Steorn: Orbo

[evomedia]

I must say that the current laws of physics still mean it probably shouldn't work, but no it wouldn't cause global warming as its just harnessing the natural movements of electrons with a magnetic field, and as such is not burning carbon, or using chemical reactions. Magnetic fields and gravity are carbon netural lol

Still I'll buy some magnets one day and test my theory, all I need to do is lots of maths to work out field strengths, combined magnetic magnitudes and such like lol

[Araneus]

Short article with picture:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/04/s...ated-tomorrow/

[Cuddles]

So to say gravity cant generate electricity

Which is why nobody said that. What Araneus said is that it can't generate energy. Which it can't. Energy can be stored in a gravitational field (or any other field) but it can't be created from nothing.

This is where your whole idea falls apart. You propose using the energy released from a gravitational field to store energy in a magnetic field which will then be released again. At no point does any energy actually enter the system. Your messing around with forces and flux and funny shaped fields is all completely irrelevant. In order to release energy from any field you have to move from a high potential to a low potential. The problem is, in order to get to the high potential you must first move there from a lower one. There is no way around this.

With no friction and no other losses your idea would move forever. Unfortunately, with no friction and no losses, pretty much any system will move forever. When losses are introduced, as is always the case in the real world, keeping a system running forever requires adding energy to the system. If you don't add energy, it stops. If you do add energy, it is not perpetual motion.

I must say that the current laws of physics still mean it probably shouldn't work, but no it wouldn't cause global warming as its just harnessing the natural movements of electrons with a magnetic field, and as such is not burning carbon, or using chemical reactions. Magnetic fields and gravity are carbon netural lol

Global warming has nothing to do with carbon, it is all about energy. Carbon dioxide traps energy by preventing energy absorbed from outside the Earth from escaping again. However, this is certainly not the only way of heating the Earth. You are proposing to create energy from nothing. That is, you are adding heat energy to the Earth. Where exactly do you propose this energy would go to prevent the Earth heating up?

Still I'll buy some magnets one day and test my theory, all I need to do is lots of maths to work out field strengths, combined magnetic magnitudes and such like lol

This should be a big giveaway that you are not onto something. If your idea worked, you should be able to work out a general case. If you need to work out specific field strengths in order to get anything because the general case doesn't work, that can only be because the principle is flawed. You must first work out the principle before specifics. It is a trap perpetual motion inventors fall into over and over again. If an idea doesn't work in principle then no amount of tweaking parameters will make it work. If it does work in principle then it will work straight off.

[Araneus]

With no friction and no other losses your idea would move forever. Unfortunately, with no friction and no losses, pretty much any system will move forever. When losses are introduced, as is always the case in the real world, keeping a system running forever requires adding energy to the system. If you don't add energy, it stops. If you do add energy, it is not perpetual motion.

Quite aside for the reality of friction and other unwanted losses, if extracting energy from the system results in it not running forever (which it does), then you don't have a free energy source.

Somebody made this mistake in the Slashdot discussion on Orbo (and for some bizarre reason was modded up) -- objects moving in space might be thought of as a form of perpetual motion, but that is only because no energy is being extracted. As soon as you try to use the energy, the "perpetual motion" no longer exists.

[evomedia]

This is where your whole idea falls apart. You propose using the energy released from a gravitational field to store energy in a magnetic field which will then be released again. At no point does any energy actually enter the system. Your messing around with forces and flux and funny shaped fields is all completely irrelevant. In order to release energy from any field you have to move from a high potential to a low potential. The problem is, in order to get to the high potential you must first move there from a lower one. There is no way around this.

I was not saying that, what I was saying was that it you turn a disc via a object falling, you can store the energy of the velocity/mass via a dynamo, not from gravity or by the magnet itself but from the falling mass of the object, I suggest that you can rotate an object via use of gravity and magnet field and generate energy from the mass of the object rotating, NOT the magnet or gravity alone... you drop a block from a crane, gravity does not cause the energy I agree, but the mass increasing in velocity as it hit the ground can be collected. A bag of sand sat on the ground has no energy output, but if the bag of sand is dropped then a release of energy is present, its the same prinicple as a turbine, now magnets are being used to levitate objects, take the nasa research into magnet launch systems using magnetic fields to accelerant a ship, trains that use magnetic fields. Its essentially balancing gravity vs use magnets for accelerantion, if you use increasing the magnet strengths one after another, so it pushes an object into a weakest point of a slightly stronger magnet you can essentially counter gravity and return an object to the top of a drop, then the increase of mass vs velocity from a drop is storable.

AS i said orginally, this saw a thoerectical arguement, between myself and a friend, I just like argueing about theorectical impossibilities, but at the end of the day conventions should be challenged sometimes, even if just for fun.

[evomedia]

Now I know this is all probably rubbish, but I'm a perpetual antagonist,

Here is a question, if gravity and magentic field has no inherant energy, then if you drop one magnet past another with both poles set in opposition, then the falling magnet will change direct, it will be pushed away from the one on the way down, so given that a mass at velocity was altered even againgst friction of air pressure, suggests that although no energy has been release to cause that movement, it was a natural excitement of electrons with a magnetic field did move the mass against the natural course of gravitygravity, its that natural excitment that I suggest could essentailly be used to counter the gravitation pull for an object to stay at the bottom of a loop, and rotate back to the top is not energy but harnessing the behaviour of electrons, within magnetic fields, then its the acceleration of mass under gravity that the energy comes from.

Lets take space, you put an objects in space near a planet, it is weightless, but why does gravity pull one towards the other? if there is no energy why would they be attracted? I suggest the same prinicple, using gravity and magents to create motion, and then use the natural reaction of mass, being pull towards a greater mass ie the earth to harness the power.

SO I'm not saying energy comes from nowhere, but the gravitation feild of the earth, ie, the mass of the earth, and the falling mass of the object through natural attraction is a harnessable power.

[Araneus]

Here is a question, if gravity and magentic field has no inherant energy, then if you drop one magnet past another with both poles set in opposition, then the falling magnet will change direct, it will be pushed away from the one on the way down, so given that a mass at velocity was altered even againgst friction of air pressure, not no energy has been release to cause that movement, it was a natural excitement of electrons with a magnetic field, its that natural excitment that I suggest could essentailly counter gravitation pull, so the rotation back to the top is not energy but harnessing the behaviour of electrons, within magnetic fields, then its the acceleration of mass that the energy comes from

I'm not aware that ordinary magnetic repulsion has anything to do with the excitation of electrons, however it has been a while since I studied physics so I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, you (like many PMM inventors before you) are failing to account for the demagnetisation of the magnets, which happens whenever the repulsion takes place. If you perform this experiment enough times, eventually the magnets involved will lose all of their magnetism and become inert.

Just as a battery contains a limited amount of electrical energy, a fixed magnet contains a limited amount of magnetism. It is certainly not a source of free energy.

[evomedia]

Yep I totally agree, Its not perpectual motion, but Neodyium magnets last 10 thousand years potentially, still long enough for me lol

[Cuddles]

I was not saying that, what I was saying was that it you turn a disc via a object falling, you can store the energy of the velocity/mass via a dynamo, not from gravity or by the magnet itself but from the falling mass of the object,

Exactly. This is your problem. The energy of the falling object is from gravity. It is the energy it has extracted from the gravitational field by moving from a high gravitational potential to a lower one. That energy was stored in the field by moving the object from a low potential to the higher one.

now magnets are being used to levitate objects, take the nasa research into magnet launch systems using magnetic fields to accelerant a ship, trains that use magnetic fields.

No. Levitation, using magnets or anything else, does not use energy. The forces are balanced so that the upwards force from the magnets exactly equals the downwards force from gravity. Since the net force is zero there is no motion and therefore no change in energy.

Its essentially balancing gravity vs use magnets for accelerantion, if you use increasing the magnet strengths one after another, so it pushes an object into a weakest point of a slightly stronger magnet you can essentially counter gravity and return an object to the top of a drop, then the increase of mass vs velocity from a drop is storable.

This just makes no sense. Yes, it is possible to use magnetic fields to move something upwards. However, you have once again missed the part about energy. Energy does not just appear out of nowhere. Something falling down takes energy from the gravitational field that was previously stored in it. Something being pushed by a magnet takes energy out of the magnetic field that was previously stored in it. You can't suddenly decide to ignore the energy in one field and claim you have perpetual motion.

AS i said orginally, this saw a thoerectical arguement, between myself and a friend, I just like argueing about theorectical impossibilities, but at the end of the day conventions should be challenged sometimes, even if just for fun.

There are no conventions being challenged here. Your understanding of fields and energy is wrong. That is all there is to it.

[median]

Just a quick question, evomedia and I'm not trying to be elitist.:-\
What is your level of education with regards to physics?

[vbloke]

http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001

Sean McCarthy CEO stated that “technical problems arose during the installation of the demonstration unit in the display case on Wednesday evening. These problems were primarily due to excessive heat from the lighting in the main display area. Attempts to replace those parts affected by the heat led to further failures and as a result we have to postpone the public demonstration until a future date.”

and this thing is supposed to be able to power everything from cars to mobile phones, but a few lights stop it working?

The lights look like the sort of standard halogen spotlights that a lot of people have in their homes.

[vbloke]

I've just had a friend say to me about the whole light excuse:

"if only lighting could be somehow deactivated - perhaps by the use of some kind of switch"

[evomedia]

I did say I was a protagonist, I like to cause debate, as I said earlier I also doubt it works, but I love to question people established beliefs and get them to question them. the world was flat once and people believed we projected what we saw from our eyes rather than recieved light.

All scientic absolutes are only true until proved different.

Out of interest, the idea of heat from lights causing problems was a clever move as most magnets have a maximum temperature operating range. And as no mention of what types of magnets they can justify that claim as being out of acceptable operating temperatures.

Levitation, using magnets or anything else, does not use energy. The forces are balanced so that the upwards force from the magnets exactly equals the downwards force from gravity. Since the net force is zero there is no motion and therefore no change in energy.

But only at the point of balance, to get closer you have to expend force, if a magnet started closer is would create motion to the point of balance, and the further away where the field is weaker gravity creates a downwards motion to the point of blanace. This was why I question the physics, at the stongest point in the field, the force is greater than gravtity, "an object will only hover at the point in the field where the balance is equal", so the stronger the magnet the greater the distance. Thats why to get to a lower point in the field you have to apply a greater force ie to push them and te magent strength ditates the amount of force required at every point in the field and depending on what point in the field they cross dictates the amount of force required to create a balance, where they hover is equal to gravity but the field as a whole is not equal to gravity they are areas where the magnetic field is stronger, and point where it is weaker. Objects only hover at the point of equilibrium .

I suggest that using Anisotropic magents the direction is much strongest in one direction, where the first magnet falls into the path of another magnet where the combined field strngth at the weakest point is less than gravity at the point you enter they would natural be inclined as they cross to find the equilibrium but the direction and angle of the fields is important, and if that weak point is less than gravity and the strongest point in the flux is greater than gravity the object will natural move to where the forces equal, if that point overlaps another magnets field at the weastest point the second magnet is less than the strongest point in the first fields magnet where the field line are closest it will again force the object to point of eqilibribrium, if the overlapping magnets increase in strength essentially using viable magnets as the orbo suggests, the moving magnet continually moves to the point of eqilibribrium then you can create a chain to the top of a circle where the field ends and gravity takes back over. The key is in the field strengths, and every incresing magnets strengths.

Of course bear in mind I love playing devil advocate, and we are talking about the physics of the orbo, so this theory is the only way it could work, if Its wrong it wont work, but if its right it will.

[Araneus]

I did say I was a protagonist, I like to cause debate, as I said earlier I also doubt it works, but I love to question people established beliefs and get them to question them.

Yes, but questioning established beliefs is generally a waste of time if you don't have a solid basis from which to launch your challenge. Breakthroughs in science come from advanced scientists pushing at the edge of their field, not from laymen asking "Are you sure?" at every turn.

You don't seem entirely ignorant of physics, but as Cuddles said your understanding of fields and energy does seem lacking.

Of course bear in mind I love playing devil advocate

If I were being cynical I might point out that such a position is an excellent way of never having to back up your arguments, or even to get anything right -- as long as you can use "Never mind, I was only winding you up!" as a get-out clause.

[Cuddles]

I suggest that using Anisotropic magents the direction is much strongest in one direction, where the first magnet falls into the path of another magnet where the combined field strngth at the weakest point is less than gravity at the point you enter they would natural be inclined as they cross to find the equilibrium but the direction and angle of the fields is important, and if that weak point is less than gravity and the strongest point in the flux is greater than gravity the object will natural move to where the forces equal, if that point overlaps another magnets field at the weastest point the second magnet is less than the strongest point in the first fields magnet where the field line are closest it will again force the object to point of eqilibribrium, if the overlapping magnets increase in strength essentially using viable magnets as the orbo suggests, the moving magnet continually moves to the point of eqilibribrium then you can create a chain to the top of a circle where the field ends and gravity takes back over. The key is in the field strengths, and every incresing magnets strengths.

This still makes no sense at all. Firstly, there is no such thing as "overlapping magnets". You don't get a set of discrete fields from different magnets, no matter how many magents you have there is still only one continuous field. Secondly, you still haven't even attempted to say where the energy comes from. What you seem to be trying to describe is a situation where a falling object is slowed and then pushed back up by a magnet. In the ideal case (ie. without friction or other losses) this would indeed be perpetual motion. This is essentially identical to an ideal spring - drop a weight on it and it will slow the weight and then push it back up.

However, both cases suffer from the same problem that Araneus pointed out earlier, and it is one that all perpetual motion machines suffer from. Perpetual motion is not enough. Virtually any cyclical system can be a perpetual motion machine if it is made frictionless. What is important is to be able to extract energy from the system and still have it keep working. This is not possible with your system. The gravitational potential energy is converted to magnetic potential energy and then back again. At no point does any more energy enter the system. It is identical to the case with a spring - GPE is stored in the spring and then released again. Magnets are not mysterious magical things no matter how much people that don't understand them might think so.