Is this OU?

[alan2here]

This is a quote of somone on another forums explaning to the other forum members what I ment when I was trying to discribe an anomile I encountered while playing with magnets

 

The orriganal post is here

http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17702&page=1#Comment_260721

 

Fact (as observed by Alan): 5 cylindrical magnets are placed (in parallel) end-to-end some small distance apart, in such a way that all may spin freely along one axis (said axis is perpendicular to the line of magnets). Naturally, the magnets spin, and come to rest in a line (with north and south poles facing one another). Now Alan expends energy X to rotate the first magnet 180 degrees, and fixes its position with a clamp. As a result, the second magnet spins to line up with the first, potentially generating energy Y. The third, fourth, and fifth magnets follow suit, potentially generating a total of ((N-1)*Y) energy, where in this case N=5.

 

Now, no matter how small Y is, a large enough N will cause the energy output to exceed X. When this happens, the first magnet can then be rotated 180 degrees and re-clamped, which will cause the entire process to reverse itself, again generating an amount of potential energy greater than X.

 

Now there are two assumptions necessary to raise N past the experimental value of 5, and have this "OU" machine work. I suspect that one or both of these are incorrect, and as a result we'll never see OU:

1. X is constant over all values of N (or, similarly, X is constant for all N higher than a certain number).

2. No matter what the size of N, spinning the first magnet will always generate a spin in the second, and third, etc. You'll never enter a resting state where two adjacent magnets are facing in opposite directions.

 

Now, can someone help us understand how either of these two assumptions are false?

 

Please can I have some feedback

[DaveC426913]

The energy required to turn magnet 1 with 4 other magnets (some indirectly) holding it in place is greater than the energy required to turn magnet 1 without any other magnets. X is larger than you think it is. Have you factored this in?

[alan2here]

Yes

However big X is you can always make N bigger with more magnets, However X is an almost fixed value after N becomes bigger than a cirtain amount

 

We have also decided we may need logeritmic spacing between the magnets, although by my observations we don't I was only using a few magnets

 

again Im quoteing from one of teslamotors1's posts, as I guess you may not wan't to read though the pages of posts on the other forum to get at all the progress made so far

 

I've played around with magnets of the type and strength that Alan mentions, and I can say from experience that if you line up 20 magnets in the way that he describes, then remove all but the outside two (leaving you with two magnets that are spaced very far apart), the first magnet will not "see" the last magnet (in other words, it's not influenced by it in any measurable way). The energy required to spin the first magnet, in this case, is the same whether you have the last magnet there or not. From this, I deduce that after the 20th magnet (or so), additional magnets do not have a DIRECT effect on the first magnet.

 

Now, that still leaves the possibility of an INDIRECT effect, which is what I believe you are referring to (please correct me if I'm wrong) -- in other words, the force required to turn the first magnet is related to the force required to turn each and every magnet. It seems like, if we fix magnets 2 through N in place (rather than allowing them to rotate freely), this INDIRECT effect is eliminated, since magnets 2 through N are no longer turning. This would then mean that the force required to turn the first magnet is based only on the first 2-19 magnets (or so), since beyond this limit no DIRECT effect is felt (as I've posited).

 

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the first magnet is spun so quickly that its rotation is complete before the second (and third, etc) magnet moves at all. Since the magnets haven't moved yet, this would seem to simulate magnets 2 through N being fixed in position, effectively eliminating the INDIRECT effect. If this is true, then many more magnets can be added to the line, all without increasing the work required to turn the first magnet.

[Severian]

Yes

However big X is you can always make N bigger with more magnets, However X is an almost fixed value after N becomes bigger than a cirtain amount

 

That is not true. X is not fixed. X will grow as quickly (possibly more quickly due to disappative effects) than ((N-1)*Y) as you add more magnets. This is because turning X now means you have to do a lot more work to fight against the pull of all the other magnets.

[alan2here]

That is not true. X is not fixed. X will grow as quickly (possibly more quickly due to disappative effects) than ((N-1)*Y) as you add more magnets. This is because turning X now means you have to do a lot more work to fight against the pull of all the other magnets

 

You don't have to turn all the magnets by turning the first one, in fact there is only the resistance of the first few as the magnets that are sevral away have much less effect than the once verry close, once the first one is then locked into place all the magnets will end up turning half a turn. The first one will require almost the same energy to turn if there is just 20 than if there is 100, because 80 of the 100 will have almost no effect on the first one, and once the first is locked into place the others will allighn themselves at a half turn from what they are. Then when they are all facing the other way the cycle is ready to start again by only turning the first one.

 

Somone else asked

I don't think you can just spin one magnet and expect all the others to follow suit. The repulsive force between the first two magnets will be countered by an attractive force between the the second, third, fourth.....nth magnet. Thus the second magnet might deflect a bit, but it probably wouldn't do the full 180 turn because it'll be pulled back by an overwhelming attractive force due to the other n-2 magnets.......Or at least that's what my intuition tells me.

 

For which the answer was simerlar

There will be more than 3 magnets for it to work but to explane my example will have only three.

 

The first has been turn half way around

The second will turn a quater around

The third will turn one eigth around

 

However the third one is not bound by anything

Therefore the third one will be atracted only by the one second one (one quater) and a bit by the first one (one half) and corect itself accordingly. the second will then correct inself to being slightly more turned.

ect...

 

This all hapens werry fast and not in such as orderly fasion as reality dosn't hapen in convent time steps like that, but it did seem to work. and they all eneded up allighned corectly after the forst cycle, and ready for the next cycle

 

Friction is too great with week bar magnets on a table

Stronger and possibly cylidrical magnets on something that can rotate freely and easely is needed

 

and

You are assuming that each magnet can pass on 100% of it's energy with 100% efficiency to the next. Air resistance and friction alone will prevent this from happening. The force required to break the [combined] bonds of all the subsequent magnets will be greater than the force in a single magnet. The mathematics is similar to that displayed by 'Newton's ball's' where there are a number of suspended spheres which at rest are in contact with each other. When one ball is raised and released it hits the second, this energy is passed 'down'the line' to the last ball. The last ball they moves out and back, the sequence repeats in reverse. I have simplified the explanation.

 

to which the answer is

It works even if it is verry inificant, no where neer 100% efficency is rrequired. If it was 100% efficant then all magnets end up allighned at 180 degrees to to orriganaly verry quicly via a chain reaction that shoots down the line as fast as the first one is turned, that however is not the case, it is far less impressive. If it was then It would make 100x the power input for a line 100 magnets in length. Actually what happens is that it takes a lot more time for them all to allighn, and therefore it could be argued that there is much loss between each one. Im shure some power must be coming from the magnets themselves, this is suported by the fact that they would eventually run down and need replacing if the device was built and left to run for a long time.

 

This could be rectified to work more how I think you are expecting though with logeritmic spaceing between the magnets or logritmic magnet power.

 

Although the way I have been discribing there is far less that 100% efficency but it still works.

 

Imagine a domino run, only when you have knocked over all the dominoe's they are still standing up, so you can knock them all over again just by bumping the first one again.

 

Sorry that soo long, but I wanted to put a lot of explonation in it, please reply again Severian

[Rocket Man]

i think the easiest way to go about this one is to assume no energy comes from no where and go from there.

 

i think i get your system, the magnets are allowed to hinge at their centres while facing pole to pole all in a line.

as you turn the first magnet, the pole of the first magnet pulls the pole of the second to the side, slowly but surely the attraction of the far poles becomes apparrant the result is a locking effect.

 

when you turn the first magnet, the second turns to keep it's pole as close to the first pole as possible. when you introduce a third, there is back torque on the second, it is trying have it's north close to the first's south while having it's south close to the thirds north.

 

the second magnet is experiencing forces in two different (rotational) directions, so the force required (exerted by the first) to turn it is greater.

e=fs, energy applied increases.

at 90 degrees, there is a lot of stored energy all added to the system by the first magnet, further rotation releases this energy.

 

i think the main point of confusion comes from having very little or no velocity and almost no friction component. the force applied by the first magnet will cause energy to be stored in the second, but add a third, it will be difficult to get the second and third to rotate, they will have an attraction force between them that may not be possible to overcome simply by rotating the first. (at a stretch it is possible to do with 3 magnets, the first will apply exactly as much force as the third as long as it remains perfectly parrallel with the first)

a fourth, fifth and hundredth simply compounds this problem.

[gcol]

Is the above discussion all theory, or experimental result? If no practical experiment has been done, then I am thinking of mounting several magnets on torsion wires, each with a scale, to determine exactly how much force is exerted on each. I envisage a deal of poke and hope to optimise the gauge and length of torsion wire. Not sure if I would have the patience to make 20 of the things though

 

I ask because there are no actual measurments quoted. If I can get enough bar magnets, building the contraption will give me something to do during the winter evenings.

 

If it has been done, tell me so I don't waste time reinventing the wheel.

[rewebster]

I don't think this will be understood, until magnetism is.

 

It's similar to asking why a magnet can 'levitate' above another one.

[Rocket Man]

gcol, i will be amazed if you can get 3 identical bar magnets to turn about their centres on bearings with equal distances between, them let alone torsion guages. THAT would be a feat of precision motion.

 

magnetism is an effect of moving charged particles. the orbitals of magnetic elements give a net polarity. it's electromagnetism on a picoscopic scale.

the force of a magnet does not use any energy, the force is perpandicular to the particles motion. the scalar product of all vectors is equal to zero so no energy is lost or gained within the atom.

 

this is all theory, but an experiment would only work if the magents are progressively further apart. my best guess is that the energy stored left of the second magnet is equal to the energy stored right.

 

try it with 3 on bearings, it probably wont work.

[swansont]

You don't have to turn all the magnets by turning the first one, in fact there is only the resistance of the first few as the magnets that are sevral away have much less effect than the once verry close, once the first one is then locked into place all the magnets will end up turning half a turn. The first one will require almost the same energy to turn if there is just 20 than if there is 100, because 80 of the 100 will have almost no effect on the first one, and once the first is locked into place the others will allighn themselves at a half turn from what they are. Then when they are all facing the other way the cycle is ready to start again by only turning the first one.

 

Can you clarify if this is something you've observed and measured, or something you are taking a priori as fact?

 

I'm guessing it's the latter, because it's flat-out wrong, and that's your problem, which Severian already pointed out. (If it's the former, then you screwed up the experiment.)

[rewebster]

There are several patents on motors that utilize this idea:

 

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1727

 

 

http://pesn.com/2005/03/27/6900072_HowardJohnson_MagneticPropulsionPatents/

[swansont]

A patent is not an operational device, it's a plan. Demonstrating that it operates is not the same thing as showing it creates energy.

[rewebster]

There are quite a few pages out there on this:

 

http://www.rexresearch.com/minato/minato.htm

 

http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-text.html

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=magnetic+motor+patent&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N

 

Not all of the googles will be specifically about this though.

[swansont]

There are quite a few pages out there on this:

 

http://www.rexresearch.com/minato/minato.htm

 

http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-text.html

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=magnetic+motor+patent&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N

 

Not all of the googles will be specifically about this though.

 

If you want to really convince people, don't give me statements like (from the first link)

 

"Suddenly, a power source of 16 watt or so is driving a device that should be drawing at least 200 to 300 watts."

 

since that's handwaving, not perpetual motion.

 

And "The meters showed an input to the stator electromagnets of approximately 1.8 volts and 150mA input, and from the generator, 9.144 volts and 192mA output. 1.8 x 0.15 x 2 = 540mW input and 9.144 x 0.192 = 1.755W out."

 

Why not just plug the output into the input, and drive a load in addition? Why do the metering, which can be done incorrectly? He has a watt to spare. Run a load.

 

Until such a device is demonstrated in that way — running a load, with no outside sources — it's all crap. The burden of proof is on the perpetual motion crowd. It's not up to anybody else to show them what they're doing wrong; not that they'd listen.

 

The thing is, lots of people claim to have invented perpetual motion/free energy devices. Yet invariably, their houses are still connected to the power grid. Why is that?

[rewebster]

I've seen one working on Scientific Frontiers with Alan Alda. It was, if I remember, at the Smithsonian.

 

I have never seen one working personally--I haven't seen a lot of things working, like the accelerator at Fermilab either.

 

 

From what I've read most have a very minimal output--a couple watts at most--not much ability to do much; and I think that may be the reason they may not be widely known or cared about---they seem like a low end physics parlor trick--they are out there though and I think we'll see more of them.

 

They shouldn't be lumped with most 'perpetual motion' machines that one generally thinks of (ball on the end of a string on a wheel).

 

Someone will show someday what magnetism is (the mechanism that causes the duality and the field effects), and these machines will no longer be considered a 'trick' .

[rewebster]

It may be that most think that all is known about magnetism and that it has been fully experimented full to all of its capacities. Physicists think they know what helps to cause magnetism (the un-paired electron), but explaining magnetism is still one of the fundamental unknowns.

 

No one really knows what causes the duality (push and pull) and no one really knows what the field is that causes the push and pull.

 

I find magnetism as interesting as all of the other unexplained energies.

[swansont]

It may be that most think that all is known about magnetism and that it has been fully experimented full to all of its capacities. Physicists think they know what helps to cause magnetism (the un-paired electron), but explaining magnetism is still one of the fundamental unknowns.

 

No one really knows what causes the duality (push and pull) and no one really knows what the field is that causes the push and pull.

 

I find magnetism as interesting as all of the other unexplained energies.

 

I think you woefully underestimate what is known about magnetism.

 

Have you studied relativity? (or any physics, for that matter)

[rewebster]

I think you woefully underestimate what is known about magnetism.

 

I wasn't saying that, and there IS a lot known about it.

 

I haven't read anything that explains the duality of the attractive force and repulsive force, so far though. If you have some links to explain the mechanism that causes it, I would like to read them. Maybe, I missed them. I liked the ideas of the 'mystery' of why magnetism and the other energies weren't fully explained.

 

 

Physics is a passion of mine---not my occupation.

 

 

Have you studied relativity? (or any physics, for that matter)

 

For example, I don't plan much time to read and get a great understanding of String Theory, because it really doesn't interest me. I do read a lot though. One physicist told me that trying to understand the fundamental mechanisms of what causes the energies, such as magnetism, wasn't worth his time. He liked the string theory.

[gcol]

Is the above discussion all theory, or experimental result? If no practical experiment has been done, then I am thinking of mounting several magnets on torsion wires, each with a scale, to determine exactly how much force is exerted on each. I envisage a deal of poke and hope to optimise the gauge and length of torsion wire. Not sure if I would have the patience to make 20 of the things though

 

I ask because there are no actual measurments quoted. If I can get enough bar magnets, building the contraption will give me something to do during the winter evenings.

 

If it has been done, tell me so I don't waste time reinventing the wheel.

 

I began a prototype, using some tasty ring magnets (easier to mount) and immediately hit a massive engineering problem. The "cogging" effect. Anyone who has tried to use a stepper motor as a generator will know what I mean.

The sideways strain on the bearings was immense, and the vibration. The torsion wires twanged like piano strings.

 

Hard won lesson: Theory and thought experiments are often easy, devising a practical test and putting it into practice is something else again.

 

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to devise a mechanism, but without the practical tool-room techie, you can't build a rocket.

[rewebster]

Hard won lesson: Theory and thought experiments are often easy, devising a practical test and putting it into practice is something else again.

 

True ---and funny if you wonder if Einstein thought this too.

[rewebster]

5 cylindrical magnets are placed (in parallel) end-to-end some small distance apart, in such a way that all may spin freely along one axis

 

If the magnets were far enough apart, they wouldn't rotate when the first was turned. If there were two fairly close, turning one would take more effort than turning one by itself. The question then becomes, at what distance apart and with what amount of force would it take to turn the first and have all the others rotate. The fields of the second, third, etc. will effect the first, but to what point? Turning the first, logically, shouldn't take as much effort as turning one of the middle magnets, but either turning the first or one of the middle magnets will result in the same effect--all will rotate 180.

 

 

Then, the next question would be, is there more force created in the turning of the other magnets than it took to turn the one?

[swansont]

[Turning the first, logically, shouldn't take as much effort as turning one of the middle magnets, but either turning the first or one of the middle magnets will result in the same effect--all will rotate 180.

 

Why is that logical?

[gcol]

5 cylindrical magnets are placed (in parallel) end-to-end some small distance apart, in such a way that all may spin freely along one axis

 

If the magnets were far enough apart, they wouldn't rotate when the first was turned. If there were two fairly close, turning one would take more effort than turning one by itself. The question then becomes, at what distance apart and with what amount of force would it take to turn the first and have all the others rotate. The fields of the second, third, etc. will effect the first, but to what point? Turning the first, logically, shouldn't take as much effort as turning one of the middle magnets, but either turning the first or one of the middle magnets will result in the same effect--all will rotate 180.

 

 

Then, the next question would be, is there more force created in the turning of the other magnets than it took to turn the one?

 

I think you may have the wrong end of the stick there. If each ring magnet is free to turn independently, then when they are aligned at the point of mutually attractive equilibrium, it will be as if they are mechanically coupled. All the magnets would act as a single long magnet. Then turning one will turn the others easily, restricted only by the sum total of bearing resistance. The spacing between them would surely only be significant if far enough to weaken the quasi-mechanical link when not strong enough to overcome bearing friction.

 

Now unless there is a difference in principle between a line of common axis ring magnets and a line of individually mounted bar magnets, then the effect should be the same surely, and easier to visualise?

 

Now consider restricting a magnet. By exerting enough turning force on a distant moveable one, the force exerted on the fixed one can be no greater than that required to break the link.

[rewebster]

Why is that logical?

 

why does it not seem logical, to you?

 

Being in an attracted state on just one end would seem to take less force to move.

[rewebster]

Now unless there is a difference in principle between a line of common axis ring magnets and a line of individually mounted bar magnets, then the effect should be the same surely, and easier to visualise?

 

 

I like to visualise bar magnets---for my 'thought' experiment. yes--I think friction would come into play sooner or later. I'm sure someone out there has done more along this line than what I've found on the net. Equations about magnets, and thought experiments don't come close to lab or testing though.