Perpetual Motion Failure!

So I have been working constantly since 2:00PM EST on my perpetual motion machine. All the parts I ordered arived on my doorstep, and I went straight to work. I got one $300 wind generator, that could crank out a wapping 1.5 volts, (but don't ask me what the wattage on the thing is). And I got a low voltage 0.3volt motor.

But low and behold I found out my famous quadrupole magnet wasn't strong enough to spin the generator, even when I used the strongest magnets in my collection I had to get it spinning. So I got a few different sized washers from the hardware store, and I build a quadrupole around the generator, with my real presicion made quadrupole at the center. And wouldn't you know that the thing spun like crazy? It worked so much better using the real quadrupole at the center, and I arranged 6 magnets underneath it, and around the generators axel in another quadrupole. I doubled up the strength of 2 of them and used smaller magnets for the four others. They switched polarities half way around the circumfrence of the generator. And boy did it spin.

The only problem was that my motor didn't have enough torque. And to compensate for this, I put a long piece of plastic on the end of my motor, and stuck magnets to the end of the plastic. That way when the motor spins the magnets turn around a larger circumfrence. This seemed to work, and when I turned the motor on with a AA Battery, my generator would complete 3 or 4 rotations before the magnets on the motor would stop and stick the the magnets on the generator. That sucked, and I could tell the problem was that the motor was spinning too fast instead of using all the torque it had.

So I see a few options I can try. I can get a lower voltage generator that will spin only using my quadrupole magnet. Or I can get a higher torque motor, that will spin my generator when I am using my fabricated quadrupole with super strong magnets. But first I am going to try to get some gears for the equipment I already am experimenting with to turn all of the super fast speed my motor has into extra torque. That's what gears are made for! :)

I'm just posting this because I need ideas on how I can get a generator that needs less torque or get a motor that has more torque, or even info on using gears. My motor already has the maximum efficiency I could hope for, operating at 0.3volts, and my generator cranks out a lot of power as well. Its just that I need to work with lower wattages overall. And I think the best route I could go from here would be to buy another generator with good efficiency that could generate a smaller voltage, and see if I can't find another low voltage motor that was already geared down for torque. But any tips or advice on experimenting would help while I play around with gears and keep looking at my options.

Thanks!!!

Reply to
CoreyWhite
Loading thread data ...

Give up - you're making a complete arse of yourself. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

--
This space reserved for Jeff Relf\'s 5-dimensional metric.
Reply to
Phineas T Puddleduck

Don't feel too bad that you are finding that PM is just not possible due to the laws of physics. We humans just have to accept that no man made machine can be 100% efficient, and this fact therefore rules out the possibility of PM being achieved by man.

Others with more money and qualified people at their disposal have tried and failed to build PM machines.

With regard to highly efficient motors you might like to read this CSIRO paper on the design of their wheel motor.

formatting link

Nearly 98% efficient and the magnet ring they built would be akin to your multi-pole magnet. BTW, you can buy a fully built wheel complete with motor for around AU$75K - how is that for the price of as near perfect a motor you will find?

Reply to
Ross Herbert
[snip latest bout of failure]

Why ask when you aren't going to listen?

Reply to
Eric Gisse

How much for one that is just 4% more efficient? Now that would be priceless!

The OP seems to think the lower the motor voltage, the more efficient it is. If it has power output, there will also be current, and unless superconductive, there will always be resistive losses.

Most PM "proofs" involved faulty interpretation of meter readings or external power sources (heat, light, wind) that were not accounted for.

Paul

Reply to
Paul E. Schoen

formatting link

Very high efficiency generator.

Reply to
psidre felix

Without seeing the actual setup I doubt the claims made in this video. For a start he is putting raw 100Hz 1/2 wave pulses from the bridge rectifier straight through the DC ammeter and measuring the same 100 Hz rectified voltage across the motor. The ammeter can't be reading the true RMS value of the input current and the DC voltmeter can't be reading the true RMS value of the input voltage. On the output side I also doubt the readings shown on the meters are factual due to the fluctuating nature of the lamp brightness. The AC voltmeter pointer is right down near the lower end of the scale and actually fluctuates over several minor divisions making it impossible to read the actual voltage. Methinks there is something very fishy here....

Reply to
Ross Herbert

Further, how the Lutec Electricity Amplifier (LEA)supposedly works

formatting link

Reply to
Ross Herbert

SNIP

It seems that Lutec is not the only one with this idea

formatting link

Reply to
Ross Herbert

Many fishy things here:

  • As you noted, the input isnt really DC, it's full-wave rectified AC, which is going to fool the DC meters somewhat.

  • And it's plain wrong for full-wave rectified AC to measure power as the product of the "DC" meter readings. It's wrong even if they used AC meters. They're so far off, they're not even wrong.

  • same thing on the AC side-- cheap "AC" meters actually measure the average AC voltage, then they paint on a scale thats 66% higher to convert sort-of from average to RMS, but of course that's only correct for perfectly clean sine waves.

  • And it's wet-your-pants funny that they're using cheap, probably 5% accuracy at very best analog meters. My local Harbor-Freight store has a sale on 1% digital multimeters for .99 each. Funny how for an experiment that will get them a Nobel prize plus several billion dollars in patent royalyies per month, they did not go out and buy better quality meters.

** you'll alaways notice in these kinds of "demos", they NEVER take the output and feed it back to the input. There sould be PLENTY, like 3x times more output power than is ever needed for the input, but they NEVER feed back the output and unplug the incoming power cord. That would reveal that there really isnt 3x more output than input in a real hurry.

Same for the Newman motor, the dean drive, etc, etc, ewtc, etc..............

Reply to
Ancient_Hacker

By logic of math it appears that in our 3D rigid world there is no geometry that will coin a solution to efficiency ever. Then again it doesn't seem right. The solutions to various problems in principle and inventiveness are paths and motions that were not visible previously. Inventiveness is incomprehensible and unimaginable.

But aside from that there are fundamental laws. There is a feeling that there is a rule book or mechanism for fundamental forces, conservation of energy, thermodynamics... How does that machine look like? One answer is that it looks like actual universe with living beings and all the rest. When I compare this to the inventiveness I see that it must be we have supremely little possible imaginative powers over universe. We don't know universe.

Paths and motions as I said before for the Machine of fundamental laws are paths of possible information. If I were looking for new types of devices and so forth I would look for a new way to transmit information. That is what labs are doing when you think about it only talk about it differently - they research interactions.

The information universe is problematic. Lets say I ask a question in parallel to the question above about what kind of machine of fundamental laws there is. There is a considerable amount of mystery as to what is information, energy of information, awareness, interpretation, encoding, quantum world, etc. The simplest information challenge is one simplest fundamental interaction in the laboratory. How does the machine consisting of fundamental information transmission looks like on a whole, large scale? Well, again it is the actual universe.

Now there are some differences to the first version of "actual universe". In the second example there is a multitude of 'unnecessary' information or call it structure - redundant, random, repeated information, noise, stochastic resonance... Also, we get plenty of information (well, not quite but...) about everything including quantum world and cosmology beyond barriers. For example we check that speed of light is the same everywhere by process of examining supernova stars and distant universe.

There are two more complex differences to the analysis of universe in the second informational case. In order to see the information and give conclusions we spend energy in processing information. And, in case of most elementary communication, we use rather complex machinery that is spending some sort of energy to obtain sometimes the smallest signal for barely any useful information (as in case of particle physics, but not nearly as much in case of common radio).

In the first case the universe is not processing information but directly exhibiting the rule book of fundamental laws (realtime computing without errors?). And, the smallest signal or elements of "communication" such as fundamental interaction is without any complex man-made device; actually how big or small is the "device" in nature? could be any element of mass for gravity, or any electron for charge.

The two distinctions about how to analyze the universe rely on the common unity of reality - energy. In my opinion the difference is that the rule book of how and what energy has to be supplied to the information channel has not been written yet.

Reply to
boson boss

Google for FEerguy9, he can help you.

Reply to
a7yvm109gf5d1

Learn physics.

Reply to
T Wake

[snip]

That is the point of perpetual motion machine. It usually is just a tiny fraction too small to generate more than it takes. But the next bigger try is going to be a success. Thus it keeps their designers perpetually busy with building ever better and bigger machines.

Rene

--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
Reply to
Rene Tschaggelar

yeah, i don't know enough about this stuff to be able to tell a fraud from a video. kewl beans.

Reply to
psidre felix

I've ordered some new parts for my experiment. I've ordered a whole gear, axel, and connector set from lego technic, with an extra gear set that will fit my order. And I also ordered another generator that needs less torque to create power. We will try the experiment again next week and see if I have any more success!

CoreyWhite wrote:

Reply to
CoreyWhite

As we all know Lego Technic is the prime source of perpetual motion...

--
This space reserved for Jeff Relf\'s 5-dimensional metric.
Reply to
Phineas T Puddleduck

I bet you're using nickel plated or galvanized washers. That's your problem. Nicola Tesla used manganese-plated washers, which is why so few people have been able to reproduce his work.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

For how all this stuff should be done...

formatting link

This is a guy I really admire. A kind of French Bill Beatty

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4 
http://www.resonancefm.com
Reply to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Why does information has to come to us? Examples show this is not the case at all. If some forces (for example the weak force) were visible and/or formidable on our scales the universe would not exist with the complexity and beauty.

Also, countable, decipherable information that can be compared with something, is that the quantum plane?

Signals are traced for patterns formed around structures except for possibly eddies of matter where its turbulence.

Reply to
boson boss

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.