Magnetic Motor. Real or Fraud?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by invert_nexus, Jun 26, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    This was posted in another forum, but there is a shortage of people over there that are knowledgeable on this type of stuff. So I figured I'd post it here and see what you think.

    First the links.
    A site which explains the device a little (a very little): http://www.fdp.nu/perendev/

    A link to a video of the device in action: http://www.greaterthings.com/News/F...rendev/MagneticMotor/PerendevMotorFeb2003.wmv

    Personally, I think it's a fake. In the video while the device is in motion, the camera is stationary and only viewing one side of the machine. And then after it slows and stops, the camera shows the other side and at this point the narrator explains away the shaft sticking out of the central wheel. I bet that this is where a motor is attached to make the wheel spin.

    Anyway. Just thought it would be interesting to see some knowledgeable explanations for why this is idiotic and a fraud.

    Some images:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Note that this last image is not the device. But it operates on a similar mechanism.


    So. What do you think?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. deleted
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    Agreed...magnetics have always been psuedoscience's bread and butter...

    My favorite was the 13 second clip from 2:17 - 2:30 in invert_nexus's clip. I think it interesting that the "new and improved electronic speed controller" must be controled manually by crank, hence the shaking of the machine...funny, funny...

    That the inventor has not turned in his peretual motion machine in exchange for fame, wealth and/or philathropic reasons is evidence enough for me that it does not work.

    - KitNyx
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. steponit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134
    But of what practical use would it have, since the stored energy of a magnet is very small incomparison with the work it could do. In any case, it would have to be recharged again just like a battery.
     
  8. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    It is Idiotic and a fraud because it claims to violate one or more fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
     
  9. Shitstorm Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
  10. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Yeah. I know it's idiotic and a fraud, but I'd hoped to see some more indepth answers. I suppose there's nothing to really respond to though, is there?

    And. No. I'm not thinking of investing. Just saw it posted on another site and it wasn't getting any decent responses so I figured I'd post it here to see what was said.
     
  11. Trilobyte Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    You may notice the device doesn't start up spinning smoothly as it should as the semicircular parts are moved closer to the central part. It seems to jump start (in two twists moving anticlockwise) at a certain distance as if by an electric motor (etc) behind it that is turned on, even though the outer "magnets" are closed around it much more smoothly. (check the video at exactly the time 1:14 and for about 4 seconds after)

    The magnet settup from the (colourful) image would remain stationary after it moves to the position of balanced force (an initial twist as above). The actual device constructed follows this behaviour (there are magnets in it arranged "correctly" according to the design given). So the device is built the way they say, but the second twist that actually sets the device spinning at high speed is probably a motor. You'll notice that despite the outer parts being closed around it smoothly the motion stops after the initial twist for less than a second, then from there follows the second (powered) twist that brings it up to speed.

    Notice also that the camera and the semicircular parts that close around the "axle-part" are positioned so that you can't see the back end of the axle. But I don't think this the key part that he tries to hide. As he moves to the back of the device with the camera he does it slowly and keeps the handle out of view of the camera (to me it seems this in intentional but there may just be a wall right behind him he and can't fit both him and the camera so must lift it above the device more.)
    The reason I think he would hide the handle is because I am almost certain this is what is generating a varying magnetic field that turns the device. I think the coils will be in the rectangular blue-grey parts at the tops of both of the semicircular parts. If you stare at the shadows cast on the outer surface when it is closed throughout the video, more specifically/especially at time 2:40 (on the left surface) and for another 6 seconds there seems to be a circling motion that would be the same as that created if the handle shown were being spun around by hand.

    Also how many people do you think are in the room? Two were present in total but the person who isn't talking (you see her feet in slippers as she (in a pink dressing gown) walks into the room) only seems to enter when the talker coincidentially decides to look at the back of the device. There are shadows from someone walking past at least twice in total, even though the man talking seems to be staying still and talking near the camera.
    You may also notice he quickly tries to correct himself when he says "we" instead of "I" when he says; "That's why you'll see the stator is shaking a little bit, as we...as I turn the handle to increase or decrease speed." (at time 2:20 onwards)
    I'm not saying this proves anything, just that it shows some hesitation on his part.

    Overall a fraud I think, but I don't know why he would go to all that bother of making it for such a poor quality video.

    I would also like to add; Don't you think the person talking sounds like a combination of an Australian and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Just make those permanent magnets electromagnets, then use the AC to alter their polarity, and you've got one swell electric motor!
     
  13. deleted
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2007
  14. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Damn! Why didn't someone think of that 130years ago? Oh they did.
     
  15. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    Have you ever wondered why?

    That's not really a good "reason", since you don't know if you understand that law completely except from what you have read. Nothing in nature can ever "violate" any "laws".

    Physicists are like religious people. They can never be open to something that is outside their little square: the holy book. Similarly, you can never have an open mind to something which is outside your theories and "laws".
     
  16. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Actually, it would probably suck. There are usually pretty good reasons for the conventional design of any device. In this design you would have stray fields all over the place without a radical redesign. Boys and girls, can you say ineffecient.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    (numbers added by me)

    Well, Yorda,

    1) We understand the laws of thermodynamics at least as well as any others you can think of. Perpetual Motion machines are impossible. They will be impossible forever, no matter what physics you invent. If you invent a physics that taps an unknown energy source (zero-point super-string vacuum fluctuation Planck-gap energy?), fine, but it is still not "energy from nothing".

    2) I've seen people post this before, and it still is one of the stupidest sentiments ever. Physicists are constantly looking outside the box, pushing the limits of our understanding of nature. It's uneducated dolts that perpetuate (pun) this pseudoscientific twaddle. You are mistaking your ignorance for "open mindedness". If you actually learned something of value, you might be in a position to make a contribution beyond slinging burgers at McDonalds and labelling brilliant, creative physicists as closed minded fools.
     
  18. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Boys and Girls, can you say "laminated core, anti-eddy current, low inductance winding, synchronous AC motor"?
     
  19. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    Not good enough. No one knows if the others are understood correctly.

    They be impossible to physicists, but the right science for reality is not physics but a science of consciousness.

    Yet scientist defend the Big Bang theory, which supposes energy comes from nothingness.

    Physicists can't explain what energy is or where it comes from.

    You are a typical human. You always think you're right. No one knows anything.
     
  20. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Yep.

    Sheer arrogant presupposition on your part. I mostly think I'm wrong, but know how to find out. It's called science. Dismissing the most powerful form of knowing nature (science) as you do, (physicists... Bah, Humbug...) is just plain blind ignorance.

    And thermodynamic laws are as solid as science gets.

    You are correct.

    The source of the universe's energy is currently outside of science IMO. But now that we are here, there are certain laws that hold. Thermodynamic laws are some of the toughest.
     
  21. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    ok... 'metaphysics' can already answer what energy is and where it comes from. physicists don't want to question things which threaten the very foundations of their science... so they will not accept this... 'everything is mental'.
     
  22. steponit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    134
    Perhaps I'm missing something here. A permanent magnet does have energy- electromagnetic energy. The discussion here is how to draw this energy and make a rotor spin. This notion does not violate and laws of thermodynamics, or conservation of energy. Itds strictly a mechanical/electrical problem. Even if it were accomplished, it would not store any more energy than a bsattery that would drive an electrified rotor with a permanent electromagnetic rotor. And where does this perpetual motion notion come from? the energy of the permanent magnets would wear down like a battery would.
     
  23. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    why? are you sure?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page