Kinda OT but..A very interesting read !...The implications of which could be far ranging

http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=041004FA-Motor

 

for those wondering..it's about a patented motor using a permanent magnet
placement scheme that puts out more energy than it uses by a factor of 8:1
or thereabouts...no heat generation, means lightweight housings can be used,
and I'm thinking it would revolutionize MC charging systems if adapted as
such.

 

Puts out more energy than it uses, eh? By a factor or 8:1? [Rubs chin.]

So, once the charging system is spinning, it is putting out more energy
than it took to spin it. That energy would have to bled off somehow and
so it might as well be used for propulsion. Now you can just turn off
the gas, and you will continue to gain speed using all the extra energy
from that revolutionized MC charging system.

Maybe not for beginners.

 

Puts out more energy than it uses, eh? I've been waiting for years for
a perpetual motion machine...


Matt

 

The way I read it, and not being an electrical engineer, the positioning of
the permanent magnets is a key to overcoming magnetic stasis (more or
less)...once rotating, it needs energy input to overcome the tendency of
magnets to stop at the point where the polarity is balanced...BTW...never
said it was true, proven, or anything but urban legend...just interesting,
and if proven out, would definitely have an impact on on anything that uses
or needs to produce electricical current...then again I'm just as often
proven a gullible fool...<LOL>

 

I didn't read that into the article....There was also some stuff I didn't
understand, or found to be a bit "unbelieveable"...but I also never believed
we'd get to the point where ordinary people could possess the same computing
power of an early CRAY machine sitting on their desk at home when I was
younger.

 

I didn't see a date on it...The article credits say it was provided by
magazine, but I didn't find any references to it when i
looked...<shrug>...I really found it more interesting as "food for thought"
though most seem to have taken it for a "gospel truth" post..."IF" , and
that's a very big "if" there is any truth to the article at all, I tend to
believe the implications of it are enormous...And I posted it as an OT post,
because there are many folks in here that know and understand the physics
behind this kind of stuff, that I not only reapect their opinions, but are
able to explain such things in ways I am better able at comprehending

 

Ok, so the guy uses permanent magnets on a rotating disk and fixed
electromagnets, which are cleverly switched on and off so that they
never exert a force on the permanent magnets in a direction other than
"forwards." This is, AFAIK, not possible but let's assume he did this.

At this point all he's got is a very efficient motor. There's still some
bearing loss and friction against air, etc. So, the energy coming out of
the motor is more useful work and less waste (e.g. heat, etc.).

That still doesn't allow one to get more energy out than one puts in. As
for the claims that the extra energy comes from the fields of the
permanent magnets, again AFAIK this doesn't work (and people have been
trying that sort of thing for about 300 years).

And, on a more prosaic level: if his motors are so incredibly efficient,
why are they almost exactly the same size as the conventional ones?
Surely it would be more convincing if your motor was significantly
smaller than your competitors'.

IMO: someone is being fooled. Maybe the inventor too. This will go
nowhere because it's not possible.

--
Later.

'indiana' is a noun. Leave only the noun and .edu after the @ to reply

Pismo: 2000-2004 RIP
15" AlBook: 2004-The PowerBook is dead! Long live the PowerBook!

 

I think everybody missed the part where the motor didn't create more than
was comsumed until it was attached to a generator. I'm also guessing the
motors are so big to take advantage of the flywheel effect all that mass
gives it.

 

Yes, you appear to be rather gullible.


Matt

 

A motor that puts out more energy than it takes in violates the laws of
physics. A high performance computer does not.


Matt

 

I also have a motto I live by..."Everything I "know" is wrong"..It's a long
story how I came to that conclusion, but it was impressed upon me by an
extremely brilliant individual...synopsis is..Suppose you throw a ball in
the air a couple of hundred million times...The ball always falls down
because of gravity right ?...Just for suppositions sake, suppose that on the
couple of hundred millionth time plus one, it doesn't...Therefore,
everything you know about garvity is suddenly "wrong"...We take all this
stuff on blind faith because we have been schooled all our lives that it is
an immutable truth, when in all reality, everything we know "might" be
wrong..We just haven't had it proven to us yet...<LOL>...I prefer to have an
open mind to the fact that everything I "know" might be wrong.

 

electromagnets, which are cleverly switched on and off so that they never
exert
a force on the permanent magnets in a direction other than
"forwards."

Look at the Minato Wheel links I posted. The MW is the prototype for the
magnetic motors Minato is peddling...
[/QUOTE]
And? I don't care what the geometry of the wheel is. It doesn't matter.
I can't tell you exactly why these devices won't work because nobody
knows how they are put together. This is inevitably because "someone
will steal my invention" or "a government will take it and prevent me
from helping humanity" or some such thing.

We could argue all day about maybe this and possibly that, but that gets
nowhere. Until there's a solid claim about what's there (i.e. a drawing
good enough to build one from, including dimensions), or a specific
claim for what part of the machine is doing the work (i.e this part here
makes it do xyz and it works because of abc), there's nothing to talk
about.

Once one or both are presented, you will find out why the thing can't
work. Until then you get excuses (for why your replicas don't work) and
evasions (instead of explanations for why his do).

It's claimed. The links that I looked at never managed to build one,
though. Lots of people had seen demonstrations and believed them, but
nobody else could manage to build them. I guess that they require
super-dooper steady hands and ultra-fine-tuned placement of magnets,
etc. Whatever.

As for the magnets and weights. Eccentric-wheel PMM's have been
attempted since the 16th century. They don't work. The Minato wheel
appears to be a "super" eccentric-wheel PMM that combines gravity and
magentism. Fine. It still doesn't work.

I'm done with this, as there's nothing interesting here. There aren't
any implications of this that haven't been discussed a million times
before in other places (for example in sci.physics whenever a PMM
claim/argument comes up).

--
Later.

'indiana' is a noun. Leave only the noun and .edu after the @ to reply

Pismo: 2000-2004 RIP
15" AlBook: 2004-The PowerBook is dead! Long live the PowerBook!

 

"Since 1992, when efficiency legislation was put into place at the US federal
level, motor efficiency has been a high priority -- and motors saving 20 percent
or so on electrical bills are considered highly efficient. Minato is about to
introduce a motor which saves 80 percent, putting it into an entirely new class:"

The only problem with this is that typical motor efficiencies are already
in the 85 - 95 % range. If a 95 % efficient motor can cut costs by 20%,
then a motor which cuts costs by 80% would have to be well over 100%
efficient.

He may well have investors salivating, but I can't help but think
of Pavlov's dogs.