PSA from mod:
This topic was split from the US Elections Part 3 (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=27532.0) thread. No puppies were harmed in the splitting of this thread.
Quotemagnetically driven engines
Dude, just come out of the closet and admit that you're intentionally trolling this forum.
I've never seen a reason why its not a viable power source... magnets don't exactly run out of power. Why is it so hard to picture an engine driven by one?
more important, give an explanation why one done with a HARD ROCK magnet would not function?
The earths magnetic force has not yet run out, why would a hard magnet run out? Why would it be impossible to harness the force of the magnet? Its there, its strong... Surely with the correct engineering, it could be turned into a viable generator.
Please give an explanation why this is impossible
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 25, 2016, 07:07:49 AM
Please give an explanation why this is impossible
Please give an explanation why this is possible.
1 : magnets are often powered for a very, very, VERY long time. hard rock magnets lose 10% in 10 years (?), so they say, but if this is the case, I wonder how accurate this estimation is. This also depends on what material it is too, as higher quality magnets can be operable for dozens of decades. A refrigerator magnet will wear out before a stone magnet.
2 : magnets exert force on surfaces of steel and other materials. The force can be astronomical at times, to the point cat scans(?) can be fatal with metal objects, with them ripped out of the body. Larger, industrial magnets are labeled with hazard warnings, as having a pocket knife in your hand within to close a distance can have an amputation hazard, and your hand being pinched between steel and magnets will rip them off.
3 : Engineering exists to redirect, and funnel energy off of otherwise "static" energy sources. There are turbines, and other machines which have been developed to take in energy from x force, and turn it into energy
4 : I've seen literally no element in the rules of physics which would make the combination of point 1-3 into a powerful, long lasting generator with 0 immanence costs (maybe an occasional oiling?) and very clean (unlike radiation powered reactors).
So, unless you would like to redirect me to something which explains why exactly a magnet driven motor could not exist, I see no reason why it is impossible to develop. The force exerted from a magnet, which is constant, and nearly limitless, unless you have evidence to say otherwise, could be engineered into a means to drive a turbine or other object rather easily.
@mumblemumble, in case you aren't joking, I'll make you a reply.
If we assume that a magnetic field is a distortion to the gravitational field, then we can instantly classify your 'invention' as repugnant because it will be a perpetual energy device, and because they don't exist, yours won't either.
(Shh, physicists don't hate me for that statement)
(http://i.imgur.com/A3sxnGv.gif)
616, you are saying it won't work because it would be a prepetual energy device and "obviously" those don't exist...except this is an excuse. Theres no reason I can see mechanically speaking, why it wouldn't
@ sadpickle : nice meem, but know, those are 2 equal forces applying to each other head on.
What I speak of is say, a turbine, with magnets on the blades, and another magnet at an angle to push it away. And in doing so, the next is driven into place, ect... I've seen people "explain" that this is fake, and battery driven, but they completely ignore the whole "mechanically, can it work" bit.
my question is, what element involved in magnetism or magnetic fields would make this mechanic impossible? I admit I am no magnet expert, but I also have seen devices with multiple arrangements that DONT do this (like a maglev device) work just fine, so I dont see how a small change to get a continuous cycle of motions would somehow stop being possible.
More or importantly, if it is, I'd like to understand why... Do multiple magnetic fields tangle / mess with each other, or something? What goes on to prevent it? or is it just not examined?
Anyways, this thread got derailed quick :(
"What goes on to prevent it?"
Well the law of conservation of energy states:
"The total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
If a device would be created that made magnetic field energy into mechanical energy, it'd get its energy from the magnets, these magnets also have a finite energy supply, thus they would 'run out' / lose their charge.
To fabricate magnets we consume energy, in your contraption we'd use that energy to supply power, I think you might be looking after a battery, they do the same thing, just way better.
Oh and the best way to prove something is to show it inaction.
True, but if we look at how long hard magnets last, IE, 1% lost every decade IIRC, then the loss is minimal... ...besides that, pretty sure it doesn't take as much energy to CREATE a magnet, considering how very cheap they are. I mean, imagine how expensive a few magnets are, and how much energy you could get out with say, 500 years, and swapping them out at 50%. This would still be a damn good deal.
I'm no expert on how magnets are made, but I think its less energy than that.
Plus, since its that massive scale of time, its hard to test if this is indeed the case anyways.
"IE, 1% lost every decade IIRC"
Can I get a source for that, because that would sound like it needs to be under no 'load'.
Load has nothing to do with it, the magnetic field operates if theres something being held or not, as far as I'm aware. Anyways this has gotten obscenely offtopic.
Google search routinely says 1% per decade....sooo... Ill go with that.
The above was split from another thread (see OP for link). All "off topic" posts are now on topic. SCIENCE!! :D
magnetically driven engines are impossible, because magnetic mono-poles a) don't exist, and b) would not change polarity on demand (which would be necessary).
A) Pretty sure magnetic mono poles (magnets which either 100% pull, or push, on all sides) exist, but they ARE stupidly expensive.
B) Who said you would need polarity to change? Why? Whats wrong with having 1 pole of a magnet do the work, while the other end of the polarity fucks off in another direction?
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 08, 2017, 11:44:14 AM
Pretty sure magnetic mono poles exist
"There is no experimental evidence that magnetic monopoles exist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
Guess I was mistaken in them being in circulation, but an article from a few years ago suggested they were pheasable, and they DID actually craft one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2548880/Scientists-create-ONE-poled-magnet-unlock-secrets-surrounding-birth-universe.html
So they DO exist it seems (or are, at least in the realm of plausibility), but merely are not in circulation, as they have to be specially engineered.
BESIDES THIS, why in gods name would a "monopole" magnet even be necessary? Please explain, because even if these DONT exist, there was 0 explanation why these were needed.
hell, for the sake of argument, lets say you are 100% right and monopole magnets are outside the realm of physics. Why would they be necessary?
You are mistaken, reread your own source, they didn't make an actual magnetic mono pole, but rather simulated one using an ultra cold material
mimicing a magnetic system. So they didn't actually craft an actual magnetic system.
QuoteResearchers at Amherst College in Massachusetts and Aalto University in Finland managed to simulate the behaviour in an ultra-cold material that mimics a natural magnetic system.
ANNNNNNNND you going to answer my other question? Why is this mono pole even needed?. ::)
I was just chiming in to add that mono poles don't exist (yet). Surely the other guy who was saying why it was needed will further add to this.
Ah, I see, sorry for the misunderstanding, and slight rudeness skissor.
I think they might be pheasable in a certain circumstance, but this is theorizing. But I can say little, until I get a reason why they are needed, I'm unable to say much else
I've attached a picture with three example situations, which I will refer to, and hopefully will clear things up.
Situation A is quite simple: If there were no frictional forces, then maybe this thing would move forever, but as there will be frictional forces wherever something is moving, these forces would lower and lower the turning speed of the wheel until it stands still. Considering that you want to draw energy out of this system, the lowering of the turning speed will proceed very fast.
Situation B is much more complex to explain, as I don't know how deep you are into physics. Basically (and simplified) you must know that a magnet is not simply a magnet, but consists of many many micro-magnets. With this knowledge it's understandable, why the pushing and pulling forces are equal (like in A).
Even situation C is pretty much the same, as the magnet mounted to the wheel will have to be taken into account.
The only viable situation would be if all the magnets used could change their polarity at will (ok, monopoles would not be necessary here, but very helpful). Please get yourself informed on electrical motors, very deeply, if you want to discuss this further. The problem here is: changing the polarities would consume more energy, than one could extract from the system.
In the end, everything points to equilization: there can not be a force without an anti-force.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 08, 2017, 02:36:36 PM
But I can say little, until I get a reason why they are needed, I'm unable to say much else
How would you construct a motor based on magnetical powers? If you manage to do so, the Nobel-prize will definitely be yours!
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 08, 2017, 11:44:14 AM
Whats wrong with having 1 pole of a magnet do the work, while the other end of the polarity fucks off in another direction?
Seems you don't know very much about magnetic force fields. Please inform yourself about this topic. A magnet always needs two poles (which besides makes real magnetic monopoles impossible - electrical monopoles (protons & electrons) are another topic) to be a magnet.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
If you mean friction of the wheel itself as a generator, if you put in a higher force than the friction can stop, you still generate energy. If you mean because the magnet is equally pointed at both sides, this is because of that.
Situation B's explanation is silly. Are you saying the magnet in B would not push effectively, because it would pull equally on whatever its pointing? Is this what you are insinuating? Also, why it it pointed directly into the circle, and not at an angle?
I'm not going any further until you clarify.
QuoteHow would you construct a motor based on magnetical powers? If you manage to do so, the Nobel-prize will definitely be yours!
Already exists, you can make one with an old computer fan actually. Just larger scale ones are a bit less common.
QuoteSeems you don't know very much about magnetic force fields. Please inform yourself about this topic. A magnet always needs two poles (which besides makes real magnetic monopoles impossible - electrical monopoles (protons & electrons) are another topic) to be a magnet.
I never said it wouldn't have another pole. I'm saying you just wouldn't need the other pole INTERACTING with anything. Take a brick magnet for instance
You could have its pushing (or pulling, either one) force exerting on a turbine, on a diagonal angle, the force would pushing the turbine out of the way, and naturally, as the wheel turns, it would bring the next blade into place, and do the same.
And having the OTHER end of the brick magnet just sticking out in the air doing NOTHING, wouldn't destroy the process. Just because both sides of the magnets aren't being used doesn't mean it stops working.
Hey guys, I read much of the topic and as an engineer I gotta say, it is possible, it is not viable. You can't generate enough energy to make it worth it.
BUT, if you want to make it efficient, use this: Ferrofluid magnetic generator. There are alot of patents and other links in the internet, but this kickstarter sums up on how it can work. I think this will break the barrier of efficiency and generate more energy than it consumes on the magnets. It's only a matter of time right now.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1673957641/magnetic-siphon-electric-generator-mseg
efficiency is indeed a subjective matter however. If you made it sturdy, with larger magnets, the generator would require pretty much nothing to keep running, and that is the beauty of it. You could have it contained, and have it run rain or shine, in the cold, without fuel, even in the middle of nowhere.
Pretty sure in the end, over several years, one could get more energy than put in, but perhaps have a lower initial BURST energy than gasoline or combustibles.
Remember, the magnets take hundreds of years to wear down, so if you make solid construction, it could last near eternally.
As a physics student, I have to say that kickstarter build looks like a scam.
iame6162013 copy-pasta of the definition of the law of conserved energy should have ended the discussion immediately. Though, I find sadpickles troll physics much more amusing.
The reason you can't harness the power of magnets is that there is none. What you're actually looking at is the magnetic field, which as a conservative force field. That means that the amount of work you need/gain for moving between two points is independent from the path you take. Using several magnets, like 14m1337, does not change that (superposition). iame6162013 correctly assumed that the gravitational field and the magnetic fields are similar in that regard, which means you are essentially looking at: ** the picture below **
Click me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b8ZsFszE8I) for another physicist explaining why perpetual motion won't work.
edit: spelling
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Long time I didn't come here,
As said:
Quotecopy-pasta of the definition of the law of conserved energy should have ended the discussion immediately. Though, I find sadickles troll physics much more amusing.
At least the EM-drive came with physical test and a paper on the theory behind it (and it's nowhere confirmed as true)
It's a little depressing to see people with little scientific knowledge convinced their evasive thought experiment debunked 50years ago is new and will revolutionize physics.
If only we could harness energy from overconfidence & illusion then we would have infinite energy[/img] (https://xkcd.com/1166/) and time travel.
Thyme, you are playing with, and splitting hairs with definitions.
You say magnets have no "energy", yet a magnet going near another object magnetized or iron, will make it MOVE, and MOVING takes ENERGY. So WHERE does this energy come from? Do magnets violate the laws of physics in your opinion?
If magnets have no energy, what makes things move in presence of a magnet? If not from the energy in a magnet, which you say DOES NOT EXIST, then why does this energy suddenly manifest ALWAYS in presence of a magnet?
I'll just cut to the chase : Movement of mass is a manifestation of energy, which can transfer energy onto other things, via impact, friction, or torque upon something. Since magnets can, as we have stated, manifest MOVEMENT, you saying magnets "do not have energy" or more importantly "cannot make energy" is bunk. You guys are focusing on, and parroting a few lines from a textbook on "laws" which are stated, and not giving a single fuck about what actually happens in reality.
And heres the things which, in OBSERVABLE REALITY, we know as facts, which are relevant.
-Magnets exert force (energy) on materials effected by magnetic waves. This includes other magnets, irons, and to a smaller extent, other masses.
-Force exerted creates movement and momentum on said materials.
-Movement can very easily be transferred into harness-able power. Just look at the old river powered mills, where the river pushed a wheel which then did a task. this can be harnessed to a manual power, or turbines in dams. They both work on the same principle, taking a present force, exerting it on a wheel, which redirects the energy EXERTED from such force to either a manual task, or generation of electricity.
-Magnets can push, or pull materials at a decent range, depending on the scale of the magnet itself. This push or pull, by itself is 1 direction, but with a wheel, the energy could be continually manifested as the wheel would continually spin, the spin making energy, and never preventing the magnetic field from pushing / pulling new mass.
Also, I give no fucks about a scientist saying how perpetual energy by itself won't work, that irrelevant, I'm asking for why he says THIS will not work, and how you assume magnetism will someone cease existing when applied into a continuous cycle of self automation.
You guys are essentially saying that, while magnets last nearly forever, can exert force, push / pull things, the presence of a wheel, or means to continue the movement from one magnet to the next, in a continuous loop, would somehow make the magnetic field cease to exist, because "reasons".
And thats not good enough, at all.
As for the law of conservation of energy, how does this apply to magnets?
Well, lets look at this...
https://www.quora.com/How-many-watts-does-it-take-to-lift-1-pound-a-foot-off-the-ground
So a magnet which can lift 1lb, by THESE calculations, a magnet capable of lifting 1 lb, is generating a little bit of energy, at all times, to SOME extent, so this in and of itself should squish your whole idea that magnets have no energy, as the energy must come from somewhere, and the magnet is the constant factor.
Now looking at the law of energy conservation
"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another."
Now, lets factor this into the life of a magnet. Roughly 1000 years to complete death, but lets cut it to 500 years just for the sake of argument.
Now lets look at price...magnets are incredibly cheap, and infact, even larger ones are. A 35 lb holding magnet is 7 bucks on amazon.
Now, I am HONESTLY, not a mathmatician, but if it takes .7 watts to lift 1 lb for 1 second, then with a bit of math, we can see this one magnet has an output of 24 watts per second. I might be horribly wrong, feel free to correct me on the exact number, but its certainly more than .7
Compared to the wats per hour for say...a double A... and this is SEVERAL TIMES that of the charge of many devices, flashlights, radios, ect.
And this is with one, very cheap magnet on amazon.
And this isn't even touching into the LIFE of the thing!
The battery lasts what, 24 hours of full force energy? being extremely generous?
MAGNETS LAST FOR DOZENS OF DECADES!
So even if a magnet won't last forever, why are you ignoring this energy potential inside it? I don't feel like doing the math, adjusting for the exponential energy decline of the magnet "dying", but seriously, theres a LOT of energy there, and applying your law makes it obvious magnets contain an absolute fuck ton of energy.
Oh and, that magnet, for 7 dollars, using the equation for how much it takes to lift a lb, is always giving off, to lift that, 88200 WH, or 88 KWH. So this magnet, which lasts for years, by your conventional math, has that much energy, and can produce at that level, for a decade EASILY.
Magnets contain energy, since you INSIST it cannot be "created".
If you want to say magnets do not contain energy, Please explain where the energy comes from when an object is moved with them, as you are saying magnets contain no energy, and energy CANNOT be created either. So where does the energy even manifest from then, if not from the magnet? It can be contained in the magnet, or created, either explanation works for me, but it is manifested somehow, and you CANNOT say that neither the magnet contains energy, nor does energy come into existence, otherwise you would be saying the energy which is easy to test for, being created in a magnetic field, would also not exist, but we KNOW it does.
Besides, part of science is considering that current ideas may infact have flaws in them. So at least look at what we know in reality, with measurable, detectable factors (not THEORIES) and then form your opinion. Telling me magnets have no energy, and conversation of energy law means its proof its impossible, then blatantly ignoring that a magnetic field can MOVE objects is being very ignorant guys
Now, I know I might be very off on math, and thats fine, I look forward to corrections. I just dont want you guys ignoring all of these issues and shelving the topic without examining this all. Even if I am HORRENDOUSLY WRONG, and magnetic fields interact or spiderweb into each other in a pattern which prevents this, I can accept this, but I want proof for that being a mechanic of magnetism.
I also would love to see someone calculate how much energy is contained in a magnet to exert that force, for that long.
I stopped reading when I reached the link I didn't click. Watt is the unit of Power. Never mix units and physical quantities!
The reason I stopped reading: Repeated use of wrong terms. Magnets have a magnetic field and it's this field that exerts force on any object in that field (which includes the magnet).
To clarify: You need to apply force to accelerate an object (aka "set it in motion"), which requires energy. The energy comes from the Potential (from whatever field we are talking about, be it electric, magnetic, gravitational, ...). It's a mere exchange from potential energy to kinetic energy. I explain it that way, because that's how the mathematics of these fields works. (The math behind all those fields is the same, except for the constants.) Thoroughly use of mathematics is the reason we didn't have to stop at splitting hairs. We can split atoms.
The movement observed isn't due to energy in the magnet, but due to the potential energy of the object that's moved. It's similar to gravity: If something falls down, that's not because the Earth has energy that it gives to that thing, but because the object has potential energy that can be released by falling down. And, obviously, you can't generate free energy from Earth's gravity because once something has fallen down, you have to use at least as much energy as was released in the fall to get it to its prior height again (in practice, inefficiencies like friction mean it'll take more).
In the case of the magnet, if something is attracted to it, you'll have to exert at least as much energy to move it away from the magnet as was released when it was accelerated towards it. For magnetic repulsion, it's the same, just the other way around. Of course, you could just have a big magnet, let it attract a lot of stuff and not bother with removing it again. In that case, of course, you'd gain energy, but only the energy that was already in the objects. Imagine asteroids falling towards Earth: They definitely do release a lot of energy, but they already contained it as potential energy because they were so high above the Earth.
I hope this clears things up. If you have any questions, just ask!
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 08, 2017, 10:51:29 PM
Situation B's explanation is silly. Are you saying the magnet in B would not push effectively, because it would pull equally on whatever its pointing? Is this what you are insinuating? Also, why it it pointed directly into the circle, and not at an angle?
Basically, B is the same as A, but the force vectors are much more complicated to understand and imagine. THIS is what I meant with "more complex".
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 08, 2017, 10:51:29 PM
I'm not going any further until you clarify.
This is an unconstructive statement. Rethink this, if you really want to continue discussion.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 08, 2017, 10:51:29 PMQuoteSeems you don't know very much about magnetic force fields. Please inform yourself about this topic. A magnet always needs two poles (which besides makes real magnetic monopoles impossible - electrical monopoles (protons & electrons) are another topic) to be a magnet.
I never said it wouldn't have another pole. I'm saying you just wouldn't need the other pole INTERACTING with anything. Take a brick magnet for instance
as soon as the pole is there, it WILL interact. the pole is not interested in your thoughts, and does what it wants. you MUST take both poles into account.
Quote from: Listen1 on January 09, 2017, 06:58:05 AM
as an engineer
Quote from: Thyme on January 09, 2017, 08:51:50 AM
As a physics student
I hope you two are more successful in bringing light into a dark and empty cave. My explanation skills seem to be too limited. And to be honest: my time is far better invested into playing Rimworld.
@mublewhatever: one last thought. magnets are not a source of unlimited energy: think of magnets as batteries. if you have two magnets that pull each other, this would be the equivalent of using the electrical energy stored in the batteries. as soon as the magnets touch each other, they can't move relatively to the other one any more. This resembles the empty battery. To make the magnets being able to attract each other again, you have to invest energy and divide them again. This would be "charging the battery".
now I'm out
you are right, and I have my peace
So you ignore my post and all its points, because you don't like me saying watts? I'm confused.
My point is, magnets if lifting 1lb requires .7 watts, that magnet is generating at least .7 watts to LIFT that object.
That lift does not come from anything else BUT the magnetic force.
Now since this force is irremovable from the magnet, you could harness it, with a wheel to propel it. The magnet pushes, or pulls part of the wheel towards / away from it, and as the wheel is turned, the other side of the wheel is now in the magnets range, and is also moved, making a continuous cycle until stopped by an outside force, or the magnet expires.
You need absolutely no outside force for a magnet to influence something, a magnet functions even if it is stationary, and pulls / pushes anything in range.
If you INSIST that a magnets energy comes from energy exerted at it, how in gods name does a magnet manifest more energy than that which was introduced to put the attracted object in range (ie, a gentle nudge from a mouse pushing a needle into range of a high power magnet, and the needle taking off like a bullet)? And what energy goes against the gravitational force of earth, to keep it from falling?
According to you, this should be impossible, as magnets contain no energy, and energy does not spontaneously exist. So magnets, by your reasoning, don't exist... If you do not mean this, please explain WHERE this energy, to keep an object attracted, comes from?
Also, you saying that units of energy and other stuff shouldn't mix is stupid, as its an existing calculation which does so, which is used in physics and engineering, to determine what can lift how much. .7 watts, for 1 lb is what I got, which could be inaccurate, but still. Energy, FROM SOMEWHERE, is required to lift things.
@Nom : Interesting idea, except this is kinda a dumb way to explain it. Magnets INDEED have different power levels, a refrigerator magnet has less power than an industrial magnet.
This magnetism, at different levels, propels things at certain velocities. Its a multiple of the magnetisms force, and the mass.
so by potential energy, your basically using a big fancy word for mass. Why not just say mass? This is just trying to sound smart.
The important thing is, all things have something to make energy happen, forces EXERTED on them to cause kinetic movement, ect. Gravity, magnetism, wind, water, heat, muscular output, THEY are all the causes for things moving, not because something is heavy or has energy. Yes, the mass of something is a factor, and as einstien stated, Energy = mass x velocity squared, but without some velocity, energy would not exist. And what makes velocity? Gravity, magnetism, wind, water, heat, muscular output, ect.... Things don't just have energy, otherwise we could generate power from a giant boulder.
Energy comes when mass MOVES, and mass is MOVED by a certain force.
Thus, if a magnet is being the catalyst to cause movement (as we KNOW exists) Then the magnet is indeed the source of energy for doing so, taking a static object, and making it move.
Your talk about "all objects have energy, its just not being used" goes against the law of conservation, they are incompatable anyway. If a 40 lb rock had x energy, and used y energy doing a task (falling). Then it SHOULD NOT have the same energy to fall next time. But, a rock which weighs 40 lb, assuming it doesn't break, will ALWAYS fall with the force of a 40 lb rock.
That really sounds like pseudo science, and more importantly, its not based off observations, its just some dude talking about stuff and making ideas, with no basis on what exists.
@14
So your saying its complex, but don't bother explaining. This sounds like an excuse, or just incompetence on the matter. You cant just say something is complex, but at the same time insist you know about it. If you are, either its not true, OR, your English needs to be improve to articulate the complexity of which you are knowledgeable about.
It might be unconstructive, but so is you saying its "complex" without providing anything objective about what you are talking about. I encourage YOU to rethink it.
Ok so, hypothetical : brick magnet. One end is stuck on a steel plate. The other is just in the open air. What is the other end interacting with???? How does whatever its interacting with change anything?
Your last bit is very, very, VERY overly simplified. Obviously if 2 magnets on 1 stationary part are pushing / pulling (like the troll picture) then NOTHING will happen, because its equal push force in the EXACT opposite direction with exact opposite force
the difference comes with a frame BUILT for it.
It comes down to this, the image I posted (crudely drawn, but whatever)
See, this is exactly what I speak of. The magnets never connect, as the magnets are fastened to the wheel, and the magnet beside the wheel is constantly repelling the magnets infront of it. and as it repels them, the force turns the wheel, thus bringing the next magnet into place, so on, so forth.
So far, I've seen no reason in the laws of magnetism why this would not function, it would imply magnetism CEASES TO EXIST in this setup, and this is just silly. It also never runs into the "empty battery" problem, as they are constantly pulling, but never being allowed to come to a rest at one another.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
@mumble great, you just did a step in my direction. so I will try to continue.
Yes, my technical English is somewhat limited. I'm only used to "everyday English".
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 09, 2017, 04:49:56 PM
My point is, magnets if lifting 1lb requires .7 watts, that magnet is generating at least .7 watts to LIFT that object.
That lift does not come from anything else BUT the magnetic force.
Wrong. The magnet does not generate the Energy. YOU put the energy into the magnet by lifting it up to it's actual position. Just like lifting a stone, and then releasing the energy by letting it fall down. In the case of the magnet, the energy is released by pulling some other magnetic material towards the magnet.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 09, 2017, 04:49:56 PM
Ok so, hypothetical : brick magnet. One end is stuck on a steel plate. The other is just in the open air. What is the other end interacting with???? How does whatever its interacting with change anything?
The other end interacts with the steel plate, too. Only both poles together can force the molecules (yes, a magnet does not simply contain one north pole and one south pole. it consists of millions of small tiny magnets. basic knowledge about magnets, teached in lowest grade physics classes in school.) of the steel plate to take the direction of the magnetic field, and thus gain magnetic characteristics. see attached picture "magnetic steel.gif". in the lower half you can see how a simple plate of steel looks like normally. in the upper half you can see what happens, if you hold one pole of a brick magnet onto it.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 09, 2017, 04:49:56 PM
It comes down to this, the image I posted (crudely drawn, but whatever)
See, this is exactly what I speak of. The magnets never connect, as the magnets are fastened to the wheel, and the magnet beside the wheel is constantly repelling the magnets infront of it. and as it repels them, the force turns the wheel, thus bringing the next magnet into place, so on, so forth.
So far, I've seen no reason in the laws of magnetism why this would not function, it would imply magnetism CEASES TO EXIST in this setup, and this is just silly. It also never runs into the "empty battery" problem, as they are constantly pulling, but never being allowed to come to a rest at one another.
your drawn image may be crude, but it exactly hits the spot and helps to explain why it's impossible to work. in order to understand that, you must not only look at the magnet itself, but at the magnetic force fields (remember my advice to get some more knowledge about magnetic force fields ?). take a look at "Magnetfeldlinien.jpg". you can find many similar images describing the force fields. now I tried to sketch the force fields of the magnets in your drawing into it: "mag.forcefields.jpg". here you will see, that the magnets on the wheel will build up more or less a wavelike form, with hills and valleys. and the pushing magnet will get stuck in one of the valleys, preventing any movement.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
I ignore it because it uses physical terminology in a careless manner too excessively.
QuoteEnergy comes when mass MOVES, and mass is MOVED by a certain force.
1) moving mass has kinetic energy
2) mass is accelerated by force, not moved
3) when a force is acting upon an object, and this object is not moved, no work is done.
I never implied that magnets don't exist. I already explained that the energy for the work comes from the magnetic potential. In other words: energy is "set free/consumed" when moving to a place with a lower/higher potential. Nonmomentus Brain and 14m1337 have provided good explanations on how that works.
Mixing units with physical quantities is stupid. Sadly, many people don't even know the difference. I can't ask you how many kilograms you weigh, because you don't. You have a weight, and that can be expressed as number + unit. Everything else is wrong.
Quoteso by potential energy, your basically using a big fancy word for mass. Why not just say mass? This is just trying to sound smart.
Potential energy = potential x mass
these are two different things
I might tell you tomorrow why your wheel won't work, I have a question for you in the meantime: Do you wonder why nobody built that wheel? I mean, the idea is not new, and there exist a lot of drawings, but I don't know any use for power generation. Could be a chance for you to turn the physics upside down. pre-post edit: 14m1337 already did. damn
My guess is that you read only Larrys answer. His answer is a mess, where confusing power with energy is not even his biggest mistake. Power is energy/time, which can't be calculated because there's no time given in the question. Joseph seems to do a better job, he didn't bother to remove all that phyton code though, which makes it harder to read.
@14
Know what, fuck your symantic games, how about this : In the PRESENCE of a magnet, in range, and with proper force, an iron, or magnetic object will gain momentum, and thus, energy, towards that direction which the magnetic force propels.
Is that good enough, not saying "give" or "create"? Because nobody is arguing about a magnet having things move, your arguing about if the energy was always there, or was created or not. And this is stupid, really, the point is, in the presence of the magnet, MEASURABLE energy, in the form of velocity and force, is detectable, when it is not otherwise.
-----------
So you just spent an entire paragraph going on about how the entire magnet pulls one point, and how molocules work... ..This says jack as to why it would not work in my design, but ill get to the next part. Beyond that, your talking in very technical scale so I will rephrase : in the perceptions of the human eye, will the other end of the magnetic field, will it interact with anything on THAT side of the magnet?
----------
Your last bit, if anything, strengthens my point, heres why : First off, the valleys would be ignorable since momentum will stay on the wheel for a bit. Giving a wheel a good push, and it will spin for several second before friction makes it die down. Thus, these "valleys" Will be skipped over, and then get a boost, similar to how one runs, with each stride giving a boost, but otherwise, going along the ground carried by momentum. Just like a teather ball, it can spin from intermittent pushes and fly with the momentum. You see, an object in motion tends to stay in motion =P
NOT ONLY this, but your diagram makes me think theres a larger margin for error : I assumed magnets needed to be directly facing to pull, but it seems instead that one could have the magnet pointed slightly away, but in close proximity, but STILL get propulsion. Regardless, I appreciate your post.
@Thyme
1: This is kinda rephrasing my quote. When mass is moved, pushed, it gains kinetic energy. In other words, energy (kinetic energy) is manifested when mass moves. This is literally what I said, but different word choice.
2: Please explain the difference. How can something move, without acceleration, or accelerate without moving. Sonic the hedge hog never went fast while standing still ;D
3: I guess this it technically true?... But unsure what this has to do with anything. Of course a man pushing a concrete wall will do nothing... I wasn't arguing that.
I'm concluding that your guys are saying "potential energy" as a fancy way of stating mass. I mean, your entire argument about it is that "ALL THINGS" have potential energy, but certain things release this potential energy, but only in certain amounts depending on what it is. But, all things have potentially infinite energy (except magnets, because reasons) but the energy inside these things only comes out if a force is applied. BUT, the energy DOES NOT COME FROM THE APPLIED FORCE!!! It comes from the object, which was always there. So a 357 bullet always, at all point of life, contained the energy to kill a person, but just spontaneously released it when fired...I guess
Is this what you guys are saying? Also, how do magnets fall if they dont have energy? I'm lost :P
A big part if you are massively OVERSIMPLIFYING IT!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
You can see, an object doesn't simply HAVE it, its a hyper specific thing which is BECAUSE of the forces near and around it, SUCH AS gravity, magnetism, gunpowder, ect. An object doesn't just "have" potential energy, at all times, its relevant to what is around it in that certain situation. And the potential energy is BECAUSE of the force, thus, the movement, the energy is CAUSED by the force, because the potential ENERGY is cause by the force. Thus, you saying an object being moved by a magnet is just the potential energy, you must realize, this is just blabbing, because the potential energy was MADE INTO BEING, BECAUSE of the magnet.
Get it? So a magnet IS giving a steel pin energy, BECAUSE the potential energy is CAUSED by the magnet. Nothing else is making it manifest.
Also, what? Your now just arguing about words and definitions, which is dumb. Especially since you are wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
Weigh : have a specified weight
So you are saying I do not have a specified weight. Fantastic. But I have a weight, a weight which is measured by a unit, but its NOT specified, even though theres a unit attached to it. If you don't have english as your first language, thats fine, but be honest.
My guess for the whole mag-engine not being mainstream, is because it would fuck the economy hard. Same reason hyper efficient cars were made illegal in the united states, as are sonic washing machines IIRC. Think about it, if a person could have a generator which works for years with almost 0 maintenance cost, how would they charge us for it?
The difference is that acceleration sets an object into motion. Acceleration is the transfer of energy, if you will say so. Mathematically, acceleration is the derivative of velocity (motion).
Nonmomentus Brains explanation was good, read it again, especially the second paragraph. I'll try a different approach: Go to a trampoline (imaginary will do, if you can follow me), go in the center and watch how the sheet bulges down where you stand. It's a simplified visualisation on how the gravitational potential of any object looks like*. Now, take a ball and put it anywhere on the surface. It should start to roll towards you.** Neither the force, nor the acceleration come from you, it's the curvature of the trampoline sheet that makes it happen. In fact, you're also attracted towards the ball, because the ball also bulges the sheet (though, friction is too high to allow acceleration). If you're using a lightweight ball and can't see that, use a sibling instead. The friction is still too high, but you're both attracted to each other.
The magic that happens is that the magnetic field of your magnet (be it permanent or electromagnets) induces a magnetic field in the objects within that field. That induced magnetic field has the same orientation for ferro- and paramagnetic objects and the opposite direction for diamagnetic objects. Same orientation -> attraction; Opposite direction -> repelling; That's why you can levitate frogs in a magnetic field ;) You can visualise that in the trampoline by pushing it upwards. Mathematically, it works with the superposition principle.
Keep in mind that the gravitational and the magnetic field exist seperate from each other. They do not influence each other. BUT, they work the same way, which is why we come up with those analogies.
The weight thing was bad translation, sorry. I meant to say "... kilograms you have". I wanted to clarify that it is important not to use units where they don't belong.
Sonic washing machines? Ultrasonic or supersonic? Anyway, using Ockham's Razor answering my rhetorical question, the most probable answer is that such a thing can't exist. The electricity companies could use such generators to produce electricity much cheaper, with less personell and sell it to you for the same price. Why do we still have to pullute the environment with fossil fuels, risk our health with nuclear power?
*the potential exists in R3, while you and the ball exist in R2. Potentials of objects in R3 cannot be visualised, because they're in R4. Rn is the n-dimensional vector space.
**you can try to get the ball to orbit you, but that's tricky
Quoteforces near and around it, SUCH AS gravity, magnetism, gunpowder
gunpowder is definitely not a force.
@mumblemumble, I hope you're trying to troll, in which case; congratulations.
Otherwise, please stop wasting time. Several people have tried to explain to you the importance of using the correct terms and the mathematical and physical reasons why your idea won't work. Simply because you 'feel' it should work is not enough of an argument for it to actually be true.
If you insist on having this argument without learning the proper theory, then at least take the engineer's approach;
build it.
Your wheel is simple enough that a piece of plywood, some magnets and a bearing are all it takes to move. Build it, then show us a video. (but if it works, you might want to patent the shit out of it first!).
Hahaha hilarious mumble, just concede that you were absolutely wrong. Fantastic.
@Thyme :
But as you say, acceleration begins movement, and movement starts with acceleration. This is why I say its pretty much the same thing, the only difference is you are saying acceleration is the CAUSE for movement.
Actually, the bulge is NOT the cause, the cause is gravity. You see, to identify the cause, you test for ALL factors, removed for all others. If you say, put the trampoline against the wall, it would not roll towards center, because gravity is not facing that way. So its NOT the bulge, its the gravity, which is facilitated BY the bulge. allowing a downward path FOR gravity, but still....the gravity is the cause, the reason, the catalyst, the entire cause for WHY the ball goes downward. The bulge itself generates no force on it, lest you were to suddenly jump and the ball got flung up by the rubber-banding surface.
I'm not sure if its ultra or super, but I know they exist, using no soaps at all, just water and sonic waves.
You give too much credit to companies and governments. Why would you honestly buy electricity when you could afford to make your own generator?
companies cannot charge you if you do this, so they label it as "fake" or make videos saying its a scam, or such. I've seen this a lot with videos saying its fake, saying "oh, well this person actually put an REED switch inside here, connected to a battery, and THATS why the engine goes, not because the magnet pushes it". And this is what pisses me off, nobody answers the very basic question of, if the magnet is pushing or pulling a WHEEL, which is fastened, why would it not CONTINUE to spin?
The valleys explanation is false, the "no prepetual energy" thing is a cop out. Best I heard was its inneficient, but even so, I would like to see tests done on how much energy you could get from a generator sized mag turbine.
Also you completely missed the point on where potential comes from. Essentially potential energy is a hypothetical thing, which only exists as "we predict / know that if this event happens, this energy will be released". The energy isn't actually THERE sometimes (like a rock on a cliff), but is "hypothetically" there, to explain that yes, if someone shoves it, it will fall with x energy. and this energy is given by the force enacted on it, like gravity, magnetism, gunpowder, ect. The energy is not actually inside the object, its merely a benchmark, a thing which is a hypothetical measure of a thing not technically in existance till MADE into existance when the force is enacted, and turned into kinetic, or thermal, or other energies.
Its a concept, not a physical thing, similar to risk. Risk is not a physical thing, but is a concept of recognizing patterns with a high likelyhood of damage / danger. This doesn't mean the danger is guaranteed to happen, just that its likely to happen.
@Fluffy : You don't know how guns work do you? gun powder is commonly used as the force behind firearms of all kinds, exploding and propelling the bullet. The explosion of gunpowder is indeed the force, and you can measure how much gunpowder will produce how much force (+P rounds).\
Just because you call someone a troll doesn't make them one. If thats all you have to bring to the thread, I suggest you leave, considering its FLUSTERING you. The explanations given are flawed, or not accounting for many factors, and frankly im STILL getting new information, so I don't care if YOU think everything has been said, I KNOW it is not.
As for building it, that exists too : you can build a functional model supposedly with a computer fan, dime magnets, and a larger brick magnet. Put the dime magnets on the blades, put the brick magnet at an angle pushing the dime magnets away, and the fan spins with the constant pushing. This, alone, can power an old style light bulb, possibly more. And this is with a 3 inch fan. I imagine larger ones could power much more.
But as stated before : people come out the woodwork, seeing these to say its "fake" or "fraud" or "scam", supposedly trying to expand "the magnet industry" ::) or even saying the video actually had a carefully tucked away battery powered by an REED switch to detect the "powering" magnet. But I've NEVER seen someone explain why the magnetism would cease to work in that circumstance.
the best attempt I saw was someone mentioning the valleys of magnets, but even THAT is not a way to stop it, as the valleys are an absence of force, NOT a force the other way.
@Skissor
Why? I'm still talking about it. And I'm still waiting for a reason why magnetism would cease to exist when put into a wheel....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKBtiRmcjXg
Sad part is, theres a million and one people shouting "fake" and even one dude who literally makes a video who CONSTRUCTS a "fake", using metal discs, I imagine cut out of aluminum from a dye cast punch machine and a reed switch, and then proclaiming all videos doing this use that....but at no point, do they actually build it to specs, and show that it does not function.
But hey, maybe you guys can dust off comments from the you-tube to try and argue me.
Actually I look forward to that.
Thank you fluffy.
mumble²: saying that the derivative is the same as the antiderivative only works for ex, not when talking about acceleration and velocity. Don't drink and derive!
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
Thyme, what part of my post(s) are you even talking about.
Please explain yourself, in context, and stop relying on catch phrases.
If you mean how acceleration factors into velocity and movement, it does. Velocity (how fast something traveled) comes from acceleration, and is stopped by friction.
What part of this are you even contesting?
Unless you provide context to what you are saying, you cannot expect anyone to understand what you are on about.
Ugh, you definitly keep on asking questions. Though, the wrong ones.
QuoteBut as you say, acceleration begins movement, and movement starts with acceleration. This is why I say its pretty much the same thing, the only difference is you are saying acceleration is the CAUSE for movement.
if I were to take that logic one step further, position is "pretty much the same thing" as velocity (velocity is the derivative of position).
Where is the literal use of definitions you state to have a fetish for in your sig? What you write is a mess. I'm not willing to explain electrodynamics to someone who doesn't even know basic calculus and keeps defying to use the proper physical terminology.
@mumble; This is exactly what I'm talking about.
First off, gunpowder is not a force. It's a propellant, and when it burns it creates an expanding cloud of gasses. When this happens in the barrel of a gun (or any area where the expanding gasses can't expand), the expanding gasses create pressure, and the bullet is propelled. The actual force here is pressure (probably, I'm not a physicist, so if someone knows better please correct me). And yes, if we know the chemical properties of the propellant, and size and shape of the barrel+chamber, we can determine how much force is generated by burning the propellant. You're taking shortcuts that are simply not permissible if you want to have a proper discussion.
Second, guns haven't actually used gunpowder (or black powder) for around a century now, so perhaps you should stop trying to explain how they work.
In similar vein, acceleration and velocity are two completely different concepts. Sure, they're related, but they're most definitely not the same.
Velocity is the speed at which something moves, which will remain the same, unless some other force acts upon the object. Acceleration is an increase in velocity, brought about by some force. The units of these two are also different, velocity is (in the metric system, no idea about imperial) generally measured in m/s (meters per second), whereas acceleration is measured in m/s2 (meters per second per second), or in other words the increase in velocity per second. If they're measured in different units to which there is no direct translation, they are not 'pretty much the same thing'.
A meter and a yard are pretty much the same thing - you can directly translate them, they're both measures of distance. A meter and a minute are not even related, as they're measures of two completely different things. The same applies to m/s and m/s2, or velocity and acceleration.
Your posts are littered with terminology mistakes like these. You take shortcuts when it suits you and present them as evidence. You ignore accepted scientific theories when it suits you. You pretend to be arguing from science, but really you're arguing from ignorance.
I implore you, please take some physics classes if you want to continue this argument. If you don't want to do that, just try and build the magnet-powered fan described in the video you linked. It looks easy enough, just try it! It's amazing to me how willing you are to accept the arguments from the 'free energy' side of this debate, yet you're completely disregarding the arguments from the accepted scientific side.
And before you say I should proof you wrong and try and build it myself; I'm not going to do that for two reasons. First off, I don't believe it will work - the overwhelming majority of what I deem to be serious research says it isn't possible. Second, you wouldn't believe me if I did it anyway.
One last remark to prove my point, you state "But I've NEVER seen someone explain why the magnetism would cease to work in that circumstance". Yet in this post (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=29250.msg296340#msg296340) 14m1337 went so far as to sketch out for you precisely why it won't work. It's not that the magnetism suddenly ceases to exist, it's that there is an equal and opposite force acting in the other direction.
@ Thyme
The thing is, you act like something accelerate without having movement, or have movement without acceleration happening. They are inheriently irremovable from each other, which is why I think its stupid to fuss over it. If something gains new movement, it OBVIOUSLY has acceleration. And if you have acceleration, you OBVIOUSLY have movement.
So you correcting me is nitpicky as hell, because in actuality, detecting movement, and detecting acceleration from something sitting still, is exactly the same thing.
This is why I don't care, in the context, NEW movement, and acceleration are synonymous. Theres little, if ANY difference between something accelerating from a stop, and gaining new movement from a stop.
@Fluffy : You too, actually. Your splitting hairs. This is like saying cars aren't powered by gasoline at all, and gasoline isn't what makes them go, but what actually makes them go is the explosion formed from the gasoline via the spark plug, forcing the cylinder to move thus generating torque to make the vehicle move via the drive shaft. This is very technically true, but the gasoline is still the main part which is absolutely necessary, and is the provider OF the energy to do so, as is the gunpowder.
Besides that, I never specified if it was modern of old style bullets, so your point is moot. Yes modern bullets use smokeless fuels like cordite or whathave you, BUT, often gun people WILL REFER TO smokeless powder, or other powder fuels as "gunpowder" anyway, and refer to old gun powder as "traditional gunpowder". It happens, its not uncommon at all.
With velocity I will reiterate my other point : Theres no distinguishing between acceleration, and movement, in an object which is sitting still. That object, when moving, is accelerating, and by accelerating, it is moving. In the terms of "does it move", a yes or no question, the difference is moot. Acceleration is mainly to take in the speed of an object, something which I was never testing for. And so its kind of irrelevant.
The yard and meter comparison is also dumb, because, again, I was only ever saying "movement" because I was trying to state if an object would move, accelerate, or otherwise change position in any way, due to the magnetic force. It is not a measured factor, its a yes or no, where are yards are PRECISE measurements. You could say for instance, is it further than 1 yard, but you would have to state a precise distance. In my question it boils down to, is there perceptible movement, yes or no. The exact level of movement, acceleration, velocity, was not part of the question, and so is unimportant. you wouldn't for instance, write down the range of accelerations on if you are seeing if a sign is fastened into the ground well enough, you would see if there is movement, if so, you make it sturdier, to within a small enough RANGE of movement inside a tolerable angle of flexing within x amount of force exerted on the sign, and when its within tolerances, its finished. The acceleration of the sign, when pushed, is absolutely irrelevant to the testing and serves only to waste time.
These "terminology" mistakes are nitpicks at ABSOLUTE best... your whining about how your personal definition fits, even when in reality, both apply to the context just fine. Like velocity, and movement. If I'm detecting if a magnet moves something, I don't need to say im detecting "velocity" just because you say so. Both words fit for what I'm detecting.
Your last bit actually brings up a interesting point, though one could insulate the magnet to minimize this if this were to be a problem.
And before you start riding my ass about "magnetic fields cannot be blocked!!!", magnetic fields can be "rerouted" through another path, which is ESSENTIALLY blocking, as it does not go through.
I mean, if you want to go down that path, literally nothing blocks anything, it just redirects it.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 10, 2017, 12:30:36 PM
And if you have acceleration, you OBVIOUSLY have movement.
What happens if you have negative acceleration? Do you then also have negative movement?
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 10, 2017, 12:30:36 PM
NEW movement, and acceleration are synonymous
correct. but "new movement" is not the same as "existing movement"
to create new movement, you have to do work. after having done the work, the movement exists - which is now energy.
@mumble, just for verification ... what will happen if you prise a brick magnet apart? right in the middle, like shown by the blue arrow in the attached picture.
[attachment deleted by admin due to age]
mumble, if you want to have a discussion about what is essentially a perpetual motion engine in a meaningful way, it is absolutely essential that all parties involved agree on the term to be used, especially when they are related to motion, energy, forces, etc.
Similarly, if we were talking about creating a new high performance engine, it would be essential that we're clear on all the moving parts - everything you just mentioned included - and not just say 'lets increase the power of the fuel'.
Another example, in the beginning of railway travel, people were genuinely worried that travelling at high velocity would be lethal to human beings. That is, simply travelling at speeds over - let's say - 50mph would be lethal to humans. I hope you'll agree that it's actually not the velocity that is dangerous, it's deceleration, e.g. hitting something and suddenly slowing down. Sure, deceleration will be higher when velocity is higher, but these things are absolutely not the same.
My main point is still the same, if you want to have a real discussion about this, we need to agree about terminology. Feel free to invent your own if it suits you and you can meaningfully define the terms, but don't mix and match terms that mean different things - it's confusing for the rest of us, and means we cannot engage in the discussion. You can call that splitting hairs, I will call that science.
I don't know for you but I think it would be much more fun to ask Jhon GaltMumble to explain us in details how BIG BROTHER keep every country in check, keep dissenting engineers quiet, disappear people who still want to make use of those clear generator, and prevent a black market of clean generator.
Or better : Send him a computer's fan and magnets and ask him to film it turning forever, even without powering a light, just it rotating (with the cable clearly not connected) would be ok. If he stream the video maybe we will even see the Men in Black break the door to arrest him.
Quote from: Kegereneku on January 10, 2017, 04:01:20 PM
I don't know for you but I think it would be much more fun to ask Jhon GaltMumble to explain us in details how BIG BROTHER keep every country in check, keep dissenting engineers quiet, disappear people who still want to make use of those clear generator, and prevent a black market of clean generator.
Or better : Send him a computer's fan and magnets and ask him to film it turning forever, even without powering a light, just it rotating (with the cable clearly not connected) would be ok. If he stream the video maybe we will even see the Men in Black break the door to arrest him.
This post has no bearing on the threads topic whatsoever, keep the discussion on topic or dont post, first and final warning in this thread.
This goes for all. Myself and the other mods are fed up of having to step in on conversations like this, respect other peoples opinions and have civil discussions. Thankyou.
How is this off topic skully, am I dreaming?
It's true and on topic. In general, if somebody want's to prove that something is possible, the more direct route would be to prove that it works in real life instead of proving it mathematically/conceptually.
Because really, if there really is an easy way to make an engine using magnets, every government would be all over it.
I think you need to reread Kegereneku's post.
Its trying bait a response that will not end well for anyone, this happens constantly, now leave it, and move on.
Of course it's trying to bait a response, we're discussing. All of us are baiting a response, otherwise it wouldn't be a discussion and it would end.
Look Skissor stay out of it, I can see where this thread is going and it isnt gonna happen here. No more on this, continue discussing the subject.
skully, frankly, you're wrong here.
ban me for this if you want, but the guy is clearly a crackpot. We've been giving him an equal podium to spread his opinions, but why? Why does a civil discussion mean we have to continue tolerating someone who's constantly and habitually bending rules, words and scientific theories?
Why can we not point out the logical flaws that are implicit to his argument? The tone may have been out of order, but the message is absolutely on topic; the suggestion that free energy devices are possible runs counter to the central tenets of physics, and moreover implies that there is a massive and all-powerful global conspiracy that is suppressing them - while at the same time leaving alone the people that post the youtube videos supposedly demonstrating said technology. Does that not seem rediculous to you?
If you're tired of these discussions, then ban political or even non-gaming/rimworld related topics altogether. If you're going to leave them around, then let's not pretend all points of view are equally valid - sometimes they're just wrong, and we should be allowed to point that out by any means necessary.
edited for clarityi]
The tone is the point im disputing here, you dont have all the facts, you dont see what moderators see, leave this subject alone, the wording of my post could have been better ill admit, offtopic was the wrong word to use, inflammatory might have been better. Seriously no more on this, go back to discussing, this has gone waaaay off the rails now.
The internet is full of "public demonstration" of miracle generator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHW6b1aFPfU
Discussing "do the concept violate physics?" is not so different from discussing "why the scientific community do not react to existing machine violating physical laws?". Since we will keep seeing the arguments completed by appeal to (scientific & economic) authorities, it is legitimate to ask WHY we shouldn't trust them over "free-generator" proponents.
And it will be just as fun.
btw, I didn't planned to participate much, I don't have the time anymore to write Wall of Text. But I do want to say that any tone or off-remark can be inflammatory with an unfortunate public. I'd give examples but it would just worsen the off-off-topic.
No need to see more in what I said. I'm off.
To get back to the original topic, the ultimate problem is that moving something in a field (of any type) from point A, to point B, and then back to point A will always be energetically neutral regardless of the path traveled.
Similarly, altering a field around an object from state C, to state D and then back to state C, will also be energetically neutral.
---
So if you have a wheel that gains energy (KE + PE somehow increases) as you move 180° clockwise (A to B), moving another 180° either clockwise -or- counterclockwise (B to A) will require it to lose the same amount of energy it gained (assuming no friction). Regardless of how much it initially gains, the subsequent loss will be equal.
You can try to get fancier: move an external magnet (in essence a field) around your wheel (C to D), but you ultimately have to move it back to the starting point (D to C) to create any sort of cyclic "engine" and the two steps will always give/take equal and opposite amounts of energy.
Even if you put it together: alter the field so it moves the wheel (AC to BD); where do you go from there? There's ultimately only one place, that's back to start (BD to AC). Back to the energy you had originally. Nothing really generated or expended on the whole (best case scenario).
---
Going any deeper into the discussion generally requires an examination of the underlying math, which is really better handled by an introductory physics textbook than anything that could be provided here.
That is yet another correct (simplified) elaboration on magnetic/conservative fields. I think the main problem with mumble2 is that he doesn't accept this and rather states that there's energy stored within magnets.
We and him definitely do not speak the same language. That includes both his arguments and the way he participated in that discussion. I appreciate 14m1337s attempt at luring mumble2 out, but it seems he has lost interest. Might be better that this thread has finally cooled down.
PS: Is it possible that mumble2 meant electric motors all along? They have magnets in them :P
Quote from: Thyme on January 13, 2017, 12:51:19 AM
PS: Is it possible that mumble2 meant electric motors all along? They have magnets in them :P
I wouldn't exclude the possibility, but there is a lot of people who believe that magnet only "push" metal thing forward, and so that it could be used the same way water make a waterwheel turn.
Remember the meme "Magnet how do they work? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFabsRFnWy0)"
Quote from: Thyme on January 13, 2017, 12:51:19 AM
I appreciate 14m1337s attempt at luring mumble2 out, but it seems he has lost interest. Might be better that this thread has finally cooled down.
Lol of course he lost interest, he got his ass handed to him by multiple people, there's nothing left to do in this thread other than further losing.
...there's actually some things I'd like to say about... this (incl. timestamps etc.).
But as that could possibly violate the rules 1-3 AND 15, at least, I'm not sure if I want to risk that.
(As it is also full of fallacies. I know that!!!)
...without asking for consent? x)
And yes, I have washed my hands. Also, in any case, there should be gloves somewhere in this house. (But I'd actually prefer to retain the precision you have without gloves. Because of this, I decided voluntarily for that a couple of times during my studies. Keep in mind you need a circular chainsaw to learn about the inner anatomy of a crocodile... :P
I'm just worried, it could be taken waaaay too literal. And casualties is not what I have in mind! AT ALL!!!!)
....bump
Keg, considering america will crush "illegally imported cars" for "emissions", for being "illegally imported", and tons of other things, that old antique war cannons can be seized from veterans for "security" and plenty of things have patents which aren't used (patent trolling...) Its conceivable to have such devices quietly restricted under any name of bureaucratic jargon. The amount of things in law you can get charged for, technically, is pretty astronomical, and up to the disgression of those who monitor you.
Carbon, I am assuming you are not factoring momentum into this. I mean, tops spin for several seconds after we let go, but this doesn't defy physics. The wheel would lose the FORCE behind it, for a very short gap, YES, but similar to a tether ball, it keeps spinning each time it is pushed.
thyme, energy being in, or not being in a magnet is irrelivant to the question at hand : the question is, is the exerting field of magnetic energy consistiently there and pushing in the intended direction? To which, testing will indicate, as far as we can perceptive, yes. Energy doesn't matter, so much as is it always pushing something magnetically effected by it within the field, which we know it does.
I guess you could compare it to a water wheel. Granted, water doesn't go all the way around the wheel, yet the wheel continued to turn. EVEN IF, you put the water wheel on the side of say, a cyclone of water, this would not keep the wheel from spinning, as the wheel moves in accordance to what part of the water (or magnetism) it interacts with.
Also, didn't "lose interest" nor get my ass handed to me, just got busy with other stuff
As lovely as you folks are, I have stuff outside this forum.
Well you kinda did get your ass handed to you since it took multiple people to tell you how wrong you are from multiple angles.
Quote from: Skissor on March 13, 2017, 03:48:50 AM
it took multiple people to tell you how wrong you are from multiple angles.
This quote can be applied to the following.
people who say drug use is harmless
people who say black people cannot be racist
people who advocate for anarchy
Or literally anyone whom is disagreed with, by multiple people, including YOU :D
Literally any debate with more than 1 party in opposition, RIGHT OR WRONG, this quote applies to.
Lol.
I miss your other approaches based on (misrepresented) science, because at least that was something to make me think... ...This is just... Well, humorous to hear now ;)
Know what would really prove everyone wrong? You actually making a working model. Copyright it! And don't you dare sell it - sell the power you generate! That would be like a free money machine! ;D
With patent trolling, therin lies the problem : If theres a pattent already in effect and already made. I'm not exactly up to scratch on where the legal red tape starts, but I'm pretty sure selling a patented device does indeed VIOLATE LAW.
Having a private usage device might be different, mind, but yeah...
....hey what are these ? :D
https://www.google.com/patents/US3935487
https://www.google.com/patents/US20100219709
https://www.google.com/patents/US4151431
Seems you were both correct, and incorrect milon :P
Quote from: mumblemumble on March 13, 2017, 11:59:21 AM
With patent trolling, therin lies the problem : If theres a pattent already in effect and already made. I'm not exactly up to scratch on where the legal red tape starts, but I'm pretty sure selling a patented device does indeed VIOLATE LAW.
Touche. :) That would be a problem. I'm not super familiar with patent law myself, but if you can't beat it you can side-step it. There are countries that don't respect the idea of patent (or am I confusing that with copyright? I hope not). If I came up with a functional model and was worried about it, I'd start a powerplant in one of those countries and start selling power to the world. They at least would appreciate it.
About the links:
The 1st & 3rd links were patented in the early 70's. It's over 40 years later now. If there was anything legitimate to them, I think someone would have built a prototype by now. The 2nd one was published with the past decade, but I'm still skeptical. Maybe I'll believe it if I see it, but I really don't think nature allows you to "get something for nothing". What I do know is that anyone can patent anything, even if it's crap. No one from the patent office actually checks to make sure it works. It's just the legal registration that a person/group had an idea (oversimplification I know).
When you violate the very fundamental laws of the universe, the puny human laws have no hold on you.
Quote from: milon on March 13, 2017, 11:37:07 AM
Know what would really prove everyone wrong? You actually making a working model. Copyright it! And don't you dare sell it - sell the power you generate! That would be like a free money machine! ;D
I did suggested a Kickstarter, but that was more to see Mumble stream himself get grabbed away by the Men In Black.
But don't worry, I'm sure Trump will make magnetically driven engines great again.
Keg, did you even check the links?
Theres 3 patents I found, easy
Also milon, you must understand your approach is "I dont think they would have a patent and not use it publicly", despite the fact patent trolling is extremely prominent. Your entire idea of disbelief is "this must be a joke" or "people wouldn't possibly not have it in the public". While these are plausible, it seems very farfetched, for 3 patents to be made and held, for either a joke, or something people never tested. Patents aren't exactly simple to file for, and are time consuming, so I think one would find a good design FIRST then do it...as for a joke well. ... I'm still waiting for the punchline.
This thread is full of words and neither side has, so far, been able to convince the other with them. Unless I didn't see some posts, it seems in this discussion about physics, one thing is notably absent: mathematics, without which you don't have serious physics. There are ways in which this discussion might benefit from a more mathematical look:
Firstly, you, mumblemumble, might show us mathematically why it has to work. If you're insufficiently well-versed in mathematics and/or physics, you can just do a little research and link us to someone else's calculations. If this machine works, surely someone must have done the math and put their work on the internet. We can then check if there are any errors. If no significant ones are found, we will have to admit defeat.
Secondly, if you present us with specifications for a perpetual motion device, we could use mathematics to find whether it does what you say it would. Some of the methods we would use might exceed your current mathematical abilities, but we'll be glad to help understand (as long as you admit that you don't understand, instead of immediately accusing us of making errors where there are none – of course, if we actually did make an error and you point out that it doesn't make sense, we'll correct it) and surely, infinite energy is worth doing a little bit of reading on something so interesting! Of course, this will require you to accept, if not the current results, then at least the methods of physics. But if you're unwilling to do that, then our time is wasted anyway. Preferably, the specifications you'd provide would be such that if this is shown to not work, you would admit defeat rather than endlessly providing a slightly different design that we'd have to examine. Ideally, we'd look at the general case, but that might be a bit too abstract for you to accept.
Of course, both of these approaches carry the risk of spawning another discussion about what is and what isn't an error here. It would be good to remember, then, that some of us here have decided to make this their career, which means considerable training and, therefore, considerable skill. Of course, mistakes can still happen, but if we're told that there's a mistake somewhere, we check and there isn't, it's very unlikely that we missed it twice (especially since we're several people who'll check each other and who are, like you, interested in figuring out what is actually true, rather than just winning the argument) and much more likely that there just isn't a mistake. As I said, we'll be happy to help understand, but only if you actually make an effort.
(Note that when I say "we" here, I mean something along the lines of "I when I have time, and possibly someone else if they feel like it"; I obviously don't have any kind of authority here, but the plural sounds nicer, I think.)
Of course, I can't make a post about mathematics and perpetual motion without mentioning that conservation of energy is a result of Noether's Theorem (and time invariance). Noether's Theorem is a mathematical result and therefore definitely true (unless the very principles of mathematics are wrong, but if that were the case, we'd have bigger problems), but it's some pretty serious math and not easily understood and I definitely wouldn't expect you to just accept it without actually understanding the proof.
So, what does everyone think? Would a mathematical approach help conclude this discussion or just make everything worse? Are you willing to try it? Have I overstepped my boundaries by using the first person plural?
Mumble, as you said yourself there's patents troll for everything along more and more ridiculous stuff. Patent don't require the patented things to actually exist or work, those are only meant to make money out of a monopoly if those ideas work. If you ask me (but frankly I won't discuss that with you) the whole Industry of Intellectual Property is a zombie that need to die.
If we knew how to make a free energy generator, it would already be in the making already. And no your conspiracy theory are bullshit.
So count me out of this discussion unless there more things to make fun off. Cause I kind of doubt we will discover physics-shattering science here.
I have no idea what your response to me was about mumble, were you deflecting to other topics I talked about? Well anyway, I was just chiming in again to observe the fact that multiple people told you how wrong you were about magnetically driven engines, and I enjoyed watching other people trying to teach you something, that is all. I mean let's face it, you said something ridiculous weeks ago without providing any compelling backup, multiple people tried to explain to you how you're not making any sense, and weeks later you're still going on about it. At some point a rational person just has to accept the facts and let it go instead of digging himself a bigger hole.
Do you actually believe in that ?
This hoax has already been debunked billions of times but some people keep believing in it.
W/E makes something like that would become richer than Bill Gates in a matter on days, really.
And please don't tell that there is no such thing because of a global conspiracy of energy makers.
Quote from: Nonmomentus Brain on March 13, 2017, 02:45:40 PM
This thread is full of words and neither side has, so far, been able to convince the other with them. Unless I didn't see some posts, it seems in this discussion about physics, one thing is notably absent: mathematics, without which you don't have serious physics. There are ways in which this discussion might benefit from a more mathematical look:
...
* Applause *
Excellent post! You didn't overstep any boundaries from my perspective, and I appreciate you pointing out the obvious thing we've all been missing. :D. And I'm nerdy enough to be in favor of learning more cool physics, but not nerdy enough to be able to generate really good explanations of why output can be greater than input.
About ridiculous patents, here's a beautiful example called Time travel utilizing singularity dynamics and existence dynamics (https://www.google.com/patents/CA2886143A1?cl=en&dq=time+travel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1lIi62dTSAhXp7IMKHeyMBtkQ6AEILzAD). Indeed, anyone can patent anything, no matter how crazy. (If you get the urge to discuss this or other unrelated crazy patents, please do so in another thread, lol.)
Brain, you bring up good points : I tried discussing this with skissor : (I think?) whom said the structure of magnetic fields would not allow moving objects to be consistiently pushed, except this is false : magnets pull / push more than just a small pinhole, before it starts "looping" back in on itself. Anything infront of the magnet, and within its field range WILL be effected, and it pushes in that GENERAL direction and putting it on the side does not keep it from pushing it just pushes less.
Keg, patent trolls are generally for profit : IE, the company who sued nintendo for the joystick design of the n64, when the wiiU came out, or whatever. They get by on lawsuit money, because IIRC, having patents isn't exactly a cheap or easy thing, it takes some work. I doubt 3 seperate people would keep an engine up, JUST as a joke, on a patent database. Technically possible, but so is the idea that Hilary would of made world peace.
Wish, I think its a plausible concept, and the "debunks" I've seen have boiled down to "there was a secret battery the whole time!!!" instead of examining why it won't work... ... and apparently because people are shilling to sell computer fans and magnets? cmon... Also, how would people get rich? Unless they personally utilized it. I mean think about it : You would not get rich selling these, compared to charging the entire population for energy. "Own the means of production", so to speak... And if you sell the means of production, its less economic than selling the product. One does not sell cows when people will happily buy the milk.
This said, brain has a good point : Perhaps deep analyzations of the mechanics of magnets would be in order. I figure with a bit of testing, making a sort of diagram of where the fields push towards, at what points, and then projecting that into a diagram, one could pretty objectively determine if this were possible, ASSUMING the tests with magnetism were also highly objective.
Though, this still leaves 2 other patents availible as well, even if one form was not right.
... ... And call me strange milon (or any other word you want) but I don't believe in time travel...
Quote from: mumblemumble on March 13, 2017, 09:08:35 PM
... ... And call me strange milon (or any other word you want) but I don't believe in time travel...
Me either. It's just an example of being able to patent an idea, even if it's absolute rubbish. Just because a patent exists doesn't mean the alleged product does.
A simple way to look at it is to consider power consumption. If no energy is bled out of a system then it can continue it's current state indefinitely. But if we harness some of that energy to power some external thing, then what is left is no longer what was, being instead the difference between what was and that part we took.
Another example is how gravity presents as a sort of energy storage, where movement away from a center of gravity requires imparting energy into an object, and moving toward a center of gravity releases that kinetic energy.
The motions of magnetism are more about structuring and ordering vs decay and disarray, but the principle of conservation of energy still applies.
The Science Asylum argues that there is no such thing as magnetic force. And after watching the video I'm inclined to agree. It's short, 3:45.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4gCTmlm5RQ
In the end, magnetism relies on special relativity and motion. This makes magnets a less likely source of "free energy".
mumblemumble, I'd like to ask you about what math you're acquainted with, so I know how detailed my explanations can be and where I have to start. Are you acquainted with functions? Vectors? Differentiation and integration? Different coordinate systems? (I don't know very much about education systems except for the one I'm in and I don't know how that compares to others, so I'm afraid I have to ask.)
It won't be necessary to test magnets to determine their properties, that's already been done and expressed in some very useful equations, which we only need to apply to our particular situation. And those equations do work – otherwise, it would hardly be possibly to calculate what one needs for a generator, or a particle accelerator, or a CRT screen, or any other magnet-based technology.
milon, that doesn't mean that magnetism "doesn't exist", just that the phenomenon expresses itself in different ways in different frames of reference. Coriolis force, for example, certainly exists to an observer in a rotating system – not to one in an inertial frame, but that won't stop that hurricane from spinning. "Fictitious force" is kind of a misnomer.
Fair enough. I was oversimplifying, which I should probably avoid here. "Magnetism is not a fundamental force of nature and is an effect of relativity, motion, and the interaction of charged particles" is a more accurate, but far longer statement. ;)
And I'm very interested in seeing your explanation. I've found very little that I would consider to be a quality assessment of magnetic engines - and I've looked! Go with whatever level of detail mumble wants though - I'm a former math teacher and I'm familiar with all of those. (I think. Differentiation = Derivative, yes?)
Milon, silly idea, but I'll humor it
If this is the case, where does the energy to pull / push affected objects come from?
You say it does not come from the magnet, but is omnipresent with tests when there is a magnet there... Sooo, what causes this pushing / pulling force, IF NOT the magnet?
Brain, I guess the exact math on where exactly the fields are, their reach, power falloff, ect, would vary from magnet to magnet, based on size, shape, location, surrounding housing, and other factors. Larger magnets would have larger reach, and power, but I figure the pattern of how metal / other magnets behave on different parts of the magnetic field, both in the north / south poles of the magnets, AND, how they behave on various points in between. Some seem to think that having an item on the right or left of the line of a pole, would mean it could not be forced in the direction of said line, and this maybe partially true, but the question is, how much force is exerted, with how much potency, for how long, in that orientation, and how much is exerted PAST that point, and do you GAIN a net velocity of the wheel.
Granted, I am no expert, but I figure there WOULD be a net gain of power here... I think the angle change from pushing "backward" to "forward" on the wheel would be so quick that it would cause a net gain once spinning, even if for a very small portion the field could push it back - Similar to spinning a bike tire by hand, grabbing it may slow it down, slightly, but the continuous act adds more, overall, than letting it sit.
I do find it funny people talk about these being debunked, but, as far as I see, don't actually try to build them, and FAIL... its generally building a fake, with wrong parts, and saying it had a battery, or something.
Quote from: mumblemumble on March 14, 2017, 04:42:20 PM
Milon, silly idea, but I'll humor it
If this is the case, where does the energy to pull / push affected objects come from?
You say it does not come from the magnet, but is omnipresent with tests when there is a magnet there... Sooo, what causes this pushing / pulling force, IF NOT the magnet?
There was a reason for the link I posted. :P
What I wrote was a very brief summary only.
*giggles maniacally, holding 2 electrodes eerily similar to to defribillators* praise the lightning! It lives!!!
I'm really bad at math, as a starter... and was indeed a bit dumbfounded by the statement that electromagnetism is not a fundamental force of nature (it's an interdependent effect of some sort? Iiiinteresting...) but I think i get the explanation, thx!
So I'd like to ask... Raise a hand here who has either never heard of Viktor Schauberger OR made an appeal to authority against him? (Because that is what many so well-educated people incl self were subliminally conditioned to do so, not to be a ducky for "simpletons" who just like to observe nature...like...24/7. At least concluding from my own experiences with many academics...)
What if he was right? Not sure where that came from or why it happened, but when I heard the first time about his... observations... get this: I had a really strange -yes?- magnetic tingly feeling (oh yes, you could say that's just anecdotal, as "always", but there was something going on with my body's electro-physiology, I can tell that!!).
Perhaps this stuff is so problematic, because consciousness might be involved in some sort, and that is a little difficult when/if falsifiability is called for. There's limits to that scientific approach... sadly so. Damned improvable brainjars we live in... How to observe if there is anything if left unobserved, hm? =)
I did a lot of homework over the last years, and even if I don't get it all in detail, math and physics COULD provide some interesting ideas (Dirac, Planck and stuff? Holometer, anyone?),
also, nature does really interesting mathematical and physical things with effects like microcavitation or fractalizing structures, not to mention the LightHarvestingComplex1 in plants' photosynthesis-system harnessing quite stable exciton-states to get a bigger yield than expected with "normal, macroscopic" chemistry.
Migrating birds possibly do weird quantum-shit in their eyes to "see" earths magnetic field... but the experiments haven't been really conclusive yet, afaik (I haven't looked for any updates on that over the last 2 yrs to be honest xD)
Hey, there's actually a budding discipline called quantum biology? That's a road I really look forward to, if we solve all the measuring problems?! Haha... *thinking about prof. Farnsworth shaking his fist at the racetrack*
And yeah, don't get me started about conspiracies, theories about the same, their psychology and communication strategies. It actually doesn't take much today to discredit a person in a way that he/she is practically, reputationally unable to be (self-)employed by any means. Or to spread stuff without much efford if you'r content is just charming enough. So if you have no clue what things like cointelpro are in a post-Snowden society, your arguments along such lines are possibly invalid %D
And that is enough cheekyness for today. Sorry if that broke any boundary-barriers, honestly, but I want to be so done with caring about someone possibly getting offended just because of their own biases and/or ignorancies. Which are usually a lot, but unawarely so, myself included? *tips on her temple*
Speaking of early/proto-science turned into pseudo-science, I read somewhere that the whole "stimulate part of your brain with electrode to improve it" idea. Is becoming more and more real today, thanks to computers, virtual-brain model, and electrode small enough to fit on actual cells.
The equivalent of Da Vinci "flying machine" versus tilt-rotor aircraft.
The sort of things that make me think that by the day we will know how to generate "free electricity" it will be pointless to do so because we will be navigating between multiverse by thoughts.
Ohhh, then we could have really long wars...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_War_(novel)
Quote from: milon on March 14, 2017, 12:05:03 PM
The Science Asylum argues that there is no such thing as magnetic force. And after watching the video I'm inclined to agree. It's short, 3:45.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4gCTmlm5RQ
In the end, magnetism relies on special relativity and motion. This makes magnets a less likely source of "free energy".
This video explains it wrong. No need for special relativity at low speeds. The nuclei (opposite charge) moving in the opposite direction (double negative) create the same magnetic field as the electrons in the first place, thus moving the proton away from the wire. Fictitious forces are real (you can measure/feel them, duh!), but depend on the reference frame. That does not mean they don't exist. Damn click-bait!
I intentionally avoided mathematics. I doubt it will help the case, as "conservative force field" and similar arguments did not convince mumble
2.
You know, I do find the ideas of "laws" brought into debate of this rather ironic : laws must ALWAYS match what actually happens, and if the law is broken, the law is no more : In science, these "laws" are there to show the CURRENT understood limits of physics and the world, but this never means they cannot be broken, just our current UNDERSTANDING is broken.
And due to this, these laws should always be challenged : Because sometimes laws are incorrect, or done wrong, or whathaveyou. It happens, and is forgivable, but true physics exist because they can happen over and over again.
Beyond that, it should always be based on TANGIBLE ideas : Some of the laws of energy seem a bit silly to me, particularly when calling the mass of something "potential energy" : The energy is not from the mass itself, but the weight of it being pulled downward. The downward force is the energy force, not the object itself, potential energy is not actual energy which exists inside the object, it is the energy of the downward force, which can only be observed when a pathway down is given.
This is why I'm so skeptical on what milon said about magnets working off motion and "special relativity". If the magnet is removed, and motion and special relativity are kept, the devices always stops working : introduction of the magnet is what CREATES motion, which is an expression of energy, so I don't see how you can argue the motion comes from motion when where is no motion before the magnet makes motion to give motion...Motionception?
with any observation of the magnet, visible experiments show proximity to the magnetized device are indeed the constant factor involved : Which seems to imply the energy utilized in moving whatever it is magnetized to (or moving the magnet TO the surface) is infact coming FROM the magnet
This is just the logic behind experiments, anyway : observation shows it is a constant source, and I've never seen the magnet removed, and getting the same energy into play.
In the end, I cannot "know" what gives the observed energy into the magnetic force beyond what I can observe. and what I can observe is the constant presence of the magnet within range of applicable material. And unless I can observe something which says otherwise, I'm going to be skeptical of other ideas.
introducing first.... from the red corner. counting hundreds of thousands of physicists, experts in their field... following a rigorous methodological protocol... Supported by the overwhelming weight of evidence... thinks it is correct because it has excluded all the other known possibilities that match the data... utterly undefeated, it is, the bringer of civilization, engine of progress,
SCIENCE!!!
from the blue corner, from the bowels of the internet, a dedicated troll, expert in his field... master of annoyance, believer of conspiracies... doesn't believe what he doesn't understand... confuses scientific theory with conjecture, thinks he is right because he has a funny feeling... he is...
MUMBLE!!!
===========================================
Seriously though. You're right in that scientific theories are just that, theories. They represent the current state of our knowledge. That said, there's still a heck of a lot of work in creating a theory. You can't just say create one, publish it and be done with it. You have to prove that your theory is at least as likely as all the other alternatives - which means coming up with experiments that can prove or disprove your theory, and then performing them. Once you've done that, and you manage to convince a chunk of the scientific community there might be something there, it becomes a theory. This may take your entire career.
Once a theory has been around for decades, there have been no experimental results that disprove the theory, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the theory is indeed correct, might the theory gradually start to become considered as a 'law'.
So yeah, by all means, do challenge theory. But to think you can do so because you have a funny feeling is utterly laughable. I'm also curious by what you mean by observation, since you seem to distrust what you cannot see. While that is a healthy attitude, it's also a bit misleading to apply it to science - as if science is some kind of mysticism. The whole point of experimental physics is to make observable the theories their 'pure' physicist colleagues come up with. It seems to me that you're not so much skeptical about what you cannot observe, you're skeptical about what you do not understand.
"prove" is subjective. Experiments don't always "prove" something, they "suggest" something. It comes down to removing as many variables as possible to "prove" something, and the rest is observations of facts.
I can even understand where you come from on it just being a "feeling", but what gets me, every video I've seen about these is always called bunk, with people parroting "they used a fan" or "theres a hidden battery" or something which I find very strange, because these debunkers never actually try ASSEMBLING it, and showing that it doesn't work : Which I find bitterly ironic : its more character assassination in calling the original video posters liars, than saying it is indeed not possible.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bacddb38fea6fe9f6e4b0840a9eac480-p)
I should have phrased myself better. While there's nothing subjective about facts (and good experiments produce results that are facts), their interpretation can be subjective. Moreover, it's actually impossible to positively prove a theory is correct - we can merely fail to prove it is not correct. It's the scientific equivalent of innocent until proven guilty.
The thing is, the theories we accept as laws have been around for a long time, and form the basis for much of our understanding of the world. Most importantly, they are consistent. They predict outcomes which have time and time again been confirmed - if they were incorrect, it would be highly likely that some experiment somewhere would have gotten an unexpected result, and that would cause a major upset in the scientific community.
For example, take the CERN findings of stuff (they keep coming up with ridiculous names for these things, I'm a statistician, not a physicist) moving faster than the speed of light a couple of years back. That should not be possible, but yet their experiments showed it was. They tried to replicate their results, and asked others to replicate as well - if anything could travel faster than light that would pretty much overthrow physics as we know it. Turns out there was a faulty wire somewhere in the experimental setup.
I'm not saying these laws are perfect - heck, there's still a huge divide between quantum physics and 'normal' physics - and there is certainly room for 'finetuning', but the likelihood that even one of these fundamental laws of physics is just completely wrong is astronomically low.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that when you say "every video I've seen about these is always called bunk, with people parroting "they used a fan" or "theres a hidden battery"", that's actually people applying the scientific method. I made a reference earlier stating that good experiments produce results that are facts. That is, they can be replicated, and produce identical results for whomever performs them - given that the same conditions are applied. Aside from whether or not the theory behind these videos is correct (or even plausible), they do not produce replicable results.
Quote from: mumblemumble on April 03, 2017, 09:32:04 PMYou know, I do find the ideas of "laws" brought into debate of this rather ironic : laws must ALWAYS match what actually happens, and if the law is broken, the law is no more : In science, these "laws" are there to show the CURRENT understood limits of physics and the world, but this never means they cannot be broken, just our current UNDERSTANDING is broken.
And due to this, these laws should always be challenged : Because sometimes laws are incorrect, or done wrong, or whathaveyou. It happens, and is forgivable, but true physics exist because they can happen over and over again.
And if the laws hold up to countless experiments and no experiment disproves them, they are clearly useful enough to describe the world. If you do have an experiment which disproves them, go ahead and publish. If you pass peer review and independent scientists can recreate your findings, have fun with your Nobel prize. Of course, that is a very, very big if.
Quote from: mumblemumble on April 03, 2017, 09:32:04 PMBeyond that, it should always be based on TANGIBLE ideas : Some of the laws of energy seem a bit silly to me, particularly when calling the mass of something "potential energy" : The energy is not from the mass itself, but the weight of it being pulled downward. The downward force is the energy force, not the object itself, potential energy is not actual energy which exists inside the object, it is the energy of the downward force, which can only be observed when a pathway down is given.
This is where it becomes clear that you don't have even a basic understanding of terminology in physics. Energy is, in fact, defined in terms of force; specifically, the integral of force over distance (basically, it's a measure of how much force you have to apply over a distance to get your object from one point to another).
If you had a 10 kilogram rock on Earth's surface and wanted to lift it up by 2 meters, you'd have to exert a force of about 100 Newtons, which is the weight of the rock, to compensate for gravity. Lifting it 2 m, then, would require about 200 Joules (say, in terms of electrical energy for an engine, minus inefficiencies), and the potential energy of the rock would increase by those 200 J. If you want to get those 200 J back "out of the rock", you could drop it and use it to spin a generator, which would then (minus inefficiencies) get you 200 J of electrical energy. That's how energy works. If you want to use weird terminology nobody else uses (say, "energy force"), that changes nothing about what happens and just makes it harder for others to understand you.
Regardless, requiring laws of physics to be "tangible ideas" would be foolish. Potential differences driving current in a circuit, oscillations being described by complex numbers, quantum mechanics – none of that is tangible, but it works – otherwise a lot of modern technology couldn't have been built. If you were to restrict physics to those things a layperson finds intuitively understandable and "tangible", you won't get very far.
I've heard the following said: "You can never hope to defeat your enemies without knowing how they think. And by the time you know enough science to fight the scientific, it's already too late – you're already a scientist." Basically, if you knew what you're talking about, you wouldn't be talking about it because you'd know why you're wrong.
I'm sure there's a book out there written to give an introduction to physics to people with your level of understanding. If you're in this discussion because you're interested in facts, reading something like that would be a good idea. If you're interested in winning the argument, reading up on the matter would be a good idea as well, because at least you'd learn how concepts are expressed in physics and what specific terms mean, so you could express your ideas in a way we can actually understand. If you're just here because you like arguing, well, I guess it's your right to waste your time like that.
Quote from: Thyme on March 19, 2017, 01:00:34 PMI intentionally avoided mathematics. I doubt it will help the case, as "conservative force field" and similar arguments did not convince mumble2.
While it is unlikely to convince him, other people will probably be interested in it. And even if not, practicing the basics doesn't hurt. (And yes, I'm still planning to do the math, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.)
Quote from: mumblemumble on April 04, 2017, 03:14:23 AM
I can even understand where you come from on it just being a "feeling", but what gets me, every video I've seen about these is always called bunk, with people parroting "they used a fan" or "theres a hidden battery" or something which I find very strange, because these debunkers never actually try ASSEMBLING it, and showing that it doesn't work : Which I find bitterly ironic : its more character assassination in calling the original video posters liars, than saying it is indeed not possible.
Just passing by to point-out that the burden of proof is yours.
You have never proved that any of those "free-energy generator" were not fake despite it being the most simple and logical explanation (Occam's razor). Up to today 100% of the claim for free-energy generator have turnout out to be fake. Every single one of them.
Just get some fridge magnet and try to build something that turn forever without energy input. You'll see that
feelingbelief aren't facts just because you like it.
This thread have a nice start to become it's own perpetual movement
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/67/28/6b/67286bf3498c3924e1268475d3bc41f8.jpg) | Quote from: Kegereneku on April 04, 2017, 03:02:21 PM
Just get some fridge magnet and try to build something that turn forever without energy input.
Quote from: wikipediaThe law of Conservation of Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.
There is no reason to just try it because the it being described does not match the laws of our universe. |
well again, laws should reflect reality, and it seems almost fallacious to dismiss an idea because "it breaks our listed laws". Our laws are based off of our currently understood concepts and mechanics, based on observations hopefully. And reality, and what we see should ALWAYS superseed any laws, because laws made by men are fallible, while reality is not.
The entire idea of energy in an isolated system being conserved, or that energy cannot be created is rather silly : What is defined as energy anyway? They often even count "potential" energy there, be it a spring, or a rock on a precipice waiting to fall : yet these are not "real" energies, it merely pointing at something which can have energy readily put into an observable state very easily, IE, weight drops, springs, whathaveyou.
but in terms of heat, motion, power, electric output, ect, these are different : they are indeed created from things.
The idea of "potential" energy, is not real energy often, but rather a prediction of energy to be created based on the understanding of physics. Its a useful term don't get me wrong : without the idea of potential energy, we could not make many things work, since we could not predict the exerted force of engines, firearms, bows, ect.
But these are not energies in form of heat, velocity, electrical current, ect (chemical storage of energy is one, but this itself is very different from a boulder on a cliff : which is itself energized by the downward force towards earth exhibited on all matter)
Angle, I think we should INDEED try things, to either prove our laws, or test them : Even if the laws remain correct, we could find things, such as perhaps a factor of magnets of intermingling magnetic fields locking up with excessive circulating motion, or other things that could possibly exist : I'm not entirely against the idea that these are correct, but I find it VERY worrying no science channel makes these things to spec with supposed "scam artists" and displays them not functioning, but instead bastardizes the idea and says it was fake all along
One would think it would be very easy to just follow the design and give a yay or nay on if it works in the video, but I've personally yet to see it, its ALWAYS been showing a "fake" one, and then baseless claim this was exactly what the other person did.
KEG, as stated above, I've not seen scientific approaches to this : Videos on it always bastardize the process and run away from the scientific method, and go more on charecter assassination based on something completely different than the blueprint, which, I repeat, these videos DO NOT attempt to build to spec, but rather build it fake, and claim the other was fake too.
You may claim "I cannot prove its not fake", but the burden of proof is on the person claiming it is indeed fake : anybody can claim anything is anything, just as I can claim you are say, a lizard : This doesn't mean you need to defend it, because I bring NOTHING FORWARD as proof of it, so you can dismiss it just as easily : Thus people making videos "debunking" as fake, when not following the scientific method (testing the same conditions, see if you get similar results) can be dismissed as well, as they do not even base their theories on it being fake on the actual presented design, but on a different design. Its pretty much a strawman argument when it comes to device designs.
And thats what its boiled down to : never, have I seen a person debunking it taking real magnets, showing the magnets are real, building it TO SPEC with other designs widely claimed to work (computer fan magnet wheel setup, for instance) building them, and then seeing that they do not work : If this was done, I would be much more skeptical, but ive seen nothing yet.
Oh and I may of said this already, but on the whole "magnetic force doesn't exist" part, its pretty fallacious : he over simplifies things on saying theres sometimes magnetic force is not there, thus its never there : but thats the thing, sometimes things are, or are not there. And he says electric force and magnetic force, but, as far as I got from it, I didn't see WHY : I didn't notice him mentioning any distinguishing factors. In short "magnetic force" is the term used by most as the force observed in the presence of a magnet. You can argue this is now what it is, but this is what people mean it as, and since words are what people mean them as, we should try starting from there.
Funny part is, if I make a video creating one of this, I am willing to bet 20$ everyone would say I faked it ANYWAY, and would do everything I mentioned above... As this overwhelmingly is the reaction to such things, or at best saying "magnets will expire, so its not perpetual"
....even though I've never heard of a hard magnet dying.
QuoteYou may claim "I cannot prove its not fake", but the burden of proof is on the person claiming it is indeed fake : anybody can claim anything is anything
Sigh...
Mumble, assuming something is real don't make it real unless the assumption is the most logical explanation around.
If you believed to be a lizard despite observation showing that you are a human, you are the one who would need to come up with very convincing proof that you are.
No one ever made a "free energy generator engine" that wasn't a fake. The best and most logical theoretical model we have don't allow it.
(meaning that unless you break LOGIC ITSELF it is impossible)Therefore you are the one who need to prove it is possible (and in a way that isn't called "faking it"),
until you do, the claim that it is possible is NOT a fact.QuoteFunny part is, if I make a video creating one of this, I am willing to bet 20$ everyone would say I faked it ANYWAY
There's more funny : I'm betting 20$ that you'd not honestly admit being wrong after trying and failing said experiment that you believed to work, and 40$ that you would even prefer to fake success than do so.
And I'm betting everything I possess that you can't make a "perpetually rotating frame powered by permanent magnet and not receiving energy of any kind from outside your test setup (and so capable of generating even the smallest amount of energy, forever)".
Edit:rewording²
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/16/ab/eb/16abebb0f1707df76f428b53d873387a.jpg) | Quote from: mumblemumble on April 05, 2017, 02:02:56 PM
The entire idea ... that energy cannot be created is rather silly
...
Angle, I think we should INDEED try things, to either prove our laws, or test them : Even if the laws remain correct, we could find things
How do you suppose we came to the place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#History) where it's called a law, in the same sense we speak of the law of gravity? I suspect that a lot of testing went on over the last 2500 years.
I've seen heaps and gobs of bad science fobbed off on the public under the guise of expertise, so I can attest to the need for some healthy skepticism. It usually begins with an impossible premise, generating a garbage-in, garbage-out storyline and claims that if it cannot be dis-proven that's good enough.
- If the mass of an entire planet were to suddenly wink out of existence, then gravity waves
- If we had some exotic matter then we could build a warp drive
- If we squeezed all the matter of the Earth into the space of a marble, then black holes
Isn't there someone going around telling us that water can't be compressed? Seems like there's more than a marble's worth around here somewhere...So sure I can understand a need to compare what's coming off the chalkboard to what's happening outside the window.
The problem really comes down to this: Do you have something that more accurately models this universe? That's forward progress.
|
This is the best self-generated popcorn I've ever experienced in this forum. He just keeps on digging himself a deeper hole instead of dropping it. Delicious.
Angle, thats practically an appeal to tradition fallacy, saying we've done it this way for so long that it CANNOT be wrong...
sometimes traditions are incorrect, or flawed.
As for accurate models, this in itself is both a valid point, and used as a fallacious argument : Its a good idea to push forward for models which fit the bill, however if something arises showing problems with a current model, the current model should be reconsidered. Even if new ideas are not immediately found to replace it, if theres clear problems with a concept, they should be taken with salt. After all, do you want to keep a bad model which doesn't work just because you don't have another model yet? Admitting we don't know things is what makes us wise.
Keg, you kinda prove the point of the issue saying all these things were fake : this claim is done, but not all these devices were made to spec, tested, and proven to be so by people who say its not the case : infact ALL these people who claim it does not work, create one, but altered from the presented idea in a way which IS fake, but this is not science, this is slander at best.
You must use the scientific method, no scientist past present or future is immune to this, this is THE basis of science, and saying under any condition you can use an appeal to authority, or other fallacies in place of it is unscientific.
If you want to be credible pointing fallacies you should check that you aren't "appealing to ignorance" yourself.
Not knowing if something is true doesn't mean that it is true unless refuted. That's what you are doing and a fallacy.
The scientific method is precisely what allowed the scientific community to check and demonstrate for centuries that no claim of "free energy generator" worked and would have never work even if "built on specs" because their MATHS are wrong. When their maths end up with things like "1=0" it mean it wasn't actually math and it wasn't science either.
- You are the one making claim without showing any proper evidence that support it, claim that a "free energy generator" already exist, claim that "in specs/theory one work", a claim that your magnet idea would work (it don't), claims that there's a conspiracy (...etc)
- We presented more logical evidences/analysis that your claims were illogical & inconsistent with irrefutable observation when not simply FALSE. And proposed a more logical explanation : There is no "free energy generator" because no one ever found a way to build one.
- So unless you retract most of your claim you still have the burden of proof.
In short :
Your arguments are unscientific and you failed to use the scientific method : you never gathered proper experiment supporting your ideas, instead you claimed a result to be true without evidence.
ps:I wonder why I keep trying to make him see his errors, I hypothesize that it's the promise of self-generated popcorn, but observations and theory show that free-popcorn is impossible, a lot of time was spent making popcorn
the only time you could claim someone is "appealing to ignorance" is if they were saying "we don't know, and we don't NEED to investigate either".
I admit we don't know things, but there should be open-ness about testing rather than the unscientific approach surrounding this topic.
You say the scientific method "proves" this cannot exist, but cannot cite an example of someone proving this, by actually using the method others have demonstrated worked, and testing it themselves.
I did show evidence, pretty sure, the device in question...to which everyone claims is fake, with no evidence of it.
And burden of proof you misunderstand : Video evidence, while not 100% hard proof, is evidence to help make a claim, and should be assumed true UNLESS theres good points to determine it fake.
Mumble, an "appeal to ignorance" has nothing to do with saying "we don't know, and we don't need to investigate." An "appeal to ignorance" (or "argument from ignorance") is a term used in logic to describe exactly the sort of fallacy you're guilty of here: claiming that something is true simply because it hasn't been expressly proven false (or vice versa). It's typically employed in an argument, as you're employing it here, in an attempt to shift the burden of proof, which is generally recognized as belonging to the person making a claim rather than to the person refuting it.
As Carl Sagan famously stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And claims don't get much more extraordinary than, "Our entire understanding of physics is wrong, and perpetual motion devices or free energy devices are actually possible."
Video evidence is indeed sufficient to prove many things, at least casually, but given the impact that good editing (even in the absence of outright fakery) can have on what a video seems to show, they hardly constitute "extraordinary evidence." No one who takes science seriously is going to take a video purporting to show something which is generally understood (with good reason) to be impossible as evidence that hundreds of years of accumulated scientific research, experimentation and investigation are in fact wrong. The assumption that the video is faked is *VASTLY* more reasonable.
(http://coolvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Fantasy-Art-Francis-Tneh-Mermaid-992x1407.jpg) | Quote from: mumblemumble on April 27, 2017, 04:22:26 PM
the only time you could claim someone is "appealing to ignorance" is if they were saying "we don't know, and we don't NEED to investigate either".
I admit we don't know things, but there should be open-ness about testing rather than the unscientific approach surrounding this topic.
There is a subtlety to the notion of what we know, what we don't know, and what was presented as "we don't NEED to [know]." There is such a thing as unknowable (https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rzeckhau/unknown_unknowable_PUP.pdf), which I'll illustrate with mermaids.
I cannot prove that mermaids don't exist. No matter how much ocean is explored, there is always a chance for a mermaid to spawn in both unexplored and previously explored places. It's not that we don't need to know, it's whether we can know.
If a test can be created that has two mutually exclusive outcomes, one supporting a hypothesis and the other supporting the complementary set of everything else (null hypothesis), then it can be independently tested and the results will either validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
The requirement of such a test is that there be a hypothesis. It could be as simple as "energy can be created," which argues against the conservation of energy. The null hypothesis is then "energy cannot be created," and an experiment that results in unambiguous demonstration of one or the other of those two possible outcomes would then be available for any to repeat. |
Quote from: mumblemumble on April 27, 2017, 04:22:26 PMYou say the scientific method "proves" this cannot exist, but cannot cite an example of someone proving this, by actually using the method others have demonstrated worked, and testing it themselves.
You are trying to shift the burden again, YOU must prove that those "generator" work first. That's basic common sense.
If someone tried sell you a 110V eternal generator for 1000$ based solely on his claim and showing you a video that can be faked. Would you buy it before asking for proof up to the level of the claim?
Mathematical theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem) demonstrate that creating energy from nothing would break logic itself. It prove that breaking the law of thermodynamic is impossible as long as as 1=1
So if you want to prove "free energy" is possible you first have to try demonstrating mathematically that 1=/=1
btw, I don't remember If I posted it already but here is a link for you, it even have answer to your "magnet" misunderstanding:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm
QuoteAnd burden of proof you misunderstand : Video evidence, while not 100% hard proof, is evidence to help make a claim, and should be assumed true UNLESS theres good points to determine it fake.
No that's not how it work.
You can
assume(key word) that they are, but it
don't mean that they
are true. It is perfectly possible that
you are wrong about them being true.
Else if the world actually followed your statement you'd have to assume any claim like "
Mumblemumble is insane and unaware that he is (because he is insane)" to be true unless there's irrefutable points to determine it's not the case.
Anyway,
we ALREADY have proofs that those video are fake: they
never demonstrated irrefutably that they produced "free energy", therefore by definition they only pretended/imitated the concept, and so are fake.
EXPERIMENT REPORT N°2:
Still no success at making popcorn appear from nothing but the sharing of written message on the Internet.
I had some faith into that since the arrival of evidence helping to make the claim that simply claiming stuff made them real unless good point of the contrary (no formal example of what those point would look like have been given).
The result from this attempt, consolidate the currently accepted theory that "self-generating popcorn" is impossible.
However a flaw in the experiment could explain this failure : To self-generate popcorn, the popcorn must already be present.
I shall modify the testing procedure by procuring some popcorn first for my next experiments, and observe if more popcorn generate from it
Okay so the exact reason that this isn't feasible is that it takes energy to create a magnet. Yeah, if you took a magnet strong enough you could make an engine turn off the power of it, but creating a magnet large enough to do so would take (way) more energy than you get out of it, and more importantly magnets interact with metal, which the engine is likely to be made out of so you'd also have to house the magnet specially, which reduces to net energy draw from the engine.
And, if you tried to get around the problem of "how do you house a passively magnetized object if it's constantly expending energy drawing nearby metals" by making it a dynamic(?) magnet, IE a powered one that is turned on or off, then you've really created a steam/coal/oil powered engine that just happens to involve a magnet as an efficiency chokepoint.
And, magnets aren't used to drive moving parts because they work via energy waves, which are non-linear and hard to control, IE anything you build out of a magnet would be losing a shit-ton of energy exerting magnetism against the walls of its casing and nearby objects, whereas liquid or gas energy doesn't waste energy exerted against inert surface thanks to fluid dynamics meaning that that force is then redirected towards the exit of the chamber.
TLDR; waves can't be as efficient as fluids
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/
Exerpt from above addresses why this is a problem...
"The reality is that science fact and science fiction are dictated based on currently accepted understandings, whether they be true or not. As impossible as something sounds, what we understand as science fact is always bounded by our understanding of our surroundings. As our knowledge expands what was formerly science fact frequently becomes science wrong, sometimes badly wrong."
He makes a valid point : a few hundred years ago the idea of microscopic bacteria in our blood effecting things was a bunch of silly hogwash only a crazy person believed : now its so widely accepted that its silly hogwash to think it DOESN'T exist
Remember : laws of physics are limited by our understanding of the world. They are accurate from past experience, but future experience very well may contradict it. And if data, results, and experiments SHOWS something contradictory, then the law should be rewritten TO REFLECT reality, otherwise you are no longer following the scientific method.
Reminds me of a joking jab at science, comparing the bible to science, where the bible says "It is written" and the science book says "it is written, and rewritten, and rewritten...ect". While this is obviously a jab at science (I still support the merits of the scientific method) it does illustrate an interesting points : the consensus with science is ALWAYS about trial, error, taking in data, forming theories, testing them in trials, and continuing the cycle. And no theory, when doing science should EVER be elevated over tests and data.
Tests, data, and whats reflected in reality are the most important in science, theories are under them, and theories with the most tangible, reproducible supporting evidence are what makes theories more acceptable : but this does not even mean the theories can never be found to be flawed.
Keg, you continue to rant about a "proof" it works : tell me ; what would be an acceptable manifestation of proof? A video? A blueprint you can use?
Or do you demand its mass produced first?
The problem with this is you do not actually SET a goal for "what is proof", and have manifestations of evidence of the device which you very intentionally ignore, and do not list any strict, qualified expectations for one to achieve TO prove it. You are setting a goal which has no definition, and thus, in not possible to attain, so long as you continually say presented proof is "not good enough".
You do bring up an interesting point of fluid dynamics, except you ignore the core of why it was ever even brought up : magnets have a 500 year shelf life easy, and this is assuming the estimations are accurate. Sure, the magnetic "force" (didn't you argue there was no energy in magnets earlier? Lol) Is not used at 100% efficiency as water can be, but this is a none issue : magnets lose charge at such a slow rate its not an issue in peoples lifetimes. When have you worried about "leaving your magnets on" when you take them off your fridge or something? Never. And they still emit the magnetic waves no matter what.
Further more, if you examine how much energy is required to lift things, you can begin to quantify.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-calculate-the-electric-power-required-to-lift-100-kg-of-material
You can argue about if its electrical energy, or whathaveyou, but energy from moving something comes from somewhere. To identify the source of the energy, it MUST be the constant in the situation... So if it takes x energy to lift an object, and a magnet routinely lifts it within the field, where does the energy come from when the magnet is the only constant?
You said previously it was movement introducing energy : but this can be dis-proven with say, a web allowing the magnet to pull, but not allowing it to contact the metal, and releasing the web to allow it to pull further : where is the energy introduced there? And what about the energy scaling in and of itself? What if energy used to introduce an item into the magnetic field is less than the energy observed in the item moving?
Oh and keg : you are again, forgetting the videos, and blueprints : to which you ignore completely. Its not just a dude saying "this exists!" its multiple people showing videos of working prototypes which nobody who denies ever bothers to test themselves.
Also : I've not been pushing that they are strictly perpetual energy machines. Maybe they aren't. Maybe creation of magnets takes INSANE amounts of energy in, and they are at best, batteries of a sort. Who knows. My argument was you could MAKE an engine with magnets, to which you saying its never demonstrated free energy is nothing more than a non sequitur. It does not address the issue.
Even IF these devices were just a hipsters toy which are a waste of time and resources when better energy alternatives exists, whats wrong with exploring possibilities? I'm COMPLETELY OK with testing these things, having debates on the efficiency of them, and seeing how well they work, but you continuously move the goal posts around, along with others
First it was magnets could not project their fields in such a manner to continue a spinning motion
Then it was magnets need outside energy to obey the laws of physics
Then it was it cannot exist because laws of physics go against it, despite what any test could ever say
Now its wrong because its not a VERIFIED free energy machine, even when that wasn't the point : the point was its an engine DRIVEN by magnets : I am willing to admit, magnets might be under 100% efficiency for driving a turbine, and that magnets can take immense energy to make, but you keep SAYING the videos, patents, ect, are false, without bringing up reason why
So I ask again : what would be a manifestation of "proof" you would accept?
Mumble,
Build a prototype. Get some physicists to verify that it does in fact violate the first law of Thermodynamics, and then people will believe you.
Yes, it is hypothetically possible that the first law of thermodynamics is flawed (key word, hypothetical). But it's hypothetical in the same way that there are hypothetically an infinite number of universes, and, given that some of them will not follow the same laws of physics or the same timeline as our own, someone will open a portal into your room and offer you a kingdom made entirely of sour cream.
That's what this really boils down to. Prove it, either with math (the language of physics and the reason we have the laws of thermodynamics) or with a prototype, verified by physicists. And if you can, please do so, and then promptly forget about me because with that device you will be one of the most famous and wealthy people alive.
@Mumble, please elaborate more on the magnet-web example. (I apologize if it's been discussed & I missed it. A link back would be helpful.) It sounds like you're describing mechanically moving/releasing a magnetic webbing, but that would introduce mechanical or potential energy (depending on the exact application), which would qualify as inputting energy to the system. But you wouldn't make such an obvious error, would you?
@Quazimojojojo, I love that example. Are you referencing something or is that original?
Mumble, do I have to explain you
again that patent aren't proof that something work ? They are simply a paper that guarantee you get rights&recognition over some use of the
SPECIFIC design you claim to have invented.
To do so the office need to be able to distinguish
specifically why and how the proposal vary from other "engine" so they don't accidentally give you credit for someone's else patent.
The first link you provided explain in length why the requirement was increased for claim of "free energy". It filter out the many idiots who believe to have a "free energy generator" just because they suffer from wishful thinking.
You aren't being misunderstood, your arguments are just poor and unconvincing for those who understand the topic (I have an electrical Engineering background myself).
QuoteKeg, you continue to rant about a "proof" it works : tell me ; what would be an acceptable manifestation of proof? A video? A blueprint you can use?
Or do you demand its mass produced first?
Anything that do
pass a properly done experiment, or produce irrefutable result, or pass peer-reviewed testing among the scientific community.
It's not necessarily a prototype, a theoretical/mathematical model that explain it using our current physic-model or a new physics model that satisfy the Correspondence Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle) while allowing "free energy". Would also be acceptable (and world breaking)
My turn: What would it take for you to buy an authentic
Free-Energy-generator(c)? How do you test it before agreeing to mass producing it?
You aren't going to buy/sell one without checking right ?
How would YOU check that it really does what it claim to do? (a result that can't be faked of course)
QuoteYou said previously it was movement introducing energy : but this can be dis-proven with say, a web allowing the magnet to pull, but not allowing it to contact the metal, and releasing the web to allow it to pull further : where is the energy introduced there? And what about the energy scaling in and of itself? What if energy used to introduce an item into the magnetic field is less than the energy observed in the item moving?
Go there: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm
Ctrl+F search for : "But don't magnets have unlimited stored energy?"
Then for : "I've made a wheel with carefully positioned magnets"
Quoteits multiple people showing videos of working prototypes which nobody who denies ever bothers to test themselves.
What or who say those prototypes "worked"? The inventor who might be lying? The video that can be faked in numerous way?
Peer-reviewed scientific journal actually do test device like theses sometime (those with proper paperwork at least). Up to today every single "prototype" failed (predictably) despite testing it exactly like the inventor claimed, or their test were aborted because the inventor "method of testing" included elements that prevent a correct test (things like "don't mind the hidden not-a power-cable-I-swear leading to a 110V outlet", "don't test for more than a set time (because the hidden battery will run out)" or "test it outside during a sunny day") (edit)
If laboratory PAID to test
all poorly-thought design or sham (that they already know won't work because they are more intelligent than the inventor), they would go bankrupt.
QuoteI've not been pushing that they are strictly perpetual energy machines. Maybe they aren't.
[...]
My argument was you could MAKE an engine with magnets, to which you saying its never demonstrated free energy is nothing more than a non sequitur. It does not address the issue
Quotethe point was its an engine DRIVEN by magnets : I am willing to admit, magnets might be under 100% efficiency for driving a turbine
You did (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=29250.msg296634#msg296634), maybe you don't realize that it amount to the same thing.
Your ideas sum up to making an engine produce torque energy using static permanent magnet (while not pouring any energy) with the hope that it produce more energy than it took to create them.
You didn't talked about using (permanent) magnet to store energy, you specifically described producing more spin torque (and so energy) than used to create the device.
So we've been telling you that it doesn't work and tried to explain you why (and why you can't trust any video on the internet).
QuoteFirst it was magnets could not project their fields in such a manner to continue a spinning motion
Then it was magnets need outside energy to obey the laws of physics
Then it was it cannot exist because laws of physics go against it, despite what any test could ever say
Now its wrong because its not a VERIFIED free energy machine
Correcting your errors here :
- (Permanent) Magnet
STILL cannot project their fields in such a manner as to produce a continuing spinning motion. It didn't changed.
- (Electromagnetic) magnet
STILL need outside energy to produce a spinning motion. (and permanent magnet
still need to be physically moved around (using energy) to make somehing spin)
- It
STILL cannot exist (the way you claim to work) because laws of physics go against it, currently no test ever demonstrated otherwise
- It's
ALWAYS wrong to call (something) a "free energy machine" unless it is VERIFIED in a proper irrefutable way to be one.
EXPERIMENT REPORT N°3:
Still no success at making popcorn appear from nothing but the sharing of written message on the Internet.
Today I have tested using a single pop-corn in a suitable container, to ensure success I have made sure to file a patent about how it should work (pop-corn + written message over the internet = more pop-corn). It was accepted so surely it should have worked right?
And yet it didn't work and the popped corn didn't multiply. (I'm somehow relieved it didn't, what if it generated faster than I could eat them and never stopped?)
According to the Scientific Method I can't claim it worked if the experiment didn't actually work, too bad I planned to make video of it that read "How to make self-generating pop-corn"
I needed to formulate a new theory, so I'm now assuming that pop-corn need to be in a critical amount before they self-generate.
Next time I'll procure a bucket of fresh pop-corn, and observe if the bucket mass increase.Edit: correcting a misleading syntax
Quote from: mumblemumble on April 05, 2017, 02:02:56 PM
The entire idea of energy in an isolated system being conserved, or that energy cannot be created is rather silly : What is defined as energy anyway? They often even count "potential" energy there, be it a spring, or a rock on a precipice waiting to fall : yet these are not "real" energies, it merely pointing at something which can have energy readily put into an observable state very easily, IE, weight drops, springs, whathaveyou.
but in terms of heat, motion, power, electric output, ect, these are different : they are indeed created from things.
The idea of "potential" energy, is not real energy often, but rather a prediction of energy to be created based on the understanding of physics. Its a useful term don't get me wrong : without the idea of potential energy, we could not make many things work, since we could not predict the exerted force of engines, firearms, bows, ect.
But these are not energies in form of heat, velocity, electrical current, ect (chemical storage of energy is one, but this itself is very different from a boulder on a cliff : which is itself energized by the downward force towards earth exhibited on all matter)
As an engineer I cringe reading all of this. :@ You should definitely do some leg work here, read some stuff and try to get some information beforehand.
Energy being conserved is not
rather silly. You simply misunderstand the concept.
Compressed spring or
rock waiting to fall are both REAL energies. Energy is state function. Potential energy from a rock in gravitational field is the same as electrons being on certain energy level on the atom's core. Again - both are energies. Energy doesn't have to be movement, sound or other things that you can
sense as a human.
Energies are not created from anything. They are merely changing it forms. Potential energy of object with a mass transforms into kinetic energy, only to turn into heat when that object falls onto the ground. Galvanic chemical potential is turned into electric current. All of these things have their
driving forces (so to speak). These are imbalances that exist in spite of laws found in nature.
These include mass that is not next to each other (gravity), difference in density, concentration, electric charge, pressure, temperature and so on.
When you have those differences,
stuff can happen. And when this stuff happens that difference gets smaller and smaller, until you reach equalibrium (of temperature, pressure, density and so on). As you may already noticed, these processes will go on into one direction, on their own. To turn them back, you need to put that energy back into them (pick the rock up, which will cost you energy).
When you get your mind around that, you discover term of
entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)
In other words, there is no process that can take place in magnetic field that will ever create energy on its own. You need something that will drive it. This is how you can, for example, generate electricity. But that is nowhere near
free as you put it. To do so, you must constantly put energy into it. So, in fact, you are merely using magnetic field to change one form of energy (mechanical) into other (electric). No energy was generated.
Magnetic field is merely... a field. If magnets were able to generate energy based on their ability to attract each other, you might as well just build something that uses gravitational field.