# Perpetual Motion (Generator on Motor, Wind Powered)



## Electra (Sep 28, 2009)

What a great explanation! Our club just finished showing our EVs at the local Sustainable Living Expo and I really needed a good answer to that question. I can't believe the number of people that ask that question.

Your explanation is perfect. Thank you.


----------



## Ellrot (May 17, 2010)

Excuse me if I seem ignorant, I'm new to this

Couldn't you just use a wind generator to just charge the batteries whilst moving, to simply give a slightly longer range.

Paired with solar panels, could that make a small difference, surely every little helps...


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Ellrot said:


> Excuse me if I seem ignorant, I'm new to this
> 
> Couldn't you just use a wind generator to just charge the batteries whilst moving, to simply give a slightly longer range.
> 
> Paired with solar panels, could that make a small difference, surely every little helps...


Nope the extra drag created by the fan blades will use more energy than the turbine can produce thus giving a shorter range.


----------



## Ellrot (May 17, 2010)

I'm not trying to argue with your logic, but has anyone tried this? I'd like to see the test results


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Ellrot said:


> I'm not trying to argue with your logic


Well it is not logic, it is physics law of Thermal Dynamics and Conservation of Energy. What it implies is above unity gain which is impossible. I do not know if anyone here has tried it or not, but I can tell you there are people who have tried, and will even sell you a book telling you how to do it. It is called a SCAM like HHO and Water-4-Gas.

As for solar panels has some merit, but debatable whether it is worth it or not. Solar panel efficiency ranges from 5% on the low end for lightweight flexible film, up to 20% for heavy rigid mono crystalline panels. That means for a 5% panel you can generate up to 50 watts/meter square at solar noon, up to 200 watts/meter square. Depending on where you live and time of year with 2 square meters of surface area you can generate anywhere from 75 watt hours per day on the low end up to 1200 watt hours on the high end. With a 400 wh/mile battery to wheel efficiency translates to 1/4 mile up to 3 miles extended range per day. IMHO not worth the added expense and extra weight.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

Ellrot said:


> I'm not trying to argue with your logic, but has anyone tried this? I'd like to see the test results


You can break the law, but you can't break the laws of physics.

There is no way that putting a generator, let's say it's about 80% efficient, into the wind stream is going to net you anything better than a 20% loss. The truth of the matter though is that the blades turning that generator aren't 100% efficient either, so the loss number will be even greater.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Ellrot said:


> I'm not trying to argue with your logic, but has anyone tried this? I'd like to see the test results


Sure did here it is...........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc&feature=PlayList&p=CF38388E6BF9FFC1&playnext=1&index=4


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

There's to many variables in all of the statements. The amount of power solar panels could generate is dependant on your location....parking position, direction of travel,etc.

The use of wind generators not working is not entirely 100% correct either, it is correct that they increase drag, however consider the existing drag already there from your current radiator. You could utilize a pm gen there, this will NOT generate 100% and make your vehicle perpetual, however it will increase the overall efficiency a small fraction, by reclaiming energy already lost. This isn't saying slap a 10 KW turbine there, you would be looking at more along the times of 1kw at the absolute most, anything over that I believe would increase the drag to much creating an inefficiency as stated originally. 

If you want to improve efficiency, look into thermoelectric modules ( like the ones in coolers ) these only generate about 10% (if memory serves) there capacity. A typical module should generate about 3 - 5 watts, giving you about 30ish per square foot, = 90 - 150 watts per square foot. These require temperatures of the extreme, therefor you would need to utilize the wasted energy from the EM. Waste on these is roughly 10 - 15%? somebody correct me if I'm wrong here. Figure out the waste @ 10% of a say 20HP ( 15KW ish ) motor, your recovery not counting any losses from thermal transfer would only by 1.5KW. So you could theoretically bump your efficiency up 10% or 20% by recovering energy, not to mention regenerative breaking,etc.

Also, the rating of 400W/mile isn't 100% accurate either, Each vehicle weighing much differently, etc will have different ratings. Lightweight body panels would help a little, however do you really want to get into an accident with fiberglass panels....lol, i sure dont. 

Just my thaughts
Clarence


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

hmm, how about making a giant wheel and attach it to the moon with a really, really long pipe. When the moon goes around the Earth, the wheel rolls and generates free electricity!!! 

Ok in all seriousness, do not pursue that idea shown in the video link above. It's flawed from the start. You cannot get more energy out of your car than you put in. Sure, you can park your wind-farm-mobile facing the wind on a beach and charge your battery pack in a couple of days or roll it down a 45 deg incline and get a few watts back. But otherwise, it doesn't work. The drag created by the fan blades consume more energy than they generate.

BTW, the same goes for adding an alternator to your EV expecting to "recover" power. The alternator idea is great if you think of it as a DC-DC converter alternative. You probably already have an alternator in your donor car, it's relative efficient, it's already hooked up to your 12V system and it just needs to be driven. But it will always create more drag than generate power.

JR


----------



## Ellrot (May 17, 2010)

Jason Lattimer said:


> Sure did here it is...........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc&feature=PlayList&p=CF38388E6BF9FFC1&playnext=1&index=4


I'm not one for using this term too often, but "massive LOLs", it looks ridiculous....

Are there any test results....


----------



## Ellrot (May 17, 2010)

Beyonder said:


> There's to many variables in all of the statements. The amount of power solar panels could generate is dependant on your location....parking position, direction of travel,etc.
> 
> The use of wind generators not working is not entirely 100% correct either, it is correct that they increase drag, however consider the existing drag already there from your current radiator. You could utilize a pm gen there, this will NOT generate 100% and make your vehicle perpetual, however it will increase the overall efficiency a small fraction, by reclaiming energy already lost. This isn't saying slap a 10 KW turbine there, you would be looking at more along the times of 1kw at the absolute most, anything over that I believe would increase the drag to much creating an inefficiency as stated originally.
> 
> ...


Good points!! I've started reading about thermoelectric modules, one question comes to mind, if you're using the modules to generate current from the heat produced by the motor, how well will it aid cooling? can it cool just as well when generating current??


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Ellrot said:


> I'm not one for using this term too often, but "massive LOLs", it looks ridiculous....
> 
> Are there any test results....


Conveniently no.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

Wasn't there a wind system that "pulled" toward the wind? I am almost positive there are wind systems that pull into the wind such a system would make wind power viable, although if memory serves they would only operate at very slow speeds 

Not perpetual motion but you could move slowly into a headwind with no ev power used. (assuming your car is aero enough)


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

rmay635703 said:


> Wasn't there a wind system that "pulled" toward the wind? I am almost positive there are wind systems that pull into the wind such a system would make wind power viable, although if memory serves they would only operate at very slow speeds
> 
> Not perpetual motion but you could move slowly into a headwind with no ev power used. (assuming your car is aero enough)


Only if you intend to put a sail on your car. Otherwise your wasting your time.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. Hmmm, this is reaching far into it....but yes, I suppose you can mount a windmill type of device on your car and drive a shaft with wind power. Just like a windmill, it can rotate towards the wind to move you in any direction. 

Your car will be very long and wide to withstand the wind pressure and move very slowly to be able to overcome the gyro effect of the rotating blades. But really, we're in mad scientist hamster powered contraption territory here and obviously not practical.

Solar power is also not viable with current technology levels. Even using the newly MIT discovered solar cell "paint" that you could apply to your car surface, there just isn't enough current to make a significant dent in a typical EV need.

JR


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

Ellrot : They're heat pumps, As far as i know they should move the heat. One side has to be cooled ( we're talking about temps a few hundred degree's difference ) Not as unrealistic as it may sound when you consider how hot the motor is compared to the hood of your vehicle ( windchill factored it at a given speed ).

Rmay : If you were to use a system like that I'm assuming your thinking of a windmill mounted on top of the vehicle? Dont forget that your creating a wind on its own when moving...also it would be illegal.

JR : Solar isn't viable to power your vehicle 100%. However, the point i was trying to make was 100% self generated shouldn't be the goal. Energy recovery and increased efficiency should be the goal. That being said, solar may in fact be a viable option for some, since most here aren't planning to drive there EV 100 KM or more a day, a small car or truck could hold a square meter easily of panels, if they were left charging in optimum light locations, they could charge 8KW a day ( optimum light being the answer here ) a small vehicle is around what....250 watts per km? or 400 watts/mile on the average? 8KW would give you a 20 mile or 32 Km run? Obviously for a person going to school, etc spending 4 000.00 or more for those panels would more than likely be out of the question, however in a very small vehicle....sprint...metro...accent,etc 1 or 2 panels would under optimal lighting give you 10 or 15km range per day. For a school vehicle or one to goto work and back ( unless you lived in a large city and drove an hour to work ) would be viable. Its really dependent on design of the vehicle whether its viable or not. However every little bit helps....


----------



## SPARKY (Aug 15, 2008)

I think that the Swampland that I bought in Florida, can be useful for Cattails, Algae, or Sumpin'. Overunity, Huh? Hmm...


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

SPARKY said:


> I think that the Swampland that I bought in Florida, can be useful for Cattails, Algae, or Sumpin'. Overunity, Huh? Hmm...




I don't follow what your getting at...


----------



## SPARKY (Aug 15, 2008)

Hey, It was Humor, but a lot of very talanted and concerned folks did reply in very convincing and serious ways.
The Cattails and Algae are Real, for Alcohol Fuel and Biodfuel.
I drive a 30 yr Old EV that was built on the 100th Aniversary of the Electric Car in the US. that means 130 years of Electric Cars here in the US.
Take That Oil.
Sparky


----------



## denizen (Apr 2, 2011)

Permanent magnet gen turned by an attachment with a bigger diameter than the gen: powered by perm mags and iron yokes to prevent locking. To say perpetual motion/free energy is impossible please explain how the earth stays in continual rotation and I thought physics teaches that something stays in motion until effected by outside forces e.g. friction. But if you have an iron yoke powered gen that is of a bigger diameter than the gen itself then I see no reason why a perpetual vehicle can't be possible. If you say no, then you obviously haven't opened up your mind or whatever. Heck, Edison and Tesla's professor of electrical engineering laughed at his AC current motors and poly phase. I rest my case.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

denizen said:


> ......................................... But if you have an iron yoke powered gen that is of a bigger diameter than the gen itself then I see no reason why a perpetual vehicle can't be possible. If you say no, then you obviously haven't opened up your mind or whatever.....................................


Well then you, sir, can laugh in our faces when you are a VERY rich man from the profits of your generator sales.

Keith


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

denizen said:


> To say perpetual motion/free energy is impossible please explain how the earth stays in continual rotation and I thought physics teaches that something stays in motion until effected by outside forces e.g. friction.


The Earth isn't in perpetual motion, it only seems that way because humans who have thought about it have only been around for a tiny amount of time.
It is being slowed down by the external force of gravitational drag from the Sun. It is, therefore, slowing down and moving further away from the Sun. The Moon is also slowing the spin of the Earth and making the days longer. The Moon in turn is slowing in its orbit and moving away from the Earth.

This, however, has nothing to do with your proposal unless you put it in a vacuum, use 100% friction free bearings, sheild it from gravity including its own, remove all traces of magnetism, electric or otherwise....
...Oh, errr, that means it won't work.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

just a small correction to that last. The moon is speeding up and moving further away; because it rotates the earth slightly slower than the earths rotation; which in turn slows down the earths rotation slightly; since some of it's energy is being transferred to the moon through gravity.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Come on, guys, open your minds.

A perpetual motion device is perfectly theoretically possible, in a vacuum etc etc.

However, to be a perpetual motion MACHINE, it needs to be doing work as well as just moving, which means exerting a force which has to come from somewhere and breaks the perpetuity.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

jeremyjs said:


> just a small correction to that last. The moon is speeding up and moving further away; because it rotates the earth slightly slower than the earths rotation; which in turn slows down the earths rotation slightly; since some of it's energy is being transferred to the moon through gravity.


I think you are correct in that (me typing slower then I am thinking with a migraine starting up).
The Moon is moving further way at a rate of nearly 4" per year IIRC and gaining speed from the Earth. However, as its orbit is getting bigger it has slowed down, relatively speaking, otherwise the gain in speed would mean it is getting closer with a shorter orbital duration. In other words the orbit of the moon will take longer as it has moved further out.

Still means it isn't perpetual motion though.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

Woodsmith said:


> You are quite correct, me typing slower then I am thinking with a migraine starting up.
> The Moon is moving further way at a rate of nearly 4" per year IIRC and gaining speed from the Earth.
> 
> Still means it isn't perpetual motion though.


Agreed. I was just picking nits.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

jeremyjs said:


> Agreed. I was just picking nits.


Nits are well worth picking when someone suggest any sort of perpetual motion, even those supposedly devised by the Gods.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

jeremyjs said:


> The moon is speeding up...


Cool!! My idea is definitely going to work then!



JRoque said:


> how about making a giant wheel and attach it to the moon with a really, really long pipe. When the moon goes around the Earth, the wheel rolls and generates free electricity!!!


JR


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Just google Laws of Thermodynamics, and read the damned thing already. Were not talking theory here these are laws. Specifically read up on the part about conservation of energy.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

JRoque said:


> Cool!! My idea is definitely going to work then!
> 
> 
> _how about making a giant wheel and attach it to the moon with a really, really long pipe. When the moon goes around the Earth, the wheel rolls and generates free electricity!!! _
> ...


Or hook a string to it and attach an elevator!


----------



## rfhendrix (Jan 24, 2011)

The first post on this thread is inaccurate i.e.: "Thus the wind generator can't produce any more energy than the drag it creates on the air."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGq9f0w_pFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCu9wHvamtI


----------



## denizen (Apr 2, 2011)

Free-energy-info.com
A stock pile of info with some devices well over 100% efficient, over-unity. Stop being lazy and taking others' words for anything. question ALL things.


----------



## mopar (Apr 13, 2011)

ok im very new at this so some of the questions i have may be very dumb. my question would be how many alternators would it take to power a vehicle at say 50 mph at 10kw im not even sure what that means, but not even woundering how to drive them just how many it would it take. i know that the alternator on a car can do a lot i have first hand seen what they can do if the main pos. comes in contact with the frame of the car on a normal gas powered car the alternator wins!!! lol. i'll not even worry about driving them for now lol


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

rfhendrix said:


> The first post on this thread is inaccurate i.e.: "Thus the wind generator can't produce any more energy than the drag it creates on the air."
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGq9f0w_pFw
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCu9wHvamtI


What many people don't get is that you can certainly produce more energy from wind than it takes to move against it. It's just a matter of gearing, but you still need an external source of power.

These are not producing more energy than drag because of their own movement. They are creating more energy than drag because the wind is blowing on them. It's a little trick discovered in ancient times called tacking. Because the propeller blades are not flat, they are essentially tacking the way a sailboat does to go against the wind.

Show me a propeller driven car that can drive itself (you can even give it a push start) without external wind, ie only the car moving forward is creating airflow to turn the propeller, and I'll say you've proved all us doubters wrong.


----------



## rfhendrix (Jan 24, 2011)

The point of course is that there is already drag produced from the relative wind hitting a moving vehicle (powered by another source). You can use that drag to your advantage and any attempt to harness it is not necessarily negated. The wind generator IS producing more energy than the drag it creates in the air.


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

About the perpetual motion thingy...
How is the energy and mass of earth maintained?
In other words how are we not lossed to the other spaces of the galaxy?

Is air molecules escaping earth into outer space?

How do we maintain our mass and energy on earth, and not loss to space?

And is there a dominant transformed energy? One that all energy and matter eventually becomes?
If heat, then global warming right?

PS: Why not have a wheel with magnets of 2 sides (one +, and one -) to attract and push away from another stationary magnet?
Simply put, we will cause the - magnet to switch to the + charge upon reaching the + stationary magnet. 
Now, the only problem left is how do we change the charge of the magnet? 2 sided opposing charges?
Or maybe is there a way to actually switch and change the property of the magnet?

The only idea i can think of is a men is strapped on to some 2-sided opposing charges magnet, and continuously turns around to favor the charge in one direction of motion (by facing the opposing side to cause a push, or vice-versa with the +).
-OR JUST HAVE A SWITCH BUTTON INSTEAD OF A MEN! TEE-HEE )

-Sure the man is using energy too, but I think eating fruits growing naturally on a tropical island is FREE ENERGY RIGHT? (Eco-system= Infinite)

PPS: Another idea I had for energy was why not collect rain?
When rain falls, its due to gravity (kinda infinite energy)
-so why not have falling rain spin turbines?
-collecting the rain into a tube going straight down to the earths core will increase the mass of the rain and there for increase force...greater power.
-of course the deeper the tube goes = the greater the acceleration of gravity = more energy/power.

Where is the cost of energy to bring the water back up you say? WHAT?
Well of course its called, evaporation! = FREE ENERGY!


----------



## TheConverted (Jun 20, 2009)

G'day yangsword9x,

I think you need to do some reading on basic physics.

Your idea about collecting rain water and generating electricity is a great idea, its called a dam with a hydroelectric generator attached in the wall.

Water is collected in the dam and the water flows through the generator in the dam wall because of gravity. 

And gravity is the reason why matter from the earth does not fly off into space. Gravity is an amazing thing, but its direction is only 1 way.

Evaporation is not FREE energy, the heat comes from the SUN which will eventually run out of heat energy, billions of years later, but will run out.

Your idea about magnets alternating their polarity is an electric motor or electric generator (just like the one in the dam), but is moved/powered by external forces, water, wind, anything that has kinetic energy.

Keep reading my friend and discover the universe and its magic powers.

Keep smiling,
Moe


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

TheConverted said:


> G'day yangsword9x,
> 
> I think you need to do some reading on basic physics.
> 
> ...



Thank you Moe (from the Simpsons?)
for your time and input.x3

-Collecting rain was suggested because if we run out of space on the ground for Dams then we build up right? (Just like skyscrapers and cities)
& yes, I thought someone might mention about dams...
Also, for Dams to be created land and animals have to be removed and you need rivers to collect rain from?
And so I thought that perhaps building upward would take less space...and be more efficient than dams(since it can collect water anywhere on the surface).

-About the sun, yes it will die (and will we too?)
Maybe we can create a new sun (Dr. Octopus Spiderman 2),
or just find a way to stop the sun from dying...(Matter can not be destroyed)

-I still need more info on how does electric motors/generators work or designed...already looked on youtube though...
Maybe I'll become a electric motor/generator designer(whatever its called)!

-And yes I do think that the only thing left to do in Life is to categorize the universe into understandable data...and then all thats left is to enjoy messing around with it ...and then finally just do nothing but relax in a world you've created...

PS: What about dams with the ocean currents? Its constantly moving = kinetic energy...= move elctric motor/generator = Free Energy!

Okay whatever its not free but you get the point: we don't have to man make this kinetic energy = natural = less costs = cheaper energy for humanity.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

yangsword9x said:


> Thank you Moe (from the Simpsons?)
> for your time and input.x3
> 
> -Collecting rain was suggested because if we run out of space on the ground for Dams then we build up right? (Just like skyscrapers and cities)
> ...


You cannot get any usable energy from rain because it is too small/slow. How hard does rain hit you? Not very. That's how much work could be derived from it. It is only practical to extract potential energy from rain which has fallen on high ground and is travelling to lower ground, EG hydroelectric.

As for tidal currents, many versions of that are in development/testing/production/use.

If you're interested in becoming an electrical engineer, I'd suggest expanding your search from just youtube. There is much knowledge to be had that is not on youtube.


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

Ziggythewiz said:


> You cannot get any usable energy from rain because it is too small/slow.
> 
> As for tidal currents, many versions of that are in development/testing/production/use.
> 
> If you're interested in becoming an electrical engineer, I'd suggest expanding your search from just youtube. There is much knowledge to be had that is not on youtube.


 Yeah, I know rain drops are not strong, but collected rain drops into a pool of water in a tower like container (huge tower) would be very strong!

And yes it would be dependent on rainy seasons!
Oh well, it looks like the idea is dying...since it won't be convenient for constant energy production.

About the tidal currents, I never new it was in the developental stage already! EXCITED x3
I'd like one too! It sure would kill all needs for power! (Since the currents are vast and huge enough to produce HUGE amounts of continuous power for EARTH)

But yeah, I guess I don't really need it. LOL! HOw much electricity do I use? not enough to need something that big! Well, I'll just go get a small river/stream electric generator...that'd be more REALISTIC!

Do you know where can I get one? I have a stream passing by, I just need the electric generator specifically for the stream.
Thanks x3!!!


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

look up micro hydro and similar things through google. there's a lot of info out there as well as system components.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I don't know of any consumer level sources. Everything I've seen is for large scale use. DIY hydro is likely to have some legal/environmental complications.


----------



## rfhendrix (Jan 24, 2011)

Here are some units available for the consumer. You can also check the back-to-nature websites that are into storing and growing your own food etc. 

http://www.absak.com/library/hydro-power


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I don't know of any consumer level sources. Everything I've seen is for large scale use. DIY hydro is likely to have some legal/environmental complications.



yeah if he has a suitable location, enough head pressure for it to be useful, he'd definitely have to check his state and local laws to make sure it's ok first.


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

rfhendrix said:


> Here are some units available for the consumer. You can also check the back-to-nature websites that are into storing and growing your own food etc.
> 
> http://www.absak.com/library/hydro-power


Thank you soooo much for the info!

Thanks to you I've found a permanent magnet electric generator for about $1,400.

"The forward facing shrouded 3 bladed propeller drives a permanent magnet alternator producing up to 100 watts, or 8 Amps output current for a 12 volt system at 9.2 mph (8 knots or 4 m/s). 4 amps peak at 24 volts DC. 2 amps peak at 48 volts DC.

Water speed greater than 4 mph (3.75 knots or 1.79 m/s) is highly recommended or power output will not be significant. Power output increases with faster water speed.

12 and 24 volt models are typically in stock with standard shrouded props and ship from the Renton, WA location. 48 volt model is special order only."

http://www.absak.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/33_89_90/products_id/3

I'm just a average joe, so I don't know how much power this thing produces (I'll check the stream speed mph later), and I don't know how much power a electric generator would use either...

But thanks to you If I can find a way to store the power this generator makes, maybe I'll be good forever on electric power! Thats if its cheaper than paying for the electricity bill made by coal factories...

But one of you said storing power is too inconvenient, so I guess I'll just have to make sure it produces enough power to run a electric water pump for 2 hours, or I'll end up buying more than just 1 of these electric generators to get enough power.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

At best the model listed will produce 72 Kw/h a month or about 8 dollars worth of electricity at $.11 a kw/h. A lot less without ideal conditions. that's some expensive electricity even under ideal conditions.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

jeremyjs said:


> At best the model listed will produce 72 Kw/h a month or about 8 dollars worth of electricity at $.11 a kw/h. A lot less without ideal conditions. that's some expensive electricity even under ideal conditions.


 
Yeah, says right there 100w. For that much you could buy 5x the power in solar panels and batteries to store it.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Yeah, says right there 100w. For that much you could buy 5x the power in solar panels and batteries to store it.


A solar panel system should also last a lot longer. What happens when a log or rock hits that thing during periods of high flow? Heck, some of the first solar panels ever made still put out a significant portion of their original rated power.

Basically a few hundred watts worth of solar panel would put out more power than this thing ever could for about the same cost installed. Not including a solar panels probable much longer service life.


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

jeremyjs said:


> A solar panel system should also last a lot longer. What happens when a log or rock hits that thing during periods of high flow? Heck, some of the first solar panels ever made still put out a significant portion of their original rated power.
> 
> Basically a few hundred watts worth of solar panel would put out more power than this thing ever could for about the same cost installed. Not including a solar panels probable much longer service life.



O-kaaaaay...umm.
All of you are suggesting solar panels over the hydro generator... so got any price and item listings? Websites?
So I can check it out, and see if I will buy that instead.

Thanks.

PS: OH yeah, the gas powered hydro pump is a Honda GX 160! and the river is slower than me doing a tip toe walk! LOL!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Here, let me google that for you.

And to be generous, here's a link you may not find so easily: http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Here, let me google that for you.
> 
> And to be generous, here's a link you may not find so easily: http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm


-SUN Solar Panel 210 Watts 18.30 Vmp $310.80
-Ampair UW100 Water Turbine	
$1,388.00 up to 100 watts, or 8 Amps output current for a 12 volt system at 9.2 mph (8 knots or 4 m/s). 4 amps peak at 24 volts DC. 2 amps peak at 48 volts DC.

Okay you've made your point...thanks. Now lets see...how much does it cost to install that and all the plug-in systems? U know the ones that convert the power of the DC energy of the solar panels to usable A/C energy for the house? Because I didn't see it on the website...other solar panel installations in North Carolina is so expansive...


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

I guess it depends on how big you'd want to go. small 1000ish watt grid tied inverters can be had for about 600 bucks and they can simply be plugged into a standard 20 amp outlet.

Here's one. http://www.amazon.com/Grid-tie-Inve...XLU/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=286168&s=garden

You would need to check with your utility before buying and installing something like this.


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

jeremyjs said:


> I guess it depends on how big you'd want to go. small 1000ish watt grid tied inverters can be had for about 600 bucks and they can simply be plugged into a standard 20 amp outlet.
> 
> Here's one. http://www.amazon.com/Grid-tie-Inve...XLU/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=286168&s=garden
> 
> You would need to check with your utility before buying and installing something like this.


Nice,

Thanks Jeremyjs, now I have some idea of what I need, a inverter!

Anyone know if I can just DIY the solar Panel, controller, inverters, and inter-connectors for multiple solar panels? Or should I get professional installations?


----------



## rfhendrix (Jan 24, 2011)

You can do it yourself. Just follow the instructions. Do a google search for DIY solar installation or something similar. There is plenty of help out there and really, basically, it is quite simple assuming you are not tying into the grid.


----------



## yangsword9x (Jul 24, 2011)

Got it! Here's what I'm looking at now:

http://www.solarray.com/CompletePackages/PackageMain_T.php

PS:I think all my post(s) are off topic, lol! Since Solar Power is not Perpetual Motion...Should I stop posting?


----------



## MattCP (Jan 31, 2012)

ok all that sounds great but....

ok so in stead of throwing in a HAWT wind turbine, put in a turbin designed for a moving car, ill say no more on that.

Next- energy its not perpetual its an open system, energy used to move the car creates the friction and force against the very wind that could be used to power the car. 

Also- since most cars are designed to be aerodynamic then they move through the air efficiently already, except for one part... 

Grill- its flat and its an opposition when it comes to vehicles, so use that same space and make it efficient through design. by improving the design any way u make the vehicle more efficient against wind which in turn means more miles to the charge. 

cars use very little energy at a maintained speed than comparatively to starting out from a stop. 

the key to an electric car is to make it go farther that an ICE car. so u have to compare it then to those cars not electric cars.


----------



## JimmyNeutron (Mar 28, 2012)

Testing Testing


----------



## JimmyNeutron (Mar 28, 2012)

Most of you guys to me seem like you are very intelligent and knowledgeable. I have been working with the idea of perpetual motion for a number of years. Of course I agree that there is no such thing because of the laws of physics. Particularly trying to use something as passive as oncoming wind. But I think I have found a way to provide a perpetual charge to a Lithium ion battery. Now the notion of perpetual is a misnomer so don't get me wrong. Drag will always eventually slow something down or cause it to wear out. So If you are going to overcome the laws of physics then you have to use brute force. Think of how much power is needed to lift a 100 ton jetliner into the air. Also, I think you have to work with the laws of physics and out smart it if you can. 

Anyway what I'm getting at is I am working on a motor/generator that will provide a continous, Intermittent charge to a lithium Ion battery. It will require no fossil fuels and no outside power source. Well at least not for 6 months or so. Thereby keeping the battery in a charged state while say a vehicle is in motion or when it is at rest. However, I admit my knowledge of electrical engineering is limited. Can anyone point me to a source where I can dig a little deeper into the requirements of how many k/w are required to charge a lithium ion battery without burning it out. Also how many k/w is need to power an electric engine? I also welcome your critque to my crazy idea!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

JimmyNeutron said:


> Anyway what I'm getting at is I am working on a motor/generator that will provide a continous, Intermittent charge to a lithium Ion battery. It will require no fossil fuels and no outside power source. Well at least not for 6 months or so.
> 
> Can anyone point me to a source where I can dig a little deeper into the requirements of how many k/w are required to charge a lithium ion battery without burning it out. Also how many k/w is need to power an electric engine? I also welcome your critque to my crazy idea!


A continuous intermittent charge, huh? Is that like a perpetual finite machine, or a limited infinity machine?

A lithium battery requires a little more than the amount of power it has used to charge. Same for an electric motor, however much power you're using is what you'll need to put in, plus 5-20% to cover losses.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2012)

> Also how many k/w is need to power an electric engine?


 Infinitely variable for an electric motor but I have no clue about an electric ENGINE.


----------



## JimmyNeutron (Mar 28, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> A continuous intermittent charge, huh? Is that like a perpetual finite machine, or a limited infinity machine?
> 
> A lithium battery requires a little more than the amount of power it has used to charge. Same for an electric motor, however much power you're using is what you'll need to put in, plus 5-20% to cover losses.


Thanks Ziggy. Appreciate the link. Good info. Sorry if I sound too crytic. For more details I would need for you sign an NDA. But I agree with you that you would need more power going into the electric device than what it's putting out. Along the same lines of a jumbo jet. You need more thrust than gravity in order for the wings to get you into the air. I'm researching to find the right size gennerator needed to provide that kind of power to a team of lithium batteries. My concern actually is not overcharging or buring out the battery. But to answer your question, perpetual finite machine, or a limited infinity machine? The answer is ....YES!  

Take care and thanks.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

> Can anyone point me to a source where I can dig a little deeper into the requirements of how many k/w are required to charge a lithium ion battery without burning it out. Also how many k/w is need to power an electric engine? I also welcome your critque to my crazy idea!


You can go back to school and get your masters degree in electronics first. Then I guarantee you won't continue with your stupid idea. 

As for how much kW to charge a lithium battery with out failure? Infinite, as there are infinitely (well you get the point) many sizes of lithium batteries. Just like above with your electric engine question. 

Go back to school.


----------



## drachir555 (Apr 23, 2012)

I agree with the theorem that perpetual energy/motion machines are impossible. However, consider the concept of using Renewable Energy to power something like an EV. I propose that an EV could be powered by a battery, solar panels, wind turbines, axle generators, regenerative-braking, heck maybe even bicycle pedals for the driver. That way all the Renewable Energy being supplied to the EV would surely exceed 100% efficiency, providing the EV with enough energy to do real work. This would allow the batteries to "usually" remain fully charged. Hence you have a vehicle with ZERO operating costs!!! That's because all the forms of Renewable Energy that you are using to power that vehicle are free! That doesn't blow the theorem that perpetual energy/motion machines are impossible, but it comes darn close.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

That has nothing to do with perpetual motion, and is certainly not exceeding 100% efficiency. People have made cars in each way you mentioned, so there's no theory involved. Most are impractical, and while the operating costs may be 0, the build costs certainly aren't.

Free energy doesn't touch the notion of perpetual energy/motion. You are confusing 'free' with self generating.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

drachir555 said:


> I agree with the theorem that perpetual energy/motion machines are impossible. However, consider the concept of using Renewable Energy to power something like an EV. I propose that an EV could be powered by a battery, solar panels, wind turbines, axle generators, regenerative-braking, heck maybe even bicycle pedals for the driver. That way all the Renewable Energy being supplied to the EV would surely exceed 100% efficiency, providing the EV with enough energy to do real work. This would allow the batteries to "usually" remain fully charged. Hence you have a vehicle with ZERO operating costs!!! That's because all the forms of Renewable Energy that you are using to power that vehicle are free! That doesn't blow the theorem that perpetual energy/motion machines are impossible, but it comes darn close.


There are two issues with this idea. 

First and foremost: the efficiency of any closed power system cannot and will not ever exceed 100%. One might consider the addition of external energy over what you put in from the wall plug, to be excess energy that allows the stored energy in a battery to exceed 100% of what was drawn from the public utility, but proper accounting for the efficiencies in those conversions (i.e. solar irradiation to electrical power, cycling power input, etc) should be made in order to put this idea on a proper engineering foundation.

Second: You need to look at what is practical in terms of on-the-car energy capture, relative to the amount of power required to move it. A good commercial solar panel will capture maybe 25% of the available 1kW per square meter sunlight. A good cyclist can put out 150 watts to 200 watts, average, for an hour; above that range puts you in the serious competitive athlete field. On the other hand, any car worthy of the name will require on the order of 10 hp to move at a steady 80 km/h over level ground; that corresponds to about 10kW of electrical input to the motor. Acceleration of a car or going up hills requires at least double that amount of power. You can see that providing enough 'free' energy to initiate or sustain the car's motion would require a vast solar array and is completely outside the ability of even the world's best cyclists (they top out at about 4 hp for about one minute).

Best way to provide your 'free' energy is to build a fixed solar array or wind turbine, and use that to charge a local energy store or sell the output back to your utility; then consider that as part compensation for the energy you pull from the utility to charge the battery system in your EV.

Edit: I noticed you also mentioned axle generators, and wind turbines. Anything that you add to the car to try to capture energy while the car is moving under the force of its motor (i.e. not including regenerative braking), will increase the amount of energy required to move the car, by more than what you're going to be able to recapture. There is no such thing as capturing free momentum, because free momentum doesn't exist.


----------



## ishiwgao (May 5, 2011)

888-USP recharge while you drive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c3KE9LuzJF0

comments?


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

ishiwgao said:


> 888-USP recharge while you drive
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c3KE9LuzJF0
> 
> comments?


It's bunk, which Lionel Kools would realize if he'd actually built any of his 'inventions' instead of just creating computer animations.

His inventions describe various inefficient means of power takeoff from a spinning shaft, coupled to a generator that will also not have 100% efficiency. Even with all that, trying to extract energy from his linear generators will demand additional torque from the driveshaft so he will never ever come out ahead. The spinning shaft is NOT a free source of rotational motion. Pulling current from the generators will impose a drag on the shaft and it will require extra power to spin the shaft - more extra power than what can be obtained from the generators.

He should devote himself to ideas for a lighter, more aerodynamic vehicle. That is where the 'free' performance is.


----------



## patriciooholegu (Oct 26, 2009)

Ohh. Prepetual Motion...The old talk.
Let my ask sometingh to the scientist here.
A permanent magnet isnt a free perpetual force generator? 
Shuld be the key to this?
A combination of magnets on a housing, were a stator and rotor, with the right number and placement of magnets at the stator beign moved far and close to the right ones on the rotor, wont make the force needed to deliver free and powerfull motion?
Before the answer, found on many sites about the manner let my say again:
Is a permanent magnet A PERPETUAL FORCE GENERATOR? And you are able to chose ATRACTIVE FORCE and REJECTIVE FORCE just by swaping faces on the table they are?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Just like gravity, a magnet generates a constant force. In order to produce work out of it, you have to move that force or something with respect to the force...that requires work.

You can make a rock travel fast by dropping it off a building, but you have to get it to the top first, and again every time you want to drop it.


----------



## patriciooholegu (Oct 26, 2009)

Very well put Ziggythewiz .
yesterday, just stomp on this site and it is pretty nice solution (For any ev construction, but also the inventor suggest retro-fitting so should be something like perpetual motion).

http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/default.htm

Watch down the web page, the animation and you will be, at last, shocked with the idea.

Again sorry about my english (Today is getting worse because im on a rush).


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

patriciooholegu said:


> http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/default.htm
> 
> Watch down the web page, the animation and you will be, at last, shocked with the idea.


Yeah, I'm shocked.....that anybody takes this BS seriously. Here is an excerpt: 



> A further development of the Ettridge technology, was the integration of a regenerative capability. Apparatus was developed that enabled current to be extracted from the motor while in operation, without placing a load upon the motor. While many motors feature an ability to draw energy from the motor while breaking or other low load scenarios, the Gemini motor can produce a real output at all times, even while under heavy load. This output can be fed back into the motor, or used to recharge the source, and augments the efficiency gains already apparent in the design.


Just further reinforces the fact that they haven't a clue regarding electromagnetic energy conversion. 

These past few posts need to be ported to our special place.* I'll request the admin to do so.

*http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html

{2nd edit/addition} Further investigation into the Gemini motor inventor's brilliant ideas turned this up: 



> *Wind Turbine for Electric Car.*
> The Ettridge Wind Turbine was originally invented for use on an electric car, as a means to increase the distance traveled between charging. The idea is, although there may not be any wind outside, when a vehicle is traveling at 60 Km per Hr, there is a 60 Km per Hr air movement over the car, which can generate some serious electric current which can be stored in the batteries, and increase the distance traveled between charging.


Need I say more?


----------



## patriciooholegu (Oct 26, 2009)

The part that shocked my was the clever idea off two sets of magnet, taking advantage of both sides of the magnetic field. Didnt care about the feedback it suposse to be. 

"These past few posts need to be ported to our special place. I'll request the admin to do so."
What´s that mean? It sounds like the catolic school bad teacher graving the kids by they ear for talking about sex.
The past few post are out of place?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

patriciooholegu said:


> The part that shocked my was the clever idea off two sets of magnet, taking advantage of both sides of the magnetic field.


Well, it's ineffective and obviously so if you understand electromagnetics. Analogous to putting two batteries in parallel or two pumps in line with the downside of doubling the reluctance encountered at the air gap.



patriciooholegu said:


> "These past few posts need to be ported to our special place. I'll request the admin to do so."
> What´s that mean? It sounds like the catolic school bad teacher graving the kids by they ear for talking about sex.
> The past few post are out of place?


You get the gist. BS and other free energy/over unity nut-job jabber is relegated to a dedicated thread which I linked in the post above. This is done so that the body of information on this board can remain based in reality. Take no offense please, but also please contain such discussion to that one special place. When new members unknowingly post like you have done, we politely redirect them.


----------



## patriciooholegu (Oct 26, 2009)

major said:


> Well, it's ineffective and obviously so if you understand electromagnetics. Analogous to putting two batteries in parallel or two pumps in line with the downside of doubling the reluctance encountered at the air gap.
> 
> 
> 
> You get the gist. BS and other free energy/over unity nut-job jabber is relegated to a dedicated thread which I linked in the post above. This is done so that the body of information on this board can remain based in reality. Take no offense please, but also please contain such discussion to that one special place. When new members unknowingly post like you have done, we politely redirect them.


Thanks Major!!
Non offense taken. Dont you do so.
I Dont know much about electromagnetics (I know more about Laptop electronics) but always interested on making a small ev for my wife (She hates transmission, oil, gas, and all relatives). Wen looking for ideas i start diving on this kind of sites and the "perpetual motion" promise always gets in the way.
Oh by the way, dont know what "BS" mean...sorry.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

patriciooholegu said:


> Oh by the way, dont know what "BS" mean...sorry.


BS can mean various things, but here it is most commonly used for one particular phrase which you can find in the _other_ list on this page between Bronze Star and Business studies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS


----------



## frenrg (Dec 8, 2013)

major said:


> Well, it's ineffective and obviously so if you understand electromagnetics. Analogous to putting two batteries in parallel or two pumps in line with the downside of doubling the reluctance encountered at the air gap.
> 
> 
> 
> You get the gist. BS and other free energy/over unity nut-job jabber is relegated to a dedicated thread which I linked in the post above. This is done so that the body of information on this board can remain based in reality. Take no offense please, but also please contain such discussion to that one special place. When new members unknowingly post like you have done, we politely redirect them.


Hi patriciooholegu.
You may wish to look at a circuit developed back I think in 1984 by Ronald Brandt.
This causes power to be RECYCLED back and forth between 4 batteries without the voltage dropping !!!
He ran a car on this for some years I believe.
Well worth a look.
I am currently working on duplicating this.
I am an Electronics Engineer.

frenrg


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

frenrg said:


> Hi patriciooholegu.
> You may wish to look at a circuit developed back I think in 1984 by Ronald Brandt.
> This causes power to be RECYCLED back and forth between 4 batteries without the voltage dropping !!!
> He ran a car on this for some years I believe.
> ...


Here's a look at that:










That's from http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/TopTen.pdf 

So frenrg, care to share how this works?


----------



## frenrg (Dec 8, 2013)

major said:


> Here's a look at that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi patriciooholegu, two of the batteries are momentarily put in series.
This then delivers 24 volts to the other two batteries which at this moment are in parallel, (12 volts).
An instant later, the circuitry is transposed, so now the series batteries are in parallel and the batteries that were in parallel, are now in series.
This causes the current to go back and forth between the pairs of batteries.
Since in the bottom circuit you will see two large capacitors in series with the fullwave bridge to the load (motor), there can never be any depletion of charge electrons from the batteries, as capacitors are open-circuit devices anyway. There is a much simpler circuit I am working on, that doesn't require any large diodes where shown in the above circuits.
The system runs at up to 800 cycles per second.
For speed control, it is simply necessary to change the frequency of the recycling. This supplies more or less power to the motor. The batteries are subjected to no more than a ripple of in/out current - no deep draining of charge. The current that is withdrawn from the batteries (borrowed) is all returned a moment later. This allows much smaller total capacity of batteries to have to be used.
This is a major bonus as well, since the batteries in a typical car are so expensive.
Hope this answers some of your queries.
Best regards,
frenrg


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

frenrg said:


> Hi patriciooholegu, two of the batteries are momentarily put in series.
> This then delivers 24 volts to the other two batteries which at this moment are in parallel, (12 volts).
> An instant later, the circuitry is transposed, so now the series batteries are in parallel and the batteries that were in parallel, are now in series.
> This causes the current to go back and forth between the pairs of batteries.
> ...


Hello frenrg,

Mr. patriciooholegu to whom you addressed your 2 posts appears not to frequent this forum anymore. I (major) replied to your previous post. Are you really an electronics engineer?

You say:


> The current that is withdrawn from the batteries (borrowed) is all returned a moment later.


 But this isn't how electricity works. Current will flow from one battery terminal as current (the same amount) flows into the other terminal of that battery. So the circuit of 4 batteries will not function as you describe. Energy can be taken from one or two of the batteries and put into others, but there will always be losses involved in this process due to the internal resistance of the batteries, circuitry and diodes and switches. So the state of charge of the total battery system will decrease meaning a net loss of energy. In fact such or similar systems have been developed to "shuttle" charge between battery pack halves for the purpose of heating the battery pack in cold climates. This is done at the expense of energy stored in the battery and the SOC decreases.

Then there is the whole problem of doing your little scheme while powering a motor. Obviously you cannot connect the batteries in parallel and series alternately while using them as the power source for propulsion of the electric vehicle.

The whole thing reeks of a scam. It could never have been demonstrated to yield greater EV range than simply running the batteries without all the diodes and switches.

Regards,

major


----------



## frenrg (Dec 8, 2013)

major said:


> Hello frenrg,
> 
> Mr. patriciooholegu to whom you addressed your 2 posts appears not to frequent this forum anymore. I (major) replied to your previous post. Are you really an electronics engineer?
> 
> ...


Hi Major, I had an Electronic Manufacturing business for over 30 years, designed, manufactured and exported products, how about you?
If you look at the circuit in detail, you will see that NEVER is a single battery allowed to discharge from its positive terminal to its negative terminal. It can only ever fill and empty the two large capacitors in series with the bridge and load (motor).
Capacitors are OPEN CIRCUIT devices, so no permanent electron flow can continue through them to discharge a battery.
I have already tried a similar but simpler circuit employing one battery and two capacitors.
The two caps. are alternately put in series and then in parallel.
This takes current from the battery to charge up the caps in parallel, then a moment later, the caps are put in series, whereupon they discharge back into the battery. However, using caps. instead of batteries, isn't the complete answer.
The current that is being returned to the battery, is exactly half that which exits the battery to charge up the caps.
However, the returning current back to the battery is at 24 volts initially, while the outgoing current from the battery is at 12 volts.
You will immediately see that both WATTAGES are the same!!!
This still does not help us greatly unfortunately, as it is amperage that charges a battery not the voltage .
Batteries can't really be replaced with capacitors in this circuit just described as they drop off in current and voltage, unlike a battery during very short out/in currents.
Regarding "losses".
With slight voltage drop across Fets, diodes, etc., there is slightly less total useable power at the motor, but so what?
If we don't have access to a few watts, this doesn't matter.
The current, every electron borrowed from one set of batteries is all returned to its donor. No electrons drip off the ends of the wires and get lost down a plug hole.
The current is RECYCLED, so to placate the "conservation of energy" guys, this system certainly conserves power.
Standard thinking says that if you want to run a motor from a battery, you connect it across the positive and negative terminals.
Yes this works, but the battery certainly goes down.
We have to get away from this idea of simply "killing" the power source.
A more sophisticated method is required than the normal simple thinking.
The Ronald Brandt method does this.
Regards,
frenrg


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

frenrg said:


> Hi Major, I had an Electronic Manufacturing business for over 30 years, designed, manufactured and exported products, *how about you*?
> If you look at the circuit in detail, you will see that NEVER is a single battery allowed to discharge from its positive terminal to its negative terminal. It can only ever fill and empty the two large capacitors in series with the bridge and load (motor).
> Capacitors are OPEN CIRCUIT devices, so no permanent electron flow can continue through them to discharge a battery.
> I have already tried a similar but simpler circuit employing one battery and two capacitors.
> ...


How about me? I've been around enough to know BS when I see it and that is all you have. Good bye.


----------



## sergiu tofanel (Jan 13, 2014)

I have no illusions that I will dissuade any perpetual motion believers out there, but here is an argument for those more open minded. Here are the three basic points that must be established before an energy claim can have ANY credibility:

1. When talking about any device that produces work (like moving an object from point A to point B), we must always ask: where does the energy required to produce that work come from? In the case of a motor, the energy comes from batteries (if electric), or gasoline (if ICE).

2. Once the energy source has been established, one MUST account for the mechanism that transforms the energy in the said amount of work. In this respect, Joules are like money, energy transfer and conversion works just like accounting. If you have 100 pennies in your left pocket, take 20 and move them to the right pocket, you still have 100 pennies total. You have not gained anything by moving them around. In real life, however, these pockets have holes in them. So every transfer of currency results in pennies being lost at every transaction. So ANY claim of energy transfer or production MUST be accompanied by a numerical description. Don't tell me it produces electricity. Tell me HOW MUCH. Otherwise, the claim is BS.

3. Last but not least, just like transfer of money must obey accounting rules, energy transfers must obey physics (and more precisely thermodynamic laws). To use a gambling analogy, these laws are, (with a bit of humor added in):

Zeroth Law: You must play the game.
First Law: You can't win.
Second Law: You can't break even, except on a very cold day.
Third Law: It doesn't get that cold.

(source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thermodynamics)


----------



## drachir555 (Apr 23, 2012)

1. When talking about any device that produces work (like moving an object from point A to point B), we must always ask: where does the energy required to produce that work come from? In the case of a motor, the energy comes from batteries (if electric), or gasoline (if ICE). Here is my reply to your anticipated skepticism (without divulging any actual IP). The energy required to do the work initially comes from a 12V battery. That drives a special circuit that actively generates not only enough power for an electical load, but also to feedback into the special circuit where the original battery connection is. Once the electrical load is powered, I can switch out the original battery, and simultaneously continue driving the special circuit AND the load.

2. Once the energy source has been established, one MUST account for the mechanism that transforms the energy in the said amount of work. In this respect, Joules are like money, energy transfer and conversion works just like accounting. If you have 100 pennies in your left pocket, take 20 and move them to the right pocket, you still have 100 pennies total. You have not gained anything by moving them around. In real life, however, these pockets have holes in them. So every transfer of currency results in pennies being lost at every transaction. So ANY claim of energy transfer or production MUST be accompanied by a numerical description. Don't tell me it produces electricity. Tell me HOW MUCH. Otherwise, the claim is BS. So the special circuit is powered by the 100 pennies, but it produces 100 additional pennies. The combined 200 pennies is then split up into 100 to replenish the power needed to drive the special circuit, with 80 extra available to drive the electical load. About 20 of the extra pennies are lost in the special circuit (dissipated by the electrical components as heat).

3. Last but not least, just like transfer of money must obey accounting rules, energy transfers must obey physics (and more precisely thermodynamic laws). Physics is obeyed because the special circuit GENERATES electrical power. After the original starter battery is switched out, and the feedback power replaces it, the system runs forever - DISPROOVING the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In my eyes it is no longer a law, just a principle that applies to most physical systems. Not mine.

I have a complete Spice circuit emulation that does exactly what I just described, and I am currently building a physical prototype that will eventually do the same. My problem is that the special circuit generates so much power that I keep blowing up components. There is also hysteresis in the special circuitry that is not yet modelled in the emulation, so that there are subtle differences between the two. Progress is slow, because I have a full-time day job as a Principal Software Engineer at FlightSafety International.


----------



## drachir555 (Apr 23, 2012)

By the way, I just hopped into this "wind-powered" conversation with my own ideas. My invention uses no wind. And don't say it's full of "hot-air" either.


----------



## sergiu tofanel (Jan 13, 2014)

To use the accounting analogy, you cannot just grow extra pennies in your pockets. An electrical circuit can only convert one form of energy into another (via electromagnetic or photovoltaic means). In other words, you need an external energy input (mechanical, thermal, or photovoltaic) to "create" (I am using the term loosely here because we are talking about converting one form of energy into another) any voltage potential that can be used as source of power. 

Perhaps you could post a wiring diagram of the circuit?


----------



## drachir555 (Apr 23, 2012)

Sorry. Can't post a circuit diagram for the world to see. It has the potential to grow BILLIONS of pennies in my pocket! The circuit converts one form of electricity into another waveform. It's the way that the circuit processes the waveforms that produces the free electricity. That's all I can say.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

drachir555 said:


> It's the way that the circuit processes the waveforms that produces the free electricity. That's all I can *say*.


Please say it in our special place http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html This has no business being in the EV information forum. I have reported it to the moderator and asked that it be moved.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GeneralC_USA said:


> I teach math,


That is sad 

edit: It appears Mr. GeneralC_USA has deleted this post and disappeared. It was a bunch of nonsense about powering the EV with attached windmills. Hopefully he realized what a bunch of crap he wrote and was so embarrassed by it he had to erase it.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

GeneralC_USA said:


> There is a Property or Law of Math called The Addition Property of Inequality for all positive numbers such that a+b>a. As applied here any starting battery charge [minus the charge needed to run the magic generator] plus a charge from a generator MUST be more than the original battery charge [unless the circuit is not made of imaginary resistance free materials].


a+b-x > a iff x < y and you smoke too much weed.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

Anyone who has forgotten their wife's birthday will know that perpetual emotion does exists.

Wait. You said perpetual motion?


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

Seriously, since energy is transformable to mass, if perpetual motion existed, the universe would be getting heavier. Unless you believe only Man can do physics.


----------



## liveforphysics (Jan 16, 2014)

McRat said:


> Seriously, since energy is transformable to mass, if perpetual motion existed, the universe would be getting heavier. Unless you believe only Man can do physics.



'Perpetual motion' is happening in everything you've ever interfaced with in the physical world. It's just happening on a scale that is difficult for humans to observe and recognize as motion etc. The both the subatomic particles composing all physical reality you live in, as well as the astronomical bodies are in a perpetual state of motion and will continue to be until long after complete collapse of all stars/galaxies and perhaps after an infinitely long period of cooling through radiating loss will perhaps reach the limit approaching 0k temps where it's rumored sub-atomic motion will cease. 

There may be billions or trillions of years of motion occurring in these systems though. To a human's concept of perpetual though, I think it's fair to use the term 'perpetual'. 

Sadly though, humans are seldom interested in real perpetual motion, they are interested in something they can easily harvest mechanical energy from without needing to charge or add fuel etc. That is a radically different goal than the particles in perpetual motion we are all made out of, as it's an over-unity device if it's capable of useful continuous useful energy output. 

There are so many fields/effects/aether/dark-matter that humans haven't so much as conceived of sensors to detect yet, but we know are a part of what composes our physical reality because it has to be to enable other effects we can sense to be happening. Leveraging the many yet undetected and so far non-harvestable types of dark-matter and quantum level energy effects, we may eventually have some device tap this energy and from our perspective become a useful over-unity power device.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Somebody please tell me Im not the only one that knows about Johann Bessler / Orffyreus 1712 gravity engine.
Technically it wasnt perpetual motion because it had an external power source

http://orffyre.tripod.com/id35.html


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> Somebody please tell me Im not the only one that knows about Johann Bessler / Orffyreus 1712 gravity engine.
> Technically it wasnt perpetual motion because it had an external power source
> 
> http://orffyre.tripod.com/id35.html




What a load of bollocks


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Duncan said:


> What a load of bollocks


did you read the whole story ?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> did you read the whole story ?



Page upon page of obscure medieval nonsense - no of course not

I just read the bit explaining that it was an "unbalanced wheel" and the other bit explaining where the energy came from

That was more than enough!

The guy who started this back in 1300s or whatever didn't know any better 
What's your excuse??


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *RIPPERTON* 
_did you read the whole story ?_


Duncan said:


> Page upon page of obscure medieval nonsense - no of course not
> 
> I just read the bit explaining that it was an "unbalanced wheel" and the other bit explaining where the energy came from
> 
> ...


Duncan, Duncan,Duncan. While I do agree with you about the obscure medieval nonsense, that last shot didn't sound nice. Ripperton, I have heard a little about Bessler. I came across him when I was reading up on alternant energy sources in the 80’s when I was in my Mother Earth mode. While I find the idea of PerpetMo interesting and try not to be totally negative on the subject I have yet to see solid proof of any such contraption.


----------



## liveforphysics (Jan 16, 2014)

dragonsgate said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RIPPERTON*
> _did you read the whole story ?_
> 
> ...


If you simply want a proof of perpetual motion, look at anything composing your physical world around you. As I mentioned above, it's going to be in constant and high-energy motion with every partical composing it, as well as wizzing around the sun at a crazy high speed while spinning around at ~25,000mph for a humans ability to perceive what is 'perpetual'. 

Again what you guys are looking for isn't PM, its over-unity.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

dragonsgate said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RIPPERTON*
> _did you read the whole story ?_
> 
> ...


Hi Dragon

In his other posts Ripperton has shown great technical knowledge,
as such he should be held to higher standards than some newby 


As far as solid proof of any such contraption this is in the same realm as somebody continuing to believe in a flat world and continuing to look for "Proof" 
It ain't gonna happen


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Duncan said:


> Page upon page of obscure medieval nonsense - no of course not
> The guy who started this back in 1300s or whatever didn't know any better
> What's your excuse??


Duncan, Duncan, Duncan,...
1, The history of Bessler is anything but obscure in fact its suspiciously well documented. There is surprisingly tangible evidence and signed witness documents of nobles and elites who inspected the device and could not fault it. All these people have been proven to exist by birth and death records. 
2, The medieval period ended exactly 200 years before Bessler first planted his "Gera Wheel" in his front yard for all to see. So you will have to edit your post to "obscure Modern Age nonsense".
3, my post even stated the year in which Bessler first presented his Gravity Engine (1712) but you say "back in the 1300s.
Your a little rough around the edges mate.
I first ventured into Bessler with an open but sceptical mind and took in all the evidence and in the end came to the same conclusion as all the other learned people who have studied his history. Can not be refuted.

Even though Bessler himself termed the definition of Perpetual Motion as being a device that is powered by itself or one that can give off more energy than it consumes (over unity) didnt actually arrive at the fact that his Gravity Engine was not Perpetual Motion because it obviously had an external power source.
Hence it is an Engine with mechanical inefficiencies and frictional losses.
It is in the Free Energy catagory.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Duncan said:


> Hi Dragon
> 
> In his other posts Ripperton has shown great technical knowledge,
> as such he should be held to higher standards than some newby
> ...


 The world is not flat?!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_I first ventured into Bessler with an open but sceptical mind and took in all the evidence and in the end came to the same conclusion as all the other learned people who have studied his history. Can not be refuted._

Build one then!

Gravity is a "conservative field" - you cant get energy out except by changing "potential energy" of some of the masses

As *soon as one has been built *I will be willing to admit that all of physics is wrong
*Until one has been built* I will rely on the structure of modern science and engineering 

A story about one being built hundreds of years ago will go into the same category as the chess playing automaton


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

liveforphysics said:


> Again what you guys are looking for isn't PM, its over-unity.


They are using the phrase 'Perpetual Motion' correctly within the context of this thread. As a phrase it means more than just the two words themselves ( as you seem to be trying to re-define the phrase to only mean those two words ).

- - - - - - - - - 



RIPPERTON said:


> I first ventured into Bessler with an open but sceptical mind and took in all the evidence and in the end came to the same conclusion as all the other learned people who have studied his history. *Can not be refuted*.


*Bold* --> Unless , you are only referring to the uselessness about not being able to time travel back to document how Bessler's 'gravity wheel' actually worked ... otherwise Bessler's 'Gravity wheel' perpetual motion claims can easily be refuted , by anyone with a firm grasp of just high-school level ( at most a dash of 1st year college ) physics today.

We can walk through it if you like.



RIPPERTON said:


> didnt actually arrive at the fact that his Gravity Engine was not Perpetual Motion because it obviously had an external power source.
> Hence it is an Engine with mechanical inefficiencies and frictional losses.
> It is in the Free Energy catagory.


Another view of Bessler and his Gravity Wheels is on Wikipedia

The only kind of gravity based energy Bessler's Wheel type devices will harness would be the conversion of potential energy ... like a ball rolling down a hill ... and like the ball there is a finite amount of potential energy to harness as the mass moves down toward the gravitational source.

I would not put Bessler's Wheels in the 'Free Energy Category'.

Also please keep in mind for these kinds of discussions the significant difference between power and energy.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Wait a minute! You saying the world is not flat?


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Duncan said:


> Build one then!












.................OK.


----------



## liveforphysics (Jan 16, 2014)

Ironically, the elusive element requisite for making the over unity magnet motors work was first observed just a couple days ago. 

Real monopole magnet first observation in known human history (and currently only at an extremely small and quite close to 0degK. (near, yet still infinitely higher particle energy than theoritical absolute zero)

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/synthetic-magnetic-monopoles-have-been-created-lab


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

liveforphysics said:


> Ironically, the elusive element requisite for making the over unity magnet motors work was first observed just a couple days ago.
> 
> Real monopole magnet first observation in known human history (and currently only at an extremely small and quite close to 0degK. (near, yet still infinitely higher particle energy than theoritical absolute zero)
> 
> http://www.iflscience.com/physics/synthetic-magnetic-monopoles-have-been-created-lab


It wasn't the magnetic monopole that was the elusive part. That was a significant assembly obstacle. But not a deal breaker on it's own.

Gravity acts as a mono-pole. Yet , you can't make a gravity mono-pole attracting Perpetual Motion device either. Just like magnetic attracting mono-poles will also not work.

Conservation of energy is the main elusive requisite obstacle ... And it is still on very firmly grounded multitude of very well tested results.


----------



## liveforphysics (Jan 16, 2014)

IamIan said:


> It wasn't the magnetic monopole that was the elusive part. That was a significant assembly obstacle. But not a deal breaker on it's own.
> 
> Gravity acts as a mono-pole. Yet , you can't make a gravity mono-pole attracting Perpetual Motion device either. Just like magnetic attracting mono-poles will also not work.
> 
> Conservation of energy is the main elusive requisite obstacle ... And it is still on very firmly grounded multitude of very well tested results.



The monopole is the elusive missing piece. Put a ring of magnets oriented properly with a mono-pole on some moment arm and it will spin indefinitely. 

Do understand a bit more about the real energy around you, I recommend reading these basic primers in this order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy


It's not that we're lacking all the energy we could ever use (even without trading mass for it etc), we are simply lacking something to tap it.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm with IamIan on this in the macroscopic Newtonian world there is no "free energy"

Now on a microscopic scale then theoretically you may be able to harvest some of the zero point energy

But I am completely sure a ring of monopoles - if such things can exist on the macroscopic scale will NOT be it


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

liveforphysics said:


> The monopole is the elusive missing piece. Put a ring of magnets oriented properly with a mono-pole on some moment arm and it will spin indefinitely.


Spin indefinitely from a Perpetual motion Device point of view ... ie spinning while you are extracting energy from it ... NO!!! ... the Mono-pole is not the elusive missing piece ... it never was.

Even with Monopoles what you describe will not happen. It is not the Monopole ... Conservation of Energy is... and it's a much bigger obstacle.

Perhaps an illustration will help:
Gravity is a known real world mono-pole field. It attracts.
Go out into outer space where the local gravitational field gradient is fairly small. Then feel free to arrange some type of mass in a ring. Feel free to make any orientation you like. Put another mass in the center of the ring. It's all Mono-Poles. It is all attractive. It being mono-poles doesn't solve the problem. No perpetual motion ( while extracting energy ) will be created... You either get No Net Field ( Shell Theorem ) ... or it moves in makes a one way trip toward the net field gradient.

The Key piece is:
Fields themselves do not work in a way to allow for the perpetual motion device ( while extracting energy ). Not Magnetic Fields. Not Electric Fields. Not Gravitational Fields ... Fields just don't work that way ... not even mono-pole fields (like gravity).



liveforphysics said:


> Do understand a bit more about the real energy around you, I recommend reading these basic primers in this order:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
> 
> ...


None of those references allow for a perpetual motion device ( while extracting energy from it )... those are pointing to finite energy sources... and even if you were able to extract the energy content out of it ... ok congratulations some amount of that space itself is now gone ... you've consumed it... and thanks to Entropy ( you won't be 100% efficient either ) ... which means for every X you extract you've consumed X+y.

Now if you want to say there is allot of energy in consuming it ... sure ... just like there is allot of relativistic energy in consuming the mass of 1 gram.

It's still consumed either way.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Got some chuckles from this latest interchange of ideas and weird concepts. TANSTAAFL!


----------



## liveforphysics (Jan 16, 2014)

PStechPaul said:


> Got some chuckles from this latest interchange of ideas and weird concepts. TANSTAAFL!



Except everything in your reality including the use of the no-free-lunch saying (which I used to use myself constantly in any form of over-unity debates before becoming more educated). 

You can take positive energy if you leave negative energy, the sum of the energy in the universe is likely to be zero anyways, it's just a game of balancing positive and negative energies. 

You don't have to take my word for it though, and who knows if it's right or not, but the concept that you can't create positive energy from nothing leaves us at a bit of a loss in explaining both the origin of our energy we now use, and why we seem to have a perfectly balanced amount of negative energy and 'dark matter'. 

http://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html



With respect to gravity, it's not magnetism (though nobody knows what either is, so I suppose they could be manifestations of the same thing at some higher-than-humans-cant-yet-observe-level). Gravity can only apply a force vector tangent to it's center of mass, and it's not a 'force' in the way we know any other type of 'force', it's more like a potential-energy sink than 'force'. Magnetic flux can be effectively shaped/guided/bent/directed however to produce forces in any orientations required.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Gravity is actually acceleration of a massive object due to the distortion of time. If time on one end of an object nearer another moves more slowly than at the other end, such as your feet compared to your head, you will experience a constant acceleration which accounts for the apparent "force" exerted between your feet and the ground.

It may be true that the sum of all negative and positive energy, and its matter/antimatter equivalents, may be zero. This makes sense applied to other things on a philosophical level, such as there can be no good without evil.

Gravity and magnetism may hold a few mysteries, especially on the quantum mechanical level and at extreme temperature as may have existed in the first microseconds of the "big bang", or at the other extreme close to absolute zero, but under conditions that actually exist or can be made to exist on a practical basis, the effects are well understood. There is really no chance for a cleverly constructed electronic or mechanical device to tap into unknown sources of energy as claimed by so many scammers and deluded pseudoscientists. 

There are sources of free energy (other than sun, wind, geothermal and such), but generally impractical to harvest to any extent. A gyroscope or pendulum can extract some energy from the earth's rotation, for instance, but you would be hard pressed to obtain even a few watts. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and some/most of it is laughable.


----------



## IamIan (Mar 29, 2009)

liveforphysics said:


> You can take positive energy if you leave negative energy, the sum of the energy in the universe is likely to be zero anyways, it's just a game of balancing positive and negative energies.


In theory you can.
AFAIK no one ever actually has separated the zero into + here and - there, and been able to use the + for anything.

Such a split zero into + and - is also not perpetual motion ... eventually you can't contain the increasing - ... or the ever increasing amounts of - you release start to undo your own + ... still ultimately a finite energy source.

So what + thing do you want to nullify with the - you will produce from splitting the Zero into + and - ?

Over all you would be more net efficient and better off to just use that other + you will be nullifying instead of splitting the zero in the first place.



liveforphysics said:


> You don't have to take my word for it though, and who knows if it's right or not, but the concept that you can't create positive energy from nothing leaves us at a bit of a loss in explaining both the origin of our energy we now use, and why we seem to have a perfectly balanced amount of negative energy and 'dark matter'.


Dark matter and negative energy are NOT balanced. You've misunderstood. Dark matter is only a % of all Matter. 

A different thing entirely is + and - energy balance in the universe. Why is it a mystery at all? ... what evidence do you have to suspect there ever should be more + than - ... or more - than +?

Origin of our universe is a different topic from perpetual motion.
The need to create + from nothing only comes up in that different topic if you had nothing to start with. Which to-date is only a proofless theory that there ever was 'nothing' for a universe.



liveforphysics said:


> With respect to gravity, it's not magnetism (though nobody knows what either is, so I suppose they could be manifestations of the same thing at some higher-than-humans-cant-yet-observe-level).


I think you are over trivializing the amount we do know about magnetism and the amount we do know about Gravity.

We might not know everything. But you only have to apply what we do already know in order to know that perpetual motion ( while extracting energy ) doesn't work ... and never will... no matter how much someone might wish upon a star that there could be a way for it to work.



liveforphysics said:


> Gravity can only apply a force vector tangent to it's center of mass, and it's not a 'force' in the way we know any other type of 'force', it's more like a potential-energy sink than 'force'. Magnetic flux can be effectively shaped/guided/bent/directed however to produce forces in any orientations required.


Incorrect... you can't shape/guide/bend magnetic fields into any orientation you wish ... there are significant and real limits.

If you don't like the implications of fields from a gravity point of view ... Another example of a real world mono-pole is with electric fields ... the Electron is an electric mono-pole ... and the proton is an electric mono-polo ... and yet these electric mono-pole fields in any orientation you like ... will still not result in the net effect of perpetual motion ( while extracting energy ).

It doesn't matter what orientation you use ... fields do not work that way... mono-pole or not.

But by all means ... if you have a solution to the field equations that shows that there is any orientation that would allow you to do this ... by all means ... write up your work , present your correct math... such a incredible accomplishment would easily win a noble prize ... that's $1.2 Million US , just to be able to show it is even possible ( you don't even have to build one ).


----------

