1. Any electrical and/or mechanical device will never produce more than you put in, it won't even produce as much. If you don't know the real efficiencies involved you can use <50% as a placeholder but only if you are an optimist.

2. If your device wants to change more than its own internal state, you are probably underestimating how much power you need to supply it. Making changes to the outside world costs Watts. Lots and lots of watts.

3. If you think your device is "simple" you haven't tried to design it yet, or you plan on letting other people do it for you. This could be in the form of using prebuilt hardware modules, software libraries, or overly generous free consultants. No matter what, it turns out nothing is actually "simple" we just have a lot of packaged complexity ready to use.

4. If you haven't built one of these devices before, it's going to take at least twice as long to do what you want, and that's if you are very competent and very lucky.

5. The best way to get the best help is to do the most you can before you ask for it. At the very least, a description of the device in various aspects (functional: what does it do?; physical: what will it look like?; theoretical: how do you expect it to work?) and diagrams, lots of diagrams. If you provide a good description, you will get good help—though it may be to do something entirely different than you expected, and that's also good.

 

Does this include devices where the energy output is greater than the energy "you" put in due to release of energy stored by nature?

 

Does this include devices where the energy output is greater than the energy "you" put in due to release of energy stored by nature?

It's your device, including fuel is something you put in. All we get to do is change the geometry of the stuff we find around, so if you move some energetic compound near enough to your device that is causes a release of power, it's part of what you put in.

This could also be converting ambient power, like wind or light, but it's the same idea.

 

So just to be clear, you are saying "you" put the energy into the system, even though "you" didn't put the energy into the fuel?

 

Naive. Antonym: sophisticated

 

Naive. Antonym: sophisticated

Or for the cynical, like me, jaded.

Bob

 

So just to be clear, you are saying "you" put the energy into the system, even though "you" didn't put the energy into the fuel?

Yes, we are talking about design, so when you design something to use stored or ambient energy and you bring the parts together into the right relations, you put the energy in, you are the agent.

 

Does this include devices where the energy output is greater than the energy "you" put in due to release of energy stored by nature?

I think you are missing the point - and enjoying yourself as you intentionally find the crack in the logic used by the OP. Sure, you can pump oil out of a well and possibly get more energy out than the electricity used to run the pump. Similar concept for an geo-heat pump system. But, that is just plain dumb - especially if one cannot even explain where the "extra" energy is coming from as in a recent post of an angry person who claimed he left the site.

 

But, that is just plain dumb - especially if one cannot even explain where the "extra" energy is coming from as in a recent post of an angry person who claimed he left the site.

If you do a quick search of all of his posts they follow the same type of theme, get something from nothing. But then you also get his claim of it not being "over unity" or "not influenced by common physics" that only he understands the truth of how the world works.

 

Naïve? How did you put two dots over one i ?

 

Naïve? How did you put two dots over one i ?

It's a diaeresis, one of the diacritical marks used in English. I enjoy using "complete" typography, I find it æesthetic. In English, diacritics had a rôle before typewriters became pervasive. Thanks to UTF-8 your computer coöperates and renders them. Ligatures, too, as you can see above.

Some loan words in English also use diacritics like résumé and jalapeño.

I am just funny that way.

 

Oh, by the way, the diaeresis indicates that two vowels are not forming a blend as in naïve and coöperate.

 

Oh, by the way, the diaeresis indicates that two vowels are not forming a blend as in naïve and coöperate.

Too funny that you use the spelling "diaeresis" instead of "diëresis" when explaining why you spell "naive", "naïve"

 

5. The best way to get the best help is to do the most you can before you ask for it. At the very least, a description of the device in various aspects (functional: what does it do?; physical: what will it look like?; theoretical: how do you expect it to work?) and diagrams, lots of diagrams. If you provide a good description, you will get good help—though it may be to do something entirely different than you expected, and that's also good.

Not pointing any fingers but obviously someone here has never had a billion dollar idea but no time to get sucked into the details, and had to put up with nosy forum people asking all kinds of silly questions like "yeah, but what's it supposed to do?" and "what are your goals?" Sheesh, the nerve of some people. Like any reasonable person would divulge such a valuable secret just because unpaid interns feel entitled to some basic level of understanding of what they're designing for you.

</sarcasm>

I've found that the fastest way to get a question answered on the internet is not to ask it at all, but to instead make up your own half-baked theory, present it as fact, and let people correct you. People who don't have time to answer a polite and coherent question, will make time to correct something false. Even if they don't like you (especially if they don't like you).

 

I've found that the fastest way to get a question answered on the internet is not to ask it at all, but to instead make up your own half-baked theory, present it as fact, and let people correct you. People who don't have time to answer a polite and coherent question, will make time to correct something false. Even if they don't like you (especially if they don't like you).

Just a variation of Cunningham's Theory...
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law

 

Just a variation of Cunningham's Theory...
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law

I must be decended from that one loser who explained gravity 20 years after Newton.

 

I must be decended from that one loser who explained gravity 20 years after Newton.

Newton and Cunningham didn't make money off of their work. You just need a way to Market your re-discoveries better than the original. Also, your timing is perfect - patents expire 20-years after the application date. You'll be fine.

 

Newton and Cunningham didn't make money off of their work. You just need a way to Market your re-discoveries better than the original. Also, your timing is perfect - patents expire 20-years after the application date. You'll be fine.

Excellent. If you thought my quasicunninghamian philosophy was clever, wait til you hear about my electric car. In the news. It's going to change the world. If I can just get someone to stop asking so many stupid questions and design my 200kW pure sine wave inverter for me (BOM and schematics required).

 

Excellent. If you thought my quasicunninghamian philosophy was clever, wait til you hear about my electric car. In the news. It's going to change the world. If I can just get someone to stop asking so many stupid questions and design my 200kW pure sine wave inverter for me (BOM and schematics required).

Somehow, I thought you were going to tell me about your idea to stream unlimited movies over the internet for a small monthly fee.

 

Getting a bit off topic…