Magnetic Generators? Green Energy?

[burntheland]

I'm getting some jigs machined to make one of these to see what happens. Has anyone else tried this? Small or large scale? How much energy did it produce? Does it really run non-stop? Or do you have to "bump" it occasionally? I think this is a good discussion topic. Thoughts?

[Technochicken]

What exactly do you mean by a magnetic generator? Almost all mechanical generators use magnets and coils to generate electricity. The simplest way to create a small generator is to hook up the leads of a motor to what you want to power, and spin the shaft. Also, there is no way you could have something running non-stop without energy going into it. Perpetual motion on earth is not possible.

[burntheland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjRoEQVF160

Here is one video and there are thousands more out there. It uses the concept of a stationary magnet attracting and repelling the poles of other magnets attached to a plate/wheel. This causes the wheel to spin. Attach a shaft, run it through a stator, and you have DC. My plan is to incorporate a battery to store the energy and use the generator on the same concept as a alternator in a car. Then run leads from the battery to an AC converter. I've done my fair share of research on this and I'm confident it will work. I just wanted to see everyone else's thoughts on the matter. These are even used in industrial environments today! It really kind of makes me angry when I think about how this isn't common knowledge to the public and that we're not running the world on technology like this.

[x88x]

Sorry, it won't work. Yes, in a frictionless environment that column will continue to spin forever (once pushed), but a) there's no such thing outside of a magnetically suspended shaft in a vacuum, and b) as soon as you attach the thing to a coil to try and generate electricity it'll stop moving (because you introduced an opposing force).

1st Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
In any isolated system, the total energy remains the same.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
The entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases.

Basically, you cannot create energy out of nothing, which is what that video is claiming.

People have been claiming to have made perpetual motion and free energy machines for millenia, and every single one of them has been proven wrong.

By all means though, try it. That's what Science is; formulating and testing hypotheses. If you think it'll work, try it and find out. Just don't be too surprised when it doesn't.

[knowledgegranted]

Actually x88x you are completely wrong. This theory can work, we just don't have the findings yet for it to work. In the universe there are such things called single pole magnets. Physics + Math suggests that they are very true. I believe there is a science channel thing on magnets if you want to catch it.

For this new design to work, only using single pole magnets you would need two discs to oppose each other. One with South magnets, one with North magnets. Oh, btw these are called monopoles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole



Building something like this is obviously beyond my knowledge, an AP physics high school class just isn't going to cut it.

PFGiWiXMHn0

[burntheland]

If it doesn't work I won't be sore about it at all. It's one of those projects where my friend comes over with a case of beer and we mess around in the shop for a few hours. Besides....all I want to do is prove it works or doesn't work. And the root word of disprove is.......prove.
So either way it's success.

But as far as the scientific process I can always see holes in it...which is what makes it such a fascinating experiment.


1st Law of Thermodynamics:
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
In any isolated system, the total energy remains the same.

Energy being created nor destroyed....I agree. But there's potential energy there. If you lay a nail down on the table. And I lay a magnet next to it, it will attract the nail and cause it to move across the table. The movement of the nail is energy at work...but what had to happen? I had to put the magnet next to it. So essentially I'm not creating any energy. I'm using positioning (energy from me moving the magnet) to act on the physical properties of the magnet (which is essentially indefinite potential energy i.e. magnetism)

Now, with that in mind....Let's say that I have a more powerful magnet of the same mass and dimensions...but I can place it further away from the nail on the table. The nail moves further. This displays more energy than the initial test and cost us the exact same amount of "work" (energy cost for desired outcome.)

That being said we can deduce that the same amount of initial energy in both experiments yielded separate amounts energy output. One greater than the other.

For that matter if you have a magnet sitting on a table in front of you with a paperclip stuck to it that is not moving....this is a perfect example of lasting energy with little to no energy input. sure, you had to put the paperclip on the magnet....but i'll wager that paperclip is going to stay there for more than a day or two if it remains untouched. The attraction (energy) holds it there stationary.

So I can see where all of this is hypothetically feasible. And where the "laws" of science may have not totally covered this amendment. Just like anything else that has "laws" it is always subject to change with advances in technology and socio-economic strides. examples? The Bible? The Constitution? The thought that the Earth was flat? That we were the center of the universe? Being on Earth made up the only intelligent species in existence? You can't run cars off of water? I mean they are about to engineer a black hole.....I think just about anything is possible. BUT i'm not saying that this will undoubtedly work. Only that I think it's more than reasonable to think that it may very well work.


2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
The entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases.

and i dont know what entropy is....
:p

so there.

haha

[burntheland]

Physics + Math suggests that they are very true. I believe there is a science channel thing on magnets if you want to catch it.


Took me to long to type. That's what I'm talking about though. If you have a link to that I would love to see it.

[x88x]

Only problem with magnetic monopoles is that although they should theoretically exist, they have never been found in nature and have never been successfully manufactured.

Again I refer you to the Laws of Thermodynamics and, come to think of it, Newton's Third Law of Motion.

As always, if you think I am wrong, I welcome you to prove it. I would love for such a machine to be possible, but the fact is that it violates the basic laws on which the universe operates (at least as we understand it now).

Here's a nice compilation of data (both positive and negative) on the various Perendev devices. I'll let their actions and results speak for themselves. There is a very good reason (several, actually) why they are considered to be hoaxes.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Perendev_Power_Developments_Pty_%28Ltd%2 9

Like I said, people have been claiming to have made perpetual motion and free energy devices for millenia, and every single one has been proven to be a hoax in the end.

And may I reiterate. If you think I am wrong, please, prove it. I won't get angry, I won't flame you. If you are right, then I will accept that I was wrong and go on from there, but if you are wrong, I will tell you why. That's science.

[burntheland]

Interesting link...i'll have to give it more time when I get home :D
For now, I'm out of work. Long drive home...here i come!

[mDust]

Hmmm...I smell an experiment. Just don't pay for plans to build it. That's pretty much a guarantee that it's just a scam. If you search hard enough, anything can be found on the internet.

I think we can be fairly certain that humans haven't discovered everything there is to be discovered. Perhaps in a few hundred years people will be looking back at this concept like we do the concepts of a round earth and a heliocentric solar system. While I do believe the laws of physics are well supported by our experiences to-date, I also believe that they will be refined in the future as our collective knowledge grows.

[x88x]

Besides....all I want to do is prove it works or doesn't work. And the root word of disprove is.......prove.
And that is science. :D


Energy being created nor destroyed....I agree. But there's potential energy there. If you lay a nail down on the table. And I lay a magnet next to it, it will attract the nail and cause it to move across the table. The movement of the nail is energy at work...but what had to happen? I had to put the magnet next to it. So essentially I'm not creating any energy. I'm using positioning (energy from me moving the magnet) to act on the physical properties of the magnet (which is essentially indefinite potential energy i.e. magnetism)

Magnetic energy != potential energy. I forget exactly how it works, but when I get home I can dig through my textbooks and find an answer for that.

A couple things that you are forgetting here are the energy expended by you to move the magnet into place, the energy lost due to friction by the nail moving across the table, and the potential energy of the nail (if the table is exactly parallel with the Earth's gravitational field, it would be 0, but...is it?). Also, when the nail comes in contact with the magnet, all kinetic energy is transferred to the magnet or dissipated as waste heat.




And where the "laws" of science may have not totally covered this amendment. Just like anything else that has "laws" it is always subject to change with advances in technology and socio-economic strides.
The difference is that Laws of science are not determined by comity or vote, religion or ideals.. they are determined by experimental results, proven over time and never disproven. If it were ever disproven, then it would cease to be a Law.
Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)


The Bible? The Constitution? The thought that the Earth was flat? That we were the center of the universe?
None are science. The first two are obvious, and the second two were a) before the development of the Scientific Method, b) enforced by religious officials.


Being on Earth made up the only intelligent species in existence?
Again, religion. Still hasn't been proven one way or the other, but I chose to believe. :D


You can't run cars off of water?
Depends. Are you talking about the various free energy patents that propose to run a car off water? If so, I do not know of a single one that has not been proven to be a hoax. (Again, if I'm wrong, please, enlighten me.) if you're talking about hydrogen fuel cells, more energy is still spent making the fuel cell than is attained when using it.


and i dont know what entropy is....
Noun
Entropy
Singular
entropy

Plural
countable and uncountable; plural entropies

entropy (countable and uncountable; plural entropies)

1. (thermodynamics, countable)
1. strictly thermodynamic entropy. A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system which cannot be used to do mechanical work.
2. A measure of the disorder present in a system.
3. The capacity factor for thermal energy that is hidden with respect to temperature [1].
4. The dispersal of energy; how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes, at a specific temperature. [2]
2. (statistics, information theory, countable) A measure of the amount of information and noise present in a signal.
3. (uncountable) The tendency of a system that is left to itself to descend into chaos.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entropy

[artoodeeto]

Energy being created nor destroyed....I agree. But there's potential energy there. If you lay a nail down on the table. And I lay a magnet next to it, it will attract the nail and cause it to move across the table. The movement of the nail is energy at work...but what had to happen? I had to put the magnet next to it. So essentially I'm not creating any energy. I'm using positioning (energy from me moving the magnet) to act on the physical properties of the magnet (which is essentially indefinite potential energy i.e. magnetism)

Now, with that in mind....Let's say that I have a more powerful magnet of the same mass and dimensions...but I can place it further away from the nail on the table. The nail moves further. This displays more energy than the initial test and cost us the exact same amount of "work" (energy cost for desired outcome.)

That being said we can deduce that the same amount of initial energy in both experiments yielded separate amounts energy output. One greater than the other.

actually probably not quite true (the 2nd paragraph above) since it's very likely more energy was used to create the more powerful magnet. Sure, you yourself aren't putting any more energy into the system than with the less powerful magnet, but the system with the stronger magnet had to have more energy to begin with, and that energy had to come from somewhere. :D

I think it's worth remembering something Carl Sagan once said - "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."

The point, of course, being that nothing (above a quantum level anyway) is created or destroyed, merely rearranged or transformed. So if something acts with more energy on something else, it got that extra energy from somewhere, maybe not from you, but someone or something had to put the energy in in order for it to be expended later.

[mDust]

Hmmm...I think I had the 'reply window' left open or something. When I started my first post knowledgegranted had the last post. I think I can speak for all of TBCS when I say "we expect a worklog started within the hour...or else!":D

If this doesn't work out for you though, build a Stirling Engine. They do work and can run off the heat of your hand if you tune it properly. Can't get much 'greener' than that.

[x88x]

If this doesn't work out for you though, build a Stirling Engine.

Agreed. ;) i've seen some pretty awesome sterling engine solar heat generators.

[dr.walrus]

I'm getting some jigs machined to make one of these to see what happens. Has anyone else tried this? Small or large scale? How much energy did it produce? Does it really run non-stop? Or do you have to "bump" it occasionally? I think this is a good discussion topic. Thoughts?

They don't work. I refer you to x88x - you need an energy differential to get energy out of a system. All you have is the energy originally stored in the magnets. Advances in science? This can never work, basic physics should tell you that. The magnets will eventually wear out, generating less power than it took to create the magnet.

[mDust]

you need an energy differential to get energy out of a system. All you have is the energy originally stored in the magnets. Advances in science? This can never work, basic physics should tell you that. The magnets will eventually wear out, generating less power than it took to create the magnet.Using magnets to power a wheel of sorts and mechanically manipulating the magnets between cycles could provide that differential. And if gravity, centripetal force, etc is the force that does the mechanical work, then there's no efficiency decrease there. The energy stored in magnets doesn't run out or replenish when it attracts or repels magnetic objects. The magnetism can be destroyed, but usually only by excessive temperatures, physical shocks, and AC electromagnets. Generally, magnets will be magnets for several hundred years.
Advances in science indeed. Many great discoveries and theories happened because someone was told that their idea was impossible. So they tackled each problem/argument one by one until they got it right. Since burntheland hasn't revealed any designs as of yet, how could it be written off as impossible?

[x88x]

Using magnets to power a wheel of sorts and mechanically manipulating the magnets between cycles could provide that differential. And if gravity, centripetal force, etc is the force that does the mechanical work, then there's no efficiency decrease there.

It's been tried. ;) (Granted, not with magnets.) Basically, the work that is put into turning the magnets would be more than is generated and the wheel would eventually stop.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Perpetuum1.png

[mDust]

Interesting, but I'd do it better...*cough*...in a way that worked.;) They just didn't have enough magnets!

[dr.walrus]

If gravity, centripetal force, etc is the force that does the mechanical work, then there's no efficiency decrease there.

You're ignoring the basic fact that gravity and the other forces involved in the wheel's rotation aren't 'free energy'. You're using the output of the magnets to produce them (in the case of the gravity, you're creating potential energy.

You're stuck in a loop of trying to give energy to an object using the object itself. Friction/gravity/whatever opposing force wins in the end. Put it this way:

1. You want to bounce a ball
2. You want to give the ball energy to bounce a second time
3. Hold on... you drop the ball, it bounces back up, giving it potential energy! It is producing energy!

It's not. You know it's not, but you're trying to apply the exact same principle to this.

With the whole 'OMG SCIENCE' thing youre doing, you're actually horribly abusing the scientific method. You can't just use the argument 'you're stifling my scientific creativity, man', when someone actually presents you with some ***ing science! You don't even understand the basic principles at work here, yet you're claiming to have the answer to all the world's problems using a box with some magnets in?!

Now, this whole 'energy from nowhere' thing? Nuclear fusion, or for that matter, dark matter (excuse the pun), if the LHC proves its existence. Yeah, research into these things. Not this.

[x88x]

With the whole 'OMG SCIENCE' thing youre doing, you're actually horribly abusing the scientific method. You can't just use the argument 'you're stifling my scientific creativity, man', when someone actually presents you with some ***ing science! You don't even understand the basic principles at work here, yet you're claiming to have the answer to all the world's problems using a box with some magnets in?!

Calm down, 'tis better to educate than to scoff. ;)

My personal favorites are the family of thermal transfer power generation methods, like sterling engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_engine), solar salt towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Molten_salt_storage), and geothermal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity). All take advantage of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Basically, every action (in the real world) releases waste heat constantly. So why not take that waste heat and use it to generate electricity! :D

[dr.walrus]

Calm down, 'tis better to educate than to scoff. ;)

It's almost 2am, I'm staring at the same ASP.net rubbish I've been looking at for days, it's two days late for uni and 8 weeks (yes, EIGHT WEEKS!) late for the client. The internet is there to vent!



My personal favorites are the family of thermal transfer power generation methods, like sterling engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_engine), solar salt towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Molten_salt_storage), and geothermal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity). All take advantage of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Basically, every action (in the real world) releases waste heat constantly. So why not take that waste heat and use it to generate electricity! :D

Yeah people don't get that the game is really about better way of harnessing energy. Sterling engines... output too low power for anything industrial. Solar salt towers, hell yes, but geothermal? Absolutely!

I've stayed in a house in Rotorua, New Zealand, where all the houses get limitless free hot tap water. best. shower. ever.

That said, I know you're sat reading this on 4 monitors as well ;)

[mDust]

You're...this.Calm down.


With the whole 'OMG SCIENCE' thing youre doing, you're actually horribly abusing the scientific method. You can't just use the argument 'you're stifling my scientific creativity, man', when someone actually presents you with some ***ing science! You don't even understand the basic principles at work here, yet you're claiming to have the answer to all the world's problems using a box with some magnets in?! Where did anyone abuse the scientific method? And at no point did anyone make any claim that the world's problems are saved. Now, it's OK if you're angry and your argument became flawed through frustration, but it's flawed nonetheless.

According to the scientific method, one should base conclusions on observable and measurable evidence gained through experimentation. Writing something off as impossible before you know what it is or how it works grinds the wrong way against the scientific method. Creativity within scientific bounds is how everything you own and interact with was invented. I do have a basic understanding of the physics involved and many of the arguments for and against such projects, however, not everything has been discovered by humanity. Experimentation is how those discoveries are made.

On a side note, you should probably not take things on the internet so personally, dr.walrus. Well, with the exception of the previous sentence.;)

EDIT: Damn! I need to stop walking away with the reply window open! You guys reply too fast for me.

[dr.walrus]

Calm down.
Where did anyone abuse the scientific method? And at no point did anyone make any claim that the world's problems are saved. Now, it's OK if you're an angry person and your argument became flawed through frustration, but it's flawed nonetheless.

Ignoring proven scientific laws on the basis that they stifle scientific creativity is clearly abuse of vast collected quantities of empirical evidence



According to the scientific method, one should base conclusions on observable and measurable evidence gained through experimentation. Writing something off as impossible before you know what it is or how it works grinds the wrong way against the scientific method.

The law of conservation of energy is particularly robust. Anything that violates it is clearlyimpossible.



Creativity within scientific bounds is how everything you own and interact with was invented. I do have a basic understanding of the physics involved and many of the arguments for and against such projects, however, not everything has been discovered by humanity. Experimentation is how those discoveries are made.

Yup. And after somone had been all imaginative about it, they researched it empirically and published their research. It got peer reviewed by lots of other scientists trying to prove it wrong (or right), before after a vast amount of research it was determined to be, as close as possible, fact. All of us people who didn't participate in that rigorous research need to sit in class, shut our mouths and LEARN IT and USE IT. To do otherwise is a rejection of everything we hold dear.

[mDust]

Damn, dr.walrus, you are just sitting on the reply button or something...I edited this:

Now, it's OK if you're an angry person and your argument ...
to this:

Now, it's OK if you're angry and your argument...
approximately 3 seconds after I posted it in an effort to be less confrontational/irritating. I really don't know how you reply so fast.:think:

Now, again, nobody is breaking any of the laws of physics since no design has been put forward as of yet. You're anger and arguments are unfounded. Though the anger is understandable. I hope you're getting paid by the hour right now.

[dr.walrus]

Now, again, nobody is breaking any of the laws of physics since no design has been put forward as of yet.

Yes they are, it's a perpetual motion machine!



I really don't know how you reply so fast.:think:

4 monitors, this one is my primary web browsing screen and it automatically refreshes every 30 seconds...



I hope you're getting paid by the hour right now.
Sadly no, but this work is both for university and for cash moneys.

[x88x]

Yes they are, it's a perpetual motion machine!

It's even worse than that, really; it's a free energy machine. Perpetual motion machines only have to maintain a net energy change of 0; possible in a frictionless environment. Free energy machines have to create energy...something that has been proven time and time again to be impossible.

I'm home now; I'll see if I can find the information I was thinking of on magnetic energy, burntheland.

[dr.walrus]

i love that video at the start - 200 watts in 1200 watts out. Okay, then get 20 of them and daisychain them, put 1 watt in (a cat on a treadmill or something) and out of this magic machine comes enough energy to power the world? How?!

[burntheland]

first of all ***pat self on back*** This thread exploded while i was at home! Nothing says debate like religion, politics, or science theory! haha. Either way I'm actually glad to see some people taking a solid stand for/against the idea and some just wavering in the wind in suspense. This post is going to take me like two hours to quote everyone. There will probably be two more pages on this thread by the time I'm done typing!! lol


Hmmm...I smell an experiment. Just don't pay for plans to build it. That's pretty much a guarantee that it's just a scam. If you search hard enough, anything can be found on the internet.

Agreed. My momma' didn't raise no fool! That's not to say I won't dump some cash into an experiment that has a 99% probability to fail....it's just money and I spend it on things that I need, and after those things are satisfied, things I enjoy.



A couple things that you are forgetting here are the energy expended by you to move the magnet into place, the energy lost due to friction by the nail moving across the table, and the potential energy of the nail (if the table is exactly parallel with the Earth's gravitational field, it would be 0, but...is it?). Also, when the nail comes in contact with the magnet, all kinetic energy is transferred to the magnet or dissipated as waste heat.

I took that into account although I may have not been clear enough in my analogy. I commented on it as "energy input" or "work". And I agree about everything else your saying here. I'm simply stating that if the nail were not able to make contact with the magnet, let's say it was being held by a piece of string....that there is still a force at work there. And it will continue to work until either the magnet dies .... or the nail looses it's properties that attract it to the magnet. It is unarguable that in that aforementioned scenario there is a continuous force at work. I'm simply speculating that there may be a way to harness or capitalize on this force.


Again, religion. Still hasn't been proven one way or the other, but I chose to believe. :D

Not really for this post although I did briefly touch on the subject. You won't ever catch me knocking someone for their spirituality. I think spirituality is absolutely fantastic and it should be a big part of everyone's lives. However, if religious beliefs get in the way of empirically proven FACTS then you might catch me making fun of you a little. lol example, by the BOOK most
Christians believe that the earth is six thousand years old. I mean come on. not knocking christ, or the bible, or any of that...but I mean some of this stuff is just wrong. You have to be able to look past all the little things like that and really see what the bible is about and not so much what it says. I would appreciate it very much if nobody quoted this and changed the topic of the thread. If someone wants to start another thread I would encourage that idea.


actually probably not quite true (the 2nd paragraph above) since it's very likely more energy was used to create the more powerful magnet. Sure, you yourself aren't putting any more energy into the system than with the less powerful magnet, but the system with the stronger magnet had to have more energy to begin with, and that energy had to come from somewhere. :D

I also agree with this statement. My statement is from the standpoint of myself walking down to the hardware store, buying two magnets, and two nails. I do not know how natural magnets occur or how they are mined/harvested/whatever. As far as I'm concerned the two magnets are two totally different items...But the "energy" expelled to harness them is equivilent to finding where they are natrually formed and picking them up off the ground.....for the sake of argument anyway. But from the standpoint energy input compared to output I absolutely agree with you. Maybe it took an extra hundred years to produce the natural magnet in the ground, i have no idea. If anyone knows where I can find some good info on how natural magnets are formed I would love to browse over it.....OH, and BTW Carl Sagan is genius and has such a beautiful way with words. Big fan.


Hmmm...I think I had the 'reply window' left open or something. When I started my first post knowledgegranted had the last post. I think I can speak for all of TBCS when I say "we expect a worklog started within the hour...or else!":D

If this doesn't work out for you though, build a Stirling Engine. They do work and can run off the heat of your hand if you tune it properly. Can't get much 'greener' than that.

Work log? I'm afraid Dr. walrus would hunt me down and thump me now! lol j/k doc. I intend on it when I get the jigs back. And I won't reveal any design ideas i'm tinkering with until I get the jigs back. Jigs include a crankshaft with boarders to wind the coils for the stator, and a mold to actually pour the stator itself. Everything else will essentially be constructed by hand. Feed me a link for those Stirling engines....sounds neat as hell!


They don't work. I refer you to x88x - you need an energy differential to get energy out of a system. All you have is the energy originally stored in the magnets. Advances in science? This can never work, basic physics should tell you that. The magnets will eventually wear out, generating less power than it took to create the magnet.

When you say "they don't work" have you made one or tried this on your own?
I'm not being a smart ass or anything, I'm just from Missouri and I operate on the "show me" premise. If I haven't done it with my own hands or seen it with my own eyes then I doubt it or don't comment on the matter except in a curious fashion. And with the magnet's wearing out, I absolutely agree were we using the less efficient man-made magnets. But naturally I forgot to specify in the beginning so no harm no foul. Which natural magnets will loose their charge as well, but they are much stronger and last much longer than man-made magnets. And require less work to create in nature....at least I think, still needing educated on this matter.


It's almost 2am, I'm staring at the same ASP.net rubbish I've been looking at for days, it's two days late for uni and 8 weeks (yes, EIGHT WEEKS!) late for the client. The internet is there to vent!

....I've stayed in a house in Rotorua, New Zealand, where all the houses get limitless free hot tap water. best. shower. ever.


That sounds like a rough time! Best of luck in that endeavor. I hope you catch up soon. And I've been to Rotorua New Zealand with one of our customers for my company....absolutely stunningly beautiful. That acid lake is pretty sweet too! :up:

As for all of the arguments on the laws of science and physics and the law of conservation of energy.... I'm not denying, ignoring, abusing them. And I follow the scientific method to a T. The one we were all taught in the 4th grade.

1.) Ask a question: Can magnets rotate a wheel indefinitely that is attached to a shaft run through a stator creating DC electricity?
2.) Do background research: I would like to think we have covered most of the pro's and con's on this post. lol
3.) Construct a hypothesis: I believe that this process may be possible given the consideration of magnetism.
4.) Test the hypothesis using an experiment: Obviously we have to construct the structure fist.
5.) Analyze your data and come to a conclusion: To be done.
6.) Report your results: Which I will be more than happy to do even if this experiment does NOT work.



If you're reading this LOOOOONG drawn out post and you feel the need to attack me, please be gentle... lol :whistler:

[dr.walrus]

When you say "they don't work" have you made one or tried this on your own? I'm not being a smart ass or anything, I'm just from Missouri and I operate on the "show me" premise.

I know that when if I douse myself in petrol, light a match and drop it on my hydrocarbon-fuel-sodden clothes I will surely burn horribly. I'm not being horrible here, but if you made that assertion and I said 'show me', I wouldn't be obliged to go and demonstrate!

What all this boils down to is, actions have observable results. Science can construe from these observable results, with much measurement and repetition, some amazing laws which govern our understanding of the world.



If I haven't done it with my own hands or seen it with my own eyes then I doubt it or don't comment on the matter except in a curious fashion. And with the magnet's wearing out, I absolutely agree were we using the less efficient man-made magnets. But naturally I forgot to specify in the beginning so no harm no foul. Which natural magnets will loose their charge as well, but they are much stronger and last much longer than man-made magnets. And require less work to create in nature....at least I think, still needing educated on this matter.

I commend your curiosity, my concern is that without basic knowledge of the scientific principles at work, what's the point? I totally understand the 'I will build it to prove myself wrong' approach, it's awesome, but would it not be better to spend your time and money on something with potential? If the aim is green energy, and your system produces no energy, using the concept of EIOEO (energy in over energy out) you're creating environmental harm, albeit on a small scale.




That sounds like a rough time! Best of luck in that endeavor. I hope you catch up soon. And I've been to Rotorua New Zealand with one of our customers for my company....absolutely stunningly beautiful. That acid lake is pretty sweet too! :up:
Awesome!



As for all of the arguments on the laws of science and physics and the law of conservation of energy.... I'm not denying, ignoring, abusing them. And I follow the scientific method to a T. The one we were all taught in the 4th grade.

1.) ...


...Sort of. You've got the general idea, but what we were never taught is to first ask the question 'do we have the scientific understanding of this already?', which is the basis of the commisioning of scientific research


If you're reading this LOOOOONG drawn out post and you feel the need to attack me, please be gentle... lol :whistler:

Poor little fella, don't take it too seriously, I'm a big softie really :)



not knocking christ, or the bible, or any of that...but I mean some of this stuff is just wrong. You have to be able to look past all the little things like that and really see what the bible is about

Like Revelations 14?:

8A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries."
9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name

Uh.... yeahhhhh

[x88x]

For clarity, the quote by me about religion was referencing the existence of extraterrestrial life, and that it's denial, like the geocentric solar system model, was originally set by religious leaders' interpretation of religious documents. Now it is debated by scientists, primarily with statistics, because as I said, it has yet to be proven or disproven.

On another note, idk about 'most' Christians, but I personally have no problem reconciling my religious beliefs with science. I think far too many people believe that it is impossible for them to exist side by side, and that (imo) is one of the great tragedies of human history. ..but that's a discussion for another place and time. Incidentally, the 4000 year (or 6000 or whatever it was last...tbh, I stopped paying attention to that a while ago) age of the universe belief that you reference was calculated using the geneologic records in the Bible...personally I think that is much more prone to error than scientific observation. ...but again, I suppose that's a discussion for another time and place.


Anyways, back on topic.. ;)

I spent a good while looking through my college Physics books last night, and while it was a great refresher on electromagnetism, it still left me with a fair bit of questions since neither book goes into Particle Physics. ...I'll have to see about visiting one of my college's libraries soon...

Very basic rundown:

There are four basic forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_forces) in the universe that govern the structure and behavior of matter: electromagnetism, strong interaction (also known as the "strong nuclear force"), weak interaction (also known as the "weak nuclear force") and gravitation. The most powerful of these is the electromagnetic force, and that is the one in question here. As I mentioned, I was unable to find any data on how the electromagnetic force actually works, since neither of my textbooks covers particle physics. If anyone has access to a particle physics textbook, an explanation of this would be great.

For clarification, electromagnetism should not be confused with electromagnets. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force, having to do with electric and magnetic phenomena. Electromagnets are magnets created by passing an electric current through coiled wire.

All molecules in nature have a magnetic moment (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magnetic_moment), ie, every molecule forms a magnetic dipole. The strength of this moment varies depending on the element, but is present in all matter due to the magnetic moment generated in each atom by electrons orbiting the nuclei (in each atom, the moment is usually almost entirely canceled out, but tiny effects build upon each other), also known as atomic spin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spin#Magnetic_moments).

All matter contains zones of magnetic polarity (I forget what they're called...should have written this last night while I had the books in front of me :facepalm: ), but usually these zones cancel each other out. In some rare cases, the zones do not cancel each other out, such as is the case with Magnetite (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magnetite).

Some matter is more susceptible to changing the polarity of its molecules in the presence of a magnetic field than others. These materials will be drawn to a magnet, as the magnetic field pulls the material's molecular magnetic moments into alignment with itself (the field, that is), thereby increasing the force exerted on the material and the magnet by the electromagnetic force. Among these materials, some will hold this alignment for a long period of time once the initial magnetic field is removed. These materials can be used to manufacture 'permanent' magnets. I was unable to find any numbers of when, if ever, certain materials would lose their alignment, but I think like most aspects of magnetism, is depends on the material.

By far the vast majority of permanent magnets in the world today are artificial magnets, manufactured by aligning the magnetic moments of a piece of matter using a strong, constant, magnetic field (most likely generated by an electromagnet).


..I forget where exactly I was going with this.. :think: Anyways, good basic rundown of properties and forming of permanent magnets. I think most of your questions as to whether or not something like you are thinking of would work would be covered by an explanation of how the electromagnetic force actually works..again, anyone out there have a Particle Physics textbook? :D

As much as I appreciate the 'show me' mentality, with science as with anything, there comes a point where you have to trust the (sufficiently documented and repeated) observations of others. Without this, nothing would ever be accomplished in the world because everyone would be constantly rediscovering everything from the ground up.

[burntheland]

Well, I don't necessary believe there is such funding for such a project in our country. I mean it would be a great idea, but we would loose millions and millions of dollars.

And about it being imperially being proven to NOT work...well I cant say I know for sure how many people have actually tried using the concepts I intend to work with. All be it they're all about the same. But that's like concluding that the very first five combustion engines ever made worked without a hitch simply because they're widely prevalent today. Maybe I'm having trouble describing the premise on how I feel it should work, or why I feel it should work....either way I'm not nor have I ever said that it WILL work.

And I understand the *basic principals of science I thank you very much. And the method stays the same. Perhapse Henery Ford would have never tried his hand in the automotive industry if the work of Francois Isaac de Rivaz of Switzerland would not have panned out. There are plenty of good reasons to repeat the steps. If for nothing when all the hair on my testicles is grey I can at least say with confidence that it doesn't work. And more so I am always proud to say I tried. Because success is never as sweet without the bitter comparison of failure. :D

and yeah....idk about the revelations. lol
who knows though man, maybe the beast is the guy down the street cooking meth and giving it to kids? Maybe he's the rapist in the alley? But i do know this....the bible would make one helluva' movie! lol, all that fire and brimstone with today's special effects. it would be awesome!

[x88x]

Perhapse Henery Ford would have never tried his hand in the automotive industry if the work of Francois Isaac de Rivaz of Switzerland would not have panned out.
Rivaz was far from the first or the last to invent an internal combustion engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine), and all Henry Ford did for the automotive industry was figure out a way to put everything together cheaply. Not to discount the importance of that, but he wasn't the first to create an assembly line either. Also, neither the ICE nor the assembly line violated basic scientific principles when they were created...just saying, maybe not the best analogy. ;)


There are plenty of good reasons to repeat the steps. If for nothing when all the hair on my testicles is grey I can at least say with confidence that it doesn't work. And more so I am always proud to say I tried. Because success is never as sweet without the bitter comparison of failure. :D

If you learn from every failure, they are not failures, merely steps toward the truth.

In the words of Samuel Beckett:
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."

[dr.walrus]

In the words of Samuel Beckett:
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."

http://www.forwardedtome.com/images/fail/ftm_food_fail.jpg

[x88x]

Hey, at least you can only go up from there. :P

[mDust]

And about it being imperially being proven to NOT work...well I cant say I know for sure how many people have actually tried using the concepts I intend to work with. All be it they're all about the same. But that's like concluding that the very first five combustion engines ever made worked without a hitch simply because they're widely prevalent today. Maybe I'm having trouble describing the premise on how I feel it should work, or why I feel it should work....either way I'm not nor have I ever said that it WILL work.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, because I was thinking something similar. There are a million and one ways of doing almost anything, 1,000,000 attempts might fail miserably, but there could always be that one guy that got it to work because he thought to do something that nobody else had done.

Even with modern engineering, the internal combustion engine runs around or below 10% efficiency. It's really just a poor design. There's no way to argue that it isn't. But it works and is cheap to produce, so we use it. New technologies to replace this inefficient workhorse have been in the design phase on and off again for many decades with little to show for it. Sure, we have electric motors, but they still can't replace combustion engines and usually they are paired together in cars. Wouldn't it be great if some "backwards" technology such as a magnetic generator were tinkered with by the guy that got it to work by skirting around the laws which were mistakenly thought to be holding it back? Who says it's really "something for nothing"? It might just appear that way because nobody ever took it seriously enough to examine the one phenomena that allowed it to work. I'm not saying it will or won't work, but thinking we know everything there is to know on any topic is reckless and should not be inferred from what we are taught.

As for that Stirling Engine link: wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine) and videos of it in action: simple (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqmeYc8GWmA&feature=related), powered by body heat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeP5LSfW05w), and one that sort of explains how it works (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrB7KRvxUk&feature=channel). There's one in particular that I wanted to link...but I can't find it. I think I might have it bookmarked on my desktop PC. I'll see if I can't find that when I get home.

[x88x]

Hahaha, so, I was browsing through random XKCD (http://www.xkcd.com/) pages today, and rediscovered this comic. I thought it was rather appropriate. :D

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/revolutionary.png
alt text:
I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.


EDIT:
Oh, and it's not a Sterling engine, but mDust's post made me think of this project (http://hackaday.com/2010/01/05/generate-electricity-with-a-candle/) I saw a while back. Someone used a candle and heatsink to generate current with a Peltier cooler, and then used that current to drive an LED. Completely pointless, but fun...and it'll get more than a few "wtf?"s. :D
http://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/thermoelectric-lamp.jpg?w=470&h=353

[dr.walrus]

Ok, Stirling engines, let's get some facts straight. To produce a lot of power from a small heat differential (atmospheric) you need a ludicrously large sterling engine. This requires a very large amount of metal (takes a lot of energy to produce) for very little power output. They work best when you, um, power them by burning something. Not great at all.

x88x - The peltier effect? A candle to power an LED?! Awesome but utterly, utterly wasteful.

A lot of the answer lies in better ways of using energy we're already producing, granted. This is better addressed by ideas like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

[x88x]

A candle to power an LED?! Awesome but utterly, utterly wasteful.

Haha, yup, that's the point. :D

[mDust]

I'm pretty sure this thread wasn't started with the intention of saving the planet. That's a little epic for TBCS...(...or is it?:D) This is a modding forum full of interesting projects that were mostly just a creative outlet for the modder.
That being said, don't start on the Stirling Engine! Geez! And actually, the power output of the Stirling Engine increases as the temperature difference increases. So, say it's winter here in Michigan and the ambient temperature is 10F. I then could take a parabolic mirror, like in the 3rd video I linked, and heat the cylinder up to 1200F. Concentrated solar energy creates enough of a temperature difference to allow a medium sized engine to turn a small generator quite easily. (Don't say it doesn't work because I've seen it done.) The only problem with this idea is, if there is a load on the engine, it won't start by itself and will have to be turned over like your car's engine. This is a real PITA if you don't have an electronic starter.

Unfortunately, I could not find a link to that video I was looking for. It was a Stirling Engine that was masterfully crafted into a work of art. It was really cool.

[SXRguyinMA]

wow. that was a lot of reading. and my brain hurts. on that note I'm taking the dog out and going to bed.

oh and BTW that failcat pic was effin hillarious :D

[x88x]

Heheh, ironic timing for Thinkgeek's April 1st products. :P

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/looflirpa/zero.shtml

[dr.walrus]

... I then could take a parabolic mirror...

if you get a big enough mirror to make that much solar energy, why not just do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough

[mDust]

if you get a big enough mirror to make that much solar energy, why not just do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough

Sorry, I meant lens, not mirror. For about 100 bucks I can get a 50-60 inch lens that will easily create temperatures up to about 1500F on a sunny day. Remember burning ants as a kid with a small magnifying glass? Think of that times 10.

[dr.walrus]

okay, but remember that that's less thermal energy than you'd harness with a square matt black steel plate the same area with some pipes running through it

[mDust]

okay, but remember that that's less thermal energy than you'd harness with a square matt black steel plate the same area with some pipes running through it
The energy needs to be focused on a small area though, and a black steel plate won't work. The plate could sit in the sun all day at the equator and not reach more than a couple hundred degrees F.

[dr.walrus]

The energy needs to be focused on a small area though, and a black steel plate won't work. The plate could sit in the sun all day at the equator and not reach more than a couple hundred degrees F.
that totally depends on the purpose

[Trace]

A higher heat difference will be more efficient for all intents and purposes previously stated.
In my highschool physics class, my teacher got boiling water and ice water and stuck a pelter plate between the 2 steel plates (one in each pot of water) and hooked up the leads into an electric motor to turn a fan.

[dr.walrus]

A higher heat difference will be more efficient for all intents and purposes previously stated.

what if it's to boil water? cook food? heat a house?

[Trace]

A higher heat difference will do it quicker.
Heat will flow quicker and produce more energy as such.

[dr.walrus]

A higher heat difference will do it quicker.


You need to know many more factors here to make a generalised conclusion. Let's say you want to boil 100ml of water, and you have a given amount of energy to do it. Imagine putting that in a very wide flat-bottomed plan with 200 degrees C underneath it. Then focus all that energy on one very focused point, say 1cm squared, but at much higher temperature, under the same pan. Doesn't work.

[Trace]

200*C is not a measure of energy. Temperature such as *C is a measure of the average internal energy in a substance. A measure of energy is taken in Joules(J).

Water has a specific heat capacity of 4186 J/kg, meaning it takes 4186 J to heat 1kg of water 1*C. So to raise 100mL (100g, .1kg) of water from 0*C to 100*C(melted to boiling, no phase change) we use the equation http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/d/9/0d9e81ba080e377257b8650d55178fe1.png
So that would then be q(energy)=.1(4186)100=41860 J required to boil that water.
If you focus that energy at one point in the water, it will flow much quicker into the water because of a higher heat difference and heat gradient. If you spread out the energy over a wide pan with super thin layer of water, the energy will not flow nearly as quickly. So as long as the water in pan with the super small focus point is moving and stirring, it would do it quicker.

[mDust]

You need to know many more factors here to make a generalised conclusion. Let's say you want to boil 100ml of water, and you have a given amount of energy to do it. Imagine putting that in a very wide flat-bottomed plan with 200 degrees C underneath it. Then focus all that energy on one very focused point, say 1cm squared, but at much higher temperature, under the same pan. Doesn't work.
It doesn't work because water is an insulator. If you were heating just the pan, it would work better.
But the reason the energy needs to be concentrated is because the piston cylinder that needs to be heated is not a flat metal plate. If it were, then great, but it's relatively small and cylindrical. So even the sunniest of days will not create a temperature difference great enough to turn the engine over. This is why it must be concentrated energy...the easiest way to do this is a large lens or flame. It's better to use the fuel that's already burning above us (or below us) than expend energy to drill up, transport and burn fuel in our own environment.

[dr.walrus]

200*C is not a measure of energy.


I am fully aware of this!

Your response relies on modifying my scenario to include a 'stirring' effect, which requires energy. Also, you have not taken into account the cooling effect of the pan and the water not in direct contact with the heat, and the fact that all that energy concentrated on one point would generate hear ABOVE the target temperature, creating very high temperature steam that escapes, carrying the energy with it, wasting energy. Additionally, creating a high temperature modifies the heat of the surrounding air as well as the pan...

Look, your response does not address that you are only increasing the temperature gradient for a fraction of the liquid. Burn the same amount of the same gas on your stove to heat a pan as use a blowtorch, and it's clear which system is more efficient.

[dr.walrus]

It doesn't work because water is an insulator. If you were heating just the pan, it would work better.
But the reason the energy needs to be concentrated is because the piston cylinder that needs to be heated is not a flat metal plate. If it were, then great, but it's relatively small and cylindrical. So even the sunniest of days will not create a temperature difference great enough to turn the engine over. This is why it must be concentrated energy...the easiest way to do this is a large lens or flame. It's better to use the fuel that's already burning above us (or below us) than expend energy to drill up, transport and burn fuel in our own environment.

I'm talking about heating household water, not using a stirling engine.

[Trace]

Good point Dr.

[mDust]

I'm talking about heating household water, not using a stirling engine.

lol, why?

[dr.walrus]

lol, why?
... you want power from the sun, right? How about you start in the most logical place and work up from there. Before you decide you want thermal power to be used effectively, start with the simplest, cheapest, most loss-less option, and work from there. Else you'll just end up with this website (http://www.greenpowerscience.com/)

"ooh look at all this energy we got from the sun! who needs a practical application!"

[mDust]

... you want power from the sun, right? How about you start in the most logical place and work up from there. Before you decide you want thermal power to be used effectively, start with the simplest, cheapest, most loss-less option, and work from there. Else you'll just end up with this website (http://www.greenpowerscience.com/)

"ooh look at all this energy we got from the sun! who needs a practical application!"

So instead of running a generator to help power the electrical devices we all use every day, we are going to settle for hot water? That's fine for helping to heat a home in the winter and allowing for a smaller water heater, but it's not going to replace a furnace or a hot water heater. That still leaves the rest of our house drawing the same amount of power from the grid.

How about we make our current appliances more energy efficient and run them mostly off the power of the sun? Major utilities would see a drop in grid usage and adjust their output accordingly. Unless you have a plan to run these things off hot water...I'm open to any ideas you have.

[dr.walrus]

So instead of running a generator to help power the electrical devices we all use every day, we are going to settle for hot water?

I didn't say that at all, did I?

What I'm getting at is that while Stirling engines are neat, we should be using some great existing technologies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_source_heat_pump

Rather than trying to use highly inefficient techniques that are 'neat' or 'cool'. And hot water? How much more efficient would a coal fired power plant be if you could provide them with near-boiling water rather than them pulling cold water out of a lake to power its steam turbine...

[mDust]

I didn't say that at all, did I?

What I'm getting at is that while Stirling engines are neat, we should be using some great existing technologies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_source_heat_pump

Rather than trying to use highly inefficient techniques that are 'neat' or 'cool'. And hot water? How much more efficient would a coal fired power plant be if you could provide them with near-boiling water rather than them pulling cold water out of a lake to power its steam turbine...
First, none of those are any less 'neat' or 'cool'. The problem though, is I can't build any of those things in my backyard. Sure, if I thought my city would fund a powerplant of such a nature, I'd do what I could to support it. It isn't going to happen though.
I can, however, build one of the most efficient mechanical engines that runs off free, non-polluting fuel which happens to be in unlimited supply.

[dr.walrus]

The sun isn't renewable, it's gonna run out one day :p

[diluzio91]

The sun isn't renewable, it's gonna run out one day :p

then we just tun to alpha centauri and borrow a cup of sun juice! :D

[mDust]

The sun isn't renewable, it's gonna run out one day :p

It had damn well better wait until at least the day after I die. That's all I have to say about that.

[billygoat333]

... if it doesnt, it will be the day you die. lol

[mDust]

... if it doesnt, it will be the day you die. lol

haha...yeah. You never know, it could supernova in 5 minutes and there's nothing that can be done about it. Ah....happy thoughts.

[dr.walrus]

then we just tun to alpha centauri and borrow a cup of sun juice! :D
nom nom nom

[SXRguyinMA]

lol

[burntheland]

I think the real conflict with the sterling engines would be the cost of the raw materials. As far as "it takes too much energy to build one compared to the energy output" well, the planet is widely overpopulated. I think man-power has officially become the most abundant resource. So opening plants to manufacture billions of these engines would both stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs and helping us create a more "green" tomorrow. All be it, of course, that I know nothing about the cost of the raw materials and if that would justify the means. but it's certainly a nice thought for the boys in DC.

On a separate note...failcat and comic strip...priceless.

[dr.walrus]

EIOEO is a rule that should underpin eco measures but is totally ingored at times.

People just don't realise how much energy it takes to refine aluminium....

[mDust]

I was never advocating "a Stirling Engine for all"... It's simply a fun project for individuals and is a source of free power. Now, before anyone points out that it takes energy to refine the materials and energy to construct it, I'll say "I know" right now. But depending on how long it's maintained and kept running, there will eventually be a "profit" of energy. It will eventually produce more energy over time than was invested in every step of its manufacture.

Stirling Engines were never going to save the planet. However, I do believe that the future of consumer electrical power is in self-generation. As in, no more power plants running at 40% efficiency, transmitting power over many miles of wire where another 20% is lost, and finally into 500,000 consumers' homes where another 10% is lost due to phantom power drain. It takes a crisis to open any society's eyes, so as our natural resources dwindle, we will collectively turn a more critical eye towards our current, wasteful system. Whether it's a magnetic generator, cold fusion, or some as-of-yet unimagined energy source, an ad hoc/decentralized system will likely be adopted. Instead of a handful of billionaire energy corporations, tons of small companies can pop up and feed the immediate surrounding neighborhoods. Homeowners could also feed the local grid just as they can today.

[dr.walrus]

I was never advocating "a Stirling Engine for all"... It's simply a fun project for individuals and is a source of free power. Now, before anyone points out that it takes energy to refine the materials and energy to construct it, I'll say "I know" right now. But depending on how long it's maintained and kept running, there will eventually be a "profit" of energy. It will eventually produce more energy over time than was invested in every step of its manufacture.

Stirling Engines were never going to save the planet. However, I do believe that the future of consumer electrical power is in self-generation. As in, no more power plants running at 40% efficiency, transmitting power over many miles of wire where another 20% is lost, and finally into 500,000 consumers' homes where another 10% is lost due to phantom power drain. It takes a crisis to open any society's eyes, so as our natural resources dwindle, we will collectively turn a more critical eye towards our current, wasteful system. Whether it's a magnetic generator, cold fusion, or some as-of-yet unimagined energy source, an ad hoc/decentralized system will likely be adopted. Instead of a handful of billionaire energy corporations, tons of small companies can pop up and feed the immediate surrounding neighborhoods. Homeowners could also feed the local grid just as they can today.

I totally agree that this issue needs addressing, and I wasn't accusing you of advocating Stirling engines to save the world :glasses: but here's my problem. I live in an 1870's terraced house. No front garden (front door opens straight onto the street), back yard is 20ft square. Not enough sun in NW England (read - almost none) for solar, the area is too crowded for wind, I have no running water or geothermal - I have an open fire and burn wood, but significant energy generation at home just isn't possible.

[mDust]

I have an open fire and burn wood, but energy generation at home just isn't possible. Lucky for you magnetic generators are very small!:D

It's possible, just not feasible...yet. In a few decades or so, something will have to be done about the reckless consumption of fuels used to generate power and transport us all about the planet. It isn't likely that we'll be able to reduce power consumption while the Earth's population grows, so we'll need some source of energy that's clean and sustainable. And this technology isn't going to develop itself, so everyone get busy!

[dr.walrus]

I'm friends with enough material scientists and chemists, I'm the computer scientist - I just use the energy, they can deal with the problems of producing it!

[mDust]

I'm friends with enough material scientists and chemists, I'm the computer scientist - I just use the energy, they can deal with the problems of producing it!

Ideas can come from anyone at any time. With 7 billion minds analyzing astounding amounts of information around the clock, someone has the answer to any question you can ask. It's just unfortunate that you will likely never meet them. I'm sure someone reading all this has ideas...

[mDust]

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/most-magnetic-material-ever-created-iron-and-nitrogen-might-overturn-laws-physics
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this article, but this is an example of what I was talking about...we don't know everything there is to know on any subject. All the "laws" we have observed so far are based around only what we do know. As we learn, we have to update them. This happens to theories all the time, but laws aren't changed very often.

[x88x]

Sounds interesting. The popsci headline is hyperbolous and, tbh, flat out wrong, but an interesting article none the less. For clarification for anyone who doesn't read the article, or more importantly, doesn't read the source article on the Minnesota Daily website, it's not a law that it has the potential of overturning, but a theory. There is a difference. A huge one. The theory that it has the potential of overturning concerns the limit of magnetization of a substance. I could see this material increasing efficiency and possibly reducing costs and space requirements in existing technologies, but just having a stronger magnet isn't going to break any of the fundamental laws of nature (as we understand it today). Also, it should be noted that as with any scientific research, this has to be independently repeated before it will really hold much weight, but it sounds like they've been doing their best to make it easier for another group to repeat their experiments, so hopefully that'll happen sooner rather than later. In any case, it sounds like an interesting experiment and I hope they have great success with it!

EDIT:
BTW, in the vein of challenging widely held scientific theories, it turns out the completely anaerobic, multi-celled organisms have been discovered in a certain patch of the Mediterranean! Pretty crazy stuff there! :D
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/scienceshot-animals-that-live-wi.html?rss=1

[dr.walrus]

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/most-magnetic-material-ever-created-iron-and-nitrogen-might-overturn-laws-physics
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this article, but this is an example of what I was talking about...we don't know everything there is to know on any subject. All the "laws" we have observed so far are based around only what we do know. As we learn, we have to update them. This happens to theories all the time, but laws aren't changed very often.
This doesn't allow you to generate electricity from nothing, which is still impossible!

[mDust]

This doesn't allow you to generate electricity from nothing, which is still impossible!As far as we know...;)

[dr.walrus]

We keep getting back here don't we?

What you're getting at is that there may well be some mechanism we don't know to extract energy from unknown sources, be they on the subatomic spectrum or something like dark matter we simply don't know. Which is totally feasible.

It's not possible for *ding* energy to appear from thin air! Ever!

[Trace]

How can you say that? Previously it was thought that we could never go faster than the speed of sound. Now we think that it is the speed of light that is impossible to break.

With the advancement of technology and learning, we continue to overturn the laws that govern our world. When you need 2 theories to cover something (light, theory of relativity and quantum mechanics) then we know something is clearly wrong.

[dr.walrus]

How can you say that? Previously it was thought that we could never go faster than the speed of sound. Now we think that it is the speed of light that is impossible to break.


BIT of a difference in the science behind those two isn't there.

[Trace]

How? They are both "speed limits"

[dr.walrus]

To reach the speed of light, you need an infinite amount of energy. You can't do it without some sort of warping of space of time as we know it. In science fiction, this is explained by 'warp fields' and 'subspace' or whatever.

To reach the speed of sound, you need to just keep adding energy. This was well known - bullets break the sound barrier all the time, the question was could people survive it.

I know my lights will turn on when I flick the switch. I rely on replicatable known effects every day, as does everyone else. I'm not denying new inventions and discoveries are possible, I'm saying that we won't have new discoveries unless we acknowledge the known discoveries, like special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity), without which we wouldn't have ANYTHING

So when I'm asked, could energy appear from nowhere, I look at my lunch and I'm relieved when I say 'no', because else after swallowing it, it's reassuring to know it won't suddenly explode, painting the room with my organs

[x88x]

When you need 2 theories to cover something (light, theory of relativity and quantum mechanics) then we know something is clearly wrong.
Not necessarily. Just because we don't have a theory that explains everything about a subject doesn't mean that the current theory is wrong, it just means that either we don't fully understand the topic yet or it simply cannot be explained by a single concept.

To expound on one of your examples, the reason there is a Special Theory of Relativity in addition to the 'normal' Theory of Relativity is because the universe sh**s itself when stuff approaches the speed of light ( :P my synopsis, not Einstein's). It doesn't mean the Theory of Relativity is wrong, it just means that things behave differently in certain environments. This is why there has never been, and imo never will be, a 'Grand Theory of Everything' that stands up to scientific inquiry. This is another thing that has been attempted time and time again over the years, and every time has come up with problems. The universe is just too complex to be explained by a single theory.



How? They are both "speed limits"

There was never any reason put forward why we couldn't break the speed of sound except that we hadn't. There is a reason why we can't break the speed of light. I'm not nearly familiar enough with relativity to argue the point as to why we can't, but I assure you, the two (breaking the speed of light and sound) are completely different concepts.

[Trace]

Breaking the speed of light is "impossible" because as things approach the speed of light, they become closer and closer to infinitely massive, and to accelerate something that is infinitely massive would take an infinite force.

[dr.walrus]

Breaking the speed of light is "impossible" because as things approach the speed of light, they become closer and closer to infinitely massive, and to accelerate something that is infinitely massive would take an infinite force.
...that, and more, which is where we get to this:

the universe sh**s itself when stuff approaches the speed of light
Because of the relativity of motion and its lack of effect on light, we realise that time itself slows as we approach the speed of light. And if you ever did reach the speed of light, well, in theory you'd be everywhere in the universe at the same time.

[Trace]

So are you saying that Time stops when we hit the speed of light?

[x88x]

So are you saying that Time stops when we hit the speed of light?

Sort of; more that it infinitely approaches stopping (for the observer approaching the speed of light) ...so kinda the same affect. The phenomenon is called time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation). Crazy weird funky stuff.

[diluzio91]

and here i thought gaining infinite mass would just cause the universe to implode upon itself as the gravity of an infinitely massive object would suck all other mass into it...

[x88x]

and here i thought gaining infinite mass would just cause the universe to implode upon itself as the gravity of an infinitely massive object would suck all other mass into it...

As I said, I'm not nearly as familiar with special relativity as I would like, but I would guess that the discontinuity you mention would be covered under 'the universe sh**s itself when stuff approaches the speed of light', or rather, a lot of things that hold true normally suddenly fly out the window.

[diluzio91]

lol... thats a sig quote...

[SXRguyinMA]

...Previously it was thought that we could never go faster than the speed of sound...

LOL at some of the thought the sceintists had back in the day relating to what would happen if you broke the sound barrier

[mazirra]

Hi
Today, everyone is becoming very concerned about our supply of non-renewable energy and wonder what they can do. You can make a difference if you use clean, renewable magnetic energy to provide electricity for your home. Magnetic energy does not cost a thing. It does not harm the environment in any way.

It is easy to buy a guide to help you build your own permanent magnet generator. You will get all the directions and a list of materials so you can get free energy from your own magnetic energy generator. You won't have to worry about sun and wind with a magnetic generator. Your magnet power generator will run all the time and constantly provide energy for your home.

The ideas for these generators are not new but people have not been able to get them out there because big businesses do not want everyone to have this information. Magniwork was able to get its plans for magnetic generators to the public so people can easily build their own magnetic generators and that way they can do their share to help the environment and save energy.

link removed. User banned. Post left for Prosperity.

[dr.walrus]

Hi
Today, everyone is becoming very concerned about our supply of non-renewable energy and wonder what they can do. You can make a difference if you use clean, renewable magnetic energy to provide electricity for your home. Magnetic energy does not cost a thing. It does not harm the environment in any way.

It is easy to buy a guide to help you build your own permanent magnet generator. You will get all the directions and a list of materials so you can get free energy from your own magnetic energy generator. You won't have to worry about sun and wind with a magnetic generator. Your magnet power generator will run all the time and constantly provide energy for your home.

The ideas for these generators are not new but people have not been able to get them out there because big businesses do not want everyone to have this information. Magniwork was able to get its plans for magnetic generators to the public so people can easily build their own magnetic generators and that way they can do their share to help the environment and save energy.



oh go away

[mDust]

oh go away

Haha!

Shall we continue this?

[TheGreatSatan]

Anything with Green energy makes me want to throw up!

[mDust]

Anything with Green energy makes me want to throw up!

The original concept of 'being green' and 'green energy' is a very responsible and sound one. However, marketers thought they could slap the word 'green' on anything to make a few more bucks. I'm sure it worked at first, but soon everyone was jumping on that wagon and the wagon couldn't hold them. The chances of a 'green' labeled product actually living up to that promise is about 0 these days. Hell, didn't you guys see those 'green' oil slicks in the gulf?:D

[diluzio91]

The original concept of 'being green' and 'green energy' is a very responsible and sound one. However, marketers thought they could slap the word 'green' on anything to make a few more bucks. I'm sure it worked at first, but soon everyone was jumping on that wagon and the wagon couldn't hold them. The chances of a 'green' labeled product actually living up to that promise is about 0 these days. Hell, didn't you guys see those 'green' oil slicks in the gulf?:D

didnt you hear? a simple can of krylon and a stencil can make anything environmentally friendly!

[dr.walrus]

Haha!

Shall we continue this?

:D