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)
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
-- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They say it produces more energy that it consumes. :)
i
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.
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
Don sez:
"However, the underlying premise is either flawed or utter bullshit", I vote both.
Bob Swinney .
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
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
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.
Louis Ohland wrote:
The patent is here:
Louis Ohland wrote in news:WCzDj.282$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe07.lga:
That is they euphemistically call a 'luggable' in the biz. ;)
Bill
Springfield, eh? Did Monty order this for his nuclear plant?
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
I went to the link and clipped this, "Suppose you could harness the physics of magnetism to allow a generator to continually spin with a net output of free electricity?"
A few days ago I was reading (really scanning) Popular Science ( ? April 2008) and noted the 2015 (?) Volvo is to have individual electric motors at each wheel. It also mentioned permanent magnets in the hub/stator of such motors. It also seems they were to reverse the magnetism as part of the braking process.
They *could* be on to something. -- Don't know. My wallet is in my pocket also! ;-)
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
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
This is typical hybrid tech, and will be out on other makes probably well before 2015.
Jon
Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output.
-- Ed Huntress
Boldercock and poppydash !
Louis Ohland 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
"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?
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.