Hi
We are told by scientists that not even neo magnets cannot provide free energy in a setup and if we try we will deplete the magnets!
But I would like to read their explantion of why they think it's not possible.
Iv'e googled a lot but can't find any information about this. Do any of you have a link?
@Ergo
If you google words like magnetism conservative force, you will come across this kind of links:
http://ask.metafilter.com/45235/Is-magnetism-magic-or-what (http://ask.metafilter.com/45235/Is-magnetism-magic-or-what)
http://www.ka9q.net/crackpots/index.html (http://www.ka9q.net/crackpots/index.html)
I personnaly do not attach great importance to these sorts of dissertations.
An old Chinese proverb says:
"Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it."
You can also consult:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Kedron:Eden_Project:Permanent_Magnet_Energy_Gain (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Kedron:Eden_Project:Permanent_Magnet_Energy_Gain)
"Kedron, headed by Kenneth C. Kozeka, Ph.D., presents what they believe will be an abundant source of extremely inexpensive, pollution-free mechanical energy, harnessed from strong electromagnetic forces generated by the spin of electrons in powerful permanent magnets such as those made of neodymium."
Best
Hi,
most of these "can't be done" statements close like a steel bear-trap on one principle.
In 1915 - 18 Emmy Noether (a maths genius) proved that any closed system cannot gain energy - all it can do is shuttle it from one form to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Her work concerned electrodynamics (energy systems associated with capacitors and charge) - but the way she wrote her maths meant that it had general applicability. Like when someone who is just so skilled does work - she made it all look so easy and simple .... try doing this from blank paper yourself and is really tough. At this time Einstein was stuck - this freed him up to make progress on "relativity part II" (General Relativity). He said he looked up to her.
Emmy's maths and energy analysis has been boosted from a Principle to a Law (i.e. higher standing then Einstein's work). This is the Law of Conservation of Energy, sometimes just called Conservation of Energy. You will hear of research and science being done to test Relativity - none will test Noether's work. There is simply no need.
Thus, the favourite means to sink without trace any "free energy" idea - is to show that the system being proposed fits / complies to Emmy Noether's work. If it has characteristics meeting the starting assumptions - Game Over - that's it, a conclusion is reached.
And magnets have those characteristics.
This is where the "can't work" people come from - they are true scientists, know and have read Noether and have been down this road - like thousands of times (this stuff is NOT new, this has been raked over regularly around the world for about 200 years - this all stopped when Noether showed WHY it was pointless).
OK, so what is wrong with this picture?
It is unlikely that the maths is wrong. This is very long established and heavily inspected. As the Open Source people say "all bugs are trivial given enough eyes". Guys rated as geniuses have crawled all over Noether (I hope she forgives me for putting it like that... There is no error in the maths :)
OK, so let's accept the maths. Magnets of themselves cannot add energy because they fit into one of those LCE categories.
But 101 people have found they can get advantage! So what could be going on? Assumptions!
1. about the process - which assumes:
physics can be modeled by maths, therefore
physics will (must!) behave like maths
- it is however unlikely that this is so; for maths is abstract cognition and not connected directly to the world, except in the minds of those imagining the work. It must be given context and applicability
2. Noether's work assumes that Creation (whatever that is) is over. What if... this is not so?
:) since 1998 the Universe has been known to expand in such a way as to show the expansion speeds up - something accelerates expansion (the galaxies retreat from each other like our local Deity has his foot on the gas).
Perhaps - at some level - Creation has not stopped? Could more be arriving all the time - and pushing the rest out?
That would mean that a start assumption "as the system under test sits here - nothing is magically added" - is false. Oops. Noether assumed this (what else was reasonable?).
// it should also point out that the simple existence of the Universe shows a substantial flaw in Conservation of Energy..... LCE would have it that we should not exist, so it cannot be true for all Time
3. physics is different.
The physics of 1915 had empty space (ether ideas had been dropped by then); plus some sort of atom, mass and electrons. That's about it. Oh, photons and fields.
Since then, whole worlds of particles, sub-atomics, smaller and smaller stuff - keeps arriving.
And something odd can be seen - yet is rarely mentioned. There seems (could there be a proof?) that the energy density of the Universe has an inverse relationship to size. What that means - is that the smaller you go, the higher the energy density of - whatever it is that lives at that size (makes sense?)
Oops big-time. When you shrink to foam size (10^-35m) the energy density is ridiculous. If you added up the energy of foam occupied by an atom - it's about 10^20 MORE then the power output of a Supernova. Mad!
That means empty space - the space in which an atom floats (as worked out in the 1960's by Wheeler) - has 10^20 more punch then the 10^41 joules dumped by a Supernova (at this point you should really, really wonder if hi-energy physics is ... completely safe)
Now - this was 100% unknown in Noether's day.
Well, does that matter?
Yes. Very much so. You see, matter is used to build and wall (define) "systems". Noether considered maths for a defined, closed system :) :) :) one built of logical, ideal walls.
So, what is the aperture size (wall material size) for a material containers? Um, let's be generous. 10^-18m ? This is the gap between atoms etc.
That means - material walls are POROUS to smaller stuff. Well, it's a good job those small guys - can't carry much energy, then ... oops, um foam size is about 10^-35m ??
With all that insane energy? They'd get through easily!
Damn. That would mean a start assumption for Noether's maths - can't be met, in practice.
Well, perhaps DON'T make LCE systems from material. What else? Fields? Let's see - the strongest we have are electrostatic and magnetic. Let's use them!
Um, anyone seen anything odd in the way energy behaves, about - magnets, then?
What am I getting at is-
a) Noether is mathematically right - but the maths may be non-applicable for wholly practical reasons.
b) material walls are useless for LCE systems, like trying to confine ants in a lion cage. They just leak every way. But those who do try - will never find any excess present (... oh, where did it go?) - as any excess just runs away through those leaky walls.
c) magnets can never add energy - tick!
d) but space has BUCKETS of energy with lots of odd stuff happening (we KNOW this, as the Universe expands)
e) any system wanting to bottle up energy translations - might choose to use magnets, as mag fields do not have dimensional limitations i.e. "wall aperture size".
Conclusion: Noether is formally correct - and always will be. Physicists / scientists rely on such work - and sup it up. Magnets can never add energy - but SPACE itself might well.
Make any sense??
Steve
@steve_whiss
QuoteMake any sense?
As far as I can catch it!
I'm not a scientist.
QuoteMagnets can never add energy - but SPACE itself might well
.
May I say the following ?
When you shiphon a liquid out of a tank with a hose (a pipe).
The hose itself is not adding energy but the atmospheric pressure is.
Best
@steve_whiss
you are correct,
but magnets can interact with the open space and other materials,
which have a magneticcycleprocess which alters their spin and thus
there are temperature changes involved which can cool down
the other materials or the magnets themself and thus
can convert heat energy back to mechanical energy.
Thus is is a magnetically excited thermodynamical cycle process
which could violate the "2nd law", if the parameters are set right.
Look into magnetic cooling (fridges) and magnetic heat pumps
for references.
excellent - new one on me - thinking about this now.
Hm. Tricky..... :)
"2nd law" Thermodinamics
Enunciated of Carnot: "So that a thermal machine carries through work is necessary two thermal sources of different temperatures"
Being thus, 2 magnets with different values and forces works?
infinity = infinity
1 = 1
however universe is expanding against equilibrium
(infinity + 1) > infinity
hmm...
blackhole shoots out energy, and consumes matter; however the void does not let matter escape thus creating a congruent image of the matter stuck inside this void yet energy being not in the void. That means universal matter and energy being added too by the radiation output of the black holes. Problem!
The increased mass would only slow down the universal expansion thus creating the mass subtraction to be viewed as (infinity - 1) < infinity. This contradicts blackholes. But we never said that maybe the blackhole some how flips the charge of mass creating negative mass. Problem!
That simply concludes that the negative mass balances the energy output. Idea!
Something gives rise to a questioning against matter and energy being interchangeable. Hmmm... Say it with me, Aether? Matter only exists to disrupt the balanced Aether flow. Energy was not matter, energy was created by matter falling into an aether pond. We view this energy as WAVES FROM THE AETHER POND! So lets just say this.... AETHER = AETHER or 1=1, while the matter is what disbalances it and you could say the matter is the reason for the universe to expand.
I don't really know, it's just a bunch of word salad, but I still see some connections in their with what we observe. I feel crazy for posting this.
Reguarding the black holes, i havent looked to deeply into the subject but my theory on black holes seems to be about the same as yours, mass goes in gets compressed so much that it breaks down the matter and turns it into energy. The energy is then shot out of the whole, basically i think of it as a solid ball full of liquid with tiny pin-holes all over keep squeezing and the the liquid will squirt out. What i think allows this is E=mc2 or rather mc2=E
Sounded good in my head but i could be way off.
I have shown conclusively that the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) can be violated and energy can come out from nothing. One way to do it is by properly superimposing two conservative fields. So far, the only reproducible way of obtaining excess energy (violating CoE) is discontinuously, as in SMOT. Continuous production of excess energy is connected with the overcoming of substantial engineering problems and as of this writing hasn't been done convincingly by any party, despite the many claims to it.
As for the Einstein's theory of relativity it isn't worth spending any time on it since it is nothing else but a compilation of errors and complete nonsense.
Hi sharp Over_Unity_dot_com members,
I almost forgot...
May I suggest you these very articles (from Chineese scientists) :
http://freenrg.fr/Against_2th_Law/Maxwell_Demon1.pdf (http://freenrg.fr/Against_2th_Law/Maxwell_Demon1.pdf)
Realization of Maxwell?s Hypothesis
An Experiment Against the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://freenrg.fr/Against_2th_Law/Maxwell_Demon2.pdf
Another Way to Realize Maxwell? s Demon
A Non-uniform Magnetic Field Provides a
One-way Channel for Thermal Electrons
Best
Hi magnetics guys,
You can also have a look at this new article:
http://pesn.com/2007/08/03/9500488_Kozeka_magnets_electron_spin/ (http://pesn.com/2007/08/03/9500488_Kozeka_magnets_electron_spin/)
Best
Hi guys,
Read that PESNetwork link and saw about electron spins. That reminded me so - I've taken a look back at that "Understanding magnets.." thing from last week (the one with the lens stuff) again as it was all about spins.
OK, page 6 mentions Wesley Gary and his system, so I've dug that up on the web http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
Looks like it was replicated in 2001 (http://www.keelynet.com/energy/gary2001.htm).
Is anyone chasing this? The reason I bring this up is that there is a hint as to where the power comes from.
The way I read it - it's a magnet / gravity see-saw (teeter-totter?) reciprocators using G to drop the main weight (lift the magnets together) whilst a screen is in place - that gets removed and exposes a repulsive magnet - so the see-saw drops down again.
I'll try draw this out one paper - it looks easy!
The trick from the Understanding magnets thing is - the screen lives in the neutral or zero slope zone - no forces there *so no work is needed to move it* (work = force thru a distance, force = 0 so work = 0).
Energetically - it is lop sided, sort of like the Chinese are talking about - come to that, the SMOT too. Gravity does one half of a cycle, magnets the other.
Presumably this runs down / the repulsive forces of the magnets de-magnetise each other?? If this is sooo simple, why is it not everywhere?
A few quotes relevant to this thread:
Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. ~ Robert Heinlein
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ~ Albert Einstein
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. ~ Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
:)
:D
exactly :D
Quote from: steve_whiss on August 04, 2007, 07:48:34 PM
If this is sooo simple, why is it not everywhere?
Because it won't work? Even if you could shield the magnet, you would find that the device would get stuck at an equilibrium point, where the magnet is half shielded and half not. The see-saw would probably be horizontal or close to it, depending on weight vs. magnet strength.
I think we have gotten a little bit of topic here.
And there is still no logic explanation to read except some old theories and many personal theories with no backing.
Isn't there really any other scientifically explanation except equilibrium points of why magnets cannot provide power.
Will it always take more power to overcome the equilibrium point in every design?
I was thinking of the Sprain wankel motor or the Hilden Brand valve.
These solutions do not depend on magnets interacting with shields or gravity.
They are put to work in a more straigth forward way to do hard work.
The Hilden Brand valve doesn't even suffer from an equilibrium point, what I know of.
Quote from: Ergo on August 06, 2007, 05:16:31 AM
Will it always take more power to overcome the equilibrium point in every design?
Who knows? While adding magnets to the mix is a relatively modern idea, man has been trying to overcome the equilibrium point for over two thousand years, and it has not yet been done, so sadly, that is the current state of affairs. I really think the key is to make devices and see what works. Theory only goes so far, because nature has a way of equalizing things in ways you do not expect.
I don't believe in PM machines where people try to shield or balance it or someother mechanical way to get past the equilibrium point.
Those who manage to find a way will discover their machines to be extremely weak and the slightest load will stop them.
Just take a look at the Finsrud device. http://www.overunity.com/index.php/board,23.0.html
Another example is all of those PM motors that people strangely enough is connecting to capacitors to slowly see a raise in voltage.
What we need is raw power and torque from the magnets. Or just plenty of electrical output at low power input.
If the device is to weak, like 101%, then no one will be interested in commercializing the invention.
Even COP 1.2 is very weak compaired to the high oil prices of today.
Let's say you want an output of 5 terra watt (like a power plant) then you would have to produce 25 terra watt.
And the return feed of 20 terra watt is not an easy task to perform.
The power plant wouldn't be very economical when considering the cost of building and maintenance.
We need big time COP to efficiently suppress the oil dependence, not puny almost non existent OU.
I know I will get hell for this statement but I'm so tired of all those devices that really never works.
And perhaps we will never get OU using magnets. The laws of physics might just be right about this. :(
The present theory may be right. The present theory does not explain magnetism very well. It is supposed that the magnet contains magnetism. Perhaps magnetism is only a distortion of a present field.
The question arises; If there is a field present, why cant we detect it?
Answer; according to the theory of relativity, space time exits throughout the universe therefore there is a field present everywhere.
Note that CoE applies only to closed systems.
No one knows (not even top scientist !) whether our universe is a closed or an open system. This is for sure.
One wonders from where did all this enormous amount of energy come from, it must have come from somewhere, all this energy and more is coming in, resulting in all this expansion and flying away of galaxies.
So in essence the answer to free energy lies in the answer to the origin of universe itself.
Quote from: Honk on August 07, 2007, 08:22:31 AM
If the device is to weak, like 101%, then no one will be interested in commercializing the invention.
The bleak part is that no one has yet to even demonstrate 101% in a closed system.
However, I believe you are wrong when you state that a 1.2 (120%) efficiency is insufficient to create a profit motive. Remember that out of the 120% going out, 20% can be taken out and 100% put back in, essentially creating free energy from that point forward, subtracting for maintenance and upkeep. It's not like you have to keep putting power into the system.
Personally, however, I would be very surprised to see even a 101% system, much less 120%. I am glad someone is trying though.
Even 101% OU is more than sufficient. Just cascade (connect end to end) N such machines and you'll get (1.01)^N times the input. It scales up very fast.
We can consider atomic energy as OU. You get a trillion times output. However it has been stamped as dirty and is being used mostly for destructive purposes. Given a chance it can solve all problems in a very little time. But mil and politicians are sitting on it and won't let the tech progress any more.
Atomic reactors of today are too dangerous and big. Fast neutrons and gamma radiation are very difficult to shield.
Atomic batteries that using alpha and beta radiation can be the future.
Alpha and beta radiation are just high voltage. Very ease to shield and not so dangerous.
Such batteries are made already. They can work about 12 years without changing the radioactive material inside (radium mostly). They are not big and heavy.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050513_new_battery.html (http://www.livescience.com/technology/050513_new_battery.html)
Guess what, conservation of energy is constantly being violated and physicists accept this! What am I talking about?
I am talking about virtual photons(read about quantum electrodynamics)!
Virtual photons everywhere in the universe. They are not real photons but they still have energy.
An electric charge is nothing but a cloud of virtual photons. Virtual photons are ejected and reabsorbed by the charge. The more energetic a virtual photon, the the less time it can exist before it is reabsorbed. So the more energy you borrow from nature, the quicker you have to pay it back.
Every single one of these virtual photons violate CoE. When a virtual photon is created, there is more net energy than before, the energy of the original particle plus the virtual photon!
The implication that free energy cannot be obtained in device containing permanent magnets is incorrect. I have proved conclusively that CoE can be violated and energy out of nothing (excess energy) can be produced in a discontinuous manner.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 12, 2007, 10:13:10 AM
The implication that free energy cannot be obtained in device containing permanent magnets is incorrect. I have proved conclusively that CoE can be violated and energy out of nothing (excess energy) can be produced in a discontinuous manner.
I do not understand why you keep saying this about the SMOT (I presume it is the SMOT you are referring to). I really want to understand, but I cannot. Under your logic, if I put a paperclip next to a magnet and let got and the paperclip slides across the table and attaches to the magnet, is this free energy? I cannot see how. I have to pay for it when I pry the clip off the magnet. Same with the SMOT. The ball does travel, but the SMOT robs it of much of its velocity upon exit from the ramp, so much so in fact, that the ball cannot get back to the starting point, even given its higher elevation at the end.
All I ask is if you do cite equations, please explain what the terms mean. I am not familiar with the abbreviations you have used in the past. You are very self assured, but I think you are not accounting for something in your reasoning.
No, this is not what I mean. Read the appropriate threads to learn what the proof is.
.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 12, 2007, 11:21:01 AM
No, this is not what I mean. Read the appropriate threads to learn what the proof is.
I will try to read those, but how is it different than extracting energy discontinuously from a ball and ramp. I just have to move the ball back up the ramp each time, the CoE is definitely violated while the ball rolls down the ramp, according to your theory. I guess there is more complicated physics than I can grasp.
The real reason is very simple its a genetic flaw built in to most people, i like to call it the inability to grasp the scope of ones inherent stupidity.
Simply put man and or woman refuses to believe they are not the smartest person alive and so it therefore follows that if he or she can not do something ... it can not be done.
From here it is expanded to i can not do it and i dont want to appear stupid so ill just go with the flow and agree with everyone else that you it cant be done.
There is a huge difference between i cant do it and it cant be done.
Science manages to take this to new levels because some of these people are the smartest people in the world and they cant do it ...so it REALLY cant be done if they say so, the question is are they well trained or are they smart and of course the answer is they are well trained and seldom really smart.
This is summed up very concisely by the statement you can always rely on what you know and you can always rely on what you have been taught but you will never do anything new if you can not think beyond these.
If scientists say something cannot be done you can bet they are wrong....history is full of examples of so called science putting down the people making breakthroughs.X rays,aircraft,the existance of germs..........science is not progressive enough and denies evidence that does not fit favourite theories especially those made by the elite.The current theories we hold as law will be laughed at by future generations...........
Quote from: mapsrg on October 24, 2007, 04:10:39 AM
If scientists say something cannot be done you can bet they are wrong....history is full of examples of so called science putting down the people making breakthroughs.X rays,aircraft,the existance of germs..........science is not progressive enough and denies evidence that does not fit favourite theories especially those made by the elite.The current theories we hold as law will be laughed at by future generations...........
In some cases yes, in other cases no.
The strength of science is that it's always willing to learn and shift position as long as we learn.
Science is not static, like religion is.
Long story short.
Every pice of energy has a name. and these little pices of energy have there own identity, and they have always been floating aorund being different parts of different things.
These little guys cannot be destroyed or reproduced.
Whenver yo udo things there moves about and stuff. If you push something down yoru using energy and these guys change fomr stored up energy in shugar form into heat and kenetic force.
Perpetual motion does not happen because of friction. If something is rubbing against sometihng else, energy is lost. And thats why perpetual motion does not work accept in a perfect vacume but its not really perpetual motion.
QuoteScience is not static, like religion is.
Yes,
real science is dynamic, but mainstream "science" has a reputation of being very static and is not in a good condition right now. If someone comes up with a new theory, mainstream "scientists" ridicule that person with extreme disgust, and to me this is very religion like. Of course this is not always the case, but most of the time it is.
The scientistis only ridicule new theories that haven't been or can't be proven by testing.
Typically this matters mathematical problems, like calculating black holes, the big bang, the string theory
and many other things that is purely mathematically and cannot be tested by experimenting.
But once these theories have been proven by testing in several laboratories, then all normal scientists (not fanatics)
will accept this new knowledge. This is the true essence of science. And any real scientist will agree to this statement.
Once we get (if possible) an overunity device driven by magnets that can be replicated by anyone, you can be
very certain that no SANE scientist will ridicule this new knowledge. But so far no OU device does exist.
Myself I hope we have an OU up running within a couple of years that is proven and certified. Thumbs-up.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on August 04, 2007, 01:13:49 PM
May I suggest you these very articles (from Chineese scientists) :
http://freenrg.fr/Against_2th_Law/Maxwell_Demon1.pdf (http://freenrg.fr/Against_2th_Law/Maxwell_Demon1.pdf)
Realization of Maxwell?s Hypothesis
An Experiment Against the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://freenrg.fr/Against_2th_Law/Maxwell_Demon2.pdf
Another Way to Realize Maxwell? s Demon
A Non-uniform Magnetic Field Provides a
One-way Channel for Thermal Electrons
Hey, that's fantastic! I knew there was a reason to be reading this forum.
Anyone know if the experimental results have been reproduced by others?
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy