Potential Energy Converter

Well, yes it is perpetual motion as you are saying the output can be great enough to power the input (the motor) with extra to spare.

Anyway, hydraulics are not really my area of expertise, but I would have thought that the liquid pressure force developed by the rotation of the wheel would be rather small, with the external 100 psi pressure not really contributing to increasing the liquid pressure inside the tube, creating a system with an overall poor efficiency.

As you have to inject liquid into the system a further efficiency reduction occurs (thru pre-pressurisation, etc).

It just seems like a whole lot of extra steps that reduce the overall system efficiency (as all steps are less than 100% efficient), with the pressure increase seen due entirely to centrifugal force inside the wheel, or have I missed something .

Look at it this way,. We are taking a fluid and at minimal cost putting it under presure...there is no limit as to how much pressure, thats all about size.

The key point in all of this is that centrifugal force maintains the potential difference,(pressure difference between the center and outer parameter) it does not cost any additional power to flow through the device. Except friction and thats minimal.

NEWTON: an object once in motion stays in motion. It is a hard concept to grasp!

NEWTON: an object once in motion stays in motion. It is a hard concept to grasp!

Your Newton forgot about forces working in on an object. All the normal objects i know does stop because of friction or work delivered.

Message to Mr Vince Cox

I have seen a similar system on a pilot plant basis such as yours.I believe you when you say it works. The crux of the issue is how much power will it have to spare ?

Your system needs another input of energy .Be it regular or intermittent. You should consider having it work on the air-pressure that can be obtained from the harnessing of waves (refer : University of Edinborough Scotland or the the Nordic Engineering Company : Kwarner , the latter actually built a prototype ) . The air pressure which is built up by waves ( within vessel with a bottom opening and which is anchored to under water rock face of cliffs for instance ) used a vertical steel column . The air pumped through the column powered a generator. The system is not totally satisfactory as was designed but works quite well .

Yet in your case it could be used to build up air pressure , which in turn could be regulated to your invention. Harnessing of wave energy is a very difficult problem. Perhaps your system might complement it. I warn you I have spent a lot of time on trying to design suitable methods, its a hard row !!! Keeep working ( and dreaming ) we will be happy to hear from you

A good friend of mine that recently passed had invented a wave energy device like your talking about. I was involved in developing one for Marine Land before they went BK.

We used PVC pipe's in the water to collect the kinetic and potential energy from the waves. The tubes were like the pistons in your car pumping air to shore,(no moving parts except check valves), that fed a plenum for storage. The neat part of it was his air motor. It was like having a inertube with pinch rollers on both sides. As the new air came in it would push the rollers around on a axle and from there to a gear box for speed etc:

There are so many ideas on wave energy this that it is mind blogging. I would appreciate off-air that you give me some more details on the working model that you and your late friend successfully tested. If it worked then you could use it as a supplement to your recent invention. I am not yet convinced that your present PEC is a stand alone source of energy. Not because there is disbelief but there is simply not enough evidence that it has spare energy (without an adjunct source of power to complement or supplement the power that is withdrawn- prove this to all of us first.) Obvioulsy many of us are professionals and intent on helping .

Do not forget that the proverbial statement was :" Give me a lever and I will lift the world " Yours may be the fulcrum, the lever has yet to be found and very seriously tested. If you do not push this properly it will only remain " a pipe dream ".

Gates did it in his garage ( but whilst he was doing it he had alreay tested his Patent Lawyers. As a contributor has already said it, to you, they are generally "clued-up " or smart ). It is alright to say " I will open it to the world" . If it really works the world will only remember you the way it will remember Gates i.e. by his remarkable and charitable generosity. First do what he did make it work in your garage (the front door of which is evident in your picture".

Go to it .

Thank you for your kind words.

I have built a trailer that has a 4' propane tank mounted on it, this is going to serve as the first real generator system. I will post a photo of same in this forum some time tomorrow. I need to take it and get it powder coated. I will post photo's as the construction evolves.

Wave energy: I will look around and see if I can find a copy of the plans, I would be happy to send you a copy. stay in touch. We didn't get to install the unit before they went bankrupt, there wasn't a test, (sorry if I confused you). I understand they used the exact same concept in Japan.

Thanks for the message.

If you can by all means show us the pictures but remember be carefull with your I.P.

I will look forward (when the dust settles on this first issue) to communicate with you on the wave power. It has to be good there is a huge number in the engineering fraternity that is looking for the anwer to that one. It is a tough cookie believe me.

Look at it this way:

We drag a magnet across a copper wire and electrons start to move at the speed of light, we don't know why but we use it to light up our world.

If we move through the gravitational Field we change it as well. Is it possible to use gravity as a source of energy??

Gravity is not a source of energy, it is an effect of energy. Yes it can be harnessed for small amounts of energy, we do it all the time, which all comes back to that good old sun of ours, which truly provides the energy in "the system". Figure out how the sun got its energy and you will find all the answers.

Gravity provides the main ingredient to our hydroelectric plants. That's why there is water pressure. Gravity plays a major roll in all of that.

Gravity provides the main ingredient to our hydroelectric plants.

Here is a link to an article about the "Water Cycle", you may notice that the sun is mentioned in it.

It is the energy provided by the sun that lifts the water up to such a point that it can then flow down and be used to generate electricity at a hydro-electric plant. Remove the suns energy from the water cycle and every dam will stop working in a very short time. Even if one was to use the power generated to pump water back up to the top frictional losses would deplete the loop of energy very quickly (unless lepercons use buckets to haul the water back up).

Since gravitation force is constant and not subject to depletion by your device I am still left with the question, what do you mean by "at little cost". By your own statments about the devices operation it costs something to operate please explain the "Cost".

I am with you Richard, he does not state clearly what his "little cost" is, nor the source of this mythical energy.

By the way, there are hydroelectric plants that do pump their own water, however they do not claim to be "creating" energy, but rather are storing it. Until the dam gave way last year, the Taum Sauk Reservoir Power Plant in Southeast Missouri, operated by Ameren UE, was used to provide extra peak load capacity. The reservoir was created by leveling the top of a mountain and building a ring dam around the top. Water is pumped UP the mountain from a lower reservoir using reversible pump-turbine motor-generators. This occurs during off peak time, when consumption is far lower than capacity, and the selling price of electricity is much lower. Later, when the higher capacity is required, and the selling price is much higher, water is allowed to flow back through these same pump-turbines which spin the motor-generators in reverse, converting potential energy to electrical energy.

During peak power usage (usually hot summer days), instead of allowing a "brown-out" by reducing line voltage, which saves energy, but in turn causes many problems, Ameren is able to provide full service by generating this extra capacity. Although in-efficient in power terms, it is very profitable due to the difference in energy pricing between peak and off-peak times.

By the way, there are hydroelectric plants that do pump their own water,

Very true, Grand Coule dam in Washington state is a great example of this. During low power usage periods the dam operators will use the genorators in one house to pump water into Banks lake. This lake serves several purposes with the two primary being irrigation and power generation during peak demand periods. So yes Banks lake is a power storage device.

nor the source of this mythical energy

I have looked at his device as best as I could from the pictures provided and have come to the conclusion that he made a fancy water wheel / Mass Transfer device. I saw it recently in the CR4 forums but don't recall where, a device that looks very much like a fairis wheel with interconnecting water pipes. Here is a link to a device that works on the same priciple of "Mass transfer".

Nice website Richard. I think the last paragraph in the Mass Transfer Device article is very telling in relation to this Potential Energy Converter:

"In order to accomplish the mass transfer, these devices were generally mechanically complex. Perhaps that was one reason for their appeal, for they were sufficiently complex that even the inventors couldn't quite grasp the multiple interacting physical principles that applied."

Hits the nail on the head.

Dear All,

when all is said done ........ Sadly , the exitement that this inventor was able to generate when he put this thing on the line has to be commented on. My belief is that all of us are deflated . Particularly at the thought that with all our experience and technical know-how we have not been able to participate in a break through for him .

All I can say to him is : do not despair. Build that trailer as you had planned .remember the story of the French Inventor of enamel ware. He persisted so much that in the final weeks before he found the recipe in his oven , he actually started using the timber flooring of his own house !!! The story does not say what relations became with his Wife . So dream on. I wish you well

Labor Omnia Vincit

I believe the world needs dreamers, but this was not presented as a dream, but as practically a fait accompli, including a "working" prototype.

I certainly wish him well, but if you talked to someone at a rest stop on a path or roadway and he spoke of his journey and where he was try to go, would you not at least try to dissuade him from taking the wrong turn that would take him far from his intended destination? Would you not get out your map and show him how far away his error in navigation would take him from his desired goal? Then, if he would not listen but was intent on going his own way, all you can do is wish him well.

They say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Well intended and I would agree however from what I have observed neither success nor failure exist in most of these type dreams. Success is always just around the bend and failure can only be seen by the fools who insist on obeying the known laws of physics. Of course there is no doubt a hairline crack occluding the yet unknown but few manage to peek through it. Einstein did, and in a dream actually. But as I have said the odds are severely against it and you're more likely to win the lottery.

rcapper,

I have to take exception to what you wrote:

"...failure can only be seen by the fools who insist on obeying the known laws of physics. Of course there is no doubt a hairline crack occluding the yet unknown but few manage to peek through it. Einstein did..."

Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not an engineer or an inventor. His genius was to postulate a theory and then prove it was possible mathematically. He did this much better than many others of his contemporaries and few since, Dr. Hawkings being one of the few that comes to mind.

We "fools who insist on obeying the known laws of physics" are the ones who make ALL of your modern conveniences, architectural marvels, and lifesaving devices possible. If we see failure in such a device as has been presented here, it is because the overwhelming evidence suggests this is not possible.

Mr. Cox has not presented one shred of evidence to indicate what new breakthrough in science or technology has made his invention possible and able to defy the "known laws of physics".

Most inventors, indeed including those cited previous, such as Mr. Gates (although I believe the Messrs. Jobs and Wozniak deserve credit for the actual invention of the Personal Computer in the form we are familiar with), have usually depended upon such breakthroughs to allow their own dreams to become reality. In this case, it was the invention of the microprocessor, basically all the integrated circuitry of a whole computer on a single chip. Before that, the inventors of the solid state transistor, on which integrated circuit technology is based, relied on the development of silicon-based semi-conductor materials, a breakthrough in technology. Even Enrico Fermi, credited with creating the first sustainable atomic fission reaction, relied on the concepts pioneered by Dr. Einstein.

But where is this new breakthrough in physics or technology that makes Mr. Cox's device possible? Is he a combined theoretical physicist AND inventor in one? Nothing he has presented, so far, is radically different from existing technology, that would warrant a belief that he has invented a device that can circumvent the "known laws of physics".

It is a shame that real inventors, using real strides in technology who are working to develop alternate energy sources and devices that are more energy efficient, get lumped into the area of so-called "free energy" along with, dare I say, "crackpots" who IGNORE the known laws of physics.

It is not for no reason such ideas are labelled, "the bleeding edge of technology".

Well this post was quite old but it appears that you have missed my intended sarcasm. Perhaps I should take care in order to make it more clear. I can see how it would be easy to misinterpret.

Your very kind. Thank yoy

All matter and motion is energy and we, as a species, have found ways of converting matter and motion to forms of energy suitable for our purposes. Who's to say that gravity couldn't be utilized in such a way? It is not perpetual motion, but energy conversion dependent upon a host body's (i.e. planet or synthetic gravitational environment via centrifugal force) gravitational effects upon a smaller body. Our science is now coming to a point where we are realizing that all gravity is is the warping of local space/time. I, myself, am having parts mailed to me shortly that, on paper, appears to, without flaw, directly convert gravity in to forward motion; and a simple modification allows it to stand alone on a tread and generate electricity. The best part is that the only limit to how much energy could be drawn is in how much weight the device can hold without compromising structural integrity.
myspace.com/firstwordspoken

and how much did you pay for them there papers, cause they won't give you an equal return in energy, even if you burn them. there is a reason they are on paper and not in a contraption.

I've tried working out what your contraption looks like and it comes out to be something like a pump.

A pump has impellers (spokes, to you) that is inside a pump housing (vessel, in your terms), and you're spinning it with a motor. The only difference is that your impellers/spokes are not arranged in a spiral. Like so:

Although I'm sure that the outlet of your device can be used to spin a turbine or something similar, the turbine will not have enough energy left over to power the motor and do other things. If it could, I'm quite sure that every pump in existence today would be used to power itself and then some.

No, sir. It is a perpetual motion machine no matter how you look at it and for that reason, it won't work.

Vulcan - you missed out on the butterfly valve. It seems to be the key component because it will allow pressure and water to enter the wheel but will stop any return flow. (These will be obtainable everywhere)

Remember the butterfly effect one single beating wing can cause caos in all other parts of the system. Caos theory.

I deliberately didn't mention the butterfly valve because it's not something I'm concerned about. Besides, a butterfly valve cannot stop reverse flow if it's open. What he really needs is a non-return valve or check valve.

Our friend intends to use the outlet flow and pressure to drive a turbine (which drives a generator maybe) to power the motor that is spinning the pump (or wheel or whatever he calls it).

Then, he says that the excess energy can be used for other purposes. If his thingamajig, turbine, generator and motor are 100% efficient, his setup will run by itself but won't have any power left to drive anything else.

What if they're more than 100% efficient? I won't even try to answer that.

Furthermore, a pump with straight, perpendicular vanes is far less efficient than a pump with curved or offset vanes so the efficiency of his thingamajig is already less than 100% for sure.

They all get blinded by the thought of fame and fortune only to get battered on the rocks of reality.

I do have a working model if that helps your thinking any

I wonder I've made a machine that makes more energy then it uses. If something spins fast enough it breaks all laws of phys. I made this ten years ago but the world would make fun and say it doesn't work. Even if it works for one month then breaks down it has made more energy then the input energy. Will yours work more then a month?

I wonder I've made a machine that makes more energy then it uses. If something spins fast enough it breaks all laws of phys. I made this ten years ago but the world would make fun and say it doesn't work. Even if it works for one month then breaks down it has made more energy then the input energy. Will yours work more then a month?

Your statement is rather vague, I too can say that I have created a device that can create more energy than was inputted but it would be meaningless unless I could prove it and that is the problem with must self proclaimed 'Free Energy' devices, they never stand-up to scrutiny.

I, like many others would enjoy seeing new ways of creating or more efficient ways of converting energy. If we ever hope to get off this blue marble called earth for any length of time and in numbers greater than a handful at a time we will need better sources of power, it's a simple fact.

First thanks for your input, However, I have a working model that proves just the opposite.

The spiral impeller concept is backwards to the purpose of creating the potential difference that is required. Thats more like a screw in water and takes allot of energy continuously.

You can prove this for yourself, go to the hardware store and purchase two pieces of brass tubing. The hobby type, there about 18 inches long. anyway, get one that is about a 1/2 inch in dia and another that is about a 1/4". install the 1/4 inch as a spoke to the 1/2 inch making sure the water can flow out the 1/4 inch as it flows into the center and spin it under your facet. You will want to cut these down to a usable size.

Now add a baffle in the center, (a flat piece of metal or plastic straight down the middle of the 1/2" feed point), You will witness a very large difference in the output of the water as you spin the device. It was very easy to acquire thirty pounds of pressure in my working model that is only 6" across.

I didn't say that you wouldn't get a pressure difference between the input and output.

I'm saying that the whole setup won't work. It won't run by itself and, even if it does, it won't have excess energy to run other things.

If you drag a magnet across a piece of copper wire electrons will flow at the speed of light....we don't know why. We power all of our Cities on Magnetism, and don't know why it works.

If you move in a gravitational field you will change the field. Can you think of any reason why we can't use gravity as a source of energy?? Not that this device does that, but?

That's amazing! What's the deal with the armatures that don't understand the basic laws of physics - eh? Go-on the spinning wheel and pressurised fluids! You show them all.... make your fortune, save the world.

... just do it in private so that we don't have to read this crud.

Fun thou it is to hear all the negative comments (that's my sarcastic emoticon by the way), perhaps someone could put forward a few paragraphs to explain simply what Vince is really seeing in his/her prototype and why it doesn't actually work the way he/she says it does, rather than stating the obvious that over-unity is impossible.

Explanations please, none of that "breaking the third law" statements without actually backing it up with an explanation that a backyard enthusiast can understand. Bonus points if you can also provide a simple test-of-proof that Vince can perform to prove it actually doesn't work the way he/she believed.

I would certainly like to be informed.

Actually that test-of-proof is a good idea, I will try and incorporate it the next time a free-energy or slightly lost backyard tinkerer has a great but non-workable idea, rather than just an explanation (after all you learn and remember far more by being guided to come up with the right answer than to be given it immediately).

Amen,

thank you jack.

byw, do you also have anything to do with the radio stations I like?

Radio stations? I wasn't aware I was thought of as a DJ.

In Los Angeles, JACK fm is the best.

Hi Jack,

His contraption is not complete yet.

His converter in the picture is on the right side. The water source is at on the left. The inlet is at the bottom (I'm guessing but that's where the butterfly valve is) and the outlet is at the top. He's got a pressure gauge at the inlet and another at the body of the converter. The outlet goes back to his source of water on the left. His drive motor is on the upper right side of the picture.

He connects his motor to the house AC supply, turns the motor on and, eureka! He's got a pressure reading at the upper pressure gauge! So he's proved to himself that his contraption will produce a pressure at the outlet. I've no problem with that. It most certainly will produce a pressure.

This is the part where he says he needs to add a couple of things and where it all goes downhill.

He's planning to use that pressure to drive a turbine and hook it up to a generator. Said generator will then be connected to the same motor in the picture at which point he can now disconnect it from the utility since the generator will now be supplying the power for the motor. Furthermore, he expects to have excess power from his generator to run other things.

Now, as I said, if all his components were 100% efficient (which none of them will ever be), his converter will run itself but won't be able to run anything else. However, due to friction and other losses, none of the parts will be 100% efficient and for that reason, it won't work.

If he had not said that he would hook the generator up to the motor and still have excess power, he might have been okay.

You don't have the mechanic's quite right but that's OK, you will be surprised!!

The inlet is at the top and the check valves,(butterfly valves), are at the parameter of the spinner to control back pressure from the pressurised vessel.

You don't understand the physic's that is involved. I have a working model that you can evaluate at your own time and expense.

This is the part that Bugs most people like yourself:

Once you have developed the potential difference in the spinner the fluid can flow through the pressure difference into the vessel at negligible expense to the drive motor. (proven fact)...

The spinner has a vacuum at the center and depending on speed you could have a thousand pounds pressure difference. Size of plumbing relates to volume of flow.

If you wish to try this on your own you will need one little secret that I have not disclosed. It has to with the feed point, it will require a baffle. It is important to align the incoming fluid to the direction of flow.

Shame on you!! I know you mean well, Your just off base on this one

Well, Vince, all I can say is, good luck on your project. I can understand the need for secrecy though it might have been crucial for me to understand what you're trying to do.

Since you've disclosed some information about your project, I would advise you to do as the others say...patent it. There's enough information on this thread for others to try and duplicate and possibly steal your idea.

I know you said that it doesn't concern you but those others may have only profit in mind and not necessarily for the benefit of this planet of ours.

Live long and prosper.

Vulcan,

Sometimes the best way to secure an invention for the benefit of mankind IS to go ahead and patent it, then license it to anyone who wants to manufacturer it for free.

In that way you protect the idea from those ne'er-do-wells whose only motivation is profit! This also protects the noble manufacturers who agree to manufacture your invention and sell it at a fair price from having to unfairly compete with others who might wish to build an inferior product. Those nefarious villains would be in violation of your patent and could be ordered to cease and desist. If they are foreign manufacturers, their goods can be impounded to prevent them from reaching the marketplace.

To modify an old saying, if you build a better PATENTED mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door!

Once you have developed the potential difference in the spinner the fluid can flow through the pressure difference into the vessel at negligible expense to the drive motor. (proven fact)...

The above statement is just plain wrong. As volume increases the work being done increases. Put an accurate meter on your motor leads, check amperage with spinner spinning and no fluid flowing, then check it with fluid flowing I think you will find a significant difference in amperage.

Thank you!!

You are the first to ask a rational question.

That is the base question. That was the very first thing that had to be proven. And we did this in the exact same way you described, watching the current meter.

Let me see if I can't put a short video clip of that together and put out on CR4

Again thank you for a real question.

I think you need to recheck all the parameters of your experiment. If the fluid comes out of the spinner at a higher pressure than it went in, and at the same elevation then some work was done and energy was used. What were the fluid pressures at the inlet of the spinner and at the outlet?

It is easy to convert high pressure fluid to electricity. If you're spinner assembly works as you say just start selling it like it is. We can all have free energy. No more global warming no more need for oil.

The inlet is at vacuum level. It is hard to grasp what goes on with this seemingly simple device.

Mother nature exhibits all the properties in play. Some like to think of angular momentum as the sole source of the pressure difference. NOT! As long as the spin is maintained the pressure difference maintains itself and you can flow through at little or no cost.

Just as a fly wheel stores energy this stores the potential difference in a fluid environment. Keep in mind the baffle at the input is critical to the operation.

I don't pretend to know all the answer's, I was looking to this forum for more questions that I may have over looked..and that hasn't happened yet.

At this juncture I am building a unit to power my house. When I found that the flow through was free everything else can be worked out.

I had taken this concept to NASA in Kent Washington and several colleges. They all could not dismiss the possibility and wanted to see a working model, that was in 1974.

It helps to think of the system in a different light. Let's say the spinning motion distorts gravity and that is the source of the energy. I'm NOT saying that as a fact only a simpler way of looking at it.

Troy, I will start posting the development of a trailer mounted generator unit using a 4 foot propane tank as the vessel. This won't happen over night, stay in touch with this stream. The only purpose in building the proto type was to determine if the flow of fluid would cause additional drag on the motor. That has not been the case as measured by the amp meter I might have an old video clip of this fact. I haven't played with the proto type in two years and all the seals need work I might do a re test after a rebuild effort. But we did make a deliberate effort to monitor the amp meter in a flow - no - flow condition. We also deliberately put drag on the motor to monitor the amp meter movement and it was reasonably sensitive to drag. During flow we saw no appreciable increase in amperage

If you take a magnet and drag it across a copper wire electrons will flow at the speed of light> WE DON'T KNOW WHY!! We power our Cities & Towns on the concept.

If you move in a gravitational Field you will change that Field> Maybe there is a chance of getting energy out of that idea??

I'M NOT saying thats what this device does, BUT?

Just tell us how long does it run without any external source of power? If it works as you say the correct answer is forever. How much excess power comes out of it with no other source of energy applied while it continues to run, forever? You site Newton's "stays in motion until" but friction is the "until" and the undoing of all such schemes. Mechanical friction and electrical friction (resistance) are yet to have been shown to be avoidable and they will eat your free lunch.

RCAPPER,

TANSTAAFL! How right you are!

Even if his system was 100% efficient, no friction, no electrical resistance, it would only stay in motion, at the same speed, UNTIL he tried to remove any amount of energy to power some other device. At that point the total energy of the system would reduce and could not sustain the kinetic energy (mass moment of inertia X angular velocity squared) of his rotating mass. For any appreciable amount of energy removed there would be a noticeable slowing of rotation.

Hi STL,

It's me the "logic-impaired nincompoop". The situation is much worse than losses due to efficiency and friction (unless you count the following as friction). He's adding kinetic energy to the water as he accelerates it in the spokes. This kinetic energy is then converted to potential heat energy when the water slows down again in the reservoir, and, of course once the system reaches a state of equilibrium (when the reservoir is at a temperature sufficiently elevated above ambient) the heat energy is dissipated to the atmosphere.

Rube Goldberg would be proud!

Vince,

I too believe that there is a universal source of energy. Even if all of science is correct in all it's knowedge and laws, there is still one process that has not been openly and thoughtfully considered, does not break the known laws of physics and expells more energy than is consumes. Can it be constructed? I don't know. Do I believe it is possible, in a fundamental sense of the term "possible", yes. Is it likely possible to ever be constructed, NO! There is a chance the Hadron collider will show us the way, but I won't hold my breath. Yours cannot work. Your process DOES violate known laws of physics. If it really worked, you would not be showing it to us, you would be calling an intellectual property attorney firm and have the thing patented first. Btw, The United states has actually granted a patent or two for a perpetual motion device before, which they fully well know was a mistake, and openly state that it won't ever do so again, unless of course someone actually does make one.

Thank you for your comments. I thought about the patent aspect and all that it really doesn't excite me. Stop and think about it from my prospective. I would like this idea to explode on the world stage once proven and let everyone go for their own perfection of the concept and manufacture as many as quickly as possible. Mother earth would be very pleased...don't you think

The concept is this: I can create and maintain a pressure difference through centrifugal force and maintain the difference at little cost, (this is where your friction and other drag forces came in)< I can flow through this area of difference at no additional cost to the spin motor, (proven fact), into the pressurised vessel.

I now have a fluid under pressure and I can do what ever I want with it...

"I now have a fluid under pressure and I can do what ever I want with it... "

Congratulations! You have created a new (if not very portable) form of the hydraulic torque converter. Yes, you are able to change one form of energy into another.

You have a closed system, except for your energy input and energy output. You are converting electrical into mechanical energy via hydraulic fluid flow. Currently, your system does not appear to have an energy output, i.e. you recirculate your fluid directly with no turbine or other energy extraction device. Naturally, your energy usage will be extremely low if you are using highly efficient devices and not generating any significant heat.

Just watch what happens when you do hook up an energy output. You will see you motor begin to pull some significant amps. If you measure your power usage (voltage x current) before and after you begin to extract mechanical energy from your fluid flow, I am sure you will find that the energy output is equal to or less than the change in your electrical energy input.

Otherwise, you are indeed violating physical laws and there is a flaw somewhere in the way you are measuring your inputs and outputs.

You say you are "extracting energy", but from where? What kind of energy is it? What do you think is the source?

TANSTAAFL! ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch")

You say you don't want to patent this. Have you ever tried? I will bet you would be laughed right out of any reputable patent lawyer's office, or at least turned down politely. And believe me, those guys are sharp, and don't want to miss out on a chance to ride the gravy train of any successful new invention!

Vince, regrettably I must inform you that your idea isn't going to "explode on the world stage". You made a pump, woo-hoo, that's been done. There is absolutely no advantage to having the fluid under air pressure. You should take some night classes in physics to gain a better understanding of why your machine does not do what you imagine it does. Or just go ahead and finish it with a turbine or whatever connected to a generator and as STL Engineer suggests you will discover the truth. If you want to see other genius ideas like yours that also don't work there are at least hundreds of them on line just google "over unity" and you will find every variety and some much more clever than yours. Of course they all have at least two things in common with yours, they only serve to flatter the ego of the "inventor" and they don't do much more than make a whirring noise and consume power, not create it. I assume you came here seeking an honest response and anyone who tells you anything else is either a liar or is suffering under the same delusions and lack of education in physics as you.

rcapper,

Now, now, don't hold back. Tell us what you really feel! Don't "sugar-coat it"!

The truth isn't always pretty but it usually still smells better than BS. I have always felt the best way to help someone is tell them the truth. Some people don't want to hear it since it interferes with ego. You have to ask yourself, if he doesn't want to profit from it yet he also isn't disclosing one little "secret" then what is being served by showing us this great invention? It's a bad implementation of a pump and nothing more, no better or worse than many others that can be seen on the hundreds of over-unity sites and in self published books going back to when man began to record his thoughts. Fact is, the only secret is the one he is keeping from himself. I will say he builds a nice looking project but the idea is unworkable.

Sorry about that I thought I disclosed the secret. Please go back and check what I said.

The trick or the secret is the installation of the baffle....the difference in operation changes dramatically!! That's why I took the time to explain how to build a hand held spinner to use under your own facet and see the effect. It's a small but very important part of this energy device. Look, It took me 5 years to understand it, I don't expect everyone to get it right off the get go.

This is a very complex device. On the surface it looks simple, it's anything but!!

I have nothing to hide and I will attempt to answer everyones questions as best I can as the inquiries continue to grow. I will also take the time to show photo's of the major points of concern. Stay tuned!

It is best that one ask specific questions of operation than general flack of disbelief, I believe it to be a more intelligent approach anyway.

Thank you for your candor. I do appreciate your response. I can only assure you this has nothing to do with an ego.

Let's do this, why don't you ask a specific question about it's operation and I will try as best I can, to show you through this medium how it functions.

Let's be progressive rather than regressive!!

I love that piece by Russell: TNX

Look at it this way; We take a magnet and pass it by a copper wire and electrons start to flow at the speed of light. That's a fact and we don't know why!!!

If you move in a gravitational Field you change the Field, Why can't we use gravity as a source of energy?? I'm not saying that is what this project does , but!!

This project does not defy any existing laws but it may create some new ones????

You are comparing apples and oranges! If you pass a magnet by a copper wire, you are doing mechanical work. YOU are adding energy to this system. Some of that energy becomes electric current. And physicists DO know why this happens.

Why can't you use gravity as a source of energy? Because gravity is a static field, unlike the dynamic field you create by passing the magnet by the electric wire. If you move an object of mass in this static field, you can indeed STORE energy by opposing the field. We call this potential energy, which can be released later as kinetic energy, which then can do work and change to other forms, electrical, heat, etc. However, the gravitational field is NOT the source of energy, it is whatever is causing the mechanical motion which moves the mass, and that is likely powered by something else, electrical pumps, animal power, human effort, electrical motor and pulley (or winch), etc.

Previously, I did ask some specific questions, which you never answered. In #46 I asked what is the source of your energy, where does it come from? Can you answer that?

The source of energy is a by product of the pressure difference between input and output.

The pressure difference is created and maintained by a small motor driving the spinner.

If you install a baffle at the feed point, (inlet), You will find yourself with a different set of operating conditions.

I don't disagree with anything you have said. It just isn't applicable to this operating system.

It all sounds quite ingenious, good on you for making a working prototype to test.

I'd guess, when there is no fluid flowing into the spokes, the motor load will be small, just friction, windage, iron and copper losses. When you allow the fluid to flow, the motor will need to provide additional torque (ie energy) to the system to accelerate the fluid. Since w.r.t. the outside wall, it's static in the middle and has some velocity as it leaves the radial pipe. This torque is used by corolis flow meters.

If the motor rating is large compared to the energy you're getting out, it may be difficult to detect any changes, so fit the smallest motor possible for the "no flow" measurements and then see if there's a load change during the "flow" state, making sure the system reaches steady state first. Jeff

Energy itself is universal. It '' çollapse " and forms matter or breaks up and become energy again. But the tool needed to do that is complicated. In order to achieve continuous kinetic, which means the energy produced must be self contain and not depleting or self generating continuously to compensate lose due to friction and etc. Einstein grasp the teory long ago but definitely not achievable with that piece of work. Good try, but i think you need to try much harder. Even the faeces eating bugs need elephant's (or others) dung to survive. Otherwise they could eat their own dung and survive without food source...got it now?

Golly! I should have thought of that.

Vince,

Sorry, but, as I said back in March:-

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/6487/Energy-source

Go to wikipedia and look up conservation of angular momentum:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum

The main problem is nothing to do with efficiency/friction: etc. it's that in order to maintain angular velocity in a mass which is moving to a larger radius of rotation: you need to supply (add) energy.

You comments and the technical references you have used are "spot on" . There used to be a ferry on a Swiss lake that had a very unusual means of propulsion. It was nothing else but a simple (quite heavy cast iron ) fly-wheel. The fly wheel would on either side of the ferrys route ( and where it berthed alongside a wharf with electric power ) be activated by an on board electric motor. When the fly-wheel had been fully activated a clutch attached thereto would rotate the propeller shaft . The energy contained ( as is the case of a gyroscope ) was adequate to enable the ferry to reach the other side of the lake. NB The ferry ran for decades that way.

More recently I have seen such an application being used to accumulate the braking energy of a bus. In this case the fly-wheel ( in reverse to the above) activates a d.c. generator, its energy is then used to charge batteries. The current accumulated in the batteries , then assists ( via a d.c.motor) the bus to start up .

These applications are quite common and verify the text you have quite accurately referred all readers to. Many thanks. Lets hope the inventor will put it to good use but he has to find the right input of external energy

This doesn't conflict with that at all. You are not understanding one simple part of this.

Once the fluid mass has achieved its desired pressure level you can sustain that level at very little cost.

This is the part that bug's you and most others. YOU CAN FLOW THROUGH THIS AREA OF POTENTAIL DIFFERANCE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST....IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MASS & the spin motor See's very little change in current draw during the flow less than 4% of the total current supplied. Model available for evaluation!!!

Thanks for the clarification but when you say at "little cost" still means, I presume , that you are adding something or some energy to compensate what you will be taking out on the other side. Is this right or have I missed something ?

Whatever the answer please believe me when I say that: I am most impressed by the ingenuity of the design and wish you well . Perhaps when you need the right Partners and Consulting Engineers to go into Asia (China-Japan are my main area) I will be the first one to offer you my services.

Before the above stage there are a number of ways of securing the funding that will be required for you to pursue your objective.Firstly I would also suggest that you get a good patent Lawyer. They are expensive but if your concept is sound as I believe it is now is the time for you to start getting the protection you richly deserve. You have been very open so far but I suggest that you should be more carefull with your intellectual property until , commercially , the concept is proven or otherwise.

Go to it .

Vince,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think part of the problem people have with understanding your model is the way you are describing it. Your text is full of grammatical errors, run on sentences, misspellings (note there is a spell checker on the toolbar for this forum's message box).

When you are describing a concept that is as difficult to follow as yours is (especially with no schematic illustrations), good grammar, spelling, and sentence structure become very important for clear communications. In casual conversation, not so much. I am not the Grammar Police and would be the last one to criticize anyone's conversational text. But you are trying to accomplish more than just conversation, I believe, and that requires a higher level of care (proofreading) to insure a clear verbal picture is presented before you post.

Unless of course, obfuscation is your objective!

From my prospective, I am not trying to win any awards in grammar or spelling.

I do use the spell check. I will go back and review...Maybe I didn't use it correctly?

Anyway, I understand what your trying to say. In this forum I wanted to be informal.

It's about the substantive questions about the machine not the criticisms even if it's about grammar..

Thanks for the input

When I was in high school, I was thinking about the exciting idea of the PERPETUALLY MOTION. I had an idea of a device as follow: an extremely thin, hair-like, pipe was semisunked into a tunk full of water. The pipe was absorbing the water from the tunk (as every such pipe does). The water was rising through the pipe, it was dripping from the nozzle and it was dropping again into the tunk (the water that was falling could rotate, for example, a small wheel ). I knew that it was impossible (due to the physics laws) for this device to work, but I couldn't understand why. I remained with this question. After some years, when I was in University, as I was leafing through a book of physics, I saw, by chance, a drawing that showed exactly the same device (I felt a little disapointed, as I thought that I was the inventor...ha, ha...). And underneath the piture there was a question: "Why this device doesn't work?" The answer was a) because producing energy from nothing is forbidden by physics laws and b) because the water will never drip from the nozzle due to the draught forces between the molecules of water and the molecules of the pipe... I was reliefed since I considered that I hadn't violated the laws of physics with my device (ha, ha) and everything was in order...

With this example of an hypothetical device of perpetually motion, I was trying to say that whatever you do you cannot built a device that produces more (or even egual) energy than the energy that it consumes... Many great scientists of the past tried to design such devices and all had failed... The laws of physics are tough...

Thank you for your comments. I do appreciate how most are considering this perpetual motion. It's not! A fly wheel with no friction is perpetual>>>Correct?

However, we use a small amount of energy to sustain a potential difference through a medium that does not change mass or drag on the motor supporting the spin when a flow is present. I conceived this project back in 1974 & It's not perfected yet but I have every reason to believe that it works based on current observations of it's functionality.

Thank you for your incite

"It's not perfected yet but I have every reason to believe that it works based on current observations of it's functionality."

Therein lies your answer.

I'm still not clear on the actual physical makeup of the device; namely, wheher the fluid flows just through the hub or moves through the spokes and discharges at the outer perimeter. You said you achieved 30 pounds of pressure from the tubes experiment but household water pressure is normally between 40 and 70 psi depending upon the relative height difference of the water tower and the house. The height of the water in a water tower is a form of potential energy but it had to be pumped up to the tower and that was real expensive kinetic energy. Unless a water tower is going to drive your pump, the drive you use will consume any power the device creates plus some due to efficiency loss. Conservation of energy/conservation of momentum says that if you introduce a massive fluid into the spokes of the wheel then the wheel will slow down so as to maintain it's angular momentum at a constant. An example is an ice skater who pulls their arms in to spin faster in an axle maneuver and then back out again to slow down. If your discharging the fluid at the perimeter, you've lost centrifugal force on the fluid quite a lot due to the angular velocity drop. When the angular velocity drops, the centrifugal force that kept the air bunched up against the outside edge drops thus increasing the pressure at the hub and causing the valve to stay closed thus keeping more fluid from entering without compensating with additional power until you reach fluid pressure equilibrium. If the fluid discharges at the hub then you don't lose angular velocity but you still have to pump the fluid up to 100 psi to get it into the wheel in the first place. I don't remember enough physics to run the equations on conservation of energy/momentum but someone that does can show you why the net effect of all of this is a loss due to friction in the fluid flow, bearings, air drag, etc. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Never hurts to try. Good luck.

Conservation of Momentum (Linear): m₀ * v₀ = m₁ * v₁

Conservation of Angular Momentum: I₀ * ω₀ = I₁ * ω₁

Conservation of Energy: PE₀ + KE₀ = PE₁ + KE₁ where PE = m*g*h and KE = (m*v²) /2

(Add additional terms if other energy forms are used, e.g. thermal energy, electrical energy, etc.)

The subscripts 0 and 1 signify original state and secondary state (after event) respectively.

m= mass

g= acceleration of gravity

h= relative height

v= velocity

PE= Potential Energy

KE= Kinetic Energy

I= mass moment of inertia

ω= angular velocity

Hope this helps!

Ok, I am impressed!!

Math was not used to event the light bulb or the wheel but it sure does come in handy after the fact.

If you have a specific disbelief in a part of it's operation Let me know and I will do my best to exhibit the answer to your concern..

Do you kmow how much electrical energy comes from hydraulic plants?

Who makes the work to lift the water from sea level to clouds?

How much energy needs the planets to move?

Where this energy comes?

Do you kmow how much electrical energy comes from hydraulic plants?

Depends on the size of the plant and size (flow rate and height) of the water source. Niagara Falls (big, lots of energy can be extracted) versus the creek out back (not so big, not so much energy can be extracted).

Who makes the work to lift the water from sea level to clouds?

The sun and the sun gets it's energy from nuclear fusion.

How much energy needs the planets to move?

No energy input is necessary. The planets are already in motion and therefore tend to stay in motion (there's not a lot of friction in space to slow them down). As for how the planets got in motion in the first place (the initial energy input that set them in motion) that's a lot longer answer and there's some dispute about it. The fact is though that they are in motion and will remain in motion until something acts on them to slow them down or speed them up and their orbits will get closer to or farther from the sun.

I've only just worked out that by 'parameter' you presumably mean 'perimeter' ?

Presumably the fluid you are using is either at pressure in the first place or has been lifted to give it some potential energy. If you connect anything to a tap (faucet) you can extract enery...it's being supplied by the water company!

Don't get me wrong..I wish you the best of luck and I admire what appears to be a nicely constructed device, but I'm sure how much pressure it can safely withstand.

More power Igor!

Del the Cat,

Your thoughts on problem solving remind me of what my Professors used to say :

"Problems are nothing more than solutions in disguise ".

That is the crux of the issue in this debate.

This is only a proto type to show the fact that you can travel through the area of potential differance without additional cost to the spinning motor and it worked

I had taken this concept to NASA in Kent Washington and several colleges. They all could not dismiss the possibility and wanted to see a working model, that was in 1974.

I have been following this thread and like many others fail to grasp how your device works. You make mention of contacting NASA and some colleges some 33 years ago and they wanted to see a working model. Now that you have the working model what does NASA have to say? A device like this could solve the power issues that keep man from going to Mars and beyond and as such would be a fantastic investment. You may think that I am joking but if your unit can power your house it could easily power a space craft. Remember it can get a helping hand from solar enery if need be.

People are in disbelief & I don't blame them. this project had me stumped for many years. It looks so simple on the surface.

IE: Let's say you have a way to insert a liquid into a vessel and have it come out at a much higher pressure. And the cost of maintaining the pressure difference was a small percentage of the total power provided by the output stream.

The proto type suggest this is true. I do not have a working generator unit constructed yet. See photo attached. I will get back on it and keep the development posted here.

Vince, that looks like a nice cement mixer you have there. I fear that if the best you can say is the prototype "suggests" that it will work that perhaps your instrumentation is inadequate to "indicate" the actual reality of the situation. This has been the downfall of many who thought they had succeeded in such efforts. Don't get me wrong, everyone on the planet would be thrilled to discover that you are correct and I must commend you on your patient and calm responses to criticism. But to even say that the odds are against you is to ignore well-established physical laws and suggest that in your success an exception or new principle will be found. Not that it would be the first time that the scientific community's beliefs were shaken up as a result of a new discovery, just that the odds are seriously against it. It does seem that although you indicate that you have disclosed the secret by indicating that there is a "baffle" that is key, I don't have the sense that you have been completely forthright about the details of the baffle. Does it spin the fluid in the spokes for some kind of gyroscopic effect? Any way good luck and please do let us know one way or another whether it works. And hurry since if it does the world is saved and if it doesn't we can help you understand why.

Vince,

Please believe me when I say I have your best interests in mind. I strongly suggest that you do not go ahead and build another prototype. Go back to the original (beautifully made) prototype, and, do all the measurements accurately. You need to measure the power taken by the motor, and, the speed of rotation of the "wheel" with the water both flowing and not. Bear in mind that when you open the tap on the output of the tank the additional pressure developed in the tank is transferred around the pipe work, and, back to the inlet at the centre of the wheel.

Try this little experiment: sit on a rotatable (typical office) chair, hold two brick against your chest and start the chair spinning gently; now extend your arms so that the bricks are travelling in a much bigger circle, you will find that your speed of rotation has slowed considerably. For a more dramatic demonstration try it the opposite way round: start spinning slowly with your arms extended then pull them inward.

Think of the individual "drops" of water in your machine as being the bricks. In order to maintain the rotational velocity of the wheel with the water flowing you have to supply extra energy.

I strongly suspect that you will find that your steady state with the water flowing has a slower rotational speed than the steady state with the water not flowing. You need to measure the rotational speed, and, input power with the water flowing; then stop the water flow and reduce the power input until the rotational speed is the same. You will then have an accurate measure of the difference in power needed to continuously accelerate the water droplets to the speed at the perimeter of the wheel.

Thank you, You have spent a great deal of time describing the typical or should I say starting point of this project. I fully recognize the properties of angular momentum and if it weren't for the baffle that is installed at the feed point everything you have said rings true.

I really do appreciate your input. I have found a little different operating condition that allows the flow and maintains the potential difference at minimal cost.

Thank you very much for your concern. You would be shocked at how many executives that have told me If it worked perfectly no one would want it. It takes far to many jobs off the market. That's one of the reasons I didn't finish it.

It may be time now to complete the project. I have the ware with all to make it happen and I will see it through. Again thank you for your concern, I will keep you posted.

allows the flow and maintains the potential difference at minimal cost.

Could you define this cost in terms of Watts in per Watts out?

You would be shocked at how many executives that have told me If it worked perfectly no one would want it. It takes far to many jobs off the market. That's one of the reasons I didn't finish it.

In all honesty this statement does not add credibility to you.

"You would be shocked at how many executives that have told me If it worked perfectly no one would want it. It takes far to many jobs off the market. That's one of the reasons I didn't finish it."

I have to agree with Richard. How can you purport yourself to be an inventor, scientist, or engineer, or whatever, and make such a typical Luddite claim? If this were true, industry would never have adopted robotics (took many production line jobs off the market), accountants would still be using adding machines instead of computers (took away many bookkeeping jobs), and we would still have many, many, typewriters manned by secretaries, steno pools, and carbon paper, instead of word processing software on PC's with personal printers and photocopy machines. Can't put all those secretaries out of work now. What else is a woman going to do before she gets married and has babies?

Very well put. Thank you, I knew there had to be another side to that mind set.

Anyway to make a long story short: 1974

I started out this project wanting to find a way to inject new fluid into a pressurized vessel with little or no cost to the new incoming fluid so that energy could be extracted from the difference in pressure.

I made allot mistakes along the way but finally found a method that appears to work.

I believe the proto type proves the basic premise that I can travel through the area of pressure difference at little cost. That's what the current design tells me anyway.

Just as centrifugal force stores energy, it also can store the pressure difference in a fluid environment. The sun brings water to the clouds, the clouds bring water to the rivers, the rivers bring water to our hydroelectric plants that use the gravity of the water pressure to turn turbines that power our cities.

This device cut's the sun out and uses the gravity,(pressure), of the spinning fluid to get there.

I really don't care what people think of it, that's their problem. I am a hobbyist I like to tinker in things like this.

I have no objection to anyone looking it over and getting there own opinion. I can make it available.

It takes most people a week to figure it out, It looks simple. IT'S ALL ABOUT FLUID FLOW AND PRESSURE...NOTHING MORE

At the age of 9 I was building & designing my own receivers and transmitters as a ham operator. I'm 57 now and still doing things like this. It's fun and gets me away from my desk for a breather.

I was for the most part giving myself an excuse for not completing the project. But it is true, that mind set is out there!

Vince, you keep saying, "I am NOT saying" this, or "I am not saying" that.....

What ARE you saying?

Do you really believe that gravity is the source of your energy? To extract energy from a gravitational system, you need to "piggyback" onto the motion of large masses that move relative to each other due to gravity, e.g. wave action. In a system of small mass, once you extract any significant amount of energy, the system will slow down and stop, at least until you recharge it.

A good example would be the pendulum of a clock. The pendulum swings because it is moving under gravity, having been imparted with mechanical energy, either by a wound spring, or by being pushed by a human hand. If the spring is not wound (a type of potential energy), then the hand push will allow the pendulum to swing only for a short time. It soon slows and stops. However, if the spring is wound, or in the case of a cuckoo clock, a weight is raised (again, storing mechanical energy as potential energy), then we are indeed adding energy to the system. However, you cannot extract more energy out of this, or any system, than you put into it! Yes energy is being extracted, to move the hands of the clock. Eventually, the spring unwinds, or the weight reaches its limit (the length of its chain or the floor below) and motion stops.

Your system may be an excellent energy storage device, but it is NOT, repeat, NOT an energy source! You call it a Potential Energy Converter, fine. But what Potential Energy is it converting? Something somewhere must have done something to store potential energy for you to convert it, so what is that source? I'll bet it is NOT free. You are just ignoring its costs somewhere along the line.

TANSTAAFL!