The missing factor

[cloud camper]

Deflect, deny, avoid, attack.

JM is mad because he got caught using his very own figures.

This is the DDAA defense.

Very handy when you've lost an argument and can't think of anything intelligent to say!

[ChrisHarper]

Hi,
Having learnt the hard way the value of time, and what a valuable commodity it is, I am disheartened to see this on going battle of words over nothing. Literally nothing as I've yet to see a single design of Jim's published in 10 years.

I maybe wrong in my current theories, but at least I have the balls to put them out there and say 'this is me, and this is what I think'!

This pathetic urge to keep things close to your chest whilst, at the same time, wanting plaudits without scrutiny is pathetic. The old adage of 'put up or shut up' springs to mind.

Scientific discoveries can have authorship , but not ownership.

Chris Harper

[justsomeone]

Chris, didn't you go the patent route?

[ChrisHarper]

Just someone ,

You're correct, but although my principle mechanism and embodiments are described through 10 applications on the patent register in the UK, I withdrew all when I caught a brain infection.

As I was in no position to meet the required procedural deadlines in the process prior to publication, I questioned my chosen path to protecting my IP. I elected to put authorship ahead of any other rights.

This act does not mean that I actually found any practical solutions to our quest , but until you put it out there for scrutiny , your idea is meaningless.

It is very true that the easiest person to fool is yourself, and this delusion can go on for years, so it is paramount that individuals open themselves for criticism .

I positively welcome anyone ripping my ideas apart; it's fun . All my concepts have landed on the front desks of many research institutes, NASA and numerous universities.

So any designs have to enter the public domain at some point, so why not do it here where others are, at least, of the same mindsets

Chris Harper

[Furcurequs]

What about the "I have a secret that makes me a super genius!" crowd? If they have to share their ideas so that they can be ripped apart, they won't be able to tease and taunt us anymore!

Think about those poor bastards! If they share their ideas they might get their feelings hurt!

...and then they'll have to go back to their drawing boards all pouty and stuff and even have to put their fantasies of their critics - including us truly edumacated people - eating crow on hold!

You are asking too much of them!

...lol

Anyway...

Share if you want credit for a basic idea, I guess, or get on with proper building and testing if perhaps you also seek a financial reward.

[cloud camper]

I had packed my icebox with frozen crow ready for the momentous occasion but now they are all getting freezer burn.

[Furcurequs]

Now that I'm working with some of my magnet ideas again, I remembered that I had failed to respond to the following post from MrVibrating. I had some things that I had wanted to say in response at the time but unfortunately I wasn't feeling too well then and I never got back to him.

@Dwayne

Hate to quibble old bean but magnetic fields are not a property of magnets.

When I said that the magnetic field was a property of the magnetic material itself, I meant that in the same way one might say that the magnetic field of the earth is a property of the planet earth.

We can get more detailed about what is going on inside of the earth, of course, to actually generate its magnetic field, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has one and even a relative large one that extends way beyond the surface of the planet - and unlike what we would have at least with some of the other planets.

Remember Faraday's paradox:

A permanent magnet is sandwiched between copper discs; all three are equal dimensions, and rotate on the same shaft . An ammeter connects the copper discs. We observe three conditions:

- The copper discs rotate, while the magnet is stationary, resulting in current flow

- Only the magnet rotates; no current flows.

- All three rotate together; current flows.

The "paradox" is due to our expectation that, since motion is relative, the first two conditions should produce current, while the last should not, but is resolved in realising that it is meaningless to describe a uniform field as "moving" - IOW, the field does not "rotate" with the magnet... it is effectively, in a very real sense, entirely static, regardless of how fast the magnet spins (assuming axial polarity).

I personally don't find this supposed paradox to be paradoxical.

If you think of an electric current carrying wire, the current can be thought of as moving at essentially the speed of light along the wire - even when the actual drift velocity of the electrons in the wire is something like a mere few centimeters an hour.

If a signal was traveling down the wire toward me, it's propagation speed along the wire is thus limited to the speed of light. To move that signal carrying wire itself toward me also, then, and along its length shouldn't change the speed at which the signal itself is traveling toward me. The wire merely constrains the PATH of the current flow, then.. It doesn't determine its speed.

If we were to replace, then, the magnet in your supposed paradox with a current carrying and thus magnetic field generating loop of wire, since it's the circulating current in that wire that generates the field and the speed of that current doesn't change by rotating the loop of wire itself, we shouldn't see a detectable change in the magnetic field.

In that same magnetic field, however, we have stored energy which remains localized to the current loop that is generating it. We can even extract this energy by letting a magnet pull toward the loop or by simply impeding the flow of current in the loop.

Obviously, though, we can do things with a current carrying loop of wire or solenoid that we couldn't do with a permanent magnet to extract the energy of the field.

So we can conclude (must!) that the field is not a property of the magnet, but rather an inter-reaction between moving charges and the vacuum or spacetime itself.

The magnetic fields which extend relatively far outside of intrinsically magnetic elements and/or their molecules - making them into strong magnetic dipoles - are indeed generated due to the motion of internal charges (or so I've been told). The fact that inherently magnetic materials have these somewhat unique internal motions of charges which generate their extensive fields is the reason why I said that their fields are a property of the magnetic material itself.

On a personal note, though I understand the consequences of relativistic calculations and thinking, I despise the word "spacetime" and I also don't like the notion of giving attributes to "vacuums" rather than thinking in terms of stuff which may be in and/or traveling through perhaps near vacuums.

So, I readily admit that I don't like some of the mainstream explanations given for the results of the math - though I have no problem with the math itself.

And this menagé á tróis is not unique to magnets - they're just an en-masse aggregate of uniform polarity - degauss a magnet and the field doesn't go anywhere, it just scrambles. And consider the EMF between two charges - could be just a pair of electrons - it would be meaningless (impossible) to even infer the existence of a magnetic field as a property of a lone electron.. the magnetic field can only have context in relation to interactions between charges, via spacetime / the vacuum. In short, magnetism is no more a property of charges than it is of magnets - and likewise, for its relationship to the vacuum.

The magnetism is not "in" the charges. It doesn't emanate or radiate from them, isn't emmited or absorbed by them, because it's an exclusively relative phenomenon.

And it only does work (moving charges, free or bound) when there is a change in the field in space and/or time. So any working magnetic OU device must be applying that change - either by mechanical motion (spatial delta), or induction (time delta). There is no "energy" to be extracted from a static field, whatever its provenance.

Any working OU device has an input F*d integral, and an output one. If d is constant (cyclic) then F must be passively time variant (cos "active" would be a zero sum game). That's really all there is to it.

NB "passive" doesn't necessarily mean entirely natural or automatic (though it would include that) - ie. a "passive" field variation could still involve intricate control mechanisms, provided their cost of operation is thermodynamically decoupled from the work performed by the resulting field change.

An example of an active asymmetric magnetic system would be an ordinary electric motor, AC or DC. A magnetic PMM would simply be a passive version of essentially the same thing.

No offense, but sometimes you can be so wordy that I have a hard time telling when you are saying what is accepted by mainstream science and when you are perhaps going off on some sort of tangent.

It seems, though, that you are at least agreeing here with the mainstream understanding of things that energy cannot be extracted from the static field of a permanent magnet.

I'm fully aware, of course, that my belief that such a thing might actually be a "possibility" is a radical notion (even if perhaps shared by a few others). I do, though, now have some very specific ideas that certainly look "on paper" as if they could actually do just that, and which more recently are beginning to look even "in reality" as if they might actually work.

I've done some preliminary tests that all "look" and "feel" as if there is an actual energy gain through a complete cycle. There is still some room for error, though, so I need to get my closed loop device fully built and tested and/or set things up to make much more rigorous measurements.

If there are significant opposing forces that I'm not seeing the results of during a key portion of the planned cycle, then they could be smaller than the forces needed to overcome the static or even dynamic friction in my current test setup.

Anyway, I have more work to do on that.

Finally, it's interweb lore that some magnetic PMM's may seem to work before eventually degaussing, but complete BS.

I've not seen any substantiated claims as to such a thing myself, either, and so I agree with you that such internet lore is BS. I did see such a claim by a local fellow in a newspaper here probably over two decades ago now.

He supposedly had a device which could power a house and it allegedly extracted energy from permanent magnets also by somehow using the Barkhausen jump effect. It supposedly worked by moving specially treated wires through the field of the permanent magnets.

He said the magnets needed to be replaced something like three times a year, and so it sounded like he actually had a working prototype up and running. I've not heard anything else about it since, however, so it might have been him just speculating and jumping the gun in making a public claim.

...The energy stored in the magnet is its polarisation density and coercivity (how strongly "pinned" the domains are against rotation). It's not much, but that's entirely beside the point - in order to convert it to mechanical work would presuppse the existence of an asymmetric interaction! IOW it would depend on the very thing it's supposed to explain away. In reality, there is no mechanism - no means at all - to convert B (the term describing a magnet's field) into mechanical work. Perhaps the only exception would be exploding the magnet, but then it no longer exists and would just make for a big, innefficient mess.. IOW if a magnet was degaussing in an asymmetric interaction, it'd be incidental and not causal, and easily remedied.

If what I'm suggesting is a real possibility, and based upon what I'm currently seeing with some of my actual experiments I believe it might be, then there likely wouldn't be a "degaussing" of the magnet in a traditional sense. It might be more of an atomic thing, and so we would be in totally uncharted territory.

If you think of things like antennas and electrical inductors and transformers, all of these can make use of ferromagnetic materials, but obviously in none of these devices is it believed that any of the energy being transmitted, stored, transferred and/or transformed actually comes from the magnetic materials themselves. So, what I'm talking about would be a whole new paradigm.

PS. small Yldiz update:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 08030.html

(i still suspect that the inertia he's up against is due to the replicability and theory side - he came up with an idea that worked for reasons other than anticipated, and has thus since only incrementally varied the design with limited success in extending the results beyond a narrow range of parameters.. he can't generalise it, yet. Hopefully he'll get there.)

Do you really take this guy seriously? It seems highly likely to me that he is a fraud.

If you do take his claims seriously, where might you believe the energy generated by his device would be coming from? ...and please don't say "the vacuum"... ...unless there is a Hoover nearby.

;P

Dwayne

[rlortie]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Muammer ... 8&oe=utf-8

[MrVibrating]

Now that I'm working with some of my magnet ideas again, I remembered that I had failed to respond to the following post from MrVibrating. I had some things that I had wanted to say in response at the time but unfortunately I wasn't feeling too well then and I never got back to him.

@Dwayne

Hate to quibble old bean but magnetic fields are not a property of magnets.

When I said that the magnetic field was a property of the magnetic material itself, I meant that in the same way one might say that the magnetic field of the earth is a property of the planet earth.

We can get more detailed about what is going on inside of the earth, of course, to actually generate its magnetic field, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has one and even a relative large one that extends way beyond the surface of the planet - and unlike what we would have at least with some of the other planets.

Yes of course, that's the standard view, my interjection was only to point out that this assumption is false - that the magnetic field is not a property of its apparent source (moving charges), but rather something else that acts as intermediary between moving charges.

In precisely the same manner that mass is not a property of matter, as we usually conceive of it, but rather of the Higgs field interaction. Again, a property of the active vacuum's interaction with massive particles, rather than intrinsic to the particles themselves.

Rather than just useless pedantry, i find these little factoids fascinating insights into the mysterious underpinnings of things we normally take for granted! It seems perfectly self-evident that the magnetic field is a property of a permanent magnet or solenoid, and equally, that mass and inertia are an inherent property of a lump of mass - and so the fact that these seemingly-safe assumptions are simply not true is precisely their value.

Remember Faraday's paradox:

A permanent magnet is sandwiched between copper discs; all three are equal dimensions, and rotate on the same shaft . An ammeter connects the copper discs. We observe three conditions:

- The copper discs rotate, while the magnet is stationary, resulting in current flow

- Only the magnet rotates; no current flows.

- All three rotate together; current flows.

The "paradox" is due to our expectation that, since motion is relative, the first two conditions should produce current, while the last should not, but is resolved in realising that it is meaningless to describe a uniform field as "moving" - IOW, the field does not "rotate" with the magnet... it is effectively, in a very real sense, entirely static, regardless of how fast the magnet spins (assuming axial polarity).

I personally don't find this supposed paradox to be paradoxical.

If you think of an electric current carrying wire, the current can be thought of as moving at essentially the speed of light along the wire - even when the actual drift velocity of the electrons in the wire is something like a mere few centimeters an hour.

If a signal was traveling down the wire toward me, it's propagation speed along the wire is thus limited to the speed of light. To move that signal carrying wire itself toward me also, then, and along its length shouldn't change the speed at which the signal itself is traveling toward me. The wire merely constrains the PATH of the current flow, then.. It doesn't determine its speed.

If we were to replace, then, the magnet in your supposed paradox with a current carrying and thus magnetic field generating loop of wire, since it's the circulating current in that wire that generates the field and the speed of that current doesn't change by rotating the loop of wire itself, we shouldn't see a detectable change in the magnetic field.

In that same magnetic field, however, we have stored energy which remains localized to the current loop that is generating it. We can even extract this energy by letting a magnet pull toward the loop or by simply impeding the flow of current in the loop.

Obviously, though, we can do things with a current carrying loop of wire or solenoid that we couldn't do with a permanent magnet to extract the energy of the field.

Not sure you've really digested the illustrative point of the paradox (and it's credited to Michael Faraday, not me!) - yes, you could swap the permanent magnet for an electromagnet, or just a current loop with no inductive core.

The paradox remains however, since it concerns our everyday, intuitive grasp of the basic principles of motion - we know that motion is relative, and that the magnetic field appears to be a property of the field source - whatever it is - and so we would reasonably expect current to be induced whenever there is relative motion between the conductors and the field source:

- if the copper discs rotate, but the electromagnet between them does not, then there is relative motion between them; we thus anticipate that current should be induced, and this expectation is confirmed.

- but when we do it the other way around, rotating the electromagnet while the copper discs remain stationary, from a simple mechanical perspective the situation seems relatively identical - again, there's relative motion between them as before, and yet this time, no current is induced. This is surprising, and quite unintuitive.

- finally, when all three components rotate together at equal rate, there is now no relative motion between them at all - they're all stationary relative to one another... and yet current is again induced!

If this result seems surprising to us, imagine how Faraday must've felt, being the person responsible for formalising the principles of induction in the first place... wave a conductor around a magnetic field, current induced, all seems perfectly straightforward, should be an easy write up.. but then you experiment further and find that things aren't quite what they seem at all... the laws of EM induction seem to violate the basic principles of motion!

So we can conclude (must!) that the field is not a property of the magnet, but rather an inter-reaction between moving charges and the vacuum or spacetime itself.

The magnetic fields which extend relatively far outside of intrinsically magnetic elements and/or their molecules - making them into strong magnetic dipoles - are indeed generated due to the motion of internal charges (or so I've been told). The fact that inherently magnetic materials have these somewhat unique internal motions of charges which generate their extensive fields is the reason why I said that their fields are a property of the magnetic material itself.

It's principally the relative motion of the shell orbitals that generates the field in permanent magnets - modern compounds like SmCo or NdFeB are designed to increase the density of unpaired electrons in the outer shells, hence raising the field density. And yes, of course it's patently self-evident that the magnetic field is a property of magnets. Just as it's obvious that heaviness and inertia are a property of a lump of lead or gold.

But my whole point here is that these apparently axiomatic correlations are fallacious. What, at first, seems so fundamentally true, is, upon closer inspection, proven to be false.. "massive particles" do not posses mass; rather, their interaction with the Higgs field does. Likewise, magnets (passive or electronic) do not possess magnetic fields, which are actually the interaction of moving charges with the virtual photonsphere of the vacuum..

On a personal note, though I understand the consequences of relativistic calculations and thinking, I despise the word "spacetime" and I also don't like the notion of giving attributes to "vacuums" rather than thinking in terms of stuff which may be in and/or traveling through perhaps near vacuums.

So, I readily admit that I don't like some of the mainstream explanations given for the results of the math - though I have no problem with the math itself.

You can view the magnetic field almost entirely in terms of relativistic length contraction and time dilation, applying the principles of General Relativity to those of Special relativity, in which the field is correlated to relative motion between charges, caused by an effective charge density variation or charge separation due to the constancy of C (you're almost there already, from what you've said above - just consider a current looped back on itself and you'll see the Lorentz force and Lenz's law fall out).

But really, the quantum paradigm supercedes the classical model and ties all of electromagnetism back into the standard model of particle physics, in which moving charges (or rather, charges in relative motion, as above) corral virtual photons from the vacuum (caused by little more than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle endowing the vacuum with latent energy), and via these electron-virtual photon interactions, exchange raw ambient momentum in quantised units of h-bar (from the reduced Planck's constant) in positively and negatively-signed packets, depending on the relative polarisations and vector signs (directions of travel towards or away from one another).

This is the much more powerful perspective, and leads to some startling insights - for instance, when we hold two magnets close together in our hands, that mechanical force we're feeling is raw signed momentum being co-opted from the vacuum activity! When we pull two magnets apart, we're performing work against the zero-point field! But similarly, when we get an electric shock, or just hold a 9V battery against our tongues, we're feeling / tasting the raw momentum of spacetime itself! "Voltage" is just EMF, exactly the same force we feel between magnets, and precisely the same force preventing us sinking through the floor, holding our bodies and everything else together, etc. etc.

Electrons do not interact with one another, but rather with the vacuum, via the intermediary of the virtual photons, and the signed packets of momentum they carry and transfer between the moving charges - the EM interaction - this fundamental force of the EM field, powering the proton and electron gradients that drive our neurons and muscle cells, all chemistry and pretty much everything else around us - is the vacuum energy we're immersed in and in constant dependent communion with.. a pretty cosmic meditation that all begins with Faraday's realisation that the magnetic field has its own unique reference frame, independent of the matter it superficially appears bound to.. :)

And this menagé á tróis is not unique to magnets - they're just an en-masse aggregate of uniform polarity - degauss a magnet and the field doesn't go anywhere, it just scrambles. And consider the EMF between two charges - could be just a pair of electrons - it would be meaningless (impossible) to even infer the existence of a magnetic field as a property of a lone electron.. the magnetic field can only have context in relation to interactions between charges, via spacetime / the vacuum. In short, magnetism is no more a property of charges than it is of magnets - and likewise, for its relationship to the vacuum.

The magnetism is not "in" the charges. It doesn't emanate or radiate from them, isn't emmited or absorbed by them, because it's an exclusively relative phenomenon.

And it only does work (moving charges, free or bound) when there is a change in the field in space and/or time. So any working magnetic OU device must be applying that change - either by mechanical motion (spatial delta), or induction (time delta). There is no "energy" to be extracted from a static field, whatever its provenance.

Any working OU device has an input F*d integral, and an output one. If d is constant (cyclic) then F must be passively time variant (cos "active" would be a zero sum game). That's really all there is to it.

NB "passive" doesn't necessarily mean entirely natural or automatic (though it would include that) - ie. a "passive" field variation could still involve intricate control mechanisms, provided their cost of operation is thermodynamically decoupled from the work performed by the resulting field change.

An example of an active asymmetric magnetic system would be an ordinary electric motor, AC or DC. A magnetic PMM would simply be a passive version of essentially the same thing.

No offense, but sometimes you can be so wordy that I have a hard time telling when you are saying what is accepted by mainstream science and when you are perhaps going off on some sort of tangent.

It seems, though, that you are at least agreeing here with the mainstream understanding of things that energy cannot be extracted from the static field of a permanent magnet.

I'm fully aware, of course, that my belief that such a thing might actually be a "possibility" is a radical notion (even if perhaps shared by a few others). I do, though, now have some very specific ideas that certainly look "on paper" as if they could actually do just that, and which more recently are beginning to look even "in reality" as if they might actually work.

I've done some preliminary tests that all "look" and "feel" as if there is an actual energy gain through a complete cycle. There is still some room for error, though, so I need to get my closed loop device fully built and tested and/or set things up to make much more rigorous measurements.

If there are significant opposing forces that I'm not seeing the results of during a key portion of the planned cycle, then they could be smaller than the forces needed to overcome the static or even dynamic friction in my current test setup.

Anyway, I have more work to do on that.

Sorry, i am wordy, i guess, but anyone can cut'n'paste formulas they don't understand - and which no one else will either. I enjoy talking about this stuff precisely because it's so esoteric to most folk, so you don't normally get to discuss it with anyone...even though it's fascinating, because it's everything...

I'm not really extrapolating anything however - all this is standard classical physics and QED (per Feyman et al). If a magnetic interaction is asymmetric (gaining or losing net energy) then more or less virtual photons of one sign or the other (positive or negative) have been exchanged with the vacuum, resulting in a net transfer of ambient quantum momentum to or from the vacuum. Again, pull two magnets apart and you're performing mechanical work against the vacuum potential; let 'em fly back together and the vacuum's outputting that work back into the mechanical realm. But if we could somehow pull them apart again without performing work (ie. switching off the field, somehow, without incurring losses in the process), then we could perform a closed-loop gain cycle, gaining energy and momentum from the vacuum, which is basically what any working magnetic or electric OU system would be doing..

Finally, it's interweb lore that some magnetic PMM's may seem to work before eventually degaussing, but complete BS.

I've not seen any substantiated claims as to such a thing myself, either, and so I agree with you that such internet lore is BS. I did see such a claim by a local fellow in a newspaper here probably over two decades ago now.

He supposedly had a device which could power a house and it allegedly extracted energy from permanent magnets also by somehow using the Barkhausen jump effect. It supposedly worked by moving specially treated wires through the field of the permanent magnets.

He said the magnets needed to be replaced something like three times a year, and so it sounded like he actually had a working prototype up and running. I've not heard anything else about it since, however, so it might have been him just speculating and jumping the gun in making a public claim.

The energy required to 'set' a magnetic field into a material is tiny, in comparison to the workload an asymmetric interaction would output. One way to convert it into mechanical energy would be to simply smash the magnet into dust, causing it to explode as all the domains repelled one another in a quick burst of energy. We're talking a Joule or two at most for an average button NdFeB magnet though. But besides that, converting that remnant magnetisation energy back into mechanical work would be presupposing that an asymmetric interaction was possible in the first place, in which case you could buttress (ie. 'back it up') with an even stronger magnet, or even an EM, and keep cycling it forever. It's definitely BS, magnetic PMM's cannot work simply by degaussing their magnets, and even if you could, that'd still be tantamount to OU.

...The energy stored in the magnet is its polarisation density and coercivity (how strongly "pinned" the domains are against rotation). It's not much, but that's entirely beside the point - in order to convert it to mechanical work would presuppse the existence of an asymmetric interaction! IOW it would depend on the very thing it's supposed to explain away. In reality, there is no mechanism - no means at all - to convert B (the term describing a magnet's field) into mechanical work. Perhaps the only exception would be exploding the magnet, but then it no longer exists and would just make for a big, innefficient mess.. IOW if a magnet was degaussing in an asymmetric interaction, it'd be incidental and not causal, and easily remedied.

If what I'm suggesting is a real possibility, and based upon what I'm currently seeing with some of my actual experiments I believe it might be, then there likely wouldn't be a "degaussing" of the magnet in a traditional sense. It might be more of an atomic thing, and so we would be in totally uncharted territory.

If you think of things like antennas and electrical inductors and transformers, all of these can make use of ferromagnetic materials, but obviously in none of these devices is it believed that any of the energy being transmitted, stored, transferred and/or transformed actually comes from the magnetic materials themselves. So, what I'm talking about would be a whole new paradigm.

Yes, sounds like it would be... feel free to share if you want some fair feedback..

PS. small Yldiz update:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 08030.html

(i still suspect that the inertia he's up against is due to the replicability and theory side - he came up with an idea that worked for reasons other than anticipated, and has thus since only incrementally varied the design with limited success in extending the results beyond a narrow range of parameters.. he can't generalise it, yet. Hopefully he'll get there.)

Do you really take this guy seriously? It seems highly likely to me that he is a fraud.

If you do take his claims seriously, where might you believe the energy generated by his device would be coming from? ...and please don't say "the vacuum"... ...unless there is a Hoover nearby.

;P

Dwayne

Of course it's far more likely to be fake than real, but that simple fact of the matter is too trivial to be worth any discussion! It's always the way with every OU or similar contentious claim... The only reason us nutjobs are here is 'cause we're willing to consider the 'what if's' that most folks are far too sensible to waste time with..

But yeah; if it's a genuine asymmetric magnetic interaction (even though it almost certainly isn't), then by definition it's pulling more virtual photons of one sign of momentum from the vacuum than it's paying back in the opposite sign. All electromagnetic force is simply ambient quantum momentum, all the time, everywhere, regardless of whether it's an OU interaction or an ordinary, symmetrical, conservative one. Again, you doubtless take it as read that electrons are subject to EM force, but what is that force? WHY is there a force associated with moving charges, what causes and constitutes that force? What is the substance of that force, as distinct from the electric field itself? The answer, according to the standard model, is that the 'fundamental' forces are 'mediated' by 'carrier particles' - so, gluons for the strong nuclear force, W & Z bosons for the weak, gravitons (as yet experimentally outstanding) for gravity, and virtual photons for electromagnetism. Obviously, these 'gauge bosons' aren't being emitted and absorbed by the charges experiencing them - the charges are quantised as electrons, and so aren't gaining or losing mass themselves via the EM interaction.. and again, we come back to Faraday's paradox of the spinning vs static inductive discs; all demonstrating, from simple first principles, that the carrier particle of the EM force is borne from the vacuum: spacetime has latent energy, the wavefunction is probabilistic, and thus inherently indeterministic, hence Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the irreconcilability of absolute position and momentum... so this latent 'zero point' energy is expressed as a flux of virtual particles, appearing, and instantaneously disappearing again into nothingness, but mediating the EM force between moving charges in the process. We can further sample this phenomenon via the twin-plate Casimir effect, the phenomenon of spontaneous pair production, we can even rectify this potential into mechanical energy in lab experiments with high-frequency oscillating mirrors etc. etc.

Like i say, you can go a long way with purely classical thinking, but that can only take you so far.. to really join all the dots you have to go quantum. That's what it's for...

[agor95]

yep

[raj]

Bessler's wheel was so simple that according to his own accounts, an apprentice carpenter boy could replicate it just after one look at the device.
True or False???

No Protons and No Photons.
True or False???

Raj

[ME]

I just guess Bessler's mechanism was pure mechanical. Any (if any) deliberate electromagnetic influence should be within the limits of a thing like lodestone - it could have been applied as some form of latch; or a slight persuasion for an unstable mechanism.
Perhaps such indirect 'slight persuasion' is that missing factor.

"Them scientists" were just attempting to automate sparks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrost ... or#History
A pure EM-based perpetual motor, even in that time period, would be (cool, but) off-the-scale wizardly weird.

[Furcurequs]

ME,

My magnet experiments are unrelated to my gravity experiments, and I too believe that Bessler's stuff sounded like it was entirely mechanical in nature and I doubt that there were any magnets involved with it.

As far as my recent magnet stuff, I seem to be seeing exactly what I had hoped to see in my preliminary experiments. There is still some room for error, however, so I won't really believe I have something until I see a working closed looped device or have at least made much more rigorous measurements.

I'm trying to decide the best way to feed back the apparent(?) energy gain so as to close the loop since the device won't be as simple as just magnets glued to a rotor and stator.

I may have to temporarily store energy from and then return kinetic energy to my mechanism by using either a flywheel or springs or raised weights. I, of course, want to use the most energy efficient method possible, so rubber bands are probably ruled out on this one.

My new springs will oscillate for close to 8 minutes with a roll of pennies dangling, for example, as opposed to a mere few seconds with a rubber band. So, stretching rubber is too lossy. ...but my springs may be too stiff for my magnet test device.

I don't yet know how friction losses will compare full cycle to any apparent energy gain through a cycle, so I need to try to size things wisely. I'm using ceramic magnets, but if friction is too much of a problem in my mechanism, I might have to switch to the stronger neodymium.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Raj,

Right. That's the feeling I get, (for what ever it's worth), That's what it will be, something so simple it will make your head hurt. So I say TRUE, a simple lever of some kind------------------------

Sam

[Gill Simo]

Something so simple it will make your head hurt.....the TRUE for sure.
But a simple lever...of some kind?
I think ME sums it up as well as you sum up the above......`even in this time period, something off-the-scale wizardly weird.
The missing factor, for all the blurb here, is an extent of mind/imagination capable of considering everything.....something that I've yet to witness in my too long a time here sadly.