[manic_monkey]

But even in a Bose-Einstein cloud the laws of energy conservation still apply. And creating one takes a lot of energy. When you are pumping heat out of a system and trying to get it within millionths of a degree from absolute zero, or whatever they are now approaching, it is hard to get the heat out faster than it goes in without using tons of energy.

Last I heard, the laws of conservation of energy even apply in quantum mechanics. I'm assuming that I would have heard if things had been proven otherwise.

true. although still doesnt explain the possibility of room temperature superconducting material creating perpetual motion. If a room temperature superconducting material is found, wont that affect the laws of conservation of energy. Or would the laws of conservation of energy prevent any such superconducter existing?

on a side note (I am genuinely curious about this, i rarely get to talk to physicists), if we imagine two particles that are entangled and seperated. then we use energy to alter the spin of one particle, the other should alter its spin accordingly. my question is, where does the energy come from for that?

 

[weelliott]

true. although still doesnt explain the possibility of room temperature superconducting material creating perpetual motion. If a room temperature superconducting material is found, wont that affect the laws of conservation of energy. Or would the laws of conservation of energy prevent any such superconducter existing?

on a side note (I am genuinely curious about this, i rarely get to talk to physicists), if we imagine two particles that are entangled and seperated. then we use energy to alter the spin of one particle, the other should alter its spin accordingly. my question is, where does the energy come from for that?

I honestly don't know if the laws of conservation of energy prevent room-temperature super conductors. I don't see why they would. Even if it were to be found, I don't see how that would enable perpetual motion.

Superconductors are just really low resistance. The efficeincy of an electric motor would be increased if superconductors were used, but even though the flow of juice isn't being resisted by the resistance of the wire any more, it would still correspond to the magnetic field that is acting on it or it is creating. In short, with superconductors, that electricity to motion energy change would become more efficient, but it would never become over 100% efficient, and there are still many more ways that energy would be lost. If you were to use superconductors and also get rid of all friction, rolling resistance, all air resistance, any material deformation that causes heat or sound, and all that other stuff, then you could in theory operate at 100% efficiency, but that would still just conserve the energy in the system. It would just keep you going if you were on a level surface. It would be hard to breathe in that absolute vacuum though.

 

[frodus]

It would be hard to breathe in that absolute vacuum though.

hehe

I was gonna mention vaccuums, but thats the reason I didn't.... pretty much not gonna happen with a vehicle.

 

[Walkeer]

wouldnt a room temperature superconductor be usable to create perpetual motion?. have you ever seen magnetic discs rotating above superconductors as their own magnetic field is reflected? (couldnt think of the proper word, sorry) off.

Magnet levitating above superconductor is no perpetual motion, because it generates no energy, it just sits there and thats all. No difference betwen this and you sitting on the chair. do not mistake force with energy, because Energy = Force * distance in vectors.

I honestly don't know if the laws of conservation of energy prevent room-temperature super conductors. I don't see why they would. Even if it were to be found, I don't see how that would enable perpetual motion.

Superconductors are just really low resistance. The efficeincy of an electric motor would be increased if superconductors were used, but even though the flow of juice isn't being resisted by the resistance of the wire any more, it would still correspond to the magnetic field that is acting on it or it is creating. In short, with superconductors, that electricity to motion energy change would become more efficient, but it would never become over 100% efficient, and there are still many more ways that energy would be lost. If you were to use superconductors and also get rid of all friction, rolling resistance, all air resistance, any material deformation that causes heat or sound, and all that other stuff, then you could in theory operate at 100% efficiency, but that would still just conserve the energy in the system. It would just keep you going if you were on a level surface. It would be hard to breathe in that absolute vacuum though.

In fact, superconductors have exactly zero resistance, not really low. But it has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

 

[Phyber Optik]

I put a wind generator and a large electric fan on a sailboat and can sail forever in zero wind conditions.

 

[manic_monkey]

thank you for your replies on superconductors. i can see where i was getting mistaken. i had seen all the videos on discs with multiple magnets spinning above a superconductor, but upon further research i see that the disc has to be set spinning in the first place, and merely maintains the energy given to it. so with the normal losses mentioned, its not gonna be much use, except for energy storage.

 

[Persanity]

Like I said, Im not here to fight or argue with anybody. Id rather have a nice logical discussion with precise answers as to why something won't woprk rather then a big ole catch all like "perpetual motion is impossible". In my mind I am not after perpetual motiom. I just want to design a highly effecient electric generator into the hub of my front wheel to recapture electric energy. My motor supports regen yes but my controller doesnt and I cant afford a different controller right now. I may not have a degree in EE but I am far from stupid and just cause I cant explain with a formula and equations how something works doesnt mean I dont know how it works. Frodus Im sorry if I offended you when I said you were being an asshole but I felt that you were being rude/attacking my ideas. You may answer questions like this all the time but I never had asked before so I dont like all the angre from past expierences getting thrust upon me. Now going back to the whole shaker flashlight thing... If I mount a rod on my front wheel that will move up and down as the wheel spins, kind of like old school train wheels, and have a neodymium magnet on the end that is about the size of a motorcycle piston and had that travel through a spool of copper wire on the outside of the tube and the rod and magnet are moving on the inside. Basicly a giant shake flashlight that you don't shake and is powered by the motion of the wheel. What do you think of that design? What are the holes in this one?

 

[Walkeer]

Like I said, Im not here to fight or argue with anybody. Id rather have a nice logical discussion with precise answers as to why something won't woprk rather then a big ole catch all like "perpetual motion is impossible".

ok, but the problem is, your previous proposals actually WERE perpetual motion...

In my mind I am not after perpetual motiom. I just want to design a highly effecient electric generator into the hub of my front wheel to recapture electric energy.

if used as brake, I have no problem with that.

If I mount a rod on my front wheel that will move up and down as the wheel spins, kind of like old school train wheels, and have a neodymium magnet on the end that is about the size of a motorcycle piston and had that travel through a spool of copper wire on the outside of the tube and the rod and magnet are moving on the inside. Basicly a giant shake flashlight that you don't shake and is powered by the motion of the wheel. What do you think of that design? What are the holes in this one?

again, for braking, why not. If you want to use it all the time the bike is moving, that is really stupid idea, because when it generates power, at least the same power is substracted from the moving energy of your bike - it will slow it down like brakes. It could work if it would generate more power than it would substract from moving energy, but that would mean it has bigger efficiency than 100% and that is definition of perpetual motion - which doesnt work.

 

[Telco]

Now going back to the whole shaker flashlight thing... If I mount a rod on my front wheel that will move up and down as the wheel spins, kind of like old school train wheels, and have a neodymium magnet on the end that is about the size of a motorcycle piston and had that travel through a spool of copper wire on the outside of the tube and the rod and magnet are moving on the inside. Basicly a giant shake flashlight that you don't shake and is powered by the motion of the wheel. What do you think of that design? What are the holes in this one?

You seem fascinated by the shaker flashlight. But, the wheel thing won't work either. Generating electricity is not free, it takes effort to push electrons and that effort is seen as resistance to movement. If you put something on the wheel that generates electricity, regardless of the method used to move the magnet, you are putting resistance to movement into the system. In fact, this method is worse because you are adding in a mechanical conversion, from roundyround to up and down. This conversion will also take energy to make.

All is not lost though, because your idea does have some merit. Instead of looking at the spinning wheel as the source of motion, look at the forks. The motorcycle forks are just a big set of shock absorbers, which keep the wheel planted to the pavement while isolating the rider from the bumps in the road. There is a considerable amount of up and down motion being damped here, and the energy generated by this damping is converted to heat in the shock absorber fluid. And, this is exactly the type of motion used by the shaker flashlight to generate power. This would not be generating free energy aka perpetual motion, it would be recovering energy that is currently 100 percent wasted, without affecting forward motion in any way.

So, if you were to look at replacing the lower tube of the shocks with powerful magnets, and replacing the upper tube with an assembly that lets you put coils around it, you could generate power this way. Course, you'd still need a way to both isolate the rider from road bumps and keep the wheel planted to the pavement. No idea if a powerful enough magnet would provide enough shock absorption through motion or not.

I was actually looking at something along these lines to replace the 4 shock absorbers found on a car, but unfortunately I don't have what it takes to make something like this.

 

[LeTank]

I would like to add nothing is impossible when it comes to finding an alternative energy source to replentish your Amps being used.
Even little things such as this can help.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Elemental_Rod_Generator

It may need to be larger, but if someone lives in Japan or the Philippines where you can either get one from the company that produces them or get the details from the inventor himself how to build it.
His website:http://www.freewebs.com/narfschwartz/

Anyway, I believe in finding the right combination of things can help make up the difference in Amps used, therefore extending range.

 

[Walkeer]

I would like to add nothing is impossible when it comes to finding an alternative energy source to replentish your Amps being used.
Even little things such as this can help.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Elemental_Rod_Generator

It may need to be larger, but if someone lives in Japan or the Philippines where you can either get one from the company that produces them or get the details from the inventor himself how to build it.
His website:http://www.freewebs.com/narfschwartz/

Anyway, I believe in finding the right combination of things can help make up the difference in Amps used, therefore extending range.

Many people think perpetual motions actually are impossible.

citation from your link: Two rods. One is composed of 73 elements, and the other, with 74 elements. An electrical charge apparently builds up in one of the rods because of this difference, creating enough potential to generate electricity continously. This charge is alleged to be a function of neutrinos striking differentially.

Oh my...does he even know what neutrinos are? I doubt that...just another piece of crap / lie

 

[Persanity]

I spent the entire weekend working on a pedal generator. I have 3 electric motors from power wheels with the gear box still attached and those are being spun by me pedaling a unicycle type thing. The power generated is 40 volts at 3 amps and I can run a tread mill at 4 miles an hour off that electricity. I figure if I add 6 more motors I can generate 120 volts at 9 amps and use a converter to convert it to 36 volts and 100 amps. As of right now the thing is easier to pedal then back pedaling a bike. If 9 motors gets harder to turn I'll gear the entire thing out more so its easier to pedal. I also saw some kid on youtube use a brushlss model airplane motor to push his bike at 2 miles an hour for 4 hours on 6 9volts battery packs, So I could use a model air plane motor as a electrical pedal assitant and use battery packs to power the motor. I got some options to what Im doing now that I have done some hands on research.

 

[manic_monkey]

The power generated is 40 volts at 3 amps and I can run a tread mill at 4 miles an hour off that electricity. I figure if I add 6 more motors I can generate 120 volts at 9 amps and use a converter to convert it to 36 volts and 100 amps.

your maths is a little bit wrong - 120V and 9A is 1.08KW, while 36V and 100A is 3.6KW. the correct values would be 36V and 30A. That is of course assuming 100% conversion efficiency. The real efficiency will probably be 75-90%

As of right now the thing is easier to pedal then back pedaling a bike. If 9 motors gets harder to turn I'll gear the entire thing out more so its easier to pedal.

Im afraid it will get harder to turn. to generate more power, you'll have to pedal harder. Im not sure of the efficiency of the generators your using, so its hard to give a definite figure, but automotive generators are around 50-60% so thats a reasonable number to use. so you'll likely have to put 2KW worth of pedal power to get out the power your expecting

I also saw some kid on youtube use a brushlss model airplane motor to push his bike at 2 miles an hour for 4 hours on 6 9volts battery packs, So I could use a model air plane motor as a electrical pedal assitant and use battery packs to power the motor. I got some options to what Im doing now that I have done some hands on research.

sorry, im not sure i understand this bit. are you saying your going to use a brushless motor to drive the 9 motor generator?

 

[Persanity]

If I use any type of motor to drive the generators it will be as a helper motor to reduce the amount of force needed to pedal and the motor would have its own seperate power source, like a motorcycle battery.

The other part is I didn't do any math to get the numbers, I was just talking about what it was putting out and what I need it to put out. So with the 3 motors putting out 40 volts at 3 amps and going on a linear scale 9 motors would put out 120 v at 9 amps. What I need is 36v at 100-200 amps. So I either need to add more motors or rewind the armatures with high gauge wire to carry more amps and use stronger magnets in the generators and possibly add more magnetic poles. Or possibly get brushless R/C car motors to replace the motors from the powerwheel gear boxes. I've seen hand crank generators on youtube like I am thinking about so It can be done, Its just all about the amount of power I want to generate. All I know is I'd rather pedal at a constant speed to generate electricity then pedal at a million different speeds to manual move the bike.

 

[manic_monkey]

If I use any type of motor to drive the generators it will be as a helper motor to reduce the amount of force needed to pedal and the motor would have its own seperate power source, like a motorcycle battery.

theres absoloutly no point in using a motor to drive, or assist in driving the generators. the motor will be ~80% efficient, wasting 20% of the battery power, and the generators only ~50% efficient, wasting yet more power. you would be far, far more effective to just hook the battery straight to whatever your using the power for

The other part is I didn't do any math to get the numbers, I was just talking about what it was putting out and what I need it to put out. So with the 3 motors putting out 40 volts at 3 amps and going on a linear scale 9 motors would put out 120 v at 9 amps. What I need is 36v at 100-200 amps. So I either need to add more motors or rewind the armatures with high gauge wire to carry more amps and use stronger magnets in the generators and possibly add more magnetic poles.

really sorry to have to say this, but this just isnt going to happen. 36V 100A is 3.6KW, 200A is 7.2KW. That is a shitload of power. remember YOU have to supply that power to the generators by cycling, It doesnt come from nowhere. (and with the generators having ~50% efficiency, you would have to have a pedal power of nearly 15KW!!).

the average non athlete MAY be able to provide 200watts per hour, and 400watts per hour for an elite athlete. so you best get down the gym

I've seen hand crank generators on youtube like I am thinking about so It can be done, Its just all about the amount of power I want to generate. All I know is I'd rather pedal at a constant speed to generate electricity then pedal at a million different speeds to manual move the bike.

I promise you, you haven't seen 15KW hand crank generator on youtube. maybe your confusing KiloWatts with KiloVolts? besides, you really dont need 7kw to power a bike. that sort of power would drive a car. it sounds like your trying to make a sort of series hybrid bicycle?? where you pedal to generate electricity, then the electricity powers a motor? is that your goal?

 

[Persanity]

Yes my goal now is to create a human/electric hybrid motorcycle where all electric power comes from pedaling. I have a brushless mars electric motor that will be run at 36v/100 amp continuous and up to 250 amp for 45 seconds. So 3600watts continuous and 9000 watts for 45 seconds. What I want to rewind my own motors or find motors that can produce 12v and 50 amps at 600rpms and have 5 of them 3 with electric clutchs from A/C compressors so I would have 100 amps continuous and 250 amps for 45 seconds on demand as "nitro boost". If I used a 12-1 ratio from the pedals to the motors it shouldnt be too hard to get 600 rpms. I know not everything online is true put I have seen these voltages and amp ratings produced at these rpms in windmill generator aplications and hydroturbine projects. I know I have alot of research ahead but it'll be worth it in the end to be able to pedal my bike up to 80 mph on the highway lol

 

[manic_monkey]

Yes my goal now is to create a human/electric hybrid motorcycle where all electric power comes from pedaling. I have a brushless mars electric motor that will be run at 36v/100 amp continuous and up to 250 amp for 45 seconds. So 3600watts continuous and 9000 watts for 45 seconds. What I want to rewind my own motors or find motors that can produce 12v and 50 amps at 600rpms and have 5 of them 3 with electric clutchs from A/C compressors so I would have 100 amps continuous and 250 amps for 45 seconds on demand as "nitro boost". If I used a 12-1 ratio from the pedals to the motors it shouldnt be too hard to get 600 rpms.

It seems like you ignored the part i said before about non athlete humans only being able to achieve a pedal power of 200 watts.

let me put it another way. that 200 watts of pedal power is mechanical energy that is to be converted into electrical energy. it is your only source of energy. it doesnt matter how you wind your motors, how many motors you have, how you gear them, wether they have clutches. there is STILL ONLY 200W OF ENERGY FOR THEM TO CONVERT INTO ELECTRICITY. the electrical power you get out of the generators will always be proportional to the amount of mechanical energy you put into the system (by pedaling), but it will always be LESS than the amount of mechanical energy you put into it.

these are hard rules, they do not bend, they do not break. they are as constant as the universe itself and far less forgiving

 

[Walkeer]

Persanity still didnt study Energy conservation law, that is the whole problem....he is still trying to build a perpetual motion ie. machine that has more than 100% efficiency.

 

[Persanity]

Persanity still didnt study Energy conservation law, that is the whole problem....he is still trying to build a perpetual motion ie. machine that has more than 100% efficiency.

How do you figure that a human electric hybrid is a perpetual motion machine? If im putting the work into it then its not perpetual.

Manic monkey, I didnt ignore what you said I again just stated what I need, Besides it just doesn't make sense. How can it be a "rule" that you can only get between 200 and 400 watts from pedaling no matter what? There are more efficent motors and more powerful magnets for PM DC motors then there was in the past. My brushless mars motor is 90% efficent (or so its advertised as that) so I can get a 90% efficent generator and be able to get the power I need. If I have a system that uses 10 motors from r/c cars and a gear box with a 10/1 ratio then spining the gearbox shaft 120rpm would give me 1200rpm at the motor on each motor. Right now Im getting 10-15v at 3 amp from one of these motors but with a low ratio( like 3-1) so I don't get how I am limited to what power I can generate. Exspecial when they say 746 watts is equal to 1 hp when HP is such a horrible rating system. If it said that 10'' lb of torque was equal to 746 watts then itd make more sense to me.

 

[manic_monkey]

Manic monkey, I didnt ignore what you said I again just stated what I need, Besides it just doesn't make sense. How can it be a "rule" that you can only get between 200 and 400 watts from pedaling no matter what?

no, youve missed the point. its not that you can only 'get' 200-400 watts, its that you can only GIVE 200-400 watts of energy by pedalling. and only the energy you pedal with is going to be converted from mechanical to electrical energy

There are more efficent motors and more powerful magnets for PM DC motors then there was in the past. My brushless mars motor is 90% efficent (or so its advertised as that) so I can get a 90% efficent generator and be able to get the power I need.

a 90% efficient motor is only 90% efficient when used as a motor. it doesnt mean it will be a 90% efficient generator. the efficiency will drop significantly

If I have a system that uses 10 motors from r/c cars and a gear box with a 10/1 ratio then spining the gearbox shaft 120rpm would give me 1200rpm at the motor on each motor. Right now Im getting 10-15v at 3 amp from one of these motors but with a low ratio( like 3-1) so I don't get how I am limited to what power I can generate. Exspecial when they say 746 watts is equal to 1 hp when HP is such a horrible rating system. If it said that 10'' lb of torque was equal to 746 watts then itd make more sense to me.

i think i understand now where your thought process is going wrong. Its with the word 'generator' and 'generate'. it would be much much better if you replaced the words with 'convertor'. you see, alternators, and motors/generators CONVERT mechanical energy into electrical energy. instead of thinking of how much energy you can generate, think of how much energy you can convert to electricity.