Staredit Network

Well, its always facinated me, the idea of free energy or a machine that could produce energy forever. Well, the perpetual motion machine I think is more farfetched than the free energy, but both are.

Once, well at band practice, our bass player put his bass on his amp that was turned on. He then plucked a string by accident. The sound of the bass came out the amp, vibrated the bass, which vibrated the string (even more), which increased the volume, and keep the process going (feedback loop, sorta) until it hurt the ears and we stopped it.
Now, I was thinking we could make some sort of machine that used sound and vibration to create energy. An machine that produced a feedback loop that vibtrated enough to spin a turbine? Im not sure about this part. My machine might have a few flaws and may not be practicle yet, but it could become something very great. A little help from some smart people here at SEN would be welcome.
(It is technacly a perpetual motion machine as long as you can produce enough power to power the amp which vibrates. Infact, this machine if kept without limitations for the string to move, would theoretically never stop and just keep getting louder. But thats only if you live in a very "special" universe )

Also, comment on your thoughts about perpetual motion and free energy. I would like to hear what you guys have to say.

Two things:
Wear 'n Tear.
The fact that, as you said, you keep having to feed it energy.
If you want a perpetual motion machine, how about you take two motors, one that generates electricity when spun, and one that spins when fed electricity, put gears on them and put them together?
Sure, you'll have to give it a "boost" every now and then because fiction and electrical resistance will keep it from performing at 100% efficiency(which is required for a self-contained perpetual motion machine), and eventualy it'll break down, but it's only as good as your idea.
As far as I know, the universe itself is the only perpetual motion machine existant.
If you could create a perfectly well contained... anything, as long as it's above absolute zero, then it should theoreticaly keep doing things, even if they're chaotic, forever.

Mine requires fewer parts, thus fewer things to go wrong, so mine's better and more effecient lol.
But ya, they are bassically the same thing.
Yes, the universe would be the only perpetual motion "machine" in exsistnce right now (that we know of). We cannot harness the universe's power directly, but we can indirectly through the different types of energies it produces (sound, thermal, chemical... etc... ).
The most effecient machine would be one powered by thermal energy, but at low levels. Thermocouples use thermal energy but it requires high tempertures and looses a lot of heat in the process. If some machine could re-use the heat it lost, or just re-use thermal energy, we would be set.

Well, I did mention the only way I know of for a true perpetual motion machine.
Yours requires less parts? How so?
Mine is just two motors and two gears...

Well, i suppose the motors would be like 5 parts each if stripped to the bare minimum... So I dunno. A motor does loose a lot of thermal energy though, and mine doesn't really. I think motors are only like 40% effecient. I dunno what mine would be. Im not bashing motors, they're great and all, and im not bashing your idea, but motors just wouldn't work. Thats all im saying. (my machine might not either)

Still, either way, you need perfect efficiency for it to be worth anything.
EDIT: I understand what you're saying about not bashing motors or anything(I started typing my post before you edited yours), but I'm pretty sure your idea wouldn't either.
If it's not perfectly efficient, then that means that it is losing energy. That energy must be made up for somehow, so if what you care about is net energy, then you might as well just keep whatever that second energy source is. Of course, this is about free energy and PMMs, so whatever.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

There are equations stating that things cannot create more energy than they use, or visa versa.
While the noise of the instrument is increasing, the enrgy is being taken away from another source. The vibrating energy is then dispersed into the room and the walls, eventually spreading out so thin that it couldn't be of much use to us. Call it the chaos theory, call it entropy, things readily try to go into an invironment that has less potential then the state they are in.

In theory a perpetual motion machine could exsist, but the moment anything interacted with the machine, the energy would be transferred between the two. You could never take any energy out of the process.

Perpetual motion machines are worthless.

Which all is basicaly the same as saying that, unless it has 100% energy efficiency, it won't keep going forever, except with the extra details that you may need to tell a 10 year old.

Even with 100% efficiency, it wouldn't produce any power, really, because it would need to use the power to keep itself going. To make a perpetual motion machine make power, it has to be more than 100% efficient, which is impossible.

Well, if you shout through a cone (from the narrow end) it amplifies your voice. Where does that energy come from?

I remember seeing an episode on mythbusters about free energy/perpetual motion. I don't believe perpetual motion is really possible, maybe only at absolute zero as was said before, because you are always losing energy through heat. Engines aren't nearly at 100% efficiency at all, and our bodies are much more efficient, but not even at like 50% efficiency, like for how much energy you get from a molecule of ATP is only at like 30-40% efficiency.

I think that first we will learn ways to increase efficiency slightly until we can get near 100% efficiency, but reaching 100% efficiency will be very hard.

Also with the two motors and two gears, friction and heat loss loses energy.

When I was younger I had an idea of making a circuit of a lightbulb and a solar panel and a motor

There is no extra energy. It is the energy of your voice being focused into the cone rather than spreading all through the air.

Yes, all of the free energy is bull and far fectched, but its still cool to think about it.
My vibtration machine would loose some energy, but it wouldn't take very much to power. Also, the vibration of the string is what I thought would turn something or shake something, like a chemicle reaction that only occurs by hittings atoms really hard together. Maybe? But its all still just ideas and theories.
Another way, although still not perfect, would be to have some sort of machine in geosynchronized orbit that produced energy in space. I had this figured out once.... something to do with no gravity enabled the machine to do special things lol. I could figure it out again, but thats just another idea.

14. 15 in a about a Month. Why?

Just for clarification, you used energy to get the sound out. It's impossible to get more energy than the amount you put in unless you give it fuel to run.

Also, as a sidenote, in order for the two motor thing to work, you would have to make it so it never gives off any heat. If it gives off any, it's losing energy and you're not producing any. And even if you manage to get it to work like that, it'll still only produce exactly the same amount that you put in without giving any extra.

I know. I was saying that it would only be so much a perpetual motion machine as his sound idea was.

Two supercooled hovering magnets, in a vacuum, driving a rod between them. The rod is attached to gears that amplify and transfer the energy to a motor.

Assuming 100% efficiency is possible, something that I don't believe.


"Just out of curiosity"... *Ahem*

Why cant we use something like gravity or magnetism. Those energies never run out.

After gravity pulls two things together, it would take as much energy to pull them apart.
Magnets work the same way, they are attracted to the opposite to balance the charges, to remove them would take all the energy putting them together did.

Have you actually tried having magnets make something spin like that?

It lasts a long time and it's fast.. but it's also very weak. It could never be strong enough to generate the amount of energy needed to start the spin.

Yeah I remember my space idea. You have a generator in space that is in geosyncranis orbit. You give it one burst of energy to get it moving and then that first burst will keep it going for a long time, because its in space, no friction.

But, I was taught today that this is not possible because of Lenz's law.
Basically, the amount of force you apply to a genterator (to make it spin) to make electricty, the same amount of force is applied opposing the force you applied (make is spin in the other direction). So, you would still need to power the space machine constantly... damn... stupid Lenz

We just need to make more oil to use, we don't need free energy.

And that has what to do with free energy?

Make more oil? *cough* You can't jsut make oil.

Lol, it takes thousands of years. Maybe even millions.
OR
We could just burn up all the energy right now by making some more oil, so we would be getting back like 1% of what we had

I dont think you meant MAKE oil, maybe you meant use it more effeciently.
If you did, then we already are. We're even coming up with new ways to power our socienty (i.e. hydrogen).