New electrical generator

Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you
can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil
http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm
-- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This one sentence from the web site is enough, it's a perpetual motion machine. "which may produce far more energy than it consumes."
Carl Boyd (not Karl, Carl, the other Carl, or the other Carl's brother Carl)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Carl

Nah, it only claims it *may* be a perpetual motion machine.
Sounds like the inventor figures if he makes his claims vague enough he *may* get away with all his investors' money. <g>
--
Ned Simmons

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They say it produces more energy that it consumes. :)
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a system that you can build yourself, and it works just as well. You hoist a series of rocks up a column, and then drop them, extracting energy from them as they fall. Use materials you have available. The only thing you will have to buy is the gravitational shield that I have for sale. www.sucker?.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:42:37 -0600, Ignoramus22030

Not exactly.
"A very small motor keeps the generator spinning continually, which may produce far more energy than it consumes." This statement is somewhat ambiguous.
However, the underlying premise is either flawed or utter bullshit.
"Current generators have inherent opposing forces when put under electrical load. This limits the amount of power that can be extracted from magnets. By eliminating the factors that cause these opposing forces, the NullGrav generator may extract far more energy from the same magnets."
Horsepuckey! Power is extracted from the mechanical force turning the genny, not from the magnets.
Also,
"Current generators have inherent opposing foces. When placed under electrical load, the forces limit efficiency to a maximum of 85 percent."
Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes.
See http://www.springfield.il.us/Generator.htm
At 85% efficiency, this 200-megawatt generator would be dissipating 35.3 megawatts as heat. That's about 120 million BTU/hr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don sez:
"However, the underlying premise is either flawed or utter bullshit", I vote both.
Bob Swinney .
wrote:

Not exactly.
"A very small motor keeps the generator spinning continually, which may produce far more energy than it consumes." This statement is somewhat ambiguous.
"Current generators have inherent opposing forces when put under electrical load. This limits the amount of power that can be extracted from magnets. By eliminating the factors that cause these opposing forces, the NullGrav generator may extract far more energy from the same magnets."
Horsepuckey! Power is extracted from the mechanical force turning the genny, not from the magnets.
Also,
"Current generators have inherent opposing foces. When placed under electrical load, the forces limit efficiency to a maximum of 85 percent."
Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes.
See http://www.springfield.il.us/Generator.htm
At 85% efficiency, this 200-megawatt generator would be dissipating 35.3 megawatts as heat. That's about 120 million BTU/hr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmm, Toshiba. Sure ain't no laptop....
http://www.springfield.il.us/NewGraphics/Generator2.jpg
Robert Swinney wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CWLP is in the process of constructing a new pulverized coal power plant that, when completed in 2010, will be one of the cleanest coal-fired generating units in the nation. <http://www.cwlp.com/electric_division/generation/new_plant_under_construction1.htm
Louis Ohland wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boldercock and poppydash !
Bob Swinney
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
That is they euphemistically call a 'luggable' in the biz. ;)
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Springfield, eh? Did Monty order this for his nuclear plant?
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Swinney wrote:

No, his bull is actually pretty good. Of course, as pure bull, all you need is a little engineering or Physics knowledge, and the cracks start to open pretty wide in his arguments.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Foreman wrote:

I think most are cooled by hydrogen, not helium. H is a better heat conductor than He, although that is pretty good, too. The excitation in a typical power house alternator is something like 1000 A at 100 V across two strips of copper bar about 50 feet long, total. They are usually something like 1/4" x 2" bar hammered into a pair of spiral grooves cut into the solid steel rotor. So, the rotor has bars in it that dissipate 100 KW anytime the alternator is excited.
Now, these numbers seem extreme util you compare them to the output of the alternator, which can run to 1 GW, but something around 750 - 850 MW is typical. Suddenly, that massive exciter dissipation is a tiny .01% of the rated output!
I don't have a good figure handy for iron and copper losses in the stator of these machines, but it is definitely no more than a couple % of full output. Windage would be substantial if they weren't hydrogen-cooled, as the air gap is an amazing ,002" or so, even though the rotors are HUGE!
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

That might not count the exciter, then. The exciter is generally a HUGE transformer-rectifier set connected through slip rings, although some systems use brushless excitation. Our local utility uses all slip-ring coupled excitation for some reason, maybe corporate inertia. But, I think all of them use ono-rotary exciters, however they are coupled.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ed Huntress" wrote: Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you have any kind of ballpark figure of the efficiency of the distributionn grid, from the generator terminals to the average consumer? I would like to know this, because when people talk about the cleanliness of electric cars, they frequently forget that there is CO2 coming out the stacks at the power plant. Steam generation plants run MUCH cleaner than automotive IC engines, but how much of that advantage do we lose in the grid?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, I don't have it, but I've seen it all other the place on the Web. I'd have to go looking but you probably can find it yourself. There's quite a range, depending on where you are in relation to a generating station and how the network operates, but you probably can find some average figures.
Let me know if you draw a blank. I've been bouncing all over the Web on energy related issues lately but I think I can come up with it.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wikipedia has a good "power transmission" article.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:25:23 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"

I've seen figures thrown around in the 40% to 50% range to get the energy from the burning coal or oil or gas in the powerplant to your wall socket. The generator at the power plant might be 98% by itself (2% loss), but the prime mover is a huge loss. The excess heat going up the stack and out the cooling towers, and all the little motors and fans keeping the big motor running that do all the pumping and blowing and cooling and lubricating and stack filtering...
Then you have the transmission lines, with little bits siphoned off in resistive loss and flash-over of insulators and dielectric losses in underground cables. And every transformer along the way taking a small bite, whether it's stepping voltage up or down.
A nibble here, a bite there, and suddenly it's half gone.
The only real exception is hydroelectric, wind turbines, geothermal, and the like. There are still losses, but gravity and wind and magma are free (in limited quantities). And building the facilities to exploit them safely (Hoover Dam) costs quite a bit, and has to be figured into the 'cost' of that power.
(Versus the cost of exploiting them *un*safely - St. Francis Dam, Saugus CA, built 1926 failed 1928, killed thousands when it did...)
This is why when you need bulk heat for hot water or cooking or space heat, you buy the fuel (coal, oil, propane, natural gas, wood) and burn it yourself on site. You have to deal with the equipment, sure, but you also cut out that 50% loss middleman that is always involved with electric heat.
--<< Bruce >>--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.