magnetically driven engines

[milon]

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".

[Nonmomentus Brain]

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.

[milon]

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?)

[mumblemumble]

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.

[milon]

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.
What I wrote was a very brief summary only.

[forestfey]

*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*

[Kegereneku]

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.

[Fluffy (l2032)]

Ohhh, then we could have really long wars...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_War_(novel)

[Thyme]

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 mumble².

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Fluffy (l2032)]

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.

[mumblemumble]

"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.

[Fluffy (l2032)]

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.

[Nonmomentus Brain]

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.

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.

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 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.

I 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.)

[Kegereneku]

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