Free Energy - Perpetual Motion Machines (pt 1)

a reply to: operayt

I did look at your diagram, it shows the input higher than the output , but phage, look at my video.

I did. Your upper tank will go dry because the pump wastes water.
It cannot lift the waste water because the pump functions because of the waste water.

a reply to: Phage

Let me let you in on a little secret. I will get the video and you will then understand how it works.

originally posted by: operayt
a reply to: Phage

Let me let you in on a little secret. I will get the video and you will then understand how it works.

Interesting isn't it. youtu.be...

originally posted by: operayt
I will get the video and you will then understand how it works.

Why not just build one as you explained, instant Nobel prize, instant millionaire!

originally posted by: operayt
Interesting isn't it.

Did you read the explanation?

the disturbance (caused by beer pouring into beer) makes the carbon dioxide dissolved in the beer bubble, trying to escape from the liquid thus has increased volume. the sudden increase of volume of the beer in the tube causes it to flow out from the top end of the tube. when the carbon dioxide is all released, this stops. so if you think "perpetual" means "a coupe of minutes", you might wanna considering retaking 2nd grade English class as well, not just 2nd science class.

a reply to: operayt

What a waste of good beer.
Try it with a non-carbonated beverage.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: operayt
Interesting isn't it.

Did you read the explanation?

the disturbance (caused by beer pouring into beer) makes the carbon dioxide dissolved in the beer bubble, trying to escape from the liquid thus has increased volume. the sudden increase of volume of the beer in the tube causes it to flow out from the top end of the tube. when the carbon dioxide is all released, this stops. so if you think "perpetual" means "a coupe of minutes", you might wanna considering retaking 2nd grade English class as well, not just 2nd science class.

ahhhh, ha, ha, ha Need more proof.

originally posted by: operayt
ahhhh, ha, ha, ha Need more proof.

Simply build one and test it yourself....

You have cut down, cut down and constantly cut down then some of you started to actually read what I wrote. Then you cut down again. Even if I show the last piece of evidence you will still cut down. I bet if I showed you a video it works you would still cut it down. I guess in your worlds there is no tree's or anything else because you cut it all down. Now you left with no oxygen to breath and function properly. First it was this, then that , then this and now what. OMG , DO I have to build it for you too.

goodbye.

a reply to: operayt

The reason it gets "cut down" is because we can see the flaws and how it simply won't work.

a reply to: operayt

DO I have to build it for you too.

That would be awesome.

The 'Boyles Flask' experiment can only work until the beer goes flat IE until enough CO2 escapes to the atmosphere which won't take long at all. Any attempt to extract energy from the liquid falling from the riser tube will stop the process even sooner.

Something else I see a bit too often is the misconception that simply spinning an alternator produces its rated output. The truth is that any energy gained has to be input in terms of the effort required to turn the rotor EG a 1kW alternator with a 1kW load (1.3HP) needs over 1.3HP (to account for losses) of effort to keep it turning and producing that energy output.

If planning to get that 1kW alternator to full output with a water turbine of any sort, the requirements in terms of head and flow are well defined and easily calculable (Q.G.H : Q=flow in m^3/sec, G=Gravity 9.8 m/sec^2, H=head in metres, result is in kW and overall efficiency needs to be factored in as well).

The example of a 1kW output with a head of 1 metre and efficiency at a realistic best of around 90% would require about 0.11 m^3/sec flow (that's about 4 cubic feet per second per kW)

Moving along away from the water machine. OK. You have to actually read this in order to comment. Take a 5 inch sq. by 8 inches long soft iron bar stock. So you know what it looks like ,,,, beep,beep,beeep beep top it with cherries and whip cream. and serve.

originally posted by: operayt
Moving along away from the water machine. OK. You have to actually read this in order to comment. Take a 5 inch sq. by 8 inches long soft iron bar stock. So you know what it looks like ,,,, beep,beep,beeep beep top it with cherries and whip cream. and serve.

please don't beep me, my t.v is not a phone. I can not answer it.

The 'water machine' proposed is a slightly modern twist to a very old proposal (centuries old idea for a perpetual motion machine). It consisted of an upper tank of water that fell via a water wheel into a lower tank, the water wheel turning an Archimedes screw to lift the water back up to the upper tank and energy to drive a mill or whatever being extracted from the system via the turbine shaft and gearing system.

It didn't work of course for very good reasons that are generally understood these days. Just one example in a long line of failed concepts that might have appeared sound enough at the time to attract investment.

The only way to prove the concept is to build a prototype and, if it works, we'll all gladly applaud an achievement that's never been accomplished before, ever.

I have noticed that being a NEW MEMBER people on here tend to NOT stay on track of what a person says. Seems they either read it and only comprehend parts of it, don't get it at all, Make fun , play it down or get off the subject. All a means to distract one. WHY ? I made up the imagined machine and where I thought I would get positive constructive criticism instead I got a negative constructive criticism. As a science test of the people who interacted with me. With that in mind the next person to come on here and interact with thoughts of perpetual motion and free energy will hopefully be met with an open ear first raised with positive constructive criticism. Thank you for your time and patience in my science project.

a reply to: operayt

Well apart from me smelling bs to this "science experiment" of yours, what would have been constructive criticisms? Telling you well done? Saying it looks great? Lieing?

The criticism you got was as it should be. Telling you where the system is flawed. It just so happened it has so many flaws it was rediculous.

Now if someone came on here with an idea that might actually work, that's a different story.

originally posted by: operayt
I made up the imagined machine and where I thought I would get positive constructive criticism instead I got a negative constructive criticism.

No, you got told the facts, which apparently upset you!

a reply to: TerryDon79

here is for ALL THOSE non believers youtu.be... and the ONLY time ANY of you who smelled bs was AFTER I told you. If it did NOT peak your interest, then why did you reply. Like I said, even after the fact, I will continue to be cut down.
SO what if mine does not work. It all part of learning, that is the way it is. Just like how I'm learning here. We all learn and make mistakes. Yes, it does NOT work. But how quickly one joins the band wagon to put down more than to ask questions first. i'm not sorry that I am not perfect. What upsets me is the Reaction I got. I figured a positive constructive but got a NEGATIVE constructive. OH, I GOT THE FACTS all right. Maybe next time when someone brings in something , listen first and give your point of view in detailed explanation of a more positive response. Even when you disagree. I hope you like the video, I did. AND YES, IT IS A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE. Until the parts break down. here you go.