Permenant Magnet motor

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
The point I was trying to make was that all these motors work on exactly the same principles as the ones you guys are building.


On what basis do you assume so much?


That is carefully positioned magnets used to generate motion (torque). There is a pretty good explanation of how they work here:
electronics.howstuffworks.com...


The magnets are used to transduce energy wich can then be used in many ways including induction of motion.



Oh yeah, btw... I've been fidgetting around myself trying to seduce the angle of two magnets to be able to create enough inertia to get past the "hump" before repulsing eachother as well...



You can't, it's impossible I'm afraid.


Why exactly? In breach of wich scientific principle is this?


Like the motors I linked to you will have to provide some energy to the device to achieve this.


Some energy is always required to create the dipole but after that it must only be preserved while it gates energy from the active vacuum. That is all any of these devices aims to do and if the design is effective the energy requirement for preservation of the source dipole will be but a minuscule fraction of the energy gated.


They all use an electrical current to flip the polarity of the an electromagnet over and get past the "hump" you talk about. The energy you put in is always more than what you get out.


You misunderstand completely i guess. Any machines using only polarity to reach over unity is probably not going to do much for the worlds energy needs and is a misdirection from what can be done. If the energy you put in is more than what you get out your doing what all other "generators" on the planet allready do for no good reason at all.


The same principles apply to your device.


Is that what they claimed or is this another one of your self interested assumptions?


This isn't just theoretical physics telling you it's impossible though; people have been building magnet based motors since 1821 and nobody has ever managed to get the position of the magnets just so so that they will keep generating motion with no electrical input.


They actually have ( whatever you may want to believe) but it's got nothing to do with flipping polarity to create repulsion and so forth. That is however the misdirection main stream science have used to brand these machines impossible. As i have said many times before magnets allready transduce energy from the vacuum without cost and not even that can be explained by any logical means without admitting the extrmely flawed nature of classical EM theory.


These guys claim 95% efficiency for their motor: www.eere.energy.gov...
If you can beat that you can probably make a lot of money with your device.


If getting rich was the motive instead of liberating people from their energy dependence.


If you can get 101% efficiency you will become the richest people on the planet.


Well many have done so ( 1800% for one experimental device) but they are not nearly as rich as they are lucky to still be alive. Being successful in this field can be short lived feat; no pun intended.

Stellar



[edit on 23-12-2005 by StellarX]




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Cooraborate your claims with some sort of verifyable proof.


This has nothing to do with cooboration as you just call their claims false out of hand. Unless you interested in learning do not ask them to spend their time explaining theories you have decided not to believe in either way.


Magnets are losing their power because they do not stay magnetized forever. Eventually they can/will fade. Simply taking these magnets out of the applied field will do the trick.


Well please provide me with the exact information on how long each type of magnet stays magnetized as i have checked and i could not find anything at all. As far as i could establish it is assumed that magnets will/can fade with time but why, how and for what reason have not been established accurately. Since magnets are not new the logical assumption i must make is that the answer is simply not known.

Stellar

[edit on 23-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
I'm not sure that there is anything they could do about it. The devices haven't got patents (in fact this would be impossible in the US and many other countries as they don't grant them to perpetual motion machines).


Well actually Bearden's device is patented www.cheniere.org... so according to your logic it is no longer a 'perpetual motion machine'. I always knew you would eventually see sense.


They may have some kind of case for intellectual property theft, but I'm not sure how this works in such generic devices.


Generic devices? Some case for intellectual property theft? Interesting point of view....


As was pointed out there are hundreds of very similar devices out there already, which have many things in common (the main one being that they don't actually work, at least in sense of generating free energy anyway)


They do and saying it aint so wont change the fact! Denial may affect your perception of reality but reality itself is pretty much immune to your efforts.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentFrog
If you look carefully at that site, you'll notice "follow up" stories at the bottom. They say that Perendev have been promising to be out on the market with a magnetic motor for the past 3 years. Their webstie is pretty thin on the details...


The devil ( and the danger) is in the details and the more they claim or say they more attacks they will draw on themselves from the establishment. It's very much a way to avoid fighting a battle that is not fair and that they do not have the resources to win.


I don't want to be labled with the much dreaded "pseudoskeptic" term, but honestly, if you had an invention that was going to revolutionize the world... wouldn't you try to get it out as soon as possible?


Well i try not to label and i will assume the best intent possible for you till you prove my wrong. I would very much try to get it out but you are up against every system of government in the entire world as their all simply there to keep people dependent. These devices will rapidly eat away at that dependence and are thus a huge threat fought at every turn. Some scientist have the brains and technical know how but do not have the guts or savvy to fight such entrenched and massive forces.


Show your prototype to people with a complete walk-around, let jounralists and such see it start from zero and ramp up to full speed?


Wich journalist are you talking about? In wich papers will they publish? Do you think the media is THAT independent?


And even if the Government was trying to repress you... just publish the plans on the internet. There you go... open source. They won't be able to stop you if you're serious.


That has been done by many scientist and i can give the links to their work. Open source does not mean much when the entire science community are around to attack anyone who happens to support your work. You apparently do not realise what government and their agencies can do to protect their own jobs.


To be fair, I'm a physics major at a large US university, so I guess I'm part of the "Establishment".


Your only part if you resist learning simple because what you are learing contradicts what you currently beleive to be true.


But seriously... a permanent magnet motor? The magnetic field is conservative (by the definition) so any closed path will have a net zero energy gain.


Wich is an artifically introduced rule not based on any scientific necessity. Equilibrium is assumed but there is no foundation for the assumption in Maxwell's work or even in Heaviside's severe curtailment of it . Lorentz introduced equilibrium to save his own ass, and in so doing arbitrarily discarded the entire class of Maxwellian systems that are far from equilibrium, since even his reputation would not have survived what he knew to be true. He argued he could discard the huge nondiverged Heaviside component of energy flow outside the conducter, while retaining the small Poynting component that strikes the surface charges and gets diverged into the conducter to power the electrons, simply because the Heaviside component did not strike the circuit, was not intercepted and did not power anything. Thus we have our self enforced equilibrium power systems fighting nature every step of the way.


No amount of whining about undiscovered principles will change that fact, unless you're willing to rewrite the entirety of the past 300 years of calculus. In that case, good luck to you.


It is not undiscovered as much as it is ignored for reasons that is damn obvious. All we need to do is look at particle physics wich accepts these facts as self evidenct while electrical engineers world wide refuse to accept it.


And who knows... it might be possible. Hats off to the guy who does it.


If he survives long enough, somehow....


Oh, and for all of you aspiring physics dorks out there reading this. Here's my proposal for a permanent magnet perpetual motion device.


Kinda sure they wont appreciate it but anyways!

Stellar

[edit on 23-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Once the principle has been established it's just a question of working out the mechanics. Why would you like to think that acting on a known principle is not worth doing?



The principle of what? Stuff blows up? Catches on Fire? Releases energy? That is not much of a principle and guide line to building an engine.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Wow StellarX you really went to town on everyones stuff.




This has nothing to do with cooboration as you just call their claims false out of hand.


Thankyou! Not in a million years could i have said it better myself. Frassin rassin skeptics!



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
The principle of what? Stuff blows up? Catches on Fire? Releases energy? That is not much of a principle and guide line to building an engine.


Well if their machines/engines do any of those things their obviously making mistakes with their engineering work or with the principles they employ. Not being able to build a IC engine yourself does not however make them impossible any more than not being able to build a COP >1 system makes those impossible.

There are always those who seek to exploit others and this field is no different. If the person building it can not explain where the energy comes from he does not know what his doing and his at best tinkering and at worse a fraud. It's the reason i stick to scientific principles and wont defend the specific work of all the people declaring that they built such machines.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
Thankyou! Not in a million years could i have said it better myself. Frassin rassin skeptics!


Stellar was taken so i had to add the X.
True skepticsm is never a problem and what they are doing are far past skepticism and basically just a rabid defense of dogma and/or their own ignorence.

Anyways! Thanks for the compliment and i hope to soon add a short history of why current EM theory only accepts equilibrium systems when both Maxwell and Heaviside showed that disequilibrium systems are the norm in nature.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Ok, I just found this topic so I haven't read through all of it yet, so I'll avoid asking any questions on the theory behind the operation of such an engine.

I do have one practical question though. How would such an engine be used?

For an engine (Or turbine, as I prefer to call this type of application) to be controllable, a method of controling it's input is required. For an internal combustion engine, throttles control the fuel flow into the engine ( Keeping it basic, I'm no automotive expert) to control the motor speed under different loading conditions ( Typically desired MPH/KPH). For a steam turbine like those used in power plants, throttle valves regulate steam flow to the turbine blades (little more complicated than that, but discussing Curtis and Rateau methods of pressure/velocity compounding are a little beyond the scope of my question).

Now I'm going to focus my question at a power plant application of said technology. If you could bypass the need for a turbine to be the prime mover of an AC generator by integrating the motive force into the generator using purely magnetic flux manipulation (Strong "if" in my opinion, as I can think of many problems there...prohibitive armature reaction being one of them) through what method would you regulate voltage/frequency? Without a generator field excitation applied conventional voltage regulating circuits would be completely useless.

I'm thinking maybe I'm just not thinking outside the box on this one, because I've kind of been trained to operate and control more conventional electrical motors/generating quipment.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Basically you're way ahead of us. We just want to get through the first stages which is to build a working prototype of a machine that will stay running under its own power. Eventually we will look at ways to make it generate power.

I think you are basically asking us about how do we control it once we have achieved it. We haven't thought that far yet I don't beleive. My general feeling is that if the motor is strong enough to run a generator, we can work forwards from that point. It shouldn't be too difficult to keep stuff under control by virtue of resistance offered by the process of induction (in the case of a generator). Well at least I THINK that is how it might work.

-P


Originally posted by Shadow
Ok, I just found this topic so I haven't read through all of it yet, so I'll avoid asking any questions on the theory behind the operation of such an engine.

I do have one practical question though. How would such an engine be used?

For an engine (Or turbine, as I prefer to call this type of application) to be controllable, a method of controling it's input is required. For an internal combustion engine, throttles control the fuel flow into the engine ( Keeping it basic, I'm no automotive expert) to control the motor speed under different loading conditions ( Typically desired MPH/KPH). For a steam turbine like those used in power plants, throttle valves regulate steam flow to the turbine blades (little more complicated than that, but discussing Curtis and Rateau methods of pressure/velocity compounding are a little beyond the scope of my question).

Now I'm going to focus my question at a power plant application of said technology. If you could bypass the need for a turbine to be the prime mover of an AC generator by integrating the motive force into the generator using purely magnetic flux manipulation (Strong "if" in my opinion, as I can think of many problems there...prohibitive armature reaction being one of them) through what method would you regulate voltage/frequency? Without a generator field excitation applied conventional voltage regulating circuits would be completely useless.

I'm thinking maybe I'm just not thinking outside the box on this one, because I've kind of been trained to operate and control more conventional electrical motors/generating quipment.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Keep it up StellerX. I have read your posts and thoroughly appreciate the fact that you are bringing flaws in theories to light. Naysayers can't really dispute that. I am too impatient to research and critically analyze all of that information, so the fact that you are is sheding a lot of light on stuff.

I have had a look at some of the evidence presented in the links that the skeptics have presented. I would be interested to get your take, but here's mine. The papers do a good job of debunking devices, but unless I missed it, there was no mention of actual experiments. Also the devices they debunked seem to not be very well suited for magnet-motor-functionality anyway. They seem better suited for a good debunking. Take a look at the diagrams. In those diagrams, notice that the magnets that are arranged in a fan-like pattern, all point to the direct center. Well of course there would be no net effect on the magnets in the middle! It was rigged that way! Put all of the magnets at an angle, so they don't all cancel each other out. Also, apply shielding to portions of the magnet that would eminate an unproductive opposing magnetic field. Anyway, those are feelings on the matter, what do you think?

-P

[edit on 23-12-2005 by postings]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Hmm...using magnetic resistance (reluctance actually) to control it, I'm going to have to think more about it when I'm not as tired.

I also have a lot of theory based questions relating to basic operation, but I didn't want to start throwing out questions until I've read the entire topic...to be fair and all, considering I am a skeptic of such things after all



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   


quote: Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
The point I was trying to make was that all these motors work on exactly the same principles as the ones you guys are building.

On what basis do you assume so much?

On the basis of the descriptions of the devices they are attempting to build. What else?



Some energy is always required to create the dipole but after that it must only be preserved while it gates energy from the active vacuum. That is all any of these devices aims to do and if the design is effective the energy requirement for preservation of the source dipole will be but a minuscule fraction of the energy gated.

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this means. I know you have read half of Tom Bearden's book and therefore you are now an expert in EM, but I have only had a formal science education. Could you perhaps explain what you mean here, perhaps with some links?



Well many have done so ( 1800% for one experimental device) but they are not nearly as rich as they are lucky to still be alive. Being successful in this field can be short lived feat; no pun intended.

So which "researchers" have been killed by "them"? Any evidence? Any links? Or just vague inuendo?



Well actually Bearden's device is patented www.cheniere.org... so according to your logic it is no longer a 'perpetual motion machine'. I always knew you would eventually see sense.

Not sure how he snuck a patent in there....probably because he dressed it up with all sorts of quantum gibberish which fooled some poor patent officer. Anyway getting a patent in no way means the device works, and his doesn't or he would simply demonstrate it publicly. Oh, I forget, "they" would get him.



He argued he could discard the huge nondiverged Heaviside component of energy flow outside the conducter, while retaining the small Poynting component that strikes the surface charges and gets diverged into the conducter to power the electrons, simply because the Heaviside component did not strike the circuit, was not intercepted and did not power anything. Thus we have our self enforced equilibrium power systems fighting nature every step of the way.

Again, some actual evidence would be nice.



They do and saying it aint so wont change the fact! Denial may affect your perception of reality but reality itself is pretty much immune to your efforts.

What fact? All any of these guys have to do is demonstrate their device to James Randi and they get a million dollars. According to you this wouldn't be worth it


I've explained quite clearly over and over again why permanent magnet's can't be used to generate free energy from the "vacuum", Narnia, Middle Earth or any other realm. I have provided links to clearly explained theory that demonstrates this and all I get back is nonsense, frankly.

Anyways good luck to you guys, I think the best way to prove me wrong would be to build a working device. I won't hold my breath.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
On the basis of the descriptions of the devices they are attempting to build. What else?


I was wondering myself since what you describe and what their saying does not seem at all related.


Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this means. I know you have read half of Tom Bearden's book and therefore you are now an expert in EM, but I have only had a formal science education. Could you perhaps explain what you mean here, perhaps with some links?


The links are all in the other threads wich you left after i started providing the links. I am certainly mostly ignorant when it comes to science in it's entirety and probably no different when it comes to EM theory. The question is not wether i am ignorent ( wich i certainly am) but wether you are more or less so than i am.


So which "researchers" have been killed by "them"? Any evidence? Any links? Or just vague inuendo?


I am happy to go with vague inuendo for now since it can probably be argued that suicide by assault rifle's is in fact possibl and not strange at all.


Not sure how he snuck a patent in there....probably because he dressed it up with all sorts of quantum gibberish which fooled some poor patent officer.


Since such devices are patently ( pun intended) impossible i guess that is exactly what he did to fool the poor dupes at the patent office.


Anyway getting a patent in no way means the device works, and his doesn't or he would simply demonstrate it publicly. Oh, I forget, "they" would get him.


The device has been demonstrated ( it's in that 'other' thread) and i am sorry you hate scientific progress so much. There are videos of the device working and i am sure some network could easily get it if the editors were not just trying to keep themselves in business. I wonder why you are on this forum when you seem to think there are no forces greater than your own intellect.


Again, some actual evidence would be nice.


You know well were you can find it and playing to the crowd is a rather short term plan in my opinion. I am not leaving so i think it would be wise for you to stop avoiding all the links i have so far provided in previous threads.


What fact? All any of these guys have to do is demonstrate their device to James Randi and they get a million dollars. According to you this wouldn't be worth it


Randi is no objective observer in this case and as far as i can tell no more qualified to make the judgements he has than i am. Randi is clearly not a nobody but his fame comes from defending the establishment and not from doing anything other than being extremely critical and biased. Knowing what Randi has decided to think about their work it would be greedy and foolish for them to try gain such a paltry prize while risking his uninformed and clearly biased opinion.


I've explained quite clearly over and over again why permanent magnet's can't be used to generate free energy from the "vacuum", Narnia, Middle Earth or any other realm.


And i have explained that they do not in fact generate any energy as that would entail breaking the conservation of energy law wich i have never taken issue with. Energy can not be created or destroyed and what you call generation is nothing of the sort. You should stop assuming ignorence in others whle you make such strikingly ignorent comments yourself. Magnets gates energy from the active vacuum and that is where their magnetism comes from. It is not magic as you would like to believe. If you do not understand what the term vacuum entails you should ask so that i may explain it to you.


I have provided links to clearly explained theory that demonstrates this and all I get back is nonsense, frankly.


The links just repeated the same old scientific 'laws' ( as these sites wrongly assumes) that supposedly makes observed reality impossible. You have clearly chosen to sponsor contradictions in science but i would like them to be resolved before i will employ them to attack reality itself. If my responses are not clear to you i will do my best to clarify as best i can.

Considering my limited understanding of all this i am going to end up making mistakes but i wont stand for you questioning my motives or just insulting me. I can flame with the best of them but the resulting bloodbaths has never endeared me to mods so i like to avoid that by not starting fights. If hope you can manage the same as the alternatives wont benefit either of us.


Anyways good luck to you guys, I think the best way to prove me wrong would be to build a working device. I won't hold my breath.


This is hardly about you and whatever you believe can not stop progress.
I addressed all your questions in previous threads and if you want to post links to them, or add new questions, feel free to do so here or there.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
You can't bend or stretch a law; the law is either correct and physical phenomena must adhere to it, or it is wrong. There is no in between.


That depends entirely on the phenomenon the law was supposed to model. The more specific the law the narrower the range of physical phenomena it tends to describe.That should obviously be a rather large warning sign but it has mostly been ignored. If a law is is usefull under assumed conditions we can use it ( as we do) but it hardly means we understand what is actually going on.



You are correct in one respect though, if you do manage to build such a device I (and many others much smarter than me) will be wrong. I will then eat not only my hat, but the hat stand as well.



And that is why your opinion on this can not be taken seriously. You have allready commited your dignity and self respect to being right and will now proceed to protect it with whatever means. Why have you chosen to put so much at stake for laws that are meant to be refined, or thrown out completely, over time i can but speculate about.

Stellar

[edit on 24-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
StellaX - you keep referring to other threads where you have mysteriously posted all the evidence that supports your arguments. However this particular thread is about the practicalities of building a permanent magnet based perpetual motion machine. I have demonstrated in very practical terms why such a device is impossible.

Can you offer any practical advice as to how they should configure their device so that it suddenly starts extracting "energy from the vacuum"? Which special configuration of magnets will cause this to happen?

Why, for example, do the magnets in a normal electrical motor not extract this energy? Why do EM motors always use more energy than they produce? What are they all doing wrong?



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
StellaX - you keep referring to other threads where you have mysteriously posted all the evidence that supports your arguments.


There is nothing mysterious about these threads and i can post links to them if you have somehow managed to forget about them after posting in them.


However this particular thread is about the practicalities of building a permanent magnet based perpetual motion machine. I have demonstrated in very practical terms why such a device is impossible.


You have argued that it is not scientifically possible and that nature does not allow for it but particle physicist all over the world allready accept it as the truth and make calculations based on it. Electical theory will simply have to adapt and if you are unwilling to read the material provind this there is not much i can be asked to do.


Can you offer any practical advice as to how they should configure their device so that it suddenly starts extracting "energy from the vacuum"?


Since their based on motion and not on diverging em flow trough space i am not sure how much i can help.
I will say that they should focus on discovering what creates the magnetic field around their magnets.


Which special configuration of magnets will cause this to happen?


The configuration that best preserves the charges of each magnet.....


Why, for example, do the magnets in a normal electrical motor not extract this energy?


It's the only energy they have ever extracted despite what we have been led to believe. The burning of fossil fuels and such have never ever contributed a single watt to our power lines as all the energy they provide is used to create a source dipole from wich energy flows from the vacuum. The other half of the energy provided by burning fossil fuels then destroys that source dipole in rapid fashion while the circuit diverges a minuscule part of the energy that flows in every direction from the dipole. This has been known in particle physics for over 45 years ( ever since they awarded the nobel prize to Lee&Yang for proving broken symmetry despite the fact that Heaviside and Poynting both new it 50 years before that) but electrical engineers world wide have decided that they would rather be credible than accurate.



Why do EM motors always use more energy than they produce? What are they all doing wrong?


Well the fact that non of that energy is actually used to power external loads should give you some idea. All the energy that is put in does nothing but seperate charges to form a source dipole from wich energy is transduced from the active vacuum.

You really can find all the information you need on Bearden's site as i have pointed out so many times. If you do not find him credible at least consider the fact that the American senate apparently did “Outside-the-Box” Technologies, Their Critical Role Concerning Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis-The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and if you consider them as bad judges of credibility order his book ( for free) and at least add it to your book collection.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
There are always those who seek to exploit others and this field is no different. If the person building it can not explain where the energy comes from he does not know what his doing and his at best tinkering and at worse a fraud. It's the reason i stick to scientific principles and wont defend the specific work of all the people declaring that they built such machines.
Stellar


Yeah, that was what I was telling you. There is more that needs to be already understood to build such an engine, like fluidmechanics for one. Not doing so...

It'd be like saying you know that neutrons will split a uranium atom so therefore you know how to build a nuclear reactor. This seems to be have been your logic.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
yeah, that was what I was telling you. There is more that needs to be already understood to build such an engine, like fluidmechanics for one. Not doing so...


Well you were making far wider claims than on specific designs and that is what i aimed to contest.


It'd be like saying you know that neutrons will split a uranium atom so therefore you know how to build a nuclear reactor. This seems to be have been your logic.


Well i am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion but i am as always willing to explain the few things i think i have figured out so far.
It seems we at least agree on the fact that not everyone should be trusted. At this rate we might agree on another fact inside a few months!


Stellar



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Does anyone know of any ferrous (I believe I have the correct term there) that are really good at expressing magnetic flux when in the presence of strong magnetic flux, but imediately loosing that expression once removed from the flux.

Nother way to put it . . . You put a paper-clip near a strong magnet. The paperclip becomes attracted to the magnet, and clings to it. Anything ferrous material that this paperclip comes into contact with will be attracted to the paperclip (if not the magnet). Remove the paperclip from the magnet, and separate the two, and the paperclip will still have traces of a magnetic field.

I want to know if someone knows of a good material that is good at not having any lingering flux once removed from a magnet. Any ideas?

-P





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join