PDA

View Full Version : amplification of potential energy



raaaid
11-18-2005, 03:02 PM
i rise 10 tons 10 m up by lowering ten tons 10 m down with a pulley

i connect the weights with a weightless balance i use the oscillation of the balance to produce electricity with an electric motor, when the weights reach the initial altitude the process is repeated

can anyone explain whats wrong with this assumption?

raaaid
11-18-2005, 03:02 PM
i rise 10 tons 10 m up by lowering ten tons 10 m down with a pulley

i connect the weights with a weightless balance i use the oscillation of the balance to produce electricity with an electric motor, when the weights reach the initial altitude the process is repeated

can anyone explain whats wrong with this assumption?

x6BL_Brando
11-18-2005, 03:04 PM
Friction.

EnGaurde
11-18-2005, 03:31 PM
why do you need 10 tonnes? why wont 1 kg do?

also whilst being no scientist i understand enough about energy to know there are no free rides... you must balance out with in. No creation nor destruction etc etc.

consequently the losses in the system will rob you of any efficiency that could make this idea beneficial. Everythings been tried before eh?

you wanna impress me? detail Teslas experiments and explain to me how he did what he is supposed to have done with electricity.

Zeus-cat
11-18-2005, 03:54 PM
Your weights will stop in whatever position they are in as soon as you connect the motor. As pointed out, this is due to friction.

Have you ever tried turning the handle on a Van de Graff generator (electric generator used in schools to demonstrate electrical generation)? When the thing is not hooked up to a circuit it is very easy to turn. When you hook it up to a small light bulb it is very difficult to turn.

You will get only a very small amount of electricity out of your system before the friction of the electric motor is too great for the weights to overcome. Compare that to all the enrgy it took to build your system and you will see it is a waste of time.

Zeus-cat

WWSensei
11-18-2005, 04:34 PM
your system is in balance. The potential energy of the high block will balance the amount of needed energy to lift the low block therefore neither will move without another external force added to the system...at which point you aren't producing energy, but at best converting it.

Also, there is no such thing as a weightless, frictionless balance and wishing it won't make it so.

And this is BEFORE you attach your electric motor...which has inertia to overcome of the motor before it can start.

Conservation of Energy isn't a suggestion. It's a law.

polak5
11-18-2005, 05:15 PM
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/503/monkeyrobot3cm.jpg

LEBillfish
11-18-2005, 07:42 PM
raaaid, imagine this.......

A steam based generator.....The required energy to make electricity being heat to make the steam to turn the turbine, to turn the generator.....

Liquid Nitrogen.....power required a small amount of solar generated electricity to run a pump and the sun used to heat the liquid nitrogen with a possible assist from more solar generated electricity, the nitrogen expanding when turned to a gas now shielded (insulated) to keep it in that state.......Turns the turbine and generator making electricity as the spent nitrogen steam is recooled to a liquid by the outside "solar shielded" temperatures and the process simply cycles.....

Magnetic bearings...the only friction that of the pump sealing, turbine sealing, and generator internal physical contacts (brushes and the like if they use them..............

In outer space......

wrap your mind around that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

arcadeace
11-18-2005, 07:55 PM
Raaaid, you give me confidence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FritzGryphon
11-18-2005, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">to produce electricity with an electric motor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good luck with that.

TC_Stele
11-18-2005, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/503/monkeyrobot3cm.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

fordfan25
11-19-2005, 12:05 AM
what if "cat" were spelled D.O.G and "dog" was spelled C.A.T then how would you spell "pig" ? hu? hu? aint gotta clue do you? yea thats right, bow down to my big brain.

raaaid
11-19-2005, 06:01 AM
you dont know how a balance works, the key of it is the vertical fixed arm

consider a big balance with 10 tons in each side with 1 m vertical arm, it starts from total verticallity and try to stop from reaching horizontallity does that produce energy? and you put the weights workless by a pulley into a potential diference that can be as big as you want, one up the other down, but that the balance the bigger the potential energy difference the bigger the energy produced when levelling

some may say that if you have a 1 m vertical arm both weights lose 1 m of potential energy when they level

to avoid this take the weights 100 m up and 100 m down take 1 m vertical arm and to not lower the weights farther than their origin make one arm 99 meters and the other 101 m, this way the weigths will always have the same shared potential energy and the balance will still tend to horizontallity, not a perfect horizontallity but certainly wont be vertical

raisen
11-19-2005, 06:08 AM
More suggestions from raaaid at http://www.butterflynet.com

WWSensei
11-19-2005, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
you dont know how a balance works, the key of it is the vertical fixed arm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know how one works perfectly well. Once again, you are simply leaving out half the energy costs and then claiming to have found free energy. After about a dozen of these posts from you where people have constatnly pointed your rather simplistic mistakes I've come to the conclusion you either are too dense to get it or too busy trying to pat yourself on the back for appearing to be clever to hear.

Go fishing elsewhere.

raaaid
11-19-2005, 07:06 AM
this is an ideal problem i rise 10 tons 100 m by 0 friction pulleys lowering 10 tons 10 m down, total work done 0

now i have a vertical balance 200 m long with 10 tons in each arm and 1 m vertical arm, one of the balances have an arm of 99 and the other 101 m

the balance produces energy from going to verticallity to horizontallity i repeat the proccess, i use no energy with the pulley i produce energy with the balance

whats wrong with this assumption that books say it isnt possible, then point me exactly why it isnt possible, so far ive given you plenty of obvious explanations you have just said yeah books say so so why bother

plz tell me whats wrong about my idea

raaaid
11-19-2005, 07:16 AM
you know you can raise 10 tons 100 m by lowering 10 tons with a pulley 100 m with almost no energy

you say you know how a balance works and tell me that a 200 m long vertical balance with 10 tons in each 99 and 101m arm with 1 m vertical arm doesnt produce energy when it levels, it produces huge ammounts

you are saying that the same energy required to rise and lower the weights with a pulley is the same energy that a 200 m vertical balance with 1 m vertical arm will produce?

LEBillfish
11-19-2005, 07:41 AM
You keep saying the word yourself yet keep missing it......

Balance......

If "balanced" it goes no where and does nothing. Any energy applied to move it (which I'll not go into things Sensei tried to tell you above like starting torque let alone the massive amount of energy to stop something once it has momentum)....Is lost.......Any energy you hope to gain from this moving mass would entail adding mass or force to one side or the other to overcome the "balance"......At that point you expend more energy to shift that weight or add force then you will gain......Also, do not count on gravity to aid you as it is pulling equally on the other side so once agin equalling 0.

In the end, the amount of energy produced by any mechanism will be less then what is expended to make it work.....Once again though;

Balance = 0
-5 + 5 = 0....-20,000# + 20,000# = 0....-100' + 100' = 0

I'm just learning basic mechanics trying to understand machinery so no expert.....I'd suggest instead of trying to leapfrog learning going right to the miracle solution, you devote your time to first learning about mechanics, physics, mathmatics and so on first....Then begin to apply the principals you have learned as you investigate the gaps in what is known.

Now, if you want to have some fun investigate a simple little mechanism called a "toggle" which is a very fun example of distance, force in vs. out, leverage and so on.....In the end you'll find a toggle can produce gazillions of pounds of force for very little put in...YET...you sacrifice distance traveled.

In the end you'll discover other principals like distance traveled + x force = y force out and so on. Your pullys another example of "expending energy through distance traveled to achieve a greater force".

Learn the basics.....Inclined plane, wedge, lever, screw, pully, wheel and axle.......In the end you'll discover even that more basic...As an Inclined plane, wedge and screw are all about the same with just a different method for applying the force.

etc....

Zeus-cat
11-19-2005, 07:43 AM
Demand a refund from whatever school you are attending if this is the quality of knowledge they are giving to you. Your idea is so obviously flawed its sad that you didn't figure out why it can't work in the time it took you to type it.

Zeus-cat

LEBillfish
11-19-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EnGaurde:
detail Teslas experiments and explain to me how he did what he is supposed to have done with electricity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's even more interesting to me was his work in "vibration" proving even a tiny vibrator could cause steel to melt, homes to crumble and possibly even shake the world into pieces.....Pretty interesting stuff.

raaaid
11-19-2005, 12:52 PM
i have some idea of what im talking i got an 8 out of ten in mechanics

after 5 years thinking i finally consider i got to the idea which will allow me to build a perpetuum mobile because is an idea that works on the paper what i will start now

something to spend the time with till the crappy sea in normal mode is fixed

Treetop64
11-19-2005, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i have some idea of what im talking i got an 8 out of ten in mechanics

after 5 years thinking i finally consider i got to the idea which will allow me to build a perpetuum mobile because is an idea that works on the paper what i will start now

something to spend the time with till the crappy sea in normal mode is fixed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then, by all means... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Ritter_Cuda
11-19-2005, 02:24 PM
Raaid you want to get rich by breaking the rules Great! But you must first know the rules.All the Ideas you have posted are half a plan. As the saying goes Half a plan is worst then none at all.
Cuda

Advina
11-19-2005, 03:24 PM
I don't say much on this forum, but I feel compelled to encourage raaaid's posts because they bring me constant entertainment...

x6BL_Brando
11-19-2005, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">after 5 years thinking i finally consider i got to the idea which will allow me to build a perpetuum mobile because is an idea that works on the paper what i will start now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Having made your point about your humanitarian principles and your desire to help everyone by providing free energy - why don't you turn your obvious talents to think of ways to provide nearly free energy?

Many a good man has gone totally doo-lally trying to perfect 'perpetual' motion. Give your ego a holiday, grab a job, and build a PC that will show the sea clearly.

Tully__
11-19-2005, 10:28 PM
Raaaid you're neglecting a force again. When the balance rocks without external load, the energy recovered as the high arm descends to the middle point is used to drive the low arm up.

Once you add the electric generator, some of that energy is diverted and the balance will have less deflection from centre on each pass. It will take very little time for the energy diverted into the electric motor to equal the energy initially available in the system, at which time you will find the balance is level and at rest. End of "perpetual motion" I'm afraid and I know this as I've seen this demonstrated repeatedly with pretty much exactly the setup you've described.

GAU-8
11-20-2005, 01:36 AM
raaaid,

take smaller bites to your ideas. get "realistically" as close as possible to your design by building models first. then see why they

1.dont work
2.workk-but has a different outcome than what you imigined

3. work (might take a long time for this one)

i also have to agree with brando here. find something NEARLY free energy..and work with that first.

you have big ideas, and thats great! but, science IS learning a new LANGUAGE, and your taking all the "learn "sceince" language in 10 days" route, rather than LEARNING the language in a real environment it seems.

raaaid
11-20-2005, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Once you add the electric generator, some of that energy is diverted and the balance will have less deflection from centre on each pass. It will take very little time for the energy diverted into the electric motor to equal the energy initially available in the system, at which time you will find the balance is level and at rest </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

then i put the weights up and down again with an almost 0 friction pulley=almost 0 work

but this time ill put a diference of 1000 m, being free amplification with the pulley, XD

now time to put again the almost no weight balance with 1 m vertical arm

by the way do you realize that after putting the weights up and down freely with the pulley and switching to balance the 1 m vertical arm makes the weights cause a torque of 10+10 tons*1m, being the balance vertical,torque exerced on the axe and i inssist by laws of mechanics using the pulley i rised and lowered the weights almost freely

i think is a very simply idea

cpirrmann
11-20-2005, 07:25 AM
The models have already been done for centuries. They're called clocks. That's why they have either a spring or weight. The friction stops them. That's the problem with science today. Wishing for a certain outcome before the experiment and changing the experiment to provide the outcome.

Clan_Graham
11-20-2005, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/503/monkeyrobot3cm.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The monkey is far too young for sexual activity.
It's more likely that the doll was created as a surrogate mother in order to provide some emotional comfort for the baby monkey.

But then again, it could be a monkey humping a robot.

I'll get raaaid working on it.

d9720267
11-21-2005, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Clan_Graham:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/503/monkeyrobot3cm.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The monkey is far too young for sexual activity.
It's more likely that the doll was created as a surrogate mother in order to provide some emotional comfort for the baby monkey.

But then again, it could be a monkey humping a robot.

I'll get raaaid working on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Close, but no banana. The picture is of a famous set of psychology experiments performed in the 60's. They aimed to find out whether babies clung to their mothers simply because their mother was a source of food, or because of other reasons.

You'll notice there are 2 model 'mothers'. One has a non-monkey-like face, cold wire body, but teats filled with milk. The other has no milk, but a realistic (to a baby monkey) face, and fur. The baby monkeys went to the fur-covered, milkless models every time, completely ignoring the food source.

BSS_Goat
11-21-2005, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:.... will allow me to build a perpetuum mobile because is an idea that works on the paper what i will start now
something to spend the time with till the crappy sea in normal mode is fixed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soooooo, if you get a good sea in normal mode you will deprive the world of the first perpetual motion machine? WHO SAYS THIS IS JUST A GAME!!!

LEBillfish
11-21-2005, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Soooooo, if you get a good sea in normal mode you will deprive the world of the first perpetual motion machine? WHO SAYS THIS IS JUST A GAME!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tully__
11-22-2005, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i rise 10 tons 10 m up by lowering ten tons 10 m down with a pulley

i connect the weights with a weightless balance i use the oscillation of the balance to produce electricity with an electric motor, when the weights reach the initial altitude the process is repeated

can anyone explain whats wrong with this assumption? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My goodness I'm slow this week, I only just worked out what you're describing. It wont work coz the balance doesn't move the low weight up as far is it lets the high weight down. Each time you raise the high weight/lower the low weight on the pulley then transfer to the balance, the low weight is going to end up a bit lower. That's where your output energy is coming from, the loss of potential energy due to one of the weights losing height in the gravity field.

chaikanut
11-22-2005, 07:03 AM
Divert your energy and enthusiasm into learning some elementary physics and the math that allows you to express it. Then you will be qualfied to express an opinion on anything of that sort. ''Free'' energy is very likely possible but not with ANY part involving classical mechanics.