I might have invented an over-unity device - design included

This thread is in celebration of my 150th thread on ATS. For the occasion, I've decided to post something which might actually rock your world. I hope you enjoy the read.

During the last months I've been kind of absent from ATS. That's because I was coming up with a design for a device which I think might actually generate electricity without the need for any fuel, sun, wind, or anything. The device would come as close as humanly possible to a perpetual motion device of the Third Kind. It then converts the motion into electricity.

Perpetual motion devices of the third kind are technically possible. If you made something spin on itself, and could magically strip any possible friction away, then according to Newton's First Law, the thing would keep on spinning forever because of its momentum. Obviously, if the spinning thing is a magnet, and if a copper coil is placed around, then the thing would generate a current in the coil... forever (well, for longer than a lifetime, that's for sure).

The problem is, it's impossible, given our current tech, to completely eliminate friction. The shaft which holds the spinning magnets physically rubs against the structure holding it, something which lubricants can only partially compensate.

So I've attacked the problem with a completely different angle. I've eliminated the concept of a shaft altogether. Instead of which I propose we hang the magnets at the bottom end of a thread, which can twist on itself alot. The other end of the thread is anchored to a tiny electric motor. When a spin is given to the magnet, it'll spin on itself, thanks to the thread which is acting like a nearly-frictionless rotor. This will drive a current in a large copper coil placed near the magnet. The current charges up a battery or a capacitor. The only purpose of the tiny motor is to kick in once in a while for a second or so, and add twists to the thread - drawing its energy from the charged capacitor/battery, and preventing the thread from ever reaching an untwisted state - effectively encouraging the magnets to keep on spinning.



In short, friction is lowered to a minimum by hanging the magnets at the end of a thread, and the tiny motor is there only to compensate for the loss of momentum. The whole thing would in theory be self-contained; running on inertia and, occasionally, on the electricity it produces itself; and leaving the rest of the generated electricity free for you to use.

It is not a "free energy" device in the scientific sense, since the energy present in there would just be transformed and not created out of thin air.

I haven't built one yet, because although I do have neodymium magnets, I don't have enough copper to make big coils yet (the bigger coils, the better - it's the coils that are doing the heavy lifting). I may be wrong, for I have yet to test my idea yet. In fact it's very possible that there could be some variable I missed. However, if I am not missing anything, then this experiment might very well prove to be quite a groundbreaking leap. Everything works on electricity nowadays - if this device works, then not only will you be able to build one using scraps, but also will it enable us to finally get a constant (and renewable) source of electricity independently of sun availability, wind strength, nuclear materials, or fossil fuel big corps. There is no better long-term driving force than inertia - just look at the planets, it's been billions of years and they're still going round.

And this concludes my 150th celebration thread!


At Time's End,

Swan

Wow, I just made a post about magnet motors, this is a great idea! Thanks.

originally posted by: swanne
Obviously, if the spinning thing is a magnet, and if a copper coil is placed around, then the thing would generate a current in the coil... forever (well, for longer than a lifetime, that's for sure).

What about back emf?
en.wikipedia.org...

If you spin a generator under no load there is very little resistance to turning it. But as soon as you put a load on it, it becomes harder to turn.

In fact it's very possible that there could be some variable I missed.

There is, see above.

It will take more mechanical energy to rotate the magnets past the coils than you get out of the coils in the form of electrical energy.

Plus the lines have loss.

Plus the motor at the top isn't 100% efficient. But even if they all were, you still have no net gain of energy.

a reply to: Bedlam

Correct, just like it would be to tape some buttered toast to a cats back and watch them spin forever.

originally posted by: Bedlam
It will take more mechanical energy to rotate the magnets past the coils than you get out of the coils in the form of electrical energy.

I believe you misunderstood the op.

The mechanical energy is provided by the thread's propension to reach an uncoiled state, not by the motor.

Secondly, the electricity generated by the coil is proportional to:

1- the number of turns in the coil
2- the amount of wire in the coil
3- the rate at which the magnetic field changes with time near the coil.

All these three can be increased to yield more electricity:

1- make tight turns
2- use high DC resistance coils
3- add as many magnets on the rotor with alternate polarity (10 magnets = 10 magnetic polarity inversion for only one spin)


This electricity is not used to make the magnets spin, it is only used to add twists to the thread once in a while.

originally posted by: swanne
Obviously, if the spinning thing is a magnet, and if a copper coil is placed around, then the thing would generate a current in the coil... forever (well, for longer than a lifetime, that's for sure).

Nice try, but no.

Think about what creates the current? It is the momentum transfer from he rotating magnet to the electrons. And according to Newtons third law your magnet will feel a counter torque, which will slow its rotation.

Look up inductive braking for a real life example.

a reply to: hellobruce

Back emf doesn't affect the momentum of the permanent magnet.

Back emf simply means that there's a counter-current in the coils.

a reply to: moebius

Yes, but that's what the small motor will be there for. Compensate for eventual loss of momentum.

Additionally, I'm finding it hard to believe that back emf effect will prevent a weight and its angular momentum from reaching a low gravitational potential energy. Copper coils are still subject to gravity and fall, even though they're subjected to the earth's magnetic field.

originally posted by: swanne


It is not a "free energy" device in the scientific sense, since the energy present in there would just be transformed and not created out of thin air.

But I don't understand, if not out of thin air where would it come from?

Although I like the idea, magnet hanging on a twisting thread...original. It's not frictionless but it reduces fricton a lot. Maybe there is some potential there, I just don't understand would that energy come from...

a reply to: alomaha

The thing could be kickstarted by manually giving a spin to the magnets, or twisting the thread a good number of times. The thread's tendency to reach its lowest gravitational potential energy, and the magnet's inertia, would be the two primary source of energy.

originally posted by: swanne

This electricity is not used to make the magnets spin, it is only used to add twists to the thread once in a while.

If all the twists in the thread are coming from the motor, then yes, it is being used to make the magnets spin.

If not, after all the initial twists are used up (energy stored in there as a starting condition), then all the twists are coming from the motor. Interposing another step to make it less obvious (the motor twists a thread, the thread rotates the magnet) doesn't make it more efficient, you are losing some energy to frictional losses that way.

The mechanical energy used to rotate the magnets in the coils will be opposed by the magnetic counter torque that the coil current will induce. In other words, when you attempt to remove electrical energy from your system, it will become more difficult to rotate the magnet, and the energy removed mechanically will be a bit more than you'll get out of the coils electrically.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: hellobruce

Back emf doesn't affect the momentum of the permanent magnet.

Back emf simply means that there's a counter-current in the coils.

Back emf will create an opposing magnetic field, which converts the momentum of the permanent magnet to electrical energy on the output. It's where the power comes from.

Ever have a bicycle with a generator running the headlight? What happens when you turn the headlight on?

I've seen magnet motors with unidirectional spin, why can't we just hook up an alternator or use them to power generators?

You spin the magnet one way and it feeds electricity to your capacitor, but if you spin it the other way, it leeches electricity from your capacitor or where? And not only that but as everyone else is saying, the electrons want to resist change in motion through the coil, so you will have kickback? Effectively, it would produce a lot of resistance and/or drain what if not your capacitor?

Where are the electrons that feeds into the capacitor even coming from?

originally posted by: swanne
Copper coils are still subject to gravity and fall, even though they're subjected to the earth's magnetic field.

If you do it with a strong enough magnetic field, you can in fact see copper loops will fall more slowly than non-conductive objects. Or, conversely, a strong magnet falling through a conductor will also fall slowly.



This same effect applies to your magnetic perpetual motion machine. The more electrical power you try to remove, the "stiffer" your rotor will become, extracting mechanical energy from the system to produce electrical energy.

originally posted by: anotherside
I've seen magnet motors with unidirectional spin, why can't we just hook up an alternator or use them to power generators?

Because generators or alternators will resist, mechanically, as you extract electrical energy from them. So the more energy you try to produce, the harder they are to turn. Because they aren't magically producing electricity, they convert mechanical energy to electrical energy.

Magnets don't produce mechanical energy.

a reply to: Bedlam

The thread would start initially twisted.

after all the initial twists are used up (energy stored in there as a starting condition), then all the twists are coming from the motor.

Good point. However, in practice, the motor will be adding twists at the same time the magnets are using them up. It's an intrinsic property of the design. So what then?

It takes a long time for twists to get used up, especially if you use a long thread. With the motor adding twists periodically, you're bound to actually get as many twists (if not more) than what you've started with.

And therein lies the dilemma.

By the way you're actually the first to get to the crux of the thing, finally!

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
You spin the magnet one way and it feeds electricity to your capacitor, but if you spin it the other way, it leeches electricity from your capacitor or where?

Um... Aren't you forgetting the rectifier??

(BTW "transformer" in the picture is supposed to be labeled "rectifier", I've made a typo)

I saw one video of a design where the rotor was shaped like a radioactive symbol slightly made of stainless steel I think. And used magnets in four quadrants around it to achieve spin, it was hooked to a generator and powered a wall of lights.