Permenant Magnet motor

Heh, yeah, as near as I could tell they were worthless anyway. Too bad there isn't any such thing as a magnetic monopole. I am tempted to do a thorough read through of magnetic theory, but I want to mess around with the magnets a little more first, then compare what I have noticed with what has been written.

-P

Originally posted by Shadow88
I vividly remember being told that when same poles were forcebly connected (aka pushed together) for a while that they lose magnicity.

It happened after i took out a box of magnets at college(the old ones painted red and blue), they had all been stacked the same colour ends, not blue, red, blue, red etc as they should have been.

After being stored like that for only a short time they were basically worthless as all the magnetic force was diminished.

Not sure if these sites have been mentioned yet or not... don't really feel like going through it all again, and just in case anyone has just skipped ahead and they were posted, whatever...

Magnet Motors -- Directory By FreeEnergyNews.com

Perendev is Tooling Up for Magnetic Motor Mass Production in Europe

For centuries, inventors have been claiming to come up with magnetic motor designs that use nothing more than the power of permanent magnets for the motive force; and for the same amount of time, mainstream science has responded that this is impossible. "It has been proven mathematically that no combination of permanent magnets in any arrangement will generate power." [1]

History tells us that what has been proven in many people's back yards and garages does not always coincide with mathematics of the day.

What I'm thinking, basically, is just look at the supposedly working design, see if we can duplicate it, then make it better, just like people do with other stuff like Gaming consoles and computers.... I say, if this guy did it, maybe we shouldn't be re-inventing the wheel, just making it better?

What I'm thinking, basically, is just look at the supposedly working design, see if we can duplicate it, then make it better...

Um, because thats stealing??? In order for you not to get sued by the original manufacturer, you have to have proof that, while your design is similar (granted yes they all are similar, working on the same principles), you have to have developed yourown similar yet unique designs from scratch. Otherwise you dont have much to stand on. Which is why have developed myown design from scratch.

Halfway through research i did notice that mine looked asthetically (visually) similar to perendev. But then i noticed that perendevs is similar to the next, and the next, and the next, so its not a problem. I put in the research , its unique, so its totally mine.

Isn't it stealing if you plan to sell it though? If my design proves effective, I plan on distributing it for free. In fact if any of you believe you'd have access to the proper machining equipment, and are willing to give it a shot, I'd be happy to share the design.

-P

Originally posted by Shadow88

What I'm thinking, basically, is just look at the supposedly working design, see if we can duplicate it, then make it better...

Um, because thats stealing??? In order for you not to get sued by the original manufacturer, you have to have proof that, while your design is similar (granted yes they all are similar, working on the same principles), you have to have developed yourown similar yet unique designs from scratch. Otherwise you dont have much to stand on. Which is why have developed myown design from scratch.

Halfway through research i did notice that mine looked asthetically (visually) similar to perendev. But then i noticed that perendevs is similar to the next, and the next, and the next, so its not a problem. I put in the research , its unique, so its totally mine.

Originally posted by Shadow88
Um, because thats stealing???

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 postings
Isn't it stealing if you plan to sell it though?

No. That's an urban legend. You've still violated patent and copyright protection.

Consider this logic: "it isn't stealing if I break into your house and take your waterbed for me because I need a waterbed." or "it isn't stealing if I run a cable splitter from your house and get free cable tv while you pay the bill."

Intent has nothing at all to do with the situation, as you see.

but byrd is right though, patents overule most, but if theres no patent, and you sell youre stuff first, if they want to say they invented it first, a big court battle will ensue, with the possibility that you will win.

But he who has the patent, has all.

Originally posted by Earthscum
Not sure if these sites have been mentioned yet or not... don't really feel like going through it all again, and just in case anyone has just skipped ahead and they were posted, whatever...

*snip*

Perendev is Tooling Up for Magnetic Motor Mass Production in Europe

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.

Put a magnet on top of a pedestal. There is a straight ramp running up from the floor to it, with a hole near the magnet leading to a curved ramp that goes back to the end of the straight ramp. Put an iron ball in the machine, and voila! It gets pulled up the straight ramp to the magnet, drops down the hole, and goes back to the beginning?

Can you explain why this doesn't work? Cookie if you do.

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.

How do you work that one out? An unbalanced force on an object effects it, whether to slow it down or cause motion, thats fact. So As there is an object "emitting" force, and an oject that is mobile, it WILL move.

The more powerful the magnet (aka and its force), the faster in this case it will spin.

Also we wouldnt be breaking any laws. We would technically be putting "fuel" in, which like all fuels would "run out" when the magnets lose strength.

So the tech, while relatively new, the tech isnt exotic, it still fits inside calculus that has been around for 300 years, we just need to expand our definitions of what we class as fuel.

This thread has captivated my thoughts.

I think that Permanent Magnetic Motors may be possible.

Have you ever put two magnets together , you know that they will "flip" sometimes violently to come into equilibrium with another magnet.

Why not mount magnets onto specially designed gears so that the " flip" effect of repelling magnets turns a rotor. ( The rotor can be weighted so that gravity of the Earth adds energy to the system. Another concept really , but ...)

In effect using gravity and permanent magnets to do more work than we put into the system.

The energy of a spinning rotor increases by radius^2 which is compounding force and it increases as the RPMs of the rotor increase.

If that's to complicated , then just think of several rotors acting as a cam shaft, using the " flip" effect and being slightly off centered , they will create momentum as they spin carrying them through the cycle avoiding the dreaded bind up. And if the Magnets are all mounted on gears then the time and placement can be controlled.

Originally posted by Shadow88
An unbalanced force on an object effects it, whether to slow it down or cause motion, thats fact. So As there is an object "emitting" force, and an oject that is mobile, it WILL move.

It will move, and then it will eventually stop moving unless you put some energy into the system.

Perhaps I didn't explain it very well before, but you should think of magnetism as a force, like gravity: Take a bouncy ball of some kind and hold it above the ground in your hand (this is the equivalent of your "unbalanced" magnets), then drop the ball. It will bounce some way towards your hand, but never actually reach your hand again, let alone go past it. You could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements of ball types and surfaces but you will never get a ball that ever bounces back to your hand or carries on bouncing for ever. It will always lose energy to friction etc. That's why to keep a ball bouncing basketballers need to keep adding some extra energy by pushing the ball down. Would you agree with this?

When you start off your device with the unbalanced magnets it is the equivalent of the ball resting in your hand, it has potential energy. However once you let go of it and it starts moving it is the same as dropping the ball onto the floor. Like the ball bouncing it might carry on for a while but with each "click" as one magnet goes past an opposing magnet it will lose energy, just like every time the ball bounces it loses energy. Eventually it will lose all the potential energy it started with and stop (the ball resting on the floor).

Just like there is no possible arrangement of ball and surface that will make the ball bounce for ever, there is no arrangement of magnet and mechanical device that will spin for ever. To keep it going you will need to add some energy, in electric motors this is done via an electric current that flips the polarity of the magnet (the basketballer pushing the ball down). You will no more extract free energy from your device than you would from a bouncing ball.

The more powerful the magnet (aka and its force), the faster in this case it will spin.

This is just like saying the more powerful gravity is the more the ball will bounce, which is obviously not true.

Also we wouldnt be breaking any laws. We would technically be putting "fuel" in...

I'm afraid you would be breaking physical laws as we know them, and technically you wouldn't be putting a fuel in. Magnetism is no more a fuel than gravity is.

we just need to expand our definitions of what we class as fuel.

You are going to need to re-write quite a bit of conventional physics first.

Thanks info Byrd. I'll google around for some sources too. If you have any handy, feel free to post them.

-P

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by postings
Isn't it stealing if you plan to sell it though?

No. That's an urban legend. You've still violated patent and copyright protection.

Don't forget that you also have the problem of the magnetic field weakening over time, as others in this forum have pointed out to me.

Here's my question though . . . How would this entire discussion change if someone was able to use shielding in such a way that there is only repulsion, and little if no attraction. I know it is possible to shield magnets, so maybe this is where our efforts would best be concentrated.

Here was another thing that was going through my mind while I was reading your post. Is it true that magnet attraction is weaker than repulsion? Shouldn't that be expliotable?

-P

Originally posted by SilentFrog
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.

Originally posted by postingsHow would this entire discussion change if someone was able to use shielding in such a way that there is only repulsion, and little if no attraction. I know it is possible to shield magnets, so maybe this is where our efforts would best be concentrated.

And my question is what do you intend to use to shield? Another magnet? A glass rod? Silk cloth?

quote: The more powerful the magnet (aka and its force), the faster in this case it will spin.

This is just like saying the more powerful gravity is the more the ball will bounce, which is obviously not true.

The reason a ball stops bouncing is because it is being attracted to gravity, and each time it bounces, and repels the centre of gravity it loses its potential energy therefore having less and less power to repel back up

but with each "click" as one magnet goes past an opposing magnet.....

You don't think these magnets touch each other do you?

Eventually it will lose all the potential energy it started with and stop.

While a reasonable (and very astute)assumption to make, i have already realised that yes, once the magnetic forces balance themselves out, the device would stop. This is why you position the magnets out of sync. This way, the majority of the fields shall be unbalanced at any time, forcing NPI

continuous repulsion.

I should mention that it would be a good idea to have the majority of the magnets would have to be unbalanced, so that there arent more stabilised sets of magnets than there are unstable sets.

Just like there is no possible arrangement of ball and surface that will make the ball bounce for ever

This i know. But people, one thing you must get your heads around if you want to continue with this, is in this case you have to view the magnets as if they were a fuel. Imagine uranium for example. We can use that as fuel in so many words. It has a half-life. Whilst it does emit radiation it will eventually deplete itself. Just think of a magnet like a fuel, just one that we havent been able to successfully tap, with a half-life of about 25 - 100 years I will have to find out the exact half life of an average magnet

I'm afraid you would be breaking physical laws as we know them, and technically you wouldn't be putting a fuel in. Magnetism is no more a fuel than gravity is.

Ok people must stop putting gravity and magnetism in the same basket. Theyre not the same things. Gravity is "a force of attraction between massive particles". Magnetism "is one of the phenomena by which materials exert an attractive or repulsive force"

We cannot use Gravity for fuel, as it does not have repulsive propeties, therefore we cannot use basic laws of physics to cause any motion except to a single point, to create to kinetic energy (aka put them on a ring and axis and make them spin around), that we can finally utilise to create electricity. We can, with Magnetism.

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Shadow88]

Originally posted by Shadow88

The reason a ball stops bouncing is because it is being attracted to gravity, and each time it bounces, and repels the centre of gravity it loses its potential energy therefore having less and less power to repel back up

Not true -you need to read up some basic physics. Remember it is gravity that gave the ball potential energy in the first place, without gravity the ball would just stay where it was when you let go. The ball stops bouncing because all the time some of it's kinetic energy is being converted into other forms, such as heat (through friction with the air and surface) and sound (the noise when it hits the floor) and through a myriad of other tiny actions. In a (hypothetical) frictionless environment the ball would bounce between your hand and the floor indefinitely as it would never lose any of it's kinetic energy. However it would never gain energy and bounce past your hand.

You don't think these magnets touch each other do you?

No, I believed your design involved them acting at a distance through the magnetic force.

Eventually it will lose all the potential energy it started with and stop.

While a reasonable (and very astute

)assumption to make...

There is nothing "astute" about it, it is basic phyiscs.

i have already realised that yes, once the magnetic forces balance themselves out, the device would stop. This is why you position the magnets out of sync. This way, the majority of the fields shall be unbalanced at any time, forcing NPI

continuous repulsion.

I would suggest that this is impossible, I would be interested if you could show me it isn't.

This i know. But people, one thing you must get your heads around if you want to continue with this, is in this case you have to view the magnets as if they were a fuel. Imagine uranium for example. We can use that as fuel in so many words. It has a half-life. Whilst it does emit radiation it will eventually deplete itself. Just think of a magnet like a fuel, just one that we havent been able to successfully tap, with a half-life of about 25 - 100 years I will have to find out the exact half life of an average magnet

You really are just trying to re-write 300 years of theory now. Uranium's half-life refers to the amount of time it takes to lose half it's mass to radioactive decay. Magnets do not have a half life, nor do they lose mass.

You can view magnets as fuel if you like, you can also view them as Fabergé Eggs if you really want to. However this will not make it true.

Ok people must stop putting gravity and magnetism in the same basket. Theyre not the same things. Gravity is "a force of attraction between massive particles". Magnetism "is one of the phenomena by which materials exert an attractive or repulsive force"

What you have just said is that gravity is "a force of attraction" and magnetism is "a force of attraction or repulsion". That is they are both forces.

We cannot use Gravity for fuel, as it does not have repulsive propeties, therefore we cannot use basic laws of physics to cause any motion except to a single point, to create to kinetic energy (aka put them on a ring and axis and make them spin around), that we can finally utilise to create electricity. We can, with Magnetism.

Haven't you thought that as magnets both attract and repel that this would balance itself out....? This is why eletric motors must use a current to flip the polarity of an electromagnet and keep the device turning.

sombody asked if there was a way to shield individual polls of a magnet...could this be of any use?
www.lessemf.com...

(scroll down to their "Magnet Shield" product)

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Urn]

double post

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Urn]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Haven't you thought that as magnets both attract and repel that this would balance itself out....?

Sure left to its own devices PMs would balance each other out and bind up . But that is why you need some type of mechanism to prevent this.

This is why eletric motors must use a current to flip the polarity of an electromagnet and keep the device turning.

You can achieve the same principle using PMs. Like the poster stated you simple have to offset the magnets.

I proved this to myself last night using 5 magnets to create linear motion. I simply took 4 old T.V. magnets that are cylindrical , and took a cylindrical refrigerator magnet and mounted it on two buttons with glue. Then I lined the 4 larger magnets up in a line in different positions .

If I start the refrigerator magnet off at an offset angle it will flip causing it to roll forward past all the 4 larger magnets, when they are correctly positioned.

What you have just said is that gravity is "a force of attraction" and magnetism is "a force of attraction or repulsion". That is they are both forces.

Yes but as magnets are objects which emit repulsive force to other magnets, which we can use to our advantage to create motion and later electricity.

Haven't you thought that as magnets both attract and repel that this would balance itself out....?

Yes i have thought about that. And no they wont, as same poles will be affixed facing toward eachother.

Look im not replying to you if youre going to keep at this. It slows down the whole process. Youre wrong. accept it. Instead of simply arguing, get some magnets and do the thing yourself.