Help explaining that perm. mag. motors don't work

[cholley]

Alright this is hard for me to write because I feel like a backstabber but I need to stop him before he destroys my family. My father is a very smart small business owner and inventor and he is very near hitting it "big" with one invention. However, he has another project in the works that is his PERMANENT MAGNETIC MOTOR (dun dun dun...) I only have a small background in High school Newtonian physics and some college conceptual physics I try so hard to explain to him that it won't work but he is my dad and very stubborn/intimidating to talk to about something he is so passionate about. He swears by it and will even start yelling that "blah blah blah.. it's all in the timing Christopher!"

My fear is that once the down to Earth invention makes it through and makes money, which it will (AKA: he has a meeting tomorrow with the owner of K-Tool international about that deal), he is going to invest his future/my future (...college) into this magnetic machine.This is a concern because he already brags about having put 15thousand into it in machining costs and engineering costs and whatever.

I need something I can say to my dad to convince him that it won't work..

I've explained to him that theory's are very strict already not to mention trying to break a law, laws must be respected.

HELP MEEEE!

Thanks,
Chris

 

[Danger]

Hmmm... most motors involve permanent magnets. If he has a meeting with someone and his motor will make money (which you specified), then it must be workable.
You come across as being a selfish child whose only concern is that your father's money will go somewhere other than to you. That is very uncool.

 

[vanesch]

As danger said, many motors use permanent magnets. Now, the question is: does he try to invent a kind of perpetual motion machine, running ONLY on permanent magnets (no, that won't work), or does he simply mean a type of motor that will use electricity, but uses a permanent magnet ? The last one works, as they exist already for ages.

On another point: it is not because his invention will not work, that he will not find an idiot which will spend money on it and make him rich of course. True, that's not "honest", but then it can still make money. There are a lot of bogus things out there which make their inventors pretty rich. The trap not to fall into is to try to make it work You just need to convince a rich idiot that it can work, and run with the money before he finds out. You can justify it to your conscience by calling it the price of ignorance
(this is morally not correct, but hey, people make a lot of money with homeopathy too, don't they...)

 

[pantaz]

I always point people here: "http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm" "

You may have to dig a little, but I'm sure you'll find something similar to your father's invention.

 

[cholley]

Hmmm... most motors involve permanent magnets. If he has a meeting with someone and his motor will make money (which you specified), then it must be workable.
You come across as being a selfish child whose only concern is that your father's money will go somewhere other than to you. That is very uncool.

Hey, Danger, sorry but it obviously wasn't correct to say "permanent magnetic motor" I should have said perpetual motion machine, does that sound more familiar?

Again sorry but I very much dislike being labeled a "selfish child" you do not understand the precise circumstances of our money situation. On top of that you must consider my future is more vital to my father and me than a fantastic dream.

Please thoroughly re-read my original post and think about what was said... I stated that he has "ANOTHER PROJECT" (that is the magnetic perpetual motion machine) along with a separate invention that is legitimate/down to Earth that is the one he has said he hopes makes some money so that he can fund the crazy project...

i don't want to see him invest so much for a sure failure

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me recap. Correct me where I'm wrong.

1. Your father has developed a motor that is fairly well-developed, does work and will likely make him money.
2. He also has a side-project for a device that is not yet well-developed. He believes it will work; you believe it can not.
3. You are concerned, not about the first money-making project, but about the one that you think will follow on its heels, where you think he will, following on his first success, sink all his money into the second, and lose it all.

Is that about right?

 

[DaveC426913]

Assuming the above is correct, in my opinion:


1] He is successfully inventing and making money off his developments. Regardless what what you think he might do in the future, right now he is doing quite well thankyouverymuch, and deserves the right to run his life as he sees fit.

2] Your father has successfully invented a motor. You have, by your own admission, limited academic knowledge of the subject. Why do you think you know more than he does about the subject, let alone his own invention?

3] If this device won't work, he'll find that out when he goes to test it. He didn't get to be a successful inventor by being mindlessly chasing red herrings.

i.e. You are out-of-line.

 

[student85]

Let me recap. Correct me where I'm wrong.

1. Your father has developed a motor that is fairly well-developed, does work and will likely make him money.
2. He also has a side-project for a device that is not yet well-developed. He believes it will work; you believe it can not.
3. You are concerned, not about the first money-making project, but about the one that you think will follow on its heels, where you think he will, following on his first success, sink all his money into the second, and lose it all.

Is that about right?

I don't think that's what he meant, and I think some other people are misreading too. I think what he means is that his father has already got a down-to-earth project that will likely earn him some money. But he is thinking of using that money to develop his magnetic motor invention afterward. I think people are getting it the other way around, saying that the motor is the one that's well-developed and will likely make money. Just read carefully.

 

[schroder]

I don't think that's what he meant, and I think some other people are misreading too. I think what he means is that his father has already got a down-to-earth project that will likely earn him some money. But he is thinking of using that money to develop his magnetic motor invention afterward. I think people are getting it the other way around, saying that the motor is the one that's well-developed and will likely make money. Just read carefully.

Yes, that is the way I read it: the father has invented “something” simple and down to Earth that likely will make some money. That is still up in the air, but at least he has a meeting set up with someone. So far so good. The problem is, the father is also working on a permanent magnetic motor, which amounts to a pmm, and the son is concerned that the father will invest all the proceeds from the working invention into the non-workable one. I think that is a legitimate concern. The son is looking for some back up to show his father, to try and convince him that the pmm won’t work, so he has come here to ask for support.
Hopefully, I have that situation described correctly. If you really want us to analyze the permanent magnet motor and give you our opinions, you would have to post some more information about it. Obviously, if this is a device under construction, with no patent, your father will not allow you to post any proprietary information, and we don’t want to see such information in any case. A brief description will do. If the ONLY source of power is from permanent magnets, which rotate as the rotor rotates, that is a very old perpetual motion scheme and it can not possibly work. But if the motor uses another power source of force to supplement the magnetic force, it may very well work.
You should also know that this forum may not be the very best place to have the device judged! There are people on here, including moderators, who are believers in directly down wind, faster than the wind, ( another pmm) despite the mathematical proof that it is impossible! So don’t be surprised if you get a mixed reaction which settles nothing! Maybe the best thing you can do is convince your father to invest very conservatively in his project, and abandon it at the first sign of failure. Don’t let him put all his life savings into it!

 

[Danger]

Don’t let him put all his life savings into it!

And here we come again to the core issue; it's his money. He can do whatever he wants with it.

 

[schroder]

And here we come again to the core issue; it's his money. He can do whatever he wants with it.

Well, IF that is the core issue, then it is a moral issue which does not belong here in the physics forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, IF that is the core issue, then it is a moral issue which does not belong here in the physics forum.

The OP has asked for some science to help him argue that the device won't work.

cholley, how do you know it won't work? Do you know that it's a pmm?

 

[cholley]

Yes, that is the way I read it: the father has invented “something” simple and down to Earth that likely will make some money. That is still up in the air, but at least he has a meeting set up with someone. So far so good. The problem is, the father is also working on a permanent magnetic motor, which amounts to a pmm, and the son is concerned that the father will invest all the proceeds from the working invention into the non-workable one. I think that is a legitimate concern. The son is looking for some back up to show his father, to try and convince him that the pmm won’t work, so he has come here to ask for support.
Hopefully, I have that situation described correctly. If you really want us to analyze the permanent magnet motor and give you our opinions, you would have to post some more information about it. Obviously, if this is a device under construction, with no patent, your father will not allow you to post any proprietary information, and we don’t want to see such information in any case. A brief description will do. If the ONLY source of power is from permanent magnets, which rotate as the rotor rotates, that is a very old perpetual motion scheme and it can not possibly work. But if the motor uses another power source of force to supplement the magnetic force, it may very well work.
You should also know that this forum may not be the very best place to have the device judged! There are people on here, including moderators, who are believers in directly down wind, faster than the wind, ( another pmm) despite the mathematical proof that it is impossible! So don’t be surprised if you get a mixed reaction which settles nothing! Maybe the best thing you can do is convince your father to invest very conservatively in his project, and abandon it at the first sign of failure. Don’t let him put all his life savings into it!

Schroder you have it dead on...

There is a moral issue here, and that issue is my problem with denying the laws and foundations of physics. I know that what I see happening in the basement of my house is another ludicrous "pmm" it is probably his 5th design that he swears will work but like the last four I know it won't because I have done significant amounts of research. I simply don't know what I could tell him... so far he can counter argue everything I say.

Money issue aside it is extremely wasteful to pump any resources into anything that has no possibility of working except for in the minds/fantasies of the inventor.

 

[Danger]

so far he can counter argue everything I say.

Have you considered that this might indicate an error on your part?

 

[gmax137]

Geez you guys - the poor OP just needed someone to say, "search this forum for 'perpetual motion machine' - that's the name we use for these things. Then try and see if that's what dad is up to."

And, of course his dad can spend his money however he wants, but if it were your dad (or son, or wife, or friend, or other guy on this forum) wouldn't you want to at least try and enlighten them with the real facts?

 

[Danger]

You seem to be forgetting that we don't know what the hell the guy is building. We have only Cholley's opinion that it's some PPM; it could very well be a perfectly workable device of some sort. Unless I see blueprints, or at least an abstract, I'm not going to judge its merits.

 

[DaveC426913]

Money issue aside it is extremely wasteful to pump any resources into anything that has no possibility of working except for in the minds/fantasies of the inventor.

Would your moral imperative be mollified if he were playing Guitar Hero instead? Or building https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205845"?

A flip question on the surface, but it gets at the question of whether you have business judging what he does with his time. As you said, he hasn't thrown any money at it yet.

 

[DavidSnider]

Cholley:
Some dads blow it on drugs, booze and gambling. Your dad makes contraptions (some of which work) in your basement. Count your blessings and get a part time job in college like most everybody else =)

 

[stewartcs]

Alright this is hard for me to write because I feel like a backstabber but I need to stop him before he destroys my family. My father is a very smart small business owner and inventor and he is very near hitting it "big" with one invention. However, he has another project in the works that is his PERMANENT MAGNETIC MOTOR (dun dun dun...) I only have a small background in High school Newtonian physics and some college conceptual physics I try so hard to explain to him that it won't work but he is my dad and very stubborn/intimidating to talk to about something he is so passionate about. He swears by it and will even start yelling that "blah blah blah.. it's all in the timing Christopher!"

My fear is that once the down to Earth invention makes it through and makes money, which it will (AKA: he has a meeting tomorrow with the owner of K-Tool international about that deal), he is going to invest his future/my future (...college) into this magnetic machine.This is a concern because he already brags about having put 15thousand into it in machining costs and engineering costs and whatever.

I need something I can say to my dad to convince him that it won't work..

I've explained to him that theory's are very strict already not to mention trying to break a law, laws must be respected.

HELP MEEEE!

Thanks,
Chris

Hi Chris,

It is unlikely that you will be able to persuade him if you do not have the scientific knowledge to do so. However, you may be able to persuade him to post here and let those who do have the appropriate knowledge have a shot at it...if indeed there is a need.

Is your father an Engineer or Scientist by chance? If so, then he should be aware of PMM's. It would be beneficial if you could post some more details about the device (at this point I'm not sure what it is) so that we may better answer your question. Otherwise you will probably not get any better of an answer than you have already.

Hope this helps.

CS

 

[industry7]

Um... sorry to burst your bubble, but permanent magnet motors work. They're just not terribly useful b/c they don't work the way that you would think, and they don't end up providing very much useful work compared to the amount of energy it takes to create the stupid device to begin with. Basically it works by slowly demagnetizing the magnets. So basically you've got a permanent magnet A as your stator and another one we'll call B on your rotor. The two are attracted to each other so your rotor starts spinning. Once they spin past each other, the attractive force is now in the opposite direction and slows you back down. This is the point when a credible scientist steps in and tells you that the amount of force that is now slowly you down is equal to the amount of force that sped you up, and therefore you get no net force in the end.

The trick is that in a permanent magnet motor, the magnets demagnetize by a tiny tiny tiny amount as they pass each other, which means that the amount of force slowing you down is less than the amount of force that sped you up, leaving you with a net gain! Too bad that net gain is also a tiny tiny tiny amount. So you can't really do anything useful with it, and you've got the horrendous problem that your motor is now essentially disposable. Just imagine if every time you stopped to get gas you had to throw away your car's entire engine and install a new one. That's what it would be like trying to use permanent magnet motors in the real world. They will never be anything more than an extremely obscure scientific oddity.

 

[stewartcs]

Um... sorry to burst your bubble, but permanent magnet motors work. They're just not terribly useful b/c they don't work the way that you would think, and they don't end up providing very much useful work compared to the amount of energy it takes to create the stupid device to begin with. Basically it works by slowly demagnetizing the magnets. So basically you've got a permanent magnet A as your stator and another one we'll call B on your rotor. The two are attracted to each other so your rotor starts spinning. Once they spin past each other, the attractive force is now in the opposite direction and slows you back down. This is the point when a credible scientist steps in and tells you that the amount of force that is now slowly you down is equal to the amount of force that sped you up, and therefore you get no net force in the end.

The trick is that in a permanent magnet motor, the magnets demagnetize by a tiny tiny tiny amount as they pass each other, which means that the amount of force slowing you down is less than the amount of force that sped you up, leaving you with a net gain! Too bad that net gain is also a tiny tiny tiny amount. So you can't really do anything useful with it, and you've got the horrendous problem that your motor is now essentially disposable. Just imagine if every time you stopped to get gas you had to throw away your car's entire engine and install a new one. That's what it would be like trying to use permanent magnet motors in the real world. They will never be anything more than an extremely obscure scientific oddity.

In post #5 the OP clarified that he meant Perpetual Motion Machine (PMM) and not Permanent Magnet Motor.

CS

 

[gmax137]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is that "danger" has a child named "cholley"

 

[Dchmm]

Danger was a bit cruel, I doubt that you're a selfish son. Some motors do contain permanent magnets, but they all need some kind of energy input to work. You didn't say whether or not your dad's inventon needs electicity. If it does, then it probably does work. If it doesn't, then it's a Perpetual Motion Machine and you are quite right being afraid of a great financial flop.
If you want my help to explain things, can you please describe the basic function.
If it runs on zero power input, then no need to go further. We know that it won't work and your dad deserves what he's going to get. All you can do in such a case is to have as little as possible to do with it financially, and keep trying to tell dad that NO PPMs work and never will.

 

[cholley]

There is no electrical input what-so-ever it is basically a bunch of neodymium magnets fashioned together in a way around a center which also has neodymium magnets. This is expected to spin with enough energy to power a generator itself and create electricity. All I can tell you is I know it won't work because of research I've done myself; I was simply hoping for a ground-breaking explanation that I could throw at my dad successfully to win an argument.

And by the way I was only trying to be modest when I said I don't know very much about physics. I figured that being on a physics forum I should stand down which seems okay to me... I'm still not saying I'm an expert, but I very much enjoy and understand the subject Newtonian thru SR/GR and some quantum basics.

 

[Danger]

Danger was a bit cruel

You're right, and I apologize for that. My response was based upon:

he is going to invest his future/my future (...college) into this magnetic machine.

I've seen way too many people who think that anything that their parents own is rightfully theirs, and that the parents have no right to use it. I jumped to that same conclusion in this case, and might have been mistaken.

Cholley, now that you have specified no power input, I agree with you. That was not at all evident in your original post. I'm sorry if I offended you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is no electrical input what-so-ever it is basically a bunch of neodymium magnets fashioned together in a way around a center which also has neodymium magnets. This is expected to spin with enough energy to power a generator itself and create electricity. All I can tell you is I know it won't work because of research I've done myself; I was simply hoping for a ground-breaking explanation that I could throw at my dad successfully to win an argument.

And by the way I was only trying to be modest when I said I don't know very much about physics. I figured that being on a physics forum I should stand down which seems okay to me... I'm still not saying I'm an expert, but I very much enjoy and understand the subject Newtonian thru SR/GR and some quantum basics.

Here's how I might try to explain to someone why an all-permanent magnet motor is not possible:

In all cases of electromagnetic motors that actually work there is some element of change, and it is because of this change, and only because of this change, that the motor runs. In the simplest motor, invented by Faraday, the element of change is the flow of current. In more complex motors there is current flow, and, the polarity of the electromagnetic coils is changed at the proper times by commutators or by feeding the whole with alternating current. Energy from some source must be used to cause the change. Generally this is chemical energy from a battery or mechanical energy input into a generator. The important broad thing to recognize is that motors work by harnessing the change that is taking place in their power source. A thing which is not changing does not represent a power source.

The field of a permanent magnet does not change, it is static. Attempting to make a motor exclusively from properly configured permanent magnets is not much different from trying to make a motor powered by properly configured bricks. Bricks exhibit about as much spontaneous change as the field of a permanent magnet. As long as that field remains static, does not get stronger or weaker, or change polarity, there is no continuous motive power to be had.

The wondrous pulling power the amateur tinkerer feels when he brings two magnets close to each other is as useless as gravity as a source of continuous energy. Once two magnets have pulled together or pushed apart they remain that way until acted on by an outside force. There is no continuous energy to be harvested here: if you pull them apart they'll go back together, but this is no different than stretching a spring: the energy came from you doing the stretching, it isn't inherent in the spring. The energy in a dropped brick comes from the person who lifted it against gravity, not from the brick. A spring sitting there not acted upon by an outside force will just sit there, as will a brick on the ground.

Electricity, it should be understood, does not emanate from magnets. Magnets are used in generators because magnetic fields have the property that, when moved, they push the free electrons in conductors. So long as the magnetic field is changing; in strength, polarity, or position, it will displace electrons in the conductor causing increased pressure (EMF) and current (electron flow). A magnet at rest relative to a conductor causes no EMF or current. Faraday was a bit frustrated to discover this: there was only current when there was change in the magnetic field. At rest there was no current. The energy represented by current flow, therefore, comes from the energy expended in moving the magnet (or the conductor) or changing its field somehow. Energy doesn’t come from magnets. They are simply a tool that allows you to convert other forms of energy to electric current. They are a kind of dedicated wrench that allows you to grab electrons: you, or something else, has to provide the energy to work the wrench: burning coal or oil, nuclear powered steam, windmills, or waterfalls, something, has to be at work changing the magnetic fields.

Since the fields of permanent magnets are static (macroscopically speaking) they are, likewise, useless as sources of mechanical power, which is derived from change.
--------------

In all cases, too, where an inventor thinks he is on the brink of a new machine that generates more power than it consumes: beware a flywheel or pendulum effect. A lot of these machines run for a while then stop because all they are is complex, obfuscated flywheels or pendulums. They are running on the energy used to get them ‘started’. This is the most likely scenario in machines that are started with a battery, or a good crank, and sit there and run for an awfully long time, but cannot be used to do any work, because they stop very quickly when pressed into service.

Hope this helps.

 

[vanesch]

I guess the problem with perpetual motion machine inventors is that they lack the ability of abstraction to understand what means a theorem, and a proof - except if they think they have invented new laws of nature.

So a way of trying to have your dad "see the light" is by going through the following steps.

The first step is to find out whether he thinks that he has demonstrated some new laws of physics, invalidating old ones. Did he develop a theory in which he demonstrated that the actual theory of classical electromagnetism is false, and did he derive from that new forces and things that made him find out that he could make a working machine ? I will assume not. If he did, well, then your dad is a genuine crackpot, and as we know here, there's nothing much to do about that.

However, if he didn't develop a brand new theory, then there is some hope, because then the problem resides simply in the fact that your dad didn't reach the level of abstraction needed to understand what is a theorem. A theorem (with proof) is of course something in which, based upon some starting axioms, a universally holding property is demonstrated. In mathematics, that's easy. Take the simple theorem that all even numbers in decimal scripture must end in a 0, a 2, a 4, a 6 or an 8. That can be demonstrated using some very elementary math.

What's "mindboggling" here, is that with just a few lines of demonstration, we've shown that it is IMPOSSIBLE to find an even number that ends in 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9. Even very very big numbers that people have never written down. And this is the 'step' that many PMM inventors seem not to be able to grasp: there's no use searching. Yes, but what about numbers with more than a million digits ? For sure people didn't check *those*, did they ? And if they did, they didn't check numbers with a billion digits, no ? And with 10 billion digits ? How can they be sure that not a single one of them is an even number that ends in 7 ?

No. The theorem, even though demonstrated with just a few lines, has shown that there cannot exist such a number, as long as we work with the natural numbers and the usually defined properties of addition and multiplication.

You should try to make your dad see that what he tries to accomplish (if he accepts standard physics) is to find an even number ending in a 7.

Because if you accept standard physics (Newtonian mechanics, gravity, and classical electromagnetism, which describes all that's needed here), then conservation of energy is a theorem, just as was the theorem of the even numbers. And no, people didn't check all the possible configurations of permanent magnets and weights and whatever, in the same way as they didn't check all the numbers with a billion digits. Because from the theorem, they knew it couldn't work.

I think it is the step (which is, if you think about it, indeed mindboggling) that just a few lines of demonstration can prove a statement about an infinitude of potential situations without having to verify individually each of these cases, which is the abstraction which is needed to understand that no perpetual motion machine based on standard physics can work, and is what is lacking in people trying to invent one.

 

[DaveC426913]

You should try to make your dad see that what he tries to accomplish (if he accepts standard physics) is to find an even number ending in a 7.

The trouble is that often these people do not trust scientists. A large population thinks that scientists don't know their a$$ from Adam, what with them overturning established fact all the time.

And this means that they will not, in principle accept a scientifically-derived argument over their own greasy hands.

 

[schroder]

There is no electrical input what-so-ever it is basically a bunch of neodymium magnets fashioned together in a way around a center which also has neodymium magnets. This is expected to spin with enough energy to power a generator itself and create electricity. All I can tell you is I know it won't work because of research I've done myself; I was simply hoping for a ground-breaking explanation that I could throw at my dad successfully to win an argument.

And by the way I was only trying to be modest when I said I don't know very much about physics. I figured that being on a physics forum I should stand down which seems okay to me... I'm still not saying I'm an expert, but I very much enjoy and understand the subject Newtonian thru SR/GR and some quantum basics.

Ah! So that is his plan! This is very similar to the question I asked in another thread: Why is the gravitational attraction at the center of the Earth Zero?” The answer is that since the force is arranged in a circle (actually a sphere) around a central point, that all of the force at the center cancels out! In the permanent magnet motor, if all the poles are the same polarity, the net magnetic force at the center is zero, so the armature has no force to make it turn. (In a conventional motor, the current varies, causing the polarity to constantly change in the armature and/or the field windings). I’m sure that your father believes that, if he can just get the armature to start spinning with the right timing, it will go forever! If it is any consolation to you, he is not alone as there are many others who have tried, and are trying to do the same thing. Unfortunately, they will all fail. I really do not know how you can convince your dad to give it up. As long as he does not invest a significant amount of money in this, it may give him a pleasant way to pass the time, and maybe it will inspire him to make something else that is useful. Who can say? Good luck!

 

[vanesch]

The trap not to fall into with a pmm design is to try to demonstrate why it WON'T work. This can of course be a funny occupation, but there are truly amazing designs out there where it is in fact quite tricky to show why they don't work (they are pretty subtle mechanical and electromechanical problems, and the solution is not simple ; in many cases it is because of an erroneous solution to a difficult and subtle problem that one arrives at the conclusion that they DO work).

And if your PMM inventor finally DOES understand the solution of THAT particular design (and why it won't work), he will simply change some detail in the design which makes that particular solution not valid anymore, and you can start all over, at vitam eternam. In fact, you could jokingly say that PMM machines DO exist: they are the PMM inventors: they never stop :tongue2:

Of course, by analyzing a lot of similar designs, and by solving each time the (sometimes difficult) problem, you might end up convincing the designer that the theorem does hold (by induction...), but if the inventor is stubborn enough, he will each time come up with a new modification, until the device is so complicated that it becomes impossible to give you a genuine solution without resorting to finite element solutions and the like, at which point the convincing power of the calculation becomes too small to bother him.

No, the real way to attack a PMM is by requiring energy conservation, and to ask at what point energy conservation is violated: what particular action of the machine makes that energy is not conserved, and how it is calculated and demonstrated. This is a problem with theoretically unable people who are not able to solve an actual physics problem on a piece of paper and who use their intuition to find out how things behave. In other words, try to have him explain on what basis he believes that his thing will work, and ask for more and more details, instead of trying to show why it won't work. Put the burden on his shoulders.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The trap not to fall into with a pmm design is to try to demonstrate why it WON'T work. This can of course be a funny occupation, but there are truly amazing designs out there where it is in fact quite tricky to show why they don't work (they are pretty subtle mechanical and electromechanical problems, and the solution is not simple ; in many cases it is because of an erroneous solution to a difficult and subtle problem that one arrives at the conclusion that they DO work).

And if your PMM inventor finally DOES understand the solution of THAT particular design (and why it won't work), he will simply change some detail in the design which makes that particular solution not valid anymore, and you can start all over, at vitam eternam. In fact, you could jokingly say that PMM machines DO exist: they are the PMM inventors: they never stop :tongue2:

Of course, by analyzing a lot of similar designs, and by solving each time the (sometimes difficult) problem, you might end up convincing the designer that the theorem does hold (by induction...), but if the inventor is stubborn enough, he will each time come up with a new modification, until the device is so complicated that it becomes impossible to give you a genuine solution without resorting to finite element solutions and the like, at which point the convincing power of the calculation becomes too small to bother him.

No, the real way to attack a PMM is by requiring energy conservation, and to ask at what point energy conservation is violated: what particular action of the machine makes that energy is not conserved, and how it is calculated and demonstrated. This is a problem with theoretically unable people who are not able to solve an actual physics problem on a piece of paper and who use their intuition to find out how things behave. In other words, try to have him explain on what basis he believes that his thing will work, and ask for more and more details, instead of trying to show why it won't work. Put the burden on his shoulders.

Requiring conservation of energy has no impact:

The critics say Johnson offers a "free lunch" solution to energy problems, and that there can be no such thing. Johnson demurs, reminding repeatedly that he has never suggested that his invention provides something for nothing. He also points gut that no one talks about a "free lunch" when discussing extraction of enormous amounts of atomic power by means of nuclear reactors and atom bombs. In his mind, it's much the same thing.
Johnson is the first to admit he doesn't actually know where the power be has tapped derives. But he postulates that the energy may be associated with spinning electrons, perhaps in the form of a "presently unnamed atomic particle." How do other physicists react to Johnson's suggestion that there may be an atomic particle so far overlooked by nuclear physicists? Says Johnson: "I guess it’s fair to say that most of them are revolted." On the other hand, a few converted scientists, including some who are associated with large and prestigious research laboratories, are intrigued enough to suggest that there should be a hunt for the answer, be it a "particle" or some other as yet unsuspected characteristic of atomic structure.

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

 

[cholley]

zoobyshoe, vanesch, schroder... I don't know how ya'll did it but you've seeded arguments in my head I could never have been able to conjure up.

Much thanks,
Chris

 

[heynow999]

First I have to say that the reading comprehension on this site is terrible!

I understand your question. I know I will get some flack for saying this, but I think you should encourage your father to experiment, but maybe not bet the farm on the PMM. Here is a quote.

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
―Albert Einstein

There are a lot of examples like this where the smartest minds were wrong, and judging by the ability of members to read the original post, we are not dealing with the smartest people. I am not saying that a PMM is possible, but maybe it is possible to tap some as yet undiscovered force in a useable way. Don't try to tell me that everything has been discovered already.

 

[vanesch]

First I have to say that the reading comprehension on this site is terrible!

I understand your question. I know I will get some flack for saying this, but I think you should encourage your father to experiment, but maybe not bet the farm on the PMM. Here is a quote.

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
―Albert Einstein

Well, Einstein didn't say that nuclear energy was IN PRINCIPLE impossible. He just couldn't think of any practical way of harnessing it in a massive amount, and at that time, neutron induced fission was not a known reaction (it was discovered just a few years later). In fact, Einstein was entirely right: he correctly saw that the only practical way was to shatter atoms "at will", and the reaction that allowed this wasn't known when he said that. From the moment that the reaction was discovered, it took scientists about a year or so (maybe less) to see the potential.

There are a lot of examples like this where the smartest minds were wrong, and judging by the ability of members to read the original post, we are not dealing with the smartest people. I am not saying that a PMM is possible, but maybe it is possible to tap some as yet undiscovered force in a useable way. Don't try to tell me that everything has been discovered already.

Of course. However, IF you tap into such a source, then surely you KNOW what you are doing. The scientists on the Manhattan project knew exactly where the energy was going to come from, and they tried to set up a practical system that did it.
What is NOT possible is to STICK WITH KNOWN PHYSICS or have no idea where your system might deviate from known physics (if it does), and nevertheless claim that you have "perhaps" tapped into an "unknown" source. If you don't know in what source you might be tapping, then for sure you can't foresee that you will gain some energy from it, right ? If the people of the Manhattan project didn't know where nuclear energy could be tapped from, for sure they wouldn't have been able to design a nuke, would they ? They knew exactly what they were doing, they calculated it and everything.

So this comparison is quite erroneous.

 

[heynow999]

how about this one?

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895

Or this?

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899