• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

This isn't possible

Share this page

Dunno, but I'm guessing that cord casually draped over the back of the table has something to do with it.

I do know it's a fake, somehow.
 
Several times the guy says something like "we've modified this generator" (I assume he means alternator.)

So if the mains start the motor, which then turns the generator, then you disconnect the mains - isn't it possible that the modified generator is producing enough current to keep the motor turning (which is still actually being turned by the inertia of the generator), etc.? A few seconds running the grinder or the drill press use some current, but not enough to bring it all to a halt.

An interesting test would be to monitor the output (volts - amps - watts, etc.) of the generator and see if they're slowly declining.

Just my two cents.
Tom
 
Assuming 100% efficiency in the alternator, a 3/4 HP motor can run an alternator producing about 560 watts, or slightly more then 5 amps at 110VAC. Well, it takes almost 8 amps to run a 3/4 HP electric motor. To get the stated 2900 watts (about 25 amps at 110VAC) out of that generator, again assuming 100% efficiency, would require about 4 HP.

However, in the real world, all I know is that on our alternator test benches, to spin an alternator putting out 2900 watts (about 240 amps at 12V), requires all of the 10 HP of the test benches. Even then, it's touchy. For most alternators over 200 amps, we generally use the one tester we have that has a 25 HP motor.
 
Seems like "perpetual motion" or free energy schemes are constantly appearing...
 
kellysguy said:
Sure, blame it on Doc...:jester:
Click to expand...

Entropy indeed. :highly_amused: There used to be a version of the 2nd in chemistry: organic reactions tend toward maximum gunk. I always liked that one (a bit like "hot glass looks the same as cold glass").
 
Boink said:
Pretty neat. Clever thing.
So many people, though, simply don't understand (or accept) the "simple" concept of thermodynamics (especially the second law).
Click to expand...

Well duh, he's an artist, I bet he never studied law. :D
 
LOL Dang laws.
 
And "perpetual" implies infinite time. Ain't happenin'. Entropy wins. Though there are some elegant machines out there. And some elegant cheats as well.
 
DrEntropy said:
And some elegant cheats as well.
Click to expand...
Which sometimes aren't even intentional.

Dunno if it's on the web, but many years ago there was a tinkerer who came up with a circuit that would drive his electric meter backwards, using a flashlight battery as a power source. He had no idea how it worked, but it indisputably did perform as advertised.

The power company quickly figured out how to fix the meters :smile:

4OUTOF3.jpg
 
4 out of 3 struggle with math?

Sounds like my economic forecasting abilities. I've predicted 13 of the last three stock market tumbles.

Tom
 
Folks, there are three kinds of people out there: those who are good at math, and those who aren't.
 
"Folks, there are three kinds of people out there: those who are good at math, and those who aren't."

I didn't learn that until about ten years ago, back in the early 1980s. Here's my solution:

View attachment 27378
 
Tom,
I looked at the problem carefully. I think the error is on line 4: that x should be x squared.

oh, and the early 1980's were more like 15 years ago...
 
Keith_M said:
oh, and the early 1980's were more like 15 years ago...
Click to expand...
Wow, I remember them like yesterday. In fact, I remember them better than yesterday!

What were we talking about again?
 
Back
Top