Slashdot Mirror
Yet Another Perpetual Motion Device
The Star reports on this inventor breaking all the laws of physics as far as free energy goes. It even provoked interest from "esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Markus Zahn". I would like to know how this seemingly backyard enthusiast's experimental set up has not been tried a million times over the years. It seems so simple and too good to be true. The article has links to a multi-part video demo of the device accelerating an electric motor under load for free!
Connect the corpse of Beethoven up to a generator. Generator provides electricity for CD-player. CD-Player plays Britney Spears songs over and over. Beethoven spins in his grave providing mechanical energy to generator.
Thermodynamics just says you can't win when you're talking about the whole Universe. Once you start to get into smaller sections of it you can increase organization locally but it is always at the expense of more global energies. Life here on Earth is an example of this - we're more organized but the Sun pumps out a lot of wasted energy to feed that organization. It's entirely possible that some kind of machine could be built to extract energy locally which ultimately has a global source but that does not mean its perpetual, the Universe will still wind down total energy wise in the global space.
Shh.
It seems that his setup is using 'permanent' magnets to accelerate a motor instead of slow it down. What this would say to me is that the retardation effects are being shifted from the motor to the magnets. This would comply with current Physical knowledge, since 'permanent' magnets are not truly permanent, only in the sense that they can't be turned on and off like electromagnets.
If this is the case then expect the 'permanent' magnets to lose their magnetism over time, and if this magnetism was imparted to them from an industrial process (ie. they are not naturally magnetic) then the extra energy would be coming from the magnet factory's machinery.
It is still interesting, however, since such a method would be a way of storing energy, reducing the need for batteries. To be useful this technique would need to be measured in terms of extra energy imparted, magnet lifetime and whether the weight of the magnets would be better used to hold more batteries.
IAAPBIDHMTGO (I Am A Physicist But I Don't Have Much To Go On)
Wow, I'm almost cautiously excited. Call me stupid but I want to know more.
My work here is dung.
Let's see, scholar.google.com shows Markus Zahn wrote a book "Electromagnetic Field Theory: A Problem Solving Approach" in 1979 (the first item in many publications); he is a professor at MIT - part of the Lab of Electromagnets and Electronic Systems. Gee, I wonder if he understands motors and magnetic brakes.
Clearly the professors (Markus Zahn and at least one other) have studied the invention and cannot explain the result. You, on the other hand, based on cursory information, understand every little detail. So typically slashdot: I took a course in university on the subject, so my opinion is better than the professors.
If you watch all four parts, it seems that once the generator reaches a certain speed, it does not slow down when he cuts power to the system. Instead the two coils are still generating electricity from the magnets flying by them
Actually, he never does cut power to the induction motor. He shorts or re-connects the electromagnet coils (that are part of the generator assembly).
What he demonstrates is that for the same or less power (Volts*Amps) of input to the motor driving the generator, he can cause the whole assembly to accelerate while using less power.
That is the interesting part (one more time): He can cause acceleration of the motor, while under a constant load, using less power.
Not a perpetual machine, but rather a really unusual way to get higher efficiency from a motor-generator assembly.
My concern is that in one of video parts (three I think), he shows a graph describing what he is doing in his experiments, and he shows a chart that has the constant speed/power line, a decelerating line (disconnected electromagnets) and the exponential acceleration line. He never tests it far enough -- and in the last part (or second last) he shows a plain split-phase induction motor and puts a small set of permanent magnets next to it. Notice that when he puts the small magnets next to the shaft of the motor it accelerates, but he keeps shutting the motor off to "prevent the shaft from getting magnetized". That may be the ultimate problem here, it might just be a short-lived affect from magnets. Once the whole assembly is magnetized, you don't gain any more from this effect.
I think, you shouldn't, use so, many commas, as it, makes it hard to, understand what you're, saying.
Yes, I think, you, are right, I, am starting, now at exactly this point in time to shift my role model from william shatner to james joyce that should work out ok what do you think yes that feels much better
- Move to a state where power companies have "buy-back" requirements.
- install device effectively taking you off grid and turning your home into a mini-power plant.
- profit.
Then slowly ramp up your basement power production until you're putting so much electricity back out to the grid that state regulators come to investigate you. If they never do, you can just use the profits to build ever larger plants until you ARE a power company, and then you'll have to talk to the state regulators whether you want to or not.Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I build residential, commercial and industrial power factor correction devices. I've seen some large water treatment plant motors operating at below 50% efficiency. Before we start blowing money on free energy we should look at how much is wasted right now. As a test I went to a local applicance store and tested five identical EnergyStar refrigerators for the efficiency of the compressor motor. Every one of them was less than 95% efficient because motors must be sized larger than the actual load to account for loss over time. I had one Subway restaurant save about forty percent on their monthly electric bill due to increase in inductive energy efficiency. For whatever reason we can't seem to see the forest through the trees.
After watching the videos (whew!) here's what seems to be happening.
The setup is an induction motor driving a magnetic brake. The brake has both permanent magnets and coils. With the coils unloaded, there's some braking effect, as you can see when he turns the magnet wheel by hand. With the coils shorted, the braking effect decreases. This seems backwards, because, usually, shorting a generator increases the mechanical load. That's why this guy thinks he has something.
There's a classic Physics 101 demo where you have a big conductive disk rotating between the poles of an electromagnet, and when you short the electromagnet, there's a huge drag on the disk and it stops. That's an eddy current brake, and it's the analogy this guy is depending on.
But, in fact, he's re-invented a known type of magnetic brake. This isn't an eddy current brake; the addition of permanent magnets makes it something else. A known something else.
Here's an example of such a permanent magnet brake. Note that "the brake is applied when the coil current is zero", just as with the "Perepiteia" device. This is backwards from most magnetic brakes. Here, the permanent magnets are providing the field for braking, and current in the coil overrides the permanent magnets. In the "Perepiteia" device, the coils act as generators and have current through them the magnet wheel is rotating and the coils are shorted. This effect requires a nonlinear magnetic steel, so this is non-trivial magnetically. But commercial electromagnetic simulation software can simulate this effect, so it's well understood physics. It's a rare enough technology that there's no accepted name for this type of brake.
Note that in the Perepiteia videos, he has to hand-start his wheel, even though it's being driven by an induction motor. That's because, with his setup, the brake drag is at max when the wheel is stationary. With the wheel stationary, there's no current in the coils, so there's nothing to override the permanent magnets. Once the wheel is turning, the coils generate some power and reduce the braking effect.
There's even a patent on the application of this principle to powered window blinds. See U.S. Patent #6,967,418. There, it's used to hold the blinds in place with power off.
This has been done before and experimented with. Plenty of kids have tried this in their science classes in grade school and junior high. I know I did. Plenty of teachers have failed the students for doing this because, "Perpetual Motion is Impossible, you cannot explain whaty ou have done, you have learned nothing." I know mine did. [note, yes, bitter]
;). But, the gyroscope would reduce the chances of a car tipping or flipping and the platter would keep it going for quite some time. It could run and charge batteries when the car is idle and it could add energy to the system while it is going. But, eventually, the magnets would wear out. The car would then have to "refill" by making it to a station before the batterie
Skipping past the bitterness.
What is occurring here actually does make sense. There are several arrangements that can be used to make it occur. So far the pattern I have seen is the mere circle with an outlying magnet. Another option is made up of 15 magnets spaced inside the wheel instead of outside of it. They accelerate the outer wheel rapidly - much quicker - and make the entire unit easier to suspend within a vacuum between two plates. You can then place a coil outside the vacuum encased box, that is passive and generates electricity through the changing interior fields. The inner system is started by placing a single magnet briefly on the outside to start movement - after which the interior cascades out of its initial stability. The other magnets prevent it from finding stability again and the system accelerates until it instead reaches the next state of field stability at a set rotational speed.
A fun side effect is that the system also operates as a gyroscopic platter.
But, what happens after significant time? In the exterior-to-wheel scenarios the magnetic field eventually stabilizes. Outside of a vacuum it generally fails to stabilize because of minimal drag forces that cause it to essentially overheat and stop. This is a case of mechanical fault. Mechanical fault does not bar it from being "perpetual motion", but does reduce the long term functionality.
However. What happens with the interior-to-wheel scenarios? They also stabilize. However they stabilize within a rotating field. The EM field actually slows - but does not stop - and continues to rotate around the exterior generating energy through the coil.
--------------
So why is this not perpetual energy and where is this energy coming from?
Magnets. It is a straight forward answer. It takes a lot of energy to polarize a magnetic material. Rather, to magnetize it. Magnetic materials over long use lose their polarization. Ultimately they neutralize or become very weak.
When you create a system like this the magnets are under constant force. After enough time one or more magnets depolarize and the system returns to static stability. However, because of the nature of magnets, this can take a significant amount of time.
Magnets store a lot of energy in an alternative form. They, rather efficiently, release that energy. Unfortunately, they do obey the basic laws of thermodynamics. Thus, less energy comes out of them than what went in.
You can think of a magnet like a funky capacitor. You can put a lot into it and you will get most of that back out, but you will not get all of it.
-----
So, what is the use of these systems? Stored energy. The problem is that magnets with sufficiently strong fields are not cheap and do not come readily. We could produce them, but we would be returned to the same problem of where do we get the original energy from to "charge"/magnetize the magnets.
How could we use this stored energy? Well, using the gyroscopic nature of the spinning platters, one option would be to place them within vehicles and use them for electrical charge to power the vehicle. Of course, you would have to shield the EM field to keep from having two cars snap together like a couple of magnets
Shatner! speaks! with! exclamation! points! Not! commas!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the professors off the record they would give you an explanation in the line of what the GP did, but they have to be more restrained in their public declarations. They are careful not to make public guesses about how it works, because, inevitably, they would be wrong about some small detail and the "inventor" would be able to say the scientists know nothing.
Or do you think scientists are so stupid that, after more than a hundred years of research, they would have overlooked a basic principle that a dyslexic cook can discover by himself? The scientists have not studied the invention at all, the only reason why they cannot explain the result is because they have insufficient information. It's not as if this guy had published the plans for his machine, all the professors could see was a demo presented by the inventor.
This guy seems to be crook who tries to do his job by letting the victims read between the lines. He has *wink, wink* NOT invented a perpetual motion engine, and he is *wink, wink* NOT after investments for "further development".
I can do the same, by applying a brake for the first case, and not applying it for the second case. Now, if he shows that the first case's efficiency is close to 100% (with the brake), then we've got something noteworthy.
Many people seem to believe that, but it's not how science works. (Or even art, for that matter, Picasso took extensive training in classical art before he started his revolution in painting, for example...)
Look at any big breakthrough in science, it has never, ever, been done by an outsider. Big fundamental changes in the current thinking process always come from a scientist, usually young, who has thoroughly studied the subject before concluding a change is needed.
It's not that there is a "box" limiting scientific thought, but theories are created for specific sets of circumstances. When science and technology expands beyond those circumstances, new theories are needed. However, when you are creating new theories, it's never helpful to be ignorant of the current theories. You cannot circumvent the limitations of current theories if you don't even know those theories.
More importantly for shooting down the 'perpetual motion' crap is that from his description, the base configuration has the wheel of magnets inducing current in the coil placed at the rim, thereby dumping energy into the coil that is wasted. Then he connects the coil back into the system, essentially dumping the induced energy back into the motor to strengthen the field in the motor's coils. Yes, the motor will speed up; the system is recovering energy that was lost into the coil, which overall reduces the load on the motor, allowing its speed to increase until the load again matches the energy being put in. But the speedup is no different from the speedup you'd get if you simply disconnected the wheel of magnets entirely, taking its load out of the system, except that you'd get a larger increase in motor speed, because you have inductive losses in the coupling of the magnets and the coil, and resistive losses in the coil and the wires back to the motor. So all he's demonstrated is "If I take a load off a motor, its speed increases." Definitely an earth-shattering discovery, fully worthy of high-school freshmen.
Ok, I *am* a physicist, so let me just jump in here. Actually, it's the conservation of angular momentum that is a consequence of the laws of physics being the same in all directions. Energy conservation results from the laws of physics being the same at different times. You get linear momentum conservation from the laws of physics being the same at all positions in space. In this case, what we mean by the laws of physics is actually fairly broadly applicable. If you can write down an equation (it doesn't have to be an equation consistent with "known" physics) which describes how a system behaves, you can check to see if the system must conserve energy simply by translating the equation in time. See the helpful wikipedia article on Noether's theorem. With symmetry comes conservation (of something). And there are in fact quite a few people (physicists) who perform experiments looking for violations of symmetries the universe is thought to have. Or rather, they are looking for apparent violations of those symmetries, since it is expected that such apparent violations will indicate the presence of as yet undetected kinds of particles or fields which may in turn give clues as to what a grand unified theory (or which flavor of string theory, if you prefer) should look like. Some of these tests, if they found an asymmetry, would yield results that would seem to violate the conservation of energy if you ignored the underlying cause of the asymmetry. For instance, if the speed of light as measured in some arbitrary reference frame were to be different for light traveling in different directions, or if it were different for different reference frames, one could immediately build a (very small) perpetual motion machine. Things being as they are, however, it is likely that running said machine for very long would suck the energy out of the background field which is causing this asymmetry, and eventually make it impossible for the machine to operate. This in itself is a very strong blow against perpetual motion machines, since if they could exist, it's likely that one would have appeared naturally, and sucked all the (free) energy available to them. It's all much like the way soap-bubbles like to be round.