Sure. Magnets loose power over time. But don't magnets take 100ds of years to completely lose their power?
So we charge up some new magnets 200 years later, using electricity harvested from that very system.

You've told me that "it simply cannot happen in this universe" plenty times, but still haven't been too specific on exactly why.
Is the counteracting force Gravity? Centripetal force? And how is it that these cannot be overcome by powerfull enough magnets?

If you took a course in Thermodynamics you can surely get specific about what exactly would stop that wheel. Compell me.

why don't you tell me how you think a magnetic motor is supposed to work..
you're the one who seems to think these laws are breakable. you obviously haven't
put enough effort to research into what others have already tried.
magnets don't take 100s of years to lose their strength. they can lose it over the course of a couple days, if enough heat is generated.
do you even know how they regenerate them? they quench them with hydrogen.
magnets work on fields, flux. I already told you why it wouldn't work...forces that cancel out.
it's called a state of equilibrium. I won't bother posting a long discourse on thermodynamics
and field theory, i'm too lazy.

you're just going to have to get other the fact that no motor will ever "produce" energy, per se.
you can't make energy, you can only transform it.
once you understand this fact, then you can begin to brainstorm something that's actually doable.

I think it is important for mankind to experiment and try to beat scientific laws. Should mankind focus all attention on it? No, but small factions such as SKA and whoever else should try to beat these laws! The question truely is....why not? Because it is with unreasonable certainty that the Laws cannot be broken? Unfathomable! Impossible! Sheesh, come on....have a sense of adventure! I'm not saying you shouldnt talk trash....but I hope you could see when someone dares to dream the impossible.

Now, there is a saying in my trade, a sort of joke "it will never work!". SKA, to not expect those kinds of remarks is silly, so don't get too worked up over it.

Now I hope this dicussion can go somewhere, but I doubt it. Prove me wrong! Wish I had something more meaningful to add, just trying to encourage that we should not let the Law of Thermodynamics own our dreams.

look...if you guys are interested in achieving a scientific breakthrough, the first thing you'll need to do is observe the science. once you're able to distinguish a theory from a law, then you can proceed to re-evaluate the theories.

I can, cold fusion. Will it hit the markets? I have no idea. http://www.nyteknik.se/taggar/?tag=Cold+Fusion this I believe is as close to free energy we can come at the moment


Edit: Btw why are you bashing his ideas? he said join in and help. If you have nothing to contribute other than negativ feedback, then leave it at that. There are lots of inventions out there that use magnets, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR-Maglev it uses magnets instead of an tradional motor. And nasa plans for the future to use magnets to propell an spaceship into space without the normal liftoff sequence http://news.softpedia.co...-Prototype-122124.shtml May not be the same thing as the TS idea, but no point in trying to destroy his hobbies and ideas

It's not about destroying his hobbies, it's about giving informed feedback based on facts. He's not just posting negativ feedback, he's posting constructive criticism.. Just because it doesnt agree with your view doesn't mean its negative feedback.

Don't want to trust his words, then do your own research, try it out, come back and tell us the results. You're not the first one trying this out, and many have failed before... but think it will work because you have a different breakthrough insight?? Try it out, after all its your time and you do what you want.

But when you guys act defensive because someone doesnt agree with you, it is very absurd, because it is a scientific topic, and scientists are giving you feedback, be thankful for it. If you want people to just agree, well, maybe this isnt the right forum.

I’m not too interested in perpetual motion machines, free energy, etc., but there are some interesting comments that have been made in this thread.

Here’s my two cents:

I often talk here about the nature of reality, and express the idea that reality may not even be “real”, at least not as we generally define the term. Reality may be more like a dream. But reality is a very interesting dream in that it is unfailingly lawful. There seem to be laws of nature that are mathematical, precise, oftentimes beyond our ability to mathematically describe, inviolable, and beautiful beyond words.

So reality may be a dream, but it’s a dream with some very strict rules in place.

Regarding science, theories, laws, etc: As I already said, nature seems to be unfailingly lawful. Science tries to discover and describe those laws. But lets not confuse our mathematical descriptions of observed natural phenomena with the natural phenomena themselves. We do not know the laws of nature. We have developed ways of describing the natural world that are consistent with our observations, but that’s not the same as knowing the laws of nature.

For example, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a Law only for as long as there are no observed violations of it. If someday a scientist observes a violation of the 2nd Law, then the Law will have to be revised. In other words, the old “Law” will be thrown out and a new Law will take its place.

So as I see it, human descriptions of the “Laws of Nature” are not inviolable, but the Laws of Nature themselves, whatever they may be, are unbreakable. At least in this particular dream.

what you're describing, as we've contemplated before, is the limitations of language.
the observations are repeatedly observed by everyone.
people inadvertently observe the 2nd law when they add NaOH to water, or freeze precipitate
their product.

this other other example of "free energy" in the form of cold-fusion has been an intriguing one for several years, Rossi may be onto something....but now the challenge remains reproduction of the experiment.
it's more than likely there will still be a transfer of heat in the cold-fusion process

Still, there were hurtful comments that was pointet at him that was to point out he was stupid if you read between the line like. I didnt say he was true, It was the manner it was presented.

"why don't you tell me how you think a magnetic motor is supposed to work.."
"do you even know how they regenerate them?"
"I don't think it's good for the forums to let ignorance fester in specially designated threads just because the ignorant don't want to put in the hard work that the rest of us have in learning real science."
"SKA, don't you realize that forcing yourself to be blind to evidences is unproductive? "

Now that would me pretty sad having people bashing my views that way.

"If you took a course in Thermodynamics you can surely get specific about what exactly would stop that wheel. Compell me."
this can be construed as goading.

I've already mentioned at least twice, why it wouldn't work. I've also said, to come up with a breakthrough, you have to observe the science. you don't make it up, or interpret it how you see fit, as you go along.

after I found out about the PESwiki page, I emailed my dad and uncle (one is a ME, the other an EE) about spending money on such a project, but they never responded back. Reflecting back, now I realize why (it's a dead end). Alternative energy sources are very intriguing, don't stop researching them, just understand that we have physical limitations that should be observed. some people try to exceed them, but those people have a much larger budget than you or I. conclusion: first approach it practically.

think of equilibrium in a system the way some see nature as a balancing act, because that's
actually what it is. these laws describe states of equilibrium, from the transfer of high forms of useful energy to lower forms of unusable energy (waste energy, usually in the form of heat). the perpetual magnetic motor needs an initial input of energy, and once it goes into motion, without continuous input of energy, it will eventually come to a stop because of opposing magnetic forces.

cold fusion has a similar situation, protons in close proximity which repel each other, resulting in net energy gain of 0. Rossi proposed a model which gave a positive energy gain, but this has to be reproduced, or it will go the way of so many other models.. as a footnote in some college physics textbook

Finally some people who understand my obsession better. I'm also very glad Gibran helped explain why Thermodynamic laws should be expected to be breakable;
Because we may simply not have seen violations of these laws doesn't mean they're impossible to make. Could very well mean we were too quick to assume we
fully understood that specific Thermodynamic law. I'm not saying at all there aren't thermodynamic laws(Stop putting words in my mouth),
I'm saying they may not be as we currently haveinterpretted them.

And then yes, What zombicyckel said is very true. Your additudes towards my ideas are VERY condescending and allthough you make use of some facts, mostly
what you're doing is just being cynical & intolerant and completely repressing my views. Why the condescendance? Because you know more, doesn't make you
a more worthy human being than I. You may be more knowledgefull than I, but that gives you no right to redicule me and repress my views.

Lack of knowledge isn't Ignorance; The unwillingness to let go of old knowledge & make way for new knowledge; THAT
is ignorance. And I agree that THIS Ignorance should defenitely not be allowed to fester on this board. And if
you wish to compell me of knowledge, you should use Reason. Not Cynicism and condescendance.

---

Now I would just love to leave this ego-clash behind and continue this topic simply discussing the designs I posted.
And for anyone who want's to see why the laws of Thermodynamics desperately need to be revised, check out
this Documentairy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6UgV3gVmd0


We could assume that all those inventors are frauds, but that isn't very reasonable at all if you ask me.
The moving parts of the machines don't lie. And their movement is at least a 1000 times more compelling
than any of the textbook explanations the physicist gives as to why it couldn't work. Well...They Work?
Watch the Documentairy and decide for yourself.

Now about the Magnetic Ferriswheel design.
Benzyme. Now you still haven't explained why the ferriswheel would stop.
You mentioned there are counteracting forces.
I mentioned there are ways to overcome these counteracting forces(Strong enough magnets).
If you still think this wheel would stop spinning, please explain why strong enough,
light enough magnets can't overcome the centripetal & gravitational forces?

Ive had a couple of strange theorys my self haha, like a couple of years ago. I was scared shitless of the thought of dying. I wanted to timetravel to save my mother if she ever died, I read all I could string thoery, quantum mechanics, relativity theory and all I could find. I gave up that after a while, but still if you really want something, let nobody stop you.

Then I discoverd dmt, and connected that with all the stuff that I read(like how everything is connected, like quantom entangelment). And it just seems like there might acully be a chance of surviving that now. The universe is meant to be explored and enjoyed not study the shit out of it. (lucky I didnt go to univesity, was going to a five year Master of Science in Engineering in phyics) I would of been a fucking zombie after that


Love these vids: Double slit experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk

See, interesting how humans interpret words differently, thanks for the feedback.

I wasnt the person making these comments, maybe they can explain better their intentions and meanings, but the first quote I see it as very reasonable, since SKA was not acknowledging benzyme's points and was not expanding on his own knowledge on the subject (in fact, he said himself he was pretty much not knowledgeable with physics). Isnt it normal to ask what the others know so that from that point discussion can continue?

The third quote is the only one I see that does indeed seem harsh, (while at the same time I see where it comes from). I would say dromedary could have expressed it in a less harsh way, and constructive criticism to him (and to everybody) is valid, im sure he will take note. But also do note that SKA was from the beginning saying he only wanted posts that were agreeing with him, even though he doesnt know much about physics, and its a scientific theme in a community that largely bases itself in the scientific method, so if one keeps denying it and only accepting posts that are agreeing, it makes for very poor discussion and will naturally make others respond in a way that will be challenging the poster.



I dont think the conclusion is that "they should be expected to be breakable", but rather that "if anything is possible, they might be breakable, but they might also NOT be breakable, and so far all evidence is that they are damn reliable, so you can try to keep banging your head on the wall hoping that the next time the wall will dissapear, or you can try to do something else, but as long as you are hurting nobody else, do what you want".




Why would you let go of old knowledge if there is absolutely no evidence thus far that it is lacking, or neither at least some good reasoning or hypothesis why it could be lacking?

To me that seems like an immature vision, to think that just because something is old or established its probably wrong and whoever doesnt "let go" of that knowledge is ignorant. The thermodynamic laws as we knot it are extremely reliable, everybody in the world can test it over and over and over and over again in a billion different ways and results are always the same. Of course you can always use the argument that "maybe its all a dream and in this dream the law will change at some point", but this is kinda like saying "oh that doorknob im about to turn, even though ALL of the times so far I turned it, it opened the door, maybe right now if I try to turn it, it will explode". We would never do anything if we werent to rely on reliable established reproducible knowledge, because you can always play the card that "this may be wrong".

Nobody is saying you shouldnt experiment. In fact, I think the best thing for this discussion would be if you DID try it out and find out for yourself if it works or not, since you dont want to take someone else's words for it.. But to keep hammering about how science might be wrong and how those who disagree with you are ignorant or condescendent or whatever else, isnt leading the discussion anywhere, and you have since the beginning been posting in a very closed minded (from my own interpretation of your words) that only acknowledges posts that do not challenge you. Again, this is not the forum for this kind of thing, here we have a diversity of points that are welcome, discussions should be based on good arguments and scientific reasoning and scrutiny apply to topics where scientific knowledge applies.

This is exactly what you are doing here, SKA. Refusing knowledge that is new to you (informed scientific evidences) because you want to hold to your wishful thinking.

Lets put this to rest, please

Agreed. Apologies if I sounded harsh - my intention was not to offend. I will happily admit that I am ignorant in topics of which I have not studied the mainstream theory. I don't mean it as an insult.

That said, I concede absolutely no compromise in the substance of my argument. You are categorically wrong. Not only do you fail to understand why you are wrong, you fail to understand why you fail to understand why you are wrong. Science is fundamentally a positivist discipline. If you don't accept the notion of positive sureness then our differences run far deeper than the laws of thermodynamics, and there is nothing to gain for either of us to continue this conversation.

agreed as well.
I won't say what's already been said, but I'll end it at this:
this is the same principle as "snake-oil/miracle cures".. if you can't devise a scientific model that behaves predictably and reproducibly, you will not have made any progress whatsoever.

Benzyme, you asked me to explain how I expected the ferriswheel to work?

Well given the formation of the magnetic parts the magnetic weights on the right-
side of the wheel, which is going down, are pushed to the outer perimeter of the wheel.
As the magnetic weights cross the bottom half of the wheel, magnetic force pushes
them back to the inner perimeter of the wheel. Seems to me this would make for a wheel
whose right, downward spinning side is always heavier than the left side of the wheel.
Seems this way it can never quite reach equilibrium.

Then we are only left with Friction and Centripetal force as counteracting forces.

Look well at the design again:


If the Ring-magnets acting as the moving weights on the spokes of the wheel were
of a really lightweight material(Neodynium perhaps)they would generate considerably
less Centripetal force, right?

Then if both the outer magnetic ring, enclosing the entire wheel, and the inner magnetic
ring, enclosing the driveshaft, were made up from rows of really powerfull magnets then
the combined magnetic forces that both these magnetic rings exert on the light Neodynium
ring magnets should be well enough to override the Centripetal force.

look at the top part of that design, and how there's an initial input of energy...there would need to be some sort of continuation of that input of energy, or opposing forces will eventually neutralize it. there's always a tendency towards equilibrium, sorry. nature favors balance.

benzy and ska - maybe check out this book called "The physics of the primary state of matter" - by Karl Shappeller