|
Post by electroshock on Jun 16, 2009 1:52:28 GMT -7
I believe that i have "created"(not so much created as "dreamed up") a perpetual motion device. Here's how it works: you take an electric motor and an electric generator. First you hook up the generator to the motor, so that any power produced from the generator will power the motor. second, you take two gears, a very large one and a very small one(possibly a ratio of 30:1, i haven't tested anything yet). you take the large gear and place it on the end of the axle of the motor. you take the small gear and place it on the turbine of the generator. make sure the teeth of both gears fit together, put them together, and then you manually turn the turbine. this should create the initial energy needed to first power the motor, but beyond that, the unit should be independent.
What flaw is there in my reasoning?(besides that a perpetual motion device is even possible.)
|
|
|
Post by Pem on Jun 17, 2009 15:03:14 GMT -7
Friction will drain the energy intially invested.
|
|
|
Post by electroshock on Jun 19, 2009 10:15:53 GMT -7
But, if the gear ratio was large enough, couldn't it offset the friction?
|
|
|
Post by Ramius on Sept 7, 2009 17:57:59 GMT -7
Your also over looking the amount of energy to rotate the small gear with the large one. Is much easier to rotate big gear with small but then you lose the rpm. Is trade off of energy transfer. I understand where your coming from and long ago wondered about this myself but after a few minutes thinking about it, it becomes clear. : ) If you have a 10 speed bike and the crank sprocket is adjusted to large, rear to small, is a real pain to move it. A big energy drain, just like you using a big gear on motor and small one on generator. But hey, there is always another way to do things. Not saying you can make a perpetual machine but who knows, you may find a way to generate power with much less effort. Best anybody has done yet. Good luck...
|
|
|
Post by Ramius on Sept 7, 2009 17:59:51 GMT -7
btw, I am not a student. I have to adjust my profile I suppose. I am 54 and just like science stuff. Not educated well at all in it, just a hobby.
|
|
|
Post by richdes on Dec 21, 2009 21:54:02 GMT -7
I am surprised an electric engineer has not commented on this. This is a problem usually discussed in one our first courses. Unless the motor/generator were superconducting it would rundown pretty fast. (but it would still run down, let alone the power needed to keep it superconducting) And even if there such a thing as perpetual motion, of what use would it be? You certainly cannot extract energy, then it would not be perpetual motion or as it is sometimes put in Thermodynamics, there is no free lunch!!
|
|
|
Post by electroshock on Jan 7, 2010 16:08:47 GMT -7
Why strive to build a perpetual motion device?
Simply because they said it was impossible. Sure it would be no use to society, "wasted resources" they might call it. But a device that is entirely self sufficient energy-wise would warp the way we look at physics. And the effect that would have would be more profound than extracting energy from it.
Could you please explain why it would rundown so quickly? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm not an expert in electrical engineering.
|
|
|
Post by richdes on Jan 17, 2010 1:02:25 GMT -7
Both the motor and the generator have as part of its construction insulated wire that when used in combination with a magnet can be used either to induce an electrical current or to provide motive power. Wires do have resistance and hence energy is lost as heat. Making the wires superconducting would not solve the problem either, because any electrical current also radiates energy ( think radio ). So even a motor/generator pair with perfect conductors will eventually run down.
|
|