A new way of generating electricity

[klaudio]

Hi,
My name is Claudio Bianco. I am an inventor, and have just completed my last work called “Continual Wind-Up”, with which I take advantage of water oscillations to wind up a cord, and thus generate electricity.
I believe to have opened a new research field for renewable energy, but since I am the father of this invention, my opinion does not matter.
I chose to use internet to make the invention known and I would appreciate your opinion.I would therefore like to invite you to discover a
new way of generating electricity without polluting on http://www.cuerdacontinua.com

[AaronB]

Claudio,

Your idea is very interesting. Since I was a small boy, when I first heard of perpetual motion, I have been trying to come up with ways to do it. In the process, I have learned about many theories, designs, and hoaxes. I have come to believe it is not possible to take more energy out of a closed system than you put into it. From what I understand of your idea, and as you state, “the sum of energy that is recuperated during the ascent and descent is more than what would be needed to compress the air.” If the volume, temperature, and pressure of air remained the same at the top and the bottom of the chamber, you certainly would be able to extract energy out of the system. However, the air within each float is under different pressures at the top versus at the bottom of the chamber, due to the weight of the liquid. Volume, pressure and temperature are all related. You must include all three in your equations. I think that when you take into account the differences at the top and bottom of the cycle, you will find that the energy output will equal the energy input, not counting losses.

Focus fusion is not a free energy, nor is it a perpetual motion machine since it consumes nuclear fuel.

[rashidas]

New Article on fusion in the journal Science (AAAS), 23 February 2007, Vol. 315, pp 1092-1095. Although the focus of the article is on producing high energy neutrons cheaply it does discuss fusion for energy production. It also mentions the problems of containing the plasma and deterioration of containment vessels. A must read for fusion groupies.

[Adam Whistle]

What use would there be for a perpetual motion machine? As soon as you tap the energy from it, you unbalance its cycle and remove to energy needed for its continuous motion.

The site looked nice, until the word “perpetual” came up. You don’t have to be a physicist to know there is no such thing. I’d say, you should look into turning this into a better way to harness the power of rivers and the like, rather then to try building the impossible machine.

[texaslabrat]

I went to the site too…and the ideas for extracting energy from periodic motion (eg waves) are interesting. However, the claims of perpetual motion and “something for nothing” energy generation are entirely misguided. Klaudio, you said you had your “engineer friend” look over your calculations and he thought they looked good? I suggest you find another technical reference. I did a quick energy analysis of the proposed system and it suffers a substantial energy deficit (no surprise there..). Both scenarios of filling the bell completely with air at the bottom of it’s cycle (100m…approx 10atm) and filling it just enough to start an upward motion (and therefore relying on linearly decreasing pressure to increase the upward force as it continues to ascend) result in substantial net input of energy to maintain the cycle. The “full air bell” scenario comes out to a deficit of about 8100 kJ…and the filled-just-enough scenario comes to about 1465 kJ deficit. I can post the full calculations if anyone is interested…I’ll leave it at just these final results for now if no one cares since it’s a heck of a lot of typing :p All of those calculations don’t take into consideration any friction losses and the like…and I used an isothermal compression scenario for the work required for the air because the process becomes isothermal by default since it will be in virtual direct contact with a huge isothermal heat sink in the form of the bell and the surrounding water.

Also…FYI Klaudio…standard atmospheric pressure is not 101300 kg/m^2 but rather 101300 N/m^2 (1 kg exerts 9.81 N at the earth’s surface) … although that wasn’t the biggest problem in your calculations. Anyway, long story short (too late, I know…) Homer Simpson can rest assured that the laws of thermodynamics are still being followed in the house (http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/characters/homer-simpson-quotes-13.html)

[pktanz]

Just want to say, it has been interesting to read all these.

[JimmyT]

I’m sure you would never get them to admit it, but I am throughly convinced that the inventors of the transister were in fact trying to achieve perpetual motion. By causing a self perpetuating electropotential across a dopped semiconductor junction they thought (wrongly) that they might be able to achieve this.

Fortunately, when this failed; they were open to other uses for what they observed.

[klaudio]

http://www.cuerdacontinua.com/hydrospiral

[AaronB]

Claudio, this is actually a good idea, and effectively illustrated. Wave-powered generators have to be able to compensate for tidal rises and falls. Either the whole system has to adjust with the tides, or it has to convert the wave motion to an independent medium or direction. I’m not sure how the hydrospiral would compensate for the tides.

[annodomini2]

I believe there are machines like this prototyped and already under test.

[Tasmodevil44]

Here recently, not too long ago, I read something about how the random motions of molecules could somehow be organized and harnessed. This is not perpetual motion, but has interesting possibilities on the small molecular scale and possibly scalable to large scale power production. Living cells use this technique to harness the random motions of water molecules to perform useful work. I decided just to throw in this footnote because it sounded somewhat interesting.

[HermannH]

It seems you are talking about something akin to the Brownian ratchet.
Unfortunately you can’t cheat the laws of thermodynamics; you won’t be able to extract any useful work with it.

[Brian H]

rashidas wrote: New Article on fusion in the journal Science (AAAS), 23 February 2007, Vol. 315, pp 1092-1095. Although the focus of the article is on producing high energy neutrons cheaply it does discuss fusion for energy production. It also mentions the problems of containing the plasma and deterioration of containment vessels. A must read for fusion groupies.

FYI, we Focus Fusion groupies regard high energy neutrons as unwanted radioactive pollution. In fact, the FF process only produces a few low-energy neutrons, the results of inevitable minor side-reactions. Nothing to do with how pB11 aneutronic fusion itself works.

[Aeronaut]

Just shows the pre-conceived notions of fusion fuel that we need to overcome. Another notion that needs correcting is that the turbines are needed. Bottom line is a “one of these decades” mind-set that seems to be a staple of most fusion writing that’s fairly easy to find.

[Author]

Posts