Thread: "Free" Energy device created

Nope. All I've ever been able to dig up on magnetic motor design are pretty
graphics and closed motors, so you can't actually see what's going on inside.
No one has demonstrated a proof of concept device in which we can see the
arrangement of the magnets and how they interact with any other moving
parts the motor might have. In each plan I've seen there would be a net force
of 0 acting upon the rotor, but everyone seems to believe it's going to keep
spinning itself to no end. Those people don't know how magnets work.

I'd LOVE to see a working model, as I was stoked when I first heard about
these a few years ago, but it doesn't seem possible.

Free energy? We already have it.

^^haha yeah we do have it already, but i thought this might be just another method...im not really any good at math or physics so someone explain this to me.

My goal someday is to live in a house that is completely off the grid, with small scale hydroelectric, wind, and solar power, also with my own source of water. They make atmospheric water generators now, they are from EcoloBlue

No, unfortunately it hasn't been created.

This has happened thousands of times throughout scientific history. It's always either delusionals or scam artists.

It has been mathematically proven that it is impossible for a system to increase its total energy without any inputs (as long as the laws of the universe do not change).

You can't get any energy from a magnet as this man claims (there's a thread in the Science forum where I explained to somebody why).

As always the man in the video only claims to have a 'prototype' i.e. it 'needs some energy input' just to 'demonstrate that it works' and that he'll 'be able to make it run entirely by itself soon, honest!'. He then seems to ask people to buy it in order to see for themselves, instead of subjecting it to scientific peer review (which would instantly make him a billionaire if he was telling the truth), so he seems to fall into the scam artist category.

The "Anyone who says it doesn't work haven't seen it. It works!" part is especially nice.

Could it work if they suspended the motor in a vacuum?

Anybody who believes this guy clearly is not familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot obtain more energy from a system than is put into the system. End of story.

So, unless this guy's device converts ambient heat into electricity, there's no way that it is possible.

My best guess is that it's converting ambient electrons into less electrons

Originally Posted by Invader

but everyone seems to believe it's going to keep
spinning itself to no end. Those people don't know how magnets work.

Originally Posted by Xei

You can't get any energy from a magnet

What do you guys mean?

The totality of existence is a system, and by definition, there are no systems external to it. Motion exists within the system, and the motion gets all of its energy from within the system. So, would all motion be part of a system of perpetual motion? If so, then it seems perpetual motion could be created in a much smaller system.

I know science emphatically says perpetual motion is impossible and that the U.S. Patent Office will not even look at claimed perpetual motion machines, but I still think the idea is worth exploring.

So, would all motion be part of a system of perpetual motion?

All of the energy in our universe stays in our universe. A magnetic motor (or
any perpetual device designed to create usable power) is supposed to
produce a surplus of energy to be used outside of its system (or to
continually accelerate itself). People thought they could do it with gravity.
It's a lot like thinking that you can turn the pulling power of a rubber band
into an endless stream of energy.

Power is equal to Work divided by Time.

Work is equal to Force times Distance.

In order for a magnetic motor to generate power, it must be providing a net
force of anything greater than 0. Unfortunately, the net force of such a
closed system is 0, and as such generates 0 watts of power.

Is the universe therefore a perpetual motion system?

So long as it's parts keep moving, I don't see why it wouldn't qualify as one.
The universe just needs to last forever. And remember that it doesn't produce energy.

Perpetual motion is possible in an environment where there is no friction. Though only in the sense that you get as much energy out as you put in. You still never get more than you put in.

In space where their is a vacuum things tend to go on nearly forever, though there is still very small amounts of friction and so things do eventually stop. Though they might be more likely to hit something first.

As for the universe, its spreads out because of the energy put into it from the big bang. It expands because it simply hasn't slowed down yet, and isn't producing any new energy.

Isnt the energy-matter continuum thing just a theory?

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Isnt the energy-matter continuum thing just a theory?

It's not "just" a theory, it's a theory. It's as good as it gets.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What do you guys mean?

The totality of existence is a system, and by definition, there are no systems external to it. Motion exists within the system, and the motion gets all of its energy from within the system. So, would all motion be part of a system of perpetual motion? If so, then it seems perpetual motion could be created in a much smaller system.

I know science emphatically says perpetual motion is impossible and that the U.S. Patent Office will not even look at claimed perpetual motion machines, but I still think the idea is worth exploring.

But there is an 'outside' to the universe to which heat can spread (although it does then become part of the universe).

You seem to have the idea in your head that the motion in the universe is perpetual. This is not true. Please look up the heat death of the universe, which is the unavoidable scenario in which the universe has become a random grey mulsh.

And of course nothing you said about looking at the universe as a whole as a thermodynamic system can possibly apply to any system built on Earth.

And it has been mathematically proven that you can't do it, so anybody who tries does not understand the concept of mathematical proof.

Originally Posted by Xei

But there is an 'outside' to the universe to which heat can spread (although it does then become part of the universe).

You seem to have the idea in your head that the motion in the universe is perpetual. This is not true. Please look up the heat death of the universe, which is the unavoidable scenario in which the universe has become a random grey mulsh.

And of course nothing you said about looking at the universe as a whole as a thermodynamic system can possibly apply to any system built on Earth.

And it has been mathematically proven that you can't do it, so anybody who tries does not understand the concept of mathematical proof.

Notice that I at first talked about the totality of existence. I started talking about the universe because Invader was talking in terms of it, and I threw in the hypothetical of nothing existing other than the universe to help make sure he knew exactly what I was getting at.

With that in mind, explain why existence itself does not involve perpetual motion. Also explain why it could never apply to a machine built on Earth. Take a deep breath and realize that I am not saying I know it can happen. This is just another interesting discussion that you are getting heated and snooty about. We are just people on the internet talking about some fascinating shit. So tell us what you think other than, "Math says so, so shut up."

It's tough to explain but I'll give it a shot.

Conservation laws are, in a sense, for amateurs. The real deal is what are called "continuity equations". If we say that the total amount of energy in the universe stays constant, then that does precisely jack shit to help us understand anything if energy is allowed to jump around so that it can enter and leave our system of study any which way "it likes". Fortunately, it doesn't do that. A continuity equation comes from asking the question, "How does the density of energy in a 'sufficiently small volume' evolve through time?" The answer to the question is that the change is dependent on what goes through the boundary. So energy can't just "jump" into the middle of the volume under consideration, it has to pass through the boundary.

So, take a machine that generates electricity. It is converting some form of energy into kinetic energy of electrons. Lets imagine a sphere around the machine and discount gravity as it will only complicate stuff needlessly. The energy inside the sphere
is then the sum of the electromagnetic potential energy and the kinetic energy. The electrons leaving the sphere are crossing its boundary and have kinetic energy and are thus carrying energy out of the region. Lets say the energy density is p, the amount leaving is q and the amount coming in is s. Then if we want to know the energy density at the 'next instant', lets call it p', we have p' = p + s - q. If p' < p, then that shuts us down pretty quick because it will then approach 0 and we can see that there will be no energy to leave and become electricity. If s - q is positive, then there is more energy coming in than going out and p' > p. If s - q is negative then p' < p. This dude claims that for his system, q = 5s so q is bigger and more energy is leaving than coming in. So p' < p and the whole thing runs out of energy unless he's full of shit and is actually pumping in more energy than he is putting in. And thats neglecting the kinetic energy that gets transferred to heat and dissipates in that manner as well. Does that make any sense at all?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Does that make any sense at all?

Yes, you're saying if it outputs more energy that it receives, it functions like a battery. Batteries don't last forever, because they can only contain so much energy.
You know, only with variables and equations.

pretty much. that actually didn't occur to me

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Notice that I at first talked about the totality of existence. I started talking about the universe because Invader was talking in terms of it, and I threw in the hypothetical of nothing existing other than the universe to help make sure he knew exactly what I was getting at.

With that in mind, explain why existence itself does not involve perpetual motion. Also explain why it could never apply to a machine built on Earth. Take a deep breath and realize that I am not saying I know it can happen. This is just another interesting discussion that you are getting heated and snooty about. We are just people on the internet talking about some fascinating shit. So tell us what you think other than, "Math says so, so shut up."

I answered all of your queries quite clearly in my post...

Existence doesn't involve perpetual motion because existence is 'slowing down' (again, see heat death). Therefore it's no more 'perpetual motion' than a spinning flywheel... i.e. not. It's going to stop. Perpetual motion has to be perpetual.

It can't happen on Earth because it is impossible for a closed system to increase its energy. Energy is a mathematical concept so it's a bit silly asking for a non-mathematical explanation (although I don't actually know the proof, it's far too complex for me at the moment; it is called 'Noether's Theorem').

The only way to do it is via a technical proof. The only other way to do it, and the way that you seem to be asking me to do it, is proof by exhaustion, which would involve conceiving of every machine possible and working out if it violates the law or not, and as there are an infinitude of possible machines, this is ridiculous.

The only plausible way to do it heuristically would be to reverse the hypothesis to 'the law cannot be broken', and ask you for a counterexample, for which you only need give one, not infinity.

Originally Posted by Xei

Existence doesn't involve perpetual motion because existence is 'slowing down' (again, see heat death).

So long as there's a single photon traveling through space, or a single electron
still orbiting an atomic nucleus, the universe still cannot be said to have
completely and utterly stopped. I thought that at total heat loss an electron
was still able to rotate freely, is that not so? And if it's not stopped, it has to
be said that is still in fact in motion. Do you disagree?

No, I agree. But that represents the minimum energy level possible. You can't do any work because you can't 'take any more energy out'... talking in very informal terms of course.

Originally Posted by Xei

I answered all of your queries quite clearly in my post...

Existence doesn't involve perpetual motion because existence is 'slowing down' (again, see heat death). Therefore it's no more 'perpetual motion' than a spinning flywheel... i.e. not. It's going to stop. Perpetual motion has to be perpetual.

It can't happen on Earth because it is impossible for a closed system to increase its energy. Energy is a mathematical concept so it's a bit silly asking for a non-mathematical explanation (although I don't actually know the proof, it's far too complex for me at the moment; it is called 'Noether's Theorem').

The only way to do it is via a technical proof. The only other way to do it, and the way that you seem to be asking me to do it, is proof by exhaustion, which would involve conceiving of every machine possible and working out if it violates the law or not, and as there are an infinitude of possible machines, this is ridiculous.

The only plausible way to do it heuristically would be to reverse the hypothesis to 'the law cannot be broken', and ask you for a counterexample, for which you only need give one, not infinity.

Existence is slowing down? How do you know that? Remember that I am not talking about merely the universe. I am talking about the totality of all things. Whatever that may be, it did not get energy from outside of itself since, by definition, there is nothing else. Do you understand what I am saying? It all came from right in the system. Something made things start happening without ever getting energy from outside of the system. Think about that and its implications. It seems that it could happen again... and again... and again... forever. It seems like that would throw a question mark at the mathematical proof. Perpetual motion does not have to be motion that literally never stops. It is just motion that theoretically could go on forever without the need for energy to come from outside of the system. Does that not describe the totality of existence? If energy is coming from completely within a system to cause motion and the motion would never stop as a result of loss of energy, the motion is perpetual.

Keep in mind that I am not saying it is certain. Most likely, perpetual motion is not possible. There are just questions and appearances remaining. This is just a fun Art Bell conversation, a conversation on the fringe.

Nothing is taking energy out of the "totality of existence" though, because there is nothing outside of it to do so. There IS something outside of this guy's magical motor, and if it takes energy from said motor, it will slow down and stop if it's energy is not replenished from some other source.

The "totality of existence" as a perpetual motion machine is akin to a flywheel spinning in a perfect vacuum on perfect bearings (or in zero gravity), it has kinetic energy, and it will spin practically forever. It spins and spins an spins... perpetual motion! That is, as long as the system remains closed and isolated, just like totality is. The moment you breach the isolation and start pulling kinetic energy out, it WILL slow down and finally stop.