magnetically driven engines

[AngleWyrm]

Just get some fridge magnet and try to build something that turn forever without energy input. 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. There is no reason to just try it because the it being described does not match the laws of our universe.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Kegereneku]

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

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.

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

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

[AngleWyrm]

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 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.

[RickyMartini]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Kegereneku]

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

[mumblemumble]

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.

[dburgdorf]

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.

[AngleWyrm]

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, 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.

[Kegereneku]

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.

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 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

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.

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

[deshara218]

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

[mumblemumble]

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?

[Quazimojojojo]

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.

[milon]

@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?