Well, its nice to see that people
are thinking and talking again!!
Temperature differences will
power a generator, and probably the best one is the Sterling Cycle Motor. The
problem with these, though, is that there must be a substantial temp.
difference, which is hard to maintain without a flame. (The heat always wants to
move to the vacuum). Any that will do any useful work with a small temp. diff.
will be too large to be practical. Alternative natural energies work
wonderfully, but tend to be intermittent, so need expensive storage systems that
most cannot afford. (That is my problem.)
Did anyone watch P.B.S. last night?
The show was about the evolution of flight, and one of the researchers was
talking about the original RADIAL engine, from about 1915, and the piston and
shaft of the engine remained still, while the cylinders and prop would spin.
Obviously this resulted in extreme gyroscopic forces from the engine, and made
the aircraft extremely difficult to control. Anyway, they did a small
demonstration; There was a 6 foot string passed through a 1 foot tube. At
one end of the string was a tennis ball attatched. At the other end was a 5 lb.
weight. When you grasp the tube, and spin the tennis ball on the string, the
centrifugal force from the ball is enough to lift the weight, and the string
with the ball would pass through the tube, pulling the weight upward. A very
simple demo of why the Clem motor will work. Just replace the string with fluid,
and the tennis ball with radially pointing jets, to cause the spin. As
the rotor is spun, the centrifugal force of the fluid will be
enough to 'suck up' more liquid, like the string, which in turn ejects from
the jets, reulting in rotor spin, which in turn puts more cent. force on the
fluid, and so on.
I have come to one inescapable
conclusion about 'free energy'. Whatever form it takes, the end result must be
'raw horsepower'. Everything we use in our modern world operates the same way,
and that is 120 volts at 60 hertz, or 240 volts at 60 hertz. Our electrical
appliances also have one other fault, too. The electricity must be 'pushed'
through them, instead of 'pulled'. There are very many types and sizes of
generators, but their principle operating parameters are identical. A machine
like Tom Beardon's M.E.G. is a nice toy, but it won't power an electric motor.
Something about hertz, and back E.M.F. screws it up. So, since our applications
of electricity all rely on the same technology to operate, the only real
solution to the o-u problem is a machine that produces rotary force, ie.
Horsepower, that can then be caused to run a conventional generator. Also it
must produce at least 10 kilowatts of electricity, as that is the maximum load
most households will use. Anything less, and you get into epensive storage and
remediation systems, or 'rationing', and most people would just as soon pay a
monthly bill for the convenience. And, a small machine would be a help,
since you can't put a 50 foot lever in an apartment. The most ideal thing would
be an electric motor that powered a generator. This would fit in a closet, and
be relatively silent.
Have any of you ever thought
about a 'Transformer Motor'? A typical transformer, such as the one powering
your computers and charging your cell phones are about 66% efficient. Just look
on the box, do the math conversion, and you will see this. Why can't an electric
motor be built that incorporates permanent magnets into a transformer, sort of
like the M.E.G. does, whose magnetic field operates the motor as normal, but
'recaptures' the collapsing magnetic field, which is supplimented with the
permanent magnets, resulting in the same amount or more electricity being
delivered back to the source as originally was sent to do the work? Basically, a
Motionless Electrical Generator Motor. What you want to do is increase the
magnetic force with the permanent magnets, over what the electro-magnet
produced, use the force to spin the motor, and at commutation, when the field
collapses, recapture the electricity, and then pipe this extra juice into the
next commutation. What you might end up with is a motor that is 95 to 110%
efficient, just in electricity usage, and rotary horse power is the BY
PRODUCT. When building such a motor, the first thing to think about is the
efficiency of each magnetic pulse, not the overall efficiency. If each
pulse returned 100% of the electricity it used, the motor will run 'for free'. A
normal d.c. motor commutates at about 23,100 times per minute, a hertz of
385. Tesla proved that once the Hertz gets over about 47, it makes no
further difference how much faster the electricity is pulsed, it still does the
exact same thing. That is why we only use a 60 hertz cycle today. Any faster is
a waste. So, in our mythical motor, once the cycles reach 50 per second, the
magnetism will move the motor, and can be recaptured as electricity, to power
the next cycle. Simple, Huh? Anyway, there is a new idea to play
with.
|
- [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortexes and gravit... Jerry Decker - KN
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortexes a... Mitch
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortexes a... Phillip Mark
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortex... Audun Hassel
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vo... Mitch
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortexes a... Mitch
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortexes a... rown
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortex... Joseph Hiddink
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vo... Stuart Rae
- Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential... Joseph Hiddink