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."
From TFA:
1. It's a motor, not a generator. It sounds like it could be a neat motor, but it's still not a generator.
2. "The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier."
That's right folks! It's perpetual motion machine!
So, this is about a motor that makes claims that are pretty universally accepted to be impossible. The poster, of course, is affiliated with the site hosting the page, so he really should have read the article the same way I did. Even if he didn't, maybe ScuttleMonkey should have.
I would be more annoyed, but this fits ScuttleMonkey's past science articles. Could someone send him a few pop-sci introduction texts, so we can stop having the Electric Universe, perpetual motion, and other fringe theories on the frontpage as science?
I hear this was developed specifically for the new Phantom gameconsole and online service. I cant wait to get duke nukem whenever going on that baby!
Although the summary seems to brand it as such. RTFA submitter, all they claim it to be is a higher efficiency electric motor. No self contained power source....
I thought they were called squirrel cages. And they're not perpetual, someones gotta feed the squirrels!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
"Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Yet another 'Coming Soon' thing that will always be 'Coming Soon'
Did someone forget entropy?
Electric motors are already 80-90% efficient, while this might make it closer to 100% it won't go over, unless someone discovered some new laws of physics. Given that they attempt to make the claim of greater than 100% I suspect the entire thing is full of crap.
So the first lines of the article basicly claim it's a perpetual motion machine, and than later in the article it says this is impossible. Wonderful when even the articles contridict themselves. I really enjoy the part where they state that they recieved a patent, like it actually means something.
Imagine a beowulf cluster made out of vaporware
Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
Why is it that every new PMM for the last two decades has involved permanent magnets? Is there some kind of mad-scientist cabal that decrees these things? Will the fashion turn to something else soon, like, I don't know, materials so bouncy that they rebound with more energy than they hit the surface with? (Name that classic SF story.)
Seriously: Editors, please shitcan perpetual motion machines before we have to waste precious seconds on them. When a real PMM is possible, you'll know it's happened because suddenly the universe will have stopped working properly, and you'll be instantaneously and very thoroughly dead.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Mod parent down, he is high and posting crap.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Bra-vo /. Not only is the story utter crap (greater than 100% return on input energy), but the headline has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's in TFA.
Why are we bombarded by these nonsense articles? This sort of thing should be recognized as B.S. by even a reasonable competent High School student.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
The CB App. What's your 20?
I love how the "Lab" in the picture looks a whole lot like a kitchen.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"... in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
"The article talks about the technology but doesn't exactly lay out specifics"
The one true statement in the post!
What's it got to do with "Server Cabinets"? Absolooly... nuthin'.
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.
Bullshit detector overload!
This is Slashdot, for crying out loud. We're nerds, we don't fall for this idiotic screed even a high school freshman could debunk.
Ooooh, big words are scary! Stator, rotor, magnetic flux. Dammit, both the editor and article submitter should hand in their geek cards.
This guy does have a real patent, though. I don't know which is worse, the ignoramus patent examiner who allowed this one through or the baboon who posted it to Slashdot. Check the USPTO link here.Infinite Energy magazine runs out. Sure, I'm all for the occassional "Crystal Chakras Power Generates Excess Neutrons" story, but after awhile, it gets ridiculous.
Like many here, I read the article and got the idea that they were talking about a perpetual motion machine (could be the "The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier." at the beginning of the article that gave everyone that impression...), but the only place that I can find such a claim is from the author of the article...From the way it's written, it just doesn't appear that he knows what he is talking about.
I glanced through the patent at USPTO and it appears to me that what this is is a more efficient electric motor, not something that outputs more energy than is put into it.
-R
N/T
and hook it up to a generator maybe we can finally open up that wormhole to Atlantis. I bet they will build me a car that produces gasoline in the tank next! hoo hoo I can't wait. Algerath
We'll call it Slashdot!
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
JOE NEWMAN! http://www.josephnewman.com/
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
As soon as I read "magnetic flux" and "exponentially greater motive force than conventional motors" BS alerts went off all over the place. Every once in a while the editors like to throw a Perpetual Motion article into the Slashdot omelet to see who's awake....
It's clear that the writer of TFA didn't understand much about what (s)he heard/read about this. I'm sure that the developers of the technology make no silly claims about greater than 100% efficiency. More likely, this is just an improvement on existing technology that gives, perhaps, somewhat better efficiency, or higher power in a smaller size, less weight for a given power, etc. Any of these would be good, but violate no physical laws.
BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".
Just when the new Slashcode revison seems to have reduced dup' posts, publishing stories submitted by their author sends a perpetual motion advertisement to the front page. Just because the ad is published in "Open Source" Energy
--
make install -not war
I really wish these kooks could separate the perpetual motion crap from reality here. They are not "over-unity", perpetual motion, or what have you. The do in fact obey all laws of thermodynamics. These motors are real and can deliver as much as 98% efficiency. We've seen them, they work. I was at the presentation recently by Boeing Phanton Works that featured these things. ..Chuck..
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
I don't need to read any more. Oh:
BS-o-meter just went up in smoke :(
Do you have ESP?
Hey at least they didn't claim it ran on Zero Point energy. My favorite current flavor of snake oil.
Obligatory UserFriendly strip:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030922
This sig cannot be proven true.
How to make a small fortune in the stock market? Start with a big one.
Want to increase efficiency over 100%? Start with a motor that has 40%, make one that is 80% efficient - you got 100% increase!
I don't know if this is exactly the same concept I read about some time ago, but I heard about a patent using similar terminology. And while the claim is over unity power output (the patent I read involved no moving parts) the fundamental idea was to harness the degradation of flux in permanent magnets.
In other words, they are using a permanent magnet as a type of high-density chemical-free battery, releasing the energy that was required to magnetize the material in the first place. The magnets would eventually need to be replaced, and this was mentioned in the patent I read.
While I have doubts regarding the energy density of magnets compared to chemical means, and wince when beyond-unity is mentioned without special attention to the fuel source, I think that certain aspects deserve a little consideration, at least until we determine that it's infeasible to harness the demagnetization of a permanent magnet as an energy storage material.
Current electrical motors/generators are up to 99% efficient, and the loss is mostly in resistive loss in wire.
/. readers: You have one C++ programmer, and you need more work done. Just hire one more programmer, and to your surprise, you get 4 times as much done.
There is no room for any meaningful improvement unless you claim to have more than 100% efficiency, and they do. Lunatic bin right here!
Current electrical motors/generators are up to 99% efficient, and the loss is mostly in resistive loss in wire.
There is no room for any meaningful improvement unless you claim to have more than 100% efficiency, and they do. Lunatic bin right here.!
I was curious as to what they based their claim on?
First, go to http://www.flynnresearch.net/ to se some details on this.
The answer is:
Just doctor up formulaes: Force is proportional to magnetic flux. Se http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ Look up 'amperes law', 'magnetic force' and 'Lorentz force'. As you can see they are all _linear_. I.e. F=B*k. (Force = Field times some constant. Flynn makes the relationship quadratic: F=B^2*A/2u.
To translate for
"Fix it"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Anyone that talks about increasing efficiency to over 100% doesn't know the meaning of the word "efficiency" and can safely be ignored. It's a sure sign of the incompetent.
http://www.flynnresearch.net/Parallel_Path_Technol ogy.htm
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_ id=143&art_id=vn20060211110132138C184427
SA solar research eclipses rest of the world
n a scientific breakthrough that has stunned the world, a team of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new, highly efficient solar power technology that will enable homes to obtain all their electricity from the sun.
This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures could soon be a thing of the past.
The unique South African-developed solar panels will make it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies.
The panels are able to generate enough energy to run stoves, geysers, lights, TVs, fridges, computers - in short all the mod-cons of the modern house.
The new technology should be available in South Africa within a year and through a special converter, energy can be fed directly into the wiring of existing houses. New powerful storage units will allow energy storage to meet demands even in winter. The panels are so efficient they can operate through a Cape Town winter. while direct sunlight is ideal for high-energy generation, other daytime light also generates energy via the panels.
A team of scientists led by University of Johannesburg (formerly Rand Afrikaans University) scientist Professor Vivian Alberts achieved the breakthrough after 10 years of research. The South African technology has now been patented across the world.
One of the world leaders in solar energy, German company IFE Solar Systems, has invested more than R500-million in the South African invention and is set to manufacture 500 000 of the panels before the end of the year at a new plant in Germany.
Production will start next month and the factory will run 24 hours a day, producing more than 1 000 panels a day to meet expected demand.
Another large German solar company is negotiating with the South African inventors for rights to the technology, while a South African consortium of businesses are keen to build local factories.
The new, highly efficient and cheap alloy solar panel is much more efficient than the costly old silicone solar panels.
International experts have admitted that nothing else comes close to the effectiveness of the South African invention.
The South African solar panels consist of a thin layer of a unique metal alloy that converts light into energy. The photo-responsive alloy can operate on virtually all flexible surfaces, which means it could in future find a host of other applications.
Alberts said the new panels are approximately five microns thick (a human hair is 20 microns thick) while the older silicon panels are 350 microns thick. the cost of the South African technology is a fraction of the less effective silicone solar panels.
Alberts said in Switzerland it was already compulsory for all new houses to include solar technology to lessen energy demands on national grids.
"And that was the older, less effective technology. With our hours of sunlight, we will on average generate twice as much energy than, for instance, European countries."
While South African scientists developed and patented the new, super-effective alloy solar panels, other companies have developed new, super-efficient storage batteries and special converters to change the energy into the power source of a particular country (220 volts in South Africa).
# Eskom spokesperson Carin de Villiers said any new power supply that lessened the load on Eskom was to be welcomed.
She said Eskom was also doing its own research on solar energy.
"In fact, we are currently investigating building what will probably be the largest solar power plant, in the Northern Cape - a 100-megawatt facility."
She added that Eskom was also researching wind and fuel-cell technology as alternative energy sources.
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...
If we see the foot then we'll know you know it's garbage.
Better yet, save up all the PPM articles for 1 April 2006 and let us all feast on the pseudoscientific hyperbole all at once.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Had to get out my hip waders just to get past the first paragragh. Another article with lots of Bull$hit Bingo words in it. The fraudsters love to play mind games containing magnetic fields and it's quick flux fixxer-upper. Small wonder that the geomagnetic poles are trying to swap ends, the North Pole has just about had enough of hearing about it, conned the South Pole into thinking that it's place is better.
Even the title reeks of faddish words. Remember last year's warm fusion fraudster? This year is mirroring Cell processors and the tech that it uses.
It makes me wonder who is really submitting these articles to Slashdot.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Variable reluctance motors have exceptionally low efficiencies. Hence, a boost in magenetic efficiency may make this motor more efficient than its variable reluctance cousins.
Permanent magnet stepper motors place the permanent magnet on the rotor, or between layers on the stator. This motor places the permanent magents on the stator, but in a rather inconvenient place. As such, it is not obvious how this motor is better than other permanent magnet stepper motors.
Conventional induction and brushless DC motors are much more efficient than stepper motors. As such, stepper motors tend to be used only in specialized or low power applications. This motor is probably a special purpose design, only well suited for certain specialized applications.
They're absolutely right. The submitter was wrong about the subject matter, and the subject matter obviously had many misonceptions about how the technology works (greater than 100% output... WTF?) But here is a look at how the technology actually works. It seems to be a motor that is simply more efficient, which is indeed a positive and achievable goal.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
http://mirrordot.org/stories/4165dcf94622fc2a3e526 52aedc72b9f/index.html
Pretty cool. The motor is pretty big..
As I understand it, the claim of above unity energy utilization in the articel summary is (of course) false and not being made for this motor.
What they are saying is above unity torque production. And here unity simply means the ratio with respect to a particular arbiratrily chosen standard. It's not a magic number. Just a way to avoid using units in the discussion.
Now what appears to be happeing is that if the rotor were stopped and one measured the torque on the rotor (or linear actuator) then you would find that this force was four times as high as a motor without the parallel path technology, running at the same current and the same number of windings.
Now we can see that this is sort of misleading. If we kept the current constant and the windings constant then the force or toruqe is higher in a non-moving rotor or actuator. But in a non-moving system one can, for the same current always increase the number of windings to increase the force. The ultimate limit comes from several practical realities. 1) increasing the windings increases both the impedance and residual reactance of the motor making it lossy and limiting it's frequency response. 2) The upper limit is reached when the magnetic flux is no longer contained by the ferrite. Both motors probably have a problem with #2 but the parallel path motor has fewer windings for the same level of force as a conventional motor.
Okay but that is still begging the question since were talking about non moving motor. adding in a permenant magent to boost the force is a lot like adding a spring to boos the force. You pay for it by the energy it took to load the spring.
Once this motor starts moving then one has to do a dynamic anayis to the flux collapsing as the rotor or actualtor moves is drawn into the field. What does this do the current in the motor? What does this do to it's complex impedance? I don't actually know the answers to those questions. The static analysis is simply bogus for concluding that. But if one were to maintain the "spring" analogy then it seems like one could not possibly be getting any net gain.
what this device does seem to be doing however is to make an assymetric pull on the acutator. that is it pulls on one arm of the motor with 4 times the torque and the other arm with no torque at all. That might possibly lead so some sort of alteration in the lead-lag curve of of the phase response of the motor at different speeds. If so it might somehow make a motor with a given amount of windings and ferrite optimally usitize it's material content better.
So if there is any gain at all here I suspect it lies with this latter effect. But I cant' do the analysis to be sure.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I wonder if the USPTO will make him create a working model.
Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
The energy stored in a permanent magnet (from rotated domains held from returning to their equilibrium condition) is called magnetic energy density, and is given in SI units of KJ/m^3. A more common unit used to be the Mega Gauss-Oersted (MGOe). T [1 MGOe = 8 kJ/m^3]. For most nifty permanent magnets, the KJ/m^3 value will be in the 20's to 30's. Now consider the volume of magnets that would fit in a motor you could hold in your hand, and thence calculate the energy density. Then calculate the effect of releasing ALL this energy in one minute, say of a 100mm x 10mm x 10mm magnet, releasing its 0.3 J in 60 seconds, for a whopping 0.005 Watts of power, leaving an unmagnetized lump of metal. Impressed?
the warp engine patent discussed a few days ago? Hell, even the USPTO threw THAT one out. Maybe he figured he'd slip the perpetuatl motion machine in the mix now that he's got the examiners off balance. 8-) Coming to a penny stock near you!!!
these guys are the real deal, a buncha PhD's and scads of patents. They even have a working engine that can fit in the wheelwell of a 747 and pull it around the runways. The executive summary of their technology is here, and they have a demo of their technology here.
I found this article quite a while ago: http://www.keelynet.com/energy/ford.htm Model T Magnetic Engine - from TFA My contact said there were three fellows who got wind of this story several years ago. They secured a first-run Model T and found it did indeed have strange slots on the bell housing. Magnets were inserted and when they cranked it, the flywheel began to spin on its own. Based on this initial verifying experiment, they eventually produced a 40hp version which was self-running, using the same magneto system. A demonstration was scheduled in a larger city and two of the men drove the prototype to the demonstration, the third man was ill and could not attend. The demonstration went off without a hitch and was enthusiastically received. Plans and contacts were made for duplicating the prototype for further tests that would be followed by marketing. As the two men were driving home late that evening with their prototype, their vehicle was run off the road. The next day, their vehicle was found overturned, both bodies lying in a ditch with their throats slit and the prototype was gone. The third man who had been too ill to attend the demonstration packed up everything and went into hiding. Word is, this man is still alive, very paranoid, yet he has not given up on the principle and has gone even further in his development of the principle. I heard a lot of rumors about lots of prototype engines that are using alternative energy like water even small nuclear engines but either the inventors were bought out by oil company's or they were found murdered, had an accident etc.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Slashdotters should stick to commenting on computer stuff and not venture into the realm of hardware, especially the stuff that involves physics, electric current and the like. In their ignorance, Slashdotters are forgetting (if they ever knew) that an exponentially increasing magnetix flux in a perpendicular field arrangement - as the article describes - will be able to couple with the zero-point energy of the normal space.
This is the energy associated with a prediction of quantum thoery which proposes that (and here I'm a bit fuzzy myself) at the very smallest length scales even empty space is filled with short-lived particles, constantly popping into and out of existance. The longevity of a particle (and its anti-particle) is inversly proportional to its energy - so a high energy 'creation' stays around for a very very short time, and vica versa.
Normally the total energy of a particle and its anti-particle is a zero since they cancel out but, as the theory goes, under the right magnetic flux density and orientation conditions the particle pair could be separated and their intrinsic energies harnessed - zero-point energy. It has always been recognised that this could be a tremendous source of energy - but it was thought that only in the heart of a sun do magnetic field conditions arise that could lead to this energy release (which is now how cosmologists explain the energy gap between that generated from a sun's internal nuclear reactions and that required to: i) keep a body as large as a sun that far above the ground, and ii) overcome friction as it moves through the sky).
What is amazing - and I must say somewhat implausible really - is that this team claim to have gathered enough magnetic flux to harness zero-point energy. But if this is true, then apparent perpetual motion is entirely possible. I say 'apparent' because zero-point energy is of course being added to the system, so it's not really perpetual since the universe will one day implode, as Galileo predicted, and the source of energy will cease.
I think the real question is how they managed to keep the magnetic flux cool during operation. Magnetic flux will decay into 'flax', a type of polymer, if heated beyond a critical temperature. This is where the sun gets its mass, but the same process could lead to problems with their design and really gum up the works.
Anyway, hats off to them. And to the poster for bringing this to everyone's attention - I wish I could detail and describe these technical matters with as much scientific accuracy and insight. And to the Slashdot editors for realising the important and singular value of this post, and not being too distracted by extraneous details that might - at first sight - seem nonsensical and rediculous.
I'm sure these words will fall on deaf ears, but the scientific community is so polarized toward rejecting perpetual motion machines that they're starting to resemble the behavior of another kind of community they claim to be fundamentally different from: religion.
/. should stop posting low-credibility stories about PMMs. But otherwise, this kind of behavior simply mirrors the typical slashdot behavior of casting opinions without having "read the f******" article," with the actual data on the PMM being the article, not the article linked to here (as the blurb notes, the article is sparse on details).
Yes, a perpetual motion machine would violate the most fundamental building blocks of our current scientific understanding. Yes, if someone announces they've found a way to build one, there's an extraordinarily high chance that they're either a crackpot, harboring a hidden agenda, or simply a bad scientist who made a mistake in their calculations somewhere.
Yes, it's annoying and incredibly arrogant for anyone announcing the creation of a perpetual motion machine to show any kind of excitement or hubris. They should approach the community humbly and with great reservation, understanding that the community is going to be quite biased against them but in the hopes that they'll at least take a look at the data. And since most of these machines instead come with optimistic, glowing announcements, it's understandable why the scientific community so hates these things.
However, science is, at its roots, based on observation. Science has also been wrong many times in history. Have we come so far, that we dare be so brazen as to assume our working model of physics, impressive as it is in its ability to predict future observations, is infallible? By rejecting PMMs out of hand without bothering to observe and debunk them, are not the scientists themselves exhibiting this same hubris that they so detest from the presenters of the PMMs?
The religious world is founded on such behavior, that beliefs that come not from observation, but from other sources whose credibitility cannot be determined, regarding things that, by their very nature, cannot be verified, are upheld and accepted, and are in fact used as to debunk competing ideas, even ones which can be observed, validated, verified. Galileo's fight against the Church's view of the sun orbiting the earth is among the most obvious and oft-cited examples of such.
My point is, it is not the way of the scientist to dismiss out of hand, to turn away new evidence without so much as observing it. If such a PPM were presented without the kind of evidence and observations that would allow a thorough analysis by other scientists, I could understand the brash dismissals. However, the science community would be better served to refrain from judging new research that they have yet to analyse, simply attaching their existing views on a subject to a new work they haven't yet reviewed. This serves no constructive purpose.
When these PPMs are announced, typically evidence IS available to be observed, and inevitably, as more and more scientists take time to observe it, it will either work its way up the credibility food chain, until it is observed by someone with enough credibility to interest the community, or it will die a quick death under the objective scrutiny of peer review. I fail to understand why these machines must be met with such fierce and bitter words, rather than something like "until the results have been verified by some more credible scientists, I'm not going to waste my time reading these articles."
If the prior quotation represents the majority opinion of Slashdot's readership, then yes, perhaps
Not to start a flame war. I just dislike hearing people talk about the Law of Conservation as if it's so infallible that no no one should dare challenge it. Sorry, that's not how science works. The LoC is a theory based on observations. It's a damn good theory, but, as it is based on observation, there is only one reliable way to prove it wrong: to find a counterexample. And finding a counterexample will not be possible, if people believe so firmly in the LoC that they are unwilling to observe any evidence that may contradict it.
Just my 2 cents.
First, most electric motors are "magnetic", except maybe ultrasonic motors. Second, if I can't view a webpage because my java scripting is turned off I assume it to be MALICIOUS. Third, this is just unfounded bull hockey apples. Sure hope no slashdotter's buy into this stuff. If you do think this is real, I hope don't you choke on your bottled water.
Listen to your own description. These people do NOT believe they are creating a PPM. They believe that they are harnessing energy that is being released by the magnets. Calling a magnet powered generator a PPM would be the same as calling a fission reactor a PPM. Just because you add your fuel to your generator once, and the fuel last for 10, 100, or 1000 years, does not in any way make a generator a PPM. Whether a magnet can be used as a fuel source is a completely different debate, but arguing that it cannot work because the 'inventor' would have created a PPM is a strawman argument at best.
while gaining greater than 100% efficiency is probably impossible there are sometimes things which can gather free energy such as heat exchangers gathering heat energy from outside concentrating it and releasing it inside.
solar sails, picking up energy by flying past planets.
Does the big bang theory of the universe make any sense the universe just appeared and there was a sudden out rush of mass and energy... if the universe has a start point then the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed needs an except when starting a universe appended to it.
can anyone give an explanation how magnetic energy transfer works. for example you can pick up a steel ball bearing with a magnet. gravity is pulling the ball bearing downwards but the magnetic field holds the ball in place.
Is energy being expended for this to occur, given a long enough time will the ball bearing fall from the magnet or is something renewing the energy expended by the magnet to hold the ball in place.
Anyone care to try and explain, is a god of some sort necessary to make sense of this.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
For the record, I'm not holding my breath on this one . . .
It is so bogus that Boeing went to the hassle to patent a perpetual motion machine? And got it.
I seriously doubt the 100% barrier, but approaching it is a different matter. Keep in mind that they are using permanent mags. Those had to be created.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wan the case to occasionally emit a self-satisfied hum, too.
After reading a bit of http://www.flynnresearch.net/magnetics.htm it seems to me TFA has it wrong; they do not seem to be claiming perpetual motion, only far greater efficiencies.(sp)
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
I'll bet this is what President Bush is talking about when he says "U.S. on Verge of Energy Breakthrough" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_pr_wh /bush_energy
We've got the plans for how to build the proof of concept of the Parallel Path technology here:
n n's_Parallel_Path_technology
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Fly
Fresh today.
It's not perpetual motion. It doesn't violate laws of physics. It does add a new rule to the textbook that will become a chapter in all electronics textbooks, and will be standard fare in all electric motors.
3.5-x the output as conventional motors with the same electrical input and size.
Build the proof of concept, you will see the phenomenon for yourself.
We will also be posting a set of plans for building a motor using this technology.
These are being posted by Michael Schuckel, an associate of Joseph Flynn, in the two weeks he has prior to possibly joining Joseph in working with Boeing on some proprietary applications of this technology.
Tomorrow's news yesterday -- the bleeding, visionary edge.
What's more, TFA says Boeing Phantom Works has seen it, and backs it. Who do you think is more likely to be correct, Boeing engineers who have seen it for themselves, or Slashdot Armchair Experts? Read the patent. At least read the inventor's website, it's more likely to represent the actual invention.
Hell, even some Slashdot readers have seen it, and report that it exists, it really works, and it delivers 98% efficiency.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Let me be the 156th person to call bullshit.
One actually useful technology I ran across recently is fuel cells that fit in a rack:
m ?base_sku=ISX-FCXR10-30
/. readers can dig them up.
http://apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cf
Looks like it can actually generate 10Kw and could have a several day runtime capability. The web site is unfortunatly short on details, but I'm sure some intrepid
I bet they cost an arm and a leg, or maybe two legs. Has anyone out there ever seen/used one of these units?
Uploaded it here: clicky
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Scuttle the monkey perhaps?
This is really Cool!
- Yes, but does it run Lunix?
I forgot to put in the crystals.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
* ok, technically this would not be "perpetual motion (tm) **", but THEY (the rubes) don't know that. Besides, if you charge admission, you might have enough coin left over to keep the lights on, say, if you had lights on all the time, a little solar panel might help to run the perpetual motion machine too...
** I am sure there is a submarine patent somewhere that covers this technology.
Crap, I think I just described a side-show. Maybe when I am too old for engineering I will just become a huckster after all.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Ya canna change the laws of physics!
if (!sig) { printf("Signature Unavailable\n"); }
http://www.lutec.com.au/
they just add a couple of magnets for extra power source. Magnet =~ extra battery.
Of course, the magnets will eventually run out...
it makes sense.
Wait, wait.. So what your saying is.... that... You cannot create energy or matter. I suppose you could say this is a fact, just like you can't go faster then the speed of sound becuase resistance will increase exponentially, or that the world is flat becuase everyone who goes out that far never returns. Don't get me wrong I think this article is bogus as much as the previous posters. But in all fairness science has never been 100% right, a self-contained power source is a possibility, probably not in humanity's lifetime though.
It actually should be able to make a device that "runs on" zero-point energy. However, it depends on your definition of "runs on". Usually, when we say that, we talk about the last important power source. Cars run on gasoline, which (probably) came from plants, which came from the sun, soil, etc.
:)
It is entirely possible to 'extract' energy from the vacuum (the zero-point energy) by making use of the Unruh effect. Specifically, whenever you are accelerating, you appear to perceive light coming from the vacuum. If you ran some device off this energy, it would run on zero-point energy much like a car runs on gasoline. Gasoline and the zero-point energy in this example did not "just exist" though, the energy for the device ultimately came from somewhere else.
I suspect this is not what you were referring to, though, but I thought I'd point it out because it is interesting nonetheless
What you really meant is that zero-point energy can't be harvested in such a way that it's "free" to us. But really, any energy becomes free to us when its actual source is sufficiently far away that we don't care. Solar energy is "free" -- we just have to put up solar cells and collect it from the sun.
Perhaps we may find that zero-point energy is extractable from the vacuum -- and we might never really figure out where it's coming from. (Who knows, black holes send us the energy from other universes?)
But anyway, it is important to pin down the notion of "free" energy. Free energy is any energy that comes from outside your local thermodynamic system.
There is NOTHING in this technology that has ANYTHING to do with "self-sustained server cabinet power." Roast the submitter! And the editor!
Flynn Research is developing electric motors. From the Flynn website
Parallel Path Applications
Fans, Medical Pumps, Hydraulic Pumps, Refrigeration, Disk Drives, Trolling Motors
Traction devices: Electric Vehicles, High speed rail, Lift Trucks, Golf Carts,
Battery operated equipment using motors or actuators,
Appliances Using motors or actuators,
Aircraft & Aerospace
I don't think that slashdot is a forum for perpetual motion debate. If you like physics, read the journals.
Sorry to bust any bubbles but I know I submitted the prior art over a year ago as an article (that was turned down) as this was and is actually an invention of a Japanese Gentleman who has been working on it most of his life. The original inventor is a Mr Kohei Minato who has a number of patents already on this motor.
Here are some links
article 1
article 2
google search
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Oh I think your comments are unfair. Consider: if this new invention is truely tapping into zero-point energy, scientists can use the machine to make a definative measurement of the zero-point field coupling constant. With that information we can estimate the additional amount of zero-point energy gained by the Sun (less decay losses of course), and with this fuller picture of solar energy balance we can at last make a good approximation for the value of solar drag.
And why is this important? Solar drag (and I'm talking about SDg, not Sdg) is responsible for so many critical environmental factors, and its our uncertainty around its value that creates such variability and uncertainty in environmental modelling and prediction. Put simply, until we have a better measure of how the upper atmosphere is disturbed by the sun as it passes through it we will never be able to make solid weather predictions. It is worse than that: some atmometricists are concerned that if SDg > 1 we will have increased churn leading to increasing bad weather, such as hurricanes. Other worry that if SDg 1 we will enter a period of stagnated and unchanging weather, such as the so called 'Badlands' of Arkansas, or the massive glacial icesheets of Maryland.
It is really important to know how this situation might change. If the glaciers of Maryland, for instance, were to melt it would release so much fresh water that the salinity of the oceans would plummet and a great many islands might actually sink as a result of their reduced boyancy (the governments of Great Britain, New Zealand and Luxembourg are right to be concerned)
Of course, SDg might just equal one, SDg = 1, in which case everything will be fine.
Anyway, as you can see I am very enthused by this new discovery.
Yeah, right... EXPONENTIAL increase. It's that revolutionary? Ahh don't think so!
Actually Slashdot's traffic trippled just a couple months ago. At least among IE uses with the alexa toolbar installed.
Kind of weird, and annoying given how crappy this place has become. No one with any authority cares about the site at all. It's pretty lame.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If their natural force of self-acceleration is less than that imposed upon them by gravity, stray bits of the stuff would skip around harmlessly on the ground; otherwise, they would fly away into outer space at high and dangerous speeds.
The Retro-Encabulator
I wonder if ScuttleMonkey is getting a share of the ad revenues....
./ editor's tactics. I don't see myself renewing it in the near future.
When stupid stuff like this gets posted, a flame war against the submitter and editor ensues... Which means a whole lot of page views... Which means that little banner at the top of the page gets reloaded a lot... (and probably more click-thoughts from the sheer volume of people involved)
And for subscribers who join in, they get to deplete their subscription even faster... Which makes them re-subscribe more often... Which means more $$$$ for slashdot...
My subscription was a gift from a friend. While it was a very nice gift, I'm starting to get tired of the
I would be willing to support slashdot if discussion was encouraged through the posting of truly interesting stories... Unfortunately, the editors seem to think that thinly-disguised advertisement 'articles', viewpoints on the computer industry written by humanities scholars, and pseudo-science are what the readership wants to see.
Perhaps CowboyNeal should start making some useful polls like "What would you like to see on Slashdot?"
1) Interesting Industry Articles
2) New Science Breakthroughs
3) Issues related to technological rights
4) Programming Articles
5) SPAM,CRAP, and other scatology
[Guess which one is the "CowboyNeal" option]
Anyone notice how the company logo looks a lot like those rearranging paper puzzles? Hmm.
1. Dig up a story. Any story.
2. Read its most sensationalist part (usually the start and end paras)
3. Make a breif summary out of those parts only, making sure that it sounds more like psuedoscience (This is needed so that we get more posts and slashdot gets its revenue, ya bread n butter stuff)
4. Dont forget to add a question mark at the end of your subject. (You have 67% more chances of getting the story posted this way)
5. Click Submit.
God created man in his own image, but somehow he evolved into a hairless monkey.
Heavier than air craft will never fly.
Is it remotely possible that some of our theories or "laws" are incomplete or have exceptions? Is it possible to find a breakthrough technology or novel special case without temporarily suspending faith in so-called laws defined by error-prone human beings. I know that most of these laws have been tried and tested for a century or more but doesn't science allow for continued attacks of these laws? If they fail, they reinforce the theory and provide additional foundations for it's classification as a "law". But if no one ever tries, the understanding may be incomplete and we may be missing something big.
Nearly all the posts here seem to jump to the immediate conclusion that anything that breaks their mental model is the work of ignorant, certifiable kooks. How many of you have actually verified these laws? I'm sure some here have but I doubt the vast majority of people immediately saying "impossible" have ever. Did you learn your mental models from a book, from a teacher, from anecdotal evidence? Have you jumped to the conclusion that so many incredibly intelligent people have tried that they couldn't have possibly missed something, even considering our new understanding of additional, or previously unheard of magnitudes, of material properties like, say the magnetostriction that causes the giant magnetocaloric effect or the still unexplained energy anamolies when a material undergoes phase change? Have you ever walked around looking for your sunglasses that are on your head, the keys that are in your hand, or otherwise solved some puzzle that made you ask how you could have missed something so obvious on first examination?
I welcome these people who always question, form hypothesis, test, refactor, test, refactor, test, requestion, factor in new knowledge, etc. because even if they fail, they succeed by reinforcing our existing models. It's productive to play devil's advocate or to point out how existing laws suggest it is impossible, but don't be so close minded as to immediate reject the idea that anyone can ever discover something that requires a revision of our models of perception. Encourage the people, offer your knowledge that might lead them down the path of discovery or lead to reinforcement of existing dogma.
Unfortunately, Slashdot readers are more apt to cast scorn on the people who should be your ally. You want them to fail by giving up before even trying, not by trying and failing. This is certainly not the reaction I would have expected from a cabal of wannabe computer scientists. Despite what you may think, you are not the center of the universe and you don't have it all figured out.
Not that any of you will actually care to investigate the claims, but I downloaded and compiled the USPTO tiffs into a PDF and have made the patent available at http://outlawlabs.com:8000/US006246561.pdf.
If the mans made a better motor then fair play to him, although I suspect the motor is <100% effecient..
Anything that can get green cars on the road faster is a good thing, now if he could turn his skills to say jamming more energy per m^3 into batteries I would be impressed.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
You cannot get energy from magnets.
You can burn them.
Trust me, I work for the government.
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
This article has no link to a Wikipedia article about "Parallel Path" and I'm a little bit proud of it, see:
o r_deletion/Parallel_Path
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_f
The military interest was triggered by research published in 1999 by Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas. They found that by shining X-rays onto certain types of hafnium they could get it to release 60 times as much energy as they put in (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999).
.......
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3406
So what can you do with that? make a UAV out of it.
The US Air Force is examining the feasibility of a nuclear-powered version of an unmanned aircraft. The USAF hopes that such a vehicle will be able to "loiter" in the air for months without refuelling, striking at will when a target comes into its sights.
But the idea is bound to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of flying radioactive material in a combat aircraft. If shot down, for instance, would an anti-aircraft gunner in effect be detonating a dirty bomb?
It raises political questions, too. Having Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) almost constantly flying over a region would amount to a new form of military intimidation, especially if they were armed, says Ian Bellamy, an arms control expert at Lancaster University in Britain.
But right now, there seems no stopping the proliferation of UAVs, fuelled by their runaway success in the Kosovo and Afghanistan conflicts. The big attraction of UAVs is that they do not put pilots' lives at risk, and they are now the norm for many reconnaissance and even attack missions.
The endurance of a future nuclear-powered UAV would offer military planners an option they might find hard to turn down. Last week, the Pentagon allocated $1 billion of its 2004 budget for further development of both armed and unarmed UAVs.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
But it's 2006...
This is interesting, but the way it appears to work is much the same as temporarily demagnetising a magnet by applying an AC field.
The problem is that this weakens the magnet each time due to field coupling, resulting in a dead magnet after a short time.
The only way to get around this is to use a magnetic shield which blocks part of the field from the magnet to generate torque in one direction. Pyrolytic graphite is nowhere near strong enough unfortunately, and there is speculation that in order for this to have any chance of working you would need to be able to switch the material (nicknamed unobtainium) from a superconducting to an inert state with applied voltage.
-A
"Bother" said Pooh, as he was dipped in bees...
A decent sized electricity generator (100MW - 600 MW) is already 98.5% efficient. A semiconductor-controlled synchronous electric motor is 97.5 - 98% efficient. End of story.
are immediately dumped into the trash. Its not even journalism. When I went to high school, the school newspaper was better written. At least they would check the facts and care about accuracy (somewhat). EVERY article that I have seen from opensourceenergy has been debunked in about 20 posts on slashdot, and even before we have our morning coffee! Its that bad. Just... junk it. And senior mods need to sit Scuttlemonkey on their knee and explain the birds and the magnetic flux density to him.
There's a key advantage to using a flywheel/generator combination: your electricity supply is massively cleaned up because you're generating a new clean electricity supply, the inertia of the flywheel also smooths out most glitches in the mains.
Not only don't you need the UPS, you also do away with the problem of keeping the UPS cool.
The only issue is noise, these things aren't quiet.
A quick google found these people: http://www.activepower.com/
Has anyone actualy read TFA? This is NOT a new energy source/prepetual motion device or anything that claims to work around current laws of physics - the comnpany simply found a way to make a better electric motor by manipulating the magnetic fields, they cliam a increase in efficency noithing more.
magnetically levitate another magnet which requires, according to any analysis you choose, a continual exertion of force and therefore power and energy)
I am currently levitating my cup of coffee 3 feet off the ground. Woah! Spooky! Look, it's not even moving! That's because there's a freaknig DESK holding it there. Replace 'desk' with 'magnetic field' and you have your answer. No work is being done because nothing is moving and nothing is heating up and nothing is radiating. Get. A. Clue.
I have no
The first refers to a delta, a difference of +/- 4 minutes. The second is an absolute value of 4 minutes per mile.
So if you're running a 10 minute mile, and increase your speed so that you're doing a 6 minute mile, you've increased your speed by four minutes per mile. You are NOT however, "running a 4-minute mile."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"It's called Parallel Path Technology and it's being coined as a revolution in the magnetic motor industry."
d =Mozilla-search&va=coin
You can coin a new word, you can't coin something that's already been invented (even if what's supposedly been invented is under dispute).
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourcei
The submitter probably meant 'touted,' 'sold,' or perhaps more appropriately, 'hyped.'
Work = (Force)(Displacement)
Something can float without work being done or energy being used. A FORCE has to exist, but that doesn't mean energy is being consumed or work is being done. A boat floats in water because the force exerted on the boat by the water it displaces counteracts the force of gravity trying to sink it. Zero work is done by a floating boat though forces are acting on it to keep it floating.
Life is short: void the warranty.
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.
Imagine a beowulf cluster made out of vaporware
Ok. Does it run Linux?1.21 Gigawatts!
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.
so we can stop having the Electric Universe, perpetual motion, and other fringe theories on the frontpage as science?
This kind of misuse of the word "theory" is what fuels the Intelligent Design crowd.
Anybody have any details on or about or from this conference? Hello, any U of NM folks in the /. crowd?
If anyone tells you that they can build a permanent magnet motor that will just keep on spinning, and even put out a little bit of force, it's OK to believe them, as this is not perpetual motion. The energy is coming from the magnets themselves -- yes, they are getting weaker as the motor spins. An interesting friend of mine was into this sort of thing and after I did some looking, I stumbled upon the energy source.
Bullshit. All the various Laws of Conservation (of Energy, of Charge, of Lepton Number, of Quark Number...) state is that the total number cannot change. In the case of some of these, e.g. Lepton and Quark Number, it's believed that there is a slight assymetry in particule physics which we have not yet discovered; this is bolstered by the fact that the Universe does not seem to contain any significant amount of antimatter. On the other hand, when it comes to Energy, it's a distinct possibility that when you add up all the terms, the total is zero. The reason this is possible is that some forms of energy have a value which is negative vis-a-vis the immediately-after-Big-Bang state; Stephen Hawking is one of the leading scientists looking at what he calls the "South Pole" concept -- that the beginning of the universe is governed by the same laws of physics that the rest of the universe is.
I don't know if its redundant but I was reading this some time ago and thought it was interesting then. Check this out if your interested.
could you explain how the magnetic flux of a permanent magnet retains the same strength over time
h inem s.htm
The gravitational attraction of a given mass of matter also remains constant over time (proton decay notwithstanding), but I would also ridicule any PMM based on known gravitational forces.
Keeping an open mind does not preclude rejecting extraordinary claims (unless there is correspondingly extraordinary evidence, which is clearly lacking here).
Be careful what you dismiss as pseudoscience
Good advice indeed -- but given that the inventor claims something that has never been demonstrated in a reliable or repeatable way, and has huge reams of both experimental and theoretical evidence against it, and has furthermore been repeatedly used in hoaxes and frauds over the years...
May I suggest easily-google-able sites detailing the unworkability of PMM's in general, and electromagnetically-based ones in particular:
http://www.phact.org/e/z/freewire.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_mac
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
http://www.kilty.com/pmotion.htm
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/whythere.html
http://commons.bcit.ca/physics/rjw/pmm/text/em_pm
http://www.rasertech.com/tech_g-1.html
With current motors at around 80% efficiency I doubt there is room for the claimed x4 improvement. The math does not make sense to me. How can you have 220% more power ouput than your input?
a sp
r _efficiency.html
Just using the right motor for the right job is more important.
There is a nice write up of it here;
http://www.psnh.com/Business/SmallBusiness/Motor.
and here;
http://www.advancedenergy.org/progressenergy/moto
(Another five minutes of my time wasted on google because some fool posted something without doing a bit of research first.)
Work = (Force)(Displacement)
Something can float without work being done or energy being used. A FORCE has to exist, but that doesn't mean energy is being consumed or work is being done. A boat floats in water because the force exerted on the boat by the water it displaces counteracts the force of gravity trying to sink it. Zero work is done by a floating boat though forces are acting on it to keep it floating.
You are forgetting that in this particular example, we are countering the effects of gravity. To counter the acceleration due to gravity, energy is required. Even your equation is blatantly wrong. If I push on a wall, I am exerting energy and force but there is no displacement.
And in the case of gravity, even a rigid body is exerting energy to keep a mass from accelerating towards the center of gravity. It is just that the expended energy is distributed to the atomic and molecular bonds of the rigid body that is working to counteract gravity (and continuously generating heat in the process, as any compression of a rigid body will do). As I put in another post related to the grandparent, those molecular bonds are also suspect because they appear to be able to exert force that requires energy in perputua. There is something more at work here and it is only subtle if you don't question how it works (e.g. if you memorized your physics from college but never bothered to ask how, for example, electrostatic forces could continue to operate at the same intensity in perpetua without decreasing in effectiveness).
As I said, there be dragons here.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
The basic idea behind harnessing the power of a permanent magnet is related to the similar phenemona associated with the electrostatic force in electrons/protons, the nuclear force, gravity and other such seemingly permanent forces. All of them give the full appearance of being able to perform useful work in perpetua.
For example, two electrons, through electrostatic repulsion, will accelerate away from one another. It is impossible to dismiss that energy was required to cause this acceleration. Yet, the electrons do not diminish in energy, they do not loose any electrostatic potential and are in fact capable of continually doing this same magical feat indefinitely. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it will take some serious evidence to say it isn't a duck. The electrostatic force associated with an electron appears to have an infinite supply of energy to exert accelerating forces on other electrons. It is trendy to say that the electrostatic force of an electron is coupled to ZPE (Zero Point Energy), and through this coupling, it is able to draw from ZPE to keep it's electrostatic potential constant.
A permanent magnet appears to have the same properties (e.g. it is capable of exerting force to accelerate objects without decreasing in apparent energy). It is true that a permanent magnet has it's properties because of the alignment of atoms and that over time the work that the magnet is doing does cause atoms to re-align and therefore decrease the effectiveness of the magnet. But this is in no way can account for the massive amounts of energy that the magnet appears to be able to use during it's effective lifetime. One could even say that the molecular bonds that are holding the magnet together and keeping the magnetic flux lined up are themselves generating the energy, since those bonds are countering the large magnetic forces that threaten to realign the magnet so that it is no longer magnetic. Those molecular forces themselves do not diminish and continue to exert strong accelerating forces.
In summary, it is impossible to dismiss this phenomena. A permanent magnet is capable of performing work, as is simply evidenced in many different ways (although it does not appear to have been commercially realized - who knows why? Anyone have a tinfoil hat?). Electrostatic forces, molecular bonds, nuclear forces and gravity all appear to have a similar property of endless access to energy to perform work.
If you reply to this comment, please don't hand-wave and say your physics professor knows more than me. Think about this subject seriously. The basic wheelworks of nature do give the full and blantant appearance of constantly violating the law of conservation of energy. That should be something that anyone who considers themselves a skeptical scientist would like to understand better.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
I would want a full refund of my money to Slashdot if I paid for it. Since I don't, I can only shake my head in disbelief that they have such stupid editors. If they're not posting some obvious hoaxy massive storage scam, they're posting perpetual motion machine crap like this. Maybe we'll get really lucky and they'll dupe this one.
So disappointing that people who should have an eye for scams like this are so easily fooled.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
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. 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.
If I push on a wall, I am exerting energy and force but there is no displacement.
And in the case of gravity, even a rigid body is exerting energy to keep a mass from accelerating towards the center of gravity. It is just that the expended energy is distributed to the atomic and molecular bonds of the rigid body that is working to counteract gravity (and continuously generating heat in the process, as any compression of a rigid body will do).
When you push on a wall, the force from your arm does no work. However, you grow tired because work is being done at the cellular level in you body. Your muscles require energy to remain contracted.
A compressed rigid (or non-rigid) body is only going to generate heat while it is being compressed. After that it cools. If that were not the case, I could heat my apartment by stacking up a pile of rocks.
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
When you push on a wall, the force from your arm does no work. However, you grow tired because work is being done at the cellular level in you body. Your muscles require energy to remain contracted.
You would have us believe that there is a difference in the expense of energy related to the success of moving the object or not? Are you listening to yourself?
Please provide any example of how one body can compress another body without the continual expense of energy, without resorting to other suspect forces (such as molecular bonds via rubber bands or bracing, or gravity, etc..). One example. You will actually find that there are other equations in physics that relate energy to compression (such as a spring). These equations will be more useful to you than the force x distance one in this argument. It is also important, when makiing this analogy, to assume that any thought experiment must be constrained to not depend on any bracing at any time in the experiment. Doing so simply hands over to the molecular bonds of the brace all work required to continue the compression. It becomes hand-waving the problem away.
A compressed rigid (or non-rigid) body is only going to generate heat while it is being compressed. After that it cools. If that were not the case, I could heat my apartment by stacking up a pile of rocks.
At what point does gravity stop exerting force on a body? During compression, heat is generated as molecular bonds in the compressed body are broken. This process will continue with some half-life in a body experiencing constant compression, albeit at a much slower rate than during a change in compression. But even this doesn't matter much - you are looking for ways to balance the equations of conservation of energy (as you were taught). My assertion is that there is none at the level of the basic wheel-works of nature. In fact, I am stating that there is always an expense in energy when one body experiences a force (even if that force is in equilibrium). This is really self evident if you think about it. We are taught to believe that conservation of energy is a fundamental law and therefore don't question whether it applies to forces such as gravity. But upon inspiction, it becomes very clear that it does not. Gravity can and does act to accelerate other bodies without ever diminishing in effectiveness. Once you accept that fact, you must then consider the work it is performing on stationary objects as well. Consider Fusion in the sun. Consider black holes. Then think about the surface of the planet and tension on molecular bonds. Think outside the box.
And yes, absolutely, you could heat your house with gravity. Take a look here and here.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
To elaborate on the magnet on the fridge analogy:
In its simplest incantation, work, or energy, equals force multiplied by distance.
Distance travelled: d = 0. W = F*d. Even lim(W, F->infinity) = 0 if distance travelled, d = 0. You can get energy out of the magnet only by moving it. Oh, sure - let's hold the magnet away from the fridge a centimeter, and let go. It moved - non-zero work! Except we had to expend energy to move the magnet that first centimeter.
And since I'm at it already:
- I won't mention the thermodynamics arguements many have already posted about
- It doesn't matter how many newtons of force a motor statically exerts - 1N or 1000000N - it's not linked to efficiency.
- The best way to measure efficiency is by a dynamometer. Versions I've worked with basically are generators which you directly hook up your test motor to. Knowing the properties of the generator (efficiency model, etc) you can figure out how much energy your motor is outputting versus how much energy you're putting into running the motor. You can find efficiency curves for any motor design you wish by spending some time with google. Why doesn't Flynn's website provide these? Don't give me any bull about patents; novel motor configurations are common.
- Despite its flaws, the peer-review journal system is still the most rigorous method of testing science. I don't need to search Science's website to tell you that "parallel path technology" will return 0 results.
- While racing solar cars, I've encountered motors running anywhere between 80 to 98% efficiency. That's efficiency defined in the traditional sense: mechanical power out divided by electrical power in. I found it funny that Flynn is trying to convince solar car teams to try out his motor design.
Give me some steel tubing, enough calculator solar cells, an electric lawnmower and my Swiss Army knife, and I'm sure I get farther in WSC2007 than Flynn. (Interestingly, the parallel path wiki says it can reduce solar cell surface area by 50%! Tell that to anyone who's raced a solar car and see how quickly they laugh)
Work = (Force)(Displacement) Something can float without work being done or energy being used.
Really? This is news to me. Let's use your insight to analyze a rocket that lifts off from it's launch pad and then slows to a constant acceleration of exactly 9.8 m/sec^2 straight up. Hmm... Guess what? That rocket is not moving because that is precisely the acceleration down due to gravity. The rocket is burning fuel (a lot of it) in order to levitate with precisely zero displacement.
According to your formula, the amount of work that the Rocket is doing to remain stationairy and float in the air is given by Work = Force x Displacement. Since Displacement is zero, work must also be zero, right?
Do you see how ridiculous this claim is? The problem is that the rocket is counteracting acceleration (gravity). You cannot do that without work and the expense of energy.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
I'm no physicist, but no one else has responded to your bizarrely modded-up posting.
No! In classical mechanics, p = Force/Area. There's no motion, thus no kinetic energy.
With respect to your thought experiment of electrons bouncing around (classical mechanics not quantum mechanics), they impart kinetic energy to each other all the time. You're just describing Brownian motion. You write "they will constantly be exposed to electrostatic acceleration which implies the expenditure of energy." No, it implies the conversion of energy. The electrostatic potential energy of the electrons increases as they come closer, reducing their kinetic energy (they slow down), and then the potential energy turns into kinetic energy as they fly apart. Read about Potential Energy.
If you're referring to the "magic" that the electrons keep bouncing around "forever", learn more about the second law. When they hit the container holding them they may transfer energy to it because it's colder, or vice versa. It's not a closed system.
=S
You mean it's NOT a working zero point module? Damn, and I was so convinced for a moment there ;)
No, you're mistaken.
:-)
Energy does NOT need to be exerted to counteract a force: another force operating in an opposite direction with equal strength will do the job nicely.
Compression? If compression required the exertion of energy to counter it then everything in the Universe would collapse. What you are confusing is the act of compressing an object (which does typically generate heat) with an object existing in a STATE of compression (which is a state in which the forces compressing the object are in balance with those preventing further collapse).
It is TRUE that compressing an object so that it takes up less volume requires energy: work IS being done as the object is getting smaller. Once the volume stops changing (forces in balance), no work is being done and no energy is being consumed.
Your example of gravity is likewise wrong: a counteracting FORCE produces stability, NOT the exertion of energy. Forces exist independently of work. This is the foundation for the entire concept of potential versus kinetic energy.
If you have not studied physics, I can see that this can be confusing because many of the terms are used loosely day-to-day, but in physics that is not the case. If you are truly interested, pick up a college level physics text meant as an introductory course for physics majors (don't get one of the "overviews" for non-majors). Better yet, pick up an undergraduate text in Newtonian Mechanics. The principles you will learn carry over into thermodynamics, so you should get a better understanding of exactly what I'm discussing. In case you haven't guessed by now, I have a degree in physics from UNC-Chapel Hill.
Life is short: void the warranty.
Energy does NOT need to be exerted to counteract a force: another force operating in an opposite direction with equal strength will do the job nicely.
:-)
Force does not exist in a vacuum. Something must generate it and my entire point is that requires energy. This idea is new and controversial, so I am not surprised you have a blindspot preventing you from even seeing my argument.
If you have not studied physics, I can see that this can be confusing because many of the terms are used loosely day-to-day, but in physics that is not the case. If you are truly interested, pick up a college level physics text meant as an introductory course for physics majors (don't get one of the "overviews" for non-majors). Better yet, pick up an undergraduate text in Newtonian Mechanics. The principles you will learn carry over into thermodynamics, so you should get a better understanding of exactly what I'm discussing. In case you haven't guessed by now, I have a degree in physics from UNC-Chapel Hill.
I'm afraid you are missing the point.
Let's start with counteracting gravity. But let's assume we want a mass to levitate in a field of gravity. In order for that to happen, it will need to accelerate opposite the field of gravity. In the case of earth, that would be 9.8 m/s^2 and a conventional rocket will require a great deal of energy expenditure to pull this trick off. There is no doubt that the rocket is, in fact, generating force equal to it's acceleration times it's mass. But only a fool would say this doesn't require energy. Instead of saying that it doesn't require energy to exert a force, it is probably much more accurate to state that when the force is a result of a fundemental force (such as molecular bonds in the matter under the rocket at rest), that those fundamental forces are responsible for the energy accounting required to sustain the force. Perhaps the definition of energy, itself, needs an update.
However, the assertion that energy is not required in some cases yet is required in others is suspect and needs to be investigated more vigorously. We are so accustomed to hand-waving away the molecular bonds, electrostatic forces, gravity and magnetism (all ASSUMED to be permanent artifacts of some cosmologically perfect universal truth) that we never really bother to question the energy characteristics of those very basic "wheel works of nature.". My entire point is that these should not, in fact, be hand-waved away.
Energy is required to generate and sustain a force. Period. Please prove me wrong. And while contemplating this, please prepare yourself for some insight when you start to consider that the forces in question all hinge on gravity, electrostatic, nuclear and magnetic fields - considering them to be constantly replenishing their energy to maintain force or considering them to have the ability to generate force without expending energy end up being equivilent for almost all conventional analysis. Only when one starts to question how to tap into these potentially huge energy streams do the two different views begin to differentiate.
The article of context is suggesting just such a thing. And there are hundreds of other projects, experiments and theories that are doing the same.
Instead of suggesting I go back to high-school to learn newtonian mechanics, may I suggest you unlearn some of what you learned so that you can open your eyes to a vast new horizon of opportunities?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is a 29-year old white male with a stocky build and a goatee. He responded to my ad to be interviewed for this article wearing only leather pants, leather boots and a leather vest. I could see that both of his nipples were pierced with large-gauge silver rings.
Questioner: I hope you won't be offended if I ask you to prove to me that you're a nullo. Just so that my readers will know that this isn't a fake.
CmdrTaco: Sure, no problem. (stands and unbuckles pants and drops them to his ankles, revealing a smooth, shaven crotch with only a thin scar to show where his genitals once were).
Q: Thank you. That's a remarkable sight.
(laughs and pulls pants back up). Most people think so.
Q: What made you decide to become a nullo?
(pauses). Well, it really wasn't entirely my decision.
Q: Excuse me?
The idea wasn't mine. It was my lover's idea.
Q: Please explain what you mean.
Okay, it's a long story. You have to understand my relationship with Hemos before you'll know what happened.
Q: We have plenty of time. Please go on.
Both of us were into the leather lifestyle when we met through a personal ad. Hemos's ad was very specific: he was looking for someone to completely dominate and modify to his pleasure. In other word, a slave.
The ad intrigued me. I had been in a number of B&D scenes and also some S&M, but I found them unsatisfying because they were all temporary. After the fun was over, everybody went on with life as usual.
I was looking for a complete life change. I wanted to meet someone who would be part of my life forever. Someone who would control me and change me at his whim.
Q: In other words, you're a true masochist.
Oh yes, no doubt about that. I've always been totally passive in my sexual relationships.
Anyway, we met and there was instant chemistry. Hemos is about my age and is a complete loser. Our personalities meshed totally. He's very dominant.
I went back to his place after drinks and had the best sex of my life. That's when I knew I was going to be with Hemos for a long, long time.
Q: What sort of things did you two do?
It was very heavy right away. He restrained me and whipped me for quite awhile. He put clamps on my nipples and a ball gag in my mouth. And he hung a ball bag on my sack with some very heavy weights. That bag really bounced around when Hemos fucked me from behind.
Q: Ouch.
(laughs) Yeah, no kidding. At first I didn't think I could take the pain, but Hemos worked me through it and after awhile I was flying. I was sorry when it was over.
Hemos enjoyed it as much as I did. Afterwards he talked about what kind of a commitment I'd have to make if I wanted to stay with him.
Q: What did he say exactly?
Well, besides agreeing to be his slave in every way, I'd have to be ready to be modified. To have my body modified.
Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?
Not specifically, but I got the general idea. I guessed that something like castration might be part of it.
Q: How did that make you feel?
(laughs) I think it would make any guy a little hesitant.
Q: But it didn't stop you from agreeing to Hemos's terms?
No it didn't. I was totally hooked on this man. I knew that I was willing to pay any price to be with him.
Anyway, a few days later I moved in with Hemos. He gave me the rules right away: I'd have to be naked at all times while we were indoors, except for a leather dog collar that I could never take off. I had to keep my balls shaved. And I had to wear a butt plug except when I needed to take a shit or when we were having sex.
I had to sleep on the floor next to his bed. I ate all my food on the floor, too.
The next day he took me to a piercing parlor where he had my nipples done, and a Prince Albert put into the head of my cock.
Q: Heavy stuff.
Yeah, and it got heavier. He used me as a toilet, pissing in my mouth. I had to
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.