Why PM magnet motors and PM Gravity machines cannot possibly ever work

[quantumtangles]

In some ways, gravity may be thought of as being similar to an elastic band. When you supply energy to an elastic band by stretching it (chemical energy supplied to your muscles is converted to mechanical energy to stretch the elastic band), the elastic band will snap back to approximately its original state. Specifically, if you hold one end of the elastic band to the floor and stretch the other end upwards, it will snap back down to the floor when you release the upper end of it. Bearing this in mind, think again about gravity. Gravity is a force not wholly dissimilar with the analogy of the elastic band. Like an elastic band, it does not contain energy unless you first supply it with energy. The energy used to move objects upwards (like stretching an elastic band) causes acceleration of things such as apples (objects which have mass) when they are allowed to fall back to the ground (acceleration).

But gravity cannot apply its 'force field' to "falling" objects like apples unless energy has first been supplied to raise them from the ground. In the case of apples, chemical energy has been supplied to cause the apple tree to grow and form apples. So too, when you lift an object from the ground and release it, it will fall because you supplied chemical energy to lift it in the first place.

We may think objects fall to the ground 'because of' the effect of gravity, and in a narrow sense this is right. But when you think about it more carefully, you will realise that the object has only fallen to the ground because energy was supplied to it beforehand (work was performed) in the process of lifting it upwards in the first place.

For this reason, even in the best possible scenario of component efficiency, you can never get more energy out of a gravity based device than you put into it in the first place to lift things above ground level. Output can never exceed input.

Energy always has to be expended lifting objects up from the floor and the 'force' of gravity cannot possibly ever add 'extra' energy to the object. When you lifted it, you added energy, but it does not gain energy on the way down.

The same general principle applies to magnets. Just because magnets have lines of force (similar to gravity), does not mean that magnets contain 'energy'. They do not. If static or stationary magnets really did contain 'energy', we would be able to connect devices and wires to them and use them as batteries or power supplies, but we cannot do this because they do not contain any energy.

In point of fact, neither gravity nor magnetic field lines in magnets possess energy. Energy must always be supplied from outside for the inherent 'field lines or forces' to seem to perform work. Consider how Faraday's law applies to solenoids. You always have to move a magnet inside a copper coil, or vice versa, you have to move a copper coil near a magnet to produce electrical energy. If magnets in stasis contained any energy whatsoever, you would not need to do this. You would be able to generate electricity without having to move the magnet at all; without having to move it relative to the coil or vice versa. But this is not so because magnets do not contain any energy. Energy must always be supplied from an external source (for example by your hand) to move the magnet or to move the solenoid.


The upshot of this is that working 'magnetic motors' made from arrays of magnets are impossible; have always been impossible and will always be impossible (unless you go to a different Universe where different laws of physics apply).


External energy must always be added to magnet based devices to enable them to rotate. External energy must always be added to gravity based systems to enable them to perform work.


Our predisposition to confuse force (in the sense of field lines) with energy or power has led countless inventors to waste time and resources trying to build PM magnetic motors, PM pendulums, and other gravity based machines, but none of these devices can ever possibly work because the laws of physics render them impossible. Just because you do not understand why it cannot work will not change the facts. These devices cannot ever possibly work. PM is impossible.

There are plenty of brilliant innovative inventors on this forum but some of them are oblivious to the central fact that field lines do not equate with energy or power. They are different things, and work must always be performed on objects (mass) if they are to be provided with with acceleration (F= m*a).

Looking at this issue from an another perspective, suppose, by some ingenious hitherto undiscovered method, an intellectual colossus manages to get a 'PM Magnet-motor' to rotate continuously, without any external power supply being fed into it. Let us suppose the electrical output of this mystery machine is then connected back to the machine itself. We know from Einstein that E=MC2. Accordingly, the machine would gain mass as it generated and stored power, until the point when it would have infinite mass...which is impossible.


My respectful suggestion? Stop wasting time and resources trying to build PM machines based on magnets and gravity. They cannot possibly ever work. Ever. People have been trying to build them for centuries. If it were possible for them to work, they would have been built by now.


Instead, build something useful. Something that has utility or which can convert externally derived energy into other forms, and thus has a chance of performing useful work. You cannot convert the 'force' of gravity or the 'force' of magnetism into energy without performing externally derived work on the systems.


Peace.

[Rafael Ti]

This interesting article by John Collins gives a clue about ability of harnessing energy from gravity...
http://www.gravitywheel.com/html/bessler_s_wheel_explained.html

[quantumtangles]

This interesting article by John Collins gives a clue about ability of harnessing energy from gravity...
http://www.gravitywheel.com/html/bessler_s_wheel_explained.html

It is certainly an interesting article, but I disagree with key conclusions in it. For example, gravity wheels are said, in the article, to harness gravity "as an external source of energy". I disagree. Gravity is not a source of energy, either internally or externally. Quite the contrary. The only thing gravity is capable of doing is "de-energising by conversion (from potential to kinetic energy) that which has previously been energised by other means".


If gravity is viewed (by way of analogy) as a giant elastic band that pulls everything back to ground level and causes all potential energy to be converted to kinetic energy on the way down, the question arises; how may gravity be said to add energy? The answer is that if gravity neither contains energy nor confers energy on bodies with mass, it cannot be used as a source of power. This is the crux of the matter...and some elaboration may be called for because I am heading towards an exotic argument concerning kinetic energy. I shall therefore use an example apparently unhelpful to my argument. That of falling water. Incidentally, there is considerably more "free energy" in falling water than you will find in any sort of ridiculous pendulum or "magnet motor", so it makes sense to debunk the most complex and difficult example in the article you referenced. If falling water can be debunked as a source of "free energy", then a host of other harebrained ideas should fall like dominoes as a result.


Hydroelectric plants work because falling water strikes impulse turbine blades. Two principle equations are used to calculate the mechanical or electrical power output of such facilities, though as both results are in Watts, there is no real distinction between mechanical and electrical power output in this context. I have used seawater in the second equation (density 1020 kg/m3) to make the density figure stand out more (and in fact I also used seawater as the working fluid for the example in the first equation as well though I have not included all the calculations here or this could become seriously prolix).

The first equation:


Applying by way of example 297 RPM and Fjet = 14280 Newtons to the Pmech equation as an illustration for a turbine of diameter 0.87m, water flow of 1 m3/s and a head of 25m:

Pmech = Fjet x Njet x pi x flowrate x RPM x 0.9 x 0.87m / 60
= 14280N x 1(jet) x pi x 1m3/s x 297RPM x 0.9(eff) x 0.87m / 60
= 173Kw


Power (watts) = Fjet (force of water jet in Newtons) x Njet (the number of water jets) x pi x RPM (revolutions per minute) x PCD (pitch circle diameter of the impulse turbine in meters, namely the diameter of the turbine less a few centimetres comprising the smaller diameter circle just inside the outer rim of the turbine to which force is actually applied to the centre of the turbine cups or buckets) / 60 (we divide by 60 because we used RPM rather than radians per second for angular velocity) and the 0.9 eff figure is a unit-less fraction representing a highly efficient Pelton Impulse turbine (the larger they are the more efficient they get, and 0.94 efficiency would be about as good as it gets).


Second equation:


Cross referencing the output figure with the second (more commonly used) equation for electrical power output in watts using the same data:

Power (mechanical) in watts = height(m) x density of water (Kg/m3) x gravity (m/s/s) x flow of water (m3/s) x system efficiency (n = unit-less fraction)
Pwatts = h(25m) x g(9.81 m/s/s) x rho (1020kg/m3) x 0.9 (eff) x 1m3/s (flow)
= 225kW


I invite attention to the margin of error because unlike free energy cultists or cult scientists who refer to the laws of thermodynamics without knowing what they really mean, it is my responsibility to invite attention to problems with my hypothesis. I must debunk it as best I can before inviting anyone else to do so. I suspect the margin of error arises from the inevitable and quite correct application of delta mom/Benz's law in the first equation, where the force figure in newtons has to be divided in two in order accurately to define change in momentum.

Note that the first equation does not overtly include acceleration due to gravity (though in fact it covers it for reasons I shall come to).

Both equations provide (within the admitted margin of error) the same result if applied to the figures for any given hydroelectric installation provided that the flow rate (in equation 2) and the Fjet figure (in equation 1) are accurately calculated. Figuring out the figures for the other terms is normally trivial.

We do not need to include a term for gravity in the first equation because the term Fjet (the force in Newtons of the water exiting the nozzle before striking the turbine cups) already takes all relevant factors into account. Who cares about 'gravity' in this equation when all we need to know is force per unit area (pressure in Pascals or N.m2) on the turbine cups from which the force Fjet figure (Newtons) may then be calculated.

My point is that it does not matter where the force for the Fjet term comes from. If water applies a certain force (pressure per unit area to the interior of the curved spoons or cups of the turbine), then X kW of electricity will be generated.

I argue that gravity does not 'energise' the water. This may seem controversial, but indulge me for a moment. The water possesses potential energy as a function of its altitude above the exit nozzle of the turbine. The altitude of the water itself arose because enormous quantities of solar energy were expended, causing evaporation and later on, precipitation. This solar process is hugely inefficient in terms of energy expenditure versus energy output from falling water.


All that gravity managed to achieve was to draw the water downwards through a gravity well arising from the curvature of space/time due to the mass of planet earth. Gravity did not therefore add potential energy to the water. Whether it added kinetic energy may seem controversial per F = m*a. Newton might have said it did, but I think it is fairly uncomplicated.


Gravity did not supply potential energy to the water. Potential energy is the only energy the water ever originally possessed (leaving aside bond energy). The force of gravity is a converter, not a supplier. It converted that potential energy into kinetic energy. But the process of conversion did not add any 'extra' energy. On the contrary, half it if was lost. See Delta mom (change in momentum equations) for water striking turbines.

Does gravity 'de-energise' water by removing its potential energy before the water strikes the cups of the turbine? Certainly, the turbine removes kinetic energy from the water, because the water leaves the turbine with zero or close to zero tangential velocity.


I am not arguing here that gravity is a sort of 'anti-energy', in the sense that it takes out or removes from the (mass of) falling water all energy invested in it by other means...in this case by the sun (solar energy). But I do argue that gravity is on any reasonable view merely a converter of potential energy to kinetic energy.

This may seem to be an incomplete picture where acceleration due to gravity is what gives rise to the force figure (F=m*a). After all, for falling water, Force (Newtons) = Mass (1000 Kg/m3) x 9.81 m/s/s (acceleration due to gravity).

But I argue that the 'energy' of the water was not 'caused' by gravity. Large amounts of solar energy resulted in evaporation and eventually rainfall onto mountainous areas. The resulting streams of water followed the path of a gravity well, moving downwards as a result. The water possessed the relevant potential energy the moment it landed on high ground. I argue that gravity (see the term in the first equation) accurately predicts the rate of conversion of potential energy, but that gravity does not ever actually add potential energy nor does it add kinetic energy in an authentic sense. It merely converts potential energy (which was already there) to kinetic energy (a process that adds zero net energy). Half of that energy is also lost because of Benz's law. That is the sole effect of the force of gravity in this context.


This is an almost inconceivably inefficient process. From the moment the sun heats and evaporates water to the moment falling water strikes the cups of a turbine, vast amounts of 'energy' are lost due to inefficiency.


Only one thing is certain. You should never let anyone else do your thinking for you. Cult scientists, who hide behind the laws of thermodynamics to avoid the Cimmerian penumbra of having to think are just as culpable as free energy cultists in this regard. If Einstein had let Newton do his thinking for him, where would we be?

Very interesting article. The definitions concerning conservative and dissipative forces were very well written and I find myself questioning whether Newton's equation accurately measures that which arises for other reasons. So very thought provoking.


*Footnote citation for Delta Mom


Bernoulli's equation gives us jet velocity. Assuming by way of example a water jet with 16,000,000 Pascals of pressure (160 bar) and water density of 1000 kg/m3

P = ½ r . V2

P = Pressure (Pa)
rho = density (kg/m3)
V = velocity (m/s)
P = 160 bar = 16,000,000 Pa = 16,000,000 N/m2
rho fresh water = 1000 kg/m3
The mystery value is velocity (m/s)
16,000,000 = ½ 1000 . V2
V = 178.8854382 m/s

Newton gives us Force (per mass x acceleration)
F = m.a
F = 0.16kg/s x 179 m/s
F = 28.64 Newtons

Note that the Turbine will be at its most efficient when the runner is travelling at half the jet speed ie 89.5 m/s **

The Change in momentum of the jet (assuming the water jet leaves the cups with zero absolute tangential velocity) will balance the force applied to the cup.

Accordingly:
Delta Mom = mass flow rate x Delta V
Delta Mom = mass flow rate x (Vjet â€" Vrunner)
Delta Mom = 0.16 x (179 â€" 89.5)
Delta Mom = 14.3 N




**
x = vb / vj


x = ratio
vb = Cup velocity at pitch circle diameter of turbine
vj = Jet velocity


F = mb. vj . (1-x) (1+ z.cos g)

h = mb . (vj . vj) . x . (1-x) . (1+z.cosg) / ½ . mb (vj . vj)

P = F . vb = mb . vj . (1-x) . (1+z.cos g) . vb  = mb . vj . x . (1-x) . (1+z.cos g)

dh / dx = 2(1-2x). (1+z.cos g) = 0

x = 0.5


h = system efficiency as a unit-less fraction between zero and one
F = force of water on cups (N)
mb = mass flow rate into cup (kg/s)
vj = Jet velocity (m/s)
vb = runner tangential velocity at pitch circle diameter (m/s)
z = efficiency factor for flow in buckets (unit-less fraction between zero and 1)
g = angle of sides of cups
x = speed ratio of vj to vb





Conclusion:


If ignorance were a criminal offence, I would be serving a life sentence

[McGiver30]

The problem here is everyone that says nay about gravity motors or PM motors is stuck in the conventional ways. If we followed conventional science and based all truths on conventional science, then there would be no point in trying anything new because we have already discovered the truths. Our universe actually would not exist based on our so called factual science. People need to stop saying things are not possible and why it's not possible, because they are closed minded and can't accept what they don't understand. I would invite anyone who is so smart to explain how our universe continues to rotate on magnatism/gravity but is not perpetual? If our universe is running, how can we not down size and duplicate? Guess we are just imagining phenominons and everything has an exact science and is explainable? I could rant on and on, but I just wish people would atleast try and prove a theory right 100% before defending it. our conventional science was setup by some great men, and is a great starting point for learning, but our conventional science is still flawed, not exact so we shouldn't be trying to stop progression based on conventional science. There is so much we don't know or understand, yet we have an awful lot of big mouths telling everyone how dumb it is to even try. Unbelievable!

[quantumtangles]

The problem here is everyone that says nay about gravity motors or PM motors is stuck in the conventional ways. If we followed conventional science and based all truths on conventional science, then there would be no point in trying anything new because we have already discovered the truths. Our universe actually would not exist based on our so called factual science. People need to stop saying things are not possible and why it's not possible, because they are closed minded and can't accept what they don't understand. I would invite anyone who is so smart to explain how our universe continues to rotate on magnatism/gravity but is not perpetual? If our universe is running, how can we not down size and duplicate? Guess we are just imagining phenominons and everything has an exact science and is explainable? I could rant on and on, but I just wish people would atleast try and prove a theory right 100% before defending it. our conventional science was setup by some great men, and is a great starting point for learning, but our conventional science is still flawed, not exact so we shouldn't be trying to stop progression based on conventional science. There is so much we don't know or understand, yet we have an awful lot of big mouths telling everyone how dumb it is to even try. Unbelievable!

@Mcgiver30


You seem to forget that the burden of proof always falls on the shoulders of those who make assertions. There are cult scientists out there too ignorant to understand or explain why they think something is impossible. They are the sort of people who mention the laws of thermodynamics without being able to explain or understand them intuitively, and I agree such people are morons. But there are also free energy cultists, and they can be equally ignorant and are more often than not quite stunningly stupid. They refuse to explain, mathematically or otherwise, why their assertions are correct, and in the background you will hear their mantra, 'we need to try new things or we will never progress' (a confusion between trying new things which just might possibly work, and trying dumb things that cannot possibly work).


I agree we need to try new things. I agree we know relatively little about electricity and magnetism in terms of possible applications and circuits. We may see wonderful applications for new components in both discrete and lump matter terms, and yes I strongly support experimentation both with circuit simulators like LFSpice and on breadboards.

But what I object to is people wasting time and resources (that could properly be directed more constructively) trying to build impossible PM magnet motor generators. There are two sorts of people who build magnet motors. Fraudsmen who sell plans for machines that dont work (and can never work) or want investors for same, and misguided people who think magnets are some sort of battery or power source when they are not.

Once again, (perhaps repetition will drive the point home), magnets do not contain energy. Sheesh

If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on your shoulders to justify it. And by the way, what does the expression 'conventional science' mean? Is it a reference to machines that actually work (such as, for example, the computer you used to post your message? wtf