what's goin on here?

More
22 years 4 months ago #3088 by Jim
Reply from was created by Jim
It could be the math is the cause rather than real effects. You say the EM theory and particle theory differ on which effects are real and I would suspect the particle theory is false since it only exists because billions of dollars are spent to keep it going. If the money was not being dumped into this theory it would be disguarded. EM theory has real benefits and may be wrong in some ways so why not fix this theory?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 4 months ago #2963 by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
While the behaviour of the "unipolar motor" in the Faraday's scheme is only to be expected (since the magnet's field has axial symmetry), the paradox lies rather in the implication of possible reactionless rotation, which means angular momentum is not conserved. Converting reactionless rotation into any other reactionless motion is a trivial task. Thus we'd have a "energy-to-momentum" direct conversion, and both the momentum and angular momentum conservation breached, along with the proof of existence of aether and absolute frame.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

But, unfortunately, some of the torque is still transferred to the magnet by the magnetic field of the current in the rotating disk; thus the magnet still rotates in direction opposite to the disk rotation. So like they say - close, but no cigar.<img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 3 months ago #2782 by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
While reading the link provided by Entropic, I've stumbled at the mention of the so-called MEG-device of Tom Bearden. I normally regard all the guys in the "free-energy aka snake-oil" business as terminal clinical charlatans, but this time I read through the alledged confirming evidence report [url] jnaudin.free.fr/html/megv2.htm [/url] and something smelled different to me. While theoretically the particular MEG seemed to me rather improbable to work, something similar could; and here's why -

Consider a permanent magnet whose field is short-circuited by an external ferromagnetic core connecting its poles, magnet being put into a gap in the circled core. The magnetic flux in that core contains energy proportional to the flux magnitude squared and to the length of the said core, assuming crossection constant. Now if we use a core twice as long, there must be twice as much energy in that core, since the very same flux is supplied by the magnet. Permeability figures of good modern transformers' cores are too high to lose too much of the flux, so doubling the length hardly introduces any loss of the flux. Consider also that, putting the magnet into the gap in the core requires negative work and produces mechanical energy, since the magnet is pulled into the gap and held there and not pushed away as we put it there. The question is - whence the extra field energy in the longer core comes from????!

I must admit, I'm at a total impasse here. Someone, please, falsify my deduction!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 11 months ago #4461 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
AgoraBasta,

Just read your poost above and I belive I may have been asking the same question differently in the post "Permanent Magnet Energy", dated 16 Jan 03, in this meta-physics series.



Mac

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 11 months ago #4887 by mechanic
Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from
You may be able to get all the energy you ever needed for spinnning disks from magnets if you match cleverly some parameters having to do with energy transfers bus as soon as you try to get useful work out of them (Torque x velocity rate of change) bye-bye Sayonara. The reason is applying a torque (force) induces an opposite current cancelling the effect. Scam artists show you half-of-the story.

Guys, God said: no free lunch, you gotta do work to feed yourselves (that was after paradise was lost).

Time to work and fix some cars unless I find some magnets to do it for me. Lol



Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 11 months ago #4836 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
mechanic,

Basically sound logic but one or two flaws with your conclusion. See permanent magnet energy in this meta-physics series.

1 - Energy is flowing into our universe, to tap such energy is not a free lunch (perpetual). It is no more free than solar cells.

2 - There is developing a considerable volume of evidence that our current views and physics "Laws" are not laws at all and will continue to be changed as we detect, measure and learn more about reality. Newtons Laws were never laws. Laws don't change, theories change. To my knowledge we have very few if anything that we could say was a law.

3 - Search the Web and look for Chiral Condensate. More energy per cubic cm than all the known mass in the universe by E=mc^2. Some of it appears to be flowing into our universe as we speak and may be the ongoing creation after the Big Bang - this is unknown just a speculation.

Opps, that is (3).

The source is there. Tapping it at will remains to be seen.




Mac










Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.330 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum