Is it possible to build a machine that generates more power than it uses?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Regarding Cecil’s :dubious:coverage of Joseph Newman’s energy machine…

Simulation of the Newman motor in LTSpice verifies to my satisfaction that his motor is not an overunity device. It merely makes use of a very small portion of the interaction between the permanent magnet rotor and the high voltage coil (high voltage in the sense that the coil’s current is very small by comparison).

There is no magic to energy conversion. Yet, due to Joseph’s tendency to focus on the mass of the coil as the only major contributor of energy for his device, we are led to misunderstand the energy sources of his device are strictly the atomic spins of the coil’s copper atoms if we are supposed to agree with Newman’s point of view.

The coil is merely a collector and needs to be large to bolster its use as a collector of voltage over any tendency to collect amperage from a spinning (or moving) magnetic field since voltage always gets ahead of current along the length of a piece of wire - coiled or not.

The battery pack merely runs the circuit. It does not provide any gain of power at the coil. That gain is the result of a small degree of resonance between the coil and the permanent magnet’s rotating magnetic field. Without the battery pack charging up the coil with excessive voltage and minimal current, and without the commutator’s unique sequence of a 50% duty cycle with an additional 20% self-shorting of the coil at the end of each duty cycle, the coil could never resonate with the magnet’s rotating field nor make productive use of it by recharging the batteries to give the appearance of being an overunity, or perpetual motion, machine.

And Newman’s suggestion for connecting a capacitor of suitable strength across the coil - and parallel to it - is valid against his claim that it will decrease the circuit’s wasted energy usage arising from arcing at the commutator. These arcs cause spikes of amperage that add to the overall drain made upon the battery pack.

My simulation also exhibits the need for the permanent magnet to supply less electromagnetic forces (in the form of inductance) and more electrostatic forces (in the form of voltage) to match the predominant buildup of voltage over current in the coil. This enhancement of voltage in the coil makes possible the very mild reversal of current in the battery pack as concluded by the analysis made by Dr. Hastings of Newman’s energy device. My simulation exhibits this by requiring that the energy source (supplying its emulation of a permanent magnet) supply 30,000 volts while the inductor needed to transmit this energy to Newman’s coil be rated at a mere 10 milli Henrys to keep its electromagnetic contribution to a minimum while emphasizing its electrostatic contribution to the coil.

If the contribution made by the rotating magnetic field of the spinning magnet is not given full credit as this device’s primary energy source, then this device could easily become mislabeled as a perpetual motion machine or an overunity device.

But in the alternative, if we assume that a magnet’s energy contribution in this device is ‘free’, then we can assume that the production of torque at the non-cost of the recharging of a pack of batteries is a free source of energy barring the price paid for purchasing very massive permanent magnet/s.

2

If the energy is coming from the rotating magnetic field, then it will slow down that rotation when it runs. There’s nothing special about that.

If you’re claiming that the rotation does not slow, then yes, you’re claiming that it’s an over-unity device.

3

Right!

My examination of this device, per my simulation of it, is demonstrating that there are two energy sources: the battery pack which merely drives the circuit/coil and the spinning magnet which contributes additional power.

The coil uses a small fraction of the energy from the spinning magnet. According to my simulated example (not intended to be an exact replica of any of Newman’s devices which he built, but a simulated example of what could be built), the energy used is…

526.51 milli Watts (coil avg) divided by the absolute value of |-7.9265| Mega Watts (magnet avg) equals ~7ppm efficiency.

So, if it does slow down, it sure won’t be noticed. But I thought I made myself clear that this is not an overunity device. This is the whole point of my post.

The only claim I’m making is the same as Newman’s: that the mechanical torque produced by this device runs free of its overall battery power (energy loaded into the batteries from the coil minus the energy drained from them to power the coil).

The additional claims which I am making, which Newman never made, is that…

  1. The coil is acting as an intermediary between magnet and batteries, and…

  2. The energy supplied by the magnet is far in excess of the energy supplied by the batteries and in reversed polarity making possible the continual recharging of the batteries.

Thanks for your comment.:slight_smile:

4

I may be out of my physics depth here, but do magnets provide energy? I thought they are used to convert energy but not provide it. Also, in your last sentence but one, it looks like you’re claiming that the energy the magnets provide is enough to keep the batteries charged and the unit functioning, which sounds like an over-unity device to me.

5

In this case, the rotating magnet is being used to blend two separate energy sources resulting in faster rotation of the magnet up to its idling speed without any additional loads impairing this speed plus an elevated voltage on the coil. The other energy source which we are ignoring is that magnets are not unlike batteries or pre-charged capacitors: someone went to the trouble, time and expense of heating up the magnetizable material and subjecting it to a magnetic field while allowing it to cool down to room temperature while maintaining the input of an exterior field.

This is not stretching things, because…

Imagine a discussion about the height and volume of falling water are the only factors to determine energy input to a hydroelectric power plant. Then consider the volume of water resting behind that dam plus the pressure which that dam induces in the water. This is not unlike a similar situation with a natural waterfall propted up by a mass of Earth or rock replacing the mass of water behind a dam. Add to that the energy it took to naturally deliver that water to that dam via rainfall. Not to mention the worker’s union in charge of everyone’s labor to construct that dam, etc. Where’s the overunity, there?

But we accept that assessment since we’re used to using it and don’t question its validity.

Maybe life is so good in the ‘developed countries’ of the world that there’s no need to think of new ways of using common stuff, such as: the magnetic core in a transformer or the permanent magnets in conventional DC motors?

The thought process of inventing something thinks this way in many cases when the invention is not completely original, but merely a modification of a commonly known idea.

Depending on how we perform an accounting of energy use from various sources, we may either include the energy potential of the magnets or else ignore them. In each case, we get a vastly different assessment.

Going by a more complete assessment, this is not overunity. I say this, because I could claim that solar cells are overunity if I ignore the contribution which the Sun makes. We know differently: the Sun is part of the energy input equation. But imagine a few centuries ago during the Gothic period prior to the Renaissance what it would be like to explain solar power to someone. They’d probably think that you were suggesting an overunity device that stinks of being a perpetual motion machine. We know better, now - no surprises for us.

6

Are you saying that the magnet’s field will be drained by this and have to be replaced? Because that’s what happens with a waterfall, right? It’s potential energy (being high up) is converted to kinetic energy (when it falls), then to electrical energy (when it spins turbines). You need new water up there to continue generating energy.

Magnets don’t drain like batteries when you used them in generators. But, if they did use up all the energy used in creating them (heating them up, etc., from above), then they would just have to be replaced like a battery. Then, so what?

What is the sun-equivalent contribution in this case? Is it the magnet’s potential energy (assuming, arguendo, that it exists)? Then, it has to be used up and replaced like any other energy source, right?

7

blended energy

In the image linked, above, voltage of the coil rises as the current drained from the batteries falls. This indicates, to me, that something outside the circuit is affecting this change over time which sounds more than a mere conversion since the total energy which ends up in the coil is greater than what the batteries can supply, alone.

8

Not exactly. It depends how energy is used: what portion.

If watts are used, or current, then yes you’re right.

But if mere volts are needed without any contribution from current, then no.

In other words, the controlling factor is the lifespan of the batteries and the lifespan of the magnet under the wear and tear of their use - not attributable to their expense of stored energy potential. No one has figured out how to get energy out of a magnet on a continual basis without ‘draining them’, so your analogies don’t apply. They’re not being drained the same way we drain batteries.

The contribution of the magnet is mostly wasted. A mere 7ppm in this simulation actually gets used. Since magnetism in a permanent magnet is not energy stored, but energy alignment, the loss over time is rated not on using up energy but using up its coherence. Coherence is not energy. It’s the intelligence of a magnet’s structure. We put that intelligence there using energy to do it. And energy gain is the result of using a magnet in a circuit in a manner to take advantage of the magnet’s coherence. So in a very real sense, we’re converting intelligence into energy, not one form of energy into another.

This is the other side of the story of electrodynamic theory left out of our view of the situation: that intelligence is just as significant as is energy (and energy’s equivalent version as matter). This is why I prefer to analyze electrical dynamics in terms of wave mechanics rather than ‘energy IN has to equal energy OUT’. For without energy, intelligence would have nothing to embody itself within. And without intelligence, energy would be a non-functional blob - very amorphous and not at all useful. This is analogous to my trying to make babies all on my own without the help of a woman contributing what I alone do not possess: the entire package of generation of life within my body.

Whereas zero point energy and energy from the vacuum are popular expressions, I don’t adhere to them. It’s far simpler: empty space - both inside matter/energy as well as devoid of them (theoretically, since we can’t separate the two in actuality) plus energy/matter comprise wave mechanics. So, I would have to differ with Newman on this point. E=MC2 of the copper and iron atoms are not the whole story. It’s how we use them that’s the other half of this story.

9

Got it: So what you’re claiming is that it’s an over-unity device, except that you’re pretending that that’s not what you’re claiming, because everyone knows that over-unity devices are impossible, so this is just something that behaves exactly like an over-unity device without having that name.

10

Coherence must have a pre-existant energy to have something to boost. I can’t make something from nothing. But I can make more from less which is usually due to oversight of not making full use of all of the factors comprising wave mechanics that are available.

An example is phase conjugation in optics.

http://is.gd/explainconjugate

We have developed retroreflectors as one consumer result…

11

That sounds like over-unity to me, if the total energy is greater than what the batteries can supply, unless you’re positing some other energy source (and magnets alone are not an energy source.

And I’m pretty sure your next post is almost 100% nonsense, so I’m disengaging from this thread.

12

To accumulate more energy from the magnet than what the batteries supplies requires resonance between the coil and the magnet. Newman’s device is setup to emphasize the presence of volts dominating over amps.

It’s more easy to manipulate the voltage of an EM wave than it is to manipulate its current. I’ve performed so many simulations of apparent overunity predicated on HV circuits with only a little current leaking out to keep them going…

A self-resonant circuit is the Holy Grail of self-discovery. Everything else is easy by comparison such as a simple flashlight circuit.

My simulation of a Newman motor, cited above, taught me that Newman is using pressure from the magnet, not its quality of current, to manipulate the coil. He’s also using a very large coil to encourage voltage buildup inside of the coil instead of making use of any value of current that he could possible get from a magnet. This latter condition is commonplace in our motors and transformers in contrast to Newman’s device which stays away from current as being too difficult for him to manage.

He kept saying he was a poor country boy not formally schooled to any great degree in just about everything. So, he had to think simply and solve his technical problems the same way.

As a proof of concept of a simple idea, Newman’s motor excels. But as a device holding marketability, it sucks.

But in third world countries, their consumer demographics are hungry enough for electricity that they’ll take anything over nothing. We’re more picky since we’ve been gluttonously spoiled for all of our life.

13

Thanks for the humor. I need to chill out.:smiley:

14
15

Yes, it’s only in privileged wealthy countries that we can afford the luxury of obeying the laws of thermodynamics.

16

As I point out in the first step of my Instructable on Making Waves, Emmy Noether’s contribution to physics has been tortured to the point of non-understandability. “A rose is a rose” doesn’t say anything. Yet, her contribution trumps any consideration of thermodynamics since…

  1. Thermodynamics’ only contribution are the losses of a system, not its gains.
  2. I must repeat myself that the gain by the coil, in my simulation of the Newman device, is approximately 7ppm of the contribution coming from the spinning magnet. And if Newman had not made his coil massively large, that 7ppm coefficient of performance between the magnet and the coil would be drastically reduced to the point of inoperability to his device.
17

The OP got close on the 2nd Law …

18

The OP? Please excuse my ignorance. What’s that?:confused:

19
  1. Collect underpants.
  2. ???
  3. Profit.
20

Either “original post” or “original poster” … depending on context …