Permanent Magnet Motors - what's the catch?
Lee David Rimar
without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a perpetual
motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets themselves?
I've read a few patents for such devices and I'm told there are others.
This leads me to wonder: If they don't work, how/why were the patents
issued? But if they do work, why didn't they change the world?
I'd be especially interested to hear from anyone who has tried to build
working models, either from the referenced patents or other designs.
Patent References:
<http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4074153>
Magnetic Propulsion Device, Baker & Borst, 1975
<http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4151431>
Permanent Magnet Motor, Johnson, 1979
<http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4215330>
Permanent Magnet Propulsion Systems, Hartman, 1980
<http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4877983>
Magnetic force generating method and apparatus, Johnson, 1989
<http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5402021>
Magnetic Propulsion System, Johnson, 1995
[30]
Mark Daniels
<lee_...@email.com> writes
Oh dear. Another spate of perpetual motion machines that are not called
perpetual motiion machines. When will it end? Shall we do horoscopes as
well?
Sorry, the short answer is: No it will not work. Magnets do not have
"power". You need to examine your terminology and check some definitions
of words like power.
It is possible to maintain a motion without any power input or
absorption. But what is the use of that. An example is a current
circulating in a superconductor at very low temperatures (~ 0 K), but
even that will eventually die away after an extremely long time.
The planetary motion can almost be considered perpetual, certainly in
the short term (say a few million years), but even a planet's orbital
velocity will decay over time giving rise to a new larger diameter orbit
with slower orbital velocity.
--
Mark Daniels
Mark Kinsler
>without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a perpetual
>motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets themselves?
Permanent magnets don't have any inherent power. It's easiest to think of
the "power of a magnet" like the power of a brick: it certainly seems to
be a powerful enough affair if it drops on your head, but it's not like
the brick explodes. Permanent magnets are the same sort of thing.
>I've read a few patents for such devices and I'm told there are others.
>This leads me to wonder: If they don't work, how/why were the patents
>issued?
This is a very good question, and I really don't know the answer. My
guess is that the standards for the granting of patents have changed over
the years in one respect or another. There are a lot of patents that are
just dumber than hell: my favorite was for a piano whose strings were
insulated from the iron frame of the instrument for the purpose of
"retaining the electricity within the strings." _What_ electricity? God
only knows, but they gave the guy a patent for it in 1870 or whenever it
was.
The rules or law or whatever is that the invention has to be "useful,"
which means that it has to work. Apparently there's a lot of wiggle room
within that definition. Suffice it to say that there are patents issued
for a hell of a lot of stuff that never worked and never will.
> But if they do work, why didn't they change the world?
Well, they didn't.
>I'd be especially interested to hear from anyone who has tried to build
>working models, either from the referenced patents or other designs.
>
>Patent References:
>
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4074153>
> Magnetic Propulsion Device, Baker & Borst, 1975
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4151431>
> Permanent Magnet Motor, Johnson, 1979
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4215330>
> Permanent Magnet Propulsion Systems, Hartman, 1980
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4877983>
> Magnetic force generating method and apparatus, Johnson, 1989
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5402021>
> Magnetic Propulsion System, Johnson, 1995
The main purpose of these seems to be to inflame the passions of the free
energy cultists. Your questions are quite valid, and I'm sorry to say
that there are plenty of Web sites that will encourage you along dead-end
paths of inquiry. Keep looking and learning, but don't lose your
skepticism.
Mark Kinsler
--
............................................................................
114 Columbia Ave. Athens, Ohio USA 45701 voice740.594.3737 fax740.592.3059
Home of the "How Things Work" engineering program for adults and kids.
See http://www.frognet.net/~kinsler
Dan Moore
> The planetary motion can almost be considered perpetual, certainly in
> the short term (say a few million years), but even a planet's orbital
> velocity will decay over time giving rise to a new larger diameter orbit
> with slower orbital velocity.
> --
> Mark Daniels
Unless I'm mistaken, and it does happen more often than
I notice, a lower velocity would lead to a shorter diameter
orbit.
As to perpetual motion machines, your comments are right on.
Dan
Ed McBride
> >I've read a few patents for such devices and I'm told there are others.
> >This leads me to wonder: If they don't work, how/why were the patents
> >issued?
>
> This is a very good question, and I really don't know the answer.
I think the answer is that the patent office doesn't care if something
works. It has to be "new" (that's why a search is required) and "not
obvious" (one cannot get a patent for a glass bottle, but can get one
for a new way of making one). It also, I think, must be "useful", but
this just means there is some obvious value IF it works. I do not think
the patent office cares whether it WILL work, unless, I presume, it's
obviouly not going to.
Ed McBride, P.E.
David Hatunen
Dan Moore <iron...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mark Daniels wrote:
>
>> The planetary motion can almost be considered perpetual, certainly in
>> the short term (say a few million years), but even a planet's orbital
>> velocity will decay over time giving rise to a new larger diameter orbit
>> with slower orbital velocity.
>Unless I'm mistaken, and it does happen more often than
>I notice, a lower velocity would lead to a shorter diameter
>orbit.
No. Orbital speed is slower the further out you are.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Mark Daniels
<emcb...@wybron.com> writes
A patent was refused for negative feedback at one point, I believe. The
patent office refused it for not being useful. Positive feedback was
deemed to be useful because it increased the gain of an amplifier
(whilst also increasing noise type probs). But negative feedback only
increased the number of (at the time) expensive additional stages in the
amplifier, so was deemed to be of no practical use, despite making the
amplifier more stable, etc.
--
Mark Daniels
Dan Moore
>
> In article <387206F7...@earthlink.net>,
> Dan Moore <iron...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Mark Daniels wrote:
> >
> >> The planetary motion can almost be considered perpetual, certainly in
> >> the short term (say a few million years), but even a planet's orbital
> >> velocity will decay over time giving rise to a new larger diameter orbit
> >> with slower orbital velocity.
>
> >Unless I'm mistaken, and it does happen more often than
> >I notice, a lower velocity would lead to a shorter diameter
> >orbit.
>
> No. Orbital speed is slower the further out you are.
I'm thinking in terms of linear velocity. If you have a
body in a stable orbit, and through some force, say an
impact where the impactor bounces off (this is a simplifying
assumption so that the mass of the body doesn't change), the
body in orbit is slowed. The force of gravity holding the body
in orbit (accelerating it toward the star) would not change
as the mass of the body has not changed. The tangental velocity
(linear velocity) and tangental inertia of the body is less due
to the slowing caused by the impact. In this case the acceleration
due to gravity should act to pull the body closer to the star. As
this happens, the body should gain some tangental velocity until
the inertia balances the acceleration of gravity and a new lower
orbit is established. The magnitude of the impact may be such that
the body is slowed sufficiently and can not achieve a new orbit
and simply falls into the star.
I'm certain there is something amiss in the above paragraph
that has to do with fixed potential energy for an obiting body
of a given mass that would disallow a "lower" stable orbit.
I'm going to have to think about this some more to figure out
where I screwed up the physics.
Dan
Nick Pine
>...I think the answer is that the patent office doesn't care if something
>works... It also, I think, must be "useful", but this just means there
>is some obvious value IF it works. I do not think the patent office cares
>whether it WILL work, unless, I presume, it's obviouly not going to.
In the past, they have interpreted the word "useful" to mean "it works," or
at least "the description offered was sufficient to convince an examiner
that it would work." I suppose this practice will continue.
Nick
Nicholson L. Pine System design and consulting
Pine Associates, Ltd. (610) 489-1475/0545
821 Collegeville Road Fax: (610) 489-7057
Collegeville, PA 19426 Email: ni...@ece.vill.edu
Computer simulation and modeling. High performance, low cost, solar heating
and cogeneration system design. BSEE, MSEE. Senior Member, IEEE. Registered
US Patent Agent. Web site: http://www.ece.vill.edu/~nick
David Hatunen
For an orbital body tangential velocity is an inverse function
of the radius of the orbit. Square root, if I recall.
Larry Brasfield
"Dan Moore" <iron...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3872265D...@earthlink.net...
> David Hatunen wrote:
> >
> > In article <387206F7...@earthlink.net>,
> > Dan Moore <iron...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >Mark Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > >> The planetary motion can almost be considered perpetual, certainly in
> > >> the short term (say a few million years), but even a planet's orbital
> > >> velocity will decay over time giving rise to a new larger diameter orbit
> > >> with slower orbital velocity.
> >
> > >Unless I'm mistaken, and it does happen more often than
> > >I notice, a lower velocity would lead to a shorter diameter
> > >orbit.
> >
> > No. Orbital speed is slower the further out you are.
True, if "orbital speed" is angular or linear velocity.
> I'm thinking in terms of linear velocity. If you have a
> body in a stable orbit, and through some force, say an
> impact where the impactor bounces off (this is a simplifying
> assumption so that the mass of the body doesn't change), the
> body in orbit is slowed. The force of gravity holding the body
> in orbit (accelerating it toward the star) would not change
> as the mass of the body has not changed. The tangental velocity
> (linear velocity) and tangental inertia of the body is less due
> to the slowing caused by the impact. In this case the acceleration
> due to gravity should act to pull the body closer to the star. As
> this happens, the body should gain some tangental velocity until
> the inertia balances the acceleration of gravity and a new lower
> orbit is established. The magnitude of the impact may be such that
> the body is slowed sufficiently and can not achieve a new orbit
> and simply falls into the star.
>
> I'm certain there is something amiss in the above paragraph
> that has to do with fixed potential energy for an obiting body
> of a given mass that would disallow a "lower" stable orbit.
> I'm going to have to think about this some more to figure out
> where I screwed up the physics.
Your description is not awry as far as it went.
The effect of your tangential velocity reduction
will be to change the ellipticity of the orbit. As
you surmize, the orbit must continue to reach
the point from where the body got that delta-V
unless the orbit is so elliptical that its perihelion
puts it into the sun so that it loses the kinetic
energy it gained falling in after that impact.
Think of it this simple way : In a stable circular
orbit, the so-called centrifugal force balances
the gravitational force. A body in such an orbit
experiences a gravitational force proportional
to 1/R^2 (where R is the orbit radius). For a
circular orbit, the centrifugal force is proportional
to R*w^2 where w is the angular velocity. So
1/R^2 = k * R*w^2
where k is some constant factor. Rearranging:
w = 1/k * R^(-3/2)
Here you can see that as R increases, w must
decrease. Linear velocity is R*w, so
V = 1/k * R^(-1/2)
As you can see, it also decreases as R increases.
--
Larry Brasfield
Above opinions may be mine alone.
(Humans may reply at unundered l.bras_field@computer.o_r_g )
Kurt Foster
alt.mechanical.engineering, alt.sci.physics,sci.physics,
sci.pyshics.electromag, (the latter apparently misspelled) removed from
headers]
In sci.skeptic Lee David Rimar <lee_...@email.com> wrote:
. Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could
. run without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a
. perpetual motion machine--something tapping into the power of the
. magnets themselves?
No. A device that puts out energy without any energy being put in, is a
"perpetual motion machine of the first kind" by definition, whether you
like it or not. As to "tapping into the power of the magnets themselves"
- what the hell does that mean?
. I've read a few patents for such devices and I'm told there are others.
. This leads me to wonder: If they don't work, how/why were the patents
. issued? But if they do work, why didn't they change the world?
. I'd be especially interested to hear from anyone who has tried to build
. working models, either from the referenced patents or other designs.
[patent references snipped]
A motor, AFAIK, has to do work and therefore put out energy. You can't
put out energy that hasn't been put in. WRT magnets and electricity, look
up Lenz's Law.
You've read the patent applications, you say. Did the applicants
actually *claim* that the motors would run without any energy being put
into them? What exactly did the applicants claim the motors would or
could do? That has relevance to what it means for the devices to "work".
Howard R. Davis III
Lee David Rimar wrote:
> Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could run
> without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a perpetual
> motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets themselves?
>
I have always wondered whether or not the inventor is really just tapping into
the energy which was used to magnetize the magnets. Often they will say that
they need a lot of money to make the motors because the magnets are so
expensive. I am not too sure that those magnets don't where out. However, these
magnetic motors may be a more efficient way of storing electric energy than
batteries. If looked that way, they may be of value for electric cars, tools,
etc.
best wishes, Howard Davis
Bill Kunka
long time..toy train and slot cars use them fer a long time.
Eric Hocking
initially posted from
Mark Daniels wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> This is a very good question, and I really don't know the answer.
>>
>A patent was refused for negative feedback at one point, I believe. The
>patent office refused it for not being useful.
From the horse's mouth at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term
“useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter
has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine
which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called
useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
spam killer
there are some very impressive almost (repeat) almost-totally-friction-free
magnetic bearings being used by France Telecom to suspend cylindrical
flywheels in vacuum containers. (Emergency power generation system). The
flywheels are buried in vacuum tanks beneath the floor, and spin at an
incredible rate. But as soon as they start drawing power, the flywheels will
begin to slow down.
nos...@anywhere.com
Kurt Foster <kfo...@rmi.net> wrote in message
news:xRtc4.2725$wv4.3...@den-news1.rmi.net...
spam killer
call it. 'Perpetual motion machines' are jokes. Are you interested in
windmills/fuel cells/photovoltaic cells/methanol economies ? They are much
more rewarding, and have a lot going for them. d...@anywhere.com
Howard R. Davis III <how...@stsi.net> wrote in message
news:3872BC1B...@stsi.net...
>
>
> Lee David Rimar wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could
> > without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a
spam killer
work, though. This guy is looking for a motor that doesn't. Cheerio.
Bill Kunka <bill...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13871-38...@storefull-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Anthony Stephen Szopa
They are a really great idea. You can store a tremendous amount of
energy in a massive rotating magnetic disk / flywheel. And they can
have a very high efficiency rating: 96%+ (?). The trick is getting a
flywheel to spin extremely fast while having a great mass while
staying in one piece while staying on the axis of rotation, etc.
There was a good article in Discover magazine about 5 years ago.
There is an American who is using carbon composite materials that
can store many times more energy than the best steel flywheels.
The composite material must get increasingly stronger at greater
distances from the center of rotation for obvious reasons. I believe
they spin in the hundreds of thousands of revolutions per minute
range. He says he knows more of what not to do than everyone else
knows what to do.
The idea is for large buildings to use cheaper electricity at night
to get these flywheels spinning then to use the stored energy in
the day to run power hungry systems like air conditioning units
thus saving the difference between low cost night electricity and
higher cost day time electricity. This would also allow a more
efficient use of our electrical power generating capacity. New
customers could come on line during the days while not having
to build new generating capacity.
He is seriously adapting his technology to powering automobiles.
And this may surprise you: Kevin Costner, the actor, has his own
brother looking for investments for him, and they have sunk a lot
of money into this man's research. They are (or were) part owners
of this scientist's company.
Al Germaine
The planetary motion can almost be considered perpetual, certainly in
>the short term (say a few million years), but even a planet's orbital
>velocity will decay over time giving rise to a new larger diameter orbit
>with slower orbital velocity.
Er, the other way around. Decayed orbits result in the satellite
falling into the massive body, not escaping.
Orbits that get larger do so from tidal transfer of angular momentum
from a massive body which rotates with a shorter period than the
orbital period of the satallite. The satallite is pulled out to a
higher orbit by tidal forces on the massive body.
>--
>Mark Daniels
ATG
t_ho...@earthlink.net
produce rotation without external assistance. However, high quality
permanent magnets for us in this application are extremely expensive.
Another problem would be insufficient torque to us the motor for any
practical purpose.
Lee David Rimar <lee_...@email.com> wrote in message
news:84rolt$cdc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could
run
> without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a
perpetual
> motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets
themselves?
>
> I've read a few patents for such devices and I'm told there are others.
> This leads me to wonder: If they don't work, how/why were the patents
> issued? But if they do work, why didn't they change the world?
>
> I'd be especially interested to hear from anyone who has tried to build
> working models, either from the referenced patents or other designs.
>
> Patent References:
>
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4074153>
> Magnetic Propulsion Device, Baker & Borst, 1975
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4151431>
> Permanent Magnet Motor, Johnson, 1979
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4215330>
> Permanent Magnet Propulsion Systems, Hartman, 1980
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4877983>
> Magnetic force generating method and apparatus, Johnson, 1989
> <http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5402021>
> Magnetic Propulsion System, Johnson, 1995
>
> [30]
>
Bob Myers
t_ho...@earthlink.net wrote in message
<852ou8$54r$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>I am sure that a motor incorporating vanes which area negative bias would
>produce rotation without external assistance. However, high quality
>permanent magnets for us in this application are extremely expensive.
>Another problem would be insufficient torque to us the motor for any
>practical purpose.
Huh? What are "vanes which are a negative bias?"
Bob M.
Earle Jones
>spam killer wrote:
>
>> Total nonsense department; file under Perpetual Motion Machines.
[...]
Amen!
[...]
>The idea is for large buildings to use cheaper electricity at night
>to get these flywheels spinning then to use the stored energy in
>the day to run power hungry systems like air conditioning units
>thus saving the difference between low cost night electricity and
>higher cost day time electricity. This would also allow a more
>efficient use of our electrical power generating capacity. New
>customers could come on line during the days while not having
>to build new generating capacity.
*
Flywheels have been studied for the past 20 years (at least) as energy
storage devices for all sorts of uses. I believe that a flywheel-driven
automobile was tested. Flywheel energy was coupled to the drive wheels to
run the car. To decelerate, vehicular energy was used to spin up the
flywheel.
Problems:
I. Gyroscopic forces when you turn. Solution: mount the flywheel with
its axis vertical and don't hit any bumps! (Or, use three orthogonal
flywheels.)
II. For efficiency, the flywheel should turn at a very high rpm. How do
you couple this to the drive wheels? Solution: Use a special electric
motor/generator between the flywheel and the wheels.
BTW, since the greatest stresses are at the hub, not the rim,
energy-storage flywheels have most of their mass close to the hub, which
goes against conventional flywheel design thinking.
earle
*
D.H. Kelly
is driven up to speed and then supplies the energy to get to the next stop.
I don't know whether these are in use any more.
Flywheels have been proposed in the past for peaking power needs but the
mechanical problems involved with storing sufficient energy to be useful
have pretty well doomed this approach. Theoretically nice but practically
not so nice. Alternatives such as pumped storage or even fuel cells are more
attractive both economically and technically. --
Don Kelly
dke...@nabunalimo.lark.com
remove the bull to reply
Earle Jones <ejon...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:ejones12-060...@ts015d34.sto-ca.concentric.net...
wtsh...@mb.sympatico.ca
>In article <38743EAF...@ciphile.com>, ant...@ciphile.com wrote:
>
>>spam killer wrote:
>>
>>> Total nonsense department; file under Perpetual Motion Machines.
>
>[...]
>
>Amen!
>
>[...]
>
>>The idea is for large buildings to use cheaper electricity at night
>>to get these flywheels spinning then to use the stored energy in
>>the day to run power hungry systems like air conditioning units
>>thus saving the difference between low cost night electricity and
>>higher cost day time electricity. This would also allow a more
>>efficient use of our electrical power generating capacity. New
>>customers could come on line during the days while not having
>>to build new generating capacity.
>
There is an outfit called "Precision Power" that sells a large flywheel
set that you can install, in your data centre or wherever you need good
clean power. It's capable of riding out outages up to a half hour or so; it
includes inverters to provide constant frequency AC. I believe they have a
Web site.
Bill
William L. Bahn
A = (V^2)/R
For a body in an orbit around another, the force causing the acceleration is
gravitational which falls off as R^2, so you have:
A = Ao*(Ro/R)^2 = (V^2)/R
Ao = (Vo^2)/Ro
A = [(Vo^2)/Ro] (Ro/R)^2 = (V^2)/R
V^2 = (Vo^2)(Ro/R)
V = Vo * sqrt(Ro/R)
So as R gets bigger, V gets smaller.
Keep in mind that an object in an elliptical orbit is fastest closest in and
slowest furthest out.
Dan Moore wrote in message <3872265D...@earthlink.net>...
>David Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> In article <387206F7...@earthlink.net>,
>> Dan Moore <iron...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Mark Daniels wrote:
>> >
>> >> The planetary motion can almost be considered perpetual, certainly in
>> >> the short term (say a few million years), but even a planet's orbital
>> >> velocity will decay over time giving rise to a new larger diameter
orbit
>> >> with slower orbital velocity.
>>
>> >Unless I'm mistaken, and it does happen more often than
>> >I notice, a lower velocity would lead to a shorter diameter
>> >orbit.
>>
>> No. Orbital speed is slower the further out you are.
>
>I'm thinking in terms of linear velocity. If you have a
>body in a stable orbit, and through some force, say an
>impact where the impactor bounces off (this is a simplifying
>assumption so that the mass of the body doesn't change), the
>body in orbit is slowed. The force of gravity holding the body
>in orbit (accelerating it toward the star) would not change
>as the mass of the body has not changed. The tangental velocity
>(linear velocity) and tangental inertia of the body is less due
>to the slowing caused by the impact. In this case the acceleration
>due to gravity should act to pull the body closer to the star. As
>this happens, the body should gain some tangental velocity until
>the inertia balances the acceleration of gravity and a new lower
>orbit is established. The magnitude of the impact may be such that
>the body is slowed sufficiently and can not achieve a new orbit
>and simply falls into the star.
>
>I'm certain there is something amiss in the above paragraph
>that has to do with fixed potential energy for an obiting body
>of a given mass that would disallow a "lower" stable orbit.
>I'm going to have to think about this some more to figure out
>where I screwed up the physics.
>
>Dan
>
William L. Bahn
Howard R. Davis III wrote in message <3872BC1B...@stsi.net>...
>
>
>Lee David Rimar wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could
run
>> without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a
perpetual
>> motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets
themselves?
>>
>
Henry_Wilson
<wb...@uswest.net> wrote:
>The centripetal acceleration of a body in uniform circular motion is
>
>A = (V^2)/R
>
>For a body in an orbit around another, the force causing the acceleration is
>gravitational which falls off as R^2, so you have:
>
>A = Ao*(Ro/R)^2 = (V^2)/R
>
>Ao = (Vo^2)/Ro
>
>A = [(Vo^2)/Ro] (Ro/R)^2 = (V^2)/R
>
>V^2 = (Vo^2)(Ro/R)
>
>V = Vo * sqrt(Ro/R)
>
>So as R gets bigger, V gets smaller.
>
>Keep in mind that an object in an elliptical orbit is fastest closest in and
>slowest furthest out.
>
Yes, but if a satellite loses energy, it moves closer to the earth.
Its KE increases but its PE decreases even more.
If you put the brakes on an orbiting satellite, it will fall closer to
earth but speed up as it does so. That sounds like a contradiction but
it isn't. When you consider the directions of the force components you
will see how this happens.
Mark Hall
motors about 20 years ago and got all excited about the concept. I tried many
of the experiments that the author proclaimed to work without a doubt. I spent
hundreds of hours tediously repicating several of the experiments with expensive
magnets. Imagine my dismay when I could not get one single magnet motor to work
perpetually. I would not waste my time on it, but I did invent a few magnet
motors that I was absolutely positively certain would work, especially after I
took a few physics classes at college. None of them worked, of course, and I
finally had to come to the conclusion that it was pure bullshit to think that
anyone ever did come up with one that worked. When someone now tells me that
they have figured it out, I say, "great, go build it and then let me see it work
and then I'll congratulate you." but as for me, I have given that one up. It
is a seductive lure to be sure, magnets just have mysterious auro about their
nature.
Lee David Rimar wrote:
> Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could run
> without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a perpetual
> motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets themselves?
>
Robert Dinse
>
> Stuff deleted
> .
> It is possible to maintain a motion without any power input or
> absorption. But what is the use of that. An example is a current
> circulating in a superconductor at very low temperatures (~ 0 K), but
> even that will eventually die away after an extremely long time.
What will it die away from? I was under the understanding superconductors
had zero resistance, and if the current is static, it's not going to radiate
away. So what would cause it to die away?
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Shell Access, Web Hosting, 56K Internet Access, Two-Week Trial!
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com (206) 361-1161 or (800) 246-6874.
Mark Daniels
<nan...@eskimo.com> writes
>In article <wYbr$QAi+e...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk>, Mark Daniels
><j...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Stuff deleted
>> .
>> It is possible to maintain a motion without any power input or
>> absorption. But what is the use of that. An example is a current
>> circulating in a superconductor at very low temperatures (~ 0 K), but
>> even that will eventually die away after an extremely long time.
>
> What will it die away from? I was under the understanding superconductors
>had zero resistance, and if the current is static, it's not going to radiate
>away. So what would cause it to die away?
>
Superconductors, contrary to popular myth, do NOT have zero resistance.
Nothing does. They exhibit extraordinarily LOW resistance, which in most
cases may be considered to be EFFECTIVELY zero. Hence the current will
die away, eventually, after an extremely long period of time.
I believe some have been running for a number of years with with little
noticeable drop in current. But without checking I am not sure exactly
how long.
--
Mark Daniels
Michael Williamson
> Superconductors, contrary to popular myth, do NOT have zero resistance.
> Nothing does. They exhibit extraordinarily LOW resistance, which in most
> cases may be considered to be EFFECTIVELY zero. Hence the current will
> die away, eventually, after an extremely long period of time.
>
> I believe some have been running for a number of years with with little
> noticeable drop in current. But without checking I am not sure exactly
> how long.
Of course, whatever meter you hook up to it will take some energy out of the
system as it takes its reading.
jim...@my-deja.com
"Lee David Rimar" <lee_...@email.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets --
> ... something tapping into the power of the magnets themselves?>
> ...
There isn't any "power" in a magnet
Stationary magnetism is referred to in physics as
a "conservative force field", i.e. it conserves energy.
It's kinda like riding a bicycle up and down a hill.
No matter what path you travel, you expend as much energy
going up as you get back coming down. You can't trick gravity
just by complicated gyrations.
Magnetic fields work the same way. The energy change
at the end-point of any closed path is zero, in a stationary
magnetic field.
Objects pushing or pulling on each other obey Newton's laws --
for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
When a magnet pulls on something, it is in turn pulled upon.
The energy stored in a magnetic field is similar to the
energy stored in a spring. If you gain energy by going
from point A to point B, you lose the exact-same energy
going from point B to point A, regardless of path.
So any magnetic machine that comes back to its starting
position has gained no energy.
It's fairly easy to prove that magnetic fields are conservative,
using elementary calculus. First you prove that the energy
along any infinitesimal path always comes out to zero. Any larger
loop can be built out of infinitesimal paths.
The mistake is in thinking that since a magnet exerts force,
it must have a power source. A spring can exert force
indefinitely, yet has only the 'one time' energy stored in it.
More fundamentally, permanent magnetic fields are due to
orbiting or spinning electric charges inside atoms. There's
no energy source. The electrons can gain or lose energy in
chemical reactions, but again it's a one-time deal. You reverse
the reaction requires the same amount of energy.
The most general type of magnetic machine would be whirling
clouds of charged particles interacting in various ways.
The magnetic fields and energy involved can be calculated
from Maxwell's Equations, but again you're dealing with
conservative force fields. One particle or magnet gains
energy from another, but the total remains the same over each
infinitesimal segment of the path.
Moving magnets generate a traveling electromagnetic wave,
albeit a very small one. That's how radio transmitters work,
by inducing an oscillating electromagnetic field in an
antenna. But again you have conservation of energy -- the
energy you shake into a wave is what you get out.
You can't trick a magnet by moving quickly, because changes
travel at the velocity of light in air, and no object can
move faster than that. ( If you can get an object to travel
faster than light, forget the magnets and call NASA immediately ).
Magnetic molecules can travel ALMOST at the velocity of light,
but energy is still conserved. The observed paths of interacting
molecules are accurately predicted by Maxwell's Equations,
which also account for the energy. If you force magnetic
molecules to follow complex paths, they radiate energy away
as an electromagnetic wave, which contains exactly as much
energy as the molecules lost.
To get around Maxwell's Equations, you'd need something
that doesn't obey Maxwell's Equations -- and magnetism
ain't it, because magnetic fields are a side effect of
Maxwell's Equations applied to moving electrons in atoms
and in circuits.
To understand WHY you can't just do something complicated
and get free energy, you need college physics and some
calculus, to see where the forces go and how they're preserved.
It isn't just a question of 'believing in laws'. Magnetic
fields do their thing with mathematical precision, and the
equations merely reflect that fact. To get around it, you'd
have to change the essential behavior of magnetism, which is
the same in any configuration of magnets, stationary or
otherwise.
As for the patents you listed, notice that they don't actually
claim perpetual motion, or energy from nothing. They describe
magnetic conveyors and such in rather vague terms. The mere
fact that a conveyor uses no power doesn't mean it uses
perpetual motion. Unpowered conveyors are sometimes used
to offload trucks. Some use magnetic brakes or smoothing.
There were even attempts to patent unpowered down-escalators.
A magnetic "motor" can be merely a novelty --
you push it and it keeps going in some interesting way.
Some devices called magnetic "motors" are merely the
output end of a torque converter or magnetic clutch,
patented separately. There's no electricity because
the device fits over a rotating magnetic driver or
some such.
Often parts or devices are patented, not because they do
anything special, but because they're easier to fabricate
or use than previous devices. A particularly shaped part
can be patented, or an unusual geometry for something like
a conveyor. A slightly different disposable razor can be
patented -- even if it works as poorly as your old one.
The tint sunglasses can be patented, if the manufacturer
thinks that particular tint has market value.
Some patents are just for show, to add credibility to
an author's book or investment scheme. But if you sit
down and read patents, you see that many are not particularly
good ideas, and some work poorly if at all -- or work
only aboard a 23'rd century starship which of course
doesn't exist yet to test the claim.
-- Jim Kutz
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jim...@my-deja.com
nan...@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) wrote:
> In article <wYbr$QAi+e...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk>, Mark
Daniels <j...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Stuff deleted
>> .
>> It is possible to maintain a motion without any power input or
>> absorption. But what is the use of that. An example is a current
>> circulating in a superconductor at very low temperatures (~ 0 K), but
>> even that will eventually die away after an extremely long time.
> What will it die away from? I was under the understanding
superconductors
> had zero resistance, and if the current is static, it's not going to
radiate
> away. So what would cause it to die away?
There's no proof that a superconducting current actually lasts
indefinitely. Circulating currents have persisted for decades with
no detectable degradations. Even minute current loops containing only
a few quanta of magnetic flux don't degrade detectably while
under observation.
But over a time comparable to the life of the universe, the
protons in the superconducting material would tend to decay
under current theories. The material would slowly disintegrate.
Rodney
>
> There isn't any "power" in a magnet
>
> Stationary magnetism is referred to in physics as
> a "conservative force field", i.e. it conserves energy.
>
EXCELLENT POST
Jim, thanks for the facts explained so that most of these free energy
people can understand them.
I will be saving it, to send to those who hit me with the PM's in the
future
John Gilmer
Rodney <rdl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:387A1AB9...@bellsouth.net...
>
>
> >
> > There isn't any "power" in a magnet
> >
> > Stationary magnetism is referred to in physics as
> > a "conservative force field", i.e. it conserves energy.
Maybe, but usually a "conservative" field has the property that when you
integrate it over a closed path the result is zero.
Ampere's law says that the closed integral of a magnetic field is equal to
the current flow through the any surface defined by that path.
This doesn't NOT mean that you can get something for nothing.
JLG
Unknown
There is a patent on a permant magnent motor. It has been
shown to work. ti takes an extreamly long time to get up to speed. It
is very touchy to adjust. and very difficult to control the speed. The
cost of magnents is in the ball park of 1000.00. I have a friend who
has a Mill we are seriously considering trying to build one of hte
units. They are NOT perp motion machines. the Fuel is the magnents,
After some period of time the magnetic fields are negated but the
opposing fields. It does require a starter motor to run.
I am not saying it is the end all answer to power needs. but
it might make a neat toy.
On 4 Jan 2000 11:48:47 -0500, ni...@ufo.ee.vill.edu (Nick Pine) wrote:
>Ed McBride <emcb...@wybron.com> wrote:
>
>>...I think the answer is that the patent office doesn't care if something
>>works... It also, I think, must be "useful", but this just means there
>>is some obvious value IF it works. I do not think the patent office cares
>>whether it WILL work, unless, I presume, it's obviouly not going to.
>
>In the past, they have interpreted the word "useful" to mean "it works," or
>at least "the description offered was sufficient to convince an examiner
>that it would work." I suppose this practice will continue.
>
>Nick
>
>Nicholson L. Pine System design and consulting
>Pine Associates, Ltd. (610) 489-1475/0545
>821 Collegeville Road Fax: (610) 489-7057
>Collegeville, PA 19426 Email: ni...@ece.vill.edu
>
>Computer simulation and modeling. High performance, low cost, solar heating
>and cogeneration system design. BSEE, MSEE. Senior Member, IEEE. Registered
>US Patent Agent. Web site: http://www.ece.vill.edu/~nick
>
C.David Johnson
Missionary searching for a Field
http://www.siteblock.net
Do not reply to the posted address it belongs to
the Federal Trade Commissions Spam enforcement Division
Visit my site to get the real e-mail.
Speeedy Dan
> Of course, whatever meter you hook up to it will take some energy out of
the
> system as it takes its reading.
Didn't Heisenberg have a theory about that ?! There's no way to measure a
system without influencing it (and thus your measurements). His theory realy
related to measuring atom-sized particle behaviour, but that's what
electrons are.
--
Greetz, Speeedy Dan
< May the GeForce be with you >
*** Fun usually comes in small packages ***
*** labeled 'ErazorX' ***
D.H. Kelly
provided they have very good bearings and are not required to do any work.
They have been around for some time and there are several patents which are
almost worth the paper they are printed on.
If you take energy from the magnets, they become paperweights- so one goes
out and spends another $1000 for new magnets? Considering energy density of
even good magnets, this should only come to about $1000-10000 /per kWh
(estimated). Expensive toy.
If you don't take the little bit of energy stored in the magnets, you have
a perpetual motion machine (a.k.a "overunity device").
--
Don Kelly
dke...@nabunalimo.lark.com
remove the bull to reply
C. David Johnson <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:387aad38...@news.flash.net...
William L. Bahn
experiments have been conducted (no pun intended) with the intent of
establishing a lower bound for the conductivity. To the best of my
knowledge, none have been successful. The upper bound had been repeatedly
lowered.
But in making a superconducting loop of any extent, it is extremely
difficult to avoid contact resistances at the charge injection point and
practical (low-Tc) conductors are in a matrix of supporting material that is
resistive and so you have current transfer loses. But even with these
practical limitations on real world systems you can get time constants on
the order of decades.
Mark Daniels wrote in message ...
>In article <859dod$u06$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse
><nan...@eskimo.com> writes
>>In article <wYbr$QAi+e...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk>, Mark Daniels
>><j...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> Stuff deleted
>>> .
>>> It is possible to maintain a motion without any power input or
>>> absorption. But what is the use of that. An example is a current
>>> circulating in a superconductor at very low temperatures (~ 0 K), but
>>> even that will eventually die away after an extremely long time.
>>
>> What will it die away from? I was under the understanding
superconductors
>>had zero resistance, and if the current is static, it's not going to
radiate
>>away. So what would cause it to die away?
>>
>
>Superconductors, contrary to popular myth, do NOT have zero resistance.
>Nothing does. They exhibit extraordinarily LOW resistance, which in most
>cases may be considered to be EFFECTIVELY zero. Hence the current will
>die away, eventually, after an extremely long period of time.
>
>I believe some have been running for a number of years with with little
>noticeable drop in current. But without checking I am not sure exactly
>how long.
>--
>Mark Daniels
>
Mark Kinsler
>It has been claimed to work. Some of these things run for a long time-
>provided they have very good bearings and are not required to do any work.
>They have been around for some time and there are several patents which are
>almost worth the paper they are printed on.
>If you take energy from the magnets, they become paperweights- so one goes
>out and spends another $1000 for new magnets? Considering energy density of
>even good magnets, this should only come to about $1000-10000 /per kWh
>(estimated). Expensive toy.
>
> If you don't take the little bit of energy stored in the magnets, you have
>a perpetual motion machine (a.k.a "overunity device").
Yikes. I didn't know there was a permanent-magnet motor that did even
this much. It really gets its feeble amount of oomph by de-magnetizing a
permanent magnet?
M Kinsler
--
............................................................................
114 Columbia Ave. Athens, Ohio USA 45701 voice740.594.3737 fax740.592.3059
Home of the "How Things Work" engineering program for adults and kids.
See http://www.frognet.net/~kinsler
R.H. Allen
<gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>
>Rodney <rdl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:387A1AB9...@bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > Stationary magnetism is referred to in physics as
>> > a "conservative force field", i.e. it conserves energy.
>
>integrate it over a closed path the result is zero.
>
>Ampere's law says that the closed integral of a magnetic field is equal to
>the current flow through the any surface defined by that path.
True enough, but I believe the poster was addressing the topic of
permanent magnets -- hence the term "stationary magnetism" above -- so
the current flow would be zero.
David Hatunen
Mark Kinsler <kin...@frognet.net> wrote:
>D.H. Kelly <dke...@nanaimo.ark.com> wrote:
>> If you don't take the little bit of energy stored in the
>>magnets, you have a perpetual motion machine (a.k.a "overunity
>>device").
>
>Yikes. I didn't know there was a permanent-magnet motor that did
>even this much. It really gets its feeble amount of oomph by
>de-magnetizing a permanent magnet?
While it almost seems reasonable, the very nature of permanent
magnets makes it difficult to demagnetize them without an energy
input. If such a motor exists I would sure want to know more about
just how it does this. After all the distinguishing characteristic
of a permanent magnet is that the magnetization is permanent.
Anyone who has ever dealt with very old PM loudpeakers can attest
to the permanence.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
D.H. Kelly
My point was that, "if net energy is taken from the magnets, then the effect
would be to demagnetize them"- they beome paperweights.
My mistatement was to even imply that net energy can be provided by the
magnets.
In fact, there is a net loss of energy in any cyclic magnetic machine due to
hysteresis (however small) and this loss must be provided from an external
source. Permanent magnets are designed with this as a consideration- don't
go too far down the B-H curve or you've had it.
Old PM loudspeakers are designed with a fixed gap which is not changed. They
are conventional permanent magnet motors in which the magnet field is not
changed as the coil current produces a field perpendicular to the permanent
magnet and there is no demagnetizing effect. Thus they don't even go through
hysteresis and there is no weakening of flux except due to external fields
(i.e. if the magnet is rotated in the earths field, it may slowly
deteriorate)
D. H. Kelly
dke...@nabunalimo.lark.com
remove the bull to reply
David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:%x3f4.29$6d....@typhoon.sonic.net...
William L. Bahn
you get to assume that it works at that point.
There was a time, I'm pretty sure, that you had to submit a working model.
It would be interesting to know when and why that was done away with.
Eric H. Bowen wrote in message <38725CA2.MD...@urjet.net>...
>> Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could
run
>> without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a
perpetual
>> motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets
themselves?
>
>> I've read a few patents for such devices and I'm told there are others.
>> This leads me to wonder: If they don't work, how/why were the patents
>> issued? But if they do work, why didn't they change the world?
>
>A device does not have to "work" for a patent to be issued. All that
>a prospective patent holder needs to show is that his design is
>original. Whether or not it is useful is another matter entirely.
>
>--------Eric H. Bowen
Eric H. Bowen
Eric Hocking
>I think you have to show that the design is useful - the caveat being that
>you get to assume that it works at that point.
>
>>a prospective patent holder needs to show is that his design is
>>original. Whether or not it is useful is another matter entirely.
It needs to be demonstrated to be useful, again from the horse's mouth at:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Henry_Wilson
wrote:
>Permanent magnet motors are used where space is a limitation such as on
>submarines.
>They are not perpetual motion machines, the magnet simply replaces the rotor
>electric field. You still need electricity to get the device to do work.
>Obviously, they are very expensive, but usually designed to be very
>efficient.
>
> JAK
This would have to be the craziest thread ever. People are talking
about two entirely different things.
There is no mystery about conventional permanent magnet motors, They
are everywhere, eg. driving car windscreen wipers. They are cheaper
and probably lighter than wound field motors but less powerful. The
work they do comes from the electrical energy put through their wound
armatures.
The other group of dreamers seems to think that energy can be
perpetually extracted from a system of magnets by somehow using the
forces between them. That is certainly not the case. The energy in the
magnetic field of a permanent magnet is very small. There may be
ornamental gadgets that use the relatively easy demagnetisation of
soft iron to run for a long time in low friction conditions but the
amount of work they do is negligible. It is no more than what was put
in when the iron was magnetised anyway. I don't know of any such
devices but it certainly should be possible to make them. I once made
a type of inverted magnetic pendulum which rocked back and forth
between two bar magnets for days.
Soft iron is easily magnetised and demagnetised, of course, whereas
hard iron isn't. The alloys used in permanent magnets have been
specially developed to retain their magnetism even when subject to
strong reverse fields. They are magnetised while in the near molten
state.
Mark Kinsler
>>submarines.
They use a permanent magnet motor on a submarine? Those must be
impressive motors no matter how they get their field magnetization!
>I once made
>a type of inverted magnetic pendulum which rocked back and forth
>between two bar magnets for days.
No fooling? Can you provide details?
Mark Kinsler
Mark Kinsler
>It would be interesting to know when and why that was done away with.
I think they ran out of room to put the damn things. A lot of the stuff
at the Smithsonian (which I hope will someday recover its wits enough to
make a coherent electrical exhibit) is patent models.
M Kinsler
Henry_Wilson
wrote:
>>>Permanent magnet motors are used where space is a limitation such as on
>>>submarines.
>
>They use a permanent magnet motor on a submarine? Those must be
>impressive motors no matter how they get their field magnetization!
>
>>I once made
>>a type of inverted magnetic pendulum which rocked back and forth
>>between two bar magnets for days.
>
>No fooling? Can you provide details?
>
>Mark Kinsler
>
>--
Just mount a bar magnet on the top of a wire or a strip of metal like
a 'T'. Then place two other bar magnets on each side at the top, such
* T *.
If you orientate the magnets properly you can set the thing rocking
about the bottom fulchrum and it will rock backwards and forwards
slowly for quite a long time. It looks quite weird and spectacular if
you hide all the magnets.
R.H. Allen
>Permanent magnet motors are used where space is a limitation such as on
>submarines.
>They are not perpetual motion machines, the magnet simply replaces the rotor
>electric field. You still need electricity to get the device to do work.
>Obviously, they are very expensive, but usually designed to be very
>efficient.
Of course they're not perpetual motion machines, but I made no such
claim, either -- I simply pointed out why the original poster was
correct in saying the magnetic field from a permanent magnet is
conservative. I did not say that no electricity is needed to make a
permanent magnet motor work, only that no electricity is needed to
make permanent magnets magnetic. Big difference. Sorry if I was
unclear.
>
> JAK
>
>R.H. Allen wrote in message <387ca5a7....@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:00:12 -0500, "John Gilmer"
>><gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Rodney <rdl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>news:387A1AB9...@bellsouth.net...
>>>> >
>>>> > There isn't any "power" in a magnet
>>>> >
>>>> > Stationary magnetism is referred to in physics as
>>>> > a "conservative force field", i.e. it conserves energy.
>>>
William L. Bahn
Eric Hocking wrote in message <85kafg$4u2$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>...
>William L. Bahn wrote in message ...
>>I think you have to show that the design is useful - the caveat being that
>>you get to assume that it works at that point.
>>
>>Eric H. Bowen wrote in message <38725CA2.MD...@urjet.net>...
>>>A device does not have to "work" for a patent to be issued. All that
>>>a prospective patent holder needs to show is that his design is
>>>original. Whether or not it is useful is another matter entirely.
>
>It needs to be demonstrated to be useful, again from the horse's mouth at:
>
>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
I don't get that from the site. I see that it says that it must be operative
to be considered useful. OK. I see that it says that the idea or suggestions
for a process or machine can't be patented. OK. I see where it says that "a
complete description" is required. I don't see where it says that the
machine must ever be demonstrated or, indeed, ever built. As long as you
have a description that satisfies the patent examiner that it could be
built, according to your description, then you have done what is required.
In fact, a little bit of looking around the site and I found the following
page:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/models.htm
It very rarely needs to be demonstrated, direct from the horse's mouth.
Notice that while it says that a specimen of a microbiological invention
will be required, it only says that a working model of an alleged perpetual
motion machine might be required (though I imagine it routinely is unless
the wording is such that it isn't obvious to the examiner that the person is
claiming perpetual motion).
Mark Kinsler
>a 'T'. Then place two other bar magnets on each side at the top, such
>* T *.
>
>If you orientate the magnets properly you can set the thing rocking
>about the bottom fulchrum and it will rock backwards and forwards
>slowly for quite a long time. It looks quite weird and spectacular if
>you hide all the magnets.
What you're getting from the magnets in this device is a
magnetically-supported bearing. It's a good demonstration but doesn't
obtain energy from anywhere but the original impulse that gets it started.
I imagine that air currents help keep it moving.
Mark Kinsler
Eric Hocking
William L. Bahn wrote in message ...
>
>Eric Hocking wrote in message <85kafg$4u2$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>...
>>William L. Bahn wrote in message ...
>>>I think you have to show that the design is useful - the caveat being
that
>>>you get to assume that it works at that point.
>>>
>>>Eric H. Bowen wrote in message <38725CA2.MD...@urjet.net>...
>>>>A device does not have to "work" for a patent to be issued. All that
>>>>a prospective patent holder needs to show is that his design is
>>>>original. Whether or not it is useful is another matter entirely.
>>
>>It needs to be demonstrated to be useful, again from the horse's mouth at:
>>
>>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
>
>
>I don't get that from the site.
Eric B's comment was on whether a device worked or was useful. There was a
great deal of opinion on what is eligible for a patent, so I merely pointed
to the source. On the above page, relating just to the paragraph of Eric
B's I quoted:
"The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term
“useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter
has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine
which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called
useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent."
...I don't see where it says that the
>machine must ever be demonstrated or, indeed, ever built.
I must have snipped the discussion about presenting a working model, and
therefore my post wasn't aimed at answering that. But, using the site
quoted above, you can get all sorts of questions answered on the subject -
as well as a searchable database of patents. Interesting stuff in there.
>It very rarely needs to be demonstrated, direct from the horse's mouth.
>Notice that while it says that a specimen of a microbiological invention
>will be required, it only says that a working model of an alleged perpetual
>motion machine might be required (though I imagine it routinely is unless
>the wording is such that it isn't obvious to the examiner that the person
is
>claiming perpetual motion).
There is mention of perpetual motion machine applications (exclusions) on
the site - but I'm damned if I can find it at the moment.
William L. Bahn
Eric Hocking wrote in message <85mpoa$5ed$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>...
>
>William L. Bahn wrote in message ...
>>
>>Eric Hocking wrote in message <85kafg$4u2$1...@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>...
>>>William L. Bahn wrote in message ...
>>>>I think you have to show that the design is useful - the caveat being
>that
>>>>you get to assume that it works at that point.
>>>>
>>>>Eric H. Bowen wrote in message <38725CA2.MD...@urjet.net>...
>>>>>A device does not have to "work" for a patent to be issued. All that
>>>>>a prospective patent holder needs to show is that his design is
>>>>>original. Whether or not it is useful is another matter entirely.
>>>
>>>It needs to be demonstrated to be useful, again from the horse's mouth
at:
>>>
>>>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
>>
>>
>>I don't get that from the site.
>
>Eric B's comment was on whether a device worked or was useful. There was a
>great deal of opinion on what is eligible for a patent, so I merely pointed
>to the source. On the above page, relating just to the paragraph of Eric
>B's I quoted:
>
>"The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The
term
>“useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter
>has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine
>which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called
>useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent."
>
Agreed. But the point I am making (and was making from the get-go) relies on
the distinction between claiming that a device is operative and proving that
a device is operative. Since no working model is required, except in rare
circumstances and only when specifically requested by the Patent Office, all
that someone has to do is use enough skillfully worded technobabble to
convince the patent examiners that there is no obvious reason to suspect
that the device as described is not operative. The patent examiners aren't
stupid, but they are not experts at everything and they have a lot of patent
applications to sift through and their job, after all, is to issue patents.
It's better to issue a patent for something that doesn't work than to not
issue a patent for something that does.
>...I don't see where it says that the
>>machine must ever be demonstrated or, indeed, ever built.
>
>I must have snipped the discussion about presenting a working model, and
>therefore my post wasn't aimed at answering that. But, using the site
>quoted above, you can get all sorts of questions answered on the subject -
>as well as a searchable database of patents. Interesting stuff in there.
>
I did use the site. That is where I got the information below. And I posted
a reference to that information.
>>It very rarely needs to be demonstrated, direct from the horse's mouth.
>>Notice that while it says that a specimen of a microbiological invention
>>will be required, it only says that a working model of an alleged
perpetual
>>motion machine might be required (though I imagine it routinely is unless
>>the wording is such that it isn't obvious to the examiner that the person
>is
>>claiming perpetual motion).
>
>There is mention of perpetual motion machine applications (exclusions) on
>the site - but I'm damned if I can find it at the moment.
Then go back to my last post and click on the reference I provided. That be
the page.
DAB
reference to the base idea) if you look up a patent by Howard Johnson
(possibly Johnston). The patent was granted around mid 1970's and
specifically dealt with extracting energy from magnets. The patent was
turned down several times by the PTO because it smelled like Perpetual
motion, He prevailed by demonstrating the method of creating a no energy
input motor was by using the energy stored in the magnets themselves.
Since that invention has never seen commercial use, I suspect it probably
didn't work as intended. The important thing is that he was able to
convince the PTO that it did work and backed it up with adequate 'proofs'.
I lost my copy of the patent and can't remember the #).
Regards, Don.
Henry_Wilson <He...@the.forefront> wrote in message
news:387e4cf0...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:41:00 GMT, kin...@frognet.net (Mark Kinsler)
> wrote:
>
> >>>Permanent magnet motors are used where space is a limitation such as on
> >>>submarines.
> >
> >They use a permanent magnet motor on a submarine? Those must be
> >impressive motors no matter how they get their field magnetization!
> >
> >>I once made
> >>a type of inverted magnetic pendulum which rocked back and forth
> >>between two bar magnets for days.
> >
> >No fooling? Can you provide details?
> >
> >Mark Kinsler
> >
> >--
Science Hobbyist
could run
> without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a
perpetual
> motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets
themselves?
Here's a discussion group for this topic (has a couple of
hundred subscribers):
FREENRG-L
http://www.amasci.com/freenrgl/flist.html
There have been a few claimed successes (even one that's fairly
recent), but none were ever replicated. The problem is typical:
if it works, the inventor keeps it secret, but since few people
believe it or will attempt replication, things reach a permanent
impasse.
People have tried reproducing some of the patented magnet-motors,
but with no success.
Why *ISN'T* it just worthless perpetual motion? Well, if it works,
it must exist. Any seeming PM machine, if it actually operates,
cannot be "perpetual motion", and will eventually lead to a new
source of energy. If the nonlinear behavior of permanent magnets
contains such things as mass/energy conversion or maybe
"rectification" of the zero-point backgroun, there's a good chance
that the professionals will stumble across it but overlook it, while
the "crackpots" will not. (If you saw excess energy coming from
your equipment, wouldn't you ignore it as a measurment error?)
((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William Beaty bbe...@microscan.com
Software Engineer http://www.microscan.com
Microscan Inc., Renton, WA 425-226-5700 x1135
Duane C. Johnson
DAB wrote:
> I think you will find the kind of information you are seeking (or at least a
> reference to the base idea) if you look up a patent by Howard Johnson
> (possibly Johnston). The patent was granted around mid 1970's and
> specifically dealt with extracting energy from magnets. The patent was
> turned down several times by the PTO because it smelled like Perpetual
> motion, He prevailed by demonstrating the method of creating a no energy
> input motor was by using the energy stored in the magnets themselves.
I have a link to his patents here:
http://www.redrrok.com/neat.htm#wacko
He has 3 patents.
--
CUL8ER \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ Receiver
Powered by\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ [*]
Thermonuclear \ \Solar\Energy\from the Sun \ /////|
Energy(the Sun) \ \ \ \ \\ \ / / /\/ / /|
\ \ \ \ \ /\ / \/ / / / |
WA0VBE \ \ \ \ / /\ \/ / / \/ /|
Ziggy \ \ \/ / / \ \/ \/ /\ |
\ / \ \/ / /\ \\ / \ / / |
"Red Rock Energy" === ===\ / \ / \ === \ / ===
Duane C. Johnson, Designer=== === \ \ === / |
1825 Florence St Mirrors,Heliostats,Controls & Mounts|
White Bear Lake, Minnesota \ \ / |
USA 55110-3364 \ \ |
(651)635-5O65 work \ \ / |
(651)426-4766 home copyright \ \ |
(651)583-2O62 Red Rock Energy Site (C)980907 \ / |
red...@redrok.com (my primary email: address)===\ |
\ |
duane....@unisys.com (Unisys address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com/index.htm (My New Web site) \ |
\|
These are my opinions, and not that of Unisys Corp. ===
John Gilmer
DAB <ai...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:85qdc4$bju$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> I think you will find the kind of information you are seeking (or at least
a
> reference to the base idea) if you look up a patent by Howard Johnson
> (possibly Johnston). The patent was granted around mid 1970's and
> specifically dealt with extracting energy from magnets. The patent was
> turned down several times by the PTO because it smelled like Perpetual
> motion, He prevailed by demonstrating the method of creating a no energy
> input motor was by using the energy stored in the magnets themselves.
>
> didn't work as intended. The important thing is that he was able to
> convince the PTO that it did work and backed it up with adequate 'proofs'.
> I lost my copy of the patent and can't remember the #).
There is no question that there is energy stored when you permanently
magnetize a magnet. That someone discovered a way to (in theory) extract
that energy is interesting and I would be curious to learn the details.
Of course, it just doesn't take much energy to magnize most magnets: once
you create an external field above a certain strength, you have done it.
It may take a lot of power but since it doesn't take long, little energy (=
power * time) is needed. Little energy in means little energy out!
JLG
Henry_Wilson
wrote:
>>Just mount a bar magnet on the top of a wire or a strip of metal like
>>a 'T'. Then place two other bar magnets on each side at the top, such
>>* T *.
>>
>>If you orientate the magnets properly you can set the thing rocking
>>about the bottom fulchrum and it will rock backwards and forwards
>>slowly for quite a long time. It looks quite weird and spectacular if
>>you hide all the magnets.
>
>What you're getting from the magnets in this device is a
>magnetically-supported bearing. It's a good demonstration but doesn't
>obtain energy from anywhere but the original impulse that gets it started.
>
>I imagine that air currents help keep it moving.
>
>Mark Kinsler
>
I wasn't suggesting that it was extracting energy from the magnetic
field. It was purely an interesting demo. I can't think of any
practical use for it although there could easily be one.
The main difference between it and a conventional pendulum is that the
magnetic one slows towards the centre whilst the gravitational one
reaches maximum velocity there. That provides an unnatural experience.
By fiddling with the positions of the magnets, I managed to make the
whole cycle slow down to a period of around ten seconds.
The motion eventually decays through air damping.
I can visualize ways to keep the oscillation going for long periods
using a small electrical pulse or if there is a radiant heat source
nearby or if there is a constant air current. Even a mechanical
mechanism like a clock spring would do the trick.
There is an opportunity of making a neat little desktop ornament based
on this principle.
D.H. Kelly
work better for storage of energy. This appears to be a variation on a theme
as presented elsewhere (and patented)and found useless. Alternatively the
energy used for the drive motor could be stored in a battery just as
efficiently and a lot more cheaply. You are at least honest enough to not
claim perpetual motion.
I suggest that you look at the magnetic field stored energy before and after
a revolution. It is the same unless the magnets have deteriorated. That is
energy is not extracted from the magnetic field and all energy in is from
the drive motor. None is stored in the field and some isstored in flywheel
action- that is all that you have.
. --
Don Kelly
C. David Johnson <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:3882aab9...@news.flash.net...
> http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US04151431__
Unknown
Unknown
I have to be honest. I could be wrong but here is my interest
and plan for using the Perm Magnet Motor.
IF it works, And if it is feasable.
IT WILL NOT RUN FOREVER. Friction, Drag, hell the unit spining in the
air would product enough drag to eventually slow it down.
How ever if you got a balanced mass flywheel and attached a small low
PWM DC electric motor. Isn't possable to get enough kinetic mass and
power stored up in the flywheel to run say a 40-70 amp alternator for
5-6 hours a day?
You would definatly have to hand start the "Motor" use the small
electric motor to help get it up to speed. Under a no load condition
let the unit get up to speed. This would take a while. once ti go to
x% disengage the electric motor. let the unit come to full speed. The
inital spin up may take a day a week or even two. It may even take a
3/4 or 1 HP 110 Vac motor to get it up to speed.
Using an effency rating of 50% there would need to be 2.27 HP stored
in the flywheel. if the load was applied in bursts and the system had
time to recoup before the next load burst.
10 Minutes an hour = 4 hours gen time = ~280 Adc
a bank of 5 of these gen-sets caould all but keep the power system
fully charged full time.
I know you would have to use the high end bearings, Cobalt
Magnets.....
But what if.........
No Perpetual Motion, No something for nothing. Just an experiment that
could ease the load a little and be a hell of a lot of fun to build. a
bit on the excentric & expensive side but funn just the same.
expert
> Missionary searching for a Field
> http://www.siteblock.net
>
> Do not reply to the posted address it belongs to
> the Federal Trade Commissions Spam enforcement Division
Don't be silly David.
If u don't want us to reply, just use the right e-mail address.
Gov is on obligation to meet rules.
Duane C. Johnson
"Duane C. Johnson" wrote:
> I have a link to his patents here:
> http://www.redrrok.com/neat.htm#wacko
> He has 3 patents.
Sorry, my fingers misspoke.
http://www.redrok.com/neat.htm#wacko
Look for "Perpetual Motion" and "Johnson; Howard R".
Eric Hocking
on
>the distinction between claiming that a device is operative and proving
that
>a device is operative. Since no working model is required, except in rare
>circumstances and only when specifically requested by the Patent Office,
all
>that someone has to do is use enough skillfully worded technobabble to
>convince the patent examiners that there is no obvious reason to suspect
>that the device as described is not operative. The patent examiners aren't
>stupid, but they are not experts at everything and they have a lot of
patent
>applications to sift through and their job, after all, is to issue patents.
>It's better to issue a patent for something that doesn't work than to not
>issue a patent for something that does.
Looks like we're generally in agreement then William.
I always wondered what the review process involved and the resources the P.O
relied upon to make decisions. I hazard there would be certain criteria
that an application would have to meet to be accepted - probably outlined on
their site.
I merely provided the URL as there seemed to be a great deal of personal
conjecture going on that could have been more quickly sorted by referring to
the "horse's mouth".
>>There is mention of perpetual motion machine applications (exclusions) on
>>the site - but I'm damned if I can find it at the moment.
>
>Then go back to my last post and click on the reference I provided. That be
>the page.
Perhaps the next time the issue comes up, just to refresh my memory.
Are all the crosspostings necessary on this post? I'm actually quite
surprised my newsfeeder didn't filter them out.
Jon W. Mooney
using it quickly. The energy to drive the small motor has to come from
somewhere, though. Total energy in equals total energy out (including
losses).
Best regards,
Jon W. Mooney, ASA
Acoustics by JW Mooney http://www.jwmooney.com
-------------------------------------------------
author of "Inventor's Guide..." http://www.jwmooney.com/pubs.htm#guide
and "Sound Advice" column in Walls and Ceilings Magazine
http://www.wconline.com
C. David Johnson wrote in message <3882aabd...@news.flash.net>...
> C.David Johnson
> Missionary searching for a Field
> http://www.siteblock.net
>
>
> Do not reply to the posted address it belongs to
> the Federal Trade Commissions Spam enforcement Division
Ed Schick
fully charged full time."
Nope - not using the efficiency number you stated - 50%
If you lose 50% of the power on the input side, how are you
going to replace almost all of what you used to get the gen-sets
up to speed?
The flywheel concept is great for applications where greater
"quasi-instantaneous" output power is needed. Say I need to
drop a 700 pound weight on something, from a height of 10
feet. I'm not strong enough to lift 700 pounds - and I don't
have a 700 pound weight, either. So I carry 7 100 pound
weights up the ladder one at a time - (the 7 weights are analogous
to your multiple flywheel gen-sets, and my slow pace up the ladder
is analogous to your slow start up, requiring considerably less
"quasi-instantaneous" power to get the flywheels up to speed,
or the weights up the ladder) - and place them on a platform.
I tie them together, and slide the whole thing off the platform,
crushing the object below. I get (by comparison) an instantaneous
energy release that accomplishes the task that I didn't have
enough strength to accomplish without storing energy over time.
In real world examples, flywheels find application where there is
a varying load placed on the system, or a varying source of input.
They "smooth" the delivery of energy to the output, releasing their
energy when the load increases, and storing energy when the input
energy exceeds the load demand. No reason that can't be done
as you described - but your expectation seems to exceed the
efficiency you mentioned. Perhaps you are indicating that you would
put energy in for a week or 2, and get energy out for only 5-6
hours? I took "full time" to mean the whole time the apparatus
was operating, not just the time the alternator was generating
40-70 amps. Ed
ElectricPete
> PWM DC electric motor. Isn't possable to get enough kinetic mass and
> power stored up in the flywheel to run say a 40-70 amp alternator for
> 5-6 hours a day?
that you're using a separate generator. Some designs can use the
same machine as both motor and generator.
> a bank of 5 of these gen-sets caould all but keep the power system
> fully charged full time.
One complication - the more sensitive your system is to frequency variation,
the bigger your challenge is.
You've got a boat-load of energy stored in your system - but remove 1% of
your energy and your speed (frequency)
has dropped 1%. If your using a plain old synchronous generator (generator
in sync with mechanical speed of rotor), then forget ever being able to
operate in parallel with other machines (wasn't it intended to use this as a
peaker).
Two possible ways to get around the problem of changing frequency while
coasting down:
1 - generate DC, and then either use DC (I don't know what your system is)
or convert to ac at 60hz.
2 - Written pole technology allows the poles of the rotor to actually be
changed dynamically to maintain constant electrical frequency while machine
is winding down in mechanical speed. If memory serves me right, some
written-pole fly-wheel UPS's coast down from 100% speed to 25% speed all the
while maintaining 60hz. Pretty remarkable, huh? It seems to me this
written pole technology also has some application in motors although I can't
remember what it is.
electricpete
Bill Kunka
Certainly a permanent mag field can be established...so what? The Rotor
still has to be supplied with electrical energy..measured in watts lets
get on w/it!!
Jerry
in a weightless environment with no friction (perhaps deep space) and spin
it, I would say that the motion is effectively perpetual (barring asteroid
strike, death of the universe, etc....) of course you can't perpetually
extract usable POWER from such a motion but that is beside the point :)
Science Hobbyist wrote in message <85p7gg$9b6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Jim Carr
... bizarre cross-post noted; bogus group snipped and followups reduced ...
... Feel free to add a newsgroup back if really needed.
In article <859dod$u06$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
Robert Dinse <nan...@eskimo.com> writes
}
} In article <wYbr$QAi+e...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk>,
} Mark Daniels <j...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk> writes:
} >
} > Stuff deleted
} >
} > It is possible to maintain a motion without any power input or
} > absorption. But what is the use of that. An example is a current
} > circulating in a superconductor at very low temperatures (~ 0 K), but
} > even that will eventually die away after an extremely long time.
}
} What will it die away from? I was under the understanding superconductors
} had zero resistance, and if the current is static, it's not going to radiate
} away. So what would cause it to die away?
In article <nDgeJCAG...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk>
Mark Daniels <j...@third-millennium.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Superconductors, contrary to popular myth, do NOT have zero resistance.
>Nothing does.
Please cite the experiment that you claim shows that a superconductor
has non-zero resistance to a few sigma. AFAIK, all experiments are
consistent with zero to experimental uncertainties, just as the
phase transitions all look "sharp" to measurement accuracy.
>They exhibit extraordinarily LOW resistance, which in most
>cases may be considered to be EFFECTIVELY zero. Hence the current will
>die away, eventually, after an extremely long period of time.
This is speculation on your part unless the resistance is known.
For example, what time constant would you give for the die off?
>I believe some have been running for a number of years with with little
>noticeable drop in current. But without checking I am not sure exactly
>how long.
In other words, you don't actually know if what you claimed is
true or not. Try again. And note followups set to sci.physics.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Ptarmigan
>One complication - the more sensitive your system is to frequency
variation,
>the bigger your challenge is.
>You've got a boat-load of energy stored in your system - but remove 1% of
>your energy and your speed (frequency)
>has dropped 1%. If your using a plain old synchronous generator
(generator
>in sync with mechanical speed of rotor), then forget ever being able to
>operate in parallel with other machines (wasn't it intended to use this as
a
>peaker).
>
It's not quite that bad, the energy tied up in the flywheel is related to
the angular velocity by E=1/2 * M * w^2 so a 1% fall in energy will result
in a 0.51% change in rpm, a 50% change in stored energy will give a 29.3%
change in rpm (assuming no mass change).
However your argument remains correct.
I came across a similar problem with a small gas turbine generating set, we
had to rectify and use a microprocessor controlled inverter to re-generate
the supply. Having designed one IGBT based switchmode inverter (@50Kw), I
wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy. Synchronizing it with the mains is
a real bastard too.
Pt
jim...@my-deja.com
"Jerry" <j...@wworld.com> wrote:
> Always with the perpetual motion machine is impossible crap. Put an
object
> in a weightless environment with no friction (perhaps deep space) and
spin
> it, I would say that the motion is effectively perpetual
Heck, just toss the object on the ground. Thermal motion is perpetual.
I think they mean non-random motion that doesn't degrade to entropy.
When I was growing up, it was always "perpetual motion MACHINE",
something you could take to the patent office, usually mechanical,
pictured as running in the open, implying some sort of power source
to counter air resistance. Ideally it was something you could make
out of whirling weights and magnets.
The spinning object won't work, unless you put the object in a cooler at
absolute zero
which takes power.
Otherwise, thermal background radiation at the ambient temperature
of the
universe eventually gets through the shielding. Unless your object is a
perfect
spherical reflector, the spinning surface will absorb and re-radiate
that
infrared energy, doppler-shifted by the spin, and carrying away
momentum.
The object would also have to be a sphere of homogeneous density, or
it'd radiate
away minute gravity waves carrying energy.
Plus you've got the magnetic moments of the subatomic particles within
the
sphere. Even if perfectly aligned they don't cancel out entirely. and
you get
a minute multipole moment emitting a minute electromagnetic wave <grin>.
David
wrote:
>>Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could run
>>without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a perpetual
>>motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets themselves?
>
Every now and then in some department store you will see one of those
kinetic sculptures. Those are a kind of permanent magnet motor. Give
it a little kick and the magnets help to extend the motion. But extend
is the big word here. For a short linear haul or wind up they may have
some use. But think of this, if all flux fields are equal it would be
self dampening and would bump to a quick stall.
David
John Nagle
> >>Is it possible to build a motor using only permanent magnets that could run
> >>without any electricity or other energy input? Avoid calling it a perpetual
> >>motion machine--something tapping into the power of the magnets themselves?
No. That idea has occured to many people over the last
few centuries, and it doesn't work.
General rule on perpetual motion: no combination of energy-losing
operations will gain energy.
John Nagle