Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post links to other interesting fusion or alternate energy sites here.
Post Reply
Pascal Dennerly
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:36 am
Real name: Pascal Dennerly
Location: Nottingham, UK

Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Pascal Dennerly »

When I'm keeping up with Fusor.net postings via Gmail the sponsored links mostly espouse the services of various vacuum pump companies, solar power products, and horoscopes (of all things). This evening the following link popped up:

http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=magni777

It advertises FREE energy using ZERO POINT MAGNETISM of all things! Wow I am *so* convinced. It uses PERPETUAL MOTION and everything.

I shall stop being sarcastic now and leave people to examine and chuckle to themselves.
Tyler Christensen
Site Admin
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:08 pm
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Tyler Christensen »

I don't know that that is necesarily not accurate. Magnetic stator motors have been around for quite a while, it was only a matter of time until someone made a generator out of it. It could very well work as claimed, and it doesn't require you to rewrite the laws of physics because it is literally taking the energy out of the magnets. After a few years it would stop spinning because the magnet stators in it would no longer have any field left.
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Chris Bradley »

Tyler Christensen wrote:
> I don't know that that is necesarily not accurate. Magnetic stator motors have been around for quite a while, it was only a matter of time until someone made a generator out of it. It could very well work as claimed, and it doesn't require you to rewrite the laws of physics because it is literally taking the energy out of the magnets. After a few years it would stop spinning because the magnet stators in it would no longer have any field left.

You're joking (I presume). As I say every so often, only Australians and Bulgarians seem to know how to make these things! There are a few such ideas like this, in each of those countries, that have been circulating *for decades*.

If the Australian guy showed he had disconnected from the mains, but still lit his house like a Christmas tree, then that would be worth seeing. Otherwise, it is a waste of time clicking on the link provided above.

On the subject of the energy contained in a magnet, I will try to raise the thread topic by saying that there was a New Scientist question a couple of years ago in which someone asked... "If I move an iron nail slowly nearer to a magnet, at some point the nail will leap forward and stick to the magnet. I understand enough science to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch, so where does the energy come from to overcome the inertia and friction, and move the nail?"... and I found these answers somewhat unsatisfactory;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925382.300

My issue is that if you use X amount of energy causing a lump of magnetic-something to become magnetised, then does this properly account for the potential energy that *all* paramagnetic objects in the universe now have, wrt that magnet? It seems to me, at first sight, that if you do magnetise a lump of something then you've likely suddenly created more potential energy in the universe than you've expended (given the enormous amount of paramagnetic material in the universe). I guess that's not the case, given what thermodynamics tells us, but it certain has that "feel".

I would tend to have thought the correct answer would be that only a certain amount of paramagnetic material would drop through a potential gradient to the magnet up to, and no more than, that required to fully complete the magnetic flux circuit of that magnet so that it is then fully screened from the rest-of-the-universe. The contention in the answers printed by NS, that it is like gravitational potential, is therefore wrong and is a much more complex matter of how much *particular* paramagentic material can come into contact with the magnet before it is effectively "neutralised", wrt r-o-u. This is therefore much more complex than a simple analogy to gravitational potential ( - an answer which should also, then, demonstrate that there is a very limited amount of energy "built into" a magnet that might be recovered by these nonsense machines).
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Yes Chris, I am afraid that this is another Aussie scam, probably the same guy that was arrested for the slimming tea scam recently.

The only thing perpetual about these guys is their ability to think of another scam

http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/07/21/mag ... tion_scam/

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Tyler Christensen
Site Admin
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:08 pm
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Tyler Christensen »

This is a scam, but isn't it theoretically possible if sufficiently large in size and containing enough magnets to build a device that would produce more electricity than it takes in? Any magnetic stator motor shows that you can put minimal energy into a spinning device and keep it spinnning for up to hours. Granted if you put a generator load on it would slow much faster, but the overall net energy should still be gained by extracting magnetic field energy out of the strength of the magnets.
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Yessirree, sounds a LOT like the deep dark rabbit hole I climbed out of earlier this year.

You know what they say about rabbit holes: "Some rabbit holes have no bottom. Some rabbit holes have no rabbit."

Actually, that's an old saying I just made up. Also:

"And in some rabbit holes, you find a rabbit that has really shaaaaarp teeth."

I got that from Monty Python. It's somewhat more consistent with my own experience.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
Quantum
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:30 pm
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Quantum »

You could have just solved the black hole issue there, Perfesser.....a bottomless rabbit hole......
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by DaveC »

Repeat this, whenever the perpetual motion inventor is present. It works almost magically.

" A closed path in a conservative field, does no net work."


If you can understand this you are fully innoculated against the deceitful virus of "free" eneregy. It applies to magnets, electrostatics, springs, weights, gravity and gas pressures. Absolutely amazing!!

Dave Cooper
richnormand
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:30 am
Real name: rich normand

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by richnormand »

No group buy offer yet?
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Chris Bradley »

The Perfesser wrote:
> Yessirree, sounds a LOT like the deep dark rabbit hole I climbed out of earlier this year.
>
> You know what they say about rabbit holes: "Some rabbit holes have no bottom. Some rabbit holes have no rabbit."
>
> Actually, that's an old saying I just made up. Also:
>
> "And in some rabbit holes, you find a rabbit that has really shaaaaarp teeth."
>
> I got that from Monty Python. It's somewhat more consistent with my own experience.
>
> --PS

I think I've lost the meaning on this one... Should I be able to understand this?
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Chris Bradley »

Dave Cooper wrote:
> Repeat this, whenever the perpetual motion inventor is present. It works almost magically.
>
> " A closed path in a conservative field, does no net work."
>
>
> If you can understand this you are fully innoculated against the deceitful virus of "free" eneregy. It applies to magnets, electrostatics, springs, weights, gravity and gas pressures. Absolutely amazing!!
>
> Dave Cooper

A question, though - does a magnetic field actually produce a conservative field? I agree that it does, with respect to a paramagnetic object, but it is a crossed-product field and is only conservative to a paramagnetic object due to that object also inducing a crossed-product reactive field according to its domains.

That is to say, a magnetic field cannot do any *net* work, it can only do work with respect to a given axial dimension. To any fundamental particle it can only change its direction of momentum.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Carl Willis »

In conservative fields, the value of the product of force and displacement integrated around any closed path is zero by definition. Of course, Ampere's Law says that if a path encloses a current, the closed-path integral of B and displacement is proportional to the current. A conductor carrying current is surrounded by closed loops of magnetic field. Thus the B field is not conservative for a path defined in this way.

In the case of magnets moving pieces of metal or other magnets put in their field, which is the essence of all these lame "free-energy" motors, the paths taken by the chunks of magnetized stuff as they move toward / away from one another enclose no current. Dave's statement is an accurate summary of the conceptual failure behind all that decades-old Keelynet rubbish.

Why did this ever get brought up here?

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Chris Bradley »

I would ask, why not? Maybe it's just a stimulus that could lead into a bit of brainstorming on something that could be useful. Seems more relevant than p11B!...
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Richard Hull »

The old Don Lancaster adage related to free energy magnetic field "chaser" engines remains........

The laws of physics are like a poker game

"It's the only game in town and it's rigged"

No way to ever win at the perpetual motion table. (Thank God)

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
David Geer
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:51 am
Real name:
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by David Geer »

The closest to this design is the Searl Effect Generator "mock-up" from a crackpot old-timer and even that isn't designed to produce energy by design but to demonstrate the centripital and centrifugal motions of the magnetic fields. Still requires pulsed electromagnets around the perimeter to maintain RPMs.

Thinking of building the mock-up myself with a few tweaks to see just how the overall design works. Like copper baseplate or contacts on the copper ring to test if current/voltage is even being generated in free-rotation power off spin down.
- David Geer
Hector
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 9:15 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Hector »

Must admit most of these kinds of free energy claims make me laugh, but there is one that I know about that seems to be beating the odds. I put a link to it below. They call it Orbo.

http://www.steorn.com/orbo/what/

The device seems pretty straight forward. Only time will tell if it's true or not.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Saw this on the interweb - so it must be true.

Post by Carl Willis »

This thread is closed now.

The Steorn "orbo" has been discussed in the past on these forums, with noisy and off-topic threads ensuing that are entirely typical of contributors not adhering to the topic of real amateur nuclear fusion. (Use the search function to see what I mean.) There will be no continuation of that discussion on fusor.net. The remainder of this thread is of low value, and with the reprise of Steorn, I think its time has come.

Thanks for your understanding.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
Post Reply

Return to “Interesting Links”