Can we use counter-rotating rings to generate power on space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of using counter-rotating rings mounted on a structure to generate power, particularly in an orbital environment. Participants explore the feasibility, energy costs, and mechanical considerations involved in such a system.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that counter-rotating rings could generate power if designed to be simple, cost-effective, and modular.
  • Others argue that energy extraction from the system would slow down the spin and that inducing spin requires energy, leading to potential energy losses.
  • A participant suggests that if surfaces do not touch, energy could be produced through magnetic induction, questioning the role of friction in energy losses.
  • It is noted that there are inherent losses at every stage of energy conversion, from fuel to electricity, which complicates the efficiency of the proposed system.
  • One participant expresses a belief that in an orbital environment, the input energy to maintain spin might be less than the output gained, raising concerns about the implications of this idea.
  • Another participant warns that discussing perpetual motion machines or over-unity mechanisms is against forum rules, indicating that such ideas are not considered viable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility and efficiency of using counter-rotating rings for power generation, with some expressing skepticism about energy losses and others exploring the concept further. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the practicality of the idea.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to energy losses, mechanical efficiency, and the implications of proposing systems that may resemble perpetual motion machines. These factors contribute to the complexity of the discussion.

Wilki_22
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I was reading a post by spongebob_79 about using counter-rotating rings to generate power and I had a thought. What is the general opinion of using counter-rotating rings mounted to 2 facing sides of a structure and simpily inducing opposite spins on the structures to generate power? Obviously good mechanical designs would need to be in play for it to work correctly and an amount of orbital construction would be needed as well. But, if it could be designed simply, cost effective, and modular then should not it be feasible?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Energy extraction slows down the spin. Inducing spin costs energy. Energy losses in-between mean that you're putting more energy in than you're getting out of it.
 
Wilki_22 said:
I was reading a post by spongebob_79 about using counter-rotating rings to generate power and I had a thought. What is the general opinion of using counter-rotating rings mounted to 2 facing sides of a structure and simpily inducing opposite spins on the structures to generate power? Obviously good mechanical designs would need to be in play for it to work correctly and an amount of orbital construction would be needed as well. But, if it could be designed simply, cost effective, and modular then should not it be feasible?
Of course it's feasible if you don't mind spending extra money on totally wasted energy (as Bandersnatch pointed out) used to create the energy that you are "saving" that you could have just created directly.
 
I am led to believe the thief you mean is friction? What if the surfaces do not touch and the energy is produced by magnetic induction?
 
No. Friction is the cause of mechanical losses.
The mere fact that you're extracting energy slows down the spin - i.e. making the electrons move in a wire requires energy.
 
Wilki_22 said:
I am led to believe the thief you mean is friction? What if the surfaces do not touch and the energy is produced by magnetic induction?
There is no such thing as a 100% efficient motor or generator. So,

fuel -> motor -> spin -> generator -> electricity

has losses at every stage

So does

fuel -> generator -> electricity

but it has fewer stages in which to incur losses.
 
Ok. I understand. I am going to have to do some more research on the input costs v. output results. It just seems to me that in an orbital environment, the input energy to induce and maintain the spin would be less than the output gained in power production of the generator...strange.
 
Wilki_22 said:
Ok. I understand. I am going to have to do some more research on the input costs v. output results. It just seems to me that in an orbital environment, the input energy to induce and maintain the spin would be less than the output gained in power production of the generator...strange.
You are now talking about a perpetual motion machine ... free energy. It doesn't work and discussion of this crackpot idea are banned on this forum. I understand that you "get" that it doesn't work, I'm just letting you know.
 
Wilki_22 said:
Ok. I understand. I am going to have to do some more research on the input costs v. output results. It just seems to me that in an orbital environment, the input energy to induce and maintain the spin would be less than the output gained in power production of the generator...strange.

Welcome to the PF.

Over-unity mechanisms (and perpetual motion machines) are on the Forbidden Topics list in the PF Rules (see Info at the top of the page). We do not discuss them because they are a waste of time to discuss. Please see the links below in the quote from the Rules -- they should help you to understand the issues better. :smile:

micromass said:
Forbidden Topics -- Pseudoscience, such as (but not limited to):

Perpetual motion and "free energy" discussions
http://wiki.4hv.org/index.php/Free_Energy_Debunking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
http://www.skepdic.com/freeenergy.html
http://www.skepdic.com/perpetual.html

Thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
12K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K