Tesla has been rediscovered!
Vitriola — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 09:19
I was hoping that this would come back on the market since it was suppressed in the '70s.
http://www.smallbizcenter.info/magniwork.php?apid=A1M&apflag=1&v=1
Vitriola — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 09:19
I was hoping that this would come back on the market since it was suppressed in the '70s.
http://www.smallbizcenter.info/magniwork.php?apid=A1M&apflag=1&v=1

I studied physics for a
Derchlon — Mon, 08/31/2009 - 01:53I studied physics for a couple years before switching my major. Magnetism is NOT energy. However, difference in magnetism (north and south poles changing current directions)can become electric energy. Its the whole basis for Alternating Current. The problem, is that you need initial kinetic energy to convert into that electric energy, some of which will be lost to heat from friction, and you will always lose something and end with less than 100% efficiency.
So how could you conceive of an idea to produce "excess" energy? I suppose there could be a way to create a perpetual motion device using continual repulsion of like ended magnets in a cylinder, but it would have to have some kind of initial starter from outside kinetic energy. Once started, it would feed off of its own kinetic energy by continually being repulsed. From that point, the kinetic energy of the rotating magnet would be transfered into electric energy, eventually creating some form of electric out put, as the magnet no longer requires outside help to continue its kinetic motion. Keep in mind it would create energy per se, it would just keep converting the kinetic energy of the rotating magnet into electric energy as long as the magnet ends kept alternating at the appropriate time. If you could contain that in a system, you would have your perpetual motion device.
That last part is theoretical at best, but it COULD be used as a base model to create such a device. You would need large magnets, solenoids, and it would have to be perfectly machined to keep the magnets at the right distance from eachother to keep an "even spin" so to speak.
So, do I believe that a perpetual motion machine actually exists? I am forever an optimist, and won't say it couldn't happen, but I don't think there is any evidence yet to support that it does currently exist. There are likely explanations and ideas that I'm overlooking or just aren't aware of that would keep this from working properly, and two years of study on my part isn't really enough to say I'm a master of the subject by any standards.
For some reason it won't let
Derchlon — Mon, 08/31/2009 - 02:00For some reason it won't let me edit, but that should say in the second paragraph:
Keep in mind it would NOT create energy per se.
without that change, you really lose the meaning of the sentence.
If that theory worked, it
Shihli — Mon, 08/31/2009 - 02:51If that theory worked, it would already be in use, and we'd have free energy.
Since none of those are true, perpetual motion machines do not work or exist
I kept all their record...
Ardea — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 14:11I kept all their record... It's about time they came back... Tesla rocks!!!
Oh wait...
Sorry, I read this and got a
Ewiges — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 16:11Sorry, I read this and got a lot of lame chuckles. Being a pastafarian I laugh when people think theories are fact. As someone mentioned, science is testing hypothesis, adjusting if proven wrong... even if that is 100s of years later.
Is a tesla coil free energy? NO. Are they real, YES.. just look at them on youtube, they aren't rare. Do they create a lot of energy, not as much as you think... its just an arc of electricity. They even make small desk sized ones that you plug into your wall.
"Even if we could create energy magically out of thin air.." Thunder bolts and lightning, very very frightening...
The closest we can come to this is lightning and solar energy. Both of these are natural energy sources scientists are working on harvesting. According to the military channel, we have solar powered armored surveillance vehicles designed for week-month long stake outs.
But as far as lightning go, we have not been able to sustain its quick, unpredictable, high source of energy. Attempts have been done to harvest it by sticking a lightning rod hooked up to power cells... but nothing successful.
There are also other sources of natural energy sources such as wind and water that man has been harvesting for hundreds of years.
Of course tesla coils are
Shihli — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 16:20Of course tesla coils are real, they were used to power old radios. Doesn't mean they aren't useless nowadays.
Solar power is fine, it's just low-yield and not dependable (doesn't work on a cloudy day). They are working on improving its efficiency and ability to store energy, but right now solar energy is near-worthless. Lightning is even moreso. Trying to "capture" lightning is not going to go anywhere.
Shihli, I'm trying to figure
Ewiges — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 16:31Shihli, I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from.
"Right now solar energy is near-worthless" Now I know the weather is extremely different up north, and I'm not sure where you guys get your power from. Down here in Southern California our deserts are covered with solar power energy plants spreading miles over miles of deserts.
As far as lightning not going anywhere, I think you're thinking too close in the future. 200 years ago they said the combustible engine wasn't going anywhere and was just some crazy, stupid, idea.They are now intertwined in our everyday lives.
200 years ago the internal
Shihli — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 16:53200 years ago the internal combustion engine didn't exist.
The reason I say solar energy is near-worthless is because:
a) they have to be pointed the right way to collect sunlight
b) it can't be cloudy
c) they cannot store energy efficiently
d) they are inefficient to begin with (only 18-40% energy conversion under best, lab-controlled circumstances - most internal combustion engines top out at 37% and are typically between 20-37%, and this is just for your *car*).
e) expensive to make (this is changing).
Solar energy *will* improve with time and become far more valuable than it is, currently. But right now it's a money pit.
Lightning is worthless because you cannot control when, where, or how hard it hits. Lightning rods can *try* to direct it, but if a bird (or something else) flies over a lightning rod while the lightning is striking, the rod gets exactly zero of the energy.
I don't know what this has to
Ardea — Mon, 08/31/2009 - 04:40I don't know what this has to do with the 80's rock band Tesla...
I can create electricity by
pulga — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 11:26I can create electricity by snapping my fingers. Enough electricity to power a city. I'm magical.
The First Two Laws of
Shihli — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:13The First Two Laws of Thermodynamics (aka energy flow) of Isaac Newton, condensed into an easy-to-read-and-understand format.
1) You can only get out as much energy as you put into a system.
2) You can't get that much.
There is NO free energy, there CANNOT be free energy, even if smallbiz.info says so.
take 2
Vitriola — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:46"There is NO free energy, there CANNOT be free energy"
I will remember that when I pay my bill for sunlight.
There's a difference between
saedo — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:49There's a difference between finanically free, and free poof out of the universe free. Your sunlight is from a fusion reactor of hydrogen.
Even if we could create
garreth — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:33Even if we could create energy magically out of thin air, the "magniwork" contraption is definitely NOT the thing that's going to do it (see: my link below. Read it). But, by all means, go throw your money at this blatant scam. Allow yet another scammer to get rich while feeding off our nation's ever-growing sense of paranoia and "the-man-is-out-to-get-me" mentality. We used to be a nation founded on logic and scientific progress. Now it's all fundamentalism and secessionism.
Hi, Sir Isaac Newton here.
garreth — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:01Hi, Sir Isaac Newton here. I'm dead, but I published a lot of papers and science and stuff a long time ago. I wouldn't expect you to have read EVERYTHING I wrote (it could get pretty heavy), but I did lay out a foundation of basic principles that allow people to approach things like "perpetual motion machines" with a set of fundamental understandings to help those people tune their Bullshit-o-Meters.
Now, once you're done raping my corpse and I've stopped spinning in my grave like a jet engine, I recommend you go out and actually take a physics class if you believe this obvious horseshit. Or just read this for a good introduction: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/museum/phys101.htm. Is that too "technical" for you? Do you feel that "the man" makes physics difficult just so that "the people" have a hard time understanding it so "the man" can "keep us down"? Then read this http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/07/21/magniwork_perpetual_motion_scam/.
Sir Isaac Newton here, signing off and reminding all you out there to use your fucking brains.
Dear Isaac,
Vitriola — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:17Dear Isaac,
It is nice to see that you are still spinning in your grave. I know that it is taught that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. I also know that it was taught that the earth was the center of the universe (and flat). That was wrong. I know that it was taught that man cannot travel faster than the speed of sound without dying ugly. That was wrong. I know that physicists said that space travel was impossible because there can be no impetus from thrust when there is nothing to push against. That was wrong.
I also know that Nicola Tesla had an energy CREATING machine that produced arcs of electricity several FEET in length. Check out the physics of THAT and determine how much current is required. He ran that machine as long as he wanted to. The accounts said that the roar of it could be heard over 50 miles distant. We could not run such a thing without a very special setup and the cost would be prohibitive. The electricity generated would be more than the current grid can handle. Yet, he did this a century ago! He made more electricity in a remote spot in colorado than we can make today and without anything like the resources we have. This is beyond dispute.
So, science gets told off from time to time. For you to just spout off shows that your brain must have decomposed more than you thought. You have probably forgotten that we learn things and ideas become outmoded. I remember how they reacted to Galileo and Einstein. Well, your response being in the gutter with the "use your fucking brains" quality of analysis shows where you stand.
I suggest that you think things through a bit more. Unless you just needed to vent on someone that was trying to share something cool and admittedly "new".
p.s. Didn't you have to steal your ideas in the first place, Isaac?
On another note: The movie
Shihli — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:27On another note:
The movie "The Prestige" should never be taken for fact. He did NOT make "more electricity in a spot in Colorado than we can make today and without anything like the resources we have." That was a MOVIE. NOT reality.
Science does not get "told off" from time to time. It gets its hypotheses adjusted to meet new information as it becomes available. Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics (and Gravity, and such) have not been changed very much in what, almost 400 years? The only significant change being that to the Law of Energy and Mass Conservation. It used to state that "matter cannot be created or destroyed" and that "energy cannot be created or destroyed." This was proven wrong with modern nuclear physics, so it was adjusted to match the new facts: "the sum total of mass and energy in the universe cannot change."
And no, Isaac Newton did not "steal his ideas".
Read a physics textbook.
Vitriola, seriously, just
Shihli — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:23Vitriola, seriously, just stop. Go read a basic entry-level Physics textbook and come back when you're ready to debate facts.
There is no "energy creation". There is energy CONVERSION, but not CREATION. And his energy "creating" machine is called a Tesla Coil. It creates high voltage but low current energy - energy that can't be used to do much of anything.
Tesla was also half-insane half of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Coil
sigh
Vitriola — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:36I was married to a physicist for 10 years before I lost her to kidney cance. We spoke of such things at length.
I think that this has possibilities, though I have not made one myself. I thought that it was interesting and wanted to share. This is an open forum. Even if I am wrong, even if there is no chance that it could ever happen, why can't I speak as freely as others? I think that this is a good dream to have and there have been more than a few people that thought it possible. Why can't I consider possibilities?
The creation part is descriptive. It has been used when something gives out more energy than it costs to run. The idea is that there is plenty of ambient energy around to tap into. Earth's magnetic field, solar, even static electricity. But that was not the point of what I posted. Such things are not interesting to most people so I left it off.
Can we play nice here or is that not possible?
Magnetism is not energy.
Shihli — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:45Magnetism is not energy. Solar energy is in its infancy as far as our use is concerned. Static electricity cannot be used for energy as it is not strong, stable, or reliable enough to be used.
Nothing gives out more energy than it costs to run.
You can feel free to post whatever you want, but you have to be prepared for *us* to post whatever we want in response. What you posted is a debunked scam based off of a debunked theory.
It does not work.
finis for me
Vitriola — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:51"Magnetism is not energy."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
Gravity is not
Shihli — Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:56Gravity is not magnetism.
"Free energy" doesn't have anything to do with cost. It has to do with energy conversion.
just a thought.
Stryyfe — Mon, 08/31/2009 - 10:07Hai Vit. while everybody is arguing and talking about things that are impossible (I'm not going to debate the legitimacy of any of the comments as I'm still in the process of learning myself) I had a thought. Most of our energy "conversions" aka Solar, Kinetic, blah blah blah (insert brainy stuff here). it sounds like pouring water through a funnel, only you can't control how fast your pour, and a bunch of water is spilled, leaving you with less than you started.
This is all only in an enclosed environment. How would things like zero gravity effect electricity generation? whoa.
~new idea forming~
Different thought, same topic. Hold on while I look up some info, I'll brb.
^,=,^
RAWR! I can't find it...
Stryyfe — Mon, 08/31/2009 - 10:27Damn. okay since I couldn't find it when I was reading, can somebody explain how electricity is used up when the total universal amount of mass/energy cannot deminish? Electricity powers my TV. where does it go after it does this? Is it simply transferred into heat and light?
Short story: To answer your
carno — Tue, 09/01/2009 - 00:41Short story: To answer your question, yes, the light produced by the TV and the heat it lets off is basically why energy isn't being destroyed - it's converted via transfer of energy through matter and resistance to light and heat, respectively. But, that's not all. After the heat and the light that's produced there's still entropy. Heat is created because of resistance. Resistance is necessary because without it the energy couldn't be transferred between components.
Now if you did this in a controlled environment and recorded everything, which people have done, they find that the amount of energy absorbed by the brick (heat) + all the energy expended by the rubber ball doesn't add up to what was expended throwing the ball - there's a really tiny bit of "stuff" that dissipates into the Universe; there's a handful of theories on what that stuff is and how it and the Universe interact. The concept is actually iterative in that the ball, brick, and their environment each have a level of entropy unto themselves. Going into more detail gets nasty and I can't remember the details. A good example is if you were to drop a piece of glass so that it breaks... if you gathered up ALL the pieces you still couldn't put it back together again because, at a subatomic (or smaller) level, subatomic parts of the glass don't exist as a piece you can pick up. How this all goes together changes every 5-10 years or so and has something to do with universe, black holes, and time. The gist is, time is required for energy to transfer through matter and nobody's quite figured out time.