Power Generation/complex yet simple

Basically im an idiot when it comes to science.. so slap me if I come off as an idiot...

Take a generator.. you give it some power and it provides electricity.
Take a generator in space.. you give it some power and it provides electricity..

Could a generator in space be fired up with gas or what ever to its full potential then cut the initial power supply then self sustain itself and ALSO give additional power? I would think the lack of gravity would play a major role and only the "friction" ( if thats how it works) would work against itself.. but isnt the generated power going to be greater?

In a nutshell this would sound like unlimited energy but I know much of nothing of physics or space related physics... considering this sounds so easy im sure it is flawed but can anyone explain more so to me why it is flawed..

No.

Even if the generator was somehow made frictionless just by the simple fact that it's in space, which isn't necessarily true, using electricity generated by the generator causes a back-emf that resists turning.

Basically, friction plays a very small part in the force it takes to turn a generator, since they're already equipped with decent bearings. Producing a current is what causes most of the resistance to being turned.

Hello,
Not only as mentioned previously, how would you expect an internal combustion engine to breathe without any air/atmosphere? Dangit! I got some hopes along those same lines though friend.

Few people are aware of a force that mdiinican had mentioned.
It's known as lens's law. With a conventional stator generator (magnets and wires) as you consume electricity, it becomes harder to turn. This is also called back emf.

The antidote was explored by Tom Valone in his research with homopolar generators. If you change the conductor to a disk of copper instead of a wire, all the rules change.

If you want to read more, here is the book:
Homopol ar Generator Handbook by Thomas Valone

reply to post by mdiinican


You are pretty much on the money mate. As a generator technician, I endorse you comments!

reply to post by ATS4dummies


How would one draw power from a copper disk? Where does the potential occur? Just curious, I didn't want to buy the book!

Originally posted by ATS4dummies
With a conventional stator generator (magnets and wires) as you consume electricity, it becomes harder to turn. This is also called back emf.

Well not exactly as you say there.

The reason the generator becomes harder to turn as you load it up is simply that you must input, as mechanical energy, the power that it's delivering as electrical energy plus the losses in the overall system. Simply put, the more load applied to the system the greater the effort required to supply it.

It's a popular misconception that 'back-EMF' is a loss but that couldn't be further from the truth. Back-EMF is the voltage generated by a conductor (generator windings) moving through a magnetic flux IE the output of the generator IS the 'back-EMF' which is 100% useful.

In the case of a motor, the motion of the windings through the magnetic flux generates a voltage in opposition to the applied voltage which is proportional to the speed of the motor but again, it is not opposing the motion in any way unless it can establish a current in opposition to the applied current which, of course, it can't because it's always less than the applied voltage in the case of a motor. When the motor is at standstill there's 0 back-EMF so at that time it draws 'locked rotor current'. As it speeds up the back-EMF rises, reducing the effective voltage on the winding until it the motor reaches a speed where the difference between applied and back-EMF applied to the effective impedance of the motor represents the actual load on the system. Back-EMF drops as the motor slows due to a load increase allowing the input power (I^2.Z) to increase to match the load. So, in brief, back-EMF is how a motor actually regulates its input power in relation to the load applied and without back-EMF a motor would draw locked rotor current at all loads which would be absolutely useless.

Homopolar generators are simple and largely impractical except for a few monsters that have been built for the purpose of providing high DC current sources for laboratory use. What makes them impractical is the extremely low voltage they generate per disc.

reply to post by Xagathorn


It wouldn't matter where the generator was located or being in a gravity-free environment as you'd still have to supply the energy being taken out of the system plus the losses or it would just come to a standstill gradually as the energy in the system is depleted. If you're thinking of it as a flywheel with no losses like friction, windage, copper and iron losses yes, it would spin indefinitely but only as long as no energy was extracted from it and that energy has to be input originally to bring it up to speed.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by ATS4dummies
With a conventional stator generator (magnets and wires) as you consume electricity, it becomes harder to turn. This is also called back emf.

Well not exactly as you say there.

... Simply put, the more load applied to the system the greater the effort required to supply it.

Thanks for saying the same thing.

Homopolar generators are simple and largely impractical except for a few monsters that have been built for the purpose of providing high DC current sources for laboratory use. What makes them impractical is the extremely low voltage they generate per disc.

Dude, unless you have read Tom Valones papers and research, don't go there. *AND* as far as impractical? Gee, we have millions of little black cube wall transformers in electrical sockets because the devices need low voltage DC current. Hmm. Man, you just get on my nerves.

And another thing - Sure a copper disk puts out low voltage - and and *enormous* amount of current - enough to blow out a 30 amp fuse. So don't lecture here unless you've done your homework K?



[edit on 28-2-2010 by ATS4dummies]

Short answer no.

The magnets responsible for making the charge would bring it to a halt in short order.

Now, if you took a disk of aluminum and spun it at a high rate of speed, the spinning aluminum will produce a magnetic field with which you might could do something with. The field would be small, but should stay present so long as the disk keeps spinning so you don't touch it.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


We're probably straying a little off topic but:

There is no overunity demonstrated with homopolar generators and the fact is that they're very very inefficient primarily due to copper losses caused by the heavy currents they produce and also due to energy wasted in eddy currents within the disc. The principle by which they operate was not understood at the time Faraday displayed his first disc generator and the Lorentz force was not actually discovered until some 30 years later and during those 30 years the inexplicable characteristics of these devices was called 'Faraday's Paradox'. It's no longer a mystery though and the only practical use for these curiosities is as high current flywheel impulse generators in laboratories although in bygone days some found use in welding applications. I'm not aware of any of them being in serious use these days apart from small hobbyist examples.

I wouldn't go investing in a proposal to replace all those 'black wall cubes' which are mostly very efficient SMPS (switch mode power supplies) with highly inefficient electro-mechanical alternatives, especially in today's climate of energy conservation Even the simplest transformer/rectifier/ capacitor combination supply is far more efficient than any HPG despite the claims that persist for no valid reason.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt that you simply have not had the chance to read and reproduce Tom Valone's experiments rather than jump to the conclusion that you are simply pompous and arrogant.

The book is around $13 bucks. You can afford it, but more importantly, you cannot afford not to. Especially when ignorance comes at such a high cost.

Wall warts are efficient? Last time I checked they made excellent hand warmers.

Tom Valone got his so-called "PhD" from a diploma mill, based on "Life Experience". You probably get a lot of junk mail offering you same.

He's indeed proved himself good at marketing, publishing a large number of books on anti-gravity and free energy and such. To me, he's a parasite living off ignorant people. It's a win-win situation -- he gets money to pay his bills, and consumers of his junk get to feel important.

Unless you faithfully reproduce his experiments and disprove them, you words are a worthless character assassination.

People like you who contribute nothing towards knowledge but never create or reproduce results are as common as dull pennies.

In space a generator would do strange things.

On the ground a generator is mounted with the frame in a fixed position.

So you fire up the generator and the rotor turns even with a portable generator gravity holds the frame from turning.

But in space the armature is not fixed and as the rotor turns the armature will start to turn in the opposite direction until both are turning at half the shaft speed.

In space for every action there will be a equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's laws of motion rules.

The only device that could change the world would be one that would work at the source of the energy need, not up in space.

Energy is already free. Maybe I'm getting off topic, but I'm thinking in terms of the purpose of the OP's proposal.

Where I live we harness free Hydro electric power. The cost is the maintenance of the facilities that generate the power & deliver them to the users - the expense is all the middlemen & taxman who continually raise the price through greed. Even if we come up with good enough individual home/business free energy generators, solar panels or wind generators to supply our needs the cost of replacing or maintaining the generators means there will always be some cost. Though at least once we have the power generation capability we can do more with what we have without worrying about a huge utility bill.


[edit on 2-3-2010 by verylowfrequency]

Maybe a big part of the answer to high energy prices is simply using less of it. The trend here in recent decades has been toward houses having large ducted 3 phase reverse cycle aircon systems, hot tubs and even pool heaters and the owners then complain about the cost of energy to run all that. A typical aircon system (as above) will use something like 5-10kW, a 'standard' heated hot tub (spa) around 22kW or more and a pool heater usually about 30kW or more. That's before you add in cooking, lighting, water heating and entertainment etc. If every household in the world expected access to that sort of demand we'd be in real trouble real fast.