h a l f b a k e r yOpen other side.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Using a series of specifically
placed magnets a generator could
be arranged to be far more efficient.
You put some thin teeth on the
axil (like a gear) and had those
teeth be magnets with each face a
different polarity and arranged
so that opposite sides face each
other between all the teeth.
Then,
around the outside of this
you have placed a series of
magnets evenly placed with decent
space between themselves. they
must all have the same polarity
facing inside toward the axil.
Imagine a position such that two
teeths are evenly placed to
either side of one of the magnets
along the outside. The opposing
teeth's face will pull toward the
magnet and the other will push
away from it, hence turning the
wheel.
(?) Magnetic Generator
http://www.invention.com/harmia.htm
Lovely drawing. [jutta, May 19 2001]
(?) Magnetic Generator II
http://www.alternat...ns.com/magnetic.htm
World's first. [jutta, May 19 2001]
Magnetic Generator III
http://www.magnetic...om/description.html
.com [jutta, May 19 2001]
(?) Magnetic Generator IV
http://www.newphys....t/energy/evgray.asc
[egnor, May 19 2001, last modified Oct 05 2004]
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/
You cannot get more energy out of a closed system than you put in [bristolz, Oct 05 2004]
(?) Prepetual motion machine
http://www.halfbake...ea/www.lutec.com.au
Propused propetual motion machine and patend (BTW don't you need a *working model* to get a patent on a prepetual motion machine. [angry_scientist, Oct 05 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Neither of these, as far as I can tell, are claiming perpetual motion; I'm not sure where you get that. What I was trying to say was "hey, there's a lot of people who have similar ideas and think they're on to something and try to market it." |
|
| |
I'm having trouble with some of the prose, too, but I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer. |
|
| |
What surprises me was that many of the hits I found were fairly recent; the basic idea has been used in bad perpetuum mobiles for a long time. |
|
| |
Arrgh. I think the obscure prose is being used to cover a mechanically unworkable scheme (as egnor notes, magneticgenerator.com sounds reasonable, though). I can't really figure out the details either, but I'm 99% sure that's intentional--if the "inventor" provides an unintelligible description then it's hard to spot a clear flaw in the device. Here's my favorite rant: If you have a device that really delivers what these spiels claim, you don't advertise for investors on a rather seedy website. You take your patent and a working model and walk into any engineering firm in the world, and they pay you whatever you ask--because they are about to become *the* energy company for the entire world. Everyone involved will make millions. The catch is that you can't do this if your "working model" doesn't work and your design is nonsense. |
|
| |
With ironfroggy's device, I think that if the wheel is positioned right at start-up it turns just a tiny bit and then stabilizes...unless you push or pull the rod, in which case you might have a magnetic coupling to transfer motion. |
|
| |
I think I get it. Froggy has a gear-like cylinder, whose "teeth" are magnets and alternate polarity. This device is places within a cylinder which is has N polarity on the inside and S on the outside, or vice versa. The idea is that for any two teeth, the N's repellant force and the S's attractive force will make the gear-thingy move.
Wouldn't work, tho. At least not as well as froggy thinks. For any one N tooth, the repulsive forces on one side would cancel out the repulsive forces on the other. Ditto for the S teeth.
Did i miss anything? |
|
| |
Instead of pulling each other around, wouldn't the gears tend to stick together? |
|
| |
Yeah, it's a symmetry thing. For every conceivable position where the wheel gets a sped up there's a mirror image position where it gets slowed down. |
|
| |
I am 16 years of age and have tried to make, a simliar type of generator, that uses a magnets, magnetic fields, to generate propulsion of a shaft forever. I failed in my deisgn of possibly blocking out a magnetic field, with various types of material and the only other way i know of to block out magentic fields is the use of Shielding. I am going to try a new deisgn that i think may work, that uses horseshoe shaped magnets. |
|
| |
Enjoy yourself, but don't expect anything. People have been trying to build perpetual motion machines for thousands of years... |
|
| |
If the magnets turn the wheel, the magnets are the power source.
Imagine for a moment that you could balance the fields so well that it actually motors by the force of the magnets alone. It will need adjustments frequently. This hypothetical "axil" generates electricity, inside each of your magnets, a current that is demagnetizing the magnets with each pass. This also generates internal heat, destroying your magnets. It's gradual, but will soon be enough to stop rotation until you adjust your magnet distances. Eventually, your magnets won't have enough stored energy left, and you'll need new ones.
If you have a lot of extra magnets, this is an interesting way to expend them. It takes a LOT more energy to make the magnets than you could produce from them. It's more efficient to just turn your "axil" with an electric motor. But perhaps not as cool as experimenting with magnetism. |
|
| |
About ten years ago now, I also came up with the idea to make a "perpetual motion" machine using only magnets for a power source, only, it would not be perpetual, because ceramic magnets at that time, had a life span of about fifty years, (I figured that this was the loophole which would allow it to succeed where others had failed). |
|
| |
The contraption would work on the same general principle as a water wheel, using magnetic attraction, and then repulsion to spin a fly wheel. It would consist of a spinning inner wheel of a non conductive material which has ceramic bar magnets set at a cant (slight tilt), equally spaced around its rim. Each magnet would have the same polarity facing out. This inner, spinning ring. would be housed within a stationary outer, non conductive ring, also lined with magnets, but facing in. These magnets would pivot in such a way, that when the "pull", which each of the inner magnets had to the outer magnets, reached it's peak, the outer magnets would flip as the inner hub carried its magnets past and would then "push" those same magnets on their way to the next set. In my head I could see this thing just spin faster and faster. I envisioned being able to take some of that spin, convert it to electrical energy, and then put a fraction of that power back into the magnets themselves by wrapping them with copper windings, and running the current through them, turning them into electro magnets. The electricity which wasn't routed into the machine would charge twelve car batteries in series. Viola, you've got yourself 120 volt power and no electrical bills for fifty years, (the life of the magnets). I thought that I was about to be filthy stinking rich, and then it dawned on me, hey, this is a pretty simple concept when you think about it. I can't be the first guy to dream this up, and is that the truth. The earliest magnet motor device, which I have found record of, was invented in 1269 A.D. by a fellow named Peter Peregrinus, and has been re- re-invented many times since. I highly advise any one interested in trying to make one of these things, to search the "over unity device" sites out there, before investing your life savings on a wild goose chase, (there are several good ones on the halfbakery home page) . Personally, I think someone, someday will figure it out, but best learn from their failures, or be doomed to repeat them. |
|
| |
There is also an excellent book on the subject, called The Free Energy Device Handbook, it is a compilation of all of the patents the author could find on perpetual motion machines, homopolar generators, and Nicola Teslas work on free energy, (though the book doesn't cover these as well as I would have liked). |
|
| |
I figured it out but it cost too much too make!! I have run many magneostatics - many prototypes - the problem is always (well I can not share too much) but I assure you it is possible - I have seen no one yet mention the element or application there of that which enables it! I know this is it and it is only possible through recent innovations in technology!! :-) So I may very well die never getting to use it, it is rather simple and in your face and everyone dances around it. (I am sure they have said that as well for thousands of years). |
|
| |
This energy may be free, but I'm still not buying it. |
|
| |
Perpetual motion is possible. And yes, magnetism is the key to it. It is rather simple and in your face, as you said cj2. Any action is the result of a reaction to an action...
spacifique1@yahoo.com |
|
| |
Man is this my field! What you described it the first concept most think of when they get bit by the prepetual motion bug! But, what you have layed out he is the classic "Lock-Up". I could try to explain it but you have to really build it first to understand it. The best know, almost perpetual machine that exist today was developed by a Japaneese gentleman by the name of Kohei Minato, he has developed and patented a magnetic motor, that still experiences lock-up, but he get around it with an electro magnet placed in the permanent magnet configeration. His motor is 80% efficient over conventional motors. If you do the math an average industrial motor cost about $2000, and has an average lifespan of about 20 years. The average cost to run that moter over 20 years is about $80,000 @ .06 cents / KWH cost - yes the savings are incredible! His motors will cost $16,000 over 20 years to run! AND yes the physical property "Extremely OVER BAKED - BURNT!" can't have more output than input - BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER! input on his prototype was about .5 watts output was around 1.7 KW! more than 300% He is also planning on attaching a generator to the shaft, and feeding that back to the input! Pretty much as perpetual as your going to get. |
|
| |
I hate to kill your ideas of perpetual motion but,this only applies if you fully follow todays view of the laws of phisics,perpatual motion is impossible by its own name-motion which a form of energy,kinetic to be exact, and you must use energy to make things move and they cant stay in that motion without more imput because of the ever constant/annoying/lovely friction. But that isnt to say you cant make some very very efficient machines while trying to achieve the impossible dream
perpetual motion...I hope you can understand what I said |
|
| |
Oh and magnets do where off eventually I sadly found out. |
|
| |
because I to thought of a "great" perputual machine using magnets but I eventually found out its impossible because of ttwo laws of physics-you cannot
create energy and when two things come in conntact they will always create friction |
|
| |
My stomach, not the idea. I love when people chime in with their little gems of ambiguity. [starchaser] had it right 4 years ago... |
|
| |
IN THIS HOUSE WE OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS |
|
| |
/What you described it the first concept most think of when they get bit by the prepetual motion bug! / |
|
| |
I am much tickled to find this, the oldest scion of the perpetuum mobile lineage, here on the HB, 5 years old. It is like finding a galapagos tortoise, hiding from the rapacious furry predators on its island. Except the [ironfroggie]'s overbalanced wheel is hiding from the rule against posting such inventions. Maybe the rule postdates it and it was grandfathered in? I propose (again!) that this venerable scheme be moved to its own category, there to reign over its ilk. BTW, very nice anno [2fry]. |
|
| |