It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 4
21
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 05:58 PM
There is also another loss to consider, eddy currents. The flow of current in the coils will induce an opposing current in your magnets, heating them up. You can get rid of it by using thin laminar plates, or even better, ferrite magnets, but that will place a limit on the strength of the magnet, but dont let me spoil your fun. It will be an interesting and educational project.

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 07:08 PM

Swanne, posting a thread like this does nothing but detract from the credibility of the other interesting theories you have presented on ATS. This is pure nonsense.

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 07:27 PM

I've eliminated the concept of a shaft altogether. Instead of which I propose we hang the magnets at the bottom end of a thread, which can twist on itself alot.

Only downside I can think of is that you might put all the big power companies out of business and have politicians like Angela Merkel calling for your containment.

edit on 24-11-2016 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 02:29 AM

originally posted by: Hellhound604
There is also another loss to consider, eddy currents. The flow of current in the coils will induce an opposing current in your magnets, heating them up. You can get rid of it by using thin laminar plates, or even better, ferrite magnets, but that will place a limit on the strength of the magnet, but dont let me spoil your fun. It will be an interesting and educational project.

You are overcomplicating the issue.

The current induced in the coils (and thus the magnet field of the coils) will already oppose magnet rotation, independent of whether the magnet is plated or not.

Newtons third law, actio est reactio.

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:30 AM
Even with all of the other friction and inductance losses as mentioned, The maximum efficiency of a Full Wave Bridge Rectifier is 81.2%. That loss is in resistance (heat), which is not recovered by the system. No free lunch in physics.
edit on 25-11-2016 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:45 AM
Bla bla bla....

Just build the damn thing and see if it works....
Frikkin hard to do... I cant...Im poor.....
If i wasnt i would.... Trust me...Id try ALOT
of stuff if i had the funds for it...

Infact, IF i had the means i would actually
start a Enginering team and build and build...
EVEN if we KNOW the thing we are building ISNT
gonna work...Id build it just to shove it in the face
of ppl that think it does....
edit on 2016/11/25 by Miccey because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:54 AM
Maybe try imagine magnetic fields a physical objects and see that they can provide no over unity work. Or imagine them as dips and hills in the gravity plane, like how the Earth and Sun make a gravity well. Magnets could also create hills, but still not do useful work.

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:55 AM

originally posted by: Miccey
Bla bla bla....

I'd say so too, if I hadn't built half of these at some point.

When you start a switching power supply design, the first equation is always energy in = energy out. There's a reason. And it's got a reasonable foundation.

There are no working magnet motors. It's sad, but it's true. It was, however, a decent education in machining and how Newtonian physics worked.

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:03 AM
Thats basicly why i would build it ANYWAY......

To litarally push it down the throats of the belivers....
"LOOK, it DOES NOT WORK"......

BUT..... And thats a big "but"

One day there WILL come a thing, item, device, that ACTUALLY defies
the laws.... You say no, i say we´ll see, and when we do, ill say
TOLD YOU SO....

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:04 AM

originally posted by: Miccey
Thats basicly why i would build it ANYWAY......

To litarally push it down the throats of the belivers....
"LOOK, it DOES NOT WORK"......

BUT..... And thats a big "but"

One day there WILL come a thing, item, device, that ACTUALLY defies
the laws.... You say no, i say we´ll see, and when we do, ill say
TOLD YOU SO....

I'm sure. But this isn't it.

eta: I had some designs I abandoned after building something like 25 or so of these things. I really liked the flux switching designs. Never could get them to go, though.

I was really convinced the non-linear designs had a chance. I was never able to get a linear version to get over "the hump", which every design had. Eventually I grew up and realized the math described what was going on pretty accurately, and I was never going to get it to work.
edit on 25-11-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:07 AM

originally posted by: MicceyYou say no, i say we´ll see, and when we do, ill say
TOLD YOU SO....

Will you also say "I was foolish for believing this nonsense" for all the spurious claims you are so sure are true as well?

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:41 AM
You cant read very well can you...
Im basicly in on what Bedlam says...
Overunity as in More energy OUT than
IN is just not possible...

But i also strongly belives, we dont know half of it...
Some were down the road we will find a way to overcome
that problem....

We´re just so damn stupid to admit we dont KNOW...
Well, you are...I know i dont...sooo
edit on 2016/11/25 by Miccey because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:40 AM
How about dropping a magnet through a non-metal spiral enclosure, like a screw insert, that is wrapped with coils. Then the magnet could be pulled up using counter weights. The magnet would spin to get through the spiral creating the pos., neg. polling of generators and would do so using only its own weight. Probably would need to use bearrings or rollers to on the magnet to minimise friction.

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 01:28 PM
Or how about a closed loop spiral setup placed on a cars tire. Or maybe make a perpetual motion spiral and magnet combo.

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:10 AM

In this case, your top end energy limit is mgh, the potential energy of position due to gravity, which you have put in as a starting condition, by placing the magnet at the top.

Once it gets to the bottom, that's it. Because mgh is symmetric. Raising the magnet to the starting position takes all the energy that you get out of it descending. It's why gravity machines don't work.

And, magnet machines, and spring machines, and buoyancy machines ad infinitum. Inserting a magnet in the middle there is your smoke and mirrors point.

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:55 PM

Raising the magnet to the starting position takes all the energy that you get out of it descending.

Ok, but I was suggesting using a counter weight to lift back into position. Like filling and emptying or attaching and releasing. Or creating a piston like machine. Or somehow use momentum.

What if it was a closed spiral loop. (no bottom) Could be attached to anything already spinning without any additional drag to the said spinning thing.
(except for its weight)

Or, are you referring to something else entirely.

-Just trying to keep the ideas going.

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:38 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam
Inserting a magnet in the middle there is your smoke and mirrors point.
Don't forget spirals.

originally posted by: WintersHere
-Just trying to keep the ideas going.
They've been going for centuries and no perpetual motion machine has ever worked. How many more centuries will it take until people realize they won't work and that no amount of new ideas will make them work with the currently known laws of physics? Now if you come up with some new laws of physics we don't know yet, then you might have something to at least consider, but good luck with that because it's not easy to come up with new physics.

If you just want over-unity and not perpetual motion, we've already got heat pumps which can deliver more thermal energy than the energy they use, because they are not a closed system.

Coefficient of performance

The COP usually exceeds 1, especially in heat pumps, because, instead of just converting work to heat (which, if 100% efficient, would be a COP_hp of 1), it pumps additional heat from a heat source to where the heat is required.

edit on 20161128 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:56 PM

I was really referring to over-unity, for small applications.

They've been going for centuries and no perpetual motion machine has ever worked. How many more centuries will it take until people realize they won't work and that no amount of new ideas will make them work with the currently known laws of physics?

I realize that, it's still interesting to share ideas and learn new things. Personaly I know nothing at all of this field of study, just stumbled accross this thread.

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 07:58 PM

originally posted by: WintersHere

Ok, but I was suggesting using a counter weight to lift back into position. Like filling and emptying or attaching and releasing.

It doesn't matter how elaborate a system you insert in your smoke and mirrors point, it's still going to take as much energy to hoist the weight as you get back from it descending.

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:47 AM
Free energy was discovered long ago... its called sound.

top topics

21