Leaderboard

Another way to avoid the nasty integrals Mordred is talking about is through the use of Feynman diagrams. Feynman diagrams are a pictorial representation of the integral formulation, and the transition amplitudes as a weighted sum of all possible histories of a system from initial to final state. The 'participants' are usually indicated by ' > < ' where arrows on each bracket indicate time evolution and all possible interactions are indicated by 'squiggly' lines joining the vertices of the brackets. ( sorry about the crude representation; Wikipedia has much better diagrams ) These possible histories can give rise to other 'participants' ( solid lines ) as well as squiggly interaction lines, and can get very complicated. Also the fact that there can be an infinite number of possible histories, leads to possible infinities when summed; fortunately, a technique called renormalization works rather well at eliminating these infinities from QED and QCD. In the case of gravity, these perturbative contributions, or possible histories, don't just arise between the two brackets themselves; because gravity is self-coupling, they arise on ( and perturb ) each individual bracket also, leading to additional infinities which resist every attempt of renormalization.

A voltage source is a component that creates a potential difference between two points in a circuit, meaning it drives a certain amount of electrons to move from one point to another in a specific direction according to a time frequency. The internal resistance depends on the properties of the voltage source. In the quantum world, a small portion of electrons might even choose to move in the opposite direction of others, which can slightly reduce the voltage, and some electrons might go elsewhere, leaving the circuit and dissipating as heat. The quantum world is indeed strange, with some electrons following the rules, others doing the opposite of the rules, and some having no rules to follow at all... But this shows a misunderstanding of rectification. Yes, sorry, you should use diodes for rectification to keep only the positive sinusoidal signal, followed by filtering with capacitors to smooth the signal. You might also consider adding a regulator at the end. In any case, blocks 2 and 4 correspond to a device that transforms a sinusoidal signal into a constant signal. I wasn't sure how to say this in English. Are there any other points that need to be clarified in the schematic as well?

I have to admit the design is intriguing we will have to see how it works outside the simulation.

The final parsec problem came up in another thread but we didn't have a reference so thanks for the link.

Hi @Prajna I was intrigued by this thread. I appreciate your earnesty and I think it’s a cool looking project. I don't believe it will generate any free energy though, but the discussion is interesting to me anyway. The discussion around "is work done by a magnetic field" was quite difficult to follow in my opinion. I thought maybe I could help with explaining in layman’s terms where I believe the error in your thinking is. It seems that basically you think that the magnetic field is something that we somehow can steal energy from to move stuff. Let's see why this isn't a good way of looking at things. You know that you can “slingshot” satellites around planets, using the planet’s gravitational field, and the satellite gets faster, leaves the planet even faster than it went in. It gained kinetic energy. Where did this kinetic energy come from? It doesn’t “magic it” from the gravitational field, as if the field were an ether-like-thing that you can harvest energy from. The satellite steals kinetic energy from from the planet, which slows down by a teeny amount. The field only moderated the interaction, like a string. So there isn’t energy we can somehow steal forever from the gravitational field, we stole it from Earth. Just like if I have the kids toy, a rubber ball connected to a wooden bat by elastic. When you have it going, it looks effortless, the ball is zipping to and fro with hardly no perceptible movement from me. But we know, when the ball is flying away from the bat, it requires energy from me to pull/resist slightly, then I have to push/hit the ball slightly. The energy of the system doesn’t come from the elastic or the rubber-ness of the ball. It comes from me. If I stop my very small wrist/bat movements the system loses energy. Imagine the same toy but the bat is super tiny, the same weight as the ball, now I have to really move my arm hit the ball harder. it becomes more obvious that I am the one putting all the energy into the system. The reason I use these silly examples, is because it shows that when you have a system where one thing is big (me and the bat, or a planet) and the other is small (ball / satellite), and it can look like you are getting a lot of energy / force from the field of attraction - the gravity field, or the elastic. You gave the intelligent common sense example of what if you push something ferrous along a table, near to a magnet above the table, at some point the magnet will suck it upwards. Why is the work not coming from the magnetic field? Because it’s the various mechanical forces that are needed to do the lifting. Let’s say the magnet is held above the table by a thin string from the ceiling. What will we see in super slo-mo? We will see the magnet pulled downward very slightly toward the table/object, the string will extend, this puts a tension in the string, a force which acts upward. So, whatever the magnetic attraction, when we consider the whole system, the lifting still requires this upward tension force. The magnetic attraction in this case is just the linkage, like a sort of elastic but in reverse. The key point is we didn’t need to use energy “from the magnetic field”, to do the lift, but it was all correctly supplied and accounted for from the upward pulling tension. So we can see there is always some force, some mechanical situation, which sometimes isn’t obvious, maybe cos we’re not thinking about the whole system. So, similarly in your machine, the magnets and fields are just distributing or transferring the forces from the movements of the machine, just like mechanical linkages. This is always what magnets do, just that is seems more mysterious when we play with magnets because they’re unfamiliar - it seems to us like “I don’t apply any force or do anything, but the metal pieces move… ” Imagine your machine, but the rotor, instead of having teeth between magnets, had smooth waves of fat and thin sections, between 2 rollers, which are now mechanically oscillated together and apart, just like the magnets were. This is basically the situation, it’s some kind of drive to convert rotary to reciprocating movement, then another thing to convert the reciprocating movement back to rotary. What makes you think that doing part of it with magnets can make the whole machine to go over 100% efficiency ? The magnets will push, pull, on mechanical parts, induce pushing and pulling, and maybe lose energy in currents or heat. Where is it gaining the energy from ? Anyway it’s a cool project, it made me think, and I hope you get to complete a build of it. Please post results. to everyone else, it's my first post so, sorry if I said anything stupid.