Perpetual Motion

Off Topic
41

[quote]bullpup wrote:
if the alternators output is greater than the draw of the electric motor and the invertor combined.
[/quote]

hehehehe, dude you spoke to someone at work about this? You do realize he is probably laughing at you right now don’t ya? He was obviously yanking your chain. Of course it will work if the alternators output is greater than the draw of the electric motor, the problem is that THE ALTERNATORS OUTPUT WILL ALWAYS BE LESS THAN THE DRAW OF THE MOTOR RUNNING SAID ALTERNATOR!!!

Im done with this post, thanks for the laugh

42

[quote]bullpup wrote:
vroom wrote:

Granted you would never have to deal with the possibility of a hurricane and power outages that could last weeks as well as waiting hours in line for gasoline.

Yeah, natural disasters only happen to you personally. Nobody else has earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes or other disasters. Granted, Canada doesn’t have a history of them, but you never know what might happen.

Ahahahaha. A useful tool? You fool.

You are solving the entire worlds energy needs with this little “device” of yours. You are creating energy out of nothing, magic if you will, which nobody, throughout history, has ever achieved.

How can anyone ever have anything constructive to say compared to that? Just ignore the naysayers, build it, and less us know when you are the new utility company for the world.

Vroom,
Why do you have to question peoples ideas and be a dick about it?

If your going to act like an asshole at least spell, (let us) correctly.

It has nothing to do with magic. Take for example the alternator in your car. It uses the engine mechanical power to recharge the battery. I want to use a deep cycle battery which has a longer discharge rate than a astandard 12v battery, and use an alternator to charge the battery. The alternator is driven by a small electrical engine which has the correct sized pulley combination to supply the correct RPM to the alternator to produce efficent power with out being an excessive draw on the current produced.

Bullpup
[/quote]

Hey, that’s a really good ball bust on vroom about his spelling … oh, wait a minute, isn’t it supposed to be “you’re” (as in the contraction of you are) instead of your (which is possessive)? And don’t get me started on your grammar …

43

[quote]Trogdor wrote:
bullpup wrote:
if the alternators output is greater than the draw of the electric motor and the invertor combined.

hehehehe, dude you spoke to someone at work about this? You do realize he is probably laughing at you right now don’t ya? He was obviously yanking your chain. Of course it will work if the alternators output is greater than the draw of the electric motor, the problem is that THE ALTERNATORS OUTPUT WILL ALWAYS BE LESS THAN THE DRAW OF THE MOTOR RUNNING SAID ALTERNATOR!!!

Im done with this post, thanks for the laugh[/quote]

How do you come up with this? If you have a 12 volt electric motor that draws 15 amps at 1800 RPM under full load, and it is powering an alternator rated at 150 amps@1200RPM, where do you associate a 135 amp parasitic loss? This doesn’t make sense,. I just want to know how you determine the alternator will be less power than the motor turning it will require?

Show me hows this is calcuated? Becasue doing the standard equations it will work.

I’m looking for scientific proof, that this will not work, just telling me it won’t work is not going to cut it. The numbers do not lie.

When you sit down and factor in the multiple variables,( wire size, length, battery amps , voltage, electric motor voltage and amperage draw, as well as the drive ratios between the electric motor and the alternator, this will provide enough current and amperage to maintain the deep cycle batteries voltage while powering the inverter.

I underrstand some of you do not believe this will work, you are entitled to your opinion, but give me a calculated reason why it won’t. If the numbers are correct.
Bullpup

44

[quote]bigrondog wrote:
bullpup wrote:
vroom wrote:

Vroom,
Why do you have to question peoples ideas and be a dick about it?

If your going to act like an asshole at least spell, (let us) correctly.

Hey, that’s a really good ball bust on vroom about his spelling … oh, wait a minute, isn’t it supposed to be “you’re” (as in the contraction of you are) instead of your (which is possessive)? And don’t get me started on your grammar …[/quote]

I never claimed to be a scholar, so… yeah, you got me on that one, I know my grammar sucks.

Bullpup

45

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
t-ha wrote:
You don’t want your mind so open your brain falls out.:smiley: I’m going to steal this if that’s cool with you Zap.

Go for it.

I am sure I stole it from someone else long ago.[/quote]

This is usually attributed to Richard Dawkins.

46

The last time I entertained such ideas was when I was 12 or 13. I think the fact that such ideas pop up is normal, but it show complete lack of technical education, concept of energy conservation and enthropy.

47

[quote]bullpup wrote:

How do you come up with this? If you have a 12 volt electric motor that draws 15 amps at 1800 RPM under full load, and it is powering an alternator rated at 150 amps@1200RPM, where do you associate a 135 amp parasitic loss? This doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

You’re missing one factor. At 15A, 1800 RPM, the motor will put out only so much torque, say X amount. To get the alternator to put out 150A at 1200RPM will require a certain amount of incoming torque, say Y amount.

I guarantee you that Y is a lot greater than X.

In other words, the motor can’t generate enough force to turn the alternator to achieve what you want.

Look up the torque ratings and requirements and see how they match up between the motor and generator.

48

Bullpup, get in touch with this dude and buy one of his motors:

I’m sure you’ll have plenty of “fuel” to run it once the storm is over.

And remember, The Laws of Thermodynamics are like Chuck Norris: Even if you can’t see them, they can always see you.

49

[quote]bullpup wrote:
Trogdor wrote:
bullpup wrote:
if the alternators output is greater than the draw of the electric motor and the invertor combined.

hehehehe, dude you spoke to someone at work about this? You do realize he is probably laughing at you right now don’t ya? He was obviously yanking your chain. Of course it will work if the alternators output is greater than the draw of the electric motor, the problem is that THE ALTERNATORS OUTPUT WILL ALWAYS BE LESS THAN THE DRAW OF THE MOTOR RUNNING SAID ALTERNATOR!!!

Im done with this post, thanks for the laugh

How do you come up with this? If you have a 12 volt electric motor that draws 15 amps at 1800 RPM under full load, and it is powering an alternator rated at 150 amps@1200RPM, where do you associate a 135 amp parasitic loss? This doesn’t make sense,. I just want to know how you determine the alternator will be less power than the motor turning it will require?

Show me hows this is calcuated? Becasue doing the standard equations it will work.

I’m looking for scientific proof, that this will not work, just telling me it won’t work is not going to cut it. The numbers do not lie.

When you sit down and factor in the multiple variables,( wire size, length, battery amps , voltage, electric motor voltage and amperage draw, as well as the drive ratios between the electric motor and the alternator, this will provide enough current and amperage to maintain the deep cycle batteries voltage while powering the inverter.

I underrstand some of you do not believe this will work, you are entitled to your opinion, but give me a calculated reason why it won’t. If the numbers are correct.
Bullpup

[/quote]

Well I’m at work and don’t have the time to do the math for you but the loss in energy takes place in the transfer of mechanical energy between the motor and the alternator.

The motor draws 15 amps to turn at 1800 RPM under full load but amount of power produced (in terms of torque) will be less than that required to turn the alternator at 1500 RPM. Assuming you set up the pulleys correctly so that the motor’s 1800 RPM will translate to 1500 RPM on the alternator you’re going to run into problems with the fact that there needs to be tension on the belt, chain, or whatever it is you’ve got connecting the two. Too loose and it’ll slip, tight enough to work and you’re going to burn out our motor because it’s trying to do more work than it can (or if it’s powerful enough, it’ll be drawing more power than the alternator can supply, thus the conservation of energy).

If you were able to build an absolutely perfect alternator that could translate mechanical energy (i.e. torque) into electrical energy at 100% efficiency (which you can’t) and you hooked it up to a 100% efficient motor (also a fictional beast), with zero resistance in the connections (once again, not gonna happen. See the pattern forming here?) then you could, in theory, run the alternator and the motor together forever, this is perpetual motion (and one last time we have a realistic impossibility). Since however you do have resistance, friction, heat, etc… this won’t work. Now add in the fact that you’re trying to take some of the output from the alternator to charge a battery and power an invertor. See where this is going?

Perhaps you could replace this small electric motor with a stationary bike, get a little workout and recharge your battery at the same time, that’s at least possible if not terribly feesable.

Good luck,
Jay

50

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:

Well I’m at work and don’t have the time to do the math for you but the loss in energy takes place in the transfer of mechanical energy between the motor and the alternator.

The motor draws 15 amps to turn at 1800 RPM under full load but amount of power produced (in terms of torque) will be less than that required to turn the alternator at 1500 RPM. Assuming you set up the pulleys correctly so that the motor’s 1800 RPM will translate to 1500 RPM on the alternator you’re going to run into problems with the fact that there needs to be tension on the belt, chain, or whatever it is you’ve got connecting the two. Too loose and it’ll slip, tight enough to work and you’re going to burn out our motor because it’s trying to do more work than it can (or if it’s powerful enough, it’ll be drawing more power than the alternator can supply, thus the conservation of energy).

If you were able to build an absolutely perfect alternator that could translate mechanical energy (i.e. torque) into electrical energy at 100% efficiency (which you can’t) and you hooked it up to a 100% efficient motor (also a fictional beast), with zero resistance in the connections (once again, not gonna happen. See the pattern forming here?) then you could, in theory, run the alternator and the motor together forever, this is perpetual motion (and one last time we have a realistic impossibility). Since however you do have resistance, friction, heat, etc… this won’t work. Now add in the fact that you’re trying to take some of the output from the alternator to charge a battery and power an invertor. See where this is going?

Perhaps you could replace this small electric motor with a stationary bike, get a little workout and recharge your battery at the same time, that’s at least possible if not terribly feesable.

Good luck,
Jay[/quote]

Thank you,
Finally a solid answer. I have approached this with an ear to caution.I’ve sat down and did the calcuations and figured in parasitic loss etc…

The purpose behind this is to recharge a deep cycle battery. I understand the torque values and loss due to belt tension etc. Another problem I ran into was the regulator inside the alternator, it was determined that an external regulator would help. I did see something about a stationary bike powering laptops and things of that nature, but not really what I waas looking for.

Question, if I wired 2 12 volt batteries with high amperage ratings that could power the electrical motor, would the power out put from the alternator be enough to slowly charge the batteries, while the system was running?

Bullpup

51

[quote]bullpup wrote:
Question, if I wired 2 12 volt batteries with high amperage ratings that could power the electrical motor, would the power out put from the alternator be enough to slowly charge the batteries, while the system was running?
[/quote]

No.

52

I think you guys are missing one important aspect, he is trying to conserve fuel energy, not eliminate the use of it. The system is not perpetual, unless he keeps putting gas into the generator. I think he realises when he runs out of gas, the machine stops. The title of the thread may have caused some of you to form some opinions without fully reading what he was attempting to do.

Bullpup, I think there are probably more efficient ways of converting gas to electric in the instance of a power outage. You are really losing some energy by charging the battery with the generator and then using the battery to power the house. Going straight from the generator would be more efficient. Having batteries stored up though would be beneficial as would having some type of solar rechage ability. That way you would only need to use the generator when the batteries were out of juice and they were charging up. Or if the sun wasn’t out for a longer period of time and you couldn’t charge them.

V

53

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I think you guys are missing one important aspect, he is trying to conserve fuel energy, not eliminate the use of it. The system is not perpetual, unless he keeps putting gas into the generator. I think he realises when he runs out of gas, the machine stops. The title of the thread may have caused some of you to form some opinions without fully reading what he was attempting to do.

Bullpup, I think there are probably more efficient ways of converting gas to electric in the instance of a power outage. You are really losing some energy by charging the battery with the generator and then using the battery to power the house. Going straight from the generator would be more efficient. Having batteries stored up though would be beneficial as would having some type of solar rechage ability. That way you would only need to use the generator when the batteries were out of juice and they were charging up. Or if the sun wasn’t out for a longer period of time and you couldn’t charge them.

V[/quote]

Actually, if you read his initial post, it clearly says he was going to turn off the gasoline generator. I stated that running just the gasoline generator would lead to less power loss in the first response, yet he continues to believe he can violate the laws of thermodynamics. Hence, the you’re-a-doofus-three-pages-of-responses.

54

[quote]Crispyknight wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I think you guys are missing one important aspect, he is trying to conserve fuel energy, not eliminate the use of it. The system is not perpetual, unless he keeps putting gas into the generator. I think he realises when he runs out of gas, the machine stops. The title of the thread may have caused some of you to form some opinions without fully reading what he was attempting to do.

Bullpup, I think there are probably more efficient ways of converting gas to electric in the instance of a power outage. You are really losing some energy by charging the battery with the generator and then using the battery to power the house. Going straight from the generator would be more efficient. Having batteries stored up though would be beneficial as would having some type of solar rechage ability. That way you would only need to use the generator when the batteries were out of juice and they were charging up. Or if the sun wasn’t out for a longer period of time and you couldn’t charge them.

V

Actually, if you read his initial post, it clearly says he was going to turn off the gasoline generator. I stated that running just the gasoline generator would lead to less power loss in the first response, yet he continues to believe he can violate the laws of thermodynamics. Hence, the you’re-a-doofus-three-pages-of-responses.

[/quote]

You are wrong. The generator will only be used when the charge in the batteries gets too low, it will then be used to power the necessary items and recharge the batteries.

I wasn’t meaning actual perpetual motion when I titled the thread, but I figured I could get a few more educated and reasonible facts, instead of naming it something elses.

Bullpup

55

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I think you guys are missing one important aspect, he is trying to conserve fuel energy, not eliminate the use of it. The system is not perpetual, unless he keeps putting gas into the generator. I think he realises when he runs out of gas, the machine stops. The title of the thread may have caused some of you to form some opinions without fully reading what he was attempting to do.

Bullpup, I think there are probably more efficient ways of converting gas to electric in the instance of a power outage. You are really losing some energy by charging the battery with the generator and then using the battery to power the house. Going straight from the generator would be more efficient. Having batteries stored up though would be beneficial as would having some type of solar rechage ability. That way you would only need to use the generator when the batteries were out of juice and they were charging up. Or if the sun wasn’t out for a longer period of time and you couldn’t charge them.

V[/quote]

You are correct in your assumption.

I but I will not be using the generator to charge the batteries until the batteries are low. The purpose of this expirement is to try and determine whether or not the alternator and electric motor when rigged up would provide enough electrical energy to keep a steady charge on the batteries to run an inverter for an extended period of time in order to conserve fuel.

Bullpup

56

[quote]bullpup wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I think you guys are missing one important aspect, he is trying to conserve fuel energy, not eliminate the use of it. The system is not perpetual, unless he keeps putting gas into the generator. I think he realises when he runs out of gas, the machine stops. The title of the thread may have caused some of you to form some opinions without fully reading what he was attempting to do.

Bullpup, I think there are probably more efficient ways of converting gas to electric in the instance of a power outage. You are really losing some energy by charging the battery with the generator and then using the battery to power the house. Going straight from the generator would be more efficient. Having batteries stored up though would be beneficial as would having some type of solar rechage ability. That way you would only need to use the generator when the batteries were out of juice and they were charging up. Or if the sun wasn’t out for a longer period of time and you couldn’t charge them.

V

You are correct in your assumption.

I but I will not be using the generator to charge the batteries until the batteries are low. The purpose of this expirement is to try and determine whether or not the alternator and electric motor when rigged up would provide enough electrical energy to keep a steady charge on the batteries to run an inverter for an extended period of time in order to conserve fuel.

Bullpup
[/quote]

No it will not. It will reduce the length of time that your inverter will run off of the battery, not increase the time. Every time you start that electric motor you just wasted more battery power that could have been used to keep your food cold and the lights on. Get rid of the electric motor and use the bike.

Hilarious thread though. (My response was just for the off chance that your question is serious)

57

Ok guys… I have this idea of creating a fusion reactor in my backyard. Do you think it’ll work better than this guys idea? I saw it done in a movie once. If I stick to the principles layed out in the movie do you think it’ll work?

p.s. by the way… the movie was called “The Saint”.

Let me know what you think. Thanks. :slight_smile:

58

Bullpup,
Build this badboy and post some pictures. Even if it doesn’t work, lets see it in action! Its this type of thinking that lead to the monster truck, bungee jumping, and arena football.
Git er duuuuun

59

everytime you convert one form of energy to another, you have a loss. especially mechanical energy, because friction is always present and cannot be removed. (i.e kinetic, static) and electrial resistance also is present in all materials.

You will have a loop that will keep losing energy and then will be totally drained, thus stopping. The alternator is just a device that turns mechanical energy into electrical, its doesn’t create energy.

basically you’re taking energy and transforming it several times, thus your loses are even greater and the system is doomed to failure. The law of conservation of energy is why all perpetual motion machine designs are destined to failure.

60

hey bullpup,

one of my old college girlfriends mouth was in perpetual motion…if you could find a way to harness all that energy, your household electricity needs would be solved…

simply feed her a couple of grapes and mention my name and she won’t stop yapping about how much of a dick I am for at least a week…