Over-unity, a Novel attempt.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Ok, so I've been playing around with this idea for quite a while now. I've drawn a very simplistic design to show the operation, and I'm not going to make any bold claims....merely putting it out there for others to either point out the fatal flaw in it, or just to encourage others to think outside of the box too.



Hope you can see that ok.

Firstly the design of the coils does not have to be a continuous coil, in fact I think it maybe better to have many small coils with a gap between each....due to a magnet falling through a copper tube does so very slowly, so the faster the magnet can travel through the coils the more current should be made.



Anyway, should be interested to hear any views.




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Okay, I admit that I have troubles reading the "fineprint" on your sheet, but it goes along like this, I guess:

Ballmagnet drops through copper-wires, inducing electricity so the airpump produces bubbles which are lifting the weight by lowering the ballmagnet-lifter at the same time.

Current stops as the ballmagnet has dropped to the bottom and lies on the lifter again, so the bubbles stop being produced and the weight is lowered by its weight to the bottom of the water.

By this, the ballmagnet is lifted on its platform up to the upper end of the coppercoils.

Repeat.


Right?

So, where is the overunity? Right now you have a circle with a lot of energy-losses.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

ManFromEurope
Okay, I admit that I have troubles reading the "fineprint" on your sheet, but it goes along like this, I guess:

Ballmagnet drops through copper-wires, inducing electricity so the airpump produces bubbles which are lifting the weight by lowering the ballmagnet-lifter at the same time.

Current stops as the ballmagnet has dropped to the bottom and lies on the lifter again, so the bubbles stop being produced and the weight is lowered by its weight to the bottom of the water.

By this, the ballmagnet is lifted on its platform up to the upper end of the coppercoils.

Repeat.


Right?

So, where is the overunity? Right now you have a circle with a lot of energy-losses.


You are correct in your assessment of operation.

But if it repeats, then it is producing extra energy to overcome gravity and friction !...= over-unity

However, should it repeat, then what is to stop us putting another pulley and coil to produce extra energy to use as you wish.... Of course the submersible would need to be upgraded.
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
One thing that nobody has mentioned yet is that a magnet moving through a coil, as you have it there, experiences a NEGATIVE force in proportion to the amount of "work" the electric force generated is expected to do.

ie: disconnect one wire from your pump, no current flows and the ball drops freely.
But connect the pump back up and the ball experiences what you might call "damping" as its passage through the coil now slower and less current will be obtained with the slower speed.

It all works towards some kind of balancing act where the machine stops.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

alfa1

One thing that nobody has mentioned yet is that a magnet moving through a coil, as you have it there, experiences a NEGATIVE force in proportion to the amount of "work" the electric force generated is expected to do.

ie: disconnect one wire from your pump, no current flows and the ball drops freely.
But connect the pump back up and the ball experiences what you might call "damping" as its passage through the coil now slower and less current will be obtained with the slower speed.

It all works towards some kind of balancing act where the machine stops.




That's why I thought it may be better to have lots of smaller coils with gaps between them, so the ball would recover its momentum for the next set of coils it meets.

thanks for the input



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The diagram has come out a little small and hard to read, but by holding down the ctrl button on your keyboard whilst rotating the mouse wheel should let you zoom into it.

Hope that helps a bit.
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
This won't work, and in fact you would be better off just using a ball bearing that fits perfectly in a tube and directly pushes air through a tube into the pipe- simple kinetic energy of steel vs air, rather than adding a layer of entropy by converting kinetic (falling magnet) to electric (coil) back to kinetic (air pump).


Buoyancy does not come from air. Buoyancy comes from displacement of water. Displacement of water comes from volume. Air is just good for this purpose because a volume of air weighs so much less than an equal volume of water.

Your submersible must weigh more than your magnet to lift your magnet. Your displaced water must weigh more than your submersible to lift your submersible. What has to move that water out of your submersible? Presumably air pressure. But where is the air pressure coming from? From the magnetic "pressure" on the electrons in the coil. And where is that magnetic pressure coming from? From the weight of the magnet falling through the coil.

So ulimately, the force of the magnet falling must be greater than the force of the magnet falling in order for the machine to properly reload itself.

The magnet won't hover, even though that would be awesome. The electric motor will stall.


But here is a thought... what if you could double-dip by having a floater that generates force on the way up, then is released at the top so that it breaches the water and falls to the bottom level outside of the water container, only to be fed back into the water container at the bottom... I assume we still run into the same water displacement problem with the force required to put the floater in from the bottom. You could airlock it though theoretically and run such a machine for as long as there was a lower point to drain the airlock to and more water available above.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
This looks like a classic perpetual motion machine, why bother calling it "over unity"?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

boncho
This looks like a classic perpetual motion machine, why bother calling it "over unity"?


No, for good reason too. It cannot be a perpetual motion machine because parts will wear out, but if it worked it would have had to have produced an over-unity of energy, as said earlier to overcome the forces of gravity and friction that would act against it.

That is why I have always made a distinction between perpetual motion and over-unity.
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


That's quite a long reply to answer fully, But what I can say is this.....The submersible only needs a certain amount of air to send it rising to the top, any more is a waste....Whereas the drop of the ball magnet is not set and can be increased to create more current, be it 6ft, 10ft or 50ft or more, I don't know where the upper limit could be.

But it only needs to be enough to get the submersible rising.

But don't fixate on the magnet and coil method, there may be other ways to utilise the fall of the ball that would create a usable amount of energy to power the air pump.....I had thought of a spiral track going down with piezo crystals along it that would produce energy once the ball rolls over it, but that's beyond my knowledge.

I'm just putting this out there, if others can contribute then fine.
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Scaling won't help- the further you drop the ball, the further you have to lift it. And you can't just use any amount of air to float the submersible- you're thinking you'll keep it at almost neutral buoyancy and then add just a little air maybe, but if its at almost neutral buoyancy it won't have the weight to pull the magnet back up to the top. It has to take on enough water to lift that magnet, and then you have to offload that water again- either by pumping or by the pressure of the air you put in- either way re-floating the sinker requires you to move a mass equal to the mass that is used to raise the magnet, which will be more than the force generated by the falling magnet. I'm not trying to be harsh or windy, but details matter when it comes to figuring out whether or not a machine will work.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

ken10

boncho
This looks like a classic perpetual motion machine, why bother calling it "over unity"?


No, for good reason too. It cannot be a perpetual motion machine because parts will wear out, but if it worked it would have had to have produced an over-unity of energy, as said earlier to overcome the forces of gravity and friction that would act against it.

That is why I have always made a distinction between perpetual motion and over-unity.
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)


Okay so if I call a rock a twig I assume I can set it on fire?

You are trying to say, "Well as long as I change the definition…" It's not over unity, it's ignoring the properties of the system.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

The Vagabond
reply to post by ken10
 


Scaling won't help- the further you drop the ball, the further you have to lift it. And you can't just use any amount of air to float the submersible- you're thinking you'll keep it at almost neutral buoyancy and then add just a little air maybe, but if its at almost neutral buoyancy it won't have the weight to pull the magnet back up to the top. It has to take on enough water to lift that magnet, and then you have to offload that water again- either by pumping or by the pressure of the air you put in- either way re-floating the sinker requires you to move a mass equal to the mass that is used to raise the magnet, which will be more than the force generated by the falling magnet. I'm not trying to be harsh or windy, but details matter when it comes to figuring out whether or not a machine will work.


I'm not sure we're thinking along the same lines here. so let me clarify, The submersible with no air in it is slightly heavier that the ball, ball lift and friction, so that it will sink, and in doing so lifting the ball to the top......Once the submersible is at the bottom the pump will operate and pump air into the submersible, once the submersible starts to rise, no more air is needed as the submersible will carry on rising ....whether it be for 6ft, 10ft or 50ft or 1000ft.

So I don't see how scaling will not help ?
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

boncho

ken10

boncho
This looks like a classic perpetual motion machine, why bother calling it "over unity"?


No, for good reason too. It cannot be a perpetual motion machine because parts will wear out, but if it worked it would have had to have produced an over-unity of energy, as said earlier to overcome the forces of gravity and friction that would act against it.

That is why I have always made a distinction between perpetual motion and over-unity.
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)


Okay so if I call a rock a twig I assume I can set it on fire?

You are trying to say, "Well as long as I change the definition…" It's not over unity, it's ignoring the properties of the system.


How about being constructive and tell me why the design will not work...Like I have said I make no bold claims, I don't even know if it would work, I'm just putting it out there to discuss and if it is deemed unworkable for valid reasons, then dismissed.

edit on 2-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10


How about being constructive and tell me why the design will not work...Like I have said I make no bold claims, I don't even know if it would work, I'm just putting it out there to discuss and if it is deemed unworkable for valid reasons, then dismissed.


 


You have a flawed premise. Define "over unity" first.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Because the deeper the submersible is when you pump the air in, the more water pressure must be overcome to purge the submersible of the water that caused it to sink when the air was released at the top. Lets suppose that you scaled it up to several miles- so that you had immense pressure as at oceanic depths- you've got to push the water out of the submersible against that crushing water weight, would the same little air pump really still do the trick you think?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

boncho
reply to post by ken10


How about being constructive and tell me why the design will not work...Like I have said I make no bold claims, I don't even know if it would work, I'm just putting it out there to discuss and if it is deemed unworkable for valid reasons, then dismissed.


 


You have a flawed premise. Define "over unity" first.


I already did.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

The Vagabond
reply to post by ken10
 


Because the deeper the submersible is when you pump the air in, the more water pressure must be overcome to purge the submersible of the water that caused it to sink when the air was released at the top. Lets suppose that you scaled it up to several miles- so that you had immense pressure as at oceanic depths- you've got to push the water out of the submersible against that crushing water weight, would the same little air pump really still do the trick you think?


Well I'm just thinking of how divers send stuff back up to the surface....not saying you are wrong.

But if bubbles are released under a diving bell, will they not enter the bell displacing the water ?

I don't know the answer to that.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


hey do some design calculations and then post your thread



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by ken10
 


hey do some design calculations and then post your thread



Did you read the opening post ?




.merely putting it out there for others to either point out the fatal flaw in it

I was kinda asking for help with an idea.




new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join