''Perpetual'' free energy cell

[Shadow Wolf]

I know, perpetual to the extent of until atomic decay is pretty good and probably as good as it gets.

Your idea is water in a box. That won't work to generate energy. I may only be at a beginners level of electronics, but even I know enough to know your idea does not explain anything or demonstrate how it would create said charge, what kind of voltage and amperage it gives, and we are left with something that we don't even know what kind of ohms we are looking at to power an LED diode.

 

[james blunt]

Aye, for non-technical types, it's easy to use ordinary English which
accidentally uses jargon. This muddies the meaning conveyed.
So I cut our friend some slack.

Thank you, you are correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have demonstrated the physics, if you want more proof stop being lazy if you have money and experiment.

No, you merely made a lame drawing and posted an unsupported claim. Claims supported with a hand wave can be refuted with a hand wave

 

[james blunt]

Your idea is water in a box. That won't work to generate energy.

The idea will work and will generate electricity, it is not a matter of working, you could shake it and would produce electricity. It is a question of amplifying the electricity.

 

[`mud]

hey Shadow,
Ohms don't power anything, charge does, in amperes !
The ohms are the culprit here, the loss of joules of charge.
But you're thinking....I can tell !

 

[Revoltingest]

The idea will work and will generate electricity, it is not a matter of working, you could shake it and would produce electricity. It is a question of amplifying the electricity.

To amplify power requires power.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea will work and will generate electricity, it is not a matter of working, you could shake it and would produce electricity. It is a question of amplifying the electricity.

It takes energy to shake it, that is not "free energy".

 

[`mud]

hey Rev,
You got that right !

 

[exchemist]

Worse yet, still not perpetual motion. If there is a temperature change and the container is sealed that will created a minuscule voltage, but that is not free energy and if that is tapped then one must add energy to make a reverse pressure to generate voltage in the other direction. Again a minuscule voltage that would not even come close to generating the energy necessary to keep the cube changing size.

And people that already understand the math know why this does not work. Your claim, that this would produce energy, the burden of proof is upon you.

Well, thinking about it properly, you could in principle make a device that obtained energy from the thermal expansion and contraction of an object, due to diurnal temperature change. This could be done either mechanically or via piezo-electricity. It would have the effect of altering the effective heat capacity of the object, as more heat would be absorbed to expand it as the temperature changed, due to the energy absorbed by the device, and less heat would be released back to the environment as it cooled and shrank. It is a sort of heat engine.

A moment spent calculating the energy made available from this (given the tiny coefficients of expansion of solids and liquids) shows how useless it would be. This of course is the reason why the working fluids in real heat engines almost invariably make use of a change of state and the associated Latent Heat of Vaporisation/Condensation, as this gives a far larger capacity to absorb (and then convert) energy.

 

[james blunt]

It takes energy to shake it, that is not "free energy".

Lazy man, but it will produce energy stationary also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, thinking about it properly, you could in principle make a device that obtained energy from the thermal expansion and contraction of an object, due to diurnal temperature change. This could be done either mechanically or via piezo-electricity. It would have the effect of altering the effective heat capacity of the object, as more heat would be absorbed to expand it as the temperature changed, due to the energy absorbed by the device, and less heat would be released back to the environment as it cooled and shrank. It is a sort of heat engine.

A moment spent calculating the energy made available from this shows how useless it would be. This of course is the reason why the working fluids in real heat engines almost invariably make use of a change of state and the associated Latent Heat of Vaporisation/Condensation, as this gives a far larger capacity to absorb (and then convert) energy.

Right, though that would be renewable energy and not "free energy". The OP does not seem to understand that the generation of charge is not endless. Pressure on a piezoelectric surface will generate a charge. If that charge is drained off it does not magically reappear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lazy man, but it will produce energy stationary also.

For all practical purposes it would generate none. Better to set up some solar panels instead.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

it would work in a somewhat limited way.......
much like perpetual clocks do, based on the natural change in barometric pressure.
However it takes more powerful changes like Tidal, Wind or Hydro power to generate power in volume. Or other means of converting the suns ( or moons) power into usable energy. (which is the basis of them all)

 

[james blunt]

A moment spent calculating the energy made available from this (given the tiny coefficients of expansion of solids and liquids) shows how useless it would be. This of course is the reason why the working fluids in real heat engines almost invariably make use of a change of state and the associated Latent Heat of Vaporisation/Condensation, as this gives a far larger capacity to absorb (and then convert) energy.

What if I changed my water to liquid x and created a core within a cube surrounded by liquid x?

 

[james blunt]

it would work in a somewhat limited way.......
much like perpetual clocks do, based on the natural change in barometric pressure.
However it takes more powerful changes like Tidal, Wind or Hydro power to generate power in volume. Or other means of converting the suns ( or moons) power into usable energy. (which is the basis of them all)

I have a perpetual clock that one is easy .

 

[exchemist]

Right, though that would be renewable energy and not "free energy". The OP does not seem to understand that the generation of charge is not endless. Pressure on a piezoelectric surface will generate a charge. If that charge is drained off it does not magically reappear.

Indeed.

One thing that now slightly intrigues my inner physicist is how to apply the Carnot cycle to such a device. As it is a heat engine, it must require a hot and cold sink and reject waste heat to the cold sink. Need to think about how that would work in this scenario. Hmm.

 

[Audie]

I actually had a talk with someone who'd
worked for "invention submission corporation",
an unconsionable fraud, of course. The
Corporation, that is.

There was an endless stream of ideas, some
just weird, or senseless, been- invented- a-
million-times-already.

One of the latter was a wall mounted tooth
paste dispenser. Great! Who would take it
for free? Not I.

The only other one I can remembrr was an
electric engine, that operated like a gasoline
engine, but with electromagnets to provide
repulsion for the downstroke.

The poor fellow had put in piston rings
but no switching device to reverse polarity.

They said it looked promising and told
him to keep working on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

What if I changed my water to liquid x and created a core within a cube surrounded by liquid x?

You can optimize the design with better materials, shape, etc.
But power output will still be so small that the capital costs
wouldn't justify the power generated.
Your idea has been around for a long time, but you'll notice
that no power companies use it, even though there's no fuel
cost. This points to not being cost effective.

 

[james blunt]

You can optimize the design with better materials, shape, etc.
But power output will still be so small that the capital costs
wouldn't justify the power generated.
Your idea has been around for a long time, but you'll notice
that no power companies use it, even though there's no fuel
cost. This points to not being cost effective.

Well I consider things work better the more intelligent the design, my final notion will use space time energy to increase output. Focusing on the mass/energy equivalent and amplifying the output. Sort of smart cells that ''breathe'' in and out space-time energy.

 

[Audie]

You can optimize the design with better materials, shape, etc.
But power output will still be so small that the capital costs
wouldn't justify the power generated.
Your idea has been around for a long time, but you'll notice
that no power companies use it, even though there's no fuel
cost. This points to not being cost effective.

Hard to come up with a genuinely original idea.

As the poet wrote-

There's never a ship
That couldn't be sunk,
Nor never a thought
That hasn't been thunk.