Posted on 05/26/2024 6:02:10 AM PDT by bert
It was actually Heinlien that popularized the acronym in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.
Except, the motor is plugged in and does not start until the generator os made to spin.
Thus, the motor is apparently not stqrted by the hidden batteries in the power strip.
“They don’t work ANYWHERE. Kinda like every single version of communism.”
Excellent analogy! I’ll have to remember it.
Communism removes the primal motive forces out of an individual that creates prosperity. Those are people’s natural yearning to advance their “self interests” and the desire to advance oneself.
It extinguishes the “pursuit of happiness”.
That device actually worked until big oil changed the fuel formulation. Smokey Yunick’s “hot box” setup worked as well.
In the simple case, a spacecraft which collides with a planet will in fact exchange energy with it. Seemingly, the energy of the planet is not affected at all, whereas the spacecraft got a lot hotter and a lot more scrambled. Easy to see the energy there.But in reality the energy of the planet will change equally - but that change will be so small in context of the enormous mass of the planet as to be unnoticeable.
But Energy conservation is the wrong paradigm to analyze a collision.
In the case of a spacecraft using a planet as a “slingshot,” no less than in an outright collision, there will be conservation of momentum. The planet picks up (what is in context of the mass and velocity of the planet a trivial amount of) momentum from the spacecraft, and spacecraft picks up (what is in context of the mass and velocity of the spacecraft a very substantial amount of) momentum from the planet.Note that in the slingshot maneuver the momentum picked up by the spacecraft will increase the spacecraft’s energy and - equally - reduce the planet’s energy. Not that you would notice the latter change, in context of the planet’s total energy.
Ping to my #106.
True enough Bert— mostly from gear heads you were seeking comments and counter observations. No harm. An entertaining post. There are others- tend to enjoy the ones with the new design water turbines for people with a stream on their property— these turn enough to truly run a generator to effective storage battery with an AC converter. Store DC. The AC pull feeds the house system and reduces grid intake/expense. This does work. Happy Memorial Day!
Come to think of it, we had the exact thing you describe (not that I would bother to watch a youTube video on a perpetual motion machine topic) back in the 1950s in Electrical Engineering Lab. It was called a “motor-generator set,” and it was, at the time, of some utility only because transistors could not then be economically made (if at all) which would convert significant power wattage from AC to DC or vice versa.The machines in that lab were not new, must’ve been around for a decade or so by the time I saw them. The conceit that a simple pair of such machines could generate positive net power output ex nihilo - and that only now, human generations after I saw them, has thought to try it and succeeded strains credulity far past the breaking point. In reality the torque required to turn the generator will inevitably exceed the torque produced by the motor which turns the generator at any nonzero RPM.
You could start your system - at any RPM you choose - from an external power source, with the generator electrically disconnected) and that system would continue to rotate, accomplishing nothing but not slowing down, after you disconnect the the external power source. Also neglecting friction, if you adjust the voltage output of the generator to equal the back emf (electromagnetic force) of the the motor at the given RPM, you could connect the generator electrically to the motor and the system would continue at the same RPM. But no current would flow. The instant you put a load (say, a toaster) in parallel with the generator to produce actual output power, the torque required to turn the generator at that RPM would exceed the torque output of the motor - and the RPM of the system declines exponentially towards zero.
Theoretically never reaching zero, not that you could tell the difference.
Cranking an electric generator is work, which promoters of schemes to us an electric motor to turn an electric generator as a way to create energy want to gloss over.
There are ways to collect energy and make it available to do work all around us. “The fusion reactor in the sky,” as Elon Musk describes the sun, is the prime example. There is also geothermal heat, which is mostly “too hard” to economically access. Wind. Tides. Hydro.
The thing to understand is Moore’s Law - which accurately predicts progress as a function, not of time, but of the logarithm of the total quantity which has been produced.
In my lifetime solar panels started out as so inefficient and expensive as to be worthless for any earthbound application. But in space, all you had was sunlight (or nuclear power), and so solar panels were made in (relative to today) trivial quantities to power satellites. But precisely because the past quantities made was so low back then, it didn’t take a whole lot of utility discovery to create enough demand to induce the production of double the quantity ever made in the past. That process has continued to accelerate the quantity which has been produced and, concommitantly as Moore’s Law would predict, each doubling of production has produced the learning and the investment in economies of scale to reduce the cost of a given quantity of kilowatts worth of solar panel by a constant percentage.
And what with laptops and cell phones and, lately, electric cars, the quantity of production of rechargeable batteries has been following a similar path.
The upshot is that solar panels combined with rechargeable batteries are getting so cheap and so good that fantasies of perpetual motion machines are moot. And we wouldn’t need to pave a major state with solar panels to get all the electricity we need.
But AI supercomputers are coming - and we’re gonna need all AI’s smarts to figure out how to power them and dispose of the heat they’ll dissipate.
Any voltage through an inductor creates counter-EMF. Any current through an electric conductor creates a magnetic field which induces a current in opposition to the initial current.
What a Stoopid Fokker!
Likely a product of today’s ‘Educational System.
What happens to inventors who developed ‘free energy’ devices?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL3Yyv-Wt1M
Yep.... there was a doctor, of sorts, in England that replicated Meyers work, specifically the circuit that made the “magic” happen then claimed he could not reveal it due to the threats he received on him and his families life.
I so despise control freaks. Ticks me off thinking about all that talent snuffed out prematurely all because of control and greed. As a society, we are way behind where we should be due to these control freak SOB’s. The primary problem is many people want to capitalize on their invention and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially when it benefits mankind as a whole. But.... this can’t be done given the trail of bodies that’s been left behind.
The solution is to share the information to those that are unequivocally trustworthy as well as talented enough to build the tech, pay in forward so to speak. When enough individuals have built this tech and pay it forward, it can’t be stopped as it’s now out there. Slow and steady wins the race.... slow and steady.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.