1. Free energy.

The operation of a float of the engine 01 11357.

The operation of a float. Ex.:

We manufacture the float (variable volume) in such way, that in state of minimal volume it weighs 10 kg UNDER WATER, and in a maximum state of volume it weighs less than water (-)10 kg, so that it emerges worm surface. Ex., if its weight is = 110 kg, its volume is = 100 liters in a its state of min. volume and 120 liters in the state of max. volume.
The float is hermetic, inside is the air and its mechanism, by ex.:

The mechanism includes/understands the mass (any concrete mass e.g. or a volume filled with sand), which is fixed at the end of an arm of lever. Inside are them (or it) springs with gas, and the piston. The spring with gas it is a cylinder with the piston, filled by nitrogen under the pressure. The springs with gas, e.g. are used in the cars for the maintenance of the back door (or of cap), which opens upwards.
The float is under water, e.g. with the depth 3 m, the piston turned worm the top, as shown on the drawing:

We analyze that happens: The mass (e.g. of a weight = 100 kg) will move worm bottom, it will move (will attract inside) the piston, by decreasing the volume of the float and by compressing the springs with gas (to which we store the potential energy).

With the depth 3 m the pressure of water = 0,3 kg /cmÂ². This pressure operate the piston with the force, proportional A overrates it piston. If piston overrates it = 800 cmÂ², water with the 3 m depth will operate the piston by the force of: 800 * 0,3 = 240 kg. At the end of arm of the lever one will have 240/2 = 120 kg. If the springs with gas are at the end of the lever, on the springs one will have the weight of the mass (100 kg) and forces it of 120 kg, coming from the piston. At the end of arm of the lever one will have: 100 + 120 = 220 kg. We choose the springs with gas of a force of thorough = 220 kg.
The float decreases its volume, its weight under water becomes = 10 kg and it cule worm the bottom. Let us admit that the depth of the pissine is = 8 m. The float passes from the 3 m depth until the depth of 8 Mr. Chemin traversed = 5 m.

Let us admit that the height of the float makes it possible the mass to move at the distance = 50 cm. The course of the mass = 50 cm. Since the piston is pushed by the medium of the lever, it will pass the distance 50/2 = 25 cm. Piston = 800 cmÂ² overrates * 25 cm = 20 000 cm.cube = 20 liters. The displacement of the piston with decreased the volume of the float to 20 liters. For a weight of 110 kg and the volume (of the float under water) of 100 liters, its weight (under water) is = 10 kg. The float of 10 kg "falls" from a 5 m height (under the effect of the gravitation). The float "fell" (run) to the depth 8 m. The mass inside the float is in bottom, the piston is moved (is attracted) inside.

Now we turn over the float to 180 Â°. For that one must raise a weight of 10 kg to the 50 cm height (the float weighs under water 10 kg, the mass is in bottom) so that the mass passes to the top. Mass = 50 cm traverse. The float will be found in this position:

The gravitation and the springs with gas (they will return energy accumulated) will move the mass worm bottom, will push the piston worm bottom (interior worm outside), having increased the volume of the float by 20 liters. Maintaining the float is lighter than water, it weighs under water (-)10 kg and will assemble worm the top, worm depth the 3 m, there one stops it.

The float, "while falling" from the 5 m height produces energy and to turn over it, it is also necessary to spend energy. C.t.d., the float (10 kg)"fell" from a 5 m height and to turn over it, it should be raised (its weight of 10 kg while turning over it) to a 50 cm height.
From here: 5 m - 0,5 m = 4,5 m - the distance, on the which float produces energy. Energy does not depend on the trajectory, but only on the height. For the top (with the depth 3 m) it is necessary turned over again, while spending the same quantity of energy that in bottom, and it runs, etc.

So that the floats are turned over themselves and to increase the power of system, we fix the floats at a chain (or chains), which circumvent the wheels and the floats are turned over, by circumventing the wheels.
Ex. like that: (the diagram)

The floats are turned over to 180 Â° in top and to 180 Â° in bottom, by circumventing the wheels and they produces useful work (energy) while going down (while running) and while going up (while floating worm top).

Calculation of engine 01 11357 (exemple).

It is considered, that the wheel axle sup. is on the level of overrates water, and one selected the weight of mass.
Ex. one selected the weight of the mass = 100 kg.
Ex. the distance enters the axes of the wheels = 5 m.
From here, the pressure has the depth 5 m = 0.5 kg/cmÂ². (to include/understand, to see the point "D", diagram).
From (for this depth) we calculate the surface of the piston, in not do not forget that one with the springs has gases, which are compress (the spring has gas were compressed by the mass, when the float this found in top, of dimension right, on the level of the wheel axle sup.).

To counter the pressure of water the 5 m depth there is lays out:
100 kgf (weight of the mass) + 100 kgf (the force of pushed springs has gas) = 200 kgf (this force is at the end of the lever).
Holding account that the piston is thorough (worm outside) by the medium of the lever, the force is multiplied by 2: 200 kgf X 2 = 400 kgf.

Since the distance enters the axes = 5 m and to the pressure of water to the 5 m depth = 0.5 kg/cmÂ², consequently:
- 400 kgf/0.5 kg/cmÂ² = 800 cmÂ² (piston overrates it).
From here one calculates coefficient 800/100 = 8. (it is for the convenience, it is easier to make calculate them more detailed with him).

Now, that one found the surface of the piston, one makes the correction for the depth, to which this finds the engine.
The engine is under water, the higher axis this finds with the 3 m depth by ex.
From here: - the pressure has the 3 m depth = of 0.3 kg/cmÂ² (not "B" fig. 1).
We lay out of this pressure on the piston with the point "B" and it will produce the force of thorough on the piston of 800 cmÂ² (the surface of piston) X 0.3 kg/cmÂ² (pressure of water) = 240 kgf. Since this force is applied to the medium of the lever, then, at its end we will obtain: 240/2 = 120 kgf, which is added to the force, which comes from the mass, weighing 100 kilogrammes (fig. 1 point "B").
On the springs with gas there will be (to compress them) the force of 100 kgf (weight of the mass) + 120 kgf (coming from the pressure) = 220 kgf, which one will store in the springs with gas (the force of propulsion, that one will use, when the float moves at the point "D").

The distance between the axes = 5 m, that means that the lower axis this finds with the depth: 3 m + 5 m = 8 m. With this depth (not "D" fig. 1) pressure = 0.8 kg/cmÂ². The piston of 800 cmÂ² operates the force, causes by the pressure of water (0.8 kg/cmÂ²).
800 (piston overrates it) X 0.8 (pressure of water) = 640 kgf This force operate the piston of outside worm the interior.

Now let us look at the force on the side opposite of piston:
- 100 kg - the weight of the mass.
- 220 kg - the force of propulsion of the springs.
Total: 100 kgf + 220 kgf = 320 kgf. This force acts on the end of the lever. In the medium of the lever (and on the piston) one will have 320 X 2 = 640 kgf.

The forces of propulsion are identical on two sides of the piston (outside and interior).
One little to leave like that. In this case in high A right (not "B") the piston will move worm the lower interior (increases the pressure of water in connection with the increase depth), and in bottom left it has will move worm outside above point "D"; (the pressure of water will decrease).

But one little also to increase the weight of the masses with 5-10-20... kg to calculate these weights it is necessary to hold account, primarily, of the losses for frictions, which comes from the springs with gas.

It is all.

2.

3. This appears to be a conventional perpetual motion machine, nicely described, carefully drawn, and as likely to work as I am to give birth to twin albino carrots.

Michel, if I have incorrectly interpreted what you have presented here please feel free to correct me. Meanwhile, I have moved the post to a more appropriate part of the forum.

4. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
This appears to be a conventional perpetual motion machine, nicely described, carefully drawn, and as likely to work as I am to give birth to twin albino carrots.

Michel, if I have incorrectly interpreted what you have presented here please feel free to correct me. Meanwhile, I have moved the post to a more appropriate part of the forum.
For my opinion, it is necessary to understand the operation of the machine and to check calculations (or to recompute), before moving it in Pseudoscience.

5. If it truly works, why publish on an internet forum and not with one of the multitude of phsyics journals that would be pleased to peer-review your work?

I think you'll find the answer to that question to be in line with Robert Parks' "7 Warning Signs of Bogus Science."

-----------------------------------

Park, R. L. (2003, 31/1). The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science (Webpage) (Vol. 49, Iss. 21, Page B20 / Point of View). Retrieved 16/05/04, from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm.

6. my guess is that it might even work. only 1 problem, my guess is that thiss only works on small scale.. and it won't create much energy.

try to make the design more basic. because a simple wave collector at sea will have a higher efficiency as this.

still.. ensure the copyright of the device, it's worth it.. some parts can be used for other things..

7. Originally Posted by Michel
For my opinion, it is necessary to understand the operation of the machine and to check calculations (or to recompute), before moving it in Pseudoscience.
You have a right to your opinion. However, I am working on the following premises and derivations:
a) Physicists and the laws of physics tell us that we cannot get something for nothing.
b) Your machine appears to output energy wihtout any input.
c) Therefore your machine runs counter to all accepted physics.
d) This does not make it wrong, merely likely to be wrong.
e) I am not going to invest time in attempting to understand a device that probably does not work.
f) If it turns out that you have created a perpetual motion machine I shall be able to make some money appearing on chat shows as the person who moved the plans for the machine to pseudoscience.
g) Therefore, from my perspective, it is a win-win situation.
h) Good luck.

8. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
f) If it turns out that you have created a perpetual motion machine I shall be able to make some money appearing on chat shows as the person who moved the plans for the machine to pseudoscience.
g) Therefore, from my perspective, it is a win-win situation.
h) Good luck.
:-D

P.S. French forum: http://www.sur-la-toile.com/viewTopi...5-propre..html

9. Who understood the operation of the machine??

10. no one

11. Originally Posted by Zelos
no one
It is not complex.
The machine is almost so simple as a bicycle.

12. Originally Posted by Michel
Originally Posted by Zelos
no one
It is not complex.
The machine is almost so simple as a bicycle.
That's funny, 'cause I can understand a bycicle, whereas this thing makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh, and it can't be quite like a bike, since all the bycicles I've ever ridden required that I put energy into them :wink:.

J0N

13. Originally Posted by Jon
Oh, and it can't be quite like a bike, since all the bycicles I've ever ridden required that I put energy into them :wink:.
Not if you live at the top of a hill and have a butler.

14. Free energy is simply impossible Michel, accept it. Its like asking me for money, you dont get anything for nothing, physics is the same

15. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by Jon
Oh, and it can't be quite like a bike, since all the bycicles I've ever ridden required that I put energy into them :wink:.
Not if you live at the top of a hill and have a butler.
You prove me wrong once again.

16. Originally Posted by Zelos
Free energy is simply impossible Michel, accept it. Its like asking me for money, you dont get anything for nothing, physics is the same
''Convictious are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.''

Try to understand the operation of machine.

17. Originally Posted by Michel
Try to understand the operation of machine.
Try to understand the operations of machines.

18. i dont have to udnerstand it, becuase its common knowledge you cant get energy from nothing. And everytime you do something energy is lost, maybe jsut a little but some. Like the planets, they lose energy all the time and is slowly spiraling toward the sun, but the energy loss is like 10^-50 or something, so its insignifican in the long run (the univers life time)

19. Originally Posted by Michel
Originally Posted by Zelos
Free energy is simply impossible Michel, accept it. Its like asking me for money, you dont get anything for nothing, physics is the same
''Convictious are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.''

Try to understand the operation of machine.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude! Try to explain the operation of machine! And not in French... but in ENGLISH!

Your pictures don't make any sense... and your numbers don't either. And I don't want to sound rude, 'cause I know my French is more than rusty, but your English makes understanding what you're saying VERY difficult!.

It's your machine. If you want us to understand, it's your job to help us.

J0N

20. Originally Posted by Jon
Try to explain the operation of machine! And not in French... but in ENGLISH!
Afflicted, I do not speak English. I employ http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to translate. The explanations are in the first post. I cannot better explain. Energy does not come from nothing, it comes from the forces (gravity and the force of Archimedes). Example - as tidal and tides power stations.

21. forces (gravity and the force of Archimedes).
then its not free energy

as tidal and tides power stations
but there is a cost, moon is drifiting away from earth

22. Originally Posted by Zelos
forces (gravity and the force of Archimedes).
then its not free energy
Gravity is free.

but there is a cost, moon is drifiting away from earth

23. crackpot idea
gravity is the result of matter bieng present in space

24. Wait wait wait now. Let's get past the idea of free energy. We already know that somewhere in the Universe the energy we use is being paid for, no matter what. Sure, gravity isn't "technically" free energy, but it's pretty close. It's certainly more reliable than solar or wind energy would be :wink:.

If this really can work on just gravity, than it certainly would be an excellent investment! I mean, as far as human life is concerned, gravity is "free." However, we really need you to explain it a little better. Maybe you have a friend who speaks English?

Really, I would like to understand this machine. I've run thoughts similar to this through my own head. The only problem is, that you can't get out more energy than you put in. And unless gravity is the ONLY force acting on it, it will eventually stop. If you tell us a little more detail on this, we can tell you exactly where this isn't going to work, as I'm sure it must be off somewhere.

If this does work, then you can go on the 6 o'clock news telling the world how Jon and the other folks on thescienceforum.com made fun of you .

J0N

25. Originally Posted by Jon
However, we really need you to explain it a little better.
All is explained in the first post. The law of Archimedes, the principle of the levers, the dependence of the pressure of the water depth ... one learns has the school. I does not understand why you cannot understand the operation of a simple mechanism and what I must explain in to make comprehensible more to you?
To start, try to understand the operation of only one float.

P.S. Ask on this forum, fear-to be somebody will explain you in English.

26. Originally Posted by Michel
Originally Posted by Jon
However, we really need you to explain it a little better.
All is explained in the first post. The law of Archimedes, the principle of the levers, the dependence of the pressure of the water depth ... one learns has the school. I does not understand why you cannot understand the operation of a simple mechanism and what I must explain in to make comprehensible more to you?
To start, try to understand the operation of only one float.

P.S. Ask on this forum, fear-to be somebody will explain you in English.

I hate to say this, but we can't understand you because of your English. The above post was a challenge-enough. I will perhaps check out that other forum for you though . And perhaps they will be able to explain it better.

J0N

27. Originally Posted by Jon
I hate to say this, but we can't understand you because of your English. The above post was a challenge-enough.
I apologize, I do not speak English, I use online translation.
Has changed a site-translator, translation quality can will the best?

28. michel, learn english damn it

29. Originally Posted by Zelos
michel, learn english damn it

30. There's no need to be rough just because the poor fella' can't speak English. However, he should learn English since he is on an English forum. Nevertheless, a good friend who speaks English, or someone from that French site might be able to help us with this machine.

Originally Posted by Michel
I apologize, I do not speak English, I use online translation.
Has changed a site-translator, translation quality can will the best?
Please switch back the the old one you were using when you posted the first post. This new one is horrible. I hope that using it you will at least be able to understand what I've written here .

J0N

31. he is from france? that explains alot, those just hate english becuase they didnt become the global language. God its so pathetic

32. Originally Posted by Jon
There's no need to be rough just because the poor fella' can't speak English. However, he should learn English since he is on an English forum. Nevertheless, a good friend who speaks English, or someone from that French site might be able to help us with this machine.
On the German forum I found a person, which speaking French and translated for German.
I hope that using it you will at least be able to understand what I've written here .
I understands a little and the remainder I guess.
Originally Posted by Zelos
he is from france? that explains alot, those just hate english becuase they didnt become the global language. God its so pathetic
I speak Ukrainian, Russian and French.

33. good for you, from where are you then?

34. Originally Posted by Zelos
from where are you then?
In France.

35. im not supriced

36. I wonder if Michel can even understand Zelos, since misspelled words and sentence fragments don't get translated very well online. Maybe you should should worry about your own English before getting all over Michel's case about his. At least Michel has an excuse.
The best way to learn a language is immersion and online message boards are one place to at least get some exposure to a language - despite the fact that the quality of the English is piss poor a lot of the time.

37. I know i have problem with spelling, therefor i never mind if im corrected( i have even asked for bieng corrected).
Btw bieng frensh isnt a excuse

38. I think there's no point hassling the guy out for not speaking English, just as long as he knows that his design is very hard to understand due to the language barrier, and online translators are very little help.

As others have said, having a friend explain it to us in English would be nice.

39.

40. Originally Posted by Michel
Okay, that link didn't seem helpful at all. I found one "English" post, but even that seemed to be machine translated, i.e., utter incomprehensible crap.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but you should find someone on one of those forums who speaks both your language and English, tell them to come over here, and see if they won't post something for you.

We could look for such a person, and we could ask them so kindly, but then again, this is your machine, and it is your responsibility to explain it if you want us to understand it :wink:.

J0N

41. here is a list of things you need to do before releasing a machine
1: think of the machine
2: write it down
3: test it if possible
4: learn english
6: write the paper work for the machine
7: publish it

42. that is sum cool stuff u got there michael i hope it work =P

43. Originally Posted by Zelos
here is a list of things you need to do before releasing a machine
1: think of the machine
2: write it down
3: test it if possible
4: learn english
6: write the paper work for the machine
7: publish it
He could publish it in ANY language! There is no need to get on him about his English. The only problem is that he wants English-speaking people to understand him, yet he can't speak English.

It would be like you going to a forum for Chinese... yeah, that would be a stupid thing to do, wouldn't it? (hopefully you don't speak Chinese, or this analogy will fall to pieces :wink: )

Oh, and your English isn't top-rate either. lol

J0N

44. nope, never said it were, thats why i wonder why i got 2 of 3 in my grade :S

but atleast people understand me. and im alwlays happy to be corrected, so damn it instant of complaining about my language please correct me

45. where u from zelos?

46. sweden

47. Originally Posted by Zelos
but atleast people understand me. and im alwlays happy to be corrected, so damn it instant of complaining about my language please correct me
But at least people understand me. And I'm always happy to be corrected. So, damn it, instead of complaining about my language, please correct me.

Happy to oblige, but I don't think it's your language. I think it's your typing and your use of punctuation. Very sloppy.

48. you mean my lazy writing?
lets me make a few things clear
im lazy
this is a forum
this is the internet

so its natural lazyman way writing apphere and get used to it. But it isnt a excuse but im lazy, i admit it

49.

50. Zelos,

Just consider (in your particular style of writing) how many interpretations we can put on this, with a random sprinkling of punctuation.

Pandas eat shoots and leaves

51. Originally Posted by Zelos
you mean my lazy writing?
lets me make a few things clear
im lazy
this is a forum
this is the internet

so its natural lazyman way writing apphere and get used to it. But it isnt a excuse but im lazy, i admit it
Yeah, this is a forum, and in this is the Internet, but it's not the Brittany Spears fan club. I think typing and writing a little more like adults would make what is being said much clearer, plus your point would come off with MUCH more force when you're cramming facts down the throats of those in the Pseudoscience forum.

So, you can keep talking and typing that way if you want, but you're not helping us, nor are you helping yourself.

Just thought I'd point that out. I hope you don't destroy me along with my planet though... , all great and might Zelos.

J0N

52.

53. We don't speak french.

Also, regarding the machine, I don't have enough technical knowledge to translate some of the jargon you used (and frankly, neither can google), so I can't give an accurate evaluation.

However from what I did understand, it isn't likely to work. Or produce much energy at all if it does.

As for early references of it being as simple to understand as a bicycle: Sure, if said bicycle was as complex as a death star.

54. Yes, the bicycle is as complex as a deathstar per mass. One kg bicycle is as complex as one kg deathstar. So a really small deathstar could infact be steered with your own hands. Just watch out for really small skywalkers.

55. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Yes, the bicycle is as complex as a deathstar per mass. One kg bicycle is as complex as one kg deathstar. So a really small deathstar could infact be steered with your own hands. Just watch out for really small skywalkers.
Or even smaller Yoda's.

56. I don't get the machine either... (probably because I couldn't bring myself to read the post) But I noticed that most of you seem to automatically asume perpetual motion is an impossibility. I just wanted to remind you that most pm machines are not in fact trying to create energy from nothing (even if their inventors believe so). They are trying to convert gravity (a force that moves innumerable objects every second throughout the universe, and therefor must be some kind of energy) into a usable form of kinetic energy.

If gravity is measurably real by numerous experiments (fact) and powerful enough to effect events on a daily basis (fact) and deteriorates over time (extremely well-supported theory on the borderline of fact, but theory nonetheless) then it can be assumed it is a form of energy and as such must have a mechanism of conversion into another form.

This doesn't mean Michel has a pm machine, just that they are possible without hurting your lovely little entropy theory.

57. No, it isn't that, it's just that the machine wont generate much energy.

58. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
We don't speak french.
Strictly speaking shouldn't that read "Je ne parle pas le francais."?

59. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
We don't speak french.
Strictly speaking shouldn't that read "Je ne parle pas le francais."?
Go to hell. :P

60. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
We don't speak french.
Strictly speaking shouldn't that read "Je ne parle pas le francais."?
Only if you wore shoes as a kid.....

61. Originally Posted by Zelos
you mean my lazy writing?
lets me make a few things clear
im lazy
this is a forum
this is the internet

so its natural lazyman way writing apphere and get used to it. But it isnt a excuse but im lazy, i admit it
I dont think its in your place to criticize an honest guy trying to get his idea out just because he can't speak english.

Now, you would have some credit had you actually learned the language rather than some hell-ridden form of it.

Zelos, learn english again, then critizize the non-english speakers.

62. Well after toiling with the frenglish I think I understand the principle behind the design...

Great drawing by the way - though I fear you're wasting your talent man...

The machine described by the poster is just a glorified (more efficient) version of this:

In a nutshell; It uses weight (gravity) to pull the drive down during the first half of the cycle and than also uses buoyancy to lift the drive upwards in water during the second half of the cycle (this is the glorified part).

Problem with this machine (as with all the others of this nature) is that forces such as friction or more specifically in this case drag are completely neglected.

You took the time to compute the loss of energy during the gas compression cycle by the piston/springs. But you overlooked other forces.

Drag will be exceptionally high here since you've included water (a very dense substance) as your transport medium.

Also, since the physical weight of each "flotteur" will remain constant whether they are going up or down, this force will cancel its self out, and therefore will no longer be considered.

All you are left with is buoyancy as your main driving force (during the second half of the cycle).

Unfortunately, the sum of the mechanical friction off all these moving components and the drag acting upon the "flotteurs" as they 'drop' and 'rise' in the water are greater than sum of the lift caused by buoyancy.

By how much? That depends on the efficiency of your contraption.

You can not create energy out of nothing. Therefore, you can not create an engine that creates more energy than it needs to operate. Even if you designed the most efficient engine in the universe, it's inpututput ratio will still be lower than 1. Lets call this ratio efficiency. And now lets imagine for a second your engine has a efficiency ratio of 0.999999 (99.9% - which is ungoldy good, and a technological discovery in its own)

That means every cycle your machine makes, its power output will be multiplied by that efficiency ratio. Take out your calculator and try this, pick any number you want and multiply it by 0.9999, that will be your energy output for the first cycle. Now take the sum you got and again multiply it by 0.9999 that's the energy output of your second cycle. Keep doing this. In time the sum will equal 0 and you're back to square one.

However, not all is lost in your idea; The mechanism you designed to change the buoyancy of the "flotteur" as the water pressure rises is quite clever and could actually be applied in another application. You've got an imaginative mind open to radical ideas, you'd make an excellent engineer

Unfortunately you're also a little rusty in physics. You need to brush up on that part

63. Originally Posted by spirytus
There are 10 types of people; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
LOL

64. Oh, and for the record, gravity is not free energy.

For arguments sake; an apple laying on the ground has no energy.

By lifting an apple from the ground you are storing "gravitational" energy into the apple. Specifically you are spending mechanical energy of your muscles, to "charge" the apple with "gravitational" energy.

When you let go, you are releasing that stored gravitational energy.

Some energy will be transferred during the 'fall' into the surrounding air and into the skin of the apple in the form of heat (caused by drag/friction).

When the apple hits the ground it will transfer the remainder of all that gravitational energy into the ground by generating heat caused by the impact/compression of the two masses (apple/ground) and of course sound.

No energy will be lost during this action, and more importantly no energy will be created during this action. The mechanical energy you've spent, will just be transferred to various other forms of energy.

65. And now, just for curiosity lets imagine this scenario:

This machine works! Each cycle produces more energy than it will require for each successive cycle!

Now, just for sh*t and giggles, lets imagine you omitted to install a mechanical system to harvest this free energy (like a dynamo to convert it to electrical energy or a breaking system to converted it into heat). Where is all that energy going to go?

The speed (rpm) will simply increase with each revolution

Hmm .... Well, your design has some hydrodynamic limitations to actual speeds it can achieve -- that is if we haven't thrown the laws of physics out of the window all together. But someone else could easily take this a step further and design a frictionless axial, and a magnetic coil system that would work similarly to your ballast/buoyancy idea...

Just imagine the implications. A machine that is now theoretically capable of limitless acceleration.

Sadly, we are bound to certain fundamental laws of nature. Sure, our understanding of these laws is limited. Lets face it; Physics is just us trying to reverse engineer God-mode(). Reverse engineering anything isn't an exact science therefore it can be wrong. But you need to prove them wrong. You haven't done that.

Do not rely solely on intuition, beware of the mind.

66. The problem is, if you suggest friction does not exist even hypothetically, then solids could pass through other solids, and we would not be here, and thinking further solids would not have formed etc...

67. Well, having read though your article, and then four pages of complete bol*ocks (pardon my french) it looks to me like a very good idea.

I would compare this machine to that of a water wheel rather than a bicycle, with one side being heaver than the other, and so giving you your motion.

Maybe having a more aerodynamically design float would help lower the friction.
Good luck.

68. Now all you have to do is get it past Newton's Third Law, in modern terms it's something like:-

"You do not have sufficient priviledges to create energy - Request denied".

69. Its not impossible, if you had a bicycle wheel with lots of separate pockets of air in the tyre, and the wheel was inside of a large container, then you would need hydrogen or a gas lighter than the pockets of air on one side pushing it down and around, then water or something heavier on the other side pushing it up and around to produce your motion.

The problem would be keeping the gas and water in there own place so as to keep the wheel turning.

So it would be a technical problem rather than anything else.

BTW if anybody does manage to solve this problem please tell me, i promise i'll just make shore it's technically sound :wink:

-----------------------------------------------
07 01 2007
having given this a bit of thought i can now see how this would not work.

70. You are quitre correct, here in Psuedo-science perpetual motion + a little extra energy is abundantly available, - How silly of me, this is the section where Lewis Carroll and Isaac newton change places - I forgot.

My sincere apologies.

Now, where's that cup of tea that just floated away....

71. erm.........even if this machine worked it couldnt be classed as perpetual motion. Wont it ever break down then ?

And there is power input going into it.......gravity + lift from the sea. so erm............its a nice idea but i wouldnt remortage my house over the idea.

72. Originally Posted by leohopkins
erm.........even if this machine worked it couldnt be classed as perpetual motion. Wont it ever break down then ?

And there is power input going into it.......gravity + lift from the sea. so erm............its a nice idea but i wouldnt remortage my house over the idea.
Michel didn't say it was perpetual motion, Ophiolite did on the second post.

All he is trying to do is engineer a machine that uses gravity to generate power, which we already do with tidal power.

73.

74.

75. I suppose it is similar to Pelton wheel....

76. http://snipurl.com/18jaz

MOD EDIT:

It would be awfully nice if you could write a line or two about what the link is, there are some of us who would rather not just click every link without knowing at least a summary of the content. - also you are being lazy... :wink:

Megabrain
.

77.

78.

79.

80. How about this. A machine which uses all types of energy. That way, no energy could escape, right?

81. It's called a Black Hole.

82. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
It's called a Black Hole.
Hehe

83. I have recently come across an invention that "supposedly" breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics ("energy cannot be created or destroyed...").

It is a process of splitting water molecules by pulsing electrical current through an electrochemical cell at very high frequencies. After the water is split into hydrogen and oxygen it can be re-joined (burned) to create water. Anyway, the process runs at >100% efficiency (ie: more energy is released from combustion than is needed to split the water). I have seen internal combustion engines run completely off water, re-charging the alternator with the excess energy!

sauce

84. Originally Posted by g07g6008
I have recently come across an invention that "supposedly" breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics ("energy cannot be created or destroyed...").

It is a process of splitting water molecules by pulsing electrical current through an electrochemical cell at very high frequencies. After the water is split into hydrogen and oxygen it can be re-joined (burned) to create water. Anyway, the process runs at >100% efficiency (ie: more energy is released from combustion than is needed to split the water). I have seen internal combustion engines run completely off water, re-charging the alternator with the excess energy!

sauce
Well actually, the law is not broken but the bounds of the water are fusioned and then the water becomes gas which runs the engine. The bad side is that the water cannot become water again as easily. It will gain an own temperature of liquid which is considerably lower. but the fusioned bound may move to another particle, so in the long run it is not worth it anyway.

There, I warned you.

85. ok, that sounds interesting! Could you explain in slightly simpler terms (I am only a first year chem student). i am very interested in this field of study though and would love to one day research into viable alternative energy sources.

86. Imagine that 2 field bosons came so close that they became one. Then that field boson would seek its own kind (spin etc.) and move closer to the source of force, and there would be a gap in the force somewhere else. That's what I imagine happen.

87. Originally Posted by g07g6008
I have recently come across an invention that "supposedly" breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics ("energy cannot be created or destroyed...").

It is a process of splitting water molecules by pulsing electrical current through an electrochemical cell at very high frequencies. After the water is split into hydrogen and oxygen it can be re-joined (burned) to create water. Anyway, the process runs at >100% efficiency (ie: more energy is released from combustion than is needed to split the water). I have seen internal combustion engines run completely off water, re-charging the alternator with the excess energy!

sauce
I would be very skeptical of that. It takes a certain amount of energy to break the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen, and that is the most you can get back out by burning the hydrogen. It is the same as expecting to lift a 100 lb weight 10 feet, and getting 1000 foot-lb of energy out of it, but thinking you could lift it with less than 1000 foot-lb. That's not going to happen unless somebody invents an anti-gravity ray. In other words, it's a hoax.

88. Originally Posted by Harold14370
I would be very skeptical of that. It takes a certain amount of energy to break the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen, and that is the most you can get back out by burning the hydrogen. It is the same as expecting to lift a 100 lb weight 10 feet, and getting 1000 foot-lb of energy out of it, but thinking you could lift it with less than 1000 foot-lb. That's not going to happen unless somebody invents an anti-gravity ray. In other words, it's a hoax.
Unless there is some sort of fusion with the release of energy. Can you imagine the fusion of field bosons to create small amounts of energy?

89. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Can you imagine the fusion of field bosons to create small amounts of energy?
No.

90. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Can you imagine the fusion of field bosons to create small amounts of energy?
No.
That's where you fail.

91. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Can you imagine the fusion of field bosons to create small amounts of energy?
No.
That's where you fail.
So, you think maybe somebody is running a dune buggy with cold fusion?

92. Given enough shots almost anything can happen. So if you electrocute water in the right frequency, the perfect sircomstances for boson fusion might arise.

93.

94. Who is to say this is not merely a single revolution edited and repeated mant times?

95.

96. Now I'd like to see it turned round and go the other way (to prove it is not on a slope) also with some polystyrene granules laying around to how it is not being blown around - I'ts not that I am a skeptic just that the the video is a fake.

in it he says he checked the floor with a bubble lever, and that its flat.

98. on another note, a wikipedia article on the gravity wheel, which states it was replicated by a mechanical engineer.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Hall...lica:Doug_Furr

99. If you wasnt free energy, why dont you just walk into a government facility and steal an A bomb? 8)

why do our emotiocons have a marijuana leaf?

100. Free Energy - Selfrunning Bedini Motor Replication