Free electricity motor generator design

Not knowing something about a subject doesn't make you thick and the animations are more than good enough. Well done for some good thinking about the problem.

However, you will find that the energy required to lift the roller is greater than that generated.

There are quite a few variations on this theme and they all 'just' need a way to get around needing to mechanically or electronically vary another field. Measuring the energy required to do this shows where the motion comes from.

@ Royspeed
Increasing the RPM via a gearbox will reduce the torque in proportion so the output power will always be at best the same, discounting the losses caused by the greabox. Much the same a a low gear on a push-bike is much easier to pedal (less torque required) and a high gear (hard to pedal but turns faster).

reply to post by Arbitrageur

You are right to expect to be slammed, but not for not having a brain, obviously you have a good one and did a great job on the animation. And you're actually wasting your own time, not ours, and it's your time to waste.

You want a scientific perspective? How about e=mc^2, the formula for converting mass to energy. There's no mass being converted. If there's no other source for the energy then you won't get it to rotate more than one turn, even with the flywheeel bumps.

E=mc^2, is an equivalence equation; mass & energy are the SAME thing. You can't convert mass into energy, as energy is mass!

Also understand that conventional physics looks at encapsulated systems, such as the coefficient of restitution for friction, but doesn't take into account the surrounding system. The whole system includes the neutrino waves that permeates space, that feed sub-systems like planet rotations and the cells in your body; we are all connected by quantum wavelets.

Free energy is all around us, we just haven't built the right resonant device using magnets to harness the force...net yet.

@OP, great job.

Here's a post you may find interesting.

Originally posted by groingrinder
Why not just eliminate the magnets that come together at that part of the V? Will not the flywheel keep rotating past at that point? Lovely animation.

When you put multiple magnets together all in a line they act as 1 large magnet, with the north and south at each end. So in other words the v-shape is just 1 big magnet, north and south. I think the op design could work, but it would need to be built with precision. I would also use magnets in repulsion to move the stator, instead of having physical contact to move the stator. I believe there is a way to shield from the sticky spot, but it really isn't shielding, but rather re-routing the field.

Thanks guys for such a lot of thinking for me to do. the reason i have gone with this idea is because when i made a smaller one, and lifted the starter magnet manually, it worked fine, and as long as i lifted it at the right time every time the drum with the vGate on it continued to turn, which is why i wanted to come up with an idea to lift the starter magnet as part of the system. I agree looking at it the fly wheels probably will be to much, but there are some great suggestions there and i will give them ago, i am going to make a small one first, dont want to wast to much money, and i pretty much have all the bits i need to do the smaller one first, its just that lifting action without using to much of the energy produced to get over. Thanks for your comments, i will continue to work on it.

I always appreciate ideas you never know which one would work. I though about the patent idea, but i have also found that there are many people whom create some great ideas and patent them, only to be told they either cant use them, for health and safety reasons, or one of the big energy companies buy them up, and sit on them, which i understand, they dont wont people to have free energy, that would put them out of pocket. thing is we do want it, and i am damn sure i will find one way or another to make it, even if i do have to make a wind turbine to do that but for this project i am intrigued to just see if i can do it. will keep the post updated with what i find. Thanks again. I dont care much for the patent idea, if i can make it work i will gladly give the plans to anyone wanting them, and why not, if energy is as free as some say it is, then we should all be able to have it with no profit being made by anyone, just to have the free energy and save myself some money will be enough payment in my opinion.

[edit on 1,31,2010 by neo5842]

I would suggest you add 3 more "floating Bars" at equal distance around the perimeter and timed in the same fashion so instead of one bar pulling, you will have 4 that will increase the amount of work the engine will produce

Also, as a side note, perpetual motion machines are quite possible. What do you think the "Earth" is? Spinning, spinning, spinning, for 5 billion years is pretty perpetual if you ask me.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by All Seeing Eye]

I was waiting for the day that I would see this here. I have actually been tinkering with such things myself and have a basic design using the vgate. Now the way I have determined for this to truly work will cost alot of time and money but of course will be well worth it. First the bearings themselves need to be magnetic in order to overcome the mechanical friction created by standard roller bearings. Second increasing the number of rods and closing the gap between the gate and rods will increase efficiency. Third Instead of using mechanical force to move the rods use magnetic(force). Fourth the way I have pictured the whole setup is that you would have the v gate motor connected to a big Magnetic gear then you have a number of generators around the gear with smaller magnetic gears being turned by the bigger gear. These generators of course using all magnetic bearings and eventually instead of using the standard copper coils in the generators maybe use something more exotic to increase the transference of electrons. Fourth make all moving parts as light as possible.

Now unfortunately this design and any other designs still obey the laws of physics and quite literally uses them to its full advantage and that in no way is a problem. The problem that we will always face is that we have to pull the energy from somewhere and in this case you are pulling the electrons out of the copper in the generators(or the exotic materials that I have pondered upon and hope to be able to create one day)so it is in no way free energy and will never be. Fuel-less maybe but that is only half right because the copper and the magnets act as your fuel and they do wear out over time(Magnets can easily be re-magnetized with some heat, pressure, and a good ol' magnetic field, but copper/exotic material is a dif. story) .
So that in mind this is most certainly the next step in our dependence from oil( which i believe is apart of our planets cooling system and should never have been removed) but will only increase our dependence on metals. Thus there will be always be an undeterred balance in the quest for energy.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by consciencious observer]

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
I would suggest you add 3 more "floating Bars" at equal distance around the perimeter and timed in the same fashion so instead of one bar pulling, you will have 4 that will increase the amount of work the engine will produce

except that means more effort to push the floating bar out...

What do you think the "Earth" is? Spinning, spinning, spinning,

Except the earth is slowing down...

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


although tapping into the ether would be the most ideal choice it would also come with the worst consequences i.e. the eventual destruction of the universe as you would be converting its energy into work for us and then not putting it back when done. Thus creating a disruption.

reply to post by dereks


Let's just hope that we never devise a means of tapping into the energy of the earth's rotation (axial or orbital) to run our electric cars, aircon & XBoxes because that's a most definitely finite and critical resource and not to be tampered with. The human motto appears to be 'if it's worth exploiting, it's worth over-exploiting' unfortunately and the history of industrial development speaks for itself.

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

You are right to expect to be slammed, but not for not having a brain, obviously you have a good one and did a great job on the animation. And you're actually wasting your own time, not ours, and it's your time to waste.

You want a scientific perspective? How about e=mc^2, the formula for converting mass to energy. There's no mass being converted. If there's no other source for the energy then you won't get it to rotate more than one turn, even with the flywheeel bumps.

E=mc^2, is an equivalence equation; mass & energy are the SAME thing. You can't convert mass into energy, as energy is mass!

Hopefully you will learn something from this thread. You literally wouldn't be alive if what you said were true, as your food and therefore your very life emanates from converting mass into energy.

squ1.org...

In perspective, the Sun converts 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium every second. The extra 4 million tons is converted into energy - in this case radiation in the form of gamma rays.

You can imagine the enormity of the energy generated when you realise that, given Albert Einstein's famous equation E=MC^2, the 4 million ton differential is multiplied by the speed of light, squared.

So the 4 million tons of mass converted into energy every second are what keeps you alive.

And as for your comment that free energy is all around us, most of that energy comes from that 4 million tons per second mass to energy conversion.

We see it manifested as light, or other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, energy in the motion of our atmosphere and oceans (and their temperature), electrical potential in the atmosphere (evidenced by lightning etc), and so on. I see no ongoing source of power supplied to the magnets so with no power in, there can be no power out, except as I said possibly getting one rotation from the release of some potential energy.

Contrast this to other sources of free energy like wind power, we know the ultimate source for that is again the 4 million tons of mass converted to energy per second by the sun, so that would be a real free energy source worth pursuing. Free energy isn't a waste of time, but looking for it in the wrong places (where it doesn't exist) is.

Originally posted by truthquest
Its a really cool way of converting potential to kinetic energy but I think that is the extent of it.

Your analysis is correct, that is why you can get one rotation, but no more.

Originally posted by truthquest
I'm not opposed to people trying though because I don't believe its correct to label something nobody really understands as "impossible".

I agree, it doesn't look like it would be very difficult or expensive to build, so if you need to build it to convince yourself whether it will work or not, by all means do build it. There is nothing like personal experimentation to help you learn about and understand science, so go for it. Just be forewarned on what to expect, as truthquest said you convert potential to kinetic energy and then to gain another cycle of this you have add energy to the system to regain the potential energy. So you will find that you end up putting more energy into the system than you get out, to overcome the friction in the machine.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by dereks

 

Let's just hope that we never devise a means of tapping into the energy of the earth's rotation (axial or orbital) to run our electric cars, aircon & XBoxes because that's a most definitely finite and critical resource and not to be tampered with. The human motto appears to be 'if it's worth exploiting, it's worth over-exploiting' unfortunately and the history of industrial development speaks for itself.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Also, as a side note, perpetual motion machines are quite possible. What do you think the "Earth" is? Spinning, spinning, spinning, for 5 billion years is pretty perpetual if you ask me.

Not exactly, the Earth used to spin faster.

Perpetual motion is not only possible but what physics predicts, if there is no friction to slow it down, remember the law "an object in motion tends to remain in motion"? It is only when friction or other forces affect the rotating body that the speed of rotation will be affected, and in fact the Earth is gradually slowing down its rotation due to friction from tidal forces, etc.

Tides, the Earth, the Moon, and why our days are getting longer

Despite all this confusion, the Earth's rotation is in fact slowing down. Eventually, the Earth's rotation will slow down so much that the bulge will line up exactly between the centers of the Earth and the Moon. When this happens, the Moon will no longer be pulling the bulge back, and the Earth's spin will stop slowing.

The speed at which the Earth spins will stop slowing down when the frictional forces are eliminated, according to that site.

But if we tried to extract energy from the Earth's rotation, that would be another force acting on it to slow it down. So you don't get something for nothing. Yes you could extract energy from the rotating Earth, but that would slow down the rotation. One such free energy concept is to use energy collectors to extract energy from the movement of the tides

www.alternativeenergysecret.com...

This could conceivably affect the speed of the earth's rotation, but the Earth-moon system has so much mass and rotational inertia, that it might not be a significant amount. Even if we doubled the rate at which the Earth is slowing down, it would still hardly be noticeable, as many people don't even realize the earth is slowing down, in fact we couldn't even measure how much it was slowing down before we had atomic clocks, the amount is so small.

But I agree there would be a concern about overexploiting such a resource, people are known to do that. We might not like 48 hour long days if we managed to cut the speed of the Earth's rotation in half, but I think that would be hard to do, though perhaps not impossible.

But on occasion I've heard people comment that "There's not enough hours in the day to do everything I want", do you think they might actually like 48 hour days?


[edit on 1-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Just a thought couldnt you use an electro magnet instead of the floating bar and just switch it on and off at the approprate times?

Of course you would then need to supply power for the starter magnet.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed or transformed into the other.

Rather, neither one appears without the other. Rather than mass being changed into energy, the view of relativity is that rest mass has been changed to a more mobile form of mass, but remains mass. In this process, neither the amount of mass nor the amount of energy changes. Thus, if energy changes type and leaves a system, it simply takes its mass with it. If either mass or energy disappears from a system, it will always be found that both have simply moved off to another place.

Wiki

Again, Mass and Energy are equivalent. You don't convert mass into energy or vice versa; it's a transmutation of the system, that can be viewed as a creation of energy through fusion, for example.

Things like covalent bonding, valence electrons lead to different energy states, but that mass still exists, albeit in a different form.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by PrisonerOfSociety]

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed or transformed into the other.

I think you need to read your own source which says:

According to E=mc2, no closed system (any system treated and observed as a whole) ever loses mass, even when rest mass is converted to energy.

I would argue that for the purposes of our discussion, our solar system is not a closed system, that is, the energy emanates from the sun in all directions and what doesn't strike the planets in our solar system escapes from our solar system. Now perhaps if you were to make a Dyson sphere, you could capture most of the energy released by the sun and make it a nearly closed system, that is essentially what Dyson proposed. Then your claim which applies to closed systems would almost be true.

However even the Dyson sphere wouldn't be a completely closed system, as it too would radiate some infrared energy outside the system, still resulting in a loss of mass from the system (our solar system).

We could have all the energy we want with a Dyson sphere, more than we can imagine.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That is a beautiful animation job, and an intriguing design to boot.

My suggestion now is to build one. That is the only way you will ever know for sure. Build it and see if it works.

A thought experiment would do nicely to show that there is no reason why that thing would work.

I understand that people love magnets, this fascination is left over from childhood, but over time in turns into a kind of fetish in some people, having little to do with science.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think we are verging on esoteric philosophy, namely a subjective viewpoint of the universe / multiverse which encapsulates energy and its mass equivalent.

I'll just summarise by saying our 'known' universe has 50 Joules of energy, for example. This energy can viewed as mass or EM energy, but it's still 50 Joules; they are equivalent, as stated in my argument and they are not mutated from one to the other.

You said this, which I found interesting: "I would argue that for the purposes of our discussion, our solar system is not a closed system". This is why i feel conventional physics is fluffy, because when the maths is done on a tennis ball rolling down an incline, for example, it only considers the closed system (friction & F = ma) and doesn't account for any outside action/reaction with the holding system that is the universe. Energy must be affected in some infinitesimal way, much like a person jumping up and down affecting Earth's perturbation / orbit, albeit an immeasurable amount.

reply to post by buddhasystem

...but over time in turns into a kind of fetish in some people, having little to do with science.

What an archaic view of the World you live in

What makes science so definitive, in that anything new is a 'fetish'. Science isn't complete and we have only begun to peek behind the curtain that veils the science of Nature.

Understand that we don't understand, and any future science has yet to be discovered.

One problem that is often encountered is that when you place one magnet near another they will combine for added force. Another is that if you do anything to move the bar magnets away from the wheel you will use energy to do it and that will cause entropy to happen so that the laws of thermodynamics are not violated. In essence " E=mc2 ". Energy is either stable (mass) or working (light, heat, chemical, etc. ) But they will always equal in the exchange in the end so that there is nothing left over.

Yet take a closed system such as the Earth-moon. What is happening here (in a vacuum) ? The moon posseses within it working energy and is flying through space at a certain speed. The Earth is trying to pull it down. But there is a transfer between them of energy because the moon is not in a circular orbit but rather elliptical, even if only a little. So when the moon gets closer to the Earth, the Earth acts like it finally has the moon in it's grasp and pulls harder due to gravity effect. At a certain point the moon will receive a certain level of energy the will peak as it begins to move farther from the earth. The moon will feel pull from the Earth and the energy in the Moon will then begin to work against the pull to a certain point where the cycle will return to the point where it started. Why does it work? Because there is no third party to the equation, namely resistance or infusion. If there were friction, the moon would transfer the energy it received into what causes it and slow down, stop, and fall into the Earth. If it was infused with say, the impact of an asteroid on a similar course, the added energy would propel the moon out of Earths grasp and into space.

In the end what you have with the magnets is a closed system with resistance (anti polar energy) of equal proportion. Therefore it cannot do anything lasting. Overcome the anti energy (resistance) and you have what you are seeking, perpetual motion. Just as the moon and Earth have to "trick" the laws of thermodynamics in their ballet of energy transfer, so do you have to do the same. Some things to think about are:

Energy, mass, resistance, infusion, speed, distance.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Fromabove]

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
What makes science so definitive, in that anything new is a 'fetish'. Science isn't complete and we have only begun to peek behind the curtain that veils the science of Nature.

Perpetual motion machines are nothing new. The fact that none of them ever worked isn't new. Even those with magnets. And patent absence of explanation of why magnets are magically exempt from the law of conservation of energy isn't new either. No novelty can be found in people being gullible or wishful thinkers.

Indeed, why is the electromagnetic field not subject to conservation of energy? We rely on it to an amazing degree in our daily activities (including wasting our time in threads like this). We rely on conservation of energy for all these devices to operate. It is ironic that people are using all this tech to proclaim that founding principles of this tech aren't valid. Duh.