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

[johnny874]

>>  By way of conclusion, the device will 'work', but you will get considerably less electrical or mechanical power out of it (in Watts) than you have to spend to get the balloon to move up and down when attached to an alternator motor. Most of the losses will stem from trying to cram the balloon into the high pressure environment at the base of the cylinder.


I hope this has been helpful.  <<

  I disagree, sorry. It does make me feel better about what I am working on. With a water type enviroment, the density of the water itself would slow anything moving through it requiring exponentially more work. Yet the same principles can be used in a gravity type device and air having a lesser density than water would have a greater yeild of energy to mass than a similar device in water. Basic engineering.

[christo4_99]

Show me the mathematical calculations that explain anything in detail and you will see the nature of the problem . Math is touted as some kind of foolproof logistical god of the universe when all it really does is help us keep track of our bank accounts . It cannot simulate, explain or otherwise exemplify reality , no matter what they taught on Star Trek . The best argument for perpetual motion is this: Bessler . He said it all . He was a career perpetual mobilist . ( How many of those in history ?) Only one . He said that the knowledge of these forces was known to children rather than adults . One  need only look at the state of our planet and system to realize that our children are superior to us in many ways .
Matt 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Food for thought .

[quantumtangles]

To all naysayers, get out of the backwaters, gravity machines works.

The engineer and inventor James Kwok has built a gravity machine based upon the differentials in bouyancy due to gas density in relation to differentials in the surrounding water pressure at different water levels in the system.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Hidro_--_Water_Pressures_Energy_Conversion_%28WAPEC%29

James Kwok is a Member of the Australian College of Mechanical Engineers,
the Panel of the Australian National Registered Professional Engineers and on the panel of Charted Assessment with the Institution of Engineers Australia.

In 2008 Professor Ion Boldea of Politehnica University, Romania joined as a co-developer in Hidro+’s multi-module tower linear electric generator (MTLEG) technology, currently world patent pending the Hidro+ MTLEG is a joint patent between James Kwok and Professor Ion Boldea.

He is right now building a 1MW plant in Jakarta:

http://pesn.com/2012/03/12/9602055_Hidro_Reveals_1_MW_Plant_Design/

Just go on and discredit him as much as you want.  Who cares.
He is still doing what he says, building a gravity machine.

Gwandau

@ Gwandau


James Kwok is a very innovative capable engineer. His machine, using gas filled compartments (filled with gas at the bottom of a tank of water and evacuated of gas at the top) is ingenious (he calls it the Hidro).


However, Mr Kwok first publicised his invention in 2008, four years ago. Since that time, this technology, which would be worth trillions of dollars if it works, has not yet been replicated on an industrial scale worldwide, as one might expect. Secondly, without wishing to be unfair towards Mr Kwok, who seems to be a genuinely nice chap and who is undoubtedly a brilliant man, it would appear from publications on the web that he was nevertheless convicted in Australia of an offence relating to disclosure of information concerning securities (company stock). Which is to say it would appear he failed to make material disclosure relating to the sale of securities.


Australia was also the locus of a free energy device concerning an alleged overunity magnet motor (Lutec Limited). The inventors of this magnet motor sold stock to "Sophisticated Investors". This is a term of art in Australia describing investors who opt out of protection afforded to the public in corporate Prospectus stock offerings. Perfectly accurate disclosure must be made in a Prospectus when stock is offered to the public, but if the stock is offered only to Sophisticated Investors (people who claim expertise concerning the viability of the intellectual property) no such protections concerning uberrimae fidei disclosure (disclosure of the utmost good faith) are required. Needless to say, the magnet motor (not in any way connected with Mr Kwok) did not work. The Sophisticated Investors would appear to have lost their money.

Turning back to the entirely distinct subject of Mr Kwok's device; leaving aside delays in implementing it, and leaving aside what may well have been a technical statutory offence rather than deliberate dishonesty on his part, I have a more fundamental problem with his device.


Physics.


It is claimed, for expenditure of approximately 360 watts, that there is a 1kW output. So where is the extra 640 watts coming from?


The machine (which is sealed and thus cannot be internally examined when in operation) does not appear to have any hidden power source (it contains a battery but I do not take issue with this provided continuous operation can be demonstrated). Rather, it is the principle upon which it is based that gives me cause for concern, and I will come back to this. Furthermore, I have seen no reports of continuous operation for more than about 25 minutes (apparently because the "flywheel" burns out).


But more specifically, the chambers which rise and fall due to inflation and deflation of gas fall towards the base of the tank because of the effect of gravity when deflated. However, if the chambers are heavy enough (when deflated) to fall to the base of the water filled tank, how can the addition of gas (inflation) make them lighter (give them positive buoyancy)? The same appears to apply even if the gas chambers free fall through air rather than through water (it makes more sense for the chambers to free fall through air outside the water tank).


Avocadro's law tells us that even gases have weight. Accordingly, adding gas to one of the chambers when it is at the bottom of the tank of water will make it HEAVIER, not lighter, regardless of how low the density (in kg/m3) of the selected gas happens to be. It is my responsibility, as someone making an assertion, to invite attention to phenomena tending to show I am wrong. The best example (of why I may be wrong) is a rubber balloon. A balloon is heavy enough to fall to the earth when deflated, but if filled with Helium, it will rise upwards. This is the best example I can think showing my argument to be flawed. Unlike most people here, I invite attention to ideas that tend to contradict my own assertions. Try it. People may take you more seriously.


I suspect the answer is that, unlike a rubber balloon, the gas compartments must be very heavy to enable them to fall through water of density 1000 kg/m3, with sufficient mass and velocity and therefore with sufficient force to generate electricity (F = m*a). Even if they free fall through air, they still need significant mass and velocity to generate meaningful force. Which means that the gas compartments have to be fairly heavy. In other words, the gas compartments, when deflated, must be like lead weights of one sort or another. And if you fill a hollow lead weight with Helium, it will not rise into the air like a rubber balloon because it will be too heavy. Lead balloons do not float upwards even when inflated with Helium. For the gas compartments to rise when inflated with gas, a delicate equilibrium would be required. A balancing act between the mass needed to generate adequate force on the way down, and a mass sufficiently lightweight (sufficiently balloon-like) to enable gas inflation to imbue positive buoyancy. That is a very thin line to tread, and if Mr Kwok has managed to achieve continuous operation of such a device, having overcome significant friction from the attached gas inflation and evacuation tubes, the onus is very much on his shoulders to demonstrate this.

For the above reasons, and although I greatly admire the ingenuity of the device (involving ideas I personally lacked the ability to envisage when attempting to build a similar machine) it seems to me nevertheless that the claim of over-unity should be treated with caution until a full explanation concerning the non-applicability of Avocadro's law has been provided. Specifically, he should explain why his gases would appear to have anti-gravitational qualities when applied to relatively heavy weights.


Having said this, Mr Kwok's machine, if it works continuously (as opposed to having functionality limited by the Ah of the connected battery), would be evidence that I am entirely wrong in everything that I have said in this thread. For this reason (since I am reprogrammable unlike many others here), I am grateful that you invited attention to this marvellous machine because it is, apart from anything else, a fascinating device. I think Mr Kwok is a genuinely talented engineer and inventor and I do not think he is dishonest, but I remain unconvinced about his invention.

[johnny874]

Show me the mathematical calculations that explain anything in detail and you will see the nature of the problem . Math is touted as some kind of foolproof logistical god of the universe when all it really does is help us keep track of our bank accounts . It cannot simulate, explain or otherwise exemplify reality , no matter what they taught on Star Trek . The best argument for perpetual motion is this: Bessler . He said it all . He was a career perpetual mobilist . ( How many of those in history ?) Only one . He said that the knowledge of these forces was known to children rather than adults . One  need only look at the state of our planet and system to realize that our children are superior to us in many ways .
Matt 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Food for thought .

   Christ, now you're sounding like AB Hammer. He always said that if math could solve this problem, it would have done so a long time ago. When I was posting with dr. What @ besslerwheel dot com, what said that Bessler said he performed many calculations.
As for the math, I did post it, again, it is f= 8m/1ma.
The thing with kids is that some of them, not all are willi9ng to learn. But in these posts I read, people post only what they know to show they know something. No learning happening here.
   

[christo4_99]

I don't post what I know because if I did it would all be over and we'd all be building something of Bessler's design.