... and that doesn't take into account the human energy used to plant, tend and harvest the "free" food. Never mind. He can't tend his crops since he is generating all of that "free" power.

Oh, and did you notice that the Olympic athlete wasn't reading a book or doing research on the Internet while toasting that slice of bread? He is such a slacker.

I will say it again about human power proponents. What idiots!!


p.s. I will add to this the fools that think they can get free energy by putting a generator in a backpack or shoes. Not only are you getting the energy conversion inefficiencies but you a wearing a backpack that rides like it is filled with rocks or shoes that feel like you are walking barefoot on cobble stones.

Why? Imagine for a moment that the padding in you backpack was perfect. No matter how much you jump up and down you would not feel the backpack. If you can't feel the backpack then you are not pushing against it to transfer energy. No energy transfer means no power generated. The only way to get motion to the backpack is to reduce the padding.

I've participated in many threads regarding the human energy concept and way too often the OP plus a number of the people in them get all uptight about the realities behind just how dismal of power sources we are.

Almost always it some persons wanting to go off grid that thinks that if they just have the right generator on their exercise bike they can live a rather normal electronics based lifestyle pedal powering all their electronics toys up to full charge every day.

The reality is most people couldn't pedal power recharge their cell phones once a day. Then there are the others who seem to think that going off grid and going pedal power for all their electrical needs would be better and cheaper for them 'since utility power is too expensive' for them to afford. They don't have a clue how much energy they use let alone how many hours a day they would be pedalling their brains out just to keep their computers up and running for a hour or so.

 

It's always been my dream to find a way to power a whole household of electronics with just a 9 volt battery. WOULDN'T THAT BE COOL!

Forget about magnetic motors and HHO systems. Forget about a motor spinning a generator and the generator spinning the motor. Those things don't work. Any video's you see are a scam. A hoax. And some of them I know how they did it.

Solar and wind. And a ram pump for water. But you need to be near a water source for that to work. Actually a pretty cool little device. Search it on YouTube. All the principals are sound, and this is how they did it long before electric pumps were plentiful.

 

Ram pumps are definitely cool. I know a guy that designed and built his own to pump water from a stream up to his cabin. I saw a video of it working, but never had the chance to see it in person.

 

Ram pumps are definitely cool. I know a guy that designed and built his own to pump water from a stream up to his cabin. I saw a video of it working, but never had the chance to see it in person.

It's just the mechanical version of a blocking oscillator, no?

 

[QUOTE="RichardO, post: 1116454, member: 205011]
p.s. I will add to this the fools that think they can get free energy by putting a generator in a backpack or shoes. Not only are you getting the energy conversion inefficiencies but you a wearing a backpack that rides like it is filled with rocks or shoes that feel like you are walking barefoot on cobble stones.

Why? Imagine for a moment that the padding in you backpack was perfect. No matter how much you jump up and down you would not feel the backpack. If you can't feel the backpack then you are not pushing against it to transfer energy. No energy transfer means no power generated. The only way to get motion to the backpack is to reduce the padding.[/QUOTE]

So if I understand what you are saying is that "perfect padding" will result in no energy transfer?

Does the backpack have weight? While it cannot be felt, does it move?

Then if it has weight, there is energy expended and if it moved, there is energy transfer. Regardless if the backpack was "felt".

 

It's just the mechanical version of a blocking oscillator, no?

I tend to think about it as a current-controlled step up converter.

 

So if I understand what you are saying is that "perfect padding" will result in no energy transfer?

Does the backpack have weight? While it cannot be felt, does it move?

Then if it has weight, there is energy expended and if it moved, there is energy transfer. Regardless if the backpack was "felt".

If they had 'perfect padding backpacks' we would have free energy.
http://cat-bounce.com/

 

http://cat-bounce.com/

That simulation is inaccurate. The cat doesn't always land on his feet.

 

That simulation is inaccurate. The cat doesn't always land on his feet.

Especially if it's thrown hard enough.

 

So if I understand what you are saying is that "perfect padding" will result in no energy transfer?
Does the backpack have weight? While it cannot be felt, does it move?

Then if it has weight, there is energy expended and if it moved, there is energy transfer. Regardless if the backpack was "felt".

I see your confusin about what I wrote. By felt, I meant feeling the motion of the backpack -- not its static weight.

So, even if the backpack has weight, with perfect padding the backpack would not move. The person would move up and down but the backpack wouldn't. (I am assuming perfect damping here as well). A static weight is not going to generate any energy.

 

Over 20 years ago, I tried using a 12 volt DC generator powered by a regular bicycle. The generator was an automobile generator, not a alternator. The alternator's require some field current from a battery to start the generation process. The DC generators usually had enough residual magnetism to start generating power once the shaft was turned. It worked fine but the most I could generate was about 100 watts.
I had some 12V incandescent bulbs that I connected 1 to the generator. I don't remember how long I could pedal the bike, but it wasn't very long.
Going one step further I tried a bunch of powered LED's pointing close to a solar panel. The idea was to us a battery to power the LED's and then use the solar panel to recharge the battery. It didn't work worth a darn.

 

... the most I could generate was about 100 watts.

That's not bad, assuming you mean that was sustained for a little while. The curve of power versus elapsed time is pretty steep at low time intervals. Like the guy with the toaster, numbers around 1000W can be achieved by an athlete for a few seconds. A non-athlete might struggle to hold 100W for even one minute.

 

I see your confusin about what I wrote. By felt, I meant feeling the motion of the backpack -- not its static weight.

So, even if the backpack has weight, with perfect padding the backpack would not move. The person would move up and down but the backpack wouldn't. (I am assuming perfect damping here as well). A static weight is not going to generate any energy.

Ok. But in your reply you assume perfect padding and perfect damping. I fail to understand what practical meaning this perfect thought experiment demonstrates. ...Except in a land of painted wings and giant's rings.

 

Ok. But in your reply you assume perfect padding and perfect damping. I fail to understand what practical meaning this perfect thought experiment demonstrates. ...Except in a land of painted wings and giant's rings.

The point was to underscore the absurdity of it being "free" energy.

 

Ok. But in your reply you assume perfect padding and perfect damping. I fail to understand what practical meaning this perfect thought experiment demonstrates. ...Except in a land of painted wings and giant's rings.

I think the better word would have been suspension for a inertial or direct force energy harvester with a damping element as the opposite motion energy extractor.

 

Next test: Power a microwave oven. Boil a cup of water at sea level.

Water boils at 203.4˚F at my altitude, so higher would be easier. OR WOULD IT ? ? ? Less oxygen in the air.

It would... the amount of oxygen has nothing to do with the water boiling at a certain temperature or not. The atmospheric pressure determines that. The less air pressure (for the same amount of water at the same temperature) the less energy needed for it to boil.

 

The point was to underscore the absurdity of it being "free" energy.

Oh!

 

It would... the amount of oxygen has nothing to do with the water boiling at a certain temperature or not. The atmospheric pressure determines that. The less air pressure (for the same amount of water at the same temperature) the less energy needed for it to boil.

It may have little to do with the water but it would have everything to do with the person and the amount of energy they can put out and for how long.

 

It would... the amount of oxygen has nothing to do with the water boiling at a certain temperature or not. The atmospheric pressure determines that. The less air pressure (for the same amount of water at the same temperature) the less energy needed for it to boil.

But less oxygen for the human generator to breathe.

 

It would... the amount of oxygen has nothing to do with the water boiling at a certain temperature or not. The atmospheric pressure determines that. The less air pressure (for the same amount of water at the same temperature) the less energy needed for it to boil.

By that reasoning, a cyclist should be able to boil water even easier at the top of Mount Everest.

It would be interesting to determine the optimal altitude, since I doubt that the two effects match each other.