Yet Another Perpetual Motion Device 563
The Star reports on this inventor breaking all the laws of physics as far as free energy goes. It even provoked interest from "esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Markus Zahn". I would like to know how this seemingly backyard enthusiast's experimental set up has not been tried a million times over the years. It seems so simple and too good to be true. The article has links to a multi-part video demo of the device accelerating an electric motor under load for free!
Nobody's calling it "perpetual motion" (Score:5, Informative)
There's no talk of perpetual motion. No whisper of broken scientific laws or free energy. Zahn would never go there - at least not yet. But he does see the potential for making electric motors more efficient, and this itself is no small feat.
Why the headline, Taco?
I read the article... (Score:5, Informative)
He also says it's *NOT* a perpetual motion machine. He's asking experts to explain him why that happened, and if it could turn into a way to make electrical generators more efficient.
Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:Nobody's calling it "perpetual motion" (Score:5, Informative)
In the very first paragraph, TFA states "he'll demonstrate an invention that appears - though he doesn't dare say it - to operate as a perpetual motion machine."
As for why "nobody's calling it" that, TFA answers that as well, with:
Seems straightforward enough. The guy believes (or wants others to believe) that he has made a perpetual motion machine, but calling it as much would result in his instant damning to the land of crackpots. So instead of claiming something widely considered impossible, he describes it as simply some sort of "very efficient" electric motor, a perfectly reasonable (if unlikely, given his background) idea.
Videos (Score:4, Informative)
a possible explanation (Score:5, Informative)
I will assume that the motor is a common DC motor with field on the stator, armature on the rotor. If the flux from the magnet he's holding near the shaft is canceling some of the flux from the field, then the motor will naturally speed up. The opposite effect is when you increase the flux from the field... the motor slows down.
Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Zero bandwidth transmitter (Score:4, Informative)
Not to dismiss your remarks regarding that others may have also independently invented this sometime in the last 40 years (though I believe you're simply referring to civilian commercial use in the past few decades)...
But it would seem to take just a wee bit of effort of web research to demonstrate that various forms of this have been around a lot longer.
Goodness. Tesla patented a form of frequency hopping in 1900!!
Hedy Lamer is famous for being the woman who more or less invented and patented an early form of CDMA in 1940.
Granted, these things didn't have widespread civilian use and applications until the last few decades. But it seems strange to present your story the way you did. It would seem likely depending in his implementation that this chap couldn't have patented it in any case due to longstanding prior patents.
Furthermore, describing this as "zero bandwidth" really seems strange. I can certainly understand why engineers would have dismissed this. A more accurate description of spread spectrum would be "infinite bandwidth". That is why it's called SPREAD spectrum. It flattens out the wave in the frequency domain. Simply because the power in any given range drops to the noise floor isn't quite the same as it truly being zero bandwidth.
I Don't Like This Article (Score:3, Informative)
The text of the article really bugs me though. Almost no information is provided about anything except this guy's background, and it's very careful to point out that he lost his wife and his dog died and he lives under bridges and eats garbage and stuff. It almost seems like a sympathy article, like they want you to believe he's the underdog fighting for truth against the tyranny of scientists that are just out to destroy all inventions from the little guy that would help humanity.
Which of course is hardly the case; if more people knew just a little more about science, they would understand why most are skeptical.
Re:Green Plug (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Am I Missing Something? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A new look at the (Electromagnetic) force? (Score:3, Informative)
Actual claims the inventor made (Score:3, Informative)
He even got the name wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I read the article... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know if this explains the observed effect, but it is a plausible explanation. I just had to intervene because I hate people that are rude and stupid at the same time. Thank you.
More on nonlinear magnetics (Score:4, Informative)
So I have been thwarted in understanding what "non-linear magnetic steel" is.
There are whole families of non-linear magnetic devices. Non-linear magnetic effects are used in saturable reactors [wikipedia.org] for motor control, magnetic amplifiers, and other AC electrical devices. You don't see those things much any more, because power semiconductors are now used instead, but the physics still works. Also see this explanation of magnetic hysteresis [gsu.edu], which is a related non-linear magnetic effect.
Consider a permanent magnet brake that relies on hysteresis effects to absorb energy. Reversing magnetic domains requires energy, which comes out as heat. Look at the figure "Variation in hysteresis curves" in this article [gsu.edu]. Maximum braking is achieved when the magnetic field is near the middle, wide parts of the curves. If you use a coil to apply a magnetic field that forces the material closer to saturation, or to cancel out the field from the permanent magnets, the braking effect decreases. That's probably what's going on with the "Perepiteia" device. Mild steels are in the midrange of magnetic materials; they are easy to saturate magnetically, which is why they make wimpy permanent magnets, but have moderate hysteresis, so they make inefficient transformer cores. For a magnetic brake, though, you want something in the midrange of magnetic materials, where the magnetic domains resist changing direction enough to generate heat, but don't resist so strongly that nothing happens, as in a strong magnet. I suspect that the "Perepiteia" device has coils wound on mild steel, and the braking energy is dumped into heating up those metal cores. (Here's more than you probably want to know about saturation and hysteresis in magnetic materials for transformer design. [mag-inc.com]).
I'm still not clear on whether the magnetic connection to the motor in the "Perepiteia" device really has much to do with this. But there's nothing mysterious about an electromagnetic brake that turns off when you short the coils. It's unusual, but known.
This isn't really my field, but I do have a classical EE degree, so I had to learn this stuff once.
Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut (Score:3, Informative)
A coil of wire with 90 volts induced in it and open-circuited (0 amps) will dissipate 0 watts.
Assume the coil has an resistance of 1 ohm. When he short-circuits the coil, it looked like the induced voltage dropped to about 10 volts.
10 volts / 1 ohm = 10 amps
10 amps * 10 volts = 100 watts
Suddenly adding 100 watts of load to a motor should slow it down.
Stanley Who? (Score:5, Informative)
Since you gave no link, I had to google that name [google.com]. Here's a good tip: when you read about an inventor who has trouble getting someone from the scientific community to look at his prototype, google on his name plus the word "fraud". Failing to do that, you risk being part of a notice like this [padrak.com]:
Re:Scientists cannot explain != mysterious (Score:5, Informative)
Some quotes:
"they have demonstrated the Perepiteia to a number of labs and universities across North America, including the University of Virginia, Michigan State University, the University of Toronto and Queens University."
Prof. Habash of University of Ottawa looked at it: "It accelerates, but when it comes to an explanation, there is no backing theory for it. That's why we're consulting MIT. But at this time we can't support any claim."
Prof. Zahn of MIT: "It's an unusual phenomena I wouldn't have predicted in advance. But I saw it. It's real. Now I'm just trying to figure it out."
What I infer from this is that competent people have looked at it in some detail and were surprised, so it is possible that a new more efficient motor has been invented (it is also possible that some old forgotten motor is now more efficient because of new material, or any of a million possible outcomes.)
It is even possible that the professors forgot about magnetic brakes and other basic undergrad stuff; but I would not bet on that. It is also possible that this is a "con" but I also would not bet on that.
Some people seem very sure that this is non-sense. Would any of them like to give me 10-to-1 odds? That is, if turns out to be non-sense, I lose $1; it it turns out to be a more efficient motor, I win $10. (I will ignore the vanishingly small probability that it actually is revolutionary.) This means I am offering free money to people who are 100% sure. Even if you are only 95% sure, you still have positive expected value. On second thought, I have no desire to be jailed by some over-zealous police or DA when I am flying somewhere; so the bet will be for bragging rights only - no money.
Re:Symmetry (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot physics (Score:5, Informative)
None of this makes any sense. You're confusing energy with momentum. Air simply doesn't have "resistance to turning with Earth because of its gaseous state" and has no problem turning with the Earth.
These storms get their energy from the sun. In the more straightforward case of a hurricane, the sun is causing northward/southward movement by heating air at equatorial latitudes (and charging it with water vapor) more than the air closer to the poles (which stays cooler and drier). Due to the increased pressure the equatorial air moves toward the poles, and displaces colder air which moves toward the equator. (The water's heat of fusion helps maintain the pressure gradient by buffering thermal energy- it continues to heat the wet air as it moves poleward, and keeps the dry air cool as it crosses warm water which vaporizes and robs it of its heat.) The "Coriolis force" appears to cause circular motion, but it's a false force that's an artifact of the rotating coordinate system we like to use. In a non-rotating coordinate system, the air is retaining the linear easterly momentum that it had at the equator, so when it reaches higher latitudes it appears to be moving east, and the air that reaches the equator is now moving westward there simply because it had less easterly momentum to start with. Note that the Coriolis "force" does no work here since it applies itself in a perpendicular direction to the air's movement so the dot product is zero. Gravity, a real force, is doing no work here either for the same reason- even though it flips the sign of all linear momenta every 12 hours. All the work is being done by the pressure gradient.
The net effect is that the storm has had solar energy injected into it, which enables it to extract angular momentum from the Earth's rotation. When it reaches land and throws your stuff around, the Earth gets all its angular momentum back since the wind and debris is moving sideways with respect to the ground. The energy is dissipated in all the collisions into the form of heat, but the system's total angular momentum never changes.
Tornadoes are a bit more convoluted but essentially work the same way. Just like when I stir my coffee. I borrow angular momentum from the earth, with energy that originally came from the sun via the food I ate. As my coffee slows down, the earth gets its angular momentum back (transferred through the mug, through the table, and into the ground) and the energy I put into the coffee heats it and the mug it's in a tiny little bit. That energy came from the sun, not from the earth's rotation. I can't "draw power from the Earth's rotation" to stir my coffee unless I somehow hook my stirrer up to tides crashing at the beach. Those DO extract potentially useful energy from the angular momentum in the Earth-Moon system, since the Moon is available as an anchor and momentum can be dumped into it until the Earth and Moon eventually become tidally locked- analogous to the situation when a hurricane, tornado, or coffee stir is finally dissipated. At that point the angular momentum will be useless for extracting further energy.
Basically, you can't stick a generator axle into the North Pole and generate electricity by spinning the rotor. You have nothing to anchor the stator against.
No Useful Output; Hysteresis Brake (Score:5, Informative)
The following are a couple of the better comments we received.
No Useful Output
On Feb. 6, 2008, Peter Lindemann, DSc, writes:
I have reviewed all seven video links. In all fairness, I would like to say that Thane has built some nice demonstrations and spent a lot of time running experiments. That said, the films show nothing important. First of all, the films do not show enough detailed information to evaluate the demonstrations. Second, no free energy is shown. In fact, the generators are never shown producing any useful outputs. They are either shown producing voltage in "open circuit" mode, or they are shown in "short circuit" mode, where the generated voltage drops below one volt. So, ZERO WATTS are produced in either case.
The changes in mechanical drag are due to changes in inductance and hysteresis. Back in the 1980's, both John Bedini and I independently worked with "variable reluctance" generators. We both saw that these designs work like an inverse to a standard induction generator. That is, they produce maximum drag in "open circuit" mode, and minimum drag in "short circuit" mode. John found that the point of maximum benefit in this situation is to charge a battery, where the impedance of the generator "sees" the battery as a "near short circuit". Under these circumstances, the generator free-wheels and the battery charges quickly.
Unfortunately, Thane is not showing any useful benefits from the generator output. So, there is no "efficiency" to calculate because there is no output!
The real problem with these demonstrations has to do with his motor drive. The motor driving his system is a single phase induction motor. This type of motor has almost zero starting torque, and only produces its rated power at rated speed. So, the rated speed of his motor is probably in the neighborhood of 1725 RPM. Running this motor in the 100 RPM range converts 98% of the input electric power to HEAT. He says he has a capacitor in the input circuit to the motor, but this is never shown in schematic, so we don't know how it is hooked up. If the capacitor is connected in SERIES with the motor winding, it will act as a current limiter, and skew the power factor of the motor towards reactive power. This is fine, IF you want to limit the mechanical power of the motor as well. If the capacitor is connected in PARALLEL with the motor winding, it will act to produce reactive power for the motor locally, and reduce the amount of power it draws from the wall. But again, this would only be significant at rated speed.
The effect he shows when a magnetic field is applied to the motor shaft would be undetectable if he was operating the motor correctly. It is a very weak effect. It is probably caused by the external magnetic field interfering with the induced magnetic field of the rotor. This would not happen if the motor coils were not being severely current limited and the rotor was not "slipping" severely in the rotating magnetic field of the stator.
My GUESS is that the capacitor is in SERIES with the motor winding. This will limit the current to the motor to a specific maximum. At the speeds he is running these motors, the only other mechanism to hold back the input current would be the resistance of the wire in the motor coils. If that is all he had, the motor would quickly over-heat and melt the insulation right off the wire. The fact that the motor is running hot is proved in the seventh film where a large black fan is shown blowing on the motor!
From the data presented, my best estimate of the efficiency of the demonstrations is that over 90% of the energy going into the motor is converted to heat. The changes in drag of the generators is standard behavior for variable reluctance topologies
Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut (Score:3, Informative)
Using a standard stepper motor which is essentially what he has here, the stepper motor can be timed to hit the Back EMF pulse in a position where it becomes a propulsion pulse. Typically the Back EMF pulse is proportional to the load on the motor. The result is that a forward kick equal to the RMS of the Back EMF pulse can be achieved. Since the motor rotated with force equal to the induced coil current less some losses like friction etc, the motor without the Back EMF pulse would be almost 100% efficient. With the Back EMF pulse normally timed symmetrically such that it occurs on exit from a magnetic field the resulting Back EMF works against the rotation of the motor essentially presenting as the "Load" on the motor because it is proportional and appears in the current phase load. Because this phase load can be timed to mismatch by many means, it can appear as an attractive load as one enters the adjacent field for action. Such a motor rather than Braking as is presented in discussion accelerates. The limit of this device is about 140% of line load current in torque.
If you subsequently place magnets in the coils you can also take advantage of a maxwell equation reduction which is F=B^2. This allows one to drag by at 1/2 magnet force losing 1/4 the force with magnetic induction equal to 1/2 the driver force. At the same time adding 50% to the magnetic B field is possible using only 1/2 induction. The resulting 150% B field accelerates with Force of 2.25 times the induction giving a drag of .25 netting for induction a gain of 2 times rotation force. This actually can be asymmetrically powered giving a real gain against induction. This is why the device accelerates given the resident field of a magnet near the device.
The problem most physics types have in seeing this is that they don't follow their rules which include displacement in time and space. As to the claims of energy coming from the energy which cause the magnetic field in the magnets that is just funny. The force to magnetize a magnet is trivial and a time transient. Surely the field is very intense for a moment but that hardly includes any significant energy. Modern magnets are for the most part immune to the demagnetization issues that are discussed in such arguments.
The real issue with this guys device is to give it like all discoveries, or claimed discoveries, a fair, open and decent respectful examination and conclude according to the facts. The argument that it is "impossible" or etc is the argument of an unscientific person. If I told you that a block of metal could emit massive amounts of heat to destroy or power cities in 1930, I would have been decried as a fool and an idiot. It would have been argued to violate the laws of Physics. By 1945 2 cities had been destroyed by the heat from such an impossible event. Try shutting up the arguments and start looking. This might not be a working device and it might be one. A fair hearing is what is called for.