[kalesh]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I'll admit that electronics is a weak area for me, but I do know you haven't provided anywhere near enough information here: we need to know the amp-hour rating for the battery and its amp output and I believe there will be a difference if your bulbs are rigged serial or parallel.

I wasn't intending on calculating this but...........

Its a car battery having an RRC of 120 meaning it can give out 25 amps of current for 120 minutes at a minimum voltage of 10.2 volts.
Keeping the voltage at maximum (12.6 volts) you get 12.6v x 25amps x 2hrs (120 minutes) = 630 watts. The battery can give out a total of 630 watts of power.

Now the bulbs are connected in parallel. One bulb uses 60 watts of power in one hour so 60 x 48 hours= 2880 watts. so for two bulbs 2880 x 2 = 5760 watts.

So input is 630 watts and output is 5760 watts......

Originally Posted by Buffy

It looked like from the video I saw that it has a flywheel in it, so yes, its working off of momentum, but that won't help, because you use the juice up front getting the flywheel to go at all. Once it's going, you could unhook the battery, but friction will eventually slow it down. If it has "capacitors" in it, you need to know that capacitors are simply batteries, so you'd just be transfering the electric power from the batteries to the capacitor.

There is no Naked Lunch,
Buffy

It doesn't slow down and stop until you turn it off.
Yes it does have capacitors and I do know that capacitors are simply batteries. It has two sets of capacitors. One set (lets say set A) is used to fire up the flywheel every 120 degree turn. While another (set B) is used to store power for lighting the bulbs (or for use with the load).

I did an analysis (thanks to a physics professor at my university who got me access to instruments). Both sets of capacitors are fully discharged before starting the analysis.

The analysis shows the capacitors (set A) charge up during the "charge phase" before the motor starts, then they totally discharge within a 3 degree turn of the flywheel, then they charge up within the next 10 degrees. During the next 167 degrees the other set (set B) charges up. This is repeated for next 180 degrees.

Also note that although I use their plans and main schematic I have made some changes to both the design of the rotor and I have also somewhat changed the wiring.

I hope this gives you some idea of whats going on.

Also let me state that if someone purchases this and is unable to produce desired results I cannot be held responsible. Hmm.. maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by kalesh

I wasn't intending on calculating this but...........

Its a car battery having an RRC of 120 meaning it can give out 25 amps of current for 120 minutes at a minimum voltage of 10.2 volts.
Keeping the voltage at maximum (12.6 volts) you get 12.6v x 25amps x 2hrs (120 minutes) = 630 watts. The battery can give out a total of 630 watts of power.

Wrong. you get 630 Watt-hours. Watts are a measure of power or the rate of energy usage. Watt-hours are a measure of energy.( one watt-second is equal to 1 joule, so a watt-hour is equal to 3600 joules)
Also, what the Reserve Capacity Rating (RCR) means is that that the battery can produce the rated amperage for the rated time before its voltage drops below the minumum working voltage. In this case, under a 25 amp load, 120 mins will pass before the output voltage drops to 10.2 volts. So the actual energy stored in the battery is more than that calculated by this rating. If the load is not voltage sensitive (will still operate at less than 10.2v), it can still draw on this remaining energy.

Now the bulbs are connected in parallel. One bulb uses 60 watts of power in one hour so 60 x 48 hours= 2880 watts. so for two bulbs 2880 x 2 = 5760 watts.

No, for one thing, you are confusing power and energy again, the other is that your 240v 60w bulb only uses 60 watts if it is being supplied 240v. at 12v it only uses .15w, .3w for two in parallel. .3w x 48hrs = 14.4 watt-hours.

So in 48 hrs, you have only used 14.4 watt-hrs of the 630 watt-hours of reserve capacity.

Now in practice, your results may vary. One reason for this is that the amperage used by the bulb at 12v compared to 240v is not directly porportional. As the voltage increases, the element heats more, and with this, its resistance changes. Therefore it will have a different resistance at 240v than 12v and this effects the amperage being drawn.

[kalesh]

Originally Posted by Janus

Wrong. you get 630 Watt-hours. Watts are a measure of power or the rate of energy usage. Watt-hours are a measure of energy.( one watt-second is equal to 1 joule, so a watt-hour is equal to 3600 joules)

You are correct but if you continue the units cancel out.
Lets see .... 630 watt-hours = 3600 x 630 = 2,268,000 joules or 2,268 kilo-joules.

Originally Posted by Janus

Also, what the Reserve Capacity Rating (RCR) means is that that the battery can produce the rated amperage for the rated time before its voltage drops below the minumum working voltage. In this case, under a 25 amp load, 120 mins will pass before the output voltage drops to 10.2 volts. So the actual energy stored in the battery is more than that calculated by this rating. If the load is not voltage sensitive (will still operate at less than 10.2v), it can still draw on this remaining energy.

Correct again but battery reads 11.3 volts after 48 hours so I guess it doesn't use up all of that 630 watthours or 2,268 kilo joules.

Originally Posted by Janus

No, for one thing, you are confusing power and energy again, the other is that your 240v 60w bulb only uses 60 watts if it is being supplied 240v. at 12v it only uses .15w, .3w for two in parallel. .3w x 48hrs = 14.4 watt-hours.

So in 48 hrs, you have only used 14.4 watt-hrs of the 630 watt-hours of reserve capacity.

I get what you are trying to say. But where did you get the idea that the bulbs are connected to 12 volts? If I wanted to do that I would use 12 volt bulbs.
Voltage across the output terminals from the "Engine" fluctuate between 238 volts and 243 volts depending on whether the capicators are being charged or not. So I guess it uses approx 60 watts/watt-hours every hour 120 for two so its still 5760 watt-hours for 48 hours....

[Jay-qu]

Whichever way you decide to put it, you get no free energy, you are just storing then transfering and storing again - but each time you will loose a little in friction etc.

Perpetual motion machines are forbiden by thermodynamics. If one existed (which it cant!) then the inventor would be very rich and known to all.

[kalesh]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Whichever way you decide to put it, you get no free energy, you are just storing then transfering and storing again - but each time you will loose a little in friction etc.

Perpetual motion machines are forbiden by thermodynamics. If one existed (which it cant!) then the inventor would be very rich and known to all.

I get what you are trying to say.
But the fact remains that input is at 630 watt-hours maximum and output is at at 5760 watt-hours.

To prevent all of you scracthing your head over this all night let me state that the same physics proffessor who got me access to the instruments also scracthed his head over this or a week and also did all tests he could think of (He kept the machine in the lab for that week). At the end of the week all he had to say was "Well it works but I don't know how the hell it works".

If it was something like putting energy in and transsferring it out I think that being a physics proffessor he would have caught it in the first place let alone spend one week doing all imaginable tests on it. And I would be asking for my money back instead of spending more money getting parts custom made to increase power output.

[Boerseun]

Consider a planet. You might say that it's a perpetual motion machine 'cause it's been spinning non-stop for billions of years. But only because it's not doing any useful work. The moment you extract any energy at all from any kind of machine in order to make it at all usefull, you're taking energy out of the system, the machine will run down and you'll have to add fuel.

If the Earth's rotation was only used to light up a single 60W light bulb, it, too, will eventually run down.

[Jay-qu]

Well then, I cant say much for that physics proffessor! Because he could have ran with that machine and made himself a millionaire.

Kalesh if your not shamelessly promoting that link.. then I dont know why you are posting about physical impossibilities!

[kalesh]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Well then, I cant say much for that physics proffessor! Because he could have ran with that machine and made himself a millionaire.

No he couldn't because there are legal papers stopping him from doing just that and those same damned legal papers are stopping me from becoming a millionaire.

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Kalesh if your not shamelessly promoting that link.. then I dont know why you are posting about physical impossibilities!

Think about it. What the hell will I gain from promoting it? Nothing except a waste of my time. And this thread wasn't even started by me, if I wanted to promote it I would have started the thread.

Also haven't I posted other physical impossibilities (time dilation theory, faster than light travel)?

[Jay-qu]

Im just saying, that if you stood to profit from such a scam than you could be promting it Im just kidding around, it just seems silly to be taking such a stance. If it was a real perpetual motion machine then Im sure we would have already heard about it and its principles would be used in many different technologies..

Can you like take a photo or video of this thing running? If your going to keep fighting this position I would at least like some proof.

[kalesh]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Im just saying, that if you stood to profit from such a scam than you could be promting it Im just kidding around, it just seems silly to be taking such a stance. If it was a real perpetual motion machine then Im sure we would have already heard about it and its principles would be used in many different technologies..

Can you like take a photo or video of this thing running? If your going to keep fighting this position I would at least like some proof.

Can I take a photo or video? Yes
Can I post it here? No
Why? Just using the plan binds me to an agreement where I can't show it to anyone, even in photo or video (I'm not even supposed to show it to my family and friends ).
This raises some questions.
How was I able to show it to my physics professor? He signed papers not to ever mention it to anyone.
How can I discuss it here? I think I can as long as I don't provide the exact workings or post pictures or video, because words don't provide evidence. I am still taking a risk even mentioning it but sometimes I guess I have to.