Free Energy - No Fuel Magnetic Motor

[Zeuzzz]

Haven't seen this one discussed. It was on sky news, so it had to be true. Anyone know who this guy is?

Once kickstarted from a battery John and his partner Lui say that his prototype will run for years without stopping. Generating 20Kw of power a day [...] its revolutionary, thats the only way to describe the technology. Its not bending physics, its just using principles that are comonly used in power generation today in a different way, these guys have though outside of the sqaure. Basically, its magnetic attraction that provide the movement or the moment of the motor [...]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU

Has he released the patents? I somehow doubt it. Anyone know the details?

[IMST]

Without watching the video (no YT allowed @ work) two comments:
1. magnets take energy to create.
2. magnets wear out.

[JJM]

I have just one word to say about this:

The second law of thermodynamics forbids it.

[Zeuzzz]

2. magnets wear out.


Not that I agree with their claims, but this is really negligable. I've had an N50 magnet for four years that I tested could hold up 121 Kg when I got it, and today it can still hold up ~120 kg. So i dont think its a noticeable depreciation in the sheme of things. A motor that runs down at that slow speed would be fine by my standards.

[JJM]

{snip} I've had an N50 magnet for four years that I tested could hold up 121 Kg when I got it, and today it can still hold up ~120 kg. So i dont think its a noticeable depreciation in the sheme of things. A motor that runs down at that slow speed would be fine by my standards.You are not claiming your magnet is producing power; anyway, I hope not.

[blutoski]

Haven't seen this one discussed. It was on sky news, so it had to be true. Anyone know who this guy is?

Once kickstarted from a battery John and his partner Lui say that his prototype will run for years without stopping. Generating 20Kw of power a day [...] its revolutionary, thats the only way to describe the technology. Its not bending physics, its just using principles that are comonly used in power generation today in a different way, these guys have though outside of the sqaure. Basically, its magnetic attraction that provide the movement or the moment of the motor [...]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU

Has he released the patents? I somehow doubt it. Anyone know the details?

Building these is a cottage industry. I'm aware of hundreds in Canada, and there are probably tens of thousands in the US. This family of dynamo designs goes back at least 50 years.

I'm sure most are sincere, but deluded. Others are intentionally fraudulent for financial gain. There's a third category that I believe are frauds, but simply starved for attention. See the "related videos" and you could watch footage of these demonstrations all day.

The videos are usually not a good representation of what's really happening. Typically, the dynamo just runs down after awhile unless there's a battery attached (the excuse: "Oh, yeah, that's just to kickstart it... yet we can't remove it or it will stop... hmm... nah.")

It's really hard to arrange for a live demonstration.

Notice that there are terrible useage of technical terms. They use expressions like:

"produces more power than it consumes." - this is nothing new. The question is: can it generate more energy than it consumes? Power is energy per second. You can move energy around as slowly or quickly as you want. But you can't create it from nowhere.
"generating 20kW of power a day" - watts are like speed. this is like saying "I travelled six miles per hour yesterday" - Watts is not a measure of how much energy it produces, merely how fast it spits it out.


As a consequence of the dialogue in the video, I have no idea what they say the machine does.

Here is The Australian Skeptics challenge with this machine: [link (http://www.phact.org/e/z/lutec.pdf)] This particular project has been "in development" for about ten years, and appears to still be in prototype. Best conclusion for this case: intentional business fraud.

[shadron]

Without watching the video (no YT allowed @ work) two comments:
1. magnets take energy to create.
2. magnets wear out.\

Uhhh, You'll have to prove point 2 there. Once you magnetize a bar, it will stay magnetized, AFAIK, until you apply a field to demagnetize it or change its field. As long as you don't smash it with a hammer or dissolve it with acid, it's holds a constant field effectively forever.

However, it can't transmit power. It can provide a force, attractive or repulsive, but it is a one-time thing; without energy input it cannot cycle the force.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not that I agree with their claims, but this is really negligable. I've had an N50 magnet for four years that I tested could hold up 121 Kg when I got it, and today it can still hold up ~120 kg. So i dont think its a noticeable depreciation in the sheme of things. A motor that runs down at that slow speed would be fine by my standards.

So you could conclude that gravity is strengthening and that at this rate we'll all be squashed flat in another 100 years? :scared:

[rjh01]

Haven't seen this one discussed. It was on sky news, so it had to be true. Anyone know who this guy is?

Once kickstarted from a battery John and his partner Lui say that his prototype will run for years without stopping. Generating 20Kw of power a day [...] its revolutionary, thats the only way to describe the technology. Its not bending physics, its just using principles that are comonly used in power generation today in a different way, these guys have though outside of the sqaure. Basically, its magnetic attraction that provide the movement or the moment of the motor [...]

SvB3PiPBozU

Has he released the patents? I somehow doubt it. Anyone know the details?

Your link did not work. I have fixed it.

Also Kilowatts is a power rating. It is not valid to say Generating 20Kw of power a day. It is valid to say Generating 20Kw continuously. Or say Generating 20KJ per day (this is not much).

The error is in the youtube video.

Edit. blutoski made the same point about power as I did. Read it after I made my post.

Edit2. The inventor claims... What did they not verify this information themselves?

[arthwollipot]

Another free energy claim?

[DC]

The Video isnt working for me.
But it sounds like the Perendev Magnet motor.

i contacted Perendev because i wanted to know more about it and asked for a presentation.
they send me a 30 page contract that i may not talk about it to others etc.

I decided to not sign it, i think its a scamm.

[Thabiguy]

Haven't seen this one discussed. It was on sky news, so it had to be true. Anyone know who this guy is?

Sure: John Christie and Ludwig Brits. This fraud is rather old. Here's (http://www.lutec.com.au/index.htm) their webpage, blutoski provided another useful link. You can find out much more using Google with the keyword "Lutec".

ETA:
Anyone know the details?

You can read their webpage and Google search results for as much painful stupidity as you can handle.

Like this, for example:

So where does the extra electrical energy come from? It's not EXTRA energy, it is actually newly produced! And it comes from the interaction between the MAGNET'S natural magnetic attraction and natural magnetic repulsion causing the MOTION and the MAGNETISM in the coils then producing the new ELECTRICAL energy, just as Mr Faraday said it would.

[rjh01]

The telephone number in the link above is a mobile number. Why would a business give only a mobile number and an e-mail address? Maybe it is only a one man band.

Patents are over 9 years old. If it worked we would all have one by now.

[MRC_Hans]

Without watching the video (no YT allowed @ work) two comments:
1. magnets take energy to create.
2. magnets wear out.Mmm, no. That's not it. If you have permanent magnets in a generator, the energy cost of producing them, and the loss of magnetism you may experience (VERY low for modern magnets) has no connection with the energy generated.

Hans

[force_redo]

Uhhh, You'll have to prove point 2 there. Once you magnetize a bar, it will stay magnetized, AFAIK, until you apply a field to demagnetize it or change its field.
Which is - as I understand it - exactly what happens inside this geneerator. By making use of its magnetic attraction you're de-magnetizing its magnets.
I came up with one of those designs in school (I thought of a oscillating slide sort of thing) and my physics teacher explained to me why it wouldn't work (or only for a certain time until your magnets "wear out")

FR

[MRC_Hans]

We have had people here on the board touting ideas like this. The problem is (.. or ONE problem is), if you try to analyze the function of a generator with permanent magnets, or a permanent magnet motor (they are really the same) in a series of static stages, then you may well get the impression that it is possible to produce free energy.

The problem is that such a device cannot be viewed as a series of static stages, because then you can loose the influence of induction.

But there is a very easy way to validate claims of free energy devices:

If the inventor asks for money, it is a fraud.

You see, if it really worked, you would not be able to get close to him for people begging to pay him.

Hans

[INRM]

Free energy is physically impossible.

In fact the guy who wrote the article even said so. He said it needed to be kickstarted from a battery and would run a few months before slowing to a halt.

It needed energy to be started, and it ultimately ran out meaning even if the figures were accurate more energy was required to spin up the motor than any supposed energy obtained out of it. If the energy allegedly obtained equalled the amount to start it up it would just keep spinning forever, if it exceeded it would continue to accelerate until an outside force (air resistance, the speed of light, etc) slowed it down.

[Kuko 4000]

...these guys have though outside of the sqaure.


I love it already!

[bruto]

Not that I agree with their claims, but this is really negligable. I've had an N50 magnet for four years that I tested could hold up 121 Kg when I got it, and today it can still hold up ~120 kg. So i dont think its a noticeable depreciation in the sheme of things. A motor that runs down at that slow speed would be fine by my standards.But your magnet has not been in constant use producing "20 kilowatts of power a day" either.

[Thabiguy]

Free energy is physically impossible.

In fact the guy who wrote the article even said so.

Oh, they all say that. "It's not a perpetual motion machine, it does not break the laws of thermodynamics... it just outputs more energy than it consumes."

They also prefer to call it "overunity" instead of "perpetual motion", because the latter has already gained so much bad reputation, and will even argue with you that these two labels of the same concept actually denote something different.

It's an effective strategy in the fraud business. Just change your brand name and carry on. Ask creationists - I mean, intelligent design proponents.

[CNY_Dave]

Free energy is physically impossible.

In fact the guy who wrote the article even said so. He said it needed to be kickstarted from a battery and would run a few months before slowing to a halt.

(snip)



I think if it just did *that* (ran on its own for a considerable period of time) it would be profitable as a curiosity item.


Dave

[INRM]

Thabiguy,

You just contradicted yourself. If the device produced more energy than it consumed to keep running it the device would keep on accelerating until equilibrium, or at least maintain the same speed with the excess energy siphoned off; it would not slow down.


INRM

[Thabiguy]

INRM,

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your remark. In my post, I have mostly talked about things that perpetual motion machine proponents say. Could it be that you misunderstood some of that and assumed that it was something that I was saying?

[bruto]

INRM,

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your remark. In my post, I have mostly talked about things that perpetual motion machine proponents say. Could it be that you misunderstood some of that and assumed that it was something that I was saying?I would have thought that the reference to "the fraud business" might have counted as a hint, but these are strange times, and it seems that open fraud is the new honesty.

[spacediver]

However, it can't transmit power. It can provide a force, attractive or repulsive, but it is a one-time thing; without energy input it cannot cycle the force.

What would happen if you had a magnet suspended at a height above ground, and you kept sliding small metal objects underneath it. After each object gets pulled up towards the magnet, you store it at a location at the same height of the magnet, and repeat the process.

If this is feasible, then aren't you using an indefinite amount of energy?

What's wrong with this thought experiment? Does the magnet demagnetize if it is used to pull up an object?

[Thabiguy]

What would happen if you had a magnet suspended at a height above ground, and you kept sliding small metal objects underneath it. After each object gets pulled up towards the magnet, you store it at a location at the same height of the magnet, and repeat the process.

Storing objects "at a location at the same height of the magnet" offers no advantage. When a metal object moves towards a magnet, energy is liberated. In order to pull it away, energy must be spent.

If you let metal objects get pulled towards a magnet, then they will just pile up around it and after a while you will have nowhere to let further metal objects get pulled to. And to pull the objects away from the magnet to make space for more, you need to spend as much energy as the objects liberated.

Specifically, if you slide a metal object under a magnet, let it get pulled up, then pull it away from the magnet "at the same height as the magnet", then you will have to spend as much energy pulling it away as the object liberated by getting pulled towards the magnet. But the energy that the object liberated was more than enough to lift the object up to your magnet's height. This means that the whole action will cost you at least as much energy as (and practically more than) simply lifting the object up without ever approaching the magnet.

If this is feasible, then aren't you using an indefinite amount of energy?

As explained above, what you described is just an inefficient way of lifting metal objects. You can certainly spend an indefinite amount of energy lifting metal objects or doing any other pointless task.

What's wrong with this thought experiment?

Explained above.

Does the magnet demagnetize if it is used to pull up an object?

Not significantly.

[spacediver]

thanks for the reply. So it seems that the magnet can only do so much work without expending extra energy.

What about this scenario:

Let's make the magnet a cube for simplicity.

Suppose you encase the suspended magnet in a thin cubical frame that has hollowed sides. Let's make this frame a material which does not interfere greatly with the magnetic field.

So far, so good - a metal object sliding towards the magnet's influence will be picked up and attach itself to the frame.

Now suppose we have a hosepipe running into the hollow portion of the frame, and we run a liquid through this hose so that it fills the frame's hollow interior. Importantly, this liquid happens to be a very effective shield against magnetic fields.

At this point, since the shield is placed between the object and the magnet, it should require much less energy to slide the attached object away from the magnet (ideally, we'd spin the magnet 180 degrees so that the object is now on top, so that when we fill the frame with the liquid, the object doesn't just fall back down).

Once the object is far away, we expel the liquid from the hollow frame, and repeat the process.

What's wrong with this experiment?

My first guess would be that you'd need to expend energy removing the liquid shield away from the magnet, but that's only assuming the liquid itself interacts with the field.

[Thabiguy]

My first guess would be that you'd need to expend energy removing the liquid shield away from the magnet, but that's only assuming the liquid itself interacts with the field.

You already assume that the liquid interacts with the field - specifically, that it deflects it from the metal object.

The setup you suggested just trades the potential energy of the metal object for the potential energy of the shield. After inserting the liquid, pulling away the magnet, and removing the liquid again, you'll find that the process of insertion/removal of the liquid consumed energy - as much as you saved on pulling the magnet away.

[spacediver]

You already assume that the liquid interacts with the field - specifically, that it deflects it from the metal object.


I see. And I suppose that a corollary to this is that a shield must necessarily experience an attractive force due to the magnet?

If so, then I see how the setup described fails.

[Thabiguy]

I see. And I suppose that a corollary to this is that a shield must necessarily experience an attractive force due to the magnet?

Actually, it's not necessary. Some are attracted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu-metal), some are repelled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect). But the end effect is the same: if the shield is attracted, it will be attracted less when inserted between a magnet and a metal object, and if it is repelled, it will be repelled more. Both result in net energy spending over inserting shield/removing metal object/removing shield.

[Dave Rogers]

I see. And I suppose that a corollary to this is that a shield must necessarily experience an attractive force due to the magnet?

Repulsive force, actually. If the liquid is impervious to magnetic field, it's perfectly diamagnetic, meaning that in effect it reacts to the magnetic field by generating an equal but opposite internal field, by a process known as the Meissner effect. This causes it to be repelled by the magnet. In order to put the diamagnetic shield in place, there is therefore work that needs to be done on the shield to bring it into position around the magnet.

However, it's rather more complex than that, because when we want to remove the shield, we can use that repulsive force to do useful work, thus regaining the energy needed to put the shield in place. Since we can recover the energy needed to place the shield, there's no net energy loss from putting the shield in place then removing it. At this stage it looks like your over-unity device will work. How, then, does it actually fail?

The answer is that the magnetic field the shielding liquid sees when it's put in place is different to the field it sees when it's removed. This is because the presence of the metal object distorts the field, which in turn happens because, to be attracted to the magnet, the metal object must generate its own internal field, in this case in the same direction as the external magnetic field. As a result, the energy recovered by removing the shield, at which point the metal object has fallen away, is less than the energy needed to insert the shield between the metal object and the magnet. Which is basically what Thabiguy said, but using more words.

To prove all this you'd need to do some very complicated field analysis, and I haven't even tried to do anything of the sort for at least a quarter-century so I'm not going to try now. Suffice it to say that, if conservation of energy could be violated this way, someone in the superconductors field would have won a Nobel Prize for it long ago, as the main component of the device - a perfectly diamagnetic substance - is well known and easily produced provided you can work at liquid helium temperatures.

Dave

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Once the object is far away, we expel the liquid from the hollow frame, and repeat the process.

What's wrong with this experiment?

My first guess would be that you'd need to expend energy removing the liquid shield away from the magnet, but that's only assuming the liquid itself interacts with the field.

I think the main problem with the experiment is that such a liquid does not exist. You cannot shield a magnetic field. You can deflect it, but you cannot just cut it off.

If you introduce a shield between a magnet and a piece of iron, the shield needs to deflect the magnet field, and the force required to do this will equal the attractive force.

Hans

[Zeuzzz]

If an admin sees this, fixing the youtube link in the OP would be appreciated: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU

[Dave Rogers]

I think the main problem with the experiment is that such a liquid does not exist. You cannot shield a magnetic field. You can deflect it, but you cannot just cut it off.

A superconductor does the job well enough, for sufficiently low values of magnetic field, provided it's thick enough. Niobium-titanium alloy at 4K is a good candidate.

Dave

[spacediver]

Dave, thanks for your excellent response.

It always pleases me to see how the structure of the universe maintains consistency despite all these convoluted configurations.

It really brings home the idea that the laws are axiomatic, precluding the possibility of exploiting a loophole.

That said, it's fascinating to see how interdependent everything is by attempting to create loopholes and observing how the math works out to prevent them. You really get to see deep structure then.

[INRM]

Spacediver,

That said, it's fascinating to see how interdependent everything is by attempting to create loopholes and observing how the math works out to prevent them. You really get to see deep structure then.

Can you explain that. The loophole part and math working to prevent them?

Also what do you mean by deep-structure?


INRM

[Thabiguy]

It really brings home the idea that the laws are axiomatic, precluding the possibility of exploiting a loophole.

In physics, the laws are axiomatic. While nobody can prove that PMM is impossible in the real world, it can be mathematically proven that it is impossible to find a loophole in the physical models. The mathematics of the models guarantee that energy will always be conserved.

This is what PMM builders often overlook. No thought experiment using known physics can ever violate the law of conservation, because known physics was designed to always uphold it. The only chance would be to find a natural phenomenon which doesn't act according to known physics - but this could never be accomplished using only thought experimentation.

In other words, perpetual motion cannot be invented. It could only be discovered.

[Zeuzzz]

A superconductor does the job well enough, for sufficiently low values of magnetic field, provided it's thick enough. Niobium-titanium alloy at 4K is a good candidate.


Indeed. But keeping it at that temparature would be where the energy is lost. Its very hard to maintain that temparature without using a lot of energy, I believe.

[Thabiguy]

Indeed. But keeping it at that temparature would be where the energy is lost. Its very hard to maintain that temparature without using a lot of energy, I believe.

Practically yes, but theoretically no. Theoretically it takes no energy to maintain a temperature. The fundamental loss of energy occurs when inserting and removing the shield; any losses from maintaining the temperature would just be extra losses.

Besides, low temperature is not a requirement for magnetic shielding. There are materials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu-metal) that shield at room temperature.

[SdogV]

Two years ago the Irish ran an ad in the Economics journal claiming an "over unity" device and asked for scientists to come there and evaluiate it. I applied, but they declined my application probably because I stressed my background in Thermodynamics of Steady States, (my. M.S. thesis in Chemistry).. No word since, he he.

[spacediver]

Spacediver,



Can you explain that. The loophole part and math working to prevent them?

Also what do you mean by deep-structure?


INRM


well you could think of all the tricks in my thought experiment as attempts at creating loopholes. But each loophole attempt is met with an accounting that nullifies it immediately. A mathematical analysis of this accounting is what I meant by the math.

By deep structure I was alluding to the way in which the consistency of these laws hold up over multiple configurations of physical reality. A similar notion is seen when you explore multiple proofs for a theorem - it's fascinating, for example, to see some of the really cool geometric proofs for theorems, or multiple symbolic proofs for a theorem.

Each of these proofs may seem independent, but on some level they must all be interdependent since they point towards the same truths.

[MRC_Hans]

A superconductor does the job well enough, for sufficiently low values of magnetic field, provided it's thick enough. Niobium-titanium alloy at 4K is a good candidate.

DaveAhh, no. What the super conductor does is this:

As it it moved into the magnet field, a current is inducted into it. As there is no resistive loss, this current just keeps circulating inside the superconductor, and it creates a magnet field that is exactly equal to and opposite the field that caused it. Thus, you now have two fields cancelling out each other.

The energy invested in this comes from the resistance against moving the superconductor into the magnet field (as in the stunt where a superconducting pellet floats over a magnet). That energy gets returned when you move the superconductor away (as the induced current opposes the stored current and cancels it out).

Hans

[Dave Rogers]

Ahh, no. What the super conductor does is this:

As it it moved into the magnet field, a current is inducted into it. As there is no resistive loss, this current just keeps circulating inside the superconductor, and it creates a magnet field that is exactly equal to and opposite the field that caused it. Thus, you now have two fields cancelling out each other.

True, but the effect of this is indistinguishable from that of placing a material impervious to magnetic fields in the location of the superconductor. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that there's anything other than a trivial linguistic difference between a hypothetical material that allows no magnetic field to exist within its surface, and a material that creates a magnetic field exactly equal to and opposite the field applied to it, thus allowing no magnetic field to exist within its surface. Distortion of the magnetic field outside the surface of the material follows from the requirement to establish a boundary condition of zero field at the surface in one case, and the extended induced field in the latter; I suspect these, too, will be identical.

I agree entirely, of course, with your comments on the energy stored in, and released from, the opposing field.

Dave

[Horatius]

The telephone number in the link above is a mobile number. Why would a business give only a mobile number and an e-mail address? Maybe it is only a one man band.

Patents are over 9 years old. If it worked we would all have one by now.



I took a look at their Canadian Patent Application, which is still pending. Note, they call it " A SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING A ROTARY DEVICE", with only vague mentions of producing any sort of energy - and they completely avoid mentioning any of this "Run your house forever" business. Most of the description is just the details of how the apparatus is put together.

For those who remember my talk from TAM 5, this application wold be a good example of how to scam the patent office by obscuring the intent of your application.

[Dave Rogers]

For those who remember my talk from TAM 5, this application would be a good example of how to scam the patent office by obscuring the intent of your application.

To be fair, it's not necessarily the patent office that's the target. Patent titles are commonly drafted to be uninformative because inventors don't want competitors to find them on searches, second-guess what they're doing before a product is released, then find a way to circumvent the patent. It's harder to scam the patent office because they scrutinise every patent, but keyword searches are more easily evaded by keeping the wording of the title as general as possible.

Dave

[Horatius]

To be fair, it's not necessarily the patent office that's the target. Patent titles are commonly drafted to be uninformative because inventors don't want competitors to find them on searches, second-guess what they're doing before a product is released, then find a way to circumvent the patent. It's harder to scam the patent office because they scrutinise every patent, but keyword searches are more easily evaded by keeping the wording of the title as general as possible.

Dave



It's not just the title that written to obscure the true intent. You can see the whole application here:

http://patents.ic.gc.ca/cipo/cpd/en/patent/2349862/summary.html

Can you point to anything in the description that unambiguously discusses any sort of "free energy" device? There are some vague allusions to "generating torque" or "electricity", but nothing really obvious. I'd bet good money that most people reading it cold wouldn't guess that it was supposed to be a "free energy" device.

I mentioned my talk at TAM 5. The point of it was to show how certain applicants exploit weaknesses in the patent system to essentially force the Patent Office to issue crappy patents. On a brief examination, I'm of the opinion that this one would be a good example of such an application.

While it's true that "It's harder to scam the patent office because they scrutinise every patent", it's also true that the examiner is quite heavily constrained by the jurisprudence as to what he can do to get rid of a bad application. If the applicant knows how to write their application the correct way, and knows how to respond to the Examiner's arguments, it can be very difficult to find a legally supportable reason to reject the application.

[Aepervius]

\

Uhhh, You'll have to prove point 2 there. Once you magnetize a bar, it will stay magnetized, AFAIK, until you apply a field to demagnetize it or change its field. As long as you don't smash it with a hammer or dissolve it with acid, it's holds a constant field effectively forever.

However, it can't transmit power. It can provide a force, attractive or repulsive, but it is a one-time thing; without energy input it cannot cycle the force.

You forgot one way of demagnetizing : temperature. If you reach a certain temp (curie temp ? Can#t remember the exact term) fields will weaken and disappear since every individual atom spin will cease to be aligned. And as far as I remember, even at 290K, the kinetic energy population curve is wide enough that some of those atom might be populated and spontaneously reverse. And so with age magnets will get weaker.

[MRC_Hans]

True, but the effect of this is indistinguishable from that of placing a material impervious to magnetic fields in the location of the superconductor. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that there's anything other than a trivial linguistic difference between a hypothetical material that allows no magnetic field to exist within its surface, and a material that creates a magnetic field exactly equal to and opposite the field applied to it, thus allowing no magnetic field to exist within its surface. *snip*.

Dave

Well, I beg to differ. There is to my knowledge no substance that can act like it created an opposite field, without actually doing so. Therfore it is not a liguistic difference, but an actual one. When we know the actual mechanism, we should adapt our description of it to reflect its actual mode of operation.

HAns

[INRM]

well you could think of all the tricks in my thought experiment as attempts at creating loopholes. But each loophole attempt is met with an accounting that nullifies it immediately. A mathematical analysis of this accounting is what I meant by the math.

Okay, I follow

By deep structure I was alluding to the way in which the consistency of these laws hold up over multiple configurations of physical reality.

What do you mean multiple configurations of reality?

A similar notion is seen when you explore multiple proofs for a theorem - it's fascinating, for example, to see some of the really cool geometric proofs for theorems, or multiple symbolic proofs for a theorem.

Do you mean multiple proofs for the same theorem or multiple proofs for multiple theorems?

Each of these proofs may seem independent, but on some level they must all be interdependent since they point towards the same truths.

As I said, do you mean all these proofs for the same theorem, or multiple proofs all pointing towards one unified theory?


INRM

[gdnp]

I think if it just did *that* (ran on its own for a considerable period of time) it would be profitable as a curiosity item.


Dave

It's been done.

My daughter has a little toy with a dolphin on it, mounted on a ring suspended on pivots on an axle. On the opposite side of the ring is a permanent magnet, with the base containing a second permanent magnet so that the two magnets repel each other. The base also contains a single AA battery that I presume produces a magnetic field.

Once you start the thing going it will run for about 6 months before the battery wears out. Amazingly efficient, but not perpetual motion.

ETA: if you set it swinging without the battery, it runs down in a few minutes.

[spacediver]

What do you mean multiple configurations of reality?

as in, the many configurations of the set up - like the magnet being encased in a hollowed frame being one possible configuration.


Do you mean multiple proofs for the same theorem or multiple proofs for multiple theorems?

multiple proofs for the same theorem - like the many proofs of the pythagorean theorem.



As I said, do you mean all these proofs for the same theorem, or multiple proofs all pointing towards one unified theory?


see above.

[Dave Rogers]

Well, I beg to differ. There is to my knowledge no substance that can act like it created an opposite field, without actually doing so. Therfore it is not a liguistic difference, but an actual one. When we know the actual mechanism, we should adapt our description of it to reflect its actual mode of operation.

Ack, senior moment. Sorry, Hans, but your description of the Meissner effect in post #42 was completely wrong, and I shouldn't have said otherwise. I'll just say in my devence that it's nearly twnety years since I did any serious work with superconductors, so it took a while to remember the basics. The perfect diamagnetism of a superconductor is not caused by eddy currents induced by moving it into the field. If you take a piece of superconducting material above its critical temperature, place it in a magnetic field, allow any eddy currents to subside, and then cool it below its critical temperature, the magnetic flux will be expelled. This cannot be explained by eddy currents, because there's nothing to cause them. The prefect diamagnetism of superconductors is a distinct and different property than the result of infinite conductivity.

As for the two descriptions of diamagnetism, they are mathematically equivalent, and so the difference between them is no more than linguistic. Your point about the correct use of language is, I suppose, a valid one, but in this context not terribly important.

Dave

[Ziggurat]

The perfect diamagnetism of a superconductor is not caused by eddy currents induced by moving it into the field. If you take a piece of superconducting material above its critical temperature, place it in a magnetic field, allow any eddy currents to subside, and then cool it below its critical temperature, the magnetic flux will be expelled. This cannot be explained by eddy currents, because there's nothing to cause them.

This depends on what you mean by "eddy currents". Shielding of the magnetic field in a superconductor is indeed due to electron currents in the material. It is true that these currents don't behave as a simple ideal conductor would (ie, the Meisner effect you mention), but the magnetic shielding very much is due to macroscopic currents.

As for the two descriptions of diamagnetism, they are mathematically equivalent

Actually, the fact that the field is cancelled by a current (and not some abstract magnetic polarization) is rather important to superconductors. Without including that, you can't get an accurate description of things like London penetration and vortices, or the relationship between critical fields and critical current densities.

[Dave Rogers]

This depends on what you mean by "eddy currents". Shielding of the magnetic field in a superconductor is indeed due to electron currents in the material. It is true that these currents don't behave as a simple ideal conductor would (ie, the Meisner effect you mention), but the magnetic shielding very much is due to macroscopic currents.

That's true. The point is that those macroscopic currents are not created by movement of the superconductor in a magnetic field, because they can be created without movement. Therefore, it actually depends on what I mean by "eddy currents induced by moving it into the field", which is a far more qualified description.

My reply to Hans, though, is that exclusion of flux from a material can always be expressed mathematically in terms of an equal and opposite internal field, so there's no more than a linguistic distinction between the two descriptions. It's no less valid to describe the Meissner effect as flux exclusion (as, in fact, it is commonly described) than as the creation of an internal, opposite field. One is the effect; the other is the mechanism by which the effect arises.

Dave

[Ziggurat]

That's true. The point is that those macroscopic currents are not created by movement of the superconductor in a magnetic field, because they can be created without movement.

That doesn't quite follow. That they can be created without movement in a field doesn't mean movement in a field isn't the cause when such movement occurs. In fact, per your own point about descriptions which provide equivalent results being themselves equivalent, it certainly works to say that movements in a field (or more generically, changes in applied field) induce eddy currents in a superconductor. Doesn't cover all cases (Meisner effect), but there's no reason it needs to.

[Zeuzzz]

Doesn't cover all cases (Meisner effect), but there's no reason it needs to.


Why not?

And if any admins are reading this, it would be greatly appreciated if you could fix the youtube link in the OP to this one: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M

Thanks :)

[Ziggurat]

Why not?

There needs to be a cause for why two phenomena must have the same mechanism. Without such a cause, then there's no reason for why they need to share a mechanism. Simple logic.

Now, on some level, what's going on in the two cases IS actually the same: the zero resistance state can only exist in the absence of a magnetic field, so whether you're expelling an existing field or preventing the entrance of a new field, it's two sides of the same coin. The traditional induced EMF description is inadequate to describe the former case, but that doesn't mean we still can't (or shouldn't) use it for the latter, with the understanding that it's not the full story. But not being the full story doesn't mean it's wrong.

[pipelineaudio]

OK I got a relative who is seriously looking into what this guy is selling

As usual with the CT's there are claims that the australian government is keeping the product from being built. We're looking into many forms of conventional power for living off the grid as much as possible and I really need some good quick quips to keep my relatives from looking into this guys products which to me seem like a dead end on woo avenue

Can you guys help me out?

[pipelineaudio]

Come on guys I need you on this one

[rjh01]

I suggest you start a new thread.

If they are prepared to take free energy seriously then they would be easy for you to exploit them yourself.

[brantc]

You people are going about this in the wrong fashion. Instead of thinking about what it would take to make it work you think about the reason why it would not work(negative).

What would it take to make a "free energy" magnet motor?

The problem with magnets is that the poles are symmetrical in strength.

So to make something that worked, you would have to have the pole be asymmetrical dynamically, or what happens in an electric motor.

And in every free energy magnet system thats what they try to do with various arrangements of magnets.

Magnetic are not dynamic by themselves but if you have a magnetic flux in a core then you can conceivably change that flux with another magnet.

Does it work. I have no idea.


Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic Systems.
This document provides an overview of tests conducted on asymmetric permanent magnetic arrangements in closed loop trajectories.
An asymmetric permanent magnetic arrangement is defined as one in which the relative motion of the magnets is asymmetric with respect to each other’s direction of magnetization as demonstrated in the two Figures below.
http://www.steorn.com/images/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems.pdf

[dudalb]

God, I am reminded of John Galt's motor in Atlas Shrugged.
It's a indication of how shallows Ayn Rand's dedication to "logic and reason" was that she had her "ideal hero" basically invent a scam,impossible, "free energy" motor.

[bruto]

You people are going about this in the wrong fashion. Instead of thinking about what it would take to make it work you think about the reason why it would not work(negative).

What would it take to make a "free energy" magnet motor?

The problem with magnets is that the poles are symmetrical in strength.

So to make something that worked, you would have to have the pole be asymmetrical dynamically, or what happens in an electric motor.

And in every free energy magnet system thats what they try to do with various arrangements of magnets.

Magnetic are not dynamic by themselves but if you have a magnetic flux in a core then you can conceivably change that flux with another magnet.

Does it work. I have no idea.


Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic Systems.
This document provides an overview of tests conducted on asymmetric permanent magnetic arrangements in closed loop trajectories.
An asymmetric permanent magnetic arrangement is defined as one in which the relative motion of the magnets is asymmetric with respect to each other’s direction of magnetization as demonstrated in the two Figures below.
http://www.steorn.com/images/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems.pdf

QED

[geni]

OK I got a relative who is seriously looking into what this guy is selling

As usual with the CT's there are claims that the australian government is keeping the product from being built. We're looking into many forms of conventional power for living off the grid as much as possible and I really need some good quick quips to keep my relatives from looking into this guys products which to me seem like a dead end on woo avenue

Can you guys help me out?

Fundimentaly it boils down to "laws of thermodynamics say no". Also if you do somehow manage to generate energy from nothing there is no particular reason why it shouldn't give off large amounts of hard radation.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

How about asking to see one working? Not "almost working" but sitting there cranking out power?

For some reason all such "free" energy generators have failed this simple test. At least in this Universe. :(

[Ziggurat]

You people are going about this in the wrong fashion. Instead of thinking about what it would take to make it work you think about the reason why it would not work(negative).

What would it take to make a "free energy" magnet motor?

A violation of either the first or second laws of thermodynamics.

The problem with magnets is that the poles are symmetrical in strength.

Nope. Even if you had magnetic monopoles, you still couldn't get around thermodynamics.

So to make something that worked, you would have to have the pole be asymmetrical dynamically, or what happens in an electric motor.

It's not the asymmetry which makes an electric motor work, but the fact that you're doing work.

Magnetic are not dynamic by themselves

But dynamism is different than asymmetry. Dynamism in an electromagnetic system requires work, because even absent any sort of device, it will still radiate power. For that to happen by itself, continuously, you need to violate conservation of energy. So if you've got a system that violates conservation of energy, then yes, you could make a perpetual motion machine out of it. No surprises here.

Does it work. I have no idea.

That much is true. But you don't speak for everyone. Many of us do have an idea.

[DC]

How about asking to see one working? Not "almost working" but sitting there cranking out power?

For some reason all such "free" energy generators have failed this simple test. At least in this Universe. :(

I have asked one company to present it. very strange company.
Its a scam.

http://pesn.com/2010/04/14/9501636_Perendev-Power-PTY_closes_its_doors/

http://www.moneyhouse.ch/u/perendev_power_holding_ag_CH-170.3.028.635-8.htm

money collected, doors closing