Permenant Magnet motor

Didnt you just watch the video? the perendev motor slows to a stop after about a minute or so. In this day and age it goes without saying that its useless unless self sustained.

Yeah, the video was actually a bit sad in some ways. These guys have obviously put loads of work into the device, and it just doesn't work. This is completely predictable, but there you go.

Then again, the video wasn't too honest (and damn boring) - the camera rarely backs away from the device, and often zooms right in for no obvious reason. During the zooms it becomes increasingly obvious that the guy keeps spinning the axle with his hand to get the thing going, the zoom is to stop you seeing this. You can hear and see the spin slowing down moments after he lets go, but he never lets it get to a complete rest.

The interesting moment was when someone says "So this doesn't keep running then?" and I had to turn the volume right up to hear him reply "No".



[edit on 26/1/06 by FatherLukeDuke]

Originally posted by Frosty
For anyone representing PMM as free-energy/perpetula motion machines: Please present your math. I am very interested as well are others in seeing this information.

I have explained this in the past and i could just link you to my posts earlier in this thread. What is your motive with repeating the same old PMM nonsense whatever else is being said? I hope they pay you well as it is kind of silly to deny reality for free!

Stellar

[edit on 27-1-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Frosty
For anyone representing PMM as free-energy/perpetula motion machines: Please present your math. I am very interested as well are others in seeing this information.

I have explained this in the past and i could just link you to my posts earlier in this thread. What is your motive with repeating the same old PMM nonsense whatever else is being said? I hope they pay you well as it is kind of silly to deny reality for free!

Stellar

[edit on 27-1-2006 by StellarX]

I know you have posted on another thread such a link, but I could not find it on this thread. My motive is for you to present the math foundation of the mechanics. Newton did so, Dirac and others did so, and Einstein did so; what makes the PMM enthusiast the exception?

According to Mike Brady......

Be available June or July 2006.

(the motor)

Well ok but theyve been pushing it back and pushing it back for a LONG time.

Originally posted by Frosty
For anyone representing PMM as free-energy/perpetula motion machines: Please present your math. I am very interested as well are others in seeing this information.

Glad you are interested, however I don't really need to submit any of my ideas in the form of math to you or anyone else for approval, or evaluation. Furthermore, I'm not trying to rile anyone up, but I honestly haven't seen any proof that you are qualified to provide such approval/evaluation. Perhaps I missed a post or two where you went into those details, but if that is the case, and you have proven yourself to be a valuable scientific asset, I would be more open to asking you specific questions. Not sure about submitting my ideas for your evaluation though.

Moreover, I really wanted this to be more about the free exchange of ideas related to getting a permenant magnet motor running. A place where tinkerers can ask/answer questions, and possibly get something novel working.

Lastly, I am definitely not a mathematician. I am a tinkerer, and that is it. I have interest in reading up on the math involved to a degree, but no interest in actually applying it unless I feel the need to. Hope that helps.

-P

Well in the relative peace-time world your not gonna get that.

Now if you had a film of a Chinese device to deliver nukes in a novel way to a target using a permanent magnet motor, we would have a PMM in a rapid fashion.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by bodebliss]

Originally posted by postings

Originally posted by Frosty
For anyone representing PMM as free-energy/perpetula motion machines: Please present your math. I am very interested as well are others in seeing this information.

Glad you are interested, however I don't really need to submit any of my ideas in the form of math to you or anyone else for approval, or evaluation. Furthermore, I'm not trying to rile anyone up, but I honestly haven't seen any proof that you are qualified to provide such approval/evaluation. Perhaps I missed a post or two where you went into those details, but if that is the case, and you have proven yourself to be a valuable scientific asset, I would be more open to asking you specific questions. Not sure about submitting my ideas for your evaluation though.

Moreover, I really wanted this to be more about the free exchange of ideas related to getting a permenant magnet motor running. A place where tinkerers can ask/answer questions, and possibly get something novel working.

Lastly, I am definitely not a mathematician. I am a tinkerer, and that is it. I have interest in reading up on the math involved to a degree, but no interest in actually applying it unless I feel the need to. Hope that helps.

-P

You seem to have missed the point. You need to explain the math behind the mechanics. You are describing an application which goes against the three laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics has never been proven, there is math behind the laws, and most improtantly: it has never been disproven. It is accepted through out the world by all academia, their constituents and their students.

In order to have a free exchange of thought (ideas), you will need to at least explain to a small degree the math behind the mechanics of your PMM (how violates either of the laws). No one in their right mind will take you seriously unless you present them with this information.

Go ahead and ask me a question, what do you have in mind? I would be happy to read up on the literature of the three laws if you point me to what you feel has/can be disproven by a PMM.

I am neither a mathematician or a dabbler of mechanics (like yourselve), but I do read, not a tremendous amount of, General Chemistry by Pauling. I have come to understanding from reading this book, and my textbooks, that exlusion of math from science...hard to put it, but I would say it just does not make anysense. Math is the foundation of the sciences.

Originally posted by Frosty
You seem to have missed the point. You need to explain the math behind the mechanics. You are describing an application which goes against the three laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics has never been proven, there is math behind the laws, and most improtantly: it has never been disproven. It is accepted through out the world by all academia, their constituents and their students.

I think I got your point. You want me to present my math, and I am basically telling you that I have no math yet, and even if I did, I don't necessarily need to post it to exchange ideas about this. For instance, I had some specific questions about ferrous materials. A poster was kind enough to point me in the right direction. I don't see how presenting mathematics was important to that. Got it? K. On to the rest.

My second point has to do with thermodynamics. Would you say a Dam which produces hydro-electric power is over-unity? Probably not right? Why? Because there was far more power put into the system than was produced, in the form of the sun hitting the earth, evaporating the oceans, creating rain, which formed the river, which fed the lake, which fed the dam using gravity. . . You still with me?

Now, if I told you that I thought we could get a lot more power out of magnets than we put in, you would say that is absurd, but you would have no footing to stand on (but neither would I). The reason why neither of us would be correct is because vs. the dam example, magnets get their force from a source we are not aware of, and it is fairly continuous. Yes, a magnet wears out, but in the mean time, there is a field flow going on. Yes, it is because of the alignment of particles, but what is it about that specific arrangement that causes magnetism? What exactly is magnetic flux? Do you know enough about it to make a magnetic flux (without a magnet or electromagnet)? I thought not, and neither do I. But we can make water! Hydrogen and Oxygen. That is a tangible thing that creates energy for us. So does magnetism, and in fact it is involved in that dam, but to this day no one can explain on a fundamental level magnetic flux. No one can build a magnetic flux (without first creating a magnet or electromagnet). Even string theory doesn't exactly answer it based on what I have read.

Think about those questions for a moment. Take away the magnet. Take away the electromagnet. Pretend they never existed, and never can exist, and explain how you would go about building piece-by-piece a magnetic field. Some might try to get around my question by saying, "hey lets align a bunch of atoms so they create magnetic field." That doesn't answer the question, and to say a force is fundamental is a ridiculous cop-out. How do you build a force, any force? What's it made of?

Now I have absolutely no mathematical proof of this next tidbit, but it has occurred to me that all forces are the result of us passing either through a higher dimension, or us passing through time, which itself might be a higher dimension. This is why time moves at a different pace when close to large objects with enough gravity. I'll fully admit it is probably hooey, but there is nothing wrong with me asking about the nature of time, gravity, mater, or anything else without first being asked for my scientific credentials. So again, not trying to get anyone upset or anything, but at this point Frosty, I will present no math.

I may however present some models if I can get my 3D modeller to behave.

-P

Originally posted by postings
Now, if I told you that I thought.....

I have a good footing to stand on. As I mentioned before, the three laws of thermodynamics have never been proven but yet at the same time they have never been disproven. Having a thought about breaking these laws isn't going to convince me, or very many other people. You would need to demonstrate how and try to explain why the laws can be broken. The internal change of energy cannot be so that there is more energy coming out of a system than there was that went into it.

We know well that many magnets recieve their magnetism from an existing magnetic field: the earth's magnetic field.

If you want to learn further about the science of magnetism, I would suggest that you hit the books, put yourself through undergrad school and aim for your PhD in either math or physics. Tinkering in your garage is not going to yield the results you are seeking.

I don't know what magnetic flux is, but I stopped at the library and read a little. I am not in the calculus so I cannot tell you right away that I understand and can use the information I read. I can read through some precal this semester and some calculus and find attempt to understand further. I am not capable of learning an entire semester's worth of calculus in a few weeks on my own, so it may take me some time.

Originally posted by postings

Think about those questions for a moment. Take away the magnet. Take away the electromagnet. Pretend they never existed, and never can exist, and explain how you would go about building piece-by-piece a magnetic field. Some might try to get around my question by saying, "hey lets align a bunch of atoms so they create magnetic field." That doesn't answer the question, and to say a force is fundamental is a ridiculous cop-out. How do you build a force, any force? What's it made of?

Force is velocity sqaured times the mass of the body.
Electrostatic charges (London dispersion and Dipole-Dipole (van der Waals)) are created by moving bodies. These are the forces which hold moleculs in solids and liquids together and what allow gases to condense.

Originally posted by postings

I may however present some models if I can get my 3D modeller to behave.

-P

That would be a good start.

Almost all the questions posted are answered by physics textbooks.

It depends on what you mean by "what makes a magnet" but if you're talking about conventional ferromagnets the answer is in quantum mechanics.

Elementary particles, in particular, electrons, are intrinsic sources of magnetic field on account of their QM property called spin just as they are intrinsic sources of electric field.

Why? No reason, this is just the property of matter.

In a ferromagnet you can get a persistent alignment of spins without an external magnetic field when, because of "exchange interactions" with nearby atoms, some of the electrons in the outer regions of the atoms happen to find it still a lower energy state despite the extra energy involved.

This depends on the specific details of the material which is why only a few things are ferromagnets and most things aren't.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Almost all the questions posted are answered by physics textbooks.

It depends on what you mean by "what makes a magnet" but if you're talking about conventional ferromagnets the answer is in quantum mechanics.

Elementary particles, in particular, electrons, are intrinsic sources of magnetic field on account of their QM property called spin just as they are intrinsic sources of electric field.

Why? No reason, this is just the property of matter.

First of all thanks for actually answering my question instead of other posters who simply write "as I said" and proceed to insinuate that no one is actually reading what they are saying. Seriously, I appreciate it!

Secondly, everything I have ever read about the topic has pointed to the same conclusion, and this is the problem I have with all the answers that I get. It's like a telescope that can only zoom in so far:

Me: "How do you make a magnetic field?"
Others: "With a magnet."
Me: "Why?"
Others: "Because it is ferrous."
Me: "Why?"
Others: "Because the atoms in the magnet are aligned in such a way that they produce a magnetic field (or something like that)."
Me: "Why?"
Others: "Because it just does!"
Me: "But . . . why?"

Has science stopped trying to zoom in far enough to understand this? Science is based upon observables. If it isn't observable, it can't be scienced (did I just make up a word?). But the true source of a magnetic field -- not the magnet, not the atoms in the magnet -- but the true source has yet to be clearly identified unless I am hopefully mistaken. So how can you base an accurate science around it?

String theory is the only thing that sorta comes close, although there is a lot of disagreement as to what string theory actually is. Basically it says that there is this energy that is everywhere, and matter is just an expression of the tiny vibrations of what they call strings. This would give ferrous atoms their properties.

Others: "You have your answer then don't you!"
Me: "No because A: we haven't proven string theory, and B: none of our other current theories are based upon it."

I will stop short of saying that other theories are wrong, but why is it that people poopoo me for trying something like this when the established theories are so incomplete? (BTW, I predict a nameless poster will take this phrase completely out of context of the rest of what I wrote, and question me for daring to challenge a hundred years or more of established research and theories. Just watch, it should happen any moment now.).

In a ferromagnet you can get a persistent alignment of spins without an external magnetic field when, because of "exchange interactions" with nearby atoms, some of the electrons in the outer regions of the atoms happen to find it still a lower energy state despite the extra energy involved.

This depends on the specific details of the material which is why only a few things are ferromagnets and most things aren't.

Again, good comment, and much appreciated.

-P

[edit on 2-2-2006 by postings]

Originally posted by Frosty
I know you have posted on another thread such a link, but I could not find it on this thread. My motive is for you to present the math foundation of the mechanics.

Why do i need maths when we are talking about principles? I gave ample reason why i think the principles you use to dismiss these claims can not logically be used for that purpose.

Newton did so, Dirac and others did so, and Einstein did so; what makes the PMM enthusiast the exception?

Einstein's general relativity 'proved' that there is no such thing as a natural closed system in this universe and thus invalidated classical thermodynamics. It's really that simple.

Stellar

[edit on 3-2-2006 by StellarX]

any further work on this thread?
been a long time since anyone posted and having just read the whole thing, i found it all facinating
anyone made any prgress at all?
btw, havent signed up to ats yt, been lurking for a while and still not sure whether to jon or not

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
any further work on this thread?
been a long time since anyone posted and having just read the whole thing, i found it all facinating

Glad you went to the trouble but as with most threads on most forums they tend to disappear never to see the light of attention again.

anyone made any prgress at all?
btw, havent signed up to ats yt, been lurking for a while and still not sure whether to jon or not

No progress required as far too many people have managed it over the last century for it to be so impossibly difficult to understand. Here's a few patent's and related testimonies so show that there is nothing 'new' about this area of discovery and engineering.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar

[edit on 16-5-2008 by StellarX]

The 'Law of conservation of energy' is not a 'LAW' at all. It's a THEORY that Isaac Newton proposed be called a 'Law' because he was arrogant enough to presume that he had some kind of profound insight. No one has every proven, either experimentally or mathematically that conservation of energy happens all the time, everywhere without exception. Just calling something a 'Law' doesn't make it so.

For a an easy proof of concept, you might try checking out the following link:

projectcamelot.org...

According to the maker, this is how the Pleiadians power their saucers (on a much grander scale, of course).

There are a number of links on the above page including some to John Bedini's work. I especially like the charged battery banks that can be used to power a home (just like using a set of PV panels to charge batteries).

reply to post by minniescar


fosselll here i here what your saying and i note that you still think it can be done never ever ever give up pick your self up and try again . its just there in front of one of us and it will be so so simple

reply to post by keybored

Well many of the posters have been right, you can't get energy from nothing. Although it amazes me how many people forget that magnets are actually degrading radioactive alloys, granted in most cases you need a chain reaction effect to gain a readable energy output from a radioactive alloy in the case of a magnet motor the reason some motors work and others don't is because some rely on static electricity to help induce the degradation if the magnet some plastics help in retaining a static charge while others do not. Contrary to popular belief the more energy you are able to extract from a degrading radioactive alloy the faster it degrades. So if you where to build a magnet motor in theory it would work for a while but the magnets would degrade unless you can control the degradation factor by limiting the amount of static electricity but negating it.