"It Just Keeps Running and Running"

MysterX

Hmmm...it might be useful to realise the ball doesn't actually touch the table or the hand.

In terms of macroscale objects, it's a point without a point. There is no aether.

Bedlam
If he wants actual proof, he'd have to do it. He has not. He is saying (hand wave) ignore the battery and motor...it was too complicated to get rid of it, and really, it's such a LITTLE motor.

Proof can be for or against.

If it comes then good, it will be known one way or the other and if it doesn't then we will not know if there was anything to it.

We can assume but that will just leave us in this same situation.

reply to post by daskakik


If it's a scam, he'll never close the loop. But he'll start giving paid presentations, and asking for investors. And he'll get some.

Mary Rose
This thread is based on an article in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on November 12, 2013

So this device was viewed 14 months ago....

Bedlam
If it's a scam, he'll never close the loop.

So he has had 14 months to close the loop.... but still has not done it! What a scammer.

reply to post by Bedlam

There is a difference between thinking, "hey let's see if this pans out" and investing.

Looking at his history I'm sure he could already give paid presentations although, at 86 he's probably happier just tinkering with his magnets.

reply to post by Bedlam


Do you know anything about the German newspaper and the technology editors there?

I am very curious about the article itself at this point.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Do you know anything about the German newspaper and the technology editors there?

Well, I think you can gauge the capability of the technology editors when they failed to discern that the main shaft had a flywheel on it and the mirror did not, and they tried to compare the power output of the two by feel. They're also trying to sell papers, not science. Had this been, say, SciAm editors, they'd have asked a bit tougher questions.

reply to post by Bedlam


Maybe there is a member who is familiar with German newspapers who can answer my question.

Mary Rose
This thread is based on an article in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on November 12, 2013 . . .

There is a Wikipedia article about the newspaper:

The F.A.Z. is one of several high-profile national newspapers in Germany (along with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Frankfurter Rundschau and die Tageszeitung) and among these has the second largest circulation nationwide. It maintains the largest number of foreign correspondents of any European newspaper (53 as of 2002).[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Mary Rose
There is a Wikipedia article about the newspaper:

The BBC doesn't get science right, either. Nor does CNN most of the time. Why do you think FAZ will? It's not a technical publication. It's a mainstream newspaper. You're expecting a bit more out of them than I would.

reply to post by Bedlam


I think because I'm rather awed by my perception of Germany as a country when it comes to science. I have the same bias regarding Russia.

But I see what you're saying that it's not a technical publication.

MysterX

Bedlam

Fromabove

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.

Nope, that's pretty much it. It's inertia.

Hmmm...it might be useful to realise the ball doesn't actually touch the table or the hand.

And also to know that there is a magnetic effect/ relationship happening in conjunction with the atomic forces of the atoms that make up the ball, table and hand. Not much actually touches anything in reality...not even my fingers on the keys on my keyboard.

If they did, it would create a very short lived existence for just about everything.

You actually get it. This is why science will continue to advance. High five to you.

Bedlam

MysterX

Hmmm...it might be useful to realise the ball doesn't actually touch the table or the hand.

In terms of macroscale objects, it's a point without a point. There is no aether.

I would not rule that out just yet. Bedlam is right. You do realize that the ball isn't really resting on anything at all but is reacting to energies at the atomic and sub-atomic level right? So how do you suppose the ball remains stationary until pushed. Unless there is some balance. And you realize that not even your hand touches the ball but instead a force of energy that forms your hand does.

I suppose if I think like a cave man and say that only what I see is real, then it would be inertia. But, if I can perceive a field of force that is stable at all possible points and only disturbed by energy force which then causes motion or change, then I can say there is an aether or fabric to the existence of energy itself. And that all matter remains stable until energy force changes it causing motion or conversion. But in the end the universe seeks balance.

All in all, everything is only energy, and if you go all the way down to the smallest thing, there is nothing there at all where that energy seems to originate.

But to stay on topic, the machine won't do what is claimed due to entropy and opposing forces.

I've seen a comment on a forum that Engel's device would probably not be practical for mechanical motion to drive an electric generator but that it may be highly useful as a low friction magnetic gear box for a motor.

Mary Rose
I've seen a comment on a forum that Engel's device would probably not be practical for mechanical motion to drive an electric generator but that it may be highly useful as a low friction magnetic gear box for a motor.

It's got about 16 magnets on the flywheel in the magniworx video so that's a gear ratio of 16:1, but you realize of course that this has nothing to do with free energy.

You can already buy magnetic gearboxes from companies that have experience building them:

www.magnomatics.com...

I have no reason to think Engel's device is any better than what's already commercially available, and more than likely it's probably not as good because the gearbox makers have experience building them, whereas Engle doesn't and his unit probably isn't as efficient (since he doesn't seem particularly good at measuring efficiency).

This one was honored in 1972 with the prestigious Rudolf Diesel Medal for inventors, he has well over a hundred patents to his name and has been lecturing at universities all over the world.

I was curious about this Diesel Medal and did a search:

About the Diesel Medal

The Diesel Medal originated at the initiative of Eugen Diesel, Rudolf Diesel’s son, in 1953 and is thus Germany’s oldest innovation prize. It is awarded by the German Institute for Inventions (DIE e.V.). One of the main aims of DIE e.V. is to adequately acknowledge the achievements of inventors and companies in public and to provide systematic support for their work. The prize has a signaling effect for the whole economy and places the subject of innovation firmly at the center of public attention. The long list of medal winners underlines the great importance of intellectual creativity and commercial success. Famous prizewinners include Wernher von Braun, Gottlob Bauknecht, Arthur Fischer, Anton Kathrein, Sybill Storz, Viktor Dulger, Karl Schlecht, Friedhelm Loh, Nobel laureates Herrmann Staudinger, Ernst Ruska und Manfred Eigen, as well as SAP founders Dietmar Hopp, Hasso Plattner, and Klaus E. Tschira.

www.autobei.com...

That, in addition to:

Mr. Engel is convinced that his machine uses the enormous energy which is inherent in quanta, those inconceivably small components of atoms which were first described by the physicist Max Planck in the early part of the last century. He therefore calls his machine an "quantum deviation apparatus". Somethings are still unclear, also for the inventor himself. Somewhere in Germany, a businessman has a second such motor at his company, which runs with 1200 RPM. The man called some days ago he says, and recounted that, when the motor was covered with an acrylic hood, its rotational speed diminished. Engel does not know the reason for this.

blog.hasslberger.com...

makes me very curious about this inventor's work.

It would be nice to learn something about his university lectures, if that is true.

Da Vinci, arguably one of the smartest, if not the smartest man to have ever lived in recorded history, created helicopters airplanes and tanks all long before the modern era, he even put quite alot of effort into this project to come up wanting.

I realize I'm quoting a post way back on the first page, but I couldn't resist. I like Ricky Gervais' thoughts on that subject. In one of his stand-up shows he said something along the lines of, drawing a helicopter pointing at it and going "This will fly," is not inventing the helicopter.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Here is a piece that touches on Engel's work in plastics.
History of PEX

He was also said to be a very good watchmaker.
Zenith meets Breguet: the Chronometers of Thomas Engel

daskakik
Here is a piece that touches on Engel's work in plastics.
History of PEX

That is probably not the same Thomas Engel.

In my searches I saw a professor named Thomas Engel in the U.S.

Apparently this was his major achievement:

In the nineteen-fifties Engel developed a new procedure for the production of polyethylene making plastic pipes resistant to hot water. The Munich Olympia stadium has a lawn heating system based on this invention.

blog.hasslberger.com...

Does anyone know how to locate his patents as a starting point to research his purported university lectures all over the world?