Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Prajna on 29/08/2024 12:18:11
-
Hello all, I have been playing with switching magnetic flux by interposing a sheet of soft iron between two opposed magnetic poles.
I have posted about this on scienceforums[ dot ]net but would appreciate a deeper and wider discussion.
I guess everybody knows that two opposing magnetic poles repel. I discovered - it may be obvious really - that inserting a sheet of ferromagnetic material (soft iron, electrical steel, plain mild steel, etc) in the gap between two opposing magnetic poles causes the magnets to be attracted towards the sheet. This has the practical effect of switching the magnets from repulsion to attraction. Removing the sheet switches the magnets back to repulsion.
I have used this effect in the design of a number of devices that employed a rotor with ferromagnetic tabs or 'fingers' spaced around its periphery that intersect the magnets so that the flux field switches between attraction and repulsion and using the reciprocation that induced to induce a rotary movement in an output rotor.
The latest iteration of my design looks as follows:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
In this design there is a cylindrical rotor that has two opposing sinusoidal cam grooves running around the sides of the cylinder. There are carriages arranged on shafts that constrain them to move parallel to the cylinder and the carriages also have a bearing that runs in the cam grooves. The carriages are arranged in pairs and each carriage also has a magnet. The magnets are arranged so that they oppose the magnet in the opposite carriage. Wherever the cam tracks are converging there is a metal tab that will attract the magnets either side of it. Wherever the cam tracks are diverging there is no tab, thus the magnets are repelling.
Where the magnets are attracting the cam track is converging and thus the vector force of the bearing on the cam track will cause the rotor to rotate to the left (in the above image). Where the magnets are repelling the cam track is diverging and thus the vector force of the bearing will also cause the rotor to rotate to the left.
At the extremes of their travel the vector force of the bearings will be perpendicular to the track and thus will impose an axial rather than rotary force on the rotor. Since there are five waves in the cam track and four sets of carriages, opposite carriages will be at opposite extremes whilst adjacent carriages will be in the mid point of their travel. This means that while the carriages at their extremes and imposing an axial rather than rotary force on the rotor, the adjacent carriage pairs will be exerting a rotary force on the rotor.
It appears to me that this device should start running as soon as it is assembled and require no energy input to start or continue it's motion.
Am I wrong? The laws of thermodynamics would suggest so, however such a general rule does not explain what is happening in this device. Can anyone comment on why, given the geometry of this device and the arrangement of magnets and interposed low-reluctance paths, this device would not behave as I suggest?
There is more info about the device on my website: tomboy-pink[ dot ]co[ dot ]uk/sfmm
There is an simulation of the device running at: youtu[ dot ]be/mjZMPHsw5po
The complete CAD model is available at: github[ dot ]com/prajna-pranab/sfmm-Mk1
-
Or you could just buy one.
https://www.first4magnets.com/other-c89/63-x-50-x-55mm-high-switchable-magnetic-base-with-m8-mounting-hole-70kg-pull-p3473#ps_0_3563|ps_1_1527
Many other brands are available.
-
Or you could just buy one.
Your response doesn't answer the question I asked: will the device I described behave in the way I suggested it will?
-
Am I wrong?
Yes.
There have been umpteen perpetual motion machines proposed using permanent magnets. My father was approached by one inventor looking for investment (always a bad sign - if the prototype generates more power than it consumes, just sell the surplus and use the profits to build a bigger one!) who claimed "I have had perpetual motion for twenty minutes."
-
Or you could just buy one.
Your response doesn't answer the question I asked: will the device I described behave in the way I suggested it will?
Here's how you described it.
Am I wrong? The laws of thermodynamics would suggest so,
I didn't think I needed to confirm it.
-
...
Still doesn't address the question. Certainly not with reason. What's so difficult about analysing what forces are operating in this machine and commenting on why it would behave differently than the way I suggest it will. Is there something wrong with how I have described the device or the observations I have made about how and why it should operate? Can anyone address those questions rather than pontificate about perpetual motion machines in general?
-
You can analyse the torque/rotation curve and find the minimum for yourself.
-
All these schemes for changing/modulating the field of a permanent magnet fail to sum all the input/output energies. For example removing the ferromagnetic material between the two opposing permanent magnets will require energy: in a perfect lossless system this energy will exactly equal any gain resulting from the altered fields and in practice it will exceed any gain.
-
All these schemes for changing/modulating the field of a permanent magnet fail to sum all the input/output energies. For example removing the ferromagnetic material between the two opposing permanent magnets will require energy: in a perfect lossless system this energy will exactly equal any gain resulting from the altered fields and in practice it will exceed any gain.
Certainly there will be force required to pass a ferromagnetic sheet through a magnetic gap. The field induces eddy currents in the sheet and, being an opposite field to that of the inducing magnets, it will create drag. My experiments, though somewhat rough and ready, seem to indicate that moving the ferromagnetic sheet transverse to the field does not seem to cause as much drag as you would expect and I believe the force required to do so is less than the force of the attraction/repulsion forces. I may be wrong in these observations but, as nobody with a good understanding of magnetic fields and forces seems prepared to analyse what is happening with the attraction/repulsion forces and the eddy current drag, I am in the process of building this device in order to empirically test my assumptions. Thanks for the intelligent reply.
-
I've updated the web page for the device detailing the control mechanism that allows the device to be started in forwards or reverse rotation and to be stopped when running. (Just in case anyone is interested.) I'm rather pleased with the way it has turned out and has fitted into the device and I think it is worthy of a patent by itself (if I was into patenting.)
The control system toggles the device off whether it is rotating forwards or backwards, is simple and has few moving parts.
Info at tomboy-pink[ dot ]co[ dot ]uk/sfmm/
-
I think it is worthy of a patent by itself
If you apply for a patent, the inspector will tell you why it won't work and isn't patentable. If you don't apply for a patent, you are giving away the most significant invention the world has ever seen.
-
If you apply for a patent, the inspector will tell you why it won't work and isn't patentable. If you don't apply for a patent, you are giving away the most significant invention the world has ever seen.
What won't work? The control mechanism? If the device is the most significant invention the world has ever seen then why would I seek profit from it? Surely such a device would profit me as much as anyone and making it freely available opens it to development and improvement by many different minds.
-
Surely such a device would profit me as much as anyone
Not as much as the guy who does patent it and thus prevents you (or anyone else) from making one.
-
Not as much as the guy who does patent it and thus prevents you (or anyone else) from making one.
Something wrong with the patent system if one can patent prior art.
-
A patent is for a means of doing something. Since your device won't do anything, your patent would be refused.
-
In reply #5, the OP wonders why there is so little interest in analysing such setups. The reason is as follows: those educated in these matters understand that the magnetic field is conservative, as are the electric and gravitational fields. This informs us that in a cyclic system that returns to the same point there can be no gain in energy, regardless as to how it is configured. Hence the rotor will not self-run. Very little in science is more certain than these restrictions however disappointing they may be.
-
...
Thanks for the response Paul. It sums up nicely what is wrong with science: scientists don't question what they think they know. Thanks to "laws" like conservation of energy you shortcut examining anything that looks to challenge those "laws". But that doesn't enlighten anyone as to why - specifically, analytically - this device won't work. It looks logical: the magnets are in attraction where the cam tracks converge and in repulsion where they diverge and in both cases that will impose a vector force on the cam track causing the rotor to rotate. Is there something wrong with that analysis to begin with?
Even as an intellectual exercise it is an interesting problem, n'est'pas? It seems not so when it comes to scientists and physicists in particular. There is a more certain law than thermodynamics and conservation of energy and that is that physicists cannot entertain, even as an intellectual exercise, any challenge to their dogma. But science is the history of challenging dogma, though, as Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Perhaps this device doesn't contradict the conservation of energy at all, perhaps it is just that the way we define conservation of energy is not specific enough in this case. I seem to recall that it only applies to a closed system. Do we know for sure that magnetism does not cross some boundary? Sub-atomic particles flash in and out of existence, or perhaps in and out of our dimension, are we sure that there is not a similar effect with magnetic fields? But nobody is prepared to even examine such questions because "conservation of energy."
There is another anomaly with physicists: they know for sure that there can be no such thing as a perpetual motion machine and yet they can recognise such a thing (and shut their brain off) instantly.
I'm sorry to rant but I am frustrated that nobody will discuss the geometry of this device and point out - by referring to the device's geometry and magnetic fields - why this machine will not work as I have suggested it will. Being told, "blah, blah, conservation of energy, blah, blah, laws of thermodynamics, blah, blah, ..." feels like being told, "Because I say so!" by a teacher who doesn't know the answer to some question. That is not aimed at you specifically, Paul.
I was told by one physicist that he had never been confronted with such a complex problem in all of his university training. Perhaps that is the real problem: it is not simple to analyse what is happening in this device and therefore far easier to dismiss it by simply stating that if it did work then it would negate conservation of energy and therefore it can't work and therefore it isn't worth thinking about.
Surely somebody has enough familiarity with magnetism to, at least approximately, point out where in the rotation is the "sticky spot" - where the force vectors are wrong or the geometry prevents them acting or some other consideration. But we never get to such a discussion because you guys (and all the other scientists I have found to discuss it with) can shortcut the discussion with variations on "conservation of energy."
-
You are quite wrong in your view of science as none of the "laws" are set in stone and all are open to challenge but to falsify a law one needs solid reproducible experimental data. Dogma is what one finds in religion, not in science. However it is possible to find dogmatic individuals involved as it is in any area of human pursuit. Most people who claim science is dogma have never been educated in it and if they were the results would be different. During a science course there are two important parts, theory and practice. In lab work students are required to recreate the historic experiments that led to our current understanding so that they can see for themselves the validity of the laws for themselves rather than just accept what they are told in the theory work. In more advanced levels research becomes important and all aspiring scientists seek to find something new whether it be a new chemical compound, an exception to a law, a new theory that explains previously unexplained phenomena, etc,etc. Science is driven by the pursuit of novelty and is always moving forward. The laws that we have currently are the best fit for what we observe but there is every possibility that they may be improved upon in the future but this is not guaranteed.
-
Surely somebody has enough familiarity with magnetism to, at least approximately, point out where in the rotation is the "sticky spot"
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.
-
Now there is an example of a professional scientist with an open mind for you(op). It is not all dogma as you suggest.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
This is utterly pointless, count me out.
-
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.
-
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
-
Now do as I told you.
-
Now do as I told you.
Add 'rude' to 'naive'. Also you have reverted to being unhelpful again.
-
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?
-
"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
-
Or are you a Health & Safety inspector...
Very supportive of you to confirm he was correct to call you rude.
-
I've added the following the the web page about the device:
But will it work?
Well, we don't know yet. I have to finish building it so we can see. I have about one more day of 3D printing parts and still have to find suitable magnets. Also I would rather use 5mm stainless or chrome rods but may have to settle for mild steel rods if I can't find a local source for something better.
Most of the magnetic forces work in the direction we want them to but there is a point, as the metal tab is leaving the magnetic gap, where, in addition to the repulsion vector, which works in our favour, there is a magnetic drag on the tab, trying to drag it back into the gap. At this point the magnets are quite close and it's not easy to work out which force vector will win the tug-o-war but at this same time there are two adjacent pairs of magnets - one pair in attraction and increasing their force and the other pair in repulsion with their force diminishing - that are exerting their force in a helpful direction and they may help to overcome any back-attraction of the closest magnets.
I had rather hoped that someone on one of the science forums I posted to might take a look at the geometry of the device and give some pointers as to how the force vectors will balance but it turns out, in my experience anyway, that the denizens of such fora are a sarcastic, arrogant and unfriendly lot when it comes to examining such a device; probably they feel that since free energy/overunity/perpetual motion is outlawed by thermodynamics it is not worth their time nor worth the risk of tarnishing their professional reputations. So we'll just have to build and test it ourselves.
-
I said I was out but you have tempted me to make one final comment. How long have magnets been around? Quite a long time. How long have people tried to make perpetual motion machines? Again a long time. What is the purpose of these questions/answers? It is to try to show you how long attempts have been made, using every possible configuration, without success. I don't know how much you have researched previous attempts to make an all-permanent magnet motor but a vast amount of unofficial research has been done, again all to no avail. There was a forum that went by the name "overunity.com" (ceased but can still be accessed as read-only, I believe) that has hundreds of pages detailing such attempts. I am quite sure that someone somewhere has tried exactly what you propose and failed, given that so many diverse attempts have been made. The long and extensive history of this endeavour coupled with the fact that the laws of physics rule out such motors is the reason why you receive no help from the various science forums. There is as much chance of one levitating by pulling hard on their shoelaces as there is of a magnet only motor working, or ANY other free energy/overunity scheme working.
-
There was a forum that went by the name "overunity.com"
Thanks for the measured response, Paul. In case it interests you Stefan, who ran overunity.com, is working with UfoPolitics of overunitymachines.com to resurrect overunity.com, which is currently archived whilst waiting for the huge number of message attachments to be reconnected to the posts to which they relate. I was a member of the overunity.com forum and am now a member of overunitymachines.com. I know that it seems near certain that the conservation laws and Noether's theorem are valid and any kind of free energy is ruled out, however they are generalisations and we don't know for sure that there is no extrahexahedral approach that will allow what in that particular paradigm is impossible. There are still many aspects of physics that are open to deeper exploration and I am sure there are plenty of surprises yet to come.
When I was about 14 or 15 my great uncle showed me a design he had come up with that he suggested might be perpetual. He was unable to build it because that design required some kind of magnetic shielding. After he died I came across mumetal, a magnetic shielding material, but it works by being a very low inductance path, so the field is contained in the mumetal rather than passing through it. But I realised that wouldn't have had the effect Uncle Allan had hoped. However I posted the design to overunity.com and some years later I discovered a video of a German build based on the design that appeared to work. The video may have been a hoax, I've no way to discover whether there was some hidden propulsion system or video editing or some other subterfuge designed to mislead but it appeared convincing and I understood how it was supposed to work. Both that design and my own remix of a similar principle appear - from their geometry and action - to suggest that magnetic attraction and repulsion may be able to be used to run a system without input of any currently known energy except for the intrinsic characteristics of magnets. It may well be that the subject is not worth pursuing but I am not yet convinced because I have not yet found what would prevent this configuration running forever - a 'sticky' point in the cycle, for instance. There will be back-drag on the tab exiting the gap during one part of the cycle and it may be (because Nature likes to keep things symmetrical and in balance) that whatever geometry we can invent the forces will always cancel out. But that is not yet shown, rather, the response from the scientists I have engaged with is to shortcut the investigation by relying on the conservation laws. Perhaps in seeking to understand this device some other discovery may arise, perhaps still not challenging our current understanding of thermodynamics but adding to it. Certainly there is no possibility of that if we are to dismiss anything but what we think we already know.
-
I didn't know how much history of these things you were familiar with. Stefan Hartmann has been at this game for the best part of 30years and what has been achieved in that time- nothing. Every conceivable combination of magnets has been tried and none of them work despite numerous claims. Magnets are just like springs, what you lose and what you gain are always equal, minus losses. Noether's theorem is rock solid with no work around possible. Lots of people think they have found some trick that will bypass the laws of physics but it never works in practice. You are quite correct to say we don't know the full storey with physics and as knowledge improves there will be further unknowns(imho) and this process will continue indefinitely. The basic laws such as the conservation laws are very unlikely to be changed as they are the foundation on which this universe stands.
-
The basic laws such as the conservation laws are very unlikely to be changed as they are the foundation on which this universe stands.
What happens to the universe if you're wrong? ;)
I did spend quite a time on overunity.com fascinated with the idea of sinking a compressed cylinder of air to be triggered to reinflate at depth so as to take advantage of the work done. In that instance I did fully analyse the system and discovered that the work obtained was the same as was required to recompress the air. I do have a good feel for how Nature balances one kind of force against another. Just I haven't got that feel with regard to magnets yet. I'm sure that if some impossibility of a perpetual motion machine was demonstrated the universe would still stand and physicists would simply, after picking their jaws from the ground, brush off the current dogma, add a few caveats and bolster themselves up with it again.
-
You obviously do not understand how science works. When observations suggest a particular pattern of behaviour a law or rule is tentatively created and then researchers throw everything at it to try and falsify It. A law cannot be proved but the more attempts to undermine it fail, the stronger such law or rule becomes. It is never dogma and all laws are open to correction IF there is the required experimental evidence. The laws of thermodynamics have withstood all such attempts for ~150years and as such they stand on very solid ground. There is nothing to rule out a perpetual motion machine if all losses could be eliminated but a perpetual motion machine doing external work is categorically ruled out. You are correct that there would be consternation among scientists if such a machine, doing external work, was to be demonstrated. There is, however, not a scintilla of evidence that this has ever been done.
-
I'm sure that if some impossibility of a perpetual motion machine was demonstrated
I don't think you meant to say that.
The impossibility of perpetual motion WAS demonstrated about a hundred years ago.
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 the only remaining question is "how many times do we have to tell you this?".
-
The impossibility of perpetual motion WAS demonstrated about a hundred years ago.
Tell that to electrons orbiting a nucleus or an inductor in a superconductor. What does Noether have to say about that? Sure you can't extract energy from such a system and it still be perpetual but it is perpetual until you do. Oh, and I do realise I am talking about a device intended to produce energy, which is not the same thing as the above examples but maybe you should be a little more precise if you're going to make assertions.
-
There is nothing to rule out a perpetual motion machine if all losses could be eliminated
Hi Paul, I think you take me far too seriously sometimes (and perhaps not seriously enough at others). I was taking a jibe at physicists in that final sentence and I do know how science is supposed to work.
The other possibility of what we all think of as perpetual motion, or, moreover, overunity, is a system that manages to obtain its energy from a source that we have not yet identified, and that is a possibility that would not offend Mr Noether, is it not?
-
Perpetual motion in common parlance refers to machinery that is self propelled and capable of external work. The notion of orbiting electrons is simply a distraction and not relevant. If an additional source of energy can be found then Emmy Noether will not be disturbed as again the TOTAL energy input, minus losses, equals the output. The last "new" energy source to be discovered was nuclear energy, good luck finding a new source.
-
"Mr Noether" was a woman, as any scientist knows.
Or are you a Health & Safety inspector...
Very supportive of you to confirm he was correct to call you rude.
A summary of experience cannot be considered rude.