Author Topic: A Promethean Thought Experiment (Read 7522 times)

IggyZ · « **on:** January 02, 2022, 12:54:23 PM »

I came up with a thought experiment that (I hope) proves free energy.

> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

Looking forward to your feedback!

Best wishes for 2022!

IggyZ · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2022, 08:37:10 PM »

I have created a pdf file of the "Promethean Thought Experiment" web page for off-line reading (please see attached file).

IggyZ · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2022, 08:24:21 PM »

Some views and downloads, but unfortunately nobody wants comment.

I really think it is far more efficient to drive the rotor of generator at its circumference than via its axis.

Please watch this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nQ1P-YIZ5o ) of a steam train on a turntable. It weighs over a 100 tons. Do you think two guys can spin this train via an axis?

After you seen the video than please read the attached pdf file or visit the web page.> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

Floor · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2022, 04:35:49 PM »

Its kind of fascinating to see such a large and heavy object
moved by a just few people.

There are three aspects there which make this possible.

Low friction because of use of the rolling of wheels and ball bearings.

Balancing the weight of the locomotive engine and coal car upon the
turntable.

Leverage.

Leverage allows us to trade off distance for force. The engineers don't
need to push as hard as they would if they were more near to the center of
the trains rotation. They instead push with less force but over the course of
a longer distance. Less force greater distance or a greater force and less
distance. Either way requires the same amount of energy.

Even though the turn table uses rolling bearings and wheels, with so much
weight upon it, the friction present is still a very large amount. Even several
human bodies could not push with enough force to turn the train if the leverage
distance was very close to the center of the rotation. They might need to apply
force for only a few inches or feet of distance around a circle, but the force needed
would be too great for three people to apply.

No extra energy becomes available through the use of leverage.

IggyZ · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2022, 08:47:06 PM »

Thank you Floor for your feedback.

I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is situated at the edge. This is also also applies to the Prometheus Generator.Did you read the pdf file or visit the web page?

If you didn't, than please do so and let me know what think of my thought experiment. It is very much appreciated!

> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

Floor · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2022, 06:24:40 AM »

Quote from: IggyZ on January 17, 2022, 08:47:06 PM

I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is situated at the edge.
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

There are differing meanings to the word efficient.

In terms of science and energy the word efficient, means getting the same
result, by expending less energy than would be expended in some other
way of getting that same result.

It could also mean expending less time.

It is not leverage making something more efficient.

This is just one way (a very common way) to do something which is
often more practice able. Neither is situating most of the weight at the
edge "more efficient".

I looked at one of the pdf files. It, like your posting in general,
seems to indicate that you do not know a lot of the basics of which
you are speaking. Much of what you have said doesn't make sense
in terms of the words you are using. I do not mean, simply that they
do not make sense to me. I mean that they do not make sense /
are incorrect usages of the words / are wrong assumptions on your
part.

IggyZ · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2022, 01:09:46 PM »

Thanks again Floor.

Please be more specific. Which assumptions and why are they wrong?

For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?

The power flow diagram of generator (attached file) shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted into electrical power. Is this not correct? For instance, if the mechanical input power of a generator is 1000 watt, than how much of that input power is lost to overcome eddy current loss?

> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

Floor · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2022, 02:41:26 PM »

Your reply began with

"I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its
circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is
situated at the edge. "

You state "I've been told".
How is this a basis for any understanding at all.
It's not, that is how.
What the $%&* does "powering some thing at it's circumference is more efficient mean" ?
It is just about a nonsequitur of a statement.

Yes I have seen the drawing and the wheels are at the edge.

Think about this.
Although the locomotive is generally thought of as a device which moves along a
track in more or less a linear manner, do you think it would be more efficient if it were
running around in circles because the track was laid out in a circle instead ?
After all, half of the drive wheels would then be at the circumference.

Then run a string from the center (front to rear) of the locomotive, to a pole
at the center of the circular track. Consider this arrangement to be one single
device (it is), as if the locomotive were bound to the pole by the string being tied
loosely around that pole.

Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now become more efficient ?
I don't.

Is that not, what you mean by being powered at its circumference ?
Think man, think !

We all some times get a kind of tunnel vision. It happens.

There are lots of people here, who work with "gravity powered" ideas, rotational / inertia
ideas and so on. I myself at times experiment along those lines. If nothing else, we
may learn some new things. We may even find a more efficient way or even a free energy
device. So don't get me wrong. Lets Keep on looking / studying.

IggyZ · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2022, 08:18:45 PM »

Thank you Floor.

Please be so kind to answer the two questions I put to you in my previous tweet. I really appreciate it!

Question 1 :
For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?

Question 2:
The power flow diagram of generator (attached file) shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted into electrical power. Is this not correct? For instance, if the mechanical input power of a generator is 1000 watt, than how much of that input power is lost to overcome eddy current loss?

> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

Floor · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2022, 09:47:56 PM »

1. A waste of time but, 25 watts is also enough to acclerate 140 tons
to a speed of 200km/h.
2. Also a waste of time.

My question was "Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now
become more efficient ?"

done

IggyZ · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2022, 03:34:05 PM »

Judging by your answer to question 1 you seem to agree a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 145 tons electric train a speed of 45 kmh - 145 kmh. So it needs / consumes 1.600 KW.

The generator's rotor needs to travel at 45 kmh (measured at its edge) in order to generate 10 MW (10.000 KW). If the rotor can be powered in the way as depicted in fig. 3, 4, 5, 6 (web page or attached pdf file) and give the rotor a speed of 45 kmh while consuming 1.600 KW of power, it would be possible to generate 8.400 KW (10.000 KW - 1.600 KW) of excess energy. Providing overcoming eddy currents, hysteresis etc. doesn't need 8.400 KW or more power.

> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

So the second question is important. How much of the mechanical input power is needed to overcome eddy currents, hysteresis etc.? The power-flow diagram shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted to electric power. If that is correct, than generating excess energy in the manner as described in the thought experiment should be possible.

P.S.

If a train travels at a speed of 45 kmh, it travels a distance of 45 km in an one hour. As picture 3 and 4 show all the wheels would be on the rail. (This and the above should also answer your question).

Thx Floor for your feedback and time. I am sorry if you think it was a waste of time.

Floor · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2022, 04:26:37 PM »

Your reply began with

"I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its
circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is
situated at the edge. "

You state "I've been told".
How is this a basis for any understanding at all.
It's not, that is how.
What the $%&* does "powering some thing at it's circumference is more efficient mean" ?
It is just about a nonsequitur of a statement.

Yes I have seen the drawing and the wheels are at the edge.

Think about this.
Although the locomotive is generally thought of as a device which moves along a
track in more or less a linear manner, do you think it would be more efficient if it were
running around in circles because the track was laid out in a circle instead ?
After all, half of the drive wheels would then be at the circumference.

Then run a string from the center (front to rear) of the locomotive, to a pole
at the center of the circular track. Consider this arrangement to be one single
device (it is), as if the locomotive were bound to the pole by the string being tied
loosely around that pole.

Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now become more efficient ?
I don't.

Is that not, what you mean by being powered at its circumference ?
Think man, think !

We all some times get a kind of tunnel vision. It happens.

There are lots of people here, who work with "gravity powered" ideas, rotational / inertia
ideas and so on. I myself at times experiment along those lines. If nothing else, we
may learn some new things. We may even find a more efficient way or even a free energy
device. So don't get me wrong. Lets Keep on looking / studying.

Floor · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2022, 05:44:46 PM »

You don't answer questions, why then do expect another to answer
yours ?

The words and phrases you use do not mean what you
apparently think they mean.

The result is like the old expression "comparing apples to oranges"
... ... ... ... ... ...
Why do refer to energy density at all ?
What is your point / goal here. Efficiency or energy density or hits on your web site ?
What ?
... ... ... ...
It is impolite not to answer / acknowledge questions, yet
you then feign politeness in saying "thank you" or "I'm sorry".
In so doing, you come across as phony / disingenuous / BSing.

Just cut to the chaser.

IggyZ · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2022, 11:50:19 AM »

Thanks Floor.

You already admitted a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watts per kg (1.600 KW) is enough to drive a 140 tons train at 45 kmh. In doing so you answered your own questions.

If 1.600 KW is enough to drive a 140 tons train at 45 kmh it should also be enough energy to drive a rotor of the same weight as depicted in fig. 3 to 6 in the thought experiment. If the power-flow-diagram is correct, most the mechanical input is converted to electric power. Ergo, generating excess energy is plausible and very likely possible.

I really do not understand why you, or any other member who has read the web page or pdf file, won't flat out say it is not possible.

Floor · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2022, 04:50:59 PM »

Quote from: IggyZ on January 18, 2022, 08:18:45 PM

Question 1 :
For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h

Even a very small amount of energy transfer per second, can cause the acceleration of a very large mass to a very high speed, if that transfer continues to occur for a long enough period of time.
In the case of a locomotive and cars, wind resistance would eventually become the limiting factor.
This is because wind resistance increases when the speed of the train increases. The resistance to acceleration against the inertia of a mass is a different kind of consideration. In theory, one can tow a battle ship until is moving very fast (in deep space) by the tug of a thread, if one is patient enough / has enough time to wait.

Quote from: IggyZ on January 18, 2022, 08:18:45 PM

than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?

One could buildup and store energy in the fly wheel. This can be useful. On might then
release that energy gradually, or, as some kind of burst of energy. When the energy is released
as a burst / a large amount at once, this it seems, often confuses experimenters into thinking
more energy has come out of the fly wheel than was put into it. This confusion it seems is
especially common when these burst occur repetitively as is some times the case in resonating
electromagnetic events.

More to the point here. If for simplicity, we for the time being ignore friction and some other
kinds of losses, we can look directly at the energy and power transferred or expended in
an electric generator as its conversion to motion via an electric motor.

If an electric generator is able to spin freely, in order to accelerate it, one is only working
against the inertia of the generators rotor. If an electric generator is able to spin freely,
this is because there is no electrical load upon it (i.e.no electric motor being driven).

One can eventually give it a very high speed of rotation, given that there is no electrical
load upon it (ignoring friction and so on for now).

The power to weight ratio comes into consideration really, only with the considerations of
1. how rapidly accelerations can occur
i.e. Does one wish to spend a month of time accelerating a train?
and
2. when going up hill.

OK ?

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: A Promethean Thought Experiment (Read 7522 times)

IggyZ

A Promethean Thought Experiment

IggyZ

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

IggyZ

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

Floor

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

IggyZ

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

Floor

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

IggyZ

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

Floor

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

IggyZ

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

Floor

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

IggyZ

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

Floor

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

Floor

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

IggyZ

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment

Floor

Re: A Promethean Thought Experiment