www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator (http://www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator) This generator produces at least seven times the energy than it needs to run.
Thank you, Russell Lee
No, it doesn't.
You're welcome,
--TK.
The qualified individual would see that when the motor turns the large wheel, turning the drive sprocket, both the bracket and the 500 lbs of weight it holds climbs the main chain bringing a 500lb+ pull to the chain to begin energy generation. As the motor is pulling the weight up the chain toward the top it is drawing it's energy from the running generator, and a small amount from the battery. When the weight reaches the top the motor stops and the weight/bracket slowely descends, pulling the chain to generate the 'free' energy into the battery. This is excess energy being produced by the system, it is not needed to be used for the machine's functioning. When the weight arrives at the bottom, the motor turns on again a moves the weight/bracket back up to the top. If it takes 30 seconds to bring the weight to the top, and 3 minutes to descend to the bottom, the mechanism has produced almost 6 times the energy it used to operate. The faster to the top, and the slower to the bottom, the more excess 'free to use' energy is produced.
Simple design, simple to understand.
Russell Lee "Simple design, simple to understand."
Time to rise & fall has nothing to do with it except for determining POWER [rate of doing WORK].
WORK in both instances is Force x Distance/Displacement which is the same for both rise & fall since the mass doesn't change nor the distance traveled.
This assumes NO ordinary system losses to frictions etc which would bring it automatically to sub-unity.
N.B.1. the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle is a doctrine of physics - it says that since Work units are the same as Energy units they are equivalent & interchangeable - therefore Work [fxd] is done to lift a mass & it is given energy of position [PE] which can be released as kinetic energy [KE] to do Work.
N.B.2. Energy is Capability or Capacity to do Work.
N.B.3. example: a hanging weight driven clock is given energy of position by raising the mass - the mass looses height over time - the KE of the mass does not translate into a one for one relationship with PE lost as height decreases - the 'missing' energy is the KE of the clock parts in motion, friction losses to heat, sound, windage etc - the main loss is to 'internal' energy [PE & KE] of the atoms of the system & can be reviewed by researching the history of thermodynamics.
This mass is raised quickly & falls very slowly but it is not OU.
Quote from: Russell Lee on October 04, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator (http://www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator) This generator produces at least seven times the energy than it needs to run.
Thank you, Russell Lee
This project could be a good idea, but there's an enormous problem: the weights are not able to press water from the down piston to the upper, if the difference between weight eand the amount of water is not very high. I think that would be necessary a difference of 15 to one to push water at the proper height... This drawing explain the problem, was well explained yet by Rafael Ti in this previous topic http://www.overunity.com/12586/mechanical-power-multiplier-device/msg331682/#msg331682
Anyway, the concept - rotation of 90°, and the weight that press water up - is interesting. Someone has suggests for solve the problem?
It's important to remember that during the elevating of the weights ,the energy is still being generated into the battery (minus whatever energy is being used by the small motor) so there is nominal battery power loss during this phase. The second phase just has the excess energy being generated by the fall of the weights. The energy for the ascent is being provided as it takes place, there is nothing needing energy in the second phase to deplete the battery charge so it all gets stored as excess energy not used in the whole process.
Quote from: fletcher on October 11, 2012, 03:52:25 PM
Time to rise & fall has nothing to do with it except for determining POWER [rate of doing WORK].
WORK in both instances is Force x Distance/Displacement which is the same for both rise & fall since the mass doesn't change nor the distance traveled.
This assumes NO ordinary system losses to frictions etc which would bring it automatically to sub-unity.
N.B.1. the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle is a doctrine of physics - it says that since Work units are the same as Energy units they are equivalent & interchangeable - therefore Work [fxd] is done to lift a mass & it is given energy of position [PE] which can be released as kinetic energy [KE] to do Work.
N.B.2. Energy is Capability or Capacity to do Work.
N.B.3. example: a hanging weight driven clock is given energy of position by raising the mass - the mass looses height over time - the KE of the mass does not translate into a one for one relationship with PE lost as height decreases - the 'missing' energy is the KE of the clock parts in motion, friction losses to heat, sound, windage etc - the main loss is to 'internal' energy [PE & KE] of the atoms of the system & can be reviewed by researching the history of thermodynamics.
This mass is raised quickly & falls very slowly but it is not OU.
@ andrea
Overunity in the picture u posted is possible because if u bend the thin tube at the mark 1kg, the water will flow and u can feedback it to the source. Thats the same principle why a perpetual waterwheel works.
@Russell Lee
Thank you very much for posting this.
Here is an example of perpetual waterwheel http://youtube.com/watch?v=-KtFZMN7_Bw
Russell Lee is right. The slower the fall and the faster the heavy object ascend, the more energy is being extracted from the gravity.
Okey lets check this theory if this was true using calculation and using the above example. We can say that the input power was the power to move the 500lbs weight on the top (lets say 10meters) for 30second and the output power was the power excerted by gravity to move the weight downward by 10meters for 3minutes.
Input Time = 30s
Output Time = 3x60= 180s
Mass = 500lbs = 226.79kg
Distance = 10m
Work = M x G x D
= 226.79 x 9.8 x 10
= 22225.42 joules
Input Power= W x Ti
= 22225.42 x 30
= 666762.6 watts
Output Power = W x To
= 22225.42 x 180
= 4000575.6 watts
Excess Power = Po - Pi
= 4000575.6 - 666762.6
= 3,333,813 watts
very simple calculation :)
Quote from: Neo-X on October 19, 2012, 05:50:14 AM
Excess Power = Po - Pi
= 4000575.6 - 666762.6
= 3,333,813 watts
very simple calculation :)
you are a very good magician !
Lol :) i dont know how to calculate it.. Someone help to solve this..
Quote from: Neo-X on October 19, 2012, 01:56:09 AM
Here is an example of perpetual waterwheel http://youtube.com/watch?v=-KtFZMN7_Bw (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-KtFZMN7_Bw)
Russell Lee is right. The slower the fall and the faster the heavy object ascend, the more energy is being extracted from the gravity.
What makes you think that video shows perpetual motion? Apart from the title that is.
To calculate whether this device will work. you need to look at each component of the overall process.
There are three main components to look at
1/ How heavy must the weights be to raise the fluid to the high side of the mechanism?
2/ Once the fluid is raised how much energy is required to rotate the wheel to move the liquid to the lower position again.
3/ How much energy is extracted in 1/ and is it greater than 2/. in other words is it overunity?
For 1 you need to look at hydraulics for the answer. Andrea's excellent diagram is a clue to the answer. you need to understand hydraulics to understand how much fluid can be moved.
For 2 it is imperative to calculate the CENTER OF GRAVITY for the wheel. if its below the axle (it is) then you need to use energy to make the wheel rotate. the center of gravity is not always intuitive. For example in this mechanism the heavy weight goes to the lowest position to raise the fluid this moves the center of balance well below the axle. therefore a LOT of force is required to rotate the wheel. the fluid moving to the top of the wheel DOES NOT balance out the weight.
For 3 don't forget to subtract the force required to raise the fluid to the top reservoir before you calculate the force available to generate electricity.
Quote from: webby1 on October 19, 2012, 04:54:31 PMIncrease the mass on the other end of the rope so that it is just at your own mass value and pull, that would be the most force you can apply without assistance. Now add more mass and pull, you are still applying the max value that you can but now you go up instead.
This is incorrect you must increase the force you apply to make yourself lift up off the floor.
For example with your pulley analogy. If the you weigh 70Kg's and the weight you are trying to lift weighs 60kg's then to lift that weight you must apply 60Kg's of force.
Now if you increase the weight to say 75kg's then you must apply at least 70kg's of lift to raise your own feet off the floor. thus you have increased the amount of 'pull' you put into the rope.
You cannot use terms like "the max value you can" this is a meaningless phrase. In the above example assuming you had enough strength to lift yourself off the floor. and you applied ALL this force (strength) to the 60Kg weight then the weight would rise very rapidly, much faster than when you lifted yourself off the floor.
This difference in speed is immortalised in the formula F=ma
F=Force (strength)
m=mass (60kg or 70kg)
a=(acceleration)
Clearly webby you totally missed my point. your understanding of physics is very low indeed. Please take the time to read some basic physic literature.
The amount of force you can apply is not, read that, NOT limited by gravity. Gravity holds you to the ground ONLY because the weight you are trying to lift is lighter than you. Gravity is NOT limiting the amount of force you apply, gravity is CHOOSING(if you can put it that way) to let the smaller mass rise above the ground because of the two weights it is the lightest.
Now I understand TinselKoala's terse response. trying to explain even the simplest physics to some people is an extraordinary waste of time.
in the words of Tinsel
It doesn't work!
I calculate it again this time with greater accuracy and i found that when you lift an object more energy is being used than when an object was falling no matter how fast or slow it is. This means the theory wasn't true then why some inventor can make a perpetual machine powered by gravity?
You are right I did not understand much of what you said.
If both masses are the same on the rope and pulley then other factors will decide which leaves the ground first. pulley friction is the most likely to effect the outcome.
Quote from: webby1
The normal view on all of that is that gravity is conserved, that force in equals force out and work in is equal to work out, but a window of interaction can open, an interaction that does not use the constant force created by mass and gravity the same in both directions of motion, there is no law or rule that says you must use the changed conditions in the same way and for the same purpose, be creative.
Still don't understand it.
Perhaps you can give an example of being creative?
you choose. I wouldnt know which is the best example of what you are trying to convey
Quote from: Neo-X on October 18, 2012, 10:43:20 PM
if u bend the thin tube at the mark 1kg, the water will flow
?
I don't understand. May you do a draw? Or explain it better. Thanks
I feel I hould again explain the aspect of this Power Multiplier Device that allows it to produce excess energy.
When the weights are being brought up the chain by the small motor, these weights, hanging on the bracket, are still producing the 500+ pound pull on the chain as they ascend.
This means that the generator is still producing the fulll charge, it is just that this charge is being used by the small motor on the bracket. Since, will the entropy involved, the generator is not producing enough power to supply all of the motor's needs, a small amount of 'entropy' power is drawn from the battery, for 30 seconds. Then when the weights reach the top, the motor shuts off, ending the small entropy power drain on the battery. Now the weights descend for 3 minutes charging a full charge into the battery for the full 3 minutes. So the focus is on the battery. At first it experiences 30 seconds of a small amout of entropy power drain, then 3 minutes of a full charge. One amount of time for a small charge decrease, and six times that amount of time for a full charge increase=excess "free" energy.
Quote from: CuriousChris on October 20, 2012, 05:40:31 AM
You are right I did not understand much of what you said.
If both masses are the same on the rope and pulley then other factors will decide which leaves the ground first. pulley friction is the most likely to effect the outcome.
Still don't understand it.
Perhaps you can give an example of being creative?
When the weights descend, pulling the chain that drives the generator, the battery experiences X amount of charge from the generator. When the weights ascend, the generator's charge is now directed towards the operation of the small motor raising the weights to the top of the chain, except for the small amount of power needed that the generator cannot supply. This small amount of power is taken from the battery, let's say 10% of the charge the generator would be putting into the battery on the descent cycle, for 30 seconds. On the descent the full charge is going into the battery, with only 10% being taken out on the ascent, the rest is being supplied by the functioning generator. This is simple to understand. The small motor has at is disposal two energy sources, the charged battery, and the generator. The generator is supplying 90% of what it needs, the battery 10%- for 30 seconds only. Then the battery gets all the energy from the generator for 3 minutes. Six gallons of water into the tub, then 1/2 gallon out, six in, 1/2 out. Petro-minions will attack everything that threatens their masters. One does not qualify as an engineer simply by watching every Star Trek movie ever made. Profanity and name calling always come from the side that has lost the debate.
It is important to also keep in mind the ability of academia to navigate outside of realite with it's equations. Example: Coin flip probabilities with it's 5,000 to one against another heads (when the have been numerous heads in a row), and at the same time a 50-50 chance for another heads.? Both cannot be correct at the same time. Also the purposefully false positions academia takes to support agendas: Mankind and dinosaurs living millions of years apart from eachother when in Glen Rose, Texas there is a limestone rock with both fossil footprints in it, overlapping eachother. Academia is not always interested in real knowledge, it's purpose is to assimilate the individual into the monetarist system, not create a society of independent thinkers.
The PMD works simply because 5 times more (+-) energy is stored into the battery than is needed to be drawn out for the motor's use-every cycle.
Quote from: seamus103 on October 22, 2012, 03:19:06 PM
I only wish my accountant was able to get away with such creative accounting. I'd be a rich man by just doing nothing..
This explanation is of course just egregious bullshit. Give up now before you make yourself look stupid, even by free energy standards.
Learn the difference between power and energy as a starting point. Specifically learn that expending the same amount of energy in different amounts of time does not give rise to any excess.
Quote from: Russell Lee on October 22, 2012, 12:43:27 PM
I feel I hould again explain the aspect of this Power Multiplier Device that allows it to produce excess energy.
When the weights are being brought up the chain by the small motor, these weights, hanging on the bracket, are still producing the 500+ pound pull on the chain as they ascend.
This means that the generator is still producing the fulll charge, it is just that this charge is being used by the small motor on the bracket. Since, will the entropy involved, the generator is not producing enough power to supply all of the motor's needs, a small amount of 'entropy' power is drawn from the battery, for 30 seconds. Then when the weights reach the top, the motor shuts off, ending the small entropy power drain on the battery. Now the weights descend for 3 minutes charging a full charge into the battery for the full 3 minutes. So the focus is on the battery. At first it experiences 30 seconds of a small amout of entropy power drain, then 3 minutes of a full charge. One amount of time for a small charge decrease, and six times that amount of time for a full charge increase=excess "free" energy.
Just a quick question. If a 1 kg. weight is lifted 5 cm's from the middle of the rotor, it takes less energy to lift it than it generates as it rotates around the radius of the height it is lifted and then dropped.
Kind of like PIR^2/2 - 2R ?
thought I'd add a pic. It is an interesting concept. Lifting to the top would be highly inefficient though.
From 45 dgrees above and below the level of the axle of the wheel would be best. And if you look at drop vs. length of path,
they're close. PiR^2//8 for a 1 Meter radius is 6.28/8 = 1.57 meters. The vertical drop would be 1.414 meters.
For the extra torque, not sure. Still, it would be interesting to see if the extra torque could be converted into enough juice to lift
the same weight as what is being dropped. With torque, 1 kg at 1 meter is 9.8 n-m's. At 10 cm's, it should only take .98 n-m's.
He might be onto something but I really don't know enough about this stuff to say, sorry guys. And if you do a search, you can find
converters to have an idea baout this like this one.
http://www.magtrol.com/support/motorpower_calc.html (http://www.magtrol.com/support/motorpower_calc.html)
Then all you need to do is find another calculator to find out how much energy it takes to lift it. And with lifting, it will be m/s,
maybe something like this, http://www.convertunits.com/from/watt/to/kg-m/s (http://www.convertunits.com/from/watt/to/kg-m/s)
Then, if science is to be believed, you should be able to have an answer before even building a demo.
But am taking a break from this.
Jim
doubt it would be 7 times more power, after all, it's free energy. But if the lift is 1.414 meters and the radius is 1.57 meters,
then the calculation of 1 kg or 9.8 n-m's at .16 m/s would give a basic idea of how much energy per kg/s might be possible.
And since gravity requires 9.8 meters of free fall to do it in one second.
I did a quick calculation as if he had one extra weight dropping and it rotated at 30 rpm, came up with 30 watts.
Still, if it worked, it'd be a first for something electrically driven by gravity.
johnny, nice and constructive at the end.
but that would have the same affect as gearing it and so take it back to negative energy output.
anyhow,
why not look at when a child swings on a swing.
the child uses little force to gain momentum.
if a very small motor could move a weight (similar to the work a childs feet do in a swing) that has a bigger weight above it that gains momentum through the tiny movement and off balancing of the much larger weight, and thus create momentum, could it be possible to change that momentum into electricity some how?
just something to make you all think rather than fight.
really? i would have thought using a small force to put a much larger weight off balance is what most over unity devices attempt to create.
Quote from: seamus103 on November 01, 2012, 04:17:19 AM
No, this won't work. The child on a swing (or any pendulum) stores energy by alternately converting gravitational potential to kinetic energy as it moves. The energy gain of the 'small force' expended over part of the swing is stored up by the pendulum. This energy store can then be 'drained' to drive an external load. There is however no excess energy gained from this process.
seamus and lightend,
I had considered the gearing angle but have also considered that the slightly longer path along with torque might allow the weight powering the generator to develop more energy than the motor would need.
Jim
we are all trying to change the world, lets hope some day one of us can manage it :)
I had to throw my 2 cents in as (like on most threads) it gets off topic and turns into a group of people unwilling to budge from their stance and that destroys progress.
(people start screwing at each other and before long rather than working together or offering suggestions on how to possibly change a fault, people just argue, im kind of sick of every threat going along those lines)
lightend,
When I get to a computer, I will explain in some detail how a rotating wheel is different than a ramp.
Also, using a motor and a generator is different than using leverage.
With a generator being powered by torque, the weight being hoisted by the motor could move slower.
Jim
@All,
this is the diagram I was talking about. If a weight is lifted 10 cm's from the axle and the weight on the lever
is 70 cm's from the axle, we have a ratio of 7 to 1. As an arm would rotate, the leveraged force would increase
to a ratio of 10 to 1 becoming even more efficient.
If you consider gearing something like this at a 7 to 1 ratio, then any distance beyond 70 cm's that the motive
weight happens to be should be extra energy. And with electricity as this design supports, the weight moving
upward (being lifted) is travelling requires a lesser velocity than the the force generating energy. This is where
f = ma comes into play. A weight moving at 1.57 m/s will generate more energy that a weight moving the same
vertical height moving at 1.414 m/s. Math does support an approximate 10% net gain.
Jim
@All,
While it's a simple diagram, the weight moving around the radius will have a minimal amount of torque.
The weight moving vertically will require less energy to be lifted. And with using a motor and generator,
not sure why it wouldn't work.
Jim
edited to add, at a 7 to 1 ratio, the weights would be in equalibrium.
hey Jim.
right just to make sure this is clear in my mind.
let me break it down, for every 1cm up, there is 7 cm down at an angle right?
so you could make a small demo machine that uses the same principle, a triangle in the middle then an outer frame, connect 8 balls together with string and put them at different points so that 1 is about the clime the stright up and the other 7 are positioned at equal pints around the down side starting right at the top of the incline and finishing 7cm away from the either ball that is about to climb the 7cm vertical rise.
if this design works then the balls in the machine would start by them selves and keep going until all the ballls hd baan up the vertical slope and the eight ball was just about to ascend.
It would be an easy experiment to test your theory however the downward angle would act as gearing that would make them 7 times less effective than the ball going up, so in short, ball bumber8 wouldnt go anywhere.
try it, its using the same principal as a wheel and motor but would be cheap to build and test.
if iv got it wrong then i apologize.
If in doubt, build the machine and see. after all if motors and alternators are being used, you should be able to increase the amount of weights /ball to make the machine a self runner.
Quote from: lightend on November 02, 2012, 12:02:40 AM
hey Jim.
right just to make sure this is clear in my mind.
let me break it down, for every 1cm up, there is 7 cm down at an angle right?
so you could make a small demo machine that uses the same principle, a triangle in the middle then an outer frame, connect 8 balls together with string and put them at different points so that 1 is about the clime the stright up and the other 7 are positioned at equal pints around the down side starting right at the top of the incline and finishing 7cm away from the either ball that is about to climb the 7cm vertical rise.
if this design works then the balls in the machine would start by them selves and keep going until all the ballls hd baan up the vertical slope and the eight ball was just about to ascend.
It would be an easy experiment to test your theory however the downward angle would act as gearing that would make them 7 times less effective than the ball going up, so in short, ball bumber8 wouldnt go anywhere.
try it, its using the same principal as a wheel and motor but would be cheap to build and test.
if iv got it wrong then i apologize.
If in doubt, build the machine and see. after all if motors and alternators are being used, you should be able to increase the amount of weights /ball to make the machine a self runner.
lightend,
I am going to ask helloha if he might be interested in making an animation.
With this, if a weight drops paralell to the axle, (using 1 meter for refernce, 100%),
if one weight is 70 cm's from the axle and the one being lifted is 10 cm's, it is a nice 7to 1 ratio.
4 or 6 weights would be all that is needed to try something like this.
How it could work is when the weights are lifted by a belt, it can roll off of it and down a ramp and land
on the outside of the wheel. When the wheel rotates, the slot the ball is in will have a downward angle allowing it
to roll onto a ramp and to the bottom of the belt.
What it would be taking advantage of if possible is that a weight at 1 meter could lift a weight the same height or
slightly higher than what it drops because the forces would be calculated to be in equilibrium if it 70 cm's of torque.
Will repost this in helloha's thread and see if he'll work his magic.
Jim
@All,
Doubt this could work unless the original idea of using a generator and motor can work.
Why I think the orignal idea might be possible is the falling weight would be moving faster than the weight being lifted.
Jim
In my opinion, the exess energy is not comming from the gravity but in either generator or in motor.
ok, well if your minds made up, all i can do is give some advice on how to make the build easier.
rather than using a weight and having the motor turn on and turn off,
if could be better to use water, send the water up then let it trickle down over a larger waterwheel type arrangement (or a belt), this would eliminate the need for tricky things like auto starting motors when the weight gets to the bottom.
for an added bit of consideration, you could consider submerging the whole device and turning it upside down to use air
just something to consider if your going to try and build it.
best of luck to you
cheers
mark
ohhh, i get it now, you are trying to use the added torque from the end of the shaft to the central point.
thats more interesting than what i thought you were thinking of building (must have past me by the first couple of times i looked at the pictures)
I still think that it will have the effect of gearing it.
the wheel will move slower, so to speed it up you will have to put with through a gearbox to get it to 1,500rpm. if the wheel moves at 10 rpm. you will need a 150:1 gearbox, which will mean the weight will need to be 150x heavier, of course you could make the wheel bigger but then it will go slower so the weight will have to be heavier still to be able to move the increase of gearing.
every time you make the weight heavier to move the wheel, you will need to increase the size of the motor lifting the weight.
so your stuck in a loop of every increasing the size of the wheel and the gearing and the weight and the motor.
other wise you could just connect a large wheel to an alternator and on the out side of that wheel put a motor, this is essentially what this design is doing.
let me have a think,
if 1 ball going down could pull up a weight going up (by using 4 connected wheels and 4 weights) ....mmmm, that would also need gearing, unless you though of a way that hasn't been tried before.
cheers
mark
I think the aspect of this design you may be missing is in the second stage where the weights climb the main chain. As they do they are still hanging on the chain, so they are still giving a full 500 pound pull on the chain to drive the generator to continue putting a full charge into the battery. The generator is operating the entire time. If that time is 3.5 minutes, it is putting 3.5 minutes of a full charge from a 500 pound pull into the battery, and needing only enough charge from that stored charge to drive a 300 pound pull energy need for 30 seconds (50 pound pull to move the big wheel, and 6 times more to move it faster). Again, the slower the descent, the faster the ascent, the more 'free to use' energy is stored in the battery.
Quote from: fletcher on October 11, 2012, 03:52:25 PM
Time to rise & fall has nothing to do with it except for determining POWER [rate of doing WORK].
WORK in both instances is Force x Distance/Displacement which is the same for both rise & fall since the mass doesn't change nor the distance traveled.
This assumes NO ordinary system losses to frictions etc which would bring it automatically to sub-unity.
N.B.1. the Work-Energy Equivalence Principle is a doctrine of physics - it says that since Work units are the same as Energy units they are equivalent & interchangeable - therefore Work [fxd] is done to lift a mass & it is given energy of position [PE] which can be released as kinetic energy [KE] to do Work.
N.B.2. Energy is Capability or Capacity to do Work.
N.B.3. example: a hanging weight driven clock is given energy of position by raising the mass - the mass looses height over time - the KE of the mass does not translate into a one for one relationship with PE lost as height decreases - the 'missing' energy is the KE of the clock parts in motion, friction losses to heat, sound, windage etc - the main loss is to 'internal' energy [PE & KE] of the atoms of the system & can be reviewed by researching the history of thermodynamics.
This mass is raised quickly & falls very slowly but it is not OU.
Home wind generators need only 200-300 rpms to operate. Secondly, as the weights ascend, because they are ascending still hanging on the main chain, they are still giving a 500 pound pull on the chain to continue to generate a full charge into the battery. The full charge from the 500 pound pull is continuous. If the whole cycle is 3.5 minutes, the battery is charged for that amount of time with a full charge from a 500 pound power source, and needing only 30 seconds of energy to produe a 300 pound pull from the small motor (50 pound pull to move the large wheel, times 6 to move it faster).
Quote from: lightend on November 03, 2012, 10:57:20 AM
ohhh, i get it now, you are trying to use the added torque from the end of the shaft to the central point.
thats more interesting than what i thought you were thinking of building (must have past me by the first couple of times i looked at the pictures)
I still think that it will have the effect of gearing it.
the wheel will move slower, so to speed it up you will have to put with through a gearbox to get it to 1,500rpm. if the wheel moves at 10 rpm. you will need a 150:1 gearbox, which will mean the weight will need to be 150x heavier, of course you could make the wheel bigger but then it will go slower so the weight will have to be heavier still to be able to move the increase of gearing.
every time you make the weight heavier to move the wheel, you will need to increase the size of the motor lifting the weight.
so your stuck in a loop of every increasing the size of the wheel and the gearing and the weight and the motor.
other wise you could just connect a large wheel to an alternator and on the out side of that wheel put a motor, this is essentially what this design is doing.
let me have a think,
if 1 ball going down could pull up a weight going up (by using 4 connected wheels and 4 weights) ....mmmm, that would also need gearing, unless you though of a way that hasn't been tried before.
cheers
mark
This is true, but lets look at other examples of this.
1 car accelerating drives 100m in 30 seconds =fuel usage is = x
1 car drives the 100m in a very slow speed of 6 mins = fuel usage =x -1
in a car, going slower saves petrol, and going fast uses more petrol (petrol = power here)
however power , when dealing with gravity, is always equal going up and going down.
then you only have extra losses of friction to take into account.
regarding the low RPMs of self built wind turbines. you are correct of course, but low rpms = low volatage + the wind turbines people make for them selves are low amp-age, low voltage and low amp-age = low wattage (low wattage = low power)
the reason I went on about rpms is thinking of alternators, 1,500rpm on a 1kw alternator isnt too hard to turn if you are turning it at 1,500rpm, however if you are turning it at 10rpm (slower down hill speed) then you need a gearbox to speed it up, which then turns into a world or never ending up grades to try and do the impossible.
i dont know why im still going on about this. look its simple to build, a couple of reclaimed motors should do it or 1 motor and 1 car alternator, a bit of wood and a couple of wheels with some bike chains.
build it and see for your self. (you could save money by only using tiny 15w motors)
better advice would be to look at something else as this is not going to work.
sorry buddy, but just build the thing and see for your self. I have designs which I think will work but before I run around like a headless chicken I build them (out of things like wood, foam from a childs play mat, specially made plastic to replace the need for metal, I have 1 x 120 watt motor and when I am trying something else I chuck on a gear head that slows it down or speeds it up so its like owning LOAD of different speed motors but at a fraction of the price, I have bearings from japan that i can use over and over, bike chains, motorbike chains, pulleys, wheels, plastic bottles filled with concrete, all sorts., so why dont you start building a collection of things that you can use to test your theories)
I just wanted to share one more point about this mechanism. With one in operation there are +- seven 30 second periods of charging into the battery, and one drawing from the battery. With 10 mechanisms there will be 70 and 10 respectively. That is 35 minutes of charging, and 5 minutes of drawing. Each mechanism, while ascending, will be drawing from: 1) The charge it is producing into the battery while ascending, 2) The charge it put into the battery while descending, 3) The charge in the battery put there by the other mechanisms, and 4) The charge the others are putting in as they are descending. At least two others will be descending as one is ascending at any time. This is where the excess 'free' to use energy is created. Regards, Russ
Quote from: johnny874 on November 01, 2012, 01:43:09 PM
@All,
this is the diagram I was talking about. If a weight is lifted 10 cm's from the axle and the weight on the lever
is 70 cm's from the axle, we have a ratio of 7 to 1. As an arm would rotate, the leveraged force would increase
to a ratio of 10 to 1 becoming even more efficient.
If you consider gearing something like this at a 7 to 1 ratio, then any distance beyond 70 cm's that the motive
weight happens to be should be extra energy. And with electricity as this design supports, the weight moving
upward (being lifted) is travelling requires a lesser velocity than the the force generating energy. This is where
f = ma comes into play. A weight moving at 1.57 m/s will generate more energy that a weight moving the same
vertical height moving at 1.414 m/s. Math does support an approximate 10% net gain.
Jim
I just wanted to add one more point about this mechanism.
With one in operation the are +- seven 30 second periods of charging into the battery, and one of drawing from the battery. With ten mechanisms the are 70, and 10 respectively. That is 35 minutes of charging and 5 minutes of drawing.
As one ascends it is drawing energy from: 1) The energy it is generating during it's ascent, 2) The energy it charged into the battery during it's descent, 3) The energy the other mechanisims charged into the battery, and 4) The energy the others are then charging into the battery during their descending. At any time when there is one ascending there are at least two descending. This is where the excess 'free' to use energy is generated.
Regards, Russ
Quote from: lightend on January 03, 2013, 11:15:08 PM
This is true, but lets look at other examples of this.
1 car accelerating drives 100m in 30 seconds =fuel usage is = x
1 car drives the 100m in a very slow speed of 6 mins = fuel usage =x -1
in a car, going slower saves petrol, and going fast uses more petrol (petrol = power here)
however power , when dealing with gravity, is always equal going up and going down.
then you only have extra losses of friction to take into account.
regarding the low RPMs of self built wind turbines. you are correct of course, but low rpms = low volatage + the wind turbines people make for them selves are low amp-age, low voltage and low amp-age = low wattage (low wattage = low power)
the reason I went on about rpms is thinking of alternators, 1,500rpm on a 1kw alternator isnt too hard to turn if you are turning it at 1,500rpm, however if you are turning it at 10rpm (slower down hill speed) then you need a gearbox to speed it up, which then turns into a world or never ending up grades to try and do the impossible.
i dont know why im still going on about this. look its simple to build, a couple of reclaimed motors should do it or 1 motor and 1 car alternator, a bit of wood and a couple of wheels with some bike chains.
build it and see for your self. (you could save money by only using tiny 15w motors)
better advice would be to look at something else as this is not going to work.
sorry buddy, but just build the thing and see for your self. I have designs which I think will work but before I run around like a headless chicken I build them (out of things like wood, foam from a childs play mat, specially made plastic to replace the need for metal, I have 1 x 120 watt motor and when I am trying something else I chuck on a gear head that slows it down or speeds it up so its like owning LOAD of different speed motors but at a fraction of the price, I have bearings from japan that i can use over and over, bike chains, motorbike chains, pulleys, wheels, plastic bottles filled with concrete, all sorts., so why dont you start building a collection of things that you can use to test your theories)
Neo-X,
Information added to the squidoo site shows that if there are ten of these simple mechanisms charging into the same battery bank there will be seventy 30 second periods of charging, and 10 of drawing out. That is 35 minutes of charging, and 5 minutes of drawing out. Whenever there is one descending there will be at least two others descending at the same time charging more into the battery than the one descending is drawing out (because as it ascends it also is generating energy to the battery). Regards, Russell Lee
Quote from: Neo-X on October 19, 2012, 05:50:14 AM
Okey lets check this theory if this was true using calculation and using the above example. We can say that the input power was the power to move the 500lbs weight on the top (lets say 10meters) for 30second and the output power was the power excerted by gravity to move the weight downward by 10meters for 3minutes.
Input Time = 30s
Output Time = 3x60= 180s
Mass = 500lbs = 226.79kg
Distance = 10m
Work = M x G x D
= 226.79 x 9.8 x 10
= 22225.42 joules
Input Power= W x Ti
= 22225.42 x 30
= 666762.6 watts
Output Power = W x To
= 22225.42 x 180
= 4000575.6 watts
Excess Power = Po - Pi
= 4000575.6 - 666762.6
= 3,333,813 watts
very simple calculation :)
There are two FE generators on this site, please do not confuse the Pinwheel Generator with the Power Multiplier Device. Thank you, Russell Lee
Quote from: Russell Lee on October 04, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator (http://www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator) This generator produces at least seven times the energy than it needs to run.
Thank you, Russell Lee
*Important* As the weight/bracket assembly is climbing the chain it still has it's weight hanging on the chain pulling it down as it climbs, still generating a full charge into the battery. This replaces the lion's share of the energy the small motor is pulling out of the battery to use for it's purpose. This is how there is excess 'free to use' energy being generated. Regared, Russell Lee
Quote from: Russell Lee on October 04, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator (http://www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator) This generator produces at least seven times the energy than it needs to run.
Thank you, Russell Lee
How many times is it neccessary to remind you folks that gravity cannot do work?
Gravity is only a permanent force. In order to get energy out of it, that force must alternate naturally - which it doesn't. It is constant.
A weight must be applied less gravity when it rise, and applied more gravity when it falls. This is the only way to get energy out of gravity and weights. If gravity doesn't change (Which it doesn't), the weight cannot provide any useful work.
Vidar
"Input Time = 30s
Output Time = 3x60= 180s
Mass = 500lbs = 226.79kg
Distance = 10m
Work = M x G x D
= 226.79 x 9.8 x 10
= 22225.42 joules
Input Power= W x Ti
= 22225.42 x 30
= 666762.6 watts
Output Power = W x To
= 22225.42 x 180
= 4000575.6 watts
Excess Power = Po - Pi
= 4000575.6 - 666762.6
= 3,333,813 watts"
E= m x g xh
226.79kg x 9,81 x 10m=22248,099J
30s 741,6033W
180s 123,6W
Quote from: webby1 on April 26, 2013, 10:11:52 AM
How many times is it necessary to remind you folks that in a mechanical device there are certain environmental constants that must be in place for the device to work, and how many times must you folks be reminded that in some systems at least one of those requirements can be replaced with gravity.
Yes. Replace the water column with one kg gravity on the lever to the left of the upper knob. Then replace the rod under the mainframe with some iron powder and look at it for 40 years. Maybe you start to see something moving.
What exactly did you mean with "replaced with gravity"? Isn't gravity everywhere in the first place?
Vidar
Quote from: ingyenenergiagep on April 25, 2013, 02:31:04 PM
"Input Time = 30s
Output Time = 3x60= 180s
Mass = 500lbs = 226.79kg
Distance = 10m
Work = M x G x D
= 226.79 x 9.8 x 10
= 22225.42 joules
Input Power= W x Ti
= 22225.42 x 30 (?)
= 666762.6 watts
Output Power = W x To
= 22225.42 x 180 (?)
= 4000575.6 watts
Excess Power = Po - Pi
= 4000575.6 - 666762.6
= 3,333,813 watts"
E= m x g xh
226.79kg x 9,81 x 10m=22248,099J
30s 741,6033W
180s 123,6W
Input power (Pi) = 22225 Joules
/ 30 seconds = 740 Watt / s (For 30 seconds that equals 22225 J of energy)
Output power (Po) = 22225 Joules
/ 180 seconds = 123 Watt / s (For 180 seconds that equals 22225 J of energy)
"Excess" power = Po - Pi = 22225 J - 22225 J = 0 Joule
Vidar
Quote from: Russell Lee on October 04, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator (http://www.squidoo.com/pinwheelgenerator) This generator produces at least seven times the energy than it needs to run.
Thank you, Russell Lee
Again with one PMD at the top of the chain, and one located at every 30 second interval on a 3 minute descent/30 second ascent cycle, you have seven PMBS on the chain. This means when there is one ascending, there will always be six descending. Six full charges going into the battery, and one charge (without subtracting the energy being generated during the ascent) being drawn out. Where is there a problem with seeing the excess energy being produced?
With 10/60, 100/600, one zillion/6 zillion.
Where is your working prototype?
::)
Tinsel, on the last entry I meant to say that with seven independent PMDs, each spaced on it's own chain so that they are 30 seconds apart from eachother respectively, there would be six descending for every one ascending. The ascending one would be also charging an amount of energy back into the battery just by it's weight hanging on the chain. As far as a prototype is concerned, I don't have one because at present I lack the resources to put seven PMDs together. I hope to be able to some day. An unfortunate thing has happened in that the Squidoo site I had this information published on has fallen to corporate pressure and pulled my lens. Since it was out for over three years this is probable not serious for the design. If it is authentic it will take off, if not, it won't, but with six PMDs charging into the battery, and only one drawing out, how could this not work? Russ
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2013, 12:58:35 PM
Where is your working prototype?
::)
Quote from: Russell Lee on May 24, 2013, 10:58:22 AM
Tinsel, on the last entry I meant to say that with seven independent PMDs, each spaced on it's own chain so that they are 30 seconds apart from eachother respectively, there would be six descending for every one ascending. The ascending one would be also charging an amount of energy back into the battery just by it's weight hanging on the chain. As far as a prototype is concerned, I don't have one because at present I lack the resources to put seven PMDs together. I hope to be able to some day. An unfortunate thing has happened in that the Squidoo site I had this information published on has fallen to corporate pressure and pulled my lens. Since it was out for over three years this is probable not serious for the design. If it is authentic it will take off, if not, it won't, but with six PMDs charging into the battery, and only one drawing out, how could this not work? Russ
You have no prototype. The "overt" reason doesn't matter. I've made prototypes of moving-- and not moving-- devices out of cardboard and tape, for example, or in software which costs nothing but time. Your "resources" depend only on your ingenuity.
This "could not work" because it violates Conservation of Energy, and in addition.... I think your mechanical conception is impossible. "Six descending for every one ascending" with seven units? In some kind of looping cycle? I don't think so, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your description.
Use a simple motion simulator like Phun / Algodoo to put together an animated sketch of this system and see if you can even make it move like you think it will. If you can at least do that much on your own, then you might be able to generate some interest from builders with skills and "resources".
Interesting comment. Having another matter consuming all of my current resources and time at present I have none for this future project. I will attempt another explanation of this mechanism. One PMD generator unit consists of the PMD, the chain and main sprockets, the transmission, and the generator. This all generates energy into the battery. The example I gave was with 7 PMD units. If the descend time for the PMD is 3 minutes, and the ascend time is 30 seconds, there are six 30 second periods in the 3 minute descend time. One PMD unit at each 30 second position, and one at the bottom (to begin it's ascending) equals 7 PMD units. When the bottom one reaches the top in 30 seconds, the next PMD unit has reached the bottom to begin ascending. In this scenario there will always be 6 PMD units on the decending/generating side of their individual cycles, and one on it's ascending side of it's cycle. Fairly simple to understand. If there is continually a situation where 6 full charges are entering the battery, and only one full charge being drawn out of the battery, 6-1= 5 full charges of energy being stored in the battery in excess of the needs for the functioning of the whole sytem. Cardboard or not.? Visualize seven PMD units in a row having each of their cables running to the same common battery. All of the individual PMDs charging into the same battery. I cannot explain the functioning of this mechanism more simply than this. Russell Lee
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 24, 2013, 11:21:39 AM
You have no prototype. The "overt" reason doesn't matter. I've made prototypes of moving-- and not moving-- devices out of cardboard and tape, for example, or in software which costs nothing but time. Your "resources" depend only on your ingenuity.
This "could not work" because it violates Conservation of Energy, and in addition.... I think your mechanical conception is impossible. "Six descending for every one ascending" with seven units? In some kind of looping cycle? I don't think so, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your description.
Use a simple motion simulator like Phun / Algodoo to put together an animated sketch of this system and see if you can even make it move like you think it will. If you can at least do that much on your own, then you might be able to generate some interest from builders with skills and "resources".
I am sure you cannot. But can you do what I suggested, and simulate it in a simple physics simulator?
You really should try this. It costs you nothing but your time, you will have a powerful aid when you try to explain your system to... whomever... and who knows.... you just might learn something.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 28, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
I am sure you cannot. But can you do what I suggested, and simulate it in a simple physics simulator?
You really should try this. It costs you nothing but your time, you will have a powerful aid when you try to explain your system to... whomever... and who knows.... you just might learn something.
Take TK's advice, it is very liberating. I remember I had this buoyancy puzzle that had me stumped for months. It also had some respected scientists puzzled. It was not until Zero did a test, and a few weeks latter I built a proof of concept that we realized why I was such a dumb ass.
Something basic and simple principles had escaped us all. Although sad it was over , the mystery was solved and I learned a lot along the way.
That is why i has so much respect for TK, Zero and many others who build and test. Experience is invaluable.
Kind Regards
Due to squidoo.com taking this technology off of their site I had to republish it at the following address: open-source-energy.org section: open source forums. Thanks -Russ
Quote from: Russell Lee on October 04, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
www.open-source-energy.org (http://www.open-source-energy.org) section: open source forums This generator produces at least seven times the energy than it needs to run.
Thank you, Russell Lee
There are two kinds of people in the world, those that contribute, and those that comment on the contributions of others. I have been blessed to contribute two free energy generator designs (Pinwheel Generator, Power Multiplier Device), and the Grow-Live Tower that is a greenhousing structure that houses and feeds it's inhabitants. Together they both would end world hunger, provide free energy to the world, end famine, reduce global disease by 85% due to improved living conditions, etc.. I don't really listen to professional comment people. They say a lot but actually contribute little. This design of the PMD is too simple not to understand. Too obvious in it's excess energy production to need extra measures. Most have no problem with this, few do. Comment people will always have problems with the designs of others, that is why they comment so much, it is their existence. Russ
Quote from: markdansie on May 29, 2013, 12:24:41 AM
Take TK's advice, it is very liberating. I remember I had this buoyancy puzzle that had me stumped for months. It also had some respected scientists puzzled. It was not until Zero did a test, and a few weeks latter I built a proof of concept that we realized why I was such a dumb ass.
Something basic and simple principles had escaped us all. Although sad it was over , the mystery was solved and I learned a lot along the way.
That is why i has so much respect for TK, Zero and many others who build and test. Experience is invaluable.
Kind Regards
@Russell Lee
I would like to read more about your idea. Can you provide a link to the specific forum topic or give me the name. I looked around but didn't really see anything that fit what you and webby1 were saying.
Thanks
Quote from: Russell Lee on May 28, 2013, 10:52:08 AM
Interesting comment. Having another matter consuming all of my current resources and time at present I have none for this future project. I will attempt another explanation of this mechanism. One PMD generator unit consists of the PMD, the chain and main sprockets, the transmission, and the generator. This all generates energy into the battery. The example I gave was with 7 PMD units. If the descend time for the PMD is 3 minutes, and the ascend time is 30 seconds, there are six 30 second periods in the 3 minute descend time. One PMD unit at each 30 second position, and one at the bottom (to begin it's ascending) equals 7 PMD units. When the bottom one reaches the top in 30 seconds, the next PMD unit has reached the bottom to begin ascending. In this scenario there will always be 6 PMD units on the decending/generating side of their individual cycles, and one on it's ascending side of it's cycle. Fairly simple to understand. If there is continually a situation where 6 full charges are entering the battery, and only one full charge being drawn out of the battery, 6-1= 5 full charges of energy being stored in the battery in excess of the needs for the functioning of the whole sytem. Cardboard or not.? Visualize seven PMD units in a row having each of their cables running to the same common battery. All of the individual PMDs charging into the same battery. I cannot explain the functioning of this mechanism more simply than this. Russell Lee
I find it astonishing that anyone could look at such a concept and come to the conclusion that it has any possibility of generating energy. It should be intuitively obvious that the cyclic movement of masses in a gravitational field results in zero net energy production.
To the specifics of this machine, while the 6 generators are descending they would certainly be able to convert enough gravitational potential energy to electrical energy to allow one generator to be lifted back to the starting position. If you stop the analysis there then you might be fooled into thinking it is feasible and that this process could be made to run continuously.
In fact, if the energy losses in the generation and consumption of electrical energy were small it might be able to cycle for quite a while. Eventually, it will stop once those losses equal the energy given to the device at the start, such as having a pre-charged battery or having all the generators at the top.
Dear Russell
I am sad you believed you have contributed to two free energy machines. Your ambitions are noble but unfortunately there is not evidence to support your claim. i wish you all the best in your endevour.
Kind Regards
I have challenged anyone to, by using engineering principles, prove that either the Pinwheel Generator, or the Power Multiplier Device are not authentic free energy generators. Thus far there have only been egg throwers targeting me and not the designs. They cannot challenge the designs so they throw eggs at me.
You cannot show me where the PMD design is flawed so you attack me. You cannot show me where the Pinwheel Generator design is flawed so you attack me. There are many that believe they qualify as design engineers simply because they have seen every Star Trek movie ever made-they don't.
If you have sound reasoning for believing either design is flawed I would like to hear it, that is what this website is about-information exchange, but you don't.
Both are authentic free (excess) energy generators, if they weren't there would have been a valid challenge agains't the Pinwheel Generator in the decade since it's release, or the PMD in the months it has been out. You cannot challenge these designs because they are valid. You can only throw eggs.
This is the challenge to ALL-AGAIN-SHOW ME THE REASON WHY THESE DESIGNS ARE INVALID-OR GO BACK TO STAR TREK FANTASY LAND WHERE YOU BELONG.
"There is not evidence to support your claim", GREAT! Why not? What has not been thoroughly explained over and over? Where is the grey area? What is it about these simple designs that is too difficult to understand? Enough eggs, explain your challange to these designs, as an engineer would, or be quiet. Russell Lee
Quote from: markdansie on July 04, 2013, 09:15:11 AM
Dear Russell
I am sad you believed you have contributed to two free energy machines. Your ambitions are noble but unfortunately there is not evidence to support your claim. i wish you all the best in your endevour.
Kind Regards
Webby, I appreciate you comments. As the PMD ascends it is consuming more energy, every second, it ascends, than one of the descending PMDs is generating, every second,as it descends. Keep in mind that, during every second this system is operating, there are six charges being generated into the battery, as the one draws energy out of the battery. It draws out more than one descender puts in at any one second of time it is ascending, but not more than the energy two descenders are putting into the battery. Three descenders are putting in more energy than the one ascender is drawing out. It is like six small streams flowing into a common river bed. An irrigation ditch is pulling out of the common river an amount of water that is greater than the amount of water one of the streams is putting in. Maybe even greater than what two are contributing. Even if it is equal to three of the streams, there are still three other streams worth of water passing the irrigation ditch for free use. It is about continuous energy generation. It is the same with the PMD system. Even if the ascending PMD, as it ascends, is consuming all of the energy three of the descending PMDs are putting into the battery (which it wouldn't be), there are still three descending PMDs, in this continually running system, charging into the battery above the energy needs of the ascending PMD. You could say the three are running the one, with three left over-extra-everything is running all the time. -Russ
Quote from: webby1 on July 03, 2013, 04:11:56 PM
Russel Lee,
This is as a builder,, and I am not a professional,, just ask those on this forum who are :)
What I know from building, is that if I want something to go up 6 times faster than it comes down I must supply 6 times the input for 1\6 the time,, but if you are climbing a medium that is moving down then that would be 6 times plus the rate of the medium.
Your idea has merit,, but if it worked it would not prove practical in a commercial sense,, cost to output to life to maintenance etc,,,
Quote from: Russell Lee on July 08, 2013, 12:18:30 PM
As the PMD ascends it is consuming more energy, every second, it ascends, than one of the descending PMDs is generating, every second,as it descends.
...Keep in mind that, during every second this system is operating, there are six charges being generated into the battery, as the one draws energy out of the battery...
...It draws out more than one descender puts in at any one second of time it is ascending, but not more than the energy two descenders are putting into the battery...
...Three descenders are putting in more energy than the one ascender is drawing out.... It is like six small streams flowing into a common river bed...
...Maybe even greater than what two are contributing. Even if it is equal to three of the streams, there are still three other streams worth of water passing the irrigation ditch for free use...
Rather than guessing how many descending generators are required to lift the ascending generator
(you don't seem to be sure if it is two or three or perhaps more), why not calculate it exactly?
If you do, you will find that this device does not work.
I challenge you to refute the analysis given below that shows this to be so.
To make it easy to visualise consider evenly spaced generators connected to a belt or chain that travels in a triangular path.
The vertical ascent is 1 metre. The slope length of the incline is 6 metres.
1 generator is ascending 6 are descending.
In this arrangement generators would also need to be travelling horizontally back to the ascent point but since those are neither descending or ascending they neither generate nor consume energy (assuming no losses) and we can eliminate them from the analysis.
For convenience lets assume a generator weighs 10 kg and it ascends 1 metres vertically in one second.
On the descent we have 6 identical generators travelling the 6 metre slope length. A bit of trigonometry tells us the angle of the descent is 9.59 degrees.
To allow the machine to operate steadily without 'bunching up' the descending generators
must also the descend the ramp with a forward speed 1 meter per second.
The energy required to lift a single generator is mass * accel. due to gravity * distance => mgh => 10 kg * 9.81 * 1m = 98.1 Nm or equivalently 98.1 joules.
it does this in one second thus the average POWER required to lift a single generator is 98.1 joules / second or 98.1 watts.
This input power requirement neglects any friction and the conversion efficiency of the electrical energy to movement.
The descending generators need to generate at least that amount of power for the machine to operate (plus enough to offset and frictional and generating losses.)
What is the force due to gravity exerted on a generator that can be used to generate power while it descends?
If it were coming down vertically all of it's weight could be used. If travelling horizontally none the weight could be used to generate power.
From trigonometry we know that the component of force available to be used for power generation in the direction of travel will equal the mass * accel due gravity * sin(angle of descent)
that being 10 kg * 9.81 * sin(9.59) = 16.34 Newton.
It is travelling at 1 metre per second. Since power is the product of force * velocity, the maximum power generated by a single generator is 16.34 watts. There are six of them on descent, so 16.34 * 6 = 98.1 watts.
Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator.
The net power available that could be used to power an external load? 98.1 - 98.1 = 0 watts output.
Of course, All of the above analysis is more complex than it needs to be. We really need only consider the vertical components of any forces and distances travelled.
In that simplification m.g.h (up) == m.g.h (down) and the net energy generated = zero, but I thought I'd labour the point.
Now Mr Lee. Your job is to find fault in the above analysis. If you cannot, you will have to conclude that your machine cannot possibly work as you claim,
good luck.. Your time starts now.
LibreEnergia/LibreCuba, Yikes! I think you may not understand how this generator system works. First of all, when I said that there were seven PMD generators in the system, I meant that there are seven INDIVIDUAL PMD generators in the system. Each is running independently, on their own, not connected to the others; all generating energy into the common battery, and drawing energy out for their descent stages. When I said they would be 30 seconds apart from each other, I meant that the first would be at the top/beginning of it's cycle, the second would be at the position on IT'S OWN chain at the point where it would have already descended for 30 seconds, the third on it's own chain at the one minute mark, 4th/1.5 minute mark, 5th/2 minute, 6th/2.5, seventh/3.0- at the end of it's descent cycle and beginning it's ascent on it's own chain. So there are seven independently functioning PMD generators generating into, and drawing out of a common battery. The only thing they have common with each other is that their cables all run to the same battery bank. The seven PMDs are not all on the same chain. The statement that was made: "Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator." is correct and is the case. Each independent PMD IS generating it's own full charge into the battery. As one is ascending and drawing energy out of the battery, the other six are descending and charging into that same battery their respective six charges at the same time. Six full charges going in, and the ascending amount of energy being drawn out. The energy needed for the ascent is certainly more that one PMD descent charge, less than two full PMD charges, not in any way equal to three full PMD descent charges. Even if it were equal to three full PMD charges, there would still be the other three PMDs charging into the common battery whose energy would be in excess of what the system needs in order to function. Keeping in mind that this is all happening at the same time, all six descent charges entering the battery while the ascent energy is drawn out, the flow of energy (if you would) going into the battery would be greater than the flow being drawn out. This is all about continuous energy generation. If the amount of energy the ascending PMD uses in just ten seconds during it's ascending is less than the amount of energy the six independently functioning PMDs are putting into the battery during this same ten second period, there is a net gain in energy.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on July 08, 2013, 11:51:02 PM
Rather than guessing how many descending generators are required to lift the ascending generator
(you don't seem to be sure if it is two or three or perhaps more), why not calculate it exactly?
If you do, you will find that this device does not work.
I challenge you to refute the analysis given below that shows this to be so.
To make it easy to visualise consider evenly spaced generators connected to a belt or chain that travels in a triangular path.
The vertical ascent is 1 metre. The slope length of the incline is 6 metres.
1 generator is ascending 6 are descending.
In this arrangement generators would also need to be travelling horizontally back to the ascent point but since those are neither descending or ascending they neither generate nor consume energy (assuming no losses) and we can eliminate them from the analysis.
For convenience lets assume a generator weighs 10 kg and it ascends 1 metres vertically in one second.
On the descent we have 6 identical generators travelling the 6 metre slope length. A bit of trigonometry tells us the angle of the descent is 9.59 degrees.
To allow the machine to operate steadily without 'bunching up' the descending generators
must also the descend the ramp with a forward speed 1 meter per second.
The energy required to lift a single generator is mass * accel. due to gravity * distance => mgh => 10 kg * 9.81 * 1m = 98.1 Nm or equivalently 98.1 joules.
it does this in one second thus the average POWER required to lift a single generator is 98.1 joules / second or 98.1 watts.
This input power requirement neglects any friction and the conversion efficiency of the electrical energy to movement.
The descending generators need to generate at least that amount of power for the machine to operate (plus enough to offset and frictional and generating losses.)
What is the force due to gravity exerted on a generator that can be used to generate power while it descends?
If it were coming down vertically all of it's weight could be used. If travelling horizontally none the weight could be used to generate power.
From trigonometry we know that the component of force available to be used for power generation in the direction of travel will equal the mass * accel due gravity * sin(angle of descent)
that being 10 kg * 9.81 * sin(9.59) = 16.34 Newton.
It is travelling at 1 metre per second. Since power is the product of force * velocity, the maximum power generated by a single generator is 16.34 watts. There are six of them on descent, so 16.34 * 6 = 98.1 watts.
Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator.
The net power available that could be used to power an external load? 98.1 - 98.1 = 0 watts output.
Of course, All of the above analysis is more complex than it needs to be. We really need only consider the vertical components of any forces and distances travelled.
In that simplification m.g.h (up) == m.g.h (down) and the net energy generated = zero, but I thought I'd labour the point.
Now Mr Lee. Your job is to find fault in the above analysis. If you cannot, you will have to conclude that your machine cannot possibly work as you claim,
good luck.. Your time starts now.
Quote from: Russell Lee on July 11, 2013, 04:35:35 PM
Yikes! I think you may not understand how this generator system works. First of all, when I said that there were seven PMD generators in the system, I meant that there are seven INDIVIDUAL PMD generators in the system. Each is running independently, on their own, not connected to the others; all generating energy into the common battery, and drawing energy out for their descent stages. When I said they would be 30 seconds apart from each other, I meant that the first would be at the top/beginning of it's cycle, the second would be at the position on IT'S OWN chain at the point where it would have already descended for 30 seconds, the third on it's own chain at the one minute mark, 4th/1.5 minute mark, 5th/2 minute, 6th/2.5, seventh/3.0- at the end of it's descent cycle and beginning it's ascent on it's own chain. So there are seven independently functioning PMD generators generating into, and drawing out of a common battery. The only thing they have common with each other is that their cables all run to the same battery bank. The seven PMDs are not all on the same chain. The statement that was made: "Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator." is correct and is the case. Each independent PMD IS generating it's own full charge into the battery. As one is ascending and drawing energy out of the battery, the other six are descending and charging into that same battery their respective six charges at the same time. Six full charges going in, and the ascending amount of energy being drawn out. The energy needed for the ascent is certainly more that one PMD descent charge, less than two full PMD charges, not in any way equal to three full PMD descent charges. Even if it were equal to three full PMD charges, there would still be the other three PMDs charging into the common battery whose energy would be in excess of what the system needs in order to function. Keeping in mind that this is all happening at the same time, all six descent charges entering the battery while the ascent energy is drawn out, the flow of energy (if you would) going into the battery would be greater than the flow being drawn out. This is all about continuous energy generation. If the amount of energy the ascending PMD uses in just ten seconds during it's ascending is less than the amount of energy the six independently functioning PMDs are putting into the battery during this same ten second period, there is a net gain in energy.
Each generator only generates enough change to return ITSELF back to the starting point...
There is no excess energy to draw off. You try to confuse matters by implying the timing of when these independent generators descend is somehow important to creating an excess of charge. It is not.
You seem to be employing the same 'creative accounting' that Wayne Travis uses to conjure up an apparent energy excess when in reality there is none.
No. Because of the entropy factor, each generator DOES NOT generate enough charge to return itself back to the starting point. You have thrown out misdirection/confusion rhetoric to cover your lack of having an authentic challenge with "implying the timing of when these independent generators descend is 'somehow' important to creating an excess of charge." It isn't 'important, it is the KEY to the generation of free energy-this is why you focused your attack on this single point. It's like saying "You act as though the spinal chord has an important role in how we use our hands!" This is how petro-minions identify themselves, slight-of-hand, misdirection methods of operating. Your first sentence was wrong, your reasoning was fallacious-You're busted!
I'm finished with dispersing the PMD system design into the diaspora, what happens with it happens, it's time to turn the page and leave the internet (and it's minions) in the past.-Peace out.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on July 11, 2013, 08:26:18 PM
Each generator only generates enough change to return ITSELF back to the starting point...
There is no excess energy to draw off. You try to confuse matters by implying the timing of when these independent generators descend is somehow important to creating an excess of charge. It is not.
You seem to be employing the same 'creative accounting' that Wayne Travis uses to conjure up an apparent energy excess when in reality there is none.
Quote from: Russell Lee on July 15, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
No. Because of the entropy factor, each generator DOES NOT generate enough charge to return itself back to the starting point. You have thrown out misdirection/confusion rhetoric to cover your lack of having an authentic challenge with "implying the timing of when these independent generators descend is 'somehow' important to creating an excess of charge." It isn't 'important, it is the KEY to the generation of free energy-this is why you focused your attack on this single point. It's like saying "You act as though the spinal chord has an important role in how we use our hands!" This is how petro-minions identify themselves, slight-of-hand, misdirection methods of operating. Your first sentence was wrong, your reasoning was fallacious-You're busted!
I'm finished with dispersing the PMD system design into the diaspora, what happens with it happens, it's time to turn the page and leave the internet (and it's minions) in the past.-Peace out.
Ok, lets rephrase that so even an someone as confused about physics as you appear to be can understand it.
"Neglecting losses due to friction or generation efficiency, (which as you point out result in an increase in entropy), each generator can AT BEST generate enough charge in the battery to return ITSELF to the starting position.
Would you agree or disagree? If you don't agree to that statement then there is no point in continuing to analyse why this device does not work.
add to it : "if there is no energy flow from outside" ::)
Last entry:
Each generator cannot generate enough energy to get itself back to the top due to entropy variables. That is why there is available an outside energy source input in the form of the other six PMDs charging into the battery at the same time. With the one rising there needs to be at least two descending to provide all the energy the one rising needs to climb back to the top-all of the time it is climbing. When there are always six PMDs descending, there will always be more than enough energy flowing into the battery to provide for the one ascending. With six always descending, and one always ascending, there will always be an excess amount of energy produced, above what the system needs to function. Adios.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on July 15, 2013, 06:08:31 PM
Ok, lets rephrase that so even an someone as confused about physics as you appear to be can understand it.
"Neglecting losses due to friction or generation efficiency, (which as you point out result in an increase in entropy), each generator can AT BEST generate enough charge in the battery to return ITSELF to the starting position.
Would you agree or disagree? If you don't agree to that statement then there is no point in continuing to analyse why this device does not work.
Quote from: Russell Lee on July 18, 2013, 11:37:29 AM
Last entry:
Each generator cannot generate enough energy to get itself back to the top due to entropy variables. That is why there is available an outside energy source input in the form of the other six PMDs charging into the battery at the same time. With the one rising there needs to be at least two descending to provide all the energy the one rising needs to climb back to the top-all of the time it is climbing. When there are always six PMDs descending, there will always be more than enough energy flowing into the battery to provide for the one ascending. With six always descending, and one always ascending, there will always be an excess amount of energy produced, above what the system needs to function. Adios.
I'd think that by now that even the most amateur of mathematicians has all they need to show why this does not work.
Using you own admission that 2 generators are required to return one to the top, Consider the following scenario.
6 generators at the top, one at the bottom. Two generators descend, one ascends. Net result 5 generators at the top, 2 at the bottom.
Then two generators descend 1 ascends. Net result 4 generators at the top , 3 at the bottom.
Then two generators descend , 1 ascends. Net result 3 generators at the top 4 at the bottom.
Before you know it all the generators are at the bottom there is no excess change in he battery to send any of them back to the top.
If you think otherwise then you are completely deluded.