all there is and ever will be.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013
It would be interesting to see him starting that thing up, then the look on his face when he sees that he needs to APPLY energy to it to keep it moving.


Well, that's why you make these things big and complex looking. It helps you hide the wires. Keeley was the master of that - bring in the energy through compressed air through one of the supports.





new topics
top topics
 
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join