It looked like he designed something, he measured and layed out, cut and drilled and whatever! I wasn't there, so you be judge and jury, i quit. Can do so much from a video.
EDIT: man you you take all to serious. Its not my falt we live in a time of fakes.
I disagree. He said it was "self sustaining". I think he lied.
To be clear. It is my very very strong opinion, the video is a fake. Spinning the magnets like he did will not cause them to "catch" unless they have something to catch against. The thing they catch against is likely another set of spinning magnets but there are many ways his demo could have been faked and I'm very convinced it was faked.
Edit: As someone pointed out in the YouTube comments, there are probably electromagnets inside the blue box.
EDIT: man you you take all to serious. Its not my falt we live in a time of fakes.
I'm gonna be a little less conciliatory than Duane. Mike, did you expect only a bunch jokes to your opening post? You appeared to be serious in your postings so you can't go and run behind a defence of "I was just having some fun" after being torn down.
Actually, I didn't even notice that you provided the opening post until this response - "don't take it so serious" raises red flags for me.
Duane, I never claimed, nor did he that it was perpetual. but he tried, and he should be given credit for that.
I've just had a look at this second vid. I'll agree he does seem to be genuinely experimenting, as in he has built the whole thing himself and isn't hiding any external power source.
However, after spinning it up by hand, he also admits the device slows down over time. That ends the story as far as I can see. He's proven that it doesn't produce any excess power - it ain't a motor. He just doesn't seem to acknowledge that as a conclusion.
The whole video is confused. He opens by rambling about he knows we can't get free energy but some how he can't understand why not. Then he shows his machine which is said to be "self sustaining" then said not to be.
What worries me is that I'm pretty sure that if you asked us at age 13 or 14 whether free energy is possible we would already done enough experiments with electricity, magnetism, heat etc in school to to laugh at the idea.
On the other hand a good proposal for a perpetual motion machine can be a good challenge in having to see why it won't work. See wikipedia for examples that have been proposed over the years.
I wasn't going to argue over what I thought I heard, and I'm not sure I want to watch it again to verify that. As Heater said, it was a rambling front end.
The only reason I posted the video was the elaborate way this guy went to prove a concept. He seemed genuinely interested in trying to make a machine that once started, it would run forever. I didn't think someone that young would go through all that work, knowing he was just trying to fake something. And I remember hearing the words like "slows down" as he was spinning what essentially was a flywheel.
I do feel that this concept has merit, a magnet can counter gravity, so it is a energy sorce. Given a proper design which would probably need a lot of different mechanical methods to achieve. That one could make a motor, though i'm sure it would be useless for any work. By the time you added these mechanical methods to a self running motor, you would negate any momentum or advantage it had. It would take more energy to run it, than it was able to produce.
I do feel the this concept has merit, a magnet can counter gravity, so it is a energy sorce. Given a proper design which would probably need a lot of different mechanical methods to achieve. That one could make a motor, though i'm sure it would be useless for any work. ...
Hmm, I have a go at this ... I'll start with: It ain't a motor if it can't do work!
Yes, a static magnetic field provides a static force. However, this is not work nor energy nor power. It may seem, when perceived from intuitive human muscle action, that work gets done when levitating with magnetics but it isn't so. In this case motion against the gravity is a critical component of creating energy transfer (work).
In the case of a freewheeling rotary motor there is no gravity to contend with, only friction. If it can't even overcome the tiny friction of the air and the bearings then there is a long way to go to demonstrate any effect.
The spinning earth motors around the sun. The sun around the center of the galaxy, the galaxy around...
In human measures all these movements are infinite and create the energy we live from, like the tides or the gulf stream.
But in a local area no energy source can deliver energy forever.
By the way: energy is conserverd, so energy can not be created or eliminated. But: energy is distributed inhomogenous and this state is uncomfortable. So energy flows from one area of high density to areas of low density, in the end flow stops when energy is homogenized. This will take very long. All "creation" of energy doesn't create energy, but makes use of the natural flow. Photons (light) come from the sun, because the sun's temperature is higher then the free space's temperature. The earth simply catches some of the radiation and convertes the light to heated material with can be used to fry eggs.
As long as people believe, there is a way to gain useful energy from an infinity source, they will follow leaders that promote these ideas! But after a nightmare there will be a wakeup!
Thank you for your explanations. I am going to end up building something before this is over.
I tried to come up with a graphic this morning to relate what I am hung-up on. I just can't understand that with careful design why this theory wouldn't work. As soon as the magnets used up the repelling force, they would be set up to start the process again.
Sorry, mass is not conserved, as mass is a form of energy. Maas can be disintegrated by e.g. by colliding a proton and a antiproton (results in gamma rays) and can be created by sublimation of gamma rays, or, as we know from nuclear physics, by fusion or fission. Even in the molecules there is a maas difference to the atoms.
If you say: mass and energy are conserved, does this mean: mass + energy = const? In this case I have to say: mass is not energy, so you can not add it. But mass is proportional to energy contained, if speed of light is constant. What can not simply be stated, but is a matter of experience.
Mike: we do not understand why 2 + 2 equals 4. But we know it. And no machine can deliver energy from nothing. And no casino can create money. And no wall creates value.
If you do not see in your sketch, that all the forces are balanced, remember: you can not see, that a balance is balanced when there is a big and a small apple and you do not see the center of gravity
Thank you for your explanations. I am going to end up building something before this is over.
I tried to come up with a graphic this morning to relate what I am hung-up on. I just can't understand that with careful design why this theory wouldn't work. As soon as the magnets used up the repelling force, they would be set up to start the process again.
Here's my take...
If you have 20 magnets in the wheel, you're looking at 10 of them doing what you want, and the other 10 doing not what you want. There is no way to overcome this with design work. The only energy that can exist is the energy you put into it, because after that half of your poles are working against you, while the other half work for you. Any imbalance in that will make it even worse. 11 working for you and 9 working against you would be great, but after a half turn, you'll have 11 working against you and 9 working for you.
Even if you could perfectly balance out the forces, you're still looking at 10 magnets pulling your motor the direction you want it to go, and 10 magnets pulling it the direction you don't want it to go.
I tried to come up with a graphic this morning to relate what I am hung-up on. I just can't understand that with careful design why this theory wouldn't work. As soon as the magnets used up the repelling force, they would be set up to start the process again.
Mike, the "magnetic motor" doesn't work the way you're envisioning. Expecting magnets to keep repelling like that is like hanging rocks on a wheel and expecting the wheel to keep turning.
Each magnet field creates a closed loop of field. Any repulsion two magnets will encounter after they pass will also be encountered as the two magnets approach each other. You can't "sneak up" on a magnet by angling it one direction or the other.
What I just tried to explain is explained even better in this Captain Disillusion video. The part about magnets start at about 6:26.
BTW, Captain D has great videos. I highly recommend the channel.
I've just had a look at this second vid. I'll agree he does seem to be genuinely experimenting, as in he has built the whole thing himself and isn't hiding any external power source.
However, after spinning it up by hand, he also admits the device slows down over time. That ends the story as far as I can see. He's proven that it doesn't produce any excess power - it ain't a motor. He just doesn't seem to acknowledge that as a conclusion.
I disagree (hopefully not in a disagreeable way) with your conclusion. The spinning magnets "catch" against some external driving force. The demonstration is not honest. The kid is lying. He is hiding an external power source.
The light blue rotor behaves very different outside of the blue box.
I originally thought he had some sort of spinning magnets under the table but Xanadu pointed out on YouTube, there are likely electromagnets in the blue square. I think Xanadu's idea is more likely to be true.
The difference in the way the motor behaves when it "catches" verses when it's just spinning, strongly suggests (basically proves) to me the demonstration is not legitimate.
I will say again, this kid is either a prankster or a fraud (though I tend to think the two are the same).
BTW, Captain D has great videos. I highly recommend the channel.
That giant horseshoe magnet flying across the room was a great gag. The special effects are neat. It is much better to have a little humor mixed in with learning process.
Thank for the help guy's, I think I have got my head wrapped around this now.
The bogus motor demonstration that was in the Captain D video, does anyone remember name of the thread?
I don't remember how we reacted to that video.
It sometimes happened to me that very serious and experiences engineers after having our job done revealed their development of such machines. So I'm not surprized.
The light blue rotor behaves very different outside of the blue box.
...
The difference in the way the motor behaves when it "catches" verses when it's just spinning, strongly suggests (basically proves) to me the demonstration is not legitimate.
That's just the bumps in the magnetic fields as the magnets pass by each other. There is momentary energy transfers back and forth happening. As you have said though, the over-all net effect is zero work.
I will say again, this kid is either a prankster or a fraud (though I tend to think the two are the same).
Agreed, not supporting the clear result as his conclusion is a bit of a "lie-hard" moment, Trump would be proud.
...a magnet can counter gravity, so it is a energy sorce.
No.
A magnetic field is a store of energy. As is the electric field in a capacitor. I suspect, possibly maybe, one could extract noticeable energy by demagnetizing a magnet. But it's not much. Then you are done.
I should have never ventured into this topic without a clear and thorough understanding of the subject.
I spent some of the day watching Utube videos on magnetic motors, and there are a lot of them. To wach these on a phone is just incomplete, I couldn't tell fact from fiction.
Anyway I was able to learn some things form what looks like reputable sources.
I also learned that there are three types of "Magnetic Motors":
1. The Imbalanced System
2. The Induction Expulsion System
3. The Exchange Force Pulse System
All unique, and varied complexities.
Other than that there are some patents that I haven't looked at yet, needless to say I got in over my head again. This journey will continue for me, as well as the rest of the world.
Careful with your sources. Patents offer no reliable evidence of facts. They're just a legal business tool we've created (Used correctly this time ) for forcing cooperation between people.
In my wingchair. We have to read carefully, otherwise we will fall into the pits of free energy.
Kwinn wrote: "Not quite. Mass and energy are conserved. Mass can be converted to energy and that energy can be converted back to the same mass. "
Mass and energy are conserved should mean: Mass is conserved and energy is conserved, two laws of conservation.
But mass can be desintegrated so mass is not conserved. But does mass simply vanish? No: mass is converted to energy. Now there is more energy then before, that means: energy is not conserved.
I asked: to you see mass as a form of energy? (mass + energy = const) In this moment, energy is conserved, but mass still is not conserved. That means: mass is not energy, but mass is a form of energy. There has to be another property that describes that mass is something special. And this property is: mass incorporated energy at a very low level of entropy.
But entropy is a strange concept, mostly connected to "disorder", so the importance of this concept is not perceived by public (this is true in the case of most physicists too). What we call "create energy" is better described as allowing energy to escape from a state of low entropy to a state of higher entropy.
So let me tell what we call "renewables": The sun represents energy at very low entropy. Sends out photons with low entropy. Those photons, that represent energy without having a mass! can transfer energy to matter, means, heating that matter, now the entropy increases very very much. But this high value of entropy is still less then the entropy of the environment, so hot matter can spent energy to cold matter. We like this going to a sauna. While entropy is related to temperature, higher temperature doesn't necessarily mean lower entropy. There is another parameter working: the degrees of freedom in a system. That allows us to convert heat to mechanical energy and vice versa.
Renewables take the free energy from the sun (yes, there is free energy) and create "usefull" energy (e.g. electricity) by means of machines (which are not free, but need investment).
The proponents of "Free energy" tell you: you can create a difference from equilibrium. That definitely is not possible. And all efforts to create such a machine are in vain, it is already a challenge to economically make use of solar power.
This principle is omnipresent. If you want to reach a goal, you need a certain amount of money. If the money is distributed equally, you just have to reduce the degrees of freedom and money will flow to a certain place. Now you can reach your goal by distribution of the money collected to a place you like to determine.
A problem arises if you goal is to gain absolute power. Then money is used to make more money. And this will end up in a corrupted system.
It's simply a matter of physics!
Off topic and not a free energy source, but looks like it has a proven record powering large buildings such as UPS and Google Data Center.
They are Solid Oxide Fuel Cells made from silica(sand), and convert our conventional fuel sources through a chemical reaction, into usable power at half of the cost over normal combustion generation.
Fuel cells were invented over a century ago and have been used in practically every NASA mission since the 1960's, but until now, they have not gained widespread adoption because of their inherently high costs.
Comments
EDIT: man you you take all to serious. Its not my falt we live in a time of fakes.
I disagree. He said it was "self sustaining". I think he lied.
To be clear. It is my very very strong opinion, the video is a fake. Spinning the magnets like he did will not cause them to "catch" unless they have something to catch against. The thing they catch against is likely another set of spinning magnets but there are many ways his demo could have been faked and I'm very convinced it was faked.
Edit: As someone pointed out in the YouTube comments, there are probably electromagnets inside the blue box.
No, not your fault. But I really dislike it when people like this prankster/fraudster use YouTube to uneducated people.
This is one thing I feel confident enough to be judge and jury about. The video is fake.
Sorry I used to teach high school physics and this sort of thing (but not you nor your posting it) bugs me.
I'm gonna be a little less conciliatory than Duane. Mike, did you expect only a bunch jokes to your opening post? You appeared to be serious in your postings so you can't go and run behind a defence of "I was just having some fun" after being torn down.
Actually, I didn't even notice that you provided the opening post until this response - "don't take it so serious" raises red flags for me.
I've just had a look at this second vid. I'll agree he does seem to be genuinely experimenting, as in he has built the whole thing himself and isn't hiding any external power source.
However, after spinning it up by hand, he also admits the device slows down over time. That ends the story as far as I can see. He's proven that it doesn't produce any excess power - it ain't a motor. He just doesn't seem to acknowledge that as a conclusion.
What worries me is that I'm pretty sure that if you asked us at age 13 or 14 whether free energy is possible we would already done enough experiments with electricity, magnetism, heat etc in school to to laugh at the idea.
On the other hand a good proposal for a perpetual motion machine can be a good challenge in having to see why it won't work. See wikipedia for examples that have been proposed over the years.
I wasn't going to argue over what I thought I heard, and I'm not sure I want to watch it again to verify that. As Heater said, it was a rambling front end.
The only reason I posted the video was the elaborate way this guy went to prove a concept. He seemed genuinely interested in trying to make a machine that once started, it would run forever. I didn't think someone that young would go through all that work, knowing he was just trying to fake something. And I remember hearing the words like "slows down" as he was spinning what essentially was a flywheel.
I do feel that this concept has merit, a magnet can counter gravity, so it is a energy sorce. Given a proper design which would probably need a lot of different mechanical methods to achieve. That one could make a motor, though i'm sure it would be useless for any work. By the time you added these mechanical methods to a self running motor, you would negate any momentum or advantage it had. It would take more energy to run it, than it was able to produce.
Win some, loose some more.
Hmm, I have a go at this ... I'll start with: It ain't a motor if it can't do work!
Yes, a static magnetic field provides a static force. However, this is not work nor energy nor power. It may seem, when perceived from intuitive human muscle action, that work gets done when levitating with magnetics but it isn't so. In this case motion against the gravity is a critical component of creating energy transfer (work).
In the case of a freewheeling rotary motor there is no gravity to contend with, only friction. If it can't even overcome the tiny friction of the air and the bearings then there is a long way to go to demonstrate any effect.
In human measures all these movements are infinite and create the energy we live from, like the tides or the gulf stream.
But in a local area no energy source can deliver energy forever.
By the way: energy is conserverd, so energy can not be created or eliminated. But: energy is distributed inhomogenous and this state is uncomfortable. So energy flows from one area of high density to areas of low density, in the end flow stops when energy is homogenized. This will take very long. All "creation" of energy doesn't create energy, but makes use of the natural flow. Photons (light) come from the sun, because the sun's temperature is higher then the free space's temperature. The earth simply catches some of the radiation and convertes the light to heated material with can be used to fry eggs.
As long as people believe, there is a way to gain useful energy from an infinity source, they will follow leaders that promote these ideas! But after a nightmare there will be a wakeup!
I tried to come up with a graphic this morning to relate what I am hung-up on. I just can't understand that with careful design why this theory wouldn't work. As soon as the magnets used up the repelling force, they would be set up to start the process again.
Not quite. Mass and energy are conserved. Mass can be converted to energy and that energy can be converted back to the same mass.
If you say: mass and energy are conserved, does this mean: mass + energy = const? In this case I have to say: mass is not energy, so you can not add it. But mass is proportional to energy contained, if speed of light is constant. What can not simply be stated, but is a matter of experience.
Mike: we do not understand why 2 + 2 equals 4. But we know it. And no machine can deliver energy from nothing. And no casino can create money. And no wall creates value.
If you do not see in your sketch, that all the forces are balanced, remember: you can not see, that a balance is balanced when there is a big and a small apple and you do not see the center of gravity
Here's my take...
If you have 20 magnets in the wheel, you're looking at 10 of them doing what you want, and the other 10 doing not what you want. There is no way to overcome this with design work. The only energy that can exist is the energy you put into it, because after that half of your poles are working against you, while the other half work for you. Any imbalance in that will make it even worse. 11 working for you and 9 working against you would be great, but after a half turn, you'll have 11 working against you and 9 working for you.
Even if you could perfectly balance out the forces, you're still looking at 10 magnets pulling your motor the direction you want it to go, and 10 magnets pulling it the direction you don't want it to go.
Then you have to add in friction, of all sorts.
Mike, the "magnetic motor" doesn't work the way you're envisioning. Expecting magnets to keep repelling like that is like hanging rocks on a wheel and expecting the wheel to keep turning.
Each magnet field creates a closed loop of field. Any repulsion two magnets will encounter after they pass will also be encountered as the two magnets approach each other. You can't "sneak up" on a magnet by angling it one direction or the other.
What I just tried to explain is explained even better in this Captain Disillusion video. The part about magnets start at about 6:26.
BTW, Captain D has great videos. I highly recommend the channel.
I disagree (hopefully not in a disagreeable way) with your conclusion. The spinning magnets "catch" against some external driving force. The demonstration is not honest. The kid is lying. He is hiding an external power source.
The light blue rotor behaves very different outside of the blue box.
I originally thought he had some sort of spinning magnets under the table but Xanadu pointed out on YouTube, there are likely electromagnets in the blue square. I think Xanadu's idea is more likely to be true.
The difference in the way the motor behaves when it "catches" verses when it's just spinning, strongly suggests (basically proves) to me the demonstration is not legitimate.
I will say again, this kid is either a prankster or a fraud (though I tend to think the two are the same).
That giant horseshoe magnet flying across the room was a great gag. The special effects are neat. It is much better to have a little humor mixed in with learning process.
Thank for the help guy's, I think I have got my head wrapped around this now.
The bogus motor demonstration that was in the Captain D video, does anyone remember name of the thread?
I don't remember how we reacted to that video.
I was thinking shady webpreneur. $2 CPM on YouTube.
Agreed, not supporting the clear result as his conclusion is a bit of a "lie-hard" moment, Trump would be proud.
A magnetic field is a store of energy. As is the electric field in a capacitor. I suspect, possibly maybe, one could extract noticeable energy by demagnetizing a magnet. But it's not much. Then you are done.
@Erna,
Why yes.
E = m * c^2
Where have you been for the last 100 years or so?
You are also right for another reason:
I should have never ventured into this topic without a clear and thorough understanding of the subject.
I spent some of the day watching Utube videos on magnetic motors, and there are a lot of them. To wach these on a phone is just incomplete, I couldn't tell fact from fiction.
Anyway I was able to learn some things form what looks like reputable sources.
This is one link that covered the subject well:
http://humansarefree.com/2011/11/free-energy-howard-johnson-magnet-motor.html
I also learned that there are three types of "Magnetic Motors":
1. The Imbalanced System
2. The Induction Expulsion System
3. The Exchange Force Pulse System
All unique, and varied complexities.
Other than that there are some patents that I haven't looked at yet, needless to say I got in over my head again. This journey will continue for me, as well as the rest of the world.
People have been looking at these things for a couple of hundred years now.
They come up with all kind of weird ideas.
Some of those ideas match reality, as shown by experiment and observation, many do not and get rejected.
They are called "physicists" now a days.
I cannot believe that some jerk in a garage playing with magnets has a better idea than Maxwell or Boltzmann.
My beliefs aside. Show me one!
Kwinn wrote: "Not quite. Mass and energy are conserved. Mass can be converted to energy and that energy can be converted back to the same mass. "
Mass and energy are conserved should mean: Mass is conserved and energy is conserved, two laws of conservation.
But mass can be desintegrated so mass is not conserved. But does mass simply vanish? No: mass is converted to energy. Now there is more energy then before, that means: energy is not conserved.
I asked: to you see mass as a form of energy? (mass + energy = const) In this moment, energy is conserved, but mass still is not conserved. That means: mass is not energy, but mass is a form of energy. There has to be another property that describes that mass is something special. And this property is: mass incorporated energy at a very low level of entropy.
But entropy is a strange concept, mostly connected to "disorder", so the importance of this concept is not perceived by public (this is true in the case of most physicists too). What we call "create energy" is better described as allowing energy to escape from a state of low entropy to a state of higher entropy.
So let me tell what we call "renewables": The sun represents energy at very low entropy. Sends out photons with low entropy. Those photons, that represent energy without having a mass! can transfer energy to matter, means, heating that matter, now the entropy increases very very much. But this high value of entropy is still less then the entropy of the environment, so hot matter can spent energy to cold matter. We like this going to a sauna. While entropy is related to temperature, higher temperature doesn't necessarily mean lower entropy. There is another parameter working: the degrees of freedom in a system. That allows us to convert heat to mechanical energy and vice versa.
Renewables take the free energy from the sun (yes, there is free energy) and create "usefull" energy (e.g. electricity) by means of machines (which are not free, but need investment).
The proponents of "Free energy" tell you: you can create a difference from equilibrium. That definitely is not possible. And all efforts to create such a machine are in vain, it is already a challenge to economically make use of solar power.
This principle is omnipresent. If you want to reach a goal, you need a certain amount of money. If the money is distributed equally, you just have to reduce the degrees of freedom and money will flow to a certain place. Now you can reach your goal by distribution of the money collected to a place you like to determine.
A problem arises if you goal is to gain absolute power. Then money is used to make more money. And this will end up in a corrupted system.
It's simply a matter of physics!
They are Solid Oxide Fuel Cells made from silica(sand), and convert our conventional fuel sources through a chemical reaction, into usable power at half of the cost over normal combustion generation.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/solid-oxide/
Main link:
http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/
Here is a couple of videos that give some insight: