alebrije0871

Hi Prajna, to be honest I think you kind or needlessly torpedo'd the thread with this... "the denizens of such fora are a sarcastic, arrogant and unfriendly lot when it comes to examining such a device" up until you posted this the responses were actually quite nice interesting and helpful, in my opinion anyway. I also tried my best to help. Perhaps you were talking about your experiences on other forums. Also in another place you said something like "is a curious device and I'm curious and I can't understand why none of you are." Please don't be upset that people aren't interested in the device. It's just that its a very bold claim, far outside the realm of what people are familiar with --- it's like if you showed up to a running club and said you have a new technique that you can run 100m in 5 seconds... but no proof, you just wanna talk about it .... people's patience would be very short , until they see it, I don't it's fair to call it arrogance. personally i think it's a cool project, I don't think it will generate over unity energy, but it's neat anyway

OK good luck with your testing. I just wanted to say, please don't feel that the lack of response on your question, here is due to ill-will, or no-one knowing any physics. You say it's a "simple example", but it's really not simple simple. For example, I did undergrad physics, and to estimate the forces as you request in your system, is way more complex than any problem I ever saw in labs or exams, or lectures. It's not that it's particularly weird physics, just that there are lots and lots of variables, it's a very "dirty" real life problem.... I can imagine taking it to the total brainbox in my year, and he would spend a couple of full evenings working on it, and eventually be like, "I kind of got an answer, but, only for a rotor which is infinitely thin, and if the magnets don't move at all. Oh, and only if the speed of rotor is so slow that you can avoid the blahblah 2nd order effect." So it's kind of a big ask. Of course I could be wrong, perhaps there is someone here who did their phd on rotors spinning in magnets. The other thing is, you did get a very good intuitive answer already in this thread -- someone already said the energy lost thru drag etc must be more than the energy generated, but you don't seem to accept it. I'm 100% sure that the physicists on this thread are all intuitively sure that energy lost thru drag etc is more than what you gain, because otherwise, you would be gaining energy from nowhere. I get that you seem to not really be on board with conservation of energy, but for a physicist , it's generally our best way of quickly working out complex problems, of intuiting. We are taught to look at the energy of a system to see how it will behave. i think it's super cool to have discussions like this, i just wanted to say in case you feel frustrated that no-one is giving you the answers you want, and at least you see the logic from this side of why not. (answer already seems very obvious due to physics conservation of energy, and the alternative calculation asked for is not easy) On another note , I am super surprised you didn't do more testing already, like for example just getting a couple of strong magnets from a household store and spinning a circular saw or lawnmower blade (etc) thru them, just to see how it all felt. I think that is the first thing i would have done, start spinning random things, I guess I am more of an engineer / hacker at heart lol

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.