Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By MacGyver1968

Thread: Free, renewable, reusable energy.

  1. #1 Free, renewable, reusable energy. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    I have an idea for an invention that will change the face of the world, period. Its a generator powered and sustained by water, that never has to be refueled. It can be used in small scale such as cars and on a large scale as far as housing, industry, and possibly cities. The only downfall to it is the simple fact it lies in the face of centuries of physics law. Im at an impass for i do not have the funds to bring my invention to fruition. I am a graduate with a 4.0 and a degree in construction. If there is any information anyone can afford me in the way of patents, funding, or investment opportunities it would be gladly appreciated. This is not a hoax or a scam, i only ask for information.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The only downfall to it is the simple fact it lies in the face of centuries of physics law.
    Then I suggest you crack a few textbooks and work out how and why this is so.

    By 'work it out' I mean explicitly, step by step, use physics principles to identify clearly each point where conventional physics and your idea are in conflict. Thermodynamics sounds like a good starting point. Whenever you find a point of conflict, you then have the task of proving, first to yourself and then to others, why this won't affect the workability of your idea. Then you do it for the next point of conflict.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensai View Post
    I have an idea for an invention that will change the face of the world, period. Its a generator powered and sustained by water, that never has to be refueled.
    Welcome, Tensai (Genius?).

    There is no such thing as free energy. Unless that water is flowing downhill in a mighty river, there is no way to extract energy from it.

    Look up TANSTAAFL.

    It can be used in small scale such as cars and on a large scale as far as housing, industry, and possibly cities.
    So, have you built a small one to provide all the power for your house yet?

    The only downfall to it is the simple fact it lies in the face of centuries of physics law.
    Yep. Sounds like it.

    Im at an impass for i do not have the funds to bring my invention to fruition.
    What do you need funds for? To build prototypes/demonstrators? For marketing? For a nice holiday?

    Have you thought of crowd funding: Comparison of crowd funding services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The problem is, any approach to trying to raise money would be dangerously close to fraud.

    If there is any information anyone can afford me in the way of patents
    You don't say where you are, but the US patent office for one has an explicit exclusion for perpetual motion machines and similar physically impossible ideas.

    But if you want to try filing a patent, you can do it yourself relatively cheaply. I don't want to sound too dismissive, but it doesn't really matter if the patent isn't very well written as you don't have anything to protect... (Sorry)
    msafwan likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I 100% agree. One should build the device for oneself first. For own house.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Easier said than done. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    Honestly, i understand where everyone is coming from. First things first however tensai can mean genius, but it also means protege. Next, the simple fact that anyone believes water does not contain energy which can be harnessed except from a mighty flowing river, is not really a person whom i yern for information from. I have had the idea for about 3 years now, and probed countless people including: professors in automotives, construction, physics, and electricity. The funny thing is, nobody can come up with a reason why it isn't a plausible theory. I've been wanting to construct the mechanism for almost as long as I've had the idea, but i don't have the funds necessary to do so. It is easy to say build it and they will come. Its different however to believe it can all be done by one person. It takes help, and thats what in looking for. Sure i can probably build something small that can power a lightbulb, but that only proves my theory, not that it can and will work on a large scale. If i had the funds to build it, i wouldn't be on here asking for assistance with it. I don't mind constructive criticism, or someone pointing out flaws, or optimism; bring it on, but its kinda disrespectful to speak of something you don't know anything about as if its nuts or stupid just because it stands in the face of many years of physics law.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    412
    Funds? I warn you, you just CANNOT overtake me. I have been in queue on this cruel forum for whole 2 months and a day as on today.

    So you WILL have to wait. Why don’t you let the members and readers know about your 'THE GOOD EARTH' invention in the mean time?

    And how it stands in the face of hundred years of Physics laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The funny thing is, nobody can come up with a reason why it isn't a plausible theory.
    In that case, it must conform to known physical principles. The only problem would be engineering.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensai View Post
    Sure i can probably build something small that can power a lightbulb, but that only proves my theory, not that it can and will work on a large scale.
    If you can do that then I don't think you will have any problem raising any amount of money.

    If i had the funds to build it, i wouldn't be on here asking for assistance with it.
    Have you tried the crowd funding idea? There might be enough people who are willing to take a risk on an unproven idea (even if it seems to defy physics).

    One problem is that there is a HUGE community of people interested in free energy. So there may be a lot of competition for funds. On the other hand, there might be people in that community who would invest and/or work with you. Maybe you should try some of the relevant forums.

    I don't mind constructive criticism, or someone pointing out flaws, or optimism; bring it on, but its kinda disrespectful to speak of something you don't know anything about as if its nuts or stupid just because it stands in the face of many years of physics law.
    Just natural scepticism. On the other hand, I am the one at work who says: there's no point doing that, it won't work. Only to be proven wrong later.

    It is hard to provide any constructive criticism when we don't know what the idea is, though.

    Regarding patents. If you want to have a go, write a description of the idea. Being as clear and detailed as possible but also (and this is really important) highlighting all the places where something could be done a different way. For example, if you want to say "The water is stored in a copper cylinder", then write this as something like, "The water is stored in a container. In one example, this is a copper cylinder however another suitable material and shape can be used".

    The point is that a patene specification has to have enough detail to allow someone to use it to build the thing but, to prevent someone getting round the patent by changing the shape or colour, it needs to be as generic as possible. A different balancing act.

    If you file a description like that at the patent office (a few hundred dollars in the US I think) you then have 12 months to convert that into a proper patent by writing the claims. I would recommend getting professional help for that because it is tricky and it is the claims that define exactly what the patent protects. Within that 12 months you can also file the same patent in other countries.

    You have protection from the date the original document is filed (the "priority date") but not until the patent is granted. However, that initial step might help you get funding.

    Note: you cannot patent the concept, idea or theory behind this. You can only patent a "thing" (machine, etc.) that exploits the idea to generate power.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensai View Post
    Honestly, i understand where everyone is coming from. First things first however tensai can mean genius, but it also means protege. Next, the simple fact that anyone believes water does not contain energy which can be harnessed except from a mighty flowing river, is not really a person whom i yern for information from. I have had the idea for about 3 years now, and probed countless people including: professors in automotives, construction, physics, and electricity. The funny thing is, nobody can come up with a reason why it isn't a plausible theory.
    You've said it flies in the face of established physics. Isn't that a reason?
    I've been wanting to construct the mechanism for almost as long as I've had the idea, but i don't have the funds necessary to do so. It is easy to say build it and they will come. Its different however to believe it can all be done by one person. It takes help, and thats what in looking for. Sure i can probably build something small that can power a lightbulb, but that only proves my theory, not that it can and will work on a large scale.
    Sure it does. If you can build one to power one light bulb, you can build two to power two light bulbs, and so on.
    If i had the funds to build it, i wouldn't be on here asking for assistance with it. I don't mind constructive criticism, or someone pointing out flaws, or optimism; bring it on, but its kinda disrespectful to speak of something you don't know anything about as if its nuts or stupid just because it stands in the face of many years of physics law.
    No, it's disrespectful of you to ignore many years of physics law which you do not really understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Sure i can probably build something small that can power a lightbulb, but that only proves my theory
    How much will that cost you to do?

    It shouldn't cost you that much for such a small project should it, then why not just design and build that and then show it to investors or patent it before you show it to anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensai View Post
    The funny thing is, nobody can come up with a reason why it isn't a plausible theory.
    Try me.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Originally Posted by Tensai
    The funny thing is, nobody can come up with a reason why it isn't a plausible theory.
    Mr. T can come up with a good reason:

    Strange likes this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensai View Post
    Next, the simple fact that anyone believes water does not contain energy which can be harnessed except from a mighty flowing river, is not really a person whom i yern for information from.
    It is not a "belief"; it is basic physics.

    I have had the idea for about 3 years now, and probed countless people including: professors in automotives, construction, physics, and electricity. The funny thing is, nobody can come up with a reason why it isn't a plausible theory.
    Sadly, there are a number of people who will never accept an explanation. We get quite a few such people on science forums presenting their "personal theories". Even after many people pointing out the flaws in the theories they will simply repeat, "as no one can show I am wrong my theory must be correct."

    I cannot rule this out as a possibility: you have presented your idea; they have explained why it won't work; you go away thinking, "so they couldn't explain why it won't work..."

    The other possibility is that you explained your idea in such a confusing way they were unable to understand what you were trying to say and hence unable to explain why it won't work.

    but its kinda disrespectful to speak of something you don't know anything about as if its nuts or stupid just because it stands in the face of many years of physics law.
    Until you explain what the idea is, I am going to stick with science: it won't work.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: April 12th, 2013, 03:37 AM
  2. Reaction 2012 - renewable energy conference
    By sjrsbe in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 16th, 2012, 10:40 AM
  3. Renewable energy sources are useless... or not ?
    By Makandal in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: July 11th, 2011, 01:52 AM
  4. Is the kinetic ion a viable source for renewable energy?
    By Joe L. Ogan in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2009, 04:50 PM
  5. Renewable Energy
    By sak in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: September 28th, 2008, 03:45 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •