[Prajna (OP)]

This is a speculative topic, hence it belonging in lighter-side.
It is also a topic that actively denies established science (energy conservation).

The last straw was the invocation of scientific 'dogma', a classic troll resort.

Build a prototype and show us wrong. If you can't do that (and only show a simulation), then science was right all along.

Yes, it is a speculative topic but we are encouraged to phrase topics as questions. A question is an enquiry rather than a speculation. It would have been helpful to let the OP know that a topic has been moved, otherwise it can lead to speculation that the forum does not have the capability to address the subject.

I am in the process of prototyping the device but feel that the point of physics is to examine such questions in the abstract before deciding whether a proposal is worth spending time and resources to develop. I'm frustrated that the general responses I have received have dismissed the idea because it would appear to challenge the consensus rather than by disproving the concept using the specifics of the device.

[alancalverd]

the point of physics is to examine such questions in the abstract before deciding whether a proposal is worth spending time and resources to develop.

Which you would do well to consider.

The problem is, of course, that any scientist can only examine an engineering proposal in the light of known physics and chemistry.

At the inquest, it's better to be accused of dogma than guesswork, even if neither was actually true.

[Prajna (OP)]

Let's cut to the chase.

You can do this yourself by simply looking at your design and calculating the torque at any point in the rotation. Or just build it and see what happens.

If the laws of physics are wrong, you can bring me a working prototype built to your specification. I will help you apply for the necessary patents (in your name as sole inventor) and raise capital to get it into mass production.  Nobody will invest if it isn't (a) demonstrated and (b) patented.   

My fee will be 1% of the factory-gate sale price for every device that incorporates the agreed design - we'll let the lawyers sort out the details. What you do with the rest of the money is entirely up to you - you can mirror the Gates Foundation if you want the world to benefit, or spend it on "slow horses and fast women", as you please.

Well Alan, you say "Simply" calculating the torque but, looking at my design, it seems to me it will involve some FEM analysis and a chunk of integration, neither of which falls within the ambit of my current expertise.

As for investment, patenting etc, if this device is what you guys instantly recognise it to be then who would need to go chasing investment? I am often told there is no such thing as free energy but the fact is that ALL energy is free energy until someone puts a price on it. You're welcome to your lucrative ambitions but that's not where I'm at. Total cost for development so far is negligible, since my time is free, and I neither need or want investment.

And if you think Bill of the notoriously eugenic Gates dynasty is out to benefit anyone but Bill Gates or that killing or paralysing little girls in India and Africa is a boon to mankind then I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you.

[paul cotter]

Oh dear, things are going south, rapidly. The air that you breath and the sunshine hitting your skin are free but that's about the limit of it. As soon as you try to use sunshine to do something useful you need solar panels and ancillary equipment and this will cost you. Even when installed and operating there will be maintenance costs. Oil in the ground needs extraction followed by fractioning into useful products. Bottom line : there is cost associated with everything useful and virtually nothing is free. As regards generating energy "out of nothing" , there is zero evidence that this has ever been achieved and there are very strong theoretical arguments that it is impossible. What is the story with Bill Gates? As far as I am concerned he is someone who became obscenely wealthy using predatory business practices to force pc manufacturers to use his badly written software(windows 3.1 was the last stable os that I am aware of) and is now following that great American tradition of philanthropy. All this is seemingly quite normal in business. Anything other than this is pure conspiracy theory and these theories are not tolerated on this forum.

[Prajna (OP)]

Oh dear, things are going south, rapidly.
...

You and I live in different worlds, Paul. In your world people are greedy, selfish and competitive and everything costs money. I, on the other hand, have studied my nature and found that it is not like that at all. Nature never charged me for anything, just some things require a little effort and often a bit of knowledge. The whole construct of money, economics and accounting is just that, a construct, and you may very well say, "Well that is how it is." but it is not universally so and I do things for the love of it and find reward in the doing of it. Patent's just give governments 1st dibs on whatever you invent, so that they can classify stuff as a National Security issue and prevent it being developed. Investment is there to encourage people to support stuff that otherwise they wouldn't bother with or would avoid supporting because it goes against their values. But everybody values money, don't they? Don't they?

I don't believe I mentioned anything that can be classed as a conspiracy theory. The brief synopsis I gave of Bill Gates' altruism is really just scratching the surface of what is publicly known about the evil creature (for anyone who cares to research it.) Anyway, this is all wandering from the topic. I blame Alan for his naivety.

As to whether energy from nothing has ever been demonstrated, well, there are quite a number of people who seem to have done so: Wesley Gary inspired my device; Stanley Meyer might have been on to something but he kinda expired prematurely; Dr. Robert Adams was an interesting guy too; not to mention Ed Leedskalnin and Tesla (seems to be No1 on the physicist's 'din do nuffin' list despite having contributed to an extraordinary number of common devices). There have been a heap of different designs offered by a great number of inventors - oh, oh, another one, Fredrich Luling and his magnetic motor, who even knows about that one? Ok, none of them appear to have changed the paradigm amongst physicists but these inventors don't seem to have the kind of life expectancy required to convince those who choose to believe otherwise. Now that might be a conspiracy theory but I think that term is over and inappropriately used, politically inconvenient theories might be more appropriate.

Sure, you 'scientists' don't want to listen to any such theories because they are obviously impossible and therefore not worth your time but, one day you might overlook something in your haste to concentrate on real science, like pandemics and climate change etc.

Please excuse my cynicism, I must have learned it from somewhere, perhaps I picked it up from what has been thrown at me every time I bring up the subject of free energy.

[alancalverd]

There's nothing politically inconvenient about perpetual motion or free energy. It would set some Middle Eastern potentates and religious perverts  back into the Dark Ages, but most of the population wouldn't notice the difference and the rest of the world would be a better  place.

Instead of complaining about people like me who offer to help, why not just do it? Naive? Not according to my company balance sheet.

Don't get too wound up about money. In its purest form it is just virtual work - you get it by doing something useful for someone, and it allows you to get others to do stuff  for you. It's the oil  that lubricates collaboration, which in most people's opinion is a Good Thing and the basis of civilisation.

Or are you intending to steal the materials for your prototype?

[Prajna (OP)]

There's nothing politically inconvenient about perpetual motion or free energy. It would set some Middle Eastern potentates and religious perverts  back into the Dark Ages, but most of the population wouldn't notice the difference and the rest of the world would be a better  place.

Instead of complaining about people like me who offer to help, why not just do it? Naive? Not according to my company balance sheet.

Don't get too wound up about money. In its purest form it is just virtual work - you get it by doing something useful for someone, and it allows you to get others to do stuff  for you. It's the oil  that lubricates collaboration, which in most people's opinion is a Good Thing and the basis of civilisation.

Or are you intending to steal the materials for your prototype?

Alan, just about every word of your response is alien to my way of thinking. I think the "Middle Eastern potentates and religious perverts" run banks and commit genocide; it seems you are determined to drag the conversation into politics and away from the subject of this topic. Your offer to help has amounted to offering to help patent the (already public domain) idea and I am not interested to engage in such a system, as I've already stated; and your additional helpful suggestion is that I work it out for myself - I'm surprised you gave that away for free. Money is a replacement for trust. It probably won't help to point that out since you think it has value rather than that it is an evil introduced to address a failing. All in all your responses demonstrate an inability for the kind of extrahexahedral thinking that allows such ideas as this to arise in consciousness.

Do you think we can get back to, or even make a start on, examining the geometry and magnetic fields in the device?

[alancalverd]

Why bother? As you are convinced it will work, just do it.

As you don't like money, I will swap you an old guitar for a working machine. Or if you don't even like barter, you can just give me one. I will put it to good use powering an x-ray machine to help heal the sick.

[paul cotter]

What a load of cobblers, I don't no where to start. First off you are completely of of line suggesting Alan is naive: he has one of the sharpest intellects on this forum and is in my opinion truly "a man for all seasons". Competiveness and altruism are not mutually exclusive, many wealthy people donate vast sums to good causes behind the scenes, out of public view. Before the "evil money" there was barter, so one still had to pay as there is a cost associated with virtually everything. Money just made exchange of goods and services more versatile. If one invents something new with military application it may be sequestered and this is how it should be as such technology could fall into the wrong hands. To suggest that such hiding of technology applies to energy is absolute unmitigated nonsense: all governments spend a king's ransom on energy and a new source would be welcomed by all and sundry, bar the few exceptions mentioned by Alan. There have been countless claims of free energy, overunity, perpetual motion machines, water as fuel, etc, etc but not one has ever passed scrutiny: some have been genuine measurement error but a lot have been outright scams. You mention Stanley Meyer: Stanley Meyer was a huckster who stole a lot of your "evil money" from investors(convicted in court) on the basis of false claims. All these free energy claims are specifically ruled out by conservation laws. What a lot of the free energy brigade fail to understand is that if the conservation laws did not hold we would not have a stable universe and we would not exist.

[Bored chemist]

Just for the record, the impossibility of breaking the conservation of energy is one of the few laws of nature that's not just experimentally true; it was mathematically proven about a hundred years ago, by Emmy Noether (who should be more famous).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

So, in order to convince me of any "free energy" machine, you need to start by showing why the maths there is wrong.

[Prajna (OP)]

What a load of cobblers

I didn't say that Alan was stupid, Paul, I said he was naive and I stand by it. One thing I noticed at mensa meetings was that very many of these great intellects are naive and I think it is often the case. I was stunningly naive about how the world works, who is in power, what the "great American tradition of philanthropy" is really about, etc until about 20 years ago. Perhaps we would be better off discussing the device rather than the philosophy of science and the altruism of known criminals.

[Bored chemist]

I said he was naive and I stand by it.

Then you are a fool.

One thing I noticed at mensa meetings

What were you doing there?

Perhaps we would be better off discussing the device

It. Does. Not. Work.

What's to discuss?

[Prajna (OP)]

Then you are a fool.

What were you doing there?

It. Does. Not. Work.

What's to discuss?

I was a fool despite being a member of mensa (that's what I was doing there).

"It does not work" is an assertion, not an explanation, and I'm sure you guys would never let me get away with naked assertions (or maybe that's what the 'naked' in the forum name is all about.) How about we discuss where I have gone wrong in explaining the force vectors in this device.

[paul cotter]

This is utterly pointless, count me out.

[alancalverd]

Since you haven't explained them, you haven't gone wrong.

You would do well to understand the mechanism by which your ferromagnetic "switch" works, then to consider the work done in moving a ferromagnetic material through a magnetic field.

Your assertion that I am naive is unjustified, though being open to ideas is part of being a successful experimental physicist. As is the ability to think in four dimensions.

If you can get off your high horse for a moment, I would advise you to develop (in the sense of engineering drawing) your cam assembly in two dimensions, when it will become apparent that  even if there were no hysteresis or frictional losses, the system has at least one point of stable equilibrium and therefore will not rotate continuously.

But as a being of supreme intellect, you will have already convinced yourself without having to consult those of meagre intelligence.

[Prajna (OP)]

I would advise you to develop (in the sense of engineering drawing) your cam assembly in two dimensions, when it will become apparent that  even if there were no hysteresis or frictional losses, the system has at least one point of stable equilibrium and therefore will not rotate continuously.

That is a more constructive response, Alan, thank you.

I do have a diagram on my website that shows this, I believe. I can't seem to attach it but you can view it at https://tomboy-pink.co.uk/sfmm/media/principle.png [nofollow]

[alancalverd]

Now do as I told you.

[Prajna (OP)]

Now do as I told you.

Add 'rude' to 'naive'. Also you have reverted to being unhelpful again.

[alancalverd]

My instructions were entirely helpful. Make a 2D development of your device and you will see why it won't work.

As you have done the critical experiment of measuring the relevant forces, you can even approximate the force vectors on your diagram.

Or are you a Health & Safety inspector and thus inhabiting an intellectual world where the laws of physics do not apply?

[Bored chemist]

"It does not work" is an assertion, not an explanation

I already posted the explanation twice.

Here's how you described it.
Quote from: Prajna on 29/08/2024 12:18:11
Am I wrong? The laws of thermodynamics would suggest so,

I didn't think I needed to confirm it.

Just for the record, the impossibility of breaking the conservation of energy is one of the few laws of nature that's not just experimentally true; it was mathematically proven about a hundred years ago, by Emmy Noether (who should be more famous).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem