magnetically driven engines

[RickyMartini]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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 

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 

[milon]

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!

[mumblemumble]

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 ? 

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 

[milon]

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).

[Kegereneku]

When you violate the very fundamental laws of the universe, the puny human laws have no hold on you.

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!

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Nonmomentus Brain]

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?

[Kegereneku]

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.

[RickyMartini]

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.

[Wishmaster]

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.

[milon]

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. . 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. 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.)

[mumblemumble]

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...

[milon]

... ... 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.

[AngleWyrm]

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.