u would need a battery to make up for the loss in energy

Just store the energy in a battery, instead of losing it in friction, resistance, and evaporation...

Yep, it could be done. A water tower is a good way to store energy without batteries. The only downside is that you need a ton of space

04:40 he said alternating polarity

Yes. I live a few minutes away from the Atlantic ocean which always has a really strong wind, so I'm planning to build a portable wind turbine for the beach

@@HyperspacePirate we'll be glad to see that😄 how about having two rotors and one stator in between? You know, having magnets from both ends , although you might have to slightly alter the stator placement... Just suggesting😅

@@CuriousChan I was thinking more along the lines of a single rotor and stators on both sides. In the future, I think I'll switch to a radial arrangement, though, because the axial loading has caused some problems bending materials etc

Or was it infinite seizures?

yes

( ಠ ͜ʖಠ)

In the videos it's being run by a pump to provide the falling water for the sake of demonstration because I don't live in an area with a natural source of fast-flowing streams. It's definitely not a free energy thing

Have you heard of the N machine that will run itself

A quick way to answer these kind of questions is “will this give me perpetual motion?”. If it takes less than 10 water wheels to produce enough power to pump your water up into these 10 water wheels, you can generate more power than you input in the system. You get perpetual motion. Which is, according to the known laws of physics, impossible. So, no, you would not get back more energy than you put in. In this case specifically, the energy you get from the water wheels is provided by gravity. The energy you put into the pumps is used to fight gravity. And most of this energy you put in is lost to inefficiencies in the system (friction and other things). What you get back would be at most what you put in (in a perfect system impossible to achieve in the real world). Here, he mentions at 6:16 an efficiency of 9%. Let’s round to 10% to make it easy. You would need 10 water wheels worth of power to pump your water the height of one water wheel only (even more than that in reality since 9% is “best efficiency”). The “perpetual motion test” is a good tool to understand these ideas. If you theorize perpetual motion, you’re wrong somewhere, and if you observe perpetual motion, you have an energy input that you are not aware of. The rest of the work is to find “what did I miss to end up with perpetual motion?” (which is not always obvious).

@@daeldir - I'm so tired of being told that perpetual motion is impossible. I believe very strongly that it's possible, but that the big money in the oil industry won't allow it to get a foot hold.

@@need100k I didn’t say it was absolutely impossible. I said it was “according to the known laws of physics”, impossible. At this point the oil industry is not the limiting factor, the laws of thermodynamics are. We could be wrong. The laws of thermodynamics as we stated them could be invalid. Some hidden nugget, generations of physicists failed to detect, could be uncovered. We can dream. But the laws of thermodynamics have stood the test of time, we failed to disprove them a lot, as is required to have a good scientific theory. We are coming back to this idea of efficiency. For your idea to work, the water wheel would have to be _strictly more_ than 100% efficient. We don’t know how to do that, and a water wheel capable of transforming 9% of the energy provided to it into electricity is definitely not the way to go. Here is some hope for you, whichever you would dare to cling to: - We are still missing a grand theory unifying general relativity and quantum theory. We can imagine a world in which, once we found a way to unify the two theories, one of the resulting law enables us to go past the limitations our current understanding of physics subjects us to. - We could be living in a simulation, and an imperfect one as that, and while the laws of thermodynamics are supposed to hold true in theory, in practice, we could find a bug to exploit for infinite power. As we do regularly in video games. If we live in a simulation. - An angel could descend from the sky and show how mistaken we are in our epistemological conceptions. As a gift for his visit, he could grant us a wish to have a perpetual machine to study. Free miracle, limited edition, barely used. The Wikipedia article on perpetual motion is a very good read to understand the lack of belief in perpetual motion of many scientists. As things stand, the big money in the oil industry already had a firm grip on the speech of Leonardo da Vinci, who was also accepting money from big pharma, hence his likening the quest for perpetual motion to alchemy, discrediting two perfectly fine disciplines in one sentence (once we have broken the laws of thermodynamics, time travel is definitely on the table, but we are doomed since the oil industry seems to have access to it “already”).

@Just Me if it was possible, why hasn't anybody come out with it? Especially if it was as simple as stacking waterwheels. And there are much richer corporations than oil corps, that would love to pay less for electricity. so why wouldn't those figure it out?

@daeldir I live the explanation followed by the snark

no

@@HyperspacePirate ok, i thought because you have the same glue

I updated the description with a link to the STL files. Might take a moment for them to appear because I just uploaded them

@@HyperspacePirate Thanks

Great.. 👍

Just checked it and it works for me. Might have been something wrong with their server when you tried

And this was uploaded in 2022. Be glad it's even 720p

@@AngelaTheSephira no, I'm not glad, should be at least 1080p past 2012

ok