What's cool is a generator will spin and spin until you connect its leads to something that draws current, like a light bulb. And then it's like you hit the brakes.

Basically what I'm saying is that, even if you managed to get your magnet-contraption to work at 100% efficiency, you would never be able to draw power from it.

And if they're natural magnets their magnetic fields will decrease in magnitude. To keep them 'powered up' so to speak they'd need to be electromagnets fed by an external power source.

Believe me, all this stuf has been tried numerous times before. If you want to experiment for your own personal gain that's grand, but don't expect to find anything spectacular, gorund breaking or earth shattering.

That's another factor as well. It'll really come down to how effecient it can be made. Taking that, a tier 1 model already works at >100% effeciency (recall that the 'bounce' was greater then 5 degrees), the more effecient the design, the greater chance of success. Keep in mind also that anything over 100% would compound each revolution (so long as the timing mechanism can keep up). Yes, adding other componants to mitigate the various physical actions (such as removing and reintroducing the magnets) would create friction and other drag aspects that would run down effeciency.

Ideally, the device would operate at well over 100% effeciency (limiting a timing mechnism to being mechanical only to work). Then, once you connect the rotor rod to an AC or DC motor (with an internal regulator), it would run the effeciency down to exactly 100%.



The fields would take a long time to decrease. Neodymium permanant magnets take a thousand years or so to 'wind down'. So yes, it would need periodic replacement, but ideally, it wouldn't be very often (and you'd probably be replacing the other componants more frequently due to wear then the magnets themselves)...

Keep in mind that all of this is based in theory...

No it doesn't.

Again, granted, that's still with an outside energy source moving the stationary magnet, but each revolution incites an acceleration to the armature. The mechanical timing system I've designed for performing this function automatically, would create additional drag on the system and reduce it's effeciency (by quite a bit, actually). Which is why I stated that it's questionable as to wheather it would even work at that point (as in, operate at even 100%).

yes, because that outside energy source moving the stationary magnet is adding energy to the system.

It wouldn't because that is impossible.

Even if it did work, the extra energy would be coming from demagnetizing the neodymium magnets, which will happen much quicker than 1000 years when you're actively using them as a power source.

Yeah, uh, I can make almost anything rotate if I apply external forces to it. An external force is an external force. Your system must be able to rotate itself consistently WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL FORCES.

Now just think about that for a second. Isn't that the most asinine thing you've ever heard? Yeah, me too.

Free energy doesn't exist.
PERIOD.

Unless we invent matter-energy reactors.

Wait what? Anything over 360 is > 100%? That makes NO sense. How can you have something > 100%. Something greater than everything.

No, it's more than 100% correct.

No, the outside force is NOT the only determinant factor. That would only be true if there were no magnets involved what so ever.

Either the energy is coming from your hand moving the magnets or it's coming from the increase of disorder within the magnets. The energy is coming from somewhere.

And negatives don't exist in real life. Negatives and zero are abstract concepts which are useful tools for scientific and mathematical purposes. I'm pretty sure this is something you should have learned in grade school.

Classically thinking, yes, they're coming from th combination of both (which is what I've already said).

And by "classically" you mean "logically and factually".

I would seriously suggest performing an empirical test of your theory except that people have already done it for you, and no system can operate at 100% efficiency (let alone higher). Energy is entering the system from somewhere else.

Are you sure you're not talking about plans to produce an RPG?

In any event, I find it odd that the scientific community gets so upset at the prospect that a theory might be wrong (creating/destroying energy). if it's true, it's true. If not, that's what progress is all about.

Well if the theories have little or no scientific background, that's what pisses off the scientific community. Things like perpetual motion machines since the 1st...2nd? Law of Thermodynamics says NO WAI MISTAR!

No, I mean according to classical physics. Like I said, another discussion altogether.



Refer to 'convention' above.

Classically speaking, the total initial energy is greater then 100% effecent (again, because it can complete more then one revolution on. This has NOTHING to do with total energy in the system...even classically speaking). Because of the design, what is over 100% effecency is compounded each revolution.

I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this. I've already stated that it may not work once the timing mechanism is in place and other drag is figured BEFORE a motor/regulator is even attached to the system. It'll probably operate at 100% or less. If it operates at less, then it'll come to a stop. If it operates at 100%, then the same will also happen as other varibles are introduced that cause it to drop under 100% in a uncontrolled environment.

That's assuming the energy model is 100% correct. It very well could just be very very close to reality and we don't realize it (sure as hell wouldn't be the first time).

Even classically speaking, in theory, my device design would work (at least before adding drag to it). This is because it starts with enough energy to keep it going and then just passes the energy back and forth to each other (in a way, recycling). Wheather or not it can be utilized to do EXTRA work is yet to be seen. Again, it'll depend on just how much energy is in the system to begin with. If after it's all said and done with the rotor is still accelerating after each revolution, then there's left over energy that can be potentially tapped in to.

Except, logically and factually speaking, your system will experience friction and entropy in the same way that every other system experiences it, meaning that efficiency will be less than 100%.

Where did you get your physics degree, and how many UPC codes did it cost?

lol

Read. Your contraption is an engine thus subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Edit: Carnot Engine

Except that I was referring to BEFORE additional drag is added (which I've stated numerous times now). I've also stated that it probably won't even reach 100% once it IS added.



Where did you learn to read and comprehend and how many special medals do you receive?

(since you insist on adding undue ad homium's to the mix)

FREE
ENERGY
IS
BULL****!

Its.Just.Not.Possible

Only a matter-energy reactor [With 100% Mass-Energy ration] could do that.

...engines just convert energy into force or motion. What you're describing is an engine.

Oh it is absolutely an engine. You are using energy to do work. You are probably thinking that I'm just referring to a heat engine. But heat is just some form of energy. ALL engines follow the laws of thermodynamics. Yours is no exception.

I'm sorry but I REALLY have to use the image.

Hehe..

"Dj Yoshi
Banned"


Back on topic now.

What are you talking about? Yoshi hasn't posted in this thread...

No, it won't even reach 100% now or ever. It is impossible and you have no idea what you're doing or what you're talking about. Energy is entering your invention's system from an outside source but you are apparently too blithe to identify it.

Unlike you, I learned to read and comprehend before I took high school physics.

On JG's wrist.

Oh, I totally misunderstood your post. Hahah. I guess you're not that angry.

Meh, Bevvil you're silly man.

Skimming through this, it seems to me that Bevvil has a completely false sense of the word efficiency, and this is where the argument lies.

Bev says that efficiency is the ability of his contraption to rotate.

Everybody else (including those of us with physics and engineering degrees) says that efficiency is the ratio of energy out of the system to the energy in (expressed as a percentage).

Until we agree what constitutes efficiency (by which i mean Bev needs to study thermodynamics) this will go round in circles ad infinitum.

Oh sweet lord I've invented a perpetual argument machine.

/thread a'splodes

I wonder if I could use magnets to perpetually masturbate.

I wonder if I can use your mum to masterbate perpetually?

I wonder if you can spell "masturbate" correctly?

I mean, I even wrote it above you.

Yeah it's early here and I was out last night

(and now I go to design buildings!! yay!)

Well I hope you design phalic towers alot better than you spell masturbate.

See this is why we shouldn't bother to knock spelling errors.

And yes, my steelwork designs are awesome.

I also get to talk about gusset plates, partial penetration butt welds, butt straps, section properties like lips and flanges (the lip is 20% of the flange), and even good ol flange curling.

Marvellous.

Everyone knows I am the king of phallic towers.

That was a little more of a typo than a spelling error.