Travel
 | 
Food
 | 
Arts
 | 
Science
 | 
Sports
 | 
Advice
 | 
Life
 | 
Greensboro
 |  Secularity |  Blog

Free Energy Permanent Magnet Perpetual Motor

by Liv | Published on May 9th, 2007, 3:30 pm | Science
 Ever get one of those ideas your absolutely sure no one has thought of, and is going to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams? I had one of those ideas the other day. Unfortunately so have other people, and supposedly it breaks every fundamental law of physics, so there is no possible way it could work.

My idea? A magnetic motor. Yeah, I know... electric motors are magnetic. But what about those super strong "naturally" charged magnets. You know, like your refrigerator magnets, but stronger. Could you not harness the power from these to in turn drive a generator? Even at a small rate of generation: over time, you could charge batteries to drive electric motors, right?

So I Google "permanent magnetic motor" and come up with this guy who has built a working prototype and has even posted a video that shows it works.

Okay, I had no doubt it would work. Some of these magnets are "very" strong, and several of them could easily turn an alternator. So it looks all great, except the pesky Bible commandment of physics dealing with thermodynamics and conservation. I don't pretend to understand it, I just know there must be a reason, if other people have thought of this idea, it doesn't work. Of course I also remember that Discovery channel show where an entire city is powered by some mystical device & no one knows how it works.

Someone suggests, the magnets will demagnetize and the energy cost to remagnetize or replace these demagnetized magnets is less efficient then energy by other means, and thereby negating "the free energy."

Guess I'll still be poor for awhile.


 
You're conflating three terms, force, energy and power.

A magnet provides a force, but not energy. It's analgous to the Earth which provides a gravitational force.


This is the earliest 'magnetic engine' design dating back to 1269. Pierre de Maricourt
ImagePierre de Maricourt Magenetic engine.

This is Johannes Taisnierus attempt.

Image
The Taisnierus Magnetic Engine

But the one I love is this one, which elegantly illustrates why these thing don't work
Image

Gramatke's Magnetic Car
User avatar
A Person
 
Liv wrote:Someone suggests, the magnets will demagnetize and the energy cost to remagnetize or replace these demagnetized magnets is less efficient then energy by other means, and thereby negating "the free energy."
BTW that isn't why it won't work, the magnets aren't acting as batteries.

To produce power you need a varying field (electrical, magnetic or gravitational). A magnet produces a static field. Their claim is that by exposing and shielding the magnetic field mechanically, a varying field can be created and the motor will spin. Unfortunately the exposing/shielding requires energy and the mechanical energy required for that WILL exceed the energy delivered.

They have created the mechanical analogue of connecting a generator to a motor and hoping the generator will provide enough power to run the motor to drive the generator.

Don't be tempted to invest or buy anything they offer on their site. They are either lying or they're incompetent.
User avatar
A Person
 
Headlines: Beyond Wind and Solar, a New Generation of Clean Energy

By Juliet Eilperin Wash. Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 1, 2007;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02054.html

The door is open and the sky is the limit for new whiz kids entrepreneurs. Build it and they will come. Ask and ye shall receive. And a whole slew of other clichés come to mind, but you get the picture. Now that Green is the fad there are going to be all kinds of choices for people, cities, states and the nation to make beside filthy fossil fuels or the dangerous long radioactive wastes of nuclear.

“Finavera Renewables, a Canadian company that hopes to harness ocean waves off the coast of Oregon to produce electricity for U.S. consumers.” so they contacted a factory whose business was on the downward slope to assemble test buoy for them to try to harness the waves energy and if it works a whole new industry will be born. Not only will the equipment have to be manufactured, but it will have to be maintained and the power generated gotten to those who need it creating jobs (and much safer jobs than any that could be lost by leaving deep coal veins in the earth and the Alaskan wilderness and our sea beds safe from destructive oil drilling and then removal from the area.

Water is a mega powerful element as any sailor can tell you. Large waves have been known and recording hitting, raising and then dropping huge air craft carriers in two pieces. There is nearly 900 times as much energy in a cubic meter of moving water as is in a cubic in a cubic meter of air moving at the same velocity. “Finavera's chief executive, Jason Bak, believes he knows how this power can be captured. The equipment his company designed, called AquaBuOY, aims to generate electricity from the vertical motion of waves. The buoy, anchored in an array two to three miles offshore, will convert the waves' motion into pressurized water using large, reinforced-rubber hose pumps. As the buoy goes up the peak of a wave and down into its trough, it forces a piston in the bottom of the buoy to stretch and contract the hose pumps, pushing water through. This drives a turbine that powers a generator producing electricity, which would be shipped to shore through an undersea transmission line.”

The vast majority of the world’s population, and thus power needs, are located near an ocean. Waves are forever, waves are not intermittent like the winds and nor can waves power be blunted by clouds as can the sun‘s. Although some technologies are more advanced than others and alternatives are still small in the nation's overall energy mix bit this can quickly change. Ask yourself just how many years did it take Americans to put a man on the moon after the Russian Sputnik sailed into earth’s orbit? And already we have so many examples of alternatives making a significant difference:

Americans are also beginning to work with Europeans companies who because their fossil fuels were not as inexpensive as ours have had a greater need to be energy efficient and resourceful. “Iceland America has several other U.S. geothermal projects in the works, including a potential second Salton Sea plant that would serve Nevada boasts 15 geothermal plants, with the capacity to generate enough electricity for 73,000 homes. California utilities are looking at solar technology that would use mirrors to heat water and spin turbines in desert power plants. It may be that our power plants will be smaller than the huge coal fired power plants we have today. This can be a benefit in that when one plant goes down for some reason there will be another nearby to perhaps supply at least emergency power. And no more huge black outs over a fifth of the country as we have had.Los Angeles and a home-heating plant for the ski resort town of Mammoth Lakes, Calif.” The potential for geothermal energy in America is great although we are already the world's largest producer of geothermal electricity, with 212 plants generating 3,119 megawatts. Geothermal could be the ultimate source for the western states. I thought immediately of the huge calderas that is Yellowstone National Park; talk about geothermal energy!

The United States has entrepreneurs ready and willing to invest in alternatives to the filthy fossil fuels or nuclear, but unfortunately these established Energy Barons are holding onto their turf and have the money and the lobbyist in Washington to buy the votes they need to get the lions share of the tax brakes and subsidies. Their efforts will only slow us down from our goal of clean renewable energy unless we make our voices heard in Congress. Congressman will sell their vote to the highest bidder and you the voter are the highest bidder if enough of you talk.

I wish to say again to those of you who are adamant that the Global Warming thing is a haul that it really shouldn't matter. What should matter is restoring our worId to what it was before the we who in just over a century has turned our air, our forest, our rivers and oceans into dying ugly cess pools of man’s greed for energy. You don't have to buy into the Global Warming crowd in order to press our Congress for more cleans energy sources. If we don't do something soon much of the best things on Earth will be lost regardless of global warming, but just from filth. Just a few hours drive into our once grand and glorious forests of the Smoky Mountains that are now fighting for survival will point out this truth of this statement. And, Lord knows we are not about to give up our automobiles or air conditioning are we? BB
BrendaBee
 
I love the post Brenda. I guess the bigger question is, are waves actually perpetual or they the result of a power source that will wear out? (although no time soon).

I'm still a big fan of Solar. I think the Egyptians had it right. Worship the sun God, the god of solar power. It's a technology that is showing alot of promise as far as energy efficiency in the research sector from what I've read. One company is talking about instead of shingling a roof, you'll be using solar panels, which in turn will power your house. Better yet, when the sun does die, it won't much matter anyways.
User avatar
Liv
Just sit there and watch me!
 
Water motion, like all other energy sources except nuclear, are indirectly and inefficiently coming from solar energy. Nuclear energy -- fission, that is -- comes indirectly from supernovae of the distant past. Ain't physics cool? 8)
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Nuclear energy -- fission, that is -- comes indirectly from supernovae of the distant past.


I've never thought about it like that before. Now explain Mr. Fusion on the Delorian.
User avatar
Liv
Just sit there and watch me!
 
See, when two hydrogen atoms decide to marry and settle down to helium-hood, they do like all things that mate -- they get together and let of a sh!t-load of energy, which Mr. Fusion captured used to power the Flux Capacitor.

Simple, eh? :twisted:
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
SouthernFried, Lovin' it! Wish my Physics Prof would have been as specific. Perhaps I would have chosen science over art. BB
BrendaBee
 
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Water motion, like all other energy sources except nuclear, are indirectly and inefficiently coming from solar energy. Nuclear energy -- fission, that is -- comes indirectly from supernovae of the distant past. Ain't physics cool? 8)
"All" is over stated. Tidal energy comes from the relative motion of the Earth and Sun, Geothermal from nuclear reactions in the Earth's core.

None of these are 'perpetual' but they are long lived.

BTW, I find the suggestion that Yellowstone should be 'mined' for its geothermal energy disturbing for two reasons. One is that it is an area of outstanding natural beauty that we should want to preserve and secondly that it is probably the most dangerous natural feature on the planet. Until our knowledge of it is considerably better it should be left well alone. If an eruption is triggered it would cause the kind of destruction that makes Global Warming seem trivial (and maybe desirable)

Despite the appeal to conspiracy control by those mysterious "Energy Barons" there are lots of geothermal plants in North America - and the potential for lots more. I have investigated putting in a ground loop heat pump for house & water heating - and would do so if I were building a new house, but the payback is in the order of 15 years. Like most alternative energy sources it's low grade distributed energy, and it's expensive when compared to concentrated chemical energy sources.

Oh and I should point out that getting 'two' Hydrogen atoms to 'marry' is extremely difficult. They really don't like homogeneous relationships (they repulse each other) and much prefer the O2 sisters. It takes a lot of pressure to get them together and it actually needs four hydrogen atoms which is really perverted.

1 kg of hydrogen fuses to make 0.993 kg helium - the rest is converted to energy according to Einstein's famous formula E=mc2

in this case m=0.007 kg, c = 300,000,000 m/s
e = 0.007 x 300,000,000^2 = 630,000,000,000,000 Joules

That's about the same as burning 25,000,000 kg of coal. Solve the fusion problem and energy is no longer an issue.
User avatar
A Person
 
I'd hate to mess with Yellowstone. It's probably one of the greatest places I've ever been too.

Your suggestion that we (mankind) could do something to alter Yellowstone's balance and cause catastrophic change is interesting. I guess you could say, perhaps we could prevent a eruption too if we reduced the pressure. Also, I've thought about this with quakes and natural earth movement. It's been several years since I read anything on it, but I found it interesting that you could trigger an earthquake by lubricating a fault line. This got me thinking about weapons, and how for instance that massive tsunami a few years back could just have easily been a WMD rather than a natural occurrence. I wonder how much government have looked into this. After all you've got the ability now a days to place nukes almost perfectly on fault lines via subs, not to mention underwater avalanche displacement tsunamis. Might come in handy if we've ever got to attack China.
User avatar
Liv
Just sit there and watch me!
 
A Person, For all practical purposes wave movement is indeed perpetual motion and it has been going on “perpetually” since according to Genesis since Day One, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I have no doubt the water and waves will be here eons after we humans no longer have a need for them.


Yellowstone is sooooo beautiful! We spend much time there over a period of five years. It is such a huge area that we visited from different places on the perimeter. And before scoliosis did so much damage to my skeleton I was able to hike miles so we were able to take the trails back into the interior where the truly magnificent wonders are found. I was just making an off hand statement when I threw that sentence in, but now that I have given it some thought and have seen geothermal plants in operation I do think it should be possible to harness the energy that is already being released to the surface as is being done with natural hot springs in many parts of the world. There again they are not huge operations but plants usually serving one city, or one portion of a larger city. There certainly would be no harm in having many smaller energy producing plants from a variety of sources depending on what is the most suitable and available in the area. For instance the methane gas from cow manure now being experimented with in conjunction with feed lots in Texas and other cattle producing areas. For more information and references on these you can visit my home blog at Http://triadblogs.com/BrendaFayBowers and click on the Environment category in the far right side column to bring up the posts I have written on energy sources.

I would agree with you that drilling as is done with some geothermal operations would not be advisable at Yellowstone for the very reason you give. We do not want to awaken that monster!

As for the Energy Barons this is certainly no “conspiracy” that I am making up out of my very own warped and paranoid little mind as you so love to toss at me. Fossil fuels (coal, oil) are huge industries who spend millions on Congressional lobbyists to keep regulations and competition of any kind from making any headway onto their turf, and anyone who does not recognize these conglomerates as being powerful is at the very least naïve.

And yes there are geothermal plants in the United States. As I stated above, “The potential for geothermal energy in America is great although we are already the world's largest producer of geothermal electricity, with 212 plants generating 3,119 megawatts.” The potential and sources for geothermal are much, much greater than we are now employing.

When we lived in Florida we used solar for our hot water heater and had enough hot water to serve the needs of a family of four adults and two children with daily showers and daily laundry. We also used it to heat the water in the pool during the late fall, winter and early spring months. When we built our home in 1979 solar cells for electric weren’t available for homes. But we used solar cells to generate electricity for our RV since my husband and I both enjoy our creature comforts and still wanted to go into areas where no electricity was available. Worked very well. If we were building a new home today we would most certainly put in both. BB
BrendaBee
 
I forgot to thank you all for stopping by my site. I do enjoy the information you bring to the discussion even when I don't agree with it entirely. BB :D
BrendaBee
 
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



<Shakes head in disbelief>

:shock:

Damn, another post BHL won't be coming back for.
User avatar
Liv
Just sit there and watch me!
 
BrendaBee wrote:A Person, For all practical purposes wave movement is indeed perpetual motion and it has been going on “perpetually” since according to Genesis since Day One, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I have no doubt the water and waves will be here eons after we humans no longer have a need for them.

"Perpetual Motion" has a particular meaning and usually used only to refer to a device that delivers more energy than is put into it. There have been a number of claims for perpetual motion machines targeted at environmentalists.

As for the rest - I have no real argument with you, despite 'energy barons', alternative energy sources are already being exploited and there is potential for more. Some make sense (why not capture methane from cattle or garbage dumps - it will only be wasted and it's an efficient greenhouse gas) others have little economic or energy payback. Most are trying to capture low grade energy sources and hence only have limited value and are expensive. I do however strongly object to granting alternative energy sources special dispensation to pollute or damage the environment. You can't mine coal in a national park - why should windmills or geothermal be OK there? Wave energy is very low grade - to capture any significant amount of energy would require large portions of the coastline to be lined with devices - hardly improving the environment. (the potential power production at a good site is around 50 Kw per meter)
User avatar
A Person
 
BrendaBee wrote:A Person, For all practical purposes wave movement is indeed perpetual motion and it has been going on “perpetually” since according to Genesis ...

Wave motion may be an eternal source of energy, from our limited perspective, but it is not "perpetual." It is an effect of the heat from the Sun, convection, and tidal forces. They will all exist long after humanity has gone the way of the dinosaurs, but on the time scale of the cosmos, they are short-lived indeed.
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Liv I am sorry if my quote of Genesis upset you. It was simply used in this case as an illustration that most humans on Earth believe to be more or less accurate. I do believe in a Creator, tho I will not claim to believe the story in Genesis is accurate as to how the universe and the Earth were created. I do however believe He set in motion the events that led to the creation of the universe, the Earth and man. I used the quote as a way of pointing out that water was here in the beginning and will be here until the end.

To the rest of you damned picky fools, it was a TITLE nothing more! Titles and headlines are meant to get attention so readers are more inclined to read the article. But in as far as anything can be said to be in “perpetual motion” I would think that even your limited imaginations would have to admit that water in the form of the oceans (tides and waves) would come as close as any natural phenomenon in both it’s longevity and reliability to be accurately describe as perpetual motion.

People, I keep wondering why since you find my posts so inaccurate you waste your time and energy on them. I personally NEVER bother with those I consider to have nothing to add to either my knowledge, or briefly entertainment me. And it seems obvious to me that I am doing neither where you are concerned. Do please GET A LIFE, elsewhere! BB
BrendaBee
 
BrendaBee wrote:To the rest of you damned picky fools, it was a TITLE nothing more! Titles and headlines are meant to get attention so readers are more inclined to read the article. But in as far as anything can be said to be in “perpetual motion” I would think that even your limited imaginations would have to admit that water in the form of the oceans (tides and waves) would come as close as any natural phenomenon in both it’s longevity and reliability to be accurately describe as perpetual motion.
If you wish to communicate then you need to use words which are understood by others to mean what you want them to mean. "Perpetual Motion Machine" has a specific meaning. Perpetual Motion Machines are theoretically impossible machines that work without energy input. I don't think it's being picky, petty or foolish to point out that machines that exploit geothermal, wind or wave energy are NOT PPM's. The discovery of a genuine PPM would indeed be news (as it would, by today's understanding, be a miracle).

BrendaBee wrote:People, I keep wondering why since you find my posts so inaccurate you waste your time and energy on them. I personally NEVER bother with those I consider to have nothing to add to either my knowledge, or briefly entertainment me. And it seems obvious to me that I am doing neither where you are concerned. Do please GET A LIFE, elsewhere! BB
Because I don't like to see inaccurate or misleading information go unchallenged. You enjoy posting tracts but not defending them, I enjoy correcting and discussing. Please feel free to challenge any of my statements if you feel they are inaccurate - that's how one learns.
User avatar
A Person
 
Liv I am sorry if my quote of Genesis upset you


Not at all, I don't get upset... Especially about this... It was just some laughably consequence.

A Science thread.... about perpetual motion, and we figured out how to work religion in there!
User avatar
Liv
Just sit there and watch me!
 
To return back to the original topic of the post.

Permanent Magnet engines do exist and they do work. Traditional physics teaches us that no arrangement of magnets can provide a net force to power an engine. This is true - however, this changes when you consider magnetic shielding. Magnetic shielding, when placed in the appropriate location, will negate some of the magnetic force of a magnet allowing you to produce a net force. Magnetic shielding already exists and requires no energy to be functional.

The reason so few examples of permanent magnet engines exist is because the placement of the magnetic shield must be extremely precise. If you are even a fraction of a degree off, the engine will not work.

Magnets do wear out over time, but they do so very gradually. Magnets are cheap and renewable. The cost of replacing magnets in an engine every 5-10 years would be nominal compared to paying for energy to run the engine over that same period.

If permanent magnet engines were to hit the mainstream the implications would be vast. Power would become so cheap and plentiful, it would permanently change the way we think about energy.
Artichoke
 
Artichoke wrote:Permanent Magnet engines do exist and they do work.
Nope. Various non-working 'prototypes' have been attempted, but none work.

Artichoke wrote:Magnetic shielding already exists and requires no energy to be functional.
Shielding requires energy to be moved into and out of the magnetic field. That energy will exceed the output from the engine.

Artichoke wrote:The reason so few examples of permanent magnet engines exist is because the placement of the magnetic shield must be extremely precise. If you are even a fraction of a degree off, the engine will not work
An unsupported assertion. Why is this precision necessary and why is it unachievable? A more reasonable explanation is that they don't and can't work.

Artichoke wrote:Magnets do wear out over time, but they do so very gradually. Magnets are cheap and renewable. The cost of replacing magnets in an engine every 5-10 years would be nominal compared to paying for energy to run the engine over that same period.
So if the energy is not coming from the magnets -WHERE IS IT COMING FROM?

Artichoke wrote:If permanent magnet engines were to hit the mainstream the implications would be vast.

Agreed - instant obscene wealth guaranteed. So what's stopping these clever but misunderstood geniuses from producing their engines and becoming instantly wealthy? Must be the same conspiracy of scientists that keep Intelligent Design Creationists from actually doing research and producing any evidence. Could it be that they are so busy trying to separate people from their money that they have no time left for research and development?

Produce a working engine and Ford will sack all their traditionally educated engineers and make your fortune.
User avatar
A Person
 
Actually there are some people who have gotten them to work successfully. Not many, but they do exist.

Here are some links to some abstracts and witness accounts of working devices.

http://www.rexresearch.com/minato/minato.htm
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Magnet_Motors

The second link has a lot of links, videos, and references.

Just because there are many non-working devices does not mean that a working one doesn't exist. In the future, please conduct more comprehensive research before asserting such an absolute.

Shielding does not require energy because you do not need to move them. You place the shielding at fixed points with respect to the magnets. For example covering the south pole of the magnet with shielding reduces the magnetic field on that end. Thus allowing a magnet to have a net force.

The reason for placement precision is because you are working with EM fields. Correct placement requires intense flux calculations and extreme precision.

The energy to run the magnet engine comes from the magnets obviously - that is why they wear out over time.

Also there have been many who have developed revolutionary devices and technologies which have never hit the market. One of the most extreme examples was Nikola Tesla who developed a way to give every person on the Earth free energy way back in the early 1900s. His lab was burned down and he was discredited repeatedly throughout his life and even to this day.

Today the biggest threat to the development of energy solutions is big oil. They have a vast amount of influence with the government and media - and they have taken and will take in the future any measure necessary to ensure the monopoly of their black gold stays intact.
Artichoke
 
"Produce a working engine and Ford will sack all their traditionally educated engineers and make your fortune."

Nope this won't happen as long as the oil barons ( both foreign and domestic) are on the scene. In 1968-69 my husband worked with a man who produced an engine that ran one of the huge 1960's cars 50+ miles per gallon of gasoline. I can't tell you how it worked, only that it did. One of the big auto manufacturers purchased the invention for big bucks with the stipulation that the inventor never reveal any details about the design. And that was the last any of us ever heard about it. So they did not "sack all their engineers", but they did make one person's fortune. Meanwhile we have been shackled to the use of gasoline and held hostage by the oil cartel for another 38 years and counting. BB
BrendaBee
 
I partially agree with Brenda. I'm not saying a perpetual magnet motor is the answer, or even scientifically reasonable, but there is the whole capitalistic effect that's actually worked against these technologies in the past. Just watch "Who killed the electric Car"... and you'll get a sense of it.
User avatar
Liv
Just sit there and watch me!
 
Artichoke wrote:Actually there are some people who have gotten them to work successfully. Not many, but they do exist.


There are some people who have claimed to have working engines. None have produced a working model for sale or even for examination, just years of weak excuses and prevaricating while they suck in gullible investors. http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/30/6900029PerendevPowerMagneticMotor/index.html
Artichoke wrote:Here are some links to some abstracts and witness accounts of working devices.

I have seen some convincing videos of Chris Angel levitating, but we'll be using elevators for a long time yet.
Just because there are many non-working devices does not mean that a working one doesn't exist. In the future, please conduct more comprehensive research before asserting such an absolute.
The despairing cry of the fakir. "Just because some psychic surgeons are fake does not mean that they all are" "Just because some crop circles are fake does not mean that they all are". And what 'research have you done? Googling 'ear candling' and finding lots of links does not make it anything other than magic.
Shielding does not require energy because you do not need to move them. You place the shielding at fixed points with respect to the magnets. For example covering the south pole of the magnet with shielding reduces the magnetic field on that end. Thus allowing a magnet to have a net force.
From this statement it's obvious that you skipped physics at school. Force does not equal energy. A static force does not generate energy.
The reason for placement precision is because you are working with EM fields. Correct placement requires intense flux calculations and extreme precision.
Engineers work with intense electrical fields at high precision all the time. Ever wondered what precision is necessary for your computer disc drive? Panasonic, Kaman and GE (to name a few) routinely manufacture high precision, high efficiency electric motors and generators.
The energy to run the magnet engine comes from the magnets obviously - that is why they wear out over time.
:) The company I work for manufactures high power (500 hp) permanent magnet synchronous motors to drive oil drilling rigs. These are hi-tech devices that generate a precisely controlled wave form delivered to the motor so that it can produce maximum torque or power and any speed even on full stall. The magnets do not wear out even after decades.
Also there have been many who have developed revolutionary devices and technologies which have never hit the market. One of the most extreme examples was Nikola Tesla who developed a way to give every person on the Earth free energy way back in the early 1900s. His lab was burned down and he was discredited repeatedly throughout his life and even to this day.
Yes Tesla was badly treated in his lifetime. Yes Tesla got on the wrong side of Edison and Marconi and was exploited. No Tesla did not 'develop a way to give every person on the Earth free energy".

Tesla invented many things which did hit the market and revolutionized our life, e.g.the ac electric motor, radio, radar, phosphorescent lamps etc. His source of 'free energy' was solar radiation and so was within the bounds of physics - unlike over-unity permanent magnet engines - but he (nor anyone else) was able to make it work.
Today the biggest threat to the development of energy solutions is big oil. They have a vast amount of influence with the government and media - and they have taken and will take in the future any measure necessary to ensure the monopoly of their black gold stays intact.
The final signature of pseudo-science - the conspiracy theory. Why not invoke the Bensteinian "Big Science" too, that refuses to consider magic as science.
User avatar
A Person
 
BrendaBee wrote:Nope this won't happen as long as the oil barons ( both foreign and domestic) are on the scene. In 1968-69 my husband worked with a man who produced an engine that ran one of the huge 1960's cars 50+ miles per gallon of gasoline. I can't tell you how it worked, only that it did. One of the big auto manufacturers purchased the invention for big bucks with the stipulation that the inventor never reveal any details about the design. And that was the last any of us ever heard about it. So they did not "sack all their engineers", but they did make one person's fortune. Meanwhile we have been shackled to the use of gasoline and held hostage by the oil cartel for another 38 years and counting. BB

Ahh another hallmark of pseudo-science - the mysterious inventor, coupled with the old conspiracy theory standby. Strangely very few people "can tell you how it worked"

Now given that the car manufacturers are not owned by oil companies and are spending millions to develop cars that use less fuel (and are succeeding) why would they bury technology that would give them an immediate competitive advantage? In almost every country in the world, including the US, the car manufacturers are being required by law to reduce the fuel consumption of their cars. I guess the oil cartels failed there. I guess they also failed to squash nuclear power, tidal power, hydro-electric power etc. As evil powers they are not very effective against technology that works.

The reason we have gas guzzling SUVs and trucks on the road is not because there are no alternatives, it's because people want them and buy them. Given the choice between a F150 and a Toyota Prius most American men would rather lose 2" off their dicks rather than give up their truck.
User avatar
A Person
 
Notice the tactic of debate used by "A Person".

He does not discredit the idea. He instead attempts to slander the idea carrier. This is not a valid debate tactic and is used constantly by ignorant people like "A Person", propagandists, and the mass media.

In a proper debate you do not slander the opposition. You present facts and ideas that question the validity of the debate topic.

We live in a world where incoming stimulus is strongly tied to emotion. Unfortunately many people make decisions based on these emotions - instead of following rationality and critical thinking to progress towards a true understanding.

This is why mainstream political debates are a joke. Obama is a great "politician" because his ability to pull the emotional strings of his audience. He uses emotionally charged but empty statements - like A Person. A "conspiracy theorist" is an emotionally charged label that means nothing.

I formulate my ideas from reasoning and critical thought - and my ideas stand on their own merit.

Back to the topic at hand:

"A Person" misused the term static force. There is no such thing as a static force. A force is a vector with a magnitude (example 5 newtons), and a direction (Up). When all forces balance in a system - that system is said to be at rest and it is labeled a static system.

A dynamic system by comparison, is one in which the forces are not balanced - and that is a system in motion. Traditional electric motors are dynamic systems that use electromagnets. Why they work is because the magnetic forces are carefully controlled to provide magnetic force at just the right time to perpetuate the engine. With permanent magnets and carefully positioned shielding I believe that it is possible to provide this same type of selective magnetic force.
Artichoke
 
Notice the tactic of debate used by "A Person".

He does not discredit the idea. He instead attempts to slander the idea carrier. This is not a valid debate tactic and is used constantly by ignorant people like "A Person", propagandists, and the mass media.

In a proper debate you do not slander the opposition. You present facts and ideas that question the validity of the debate topic.
I'm sorry if you felt I was slandering you, I was indeed attacking the idea.
We live in a world where incoming stimulus is strongly tied to emotion. Unfortunately many people make decisions based on these emotions - instead of following rationality and critical thinking to progress towards a true understanding.

Appeals to conspiracy are precisely just such an emotive appeal.
I formulate my ideas from reasoning and critical thought - and my ideas stand on their own merit.

Then we are in agreement here.
"A Person" misused the term static force. There is no such thing as a static force. A force is a vector with a magnitude (example 5 newtons), and a direction (Up). When all forces balance in a system - that system is said to be at rest and it is labeled a static system.

A dynamic system by comparison, is one in which the forces are not balanced - and that is a system in motion.

A static force is a force vector that does not change in magnitude or direction. i.e. a force that is static. A dynamic force is one where the vector changes in magnitude or direction.
Traditional electric motors are dynamic systems that use electromagnets. Why they work is because the magnetic forces are carefully controlled to provide magnetic force at just the right time to perpetuate the engine.

Traditional electric motors (i.e. ones that work) work because they vary the magnetic forces, either through the use of a commutator (DC motors) or by providing a varying wave form (AC motors).

A permanent magnet provides a static force. One magnet can be attracted to another, moving to a lower potential state. Work has been done, entropy has been increased. To do more work the magnet must be moved back to a higher energy state – an energy input is required.

This is no different to a car at the top of a hill: it can roll down the hill to a lower potential energy state, acquiring kinetic energy, it will gradually come to a halt as frictional forces dissipate the kinetic energy as heat. The car has reached a new equilibrium. To get more work, someone has to drive (or push) it back up to the top of the hill to replace the lost potential energy. In other words the work out will equal the work in minus losses.

Traditional electric motors are dynamic systems that use electromagnets. Why they work is because the magnetic forces are carefully controlled to provide magnetic force at just the right time to perpetuate the engine. With permanent magnets and carefully positioned shielding I believe that it is possible to provide this same type of selective magnetic force.


"forces carefully controlled … force at just the right time" means a varying force - which requires an energy input.

"I Believe" Now you have gone from " reasoning and critical thought" to faith. HOW do you provide a 'selective' i.e. variable, force with fixed magnets and shielding and no energy input?
User avatar
A Person
 
Liv wrote:I partially agree with Brenda. I'm not saying a perpetual magnet motor is the answer, or even scientifically reasonable, but there is the whole capitalistic effect that's actually worked against these technologies in the past. Just watch "Who killed the electric Car"... and you'll get a sense of it.

OMG that was a great film. I and my husband watched it in total amazement. Freedom to Fascism is another interesting one to watch.
I agree that big oil and special interests have mostly taken control of where, when, how, and what technology develops and is marketed for these sorts of things.
He who has the most money, makes the rules, seems to be the theme now.
Aside from all that, we have started a motorized bicycle business(which currently run on gas/oil mix, but less than cars, and we are trying to make the electric ones more affordable<---tough job). In that endeavor we have seen how much more the electric engines cost, almost like a deterrent. :( We recycle, use the energy-saving lights, and we'd be all for this motor if it could work. We're tryin to save to be able to build our house with a geo-thermal pad, windmills, solar panels--so we can be self-sufficient. this PMM keeps popping up, and some of the videos look good, but i want to see it in action.
m&s