Yet Another Perpetual Motion Device

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!

Have pity on the poor fellow

[Anonymous Coward]

Heins has an even greater uphill battle. He isn't an engineer. He doesn't have a graduate degrees in physics. He never even finished his electronics program at Heritage College in Gatineau, Quebec. "I have mild dyslexia and don't do well in math, so I didn't do very well in school," he says.

I get the impression that this one is not a charlatan out for a buck, but simply confused. Don't be too hard on him.

Re:very simple what to do

[Wonko the Sane]

(and yes, this makes any such thing a hoax).

That's a little too harsh. There is always the remote change that one of these perpetual motion inventors stumbles across a new source of previously unusable energy.

That's doesn't make it a "perpetual motion" machine, but it could still be enormously useful.

Off the top of my head, I could imagine that the earth's magnetic field might be used as an energy source. Some unknown affect might convert subatomic particles to energy in special situations.

The bottom line is that this device should be easy to test. Either it puts out more energy than is (apparently) put into it, or not. If it does, then begin looking for non-apparent sources of energy.

Re:the quote

[neomunk]

Cuz we all know that REAL scientists dismiss out of hand anything they don't already understand and expect?

Cuz we all know that REAL scientists immediately understand something the moment they lay eyes on in?

Cuz you assume that the "prof." got scammed and is foolish for even entertaining the idea someone might have come up with something new?

Seriously, I don't get it, what part makes him a jackass?

Zero bandwidth transmitter

[CustomDesigned]

I knew about a guy who had invented a "zero bandwidth transmitter" 40 years ago. When I saw it 20 years ago, he was very bitter that no one would even look at his invention. He could demonstrate voice communication over miles, with official FCC interference monitoring equipment showing "zero bandwidth". A friend of his showed me the basics of how it worked. It was actually a "spread spectrum" transmitter. He actually had a useful invention (same principle invented since by others). But he insisted on calling it "zero bandwidth", and mocked the experts who explained the mathematical impossibility of such a thing - because he had working prototypes, the experts were clearly deluded in his mind.

Re:I read the article...

[Warbothong]

It seems that his setup is using 'permanent' magnets to accelerate a motor instead of slow it down. What this would say to me is that the retardation effects are being shifted from the motor to the magnets. This would comply with current Physical knowledge, since 'permanent' magnets are not truly permanent, only in the sense that they can't be turned on and off like electromagnets.

If this is the case then expect the 'permanent' magnets to lose their magnetism over time, and if this magnetism was imparted to them from an industrial process (ie. they are not naturally magnetic) then the extra energy would be coming from the magnet factory's machinery.

It is still interesting, however, since such a method would be a way of storing energy, reducing the need for batteries. To be useful this technique would need to be measured in terms of extra energy imparted, magnet lifetime and whether the weight of the magnets would be better used to hold more batteries.

IAAPBIDHMTGO (I Am A Physicist But I Don't Have Much To Go On)

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[eldavojohn]

What happens when you induce a fluctuating magnetic field through a metal? That's right, hysteresis drag. So, he's basically built a magnetic brake. Then he shorts out his coils, and what happens? Sure enough, it accelerates; he's shorted out his brake!

Well, I think he's inducing magnets through a magnetic field--not a metal. And this doesn't act as a break but instead speeds it up. The interesting concept here is that he's using a property known as Lenz's Law [wikipedia.org] that creates something called back EMF through those coils of wire that used to have energy running through them. If you watch all four parts, it seems that once the generator reaches a certain speed, it does not slow down when he cuts power to the system. Instead the two coils are still generating electricity from the magnets flying by them due to Lenz's law. Which is then fed into the generator which then spins the magnets which then cause a current in the coils which then ... etc.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Although not a physicist, I do not agree with that statement. From what I've seen, from what the MIT scientists have seen, this merits further investigation. I have many questions: Does this scale up? How strong are his magnets? Do the magnets depolarize over time? If he speeds it up really fast, does it pass an equilibrium point and start to accelerate with the feedback energy? Can he produce energy from the closed system and charge a batter?

Wow, I'm almost cautiously excited. Call me stupid but I want to know more.

Re:I read the article...

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

But instead of stopping, the rotor began to accelerate. Heins recounts that the first time it happened, the magnets starting flying off and hitting the walls, as he ducked for cover.

So from all I could gather he's claiming this thing produces a net output (yeah he won't state it that way, but I don't see what else he could be saying). It sounds like he's saying there's a large amount of energy coming from somewhere in a short period of time; i.e., this is not some wimpy effect only measurable with careful, precise observation. If this is the case, it's not so hard to make the scientific community sit up and take notice. Either it has to have an external power source to produce this effect, or it doesn't. So if it:

• requires external power: connect the shaft of the machine to a conventional generator, and use this generator to provide the input. Use a resistor bank to dissipate the "extra" energy that's coming from wherever it comes from.
• doesn't require external power: connect the shaft of the machine to a mechanical brake and use that to dissipate the extra energy.

Mount the whole assembly on a Lucite stand so that it's clearly visible that there's no external power being piped in. Use a wattmeter or measure how much water the dissipation element can boil away to determine how much "extra" energy it produces. Start the machine, which could possibly involve feeding external power for some time, and measure the total input energy. Let it run until it stops and see how much total energy it generated. If energy out is greater than energy in plus any energy that might conceivably have been stored in the device, go directly to Nobel Prize. Show that it's a black box that can repeatedly give back more energy than it takes in. How hard is that, if the claims are true?

I suppose it's possible that all the overunity/perpetual motion talk was coerced or added by journalists wanting a snazzy headline; if that's the case then I feel sorry for the guy. Hell, I feel sorry for him anyway, considering that this has cost him his marriage and his kids already.

typical slashdot

[Great_Geek]

Let's see, scholar.google.com shows Markus Zahn wrote a book "Electromagnetic Field Theory: A Problem Solving Approach" in 1979 (the first item in many publications); he is a professor at MIT - part of the Lab of Electromagnets and Electronic Systems. Gee, I wonder if he understands motors and magnetic brakes.

Clearly the professors (Markus Zahn and at least one other) have studied the invention and cannot explain the result. You, on the other hand, based on cursory information, understand every little detail. So typically slashdot: I took a course in university on the subject, so my opinion is better than the professors.

Re:a possible explanation

[salveque]

I'm not sure I understand. A DC motor works through the simple mechanism of two electromagnets attracting and repelling a magnet. This causes the magnet to spin. After a half-turn the flow of electricity inverts causing it to go back the other way. Momentum causes it to go up the other side. However, it's the MAGNET that moves. If one supplies an outside magnet the internal magnet should try to align with it, slowing it down when it's moving away but speeding it up when it's coming towards. So unless he's alternating the filed some how (which wasn't in the article) this doesn't make sense.

A new look at the (Electromagnetic) force?

[tcgibian]

This is not new. A Japanese inventor, whose name I cannot remember, developed a similar motor with magnets inside of it some two years ago after two decades of work. His design was able to develop the stated horsepower using one tenth of the electricity. Not perpetual motion exactly, but a considerable leap in efficiency. That makes two independent sources verifying the same phenomenon. The least we owe ourselves is to investigate these claims carefully. A large portion of our nation's electrical load is made up of motors.

Re:Zero bandwidth transmitter

[CustomDesigned]

Yes, the point of the story was that his mocking attitude, and insistence on the term "zero bandwidth" (showing a lack of deep understanding of what he had invented), is what caused his rejection. And the inventor in TFA is wise to be humble and avoid any association with "perpetual motion".

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[mikers]

If you watch all four parts, it seems that once the generator reaches a certain speed, it does not slow down when he cuts power to the system. Instead the two coils are still generating electricity from the magnets flying by them

Actually, he never does cut power to the induction motor. He shorts or re-connects the electromagnet coils (that are part of the generator assembly).

What he demonstrates is that for the same or less power (Volts*Amps) of input to the motor driving the generator, he can cause the whole assembly to accelerate while using less power.

That is the interesting part (one more time): He can cause acceleration of the motor, while under a constant load, using less power.

Not a perpetual machine, but rather a really unusual way to get higher efficiency from a motor-generator assembly.

My concern is that in one of video parts (three I think), he shows a graph describing what he is doing in his experiments, and he shows a chart that has the constant speed/power line, a decelerating line (disconnected electromagnets) and the exponential acceleration line. He never tests it far enough -- and in the last part (or second last) he shows a plain split-phase induction motor and puts a small set of permanent magnets next to it. Notice that when he puts the small magnets next to the shaft of the motor it accelerates, but he keeps shutting the motor off to "prevent the shaft from getting magnetized". That may be the ultimate problem here, it might just be a short-lived affect from magnets. Once the whole assembly is magnetized, you don't gain any more from this effect.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[JMandingo]

Agreed. What happens when he removes the coils from the system entirely? Does the motor spin slower or faster than the test with the back EMF? That question is so obvious that I would have expected it to be addressed at the very start of his video.

Re:Just based on the article

[unlametheweak]

The inventor downplays the perpetual motion idea in the article, but in a linked article 'Holy crap, this is scary,' inventor says [thestar.com]:

"What I can say with full confidence is that our system violates the law of conservation of energy," he says.

"Now, is that perpetual motion? Will it end up being that?"

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[zippthorne]

Not hard at all.

1. Move to a state where power companies have "buy-back" requirements.
2. install device effectively taking you off grid and turning your home into a mini-power plant.
3. profit.

Then slowly ramp up your basement power production until you're putting so much electricity back out to the grid that state regulators come to investigate you. If they never do, you can just use the profits to build ever larger plants until you ARE a power company, and then you'll have to talk to the state regulators whether you want to or not.

Re:Green Plug

[CustomDesigned]

Leakage current is already accounted for, because power measurement takes place between the device and the wall socket, not between the appliance and the device. However, I realize that measuring AC power is complex, and comparing the RMS of two different waveforms might be misleading. But as long as the power meter uses the same method, it still saves money. :-) Also the noise reduction is *very* noticeable, and easy to compare by moving the appliance between the Green Plug and bare outlet.

A quick google search confirms that the Green Plug is no longer made because electrical motors produced in the last five years or so have been redesigned and now incorporate the same features as the plugs [sandiego.gov]. Not because they didn't work on old motors.

How this magnetic brake works

[Animats]

After watching the videos (whew!) here's what seems to be happening.

The setup is an induction motor driving a magnetic brake. The brake has both permanent magnets and coils. With the coils unloaded, there's some braking effect, as you can see when he turns the magnet wheel by hand. With the coils shorted, the braking effect decreases. This seems backwards, because, usually, shorting a generator increases the mechanical load. That's why this guy thinks he has something.

There's a classic Physics 101 demo where you have a big conductive disk rotating between the poles of an electromagnet, and when you short the electromagnet, there's a huge drag on the disk and it stops. That's an eddy current brake, and it's the analogy this guy is depending on.

But, in fact, he's re-invented a known type of magnetic brake. This isn't an eddy current brake; the addition of permanent magnets makes it something else. A known something else.

Here's an example of such a permanent magnet brake [cst.com]. Note that "the brake is applied when the coil current is zero", just as with the "Perepiteia" device. This is backwards from most magnetic brakes. Here, the permanent magnets are providing the field for braking, and current in the coil overrides the permanent magnets. In the "Perepiteia" device, the coils act as generators and have current through them the magnet wheel is rotating and the coils are shorted. This effect requires a nonlinear magnetic steel, so this is non-trivial magnetically. But commercial electromagnetic simulation software can simulate this effect, so it's well understood physics. It's a rare enough technology that there's no accepted name for this type of brake.

Note that in the Perepiteia videos, he has to hand-start his wheel, even though it's being driven by an induction motor. That's because, with his setup, the brake drag is at max when the wheel is stationary. With the wheel stationary, there's no current in the coils, so there's nothing to override the permanent magnets. Once the wheel is turning, the coils generate some power and reduce the braking effect.

There's even a patent on the application of this principle to powered window blinds. See U.S. Patent #6,967,418. There, it's used to hold the blinds in place with power off.

The effects

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been done before and experimented with. Plenty of kids have tried this in their science classes in grade school and junior high. I know I did. Plenty of teachers have failed the students for doing this because, "Perpetual Motion is Impossible, you cannot explain whaty ou have done, you have learned nothing." I know mine did. [note, yes, bitter]

Skipping past the bitterness.

What is occurring here actually does make sense. There are several arrangements that can be used to make it occur. So far the pattern I have seen is the mere circle with an outlying magnet. Another option is made up of 15 magnets spaced inside the wheel instead of outside of it. They accelerate the outer wheel rapidly - much quicker - and make the entire unit easier to suspend within a vacuum between two plates. You can then place a coil outside the vacuum encased box, that is passive and generates electricity through the changing interior fields. The inner system is started by placing a single magnet briefly on the outside to start movement - after which the interior cascades out of its initial stability. The other magnets prevent it from finding stability again and the system accelerates until it instead reaches the next state of field stability at a set rotational speed.

A fun side effect is that the system also operates as a gyroscopic platter.

But, what happens after significant time? In the exterior-to-wheel scenarios the magnetic field eventually stabilizes. Outside of a vacuum it generally fails to stabilize because of minimal drag forces that cause it to essentially overheat and stop. This is a case of mechanical fault. Mechanical fault does not bar it from being "perpetual motion", but does reduce the long term functionality.

However. What happens with the interior-to-wheel scenarios? They also stabilize. However they stabilize within a rotating field. The EM field actually slows - but does not stop - and continues to rotate around the exterior generating energy through the coil.

--------------

So why is this not perpetual energy and where is this energy coming from?

Magnets. It is a straight forward answer. It takes a lot of energy to polarize a magnetic material. Rather, to magnetize it. Magnetic materials over long use lose their polarization. Ultimately they neutralize or become very weak.

When you create a system like this the magnets are under constant force. After enough time one or more magnets depolarize and the system returns to static stability. However, because of the nature of magnets, this can take a significant amount of time.

Magnets store a lot of energy in an alternative form. They, rather efficiently, release that energy. Unfortunately, they do obey the basic laws of thermodynamics. Thus, less energy comes out of them than what went in.

You can think of a magnet like a funky capacitor. You can put a lot into it and you will get most of that back out, but you will not get all of it.

-----

So, what is the use of these systems? Stored energy. The problem is that magnets with sufficiently strong fields are not cheap and do not come readily. We could produce them, but we would be returned to the same problem of where do we get the original energy from to "charge"/magnetize the magnets.

How could we use this stored energy? Well, using the gyroscopic nature of the spinning platters, one option would be to place them within vehicles and use them for electrical charge to power the vehicle. Of course, you would have to shield the EM field to keep from having two cars snap together like a couple of magnets ;). But, the gyroscope would reduce the chances of a car tipping or flipping and the platter would keep it going for quite some time. It could run and charge batteries when the car is idle and it could add energy to the system while it is going. But, eventually, the magnets would wear out. The car would then have to "refill" by making it to a station before the batterie

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[__aaqvdr516]

I agree that having a magnetic field around a core of metal you do have hysteresis loss. If you were to short out the coils you would have no place to induce current into and therefore would have no magnetic field for your stator to interact with. You would then produce no torque. An a motor with no torque is no motor at all.

What this man has done is to seemingly bypass Counter EMF (generator action in a motor). I really wish I could see this guys setup, their description of it all is lacking in a lot of detail.

Easy solution

[SagSaw]

Heins' claim is trivially easy to test: Put the device on a dynamometer and measure power out vs. power in. If holding a magnet a few centimenters away from the drive shaft increases the efficiency of the motor, then Heins may have something worth investigating.

IMHO, there are many other possibilities here that must be ruled out before Heins can claim that he's increased the efficiency of the motor, let along make a claim to perpetual motion:
1. The hand-held magnet may alter the back-EMF waveform in such a way that it allows more current through the motor windings for a given supply voltage.
2. The hand-held magnet may be changing the commutation of the motor, effectively adding phase advance. Again, this would allow more current through the motor windings for a given supply voltage.

Re:Induction Motor are Already Inefficient!

[Anne Thwacks]

I worked for four years or more in a company that made thyristor based control gear that reduced the voltage to just the amount needed to keep the motor running. It was capable of reacting fast enough to load changes to work on the presses that stamp out Ford bumpers.

The company went bust because, although client companies who bought it saved up to 30% of their power, most did not want to know.

"We dont care about energy saving - it might break down, and then we would lose production."

It was not unreliable: It was used to mill the corn for a well known cornflake manufacturer ;->

There is a major problem getting people to buy energy saving in industry.

Its not much better in the domestic area. I later worked on domestic energy saving equipment which, here in the UK could alone save enough energy to meet the Kyoto treaty requirements. I got it working but the backers pulled out after a government backed Quango said "Ohms law does not apply in the UK"

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[zippthorne]

Well the grass-roots effort still works, just slower. Wire your house up. Then your neighbor's for free (in fact, pay for the electrician that wires the generator into the grid, too. Your neighbors might be skeptical, but at least one will be willing to gamble some basement space on free power forever) after you've saved enough, under the condition that he helps pay for the next neighbor with the money he saves. Continue until your entire neighborhood is clear of the power company. By then, someone will have taken notice.

Obviously, you'll have to continue working a day job until you reach critical mass. Then, profit!

If you really have a perpetual motion machine, it'll pay for itself very quickly. You don't really even need recognition.

Re:REALLY???

[MultiModeRb87]

Ok, I *am* a physicist, so let me just jump in here. Actually, it's the conservation of angular momentum that is a consequence of the laws of physics being the same in all directions. Energy conservation results from the laws of physics being the same at different times. You get linear momentum conservation from the laws of physics being the same at all positions in space. In this case, what we mean by the laws of physics is actually fairly broadly applicable. If you can write down an equation (it doesn't have to be an equation consistent with "known" physics) which describes how a system behaves, you can check to see if the system must conserve energy simply by translating the equation in time. See the helpful wikipedia article on Noether's theorem [wikipedia.org]. With symmetry comes conservation (of something). And there are in fact quite a few people (physicists) who perform experiments looking for violations of symmetries the universe is thought to have. Or rather, they are looking for apparent violations of those symmetries, since it is expected that such apparent violations will indicate the presence of as yet undetected kinds of particles or fields which may in turn give clues as to what a grand unified theory (or which flavor of string theory, if you prefer) should look like. Some of these tests, if they found an asymmetry, would yield results that would seem to violate the conservation of energy if you ignored the underlying cause of the asymmetry. For instance, if the speed of light as measured in some arbitrary reference frame were to be different for light traveling in different directions, or if it were different for different reference frames, one could immediately build a (very small) perpetual motion machine. Things being as they are, however, it is likely that running said machine for very long would suck the energy out of the background field which is causing this asymmetry, and eventually make it impossible for the machine to operate. This in itself is a very strong blow against perpetual motion machines, since if they could exist, it's likely that one would have appeared naturally, and sucked all the (free) energy available to them. It's all much like the way soap-bubbles like to be round.