The ever elusive free energy device

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a "free energy" device that purportedly harnesses gravity and buoyancy to generate excess energy. Participants explore the feasibility of this idea, questioning its adherence to the laws of thermodynamics and the practical energy requirements involved in the proposed mechanism.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a device that combines magnets and buoyancy to generate energy, suggesting that elongating coils could produce more energy than consumed.
  • Another participant questions the cyclical operation of the device and emphasizes the energy costs associated with moving the object through different phases of the system.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of Lenz's law, which suggests that induced electromagnetic forces would counteract the movement of the load, complicating the energy generation process.
  • Some participants note that the concept resembles a buoyant perpetual motion device, which is generally considered impossible under current physical laws.
  • There is a discussion about the energy expenditure required to operate the device, particularly in moving the object between different energy points and overcoming water pressure.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the original poster's belief that the device could work despite acknowledging its violation of thermodynamic principles.
  • Another participant suggests that the original poster should educate themselves on the relevant scientific principles to better understand the flaws in their reasoning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the proposed device violates the laws of thermodynamics and is unlikely to work as described. However, there is no consensus on the specifics of the energy requirements or the feasibility of the proposed mechanism.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that discussions about perpetual motion devices are typically banned in the forum, indicating a limitation on the scope of acceptable discourse regarding such concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring concepts of energy generation, thermodynamics, and the principles of buoyancy and magnetism in theoretical contexts.

crhurd
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The ever elusive "free energy" device...

Hello. Let me begin by stating that I have no formal physics/science training, and am not here to wear a tin foil hat, close my eyes and claim that I've solved the worlds problems. That being said... I have a theory, and I'd like to be told why it wouldn't work.

I'm going to stray from the typical approach of magneticism or the use of electricity as the sole source of energy creation... I can't seem to find any method to effectively generate excess energy with maginets alone... and it seems that the only way to "produce" excess energy from an electrical driven source is by improperly measuring watts vs volts etc...

That being established, here is my theory. Can excess energy be generated by harnessing gravity along with boyancy? See the attached (very rough) drawing of my theory.

The device that would travel through the system would be part magnet, and part air pocket (for buoyancy). As it passes through the coils it would generate energy... the beauty of the system is that you can elongate coils 1 and 2 until you generate more energy than what Energy Points 1 and 2 actually use.

Thoughts? I know it's impossible... I know it violates the laws of Thermodynamics, etc... etc... but I can't see why this model wouldn't work, and need to be shown why my model would not work (OTHER than the simple assumption that it's impossible).

Thanks!
 

Attachments

Science news on Phys.org


I assume you intend for this device to operate cyclically; otherwise, your power output is going to be approximately zero over time. What are the energy requirements to move the object from the top of the water column to the top of the air column and from the bottom of the air column to the bottom of the water column? You can't ignore these in your analysis.
 


This is another variant of the buoyant perpetual motion device. You need to exert a force to push the load beneath the surface of the liquid at energy point 2. And bear in mind that by Lenz law, when the load rises or falls at either sides of the loop, the induced emf would generate a counter magnetic field which retards the movement of the load. Think of it as magnetic friction. This makes it even harder for the load to be pushed underwater.

Anyway threads on perpetual motion devices are banned here. I'm kind of surprised your attachment got approved in the first place.
 


Mapes said:
I assume you intend for this device to operate cyclically; otherwise, your power output is going to be approximately zero over time. What are the energy requirements to move the object from the top of the water column to the top of the air column and from the bottom of the air column to the bottom of the water column? You can't ignore these in your analysis.

Yes, that's correct... the expenditure of energy would be in the "valve" at the bottom of coil 1 (this could potentiall be designed to not expend energy? possibly utilizing the weight of the magnet/air capsule to open the valve?)...

The energy usage would be primarily at the Energy Point 2, and it would involve moving the object from the Coil 2 (which has water in order to float the devie through coil 2) back to Coil 1 in order to begin the cycle again. The two major motions would be opening the top of the container (which would need to have been closed so that there was no back pressure after the object hits the first "valve") and the second movement would be transferring the device from Coil 2 back to Coil 1.

I don't know enough of the math or science to actually generate an exact amount of energy that I believe it would take for the top part of the machine... I am curious, however, if I can not exceed that amount of energy by elongating the coils since I can effectively generate a higher distance (thus more energy) while keeping the energy expenditure constant (the coil 2 to 1 transfer).

Am I correct in my thinking? If not, where am I making my mistake? Or is it impossible to generate a relevant amount of energy through gravity alone? (ie; my device would have to be an impossible height in order to even match the energy expended to move from 2 to 1).
 


Defennder said:
This is another variant of the buoyant perpetual motion device. You need to exert a force to push the load beneath the surface of the liquid at energy point 2. And bear in mind that by Lenz law, when the load rises or falls at either sides of the loop, the induced emf would generate a counter magnetic field which retards the movement of the load. Think of it as magnetic friction. This makes it even harder for the load to be pushed underwater.

Anyway threads on perpetual motion devices are banned here. I'm kind of surprised your attachment got approved in the first place.

Sorry... I didn't realize that they were banned! I'll gladly remove/delete my posts...
 


crhurd said:
... I know it violates the laws of Thermodynamics, etc... etc... but I can't see why this model wouldn't work, and need to be shown why my model would not work (OTHER than the simple assumption that it's impossible).

You've answered your own question. It won't work because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics! :wink:

BTW, I believe you can post this type of question in the https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5" subforum.

The rules of this forum can be found https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374".

CS
 
Last edited by a moderator:


crhurd said:
...the beauty of the system is that you can elongate coils 1 and 2 until you generate more energy than what Energy Points 1 and 2 actually use.

crhurd said:
I don't know enough of the math or science to actually generate an exact amount of energy that I believe it would take for the top part of the machine... I am curious, however, if I can not exceed that amount of energy by elongating the coils since I can effectively generate a higher distance (thus more energy) while keeping the energy expenditure constant (the coil 2 to 1 transfer).

You've said this a couple times, but I'm not buying it. How does the mass get back underwater? By a door or airlock? This process takes more, not less, energy as the tube height increases, because the water pressure scales with height.

(I realize that you're not advocating perpetual motion or over-unity devices here, but rather trying to understand the flaw in your reasoning via standard physics. I hope this discussion helps.)
 


stewartcs said:
BTW, I believe you can post this type of question in the https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5" subforum.

Actually, you can't. S&D forum is not meant to debunk something that clearly violates current understanding of how our physical world works.

I believe this thread has sufficiently addressed the OP and thus, it is done.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just $.02 more: Based on your statements, you seem to realize this violates the known laws of physics, yet you still seem to think the device could be made to work. This confuses me. The best way out of this mess, though, is to educate yourself about science, enough to figure out for yourself why such things are fundamentally flawed. Then, not only will you have gained some knowledge, you'll be able to avoid wasting your time pursuing things that can't possibly work. Here's a site that analyzes such devices and does a pretty good job of explaining the physical principles involved: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
 

Similar threads

Graduate Air conditioner without heat output - Is it possible?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Gibbs free energy of activation and activation energy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Springs: Can they be used to conserve energy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Why is Qir < than Qr? Carnot cycle and change in G
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Graduate Extracting Ambient Thermal Energy Without Gradients
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Is the Photoelectric Effect Proof That Light Is a Particle?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Undergrad Does dark-energy require a source of energy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Does physics forbid such a device; a heat destroyer
  • · Replies 129 ·
5
Replies
129
Views
19K
Graduate Gibbs Free Energy: Work in H-TS Explained
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Understanding Free Gibbs Energy: The Role of TΔS in Thermodynamics
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K