That's is really all a flywheel is. It stores mechanical power and releases it at a steady rate. Piston engines have flywheels so the output is smooth, otherwise it would be very 'jerky' because the pistons are all firing at different times. You can think of it as a capacitor for rotational motion.
Any heavy circular object will do for your generator. It will need to be well balanced so it doesn't vibrate excessively.
but i REALLY, REALLY disagree with the idea that certain posts are made 'sticky' and others are not.
the moderator clearly has opinions about what can be discussed and what can't- you cant talk about perpetual energy now? so lets add that to the list of 9/11 and creationism and other topics that the 'moral majority' have decided are off-limits.
This wasn't meant to ban Free Energy discussion (After all, that is what we are doing now) it was to TRY to inject some common sense into the discussion and reduce the number of totally worthless postings.
Depending on how you define Free Energy, it actually already exists. If you define it as trying to get unlimited energy from a closed system, it is still a fantasy.
[quote]If you define it as trying to get unlimited energy from a closed system, it is still a fantasy.[/quote]
*** It is clear that you not only do not understand my above postings on this subject but that you are also prepared to make sweeping statements in ignorance of the things you do not understand.
A more scientifically correct statement would be that you cannot get free energy from a closed system using mechanical energy [ke, pe, ie] as the source of power, or by using chemical reactions or nuclear reactions as the source of energy.
I will not rehash what I have already said concerning other sources or the other source that will give infinite energy but I think we will look as smart as we are if we confine our statements to the realm of what I said in the preceding paragraph.
Somewhere back in April of 2003 I said that I believed that I could find out what gravity was and a similar challenge was thrown out to me to go ahead and give it a shot.
I did and by November of that same year I wrote my paper telling the full story of that phenomenon. Four years later and, without exception, no scientist or journal would accept it: it is always either confusing, the work of a crazy man or a work inspired by God...but never a work understood or accepted.
Nearly 100 years ago Gravitators were invented and built and till now we are not ready yet for that technology.
Should I now be unwise enough to try to force down the throat of the scientific community a form of infinite energy by building a device that they are not willing to believe in? Would I not be ostracized and thought to be on drugs or crazy or something?
I have better things to do with my life now than to build technology for which the world is not yet ready.
When we become desperate for alternate forms of energy then the time will come for that device to be built...right now it is only talk and entertainment we are about.
No response I can generate will be better than your OWN words. I rest my case.
I actually DO build alternative energy devices. Nothing that can do more than charge a few nicads at the moment. It's already saving me $2/week on batteries for my music player I listen to at work. Living in an apartment puts a damper on building big machines that are hungry for sunlight, air and water.
There are PLENTY of sources of alternative energy all around us, even individuals have the ability to use them. We don't need to journey into the realm of science fiction to wean ourselves off the foreign oil nipple. Everything we need is right here, we just have to focus on what is actually possible, which is what this thread has been all about. The laws of thermodynamics are NOT a constraint, they are our liberators. By understanding the true nature of energy gradients we can find REAL sources of power and avoid wasting time chasing fantasies.
[quote]By understanding the true nature of energy gradients we can find REAL sources of power and avoid wasting time chasing fantasies[/quote]
*** Maybe I have been guilty of presenting my ideas in a very abstract way which has led to them being viewed as unscientific or fantasy.
Now, I am sure we are all familiar with the manner in which energy may be harnessed from a stream of water: a wheel of paddles is placed so that it is only partly submerged in the stream and so the power of the water turns the wheel and gives us our power output.
If the wheel were completely submerged in the stream my question to the class is, will it spin?
Note: if you try to be smart and mention specially designed paddles [as of a fan or windmill say], the hydrodynamics of which will enable it to spin under water I will mark you wrong because that is not the question I am asking.
In like manner therefore it is impossible to harness energy from the gravity field of the earth since objects are completely submerged in it. Ok let's leave gravity for now.
Now consider a charged object and in its field a wheel with a similar design to the one described above for harnessing energy from a stream of water. Even if the wheel is neutral it will not spin because it is 'submerged' in the electrostatic field of the charged object.
Let's now assume it were possible to shield electrostatic fields [tic]. If we then shield part of the field so that only part of our wheel is subject to the field of force of the charged object, what do you think will happen?
WILL THE WHEEL NOW SPIN?
I might donate part of the reward of the Nobel Prize I intend to win to the person who can answer this question correctly.
Later on we will take the experiment into a vacuum then further on as required.
The wheel will spin, but when it is attracted to the opposite (or non-existant) charge, the charge on the wheel will dissipate, eventually causing the wheel to stop spinning. Once the charge the wheel came into the system with has been reduced, no more work can be produced.
If for some reason you can "shield" the wheel so its charge isn't reduced (even if you had a "one way" shield so attraction is still there but the charge won't travel) the rotation of the wheel will be impeded once it has rotated beyond the point of maximum attraction because it will still be attracted in the opposite direction of rotation.
Perhaps you DO have some esoteric knowledge of gravity and particle physics that mere mortals do not yet grasp. It isn't going to do you any good to produce energy if you don't also have an understanding of simpler physics which would come into play when you actually try to do something useful with it.
[quote]It isn't going to do you any good to produce energy if you don't also have an understanding of simpler physics which would come into play when you actually try to do something useful with it.[/quote]
[quote]The wheel will spin, but when it is attracted to the opposite (or non-existant) charge, the charge on the wheel will dissipate, [/quote]
*** The object is charged, the wheel is neutral and there is no contact between the two so charge will not dissipate.
[quote] If for some reason you can "shield" the wheel so its charge isn't reduced [/quote]
*** The purpose of shielding is to block off part of the field of the charged object thereby preventing it from impinging on the wheel.
When I said "let's assume it were possible to shield electrostatic fields" I also said [tic] which means for those who didn't understand 'tongue in cheek'.
It is obviously possible to shield electrostatic fields but I adopted that style of writing to show that the hardest part of the experiment was sheilding the charge so that if that can be comfortably achieved how much easier it is to get the wheel to spin and this new proposed technologh to work.
[quote] (even if you had a "one way" shield...the rotation of the wheel will be impeded once it has rotated beyond the point of maximum attraction...[/quote]
*** That's the purpose of the shield. The shield must be located in such a way that it blocks off the field from acting on the paddles as they pass the point of maximum attraction.
I now understand why someone had to say: "if you don't understand when I tell you about 'basic' things how will you understand when I tell you about 'high' things?"
I'm sorry but the contest is now closed seeing that I have given so many clues. But I will still put thevictim's name in the box [ie keep it in mind] and just maybe he will be considered to recieve some token if and when the drawing takes place.
I'm all for the type of Free Energy you don't have to pay someone else to get. The problem is all the High Quality energy is in the hands of the fuel companies and public utilities at the moment. Hopefully someone can change this.
Perhaps even Profroger, once he wins his Nobel Prize for Bovine Scatology.
