Energy conservation violation

I have plan to improve my model so that it can rotate longer, for example 1 hour. Do you think it is economical. It can be used in a rotor of a generator. We do not need fuel, just our manual force, and the rotor will spin for a long time to generate current. Is it OK?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have described a generator. There are plenty of them out there, but if you wish to build one, then that's OK by me. (You won't get any "free energy" of course.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your device, no matter how much you improve it, does not produce energy, it just temporarily stores the energy you gave it with a small jerk of your hand.

A small jerk of your hand would not even spin a flashlight generator for a second, so no, this device is not capable of being part of an electricity generating system.

The best you can hope for is to sell it as a piece of moving desktop art, like a Newton's Cradle or a drinking bird.

And, of course, to avoid wasting more of your time you should learn some basic physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So it's like a ball on the top of a hill. You might barely touch it and start it rolling down the hill, faster and faster. That's just converting gravitational potential to kinetic energy; there's nothing "free energy" about that. Likewise, it took some force to align those magnets in their highest potential energy configuration. That is magnetic potential. Then it starts to move and is converted to kinetic energy.

Wait about 15 minutes.

 

No, not OK. Imagine you are spinning one end of a shaft at a constant rotational velocity, say 20 RPM. Your job is to maintain that 20 RPM at all costs! If the load on the shaft increases, in order for you to maintain the same 20 RPM you have to work harder. If the load increases more, you have to work even harder to maintain that 20 RPM. The more load you can maintain at 20 RPM, the more HP you are producing!! The problem is, in order to maintain that 20 RPM you have to eat pizza!! No pizza no power!!

Energy is maintaining that load and RPM for a duration of time, say 13 days...

 

Museum of Unworkable Devices: Magnetic Motor

 

I don't ever get charged for being able to keep both feet on the ground. How much are they charging you for it? Why not say that all the fundamental forces of the universe don't require any energy? What did they do for us anyways? They would all have to be a part of one pseudo-force!

You missed the entire point of what I was trying to say. It would take energy to realign the atoms in a magnet. This energy would have to be taken from the environment. Like the room becoming refrigerated, or the cups abnormally appearing to move with less energy, etc.

 

Convincing thinhnghiem isn't going to be easy.



https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-ball-pen-emit-laser-beam.268958/

 

The four forces can be (and in fact are) all quite different.
It takes no energy to keep both feet on the ground. However, if you want to expend energy to move yourself upwards, you will generally be charged for it (by the gas station attendant, or the ski lift operator, or the airline etc.) Or you can do it yourself, and pay for that energy through calories burned in your muscles.

No, I got what you were trying to say; I think you are wrong. (BTW it requires energy to refrigerate a room; you do not "get the energy back.")

 

Heat takes energy. To get colder, that is a reduction in energy. Like in deep space it is cold, because there is an absence of energy.

 

Heat doesn't take energy, heat IS energy.

You are confusing temperature with heat. (In any case, to reduce the heat content of something by pumping it somewhere else you must expend energy; you cannot turn heat alone into useful work. That pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics.)

No, space has no temperature.

 

You are right I think to say that aligning the magnetic moments of the atoms, so as to magnetise a permanent magnet, requires energy. This is because there is potential energy in the resulting magnetic field.

But that energy is supplied when the magnet is magnetised. This is a one-off process. The energy to do it does not come "from the environment". It comes from the energy in the external magnetic field that is needed to cause the magnetisation. Subsequent manipulations of the magnet do not affect this.

 

If there is any doubt about the decidedly sub-par top-to-bottom general standards of integrity at Sciforums, just compare:
My treatment in being cowardly anonymously relegated to Alternative Theories, in less than 2 days from OP posting, despite never advocating any alternative theory there:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fr...-is-bs-or-dont-just-trust-authorities.142884/

Whereas this thread (notwithstanding the quickly contradicted opening 'disclaimer') clearly advocating perpetual motion, has remained in Physics & Maths since Oct 20. Not only that, but it seems all other respondents to this thread have memories like sieves. Or am I the only one who clearly remembers thinhnghiem posting an extremely similar idea, thoroughly dealt with by myself and others, back here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/improved-non-stop-engine.135167/
Seems so. Which is sad on top of sad. And now for the inevitable flack.

 

You still don't get what I was saying. There is no such thing as a "one-off process" when it comes to conservation of energy. If energy does one thing, then it takes it from another thing. It would take energy to create a magnet, and it would also take a transfer of energy to demagnetize a magnet. The magnet itself would lose this energy that was used to create it. It wouldn't take energy from the environment to do this, like what I was saying. I was just saying that sense energy was not transferred from the environment that proves the direction of flow of energy from the magnet to the environment. The real reason it happens is because energy can be taken from the magnet, but it is said to not violate conservation of energy. That is because there is no such thing a truly permanent magnet. For example, if you used an electromagnet instead, it would take energy to run the electricity to create it. Therefore, the magnet can be a source of energy that can do work.

 

Well there is such a thing as a permanent magnet for all practical purposes, although it is true that over a very, very long time, the atoms will gradually randomise and it will demagnetise (losing energy as it does so).

I'm concerned that nobody should think employing a permanent magnet in a machine involves taking energy from the magnet, i.e. they should not think the permanent magnet represents some sort of "battery", the energy of which is "consumed" in some way and thus the magnet becomes "run down" by continued use.

An electromagnet gains energy when it is energised and loses it when de-energised. A permanent magnet gains energy when it is initially magnetised and does not lose it thereafter - or at least not until the very long term atomic alignment effects I mentioned have had time to operate, i.e. over decades.

 

I am concerned that this type of thinking is the reason why we have to use electricity to run fans. The permanent magnet could be one of the most efficient type of batteries known in existence. I think this video was a lot more convincing of the ability for it to be used for work.



Edit: The magnetic field would actually create a current in the electromagnets in the fan, so it would generate electricity. Then the motion of the fan would automatically cut the electric current on and off as it spins around. This wouldn't work if the wires used for electricity was grounded.

 

That is a fake scam vidoe. Just try it yourself layman - it will not work.

 

Indeed but one can do better by saving Layman the expense and time:

And I repeat - every single point and argument here was all covered (and then some) back in that previous thread I linked to in #34. A bit of window dressing does not a new PMM wannabe make! And it continues to sadden but not anymore amaze that this thread was not immediately upon posting bumped to Pseudoscience or similar. But then I am not a mover and shaker here.

 

Right - but you don't necessarily "get the energy back." You can burn down a house, for example, and get no power back out of the house over the power lines. Likewise, you can destroy a magnet by heating it above its Curie temperature and get no power back.

No, you can't* - and there is a whole batch of "magnet motors" that prove that this is the case. None of them have worked; not one, ever - even though they've been trying for 400 years or so. They are all based on the same principle - that you can get power from a static magnetic field. And they simply do not work. Not from "getting energy from the magnet" not via clever methods of "shielding" the magnetic field, not by clever arrangements of magnets and poles.

(* - There is one exception, and that is that if you place a magnet near a solenoidal winding, and then destroy it by heating it, grinding it up or doing something else bad to it, you can extract energy while the field decays. See Faraday's Law for how this works. That is a one time "harvesting" that you cannot repeat, and nets you a joule or two for a large magnet. It does NOT result in a motor running for a long time, or a generator providing power, or anything like that.)