Electro Magnetic Engine
I think Winston my be qualified to answer this one.
What do you know about the magnetic engine. I don't know anything about it, but taking the technology at face value it would seem it's possible to generate vast ammounts motion potentially with relitively little or no input needed?
Will does anyone here know anything about this technology, is it refutable, is it the future, or will it be suppressed?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
What do you know about the magnetic engine. I don't know anything about it, but taking the technology at face value it would seem it's possible to generate vast ammounts motion potentially with relitively little or no input needed?
Will does anyone here know anything about this technology, is it refutable, is it the future, or will it be suppressed?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Post edited by Scottie_uk on
Calling all ASCII Art Architects Visit the WOS Wall of Text and contribute: https://www.yourworldoftext.com/wos
Comments
is an electro magnetic engine not a motor...
Where is Mangus Pike when you need him?
Dunno... Your guess is as good as mine.
:D
Well, they are in pretty common usage. A major part of the transport network uses them. It may demystify it a bit if I give you the common name, electric motor :-) They come in all sorts of flavours, from the bog standard simple brushes and commutator type, to three phase brushless (more reliable and efficient), to synchronous AC motors that you might find in your vacuum cleaner.
Motors are actually pretty damned efficient - a good motor can be upward of 90% efficient - this is why for large amounts of power, say, like a diesel railway locomotive, the diesel locomotive is really a power station on wheels. The traction is actually provided by electric motors - the diesel engine runs a generator, which in turn electrically powers the traction motors. Transferring and controlling large amounts of power is easier and more efficient to do with electricity supplying motors than it is with a purely mechanical set up. It's been done for years - diesel electric locomotives have been common for decades.
This is even becoming true of cars, for example, see the Toyota Prius. The good thing about motors is they can also act as generators. So instead of using friction to stop, you turn the power off to the motor and turn it into a generator, and have the motor put charge back into a battery, conserving a lot of the car's energy rather than just wasting it as heat. Toyota reckon in about 10-15 years the technology will have progressed enough, and manufacturing techniques will have improved enough that it will be cheaper to equip all their cars with hybrid transmission and abandon traditional mechanical transmissions altogether.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAK_V73jNVc
Yes it's kind of what I mean. Not a standard kind of motor.
I have seen a few references to magnetic devices that can output more energy that is input into them or the enegy is coming from somwhere else like the earths magnetic field ???
This video is a bit cornish but refers to a n-machine.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uWOxnXKB8VQ
Is there any truth in any of their claims. Can energy be generated cheaply or at no cost?
No shortmessage filler
That's called a perpetual motion hoax. You cannae break the laws of physics, Scottie! (I've always wanted to say that.)
The cited YouTube video: well, I could create a demo like that quite easily. There was enough space in the device to conceal quite an elaborate circuit containing the voltage source necessary to drive it.
The most you can do is break even, and that's only theoretically. We do not have frictionless bearings, and even in space there's minute amounts of friction due to energy being lost when interacting with the odd hydrogen atom floating around. The energy has to come from somewhere; and fundamentally the only place energy comes from is from making or breaking chemical bonds (mostly, the release of potential energy that's already been stored by a nuclear reaction) or by annihilating matter (when splitting or fusing atoms).
There's lots of cheap energy going - the sun shining causing the earth to heat unevenly, causing the wind to blow. We have a lot of that in the north Irish Sea. The challenge is effectively capturing it and storing it. The capturing, and more so, the storing bit are the expensive parts.
Anyway...I had heard this was a hoax but its still interesting in the sense that if you did build something similar in space would on theoretically work and run long enough to produce positive power even if it didn't run forever?
No - it'd only release energy that had previously been stored in it by some other means, and in space, a simple flywheel would be a more efficient way of storing kinetic energy.
So the repelling magnets wouldnt keep it moving...one magnet repel it enough to move it to the next one which would then repel to the next etc etc?
Are 2 repelling magnets expending energy and if so surely it would be finite energy and therefore eventually expire..but don't magnets keep their power for ever barring something odd happening....making them inexhaustible energy sources?
So the magnetic force has the 'energy' to move an object (as it does when it repels something) but has no energy loss??!
My head hurts sorry for the probably stupid questions.
However, when I was 5 this would have been 1981 he showed me this contraption that he had recently built.
It consisted of two hollow tubular magnets with copper wire densely wrapped round them in a coil. There was a big pendulum that was essentially a big brass mallet. About 4ft long with the curved hammer head about 3 Iches in diamiter and about 8 inches long and shaped into an arc.The pedulim was wired to a dynamo at its center axis. Also the motion of the pendulum triggered switches triggered that would reverse the polarity of the signal to the left and right magnet coils. As the pendulum swung the hammer head would enter the magnets on the left and right sides.
I don't know the details of how the system was wired together but it did involve two D sized 1.5 v batteries. However, when we paid him a visit in about 1992 (which was when I got a fuller explination of its function) this device was still running on the original batteries.
Apparently when he passed away in the mid 90's the device was still running.
Now, I dont beleive for a moment he had built a perpetual motion machine. However, what he had built was bloody efficient.
But:
Only if there were no friction whatsoever, or nothing else using some of the kinetic energy. The magnet isn't actually imparting any new energy into the system - the magnetic field is merely acting as a temporary energy store - as the repelling magnets approach, energy is stored, and as they repel, it's released. The best you can do is break even and the system has to be ideal for that (and there's no such thing). In the real world, bearings have friction, so as the contraption rotates, energy is dissipated from the system as heat and as sure enough, it'll stop. All you can do is make the bearings better and better, which will allow it to retain its energy longer, but eventually and inevitably... it'll stop.
No, the magnets aren't expending energy - the magnetic field is merely acting as a temporary store - i.e. potential energy. It's exactly the same as lifting a weight up - you're not causing gravitational energy to be used up from the Earth, you're merely storing some energy (which is released as soon as you let go of the weight). A good analogy to what's being done is a pendulum, or a weight on a spring. If you swing the pendulum, or set the weight bobbing up and down on the spring, it may keep going for quite some time. But all you're doing is storing energy in the spring or pendulum. Eventually the motion will cease when something else (usually frictional losses) uses the energy up.
Same with the magnet. Pushing two repelling magnets together is merely storing some energy, which gets released when you let the magnets go. The energy came from you pushing the magnets together - the chemical reactions in your body supplied that. But since some of the energy is lost in friction, to keep a system of magnets in motion, you're going to need to keep adding energy to the system to replace that which was lost to the environment as heat - either by occasionally pushing it with your finger, winding a clock spring, supplying electricity to a coil inside it or wrapped around it, etc.
You can get some interesting effects with superconductors. But again, it's not creating energy, merely storing it extremely efficiently - a bit like a flywheel in the vacuum of space is extremely efficient.
Er, sorry to break it to you, but Winston only copies and pastes info he finds on Wikipedia. I mean, you'd expect him to deny it, but he won't be able to, as there's no article about him on Wikipedia, so he won't have any text to copy from. The poor bloke will be caught in a paradox!
[Actually he does know his stuff, but he disagreed with me once, which demonstrates that he can be *well* off the mark]
http://www.worldofspectrum.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13542&highlight=space+station
a year or two ago, and no-one could satisfactorily answer? I quote my post here:
"You know how in realistic science-fiction (realistic as in obeying the accepted laws of physics), books and films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey,space stations simulate gravity by rotating? Basically they
are shaped like a bicycle wheel, and they rotate, so that the outerpart
(the tyre, if you follow the wheel analogy) has a similar pull to gravity, so that people in the space station experience a pull towards the outer-most part of the wheel, and in effect they are pulled towards the "floor" by "gravity"?
Well, how does this work? I know that if you put, say, a brick into a carrier bag and swing it around in a circle, then the brick is pulled "outwards" of the circle, and so won't fall out of the bag, when the bag is directly above you and it's opening is facing down. But this is due to the brick first pressing to the side of the bag, not the bottom, when you begin to swing the bag around, and the brick is never trying to fall out of the bag by the bottom of the bag, it is pushed forwards by one side of the bag, and is trying (according to it's aquired momentum, when you're swinging the bag around) to go forward, through the other side of the bag, in a straight line. This it cannot do due to the continual swinging of the bag, right? This is centrafugal force, as I understand it.
But when the space station is swinging around, people are not forced by any pressure to move "forward", and since that forward movement is not present, then it cannot be converted to downward movement by centrafugal force, so how does artifical gravity on a rotating space station occur?
Thanks for any answers."
To be more precise:
I mean, the people are floating in zero gravity, with no gravity acting upon them at all, and they are not touching any part of the space station at all, not with any part of their bodies, they are totally seperate objects from the space station (although of course they are in it's hollow insides), when the space station is not spining, right? So when the space station starts to spin, why do they then get pulled outwards to the outer part of the wheel (the space station's outer most wall)? I don't see why the rotation would produce a pull (or push) since the people are not in physical contact with the spinning station - they are inside it, but floating around, not touching any part of it. And even if they were, when the space station began spinning, they wouldn't be forced along unless they were touching part of it that was "behind" them, in relation to the movement of the station.
Yup.
And that there is the truths, ya'll.
Because of all the bubblegum stuck to our shoe-soles!
What's with the whole thing about braking and using the energy stored in just doing that one simple thing, i.e. braking.
Something about you applying the brake and the energy gets stored in a battery and presto, voila you have extra battery-power.
So, explain that one?
Well, the energy you have from your motion (kinetic energy; wow I'm amazed I remembered that all these years later) gets transferred from the car to the Earth when you brake. Which is why, if every car on Earth pointed in the same direction and all braked at the same time, enough energy would be transferred to the Earth to allow it to escape its orbit around the sun and propel itself into interstellar space. Or something.
The act of braking, in a conventional car, simply dumps the kinetic energy that you currently have into the environment in the form of heat. When you press the brake pedal, it increases friction at the brake discs and drums, which then heat up.
Regenerative braking, on the other hand, is the idea that instead of converting your kinetic energy to heat, you run the traction motors as generators (a motor can act as either a motor or a generator). The motor, when acting as a generator, will convert your kinetic energy into electricity that can be stored in the battery - instead of a friction brake converting the kinetic energy into heat.
Hybrid cars do this, the Toyota Prius, if I'm not mistaken, will use its traction motors to convert motion back into electricity and thus improve efficiency in stop-start city driving. Of course you don't get ALL the energy back you put in, but you get a lot more back than if you just use friction to turn your motion into heat.
Nothing has to pressure you to move forward if you are already moving forward. Once you're moving forward you'll only stop if something stops you. See Newton's laws of motion.
If you dock with a station, and travel to the wheel, then you'll be accelerated to the wheel speed as you travel down the spoke. Once at that speed, you only slow down if something else slows you down (namely the spoke if you take the elevator back up to the hub).
Same with the brick - the side of the bag only imparts a force on the brick to get it accelerated - once the brick and the bag are all moving at the same speed, the brick is only importing force on the bag's bottom.
You might want to look for Bob Hoover's coffee pouring trick on YouTube. In this, he does a barrel roll in an aeroplane, while pouring coffee (or water, I forget which) to a cup. You see the ground out of the window go all the way around. So long as the circular path isn't very small, its effects are indistinguishable from gravity.
Yes, I know that, but my point is, in science fiction films, people float in zero gravity in a motionless space station, and they don't touch anything at all, right, they are disconnected from everything. Now, they are not moving, and neither is the space station (you could argue that both the space station and the person in question are moving, as they are in orbit, or whatever, but's that irrelevant to my question, as both people and space station have the same motion relative to each other, so it is in effect not present).
Now, the person is floating in the air, weightless, and not moving, and yet when the space station starts to rotate, then although nothing, no part of the space station or it's contents, at all ever touches the person at all (and so no force that I can see is transfered to the person), the person is then pulled to the wall of the space station, which to the person is like the ground is to us on Earth (the wall/ground being the outer most part of the space stations spin movement) as though gravity has suddenly started to exist on the wall and pulled the person down.
How does this work?
Ah, so according to this article, there would be no pull at all between the person floating unconnected to anything, and the hull (wall/ground) that starts rotating?
[quoted from the article] "This illustrates the fact that artificial gravity is a result of the object's circular motion and its reaction against the similarly moving spacecraft hull; artificial gravity is not an attraction between the object and the hull."
Meaning (a) it's not a true gravitational attraction at all, and (b) the books and films that show this are wrong.
I could never understand how the person in my question could suddenly feel a pull towards the newly rotating surface.
Thanks Murtceps, Winston and everyone else.
Now if someone can explain to me how to get rich with no effort, risk or work...
I've never seen that in an SF movie. In 2001, for example, although it's not shown, it's reasonable to assume after docking with the space station, they travel down the spokes which accelerates them to the speed of the rim.
Don't forget about air. Enough relative movement of air can get a 600 tonne lump of metal in the sky and keep it there until it lands on the other side of the Atlantic. The air in the space station imparts the force on them. The rim of the station will start the air moving, which in turn will start the person moving. Since they take a straight path in space they will meet the station wall sooner or later.
Same question here:
A fly flying in a plane, unattached of every thing. Is the fly flying ato 900 km/h?
No, the air is and relative to the airspeed the fly is flying on its own speed.