I came up with a thought experiment that (I hope) proves free energy.
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
Looking forward to your feedback!
Best wishes for 2022!
I have created a pdf file of the "Promethean Thought Experiment" web page for off-line reading (please see attached file). :) 8)
Some views and downloads, but unfortunately nobody wants comment. :(
I really think it is far more efficient to drive the rotor of generator at its circumference than via its axis.
Please watch this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nQ1P-YIZ5o ) of a steam train on a turntable. It weighs over a 100 tons. Do you think two guys can spin this train via an axis?
After you seen the video than please read the attached pdf file or visit the web page.> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
Its kind of fascinating to see such a large and heavy object
moved by a just few people.
There are three aspects there which make this possible.
Low friction because of use of the rolling of wheels and ball bearings.
Balancing the weight of the locomotive engine and coal car upon the
turntable.
Leverage.
Leverage allows us to trade off distance for force. The engineers don't
need to push as hard as they would if they were more near to the center of
the trains rotation. They instead push with less force but over the course of
a longer distance. Less force greater distance or a greater force and less
distance. Either way requires the same amount of energy.
Even though the turn table uses rolling bearings and wheels, with so much
weight upon it, the friction present is still a very large amount. Even several
human bodies could not push with enough force to turn the train if the leverage
distance was very close to the center of the rotation. They might need to apply
force for only a few inches or feet of distance around a circle, but the force needed
would be too great for three people to apply.
No extra energy becomes available through the use of leverage.
Thank you Floor for your feedback.
I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is situated at the edge. This is also also applies to the Prometheus Generator.Did you read the pdf file or visit the web page?
If you didn't, than please do so and let me know what think of my thought experiment. It is very much appreciated!
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
Quote from: IggyZ on January 17, 2022, 02:47:06 PM
I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is situated at the edge.
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
There are differing meanings to the word efficient.
In terms of science and energy the word efficient, means getting the same
result, by expending less energy than would be expended in some other
way of getting that same result.
It could also mean expending less time.
It is not leverage making something more efficient.
This is just one way (a very common way) to do something which is
often more practice able. Neither is situating most of the weight at the
edge "more efficient".
I looked at one of the pdf files. It, like your posting in general,
seems to indicate that you do not know a lot of the basics of which
you are speaking. Much of what you have said doesn't make sense
in terms of the words you are using. I do not mean, simply that they
do not make sense to me. I mean that they do not make sense /
are incorrect usages of the words / are wrong assumptions on your
part.
Thanks again Floor.
Please be more specific. Which assumptions and why are they wrong?
For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?
The power flow diagram of generator (attached file) shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted into electrical power. Is this not correct? For instance, if the mechanical input power of a generator is 1000 watt, than how much of that input power is lost to overcome eddy current loss?
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
Your reply began with
"I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its
circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is
situated at the edge. "
You state "I've been told".
How is this a basis for any understanding at all.
It's not, that is how.
What the $%&* does "powering some thing at it's circumference is more efficient mean" ?
It is just about a nonsequitur of a statement.
Yes I have seen the drawing and the wheels are at the edge.
Think about this.
Although the locomotive is generally thought of as a device which moves along a
track in more or less a linear manner, do you think it would be more efficient if it were
running around in circles because the track was laid out in a circle instead ?
After all, half of the drive wheels would then be at the circumference.
Then run a string from the center (front to rear) of the locomotive, to a pole
at the center of the circular track. Consider this arrangement to be one single
device (it is), as if the locomotive were bound to the pole by the string being tied
loosely around that pole.
Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now become more efficient ?
I don't.
Is that not, what you mean by being powered at its circumference ?
Think man, think !
We all some times get a kind of tunnel vision. It happens.
There are lots of people here, who work with "gravity powered" ideas, rotational / inertia
ideas and so on. I myself at times experiment along those lines. If nothing else, we
may learn some new things. We may even find a more efficient way or even a free energy
device. So don't get me wrong. Lets Keep on looking / studying.
Thank you Floor.
Please be so kind to answer the two questions I put to you in my previous tweet. I really appreciate it!
Question 1 :
For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?
Question 2:
The power flow diagram of generator (attached file) shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted into electrical power. Is this not correct? For instance, if the mechanical input power of a generator is 1000 watt, than how much of that input power is lost to overcome eddy current loss?
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
1. A waste of time but, 25 watts is also enough to acclerate 140 tons
to a speed of 200km/h.
2. Also a waste of time.
My question was "Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now
become more efficient ?"
done
Judging by your answer to question 1 you seem to agree a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 145 tons electric train a speed of 45 kmh - 145 kmh. So it needs / consumes 1.600 KW.
The generator's rotor needs to travel at 45 kmh (measured at its edge) in order to generate 10 MW (10.000 KW). If the rotor can be powered in the way as depicted in fig. 3, 4, 5, 6 (web page or attached pdf file) and give the rotor a speed of 45 kmh while consuming 1.600 KW of power, it would be possible to generate 8.400 KW (10.000 KW - 1.600 KW) of excess energy. Providing overcoming eddy currents, hysteresis etc. doesn't need 8.400 KW or more power.
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
So the second question is important. How much of the mechanical input power is needed to overcome eddy currents, hysteresis etc.? The power-flow diagram shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted to electric power. If that is correct, than generating excess energy in the manner as described in the thought experiment should be possible.
P.S.
If a train travels at a speed of 45 kmh, it travels a distance of 45 km in an one hour. As picture 3 and 4 show all the wheels would be on the rail. (This and the above should also answer your question).
Thx Floor for your feedback and time. I am sorry if you think it was a waste of time.
Your reply began with
"I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its
circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is
situated at the edge. "
You state "I've been told".
How is this a basis for any understanding at all.
It's not, that is how.
What the $%&* does "powering some thing at it's circumference is more efficient mean" ?
It is just about a nonsequitur of a statement.
Yes I have seen the drawing and the wheels are at the edge.
Think about this.
Although the locomotive is generally thought of as a device which moves along a
track in more or less a linear manner, do you think it would be more efficient if it were
running around in circles because the track was laid out in a circle instead ?
After all, half of the drive wheels would then be at the circumference.
Then run a string from the center (front to rear) of the locomotive, to a pole
at the center of the circular track. Consider this arrangement to be one single
device (it is), as if the locomotive were bound to the pole by the string being tied
loosely around that pole.
Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now become more efficient ?
I don't.
Is that not, what you mean by being powered at its circumference ?
Think man, think !
We all some times get a kind of tunnel vision. It happens.
There are lots of people here, who work with "gravity powered" ideas, rotational / inertia
ideas and so on. I myself at times experiment along those lines. If nothing else, we
may learn some new things. We may even find a more efficient way or even a free energy
device. So don't get me wrong. Lets Keep on looking / studying.
You don't answer questions, why then do expect another to answer
yours ?
The words and phrases you use do not mean what you
apparently think they mean.
The result is like the old expression "comparing apples to oranges"
... ... ... ... ... ...
Why do refer to energy density at all ?
What is your point / goal here. Efficiency or energy density or hits on your web site ?
What ?
... ... ... ...
It is impolite not to answer / acknowledge questions, yet
you then feign politeness in saying "thank you" or "I'm sorry".
In so doing, you come across as phony / disingenuous / BSing.
Just cut to the chaser.
Thanks Floor.
You already admitted a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watts per kg (1.600 KW) is enough to drive a 140 tons train at 45 kmh. In doing so you answered your own questions.
If 1.600 KW is enough to drive a 140 tons train at 45 kmh it should also be enough energy to drive a rotor of the same weight as depicted in fig. 3 to 6 in the thought experiment. If the power-flow-diagram is correct, most the mechanical input is converted to electric power. Ergo, generating excess energy is plausible and very likely possible.
I really do not understand why you, or any other member who has read the web page or pdf file, won't flat out say it is not possible. :(
Quote from: IggyZ on January 18, 2022, 02:18:45 PM
Question 1 :
For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h
Even a very small amount of energy transfer per second, can cause the acceleration of a very large mass to a very high speed, if that transfer continues to occur for a long enough period of time.
In the case of a locomotive and cars, wind resistance would eventually become the limiting factor.
This is because wind resistance increases when the speed of the train increases. The resistance to acceleration against the inertia of a mass is a different kind of consideration. In theory, one can tow a battle ship until is moving very fast (in deep space) by the tug of a thread, if one is patient enough / has enough time to wait.
Quote from: IggyZ on January 18, 2022, 02:18:45 PM
than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?
One could buildup and store energy in the fly wheel. This can be useful. On might then
release that energy gradually, or, as some kind of burst of energy. When the energy is released
as a burst / a large amount at once, this it seems, often confuses experimenters into thinking
more energy has come out of the fly wheel than was put into it. This confusion it seems is
especially common when these burst occur repetitively as is some times the case in resonating
electromagnetic events.
More to the point here. If for simplicity, we for the time being ignore friction and some other
kinds of losses, we can look directly at the energy and power transferred or expended in
an electric generator as its conversion to motion via an electric motor.
If an electric generator is able to spin freely, in order to accelerate it, one is only working
against the inertia of the generators rotor. If an electric generator is able to spin freely,
this is because there is no electrical load upon it (i.e.no electric motor being driven).
One can eventually give it a very high speed of rotation, given that there is no electrical
load upon it (ignoring friction and so on for now).
The power to weight ratio comes into consideration really, only with the considerations of
1. how rapidly accelerations can occur
i.e. Does one wish to spend a month of time accelerating a train?
and
2. when going up hill.
OK ?
Quote from: Floor on January 20, 2022, 10:50:59 AM
Even a very small amount of energy transfer per second, can cause the acceleration of a very large mass to a very high speed, if that transfer continues to occur for a long enough period of time.
In the case of a locomotive and cars, wind resistance would eventually become the limiting factor.
This is because wind resistance increases when the speed of the train increases. The resistance to acceleration against the inertia of a mass is a different kind of consideration. In theory, one can tow a battle ship until is moving very fast (in deep space) by the tug of a thread, if one is patient enough / has enough time to wait.
One could buildup and store energy in the fly wheel. This can be useful. On might then
release that energy gradually, or, as some kind of burst of energy. When the energy is released
as a burst / a large amount at once, this it seems, often confuses experimenters into thinking
more energy has come out of the fly wheel than was put into it. This confusion it seems is
especially common when these burst occur repetitively as is some times the case in resonating
electromagnetic events.
More to the point here. If for simplicity, we for the time being ignore friction and some other
kinds of losses, we can look directly at the energy and power transferred or expended in
an electric generator as its conversion to motion via an electric motor.
If an electric generator is able to spin freely, in order to accelerate it, one is only working
against the inertia of the generators rotor. If an electric generator is able to spin freely,
this is because there is no electrical load upon it (i.e.no electric motor being driven).
One can eventually give it a very high speed of rotation, given that there is no electrical
load upon it (ignoring friction and so on for now).
The power to weight ratio comes into consideration really, only with the considerations of
1. how rapidly accelerations can occur
i.e. Does one wish to spend a month of time accelerating a train?
and
2. when going up hill.
OK ?
Thanks.
OK? Yes and no...
If I understand you correctly, you are saying a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg (1.600 KW) is enough to give a 140 tons rotor of a generator a speed of 45 kmh, providing there is no electric load on the generator? Correct?
Don't forces like eddy currents and hysteresis occur simply because the magnetic field of the spinning rotor interacts with the stator of the generator? Isn't this always the case whether or not there is an electric load on the generator?
Quote from: IggyZ on January 20, 2022, 02:29:03 PM
If I understand you correctly, you are saying a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg (1.600 KW) is enough to give a 140 tons rotor of a generator a speed of 45 kmh, providing there is no electric load on the generator? Correct?
Yes and no. Power to weight ratio is not part of the equation except that / unless
the power source is on board.
Quote from: IggyZ on January 20, 2022, 02:29:03 PM
Don't forces like eddy currents and hysteresis occur simply because the magnetic field of the spinning rotor interacts with the stator of the generator? Isn't this always the case whether or not there is an electric load on the generator?
Only when the generator is of a type which uses permanent magnets.
But then also...
I was speaking in terms of excluding all "losses" friction, eddy currents and hysteresis,
" magnetic cogging", kinetic energy's converion into unproductive vibrations, others.
Quote from: Floor on January 20, 2022, 03:20:56 PM
Yes and no. Power to weight ratio is not part of the equation except that / unless
the power source is on board.
Only when the generator is of a type which uses permanent magnets.
But then also...
I was speaking in terms of excluding all "losses" friction, eddy currents and hysteresis,
" magnetic cogging", kinetic energy's converion into unproductive vibrations, others.
Thx Floor.
Why is the power-to-weight ratio not part of the equation except that / unless it is on-board the train?
The generator's rotor I use in my thought experiment uses permanent magnets.
The generator's stator in my thought experiment is iron-less = no cogging.
Friction and vibrations are mechanical losses. Aren't eddy currents and hysteresis losses core, copper or stray losses?
It looks like all the losses you list are all covered by the power flow diagram and the fact I use a permanent magnet generator with an iron-less core in my thought experiment. Thus most of the mechanical input power should be converted into electricity.
@ george1
It's like this
There are commonly two power to weight ratio considerations that are looked at
in this arena (energy and efficiency wise).
1. Energy or power density, as in how much do the electric batteries in an electric
vehicle weigh compared to the number of amp or watt hours they can deliver on
a single charge. The power source is on board.
2. One seeks the rapid acceleration of, for example a fast automobile. In the U.S.
this is typically judged by the car's ability to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour in
some number of seconds. This is another kind of "efficiency".
The best of conventionally available electric generators are > 98% efficient at
converting mechanical power into electrical power.
All in all...
This is why I have said that your usage of terms does not make sense / is like
comparing apples to oranges. i.e. "power-to-weight ratio" in the context in which
you use the phrase.
P.S.
It remains that you have not responded to a single one of my questions and
that your topic is just more click bait.
or
Will you please ...
state simply, the basic premise of your "Promethean thought experiment" ?
Question...
Does a flat ended, rotating cylindrical disk with a total mass of 1 kg, while its outer
edge is rotating at a speed of 1 meter per second..
posses
as much kinetic energy as does that same object when not rotating, but which is
instead, moving in a straight line of travel, at a speed of 1 meter per second ?
Answer is no. When moving in a straight line all of the mass is moving at 1 meter per
second. When rotating, the mass of the object is distributed as moving at speeds of
from zero meters per second to 1 meter per second.
From its center (0m/s) to its edge (1m/s).
Is it not ?
Quote from: Floor on January 21, 2022, 06:20:14 AM
@ george1
It's like this
There are commonly two power to weight ratio considerations that are looked at
in this arena (energy and efficiency wise).
1. Energy or power density, as in how much do the electric batteries in an electric
vehicle weigh compared to the number of amp or watt hours they can deliver on
a single charge. The power source is on board.
2. One seeks the rapid acceleration of, for example a fast automobile. In the U.S.
this is typically judged by the car's ability to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour in
some number of seconds. This is another kind of "efficiency".
The best of conventionally available electric generators are > 98% efficient at
converting mechanical power into electrical power.
All in all...
This is why I have said that your usage of terms does not make sense / is like
comparing apples to oranges. i.e. "power-to-weight ratio" in the context in which
you use the phrase.
P.S.
It remains that you have not responded to a single one of my questions and
that your topic is just more click bait.
I think I now understand why you are confused by my use of the power-to-weight ratio term. Thanks. I am sorry it caused confusion. It is probably smarter to discuss this in terms of electricity consumption vs. electricity generation
You say:"
The best of conventionally available electric generators are > 98% efficient at converting mechanical power into electrical power". I guess it is fair to say the power flow diagram is correct.
Quote from: Floor on January 21, 2022, 09:28:28 AM
or
Will you please ...
state simply, the basic premise of your "Promethean thought experiment" ?
Question...
Does a flat ended, rotating cylindrical disk with a total mass of 1 kg, while its outer
edge is rotating at a speed of 1 meter per second..
posses
as much kinetic energy as does that same object when not rotating, but which is
instead, moving in a straight line of travel, at a speed of 1 meter per second ?
Answer is no. When moving in a straight line all of the mass is moving at 1 meter per
second. When rotating, the mass of the object is distributed as moving at speeds of
from zero meters per second to 1 meter per second.
From its center (0m/s) to its edge (1m/s).
Is it not ?
I do not know if you are correct since I can't do the math to prove whether you are right or not. Also the disk is attached to an axis. If it would break away from its axis its kinetic energy might be the same as that of the mass moving in a straight line. Their mass is the same so I guess it depends on how much energy was needed to spin the disk and how much energy was needed to move the mass in a straight line.
Cool. I think of your idea / thought experiment as really, not too shabby at all.
Welcome to Overunity.com.
When a subject is of interest to me, I find it usually is not to much effort to pick up
/ learn, a little more math when the need comes along.
I find this is easier when I have something I want to apply the math to.
Keep learning and Keep exploring.
best wishes
Thank you Floor for your feedback and being willing to stick out your neck! Unfortunately this is rare. Best wishes to you.
I guess it is fair to say it is more than plausible the Prometheus Generator is capable of generating excess energy.
It is possible to drive a 140 tons rotor at a speed of ~ 45 kmh (measured at its edge) using 1600 KW of electricity and most of the mechanical input power is converted to electricity (please see attached picture).
@Iggyz
I guess I'll stick my neck out here again.
Here is a 90 page text (part 1). It was written by a non expert for non experts.
It explains and gives definitions for some basic physics concepts.
It contains very little math, some simple math and also explains the math it does contain.
Some basics of the following.
energy
inertial frame of reference
speed
velocity
gravity
force
acceleration
the forces of acceleration
constant acceleration
acceleration by gravity
inertia
momentum
mass
weight
mass compared to weight
the newton of force
mechanical work
the joule of energy
aspect ratio
time
power
It is called "Magnets Motion and Measurement" PDF and is attached below.
I hope you will find it useful.
best wishes
floor
@Floor.
Looks very interesting.
I have no doubt the pdf file ("Magnets Motion and Measurement") attached to your post will be very useful indeed!
Thanks!
Seen on the Internet:"The maximum output electrical power of a generator is equal to the maximum input mechanical times the generator efficiency. Typically for a commercial generator, that is in the order of 95%. So 1 kW of mechanical input power yields 0,95 kW of electrical output power."
Is this the correct wat to calculate the efficiency of a generator?
If it is not correct I would very much appreciate the correct formula with an example and explanation a lay person can understand.
Quote from: IggyZ on September 03, 2022, 06:17:20 AM
Seen on the Internet:"The maximum output electrical power of a generator is equal to the maximum input mechanical times the generator efficiency. Typically for a commercial generator, that is in the order of 95%. So 1 kW of mechanical input power yields 0,95 kW of electrical output power."
Is this the correct wat to calculate the efficiency of a generator?
If it is not correct I would very much appreciate the correct formula with an example and explanation a lay person can understand.
Hi IggyZ,
Efficiency of a power conversion device is defined as useful power output divided by total power input times 100%.
So if your generator delivers 0.95kW output of real power electrical using 1.0kW of mechanical power input, then it is 95% efficient at that operating point. Fact. By definition. That operating point may, or may not be maximum power. That depends on the actual machine design. Generators can, and do, operate at various loads, or operating points. Typically the generator nameplate will state its rated load, which is seldom its maximum power output. The generator can operate at no-load, partial load, full (or rated) load, overload, or maximum power output load. Efficiency is typically different for every operating point. Decent generator design will have peak efficiency normally somewhat less than full rated load, but efficiency at rated load will be close to max efficiency. Efficiency at maximum power output is typically well below maximum efficiency.
Hope that helps.
bi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sENgdSF8ppA&t=1s
This is the reason all the multi-coil OU generators here don't actually create OU. It is also the reason your large radius rotor will not. When your magnet creates voltage and current in your generator, the equvalent force is transferred to the magnet. What you do to the back-emf also affects the magnet.
Electrical current x voltage is power. Power in - frictions -inefficiency = power out.
Even so, I would love to see your generator..
Thank you bistander, it really was helpful.
Thank you Tarsier_79 the video was helpful.
Due to cash flow problems the Prometheus Generator web site is gone, but it is archived at
https://web.archive.org/web/20201101032855/http://www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html
I wonder if it would more efficient to build the Prometheus Generator without an axis (please see attached picture).
Virtual all the weight would be situated at the edge, so spinning it should be easier.
It seems to work for this revolving platform ->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RXrlbHe66Q
I also wonder if it is possible to use carbon fibre for the rotor instead of steel. Carbon fibre is 5 times lighter than steel, so less energy is needed to spin the rotor. Is it possible?
I guess it is no surprise for you guys but I still find a bit hard to understand how much of the energy consumed by e.g. a gas turbine is lost due to eddy currents.
Question: Suppose a gas turbine needs 30.000kW of fuel in order to spin the rotor of a generator at 3.600 rpm. The generator has an efficiency of 90%. Please see fig. 1
How fast will the generator's rotor spin when there is no stator and therefor there are no eddy currents? Please see fig. 2.
My guess: The energy input is the same (30.000 kW) and the generator's efficiency is 90%. So the rotor will spin at 3.600 rpm + 360 rpm = 3.960 rpm. Is this correct?