What do you think about my free energy system ?

[Altai]

I found this simple system just in 30 seconds while talking with dad about energy needs of people. I have seen many videos on youtube that people are trying to produce energy with no efforts given. Noone of them will work they are just fooling people. So people are quite interested with producing energy without using any kind of fuel engines or without nature events like as solar power or wind power or irreversibel potential energy storage like as dams. Yes this is a good idea.

I simply drew a schema on paint. You can get the logic if you look at it carefully. Everything is in a closed vacuum cover. Blue parts is water or whatever liquid you want to use. The round ones are gears. The red things are cubes full of air. The long part of the external cover is divided into two. The right side of the half full with water. The left side is empty, so full of air. The water lifting force will force the cubes to move upward and the chain will turn continuosly and forever without any external intervention needed. We can put dynamos tied to the gears and produce energy for free. If you want it to move stronger, you need to extend the long part of the cover to increase number of the cubes in the water, therefore to increase lifting force.

 

I can say based on the lessons I learned at school that this system will work perfectly. You can make one for your home and have your energy for free and forever.


Please share any information you have or share any logical conclusion based on information/s. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Altai

[cannuck]

let me guess:  science was not your best subject in school?

You have not accounted for what it takes to hold the water in the right side at a level above the left side - you show it communicating at the bottom - that would be neccessary for the bottom run of the conveyor belt to pass from the low side to the high side.

If you or anyone could devise an energy-efficient way to pass the convery belt and is "air cube" cargo from the left side to the right side, you would be a mechanical genius.  BUT: as to perpetual motion, you need to understand that the sum of all of the forces in your system are zero, there is no excess energy to harvest.   In the missing piece of your puzzle (passing through the barrier from left to right) the pressure differential between the two sides that must overcome taking the cargo from left to right side would be exactly the amount of the buoyancy of the same cargo - the source of the force you think will drive the system.

Not only do you end up with zero net, but there loss of energy in the system would be the friction and force needed to move the sealing mechanism to seal the belt and cargo on its pass from left to right.  In other words, to get any motion at all, you would need to add that amount of energy to the system to make it move (overcoming sealing mechanism losses, hyrdodynamic losses from moving through the water and mechanical losses from the flexing of the belt and the bearings of the two pulleys).

I applaud your generosity in offering your solution to perpetual motion freely to the rest of the world, but sadly, you have not stumbled upon something that is not understood, you just didn't understand it.

Edited December 3, 2017 by cannuck

[Altai]

17 hours ago, cannuck said:

let me guess:  science was not your best subject in school?

You have not accounted for what it takes to hold the water in the right side at a level above the left side - you show it communicating at the bottom - that would be neccessary for the bottom run of the conveyor belt to pass from the low side to the high side.

If you or anyone could devise an energy-efficient way to pass the convery belt and is "air cube" cargo from the left side to the right side, you would be a mechanical genius.  BUT: as to perpetual motion, you need to understand that the sum of all of the forces in your system are zero, there is no excess energy to harvest.   In the missing piece of your puzzle (passing through the barrier from left to right) the pressure differential between the two sides that must overcome taking the cargo from left to right side would be exactly the amount of the buoyancy of the same cargo - the source of the force you think will drive the system.

Not only do you end up with zero net, but there loss of energy in the system would be the friction and force needed to move the sealing mechanism to seal the belt and cargo on its pass from left to right.  In other words, to get any motion at all, you would need to add that amount of energy to the system to make it move (overcoming sealing mechanism losses, hyrdodynamic losses from moving through the water and mechanical losses from the flexing of the belt and the bearings of the two pulleys).

I applaud your generosity in offering your solution to perpetual motion freely to the rest of the world, but sadly, you have not stumbled upon something that is not understood, you just didn't understand it.

Nah my scores are good and I am going to keep studying at one of the best universities of my country.

I dont know what you are talking but I think you mean there is no reason for the long part to be full of water, so pressure will balance the water height in both side. I cant imagine that, we need to test it. It seem like it will stay like as its in the scheme because the system is closed to the atmosphere. If it happens theway you meant, we can put two covers in the system and separate the mechanism of the parts with full of water and full of air.

[cannuck]

3 hours ago, Altai said:

Nah my scores are good and I am going to keep studying at one of the best universities of my country.

I dont know what you are talking but I think you mean there is no reason for the long part to be full of water, so pressure will balance the water height in both side. I cant imagine that, we need to test it. It seem like it will stay like as its in the scheme because the system is closed to the atmosphere. If it happens theway you meant, we can put two covers in the system and separate the mechanism of the parts with full of water and full of air.

Being "closed to the atmosphere" is not the issue.  You need to be closed to gravity.  It is not air pressure that causes the liquid to be at same level, it is the hydraulic pressure that will equalize between the sides by coming to the same level.   That is a function of gravity.  I have explained to you what is wrong, but you have failed the ultimate test of ANY kind of science:  you believe your own BS.  I assume you are studying political science, not any kind of actual science.

Edited December 4, 2017 by cannuck

[AngusThermopyle]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

Being "closed to the atmosphere" is not the issue.  You need to be closed to gravity.  It is not air pressure that causes the liquid to be at same level, it is the hydraulic pressure that will equalize between the sides by coming to the same level.   That is a function of gravity.  I have explained to you what is wrong, but you have failed the ultimate test of ANY kind of science:  you believe your own BS.  I assume you are studying political science, not any kind of actual science.

Not to mention that when she says she'll put two covers in the system I think she means water tight covers. Perhaps I misunderstood what she was saying but if I didn't then those covers  would introduce large amounts of friction to the system. That's on top of the friction already present, and also the negative bouyancy effects.

[?Impact]

Looks interesting, I would build it but I get all the energy I could ever want from my cold fusion machine.

[Altai]

18 hours ago, cannuck said:

Being "closed to the atmosphere" is not the issue.  You need to be closed to gravity.  It is not air pressure that causes the liquid to be at same level, it is the hydraulic pressure that will equalize between the sides by coming to the same level.   That is a function of gravity.  I have explained to you what is wrong, but you have failed the ultimate test of ANY kind of science:  you believe your own BS.  I assume you are studying political science, not any kind of actual science.

I mean the hydrolic pressure but its also closed to athmosphere and therefore the air in the system will keep staying in beginning position. 

You behave like the little girl in the movies screaming "We all are going to die",  take your sublingual pills and try to be a bit hopeful for your future, at least for the future of your brainwashed kids.

If you keep behave such agressive, I will put you in my ignore list. I dont want stones on my way.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Altai

[Bonam]

Yes, with a few minutes of thinking, you have just discovered something simple and obvious that generations of the world's best scientists and engineers have overlooked. Not only that, but with a simple drawing, you have disproved the laws of thermodynamics, which comprise some of the most fundamental underpinnings of our understanding of physics. All of mankind's energy problems will now be solved. 

[Altai]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

Yes, with a few minutes of thinking, you have just discovered something simple and obvious that generations of the world's best scientists and engineers have overlooked. Not only that, but with a simple drawing, you have disproved the laws of thermodynamics, which comprise some of the most fundamental underpinnings of our understanding of physics. All of mankind's energy problems will now be solved. 

What a stupid way of thinking. You are acting like a grass more than a human being. Are you just living for cows to eat you or dogs to pee on you ? Who are these scientists ? Are they alliens or something else which is believe to be something superior to you ? Nah they are not, they having toilet like as you and they are eating dried meat and scratching their ass and the worst part many of them believes homosexuality is something scientific but they think the only problem they do not have a proof. 


Now, I just think 5 minutes more and I found a new way for you. We can name this system as "Bonam's barren head". LoL is it not funny ? 


Here the system is divided into four sections. The upper section is full of air, the left section full of a liquid with density:2, the right one full of a liquit with density:3; there is a barrier between the left and the right sections. The bottom section full of a liquid with density:4. There is a wheel in the middle of all sections. This wheel will keep turning for ever.






Lets build one for your ugly home.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Altai

[cannuck]

9 hours ago, Altai said:

I mean the hydrolic pressure but its also closed to athmosphere and therefore the air in the system will keep staying in beginning position. 

You behave like the little girl in the movies screaming "We all are going to die",  take your sublingual pills and try to be a bit hopeful for your future, at least for the future of your brainwashed kids.

If you keep behave such agressive, I will put you in my ignore list. I dont want stones on my way.

I behave like someone who designs and builds mechanical devices for a half century.   As it turns out:  I have had to obey the laws of physics every time, in spite of wanting to be above such plebian considerations.

It is not stones that are in your way, it is knowledge and understanding.

BTW: my "brainwashed kids" are both accomplished scientists, one of who teaches biochem at University and the other who is a senior scientist with a large international company.

Edited December 5, 2017 by cannuck

[Goddess]

7 hours ago, Altai said:

Who are these scientists ? Are they alliens or something else which is believe to be something superior to you ? Nah they are not, they having toilet like as you and they are eating dried meat and scratching their ass and the worst part many of them believes homosexuality is something scientific but they think the only problem they do not have a proof. 

WTF are they teaching you in science over there???

[Altai]

I have found a new one. I show that to dad and he said he also had seen such a thing before. I really do not like that when my project was also done by someone else, this is soo disappointing.

So this wheel will turn for ever without any external support. Arms are the same long and they are foldable in the middle and on one side with maximum 44 degrees.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Altai

[Altai]

Here I found a similar one to mine.
 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Altai said:

Here I found a similar one to mine.
 

 

Why does that complete jerk keep stopping it and sending it backwards?  Why does no-one beat him senseless for that?

[Altai]

53 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Why does that complete jerk keep stopping it and sending it backwards?  Why does no-one beat him senseless for that?

Haha yes its soo annoying  seem like he is confused because he was planned it to turn to left side and he is trying to understand why it turns just the opposite LoL 

[?Impact]

9 hours ago, Altai said:

I have found a new one.

That's called the unbalanced wheel. There are many examples of it throughout history, I believe the original one was based on tubes filled with mercury.

The Physics Girl might help you:

 

[Altai]

28 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That's called the unbalanced wheel. There are many examples of it throughout history, I believe the original one was based on tubes filled with mercury.

The Physics Girl might help you:

 

Nah this is not the same thing with my system. I have watched many of these videos by stopping them and calculating the balance and momentum. None of them will work and there are some little hidden engines on the ones which seem like works. In the wheel system above and in my system too, there is no balance and therefore one side is nmaking more job than other side and causing wheel to turn.

[Scott Mayers]

Altai,

A "perpetual machine" can work; it does so if you think of the atomic-level factors. That is, given energy is 'conserved', where "energy" is itself CHANGE, this occurs. BUT, it only operates in a "closed" system whereby none of that energy is exchanged outside nor inside of this ideal container. 

If the contents of the container is also NOT of some universal solid-like thing (not real), the nature of it to remain unchanged is indifferent to the net energy exchange of its 'parts' to be no different than zero. 

If the contents of the container is like some pure 'empty' state, something we imagine to be pure 'fluid-like', all points in it "move" with respect to each other point. In this ideal imaginary place, such perfect fluid unique concept would ALSO be like the imaginary solid above. That is, the NET energy exchange within the system (container) is still zero, ...even though this imaginary condition is a perfect state of 'pure' energy (because all points we imagine to never remain the same). 

Because all things are of some degree between these imaginary extremes, the concept explained by "thermodynamics", defines any 'solid-like' parts as "ORDERED" when it remains in some unique contingent state. So imagine all parts (discrete solids) among the rest of it as 'space', ...AND that all of the solid particles START initially on one side. IF all the parts originally begin without movement, no change occurs and all the particles remain on its one side. BUT, if we now imagine ANY motion of even ONE particle, that acts as energy greater than zero. Any one particle must continue to move unless it hits some other particle. If the initial moving particle hits any other, it exchanges its momentum to the other particle in part or whole. 

The law of thermodynamics of concern then asserts that given time, while the odds allow all particles to possibly remain in the same position, the vast majority of every 'moment' in eternity will have the particles spread out evenly in the container. This is what the law means. That the average measure of distribution of those particles will spread out to the whole container. 

The net 'energy' per unit of space within will then also have an equal amount of 'activity' (energy exchanges). This means that while the container as a whole can have ANY possible measure of 'energy' (from absolutely nothing to absolutely infinite density of 'matter/energy'), the system will remain CONSTANT. 

This 'constant' remains true regardless of whether there IS or IS NOT energy being made 'perpetual' in that system. BUT, should we break open the imaginary wall of this container to allow information in or out, this will either increase or decrease the state in that system. The outside world can only take as much energy as that imaginary leak could represent as what is 'constant' in that container. So, even if any initial exchange might occur (like popping a balloon), the state outside and inside that container will re-balance to a 'constant' state. After that, no NEW energy can occur because the state of the container has just expanded to the world at large as a 'new' container. Once that container is given time, that relatively outer world will also 'balance' out ON-AVERAGE the energy 'per-unit-of-any-space'. 

So even if you could have a 'perpetual machine' inside a system, it cannot maintain perpetual if it must trade information either outside of its system OR inside. Obviously no exchange in or out is the same as zero anyways. 

Does this help clarify the logic? I could draw pictures too if you are having problems visualizing what I said or can't interpret my language clearly.

Scott.

[OftenWrong]

Da VInci was a genius in many areas of science and art, even medicine. Leonardo explored these types of machines and ultimately concluded that they cannot work. "For every action, an equal an opposite reaction". He came to this realization even before Albert Einstein. This is fundamental physics that you would learn in any good school in Europe.

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Da VInci was a genius in many areas of science and art, even medicine. Leonardo explored these types of machines and ultimately concluded that they cannot work. "For every action, an equal an opposite reaction". He came to this realization even before Albert Einstein. This is fundamental physics that you would learn in any good school in Europe.

This is still not appropriately taught regardless. Even a university education on physics will not assure this is understood by some. This is because a 'law' is often taught on the initial physics level as "law" without the actual LOGICAL proof. A mere claim of experimental conclusions isn't sufficient if you don't learn to internalize an understanding. Most people are taught 'facts' without proof until later, a reversal of the original "classic" education of a bottom up (foundational) approach. The end of "modernism" is the label of the times from Galileo to Einstein. When Quantum Mechanics and the Mathematical/philosophic introduction of 'limitations' in logic, math, and science (Godel, Turing, Einstein, Russell, and Heisenberg's efforts, among many others) ended [roughly the end of 1950s], this became a new era of approach with education, ['post'-modern] in which we reversed the WAY education was taught. Instead of bottom up foundationally by learning proofs from scratch including the way the historical philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists, DISCOVERED their findings, we teach a "top-down" way that begins with using ABSTRACTION. This is logically useful for practical sake only because there is now so much knowledge one would require to understand going bottom-up that people get turned off of that approach and stop going through higher education. 

The space age threatened the Western world because the lack of sufficient wisdom of new scientists and thinkers from the west as competing societies demanded. As such, they teach with a means that expects to get students who just 'trust' the laws by memory without actually knowing 'why'. While this gets taught later by some fields, the loss of the early exposure to foundational thinking makes those with even bachelors degrees in science less capable of adopting the bottom-up style of thinking. It advances MORE employment quicker by getting students through there degrees with less expectation but does an injustice to the understanding.

I don't know where you stand on this Oftenwrong, but as an example, can you tell how Galileo demonstrated that gravity operates independently of its mass?  

[Altai]

9 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Altai,

A "perpetual machine" can work; it does so if you think of the atomic-level factors. That is, given energy is 'conserved', where "energy" is itself CHANGE, this occurs. BUT, it only operates in a "closed" system whereby none of that energy is exchanged outside nor inside of this ideal container. 

If the contents of the container is also NOT of some universal solid-like thing (not real), the nature of it to remain unchanged is indifferent to the net energy exchange of its 'parts' to be no different than zero. 

If the contents of the container is like some pure 'empty' state, something we imagine to be pure 'fluid-like', all points in it "move" with respect to each other point. In this ideal imaginary place, such perfect fluid unique concept would ALSO be like the imaginary solid above. That is, the NET energy exchange within the system (container) is still zero, ...even though this imaginary condition is a perfect state of 'pure' energy (because all points we imagine to never remain the same). 

Because all things are of some degree between these imaginary extremes, the concept explained by "thermodynamics", defines any 'solid-like' parts as "ORDERED" when it remains in some unique contingent state. So imagine all parts (discrete solids) among the rest of it as 'space', ...AND that all of the solid particles START initially on one side. IF all the parts originally begin without movement, no change occurs and all the particles remain on its one side. BUT, if we now imagine ANY motion of even ONE particle, that acts as energy greater than zero. Any one particle must continue to move unless it hits some other particle. If the initial moving particle hits any other, it exchanges its momentum to the other particle in part or whole. 

The law of thermodynamics of concern then asserts that given time, while the odds allow all particles to possibly remain in the same position, the vast majority of every 'moment' in eternity will have the particles spread out evenly in the container. This is what the law means. That the average measure of distribution of those particles will spread out to the whole container. 

The net 'energy' per unit of space within will then also have an equal amount of 'activity' (energy exchanges). This means that while the container as a whole can have ANY possible measure of 'energy' (from absolutely nothing to absolutely infinite density of 'matter/energy'), the system will remain CONSTANT. 

This 'constant' remains true regardless of whether there IS or IS NOT energy being made 'perpetual' in that system. BUT, should we break open the imaginary wall of this container to allow information in or out, this will either increase or decrease the state in that system. The outside world can only take as much energy as that imaginary leak could represent as what is 'constant' in that container. So, even if any initial exchange might occur (like popping a balloon), the state outside and inside that container will re-balance to a 'constant' state. After that, no NEW energy can occur because the state of the container has just expanded to the world at large as a 'new' container. Once that container is given time, that relatively outer world will also 'balance' out ON-AVERAGE the energy 'per-unit-of-any-space'. 

So even if you could have a 'perpetual machine' inside a system, it cannot maintain perpetual if it must trade information either outside of its system OR inside. Obviously no exchange in or out is the same as zero anyways. 

Does this help clarify the logic? I could draw pictures too if you are having problems visualizing what I said or can't interpret my language clearly.

Scott.

Ouch you write soo much. Thanks for your kindness to explain about it. I really cant focus on these much of writings even if I would try to read it and try to understand it, its soo boring and not interesting for me. So here the issue is having two opposite powers or two power on the same direction but one with less power. We have two natural powers, gravity and lifting force of liquids. Both could be use in the same system or one of them alone in a system. Both of them in a system is much difficult to use because we need to put them side by side, therefore we need to separete them with a barrier and this barrier will prevent mechanism to make transitions between sections. If we use gravity alone, we cant change the work done depending on the length of the way on two sides. Can we change the weights on the sides with no external energy input in the system ? Appearently we cant. Then what we can do ? We can only change the momentum by using again the gravity. So this is how the system works. Another important point, splitting weights in soo small  pieces will ease system to work because the resistance on one side will be split into very small pieces while turning force on the other side will still be the same.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

This is still not appropriately taught regardless.

Of course it is, Scott Mayers. It is one of the most fundamental concepts of science, beginning with the conservation of energy. Also see Heisenberg, Second law of Thermodynamics. "Entropy increaseth"...

Everything else you said is off topic, little fella...

 

[Scott Mayers]

On 09/12/2017 at 10:15 AM, OftenWrong said:

Of course it is, Scott Mayers. It is one of the most fundamental concepts of science, beginning with the conservation of energy. Also see Heisenberg, Second law of Thermodynamics. "Entropy increaseth"...

Everything else you said is off topic, little fella...

 

You didn't respond to my own question. I was trying to demonstrate to you that you may likely lack certain knowledge by HOW these laws are certified specifically. It isn't sufficient to "KNOW" the laws by mere memorizing it, as is being focused on today's early science education. The 'proofs' are what is "fundamental". 

I ask you again, so I can see and show you what I mean, HOW Galileo 'proved' that gravity is independent of its mass? 

What's with the "little fella" insult? Did you take offense to something I said? The 'topic' is about Altai's missing 'understanding' of the laws. You only asserted her ignorant of something that is NOT her fault due to the present education system that cannot focus on all the details necessary to UNDERSTAND because the laws of science today are stated PRIOR to being proven in later education, a 'backwards' change necessary to make university education remain practical. 

[Scott Mayers]

On 09/12/2017 at 4:39 AM, Altai said:

Ouch you write soo much. Thanks for your kindness to explain about it. I really cant focus on these much of writings even if I would try to read it and try to understand it, its soo boring and not interesting for me. So here the issue is having two opposite powers or two power on the same direction but one with less power. We have two natural powers, gravity and lifting force of liquids. Both could be use in the same system or one of them alone in a system. Both of them in a system is much difficult to use because we need to put them side by side, therefore we need to separete them with a barrier and this barrier will prevent mechanism to make transitions between sections. If we use gravity alone, we cant change the work done depending on the length of the way on two sides. Can we change the weights on the sides with no external energy input in the system ? Appearently we cant. Then what we can do ? We can only change the momentum by using again the gravity. So this is how the system works. Another important point, splitting weights in soo small  pieces will ease system to work because the resistance on one side will be split into very small pieces while turning force on the other side will still be the same.

I apologize for the depth. If you want to understand what the problem is, I can't explain in a mere sentence. I am guessing you need the illustrations and short ask-and-response steps to understand. I CAN try if you actually want someone who knows the science and can explain HOW other scientists of the past DID originally try thinking as you are here and HOW they deemed it wrong. You ARE thinking the way the early scientists thought too prior to changing their mind when they investigated it with care. AND it took more work writing than I just wrote to get there. There are many scientific books that took thousands of more pages to understand than my attempt at simplifying it. 

If you want a simpler explanation, then accept OftenWrong's answer.

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You didn't respond to my own question. I was trying to demonstrate to you that you may likely lack certain knowledge by HOW these laws are certified specifically. It isn't sufficient to "KNOW" the laws by mere memorizing it, as is being focused on today's early science education. The 'proofs' are what is "fundamental". 

I ask you again, so I can see and show you what I mean, HOW Galileo 'proved' that gravity is independent of its mass? 

What's with the "little fella" insult? Did you take offense to something I said? The 'topic' is about Altai's missing 'understanding' of the laws. You only asserted her ignorant of something that is NOT her fault due to the present education system that cannot focus on all the details necessary to UNDERSTAND because the laws of science today are stated PRIOR to being proven in later education, a 'backwards' change necessary to make university education remain practical. 

Yes I did respond to it. Your numerous questions are off topic. Sorry, fella