It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
That is carefully positioned magnets used to generate motion (torque). There is a pretty good explanation of how they work here:
electronics.howstuffworks.com...
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.
Like the motors I linked to you will have to provide some energy to the device to achieve this.
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.
The same principles apply to your device.
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.
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 you can get 101% efficiency you will become the richest people on the planet.
Originally posted by Frosty
Cooraborate your claims with some sort of verifyable proof.
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.
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).
They may have some kind of case for intellectual property theft, but I'm not sure how this works in such generic devices.
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)
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...
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?
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?
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.
To be fair, I'm a physics major at a large US university, so I guess I'm part of the "Establishment".
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.
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.
And who knows... it might be possible. Hats off to the guy who does it.
Oh, and for all of you aspiring physics dorks out there reading this. Here's my proposal for a permanent magnet perpetual motion device.
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?
This has nothing to do with cooboration as you just call their claims false out of hand.
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.
Originally posted by Shadow88
Thankyou! Not in a million years could i have said it better myself. Frassin rassin skeptics!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
On the basis of the descriptions of the devices they are attempting to build. What else?
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?
So which "researchers" have been killed by "them"? Any evidence? Any links? Or just vague inuendo?
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.
Again, some actual evidence would be nice.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
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?
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
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...
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.