Slashdot Mirror
Self Contained Power Source?
McOSEN writes "Your Server Cabinet could have a 100% self sustained power source. It's called Parallel Path Technology and it's being coined as a revolution in the magnetic motor industry. From Segways to Vacuum cleaners to Server Cabinets. The article talks about the technology but doesn't exactly lay out specifics."
I love how the "Lab" in the picture looks a whole lot like a kitchen.
If you like exotic motor designs, check out these "thin gap" motors. These brushless permanent magnet motors can reach 90% efficiency, which is very impressive. The windings are made from thin copper plates rather than round wires. These are real. You can order them.
There's some interesting work going on in motor electromagnetics, but the "greater than 100%" motor probably isn't it.
You hardly need a perpetual motion machine for that. Just some 98% efficient solar panels or a form of nuclear power that uses unregulated minerals would do it. It's funny, when I first learned how nuclear reactors worked as a kid I was shocked at how rediculously primitive they are. I remember asking my school teacher why they had to heat water and couldn't just generate electricity directly. Later in life I learned even moreso how primitive nuclear technology is.. we don't even control the emission of nuetrons, they just pop out randomly and we try to soak them up so the reaction doesn't get too hot or run out.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Is it reasonable to assume you can get more output power with better efficiency? Try this article titled
Increase Efficiency 10 Percent and Double Output:
I think the original poster/editor misunderstood the original claim...
When are you people going to wake up? ScuttleMonkey is not an editor. It is a bot which crawls Digg, steals the very worst stories, and reposts them here.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
http://www.lutec.com.au/
No. Electrets ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret ) never wear out because electric field is conservative ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrotational_vector_f ield ). That means if you move a charge in a closed loop than net energy gain/loss is zero (and this doesn't depend on move trajectory of the charge).
Magnetic field, on the other hand, is rotational. So there are move trajectories which generate net gain or loss. That's why it's possible to magnetize or demagnetize magnets. And of course, law of conservation of energy and momentum holds so you can't get free energy out of magnets.
No. You can move them 'sideways', this requires _less_ energy (and demagnetises your magnet a bit). That's because magnetic field is a vortex field. If you repeat this process backwards you will lose some energy ang remagnetize your magnet a bit.
What you say is true for electric field, however.
hey everybody, stop for a moment and think (or, at least, google around) before you write. Nowhere does the original article, or the Flynn research team (AFAI could find), say that this enginge produces more energy than it receives.
(The original article says "You should not be able to get more out of a system than you put into it and when someone claims to have invented something which does otherwise, skeptics are quick to challenge the validity of any claim that appears to violate conservation." and "A Parallel Path motor uses magnets...this ability to manipulate the magnetic flux in the core of a motor is what provides the exponential increase in efficiency with Parallel Path technology.". The phrasing of the above may be misleading, but it is not saying that "A Parallel Path motor generates more energy than it consumes".)
What the tecnology is about is that a "parallel path design" can help keep the magnetic flow around the rotoro, right where it is needed.
And what about the "over 100% of efficiency" statement? ./er would say
"106.5% efficency? Perpetual motion! That must be b.s.".
I have a true clear-cut example for you. I have recently bought a new heat system for my house; when I started browsing models, I came across the realm of "caldaia a condensazione" (english: see condensing high efficiency boilers)) that claim to feature up to 106.5% efficency.
Here the brainded
The intelligent one says "106%" w.r.t. what ?. In Italy, it is "106% w.r.t. the theoretical limit of a standard design of a boiler". So it is not b.s.
So, by comparison, I may assume that the "parallel path" design exceeds 100% of the theoretical efficiency of the "standard electrical engine design". And this is scientifically reasonable, and yet it does not mean that a "parallel path" design is a perpetual motion engine
Parallel Path is a quantum leap in electromagnetic motor technology
At least they're being honest. As a scientist would know, (and they purport to be scientists), a quantum leap is the absolute least amount something can move without standing still. And they didn't say whether it was a leap forwards or backwards.
So basically they probably mean that this is a tiny tiny step backwards for them. I'll can believe that.
It seems that the article is trying to say something to that effect with this sentence.
The claim could then be that the new motors provide better than 100% of the motive power possible of the equivilent conventinal electric motor. But I don't see where there is any data that would support that supposition - perhaps they provided it to the writer{s} but it was not correctly included in the article.
The power lost in the electromagnet in this scenario is only due to the resistance in the electromagnet. If you were to do this you would notice that the electromagnet would heat up and that heat would account for the energy lost from whatever energy source you used to power the electromagnet. This is the only power loss as long as the other levitating magnet is remaining stationary.
I am currently dumbfounded by two things. (1) That someone keeps modding these comments down, as the subject is intensely interesting and there is valid debate here, as I shall show (again). and (2) That I get responses like this one which are self-defeating, as I shall proceed to show.
As to your comment, above, let us try a simple thought experiment. Imagine two electromagnets sitting on a tabletop and oriented such that their flux will cause a repulsive force when the electromagnets are powered. Imagine that both of these electromagnets are attached to a platform that can move on the table (wheels, low friction surface, whatever). Now further imagine that we place them arbitrarily close together. When we apply power to the electromagnets, what happens? Obviously, the electromagnets exert a motive force on one another and move apart. The act of moving apart clearly uses energy.
Is your assertion that the energy expended to impart a motive force to the experimental apparatus not originating in the electrical power used to energize the magnetic coils? Or, perhaps you believe that the only energy expended is expended when the aparatus actually moves? If your answer is the first one, then your argument is self defeating because that clearly violates the law of conservation of energy. If your answer is the second one, then let us add aditional parameters to our experiment and see what happens. Since you (in this case) are stating that energy is only consumed when the aparatus moves, let us place two rigid bodies with pressure sensors on the opposing sides of each electromagnet and re-run the experiment. In this case, the electromagnets will exert a motive force on one another, but the aparatus can no longer move. However, the pressure sensors will register presure (active compression) related to the imparted motive force. This constant pressure REQUIRES A CONSTANT EXPENSE OF ENERGY.
Do you disagree? If so, can you please explain how the electromagnets are causing a measurable compression of the pressure sensor without a constant expenditure of energy?
Now for the electrons repelling each other; the energy comes from bringing the electrons closer together. So, in order for the electrons to repel each other again, some amount of energy has to be exerted in bringing the electrons close together again. Energy is completely conserved in this situation. Just remember... force is not energy. It also doesn't take a supply of power to maintain a force. While there are problems with our understanding of the universe, this is not one of them.
It took me exactly 2 seconds to conceive of a simple thought experiment to prove you wrong. I am surprised that you didn't realize the same thiing when you were typing your response to me. I must assume that you are not actually thinking about this subject, but rather blinding regurgitating old, learned, conservation of energy religion. Here it is:
Imagine a closed system in free space with a large quantity of electrons freely *bouncing around*
Get the picture yet? Need help?
Ok, here is help: Those electrons don't have anyone pushing them together (e.g. they are not being accellerated, except perhaps by one another). However, over time they will have essentially infinite electrostatic interactions with one another, bouncing around infinitely, never loosing energy. But here is the kicker: Because of their interactions with each other, they will constantly be exposed to electrostatic acceleration which implies the expenditure of energy. Acceleration is not free. At no time does t
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving