Alternatives to Alternators

What you are describing appears to be a perpetual motion machine, and as far as we are aware these are not possible because they violate physical laws such as the conservation of energy, thermodynamics etc.

Before you start building your machine, it would pay you to do some study, else you will simply repeat mistakes that others have made before you.

The old adage that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch' applies.

thanx for your thoughts and i am familiar with your comments and do not dispute them, however, my idea is not perpetual motion as there is an expenditure of energy associated with raising the weight - trust me, i would not waste your time or mine- the dynamics of this machine would surprise you and have nothing to do with perpetual motion- i would very much appreciate feedback on efficient generating systems to marry to my idea- new technologies that i could google that you may be familiar with, highly efficient alternators or any other paths you might be able to point to- by the way, though i am not knowlegable in your discipline i think laws and theories are meant to be broken, as has been seen many times in the past, even the law of conservation of energy may possibly have a limited lifetime- thanx for your interest and i send you my goodwill- jaxon

"though i am not knowledgeable in your discipline i think laws and theories are meant to be broken, as has been seen many times in the past, even the law of conservation of energy may possibly have a limited lifetime."

Do not mix theories and basic laws. Theories become obsolete when new knowledge allows to go deeper in the understanding but basic laws I doubt that they will change at least on earth.

If you want some thing for low cost you should look at classical solutions they are ripe in series and cost less. I am not sure you realise what means 1.5kW power using the gravitational field.

1kWh= 1000 Nm/s* 3600 s/h = 3.6 E6 J(oule) (1W = 1Nm/s)

A mass of 1kg falling down in the grav field with 1m delivers an energy of 9.8 J let say round 10 J so that you should move either 3.6E5 kg (360 T) on 1m or 360 kg on 1000 m. And do it every hour!

Do not loose your time and money.

When you raise a weight in a gravity field, you expend energy. If you have discovered a way around this, you have just voided Newton's law of gravitation. Congratulations, you are now eligible for the vast fame and fortune for having simultaneously solved all of the world's energy problems and disproved the results of 400 years of scientific investigation!

Maybe you should hit the books there pal. In this universe at least, there is no conservation of energy. There is conservation of momentum.

Conservation of Energy

Goodho wrote "In this universe at least, there is no conservation of energy. There is conservation of momentum."

Which universe would that be, Goodho? Its hardly rocket science, more like high school science. Please see the link to the uber-reliable Wikipedia posted by Blink (thanks Blink).

"greetings- i am a lay inventor with no engineering credentials and therefore very ignorant in these disciplines"

Yes, you are (no offence intended). CR4 is a great resource for insight into engineering problems of all kinds. What you are proposing, unfortunately, falls under the category of magic. We don't generally talk about magic too much. Spend a little time on Wikipedia and Google researching thermodynamics, over-unity, friction, perpetual motion et. al. If the math gets overwhelming there are plenty of people here that can distill it down for you and make it understandable. While I applaud your motivation and motives, it ain't gonna happen pal. Cheers.

basically 1 HP is 746 watts

1 HP is 33,000 ft lbs/minute, or 550 ft lbs/second

therefore you have to drop 66,000 pounds 1 foot each minute,

or 1100 pounds 1 foot each second for your 1,500 watts

of course that is in addition to any mechanical losses, or inefficiencies in your system

How many elephants did you say you planned to use to haul the weights back up to the top ?

the heart of this machine is a simple and elegant way of returning the fallen weight to it's ascendent position with no energy expenditure from the machine,i.e., a free ride

If there is no energy expended by the machine to return the fallen weight, where does the energy required to lift the weight come from?

Hi Blink,

He gets a bunch of local natives to lift it for him!

Spencer.

What you say is too magical and no need to repeat, pl check again the feasiblity as it is seen that these inventions actually need external energy (No PMMs) but if it is OK- Guys let us not discourage - why not make a small model and try piezo ?

Better still would have been solars but then no invention.

hi jaxon

trying out ideas for inventions are a great way to learn. since you know what parts you need (generator+weight mechanism), I don't see what is holding you; just go out, buy the stuff and put it together. nothing in your list is so exotic that you can't find locally. disconnect from the grid, plug the thing to your home's power supply, turn on a switch and see what happens. if it works, then you can demonstrate it to investors and try to market it. if it doesn't, then the forum was right.

eitherway, you will have learned a lot of valuable things.

good luck

p.s.: you may want to try and get the mechanics down straight before you try the electrical energy conversion: one thing at a time is the best way to go. if you need advice, post schematics or photos. verbal descriptions won't work too well in this forum.

thank you sir and to others for your encouragement- i understand the preoccupation and incredulous responses to how i plan to lift the weight back to it's ascendent position but it's really quite simple- i float the weight back to the top of the tank- i understand the parlance for this dynamic is hydrokinetic- so from a common-sense[which is all that i personally have to work with at this time] point of view, when i look at this machine as i have drawn it the lift is free in that the flotation dynamic draws no juice from the system and no natives or elephants would be required- i have visited all those free energy sites and share with you some doubt but i am an agnostic regarding the present or future reality of free energy, if for no other reason than my inability to understand the tech aspects they describe, i may have been one of those who doubted heavier than air flight- but i can understand the simple mechanical dynamics of my machine- to be honest i don't feel comfortable sharing the entire concept right now, i hope to develop the prototype myself at least until i get some patent protection and hope to get a handle on the components for the exact gearing and alternator parts needed to proceed- for now i am trying to understand the electrcal and gearing specs. so i can determine if the idea is feasible- a 125-300- lb[ballpark- possibly more or less] weight is falling at say 2-3ft per min.[more or less] for a vertical distance of 10-12 ft[more or less] and is generating say 750 watts per hour[if 2 machines are placed inline=1500] from a highly efficient alternator[ low rpm/hp/high output] possibly such as is used in wind turbines, or 98% efficient motors- is such a scenario possible- can a gearing system be engineered to transform this gravity induced linear mechanical energy into the torque/rpm's sufficient to generate 750 watts per hour within the above parameters- finally, i can only imagine that 300 ft lbs of mechanical energy has some application of utility, especially if it is free or almost free- again, i am thanking you folks, including those making light of my questions, for your interest and for indulging this outsider in your midst- jaxon

A couple comments, to help you move forward:

Paragraphs and conventional punctuation are not the effects of a conspiracy imposed upon people by evil English teachers. They are conventions that make reading and comprehension easier, and are a sign of respect for the reader and the reader's time.

Clear writing will be essential for a filing a patent application. You can file a provisional application yourself, for very low cost, and that filing will give you a year's protection. There are many articles on the web re the pros and cons of doing a provisional application yourself (as opposed to simply handing the whole thing off to a patent attorney. Many patent attorneys skip the provisional step, for reasons worth reading about. In my opinion, the provisional application is worth doing, if you are trying to conserve funds.

You've confused units of power with units of energy. "750 watts per hour" (watts / hours) is a rate divided by time. Thus, it would seem to be an acceleration, suggesting that, in the first hour, the power output is 750 watts; then the device speeds up and produces 1500 watts during the second hour, and so forth. (before too long, your system would have grown into a full-sized power plant.) I think you are probably intending to talk about energy, in which case, the unit to use would be watt-hours (watts x hours). But first, you want to know, I think, the rate at which your system can do work, i.e., it's power, measured in horsepower or watts.

Assuming a weight of 200 lb falling at 2.5 feet per minute, the power is 500 ft-lb per minute. One horsepower is 33,000 ft-lb per minute, so your system could produce a maximum of (500/33,000) = .015 hp. This is equal to (.015 * .746) = .011 watt.

This rate does not change if the distance of the fall is 10 feet or 50 feet or 100 (assuming the speed is still 2.5 fpm). The energy (a quantity, rather than a rate) transferred and converted however, does. If we assume that it takes no time at all to lift (reset) the weight, in an hour, such a system would produce (.011 x 1) = .011 watt hours electricity, assuming no losses whatsoever. This would be (.011 / 1000) = .00001 kilowatt hours. Where I live, a kilowatt has a value of 10 cents, so this much energy would be worth about .0001 cents. If the system ran 24 hours per day, you would generate .0024 cents worth per day, or .876 cents worth per year. If you have a means for lifting the weight instantaneously, then the energy production could double to almost 2 cents per year. (If on the other had the weight is lifted as slowly as it drops, you'd produce 1 cent worth.)

This however, assumes 100 percent efficiency, which, of course, you will not achieve. Any gearing system reduces overall efficiency by (typically) 2-5 percent. However, for movement this slow, the ratio would need to be extraordinarily high so efficiency would suffer. A reasonable generator efficiency for a generator small enough for experimentation would have an efficiency of about 85 - 90%. No gearing device changes the power of a system (other than adding small losses): a 2 hp motor geared at 10:1, for example, still produces 2hp. (The torque goes up by a factor of 10, but the speed reduces by a factor of 10.)

Consider that 300 ft lb of energy is the energy expended for a 200 lb person to go up two steps in a flight of stairs. (A 2000 calorie per day diet is a typical human fuel requirement. 2000 calories is .002 kWh, a very small amount of energy.)

For a power output of 750 watts, you'd need to scale up your system dramatically.

I probably should have proofread this: Where I live, a kilowatt hour has a value of 10 cents...

"This is equal to (.015 * .746) = .011 watt."

Think you mean .011 kilowatt. Or 11 watts there Ken.

Yes, of course. The subsequent calcs are off by a mere factor of 1000!

An additional error has to do with calories consumed by humans. Although we say "calories" with food, we really mean kilocalories, so my calc there is off by a factor of 1000, too! At least I'm consistent.

Good morning Ken and to other members of the forum. I am thanking you for pointing out that i am wasting your time by not including requisite punctuation in my correspondence, i will remember your reasoning, please accept my apologies. And so.... it appears that my simple-minded idea has no practical merit if , as guru has stated, the system would require more energy input than is harvested. It seems the consensus in the forum is that, at the most, only a few watts would be generated from such a strategy. I still, however, can' t shake the intuitive notion that 300 lbs. of pressure can be married to some system that would leverage this energy into a useful quantity. I have read your wikipedia input on the conservation of energy- does this basically state that , if 2oo lbs generates 11 watt/hrs of electricity, there is no way to increase that output through a leveraged mechanical component such as an efficient flywheel, as Martywolf has mentioned? And what about simply draining the tank of it's water burden in a controlled way so as to allow the water/flotation device to control the weight's rate of descent, thereby avoiding the gearing dynamic and it's associated losses? How about somehow marrying the flywheel to the system to direct drive the alternator, surely 200-300 lbs. of mechanical energy would be enough to drive a shaft and deliver enough energy to turn a heavy flywheel at a useful speed, bearing in mind that there would be delivered a constant 300 lbs. of mechanical energy from one or the other of the in- line machines interacting in a synchronized way? Is there some technology that would allow the energy delivered to the flywheel to incrementally increase the flywheel speed beyond a direct drive potential? That is, could the impetus of this rotative device be manipulated to create more torque/speed than is being delivered by the 300 lbs.? Also i am wondering, how do wind generators produce their power when the wind is blowing only 15 mph, are they recieving 300 ft. lbs. of energy from the wind or what about generators that harvest the sweep of tidal flow? Additionally, you mentioned that the device we have been discussing would have to be scaled up in size dramatically for it to produce power levels of utility. How much? Would doubling it's parameters double it's out-put? Finally, i find it curious that the electrical engineers forum has responded to these mechanical questions, are all engineers cross-trained in different fields? The mechanical forum wouldn't accept my initial question , saying i had already posted it, but i find no posting at all. And so.. i am again thanking you gentlemen for interacting with me, putting up with my cockamammy ideas. Impressed am i with your openess. jaxon

Ken, another wicked good GA!

Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to give me the benefit of your hard won insights. I have been thoroughly convinced of the folly of pursuing this obsession with gravity powered electrical generation. After taking Ken's advice and googling the question of how much weight and distance would be required to generate merely 1 kw/hr of energy with my idea i was given the answer of about 8850 lbs falling 300 ft. I am truly humbled in my arrogance of presumption but also more informed. Perhaps i will bring another question in the future to this fraternal circle. A Thousand Thanks..... jaxon

Thank you too, Jaxon. These threads can easily degenerate into a slanging match, and this one could easily have gone this way too. Cheers.

You are quite welcome. I don't think you came across as arrogant at all. Yours were reasonable questions, and you are clearly a bright guy. It seems that a few hundred pounds moving through 10 feet must represent quite a lot of energy, especially if you don't work with this stuff every day. It's not until you do the math that you see the real picture.

This exercise has perhaps given you some perspective on the amount of energy we consume in the US (where we consume about 8 times as much per person as the average across the world). One hp is really quite a lot of power. It was not that long ago that one horsepower (literally) was used to move a person and his wagon, to get himself and some stuff from A to B. Now we use 300 hp cars for the same task.

No, the engine is not routinely producing 300 hp -- but imagine how insane this whole notion would seem to someone in 1880: "What??!! You can't seriously be saying that in the future, people are going to use a vehicle with the power of three hundred horses to go two miles to buy a $5.00 cup of coffee, can you??!!"

So you have 2 tanks going and both generate power while rising and falling..much like a spring with some rotory motion intertwined in the uping and downing flywheel i suspect..but ,heh,i'm often wrong..
Seems a nifty solution..which would be interesting..the solutions specific gravity no doubt is fairly high relative to water (in order to support such a massive device)and fairly frictionless??..Good luck and if it works let us all know and i'll find some money to invest in an obviously useful device in order to have more more more....Good ideas are worth persuing...regardless of previous expertise ..we(humans) are generally followers so testing of basic laws may or may not happen as often or precisely as outlined in text books...Generally exceptions to all laws are findable causing the laws to require some disclaimer to ensure validity...Those that look at the very small (quanta) and very large (astronomical) are continually refining their view of things so why shouldn't the newtonian reality also be open to changeing understanding..Regards...and thanks for the positive thought(s)...Marty Wolf

greetings Martywolf and others- i am thanking you for your positive thoughts and your flywheel idea. I am curious also about your remark on solutions of high specific gravity. How would such a solution contribute to the operation of my device? And the comment about a massive device left me wondering if ,perhaps, i had not explained my idea clearly enough. Basically, my idea is not massive, i have described it as a 150-300 lb. weight married to a float with enough volume to easily raise the weight within a tank 10-12 ft. high and reset it in relation to the generating component. And so...you have peaked my interest in what you were conceptualizing. Could you please explain more details that i may learn some possibly new approach [high specific gravity solutions, for instance] and speak some more about your flywheel component. jaxon

Sorry guest my GA will not help you. but that is the exact point, Let us not be sceptic and discourage the innovation, or have we become so old that we think that some thing can be only matter or energy but not both ? or sun rotates around earth and any body who does not think so is off the hook. Let us support him, and let him try out, if the concept is OK and even if it can generate energy in watts, it may be worth another source of alternate energy who knows ? Try on a small scale in your budget, and many from CR4 will be there to help in case your invention is technically OK. Be the deaf frog and jump.

What you do is push somebody to spend money without any chance to get it back.

It is easy for you to do it, since it is not YOUR money but his! If you really want to support him why not suggest to participate at the expenses?

It is good practice to look first with the lowest expenditure at the feasibility of the project. This can be done on paper and if there is the smallest chance for success then it is the moment to make a real trial. I am sure you are from the "cut and try" branch which is very skeptical with respect to simulation, computing and other advanced design methods. Virtual prototyping is not a way you would take. But this the ECONOMICAL way why spend money if you cannot be sure that there is a chance?

With respect to the invention what was done is only to explain to the inventor, surely bright person since he is aware of his limits and asks for help, that to get energy from a falling object it is compulsory to introduce an amount of energy in the system which will be even bigger than the harvest.

DUUUUHHHHHH!!!!!

Guest,

What we have here is a group of what I like to refer to as "intelligent idiots". In order to display their seeming superiority, they completely ignore the obvious question and comment on the feasibility of the concept, thereby rendering a disservice to the proposer of the idea, and absolutely NO HELP!

Look, the obvious answer is to obtain a small generator - efficiency doesn't matter - build a model and test the concept. If you take careful measurements, you can extrapolate the difference when applying the concept to a more efficient generating unit.

Perhaps it would make sense to point out that guest did not mention how he intends to return the weight to the starting position. I personally can think of several ways to pull of this trick, although I would use the energy used to move the weight to drive the generator directly, rather than move the weight. By the way, these systems are a few thousand years old and although they have been superceeded by internal combustion engines, worked well and were used everywhere in the pre-industrial world.

THINK!

At this point, the final efficiency of the generator is not important. Don't be bogged down with details. Use a simple car alternator and produce some 12 V at a few hundred watts. If you can do this consistently, then investing in a better generator will be worth it.

What you need to do right now is to prove that you can extract energy. It doesn't matter how much is lost. If 10% losses in the alternator and belt prevent proper operation of the machine, it is not likely to ever be useful as there is not enough "surplus" energy in the system to extract.