Generator idea

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BigDave-AR

you asked me the frequency of 12 volts, you didn't specify dc

We were talking about car audio, and if you knew what you were talking about you would have asked which before throwing out the number so yeah you’ve demonstrated you aren’t arguing with.

a reply to: BigDave-AR
I wouldn't talk about frequency waves with DC either so...

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BigDave-AR
I wouldn't talk about frequency waves with DC either so...

But you did when you talked about car audio caps helping the “wave” and “frequency” which made me ask the question that put your foot squarely in your mouth. I’m done playing with you now, you do you sunshine.

a reply to: BigDave-AR
then why would a cap be used in a DC application?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BigDave-AR
then why would a cap be used in a DC application?

My god I already told you along with Pilgrum
He was more patient and posted it more thoroughly so here you are:

A car audio super capacitor is simply a high performance energy reservoir to even out the demands on the energy source (alternator + battery) by something as dynamic and variable as an audio system. The capacitor supplements the demand on output peaks and restores itself in the troughs in exactly the same way caps are used to 'smooth' the output of rectified AC power supplies.

Now admit you’re out of your league like a man or keep on like you know it all....

a reply to: BigDave-AR

You do realize that what you are saying a cap does is what I said it does from the start right?

originally posted by: Anomaly0101

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Anomaly0101
So I've been interested in "free energy" for a while. My definition of it is energy from a generator, that does not require I pay an electric bill or use any kind of fuel. Crazy eh?

Not crazy, how does the solution by Nickn3 fail to meet that definition?

originally posted by: Nickn3
How about a few solar panels and forget it. I power my entire cabin with just 6 panels.

That sounds like it meets Anomaly0101's definition of free energy to me.

Anomaly0101, the rest of your post does sound crazy but since the only thing that will convince you it won't work is for you to build it yourself and find out, I suggest you do that. I don't think any feedback anybody here gives you really matters to you, but if it does, Nickn3 already has the answer for the "free energy" you want.

All the feedback matters, as I am learning from it. But please stay on topic I do not care about solar panels or the inherently flawed comments about the laws of thermodynamics. This is not one of those threads. I believe the laws of thermodynamics are constantly cited when it comes to topics regarding free energy and it's a quick scapegoat as I believe there is a coverup in the physics community due to US national security secrets. There is no such thing as a closed system. I am not proposing anything that approaches the speed of light, but as an example the laws of physics apply less as something approaches a significant fraction of the speed of light, and they are constantly finding things that do not match up with their predictions, such as photomagnetic materials being 100 million times more photomagnetic than predicted just to name one example. Thanks for the replies and I will have someone with a degree in electronics chime in eventually. He can call me crazy or whatever but I know at least one guy with a masters in electronic engineering and there are countless more online. You guys really don't need to clutter threads with your arguing, it contributes less to a topic than simply discussing things.

Physically your contraption can't work. And given that you see physics as some sort of conspiracy, what is it that you want to discuss exactly?

As Arbitrageur said just build the thing, and prove us all wrong.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Anomaly0101

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Anomaly0101
So I've been interested in "free energy" for a while. My definition of it is energy from a generator, that does not require I pay an electric bill or use any kind of fuel. Crazy eh?

Not crazy, how does the solution by Nickn3 fail to meet that definition?

originally posted by: Nickn3
How about a few solar panels and forget it. I power my entire cabin with just 6 panels.

That sounds like it meets Anomaly0101's definition of free energy to me.

Anomaly0101, the rest of your post does sound crazy but since the only thing that will convince you it won't work is for you to build it yourself and find out, I suggest you do that. I don't think any feedback anybody here gives you really matters to you, but if it does, Nickn3 already has the answer for the "free energy" you want.

All the feedback matters, as I am learning from it. But please stay on topic I do not care about solar panels or the inherently flawed comments about the laws of thermodynamics. This is not one of those threads. I believe the laws of thermodynamics are constantly cited when it comes to topics regarding free energy and it's a quick scapegoat as I believe there is a coverup in the physics community due to US national security secrets. There is no such thing as a closed system. I am not proposing anything that approaches the speed of light, but as an example the laws of physics apply less as something approaches a significant fraction of the speed of light, and they are constantly finding things that do not match up with their predictions, such as photomagnetic materials being 100 million times more photomagnetic than predicted just to name one example. Thanks for the replies and I will have someone with a degree in electronics chime in eventually. He can call me crazy or whatever but I know at least one guy with a masters in electronic engineering and there are countless more online. You guys really don't need to clutter threads with your arguing, it contributes less to a topic than simply discussing things.

Physically your contraption can't work. And given that you see physics as some sort of conspiracy, what is it that you want to discuss exactly?

As Arbitrageur said just build the thing, and prove us all wrong.

I'll definitely build it. It's a shame people can't express why they believe it cannot work beyond "thermodynamics is god" and "magnets wear out" and other rhetoric, amongst silly arguments

a reply to: Anomaly0101

The problem always comes back to the resistance generated whenever the energy generated needs to be used using a conventional stator and rotor. As soon as you put a draw on the system, it takes more and more power to keep the generator...generating.

IF you can get free energy from a spinning disk of coiled magnet wire with magnets glued to it or even a series of standard copper/aluminium disks, all you need is 1V and a joule thief. Anything over 0.7volts will operate a transistor, from there you can use slip rings or one rotating axial coil and one stationary coil to transmit the power. You don't need to to magnetically levitate it, just use an old hard drive.

originally posted by: XL5
IF you can get free energy from a spinning disk of coiled magnet wire with magnets glued to it or even a series of standard copper/aluminium disks, all you need is 1V and a joule thief. Anything over 0.7volts will operate a transistor, from there you can use slip rings or one rotating axial coil and one stationary coil to transmit the power. You don't need to to magnetically levitate it, just use an old hard drive.

In some cases, it would actually be easier to magnetically levitate it. I'm sticking with that because it's less friction. I want to eliminate as much as possible. I also have an idea for magnetically levitating it without permanent magnets. Once the disk is up to speed, if I can get significantly greater output than the input required to initiate the spinning, I think enough of that energy can be used to magnetically levitate the disk, and still have plenty left over, depending on the design. Hard drives are small, but I see what you're getting at, they're made to spin at fairly high RPM. It's a good idea, but I'm going to use magnetic levitation. I may try using a hard drive at some point for an entirely different design.

a reply to: Anomaly0101

I haven't read all the way through the thread, so maybe this has been addressed. However, if you can provide a few diagrams and schematics, it would much easier to follow your description.

-dex

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BigDave-AR
then why would a cap be used in a DC application?

Direct current does not mean that fluctuation is absent. It means that the direction of current flow does not alternate. The amplitude of current flow can alternate.

A capacitor is a device that stores electrical charge. In the old days, it was two large conductive plates with an insulator between them. This caused the different electrical charges on either side of the insulator to attract each other, thereby holding the opposite charges in a state of attraction close to the surface of the insulator (but essentially throughout the conductive plate). If there is no path to discharge, the charge will remain for quite some time but normally circuits provide inductive and resistive paths between the plates and no dialectric is perfect.

Inductors are usually coils of wire where the flow of current creates a magnetic field. When the current flow changes, the magnetic field changes, generating a flow of current. I.e: a current flow generates a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field induces a flow of current (this is the way electric motors and generators usually work).

Capacitors work best when they are being supplied with a non-alternating charge. Inductors work best when the current flow is alternating. By using capacitors and inductors (and possibly resistors) of particular values, you can tune the the resultant circuit to operate at particular frequencies, i.e; a frequency dependent filter.

Because a capacitor works by potential difference, either terminal can supply the potential difference (charge) it has stored. When this potential flows out of the capacitor, it is no longer charge but is current. The terms are not interchangeable when describing function.

A capacitor can be charged from an alternating source by rectifying that source, with each half wave of voltage (potential, not current) pushing up the capacitor's charge towards the peak voltage and the nature of the dialectric causing the capacitor to slowly discharge between peaks.

With modern materials science we have found alternate 'dielectrics' and 'plates' which has created the diversity of capacitor types.

In the case of a car, the power supply, although it is DC, is oscillatory and a supercapacitor across the sound system power supply rails compensates for the oscillations, smoothing out the power which otherwise may influence the audio outputs of the amplifying circuitry.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Anomaly0101

I haven't read all the way through the thread, so maybe this has been addressed. However, if you can provide a few diagrams and schematics, it would much easier to follow your description.

-dex

I can easily build a clay model to show you what I'm talking about with a video and put it on youtube, before I have a working prototype. That would help anyone like myself that has trouble with 2d schematics. I can have the schematics in the video for reference.

I'll definitely post a video of this thing when I test it out. The final more advanced design is something I may not put online if it works.

a reply to: Anomaly0101

Hey, why don’t you work on an em drive that way you could break one of Newton’s laws and prove the feasibility of your system by throwing everything we understand of Newtonian laws out the window

originally posted by: JordanBailey
Hey, why don’t you work on an em drive that way you could break one of Newton’s laws and prove the feasibility of your system by throwing everything we understand of Newtonian laws out the window

Ehh, that isn't really something I'm interested in. Tesla already had a great idea for antigravity. Synthesizing inertia with high voltage is where it's at. You do that, and it takes very little energy to produce tremendous amounts of thrust. I actually have my own idea on synthetic inertia which involves photons and their quantum entanglement with everything around them. I am convinced it will work. But if you can control inertia, you get antigravity. If you get that, you also get a rotor which can spin much faster than normal and produce much more power than normal, without flying apart in catastrophic failure.

I always thought this is well. To use the motion and force of opposing magnets.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
I always thought this is well. To use the motion and force of opposing magnets.

Makes sense doesn't it? One guy had a patent with overunity results by using shields to simulate a pulse with permanent magnets. Shields between the repelling/opposing magnets, so as they were spinning, they'd pass by the shield, temporarily blocking part of that magnet's field, then unblocking as it passed all the way across the shield, creating a pulse effect. Auto-pulse with permanent magnets. Lots of ways to do that. Photomagnetic, photostrictive and other materials can also accomplish this. A lot of simple cheap and widely available materials can. I see solar energy and other light sources as a catalyst, a trigger, rather than being a main source of power, although with photomagnetic materials if they're developed correctly, could outproduce photovoltaics as a main source.

Anyway, I am going to use a braking mechanism that depends on the RPM, if the RPM gets too high, a simple mechanism kicks in, activating an electromagnet to slow the device down. Similarly, the permanent magnets can retract at a specific RPM or move behind shields, either with the help of electromagnets or simply inertia /weight. Simple enough. That saves the life of the permanent magnets, because at high enough RPM, they may not be needed at all, depending on the load connected to the device and how much power it requires. That's why multiple devices should be connected anyway. Power drain and cooling.

EDIT: if I recall correctly, it was faraday that referred to spark gaps as "oscillators" because they would never fire or move in the same exact direction or place. Random on a quantum level. Randomness can also prevent a dynamic magnetic circuit from becoming static/stuck, by allowing the fields to fluctuate randomly and never reach a point of equilibrium. I've also thought of using naturally occuring ELF waves and infrasound to do the same thing, but that's getting off topic.

originally posted by: Anomaly0101

originally posted by: Bloodworth
I always thought this is well. To use the motion and force of opposing magnets.

Makes sense doesn't it?

No, it's wrong a very fundamental level.

Where is the energy coming from?

One guy had a patent with overunity results by using shields to simulate a pulse with permanent magnets. Shields between the repelling/opposing magnets, so as they were spinning, they'd pass by the shield, temporarily blocking part of that magnet's field, then unblocking as it passed all the way across the shield, creating a pulse effect. Auto-pulse with permanent magnets.

These schemes are just attempting to trick nature, however all you trick is yourself.