Curious device

[Screwdriver]

Well, Screwball, <blah blah>

...anything but answering the question.

I have looked back through my extraordinarily patient answers and the only actual insult I can find (other than yours) is I suggest you are some sort of "crackpot".

That's not an insult. It's a fact.

 

[Prajna]

I'm not overly concerned with friction. Many attempts at 'free energy' devices involve a great deal of minimizing friction in attempts to get them to work but really, if a machine really does produce energy then it should do it sufficiently to overcome a certain level of friction.

The suggestions wrt testing are useful. Thanks.

 

[Prajna]

...anything but answering the question.

I have looked back through my extraordinarily patient answers and the only actual insult I can find (other than yours) is I suggest you are some sort of "crackpot".

That's not an insult. It's a fact.

You and your 'facts', Screwup. I bet any diligent reader could spot a few more less-than-complementary statements in your 'contributions' to this thread. For a start, you have maligned my intelligence above. I don't know if you are at all intelligent and I hesitate to make an assessment but, for the record, I was a member of Mensa. Maybe duck out of the discussion if you have nothing intelligent to add.

 

[reb78]

I think two people on this thread ought to click the ignore button on each other.

Watching with interest, don't think it will work, good luck to make it work, but have nothing to add.

 

[Screwdriver]

You and your 'facts', Screwup. I bet any diligent reader could spot a few more less-than-complementary statements in your 'contributions' to this thread. For a start, you have maligned my intelligence above. I don't know if you are at all intelligent and I hesitate to make an assessment but, for the record, I was a member of Mensa. Maybe duck out of the discussion if you have nothing intelligent to add.

I have explained exactly where you are mistaken. I have given several examples to show why force is not the same as work. If you cannot grasp that simple concept then it does not matter one bit how good you claim to be at IQ tests. Oh and the "argument from authority" will not work with me, especially on that score.

I'm just waiting for you to try and explain how this perpetual motion machine would have worked if it wasn't for <insert gibberish here>.

I can't say for certain whether or not you're some sort of idiot, nor can I claim to know if my own scribbles are of any merit. What I can say for certain is that energy cannot be created. End of story.

All of the energy in this universe right now is all there is ever going to be. It started at the big bang and it's been downhill all the way since. Energy dissipates, entropy increases, perpetual motion machines are impossible...

 

[Guineafowl]

Yes, I think the bone of contention is that we can’t provide a work-through of how the forces transfer through the machine via magnetic fields.

Turns out, magnetic field force modelling is extremely complex, and anyone who’s done it won’t release those models for nothing. Fair enough. (But note that someone HAS done it - see the calculator I linked earlier).

However, that doesn’t matter. To prove this is an over-unity machine, Prajna only needs to measure power in/power out with a motor and generator/load respectively. What’s going on in the middle can remain a black box (unless he cheats and includes a ‘timing belt’ or ‘synchronising motor’ in the base ).

As I’ve said before, it will be very tricky, but theoretically possible, to get this to work as a transmission, but literally physically impossible to make it over 100% efficient.

The law of energy conservation, which has no exceptions, says it won’t work. Side-stepping this, and asking about magnetic fields won’t override that.

Over to @Prajna to prove us wrong.

 

[Prajna]

Over to @Prajna to prove us wrong.

Well, that's not my hope or ambition. I am curious to prove or disprove my hypothesis that the energy required to overcome induced eddy drag on the rotor could be less than the energy it is possible to extract from the magnets by switching the flux. The arguments against have been entirely based in generalities and I have not seen anybody offer a specific objection to my hypothesis that is based on eddy drag calculations and until I do I will stubbornly (I am a Capricorn!) stick to insisting on experiment and measurement to prove or disprove it. Appeal to the laws of thermodynamics is still appeal to authority regardless of the fact that the thermodynamic rules are considered law rather than theory. It only takes one exception to disprove even a 'law'. I don't have anything hanging on the outcome; I won't be seriously deflated if it turns out that whatever the power of the magnets they will always be matched by the eddy current drag they induce (indeed, it makes sense, given energy balances in other areas of physics, that that would be the case.) Just I have an intuition, abetted by the fact that there are a number of ways to mitigate eddy current losses, that it might be possible that eddy current drag could possibly turn out to be less than the attraction/repulsion energy of the magnets.

Having said that, I will do my best to prove you all wrong.

 

[Guineafowl]

(I am a Capricorn!)

Aaarrgghh!

 

[Screwdriver]

Yes, I think the bone of contention is that we can’t provide a work-through of how the forces transfer through the machine via magnetic fields.

Turns out, magnetic field force modelling is extremely complex, and anyone who’s done it won’t release those models for nothing. Fair enough. (But note that someone HAS done it - see the calculator I linked earlier).

However, that doesn’t matter. To prove this is an over-unity machine, Prajna only needs to measure power in/power out with a motor and generator/load respectively. What’s going on in the middle can remain a black box (unless he cheats and includes a ‘timing belt’ or ‘synchronising motor’ in the base ).

As I’ve said before, it will be very tricky, but theoretically possible, to get this to work as a transmission, but literally physically impossible to make it over 100% efficient.

The law of energy conservation, which has no exceptions, says it won’t work. Side-stepping this, and asking about magnetic fields won’t override that.

Over to @Prajna to prove us wrong.

Indeed. Don't hold your breath...

Magnetic clutches and even magnetic gearboxes are commonplace these days.

The complexity of a magnetic field is a moot point. It is still merely a field and since there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole, each and every line of flux (a diagram showing how flux density varies) must return to its origin. The result being as much flux exits the field as must return to where it came from and as such the net flux through any surface must be zero.

Things change when you introduce AN EXTERNAL FORCE and expend energy by moving an object through a magnetic field. No additional energy is created (entropy 101) but energy can be expended to do work.

Chemical energy can be expended during its decomposition to create a charge which moves electrons to transfer energy from one form to another; light, heat, motion etc. While magnetism is a very useful medium for the redistribution of energy, it does not and can not create any more energy than is introduced into a closed system. It is more like a transport mechanism in that regard and it took the genius of Maxwell to realise that electricity and magnetism were (and are) a different facet of the same thing.

Permanent magnets are a constant source of amazement because you can feel the force. According to Feynman et. al. literally by the exchange of virtual photons. However, as I have tried and failed many times to explain, the force you feel when pushing like poles together is the EXTERNAL FORCE you yourself are applying. Exactly like pushing and pulling on a stick or, perhaps a more pertinent example, banging your head against a wall....

 

[prepman]

I'm not overly concerned with friction. Many attempts at 'free energy' devices involve a great deal of minimizing friction in attempts to get them to work but really, if a machine really does produce energy then it should do it sufficiently to overcome a certain level of friction.

The suggestions wrt testing are useful. Thanks.

That's fusion reaction is or was until recently.....

 

[Prajna]

Indeed. Don't hold your breath...

Magnetic clutches and even magnetic gearboxes are commonplace these days.

The complexity of a magnetic field is a moot point. It is still merely a field and since there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole, each and every line of flux (a diagram showing how flux density varies) must return to its origin. The result being as much flux exits the field as must return to where it came from and as such the net flux through any surface must be zero.

Things change when you introduce AN EXTERNAL FORCE and expend energy by moving an object through a magnetic field. No additional energy is created (entropy 101) but energy can be expended to do work.

Chemical energy can be expended during its decomposition to create a charge which moves electrons to transfer energy from one form to another; light, heat, motion etc. While magnetism is a very useful medium for the redistribution of energy, it does not and can not create any more energy than is introduced into a closed system. It is more like a transport mechanism in that regard and it took the genius of Maxwell to realise that electricity and magnetism were (and are) a different facet of the same thing.

Permanent magnets are a constant source of amazement because you can feel the force. According to Feynman et. al. literally by the exchange of virtual photons. However, as I have tried and failed many times to explain, the force you feel when pushing like poles together is the EXTERNAL FORCE you yourself are applying. Exactly like pushing and pulling on a stick or, perhaps a more pertinent example, banging your head against a wall....

AI thinks you are wrong:

Virtual magnetic monopole​

A virtual magnetic monopole is a hypothetical particle that behaves like a magnetic monopole, but it is not a fundamental particle. Instead, it is a collective phenomenon that arises from the interactions of many particles, such as electrons, in a condensed matter system. In other words, a virtual magnetic monopole is an emergent property that appears when a group of particles behaves like a single magnetic monopole.
How does it work?
In a condensed matter system, such as a solid or a liquid, the spins of individual particles, like electrons, can align to form patterns that give rise to magnetic behavior. When these patterns are complex enough, they can create a “magnetic monopole” that behaves like a single magnetic charge. This is different from a fundamental magnetic monopole, which is a hypothetical particle that has a single magnetic pole (north or south) and is not composed of other particles.
Examples of Virtual Magnetic Monopoles
Researchers have observed virtual magnetic monopoles in various condensed matter systems, including:

1. Hematite: A study published in Nature Materials found that hematite, an iron-oxide compound, exhibits emergent magnetic monopole behavior. The researchers observed that the spins of electrons in the material align to form patterns that behave like magnetic monopoles.
2. Antiferromagnets: In some antiferromagnetic materials, the spins of electrons can align to form patterns that give rise to magnetic monopole behavior.

Properties of Virtual Magnetic Monopoles
Virtual magnetic monopoles have some unique properties, including:

1. Magnetic charge: They behave like magnetic monopoles, with a net north or south magnetic charge.
2. Collective behavior: They are not fundamental particles, but rather emerge from the interactions of many particles.
3. Stability: They can be stable for a certain period, but may not be stable over long periods of time.

Implications and Potential Applications
The discovery of virtual magnetic monopoles has significant implications for our understanding of magnetic behavior and has potential applications in various fields, including:

1. Data storage: Virtual magnetic monopoles could be used to develop new data storage technologies, such as racetrack memory.
2. Quantum computing: They could be used to create new quantum computing devices that exploit the unique properties of magnetic monopoles.
3. Condensed matter physics: The study of virtual magnetic monopoles can provide insights into the behavior of complex systems and the emergence of new phenomena.

In summary, virtual magnetic monopoles are collective phenomena that arise from the interactions of many particles in condensed matter systems. They behave like magnetic monopoles, but are not fundamental particles. Their discovery has significant implications for our understanding of magnetic behavior and has potential applications in various fields.

--------

Leeches and blood letting used to be considered efficacious for a number of ailments.

 

[prepman]

Well, that's not my hope or ambition. I am curious to prove or disprove my hypothesis that the energy required to overcome induced eddy drag on the rotor could be less than the energy it is possible to extract from the magnets by switching the flux. The arguments against have been entirely based in generalities and I have not seen anybody offer a specific objection to my hypothesis that is based on eddy drag calculations and until I do I will stubbornly (I am a Capricorn!) stick to insisting on experiment and measurement to prove or disprove it. Appeal to the laws of thermodynamics is still appeal to authority regardless of the fact that the thermodynamic rules are considered law rather than theory. It only takes one exception to disprove even a 'law'. I don't have anything hanging on the outcome; I won't be seriously deflated if it turns out that whatever the power of the magnets they will always be matched by the eddy current drag they induce (indeed, it makes sense, given energy balances in other areas of physics, that that would be the case.) Just I have an intuition, abetted by the fact that there are a number of ways to mitigate eddy current losses, that it might be possible that eddy current drag could possibly turn out to be less than the attraction/repulsion energy of the magnets.

Having said that, I will do my best to prove you all wrong.

Reminds me of my youth when challenging an electronics teacher to prove that dc current could not flow through a capacitor.....If the frequency was longer than your lifetime would it be dc to you? Yes!.... I was that irritating little sod

 

[Screwdriver]

AI thinks you are wrong:

That is not what it says at all. In fact the entire article you link to agrees (with me) that there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole.

You should never extrapolate theoretical behaviours which are given classical metaphorical behaviours. Electrons do not spin, virtual photons do not exist. These are merely model behaviours and nomenclature used while making calculations in order to predict experimental outcomes.

The linked article merely suggests that a group of particles may deliver a result as if an experiment was conducted the in the presence of a magnetic monopole.

Never say never but these exotic new states of matter only exist for the briefest moments under the most extreme environments. Solid, liquid, gas is good enough for me to get by, I draw the line at plasma. Far as I am concerned, a superfluid is something I like to enjoy on a hot summer day at the local pub.

Anyway, I thought I was supposed to be the pedant here?

 

[Guineafowl]

I can sort of see why these discussions are banned on Physics Forums. Both sides end up banging their heads against a wall.

They have quite a long article about it. This quote sums it up quite well:

So the best we can do is to leave them with this: If the laws of physics are wrong, then we can’t help you analyze the device, since the laws of physics are all we know to apply. “So you’re on your own; your only real options are to invent the science yourself or better yet build a working prototype. Neither of which we can help you with here. Good luck and goodbye.”

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/why-we-dont-discuss-perpetual-motion-machines-pmm/

 

[Dave-sparks]

Reminds me of my youth when challenging an electronics teacher to prove that dc current could not flow through a capacitor.....If the frequency was longer than your lifetime would it be dc to you? Yes!.... I was that irritating little sod

If you apply enough DC voltage then current will eventually flow through the capacitor, it just won't be much use as a capacitor any more

 

[voipio]

... the force you feel when pushing like poles together is the EXTERNAL FORCE you yourself are applying. Exactly like pushing and pulling on a stick ...

The force of repulsion felt between two like magnetic poles is not exactly like pushing and pulling a stick. It is more like pushing a spring. When a spring is compressed, and held at a fixed point, it can be considered to have stored energy, and capable of releasing that stored energy, when the mechanism to which it is attached is released and is able to move freely.

I get the various arguments why this "thing" shouldn't work. I even took the trouble to perform a simple test, fully expecting the results to support the idea that this would be a mechanism that moved in interesting ways, when given a little initial impetus, but would eventually come to a stop.

The tantalising thing about the device that Prajna described is that, when I performed that simple test, many weeks ago, with two magnets and a magnetic field commutating device moved in between the poles, the repulsive force between the like magnetic poles collapsed, without my being able to sense any appreciable force on the commutator itself. Whilst there did seem to have been some light force involved in moving the commutator, it appeared to me to be much less than the repulsive force between the magnets, before the commutator was put between the magnets.

I came into the discussion with an open mind, and remain so. The performance of the test was carried out in an unbiased, "what will be, will be," manner. A well constructed working model, with a sufficiently sturdy, and as near as practicably frictionless mechanism, should help answer the question one way or the other.

 

[Morrisman]

Well, that's not my hope or ambition. I am curious to prove or disprove my hypothesis that the energy required to overcome induced eddy drag on the rotor could be less than the energy it is possible to extract from the magnets by switching the flux. The arguments against have been entirely based in generalities and I have not seen anybody offer a specific objection to my hypothesis that is based on eddy drag calculations and until I do I will stubbornly (I am a Capricorn!) stick to insisting on experiment and measurement to prove or disprove it. Appeal to the laws of thermodynamics is still appeal to authority regardless of the fact that the thermodynamic rules are considered law rather than theory. It only takes one exception to disprove even a 'law'. I don't have anything hanging on the outcome; I won't be seriously deflated if it turns out that whatever the power of the magnets they will always be matched by the eddy current drag they induce (indeed, it makes sense, given energy balances in other areas of physics, that that would be the case.) Just I have an intuition, abetted by the fact that there are a number of ways to mitigate eddy current losses, that it might be possible that eddy current drag could possibly turn out to be less than the attraction/repulsion energy of the magnets.

Having said that, I will do my best to prove you all wrong.

You’re on the cusp of changing the way the world operates, forever.
Free energy, limitless, when your gadget is scaled up.

Can I buy some shares in it before the market rush starts?

 

[Screwdriver]

The force of repulsion felt between two like magnetic poles is not exactly like pushing and pulling a stick. It is more like pushing a spring.

True but I would never claim it was exactly alike. The similarity is the feeling you get when you apply the external force. It really does feel like it is pushing back which of course, it really is. But ask yourself what is doing work in the strict physical sciences definition of the term. It's you.

Ok so I may need to expand on my comment regarding magnetic monopoles which got diverted. EVERY magnet has a N+S pole, right down to the fundamental particle level. When they are aligned as in a permanent magnet, a magnetic field ariseswhich "links" the N+S poles via a circuitous rout, typically in free space, like the spider thing you see when you spinkle iron filings etc.

So far so good. But what exactly is that field? Well it is merely a theoretical map or diagram of where you can expect the magnetic flux to be at a particular value. It's not really doing anything until you interact with it, by moving a lump of iron through it etc. But if a magnet is sitting there, in free space, the flux lines go in one end and exactly the same level MUST reappear at the other. The net flux for that enclosed system is therefore zero.

I am no expert in this area by a long stretch but I assume there must have been a "cost" in the production of a permanent magnet in the first place. Some external force applied to say a lump of iron to "magnetise" it in the first place, line up all the particles etc. Therefore I conclude it should be possible to extract that energy as the magnet decays. Of course, that is not the "free energy" the OP is hoping for. Everything contains energy, everything IS energy so you can extract it but you cannot create it.

All the energy there ever will be is already here. Created in the Big Bang due to spectacularly unusual low entropy and that's been decaying, spreading out, dissipating into high entropy states and will continue to do so until the heat death of the universe. If you want to reverse the increase of entropy in any closed system, you might just as well build a time machine because the two features of this instance of universe are inextricably linked.

No such thing as a free lunch so when your magnet effectively demagnetises, you need to introduce more energy into that closed system to remagnetise it. A similar situation must exist for rare earth type permanent magnets and I do know that without a "keeper" your typical horseshoe, Acme cartoon magnet will literally fade back to inert iron, sooner rather than later unless you close the loop with an iron keeper.

 

[prepman]

If you apply enough DC voltage then current will eventually flow through the capacitor, it just won't be much use as a capacitor any more

It is a hypothetical situation....micro-volt increments into 5 million Terafarad 47 billion working volt capacitor made out of kryptonite?

 

[Screwdriver]

The tantalising thing about the device that Prajna described is that, when I performed that simple test, many weeks ago, with two magnets and a magnetic field commutating device moved in between the poles, the repulsive force between the like magnetic poles collapsed, without my being able to sense any appreciable force on the commutator itself. Whilst there did seem to have been some light force involved in moving the commutator, it appeared to me to be much less than the repulsive force between the magnets, before the commutator was put between the magnets.

Well you're building a little electric motor. Merely by moving a magnetic conductor in a magnetic field you are disturbing the lines of magnetic flux and when that happens, you generate a current and a physical force. Imagine you hold your hand up like a spaz (no offence @Prajna ), first finger field, second finger current thumb motion.

Fleming's left-hand rule for motors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's electronic engineering 101.

Yes weird stuff happens, yes the calculations are horrendous but no, there's no such thing as free energy.