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."

Comments

lab?

[widget1985]

I love how the "Lab" in the picture looks a whole lot like a kitchen.

Mod parent up

[Animats]

Yeah, it's bogus.

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.

Re:Mod parent up

[Dun Malg]

whatever happened to the idea of backup power being stored in giant underground flywheels

Nothing happened to the idea. It's been used for decades. My father worked for a defense contractor in the late 60's who had their computer rooms powered via a motor-driven generators with a 6-foot diameter reinforced concrete disks affixed to the shafts between the motors and generators. The inertia of the spinning disks easily kept the big iron powered up during brownouts, and during blackouts they provided enough interim power for the generators to come online.

If you specifically mean those super high-speed flywheels we hear about from time to time, well, those require such exacting construction that they're still too expensive to replace batteries or generators. Someday maybe, but not yet.

100% *increase* in efficiency?

[toybuilder]

Perhaps what was originally claimed is that the power efficiency of the motor is improved by more than 100% over conventional motor designs. TFA doesn't claim that the output motor power exceeds the input electrical power - instead, it states that there is better containment of flux leading to more motive force:

Testing and Finite Element Analysis show that the Parallel Path system indeed manages to not only increase the magnetic flux in the core by a factor of four over conventional electric motors, but manipulate the flux to act in the direction of motion, generating considerably more motive power than conventional motors.

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:

Improvements in motor efficiency also mean improvements (increases) in continuous torque ratings and reduction in dissipated power. Continuous torque ratings of any electric motor are limited by the internal losses (dissipated power) in a motor which produces heat. Any electric motor's performance is limited to its ability or inability to store and dissipate heat. Face mounting precision motors on recognized aluminum heat sinks have become an important procedure for specifying performance as described in NEMA's ICS16 (step and servo motor) standard. The table below illustrates this condition.

Power-Watts
Efficiency In Out Dissipated
80% 100 80 20
90% 100 90 10
90% 200 180 20

By increasing power efficiency 10%, output power is more than doubled (180/80), while maintaining constant heat loss. This is a 125% improvement in output power and motor shaft speed at rated load. The power consumption does not increase because it is tied to the line-to-line input current squared and multiplied by the hot line-to-line resistance (I2R).

I think the original poster/editor misunderstood the original claim...

It is truly a quantum leap!

[AyeRoxor!]

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.

Re:Basic Forces and Zero Point Energy

[iendedi]

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