This looks simple. But ideas like this could change how small communities generate energy. The real question is : Why aren’t solutions like this more common?

The problem isn’t technology. Small-scale energy solutions have existed for decades. The real barriers are elsewhere.

In most cases, it comes down to: • Regulation • Incentives • Infrastructure Not innovation.

Interesting how a simple setup sparks debates about physics, policy, and incentives. Maybe the real question isn’t “can it work?” — but “where does it make sense to work?”

You can't put a load on it, it will fail. It violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Agreed it’s not a perpetual motion machine, and it can’t violate thermodynamics. Any usable power comes from an external energy source (water flow here). The limitation isn’t physics — it’s scale, efficiency, and practical application

@MivilleAndrew Second law applies to closed systems. This is an open system extracting kinetic energy from flowing water — the real question is how much power vs cost and maintenance

@PradiftaTri I didn't identify the water machine, I referenced the rubber band machine, a closed system. With the water wheel, does Newton's 2nd law F=ma apply? It's been almost 50 years since high school.

@ArashiHatmoko Yes, F=ma still applies. In this case the force comes from the change in momentum of the moving water acting on the blades. The physics is well understood — the question is simply how much power you get versus cost and complexity.

Stop fooling people

How are you supposed to get the energy created to the community? Infrastructure already exists, but would not allow transmission of free energy on their system, it would cut into their profits.

That’s a fair point. Most of these systems aren’t designed to feed large grids. They’re usually meant for local use — microgrids, off-grid communities, or shared storage — where transmission and utility incentives aren’t the primary constraint.

Seems multiple issues: few can do on own land, few have consistent flow near house. Less efficient/reliable than local government project. Looks on edge of not having enough water or so much could be washed away, having random people do everywhere likely increases flood risks.

Question is: what happens when the local government project fails or is delayed? Redundancy usually beats reliance.

Hooking it up to battery to store as redundancy fo home would make sense but long term reliance on it as primary power source will lead to major unreliability

That’s a fair concern. These systems tend to work best as complementary or site-specific solutions, not one-size-fits-all primary power.

you can run a small lamp to illuminate your spinning jinny.

Exactly. Small loads like lighting, sensors, or charging can already make a difference off-grid.

Look easy but not easy

Exactly. Simplicity in design doesn’t mean simplicity in implementation. Scaling, maintenance, and local policy usually make the difference.

This seems to work well in theory. Do you think it’s more suitable for rural or urban settings?

Likely rural first. These systems benefit from natural flow, space, and simpler permitting. Urban adoption usually needs stronger policy support and integration with existing infrastructure.

That makes sense. In rural areas, reliability often matters more than efficiency. Do you think community ownership could make systems like this more sustainable?

@PradiftaTri Community ownership often changes everything. When people feel responsible for the system, maintenance and longevity improve. Has anyone seen real-world examples where this actually worked?

@PradiftaTri I’ve seen this work in small micro-hydro and solar cooperatives. Community ownership didn’t just reduce costs — it improved accountability and long-term upkeep. Curious if anyone here has experience with similar models.

@ArashiHatmoko That’s a great example. Accountability seems to be the real multiplier here. What governance model worked best in those cooperatives to keep responsibility clear over time?

There are tons of hydro plants in Alaska villages, not to mention dams all over the world. Not new, just saying...

Absolutely. The tech is proven adoption is the real question.

It’s not about free energy. It’s about where small-scale generation actually makes sense — off-grid, microgrids, and niche use cases.

A lot of people focus on watts. That’s fair. But innovation often starts inefficient, small, and niche — before scale and optimization catch up.

Because those will produce almost zero power.

Maintenance, rust, oil, etc.

True. Maintenance is often the real bottleneck, not generation itself. Design choices and local conditions matter a lot here.

bole juga nih idenya

hemat biaya listrik

Itu tujuannya ka

oalah jdi seperti itu ya

Kurang lebih seperti itu

I'm really surprised we haven't done more with magnets.

Magnets play a role in generators the harder part is turning motion into usable power efficiently.

Betul bangett kak kadang hal" kecil terlupakan

Nah bener kan

My great-great-grandfather hand made and installed a paddle-wheel on a small creek (no elec tools) and connected it to a grinder. It would grind corn for meal or wheat for flour. All his neighbors used it and paid him by giving him 10% of the finished product. This was in rural western Kentucky. The pioneers knew how to use water power.

The various waterwheels work, but they're producing a tiny amount of electricity, maybe 10W, and they're flimsy and won't last a week. The other ones are phony. Practical generators need to be big enough to amortize the inevitable maintenance costs.

Energy conversion hydropower technology is cool.

There are a few others out there you can buy right now.

True there are commercial options already. The bigger challenge seems to be adoption, cost at scale, and where they actually make sense long term

This one I saw on youtube looks great.

Nice example. It shows what’s possible when flow, scale, and site conditions line up well.

They aren't common because in our economy they have first to be commodified ( = made available for money-making). Our economy does not respond to needs but to solvable demand.

That’s an interesting way to frame it. Many solutions struggle when value is local, distributed, and hard to monetize at scale.

At larger scales, too much friction arises, making the system inefficient.

Agreed. At scale, losses and maintenance become a real constraint. That’s why many of these designs make more sense as localized or niche solutions, not universal ones.

You should study how thermodynamics work. The generator in the river is a decent idea, thats basically how hydro dams generate electricity. The second magnet idea will never work

It's all a bunch of bullshit.

Sangat kreatif si

Buy a solar panel and battery solution from Alibaba or Amazon is easier and cheap.

True, but experimenting and learning is part of the fun too.

I think what you said makes a lot of sense.

Pico hydroelectric power generation

What is most needed is batteries for storing electricity

True. Do you think storage costs are the main barrier now, or is integration the bigger issue?

Cost is always an inescapable issue, isn't it？

Simple. A large corporation can’t make money off small scale energy production like this.

Possibly. The question then becomes: should energy systems always be optimized for profit, or for resilience?

And that is the true question. At this time energy systems are optimized to be large scale and for profit.

Agreed. Large-scale systems maximize efficiency, but resilience usually comes from smaller, distributed layers alongside them.

14 watts? Great, you just powered 1/200th of a house with it.

Correct — 14 watts won’t power a house. But that’s not the point. These systems are about local, continuous power for small loads, remote areas, or aggregation — not replacing grid-scale generation.

It is cheaper to pay for electricity than dig few kilometres long channel from nearest water-flow to my house. As for those that live near rivers or streams, it is quite common.

That’s a fair point. In your experience, does reliability ever outweigh cost where you live?

Where i live, i don't have options. But people that live (temporarily) in area without power, use solar, wind and water power. Those that have power sometimes use them as auxiliary source for non-critical systems (irrigation, spit-engine, lighting, etc.) to save money.

That makes sense. Using renewables as auxiliary systems for non-critical loads feels like the most realistic path in many places — especially where grid power exists but isn’t always reliable or cheap. It’s interesting how these solutions shift from “necessity” to “optimization” depending on context.

kepikiran aja dah