PDA

View Full Version : Magnet motors



G.A. Ewen
02-07-2009, 09:59 PM
This is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGST6835uNM&feature=related

Evan
02-07-2009, 10:14 PM
I'm not going to watch it George. Magnets works just fine in a motor as long as you supply the energy to run the motor. A magnet itself can't supply energy to anything. In fact, when something is attracted to a magnet it is falling into a lower energy state. It then requires an external input of energy to bring it away from the magnet. That plus the fact that everything has losses associated with it's operation means that a motor that runs on just magnets is a scam. Always. The only energy stored in a magnet is the brief pulse that is used to align the magnetic domains. It amounts to almost nothing and cannot be utilized as a source of energy even for the tiny amount it represents.

The rules of the Universe are not open for debate or interpretation. You cannot fool mother nature.

barts
02-07-2009, 10:27 PM
The three inescapable Laws of Thermodynamics:

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You have to play the game.

Any attempt to get energy from nowhere should be treated exactly as those offers from the wife of President Mobuto you keep getting in your email....

- Bart

BMSS
02-07-2009, 10:42 PM
I just finished building one of these magnet motors for a customer. He spent a lot of good money, and the thing still doesn't run. I told him from day one that I thought he was wasting his money, but he never stopped trying to convince me that the thing would work. I wish it would run for him, but I agree with Evan and Barts, they are a waste of time and money.:(

G.A. Ewen
02-08-2009, 08:48 AM
I said it was interesting,,,, I didn't say what part of it was interesting ,,, LOL

Still looking for comments on the video. ie; what is the easiest want to pull of a scam on video? LOL

G.A. Ewen
02-08-2009, 09:06 AM
Here is one for all you skeptics,,,,,,, haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBygG9oN9gY&feature=related


And another that is just hilarious ,,,, BUT A STRONG WARNING,,,, COARSE LANGUAGE !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duZtNZZpNEc

aboard_epsilon
02-08-2009, 09:37 AM
Even if they do get one to work ...how long ..

i would like to see how long they last ..do magnets run down like batteries?

all the best.markj

wierdscience
02-08-2009, 09:47 AM
Haha George,love it.

You know the government has had a 100mpg car for years now?Only problem is it runs on pot and the hippies in the environmental establishment won't let them use it:D

Evan
02-08-2009, 10:19 AM
i would like to see how long they last ..do magnets run down like batteries?


If pigs could fly how far would they travel before they became tired?


Same question.

smiller6912
02-08-2009, 10:34 AM
Typical voodoo BS...........................

tony ennis
02-08-2009, 10:41 AM
I ex-roommate's cousin's friend had a car that ran on water using a special experimental carburetor that wasn't supposed to be sold. The oil companies bought up all the patents and buried the plans so they wouldn't go out of business.

tony ennis
02-08-2009, 10:48 AM
*deleted, lol*

aboard_epsilon
02-08-2009, 10:48 AM
If pigs could fly how far would they travel before they became tired?


Same question.

if that's so ...why do people spend masses of time building them .

so, if you did connect up a generator or load to them ...people would see them run down very quickly ..

so why isn't that chain of thought widely publicised ...as a lots of people are being dooped, spending endless hours ..on a journey to no-where .

Ive noticed on you tube ...the people who are against the idea ........don't even try to explain it clearly..Why it would not work....why is that...'cause they don't know, or are they far to clever to be able to explain in simple terms.....if they cant do that ...then people are just going to carry on building them.

It's no use saying...its against the laws of physics etc ..as the people who build these machine dont understand those laws.......if you want to put someone off it ........youve got to clearly and simply illustrate why something will not work.

all the best.markj

Lew Hartswick
02-08-2009, 10:52 AM
P.T. Barnum said best a long time ago. :-)
...lew...

J Tiers
02-08-2009, 11:06 AM
half of the people who make these thngs are deluded and don't understand how they are deluded.

The other half are scam artists.

If you can see the problem, likely they are deluded.

if it is really hard to see the problem, then you can be fairly sure they are a scam artist.

tony ennis
02-08-2009, 11:07 AM
I remember trying to make a perpetual energy machine when I was a child. I couldn't figure it out then, either.

I was going to break my magnets in half so I could have some N magnets and some S magnets. Surely that was the solution! But I never did, lol.

Aboard_Epsilon, people who believe in free-energy perpetual motion machines can't be educated. Not because they are stupid, but because they want to believe it. And frankly, it's their right to believe what they want. Does it make sense that something so simple could remain undiscovered for the last 300+ years? While lack of prior discovery is in no way a proof that it can't work, it should make one go "Hmmm." And the Believers don't go "hmmm." All critical thinking is turned off.

Evan
02-08-2009, 11:14 AM
the people who are against the idea ........don't even try to explain it clearly..Why it would not work....why is that...'cause they don't know, or are they far to clever to be able to explain in simple terms.....if they cant do that ...then people are just going to carry on building them.


The reason it cannot work is easy to state. Magnets do not store energy and cannot be used as a source of energy since they don't store it.

In order to understand why that is so you must be able to understand Maxwell's equations.

These are they.

http://metalshopborealis.ca/pics5/maxwell.jpg

tony ennis
02-08-2009, 11:19 AM
I rather think you could convince an open-minded person easier than using those equations. Those equations may show you by how much it fails, but it is far easier - and sufficient - to show that it fails.

Evan
02-08-2009, 11:24 AM
What I said is that to understand why it cannot work you need the math. Those equations predict not only how electromagnetics work but even the speed of light falls out of them directly.

aostling
02-08-2009, 11:30 AM
In order to understand why that is so you must be able to understand Maxwell's equations.

These are they.



As Dirty Harry said: "A man's got to know his limititations." For me, these are they.

J Tiers
02-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Actually, those equations are not even a complete synopsis of the reasons....... there is plenty more.

The basic reason magnet motors cannot work is explainable in a much better way.

magnets attract other magnets. This fact is the basis of almost any magnet motor.

As far as a simplified energy balance is concerned, you might as well compare that to gravity..... things fall down, and you can make that action do work.

So lets just USE the gravity analogy......... even though we agree it isn't a perfect one.

let a heavy weight fall down (similar to two magnets coming together). You can make that fall pull some other weight UP.

But once the heavy weight has fallen down, it is down. To do it all over again, you have to get it back UP again......

You could say, put springs down there so it bounces. but that only means that you can't get all the energy out of the fall. Even if you let it fall freely and bounce back, it never bounces all the way.

You could push it back up hill on a ramp, so you don't have to lift it. but you can't put back the energy you got. in fact, friction makes you lose a lot.

Even if you balance two equal weights on a rope and pulley, so one goes down when the other goes up, you STILL have to push to make them move........

magnet motors run into the same things.

aboard_epsilon
02-08-2009, 02:03 PM
What I said is that to understand why it cannot work you need the math. Those equations predict not only how electromagnetics work but even the speed of light falls out of them directly.

Those people, including me :confused: ..dont understand your equations Evan.
so its a waste of time showing them.

All you got to do ...which I'm thinking of doing ...cause i just happen to belong to an inventors club were there are a few people who are deluded ..and need a simple explanation

Thing to do is make a of perspex tube with one magnet in the bottom .......and the another magnet being repulsed by it ...with a weight on it ...

and then over Min's / hours ...see how long the magnet keeps it at a set distance ...and show after the experiment that the magnet is depleted .

all the best.markj

J Tiers
02-08-2009, 02:12 PM
and then over Min's / hours ...see how long the magnet keeps it at a set distance ...and show after the experiment that the magnet is depleted .

all the best.markj

It won't be....

Any more than a shelf is 'depleted" after holding up a stack of books for 30 years.

basic physics.... no "work" is done (in our frame of reference) holding up the books..... i.e. no energy is used.

aboard_epsilon
02-08-2009, 02:27 PM
if you replaced those magnets with electro magnets in the perpex tubes ..could you say the same then?

all the best.markj

danlb
02-08-2009, 02:54 PM
It looks like Aboad_Epsilon really wants to believe, and that's his/her prerogative. The flaw in his magnet in a tube analogy is that it does not represent work. It represents repulsion.

As explained to me in grade school, if I lift a paper from the desk to the shelf I am doing work. If I lean against the wall, even if I push with all my might, I'm exerting force but doing no work.

Back to the neat video. What is not really apparent is that the video is a composite (there are variations in the light that give it away). It probably spins down fairly quick.

But the real interesting part is that the energy that spins the wheel is input by the very hefty bars at the top of the outside parts as they are used to push the outer ring into place. It's the movement of the rings that impart the energy.

So what you have is a heavy flywheel with no drag that is kicked off by an external magnet that is introduced at an angle to produce the initial repulsion. Pretty slick if you ask me.

Like most of the guys here, I "invented" a magnetic motor, a car that ran on self generated hydrogen and many other perpetual motion systems before I was 15.

Dan

A.K. Boomer
02-08-2009, 03:15 PM
To understand magnets it helps to look at them as push/pull springs --- to try and milk any usable power out of a spring is futile as the spring has to be rewound after the fact and had to be wound before the fact BUT -- there is one clause in magnetism that is interesting to ponder and in fact I tripped up Evan with it along time ago -- I stated -- "Give me a material that shields magnetism - yet is neither attracted or repelled by it and i will have an operating unit within a day that sits on a desk and runs till it wears out its bearings decades later" -- Evans answer was Mumetal in which i quickly corrected him as he did not know it was attracted to the magnets themselves -
The fact is is we dont really have a good grasp on just what magnetism really is -- to say there isnt a material in the entire universe that can shield it without itself getting involved is not only arrogant its ignorant...

If there was it means that we could indeed have a push spring or pull spring or both that gets engaged and disengaged without paying any price whatsoever and repeats ------- all the hillbilly equation charts in the world cant dispute this -- they mean nothing -- because they not only approach the problem incorrectly -- the idiots skip over entire elements that havent even been discovered yet:D

Glad I can help put things into perspective :p

dp
02-08-2009, 03:41 PM
And another that is just hilarious ,,,, BUT A STRONG WARNING,,,, COARSE LANGUAGE !!!

This guy has been partying with Michael Phelps.

aboard_epsilon
02-08-2009, 03:55 PM
I'd like to add, that, to this day, I've not done any experimentation with magnets ..
Before I do anything ..I always look at all the negatives ..before the positives ..way too many negs coming back on this one ..

and looking at the you tube vids ...I thought ignorantly that the plastic was insulating the magnets and directing the force...I did not know that:- all materials known to man are incapable of insulting magnets THANKS AK..........that puts a whole new meaning on it ......and the way I think about it in the future .

all the best.markj

dp
02-08-2009, 04:02 PM
As far as a simplified energy balance is concerned, you might as well compare that to gravity..... things fall down, and you can make that action do work.

So lets just USE the gravity analogy......... even though we agree it isn't a perfect one.

It's easier yet. Nobody has yet invented a perpetual pendulum that is energized entirely by gravity. They all finally stop.

dp
02-08-2009, 04:04 PM
I'd like to add, that, to this day, I've not done any experimentation with magnets ..
Before I do anything ..I always look at all the negatives ..before the positives ..way too many negs coming back on this one ..

and looking at the you tube vids ...I thought ignorantly that the plastic was insulating the magnets and directing the force...I did not know that:- all materials known to man are incapable of insulting magnets THANKS AK..........that puts a whole new meaning on it ......and the way I think about it in the future .

all the best.markj

Mu-metal is a pretty decent magnetic shielding material. It is used by disk drives to keep their very powerful magnets from destroying the data on the disks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu-metal

interrupted_cut
02-08-2009, 04:07 PM
A superconductor does not allow magnetic fields to penetrate it, and can be used to shield something from a magnetic field. I built a drive coupling for a prototype hermetically sealed cryogenic device that used that property to transfer torque. It consisted of a "high temperature" superconducting cylinder with 2 axial slots in it as the driven half, and a 2 pole SmCo magnet inside as the driving half. The magnetic field was "pinched" into the slots when the superconductor was cooled below its critical temperature, and remained "pinned" as long as a subcritical temperature was maintained. One problem is that superconductors have a critical flux density they can withstand for a given temperature, and if exceeded, they go "normal" or resistive, and also lose their magnetic properties. The superconductor we used was in the Yt Ba Cu Oxide family and is usually superconducting at liquid nitrogen temperatures (-320 F), but the high flux from the magnet meant we had to cool it down to almost liquid hydrogen (-423 F) temps to make it work. This was about 20 years ago, and I understand that high temperature superconductors have much higher critical fields now, so ymmv.

A.K. Boomer
02-08-2009, 05:01 PM
Mu-metal is a pretty decent magnetic shielding material. It is used by disk drives to keep their very powerful magnets from destroying the data on the disks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu-metal


Yes but like I stated - its greatly attracted to magnetism in the process,

The fact of the matter is is "we" cant achieve the results with what we know, and since what we know is also a part of "what we have to work with" it means that the final answer has to be "we dont know" Why? because what we have to work with keeps changing.

This is important because its neither a statement of "we cant" which is incorrect for "what we know" (when we become aware that we dont know everything) --- its also not stating "we can" as we already would have because then it would fall into the category of "what we really do know"

We dont know -- OR "maybe" is the correct answer -- and if one believes differently (Like Evan) that its impossible to achieve then he's acting like "he knows" whats out there,
The burden of proof lies not on the person who states it could be a possibility due to the fact that they dont know all the elements that are out there - for they realize they are still finding new ones on our own planet:)

The burden of proof Does lie on the person who claims to know what all the other elements "we" havent discovered yet in the universe are (which is a contradiction of terms), or that in some way there are no more to be discovered -- good luck with either as thats an impossibility.

The pyramid of knowledge is a shapeshifter - and can take a few knocks here and there, but there are things that can upset one of the base blocks, when this happens all the others have to be ripped down and re-stacked accordingly ;)
If you think all the base blocks that we know today will stay where they are for eternity you'd be in for a nice surprise if you could exist long enough...
All you have to do to verify this is take a few steps back into history...

A.K. Boomer
02-08-2009, 05:11 PM
A superconductor does not allow magnetic fields to penetrate it, and can be used to shield something from a magnetic field. I built a drive coupling for a prototype hermetically sealed cryogenic device that used that property to transfer torque. It consisted of a "high temperature" superconducting cylinder with 2 axial slots in it as the driven half, and a 2 pole SmCo magnet inside as the driving half. The magnetic field was "pinched" into the slots when the superconductor was cooled below its critical temperature, and remained "pinned" as long as a subcritical temperature was maintained. One problem is that superconductors have a critical flux density they can withstand for a given temperature, and if exceeded, they go "normal" or resistive, and also lose their magnetic properties. The superconductor we used was in the Yt Ba Cu Oxide family and is usually superconducting at liquid nitrogen temperatures (-320 F), but the high flux from the magnet meant we had to cool it down to almost liquid hydrogen (-423 F) temps to make it work. This was about 20 years ago, and I understand that high temperature superconductors have much higher critical fields now, so ymmv.


Your very advanced in the "field" (no pun intended) But -- even if you get a superconductor to go (I forget the word for it) "zero resistance" in its operating -- You still have to excite it and then discharge it to shield the magnet - Although near perfect efficiencies can be achieved in the transfer you still have to come up with the energies to do this - right?

dp
02-08-2009, 05:16 PM
Yes but like I stated - its greatly attracted to magnetism in the process,

I was responding to another post, but to get to yours, I'm not aware of any material that shields magnetic fields completely. Any material that is used as a shield and which can be induced to generate it's own magnetic field from eddie currents will be attracted to a magnet and as such is not a candidate.

Philosophically speaking, it isn't accurate to suggest that given sufficient unobtanium one can create perpetual motion and for the exact reason you suggest - the knowledge is lacking so we can't know that we can. But we can certainly try.

As for true perpetual motion itself, I cannot think of any practical use for it nor any way to detect it, but that's not to say I can't learn if the knowledge exists even if my brain is full of plaque as you seem to think.

J Tiers
02-08-2009, 08:25 PM
if you replaced those magnets with electro magnets in the perpex tubes ..could you say the same then?

all the best.markj

The electromagnets require a continuous input of energy to keep them up. This is because of the different way they work....... don't get excited at the difference between "permanent" and "electro" magnets.
.
.
.
.
.

As for that perfectly shielding but non-magnetic material.......

I am pretty sure that ANY material, no matter how"unobtanium" it is, that shields against a magnetic field, will require energy to push it into place..... and that (if nothing else) will provide the losses that destroy perpetual motion.

The magnetic field around any magnet automatically assumes its lowest energy state, given the nature of the surroundings.

if you put in a ferromagnetic material, that essentially 'shorts" the magneto motive force, and the field is distorted to make all points on the ferromagnetic material have the same "magnetic potential".

if you were to move a material that simply is not penetrated by magnetic lines of force, you would have to distort the field so that those lines of force go AROUND the volume occupied by the material.

Since the field was already in its lowest possible energy shape, distorting it will require energy to allow the field to assume its new shape. Somewhat similar to pushing a piece of wood further into water than the depth it wants to float..... that takes energy.

Therefore, the material, despite its non-interactive nature, if it won't allow the field to pass through it, it MUST require energy to push it into a magnetic field.

If that is NOT the case, then either it ALLOWS the field to pass through it, OR it is magnetic in some way and acts like a ferrous material.
.
.
.
.
here's another good one for you to ponder....... is the inductance of an air-core coil affected if you put a magnet in the core area? if so, how? Remember, a magnet is an iron-like material, i.e. ferromagnetic.

What if you put a piece of steel, or iron, ferrite, etc in there?

A.K. Boomer
02-08-2009, 09:34 PM
Philosophically speaking, it isn't accurate to suggest that given sufficient unobtanium one can create perpetual motion and for the exact reason you suggest - the knowledge is lacking so we can't know that we can. But we can certainly try.




It sounds as if your comfortable with the word "maybe" too.

I didnt mean to "horn in" on your post but I wanted to clarify for aboard_E.

Evan
02-08-2009, 09:48 PM
To understand the electromagnetic force one must be able to understand the mathematics that describe it. I don't understand Maxwell's equations, math has always been my weakest subject. It is those equations that Einstein drew on to forumulate his first paper on the photoelectric effect of light and from there to the theories of special and general relativity.


A superconductor does not allow magnetic fields to penetrate it, and can be used to shield something from a magnetic field.

Unfortunately that effect is imperfect since materials are imperfect. Look up flux pinning (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=flux+pinning&meta=) to see why.


The fact is is we dont really have a good grasp on just what magnetism really is -- to say there isnt a material in the entire universe that can shield it without itself getting involved is not only arrogant its ignorant...



We do so know what magnetism is. You don't but that doesn't mean others do not. You continue to trip yourself up with your ignorance of basic science.


We dont know -- OR "maybe" is the correct answer -- and if one believes differently (Like Evan) that its impossible to achieve then he's acting like "he knows" whats out there,
The burden of proof lies not on the person who states it could be a possibility due to the fact that they dont know all the elements that are out there - for they realize they are still finding new ones on our own planet



Nobody is finding new elements on this planet or any other. The only "new elements" are artificial and unstable combinations of subatomic particles that can only exist for very short periods of time created by smashing particles together at high velocities. The only time such events occur in nature is in highly energetic events such as a supernova.

The burden of proof lies on you to disprove the existing proofs of the electromagnetic effect. To do that you will need to use the same tools that the existing proofs use, higher mathematics. Without those tools you cannot make even an informed guess about the existence of possibilities outside of what we already have discovered and verified.

J Tiers
02-08-2009, 10:03 PM
Unfortunately that effect is imperfect since materials are imperfect. Look up flux pinning to see why.



it wouldn't matter..... see the argument above which purports to show that even a perfect shield would not be able to move through a field with no energy consequences.

macona
02-08-2009, 10:14 PM
Free Energy is a religion. Its followers rely on faith alone in the absence of evidence. These people think they are the only ones that truly understand science and that they are the ones who will make a breakthrough. Just like the hydrogen generator, HHO guys. People in general like to think they are smarter than the rest.

You have about as much chance of getting the pope to convert to islam as you do getting one of these guys to understand it wont work.

There are no vast conspiracies, no coverups, none of it.

A.K. Boomer
02-08-2009, 10:20 PM
Nobody is finding new elements on this planet or any other. The only "new elements" are artificial and unstable combinations of subatomic particles that can only exist for very short periods of time created by smashing particles together at high velocities. The only time such events occur in nature is in highly energetic events such as a supernova.

.

I beg to differ, while this is not the most recent its still compelling --- http://www.jumbojoke.com/new_element_found_bushcronium.html

A.K. Boomer
02-08-2009, 10:42 PM
The burden of proof lies on you to disprove the existing proofs of the electromagnetic effect. To do that you will need to use the same tools that the existing proofs use, higher mathematics. Without those tools you cannot make even an informed guess about the existence of possibilities outside of what we already have discovered and verified.



Evan Once again you totally miss the point and contort yourself into a total hillbilly ---------- there is zero burden of proof on me -- Im not the stooge who made an absolute statement --YOU ARE,
furthermore -- if you were paying attention it would be impossible for me to disprove anything as that would require that I take the existing proofs to be here and now and for eternity ------- ONE more time -- existing proofs are just that -- they are timeframed and subject to change and WILL -- in what direction I have no Idea as neither do you no matter what you claim to know. But one thing for certain is you cook your own goose in making an absolute statement -- esp. one that claims of the impossibility -- now your trapped --- Time is infinite.

Evan
02-09-2009, 04:51 AM
Evan Once again you totally miss the point and contort yourself into a total hillbilly ---------- there is zero burden of proof on me -- Im not the stooge who made an absolute statement --YOU ARE,


Mathematics is very interesting. It is the only area of human endeavour where perfection may be found. It can be as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4. Mathematics if filled with examples of absolute statements. In the discipline of logic these are called tautologies, a statement that is automatically and by default true. A=A is such a statement.

In Real Life there are many such examples of absolutes as well. You cannot fly by standing on the ground and flapping your arms. Why? The answer lies in the mathematics that describe the situation. We may calculate how much lift you are capable of producing by flapping your arms and then compare that to the amount it would require to lift your body against the force of gravity.

The mathematics will show that there is absolutely no way that you can generate enough lift to fly by flapping your arms. To disprove that you will need to point to an error in the mathematics and explain why it is wrong.

The same applies to some of your statements regarding what is possible with electromagnetics. I understand enough of the math to know that the math is correct.

What you don't understand is that the idea of there always being additional possibilities as yet undiscovered is absurd. The universe is governed by limits. Those limits are often absolute and do not admit of any exceptions. If you wish to posit an exception then you are making an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. The burden of proof rests on you.

NickH
02-09-2009, 07:30 AM
No one seems to have pointed out that in the video which started the thread work was done to accelarate the motor from standstill, it has a lever which was actuated to start things up!
Nick

G.A. Ewen
02-09-2009, 08:40 AM
No one seems to have pointed out that in the video which started the thread work was done to accelarate the motor from standstill, it has a lever which was actuated to start things up!
Nick

That is the way that it looks BUT they don't show the output shaft in the video until AFTER they start to power down.

Just Bob Again
02-09-2009, 09:26 AM
... I understand enough of the math to know that the math is correct.

What you don't understand is that the idea of there always being additional possibilities as yet undiscovered is absurd. ...

Mathematics is a way to formalize what we already know. You can't often predict the new from the mathematics of the old. When a totally new physical concept is found, the mathematics to describe it gets developed. Aristotle didn't have differential calculus to predict gravity and orbital mechanics. It took 2000 years for Newton to develop calculus to facilitate his description of gravity. Complex variables and tensors electromagnetics went hand-in-hand. The math behind quantum physics didn't really exist much before Schroedinger. Einstein proved the math describing classical mechanics was wrong. A good approximation in it's context, but wrong in a domain beyond our senses' direct physical observations.

All mathematics is "wrong" because it is a reflection of our perceptions which are not all-knowing. Just because a concept isn't reflected in the existing math doesn't mean it's wrong. However... yes, you do need to somehow provide proof that the currently accepted laws of thermodynamics are incorrect for me to believe it. After that, somebody will change mathematics to reflect the fact.

NickH
02-09-2009, 09:29 AM
That is the way that it looks BUT they don't show the output shaft in the video until AFTER they start to power down.

So as a fake it's even a bad fake:D
Nick

A.K. Boomer
02-09-2009, 10:43 AM
Mathematics is very interesting. It is the only area of human endeavour where perfection may be found. It can be as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4. Mathematics if filled with examples of absolute statements. In the discipline of logic these are called tautologies, a statement that is automatically and by default true. A=A is such a statement.

In Real Life there are many such examples of absolutes as well. You cannot fly by standing on the ground and flapping your arms. Why? The answer lies in the mathematics that describe the situation. We may calculate how much lift you are capable of producing by flapping your arms and then compare that to the amount it would require to lift your body against the force of gravity.

The mathematics will show that there is absolutely no way that you can generate enough lift to fly by flapping your arms. To disprove that you will need to point to an error in the mathematics and explain why it is wrong.

The same applies to some of your statements regarding what is possible with electromagnetics. I understand enough of the math to know that the math is correct.

What you don't understand is that the idea of there always being additional possibilities as yet undiscovered is absurd. The universe is governed by limits. Those limits are often absolute and do not admit of any exceptions. If you wish to posit an exception then you are making an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. The burden of proof rests on you.

Mathematics is only one part of the equation --- If it is all you use to try and problem solve with you are doomed from the start --- What you can do is escape from the rigidity in your thinking that leads you down the direct path of making the statement that something cannot be done -- EVER, Even though you may be correct for the time frame we live in and the knowledge weve acquired in the said era -- There's potential possibilities in every problem- even if we dont have the means of seeing them -yet ------- This is one of the fundamental differences between me and you and I have witnessed you with your rubber stamp that says "NO GO" and how you seem to be able to write stuff off so quickly -- In doing so I think you by-pass allot of valuable thinking, Mostly - there are tricks around things -- problems can be manipulated to "obey" all the laws Yet still yield the results one was after in the first place --- So I say to you -- dont get stuck in your thinking of how the math wont work --- step back and take a look at the problem differently, throw in some variables ----- use some common sense and remember the statement of not being able to see the forest for the tree's -- if there is one statement that comes to mind to describe you it is just that ------ there is no doubt that you have attention to detail, but I believe thats what trips you up all the time --- STOP analyzing the pine needle with the magnifying glass and take a step back and look at the big picture.....

Example;


The mathematics will show that there is absolutely no way that you can generate enough lift to fly by flapping your arms. To disprove that you will need to point to an error in the mathematics and explain why it is wrong.

I dont need to point to any "error" in mathematics - all I need to do is solve the problem with the information given - and I believe I can do just that.

"You" is a relative term, "You" in your statement may mean me - you - or anybody else, lets start with "me" and what I already know --- "I" know that at one time I was capable of achieving an Iron Cross (this is a gymnastics exercise that requires ALLOT of upper body strength)-- therefore I can at least prove that "I" was capable of at least holding neutral with my arms against my body weight and the force of gravity --- This is a good place to start at also discrediting your statement of;

We may calculate how much lift you are capable of producing by flapping your arms and then compare that to the amount it would require to lift your body against the force of gravity.
Since Iv been in sports all my life Im also aware that it is much more difficult to hold a muscle in a static position (like the iron cross) for any length of time due to it not being able to exchange the precious blood that carries its oxygen for work exchange -- muscles are also blood pumps - so flapping would be a benefit --- score one for me --- OOOPS score one for you also , now im going to have to be dealing with the down time for the upstroke and although unloaded and far quicker it means that whatever the one way "check valve" type pumping wings that im designing (did I tell you about those --- sorry -- you left that wide open so its mine to use:D ) they better slip through the air upon lifting due to every precious millisecond will cost me dearly in having to exert even more pressures in the down stroke --- damn --- If I was Evan Id throw in the towel -- but im not Evan --- im aware that there was at least no clause in the statement of whether or not these "pumping wings" couldnt be neutrally buoyant --- Im still gonna fall way short -- I dont even need to crunch any numbers - im a failure - I have a defeatist attitude -- woe is me --- why was I evan:p born ------- wait a minute --- key words "I" - "me" ---- I dont need to power this thing -- there are people without an entire lower body -- they dont have legs let alone an ass, there approx. half the weight of a normal humanoid and some can lift TWICE their body weight with their arms -- since the down time on the upstroke is going to be a fraction under half the time and they can actually create a great gain on the downstroke It may be very possible for a man to (and I quote)


generate enough lift to fly by flapping your arms


WOW --- and im not even the one who had to "prove" anything was possible --- My entire doctrine is that I dont claim to think that all the information is in yet to make a sound judgment - and in fact YOUR the one that has to not only prove that its impossible -- you have to defend that stance for eternity - now that I will call impossible;)

NickH
02-09-2009, 11:53 AM
the one way "check valve" type pumping wings that im designing (did I tell you about those --- sorry -- you left that wide open so its mine to use:D ) they better slip through the air upon lifting due to every precious millisecond will cost me dearly in having to exert even more pressures in the down stroke

Are you really trying to build wings for a human that aren't primarily based on gliding and if so is there a book running on this?
I might like a bit of the action :D
Nick

Evan
02-09-2009, 12:35 PM
All mathematics is "wrong" because it is a reflection of our perceptions which are not all-knowing. Just because a concept isn't reflected in the existing math doesn't mean it's wrong. However... yes, you do need to somehow provide proof that the currently accepted laws of thermodynamics are incorrect for me to believe it. After that, somebody will change mathematics to reflect the fact.


On the contrary, mathematics that describes observed reality isn't a matter of making the numbers fit our perceptions. It drops out of the observations we make and in this specific discussion is entirely able to make predictions about the unknown. The speed of light is inherent in the Maxwell Equations and that was not apparent at first. It was actually discovered later that the equations contain a derivative of the wave nature of electromagnetism that when coupled with the permittivity of free space produce a value that corresponds to the velocity of light.

The same applies to all of Einstein's work. He makes the base assumption that the Maxwell equations are invariant and his theories are then built on that premise. Using this approach he managed to predict numerous unknown physical phenomena that were later discovered to exist.

tony ennis
02-09-2009, 12:50 PM
If it is all you use to try and problem solve with you are doomed from the start --- What you can do is escape from the rigidity in your thinking that leads you down the direct path of making the statement that something cannot be done -- EVER, Even though you may be correct for the time frame we live in and the knowledge weve acquired in the said era

I think that that for every 'absolute statement' (such that Evan is making) it's pretty reasonable to assume that qualifiers such as "unless the laws of physics change", "unless an entirely new aspect of physics is discovered" or even "unless magic is discovered" are an implicit part of the statement and so basic as to not have to be stated. Otherwise anyone can claim anything free from any scientific rigor or rational thought.

As it is known today, perpetual motion machines in general are impossible. This includes a motor run purely by permanent magnets. Impossible. Can't be done. No chance. Nope. None. Nada. Violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics I believe.

Now, if you insist that a magnetic motor is possible, then it really is up to you to find the loophole in the existing maths that say otherwise. You don't even have to be precise about it - just find the loophole that makes it possible.

An until you find the loophole, well, the math (which is correct for all of eternity) gives you the beat-down.

gearedloco
02-09-2009, 02:32 PM
"Against Fools, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

Determining who is a Fool and who is a God is left as an exercise for the reader.:rolleyes:

-bill

Bmyers
02-09-2009, 03:17 PM
never argue with a fool.
they will drag you down to their level
and beat you with experience

J Tiers
02-09-2009, 08:48 PM
#1...... Evan is essentially right on this.........

#2..... It doesn't matter since even the material searched-for by AK would NOT make a difference, it should STILL take energy to move it through the magnetic field.

gt2ride
02-09-2009, 08:56 PM
I had to try . This one has a mag in the piston and two on the wheel. One to push and the other to pull. It might take a couple more years but I might get it to run some day.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w147/gt2ride/HPIM1178.jpg

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w147/gt2ride/HPIM1179.jpg

Evan
02-09-2009, 09:30 PM
It might take a couple more years but I might get it to run some day.



You haven't been paying attention, have you? It will not run.

Seastar
02-09-2009, 09:38 PM
Yes it will never run.
Yes it will never run.
Yes it will never run.
Yes it will never run.
Yes it will never run.
Yes it will never run.
Yes it will never run.
Yes it will never run.
Ever
Bill

aboard_epsilon
02-09-2009, 09:50 PM
I'm just going to encourage him :D

And say he needs a heavier flywheel to carry it through the transition period .

all the best.markj

dp
02-09-2009, 10:01 PM
I'm just going to encourage him :D

And say he needs a heavier flywheel to carry it through the transition period .

all the best.markj

And dilithium crystals to kickstart it.

J Tiers
02-09-2009, 10:03 PM
So, you-all are saying that a motor with magnets in the flywheel and piston can't run?

gt2ride
02-09-2009, 10:09 PM
Evan
Are you sure it won't run. I was brave enough to show a pic.

A.K. Boomer
02-09-2009, 10:17 PM
I had to try . This one has a mag in the piston and two on the wheel. One to push and the other to pull. It might take a couple more years but I might get it to run some day.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w147/gt2ride/HPIM1178.jpg

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w147/gt2ride/HPIM1179.jpg



I bet you had fun building it;)

I also think it would make a great conversation piece on a coffee table or such,

And - No - it will not work with the materials and the configuration that its in and I really dont know of anything that could get it to do so - to date -- but thats also just my opinion, and my opinion is I also think its still cool and I like your fluctuating rotary pulsar drive mechanism.:)

tony ennis
02-09-2009, 10:28 PM
So, you-all are saying that a motor with magnets in the flywheel and piston can't run?

Not more than a rev or two without some other power source.

It will probably run longer if you take the magnets out :-D

tony ennis
02-09-2009, 10:32 PM
AK Boomer, did you really think you were going to sit down and in a few hours produce a magnetic motor that would instantly obsolete almost all internal combustion engines and electric motors?

You would be the richest guy ever. Richer than Bill Gates. richer than J Paul Getty. You would be SO rich there wouldn't be enough money to pay you. Your wealth would be measures in the number of continents owned. Except that it would be too easy to copy and you wouldn't get paid, ever.

dp
02-09-2009, 10:33 PM
And remove the connecting rod.

gt2ride
02-09-2009, 10:39 PM
I was going to use stronger magnets

J Tiers
02-09-2009, 10:41 PM
Not more than a rev or two without some other power source.

It will probably run longer if you take the magnets out :-D


Ok, you get a pass, for saying some other power source.........

I asked, because I have several Briggs, Tecumseh, Power Products, and other small motors which seem to run OK with magnets in the flywheel...... I thought maybe some in the pistons might stop them then..............:D

dp
02-09-2009, 10:46 PM
It sounds as if your comfortable with the word "maybe" too.

No - there is no maybe. Perpetual motion is impossible. Magnetic motors are impossible. If energy were not required to create work then the universe would be filled with dervishes running indefinitely on zero energy. Energy is required to initiate the motion in the first place. Once that initial input is completed the device will wind down because all devices require energy to keep them going. The possible exception is people who believe in perpetual motion - they seem to never run out of energy.

In spite of the impossibility of it, there is nothing to keep people from trying to create perpetual motion. It is an utterly futile activity, of course.

tony ennis
02-09-2009, 10:53 PM
Now there is some value in experimenting with and developing new bearings that devour less energy...

gt2ride
02-09-2009, 11:01 PM
I bet they told Diesel it would never work.

dp
02-09-2009, 11:05 PM
I bet they told Diesel it would never work.

Perhaps - but Diesel was not going up against the cold hard stone wall of immutable physics. The Diesel engine was always possible whereas perpetual motion has never been possible and never can be.

gt2ride
02-09-2009, 11:08 PM
darn I guess I will have to work on someting else.

dp
02-09-2009, 11:15 PM
darn I guess I will have to work on someting else.

Not necessarily - the real fun in perpet machines is to see how long they continue to run after the energy source has been removed. I think it should be a category in the Guinness catalog.

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 12:13 AM
AK Boomer, did you really think you were going to sit down and in a few hours produce a magnetic motor that would instantly obsolete almost all internal combustion engines and electric motors?





Where in the hell did you get that from anything I ever stated?

My statement was this --- "give me a material that shields magnetism and yet is not effected by magnetism itself and I will have a working unit built by end of the day that runs till its bearings wear out"

That statement is fact -- it would be a piece of cake --- dont argue against it -- its futile - I'll prove you or anybody else wrong every single time -- argue that the material either doesnt exist or we havent found it yet -- those are your only choices.

dp
02-10-2009, 12:28 AM
Where in the hell did you get that from anything I ever stated?

My statement was this --- "give me a material that shields magnetism and yet is not effected by magnetism itself and I will have a working unit built by end of the day that runs till its bearings wear out"

That statement is fact -- it would be a piece of cake --- dont argue against it -- its futile - I'll prove you or anybody else wrong every single time -- argue that the material either doesnt exist or we havent found it yet -- those are your only choices.

Given that such a material is totally neutral to a magnetic field, an equivalent to that is to put your magnetic field in remote interstellar space where there is nothing significant around for parsecs. Draw a picture of it and describe how it works.

tdkkart
02-10-2009, 01:06 AM
It's no wonder I never was worth a damn in math, at least not as far as my teachers were concerned. I could do 2x+4 = 10 in my head, I didn't need 4 pages of calculations to solve it and prove it.
I solved it by known facts, and I "proved" it by accepting those facts. I didn't need anything more than that to satisfy myself, and then I was ready to move on.

I never needed to prove line A-B parallel to line C-D, I knew, by basic rules of geometry that if the ends were equal distances apart the lines were parallel, I was told that, took it as gospel because it made perfect sense, and never needed to know anything more about it. End of story, anything more was a waste of my time.

I know that a person cannot fly by flapping their arms, I've tried it, didn't work, and I know why it won't work. I don't need any math to prove it to myself. End of story.

What I can't believe is that I've just read 8 pages of a forum where grown men are blathering about something that has been proven not to work, according to existing technology.

Don't you guys have anything else to do?? Wouldn't your time be better spent debating USA vs offshore machines or doing actual machine work??

dp
02-10-2009, 01:10 AM
What I can't believe is that I've just read 8 pages of a forum where grown men are blathering about something that has been proven not to work, according to existing technology.

Don't you guys have anything else to do?? Wouldn't your time be better spent debating USA vs offshore machines or doing actual machine work??

You're now one of us - what's your answer to your question?

darryl
02-10-2009, 01:52 AM
Who was it that mentioned bearings- of course that's the key to the whole thing. The balls have to be magnets and the races have to be made of a certain ceramic that only becomes magnetic after a short time has passed and a magnetic field has permeated the ceramic. Now when the balls pass over the ceramic, the delayed magnetic field induced repels the balls and they roll away from the field they have just induced. For the ceramic to behave this way a certain amount of heat energy has to be used, and this energy comes out of the environment.

These special bearings ARE the motors that spin the flywheel. No crankshaft, valves, pistons, gears- and really, only one bearing assembly is required. The flywheel is only there to show that the shaft is spinning. There is no rocket science involved, just the search for this special ceramic, cerapetualium. Needles to say, you can't find it at the local drug store.

Maybe someone could figure out how to use gadolinium in this application. Isn't there a way to use the low-grade heat from the environment to possibly shift magnetic values in the material and thus interact with permanent magnets to make a running apparatus?

Evan
02-10-2009, 01:56 AM
Are you sure it won't run. I was brave enough to show a pic.

Nothing wrong with your building skills. Try to envision each magnet as connected to the other two by a rubber band. You even get to invert the sign of one to produce repulsion instead of attraction. With no input of energy from an outside source the three magnets will assume an equilibrium condition where the forces are all balanced.

dp
02-10-2009, 01:59 AM
Nothing wrong with your building skills.

I'd go further - I absolutely love the crankshaft in that example. I've spent an hour since seeing it trying to figure out how to make one :)

Evan
02-10-2009, 04:05 AM
My statement was this --- "give me a material that shields magnetism and yet is not effected by magnetism itself and I will have a working unit built by end of the day that runs till its bearings wear out"

That statement is fact -- it would be a piece of cake --- dont argue against it -- its futile -

I will ask again. What will make it turn? Where does the energy come from?

A magnetic field from a permanent magnet is a static field. Static. Root word is "stasis" meaning still. Non-moving. No matter how strong or how many magnets are used they will quickly reach an equilibrium condition in which all the forces are in balance and everthing is still. Even the "magic shield" can't prevent that. It will simply be a part of the equilibrium configuration.

J Tiers
02-10-2009, 08:46 AM
My statement was this --- "give me a material that shields magnetism and yet is not effected by magnetism itself and I will have a working unit built by end of the day that runs till its bearings wear out"


AK, I know you will NEVER SEE this response, but..............

That material you postulate will not help in the least, because it will not eliminate the need for energy input to move it through a magnetic field.

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 10:24 AM
I will ask again. What will make it turn? Where does the energy come from?

A magnetic field from a permanent magnet is a static field. Static. Root word is "stasis" meaning still. Non-moving. No matter how strong or how many magnets are used they will quickly reach an equilibrium condition in which all the forces are in balance and everthing is still. Even the "magic shield" can't prevent that. It will simply be a part of the equilibrium configuration.



Evan, you need to focus elsewhere -- go back to JT's post #35 and read it --- he focuses not on the fact that I could not achieve this (because I could)
He focuses on the improbability or impossibility for such a material to exist --- This is what your all arguing (whether you realize it or not)
JT cuts through the chase and gets to the point ---



I am pretty sure that ANY material, no matter how"unobtanium" it is, that shields against a magnetic field, will require energy to push it into place..... and that (if nothing else) will provide the losses that destroy perpetual motion.


Now -- getting back to your original question of "What will make it turn? Where does the energy come from?"

If this magic material or combinations and configurations of materials or whatever was ever discovered (which would directly disobey or disrupt many of the laws of physics and thermal dynamics - but thats beside the point as my statement stated "give me this material" ) I would then indeed have a material that can be "slipped in between" a permanent magnet and its repelling or attracting counterpart without any frictional dividend to pay what-so-ever ,,, this would allow for energies to be utilized either in the repelling or attracting mode and then NO dividend for either retracting the attracting magnets (or magnet and ferrous material) Or pre-lining up the repelling magnets and then removing said shield from them ----
To give you a mechanical example lets use GT2rides unit as he was not only "brave" enough to put it on -- its a neat little example and he's worked hard on it and I commend you all for treating him with respect.

Imagine his fluctuating rotary apparatus controlling a shield device instead of magnets --- It opens and allows two attracting magnets (one in the piston and one in the "head") to draw the piston up to TDC and then the shield is slipped into place and the piston gets to move away freely -------- power is produced and the cycle is ready to repeat itself --- want more? Imagine the same situation with a twist --- literally -- Two attracting magnets - one in the piston and one in the head (with the rotary shield in between) This time the heads magnet is rotatable and is timed to the crank like a camshaft except with a stable position for most of the duration and then a "quick flip" mechanism ------ the two attracting magnets draw the piston up to TDC and like the first unit power is produced - the rotary shield is then slipped in between the two and then the heads magnet does a brief 180 and then holds position - the magnets are now lines up to "hate each other" the shield is then removed and power is now made on the downstroke as well.......

This is basically just an exercise in elementary mechanical engineering --- it holds as true as the statement I gave.

My only difference is when debating whether we know everything we ever will --- I dont feel like we do -- will it make a difference with something of this nature -- i would rather use the term "improbable" NOT impossible
Personally I like putting that last .01% up on a shelf somewhere --- it keeps me on my toes and keeps my mind active --- even if it is floating out in space sometimes -- its always proven to be an enjoyable ride:)

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 10:35 AM
AK, I know you will NEVER SEE this response, but..............

That material you postulate will not help in the least, because it will not eliminate the need for energy input to move it through a magnetic field.


That wasnt part of the statement -- I stated "give me a shielding material that is not effected"


You have to state what you stated before - that its either improbable or impossible to have such material.

I do read your stuff JT, and you make good sense.

tony ennis
02-10-2009, 10:42 AM
One can hypothesize many amazing devices if physics can be ignored. This is akin to doing some really bitchen' math and ignoring those pesky divide-by-zero issues.

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 11:34 AM
Although GT2ride has shown --- It can not only be a great mechanical engineering design exercise for the brain, You can prove it to be far more efficient than some hillbillies "air engine" that simply gobbles coal from the power plant to do the exact same -- absolutely nothing, I ask you this, what motor is more efficient? :p

I think then for most it might just be people like to build mechanical stuff with their machinery? Given also that iv actually seen my share of "finger engines" on this site --- Once again - just a little perspective thats all.

lazlo
02-10-2009, 11:59 AM
My statement was this --- "give me a material that shields magnetism and yet is not effected by magnetism itself and I will have a working unit built by end of the day that runs till its bearings wear out"

AK, I'm hesitant to jump into this quagmire, and I admire your tenacity, but you're fighting a fundamental law of nature: the second law of thermodynamics - in an isolated system (i.e., a mechanism), energy disperses over time. Bart quoted this in perfect Dilbert form on page 1: you can't break even.

Closely related to that is the law of conservation of energy: the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. I.e., energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form (from kinetic, to thermal, for example).

So even if you got a propulsive system worked out, you're inevitably going to dissipate energy due to friction...

lazlo
02-10-2009, 12:19 PM
I'm not aware of any material that shields magnetic fields completely. Any material that is used as a shield and which can be induced to generate it's own magnetic field from eddie currents will be attracted to a magnet and as such is not a candidate.

That's right -- materials like Mu Metal and MetGlas aren't really magnetic shields. They have extremely high permeability, so they pull the magnetic fields to themselves as they magnetize, which creates an area of lower magnetic field in their vicinity.

aboard_epsilon
02-10-2009, 12:39 PM
i've not got any magnets here to experiment with ..
but what about a double layer of fine steel mesh.

it works in a davey lamp

all the best.markj

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 12:42 PM
And once again -- you miss the entire point, Lazlo - its more of an exercise in mechanical engineering as that is the only thing I have to use to back up my statement. Once again -- re-read the statement --- it is a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question - Actuality does not enter the equation in the form or whether or not said material exist or could ever be found or even if all the laws that we have today prove it cannot exist --- thats not what were after here -- or if any of you guys have misguided yourselves in that direction -- good luck with that.

NickH
02-10-2009, 12:45 PM
see next post

NickH
02-10-2009, 12:50 PM
And once again -- you miss the entire point, Lazlo - its more of an exercise in mechanical engineering as that is the only thing I have to use to back up my statement. Once again -- re-read the statement --- it is a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question - Actuality does not enter the equation in the form or whether or not said material exist or could ever be found or even if all the laws that we have today prove it cannot exist --- thats not what were after here -- or if any of you guys have misguided yourselves in that direction -- good luck with that.

But the hypothesis is based on flawed theory, you can't "Cut" a magnetic field from a permanent magnet, you can only deflect it, and that will require energy.
Hypothesis dead,
Nick

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 02:31 PM
or even if all the laws that we have today prove it cannot exist --- .


"But the hypothesis is based on flawed theory"


Of course it is and thats what I just mentioned -- this is irrelevant for engineering the mechanical apparatus --- all it has to do is behave its own governing laws -- If you had this magic material - What would your motor look like?

GT2rides device is very unique in that he goes direct pull with his magnets and then converts it to rotary mechanically -- its kind of a solenoid motor and could be duplicated with electro-magnets


Most designers would try to go direct rotary but although they get to take a short cut they also have a vector arc in the stator/field alignment --- just like a perm mag motor or field induced one, It seems that its tough to get away from -- there is going to be a conversion dividend to pay for rotary motion, These all are cool experiments and the added variable of throwing in an imaginary shield can produce some very unusual results due to the fact that "we never go there" ---- sometimes you will get done looking at this "design venture" and recognize a mechanical link to something you can use elsewhere (in the real world)

This is the way my power mechanics teacher would teach, he would make things so interesting and kids would venture WAY the hell out -- then he'd real them back in and see what they "swallowed out there", Yup, most kids swallowed the hook!
but many idea's spawned new idea's, I seemed to get fixated on rotary IC designs and variable speed trannie's and I dont know how many I "built"
After we picked them apart at first I was probably batting about a 50/50 as to what would and what wouldnt -- then I got much more refined and practical and efficient in design -- He was by far the best teacher I ever had, and he also made learning a great deal of fun,
Here's to U Mr. Dedischue (Spelling?)

Evan
02-10-2009, 07:57 PM
Evan, you need to focus elsewhere

Why, does my explanation bother you?


If you had this magic material - What would your motor look like?


Still, very, very still. I'll give you your magic material and you still cannot build a motor. It requires an energy input. Magnets are NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY.

Any magnetic object that is near but not in contact with a magnet has potential energy relative to the magnet. When attracted by the magnet that potential may be used to do work until the object is in contact with the magnet. Note that the magnet did not give up any energy in this process, the object that was attracted did. Once in contact it cannot be removed from the vicinity of the magnet unless there is an input of energy that exceeds the energy the object gave up. In that event the magnet still does not gain or lose energy, only the object in question.

The magnet produces a static field. To move magnetic objects in and out of that field requires an exchange of energy with the objects, not the magnet. In one direction the objects lose energy and then gain it back in the other direction, MINUS LOSSES. To return the system to a previous state always requires more energy than was taken from it because there are ALWAYS losses.

Even with a perfect magnetic shield as you propose nothing would change. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form, the situation would remain the same. The process of interposing a shield to allow an object to be removed from the vicinity of a magnet is a reversal of entropy. That cannot happen without an input of energy from another source. The shield itself would have to supply the energy to block the magnetic field lines.

In actual fact the idea of a shield that affects a magnet without being affected by the magnet is an oxymoron. What you propose is action without reaction. That is flatly impossible and was discovered to be so centuries ago. Nobody with even a smattering of science education has ever thought otherwise.

J Tiers
02-10-2009, 08:16 PM
AK, I think you misinterpreted....

I naturally am skeptical of the material......

But the MAIN POINT is that I further claim that it would not help you in making your motor.


As for that perfectly shielding but non-magnetic material.......

I am pretty sure that ANY material, no matter how"unobtanium" it is, that shields against a magnetic field, will require energy to push it into place..... and that (if nothing else) will provide the losses that destroy perpetual motion.

The magnetic field around any magnet automatically assumes its lowest energy state, given the nature of the surroundings.

if you put in a ferromagnetic material, that essentially 'shorts" the magneto motive force, and the field is distorted to make all points on the ferromagnetic material have the same "magnetic potential".

if you were to move a material that simply is not penetrated by magnetic lines of force, you would have to distort the field so that those lines of force go AROUND the volume occupied by the material.

Since the field was already in its lowest possible energy shape, distorting it will require energy to allow the field to assume its new shape. Somewhat similar to pushing a piece of wood further into water than the depth it wants to float..... that takes energy.

Therefore, the material, despite its non-interactive nature, if it won't allow the field to pass through it, it MUST require energy to push it into a magnetic field.

If that is NOT the case, then either it ALLOWS the field to pass through it, OR it is magnetic in some way and acts like a ferrous material.
.

aboard_epsilon
02-10-2009, 08:22 PM
The first you'll know, when someone has cracked it ..
Will be loads of cheap Chinese magnet powered perpetual motion toys coming into your country .

Leave it to the Chinese .. and sit back and relax for a very long time!

STOP BICKERING!

all the best.markj

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 09:19 PM
IHHHHYYYY-YYYHHH-YYYYHHHHH


I give up -- forget it please:rolleyes:

"In actual fact the idea of a shield that affects a magnet without being affected by the magnet is an oxymoron."

"even if all the laws that we have today prove it cannot exist"

Evan - one is your statement and the other mine, they both mean the same thing.
So please get it through your head Im not arguing that.

once again - by-pass that fact and build a mechanical devise (in your head please:) ) with the unobtainium shielding material, it has to work within the materials constraints along with all the other MECHANICAL laws and permanent magnetic laws except of course the fact that the material can shield without paying dividend --- Like I stated before - its an elementary lesson in mechanical engineering design -- thats all, but - due to its unusual nature you might be surprised at some of the engagement devises you come up with in the process --- The reason why its a valuable training tool is nobody gets to use someone's previous real working design due to it never being built because its a "pipe dream"
This was one of our assignments --- and it was perfect -- because you cannot turn a permanent magnet on and off like a switch (a current switch) -- even if you had this material -- you still would have to create some kind of mechanical operated switching mechanism with the shield or magnets or both, Or use it in a way to automatically shield forces like in duel rotating stators that automatically achieve results due to being properly timed --- The most powerful (theorized) units utilized both the attracting and repelling of the magnets - I gave an example of what I would do in GT2rides unit.

Your unit would work fine - maybe better than anyone's, You just wont allow yourself to go there. I think I understand - but games like this can be fun - I wake up everyday and I fix stuff -- all kinds of stuff - in the real world -------- I get sick of it and like puzzles that either never get solved or ones you dont have to get your hands dirty working on.

A.K. Boomer
02-10-2009, 09:22 PM
The first you'll know, when someone has cracked it ..
Will be loads of cheap Chinese magnet powered perpetual motion toys coming into your country .

Leave it to the Chinese .. and sit back and relax for a very long time!

STOP BICKERING!

all the best.markj


There really shouldnt be any negative effects from the lead paint on the magnetism --- although all the ships might sink.

Teenage_Machinist
02-10-2009, 10:08 PM
Perpetual motion--

Magnetic and Gravitational Fields cannot be blocked. They just cannot.

Sometimes it seems like I AM WHAT I AM is making sure there are no loopholes...

You can twist them, you can diminsh them, but you cannot block them like light.

Only ways any perpetual motion might work, I think:

1) Zero Point. A similar house of perpetual motion belivers. Will belive it when I see it.
2) Weird Super High Energy stuff. Have read about the possiblity of surviving heat death (when the Universe runs out of stars and then all the heat is distributed evenly) by making a new universe with extremely high energy (as in accessible to inter galactic empires only) physics, reaching Planck energy/distance/ect.
3) Opening of God's Eye.

Pretty much no loopholes, the laws of physics just dont have gaps and work for possible occurences.



Give me luck and I will power the world forever with Maxwells Demon.

J Tiers
02-10-2009, 11:07 PM
a shield that affects a magnet without being affected by the magnet

except of course the fact that the material can shield without paying dividend

Just what do these two statements mean?

"affected" is not precise.

And the 'without paying dividend" is also not precise.

You seem now to be proposing a material that inherently avoids all possible objections...... is that correct?

If so, then obviously it seems to be inherently impossible, since it must satisfy two opposing conditions simultaneously*.

I HAD BEEN under the impression that you meant a material which was a perfect shield, only, meaning that "magnetic lines of force" did NOT penetrate it, its permeability is -infinity.

That sort of material would have the effect of "displacing" a magnetic field (which could not occupy any volume of space which is enclosed by the material), and so a mass of the material could not be "un-affected" by the field.

* It must satisfy "a" and "b"

a) It must shield its volume against magnetic fields, so they cannot penetrate it.

b) it must not affect the disposition of the magnetic field, so the field must pass through it.

Obviously those are not simultaneously allowable.

But there is an "out", if you propose another dimension, which inserts the words 'or 'apparently" pass through it from a 3 dimensional point of view" into "b" above. In that case, any view in 3D space will show the field passing through, but in fact it will not. Presumably the material in some way acts to reflect or transfer the field into an nth dimension.

Now, I don't pretend to know what the energy cost may or may not be in that case, I have given it only a cursory thought. Presumably it is non-existent, since in an nth dimension the field and material need not intersect (and so need not interact), despite the fact that they appear to do so in 3D space.

dp
02-10-2009, 11:32 PM
Just what do these two statements mean?

He's making sh1t up now. He's admitted there's no such thing as what is needed to make his engine, and that his engine is really not possible except as a mind experiment. A fantasy. In that scenario then yes, his perpetual motion machine will work. If it ever leaves the space between his ears it will stop abruptly in a clatter of reforming magnetic fields.

Evan
02-10-2009, 11:53 PM
Boomer is steadfastly ignoring the reality that the shield doesn't even matter. The real issue is that a magnet is not a supply of energy.


"even if all the laws that we have today prove it cannot exist"

Evan - one is your statement and the other mine, they both mean the same thing.
So please get it through your head Im not arguing that.


It isn't a matter of laws. It's a matter of fantasy vs reality.

J Tiers
02-11-2009, 08:56 AM
He's making sh1t up now.

Of course. There are at least 5 reasons why it won't work.....

A.K. Boomer
02-11-2009, 11:05 AM
He's making sh1t up now. He's admitted there's no such thing as what is needed to make his engine, and that his engine is really not possible except as a mind experiment. A fantasy. In that scenario then yes, his perpetual motion machine will work. If it ever leaves the space between his ears it will stop abruptly in a clatter of reforming magnetic fields.

Of course its a mind experiment -- have any of you been reading anything?
Let it go --your on the wrong track - quit trying to disprove something that nobodys trying to prove, did anyone hear that last statement or will I have to repeat it again?

I didnt make anything up --- these were real class experiments brought on by questions from students -- this was and is a "normal transition" when kids were learning why things work and why they dont, Yes we spent about 95% on all the things that do - But we also had a teacher that realized the value in not only pointing out why they dont - he gave us the by-pass key to unlock the reason and then let us create a unit to work with (on paper) --- because what I stated earlier that this is not a situation thats usually or ever seen the mechanical results were quite amazing - Even though we had a teacher that recognized the "improbability" to begin with and stated everything that you guys did AND WE KNEW THAT! -- but he then gave us the assignment to build a unit using the new found shielding material (on paper with explanation)
which gave crazy results but it was also very cool.
This is why I always jump into these discussions and state my statement --- Iv already have several motors built in my head years ago:p
You guys might think - then why not just use gravity and water and have a "magic bucket" that doesnt have to pay a dividend to re-lift water that was just used to make power --- Im guessing the answer was Mr. dedicshew was after new unique mechanical design, cheating gravity is too "obvious" and too "easy" and due to already present examples everyone would just be lifting it high and then running it into a high efficiency turbine, or pouring it into another "regular bucket" on a rope with wheels -- very limited, can You see why permanent magnets where used?

Here's another class problem that when just starting out made you think --- although if we had what we had today It would even "seem" more possible and I'll explain that later, this wasnt created by any students but was a question by the teacher,

He started out about the dividend return system on the IC engine and how efficient the return stoke of either the gas or diesel engine is if it does not fire off its mix -- anotherwords - you pay a price for the compression stroke but you get most all of it back after TDC --- Minus some heat losses (depending esp. on how fast the two cycles took place) and mechanical losses in bearing frictions and such --- He also convinced us that the drag is so low that we would see car engines that take advantage of this theory in the future for better efficiency (this is where I stated above "I'll explain later" as now we have variable displacement engines that use "air springing" and actually drag 4 cylinders this way while the 4 others do the work and yet the entire engine gets better mileage than if it was running on all 8 --- so WOW - Mr. dedicshew was right -- but Iv never liked the thought of this system and still dont)

After he set that scene
He then stated; If I had a chamber that was totally sealed off in all area's and it was 1,000 degree's F inside and I injected a "spritz" of water into it would it not create steam and expand?
We all answered - YES it would for what he's talking about is what we knew as a variation of a "boiler tank"

He then made the statement; If our return stroke is almost as powerful as our compression and since certain diesel engine by design are capable of achieving well over 1,000 degree's F in its compression stroke and we know that that will produce steam and therefore even more pressures --- then why are we using diesel fuel and not water? Wouldnt the engine run? if not - why?
He then specifically stated that saying it violated such and such law of thermodynamics or the statement of "energy cannot be created or destroyed" was not an answer - It could be used along with the "reason why" but would not be excepted on its own.

This experiment is the exact opposite of the perm mag shielding devise -- that experiment I wanted you to ignore the reason why and build a unit anyways -- this I want you to ignore the unit and give the reason why -- do you think you guys can handle that:rolleyes: or will you get this all mixed up also...


I also had a science teacher that when the hand held calculators were well over $400.00 at the time he predicted to the year when they would be 4 or 6 bucks;)

MCS
02-11-2009, 11:42 AM
The experiments are the same.

No input of energy: >>>>>> no motion.

A.K. Boomer
02-11-2009, 12:17 PM
Wrong, there is an input of energy in the last experiment -- thats what created all the heat right?-- and when you go to answer the question tell me "why" --- Your allowed to quote some lame ass thermodynamic law of physics but it has to come with the thinking mans reason of where the experiment goes wrong - this is where field experience leaves book smart in the dust, this is where the breaking down of information takes place, Not in the quote "energy cannot be created or destroyed" -- all that does is teach you a concept.

Remember --- if the energy output is almost as great as the energy input to begin with -- then all were looking for is a few percentage to "push it over the edge"
Why wont the steam do that -- or wouldnt it turn to steam @ 1,000 degree's F ? or would the temp to steam conversion ratio drop the pressure further, but doesnt steam expand and wouldnt that counteract that? or what? how? WHY?

MCS
02-11-2009, 03:40 PM
Wrong, there is an input of energy in the last experiment -- thats what created all the heat right?-- and when you go to answer the question tell me "why" --- Your allowed to quote some lame ass thermodynamic law of physics but it has to come with the thinking mans reason of where the experiment goes wrong - this is where field experience leaves book smart in the dust, this is where the breaking down of information takes place, Not in the quote "energy cannot be created or destroyed" -- all that does is teach you a concept.

Remember --- if the energy output is almost as great as the energy input to begin with -- then all were looking for is a few percentage to "push it over the edge"
Why wont the steam do that -- or wouldnt it turn to steam @ 1,000 degree's F ? or would the temp to steam conversion ratio drop the pressure further, but doesnt steam expand and wouldnt that counteract that? or what? how? WHY?

No, no.

You start with "cranking", that's input of energy.

But the water cools the compressed gas, the eventual formation of steam further costs energy. On down-stroke it will condense due to expansion, delivering the absorbed heat energy.

The water delivers no energy, it will only follow the temperature.
Water goes in, water comes out. No conversion. So the energy is only used for a state change, if at all.

So, all mechanical and thermal losses aside:

If you have invested 1000 watt in compressing the air, injecting water will cool the medium, whether it becomes steam or not, with an energy of 1000 watt, minus the quantum of energy, required to heat the water, minus the quantum of energy required to inject the water.

But I can understand where this all is going wrong.

Here in Europe we apply the law of thermodynamics with interchangable symbols. 1 Joule = 1 Watt-second. 1 Joule = 1 Newton-meter.

So without apples to oranges vice versa:

A fraction of temperature difference, a fraction of friction, you'll never get the equation at 100%, let alone over 100%, the last one is what you're looking after. In metric it can't be done, with conversions and lousy calculations it can be done on paper.

This must be the reason that America has as far as I can see the highest number of "optimistic" inventions. Hydrogen convertors, "Free Power" spark plugs and all kinds of inventions requiring to regularly drain the fuel tank of fuel, produced while driving with forementioned inventions.

But where is the succes? The breakthrough?

O yes, the inventors are murdered by the CIA and become heroes, taking their inventions with them to the grave.

Rustybolt
02-11-2009, 07:17 PM
This must be the reason that America has as far as I can see the highest number of "optimistic" inventions. Hydrogen convertors, "Free Power" spark plugs and all kinds of inventions requiring to regularly drain the fuel tank of fuel, produced while driving with forementioned inventions.

But where is the succes? The breakthrough?


Yep. Nuthin' but a bunch of technological rubes here. Heyuck! Don't know why you even bother really. Say. You don't mind if we borrow some of them fancy symbols, do ya? At least the nuclear collider in my back yard works.

Evan
02-11-2009, 08:19 PM
This is why I always jump into these discussions and state my statement --- Iv already have several motors built in my head years ago

Where did the energy to run them come from?

Hint: Don't say the magnets.

NickH
02-12-2009, 04:34 AM
Evan,
it's obvious.
The energy to run them is also in his head, get me a drill :D
Nick

NickH
02-12-2009, 04:44 AM
Am I alone in thinking that a "Mind Experiment" based on data known to be incorrect isn't worth anything at all?
You could solve all the world's problems in your head based on fabricated BS that won't work in the real world and still wake up in the sh*t, seems a bit pointless.
Now if you base your "Mind Experiments" on things that do work or might work then they might do you or someone else some good, starting from a basis of "We Know That Won't Work" seems to be a recipe for a result of "Ain't Gonna Happen"
Did I mention that I'm selling plans for an anti-gravity machine, $10 and (if you build it right) - guaranteed to work or your money back :D
Nick

A.K. Boomer
02-12-2009, 08:04 AM
This must be the reason that America has as far as I can see the highest number of "optimistic" inventions. Hydrogen convertors, "Free Power" spark plugs and all kinds of inventions requiring to regularly drain the fuel tank of fuel, produced while driving with forementioned inventions.


Yeah --- and things like space shuttles and stuff:rolleyes:



But where is the succes? The breakthrough?




Take a look around you -- it sure the hell aint got a "made in holland" sticker on it:p
Don't start bagging on my country due to a power mechanics 1 class that had some neat little mental experiments designed for 16 year old's. For the most part the teacher communicated well with us due to the fact of all of us making an effort on learning how to spell. Sorry it took so long to reply, it took me awhile to "decipher the code".

A.K. Boomer
02-12-2009, 09:05 AM
Am I alone in thinking that a "Mind Experiment" based on data known to be incorrect isn't worth anything at all?
k


Nick your missing out on the mechanical twist to it, I agree there isn't much merit in an "anti-gravity bucket" like I stated before.
And keep in mind -- this was a simple mind exercise with pencil and paper so there really wasnt any investment lost except the time it took the teacher to "real" some of the kids back into "orbit".

The reason I seen value in it at the time was it was fun to do and got kids excited -- we were kids - it was all new.

The reason I see teaching value in it now is it doesnt give a "by-pass key" to unlock - or "cheat" right at the source of power -- remember - the anti-gravity bucket could do that, but it falls short because it goes right to the power source, what fun in learning is that?
It was the value of having to design mechanisms between the power source and the drive unit - The shielding was a third player --- In many designs It far surpassed the complexity of a electric brushed motor as this just used an armature to distribute electrical current of the stator @ the correct timing against the fields, I might add - choosing something that cannot possibly work can allowed for totally clean slates - anotherwords - many of us kids had already taken allot of things apart by that age -- have kids design an electric motor and it might look just like the one in Dads drill -- maybe even have the word DE-WALT on it;)
Another point being is any exercise that throws in a different variable from the start will inevitably have to have different operating principles, and since this is a variable thats never seen, and if this is a mechanical device it can produce far different mechanical design results -- since this was a POWER MECHANICS class it was paramount that we had good understanding of linkages/eccentrics/cams/gears/pulleys and sprockets/hydraulics/pneumatics and on and on, and just about every one of these things and more were used in the class units design --- the Main design flaw (the one you guys are fixated on) was of course overlooked -- but all the mechanical guts had to not only work - they were judged by the teacher whether or not they were practical and efficient in power transfer -- there was no grade given on this couple day project -- but Mr Dedischew went over everybodys example in front of the class and explained why or why not it would mechanically function --- I will always think he was a great teacher not just for the 5% of the time doing stuff like this - he made the real world stuff just as fun too.

One day we came into class and there was a big circle on the floor -- he had us all move our desks into the circle and our entire class studied one of the large steam ship engines -- half way through he then stated that the circle was to the inch as big as the piston top of the engine we were studying, We all took a look around at each other:eek: thats good stuff when your a kid.

The sign of a good teacher is of course one that can teach
the sign of a great teacher is one that can both teach and inspire...

aboard_epsilon
02-12-2009, 09:05 AM
if i was trying to solve this problem ..

I would not do it, by the way of rotating stuff ..or piston engines ..
I would try and build a linear magnet motor ...if it "works" with that ...only then move on to the more complex stuff.

all the best.markj

A.K. Boomer
02-12-2009, 09:17 AM
Aboard -- GT2rides motor really is a linear engine in the way he's trying to function the "magnetic drive unit" He's just converting the reciprocating motion into rotary -- its damn handy to have a little rotary package for driving power transmission units and such;)

Evan
02-12-2009, 09:36 AM
It is possible to build a linear permanent magnet accelerator. You need spherical magnets set up like this:

http://metalshopborealis.ca/pics5/magnetaccel.jpg

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lin_accel.pdf

To summarize the explanation given in the link it works because of energy stored in the magnetic fields when the magnets are placed. The configuration takes advantage of an "island of stability" created by the arrangement that keeps the magnets, just barely, in a meta stable higher energy grouping. The energy still comes from outside the system. When the system is perturbed by allowing the initial magnet to impact the first pair it destroys the stability of the system and the external energy stored in the fields is released progressively until the last magnet shoots off the ruler. Because the magnets are highly elastic they transmit most of the kinetic energy of motion to the next pair in the series with the result that the last magnet accumulates most of the released energy and is therefore accelerated.

A.K. Boomer
02-12-2009, 10:46 AM
Evan that reminds me of the kinetic impact balls on string deals that everybody and their brother had on their desk 30 years ago, It could also be used in your example with inert balls (on a string) inbetween and then the end ball could repeat the process in the other direction if it had enough mustard left in it --- It was neat enough to watch the standard units but these would be even more interesting with the "herky jerky" acceleration patterns, The entire process would have to be progressively lightening fast. (only of course in the one direction like in the example given) I never really thought about it but what a great way to perfectly align poles is make the magnets spherical and let them do it themselves.


A quick re-look -- I dont think those are spherical magnets -- I think the blocks are magnets and the spheres are regular ball bearings -- this makes more sense to me in how the devise is supposed to operate - Yes?

Evan
02-12-2009, 11:21 AM
You may be right. It can be made to work either way though. The force of the magnets is almost but not quite balanced. Keep in mind that when a magnetic material is in a magnetic field it is also a magnet since it is conducting and concentrating the lines of force. That's why you can pick up a string of objects with a magnet.

lazlo
02-12-2009, 12:58 PM
A quick re-look -- I dont think those are spherical magnets -- I think the blocks are magnets and the spheres are regular ball bearings -- this makes more sense to me in how the devise is supposed to operate - Yes?

That's right -- I built one of these with my 5 year-old about a year ago: you use square magnets with ball bearings, and the magnetic acceleration at each "stage" is transferred by inertia to the next ball bearing:

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss.html

http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss_rifle/small_materials.jpg

This was a kid's project that I think started on the Science Toys web page a couple of years back, was Slash Dot'ed, and spread like wildfire.

At one point, someone asked if you put the ball bearings and magnets on a circular track, would it be a perpetual motion machine :D


Why a circular track will not be a perpetual motion device

I have been getting a lot of mail asking what would happen if we made the track circular. Would we get free energy? Would the balls keep accelerating forever?

I have been tempted to reply with the famous quote: "There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who understand the second law of thermodynamics, and those who don't".

However, I am not the kind of person to leave an inquiring mind unsatisfied, and it is more productive (and kind) to explain in a little more depth what is going on.

Suppose you made a circular track, and put two balls after each magnet. When the last ball is released, it encounters a magnet that has two balls at the ground state. There is no energy to be had from this magnet. The ball just bounces back.

Now suppose you had placed three balls after each magnet. When the last ball is released, it hits a ball that is 5/8ths inch from the magnet. It has not gained much momentum, because most of the momentum gained is in the last half inch as the magnet pulls much stronger on things that are closer. But the ball has enough energy from previous accelerations to release the next ball. However, that ball has less energy than the ball that caused it to release. It may have enough energy to release another ball or two, but each ball that is released has less energy than before, and eventually the chain stops.

You can show by inductive logic that no matter how many balls you stack in front of each magnet, eventually the system stops.

To estimate the losses due to heating the balls as they compress when hit, consider a plastic tube standing upright on a table. Place one steel ball at the bottom of the tube. Now drop another ball into the tube, so it hits the ball at the bottom, and bounces back up.

Now measure how high the ball bounced. If it bounces halfway back up, the losses are 50%. Perform the experiment for yourself with the balls from the Gauss Rifle. How high does your ball bounce? Send me mail with your results.

MCS
02-12-2009, 03:02 PM
It's not that difficult (and made in Holland, by M.C.Escher)


http://kunstencultuur.pbwiki.com/f/EscherMauritsCornelis_Waterval.jpg