A question about generators?

[Ian Coker]

I run a small R&D consultancy in the UK. I research and build mainly proof-of-concept devices for inventors and small businesses (but I'm not myself an electronics or electrical engineer). Many of my clients have no technical background so sometimes I get enquiries about perpetual motion type ideas. I presently have an enquiry from a person who I'm in dispute with regarding the purpose and function of alternator generators.

My prospective client believes that 'self excitation' means that the alternator can create energy. I have been trying my best to convince him that the electricity is generated by converting mechanical rotation into electrical energy. But nothng I can say will convince him:

He writes: "....My assessment .....is that:

a) Mechanical energy is not responsible for producing electrical energy in a generator. The process by which this is done is called excitation and by taking advantage of a principle of amplification whereby a small amount of electric power controls a large amount of power.

b) The principle of amplification works because the output voltage is proportional to the magnetic field which is proportional to the excitation current in a small=big relationship.

c) Your claim that my system will not work is stupid......" (etc)

His innovation seems to hinge on the belief that it is possible to create energy in an alternator generator.

I have now given up on trying to explain the law of conservation of energy. I thought he might listen to one or two more qualified voices.

Any comments gratefuly received.

Thanks.

[Strange]

You are right and he is very obviously wrong. From long and painful experience, I can tell you that there is no point arguing with such people. All you can do is "walk away" - tell him you are too busy to take on more work or something.

 

You might think that you could just take his money and build what he wants and let him find out it doesn't work. I suspect you would be getting yourself into a world of pain. He will insist that it doesn't work because you have built it wrong (or even that you have sabotaged it at the request of "big oil") and may refuse to pay, threaten legal action, etc.

 

Get out while you still can!

[Ian Coker]

You are right and he is very obviously wrong. From long and painful experience, I can tell you that there is no point arguing with such people. All you can do is "walk away" - tell him you are too busy to take on more work or something.

 

You might think that you could just take his money and build what he wants and let him find out it doesn't work. I suspect you would be getting yourself into a world of pain. He will insist that it doesn't work because you have built it wrong (or even that you have sabotaged it at the request of "big oil") and may refuse to pay, threaten legal action, etc.

 

Get out while you still can!

 

Thanks very much....There is no danger of me attempting to make his idea and for the reasons you give!

[Danijel Gorupec]

Sure, excitation is needed to generate power - more excitation will generate more power (up to saturation) if the rotation speed is kept the same... But the important thing is that more excitation will also require more mechanical power to keep the generator spin at the same speed. Without the increased mechanical input, the generator would just slow down failing to produce any additional power. That is, speaking informally, higher excitation makes generator harder to turn.

 

For sure, all the energy comes from mechanical work. You use the excitation as you use a lever (with a lever you can adjust forces, but the lever does not generate any power/energy).

 

I completely agree with Strange on what he says about such people (I can also add that they often ask you to make the device for free and then later you can share the "guaranteed" income).

 

 

Edit: edited inaccurate and confusing wording

Edited June 22, 2016 by Danijel Gorupec

[Yvtq8k3n]

I dont see any problem whit an perpetual motion machine. If u ask if it is possible, the answer is yes. The Universe is the biggest prepetual machine that exist, the ammount of energy it had is always the same, it doesnt lose, however it changes.

 

But lets continium.

 

However the energy is always changing, so there is 3 main ways energy can be found, trougth radiation, mechanic process and at last heat.

 

When a machine is working, if u notice i tends to overheat arent i rigth?

 

U can use that in order to prove that is impossibe to create such amazing generatior.

 

However if he doesnt belive, ask him the following,

 

Imagine a cliff(something whit a big decline) after u trow a ball and the ball hit the bottum, what is required for u to do in order to make the ball to move?
The answer is simple u need to put the ball in the start position. In order to do that u need to use energy.

 

To finish, there is perpetual motion at least i belive is possible. As i said The Universe is a perpetual machine however you may not accept it but u cant also deny it either as a scientist u need to have an open mind, that is the meaning of being an scientist.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Yvtq8k3n

[arc]

I dont see any problem whit an perpetual motion machine. If u ask if it is possible, the answer is yes.

 

When a machine is working, if u notice i tends to overheat arent i rigth?

 

U can use that in order to prove that is impossibe to create such amazing generatior.

 

Congratulations, you have discovered perpetual argumentation.

[Strange]

As i said The Universe is a perpetual machine

 

 

Only if you change the meaning of the word "perpetual motion machine". Which would be silly.

 

 

 

however you may not accept it but u cant also deny it either as a scientist u need to have an open mind, that is the meaning of being an scientist.

 

And that is even sillier.

[Yvtq8k3n]

 

 

Only if you change the meaning of the word "perpetual motion machine". Which would be silly.

 

 

And that is even sillier.

U can assume the costante change of the state of energy as "motion", like i said u can accept or not, is just a matter it will not change nothing. Still was fun wasnt it?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Yvtq8k3n

[Enthalpy]

Self-excitation is a different notion in generators.

 

You might try to argue that an output voltage appears only thanks to the rotor's speed, and that the output current creates a force and torque, so electric power needs mechanical power - but usually it's hopeless. This kind of people use to believe then that you want to steal their invention, so better give up.

 

In the US, you'd have one more answer possibility to such people: send them to the patent office, which rejects all perpetuum mobile. But here in Europe, the theoretical impossibility isn't a reason to reject an application. Which has good sides too, because when the patent offices rejected theoretical impossibilities, they rejected the transformer.

[John Cuthber]

I dont see any problem whit an perpetual motion machine.

And that level of ignorance is, in a nutshell, the problem here.

[Yvtq8k3n]

And that level of ignorance is, in a nutshell, the problem here.

U dont get a joke.

[John Cuthber]

U dont get a joke.

What joke?