ADN

QUOTE(AYHJA)^ 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...

All right, i'll lay this out the best I can, but anyone who tries to patent it I will hunt you down, seriously. The whole machine has two main parts, the water column which establishes the potential energy through the use of bouyant force, and a spiral incline composed of two metal tracts running parallel to one another (but spiraling downward), the main moving part would be a ball with two pins sticking out of either side (on the pins is built a mechanism that converts the alternating current to DC current, i'll explain that later if need be). These balls ride on the track (more specifically the pins ride on the track) and the balls have coils of copper wire (enough to produce a current, but not enough to make them unable to be bouyant in water, if this is an impossibility another liquid could be substituted) as the balls roll down the track they rotate (there is a gear ratio between the coils of wire, and the pins that roll on the track) the track is fitted with permanent magnets, and as the ball rolls down it forces the coils of wire to break the magnetic field. Upon reaching the bottom the balls are reintroduced to the bottom of the water column and the whole process starts over again. Now please, anyone, prove me wrong here, I want reasons why this wont work, I know the main problem will be introducing the ball to the column, and allowing it to exit the top while maintaining a vacuum within the column, but other than that in theory it would work.

QUOTEA machine is defined as a tool that requires less input to deliver greater output.

I thought that a machine was created to use a greater percentage of energy that you put in. Because of entropy and friction I still don't think you can have a machine that will put out more energy than you put in

In in fact, are you suggesting that by the ball constantly trying to surface, it will create energy..?

I am picturing this in my head, tell me how far off I am...

You have a cylinder...Along the sides of the cylinder there are 2 rails, exact opposite of one another...

At one end of the column, you have a magnet...You seal and secure it, and it becomes the base...

You then insert the ball, with two metal pins in each end, that fit inside of the rails...You slide the ball inside, which it is immediatly drawn to the bottom...

You then fill the cylinder with a substance that will make the ball float (or try to) and then vacuum seal the other end of the cylinder with another magnet to influence rotation...Roation of the ball along the rails gives off electricity somehow...

Of course, there are a few variables that could iron out any kinks, but the idea is that once you seal the cylinder, the ball begins its perpetual energy mouse wheel routine..?

No thats not quite it. I'll have to draw a picture or something...

QUOTE(Aemeth)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...


I thought the idea of sticking a turbine across a chimney was revolutionary- I told my Year9 science teacher and he said the oil companies would be after me bigtime..........

That's why those ideas haven't been realised.

no, Pete.

As a person who works with a company that owns chimneys, here is issue.

Most of our energy grid generation comes from Coal. The most MMBTU heat content is in Bituminous.
Most of our fuel for transportation comes from Petrol. The most MMBTU heat content is in sweet crude RFO.

Petrol is too costly to run our whole grid, but has a lot less ash and sulfur content.

I am amazed that your teacher didn't know this, but if you put a turbine on a chimney, you would kill the structural integrity of it. The motion of the turbine, would cause the chimney to sort of gyrate a bit, because of its motion. this would rock loose the foundations of it, which already face risk of heat fracture. The systemic forced closures of the plant to clean the ash and sulfur off the turbine would interrupt the grid far more that morning congestion, causing prices to jump in perodic points which would dominate the energy market. The manipulation i could do with that kind of scheduling would make me able to charge more than $3,500 for a megawatt hour, and you would see about a 250% increase overall in your power bill, because everyone is fighting for the available energy.

Say you need 800 MW to serve your Citytown, USA community needs (called "Load"),.. well, normally, I generate 1500 MW off three generators and sell the other 700 to offset operational costs and pull a profit for investors - BUT "as luck would have it" I have to realign and retrofit the stacks and clean the turbines. As a result, I have to take two off, and can only generate 500 MW. That means you have to schedule energy from outside, and cannot serve Load if you aren't willing to buy it. Well, I also have three generators (under a different legal name) in Towncity, USA, and can bid those MW under the same contract, for a fee. I can't sell them contractually Firm for more than $1,000 a Megawatt Hour, but a NonFirm Crisis has emerged, if your Load doesn't get served, it can knock out the entire west coast! Thus, market emergency enables me to sell them to you for a price to offset the general reliablity. See, normally, I sell those to Anytown, USA, but TODAY, you need them, and RIGHT NOW! I can sell them for $5,000 a megawatt hour easy, making $5,000,000, and only have to pay the lack of reliabilty fee, and to pay the offset for the Anytown, USA Load. Well, as luck would have it, I happen to have emergency generators for capacity in a city three miles away, and cut a break for the load to Anytown, USA; which I have to buy, at say $20 a mega.

Thus, basically:

I lose your morning Load of $42,000
To make 5,000,000
and have to pay less than a million in fees, wages, operational costs, and I did it *legally*, and can do it at least every three months. That's 16 million dollars a year on ONE PLANT. Better, yet, if i have large quatities of plants (like the 30+ we have), I could do this in rotation.

Now, while I would love the some 200,000+ annual bonus I personally would get for bringing this to come about, it would suck to go to a pound me in the ass prison for the increase in water bound pollution from the chemical washdowns of the turbines and the necessary drainage of the ash and sulfur into the local waterways that kills more than 60% of all water dependent wildlife in the first five years or so. Or we could just physically store it, but it would soon become as voluminous as nuclear waste and far less stable, and less efficient in MMBTU heat content.

QUOTE(raum)I am amazed that your teacher didn't know this, but if you put a turbine on a chimney, you would kill the structural integrity of it.  The motion of the turbine, would cause the chimney to sort of gyrate a bit, because of its motion.  this would rock loose the foundations of it, which already face risk of heat fracture.  The systemic forced closures of the plant to clean the ash and sulfur off the turbine would interrupt the grid far more that morning congestion, causing prices to jump in perodic points which would dominate the energy market.  The manipulation i could do with that kind of scheduling would make me able to charge more than $3,500 for a megawatt hour, and you would see about a 250% increase overall in your power bill, because everyone is fighting for the available energy.

Say you need 800 MW to serve your Citytown, USA community needs (called "Load"),..  well, normally, I generate 1500 MW off three generators and sell the other 700 to offset operational costs and pull a profit for investors - BUT "as luck would have it" I have to realign and retrofit the stacks and clean the turbines.  As a result, I have to take two off, and can only generate 500 MW.  That means you have to schedule energy from outside, and cannot serve Load if you aren't willing to buy it.  Well,  I also have three generators (under a different legal name) in Towncity, USA, and can bid those MW under the same contract, for a fee.  I can't sell them contractually Firm for more than $1,000 a Megawatt Hour, but a NonFirm Crisis has emerged,  if your Load doesn't get served, it can knock out the entire west coast!  Thus, market emergency enables me to sell them to you for a price to offset the general reliablity.  See, normally, I sell those to Anytown, USA, but TODAY, you need them, and RIGHT NOW!  I can sell them for $5,000 a megawatt hour easy, making $5,000,000, and only have to pay the lack of reliabilty fee, and to pay the offset for the Anytown, USA Load.  Well, as luck would have it, I happen to have emergency generators for capacity in a city three miles away, and cut a break for the load to Anytown, USA; which I have to buy, at say $20 a mega.

Thus, basically:

I lose your morning Load of $42,000  
To make 5,000,000
and have to pay less than a million in fees, wages, operational costs, and I did it *legally*, and can do it at least every three months.  That's 16 million dollars a year on ONE PLANT.  Better, yet, if i have large quatities of plants (like the 30+ we have), I could do this in rotation.

Now, while I would love the some 200,000+ annual bonus I personally would get for bringing this to come about, it would suck to go to a pound me in the ass prison for the increase in water bound pollution from the chemical washdowns of the turbines and the necessary drainage of the ash and sulfur into the local waterways that kills more than 60% of all water dependent wildlife in the first five years or so.  Or we could just physically store it, but it would soon become as voluminous as nuclear waste and far less stable, and less efficient in MMBTU heat content.


He probably did know all that, but was more concerned on (probably both) my future safety, by moving me away from getting into the risky and dangerous business of alternative energy generation in a massively competitive world......


By the way I have an article about using coal burning exhaust as a means to generate electricity, I'll post it tomorrow. If I can't find it online I'll have to write it out word-for-word.

Gassification of coal is the way to go RIGHT NOW, my friend.

By the year 2010, the US will have 45% coal efficiency if we have insituted the transition to gasification plants as planned.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/p ... ification/

but you'll never see this on the news, where they get paid to make everyone feel like we are in constant state of emergency.

harumph...

QUOTE(raum)but you'll never see this on the news, where they get paid to make everyone feel like we are in constant state of emergency.

harumph...

I guess that's why I never really have an urge to watch the news- most of it is crap.


The crossing of Cyclone Larry on 20th March 2006 was probably the 1st news item I actually went out of my way to watch, this whole year so far.

yeah, and the whole media monster was pissed you guys didn't get obliterated and left sobbing over loss of life and property so they could test that new fisheye auto-zoom.

glad your nation faired so well.