h a l f b a k e r yWe got your practicality ... right here.
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,
|
|
|
Once upon a time, a guy named Werjefelt got a patent for
a
"magnetic battery" - a rotating generator in which
magnetic
repulsion counteracts the attraction of a magnet sweeping
past coils with cores. (see link)
I tried to build this and found the repulsion splays out and
makes canceling
the forces nearly impossible. However, I
think reciprocating action might work to get the forces
balanced and so (maybe) generating more electricity out
than needed to move it.
Generator Idea
http://www.rexresea...efelt/werjefelt.htm
Rotating Generator, Maybe Free Energy [Eighthman, Sep 10 2019]
Get busy..... The rabbit hole is right in front of you now
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/oulist.htm
[xenzag, Sep 11 2019]
[link]
|
| |
No such thing as a free lunch. Perpetual motion doesn't
work. |
|
| |
The idea of this site is that you post your own original ideas. Impossible
ideas are not necessarily out of bounds, but a failing idea should at least fail
in new and original ways, which perpetual motion fails to do. |
|
| |
Welcome, but try and post an idea about
something that might possibly work, otherwise the
fishbones will accumulate. We are not easily
amused. |
|
| |
A close reading of the linked article suggests that the patent-
holder's original idea may have been to eliminate friction losses
in a generator (by a kind of maglev), rather than to generate truly
free energy. |
|
| |
The question then is not "Can we get *free* energy from
magnets?" (No), but "Can we levitate a moving component of a
generator using *less* energy than would otherwise be lost to
friction?" (Unlikely, but perhaps not entirely impossible). |
|
| |
Could someone do a little better than simply gainsaying the
idea? This starts to feel like a Monty Python sketch. |
|
| |
Instead of 'it won't work', how about an analysis of the
physical forces involved? I have studied free energy gadgets
for years but I have trouble indentifying the flaw in this one
unlike others. |
|
| |
//Possible Free Energy Device// There's your problem,
right
there. In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics. |
|
| |
//Instead of 'it won't work', how about an analysis of the
physical forces involved?// If someone says "Hey, I've
discovered this set of 5000 even numbers that, when added
together, produce an odd number", do you expect people to
waste time finding the arithmetic error? |
|
| |
"Free energy" devices are interesting if their fundamental
flaw leads you into a new area of physics. But doing all the
algebra over magnetic misconceptions is tedious and leaves
you with no sense of accomplishment. |
|
| |
The most interesting things are stuff like "Hey, when you
peel sticky envelopes open they make light!" - it's not a
source of free light, but it's still interesting and can get you
somewhere. |
|
| |
//I have studied free energy gadgets for years// + //This starts to feel like a
Monty Python sketch.// See "tautology" |
|
| |
I see. i feel underwhelmed by your collective profundity. |
|
| |
Nothing exact that speaks to the precise movement and
cancellation of forces? Just gainsay then? |
|
| |
It's not that you can't make something work for an extremely long time which seems like perpetual motion, and perhaps even extract a smidgen of a load from it, it's that the energy came from somewhere not being measured such as natural temperature changes, or tidal forces, or... something. |
|
| |
Never nothing.
Even if we prove a multi-verse and the energy from life-extinct universes is up for grabs to be tapped and is more than we could use in a thousand iterations, it still comes from somewhere. |
|
| |
I want to know where it all came from in the first place. |
|
| |
From your linked paper: "In general, though, Werjefelt refuses to become
caught up in what he calls "paralysis by analysis."" |
|
| |
He's not willing to do his own math, nor are you. Considering the amount
you're paying me, I will do little more than sneer at your belittling of my
mathematical output. |
|
| |
Any over-unity device is an effort toward obfuscation; it's already known
that the perpetrator is not interested in truth. The truth is you can't get
more X out of X's container than there was put in; this holds true whether
it's atoms in a molecule, energy in a battery, beer in a bottle. Since your
stance is that you don't accept that truth, and have stated a willingness to
waste a large portion of your life on its disbelief, I am *not* going to make
an effort that I know ab initio will be wasted. |
|
| |
There is almost nothing which is known to any greater surety than
conservation of energy; anyone who wishes it disproved bears their own
burden of proof. |
|
| |
//Nothing exact that speaks to the precise movement and
cancellation of forces? // See previous comment. It could
be analysed in detail if someone who knew the maths and
physics were prepared to do so. But once you say "free
energy with magnets", anyone who knows enough to analyse
it will just yawn and say "yeah, right. I'm busy." |
|
| |
Free-energy-from-magnets ideas are a magnet (pun
intended) for people who (a) believe they can outsmart
some of the most fundamental physics there is and yet (b)
curiously lack enough expertise in physics to see what's
wrong. This has been going on for at least 40 years. |
|
| |
It's interesting to look at the failure modes of real
technology as opposed to junk science. If you build, say, a
crappily-designed
conventional generator (coils being moved in a magnetic
field), your initial results will be lousy but significant - you'll
make some electricity. But with this free energy hokum, all
the devices fail absolutely "not because they're
fundamentally dumb",
but because somehow the designer hasn't ironed out "a few
annoying glitches". |
|
| |
Go build one, make it work, then come back and tell us
about it. |
|
| |
//Go build one, make it work, then come back and tell us about it.// |
|
| |
...and if the widget in question works, then what happens?
Go on, tell him. He deserves to know. |
|
| |
(sorry if I have incorrectly assumed gender based on user-name) |
|
| |
<stirring the perpetual attraction>
Just get a really really accurate scale to measure the change in weight of the magnets.
</stirring the perpetual attraction> Sorry. |
|
| |
//This starts to feel like a Monty Python sketch. // |
|
| |
//then what happens?// Well, since he (or she) is
implementing a device that he (or she) didn't invent, it
wouldn't be patentable. However, any new aspects would be
patentable over the prior art. |
|
| |
// It could be analysed in detail if someone who knew the maths and physics were prepared to do so.// |
|
| |
I would beg to differ with my esteemed colleague. |
|
| |
One would start out with a free body diagram of the at-rest state of the machine in question. Then, to begin to know the initial values, one would begin with Newton: |
|
| |
and, since it's in a motionless state, a=0, |
|
| |
At this point, where one is about to start breaking out a vector sum of the forces along the axes appropriate to the machine's motion, you start getting arguments from the inventor that there actually are unbalanced internal forces within the device, which therefore precludes use of the laws of motion in analyzing the device, and the putative maths-and-physics knowledgeable person's only recourse is to hurl the chalk on the floor, make ad-hominem remarks, and go out for a drink. |
|
| |
The "analysed in detail" portion died aborning. |
|
| |
//This starts to feel like a Monty Python sketch.// |
|
| |
Is this the right room for an argument? |
|
| |
This place has always been a Monty Python sketch, and
that's the way we likes it! |
|
| |
That link reads like hogwash. |
|
| |
The only perpetual thing about perpetual motion
machines is the lack of physics knowledge by the
sham inventors who try to attract attention with
some website talking about how their discovery
was verified a long time ago in a galaxy far far
away but close enough to be almost but not
verifiable by some super-science sleuths culture
like the Chinese, Japanese inventors, Cuban
Voodoo, Herbal Indians, or Nigerian Princes. Over-
unity devices are the 419 scam of the physics
world. |
|
| |
Read an actual physics textbook. |
|
| |
//We are not easily amused.// |
|
| |
// i feel underwhelmed by your collective profundity. // |
|
| |
You ain't seen nothin' yet. |
|
| |
Besides, it is a long-standing tradition to poke, prod and otherwise torment newcomers such as yourself for the amusement and entertainment of the regulars. |
|
| |
Welcome, by the way; and yes, it is very like a Monty Python sketch. Best if you memorize the relevant data concerning the airspeed velocities of laden and unladen swallows now; you WILL be asked questions later. Beautiful plumage, though, eh ? |
|
| |
Actually, there are some contributors who have considerable intellectual powers and a formidable range of knowledge in a huge range of arcane subjects, so beware. Also, remember that the smallest errors of gramer and/or speliing will be pounced upon - no mercy is ever shown. |
|
| |
Anyway ... the cafeteria is up the steps to your left. The steps to your right lead down to the dungeons - you DON'T want to go down there. There is no escape. There is a door marked FIRE ESCAPE but if you open it, the fire behind it will indeed escape, all over you. The toilets are over there, behind one of the three small bushes - be careful as you may be making yourself a somewhat obvious target. The wooden crate with the yellow teeth champing at the air-holes contains [xenzag]; don't get too close (the smell is not, as you might have thought, the toilets). For fun, every now and again shout "DONALD TRUMP !" or "MONSANTO !" and watch the crate bounce up and down. |
|
| |
You'll find out the rest as you go along. |
|
| |
I might also add that the way to gain what passes for
acceptance here is to make mistakes that nobody has made
before, rather than revisiting old ones. |
|
| |
Monthly dues will be levied based on excessive word count, existing prior art, and pun usage deemed unworthy. |
|
| |
You guys never tell anybody new the important stuff... |
|
| |
We left it to you to explain exactly why bacon fat is better than baby oil for getting into the skin-tight one-piece latex suit. We always find that part distasteful, and to be honest rather creepy. |
|
| |
Oh, and // existing prior art // ... Gr., Tautology. |
|
| |
We've been over this before, rendering fat from pigs is less morally objective than rendering fat from babies... at least until pigs become the dominant species. |
|
| |
// pigs become the dominant species // |
|
| |
Google for "bbc.co.uk uk politics". The content of the resulting URLs may surprise you ... |
|
| |
... or then again, probably not. |
|
| |
Sp. "morally objectionable", shirley ? "Morally objective" would mean that the motivation underlying the action was clear and dispassionate ... oh, wait ... |
|
| |
I don't remember now, I might have meant abjective. |
|
| |
I seem to be screwing up my words lately. I think I might have a dailysex problem. |
|
| |
I mean a dyslexia problem. |
|
| |