Perpetual motion challenge

[bigstiggerNo1]

A recent development in meta-materials has copied this design. I came up with this idea years ago. They are still stuck at 4 but the design of their latices is nearly there. They'll soon have 8.

[powermaks]

in this example (referring to my previous comment) say you attach a load toi the faster small load. the genorator will get harder to spin to speed. this is how the breaks work on the fancy hybrid cars work. connect the driving motor backwards to the battery and the spining wheel energy will be converted into electric energy to charge the batterys and the car will eventwaly stop.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@powermaks Hybrid cars still use brakes. To stop a car with a charging system alone. The charging units would have to be that powerful, the car would be over unity. Or you would be wasting energy somewhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!

Secondly if you use that amount of power that you use to stop, cars would do 500mph +. You do the Math's. Brakes are good enough to lock all 4 wheels from 200mph to zero. You try and wheel spin all four wheel from 0 to 200mph?

[powermaks]

the law of conservatioin clearly states "energy cannot be made nor destroyed." this will not work. when you connect a load, your first motorized input will choke down to a stop. trust me, i have tried many ideas. but there is still hope in "tesla energy devices" pickups, and other sources that take advantage of potential energy stored on the earth. but there is no hope for magnet motors and such.

[subsystems]

A car will never produce more power at the wheel than the engine produces no matter how low a gear ratio is involved. Increase torque yes, power no and energy no.

[subsystems]

The scientific community's only interest in perpetual motion is to try to educate people as to the reason nature doesn't allow it to happen. The unfortunate fact that people continue to pursue it underscores how big of a problem we have with educating our youth about science & physics. In this case it is a lack of understanding about the difference between torque, power and energy and how it is transferred from one pulley to another.

[JRBeaman]

The key to the answer to your question is in what you said:

You "seem" to get out what you put in. (Same amount)

That is why these types of devices are easily sold to neophytes.

Your demonstration can come in many forms, with mechanical, electromechanical, etc, etc. but the results are the same:

You get close.

What people should learn from all this is that improving the setup to get closer to the same gives them insight of how to improve efficiency. Good lesson. Thanks.

[bigstiggerNo1]

The previous comment is intriguing, leading me to ask if you made and tested the model?

[onthecuttingedge2005]

seems to be? I don't think so. you can not get more energy out then what you put in period.

[LiamXaoh]

Just what the world needs.  More shit videos with nothing to say.

[sjh7132]

Wow the solution to the energy problem is two motors connected with a belt. If you want anyone to take you seriously then show the experiment so we can point out where your measurement error is.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@sjh7132 You're still on the no bandwagon when widespread commercial fusion is so close you can touch it! Wake up!

[sjh7132]

@bigstiggerNo1

i didn't say fusion wasn't possible. We know it's possible because that's what runs the sun. And the energy comes from destroying mass. There is a big difference between fusion and thinking you can create power from two motors and a belt.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@sjh7132 Your wrong. You are going along with the anti perpetual motion crew and won't take yes for an answer. Fusion is over-unity. So saying what I did didn't work cuz it's impossible and I must have measure wrong readings is just like saying Fusion power is impossible! The two can be linked, I rest my case.

[sjh7132]

@bigstiggerNo1

Fusion is not over unity. E = M C^2 means that you can destroy mass and get energy for it. When you fuse atoms together to get a new atom, mass is lost, and that's why you get energy. However if you are so sure about your discover, then show some measurements in a video.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@sjh7132 See. Told you so.  Explain expansion of the Universe?

[sjh7132]

@bigstiggerNo1

Bringing in a whole bunch of unrelated physics isn't going to prove your device works.  Just show the device working. Make it run itself while you are at it.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@sjh7132 Okay, you don't see the connection. I'm truely sorry. I thought it was an obvious link, especially in the physics part of science. And expansion of the Universe is one and the same too. The problem we have on Earth as opposed to outer space and inter-solar system space and inter-galatic space is the amount of resistance on circuits; And everything for that matter. It's about density of energy. Earth is rich in all energies/resistance being in a solar system and close to a star.

[sjh7132]

@bigstiggerNo1 "Earth is rich in all energies/resistance being in a solar system and close to a star" Yes I agree 100%. Those are called geothermal and solar energy. That's different than thinking you can get energy from nothing.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@sjh7132 You just don't get what ur saying do you? Geothermal and Solar energies are both what? So why did you differenciate?  Without a Star there would be no geothermal! So be careful before you spurt some more brainwashed stuff.

[sjh7132]

@bigstiggerNo1 Get to the point man. You are still claiming that two motors connected with a belt are somehow able to produce energy? Are you now saying that energy is coming from the earth or the Sun? Or are you saying that you have a fusion reactor in your motor? I differentiate because I know how to harness the known sources of energy, and two motors with a belt isn't one of them. I've asked you to show your measurements and all you do is blurt out a bunch of nonsense. SHOW IT WORKING

[bigstiggerNo1]

@sjh7132 What are you going to pay me to show you. I have gave you all the clues. If you are that stupid and brainwashed that you don't believe and haven't even tried then what can I do unless you put some funds up to cover loss of invention with no patent cover as it is classed as impossible! PUT UP OR SHUT UP

[sjh7132]

@bigstiggerNo1

Ah here it is, the true reason for this claim. "I have this wonderful machine that will solve the worlds problems, but I just need $XXXX.XX to develop it, even through I claim it can be shown with 2 motors and a belt. Everyone send me money." It's the same old con. I'm not stupid enough to fall for this and hope nobody else is either.

If it doesn't work for me, you will just say the belt is wrong, or the motor is the wrong type or any other wide range of excusses.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@sjh7132 I could say even more about you side of things but it isn't worth waisting my 500 char type. As I said; Nough said!

Y should I give you or the millions watching the nudge required to make the thing when you or one of them could have the funds to make the thing and make monies from it. Only an arshole would give away the secrete to a money making idea.

To use your reasoning "same old same old, give me money and when it don't work" is stupid. I hope some did get small monies 4 nought.

[MAXxxyz]

I didn't try this and neither do i plan to. However i do know enough about physics to tell you that you will never be able to pull as much power out of this setup as you are putting in. In fact i can almost promise you, that a higher gear ratio will result in a higher loss as well (due to increased friction).

And no. Something like this is not of interest to the scientific community, as perpetual motion isn't real.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@MAXxxyz Well really. Man can't do heavier than air flight and fusion power is impossible to harness. Well in facts at atomic scale all things are perpetual and with constant expansion nothing would exist ever. So your quote can never be true just like the quotes about heavier than air flight and fusion power.

I'm sure it will enhance your caree being a lick ass though. So if you plan to have kids just carry on being brain washed or covering up. Whichever you're doing!

[Austin25254]

@bigstiggerNo1 Now demonstrate your work to a bunch of scientist, and collect your Nobel Prize.

[johnroach1]

This is cute. If it is true God would have to decend one of his laws.

[getsafe1212]

I just noticed in the description of the video: "Perpetual motion challenge for budding ecologist out their."

While I'm sure most ecologists have a decent understanding of thermodynamics, you should be asking an engineer rather than an ecologist.

Do you take your dog to the auto mechanic when it's sick?

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 NitPicking! What is your real point? And you're wrong the title is "Perpetual motion challenge" No more text anywhere apart from in the description!

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 HAHA, read your description retard! And I quote, again, "Perpetual motion challenge for budding ecologist out their."

Mind you, I started the last comment with "I just noticed in the DESCRIPTION of the video..."

No wonder you're so ignorant of science, your reading comprehension skills are on par with a 2nd grader.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 Calling me a retard then 1/2 way through ur statement admitting your mistake that i had already pointed out. What does that make you, as well as being none-scenically and ignorant, you are also antagonistic and moronic? I thought you had academic lustre not ghetto logic.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 I made no mistake: what are you referring to?

I think you misread yet another comment.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 Okay, I got carried away, and missed the fact you had actually read the description. It still stands that you are nitpicking over simantics. Both engineers and Ecologist would be interested. The fact is that there are such things as ecologist engineers. And anyone interested in energy conservaion would have ecology in mind. Perpetual motion itself is ecological. So again whether I made a small missread and got a bit excited I am still correct. Try again washer boy.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 "Perpetual motion itself is ecological"

Definitions:

Perpetual motion - hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely

Ecology - the scientific study of the relation of living organisms to each other and their surroundings

They don't sound related to me. If you're going to try to argue living organisms are perpetual, I'll save some time: they're not, energy is derived from surroundings (sun, geothermal, etc.)

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 Living organisms (meaning Life) you say without realizing what lifes ambition is. Every living organism ambition is to carry on and live forever! Nough said! Is that related enough for you short sighted mind?

[narragansettharco]

Free energy technology exists!But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!

[ruihfazevedo]

Energy = Voltage * Intensity * Time

not just a voltage relations.. voltage and intensity are usually changed by AC transformers (thats what they do) however energy is theoretically conserved, in practice we have some loss

Work = Energy

Power = Voltage * Intencity (the potencial of work realisation over time)

[bigstiggerNo1]

@ruihfazevedo I suppose you me EM radiation leaving the circuit becuase of resistance. Maybe with the advent of carbon nano tube circuits along with spintronics, resistance can be reduced enough to stop heat loss and radiation. All can be contained and reused eventually, fusion processes in JET show that. My ratio experiment led me to biuld a rectified A/C D/C rig test. Until hot it is overunity by only 5W in a 12V 110A circuit, but still 5W is 5W! +5W degregates to below as heat raised.

[getsafe1212]

Hahahahah I actually watched your video this time, wow you've got quite the imagination. Let's step through your machine -

1 Electric energy in

2 convert to mechanical (<90% efficient)

3 Lose energy in pulleys (<90% efficient)

4 Mechanical to electric energy (<90% efficient)

With my very conservative estimates, your overall efficiency should be less than 73% efficient, but I bet it'd be closer to 20% considering you built it in your garage with cheap parts. What exactly did you measure?

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 HA HA HA, Now you admit you just shouted abuse at me for no reason without even listening first. Is that how they brain washed you in the first place!

73% perh

20%LOL

Listen, I AM RIGHT!

I don't care if you don't listen in class and don't listen anywhere else and just walk the mogadon rope

Fusion is possible now you know? Just two years ago you were laughing at that too? 120 years ago you woould have laughed at heavier than air fight even though birds were there and doing it!

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 That's true, I started abusing based on your comments. But the video is hilarious.

Why don't you address my comment? There is absolutely no way that device is over unity, as I've outlined. If you think it'll work (or believe you measured over unity) you're absolutely mistaken.

Again, what specifically did you measure? You need to measure power into the first motor and power output from the generator.

Of course fusion is possible. It also doesn't violate the laws of thermo

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 And BTW, I spotted that your work was flawed based on the comments, so I had every right to start questioning you. There was a very clear reason I "abused" you, your information is false. I gotta do my part to debunk pseudo-science

[bigstiggerNo1]

The green picture here shows a 9 section electron cell. It holds exactly 9 electrons and no more only one electron (the centre) has access to all the others. There is only one positively charged. Negativity will seek negativity. Confinded all hell breaks loose. There a way to gain useful work from this arrangement not dipicted, but obvious! Only idiots critisise me!

[Duffytoler]

Voltage isn't power. Voltage multiplied by current is power.

Power isn't energy. Power multiplied by time is energy.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@Duffytoler we say. What Are Virgins, Virgins Are Rare. w=watt a=amp v=volt r=resistance. But if you didn't get that here we go.

I is R which is known as resistance (to flow)

A is known as Ampere or Amps (flow rate)

V is known as voltage or volts (amount or quantity in flow or pertential flow)

W is known as wattage or watts (amount of pressure/flow coverted and used by consumer)

As you can see I understand the basics quite well!

Now if you don't understand my challenge ask, don't critisie.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 "I is R which is known as resistance (to flow)"

Wrong, I is current, representing electron flow, V is electromagnetic potential, P = Power, in units of watts. The terms are related by ohms law, V=IR, where R is resistance in ohms.

You don't seem to understand basic physics at all. If you had made it past highschool physics you should have a basic understanding of DC circuits

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 sorry i was in a rush when writing it. thanks. And yes I know basic of propogated standard circuits. I also know about energies that are lost in the DC circuit and all the wavelengths we just don't harness that are everywhere and natural. Next you'll tell me it's impossible to exceed the speed of light?

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 "Next you'll tell me it's impossible to exceed the speed of light?"

That's true, an object's kinetic energy approaches infinity as it's velocity approaches c.

All the energies lost in the DC circuit? Resistive heating, that's all (unless we're talking about a LED I guess).

As far as harnessing light energy, the technology is called solar panels (ie photovoltaics)

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 So infinity is reached at the speed of light. At which point a black hole occurs does it? What do you think happens to the matter? Remember the Russian have a rf interferance technology on some aircraft to allow them to travel extremely fast without special metals or shapes.

Next you will say you travel through time when you go fast. If so don't stand upi to much as your body will go out of sink during your life. And always have friends that reside at the same height as you!

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 The Russians have radio interference devices that allow them to break the speed of light? Or change the aerodynamics of their vehicles? HAHAHA, I don't think so.

You don't time travel when you go fast (relativistic velocity), time is relative to your frame of reference however. Do you have any physics education?

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 Rusians use the RF to change areo and protect the metals of there aircraft. They operate the systems to catch upwith and overtake the blackbird USAF plane. Thier foxback aircraft is capable of Mach 3 but can only do this once as the engines burn out.  That is well known. The RF technology is top secret stuff but you can still read about it, as theoretical stuff. It has been implementent and reporters have died reporting it!

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 Reference frames.You should know that time is none stopping and fluid in motion.There is no point in time,only local instance.The increments of time are what we make.Time does not stop for any man and a reference frame as you put it is artificial!Time is equal everywhere.You say the light took a finite time to reach earth from another star!

I say I can zoom in onto another planet xLY away and see events going on today on that planet equal to today here, not seeing past events!

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 "Time is equal everywhere."

No, time is not constant. You obviously have no understanding of relativity, let alone thermodynamics.

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 you said reference frame not me! Maybe you should go back and look at the contrite nature of your stance now? Relativity has it's understanding in the name of the THEORY. Thermodynamics are not understood fully. FULLSTOP. If you say you understand them you are not human! I have a basic understanding of thermal values gravity and most things. Antone who watches weather broadcasts avidly like I do can see thermadynamics in the weather charts.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 If you think science regards theories as a "guess," a "hypothesis," you're wrong. Theories are long standing hypothesis which provide explanation for all the evidence we gather. They can be used to make predictions.

Remember, gravity is just a theory too... why don't you jump out of a building?

Are you joking about the weather charts? Do you know what thermodymamics means?

[bigstiggerNo1]

@bigstiggerNo1 I had a quick refresh today and it seems that the earth can be seen as a system if you have imagination. But if you like we can condense our discussion to an internal combustion engine. I like big things though so if you can jump out of the box and imagine the atmosphere as a thermodynamic system it's easier?

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 Anything you draw inside of a control volume can be thought of as a system. Aside from seeing temperature maps and density-gradient based flow on a weather report, what does that do to actually increase your knowledge of thermodynamics?

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 Ypu are contrite. I just used weather to show thermodynaics. You then shunned it and now you admit is as a system. Wake up. I am right you are a mogadon.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 So you have formally studied thermodynamics? You realize perpetual motion violates the first and second law?

I shunned it because I asked what your education was, and you basically replied "weather reports."

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 In interest of advancing our conversation, here is one of your old quotes: "I also know about energies that are lost in the DC circuit and all the wavelengths we just don't harness that are everywhere and natural."

What wavelengths are you referring to? What type of wave? How would we begin to harness such energy? Where is energy lost in DC circuits aside from resistive load?

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 DCwavelengths: 1:Free electrons move through a dc circuit in nearly one direction, the free space in the wires is not uniform.These DC circuit movements have a signwave(RFwavelegth).

2:As we know if we use an extention lead while coiled up it overheats and sets on fire.

How to utilise the energies: Enamel the strands and coil smaller wires around them, insulate,then we regain in the new coils. like ferrite amps but without losses.

NEXT: Duty-cycle on-off nature should show losses.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 "These DC circuit movements have a signwave(RFwavelegth)."

Haha, if your talking about photon creation as electrons are excited in valence shells, you'd be kind of right. That's why all materials have a non-zero resistivity.

It's "sine wave," not "sign wave." And no, losses in DC circuits are not periodic, there random. Your solution suggests that we recover energy via a magnetic field. Actually that would decrease efficiency further. Your device is called a "transformer"

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 "Duty-cycle on-off nature should show losses." What the hell is that? Those words don't form a complete thought.

Duty-cycle is an engineering term, when we talk about nature we use physics terms, like "incidence," "probability," etc. "Should show losses?" Are you suggesting you've discovered something that violates the second law of thermo?

[bigstiggerNo1]

@getsafe1212 Wavelengths in nature: Just quoted today 20/09/2010 ITN news UK. Solar flare threatens to disrupt UK power supply in 2013 for up to 3 months. Another earlier this week was London at threat of 100 year earth quake, UK experiance an Earthquake 6.7 magnitude...

Natural wavelengths that we can use to make power:

1:Solar power,clouds,wind. Above ground power (tesla towers).

2:Fault lines, aquifas make land lights, land batteries possible. The energies under ground have enormous power.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 Interference due to solar flares is a somewhat well understood topic. Earthquakes are an understood phenomena, however hard to predict.

Solar and wind are hot topics, no need to address those.

So explain what you know that scientists and engineers don't, who study these topics in great detail for a living? How are we going to harness "wavelengths?" (that's an incorrect term, it really suggests you have no science education in these topics)

[hottgp]

@getsafe1212 That's it. I've stayed with your discussion with Bigstigger as long as I can. There is extememly little science in what he says and it is only to your credit that I have read this far. It is refreshing to see that there are intelligent individuals on youtube. I really do enjoy an intelligent exchange but it seems that all to often I find myself in the company of those like bigstigger. Don't go easy on him, you've made this enjoyable.

[getsafe1212]

@hottgp hahaha, thanks bro!

When I engage people on youtube about perpetual motion or creationism, I expect responses such as bigstiggers. If someone is illogical enough to dismiss evolution, or the laws of thermo, you can be almost assured to have an irrational conversation.

Pretty damn entertaining though. I'm in grad school now, and when I feel down about my science, I can always find refuge with the creationists and PMM people on youtube! Always makes me feel decently smart again

[JRBeaman]

The key here is your statement "seems to" and that points to the fact that you must be missing something. DOH! Nice try tho. Hope you had fun.

Thats kool too.

[DieTheDeath]

@ greenlivingitup . com it shows how to build a free energy device with magnets

[chrisofnottingham]

The most likely reason IMHO is that you have measured rms volts and rms amps but not the angle between them.

The only rms measurement that can always give you the power without knowing any angles is "I squared R".

For instance, a purely inductive (or capacitive) load will still give a Vrms and Irms, despite consuming no power. You didn't mention a mechanical load at all, and having no load will obviously make the impedance of the electrical circuit be dominated by the inductive windings.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Someone who read understood and has an intelligent comment for a change. What a refreshing change. The experiment still shows that over-unity is present and is possible! If it was not possible we would not have a universe to observe. I'm glad you recognised the load missing aspect. In fact I did add a 12V 5W bulb as load on later experiments and oh yes it works. I now have a 1/3 turning magnet motor and will try to link 3 or 4 together to see if 360 o is possible. I have confidence it will

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 "The experiment still shows that over-unity is present and is possible! If it was not possible we would not have a universe to observe."

If you have over unity, you've made a mistake. Check your apparatus and math. Most people like you, who legitimately believe in perpetual motion, don't have enough scientific understanding to begin to spot their own errors. Sane scientists believe in the second law of thermo, as its been verified over an over and over again

[bigstiggerNo1]

The unusual thing in this first experiment is that friction resistance in the gears raised in ratio 1:1 to 1:4 then from 1:4 toward 1:8 it lowered. Strange. Maybe the motors were just bedding in?

[OneEyedCyberchicken]

Im no scientist, so i see this, and other ideas, thru a "childs" eye , so to speak.. If we are to accept the laws of "crap in = crap out".. then we are to remain as we are, and never gain new ideas.. I have MANY ideas.. and PLAN on making prototypes.. and i gain my ideas, from others triumphs, and failures, as well as myown... it is fine to have the dicussion as to why this wont work, but to belittle him for having an idea..?.. shameful..

[TheAtheistHero]

This theory is flawed. If we call the big pulley motor B and the small one S; B will always transfer less energy to S than it took to power B. This is regardless of the pulley ratio.You might as well say that you create extra energy whenever you use any kind of leverage. If you theory is logical then please tell us where exactly the extra energy will be coming from. It's too bad it doesn't exist. You could save every starving child in the world if it did.

[bigstiggerNo1]

You brought up pulley's:) If I use a pulley system to lift something that I wouldn't useually be able to lift. Where does the extra energy come from? Yes I have to construct the a frame or building and fix the pulley/hoist to it. But once the hoist is in place I can multiply my own body strenth by a lot!

So for each mars bar I eat I can now do more work thanks to the hoist! The more you talk about it the more you realise how far wool can be drawn over most peoples eyes;) Der

[ThomasRSharp]

The "extra" energy in your above example comes from your own body. If you use a pulley system to lighten a load by 50% you will have to pull the rope twice as far. All you are doing with a pulley if trading weight for distance. If it takes your body two Mars bars to lift a certain load 2 feet; Adding a pulley into the equation will still require two Mars bars because after one bar will allow you to lift the weight only one foot. Come on man this kind of stuff is taught on the Barney show.

[TheAtheistHero]

Well, it looks like Thomas beat me to the pleasure of pointing out your lack of an elementary education. Personally, I think you actually know the concept of a pulley. You can't be that dumb... most likely. If you really thought this idea had any merit you would have already built your own prototype. Either you believe yourself and are a sadist who doesn't want to rid the world of hunger and war, or you're a dumb troll looking for attention. Take your pick. Either way you're just an asshole.

[bigstiggerNo1]

You obviously did not read all the info in the entire webpage the video lays on. And certainly didn't watch the video. I tell you in the info and in the vid that I have already made a prototype and ask you to do the same and add your findings!

Why say impossible until you do the experiment yourself? You'll be surprised what you find when you break through the door and take control of what facts really are! I expect an appology from the clever ones who dissed. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8.

[TheAtheistHero]

Well, I re-watched your video and nowhere in it do you claim to have made a prototype. Same goes for the info box. So, if you did make a prototype why is it you haven't posted your own video of it powering itself? No one else is making one because based on basic logic they know it is a flawed idea. Here's a quote from my favorite scientist, "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking. This is why I show hostility towards people like you.

[bigstiggerNo1]

4 A start I made this prototype 20 years ago when I didn't have, no mobile phones didn't have cameras. Infacts even handy hi8 cams were rare and the microwave had only just become mainstream. That explains why this simple motor arrangment is drawn and not built! Stephen Hawkins read carefully shows the existance of over unity, you just have to have a good memory or read in a hap hazard manner. Don't get swept away in the present, hold past, future and present in mind at all times.Hard 4 most

[TheAtheistHero]

Now you're just making excuses. All you are saying is that you have had 20 years to buy a camera and you failed to do so. You could have saved the money from your electric bill to buy a camera. Why haven't you? The problem with using Hawking Radiation as proof of over unity is that the radiation comes from the mass of the black hole itself eventually evaporating the black hole. There is still a zero gain in energy. If you were talking about something else please cite specific examples.

[bigstiggerNo1]

At the endof the vid I tell you the expected output figures.  showing I have done the experiment.

[getsafe1212]

@bigstiggerNo1 You should visit lhup . edu/~DSIMANEK/museum/unwork.ht­m, the museum of unworkable devices. This entire page is basically devoted to dispelling ideas of perpetual motion, and yes, from an actual science professor!

[UnderManiac]

Why are you challenging people to build the machine? Why don't you build it and see what you get?

Of course, the larger pulley will rotate the smaller one by a factor or 8:1. In theory, this might have a chance. Without all the calculations regarding friction and efficiencies of the motors, I can't say.

Why not use a motor and an alternator from a car? The alternator is designed to output more voltage than the nominal 12v.

[cyborgtroy]

The neutrons are bound to lose some energy on their way into the plutonium, there's no way you can convert enough plutonium to account for all the uranium you'll lose.

[bigstiggerNo1]

The Japanese announced in February that they were going to restart there FBR as the energy crisis is so bad. Against interenational outcries they will start it up once again. And again it will produce about 1.2/3kg of fissionable fuel to every 1kg it uses maybe more!The Koreans are working on a fusion that they say will be 3000-5000% efficient! The USA are working on compressed lazer fusion and here in Europe we are working on plasma fusion. All are over unity!Say what you like

[cyborgtroy]

I say FBRs are just a more efficient type of nuclear reactor, and their total energy output is still less than then the nuclear potential of the fuel because there is no such thing as "overunity".

[bigstiggerNo1]

Okay. But you do agree that they produce more fuel than they use?

If one FBR reactor was to run long enough without any break downs or need for replacement part, it would eventually reach overunity status!

Will you agree with that statement?

[cyborgtroy]

No, I'm pretty sure they're refining fuel, not technically producing it.

If you ran an FBR long enough, you would run out of fuel.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Yes but you can take the shielding and using it as fuel. Then use the spent fuel as shielding. The extra enriched shielding left over can be used to fuel another reactor! That what the scientist in Japn say that are running the reactor their. Not me. I'm just repeating their statments so people who use this medium but wont read normal scientific stuff get to know about it!

Have you read anythingabout the BMW car makers He3 engine built inthe 1940's? It is special and need researching!

[EdgarBoffin]

Even if you produce "more" (ie greater volume) fuel than you began with, that fuel will produce less energy than the original fuel. A design like that might be more efficient, but efficiency can only approach 100%.

[cyborgtroy]

My point exactly.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Fair assumption to make. Unfortunatly though, I am right. It is now scientific fact for the French Japanese and a few other FBR countries.Like I have already told many, the Korean are working on a reactor that is designed to run at 30 to 50 times its input energy.Yes 3000 to 5000% eficiency. I just read the journals and listen to the annouchments.The Yanks are working on a compressed light fusion drive. It's massive. It's over unity. It government funded. It works in theory (nearly finished)

[cyborgtroy]

You can't re-enrich used fuel. Enriching is the process of filtering out good nuclear fuel from raw uranium... stuff.

Enriching doesn't produce any fuel from fuel that's already been used. In fact, used fuel is a completely different element.

An FBR is more like a turbocharger on a car: It helps get fuel in faster, but it doesn't inherently produce extra energy [well, a turbo might, but this slightly different]

[bigstiggerNo1]

What is reprossing then DERRRR! You bombard the depleted urainum or if it has gone too far plutonium with netron it gains mass and becomes Uranium 239 once agin you can use it as fuel!

You ought to read more before rebuting me. Simply type uranium 238 into yahoo and it tells you that as the first search result. Don't say I didn't give you hard evidence in responce this time. And please read about FBR reators. Then you can come join my band wagon;)

[cyborgtroy]

It takes a lot of energy to add neutrons back into a heavy atom like uranium, because it tends to split apart rather than fuse into heavier isotopes.

So it still wouldn't produce free energy.

It would be like trying to use the energy from a falling weight to lift another weight up. It just doesn't work, you'd only be putting back all the energy you got out in the first place.

[bigstiggerNo1]

They line the reaction chamber with plutonium,and use sodium for the reactor coolent instead of heavywater! Sodium allows the netrons to pass through it whereas heavy water is the shielding in standard mag reactor like ours in UK. The insulator in FBR is the plutonium (Or any other heavy dense metal they choose).The plutonium catches the netrons (sheilding). As the netrons build up in the plutonium it gains mass and becomes uranium. At 239 isotope it is now fuel. FBR produces more than it uses!

[bigstiggerNo1]

Listen mate (or should that be kiddy)! You are thinking in atomic structure still when you talk about thermal dynamics! Oh and excuse me have you even read about FBR reactors yet? How about "Fusion_energy_gain_factor". Do you read anything apart from oil barron propergander?

[cyborgtroy]

No, you always get the same amount in as out minus friction.

The different ratios only change the amount of speed versus torque, and if you don't have enough torque, you won't be producing any energy.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Go and read about Fast Breeder Reactors. Then Read About JET reactors. Then understand, I don't care what your text book says in front of your eyes. I have built the thing and it works. So wake up! Read the info about over unity FBR before you even say another "don't work" comment. Your crew are sounding ever dumber and dumber!

[LebelSQuevillon]

If it would work, your name would be in every book for the man who discovered the perpetual movement, solving all the energy problems of the planet, so i dont care what YOUR book says, but one sure thing, thats bullshit. thanks. ciao.

[bigstiggerNo1]

you will soon all being well!

[LebelSQuevillon]

For my part, I can tell you that I'm already well. Just too bad for you we can't say the same of you ;)

[bigstiggerNo1]

I take it your not english speaking or if you are your an idiot?

[LebelSQuevillon]

youre right, im not english.. LOL

[bigstiggerNo1]

Hey it's ok.I had a feeling from your comment you not fluent.We have some UK born idiots that can't speak or read as good as you.They say similar things.They have no excuse, they're stupid. You have an excuse, I was short hand writting and it's hard o follow! I have published some of my book online already!As the fusion movement and over-unity fission reactors are coming online all over the world. It won't be long until you're all reading about stuff like I say from well thought of publications!

[LebelSQuevillon]

Listen kid. To make things clear, i repeat once more. You are the stupid guy here. Ok ? Perpetual movement is impossible due to the very simple and well known law of physics called thermodynamics. Now if you could just get some education, we would be all pleased that you remain silent instead of trying to look smart on youtube to feel like if you had a life. Thanks, cheers ;)

[cyborgtroy]

Aren't those nuclear reactors?

That's completely different from free energy. That's nuclear energy. I think nuclear energy is a pretty good idea, as long as we can hide the waste somewhere.

[bigstiggerNo1]

FBR reactors take the waste and re-enrich it. They re enrich about 20-30% more than they use! Derrrrr thats over unity! Your obviously still brain washed and haven't read! Just go to wiki peadia and read about FBR reactors!

PLEASE!

[Tanibarry]

I have no training however logicaly if the input is the same as the output then you should be able to drive a second motor geared same as the first and and so reading the power output of the second unit or hook up many and if the last motor is spinning the same speed as the first then you can determine this without technical knoledge of testers .

[bigstiggerNo1]

We wish, unfortunatly thereis slight energy loss through frictional forces so a gear or a ratio is needed. Have a look at FBR they are over unity. Have a look at JET it is a fusion over unity device in the UK. I have videos about FBR Fast Breeder Reactors

[marceltony]

i have to commend you for your passion and this type of stuff can confine your thinking . I have a machine going on you tube soon as well and it does NOT work but it sure can be a head scratcher.....good luck to you

[bigstiggerNo1]

Thanks. I wonder if you understand the green eight legged annimation in this video?

[marceltony]

this is s total WASTE OF MY TIME

[bigstiggerNo1]

It's a quick way to show over unity! Waste your time and do it.  It shows over unity straight the way! if you have simple setups handy it could take less than 4 hours to achieve!

[bigstiggerNo1]

WAV VAR (Watt, Amp, Volt, R = ohms) is the calculations I used to work out electricity.

W / A = V

W / V = A

V * A = W

V / A = R

V / R = A

A * R = V

I think you'll find it right. Watts are measure in time of current flow at a certain voltage? Amp hours can be measured too! Similar if not the same thing just differnt scale in rudimenary measurements. i aint no scientist, just laymen stuff I know! Whay I do know you are getting way too deep! My measurements are correct!

[steamcastle]

so what did you use for a load you must have used something.

just to come with an example:

a lead acid battery, I connect the multimeter to the terminal of the battery and measure first volts and then amps.

I get 12v and around 3.5A so what is the maximum watts I can get out of the battery:

42W, 21W or 10.5W?

yes it is 10.5W

V(open circuit)*A(short-circuit)/4 =W

now I just have to say it is not a good idea to an amp measurement like that fore more then a few seconds or the battery may explode.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Once I had graphed the readings and realised 8:1 ratio would give me over unity. I made the 12V working engine. I used a dead lead acid as an accumalator or an approximation of one to offer the resistance you speak of and to enable me to draw the extra over unity current from. The full sized 12V working model didn't use equal sized motors I used a specific 60V A/C generator with rectifiers and regulators. The experiment I put online for you all to do just shows the ratio works. U want more?

[bigstiggerNo1]

the battery may release more amps if you put a larger drain on it. Short is not efficient and can lead to explosion! 3.5A is a very small battery? I work with 12v 40Ah 60Ah and 100Ah deep cycle batteries. The batteries I use can deliver a constant 110A for a short time easily. they can except a charge around 14.5V and 120A until full 1740watts! Then the plates start to warp so a charge controller is required.

[AustinSwill]

yeap you figured it out, all the scientist in the world and all the people trying to crack OU devices didn't realize it was as simple as an 8:1 pulley system!

[bigstiggerNo1]

Sarcasm hehe; 1, you know 8:1 works and it's rudimentary to you? 2, you haven't seen, read or tried 8:1 and you don't believe anyway, so you just want to make a cheap crack at me? 3, something else I didn't think of.....?

I design then built out of mechano such a device 20 years ago. IT WORKS for real, with drag, resistance an friction in a complete working model!

Say what you like, you will any way, but I know and that's all I need to keep me defending my stance!

[DonHoraldo]

how did you come to this startling effect when a 10:1 pulley in a vacuum is in exact opposed to your statement.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Interesting fact 10:1 in facuum. Let me read that after this response but respond now without a question of your fact!

I was being trained, as an electrician. I was being subjected to repeated rectifier circuit diagrams. One day it occurred to me rectification is what it says. Using 1 lot of power to make three lots of the same amount of power and getting the same or more as the original power out (we at present get less). 4 lots of power(equivalent to the input) from one (input) 3.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Now, I hope you understood that. I took a while to write it, such a short msg.

After asking my tutors about the possible of reinstituting power back through in a process, he came out with a statement! "That is perpetual motion, and is not possible". Two weeks later, he killed himself in a car accident. That was the rumour at the time. He was supposed to have drove his car up a pavement running a kid down and then head on into a house or oncoming car or something. But he died! I was sad:(

[bigstiggerNo1]

I pondered what he had said and what I had worked out just through doing the curriculum. In my mind I knew what I had worked out was correct! I had some unfortunate circumstances. Recession, change of place of work, this led to depression. So now out of work but in a lucky position, supportive dad. I started tinkering, with my idea and training. I whittled a ludicrously tinny apparatus together, with determination after a few hours I had a machine that actual produced over-unity.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Now recently I built a new version using similar parts. The idea was to get it on line. I had actually put it together 2003 and ran it. I panicked again when it started ran to get my recording stuff and it blew something inside. I give up quite easily cuz I'm a bit lacking in the want to feel despondency. I started it up again 3 or four weeks ago and another part blew up b4 it had reached over-unity. The part that blew up tested ok, but I was sure it was smoking with flash of light

[bigstiggerNo1]

I removed the part from the machine, stripped it myself and came to a conclusion that I would have to get one of the parts tested that I couldn't test myself. I rebuilt the part and took it to be repaired/tested (well I really thought repaired/replaced). The man/company that tested it, brought it back out to me, "I had heard it running on his test rig".  He brought it back out to me and said it was fine. I think it is still faulty. So that is where I am with putting a video online.

[DonHoraldo]

sounds like you didn't learn any thing in that school of yours.

[bigstiggerNo1]

No, you're right, the school(s) I went to(in) tried to tell me that what I am saying is impossible! I went home and did some home work to come up with this! I actually made real work devices, whittled together, I'm proud to say. Maybe the schools you went to did the same for you(Brainwashing). Brainwashed you! Unfortunately for you, you will never be able to put your anti-gravity propaganda on me!

I know there are crocks out their, and you think I'm one. I'm not asking for money you know!

[bigstiggerNo1]

I made the device and I made the calculations. I documented the progress and it all works out! Unless I have some sort of telekinetic ability to make the physical/real/actual motors, pulleys, wires, and more do what I thought they should do.

If so, I will pull an asteroid out of space and smash it into Buckingham palace today! If that doesn't happen then we'll have to agree the experiments I did worked!

Well I know they did, you think what you like! I just don't care anymore!

[DonHoraldo]

or you made some error in measuring.

[bigstiggerNo1]

I don't think so. To prove it one way or another, maybe you would like to try the experiment yourself?

So "watch the video" then "bit by bit, pause the video" then "write down the instructions" then "carry out the experiments" then "swap the motor to dynamo and dynamo to motor" then "do it all again". Let me know what you find. Do Volts first! Then do Amps second. Then you can use the VIR and WIV rule/formulas to work out watts and resistance! I know what you will find already.

[bigstiggerNo1]

When you find the findings that I know you will find, you'll be uploading vids like me and others do!

If you can document it all in a way that scientist will listen to and understand, maybe the world will move forwards. Hopefully.

[steamcastle]

how are you measure Volts and Amps?

because it sound, like your taking a multimeter connecting it to the output terminals then and then first measuring the Volts and then Amps, that is to say not at the same time,

now I am not an electrical engineer, not for another 6 months.

but when you measure Volts there is no connection through the multimeter then by no amps running, but when you measure Amps there is no resistance in the multimeter there for no volts.

in both case 0 watts an no energy.

[bigstiggerNo1]

Okay so you did the experiment then? If so show your findings don't theorize about watts. watts are an equivalent measurement of amps! There abouts. You forget to mention the fact I haven't included resistance measurements! The multimeters used were microtronic 10A multifunction!

[steamcastle]

no I have not do the experiment.

but did you do the Volts and then Amps measuring at the same time OR one and then the other.

and no, watts are NOT an equivalent measurement of amps, watts are volts times amps.

and watts times time in second gives you joules and that is energy.

[notthatmike]

I found it hard to understand what you're saying. I too have an idea for perpetual motion, although it is completely different from yours. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why my idea wont work. The video for mine is called "Some Sort of Announcement"

[bigstiggerNo1]

This is not an idea, it a challenge. You need to get to equal sized motors, i.e... 12V 3A. Then get a set of pulleys or gears to fit the output shaft. ratios of 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, 1:6,1:8. make a jig to hold the motors so one can be powered by battery and the other can be driven from the powered motor. Start with ratio 1:1 and write down the output voltage from the driven motor (now a dynamo). Continue 1:2 through 1:8 and then post your findings here;). What do U think you'll find?

[bigstiggerNo1]

More than likely your idea will work, but they won't let you call it perpetual! You#ll have to evaluate and think of a better interpretation of what it does, i.e.. overunity, or zero point collection, or background radiation collector, or background free electron collector. Anything but perpetual. They hate that word. Only GOD is aloud to be perpetual!