Gravity, when the feeling's gone and you can't go on, it's gravity

[KimB]

Well the guy's invention obviously does the opposite with the use of HV coils and since you can't explain why all you can do is say it's impossible and hope that you're right.

No, I can demonstrate that I'm right by use of simple physics: generation of an EMF produces a force opposite to the motion that generates said EMF. This is really basic electricity and magnetism here.

There are also very simple thermodynamic arguments: in order to do work, you need to increase entropy more than the reduction of entropy caused by the work. In the end this means that you have to put more energy into the system than you get out, and so any time you do something that gets out extra useful energy, that means you have to put that much more additional useful energy into the system (the remainder is dissipated as heat). For this invention, in order to achieve the same acceleration, the motor must necessarily work harder when electricity is being extracted than when not.

I doubt you even understand how his invention works...

Oh, well, I know you don't.

Well then lets see you lift an object with a spring without physically touching said object with said spring...

As I said, this distinction doesn't make any real difference. In particular because "touching" just means getting close enough that the electrostatic repulsion between electron shells becomes such that the atoms on one surface don't get any closer to the atoms on the other. The fundamental force at work, whether you're talking about a spring or a magnet, is still the electromagnetic force. It's just that with the spring you're using (mostly) the electric part at much shorter distances (typically between atoms/molecules), while with the magnet you're using the combined magnetic moment of large numbers of atoms to get stronger fields that operate over longer distances. It's still fundamentally the same force, with no real differences in terms of the energy behavior.

 

[Rolf N]

When I spin around in bed, I can observe my own tendency to warp my blanket. Maybe it's the same with spinning balls and space-time.

 

[KimB]

When I spin around in bed, I can observe my own tendency to warp my blanket. Maybe it's the same with spinning balls and space-time.

Well, yes, actually, it sort of is. This effect is known as "frame dragging".

Basically, if you have a rotating object, the space-time around it is sort of dragged along with the rotation. Fundamentally, this arises because if you took the entire universe, and started it rotating, nothing would change. We can only detect rotation with respect to other objects. Note that this is a unique feature of General Relativity, and isn't true in Newtonian mechanics, where rotation is absolute.

 

[Mintmaster]

Do you know the experiment with two balls, one spinning with 20000+ rpm and one steady, then you kick them up a bit and let them both fall freely?

I just googled it, and unless the experiment can be repeated in vacuum, it doesn't say anything about gravity. A spinning ball will affect the way air flows around it.

If any effect exists, it's orders of magnitude lower than you claim. Here's a publication:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v63/i25/p2701_1
They got 1 part in 100,000 reduction in weight, but only for one direction of rotation, which really makes the findings suspect.

 

[Mintmaster]

Well, yes, actually, it sort of is. This effect is known as "frame dragging".

Basically, if you have a rotating object, the space-time around it is sort of dragged along with the rotation. Fundamentally, this arises because if you took the entire universe, and started it rotating, nothing would change. We can only detect rotation with respect to other objects. Note that this is a unique feature of General Relativity, and isn't true in Newtonian mechanics, where rotation is absolute.

Isn't that a very limited effect? Wikipedia says that it'll alter position by something like one part in a trillion.

If you were inside a sphere in space and it started rotating along with you, I guarantee you that you could detect the rotation without having any other object outside the sphere to measure it against.

 

[RudeCurve]

-I (and you) said spring, not string
-You can pretension a spring and limit the movement of the connected objects so that it always applies a force
-The force that a spring applies has nothing to do with gravity. It's proportional to the displacement from the natural length, and always in line with the spring.

Of course a spring has nothing to do with gravity LMFAO, I thought you said STRING which has everything to do with gravity.

What's your point? You can't do work with it. The maximum energy that you can extract from repelling magnets in some starting configuration is the amount of energy that it took for you to put them in that position in the first place. This can be mathematically proven.

The point is a magnet and spring operate under very different principles. One needs physical contact the other doesn't. GRALL was saying they're the same thing which they obviously are not. A magnet has magnetic attraction/repulsion ALL THE TIME whether you push the magnet or not. It doesn't need your help to creat a force. A static spring exerts ZERO force and has no way to generate its own force without you compressing the spring. The fallacy is trying to equate two magnets as some sort of mechanically based spring. The only commonality is that the repulsion of two magnets causes a springing force but operates under a magnet field. A mechanical spring isn't using a magnetic field to generate force.

 

[RudeCurve]

No, I can demonstrate that I'm right by use of simple physics: generation of an EMF produces a force opposite to the motion that generates said EMF. This is really basic electricity and magnetism here.

There are also very simple thermodynamic arguments: in order to do work, you need to increase entropy more than the reduction of entropy caused by the work. In the end this means that you have to put more energy into the system than you get out, and so any time you do something that gets out extra useful energy, that means you have to put that much more additional useful energy into the system (the remainder is dissipated as heat). For this invention, in order to achieve the same acceleration, the motor must necessarily work harder when electricity is being extracted than when not.

This is the typical argument, but none seems to be able to explain WHY in his invention the motor is accelerating and creating a complimentary torque when a load is applied. On a traditional motor when you apply a load the motor decelerates.

Oh, well, I know you don't.

And I don't claim to know....that's exactly why I have an open mind. You on the other hand know for a fact it doesn't work even without understanding exactly what's going on within this guy's invention. Feel free to explain why his motor accelerates under load instead of decelerating.

As I said, this distinction doesn't make any real difference. In particular because "touching" just means getting close enough that the electrostatic repulsion between electron shells becomes such that the atoms on one surface don't get any closer to the atoms on the other. The fundamental force at work, whether you're talking about a spring or a magnet, is still the electromagnetic force. It's just that with the spring you're using (mostly) the electric part at much shorter distances (typically between atoms/molecules), while with the magnet you're using the combined magnetic moment of large numbers of atoms to get stronger fields that operate over longer distances. It's still fundamentally the same force, with no real differences in terms of the energy behavior.

Nope they're not the same forces at work. One is purely mechanical and the other is purely magnetic. A spring has to be made into a certain shape in order to generate a spring force. A magnet can be made into any shape and it would still generate a force. Just because your spring is made up of atoms with electrons doesn't mean the spring forces are the same as the magnetic forces from a magnet.

What you're saying is analogous to air being a conductor of electricity because there are atoms in the air....lol. Sure if you have enough voltage you can make electricity jump an air gap doesn't mean it's a conductor of electricity. Or plastic as being magnetic because if you had a strong enough magnet you could cause it to levitate. That's quite a stretch. Going by your simplistic logic a car is a bicycle with 4 wheels and a plane is a bicycle with wings a jet engine... With enough speed and a ramp you can make a bicycle fly the same as a plane...

Atoms = Spring = Magnet = Gravity

Therefore Bike = Jet

Since a cat is made up of atoms as well..

Cat = Magnet

Since a Human is also made up of atoms has eyes, nose, mouth and hair...

Human = Cat

Therefore Cat = Magnet = Human = Spring = Bike = Gravity = Atoms

How much butter you want on the cat?

 

[KimB]

Isn't that a very limited effect? Wikipedia says that it'll alter position by something like one part in a trillion.

If you were inside a sphere in space and it started rotating along with you, I guarantee you that you could detect the rotation without having any other object outside the sphere to measure it against.

Well, it depends upon the object you're talking about. Yes, for any object here on Earth, the effect is so obscenely small as to be basically impossible to measure. For the Earth itself, extremely sensitive satellites have measured it. For black holes, the effect can be very significant.

 

[KimB]

This is the typical argument, but none seems to be able to explain WHY in his invention the motor is accelerating and creating a complimentary torque when a load is applied. On a traditional motor when you apply a load the motor decelerates.

The paper posted in the first page of this thread went into great detail as to how an induction motor works, and why it behaves this way.

And I don't claim to know....that's exactly why I have an open mind. You on the other hand know for a fact it doesn't work even without understanding exactly what's going on within this guy's invention. Feel free to explain why his motor accelerates under load instead of decelerating.

No, you don't. You have a mind as closed as any, because you clearly haven't even paid the least bit of attention to the criticisms provided. Believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it is a feature of a closed mind, not an open one.

Nope they're not the same forces at work. One is purely mechanical and the other is purely magnetic.

Mechanical forces are just another word for the forces between atoms/molecules, which are electromagnetic in nature. There is no fundamental difference here, just a difference in configuration and scale.

 

[London Geezer]

Filling posts with LMAO and every two lines doesn't exactly give one much of chance to be taken seriously.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Filling posts with LMAO and every two lines doesn't exactly give one much of chance to be taken seriously.

To be fair, that is the most sensible parts of his posts though...

 

[Simon F]

I'm just pissed (US version) that I've gone through two loaves of bread and three black cats and still can't get Davros' perpetual motion machine working.

Well, there's your problem. You need to be pissed (UK/AU etc version) and at least you'll think you have seen it working.

 

[nutball]

And I don't claim to know....that's exactly why I have an open mind.

Wise man say ... don't open your mind so far that your brains fall out.

 

[Rolf N]

Nope they're not the same forces at work. One is purely mechanical and the other is purely magnetic.

Certain pairs of forces cancel each other out after tiny distances, so the attraction they cause can only be observed on a microscopic scale. Maybe you've heard about Van-Der-Waals effects in chemistry class in school, which describes how a (macroscopically) neutral molecule can be polarized on the micro scale to the extent that it attracts and repulses neighbour molecules, and affects the overall macro properties. Cf viscosity of hydrocarbons, difficulty of mixing oil and water.

Water is polarized on the micro scale, too. A great many of its properties (qualities as a solvent, high thermal capacity and others) are explained by this.

edit: point being, the forces that establish "mechanical contact", cohesion inside solid objects and even magnetic attraction/repulsion all go back to one and the same source. The fields just have different effective ranges.

 

[Mize]

Wise man say ... don't open your mind so far that your brains fall out.

That's a bit presumptuous nutball.

 

[nutball]

That's a bit presumptuous nutball.

*shrugs* Is it? If you say so.

My reading of it is that one should always be receptive to new ideas, but one should be hesitant to throw away all the knowledge and understanding gained by human endeavour simply for the sake of accepting new ideas, no matter how appealing they may be.

While I'm on a roll, here's another one-liner that's relevant to this thread and other perpetual energy threads: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

 

[Mize]

Too heady for me. I just mean you were presuming something was there to fall out.

 

[Grall]

Um...a magnet is NOT a spring!

A spring's completely analogous to a magnet in its fundamental nature. If you have an opaque tube with a metal rod coming out of either end and you notice resistance when pushing the rods together, you have no way of telling wether the resistance is due to a spring or two magnets. Magnets simply aren't sources of energy, they never have been even if your tiny little mind becomes confuzzled by them attracting or repelling each other even though they lack any tangible connection between them.

Look, this free energy is bullshite. You don't need any motors with extra special super secret sauce windings to get free energy. Ever heard of piezoelectric crystals? They're funny little fuckers that create electrical currents when compressed. So just line a shitload of them up on a circuit board and hook them up with wires to a pair of terminals, hook a coffee pot upp to the terminals. When we then put the board in a vice and squeeze, we'll have ourselves a nice cup of free energy cappuccino! With enough of these crystal-encrusted vices, we could run an entire city! Hell, the PLANET! Right?!

Wrong. Coz it doesn't work like that. And neither does your butt-buddy's electric motor either.

With magnets whether you pull them apart or not they are ALWAYS exerting an attraction/repulsion force on another magnet.

The spring is no different in that regard. The magnet will only be able to power anything for the short distance it takes for it to mate with its opposite pole other magnet. Like your grandfather clock with its gravity-powered mechanisms. YOU have to lift the weights to get the mechanism going.

If gravity really was a source of power I would be able to hang a device from the ceiling in a piece of string and it would run just from hanging there, unmoving. Or hell, it should be able to lie on my kitchen table for that matter...

It's the same thing with magnets. If they actually were power sources I should be able to arrange them around the rim of a wheel hanging on an axle and surround them with fixed magnets. Assuming I got the angles between the two sets of magnets right, the wheel would start spinning on its own and let me run devices from the torque exerted on the central axle, right?

People have patented, and built machines like that. Problem is, THEY DON'T WORK, because magnets aren't power sources.

 

[Albuquerque]

 

[Mintmaster]

Too heady for me. I just mean you were presuming something was there to fall out.