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

[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

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

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ah yes, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. Thing is, they also laughed at Laurel and Hardy.

Your argument reduces to "maybe you're just wrong". A logical possibility, but not anything there is any evidence for.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

There are a lot of quotes like that. These demonstrate that experts are sometimes wrong.

Cholley's dad should not give up because some authority said it can't work. He should give up because the magnets can't do what he wants them to do. That is something he can find out if he analyzes the magnets more carefully and thoroughly. That could take him a really long time, and with no solid experimental method he might still not figure out that they aren't really capable of what he now thinks they are capable of. He should look into conventional physics, not because this represent the authority stand on the matter but because it represents a long history of tried and true analytical methods and amazingly helpful shortcuts. It took something like 2000 years for physics to correct the errors disseminated by Aristotle. In that whole time no one figured out Newton's 3 laws of motion, yet today these are considered the trivial, beginner concepts. A person can read and understand and accept them in a few minutes, yet it took 2000 years for someone to grasp them from scratch and put them all together. Cholley's dad should look into physics for his own edification, because there's incredibly useful information there (especially for an inventor), not to make sure he isn't breaking some "law" that will ruffle some authority's feathers.

Cholley said this is something like the fifth different version. The dad is obviously working by trial and error rather than from an understanding of motors and magnets. That's a tremendous waste of effort when all the information he needs is already available. Hundreds of years of great insights are collected and written down. Really, it's good stuff!

 

[russ_watters]

That's really the best advice: the only way to really convince a trial-and-error inventor is to get him to learn how to analyze his devices using the body of scientific knowledge available. Then he'll be able to predict what it can do before he builds it - saving him the trouble of building something that couldn't possibly work.

 

[Dr Mess]

Dont make the mistake of thinking that he ows you anything. You speak of his money, your future??

Let him do as he pleases, go get a job and support youself. If and when he fails and goes bankrupt, you help him out, with a hug and a smile, do everything you can for him, because he brought you into this world. He is your father. You owe him everthing. Love and support him, that's what family are. If you can't do that, your not a good son are you.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Dont make the mistake of thinking that he ows you anything. You speak of his money, your future??

Let him do as he pleases, go get a job and support youself. If and when he fails and goes bankrupt, you help him out, with a hug and a smile, do everything you can for him, because he brought you into this world. He is your father. You owe him everthing. Love and support him, that's what family are. If you can't do that, your not a good son are you.

That's a bit of a stretch. Tell that to someone who was brought into this world who's family couldn't give a hoot less about them. I will agree that he should support himself and etc. but I was raised this way: If I was warned repeatedly about something and I still screwed up, then I could expect no help from those who warned me. As a parent I would expect nothing different from my children. A parent should know better. Unfortunately, I see it all to often where the grown children (20 something) seem to have more common sense and are better at staying out of trouble than their 40 something parents.