No solar needed?

[Putts]

Sorry for this bandwidth intensive post.

From my understanding there is a class of device that does work.

And a very complicated one.

Again they're very finely balanced, they need a push to start, and there's very little, if any, residual energy to do work...but they do exist.

I think the added energy to overcome thermodynamic losses comes from gravity itself and the kinetic energy gained when something tips over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

 

[Richard]

...
From my understanding there is a class of device that does work.
...
Again they're very finely balanced, they need a push to start, and there's very little, if any, residual energy to do work...but they do exist.

I think the added energy to overcome thermodynamic losses comes from gravity itself and the kinetic energy gained when something tips over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Even the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page you linked to says this: (bold emphasis mine)

A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.

The impossibility of perpetual motion is further elaborated in that same page in the section labeled "Impossibility". So, while it's true that a very efficient apparatus may be conceived and even built, there's a distinction between actuation for a very, very long time, and perpetual motion. That's the point of this next excerpt from a different page:

There are many designs on the internet that claim to be working designs for perpetual motion machines. If you look at those designs, it’s not too farfetched to think that some of those machines could (if engineered correctly) move without stopping. And if we could do this, the implications would be staggering. We would essentially have an eternal source of energy. More than that, it would be free energy.

Unfortunately, thanks to the fundamental physics of our universe, perpetual motion machines are impossible.

Now, I know that there are probably a lot of people who are saying, “You should never say ‘never’ in science.” And fair enough. I admit that new knowledge could come along; however, in order for perpetual motion machines to be possible, this new knowledge would have to break physics as we know it. We’d be wrong about simply everything, and nearly none of our observations would make any sense.

If this isn’t “impossible,” it is about as close as you can get in science. So let’s breakdown perpetual motion machines and why we’ll never be able to make one.

That said, there's no question that some machinery can be designed to actuate for a very long time. But,n 'very long' isn't necessarily equivalent to 'perpetual'.

The first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation of energy. It states that energy is always conserved. It means that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Instead, it simply changes from one form to another. To keep a machine moving, the energy applied should stay with the machine without any losses. Because of this fact alone, it is impossible to build perpetual motion machines.

Why? To build a perpetual motion machine we must accomplish many things:

1.) The machine should not have any “rubbing” parts: Any moving part must not touch other parts. This is because of friction that would be created between the two. This friction will ultimately cause the machine to lose its energy to heat. Making the surfaces smooth is not enough, as there is no perfectly smooth object. Heat will always be generated when two parts rub on each other (and that generation of heat is energy transference i.e, the motion machine losing energy).

2.) The machine must be operated inside a vacuum (no air): The reason for this has to do with the reason listed in number one. Operating the machine anywhere will cause the machine to lose energy due to the friction between the moving parts and air. Although the energy lost due to air friction is very small, remember, we are talking about perpetual motion machines here, if there is a loss mechanism, eventually, the machine will still lose its energy and run down (even if it takes a long, long time).

3.) The machine should not produce any sound: Sound is also a form of energy; if the machine is making any sound, that means that it is also losing energy.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say that somehow, we are able to build a perpetual motion machine. Will we be able to get energy from it? Yes, but only up to the energy that is used as an input to start the movement. A perpetual motion machine in real life will just be an energy storage. We must remember that the energy cannot be created; it always has to come from something.

So, if you happen to be able to build one, you will need energy to start the motion. This is the only energy that you will be able to harvest, since, as stated previously, energy cannot be created. Kind of a pointless device, really.

--from https://futurism.com/what-physics-says-about-perpetual-motion-machines-free-energy-r/

All that shared, these comments may be better extracted into their own thread about PM (perpetual motion) since the device/technology that I originally posted about isn't claimed to be PM.

 

[Putts]

Yeah, read it, no need to continue this discussion, I understand it's a trick of sorts and if something keeps moving there's always a hidden source of outside energy. (Gravity in the cases I pointed to.) Thanks for taking the time, people should know that the thermodynamic laws are among the most robust scientific principle and can't be violated in our time/space.

I've got to say the one that always struck me is how electrons can keep in motion around nuclei without running down. Be hard to attach that to a crank shaft though.

 

[jonsun]

^its been done since the 50's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine

 

[Putts]

Let's see...I think I can put a 5000 lb lead containment vessel under the skirt of my step van on the right side to balance out the gas tank on the left.

 

[Sabatical]

I read through this thread. Then I went back and watched the whole video.
It's certainly a neat looking machine. The presenter sounds like he has a limited knowledge of the fundamentals. That's my oppinion, not based on anything other than his lack of offering specifics of the process, aside from this wire goes here and that wire goes there.

Disclaimer here: i'm no expert. I am a lay person with experience on my personal small scale solar system. Here's what my experience is as far as battery voltage goes- my 12v system is full (100% soc) when the RESTING voltage reads 12.7. Sure the voltage will read higher for a period of time after charge input has ceased, but the resting voltage gives you the true state of charge. Or even more accurately, the specific gravity gives you the true state of charge. My point here is that a voltage of 12.8 or higher is not a depleted battery.

The other thing that stirkes me as odd is that he mentions a 1 or 3 amp charge rate. Even the small mppt charge controllers are 30 amp rated. Input from my solar panels to the charge controller is typically in the range of 8-16 amps depending on whether i use one or two panels. If i only had 3 amps available by using this machine, it would have to run non stop to keep up with my meager consumption. It's also possible that there may not even be enough amps available to get to a full charge.

Please don't see this as me stating that it can't or won't work as promised. I don't have enough knowledge to say either way. I would rather, since you asked for oppinions on worth, take the money involved in the purchase and do multiple things rather than just purchasing a power source. Now if i could significantly reduce my weight by carrying some alternative form of energy storage, i would consider that. This system would still require the use of the heaviest part of the equation...batteries.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Richard]

I read through this thread. Then I went back and watched the whole video.

Thank you for taking the time to read & watch before sharing your thoughts.

...Disclaimer here: i'm no expert. I am a lay person with experience on my personal small scale solar system. Here's what my experience is as far as battery voltage goes- my 12v system is full (100% soc) when the RESTING voltage reads 12.7. ... My point here is that a voltage of 12.8 or higher is not a depleted battery.

He mentioned in the video that the AGM batteries he's using are considered rested at 13.2. I haven't found (yet) whether this is the case. Any idea?

The other thing that stirkes me as odd is that he mentions a 1 or 3 amp charge rate. Even the small mppt charge controllers are 30 amp rated. Input from my solar panels to the charge controller is typically in the range of 8-16 amps depending on whether i use one or two panels. If i only had 3 amps available by using this machine, it would have to run non stop to keep up with my meager consumption. It's also possible that there may not even be enough amps available to get to a full charge.

When a different approach is offered for consideration, it's possible that the default operating environment may benefit from some changes. I don't know if that's necessarily true but I'm going to assume so as I elaborate a bit:

The device in the video operates independent of available sun. So, time of day when charging may occur is now irrelevant. We don't need to charge at solar's 8-16 amps in order to bring a bank of batteries back up to full. I imagine when your power source is limited to a few hours a day, the rate of charge needs to be more robust so that full advantage of the relatively limited sun exposure can be leveraged. In contrast, this device can be powered-up any time of the day or night and run for... well, I'm not clear how long it could run before needing to be recharge the starting capacitors. That's a big unknown, right? If it runs 10-minutes and needs to shut-down to recharge the caps, that might be not so useful at 1 or 3 amps. If it could run for 10-hours, well, that would be ideal as an overnight charging session. And, of course, overnight charging from solar isn't possible so there's a bit of an opportunity cost with solar: no sun, no charge. Whereas with a device like this -- if it works as described -- there's no opportunity cost: on when you need it, off when you don't, regardless the time of day or even the amount of sunlight.

One concern I have (admittedly from my own ignorance) is scalability. If a person needed to increase their battery bank from, say, 2 to 6 batteries (in order to get a full day of power from the batteries alone), would this device at its current scale be sufficient to charge that bank of 6 batteries overnight? I have no idea, but it seems an important question to answer. If no, then how much larger would the device need to scale-up to be able to charge those 6-batteries to full overnight (assuming 50% depletion from the day's use)? Instead of a larger device, would it make more sense to have 2 smaller devices that are each responsible for only 3 of the 6? I have no idea, but I'm very curious.

Please don't see this as me stating that it can't or won't work as promised. I don't have enough knowledge to say either way. I would rather, since you asked for oppinions on worth, take the money involved in the purchase and do multiple things rather than just purchasing a power source. Now if i could significantly reduce my weight by carrying some alternative form of energy storage, i would consider that. This system would still require the use of the heaviest part of the equation...batteries.

I don't hear you saying that it can't or won't work. That's the big unknown here. I don't know whether it can or will work, either. But, the technology that the device seems to resort to makes fair sense to me (again, as a layman). It doesn't need to be 'free' energy to interest me. It only has to be demonstrably more efficient in a real-world scenario. And, I don't see this as being an either/or question, as in either solar or this device. Perhaps it's a supplementary resource for places where days go by without enough sun for a full charge. Or, perhaps it's a viable alternative to solar for people who prefer areas with relatively few sun hours each day (Pacific Northwest comes to mind but I imagine there are others).

Thanks again for taking the time to consider the source material before sharing your thoughts. If you have any answers to, or even just thoughts about, the questions I posed in this reply, I'd like to hear them at your convenience.

 

[Sabatical]

I feel i need to do some more refresher reading in order to share accurate info on the subject. I am comfortable now with how my system works, so therefore i have given up some of the info relevant because it was no longer the focus of the current task.

For now i'd like to share a story that i'm reminded of and seems relevant. Take it for what it's worth.

A few years ago, i was building a tiny house on wheels and researching a heat source. We live in an area that experiences real winter. I happened upon a small wood stove that was new to the market. It's claimed performance was phenominal for something of it's size. It was priced accordingly. We could afford to get one if i could be assured that it was legit, so i kept digging. I was curious how it could perform so far beyond similar sized stoves, and the maker was somewhat convincing in videos. Then i found, on a forum, his interaction with a buyer who was having problems. His service after the sale was non existent and it appeared as though every question was a personal insult on his invention.

We didn't buy the stove i've mentioned. I wasn't willing to risk investing in something that had a fair chance of being a farse.
Could it perform to spec? I don't know and truthfully it doesn't matter. I found something for a third of the cost that i knew for certain would perform and it was the same size. It may be that this fella was just ahead of his time with his invention and the fact that he is a jerk, in public interaction, after the sale has kept his product from taking off.

At the end of the day, for me, it's important for there to be substantial proof that a product will perform as described in order to warrant spending valuable dollars. As with many members on this forum, i am averse to risk. Adventure? Hell yeah! ...but not risk.

I don't know your situation. You didn't elaborate and don't need to. May i suggest that you spend alot of time, if you haven't already, on researching batteries and what the experts say will be optimal for their longevity. After you have that info, you can then figure out what charging source would fit your situation best. Each type of battery wants a specific charge pattern to be happy. Provide for those conditions and you'll be able to save a bunch of money on replacements.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk