This Is What Happens When A Magnet Is Dropped Through A Copper Pipe

originally posted by: GArnold
I just think something along those lines could be made to move vehicles of one kind or another safely and without much cost

Maglev trains are safe, but I don't think the cost is particularly low, compared to say Diesel powered trains. They do offer other advantages like less noise, smoother ride and potentially higher top speeds:

With maglev, a vehicle is levitated a short distance away from a guide way using magnets to create both lift and thrust. High-speed maglev trains promise dramatic improvements for human travel if widespread adoption occurs.

Maglev trains move more smoothly and somewhat more quietly than wheeled mass transit systems. Their non-reliance on traction and friction means that acceleration and deceleration can surpass that of wheeled transports, and they are unaffected by weather. The power needed for levitation is typically not a large percentage of the overall energy consumption; most of the power is used to overcome air resistance (drag), as with any other high-speed form of transport.

a reply to: Dr UAE

GENIUS

a reply to: stormcell

As far as trees go, they have constant energy inputs via solar and nutrient sources. Their system is not efficient in that they produce more energy than is input.

As an energy source, that is exactly what we require: a net positive energy return. If we spend more energy to (for example) make the technology to collect the energy than we get back it is a net loss of energy and, hence, not practical.

a reply to: BO XIAN
You could do that, and using the sun and solar panels, and on earth you could not keep it going, but in space or a vacuum were you remover friction you could. But what would be the point of it a magnets flipping through a copper tube does not in and itself generate much energy. To tell the truth devising a sort of engine that is if not continuous would at least work using magnets, is very possible.

The fact is its not any more complicated then it would be to devise an atomic clock in space to better and more accurately keep track of cellphones and space probes and what not going on and around the globe at any given time at any given point. To tell the truth they probably already have at the very least a prototype for such things in fact they had prototypes for such things since the 40s. And if not, well there probably wasting there time. But then again ever see the inside of a space shuttle, the dam thing reminds me of a picture of those computers from the 1950 that took up a whole room and had the processing power of a supped up calculator.

Somebody better get on it, I want my little spinning gyroscope flying toy. Its against my religion to get involved with such things, but if this continues I will have to, and I freaking hate school or learning or sitting in benches for long periods of times to get stupid degrees and all that other stuff. I mean its not far gone stuff with the current technology we have at hand, I see no reason why people have at the very least not given it a try or experimented with such stuff more.

If it can lift trains full of passengers and go at 200 to even 500 miles per hour, you can do much more with that stuff and a little innovation. I mean I understand that progress generally leaves a vacuum, and there were plans for such trains throughout the continental USA, some even involved making giant tubes across and in the seas and removing all air from them, whereby those maglift trains would literally have no friction or pressure. You would be able to zip from NY to across the continent literally in a hour going at close to 1000 milles per hours and nobody inside would even know it or feel anything but that there not moving at all. I suppose it would be a pretty big project for people today.

But that would also literally put many peoples out of a job, including truck drivers, airplane drivers and thousands other people more, it would literally change the goods distribution market as you can zip goods produce and everything else across vast distances much much faster and effectively. That and the oil companies would lose revenue like crazy, whole countries like the saudi arabia would become irrelevant, # even lobbyist in Washington lobbying for the oil barons would be out of a job, and such a cushy job it is.

Oh yes plenty of reasons to keep things raped up even in that much less any sort of almost perpetual engine. That and it seems they just dont know how to do it, because if they did. One thing about people and humanity, they always like to show off or gloat about there new and miraculous creations. If somebody did it already, that or those somebodies would expose it for the world to see. Just because they could not stop themselfs from showing off.

a reply to: bbracken677

And what do we get more energy back in with our current technologies then we put in? The answer is no, they just have had much more time to be in practice and so they have been updated for hundreds of years. Considering we ship our garbage to third world countries and have garbage heaps the size of cities, I would say no.

Besides a tree does put out more energy then it gets in. There purpose however is not to entertain you or make your car go faster. However remove all the trees and you would have a hard time breathing. So yes at what they do, and most people do not even have any clue that trees do anything. But at what they do trees are very efficient and do put out more energy then they take in, after all they not only produce a whole lot of oxygen but the practical balance of life relies on them, for instance how hard would it be to feed all those animals without trees or any vegetation? It would be pretty hard to do no? And if all animals which a great majority feed on vegetation including trees were to die off. Our population would drop from over 6 billion to a few thousand real quick. To say that they are not effective energy sources is just not true. After all they can thrive on nothing more then dirt and sunlight. Can you do that?

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: bbracken677
To say that they are not effective energy sources is just not true. After all they can thrive on nothing more then dirt and sunlight. Can you do that?

Yes...I eat food that grows from the soil and animals that eat plants. In effect, I thrive on nothing more than dirt and sunlight lol

And what do we get more energy back in with our current technologies then we put in?

Regarding energy efficiency:

Researchers Sally Benson and Michael Dale took a look at the industry's energy needs and overall energy production for Environmental Science & Technology and published a paper detailing their findings. What they found will probably allow you to breathe a sigh of relief: solar panels generate more energy than they use, overall, and have been doing so since at least 2010.

"Back in the 1920's, oil was paying off at 100-to-1," said Zencey. "It took one barrel of oil to extract, process, refine, ship and deliver 100 barrels of oil. That's a phenomenal rate of return. If you work out the percentage, that's a 10,000 percent rate of return."

But that's not the rate of return today. Now, conventional oil production worldwide pays off at about a 20-to-1 ratio. And in Canada, where the oil comes from tar sands, it's closer to 5-to-1.

Any questions?

The answer is yes. Rather than spout opinion as fact, perhaps you should do a bit of research first.

a reply to: bbracken677

Yes...I eat food that grows from the soil and animals that eat plants. In effect, I thrive on nothing more than dirt and sunlight lol

No you thrive on the things that thrive on dirt and sunlight. So if you like you say thrive on dirt and sunlight, how about going for a few months without food, your allowed to eat dirt and I suppose drink water, but nothing else. You know just to see if your theory is correct. We can put you in a room by yourself to study this amazing effect you say you have as well.

Any questions? The answer is yes. Rather than spout opinion as fact, perhaps you should do a bit of research first.

lol dude nothing of what you said or quoted above proves your fact. Your just seem to be ignorant of things on certain levels. I would have many questions on your claims but its kind of pointless asking you about them. What is it my fault that you people are paying so much for one barrel of oil and to process that barrel of oil and ship it and all that, that you think its a more cost effective procedure. Sorry dude its not more effective your just being ripped in the wazzo at the price of oil thereby making it more cost effective. Don't you know they have been manipulating the math and pricing on oil since the 1920...Its like a duh! And sure there is plenty of oil in the ground, and when we run out we can always make more, we seem to have enough bio-material walking around this place, what trees, fauna, animals, humans, when we run out we can always compress them for hundreds of thousands of years underground in the right environment and minerals to make more.

But hey like I said its not my fault your getting ripped on the price of oil. They have guys who's job is to do just that and they get paid big bucks to do it. Obviously you have a hard time grasping such a simple concept as understand the getting more energy out then you put in. You must be the product of your environment, corporate oil America. Thems black gold there.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Being wrong sure made you testy!

You make many assumptions.

If you do not believe the data just google it. It's there, it's true. It has to be. If it cost more energy than you get out you would, in a very short order of time, run out of energy.

The pumping of oil has increased, and since we have plenty of energy then by definition it costs less in energy to get it out of the ground then we get back.

Seems like a pretty simple concept. Your denying the fact is similar to denying that the world is round.

So...to all the brains in here...I saw major derailing of the concept...the concept is simple...density of the material used as a pipe..just curious what would happen if a Lead pipe is used ..or a HG (Hydrargyrum..rumour has it that it was used to power the Vimanas) ..LOL..Think people...think..magnetic field ( natural or induced) applied versus dense elements (PB and HG ...deemed toxic and Very very dangerous...LOL)..do the math..include coils made of this materials that can generate magnetic fields ..amplified by orders of magnitude..and you have UFO ...state of the art propulsion using magnetic fields..aka.. this is how the planets stay in orbit..it's all about mass..magnetic field ...Jeeez..

en.wikipedia.org...


wikispooks.com...

Read the above and understand more

originally posted by: Nairda
So...to all the brains in here...I saw major derailing of the concept...the concept is simple...density of the material used as a pipe..just curious what would happen if a Lead pipe is used

Not that I care if the thread gets derailed, but your post isn't exactly on the rails either so you have no room to criticize any other posts. Copper is about 10 times more conductive than lead according to this chart so lead probably still works but not as well:

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't know why you think density of the pipe would matter. Conductivity is much more important in the effect shown in the OP, which merely slows down the rate as which the magnet falls through the pipe, so it's not exactly what I would call anti-gravity. I would consider anti-gravity something which either cancels gravity (which the lenz effect in the OP does NOT do) meaning it could float above the ground without falling, or else "falls up". If you want to define "anti-gravity" as something which doesn't fall down, well then ordinary airplanes would be anti-gravity according to that definition.

I think this other thread may be relevant to what you're trying to imply about anti-gravity devices:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: bank teller
Gerold and I have no idea what the Henge really was. What he was able to ascertain with confidence is that it's resemblance to a currently standing cooling tower is so precise that it simply cannot be anything else.

originally posted by: bank teller
The 'bell' does not exist now and might not have ever existed. What does exist at that site in southern Poland is decaying buildings, a strange Henge structure that once held something, underground tunnels and paths in the forest that are largely grown over. Much of what went on there is not fully known to this day.

Yes, one of Gerold's main points is that people accept as "fact" almost anything that is put into print in either books or internet sites. This is then repeated by other authors who are even more lazy in their attitudes towards what is "real". And on and on and before you know it, Google has thousands of hits that repeat a complete fabrication. That's a point that should be taken seriously.

I'm not as completely sure that the henge was a cooling tower support but I'm pretty sure that lots of people fall for speculation with far less evidence to support it than the cooling tower explanation.

Cooling towers have little to do with the topic of this thread, and there's no evidence that "bell" ever existed, and as bank teller says it might not have ever existed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
would consider anti-gravity something which either cancels gravity (which the lenz effect in the OP does NOT do) meaning it could float above the ground without falling, or else "falls up". If you want to define "anti-gravity" as something which doesn't fall down, well then ordinary airplanes would be anti-gravity according to that definition

Actual "anti-gravity" would be "anti-inertia" combined with engineerable tabletop gravitational lensing.

a reply to: mbkennel
How did you come up with that?

a reply to: Nairda

All that's required for this effect is a non-ferromagnetic pipe that's electrically conductive AFAIK. A low characteristic resistance combined with a large cross-sectional area of the pipe wall should produce the best result so perhaps a thick gold pipe would be worth a go if you have such a pipe handy for experimentation.

Also consider the differences between ferromagnetic, paramagnetic and diamagnetic materials for a few ideas on possibilities. Minimizing the air gap between the pipe wall and the magnet should also be fruitful as it would maximise the flux density in the metal.

a reply to: Pilgrum
I don't get what has some so excited about this. This seems to be about as anti-gravity as a parachute.

Minimizing the air gap between the pipe wall and the magnet should also be fruitful as it would maximise the flux density in the metal.

I don't know about that but wouldn't that slow the fall which would decrease the current generated?

ETA: Like this

a reply to: Pilgrum

Then, more than likely, aluminum would work well. I think not quite as well as copper though.

a reply to: bbracken677
Dude you can make energy with the sun, and in what 100 years the technology on oil manufacturing and engines has had some time to improve. If you dont see how there are more easier and more better sources of energy then what can I say your not very bright. And yes if like oil in 100 something years it will have even a quarter of the time energy and money go into it, they would skyrocket...Literally. # you can make engines that run on garbage and that to has been done. Sure the data is there, and its all been put there by the oil industry. Hey says you live in Texas, so what does that mean everytime you go to lunch you pray to grandpapy bush for giving you that bounty of a meal, considering they have little to say out there but the joys of oil, and even that is going dry. But it would be like arguing with a Muslim in the middle east about how Allah may not be so great, like I said your a product of your environment. You may as well have stamp on your head that says OIL because its obvious in your writing, they probably teach in highschool the joys of mining oil fields, and have for generations. Nice religion you got there buddy, but I dont care.

As for oil. From the things you linked and said, I gather that the problem here is that you do not seem to understand the meaning of "renewable energy source" or getting more out then you put in, and considering that oil would take a few more millions of years to make more, how is that a renewable much less getting more. Fact is not only are you paying more then its worth, oil and the numbers are so set up that its costing more to keep it up then you actually get, and over the years and generation that is what you have been thought to believe, you just have been lead to believe otherwise, your like a broken clock twice a day you may be right....Here's something even you would be able to understand, OK so if oil is so cost effective and over these hundreds of years not only has the technology for getting it out of the ground, for processing it, and making things out of it has also increased and streamlines over a few hundred years increased one thousand fold both in technological and transport and everything else. Well how come it costs more now to maintain it and get it out of the ground then it did then? Why are you paying so much more at the pump for it and all that? You would think it would be more stable and have a sort of opposite effect no? Not only is the thing inflated, and prices are sometimes taken out of the air, or on how much people are willing to put up with, but its also maintained so it does not falter and fall, basically its propped up and has been for the past hundred years. And no its not because of a bigger customer base, because the technology on that to has kept up with the ages.

So ya I think what we have here is that you just spouting things you have been thought and indoctrinated to say. Its kind of hard to take you serious when you do not seem to be able to understand what something like "renewable efficient energy" means. But hey why not, a thousand years ago horses were the most efficient energy available of there time. Why all you needed to run a horse was hay, obviously it was a mistake to move to the combustion engine. Like I said there are many ways to make energy and most if not all of them in the timespan of a few 100 years would outcompete oil by lightyears in terms of efficiency and pretty much everything else.

Maglev trains alone over this whole continent would put much of the car and oil industry out of business, and with the technology we have today it would be no bigger a project then it was to put up the rail system back in the wild west, in fact probably less so considering we have machines which can bore through mountains. And to tell the truth I am getting sick and tired of go so slow when on the highway, 80 to 100 miles per hour, is really way to slow, the minimum speed should be at least 300 miles per hour. And in big cities during rush hour its like snails ville out there. Its just freaking depressing, kind of like reading what you wrote and your links, just depressing sad. But hey its been interesting the way arguing with bible heads and Muslims is interesting, do you believe this they also get pissed when you tell them they just may be believing in fairy tales and indoctrinated, and it may not exist. At the very least the oil industry goes out of its way to create the proof of there efficiency, you got to give them credit for that at least.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: mbkennel
How did you come up with that?

My brain.

I'm trying to distinguish "just floating" (which means nothing by itself) with actually interesting intrinsic physical modifications, of which I'm aware of none practically demonstrated & openly confirmed.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Not sure how this wall of text, virulence, and inaccurate (just wrong) statements about me and what I believe came from.

The discussion was about energy sources that produce more energy than it takes to "collect" them. I provided the example of solar cells having a positive return as of 2010 due to improvements in efficiency. I also provided the data on how much energy it takes to get oil out of the ground and processed. These are not debatable. They are fact. Science, not opinion.

LOL if oil, or wind or solar sources of energy are negative suppliers of energy (takes more to collect them then they return when used) then prove it. Show something that indicates that is wrong.

No where did I advocate one energy source above another except that I pointed out that hydrogen cells were not working out because at this point the major hurdle is burning hydrogen does not return the amount of energy it takes to crack it. ..... Yet you carry on as if I were a brainwashed rep for Exxon.

Any energy source that would cost more in energy to "collect" it than it would return when used is not a viable energy source. Period.

The energy sources we currently use are all positive; meaning that they take less energy to collect than they produce when used. This is science, not opinion.

Yeah, I live in Texas. So do millions of other people. Seems you have a hate thing for Texas and like to lump us all into one group. Awfully progressive of you, no? No... you come off sounding like some redneck who knows no better than to make wide sweeping claims and judgements based on the color of a person's skin, or their country of origin, or their religious preferences, or their sexual preferences or what state they are currently living in. Bigot much ? OH, btw: I lived in Mississippi for a while. Want to accuse me of being a racist as well? I have lived in California as well so maybe that makes me a looney liberal? I lived in Alabama for a while, does that make me inbred? LOL

I do not work for the oil industry or with the oil industry or in any capacity the least bit associated with the industry or any support of the industry. The only relationship my business has with the energy industry is: My office uses electricity. So accusing me of being some kind of mouth for the industry (?? where the F did that come from based on what I have posted???) is/was wrong on so many levels lol.

Please, stop with the inane accusations based on nothing I have written. Please stop with the personal attacks (wrong headed, btw, given that you know nothing about me) and either provide proof where my posts are wrong or stfu.

a reply to: bbracken677

The discussion was about energy sources that produce more energy than it takes to "collect" them. I provided the example of solar cells having a positive return as of 2010 due to improvements in efficiency. I also provided the data on how much energy it takes to get oil out of the ground and processed. These are not debatable. They are fact. Science, not opinion.

Off course they are debatable. What makes you think there not? So science now is not debatable, science does not change, last I checked almost everything science thought was possible at one time has changed. So yes bro your data on how much energy it takes to get oil out of the ground is just bunk. I mean you would think that in the 100 something years oil has had time to revamp itself and what only in the last 10 years or so has any other technology even thought to be given a try and even that only half assed. As they dont have to content with science or even knowledge and they have to content with the old guard who will stop at nothing to keep there lavish lifestyles, in fact they have been trying for years find a process to get a suitable process they can say is effective on getting electricity out of oil or hydrogen out of oil, in fact there was a thread on ATS about it a few years ago about them doing a bunch of projects on it, and they have been trying for years to do that so that way you know they still have grip in things if the world goes completely on plasma or hydrogen power, I would link it but I forgot the name of it. And really its kind of a waste of time to be chatting to you.

Dude you may not know this but yes your religious, you exhibit all the symptoms though in your own particular way.

What can i say bro. Is it my fault your believe a bunch of bull#.

LOL if oil, or wind or solar sources of energy are negative suppliers of energy (takes more to collect them then they return when used) then prove it. Show something that indicates that is wrong.

I was not going to read past that phrase I linked as its a waste of time. But unfortunately I did. OK first of all, it takes and I said it twice or three times already, maybe more. But it takes a few million years to make more oil to be of any commercial use, do you know how much oil is used daily? About 18.89 million barrels, now how fast and long do you think it will be to reproduce that very same oil, because lets face it were going through so much oil yearly it would probably cover the great lakes. So yes, how much biomass and what will it take to remake 18.89 million barrels of oil....I will give you a clue, the whole extinction and biomass on this planet humans included would not cover the rate were burning and using oil at.

Do you perhaps understand the meaning of sustainable efficient energy. Or is that to hard for you to grasp? Like I said at one time horse and hay were considered the optimal thing, and oil has been propped for a long time.

So how does it take less energy to produce and take, if you have giant drills in the ocean drilling in the floor, giant drills on land, a mass amount of people keeping and maintaining that anything from the guy scrubbing the floor at corporate or random oil storage warehouses, to the guy diving under the water in offshore oil rigs who by the way is probably making something like 50$ an hour, to the guys in Washington lobbying for oil making hundreds of thousands to millions yearly, to massive armies all getting payd a pittance to hold and capture the right territories, to the guys speculating on wallstreet to drive up markets and keep prices high. To---Well I could go on.

But lets just say there is a whole lot of things going into keeping the oil business afloat, and to keep it running. Your putting more energy into getting oil, even processing oil, then most countries have and even advanced technological countries like japan or other have in there infrastructure. So no it is not cheaper to keep the oil business running nor is it cheaper to produce those markets or to set them up, nor anything really. The only thing oil has for it is that you can make plastics from the excess, and that is as big a business as oil itself. But as an energy force that is renewable and sustainable or even cheep to produce, in fact we can not even produce oil, so nope its not. But hey whatever new energy big money thing takes over, give it a few hundred years and one day if it is in danger of losing its grip, I am quite sure it will have many and much time to overplay its importance on the minds of the masses. And I see you dont like answering my questions easy questions as they were.

I am not going to read the rest of what you say because it would likely make no sense. Oh darts I read a little...If you think that living in Texas would not prescribe you to certain things, your wrong. It does, just like living in Oklahoma would or living in Sudan or living in Saudi Arabia, or living in Libya, or Iraq, or any other part of the globe.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Surprised no engine designs are made from similar technology

What makes you think that?

Here is a engine using the same principle