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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Permenant Magnet motor

page: 9
4
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:57 AM

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.

And let me guess what happened next.....did it stop?

Look im not replying to you if youre going to keep at this. It slows down the whole process.

What process? This is a discussion board, if you don't want to discuss your ideas then don't post them. I'm only trying to show you via basic physics why your idea for a perpetual motion machine won't work.

Youre wrong. accept it.

You realise that you aren't just telling me I'm wrong, but every mainstream physicist and engineer on the planet? And you want me just to accept that? OK, you're right and everyone else is wrong.

The only way you can prove me wrong is by finding the magic arrangment of magnets that keep your free energy device spinning indefinitely. Once you have done that, have become world famous, and the scientists are all desperately re-writing their theories, then I will concede.

Instead of simply arguing, get some magnets and do the thing yourself.

I have built a, very crude, electric motor years ago using permanent magnets, like everyone else who has ever built one though I had to use an electric current to keep it rotating. Good luck if you think you don't need one.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 05:12 AM

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

>>> 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.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:46 AM

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Let me ask this if I say no will you reconsider your flawed mathematics?

And the answer is....? If no, then I presume your device is still turning? If it is still working then go to here: www.randi.org and enter the JREF Foundation challenge and win a \$1M - congratulations!

What "flawed mathematics" are you referring to? I haven't demonstrated any mathematics, I have simply gone over basic physics.

Simple , so I will provide you with a magnetic arrangement that = more than a net gain of Zero. Of Course we both acknowlege no permanemt magnet will hold it polarity indefinenitely.

Well, bring it on then.

Will it make me world famous? Likely not , it's too simple.

Simple or not, it will destroy our current understanding of physics, and therefore you will become world famous, and probably very rich. Though you might like to ask yourself that if it is too simple why nobody else has achieved success....

I have actually just found a more sophisticated version of the device you are trying to build:

The Classic Magnetic Shield Engine

This is from the Museum of Unworkable devices

Have a read through it, it uses magnetic shielding and "unbalanced" magnets, just like you are proposing. Read it and then click on the Answer and Discussion link to find out all the many reasons why such a device is impossible

Any particular bit you want to argue with? Some interesting quotes in there:

Many PM inventors these days are tinkering with magnets on wheels. Why the fascination with magnetism? I think it's because most people, even those who have had physics and engineering courses, still are a bit mystified by how magnets work, so they are less likely to see flaws in a magnetic engine design.

and

The behavior of magnets is often fascinating to observe, as they exert force on each other, and on metallic objects. One is tempted to think that their movement is due to their "stored" magnetic energy, and if you could design a device to turn that stored energy into useful work, you'd have achieved, if not perpetual motion, at least something very useful. Such is the allure of magnets to perpetual motion seekers. Even if they understand that magnet internal energy is not being extracted, they suppose that the magnets are somehow a conduit of energy stored in the vacuum, or somewhere else.

The magnetic energy stored in a magnet is a paltry amount. It may easily be "extracted" by sharp blows to the magnet, or by heating the magnet. When you do this, the magnet isn't magnetized anymore. In the absence of such processes, the motion of magnets in a device in no way uses or depelets their stored magnetic energy. Such motions are entirely the result of the initial mechanical energy you give to the magnets when you place them in position relative to others.

My emphasis.

I would be interested if you can address any of their obviously "flawed" physics......

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:25 AM

And let me guess what happened next.....did it stop?

Well of course it did. its in a straight line, not on an infinite path, aka a circle, that has no beginning and no end.

You realise that you aren't just telling me I'm wrong, but every mainstream physicist and engineer on the planet? And you want me just to accept that? OK, you're right and everyone else is wrong.

I dont know how many times i can say, ITS NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS, just bending them/stretching them a little further than conventional parameters.

Look i know how to solve this. I have said time and time again only this.

Believe in my actions not in my words.

When we have proof, physical proof, you will see. If not you'll be correct until proven wrong. Until then, all sides are on shaky ground.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:53 AM

I dont know how many times i can say, ITS NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS, just bending them/stretching them a little further than conventional parameters.

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.

Have you had a look at the links I posted above? I would be interested in your comments on their debunking of the shielded PMM such as you are suggesting to build.

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.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:21 PM
FatherLukeDuke,

All I did was take a small magnet and mount it so that it is the axis between two makeshift wheels.

I take one , two, three or four magnets , the number seems to work well with more than just one combination , and I place the first magnet so that it has one pole facing up and another magnet next to it facing so the the same pole that faces up on the first magnet is facing forward in the direction you want the movement .

As long as the magnet with wheels enters the field at the right angle so that it opposes the first magnet it will try to flip. The force of the "flip" does work via the wheels moving the magnet through and out of the the magnetic field of the stator magnets with enough force to enter into the next cycle of stator magnets and back out again.

That's as far as I've got with the experiment because I only have 4 magnets I can use for stator magnets.

I can consistently get the small magnet to roll through the field of two cycles of stator magnets. Or four if only using one magnet per cycle.

I should also mention that all the magnets are the same cylindrical shape and the "Axis" magnet is smaller than the stator magnets. The stator magnets are around one centimeter tall and 3/4 inches in diameter and the "Axis" magnet is a refrigerator magnet that is about the width of 3 U.S. Pennies and about the diameter of a dime.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:31 PM
I need MULAH!!! damn santa....stealin all my mulah....lol

So um......I will start construction around Jan/Feb?

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

I dont know how many times i can say, ITS NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS, just bending them/stretching them a little further than conventional parameters.

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.

Have you had a look at the links I posted above? I would be interested in your comments on their debunking of the shielded PMM such as you are suggesting to build.

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.

Well, not all gases obey the ideal gas law. There are exceptions to laws of various kinds. Usually though when something does not follow allow it is because of something extreme and noticable. In the case of the ideal gas law, gases do not obey when they are either extremely hot or very near absolute zero.

It may not be uncommon for someone to have found an exception to whatever law it is you two are discussing, but if they were to find an exception it would be best that they state why this exception occurs with something other than 'it just does'.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:34 PM

I need MULAH!!! damn santa....stealin all my mulah....lol

So um......I will start construction around Jan/Feb?

Your first post (in this thread) was in June. How much money do you need to save to build your world changing machine? Ive got ten Aussie dollars burning a hole in my pocket. Should buy you a few magnets. Better still ill buy you a "Physics for idiots" book fo christmas.

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:13 AM

Originally posted by Frosty
Well, not all gases obey the ideal gas law.

Well it is the ideal gas law, and not a general gas law. The ideal gas law works withing certain parameters, but at extremes does not. There are however other theories that explain the behaviour of the gas at extremes. Newtonian laws of motion are similar in that they do not work on the very big or the very small scale. Scientific laws are not religious laws, and can be re-written to fit new data. However if you are wanting to work out whether the big rock someone has just thrown your way is going to hit you, Newton's "laws" stand up quite well, and quantum mechanics may not be very useful....

I do get your point though, discussing "laws" in science is not that helpful, and all have their limits. My original point is that for the people who believe that artful arrangements of magnets can be used to create a perpetual motion machine will be going squarely against very well established and very well tested scientific theories. I haven't seen anything posted so far to make me believe that these theories are wrong.

Aside from anything else people have been attempting to arrange magnets in such a way as to create perptual motion since the invention of the electric motor nearly 200 years ago. None of them have worked. What have you guys thought of that they haven't???

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:05 PM

At the time of my first post, i didnt have research, plans etc. I also only said i was going to build a proper prototype recently.

Granted i said something arrogant like "meh, building one is piss easy, ill build one like that" or something, but around october time i began to draw up some proper designs for a prototype, putting some serious thought to it.

So now i intend to build a PMG, i have just bought Xmas prezzies, driving lesson fund, graphics tablet i just bought myself, im strapped for cash.
_________________________________________________________________________
SKIP THIS IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT MONEY AND SUCH

But say i need 12 mags on the outer ring, and 10 on the inner, at £1.50 a mag, thats £33 + Steel Rings and supports, approximately £6 as long as the supplier i know stays in business
.

Additionally, some of you may not be aware usually when you buy in bulk, lol i forget why they do this, i think its just a way of saying thanks for buying so much you can do a deal where they give you a certain percent discount of each item.

So if i buy 3000 magnets, in one go, at £2 each, they will give me say 15p off each magnet. So instead of it costing £6000, it will cost me £5550. While this may not sound much, if im selling 100's of these things the price will soon mount up. Plus i can charge a little less, arent i nice!

Anyway thats just a little tidbit incase i went into production.....LOL i bet i'd do a damn site better than previous "inventors" of PMG's....oops, there i go again, being arrogant.......

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:02 PM
Ok so forget all the garbage for a second. I was just thinking. While PMM's, PMG's, call them what you will, are useful. But we dont need them. Or at least not straight away.

Then it hit me.

Of the 1.6 billion people in the world who have no access (to electricity), more than 30 percent live in sub-Saharan Africa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mozambique’s Cahora Bassa hydropower plant has an installation capacity of 2,075MW but “90 percent of people have no electricity.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity and drinking water supplies have been cut off, and both towns face food shortages.

We dont need it. But there are so many people in the world, permanently or due to natural disaster, that dont have electricity.

With a permanent electrical source(yes ok we all here know its not completely permanent), it becomes instantly easier to store food, distill water, power lighting and heating etc.

i dont need to tell you how invaluable a small, portable, self-contained power source would be for those in need.

When i succeed, i will look into the commercial viability of building these and sending them to places in need. hmm......Or perhaps talk to various governments into buying them (once theyre up to the job of course).

I will NOT, however, sell them for around...\$9000 was it perendev is charging for one?

Also theres a good wiki page on electrical generation. (for the "second phase" of the PMM Project)en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:50 AM

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
And why do you choose to believe they might have worked? For a start any of them could simply demonstrate their machine to James Randi and win a million dollars. If they worked that is. Any idea why no one has chosen to do this?

A million dollars is not a whole lot of money unless your thinking very very small. The ammount of cash they need to get this sort of device into serial production is a few dozen times more than that. Who says Randi is serious and will not just use the chance to destroy the machine as have happened to many of these groups? How you can reason that this choice on their side invalidates an entire science is beyond me anyways.

Well the principle is bunk, and the machines don't work either.

The principles is just fine if you cared to look at them. Your perpetual motion arguments are bunk and only shows that you will do no more than quote text books in defense of the establishment. Why are you even on this forum?

Well as their is no evidence of a conspiricy, massive or otherwise,

And you would know how? What in your mind shows there is no conspiracy to make cheaper energy sources impossible for the average man to exploit? Why would governments want people to gain more independence with massively cheaper energy that they can each generate in their own home free from any state networks? You think that is not cause enough for any government to try destroy this technology? If you believe that you have no place on this forum imo.

I shall assume they are all lying (or misguided in some cases).

There will always be those who seek to exploit others for financial gain just as there will always be mistakes in science.

Can you show me any evidence of the "powers that be" somehow interferring with any of the "free energy" machine makers?

It's not on the market and the scienctific basis has been established in sciene theory since 1880 at the latest. There is obviously other evidence but what else do you need to know other than that?

Aside from anything else the "powers that be" here in the UK are desperately looking for ways to wean us off our dependence on Middle East oil. They would jump at a perpetual motion machine.

I guess you do not understand that keeping people dependent on government is any and all governments first priority whatever else may be happening. If you do not understand that basic principle whatever else i say will simply go by you. Many governments are allready using these machines ( Russia/China/Brazil and two others not mentioned) in secret weapon systems but they know very well that it's not something you can let people have while keeping them dependent.

If any of these "inventors" could demonstrate over unity in their machines not only would they take a \$1 million from James Randi but they would have investors throwing money at them.

Capitalism is based on dependence and a cycle where people need to earn money to heat/cool or feed themselves. The moment this cycle is undermined the whole thing will eventually come crashing down. Investors are watching their bottem line and not one of them will ever benefit from this technology in the long run. Just follow the logic.

[qoute]Electricity supply companies would be bidding billions to get hold of the patent and start churning out ultra-cheap electricity for enormous profits. Any reason why this hasn't happened?

How will they make profit if every person could afford their own little power station in their back yards? These self same power stations are allready tapping energy from the vacuum and it's all they have ever done. All fossil fuels ( or anything else) ever does is create the dipoles from wich energy then freely flows from the vacuum. All the fossil fuels we have ever burned up never added any single watt of power to our power grids. Once you begin to understand the scale of this deception you might understand the odds these people are up against.

Don't really know what you mean by this.

We were discussing the principles involved in another thread when you for some reason decided to go on here as if never showed the solid nature of the principles behind some of these machines.

Stellar

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:55 AM

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
As one of the "naysayers", I'm not saying don't try - it will be an interesting project and you will probably get some useful skills and knowledge out of it. Just don't expect to build anything than a normal magnetic motor.

Really helping the progress of science you are.

People have been building magnetic motors since 1821 and none of them have ever achieved over-unity. What is it about your device that is different from all the ones that have ever been made?

So because you refuse to believe they worked they did not? That is the kind of logic that i just do not understand.

That's not really evidence though is it? It's just rumour, and pretty vague at that.

And we all know rumours never have any basis in reality and that science never makes mistakes or seeks to hide evidence that it has. Microsoft did not kill it's competition and no company ever tries. Your reality sounds far nicer than mine but i fear it might not be anywhere near as real as you think.

Stellar

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:32 AM

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
And why do you choose to believe they might have worked? For a start any of them could simply demonstrate their machine to James Randi and win a million dollars. If they worked that is. Any idea why no one has chosen to do this?

A million dollars is not a whole lot of money unless your thinking very very small.

A million dollars is a whole lot of money, most start up businesses would kill for that sort of investment, especially if they didn't have to pay it back. All they have to do is demonstrate under labatory conditions that their device will achieve over unity and they get a million. They want to turn down half a day's "work" for a million \$? Hmmm.

Who says Randi is serious and will not just use the chance to destroy the machine as have happened to many of these groups?

Have you any evidence that Randi has ever destroyed a perpetual motion machine? This is rubbish.

The principles is just fine if you cared to look at them.

I have looked at them, and shown in great detail why such a device will not work. You just ramble on about dipoles and "energy from the vacuum", without making a coherent case. Have you even looked at these links I posted earlier:

The Classic Magnetic Shield Engine

and why it doesn't work:

Debunked

Can you address any of the points in the debunking and say what their errors are?

Why are you even on this forum?

If you hadn't noticed this forum is a place where both skeptics and "believers" can mingle freely and debate. There are plenty of other forums out their where skeptics are banned and credulous people can all agree with each other without anyone arguing with them. This site isn't one of them, so I come here to enjoy the debate.

Well as their is no evidence of a conspiricy, massive or otherwise,

And you would know how? What in your mind shows there is no conspiracy to make cheaper energy sources impossible for the average man to exploit?

Can you show me one single piece of evidence for a conspiricy? Or is it just general paranoia?

Why would governments want people to gain more independence with massively cheaper energy that they can each generate in their own home free from any state networks? You think that is not cause enough for any government to try destroy this technology? If you believe that you have no place on this forum imo.

Evidence?

It's not on the market and the scienctific basis has been established in sciene theory since 1880 at the latest. There is obviously other evidence but what else do you need to know other than that?

The fact that people have been trying and failing since 1880 does not mean scientific theory is established, quite the opposite. You say there is "obviously other evidence"...but again I would love to see it.

Many governments are allready using these machines ( Russia/China/Brazil and two others not mentioned) in secret weapon systems but they know very well that it's not something you can let people have while keeping them dependent.

If it is secret how come you know about it? You shouldn't believe everything you read on the web. Why would the Chinese government just control this power source and use it to generate all their electricity instead of desperately cutting deals with oil producing nations? Why would it have to give it to the people? Why wouldn't they control it and even sell the energy to other nations making themselves extremely rich at the same time as ending global warming? You're argument doesn't make any sense.

Capitalism is based on dependence and a cycle where people need to earn money to heat/cool or feed themselves. The moment this cycle is undermined the whole thing will eventually come crashing down. Investors are watching their bottem line and not one of them will ever benefit from this technology in the long run. Just follow the logic.

Logic??

Investors are investing in stuff all the time, are you suggesting they aren't because the capatilism is about to come crashing down?

How will they make profit if every person could afford their own little power station in their back yards?

Ever heard of patents?

These self same power stations are allready tapping energy from the vacuum and it's all they have ever done. All fossil fuels ( or anything else) ever does is create the dipoles from wich energy then freely flows from the vacuum. All the fossil fuels we have ever burned up never added any single watt of power to our power grids.

This is just pseudo scientific nonsense which you sound like you are parroting back without really understanding.

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:17 AM
Um.....ok.....wow for the first time i actually dont know what to say.

You're all much better at keeping an argument going than i am

And i also notice postings hasnt posted anything. You've probably put him off.

STOP BICKERING LIKE OLD WOMEN (no offense to old women ATS'ers
) ABOUT NOTHING! WAIT UNTIL ITS FINISHED. it will either work or it won't. simple as that.

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:30 PM

Look i know how to solve this. I have said time and time again only this.

Believe in my actions not in my words.

When we have proof, physical proof, you will see. If not you'll be correct until proven wrong. Until then, all sides are on shaky ground.

I agree with this, and fully acknowledge that I could and very well may be full of it, but I have to try anyway.

-P

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:01 PM

And i also notice postings hasnt posted anything. You've probably put him off.

I respect the skeptics that say "I don't think it will work, but you should try anyway and if it does I'll eat my words." FatherLukeDuke has said this, and he has also posted evidence for what he mentions. I have to respect that and in fact I value the information they contribute greatly. I am just not interested in naysayers who are naysaying just to naysay. I just generally don't pay much attention.

-P

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:02 PM
Ignore the diehard negative naysayers and talk to those who actually want to carry on a decent conversation.

I am not sure about perpetual motion. I won't say no, because magnets do have their own force that can translate into energy. That energy might not be permanent, but it sure can last a long time.

But if we do consider the forces that magnets have on a continuous basis, then a permanent magnet motor could potentially put out more energy than is put into it in the form of electricy, like from a battery. Magnets put their own energy into the motor (by repelling or attracting), thereby potentially adding to the final output of the motor. So the input energy/force/electricity is in reality more than just what the battery puts into the machine, and the magnets of the motor itself are also inputing energy into the motor.

Troy

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:09 PM
Finally had a chance to read through this FatherLukeDuke, and there was a lot of information. They analyzed several different scenarios, analyzing the field-strength exerted, where it is exerted, and what effects it has. In each of the analyzes -- unless I misunderstand -- magnets were arraged along the outside, and a rotating magnet (with shielding) in the center.

Point 1:
Was there an actual model built? From what I have read I can't find any evidence of there being actual models built for these design concepts. The debunking consisted of guessing at what effect the magnetic fields woudl have on each other. I didn't see any diagrams that showed the fields of force and how they interracted.

Point 2:
Assuming they were correct (which is entirely possible), all of the diagrams showed magnets that were arranged so that they fanned out at a 90 degree angle to to a line that would pass through the point at which the circumference would intersect with the inner edge of the magnets. In other words, they weren't uniformally slanted in any manner. In fact there were a number of different combinations of magnet placement I thought of that weren't even addressed.

Point 3:
I will humor them with a little armchair physicist analysis of my own. They mentioned in several instances that the net field strength in the middle, and throughout the inner portion of the apparatus was zero. Okay fine, but what if you were to spread out the magnets? Magnetic fields decrease significantly with distance, thereby reducing any negating effects that adjacent magnets might have.

Point 4:
If there was such a thing as a magnetic monopole (humor me) would you then be able to construct a working magnetic motor? If so how? If not, why? This is also sorta opened up for everyone.

-P

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
posted earlier:

The Classic Magnetic Shield Engine

and why it doesn't work:

Debunked

[edit on 14-12-2005 by postings]

[edit on 14-12-2005 by postings]

[edit on 14-12-2005 by postings]

[edit on 14-12-2005 by postings]

top topics

4