127Views10Replies

# CAD design from paper?

Hello instructables community.

I want to make this into a CAD design and have someone run the model and see if it works.

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to do this or is a student and wants to make some extra money helping me with this, just hit me up.

Below is a link to the device I want to make:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20040130227

Amplifying instruction:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cyclic%20centripetal%20generator%20hackmart&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.cose.isu.edu%2F~hackmart%2Fsescentrifugal.pdf&ei=BTPQUcHrJ4zbiwKYz4DACg&usg=AFQjCNGf_p4U4ZcmmJg9s8aYQJYcuwOfLw&bvm=bv.48572450,d.cGE&cad=rja

## Discussions

Er, you do know that perpetual motion is an absolute impossibility, don't you?

Even 100% efficiency is impossible, but they are claiming "net energy gains exceeding thousands of percent". That's not even wrong!

Kiteman, please explain the blatant fault in the math, so I don't waste any more time on this. If the math is wrong, then I definitely want to know.

Thanks :)

Simple - you cannot get out more than you put in, and there are always losses of sone sort, through friction, electrical resistance etc.

A model: condider a litre bottle of water. You cannot pour out more than the litre that was put in, and you don't even get all of that litre, because a few drops adhere to the inside of the bottle, and a few molecules evaoprate as soon as you open the lid.

I understand the laws of thermodynamics, entropy (increasing entropy, decreasing order), inertial systems etc. etc. but until someone can point a flaw in the mathematics of the only two inertial systems in this machine, I cannot discount it's legitimacy.

The flaw in the mathematics is that there are important bits of the mathematics neglected.

Mainly the bits concerning angular momentum and rotational energy.

This machine is just an overly complicated flywheel. But instead of storing the energy in a rotating wheel, you store it in springs.

Please then, explain what mathematics where neglected. If you're saying that somehow the angular momentum is being stored in the springs, then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of physics.

The patent states that the momentum is stored in the springs.

The whole thing is nonsense, and cannot work as claimed. If you understand thermodynamics, as you have claimed, then you would not even be suggesting that this device be taken seriously.

Wrong. You obviously misunderstood how this machine functions. The angular momentum is not touched. The only force acting on the weights is centripetal force, whose vector is perpendicular to the direction of angular velocity. When the weights spin out, only the coeficients of velocity and moment change, not it's total inertia (i.e. it spins slower at the end, but the weights have a higher moment).

Therefore, there is no loss in angular momentum, but there is a gain in centripetal force over the distance of the travel of the weights, yielding an over unity of energy. If there is a flaw in this reasoning, please point it out. If there is none, then please help me instead of arguing.

Thank you.

I am trying to help you by reminding you that overunity is impossible, and thus preventing you wasting time, effort and money in this useless quest.

I'm not arguing, because an argument requires two or more possible outcomes, yet here there is only one outcome; the device cannot work as claimed.

It claims perpetual motion and an efficiency of thousands of percent - it has no legitimacy to discount.