That isn’t energy from the magnet, it’s energy from the spin.
I’m back for one post! I’m sure everyone missed me.
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. You don’t create energy from magnets, you transform it. So, you can take potential energy from the water behind the dam, use it to spin up a turbine, creating kinetic energy (from a turbine at the bottom of a dam, for example) and turn it into electrical energy using a magnet. You can take sound energy and use tiny magnets in a microphone to make electrical energy. It can also be used the other way – use electrical energy to move the magnets in a speaker to make sound energy (moving air particles). Magnetism is like gravity – gravity can be used to transform potential energy into kinetic energy – the sun evaporates the water, which falls into rivers – then gravity turns that potential energy into kinetic energy.
So, this is the crux of it – magnets are used to transform energy, not create it. That’s your misunderstanding.
Correct!
According to Michael Faraday, it’s both. Without the magnet, spin would be worthless.
But let’s assume, for discussion’s sake, that it’s merely energy from the magnet’s spin that runs this device.
There’s also feedback between this magnet and the coil since both are attached to the same axle where a commutator is shared between them.
So, any gain in voltage on the massive coil will favor that quantity over any marginal gain in current since current takes time to travel and accumulate along the massive length of its windings. The voltage gain increases RPM which makes it possible for the increased RPMs of the magnet to impart more energy into its spin ever escalating this positive feedback until the device reaches its maximum idling speed governed by its losses versus its ability for gainful feedback.
If the magnet offers no energy by itself, yet it certainly makes possible the transference of its spin energy to the coil which is acting as a pickup for that spinning energy.
So, it could be said that the energy isn’t sourced from the magnet. Yet, that energy is transferred via the magnet’s contribution of flux shared with the coil.
Yet, we have to have something to spin. That something is the magnet’s field. Yet, the spin does not originate from the magnetic field. It originates from Newman’s hand initiating spin on the magnet.
But since this is a positive feedback mechanism involving conversion of energy and various losses, only a limited quantity of magnetic transference is capable of being used to contribute to Newman’s initial startup with his hand.
So, we could say that - initially - no magnetism is used to contribute any gain to this device. Only its spin is used.
Yet, we know the magnet’s field is making positive feedback possible, without which no gain is possible.
So, its both spin and magnetism that runs this device.
This device mainly runs on hot air and ignorance of science, but whatever.
<nitpick> You mean James Maxwell, right? … </nitpick>
Explain how slowing down the rotation causes the rotation to speed up … that’s doesn’t make sense … we need an external energy source to provide the rotation and the changing magnetic field, don’t we? …
ETA: Correction: Why does the rotation cause the rotation to speed up? … I guess slowing down isn’t a requirement for positive feedback …
The exact same device can be used as both an electric motor and an electric generator. If you put in electrical energy, you can make the magnet spin, generating kinetic energy. If you put in kinetic energy, you can make the magnet spin, generating electrical energy.
All that matters is that you make the magnets move in one way, and it creates the other form of energy. And this is also why an electric motor can be used as an electric brake, you spin the wheels faster to move forward, or you slow the spin of the wheels which generates electricity.
If you’ve got a machine that spins stuff, congratulations. Now, where does the energy to spin it come from? A battery? Congratulations, you’ve just created a middle school science project. You put in the battery, and your little car chugs across the desk. When you take out the battery and look at it you notice that the battery contains chemicals that react with each other to create electricity, and when they’ve reacted completely then the electricity stops and your little car won’t move anymore.
So you put in a new battery, and the car works again! Congratulations! Except where did the chemicals in the new battery come from? Well, someone had to isolate those chemicals, which took energy. In fact, a lot more energy than that little battery can generate. If you tried to use a battery to create the pure chemicals for another battery, you’d only create a fraction of those chemicals compared to the amount of chemicals you have to react.
So. You take a Newman engine and stick it on a little car. The little car chugs across the desk, and eventually stops. What made it go? Turns out there was a battery in there. What made it stop? Turns out the chemicals in the battery are all reacted and can’t generate any more electricity. So the toy car won’t move anymore. Congratulations, you’ve just created a middle school science project demonstrating some of the laws of thermodynamics.
No matter how many coils and magnets and wires and capacitors and whatever you make your Newman engine out of, or what plans you follow, or what pixie dust you sprinkle on it, when the battery charge runs out the toy car won’t move anymore. If the engine won’t move a toy car farther than a conventional toy electric motor connected to a battery, then what exactly are we discussing?
I want an engine that will make a toy car move across my desk. Can you make one? Does it work better by some metrics than the toy car I got for my birthday when I was 9? What are those metrics? If the answer is no, then what is this discussion about?
My premise to each simulation is to minimally deliver energy from the spinning magnet delivered to the coil such that the batteries get a minimum negative flow of current inside of them. Now, whether or not they actually will charge may also depend upon the voltage delivered to them with a negative polarity and a magnitude slightly greater than what they are designed to deliver.
In other words, if the negative current does not also deliver a negative voltage of slightly more than 300 volts, then in all likelyhood, they won’t charge no matter how much negative amps are delivered to them. I didn’t tweak the simulation to deliver this pair of criteria. I merely fine tuned each version to deliver a negative current. So, it may not charge the batteries unless I increased the magnitude of the voltage and with a negative polarity delivered to the batteries. But at least with a negative current, the batteries can’t become spent to run the motor. They can only age which all batteries do regardless whether they’re run inside of a device or not.
You insist on your premise blended with mine. That’s the problem. Either your premise of a progressively slowing spin is true and relevant to this case, or else it’s true but not relevant due to positive feedback up to the point of idle cruising rate.
Ignorance of a voltage dominated coil results in ignorance of how Newman’s device runs without any help from my windbag.
That sentence might make sense in a universe where his machine would actually run…but this isn’t, and thus it doesn’t.
Please explain this “positive feedback” … or are you using perfect conductors and frictionless bearings? … that’s still not positive feedback …
“Worthless” is not a physical property, spin is. Without the magnetic field the object would have the same available energy.
You communicate so poorly I’m not even sure what you’re trying to convey in this thread. Everyone assumes you think over unity is possible, but I’m under the impression you might just be so incapable of speaking clearly and using real physics rather than your interpretation of your own simulations, that you are only trying to discuss exactly how energy is lost.
If I’m wrong though, the answer to the title of the thread is a dead certain “No”. If you think it does, you’re either completely wrong, or missing a source of energy. And, no, magnets are not energy sources. You can give them potential energy in various ways, but you can give a rock potential energy in very similar ways. (Except for the whole dipole thing of course, but that’s similar to a rock that is lighter than air at one end and heavier than air at the other. And preferably has an average density like air at sea level.)
Vinyasi, is there anything that would convince you that Neuman’s engine does NOT work? If so, what is that?
Conversely, can you suggest something that would convince most scientists that the concept DOES work (a salable, working, testable model comes to mind)?
+1
What’s the point of constructing a simulated engine that…well, I don’t know what the simulated engine is supposed to do. Run forever with no fuel, I guess.
Anyway, I don’t care what your simulation shows this engine does. Can you build an engine that scoots a toy car across the desk without needed a new battery every five minutes? The car I got when I was 9 needed a new battery every five minutes. When you get your simulation figured out and build your engine and attach it to a toy car, how often do you figure the toy car will need a new battery? Every five minutes? Every 10 minutes? Never?
Forget the calculations. Can you actually build a toy car that scoots around my desk all day every day and never needs a new battery? If not, what are we talking about? You need to do more simulations and testing before you figure out if you can build it or not? Then surely you admit that talking about it here is useless.
Before we become interested in your engine, surely you have to build one first? The Wright Brothers spent a lot of time designing and perfecting their flyer before they got it off the ground. But they didn’t got on message boards and claim they had a flying machine until they actually built one and proved it actually worked. A simulated flying machine doesn’t prove anything. Maybe you’re thiiiiiiiis close to figuring out your engine? Congratulations on your near milestone. Call us back when you’ve got an actual toy car that actually moves and actually doesn’t need new batteries.
And provide mechanical rotation on its drive shaft.
I care since my motivation behind starting this thread was not to produce anything physical to convince you that it works, but for me to agree with the author - Cecil Adams - who claimed that Newman’s device is not overunity. I agreed with him via my simulations.
I think it’s important to answer Mr. Adams’ claims, but back them up with theoretically simulated data as a start. Building can come later. What’s the hurry?
If I can’t make any more improvements, then I’d be in a position to satisfy your hunger for tangible results.
But so long as your collective opinion is unsettled by my lack of a tangible device, then I might as well allow someone else to build this. I don’t have to do everything. That’s the definition of team work.
So, the more you expect me to satisfy you your way and not merely mine, the less likely I will satisfy you.
BTW, here is version 13 which has a greater absolute magnitude of negative charge appearing on the coil to more likely charge the batteries with a small negative current.
Good question. I don’t know.
I believe Dr. Hastings’ analysis indicating the Newman device works. What more do I need to convince me?