Perpetual energy.

#11

Um, Energy is by nature Perpetual. I think you mean is it possible to create a Perpetual Energy Machine. That seems to be the question that is being addressed. The requirements for a machine to be defined as a Perpetual Motion Machine are simple: create a machine that will run continuously with no requirement for further fuel or input of energy for the duration of the assemby of its parts, or until direct intervention ceases its functioning.

Trash, I am not sure where you got that a perpetual energy machine need be frictionless. A perpetual energy machine is not required to be frictionless. And it has been done before... several times.

The first we have on record is Bhaskara, a Hindu Mathematician and Philosopher in the 1100's. He made a wheel which had certain vessels filled with mercury and other substances which, when set in motion, would cause the mercury to flow through it, and would enable it to stay in motion. The wheel had little torque, and could do no real work, but it was in the interest of Philosophy and mathematics a great wonder. Villand De Honnecourt reproduced this with a hammering piston set less than a century later, and claimed the mechanical pieces would enable it to do light work, such as sawing wood.

Using counterweights, it functioned for 45 days, until certain parts gave out. if we are to believe such Titans of Science and Koeppler, Wolfe, and Johann Bessler's Bi-Directional Wheel easily qualifies for the standards for a Perpetual Motion Machine. Too bad he took the secret to his grave. He had some 300 models for these machines, some of which could do some lifting or mechanical motions.

these are one approach, easily accomplished and of little use for anything other than demonstration of the possibility.

but here's the real deal:

The real place to look for this is in the Free Energy car of Edwin Gray. In 1958, Edwin V. Gray, Sr. discovered that the discharge of a high voltage capacitor could be shocked into releasing a huge, radiant, electrostatic burst. This energy spike was produced by his circuitry and captured in a special device Mr. Gray called his "conversion element switching tube." The non-shocking, cold form of energy that came out of this "conversion tube" powered all of his demonstrations, appliances, and motors, as well as recharged his batteries. Mr. Gray referred to this process as "splitting the positive." During the 1970's, based on this discovery, Mr. Gray developed an 80 hp electric automobile engine that kept its batteries charged continuously. Hundreds of people witnessed dozens of demonstrations that Mr. Gray gave in his laboratory. His story is well documented in the following materials. He also demonstrated how it could be used to light an exposed electric lightbulb underwater without generating ANY change in temperature. Thus it was "perfect energy" (i.e. "cold electricity").

http://free-energy.ws/gray.html

vertical,
raum

#12

ok, if these examples are true, why aren't they being utilized today? If some cat really figured out how to get free, perpetual energy, why are still paying high prices for gasoline? Seems to me that there must have been some fallthrough in these experiments, or else they would have realigned the way the entire world functions...

#13

U.S. Pat #3,890,548

at least one working example still exists. Gray was stiffed in a bid, as a petroleum giant bought his production rights, and was going to run his project into the ground. he destroyed alot of his research, and Alan Lancourt is one of the last people with a working model, and he went to canada. he has been trying to reverse engineer the working model for years and years.

#14

Infrastructure... among other things...

About two-thirds of primary energy today is used directly as transportation and heating fuels. Any discussion of energy-related issues, such as air pollution, global climate change, and energy supply security, raises the issue of future use of alternative fuels.

Take hydrogen for example. Hydrogen offers large potential benefits in terms of reduced emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases and diversified primary energy supply. Like electricity, hydrogen is a premium-quality energy carrier, which can be used with high efficiency and zero emissions. Hydrogen can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including natural gas, coal, biomass, wastes, solar sources, wind, or nuclear sources.
Hydrogen vehicles, heating, and power systems have been technically demonstrated.
Key hydrogen end-use technologies such as fuel cells are making rapid progress toward commercialization. If hydrogen were made from renewable or decarbonized fossil sources, it would be possible to have a large-scale energy system with essentially no emissions of pollutants or greenhouse gases.
Despite these potential benefits, the development of a large-scale hydrogen energy infrastructure is often seen as an insurmountable technical and economic barrier. Add to the mix oil lobbyists and you get reluctant politicians. It's easier to allocate money towards something that can be developed while a politician is still in office (and help him/her get re-elected) than to sink it into longer term projects. This is why advances in energy and energy technologies will come from outside of the US as we continue to fall behind in scientific breakthroughs and cutting edge technological advances.

IMHO

#15

Raum, I was talking about friction because friction also gives you less energy.

Because of friction you can never have an Ideal Mechanical Advantage where your work in equals your work out. Because of friction you will never have that. It'll always take energy and work away from where you are putting you are putting it. It'll all eventually run out of work and energy because of that friction.

#16

QUOTE(trashtalkr)Raum, I was talking about friction because friction also gives you less energy.

Because of friction you can never have an Ideal Mechanical Advantage where your work in equals your work out. Because of friction you will never have that. It'll always take energy and work away from where you are putting you are putting it. It'll all eventually run out of work and energy because of that friction.

That is a very linear view. I dont think the world actually works like that. With that logic putting up enough windmills would eventually stop the wind. That logic may work when discussing fairly simple machines, but in more complex situational models where you can adjust the effects of gravity, it falls short. Friction is only a by-product of gravity anyways. Theres isnt any friction in space. In the model I laid out friction is a pointless variable. Eventually the bouyant object will reach a point where its bouyant force is equal to its gravitational pull (reaches the top), and the potential energy it built up on its rise will be harnessed as it falls, friction only affects the time it takes to reach the top(water friction), and the time it takes to fall.

#17

^ I am loving having you here ^

A very challenging concept, as if the material itself wasn't enough, I have never given this subject any consideration...I am at a point of birthing on the topic, and I kinda like it...

So Yelram, you have me interested...And excuse my ignorance...

Now, I think what the issue most people will run into, is that if it is perpetual energy, that's one thing...But be it far from maintenace free, which is what I think people want to elude to...

So, in this model of yours (I don't suppose you have any sketches) what kind of boyant object are we talking about, what kind of material will it be made of, and just what exactly is inside of it (if anything) that will make it stay that way..? I need to build this thing in my head basically, so that I can properly understand what it is you're trying to show us...

#18

Sorry to drift off topic but, A...

Quantum theory could easily account for creating energy...Look no farther than telekenisis...However, not many people are able to raise a brick in the air with they mind lol...And of course, that all depends if you really believe it could happen (which, according to quantum theory, you are right either way /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />)

#19

I was under the assumption that quantum theory says energy can't be created or destroyed...Do tell..?

#20

quantum theory says nothing about he creation or destruction of energy,.. but it DOES have implications in thermodynamics.

The First law of Thermodynamics is what you mean. It quickly established: Energy is neither created or destroyed. Just as the second established that entropy is inevitable, and increases as the temperature rises. just as the third says, basically, turn it off, and the temperature drops. Thus a perpetual machine is not an infinite machine. Parts will take on some of the energy of input, =which will result in heat, which if they get hot enough, will eventually break down.

Quantum theory has several ways of affecting this, many which i deal with at least monthly. My work is about energy generation statistical analysis creating projection into the Energy market futures. one interesting and dense paper on Quantum theory and thermodynamics is found here, and the US Dept of Energy's Energy Citations Database:

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=7026567

While appearing quite arbirtary, it is crucial to our world. This is a means by which we project system outages to prevent mechanical malfunctions (due to entropy) AND keep the energy grid packed tight. other wise, when the US wakes up and turns on their lights, it would blow at least one out of every eight generators in PJM (Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland) - and The south central gulf region would probably explode with the forced capacity next to the fuel reserves. Meanwhile, Texas would still be fine, because the have their own isolated and regulated energy grid Real Time operator called ERCOT.

happy thoughts, huh?

By the way, friction contributes to entropy, but does not necessarily prevent a machine from delivering more output than the input it recieves,.. but it more quickly leads to damage to the machine. For example, with a non-depressed firing pin, a 50 calibur machine gun, CAN be a potential machine the absorbtion of the blast chambers the next round the recoil of the sear spring drives the next round out. In theory, you can pull it off, pull the trigger, step back and it will fire itself. they even did so in WWII, but if you use it as such the barrell will melt after the tenth round, destroying the gun in the process, maybe blowing up before it stops firing, and possibility of jamming, and accuracy goes to shit. so it is better to employ a gunner who can control the cyclic rate of fire instead of letting the gun go A.P.E. (A.P.E. = Automatic Pilot Error, hence APE-shit) on deck.

but as i said, they did use them like this when things got hairy in WWII, but it actually led to more allied casualties than the enemy attacks it repelled.

but regardless, the notion that a machine will never deliver output comparable to its input is not only false, it would render machines useless. A machine is defined as a tool that requires less input to deliver greater output. An efficient machine is one that prevents loss of more output than it uses. A perpetual energy machine is a machine that functions on its own power once the initial fuel source or ignition has occured; UNTIL it either is manually stopped or is broken down by entropy and can no longer function. A perpetual integrity is not feasible, but perpetual energy is if you can harness enough output. See the second law of thermodynamics.

vertical,
raum