 |
There are currently, 189 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Why won't magnet motors work
Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 @ 22:14:16 UTC by vlad
|
|
In the yahoo free_energy group Phil Karn writes: Mr. J wrote:
> Ok -
>
> I don't know much about magnets or the physics of
> them. I suspect nobody else does either... oh yea..
> negative attracts positive... etc., kind of
> tautologies to me. Sort of like gravity.. it just
> works.. we have no clue how.. etc.,
>
> Anyway, what is the simple explanation of why magnetic
> motors shouldn't work?
The answer is both simple and profound. Magnetism is what physicists call a "conservative force". That means if you take a magnet and move it between any two points in a magnetic field, the sum total amount of energy produced or consumed in the process is a constant that doesn't depend at all on the path or speed you take between those two points.
Furthermore, if the starting and finishing points are the same, then the total energy involved in moving over *any* path and returning to the starting point is exactly ZERO.
The same is true if you move a mass between two points in a gravitational field, because gravity is also a conservative force.
For example, if you want to move a car between two points that differ in elevation above sea level, and if you ignore air drag, rolling resistance and other forms of friction, then it doesn't matter what route you take between the two points or how fast you drive. If the finish point is higher than the starting point, you'll have to add a certain amount of energy; if the finish is lower than the start, it will produce a certain amount of energy. If you drive in a closed path and return to your starting point, the total energy will be exactly zero.
Real cars always require energy to drive because gravity is not the only force at play, or even the dominant one; aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance usually overwhelm the effects of gravity on vehicles on the earth's surface. These are both forms of friction, and friction is *not* a conservative force. With friction you *always* lose, though with clever design you can minimize it.
One place where friction is almost completely absent is outer space. There, satellites demonstrate gravity's conservative nature quite nicely. A satellite in an elliptical orbit speeds up when it approaches the earth and slows down as it climbs to high altitude. The process repeats more or less forever, with the satellite's total mechanical energy remaining constant unless it is perturbed by a third body into hitting the earth's atmosphere or some other object.
Any would-be perpetual motion machine using either magnets or gravity is subject to the very same rules. Even if you completely eliminate friction, the net total energy produced and consumed in returning all the machine's masses or magnets to their original starting positions in a complete cycle will always be *exactly* zero.
It's extremely common for a would-be perpetual motion inventor to get really excited when his machine produces energy over one part of its cycle. But this energy is *ALWAYS* exactly equal to the energy the machine needs to return to its starting point and complete a cycle. They never figure out how to get their machines to run in complete cycles while also producing useful energy, because it simply can't be done.
This is *always* true. It doesn't matter how many magnets or masses you have or how clever you are or complicated you make your machine. It won't work, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to make it work.
--Phil
Mr. J wrote:
> Phil -
>
> Thank you for taking the time to write. Now I think I
> have more questions.
>
> Does a "conservative force" imply without fluctuations?
>
A conservative force will remain exactly constant under a given set of circumstances. Put two magnets of a given strength a given distance apart, and the force between the two will remain the same for all time. Put two given masses a given distance apart, and the force between the two will also remain constant for all time. In that sense, conservative forces can't "fluctuate".
If you could make a conservative force fluctuate, then you could generate energy from nothing, e.g., by turning off gravity after you've let a boulder fall so you can return it to its starting point without any energy. But that's not possible.
You *can* make a magnet that switches on and off. It's called an electromagnet, and unlike a permanent magnet you can do work with it. That's exactly how electric motors work. But any work you do with an electromagnet must come from the electricity supplying the magnet; again there is no free lunch.
> Is a magnet conservative because it has two equally blanced
> yet opposite forces? But gravity seems to be one way,
> everywhere in at the same time.
No, gravity is always an attractive force, but it's just as conservative as magnetism. A "conservative" force is just as I described in my last message: the energy required or produced in the process of moving a particle from point A to point B in the force field is the same no matter what path is followed (and what speed is taken) between those two points. Furthermore, if points A and B are the same (the motion is in a closed loop) the total net energy will always be exactly zero.
> If friction is a always a loser, where/what is the
> anti-friction? Otherwise wouldn't our universe have
> gone cold by now? Or is electromagnetism in general the
> lubricant? The earth is a big magnet with two poles.
> Maybe a magnet is by its own nature anti-gravitational?
A lot of people have wondered why there isn't an "anti friction". The reason there isn't such a thing has to do with the second law of thermodynamics, the one that says that the entropy of any closed system always tends to increase over time. No process exists that can reduce the entropy of a closed system, although the entropy of a subsystem can be decreased if there is an equal or larger entropy increase elsewhere. That's how life could spontaneously evolve on the earth: the entropy reduction in the "ordering" of life is more than made up for by the enormous entropy increases caused by thermonuclear fusion in the core of the sun.
The Second Law is one of the more "depressing" of all physical laws, because it's the one that says the entire universe will some day "run down" and become completely disorganized and random. (When the sun dies, all life on the earth will eventually die as well.) Friction is a classic example of an entropy-increasing process, and because there are no entropy-decreasing processes, there is no such thing as "anti friction". It sure would be nice if there were, but there ain't.
--Phil
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 3.5
Votes: 10
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Why won't magnet motors work / Tendency vs. Force and the 4 Point Causality (Score: 1)
by Ginot on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 @ 09:28:28 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Phil / Mr. J,
Is it possible that the framework (epistemology) used to understand magnetism and gravity is the shortcoming that doesn't explain adequately the 2nd law of thermodynamics concerning the slowing down of the universe. I.e., we found out last year that the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating.
With a framework of force we lose the inner nature of matter. When we think of forces about matter, we have to assume Newton's presumption that matter is "inert". That is to say, there is nothing in matter that moves -- everything happens from the outside.
Another framework or epistemology to consider is one that presupposes that the tendency of matter offers a more complete understanding of it; and, therefore a more reliable way of measure.
I suppose the explanation of gravity, as a component of matter, can be seen best as a tendency of matter to "want" to be together. Hence, bodies in proximity tend to coalesce. Conversely, this tendency makes matter always seek the void -- it wants to fill up or occupy the void -- hence, a tendency for the universe to expand at an accelerated rate.
As far as entropy, I think we must admit of some innate tendency for entropy to even exist, for entropy presupposes an ordered direction of movement; and, furthermore, even a low level, or perhaps the lowest level of cognitive processes are present in matter.
I suppose all in all, we must consider a 4 point causality concerning natural things -- living or non-living. A two point causality would be what we were taught in grade school concerning Cause and Effect. This is the Force framework mentioned above. However a 4 point causality would be more concerned with the inner tendency of things living or non-living.
4 Point Causality
The first point of this 4 point causality is referred to as the Final End of which entities tend. There is an innate direction of which all things tend toward.
The second point is referred to as the Material that is used to reach this Final End. So for example, an inner tendency of a pure material element will always join up with a complementary element to maintain it's existence and to be at service of other elements.
The third point is referred to as the Efficient point. This is related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics or even the entropy mentioned by Phil above.
This third point, Efficiency is a tendency of matter's inner activity to try to do things in the most efficient way possible. This point is also responsible for base elements to form into structures or forms in order to, again, move or maintain it's existence in the most efficient way possible.
The forth point is referred to as the Formal point. The Formal point arises from the Material and the Efficient points to create and maintain a physical structure for the sake of the Final End. This Formal point exists so that an entity can act as efficiently as possible and 'on time' -- kind of like what UPS strives for :)
Now, I can't take credit for this 4 point causality. This was explained by Aristotle as 'The Four Causes' of nature. It seems to be making quite a come back these days, especially in quantum and other particle physics endevours.
If all this is a bit much, it might be easier to explain a four point causality in terms of all natural entities (living and non-living) as having three attributes working in unison with a directive.
The Sensitive, Cognitive and Active, all with a Directive
1) All things are Sensitive to their environment. Whether living or non-living, all natural entities can sense what is 'going on' outside of themselves. We have seen this past year some breakthroughs in teleportation. From what I understand of teleportation within quantum theory, the STATE of one atom is able to sense and communicate it's STATE to other atoms -- regardless of the distance. This was explained by Niels Bohr back in the early 1900's. But, it was only last year that the hardware and technical knowhow became available. This attribute may be related to the "Material" point of causality mentioned above.
2) All things are Cognitive of their environment. There is, again, using a 'tendency' framework of thought, an internal process of ordering what is sensed in an entity's environment. Look at Phil's reference above of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and of entropy. We see that even matter has a very low level of cognitive process found in it's tendency that would qualify for a type of cognition. I think also there were discoveries made a couple decades ago concerning 'memory metals' that exploited this attribute. This attribute may be related to the "Formal" point of causality mentioned above.
3) There is an Active attribute of all things living or non-living. By active I mean that nothing is inert in the Newtonian sense. Even matter is constantly in motion. There is an interaction with the above two attributes mentioned with this active attribute. And, it is most like the "Efficient" point of causality mentioned above.
4) The Directive attribute is what binds the above three together. The above three attributes are able to work in unison based on a common direction. This direction is what most call purpose. We could say that this direction can be directed outward or inward.
What I mean by outward is all entities living or non-living, can be sensitive, cognitive and active toward something outside of themselves. On an atomic level, we see that certain base elements will 'give up' a part of themselves to another atom in order to join and achieve an objective. Or, take a tree, it expiates more water thru it's leaves than what the 2nd law of thermodynamics requires. Is the tree doing this out of poor design, or is it acting in an outward direction?.
What I mean by an inward directive is that all entities, living and non-living, seek to maintain their own existence -- it's this whole 'togetherness' tendency. All parts of an entity seek or have an inner tendency to be together. The direction of movement here is an inward one.
My youngest daughter Sophia (6 yrs old), asked me once while we were driving, "why are the planets moving away from us faster and faster". I asked her how she knew this. Her response was 'I dunno know -- they just are'. Please mind you, Sophia explained quite well a year prior when we were driving, the difference between finite and infinite numbers. Her words were "some numbers just keep on going; but, there are also some numbers that have an end" When I asked her to explain she said that "you can think of numbers in your head -- these numbers never end. But when you think of numbers in outer space, they come to an end." -- from the mouth of babes...
Getting back to the planets moving "faster and faster", I responded to her it was kind of like a empty room. When you see an empty room, don't you just want to decorate it and put pictures on the wall, and put things together? She said yes. I replied so it is with the planets and material things -- they 'like to be 'together'. As far as the planets moving "faster and faster away" I told her that again this was like the empty room. Because there is nothing in the room, matter or planets want to 'fill it up'" -- ergo, they have an inner tendency to fill the void.
Regards,
GinoT
Ps. I'm trying to work out some math and a software pattern framework for a paper to the software designer community. I'm setting up a web site to further explore this framework of inner tendency. It's at:
www.NaturalPatterns.net
Please feel free to send me your thoughts. |
|
|
Re: Why won't magnet motors work (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 @ 19:07:55 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Magnetism, unlike electrostatic and gravitational forces, is a "Non Conservative" field. That means that a magnetic test charge circulating in a closed path will always require energy to return to its original position.
As an added note about Howards Johnsons supposed magnetic motor developed back in the 60s, it also does not work as claimed, but it is an interesting device, on one side coming out of the output shaft is an "speed adjusting screw" which turns out to be the real secret of why the device appears to operate.
In tests Mr, Johnson always was seen turning this knob in order to "regulate" the speed of his motor. In reality, his motor was a magnetic "spring" and by turning the knob a screw would force the motors' armature back into the housing where magnets would force the armature back out. The pitch of the screw was very flat, so the armature would spin against the pitch of the threads. Very ingenious in its own right. |
|
|
|
|
