[free energy] is there hidden power in plain sight?

[elfstrom7md]

Just an off the wall thought. If I have 2 equal size iron cores and wrap one with lets say for thought 100 turns of wire with 1ohm resistance at 12v. I will have a flux density of 100 12a turns. The next core I wind with the next size larger wire which will be app. 60 percent longer for app. 160 turns at 1 ohm at 12v. I will have a flux capacity of 160 12 amp turns.?
So I think. Why can I not turn a motor with the larger wire core and run two times the magnets past the smaller core, which will have only 40 percent the resistance thereby generating more power????????????????????

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

I have flagged this thread with "[free energy]" because you are talking about generating more power than you use. According to the current laws of physics, this is impossible; I assume you have made incorrect assumptions and/or miscalculations. We get free energy threads here from time to time and many of us don't take them seriously, so you may not get any responses.

 

[elfstrom7md]

was not trying to be obnoxious just a mathematical question really flux is determined by windings and the flux output is increased by the square of the number of windings so I was just posing the question to see if someone could fix my bad thinking

 

[davenn]

................
So I think. Why can I not turn a motor with the larger wire core and run two times the magnets past the smaller core, which will have only 40 percent the resistance thereby generating more power????????????????????

Because you cannot get more power out than what you put in.
You will not even get out exactly what you put in, because there will be losses in the system

Dave

 

[elfstrom7md]

I was working with the equations for centripetal force for a transmission I am building. and realized that induction coils use the same equation. if you rotate an object the outward force is squared for every doubling of rotation. So my original question is from my ignorance of my mathematics within the electronic field.

 

[elfstrom7md]

Because you cannot get more power out than what you put in.
You will not even get out exactly what you put in, because there will be losses in the system

Dave

 

[elfstrom7md]

I am not saying it is possible , I am just trying to see if someone can do the math on the question posed. I don't want to dismiss something just because someone says it cannot be done. in physics once an object is rotated the only imput needed to maintain its rotation is to overcome resistance. therefor the centripetal is always greater and goes up by the square vs the torque needed to double its rotation which is only x 2 .

 

[(*steve*)]

E_IN >= E_OUT

 

[Gryd3]

This did not sound like a 'free energy' post to me. Seemed more like a 'can this be more efficient' type post.
I'd write up some detailed formula, but I am not familiar enough with the subject to provide accurate numbers.

Can anyone help the op learn why his hypothesis is incorrect by providing a formula to fill in the missing blank he is looking for?
He's obviously done some math to get part-way to the answer, give him the tools to get to the finish

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

This did not sound like a 'free energy' post to me. Seemed more like a 'can this be more efficient' type post.

Then perhaps you didn't read the last paragraph.

So I think. Why can I not turn a motor with the larger wire core and run two times the magnets past the smaller core, which will have only 40 percent the resistance thereby generating more power????????????????????

Or perhaps the punctuation abuse just made me see red!

 

[Gryd3]

Then perhaps you didn't read the last paragraph.

Or perhaps the punctuation abuse just made me see red!

I read the whole thing Needed to more than once, it would have made my English teacher rage.
Still sounds like an efficiency question for a generator to me. Turning a motor with different windings and more magnets to produce more electricity.

I'm sure his thought's have been thought before, and some kind of equilibrium must have been found. You can only make things efficient to a point, as the energy out must always be less than the energy put in. (This accounts for all external factors!) There has got to be a point too, where his thought produces diminished returns or negligible returns. I've only got my Gr.12 Physics and a basic College Electronic education, and I can't think of how to determine mathematically how to translate kinetic energy to electricity with an electric motor.
I do not understand magnetic field interactions either, aside from using a number from a text book as 'magnetic flux' to determine force, or potential generated.


...I sure hope this isn't a free energy post. It really is hard to determine from the writing. I'm more in my side of the fence on thinking, but I can't actually make an argument to support it XD

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

I forgot to mention: the thread title was the big clue.

 

[elfstrom7md]

Ouch!! Sorry was not trying to be perf. Literate. Just trying to get an answer. Just noticed the parallel in the formulae for centripetal force, and its use concerning windings. I only build motors and such. Not very up on electronics. More a hardware type person. I Guess what I can do is attach mags. to a wheel and turn it past two diff. coils of the same ohmage different size wire, therefore different amount of turns. Also take those two coils and apply the same voltage and record the amount of weight they each pick up. BTW Not everyone is a jerk and no one should be treated as such, some of the remarks I felt a little harsh. I can understand with others the way they act and how it tempts us to lump others in that boat. I do thank you for your responses and will keep you posted when the testing is completed. Sincerely Matt

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

Sure, I understand. However, the whole idea that it might be possible to get more energy out of a circuit or device than the amount of energy you put in, which is what I think you are suggesting, is impossible. Many people have claimed to be able to do it, over the centuries, and they have all failed.

It seems to me that everyone should realise that creating energy from nothing is just fundamentally something that cannot be done; if it were possible, everyone would be doing it, and power companies would cease to exist. So I find it frustrating to see the trickle of questions we get here from people who think they've figured out a way to do it. Newton, Einstein, Feynman and Hawking knew not to bother trying.

But I've re-read my responses on this thread and I believe they were all appropriate and not unnecessarily harsh. I certainly don't think you're a "jerk". If I seem dismissive, it's probably because I want to save you from wasting your time and enthusiasm on a doomed mission. There are so many true and exciting things you can make and discover in the electronics world! Even when operating within the bounds of those pesky laws of physics!

 

[elfstrom7md]

Thanks Your right about other things, I am heavily involved in new tech. involving power transmissions and transference of motion to torque. Just got in from the shop. Took two identical transfos. rewound one with 50 feet of 22g and the other with the equivalent ohms of 24g wire. Drawing the same current each, the 22g coil is close to three times stronger. How far can this go? ill wind the same core with 20 and see what happens. Remember the whole time same current but power(flux) squared. Next I guess ill mess with the power generation side. Not saying it will come to anything, if nothing else ill have gained a better understanding of certain laws and well etc. Try to follow my thought as it relates to centripetal force. All areas of science have similar or parallel laws. Ill keep you posted, if you want ill post to you with different thread. By the way I have built tesla coil, signal gen., and a few other items. I am no genius just curious. Thanks

 

[Arouse1973]

I didn't look at this thread until a bit late, I wonder why Have a look at this that I have done for you and then tell how does the flux density increase by the square of the turns, am I missing something? The inductance changes with the square of the turns, is that what you mean?

Thanks
Adam

Magnetic field

Magnetic field is donated (B) and is measured in Tesla (T) and produced by moving charged particles. This magnetic field can be used to exert a magnetic force on other charged particles within, say a conductor.

Magnetic field strength

Magnetic field strength is the vector quantity of the magnitude of the magnetic field/s and is denoted (H) and is measured in Amps /meter

​

Magnetic flux density

Associated with the magnetic field is a force field B=uH and this is called magnetic flux density and is measured in Tesla (T). Another name is magnetic induction. Magnetic flux density takes into account the permeability of the medium the magnetic field is traveling through.

Magnetic flux

Once you have worked out the magnetic flux density we can work out the magnetic flux which is measured in Webers (Wb) by integrating magnetic flux density with respect to the surface area the flux is acting upon.
Example: The magnetic flux density at a distance of 5 m away from a very long wire carrying 25 A DC.

​

The magnetic flux through an area of 1 m by 10 m coplanar with the cable and parallel to it at a distance of 5 m.

​

 

[Ratch]

Just an off the wall thought. If I have 2 equal size iron cores and wrap one with lets say for thought 100 turns of wire with 1ohm resistance at 12v. I will have a flux density of 100 12a turns. The next core I wind with the next size larger wire which will be app. 60 percent longer for app. 160 turns at 1 ohm at 12v. I will have a flux capacity of 160 12 amp turns.?
So I think. Why can I not turn a motor with the larger wire core and run two times the magnets past the smaller core, which will have only 40 percent the resistance thereby generating more power????????????????????

Before you can discuss magnetics, you have to get your definitions straight. For MKS, magnetic flux is measured in webers, magnetic flux density is flux/area or webers/square meter or teslas, magnetization is amp-turns/meter. No such thing as "flux capacity". Electromagnets do not form resistance, they form reactance. Resistance is intrinsic due to wires and core materials.

Now, what is your question?

Ratch

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

elfstrom7md, please don't post messages consisting of someone else's message, quoted, without adding any text yourself!

When you see a message you want to reply to, and click Reply at the bottom of it, an edit window appears, with the original post quoted (with [QUOTE] and [/QUOTE] tags around it). Add your own response after the [/QUOTE] tag.

If you want to respond to individual sections of the original mesage, split the original message up into two or more pieces by adding your own [/QUOTE] tag to end quoting of the original message, and another [QUOTE] tag to reopen quoting, and putting your responses between the [/QUOTE] and [QUOTE] tags.

 

[elfstrom7md]

Thanks Ill go to work on the appropriate formulae. My idea is maintaining the current level the same by decreasing the resistance in the wire(higher gauge).Thereby increasing the turns with no more input, therefore the magnetic force is costing me only the initial cost of wire. It seems theoretically that there is no limit to the force magnetically created only the depth of my wallet. Sorry for my poor nomenclature. Like I said my areas is more manufacture. Thanks for the rebuttal "as iron sharpens iron". mATT

 

[BobK]

The only thing you can do by varying the number of turns of wire is increase voltage at the expense of current or increase current at the expense of voltage. And power is voltage x current, which does not change. Except that power is lost to the resistance of the wires, and cannot be recovered, so the best you can do is a little less than 100% efficiency.

Bob