"It Just Keeps Running and Running"

reply to post by C0bzz


Are you assuming the technology editors of the German newspaper are gullible?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Well, if they fell for this then it wouldn't be much of an assumption.

Mary Rose
You're saying that if Engel's device as described could be engineered to generate electricity it would not be cost-effective compared to what we have now?

This video which you posted purportedly shows how it "generates electricity":

Mary Rose
Hasslberger also posted this YouTube video as illustrating a permanent magnet motor apparently based on the same principle as Engel's:

Here is a snapshot of the generator in that video which has already been engineered:



Engel's device is a motor powered by a battery. It doesn't generate any electricity.

It's taking the electricity from the battery to Engel's motor and transferring it through a very inefficient process including friction, air resistance, heat and other losses through the generator to the external fan.

If you want to run a fan from a battery, it would be more efficient to just hook up a battery directly to a fan and avoid all the losses in-between, like this, except you can get a 9v battery connector from Radio Shack which this kid doesn't use for some reason:

9 volt battery fan

Mary Rose
Are you assuming the technology editors of the German newspaper are gullible?

It's harder to understand how gullible investors can invest millions of dollars in Blacklight Power, but that happens too.

It's easier to understand gullible technology editors who have nothing to lose by writing a story that may have popular interest.

Arbitrageur
Engel's device is a motor powered by a battery. It doesn't generate any electricity.

I know that it does not generate electricity.

Engel's device is not exactly powered by a battery. You are exaggerating quite a bit, aren't you?

Mary Rose
Engel's device is not exactly powered by a battery. You are exaggerating quite a bit, aren't you?

I don't think so. He says it's not powered by the battery, but all evidence points to it being powered by the battery. I don't think it's any exaggeration at all to say it's powered by the battery.

Mary Rose
How do we know how long neodymium magnets will last?

Neo's will last a long time provided they don't get scratched or remain in temps above 120 for very long. The magnets are coated in nickel for preservation, and heat will cause the alignment of the atoms to diffuse, weakening the strength.

Also to note, as a motor, Ferrous(ceramic) magnets are better because of their field strength, while weaker, extends further from the magnet. Neo's are most powerful at what I call the "event horizon" or 1/8 distance from it's surface. Ferrous magnets are also safer because with neo's one can easily make the mistake of having a finger between the two little black holes and BAM! no more finger (depending on the size). But I've been dealt a few nasty blows by the little ones you can get at the Home Depot store.

From my many many years of experience in the use and experimentation of magnets I have found the ferrous (ceramic) types to be superior for all purposes. However, if anyone ever finds the solution to the problem they will most definitely want the strongest magnets they can lay hold of to power it. But safety is the paramount. Neodymium magnets are incredibly powerful.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


He calls the battery a control mechanism.

Bottom line, the point made by the editors is the "human sensors" (necessary because we have no way to measure mechanical power?) detecting much more power than the eight milliamperes at nine volts represented by the battery.

What do you have to say to that?

Mary Rose
Bottom line, the point made by the editors is the "human sensors" (necessary because we have no way to measure mechanical power?) detecting much more power than the eight milliamperes at nine volts represented by the battery.

What do you have to say to that?

I will quote Nelson and House and say if they can't tie a weight to a string to the shaft then they are idiots, because that's all that's needed for a "poor man's dynamometer" to fairly accurately measure mechanical power.

NASA scientists Nelson & House willing to verify overunity electromagnetic machines

the designer needs to test their motor under a known mechanical load. If they don’t have a dynamometer available, then the simplest way to do this is to simply have their motor lift a known weight by winding a string or flexible cable of some sort around a spindle. This will serve as their homemade “dynamometer” if you will. We need to know the amount of weight lifted, the height the weight is lifted and the speed the weight is lift to get an output power measurement. Normally the speed is determined by the RPM’s of the output spindle. So, if the designer knows the height lifted with each RPM then all we need to know is the RPM’s of the spindle (not the motor if gear ratios are involved) to have the lifting speed.

I would add this is fairly simple stuff, and that people who think of using "finger brakes" instead of some simple quantifiable measurement like that described above aren't very competent, and probably don't know what they are doing with regard to many aspects of their experiment. Unfortunately, this is quite common.

The other problem with the "finger brake" measurement is you can take a very low current from a small power source, and gradually build up a lot of rotational inertia, which is not an instantaneous representation of output but more of an accumulated sum over time. Then it can seem very hard to slow it down. It's hard to slow the Earth's rotation down, and there's nothing even making it rotate, it's just turning from momentum alone. So applying a brake to the Earth to measure the input power that's making the Earth turn would tell you nothing about the power input that's making the Earth turn. There is none. So the finger brake thing is not too useful for this reason also, in that it could be telling you as much about inertia as instantaneous input power.

Bedlam also raised some skepticism about whether they actually know the output of the battery and pointed out he couldn't find where they had actually measured this....it sounded more like a guess.

Bedlam
Show me a DC motor that draws 8mA at 9 Volts. Show me where he's measured it. Most small brush DC motors draw quite a bit more than that. Show me where he measured the output. You won't find it, because the "mirror motor" is his MacGuffin.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The newspaper editors should have used a dynamometer?

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

He calls the battery a control mechanism.

Bottom line, the point made by the editors is the "human sensors" (necessary because we have no way to measure mechanical power?) detecting much more power than the eight milliamperes at nine volts represented by the battery.

What do you have to say to that?

I haven't looked at the circuitry so I do not know. Inductive kick is the first things that some to my mind.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The newspaper editors should have used a dynamometer?

Why not? Popular Mechanics editors use a dynamometer to test energy saving claims:

Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'

We purchased seven typical gadgets--ranging in price from $20 to nearly $400--representing the most common approaches used by devices claiming to boost mileage, such as applying magnets to the fuel line, modifying air intakes or injecting extra fuel into the engine...

We strapped the trucks down to a pair of chassis dynamometers and ran them dry of gasoline. Then we added a measured quantity of gas, and ran four dyno pulls to determine horsepower and torque. Next, we accelerated to a corrected 70 mph, set the cruise control to keep the speeds consistent and ran the trucks dry again. This gave us a base line of each truck's unmodified power and fuel consumption.

We gassed up the trucks, installed our gas-savers and repeated the tests. (We didn't check for emissions, figuring most people who buy these products are fighting a holding action on their wallets, not on the environment.) Here are the gadgets and how they performed.

And my bigger point is even without a fancy dynamometer, why can't they tie a weight to a string and use that for their dynamometer, instead of a finger brake? Because they don't know what they're doing like the writers of popular mechanics do, that's why.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Okay your point is well taken.

I've emailed Sepp Hasslberger asking for info about the newspaper and the editors in question and for info regarding any follow-up he may do on his post.

I've also contacted someone from overunity.com where there was discussion about contacting the inventor's son.

The inventor apparently had a very successful career but perhaps his Rudolf Diesel Medal doesn't represent any kind of expertise in electromagnetism.

reply to post by amsterdamn87


It's different when the majority of modern scientists say something is insane or crazy. You're comparing scientific criticism of something to rhetoric and religious belief. Science in its modern form didn't really appear until a few hundred years ago. Before that there was pseudo-science like Alchemy and Astrology. The arguments back then used to stop science in its tracks were purely ignorance. Your quite right about science being wrongfully persecuted and attacked back then. Thankfully, science survived the onslaught and truth overcame deception. These days, scientists don't attack you so much as they PROVE you wrong. Most people who have an ounce of professionalism don't resort to name calling. There's still ignorance today, but it's mostly not coming from scientists. It's coming from people who don't practice the scientific method, much as it did in the past.

It's this rigorous framework we use today that makes science shine so brightly. In the past people fumbled with ideas and didn't really know where to go or what to do. Science came about by blind luck. Using the theories and methods we have now we can much more effectively create new technologies and understanding. Rather than being a blind adventurer we're more like the prepared adventurer.

I'm learning a little about electronics.

My plan is to connect a breadboard circuit with a 555 timer to my Earth battery and the cap it charges. Coupled to a boost circuit.

The problem I'm having is using the right inductor so the cap charges at a rate that is boostable to integrate into a separate circuit I can utilize for small projects.

One circuit is open loop, one is closed loop.

As of yet, I can only run a cdrom motor, but not the cdrom motor connected to it by way of pulley and belt. I've tried different sized pulleys too.

As it turns out, The zinc in my Earth battery doesn't last as long as my projects do...

Perpetual motion is what the universe is, to deny perpetual motion is ludicrous, no?

Arbitrageur
... all evidence points to it being powered by the battery.

What evidence is this? All I see is a newspaper story and a couple of fuzzy pictures that lack any kind of detail.

Not saying the claim is true but without proof either way you really can't say.

Now given the history of that field of research it is likely that the claim is bogus but, that is something else.

reply to post by loveguy


That part where you're running out of zinc ought to be telling you something...

reply to post by daskakik


The battery shouldn't be necessary, and in all these perpetual motion machines are actually there to run it, despite the distracting verbage to the contrary. All he has to do is put a small generator on the shaft and hook it to the mirror motor. Yet he's avoiding it, and the reason why is clear.

Bedlam
The battery shouldn't be necessary, and in all these perpetual motion machines are actually there to run it, despite the distracting verbage to the contrary.

Quite the blanket statement. The topic on hand is this motor not "all these perpetual motion machines". I don't think there is enough information to state with any type of certainty if this motor works or not.

All he has to do is put a small generator on the shaft and hook it to the mirror motor. Yet he's avoiding it, and the reason why is clear.

Clear? I can say that the reason can be easily assumed but that still doesn't provide certainty.

reply to post by daskakik


Well, you've got centuries of basic science that says it won't. There's nothing here that is new, and it's got a battery on that he's handwaving away like his fellow charlatans. If ir's putting out magic energy, and if the motor draws as little power as he claims, why hasn't he taken this obvious step?

Because it won't work.

After carefully considering what I can know about the machine, my opinion is that it is either a hoax, or rather that it is incapable of doing any work, even if it could self sustain itself (although I sincerely doubt it.)

On perpetual motion and the universe, to go that route you would have to bring in Nikola Tesla who believed that mass in motion gets all of it's energy from the aether, and there is a thread on this. But to touch on it only because this machine is claiming over unity. It goes like this.

If I push a ball on a flat surface. At the point where it leaves my hand, why does it go on for a bit? Is it because of the force of my hand, or inertia, well, not exactly. It is because I have disturbed it's place in the aether and the time it takes to find balance is where the motion comes in. You can test this by placing a ball in water in a bath tub. Give it a push and you will see that the water before it is displaced due to an imbalance and the water behind it comes in as if trying to find a balance in the disturbance. But as the seconds pass little by little balance comes and entropy wins out as the universe finds balance and the ball stops moving. So something is keeping all the planets and galaxies spinning, and that something is aether energy effecting mass.

In short, in theory perpetual motion is a very real possibility. In understandable terms, it is yet beyond even our most vivid dreams and fantasies. But we strive to achieve to find it. I think we will find it someday. Imagine an energy that can instantly start something in motion and keep it in motion like a carrot before the horse.

But this machine posted by the OP, nope, I think it's probably a hoax, maybe.