Magnetic motor idea for feedback

[godsdog]

a magnet rotating a generator attracted to an iron bar, on reaching the iron bar triggers a switch which turns the iron bar to an electromagnet set to repel the magnet which inturn is attracted to the next iron bar and so on. Yes the electromagnet is charged by a battery but if the rotation is good enough hopefully the generator will generate the same output. resulting in being self powered.

i only started on this idea a week ago. and had some thoughts that an electric motor powering a generator would have the same effect. but i don't think an electric motor is configured the same way.

i just thought id put this out, I am going to keep trying till i made it and found if it works, but if anyone has any input, that'll be great, (maybe its been done, dunno)

 

[Drakkith]

With inherent losses in the system you will never reach even equilibrium, which would be the theoretical max. So even if there were no losses then there still wouldn't be any point to the device. You would not be able to get any power out of the device to power anything.

 

[Lsos]

a magnet rotating a generator attracted to an iron bar, on reaching the iron bar triggers a switch which turns the iron bar to an electromagnet set to repel the magnet which inturn is attracted to the next iron bar and so on. Yes the electromagnet is charged by a battery but if the rotation is good enough hopefully the generator will generate the same output. resulting in being self powered. ...

i just thought id put this out, I am going to keep trying till i made it and found if it works, but if anyone has any input, that'll be great, (maybe its been done, dunno)

The rotation will NEVER be good enough, no matter how good or complex the device you make. And yes, it has been tried before, countless times, with countless variations of your idea much more or much less complex. People have gone crazy from this trying, because no matter what they do the rotation will NEVER be good enough.

In fact, this has been tried and discussed so many times that it goes against the very rules of this forum, as it has been established looooooooong ago that it can't happen and we need to get on with our lives.

It has reached the point that a discussion about this device is an attempt at violating the integrity of this forum, and the act of building this device is an an attempt at violating the integrity of the universe.

 

[russ_watters]

No matter how complicated you make the device to thwart your own analysis, it will always boil down to the same basic thing: a motor spinning a generator, which makes electricity to power the motor. And as another mod and I just explained in another thread:

1. The first law of thermodynamics says that even if all processes are 100% efficient, your output can never be greater than your input. This device will never produce excess energy.
2. The second law of thermodynamics says that all processes can't be 100% efficient, so the device won't even be able to sustain itself.

 

[godsdog]

Thanks guys, i heard that rule before about output will never be better than input.
But i just feel its a little frustrating seeing as magnets seem to have there own source of energy.
so i keep thinkin about that action has an equal reaction, so having a reaction without an action in the case of magnets seems like there's something there to harness, somehow.

To Lsos, find me a tryhard motor like mine and ill believe you, because i haven't seen it, so your petty opinion won't stop me asking the question.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Magnets are NOT a source of energy. You put energy in when you push and move against repulsion (or pull against attraction). You can then get (nearly) all that stored energy out as you relax your force and the magnet pushes / pulls you back to your original position. This is only the same as a spring, which one would never call a 'source' of energy; it's just a way to store energy. Whatever you do, in the way of rotating the magnet or switching on an electromagnet etc. etc. still involves actually putting energy into the system, some of which you may later get back.
You can waste hours and days of your time with this until you get this basic principle.

 

[russ_watters]

Godsdog, consider this: a magnet attached to your refrigerator is neither producing, nor expending any energy.

 

[Low-Q]

The rotation will NEVER be good enough, no matter how good or complex the device you make. And yes, it has been tried before, countless times, with countless variations of your idea much more or much less complex. People have gone crazy from this trying, because no matter what they do the rotation will NEVER be good enough.

In fact, this has been tried and discussed so many times that it goes against the very rules of this forum, as it has been established looooooooong ago that it can't happen and we need to get on with our lives.

It has reached the point that a discussion about this device is an attempt at violating the integrity of this forum, and the act of building this device is an an attempt at violating the integrity of the universe.

Violating the light speed limit with a neutrino, wouldn't that violate the integrity of the universe too? Where did energy come from in the first place? Are we really that sure energy cannot be created?
Anyways, I agree with you. In a forum like this, people are seeking well established facts (As long they stay as facts, until a nerd prooves it wrong), so it should not be room for perpetuum mobiles or anything like it - yet. There is other forums which discuss that sort of things. Google "overunity" and you'l find plenty.

Vidar

 

[Drakkith]

Violating the light speed limit with a neutrino, wouldn't that violate the integrity of the universe too? Where did energy come from in the first place? Are we really that sure energy cannot be created?

IF it turns out that neutrinos do in fact move greater than c, then we would have to modify a few things but it definitely does not mean that the "integrity" of the universe is violated or anything. If it did then either neutrinos would not travel greater than c or we would not be here.

Also, the energy of the neutrinos came from whatever created them in the first place. Even moving faster than c neutrinos would still have finite energy. And yes, we are sure that energy cannot be created. And by that I mean that we have never ever observed a violation of the conservation of energy law NOR do we even have a reason to believe it is possible.

 

[Low-Q]

IF it turns out that neutrinos do in fact move greater than c, then we would have to modify a few things but it definitely does not mean that the "integrity" of the universe is violated or anything. If it did then either neutrinos would not travel greater than c or we would not be here.

Also, the energy of the neutrinos came from whatever created them in the first place. Even moving faster than c neutrinos would still have finite energy. And yes, we are sure that energy cannot be created. And by that I mean that we have never ever observed a violation of the conservation of energy law NOR do we even have a reason to believe it is possible.

Don't we observe that very thing every day? We ARE here, energy IS here. The question is HOW did we get here in the first place. Even if we do not have an answer, doesn't mean we're not here, right? We did not observe The Big Bang, but that does not mean it never happend.

Vidar

 

[Drakkith]

Don't we observe that very thing every day? We ARE here, energy IS here. The question is HOW did we get here in the first place. Even if we do not have an answer, doesn't mean we're not here, right? We did not observe The Big Bang, but that does not mean it never happend.

Vidar

I don't think the law of conservation of energy can really be applied to the beginning of the universe yet, as we are still unsure of the mechanisms behind it. I'm not saying it WON'T apply, I'm simply saying that we don't know what happened, so attempting to discuss conservation of energy in that context serves no point.

 

[pantaz]

Thanks guys, i heard that rule before about output will never be better than input.
But i just feel its a little frustrating seeing as magnets seem to have there own source of energy.
so i keep thinkin about that action has an equal reaction, so having a reaction without an action in the case of magnets seems like there's something there to harness, somehow.

To Lsos, find me a tryhard motor like mine and ill believe you, because i haven't seen it, so your petty opinion won't stop me asking the question.

The "http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm" " offers easy to understand explanations and examples of various over-unity and "free energy" machines. You may not find one that exactly matches your design, but the principals of operation will almost certainly be covered somewhere on the website.

 

[godsdog]

Awesome hey, over unity, and museum of unworkable devices, thanks for the advise guys.
All the best in your respected fields.

 

[Low-Q]

I don't think the law of conservation of energy can really be applied to the beginning of the universe yet, as we are still unsure of the mechanisms behind it. I'm not saying it WON'T apply, I'm simply saying that we don't know what happened, so attempting to discuss conservation of energy in that context serves no point.

I partially agree with your point, but without an open mind the world will not see progress. It's not about what's possible, it's about what's probable, right?

Vidar

 

[Drakkith]

I partially agree with your point, but without an open mind the world will not see progress. It's not about what's possible, it's about what's probable, right?

Vidar

I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Don't we observe that very thing every day? We ARE here, energy IS here. The question is HOW did we get here in the first place. Even if we do not have an answer, doesn't mean we're not here, right? We did not observe The Big Bang, but that does not mean it never happend.

Vidar

There is a lot more evidence to support a model of the Universe that is based on the big bang than evidence of 'over unity' dedvices. If you want to discuss that topic then, as you say, there are plenty of forums that are more fantasy-orientated than this one. Try them - I'm sure you will get a better response.

 

[Low-Q]

I have no idea what you are saying here.

OK. I just say we should be open minded about what is probable - maybe even open for the established impossible. I have understood it is against forum rules to discuss anything about over unity - or discussing ideas which violates well established facts. So never mind my last reply. It did not make sense - I see that now

 

[sophiecentaur]

The problem with the too-open mind is the same as with the too-open door. All sorts of undesirables get in, along with the rubbish that comes on the wind. Change your mind when there is sufficient evident to give a good reason to or you find you've bought a load of snake oil.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread has run its course. Locked.