Subject: Re: semi-perpetual motion

From: J Eyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 21:45:07 GMT

>just recently heard/read about a proposal to use pizeo crystals in the
>soles of shoes to generate small amts of electricity (to power what was
>either not stated or i forgot it)

Piezo electric power is transferred to the parcel house's Eko-powerbus
which is embedded in the home's eco-floor.  The power--very little
energy is produced--is used to run the eco-micropower-fans and the super
efficient, multi ported, dual pump, high velocity bidet.

Power not used for the parcel house is not wasted; as with more
conventional uses of Piezo-electric powered shoes, remaining power is
used to run mini-LEDs in the eco-people's non-plastic, non-rubber, non-
leather, non-cotton (canvass)-based shoes.

Jim; (with a dwindling few of all the answers)

                    EEEE   IIII CONSULTING
    Jim Eyer        EE  A   II
                    EEE  N  II
[email-masked]  EE    D II   Energy &
                    EEEEE  IIII Information

                E-mailOffice by MICROEX, 800-MICROEX
Re: semi-perpetual motion                                                    R

---

From: Tom Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 20:58:16 GMT

<responding to Steve Brown>

Charging a battery on a bike is fine by me.  But you can't do it by
wind with a fixed structure without expending more energy than you get
back.  So not only do you have to pedal uphill, but it's just enough
harder to require more than you get back.  Now I suppose you could rig
up some sort of retractable gizmo and flip it out when you got to the
top . . .

Tom
Re: semi-perpetual motion

---

From: Peter Wolfs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:04:20 GMT

I had suggested piezo electric crystals to power a pair of conductive tapes
wrapped around a pair of Wellington boots.

Those who like to bush walk in areas where leeches are a problem might find
this useful. Don't jump out of a tree.

>Re: semi-perpetual motion                                                    R

Dr. Peter J. Wolfs                      [=---=]
Electrical Engineering                    \o/
Central Queensland University              X
Rockhampton M.C. 4702                     / \
Australia
Tel +61 79 30 9599
Fax +61 79 30 9382

---

From: Steve Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 15:39:08 GMT

On Fri, 26 May 1995, Robert Winfield wrote:

> > >I believe that J Eyer and Tom Gray have overlooked the fact that vehicles
> > >are pulled downhill by gravity - a free energy source.
> >
> > You're joking, right? You really do know that all you're getting is the
> > energy it took to get up the hill, right?
> >
> to summerize thermodynamics
> 1) You can't win
> 2) You can't break even
> 3) You can't get out of the game.
>

Wrong. Regardless of the point that all you are doing is getting the
energy back it took to get uphill the point is you are still getting some
energy back. Just because you can not get all the energy back, or just
because you con not create more energy than you expend, is no reason to
give up and not utilize the force of gravity to create *some* return
on your expenditure. If you are going uphill anyway, and you know you've
got to go downhill, then using an alternator to charge your batteries on
the downhill run is better than not doing anything at all. Period.

To summarize:

1) You can make the game closer
2) You can get closer to breaking even
3) You can play the game smarter.