Perpetual Engine Created?!

-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0\|631\|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
Socoder -> Off Topic -> Perpetual Engine Created?!
Page : 1 2 Next Prev
Sat, 08 Nov 2008, 21:41
Mog	Well I was posting on a small business forum and I came across a gem of a post. Apparently, some guy has invented a self-sustaining engine, thus breaking the laws of physics and inefficiency in systems. Read it here: smallbusinessonlinecommunity.bankofamerica.com/thread/10804?tstart=0 Post your thoughts below. 2 million dollars plz, it's fer siance -=-=- I am Busy Mongoose - My Website Dev PC: AMD 8150-FX, 16gb Ram, GeForce GTX 680 2gb Current Project: Pyroxene
Sun, 09 Nov 2008, 00:58
shroom_monk	There was a similar thing on Engadget about half a year ago. Some guy claimed he could make a perpetual motion machine, saying 'by June, all you who doubt me will see it is true'. Come June, he had done nothing, claiming that since no-one believed him he thought humanity did not deserve his invention. Or something like that. This guy is asking for $2million from people on a forum... sounds like a scam to me. If his marvellous invention actually worked, why doesn't he go to big businesses for donations? Or better, some sort of science laboratory or organisation. They would surely wish to see it working, and figure out why, and could easily give the funding. I think this guy is just trying to scam people. -=-=- A mushroom a day keeps the doctor away... Keep It Simple, Shroom!
Sun, 09 Nov 2008, 04:37
steve_ancell	I've seen loads of designs on overunity.com. But I have not yet seen any successful runners yet. Most of us believe it is possible to tap other energy sources, but perpetual motion machines seem to all suffer one flaw, they never seem to jump past the magnetic lock-up point.
Sun, 09 Nov 2008, 05:46
Afr0	I don't really care about perpetual motion motors. I've always wanted someone to create a timemachine, but so far, noone's been able to. :\ Interesting thing is, all it would take (according to Einstein) is a motor that could go past the speed of light. Edit: If John Carmack doesn't make it to the moon, maybe that could be something for him to do! -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
Sun, 09 Nov 2008, 06:59
spinal	I still choose to believe that the water-splitter engines work, this however... I would need to see a youtube video of it As for time travel, Einstein said that it would be impossible for anything to accelerate to the speed of light because its mass would become infinite, so the only solution would be to make something ALREADY travelling at the speed of light (perhaps light itself?) to move faster (impossible maybe?), so to send someone AS a stream if light (or other zero-mass particles) would mean we first need to invent teleportation. The problem with this, is that we could not teleport back in time to before teleportation was invented, as there would be no way to decode and rebuild whatever is sent. Thats my theory anyhow. -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Sun, 09 Nov 2008, 11:56
Mog	Due to the laws of inefficiency, said motor suffers multiple ways of failure. What if it runs out of power due to the amount of output not exceeding demand? Mechanical failure? It's mind boggling to imagine a device that just keeps going and going, and I call out B.S. on the whole thing. Shroom: My boss actually posted and said 'Why not show this to bigger investors instead of asking small business owners on a forum?', as well as my Tongue in cheek post saying that it would change humanity forever. EDIT: Oh for f***s sake, it gets more and more lulz each time. "Congress is going to intervien on this because of the magnitude of the motor...." -=-=- I am Busy Mongoose - My Website Dev PC: AMD 8150-FX, 16gb Ram, GeForce GTX 680 2gb Current Project: Pyroxene
Sun, 09 Nov 2008, 13:26
spinal	There are a few systems that currently apparently give more output that input, one for example uses a combination of heat and friction to heat up water, according to is inventors (and their customers) it is far more efficient than it should be (approx 114%). The main problem with these sorts of inventions is that the world is run by huge corporations, who will not make any money out of these things, the idea of saving people money goes against how the world works so will be wiped out. Only expensive non-self suntanning engines make money for their inventors. IF you invent something that will keep itself going, you almost completely destroy the world economy. If for example you no longer need iol based fuel for an engine, that's most of the plane going out of business, people dont want that to happen. -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Sun, 09 Nov 2008, 18:51
steve_ancell	spinal I still choose to believe that the water-splitter engines work One of my favourite subjects , fun to play around with too . Here's some video footage of one of my own fun experiments. The pops and bangs are a lot louder than they appear to be in the video. \|edit\| Apologies for my mixed Southern Brighton/Cockney accent \|edit\| View on YouTube uk.youtube.com/user/mastergroundscrew
Mon, 10 Nov 2008, 03:50
spinal	From your experience, do you think one of these splitters can split water fast enough to be used as a fuel in a combustion engine? -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Mon, 10 Nov 2008, 04:16
steve_ancell	spinal From your experience, do you think one of these splitters can split water fast enough to be used as a fuel in a combustion engine? I probably could if the splitter was built good enough, although at the moment, some people are using it to compliment the existing fuel, to boost the power and increase the MPG.
Mon, 10 Nov 2008, 07:21
steve_ancell	I forgot to mention earlier... To anyone that attempts the experiment. DO NOT try to store the gasses in a sealed container. The gasses that are given off are HHO, or Hydroxy (2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen). That's a ready-mix explosive gas, that WILL ignite inside of the container, and explode the container. It's not the same as igniting a Bunsen-Burner. In order to use an advanced system as a Bunsen-Burner, some sort of flame arrestor needs to be in-line with the outlet.
Mon, 10 Nov 2008, 08:53
Jayenkai	That's ok, I doubt I'll be trying to pop bubbles anytime soon! -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 16:30
flying_cucco	From your experience, do you think one of these splitters can split water fast enough to be used as a fuel in a combustion engine? That's kind of missing the point. The energy here is not coming from the water, but from the large battery (the 'fuel' in this system). Compare this to a regular electric engine. Adding the extra processes to draw energy from the battery just means more is wasted through resistance/heat etc, making the system LESS efficient. Not to mention the added weight and cost of the equipment.
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 17:19
spinal	That's kind of missing the point. The energy here is not coming from the water, but from the large battery (the 'fuel' in this system). Are we talking about the same thing? Apparently people are getting enough HHO from splitting water (using a second method together with the electrolysis) to fuel internal combustion engine after whatever wastage occurs. View on YouTube -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 18:15
steve_ancell	@ flying_cucco... When you manage to find a battery that can release the energy that HHO can, be sure to let us know.
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 18:20
steve_ancell	Here's another fun application for Hydroxy gas . View on YouTube uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pd6wUQbY6WU
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 18:33
steve_ancell	@ spinal... I've seen that video before . It's weird that Stan Meyer was poisoned, just after signing a deal with the US military !. \|edit\| And it was reported that the car was spotted in a military storage facility, some time later. \|edit\|
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 20:09
mindstorm8191	The guy in that last video is kinda funny. Seems like he got startled by the bang, checks to make sure nothing's fallen on his head, and figures he should walk off. I think its interesting how so many people think there's power to gain from water. There isn't. I suppose it just shows how uninformed people are about energy. And it also shows how interested people are (especially these days) on finding new power sources. Me, I'd like to find power from other sources, like the sun, or even lightning. But that is hard to do. Edit: If all systems are inefficient, how do you get the most done? -=-=- Vesuvius web game
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 21:10
steve_ancell	I bet his ears twanged a bit when he lit that bottle . What people are not seeing though... None of us are claiming overunity when referring to HHO. The system still has to be refilled eventually. The way it works is as follows. The the battery in my experiment is connected to the two outer plates, and the two inner plates are neutral (not connected to the battery). The negatively charged Hydrogen atoms are pulled towards the positive plates, and the positively charged Oxygen is pulled towards the negative plates. Both gasses then form one bubble. A few of us on overunity.com, are currently trying to find a way to separate the HHO atoms into two completely separate gasses, this will enable the Hydrogen to be stored safely without the danger of internal ignition. When that bit gets worked out, large scale systems could be built to run on solar, wind turbine, and tidal hybrid generators, to produce clean fuel for homes, cars, and the workplace.
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 23:56
shroom_monk	To split water into hydrogen and oxygen, don't you need electricity first? So the electricity still needs to be generated... meaning that car still depends on oil (or nuclear...). -=-=- A mushroom a day keeps the doctor away... Keep It Simple, Shroom!
Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 02:48
spinal	Apparently you can get enough electricity from a regular car battery to produce(split) enough gas from the water to power the car, the battery can be (at least partially) recharged the regular way while driving. The main problem from what I have read, is that people just don't want an extremely cheap fuel. If we stop using oil then around half of the world would go bust. -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 09:13
steve_ancell	@ shroom_monk... Yes true, but the whole idea is to use renewable energy to produce the Hydrogen \|edit\| It takes a lot less energy to produce HHO, than people are led to believe. \|edit\|
Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 11:26
flying_cucco	@ spinal, steve_ancell I'm not an expert, but I did take chemistry, physics and maths at college. This is why I laugh every time this discussion comes up. It takes a certain amount of energy to break H2O into HHO. This energy is supplied by the battery. A certain amount of energy is freed by combusting HHO into H2O. I'm not going to bore you with an explanation of enthalpy calculations, but suffice to say that the energy liberated is exactly the same amount as you put in, discounting any inefficiency. This is true any way you choose to turn water into hydroxy or vice-versa, according to the principle of conservation of energy. There is no net release of energy (which should be obvious when the reactants and products in the reaction are identical!), water is not a fuel and the hydroxy is an entirely redundant step. It might actually make sense if this Heath Robinson contraption was more efficient than an electric motor, but it is not by a long way! \|edit\| I mean as a practical alternative to straight electric, of course. It will never, ever recharge the battery whilst driving (>100% efficient). \|edit\| Battery (chemical -> electrical) Efficient Motor (electrical -> kinetic) Inefficient Wheels vs. Battery (chemical -> electrical) Efficient Electrolysis tank (electrical -> chemical) Inefficient Combustion engine (chemical -> kinetic) VERY inefficient Wheels
Thu, 13 Nov 2008, 17:06
steve_ancell	@ flying_cucco... I Also know chemistry and stuff like that, but you seem to miss the part where I stated in an earlier post. I am not saying that HHO has anything to do with perpetual motion. If you read my posts properly, you will discover that I was suggesting using renewable energy to make the stuff. Oh, and BTW... Fuel manufacturers also use a lot of energy to produce Petrol, Diesel, and LPG. Sorry, but I'm with spinal on this one. You believe what you want to believe, and let people like me have their fun. Don't take this personally, but I rest my case.
Fri, 14 Nov 2008, 00:29
flying_cucco	I was responding to both spinal and yourself. Spinal is claiming unequivocally that this is a perpetual motion device. spinal Apparently you can get enough electricity from a regular car battery to produce(split) enough gas from the water to power the car, the battery can be (at least partially) recharged the regular way while driving. If you had read the rest of my post, you would have seen my problems with the system, as it works within the laws of physics. It is not viable to carry water for HHO in a moving system. It is not viable to use stored HHO in a moving system. Using stored hydrogen may, in the future, be viable. H2 can already be extracted from water in volume, but it is not economically viable to do so. The resultant efficiency and energy density is lower than other systems that could store and utilise the energy used in making the H2!
Fri, 14 Nov 2008, 03:38
spinal	Might I suggest KNOWN laws of physics? Besides, It wouldn't be a perpetual machine, You still need to refuel with water, Just as a regular fuel tank needs to be refilled. I for one would not call a regular car a perpetual machine. -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
Page : 1 2 Next Prev