My Invention

OutlawPete

Wertz wrote: »

Because the friction necessary to recoup the energy from the turning wheels (dynamo, generator) will eventually outstrip the energy that is being put into the wheels to turn them.
You simply cannot get out more than you put in.

Not saying you're wrong .. just curious.

Okay, lets use one of those wind-up radios as an example.

Why can the mechanics of that, not be hooked up to a moving device, such as motor car wheels, so that - while out for a drive, the wind up radio gets charged?

The wheels are moving anyway and the radio would get charged, no?

Wertz

Wind up radio uses a spring to store potential kinetic energy...the energy used to coil the spring will borrow from the energy used to turn the wheels. So whilst the radio will now be charged...it will be at the expense of milage or fuel economy.
ie. the radio was wound up and charged by some of the energy being used to drive the wheels
Instead of the wheels getting 100% of the energy used to turn them, they got 95% and the radio got charged.

Teutorix

OP cant thermodynamics.
............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Herb Powell

We can't create perpetual energy

Good idea though, just not fully developed

fonecrusher1

Teutorix wrote: »

OP cant thermodynamics.

His idea might be flawed. but i think its quite a good idea for a thread actually.

Teutorix

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

His idea might be flawed. but i think its quite a good idea for a thread actually.

Its called trollphysics, its been done to death on 4chan :rolleyes:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/troll-science-troll-physics

Prepare to rage and/or laugh

fonecrusher1

Teutorix wrote: »

Its called trollphysics, its been done to death on 4chan :rolleyes:

The obligatory facepalm post has also been done to death.

Don't think the op was doing this nerdy troll-science thing. Think he was just wanting to see if his idea would work.

Teutorix

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

The obligatory facepalm post has also been done to death.

Don't think the op was doing this nerdy troll-science thing. Think he was just wanting to see if his idea would work.

Well, people should really know better than to try and make ''free energy'' It just dosent work, its one of the fundamental laws of nature.

OutlawPete

Teutorix wrote: »

Well, people should really know better than to try and make ''free energy'' It just dosent work, its one of the fundamental laws of nature.

Why so arrogant?

He just asked a question.

This is what bugs me about 'science nerds', they think that just because they read some book, it means they can talk down to those that haven't.

Chill ..

Misanthrope

mikerowsopht wrote: »

My invention consists of a light bulb which has a solar cell at the base of the bulb.

When the bulb is turned on the light generated will charge the solar cell all the time while the light is switched on.

Now imagine each bulb in your house had one of these's.

There would be a cable running from the cell back to a battery which could also be used as an alternative power source.

Bascially in a nutshell it's a bulb which charges itself as it gets used.
Would this work? After all the light & heat is just being wasted when the bulb is turned on.

This is not the same as the street lights in town that charge during the day and get turned on at night.

This would be a " you turn on the light and while it lights your room the solar cell also charges a battery somewhere in your house".

Granted not alot of energy but nonetheless it's energy wasted that could be caught as such.

Would this work ? even to a certain extent ??

This has already been done ......kind of.Wireless garden lights with a solar panel on top which charges a battery during the day to power the bulb all night.

Sunlight is a lot more powerful than an incandescent or flouro bulb.The amount of energy a solar cell could generate from a bulb source would be negligible.

I suppose you could incorporate a battery and maybe get a free hour of light for every 100 or so hours of being on.

Probably not viable.Still though, it shows that unlike most you actually think about stuff.Keep inventing

fonecrusher1

Teutorix wrote: »

Well, people should really know better than to try and make ''free energy'' It just dosent work, its one of the fundamental laws of nature.

Why don't you come up with your own idea? Instead of scoffing at others.

Such a mentallity was probably expressed by those who thought the automoblie would never work.:rolleyes:

Teutorix

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Why don't you come up with your own idea? Instead of scoffing at others.

Such a mentallity was probably expressed by those who thought the automoblie would never work.:rolleyes:

Im not going to bother trying because its not possible, law of conservation of mass/energy means that we can never create energy from nothing. Im not being arrogant its the basics of physics.

Wertz

Teutorix wrote: »

Well, people should really know better than to try and make ''free energy'' It just dosent work, its one of the fundamental laws of nature.

Someone should have told this guy.

Not everyone listened to the science teacher in school or even when they did they mightn't have grasped the concepts involved.

Biggins

Wertz wrote: »

I thought you'd gone all hebrew on us...

¡ɹǝʇsuoɯ ıʇʇǝɥƃɐds ƃuıʎlɟ ǝɥʇ ɟo ɥʇɐɹʍ ɥʇıʍ uʍop ǝǝɥʇ ǝʇıɯs ɐuuoƃ ɯ,ı - ʇı ɹoɟ pǝʞsɐ noʎ 'ʇı sʇɐɥʇ

OutlawPete

Teutorix wrote: »

Im not being arrogant its the basics of physics.

Just because you know something, doesn't mean you have to be rude and facepalm them cause they don't.

If he asked the same question ten times and wouldn't listen, then facepalm the fecker.

Sam Vimes

Wertz wrote: »

Someone should have told this guy.

I'm not sure of your point. If that guy's cold fusion experiment worked it wouldn't have been free energy, just very cheap energy, and it didn't work as it says in the article.......

fonecrusher1

The only thing worse than trying and failing is not trying at all. - someone said that. Dunno who?:)

Teutorix

Wertz wrote: »

Someone should have told this guy.

Not everyone listened to the science teacher in school or even when they did they mightn't have grasped the concepts involved.

Cold fusion isnt energy from nothing. Its a fusion reaction that can occur at low temperatures and still give out excess energy.

Misanthrope

Teutorix wrote: »

Well, people should really know better than to try and make ''free energy'' It just dosent work, its one of the fundamental laws of nature.

The term 'free-energy' is more a media contrivance than an accurate term for what people in this field are attempting to achieve.

The common implication is that they are attempting to defy the laws of physics and they believe it can be done.

But given that most of their instruments and knowledge to this point are founded on the basic laws of physics, this would be near to if not completely impossible

They are really trying to find latent forms of energy or recycle otherwise apocryphal residual energy from extant processes.These are usual very small amounts, but as we identify more and more such sources and perhaps combine them we can increase the efficiency of devices thus in a sense finding free-energy.

Maximum efficiency is the goal.

Bob Z

mikerowsopht wrote: »

My invention consists of a light bulb which has a solar cell at the base of the bulb.

When the bulb is turned on the light generated will charge the solar cell all the time while the light is switched on.

Now imagine each bulb in your house had one of these's.

There would be a cable running from the cell back to a battery which could also be used as an alternative power source.

Bascially in a nutshell it's a bulb which charges itself as it gets used.
Would this work? After all the light & heat is just being wasted when the bulb is turned on.

This is not the same as the street lights in town that charge during the day and get turned on at night.

This would be a " you turn on the light and while it lights your room the solar cell also charges a battery somewhere in your house".

Granted not alot of energy but nonetheless it's energy wasted that could be caught as such.

Would this work ? even to a certain extent ??

I just e-mailed your ide to myself so its all mine
:P:P:P:P

Wertz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point. If that guy's cold fusion experiment worked it wouldn't have been free energy, just very cheap energy, and it didn't work as it says in the article.......

It was more a foil to teutorixs' claim that people should know better than to try and make "free energy" (free as in creating it, not free as in financially). I know it didn't work. Fleischmann was one of those people who should have known better, but yet he's an acclaimed chemist.

Teutorix wrote: »

Cold fusion isnt energy from nothing. Its a fusion reaction that can occur at low temperatures and still give out excess energy.

But it doesn't occur. At the time of the experiment there was equal energy being supplied to the experiment to what was coming out the other end, same as what happens with most gas plasma fusion reactions currently on the planet.
Working fusion is the conversion of small amounts of mass into large amouts of energy. You're "creating" energy...but only by the destruction/conversion of matter (which is essentially energy).

lamai

mikerowsopht wrote: »

My invention consists of a light bulb which has a solar cell at the base of the bulb.

When the bulb is turned on the light generated will charge the solar cell all the time while the light is switched on.

Now imagine each bulb in your house had one of these's.

There would be a cable running from the cell back to a battery which could also be used as an alternative power source.

Bascially in a nutshell it's a bulb which charges itself as it gets used.
Would this work? After all the light & heat is just being wasted when the bulb is turned on.

This is not the same as the street lights in town that charge during the day and get turned on at night.

This would be a " you turn on the light and while it lights your room the solar cell also charges a battery somewhere in your house".

Granted not alot of energy but nonetheless it's energy wasted that could be caught as such.

Would this work ? even to a certain extent ??

I was bored after the first line so stoped reading

Sam Vimes

Wertz wrote: »

It was more a foil to teutorixs' claim that people should know better than to try and make "free energy" (free as in creating it, not free as in financially). I know it didn't work. Fleischmann was one of those people who should have known better, but yet he's an acclaimed chemist.

I get your point but it's kind of a bad example because as I said Fleischmann wasn't trying to create "free energy" of the type in the OP, which violates the laws of physics, he was trying to develop cold fusion which is a different kettle of kilowatts altogether. Cold fusion is just something we haven't figured out yet but it's not necessarily impossible

Bob Z

Mousey- wrote: »

TROLL SCIENCE

is basically what hes on about, google it, theres alot more better ones.

these started a while back, i actully made like 3

You mean i emailed myself for nothing?

Wertz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I get your point but it's kind of a bad example because as I said Fleischmann wasn't trying to create "free energy" of the type in the OP, which violates the laws of physics, he was trying to develop cold fusion which is a different kettle of kilowatts altogether. Cold fusion is just something we haven't figured out yet but it's not necessarily impossible

Granted but someone had already referenced Steorn and I was trying to be original and educational for those here that probably weren't even born in '89. Call it artistic license.

Biggins wrote: »

¡ɹǝʇsuoɯ ıʇʇǝɥƃɐds ƃuıʎlɟ ǝɥʇ ɟo ɥʇɐɹʍ ɥʇıʍ uʍop ǝǝɥʇ ǝʇıɯs ɐuuoƃ ɯ,ı - ʇı ɹoɟ pǝʞsɐ noʎ 'ʇı sʇɐɥʇ

Reported for racist overtones. As part Italian I find your remarks about our national dish offensive. Mamma Mia etc.

LionelNashe

Calibos wrote: »

On a related note.
100w Lightbulb emits 1 watt in the form of light and 99w in the form of heat. Oh noes!! We should ban them and use more efficient bulbs filled with poisonous mercury that cost 20 times as much.

But But!! Think of the money you save over the life of the efficient bulb!!

Do you know all that happened? You didn't put the price of 99w of electricity back in your pocket, you simply took it from the ESB's pocket and put it in Bord Gais' pocket because now your room needed 99w worth of extra heat from the heating system to maintain the same room temperature.

Most people turn on the heating for 4 or 5 months of the year, in a few rooms - Lightbulbs are used 12 months a year, in every room and hallway that's used after dark. So the saving from energy saving light-bulbs is there for most of the year.

Sam Vimes

Wertz wrote: »

Granted but someone had already referenced Steorn and I was trying to be original and educational for those here that probably weren't even born in '89. Call it artistic license.

I see.

Also this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M8ANcxPF7o

Wertz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see.

Also this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M8ANcxPF7o

*runs off to buy stock*

Biggins

Wertz wrote: »

...Reported for racist overtones. As part Italian I find your remarks about our national dish offensive. Mamma Mia etc.

¡ɥsɐpɹǝplɐq

Capt'n Midnight

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

"I intend to discover, this very afternoon, the secret of alchemy --
the hidden art of turning base things into gold."

If it's any use Intel turn sand into stuff far more valuable than gold

only problem is that after a few years it becomes worthless

jimmycrackcorm

I for one look forward to watching the op presenting his idea on Dragons Den...

Capt'n Midnight

Wertz wrote: »

I'd be somewhat green but not down at this end of things where you replace filament with mercury and cause more polution in manaf process. Reserving the world's tungsten supply is a far better reason for swicthing to CFL than the CO2 emmisions.

As for the heating from bulbs...it heats the celing sure...and the air around it.
The thermostat may be on the same oC setting but the heating will turn on for a (very small) fraction of time less than it might if there was added heat from the incandescent bulb warming the room by a small %.
.
I definitely agree that LED will be better and more friendly to older fittings and for smaller applications.

Oddly enough incandescent lamps / heat balls give out more mercury than CFL's

say 1.5mg per bulb in the latest ones means that you get just over one teaspoon of mercury in 50,000 bulbs , so cremating people is probably a bigger source

less power means less coal burnt and so less mercury released

CrazyRabbit

If you put 10 solar panels around the lightbulb instead of just one, you'd get back 10 times more energy!

Other than that, I think the OP's idea is genius.

FoxT

Lets suppose the light is surrounded by a translucent cover that is also a photovoltaic cell.
It is exposed to 100% of the light so none is wasted so it can make electricity out of all of the light coming out of the bulb.

So, the light passes through the translucent cell, the cell makes leccy out of it, and you also light up the room as well.

Then, you feed the electricity from the cell back into the light. This makes it glow even brighter so you get more & more electricity all the time. So you can then use just one light to power
- itself
- TV washing machine fridge dishwasher
- other light
- charge your sex toy batteries
etc.

I'm busy at the minute on a Coriolis Force Inductor - so you're welcome to patent this.


- FoxT