Perpetual Machine using magnetic artificial muscle

[ismu]

Artificial Muscle (AM) have been studied and developed by several institutes and colleges. They'll gonna use it for robot's actuator. But i got idea to use it to tap energy from magnet.

Check out some links below:

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/muscle/papers/
http://ndeaa.jpl.nasa.gov/nasa-nde/lommas/
http://www.mpg.de/news99/news26_99.htm

AM take a benefit from rapid volume changes of material caused by changes of it's environment, such as temperature, pH, electric current, electro-static field, and also magnetic field! They're now seems more intens to develop AM based on pH changes.

There is several things very interresting to me is that:
1) AM tension can be activated by magnet.
2) almost there is no permanent chemical structure changes in the material during it's usage. In other words AM have very long lasting endurance.
3) even it's reaction to the activating signal relatively slow, it's force strength to pull is very huge, because it's depends on strength of solid material used as AM itself.

Based on those facts, i inspired to design "perpetual engine" using magnetic based AM The concept is very simple:
-set two AM in oppsite position to pull each other.
-use a magnet to activate one of the AM
-use the motion created by AM to switch the magnet to activate opposite AM.

(please take a look at animated gif attached). This picture is only concept to describe the idea. Real machine may have diferrent architechture. Of course the frequency of this machine should be set according to AM elasticity, response-time, and mass of each components.
Notice that earth gravity is nothing to do with this device's works. The device shown in the picture attached should also works in horizontal position or any other position. Gravity will only 'annoying' this device if it stands vertically.

Then we can take some benefit of power from it's back & forth motion between those two AM by other mechanism such as cam-gear (wich works as mechanical diode), or piston and valves, or else, to drive generator.

I knew this device might be violent to thermodynamic law. So I like to hear some review from experts here, is this device can really works?

[James R]

This would not be a perpetual motion machine, and you could not get free energy out of it.

First, in the configuration you have shown in the animation, there would be frictional effects on bearings and the attachments of the artificial muscles which would dissipate energy as heat. So, gradually the pendulum swing would slow down and stop.

Second, if you attached some kind of device to your "engine", that device would create a load on the initial energy supply, which would quickly slow the thing to a stop, unless there was further energy input from an external source.

Finally, you should be aware that no perpetual motion machine can exist, since this would be in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics.

[ismu]

Yup. i also thought that device to collecting energy from ZPE not as simple as my "machine".

But please teke a look more carefully on these points:
<strong>
- this is <u>not a pendulum</u>. even it's looks like pendulum. it can work in <u>horizontal</u> position. the frequency tuning i mention is only to set such <u>natural frequency</u> of this system.
- the volume is changed by <u>environmental changes</u> suroundings artificial muscle material. it's kind of adding <u>catalyst</u> to the material to change it's own molecular properties.
- the motion we'll be taken is came from <u>volume changes</u> of <u>solid material</u> which is very strong! small, or ever greater friction wouldn't bother.
</strong>

I'll try to give another example of this method. Imagine that there are two boxes stay close to each other. One of the box close to the wall (like this: [wall][box1][box2]). If we heating up first box, the second box will be pushed aside -- with any friction! If then we cold down the first box to inital temperature with "ideal condition" which can take back all heat given to expand the first box, is second box back to it's initial position?
NO! the new position will be [wall][box1][space][box2].
If then we put separator which fit in space gap (like this: [wall][box1][separator][box2], and heat up and cool down the box again, we'll get: [wall][box1][separator][space][box2]. If we continue using thicker separator, the second box will move far enough.

So, if Work simply defined by Force x Distance displacement (W=F.s), where the work came form to shift the second box, if in "ideal condition" all energy to heat first box can be taken back?

So... what if we can found a material (MIT researches did) wich can easily shrinking / expands by giving and take away the magnetic flux. Is it still imposible get energy this way???

...or my explanation still doesn't clear enough?
...or someone can explain me better why it can't works?

[James R]

If box 2 moves, then it has absorbed energy from somewhere. Since the heating of box 1 apparently caused the movement, box 2 must have received energy from box 1. Then, when box 1 is cooled again, you won't get back all the energy you originally put into it to heat it up. Some of the energy has been dissipated in creating the space.

[ismu]

That's exactly my point! Absorb from somewhere is from magnet! or molecul structure changes in artificial muscle!
If i using magnetic flux (not heat) to shrink the artificial muscle, and take away magnetic flux to let the muscle to back to it's initial length,
Isn't that called tap energy from magnet or artificial muscle itself???

Or do you think we'll unable to remove the flux by move away the magnet by using force from muscle's internal stress itself?

Or my machine still can't called as "perpetual motion machine", just a very... verry... verrry... efficient machine :-D ?

Or any other reasons it can't works at all???

[c'est moi]

I think you should take a look at my m8 his website on the Adams motor

http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor

hope it can help you
see for the 'Harwood' effect, negative potential, etc...

the adams motor when built correctly is a perpetual machine
and in accordance with quantum physics, just a logic extension when dealing with magnets

[James R]

ismu,

Your system dissipates energy, which must come from somewhere. What that means is that your swinging magnet <i>must</i> gradually slow down.


c'est moi:

I had a look at the Adams motor link. The fact that it is claimed to be a perpetual motion machine rules out its legitimacy straight away. However, just to be sure I clicked on the "Principles of operation", hoping to see a decent explanation. Unfortunately, all that is there is obfuscation, misleading explanation, and a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific paper which has nothing to do with the principles of the claimed "motor".

[ismu]

I have further thought of the process that might be not contravention with thermodynamic laws, but it was still very extensive and efficient method to dig kinetic energy by using solid material.

Most of machine design (exp: steam, otto, diesel, jet) using common thermodynamic equations such as: <em>PV=NRT</em>;
<em>(P1.V1)/T1 = (P2.V2)/T2</em>, and such energy form that "can't clearly defined but can be calculated" called enthalpy --those equations which only valid for gasses--. Since any gas have equal amount of molecules if they have same temperature, volume, and pressure, it's seems easier to use gasses as media to exploit energy.

But remember that we dealing with solid material here. In solid material, their expansion defined by: <em>V1.T1.K=V2.T2.K</em>
Where <em>K</em> is expansion coefficient, specific to what kind of material it was. Also remember that solid (and also liquid) material is (fairly) incompressible. That's why it can give tremendous kinetic power. I believe that solids, gels, and liquids can "brings more enthalpy" because its density much more dense than gasses. Infact, all of our move actuated by muscle --flexible solids--, as God's perfect example for us.

Back to my machine...
Now <u>assume</u> that there such reversible chemical reaction happen in contraction and expansion of the muscle material, driven / triggered by magnetic flux.

Now, let <u>assume</u> again that the reaction can change it's molecule structures, thus changes the expansion coefficient (<em>K</em>). (Aha!!!)
By changes of K, if material stays in same temperature, it definitely has different volume. The equation will be: <em>T1.V1.K1=T1.V2.K2</em>
(It will be have same volume at certain temperature, 0 Kelvin degree perhaps [?])

This way, we can say that the material itself acts as such of "enthalpy buffer" during its reversible reaction to change its volume. The material (may be) then slowly becomes cold. The heat automatically will flows in from surroundings.
So... we've created such machine that collects heat from surroundings, and transfers it into kinetic energy which much easier to manage! (See... still follows thermodynamic law).

The key of this method is in the material to make artificial muscle. Magnetic trigger is only one way to do it. Another type of trigger can be used, as long as we stick on this method:
- Arrange (solid, gel, or liquid) artificial muscle in opposite force direction.
- Trig one of the muscle to change its volume, may both expansion and contraction.
- Tap some energy from volume changes.
- Feedback small amount of tapped energy to switch trigger to opposite muscle.
- Let surrounding environment to stabilize the process!
- Take extra energy left, it's free to use!!!

Since I don't have thermodynamic diagrams for solid materials --specially artificial muscle--, I can't determine how much surrounding environment should transfer its energy to stabilize the system. Won't loose its own stability I hope... :-)

Well... any opinion about my thought of this very... verry... verrry... efficient machine?

Is it possibly that most of our mistake to polute our earth for centuries is exploiting energy using gasses and burnings, instead of solids and reversible chemichal reactions? (reversible can also means recycleable isn't it?)

Btw, <strong>James</strong>, do you think David Hamel's perpetual machine won't work also? is it just a "fake"?

Ps: Thanks for your prev critics <strong>James</strong>, but don't take my shoes :-D.

[James R]

Another formulation of the second law of thermodynamics says that no machine can take heat from an external source and convert it entirely into useful work. There is always some "waste" energy expelled as heat. Therefore, regardless of the principle of operation of your device, it will produce waste heat when it operates to produce useful work, one way or another.

It is safe to rule out ANY claim for a perpetual motion machine on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics. There's always a problem lurking somewhere. Moreover, NO perpetual motion machine has ever been shown to work, despite many claims.

[ismu]

Originally posted by James R
Another formulation of the second law of thermodynamics says that no machine can take heat from an external source and convert it entirely into useful work.

How about using evaporating liquids to create works? such as let LPG gas flows out from it's tube to drive such gas turbine? the evaporated gas itself takes heat from surrounding to expands, right? it become colder and give some work to the turbine, isn't it?

How about using such mechanism that pulls energies from surrounding, instead of adding energy to such system which is commonly left some "heat residues"?

What if thermodynamics laws have some "bugs" in it? I've ever read (unfortunately i forgot where) that some people realy sure that there is anomalies of gas in extreme high temperature and pressure. Because of the limitation of measurement devices used in the time thermodynamic tables / diagrams were created, they chop the tables into what we can see now in the thermodynamics handbooks.

[James R]

By "machine", I mean an "engine" which works in a cyclic manner. Usually it has some type of "working fluid" which goes through a cycle and ends up in the same state as it started.

Thermodynamic laws are independent of gas laws. For example, the second law of thermodynamics can be derived from statistical arguments. The relevant field is called statistical mechanics. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty solid, on both an experimental basis and a theoretical basis as derived from macroscopic and statistical considerations.

[ismu]

c'est moi,

Thanks for trying to help. But i've knew that Adam's motor is "a mistake" (in quotes).

Btw, glad to hear you also interrested in this subject. Have you ever heard about Victor Schauberger's implosion phenomenon and David Hamel's spinning disk. Try to search on search engines (if you haven't seen them). It was interresting, isn't it? :)

[ismu]

Mr James,

I think for now your explanation satisfied enough. Thanks a lot.
But, i still hope that someday, somewhere, someone, finnally inventing such device that at least has 99.99% COP :D

Edisson said: "I haven't failed. I've only made 1000 devices that didn't works..." :rolleyes:

[c'est moi]

"The fact that it is claimed to be a perpetual motion machine rules out its legitimacy straight away. "

but look, the work on this website is from my friend
normally I should have gone visiting him last summer, when he was already busy with doing some experiments on the Adam's motor
hopefully, I will make it this summer

he does not do it for any commercial purposes
and the whole website is built on data gathered by experiments
so when you say that it can't be perpetual motion, then you're saying he's lying
why would he lie? he's got no reason for it
you talk about the second law, but here it is about magnets in a special situation
that's what he says, he says everbody thinks that we know everything there is to know about magnets, but his experiment directly contradicts this

his explanation of HOW it works, ie theoretically might be wrong, but if he says that his experiments show perpetual motion, then I believe it
and if he's lying about that, god knows why, then i'll know it soon enough when I go see it for myself

don't get me wrong, I only want to know the truth, I don't care what a human made law says, I only care about what I see and can measure
Tim has his MA in Physics, so he knows what he's talking about
I'm in the field of archaeology, so I lack knowledge here
maybe he should film it in action so that anyone can see it

I'm interested in "free" energy but only if it is from serious people
I hate liars
Ismu, why is the adam's motor a mistake? why would tim spend his free time in it if it doesn't work? he's had some great results, otherwise he wouldn't have carried on
again, you can all say he's lying about the experimental data, I will be able to say for 100% if it's true or not once I get my ass there myself
but of course, then you might say that I am also a liar :(
it's difficult, isn't it?

[c'est moi]

forgot, james, you might want to take a look at this website:
http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.htm

nothing but experiments

I would be happy to read some more comments from your part! (but say WHY something is not true so I can learn some more myself in this field :cool: )

cheerzz

[James R]

c'est moi,

I'm not necessarily accusing your friend of lying. Perhaps he honestly believes he has a perpetual motion machine, or a "free energy" device. However, I will bet my bottom dollar that if the input energy and output energy of his machine is accurately measured, it will be found that more energy goes in than comes out as useful work.

Possible explanations: (a) he hasn't measured the input and output carefully enough; or (b) he hasn't been careful to determine whether he has true perpetual motion as distinct from a device which takes a long time to run down; or (c) his claims are lies.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to magnets as much as to anything else. If you or your friend have studied statistical mechanics, you'd perhaps better appreciate how unassailable that law is.

[c'est moi]

have you visited JLN labs website?

"Unfortunately, all that is there is obfuscation, misleading explanation"

that's a hard claim, I would like to know why (or where)?

"and a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific paper which has nothing to do with the principles of the claimed "motor"."

you are reffering to this:

<<Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum
D.C. Cole, IBM, Essex Junction, Vermont
H.E. Puthoff, IAS, Austin, Texas
Physical Review E, 1993, Vol.48, No.2, pp.1562-1565
Relatively recent proposals have been made in the literature for extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the use of the Casimir force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that, yes, in principle, these proposals are correct. Technological considerations for actual application and use are not examined here, however. >>

why is this misleading? he tells what it is about, it is related to extracting ZPE

I think there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics at all, why we call this "free" energy is because we don't really have a clue from where it is coming
(I mean, conventional physics calls it vacuum energy, a sea of virtual energy, but maybe that is even wrong, it is an interpretation of how to explain certain experiments
people like a sansbury don't believe in vacuum energy and prefer to explain it differently) once we actually know more on this, the mystery is gone
several people have measure above COP 1 with different devices
check out Jean- Louis Naudin for this, it's a good website
I think Bill Beaty formulates it also very well at:
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html

He says:

"WARNING WARNING WARNING!
DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO PEOPLE INVOLVED IN "FREE ENERGY"!!!! Legit researchers do exist, but they don't advertize themselves. The people who get publicity are scam artists. If someone is selling plans for "real" free-energy devices, they are a ripoff. Don't waste your money. Or if someone is selling "Dealerships" for a free energy company, hold tight to your wallet and RUN! Or, if you've already let them get their hands on your money, ask to see proof of the FE device, and see what excuse you're given. (It will be a very convincing excuse. Scam artists don't act sneaky. Scam artists survive because they seem far MORE honest and honorable than a normal person.) How to tell the difference? Easy: if you give them money before receiving a working FE device, , then it's a scam, always. "

and in his FAQ:

"A true "perpetual motion machine" is impossible, but a machine which taps an unknown energy source is not."

"On the other hand, "perpetual motion" crackpots really do exist in large numbers. Nowdays they attempt to hide behind the name "free energy." How can we sort the crackpots from the maverick heretical scientists? By using the same methods science has aways used : take a hard and honest look at the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, the experimental results."

that's exactly what people like J-L Naudin do with such a website
there's also MR Adam (inventor of the adam's motor), Harwood, etc. you can't say that there're all measuring wrongly nor can you scoff off all of them as liars
that's not a scientific appraoch, and as I said, your 2nd law is not violated in my opinion

you can always say that they lie till you get busy in it yourself and see it for yourself, then you'll meet other people but they will call you a liar, till you take them with you to see the device working, and then those other people will meet other people,............... ;)

[ismu]

c'est moi ,
I didn't said it's a lie, "a mistake" in quotes here means i've convinced several times ago by someone that it won't works. That's why then i search information about spinning cones.

But, if you,'ve seen by your own eyes it did works. May be just recent science unable to explain it, yet. I'll take a look again to Adam's motor. Thanks.

I agree with you that scientific laws made by human. And no human make no mistake. Ancient ages belive that earth is flat. Then it was proven earth is a ball. But they still believe that the sun rotating around earth. Next, proven that earth do rotating around the sun. Realtivity theory, and so on...

Who knows, based on Adam's motor and and Hamel's cones scientist thenfind out such new form of energy, uncovered by recent science yet...
(Telekinetic, telepathy, and levitation by bikhu of Tibet still beyond science isn't it?)

[kmguru]

Sorry ismu, perpetual system does not quite work. That does not mean, we do not have one or two or a few. Photo- Cells are a kind of perpetual as long as the sun shines and the matter coverts photons to electrons. Just as PhotoCells, people have been trying to use gravity to do some useful work. Unfortunately what gravity gives, it taketh away. So, you get zero-sum gain. Photon is an external source, magnets and gravity are internal. So, you have to search any external energy such as cosmic rays, other high energy particles, solar winds etc to build your perpetual machine.

You can drill a deep hole to earth's crust and get energy for a loooong time.

I will stick to the wind power generators....and a large bank of Photo Cells - that will last a life time....

[James R]

Hi c'est moi,

<i>"Unfortunately, all that is there is obfuscation, misleading explanation"

that's a hard claim, I would like to know why (or where)?</i>

As I said, I looked at the "principles of operation" section of the website. The diagrams are unclear. The explanation throws lots of vague terms around. There is nowhere, as far as I can see, a clear statement of hte operating principle. If you think there is, perhaps you'd like to summarise it in a sentence or two for me.

<i>why is [the peer reviewed journal reference] misleading? he tells what it is about, it is related to extracting ZPE</i>

...via the Casimir force, which seems to have nothing to do with the Adams motor.

<i>I think there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics at all</i>

Why? It claims perpetual motion without energy input, doesn't it?

<i>"WARNING WARNING WARNING!
DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO PEOPLE INVOLVED IN "FREE ENERGY"!!!!...etc.</i>

I agree.

<i>"A true "perpetual motion machine" is impossible, but a machine which taps an unknown energy source is not."</i>

I agree with that too. So far nobody has shown the existence of any type of "unknown energy source".

<i>you can't say that there're all measuring wrongly nor can you scoff off all of them as liars</i>

Yes I can. Unless there is evidence to the contrary.

The fact is, if anybody discovered true "free energy" they would become immensely rich. They would win the Nobel prize for physics. Their device would revolutionise all aspects of our lives. So far this hasn't happened. What do you think the most likely explanation for that is?

[c'est moi]

"The fact is, if anybody discovered true "free energy" they would become immensely rich. They would win the Nobel prize for physics. Their device would revolutionise all aspects of our lives. So far this hasn't happened. What do you think the most likely explanation for that is?"

Very simple, Look at your attitude and then think that if the establishments reacts like that, which they do, what the chances are for anyone to come see what you're doing?


Bill Beaty on this:

"Q3: IS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO SUPPRESS THESE DEVICES?

A: Yes and no.

Is there a CONSPIRACY to keep women in low-paying jobs? No, there is just wide-ranging sexism, and sexist employers need not "conspire" together.

To the people who are victims of sexist behavior, it may SEEM as if employers are conspiring together against them. But bigotry is not a conspiracy, instead it is a sort of disease which spreads through groups of people. We might become "infected" with bigotry, but obviously no secret organization is needed for bigotry to spread. We don't have to join a secret society in order to become a practicing sexist.

Prejudice against the "Free Energy" research field has a similar origin. "Science bigots" constantly attack its adherents. They smear the field with derogatory names and use fairly underhanded tactics to discredit the research. And they believe that their behavior is proper. They are convinced that Science needs to be defended against "hoards of crackpots." It's a war, and in war, underhanded tactics become acceptable. If tomorrow I were to publicly announce that I was attempting to duplicate some inventor's claimed "overunity device," I would expect to receive smug laughter and sneering putdowns from reputable scientists. If my income depended on peer review by other scientists, I would expect to have my funding quickly cut off. But this bigotry is a result of belief systems, not of conspiracy. Skeptical scientists know, WITHOUT EXAMINING EVIDENCE that I must be some sort of deranged crackpot. They take "justified" action in preventing my waste of funding. But what if they're wrong? The problem is not that crackpots might waste funding. The problem is that "crackpots" are condemned without a fair hearing (often without any hearing at all.)"

You see, I think your reaction is not scientific at all. You say it your self, They all must be lying otherwise they would have the Nobelprice. But that's a very naieve answer and it oversimplifies the situation completely.
I believe the best and most scientific attitude there is is the one which Bill Beaty shows us. Open yet sceptic.

THe thing with the adams motor is that, if Tim is not lying and I believe not as a few other people have had the SAME results, then it is that magnets can be forced to do WORK, something which everybody thinks is not possible. But experiment proofs them wrong.
Therefore, I also think he shouldn't have said it is perpetual motion, Bill beaty says it much better, because it isn't perpetual, the magnets take vacuum (background) energy.
May I remind you that the Wright Brothers after having flown before hundreds and hundreds of people, were still scoffed off as liars by scientists in the USA, and there even appeared an article in one of those journals to explain in technical terms why the law of physics couldn't allow this after many demonstrations of the Wright Brothers.
Well, the scientists of the SAME establishment are scoffing off any report of a device which makes it above COP1.
Attitudes do not change. Only the subjects change.

When Tim says:

"The Adams motor forces energy out of the fields of permanent magnets in a precise geometrical load less manner, via an electromagnetic asymmetry set up by a pulsed 'Lenz gate'"

I believe this is clear, and the asymmetric aspect reminds me immediately of Lee and Chang who discovered way back in the 50's broken symmetry in particles physics (and for which they received a Nobelprice)

"It is an observed empirical fact the Adams motor runs off the exact same 'cold' negative electricity, observed by JLN and many others."

of course, they are all lying according to you and the scientific establishment
this is not a good attitude

"So putting this together, it is my hypothesis that if the field strength of a permanent magnet is reduced below the size of the force"

clear to me

" that created it minus losses, the field assumes a form of negative, or negentropic value, in order to draw in energy such that the field can be brought back up to full strength. This negative value may be simple time reversal."

okay, that it is a Hypothesis
maybe nature works different, keeping in mind that some clever people suggest that Time does not even exist

"This is done via a direct 100% efficient thermo electric conversion (Bedini and Adams both report cold magnets, and I have seen the cold circuitry for myself, hence this hypothesis is also empirically derived)."

all three have seen it, yet this is just an explanation

"Since the conversion takes place in negative space where normal physical law is reversed, loss less energy conversions are permitted. Waste heat in the vacuum is directly converted to potential. A true time reversed negentropy interaction, that is the exact time reversed opposite of conventional textbook I2R electrical losses."

eveything is reversed, mathematical absolutely possible and empirically observed

"What I am arguing for is not so much a rewriting of conventional textbooks, but simply the addition of another chapter explaining a 'special case,' for fields, extending rather than replacing conventional theory. The concept of field depletion also explains why over-unity effects can be so sensitive, and have caused such problems over the years. "

sounds all very clear to me

now, theory might be wrong
I believe I will inform Sansbury on this after my exams and ask how he would explain this
this because he's explained me some other stuff (from Bearden) normally explained with vacuum energy in a whole different way

keep at it,

c'est moi

ps: ismu, I believe what you are trying to do has already been done, so I think if you read some work not only of Tim (he explains how to make it) but also of mR Adams himself or if you join the adamsEgroup, that you can check all this out for yourself
Enjoy!

[c'est moi]

forgot, at http://www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/solidstate.html there's a 'device' which is fairly easily to reproduce, with good schemes presented, so why don't you give it a shot James R and try this for yourself?

[James R]

c'est moi,

As I said previously, I am not necessarily claiming that the "free lunch" crowd are lying, though that is one possibility. What I think is that they have not demonstrated, even on a balance of probabilities, that their devices work as advertised. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to believe their claims.

Scientists would like nothing better than to discover a device for extracting vacuum zero-point energy. It would be an essentially unlimited energy source which would solve all the world's energy problems, eliminate fossil fuel use and so on. When somebody claims to have invented such a device, that turns heads.

Now, if you invented such a device, what would be the best way to convince the world it works, do you suppose? Put it on the web? I don't think so. What I would do is arrange for some unbiased, well-credentialled scientists to come and take a look at my device and verify its operation (possibly after taking out a patent or three). I'd also invite the energy companies to have a look. And the government. Perhaps phone up the TV stations and have a live demonstration in front of an audience (with experts in attendance). And drop a line to the Nobel committee to let them know I exist for future reference. :)

<i>Prejudice against the "Free Energy" research field has a similar origin. "Science bigots" constantly attack its adherents. They smear the field with derogatory names and use fairly underhanded tactics to discredit the research.</i>

No. I think when somebody says "I have invented a free-energy machine", the usual scientific response is "Great! Show me the money!" Scientists like to have evidence that claims are true, and will not settle for somebody's say-so. Derogatory names are unnecessary (though I'm not saying that they aren't used from time to time).

In my experience, it is ALWAYS the nutters who claim that mainstream scientists are bigots, part of a conspiracy to repress new ideas and so on. The fact is, scientists LOVE new ideas. It's what they do for a living.

<i>When Tim says

"The Adams motor forces energy out of the fields of permanent magnets in a precise geometrical load less manner, via an electromagnetic asymmetry set up by a pulsed 'Lenz gate'"

I believe this is clear...</i>

Let's look at this for a minute, then. What does "forces energy out of the fields" mean? Can you give me an analogy with a field I am familiar with (electric, magnetic, gravitational)?

What does "precise geometrical load less manner" mean? In what sense is the manner geometrical? In what sense is it load less (<i>sic</i>)? This seems to me to be using big words for the sake of it, rather than to convey meaning.

What kind of asymmetry are we talking about here? And what is a "Lenz gate"? Is that a made-up term?

I think this passage is far from clear. Another example:

<i>"So putting this together, it is my hypothesis that if the field strength of a permanent magnet is reduced below the size of the force"

clear to me</i>

Not clear to me. The terms "field strength" and "force" have very specifically defined meanings in physics, which are different. You simply can't compare the size of a field to the size of a force. It's comparing apples and oranges.

When the level of explanation of the operation of a claimed "free energy" machine is this deficient, I start to be suspicious that it works at all. As I said, I can't be sure because I haven't seen all the evidence, but I have to wonder why Tim's first stop is the web and not a panel of experts as discussed above.

[ismu]

Whatever conclusion of this thread, it's give me encourage to continue searching for "free energy". Thanks to both of you.
c'est moi i've visited your website (i found on your profile). The cartoon below your first page is "wonderfull" satire for todays mankind. Funny :D

[ismu]

just a little bit more comment:


Originally posted by James R
Now, if you invented such a device, what would be the best way to convince the world it works, do you suppose? Put it on the web? I don't think so. What I would do is arrange for some unbiased, well-credentialled scientists to come and take a look at my device and verify its operation (possibly after taking out a patent or three). I'd also invite the energy companies to have a look. And the government. Perhaps phone up the TV stations and have a live demonstration in front of an audience (with experts in attendance).

I think it would be be very expesive James. Lots of invetors are "garage class inventor", who don't afford to do such things like that. Mostly grarage class inventor have lots of obligation to do and don't have enough resources and spare time (or even to realize their design), to do those things you've suggested.

I think to put it on the website and let people to make replicas is quite fair.

[James R]

The only cost would be a couple of phone calls. After all, you already have the machine, right?

[ismu]

Not just like that, of course. How come busy scientist will come over to take a look just because some phonecall from "nobody" ?? :bugeye: And so with TV guys. At least, it's should be done with very convincing resume, from well known scientist. And to get that not so easy also.

Do you really think that people's standard of lifestyle as same as you and people around you? :D I admit you're smart James, very smart. Just need to be more open to reality...

About my machine, of course not done yet. That's why im' here now. To get some review from experts, as i said in the first post. If it has done yet, of course now i'm now in the step to try some publication.

Don't you think that let serious people make some replicas fair enough? I think, it is very wise and nice to spread the knowledge to all people who need, rather than hide it just to take benefit from the patent for himself.
Rich man giving, even he has nothing, poor man taking, even he has everything... :rolleyes:
Internet is one excellent way to spread knowledge. It's a breakthru on communication. Why stuck on conventional style?

[c'est moi]

"Scientists would like nothing better than to discover a device for extracting vacuum zero-point energy. It would be an essentially unlimited energy source which would solve all the world's energy problems, eliminate fossil fuel use and so on. When somebody claims to have invented such a device, that turns heads."

nope, then they crackpots
Motto: If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.

"No. I think when somebody says "I have invented a free-energy machine", the usual scientific response is "Great! Show me the money!" Scientists like to have evidence that claims are true, and will not settle for somebody's say-so. Derogatory names are unnecessary (though I'm not saying that they aren't used from time to time)."

what Bill Beaty is saying is reality
what you are saying is how it should be

"In my experience, it is ALWAYS the nutters who claim that mainstream scientists are bigots, part of a conspiracy to repress new ideas and so on. The fact is, scientists LOVE new ideas. It's what they do for a living."

nobody is talking about any conspiracy

"Let's look at this for a minute, then. What does "forces energy out of the fields" mean? Can you give me an analogy with a field I am familiar with (electric, magnetic, gravitational)?"

this is what seems to have been observed
explanation might be wrong

"What does "precise geometrical load less manner" mean? In what sense is the manner geometrical? In what sense is it load less"

it relates, I believe, to the way the Adams' motor magnets are placed

"What kind of asymmetry are we talking about here?"

I pressume a similar one as when a dipole is formed

"And what is a "Lenz gate"? Is that a made-up term?"

I have emailed him about this
overlooked that one, sorry

"Not clear to me. The terms "field strength" and "force" have very specifically defined meanings in physics, which are different. You simply can't compare the size of a field to the size of a force. It's comparing apples and oranges."

you are simply ignoring the rest of the sentence:

... my deduction from these facts is that if the field strength of a permanent magnet is artificially reduced below the size of the force that created it minus losses, the field assumes a form of negative value, in order to draw in energy such that the field can be brought back up to full strength.

ismu answered the rest

[James R]

c'est moi:

<i>Motto: If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.</i>

That's a reasonable rule of thumb. Another popular formulation is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

<i>"Let's look at this for a minute, then. What does "forces energy out of the fields" mean? Can you give me an analogy with a field I am familiar with (electric, magnetic, gravitational)?"

this is what seems to have been observed
explanation might be wrong</i>

I know that is what is claimed. I was querying whether the term "forces energy out of the fields" is meaningful on its own or not, quite apart from any associated claim.

<i>"What kind of asymmetry are we talking about here?"

I pressume a similar one as when a dipole is formed </i>

Why must we presume? Why isn't it explained?

"Not clear to me. The terms "field strength" and "force" have very specifically defined meanings in physics, which are different. You simply can't compare the size of a field to the size of a force. It's comparing apples and oranges."

<i>you are simply ignoring the rest of the sentence...

... my deduction from these facts is that if the field strength of a permanent magnet is artificially reduced below the size of the force that created...</i>

My point is that you can't reduce the field strength below the size of a force, because field strengths and forces are not comparable quantities. For example, the units of electric field are N/C, and the unit of force is N. It makes no sense to say 3 N/C < 4 N. That's like saying 3 dollars is less than 2 apples.

[ismu]

Hi guys...

Feud won't make any good. We better looking for real solution rather than arguing each other's terms. World is already has lots of problems. We better solve it together.

c'est moi, keep on track to search for aternative energy, and give us informations. ;)

James R, according to your background, you must be very good in physics. give us better solutions, suggestions, and supports. :)

me :D . I should learn physics more --a lot--, and learn from both of you guys.

[TIME02112]

<Img Src=http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/anim98.gif>
I must say that we should all agree together what Celeste just said here- "Feud won't make any good. We better looking for real solution rather than arguing each other's terms. World is already has lots of problems. We better solve it together."

If you can at least agrre to this James R. then I believe that you too must have some hope here, and this should not be asking to much for Hope is not the same as blind faith (not putting words in anyone's mouth here, but if the shoe fits...)

I am only suggesting that for a moment while you are asking these questions James R, and indeed they are very good ones that do need to be addressed before consideration of such a review pannel as you suggested earlier, however in retrospect we must be asking "How Can I Help" instead of the usual retorechial Q&A Debate Prove me wrong, no you prove me wrong as we all know too damned well that two wrongs never make a right, so as you see (being the intelligent being you most certainly are) it is more a matter of a more meaningful mannerisim of proper approach & etiquette unto others who are doing their best to bring forth these new alternative solutions to the marketplace, and need advice before structual critisisim, or a combination of both. Not everyone out there is a huckster, there are many Credible people trying their best hand at this too, and we all need to put away our egos, and worldy desires if we are going to succed in such great benevolent asdpirations.

Perhaps you could have approched it by evaluating the costs for brining a review pannel to examine his machine before suggesting it, or offering alternatives to get him to bring his machine and present it in a way that would enable the affordability on a shoestring budget, or suggest information to generate funding concepts- Angel Investors, or other groups who may be of assiting some how? after this you could have gone into the structual critisisim in approaching him by say I want to offer you some suggestions if you are really serious, you will need to subject your device in front of a scientific review process (such as.. FAS "Federation of american Scientist @ http://www.fas.org
or whatever, and explain the type of detailed barrage of Q & A (as you mentioned earlier) that he would need to become familiarized with so that he could prepare himself more properly instead of putting him on the spot and you should know in spite that you were checking his knowledge for your own ratings, Nobody enjoys being isolated, ostracized, or put on the spot when all they intend is to reach out to others with honest intentions of integrity, and I do believe that is clear to anyone who reviews their website. There is no evasivness, just a different perception, and remember not everyone who has inventive genius naturaly should hold a degree from Caltech, MIT or Harvard, nor does this mean if they lack the educational skills to be accepted by these Educational Institutions, it does not mean that their ideas are any less credible!

<Img Src=http://www.bradandsherry.com/clock.gif>
"There's my 2 cents of structual critisisim for now."
<Img Src=http://www.libidium.net/resource/anime/clocks/clock001.gif>
---T12

[ismu]

Good comment TIME02112. And thank's for the FAS link. :)

[TIME02112]

No problem, glad to be in your corner...
any "Time"
<Img Src=http://www.libidium.net/resource/anime/clocks/clock001.gif>
---T12

<Img Src=http://www.tap-ten.com/1gif/t-10.gif>
http://www.Tap-Ten.com
<Img Src=http://www.tap-ten.com/1jpg/tban.gif>

[c'est moi]

I was impressed by your reply.