Revolutionary Inventions on Creative Brainwave Website

Revolutionary Revolving Ideas

We live in a perpetual mobile. The universe as a whole evolves without any force from outside.
At school we learn that the total amount of energy in a system remains the same. It is very logical and every system in nature that surrounds us subscribes to this theory.
Sometimes it looks as though the system produces more energy than it uses. But if you include more elements into that system, such as its surroundings, than the balance between producing and using energy is restored.
We don't know exactly in what system we live. We don't know the exact properties of the universe. Therefor, if someone came up with an idea for a free energy-producing machine, a perpetual mobile, you cannot say it won't work, just using the argument the total amount of energy must remain the same, because we don't know the balance of the universe as a whole.
When a physician or comes up with an invention that should produce an endless amount of energy, those people are treated as heretics by other physician. Most of the times these critics don't even look to the principals of the machine. Totally convinced by the 'laws' of nature, they've killed their natural curiosity. Because of this stubborn unbelief of most physicians, these inventors are treated as heretics.
Science is all about open-mindedness. Who knows what lies beyond? Great inventions of today often come from great heretics of the past.

The following blueprint of a perpetual mobile is so simple, but yet no one in my surroundings could proof it wrong.

What you see are two conveyor-belts. Between these belts are several cylinders. These cylinders can bow like an accordion, but should be constructed in such a way that they can bow only in one direction!
When held under water, such a cylinder will bow upwards, by the force of the water and the law of Archimedes. The total volume of the cylinder increases because of this, when the cylinder is capable of getting air for instance through a thin rubber tube. Because the cylinder can bow just in one direction, the cylinders on the left side of the conveyor-belts cannot bow upwards.
Because of the greater volume right, the wheel of conveyor-belts will turn, because of the upward force of the water.

A Dutch inventor invented this.

I think this man was a genius. I don't know his name. Who does?

And who is capable of convincing me why this won't work?
Every contributing response will be published on this site!

Gee, I like to react to this!


Unperpetual! Or the only thing perpetual is your ignorance!

Your buoyancy device isn't all that different from some devices I've seen, but this one, like all "free energy" devices need only a high school physics student to debunk.
So you want free torque, aye?
Okay, the idea is that on the right side of your device, the belts stretch, providing more surface area for the buoyant force. That's the premise, and that is its flaw. It's a simple flaw -- we must only decide whether a hemisphere shape has a greater (or lesser or equal) buoyant force than a pancake shape.
Guess what? The sum of the upward forces on the left side (using your diagram) seem to be greater than on the right side. The flexed accordions will be at a higher depth than the non-flexed accordions on the left.
Another flaw is that the stretching will never occur as drawn in the first place. The lowest bellows will be greatly stretched. The upper one hardly at all.
Finally, whenever the buoyant force acts (and this is the most obvious to a 17-year-old secondary student), it acts in exactly one direction.
In a stationary object acted on by only the object's weight, this is must be in the up direction. The weight of the device acts in exactly one direction. This is down. Now when a student describes a "weight" vector, let's say of a pencil, the vector is taken from the center of mass and directed downward. However, when considering the buoyant force, should we determine a "center of buoyancy" and do the same thing?
Not so fast. We must first give define our belt a little bit. Is it rigid (and act like a single ring) or is it allowed to flex like a rope? If it's a rope, then this is how the buoyancy occurs: the left side is buoyed up, the bottom is buoyed up, and the right side is buoyed. Your belt will float up or down until its buoyant forces equal its weight. This will look like a snake due to the non-homogeneous density of the rope:

-----\/----\/-----\/------ (side view)

If your belt is a rigid ring, then it is a circle. Oh yeah, buoyancy is the *net* hydrostatic forces on a floating object, which means that our circle's center will be at rest, since that is where the buoyant force will act. But which direction will the buoyamcy act? Up, of course, to counter-act the only other force -- the weight... Always remember that buoyancy gets to pick its direction to counteract other forces and bring the object into static equilibrium! (The magnitude is going to be based on a complete vector sum of all hydrostatic forces, which depend on a the fluid's density and the depth, etc.)
Your ring will float. If the sum of buoyancy and weight do not sum to zero, the force will not be a torque, since weight and buoyancy vectors are located at the same point -- the center of mass. You are free to "prop up" parts of the ring -- give it a net force, as long as you do not cheat. Cheating means that you exert a torque -- external torque is disallowed, especially since that seems to be what was supposed to be "created."
You cannot get buoyancy to act at any other location besides the center of mass, regardless of the device. This is because the water or fluid "sums" the forces for your convenience at the center of a rigid object.
And now we come to a corollary: change the center of mass and it will work! :-)
My question becomes, "What part of 'net' don't you understand?"
With your science skills being in such major need of a refresher, what about the rest of your website?
Billy Newsom

Debunked! No perpetual motion! no free lunch!

To save any others from deciphering this machine/invention, from the single crude drawing and simple explanation at the site mentioned above, I will summarise it and expose its' BIG design flaw. If you could picture two water wheels connected in parallel bya single shaft. There is a space between these two wheels. Also between these two water wheels are stretched a series of "accordion-like" air filled chambers, all the way around the circumferences of the wheels. The unique feature of these accordion-like devices is that they only bend in one direction. This unidirectional action will be set to allow bending and expanding of the chamber when in one position under water. This whole apparatus is submerged 2/3 underwater. The site claims this will cause a natural spinning of the devise. This is due to the accordion like chambers being in their locked position except when on the up side of the rotation. When on the upside they would bend, stretch, and expand. This would increase the volume of air inside. Assuming you could develop a way to deliver air to these chambers on the fly, you still have a problem. For the device to truly be a passive energy producer it has to take in air when these chambers are on the up side of the rotation of these wheels. These chambers are at this time under water pressure which is greater than the outside atmospheric air pressure. I believe that the chambers will not expand being connected to air under normal atmospheric pressure. In fact they would seek to deflate themselves being under water pressure. A system of valves of course could prevent the deflation, while allowing a source for air intake. The only way the wheel will spin is for pressurised air to be delivered to these chambers. The conventional ways to pressurise air require energy input. Any chemical methods of creating pressurised air or a gas only involve releasing energy that is stored in the fluids or minerals used in any chemical reactions. Since creating pressurised air requires energy or fuel(stored energy), and since this devise will not work without pressurised air, it will not work as stated!
Problem solved, perpetual mobile debunked. I hope this was not the best you have Michael, and do I win a prize for getting it right, maybe a grant to use towards a practical invention. I have a few of those laying around here. I will say though, if anybody could come up with a very, very, very, cheap method of compressing air, then this devise would make a novel drive for a generator. Hmmm..... I can hear the water wheels turning in peoples heads already.
Vince Clause