Magnetic Motor?

[TraceZ]

http://cycclone.com/welcome/page1.php

Check this out. It's a magnetic perpetual motion motor. 300 hp!

They are close to releasing the next prototype which will be tested in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and driven across Australia with no need for fuel.

[95TransAm]

http://cycclone.com/welcome/page1.php

Check this out. It's a magnetic perpetual motion motor. 300 hp!

They are close to releasing the next prototype which will be tested in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and driven across Australia with no need for fuel.

That's awesome to see.

When I learned about starters, and how they used magnetic propulsion, I did sit there for a while and think about how that idea could be transformed to a car's engine.

That's pretty cool to see...good stuff!

[Roger in Kensington]

What! Another perpetual motion machine?

What's the patent number?

Uh, I recommend NOT buying their stock.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

The write up uses a lot of big words that don't mean anything when it comes to making it work. The way they talk about a magnetic fields sound more like warp drive on Star Trek. There isn't enough information on how it works here to say that it works. I don't see how it could do anything but come to a quick stop after the starter motor disengages. I looked at the video several times and I never saw it run or "spin" without the starter spinning it. The video of it spinning cuts off the bottom of the engine where you could see the starter so You couldn't see it running without the tarter being engaged. I'm very skeptical.

[Kevin - Blown 95 TA]

What's interesting about it is that there's more than one guy who claims to have NdFeB (rare earth) magnet-based perpetual motion motors that are almost ready to bring to market. But does anyone really understand the implications of perpetual motion? It would revolutionize life as we know it. It would change the laws of physics. Power would be free, once the generator was paid for. I'm watching a couple of them just to see where they go, if anywhere. IMHO, it's stupid fun & I hope they prove me wrong.

[Joe 1320]

My God, I can't stop laughing. There is little technical information other than magnet composition and application. It takes energy to alter the magnetic field so that a magnetic motor will create sustained motion. Without that, the motor may be good for half of a revolution before it stops, hence the need to alter the magnetic field. That cannot be done by waving a magic wand, it takes an application of energy bei it electrical or mechanical converted to electrical...... something that they didn't explain. I would have been a little more impressed if they addressed Kinetic and Potential energy and how they managed to convert it into perpetual motion.

[95TransAm]

I looked at the video several times and I never saw it run or "spin" without the starter spinning it. The video of it spinning cuts off the bottom of the engine where you could see the starter so You couldn't see it running without the tarter being engaged. I'm very skeptical.

I didn't even realize that...you're right. You never once see the motor running without the starter disengaged.

I only know the principles of a starter...I can't begin to go in to probably how much you guys know about this stuff.

I am humbled by all your knowledge.

Just a thought, but if there was a continuous high voltage regenerative battery supply to feed field windings, could that assist in trying to control the magnetic field and thus the repulsion of the motor?

Or, induction is created by a conductor, a magnetic field, and movement. Would there be any way to try and use the motion and magnetic field from the motor, and harness the energy created through a conductor to feed voltage to field windings and try and control the magenetic field for the repulsion of the motor?

I'm starting to confuse myself here....but ever since I've been learning about this stuff more and more, I'm just getting more and more interested in it.

Just wondering what some of you guys think it would take to make this work.

[Joe 1320]

Just a thought, but if there was a continuous high voltage regenerative battery supply to feed field windings, could that assist in trying to control the magnetic field and thus the repulsion of the motor?

Or, induction is created by a conductor, a magnetic field, and movement. Would there be any way to try and use the motion and magnetic field from the motor, and harness the energy created through a conductor to feed voltage to field windings and try and control the magenetic field for the repulsion of the motor?

I'm starting to confuse myself here....but ever since I've been learning about this stuff more and more, I'm just getting more and more interested in it.

Just wondering what some of you guys think it would take to make this work.

Your questions have merit. The biggest problem with perpetual motion is that it takes an application of energy to create work. There is also no such thing as a free lunch so to speak. If a power supply has to be charged, it is not perpetual motion. Not only that, perpetual motion within an atmosphere or within a gravity field of influence is the problem. An object will stay at it's present state, be it stationary or moving unless acted upon by another force. In atmosphere we have the friction from drag and the planet's gravity field constantly acting upon the target object. It takes an application of additional power to overcome the losses due to drag and gravity, that is not going to come from a self renewing power source...... we don't have that technology. Not even nuclear power is infinite. The radio active material decays.

Perpetual motion could be more of a reality in deep space, free from atmospheric drag and the effect of gravity....... even though the laws of physics state that mass creates it own gravity field, those numbers are very small.

I don't profess to have the secret to perpetual motion, but I do think they are barking up the wrong tree. Magnetism can be used to offset an outside influence...... ie suspending something in mid air using magnetism, but performing perpetual work requires more power and that has to come from somewhere.

[Kevin - Blown 95 TA]

I didn't even realize that...you're right. You never once see the motor running without the starter disengaged.

I only know the principles of a starter...I can't begin to go in to probably how much you guys know about this stuff.

I am humbled by all your knowledge.

Just a thought, but if there was a continuous high voltage regenerative battery supply to feed field windings, could that assist in trying to control the magnetic field and thus the repulsion of the motor?

Or, induction is created by a conductor, a magnetic field, and movement. Would there be any way to try and use the motion and magnetic field from the motor, and harness the energy created through a conductor to feed voltage to field windings and try and control the magenetic field for the repulsion of the motor?

I'm starting to confuse myself here....but ever since I've been learning about this stuff more and more, I'm just getting more and more interested in it.

Just wondering what some of you guys think it would take to make this work.

You can try to make stuff like that but you run into the same old laws of physics that requires energy of some kind as an input and of the machines are ever more than 100% efficient due to wind drag, bearing friction, heat losses, and the fact that it needs to be able to do work to be useful; therefor, it needs to be MUCH more than 100% efficient to perpetuate motion and have enough left over to grind coffee or whatever.

[Roger in Kensington]

Your questions have merit. The biggest problem with perpetual motion is that it takes an application of energy to create work. There is also no such thing as a free lunch so to speak. If a power supply has to be charged, it is not perpetual motion. Not only that, perpetual motion within an atmosphere or within a gravity field of influence is the problem. An object will stay at it's present state, be it stationary or moving unless acted upon by another force. In atmosphere we have the friction from drag and the planet's gravity field constantly acting upon the target object. It takes an application of additional power to overcome the losses due to drag and gravity, that is not going to come from a self renewing power source...... we don't have that technology. Not even nuclear power is infinite. The radio active material decays.

Perpetual motion could be more of a reality in deep space, free from atmospheric drag and the effect of gravity....... even though the laws of physics state that mass creates it own gravity field, those numbers are very small.

I don't profess to have the secret to perpetual motion, but I do think they are barking up the wrong tree. Magnetism can be used to offset an outside influence...... ie suspending something in mid air using magnetism, but performing perpetual work requires more power and that has to come from somewhere.

Well, you're right, Joe. Some people have pointed to the nuclear breeder reactor as an example of perpetual motion, but it isn't.

What a breeder reactor does is to use the relatively (and relatively rare) fissionable uranium-235 isotope to convert the relatively (and relatively abundant) non-fissionable uranium-238 isotope into fissionable plutonium-239, which can then be used in another reactor to convert U-238 into more PL-239 . . . and so on . . . and so on.

But it is not "perpetual motion" as more U-238 has to be added since there is a continuous loss of mass during the nuclear reaction.

No free lunch.

[95TransAm]

Ahhh...I see what all of your points are. With all of the variables out there, such as drag, gravity, friction, heat, etc..., this motor needs to be an extremely efficient motor to overcome these obstacles, and create perpetual motion on top of it. Efficiency like that, at least with our current technology and knowledge of physics, from a motor that is supposedly creating energy unassisted from another source of energry, is pretty much impossible to create.

Makes sense guys.

[Joe 1320]

Just for fun, here are some principles that apply here:

Isaac Newton stated three laws of motion-

The first law deals with forces and changes in velocity. For just a moment, let us imagine that you can apply only one force to an object. That is, you could choose push the object to the right or you could choose to push it to the left, but not to the left and right at the same time, and also not up and to the right at the same time, and so on.

Under these conditions the first law says that if an object is not pushed or pulled upon, its velocity will naturally remain constant. This means that if an object is moving along, untouched by a force of any kind, it will continue to move along in a perfectly straight line at a constant speed.

This also means that if an object is standing still and is not contacted by any forces, it will continue to remain motionless. Actually, a motionless object is just a special case of an object that is maintaining constant velocity. Its velocity is constantly 0 m/s

Now, what about if there is more than one force on the object? You really can push an object, say, to the left and down at the same time, so, what happens then?

Under these conditions we must realize that a group of forces on an object adds up so that all the forces appear to the object as one force. This one force that is the sum of all the forces is called the net force. The word net in this context means total. It is this net force that may change the velocity of the object. Let us look at some examples.

Imagine that two forces act at the same time on an object. One is a very strong force to the left, and the other is a weaker force to the right. These two forces add up to one net force. Since the force to the left is stronger, the net force is to the left. This net force to the left will cause the velocity of the object to change. The object experiences this one net force as if this was the only force pushing it, although, actually, there are two separate forces present. Next let us see what happens when two forces act, but they are equal in strength.

Imagine that two forces, one up and one down, push on an object, and imagine that the two forces are the same size. These two forces add up as before, but this time one of them does not overpower the other. They cancel each other out. So, in this example the net force is zero. It is as though no forces were really acting on the object. Under these conditions the velocity of the object would not change. If it was moving in a straight line at constant speed before the two forces were applied, then it would continue to move in a straight line at constant speed after these two equal and opposite forces were applied. If it was standing still before the application of these forces, it would continue to stand still afterwards.

The net force is the total force. It could be the sum of two forces or more than two forces. If only one force acts upon an object, then this one force would be the net force. If the net force on an object is zero, then the object experiences no velocity change. If the net force on an object is not zero, then the object will show a change in velocity.

Lastly, this net force must be external to the object. The net force can not come from the object itself. You could not, for example, put on ice skates, stand on a frozen pond, push on your back by reaching around with your arms, and expect to get going. Although if someone else came up from behind and gave a you a shove, then your velocity would change.

But skaters do get going all by themselves, so, how does that happen? Well, that answer is in Newton's third law of motion.

Newton's first law of motion contains the same information as Galileo's explanation of inertia.


Newton's First Law Demonstration

You will find an object there upon which you can apply a force. You can apply only one force on the object at a time. The object's velocity will only change while this one force is being applied.
Newton's second law of motion explains how an object will change velocity if it is pushed or pulled upon.

Firstly, this law states that if you do place a force on an object, it will accelerate, i.e., change its velocity, and it will change its velocity in the direction of the force.


Secondly, this acceleration is directly proportional to the force. For example, if you are pushing on an object, causing it to accelerate, and then you push, say, three times harder, the acceleration will be three times greater.

Thirdly, this acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass of the object. For example, if you are pushing equally on two objects, and one of the objects has five times more mass than the other, it will accelerate at one fifth the acceleration of the other.

The third law states that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. For example, if you push on a wall, it will push back on you as hard as you are pushing on it.

Isaac Newton built on Galileo's thoughts about motion. Newton's first law of motion declares that a force is not needed to keep an object in motion. Slide a book across a table and watch it slide to a rest position. The book in motion on the table top does not come to a rest position because of the absence of a force; rather it is the presence of a force - that force being the force of friction - which brings the book to a rest position. In the absence of a force of friction, the book would continue in motion with the same speed and direction - forever! (Or at least to the end of the table top.) A force is not required to keep a moving book in motion; in actuality, it is a force which brings the book to rest.

This is basically why perpetual motion within our atmosphere is going to be very difficult. It takes application of power and as we already stated, we do not have the technology to have more than 100% effeciancy out of electric motors nor do we have a self sustaining fuel source.

I'm way better in physics than chemestry.

[ryan34]

This is basically why perpetual motion within our atmosphere is going to be very difficult. It takes application of power and as we already stated, we do not have the technology to have more than 100% effeciancy out of electric motors nor do we have a self sustaining fuel source.

I'm way better in physics than chemestry.

So does that mean an electric motor couldn't power an electric generator? I was thinking that if you took some energy created by the generator and applied it to the motor, to power the generator....then we could produce cheap power. Or would it take MORE power to move the generator then it would produce?

[Joe 1320]

So does that mean an electric motor couldn't power an electric generator? I was thinking that if you took some energy created by the generator and applied it to the motor, to power the generator....then we could produce cheap power. Or would it take MORE power to move the generator then it would produce?

That's correct. It takes more power to move the generator that the generator would produce.

[95TransAm]

You really gotta think outside of the box for a second there, but after reading slowly and thoroughly, I understand everything you stated. It's not like we can apply forced induction to an electric motor like we do to an engine to create over 100% volumetric efficiency.

In trying to apply those laws with prepetual motion, it makes sense now that this motor would have to be waaaay more than 100% efficient to create the proper amount of work needed. If it had an energy source, or something else to compliment it, than it can work (electrics and hybrids). Starters share the same concept with magnetic repulsion, but have an external source of power...12 volts directly from the battery. If those 12 volts weren't there, it wouldn't be like you could manually spin the pinion, and the starter would just keep on going. Another force has to be there to trigger motion, and keep it sustained with the conditions we live with here on earth. Without this force, 100% efficiency just isn't enough to overcome the laws of physics we live with here on this planet to create prepetual motion.