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

[quantumtangles]

Permanent magnet rail gun works fine, now put them end to end, and you have a motor...

12th grade science project video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs&feature=related

Magnetic rail guns work in terms of motion. They accelerate confined magnets (incapable of polar rotation) at high velocity between two lines of oppositely polarised magnets. The problem is that you can only move them in a straight line, and you have to "load" the magnetic projectile by hand. They cannot work rotationally (in a circle).

By way of thought experiment, I confess I do not know what would happen if a non-electromagnetic rail were set up around a globe of sufficient radius as to be ostensibly a continuous flat rail (around the moon for example). But even if you could make an enormous rotating magnetic rail circuit, you would not be able to rely on changes in momentum to generate electricity.


The mechanical or electrical power output in watts would depend on a 100% change in momentum in the magnets (leaving them with zero tangential velocity...bringing them to a standstill) all to provide merely a 50% change in momentum in an impulse turbine (delta mom/Benz's law). So that wont work.

The best bet would be to have the magnets rotate continuously inside a copper coil to generate electricity per Faraday's Law... but they cannot be made to complete a circular or spherical circuit. Alert the media if someone manages to do this because their invention will be worth trillions and will solve the energy crisis.


If you are serious about generating electricity, don't bother pointing at moving magnets saying "look at this". Instead, connect a multimeter to the electrical OUTPUT terminals of your machine and tell us (in volts and amperes) how many watts of electricity your magnet array can continuously generate. This will always be reported to be zero, unless the machine forms the basis of an investment scam of some sort.


So they are cool machines, but non-electromagnetic rail guns are yet another tantalising example of something that almost works (in terms of generating electricity).

In contrast, Electromagnetic rail guns used by the military consume vast amounts of energy. Thanks for inviting attention to another interesting idea that does not work in terms of electricity generation.

[christo4_99]

To me it seems a valid question , in a place such as this , a place where fantasy outweighs reality at least two to one , how will anyone be able to distinguish the dreamer from the prophet ? When the wheel is brought into being by laborious thought ( also laborious construction ) and brilliant imagination ( along with good luck for sure ) in a time that is nearing the 300th anniversary of it's original birth ...simply ...what will all those who said no , what will they say ? And when it's forceful turning is once again witnessed in the sights of the curious and skeptical who will deny it and say once again that it contains within it's structure  ( a cat , a dog , a battery and motor , a spring , a turnspit ...or perhaps some mercury ? ) some previously known principle of motion ?

[Rafael Ti]

This is what I always get when try to access the:    www.orffyre.com
What about you? Is that only temporary?


"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."

[parisd]

Quantumtangles quoted
"The first thing to realise is that the means by which we get the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder and the means by which we get the balloon INTO the fluid at the bottom of the cylinder are path dependent."

This would be the hard part of a mechanical device, but for example a type of airlock or "waterlock" could be used.

But I dont want to discuss any practical device, I just want to read your (Quantumtangles) answer to my statement:
We can raise the potential energy of a mass without consuming as much energy as the mass will generate by falling this mean bending the "gravity elastic" as you like to call it without consuming as much energy as much energy as the mass will generate by falling (refer to my last week post, i.e using the Arechimede priniciple).

This is all on my side

[quantumtangles]

Quantumtangles quoted
"The first thing to realise is that the means by which we get the balloon back to the bottom of the cylinder and the means by which we get the balloon INTO the fluid at the bottom of the cylinder are path dependent."

This would be the hard part of a mechanical device, but for example a type of airlock or "waterlock" could be used.

But I dont want to discuss any practical device, I just want to read your (Quantumtangles) answer to my statement:
We can raise the potential energy of a mass without consuming as much energy as the mass will generate by falling this mean bending the "gravity elastic" as you like to call it without consuming as much energy as much energy as the mass will generate by falling (refer to my last week post, i.e using the Arechimede priniciple).

This is all on my side

Apologies for the delay in responding. The problem, old bean, is that falling objects must have crunchy mass if they are to generate productive force (in consequence of acceleration due to gravity (F=m*a)). The fact that certain configurations of rising and falling objects are more efficient than other configurations (path dependent) is not the key issue.


And falling heavy objects are well and good when heavy objects are on the way down, but the problem starts when you try to get them back up again (on the other side of the mechanical circuit when for example you try to get buoyant objects to rise in water). In order for them to rise in water, they must have density of less than 1000kg/m3 (the density of water).


Oil as a working fluid would seem to prove me wrong, as it has a density of about 865kg/m3. Oil rises up through water. Therefore oil could be used as a working fluid in two water tanks where falling oil could strike a turbine, generate electricity on the way down, and them rise due to positive buoyancy in the water filled tank.


The problem is that this does not work. I am embarrassed to admit I tried it. The less dense oil does indeed produce electricity but it produces less electricity than falling water would because the mass and therefore the force is lower (Force in Newtons = 865kg/m3 x 9.81 m/s/s, as opposed to F = 1000kg/m3 x 9.81 m/s/s).


The lower density of oil means you get less force and therefore less electricity from your impulse turbine. The second problem is delta mom (see my earlier posts in this thread). The change in the momentum of the spinning turbine due to falling fluid can only ever give you half the force the falling fluid had to begin with (Benz's law). So at best, with an ideal (100% efficient) system, you only get half as much force back as you spend getting the oil to rise in the water filled tank in the first place. Ouch.


The third problem is getting the oil to enter the base of a high pressure water tank. Base pressure depends on height, fluid density and gravity. In other words, the taller the cylindrical water tank you use to cause your oil to float to the top of it, the higher the base pressure in that tank will be.


Even if we had an ideal one way valve allowing oil to move efficiently into the base of the water filled tank, the problem is that overcoming base pressure in the water tank (to force the oil back into it) consumes much more energy than the falling oil can generate (consumes more even if we disregard Benz's law and imagine it does not apply (which it does)).


Here, I have used the example of oil as a working fluid (moving through a water substrate) because this is the most counter-intuitive or difficult scenario to understand and debunk. But there is a clearer example. A lead balloon.


A lead balloon will fall through air and thus can generate electricity, but if you fill the balloon with Helium for the journey up, it will not rise because it will be too heavy. The upshot is that you need large mass on the way down and small mass on the way up, and this is impossible. So you are correct that Archimedes principle manifests itself in the real world. But if you claim over-unity from any sort of gravity machine, you must build one that works, and such machines have never been built because they do not work. Specifically, they are impossible.

And here comes the clincher. The killer point.

If it were possible to build an over-unity machine (other than a machine which is supplied with energy from the environment, e.g. an open system in which mass/energy can transcend the system boundaries such as in solar panel arrays), and you wired the electrical output (using non S.I units of electron-volts as an example) back into the machine, the machine would gain mass until it had infinite mass (which is impossible).


The punch line is that electrons have mass. Check out the Large Hadron Collider in Cern. Unless these people are living in cuckoo land, electrons have mass. That is why they use Gigaelectron-volts as a unit of MASS (Electron-volts are a non-S.I. unit). Now look at the equation E = Mc2.


You will see that energy and mass are essentially equivalent (once light speed is factored in). If you accept that electrons have mass (e.g. if you are sane), it follows, due to the fact electrons have mass, that overunity (getting more energy out than you put in) is impossible in closed systems. If it were possible, an overunity gravity machine with output wired back into the machine would end up having infinite mass (which is impossible).


Obviously you cannot get more mass out of a system than you put into it. Even die-hard OU fantasists would agree with this. But OU fantasists cannot seem to take a small further logical step of realising that if you cannot get more mass out of, for example, a water pipe than you put into it in the first place (which is to say, you cannot get more water out of a water pipe than you pump into it in the first place), that it follows inexorably from this (and for precisely the same reason...given the mass-energy equivalence demonstrated by Einstein), that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into it.


Gravity can only ever convert existing potential energy into kinetic energy. All one can ever hope to do is convert energy from one form into another. But gravity cannot ever ADD energy. Good day.




If ignorance was a criminal offence, I would be in ADX Florence.