Flywheel Generator - Split from Propane Solar Collector/Generator Thread

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of using a flywheel-generator system powered by methane from anaerobic digesters to create energy. The original poster believes that with a constant input of methane, the flywheel can perpetually increase in speed and thus generate increasing amounts of electricity. However, several participants argue that a flywheel only stores energy and cannot produce more energy than what is inputted, emphasizing the importance of understanding thermodynamics and energy extraction principles. They caution against referring to the system as a perpetual motion machine, as it could attract negative attention and misinterpretation. The conversation highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of energy conservation laws in the context of the proposed system.
  • #31


greatglory said:
In my original post I mentioned that I am speaking of a synergetic holistic system. By looking merely at the flywheel you are missing the point.
I'm trying to go slowly to help you understand your error.
I gave you an example earlier. The largest flywheel generator spun by a tiny engine. One would not even imagine that it could be done period. But due to Newtons second law of dynamics it is inevitable and since as we find the process is reversible my little engine could provide enough energy for 1/5th of England.
One who understands the math would understand why it couldn't be done. Imagination has nothing to do with it.

Among other things, that example of yours implies a misunderstanding of the difference between power and energy.
This is an entire system that continually increases in power output BECAUSE of the nature of flywheels. And actually due to the math of constant acceleration the total amount of energy needed to spin the flywheel will be equal to 1/2 Kw or something like that.
Well the equations are there, in my previous post: Show how you get 1/2 kW.

If you actually look at the equations, you'll see that applying 1 kW of power to the flywheel will make it accelerate at .96 rad/s^2 and using the flywheel to generate 1 kW of power will cause it to decelerate at .96 rad/s^2. Or, link the three pieces together and you apply 1 kW of power to the flywheel and it then generates 1kW of power without accelerating or decelerating. Simple. This is the law of conservation of energy in action.
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32


greatglory said:
Earlier you one of you argued that a flywheel could not generate power only store it. And the other agreed. I see some movement on your part.
You misunderstood that too: An energy storage device is of course useless unless the energy can be extracted. The energy you store in a flywheel can be extracted via a generator. A flywheel (on its own) cannot, however, continuously generate electricity.
 
  • #33


Well greatglory, I can't say that I have a degree in anything but I have messed around with a lot of stuff along the lines you are talking about and have had some encouraging results, but I'm still paying a utility bill each month.
I have lots of bookmarks on my computer, of people that have converted single phase household power to three phase power (rotory converters) for their shops and these systems always require more power from the house current than they transfer into three phase power.

Tell us how your idea is different from Harold bate's "chicken powered car"

http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/batesmethane.htm

I for one have no desire to raise chickens or pigs, just to have power for my energy needs. The time and quantity of material to digest into a given amount of fuel is likely more than would be practical for me.

I believe there are things that been around for a long time that have been dismissed as "not practical" because of fuel being cheap, I do feel things are changing in this present age and look forward to seeing some developments that move efficiency into a better range than is now accepted.

I almost forgot to include the Active Power pdf of their single module UPS specs sheet, look at their ride thru time for delivering stored energy until a diesel powered backup generator kicks in. I have toured their plant in person, and was shown a 400 pound flywheel, which is held at a speed of around 7,600 rpm.

http://www.activepower.com/fileadmin/documents/data_sheets/US/CSSMS-US-1008-w.pdf

They to are working with the idea of thermal exchange of compressed, and expanded air.

RonL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34


Russ, I am very well aware that a flywheel cannot produce energy in and of itself without a generator and yes even with a generator it will slow down UNLESS you apply a constant force to the flywheel. In that case the combination flywheel generator WILL produce increasing amounts of electricity as has been my argument from the outset. Now it is time to throw down the gauntlet. I am not sure how this forum works exactly, but are you willing to submit this discussion to your superiors or comrades or others who may also be familiar with flywheel generators. And will you abide by their findings?

Ron L. I am familiar with Bates chicken powered car. The main difference is that my system is tied to a flywheel that WILL increase in speed and consequent power output being as we continually input methane gas into the ram jet that spins the turbine attached to the flywheel. http://www.lightoftheworld.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1591481%3ABlogPost%3A2884" to my original post concerning the total idea of how to collect the methane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35


russ_watters said:
If you actually look at the equations, you'll see that applying 1 kW of power to the flywheel will make it accelerate at .96 rad/s^2 and using the flywheel to generate 1 kW of power will cause it to decelerate at .96 rad/s^2. Or, link the three pieces together and you apply 1 kW of power to the flywheel and it then generates 1kW of power without accelerating or decelerating. Simple. This is the law of conservation of energy in action.

Perhaps my misunderstanding is of the nature of acceleration. To my understanding acceleration means increasing in speed exponetially. So that after two minutes of acceleration you will be going four times as fast as after one minute of acceleration and if the acceleration is constant after four minutes of acceleration you will be going 16 times as fast. Those figures won't apply to all circumstances but I am certain that there are specific instances in which that can be made to happen.

As such it matters not what the numbers say, this is a word problem for we are actually on thte same page. The law of conservation of energy does not apply when nobody is attempting to conserve energy. Remember and I repeat once again we are continually adding energy to the system. And one could say so what. All power plants continually add energy to the system, but in this case the flywheel multiplys the effect by taking the normal operations of a generator into the realms of outer space wherein a burn accelerates the craft.
 
  • #36


greatglory said:
My semi-educated guess...

Did your semi-education ever suggest that you might be able to learn something about the world from people who are fully-educated (or at least more-educated) in the field of physics and engineering?
 
  • #37


I'll just build the thing and prove to you that it works. "Good hardware is irrefutable proof of clear thinking." Buckminster Fuller
 
Last edited:
  • #38


"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

-Thomas H. Huxley
 
  • #39


"Just don't hurt yourself, propane can burn in a wide range of fuel/air mixtures"

~Topher925
 
  • #40


I don't think greatglory's machine even uses propane, he's trying to utilize a flywheel to create free energy.
 
  • #41


Did your semi-education ever suggest that you might be able to learn something about the world from people who are fully-educated (or at least more-educated) in the field of physics and engineering?

I may not have a formal education in physics but I do have one in logic you are now arguing from a very weak logical position. I can learn a lot from people who are more educated in the field of phyics and engineering. The question is what have I learned from you?

Earlier I asked you to state your qualifications and subsequently to subject this post to others who CAN actually teach me something. Both reasonable requests which you have chosen to deny.
 
  • #42


I don't think greatglory's machine even uses propane, he's trying to utilize a flywheel to create free energy.

Ultimately the energy I am creating comes from the Sun by way of photo-synthesis in the growing of whatever feed stock is fed to the animals that produce the manure that is then fed into the anaerobic digester that creates the methane that powers the ramjet which spins the turbine which is attached to the flywheel-generator.
 
  • #43


The point is, you cannot extract more energy from the flywheel than was first put into it. If you spin the flywheel up to a million rpm and store 1 MJ of energy in it, you cannot extract more than 1 MJ of energy out of it again (and it's likely you'll recover much less than you put in due to various losses everywhere). Similarly, if the flywheel is spinning at a given speed and you are extracting a set power from it (say 1W), you must put at least 1W of power back into keep it spinning at the same speed; if you take into account frictional losses you'll have to put in a little bit more than 1W.

Your arguments of your "understanding" of acceleration and moment of inertia and formal education in logic are all for naught; energy in = energy out. Period.
 
  • #44


The great promise of Anticipatory Design Science - The slaying of ugly facts by good hardware." - Gregory GOrDon
 
  • #45


greatglory said:
Earlier I asked you to state your qualifications and subsequently to subject this post to others who CAN actually teach me something. Both reasonable requests which you have chosen to deny.

My credentials: A levels in Maths, Physics and Chemistry. Honours degree in mechanical engineering. Government certification for competency in gas installations and gas fuelled engines. Postgraduate study in fundamental engine science. Nearly four years working for a large manufacturer of industrial engines, developing and installing products for CHP, landfill and bio gas applications. Currently conducting independent research into biomass power for low calorific value fuels. Oh, and three weeks ago I tested an engine with a lightweight flywheel and a heavy flywheel (and I bet you can't guess which one produces more power).

Yours?
 
Last edited:
  • #46


Unfortunately for you, quotes cannot make your design work. The fact remains that you are fundamentally (and perhaps purposely) misinterpreting how a flywheel works.

Russ posed a very simple question to you a while back: if you extract 1 KW of power from a flywheel (regardless of size) how much energy must you put into the flywheel to ensure it stays at constant speed? The answer is of course 1 KW because a flywheel is not a source of energy, it is simply a mechanical energy storage device.

You can extract energy from a moving flywheel, but that energy must have been put into it first to start it spinning.
 
  • #47


First I want to thank all of you who have responded to my ravings and rantings about this idea. You have now forced me to put up or shut up so beginning on the first of January my primary focus will be on creating this very same contraption. Also, I have not felt so invigorated in any of my Internet usage as I have in the past two days. I've been forced to look up definitions of ideas that I have avoided for a long time as well as use my best debating skills. For that I thank you all. But...

The point is, you cannot extract more energy from the flywheel than was first put into it
.

Maybe YOU can't but I can and will. Where would the science of nuclear fission and fusion be if everyone thought like you?

Let's think about all of the energy that is going into this flywheel in particular and that went into the original design of all flywheels in general. Remember, as I am taking out electricity the flywheel is accelerating due to the constant input of energy.

As I've identified in my prior post the Ultimate source of the energy is to be found in the Sun, converted as it were through the aformentioned processes. Therefore whether the loss is 0% or 10% does not matter for as long as the Sun will shine we can get the needed supply of energy into the system. And again and I am tired of repeating myself on this point we are talking about acceleration which does actually have something to do with the theory of relativity.

The whole point of using a flywheel generator is that it is the most efficient form of generator. Some have been known to spin on their own even overcoming frictional losses.

At this point I'd like to extend a warm welcome to all of you to view this contraption once I get it working. "Now I've got my work cut out for me."
 
  • #48


Oh, and three weeks ago I tested an engine with a lightweight flywheel and a heavy flywheel (and I bet you can't guess which one produces more power).

Neither one, as according to you flywheels can't produce power they only "store" it.

So as to not leave without stating my credentials: Bachelor of Science Degree; International Environmental Science-Public Policy Analysis, 1980, Cook College, Rutgers University. Attended Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California Berkeley, CA. Left to do my duty as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, which was to make war with the anti-Christ: former United States President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Inventor of The Dynamic Light Reflection, Author: Impeach the Anti-Christ, Image of the Beast, The Beast Hunter and Ronald Reagan: Anti-Christ. Have appeared on over 20 national radio and television shows and have my own reality TV Big Brother type show known to me as The G's'S Christ Light Show.
 
  • #49


greatglory said:
Maybe YOU can't but I can and will. Where would the science of nuclear fission and fusion be if everyone thought like you?

Egads, it's worse than I thought...

Let me ask you then, if you're going to be extracting excess energy from the flywheel (as in, more energy than you're putting in) where is the energy coming from? You're suggesting that your invention will break the first law of thermodynamics, so I'm wondering what basis you have for backing up your claim?
 
  • #50


So because your religious you have all the answers?

Maybe YOU can't but I can and will. Where would the science of nuclear fission and fusion be if everyone thought like you?

It would be right where it is because scientists DO think like him. I think you need to take your nose out of the bible and put it into some mechanics textbooks and then report back in a few weeks.
 
  • #51


So because your religious you have all the answers?

No, its not because I am religious, it is because I can read, write, understand and stand on my own, inspite of insults and illogical doubts as to the validity of what was earlier called "Obvious" in this very discussion.

Again according to the Wikipedia: The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light.

so I'm wondering what basis you have for backing up your claim?

I base most of my information on [crackpot link deleted].

It takes less energy to keep a flywheel spinning that is already in motion than it does to get one started in the first place. Hence if you can get 1kw out of 1kw in from scratch each additional kw will take less and less energy to create. Remember there is a spinning mass associated with this plan and that mass is also converting itself into energy as it spins. And if we use the proper flywheel-generator system as per Alfred Evert's work the efficiencies increase even more.

I agree with all of his conclusions except this one: "Motor must not work continuously. Motor should not transfer power onto flywheel at phases of high forces (here at vertical position of flybeam), because thus motor would drive generator directly and previous leverarm-effect could not work."

The reason I disagree with this is that my motor is actually also a flywheel of sorts. It is a free spinning turbine that can and will also increase in speed as the flywheel increases in speed. That is why it matters very much whether or not it is a hampster wheel, or not. Forgive me for not explaining this before, but I thought it was obvious. Hence "at phases of high forces... the lever arm effect" would work for the turbine, the generator and the flywheel. All of his other calculations are merely added efficiencies. It is upon this free spinning turbine alone that my design is based.

It is like a double edged razor one is good but too is better. Come to think obout it, this may work by simply adding another flywheel or free spinning element else where in the system. What that could be I am not sure of yet. But it WILL come to me.

Here's the total scope of the plan. I will create an engine that CONSTANTLY inputs energy from an unlimited and virtually free source of methane gas, namely feces, dung, manure, ca-ca, do-do or whatever you care to call it, into a ram jet that expells a heated gas at a high velocity through a free spinning turbine which will then spin the flywheel-generator to which it is attached. In this scenario the turbine is actually the motor.


According to Newtons Second Law this will cause the flywheel to accelerate, acclerate, accelerate, (for emphasis). It is through the phenomenon of accelration that the excess energy will be created.

Now it is time for me to get off of my high horse and ask a legitimate question. Can someone please explain the phenomenon of acceleration to me. I've read up on it and all of the links take me to general theories and special theories of relativity, which quite frankly is way out of my league at this sage of the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52


It would be right where it is because scientists DO think like him.

Do you think that is supposed to impress me.

"People do not see the past as what was once the present or the present as what will be visible past." Paul Williams

We are as much in the dark ages as at any time in history. At one point in time the Earth was flat... and it was thought that flywheels could not produce energy.
 
Last edited:
  • #53


Greatglory, this started with an apparently simple misunderstanding of some basic physics. I should have concentrated on f=ma, because it is the one physics equation you have acknowledged and is really all that is needed here (or, rather, its rotational equivalent) (edit: ehh, yeah, power too). Your claim boils down to this: a force applied in one direction will cause a different acceleration than a force applied in the opposite direction. This is an obvious violation of f=ma. This misunderstanding is apparently based partly on working backwards from a misunderstanding of the difference between power and energy, but those concepts really need to be tackled after learning/accepting f=ma, not before.

But the thread has progressed beyond this simple high school level misunderstanding to off-the-wall crackpottery and won't be allowed to continue.
 
Last edited: