On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
there was some discussion about this alleged perpetual motion machine. It
was elegant, perhaps too elegant, and therefore it is probably a fake.
Evolution of perpetual motion
At 11:46 PM 9/5/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:27:51 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
I'm not sure whether or not it represents stored energy, but if you
multiply the
MGO of a magnet by it's volume, you get a number of Joules (it's not
much BTW).
Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 cm³
neodymium magnet is 360 millijoules. That is, it is negligible for all
practical purposes and certainly this field energy is not the source why
permanent
forget it Jouni.
Intellectually, the wolf of CoE will always win.
(Why do I waste my time?)
Harry
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:05:33 +0300:
Hi,
Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 cm³
neodymium magnet is 360 millijoules. That is, it is negligible for all
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:25 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:05:33 +0300:
Hi,
Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe.
As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 cm³
neodymium
Conservation of energy is a strong theory, so widely confirmed that
questioning it must occur at the fringes, i.e., energy is not
necessarily conserved locally under quantum conditions, but these
variations average out so that it remains conserved at the macroscopic level.
Absent evidence
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
If the motor goes through a cycle, energy can oscillate between potential
and kinetic, but there is no energy gain at any point. If there appears to
be, long experience indicates that there is some hidden
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
For example, there is potential energy stored in a permanent magnet, in
the magnetisation.
This is one of the quantities that must be entered into the arithmetic I
originally requested of the system cited in the
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
For example, there is potential energy stored in a permanent magnet, in the
magnetisation.
...
The magnets, however, will lose their magnetization and the motor will run
down.
This is untrue. There is no such
I think the question of energy stored in a permanent magnet is a redherring.
Replace the permanent magnet by a spring. The spring will lose its
springiness over time as it is repeatedly compressed. Do we say this
is because spring energy is being used up?
Harry
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM,
@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
I think the question of energy stored in a permanent magnet is a redherring.
Replace the permanent magnet by a spring. The spring will lose its
springiness over time as it is repeatedly compressed. Do we say
: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
I think the question of energy stored in a permanent magnet is a redherring.
Replace the permanent magnet by a spring. The spring will lose its
springiness over time as it is repeatedly compressed. Do we say this
is because spring energy is being used up?
Harry
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
OK since no arithmetic seems plausible, what about actually obtaining the
device in question and running the obvious test: Let it run for a very very
long time?
Easy test would be to construct three identical perpetual
-Original Message-
From: Jouni Valkonen [mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
OK since no arithmetic seems plausible, what
of stored
potential energy that is converted into rotational energy, a form of kinetic
energy.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 2:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
OK since no arithmetic
will always eventually stop the device if it is a scam.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery jabow
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Enough time and a little friction will always eventually stop the device
if it is a scam.
Removing the battery doesn't hurt, either.
Eric
I wrote:
Removing the battery doesn't hurt, either.
Or, on second thought, the rubber band.
Eric
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:27:51 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
I'm not sure whether or not it represents stored energy, but if you multiply the
MGO of a magnet by it's volume, you get a number of Joules (it's not much BTW).
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
This stuff is quite misleading.
One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its starting
position.
So there is no energy gain.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
How is this an epicycle?
A biological system is complicated and even
Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done
repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will
eventually exceed the energy required to place the magnets in their
starting position.
Harry
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com
Has anyone tried to do any arithmetic here?
I mean to even an order of magnitude?
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done
repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Harry, I think that conventional or classical physics is just wrong, because
it just assumes gravity without explaining it. In real physics we cannot just
assume such things, as giovanni mentioned. If you hold two
There is interesting thing to note, that the rotation of the wheel is
oscillating. This probably means that the oscillation is chaotic and is
governed by nonlinear dynamics. This also means that system is not freely
rotating, but there are significant friction forces that resist the rotation of
According to standard physics, it is impossible to design a magnetic
motor that won't get stuck after a few turns. Therefore, questions
about how much was energy was needed to assemble the device distract
from the real significance of the demonstration. Either this is a hoax
OR the device is
The video at this site clearly shows accelleration.
http://diymagneticmotor.com/
That pretty much rules out the low friction argument.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
According to standard physics, it is impossible to design a magnetic
motor that
Harry, standard QM does not comment on plausibility of magnetic motors. And for
classical mechanics refrigerator magnets and spiral galaxies are exactly as
impossible constructions as this magnetic motor. It is just that in classical
mechanics work is ill-defined, because classical mechanics
[jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
The video at this site clearly shows accelleration.
http://diymagneticmotor.com/
That pretty much rules out the low friction argument.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
The video at this site clearly shows accelleration.
http://diymagneticmotor.com/
That pretty much rules out the low friction argument.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
It looks very similar to the device currently under discussion in that it has a
ramp of magnets with a discontinuity at the full cycle.
Are they the same scam?
Where can one
707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax
From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
It looks very similar to the device currently under discussion
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
Technically a massive or a charged object moving in a circular path should
emit radiation, gravitational or electromagnetic.
The gravitational radiation emitted by a planet is extremely small so the
energy loss
497-3551 fax
From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
These are not indictments of the device in the video I cited.
Is device in that video, whether
-9070
707 497-3551 fax
From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
These are not indictments of the device in the video I cited.
Is device in that video
Iverson
-Original Message-
From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgol...@chavaenergy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
This is almost certainly the same group of scammers. They keep changing the
device
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I’d like to note a few observations about the later half of this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE
- There are at least 6 places of energy-robbing friction:
o 2 Drum bearings, (don’t
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Terry quite clearly stated that permanent magnets do wear down quite fast,
Terry said magnets in opposition degrade. Magnets in attraction will
not degrade over time.
A magnet struck repeatedly by a hammer will
Terry, do you know how much it has influence to the speed of misalignment of
dipole structure, if neodymium magnets are cooled into -192°C using liquid
nitrogen? In theory dipole structure should be far more resilient, if magnets
are cooled. Neodymium magnets do retain 87% of their magnetic
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine
This is almost certainly the same group of scammers. They keep changing the
device and the device is easily faked in a video.
Mark
Mark Goldes
Co-founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute
301A North Main Street
Sebastopol, CA
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
But that depends on a narrow definition of work which is the
acceleration of a mass in the direction of a force.
That is wrong. I should have said But that depends on a narrow
definition of work which is the
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Terry, do you know how much it has influence to the speed of misalignment of
dipole structure, if neodymium magnets are cooled into -192°C using liquid
nitrogen?
Yes, I certainly do. I was a part of a group who
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark, I think that the site what James was citing is an obvious scam site.
I did not cite the site. I cited the video at the site. Moreover PESN
claims that video was not produced by the scam artists that run the
2012/9/3 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
hello,
here is interesting and easy concept for perpetual motion machine using
magnets. Problem: why this is not accepted as perpetual motion machine? I
do not see anything wrong with this concept, but it clearly produces more
rotational
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Make him run that for some years and he might be slightly more convincing.
Superfluid He can rotate for weeks without problem.
Unfortunately, I have way too much experience with these sorts of
things. This is
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Make him run that for some years and he might be slightly more convincing.
Superfluid He can rotate for weeks without problem.
Unfortunately, I
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
the question is could the device generate enough electricity to keep
the magnets magnetised?
Two years of research has shown me that the magnetic cycle is
conservative. IMO, no.
T
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
However I do not think that it is anymore complex idea than refrigerator
magnet that is doing endless work against gravity or electron that can orbit
nucleus without losing it's energy.
In your example no work is
This is an interesting device. It appears that the energy stored by the magnet
at the top in its beginning location is converted into angular energy of motion
of the drum .There is some left over to keep the magnet moving up and down as
well.
There must be a substantial magnetic force
Technically a massive or a charged object moving in a circular path should
emit radiation, gravitational or electromagnetic.
The gravitational radiation emitted by a planet is extremely small so the
energy loss is not going to affect the orbit dynamic even over enormous
period of times. In
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
A classical electron should emit a lot of radiation orbiting a so high
velocity around the nucleus of an atom and should collapse into the nucleus
in a very short time.
This doesn't happen and it puzzled the
Harry, I think that conventional or classical physics is just wrong, because it
just assumes gravity without explaining it. In real physics we cannot just
assume such things, as giovanni mentioned. If you hold two 10 kg hand weights
stationary with straight hands in horizontal orientation, then
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
However neodyme magnets are very resilient and I would say that produced
energy exceeds by far the energy required to make the magnet in the first
place. I would say by factor of 1000 or more.
Actually, the
No quantum mechanics doesn't explain why the electron doesn't emit, it just
states that that is the case for certain fixed orbits.
Some explanations invoke the wave nature of the electrons and state that
the orbitals are stationary states similar to standing waves in a pipe.
It is an heuristic
On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
What happens is that your muscles are like springs and they are getting
stretched by the weight. When they are stretched beyond a point the muscle
pulls back and then relaxes, this over and over again and this
How is this an epicycle?
A biological system is complicated and even if it has to obey the law of
physics, it is not usually a good starting example to introduce basic
physics concepts.
In some cases (teaching physics to biomed students) could be a good idea to
mention examples like this in
56 matches
Mail list logo
