Will a superconducting dynamo in space produce free energy?

[johnfullerroot]

I have read in several places that superconducting materials are the closest phenomenon to perpetual motion known to science (constant flowing electrons within a circuit without resistance). The problem is that the energy required to cool the inducting material to its superconducting temperature would be far more than would be produced. However in space we have two advantages. One is the fact that it is a frictionless vacuum environment (you could rotate a disk with magnets on it without friction resistance) and the second is that parts of space are near absolute zero. Therefore theoretically you can have a free rotating dynamo inducting on a superconducting material at the surrounding ambient temperature. There would be no EMF feedback to slow the rotation of the disk. The freely moving magnets would induce a current on the superconducting coils without resistance. The energy could then be stored or used. And no energy would have been consumed in cooling the coils to superconducting temperatures. I must have missed something? Won't this work?

 

[pyoko]

No. If it inducts, it loses spin. It will stop. You cannot just set it spinning and produce energy non-stop. Ever wound up a dynamo in a wind up radio etc? It's very easy to rotate, but as soon as you connect a battery to it (or a capacitor), you can feel it is much harder to turn the thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[johnfullerroot]

But thats becasue of the resistance in the induction material. If it was a superconducter it would have no resistance and your wind up radio example would not be harder to turn? I am right in thinking that no resistance means no counter EMF right?

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But thats becasue of the resistance in the induction material. If it was a superconducter it would have no resistance and your wind up radio example would not be harder to turn? I am right in thinking that no resistance means no counter EMF right?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No. The EM field cannot penetrate the superconductor material, so the superconductor would resist spinning into any EM field. It would slow down over time and stop spinning. It would likely transfer heat or EM force into the system to the point that superconductor properties would change and it would no longer act like a superconductor. You won't get any free energy that way, but it may be close to a perfect energy storage device when it's not transferring kinetic energy into or out of the system (not under any current load). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[billslugg]

No. Counter EMF increases as resistance goes down.<br /><br />Take a neodymium magnet and let it slide down a ramp of aluminum.<br />Then let it slide down a ramp of copper.<br /><br />It travels about 4 inches per second on aluminum and 2 inches per second on copper.<br /><br />With superconducting magnets and conductors, your outer space dynamo would have few losses and be extremely efficient in converting mechanical energy to work. But you still get one unit of energy out for every unit of energy put in.<br /><br />Law #1 - You can't get something for nothing.<br />Law #2 - You can't even break even. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">I have read in several places that superconducting materials are the closest phenomenon to perpetual motion known to science (constant flowing electrons within a circuit without resistance). </font><br /><br />A little OT but the closest we've gotten to "perpetual motion" is this effort I think.<br /><br />From the EE Times:<br /><br /><br /><b>NIST on road to perpetual motion with 'superfluidity' demo</b><br />R. Colin Johnson <br />EE Times <br />(11/29/2007 11:03 AM EST) <br /><br /> <br /><i>PORTLAND, Ore. -- Perpetual motion is forbidden by the laws of classical physics, but in the quantum realm frictionless motion is possible. For instance, a closed loop of superconducting wire can exhibit perpetual motion, albeit only for electrons traveling around the frictionless loop of wire. If only such frictionless motion could be demonstrated for a fluid, then "superfluidity" could realize the frictionless motion of atoms around a torus, thereby enabling ultra-sensitive rotational sensors to be built. <br /><br />Now the frictionless motion of superfluidity has been demonstrated at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland. True perpetual motion is still years away, but the agency recently demonstrated a proof-of-concept--what it called "persistent" motion--using an ultra-cold form of matter called a Bose"Einstein condensate. NIST predicts that eventually it will harness the quantum effects of superfluidity for the frictionless motion of matter, much like the frictionless motion of electrons in superconductors. Such superfluids could enable NIST to build ultra-sensitive navigation sensors not possible using classical materials. </i><br /><br /><br />Link to the NIST site.<br /> <br />You still <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A little OT but the closest we've gotten to "perpetual motion" is this effort I think. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Keep in mind here that there is a difference between "perpetual motion" and "free energy". The perpetual motion they are describing in that article relates to the motion that is already in the system. That energy in the superconductor is not being lost to any friction. That's what I was talking about when I said it might be a perfect storage device (like a battery). It would not however be a "free energy" device because once you remove the electron from the superconductor, in some fashion, the energy is not in the system anymore and the "perpetual motion" ends. There is no such thing as a "free lunch" or "free energy". Energy cannot be created or destroyed although it can change forms. We can convert one form of energy into another, like a pendulum converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back again, but once we take/use the energy from the system (like stopping the pendulum), the energy is gone and it is not "replenished" in any way. The notion of a "free energy" device is a misnomer. You might get a "perfect" storage device from something like this because nothing is lost to friction, but you'd never get "free energy" from the system even in a perpetual motion (frictionless) scenario.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[3488]

Whilst it is true that the dynamo would stop, due to rotational energy being robbed,<br />due to the surrounding magnetosphere, acting as a drag as it 'rub's against the <br />intersteller medium, (this is why the Sun's rotation is slowing down), the dynamo in space,<br />if finely tuned, could in thoery produce enough energy to be used in speeding it up again.<br /><br />I think this is a superb idea, that must be investigated further.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

But if there's no core dynamo to sustain it, there's no point. It won't last longer than the energy that exists at the start in the field, which would quickly be used up, AFAIK.. The core type dynamo extracts energy from the convection and rotation energy of the planet, and if both are there, it's lot's of energy. That's the beauty of the dynamo, it takes a small existing field and strengthens it as it extracts the juice.<br /><br />Unless you know some physics I'm not aware of.<br />However, Andrew, I'm no expert, so if you can show a method, I'll listen <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />WayneMan<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

free, free, let me see, isn't all energy free? I mean are we sending payments to some cosmic deity that the sun shines and rivers flow? I don't think so<br /><br />energy is free for the taking out there, at least it was last time I checked<br /><br />and while the sun is not perpetuum mobile device I suppose we can look upon it as such given how long it will be about<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[sssalvi]

Superconduntivity creates a efficient machine so even in space you will get an efficient machine that's all. <br />But it is a different case with a dynamo. Dynamo converts the ( in case of hydroelectric generation ) kinetic enrgy of falling ( due to gravity ) water into an electrical energy.. so you are basicaly feeding one type of energy and only then you get an electric power. Again, for this process to happen you require a highly stable/sturdy platform for fixing the stator so that the rotor can have a relative motion with respect to it. <br />In space you will have to de-spin the stator for it to be fixed and that will require a continuous supply of energy and it should be more than the power that is being generated. This is a different form of what has been called as ' overcoming the back emf ' in other posts. <br />Even the perpetual motion of rotating machine may not be possible because on earth we think of a stable platform and the rotor movement with respect to it. <br />But in space any structure will anyway be rotating indefinitely once a spin is applied to it.<br />