Perpetual Energy

[baldrick]

Hi, I'm working on plans for a Perpetual Energy machine (I know people say it's impossible, but they thought that aeroplanes were impossible a couple of hundred years ago, and that was proved wrong wasn't it?). What I want to know, is, if I could build such a machine, would I be eligible for the prize? It would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, and I think the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but I can explain how it works scientificly.

What do you think??

[rwald]

Yes, a perpetual motion machine would win the Million Dollar Challenge for the same reason that telekinesis would: neither can actually exist according to everything we know about science.

But good luck, though.

[davidhorman]

but I can explain how it works scientificly.

Can you run it by us first? Not that I want you to lose out on your patent or anything, but (and I mean this sincerely) there are plenty of users here who can point out the (probable) flaw in your thinking.

David

PS I don't claim to be one of them!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just a few thoughts on your claim for the prize.

What exactly do you mean by "perpetual energy machine? Do you mean something like a pendulum that never stops swinging or some machine that actually generates more energy than it consumes?

Before you make you claim for the prize, you need to have a definate, objective and demonstrable ability or device. You need to be able to come to an agreement with Randi, in straight foreward terms what your machine can do. If you can do that, and it is a working free-energy/perpetual motion device, then the tests will be administered for the prize.

If all you have are vague claims about sorta being able to do something or orther, on Tuesdays, and usually by yourself, I wouldn't even bother.

[roger]

Why on earth are you bothering with a piddling $1 million dollars? If you were able to make a machine that works, it would be worth billions, even trillions. You will have overturned one of the most basic assumptions of science, and have paved the way for all new technologies. There really is no limit to what you could achieve with such a breakthrough.

Anyhoo, Randi reserves the right to not test any claim he considers far fetched. For example, he refuses to test a guy who claims to live on air alone. That claim is much more believable than perpetual motion, so don't be suprised if you are summarily rejected. Of course, I am not, and cannot, speak for Randi.

My honest advice is to learn why perpetual motion is impossible, so you don't waste a lot of time and money pursuing what is impossible. This site is a great place to start gathering this information.

[arcticpenguin]

Here's another site you might be interested in: Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking (http://www.phact.org/).

In particular, Eric Krieg (http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/) has a long-running interest in perpetual motion and free energy devices. He offers some sort of $$$$ prize (http://www.phact.org/e/freetest.html) for a successful device. He's got links for all the best-known perpetual motion kooks, e.g. Dennis Lee, in case you want to study the efforts of your predecessors.

[rwald]

Roger, while it is true that Randi often ignores blatantly stupid claims, I've seen him complain about alleged free-energy machines enough that I'm pretty sure he'd test one. After all, with the breatharians, there's the legal risk that they might die if tested. The same would apply for people who think they can fly if they jump off a building, etc. Free-energy machines have no such legal risks.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
Hi, I'm working on plans for a Perpetual Energy machine (I know people say it's impossible, but they thought that aeroplanes were impossible a couple of hundred years ago, and that was proved wrong wasn't it?).Nobody a couple of hundred years ago thought that airplanes were impossible. Just Really Really Difficult.

And even if they did think they were impossible, that doesn't mean that PE machines are possible.

[Brian]

Go for it. You might learn some neat stuff about magnetism and such in the process. Couldn't hurt. Yup, I'd say you'd win a million, but that would be chump change by comparison.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
Hi, I'm working on plans for a Perpetual Energy machine (I know people say it's impossible, but they thought that aeroplanes were impossible a couple of hundred years ago, and that was proved wrong wasn't it?). What I want to know, is, if I could build such a machine, would I be eligible for the prize? It would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, and I think the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but I can explain how it works scientificly.

What do you think??

Well I think that plans are one thing and a working proto-type will be quite another.

In any event, if your machine actually works, then you could wind up being richer than Bill Gates so good luck!

[baldrick]

In answer to your questions:

The machine is based on a widely-accepted scientific principle. Unfortuanatly, I cannot tell you what scientific principle it is, because it would tell you the basics of how the machine works.

I havn't actually built the machine yet, because I need funding.
The machine itself will cost less than £500 to make, but then you've got the cost of flying to America to qualify for the $1,000,000. I am not looking for investors though.

I have looked at the plans over and over for the last 6 months, and within the next month plan to show the plans to some trusted people to analyse, and tell me what they think.

Someone said something about a patent. I don't plan on getting one of these because there is no point. There is no point spending thousands on world-wide patents, just so that everyone knows how the machine works.

Someone also asked why I would need the $1,000,000 when my machine could make "trillions". The answer: I'm going to need some money to develop the machine, and maybe build a Perpetual Power station.

I don't want to plan to far ahead though, because even though I can't see any problems with the machine, other people might do, so we shall see...

[xouper]

perpetual-thinker: Hi, I'm working on plans for a Perpetual Energy machine (I know people say it's impossible, but they thought that aeroplanes were impossible a couple of hundred years ago, and that was proved wrong wasn't it?). What I want to know, is, if I could build such a machine, would I be eligible for the prize? It would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, and I think the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but I can explain how it works scientificly. What do you think??As others already observered, Randi has offered the million dollar challenge to other inventors of so-called "free energy" machines, including Bearden's MEG. And you won't need to explain how it works to win the prize, just demonstrate (with an actual working device) that it generates more energy than it consumes.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

Someone said something about a patent. I don't plan on getting one of these because there is no point. There is no point spending thousands on world-wide patents, just so that everyone knows how the machine works.

Someone also asked why I would need the $1,000,000 when my machine could make "trillions". The answer: I'm going to need some money to develop the machine, and maybe build a Perpetual Power station.

I think the U.S. patent office requires a working model of a perpetual motion machine before they will grant a patent. Others have somehow gotten around at times this by using obfuscatory language.

If you can demonstrate a working perpetual motion machine, you won't need Randi's million. You will have investors throwing money at your feet.

Here's the web site of one of the more recent 'free energy' cranks, Carl B. Tilley (http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/). His outfit was raided on 2003-05-29 by Tennessee law enforcement officials, but there's been no word yet on any sort of indictment.

Good luck,

[chipotle]

You might want to join the aforementioned Eric Krieg's Yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

If you see your idea discussed by 10 other people, consider that it's been tried and failed before.

These days, most perpetual motion machine claimants don't claim to violate conservation of energy, the first law of thermo, but rather the second law of thermo. Is your machine supposed to get cold? Then it's second law violator, or PMM of the second kind.

[arcticpenguin]

The latest fad is to deny even violation of the 2nd law of thermo and claim that the device is not technically a 'perpetual motion' device but draws energy from a mysterious unknown source, typically the 'zero point energy'.

[chipotle]

A machine that extracted useful work from zero-point energy would be a type 2 PMM. I guess that by saying that they are tapping ZPE, rather than ambient heat, they make their clame more mysterious. But if you could tap ZPE, you could tap ambient heat too. Some claimed ZPE devices are even type I PMMs. The ZPE is just to add confusion. Read about Hawking Radiation to get a non-kook intro to ZPE. Then read the kookstuff again.

spelling

[arcticpenguin]

Try Googling the web - it's really tough to get a straight story on the real physics of zero point because it has been thoroughly confiscated by woowoos.

[chipotle]

I'm good with Google. What do you want? Kookstuff or non-kook?

Here's a post by a notable non-kook that includes a discussion of the somewhat kooky pop description:
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html

Kookstuff:
http://www.zpenergy.com/index.php

[rwald]

Doesn't Randi have contacts in other countries with whom one could take the challenge? I know that there's a group in Australia who have tested some people for the Randi Challenge, so you might not need to fly to Florida after all. Anyone know better?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
What I want to know, is, if I could build such a machine, would I be eligible for the prize?


Yes. Not only would you be eligible for the prize, you would win it! And put ExxonMobil, Texaco, BP, GM Ford, Chrysler, etc. out of business.

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
It would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, and I think the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but I can explain how it works scientificly.


Ummmm....to be honest, we're a bit tired around here of "explanations". Why don't you build the thing, and then demonstrate it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
In answer to your questions:

The machine is based on a widely-accepted scientific principle. Unfortuanatly, I cannot tell you what scientific principle it is, because it would tell you the basics of how the machine works.


Oh, but of course...... Yawn

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

I havn't actually built the machine yet, because I need funding.


/Start Scam Alert

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

The machine itself will cost less than £500 to make, but then you've got the cost of flying to America to qualify for the $1,000,000. I am not looking for investors though.


Why not? For a machine that would be worth trillions of dollars, you shouldn't have any problems finding suckers...err..I mean "investors".

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

I have looked at the plans over and over for the last 6 months, and within the next month plan to show the plans to some trusted people to analyse, and tell me what they think.


I am using my remote viewing powers to look at your plans right now. They won't work.

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

Someone said something about a patent. I don't plan on getting one of these because there is no point. There is no point spending thousands on world-wide patents, just so that everyone knows how the machine works.


Yeah, good idea. Look what happened to Intel after they foolishly patented their microprocessor.

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

Someone also asked why I would need the $1,000,000 when my machine could make "trillions". The answer: I'm going to need some money to develop the machine, and maybe build a Perpetual Power station.


Ummm...so you plan on winning the challenge before you build the machine?


Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

I don't want to plan to far ahead though, because even though I can't see any problems with the machine, other people might do, so we shall see...

Yes we shall.....

[Psiload]

If perpetual-thinker's grasp of physics is on par with his grasp of physiology and pharmacology, I don't think we should consider putting our internal combustion engines into museums just yet.

"How about injecting people that have the AIDS virus with vinegar? The vinegar would kill the virus and therefore cure the person."

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23344

I wonder if perpetual-drinker's machine runs on vinegar?

[Starrman]

It would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, and I think the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but I can explain how it works scientificly.

Does BillyHoyt still have that logic prize thingy. He can scientificaly explain why his invention is not scientific.

On another note, I just solved the problem of getting spaceships off the planet and into orbit. It may violate the law of gravity, but I drew a picture of myself flying off into space when I cancel out gravity so it must work.

[baldrick]

Hi, Just a quick note to say that I'm changing my name, I think "perpetual-thinker" makes me sound a bit like a snob.

I was looking at some Perpetual Energy websites, and someone has already thought of the same idea as me and they said it will work, but there would be engineering difficulties, so I've had to make some minor alterations to my machine.

Keep you updated


P.S. Suggestions for a new name would be greatly appreciated

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker

P.S. Suggestions for a new name would be greatly appreciated
When those suggestions come, please remember that you asked for it!

[baldrick]

I have, but I don't care. Got a bit angry with Central Crutiniser when he said "get back to your usual silly thread", but your right - Maybe I am taking this too seriously. That's one of the reason's i'm changing my name - it sounds too serious.

Thanks :) :D

[Psiload]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
Hi, Just a quick note to say that I'm changing my name, I think "perpetual-thinker" makes me sound a bit like a snob.

I was looking at some Perpetual Energy websites, and someone has already thought of the same idea as me and they said it will work, but there would be engineering difficulties, so I've had to make some minor alterations to my machine.

Keep you updated


P.S. Suggestions for a new name would be greatly appreciated Any chance you'd like to share the address for the website(s) on which it was that you ran across your "competition"?

Name suggestion: Joe Newman Jr.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
Keep you updated


Oh, puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez do. I fear my life will not be complete if you don't.

[MRC_Hans]

:rolleyes: Suggestion for new name: Watchmemum.

Hans

[hgc]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
...

I was looking at some Perpetual Energy websites, and someone has already thought of the same idea as me and they said it will work, but there would be engineering difficulties, so I've had to make some minor alterations to my machine.

...Soon you will also be claiming "engineering difficulties." But alas, I suspect the problem is not engineering; it's that what you're trying to engineer is not possible. You have basic science difficulties.

[Lord Kenneth]

Afterwards, why don't you build us a time machine?

:rolleyes:

[baldrick]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Afterwards, why don't you build us a time machine?

:rolleyes:

I am trying to reconstruct the deLorean from "Back to the Future", but I can't get hold of any plutonium. Don't 'spose you've got some you could lend me?

[baldrick]

Originally posted by hgc
Soon you will also be claiming "engineering difficulties." But alas, I suspect the problem is not engineering; it's that what you're trying to engineer is not possible. You have basic science difficulties.

The thing that you seem to overlook is that science is evolving constantly. Every time someone finds a new discovery, then the laws of physics are changed. For example Einstein overthrew Galileo's theory of space-time, and created laws equasions such as e=mc2, which are now widely accepted (although I hear that some scientists are questioning e=mc2)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker


The thing that you seem to overlook is that science is evolving constantly. Every time someone finds a new discovery, then the laws of physics are changed. For example Einstein overthrew Galileo's theory of space-time, and created laws equasions such as e=mc2, which are now widely accepted (although I hear that some scientists are questioning e=mc2) Uhh, yes. The laws of physics have been amended and modified in the past, and will in the future, as new knowledge is gathered. However, the laws of thermodynamics currently still stand, solid as ever. And according to them, perpetual motion is impossible.

Sorry.

Hans

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by baldrick

For example Einstein overthrew Galileo's theory of space-time, and created laws equasions such as e=mc2, which are now widely accepted (although I hear that some scientists are questioning e=mc2) I forget, what was “Galileo's theory of space-time” about? Didn’t it have something to do with an apple?

[baldrick]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Uhh, yes. The laws of physics have been amended and modified in the past, and will in the future, as new knowledge is gathered. However, the laws of thermodynamics currently still stand, solid as ever. And according to them, perpetual motion is impossible.

Sorry.

Hans

Everything has a shelf life. Scientific laws are no different.

P.s. I've changed my name (as I am sure you will see)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by baldrick


The thing that you seem to overlook is that science is evolving constantly. Every time someone finds a new discovery, then the laws of physics are changed. For example Einstein overthrew Galileo's theory of space-time, and created laws equasions such as e=mc2, which are now widely accepted (although I hear that some scientists are questioning e=mc2)

Oh gosh, here I go again.

First, Galileo did not really have any theories about space-time. He was pretty sure the universe was much bigger than most had previously thought, but that was about it. There simply was not enough data nor the technology to develop the advanced ideas on cosmology we have today.

Second, there e=mc^2 equation did exist prior to Einstein's work on Relativity, but it was in the form of m=e/c^2. What Einstein did was show how matter and energy were different manifestations of the same thing.

[Brown]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The laws of physics have been amended and modified in the past, and will in the future, as new knowledge is gathered. However, the laws of thermodynamics currently still stand, solid as ever. And according to them, perpetual motion is impossible.Besides, if indeed "[t]he machine is based on a widely-accepted scientific principle," it would not require any new thinking about the law of physics.

[jimlintott]

I like the name change. This man obviously has a cunning plan.

[hgc]

Originally posted by baldrick


The thing that you seem to overlook is that science is evolving constantly. Every time someone finds a new discovery, then the laws of physics are changed. For example Einstein overthrew Galileo's theory of space-time, and created laws equasions such as e=mc2, which are now widely accepted (although I hear that some scientists are questioning e=mc2) Every time? Let's not jump into our hyperbole-mobile and fly off the handle.

Anyway, new data, which may cause us to alter current paradigms, is always welcome. Like for instance, build a working PPM, and you will be rewarded with new laws of thermodynamics. Until then, the current ones, around since well before Einstein (not that it matters), comport with all observed reality with amazing reliability.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by baldrick


Everything has a shelf life. Scientific laws are no different.

P.s. I've changed my name (as I am sure you will see) Nonsense. Scientific discovery remains valid until new information is found that requires revision. Try to live with this: The laws of thermodynamics have not, repeat NOT, been revised.

You believe you have found a method for perpetual motion. Perpetual motion violates the laws of thermodynamics. Now you have two ways to go:

1) Prove your idea theoretically

2) Prove your idea in practice (and let others worry about the theory)

Boths will result in a revision of the laws of thermodynamics. Both will make you eternally famous and, probably very rich.

Oh, and there is a third possibility (they say there always is) :

3) Find out that you are wrong, go on with your life and be happy.

Those were the rational possibilities. Unfortunately, by the sound of you, you will chose the fourth possibility:

4) Doggedly go on believing you are right, and continue to pester us, ignoring all rational arguments.

Hans :rolleyes:

(edited for some typographical finesse)

[Starrman]

Everything has a shelf life. Scientific laws are no different.

I don't agree with this. At some point we come across fundamental laws that will never be overturned - I'm not saying this one is, but it could be. I think it is a mistake to assume that every scientific theory we have is destined to be replaced.

I think it is a HUGE mistake to think that this particular scientific law will be replaced by YOU.

Jeff

[baldrick]

Originally posted by jimlintott
I like the name change. This man obviously has a cunning plan.

I have a cunning plan my lord:

A turnip-powered perpetual energy machine!!!

[MRC_Hans]

Humor IS a redeeming quality for shure :)

Edited to add:
A turnip-powered perpetual energy machine!!!

Methinks this belongs in the fart thread.



Hans

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by baldrick


The thing that you seem to overlook is that science is evolving constantly. Every time someone finds a new discovery, then the laws of physics are changed. For example Einstein overthrew Galileo's theory of space-time, and created laws equasions such as e=mc2, which are now widely accepted (although I hear that some scientists are questioning e=mc2)

Those 'new discoveries' were examined minutely and tested unto exhaustion until they were found to be based on sound science. And most of them were found to be extensions/refinements of previous concepts. Some came to light because of new technologies in investigative science. Large percentages of them had been logically postulated for long periods of time.

With the preceding held firmly in mind, "I got something new; can't tell ya what it is, but gimme lotza money anyway and I'll prove it/show ya later" ain't gonna cut the mustard. :confused:

[TripleD]

Originally posted by baldrick

I havn't actually built the machine yet, because I need funding.
The machine itself will cost less than £500 to make, but then you've got the cost of flying to America to qualify for the $1,000,000. I am not looking for investors though.


OK, do this then. Build the machine. Talk a loan out on your house or use credit cards. Then apply for the challenge.
How it usually works is that JREF finds a local partner in your own country to give you a "prelimanary" test. It's not the formal test for the million just the first step. This part of the test should be of minimal extra cost.
You should be able to pass this easily. When you pass the first step I will wire you all the funds it took to build the machine up to $2,000 USD. This will be grant money and you will in no way be obligated to me whatsoever.

Then, if after passing this preliminary test in your home country, you are required to travel to the US for the formal challenge I will pay all the travel expenses, airfare, hotel, meals and security for two people for up to 30 days of travel. Again, acceptance of this offer in no way obligates you to me in any way whatsoever and I will sign any documents to that effect.

Sound good? Then start building.

[arcticpenguin]

There's a doozy of a plan for a perpetual motion machine described today in Bob Park's What's New column (http://www.aps.org/WN/WN03/wn072503.html). Check it out.

[xouper]

arcticpenguin: There's a doozy of a plan for a perpetual motion machine described today in Bob Park's What's New column (http://www.aps.org/WN/WN03/wn072503.html). Check it out.I especially liked their notion of hanging a "wind-turbine" outside the glider to recapture the potential energy. What a hoot. I've heard of similar notions for a car that uses no energy - just mount a "wind turbine" on the roof to power the electric motors for the wheels.

I try to get people to do the numbers (do the math) before they spend lots of money experimenting with hardware. They look at me like I'm from another planet.

One guy, who was planning to convert his car to run on water (electicity from the alternator splits the water into H and O, which then burns in the converted engine), was convinced that it was strictly an engineering problem. He didn't want to hear my comments about the numbers not working out. He had no idea what hydorgen flow rate would be needed, nor how much electricity it would take to generate that much hydrogen flow. But he sure did know about Galileo being ridiculed for his ideas.

What would we do without the scientific illiterate? :D

[Soapy Sam]

I have already patentented the Soapy Sam Clockwork Time Machine and Perpetual Powerplant. Any violation of the patent will result in legal action.
The working model is currently in Beijing in 142BC undergoing testing.
The basic operating principle is the timespring. One end is anchored in the past. As the machine moves into the future, the spring becomes stretched, gathering temporal energy. This is used to rewind the mechanism, providing power to send the machine up the timestream. This sending up procedure is fundamental to chronoenergetic research.

I find it hard to see why you deluded people do not understand this.
By the way , the patents are on public view in the US Patent office in 2230AD. This is a matter of public record. If you can't be bothered to check it, don't blame me.

[baldrick]

I'm doing the maths for my Perpetual-Energy machine prototype and I need some help please.

Ok, say you had a normal electric generator, the faster the coil moves, the higher the voltage produced.

Am I right in thinking that the speed of the coil turning wouldn't affect the Wattage?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by baldrick
I'm doing the maths for my Perpetual-Energy machine prototype and I need some help please.

I'd be delighted. I'd appreciate a mention in your final papers under "acknowledgements". I don't want money, got money, want appreciation ;).

Ok, say you had a normal electric generator, the faster the coil moves, the higher the voltage produced.

Provided a constant stator field, and provided output is not limited by load, correct.

Am I right in thinking that the speed of the coil turning wouldn't affect the Wattage?

See below...

Depends on what you mean by wattage.

If the load is constant (constant resistance), then power putput will rise with the square of the output voltage, and since the output voltage is (roughly) proportional to the rotational speed, putput power will be proportional to the rotational speed squared.

However, the output of a generator depends on the input energy. So if the input energy is constant, the putput energy will be too. Thus the energy source turning the generator will be unable to turn it faster than corresponding the an output power equal to the input power minus losses.

Hope this helps.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

On second thought, I fear we are heading for some confusion here. I may be wrong, but I suspect we need a bit of clarification here on force, power, and energy.

In any rotational device, we have two forces: Torque and rotational speed.

Those two forces multiply into the power of the device (wheter it supplies or recieves power). Power is measured in horsepower or watts.

If we supply (or use) a certain power for a certain time, we have supplied (or used) energy. Energy is measured in Watt-seconds or Joule.

In electrical power, the forces are current and voltage.

Hans

[baldrick]

thanks :)

[CurtC]

xouper mentioned Bob Park's What's New weekly newsletter. A few months ago (http://www.aps.org/WN/WN03/wn011703.html), he had this: Machines that violate the First Law of Thermodynamics are not new, they are perpetual (WN 5 Apr 02). A sharp-eyed WN reader spotted a classic on ebay. This fully-portable generator is described as a 3 cubic foot "black box" (what else?) with three standard 120-volt electrical outlets to plug home appliances into. It will generate 700 watts continuously...forever. Or so it says. This is not some wild claim about zero-point energy or anti-gravity; the device simply uses an electric motor to spin an alternator that supplies the power to drive the motor. I know, you’re going to say the alternator can’t possibly supply enough power to run the motor plus a bunch of appliances. But a schematic shows the inventor thought about that – a bicycle chain connects the motor to FIVE alternators. That should do it.

[gnome]

Has anyone ever tried to fake a PM device by concealing a power source in it, you know, something that runs on battery or fuel just long enough to convince the buyers?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by gnome
Has anyone ever tried to fake a PM device by concealing a power source in it, you know, something that runs on battery or fuel just long enough to convince the buyers?
I remember reading about somebody who had compressed air valves built into the floor beneath his device. Don't recall names or details.

[jimlintott]

I know, you’re going to say the alternator can’t possibly supply enough power to run the motor plus a bunch of appliances. But a schematic shows the inventor thought about that – a bicycle chain connects the motor to FIVE alternators. That should do it.

That is hilarious.

Here is a good story about a farmer / geeky friend of mine. Buddy figured it would be handy to build a platform that carried a five horse gas motor an old automotive alternator and a battery. This would be used for running things and boosting the combine and such. So he built it. He laughs about how when he started the motor, revved it out, and switched the dead battery into the mix the engine stalled. It seems five horse power wasn't enough to run the alternator under load.

Five alternators. Wow. :roll:

[billmi]

Originally posted by baldrick

I was looking at some Perpetual Energy websites, and someone has already thought of the same idea as me and they said it will work, but there would be engineering difficulties, so I've had to make some minor alterations to my machine.


Since the concept isn't new, and isn't secret, how about discussing it?

It's merits and potential weak points can then be discussed.

-Bill