• Welcome to engineeringclicks.com
  • Holy Grail of Mechanical Design?

    Discussion in 'The Leisure Lounge' started by Paul T, Oct 21, 2012.

    1. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      the water wheel itself does a credible job of converting gravitational potential energy into mechanical energy. but not with 100+% efficiency. and a water wheel is not a closed system. the complete system with the water wheel would have to include a large body of water, sunlight, precipitation, and runoff collection. the total efficiency is actually pretty low. Hydroelectric power isn't 'free' energy, it is diffuse solar energy used to evaporate water, which is collected by mountains and channeled into valleys, and then has power extracted by water wheels.

      one of the first and most important lessons of thermodynamics is to be very clear about what the 'system' under study actually is and what it actually isn't.
       
    2.  
    3. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      371
      Likes Received:
      0
      I appreciate your interest, explanations and offer to evaluate any data that I provide. I'm sure many others, especially students will find your information interesting.

      I do not agree with the part about the COP.


      Efficiency is defined as the total useful output (energy or work) divided by the total energy input.

      COP is defined as the total useful output (energy or work) divided by only that energy input that the operator furnishes. It specifically does not consider any extra energy the active environment may input.

      Example:
      The solar cell takes all its energy from its active external environment, the solar radiation. For a typical cell, it wastes about 83% of the input energy, and only outputs 17% as much electrical energy into the circuit as was input to it in the sunlight. Hence its efficiency is rigorously 17%.

      However, the operator inputs ZERO. Well, to calculate the COP, you place the output (some finite number W, for a real cell) in the numerator and the ZERO input by the operator in the denominator. COP = W/0 = infinity. It is perfectly normal to have a system taking all its energy from its external environment, having an efficiency below 50%, and still having COP = infinity.

      The windmill is one, the sailboat is another, and the waterwheel is another. All have efficiencies at about 50% or less, but also have COPs of infinity. You need to change your thinking so you clearly understand that no system has more than 100% efficiency, but it can jolly well have COP>1.0 or even COP = infinity, and that DOES NOT violate thermodynamics.

      Approximately 90% of electrical engineers do not understand it.

      Even a few physicists do not understand it.


      The gravity wheel shown in my previous posts has a COP greater than 1.

      This type of frequency inverter (Prostar PR6000) has maximal load of 1500 W.

      The video where the 30 x 95 watt bulbs are lit starts with the inventor switching on the PR6000 frequency inverter.

      The frequency inverter receives 220v @ 50hz from a wall socket and the Energy Monitor 3000 is connected in between them.

      The Energy Monitor 3000 provides an accurate wattage consumption reading (top of the display) of the frequency inverter.

      When the on button is pressed the PR6000 displays an error code:

      From the manual:

      Fault Code: Er02
      Fault name: Over current at constant speed operation
      Possible cause: Too small inverter power
      Solution: Choose the inverter of larger power

      The load connected to the 3kw motor / generator is 20 x 95 watt bulbs.

      The inventor then tries the same test with 30 x 95 watt bulbs as the load and the PR6000 displays the same error code.

      Off camera the inventor switches off the load and starts the gravity wheel using the PR6000.

      Once the wheel is up to full speed he switches on 20 x 95 watt bulbs.

      The inventor then show the wattage of the Energy Monitor 3000 which is connected between the wall socket and the frequency inverter as 1032 watts with 20 x 95 watt bulbs illuminated running at a frequency of 50hz as displayed on the PR6000.

      There is no overload of the frequency inverter as before.

      The inventor carries out the same test using 30 x 95 watt bulbs as the load.

      The frequency inverter has no overload and the Energy Monitor 3000 displays 1350 watts.


      I believe that the vast majority, if not all of you following this thread may find this extremely hard to swallow unless you actually were there with this device working in front of you and you were carrying out the tests yourselves.

      Do you honestly believe we know everything about science and there are no exceptions to the laws?



      Here is another design I drew in Solidworks a while ago that some of you may find interesting. It uses diametrically magnetized neodymium magnets. 9 in the deflector assembly and 32 in the deflecting elements.

      These magnets have some very interesting properties and if you have never played with any I suggest you may want to buy a few for the experience.

      I found it quite amazing that neodymium is supposed to only lose 1% - 2% of its strength in 100 years!

      If you try to hold two magnets together in a state of repulsion. Who will win the magnets or the person?

      China has the monopoly and controls approximately 97% of the expensive neodymium market.

      The design was ditched in favour of the non magnetic version you see in my posts above.

      This vastly reduced the cost and allowed steel to be used instead of aluminium, titanium and lead.




      [​IMG][​IMG]
      [​IMG]

      [​IMG]



      One of the replicators has given me permission to post his progress.

      https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ikrznic8j9omlgu/OGof5XoUVV?m

      The shafts are a pinch too small on some of the bearings, he is currently trying to resolve this.

      I will post another update when I receive more information from any of the replicators.


      Thank you for your interest.

      Best regards,

      Paul :cool:
       
      Last edited: Oct 28, 2012
    4. Hey Paul I am really glad that the person like you is here with us. We would learn a lot from you. Welcome to the forum!!!
       
    5. Allfat

      Allfat Member

      Joined:
      Apr 2011
      Posts:
      14
      Likes Received:
      0
      You are actually probably not trying to patent this because you know that patent offices won't even look at free-energy devices, not for the well-being of the world around you. Get real.

      This stuff has all been tried before, it is either all trickery or simply untrue.

      /thread
       
    6. jawnn

      jawnn Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jan 2012
      Posts:
      62
      Likes Received:
      0
      Last edited: Oct 29, 2012
    7. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      371
      Likes Received:
      0
      You are welcome to your opinion but there are many patents in existence that relate to devices which harness energy that exists in vast quantities.

      I think it is very short sighted to believe that modern science has uncovered every discovery. Discoveries are being made every day.

      The device already has a patent granted in the inventors home country and he wants to share it with the world rather than fall into the greed trap that nearly every inventor has done so far.

      He hopes to receive some form of financial renumeration from anyone that can afford to donate and rightly so.

      It worked for Linux.

      You cannot prove any part of your statement.

      I can prove every part of what I am saying.


      For anyone that is interested in what I am saying I think you could benefit by watching "Thrive".

      lEV5AFFcZ-s

      Remember at one stage in history people thought the world was flat and flight was impossible. If you thought differently you were considered mad.

      Now it's the other way around.
       
    8. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      371
      Likes Received:
      0
      Cheers, I'm glad you find it educational :)


      Hi, the links you provided reminded me of some of the devices in this link.

      287qd4uI7-E

      They look very pretty but when a load is placed on the main shaft they stop.


      The gravity wheel prototype 11 could be made with a larger diameter wheel and heavier weights to increase the torque output.

      The efficiency could also be increased by using a motor on one side of the main shaft and a permanent magnet generator in place of the motor / generator.

      192kg of weights already produces a lot of torque. ;)
       
    9. Erich

      Erich Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2012
      Posts:
      260
      Likes Received:
      2
      If the inventor has a device that can truly reduce energy use, he will have legions of people lining up to buy a product at a fair price.
      No greed required just a fair exchange in an free and uncoerced market.

      But no, he is shunning greed and offering the technology in exchange for "donations"

      Donations are for charity, where one party offers nothing but their need and the other offers money or assistance.

      My understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics assures me that your device does not work as claimed. I could accept that you
      are merely mistaken in your belief in this device.
      But, your retoric and winky emoticons assure me that you are working a scam.

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... its a duck.
       
    10. Allfat

      Allfat Member

      Joined:
      Apr 2011
      Posts:
      14
      Likes Received:
      0
      Name one free energy device inventor that is making millions being greedy selling their world changing device.

      Then prove it. Prove me wrong. You are the one making the claims here with no proof. But all I have seen so far is some blurry video of numbers on a screen and some light bulbs lit up in the corner. I can make a video showing something spinning in my kitchen with my lights on, but it doesn't mean they are connected. Your video proves nothing.

      Please conduct thorough experiments and when they can be reproduced, then I will start to take you seriously. Until then, good luck changing the energy market.
       
    11. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      371
      Likes Received:
      0
      FACT: Laws are only theory, not fact!

      I don't expect folks to believe what I am saying without further proof. I didn't make the videos. If I had done, the truth would be as plain as the nose on your face!

      I haven't asked anyone for any money or provided any links for donations. Nor am I going to unless the technology is validated and accepted.

      Did Einstein come up with E=MC2 or did someone else?


      Hmmmm, ask yourselves why isn't this all over the (bought and paid for) media???

      Andrea A. Rossi Cold Fusion Generator (E-Cat)

      First customer US Navy.

      National Instruments manufacture E-Cat controls.

      No nuclear waste is emitted, and no radioactive elements are required in the reaction. The gamma radiation produced during operation, which results in the copious heat generated, is shielded by two layers of thin lead.

      http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw

      Patent:

      http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publ...ODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2011005506A1&KC=A1


      I don't really agree with the greedy bit. But he can't open source the technology because of the nature of the way it works.


      This isn't my technology or my videos.

      I will prove it one way or another.

      Maybe I won't need to though if Rossi manufactures his home units or will this be another suppressed technology like the string of others???

      http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-home


      All truth passes through three stages:

      First, it is ridiculed;

      Second, it is violently opposed; and

      Third, it is accepted as self-evident.


      Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
       

    Share This Page

    By using this website you agree to our Cookies usage. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, ads and Newsletters