Guess what? You can't make magic out of magnets
Offline There are so many claims floating around about self-perpetuating magnetic devices that I thought I would dispel them all. Well, actually, it is not me who is dispelling them. I am merely ghost-writing for Mr. Lenz.
The following interaction between physics students and the teacher typically first takes place in high school:
*Teacher draws a solenoidal coil of wire on the board*
Teacher: What will happen as a bar magnet is moved closer to the wire?
Students: A current is induced, and hence the coil becomes a temporary magnet
Teacher: Alright. Now, let’s say that the side toward which the magnet is closest is the South pole of the Solenoid, and the North pole of the bar magnet is closest to the solenoid. What happens as it is moved?
Students: The magnet feels a force which directs it toward the solenoid. Hence, it accelerates.
Teacher: And if it accelerates toward the coil, then by Faraday’s Law, what happens?
Students: The rate of flux cutting increases, hence the induced electromotive force increases.
Teacher: And if the emf increases, what happens to the magnet?
Students: The force exerted on the magnet increases.
Teacher: Hence, by Faraday’s Law…
Students: The rate of flux cutting increases and therefore emf increases and therefore the magnet accelerates, and then the rate of flux cutting increases ad infinitum.
Teacher: Precisely. Why is this absurd?
Students: Because kinetic energy is being generated out of nothing.
Teacher: Precisely.
The fact that there are so many snake-oil salesmen willing to make claims about self-perpetuating magnetic devices suggests that there are a lot of people who need to brush up on their physics. Everything in the described scenario above is a direct consequence of Faraday’s Law, except for one thing:
“Teacher: Alright. Now, let’s say that the side toward which the magnet is closest is the South pole of the Solenoid, and the North pole of the bar magnet is being moved.”
Here is where the impossibility arises. If the magnetic field induced a current which exerted a force on the magnetic field toward the solenoid, the magnetic fields would combine and continue to multiply to infinity. This cannot be the case. Here is where Mr. Lenz is kind enough to save the day. Every single claim of self-perpetuating magnetic devices has been refuted by a man who has been dead for over a century.
Lenz’s law states that the induced emf in a wire due to a magnetic field must oppose the motion which creates it.
Thus, we cannot have the North pole of a magnet induce a South pole on the close side of a solenoid. The current is being produced by the motion of the magnet and the resulting emf must oppose the motion creating it. Hence, it must be a North pole as well. Thus, whereas the above impossibility is an example of a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop which does not work, Lenz’s Law is a direct application of a negative feedback principle which works perfectly well.
Suppose I am standing in a region of Cartesian xyz space and walking parallel to the y-axis in the xy plane. Let us say that the magnetic field is normal to my motion (in other words, the vector has only a z component). Suppose I am walking holding a wire which is perpendicular to my motion (the wire is parallel to the x-axis). There is no current in the wire, but the delocalized electrons are moving parallel to the y-axis. The force being exerted on the electrons by the magnetic field will cause as emf which forces the electrons in a direction parallel to the x-axis. This causes a charge separation across the ends of the wire resulting an electric field which acts in opposition to the magnetic field, hence bringing the electrons to equilibrium at the point where vB=E. The motion of the electrons in the x-direction means that the magnetic field is exerting a force on them which points opposite to the direction of motion that produces it (me walking). All of this can be checked by taking the cross-product of the involved vectors. Remember that F=B x qv where “x” is vector-cross product, not multiplication. This is a direct verification of Lenz’s Law.
Consider a motor, for example. As the motor rotates through the magnetic field due to the force on the current (which is always perpendicular to the field), the electrons experience motion which is perpendicular to the current. This produces an emf which must oppose the current. If it did not, then the current would increase, which would increase the force, which would increase the angular velocity, which would increase the emf, etc. This is both a violation of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.
So, let’s apply Lenz’s law. The emf opposes the current. As the current increases, the opposing force increases. Hence, the current decreases, hence the angular velocity decreases, hence the opposing force decreases, hence the current increases, etc. etc. So, we have a vastly more sensible result when we apply Lenz’s Law. The emf comes to equilibrium with the current.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
If we could get our hands on some monopole magnets, then we'd have something.
It would revolutionize physics and alter Gauss's Law for magnetism, but it's hard to magentic monopoles could be put to practical use as all indications suggest they are incredibly rare.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What about Halbach Arrays? What about them, huh? HUH?
Do they violate Lenz's Law?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
No, but they're about as close as we've ever gotten to a magnetic monopole that isn't on a quantum scale.
Why are the inventions on free or cheap energy so abundant? I mean, it looks like the only problem is in a different usage of already known laws, not in violating them.
which works as a water engine, powered probably by Earth's rotation by Coriolis effect, similarly to tornado. He had it even backupped by mathemathical equations.
Just #3,811,058, #3,879,622 and #4,151,431 patents are magnetic motors.
"Gray's motor" (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), "Tesla's coil" and unpatented motor of the inventor Joseph Newman, supposedly draws the electomagnetic energy by induction from "earth rotation" (about 12 cycles per second + harmonic fluctuations)
In 30's the Austrian forest engineer Viktor Schauberger invented and partially constructed "implosion turbine" (in german, „Sogwandler&ldquo
Of course, it needs a diameter of at least one meter or more, due to physical specifics of Earth.
Another free energy device is McClintock's air motor (U.S. Patent #2,982,261)
(David McClintock is, among others, original inventor of automatic gearbox, differential gear, and 4 wheel drive.)
And what about the deuterium reactor MIGMA? It's not a free energy device, but the deuterium is very well available.
At Utah University, researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann did similar experiments. Researchers from californian Weapons Center U.S. Navy in China Lake Naval, under guidance of Melvin Miles, found a helium 4 in bubbles going from that device. (mass spectrometry method) This proves that this device truly can perform a nuclear synthesis, enough to explain the excessive heat.
Those and many other inventions shows, that both our so-called "laws" of thermodynamics aren't as lawful as it's claimed.
Dewey B. Larson, already dead physicist developed a complex, universal, unified theory of physical universe, called "Reciprocal system". As I had read, this theory is consistent in everything, and doesn't even contradict phenomena, which are a mystery for modern astrophysics. It also allows the above mentioned devices to work. But this theory seems to be completely ignored. Why?
When a Church merges with state, then comes a Dark Age, the age when scientific progress is slowed or stopped by authorities.
When a corporations merges with state, happens a very similar thing.
In the sense of economics, the marked failed totally, in case of free or cheap energy. Inventors doesn't have enough money or other resources to develop and produce massively their free energy devices. Conventional energy producers has only their interests, which are contradictory to an idea of everyone having a free energy. Corporations are the most cruel form of life, which can and does let millions of people die for profit and control. (China interests in Darfur, for example) They are not able to change their production on free energy devices, because in the moment of selling them, they would lose a control over them, and their influence on people and government. Yes, they could earn some money, but they would be never again welcomed in society and government, on which they parasited for generations. All the power and control, much more valuable than money, would be lost.
Energy corporations are thought to be like a benevolent, kind uncle, who sells us electricity because it's his job, and will be totally cool with us not needing this energy anymore, will be glad to go to retirement. Also, this uncle has no ambitions in politics or administration, which would help him sell more energy. He just gives us as much energy we need, and if someone could do it cheaper, he would gladly step aside, right? I hope you had a good laugh too.
From purely commercial point of view, (the only what matters in this world) the free energy is a pain in the ass, a failure of marketing. Standard energy distribution gives a lot of profit every day for many years, while a free energy device suffers from those problems:
- it is paid only once
- it needs some development into final product easy to be produced
- which must be afterwards manufactured and distributed
This makes it to be a long-termed benefit. This is a kind of economic suicide, because every corporation which focuses on long-termed benefit, must fail in short-termed competition with concurence. It's like in fencing combat, someone plans ahead, leaves an uncovered chest, and then wonders how the rapier did get there.
To change this dead end, governments must intervene. If it won't happen, a devastation of ecology will continue. But many governments are practically parts of the corporations. Such an intervention would have to be very deep, and would bring a long-termed benefit for everyone and everything, which is in direct contradiction to everything our economy means. (it means a few extremely rich people, and milliards of the poor, this is a fact) This is, I think, the greatest technical problem of free energy devices, which reflects itself in the conventional, prescribed science, led by the money of the rich in safe directions, to let them stay rich.
Is that clear? I can't understand how anyone can't understand a simple laws of a benevolent uncle from the energetic industry. He's actually a thief and a molester. Every time you pay a bill for electricity, petrol, heat or gas, he's holding your balls!
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Are you going to adress the OP? Did you read it? I can only assume you did not, as your post did not pertain to it in any meaningful way.
Anyone with the most basic grasp of magnetism could tell you that this is nonsense. First of all, the Earth's magnetic flux density is very low. You would not be able to generate a great deal of electricity from it unless you had a very high rotation rate. It makes much more sense to use the artifical magnets that we create, because we can create magnets with much higher flux densities. The magnetic flux density of the Earth's magnetic field is so inconsequential that you can easily cancel it by placing a bar magnet near a compass with its pole aligned so that the torque on the magnetic field is a pseudovector opposing the torque produced by the Earth's magnetic field.
Secondly, any device which harnesses Earth's magnetic field to produce an electromotive force is useless. There would no magnetic flux cutting. The rate of curvature of the magnetic field lines is so small (except at the poles) that it is virtually parallel to the surface of the Earth (and, at the equator, it is parallel to the surface of the Earth). By Faraday's Law, the magnetic flux linkage through an area swept out by a rotating wire or area with mobile electrons is the product of flux density and the perpindicular area component of the area swept out. Since B (flux density) is so low, and the sine of the angle would also be very low, the induced emf would be very, very small. The energy needed to rotate such a device with sufficient angular velocity to generate a meaningful emf would make it a useless device. The magnetic field is perpendicular at the poles, but this wouldn't help to generate emf, since a point on the poles remain stationary relative to the rotation of the Earth (since they are the axes of rotation), there could be no flux cutting.
You may think you know about magnetism but I assure you that I probably know a great deal more. If you really want to go head to head on the manner, you will do me the common decency of addressing me directly.
And of course, since you have demonstrated such excellent versing in physics, are in a perfectly sound position and are confidently able to declare that you know he has good arguments (*sarcasm*). How do you know that his arguments are good? They might be, or they might not. I could probably tell you if they are good or not. But if I pointed out a flaw, you would be unable to refute me, because you are not versed in physics. What would you do if I pointed out a particular flaw, as I have done in the aforementioned devices? If you could not respond, then you have transgressed your epistemic rights.
Once again you transgress your epistemic rights. You say it is backed up by mathematics. But as you yourself would be unable to navigate the mathematics, you have know way of telling whether the mathematics are sound or nonsensical. Bearden's mathematical basis is certainly what could charitably be called "non sequitur mathematics". Secondly, the Coriolis effect refers to a psuedoforce that acts in the rotating frame of reference. As we are discussing the Earth's rotation, no device of 1m in size could take advantage of the Coriolis effect. Snipers take the Coriolis effect into account when the shoot over 800m, for example.
At any rate, the OP pertained to Lenz's Law. Your post did not. Lenz's law is heavily verified, mostly by really, really cool experiments. Ever seen the one where the magnet dropped in a vertical 1m long iron tube takes 20 seconds to hit the ground? That's because of Lenz's Law. Ever seen the one where a bar magnet fired through a current carrying solenoid can be suspended within the coil? That's because of Lenz's Law. Ever seen the one where the metal ring levitates? That's because of Lenz's Law. Lenz's Law is easily verifiable using the e-permutation tensor to perform the vector cross product over B, v and F. Or you can just use the left hand rule.
The problem is not so much what you endorse as the careless nature of the endoresement. You talk about electromagnetism, but do you actually know, for example, Maxwell's equations? You talk about thermodynamics, but I would bet money that you could not tell me the most fundamental postulate of thermodynamics.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It's a puzzle to me why tinfoil hatters have never noticed that nobody actually has any of these dozens of free energy devices. It's always someone who "knows how to do it." It's never, "Hey, come look at my Super-Flux-Capacitor Mega-Magnetronic-Generator!"
Oh... wait... I know... it's a conspiracy....
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Cool. I didn't know that.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Common people alone can't afford to build, develop to commercial form, and produce massively such a kind of technics in their garages. This is not a simple world, and there's no free market. It's not a conspiracy what I mean, it is simply a defending of commercial interests, which is normal. Even animals protects their territory against intruders.
I think what all those people are waiting for, is a major change in market economy and government politics, so they won't risk their necks, families and careers. I hope a contemporary world crisis will cause such a changes soon.
But it's actually true that some of them exists... Just recently I heard some russian heating device, which is supposed to produce more heat energy, than it uses of electric energy. I saw the salesman's webpage. Unfortunately, it's impossible to send it here by mail, Russia somehow has a laws against export of goods. The only way would be if someone would buy the device there as a personal property and took it through the borders in a car. But I know nobody in St Peterburg who would do me such a favor. Actually, not to me, but to some friend of my father, who knows also the exact adress of the website, I don't, I'd have to ask.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I assuming you mean instances where one or more companies hold a monopoly over a given resource and the emergence a new technology would disrupt said monopoly, except that. . .
. . .if building such devices is cost prohibitive then there is a market for the product which the device produces (energy). Currently, power companies cannot produce as much energy as they could sell, supply is far lower than demand. If the supply was higher the companies could make more money selling more power for the same price. It also makes more sense in business terms to reduce overhead in transportation of materials, which is a major cost. If there is a fuel and the fuel costs more than coal or petroleum then the device is not a solution.
So you destroyed your own argument.
That's the thing though, it doesn't make any sense business wise. It's simple supply and demand! Where there is demand you match supply for greatest profit. If you can cut costs for things such as fuel transportation you make even more money. If you don't have to negotiate with third world leaders about fuel costs you make still more money. Lots and lots of money.
This leaves only three alternatives: energy companies are stupid, they don't like money, or the technology does not exist.
I can guarantee that if you measure the heat output it will be less than the energy input, and Russia has no laws against export of goods.
Inventors made a lot of effort to avoid this effect, to not let the energy destroy it's dipole. The liquid from the hose between containers must not be lead to the other container, but away, so there will be a permanent "gravity drainage" effect. Furthermore, the first container is almost impossible to be depleted, because there are a theoretical high-level energy sources in the space itself or Sun, or something like that. High-level energy source means, that once a connection is made between it and some physical device, then energy flows from there to us, not oppositely, if we don't destroy the dipole. Unfortunately, the art of not destroying the dipole is something nobody was taught in last 100 years at least.
I've got already seen things greater than our knowledge, and the Great question for me is not "How does our theory allow their existence" but "How we can change our theory to acknowledge their existence". I don't say I understood them, I'm just a primitive man, who witnessed a glimpse of almost unlimited technology. I can only give my testimony about an iron bird and a thunder staff to the elders of my tribe.
Dewey B. Larson is surely a better set of words on this topic than I could ever produce, so I mentioned it instead.
I can only judge by outer appearance of something, I've seen far ahead of our science, but only in it's results, not how we will get there. So far, I can tell, we are going the wrong way, the most promising works are ignored, because our imperfect theories doesn't fit on them.
A) I'm sorry.
B) I didn't understand the basis of the invention enough to explain it. My fault. The coriolis effect there refers to a quickly rotating water within the device, and it's powering by Earth is described (quote) "presumably, similarly to a tornado."
Tornadoes can have also a small diameter, and they're know to exist quite independently for a longer time, so this might be a basis of this invention to work.
I know mainly a general principles of what things does, but not how exactly. For example, there's an esoteric postulate, that "a sound of a certain frequency invokes an energy." I certainly wouldn't oppose that, but also I don't know why does it work like that. I can only give a testimony of what amazing I ever saw and encourage the wise people to find out what it really was.
The thermodynamic postulate is, as I guess, 'the energy can not be created nor destroyed, only transformed', right?
Furthermore, it seems you don't understand people very well. You have a very fundamental objections to a free energy devices, and justified, but there's a problem. If these objections are so fundamental, then why the inventors didn't stumble on them, in the first place? Any intelligence sufficient for their work must also understand these objections, like Lenz's law, energy preservation, and so on. An inventor wouldn't expose himself to a critical look of the public without being really, really sure, after seeing (or not seeing, exactly said) what happened to his colleagues many times before.
Not only that free energy devices are not a solution for nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. They are almost always constructed to be small, to power one or two houses, to give independence. They're primarily meant for individuals to have them and to not pay the company anything. And if something is dangerous, and there's no potential use of it, then it's a threat which must be suppressed.
When you realize, that this is not a market where a competition is welcomed, then supply and demand means nothing. It is important for corporations to keep the market's demand under their supply, even though it may be worse for the customers. But they're not customers, they're an opposite of the customers. A free energy is for them like a salt on ground, where it falls, nothing grows for them there anymore.
As for the Russia, this is what I heard on my own ears, but if I will ever hear about it once more, I'll ask for more details.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
This is completely meaningless.
No, I was not. What I was describing was the production of an opposing force due to the motion creating a force on electrons within a magnetic field.
Gravitational drainage? Please don't make things up. Gravity is a negative potential gradient (in other words, an irrotational vector field) . Any object under the influence of a gravitational field will tend to move toward areas of higher potential. That's it. If you have two connected containers, where the liquid in the containers is only influenced by gravitational forces, then liquid will only move if there is not an equipotential between the containers respective position in the gravitational field.
What the hell are you talking about? Dipolarity applies to electric and magnetic fields. You are taking meaningful terms and churning out gibberish.
You are making absolutely no sense. I'll tell you what. Since we are talking past each other, you go away and read on the following topics, and then I'll listen to you:
-Vector calculus
-Multivariable integrals
-Flux and surface integrals
-Vector Analysis (parametric equation, line integrals, arc length)
-Vector Fields (Helmholtz Theorem, scalar and vector potentials, curl and divergence)
-Field equations
-Application of vector fields to electric, magnetic and gravitational fields
-Irrotational and Solenoidal fields
If you do this, you'll make sense, and whatever you are trying to articulate, it won't turn out to be nonsense.
PS: It is remarkable how often people get such simple questions so spectacularly wrong. Conservation of energy is not the most fundamental principle of thermodynamics. That's the obvious, but wrong answer. The correct answer is the zeroth law of thermodynamics, which states that if two thermodynamic systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium with a third, they are also in equilibrium with each other.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism