Okay, first off, I know most of you will be highly critical especially since I wont be realeasing too much detail about this thing. I have yet to be able to test it so I can't SAY it will work, but in theory it should.


Basically what I am designing is a generator for independant residential power useage. "That already exists...dummy." Yes I know, but my design has a near endless powersource to create electricity. No its not the sun, this thing can work day, night, hot, cold, wet or dry.

My question is, for those of you who know what it is like to pay electricity bills, if you could buy a device to power your home without monthly fluctuating bills, would you? It wouldn't be a cheap item, so most people would likely finance it, but once it is paid for you have free power.

I want to know if there is any type of market for such a thing. It seems to me that these days with energy companies raping the consumer, that people would be more open to the idea....

The device would likely be not much bigger than that of a AC unit that sits outside your house, ideally. Size would likely also be based on power demand.

if we knwe it worked and was demnstratable, there would be plenty of people who'd be interested.

naturally it would dempend highly on how much the thing would cost, but i can see a genuine nterest in it. the only problem would be if power companies thought it was a viable solution, thye'd try to buy you out, and shut the whole project up.

Well, what do you put in this generator to make it supply such a good amount of energy?

Supporting this generator with resources cost money too.

Why not build one giant one and give everyone power?

If it was a steady source of power that doesn't depend on something as variable as the wind or sun (cloudy days), and if it could pay for itself within, say, 10 years (and keep running well after that) and provide the necessary wattage to keep a house going at 120V AC current, then yeah, I'd say you have something.

Those are some pretty big ifs though. I'm quite curious as to how you've overcome the obstacles you undoubtly face with such a system.

Another issue with purchasing it would be that I wouldn't buy it unless I knew I was going to live in the same place for a while. I assume the device isn't exactly mobile, ie needs to be mounted in some way, and wire hookups, breaker boxes etc. I definately wouldn't buy it just for my apartment or something.

I'd also be interested in the warranty and service plan. What kind of failsafes does it have in case of a power overload? What happens if I accidentally draw too much power - will it burn down my house, and what kind of warranty coverage can I expect?

Furthermore, what kind of size of circuit can it support? Single-room apartments, or full-size house?

Two words:

Dead babies.

It won't. That should save you some time, effort, and embarrassment.

There are thousands of such devices awaiting to be patented. In most all cases, the official responds has been that they 'lack the expertise to appropriately evaluate the inventions.' Now, understanding how rediculous that sounds and understanding what a huge industry the oil and power are and thus the money invested in various lobyiest organization...you do the math.

Sooooo, you'd have to create it with-out a patent. For that alone, you're going to have a very hard time finding investers. Even if you had sponsors, you'd still have to prove to the government that it's completely safe for consumer use (and again, it all hinges on the government 'approving' your invention).

You'd be better off cutting a deal with a third-world country then trying to develop it in the US, Canada, or anywhere in Europe.

THEN DO IT

Oh, by the way, if you actually HAD what you claim to have, you'd have no problem getting investors whatsoever. none whatsoever.

Right, because, chances are, we know what we're talking about, whereas you don't.

There are plenty of alternative energy sources being researched. Some are more realistic than others. Everyone and their uncle thinks they can solve the problem. They can't. Not because the man is holding them back, but because their inventions are piles of garbage that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.

I haven't claimed to have anything other then a Theory. Neither has KOP_AoEJedi. No surprise, though, that the members of Massassi immidiately jump to conclusions...

I have a similiar invention. It costs a lot of money up front; but can run just about forever on a small amount of fuel. Unfortunatly, it produces some pretty nasty waste. The trick, of course, is that that waste can be recycled and used as fuel again (with slightly lower energy output) ! I havn't got the expertise to build one myself, but trust me, it's awesome. It will solve all our energy problems!

I call it 'nuclear power'. Pretty catchy name, huh?

No

No such thing as free energy, so no.

And before Friend14 comes in with his fyziks, sorry, thermodynamics states there's no such thing as free energy, period, whatsoever, there's nadda, nothing, despite his (stupid) claims to the otherwise.

Needs a power source.

Well to be fair, he never explicitly said it was free energy. I mean, there are plenty of ways to generate power at home without paying for anything (wind, solar, thermal cycle, burning garbage, etc.). And considering how few people use these (getting power from the grid is so cheap that it takes decades to recover the cost), unless your invention was a lot better in some way then it's unlikely there would be much interest.

Why not just tell us a bit about it?

Dj Yoshi, for the uptenth millionth time. "Free Energy" does NOT mean 'Energy from nowhere' or 'Zero-Point Energy.' The word Free in "Free Energy" means energy that is produced for virtually no cost to the consumer. It does NOT (as you can see in many of the patent pending devices) violate the laws of thermodynamics. Even if working in the Classical sense. Until you can understand that fundamental point, you'll never understand anything about the subject.

Just because there's a pataent one something doesn't mean it's worth the price of the paper the patent in written on.

While true, it's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that you can clearly see where people are not trying to 'bypass' thermodynamics in their patents.

Stop with your silly "classical sense" crap. I am HARDLY knowledgeable in physics, and even I have the BASIC 12TH GRADE PHYSICS HOMEWORK to prove you wrong. Stop posting your useless half-physics crap, where you make things up based on it not being "classical." Blood and water are the same thing, just not in the "classical" sense of the two being equal. Seriously, stop.

He does have a point there. What that point is and how its related is completely over my head.

Still this is something that should show up in your user guide for how to deal with.

Classical Physics (proven) = Positive Physics
All Other Physics (unproven) = Normative Physics

Every bit of Classical Physics started as Normative Physics at some point in time (the Scientific Method, for instance, starts as a Normative idea..a hypothesis). Even still, Positive Physics isn't always right. Take String Theory for instance. It started as Normative Physics. Highly debunked by the Scientific Community. They managed to Mathematically prove the Theory and then Viola, Positive Physics. But wait, then some more people come along with another Normative Twist, they manage to Mathematically prove their version of the Theory and Viola, Positive Physics...oh wait. That's not even where it ends. There are several (read many) different String Theories, all of which have been Mathematically 'proven'. Yet, logic dictates that only ONE of them can be accurate. Thus, String Theory (or at least it's concept in general) falls back into the relm of Normative Physics.

"blah blah blah something from nothing blah blah blah"

I'm probably sounding like a gigantic ******* to you, but I REALLY can't care anymore. For some reason, time and time again, you keep posting in physics threads, offending the very BASICS of physics, established and constantly proven and supported since (And probably before) Newton. Were you describing, say, the method where they've created those crazy out-of-dimension partical from an atom smasher, I MIGHT start agreeing with you, because it's new, cutting edge technology. You seem to think a couple magnets and other objects from your ACE hardwear store is the key to something out of nothing.

You can throw around all of the "Science proves and disproves itself all the time" crap you want. In the end, you're trying to use that argument to support a concept that defies EVERYTHING in physics with your only data being some big thinking, and magnet experiments. Stop. Now.

I refer you to my post directed to Dj Yoshi. Again, that is NOT what "Free Energy" means.

You know what? I'm ignoring you for the rest of the thread. I just realized you nor I made this thread:

Can you describe how this thing works a little better? I'm confused.

I'm CERTAIN the average home would pay for an object like this, and even those who couldn't afford it would be able to obtain more affordable housing from the government, raising government standards.

I can't see an idea like that failing, really. What I can see, however, is that you're no expert. I'm not saying you COULDN'T have a very proficient energy source, or maybe that you've got a clever way of minimizing energy loss, but it's unlikely that someone else hasn't already thought of it yet, is what I'm saying.

JediKirby

Eh, wrong. Free energy...means free energy. Energy at a cost, however minute, isn't small. And even your "free" energy isn't that great yet--you barely see enough energy in such systems to power a lightbulb, and the only way to power a house usually involves a machine the size of a house, if not multiple times its size.

Good job at mutilating the meaning of "free" though.


String Theory is a theory still, kinda like the theory of relativity. Both have been disproven at certain levels.

F=MV is just retarded though.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Eh, wrong. Free energy...means free energy. Energy at a cost, however minute, isn't small. And even your "free" energy isn't that great yet--you barely see enough energy in such systems to power a lightbulb, and the only way to power a house usually involves a machine the size of a house, if not multiple times its size.[/quote]

No, not necissarily. There are some theories concerning magnetic energy. It is conceivable, then, that such energy could be tapped at the source directly (considering the innate kinetic implications).



I didn't, you simply still fail to understand the basic principles of the subject. You will continue to do so until you grasp that it does not mean 'energy from nowhere'.




Actually, they've merged them together (the String Theories) under the assumption that they must be related. M-Theory is what I believe they are calling it now. The assumption is along the lines of 'if they can all be mathematically be proven, then they must all be correct, thus they must all be interrelated in some way'. My point was that just because something can be 'Proven' doesn't mean that it's truly accurate or that it can not be later proven to be false.



Actually, that has been heavily misquoted. My original posting of the equation read F sub i = MV sub i. Where i = instantaneous. The idea is that a force is only perceived in one single instantaneous moment of time. However, the Acceleration term must be tracked over a period t. Logically, then the acceleration varible is invalid at an instantaneous moment (because delta t = 1). Thus, at an instantaneous moment in time, only a constant velocity (v) can be tracked in the formula (and still have applicable meaning). It's just a new way of looking at Force (at least, as a starting principle).

Oh, yeah, good source, nice citations, man, I totally believe you now. A couple theories you speak of which have no root in reality whatsoever. Thanks for clearing that up.


But it does. Free energy would be literally energy at no cost. I may "fail to understand the basic principles of the subject" but you fail to understand the basic principles of english


Source.


And a wrong way.

Sorry, but you still lose at phsyics. You do win at fyziks though. I guess that's kind of a lame prize though.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Oh, yeah, good source, nice citations, man, I totally believe you now. A couple theories you speak of which have no root in reality whatsoever. Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]

Here's one approach off hand...
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/MagF2.html



No Cost does NOT mean from No where. You're the only one failing at basic reading comprehension.



Not that it's relevant...
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html



There is no "wrong way" in normative physics (or normative anything for that matter).



Sorry, but you still lose at understanding that normative discussions of any subject are just as viable of a discussion as one that deals with the possitive aspects. Thinking "outside the box", as it were, is the relm of innovation.

An object moving at a constant velocity has no force acting on it (it is has no acceleration).

I wonder what would happen if you used a small hydroelectric generator on your plumbing, and just how much (or little) electric energy you could get.

ok you guys went off into detailed quoting of eachother and seems to have gotten slightly off track. I have done some research as to the physics of the machine, and from what I have learned, what I am making WILL generate a current, I just haven't figured out how much. I need to build a prototype of it, (much smaller in scale, probably only to power one light) However, the key material that I need costs about $500 for about 3lbs of the stuff. Though, like I said, it is a near endless energy source, over LONG periods of time it may lose its strength, but I would think 10-20 years at least. Then again, what technology lasts that long anyway? Something better always comes around.

I'm going to need to research the 'power source' a little more because the physics of it still are slightly confusing to me, but I really think this would work. However, like I said, I do not know the amount of power it will generate. I've yet to find any sort of experiments or formulas regarding exactly what it is im doing.

Oh, just go invent cold fusion. We could really use that.

The object isn't moving because this equation 'freezes' it in time so that we can look at the Force relative to the velocity at that moment. In this case, there is no 'delta' (change).

F = ma = m(v/t)

At an instantaneous moment in time, t = 1. So the equation can be siplified to:

F = m(v/1) or simply F = mv

Though, you have to include the subscripts to indicate that you're talking about a single moment in time. t = 1 instead of 0 because we're 'freezing' an instant moment of time after the object was initially accelerated.

I always wondered how photovoltaic cells compared to solar thermal energy.

Does your plan involve neodymium?

Instantaneous is the limit as x -> 0. t=1 is not instantaneous

I hope you didn't base your entire huge theory on that, because you just got math-blasted out of the water.

How embarassing.

Hahahahahaha!

Holy crap, I'm e-mailing this thread to my physics teacher from highschool.

10 bucks says he'll sign up and ask for your address so he can send you 4000000 textbooks that disagree.

Oh man.