# Optimise battery life- different tech.



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Ah lutec, akin to magnamotors and the like.

My comment is that you will never get more energy than is put into a system, however as some of the patents below show, sometimes environmental factors coupled with a high efficiency system can get you a little more.

http://www.aircaraccess.com/download.htm <-more likely

Tesla has many times refered to the fact that there is energy all around us, too bad there is no good way to use it.

Something that does appear to be real are some of the back emf motor controllers, there have been those who question if the 7XXwatts needed for an electric horsepower is accurate, most consider it blasphemy to suggest but there have been many individuals over the years who have claimed that 1hp of electric power can be made on a little more than 200watts if the field collapse is collected.

Until I see someone provide proof I can see and test I remain skeptacle but hopefull.

Something else that appears to be very promising is air powered cars, the ambiant heat combined with a multistage finned pneumatic motors can indeed put out a little more than they should from the heat in ambiant air, too bad my country has little interest in air powered vehicles.

Good Luck, Only Time Will Tell


----------



## Zemmo (Sep 13, 2007)

What those look like is the perendev magnetic motors. You can do a search on those on youtube and find several of them out there. The power isn't being created, it is just being transferred from stored energy of magnetism to electrical. From my understanding is that the constant push and pull on the magenets will wear them out and they will eventually become unmagnified. They won't last for every, the magnetic field dies off. But none of those things is anything new, those have been around for years.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

Air powered cars, when you say air cars I think of something flying.

Ait power isnt anything new and you can convert the more older fashioned engines to it quite simply, from the link the pictures just show and old motobike engines that have had the heads taken off and the squish changed and a inlet put there as well, personally, there is still mush of the ICE that makes them a lot rubbish -esp this example- turbines are proberly better, the corkscrew type. a reasonable small sized one woudl provide a good bit of power, larger ones become in efficent.

there is always the licker motor (flame vacume motor) or the sterling?

It would seem possible that you should be able to make a motor that was good enough to push a generator that could produce more than it was taking to run the motor.

But then, if you go take the cover off the PCI slot on your PC and a lenght of coper, drop it in a glass of water with some salt in it you will get a reading, youtube earth battery as you can do this with food, and trees.. so you could get yourself a lot of these and give you self a recharging station. may take a while though.

I had looked at that back-EMF on the magentic motors, some guy have quite a long video on googe about it, he was trying to say it put out more, as I listened to him, he clearly states that its only 80% efficent.. and I burst out laughing at the fool. but yes he did clearly show the BEMF was about equal, though it was slightly less than his input on the curve. I was sure if it was more amps and less volts or the other way around.

I bough some magenets for my 4 year old to try and work out how to get something from them, but she found it interesting how I could make them hop and skip around. maybe she will, shes a bit of a bright spark, so I though I would give her a early head start.

the power needed I would have thought that by now that the electric motor would have been built to drop off the back EMF so that they run smoother and therefore require less power? 
There me assumign that they have solved these simple issues!

here is something to make you a little more hopfull. bit big to fit in the truck of the car though - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vDeXTXYFKAY

Air powered actually isnt that great, if you change altitude, it would stop working as the desity changes bla bla as well as temp change.

One thing that I know of should work in producing energy and its know of linked to some of the work that Tesla was doing and a few others are doing but in different ways.. I will keep it under wraps until I get around to testing it out, or I get so bored of it going around that I get someone to do the testing for me. The downside of it is that it has killed a few people, so I dont exspect anyone to be jumping at the chance.
but at least its not as far fetched as over unity..


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

Zemmo said:


> What those look like is the perendev magnetic motors. You can do a search on those on youtube and find several of them out there. The power isn't being created, it is just being transferred from stored energy of magnetism to electrical. From my understanding is that the constant push and pull on the magenets will wear them out and they will eventually become unmagnified. They won't last for every, the magnetic field dies off. But none of those things is anything new, those have been around for years.


 
perendev motors are an actual commercial business, they have set up there motors in generators that they lease out for a big fee and then a yearly fee after so many years. the problem is that they cost so much to lease that they cost more that traditional methods, so pretty much pointless.
here is there website: http://www.perendev-power.com/
as you can see they are making EV's as well.

Magnets have a life span of around 400-500 years when used like a motor.
They dont use the pull on the motor only the push.
unless I read it a bit wrong. some guy built a model of one to see if it would work, and he has stated " its a good brake", but I only saw one half of the exteria being applied, maybe he had it wrong with the magenet set up as it would seem important that these type of things are build on a larger scale to actually function.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Air powered, hydrogen powered whatever. You can't get any simpler than electric power. You can make electricity out of anything you can make heat with ie Solar, petroleum, garbage, biodiesel, methane, wind etc.

The Israeli's are even embedding some type of piezo crystal or some exotic device in asphalt that generates voltage from the vibration of traffic and it has a lot of potential. 

I think the ultimate transportation is going to be electric motors with fuel cells for extended mileage, not the Chevy Volt concept with a gas engine for backup. Unnecessary complexity is something to be avoided!


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Gm spent millions back in the 1970s to perfect the Sterling engine for automotive use. See any being used?

Most of the mentioned systems are worthless, but fun to think about....


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

ElectriCar said:


> Air powered, hydrogen powered whatever. You can't get any simpler than electric power. You can make electricity out of anything you can make heat with ie Solar, petroleum, garbage, biodiesel, methane, wind etc.
> 
> The Israeli's are even embedding some type of piezo crystal or some exotic device in asphalt that generates voltage from the vibration of traffic and it has a lot of potential.
> 
> I think the ultimate transportation is going to be electric motors with fuel cells for extended mileage, not the Chevy Volt concept with a gas engine for backup. Unnecessary complexity is something to be avoided!


 
Israel has come up with a few things, I did watch the news report of their EV development which they feel will launch well there because the country is small and therefore peoples range is not really a concern.

Surely embedded road would be a heat exchanger type system as the roads would heat up more than they would vibrate.

I have no doubt that the electric motor is the motor of the future as it is simple and very applicable to the actual requirements. the on board generators on a all electric seem like a cross over point and with these serial hybrids they fall a little short.
The hydoxy fuel cells, which take the current, not burn the gas; seem to be a fairly good idea. It may be that for cars to move forward there needs to be a combination of technologies and applications to make them more viable to the wide range of uses.

I have been speaking with the guys at Lutec, who have stated that they are in the process of producing a commercial demonstration model producing 22.5KW. This information falls very short as it mentions NOTHING about the input, but with out the information it’s a little lost, If it weight is 2 tonnes then not very good! If it is around 20KG then its worth looking at. 
This as enough power to move a normal small EV car at around 60-70MPH without a range limit, other than that of the input current requirements, again that information is missing! So any math can’t be done.

If GM does any looking at anything, I believe that its for tax breaks only, - EV1 being a prime example... weather they learn anything is put down as somewhere they can make some money if they want to.. IMO


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

Kinda hard to think that the Piezo crystal thingie you mention is less complex than the Volt and it's gas engine electric. Odd to even think and it is still far less complex than having a hydrogen fuel cell. Those things work but only on a limited range and are quit complex. No better range than with a decent NiMh battery pack. As for all the new chatter about overunity or any thing resembeling it will not fly. You can not get more out than what you put in. You will always loose energy in the change. ALWAYS.

Some magnet motors do spin but but can do no work when a load is put on them. There is not enough power in the magnets to do that. I could put a teeny weeney about of load and maybe get a volt or two and some miliamps out but not enough to do any work. If I were to build one larger I could maybe get enough to run a small motor but the size of the magnet motor would be huge and far too large to even pull it's own weight so in that light the motor could still do no work. You must put power in and you will get work out but not as much as what you put in. 

Any AeroSpace Engineer knows that you can't get more out than you put in. 

I can make a 72 volt battery by putting in series 72 oranges and connecting them together. It would work for a short time but would soon die. Not too practical for an EV. It would however smell good and it would be recycleable. I just don't have enough oranges or time to keep replenishing these kind of batteries. Power from the trees seems nice but again it does not work. Hook them in series and you get nothing. They all share the same ground and you will only have like just under a volt or just over a volt. Depends upon how wet the ground is. You can put them in series. Oh well. 

Ad for those magic boxes on youtube! get real. Parlor tricks to get you to believe and send money. Mmmmm, seems like we just heard from someone trying to do that. 


Pete : )




ElectriCar said:


> Air powered, hydrogen powered whatever. You can't get any simpler than electric power. You can make electricity out of anything you can make heat with ie Solar, petroleum, garbage, biodiesel, methane, wind etc.
> 
> The Israeli's are even embedding some type of piezo crystal or some exotic device in asphalt that generates voltage from the vibration of traffic and it has a lot of potential.
> 
> I think the ultimate transportation is going to be electric motors with fuel cells for extended mileage, not the Chevy Volt concept with a gas engine for backup. Unnecessary complexity is something to be avoided!


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

The over unity thing is interesting. It's supposed to be that somehow they're getting energy of some type from the air. I've not really read into it. It's on the same plane as ghosts and goblins to me so I decided if there's anything to it, it will come out.

There's a couple of guys in Australia on you tube who have a motor they claim they're going to market soon for commercial use. We'll just have to see if it's a scam or not. My nose says it's sheista!


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

Your nose speaks correctly. They all have a motor *claimed* to be *building* *SOON* for *commercial* use. Yea! when hell freezes over.

I is also a couple guys in Australia too. Always in a BOX or a BOX is involved in the sham.

Energy from the air! HA! maybe enough to move a ghost mobile. You decided? There was never any thing to it ever. It will never come out.




ElectriCar said:


> The over unity thing is interesting. It's supposed to be that somehow they're getting energy of some type from the air. I've not really read into it. It's on the same plane as ghosts and goblins to me so I decided if there's anything to it, it will come out.
> 
> There's a couple of guys in Australia on you tube who have a motor they claim they're going to market soon for commercial use. We'll just have to see if it's a scam or not. My nose says it's sheista!


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

Rocket scientist, right?? oh, aerospace engineer......  



GTWCMT said:


> One of the things that I have always been interested in is the overunity thing and there is loads of info about this on the internet. Now I know that most of you will say its impossible, but is it? you proberly look at it in as put nothing in and get something out, well thats impossible isnt it. well look at Draic's theory. its change a whole lot of things now.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the subject.
> 
> ...


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

I think someone is poking fun.. hey Im not saying they are real, Im just playing with the possiblity and yes I dont know that you dont get something for nothing. 
as for pulling energyy out of the air, well that can be done and is documented and is a basic atomic knowledge.

I feel that I should give reference to this as just syaing that leave it a little open for fun poking, and well I will still let you be the judge of whats presented.

one of the first things you should know is that electricity is from the electron thats in the atom, therefore every atom and cell has electrons and tranfering or breaking the atom from one of atoms is how we have electrical power, the flow of electrons bla bla, this is how batteries work.

As everything has atoms, including 'air' which consists of aprox: 21% oxygen, .004% Carbon dioxide, 1% water vapour (hytrogen), and Nitrogen and 0.9% argon, sulfer dioxide,carbon monoxide,nitrogen oxides,chlorofluorocarbon,methane,volatile hydrocarbons.

So, in the carbon element there are 4 electrons
a Di oxide (3 oxygen atoms) would have 18 electrons. and so one, just pick up the atomic chart, so all these things can give you your current. so to the answer can you get electricity from thin air, the answer is yes. 

here is part of one of the documents that I wrote, in it you can see that the Dr's name is missing and as luck would have it, I cant find my reference to it. This device aparently worked and was checked by a few scientists at the time and certified as correct and real. the patent was refused on the bases that he couldnt put dont where the energy was coming form and when others applied their patent was rejected becuase is closly matched this patant which was never issues.. ( dont ask me I dont know 25th hand information so how accureate its unknown)

Dr **** who made a device which consisted of an antenna cold cathodes and produced 40,000 watts of energy from ‘thin air’ which was claimed to harness the atoms of space and everything to provide the power that was independently measured and proven in the early 1900’s.

You will have to find the full artical as its wrote up on the wiki with drawing made at the time and more info than I remember.
Then you may wish to search out what Tesla did with Pierce-Arrow and George Westinghouse in 1931 which is a quite similar and notibly relates to EV's at the factory grounds in Buffalo.

I know there are plently of cons and Im am not in anyway helping with these scams that have apreared, but a long time ago, some one said the world was flat and that we would fly rockets to the moon, but we did.. and if many people have claims ( notiable people, not joe blogs in basment land) then isnt it would looking into?


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

Bust the first sentence down and you will get your answer. What the frick is an "antenna cold cathode". 40,000 watts! How absurd. Why even entertain the thought or idea. I am aware you can pull a few milliamps worth of power from a copper wire strung across the land but in no way can you harness 40,000 watts worth of power from an antenna pointed at the sky. I suppose he has a box covering his device so no one will steal his "INVENTION" that will revolutionize the world. 

We don't really need a science lesson on electrons and atoms. But since you bring up the subject many materials don't give up an electron so easy as to pass along an electron from one atom to another until you have the energy at your device for use. Copper happens to do this quite well as does silver. Other metals do but not as well. Atoms within the air don't pass electrons so well.

NOPE it is total bunk and you bought it enough to entertain the thought and enough to even think we might need to know this wonderful information. Well we have all heard of it and new folks keep pumping it in without doing their homework first. Time to go back to school. 

Pete : )


> Dr **** who made a device which consisted of an antenna cold cathodes and produced 40,000 watts of energy from ‘thin air’ which was claimed to harness the atoms of space and everything to provide the power that was independently measured and proven in the early 1900’s.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

You absolutely sure of that? What is used to harness that electron movement? Copper Wire Strung across the field? If so then what you have is electrons flowing within the copper wire just because of the nature of copper. It gives one electron to another so easy that electrons just flow around and if you put a meter on each end you will see current and voltage. Not much but you will. That does not mean you pulled it from the air. You think you did. You may get some extra due to static charges built up and yes there is static build up from air moving around. Lightning bolts come to mind. That is more like a capacitor and not useful energy for our needs. At lest not yet. 

Time for more schooling.

Pete : )



> So to the answer can you get electricity from thin air, the answer is yes.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

back to school prehaps so, as aprently part of this theory has now been taken as science fact, but then im refereing to Draic's hole theory
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-nvd/
They are aprently teaching this in the uni's


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

In order to create electricity, you have to be able to strip electrons from atoms. Electricity is composed of electrons. To strip electrons the atom ideally must have one electron in it's outer valence shell. This makes it easier to strip the electrons as they are being lightly held in place. Otherwise to strip them takes a tremendous amount of energy. Those atoms with tightly held electrons are called insulators, ie glass, porcelain, wood, rubber etc. 

I don't think making electricity from oxygen, nitrogen or other gasses in the atmosphere is possible. As I understand it, it could have to do with the mass of the Earth and it's rotation. Scientist have proposed wires tethered to earth and an object in orbit which would generate electricity as the wire is moving through space with the earths rotation. 

I'm not sure of the surface speed of the earth's rotation at the surface but on the other end of the wire in space, it's really hauling the mail!


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

ElectriCar said:


> In order to create electricity, you have to be able to strip electrons from atoms. Electricity if composed of electrons. To strip electrons the atom ideally must have one electron in it's outer valence shell. This makes it easier to strip the electrons as they are being lightly held in place. Otherwise to strip them takes a tremendous amount of energy. Those atoms with tightly held electrons are called insulators, ie glass, porcelain, wood, rubber etc.
> 
> I don't think making electricity from oxygen, nitrogen or other gasses in the atmosphere is possible. As I understand it, it could have to do with the mass of the Earth and it's rotation. Scientist have proposed wires tethered to earth and an object in orbit which would generate electricity as the wire is moving through space with the earths rotation.
> 
> I'm not sure of the surface speed of the earth's rotation at the surface but on the other end of the wire in space, it's really hauling the mail!


I didnt mean directly from the air, I did put the structure there because as we all know fuel cells run from hytrogen, which is in the air, and carbon being a part in the battery etc. so techincally yes, preactically no, not with out a whole load of processes, but there there is always lightening and 200 storms at any given time, if as said they are more like capasitors; how are they charged and why can't we have some?

Oddly the earth rotates about 24,000 miles per hour giving that it turns once every 24 hours

This might sound a little silly, but the earth has a changing magnetic feild/sheild around it, this changes based on the flares from the sun and where you are on the planet, therefore is a moving electric feild. Isnt that just how generators work?
stands to be that if you pass a wire that you would capture the power or at least generate a current


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Man, why are some of you coming down so hard on this guy? No need to bash his brains out. You don't know for sure what's going on, only what you've read and what he's read so give it a rest. 

Lets keep it positive or we'll shut down ideas from coming forth for fear of being burned at the stake. There's absolutely no good coming from bashing someone in my opinion for commenting about something they read about. 

If everyone jumped on people like that there would be little development to surface. Let it go and if it materializes so be it. If it's bunk, it'll never be at Wal-Mart so why be so concerned???


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

ElectriCar said:


> Man, why are some of you coming down so hard on this guy? No need to bash his brains out. You don't know for sure what's going on, only what you've read and what he's read so give it a rest.
> 
> Lets keep it positive or we'll shut down ideas from coming forth for fear of being burned at the stake. There's absolutely no good coming from bashing someone in my opinion for commenting about something they read about.
> 
> If everyone jumped on people like that there would be little development to surface. Let it go and if it materializes so be it. If it's bunk, it'll never be at Wal-Mart so why be so concerned???


Thanks but there is always someone that says things cant be done. but as I always say there is no such thing as cant. improbable yeah. But its things like this that make people think, after all, there hasnt been a big jump in great inventions in a very long time and prehaps people have gone to sleep sat watching their TV instead of exsploring these things and coming up with something from them.

remember that some one said that RV are impractical and how many people are proving them wrong now? its all hindsight and something that are beyond the scope of todays science may not be tomorrow. Mr Tesla was who invented the AC motor also said man would go into sapce and people said AC currents were not safe.. so look how things have changed and how ideas, no matter how far fetched have become a reality - Si-Fi's anti matter, thats been created to name but one.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

GTWCMT said:


> back to school prehaps so, as aprently part of this theory has now been taken as science fact, but then im refereing to Draic's hole theory
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-nvd/
> They are aprently teaching this in the uni's


His name is Dirac... Paul Dirac, and while he may have shared the winning of the Nobel prize for discovering the positron... his hole theory remains just that... a theory. A hole consisting completely of negatively charged electrons does not equate to creating electricity from the "thin air".


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

I think that you missed the point there. but never mind, refer to the first instance when it broke the laws of physics and people said it was not possible and couldnt be done.
also then take your rule of cant make something from nothing and then his nothing. the take the laws of physics apply it and then look at the energy to equalise.

I may be wrong, but thats the law of physics as I understand it. equal, oposite and transfer


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

GTWCMT said:


> Thanks but there is always someone that says things cant be done. but as I always say there is no such thing as cant. improbable yeah. But its things like this that make people think, after all, there hasnt been a big jump in great inventions in a very long time and prehaps people have gone to sleep sat watching their TV instead of exsploring these things and coming up with something from them.
> 
> remember that some one said that RV are impractical and how many people are proving them wrong now? its all hindsight and something that are beyond the scope of todays science may not be tomorrow. Mr Tesla was who invented the AC motor also said man would go into sapce and people said AC currents were not safe.. so look how things have changed and how ideas, no matter how far fetched have become a reality - Si-Fi's anti matter, thats been created to name but one.


Well think about it this way. It's how I look at far fetched ideas, with an open mind. Had you told a guy who had never heard of an airplane back in the 60's that someone was building a machine that would carry hundreds of tons of steel, weighed 420 tons including fuel and could haul it through the air at 500+ MPH, he would have laughed his arse off at you and told everyone he knew! But it was true, and here it is! 

The US Air Force C5 Galaxy Cargo Plane
*Features* 
The C-5 is one of the largest aircraft in the world and the largest airlifter in the Air Force inventory. The C-5 can carry more than any other airlifter. It has the ability to carry 36 standard pallets and up to 81 troops simultaneously. The Galaxy also carries all of the Army's air-transportable combat equipment, including such bulky items as its 74-ton mobile scissors bridge from the United States to any theater of combat on the globe. It can also carry outsize and oversize cargo intercontinental ranges and can take off or land in relatively short distances. Ground crews are able to load and off-load the C-5 simultaneously at the front and rear cargo openings, reducing cargo transfer times. Other features of the C-5 are: 

Able to operate on runways 6,000 feet long (1,829 meters)
Five landing gear totaling 28 wheels to distribute the weight.
Nose and aft doors that open the full width and height of the cargo compartment to permit faster and easier loading.
A "kneeling" landing gear system that permits lowering of the parked aircraft so the cargo floor is at truck-bed height or to facilitate vehicle loading and unloading.
Full width drive-on ramps at each end for loading double rows of vehicles.
A system that records and analyzes information and detects malfunctions in more than 800 test points.
 The C-5 has the distinctive high T-tail, 25-degree wing sweep, and four TF39 turbofan engines mounted on pylons beneath the wings. These engines are rated at 43,000 pounds of thrust each, and weigh 7,900 pounds (3,555 kilograms) each. They have an air intake diameter of more than 8.5 feet (2.6 meters). Each engine pod is nearly 27 feet long (8.2 meters).

The Galaxy has 12 internal wing tanks with a total capacity of 51,150 gallons (194,370 liters) of fuel -- enough to fill 6 1/2 regular size railroad tank cars. A full fuel load weighs 332,500 pounds (150,820 kilograms). A C-5 with a cargo load of 270,000 pounds (122,472 kilograms) can fly 2,150 nautical miles, offload, and fly to a second base 500 nautical miles away from the original destination -- all without aerial refueling. With aerial refueling, the aircraft's range is limited only by crew endurance.

*General Characteristics
**Primary Function:* Outsize cargo transport
*Prime Contractor:* Lockheed-Georgia Co.
*Power Plant:* Four General Electric TF-39 engines 
*Thrust:* 43,000 pounds, each engine
*Wingspan:* 222.9 feet (67.89 meters)
*Length:* 247.1 feet (75.3 meters)
*Height:* 65.1 feet (19.84 meters)
*Cargo Compartment:* height , 13.5 feet (4.11 meters); width, 19 feet (5.79 meters); length, 143 feet, 9 in (43.8 meters)
*Pallet Positions:* 36
*Maximum Cargo:* 270,000 pounds (122,472 kilograms)
*Maximum Takeoff Weight:* 769,000 pounds (348,818 kilograms) (peacetime), 840,000 pounds (381,024 kilograms) (wartime)
*Speed:* 518 mph (.77 Mach)
*Range:* 6,320 nautical miles without air refueling; unlimited with in-flight refueling
*Crew:* 7 (pilot, co-pilot, two flight engineers and three loadmasters)
*Unit Cost:* *C-5A* - $152.8 million (fiscal 1998 constant dollars) *C-5B* - $179 million (fiscal 1998 constant dollars)
*Deployed:* *C-5A* - 1969,* C-5B* - 1980

NEVER say it can't be done, however unlikely it may seem...


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2009)

All done within the LAWS of PHYSICS. HANDS DOWN. Same reason why a full Oil Tanker does not sink. It is so damn heavy there is no way it can float. : )

Equal and opposite and you can change from one form of energy to another but you always come out less usable energy after a transfer from one to another. If you add up all the energy and where it all went then yes you still have an equal amount. Remember much of the transfer is lost to heat. Not all of that can be harnessed. We never get more than put in and all we can do is to make one process as efficient as possible. But lets say we want to use one form of energy in our car but it is not practical but the source is abundant like coal. How do we make that form of energy usable in an automobile. Well we could burn the coal to boil water and use the resulting steam to drive an engine to move the car. That would work. Not too efficient but it takes one form of energy and makes it useful. So any amount of usable energy we get is good in that we converted from one form to another that is more useful. We could be more efficient but we will always loose much to heat. Heat in the direct change of energy from coal to fire to steam and much lost to heat from friction and lost heat from pumping steam through an engine. That is what we do with energy. We take water and damn it up and drive it through turbines but there is losses there too. More efficient than coal being burned and used to drive turbines. But still there is losses. On and On and On and On.

Around goes the process of energy transfer from one form to another. Simple physics and it can't be broken. We however may find a large source of energy we can harness but I guarantee it will be at a loss and never a gain. A gain would be overunity and it is impossible. It has been proven and there is no one here who is against finding useful sources of energy we can use. We do have open minds. The problem is many want us to believe we can break the laws of physics. It won't happen. It may see like it can but it won't. Can't nada no how no way never. A better more efficient way to harness is what we need and not some quackery crap.

Pete : )





ElectriCar said:


> Well think about it this way. It's how I look at far fetched ideas, with an open mind. Had you told a guy who had never heard of an airplane back in the 60's that someone was building a machine that would carry hundreds of tons of steel, weighed 420 tons including fuel and could haul it through the air at 500+ MPH, he would have laughed his arse off at you and told everyone he knew! But it was true, and here it is!
> 
> The US Air Force C5 Galaxy Cargo Plane
> *Features*
> ...


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

We only speak of what we don't know, in terms of what we do.

Having an opened mind is a wonderful gift, one I hope we can all share at times. 

I'm not sure that this is the correct forum for speculation on quantum physics. People here want to build electric cars and/or learn from others who have related experiences. 

BTW, Electriccar...thank you for the info on the C5. Wow, really is amazing isn't it?


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

Hey everybody *Overunity Works* when dealing with other peoples money. 

With a good scam you can get back 2 or more times of whatever you put into it with no real effort. 

Watch out for anyone who tries to help you spend your money "Wisely". If you look closely you'll probably find his hand in your pocket.

Jim


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

Jimdear2 said:


> Hey everybody *Overunity Works* when dealing with other peoples money.
> 
> With a good scam you can get back 2 or more times of whatever you put into it with no real effort.


LOL So there is such a thing then.. LOL..



> A better more efficient way to harness is what we need and not some quackery crap.


well is that the point of these unity systems? I always thought there normally produce tiny bit of energy but they are efficent! 

if you say about losses on transfers, what about the waterfalls that drive turbines? you can get something with out having to put something actually into it, so youre harnising, so what about harnessing something else.
if we could then we dont have to worry about batteries so much and the weights and problems that they can cause.

if you want something usful, then photovoltaic, and there is a paint thats aparently 40% better.. something to paint your car in - dont know what colours, there is also atomic batteries like the tritium battery which fall into the betavoltaics, you dont charge them and they last about 10-20 years. but then youre not putting anything in, so they dont exsist in 'your' world. Nasa didnt develope then for the imaginary space rocket in the 1950's and 60s
Nasa doesnt have a linked system with a fuel cell to recharge there system and it is offered under licence.

The Optoelectric battery seems lightm and up to the job of powering an EV; it is said to be comparable to an air-breathing engine with fuel tanks!!


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2009)

Waterfalls release energy as the water flows. We actually don't make use of waterfalls but we do make damns and make our own controlled water fall. Still we are taking one form of energy and converting it to another that is usable by us. That is not over unity. It is still more energy in than out. Same with oil and any other item we burn. Solar is no different. Yes we are harnessing energy and converting it to make it useful for us. It still is not over unity or more for less. Radioactive isotopes are again harnessed and we make use of the energy available. We still don't get to use all the energy available. These things are our world. What is not is quackery that says we can power an electric motor attached to our cars and be able to go at least 45 mph with only 24 volts. Take that 24 volts and put the power through a secret box to come up with 100 volts to power the car. Yea! Right. 

I am fully aware of what we harness with minimal input and what we actually change with large amount of input to make useful power. Nuke, Oil, Coal, Solar, Wind, Hydro and Electric are all good sources of power. It just takes more energy in than is extracted for use. Nukes usually use that radioactivity to boil water to make steam to spin the turbines to make electricity. That is quite wasteful but it is what we have. We have made it pretty efficient but there are still losses. 

Pete : )


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

Gottdi.....don't waste YOUR energy on this UNDER unity abberation....
It aint worth it buddy.......


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

Snake Oil salesmen, Con men and Priests. They all want to give you something for nothing.

All you have to do is support them while the give you nothing for something.

I'm still waiting for the hook. The more you respond to this clown, the closer he gets to putting his hand in your pocket.

Jim


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Jimdear2 said:


> Snake Oil salesmen, Con men and Priests. They all want to give you something for nothing.
> 
> All you have to do is support them while the give you nothing for something.
> 
> ...


And don't leave out the babbling idiots.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2009)

Yea! It is kind of a loss of energy aint it! More out than in. Well I is keeping with the laws. : )




DIYguy said:


> Gottdi.....don't waste YOUR energy on this UNDER unity abberation....
> It aint worth it buddy.......


----------

