What if we took the economics out of generating electricity?

[libertypirate]

A 10 year old girl built this for a science fair and won every prize.

That is not what was astonishing, it ran for 5 days 120 hours on one 9v battery. The battery read +7v after 120h at 4000 rpm and turning a slot car motor to power a led. It should have used up the 9v in a couple of hours.

There is nothing new and it could be built from parts bought at Radio Shack.

http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/bedmot.htm

Scale up to generate more energy, compensate the battery power loss with solar and you don't need fuel to generate electricity.

[slackmaster]

1. I can see going to solar, but you can't get something for nothing

The name "keelynet" gives me a deja vu, something about perpetual motion machines...

[slackmaster]

3. Ah yes, John Worrel Keely and his "etheric vapor"

http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb33.html#THE%20KEELY%20MOTOR%20HUMBUG

I don't mean to say that the 10-year-old girl's science project necessarily doesn't represent a breakthrough in energy efficiency, but the site that touts it smells strongly of some long-established charlatanism.

See http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html for a nice history of perpetual motion and "free" energy fraud.

[libertypirate]

4. psst your not getting something from nothing...

Look more closely...

The common battery in a closed loop system back charges its self using the energy flowing from the vacuum of space.

[slackmaster]

5. But if that's true you'll deplete the energy field of space

Which will eventually slow the earth in its orbit and send us all crashing into the sun.

;-)

[Kraklen]

6. Well there you go.

"Energy flowing from the vacuum of space" = getting something from nothing = pseudoscience bullshit.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

13. I agree.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

7. Well there you go.

"Energy flowing from the vacuum of space" = getting something from nothing = pseudoscience bullshit.

[WLKjr]

16. One of GE's new locomotives is supposed to take advantage of

perpetual motion generated by the weight of the train pushing the locomotive, something about that being used to help recharge the batteries and saving some 186,000 gallons of fuel annually per locomotive.

[mainegreen]

24. Probably

brakes using a mechanism to turn breaking energy into electrical energy. Similar to some hybrid cars.

[WLKjr]

26. Yeah I think that is what it was, they are really hyping it up though

[libertypirate]

55. Check these dudes out

http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/cairns.htm

http://www.rense.com/general9/unveil.htm

Relying on the attraction and repulsion of internal magnets, the Lutec 1000 operates continually on a pulse-like current 24 hours a day - producing 24 kilowatts of power - once it is kickstarted from a battery source.

The device is more than 500 per cent efficient, compared to a car which is less than 40 per cent efficient and loses power through heat and friction.

[mainegreen]

59. bwahahaha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

How about my patented Gerbil-Spin-O-Matic 1V powerstation?

[slackmaster]

62. Those dudes are old news - I've seen both articles before

They've been debunked for years, as has any claim of more than 100% efficiency for any engine.

TANSTAAFL, my friend. It's not just a cute acronym, it's the law.

[Endangered Specie]

79. source?

there is nothing generated (you cannot create or destroy energy)... a locomotive going downhill is simply gravitational potential energy being converted into kinetic energy... any battery hooked up to the train would slow it down (reduce the kinetic energy) and turn it into electrical energy (with less than 100% effeciency).

[longship]

80. Called regenerative braking

You get it when you buy a Toyota Prius, too.

You reverse the field coils in the motor, which turns it into a generator, which impededs the motor from rotating (slowing down the car/locomotive) while generating a little power to recharge the batteries.

But is it a miracle energy from space men or something like that?

No, it's simply utilizing the kinetic energy of a moving body to generate some energy with the side effect of reducing that kinetic energy.

This is high school physics stuff.

[whistle]

2. Some of the links appear to be empty, but I'm not grasping the....

...technology that makes this motor run so efficiently. I see where this young lady's motor differs from other conventional motors in that it uses "north pole only" as it's inertia along with some transistorized circuits. That suggests from the written description that the motor spins using a fraction of energy compared to the motors in use today. However, can the motor do work? Does a single pole allow the spinning action of the rotor to be converted to the mechanical action of driving say a fan blade, or a pump or a drive wheel. I could not tell from the experimental display if the utility of the motor was addressed.

It's like these automobiles which are pushed to the absolute limit of fuel efficiency to get 120 miles per gallon of fuel. No driver in normal driving conditions could duplicate the effort. We can maximize fuel efficiency in our vehicles today, as long as we never drive over 45mph and never apply the breaks and always go in a straight line on flat surfaces. But none of us will every take a trip where all of these parameter constraints will apply.

Still, for a 10 year old, this young girl certainly has my respect and admiration for proving this bit of science.

[slackmaster]

8. It appears to run efficiently because the load on it is very small

Running a motor only to light up an LED requires only a small fraction of a watt of power.

[libertypirate]

10. 5 days on a 9v battery scale it up!

[Kraklen]

11. Yes, we'll be able to power many leds!

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

14. For YEARS or even DECADES!!!

:nuke:

[Kraklen]

15. Just think of the potential.

A billion LEDs powered by a billion 9 volt batteries.

The sky's the limit!

[libertypirate]

22. It is amazing that some of us actually learn and can expand our minds

Belittling something that is not easy to understand is not a sign of strength.

This has been around for over a hundred years, same with fuel cell, but because the oil drillers can't make a profit I guess it can't work, must be nice.

[slackmaster]

28. Just like the device that makes your car run on water

General Motors bought the patent and had the inventor killed.

:tinfoilhat:

[Kraklen]

29. The second law of thermodynamics isn't easy to understand?

I disagree. Sure, one could dedicate their whole careers to exploring the intricacies of the subject. But the basic concept of it is something a, well, a ten year old girl working on a science project should be able to understand.

Look, energy production is a serious problem. It's not going to be solved with Rube Goldberg contraptions and Gene Ray type nonsense.

[Endangered Specie]

18. its not as easy as people would like to think...

you dont just "scale up" anything. :eyes:

I could get a motor to turn for a long time on a 9v battery in high school, too bad it couldnt do shit. scaling something up twice will often cause a 4 (2^2) or 8 (2^3) fold increase in energy/strength requirements.

[Kraklen]

19. Clearly we need more 10 year old girls.

[Endangered Specie]

23. I cant wait to see the first LED powered vehicle...

what you do, is you get out and push, and watch the spinning LED as entertainment! :idea:

[Kraklen]

25. Hey, if you put a solar cell right in front of the LED...

then when the LED you could also use the electricity from the solar cell to power the stereo.

[slackmaster]

27. And a device to convert your singing along back into electricity

The whole thing ultimately runs on Twinkies. And the etheric field.

:crazy:

[Endangered Specie]

32. How about flatulence power from eating the twinkes!?

[Kraklen]

41. We'd need lots of tiny windmills.

And numerous studies on their effect upon skin mite populations.

[Endangered Specie]

30. Hmm, youd be lucky to get 1% effeciency out of that.

;) now thats a science project Id be impressed with! Because I got my little motor up to 1.3%, and that was considered good!

[Kraklen]

37. The extra 99%

we'd get by pulling it from the vacuum of Uranus.

[Endangered Specie]

40. shhh... your devulging the secrets of scientology in public...

;) Thats how they get there things to work

[Kraklen]

43. Oh, right, right.

I don't want Karl Rove and the Masters of Corporate Science coming down on my head.

[libertypirate]

44. Really tell it to these guys 500% effeciency

http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/cairns.htm

http://www.rense.com/general9/unveil.htm

[slackmaster]

45. Poor oppressed selfless heroes of humanity

"The only problem the pair now face is in raising $500,000 to start their production plant."

:nopity:

[libertypirate]

53. So you want to continue with fuel based economics in this country.

[slackmaster]

57. I'd welcome any credible story about an energy breakthrough

I haven't seen one in this thread yet.

Keyword = "credible"

[Endangered Specie]

60. ah, who needs 'credible' everything on the internet is true!

the sad part is I thought those links were posted here as a joke/sarcasm... silly me :tinfoilhat:

[libertypirate]

64. Wow,

AI? and not artificial...

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

71. Im thinking, all on my own, that either you are joking with us

Or you are ignorant of basic physics to the point where you are unable to distinguish between pseudoscience and the real thing.

[Endangered Specie]

47. Bwhahahaha!

Did they get their degrees at BJU or Liberty U or something? someone should revoke them! :rofl:

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

54. you dont need a degree to know you cant get >=100% effeciency.

plus, your ad hominem attacks arent necessary, and suggest you dont have anything constructive to say.

[libertypirate]

56. It must be hard to keep yourself in the dark.

Relying on the attraction and repulsion of internal magnets, the Lutec 1000 operates continually on a pulse-like current 24 hours a day - producing 24 kilowatts of power - once it is kickstarted from a battery source.

The device is more than 500 per cent efficient, compared to a car which is less than 40 per cent efficient and loses power through heat and friction.


The problem isn't the science it's the fact that people think they know too much already!

[Endangered Specie]

58. some people believe anything they read on the internet.

I am talking science, you cant get more than 100% effeciency!!!!

[libertypirate]

63. challenge yourself

[Endangered Specie]

65. This isnt a challenge... this is basic physics.

[libertypirate]

67. Fine -- but try a little harder

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/index.html

There is much much more :)

REGAUGING AND ENERGY CONSERVATION:
· In quantum field theory, gauge freedom is an axiom. It is widely assumed by electrodynamicists and physicists.
· By gauge freedom, one can freely change the potential—and thus the potential energy—of an EM system at any time, as one wishes.
o In earlier history of electrodynamics, the potentials were considered to be mathematical figments and not physically real.
o Only the fields were regarded as “real”.
o So long as the net fields of the system were unchanged, the system was considered to be “the same” regardless of change of potential (and thus regardless of its change of potential energy).
o For simply changing a system potential (regauging the equations) that resulted in an increase in the system’s potential energy, and without net change in the overall force field, no question of the conservation of energy was raised—and such questions are still ignored.
§ We know of no text which points out that regauging a system’s equations implies a free change in the potential energy of the system involved.
§ We also know of no text which then details from whence comes the excess free regauging energy so universally assumed and utilized by the electrodynamicists.
§ Leyton’s hierarchies of symmetry, however, do provide the answer.
· In the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, “symmetrical” regauging { } is the simultaneous changing of two potentials—A and f—but just so that the two free translation force fields also produced are equal and opposite. Thus the net resultant translation force field change is zero, even though the stress of the system has been increased by the presence of the new equal and opposite forces fighting each other.
· If one wishes, asymmetrical regauging—such as changing the magnitude of the system’s electrostatic scalar potential (its voltage) alone—can be used.
o As previously stated, if no current is permitted to flow, this asymmetrical regauging (increasing the voltage alone) does freely increase the potential energy collected in the asymmetrically regauged system. It is done without performing work, since—as an example—mere voltage amplification in the absence of current does not of itself involve any work. Instead, it is pure asymmetrical regauging, and “for free” under the gauge freedom axiom.
o The local ambient vacuum is actually a very high electrostatic scalar potential, taken only as a reference zero potential. In other words, other potentials are measured with respect to being a change in that ambient local vacuum potential.
o Note that “the” potential as such is not absolutely defined; only the difference between two potentials is defined (and then only for their difference in point intensity of their composite energy flows). Hence the change of potential “in the circuit” actually is a change in the local potential intensity of the vacuum. That is a free asymmetrical regauging of the vacuum itself, and the “excess energy” connected with the regauged system comes directly from the regauged vacuum.
o We strongly stress that “the potential” itself does not appear in EM equations. Only the “point intensity” of the potential—i.e., of its composite energy flows {24}—appears and is calculated and used. Similarly for “the” EM field: Only its point intensity appears and is used.
· One concludes that the vacuum can be and is asymmetrically regauged at will, in a local region, thereby producing excess usable EM potential energy in a system located in that region. “Flow of potential energy through space” actually refers to transmitting a change of the local potentialization of space (vacuum) itself.
· One further concludes that the source charge is the fundamental and most basic EM system that performs that asymmetrical regauging of the local vacuum potential. And it also does it continuously and “for free”.
TECHNICAL RESULT: THE SOURCE CHARGE ENSEMBLE OBEYS THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW (FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS), BUT TOTALLY VIOLATES THE PRESENT FORM OF THE SECOND LAW. SOURCE CHARGES FREELY FURNISH ALL OBSERVABLE EM FIELD ENERGY AND EM POTENTIAL ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE, EXTRACTING AND TRANSDUCING IT FROM THE LOCAL SEETHING VACUUM’S VIRTUAL ENERGY.
· The dipolarity of the charge’s polarization ensemble continuously (i) consumes positive entropy of the virtual state vacuum, and (ii) produces negative entropy in the observable state.
· In every electrical circuit, power system, or EM device: In any system, the local EM fields, potentials, and their energy are formed by the changes in the intensity of the EM energy being extracted and reordered directly from the altered local vacuum by the associated source charges and dipolarities in that system. The charge produces the transduction function; the altered vacuum intensity furnishes the energy freely.
· Thermodynamically the charge ensemble is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system. The charge is the first known physical EM system continuously producing purely negative entropy in accord with the theoretical demonstration of Evans and Rondoni {11}.
· All EM systems are powered by energy from the local vacuum, and always have been { }.
· Cranking the shaft of a generator is not what powers its attached external circuit.
· Dissipating chemical energy in a battery is not what powers its attached circuit.
· Burning hydrocarbons, building dams and windmills, and using nuclear fuel rods have nothing to do with directly providing the actual EM energy from the immediate vacuum to the attached external circuits, the power grid, and external loads.
· The charges and dipolarities in those circuits, grid, and loads freely provide that service, as “gushers” of continuously flowing EM energy transduced from the seething vacuum. All the rest is just to switch the intensity of the vacuum’s interactions with the local ions and charges and dipoles in the circuit or system.
THE ELECTRICAL POWER ENGINEERING SITUATION: ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS, PROFESSORS, TEXTS, AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS ARE UNAWARE OF WHAT ACTUALLY POWERS A CIRCUIT.
· The power engineering EM model erroneously assumes an inert vacuum, a flat spacetime, and thus an “inert external environment”. In the model there is no such thing as “usable energy from the vacuum”—any net receipt of energy from the vacuum to the system is totally excluded from the discipline and the model.
· This terrible error continues even though the active vacuum and its exchange with all charges and ions has been thoroughly proven in particle physics for decades { , }.
· It continues nearly a half-century after proof of the asymmetry of opposite charges {8} (of any dipolarity) in their virtual particle flux exchange with the vacuum.

[Endangered Specie]

69. pseudoscience

theres a reason why "yet not one current Electrical Engineering or Classical Electromagnetics textbook mentions it"... its the same reasons why you wont find creationism in a biology book.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternative%2C_speculative_and_disputed_theories#Physics

[libertypirate]

70. It's not in a textbook is your best response, isn't that quaint...

This is not about perpetual motion

More then likely would not be since this was published

Aug. 18, 2003

[Endangered Specie]

73. I was quoting from the site you linked too...

Perpetual motion requires 100% effeciency, and since thats impossible, 500% is even more impossible.

my "best" response is the 1st and 2nd LAWs of Thermodynamics.

Case closed.

[slackmaster]

72. Oh boy, Tom Bearden

The guy who claims the Russians shot down both US space shuttles that failed in flight.

:eyes:

Just Google him for a good time, but here's a good critical overview:

http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm

[libertypirate]

74. Did you know that half of the smartest people in the world

are in looney bins?

[slackmaster]

75. I won't even bother asking you for a cite to support that

Because even if it's true I'd still say "So what?" and "Who cares?"

Tom Bearden is a well known charlatan. His misapplications of mathematics and physics have been documented for more than a decade.

You need some new material.

[Endangered Specie]

77. where the hell did you hear that from?

or did you just make it up? :shrug:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libertypirate]

9. Closed loop....

In a closed loop the battery reacts like or is a negative resistor (double negative).

Check this out.

http://users.ev1.net/~stol/teslabedini.htm

[Endangered Specie]

78. thanks for the laugh...

Seriously, that site is loaded with premium A-grade BULL SHIT.


to quote from the site:
"This motor/generator purportedly accesses an unknown energy source and uses this unknown energy source to recharge the batteries. There is nothing magic or "overunity" in the motor design itself. If the unknown energy source doesn't exist this motor will deplete the batteries and stop. This unknown energy source has been called free energy, ether, radiant energy, space energy, vacuum energy, zero point energy and probably other names I can't recall now. Whatever you want to call it John Bedini claims to have accessed and harnessed it to do useful work in recharging batteries.

I recently emailed a friend with an explanation of this device. Here's the email. I'm probably off somewhat in some areas but this is a good explanation nevertheless.

The rotor generates a very small amount of current to the transistor in the trigger circuit. When the transistor activates, a power surge flows from the battery through the power coil. This repels the magnet in the rotor, the transistor turns off, the magnetic field around the power coil collapses inducing a high voltage into the back emf coil and this high voltage is captured by the capacitor. The high voltage in the capacitor is fed into the batteries where the plates "see" a continuous high voltage with very little current, certainly not enough to recharge the batteries. It is this increase in potential on the lead plates which allows radiant energy to enter the system and recharge the batteries. Don't ask me how because I don't think anyone understands radiant energy, especially "where does it come from"! Tesla, Bedini and a few others have figured out a way to access it and harness it to do useful work. I recently learned that the rate of expansion of the known universe is increasing, not decreasing as the big bangers said. It is being driven by some energy source, possibly radiant energy. No one understands gravity either but it works everywhere in the universe with ferrous and nonferrous materials alike with the same force constant. Radiant energy, if it exists, can best be explained as a part of God's physical creation. It came from God just like everything else. It's invisible, non-moving (you can't put a meter on it), exists everywhere simultaneously in fullness just like God. Maybe radiant energy has something to do with gravity. It seems to be an unlimited force outside of three dimensional space, almost in the spiritual realm. Anyway if I can verify John's claims I'll know for myself if he has done what Tesla did.

Just some food for thought. A very small amount of antimatter (where the nucleus is negatively charged and the electron is positively charged), about the volumetric capacity of a small shirt button, reacting with normal matter would have enough explosive force to launch the fully loaded space shuttle into orbit."

youll notice that some of the links on that very site contain url names such as "unproven"!


THis stuff makes creationism look valid :crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm

[chaska]

17. I had an idea the other day. What if....

you were to add an additional battery (deep cycle) to your car, charge it during the days driving, then hook it up to your house at night. I guess you'd have to use 12 volt everything in your house, but you could certainly do lighting easily enough. Who knows what else.

[Endangered Specie]

20. 12 volts instead of 120 means it would suck 10 times the amps...

thus draining said battery rather quickly. not to mention making it more dangerous.

and even if it did work, the energy is still coming from your car (aka oil).

no such thing as a free lunch.

[slackmaster]

21. The answer is obvious

The extra load on your car engine while it's charging the deep-cycle battery will be reflected in increased consumption of gasoline.

A commercial power company can generate electricity a lot more efficiently than your car's charging system.

[chaska]

31. Okay, then what about....

just replacing your regular car battery with a deep cycle. Your car has to have a battery anyway. Would that require more gas than you would normally use to charge your car's battery?

And of course you would have to use 12 volt lights in your house. But that's easy (and cheap) enough. I have a friend that uses a lot of 12 volt stuff in his house.

[Endangered Specie]

35. Voltage aint what really matters...

its WATTS (power, as in energy/time) If you have something that on x watts it will take the same amount of power to power it via the formula Power = volts*amps. so some 60 watt bulb at 120 volt standard draws .5 amps where as at 12 volts it would draw 5 amps.

slackmaster is right, its best to let an oil plant produce the power from gas rather than your car.

[slackmaster]

36. Deep-cycle batteries can't deliver same peak current as regular ones

They make poor car starters.

12-volt systems around the house are great, especially if you have a photovoltaic power source. There's no way around the fact that automotive gasoline engines are not very efficient for generating electricity.

:D

[iconoclastNYC]

33. A problem with solar

Is that it creates a lot of toxic byproducts from what I understand. Thats on top of the fact that it is very expensive form of energy creation compared to wind, coal, oil, gas.

[Endangered Specie]

38. if we investeted the proper funds, we could get solar

more effecient and cheaper in the long run (though the same can be said for any power source).

[ArkDem]

34. We should be using an anti-matter device.

[Kraklen]

39. Logic would dictate...

that there's some kind of neutral matter between matter and anti-matter.

I bet that would work.

[slackmaster]

42. Italian restaurant in my town blew up the other day

The fresh pasta they were making came into content with the anti-pasto.

:nuke:

[Endangered Specie]

48. now THATS funny!

:rofl:

[chaska]

46. BIG QUESTION (Peak oil): Is oil required to produce solar panels?

Solar could eventually die out if oil becomes at some point too expensive to fuel the solar panel industry.

[Endangered Specie]

49. im not sure, I bet so, oil is needed to produce plastics.

[mainegreen]

61. You can make plastics from any organic

The first plastic discovered was made from Milk and Vinegar!

[ArkDem]

66. That would require the use of factory farms, cow pus and

would be degrading to grapes.

[whistle]

76. No kidding...was it called polylactine?

[Ignoramus]

81. power from abundant energy sources

I didn't really put much effort into reading the linked stories. In any case, I don't think perpetual motion makes sense within a deterministic world. But, I think libertypirate might be making this point, regardless of the validity or invalidity of the technical claims:

It's probably a good idea to seek ways to harness the power of "abundant" energy sources, and not as good an idea to simply burn up consumables for energy.

There is a significant difference between power you get from burning wood, and power you get from making the wood into a water wheel, placing it in a river and using the motion of the river to power a generator. On a similar scale, the power created from the water wheel I am guessing is greater than the power created from burning that same wood.