h a l f b a k e r y
The best idea since raw toast.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Abstract (added Dec 2, 2013)
While "energy conservation" is fundamental in Physics, it
is also a "local" not "global" aspect of General Relativity,
which in turn still needs to be meshed with Quantum
Mechanics. QM offers some counter-intuitive notions
such as "zero-point motion" and "broken
which might lead to a "local" loophole in energy-
conservation. The following descriptions lead to a
device that possesses global symmetry, but local
asymmetry, which might as a result yield an unbalanced
Force --a necessity if any "work" is to be accomplished
by the device.
I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to be
fascinating. There are known examples, such as the
ability for electrons to perpetually orbit an atomic
nucleus. There is even a macroscopic example in terms
of electric current flowing in a loop of superconducting
wire. If the wire loop was located on Pluto it would be
superconducting all the time, no cooling required, and
the electric current would flow perpetually.
It happens that Perpetual Motion Machines have been
described as belonging to at least two different
categories. The ones mentioned above are "perpetual
motion machines of the second class" --they can run
forever without requiring any energy input, but, also,
you can't extract energy from them without eventually
making them stop working. A "perpetual motion
machine of the first class" is the type of device that, if
it existed, would run forever **and** generate useful
In general, first-class PMMs are supposed to be
impossible. There is a "Law of Conservation of Energy"
which would have to be violated, in order for that kind of
device to exist. In Theory, however, specifically General
Relativity Theory, the energy-conservation Law is
actually only a "local" phenomenon, where "local" is a
significant chunk of Space-Time (larger than, say, our
"Local Group" of galaxies). As far as the Universe-as-a-
whole is concerned, General Relativity indicates that
energy-conservation does not necessarily apply. This
might make sense when you think about the Big Bang,
and the origin of the entire universe from nothingness.
In Theory, then, you could build a first-class PMM if you
built it on the scale of the whole Universe. That's not so
useful for us over here in this tiny corner occupied by
Planet Earth, of course.
However! General Relativity is known to be an
incomplete theory, since it still needs to be meshed with
Quantum Mechanics. It is not impossible that after such
meshing is accomplished, some "local-sized" loopholes
might be discovered in the energy-conservation law.
Think again about the Big Bang, and the tiny region
where it **started**. CAUTION! It might not be clever of
anyone on Earth to find out how, and then to try, to
duplicate a Big Bang, in the process of attempting to
build a perpetual motion machine....
Anyway, let us consider ourselves to be encouraged to
pursue the dream of building a first-class perpetual
motion machine. I've encountered some intriguing
theoretical work that appears worthy of further
investigation. So, here we go....
See the first link. It describes a device --a "magnet
motor"-- that is claimed to be a first-class PMM. More,
it describes some of the theoretical background for it.
Perhaps more interesting is the description of how the
inventor took a preliminary device to the U.S. Patent
Office, and wowed 'em. See, the Patent Office requires
a working model to be presented, for any claimed
perpetual motion machine. Since this inventor was
awarded a patent, it logically follows that his magnet
motor is impressive, if perhaps not actually a first-class
PMM. I'll get to some of the details of that last thing in
At the moment I want to talk about the theoretical
background. Eventually I'll present an experiment that is
enough different, from the magnet motor, that it
qualifies as original enough for the HalfBakery.
When I read about the theoretical background for the
magnet motor, I almost busted out laughing. If you look
at that linked page you will find the word "monopole"
used a number of times, along with something known as
"Coulomb's Law". It happens that "magnetic monopoles"
are a theoretical thing in Physics, not yet known to exist
(but so far as we know, allowed to exist; see the
"making monopoles" link). I don't have any objection to
the way the topic of monopoles is used in the magnet-
motor theory, but the funny thing is that Coulomb's Law
was originally devised to explain electrostatic forces, not
magnetic forces. And with respect to electrostatics,
monocharges **DO** exist (as electrons and protons).
So it seems to me that the theoretical explanations could
have been simplified by talking about known stuff
(electric monocharges) instead of theoretical stuff
(magnetic monopoles). Therefore I will now proceed to
do that, referencing the triple-sketch at the third link.
Part (A) of the sketch shows a positively charged plate in
black, a negatively charged ball in blue, a vertical green
line showing that the plate is not infinite in extent, and
some brown arrows to indicate some force-vectors. The
ball is attracted toward the center of the plate more than
it is attracted directly toward the plate. Note that if the
ball was located above the center of the plate, there
would be force-vectors on both sides of the ball;
"symmetry" would exist, and the net force vector would
be directly toward the plate. But since the ball is not
starting near the center of the plate, we have a "broken
If you were wondering why "Broken Symmetry" was in the
title of this Idea, now you know. Some rather important
things in Physics appear to be directly the result of one-
or-another broken symmetry. **PERHAPS** even a
loophole in the energy-conservation Law might be found,
through a broken symmetry. So, let us continue with the
Part (B) of the sketch shows a positively charged plate in
black, a positively charged ball in blue, a vertical green
line showing that the plate is not infinite in extent, and
some brown arrows to indicate some force-vectors. The
ball is repelled from the center of the plate more than it
is repelled directly away from the plate. Note that if the
ball was located above the center of the plate, there
would be force-vectors on both sides of the ball;
symmetry would exist, and the net force vector would be
directly away from the plate. But since the ball is not
starting near the center of the plate, we have another
Part (C) of the sketch shows a "dipole", a pair of charged
balls held together by a red container. This positively
charged plate can be infinite in extent, which means
that the double-ball can always be thought of as being
located at the center of the plate. However, we still
have a special kind of broken symmetry, which needs to
be examined in detail.
First, though, let's note that the most logical net effect
of the charged plate on the double-ball, as initially
portrayed in (C), is that the double-ball should
twist/rotate until the negative side is close to the plate,
and the positive side is away from the plate. In these
explanations/descriptions we will assume that some sort
of physical hardware is present that prevents that
twisting/rotating from happening.
Next, suppose we step **way**back** from this close-up
view of the double-ball, and think of it as being a mere
point on an infinite charged plate. In that case the the
double-ball is equivalent to an electrically neutral object
--which has symmetry, and as a result will not
experience any net force of any sort.
However, as indicated two paragraphs ago, when we
look at the double-ball close-up, there certainly exists a
twisting force, relative to the portrayed initial
position..That clearly means that some sort of broken
symmetry exists, despite various aspects of Part (C)
that appear to be balanced.
That particular broken symmetry is why the vertical
green line was included in Part (C). It is now time for a
major --yet very relevant-- topic change.
See the "muon catalyzed fusion" link. It's been studied
since the late 1950s, but is not believed to be
economical in terms of "energy profit" as a technique for
operating a controlled nuclear fusion power plant. So far
it takes more energy to make a muon than you get from
the fusions the muon can catalyze, before the muon
ceases to exist. Anyway, the phenomenon of muon-
catalyzed fusion is real, and this is how it works
A muon is very similar to an electron, except it is about
200 times more massive than an electron. When it
orbits a proton (hydrogen nucleus), it does so 200 times
closer than an electron would. Thus this "muonic
hydrogen atom" is very small, compared to an ordinary
hydrogen atom. From a "distance" it can look like a
neutral particle, and that is how it can penetrate an
ordinary hydrogen atom's repulsive electron shell, and
approach the charged nucleus. (An alternate explanation
is, the ordinary atom's electron cloud is "thin", while the
muonic atom is very dense, which therefore lets it
simply barge right through, instead of being repelled.)
Inside the electron shell, the muon of the invading
muonic atom takes up a modified orbit, roughly as
described in the "Covalent Bonds" link, simply because
the muon is now attracted to both the nucleus it orbits
and the nucleus of the invaded atom. So, the positive
charge of the hydrogen nucleus is prevented from
"seeing" and thus repelling the positive charge of the
nucleus of the approaching muonic atom. Instead, the
attraction for the muon actually drags the muonic atom
closer to the nucleus of the invaded atom, until it gets
within the very limited range of the Strong Nuclear Force
--and **that** force causes the two hydrogen nuclei (both
should actually be of the deuterium variety) nuclei to
Now, back to the double-ball in Part (C) of the sketch,
which we can liken to that invading muonic atom. The
positive ball can't "see" the infinitude of the plate on the
side where the negative ball is located. That means it
can't be repelled by that side of the infinite plate --even
though it can still be repelled by "its own" side of the
infinite plate. Meanwhile, the up-close-and-personal
positive ball similarly/also shields the negative ball from
"seeing" half the infinite plate. The logical net result is
that the total forces, between the plate and the double-
ball, are unbalanced, as portrayed by **all** the brown
vector lines in the sketch --which is exactly what we
should expect if an appropriate symmetry has been
In the phrase "perpetual motion machine" the key word
is "motion", and for any motion to begin, an object
needs to experience some sort of unbalanced force. It is
now time to go back to discussing the magnet motor,
after first noting that the rules of ElectroMagnetism tell
us that if something works for an electrostatic gadget,
some variant of it should be workable for a magnetic
gadget. Recall that the inventor took a demonstration
device to the U.S. Patent Office. What he demonstrated
was that, using permanent magnets only, an unbalanced
force could be created that would significantly accelerate
a "toy vehicle" equivalent to the "double-ball" described
above --and that toy would leave the accelerator while
retaining significant velocity. It would **not** be slowing
down as it left the accelerator.
And it is perfectly logical that if such an accelerator was
built in the form of a ring, the toy vehicle could be
accelerated to some maximum speed and,
**apparently**, should roll through the loop endlessly.
And so the inventor was awarded a patent for a
perpetual motion machine!
Therefore the preceding Theory appears to reach a valid
conclusion, regarding a broken symmetry and unbalanced
forces. The only remaining Question is, "If those
unbalanced forces actually exist and can cause
something to move, then where does the energy-of-
motion come from?"
Well, for the magnetic motor, I have seen a **claim**,
purported to have been made by someone who built one,
that the motor can run for a few days, and then it stops
because at least some of the "permanent" magnets are
no longer magnetized. The "energy of magnetization"
was converted into energy-of-motion.
That would seem to be a reasonable explanation.
Permanent magnets require atoms that happen to have
an unbalanced configuration of electrons. That
configuration is always associated with a particular
"orientation" --the atom itself has a magnetic field.
However, the normal situation in the average solid
substance is for atomic orientations to be randomized,
and so it takes energy to align them, such that a
macroscopic object exhibits an overall magnetic field. It
can therefore make sense, that if the energy of
magnetization could somehow be removed efficiently,
and converted into some other form, then a permanent
magnet would become demagnetized.
However! I am now going to present you with a
conundrum! Remember that we used electrostatics, not
magnetics, to describe some of the theory behind the
motor's operation. In the realm of electrostatics, there
is something known as an "electret" (see link). An
electret has a permanent static-electric charge, similar
to a permanent magnet. However, an electret can be a
true "monocharge", while any ordinary magnet is always
a dipole. We can make two electrets, one positive and
one negative, by moving a bunch of electrons from one
to the other, before sealing them to prevent leaks.
The difference between a pair of electrets and a
permanent magnet is important, because the permanent
magnet exists as a result of microscopic phenomenon
within its structure, while the electrets exist because of
a transfer of electric charges across a macroscopic
distance. So, I'm saying that if we build an electrostatic
version of the magnet motor, the only way the electrets
can become discharged is by electrons making huge
macroscopic jumps between the electrets (while as
previously noted, a magnet can become demagnetized as
a result of simple internal reorientations of atoms).
In Theory, we can put enough insulation on the electrets
to totally prevent any electrons from jumping from one
to another, discharging them. Which brings us to a
variant of the previous Question, "If we can build an
electrostatic version of the magnet motor, that truly
exhibits unbalanced forces, then where will its energy-
of-motion come from?"
I have no idea.
I also don't really care right now. Because now is the
time to describe the Experiment, the design for building
the electrostatic equivalent of the magnet motor. See
Let's now focus on the "positively charged disk" only.
The big red circle is the disk, of course. It might be 20
centimeters in diameter. The black spot in the center is
an axle. The larger white spot is the place where we
would put an "axle bearing". It also indicates that the
disk is more like a "washer" (the kind usually associated
with nuts and bolts) than a disk --but ordinary washers
are never 20cm wide-- and in fact the central white
region probably should be larger than shown (I'll explain
The big yellow cross is attached to the axle, and would
rotate with the axle. The disk is stationary. The pairs
of blue balls are electrets, and their electric charges are
indicated by "plus" and "minus" signs around the red
disk. The balls are attached to the ends of the yellow
cross, and therefore will move as the cross rotates.
While not shown in the sketch, there is a modest gap
between the balls and the big red disk. All the balls, and
the big disk, must be electrets.
If we look at any of the four double-balls in the sketch,
then the Theory of Operation indicates that each
positively charged ball should be repelled by the adjacent
expanse of the disk, while each negatively charged ball
should be attracted to the adjacent expanse of the disk.
The attachment to the ends of the yellow cross should be
strong enough to prevent the balls from trying to twist,
so that the negative ball moves closer to the disk, and
the positive ball moves farther from it. Instead, the
whole cross should therefore rotate in the
counterclockwise direction. This leads us to the reason
why the central white hole of the disk should probably be
larger than shown. The central expanse of the disk is
not relevant to the Theory of Operation (and if there is
any way its presence might actually interfere, then that's
all the more reason to not have it).
The "negatively charged disk" sketch is very similar,
except that its cross should rotate clockwise. The green
line in the center of the sketch is a "fold line" -- if you
printed out the sketch, and folded the paper on that line
(so the disks are "inside" the fold), then you can imagine
the two axles joining, such that the disks resemble
wheels on one axle. Both yellow crosses will rotate in the
same direction. Note that we will want a significant
length of axle between the two disks, to ensure that
each ball pays most of its electrostatic "attention" to the
disk nearest it, as portrayed in the separate parts of the
The **total** electric charge of this motor can be Zero.
Each electret can be exactly balanced by another
equivalent electret. Thus, building this motor will not
have any side-effect with respect to "dumping" excess
electric charges into the Environment. However, since
we do indeed have Broken Symmetry at the up-close-
and-personal point of view, we **might** also have
To be determined, of course!
In closing there are a couple of things to note. First, our
modern technology doesn't do very much with
electrostatics, compared to what we do with magnetics,
simply because we can make stronger magnetic forces
than we can make electrostatic forces. Therefore, do
not expect this to be any sort of "very powerful" motor.
All that matters, as far as this Experiment is concerned,
is that it have forces strong enough to cause the yellow
crosses to rotate.
Second, as previously noted, if the electret motor works
at all, it should not become depleted by any ordinary
means. Therefore, if the motor runs for a few days and
then stops, because the electrets are discharged, we
might have an extremely worthwhile Scientific Mystery
to solve: "How **did** the electrons jump those
macroscopic distances, between the electrets?"
Well, first it has to work, of course. Then, we'll see.
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]
Electron Orbits and Covalent Bonds
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]
Proposed Electrostatic PMM
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Mar 13 2012]
Shapes of Orbitals
They're not all round. [Wrongfellow, Mar 13 2012]
An interesting magnet motor video
Enjoy! [Vernon, Nov 27 2013]
No Differential Needed, thanks to ElectroMagnetic Action and Reaction
As mentioned in an annotation. In the referring case we would be expecting Action and Reaction between a cross and a disk, of the electrostatic device described in the main text. [Vernon, Nov 28 2013]
Ben Franklin's Electric Motor
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 28 2013]
[pocmloc, Dec 01 2013]
Moon's orbit around Sun
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Dec 02 2013]
The circular-ish image on the right is relevant to an annotation here. Think of the phrase "interference pattern". [Vernon, Dec 03 2013]
The Economic Argument [MechE, Dec 05 2013]
Hare-Brained Scheme Recording Office
Because it is better to be able to say "It was tried and didn't work" than to say "It can't work!" without ever trying it. [Vernon, Dec 05 2013]
Selling Free Energy
Another Economic Argument [Vernon, Dec 05 2013]
||Instead of "Some Theory, and an Experiment" how about a "Summary".
||// I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to
be fascinating //
||It would seem that most of the human race shares your
fascination with complete fiction. In fact, I'm banking my
career on it.
||Can we get a VU count, please?
||Hm... a VU is approximately 4.3 screensworth of text,
correct? At what type size and screen resolution?
||Also, do links count? If they do, I've got about 7.8
screensworth at 1680 x 1050 and what I estimate to
be 16 px/line.
||At least for my monitor, I estimate approximately
||Hey, at least it's got paragraph breaks, we're off to a great start.
||I've got ten PgDn's on a laptop: that's about what... 6.2VU's... probly not the record but geez.
||I wonder what the efficiency of a magnet "battery" * would be, ie: if it takes <x>J to make a magnet, and you have a motor powered by magnetism, how much energy could you get out of it before the magnet is depleted.
* note double-quotes in this case signifying I can't be arsed trying to figure out an appropriate word.
||//See, the Patent Office requires a working model to be
presented, for any claimed perpetual motion machine.//
||Only if it is specifically claimed as a PMM, which I suspect
this wasn't. Also, I believe that requirement was put in
place in the last decade or so, all of which his patents
||I'll read it in more detail when I get a chance, but roughly
speaking he appears to be treating magnetic action as
linear rather than field effect.
||[MechE], read the magazine article copied at the first link. Not only does the author attest to the operation of the inventor's models, it is specifically stated that the inventor had to demonstrate one of the models to a patent examiner. I would say that even if perpetual motion was not claimed outright in the patent application, the things that the patent application did claim made for an obvious conclusion, that needed demonstrable support.
||Only 4 PgDns for me (15" monitor - viewing HB in /lr mode). As an aside, I do a lot of reading and analysis of big complex documents in my real job and I am always suspicious of any concept the author is unable to explain in one short, easy-to-read paragraph. I have a theory that only when you can explain something briefly and in simple language do you understand it properly yourself.
||//I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to be fascinating. There are known examples, such as the ability for electrons to perpetually orbit an atomic nucleus.//
||Electrons don't "orbit" the nucleus. The word "orbit" is used for historical reasons only. There's no physical motion involved.
||[Wrongfellow], when Quantum Mechanics was devised to better-explain how electrons behaved in a vicinity of an atom, there was a problem that needed to be solved regarding the ordinary concept of "orbit". That problem involved the notion that the electric charge experiences acceleration as it goes around an atom, and as a result should constantly radiate photons --which it doesn't actually do. However the answer provided by QM didn't actually destroy all of the concept of "orbit" --as evidence, note that the word "orbital" nowadays is used to name the allowed pathway for an electron (well, one orbital can contain a pair of electrons). QM's answer brought two new factors into play, one of which is the fact that an electron has an associated wave-length. The circumference of an orbital, **around** an atom, is always some exact multiple of the wave-length. The other factor introduced by QM is the Uncertainty Principle, which, despite the orbital being unchanging unless some photonic (or other) energy arrives to disrupt it, allows the exact location of the electron, along the circumference of its orbital, to move about. Perpetually!
||//note that the word "orbital" nowadays is used to name the allowed pathway for an electro//
||Note that the word horsepower is used to describe engine power, despite the fact there isn't a horse anywhere near it. Electrons don't orbit, orbital just happens to be a convenient way to describe their behavior.
||//The circumference of an orbital, **around** an atom//
||Only the s-orbital goes "around" the atom. The higher orbitals have more complex shapes that intersect the nucleus. (link)
||If you think of the orbital as a "pathway" that the electron "travels along", then at some point it has to "pass through" the nucleus. How does it manage this trick?
||//If you think of the orbital as a "pathway" that the
electron "travels along", then at some point it has to
"pass through" the nucleus. How does it manage this
||Equally, if you think of the nucleus as an orange,
why are some things blue? The problem is that the
orbital isn't a pathway, and the electron isn't a ball-
||//a VU is approximately 4.3 screensworth of text,
correct? At what type size and screen resolution?
||It's effectively invariant w.r.t such factors,
inasmuch as their contribution is small compared
to the overall magnitude. It's a bit like saying
"The set of integers divisible by N is infinity
aleph1, regardless of N."
||One day Vernon will write a _rational_ idea but, by
definition, it will be only as infinitely large as his
||The problem will come when he writes a _real_
idea, which will be infinitely larger again by an
||... and the universe exploded.
||[MechE], I'm sure you know that James Watt investigated the power of a horse (something like 33,000 foot-pounds per minute, if I recall right), and then used it as a measurement standard for comparing the power of steam engines. So, even if horses became extinct, the comparison to their power remains valid.
||[Wrongfellow], I'm quite aware that an electron doesn't actually "travel along" the pathway of an orbital. The wave/particle duality lets it occupy the whole pathway in the form of a "standing wave". Even though it still also has an exact location, which jumps all over that pathway, thanks to Uncertainty. Which in turn partly answers the question of how it can ignore the nucleus, when the orbital has a complicated shape. (More of the answer is related to the fact that electrons and quarks are much smaller in size than we've been able to measure so far, so there is lots of room for them to miss each other, should the electron happen to jump into the middle of the nucleus.)
||[MaxwellBuchanan], please specify where the main text of this Idea is irrational. Thanks in advance!
||When we die of a heat death, I'm blaming Vernon for bringing it on faster.
||// Even though it still also has an exact location,
which jumps all over that pathway, thanks to
||I think, depending on what flavour of QM you
subscribe, the electron does not have an exact
||//please specify where the main text of this Idea
is irrational.// My point was more related to the
infinite length of your posts: the infinity of real
numbers is larger than the infinity of rationals,
which is the same size as the infinity of integers.
||I am unable to point out the first instance of
irrationality in your text, as I have not read it. I
figured if there was a nugget in there, it would be
capable of being distilled to a manageable size.
||It is perhaps unnecessary to provide an entire treatise on physics before you get to the idea.
||Reading a conversationally-toned summation when it is this long is simply tedious.
||Yikes. It's gonna take three sessions to get through this.
While I appreciate the entire treatise on physics, I wouldn't get most of your ideas otherwise, (yeah like I *get* most of your ideas), a synoptic section for the folks already in-the-know might help some.
||[MB] To be fair, I'm pretty sure the first instance of irrationality (and the second depending on your interpretation) occur in the first two sentences.
||//There are known examples//
||//I've always found the concept of "perpetual motion" to be fascinating.//
||And Vernon, before you jump on me, a type two is not a perpetual motion machine, as it is impossible to extract work from it or have it accomplish a task. It may be perfect energy storage, but so is a rock.
||I'm willing to give credit for the finding of perpetual motion fascinating, as I find many such examples of human psychopathologies of interest.
||I only requested a VU because I do all my online business
with an iPad and thus far MaxCo has yet to offer a VU
||Despite my occasional viciously slanderous and wholly
ineffective jabs, I enjoy reading [Vernon] 'bakes. They help
to improve my attention span, seed ideas for my more
surrealistic short prose, and typically last just about as
long as a nice big bowl of oatmeal. Oddly enough, they
seem to have a similar effect on my digestion.
||Democritus: "All matter is composed of atoms."
||Darwin: "Species evolve through the natural
selection of beneficial random variants".
||Einstein: "The invariance of the speed of light
dictates that space and time are not immutable."
||Keynes: "If Investment exceeds Saving, there will
||The Beatles: "All you need is love."
||[MechE], when I first learned about the different classifications of PMMs, the description of the second class may have differed a bit from the description that you encountered. I'm quite sure that the definition of that class does not include any need to be able to extract energy from such a device. Only the first-class type has that requirement. All the second class needs is some sort of motion that can perpetually occur. So, the superconducting loop counts, if it indeed has electrons moving through the loop. Also, a hunk of rock hurtling through empty intergalactic space, would count as a valid second-class perpetual motion machine. It would be a better example if it was also rotating.
||Also, if you are going to talk about what I wrote, please don't quote it and then distort it. Finding perpetual motion to be fascinating is not the same thing as finding the concept of perpetual motion to be fascinating.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], you might have noticed by now that my Ideas here range all over. So, if you want to "sum me up", try a variation of the thing that would have applied to Pierre de Fermat (after getting the spelling of my last name right): "This space is too small to contain what he had to say."
||I'm not debating the definition of perpetual
I'm debating the definition of machine. If it can't
produce work or accomplish a task, it's not a
||My point on the rock is that a solid lump of rock
doing absolutely nothing contains a certain
amount of energy (e=mc^2). That does not make
it a machine.
||Likewise a super-condnducting loop or a mass in
free space has energy, but it is not a machine.
||//you might have noticed by now that my Ideas
here range all over.//
||Whose don't? Regardless, it would be a courtesy
to at least
make an effort to be succinct, or include
a concise summary. The fact that you can't do so
suggests that you have not grasped
your subject at all well.
||It also suggests that there's a fundamental flaw in
the idea, because the basic principle behind
viable machines can generally be summarized
easily. For instance, a steam engine ("Water
expands when it boils, and the resulting pressure
can push things"), a transformer ("an alternating
current in one coil creates a magnetic field which
can induce a current in another coil") or a fountain
pen ("a slit in a nib holds ink by capillarity, but the
greater capillary pull of the paper draws the ink
out") can all have their underlying principles
explained quite concisely. And they all work.
||It's also nigh-on impossible to critique an idea
that's so full of trees and lacking in wood.
||// ! General Relativity is known to be an incomplete
theory, since it still needs to be meshed with Quantum
||Umm... not quite, [Vern]. Quantum Mechanics, which has
split off into so many tangential disciplines that the term is
almost loose enough to come apart completely, is (or at
least started as) a grail quest for the 'unification theory',
which would reconcile General and Special Relativity.
Einstein himself rejected the bulk of quantum theory, and
spent his later years trying to show all of the upstarts how
wrong they were, resulting in many crumpled-up balls of
paper and anguished cries of "Scheiße, scheiße, SCHEIßE!"
||Many have misguidedly pinned their hopes for the
completion of the Grand Unifying Theory on the imminent
discovery of the Higgs Boson, which coincidentally is blue
in color and may or may not exist, whilst others have
attempted to stack as many as seven additional dimensions
on top of the known four, a condition primarily attributed
to prolonged chalk dust inhalation. There has also been a
bit of claptrap about squiggly strings and a lot of noise
explaining how they were wrong about the strings, and
now a bunch of people in Switzerland are watching
particles whizz around in a giant tube and smash into each
other, and _that_ is Quantum Mechanics. They are, of
course, completely wrong, because so far everyone has
failed to notice that the cat jumped out of the box and
buggered off about fifty years ago.
||I hope that clarifies things for you.
||[MechE], then look again at that first paragraph. Does it include the word "machine"? No! (nor have I just edited it) Your nitpicking there (and that of [Wrongfellow], about orbits) only distracts people from analyzing the main Idea of this overall posting.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], this particular Idea suggests that a Broken Symmetry might open the door to a Perpetual Motion Machine. The two notions are linked right there in the title. The problem I typically have is that, to be a succinct as you want, I'll be using nomenclature that most HalfBakers don't understand (and others will deliberately misinterpret or nitpick). It strikes me as being elitist. I'd rather be friendly to the wider group, and explain everything as best I can. Have you not noticed that, fairly often, I say something about how the knowledge-able can skip some of my explanatory paragraphs? Do I have to say that in **all** my longer posts?
||[Alterother], I think you will find that most of the math in Quantum Mechanics is widely agreed-upon, and that most of the philosophical objections of Einstein and others have been overruled by experimental data. I also think most of the remaining arguments to which you refer are about how to **interpret** the math into nonmathematical terms. I will agree that with respects to attempts to Unify GR and QM, there is still plenty of room for arguments, but those are not really about QM, per se.
||I know, [Vernon]. I've read many books on the subject, and
I even understood most of them. I was just having a little
fun after a long and trying
day. I'm sorry if you took offense.
||To be frank, there are entire paragraphs here which are unnecessary. Because you write as if you're having a conversation with yourself, it makes the entire idea read like the script of a three-act play, with lots of verbal acting thrown in to smooth it out. Unless I'm reading an actual conversation, reading too many of these kinds of things in an actual paper that is this long is simply annoying, as if someone actually wrote down 'and um...' over and over again.
||It has occurred to me to mention that there are two basically different types of electrets. One type consists of metal that is covered with insulator --the charged balls of the electrostatic motor, described in the main text, can be that type.
||The other type of electret consists of layers of nonconducting material. When electrons are added in-between the layers, they are not free to move around like they would be able to do in the first type of electret. **This** type of electret is needed for the big red disks of the electrostatic motor. That's because, if electrons were free to move through the substance of the disk, it would be easier for them to do so than for the yellow crosses to rotate. And we want them to rotate!
||Watt determined that a pony could lift an average 220 lbf (0.98 kN) 100 ft (30 m) per minute over a four-hour working shift. Watt then judged a horse was 50% more powerful than a pony and thus arrived at the 33,000 ft·lbf/min figure. ...John Smeaton initially estimated that a horse could produce 22,916, John Desaguliers - 44,000, Tredgold - 27,500.
||I personally wouldn`t go to town about using horsepower as a really accurate standard..
||I think I understand this idea. My question is, what happens if you fix the cross and allow the disk to spin freely?
||[pocmloc], if the one type of motion can happen
(crosses rotating), then the other type of motion
should be able to happen (disks rotating). As
evidence from the world of magnetics, see the "no
||Yes, agreed, if, but, how do the disks rotate? What force pulls on the disk?
||[pocmloc], the main text attempts to describe
how an unbalanced Force might exist in-between
the electrostatically-charged balls and the disk.
So, if such a Force can really exist, then either the
crosses or the disks should be able to move in
response to that.
||And my March 15, 2012 anno notes that the disk-
electrets need to be a bit special, to prevent
electrons from being free to individually move in
response to that unbalanced Force. So, if locked
into place within the body of a disk, any Force
affecting the electrons can affect a whole disk.
||Did you know that the very very first "electric
motor" was invented by Benjamin Franklin, using
electrostatics and not magnetics? (Well, MOSTLY
using electrostatics. There were these big Leyden
jars that became depleted in charge as the motor
ran. Electrons had to move (not stay static) for
that to happen. See link.
||Where is the work being done? Ben Franklins wheel is lovely, but the key difference is that in his device, work is done by the charge moving from one place to the next. That work turns the wheel. I don't see any work being done in your device which means that it will sit in a static equilibrium.
||Do you mean "no, no" or "no, yes" or "yes, no"?
||Your sketch "UnSymmeCharge" shows the fatal flaw: Your "individual particle" sketches show the particles at the edge of a plate, resulting in a sideways component to the attraction (I suspect the vertical component will be much greater than the sideways, but I haven't thrown any maths at it yet).
But your final sketch, that leads to your device configuration, shows the plate extending both left and right, completely cancelling out any sideways force and rendering your device defunct.
||[pocmloc], since Work = Force multiplied by
Distance, the most important thing is to have an
unbalanced Force. The main text indicates that
for a "magnet motor" the energy of motion might
come from the magnets becoming demagnetized.
||Then I went on to hopefully show how
electrostatics might be able to yield an unbalanced
force much like happens in a magnet motor, AND I
left it as an Open Question, regarding exactly how
the electric charges might be able to be
||AT THIS TIME, the only thing that really needs
further analysis is whether or not an unbalanced
force can truly appear. Logically, if the charges
cannot discharge, then it would be perfectly
reasonable to expect all forces to be balanced,
yielding no energy production. On the other
hand, a Broken Symmetry is part of the
descriptions of this Idea....
||[neutrinos shadow], the reason the "individual
particles" sketch shows them at the edge of a
plate is directly related to the fact that the (A)
sketch plus the (B) sketch equals the (C) sketch.
||Consider the Negative charge in (A). Force-arrows
are only shown on one side of the vertical green
line because, on the other side of that line, there
will be a Positive charge that cancels out the
effects of the Negative charge. The Negative
charge basically does not interact with the plate
on the other side of the green line --which is why
the plate wasn't shown there.
||Similarly, in (B), the Positive charge only interacts
with the plate on one side of the vertical green
line, yielding the Force-arrows shown, but on the
other side of that vertical line, the Negative
charge is there to cancel out Positive charge's
interaction with the plate on that side --so again
there was no need to show that part of the plate
in the sketch.
||In (C), the MAJOR result is a twisting effect, of
the two charged balls. If that twisting is
prevented, however, then a lesser effect appears
to remain, such that it seems reasonable to think
that some horizontal motion of the balls should
occur, across the plate.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], what did you think of the
linked magnet-motor video?
||//Negative charge basically does not interact with the plate on the
Why not? Unless you have something vertical between the -ve and
+ve charges to "block" the electric field (Not sure how you do
I think you've got the muon comparison backwards. With the muonic
hydrogen, the "target" hydrogen sees only the mass of the particle,
because the charges are so close together. In your model, this is
equivalent to the PLATE not seeing the separate charges on the arm,
not the other way around as you have presumed. Therefore, the
charged plate would see a neutral particle, and you get NO EFFECT.
||//[MaxwellBuchanan], what did you think//
||(1) The idea is too long to contain anything
fundamental. If it did, it would be possible to
shorten it, or at least to provide a meaningful
abstract. There may well be an interesting point
discuss here but, if it's not possible to summarize
it in 200 words, there probably isn't enough to
justify investing more time.
||(2) The words // linked magnet-motor video?//
are a deterrent, since all the "magnet-motor
video's" I've ever seen on YouTube are invariably
either fraud or hooey.
||(3) I prefer instead to concentrate on the
concluding sentence of your post. Since they
were written a year and 2/3rds ago, what has the
answer turned out to be?
||[neutrinos shadow], you need to know more about
the muonic-atom situation. So, from a
SIGNIFICANT distance, the muonic atom does look
like a neutral particle. But up-close-and-personal,
like when the muonic atom is near the nucleus of
another atom, the Symmetry of Neutrality gets
"broken", and this is how:
||The SHAPE of the orbit of the muon around the
muonic-atom-nucleus changes, because the muon
is attracted to BOTH nuclei. While the original
shape might be called "spherical", the new shape is
more circular, and the "plane" of that circle is
located in-between the two nuclei (but closer to
its "own" nucleus). Think of a cowboy twirling his
lasso in a vertical plane.
||So, because the muon is now spending all its time
in-between the two nuclei, that is why neither
can detect (be repelled by) the other. Also,
because the muon is about 1/18 the mass of a
deuteron, it's attraction to the other nucleus can
gently drag its own nucleus closer to that other
||So, in this Idea, we also have a Broken Symmetry,
because the charged plate is so close to the pair
of oppositely-charged balls.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], while I'm well aware that the
video I linked might be faked, it is still
"interesting". And things about the devices
shown are "clear" enough that if you wanted to
build one, you probably could.
||I'm not in a position to AFFORD to build any such
thing, though. Neither a magnet motor nor the
electrostatic variety. The questions I've posed
||You could do the same with gravity. Get a bicycle wheel, mount it with its axle vertical. Place on the rims pairs of objects, a lead shot and a helium balloon side by side. The shot will be attracted to the earth's surface, the balloon repelled. Ergo, the wheel will spin at 100rpm. Use a rear wheel and make sure it's spinning is in the right direction and you can use the chain sprocket to extract useful energy. Retain the gears and you can adjust the energy takeoff to match the load.
||A helium balloon will gradually deflate. But it doesn't actually have to be repelled, just attracted less. So use a feather. The wheel will not spin so fast and you'll get less energy, but you could double the number of lead shot/feather pairs.
||[pocmloc], at first glance that does seem to be a
reasonable analogy. However....
||One of the annotations indicates that the disks
used in the electrostatic motor should have
rather-larger central holes than is portrayed in the
sketch. This allows any one pair of charged balls
to interact with the local portion of the disk more
like they were sitting in a racetrack than in a field.
When the Earth is used as an analogy for the disk,
you can't match that condition.
||Next, gravitation acts AS IF the center of the
Earth is its local source. A flat plate, however, can
only be a point-source (of either electrostatic or
gravitational attraction) when viewed from a
significant distance, not up-close-and-personal.
Since this Experiment specifically needs the up-
close-and-personal, the analogy fails.
||Third, you absolutely do need "repulsion" as well as
"attraction". It is the only way that the
interaction of a negative charge with the flat plate
can be PARTIALLY cancelled out by a nearby
positive charge --and vice-versa.
||I disagree with all those objections.
||[pocmloc], disagreeing is fine. But it's better if you
can explain why.
||//I'm not in a position to AFFORD to build any such
||Estimated cost - $100, $1000, $10,000?
||Let me put it this way. If you seriously thought
that this would work, and if you had done enough
research to have confidence in your idea, you
would find a way to afford to do it. Just as, if you
knew a lottery ticket was going to win you $10M,
you'd find a way to get the money to buy it.
||It's "unaffordable" only because you know,
somewhere along the line, that it won't work. I
know that too. It may be an interesting thought
experiment (again, without a 200-word summary
of the basic idea, it's not worth investing the time
necessary to understand it), but not plausible
enough even in your own mind to justify the
expense of trying it.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], it is unaffordable because the
more I spend on anything besides basics, thanks to
cutbacks in working-hours/income, the sooner I
will end up homeless.
||Not to mention that even if I did afford it and it
worked, people like you would be SO certain it
was rigged/flawed/deceptive that they wouldn't
pay any more attention to it than to the video I
asked you to look at. So, where again is that huge
return you are talking about???
||[Vernon], sweetie, I don't believe you.
||If I were sure that I had a breakthrough as
significant as a perpetual motion machine from
which energy could be extracted, I would happily
risk becoming homeless in order to develop a
working prototype. As would any sane person.
||Are you seriously telling me that the risk of
homelessnessness stacks up against the chance of
becoming probably the most well-known, not to
say rich, person on the planet?
||It only makes sense if one assumes that you don't
really, truly believe in the idea.
||I'm even prepared to make you a deal, and to back
it up in writing, witnessed as needs be. I am
prepared to reimburse you the full costs of
developing a working prototype, up to a maximum
of $10k, within 24hr of a demonstration of a
working device. If you claim to have such a
device, I will, within 72hr, pay my own costs to
come and visit you and see the demonstration.
||At the demonstration, I expect to be allowed to
be examine the device in detail, including
whatever disassembly and reassembly is necessary
to be sure that there is no source of external or
stored energy; and I expect to be allowed to
measure the energy output using whatever means
are appropriate (ammeter, dynamometer,
thermometer - at my own expense), over a period
of time sufficient to demonstrate net energy
||So, there you have it. I have put my money where
my mouth is. If you actually believe in this idea,
go ahead. If you want me to mail you a signed
letter, email me (my address is on my profile
page) with your address and I will send the letter
as soon as I return to the UK (in about 10 days - I'm
travelling at present).
||I'll go further. With suitable guarantees, I am
prepared to lend you $10K to make a working
prototype. The details will have to be worked
out, but the loan will be for a fixed period after
which, if the device has not been demonstrated
as outlined above, the amount must be returned.
If the device _is_ so demonstrated, no repayment
is needed and you are free to exploit your
invention as you so choose.
||So, put my money where your mouth is.
||OK to substantiate my disagreement:
||// like they were sitting in a racetrack than in a field. When the Earth is used as an analogy for the disk, you can't match that condition.//
||No, because you specifically talk about a plate, not a wire. You talk about movement towards the attractor. Your explanation should have no effect if the flat plate is a plate or a strip. They are geometrically equivalent in your diagrams.
||//gravitation acts AS IF the center of the Earth is its local source. A flat plate, however//
||The gravitational forces on a body held above the earth are in fact towards all points on the earth, but the net force sums to a vector pointing to the earth's centre. Similarly, the electrostatic forces on a charged object held above the centre of a charged plate or strip are towards all points on the plate, but sum to a vector pointing to a point on the plate directly beneath the object. So I submit that the two cases are geometrically similar.
||//you absolutely do need "repulsion" as well as "attraction"//
||Why? You only stated an imbalance. Less attraction is less than more attraction. Repulsion is less attraction. The system is still imbalanced; were you to permit the lead shot and ball to rotate around their own axis they would do so, just like your charged balls.
||I submit that my system is the equivalent to yours and will turn at least as fast as yours.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], you still do not understand my
situation, which I do not plan on spreading all over
the Internet, and your offer does not strike me as
worthwhile. Nor do we appear to share the same
definition of "sanity", since you seem to place
"belief" over "facts" --the same fallacy exhibited by
Fundamentalist Creationists. I am fully aware of
the overall facts regarding perpetual-motion
machines, and I definitely indicated that if this
Idea had a flaw, I hadn't been able to identify it.
But if it does, then obviously it can't work, and
YOUR definition of "sanity" would leave me both
homeless and with a huge debt to pay. NO, thank
||[pocmloc], I will take your second objection first,
because the answer is related to the first
objection also. If you set charge (A) near a large
flat/charged plate, you do NOT get an effect upon
it as if all the plate's charge was concentrated in
one place. For proof, just cut a reasonable hole in
the plate right at the place near (A), so that there
is no repulsion or attraction there, and move (A) a
short distance into that hole. The rest of the
plate can push/pull the charge sideways, which
can balance to zero total (assume plate is large
circle with (A) in the middle hole). Moving (A)
back out of the hole, to its original "nearby"
location, does NOT eliminate those sideways
forces. Your use-
Earth's-gravity analogy offers NOTHING like this
availability of sideways forces.
So, now regarding "racetrack": The proposed-
motor drawing shows charges such as (A) near the
edge of a disk. That means there would be an
unbalanced radial force upon it, because of the
quantity of disk-material near its center. Making
the central hole larger would significantly reduce
that imbalance --and make the charged disk near
charge (A) resemble a race-track. Sure, the cross-
shaped struts could probably be tough enough to
resist that radial force (they already must be tough
enough to resist the twisting force of the two
charged balls at each of the 4 ends of the cross-
limbs), but there is no reason for excess radial
force to exist in the first place, if it is that easy to
reduce. The result of such reduction is that the
major remaining sideways forces are along the
adjacent length of the race-track. Your use-
Earth's-gravity analogy offers no way to reduce, in
specific sideways directions, the forces upon a
||Third, in my Nov 28 anno to you and to [neutrinos
shadow], I specified a partial "cancel out", as well
as "unbalanced". It is the partial cancelling-out
that theoretically leads to imbalance. AND it is all
about SIDEWAYS forces. Your use-Earth's-gravity
analogy offers NOTHING in the way of sideways
||The feather "cancels out" the weight of the lead shot in exactly the same way as the +ve charged ball "cancels out" the attraction of the -ve charged ball to the plate. No more, no less.
||// and I definitely indicated that if this Idea had a
flaw, I hadn't been able to identify it.//
||Well, in that case, fair enough. If this is a discussion
on find the flaws in an apparent perpetual motion
machine, then it's interesting. But why bury it
under 3126 words?
||[pocmloc], don't be ridiculous. Earth's gravity
accelerates all nearby small objects at the same
rate, remember, regardless of mass. You need
"negative mass" if you want gravitational
repulsion, and a feather most certainly doesn't
||Meanwhile, with respect to the charged balls and
plate, we DO have both an attraction and a
repulsion available. SIDEWAYS, too. Unlike the
way things can move in Earth's gravity.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], someday I hope to have
money to waste on trying to make lots of different
ideas work. Until then, when I say "I can't afford
it", I DO know what I'm talking about!
||As for the lengths of various Ideas posted to the
HalfBakery, I'm simply trying to be as thorough as
possible in presenting all the relevant data.
||In this particular case significant relevant data
was about "magnet motors", because so far as I've
been able to learn, they actually can exist, even if
they aren't really perpetual-motion machines.
||And it remains a Fact that just about anything
that can be done with interacting magnetic fields
can also be done with interacting electric fields,
||// I'm simply trying to be as thorough as possible in
presenting all the relevant data.//
||That's good. The next step is to be sufficiently
familiar with it with to provide a short summary
(called the "Abstract" in publications) at the
beginning. Then people can decide whether it's
worth reading the rest of it. Just a suggestion.
||How is the sideways pull of a charged plate on a charged ball, different from the sideways pull of a massive body on a heavy object?
||A lead shot in Edinburgh is mostly pulled downwards by the mass of the earth beneath it, but there is nonetheless mass also in Glasgow that will pull it sideways. I still maintain the systems are identical.
||Also you mention acceleration but that is nothing to do with it. Your idea speaks only of "force". You cannot deny that the force on a feather is much less than the force on a lead shot.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], I would not expect anyone
having a pre-conceived notion about something to
be swayed by a mere abstract. Have you YET
looked at that linked magnet-motor video? What if
I asked you to consider THAT to be a sort of
"abstract" about the reality of magnet motors?
||[pocmloc], why do you ignore the word "net"?
There is no significant NET sideways force at the
surface of most places on Earth (70% covered with
reasonably flat ocean).
||NOR, when only ONE charged ball is considered, is
there a net sideways force upon the ball when it is
near a charged flat plate. We ONLY get a NET
sideways force when BOTH/opposite charges are
near the plate --and you have no equivalent to
that in your use-Earth's-gravity analogy.
||Of course I'm not ignoring it. If you place the lead shot and the feather in Bathgate, with the lead to the East of the feather, then you are right most of the attraction will be downwards. But you can't deny that the mass of Edinburgh will attract the lead shot with a greater sideways force, than the attraction force in the other direction between the feather and Glasgow. Ergo, according to your theory, the pair will move towards Edinburgh.
||Can you give a rock solid reason why this is not the case?
||[pocmloc], the rock-solid reason is simple. In the
direction opposite Edinburgh is mass that can
attract the two objects in that direction. The Net
sideways force is balanced out to Zero (or close
enough to zero as makes no practical difference,
given the feebleness of Gravitation.
||In the electrostatic device, however, if one
charge is attracted to the left, the OTHER charge
keeps it from being attracted to the right. The
electric-field-lines of the first charge cannot pass
through the second charge. Meanwhile, because
the charges ARE opposite, that second charge can
be repelled from the right, but NOT repelled from
the left, because of the first charge --the electric-
field lines of the second charge can't pass through
the first charge. Net effect: both charges are
influenced to move left.
||//if one charge is attracted to the left, the OTHER charge keeps it from being attracted to the right// Are you sure about that now? You seem awfully sure that gravity can pass through or around a feather to pull on a lead shot. I would think they were both equally as likely (or unlikely).
||[Vernon] I have seen many "magnet motor" videos.
Invariably, they pile befuddlement on
misconception and serve it with a dressing of
||As for the utility of an absract - you're missing the
point. The purpose of an abstract is to provide a
thumbnail of the work which is to be presented in
detail. It serves to crystallize the author's
thoughts in such a way as to tell the reader
whether the article is likely to be of interest or
relevance. It can also (though this is not usually
necessary in published papers) tell the reader
whether the author is a nut.
||I would say that the reader is more entitled to
expect you to make the effort of composing an
abstract; than you are to expect the reader to
give up one hour of time for an initial reading of
your idea and its supporting references.
||An abstract is simply a courtesy to the reader.
Not providing one suggests either that you are not
willing to do that courtesy, or that there is no
substance out of which to build a good abstract.
||I agree with [Max] but would add that an abstract is a huge help to the author too. It was only after I'd written the abstract to my PhD thesis and, in fact, only after I'd summed up the entire PhD in the first sentence, that I finally properly understood what I was saying.
||I'll lay you odds that [vernon] will say that the idea is
too complicated to sum up in an abstract.
||He may well be right. The length of an abstract is
proportional to complexity divided by
understanding. If the understanding is small
enough, a short abstract becomes impossible.
||[pocmloc], gravitation DOES pass right through one
ordinary mass to affect the next ordinary mass.
Just consider the
Moon, every time the Earth gets between it and
the Sun for an eclipse --its orbit is not affected
(and the Moon is in orbit around the SUN, not the
Earth; the Sun attracts the Moon twice as strongly
as the Earth). See link.
||So, in your use-Earth's-gravity notion, the feather
(light mass) can be described as being located in
the middle of a region that can attract it equally,
in all sideways directions (the presence of the
heavy mass is irrelevant). And the heavy mass is
also in the middle of a region that can attract it
equally in all sideways directions (the presence of
the light mass is irrelevant). Net effect, your
notion does NOT properly imitate this HalfBaked
||[MaxwellBuchanan], even an abstract should
reference various important things that get put
together in the main text --so, logically, the more
"important things", the longer even an abstract
would need to be. I HAVE now made an attempt
to do what you've asked. Meanwhile, the
particular magnet-motor video I linked has only
music in its audio, no voices touting something.
||//...electric-field-lines of the first charge...// - what does that mean? There's no such thing as electric field lines. They're just used to draw pretty diagrams.
//even an abstract should reference various important things that get put together in the main text --so, logically, the more "important things", the longer even an abstract would need to be// - I'm not sure that's true. I've seen some very complex idea summarised beautifully in a couple of paragraphs (and, of course , I've seen some terrible abstracts).
||[hippo], electric-field lines may not actually exist
as THAT, but they do exist as representations of
parts of the real field. We do not draw electric-
field lines from one charge passing through the
opposite charge for a reason --the real field
doesn't do that, either.
||You might notice I did NOT refer to field-lines in
the main text.
||On another hand, I assume you are aware that
when you sprinkle iron filings on a piece of paper
that covers a magnet, we DO end up with
something that hints of the existence of
magnetic-field lines. I wonder if some equivalent
of that sprinkling has ever been done for two
||And I'm about to add another link, hinting that the
curvature of the field lines is actually an illusion....
||With all best wishes... can you please provide an
abstract? Or, one sentence explaining what
loophole in physics you found? Or, a link to a
diagram of your motor? Or, evidence that you
know vector calculus?
||I remember my joy upon learning about
electromagnets, thinking I had solved perpetual
motion, followed by my disappointment upon
learning about back EMF.
||// The length of an abstract is proportional to
complexity divided by understanding.// lol true
||I'll admit to TLDR on this to some extent, but have
you analyzed the forces that the opposite charge
exerts on the like charge and vice/versa. I'm pretty
sure you'll find that that negates any perceived
imbalance of the two "blocking" each other with
respect to the base plate.
||[MechE], each pair of charged balls is physically
held in place at the end of an arm of the cross-
shape. Each pair of balls will certainly
electrostatically attract each other, but that force
is balanced by the physical structure holding them
apart, and they go nowhere relative to the end of
||So, why should the mutual attraction of the pair of
balls affect their interaction with the nearby disc?
I have thought of one answer, relating to
something I wrote in my March 15, 2012
annotation. There is a type of electret which
would internally allow charged particles to move
about, and we can't have that type for the disk.
||I'm starting to think we can't have that type for
the charged balls, either, because it would allow
the charges that were separated into the two balls
to get closer together, reducing their overall
INDIVIDUAL interactions with the charged disk.
||The point is that electromagnetic fields are not
"blocked" they are countered. So if you analyze the
system, the respective electrets experience a slightly
lower field than they otherwise would due to the
presence of the opposing electret which is what you
are basing your argument on. But they also
experience a force from that electret, and I'm pretty
sure the sum balances.
||[MechE], that might be true, except for one little
detail: Magnet motors use electromagnetic fields,
too, and they do work at least a little. If you look
at just the first part of the linked magnet-motor
video, you will see the reason why H. Johnson
was awarded a patent for getting a stationary rig
full of permanent magnets to cause really
||In the main text of the Idea, I specifically stated
that I wasn't expecting a lot of force to be
generated by the electrostatic version of a magnet
motor. What you've written could well be part of
the reason --but so far as I know at this writing, it
remains to be seen whether or not EVERYTHING
balances out to yield Zero force.
||Given that the final device in that video is fake,
I'm not certain how much trust I put in the earlier
||That being said, it's a fairly simple matter to
produce straight line motion from permanent
magnets. The issue is that to make it circular, you
end up needing to put back in just as much energy
(plus losses) as you took out. That makes it not
happen. If your device was going to turn at all,
there would be some state it would have to break
through where it wanted to turn back the other
way, and the energy to do so would be equal to
the initial input. I don't have the time to do a
force balance diagram on it right now, so I can't
tell whether it would turn at all. I suspect not,
but if it does, there will be some point at which it
||I don't even have a theoretical problem with the
rotary motion demonstrations where the person is
pulling the magnet away during the transition.
But somewhere in the final device is a mechanism
to add power to the system.
||[MechE], did you not see the part of the main text
where I wrote that someone had claimed that a
magnet motor could actually work, but only for a few
days, because the permanent magnets become
demagnetized? What is wrong with THAT, the
energy of magnetization, being the source of the
||Because you aren't proposing a mechanism whereby
the demagnetization converts into kinetic energy.
||(Oh, and there's another video on youtube that
shows that same final motor with the compressed air
||[MechE], I wasn't aware that such a "mechanism"
was needed. I've been long aware that two
permanent magnets opposing each other will
weaken each other; I thought it was widely
known. So, if a device containing permanent
magnets can produce an unbalanced Force, a
result of magnets repelling each other, it Logically
Follows that the unbalanced Force can't persist
||And no, I didn't know about the other video. Hey,
how do you know IT isn't the fake, made by
someone desperate to "substantiate" a claim that
the other video had to be faked?
||Heh, heh, heh. I'm just hoping to point out the
jumping-at-conclusions that tends to happen
when someone insists that Theory, well-supported
by many experiments, automatically overrides
some new Experiment....
||Which is exactly why I want to play with various
Mad Science notions, in terms of Experiments.
Someday, when I have money to throw away on
||//how do you know IT isn't the fake// How do you know it isn't real, but the compressed air motor wasn't added to put outsiders off the scent? How do you know that they aren't putting out this kind of thing to distract you from the _real_ revolutionary tech? How do you know that you aren't one of them, but with your memory removed and under their control? How do you know that this is not all false impressions and the world was created only 5 minutes ago?
||//Theory, well-supported by many experiments, automatically overrides some new Experiment// I think this is pretty much what is generally known as Scientific Method.
||//Theory, well-supported by many experiments,
automatically overrides some new Experiment//
||To be fair, it doesn't. If that experiment is A)
repeatable, and B) done in a credible fashion in
the first place. A youtube video rather definitely
lacks B), and you're welcome to attempt A) if you
||It's fairly easy to determine if someone has an
actual over unity device (or even a real economical
way to produce power from an untapped source).
I refer you to the linked XKCD comic.
||As far as degrading magnetism, yes, magnets decay
when exposed to contrary fields, however the
energy released is far to small to account for any
of the demonstrations that claim to make use of
||//I HAVE now made an attempt to do what you've
||There ya go, [Vernie] - that wasn't so painful, was it?
And the thought necessary to write the abstract
probably helped to crystallize your own ideas.
||[pocmloc], I've added a nice new link for you,
starting with "Hare-Brained".
||[MechE], yes, I know about the Economic
Argument, having posted one that actually linked
to the magnet motor. (I may have posted that
before learning that the magnets become
demagnetized.) See "Selling Free Energy" link.
||There IS a problem with Big Companies doing
something like the XKCD cartoon described --they
tend to have
"expert advisers" who steer them away from
investing in such things, which is one of the
reasons they can overlook some Up-And-Coming
New Thing, and let some small new company
eventually become one of the big ones. So that's
why I devised the Business Plan specified in the
"Selling Free Energy" link.
||Regarding the magnet motor in the video not
having as much magnetization energy as it
produces, I would first point out that the amount
of energy being produced is rather small, only
being used for self-rotation, where Momentum
Conservation can assist it. Then I would refer you
to something you wrote:
||"I don't even have a theoretical problem with the
rotary motion demonstrations where the person is
pulling the magnet away during the transition."
||We both know that manually moving the magnet
can "pump" energy into the system. The final
device is using gravity to assist with that magnet-
motion, and is doing it both above and below the
main cylinder of the motor, instead of only at one
place. PERHAPS that makes a difference.
||[MaxwellBuchanan], to me, the writing of that
abstract only felt like I was repeating myself. I've
encountered whole books with enough notion-
repetitions in them to think that they could be
maybe 1/3 the original size, and so, despite how
much I myself write in a particular Idea text, I do
try to avoid repetition of the foundation-notions
within that text.
||Gravity assist might allow it to produce rotation for a
period, but it would be slowing down. Net energy is
what matters. If you are not adding energy, friction
rules the day.
||Oh, and the point of the comic is not that big
companies would be making a killing using it. It's
that, if it worked, any company using it would
become a big company and make a killing.
||There are hundreds of small oil prospecting
companies out there. Some of them actually use
dowsing methods. If dowsing actually worked at
anything above the level of educated guess/blind
luck, these companies would consistently have
more successful wells than their competitors, and
grow larger and more profitable as a result. This is
especially true since dousing is so much cheaper
than a petroleum geologist.
||Likewise this motor design. If it were possible to
to generate power from perpetual motion, some
small generating company would start doing it.
Since their operating costs would be essentially
zero (replacement of bearings) they would make a
huge profit for their size from selling that power.
They would then be able to use that money to
build more generators, eventually becoming the
worlds largest (or only) power generator.
||This hasn't happened, and that's the economic
||The abstract helps! I'll take another crack at it.
||//There are known examples, such as the ability
for electrons to perpetually orbit an atomic
nucleus. // Well...the electrons could also be
thought of as waves, that don't so much orbit as
pop up here and there when observed.
||//If the wire loop was located on Pluto...the
electric current would flow perpetually.// The
wire would be cold but power would very slowly
be lost as the magnetic field did work on stuff
||//In Theory, then, you could build a first-class
PMM if you built it on the scale of the whole
Universe.// Maybe the Universe IS a first-class
||// It is not impossible that after such meshing is
accomplished, some "local-sized" loopholes might
be discovered in the energy-conservation law.// It
is not impossible that I have a Canadian girlfriend,
therefore that my Really Hot Canadian girlfriend
might be right behind me right now.
||//CAUTION!// Protip: Don't try the quantum
||//I've encountered some intriguing theoretical
work that appears worthy of further
investigation.// Do you mean Maxwell's Equations?
Please say Maxwell's Equations. Dang.
||//the Patent Office requires a working model to
be presented// False "perpetual motion machines"
have been successfully patented, too.
||// // At this point, I skimmed to the end of the
article and still didn't see a specific idea. Maybe
there's a way that magnetic monopoles could allow
perpetual motion. The way I would summarize this
||Magnetic monopoles, or some sort of quantum-
mechanical symmetry breaking, might or might not
allow a perpetual motion machine. Unfortunately I
have no idea how this would actually work, but I
am happy to talk about it anyway! I'm sure you are
||Yes, I am happy to talk about this. Other ways of
achieving perpetual motion could include quantum
mind theory, spooky action at a distance, formal
semantics, time travel via black holes, divine
intervention during the Age of Miracles, undoing
the Interdict of Merlin, and building Maxwell's Self-
Replicating Demon with quantum nanorobots. I
would write an idea featuring all of these, but it
would require a full-length science fiction novel to
do it justice.
||[MechE], you may be neglecting the "investment"
factor in part (but obviously not all) of what you
wrote. There are things that small outfits can't do
because they can't afford to invest in them --and
the big outfits, as previously noted, have "expert
advisers" dissing the proposals.
||As an example, consider various proposals to "tap
zero-point energy". You need some pretty
sophisticated/expensive equipment (need to
access near-Absolute-Zero temperatures) to have
any chance of doing that
||The average proposed PMM is not usually so
expensive, though. With respect to a magnet
motor, if it is true that the permanent magnets
become demagnetized after a few days, then
obviously it does NOT qualify as a PMM --and that
would become obvious to anyone who builds one.
||The weirdness of this particular Idea starts with
its emulation of the operating principle of a
magnet motor. If all such motors are actually
faked, then it logically follows that the emulation
will be unable to produce an unbalanced Force.
But If Even ONE magnet motor truly ran for a few
days, then the emulation should be able to
produce an unbalanced Force.
||Meanwhile, its electrets CANNOT (by design)
become neutralized in any ordinary way. That
IMPLIES that either we potentially have a PMM
(and New Science), or there is some non-ordinary
way for electrets to become neutralized (also New
Science). Either way is a win for Science, that is.
IF the emulation can yield an unbalanced Force, of
||[sninctown], are you implying that the abstract
needs to include a partial description of the
"device that possesses global symmetry, but local
asymmetry, which might as a result yield an
unbalanced Force" ?? Why isn't that sufficient for
you to keep reading long enough to get the details
out of the main text?
||//ts electrets CANNOT (by design) become
neutralized in any ordinary way. That IMPLIES that
either we potentially have a PMM (and New
Science), or there is some non-ordinary way for
electrets to become neutralized (also New
||Or the forces are balanced, and no actual motion
occurs. Hence, no new science. Even if a single
magnet motor did work until the magnets de-
magnetized, that would be a source of energy
your system doesn't have. Therefore your design
would not work.
||And as far as the investment, short of a super
collider, you can get it for less than a million, a
few hundred thousand is more likely, a few tens of
thousands for most attempts.
||Most proposed pseudoscience is garage level
engineering or less (dowsing, homeopathy,
permanent magnet motors, your design), can all
be built for built/tested under a thousand bucks.
||The few that are more complex, put together a
realistic explanation of the physics, and you can
get the venture capital for most things you need.
But they will consult experts, and you'd better
actually have a real basis for the physics, not just
"this seems like it should work".
||//Even if a single magnet motor did work until the
magnets de- magnetized, that would be a source
of energy your system doesn't have. Therefore
your design would not work.
||[MechE], why have you ignored the Fact that any
arrangement of interacting magnetic fields can be
emulated by an arrangement of interacting electric
fields? Logically, if there is an arrangement of
magnetic fields such that a magnet motor can run,
then there IS an equivalent arrangement of
electric fields such that an electret motor can run.
||And now I might expect you to claim that, since
the electret motor appears to have no energy-
source equivalent to the magnet motor,
THEREFORE neither the electret motor nor the
magnet motor can work.
||On the other hand, if you click the first of all the
links on this page, and skim the first article at that
link, you will find the author of the article saying
||"The second device has the U-shaped magnets
standing on end in a rough circular arrangement
oddly reminiscent of England's Stonehenge. This
assembly is mounted on a transparent plastic
sheet supported on a plywood panel pivoted,
underneath, on a free turning wheel obtained
from a skateboard. As instructed, I eased the 8-
ounce focusing magnet into the ring of larger
magnets, keeping it at least four inches away from
the ring. The 40 pound magnet assembly
immediately began to turn and accelerated to a
very respectable rotating speed which it
maintained for as long as the focusing magnet was
held in the magnetic field. When the focusing
magnet was reversed, the large assembly turned in
the opposite direction.
||Since this assembly is clearly a crude sort of motor,
there's no doubt that it is indeed possible to
construct a motor powered solely by permanent
||There is no hint that the author was
requested/required to "pump" the magnet he
held, like we see in that linked video.
||So, now the $64(and some zeros) Question is, "If
Johnson actually had a motor when the article was
published in 1980, where is it today?"
||My suggested Answer: A particular Design Mistake
was made and never caught, and that mistake led
to the abandonment of a promising Idea.
||What Mistake, exactly? They Incorporated Too
Much Symmetry Into Their Motor Designs. Look at
FIG 10 about 2/3 the way down that whole long
page. You will see 3 curved magnets at 120-degree
angles around a circle. Now compare these two
distances: (1) between the N and S poles of one
curved magnet, and (2) between the N and S poles
of two separated curved magnets --those
distances are almost identical --and THAT is why
that Design can't work!
||The interaction of a N pole with other magnets in
the Design, to cause rotation, is basically Balanced
on both sides of the N pole with equal/opposite
interactions of S poles with those other magnets.
||So consider again the author's description that I
quoted above --only ONE magnet was involved,
not a balanced-out group of them!
||I now refer you to my proposed electrostatic
motor sketch, where each pair of charged balls are
near to each other, but quite a gap exists
between separate pairs of balls. A +ball can
interact with a section of the charged disk, and
there is NOT a -ball at equal distances from it,
Interacting With The Same Area Of The Charged
Disk equal/oppositely. This is a Symmetry that
is Broken, in my Design, but which is not broken in
that FIG 10 magnet-motor design. That is, if the
spacing between separate pairs of charged balls
was equal to the spacing between one pair of
charged balls, I would not expect the electret
motor to work, either.
||No, but there is a point where there is a ball
equidistant on the opposite half of the plate.
||You want to prove me wrong? That design of
yours can be built for under a couple hundred
bucks, using very good bearings. Do it. Prove me
||Either there is no motive force, and the thing
never moves, or there is a motive force, but there
is a cogging point where it sticks (the point that
the magnet motor demonstration, if it works at all,
lifts the magnet away in order to reduce the force
to get past that point). And the energy to
overcome that cogging point will be equal to the
energy achieved from reaching it, so you're still
out friction losses.
||[MechE], since electrets aren't so easy to come by
as magnets, and last year I did happen to have
some tens of bucks to waste, I did attempt to
build a crude imitation of the description I quoted
in my last anno (a rotating group of fixed ferrite-
||It didn't work, exactly because of that cogging
effect you mentioned. On the other hand, I also
had not used U-shaped magnets, AND because
ferrite magnets are not especially strong --they are
simply cheap-- the so-called "focusing magnet" had
to be held a lot closer than the 4 inches specified
in the quoted text, where the field-strengths are
smoothed-out by distance.
||(Note the electret design should not have a
cogging effect, because the disk is supposed to be
||That article DOES specify that rather expensive
and very strong magnets were used by Johnson.
So I know I didn't have an accurate copy, and I still
don't have any reason to think the magazine
article was written by an outright-liar. And then I
ran out of money to waste.
||No, electrets aren't (although I found an electret
microphone for 2 bucks). However, you can simulate
a dipole with two monopoles, and it's fairly easy to
produce positively and negatively charged (static)
||//Note the electret design should not have a cogging
effect, because the disk is supposed to be smoothly
||But the position of the rotor ends are discrete.
Cogging doesn't have to be one big jump, it can be a
jump for every rotor end. I'm pretty sure your
concept simplifies down to the electrical version of
an overbalanced wheel.
||[MechE], the overbalanced wheel is actually
balanced, as you know, because it has a long lever
effect on one side with a few weights there, and
a short lever effect on the other side with many
||In the proposed electret motor design, each pair
of electret balls interacts with a "local" region of
the disk more than it interacts with a "distant"
region of the disk.
||Yes, there is more "distant" region than "local"
region --the analysis might be able to just consider
only one pair of charged balls, to determine
whether or not there is an overall balance of
||But it will be somewhat tricky, because the disk
has (in various annotations) been described as
being more race-track shaped than disk-shaped....
||On the other hand, suppose we imagined a
dividing line on the disk, a diameter, such that our
single pair of charged balls are on opposite sides of
||For the "overbalanced wheel" thing to be properly
analogous, we need to show there is the same
magnitude of attractive SIDEWAYS forces upon the
charged balls, as repulsive sideways forces. Such
is obviously the case for a SINGLE charged ball
(sideways relative to a diameter-line that passes
through that charged ball), but
the pair, a dipole, is exhibiting Broken Symmetry
with respect to its interaction with the
disk/racetrack...(the +ball can't interact with part
of the disk because the -ball is in the way, and
vice-versa --which makes for a huge difference
between this and the attractive-force-only
between gravity and an overbalanced wheel).
||[sninctown], I have a Notion for you to add to that
list you wrote down in an earlier anno.
||See, when someone builds a device like the
proposed electrostatic PMM, what happens when
it runs is that the electric charges of fundamental
particles "drain" to become Zero (so the motor
stops), and this is why the Universe has so much
"missing mass" in it -- it is full of 'decharged'
electrons and protons, from trillions of civilizations
across the Universe building decillions of
electrostatic PMMs for billions of years!
||^ [+] that one really deserves a sci-fi Nobel.
||We could have perpetual motion, but the damn aliens wasted all the aether.
||//the +ball can't interact with part of the disk
because the -ball is in the way, and vice-versa //
||Not true. Both interact completely with the disk,
if only by way of their interaction with each
other. The + reduces the effect of the - on the
disk and vice versa, the net forces still balance.
Again, without doing the calculus or an
experiment, I can't tell you the exact force
balance on a single electret (it's entirely possible it
has some force in the form of electrical potential
energy at it's starting point). However, I can tell
you that once it reaches the local minimum,
whether its a single or a multiple array, the net
force will be zero.
||[MechE], you are being inconsistent:
"Both interact completely with the disk"
"The + reduces the effect of the - on the disk and
||We have an up-close interaction between the
separated charges and the disk. Keep in mind that
muon-catalyzed fusion (described in main text)
ALSO has an up-close interaction between
separate charges --the two nuclei do NOT repel
each other, because the muon is in-between
||So, if the disk is charged (+), the -ball can more-
strongly interact with part of the disk near it, than
it can interact with the part of the disk on the
other side of the +ball --and vice-versa. It is
possible that I overstated my case in saying, "the
+ball can't interact with part of the disk because
the -ball is in the way" --but an imbalance of
forces, due to up-close interactions, remains.
||The -ball is attracted to a nearby region of the
+disk, and the +ball is repelled from a nearby
region of the +disk.
||By the way, I've encountered something truly
simple, with respect to magnets, that appears
||They make a sort of steel pan about the size of an
ashtray that can be used to hold loose nuts and
bolts and other steel doo-dads. Underneath the
pan is a fairly large (if not really strong) circular
magnet (perhaps 10cm diameter, with a central
hole), which lets the pan be mounted on the side
of a steel cabinet, and still the pan can hold the
nuts and bolts and stuff.
||At my workplace one of those magnetic pans is
available for playing-with, and I've discovered that
the whole circular face of the exposed magnet
(where it could grab the side of a steel cabinet) is
one magnetic pole (the other pole is conducted
through the pan to hold the bolts and stuff).
||I'm currently looking for a way to nondestructively
mount an axle in the central hole of that magnet.
On the axle I could attach a kind of "vane" on
which two flat ferrite magnets can be mounted
|N|____|____|S| (other poles are on side-not-seen
in this side view)
--------------------- (edge of horizontal face of
(axle in middle of vane would pass through hole in
center of circular magnet)
||The vane has to be strong enough to keep the
vertical magnets from twisting face-down toward
the circular magnet. Overall, this should be
extremely comparable in physical layout to the
proposed electrostatic PMM, except for having
two magnets (2 pairs of poles) interact with the
magnetic disk instead of 4 pairs of charges
interacting with a charged disk.
||My initial testing had too much axial friction and
wasn't stable, but before the axle fell over, there
WAS a slight rotation of the vane....
||// My initial testing had too much axial friction
and wasn't stable, but before the axle fell over,
there WAS a slight rotation of the vane....//
||Do magnetic motor count that use bismuth for diamagnetic deflection?
||OK, folks, I've identified the flaw in this Idea, and it
involves a word that nobody used in all the dissing
annos. "Gradient". When something is affected by a
"field" such that it moves as a result, the something
always moves toward a different place in that field's
gradient. But this Idea doesn't offer any gradient; at
every location toward which part of the device might
move, the field-gradient is always the same. Therefore
there really isn't anything to cause it to move.
||As an analogy, consider the classic statement that on
the inside of a large hollow spherical mass, there is no
gravitation. Actually, there is plenty of gravitation, but
no gravitational GRADIENT. And therefore something
located at any place inside that hollow will not
experience any gravitational force, to cause it to move
toward some other location.
||//GRADIENT// sp. "VECTOR".
||Hey, this could work out well. If we can get [Vernon]
talking to [travis], it'll keep boyo tied up for months.
||If you look at other pulsed direct current machines you may try laser hacker.com easy spin motor. As a power source all you need is an electret made using carnuba wax and Rochelle salt and citric acid. You apply a charge to polarize the ions to make a permanent potential difference to make a motor that will run for years until ions disorganize once more as energy is drained from the system. You must apply high voltage until the electret solidifies and cools.