Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Why did I think of that?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Broken Symmetry and Perpetual Motion

 Some Theory, and an Experiment
  (+2, -6)
(+2, -6) 		  [vote for,
against]

Abstract (added Dec 2, 2013)
While "energy conservation" is fundamental in Physics, it is also a "local" not "global" aspect of General Relativity, which in turn still needs to be meshed with Quantum Mechanics. QM offers some counter-intuitive notions such as "zero-point motion" and "broken symmetry", which might lead to a "local" loophole in energy- conservation. The following descriptions lead to a device that possesses global symmetry, but local asymmetry, which might as a result yield an unbalanced Force --a necessity if any "work" is to be accomplished by the device.

Main Text
I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to be fascinating. There are known examples, such as the ability for electrons to perpetually orbit an atomic nucleus. There is even a macroscopic example in terms of electric current flowing in a loop of superconducting wire. If the wire loop was located on Pluto it would be superconducting all the time, no cooling required, and the electric current would flow perpetually.

It happens that Perpetual Motion Machines have been described as belonging to at least two different categories. The ones mentioned above are "perpetual motion machines of the second class" --they can run forever without requiring any energy input, but, also, you can't extract energy from them without eventually making them stop working. A "perpetual motion machine of the first class" is the type of device that, if it existed, would run forever **and** generate useful power.

In general, first-class PMMs are supposed to be impossible. There is a "Law of Conservation of Energy" which would have to be violated, in order for that kind of device to exist. In Theory, however, specifically General Relativity Theory, the energy-conservation Law is actually only a "local" phenomenon, where "local" is a significant chunk of Space-Time (larger than, say, our "Local Group" of galaxies). As far as the Universe-as-a- whole is concerned, General Relativity indicates that energy-conservation does not necessarily apply. This might make sense when you think about the Big Bang, and the origin of the entire universe from nothingness.

In Theory, then, you could build a first-class PMM if you built it on the scale of the whole Universe. That's not so useful for us over here in this tiny corner occupied by Planet Earth, of course.

However! General Relativity is known to be an incomplete theory, since it still needs to be meshed with Quantum Mechanics. It is not impossible that after such meshing is accomplished, some "local-sized" loopholes might be discovered in the energy-conservation law. Think again about the Big Bang, and the tiny region where it **started**. CAUTION! It might not be clever of anyone on Earth to find out how, and then to try, to duplicate a Big Bang, in the process of attempting to build a perpetual motion machine....

Anyway, let us consider ourselves to be encouraged to pursue the dream of building a first-class perpetual motion machine. I've encountered some intriguing theoretical work that appears worthy of further investigation. So, here we go....

See the first link. It describes a device --a "magnet motor"-- that is claimed to be a first-class PMM. More, it describes some of the theoretical background for it. Perhaps more interesting is the description of how the inventor took a preliminary device to the U.S. Patent Office, and wowed 'em. See, the Patent Office requires a working model to be presented, for any claimed perpetual motion machine. Since this inventor was awarded a patent, it logically follows that his magnet motor is impressive, if perhaps not actually a first-class PMM. I'll get to some of the details of that last thing in a bit.

At the moment I want to talk about the theoretical background. Eventually I'll present an experiment that is enough different, from the magnet motor, that it qualifies as original enough for the HalfBakery.

When I read about the theoretical background for the magnet motor, I almost busted out laughing. If you look at that linked page you will find the word "monopole" used a number of times, along with something known as "Coulomb's Law". It happens that "magnetic monopoles" are a theoretical thing in Physics, not yet known to exist (but so far as we know, allowed to exist; see the "making monopoles" link). I don't have any objection to the way the topic of monopoles is used in the magnet- motor theory, but the funny thing is that Coulomb's Law was originally devised to explain electrostatic forces, not magnetic forces. And with respect to electrostatics, monocharges **DO** exist (as electrons and protons).

So it seems to me that the theoretical explanations could have been simplified by talking about known stuff (electric monocharges) instead of theoretical stuff (magnetic monopoles). Therefore I will now proceed to do that, referencing the triple-sketch at the third link.

Part (A) of the sketch shows a positively charged plate in black, a negatively charged ball in blue, a vertical green line showing that the plate is not infinite in extent, and some brown arrows to indicate some force-vectors. The ball is attracted toward the center of the plate more than it is attracted directly toward the plate. Note that if the ball was located above the center of the plate, there would be force-vectors on both sides of the ball; "symmetry" would exist, and the net force vector would be directly toward the plate. But since the ball is not starting near the center of the plate, we have a "broken symmetry".

If you were wondering why "Broken Symmetry" was in the title of this Idea, now you know. Some rather important things in Physics appear to be directly the result of one- or-another broken symmetry. **PERHAPS** even a loophole in the energy-conservation Law might be found, through a broken symmetry. So, let us continue with the explanations....

Part (B) of the sketch shows a positively charged plate in black, a positively charged ball in blue, a vertical green line showing that the plate is not infinite in extent, and some brown arrows to indicate some force-vectors. The ball is repelled from the center of the plate more than it is repelled directly away from the plate. Note that if the ball was located above the center of the plate, there would be force-vectors on both sides of the ball; symmetry would exist, and the net force vector would be directly away from the plate. But since the ball is not starting near the center of the plate, we have another broken symmetry.

Part (C) of the sketch shows a "dipole", a pair of charged balls held together by a red container. This positively charged plate can be infinite in extent, which means that the double-ball can always be thought of as being located at the center of the plate. However, we still have a special kind of broken symmetry, which needs to be examined in detail.

First, though, let's note that the most logical net effect of the charged plate on the double-ball, as initially portrayed in (C), is that the double-ball should twist/rotate until the negative side is close to the plate, and the positive side is away from the plate. In these explanations/descriptions we will assume that some sort of physical hardware is present that prevents that twisting/rotating from happening.

Next, suppose we step **way**back** from this close-up view of the double-ball, and think of it as being a mere point on an infinite charged plate. In that case the the double-ball is equivalent to an electrically neutral object --which has symmetry, and as a result will not experience any net force of any sort.

However, as indicated two paragraphs ago, when we look at the double-ball close-up, there certainly exists a twisting force, relative to the portrayed initial position..That clearly means that some sort of broken symmetry exists, despite various aspects of Part (C) that appear to be balanced.

That particular broken symmetry is why the vertical green line was included in Part (C). It is now time for a major --yet very relevant-- topic change.

See the "muon catalyzed fusion" link. It's been studied since the late 1950s, but is not believed to be economical in terms of "energy profit" as a technique for operating a controlled nuclear fusion power plant. So far it takes more energy to make a muon than you get from the fusions the muon can catalyze, before the muon ceases to exist. Anyway, the phenomenon of muon- catalyzed fusion is real, and this is how it works (simplified):

A muon is very similar to an electron, except it is about 200 times more massive than an electron. When it orbits a proton (hydrogen nucleus), it does so 200 times closer than an electron would. Thus this "muonic hydrogen atom" is very small, compared to an ordinary hydrogen atom. From a "distance" it can look like a neutral particle, and that is how it can penetrate an ordinary hydrogen atom's repulsive electron shell, and approach the charged nucleus. (An alternate explanation is, the ordinary atom's electron cloud is "thin", while the muonic atom is very dense, which therefore lets it simply barge right through, instead of being repelled.)

Inside the electron shell, the muon of the invading muonic atom takes up a modified orbit, roughly as described in the "Covalent Bonds" link, simply because the muon is now attracted to both the nucleus it orbits and the nucleus of the invaded atom. So, the positive charge of the hydrogen nucleus is prevented from "seeing" and thus repelling the positive charge of the nucleus of the approaching muonic atom. Instead, the attraction for the muon actually drags the muonic atom closer to the nucleus of the invaded atom, until it gets within the very limited range of the Strong Nuclear Force --and **that** force causes the two hydrogen nuclei (both should actually be of the deuterium variety) nuclei to fuse together.

Now, back to the double-ball in Part (C) of the sketch, which we can liken to that invading muonic atom. The positive ball can't "see" the infinitude of the plate on the side where the negative ball is located. That means it can't be repelled by that side of the infinite plate --even though it can still be repelled by "its own" side of the infinite plate. Meanwhile, the up-close-and-personal positive ball similarly/also shields the negative ball from "seeing" half the infinite plate. The logical net result is that the total forces, between the plate and the double- ball, are unbalanced, as portrayed by **all** the brown vector lines in the sketch --which is exactly what we should expect if an appropriate symmetry has been broken.

In the phrase "perpetual motion machine" the key word is "motion", and for any motion to begin, an object needs to experience some sort of unbalanced force. It is now time to go back to discussing the magnet motor, after first noting that the rules of ElectroMagnetism tell us that if something works for an electrostatic gadget, some variant of it should be workable for a magnetic gadget. Recall that the inventor took a demonstration device to the U.S. Patent Office. What he demonstrated was that, using permanent magnets only, an unbalanced force could be created that would significantly accelerate a "toy vehicle" equivalent to the "double-ball" described above --and that toy would leave the accelerator while retaining significant velocity. It would **not** be slowing down as it left the accelerator.

And it is perfectly logical that if such an accelerator was built in the form of a ring, the toy vehicle could be accelerated to some maximum speed and, **apparently**, should roll through the loop endlessly. And so the inventor was awarded a patent for a perpetual motion machine!

Therefore the preceding Theory appears to reach a valid conclusion, regarding a broken symmetry and unbalanced forces. The only remaining Question is, "If those unbalanced forces actually exist and can cause something to move, then where does the energy-of- motion come from?"

Well, for the magnetic motor, I have seen a **claim**, purported to have been made by someone who built one, that the motor can run for a few days, and then it stops because at least some of the "permanent" magnets are no longer magnetized. The "energy of magnetization" was converted into energy-of-motion.

That would seem to be a reasonable explanation. Permanent magnets require atoms that happen to have an unbalanced configuration of electrons. That configuration is always associated with a particular "orientation" --the atom itself has a magnetic field. However, the normal situation in the average solid substance is for atomic orientations to be randomized, and so it takes energy to align them, such that a macroscopic object exhibits an overall magnetic field. It can therefore make sense, that if the energy of magnetization could somehow be removed efficiently, and converted into some other form, then a permanent magnet would become demagnetized.

However! I am now going to present you with a conundrum! Remember that we used electrostatics, not magnetics, to describe some of the theory behind the motor's operation. In the realm of electrostatics, there is something known as an "electret" (see link). An electret has a permanent static-electric charge, similar to a permanent magnet. However, an electret can be a true "monocharge", while any ordinary magnet is always a dipole. We can make two electrets, one positive and one negative, by moving a bunch of electrons from one to the other, before sealing them to prevent leaks.

The difference between a pair of electrets and a permanent magnet is important, because the permanent magnet exists as a result of microscopic phenomenon within its structure, while the electrets exist because of a transfer of electric charges across a macroscopic distance. So, I'm saying that if we build an electrostatic version of the magnet motor, the only way the electrets can become discharged is by electrons making huge macroscopic jumps between the electrets (while as previously noted, a magnet can become demagnetized as a result of simple internal reorientations of atoms).

In Theory, we can put enough insulation on the electrets to totally prevent any electrons from jumping from one to another, discharging them. Which brings us to a variant of the previous Question, "If we can build an electrostatic version of the magnet motor, that truly exhibits unbalanced forces, then where will its energy- of-motion come from?"

I have no idea.

I also don't really care right now. Because now is the time to describe the Experiment, the design for building the electrostatic equivalent of the magnet motor. See the link.

Let's now focus on the "positively charged disk" only. The big red circle is the disk, of course. It might be 20 centimeters in diameter. The black spot in the center is an axle. The larger white spot is the place where we would put an "axle bearing". It also indicates that the disk is more like a "washer" (the kind usually associated with nuts and bolts) than a disk --but ordinary washers are never 20cm wide-- and in fact the central white region probably should be larger than shown (I'll explain why shortly).

The big yellow cross is attached to the axle, and would rotate with the axle. The disk is stationary. The pairs of blue balls are electrets, and their electric charges are indicated by "plus" and "minus" signs around the red disk. The balls are attached to the ends of the yellow cross, and therefore will move as the cross rotates. While not shown in the sketch, there is a modest gap between the balls and the big red disk. All the balls, and the big disk, must be electrets.

If we look at any of the four double-balls in the sketch, then the Theory of Operation indicates that each positively charged ball should be repelled by the adjacent expanse of the disk, while each negatively charged ball should be attracted to the adjacent expanse of the disk. The attachment to the ends of the yellow cross should be strong enough to prevent the balls from trying to twist, so that the negative ball moves closer to the disk, and the positive ball moves farther from it. Instead, the whole cross should therefore rotate in the counterclockwise direction. This leads us to the reason why the central white hole of the disk should probably be larger than shown. The central expanse of the disk is not relevant to the Theory of Operation (and if there is any way its presence might actually interfere, then that's all the more reason to not have it).

The "negatively charged disk" sketch is very similar, except that its cross should rotate clockwise. The green line in the center of the sketch is a "fold line" -- if you printed out the sketch, and folded the paper on that line (so the disks are "inside" the fold), then you can imagine the two axles joining, such that the disks resemble wheels on one axle. Both yellow crosses will rotate in the same direction. Note that we will want a significant length of axle between the two disks, to ensure that each ball pays most of its electrostatic "attention" to the disk nearest it, as portrayed in the separate parts of the sketch.

The **total** electric charge of this motor can be Zero. Each electret can be exactly balanced by another equivalent electret. Thus, building this motor will not have any side-effect with respect to "dumping" excess electric charges into the Environment. However, since we do indeed have Broken Symmetry at the up-close- and-personal point of view, we **might** also have Perpetual Motion.

To be determined, of course!

In closing there are a couple of things to note. First, our modern technology doesn't do very much with electrostatics, compared to what we do with magnetics, simply because we can make stronger magnetic forces than we can make electrostatic forces. Therefore, do not expect this to be any sort of "very powerful" motor. All that matters, as far as this Experiment is concerned, is that it have forces strong enough to cause the yellow crosses to rotate.

Second, as previously noted, if the electret motor works at all, it should not become depleted by any ordinary means. Therefore, if the motor runs for a few days and then stops, because the electrets are discharged, we might have an extremely worthwhile Scientific Mystery to solve: "How **did** the electrons jump those macroscopic distances, between the electrets?"

Well, first it has to work, of course. Then, we'll see.

—Vernon, Mar 13 2012

Magnetic Motor http://www.rexresea...ohnson/1johnson.htm
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]

Making Monopoles Making_20Monopoles
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]

Triple Sketch http://www.nemitz.n...n/UnSymmeCharge.png
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]

Muon-Catalyzed Fusion http://en.wikipedia...on-catalyzed_fusion
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]

Electron Orbits and Covalent Bonds http://www.madsci.o...958417267.Ch.r.html
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]

Electrets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]

Proposed Electrostatic PMM http://www.nemitz.n...non/EstaticPPM1.png
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]

Shapes of Orbitals http://library.thin...uctures/shapes.html
They're not all round. [Wrongfellow, Mar 13 2012]

An interesting magnet motor video http://www.youtube....watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE
Enjoy! [Vernon, Nov 27 2013]

No Differential Needed, thanks to ElectroMagnetic Action and Reaction http://books.google...v=onepage&q&f=false
As mentioned in an annotation. In the referring case we would be expecting Action and Reaction between a cross and a disk, of the electrostatic device described in the main text. [Vernon, Nov 28 2013]

Ben Franklin's Electric Motor http://www.ieeeghn....in's_Electric_Motor
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 28 2013]

Gravity equivalent http://i43.tinypic.com/2rqyeki.png
[pocmloc, Dec 01 2013]

Moon's orbit around Sun http://en.wikipedia...i/Orbit_of_the_Moon
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Dec 02 2013]

"Field" lines http://en.wikipedia...rn#Rotated_patterns
The circular-ish image on the right is relevant to an annotation here. Think of the phrase "interference pattern". [Vernon, Dec 03 2013]

XKCD http://xkcd.com/808/
The Economic Argument [MechE, Dec 05 2013]

Hare-Brained Scheme Recording Office Hare-Brained_20Sche...0Recording_20Office
Because it is better to be able to say "It was tried and didn't work" than to say "It can't work!" without ever trying it. [Vernon, Dec 05 2013]

Selling Free Energy Selling_20Free_20Energy
Another Economic Argument [Vernon, Dec 05 2013]

[link]






       Instead of "Some Theory, and an Experiment" how about a "Summary".
—FlyingToaster, Mar 13 2012
   

       // I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to be fascinating //   

       It would seem that most of the human race shares your fascination with complete fiction. In fact, I'm banking my career on it.   

       Can we get a VU count, please?
—Alterother, Mar 13 2012
   

       Hm... a VU is approximately 4.3 screensworth of text, correct? At what type size and screen resolution?   

       Also, do links count? If they do, I've got about 7.8 screensworth at 1680 x 1050 and what I estimate to be 16 px/line.   

       At least for my monitor, I estimate approximately 1.81 VU.
—Hive_Mind, Mar 13 2012
   

       Hey, at least it's got paragraph breaks, we're off to a great start.
—normzone, Mar 13 2012
   

       I've got ten PgDn's on a laptop: that's about what... 6.2VU's... probly not the record but geez.   

       I wonder what the efficiency of a magnet "battery" * would be, ie: if it takes <x>J to make a magnet, and you have a motor powered by magnetism, how much energy could you get out of it before the magnet is depleted.   

       * note double-quotes in this case signifying I can't be arsed trying to figure out an appropriate word.
—FlyingToaster, Mar 13 2012
   

       //See, the Patent Office requires a working model to be presented, for any claimed perpetual motion machine.//   

       Only if it is specifically claimed as a PMM, which I suspect this wasn't. Also, I believe that requirement was put in place in the last decade or so, all of which his patents predate.   

       I'll read it in more detail when I get a chance, but roughly speaking he appears to be treating magnetic action as linear rather than field effect.
—MechE, Mar 13 2012
   

       [MechE], read the magazine article copied at the first link. Not only does the author attest to the operation of the inventor's models, it is specifically stated that the inventor had to demonstrate one of the models to a patent examiner. I would say that even if perpetual motion was not claimed outright in the patent application, the things that the patent application did claim made for an obvious conclusion, that needed demonstrable support.
—Vernon, Mar 13 2012
   

       Only 4 PgDns for me (15" monitor - viewing HB in /lr mode). As an aside, I do a lot of reading and analysis of big complex documents in my real job and I am always suspicious of any concept the author is unable to explain in one short, easy-to-read paragraph. I have a theory that only when you can explain something briefly and in simple language do you understand it properly yourself.
—hippo, Mar 13 2012
   

       //I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to be fascinating. There are known examples, such as the ability for electrons to perpetually orbit an atomic nucleus.//   

       Electrons don't "orbit" the nucleus. The word "orbit" is used for historical reasons only. There's no physical motion involved.
—Wrongfellow, Mar 13 2012
   

       [Wrongfellow], when Quantum Mechanics was devised to better-explain how electrons behaved in a vicinity of an atom, there was a problem that needed to be solved regarding the ordinary concept of "orbit". That problem involved the notion that the electric charge experiences acceleration as it goes around an atom, and as a result should constantly radiate photons --which it doesn't actually do. However the answer provided by QM didn't actually destroy all of the concept of "orbit" --as evidence, note that the word "orbital" nowadays is used to name the allowed pathway for an electron (well, one orbital can contain a pair of electrons). QM's answer brought two new factors into play, one of which is the fact that an electron has an associated wave-length. The circumference of an orbital, **around** an atom, is always some exact multiple of the wave-length. The other factor introduced by QM is the Uncertainty Principle, which, despite the orbital being unchanging unless some photonic (or other) energy arrives to disrupt it, allows the exact location of the electron, along the circumference of its orbital, to move about. Perpetually!
—Vernon, Mar 13 2012
   

       //note that the word "orbital" nowadays is used to name the allowed pathway for an electro//   

       Note that the word horsepower is used to describe engine power, despite the fact there isn't a horse anywhere near it. Electrons don't orbit, orbital just happens to be a convenient way to describe their behavior.
—MechE, Mar 13 2012
   

       //The circumference of an orbital, **around** an atom//   

       Only the s-orbital goes "around" the atom. The higher orbitals have more complex shapes that intersect the nucleus. (link)   

       If you think of the orbital as a "pathway" that the electron "travels along", then at some point it has to "pass through" the nucleus. How does it manage this trick?
—Wrongfellow, Mar 13 2012
   

       //If you think of the orbital as a "pathway" that the electron "travels along", then at some point it has to "pass through" the nucleus. How does it manage this trick?//   

       Equally, if you think of the nucleus as an orange, why are some things blue? The problem is that the orbital isn't a pathway, and the electron isn't a ball- bearing.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 13 2012
   

       //a VU is approximately 4.3 screensworth of text, correct? At what type size and screen resolution? //   

       It's effectively invariant w.r.t such factors, inasmuch as their contribution is small compared to the overall magnitude. It's a bit like saying "The set of integers divisible by N is infinity aleph1, regardless of N."   

       One day Vernon will write a _rational_ idea but, by definition, it will be only as infinitely large as his other ideas.   

       The problem will come when he writes a _real_ idea, which will be infinitely larger again by an infinite factor.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 13 2012
   

       ... and the universe exploded.
—pocmloc, Mar 13 2012
   

       [MechE], I'm sure you know that James Watt investigated the power of a horse (something like 33,000 foot-pounds per minute, if I recall right), and then used it as a measurement standard for comparing the power of steam engines. So, even if horses became extinct, the comparison to their power remains valid.   

       [Wrongfellow], I'm quite aware that an electron doesn't actually "travel along" the pathway of an orbital. The wave/particle duality lets it occupy the whole pathway in the form of a "standing wave". Even though it still also has an exact location, which jumps all over that pathway, thanks to Uncertainty. Which in turn partly answers the question of how it can ignore the nucleus, when the orbital has a complicated shape. (More of the answer is related to the fact that electrons and quarks are much smaller in size than we've been able to measure so far, so there is lots of room for them to miss each other, should the electron happen to jump into the middle of the nucleus.)   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], please specify where the main text of this Idea is irrational. Thanks in advance!
—Vernon, Mar 13 2012
   

       When we die of a heat death, I'm blaming Vernon for bringing it on faster.
—RayfordSteele, Mar 13 2012
   

       // Even though it still also has an exact location, which jumps all over that pathway, thanks to Uncertainty.//   

       I think, depending on what flavour of QM you subscribe, the electron does not have an exact location.   

       //please specify where the main text of this Idea is irrational.// My point was more related to the infinite length of your posts: the infinity of real numbers is larger than the infinity of rationals, which is the same size as the infinity of integers.   

       I am unable to point out the first instance of irrationality in your text, as I have not read it. I figured if there was a nugget in there, it would be capable of being distilled to a manageable size.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 13 2012
   

       It is perhaps unnecessary to provide an entire treatise on physics before you get to the idea.   

       Reading a conversationally-toned summation when it is this long is simply tedious.
—RayfordSteele, Mar 13 2012
   

       Yikes. It's gonna take three sessions to get through this.
While I appreciate the entire treatise on physics, I wouldn't get most of your ideas otherwise, (yeah like I *get* most of your ideas), a synoptic section for the folks already in-the-know might help some.		   

       [MB] To be fair, I'm pretty sure the first instance of irrationality (and the second depending on your interpretation) occur in the first two sentences.   

       //There are known examples//   

       //I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to be fascinating.//   

       And Vernon, before you jump on me, a type two is not a perpetual motion machine, as it is impossible to extract work from it or have it accomplish a task. It may be perfect energy storage, but so is a rock.   

       I'm willing to give credit for the finding of perpetual motion fascinating, as I find many such examples of human psychopathologies of interest.
—MechE, Mar 13 2012
   

       I only requested a VU because I do all my online business with an iPad and thus far MaxCo has yet to offer a VU Calculation app.   

       Despite my occasional viciously slanderous and wholly ineffective jabs, I enjoy reading [Vernon] 'bakes. They help to improve my attention span, seed ideas for my more surrealistic short prose, and typically last just about as long as a nice big bowl of oatmeal. Oddly enough, they seem to have a similar effect on my digestion.
—Alterother, Mar 13 2012
   

       Democritus: "All matter is composed of atoms."   

       Darwin: "Species evolve through the natural selection of beneficial random variants".   

       Dalai Llama: "Ommmm."   

       Einstein: "The invariance of the speed of light dictates that space and time are not immutable."   

       Keynes: "If Investment exceeds Saving, there will be inflation."   

       The Beatles: "All you need is love."   

       Vernon Nimitz:
—MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 13 2012
   

       [MechE], when I first learned about the different classifications of PMMs, the description of the second class may have differed a bit from the description that you encountered. I'm quite sure that the definition of that class does not include any need to be able to extract energy from such a device. Only the first-class type has that requirement. All the second class needs is some sort of motion that can perpetually occur. So, the superconducting loop counts, if it indeed has electrons moving through the loop. Also, a hunk of rock hurtling through empty intergalactic space, would count as a valid second-class perpetual motion machine. It would be a better example if it was also rotating.   

       Also, if you are going to talk about what I wrote, please don't quote it and then distort it. Finding perpetual motion to be fascinating is not the same thing as finding the concept of perpetual motion to be fascinating.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], you might have noticed by now that my Ideas here range all over. So, if you want to "sum me up", try a variation of the thing that would have applied to Pierre de Fermat (after getting the spelling of my last name right): "This space is too small to contain what he had to say."
—Vernon, Mar 13 2012
   

       I'm not debating the definition of perpetual motion, I'm debating the definition of machine. If it can't produce work or accomplish a task, it's not a machine.   

       My point on the rock is that a solid lump of rock doing absolutely nothing contains a certain amount of energy (e=mc^2). That does not make it a machine.   

       Likewise a super-condnducting loop or a mass in free space has energy, but it is not a machine.
—MechE, Mar 13 2012
   

       //you might have noticed by now that my Ideas here range all over.//   

       Whose don't? Regardless, it would be a courtesy to at least make an effort to be succinct, or include a concise summary. The fact that you can't do so suggests that you have not grasped your subject at all well.   

       It also suggests that there's a fundamental flaw in the idea, because the basic principle behind viable machines can generally be summarized easily. For instance, a steam engine ("Water expands when it boils, and the resulting pressure can push things"), a transformer ("an alternating current in one coil creates a magnetic field which can induce a current in another coil") or a fountain pen ("a slit in a nib holds ink by capillarity, but the greater capillary pull of the paper draws the ink out") can all have their underlying principles explained quite concisely. And they all work.   

       It's also nigh-on impossible to critique an idea that's so full of trees and lacking in wood.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 13 2012
   

       // ! General Relativity is known to be an incomplete theory, since it still needs to be meshed with Quantum Mechanics. //   

       Umm... not quite, [Vern]. Quantum Mechanics, which has split off into so many tangential disciplines that the term is almost loose enough to come apart completely, is (or at least started as) a grail quest for the 'unification theory', which would reconcile General and Special Relativity. Einstein himself rejected the bulk of quantum theory, and spent his later years trying to show all of the upstarts how wrong they were, resulting in many crumpled-up balls of paper and anguished cries of "Scheiße, scheiße, SCHEIßE!"   

       Many have misguidedly pinned their hopes for the completion of the Grand Unifying Theory on the imminent discovery of the Higgs Boson, which coincidentally is blue in color and may or may not exist, whilst others have attempted to stack as many as seven additional dimensions on top of the known four, a condition primarily attributed to prolonged chalk dust inhalation. There has also been a bit of claptrap about squiggly strings and a lot of noise explaining how they were wrong about the strings, and now a bunch of people in Switzerland are watching particles whizz around in a giant tube and smash into each other, and _that_ is Quantum Mechanics. They are, of course, completely wrong, because so far everyone has failed to notice that the cat jumped out of the box and buggered off about fifty years ago.   

       I hope that clarifies things for you.
—Alterother, Mar 14 2012
   

       [MechE], then look again at that first paragraph. Does it include the word "machine"? No! (nor have I just edited it) Your nitpicking there (and that of [Wrongfellow], about orbits) only distracts people from analyzing the main Idea of this overall posting.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], this particular Idea suggests that a Broken Symmetry might open the door to a Perpetual Motion Machine. The two notions are linked right there in the title. The problem I typically have is that, to be a succinct as you want, I'll be using nomenclature that most HalfBakers don't understand (and others will deliberately misinterpret or nitpick). It strikes me as being elitist. I'd rather be friendly to the wider group, and explain everything as best I can. Have you not noticed that, fairly often, I say something about how the knowledge-able can skip some of my explanatory paragraphs? Do I have to say that in **all** my longer posts?   

       [Alterother], I think you will find that most of the math in Quantum Mechanics is widely agreed-upon, and that most of the philosophical objections of Einstein and others have been overruled by experimental data. I also think most of the remaining arguments to which you refer are about how to **interpret** the math into nonmathematical terms. I will agree that with respects to attempts to Unify GR and QM, there is still plenty of room for arguments, but those are not really about QM, per se.
—Vernon, Mar 14 2012
   

       I know, [Vernon]. I've read many books on the subject, and I even understood most of them. I was just having a little fun after a long and trying day. I'm sorry if you took offense.
—Alterother, Mar 14 2012
   

       To be frank, there are entire paragraphs here which are unnecessary. Because you write as if you're having a conversation with yourself, it makes the entire idea read like the script of a three-act play, with lots of verbal acting thrown in to smooth it out. Unless I'm reading an actual conversation, reading too many of these kinds of things in an actual paper that is this long is simply annoying, as if someone actually wrote down 'and um...' over and over again.
—RayfordSteele, Mar 14 2012
   

       It has occurred to me to mention that there are two basically different types of electrets. One type consists of metal that is covered with insulator --the charged balls of the electrostatic motor, described in the main text, can be that type.   

       The other type of electret consists of layers of nonconducting material. When electrons are added in-between the layers, they are not free to move around like they would be able to do in the first type of electret. **This** type of electret is needed for the big red disks of the electrostatic motor. That's because, if electrons were free to move through the substance of the disk, it would be easier for them to do so than for the yellow crosses to rotate. And we want them to rotate!
—Vernon, Mar 15 2012
   

       Re: horsepower..   

       Watt determined that a pony could lift an average 220 lbf (0.98 kN) 100 ft (30 m) per minute over a four-hour working shift. Watt then judged a horse was 50% more powerful than a pony and thus arrived at the 33,000 ft·lbf/min figure. ...John Smeaton initially estimated that a horse could produce 22,916, John Desaguliers - 44,000, Tredgold - 27,500.   

       I personally wouldn`t go to town about using horsepower as a really accurate standard..
—not_morrison_rm, Nov 27 2013
   

       I think I understand this idea. My question is, what happens if you fix the cross and allow the disk to spin freely?
—pocmloc, Nov 27 2013
   

       [pocmloc], if the one type of motion can happen (crosses rotating), then the other type of motion should be able to happen (disks rotating). As evidence from the world of magnetics, see the "no differential" link.
—Vernon, Nov 28 2013
   

       Yes, agreed, if, but, how do the disks rotate? What force pulls on the disk?
—pocmloc, Nov 28 2013
   

       [pocmloc], the main text attempts to describe how an unbalanced Force might exist in-between the electrostatically-charged balls and the disk. So, if such a Force can really exist, then either the crosses or the disks should be able to move in response to that.   

       And my March 15, 2012 anno notes that the disk- electrets need to be a bit special, to prevent electrons from being free to individually move in response to that unbalanced Force. So, if locked into place within the body of a disk, any Force affecting the electrons can affect a whole disk.   

       Did you know that the very very first "electric motor" was invented by Benjamin Franklin, using electrostatics and not magnetics? (Well, MOSTLY using electrostatics. There were these big Leyden jars that became depleted in charge as the motor ran. Electrons had to move (not stay static) for that to happen. See link.
—Vernon, Nov 28 2013
   

       Where is the work being done? Ben Franklin’s wheel is lovely, but the key difference is that in his device, work is done by the charge moving from one place to the next. That work turns the wheel. I don't see any work being done in your device which means that it will sit in a static equilibrium.
—pocmloc, Nov 28 2013
   

       No.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 28 2013
   

       Do you mean "no, no" or "no, yes" or "yes, no"?
—pocmloc, Nov 28 2013
   

       Your sketch "UnSymmeCharge" shows the fatal flaw: Your "individual particle" sketches show the particles at the edge of a plate, resulting in a sideways component to the attraction (I suspect the vertical component will be much greater than the sideways, but I haven't thrown any maths at it yet).
But your final sketch, that leads to your device configuration, shows the plate extending both left and right, completely cancelling out any sideways force and rendering your device defunct.
—neutrinos_shadow, Nov 28 2013
   

       [pocmloc], since Work = Force multiplied by Distance, the most important thing is to have an unbalanced Force. The main text indicates that for a "magnet motor" the energy of motion might come from the magnets becoming demagnetized.   

       Then I went on to hopefully show how electrostatics might be able to yield an unbalanced force much like happens in a magnet motor, AND I left it as an Open Question, regarding exactly how the electric charges might be able to be discharged.   

       AT THIS TIME, the only thing that really needs further analysis is whether or not an unbalanced force can truly appear. Logically, if the charges cannot discharge, then it would be perfectly reasonable to expect all forces to be balanced, yielding no energy production. On the other hand, a Broken Symmetry is part of the descriptions of this Idea....   

       [neutrinos shadow], the reason the "individual particles" sketch shows them at the edge of a plate is directly related to the fact that the (A) sketch plus the (B) sketch equals the (C) sketch.   

       Consider the Negative charge in (A). Force-arrows are only shown on one side of the vertical green line because, on the other side of that line, there will be a Positive charge that cancels out the effects of the Negative charge. The Negative charge basically does not interact with the plate on the other side of the green line --which is why the plate wasn't shown there.   

       Similarly, in (B), the Positive charge only interacts with the plate on one side of the vertical green line, yielding the Force-arrows shown, but on the other side of that vertical line, the Negative charge is there to cancel out Positive charge's interaction with the plate on that side --so again there was no need to show that part of the plate in the sketch.   

       In (C), the MAJOR result is a twisting effect, of the two charged balls. If that twisting is prevented, however, then a lesser effect appears to remain, such that it seems reasonable to think that some horizontal motion of the balls should occur, across the plate.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], what did you think of the linked magnet-motor video?
—Vernon, Nov 29 2013
   

       //Negative charge basically does not interact with the plate on the other side//
Why not? Unless you have something vertical between the -ve and +ve charges to "block" the electric field (Not sure how you do that...?).
I think you've got the muon comparison backwards. With the muonic hydrogen, the "target" hydrogen sees only the mass of the particle, because the charges are so close together. In your model, this is equivalent to the PLATE not seeing the separate charges on the arm, not the other way around as you have presumed. Therefore, the charged plate would see a neutral particle, and you get NO EFFECT.
—neutrinos_shadow, Nov 29 2013
   

       //[MaxwellBuchanan], what did you think//   

       My main thoughts:   

       (1) The idea is too long to contain anything fundamental. If it did, it would be possible to shorten it, or at least to provide a meaningful abstract. There may well be an interesting point to discuss here but, if it's not possible to summarize it in 200 words, there probably isn't enough to justify investing more time.   

       (2) The words // linked magnet-motor video?// are a deterrent, since all the "magnet-motor video's" I've ever seen on YouTube are invariably either fraud or hooey.   

       (3) I prefer instead to concentrate on the concluding sentence of your post. Since they were written a year and 2/3rds ago, what has the answer turned out to be?
—MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 29 2013
   

       [neutrinos shadow], you need to know more about the muonic-atom situation. So, from a SIGNIFICANT distance, the muonic atom does look like a neutral particle. But up-close-and-personal, like when the muonic atom is near the nucleus of another atom, the Symmetry of Neutrality gets "broken", and this is how:   

       The SHAPE of the orbit of the muon around the muonic-atom-nucleus changes, because the muon is attracted to BOTH nuclei. While the original shape might be called "spherical", the new shape is more circular, and the "plane" of that circle is located in-between the two nuclei (but closer to its "own" nucleus). Think of a cowboy twirling his lasso in a vertical plane.   

       So, because the muon is now spending all its time in-between the two nuclei, that is why neither can detect (be repelled by) the other. Also, because the muon is about 1/18 the mass of a deuteron, it's attraction to the other nucleus can gently drag its own nucleus closer to that other nucleus....   

       So, in this Idea, we also have a Broken Symmetry, because the charged plate is so close to the pair of oppositely-charged balls.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], while I'm well aware that the video I linked might be faked, it is still "interesting". And things about the devices shown are "clear" enough that if you wanted to build one, you probably could.   

       I'm not in a position to AFFORD to build any such thing, though. Neither a magnet motor nor the electrostatic variety. The questions I've posed remain unanswered.
—Vernon, Nov 29 2013
   

       You could do the same with gravity. Get a bicycle wheel, mount it with its axle vertical. Place on the rims pairs of objects, a lead shot and a helium balloon side by side. The shot will be attracted to the earth's surface, the balloon repelled. Ergo, the wheel will spin at 100rpm. Use a rear wheel and make sure it's spinning is in the right direction and you can use the chain sprocket to extract useful energy. Retain the gears and you can adjust the energy takeoff to match the load.
—pocmloc, Nov 29 2013
   

       A helium balloon will gradually deflate. But it doesn't actually have to be repelled, just attracted less. So use a feather. The wheel will not spin so fast and you'll get less energy, but you could double the number of lead shot/feather pairs.
—pocmloc, Nov 29 2013
   

       [pocmloc], at first glance that does seem to be a reasonable analogy. However....   

       One of the annotations indicates that the disks used in the electrostatic motor should have rather-larger central holes than is portrayed in the sketch. This allows any one pair of charged balls to interact with the local portion of the disk more like they were sitting in a racetrack than in a field. When the Earth is used as an analogy for the disk, you can't match that condition.   

       Next, gravitation acts AS IF the center of the Earth is its local source. A flat plate, however, can only be a point-source (of either electrostatic or gravitational attraction) when viewed from a significant distance, not up-close-and-personal. Since this Experiment specifically needs the up- close-and-personal, the analogy fails.   

       Third, you absolutely do need "repulsion" as well as "attraction". It is the only way that the interaction of a negative charge with the flat plate can be PARTIALLY cancelled out by a nearby positive charge --and vice-versa.
—Vernon, Nov 29 2013
   

       I disagree with all those objections.
—pocmloc, Nov 29 2013
   

       [pocmloc], disagreeing is fine. But it's better if you can explain why.
—Vernon, Nov 30 2013
   

       //I'm not in a position to AFFORD to build any such thing, though.//   

       Estimated cost - $100, $1000, $10,000?   

       Let me put it this way. If you seriously thought that this would work, and if you had done enough research to have confidence in your idea, you would find a way to afford to do it. Just as, if you knew a lottery ticket was going to win you $10M, you'd find a way to get the money to buy it.   

       It's "unaffordable" only because you know, somewhere along the line, that it won't work. I know that too. It may be an interesting thought experiment (again, without a 200-word summary of the basic idea, it's not worth investing the time necessary to understand it), but not plausible enough even in your own mind to justify the expense of trying it.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 30 2013
   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], it is unaffordable because the more I spend on anything besides basics, thanks to cutbacks in working-hours/income, the sooner I will end up homeless.   

       Not to mention that even if I did afford it and it worked, people like you would be SO certain it was rigged/flawed/deceptive that they wouldn't pay any more attention to it than to the video I asked you to look at. So, where again is that huge return you are talking about???
—Vernon, Nov 30 2013
   

       [Vernon], sweetie, I don't believe you.   

       If I were sure that I had a breakthrough as significant as a perpetual motion machine from which energy could be extracted, I would happily risk becoming homeless in order to develop a working prototype. As would any sane person.   

       Are you seriously telling me that the risk of homelessnessness stacks up against the chance of becoming probably the most well-known, not to say rich, person on the planet?   

       It only makes sense if one assumes that you don't really, truly believe in the idea.   

       I'm even prepared to make you a deal, and to back it up in writing, witnessed as needs be. I am prepared to reimburse you the full costs of developing a working prototype, up to a maximum of $10k, within 24hr of a demonstration of a working device. If you claim to have such a device, I will, within 72hr, pay my own costs to come and visit you and see the demonstration.   

       At the demonstration, I expect to be allowed to be examine the device in detail, including whatever disassembly and reassembly is necessary to be sure that there is no source of external or stored energy; and I expect to be allowed to measure the energy output using whatever means are appropriate (ammeter, dynamometer, thermometer - at my own expense), over a period of time sufficient to demonstrate net energy production.   

       So, there you have it. I have put my money where my mouth is. If you actually believe in this idea, go ahead. If you want me to mail you a signed letter, email me (my address is on my profile page) with your address and I will send the letter as soon as I return to the UK (in about 10 days - I'm travelling at present).   

       I'll go further. With suitable guarantees, I am prepared to lend you $10K to make a working prototype. The details will have to be worked out, but the loan will be for a fixed period after which, if the device has not been demonstrated as outlined above, the amount must be returned. If the device _is_ so demonstrated, no repayment is needed and you are free to exploit your invention as you so choose.   

       So, put my money where your mouth is.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 30 2013
   

       OK to substantiate my disagreement:   

       // like they were sitting in a racetrack than in a field. When the Earth is used as an analogy for the disk, you can't match that condition.//   

       No, because you specifically talk about a plate, not a wire. You talk about movement towards the attractor. Your explanation should have no effect if the flat plate is a plate or a strip. They are geometrically equivalent in your diagrams.   

       //gravitation acts AS IF the center of the Earth is its local source. A flat plate, however//   

       The gravitational forces on a body held above the earth are in fact towards all points on the earth, but the net force sums to a vector pointing to the earth's centre. Similarly, the electrostatic forces on a charged object held above the centre of a charged plate or strip are towards all points on the plate, but sum to a vector pointing to a point on the plate directly beneath the object. So I submit that the two cases are geometrically similar.   

       //you absolutely do need "repulsion" as well as "attraction"//   

       Why? You only stated an imbalance. Less attraction is less than more attraction. Repulsion is less attraction. The system is still imbalanced; were you to permit the lead shot and ball to rotate around their own axis they would do so, just like your charged balls.   

       I submit that my system is the equivalent to yours and will turn at least as fast as yours.
—pocmloc, Nov 30 2013
   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], you still do not understand my situation, which I do not plan on spreading all over the Internet, and your offer does not strike me as worthwhile. Nor do we appear to share the same definition of "sanity", since you seem to place "belief" over "facts" --the same fallacy exhibited by Fundamentalist Creationists. I am fully aware of the overall facts regarding perpetual-motion machines, and I definitely indicated that if this Idea had a flaw, I hadn't been able to identify it. But if it does, then obviously it can't work, and YOUR definition of "sanity" would leave me both homeless and with a huge debt to pay. NO, thank you!   

       [pocmloc], I will take your second objection first, because the answer is related to the first objection also. If you set charge (A) near a large flat/charged plate, you do NOT get an effect upon it as if all the plate's charge was concentrated in one place. For proof, just cut a reasonable hole in the plate right at the place near (A), so that there is no repulsion or attraction there, and move (A) a short distance into that hole. The rest of the plate can push/pull the charge sideways, which can balance to zero total (assume plate is large circle with (A) in the middle hole). Moving (A) back out of the hole, to its original "nearby" location, does NOT eliminate those sideways forces. Your use- Earth's-gravity analogy offers NOTHING like this availability of sideways forces.   

       So, now regarding "racetrack": The proposed- motor drawing shows charges such as (A) near the edge of a disk. That means there would be an unbalanced radial force upon it, because of the quantity of disk-material near its center. Making the central hole larger would significantly reduce that imbalance --and make the charged disk near charge (A) resemble a race-track. Sure, the cross- shaped struts could probably be tough enough to resist that radial force (they already must be tough enough to resist the twisting force of the two charged balls at each of the 4 ends of the cross- limbs), but there is no reason for excess radial force to exist in the first place, if it is that easy to reduce. The result of such reduction is that the major remaining sideways forces are along the adjacent length of the race-track. Your use- Earth's-gravity analogy offers no way to reduce, in specific sideways directions, the forces upon a mass.   

       Third, in my Nov 28 anno to you and to [neutrinos shadow], I specified a partial "cancel out", as well as "unbalanced". It is the partial cancelling-out that theoretically leads to imbalance. AND it is all about SIDEWAYS forces. Your use-Earth's-gravity analogy offers NOTHING in the way of sideways forces.
—Vernon, Nov 30 2013
   

       The feather "cancels out" the weight of the lead shot in exactly the same way as the +ve charged ball "cancels out" the attraction of the -ve charged ball to the plate. No more, no less.
—pocmloc, Nov 30 2013
   

       // and I definitely indicated that if this Idea had a flaw, I hadn't been able to identify it.//   

       Well, in that case, fair enough. If this is a discussion on find the flaws in an apparent perpetual motion machine, then it's interesting. But why bury it under 3126 words?
—MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 01 2013
   

       [pocmloc], don't be ridiculous. Earth's gravity accelerates all nearby small objects at the same rate, remember, regardless of mass. You need "negative mass" if you want gravitational repulsion, and a feather most certainly doesn't have THAT.   

       Meanwhile, with respect to the charged balls and plate, we DO have both an attraction and a repulsion available. SIDEWAYS, too. Unlike the way things can move in Earth's gravity.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], someday I hope to have money to waste on trying to make lots of different ideas work. Until then, when I say "I can't afford it", I DO know what I'm talking about!   

       As for the lengths of various Ideas posted to the HalfBakery, I'm simply trying to be as thorough as possible in presenting all the relevant data.   

       In this particular case significant relevant data was about "magnet motors", because so far as I've been able to learn, they actually can exist, even if they aren't really perpetual-motion machines.   

       And it remains a Fact that just about anything that can be done with interacting magnetic fields can also be done with interacting electric fields, so....
—Vernon, Dec 01 2013
   

       // I'm simply trying to be as thorough as possible in presenting all the relevant data.//   

       That's good. The next step is to be sufficiently familiar with it with to provide a short summary (called the "Abstract" in publications) at the beginning. Then people can decide whether it's worth reading the rest of it. Just a suggestion.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 01 2013
   

       How is the sideways pull of a charged plate on a charged ball, different from the sideways pull of a massive body on a heavy object?   

       A lead shot in Edinburgh is mostly pulled downwards by the mass of the earth beneath it, but there is nonetheless mass also in Glasgow that will pull it sideways. I still maintain the systems are identical.
—pocmloc, Dec 01 2013
   

       Also you mention acceleration but that is nothing to do with it. Your idea speaks only of "force". You cannot deny that the force on a feather is much less than the force on a lead shot.
—pocmloc, Dec 01 2013
   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], I would not expect anyone having a pre-conceived notion about something to be swayed by a mere abstract. Have you YET looked at that linked magnet-motor video? What if I asked you to consider THAT to be a sort of "abstract" about the reality of magnet motors?   

       [pocmloc], why do you ignore the word "net"? There is no significant NET sideways force at the surface of most places on Earth (70% covered with reasonably flat ocean).   

       NOR, when only ONE charged ball is considered, is there a net sideways force upon the ball when it is near a charged flat plate. We ONLY get a NET sideways force when BOTH/opposite charges are near the plate --and you have no equivalent to that in your use-Earth's-gravity analogy.
—Vernon, Dec 01 2013
   

       Of course I'm not ignoring it. If you place the lead shot and the feather in Bathgate, with the lead to the East of the feather, then you are right most of the attraction will be downwards. But you can't deny that the mass of Edinburgh will attract the lead shot with a greater sideways force, than the attraction force in the other direction between the feather and Glasgow. Ergo, according to your theory, the pair will move towards Edinburgh.   

       Can you give a rock solid reason why this is not the case?
—pocmloc, Dec 01 2013
   

       See image for details.
—pocmloc, Dec 01 2013
   

       [pocmloc], the rock-solid reason is simple. In the direction opposite Edinburgh is mass that can attract the two objects in that direction. The Net sideways force is balanced out to Zero (or close enough to zero as makes no practical difference, given the feebleness of Gravitation.   

       In the electrostatic device, however, if one charge is attracted to the left, the OTHER charge keeps it from being attracted to the right. The electric-field-lines of the first charge cannot pass through the second charge. Meanwhile, because the charges ARE opposite, that second charge can be repelled from the right, but NOT repelled from the left, because of the first charge --the electric- field lines of the second charge can't pass through the first charge. Net effect: both charges are influenced to move left.
—Vernon, Dec 02 2013
   

       //if one charge is attracted to the left, the OTHER charge keeps it from being attracted to the right// Are you sure about that now? You seem awfully sure that gravity can pass through or around a feather to pull on a lead shot. I would think they were both equally as likely (or unlikely).
—pocmloc, Dec 02 2013
   

       [Vernon] I have seen many "magnet motor" videos. Invariably, they pile befuddlement on misconception and serve it with a dressing of fraud.   

       As for the utility of an absract - you're missing the point. The purpose of an abstract is to provide a thumbnail of the work which is to be presented in detail. It serves to crystallize the author's thoughts in such a way as to tell the reader whether the article is likely to be of interest or relevance. It can also (though this is not usually necessary in published papers) tell the reader whether the author is a nut.   

       I would say that the reader is more entitled to expect you to make the effort of composing an abstract; than you are to expect the reader to give up one hour of time for an initial reading of your idea and its supporting references.   

       An abstract is simply a courtesy to the reader. Not providing one suggests either that you are not willing to do that courtesy, or that there is no substance out of which to build a good abstract.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 02 2013
   

       I agree with [Max] but would add that an abstract is a huge help to the author too. It was only after I'd written the abstract to my PhD thesis and, in fact, only after I'd summed up the entire PhD in the first sentence, that I finally properly understood what I was saying.
—hippo, Dec 02 2013
   

       I'll lay you odds that [vernon] will say that the idea is too complicated to sum up in an abstract.   

       He may well be right. The length of an abstract is proportional to complexity divided by understanding. If the understanding is small enough, a short abstract becomes impossible.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 02 2013
   

       [pocmloc], gravitation DOES pass right through one ordinary mass to affect the next ordinary mass. Just consider the Moon, every time the Earth gets between it and the Sun for an eclipse --its orbit is not affected (and the Moon is in orbit around the SUN, not the Earth; the Sun attracts the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth). See link.   

       So, in your use-Earth's-gravity notion, the feather (light mass) can be described as being located in the middle of a region that can attract it equally, in all sideways directions (the presence of the heavy mass is irrelevant). And the heavy mass is also in the middle of a region that can attract it equally in all sideways directions (the presence of the light mass is irrelevant). Net effect, your notion does NOT properly imitate this HalfBaked Idea.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], even an abstract should reference various important things that get put together in the main text --so, logically, the more "important things", the longer even an abstract would need to be. I HAVE now made an attempt to do what you've asked. Meanwhile, the particular magnet-motor video I linked has only music in its audio, no voices touting something.
—Vernon, Dec 02 2013
   

       //...electric-field-lines of the first charge...// - what does that mean? There's no such thing as electric field lines. They're just used to draw pretty diagrams.

//even an abstract should reference various important things that get put together in the main text --so, logically, the more "important things", the longer even an abstract would need to be// - I'm not sure that's true. I've seen some very complex idea summarised beautifully in a couple of paragraphs (and, of course , I've seen some terrible abstracts).
—hippo, Dec 03 2013
   

       [hippo], electric-field lines may not actually exist as THAT, but they do exist as representations of parts of the real field. We do not draw electric- field lines from one charge passing through the opposite charge for a reason --the real field doesn't do that, either.   

       You might notice I did NOT refer to field-lines in the main text.   

       On another hand, I assume you are aware that when you sprinkle iron filings on a piece of paper that covers a magnet, we DO end up with something that hints of the existence of magnetic-field lines. I wonder if some equivalent of that sprinkling has ever been done for two oppositely-charged electrets....   

       And I'm about to add another link, hinting that the curvature of the field lines is actually an illusion....
—Vernon, Dec 03 2013
   

       With all best wishes... can you please provide an abstract? Or, one sentence explaining what loophole in physics you found? Or, a link to a diagram of your motor? Or, evidence that you know vector calculus?   

       I remember my joy upon learning about electromagnets, thinking I had solved perpetual motion, followed by my disappointment upon learning about back EMF.   

       // The length of an abstract is proportional to complexity divided by understanding.// lol true
—sninctown, Dec 04 2013
   

       I'll admit to TLDR on this to some extent, but have you analyzed the forces that the opposite charge exerts on the like charge and vice/versa. I'm pretty sure you'll find that that negates any perceived imbalance of the two "blocking" each other with respect to the base plate.
—MechE, Dec 04 2013
   

       [MechE], each pair of charged balls is physically held in place at the end of an arm of the cross- shape. Each pair of balls will certainly electrostatically attract each other, but that force is balanced by the physical structure holding them apart, and they go nowhere relative to the end of the arm.   

       So, why should the mutual attraction of the pair of balls affect their interaction with the nearby disc? I have thought of one answer, relating to something I wrote in my March 15, 2012 annotation. There is a type of electret which would internally allow charged particles to move about, and we can't have that type for the disk.   

       I'm starting to think we can't have that type for the charged balls, either, because it would allow the charges that were separated into the two balls to get closer together, reducing their overall INDIVIDUAL interactions with the charged disk.
—Vernon, Dec 04 2013
   

       The point is that electromagnetic fields are not "blocked" they are countered. So if you analyze the system, the respective electrets experience a slightly lower field than they otherwise would due to the presence of the opposing electret which is what you are basing your argument on. But they also experience a force from that electret, and I'm pretty sure the sum balances.
—MechE, Dec 04 2013
   

       [MechE], that might be true, except for one little detail: Magnet motors use electromagnetic fields, too, and they do work at least a little. If you look at just the first part of the linked magnet-motor video, you will see the reason why H. Johnson was awarded a patent for getting a stationary rig full of permanent magnets to cause really significant motion.   

       In the main text of the Idea, I specifically stated that I wasn't expecting a lot of force to be generated by the electrostatic version of a magnet motor. What you've written could well be part of the reason --but so far as I know at this writing, it remains to be seen whether or not EVERYTHING balances out to yield Zero force.
—Vernon, Dec 04 2013
   

       Given that the final device in that video is fake, I'm not certain how much trust I put in the earlier versions.   

       That being said, it's a fairly simple matter to produce straight line motion from permanent magnets. The issue is that to make it circular, you end up needing to put back in just as much energy (plus losses) as you took out. That makes it not happen. If your device was going to turn at all, there would be some state it would have to break through where it wanted to turn back the other way, and the energy to do so would be equal to the initial input. I don't have the time to do a force balance diagram on it right now, so I can't tell whether it would turn at all. I suspect not, but if it does, there will be some point at which it stops.   

       I don't even have a theoretical problem with the rotary motion demonstrations where the person is pulling the magnet away during the transition. But somewhere in the final device is a mechanism to add power to the system.
—MechE, Dec 04 2013
   

       [MechE], did you not see the part of the main text where I wrote that someone had claimed that a magnet motor could actually work, but only for a few days, because the permanent magnets become demagnetized? What is wrong with THAT, the energy of magnetization, being the source of the motor's power?
—Vernon, Dec 04 2013
   

       Because you aren't proposing a mechanism whereby the demagnetization converts into kinetic energy.   

       (Oh, and there's another video on youtube that shows that same final motor with the compressed air supply visible)
—MechE, Dec 04 2013
   

       [MechE], I wasn't aware that such a "mechanism" was needed. I've been long aware that two permanent magnets opposing each other will weaken each other; I thought it was widely known. So, if a device containing permanent magnets can produce an unbalanced Force, a result of magnets repelling each other, it Logically Follows that the unbalanced Force can't persist forever.   

       And no, I didn't know about the other video. Hey, how do you know IT isn't the fake, made by someone desperate to "substantiate" a claim that the other video had to be faked?   

       Heh, heh, heh. I'm just hoping to point out the jumping-at-conclusions that tends to happen when someone insists that Theory, well-supported by many experiments, automatically overrides some new Experiment....   

       Which is exactly why I want to play with various Mad Science notions, in terms of Experiments. Someday, when I have money to throw away on them....
—Vernon, Dec 04 2013
   

       //how do you know IT isn't the fake// How do you know it isn't real, but the compressed air motor wasn't added to put outsiders off the scent? How do you know that they aren't putting out this kind of thing to distract you from the _real_ revolutionary tech? How do you know that you aren't one of them, but with your memory removed and under their control? How do you know that this is not all false impressions and the world was created only 5 minutes ago?   

       //Theory, well-supported by many experiments, automatically overrides some new Experiment// I think this is pretty much what is generally known as Scientific Method.
—pocmloc, Dec 05 2013
   

       //Theory, well-supported by many experiments, automatically overrides some new Experiment//   

       To be fair, it doesn't. If that experiment is A) repeatable, and B) done in a credible fashion in the first place. A youtube video rather definitely lacks B), and you're welcome to attempt A) if you want to.   

       It's fairly easy to determine if someone has an actual over unity device (or even a real economical way to produce power from an untapped source). I refer you to the linked XKCD comic.   

       As far as degrading magnetism, yes, magnets decay when exposed to contrary fields, however the energy released is far to small to account for any of the demonstrations that claim to make use of this effect.
—MechE, Dec 05 2013
   

       //I HAVE now made an attempt to do what you've asked.//   

       There ya go, [Vernie] - that wasn't so painful, was it? And the thought necessary to write the abstract probably helped to crystallize your own ideas.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 05 2013
   

       [pocmloc], I've added a nice new link for you, starting with "Hare-Brained".   

       [MechE], yes, I know about the Economic Argument, having posted one that actually linked to the magnet motor. (I may have posted that before learning that the magnets become demagnetized.) See "Selling Free Energy" link.   

       There IS a problem with Big Companies doing something like the XKCD cartoon described --they tend to have "expert advisers" who steer them away from investing in such things, which is one of the reasons they can overlook some Up-And-Coming New Thing, and let some small new company eventually become one of the big ones. So that's why I devised the Business Plan specified in the "Selling Free Energy" link.   

       Regarding the magnet motor in the video not having as much magnetization energy as it produces, I would first point out that the amount of energy being produced is rather small, only being used for self-rotation, where Momentum Conservation can assist it. Then I would refer you to something you wrote:   

       "I don't even have a theoretical problem with the rotary motion demonstrations where the person is pulling the magnet away during the transition."   

       We both know that manually moving the magnet can "pump" energy into the system. The final device is using gravity to assist with that magnet- motion, and is doing it both above and below the main cylinder of the motor, instead of only at one place. PERHAPS that makes a difference.   

       [MaxwellBuchanan], to me, the writing of that abstract only felt like I was repeating myself. I've encountered whole books with enough notion- repetitions in them to think that they could be maybe 1/3 the original size, and so, despite how much I myself write in a particular Idea text, I do try to avoid repetition of the foundation-notions within that text.
—Vernon, Dec 05 2013
   

       Gravity assist might allow it to produce rotation for a period, but it would be slowing down. Net energy is what matters. If you are not adding energy, friction rules the day.
—MechE, Dec 05 2013
   

       Oh, and the point of the comic is not that big companies would be making a killing using it. It's that, if it worked, any company using it would become a big company and make a killing.   

       There are hundreds of small oil prospecting companies out there. Some of them actually use dowsing methods. If dowsing actually worked at anything above the level of educated guess/blind luck, these companies would consistently have more successful wells than their competitors, and grow larger and more profitable as a result. This is especially true since dousing is so much cheaper than a petroleum geologist.   

       Likewise this motor design. If it were possible to to generate power from perpetual motion, some small generating company would start doing it. Since their operating costs would be essentially zero (replacement of bearings) they would make a huge profit for their size from selling that power. They would then be able to use that money to build more generators, eventually becoming the worlds largest (or only) power generator.   

       This hasn't happened, and that's the economic argument.
—MechE, Dec 05 2013
   

       The abstract helps! I'll take another crack at it.   

       //There are known examples, such as the ability for electrons to perpetually orbit an atomic nucleus. // Well...the electrons could also be thought of as waves, that don't so much orbit as pop up here and there when observed.   

       //If the wire loop was located on Pluto...the electric current would flow perpetually.// The wire would be cold but power would very slowly be lost as the magnetic field did work on stuff on/near Pluto.   

       //In Theory, then, you could build a first-class PMM if you built it on the scale of the whole Universe.// Maybe the Universe IS a first-class PMM. Woooaaahhh.   

       // It is not impossible that after such meshing is accomplished, some "local-sized" loopholes might be discovered in the energy-conservation law.// It is not impossible that I have a Canadian girlfriend, therefore that my Really Hot Canadian girlfriend might be right behind me right now.   

       //CAUTION!// Protip: Don't try the quantum suicide trick.   

       //I've encountered some intriguing theoretical work that appears worthy of further investigation.// Do you mean Maxwell's Equations? Please say Maxwell's Equations. Dang.   

       //the Patent Office requires a working model to be presented// False "perpetual motion machines" have been successfully patented, too.   

       // // At this point, I skimmed to the end of the article and still didn't see a specific idea. Maybe there's a way that magnetic monopoles could allow perpetual motion. The way I would summarize this idea is:   

       Magnetic monopoles, or some sort of quantum- mechanical symmetry breaking, might or might not allow a perpetual motion machine. Unfortunately I have no idea how this would actually work, but I am happy to talk about it anyway! I'm sure you are too.   

       Yes, I am happy to talk about this. Other ways of achieving perpetual motion could include quantum mind theory, spooky action at a distance, formal semantics, time travel via black holes, divine intervention during the Age of Miracles, undoing the Interdict of Merlin, and building Maxwell's Self- Replicating Demon with quantum nanorobots. I would write an idea featuring all of these, but it would require a full-length science fiction novel to do it justice.
—sninctown, Dec 06 2013
   

       [MechE], you may be neglecting the "investment" factor in part (but obviously not all) of what you wrote. There are things that small outfits can't do because they can't afford to invest in them --and the big outfits, as previously noted, have "expert advisers" dissing the proposals.   

       As an example, consider various proposals to "tap zero-point energy". You need some pretty sophisticated/expensive equipment (need to access near-Absolute-Zero temperatures) to have any chance of doing that   

       The average proposed PMM is not usually so expensive, though. With respect to a magnet motor, if it is true that the permanent magnets become demagnetized after a few days, then obviously it does NOT qualify as a PMM --and that would become obvious to anyone who builds one.   

       The weirdness of this particular Idea starts with its emulation of the operating principle of a magnet motor. If all such motors are actually faked, then it logically follows that the emulation will be unable to produce an unbalanced Force. But If Even ONE magnet motor truly ran for a few days, then the emulation should be able to produce an unbalanced Force.   

       Meanwhile, its electrets CANNOT (by design) become neutralized in any ordinary way. That IMPLIES that either we potentially have a PMM (and New Science), or there is some non-ordinary way for electrets to become neutralized (also New Science). Either way is a win for Science, that is. IF the emulation can yield an unbalanced Force, of course.   

       [sninctown], are you implying that the abstract needs to include a partial description of the "device that possesses global symmetry, but local asymmetry, which might as a result yield an unbalanced Force" ?? Why isn't that sufficient for you to keep reading long enough to get the details out of the main text?
—Vernon, Dec 06 2013
   

       //ts electrets CANNOT (by design) become neutralized in any ordinary way. That IMPLIES that either we potentially have a PMM (and New Science), or there is some non-ordinary way for electrets to become neutralized (also New Science)//   

       Or the forces are balanced, and no actual motion occurs. Hence, no new science. Even if a single magnet motor did work until the magnets de- magnetized, that would be a source of energy your system doesn't have. Therefore your design would not work.   

       And as far as the investment, short of a super collider, you can get it for less than a million, a few hundred thousand is more likely, a few tens of thousands for most attempts.   

       Most proposed pseudoscience is garage level engineering or less (dowsing, homeopathy, permanent magnet motors, your design), can all be built for built/tested under a thousand bucks.   

       The few that are more complex, put together a realistic explanation of the physics, and you can get the venture capital for most things you need. But they will consult experts, and you'd better actually have a real basis for the physics, not just "this seems like it should work".
—MechE, Dec 06 2013
   

       //Even if a single magnet motor did work until the magnets de- magnetized, that would be a source of energy your system doesn't have. Therefore your design would not work.   

       [MechE], why have you ignored the Fact that any arrangement of interacting magnetic fields can be emulated by an arrangement of interacting electric fields? Logically, if there is an arrangement of magnetic fields such that a magnet motor can run, then there IS an equivalent arrangement of electric fields such that an electret motor can run.   

       And now I might expect you to claim that, since the electret motor appears to have no energy- source equivalent to the magnet motor, THEREFORE neither the electret motor nor the magnet motor can work.   

       On the other hand, if you click the first of all the links on this page, and skim the first article at that link, you will find the author of the article saying this:   

       "The second device has the U-shaped magnets standing on end in a rough circular arrangement oddly reminiscent of England's Stonehenge. This assembly is mounted on a transparent plastic sheet supported on a plywood panel pivoted, underneath, on a free turning wheel obtained from a skateboard. As instructed, I eased the 8- ounce focusing magnet into the ring of larger magnets, keeping it at least four inches away from the ring. The 40 pound magnet assembly immediately began to turn and accelerated to a very respectable rotating speed which it maintained for as long as the focusing magnet was held in the magnetic field. When the focusing magnet was reversed, the large assembly turned in the opposite direction.   

       Since this assembly is clearly a crude sort of motor, there's no doubt that it is indeed possible to construct a motor powered solely by permanent magnets."   

       There is no hint that the author was requested/required to "pump" the magnet he held, like we see in that linked video.   

       So, now the $64(and some zeros) Question is, "If Johnson actually had a motor when the article was published in 1980, where is it today?"   

       My suggested Answer: A particular Design Mistake was made and never caught, and that mistake led to the abandonment of a promising Idea.   

       What Mistake, exactly? They Incorporated Too Much Symmetry Into Their Motor Designs. Look at FIG 10 about 2/3 the way down that whole long page. You will see 3 curved magnets at 120-degree angles around a circle. Now compare these two distances: (1) between the N and S poles of one curved magnet, and (2) between the N and S poles of two separated curved magnets --those distances are almost identical --and THAT is why that Design can't work!   

       The interaction of a N pole with other magnets in the Design, to cause rotation, is basically Balanced on both sides of the N pole with equal/opposite interactions of S poles with those other magnets.   

       So consider again the author's description that I quoted above --only ONE magnet was involved, not a balanced-out group of them!   

       I now refer you to my proposed electrostatic motor sketch, where each pair of charged balls are near to each other, but quite a gap exists between separate pairs of balls. A +ball can interact with a section of the charged disk, and there is NOT a -ball at equal distances from it, Interacting With The Same Area Of The Charged Disk equal/oppositely. This is a Symmetry that is Broken, in my Design, but which is not broken in that FIG 10 magnet-motor design. That is, if the spacing between separate pairs of charged balls was equal to the spacing between one pair of charged balls, I would not expect the electret motor to work, either.
—Vernon, Dec 06 2013
   

       No, but there is a point where there is a ball equidistant on the opposite half of the plate.   

       You want to prove me wrong? That design of yours can be built for under a couple hundred bucks, using very good bearings. Do it. Prove me wrong.   

       Either there is no motive force, and the thing never moves, or there is a motive force, but there is a cogging point where it sticks (the point that the magnet motor demonstration, if it works at all, lifts the magnet away in order to reduce the force to get past that point). And the energy to overcome that cogging point will be equal to the energy achieved from reaching it, so you're still out friction losses.
—MechE, Dec 06 2013
   

       [MechE], since electrets aren't so easy to come by as magnets, and last year I did happen to have some tens of bucks to waste, I did attempt to build a crude imitation of the description I quoted in my last anno (a rotating group of fixed ferrite- ceramic magnets).   

       It didn't work, exactly because of that cogging effect you mentioned. On the other hand, I also had not used U-shaped magnets, AND because ferrite magnets are not especially strong --they are simply cheap-- the so-called "focusing magnet" had to be held a lot closer than the 4 inches specified in the quoted text, where the field-strengths are smoothed-out by distance.   

       (Note the electret design should not have a cogging effect, because the disk is supposed to be smoothly charged.)   

       That article DOES specify that rather expensive and very strong magnets were used by Johnson. So I know I didn't have an accurate copy, and I still don't have any reason to think the magazine article was written by an outright-liar. And then I ran out of money to waste.
—Vernon, Dec 06 2013
   

       No, electrets aren't (although I found an electret microphone for 2 bucks). However, you can simulate a dipole with two monopoles, and it's fairly easy to produce positively and negatively charged (static) electric monopoles.
—MechE, Dec 06 2013
   

       //Note the electret design should not have a cogging effect, because the disk is supposed to be smoothly charged//   

       But the position of the rotor ends are discrete. Cogging doesn't have to be one big jump, it can be a jump for every rotor end. I'm pretty sure your concept simplifies down to the electrical version of an overbalanced wheel.
—MechE, Dec 06 2013
   

       [MechE], the overbalanced wheel is actually balanced, as you know, because it has a long lever effect on one side with a few weights there, and a short lever effect on the other side with many weights there.   

       In the proposed electret motor design, each pair of electret balls interacts with a "local" region of the disk more than it interacts with a "distant" region of the disk.   

       Yes, there is more "distant" region than "local" region --the analysis might be able to just consider only one pair of charged balls, to determine whether or not there is an overall balance of forces.   

       But it will be somewhat tricky, because the disk has (in various annotations) been described as being more race-track shaped than disk-shaped....   

       On the other hand, suppose we imagined a dividing line on the disk, a diameter, such that our single pair of charged balls are on opposite sides of that diameter-line.   

       For the "overbalanced wheel" thing to be properly analogous, we need to show there is the same magnitude of attractive SIDEWAYS forces upon the charged balls, as repulsive sideways forces. Such is obviously the case for a SINGLE charged ball (sideways relative to a diameter-line that passes through that charged ball), but the pair, a dipole, is exhibiting Broken Symmetry with respect to its interaction with the disk/racetrack...(the +ball can't interact with part of the disk because the -ball is in the way, and vice-versa --which makes for a huge difference between this and the attractive-force-only between gravity and an overbalanced wheel).
—Vernon, Dec 06 2013
   

       [sninctown], I have a Notion for you to add to that list you wrote down in an earlier anno.   

       See, when someone builds a device like the proposed electrostatic PMM, what happens when it runs is that the electric charges of fundamental particles "drain" to become Zero (so the motor stops), and this is why the Universe has so much "missing mass" in it -- it is full of 'decharged' electrons and protons, from trillions of civilizations across the Universe building decillions of electrostatic PMMs for billions of years!
—Vernon, Dec 06 2013
   

       ^ [+] that one really deserves a sci-fi Nobel.
—FlyingToaster, Dec 06 2013
   

       We could have perpetual motion, but the damn aliens wasted all the aether.
—WcW, Dec 06 2013
   

       //the +ball can't interact with part of the disk because the -ball is in the way, and vice-versa //   

       Not true. Both interact completely with the disk, if only by way of their interaction with each other. The + reduces the effect of the - on the disk and vice versa, the net forces still balance. Again, without doing the calculus or an experiment, I can't tell you the exact force balance on a single electret (it's entirely possible it has some force in the form of electrical potential energy at it's starting point). However, I can tell you that once it reaches the local minimum, whether its a single or a multiple array, the net force will be zero.
—MechE, Dec 09 2013
   

       [MechE], you are being inconsistent:
"Both interact completely with the disk"
"The + reduces the effect of the - on the disk and vice versa"		   

       We have an up-close interaction between the separated charges and the disk. Keep in mind that muon-catalyzed fusion (described in main text) ALSO has an up-close interaction between separate charges --the two nuclei do NOT repel each other, because the muon is in-between them.   

       So, if the disk is charged (+), the -ball can more- strongly interact with part of the disk near it, than it can interact with the part of the disk on the other side of the +ball --and vice-versa. It is possible that I overstated my case in saying, "the +ball can't interact with part of the disk because the -ball is in the way" --but an imbalance of forces, due to up-close interactions, remains.   

       The -ball is attracted to a nearby region of the +disk, and the +ball is repelled from a nearby region of the +disk.   

       By the way, I've encountered something truly simple, with respect to magnets, that appears worth trying.   

       They make a sort of steel pan about the size of an ashtray that can be used to hold loose nuts and bolts and other steel doo-dads. Underneath the pan is a fairly large (if not really strong) circular magnet (perhaps 10cm diameter, with a central hole), which lets the pan be mounted on the side of a steel cabinet, and still the pan can hold the nuts and bolts and stuff.   

       At my workplace one of those magnetic pans is available for playing-with, and I've discovered that the whole circular face of the exposed magnet (where it could grab the side of a steel cabinet) is one magnetic pole (the other pole is conducted through the pan to hold the bolts and stuff).   

       I'm currently looking for a way to nondestructively mount an axle in the central hole of that magnet. On the axle I could attach a kind of "vane" on which two flat ferrite magnets can be mounted vertically:
|N|____|____|S| (other poles are on side-not-seen in this side view)
--------------------- (edge of horizontal face of circular magnet)
(axle in middle of vane would pass through hole in center of circular magnet)		   

       The vane has to be strong enough to keep the vertical magnets from twisting face-down toward the circular magnet. Overall, this should be extremely comparable in physical layout to the proposed electrostatic PMM, except for having two magnets (2 pairs of poles) interact with the magnetic disk instead of 4 pairs of charges interacting with a charged disk.   

       My initial testing had too much axial friction and wasn't stable, but before the axle fell over, there WAS a slight rotation of the vane....
—Vernon, Dec 10 2013
   

       // My initial testing had too much axial friction and wasn't stable, but before the axle fell over, there WAS a slight rotation of the vane....//
—MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 10 2013
   

       Do magnetic motor count that use bismuth for diamagnetic deflection?
—travbm, Oct 29 2015
   

       OK, folks, I've identified the flaw in this Idea, and it involves a word that nobody used in all the dissing annos. "Gradient". When something is affected by a "field" such that it moves as a result, the something always moves toward a different place in that field's gradient. But this Idea doesn't offer any gradient; at every location toward which part of the device might move, the field-gradient is always the same. Therefore there really isn't anything to cause it to move.   

       As an analogy, consider the classic statement that on the inside of a large hollow spherical mass, there is no gravitation. Actually, there is plenty of gravitation, but no gravitational GRADIENT. And therefore something located at any place inside that hollow will not experience any gravitational force, to cause it to move toward some other location.
—Vernon, Nov 01 2015
   

       //GRADIENT// sp. "VECTOR".
—FlyingToaster, Nov 01 2015
   

       Hey, this could work out well. If we can get [Vernon] talking to [travis], it'll keep boyo tied up for months.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 01 2015
   

       If you look at other pulsed direct current machines you may try laser hacker.com easy spin motor. As a power source all you need is an electret made using carnuba wax and Rochelle salt and citric acid. You apply a charge to polarize the ions to make a permanent potential difference to make a motor that will run for years until ions disorganize once more as energy is drained from the system. You must apply high voltage until the electret solidifies and cools.
—travbm, Nov 01 2015
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle