PDA

View Full Version : Alternative Energy/Science projects



Tin Falcon
08-24-2006, 05:28 PM
Guys:
Came across this web site that has DIY plans for alternative energy projects. I am posting this FYI. I think in may be of interest to the forum. No affiliation Normal disclaimers etc etc.

http://www.fuellesspower.com/air2.htm
Feedback welcome

As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another.
Regards Tin

Evan
08-24-2006, 05:33 PM
Feedback eh? Seems to me we have discussed compressed air engines before. I am hard pressed to think of a more inefficient way to propel anything.

Tin Falcon
08-24-2006, 05:50 PM
Evan Not trying to beat a dead horse here. Do not recall the discussion on air engines. Also this site was posted because it offers various plan sets of potential interest.
If you want an air engine this one is likely much more efficient. http://www.engineair.com.au/airmotor.htm
Tin

Evan
08-24-2006, 05:59 PM
The motor isn't the problem. When you compress air unless you have some magic way to keep from losing the heat of compression then you lose all that energy even before it is used to run a motor. That represents a huge loss in efficiency and cannot be overcome.

tattoomike68
08-24-2006, 06:00 PM
There is some good reading here. I like the idea.

http://www.theaircar.com/

Evan
08-24-2006, 06:18 PM
If you dig around on that site you will discover there is one very important page that is missing, the page titled Thermodynamics and mileage (http://www.theaircar.com/data_sheet.html)

I wonder why? :rolleyes:

It's because the performance on just air is so poor as to be nearly unusable. Nearly all of the performance figures quoted on the site are based on the car running on its IC engine, not the air motor.

Rustybolt
08-24-2006, 07:00 PM
124 miles on a tank of air! How the hell big is that tank anyway? How much energy is used to compress the air? And finally you're goiingto need a whole lot more modifications than a missing carburator and some solenoids.

Evan
08-24-2006, 08:05 PM
It doesn't say 124 miles on a tank of air. As I said, most of the references on that site to performance include the internal combustion engine.

Tin Falcon
08-24-2006, 09:38 PM
I was hoping you guys would check out some of the other projects
The Fuelless Engine , The Fuelless Heater , The Gravity Motor ,Free Energy From The Earth , Tesla Turbine , Run Your Car On Water Homemade ,Solar Cells , 5,000 watt inverter , Tesla Coil , More Plans, SP500 AC Generator Homemade Batteries HV Power Supplies Aircraft
High Voltage Capacitors High Voltage Magnets , High Efficiency Generator Windmills , Fuel Cells, A lot of this stuff looks like books /plans that linsay sells. No I am not sitting here wearing a foil beanie LOL
Regards
Tin

TECHSHOP
08-24-2006, 10:19 PM
Always had fun with plans like that, leave it setting out where the big boss would see it and a few parts made setting on the bench when I went to lunch.

OTOH:
Kind of leary of web offers like that, fool and his money kind of thing.

Evan
08-24-2006, 10:34 PM
Ok.

Fuelless heater:



Question: How does it work?
Without giving out to much free information,we will use our small space heater as an example: We start with a 7" x 11" metal drum, ( Which is the outer drum ) Then motor oil is poured into the inner can, It does not use oil, it only uses the atoms from the oil which is very safe to use

So, it doesn't use the oil, only the atoms of the oil. Well, that clears that up.

Gravity motor:


“The motor turns counter clock wise. The arms are in perfect balance positions at the 6:00 and the 12:00 positions. As it continues to turn past the 12:00 position the leverage arms both move to the left about 10 to 12 inches. This creates an OFF BALANCE and rotates the heavy steel flywheel until the off balanced arm reaches the 6:00 position. At that point a very high efficient / free energy solenoid coil kicks in and pushes the arms back up into a perfect balanced position and they continue to rotate back to the 12:00 position. Then the process starts all over again - this is all done very quickly!”

This is one of the oldest pipe dreams. For it to work it would have to violate the laws of conservation of momentum as well as the laws of thermodynamics and a few others that I have missed as well as the "no free lunch" law.

Free energy from the earth:


You can now use less earth space and get 10 times more power! Using our New Nano Flux EECC Technology! Collect some high voltage RF spikes from lightning as well!

Bad plan. Bad science. Collecting power from lightning can be hazardous to your health. Not a good science project. Just ask Lee Trevino.

I am not going to look at the rest.

ASparky
08-24-2006, 10:48 PM
All of them have science violations or are basically useless. The fuelless motor was one, that was hard to spot. A bit of diging though showed the catch. The motor plans call for a 1000v 30ma power supply.

Testing shows it works sort of. The power supply delivers 1000 * 0.030 = 30 watts, the motor outputs around 5 watts. Whats wrong with this picture? LOL

ASparky
08-24-2006, 10:55 PM
Ok the secret of the oil heater. You have to use the right oil.


Which turns out is one thats contains a lot of sulfur. It gets its "free" heat by reacting a metal with the sufur. Yup the oil is not used up at all. still LOL.

ASparky
08-25-2006, 01:32 AM
In case anyone objects to my critcism. I am not totally anti any alternate stuff and I probably shouldn't mention but...

I do know of one method that might work, and no it doesnt violate the Conservation of Energy Law.

It does on the face of it violate the Second law of thermodynamics ( The entropy increases law), but it does not seem to contradict any of the proofs (statistical and otherwise) of the second law just adds some fine print. I just cannot find the loop hole that invalidates it. But I am so sure momma nature has some trick up her sleave, so that the Second law holds, I would not like anyone to scam it or invest in it.

On the other hand if someone is rich and silly enough to pay, with their eyes wide open, for it to be checked by experts and/or built let me know. :D :D :D

Oh and if anyone wants a (confidential or otherwise) science based critique of other schemes, I very likely would be willing and able.

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 12:17 PM
Here's another site to putts around in, its fasinating if not just for the lengths that man will go through to try and find a loophole --- http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm --- Most all of the devises are very obvious at a glance but there are a few that will make you think, I really dont believe theres a "free lunch" but that being said and Iv made this statement on this site before --- give me a true magnetic shielding material (that is unaffected by magnetism itself) and i will have a working unit built humming away in my basement and producing all my heating and electrical needs and also giving me a nice monthly paycheck from the electrical company, Its just as important to stay grounded with reality as it is to keep an open mind...

Evan
08-25-2006, 12:43 PM
give me a true magnetic shielding material (that is unaffected by magnetism itself)
It's called Mu metal.

http://www.mumetal.com/

BTW, I'll take ten percent of your profit for giving you the solution. :D

When may I expect my first check?

kf1002002
08-25-2006, 02:51 PM
Many years ago I did some work at an Oxygen plant which can put some interesting numbers into this scheme.
In this plant the idea was to compress air up to something over 2000 psi, cool it to say ambient temperature then use the air to run a reciprocating engine which drove a generator to put power back on the power line. At first glance this seems like a pointless exercise but the real point was to get the cold exhaust which could then be used to cool the incoming air and finally get the exhaust temperature down low enough to condense the oxygen and nitrogen of the air to a liquid which was the end product.
In energy terms however, it took 2500 hp to compress the air and only 90 hp went back to the power system. The difference, 2410 hp was rejected heat which ended up in the lake. Since then I have looked with skepticism at the idea of using compressed air to do work on any large scale though it has its uses such as operating small tools.

Ken

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 03:00 PM
It's called Mu metal.

http://www.mumetal.com/

BTW, I'll take ten percent of your profit for giving you the solution. :D

When may I expect my first check?





Evan, heres the composite of Mumetal ; MuShield Magnetic Shielding Material
Type analysis:


Carbon 0.02% Nickel 80.00%
Manganese 0.50% Molybdenum 4.20%
Silicon 0.35% Iron Balance

If Iron is the balance then we all know what that means, When i stated "true shielding" without being effected itself that means it cant have an attraction to permanent magnets or field ones for that matter....

Evan
08-25-2006, 03:11 PM
Mu metal is non magnetic. It works by acting as an excellent conductor of magnetic field lines. For 100% perfect magnetic shielding a superconductor will work.

[edit]

I almost forgot, here is my address. :D

118F N 1st Ave
Williams Lake, BC
V2G 1Y8

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 04:09 PM
Evan, Mumetal is magnetic --- it contains Iron and iron is ferrous and therefore is attracted to magnetic fields, the thing about mumetal is it stores no molecular memory of the magnetism that it was subjected to, this is a huge difference in what we are talking about...

Not saying that its imposible to find (somewhere in the universe)--- Its why i brought it up, but its just that we dont have anything in which you claim, not anything superconductive or anything for that matter (that doesnt have to use a secondary energy source to accomplish the goals in which we speak of):p

Evan
08-25-2006, 04:43 PM
Only some crystal forms of iron are magnetic. Austenite is entirely non magnetic. That's why iron loses it's magnetic properties when heated above the critical temperature or curie point and the crystals convert to the austenitic form. Some nickel alloys such as the 300 series of stainless steel and Mu metal allow the iron to keep the austenitic form as it solidifies and cools to room temperature. Austenitic iron is nonmagnetic. Mu metal in nonmagnetic.
[edit]
BTW, superconductors do not require any energy to be superconductive. The fact that we must use energy to cool the materials is merely a consequence of our environment. If your design will work with a superconductor on Earth then it should work on the minor planet Pluto with no cooling required.

Evan
08-25-2006, 05:11 PM
I was just double checking my information and need to make a small correction. The austenitic form of iron is not a change in crystal structure but a change in domain structure. Austenite is the beta allotrope in which the orientation of the electron spins within the domains is random. This means that it is truely nonmagnetic. It isn't some sort of "trick". When it converts to the alpha allotrope the spins align within the domains and the iron is then magnetic.

For both allotropes the crystal structure remains BCC (body centered cubic). Iron also has two other allotropes, the gamma and delta forms. The gamma form does have a different stucture which is FCC (face centered cubic). They are also nonmagnetic meaning that only one of the four allotropes of iron is magnetic.

Many elements have allotropic forms. Different allotropes often have very different physical properties. Sulphur is a good example. Red sulphur and yellow sulphur are the same element but different allotropes.

Carbon is another well known allotropic element with numerous forms that are all identical elementally but different structurally.

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 05:47 PM
Evan, in laymans terms ---- Do you realize how mechanically easy it would be to build a P.M. motor if we had these kind of shielding capabilities?

Back in 5th grade i set out to change the world till i found out that every "magnetic shielding material" i found was also subject to the effects of magnetism

I dont care about alloatropes and crystaline structures,and id think mumetal would state austenitic iron instead of just iron in thier breakdown of thier mix, also its been 15 years ago since iv studied anything to do with superconductivity but since back then we were aproaching room temp. i really dont think we need to go to pluto to get the job done,

The bottom line Evan, we dont have a material that will shield all magnetism and yet not be attracted or repelled itself, If we did It would be a cake walk for anybody to build a PM motor that puts out more power than it uses to slide this material in and out of the area between the permanent magnets of the rotor and the stationary cast iron (or steel) of the base, think of how easy to have a thin "hub rotor" that is between the two and geared within the same ratio,,,, the permanent rotor attracts to the base and then poof the shield slips in beween with long enough slots to allow the PM's to escape without consequence, very simple and effective...

Evan
08-25-2006, 06:25 PM
Sigh. Boomer, static magnetic fields are not a source of power and cannot be used as such. It's like gravity. To obtain power from an object in a gravitational well it must move to a lower position in the well thereby converting potential energy to kinetic energy. The gravity is not the source of the energy, the object is.

A magnetic field is similar. A system of magnets can store potential energy by being moved closer or further apart and release that potential energy later. However, the energy does not come from the magnetic field, it merely stores it. A magnetic field is a force carrier mediated by the exchange of photons. If the field is static then no energy is exchanged. To make the field change and transmit energy requires an outside input of energy.

The fundamental forces aside from gravity are the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force. The fields by which they exert influence do not in themselves contain energy but are a property of matter. They force is produced by the exchange of certain force carrying particles called vector bosons. They are responsible for the invisible transmission of the force fields.

In the case of magnetism if the field is attracting two magnets together for instance, once the magnets have moved together energy must be expended to move them apart or to interpose a shield.

Any material that can act as a magnetic shield does so by being an excellent conductor of magnetic fields. This applies both to mu metal and to a superconductor. That is the only way to "shield" a magnetic field.

To insert such a shield between two magnets will require an amount of force that is directly proportional to the flux strength of the magnetic field between the magnets. The field lines conducted through the shield material will then oppose the external lines equally and oppositely. This will occur regardless if the material is magnetic or not. The amount of energy expended to place the shield will be in exact proportion to the amount of energy used when the magnets attracted each other. The net result is zero.

This effect is used in braking systems and othe damping systems. The effect is produced by eddy currents. Once again, this is the only way a magnetic shield can be produced.

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 06:59 PM
Double sigh:rolleyes: Hello Evan,,, welcome to the discussion

Quote; "In the case of magnetism if the field is attracting two magnets together for instance, once the magnets have moved together energy must be expended to move them apart or to interpose a shield.

Any material that can act as a magnetic shield does so by being an excellent conductor of magnetic fields. This applies both to mu metal and to a superconductor. That is the only way to "shield" a magnetic field."

This is what iv been stating all along! with one important note, I dont know if there is a new element out in the universe that could blow the top off of all of this crap, And the difference between you and me is i wont pretend to know whats out there, there may be stuff out there that would force us to re-write the laws of physics and all kinds of other stuff that goes along with it, energy can niether be created nor destroyed? the only definite answer that i can give you for sure is "maybe"...

To date the only thing we have that repells or shields a magnetic force has itself an attraction to the force itself, this is why a "shield" still comes at a price, however, If you could pick the most likely breakthrough in the lunacy of the perpetual motion machine actually becoming a reality what would your machine be?
Thats all this is about Evan, so pick a machine or choose a magic element to adapt a machine to, but for gods sakes have a little fun in life ehhh...

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 07:05 PM
"The gravity is not the source of the energy, the object is."


It actually takes two, the power of the gravitational pull ( weight of the planet) and the weight of the object

IOWOLF
08-25-2006, 07:14 PM
YAWN!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Evan
08-25-2006, 07:30 PM
This is what iv been stating all along! with one important note, I dont know if there is a new element out in the universe that could blow the top off of all of this crap, And the difference between you and me is i wont pretend to know whats out there, there may be stuff out there that would force us to re-write the laws of physics and all kinds of other stuff that goes along with it, energy can niether be created nor destroyed? the only definite answer that i can give you for sure is "maybe"...

To date the only thing we have that repells or shields a magnetic force has itself an attraction to the force itself, this is why a "shield" still comes at a price, however, If you could pick the most likely breakthrough in the lunacy of the perpetual motion machine actually becoming a reality what would your machine be?

Easy. I would build a perpetual motion machine of almost any type. All I need is some special oil that will totally eliminate friction of any kind. It must be out there somewhere, right? :D

Your desired magnetic shield is in the same class as the oil.

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 08:22 PM
Im not just spinning a wheel to go round and round for eternity for the heck of it Evan remember, im heating my home and making enough extra money from the electric company to take monthly vacations with young babes from all over the world,,,:p at the very least you now know that magnetic shielding is effected by magnetic fields so i dont consider this disscussion an entire loss, one more thing --- dont forget to put your machine in a vaccum jar so as to eliminate any atmospheric drag, and also dont try and pull any power off of it either, your magic oil is only capable of increasing efficiency but will still require all the things we have to do to this day to produce power...


UB jackel --- if your really bored we can bring up that pic that you sent of you and your buddies? big emphasis on "you" i think i last seen it in the joke catagory?

Evan
08-25-2006, 10:54 PM
at the very least you now know that magnetic shielding is effected by magnetic fields

No, magnetic fields are affected by magnetic shields, not the other way around. As I first explained, the shield is simply a good conductor of magnetic field lines. Those same field lines resist the penetration of the magnetic field since they are the same orientation. The interaction is between the conducted magnetic field lines and the external magnetic field lines which are all from the same source, not the field and the metal itself. The magnetic domains in the metal are not permanently reoriented so any interaction between the direction of the electron spins in the metal and the field averages out to zero before and after the field is encountered.

It's essentially the same as a conductor of electricity producing a magnetic field. When a current flows in a conductor it produces a magnetic field. It doesn't make the material magnetic.

It's also how an MRI works with nonmetallic materials. By imposing a strong enough magnetic field the electron spins become temporarily oriented and that energy is reemitted as RF when the field relaxes. The material is unaffected by the fields just as is the material of a magnetic shield. The change in the orientation of the electron spins reflects a property of the field, not the material.

It helps to realize that electron spin is not a property analogous to the spinning of a top. The term "spin" as applied to an electron refers to the orientation of the magnetic field that is the electron. Changing the orientation of the charge has no effect on the electron since the field is bipolar and averages to zero. Changing the orientation of all the electrons surrounding an atom has no effect on the properties of the atom. Magnetic charge is not a property of an atom since the overall magnetic charge is always zero.

Saying the material is affected is like saying a weight is affected by lifting it out of a gravity well. It merely gains potential energy but its properties do not change.

Evan
08-25-2006, 11:11 PM
If that made any sense to you then the implication should be clear. A magnet does not store energy that can be released later. While it does take energy to realign the magnetic domains that realignment is then maintained without input of further energy. The energy used to realign is lost as heat during the magnetization. Regardless of the alignment of the domains in the material the total energy level remains unchanged and the total magnetic field still sums to zero.

This is why energy cannot be extracted from a static magnetic field. The field can only be used to transfer energy from another source. The total magnetic field equals zero regardless of the alignment. Magnetism is always bipolar.

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 11:18 PM
"No, magnetic fields are affected by magnetic shields, not the other way around."


like the gravity example; they both are affected by each other, the shield material must be anchored or it will be drawn into the magnet, therefore the magnet has an affect on the shield also..

Evan
08-25-2006, 11:22 PM
like the gravity example; they both are affected by each other, the shield material must be anchored or it will be drawn into the magnet, therefore the magnet has an affect on the shield also..

No it won't. It is non magnetic.

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 11:28 PM
if its Non-magnetic then where is there a dividend to pay for removing it after it was used for shielding?

A.K. Boomer
08-25-2006, 11:50 PM
better example; you have two oposing magnets (north facing north) the magnets are three feet away from each other so there is no force imposed upon them, the shield is slipped between the two, the magnets are brought .100" from each other , there still is no affect, the shield is then slipped out with no consequence because what you said its not being drawn into the magnetic field ----- so --- zero effort to remove it, now what happens to the two magnets,, they repell each other, so with no energy being used you just created some right... every magnetic shield iv ever experimented with is drawn to the magnets themselves otherwise we could produce power this way Evan.

Evan
08-26-2006, 02:00 AM
Moving a magnetic conductor of any type through magnetic lines of force requires energy in direct proportion to the strength of the magnetic flux, both inserting it and removing it. It's the principle of magnetic brakes. The field is changing so eddy currents are created. The opposite is when you move a field through a magnetic conductor. That also requires energy. It's called a generator.

If the magnetic conductor has resistance then there will be losses that show up in the conductor as heat. If the conductor has no resistance such as a superconductor then the magnetic field lines in the conductor are precisely equal to the external lines of force and they are excluded. If a conductor is placed between two magnets the forces will be exactly balanced and the conductor will experience zero net force as long as it doesn't change position in the field. If the field is moving the conductor will tend to be dragged by the field, not attracted. That is magnetic resistance which is how the magnetic brake works.

A.K. Boomer
08-26-2006, 10:49 AM
Evan, we are miscommunicating again, this should be about shielding and not a conductor, granted it takes conducting principles for a shield to function but this means that the shield is then caught up in the flux of the magnetic fields so it is therefore attracted to magnetism, yes it can be nuetralized by having same opposing magnet on the other side but there is still a price to be paid for removal of shield material because it is still attracted to the magnets, I think me and you got our lines crossed by the "magnetic --- non- magnetic" discription, by non-magnetic i mean not only is it not a magnet in itself but also does not contain any properties that will be attracted to magnetism, shielding material does, but the difference with shielding material is that it will retain no memory like typical material that we use, (i.e. leave a magnet on the end of your phillips screw driver for awhile and it then becomes a handy tool for holding screws for installation into tight spots) typical cast iron or steel can be used for shielding material too, but it will eventually make the material magnetic as in a magnet in itself, the material can also be stated as "magnetic" because it is attracted to magnetism...

A.K. Boomer
08-26-2006, 11:14 AM
Im also interested in hearing your take on this, what would happen if we found something maybe not as on the fringe of what we speak but say we found an alt. energy source that made it so we didnt have to worry about power ever again, at first glance it sounds great, and yes it would take care of allot of imediate problems (esp. not having to deal with oil from u know where) but i see major problems with it in the form of checks and balances --- are we not fat enough, people would even get lazier would they not? the world would get even more crouded, People are kinda like an out of control bacteria on the face of the planet, give them more fuel and food supply and the inevitable will happen, they will eventually wipe out everything in their path and then a massive die off will occure, I would like to think that we are smarter than that, but with the current evidence --- I dont think so.

Evan
08-26-2006, 11:32 AM
No, it (the shielding) is NOT attracted to the magnets. Not when moving in the field or when still. The magnetic domains remain randomly oriented and the material does not become magnetic even when conducting a field. The electron spins merely follow the alignment of the imposed field but that does not change the alignment of the magnetic domains.

The field lines interact with the field lines. They cannot attract because they have the same polarity. When induced eddy currents occur due to motion they are random and any attraction is cancelled by an equal amount of repulsion.

It is possible by careful arrangement of the fields to create attraction or repulsion by producing an unbalanced and asymmetrical field. One example is a Halbach array (http://www.matchrockets.com/ether/halbach.html).

The field around a single magnet or pair of separated magnets will be symmetrical and the Halbach effect will not occur.

A.K. Boomer
08-26-2006, 12:16 PM
"No, it (the shielding) is NOT attracted to the magnets. Not when moving in the field or when still. The magnetic domains remain randomly oriented and the material does not become magnetic even when conducting a field. The electron spins merely follow the alignment of the imposed field but that does not change the alignment of the magnetic domains."



Then explain to me why shielding material can be picked up off the ground (against gravity) by simply waving a magnet an inch over it?

Evan
08-26-2006, 12:38 PM
That won't happen with mu metal or with aluminum, both of which are used for magnetic shielding.

Anyway, I have a lot of stuff to do. I'll be gone for the day.

A.K. Boomer
08-26-2006, 04:43 PM
Here you go Evan, http://www.mumetals.com/


Pay attention when you get to the part; "There is no known material that blocks magnetic fields without itself being attracted to the magnetic force. Magnetic fields can only be redirected, not created or removed. To do this, high-permeability shielding alloys like MUMETAL are used. The magnetic field lines are strongly attracted into the shielding material."

Now granted i dont have MuMetal here but i have mitsuboshi's equivelent and its been stuck to a magnet in my scrap drawer for at least a couple of years now...

ALL shielding material is attracted to magnetic force or it simply is not considered shielding material, some may be affected very little but its shielding capabilities will also be very poor...


Just so there is no confusion, MuMetal is attracted to magnets, in simplistic terms --- It can be picked up off the ground with a permanent magnet...

Evan
08-27-2006, 11:46 AM
You are correct, I am wrong. On further research it is clear the mu metal will be attracted to a magnet. The material that I have from a scope shield must not be mu metal as I suppposed since it is nonmagnetic.

However, the statement that all magnetic shields are magnetic is also wrong. It is standard practice to laminate mu metal with aluminum to make a shield. The aluminum works to shield higher frequencies via eddy current losses and does work as a magnetic shield. Also, what I have said about how it works is also correct. Mu metal is an example of a magnetically "soft" material with absolutely no "memory". It's still a case of the field interacting with the field itself. What I neglected to take into account is the temporary alignment of the spins is in the opposite direction to the field.

As an interesting side note check out this site I found. The technology for tin foil hats has advanced greatly. You can now make a "tinfoil" head scarf that isn't nearly as noticable. :D

Electromagnetic Field Shielding Fabrics (http://www.lessemf.com/fabric.html)

A.K. Boomer
08-27-2006, 12:35 PM
Quote; "However, the statement that all magnetic shields are magnetic is also wrong. It is standard practice to laminate mu metal with aluminum to make a shield. The aluminum works to shield higher frequencies via eddy current losses and does work as a magnetic shield."



Evan, if your laminating aluminum with MuMetal you have now taken a non-magnetic material (with no shielding capabilities) and turned it magnetic (meaning attracted to magnetism), It has to be magnetic for it to be a shield (unless we discover a new material like i stated earlier) As far as aluminum being a shield material it has as much shielding capability as air (see permeability chart below)
You may be thinking of aluminum for RF aplications?





Why can't I just use lead or copper or aluminum foil for magnetic shielding?

In the strictest sense, magnetic shielding is not truly shielding at all. Unlike the way a lead shield stops X-rays, magnetic shielding materials create an area of lower magnetic field in their vicinity by attracting the magnetic field lines to themselves. The physical property which allows them to do this is called "permeability".

Unlike X-rays, sound, light or bullets, magnetic field lines must travel from the North pole of the source and return to the South pole. Under usual circumstances, they will travel through air, which by definition has a permeability of "1". But if a material with a higher permeability is nearby, the magnetic field lines, efficient creatures that they are, will travel the path of least resistance (through the higher permeability material), leaving less magnetic field in the surrounding air.


Here's how the permeabilities of some common materials compare:
Air ........... 1
Copper ...... 1
Aluminum ... 1
Tin ............. 1
Lead .......... 1


Nickel .................. 100
Commercial Iron ... 200
Stainless Steel ....... 200
MagnetShield ........ 4000


Magnetic Shielding Alloys* ....... 20,000+
Annealed MetGlas ................. 1,000,000




Now, find me the material that i discribed ( hint--- its not MuMetal) and i will keep your address and give you 10% of the profits and also buy you the lathe and mill of your choice no questions asked (keep it under a quarter million would you):p

Evan
08-27-2006, 12:44 PM
If the definition of magnetic shield is a material that does not allow a magnetic field to penetrate beyond it (or even a portion of it) then aluminum is a magnetic shield. It has no effect on a static field but it does shield a moving field because of random eddy currents that are generated. Because the eddy currents are random there is no net attraction or repulsion.

Try dropping a small supermagnet down through an aluminum tube and you will see that it falls very slowly but without being attracted to the tube. Most of the magnetic flux of the magnetic field in motion is dissipated as heat in the aluminum and does not penetrate beyond the aluminum as it is doing work in the aluminum.
[edit]



Magnetically shielded room
Key Features:
Quality materials including aluminum eddy current shielding, high permeable nickel magnetic shielding, copper RF shielding
http://www.ets-lindgren.com/productpage.cfm?model=MSR&producttype=Shielding

A.K. Boomer
08-27-2006, 01:34 PM
The example that you gave for the magnetically shielded room uses MuMetal as one of the composites ------- Maybe the aluminum helps with RF or MF in which the room is also shielded from.

but the fact remains (unless your talking some kind of alloy)
Permeability Air 1
Aluminum 1

Evan
08-27-2006, 04:45 PM
That doesn't matter. The aluminum is used to block changing magnetic fields. It also blocks RF but that's not what we are talking about. It is used as a magnetic shield with the mu metal because the mu metal has a very low frequency response.

A.K. Boomer
08-27-2006, 09:28 PM
Quote straight from MuMetal "There is no known material that blocks magnetic fields without itself being attracted to the magnetic force"

If there was evan, i could build us all a "free lunch" be it spinning or stationary it just cant be what you say it is unless its such a high MF that it has no pysical properties of what we consider "power".

Millman
08-27-2006, 09:32 PM
Now , that is interesting!

Evan
08-27-2006, 11:21 PM
Boomer, they left out one very important word, "static". Moving magnetic fields are a different story.

The correct statement is :

""There is no known material that blocks static magnetic fields without itself being attracted to the magnetic force""

A.K. Boomer
08-28-2006, 03:53 AM
Im sorry Evan, your the guy that thought MuMetal was non magnetic in the first place so forgive me but i dont want to take your word for it on this one K?

We can talk later on something else...

luv ya, Boomer

Evan
08-28-2006, 10:20 AM
Magnetic Shielding Designs

There are two basic types of 60-Hz magnetic shields: flux-entrapment shields and lossy shields. A flux-entrapment shield is constructed with ferromagnetic, highly permeable (µ-mu), 80% nickel-20% iron alloy (i.e., Hipernom Alloy, CO-NETIC AA, Aumetal, AD-MU-80, etc.) which either surrounds (cylinder or rectangular box) or separates ("U" shaped or flat-plate) the area from the magnetic source. Ideally, magnetic flux lines incident upon the flux entrapment shield prefers to enter the highly permeable (µ-mu) material, traveling inside the material via the path of least magnetic reluctance (R), rather than passing into the protected (shielded) space.
Lossy magnetic shielding depends on the eddy-current losses that occur within highly conductive materials (i.e., copper, aluminum, iron, steel, silicon-iron, etc.). When a conductive material is subjected to a time-varying (60 hertz) magnetic field, currents are induced within the material that flow in closed circular paths - perpendicular to the inducing field. According to Lenz's Law, these eddy-currents oppose the changes in the inducing field, so the magnetic fields produced by the circulating eddy- currents attempt to cancel the larger external inducing magnetic fields near the conductive surface, thereby generating a shielding effect.



http://www.vitatech.net/magneticshielding.php4

Millman
08-28-2006, 10:44 AM
Come on now...you guys give up too easy. I was actually learning something! This old Slavedog might learn some new tricks.

topct
08-28-2006, 11:02 AM
At the local Kaiser rolling mill they performed a very expensive and secret test using magnetic fields to produce ingots.

Normally an ingot has to be scalped. They plane off the major flat surfaces with a giant face mill. This is to keep the pattern from the continuous casting proccess from showing itself on the rolled sheet or plate.

They either built or had built special forms to pour the molten metal through and the magnetic field held it in shape as it was dropped.

They actually came out looking like a normal ingot, but with a smoother finish that was supposed to be able to be rolled without the scalping operation.

It did not work as well as expected.

What really surprised everyone though, was that the supposedly non magnetic aluminum, could be influenced that way.

I also have no idea if the above means anything at all to do with the topic. :)

Evan
08-28-2006, 12:05 PM
I also have no idea if the above means anything at all to do with the topic.

Sure it does. If you have a powerful supermagnet handy take a small piece of aluminum foil and lay it on a wood or glass table. Wave the supermagnet over it quickly, very close but not touching it. It will move but it won't be picked up.

A.K. Boomer
08-28-2006, 12:35 PM
"What really surprised everyone though, was that the supposedly non magnetic aluminum, could be influenced that way."


I believe this can happen to a much milder degree, but if it can be influenced that means it is either attracted or repelled, So if aluminum is in some forms a mild shielding device then it has to also exibit this other behavior,


And Evan, i realize what your saying but during this process of variable fluxing and the claimed properties of how aluminum reacts to this you have to understand that if it now starts to make the aluminum have shielding capabilities it also changes the attraction of the aluminum to the magnetic field, otherwise heres your "free lunch" permanent magnet motor, A rotor with multiple PM's mounted around the parimeter, the pm's have the north faceing outward and the south buried, a huge chunk of aluminum wraps 90 degree's around the rotor but starting at the center axis of the rotor and ending at the outer circumference so its offset from center, one PM magnet is stategically located so as its exposed on the outer parimeter as the rotor is leaving the aluminum its north side is facing the outer parimeter of the rotor (this is a PM repulsion motor)
By rotating the rotor at the proper speed you now can produce your optimum
"time-varying (60 hertz) magnetic field" around your conduting material (in this case aluminum) as your pm magnets engage and disengage the material,,,,,,
Now, (quote) currents are induced within the material that flow in closed circular paths - perpendicular to the inducing field. According to Lenz's Law, these eddy-currents oppose the changes in the inducing field, so the magnetic fields produced by the circulating eddy- currents attempt to cancel the larger external inducing magnetic fields near the conductive surface, thereby generating a shielding effect.

This is all good Evan but here's where things go back to the same old same old, because you have induced this effect into the aluminum (shielding) you have now made it attracted to the pm magnets themselfs, therefore the rotor does not want to leave the conducting material and a dividend must be paid, the stationary PM magnet may have been sheilded and could have and would have produced power if there was no dividend to pay for pulling away from the shielding material, thats what iv been telling you all along, We cant trick this system unless we find some kind of magic material, a material that has absolute shielding capabilities without in any way shape or form being attracted to magnetism, if the aluminum was said material in the above example the simple unit i described above would take off spinning and never stop till it spun the grease out of its bearing and siezed! Pipe dream i know but how cool would it be to pull up in your drive and have to set a "parking brake" on your motor so it doesnt run all night long and wear its bearings out, If aluminum does what you say it does i could build this in a week, it doesnt --- there is a dividend to pay for this flux induced shielding, and its also a very very weak shielding effect as compaired to something like MuMetal.......

topct
08-28-2006, 12:47 PM
Another interesting thing about the proccess.

No one was allowed in the area when the operation took place. It was done remotely. There were special curtains up all around, even though there was really nothing to see.

It must have been one heck of a magnetic field.

There was an engineer working on it that told me this was just one step in the development and manufacturing of certain materials that were going to be needed for true superconductivity and or antigravity technoligy. And that until we can perform certain procceses in outer space we will most likely not get there from here.

Evan
08-28-2006, 12:55 PM
This is all good Evan but here's where things go back to the same old same old, because you have induced this effect into the aluminum (shielding) you have now made it attracted to the pm magnets themselfs,
The aluminum isn't attracted because the flux paths are random and cancel out. Try the experiment I suggested and drop a small supermagnet through an aluminum tube. You will see what I mean.

What you want is a magnetic insulator, not a magnetic shield. While there are materials that exhibit such insulating properties they generally only exist in exotic states and conditions such as a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Regardless, what you have in mind can't work since a magnet is not a source of stored energy. It not only takes an energy input to magnetize a material but it also takes energy to demagnetize it. The energy is not stored in the orientation of the magnetic domains but is lost as heat during the process. It's a bit like turning a book around on a shelf. It requires energy to do that but once turned the book has no more potential energy than before.

A.K. Boomer
08-28-2006, 01:33 PM
The aluminum isn't attracted because the flux paths are random and cancel out. Try the experiment I suggested and drop a small supermagnet through an aluminum tube. You will see what I mean.

What you want is a magnetic insulator, not a magnetic shield. While there are materials that exhibit such insulating properties they generally only exist in exotic states and conditions such as a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Regardless, what you have in mind can't work since a magnet is not a source of stored energy. It not only takes an energy input to magnetize a material but it also takes energy to demagnetize it. The energy is not stored in the orientation of the magnetic domains but is lost as heat during the process. It's a bit like turning a book around on a shelf. It requires energy to do that but once turned the book has no more potential energy than before.






Evan, this is the experiment you gave from post 45

"Try dropping a small supermagnet down through an aluminum tube and you will see that it falls very slowly but without being attracted to the tube. Most of the magnetic flux of the magnetic field in motion is dissipated as heat in the aluminum and does not penetrate beyond the aluminum as it is doing work in the aluminum."


"you will see that it falls very slowly" Evan, if it falls any slower then normal this means that it is either attracted or repelled, this also means that work has to be expended for this result.


"Most of the magnetic flux of the magnetic field in motion is dissipated as heat in the aluminum and does not penetrate beyond the aluminum as it is doing work in the aluminum."

Then this means that the motion is creating resistance, and if the motion is creating resistance then you either have an attraction or a repulsion, if work is being done between these two materials (a magnet and aluminum) then there is resistance for the work to occure.

You really are suprising me on this Even, and you know better, Im not trying to pick on you, your way more intelligent than i am but you skip some very fundimental laws of physics once in awhile,

"The aluminum isn't attracted because the flux paths are random and cancel out. Try the experiment I suggested and drop a small supermagnet through an aluminum tube. You will see what I mean."

your telling me that we can create heat in aluminum by doing this with a permanent magnet but we have to rotate or pulse the magnet or drop it through a tube, But yet the aluminum isnt attracted or repulsed to the magnet while this is going on, This is a free lunch Evan, we just spun a pm rotor with our hand and the only thing slowing it down is its bearings yet we are making a nearby peice of aluminum very hot,,, Wrong answer.


youv got contradictions across the board, you have to accept the fact that if you can indeed create a mild shielding effect in aluminum by movement then you also create an attraction or repulsion to the Magnetic feild, that aluminum wont heat up for no effort, since the only two mediums your useing are the magnet and the aluminum there has to be resistance between the two----

Now who's turning a book over and over on a shelf without useing any effort?

Gotta go to work --- talk later.

Evan
08-28-2006, 02:25 PM
"you will see that it falls very slowly" Evan, if it falls any slower then normal this means that it is either attracted or repelled, this also means that work has to be expended for this result.

It isn't an either/or situation. It is both attracted and repelled at the same time with the net result being zero. What you get is a drag as the moving fields do work. It's the equivalent of magnetic friction.

A.K. Boomer
08-28-2006, 09:23 PM
It isn't an either/or situation. It is both attracted and repelled at the same time with the net result being zero. What you get is a drag as the moving fields do work. It's the equivalent of magnetic friction.



Yes Yes Yes! now you got it, but it still takes energy to make these changes happen internally, the net result of attraction and repulsion being zero ---- BUT ---- minus the amount of magnetic friction within the material whilst its going through its cycles, in summary -- shielding of this nature comes at a price...


Now we can all get some sleep around here,,, Imma gonna go to hell when i die -- imma gonna go to hell when i die...

Evan
08-28-2006, 09:57 PM
Boomer, that's exactly what I said back on post 36.

"Moving a magnetic conductor of any type through magnetic lines of force requires energy in direct proportion to the strength of the magnetic flux, both inserting it and removing it. It's the principle of magnetic brakes. The field is changing so eddy currents are created. The opposite is when you move a field through a magnetic conductor. That also requires energy. It's called a generator.

If the magnetic conductor has resistance then there will be losses that show up in the conductor as heat. If the conductor has no resistance such as a superconductor then the magnetic field lines in the conductor are precisely equal to the external lines of force and they are excluded. If a conductor is placed between two magnets the forces will be exactly balanced and the conductor will experience zero net force as long as it doesn't change position in the field. If the field is moving the conductor will tend to be dragged by the field, not attracted. That is magnetic resistance which is how the magnetic brake works."

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 12:22 AM
And i did not dispute that, (see post 37 its exactly why i said i think were miscommunicating becauce we were in agreement on this) what im disputing is when you stated that aluminum can be manipulated into shielding without a resistance price to pay,


"If the definition of magnetic shield is a material that does not allow a magnetic field to penetrate beyond it (or even a portion of it) then aluminum is a magnetic shield. It has no effect on a static field but it does shield a moving field because of random eddy currents that are generated. Because the eddy currents are random there is no net attraction or repulsion."

This statement is incorrect, there is both equal portions of attraction and repulsion, as the magnet leaves a portion of the aluminum it creates drag, yet the other part is introducing new material (aluminum) to the magnet, there is loss in this process in the form of heat,
thier is an equivelent of a field collapsing on one end while a field is building on the other, this takes energy while moving through a conductor,,,, your aluminum shielding takes energy to produce a shielding effect the same way magnetic brakes work, my basic statement that started all this, Give me a shield material that shields magnetism and is not attracted to magnets is what i said, you stated Mumetal, i stated No, its attacted to magnetic fields, you stated No its not and we argued for two pages and then you said yes it is, then you stated aluminum while in motion, i stated no it consumes power to get it in this state, this is where were at, heres what it is, any shield material that shields against magetic force is in itself attracted to the force, there are exceptions in powerful electro magnetic fields and such but thats a whole nuther topic and this is all about "free power" so does not apply.......



A magnetic rotor surrounded on all sides by a circle of steel of equal proportion will not exibit resistance in the form of Pulsing, but will be sluggish to move in either direction due to the internal flux forces that are exciting and collapsing in equal proportions, if you are indeed creating a shielding effect with aluminum by movement then resistance will be your price to pay..

Evan
08-29-2006, 02:19 AM
me:
It has no effect on a static field but it does shield a moving field because of random eddy currents that are generated. Because the eddy currents are random there is no net attraction or repulsion."

Boomer:
This statement is incorrect, there is both equal portions of attraction and repulsion, as the magnet leaves a portion of the aluminum it creates drag, yet the other part is introducing new material (aluminum) to the magnet, there is loss in this process in the form of heat,


Boomer, the word "net" means the sum total of the force vectors. They equal zero in attraction/repulsion since they balance out. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it means they sum to zero. This concept is used everywhere when forces are calculated. An object at terminal velocity falling through the atmosphere experiences no net force as the force of gravity is balanced by the aerodynamic resistance. Yet it still becomes hot due to the energy exchange that happens.

[edit]

Also note that by making the aluminum a specific shape the eddy current can be caused to flow in particular direction which will unbalance the forces. A good example is an aluminum ring which can be strongly repelled by an alternating magnetic field. It is even possible to build an ac electromagnet that will attract aluminum.

http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks2/elmag/index.html

SJorgensen
08-29-2006, 03:55 AM
Aluminum is magnetic.

Individually the atoms behave magnetically that is.

It's all about spin in the outer shell.

What about making oil out of plant material?

It is known that any carbon material can be put under enough pressure and temperature to make a diamond. This is now done every day.

What would be necessary to make a bunch of waste material like lawn clippings into oil?

Hopefully this new industrial process wouldn't take 10,000 years.

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 12:07 PM
"Boomer, the word "net" means the sum total of the force vectors. They equal zero in attraction/repulsion since they balance out. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it means they sum to zero. "


Evan you just dont get it, YES -- they balance out each other, but there is a price that is paid by inducing and retracting this reaction into a conductor in the first place, even aluminum which isnt much of one...

Why cant you get this, you stated that this is how magnetic brakes work,,, bravo! now just realize this, that whatever weak shield you can produce in aluminum this way comes at a resistance price for doing so, If it doesnt, once again i add that i have my miracle motor...




"An object at terminal velocity falling through the atmosphere experiences no net force as the force of gravity is balanced by the aerodynamic resistance. Yet it still becomes hot due to the energy exchange that happens."

Sure, but your ignoring the fact that work is still being done, youv done nothing more than taken potentual energy and turned it into heat...

what your left with is a warm object sitting on the ground, one form of potentual energy is traded for another, gravity force against the object was traded to heat not only the object but the air around in which it fell and also the dirt in which it impacted at a high rate of speed.

Please understand that in no way shape or form was this "free" energy...
Anotherwords, the heat energy came from the potentual energy that the gravity was inflicting on the object..

Evan
08-29-2006, 12:23 PM
Why cant you get this, you stated that this is how magnetic brakes work,,, bravo! now just realize this, that whatever weak shield you can produce in aluminum this way comes at a resistance price for doing so, If it doesnt, once again i add that i have my miracle motor...

It isn't a weak shield at all. The effort produced by magnetic braking is very significant. Eddy current induction in non magnetic metals can be very efficient and in a superconductor is 100% efficient with the exception of flux pinning effects in crystal boundary dislocations in some superconductors.

A superconductor completely excludes the magnetic field because the currents generated in the outermost layer of atoms are exactly equal and opposite to the external field as long as it doesn't saturate. The efficiency of a nonmagnetic material as a magnetic shield to time varying fields is directly proportional the frequency of the field and the resistivity of the conductor. The lower the resistance the better the shielding.

Of course energy is absorbed by the shield, that's how it works as I have said repeatedly. I also said that what you need is a magnetic insulator, not a shield. There is no such thing outside of very limited effects in very unusual states of matter in extreme conditions.

I was only half joking when I said all I need to make a perpetual motion machine is oil that eliminates all friction. That is just as likely as a perfect magnetic insulator that operates under everyday conditions.

Regardless, magnets are not a source of energy.

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 12:38 PM
"It isn't a weak shield at all. The effort produced by magnetic braking is very significant."


Evan, please check into the conductor material that they use for magnetic braking, this is way out of my league but i can assure you its not aluminum...

If you find an example for some rare aplication i will show you and example of a material that blows it away for resistance and also contains at least three times the density for the well welcomed heat absorbtion properties...



"I was only half joking when I said all I need to make a perpetual motion machine is oil that eliminates all friction. That is just as likely as a perfect magnetic insulator that operates under everyday conditions."

My entire point to all of this is "maybe" but i will aslo add its nowhere near as interesting a topic,,, I mean --- can you imagine us discussing frictionless oil for 7+ pages or more:D

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 01:17 PM
One more thing, We already have frictionless oil

its called superconductivity, and while this is great for all kinds of reasons the biggest is increasing efficiency,thats really all a frictionless oil would do, and this would be huge no doubt but we would still need to do all the things we do today to make power meaning burning lots of fossil fuel and nuclear power and all that crap,

the allure with a magnetic shield that is not attracted to magnets is it would eliminate all that stuff, when i think of the impossible i like to think huge...

Evan
08-29-2006, 01:30 PM
Elliptical Trainer Buyer's Guide

The high-end models tend to use the eddy current brake system. ECB technology works electromagnetically with a precision-balanced aluminum disk spinning freely between variable magnetic fields. Because it has few moving parts and no friction, eddy current resistance technology is extremely reliable and durable, requires little maintenance, and allows systems employing the technology to operate smoothly and quietly.

http://www.ellipticaltrainers.com/info/buying_guide.htm

also
http://demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu/html/demos/192.html
and
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5031900.html


Aluminum magnetic eddy current cup brakes and disk brakes are widely used where smooth control of torque is needed in many different applications. They are very common.

Evan
08-29-2006, 01:40 PM
the allure with a magnetic shield that is not attracted to magnets is it would eliminate all that stuff, when i think of the impossible i like to think huge...

Boomer, permanent magnets are not a source of energy or an energy storage device.

topct
08-29-2006, 02:30 PM
If we could control the reaction between matter and anti-matter we would have a source of free limitless energy.

Both exist, but controlling them is the problem. I think lithium crystals may work for awhile, however the materials neccasary for the containment vessels cannot be made in the pressence of planetary gravity.

I happen to be working on a temparary containment method. But I'm just not sure that the plastic bags full of crushed beer cans is sufficiant. And I'm only able to get just so much lithium.

Rustybolt
08-29-2006, 03:22 PM
Fermilab has contained antimatter particles.

Evan
08-29-2006, 03:37 PM
I think lithium crystals may work for awhile, however the materials neccasary for the containment vessels cannot be made in the pressence of planetary gravity.

You are on the right track. But, you need dilithium crystals.

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 08:33 PM
thats all good about the aluminum resistance, now try stopping a truck with it as compaired to the same size mag. res. braking system with much better conductor material... Evan, my point is is if you could find a shield material that is unattracted to magnetic force itself then you better believe pm magnets are a source of energy,,,
Also --- you have a very closed minded aproach to all this stuff, you come on here and scoff at venturing out of the norm, you compare it to finding "frictionless oil" as if its a ludacrous thing and as if we have taken it as far as it will go, your wrong with this attitude , you will be as wrong as many of the nay sayers back just a few short years ago --------- to prove my point, mankind has already created a perpetual motion machine -- we have the electrical equivelent of frictionless oil, we can run electrons through a medium without any loss --------- This is the mechanical equivelant of having a flywheel spin forever --- thats why superconductivity was and still is such a huge milestone in the history of manykind, a ceramic composite of coils that loops back in on itself and electrons are following a path at great speed without resistance, you can pick this thing up like a car battery, stow it away for years, then pull power off of it, is it a battery --- no, is it a capacitor --- no ----- its superconductivity,,, its what you were "joking about"
your frictionless oil has already been produced in this form, it is an electrical perpetual motion machine,
Do permanent magnets have great potentual -- maybe, but i know for sure your not the one thats going to make a breakthrough with them! your already defeated, You see Evan ---- there is a reason i have the worlds fastest and most powerful bicycle cranks sitting in my basement!!! :D
So when you made that statement that i have as much chance of finding this shield material as i do a frictionless oil --- ohhh, god i wish i could be that lucky, bless you for the thought though,,, Chow.

TECHSHOP
08-29-2006, 08:46 PM
topct posts:

"And I'm only able to get just so much lithium."

Damn those pharmaceutical companies, better try Canadian imports.

Evan
08-29-2006, 08:50 PM
thats all good about the aluminum resistance, now try stopping a truck with it as compaired to the same size mag. res. braking system with much better conductor material...

They use eddy current brakes to stop trains and trucks. Aluminum may be used as well as steel and other metals. Eddy current braking is extremely effective.


Evan, my point is is if you could find a shield material that is unattracted to magnetic force itself then you better believe pm magnets are a source of energy,,

No, they are not. Tell me, just where is all this energy stored? What has changed in the magnetic material other than the alignment of the magnetic domains? That realignment is not a potential energy well. It requires precisely the same energy to stay aligned as it does to stay in a random state. Only a very brief pulse of energy is required to change the alignment and that is dissipated as heat. It also requires an energy input to change the alignment regardless of what it is to start with.

If a permanent magnet were some sort of energy source then what change would we expect to see in the material as energy is withdrawn?

topct
08-29-2006, 09:07 PM
"to prove my point, mankind has already created a perpetual motion machine -- we have the electrical equivelent of frictionless oil, we can run electrons through a medium without any loss --------- This is the mechanical equivelant of having a flywheel spin forever --- thats why superconductivity was and still is such a huge milestone in the history of manykind, a ceramic composite of coils that loops back in on itself and electrons are following a path at great speed without resistance, you can pick this thing up like a car battery, stow it away for years, then pull power off of it, is it a battery --- no, is it a capacitor --- no ----- its superconductivity,,, its what you were "joking about"

Sometimes it's funnier to leave the smileys off. Right Boomer?....... right?

ASparky
08-29-2006, 09:14 PM
He is refering to a variation on the perpetual waterfall. Let a bit of iron (attached to say a wheel) be atrracted to the magnet, insert shield (for free) then let iron move away (does so freely as magnet is shielded) now remove shield (again for free) and do all over again. Voila free energy. Momma nature stops this by insisting that it takes at least as much energy as you get out to insert and remove the shield - (insert bad words) it.

The perpetual waterfall is the same thing only gravity potential energy not magnetic potential. To do this buy a worm hole. Install entrance at ground level , exit one hundred feet up. Allow water to fall down from top to bottom, and flow in the entrance. Add a generator - again free energy.

According to Albert's equations that suggest worm holes may be allowed, require at least as much energy to maintain (and transport matter) as you would get out - ditto (insert bad words) it.


And to be super picky. Superconductors do have resistance, just fatastically less that other sorts of conductors. Yes the electrons dont bang into atoms and heat things that way, IF your material is pure (no stranger atoms) and defect free (Both almost impossible BTW). However the electrons via lattice vibration do lose energy to surrounding atoms heating them up. If you make a circle lets not forget sychrotron radiation. In plain english the electrons give off radio waves and lose energy that way.

And one more picky. A frictionless LIQUID is theoretically impossible, since the friction of atoms against each other is what makes a liquid a liquid. With no friction you would have even at absolute zero temperature ... wait for it ... a gas - Helium is very close to this situation.

Evan
08-29-2006, 09:52 PM
According to Albert's equations that suggest worm holes may be allowed, require at least as much energy to maintain (and transport matter) as you would get out - ditto (insert bad words) it.


Heh. More recent calculations show that to produce a macroscopic wormhole with a mouth in the several inches range would require the entire energy output of at least one galaxy.

ASparky
08-29-2006, 10:33 PM
Heh. More recent calculations show that to produce a macroscopic wormhole with a mouth in the several inches range would require the entire energy output of at least one galaxy.

Well that would solve our energy problems, just turn the worm hole off.:D

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 11:31 PM
Murphy was an optimist,,, i like that... does the shield that we were talking about exist floating around somewhere in the universe, according to what we have here and the laws that govern us so far it does not exist here but i cant answer whats out there as i really dont think anybody can say this with 100% certainty (sure you can --- but i for one wont believe you)
none of us can dispute that if this material did exist that we would then have an ON-OFF switch to control a permanent magnet, So its all up to this material were talking about that does not exist ------- or does it? (followed by a gradual build up of the music from the twilight zone)

Most of us are very analytical Men, we leave no stone unturned, we solve all mysteries but in doing so we have to be careful not to take all the fun out of everything --- dont forget to dream, dont lose all of your mysticism or the world will become a very drab, place, this happend to me when i was young and absorbing tons of information, I had to take a few steps back, now i actually have a friend who has a series of grounding rods pounded into his yard with heavy copper cable running into his house leading to a special metalic bed matress that he says grounds him to the earth for better health and a better nights sleep --------- Hey -- who the hell am i to argue, I just hope he's careful in a storm --- and this is only one of his adventures, At the very least he drives his wife crazy and you gotta respect that....


And one thing i can say with 100% certainty, some of the what we consider rock solid rules and regs that we believe in today --- will be gone tomorrow...

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 11:35 PM
Heh. More recent calculations show that to produce a macroscopic wormhole with a mouth in the several inches range would require the entire energy output of at least one galaxy.


Evan -- your saying i talk to much ------ ohh my god, and i thought your mumetal was your biggest screw up in this thread!!!


carry on fella

john hobdeclipe
08-29-2006, 11:45 PM
I've been sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out what all this talk of moo metals, magnets, wormholes, the permiable aluminum shielding on Eddy's superconductor brakes and so on and so forth has to do with a compressed air car that probably won't work.

I've gone and scratched a hole through my skin.

I'm scratching bone now, and I still have a ways to go before I figure all this out.

A.K. Boomer
08-29-2006, 11:51 PM
great --- now the disscussion takes the bitter turn to skin rashes, egzema -- seberrea and soriosis, shortly followed by all the ointments all you old guys use...

Mad Scientist
08-30-2006, 01:20 AM
Boomer
I seem to recall that just a few centuries ago it was regarded as a scientific fact that the earth was flat and the sun, moon and planets revolved around the earth. Thus anyone that disagreed with this “plainly observable fact” was considered mentally deficient.

Personally I like the following declaration: “Nothing is imposable, just some things have yet to be discovered.”

Evan
08-30-2006, 02:14 AM
none of us can dispute that if this material did exist that we would then have an ON-OFF switch to control a permanent magnet,
And if pigs had wings they could fly.

Repeat after me:
Magnets are not a source of energy
Magnets are not a source of energy
Magnets are not a source of energy

The amount of energy expended to align the domains in a magnet is the maximum amount of energy that the magnet contains by virtue of having it's entropy decreased by the alignment. When the magnet is magnetized energy is used to orient the domains. When all the domains have the same orientation the magnet is saturated and no more energy is absorbed or can be absorbed.

One way to to approximate the amount of energy this represents is to calculate the amount of heat required to raise the temperature to the curie point. In fact, this is how magnets are made. Once at the curie temperature an external field is applied and the magnet allowed to cool. The domains are held in alignment as it cools and "freeze" into place.



The Curie Temperature

For a given ferromagnetic material the long range order abruptly disappears at a certain temperature which is called the Curie temperature for the material. The Curie temperature of iron is about 1043 K. The Curie temperature gives an idea of the amount of energy takes to break up the long-range ordering in the material. At 1043 K the thermal energy is about 0.135 eV compared to about 0.04 eV at room temperature.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/ferro.html



Conversely, the curie temperature also represents a measure of the maximum amount of energy that can be stored in a magnet.



The magnetization process is extremely lossy and only the heat required to raise the mass of the magnet to the curie temperature can be considered. All losses must be subtracted from the heat required to reduce the entropy of the mass including any lost by conduction or radiation during the heating. Only the specific heat of the material is used in the calculation. Even for a large permanent magnet this is a very small amount of energy amounting to perhaps a few watt hours.

The specific heat capacity of iron is about .45 joule per gram per degree kelvin. Iron has a curie temperature of 1043 kelvin. This requires a temperature rise of 770 degrees above STP. This means the energy required to bring one gram of iron to the curie temperature is 346 joules. That is approximately .01 watt hours. So, to heat one kilo of iron to the critical temperature requires an energy input of 10 watt hours.

That isn't a lot of power and that is the absolute maximum that can be stored as energy by the ordering of the domains in a one kilogram iron magnet. In practice nowhere near all the domains in a material can be aligned and not all the magnetic energy can be extracted, not even close as the field strength diminishes every time the magnet does any work.

Strangely, the curie temperature of most supermagnets is much lower than that of iron. The reason they are so powerful is because a much greater percentage of the domains can be aligned. In reality the amount of stored magnetic energy is smaller the lower the curie temperature is. Neodymium magnets have a curie temperature of only 320C compared to 575C for magnetite. Combined with the much lower specific heat capacity of neodymium the total magnetic energy in a one kilo neodymium supermagnet is only a few watt hours.

So, the most energy you could expect to extract from a one kilo supermagnet is a few watt hours. Not exactly a limitless supply of free energy.

Jim Hubbell
08-30-2006, 03:58 AM
Magnets are not a source of energy
(repeated)

" .....the field strength diminishes every time the magnet does any work."

?????????? explain, please ?????????????

Weston Bye
08-30-2006, 09:44 AM
this is how magnets are made. Once at the curie temperature an external field is applied and the magnet allowed to cool. The domains are held in alignment as it cools and "freeze" into place.


Perhaps this is true for certain specialized magnets, but for the vast majority of magnets used for automotive and consumer applications, the magnets are molded (sintered or bonded) or cast and then "shocked" with strong magnetic field to saturate and coerce the domains into the desired alignment. This is done cold, but I suppose that some localized heating may occur. The process is so fast that there is little time for temperature rise.

With proper fixturing, a single magnet can be created with multiple north-south pole pairs or specific polar orientation subject to some shape limitations. A magnet can be similarly demagnetized or remagnetized in the opposite polarity. We routinely magnetize ceramic magnets in place, after assembly, in production. Also, less commonly, neodymium and samarium cobalt.

The magnetic field shouldn’t be thought of as “energy” any more than the head of a hammer containing energy. The magnetic field is merely a unique extension or characteristic of the magnet. Both hammer and magnet can transfer energy through motion.

Magnetism doesn’t get “used up” from a magnet. Rather, if the magnet is used hard, rapidly attracting or repelling other magnetic objects or fields, and with enough force, some of the domains may be coerced into loosing or changing their magnetic field. This is especially true if the temperature of the magnet is elevated above the design limits.

Evan
08-30-2006, 10:42 AM
.....the field strength diminishes every time the magnet does any work."
?????????? explain, please ?????????????


Simple. There is a statistical probablity that some of the domains are just about to reverse position due to thermal energy just like a few water molecules may be expected to randomly dissociate even at room temperature, an occurence that increases with temperature. When the magnet does work due to outside force imposed on it the thermal energy is raised and some domains will randomize. This is not to say that the energy for doing the work comes from the magnetization energy but doing work with a magnet does gradually increase the entropy of the magnet and weaken the field.

This happens with any magnet and is a corollary of the fact that not all domains can be aligned when the magnet is magnetized.

As for making magnets by heating, that is the standard process for making many types of supermagnets. It isn't how all magnets are made but the curie temp of the material is the measure of the magnetization energy required.

The point of my explanation was to illustrate just how much power is available from the magnetization energy of a magnet, if it could be extracted.


To Boomer, my mistake on the magnetic property of mu metal came about because I have a scope shield that I had assumed was mu metal. It is non magnetic. As I know that mu metal is a nickle iron alloy I made the assumption that it must be a non magnetic austenitic alloy. As it is not then it follows that my scope shield isn't mu metal but instead an eddy current shield, perhaps of a stainless steel similar to mu metal. Since 60 hz magnetic frequencies affecting the tube are of a primary concern in an oscilloscope and mu metal is frighteningly expensive this makes sense.

Weston Bye
08-30-2006, 11:35 AM
During the development of the magnetic compass it was found that the placement of masses of iron aboard the ship affected the accuracy of the compass. With the advent of iron-hulled ships it was discovered that if a ship were tied up along side a dock, facing in a particular direction for a period of time, weeks or months, the hull would be weakly magnetized by the Earth’s magnetic field, making compass correction necessary. Moving and leaving the ship at a different heading would change the magnetism of the hull, again affecting the accuracy of the compass.

I suppose that the effect might be the same in an old machine shop, all the machines remaining in place for years, all the fields aligned in comfortable unison. Feng-sui at its best. A new foreman comes in and re-arranges the place – randomized and conflicting magnetic fields abound - nothing is quite the same. Maybe a few aluminum foil beanies appear. Then eventually things settle down. Possible? :rolleyes:

Evan
08-30-2006, 11:56 AM
Same with aircraft. If any of the ferromagnetic parts in an aircraft are changed or even removed and replaced the compass needs to be realigned. Every airport has a compass rose painted on the tarmac someplace well away from outside magnetic infuences so the compass can be calibrated. It must be done with the engine running.

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 12:12 PM
Boomer
I seem to recall that just a few centuries ago it was regarded as a scientific fact that the earth was flat and the sun, moon and planets revolved around the earth. Thus anyone that disagreed with this “plainly observable fact” was considered mentally deficient.

Personally I like the following declaration: “Nothing is imposable, just some things have yet to be discovered.”


I like the way you view this existance Mad, they werent only concidered mentally deficient, some were put to death and some (galilio) were imprisoned for life for what we now believe in, IMHO the name of the game with even the stuff we think is true is to keep an open mind...


Quote Evan; "And if pigs had wings they could fly."


A.K. Reply ---- Yes,,, Pigs could fly if they had wings



Quote Evan;
Repeat after me:
Magnets are not a source of energy
Magnets are not a source of energy
Magnets are not a source of energy

And Quote Wes1; The magnetic field shouldn’t be thought of as “energy” any more than the head of a hammer containing energy.


A.K. Reply ----- both you guys are dead wrong, with certain materials a magnet has potentual energy within it, your looking at them the wrong way, you need to start realizing that a magnet is like a pre-loaded spring, and even though right now it can only work once it is far from the example of a hammer head that sits on a bench, show me how this hammer just sitting there can press play doe through a mold with zero external energy expended to make the hammer do so, remember the hammer has to remain in the exact same spot so dont even think about useing its weight with gravity, whether you like to here it or not PM magnets are a source of energy just as much as the spring on the handgun hammer that sits cocked and ready to get work done, difference being is somebody had to expend energy to pull the gun hammer back in the first place while right now there are millions of lonely magnetic springs out in the world (both man made and naturally occuring) that are without a piece of metal and are eager to get some work done --- (if only for one time) Imagine going on a hike and uncovering a rock to find a compression spring under said rock that is under much tension because it is wrapped very tightly with some naturally occuring hemp rope (he-he)---- this is potentual energy fella's this spring can get work done if only for one time ---congratulations --- you just found a permanent magnet,
We all know the implausibility of re-loading a mechanical spring for free, About as much chance as finding frictionless oil for a mechanical device --- yet as we see in other systems a type of frictionless oil is very close or is already a reality --- So -- in the spirit of not having a closed mind, And also In permanent magnet terms A perfect shielding material would be like being able to use this energy and then re-set the spring for free, I know -- if pigs had wings they could fly --- but its true, they could probably fly if they did have wings (although i wouldnt want to be the one to design them)

One last thing, I cant be wrong on this --- WHY you ask? because i say "MAYBE" you however run the risk of being wrong simply for the fact that you chose a side while niether one of you guys knows just what the hell is out there (no offence), sounds a little like past history lessons to me.


So in summary and just to make things exactly clear to you Evan -- A perm. mag. can be a source of potentual energy.


Open your minds and recognize the magic that is all around us, and if you uncover a rock and see a compression spring wrapped with hemp rope, marval at it -- its one of natures wonders...

Evan
08-30-2006, 12:29 PM
Potential energy is the energy of position of a mass. All masses have potential energy in relation to any other mass due to gravitation. Similarly, all magnets have potential energy to other magnetic materials due to magnetism. You cannot use it as an energy source. When an object is attracted to a magnet the energy of the system goes down until the object contacts the magnet. It is then in a least energy configuration. To change this configuration requires an energy input and that cannot come from the magnet. Even making use of this one time release of potential energy is made more difficult by the fact that magnetic fields diminish as the inverse cube of distance which greatly limits the field strength at even short distances from a magnet.

Evan
08-30-2006, 12:41 PM
One last thing, I cant be wrong on this --- WHY you ask? because i say "MAYBE" you however run the risk of being wrong simply for the fact that you chose a side while niether one of you guys knows just what the hell is out there (no offence), sounds a little like past history lessons to me.

We know a lot about what is "out there", far more than our predecessors knew. In particular we are quite sure that the rules of the universe apply equally everywhere. This is determined by observation of both distant and close objects and observing that they both appear to operate on the same physical principles, the same sprectral lines are produced in hot gasses, the same processes produce the same energies. This is a very strong indicator that the "rules" are the same everywhere in the universe and is also the most consistent explanation. Invoking any other possibility is at odds with the rule of Occam's Razor which says that one should endeavor to keep the number of assumptions required to explain something to a minimum. Assuming that the rules are the same throughout the universe satisfies this principle and there is no evidence that the situation is otherwise.

Millman
08-30-2006, 12:55 PM
[[In particular we are quite sure that the rules of the universe apply equally everywhere. This is determined by observation of both distant and close objects and observing that they both appear to operate on the same physical principles,]] That statement can't possibly be true; how do you explain all the alien craft and tinfoil hats that seem to be a necessity nowadays? Aliens are to blame everytime I lose something. Hell, I still can't find all those pencils!

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 01:18 PM
Potential energy is the energy of position of a mass. All masses have potential energy in relation to any other mass due to gravitation. Similarly, all magnets have potential energy to other magnetic materials due to magnetism. You cannot use it as an energy source. When an object is attracted to a magnet the energy of the system goes down until the object contacts the magnet. It is then in a least energy configuration. To change this configuration requires an energy input and that cannot come from the magnet. Even making use of this one time release of potential energy is made more difficult by the fact that magnetic fields diminish as the inverse cube of distance which greatly limits the field strength at even short distances from a magnet.


You can use it as an energy source but you can only use it one time.

The reason why i chose the example of the compression spring under the rock is for this example and for the shield example also --- two pm's faceing each other with there north face and a foot away have no force against each other, shield material is then inserted, the two PM's are then brought together with no effort then the shield material is removed with no effort, WALLA --- power is created and there is no dividend to pay for getting a magnet unstuck from the other because they were repelling, repeat process and produce more free power, drive your cars, heat your home,feed the world, shoe the children with no shoes upon thier feet, house the people, a- just -a livin in the street --- oh yeah theres a solution,,,,,,,,,,

This is the question,
Will we ever find a material to trick a magnetic force without being caught up in the force itself, The only real answer that i can give is "maybe"

Remember ------ this is a question for eternity, sure you can take a stab at it with the limited pilgrim knowledge that you have today, but i hate to tell you this Evan you and I both will be seen as having cavemen mentality in just one hundred short years, now give it a thousand, at the rate we are learning things this is a HUGE amount of time ----------- so easy to get caught up in the moment Huh EV

your only hope to be correct is if mankind destroys himself before any progress is made in which case i'll give you that, (very good chance) but that still doesnt cover what might be happening in some other corner of the universe, hey --- maybe thats how there getting here and mutilating the genital area's of all our cows (ladies and gentalmen if you please - for the last and final time - the theme song from the twilight zone)

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 01:20 PM
We know a lot about what is "out there", far more than our predecessors knew. In particular we are quite sure that the rules of the universe apply equally everywhere. This is determined by observation of both distant and close objects and observing that they both appear to operate on the same physical principles, the same sprectral lines are produced in hot gasses, the same processes produce the same energies. This is a very strong indicator that the "rules" are the same everywhere in the universe and is also the most consistent explanation. Invoking any other possibility is at odds with the rule of Occam's Razor which says that one should endeavor to keep the number of assumptions required to explain something to a minimum. Assuming that the rules are the same throughout the universe satisfies this principle and there is no evidence that the situation is otherwise.


We know allot Evan ------ but we dont know everything now do we...

Evan
08-30-2006, 01:24 PM
This is the question,
Will we ever find a material to trick a magnetic force without being caught up in the force itself, The only real answer that i can give is "maybe"

In basic terms what you want is something that interacts with a magnetic field without interacting with it.

See any problems with that idea?

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 02:12 PM
"In basic terms what you want is something that interacts with a magnetic field without interacting with it.

See any problems with that idea?"



I absolutly do Evan, with what we know and what we have to work with right now,,, my question to you --- think what we know and what we have to work with will remain the same forever?


think again --- and again and again...

In just five years some things will be very different because of gained knowledge and yet this very "rule" that ousted the old may have to be re-written...


knowledge is a shapeshifter, or it is at least for us humanoids --- we will never get it right, there will always be new stones to overturn that rewrite the laws on some of the ones that have already been exposed, some are uncomfortable with this thought -- but i think its the way it should be, as far as our knowledge of whats out there and even here right now --------- not even the tip of the iceburg Evan, not even the tip...


I see no problems with keeping an open mind --- I see big trouble with having a closed one...

Evan
08-30-2006, 02:45 PM
I absolutly do Evan, with what we know and what we have to work with right now,,, my question to you --- think what we know and what we have to work with will remain the same forever?

Of course not. However, our knowledge of the physical world has advanced tremendously in the last two centuries and especially more recently. We have a very good, if not complete, understanding of how things work even to the quantum level. There are still many questions without answers but the answers outnumber the questions now. We now understand physical processes well enough that we can predict in advance how something will work before it is built. Empirical models are being replaced by mathematical simulations that operate from the first principles that we now know.

Here is an example that requires an incredibly detailed knowledge of the low level processes that underlie the behaviour of matter. It is a simulation of water pouring into a glass. While that may not seem like a big deal the mathematics to describe it are exceedingly complex and require a deep understanding of turbulent phenomena and the transfers of energy in a fluid, something that has not been well characterized until very recently.

Video at youtube (http://youtube.com/w/Computer-generated-animation-of-water?v=MoBpn_p4VNk&search=computer%20animation%20of%20water)

The search for answers goes on but we now have enough grasp of the first principles of forces like magnetism to make statements with great certainty about what may be possible and what isn't. There is a limit to the knowledge in any field just as the universe has fundamental limits. Limits are the norm, not the exception. Exploration and research is about finding those limits.

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 03:43 PM
very well put, and i might add has a hint of optimism in it, im going to go watch that video now...

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 04:02 PM
I dont think they got the surface tension thing right but its still very impressive...


Just a quick thought Evan, about a shield that could interact without interacting, say positive and negative poles in a tubular or honeycomb type structure and every other one is facing the opposite direction so regardless of the polorization of the perm. mag that you insert this honey comb over, you have 50 poles that attract and 50 poles that repell, the shield is therefore nuetral yet it diverts the magnetism, Now imagine all of this being read to you and its being read to you by that same guy who used to host the "night gallery" good stuff huh...

Im not saying this will work, but the only reason i came up with this is because i allow myself to go there in the first place... Maybe it wont be a material at all, mybe it will be some kind of other "force", keep thinking my friend.

Weston Bye
08-30-2006, 04:31 PM
Quote Evan;
Repeat after me:
Magnets are not a source of energy
Magnets are not a source of energy
Magnets are not a source of energy

And Quote Wes1; The magnetic field shouldn’t be thought of as “energy” any more than the head of a hammer containing energy.

A.K. Reply ----- both you guys are dead wrong,... I cant be wrong on this --- WHY you ask? because i say "MAYBE" you however run the risk of being wrong simply for the fact that you chose a side while niether one of you guys knows just what the hell is out there (no offence), sounds a little like past history lessons to me.

Open your minds and recognize the magic that is all around us...



I spend my days dealing with magnetics. attempting to improve performance, optimizing, fine tuning - while keeping the product manufacturable. Unlike most of the other engineers I get the opportunity to explore "outside the box" options, and play "what if?". Consequently, (although I don't claim expert status) I have a pretty good understanding of where most of the boundaries are.

I would dearly love to discover some of Boomer's "magic MAYBE" but I am required to make do with what I have.

Perhaps A.K. can explain how to have the open mind needed to discover the "magic MAYBE". Some people would pay for the knowledge.

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 04:45 PM
"Unlike most of the other engineers I get the opportunity to explore "outside the box" options, and play "what if?".



Wes, then your already doing it -- then you realize the meaning of maybe, thats all, nothing more than maybe,

(and the difference between a PM and a stagnent hammer head)



"Perhaps A.K. can explain how to have the open mind needed to discover the "magic MAYBE".

I not only think you already have the answer to that, its guys like you who are in deep who are the ones that will most likely find more info, but it will take both a knowledgeable person who is looking for a "maybe"... but im sorry, i have to add a "maybe" to that also.
(and if that dont work --- smoke a little grass)

Evan
08-30-2006, 04:54 PM
(and if that dont work --- smoke a little grass)

That isn't strong enough to make a magnet motor work. For that you need a good dose of LSD.

tryp
08-30-2006, 06:22 PM
That had me laughing. (the lysergic acid diethylamide part)

There is no free lunch. With energy there are only sources and storgage. Most sources/storage originate with energy from the sun ie biofuels, petroleum and coal, wind, water and solar. And then there is nuclear power that is essentially locked up energy left over from suns long ago.

I don't believe in magic nor do I rest any hope in some magical unforseen development that will allow us to have cheap energy here on earth.

The future of invention is in clever development of what we do know not in discovering new science.

Joel
08-30-2006, 06:59 PM
Lots of things are impossible – so what. That doesn’t require us to be less inquisitive or imaginative, but it should help guide where we expend our efforts and resources.
Well understood physical laws are refined, not discarded. A.K., you give the impression that you expect testable and verifiable theory to be found completely false at any moment. Comparing the view that the average farmer of 2,000 years ago had (flat earth, et al) to what is presently understood to be true is not reasonable, given the wealth of provable knowledge currently available to all of us.

Looking for an improved and refined understanding of the known physical laws of the universe is logical; looking for some kind of magic that will overturn them is an exercise in futility - not “looking outside the box” or “keeping an open mind”.

Alas, pot and LSD will obviously only serve to change your perception of the universe, not the actual function of the universe.
I might also add that if pigs had wings, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they can fly. ;)

Evan
08-30-2006, 07:08 PM
Alas, pot and LSD will obviously only serve to change your perception of the universe, not the actual function of the universe.

To paraphrase (mangle?), perception is 9/10s of the law, until you jump off the balcony convinced you can fly and discover that the remaining 1/10 is gravity.

Magic9r
08-30-2006, 07:44 PM
Please guys,
alternate energy is really about using what is energy is really available in more efficient ways, not about impossible materials and $16 plans for completely obvious shams.

AK, your circular discussion on magnets, shields & energy is not relevant.
You need to look at the fact that if something blocks a force it is subject to that force, no free lunch I'm afraid.

Physics applies, you might want to take in a little thermodynamics too and check out entropy while you're there.

How's your bike going BTW

ASparky
08-30-2006, 08:22 PM
At the risk of sounding like I am switching side. Even within science there are loopholes. For instance

Conservation of Energy-Matter is solid and can be derived from other well supported assumptions. Meaning change this rule and you have to at least modify a whole bunch of others. But there is a loophole in the "proof". The proof does not apply to an isolated system. Blackholes were thought to be a possibility, but they are not isolated (enough?) since the interact via rotation effects and Hawking Radiation - and if isolated how could we get the energy out?

The entropy rule is even weaker. It has only two backups, but good ones.

A huge amount of experimental proof - i.e when we look at mundane or even exotic things in experiments it works spot on. The other support is a mathematical statistical proof that assumes large numbers of objects or a lessor amount of non identical participants and a degree of reversabilty of the individual interactions.

The quantum world has a rule that one electron (and other atomics) can not be distiguished from another apart from location and environment. So there could be some quantum effect that "violates the rule" that has a small number of (solidly not proven, if only two) interactants in a non reversable interaction. If this does occur, it could be that we can figure a way to use low grade heat to generate usefull energy. Say take heat from the ocean to power things. (Note - the ocean would cool, so no violation of the conservation of energy rule)

BTW I have been informed of a method that might actually exploit this loophole, but I have good reasons to doubt it. For one if it exists why hasn't nature made use of it? Nature may hunt slowly and very inefficiently, basically by trying everything, but it should have had long enough to have found it by now. On the other brain, maybe it has and we haven't noticed yet.

On the other hand it annoys the &^&^ out of me that I cannot see why it wont work and would love to see why not- it might even produce some new science. Hmmm Nobel prize just for me? - Yeah right.

Even if something like the above works - does this mean the existing rules will be overturned? Not really I call it adding fine print. Even the flat earth to round earth is kind of a add a legal clause exercise. You can still say that within any, for instance 5 mile radius, the earth is approximately flat - and knowing the earth is round, not flat, has not changed that one bit.

The fine print works by saying it is actually round but with a huge (compared to 5 miles) size - hence over small distances (small area actually) the earth is nearly flat.

All of which, kind of means we should be calling the search for "free energy" via above like stuff something different from the more immediately practical step of using energy more efficiently. Green Energy anyone?

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 08:46 PM
"$16 plans for completely obvious shams."


you better not be talking about my inversion chair,,,

the bike cranks are going well --- i just wish i could find some flexable caged needle bearings.



"Physics applies, you might want to take in a little thermodynamics too and check out entropy while you're there."


Im not disputing this, will these laws remain to the word for the rest of eternity or will a different discovery make them have to make an exception in the way they are written,, maybe..

And Joel Believe me --- I believe in our current system 99.99% So i dont mean any disrepect to it --- but its that .01% where i have the most fun,

Evan i cant believe you brought up acid, can you imagine my mind on acid? hell no im not taking that crap --- I live less than ten miles from the worlds highest suspension bridge! :eek:

Evan
08-30-2006, 08:49 PM
The quantum world has a rule that one electron (and other atomics) can not be distiguished from another apart from location and environment. So there could be some quantum effect that "violates the rule" that has a small number of (solidly not proven, if only two) interactants in a non reversable interaction.

That does exist. It's known as symmetry breaking. It has been proven that not all interactions of the weak force are reversible. Charge-Parity Violation occurs in the beta decay process. This make antimatter and matter distinguishable and is likely somehow responsible for the fact that the universe is almost entirely matter.

It may even be responsible for life as we know it if this CP violation has produced a preference for the formation of L chiral amino acids over Dexter chirality. It has been shown that there is a slight effect that makes the production of the sinister chiral form more likely. Life is entirely dependent on the Levorotary amino acids.

Evan
08-30-2006, 08:53 PM
I live less than ten miles from the worlds highest suspension bridge!

Cool. Check this out.

http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/wwp904/html/JohnBlake.html

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 09:06 PM
Where do you find this stuff? thats my bridge, i'll tell you, its a little nervewracking weaving your kayak under that baby when the people above are hurdling pennies off of it and making "well wishes"

I have to add this, me and a guy i used to boat with would risk our noggins and pull our yaks over under the bridge and scrounge for money, usually find enough to float back to town and have a couple beers, people throw whatever they have in thier pocketsies, lots of quarters and dimes... i would put the preciouses in my pocketsies to give to the beer tender later, smeegle used to drink more beer than water back then, yes indeed, yes..

ASparky
08-30-2006, 09:19 PM
That does exist. It's known as symmetry breaking. It has been proven that not all interactions of the weak force are reversible. Charge-Parity Violation occurs in the beta decay process. This make antimatter and matter distinguishable and is likely somehow responsible for the fact that the universe is almost entirely matter.


Ok just a little physics teasing here. Ok Evan, would you call the creation of matter over antimatter, caused by the CP vioation, a phase change to a lower energy state or an increase in entropy?

Evan
08-30-2006, 10:10 PM
Ok Evan, would you call the creation of matter over antimatter, caused by the CP vioation, a phase change to a lower energy state or an increase in entropy?
What we think happened is largely speculation. If CP violation is the explanation it requires some high energy modifications to the standard model. As for a phase change and increase in entropy, it is both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

ASparky
08-30-2006, 10:20 PM
As for a phase change and increase in entropy, it is both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Arrr... So what you are saying is that the Entropy rule "Entropy will not increase in a system, without energy being input from outside" doesn't apply? Universe not closed? Hmmm. Energy from outside? Double Hmmmmm.
:D

ASparky
08-30-2006, 10:56 PM
Most physicists thinks the answer has to do with the decreasing entropy as the universe expands. This loss drives the phase change from energy to matter (and anit-matter). Entropy can be thought of (represented) as x out of y possible states. As the universe expands there are more possibilities, Crudely speaking matter has more places to be as an example.

This is fine, until you consider what happens if the universe will eventually contract - the big gnab? Ok so X may decrease faster than the universe shrinks to keep the x over y decreasing which is one form of the Entropy rule. I.e The contents of the universe gets more and more the same.

The next problem is that the x part has a minimum limit at short lengths according to quantum physics and heisenburg uncertainty.

At which point physicists declare space-time is all relative, so it is actually 5 oclock on a Friday and there-for time for some frothy beverage.

Actually, this is getting esoteric, I guess I should stop ...

Evan
08-30-2006, 11:37 PM
WAITAMINUTE

I think you may have the understanding of increase and decrease of entropy backward.

As the universe expands entropy increases. When a gas expands into a vacuum the entropy of the gas increases and therefore the entropy of the system increases. An increase in disorder and a decrease in energy density is an increase in entropy. Note I said a decrease in energy density, not a decrease in total energy. As we are dealing with an expanding system with an assumed fixed amount of energy then the expansion of the system results in lower energy density and an increase in disorder. This is an increase in entropy.

In such a system an input of energy from outside would represent a decrease of entropy of the system. That obviously can't happen within our current model so the system behaves as expected, entropy increases. The decoupling of radiation and matter represents a phase change with a corresponding increase in entropy as well so the two are not incompatible.

A.K. Boomer
08-30-2006, 11:49 PM
At which point physicists declare space-time is all relative, so it is actually 5 oclock on a Friday and there-for time for some frothy beverage.

Actually, this is getting esoteric, I guess I should stop ...



Your not losing everybody, know matter how somebody discribes it i always know when there talking about beer ---- keep going...

ASparky
08-31-2006, 12:55 AM
Oops, Evan's correct I had quite a bit back to front. The original question should have been phase change or Entropy DECREASE. Never mind it too late, I've gone and spoilt it all now.:( :( :(

An increase in entropy decreases the available energy, which is my excuse for confusion and I am sticking to that story like superglue.

Tuckerfan
08-31-2006, 05:26 AM
Here's a rather interesting site with plans and things for sale: http://www.rexresearch.com/ Not all they have to offer is junk, either. Some of the stuff are reprints from respectable publications like Scientific American. I've got a few of their publications that are quite interesting. Some of the old car/transporation stuff (like the monowheel tank) are really fascinating. Other stuff, like Frenette's Fuelless Furnace are just crap.

And while this article deals mainly with a boron powered car: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/07/28/1750967.htm it mentions a company that's working on an aluminum powered one, which makes more sense, because a tank of boron would currently cost you something like $1 million!

However, what we need to do, is dig up plans for Abner Doble's car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble

The 1924 model Doble steam car could run for 1,500 miles on a 24-gallon tank (62.5 mpg for a 4300 lbs. automobile), had a flash boiler that could produce a working head of steam in one minute, and reach speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, all in eerie silence. It was a luxury car that film stars and royalty were proud to own.Those figures beat hybrid cars, and depending upon what you run it off of, fuel could be extremely cheap.

Evan
08-31-2006, 10:14 AM
That seems highly optimistic. Other sources quote 12 to 14 mpg on fuel oil.

JCHannum
08-31-2006, 11:16 AM
The Doble figures should read 1000-1500 miles on a tank of 24 gallons of water. Fuel mileage was in the 12-15 MPG range on kerosene. This was in 1916 remember, with poor insulation and less than ideal burner configurations in a 3100 pound automobile.


http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/automo.Html

This is a paper presented by Abner Doble in 1916 with the current state of the art information on his automobile. Doble continued into the thirties with improved mileage and efficiency.

The electric starter doomed the steam car, as that permitted mama to hop in and go.

Tuckerfan
08-31-2006, 11:57 AM
Anybody know what the mileage of Doble's final designs? I know the torque output was absolutely insane.

JCHannum
08-31-2006, 01:24 PM
Here is more on Doble, apparently mileage stayed in the +-15 mpg range, but weight increased. They were not terribly concedned with fuel economy in those days.

http://ghlin2.greenhills.net/~apatter/doble.html

Here are some good links to steam power;

http://www.amwmag.com/S/Steam_World/hauptteil_steam_world.html

Ian B
09-09-2006, 09:35 AM
Free plans for a magnetic motor anyone?

http://www.darkmattermotor.com/DarkMatterMotorProject.pdf

Looks like an ideal HSM project, knock one together over the weekend and be selling power back to the utility companies by Monday morning.

Does it work? Well, the inventor says it will...

Good luck,

Ian

A.K. Boomer
09-09-2006, 03:29 PM
Ian, that guy really put in the time to totally confuse the hell out of me, I understand him trying to "trick" polarity and all but wow what a write up, Be careful or the hyena's are going to jump on you, I only stated that i could get the job done with a certain material and then not only had to convince that this was posible, but that the material didnt exist or we havnt found it, then after convincing that said material didnt exist or that we havnt found it then I had to convince again that yes but if it did then i could get the job done once again, then after finally convincing that again -- I had to one more time prove that the material did not exist or we havnt found it, after finally proving that said material did not exist or we havnt found it then i was suposed to produce the said material from out of my own butt, To be totally honest with you i think this took over at least 10 back and forths but i wanted to spare you the misery of a good part of my life, the biggest thing i learned is Evan is just as stubborn as i am and i admire him for that:p

Now because of all that crap im the board apointed "free energy" Wack Job,

Welcome to my world Ian... keep thinking my friend

Ian B
09-09-2006, 05:11 PM
Thanks A.K.,

I don't believe in any of this stuff, but I'm fascinated by how they convince themselves it's going to work - and yet none of them ever seem to have a working model.

Here's another one:
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2006035419&F=0&QPN=WO2006035419

which *surely* gets around all of the objections to the magnetic shielding nay-sayers. I can just feel those nice fat magnetic pulses switching on and off as I sit here!

It's the patent from these people:
http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx

Talk about a vague website; watch the film in their download area if you can stand it! (ok - I've got my 3 horseshoe magnets and a little green ring, what next...)

Ian

Fasttrack
09-09-2006, 06:28 PM
"We have developed a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy.

This means never having to recharge your phone, never having to refuel your car. A world with an infinite supply of clean energy for all.

Our technology has been independently validated by engineers and scientists - always off the record, always proven to work."

... well thats reassuring, my 400 doesnt get very good gas mileage :D ...

Nicolas
09-19-2006, 10:47 AM
Now I really like the one about "magnets placed so that their interaction allows the shield to be moved easily"
Or to put it another way "magnets placed so they are unable to do useful work as a result of shield movement"
I'd laugh my T*ts off if it weren't all so sad

montanasoftware
09-19-2006, 04:29 PM
There is some good reading here. I like the idea.

http://www.theaircar.com/

I was really excited about the air car when I first found it on the net. But That was about 5 years ago, and they kept pushing back production dates. Then about two months ago, I spent about 2 hours surfing the net finding out about this company.

Turns out, they have never built an air car that has gone more than 7 kilometers on one tank of air. They say that is because they were using the chassis of a "normal" car with the air motor installed. The higher range numbers that they published are based on some math calculations that they ran ... "If we change this, this and this, we will have the higher range."

Also ... the company is badly strapped for cash. They can't raise money on the stock market because their technology won't fly with knowledgeable investors, so they have to sell distributorship rights and manufacturing rights to raise money. Every now and then, another sucker forks over another $250K for a manufacturing/distributorship, and the company limps along a little longer.

Overall, it has been very disappointing to learn all of this about the air car. It was really exciting to think of a new technology that could allow us to be free of oil.

Evan
09-19-2006, 05:04 PM
It's a simple problem that prevents the air car from succeeding. It's horribly inefficient. It doesn't free anything from an energy source either. The air has to be compressed somehow. An air powered car is the last thing we need. It would probably have an energy efficiency equivalent to a compact car getting only 5 mpg.

Magic9r
09-19-2006, 06:11 PM
All these shyster companies might be limping along but their CEO's do not drive beaten up old cars, or bikes, or yachts, or aircraft!