swansont Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 http://amasci.com/freenrg/minto.htmlYou’ll need to read it then Don’t tell me you don’t understand “8.69 Hp/Hour = 6480.132 Watt/Hour” It’s just a normal conversion, to make understand it better. The conversion wasn't in question, AFAIK. It's the use of improper units: Hp and Watts are units of power and hp is used in the article. You used Hp/Hour and Watts/Hour, which are wrong.
Jacquesl Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Ok, what’s wrong about it, the “/hour” ? My converter can only convert Hp/Hour to Watts/Hour Does Hp actually means horsepower in sec. or min ?
insane_alien Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 okay, if something was producing 1W/s (just to keep the math simple) at time=0 s it would produce 0 W at t=1 it would produce 1 W at t=2 it would pruduce 2 W and so on. if it produces 1 W at t=0 it would produce 1 W at t=1 , 1W at t=2 , 1W see the difference. The fact you don't understand the basic units(in either imperial or metric) shows that you proably don't have that good an idea of what you're implying. stick to what it said in the article. minto wheels are impractical, to get any really usefull power out of it you need it to be big, very big. and its really really not that efficient. most of the vapour condenses in the pipe and runs back to the origional container.
Jacquesl Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Ok, I think you right, I’m not going to build that big wheel, so to come back to the solar panels, how many panels will you need you get a equivalent of 8.69 Hp?
Jacquesl Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Just for interest sake, how much watts will 8.69 Hp be?
swansont Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Depending on which one, about 6480W, according to http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm But there are four slightly different "flavors" from which to choose.
Jacquesl Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 So I wasn’t far of with my 6480.132 Watt and my confusing creating /hour Yip I see al of them, lets keep with horsepower [international] Ok so will this 6 480.131 870 3 watt will be in a second or in a min or in an hour? Or isn’t it so advance
swansont Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Ok so will this 6 480.131 870 3 watt will be in a second or in a min or in an hour?Or isn’t it so advance That's the power you create continually. The number of Joules of energy you generate each second. So if you want the total energy, you multiply by the elapsed time.
Callipygous Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Thermocouple wont do the job, I’m having some seriously difficulties to designing “free energy” like it's called in 2007, because this kind devices are not yet accepted in the public, they arent accepted because well edjucated people know that it just isnt possible. any device you design that doesnt have an energy input will not have energy output. the absolute best you can ever accomplish would be 100% efficiency, as in if you pushed it to get it started it would continue to go that speed. as soon as you took any energy out it would start to slow down. these devices are designed by people who dont have a solid understanding of the physics involved they are very creative, ill give you that, but they are never, by any means, functional.
insane_alien Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 the absolute best you can ever accomplish would be 100% efficiency which can only occur at absolute zero which can't be reached and which means that nothing is moving anyway.
Rocket Man Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 thermonic emmission (the Edison effect) is as efficient as you can supply the heat. any waste energy is likely to turn into heat and get converted back into electricity. it's not the most practical though, as it only works in the thousands of degrees celcius.
Jacquesl Posted March 4, 2007 Posted March 4, 2007 This Unlimited is a pocket rocket. It does not “perpetual motion machine“ does not exist on earth only at zero gravity or in space with no friction and NO LOAD and it will stop after a certain time period, like we say time will tell
bob000555 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Well, reading this thread helped me start the morning off with a good old headache. Please’ if you don’t know what you talking about don’t pretend you do , remember the laws of thermodynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics . Put quit simply free energy doesn’t exist and never will. This isn’t “the Magic School bus”; some things are just imposable. I am however wondering about this suggestion: The only problem I see is that the output would be on the order of billionths of trillionths of volts.( it’s not free energy as the energy comes from the entropy of the universe) At work we once had a lunchtime challenge to come up with a plausible free energy device. This was for a bit of fun and we did come up with some truly bizarre ideas. Here is my entry idea for it (note: I don't think it would work, I think that free energy is impossible - this was for a bit of fun). As I don't understand the theories enough to actually disprove my idea (and none of us at work could) I would like to see what this community thinks and why it wouldn't work. A bit more explanation: This device would be small. The distance between the curved metal plates would be on the order of atoms. What is supposed to happen is due to the uncertainty principle electrons and positron pairs (virtual) would appear in and around the device. These would have some initial momentum. Pairs moving into the device will curve due to the magnetic field. These would curve out towards and collide with the plates. The positron would annihilate with an electron in that plate (zeroing out the energy from the uncertainty principle). The electron from the pair would end up in the other plate. Electrons moving in the other direction would also experience the magnetic field and curve. However the curve of the plates is designed such that they exceed the curvature of the electron/positron pair. So the E/P pair will never collide with it. Because the E/P pair only collides in one direction, that means that the Positrons only collide with one plate and the Electrons with the other plate. This causes a reduction of electrons on one plate (positive charge) and a build up of electrons on the other plate (negative charge). We3 now have a potential difference between the two plates which can be used. No energy has been put into the system, but energy is coming out. Free energy. Needless to say I won the challenge and got my chocolate bar as reward... Can you tell me why it won't work. It's sort of like a cylotron where the input is uncertenty.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now