"It Just Keeps Running and Running"

butcherguy
Thanks for that, I apparently read the article too quickly and missed it.

Hey, it happens. I thought the "mirror" was an actual mirror until I had another look.

I wonder how the mirror disk can have a torque effect on the rotor without back torque on it (or at least very little, judging by the 8 mA at 9 volts)?

It is hard to tell from the pics how things are arranged and google doesn't bring up any other pics of the motor. Who knows what it is actually doing.

Here's a youtube video of interest on the "mirror magnet thing."

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Fromabove

But the motor in that video didn't keep running and running.

The mirror in the OP has a motor hooked up so it must be doing something similar but still not the same.

reply to post by darkbake


Thank you for the informative post. Water has immense energy when it gets to moving…

Physics is kind of like law, there are always loopholes - for example. dams generate power through the "perpetual motion" of waterfalls,

Except that water flowing down hill is not "perpetual motion".

It got uphill because the sun evaporated it and wind currents carried it up that hill.

But I agree, rivers and even wave action in the surf would be a better source of energy than any invention we could come up with. All we have to do is harness the energy that is already there.

Or learn to use less energy?

daskakik
reply to post by Fromabove

 

But the motor in that video didn't keep running and running.

The mirror in the OP has a motor hooked up so it must be doing something similar but still not the same.

edit on 30-1-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

I think it has a little motor on it to turn the "mirror" magnet. I just wanted to show the one I did because I could put a "shimmy" motor on it and do the same thing.

It just keeps running and running, well at least as long as he keeps it moving. The only difference between this one and the one the OP shows is that one has a little motor instead of a human hand to drive the magnets.

www.youtube.com...

Fromabove
I think it has a little motor on it to turn the "mirror" magnet.

That was posted in the OP:

. . . The mirror hangs in a kind of outrigger. Two electric wires connect to the lower end with crocodile clips. There is a tiny electric motor that rotates the mirror. So it isn't possible to do without electricity altogether? The inventor signals his disagreement. "Eight milliamperes at nine volts", he says. That is only a control mechanism. The power at the shaft is much greater.

reply to post by Fromabove

The difference, if the story in the OP is to be believed, is that it has more power at the shaft than what the small motor is using.

In both cases it would have to be proven that the amount of power available is greater than what the motor/hand is supplying.

How do we know how long neodymium magnets will last?

You're going to find out the motor for the mirror draws more power than you get out of the shaft. This is a nice indirection to distract you, sort of like how Bedini and Bearden always have a battery somewhere in their arrangement but tell you it isn't supplying power.

From the OP
The "Mirror uses 9volts at a current of 8ma"
Thats far less than 1 watt of power. Watts = Volts x amps.

From the OP
"Trying to stop it by grasping it with a hand createt noticable heat"
Well, that would definatley indicate an output greater than 1 watt.

If the op is correct then it IS creating more power than its using.

Lets look at why some of you nay sayers should not be taken too seriously!
You say you cant get more out that you put in, yet many of you have (wrongly imo) suggested a magnet is stored energy. So, if those magnets are stored energy then they could be the source of the extra power.
However, I dont see magnets as stored energy, they are just objects with magnetic alignment.

And if those magnets ARE the source of the extra power then consider this. Motorcycles up untill about the early 80's had an alternator that consisted of a circle of permanent magnets. They didnt lose their magnetism as people in this thread are suggesting would happen.

Always keep an open mind. They told the wright brothers it was impossible for their plane to fly!

VoidHawk
From the OP
The "Mirror uses 9volts at a current of 8ma"
Thats far less than 1 watt of power. Watts = Volts x amps.

From the OP
"Trying to stop it by grasping it with a hand createt noticable heat"
Well, that would definatley indicate an output greater than 1 watt.

If the op is correct then it IS creating more power than its using.

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.

Lets look at why some of you nay sayers should not be taken too seriously!
You say you cant get more out that you put in, yet many of you have (wrongly imo) suggested a magnet is stored energy. So, if those magnets are stored energy then they could be the source of the extra power.
However, I dont see magnets as stored energy, they are just objects with magnetic alignment.

Magnets really don't store energy. Worse, as a source of magic energy, they have the same issues as gravity or springs. And that is, the repulsion/attraction is symmetric. You get the same amount of energy back that you put in, with any mechanical contrivance that moves magnets around each other.

And if those magnets ARE the source of the extra power then consider this. Motorcycles up untill about the early 80's had an alternator that consisted of a circle of permanent magnets. They didnt lose their magnetism as people in this thread are suggesting would happen.

Always keep an open mind. They told the wright brothers it was impossible for their plane to fly!

Alternators extract energy from the shaft to output electrical energy. You get less electrical power out than you apply mechanical power in.

Let him close the loop and power the mirror motor from the shaft, and remove the battery. I'll wait.

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.

That is entirely dependant on how much load is placed on the motor. A free running dc motor uses hardly anything. Remeber the walkman stereo's? two tiny little batteries and they ran for hours turning that little dc motor AND creating the audio.

Magnets really don't store energy. Worse, as a source of magic energy, they have the same issues as gravity or springs. And that is, the repulsion/attraction is symmetric. You get the same amount of energy back that you put in, with any mechanical contrivance that moves magnets around each other.

we agree on that, however, as I often point out, we humans are a sneaky lot and we often find a way to cheat.

Alternators extract energy from the shaft to output electrical energy. You get less electrical power out than you apply mechanical power in.

My point concerning that comment was simply that the magnets do not lose there magnetism.

Let him close the loop and power the mirror motor from the shaft, and remove the battery. I'll wait.

Agreed, I would like to see that also. But I wont right it off until I've seen some proof either way.

VoidHawkThat is entirely dependant on how much load is placed on the motor. A free running dc motor uses hardly anything. Remeber the walkman stereo's? two tiny little batteries and they ran for hours turning that little dc motor AND creating the audio.

That's because a couple of AA batteries store about 3 WH. Most little DC motors draw 70mA or more no load. Not 8.

we agree on that, however, as I often point out, we humans are a sneaky lot and we often find a way to cheat.

You won't see this cheated, though. It's one of those things that's about as basic as it comes.

My point concerning that comment was simply that the magnets do not lose there magnetism.

Eventually the domains randomize through thermal action, but in general I agree. It's not a plus for the magnet motor crowd, though.

Agreed, I would like to see that also. But I wont right it off until I've seen some proof either way.

There's always some reason they can't get the battery out, or disconnect their magic dingus from the wall socket. That's where the MacGuffin is. With Bedini and Bearden, there's always a power source they claim isn't providing power. Great! Remove it.

With this guy, he's pushing that wheel around by moving a magnet with a motor. Well, duh. Of course you can get the wheel to turn that way. It's where he's putting his indirection. "Look, these magnets are turning". Well, not much different than a DC motor. "Look, this permanent magnet on a shaft is ROTATING! And all I had to do was switch this electromagnet on and off..."

If you were building some sort of "free energy" machine, it would seem to be an obvious step to make it power itself. Of course, you can't, because it doesn't really work. So you get Lutec, Bearden, Bedini, Steorn and this guy all with batteries or wall power somewhere.

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

Magnets don't have a defined lifespan, but rather a variable one.

Variables which influence magnet life are:
-Temperature (higher temperatures cause degradation)
-Impact, vibration, etc (The internal magnetic fields in magnets are aligned and impacts seem to affect the alignment)
-Exposure to other magnets/magnetic fields. There is a phenomenon known as hysteresis which occurs when magnets are exposed to external magnetic fields, which can not only partially or fully demagnetize the existing magnetic field, it can completely reverse it if the external field is strong enough. If you work permanent magnets against each other sufficiently they can degrade each others fields over time.

Without exposure to the above, the magnetic alignment of a permanent magnet can last a long time.

Bedlam
Let him close the loop and power the mirror motor from the shaft, and remove the battery. I'll wait.

Someone always comes along and makes a logical suggestion like that, and there always seems to be an excuse why the logical suggestion can't be followed.

In this case the excuse is, he doesn't want to increase the "mechanical complexity" by doing that, but I read that as "it won't work" if he does that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


At least with Steorn, the MacGuffin was very VERY subtle. To the point that you scratch your head and go "hmm...". We actually had the development kit. I see why they thought it would work. It's a lot more creative than "don't look at the battery and the little motor"

We don't need free everlasting perpetual breaking the laws of physics energy. We just need ridiculously cheap energy. Maybe that's where this can lead us? And yeah magnets don't last forever but they last a pretty long time... and I don't know a lot about this but there are ways to magnetize or perhaps re magnetize things so that may or may not be viable for this purpose.

3n19m470
there are ways to magnetize or perhaps re magnetize things

You can definitely re-magnetize magnets, but it takes a LOT of energy to do it; more energy than was extracted from de-magnetizing the magnet in the first place.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


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?

Bedlam
You get less electrical power out than you apply mechanical power in.

How much less?

How do you know the net amount in this case is insignificant?

reply to post by Mary Rose

if you read this translation of the article carefully, there is a good description of how the motor works.

Unfortunately I have no more data or direct contact to the inventor.

The way I read it, he uses flat disk neodymium magnets, that are fixed to a rotor (presumably placed in a fashion that they show alternating poles going around the disk.

One more of those magnets is hung in a rotatable fashion on an outlayer that keeps it a constant distance from the rotor. That "mirror" magnet is motorized.

As the mirror turns, it will attract and repel the two closest magnets on the rotor, attracting the approaching one, repelling the other receding one.

As the approaching magnet passes, the mirror completes a half turn and the simultaneous attraction/repulsion repeats, this time with inverted magnetic poles.

The mirror is motorized to control RPMs, the energy expended to turn the mirror is considerably less than that which is output by the shaft that's driven by the rotor.

Simple principle - no magnetic shielding involved, only clever arrangement of magnets in a dynamic configuration...

blog.hasslberger.com...

From this description it is extremely obvious that there is no reason this would work.

So you have a stator with magnets arranged around the rotor. On the rotor are also magnets.

Seems similar in many ways to a conventional permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM). On a PMSM a varying magnetic field is generated via electric current passing through the coils in the stator. This varying magnetic field interacts with the field created by permanent magnets on the rotor, creating torque.

From the description, it seems permanent magnets are used in the stator instead of windings, and the varying magnetic field is created because they are being mechanically moved. Which would be worse than a PMSM, as mechanical parts are generally less efficient, more complex, and less reliable than doing things all electric. So basically this thing is pretty much crap - an electric part has been replaced with a mechanical part (probably driven by an electric motor) which really does the same thing and it's treated as if it's "perpetual motion".

So instead of posting nonsense you don't understand and being gullible enough to believe it, why not try to understand how electric motors and generators actually work? 1+1 does not equal 3. It does not follow that this outputs more energy than is put in. Also, this is as basic as it can possibly get.