My idea for a perpetuum mobile - Perpetual Rain

[andiskomfort]

You will also need a cable for the spark plug. You, as tjmbuckley says, neglected the fact, that energy is lost in its transportation (not sure if sayd it right)- the wire connecting the generators to the initial electrodes has resistance. The greater the lenght of the wire- the greater the resistance it has, if i am not mistaken. So the hight gives you a bonus, but also a disadvantage.

[christo48]

make a model and show me.

[dorel1312]

I thought about something similar but I never tried to create one. Have you?

[Japanismus]

@dorel1312 No, I haven't. It would cost lots of money, because it needs to be really high to create energy. And it should not work in theory, because it violates the law of conservation of energy.

[BlackHawkEU]

This is not a perpetuum mobile because it uses a form of energy outside the system. It needs the gravity of earth to work. But it could be a nice engine.

[marinik95]

you will need energy for the sparks generator wich starts the reaction between hydrogen and oxigen so it's not perpetuum mobile.sorry if i'm wrong:D .and i don't know how much energy the falling water could make.but..whatever

[r00dd00d]

for starters, you need some way to recapture the massive amounts of heat and expansion created at the top from combustion.

[LordFabs]

Water does not conduct electricity. Video disproven already...

[Nnn90100]

Еще можно поставить турбину, где H2 поднимается!

[blackjeffrey1]

To those saying that you would get less energy back than that required to hydrolyse the water, you do not understand the concept.

Hydrolysis requires a finite amount of energy, the energy you get back is limited by the height of the machine, and thus could be infinite. You need to show that sum of the hydrogen going up and water coming down is 0 energy, i.e. you get no energy from the hydrogen going up and coming down as water

[LordFabs]

@blackjeffrey1 Here's a very simple explanation of why this doesn't work. 1: Water does not conduct electricity. 2: The turbines don't make enough energy for hydrolysis anyway. Making the chamber taller is not a solution because the falling water molecule quickly reaches terminal velocity and doesnt accelerate. And generating electricity at lots of turbines high above the water level means that the electricity will be dissipated as heat in conduction from turbine to the bottom. And to top spark.

[blackjeffrey1]

@LordFabs 1 - who really cares, that is not being used (unless you are referring to electrolysis, which is a well known process).

2 - enough for what? And as it accelerates, it hits a turbine, then once it passes that, it accelerates again, and hits another. Yes, some energy will dissipate as heat, but so what?

Your explanation fails rather pathetically.

[LordFabs]

@blackjeffrey1 Lets see. First you need to actually watch the video (since it uses electrolysis which is not possible in pure water).

About your idea that magically falling water will keep spinning turbines: A turbine with 100% efficiency is yet to be created. Get a turbine and drop a drop of water onto it from lots of heights and see if you can register anything on a multimeter. You will find that there isnt enough movement to register on a sensitive multimeter, let alone separate water to H+O

[blackjeffrey1]

@LordFabs I did watch the video, and electrolysis does work in pure water, electrolytes can just significantly improve the process by facilitating the transfer of current, and also interfere, producing things like Chlorine gas.

Electrons jump onto the water, generating H2.

Electrons jump off the water, generating O2.

Along with the production of H2, you will also produce OH- from H2O, or H2O from H3O+.

Along with the production of O2, you will also produce H3O+ from H2O or H2O from OH-.

[LordFabs]

@blackjeffrey1 Okay then, let's say it's pure water electrolysing purely because of water's self-ionisation. The turbine spins and generates potential, and sends a bit of electricity to the electrodes. Barely any electrolysis happens, and the rest of the electricity generated becomes wasted to heat and eddy currents and other losses both in the cables and the turbines.

[blackjeffrey1]

@LordFabs And why does it only send a bit? As you can stack it hundreds of km high, you can get heaps of electricity from the turbines. This would allow significant amounts of electrolysis.

You really need to learn how to disprove things.

I have already explained several times why inefficiencies do not come into it, yet you continually bring them up.

Sure, no turbine will be 100% efficient, but how bout 99.999%? Sure, not today, but some day in the future?

[moonsmilelucide]

@LordFabs you're right

[blackjeffrey1]

@LordFabs As for your comment about turbines, exactly how large are the turbines you are suggesting? There are really small ones, like ones which are used to measure wind speed.

Also, why only a drop of water? I don't think the video maker intended it to proceed dropwise.

[LordFabs]

@blackjeffrey1 Any turbine would still be less than 100% efficient, which will cause the system to lose energy and stop. Feel free to build the system and prove me and current physics wrong.

[LordFabs]

@blackjeffrey1 Anyway, if you want to prove it mathematically you need formulas for:

the potential energy of the water molecule falling from a certain height

the energy required to separate water

the energy lost to heat in transmission from generator to spark plug and electrolysis

the energy required to make an actual spark

find an actual turbine and look at its efficiency rating and how much force is needed to turn it. You will be unhappy with your sums probably.

[blackjeffrey1]

@LordFabs Potential energy is just the gravitational potential energy, as this has the capability to reach essentially infinite heights, it is effectively infinite.

As this is infinite, it doesn't matter how much energy is required to separate the water and make a spark, nor how much energy an actual generator will create.

Efficiency can be ignored as well, as all perpetual motion machines that have been disproved, have no change in energy if it is 100% efficient.

[blackjeffrey1]

@LordFabs To disprove it, you need to show that it will not gain/create energy by the rise as H2, and then fall as H2O.

[blackjeffrey1]

You also need to consider the oxygen molecule. That needs to move from the water to the top of the container. This moves similar to how electrons move in a p type semiconductor. When the water molecule forms it will take up an oxygen atom, (2 take up a molecule), as it falls, the oxygen will rise up. Not sure if that if that will work though.

[orangecrunch333]

Lots of problems. energy produced by electodes would be enough EXCEPT for the energy lost to sound, heat, and every water molecule that decided to stick to the glass instead of turning the turbines.

[sardi7]

Very nice ! I think that the error is in the asumption that water would fall. The water is produced by the reaction in gazeous phase, hence under the form of vapor. On a macroscopic point of view, nothing happens when the thermodynamic equilibrium is reached, and the vapor filling the tube is at the saturating pressure. There is the same amount of molecules going down as molecules going up, hence you can't take back the gravitational energy as you can't do it for the atmoshere.

[sardi7]

Very nice ! I think that the error is in the asumption that water would fall. The water is produced by the reation in gazeous phase, hence under the form of vapor. On a macroscopic point of view, nothing happens when the thermodynamic equilibrium is reached, and the vapor filling the tube is at the saturating pressure. There is the same amount of molecules going down as molecules going up, hence you can't take back the gravitational energy as you can't do it for the atmoshere.

[shawnio]

I am not a genius here but doesn't the expansion of the gases come into play here?

[tjmbuckley]

This reminds me of an idea my son (10yo) had to hook a battery drill up to a generator and use the power from the generator to power the drill. It wont work coz of the losses in each device.

[tjmbuckley]

All mechanical devices operate at less than 100% efficiency. In a generator there are the following losses bearing & windage losses and copper & iron losses So your generator would be lucky to achieve 80 % efficiency. The reaction separating hydrogen uses electrical energy and if all of this energy travels up with the hygrogen and is used to make water again and drive the generator. But the generator can only generate 80% of the original energy due to loses. eventually the cycle will stop.

[subsystems]

How about simply replacing the bottom electrodes with a solar heater and the upper electrodes with a large heatsink? The solar heater heats the water to boiling and the heatsink cools it to condensation. This would simply turn the device into a solar powered heat pump. Forget the perpetuum idea and do something that would actually work.

[alain001]

This definatly isn't a perpetuum mobile.

you can just simply put that the reaction (explosion) between h2 and o2 will create an expansion of the gas consisting of H2o, but you forgot to bring the most simplest idea into consideration. Heat. --> lost energy, no need to think all the other comments trough :p

[blackjeffrey1]

@alain001 If heat and losing energy is a problem, make it taller to compensate for the loss. This extra height means more gravitational potential energy and thus overcomes the problem. If you want to dismiss this idea, you need to show why the hydrogen atom doesn't gain energy after going round the cycle.

[alain001]

@blackjeffrey1 probably the simplest thing to say is that the wheel won't make enough energy to convert the amount of water into hydrogen and oxygen

[blackjeffrey1]

@alain001 No. That is not simple. It takes a finite amount of energy to convert 2H2O into 2H2+O2. It will take a finite amount of energy to convert it back into 2H2O at the zapper. You then have it fall where it gains kinetic energy as it falls that it uses to power the generators. There is no limit to how tall this thing is, thus it can produce an infinite amount of energy.

If you don't have enough energy in one design, make it taller.

[kamalmichael]

good idea

[dvoraj20]

I think I can see the problem:

You assume you can get more energy by building the device taller, but gas needs a suitable environment in order to rise - the equal volume of oxygen will have to move downwards. There will be a net flow of hydrogen upwards in the first chamber, net flow of water downwards in the second chamber, net flow of oxygen downwards in the first chamber (buyoancy), and a net flow of oxygen upwards in the second chamber (stable environment), killing the power generators.

[ohguowei]

there is a reason why we havent convert to hydrogen engine in cars...It take too much energy to make ~.~ if it doesnt then we can just make hydrogen with water, burn the hydrogen in engine, and the output will be water and power. then repeat the process and we will be using free energy!!!!! much more effective then your setup

[Japanismus]

@ohguowei I don't think you understand my perpetuum mobile...

[ohguowei]

@Japanismus yes i do understand, currently there is no way effective way of convert water to hydrogen, short of fusion.

energy needed to break the bond for H2O to become H and O is too much for your motor to recover(ur motor need to turn,energy lost), and further more u want to convert them back... that is double the energy require. It is more effective to just burn H... if burning H work in the first place then your plan might work... but no... sadly this is impossible

[aleksandarrudic]

(...) To better understand what I'm talking about, try to calculate how much energy (in joules or Wh) you need for electrolysis of one kg of water, and how much you get from running that same kg of water down from, say 100 m high column. That should be simple calculation for anyone even with elementary school only (I don't know your age, sorry if you are too underage for this discussion). And that calculation will show that you are orders of magnitude short. I hope this was helpful.

[aleksandarrudic]

It may work for a while if you have a good battery. After a finite time, your battery will be empty, even if you would expect it to recharge. Here is why: Energy delivered to electrodes goes to chemical reaction, heating water, and heating electrodes itself. Only chemical energy is what you can consider usefull. When burned down to water, this energy will release. It will go mostly to heat which will escape the system, only minor amount will go to gravitational energy and run generators. (...)

[wyrrox]

I would take ages for this to make one revolution and the energy supplied to the electrodes will not be enough therefore this would stop. 

[sammy3212321]

doesn't the spark generater also need a constant supply of electricity aswell?

[LBGiestas]

the energy liberated by the combustion of the Hidrogen would turn the water into steam, and you would also need a constant flow to make the dinamo work, being able to make both lighter and electrodes work...

anyway, i'm not offending you, just explaining how it woudn't work...

althoug don't stop trying, maybe someday you get what you want...

[EpicSqrl]

You realize this would require much more emery to power the spark generator and electrodes than would be produced by the machine. This is like putting a light bulb in it's socket and claiming it's perpetually producing light an nothings powering it. The laws of thermodynamics have been proven. Think of any instance where energy can be destroyed and I'll pay you five hundred dollars. Poorly thought out. You can't simply bypass the laws of nature. Eventually, the gasses would stop and no oxygen w

[rweerakkody4565]

nice idea!!!!!!!!!

[flytech01]

Its work fine, with more and more generators on an optimal path, but electrolysis with DC not so effective then AC 42.8khz is good. But i think the serried capillary is the right answer to the FREE ENERGY!!!!

[th3dig1tal0n3]

The electrolysis of water is extremely inefficient. Even if electrolysis device would reach 100% efficiency, the "perpetual" motion machine wouldn't work without losses in generators, rectifiers, conductors, electrodes etc. It needs more mechanical parts to work, yet adding new parts, will induce more losses i.e. friction losses.

Closest to the "perpetual motion" machine I have seen is flywheel on magnetic bearings. If it would be enclosed in vacuum it could turn for very long time.

[havrekli]

i think the problem is that Hydrogen and oxygen will form 2layers. for hydrogen to ignite you need oxygen. And to create as much water as you used with electrolysis you need the layers to mix. So no rain will fall.

[nupritofu]

@havrekli: You are right.

Now if you try, to bring the oxygen to the top, you need the energy, you get from the falling water.

[adanieltorres]

My first inclination would be to find out exacly how much energy is needed to get the H2O to separate. That amount of energy is what will need to be derived from the falling rain. I would consider adding turbines for the rising hydrogen. I also notice there would be a pressure increase as you separate the gases. I would consider using the pressure increase to generate the energy for the sparks.

[NUKETHEFISH]

O.K. i have thought of something...what if you made the external part in the shape of a capital D , then basically put something to catch water at the top right of the devise (sort of where the top star is by the yellow wires) then you can make a turbine generator where the hole in the water catcher is, and you essentially have a water cycle generator. You could then put it out in the sun and you would have a solar generator of sorts. get what i mean?

[NUKETHEFISH]

Before I say anything else, please understand that I am a firm believer in the possibility of free energy. I am personally obsessed with the concept and I am aggressively searching for the answer to this riddle. That said, your Idea, in my opinion, would not work due to the fact that the energy supplied to the H2O is not efficient enough to produce enough gas to self sustain. I have tinkered with Hydrogen generation. It requires a lot of "juice". Consider an alteration to your design.

[TheCakeAintNoLie]

are you planning on making this?

if so, upload it when you're done :)

[fuunguus]

I really want to see someone explain why this device wouldn't work. I am a strong believer of the conservation of energy theory that has yet to be disproved, and all other perpetual machines that doesn't work has always been easily explained. But this one, I just can't see why it wouldn't work!

[fuunguus]

@BRyanS72 I donno why you removed comment but it makes sense. Hydrogen is the lightest there is, oxygen is quite heavier. But wouldn't it be possible to bring in oxygen from the atmosphere at the top? If it isn't too high up... But then, the energy wouldn't be free, it would come from the sun as it creates wind that mixes all the molecules up in the atmosphere. I think its solved! This isn't a free energy machine.

[BRyanS72]

@fuunguus Actually I didn't, I just wrote it wrong and had to post a new one. Look in the comments on that video.

[thesourceofx]

@fuunguus I always get hit the same way by these complex machine concepts. But I think I have an idea why this wouldn't work. The reaction that creates water at the top should actually make steam. The condensation of it would take too long to produce a steady enough flow of water to turn the turbines hard enough if you ask me. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to split water and you would need big turbines to compensate for that

[LukaNekoEcho13]

@fuunguus

The force of gravitaion is not constant: F=GmM/(r^2) if you calculate (integrate it basically) it from infinity to earth's radius to get the total energy gain, with m= water's mass, M=earth's mass, you don't even get enough energy to cover 1/10th of the energy needed to split the H2O. LOL

[beamthegreat1]

@fuunguus No offense but it wont work since electric motor has an efficiency of around 60% at best and the electrolysis process requires salt or other mineral as a conductor. Pure H20 cannot conduct electricity alone. Even if you mix NACL into the water, NACL is a poor electric conductor and will have an efficiency of only ~40%. Also, unless the turbine produces an extremely high voltage, some energy will be lost when traveling through the wires (thats why poor country uses 220v instead of 110)

[beamthegreat1]

@fuunguus So basically even if the turbines generate 200% of the energy required to start the reaction, it still wouldn't be enough. A better option would be to get rid of all the process which require energy and leave this device under the sun. The water would evaporate and condense at the top and eventually fall down which will power the turbines. This would be a true perpetual machine (similar to the water cycle) which requires sunlight for operation and produces real energy.

[lordkrispy]

First law of thermodynamics anyone?

[Japanismus]

@lordkrispy I understand that you can't create energy, but I don't understand that this machine doesn't work. That's why I made this video. Btw, that first law of thermodynamics has never been proved.

[TheCakeAintNoLie]

@Japanismus

it uses gravity as a source of energy

[Dasmaster1]

@Japanismus Actually if the first law of thermodynamics was wrong... Why do we always get the right answer when using it in calculations and then get the right result when using those calculations in practice.

Aside from the fact that electricity can almost not travel through PURE water the whole process is flawed. Your thinking about Electrolysis but you cant do that to pure water dude :(

Also the energy to separate H2O is no joke. Water is VERY stable so no chance in getting the energy back

[aleksandarrudic]

@Japanismus ...Actually this has nothig to do with The First Law of Thermodynamics, it does not violate it. The expectation is just for the rain to last forever, not to produce energy. The mechanism is very bad, as it produces immense losses, but the principle is ok. To change it a bit, if you had superfluid He, superconducting engine and generator, and a perfect pump which does not make losses, in a perfectly isolated container, you could make a fountain of liquid He which works forever.

[MrAwsome514]

@Japanismus I think you are greatly over estimating the amount of energy you will be getting from those generators. Wan't to know why? Because you are going to have a constant stream of hydrogen going from the water to the top. Meaning when you ignight the hydrogen at the top it also ignights that stream of hydrogen all the way down to the surface of the water. Assuming the chamber does not rupture the majority of the water will fall back down on the wrong side.

[Japanismus]

@MrAwsome514 That's why you shouldn't use a constant stream of hydrogen. If you first do some electrolysis, then wait until all of the hydrogen is in the top part of the machine and THEN ignite the hydrogen, the water will fall through the generators.

[MrAwsome514]

@Japanismus What you fail to realize though is that when the water comes back down not all of it's energy will be converted into electricity by the generator even if it all falls on the right side. Friction prevents this. That means you will not get enough energy out of each cycle to produce as much hydrogen for the next cycle. It may run through a few cycles but each one will be weaker than the one before it.

[Japanismus]

@MrAwsome514 I understand what you mean but I don't think that you understand the whole idea of this perpetuum mobile. It doesn't matter if not all of the gravitational energy will be transferred to the generators, because you can make the machine as high as you want, because the hydrogen will go up anyway. This means that you get an 'infinte' amount of gravitational energy. That's why it could be a perpetuum mobile.

[MrAwsome514]

@Japanismus No. Are you familliar with the term terminal velocity. An object's falling rate is limited by it's aerodynamics compared against it's weight. At a certain speed the difference in airpressure above and below it creates a force which opposes any further acceleraction. Rain, which this would essencially be, has a rather low terminal velocity. How about you try setting up a generator and setting it out in the rain to get an idea of how it will work... Keep in mind that rain falls further

[Japanismus]

@MrAwsome514 The falling rate doesn't matter. The generators will slow the 'rain' down (and will 'take' their energy), then the rain will accelerate again and other generators will slow the rain down again.

[MrAwsome514]

@Japanismus The main reason why it won't work is because of the friction. The axles in those generators will convert a portion of the energy into heat as they move. Over time eventually all of the energy will be converted into heat in this manner leaving the machine motionless. Assuming you can even get the generators to turn from the falling water. Generators are really not all that effecient any way you know. They will not transfer all of the energy from the rain over to the electrolysis.

[Japanismus]

@MrAwsome514 It doesn't matter if not all of the gravitational energy will go to the electrolysis, because this perpetuum mobile will create energy. You can read about that in the description.

[MrAwsome514]

@Japanismus Energy cannot be created. That is the problem.

[JustDiploid]

@Japanismus It won't work because the current in the wires connected to the electrodes, and the electric spark itself, and the explosive reaction that recombines the H2 and O2 into H2O all produce heat and light (from the spark), which energy will be transferred through convection and conduction OUTSIDE the device with a net loss of energy. Eventually the device will run out of energy. The waterfall will gradually decrease in intensity and the generator will slow until it stops.

[Japanismus]

@JustDiploid But the idea is that this machine will CREATE energy. According to this video, the energy gained by the generators will be higher than the loss caused by friction, heat, sparks etc..

[JustDiploid]

@Japanismus You're just making a wild unsubstantiated claim. Where did you get the idea that the energy released by the generator will be greater than the losses of the system? Let's see your calculations.

When you work out the exact stoichiometry of the chemical reaction, the mechanical friction, electrical resistance, and losses to the electromagnetic field from the spark's light, heat, and EM emissions, you'll find a net loss.

You're relying on intuition instead of calculations.

[gaggeldubTV]

Big Up for the idea!!!

greetings from gaggeldub galaxy