Free energy can change the world!But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
The generator in the middle will not create more energy than required by the little motor. Your false assumption makes the remainder of your discussion worthless.
What I'm trying to say is once you have started the wheels in motion , the 3rd/4th wheels could both give a little of their energy back to the first wheel, or the first and second wheel .. guaranteeing a continuous cycle of energy . all wheels would be feeding the loop, leaving the final 5th/6th wheel to harness and keep all their energies to power the generator/ desired object ..
Just a thought , why not use the 3rd or 4th merry go round to power the first one, Obviously you have to have something start the first one before we can talk about 3rd or 4th even moving , but using your original Idea, you could then chanel some of the energy from the 3rd wheel to power 1st wheel more than sufficiently .. creating a continuous circuit of energy ..
I think it would be intereating to use this idea in a stacked VAWT vertical axle wind turbine, using magnetic lift to reduce friction. The stack would be vertical, one wheel over the other.
this will not work, some energy is lost due to friction in the bearings of both the "merry go round" (driven wheel) as well as in the drive motor. not to mention the gearing between the drive and driven wheel. In other words, the original kids energy that got the momentum going would eventually be converted to heat, at which point it would either stop, or it would need outside power to run it, at which point you have nothing more than an electrically powered merry go round.
Once the energy put into the first wheel by the kid runs out (i.e. converted to electricity by the generator), the energy required by the motor to keep the wheel running is more than (or at most equal to, in an ideal world) the energy converted by the generator. There is no "excess energy" to power the next wheel, and it all stops there. This is basic physics.
your design is inefficent. it is better to get the power directly from what ever you are going to supplement it with. study your physics more. there is something called the law of conservation of energy.
The most perpetual thing about perpetual motion machines is all the faith in overcoming the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Momentum does not create energy, but belief in the impossible creates more belief.
This wont work but dont take my word for it. This is such a simple concept that any halfway bright child could build a proof of concept machine with....lets say a couple of sk8board bearings a couple of diff size wheels, a magnet and some copper wire (for the generator) and lets say a motor from a toy car. A budget of mayby 20 $ if you buy it all new. And probably 2 Hrs construction time. If you want to prove this works build it. You'll be an instant celebrity. Its how they did it OldSchool.
Won't work ,do the electical math. My father and I have found that there needs to be solar or wind invalved. I have worked with this plan for a long time. I have lost again and again. The system will eventualy run out of power , even if not in one day or a week. It will stop. I have wind and solar on my house now. I may know of a some what sim plan but I am still working on the transmition for my unit. good luck but pleas dont give up there are ALT ways I am sure.
This video is talking about the flywheel effect. Not a new idea. It's been around for hundreds of years. That's how car engines work. It takes less energy to keep it going than it did to get it going in the first place. The generator you are talking about is an alternator. It runs the electrical devices in your car. The more electricity you use the more gas you use, because of higher demand on the alternator. Plus, you can still charge the battery. There is no secret here.
A merry-go-round is a great example of the flywheel effect. Impart energy (a push) and it will spin for a while with no more input. By giving it repeated pushes it will continue to spin. The spin between pushes is called the flywheel effect.
Now you're being more specific and making sense. The flywheel effect is similar in this case, but it is not a flywheel. A more accurate comparison would be to the inner gear workings of a clock. If you can call those flywheels, then I agree with you. @UnderMan1965
No, the inner gearing of a clock requires a lot of energy to run two or three hands, but that gearing is designed to turn the hands at specific intravels.
The motion you described is the flywheel effect, pure and simple. It would require a fast spinning motor to keep such a large wheel going at the same speed. Remember, you're turning a huge disk with a tiny one.
Just happened to be at the computer while you were on too. It was a day off for me too. I am now on a week's holidays. Gonna visit some haunted house displays in my city beginning the 29th. My version of fun.
I like your idea but it's not perpetual. It relies on an external energy source (the motor). Anyway, I like it. If it actually produces more electricty than it uses my hats off to you. The laws of physics naysayers will say it's impossible. I want somone to prove them all wrong.
In the future that I come from, it's already been recorded that perpetual energy was actually discovered in the late 20th century, b/c a perpetual energy device has been defined as any device that can continue to run, under its own power, even if there are lapses in function. Solar power fits that description, as does wind and hydroelectric. Even though they may stop producing power for a time, they are able to start again under their own power. Now, integrate all those technologies...
buddy maybe the real problem is how complex you r making this "simple "idea""... try to bank ure energy...instead of getting greedy! keep, creepin on. oh and gravity is the key to get u started;)
dude i really hope this is a joke, but judging by the number of videos you have made you must be serious. You really need to understand foundation physics. W=fs, just because the center has greater torque does NOT mean it provides more energy. Your logic is really quite hideous. what you say about hybrids does not help your case, they still follow the laws of thermodynamics. You need to stop embarrassing yourself.
LOL. And you have how many videos on the subject of physics? OH, That's right! You have absolutely Zero!!! Why don't you put up a video if you truly believe you can refute my designs? Don't bother answering, b/c I'll answer for you... you can't b/c you know I'm right. Ha hah haaaaa! By the way, I'll embarass myself all I want, my choice.
Good question, and thanks for asking. I didn't have time within a mere 10 minute video to go into the all the details of a system that involves, and will only work, with integrated technologies working together in a system. Short version is that you need to think of what would happen if we added to this design solar panels on top of the disk, and openings that will also allow the disk to be wind-driven in the absence of sunlight, or in the absence of battery power for the motor...
The net result is that this system will run indefinitely, but not necessarily continuously. In the future, perpetual motion devices are defined as anything that will continue to run, even if there are lapses in function. As long as the device can continue to re-produce motion under its own power, it is considered to be perpetual. A present day example would be an exclusively solar-powered pmd, that will eventually continue to run when the sun comes up again each day, sunlight being a constant.
I am a huge supporter of the work people put forth in the attempt to find a perpetual energy device, however this particular design would not work. To convert the energy from momentum to electricity in the center generator would take away all of the disks momentum.
Imagine that you take a battery wired to a motor. This is attached to a loop that is attached to another motor. When the first turns the other generates energy at equal to or less than the original. Your idea works in this manner.
First you say it doesn't work, then you say it does, which is confusing... As I've said before, I can't explain 200 years worth of advancments in technology in just 10 minutes, that's why I have so many videos explaining the ABCs of systems that WILL exist in the future, using integrated technology to create PMDs. I admit that my communication of ideas could be better, but don't tell me something exists when I've seen it with my own two eyes.
You people used to be so convinced that cars that could travel 100mpg were a myth, and those like myself have been trying to tell you for years that it's possible, and now we have hybrids that get 100, 150, and even 300 miles per gallon of gas (Aptera Motors). O ye of little faith...
Alright, I've pretty much read all the comments and have been totally entertained... this video has actually inspired me to make this profile if that means anything. I have one question, though: Let's say this works and to initiate the process you need a solar powered motor or something... why would you need a PMD? I mean in general, why are we even trying to make one? We have free energy from the sun, the wind, and the water. Why not put our minds into harnessing this better?
VERY GOOD QUESTION! The answer is simple: Let's pretend we're back in time for a moment, when Ben Franklin existed, asking him the same question about electricity. We say to him that we have no need for electricity, so why bother. Now, think of all the things we would not currently have if there were no electricity today... Or what about Thomas Edision's light bulb, and life without man-made light sources. I have seen all the things that result from the invention of the PMD, as you call it...
I don't see it work, myself. For yourself, stop making excuses that you don't have the resources, all you need is some electric motors(you can buy them for a few dollars). They can be used as motors if you apply electricity to them or generators if you spin them without electricity. So there you go, let's make it work!
Anything new has to withstand the criticizm of the expects and public, but countries like Australia and Norway to name a couple already have great magnetic generators and highly efficient alternative fuel machines, it's only time my friend, I'm sitting back and waiting but keep my eyes WIDE open for new innovations , should only be a couple years tops by when things will be commercialized, by the feel of things, I'm just not buying into anything, that will be worthless when those days come.:)
Good. Open-mindedness is all I ask, for when I reveal some more advanced designs. I've told people there's a larger picture, but they won't understand unless I build up their knowledge with examples so they can understand it when I do. I will soon be doing videos on a Monatomic Nuclear Power Net, and the Sydney PMD (Perpetual Motion Device). The videos I've put up so far have served to weed out those that are not open-minded, dealing with basic preparatory concepts, on seemingly useless designs.
I think it's great that your trying!, no one gets it the first time around.And even if you do, naysayers will always be there. And I believe we need, both people who are engineers as well as people who don't have a solid belief of laws of physics, Remember anything is possible and the laws we follow have only been around for 100-200 years, thats not long at all. Keep Brainstorming!
Now that I have a few people, like yourself, who have the right mindset, I'd like to reveal more to you. As I've said before that these are pieces to a larger puzzle, I've been presenting ideas and examples needed to understand more advanced designs. It's the same as if someone who lived 200 years ago developed the automatic transmission for an automobile, but there wasn't an automobile that existed yet to put it into. People would look at it, scoff at it, criticize it etc... just as you said.
wow, even for moronic free energy videos this is idiotic. The only thing perpetual is that people who know nothing about science or engineering or mechanics will perpetually put out stupid ideas like this. 99% of the time when a bunch of scientists said "that will never work" they where right. Go ahead, make it work and take all the credit. Really, its all you.
your design seems efficent but perputual, hardly. you have no reason for why you seem to generate excess energy, you jus hav a complicated gearing system.
tell us how you generate excess energy and we wil all shut up.
It's YOUR job to do that now. If I did it myself, I would have to take all the credit. I would like to share the credit with others, like yourself, who can easily fill in the blanks with your vast reservoir of knowledge and expertise. Again, this goes for Kampar1 too.
my words are as much hot air is yours. dont get offended if people point out obvious flaws in a theory of such levels. the question stil remains an until you can anwser us, where DO you get this excess energy? do some basic calculations for power outputs and you WONT get excess.
For example even theorys of perpetual motion based on the use of magnets are incorrect as magnets are simply highly efficient storers of energy an eventualy demagnitise an the sytem stops.
This line of reasoning extends to your own videos. They are just ideas, but you advertise them as fact, and defend them in a similar manner. Yet they are not proven, even worse, they violate everything we know to be fact. How about you make a prototype, run it, power your house, then make a video.
How about you make a video proving something, anything, otherwise your words are just a bunch of hot air.
Have you ever ridden a bike with gears? Go up a gear, notice that although its easier to push the pedals, you have to pedal faster to get the same acceleration in the wheels than you would have at a lower gear.
Its the exact same principle here. Yes the big wheel generates more energy per rev than it takes to spin the small motor per rev, but the motor has to work alot harder (alot more revs) to spin the big wheel! At best, you could get 100% efficiency, never more
I think you need to re-read what you wrote. If you go up a gear, meaning higher gear, than you would have to pedal Harder, not faster, to get the same acceleration as in lower gears...
Looking back the wording is indeed confusing. Terminology aside, surley you get what im trying to say.
If you dont belive me, i have a friend named Newton who wrote some laws once upon a time and would gladly quote his material if nessecary.
Your right to shoot down all these people saying 'ahh friction is the problem!!' because, technically it might be possible to run it with no moving parts, in a vacumme etc.. that dosnt matter, its the principle of the thing that is really wrong!
you are so full of crap. You're are firstly neglecting air resistance and secondly, saying that conservation of energy does not apply. How the hell do you get excess energy from a generator?!
Noooooo... YOU'RE full of crap. Haaaaaaaaaa! Stating in a comment that I said something that I didn't is very immature. You think people will buy into your lie, but they can see right through it...
There's no way this could possibly work... A basic principle: energy can be neither created nor destroyed - You talk about having 'excess energy/electricity' - from where?
Generators are by no means 100% efficient and there will inevitably be other frictional effects on the wheel-even if it is 'magnetically levitated' as you suggest. The current induced in the generator will be nowhere near enough to power a larger disc...
Just b/c a kid doesn't know where milk comes from, doesn't negate its existence. In the same way, just b/c YOU don't know where the extra energy is coming from, doesn't mean its not there. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
you know, energy is lost because of friction. the friction in between the "wheel" and the motor. there is also friction in between the wheel and the generator. this is never going to work. if you think about it, if this was possible, people would have constructed these things already.
Wrong answer. Friction is not an issue if it's designed so that no moving parts actually touch each other. You're like someone from 1800 who would tell us today that there's no such thing as a cell phone, not possible. Nice try though.
If there were ANY surplus in the generator, then it would work. BUT, in our current technology, no matter how you gear it or leverage it (from speed to power) it does NOT create more than it uses. All I see in the invention IS ENERGY CONVERSION...not creation as Bessler007 stated. YOU purort that you are from the future...so enlighten us all as to ANY guess as to how you think this is otherwise. I truly AM interested...not just flaming.
LOL. I'm glady you're NOT "flaming" as you said, b/c then I'd be worried about you hitting on me. By the way, how long have you HAD the delusion that you're a comedian?
If you don't already understand how this works, then you don't possess the education level to do anything with it. This video is for the more highly educated. Sorry to hear you're not there yet.
I cant believe i just watched this. Now my head hurts. This guy would have a hard time thinking his way out of a paper bag if he had a lighter a knife and a pair of scissors. D@mn!!!
twparnell keeps writing me emails, saying how this won't work and supposively why. He's like a person who says a joke isn't funny before the comedian has finished telling it.
As I've said in my videos titled, "Polarity shift...", I'm still giving you guys the ABCs upon which all of future technology is based. Just because you don't yet understand what I'm presenting, doesn't mean it won't work. You have to make it work, like the inventors of the combustion engine I mentioned in the previous comment.
Did those who were designing the first combustion engine stop when they asked themselves, "How are we going to power this engine?" No! They came up with an electrical system. Did they stop when they found out the engine ran so hot it would burn itself out? No! They came up with a cooling system. Did they stop when they thought, "How are we going to transfer the generated power from engine to the wheels?" NO!!! They came up with a transmission!!!!!
You have extremely flawed initial assumptions. It will just not work. Stop trying, you are fooling yourself, you cannot create energy from nothing. Sorry to put you down like this but you're an idiot. Even if it WAS 100% efficient, you would still have no net energy gain, energy in would equal energy out. HOW can you not see this? FOOL!
That's like saying "This engine block you're designing won't take anyone anywhere! Why don't you just give up? It won't make the vehicle move one bit; It's just a hunk of metal with some holes in it!!!" You're being narrow-minded. I've showed you one color from the pallette, and you're already complaining there's not enough color in your painting.
You have NO scientific explanations, no equations, you state 'ECONOMIES of SCALE' as a reason for getting more energy out than in. If you'd really like I could get everyone of the proffessors at Cambridge to tell you you're wrong (even the one's that lecture in English will realise you're wrong.) You may think you're 'from the future' and that people poo pooed the 'airplane' but we know enough to know that this will never work.
If you really believed that the design wouldn't work you'd make a video and at least offer Some proof, but I don't see any. You say I'm not proving it can work with a whole video explanation, yet you want everyone to accept a few words in a comment as proof that it Won't work... LOL
The burden of proof lies with you. If you claim that this will work, then build it! The fact is that it will not work because you will never create more energy than you use. You need to get an education, preferably in thermodynamics.
I went to a seminar on Nuclear fusion the other day, now there is an interesting area where we can get more energy out of a system that we put in (to the system to get the energy out of the fuel, in this case very light atoms existing in a plasma (which is the problem at the moment as it requires temperatures in orders of magnitude greater than those on the sun)), maybe you should look into that for a real engineering problem.
First of all, there's a lot of energy involved in stripping electrons from atoms to make plasma. So before you even start using the plasma to create energy, you're already at an energy deficit! This doesn't make sense.
And if you use nuclear energy to power to counteract the reversion of plasma to neutral gas, then how do you plan to deal with all the nuclear waste produced in the process? I'd prefer Clean energy, please...
fusion, unlike fission doesn't create nuclear waste. at the moment it uses more energy than it makes, but they're increasing the size of the reactors ( a project anticipated to be completed in 20 yrs or so) to the tune of billions. The difference is the theory is there and it works, your theory is flawed. Look to be honest you're pretty tedious, so I can't be bothered to keep telling you you're wrong, I'll let you waste your time and you can find out for yourself.
Once again, you haven't provided one shred of actual proof, other than just your words in a comment, that this design is flawed. Wait! Let me take a crack at this!... "The Theory of relativity is wrong!" There you go, must be so, b/c I said it in a comment. Dee dee dee
This is great as long as you can suspend the law of conservation of energy. Why should the generator make more power than the motor needed to spin it? In practice, the power you get from such a generator will always be less than you put into it.
I think applications of science are very imaginative. For example, if you think of energy like money. If you had $100 in quarters, you couldn't convert it to $101 Likewise, you can convert electrical energy to mechanical energy by spinning up the flywheel, but it will be the same amount of energy. There are a lot of cool things that can be done within the laws of physics, but perpetual motion is just not one of them.
Going with your money analogy, you would have to agree that if I put a One hundred dollar bill on one side of a balance, and one hundred dollars in quarters on the other side of the balance, they would not weigh the same although the amount of money remains the same. This applies much more accurately to my video than what you've tried to portray.
LOL! Nice assertion, however faulty it may be. Things are not always what they seem. Thousands of years ago, it was only a theory that the earth was actually round, not flat; only a theory that man could fly; only a theory that man could travel to the moon. Imagine how people would treat YOU, if you somehow ended up back in time telling them of all the things you've seen today- for example, a magical wireless device that allows you to talk to someone on the other side of the world?!
When they were designing the internal combustion engine, they didn't just stop at how to use exploding gas to make a crank shaft turn to produce power... The engine was just a large piece in a big puzzle (System). The engine needed a cooling and lubricating system to keep from overheating, an electrical system to supply power, etc... So, too, this design is part of a system.
As I've said in previous comments, this isn't the whole design... I only have 10 minutes to present an idea that is only a piece to a larger puzzle. Take a look at some of the other videos I have on perpetual energy, and then ask, "What would happen if we integrated all these into one?"
Besides, you claim that I can't prove that my video idea will work. I claim that you can't prove that your idea that my idea doesn't work will work. LMFAO!!! @rpt341
yeah, idiot you are. done here i am. good luck though. I hope you devote your life to this cause you have. At least only your children will be ashamed.
But yeah, good luck. Prove me wrong and I will ket you have your way with me.
So Lenz's law still cannot be used to disprove this video, and you have repeatedly failed to disprove it. Instead, you continue to mask your failures with incorrect logic.
This is why inductor coils can be compared to mechanical springs.
I explained that without just saying "conservation of energy".
Even if I am wrong there(which I am not), your logic is still faulty. because when I said "if you use laws other than...I will shutup" I was talking about THIS video, not another.
Ok, so comparing inductor coils to mechanical springs, as you JUST did...
Guess what Law of Physics we have been discussing which completely relates the potential energy stored in a spring, and the kinetic energy that can be emitted by said spring.
Hmmm, that sounds like somehow energy is the same, or conserved if you will.
Relate it to a spring, nice, do some research on spring related systems.
I really don't know what else I can say, I have disproved it. Fairly simply. You will accept Lenz's Law, but not the laws upon which Lenz's Law is based upon. We are going in circles now.
I'm done here, but will post if I find anything I find absurd.
You're incorrect asserting the concept of joule heating negates the effectiveness of this design, this isn't a factor in the cold vacuum of space, or other cooled environment. Again, this design is just a piece to a larger puzzle. @rpt341
This design is nothing. Nothing. Stop kidding yourself. If it's buildable, then prove the math. If the math is wrong, then build it and prove the math wrong.
EVERYTHING ABOUT PHYSICS DISPROVES THIS VIDEO!!!!
It has been disproven, as by your dismissal of everything that is modern physics. I really disproved this in one post, my first post, as others before me had.
I can't disprove your fairy-tale ideas over in bizarro world I guess is what you are saying
LOL! If it's so impossible, why are you having such a hard time arguing against it? Because you have no proof (like you're asking me to provide) that it Doesn't work! Once again, someone mistaking a concept for a schematic... @rpt341
I'm sorry, the proof I has this doesn't work is called... Physics. Properties of Mechanical Systems... Etc. I guess I never made that clear.
I have a picture of the moon. It is 2 inches wide. Does that mean the moon is only 2 inches in diameter? Of course not. But in the picture (i.e. my concept of the moon), this is true.
So how can you refute that? Without using our vast collective knowledge of science, math, and common sense, which you seem to dismiss altogether anyways.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh... you just refuted yourself for me. Since you assert things aren't necessarily what they look like; As you said, just because it looks like this idea won't work doesn't mean that's the case. Thankyou.
Tell me, have you ever attended a college class. Because we all know you don't know crap about basic science and math. Now, it seems you know nothing about language, logic, and debate. Also, memory seems to be lacking in you. I never said it 'looks like' it won't work, I said it 'won't work' and 'can't work'.
But then again, anyone can post videos on youtube. But you should stick to the ones of you getting hit in the head with a skateboard.
LOL. And... obviously you've never taken a college level course in Speech Argumentation, or you would've recognized the logical fallacy (Strawmanship) I used to discredit one of your previous comments.
I say all conflict that exists today is over the alphabet! For example, take a mere 3 letters from the alphabet (a,r,& w), and arrange them thus, war, and you have the reason we are in Iraq. LMAO! Remember you asked for it... @rpt341
He, in fact, we all have the ability now with the internet and youtube to bypass all that crap. This isn't the 1600's where you're persecuted for a theory. Technocreep is able to reach a wide audience via the internet. So, if he solely could fundamentally alter our preconceived ideas of science, he could change the world. We all have that chance now. The internet levels the field.
"or come public because you'd be rich, famous, written in history/science books"
Don't be naive, people have a natural tendency to disagree with new theories, new ideas or anything new. At some point people were considering shutting down patent offices, because everything was supposed to be invented.
The only perpetual motion device of technocreep that I can see major problems with is the one with the magnet rolling through the coil. I think it would be violating Lenz's law.
All the others simply violate your common sense, and common sense can be WRONG. After all, isn't it common sense that the world is flat?
If YOU had studied philosophy, you would know that a "law" is not some absolute godly thing that can't be broken, science is abut finding NEW theories.
I like your use of STRAWMANSHIP (portraying something in a negative way to make it seem refutable) in your comments. You're very creative in how you come up with what seems to be plausible reasons why my designs shouldn't work, even though they do. I'm from the future, so I know a little more than you. @rpt341
These designs do work you say? You have found a generator that breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? And you haven't posted, or come public because you'd be rich, famous, written in history/science books? If that is truly the case, I think that you are an even bigger moron than I did before (I didn't, just uneducated).
And these are not hard equations. They are simple equations. The most simple equations of high school physics. These are already considered to be laws of physics. Unless you can falsify these laws in any way possible, you have already dug your own grave.
This all dependent upon a generator that does not, and (theoretically) can't exist. Granted, in theory in can't. But there is a reason it is called a LAW of physics. Take a philosophy of science class if you don't understand the differences between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.
And if 120% efficient generators did exist, or will ever for that matter, it would render this whole design useless anyways because you could just power them directly from the previous ones.
So, ah, no momentum, or inertia laws there. And even if no 2nd law (allowing for 120% efficiency), the design would mean nothing.
This video is based upon one assumption... it feels easy to keep something moving that is already moving.
Which is true because you are only really combating friction. It won't take much energy to keep it moving. True. But combined with the generator to overcome, with only the generator providing the energy, it can't work.
No. Because the energy used by renewable sources will equal the energy outputted by this device. As for the supplement video, you have acknowledged friction, but that is not the basis for my argument. I am already assuming no friction.
And the radius doesn't matter. Because if you work the equations i have provided, the radius cancels out.
rpt431, what did I say? You prove cannot something wrong with laws that require to be wrong for it to exist! Because that law could be wrong. And do not tell me you are 100 percent sure it is right, because science is about adopting new theories.
By the way techno, I have started trying your second idea, the one with the repelling magnets, but I am using magnetic shielding. I'll try making a video when I get a better camera.
The only problem with your arguments to my videos is that my videos are conceptual. They are not schematic in nature, nor are they intended to be. Therefore, numbers and calculations are not required. @rpt431
It's sooo easy for people to just make comments that I'm somehow wrong. Finally, someone who's actually going to provide a video that might possibly prove something that I've presented wrong... We'll see if your video backs up what you've been commenting. Are you just a poser who tells everyone they're wrong, or do you really know what you're talking about? We'll see.
Yes of course this shouldn't work. I am not saying that it will work, I am just saying that this video is not completely useless and it doesn't deserve this level of hatred.
Ignore everything, come up with some scheme, with no apparent educational background, and people will applaud you for 'thinking outside of the box'. They will give you more credence than scientists and physicists who have devoted their entire lives to this. You would make Tesla ashamed!!!
And I can't analyze a drawing. Please tell me about angular momentum, because if you took any college level class (even high school) you'd know that one can EASILY relate angular speed, torque, and angular momentum to linear velocity, force, and momentum. It's first year Mechanics sir. (it involves pi, that magical number, and the radius to get you started)
Secondly, no one has ever DISPROVEN the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Had they, it would be tremendous news. That's why they are considered LAWS of physics.
This has nothing about thinking outside the box, I believe we can harness the rotation of the Earth and the resultant magnetic field produced to create essentially free energy. But I also don't ignore the facts!!!
This is why it is silly to analyse it with what we know about angular momentum, because if you are analysing it, that means you consider the slight possibility that it might work. And if it works, much of what we know is wrong!
No no no, there is NO possibility this works. There's only one reason he has to defend his argument; that it doesn't take much energy to keep a playground wheel moving. Yes, we've all experienced that. It really feels like it doesn't it? But of course the only force we needed to overcome was friction and wind resistance. He has a chalk board there, come on, let's see some math!!
Can you prove this theory, including any possible derivation thereof, will not work. That will take, ohhhh, about 20 years of your time to finish... @rpt341
Yes, and it will take zero amount of my time to finish. The work has been done by others for me. Yes, I take their word for it, because they were smarter than both you and I. It's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I am not saying this will definitely work, but even if it doesn't work this video is not useless. I think I am right when I say that this video is about ideas, and not meant to tell you exactly how to build a perpetual motion machine.
It's simple math and Mechanics 101. Get yourself a freshman mechanics book and turn to the chapter about the conservation of angular momentum and it explicitly lays out all the math about how linear force and torque (i.e. angular force) are related.
If perpetual motion is possible, then it is stupid to pursue it with laws that require to be wrong for it to be existent. But I guess you simply cannot think out of the box, even for a second, but instead you like to regurgitate information fed to you by others.
It wont work
Stoner4204lifeKOGA 7 months ago
How about a double gearing using a spring system that rewinds itself? This can be
done if you can picture it? If you do this on a bike once you pump the bike it will go
until you stop it.
You can even make a device like a lever that would start this uh bike - What do you think?
musicbill123 8 months ago
by the way thomas edison did not make the light bulb look up joesph swan
mrpyromaster1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy can change the world!But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
violafinishda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u are interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
fittingciobb 1 year ago
Please don't waste your time...
steensn 1 year ago
I knew about this i have a simple invention.. i didnt make it but i have it it's a taser =]
sspoke 2 years ago
No way Jose
valveman12 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ idiot.
DrManhatt4n 2 years ago
There is no excess energy in the generator.
JRBeaman 2 years ago
The generator in the middle will not create more energy than required by the little motor. Your false assumption makes the remainder of your discussion worthless.
JRBeaman 2 years ago
What I'm trying to say is once you have started the wheels in motion , the 3rd/4th wheels could both give a little of their energy back to the first wheel, or the first and second wheel .. guaranteeing a continuous cycle of energy . all wheels would be feeding the loop, leaving the final 5th/6th wheel to harness and keep all their energies to power the generator/ desired object ..
Quantomguy 2 years ago
Just a thought , why not use the 3rd or 4th merry go round to power the first one, Obviously you have to have something start the first one before we can talk about 3rd or 4th even moving , but using your original Idea, you could then chanel some of the energy from the 3rd wheel to power 1st wheel more than sufficiently .. creating a continuous circuit of energy ..
Quantomguy 2 years ago
I think it would be intereating to use this idea in a stacked VAWT vertical axle wind turbine, using magnetic lift to reduce friction. The stack would be vertical, one wheel over the other.
daddeo01905 2 years ago
this will not work, some energy is lost due to friction in the bearings of both the "merry go round" (driven wheel) as well as in the drive motor. not to mention the gearing between the drive and driven wheel. In other words, the original kids energy that got the momentum going would eventually be converted to heat, at which point it would either stop, or it would need outside power to run it, at which point you have nothing more than an electrically powered merry go round.
jimmythekiddd 2 years ago
Here is why this won't work:
Once the energy put into the first wheel by the kid runs out (i.e. converted to electricity by the generator), the energy required by the motor to keep the wheel running is more than (or at most equal to, in an ideal world) the energy converted by the generator. There is no "excess energy" to power the next wheel, and it all stops there. This is basic physics.
mendyn1 2 years ago
your design is inefficent. it is better to get the power directly from what ever you are going to supplement it with. study your physics more. there is something called the law of conservation of energy.
Unforgivingx000 2 years ago 2
The most perpetual thing about perpetual motion machines is all the faith in overcoming the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Momentum does not create energy, but belief in the impossible creates more belief.
amazing763 2 years ago
I have made a small mod that has worked and has not stopped for 3months now..
my design is different but all in all your idea is not bad. This is not a Joke....
Hint: Your problem Starts and ends with your first wheel. IT should be able to start it self. your so F^cking close dont give up!
saybasayba 2 years ago
In response to your hint: That's where the solar supplementation comes in, that I mentioned in the description... Thx for posting...!
technocreep 2 years ago
This wont work but dont take my word for it. This is such a simple concept that any halfway bright child could build a proof of concept machine with....lets say a couple of sk8board bearings a couple of diff size wheels, a magnet and some copper wire (for the generator) and lets say a motor from a toy car. A budget of mayby 20 $ if you buy it all new. And probably 2 Hrs construction time. If you want to prove this works build it. You'll be an instant celebrity. Its how they did it OldSchool.
frankensteinmoneymac 3 years ago
Won't work ,do the electical math. My father and I have found that there needs to be solar or wind invalved. I have worked with this plan for a long time. I have lost again and again. The system will eventualy run out of power , even if not in one day or a week. It will stop. I have wind and solar on my house now. I may know of a some what sim plan but I am still working on the transmition for my unit. good luck but pleas dont give up there are ALT ways I am sure.
Davis8284 3 years ago
Why is it noone reads the description? I said this may be supplemented with Solar, Wind, and energy recapture technologies..
technocreep 3 years ago
What about friction say even if it was possible for it to work friction would consume to much of the energy.
GeneticSupremacy 3 years ago
Magnetic cushion can be used to reduce friction between parts @GeneticSupremacy
technocreep 3 years ago
This video is talking about the flywheel effect. Not a new idea. It's been around for hundreds of years. That's how car engines work. It takes less energy to keep it going than it did to get it going in the first place. The generator you are talking about is an alternator. It runs the electrical devices in your car. The more electricity you use the more gas you use, because of higher demand on the alternator. Plus, you can still charge the battery. There is no secret here.
UnderMan1965 3 years ago
That's like saying the combustion engine is as simple as burning a candle. A fly wheel, it is not... @UnderMan1965
technocreep 3 years ago
A merry-go-round is a great example of the flywheel effect. Impart energy (a push) and it will spin for a while with no more input. By giving it repeated pushes it will continue to spin. The spin between pushes is called the flywheel effect.
UnderMan1965 3 years ago
Now you're being more specific and making sense. The flywheel effect is similar in this case, but it is not a flywheel. A more accurate comparison would be to the inner gear workings of a clock. If you can call those flywheels, then I agree with you. @UnderMan1965
technocreep 3 years ago
No, the inner gearing of a clock requires a lot of energy to run two or three hands, but that gearing is designed to turn the hands at specific intravels.
The motion you described is the flywheel effect, pure and simple. It would require a fast spinning motor to keep such a large wheel going at the same speed. Remember, you're turning a huge disk with a tiny one.
UnderMan1965 3 years ago
Crap! That was a fast response. You're good! Do you live in front of your computer, or what? LOL
technocreep 3 years ago
Just happened to be at the computer while you were on too. It was a day off for me too. I am now on a week's holidays. Gonna visit some haunted house displays in my city beginning the 29th. My version of fun.
UnderMan1965 3 years ago
I actually have no days off, work every day for me. But there's a computer here that I can steal some time on each day. I'm allowed.
technocreep 3 years ago
I like your idea but it's not perpetual. It relies on an external energy source (the motor). Anyway, I like it. If it actually produces more electricty than it uses my hats off to you. The laws of physics naysayers will say it's impossible. I want somone to prove them all wrong.
jamesa66 3 years ago
In the future that I come from, it's already been recorded that perpetual energy was actually discovered in the late 20th century, b/c a perpetual energy device has been defined as any device that can continue to run, under its own power, even if there are lapses in function. Solar power fits that description, as does wind and hydroelectric. Even though they may stop producing power for a time, they are able to start again under their own power. Now, integrate all those technologies...
technocreep 3 years ago
buddy maybe the real problem is how complex you r making this "simple "idea""... try to bank ure energy...instead of getting greedy! keep, creepin on. oh and gravity is the key to get u started;)
WBz41 3 years ago
Already knew about gravity, so I don't know what you're talking about. You should check out my other videos, buddy.
technocreep 3 years ago
dude i really hope this is a joke, but judging by the number of videos you have made you must be serious. You really need to understand foundation physics. W=fs, just because the center has greater torque does NOT mean it provides more energy. Your logic is really quite hideous. what you say about hybrids does not help your case, they still follow the laws of thermodynamics. You need to stop embarrassing yourself.
GTRzilla 3 years ago
LOL. And you have how many videos on the subject of physics? OH, That's right! You have absolutely Zero!!! Why don't you put up a video if you truly believe you can refute my designs? Don't bother answering, b/c I'll answer for you... you can't b/c you know I'm right. Ha hah haaaaa! By the way, I'll embarass myself all I want, my choice.
technocreep 3 years ago
Good question, and thanks for asking. I didn't have time within a mere 10 minute video to go into the all the details of a system that involves, and will only work, with integrated technologies working together in a system. Short version is that you need to think of what would happen if we added to this design solar panels on top of the disk, and openings that will also allow the disk to be wind-driven in the absence of sunlight, or in the absence of battery power for the motor...
technocreep 3 years ago
The net result is that this system will run indefinitely, but not necessarily continuously. In the future, perpetual motion devices are defined as anything that will continue to run, even if there are lapses in function. As long as the device can continue to re-produce motion under its own power, it is considered to be perpetual. A present day example would be an exclusively solar-powered pmd, that will eventually continue to run when the sun comes up again each day, sunlight being a constant.
technocreep 3 years ago
I am a huge supporter of the work people put forth in the attempt to find a perpetual energy device, however this particular design would not work. To convert the energy from momentum to electricity in the center generator would take away all of the disks momentum.
Imagine that you take a battery wired to a motor. This is attached to a loop that is attached to another motor. When the first turns the other generates energy at equal to or less than the original. Your idea works in this manner.
fantum13 3 years ago
First you say it doesn't work, then you say it does, which is confusing... As I've said before, I can't explain 200 years worth of advancments in technology in just 10 minutes, that's why I have so many videos explaining the ABCs of systems that WILL exist in the future, using integrated technology to create PMDs. I admit that my communication of ideas could be better, but don't tell me something exists when I've seen it with my own two eyes.
technocreep 3 years ago
You people used to be so convinced that cars that could travel 100mpg were a myth, and those like myself have been trying to tell you for years that it's possible, and now we have hybrids that get 100, 150, and even 300 miles per gallon of gas (Aptera Motors). O ye of little faith...
technocreep 3 years ago
Alright, I've pretty much read all the comments and have been totally entertained... this video has actually inspired me to make this profile if that means anything. I have one question, though: Let's say this works and to initiate the process you need a solar powered motor or something... why would you need a PMD? I mean in general, why are we even trying to make one? We have free energy from the sun, the wind, and the water. Why not put our minds into harnessing this better?
FilthCrow 3 years ago
VERY GOOD QUESTION! The answer is simple: Let's pretend we're back in time for a moment, when Ben Franklin existed, asking him the same question about electricity. We say to him that we have no need for electricity, so why bother. Now, think of all the things we would not currently have if there were no electricity today... Or what about Thomas Edision's light bulb, and life without man-made light sources. I have seen all the things that result from the invention of the PMD, as you call it...
technocreep 3 years ago
I don't see it work, myself. For yourself, stop making excuses that you don't have the resources, all you need is some electric motors(you can buy them for a few dollars). They can be used as motors if you apply electricity to them or generators if you spin them without electricity. So there you go, let's make it work!
Rotitomato 3 years ago
Looking forward to your video showing this... lol
technocreep 3 years ago
Anything new has to withstand the criticizm of the expects and public, but countries like Australia and Norway to name a couple already have great magnetic generators and highly efficient alternative fuel machines, it's only time my friend, I'm sitting back and waiting but keep my eyes WIDE open for new innovations , should only be a couple years tops by when things will be commercialized, by the feel of things, I'm just not buying into anything, that will be worthless when those days come.:)
lahaver 3 years ago
Good. Open-mindedness is all I ask, for when I reveal some more advanced designs. I've told people there's a larger picture, but they won't understand unless I build up their knowledge with examples so they can understand it when I do. I will soon be doing videos on a Monatomic Nuclear Power Net, and the Sydney PMD (Perpetual Motion Device). The videos I've put up so far have served to weed out those that are not open-minded, dealing with basic preparatory concepts, on seemingly useless designs.
technocreep 3 years ago
I think it's great that your trying!, no one gets it the first time around.And even if you do, naysayers will always be there. And I believe we need, both people who are engineers as well as people who don't have a solid belief of laws of physics, Remember anything is possible and the laws we follow have only been around for 100-200 years, thats not long at all. Keep Brainstorming!
lahaver 3 years ago
Now that I have a few people, like yourself, who have the right mindset, I'd like to reveal more to you. As I've said before that these are pieces to a larger puzzle, I've been presenting ideas and examples needed to understand more advanced designs. It's the same as if someone who lived 200 years ago developed the automatic transmission for an automobile, but there wasn't an automobile that existed yet to put it into. People would look at it, scoff at it, criticize it etc... just as you said.
technocreep 3 years ago
wow, even for moronic free energy videos this is idiotic. The only thing perpetual is that people who know nothing about science or engineering or mechanics will perpetually put out stupid ideas like this. 99% of the time when a bunch of scientists said "that will never work" they where right. Go ahead, make it work and take all the credit. Really, its all you.
trayman113 3 years ago
When someone does make it work, you promise to eat my dirty stained underwear?
technocreep 3 years ago
You need to go to a priest to make a confession...
technocreep 3 years ago
your design seems efficent but perputual, hardly. you have no reason for why you seem to generate excess energy, you jus hav a complicated gearing system.
tell us how you generate excess energy and we wil all shut up.
nickoswoos 4 years ago
It's YOUR job to do that now. If I did it myself, I would have to take all the credit. I would like to share the credit with others, like yourself, who can easily fill in the blanks with your vast reservoir of knowledge and expertise. Again, this goes for Kampar1 too.
technocreep 4 years ago
oh yer an like everyone else is saying where do you generate the exsess energy from on the first wheel? you dont. lol
nickoswoos 4 years ago
Make a video proving something, anything, otherwise your words are just a bunch of hot air.
technocreep 4 years ago
my words are as much hot air is yours. dont get offended if people point out obvious flaws in a theory of such levels. the question stil remains an until you can anwser us, where DO you get this excess energy? do some basic calculations for power outputs and you WONT get excess.
For example even theorys of perpetual motion based on the use of magnets are incorrect as magnets are simply highly efficient storers of energy an eventualy demagnitise an the sytem stops.
nickoswoos 4 years ago
If you're so convinced that you're right, MAKE A VIDEO... And the same goes for Kampar1, in the next comment.
technocreep 4 years ago
This line of reasoning extends to your own videos. They are just ideas, but you advertise them as fact, and defend them in a similar manner. Yet they are not proven, even worse, they violate everything we know to be fact. How about you make a prototype, run it, power your house, then make a video.
How about you make a video proving something, anything, otherwise your words are just a bunch of hot air.
Kampar1 4 years ago
common trap to fal into when pondering over perpetual motion. u neglect the effects of energy loss through friction.
put it in a vacuum yuo'l stil get heat loss.
event some system where none of the parts are touching but u'll need air at some point as a traferable medium, an therefore heat loss.
make this design ul c. itl be efficent, not perpetual.
nickoswoos 4 years ago
Nooo.. you're just criticizing what you don't understand. But thanks for the uneducated supposition.
technocreep 4 years ago
Assuming your not joking
Have you ever ridden a bike with gears? Go up a gear, notice that although its easier to push the pedals, you have to pedal faster to get the same acceleration in the wheels than you would have at a lower gear.
Its the exact same principle here. Yes the big wheel generates more energy per rev than it takes to spin the small motor per rev, but the motor has to work alot harder (alot more revs) to spin the big wheel! At best, you could get 100% efficiency, never more
Kampar1 4 years ago
I think you need to re-read what you wrote. If you go up a gear, meaning higher gear, than you would have to pedal Harder, not faster, to get the same acceleration as in lower gears...
technocreep 4 years ago
Looking back the wording is indeed confusing. Terminology aside, surley you get what im trying to say.
If you dont belive me, i have a friend named Newton who wrote some laws once upon a time and would gladly quote his material if nessecary.
Your right to shoot down all these people saying 'ahh friction is the problem!!' because, technically it might be possible to run it with no moving parts, in a vacumme etc.. that dosnt matter, its the principle of the thing that is really wrong!
Kampar1 4 years ago
you are so full of crap. You're are firstly neglecting air resistance and secondly, saying that conservation of energy does not apply. How the hell do you get excess energy from a generator?!
davide910 4 years ago
Noooooo... YOU'RE full of crap. Haaaaaaaaaa! Stating in a comment that I said something that I didn't is very immature. You think people will buy into your lie, but they can see right through it...
technocreep 4 years ago
There's no way this could possibly work... A basic principle: energy can be neither created nor destroyed - You talk about having 'excess energy/electricity' - from where?
Generators are by no means 100% efficient and there will inevitably be other frictional effects on the wheel-even if it is 'magnetically levitated' as you suggest. The current induced in the generator will be nowhere near enough to power a larger disc...
everythingsgreen 4 years ago
Just b/c a kid doesn't know where milk comes from, doesn't negate its existence. In the same way, just b/c YOU don't know where the extra energy is coming from, doesn't mean its not there. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
technocreep 4 years ago
you know, energy is lost because of friction. the friction in between the "wheel" and the motor. there is also friction in between the wheel and the generator. this is never going to work. if you think about it, if this was possible, people would have constructed these things already.
animorphs123 4 years ago
Wrong answer. Friction is not an issue if it's designed so that no moving parts actually touch each other. You're like someone from 1800 who would tell us today that there's no such thing as a cell phone, not possible. Nice try though.
technocreep 4 years ago
If there were ANY surplus in the generator, then it would work. BUT, in our current technology, no matter how you gear it or leverage it (from speed to power) it does NOT create more than it uses. All I see in the invention IS ENERGY CONVERSION...not creation as Bessler007 stated. YOU purort that you are from the future...so enlighten us all as to ANY guess as to how you think this is otherwise. I truly AM interested...not just flaming.
sassafrassquach 4 years ago
LOL. I'm glady you're NOT "flaming" as you said, b/c then I'd be worried about you hitting on me. By the way, how long have you HAD the delusion that you're a comedian?
technocreep 4 years ago
Actually, transfer from one energy to another is called "energy transformation". Entropy has to do with conversion of heat energy into work.
technocreep 4 years ago
Bessler007,
It would be silly to attempt to explain how this device overcomes the law of conservation of energy for 2 reasons I can think of.
First, if this device isn't compatible with current day science, then you can't use current day science to explain it.
Second, if it works, then the law of conservation of energy must be wrong, or it might be tapping a different source.
So the law of conservation of energy is useless with this device
Gauchland 4 years ago
If you don't already understand how this works, then you don't possess the education level to do anything with it. This video is for the more highly educated. Sorry to hear you're not there yet.
technocreep 4 years ago
I cant believe i just watched this. Now my head hurts. This guy would have a hard time thinking his way out of a paper bag if he had a lighter a knife and a pair of scissors. D@mn!!!
hotrhodium 4 years ago
LOL. You know... MacGyver could take those items and build a spaceship. So why is it so hard to believe me when I tell you the things I do?
technocreep 4 years ago
...so easy to criticize what you don't understand
technocreep 4 years ago
twparnell keeps writing me emails, saying how this won't work and supposively why. He's like a person who says a joke isn't funny before the comedian has finished telling it.
technocreep 4 years ago
As I've said in my videos titled, "Polarity shift...", I'm still giving you guys the ABCs upon which all of future technology is based. Just because you don't yet understand what I'm presenting, doesn't mean it won't work. You have to make it work, like the inventors of the combustion engine I mentioned in the previous comment.
technocreep 4 years ago
Did those who were designing the first combustion engine stop when they asked themselves, "How are we going to power this engine?" No! They came up with an electrical system. Did they stop when they found out the engine ran so hot it would burn itself out? No! They came up with a cooling system. Did they stop when they thought, "How are we going to transfer the generated power from engine to the wheels?" NO!!! They came up with a transmission!!!!!
technocreep 4 years ago
You have extremely flawed initial assumptions. It will just not work. Stop trying, you are fooling yourself, you cannot create energy from nothing. Sorry to put you down like this but you're an idiot. Even if it WAS 100% efficient, you would still have no net energy gain, energy in would equal energy out. HOW can you not see this? FOOL!
twparnell 4 years ago
That's like saying "This engine block you're designing won't take anyone anywhere! Why don't you just give up? It won't make the vehicle move one bit; It's just a hunk of metal with some holes in it!!!" You're being narrow-minded. I've showed you one color from the pallette, and you're already complaining there's not enough color in your painting.
technocreep 4 years ago
You have NO scientific explanations, no equations, you state 'ECONOMIES of SCALE' as a reason for getting more energy out than in. If you'd really like I could get everyone of the proffessors at Cambridge to tell you you're wrong (even the one's that lecture in English will realise you're wrong.) You may think you're 'from the future' and that people poo pooed the 'airplane' but we know enough to know that this will never work.
twparnell 4 years ago
If you really believed that the design wouldn't work you'd make a video and at least offer Some proof, but I don't see any. You say I'm not proving it can work with a whole video explanation, yet you want everyone to accept a few words in a comment as proof that it Won't work... LOL
technocreep 4 years ago
The burden of proof lies with you. If you claim that this will work, then build it! The fact is that it will not work because you will never create more energy than you use. You need to get an education, preferably in thermodynamics.
mid186 4 years ago
I went to a seminar on Nuclear fusion the other day, now there is an interesting area where we can get more energy out of a system that we put in (to the system to get the energy out of the fuel, in this case very light atoms existing in a plasma (which is the problem at the moment as it requires temperatures in orders of magnitude greater than those on the sun)), maybe you should look into that for a real engineering problem.
twparnell 4 years ago
First of all, there's a lot of energy involved in stripping electrons from atoms to make plasma. So before you even start using the plasma to create energy, you're already at an energy deficit! This doesn't make sense.
technocreep 4 years ago
Additionally, it takes sustained power to keep the plasma from recombining to neutral gas. Very inefficient.
technocreep 4 years ago
And if you use nuclear energy to power to counteract the reversion of plasma to neutral gas, then how do you plan to deal with all the nuclear waste produced in the process? I'd prefer Clean energy, please...
technocreep 4 years ago
fusion, unlike fission doesn't create nuclear waste. at the moment it uses more energy than it makes, but they're increasing the size of the reactors ( a project anticipated to be completed in 20 yrs or so) to the tune of billions. The difference is the theory is there and it works, your theory is flawed. Look to be honest you're pretty tedious, so I can't be bothered to keep telling you you're wrong, I'll let you waste your time and you can find out for yourself.
twparnell 4 years ago
Once again, you haven't provided one shred of actual proof, other than just your words in a comment, that this design is flawed. Wait! Let me take a crack at this!... "The Theory of relativity is wrong!" There you go, must be so, b/c I said it in a comment. Dee dee dee
technocreep 4 years ago
I've been gone for over a month now... How's your prototype coming along?
rpt341 4 years ago
I've actually got a video up about prototypes, you should check it out...
technocreep 4 years ago
pixelsfalldown , simply stating that it is a flywheel does not show that it wont work. Could you give more details why you think it wont work?
Gauchland 4 years ago
Bye bye.
technocreep 4 years ago
This is great as long as you can suspend the law of conservation of energy. Why should the generator make more power than the motor needed to spin it? In practice, the power you get from such a generator will always be less than you put into it.
ociemitchell 4 years ago
I think I just upchucked my breakfast at the thought of how unimaginative some people can be, knowing it will never get them anywhere.
technocreep 4 years ago
I think applications of science are very imaginative. For example, if you think of energy like money. If you had $100 in quarters, you couldn't convert it to $101 Likewise, you can convert electrical energy to mechanical energy by spinning up the flywheel, but it will be the same amount of energy. There are a lot of cool things that can be done within the laws of physics, but perpetual motion is just not one of them.
ociemitchell 4 years ago
LOL. Nice anology. Doesn't apply here.
technocreep 4 years ago
Going with your money analogy, you would have to agree that if I put a One hundred dollar bill on one side of a balance, and one hundred dollars in quarters on the other side of the balance, they would not weigh the same although the amount of money remains the same. This applies much more accurately to my video than what you've tried to portray.
technocreep 3 years ago
LOL! Nice assertion, however faulty it may be. Things are not always what they seem. Thousands of years ago, it was only a theory that the earth was actually round, not flat; only a theory that man could fly; only a theory that man could travel to the moon. Imagine how people would treat YOU, if you somehow ended up back in time telling them of all the things you've seen today- for example, a magical wireless device that allows you to talk to someone on the other side of the world?!
technocreep 4 years ago
When this design in incorporated into a larger system, the result is a system that Will produce more power than it takes to run it.
technocreep 4 years ago
When they were designing the internal combustion engine, they didn't just stop at how to use exploding gas to make a crank shaft turn to produce power... The engine was just a large piece in a big puzzle (System). The engine needed a cooling and lubricating system to keep from overheating, an electrical system to supply power, etc... So, too, this design is part of a system.
technocreep 4 years ago
As I've said in previous comments, this isn't the whole design... I only have 10 minutes to present an idea that is only a piece to a larger puzzle. Take a look at some of the other videos I have on perpetual energy, and then ask, "What would happen if we integrated all these into one?"
technocreep 4 years ago
Besides, you claim that I can't prove that my video idea will work. I claim that you can't prove that your idea that my idea doesn't work will work. LMFAO!!! @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
yeah, idiot you are. done here i am. good luck though. I hope you devote your life to this cause you have. At least only your children will be ashamed.
But yeah, good luck. Prove me wrong and I will ket you have your way with me.
Either way I win!!!!
rpt341 4 years ago
You're just upset you lost the argument. I understand...
technocreep 4 years ago
Win what, by the way? You didn't prove me wrong in a video any more than you say I've proved myself right... @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
And rpt341 has been using it all along without even knowing it, not just technocreep.
Gauchland 4 years ago
"you would've recognized the logical fallacy (Strawmanship) "
Exactly! Believe it or not I was thinking the same thing.
Gauchland 4 years ago
I forgot one thing:
"You will accept Lenz's Law, but not the laws upon which Lenz's Law is based upon. "
Lenz's law still works without conservation of energy.
Gauchland 4 years ago
So Lenz's law still cannot be used to disprove this video, and you have repeatedly failed to disprove it. Instead, you continue to mask your failures with incorrect logic.
Gauchland 4 years ago
This is why inductor coils can be compared to mechanical springs.
I explained that without just saying "conservation of energy".
Even if I am wrong there(which I am not), your logic is still faulty. because when I said "if you use laws other than...I will shutup" I was talking about THIS video, not another.
Gauchland 4 years ago
Ok, so comparing inductor coils to mechanical springs, as you JUST did...
Guess what Law of Physics we have been discussing which completely relates the potential energy stored in a spring, and the kinetic energy that can be emitted by said spring.
Hmmm, that sounds like somehow energy is the same, or conserved if you will.
Relate it to a spring, nice, do some research on spring related systems.
rpt341 4 years ago
Ok, when a current is induced it makes a magnetic field right? Yes, now this magnetic field resists the magnet's motion so it slows down.
Gauchland 4 years ago
"Lenz's Law is one consequence of the principle of conservation of energy"
Just because wikipedia says that, it is not mean Lenz's law was reasoned using conservation of energy.
Lenz's law states that induced current flows in a direction to oppose the change that produced it.
That uses logic other than just "conservation of energy" which are three words.
Gauchland 4 years ago
I really don't know what else I can say, I have disproved it. Fairly simply. You will accept Lenz's Law, but not the laws upon which Lenz's Law is based upon. We are going in circles now.
I'm done here, but will post if I find anything I find absurd.
rpt341 4 years ago
And you disagree with his rolling magnet because of Lenz's Law, this from you who have dismissed all fundamental laws of physics?
From Wikipedia regarding Lenz's Law:
"Lenz's Law is one consequence of the principle of conservation of energy."
From your post 4 days ago:
"If you use laws other than the laws of thermodynamics, CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, conservation of momentum to disprove this, then I will shutup."
Oh PWNED!!!
rpt341 4 years ago
You're incorrect asserting the concept of joule heating negates the effectiveness of this design, this isn't a factor in the cold vacuum of space, or other cooled environment. Again, this design is just a piece to a larger puzzle. @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
This design is nothing. Nothing. Stop kidding yourself. If it's buildable, then prove the math. If the math is wrong, then build it and prove the math wrong.
EVERYTHING ABOUT PHYSICS DISPROVES THIS VIDEO!!!!
It has been disproven, as by your dismissal of everything that is modern physics. I really disproved this in one post, my first post, as others before me had.
I can't disprove your fairy-tale ideas over in bizarro world I guess is what you are saying
rpt341 4 years ago
LOL! If it's so impossible, why are you having such a hard time arguing against it? Because you have no proof (like you're asking me to provide) that it Doesn't work! Once again, someone mistaking a concept for a schematic... @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
I'm sorry, the proof I has this doesn't work is called... Physics. Properties of Mechanical Systems... Etc. I guess I never made that clear.
I have a picture of the moon. It is 2 inches wide. Does that mean the moon is only 2 inches in diameter? Of course not. But in the picture (i.e. my concept of the moon), this is true.
So how can you refute that? Without using our vast collective knowledge of science, math, and common sense, which you seem to dismiss altogether anyways.
rpt341 4 years ago
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh... you just refuted yourself for me. Since you assert things aren't necessarily what they look like; As you said, just because it looks like this idea won't work doesn't mean that's the case. Thankyou.
technocreep 4 years ago
Tell me, have you ever attended a college class. Because we all know you don't know crap about basic science and math. Now, it seems you know nothing about language, logic, and debate. Also, memory seems to be lacking in you. I never said it 'looks like' it won't work, I said it 'won't work' and 'can't work'.
But then again, anyone can post videos on youtube. But you should stick to the ones of you getting hit in the head with a skateboard.
rpt341 4 years ago
LOL. And... obviously you've never taken a college level course in Speech Argumentation, or you would've recognized the logical fallacy (Strawmanship) I used to discredit one of your previous comments.
technocreep 4 years ago
OK, Sean Hannity. Thanks for answering the question at hand with another question to try and disqualify the opposition.
If it works, build it. I say it can't work. I say the math says it can't work. I say ALL of physics says it can NOT work.
So what say you creep?
rpt341 4 years ago
I say all conflict that exists today is over the alphabet! For example, take a mere 3 letters from the alphabet (a,r,& w), and arrange them thus, war, and you have the reason we are in Iraq. LMAO! Remember you asked for it... @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
As for the radio talk show host about which whole websites are devoted to asserting him to be a moron, that's a separate issue...
technocreep 4 years ago
He, in fact, we all have the ability now with the internet and youtube to bypass all that crap. This isn't the 1600's where you're persecuted for a theory. Technocreep is able to reach a wide audience via the internet. So, if he solely could fundamentally alter our preconceived ideas of science, he could change the world. We all have that chance now. The internet levels the field.
rpt341 4 years ago
"or come public because you'd be rich, famous, written in history/science books"
Don't be naive, people have a natural tendency to disagree with new theories, new ideas or anything new. At some point people were considering shutting down patent offices, because everything was supposed to be invented.
Gauchland 4 years ago
The only perpetual motion device of technocreep that I can see major problems with is the one with the magnet rolling through the coil. I think it would be violating Lenz's law.
All the others simply violate your common sense, and common sense can be WRONG. After all, isn't it common sense that the world is flat?
Gauchland 4 years ago
If YOU had studied philosophy, you would know that a "law" is not some absolute godly thing that can't be broken, science is abut finding NEW theories.
Gauchland 4 years ago
rpt341
Your equations just state the obvious, but I respect that you tried to prove your claims instead of flaming with no backup.
Gauchland 4 years ago
I like your use of STRAWMANSHIP (portraying something in a negative way to make it seem refutable) in your comments. You're very creative in how you come up with what seems to be plausible reasons why my designs shouldn't work, even though they do. I'm from the future, so I know a little more than you. @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
Not shouldn't. Won't work. Not shouldn't. Can't.
These designs do work you say? You have found a generator that breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? And you haven't posted, or come public because you'd be rich, famous, written in history/science books? If that is truly the case, I think that you are an even bigger moron than I did before (I didn't, just uneducated).
rpt341 4 years ago
And these are not hard equations. They are simple equations. The most simple equations of high school physics. These are already considered to be laws of physics. Unless you can falsify these laws in any way possible, you have already dug your own grave.
rpt341 4 years ago
This all dependent upon a generator that does not, and (theoretically) can't exist. Granted, in theory in can't. But there is a reason it is called a LAW of physics. Take a philosophy of science class if you don't understand the differences between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.
rpt341 4 years ago
And if 120% efficient generators did exist, or will ever for that matter, it would render this whole design useless anyways because you could just power them directly from the previous ones.
So, ah, no momentum, or inertia laws there. And even if no 2nd law (allowing for 120% efficiency), the design would mean nothing.
So, ah, I think we're done here Gauchland?
rpt341 4 years ago
Forget video. I accept your challenge
Power.
Power(linear) = Force X Velocity
Power(angular) = torque X angular velocity
torque = Force X radius
angular velocity = linear velocity / radius
So, our genny is producing power lets say P, something tells me it will be the same P thats needed on the motor on the outside. In fact it is!!!
And that's only if the genny is 100% efficient, which it isn't because those don't exist.
rpt341 4 years ago
Video is in production as we speak.
rpt341 4 years ago
If you use laws other than the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum to disprove this, then I will shutup.
Gauchland 4 years ago
So... if I ignore all the facts?
This video is based upon one assumption... it feels easy to keep something moving that is already moving.
Which is true because you are only really combating friction. It won't take much energy to keep it moving. True. But combined with the generator to overcome, with only the generator providing the energy, it can't work.
rpt341 4 years ago
You're forgetting in the description where I've mentioned supplementary technologies... @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
No. Because the energy used by renewable sources will equal the energy outputted by this device. As for the supplement video, you have acknowledged friction, but that is not the basis for my argument. I am already assuming no friction.
And the radius doesn't matter. Because if you work the equations i have provided, the radius cancels out.
rpt341 4 years ago
You're asking me to use the laws of science to disprove this. Yet I can not use the laws of science to disprove this because you won't let me, right?
rpt341 4 years ago
"It's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"
rpt431, what did I say? You prove cannot something wrong with laws that require to be wrong for it to exist! Because that law could be wrong. And do not tell me you are 100 percent sure it is right, because science is about adopting new theories.
By the way techno, I have started trying your second idea, the one with the repelling magnets, but I am using magnetic shielding. I'll try making a video when I get a better camera.
Gauchland 4 years ago
Looking forward to your video. @Gauchland
technocreep 4 years ago
The only problem with your arguments to my videos is that my videos are conceptual. They are not schematic in nature, nor are they intended to be. Therefore, numbers and calculations are not required. @rpt431
technocreep 4 years ago
We all know that this is not supposed to work! I am not ignoring the work of thousands of years of philosophers and scientists!
You know what? Flight was supposed to be "impossible". Breaking the sound barrier was supposed to be "impossible".
If we have learned one thing from histroy, it is that people can be wrong!
Gauchland 4 years ago
And people can be wrong, but the math isn't. Numbers are numbers. That's why technocreep doesn't use ONE SINGLE number, not one in his video.
I don't hate anything. But the video, and the others, are 100% useless. Stay tuned, tomorrow I will produce a video response to all of his videos.
rpt341 4 years ago
It's sooo easy for people to just make comments that I'm somehow wrong. Finally, someone who's actually going to provide a video that might possibly prove something that I've presented wrong... We'll see if your video backs up what you've been commenting. Are you just a poser who tells everyone they're wrong, or do you really know what you're talking about? We'll see.
technocreep 4 years ago
Yes of course this shouldn't work. I am not saying that it will work, I am just saying that this video is not completely useless and it doesn't deserve this level of hatred.
Gauchland 4 years ago
Ignore everything, come up with some scheme, with no apparent educational background, and people will applaud you for 'thinking outside of the box'. They will give you more credence than scientists and physicists who have devoted their entire lives to this. You would make Tesla ashamed!!!
rpt341 4 years ago
And I can't analyze a drawing. Please tell me about angular momentum, because if you took any college level class (even high school) you'd know that one can EASILY relate angular speed, torque, and angular momentum to linear velocity, force, and momentum. It's first year Mechanics sir. (it involves pi, that magical number, and the radius to get you started)
But that's right, EVERYTHING IS WRONG!
rpt341 4 years ago
Secondly, no one has ever DISPROVEN the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Had they, it would be tremendous news. That's why they are considered LAWS of physics.
This has nothing about thinking outside the box, I believe we can harness the rotation of the Earth and the resultant magnetic field produced to create essentially free energy. But I also don't ignore the facts!!!
rpt341 4 years ago
This is why it is silly to analyse it with what we know about angular momentum, because if you are analysing it, that means you consider the slight possibility that it might work. And if it works, much of what we know is wrong!
Gauchland 4 years ago
No no no, there is NO possibility this works. There's only one reason he has to defend his argument; that it doesn't take much energy to keep a playground wheel moving. Yes, we've all experienced that. It really feels like it doesn't it? But of course the only force we needed to overcome was friction and wind resistance. He has a chalk board there, come on, let's see some math!!
rpt341 4 years ago
Can you prove this theory, including any possible derivation thereof, will not work. That will take, ohhhh, about 20 years of your time to finish... @rpt341
technocreep 4 years ago
Yes, and it will take zero amount of my time to finish. The work has been done by others for me. Yes, I take their word for it, because they were smarter than both you and I. It's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
rpt341 4 years ago
I am not saying this will definitely work, but even if it doesn't work this video is not useless. I think I am right when I say that this video is about ideas, and not meant to tell you exactly how to build a perpetual motion machine.
Gauchland 4 years ago
It's simple math and Mechanics 101. Get yourself a freshman mechanics book and turn to the chapter about the conservation of angular momentum and it explicitly lays out all the math about how linear force and torque (i.e. angular force) are related.
rpt341 4 years ago
If perpetual motion is possible, then it is stupid to pursue it with laws that require to be wrong for it to be existent. But I guess you simply cannot think out of the box, even for a second, but instead you like to regurgitate information fed to you by others.
Gauchland 4 years ago