|
Well, its nice to see that people
are thinking and talking again!!
Temperature differences will
power a generator, and probably the best one is the Sterling Cycle Motor. The
problem with these, though, is that there must be a substantial temp.
difference, which is hard to maintain without a flame. (The heat always wants to
move to the vacuum). Any that will do any useful work with a small temp. diff.
will be too large to be practical. Alternative natural energies work
wonderfully, but tend to be intermittent, so need expensive storage systems that
most cannot afford. (That is my problem.)
Did anyone watch P.B.S. last night?
The show was about the evolution of flight, and one of the researchers was
talking about the original RADIAL engine, from about 1915, and the piston and
shaft of the engine remained still, while the cylinders and prop would spin.
Obviously this resulted in extreme gyroscopic forces from the engine, and made
the aircraft extremely difficult to control. Anyway, they did a small
demonstration; There was a 6 foot string passed through a 1 foot tube. At
one end of the string was a tennis ball attatched. At the other end was a 5 lb.
weight. When you grasp the tube, and spin the tennis ball on the string, the
centrifugal force from the ball is enough to lift the weight, and the string
with the ball would pass through the tube, pulling the weight upward. A very
simple demo of why the Clem motor will work. Just replace the string with fluid,
and the tennis ball with radially pointing jets, to cause the spin. As
the rotor is spun, the centrifugal force of the fluid will be
enough to 'suck up' more liquid, like the string, which in turn ejects from
the jets, reulting in rotor spin, which in turn puts more cent. force on the
fluid, and so on.
I have come to one inescapable
conclusion about 'free energy'. Whatever form it takes, the end result must be
'raw horsepower'. Everything we use in our modern world operates the same way,
and that is 120 volts at 60 hertz, or 240 volts at 60 hertz. Our electrical
appliances also have one other fault, too. The electricity must be 'pushed'
through them, instead of 'pulled'. There are very many types and sizes of
generators, but their principle operating parameters are identical. A machine
like Tom Beardon's M.E.G. is a nice toy, but it won't power an electric motor.
Something about hertz, and back E.M.F. screws it up. So, since our applications
of electricity all rely on the same technology to operate, the only real
solution to the o-u problem is a machine that produces rotary force, ie.
Horsepower, that can then be caused to run a conventional generator. Also it
must produce at least 10 kilowatts of electricity, as that is the maximum load
most households will use. Anything less, and you get into epensive storage and
remediation systems, or 'rationing', and most people would just as soon pay a
monthly bill for the convenience. And, a small machine would be a help,
since you can't put a 50 foot lever in an apartment. The most ideal thing would
be an electric motor that powered a generator. This would fit in a closet, and
be relatively silent.
Have any of you ever thought
about a 'Transformer Motor'? A typical transformer, such as the one powering
your computers and charging your cell phones are about 66% efficient. Just look
on the box, do the math conversion, and you will see this. Why can't an electric
motor be built that incorporates permanent magnets into a transformer, sort of
like the M.E.G. does, whose magnetic field operates the motor as normal, but
'recaptures' the collapsing magnetic field, which is supplimented with the
permanent magnets, resulting in the same amount or more electricity being
delivered back to the source as originally was sent to do the work? Basically, a
Motionless Electrical Generator Motor. What you want to do is increase the
magnetic force with the permanent magnets, over what the electro-magnet
produced, use the force to spin the motor, and at commutation, when the field
collapses, recapture the electricity, and then pipe this extra juice into the
next commutation. What you might end up with is a motor that is 95 to 110%
efficient, just in electricity usage, and rotary horse power is the BY
PRODUCT. When building such a motor, the first thing to think about is the
efficiency of each magnetic pulse, not the overall efficiency. If each
pulse returned 100% of the electricity it used, the motor will run 'for free'. A
normal d.c. motor commutates at about 23,100 times per minute, a hertz of
385. Tesla proved that once the Hertz gets over about 47, it makes no
further difference how much faster the electricity is pulsed, it still does the
exact same thing. That is why we only use a 60 hertz cycle today. Any faster is
a waste. So, in our mythical motor, once the cycles reach 50 per second, the
magnetism will move the motor, and can be recaptured as electricity, to power
the next cycle. Simple, Huh? Anyway, there is a new idea to play
with.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:14
AM
Subject: Re: [Keelynet] differences of
potential, vortexes and gravity
Hello, the theories discussed
lately has some similarities with perpetual motion and creating free energy,
Its great fun and interesting to try to break the energy laws but no one has
succeeded so far. The more complex you build your free energy machine the
harder it is to find the error, and in your head you start to believe that
this thing simply must work, been there done that. To try to tap into gravity
by buoyancy Its probably another area where the energy laws still holds water.
Nothing can be created from nothing, and energy is everything so I guess we
have to use something to make some energy, which is the same as transferring
energy to a different state. So what shall we transform to usable energy?,
fossil fuels is a bad solution, tapping gravity and gravity fields I don’t
understand a bit of, it may be too advanced for me, but I have seen nothing
who is close to working. The solution is probably to tap into renewable energy
sources, mostly energy from the sun who creates light, wind, wave, biomass,
water with potential energy, heat etc. or the process of the sun itself
fusion.
Anyway got inspired by the
discussion and the simpel wheel in a water tank, well that thing does not
work, but why don’t it work, and what can you do to make it work? I used my
favourite subjects temperature differences, faze changes and turbines and made
this concept, a wheel who works the opposite way of a heat pump, and yes its
gravity and buoyancy involved.
Simpler than this I couldn’t draw it, and it just show the principe.
It’s like a big bicycle wheel standing up, half in cold water and the other
half in warm water. The hose contains a refrigerant which evaporates when
heated and condenses when cooled, its chambers in the hose so the refrigerant
can’t move along the wheel. When the liquid evaporates in the warm water it
creates more volume and more buoyancy, when it cools down and condenses in the
cold water it creates less volume and less buoyancy. This will make the wheel
spinn and you can tap it with an electric generator. This process will heat
the cold water and cool down the warm water and is like I said the opposite of
a heat pump. To keep the temperature difference you have to fill up with more
cold and hot water. In this system you got very little energy loss, only some
small loss from friction. A wild guess is an efficiency of 75% including the
generator. Then you only have to get cold and hot water, like cold seawater
and a warm river. Warm water can you also get from solar heaters, burning
biofuel or garbage, used cooling water and spare heat from nuclear plants,
industry, buildings etc. It may also be used to increase efficiency in fossil
fuel power plants and opens up for generation of electricity from warm water
under the boiling point. Hey I just figured, if you turn it with an engine the
opposite way you have a heat pump! Wonder what the efficiency is? Wow this
opens up for using it as flexible heat storage.....technology is
wonderfull!
Well I appreciate if
anyone has a comment, does this work, does it make sense?
If it works I have some nice ideas about how to build a
machine and get up the speed, I do 3D all the way to manufacturing, need help
on the calculations and the rest ,helpers, business developers and people with
fat valets can just send me a mail;)
Pardon my English, Audun Hassel, Trondheim, Norway
"Phillip Mark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
08.11.2006 21:30
|
Please respond
to interact@listserv.capital-master.com |
|
|
To
| "Interact"
<interact@listserv.capital-master.com>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [Keelynet] differences of
potential, vortexes and gravity |
|
I love these theories! I can always picture them working.
However, a balanced wooden wheel that was half submerged in calm
water would push upwards upon both sides of the axle shaft equally, thus
voiding lift. The thought of nullified weight immersed in the water
and a top-heavy wheel would be subject to the same effect. All top
weight in a balanced wheel would press downwards equally, again voiding
spin. However, the act of spinning, in and of itself, seems key to
solving over-unity and/or anti-grav. Spinning weights, electrons or
fluids point towards the solution we all seek. The effect of
motion/mass revolving upon an axis holds so much promise! Remember,
the only force that mankind has yet to harness for propulsion is
centrifugal force. Harness the 'up' force on a spinning 'something'
and release the clutch during the down side of the spin and you have a
Model T anti-gravity machine. Up, release, Up, release. Put 4 of
these in series and you have a 4-banger Up Machine. Can't we, as
modern men & women, put our heads together and finally break the
barrier that has held us spellbound and earthbound for all these years?
Phillip Mark, central Florida,
USA
_________________________________________________________________ Stay
in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href="">
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date:
11/9/2006
|