# Flywheel Generator - Split from Propane Solar Collector/Generator Thread

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:

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:
russ_watters
Mentor

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: