HAAM

Yes, rest assured. The links are safe.

jester_s1

I clicked on them, and they are fine.

I'll still offer myself as your builder. You get me a set of plans and you take 100% of the responsibility of this thing working and I'll build the machine exactly to your planes for 20,000 pounds. Actually, I'll do it for 20,000 US dollars, which is like putting it on sale given the exchange rate. Shoot, I'll bet I could make 2 perpetual motion machines for 20,000 dollars, painted and everything.

HAAM

You added 24.5J energy to the ball when you throw it upward. When the ball reached the bottom of the cliff, it has 269.5J energy. This is more than the energy you added to the ball by 269.5 - 24.5 = 245.00J energy. So wheredoes this 245.00J come from?

If you have an endless number of balls and carry on throwing them down the cliff, each time you generate 245.00J more than you put it. This is the same principle of fans. Air made up of molecules. When the fan operates it pumps out air molecules between the blades. This creates a vacuum between blades. Under atmospheric pressure air molecules enter between the blades from the front, but can not do so at the back because the fan creates a higher pressure at the back. It is exactly similar like throwing throwing the balls over the cliff.

HAAM

It is a potential energy. If the cliff is 1000.00metre the enrgy of the ball at the bottom becomes 269500.00J. This is more than than the enrgy you put in by over 1000 times.

HAAM

Thank you for joining the discussion.

I am not trying to prove that somethign from nothing is possible. Simply I am trying to exploit the front output, lower pressure,of the fan, which has not been exploited. This front output has the potential to generates an energyupto 14.7 psi or 1.00kg/sq centimetre without input cost. Please visit my site and read details with an open mind.

HAAM

Many thanks for joining the discussion.

Theoretically a perpetual motion works but practically it doesn't because the output is always less than the input. Input converted to output inside the machine. Some of the output is used inside the machine to overcome friction and the weight of moving parts. The rest of output comes out but it is less than the input because some of it used inside the machine.

In the case of my concept, we have two machines, one of them is an ordinary machine generates an output less than the input. The other generates an output exactly equal to input because it doesn't have moving parts. This machine uses potential energy of air as input without cost. Now the output of this machine can compensate for the loss of output of the other machine. In this way both machines together can generate an output equal to the input.

HAAM

If you were in position would you accept this offer from me? certainly not.

http://thrilling.me.uk/rwrd.html

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

The extra 245.00j of energy comes from the potential energy stored in the ball by whoever put it up on the cliff to begin with. This energy recovery works until you run out of balls and have to put them back. The effort to put them up there can never be fully recovered due to friction.

The low pressure in front of your fan that you plan to tap into was not there all the time like the balls on the cliff. The low pressure is there because of the work done by the fan.

HAAM

Good point . But taping this lower pressure doesn't cost anything. It doesn't reduce the output of the fan. This is my point.

jester_s1

You really need to get some education before you start trying to design machines that have never existed before. Do you not realize that the vacuum in front of fan blades works to hold the blades back from spinning? The motor (input) has to overcome that load also in order to turn. So it's not free energy; it's energy you've paid for by running extra amps through the fan motor.

As for building your machine, I made my offer to show for sure that this is a total crock. Your terms in the link provided essentially say that in order to make any money, the builder has to engineer a working version of this idea and manage to sell it to someone. If it doesn't work, the builder doesn't get paid. (and it won't) If it doesn't sell, the builder also doesn't get paid. (and it won't because it won't work)

I'm done with this thread. If the OP is so sure about his idea he can build it himself. Maybe afterwards he'll at least avail himself of some 17th century physics knowledge and work forward to design something that actually will work.

HAAM

Not so whatsoever. You think the vacuum sucks the blades against spining. That is not so whatsoever. Anyway that is not my point. My point is that exploiting this vacuum doesn't cost input or it doesn't reduce the output of the fan. This is the principle of HAAM.

This fan vacuum exploitaion concept has beenatempted previously in UK and Russia but incorrectly. Both sides applied it on a flying plane. But it doesn't work on planes because of the speed and drag. In UK, they made a plane and sent it NASA for evaluation but NASA sent it back to UK. In Russia, they made three jet aeroplanes, and fitted on each one two jet engines, each one over a wing. They didn't make them any more.

This concept can be made for some thing very powerful but slow to move.

init4fun

To HAAM ,

The guys here seem to think your idea won't work . Yes sir , I am among them . Now , it would appear , that since you believe so much in your vision , that it will need to be you who undertakes the construction of this device . You see , to most , it's the engineering that is the difficult part , the actual construction being a simple machine shop exercise that anyone even slightly familiar with metalworking should be able to execute easily . But no one else believes it'll work . So , It's now up to you to prove us all wrong , and build your better mousetrap . If it works , you'll be able to place the HAAM family name right up there with Edison and Oppenheimer and secure your place in history . And if it don't , only you will have wasted the valuable time that should have been at the field , flying remote controlled model airplanes

And to the rest of us ,

[8D] God bless the dreamers and reachers , cause they are the one's who force us to define the physical world , in rational and understandable terms , so that people don't go too far down these "free energy" or "101% efficiency" sinkholes . Never have I seen a valid plan for a machine that puts out more than it takes in , and I doubt I ever will . I don't scorn the dreamer though , cause over the years men have imagined lots of great things that did come true , and each one was only an idea at one time before it's reality . I just don't believe in this idea because it goes against my sense of what's possible or not .

HAAM

To/ init4fun:

Thank you for your contribution.

I have already bought all the components. I have two EDFs, two speed controllers, an RC unit, battery and voltage regulator. I am a self-taught person. I thought I would leave it for qualified engineers to give it a go. But if no one build it I will do it for myself.

You have not absorbed principles of HAAM. It is not about getting something for nothing. It is not about getting more than what you put in. Please read technical details of HAAM in unbiased and in an open mind. Remember HAAM is made up of TWO parallel machines, one them is atmospheric when the system is in the air. It takes advantages of the vacuum generated in front of the fan to get extra push. This extra push generated because air has a weight or potential energy.

Can you make the following simple experiment when you have time. Put one of your hands in an empty water container. Now fill the container with water until your hand covered completely. Now take your hand out of the water. Think deeply about what happened. You used an INPUT to raise your hand. With the use of these INPUT you generated TWO OUTPUTS. One of the OUTPUTS is raising your hand and the other OUTPUT is the flow of water to fill the space your hand left inside water.

The OUTPUT of the flow of water to fill the space your hand left inside water, has nothing to do with the INPUT you usedto raise your hand. It didn't take any input from you. It didn't cost any input. This is because water is liquid and flows, and every molecules of water is free and independent and has a POTENTIAL ENERGY. If nothing stops it it will fall. When you poured water in the container, every molecules of water fell until the water leveled. But after you took your hand out you left a gap inside water. Nothing left to hold molecules in equilibrium. Each molecule was nearer to the gap fell inside it under pressure from neighbouring molecules.

A fan acts on air the same way your hand acted on the water inside container. Every molecules of air is free and independent and has a potential energy. When a gap created inside air all molecules rush to fill the gap. When a fan operates it pumps out air molecules between its blades backward. This creates air gap between fan blades. When the gaps created between the blades, air molecules rush from the front to fill the gaps. In this case the fan used all the input to pump out air molecules between its blades. But the act of air molecules coming back between blades from the front didn't take any input from the fan.

How about this example. You are sitting 10.00 metres away from the cliff, which is 100.00metres deep. You have number of balls, each one has a weight of 0.25kg. Your job is to throw all the balls over the cliff. Each ball you throw, takes an input of 0.25kg x 10.00metre x 9.8 gravity = 24.5J energy from you. But each ball at the moment when hits the ground has this amounts of energy 0.25kg x 100.00metre x 9.8 gravity = 2450.00J energy. This is a lot more than the energy you put in by 2450 – 24.5 = 2424.5J energy.

The attacheddrawing shows details of HAAM:

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

So are you now just talking about recovering some lost energy (because remember the low pressure in front of the fan is not for free like those balls God put on the cliff for you to throw off).

Or are you still claiming you will achieve greater than 100% efficiency (combined output of both machines greater than the input energy)?

jester_s1

HAAM, with as much respect as I can muster after reading this thread, you aren't self-taught. You are simply uninformed. If you want to be self-taught, get yourself some engineering textbooks and start reading. Do some of the classic experiments to learn both how to do them and why they were done. Check out as many aviation related patents as you can, working to understand the designs and see which ones have actually been applied commercially. See if you can get a job working in some aviation related field so you can get close to some working machines. Keep reading and reading and reading. You might go ahead and subscribe to a couple of the peer reviewed journals for aeronautics engineering to read the more cutting edge material. Does that sound exciting to you? Or perhaps you'd rather just get your hands busy doing something creative? The sad truth about innovation is that it requires lots and lots of boring work, researching what's been done before and experimenting various tweaks to an idea in order to make it work. All you have is an idea now, one based on faulty science. If you really want to design a new kind of engine, get the engineering knowledge to do it. Going to college and getting an engineering degree is the easy way, but if you're determined enough you can at least learn the principles on your own by spending every spare minute you can get reading the same books that university students read.

HAAM

The balls falling on the cliff are not falling free for nothing. They have potential energy. This potential energy is the mass, weight, of the balls pulled down by gravity. This weight acts as input for the balls to fall. The same way God put the balls on the cliff, he/she/it put trillions and trillions of air molecules, like balls, in the atmosphere, like the top of the cliff. When a vacuum generated between blades of a fan, all these molecules fall into it the same way balls fall to the bottom of the cliff. The vacuum acts like the bottom of the cliff.

Lower pressure at the front of the fan doesn't take input. It is similar like throwing the ball down the cliff. The balls take input enough to reach to the tip of the cliff. After that, gravity takes over. It is the same thing with the air molecules in front of the fan. They fall into lower pressure area under gravity. All the input, goes to the fan, used to pump out air molecules between blades of the fan to the back of the fan, the same way you throw the balls to the tip of the cliff.

Lets see if we can reach to an efficiency of 100% + with a fan. At the front of the fan we can create a lower pressure of up to 1.00kg/sq centimetre. At the back of the fan we can generate a pressure higher than 1.00kg/sq centimetre. But at the back of the fan, if we don't exceed the higher pressure over 1.00kg/sq centimetre the higher pressure at the back and the lower pressure at the front will always remain equal. Assume the fan in question is run by hydraulic power, which can have an efficiency of upto 90%. Assume the efficiency of the fan in question is 70%. In this case the fan also has an efficiency of 70% at the front in generating a lower pressure. So actually the efficiency of the fan at the front and back theoretically is 140%.

It is similar like your efficiency to throw a ball to the tip of a cliff. After that, gravity efficiency takes over. So the total efficiency is your efficiency + gravity efficiency = more than 100%.

jester_s1

Guys, he's not going to get it. He's just going to continue with that balls explanation that is based on very faulty science. Let him build his perpetual motion machine and see that it doesn't work, then if he's really determined to come up with something new let him study some actual engineering and learn about energy and how it actually works.

crossman

It seems to me that it's one part smoke and two parts mirrors.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

HAAM,

Well I thought I was making progress.

1.) The energy required to throw a ball up is more than the kinetic energy available when it falls back to your hand. This is because of friction with the air on the way up and back down. The "missing" energy was used to heat the air.

2.) The balls on the cliff do indeed have potential energy that was stored whenever someone put them up there in the beginning. There is no free energy there, the "input" as you call it was moving the balls up on the cliff to begin with. And you can't get more energy out of the balls than it took to put them up there, again due to friction.

2.) Compared to the balls on the cliff, there is no equivalent potential "low pressure" energy stored in the atmosphere. This would be like saying I have a glass of water with a hole in the water, and you plan to capture the energy of the water rushing in to fill the hole. The low pressure you are attempting to harness is not there all the time, it is there due to work done by the fan. This is an important point you need to understand. The "input" to the fan creates the low pressure. And in trying to recover it, you will never get to 100% efficiency due to friction. In fact, in all likelihood you will probably lower the overall efficiency of the fan by trying to stick something in front of it to capture this lost "low pressure" energy.

You really should ask this on the Physics forum.

Max_Power

Did you ever see that MAD magazine cover with the guy floating midair in the tire swing tied to a branch he is holding in his hand?

HAAM

to: jester_s1,

Thank you for your advice. I have used logic and figures to prove my point. You have not used any logical reasons to disprove my points. HAAM concept has nothing to do with perpertual machine concept. Both are two different things.

Could you explain why the question of the ball based on faulty science? I used logic and figures to prove it, what do you have to prove it is faulty?

HAAM

Our points of difference is this: You say the fan works or uses inputat the front to create low pressure and works or uses input at the back to creates high pressure. But I say it is not like that. All the work or input used to pump out air between blades. No input goes to the front work and no input goes to the back work. When air pumped out between blades, it creates a hole in the air between blades. when this hole created air molecules fall into it at the front. They can not do that at the back because air pumped out back ward.

If you are right, HAAMwill notwork. If I am right it will work and I believe I am right. Because when I look at a fan I don't see any external link at the front and at the back to the fan blades. So it is impossible for any input used outside the blades.

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

This has been an interesting thread.
I will get back to you after I destroy a few chapters in my engineering and physics reference books.

Remember Finagles Theorem which states that an experiment can be considered a success if no more than 90% of the findings have to be discarded in order to make it agree with your hypothesis.

I would like to delve deeper into this but right now I need to go stifle myself,chortle ,snort ,giggle.

jester_s1

HAAM- you used faulty logic and incomplete figures to prove your point. Your point has been disproved using good logic and actual science a number of times in this thread, so I see no need to repeat what others have already written. As I said before, build your machine and see that it doesn't work. You might even consider coming back here with your actual data from testing and ask us why it didn't work. We aren't engineers (at least I'm not) but we know enough just from playing with toy airplanes to explain that to you. If designing fans and engines and such is what you want to do to make your contribution to the world, after you get this idea out of your system you might consider learning some actual engineering principles so that your next idea will astound us all.

SBOT

Hamm,
I don’t know why I am even entering this discussion; obviously nothing is going to change your mind.
If there is no connection between the first fan system and the low pressure in front of the fan; then why do you need the first fan at all. If this potential energy exists every where in the air why not use it directly with out the first fan.
I am reminded of something that happened to me at about age 12 when I was told that the horsepower produced by an internal combustion engine was a by-product. That the main energy produced by the engine was heat. With the logic of a 12 year old boy growing up with the cold winters in Michigan; I thought why not replace all the furnaces in our basements with internal combustion engines.
I fear that because the low pressure produced by the fan is not a direct usable part of the original design of the fan; you think it is not connected, but without the fan there would be no low pressure area.

O