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
Yes, and everytime someone builds one of these machines (people have been building permanent magnet "perpetual motion" machines for over 100 years) they can never get more energy out of the device than they put in. They might claim they can, but always under inspection it never works. Here is a patent for one from 1979:
www.newebmasters.com...
If this works then why isn't the inventor the richest man in the world? They have had 26 years to get it sorted.
They will both perform the same task, that of holding the ten kilos off the floor. The electro-magnet, however, has needed to be fuelled by electricity provided by a generator of some kind - it could be hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, coal or oil - and has cost a large amount in terms of energy. Much work (in the scientific sense) has been done to provide the constant electric current necessary to maintain its magnetic hold on the steel girder.
Now take notice, the permanent magnet has not needed to be energised by an external source, it has done the job for “free” using only the magnetism it contains to perform the same job. The clue here is in the title of “permanent” magnet.
If you think this through you can see the fallacy. The magnet stuck to the steel beam isn't actually doing anything, no more than a rock that rests on the floor is doing any work. Great - it's stuck, but to break it away so that that you can let it re-stick again you have to do some work, either via an eletrical current or manually pulling it off. And what's the total gain? Nothing. If you can show me some theory, or even a practical device that refutes my statement I would be very interested.
It is the equivalent of trying to generate energy from a rock falling endlessly down a hill with no bottom. That is impossible.
Can you tell me one difference between this description and one for a normal electric motor? As that is what these guys always end up when they have finished - a normal permanent magnetic motor.
Well it was the First Law of Thermodynamics I had in mind. But just working from first principles as well. I know that the first law applies to closed systems, but do you have any reason to think that the Lutek generates energy from somewhere else other than it's own components? The site makes no such claim....
Well come on now, it's not just my opinion, it's well established scientific theory. I would love it if you could find one engineer or physicist working for a major (or any) university who would disagree with my "opinion"
Those pesky physical laws eh? If you have a look at the site some of the people discussing it are engineers who work with motors, they say in very practical terms why such a device never generates free electricity.
Originally posted by TheBandit795
Assuming that this machine would be real (Which I still think is a hoax), the batteries do not have anything to do with the free energy device expect for storing the energy in the form of electricity. So your comment does not make any sense.
Originally posted by T_Jesus
A class in thermodynamics would help alot of you out...perpetual motion machines just aren't possible. If you understand how engines works, you'll understand efficiency. Read up on ya entropy...
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by T_Jesus
A class in thermodynamics would help alot of you out...perpetual motion machines just aren't possible. If you understand how engines works, you'll understand efficiency. Read up on ya entropy...
If your more specific i might be able to help point out what is possible and what may be. Understanding how engines work is not really important considering the massive ammount of energy the average car engine extracts from fuel. Anything as inefficient as the average car engine likely points out that we do classica physics is kinda hopelessly flawed....
So state your claims and 'facts' that you will base your arguments on and we can get started.
Stellar
Originally posted by StellarX
To be fair their not really "perpetual motion" machines as we know where the energy it draws on comes from.
The problem with these machines is not how much energy they generate but intercepting it without destroying the source or otherwise disrupting the process.
Calling these machines perpetual motion machines would logically have to lead you to calling every charge and dipole in the universe a "perpetual motion machine."
Well if that is what they finish up with their really not doing anything special and their not going anywhere. Why talk about it? I never set out to defend the machine in question just some of the principles that may apply.
Here is a list of Devices and prosseses i will vouch for and defend.
A conventional battery transduces chemical potential into electricity. This new device transduces magnetic potential into electricity. The device's permanent magnet is depleted in a controlled fashion. Eventually the magnet goes dead and the current stops flowing
Well they WOULD have to say that otherwise they would look rather dumb would'nt they! Is this not like asking the church wether Jesus really lived?
Originally posted by Frosty
Understanding the engine is crucial, there is only so much energy that can be obtained from the fuels combustion engines use. What perpetual and free motion maniacs are trying to say is that internal change does not matter, is irrelevant and can be manipulated by their pseudo-science.
What do you think is flawed about classic physics?
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Well I should have said attempted perpetual motion machines, as they don't actually work. If the Lutek worked as described then you could attach the power output to the power input (as Hal9000 pointed out) and the machine would run perpetually. You say "as we know where the energy it draws on comes from", and from looking at the demos the energy is coming from a wall socket, and nowhere else.
And what energy is it generating exactly?
A dipole is not a machine, so logically it wouldn't. A machine, by definition, has moving parts and the motion results in the transfer of heat through friction and air resistance - this results in a loss of energy by the device.
Well the thread is specifically about the Lutek, and the poster asked if it was a hoax. I have laid out why I think it cannot work.
You keep trying to plug Tom Bearden, but this is an interesting article on his work, and on permanent magnet type devices in general
www.strangehorizons.com...
It is interesting to note in the article that "permanent" magnets are not really permanent:
A conventional battery transduces chemical potential into electricity. This new device transduces magnetic potential into electricity. The device's permanent magnet is depleted in a controlled fashion. Eventually the magnet goes dead and the current stops flowing
And it goes on to point out that these magnets have to be made by using a certain amount of energy and that they will eventually wear out (the more you use them the quicker they wear out). The question is can you get out more energy than you put in? Also can you extract more than a tiny amount of power from them? Nobody has demonstrated that yet.
I am not denying that there might be some way to tap into the enormous amounts of energy that swirl around us in the universe, and hopefully we will one day be able to do it. However these permanent magnet devices appear to be a dead end.
No it isn't. Science, unlike religion, is based on testable theory and experimental data, and it is constantly changing.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by Frosty
Understanding the engine is crucial, there is only so much energy that can be obtained from the fuels combustion engines use. What perpetual and free motion maniacs are trying to say is that internal change does not matter, is irrelevant and can be manipulated by their pseudo-science.
What do you think is flawed about classic physics?
Understanding engines is NOT crucial as we are dealing with scientific principle's here; reality can not be altered to suit how you want to build your engine.
Well i can not speak for all the 'maniacs' so please respond to what i said instead of what others have said. Internal charge is important so why not focus on what really generates the much talked about charge?
I think there is a great deal wrong with classical physics but it's not like i discovered the flaws so do save your anger for someone better qualified?
Here is a list if if i have not posted it here before.
Stellar
Well the machine itself is not generating anything and the main purpose of the elaborate construct would be to keep the dipole(S) intact and then intercept and store the energy flow from the active vacuum. Any generator in the world powered by a shaft works in exactly the same way and all those fossil fuels that go up in smoke does nothing other than create a dipole from wich energy flow from the active vacuum can then the intercepted. If we could keep the dipole intact by other means we can skip the fossil fuel burning part entirely as it does not actually power anything you see in this world.
Originally posted by StellarX
Wether a dipole is a machine or not does not matter nearly as much as the fact that we can observe it emmiting EM energy. Your claim is true for a isolated system, or machine, but in nature ( this universe) we only have open systems. As you well know a open system allows for mass/energy transfer across it's boundary.
So basically we have perpetual motion right there as something can keep on moving without doing any work. Why makes perpetual motion impossible beside misuderstanding basic principles? Obviously there is those pesky external forces but that does not logically lead to perpetual motion being impossible. If we can control or regulate the external enviroment, and forces that interacts on these machines, there is no problem with the notion of perpetual motion as long as these machines also intercept and store energy freely flowing from every charge in the universe.
Well classical science has a hard enough time explaining permanent magnets and the fact that they are. Since he claims otherwise it's just another reason not to take him seriously. How long have you had that fridge magnet of yours? Currently no theory in science explains how it does that to start with and certainly not how i keeps doing it.
Originally posted by Frosty
I still say understanding the engine is very importan when you are talking about fuel economy or power generation. How can it not be? IT the application of science on a working body.
As for your list, the first answer to the first question is wrong, I have even posted what gravity is. Many of the question's answers do not make any sense and everything on the site seems to border on the fringe.
And some of these have nothing to do with Newton's mechanics. Even if you haven't discovered the flaws, you think they are there, could you explain them?
Originally posted by StellarX
I mentioned fuel economy because the average combustion energy extracts so little energy from the fuel it consumes....
As i said before engines are not important as they are simply built according to our current understanding of physics. Whatever engines currently do is simply NOT important as that can change immensly as our understanding of nature grows.
You posted what you thought gravity was but your 'explanation' in fact explains nothing. Well they may not make sense to you but what does that prove or suggest? The limits of your imagination or understanding certainly will not make reality any less complex so why by your own admission tell us that your out of your depth?
Well the list i provided deal with many uresolved issues in science and i never suggested it was limited to newtonian mechanics. The point of science is to refine understanding and thus we seek to make the basics as non-contradictory as possible before moving on. I have some ideas of my own but i mainly work from reference material of prominent scientist.
Credit Bearden with the principle's and me with the wording in this instance.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
None of his theories have passed any peer review, and years after claiming to be near production with his free energy machine he still has not even shown a public demonstration.
Originally posted by Frosty
A dipole occurs within polar covalent bonds when the center of the positive charge does not coincide with the center of the negative charge. It is also an atenae.
So long as nothing exerts force on the object, but when you attempt to draw energy from that object, you will exert force and slow its process down.
My education of magnetics isn't too great, but I assume if you take some chemistry and physics courses you might be able to take in enough information to make that claim without having everyone laugh at you.
It takes years to learn and master the fundamentals and advance theories in physics and chemistry. It took Newton years to develop the calculus necessary for his Principia. I don't think you can simply read one book and then make these claims without showing any of your own mathematics and mechanical explanations.
Ferromagnetism comes from passing cobalt, iron and nickel through magnetic fields, or their alloys.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
And classical mechanics might not explain everything, which it does not.
Originally posted by StellarX
Well covalent bonding is an intramolecular form of chemical bonding
In the simplest case , two separeted charges of ussually equal magnitude and of opposite sign.
More generally, a localized positive charge or charge distribution, and localized negative charge or charge distribution , such that the net charge summation is zero, while the positive and negative charge distribution do not precisely superpose point to point but only on average.
In regular physics electrical charge however has no proper definition; something that is not contradictory in this case. As is well known in particle physics, due to the opposite charges on its end, a dipole is a broken symmetry in the virtual photon flux of the vacuum. By definition of broken symmetry , this means that some of the virtual energy flux continuesly absorbed from the seething vacuum by the charges of the dipole is not re-radiated as virtual energy. Instead, it is integrated coherently and re-radiated in 3-space as real emmited EM energy, establishing the fields and potentials associated with that source charge or source dipole. The dipole is therefore the most fundamental true "negative resister" since it freely and continuesly recieves EM energy in unusable form, transduces in into usable form , and re-emits it in usable EM form.
And thus we have permanent magnets.
Energy is not being drawn from the "object" as it is merely a funnel that must be maintained and if that can be done at a smaller energy cost than is gained from intercepting and storing energy EM energy flowing from the "object".
I will make whatever claims i like and if you are not interested in refuting them properly ( or unable or just lazy) you can laugh all you want as long as you know that i am long past the point where i will stop asking question just to spare myself some embarrassment. If you want to invest in trying to educate me in good proper physics i would appreciate all efforts poor suffering ignorent that i am.
Since scientist spent their entire lifetimes learning and still turn out to be wrong most of the time
Well i read alot of physics books over the years and certainly very many more with references to scientific principles. I also happened to go to school and we did some there aswell. Turns out even the basics they tough me in high school is dead wrong in many instances. That explains well why physics is in the sad state it is.