Forum Post: Is New Magnetic Motor Generating 400% Over Unity a Reality?
Posted 12 years ago on March 7, 2012, 7:24 p.m. EST by Reneye
(118)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://theintelhub.com/2012/03/07/is-new-magnetic-motor-generating-400-over-unity-a-reality/
Is New Magnetic Motor Generating 400% Over Unity a Reality?
Two Australian Inventors, Brinsmead mechanical engineer John Christie and Edge Hil electrician Lou Brits have manufactured a revolutionary Magnetic Motor capable of generating up to 400% more power than is required to drive the motor.
No, this is not science fiction; this is a new technology that scientists and inventors have experimented with for some time. Disclaimer: This article is only a report on these events.
Are you not the same twit that posted almost the exact "news' announcement a few month back, only that time with an Italian inventor? There is really zero point in following these 'news' postings, as if and when, someone actually develops a 'free energy device' we will just see a lot of cheap energy on the market. End of story, all else is just sci-fi speculations and back-shed scientists trying to turn lead into gold.
I see the perpetuation of these silly articles as nothing more than Big Oil laying down the meme of more 'cheaper energy to come', as an enticement for people to just keep consuming in the wasteful and irrational way we have been doing. What we need to do is slow our roll, start to limit consumption and begin to build systems and infrastructure that will make living more efficiently possible when the oil gets so expensive that our current economy will no longer work.
Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney, etc. the solutions are already here!
I see the less consumptive more localized and efficient community-based future as a vast improvement to this over consumptive, individual-greed based system we current 'enjoy'. I also see that the longer we let the few cling to the past, for reasons of individual short term greed, we make the transition to a sustainable future more and more difficult. We are wasting useful resources we should be using to build sustainable systems, just to move millions of people back and forth to sht jobs every day, that only reinforce the old system.
Exactly. But even more so because zero point is a mathematical fact lacking a device. It is irresponsible to neglect responsible debate over potential technology and science. I think our use of nuclear technology is plenty proof of that. Adding to your point, this is another reason to slow our roll.
This is not possible. It violates the conservation laws of physics. You can't get more out of a system than you put into it.
A nuclear fission reactor can generate a lot of power with a fairly small amount of fissionable material, but that is because the atoms themselves are highly energetic as per E= mc^2. Even a reactor does not produce more energy than exists in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
something to consider is that even when the motor is not moving, there is a force in action. thus there is conservation. the magnets are pulling upon the steel shaft and if placed in a circle especially in layers, that could promote acceleration, (which is also used to move trains in europe) why would this not be in the laws of physics? I submit that it is taking existing energy source and applying it in a way, that noone esle thought of. I've taken a look at these perpetual motion motors, and they look promising. me and a buddy were talking two days ago about taking on the project of building one. this may take me a year, as i am a busy man (chatting all day on ows forums) LOL no but im busy with my work. the busy season is starting early this year for me, and I am an electronic technician, (the bossman).
I have never said that maglev technology could not be applied in various ways in the real world. We are talking about two separate things. One is about the practical effort required to move objects through a distance (work), and the other is whether you can get more energy out of a system than exists within it. The latter is not only a logical absurdity, but a physical impossibility.
Whatever energy the magnets have is applied in the various practical instances described. But the magnets are not producing more energy than they inherently possess. Assuming, just for theoretical argument, that they were doing so, where would this "free" energy come from? Only two type of energy exist -- potential and kinetic. So where would all of this "free" potential energy be stored? Certainly not in the magnets themselves, for that would required the magnets to be physically larger than they are. Remember that matter and energy are equivalent. Electromagnetic fields are generated by electrons and their force carriers (photons). For any lump of matter/energy, there is a finite amount of energy equal to the total mass of the object. Provided you can make a 100% matter-to-energy conversion, which is only possible through matter/anti-matter annihilation, there is nothing more than 100%. 1=1. 1 does not equal 2, 3, or any other number.
I don't know how I can make this any more clear.
yet out of hydrogen, and helium is every other element created seemingly out of nothing do things appear. Im not disagreeing with the possibility that there may not be more ratio than 1:1, (of course kinetic energy disproves this, with a 4:1 ratio of power gain by simply increase in speed) however, even when there is no movement, and a coil is in the presence of a magnetic field, a charge exists, and can be stored on a capacitor.
Yes, but what is a transformer? Two coils of different amounts of wire. More wire in one side of the transformer is more matter/energy available to produce a larger EM field (step-up transformer). Less wire in the coil and you have step-down transformer and less EM field.
Speed is a form of kinetic energy. The more speed, the more kinetic energy. It is also potential energy that is released whenever the object collides with something.
And charges always exist in all matter. Protons = pos, Electons = neg, Neutrons = neutral. When these forces are in balance, matter is stable. When they aren't, it isn't. That's just basic chemistry.
I don't understand you. What are you trying to defend? I'm starting to get a bit tired of this.
please dont tire easily, i enjoy the debate, we may differ, but with dicussion i believe we are coming further along to a conclusion. I dont trust the finite minds of our educators, i believe in my spirit that there is more to learn. for example, none of these laws of physics have yet to address how a photon once entangled with another photon, immediately mimics the other photons state, even when separated across the world. faster than the speed of light, as one photon state is changed the other photon instantenously changes its state to match it. In another example it was measured in an experiment posted either in popular science, or american scientific, how fast the brain communicates a sensation felt on one of the extremities. the speed was faster than physics could explain. The only possible solution was that the brain comprehended beyond the barrier of time, and went back in time to measure the sensation of the finger before it begun. Now this experiment is non-standard teaching, for lack of a better word, however, it does hold true to Einsteins theory that time is not a constant, only the speed of light is.
You're starting to get a bit mystical. Yes, quantum entanglement has yet to be fully explained. It seems to indicate a deep underlying oneness to the universe that science, as yet, does not understand. There has been some speculation that QE could be due to all matter/energy being connected in higher dimensions that are forever closed off to our perception. So the appearance of changing one photon and another matching it's quantum state instantaneously would be an illusion. It appears that way from our limited 4D point of view. In higher dimensions the inter-connectivity would become apparent.
But the above is an example of educated speculation. That is one thing, and hard science is another. The Conservation Law of Energy is hard science.
Your only source is a Wiki and people really don't know much about science any more do they? A law is something that has been proven over and over again without change to the results. If there is new information that changes the idea behind a law then the law can change. I'm sure wiki can tell you that too. However, you are right but only because in this system, or a similar system I read about last week, there is no input from outside. The magnets generate all the force.
Yeah. I really don't like to quote wiki. I do it for convenience because it is a quick general reference that works reasonably well for general discussion purposes with others on these forums -- most of whom are not scholars. If greater and more accurate data is needed, then I take the time to go elsewhere for the data. But in this particular case, it isn't needed, because the Conservation Law is so fundamental that people learn it in High School (except for these Outback guys), has never been disproven in like a million experiments, would mean that entropy isn't true after all, and that all scientists everywhere are wrong about a fundamental law of the universe backed up with solid math to support it.
How likely is that?
Not very at all but you also are not realizing that this is not perpetual motion. The energy comes from the magnets does it not? If it comes from the magnets then energy is there waiting to be harnessed basically for free. Not perpetual motion but close right?
Please see my response below to freewriterguy. If your really going to make me produce hard physics data in support of the Law of Conservation of Energy, then I have work to do. At what level of scientific evidence would you be willing to acknowledge that this thing is bad "science"?
At what level of scientific evidence would you be willing to acknowledge that magnets do work with no external input other than the magnetic field? (I.e. free energy)
The electromagnetic field is real. Getting more energy out of it than exists within it is not real., and this discussion is getting tedious. Please go read any decent high school physics book.
Who says you are? Maybe you drain the power of the magnets over time. I don't know. I don't have that kind of background.
Here's another technology to consider.
Now the question is who will be first to market Rossi in Italy or this South African Player. Both energy devices produce a net gain of energy.
http://pesn.com/2012/02/22/9602042_South_African_Fuel-Free_Generator_Preparing_for_Market/
Also of note Cliff High in a 2011 Shape report drew the analysis that Canada and South Africa would be among the first out of the box on near free energy devices.
If you are talking about Andrea Rossi, that is something else entirely. That would be LENR.(low energy nuclear reaction) While there is much debate as to whether Rossi, (Leonardo Corporation) or his competitor, Defkalion, actually have a commercially viable device, the phenomenon of LENR is well established. It is not, however, free energy or something from nothing.
I would violate physics if it was convenient.
I always enjoyed violating Mary M, we hung out together right up until the end.
"Even a reactor does not produce more energy than exists in it."
therein lies the opening..........
Well, it's been patented for over ten years.
I haven't read that the patent holders claimed the (1 or 10 million dollar? 100 million?) prize for a mere unity machine although I did read they do not claim unity due to batteries five year life and one other detail, those 1300 year rare earth magnets.
Did you read that?
Yes, I have seen YouTube videos about this years ago. Same guys, same device. Just because you can get magnets to spin via same charges pushing off each other doesn't mean you generate more energy than exists in the system. The "over unity" energy is deceptive. It is being supplied externally or in some other manner consistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Have you reviewed the patents.
Again, the magnets do have energy in them.
Infinity may be further than some math acknowledges.
I'll try to make time to look at the patents and investigate this further. They may be on to something, but whatever it is, it doesnt violate the laws of physics. As you say, math is math.
If this were as revolutionary as advertised, these outback dudes would be as famous as Newton or Einstein in the scientific world -- world famous for taking physics to the next level of understanding. If the patent has been around 10 years, then scientists would have had the opportunity to independently verify the energy output (over unity) claims. But you can hear the crickets chirping. Nothing. Nada.
I haven't tested one, I'd like to.
I have done some very interesting hands on with magnetic bearings and hydraulic suspension units learning a few things beyond my mathematical skills.
As pointed out, there has been large sums of money put up for anyone producing a mere unity machine.
I'd think if this one truly was outputting at the ratio specified, it wouldn't need storage batteries at all. Efficient caps could do the deed at marginally more losses.
However, several of these attempts have resulted in some very useful advances that have been utilized in many ways.
Just the same, there are some interesting claims in the abstract making it a worthwhile read.
Freewriter, TCN and Brad.... you betchur ass the dirty energy guys have shelved many amazing technologies and will continue to do so.
SR, ---->" you betchur ass the dirty energy guys have shelved many amazing technologies"
I agree... but having the patent freely out there is not really shelving it ... is it ?
Well, an abstract is just that..........
Keep in mind that I walk on water, can feed an army with a couple of minnows and bread crumbs, and also part the oceans.
Or are you a republican heathen?
You gotta lotta nerve showing up here, nancing about like the tooth fairy, and pretending to be be me.
FoxBat press exposes the dangers of Microwaves
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lutec#October_12.2C_2007
H-O-A-X
Let me say first that this thing sounds too good to be true. If it is the real McCoy, it's a godsend. Having said that, may I add that If this thing is what the inventors claim it is, it'll be squashed right along with them and their patent.
There's a lot of money at stake in the energy biz as it now exists in keeping things just as they are. Coal industry, oil and natural gas industry, and all that comes with those behemoths, would very likely do everything in their very considerable powers to keep such a thing from coming to the market.
Sorry for being so cynical but that's the way I see it.
It sounds too good to be true because it isn't true. Physics is physics and math is math. This isn't either. It might look like it is true, but TV looks like a representation of reality. We forget that what we're looking at is horizontal electron lines being drawn faster than our eyes can detect it due to the persistence of vision. Same thing here. People have accepted the delusion that there might be something real about it. They are wrong.
This thing might make us salivate and drool over the wish for something for nothing -- the energy dream of the ages. But our emotions don't change the hard, cold facts of physics and the math that supports it.
Even the "popularizer" physicists like Greene and Kaku would have produced at least one show about this if it were true. Where is it?
Do you happen to know much about mag lev technology? I don't know much, but the little I do reinforces my notion that there's a great deal that we don't know about what might be. I thought mag lev was the stuff of science fiction and in that instance scince fiction has become science fact.
Many of us have seen video of the small ceramic(?) cube suspended in mid-air and easily rotating endless numbers of revolutions, unaffected by gravity and friction because of magnetic levitation.
Maglev is nothing new at all. It has been around in principle for a long time. I am not an expert by any means, but it operates on the same principle of magnetic repulsion, when poles of identical charge (pos and pos, or neg and neg) push against each other. You can do this with toy magnets at home. Of course, maglev trains use powerful electromagnets, but the principle is identical. The rail of the track has the same charge as the bottom of the train that "rides" on this magnetic repulsion. Some modern maglev rail systems have very sophisticated timing systems that switch on and off in sequence that drives the train forward. This can be controlled in the track, the train, or combinations of both. Again, I am not an expert, but this is the basic principle of how they operate.
Here's more info:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm
Thanks for the link, underdog. Seems like something that would require a good deal of electricity to operate, right? However, no moving drive parts, friction in the form of wind drag mostly(?). Interesting and seems like something that might have a great deal of potential. Imrpovement in the efficiency of the magnets a key for this(?)
Yes, and conventional power generators are still required to create the electromagnetism in the rail/train. So you still have to have oil, natural gas, coal, hydro, nuke, etc. to generate electricity. Just no getting away from that pesky "matter/energy can be neither created or destroyed" law. It can change forms, but it can't be conjured up out of thin air.
Maglev transportation can probably still undergo refinement and gain some efficiencies. It is still reasonably new in commercial application. I don't know exactly how long it's been around. Maybe 20-30 years??? I really don't know.
UD, you wrote:
"matter/energy can be neither created or destroyed" law.
It's a constant. A while back in another thread concerning God's role in this election cycle here in this forum, I wrote of this very thing. Perhaps I expose myself for the nut that some accuse me of being in saying this, but I believe that energy is a manifestation of God because energy is eternal.
I'm not going to get involved in any religious discussions on these forums, but if there is any truth to the apparent fact that all matter/energy came into existence during the Big Bang, then one might say it was all "created" in that instant. However, some theoretical physicists now purport there may have been a time before the Big Bang wherein all the matter/energy we see in our universe came forth from some other multi-verse due to collisions of incomprehensibly large Membranes (or Branes for short). These Membranes are a part of M-theory, which is an expanded concept arising from String Theory, one of the most studied areas of theoretical physics, that attempts to unite through extremely complex mathematical equations all of the known forces of Nature into a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) also known as the Theory of Everything. If such a theory can actually be mathematically proven someday (Einstein was trying to do this before his death but failed), then Physics will have reached its ultimate culmination. The books will all be closed. Nothing new would be coming forth from Physics.
Kind of depressing actually, if you ask me.
impossible ... it's like answering where everything came from.... let's say we all say it came from the big bang.... then where did the big band come from ?
the final answer will never be produced
The physicists call it "knowing the mind of God". For those that believe, such would seem quite blasphemous, I would imagine.
Big band came from ragtime music. From the blues.
Apologies if I seemed to be trying to re-initiate a religious discussion. I really wasn't. Just a stream of consciousness thing. You seem very knowledgeable regarding matters of science. May I ask, profession or hobby?
Hobby. I have a lot of varied interests.
Regarding physics, I have read a few layman's level books regarding sub-atomic physics. When you get down on that scale of things, there are some really fascinating things going on. There are a lot of efforts underway to prove what has come to be called the "Standard Model" of particle physics. One of the primary reasons billions was spent on constructing the Large Hadron Collider in Europe (the largest machine ever created) was to attempt to prove the existence of the theoretically predicted Higgs Boson. If the Higgs can be found, the Standard Model would be vindicated. If it can't, the Standard Model will have to undergo revision/rethinking. This would be a regrettable setback because the SM has predicted to incredible degrees of accuracy most of the particles that compose it. In other words, the math of the SM has been successful in predicting a variety of particles long before their actual discovery.
Man, UD, I can only dream of being on a level capable of grasping those concepts you write of here. I watch all of the "smart" channels when I'm able (Nat Geo, Science Channel, et al) and I have a bit , but only a bit, of a grip on what they're saying. It never fails to amaze me - all of it.
You can learn it. All it takes for the most part is, first, curiosity about the subject then, second, finding some books that discuss it on your present level of understanding. It will all open up for you if you really have the desire to spend the time on it.
Time. Precious time. I suppose I could be reading as you suggest instead of being here, though. :-)
Maglev is in your back yard. (Disney monorail).
Nope. Those are conventional electric motors that propel it. The trains are driven by eight 113 HP motors which are powered by a 600-volt electrical system running through a busbar mounted on each side of the concrete beam (the mono "track"). There is no maglev technology employed.
the way I look at it ....magnet's do create forces within a field ... and here the field is generated by the earth ....
so .... if we can get something to work using magnets ... it is not working w/o input ... it is getting input from the earth's magnetic (or gravitational ?) field....
whether or not we can capture those forces adequately to generate power ... imo... is yet to be seen ...
but I bet it will be done someday.... I'll bet God could show us how ...
personally I doubt Christie's demo is working ... if it was ... he would be on top of the world already
For all practical purposes it is a perpetual motion machine. But it really isn't because like you said, the energy comes from the magnets not from nothing.
i think its plausable. especially if the "intellectuals" say it isnt, after all these same intellectuals laughed at the doctor who suggested washing hands between delivering births due to "unseen germs". Shows you how dumb people are at first.
I don't think it's worth the time to debate it. If it's the real thing, they (1) would be multi-millionaires/billionaires by now, (2) would have won the Nobel prize for physics and (3) would have become as well-known to the general public as Einstein or Oppenheimer, not to mention all the scientific journals/papers that would have been published in verification of the theoretical (as well as obvious practical) underpinnings of the "new physics". Just as Einstein revealed a more subtle understanding of Nature than Newton did, our Outback heros would have usurped Einstein. Yet their names are not household words.
Why?
Good stuff. I have reviewed a number of patents that do not work. Patents do not warrant that something really works. I have work with people who wanted such inventions validated and always left them disappointed, because they don't. These have inclkuded cold fusion and many variations of Tesla machines.
Tesla's real contributions were about energy transfer. The currently used alternating current (AC) system that Tesla invented was far superior to Edison's direct current system. They both used rotation coils and or magnets to generate electrical energy from mechanical energy.
But these claims are bogus.
I'm glad to see that at least one other person understands that there is no energy free lunch. Thanks.
ya and there are no such thing as conspiracys, right, yet the man who invented running a car on water, mysteriously died from radiation poisoning after refusing a billion dollars for the patent, He stated he wants the information to be free.
Attempting to violate the laws of physics is one thing, and massive trans-national Energy Corporatocracies are another. Apples and oranges discussion. But, yeah, they would kill anything that even remotely looked like a threat to their energy dominion.
[Removed]