PDA

View Full Version : magnetism for energy



Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 04:08 AM
I was wondering why magnetism does not exist for our energy.. All I hear about is oil, coal, wind, solar .. I know it's possible because I've heard of people sustaining their energy supply by these means. Is it because perpetual motion is free, that it's being suppressed ? I don't understand if we can have a free energy source, why the technology isn't mainstream.. It seems less expensive than the other alternatives and we can free up money that could go else where like creating jobs..
http://www.swparke.k12.in.us/rp/PVETI/Computer%20electronics/images2/electromagnetism3.gif

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-10, 04:18 AM
You can't get something for nothing. "Free energy" violates this law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)

Unlike human laws, you can't break Nature's laws.

The people who are "running" their machines on magnetism (or another magic-dust of the week) are either deluding themselves, or conning people out of their money.

Jens
2010-Mar-10, 04:25 AM
I was wondering why magnetism does not exist for our energy.. All I hear about is oil, coal, wind, solar ..

I think I understand what you're asking. But see, you can't use a magnet (like an iron magnet) to generate electricity. OK, let's see up an experiment. You have a nail being pushed away by the magnet, and use that motion to drive a turbine. The problem is, you have to exercise force to get the nail near the magnet in the first place. So the effort to get the nail near the magnet is going to balance out the force of the nail being driven away.

It's like trying to use gravity to get energy. For example, you could drop balls on a machine to make electricity. But you have to lift the balls up in the air in the first place.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 04:27 AM
Magnetic energy can and has sustained over time though.. Earths Magnetic field is still working isn't it ? It might not last "forever" but clearly nothing does. I don't see how people can ignore it as a plausible energy source. Apparently if you're going to have a house with this, and run every light in it, have ever appliance on, and so on... It won't work, but if the source is big enough.. and can perhaps store energy I don't see why not.

sarongsong
2010-Mar-10, 04:28 AM
...All I hear about is oil, coal, wind, solar...From physorg.com:
Catalyst could power homes on a bottle of water, produce hydrogen on-site (w/ Video) (http://www.physorg.com/news187031401.html)
....why the technology isn't mainstream...What technology, specifically :confused:

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 04:32 AM
I think I understand what you're asking. But see, you can't use a magnet (like an iron magnet) to generate electricity. OK, let's see up an experiment. You have a nail being pushed away by the magnet, and use that motion to drive a turbine. The problem is, you have to exercise force to get the nail near the magnet in the first place. So the effort to get the nail near the magnet is going to balance out the force of the nail being driven away.

It's like trying to use gravity to get energy. For example, you could drop balls on a machine to make electricity. But you have to lift the balls up in the air in the first place.

If the nail is magnetized.. and being pushed in motion, for instance circular with the positive and negative energy always sustaining it, then you don't need a external force to balance it.. it'll be captive in a system that's always running by this source.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 04:43 AM
From physorg.com:What technology, specifically :confused:

Emphasizing the first half of the first sentence of the main article:



Using the electricity generated from a 30-square-meter photovoltaic array, Nocera’s cobalt-phosphate catalyst converts water and carbon dioxide into hydrogen and oxygen.

Let's be clear: There is no claim of getting something for nothing here.

sarongsong
2010-Mar-10, 04:51 AM
....Let's be clear...OK; I was asking about the technology Sententia was referencing...

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 04:56 AM
I was wondering why magnetism does not exist for our energy.. All I hear about is oil, coal, wind, solar


. . . also nuclear and hydro, and some other things that obey conservation of energy and make economic sense.


.. I know it's possible because I've heard of people sustaining their energy supply by these means.


But where's the evidence?



Is it because perpetual motion is free, that it's being suppressed ?


The third option: It isn't real.



I don't understand if we can have a free energy source, why the technology isn't mainstream..


I would call sunlight a "free" energy source, and there is mainstream technology to harness it. The hardware to harness it isn't free, though.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 04:59 AM
OK; I was asking about the technology Sententia was referencing...

I'm talking about technology that's not released to us, because it would ruin the energy monopoly they have in place. This is what I'm thinking about
http://i41.tinypic.com/29su34.jpg

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 05:06 AM
. . . also nuclear and hydro, and some other things that obey conservation of energy and make economic sense.



But where's the evidence?



The third option: It isn't real.



I would call sunlight a "free" energy source, and there is mainstream technology to harness it. The hardware to harness it isn't free, though.

Economically, if we have the technology's to be independent why should the government care? They can put meters on it and tax us like that.

Magnetism is a real technology, we just aren't open to it yet. You say the "sun" is free energy and it is, but we cannot harness it enough to power everything... I figure we'll be able to in the future, but we aren't near that point nor heading in that direction yet.

If we had solar panels.. that generated energy at a sufficient rate, and captured the suns rays more efficiently, Then buying the hardware shouldn't be a long term investment problem..


Theirs evidence that people have done it, If you you'll find articles I'm sure. I haven't book marked them nor do I care to look.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 05:07 AM
I'm talking about technology that's not released to us, because it would ruin the energy monopoly they have in place.


What technology? What energy monopoly? And who are "they"?



This is what I'm thinking about
http://i41.tinypic.com/29su34.jpg

I'm afraid I have no idea of what that is supposed to represent. However, you might like this website:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

There, you will find many perpetual motion machine concepts (often quite complex ones) that don't work.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 05:09 AM
Theirs evidence that people have done it, If you you'll find articles I'm sure. I haven't book marked them nor do I care to look.

Ah, so you know there's evidence, but you haven't researched it?

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 05:16 AM
Ah, so you know there's evidence, but you haven't researched it?

Apparently I have researched it, You want me to provide a mechanism that proves that it exists. I just googled it again, and found magnetic motors.. some slashing power by 80%. How come you think it's an impossible energy source if harnessed correctly ?

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 05:21 AM
Apparently I have researched it, You want me to provide a mechanism that proves that it exists. I just googled it again, and found magnetic motors.. some slashing power by 80%. How come you think it's an impossible energy source if harnessed correctly ?

What specifically is your claim?

Most electric motors use magnets. However, real electric motors do not produce more power than goes into them. If you're claiming a motor that does, you'd need some very good evidence to support it.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 05:32 AM
What specifically is your claim?

Most electric motors use magnets. However, real electric motors do not produce more power than goes into them. If you're claiming a motor that does, you'd need some very good evidence to support it.

If the magnets in the accelerator were big enough, and always sustained this motion when we aren't even using power.. it would essentially create more power than what we do put into it. The source is what's in question. It hasto be a constant, that never diminishes in condition or speed. The materials that make it up perhaps would be Gold.. Take CERN for an example, it uses 5,000 magnets and creates extreme conditions. I don't know how amateurs made theirs.. but they have generated power from doing this.

korjik
2010-Mar-10, 05:44 AM
If the magnets in the accelerator were big enough, and always sustained this motion when we aren't even using power.. it would essentially create more power than what we do put into it. The source is what's in question. It hasto be a constant, that never diminishes in condition or speed. The materials that make it up perhaps would be Gold.. Take CERN for an example, it uses 5,000 magnets and creates extreme conditions. I don't know how amateurs made theirs.. but they have generated power from doing this.

There is a Mythbusters that shows how much this dosent work

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 05:47 AM
If the magnets in the accelerator were big enough, and always sustained this motion when we aren't even using power.. it would essentially create more power than what we do put into it.


How have you determined this?



I don't know how amateurs made theirs.. but they have generated power from doing this.

People can generate power in a number of well understood ways. However, there has never been good evidence for "perpetual motion" or "over unity" machines.

If you're claiming there is, you should be able to show the evidence, and explain it.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 05:55 AM
There is a Mythbusters that shows how much this dosent work

The blueprints are on the internet.. I'm sure you'll find all kinds of things. Magnetic technology that does create energy is real. It's all about how much energy, and what it can sustain outputting. Mythbusters I would suspect belong to that media and energy monopoly, I don't see that as being real science.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 05:58 AM
How have you determined this?



People can generate power in a number of well understood ways. However, there has never been good evidence for "perpetual motion" or "over unity" machines.

If you're claiming there is, you should be able to show the evidence, and explain it.

If you put a magnetized ball on a table.. with positive and negative magnets, creating a oval effect for the ball... how long will that ball be in motion for without interference ?

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 06:08 AM
If you put a magnetized ball on a table.. with positive and negative magnets, creating a oval effect for the ball... how long will that ball be in motion for without interference ?

What's an "oval effect for the ball"? Anyway, a key part of your sentence there is "without interference" - all the over unity/perpetual motion machine "get more power out than goes in" ideas involve interference.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 06:16 AM
What's an "oval effect for the ball"? Anyway, a key part of your sentence there is "without interference" - all the over unity/perpetual motion machine "get more power out than goes in" ideas involve interference.

oval effect would be the motion the ball goes between the positive and negative depending on the placement of the magnets-- I'm not referring to the power, or how weak it is. I'm stating that if you set it up.. without touching it.. how long will that ball stay in motion for and would that in a sense then count as perpetual motion. If it was constructed on a larger scale, and not on your living room table.. and used with powerful magnets, that accelerated that ball continuously inside a mechanism, how can interference then occur in such a scenario ?

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 06:28 AM
Even if you could get the 100% efficiency, which I'm pretty sure defies a physical law, as soon as you try to extract any energy for use you need to interfere with the system, draining power from it and decaying the process.

Jens
2010-Mar-10, 06:32 AM
If you put a magnetized ball on a table.. with positive and negative magnets, creating a oval effect for the ball... how long will that ball be in motion for without interference ?

As Spoons pointed out, the problem with this is that even if you can get it to keep moving perpetually, you will drain the motion if you try to make energy out of it. Suppose that you had a big machine, and made the ball pull something, say a wheel with a dynamo that created electricity. The wheel would slow the ball down, and it would come to a stop. in the middle where the push from the two magnets is the same.

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 06:34 AM
You sure could make some pretty artwork out of it though. If you could get that elusive 100% efficiency.

I don't believe that's possible anywhere but you certainly wouldn't get that on a planet, where you've got the effects of gravity pulling down, creating friction (with a surface, with the atmosphere, whatever) which takes energy to overcome.

Jens
2010-Mar-10, 06:53 AM
I don't believe that's possible anywhere but you certainly wouldn't get that on a planet, where you've got the effects of gravity pulling down, creating friction (with a surface, with the atmosphere, whatever) which takes energy to overcome.

It's not necessarily illogical. After all, planets going around the sun appear to be in perpetual motion (even though they're not really unless there is an absolute vacuum and no tidal forces), because of gravity. But of course, this isn't anything you can generate energy from, because using some device to drag on the planet and generate energy would just decay the orbit.

Metricyard
2010-Mar-10, 07:05 AM
I Take CERN for an example, it uses 5,000 magnets and creates extreme conditions.

The LHCs magnets are electromagnetic in nature. The extreme conditions are created long before they become magnets. They have to be cooled to extremely cold conditions, then vasts amount of current are sent through, thus creating the superconducting magnets. Remove the power, the magnet disappears. The LHC is not going to produce any extra power because it has electromagnets.


I don't know how amateurs made theirs.. but they have generated power from doing this.

They claim to make power. And quite possibly they did. But they're not creating more power then they put into it.


The blueprints are on the internet.. I'm sure you'll find all kinds of things.

Of course there are. And for $100.00 or $200.00 dollars, they'll gladly sell you a set of blueprints. It's called making a quick buck off the gullible.

Think about it. If someone could prove to an electric company that they could sell electricity without having to buy oil, coal, nuclear power plants, solar, wind, etc, to supply that electricity, don't you think that they would jump on it? Getting free energy on their end and selling it to customers? Who in their right mind would pass that up?

mugaliens
2010-Mar-10, 07:10 AM
I was wondering why magnetism does not exist for our energy.

All forms of mainstream electricity production transform mechanical energy into electricity by using changing magnetic fields to induce electrical current in wires.

Put simply - our energy could not exist without magnetism.

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 07:11 AM
It's not necessarily illogical. After all, planets going around the sun appear to be in perpetual motion (even though they're not really unless there is an absolute vacuum and no tidal forces), because of gravity. But of course, this isn't anything you can generate energy from, because using some device to drag on the planet and generate energy would just decay the orbit.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying there, but the problem being that you will never get an absolute vacuum, will you? (I'm not being smart - I'm asking a question, though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen)

No matter how few atoms, particles, (even photons) you will always have something that the planet, object, whatever it may be, has to work against. Granted, the changes to the orbit may be extremely tiny and take a ridiculous amount of time, but it will still be affected.

Of course, as we agree, all of this is irrelevant if somone is porposing to extract energy from it. Energy cannot be created or lost, only transformed to another state.

Another matter, this quote was never corrected as far as I saw:

You say the "sun" is free energy and it is, but we cannot harness it enough to power everything... I figure we'll be able to in the future, but we aren't near that point nor heading in that direction yet.
We most certainly are heading in that direction. Advances in the harnessing of solar power are progressing. You can question the rate but not the direction.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 07:22 AM
Even if you could get the 100% efficiency, which I'm pretty sure defies a physical law, as soon as you try to extract any energy for use you need to interfere with the system, draining power from it and decaying the process.

Rather not extracting energy, but creating a continuous spark that creates energy.. theirs a difference.

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 07:23 AM
If that spark leaves the system for use elsewhere it is energy escaping the system all the same.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 07:29 AM
As Spoons pointed out, the problem with this is that even if you can get it to keep moving perpetually, you will drain the motion if you try to make energy out of it. Suppose that you had a big machine, and made the ball pull something, say a wheel with a dynamo that created electricity. The wheel would slow the ball down, and it would come to a stop. in the middle where the push from the two magnets is the same.

It depends on the mechanism .. suppose that the force is more powerful than the actual output, then the median inside would never seize because it'll always stay a constant. If that ball was magnetized, and the forces internally where the magnets.. and the output externally became the spark that created the energy, how could that deteriorate the acceleration when it stays at constant speed...

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 07:31 AM
If that spark leaves the system for use elsewhere it is energy escaping the system all the same.

but with a adequate setup .. how can the energy leave the system?

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 07:35 AM
Ok, so what is the point?

If you can't use the energy then you're just making weird art. And it will decay anyway.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 07:37 AM
Ok, so what is the point?

If you can't use the energy then you're just making weird art. And it will decay anyway.

the energy that's always circulating.. maintaining that spark is what I'm saying.. Is that not possible through magnetism, do magnetics seize to maintain the start point, or will it continue if in motion ?

Jens
2010-Mar-10, 07:40 AM
Rather not extracting energy, but creating a continuous spark that creates energy.. theirs a difference.

No, there isn't. Creating a spark will require draining energy from the system.

DrRocket
2010-Mar-10, 07:41 AM
It depends on the mechanism .. suppose that the force is more powerful than the actual output, then the median inside would never seize because it'll always stay a constant. If that ball was magnetized, and the forces internally where the magnets.. and the output externally became the spark that created the energy, how could that deteriorate the acceleration when it stays at constant speed...

Magnetic fields have been used for a very long time to produce electric energy. That is how the power that you receive from the electric utility is produced. Not only is the basic physics very well understood, but also a great deal of engineering has gone into making the process efficient and economical. There are many and voluminous electrical engineering texts on electromagnetic energy conversion.

However, there is no free lunch. Electrical energy is the result of an time-dependent change in a magnetic field. In order for that change to occur, energy is required to produce the field in the first place and to replenish it when it decreases (the time-varyiing part).

The principle of conservation energy applies whether or not magnetic fields are involved. You can't get something for nothing. Anyone advocating a scheme for "free energy" is perpetrating a scam. There is no shortage of con men out there.

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 07:41 AM
the energy that's always circulating.. maintaining that spark is what I'm saying.. Is that not possible through magnetism, do magnetics seize to maintain the start point, or will it continue if in motion ?
Well, it's still not a closed system. External factors will disrupt the system, such that you'd need to pump energy in from a source external to the system to maintain the motion.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 07:46 AM
No, there isn't. Creating a spark will require draining energy from the system.

Okay, Take a furnace for example. You have the standing pilot, and light it... You create that initial spark, all the system is doing is maintaining it. The ignition can be created through electronic, or manual. What you're saying, is that the energy through this magnetic process cannot be obtained because the energy just to create the spark will be more than it produces which is not the case..

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 07:51 AM
No, I'm pretty sure that's not what Jens is saying.

Not to be rude, but how familiar are you with the Law of Conservation of Energy?

For a starter, it may be worth reading up on that. Review DrRocket's post - it's a good one.

Keep in mind that a system in the real world is generally far more complicated, with a great many more factors than in a theoretical plan.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 07:51 AM
Magnetic fields have been used for a very long time to produce electric energy. That is how the power that you receive from the electric utility is produced. Not only is the basic physics very well understood, but also a great deal of engineering has gone into making the process efficient and economical. There are many and voluminous electrical engineering texts on electromagnetic energy conversion.

However, there is no free lunch. Electrical energy is the result of an time-dependent change in a magnetic field. In order for that change to occur, energy is required to produce the field in the first place and to replenish it when it decreases (the time-varyiing part).

The principle of conservation energy applies whether or not magnetic fields are involved. You can't get something for nothing. Anyone advocating a scheme for "free energy" is perpetrating a scam. There is no shortage of con men out there.

I understand.. but why can't we replicate this in a lower scale that will be more beneficial to households ? Why can't we buy this down sized machine, and operate it to our energy needs.. It just seems like something we'll use in the future

DrRocket
2010-Mar-10, 07:54 AM
Okay, Take a furnace for example. You have the standing pilot, and light it... You create that initial spark, all the system is doing is maintaining it. The ignition can be created through electronic, or manual. What you're saying, is that the energy through this magnetic process cannot be obtained because the energy just to create the spark will be more than it produces which is not the case..

The energy released in your furnace is ultimately solar energy. It is the energy from the sun that is used by plants to create cellulose which under pressure and and additional thermal energy from the sun undergoes chemical and physical changes that create coal, oil, and natural gas. The pilot flame merely releases the chemical energy stored in the fuels. Energy is conserved.

In the case of magnetic fields the situation is simpler. It requires energy to create the magnetic field. That energy is released when the field, over time, decays. Energy leaves the field and is found in some other form, often electricity which can be used to power motors and do work. Energy is still conserved. In order to perpetuate the process energy is required to rejuvenate the magnetic field.

There is no free lunch.

Sententia
2010-Mar-10, 07:55 AM
No, I'm pretty sure that's not what Jens is saying.

Not to be rude, but how familiar are you with the Law of Conservation of Energy?

For a starter, it may be worth reading up on that. Review DrRocket's post - it's a good one.

Keep in mind that a system in the real world is generally far more complicated, with a great many more factors than in a theoretical plan.

Okay. Let's take other methods. This magnetism is replacing water in hydrogen, air in windmill, and solar rays in solar technology. I understand you cannot live beyond your means with the energy that's produced by these methods. Clearly it exceeds the output, but I'm talking about if the output was more than our energy needs. If it was strong enough to sustain the average household energy demand. This is what I am talking about. You're saying this as if I'm talking about a small scale, and to an extent I am in the continuous motion.. but if it was built up to a bigger replica, then I don't see why it wouldn't.

Spoons
2010-Mar-10, 07:59 AM
If you're talking about the idea of energy production (read conversion to useful forms for human needs) then I don't disagree with the idea. Actually we have that already. ;) It still requires energy input to harness the magnetic coil system or whatever you're suggesting.

Other than saying that electricity generation is a good thing, I'm not too sure what you're suggesting, that's all.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 08:15 AM
Okay. Let's take other methods. This magnetism is replacing water in hydrogen, air in windmill, and solar rays in solar technology.


You can use a turbine, etc. to burn hydrogen and oxygen into water, then use it to turn an electric generator (though first you have to find a source for the free hydrogen), or you can use wind to spin a generator, or heat from a solar thermal system in a heat engine that spins a generator.

But, you can't replace those energy sources with "magnetism."

If you want an effectively "free" energy source for your house, invest in some PV panels, or, if you have a lot of wind, a wind turbine.

Jens
2010-Mar-10, 08:35 AM
Okay, Take a furnace for example. You have the standing pilot, and light it... You create that initial spark, all the system is doing is maintaining it. The ignition can be created through electronic, or manual. What you're saying, is that the energy through this magnetic process cannot be obtained because the energy just to create the spark will be more than it produces which is not the case..

I think I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm not absolutely sure. I think what you want to do is something like this analogy. You have a swing, which keeps swinging because of gravity. Suppose the hinge is frictionless and there is no air. So OK, it keeps going. And now you are saying, you want to generate electricity by running a very small turbine, whose friction is lower than the force of gravity that is pulling the swing down. And you are telling me that the swing should go on swinging forever even if you take energy out, because the force of the turbine's drag is smaller than the force of gravity puling the swing down. Is that right?

Jeff Root
2010-Mar-10, 09:07 AM
Two observations:

The term "perpetual motion" isn't very useful because something like
planets orbiting the Sun really is perpetual motion. What does not
exist is perpetual motion from which energy is being extracted.

Magnets do not contain any significant amount of energy. A piece of
iron doesn't contain more energy after being magnetized than it did
before being magnetized. So it isn't possible to extract energy from a
magnet. What magnets are good for is making electrons move. Push
a magnet around with moving water or wind or a hand crank, and the
magnet will push electrons through a wire.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2010-Mar-10, 09:49 AM
Rather not extracting energy, but creating a continuous spark that
creates energy...


Okay, Take a furnace for example. You have the standing pilot, and light
it... You create that initial spark, all the system is doing is maintaining it.
The ignition can be created through electronic, or manual. What you're
saying, is that the energy through this magnetic process cannot be
obtained because the energy just to create the spark will be more than
it produces which is not the case..
Your furnace is supplied with fuel (probably natural gas, which is mostly
methane) and oxydizer (oxygen in the air). The furnace mixes the fuel
and oxydizer together. The spark made by an electronic igniter very
briefly raises the temperature of the gas mixture high enough that the
fuel and oxydizer molecules join together in chemical combustion, which
releases energy. That energy raises the temperature of the surrounding
gas mixture enough to cause those molecules to also join together and
release energy.

The amount of energy required to make the fuel and oxydizer molecules
join together is called the "activation energy". The rest of the energy
released is available to do work, such as heat your home or produce
electricity.

A magnet contains nothing comparable to fuel, oxydizer, or a spark.
It can do nothing by itself. All it can do is sit there. If, however, you
put the magnet on a shaft which is rotated by a water turbine, the
magnet will shove on the electrons inside copper wires that it moves
past, producing a useable electric current.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Provence
2010-Mar-10, 10:51 AM
Is it because perpetual motion is free, that it's being suppressed ?

No, it's more that it doesn't work.


I'm talking about technology that's not released to us, because it would ruin the energy monopoly they have in place.

Let's find out about that technology:


The blueprints are on the internet.. I'm sure you'll find all kinds of things.

So the technology wasn't released to us, it's just on the internet.


Okay, Take a furnace for example. You have the standing pilot, and light it... You create that initial spark, all the system is doing is maintaining it. The ignition can be created through electronic, or manual. What you're saying, is that the energy through this magnetic process cannot be obtained because the energy just to create the spark will be more than it produces which is not the case..

Start up your furnace, then, once it's going, turn off the shut-off valve for the gas line leading into your furnace. Let us know what happens.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-10, 03:22 PM
Okay, Take a furnace for example. You have the standing pilot, and light it... You create that initial spark, all the system is doing is maintaining it. The ignition can be created through electronic, or manual. What you're saying, is that the energy through this magnetic process cannot be obtained because the energy just to create the spark will be more than it produces which is not the case..
The problem here is that the spark requires electrical energy to create, and the furnace requires a steady supply of chemical energy in the form of fuel to keep burning.

The system is maintaining a process where energy is converted from one form (chemical energy in the fuel) to another (heat).
If you stop adding energy to the system, you stop getting energy out.

So we can better match the explanations to your level of understanding, may I ask how old you are and what your level of education is?

99gecko
2010-Mar-10, 04:34 PM
A magnet contains nothing comparable to fuel, oxydizer, or a spark.
It can do nothing by itself. All it can do is sit there. If, however, you
put the magnet on a shaft which is rotated by a water turbine, the
magnet will shove on the electrons inside copper wires that it moves
past, producing a useable electric current.

Another way of saying this in terms of Sententia's furnace analogy is that a magnet is like the furnace - it is a device to convert one form of energy into another form which is more useful for our purposes, with some loses along the way.

Sententia, what you need to grasp is that magnetism is not a reservoir of potential energy, like the reservoir of water above a hydroelectric dam. Magnetism in the terms you are discussing, is a characteristic which we can exploit to convert one form of energy into another, but not create energy.

cheers.

Ivan Viehoff
2010-Mar-10, 05:16 PM
A magnetic field is a force field, like a gravitational field. If you have a reservoir of mass, eg, some water, above a hydro-electric dam, then you can get energy out of a gravitational field. But energy was expended in getting the mass up in the gravitational field in the first place. It wasn't without original energy input. Usually the water was put there by the action of the sun's energy evaporating the water and causing it to fall as rain to a higher location than where it started.

A magnet levitating above another magnet of reversed polarity looks, to the unitiated, like free energy, but energy was needed to put the magnets in that position.

Most other free energy claims work by such misdirection. Two nails of different metals stuck in a lemon give you electricity, but you dissolve the more electropositive nails, and obtain at most the energy required to manufacture the nail.

It is true that there are quite a lot of people out there on the web who claim to have "magnetic engines" that generate power in excess of the electric power put in to start them. They sometimes claim that they are tapping "zero point energy". Zero point energy is the energy that fermions still have at 0 Kelvin, and which in normal physics is impossible to extract from them. These promoters often reach a sticking point of needing $5m or something in investment to get to the next stage, and this is the point where prospective financers often run a mile with a strong scent in their nose. Somehow these promoters never seem to have enough of their own money at this point.

This website keeps an eye on them: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Magnet_Motors

As it says "Conventional physics says that it is "impossible" for magnets to provide a primary energy source. Yet thousands of researchers worldwide have been pursuing the task of building a working magnet motor. Many claim to have achieved this objective. None has reached the marketplace yet. "

A couple are trying harder than others, but it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that these smell.

(1) Steorn, an Irish company

Made a lot of publicity. They did once turn up with their prototype to demonstrate it in public once, but it wouldn't work on the day. Steorn was so "sure" it had a working model it invited a "jury" of suitably qualified and reputable people to evaluate its technology. peswiki says "On June 21, 2009 Steorn's 22 member jury unanimously found that Steorn had failed to show any energy production from their devices". They haven't given up yet, though, and there was a subsequent public demonstration when it did apparently "work", though there is no independent verification.

(2) Penderev, run by Mike Brady, originally in South Africa, now in Germany

Penderev Power Developments claims to be able to sell you a working magnetic generator, and claims to have delivered close to 100 working units. But there is no external evidence of these machines in operation. It looks smelly to me. peswiki quotes: "I will not give you any references as it is against our policy and for security reasons." -- Mike Brady (Sept. 15, 2007; email to an interested party) Peswiki also suggests that there appear to be quite a few people saying they paid their money and didn't get anything. It quotes "I know personally that the public prosecutor's office in Munich has had 20 customers who did not get any goods after payment. But the public prosecutor's office must stop the investigation because the money was paid to a Swiss company. So those "customers" would be technically considered "investors", with no rights to get anything -- only the risk. The customer payments were thus converted by contract into risk capital."

Musashi
2010-Mar-10, 05:16 PM
I understand.. but why can't we replicate this in a lower scale that will be more beneficial to households ? Why can't we buy this down sized machine, and operate it to our energy needs.. It just seems like something we'll use in the future

You can. They're called generators.

Argos
2010-Mar-10, 05:25 PM
I was wondering why magnetism does not exist for our energy.. All I hear about is oil, coal, wind, solar .. I know it's possible because I've heard of people sustaining their energy supply by these means. Is it because perpetual motion is free, that it's being suppressed ? I don't understand if we can have a free energy source, why the technology isn't mainstream..

One of the space shuttles conducted an experiment (http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/wtether.htm) on harnessing the energy of the Earth´s magnetic field some years ago. Professionals are not blind to this idea.

Extravoice
2010-Mar-10, 05:36 PM
Mythbusters I would suspect belong to that media and energy monopoly...

They proved your claim wrong, so they are part of a vast conspiracy involving the media and power companies? Your logic is weak. :naughty:

captain swoop
2010-Mar-10, 06:46 PM
Sententia
I have moved your thread to the Conspiracy Forum.
I am not sure of your intent but it seems you are putting forward some kind of conspiracy to suppress 'Free magnetic Energy'.

Please take some time to read the rules for posting in this forum, they are different to the rest of the board (Rule 13)
In here you are obliged to answer direct questions relating to your ideas and to provide some support.
If you don't wish to be held to this then we can close the thread.
Alternatively someone can suggest a more suitable place for it.

Strange
2010-Mar-10, 08:14 PM
You can. They're called generators.

More importantly, they need fuel.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 09:27 PM
One of the space shuttles conducted an experiment (http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/wtether.htm) on harnessing the energy of the Earth´s magnetic field some years ago. Professionals are not blind to this idea.

To be clear (and it does discuss this on the web page), that's just another type of generator. The energy doesn't come free, but from the motion of the spacecraft. Run that long enough, and the spacecraft will be reentering the Earth's atmosphere.

It might work the other way too: Put electricity in, use it as a motor, to move the spacecraft into a wider orbit.

eburacum45
2010-Mar-10, 09:33 PM
One of the space shuttles conducted an experiment (http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/wtether.htm) on harnessing the energy of the Earth´s magnetic field some years ago. Professionals are not blind to this idea.

Generating electricity from the Earth's magnetic field in orbit, or from Jupiter's much stronger magnetic field, is a good idea. But it does come with a price- there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, after all.

If you generate electricity from a planet's magnetic field, you remove energy from your own orbit; do this too often and you will find yourself in the upper atmosphere of that planet, commencing a manoevre known as de-orbiting.

eburacum45
2010-Mar-10, 09:37 PM
Doh!

Argos
2010-Mar-10, 09:43 PM
My post was meant to contradict the idea that nobody´s ever thought of using Magnetic fields to "generate" energy. It´s quite understood it does not come for free.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 09:46 PM
Heh. Thinking about the same point as someone else, posting at about the same time . . . the same thing has happened to me a number of times.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-10, 09:50 PM
My post was meant to contradict the idea that nobody´s ever thought of using Magnetic fields to "generate" energy. It´s quite understood it does not come for free.

I had no doubt you understood that it doesn't come for free, but I'm not sure that Sententia (and possibly some lurkers) would know that.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-10, 10:03 PM
...

If you generate electricity from a planet's magnetic field, you remove energy from your own orbit...

And as a corollary, the electrical energy comes from motion through Earth's magnetic field, a velocity state which did not arise for free but rather only after the considerable expenditure of chemical energy achieving the orbit in the first place.

Strange
2010-Mar-10, 10:22 PM
The blueprints are on the internet.. I'm sure you'll find all kinds of things. Magnetic technology that does create energy is real. It's all about how much energy, and what it can sustain outputting. Mythbusters I would suspect belong to that media and energy monopoly, I don't see that as being real science.

If you are so sure it is real, why not buy the blueprints and build one. And see for yourself just how much energy you get out of it. It will be an expensive lesson though (although some people have published them for free). You would be better off buying a good physics textbook.

http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/07/21/magniwork_perpetual_motion_scam/

ETA: it took me a while to find that link again - most of the gazillion links are people peddling this junk to the gullible - so much for it being "suppressed" by The Man.

Geo Kaplan
2010-Mar-10, 10:32 PM
The blueprints are on the internet.. I'm sure you'll find all kinds of things. Magnetic technology that does create energy is real. It's all about how much energy, and what it can sustain outputting. Mythbusters I would suspect belong to that media and energy monopoly, I don't see that as being real science.

What's not real science is "I saw it on the internet, so it's gotta be true."

Please, instead of passing the buck to a third-party source of dubious reliability, provide some evidence that "magnetic technology does create energy." And please also provide support for Mythbusters et al. being part of a monopoly. And I don't mean an assertion to the effect that anyone who doesn't believe in free energy is automatically part of a greedy cabal. That sort of self-delusion doesn't fly here. Provide evidence, please. You have two (at least) challenges:

1) Show that the claims of "over-unity" energy production are valid.
2) Provide evidence that a global conspiracy, sustained over decades, has kept this technology from being used.

ravens_cry
2010-Mar-10, 11:30 PM
To be clear (and it does discuss this on the web page), that's just another type of generator. The energy doesn't come free, but from the motion of the spacecraft. Run that long enough, and the spacecraft will be reentering the Earth's atmosphere.

It might work the other way too: Put electricity in, use it as a motor, to move the spacecraft into a wider orbit.
Isn't that the basic idea behind Magnetic Sails that work in magnetospheres?

Starfury
2010-Mar-11, 12:32 AM
There is a Mythbusters that shows how much this dosent work

I remember that. I think one of the ideas that came to their attention was putting an antenna array near power lines, and they were able to draw miniscule amounts of power away from the line. However, this idea isn't so much "free energy" as "theft of service".

Spoons
2010-Mar-11, 12:40 AM
I run my toaster that way.

It's lucky it does take a while, because I've only just planted the seed, then the cow has to grow to maturity.

Plus I have to learn how to properly churn butter.

Geo Kaplan
2010-Mar-11, 01:01 AM
{snip}A piece of
iron doesn't contain more energy after being magnetized than it did
before being magnetized. So it isn't possible to extract energy from a
magnet. {snip}

Strictly speaking, those statements aren't true. Energy is most certainly stored in a magnet, and that stored energy can be extracted. It's just that the energy is certainly bounded, and once extracted, the magnet ceases to be a magnet, and the gas tank reads empty. Ordinary magnets make lousy batteries.

ravens_cry
2010-Mar-11, 03:43 AM
I remember that. I think one of the ideas that came to their attention was putting an antenna array near power lines, and they were able to draw miniscule amounts of power away from the line. However, this idea isn't so much "free energy" as "theft of service".
Yeah, that's like the 'free energy' one can get from the phone lines that usually powers older phones. It is great in an emergency but it's not thermodynamically 'free'.

Sardonicone
2010-Mar-11, 05:11 AM
The blueprints are on the internet.. I'm sure you'll find all kinds of things. Magnetic technology that does create energy is real. It's all about how much energy, and what it can sustain outputting. Mythbusters I would suspect belong to that media and energy monopoly, I don't see that as being real science.

So what essentially you're saying is you saw a blueprint on the internet, and are convinced it works, yet you've done no experimentation, or even research on the topic, to verify that the plans you've seen are legitimate.

Worse, you discredit others who have done the research, and thoroughly debunked it, because you "suspect" those who did it belong to some shady organization that you claim to exist, though again, there's no proof of that either?

Since you seem to be purporting that there's a grand conspiracy to keep some sort "secret" technology from the public the burden proof would be on you to not only prove said technology exists, but that there is an active conspiracy alive and kicking, that is doing all it can to prevent this technology from getting out.

That being said, some direct questions for you:

What is the exact technology that you claim exists?
What have you done personally to prove said technology is legitimate, and not just a scam, or pure fantasy?
Why would a show called Mythbusters, who's primary aim is to promote fact over fiction, actively decide to instead promote falsehood?
Moreover, since you haven't watch the show, how can you determine that their methods weren't legitimate?
Who exactly is running this worldwide conspiracy that you are claiming exists?
What proof do you have of their existence? Any bank records, perhaps some recordings from high ranking officials? Stolen documents from one of their offices?
Why is it if this technology is in existence, there has been no rush to patent it? Surely whoever came up with this technology (after patenting it) would be able to lay claim to being the most powerful person on the planet.


I look forward to your answers, or a withdrawal of any claims you cannot back up with proof.

Tom Servo
2010-Mar-11, 05:43 AM
Here is a website were you can buy some relatively cheap magnets suitable for building your very own Free Energy Machine.

http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=D14-N52

Sententia I would love for you to purchase some and show us the machine you had in mind.


I also think it is very strange when people say things like (the big oil companies/ energy companies/ the government/ anyone they see fit as being the bad guy is responsible for suppresing the free energy machines).

Here are a few of my responses to statements like this.

-Big oil didn't stop the Hoover Damn, or Wind power, or Solar power, or coal power, or nuclear power, ect. Why just pick on little old free energy from magnet power?

-Big oil does not have influence over every single nation in the world do they? Surely the Russian scientists could make a free energy machine if they exist. Then they could laugh at us Stupid Westerners for not coming up with it. Or China scientists, or North Korean Scientists, or any nations scientists.

-Big oil sure could cut their cost of operations down to next to nothing if they wanted to. Just by using some free energy technology instead of doing all that expensive drilling, buying, refining, hiring top dollar chemical engineers, ect. That would be a one million percent increase in profits if those greedy big oilers. Only if they would stop suppressing theirselves.

-Surely the average Joe could buy some of these blue prints that are so readily available on the internet and sell the energy to become millionaires. Oh wait I forgot, Big oil will only crush their plans with their limitless power.

Anyway its true that these Big oil companies are big and have money. But lets not forget they compete with each other. Why should they all agree to suppress the one thing that could give them an advantage over the other guys.

I love the idea of free energy from magnets and have asked the same question myself (minus the part about big oil supressing the technology). Unfortunatley no one has yet to design a working model of their supposed free energy machine. No one. I think it has something to do with the laws of physics supressing everyones free energy.

publius
2010-Mar-11, 07:33 AM
I remember that. I think one of the ideas that came to their attention was putting an antenna array near power lines, and they were able to draw miniscule amounts of power away from the line. However, this idea isn't so much "free energy" as "theft of service".

That has been done, and there have even been court cases over this (which ruled in favor of the power company). It is possible to capacitively couple to a high voltage transmission line. To do it efficiently, you need to cancel out that capacitive reactance with some large inductance (resonant circuit) and the voltages involved can get quite steep. You are limited to about 1MV before you'll start arcing over no matter what you do.

Years ago, in now defunct CompuServe forum, some of us worked out the details. Basically you need a very long stretch of land running parallel to the transmission line. We're talking miles. This is possible way out in Big Sky country and that's where it has been done. They first noticed this by getting a nasty shock off non-grounded barbed wire fencing that ran for long distances close to a power line right-of-way. A light bulb went off and they went to work to harnass that. (Normally, one should ground such induced voltages -- only a miniscule amount of power will be wasted as the current in mostly charging current when it doesn't go through a load).

And I'll add trying this is very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. I won't get into the details, but you'll easily kill your fool self trying to string up your "antenna" wire if you don't take precautions.

At any rate, the legal argument was it wasn't stealing power because the power company was "leaking" EM field into the adjacent property and they were just taking advantage of that. If the power company didn't want someone making use of that leaked field, then they should shield their line (which would be grossly impractical, costing billions probably :lol: )

Now, the physics of that argument really don't hold up. Of itself, the power line isn't radiating much energy at all like an antenna does. The coupling set-up alters the field to pull energy from it. IOW, the time-averaged Poynting vector is changed in the vicinity of the coupling set-up.

We got into some long arguments about this. One person argued that this was no different that a neighbor say making use of the side of my barn near his property as some sort of process. The analogy was bouncing balls off the barn as part of some conveyor set-up to move balls. If I then cut a hole in the barn and catch those balls, am I stealing those balls?

We had a good discussion over that. But any rate, that is stealing power, and transmission lines are monitored very closely and the power loss would show up and they would investigate it quickly, fearing a failing insulator or some other fault.


-Richard

gwiz
2010-Mar-11, 10:33 AM
It's like trying to use gravity to get energy. For example, you could drop balls on a machine to make electricity. But you have to lift the balls up in the air in the first place.
Might work if you had a handy black hole. Drop something towards it on a string, use the pull on the string to drive a generator. No need to lift it back out again because of the enormous output compared with the input cost of the object.

Donnie B.
2010-Mar-11, 01:10 PM
I love the idea of free energy from magnets and have asked the same question myself (minus the part about big oil supressing the technology). Unfortunatley no one has yet to design a working model of their supposed free energy machine. No one. I think it has something to do with the laws of physics supressing everyones free energy.
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

Now we see the violence inherent in the system...

Geo Kaplan
2010-Mar-11, 08:00 PM
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"



Perhaps this explains why the OP has disappeared for some days now. Sententia: There are several pending questions for you. When might you answer them? Or should this thread be closed?

Jim
2010-Mar-11, 09:12 PM
Perhaps this explains why the OP has disappeared for some days now. Sententia: There are several pending questions for you. When might you answer them? Or should this thread be closed?

Good questions. Sententia has been active today in other threads, but hasn't participated in this one in over 24 hours. I'm sending a PM.

This thread is closed until Sententia responds to my PM or reports this post and expresses a desire to continue the discussion and answer the outstanding questions.

ETA: I have received a reply from Sententia asking that the thread remain closed.