top

pulse pendulum

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Inventor's Corner    Page 1 of 1

Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:28 am PostPost subject: pulse pendulum
gaby de wilde
Newbie


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 9

Reply with quote

hello,

I've made a drawing of the principal of a pulse motor. I find it hard to deny how much mass there is moving in the exact vertical position. What do you think?

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/conversation-of-energy

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 07, 2007 9:46 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Snicker Laughing
OK, I'll bite.
Obviously the "researcher" is storing energy in the inertial motion of the pendulum. Obviously a magnet swinging past a coil can induce a voltage in the coil. So far so good. If only there wasn't a "back-reaction" from the coil to the magnet, the pendulum would keep swinging and we could stop wasting all that money building dams, steam turbines, nuclear reactors, etc. Unfortunately the amplitude of the pendulum's swing will decrease every time it passes over the coil.
Because of inevitable losses due to air friction, etc. the "researcher" would be better off just directly moving the magnet over the coil.
A flywheel is a flywheel, even if it is disguised as a pendulum. No free lunch here.
I'm sure Gaby knows about Minato's flywheel+pulsed electromagnet motor+generator combinations--these are circular analogues to the linear reciprocating pendulum device described here. They don't work either. That is, they spin and generate power, as long as the flywheel turns, but do not generate any more power out than in. One must take into account the times involved--sum over time the power in to get the device moving, then sum over time the power extracted until the device stops. The latter is always less than the former, due to friction, electrical resistance, etc.
And that little guy pushing the pendulum is going to get awfully tired and thirsty--I suggest Guinness as the ideal lubricant.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 11, 2007 3:10 pm PostPost subject:
Joh70
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: South-Germany

Reply with quote

pendulums are perfect energy capacitors. but i would agree alsetalokin. they only save/give back what is stored in, i think (never sure...tsss).

air resistance could be avoided in a vacuum. try it out, and tell the results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Fri May 11, 2007 8:31 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

I can't tell whether this is intended as a joke or not. The fact the pendulums carry on swinging for quite is time is hardly perpetual motion. Even in a vacuum, you'd still have frictional losses in the bearing and it would slow down and eventually stop.

If joe90 thinks this is worth trying then I suggest he does so, but I can save him the time effort and money. At best, you'll get only the the energy you put in, minus losses.

There are no free lunches in this universe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 12, 2007 8:13 am PostPost subject:
Joh70
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: South-Germany

Reply with quote

There are free lunches in universe! Or have you ever paid a bill for sunshine? Universe is fed with zero point energy in real time. put your water wheel in that river, and you have unlimited energy. there are much more of it, than can be measured (by Heisenberg vacuum fluctuation, etc.). so we are not talking of << free >> in sense of having nothing as a source. but free as "unlimited", "extremly cheap", "clean", "brand new".

exco, you should remember, that this is a (moderate) believers forum. it is called: "Steorn Replicatinos board" not "Steorns big fraud". i would appreciate it, if you respect this. Use "Skeptics, sceptics and Cynics" as your wastepaper basket. there is no need to put that same stuff in EVERY thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat May 12, 2007 2:44 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

Well, you should learn to recognise a metaphor. As a matter of fact I've actually been treated to quite a lot of lunches for no cost to me, but I think with a little imagination you can see what is meant by 'There are no free lunches"

When we talk about 'free energy' we are talking about a box/machine/building that outputs more energy than it receives. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever done this, and I believe nobody ever will.

This is qualitatively different from a water wheel or a photovoltaic panel. These devices merely convert forms of energy and break no conservation laws. The steorn device - it is claimed - does!

Now if you are a moderate believer, then I fundamentally disagree with you. However, if we are to discuss your beliefs, in a meaningful way, let us at least agree that there is a clear conceptual difference between steorn's alleged machine and a water wheel.

If you seriously think that by setting a pendulum going, you can get more energy out than you put in then you are beyond hope for any reasoned discussion, I'm afraid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 12, 2007 6:28 pm PostPost subject:
Joh70
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: South-Germany

Reply with quote

@exco:

When YOU talk about 'free energy' YOU are talking about a box/machine/building that outputs more energy than it receives.

When I talk about 'free energy' i mean that what i already wrote:

Not "free" in sense of having nothing as a source! Of course, there is a source!!! It is converting Zero Point energy in to additional magnet-force under special circumstances.

"The steorn device - it is claimed - does! "

Wrong! Sain personally said in his interview: it's creating energy from thin air.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sat May 12, 2007 9:36 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

I think you would be well advised to learn a little about 'zero point energy' before talking any more nonsense about it.

To my knowledge, not even the chief leprachaun himself has claimed anything about zero point energy, so it is clearly an assumption not a fact, and I can't be bothered with arguing about your assumptions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:42 am PostPost subject:
gaby de wilde
Newbie


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 9

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
Obviously the "researcher" is storing energy in the inertial motion of the pendulum. Obviously a magnet swinging past a coil can induce a voltage in the coil. So far so good. If only there wasn't a "back-reaction" from the coil to the magnet, the pendulum would keep swinging and we could stop wasting all that money building dams, steam turbines, nuclear reactors, etc. Unfortunately the amplitude of the pendulum's swing will decrease every time it passes over the coil.


Yes, the amplitude would decrease. It is however a 10 000 kg block.

The kinetic energy in the system is enormous.

The point of the exercise is to become aware of the fact that pushing a swing is instinctively done with timing. If the energy cost would be consistent there wouldn't be any instinctive need to time the push.

Quote:
Because of inevitable losses due to air friction, etc. the "researcher" would be better off just directly moving the magnet over the coil.


Another point illustrated is that Energy consumption is far less relevant as friction.

The pendulum is so efficient a 10 000 kg load can be accelerated by a human.

Quote:
A flywheel is a flywheel, even if it is disguised as a pendulum. No free lunch here.


Ah yes, but now you pretend we know what a flywheel is.

This while it's a well established fact that there isn't a single effect in nature that we humans understand.

Nothing we have made sense of so far.

Lets not be proud about it.

Quote:
I'm sure Gaby knows about Minato's flywheel+pulsed electromagnet motor+generator combinations--these are circular analogues to the linear reciprocating pendulum device described here. They don't work either.
I work really hard at what I do and so does Mr Minato. I'm not mistaken, I'm sure that is the subject of your remark.

Quote:
That is, they spin and generate power, as long as the flywheel turns, but do not generate any more power out than in. One must take into account the times involved--sum over time the power in to get the device moving, then sum over time the power extracted until the device stops. The latter is always less than the former, due to friction, electrical resistance, etc.


No it is assumed to be. This assumption earned it's respect in all fields of engineering. If you want to build a perpetual motion device however you should assume the results to depend on your effort.

It's just like trying to build a boat while being utterly convinced it could never work. Then where the question is "wood or polyester?" the answer will be something like: "I told you we couldn't possibly build a boat!" Yes, sure. With zero steps at a time you will arrive nowhere. Not to mention how uninspired and uninspiring it is.

Quote:
And that little guy pushing the pendulum is going to get awfully tired and thirsty--I suggest Guinness as the ideal lubricant.


I know you are joking but if you would put the pendulum next to a beer stand on a festival it would surly move all day. By the power of amusement alone. If you use it to power the beer pump it will be guaranteed to work all of the time.

Why not? Should we all lead boring lives? is that it?

Joh70 wrote:
pendulums are perfect energy capacitors. but i would agree alsetalokin. they only save/give back what is stored in, i think (never sure...tsss).

air resistance could be avoided in a vacuum. try it out, and tell the results.


If you would adjust the rope length to the wind speed you could have it ghost swinging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx3Z4k0gm3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubWYAHuSHac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eymH8TGvqRA

Smile

exco wrote:
I can't tell whether this is intended as a joke or not.


hummm, it's both a joke and an initiative to revisit those obvious effects without fast-dismissing them the way we learned.

exco wrote:
When we talk about 'free energy' we are talking about a box/machine/building that outputs more energy than it receives. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever done this, and I believe nobody ever will.


yes, very accurately worded. To the best of your knowledge. In reality you know there are hundreds of inventors. Lets start with all the 100+ mpg cars. In my opinion 1000 mpg is more then free energy enough for me. To make any additional demands from a free energy device is unreasonable. There isn't any good reason to drive a vehicle incapable of driving more then 100 km on a liter of petrol.

Some people would argue this is not free energy. They are wrong as the wastefulness of this kind of vehicles defeats the whole purpose of trying to squeeze a milliwatt of free energy out of any exotic configuration.

You need a soccer field of solar panels to move a small Mercedes.

This might be a lot less comfortable it does drive? That was the point?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5046455943438491185

Seems expensive enough light the way it is. Add 1000 kg of nonsense and it will stop working. ehm rofl?

"Look Mum, 2,000mpg in a car!"

http://www.automobilsport.com/front_content.php?client=1&lang=1&idcat=432&idart=22929&displaylimit=26

If it's not free energy then why would we need free energy if cars already do 10 mpg in stead of 2000?

Quote:
This is qualitatively different from a water wheel or a photovoltaic panel. These devices merely convert forms of energy and break no conservation laws. The steorn device - it is claimed - does!

Now if you are a moderate believer, then I fundamentally disagree with you. However, if we are to discuss your beliefs, in a meaningful way, let us at least agree that there is a clear conceptual difference between steorn's alleged machine and a water wheel.

If you seriously think that by setting a pendulum going, you can get more energy out than you put in then you are beyond hope for any reasoned discussion, I'm afraid.


The intend was to discuss the pendulum. I thought the over optimistic description was amusing and appropriate. You laughed and I know you did. Laughing

Joh70 wrote:
Not "free" in sense of having nothing as a source! Of course, there is a source!!! It is converting Zero Point energy in to additional magnet-force under special circumstances.


Zero point energy already is perpetual motion.

We don't have to convert it into anything. Laughing

exco wrote:
I think you would be well advised to learn a little about 'zero point energy' before talking any more nonsense about it.


Don't feel helpless, if you think we should know more about zero point energy then make a topic, a website or an elaborate post about it.

Smile

I thank you all for your comments.
_________________
http://fototour.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:11 am PostPost subject: To the best of my knowledge...
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

You have taken this phrase and used it to imply that there may be many perpetual motion machine inventors who have successfully made just such a machine of which I know nothing.

Well, I suppose this is remotely possible, but in my opinion extremely unlikely. However, if you know of a successful machine - or indeed if anyone else does - perhaps you'd like to point to it.

Note that this must be a WORKING machine though, not some 'demonstration of the principle', nor a non-peer-reviewed paper, nor an 'interesting idea' from some dedicated perpetual motion worker. There have been thousands of these in the past, none of which have come to anything whatsoever, and all of them wittingly or unwittingly based on bad physics.

You cannot make a perpetual motion machine because that is not the way the universe is made. There are just too many bits of physics theory, that successfully explain all sorts of observable phenomena, based on conservation of energy. Nobody has ever found a single exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:01 pm PostPost subject: Re: To the best of my knowledge...
gaby de wilde
Newbie


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 9

Reply with quote

exco wrote:
You have taken this phrase and used it to imply that there may be many perpetual motion machine inventors who have successfully made just such a machine of which I know nothing.


yes

Quote:
Well, I suppose this is remotely possible,


I thought you knew everything?

Quote:
but in my opinion extremely unlikely.


Almost everything then eh?

Quote:
However, if you know of a successful machine - or indeed if anyone else does - perhaps you'd like to point to it.


Nope, you are out of luck, I don't like pointing you to anything.

Quote:
Note that this must be a WORKING machine though,


See? Why would I like pointing anything out?

Quote:
not some 'demonstration of the principle',


You clearly don't want to know.

Quote:
nor a non-peer-reviewed paper,


Those also exist.

Quote:
nor an 'interesting idea' from some dedicated perpetual motion worker.


You would definitely cry like a half eaten baby when presented with some one's hard work.

Indeed not a good idea to show you thinks.

Quote:
There have been thousands of these in the past,


oh? Perhaps you would like to point them out to us so that we can debunk you?

yes? ha-ha?

Quote:
none of which have come to anything whatsoever,


At least show a few 100 examples so that we can get an idea what happened.

Quote:
and all of them wittingly or unwittingly based on bad physics.


Physics is one heap of nonsense.

They don't want to learn anything new.

It's dogma all the way.

I have thousands of examples but you don't want to see those.

Quote:
You cannot make a perpetual motion machine because


....because you assert it.

oh, bla bla?

Quote:
that is not the way the universe is made.


What would you know about it? Was the universe peer reviewed?

Quote:
There are just too many bits of physics theory,


Yeah, most of which contradicting another.

It's very funny if you know how things work.

Quote:
that successfully explain all sorts of observable phenomena,


oeW, now you shot youself in the foot here with observable.

Quote:
based on conservation of energy.


Neoconversation of petroleum monoploly.

A physics lawyering based on assertion! hahahaahaha!

What funny people!!

Not one of the physicurts ever dared to look at perpetual motion.

So they cant claim nothing worked, because they didn't look.

There is no way out and you cant escape.

Quote:
Nobody has ever found a single exception.


You better show us the thousands of examples now.

I will laugh really hard at you and call you a fool.

That is what you like to work for right?

Laughing

I have a better idea,

You may suffer some more from this energy crisis.

It's good for you. You like that.

Bit of petroleum war with it. Very nice.

Look out a terrorist behind you!

Surprised
_________________
http://fototour.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:46 pm PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Ahh trashing folks that do not go with your ideas is not a good thing. As for you pendulum example, well it has the problems stated. Since in is mass in motion overriding the peak point of attraction, It never reaches back to the peak of its height to set a full swing again, as it oscillates, it keep dropping in height until it becomes unstable and drops out.

Now it is true it takes less energy per swing to keep it going than it took to start it. Ahh if you could move the earth at the proper times, LOL.

Now you have added the aspect of the generator, which is more drag, You will still have to input that energy as shown also to keep it going.

You could play a bit with the lever version of the pendulum, or go look at Besslers wheel and look at the drawings of such... Good luck, so far with the info I have seen, the possible pendulum to motion goes as such. Besslers wheel, the art piece that keeps the ball rolling, and the whipmag. I have not seen any others that show any kind of possibility other than to scam folks out of cash. But hey I could be wrong....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:11 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Quote:

Ahh if you could move the earth at the proper times, LOL


Or the right size pendulum. Oh wait, that's the moon Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Inventor's Corner
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum