Jump to content

User:Perpetual motion machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes. Began contributing at 20:42, 31 May 2006.

Please note: Discussions are posted my Talk: page.

Perpetual motion machine

Perpetual motion machine devices and concepts
A
C
E
H
K
M
P
R
S
T
W

Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without the expenditure of any limited internal or external source of energy. For example, electrons in an atom or quarks in a nucleus are in a state of perpetual motion. As well as being descriptive of motions beyond the scale of human lifetimes, for example in the phrase "the stars in perpetual motion wheeled overhead", the term is commonly used to refer to actual attempts to build machines which display this phenomenon. In the macroscoping world, perpetual motion is not possible, because the energy of a particle tends to randomly flow into its neighborhood, such that the original goal of producing an ordered work is lost.

Perpetual motion machines are a class of hypothetical machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - that is, without requiring additional energy input. Specifically, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into two subcategories defined by which law of thermodynamics would have to be broken in order for the device to be a true perpetual motion machine. No genuine perpetual motion machine currently exists, and according to certain fundamental laws in physics they cannot exist. The history of perpetual motion encompasses not only energy-creating machines but also methods of exploiting nonobvious power sources, methods, and techniques and devices with no energy loss (or output). This timeline covers those and the discoveries of energy from sources that are "free" (i.e. does not cost anything) for consumption from the forces of nature which are well documented in scientific literature and other more fantastical forces. Perpetual motion machines, when hypothesised, are sometimes called free energy machines, though the term energy in that circumstance is being used in a sense outside of the scientific definition. Some are developed with elaborate machines in the style of Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson. Some designs may appear to work on paper at first glance, but have various flaws or obfuscated external power sources that render them useless in practice; others remain untested.

Some ideas recur repeatedly in perpetual motion machine designs, such as gravity, magnets, radiant energy, atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, zero-point energy, vacuum energy, quantum fluxuations of "space-time", and atmospheric pressure. In the real world, friction is always larger than zero, so an object in perpetual motion implies work being continuously done to overcome this natural retarding process. Furthermore, the always present element of friction wears and degrades a device's moving components (shortening it's lifespan). Several designs have attempted to minimize such a factor, with varying levels of success.

Gravity and magnetism are an attractive combination indeed, and a frequently rediscovered design has a ball pulled up by a magnetic field and then rolling down under the influence of gravity, in a cycle. (At the highest point, the ball is supposed to have acquired enough speed to escape the magnet's influence.)

The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance without any apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors and been incorporated into their devices. Unfortunately, a constant magnetic field does no work because the force it exerts on any particle is always at right angles to its motion; a changing field can do work, but requires energy to sustain. A "fixed" magnet can do work, but energy is dissipated in the process, typically weakening the magnet's strength over time. Thus, when a magnet does work by lifting an iron weight, some of the work that was put into magnetizing the magnet is being used to lift the weight, and the strength of the magnet is reduced correspondingly. When the weight is removed from the magnet, the work required to do this restores the strength of the magnet, minus losses due to friction.

Gravity also acts at a distance, without an apparent energy source. But to get energy out of a gravitational field (for instance, by dropping a heavy object, producing kinetic energy as it falls) you have to put energy in (for instance, by lifting the object up), and some energy is always dissipated in the process. A typical application of gravity in a perpetual motion machine is Bhaskara's wheel, whose key idea is itself a recurring theme, often called the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a position further from the wheel's center for one half of the wheel's rotation, and closer to the center for the other half. Since weights further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is (or would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever. The moving weights may be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls, or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same.

To extract work from heat, thus producing a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, the most common approach (dating back at least to Maxwell's demon) is unidirectionality. Only molecules moving fast enough and in the right direction are allowed through the demon's trap door. In a Brownian ratchet, forces tending to turn the ratchet one way are able to do so while forces in the other direction aren't. A diode in a heat bath allows through currents in one direction and not the other. These schemes typically fail in two ways: either maintaining the unidirectionality costs energy (Maxwell's demon needs light to look at all those particles and see what they're doing), or the unidirectionality is an illusion and occasional big violations make up for the frequent small non-violations (the Brownian ratchet will be subject to internal Brownian forces and therefore will sometimes turn the wrong way).

Atmospheric pressure varies widely on the Earth and shows a diurnal (daily) rhythm. Barometers have been used to wind gearings during these changes. Various natural forms of radiant energy have been contemplated. Telluric currents are extremely low frequency electrical current that occurs naturally over large underground areas at or near the surface of the Earth. Atmospheric electricity is the regular diurnal variations of the Earth's atmospheric electromagnetic network (or, more broadly, any planet's electrical system in its layer of gases). Some have investigated the production of energy and power via earth's electricity and have used electromagnetic coils to charge a circuit's elements. These would not be a source of true perpetual motion, since they rely on an external and "limited" (though long-lived and vast) energy source. These would be more near-perpetual motion machines, theoretically possessing a very long lifespan. In addition, proposed devices that would utilize zero-point energy, vacuum energy, or the quantum fluxuation of "space-time" to run could not be true perpetual motion, since they rely on an external energy source.

The history of perpetual motion machines (also known as the history of free energy and history of over unity machines) dates as far back as the 8th century, and probably further. For millennia it was not clear whether such devices were possible, but the development of modern thermodynamics has led virtually all engineers and scientists to agree that they are impossible. Many have attempted to construct the holy grail of energy production in spite of this. Proponents of perpetual motion machines often use other terms to describe their inventions including free energy devices, mechanisms, or formulas and over unity machines.

Searches

Find
Index

Articles to be expanded, NPOV'ed, and copyedited

Free energy device:
All free energy systems
Disciplines: Engineering and science
Core Tenets: Harnessing nature's wheelwork
Year Proposed: Beginning of time

Original Proponents:

First man or woman

Current Proponents:

People that want cheap renewable energy

Theory violation:

Laws of thermodynamics
Certain devices have been claimed to be free energy devices or a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines violate the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

The Adams motor is an example of a claimed perpetual motion or "over unity device" capable of producing more energy than is supplied to it. Such claims are generally viewed as pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. It is clear that functional electric motors can be built by following his design principles, but claims of greater than 100% efficiency remain controversial. At a 1994 meeting, several such motors were demonstrated, but according to supporters "none of the motors present were of sufficient engineering quality to manifest the elusive over-unity effect."

In 1969, Robert George Adams (of New Zealand 1920-2006) developed what is now called the Adams Switched Reluctance Pulsed DC Permanent Magnet Motor Generator. (The terminology is idiosyncratic, because the design is not that of a traditional switched reluctance motor). Reluctance is the a measure of the opposition to magnetic flux, analogous to electric resistance. In the description of the motor's operation developed by Harold Aspden Ph.D, pulsing the stators electrically is said to switch the reluctance or opposition to the rotor magnets.

Working in collaboration with Harold Aspden, theories about the Aether and the motor's alleged interaction with this medium were developed. Adams sought patents for his work (and has received a UK Patent, GB2282708, with Aspden Harold). Debates over the motor's power measurement still exist, with the thermal methodology originally employed open to question. Further claims made by Adams that Ohm's law is not valid for the apparatus, tend to further confuse output measurement.

Physically the basic Adams motor consists of a central rotor either all north out, or all south out. The stators are distinctive, for having a generator wind that fills them out from half the diameter of the magnet face, to the full diameter. Tim Harwood provided a simple to build version in 2001 that was widely replicated on the Internet, called the 'CD motor.' It features some of the exotic Adams optimisation variables advocated, such as high ohm coils. The apparatus is reported to manifest a cooling anomaly, to a certain extent corroborating at least some of the claims made by Robert Adams.

Adams claimed other inventors have plagiarised his work, and pointed out the technology lapsed into the public domain, making it non patentable. John Bedini and Lutec pty of Australia are especially notable for similar claims. Issues said to be hindering commercial development, include the apparent requirement for mechanical switching to deliver optimal output. The pulse anomaly also reportedly works best on a smaller scale of ¾ in (19 mm) diameter magnets, further hindering an effective scaling of net output.

A New Zealand experimenter named Andrew Thorp reports on his web page that he built and investigated a version of Adams motor. His conclusion was that the apparent over unity effect is illusory. He suggests this explanation:

"there is an unusual effect that occurs when lead-acid batteries are subjected to high-voltage spikes, such as the motor coils produce. Their open-circuit voltage rises to a level higher than normal, but the net energy content still diminishes over time as normal. The very small motors that Dr. Adams originally built were capable of masking the normal voltage decrease of the supply batteries and making them appear to hold their energy level. Large automotive batteries will run a small motor for several weeks (as I have done), and the mechanical contactor switch will fail within this time giving the impression that the motor is going to keep running forever without draining the batteries."
Evolution of the design

According to Mr. Adams' autobiography, the evolution of the motor design includes these significant milestones:

  • 1969 - Adams Switched Reluctance Motor Generator
  • 1975 - Impulse method of charging batteries
  • 1993 - New procedure to engineer magnetic polarity reversal
  • 1995 - Super Power Four Pole Permanent Magnet
  • 1996 - Mark 024 Thermo Switched Reluctance Motor
See also
References

Promoting the "Adams motor":

An Axletree dynamo was once believed to be a perpetual motion machine. It was invented by Joseph Newmann. It is a dynamo but was never patented. It uses gravity and magnetic energy to cause the machine to continually move. This device is believe by some scientist to describes a perpetual motion machine, which violates the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

Cox's timepiece is a clock developed, in the 1760s, by James Cox. It was developed in collaborations John Joseph Merlin (whom Cox also worked on developing automata). Cox was quite open about his machine's operation (unlike many perpetual motion inventors). The device is powered from changes in atmospheric pressure via a mercury barometer. The clock still exists today but was deactivated at the time of the clock's relocation.[1]

The clock is similar to other mechanical clocks, except it does not need winding. The change of pressure in the Earth's atmosphere causes sufficient movement of the winding mechanism. This keeps the mainspring coiled inside the barrel. The clock is designed to enable the timepiece to run indefinitely and overwinding is prevented by a safety mechanism. The prime mover, encased in a finely detailed clock body, is a Fortin mercury barometer. The barometer contained 68 kilograms (150 pounds) of mercury. The Cox timepiece resides in the Victoria and Albert Museum of Great Britain.[2]

Related to this is Cornelis Drebbel's device of 1610 (though it is unknown if Cox knew of it). It was a machine that told the time, date, and season. The gold machine was mounted in a globe on pillars and was powered by changes in air pressure (a sealed glass tub with liquid varied in volume through atmospheric pressure changes, rewinding constantly).

See also
External articles and further reading
Journals
  • William Nicholson, "Concerning those perpetual motions which are produced in machines by the rise and fall of the barometer or thermometrical variations in the dimensions of bodies". Philosophical Journal.
  • William Nicholson, Philosophical Journal, vol I, 1799, p375
Books
  • Arthur W. J. G. Ord-hume, "Clockwork Music", Allen & Unwin, London 1973.
  • John Joseph Merlin, "The Ingenious Mechanick". The Greater London Council, The Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood, Hampstead Lane, London, © 1985.
Websites

The Motionless Electrical Generator (MEG) is an unusual transformer, which is most notable for claims of over-unity operation (as stated by the inventors, after a predetermined switching event the "generator" operates without an application of external power). Contrary to standard transformers, a permanent magnet is included in the design and the associated circuitry shifts the operation point of the magnetic core. The MEG is alternatively pulsed to provide induced output current pulses. The United States patent office granted U.S. patent 6,362,718 to the five inventors: Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, James L. Kenny, and Kenneth D. Moore.

Description

The MEG appears to be a special type of transfomer with a permanent magnet in its main flux path. According to some investigators, this distorts the hysteresis curve enough to cause flux saturation of the core and generates voltage spikes on the output coils (but this is clearly against the stipulations put forth in the patent).

Within the MEG, a set of input coils and a set of output coils extend around portions of the transformer-type magnetic core. A pair of input and output coils are on the right and left of the transformer frame. A permanent magnet is positioned in middle of the magnetic core. A permanent magnet furnishes magnetic flux lines moving from the north pole outward into the core material, resulting in a right and a left magnetic path. These paths extend externally between the north and south magnetic poles. A driving electrical current through each of the input coils (acting as a type of choke coil) reduces a level of magnetic flux from the permanent magnet within the magnet path around which the input coil extends.

The MEG's magnetic core is composed of a magnetic alloy (of crystalline grains (or crystallite) of a few nanometers). These are used because of the material's rapid switching of magnetic flux characteristics. Each crystallite is a single-domain particle in magnetic terms. One of the magnetic materials preferred is the alloy of cobalt-niobium-boron; this alloy has a near-zero magnetostriction and relatively strong magnetization. This alloy also has a relatively high mechanical strength and corrosion resistance. Other magnetic materials acceptable to be used can be iron-rich amorphous and nanocrystalline alloys. These materials exhibit a greater magnetization than the cobalt based alloys. An example of this alloy material would be iron-boron-silicon-niobium-copper. Though the permeability of this alloy is limited by its relatively large levels of magnetostriction, the formation of a nanocrystalline material dramatically reduces this level of magnetostriction and favors easy magnetization. [2]

Electrical circuit.

Initially, a sensing and switching circuit connects the switching and control circuit to an external power source. External power sources can include, but are not limited to, a battery. The "switching and control circuit" is connected to an oscillator driver that is the clock input of a flip-flop circuit. The alternate outputs (Q and Q') of the flip-flop are connected through independent driver circuits; such circuits can include a darlington pair or a one-shot circuit (such as the one described in U.S. patent 5,268,594), to operate the FETs. The FETs alternately drive the input 'choking' coils. After being started, a "sensing and switching circuit" detects if there is a predetermined level of voltage available from a regulator circuit. Once this condition is met, the power input to the switching and control circuit is switched from the external power source to the output of the regulator circuit. After this switching event, the electromagnetic generator operates without an application of external power. [3]

It is notable that, according to the patent, during operation of the MEG the input coils are never driven to the point that the core material becomes saturated. If the core material is saturated, subsequent increases in input current that do occur have no corresponding effect in the magnetic flux and input power is wasted. In the MEG, the switching of current flow within the input coils does not need to be sufficient to stop the flow of flux in one of the magnetic paths while promoting the flow of magnetic flux in the other magnetic path. The electromagnetic generator works by changing the flux pattern; it does not need to be completely switched from one side to another. [4]

In an alternative embodiment of an electromagnetic generator, the magnetic core includes annular spaced-apart plates, with posts and permanent magnets extending in an alternating fashion between the plates. An output coil extends around each of these posts. Input coils extending around portions of the plates are pulsed to cause the induction of current within the output coils.

History and controversy

Tom Bearden announced the arrival of the MEG technology (Motionless Electrical Generator) on March 26 2002. This device was supposed to be in mass production by 2003, and promised unlimited energy from the vacuum, to answer mankind's power needs. Promoted through JLNlabs[5], Cheniere.org[6], and an Egroup called "MEG Builders"[7]. The device was even written up in Vol. 14., No. 1, 2001, Foundations of Physics Letters[8]. As of 2006, the MEG is still not in production, and Tom Bearden claims he needs about $11 million to develop it to a viable commercial form. [9] Tom also admits he presently has no working prototype, stating the 'last working demonstrator was promptly destroyed'. [10]

Mainstream physics does not contain any mechanism allowing for "over-unity" devices; but does not prohibit "free energy" available directly from the environment and which cannot be depleted (so it is available in effectively unlimited quantity). Tom Bearden justifies the operation of the MEG with a wide range of alternative theories, including the proposal that all electrical devices, from batteries to electromechanical generators, in reality operate on vacuum energy (which is part of the scalar field). According to some skeptics, the theory seems to offer no concrete testable predictions though.

A point within the framework from Bearden rests on the allegation that during the reformulation of James Clerk Maxwell's original theory (of quaternions) by Oliver Heaviside and Josiah Gibbs into vector notation key elements were lost in the original theory. Also according to skeptics, the voltage spikes can be mistaken for over-unity phenomena. The claimed suppression of various aspects of the MEG device and the theory behind it are examples of free energy suppression conspiracy theory.

There is also a controversy on a contending claim to intellectual property. Joe Flynn was granted a patent that contains an innovation similar to the 'MEG' as a minor subsection of his flux core invention. This is contained in U.S. patent 6,246,561, "Methods for controlling the path of magnetic flux from a permanent magnet and devices incorporating the same" (Flynn, June 12, 2001) in the "Power Conversion" section. Flynn states that,

"[...] With continuous flux paths the static flux from the permanent magnet or magnets is useless. However, if the static flux of the permanent magnet confined to the flux paths were modified to be time varying it would have utility for electromagnetic induction devices for power conversion like transformers and power inverters".

He also states within his patent that the basic method for controlling flux of a permanent magnet to provide motion (linear and rotary) can also be applied to time varying the static flux from the permanent magnet. Flynn's more complicated construction, though, utilizes four control coils and a single permanent magnet and, in an alternate embodiment, uses two control coils and two permanent magnets. The Flynn prior art was not cited in the MEG patent application, and the intellectual property has yet to be formally tested.

See also
Further reading
  • Raymond J. Radus, "Permanent-Magnet Circuit using a `Flux-Transfer` Principle". Engineers' Digest, 24(1-6) Jan.-Jun. 1963, p. 86.
  • Robert O'Handley, Modern Magnetic Materials, Principles and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000, pp. 456-468.
  • Robert C. Weast, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 1978-1979, p. B-50.
  • Honeywell.com web site, "amorphous metals". (ed. Honeywell sold off its Metglas amorphous metals division)
Related patents
U.S. Patent Documents
Non-U.S. Patent Documents
External articles and references
Description
  • ^ Patrick, et al., US6362718: Motionless electromagnetic generator, March 26, 2002. Column 3 and 4, Lines 75 to 100.
  • ^ Patrick, et al., US6362718: Motionless electromagnetic generator, March 26, 2002. Column 7 and 8, Lines 65 to 105.
  • ^ Patrick, et al., US6362718: Motionless electromagnetic generator, March 26, 2002. Column 7 and 8, Lines 21 to 38.
History and controversy
Other articles

The permanent magnet motor was conceived by Howard Johnson sometime after the 1940s. Alledgedly it is a design for a perpetual motion machine. Reportedly, the device is designed on the principle that a constant imbalance of the magnetic forces between the rotor and the stator is created. He received U.S. patent 4,151,431 on April 24, 1979. The United States Patent office main classification of his 4151431 patent is as a "electrical generator or motor structure, dynamoelectric, linear" (310/12).

Background

Howard Robert Johnson was born 1919 in Pound, VA, USA. He is the researcher and inventor of this perpetuum-mobile. The devices is claimed to generate motion, either rotary or linear, from nothing but permanent magnets in rotor as well as stator, acting against each other. In his inventions (called a "Permanent magnet motor|Permanent Magnet Motor"), a permanent magnet armature is magnetically propelled along a guided path by interaction with the field within a flux zone limited on either side of the path by an arrangement of permanent stator magnets.

Description

Johnson's invention is directed to the method of utilizing the unpaired electron spins in ferro magnetic and other materials as a source of magnetic fields for producing power without any electron flow as occurs in normal conductors, and to permanent magnet motors for utilizing this method to produce a power source. In the practice of the invention the unpaired electron spins occurring within permanent magnets are utilized to produce a motive power source solely through the superconducting characteristics of a permanent magnet and the magnetic flux created by the magnets are controlled and concentrated to orient the magnetic forces generated in such a manner to do useful continuous work, such as the displacement of a rotor with respect to a stator. The mechanism's timing and |orientation of magnetic forces at the rotor and stator components produced by permanent magnets to produce a motor is accomplished with the proper geometrical relationship of these components.

His magnetic propulsion system includes a plurality of specifically arranged permanent magnets and a magnetic vehicle propelled thereby along a path defined by the permanent magnets. The magnetic vehicle which is to be propelled includes a rigidly attached armature comprising several curved magnets. The propulsion system further includes two parallel walls of permanent magnets arranged so as to define the lateral sides of a vehicle path. Preferably, the walls are identical to one another except that the polarities of the magnets which define one wall are opposite from the polarities of the corresponding magnets in the opposite wall. A first wall, for example, includes a series of generally rectangular magnets, each magnet arranged with a North-to-South axis pointing longitudinally down the wall in the intended direction of vehicle travel. Each of the rectangular magnets is separated from the next successive rectangular magnet by a thinner magnet, which thinner magnet is arranged with its North-to-South axis pointing laterally toward the opposite wall and therefore perpendicular with respect to the North-to-South axis of the rectangular magnets. The opposite (or second) wall includes the same general arrangement of magnets, except that the North-to-South axis for each of the generally rectangular magnets is in a direction opposite from the direction of vehicle travel and the North-to-South axis of the thinner magnets points away from the first wall. In addition, the propulsion system includes several spin accelerators.

See also
Patents
Howard Robert Johnson
  • U.S. patent 4,151,431 "Permanent magnet motor". April 24, 1979. (referenced in patents since 1976: 20)
  • U.S. patent 4,877,983 "Magnetic force generating method and apparatus". Oct. 31, 1989.(referenced in patents since 1976: 7)
  • U.S. patent 5,402,021 "Magnetic propulsion system". March 28, 1995. (referenced in patents since 1976: 12)
Related
External articles and references
Johnson's motor
Journals, papers, and books
  • T.E. Bearden, "On Rotary Permanent Magnet Motors and 'Free' Energy". Raum & Zeit, 1(3): 43-53 (Aug.-Sep. 1989).
  • T.E. Bearden, "Chasing the Wild Dragon: Foundations of a New Science". November 12, 1995.
Other websites

The Testatika is an electromagnetic generator based on the 1898 Pidgeon electrostatic machine which includes an inductance circuit, a capacitance circuit, and a thermionic rectification valve. Allegedly a perpetual motion machine, the Testatika resembles in some respects a Wimshurst machine. It was built by German engineer, Paul Suisse Baumann, and promoted by a Swiss community, the Methernithans. The Testatika is also known as the Swiss M-L converter or Thesta-Distatica.

Description

The specific working principles in the Testatika are unknown. From various sources, Testatika reportedly ultilizes design features of the electrostatic Pidgeon machine. The Testatika seems to possess an inductance circuit, a capacitance circuit, and a thermionic rectification valve. Devices heretofore seen have not used semiconductors or transistors. The entire circuit has been divided in two parts:

Electrical circuit as explained in Potter's "Methernitha Back-Engineered" article.
  1. An electrostatic generator; and,
  2. Auxiliary circuits (inductances, capacitances, and rectification)
Electrostatic generator

The Testatika ultilizes the 1898 Pidgeon machine setup [11] (apparent from the position of the neutralizing rods and how the charges are accumulated; the fixed inductors are positioned in such a way that there is an increased induction effect) and charges parallel pads via air gaps. Steel grilles (or corrugated sectored) disks and other collecting pads (or 'tasten' antennae keys) are used in a process of variable capacitance electrostatic generation. The disks have a rotational speed of just 60 rpm (varying to 15 rpm). Each disk is in close proximity. One disk represents the clouds, the other disk represents the earth. The front clear perspex disc ('cloud' disc; positive charge) and the back dark disc ('ground' disc; negative charge) corresponds to the triboelectric series. The discs may also be doped with paramagnetic particles.

Two horseshoe magnets with metalised-perspex laminated blocks alternated with copper and aluminium plates form, what various sources call, "electron cascade generators". The electron cascade (or avalanche effect) is a chain reaction forming 'free electrons'. Insulated wire is also wound around the horseshoe magnets (which may also be in a bifilar configuration) for induction purposes.

Auxiliary circuits

The Testatika converts static energy into an electromotive force by means of its oscillation circuit and valve rectifiers. Electric current oscillations is controlled by coupling a thermionic rectifier valve, cylinders capacitors, and natural resistance. As the electromagnetic circuit oscillates, the oscillations are modulated through transformers and, ultimately, rectified into DC pulses. Hermann Plauson, the Estonian inventor, describes such methods to convert static power. Testatika's thermionic rectifying valve has an anode mesh-plate, a coiled copper grid, a glowing (heated) cathode wire running horizontally across its centre, and the associated wires.

Two outside cylinders (with up to 20 concentric layers of perforated sheet) are utilized and the connection of each separate secondary winding may be based on the "disruptive discharge coil" devised by Nikola Tesla. The cylinders, at the sides, act partially as capacitors. This concentric condenser configuration develops a pulse forming network. Each cylinder has a core of 6 hollow donut-ring anisotropic ferrite magnets with plastic spacers for air gaps to form a transformer, also. A central input rod (or tube) connects at the bottom to a stack of inter-linked pancake coils (wound with the secondary outside and the primary inside). One transformer is wired to output negative and the other transformer is wired to output positive polarity with respect to magnetic reluctance gaps. Each is connected from the pancake coil secondaries to a brass ring via a brass screw terminal. The use of aluminium shielding mesh and solid copper shielding sheets are used to minimize stray electrostatic charges.

Two chokes assemblies are in the upright double glass tubes possessing spirally turned aluminium strip (with electrostatic shields). The tubes are two-thirds the tower height. The glass tube are terminated at the top with right-angled brass rods connecting with the rectifier. The wooden base has alternate layering of perforated metal plates and insulating plates forming a storage capacitor.

Operation and ultilization

According to various sources, the Testatika first oscillates and then rectifies generated power as an RLC circuit. The electrical oscillations are made by the generator components. The electrical oscillations (AC) are turned into continuous current (DC) by the rectification. Replicated devices were hand started and, then, powered directly from the device's generated electricity. By this description (and without further components), a Testatika would be a perpetual motion machine.

History

The machine's operation has been recorded for several decades, reportedly. Operating Testatika devices were recorded in the 1960s at a place called Linden (near Berne, Switzerland). These devices were built and demonstrated by a group called by a group called Methernitha, who decline to make their devices public due to "mankind not being ready for them". As of 2004, no scientific investigation of these claims have been reported. Supposedly, the community is conducting perpetual motion research. [12] Claims over copying the machine and replicating its operations have not been verified. Some claim that attempts to copy the machine produced a non working result. A Testatika device was demonstrated to over 30 technicians and engineers shortly before August 4, 1999 [13]. As of 2005, researchers sceptical about the Testatika, said by some to be a free energy source, have not been allowed to perform verifiable measurements of the device.

See also


Further readings
  • Plauson, Hermann, "Gewinnung und Verwertung der Atmospharischen Elektrizitat". 1920. (German)
  • Grossner, Nathan R., "Transformers For Electronic Circuits". 1967.
  • Zahn, M., et. al., "Self-Excited, Alternating, High-Voltage Generation Using A Modified Electrostatic Influence Machine". American Journal of Physics, Vol 42. 1974.
  • Eaton, William J., "The Testatika Free Energy Machine". June 2004.
  • Aspden, Harold, "Swiss M-L converter -- It's Secret: Why it operates Over-Unity". June 2004.
Related patents
  • US459678 -- J. W. Davis & J. B. Farrington -- "Electric Motor"
  • US1119732 -- Nikola Tesla -- "Apparatus for Transmitting Electrical Energy"
  • US1415779 -- William Spencer Bowen -- "Electrostatic Generator"
  • US1540998 -- Hermann Plauson -- "Conversion of Atmospheric Electric Energy"
  • US1974483 -- Thomas Townsend Brown -- "Electrostatic motor"
  • US2522106 -- Noel Felici -- "Electrostatic Machine"
  • US3094653 -- Dan B. Le May, et al. -- "Electrostatic Generator"
  • US3187206 -- Thomas Townsend Brown -- "Electromagnetic apparatus"
  • US3187208 -- Robert J. Van de Graaff -- "High voltage electromagnetic apparatus having an insulating magnetic core"
  • US3239705 -- R. J. Kavanaugh -- "Electric rotating machine"
  • US3323069 -- Robert J. Van de Graaff -- "High Voltage Electromagnetic Charged-Particle Accelerator Apparatus Having an Insulating Magnetic Core"
  • US3411027 -- N. Rosenberg -- "Permanent magnet excited electric machine"
  • US4391773 -- Patrick Flanagan -- "Method of Purifying Air and Negative Field Generator"
  • US4622510 -- Ferdinand Cap -- "Parametric Electric Machine"
  • US4743275 -- Patrick Flanagan -- " Electron field generator"
  • US4897592 -- William W. Hyde -- "Electrostatic Energy Field Power Generating System"
External links and references

The gentle reader should be aware (if this is not already apparent) that some of the following websites favor ideas which do not belong to mainstream physics.

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT) is 1985 invention by Greg Watson from Australia that claims to show "over-unity" energy — a route to purported perpetual motion.

Overview

In SMOT, a steel ball is pulled up a ramp by magnetism and then falls, so the magnetic energy is converted into kinetic energy. A SMOT-like structure is shown in Emil T. Hartman's patent.[3] Watson claims that a mechanism called regauging happens that allows the cycle to be repeated without the application of outside energy.

Skeptics note that many attempts have been made to use magnetism to overcome entropy, without success. Adherents say the device must be carefully tuned to work, and failures are usually attributed to poor adjustment in the device.

Principle of operation Jean-Louis Naudin calculated that the energy gain from a SMOT was 0.424 mJ and that the loss after the drop was 34%. The loss is due to the mechanical design in measuring the output energy, using a glass receiving tube. The efficiency with mechanical loss was measured by Naudin to be at 113%.[4]

The device does not gather "free energy" as is sometimes advertised. It does convert potential energy in the form of the steel ball's distance from the magnetic source to kinetic energy as it rolls towards it - just as is done by any object when it falls.

Similar forces are at work in the swinging of a pendulum, but the representation is created by the perceived increase in gravitational potential energy as the ball rolls up the ramp. The eye is not attuned to see the decrease in magnetic potential energy as it moves towards the magnet.

External articles

General
Skeptics

The water fuel cell is a perpetual motion device that was supposed to function by breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen gases using less energy than that present in the bond itself. The water fuel cell was claimed to produce several times more energy than it consumed (for instance, by connecting it to an engine that would burn the hydrogen back into water), and a car prototype powered by a water fuel cell was assembled.

Since this concept violates the first law of thermodynamics and this apparatus has never been demonstrated to work or reproduced, it was met with much skepticism and was later found to be a hoax. The purpose of the hoax was likely to attract gullible investors, selling them licensing rights for a "revolutionary" technology. The inventor, Mr. Stanley Meyer (died March 21, 1998), was later successfully sued by some of these disgruntled investors, whom he had sold "dealerships", and convicted for "gross and egregious fraud".

Construction
The electrolysis "capacitor", as described in Meyer's patents.

Stanley Meyer was granted patents in the United States and abroad starting in 1989; patents, however, are not equivalent to peer review, and do not imply the findings have been confirmed and reproduced by independent parties.

The fuel cell consists of stainless steel plates arranged as a capacitor, with pure water acting as the dielectric. A rising staircase of direct current pulses is sent through the plates at roughly 42 kHz, which is claimed to play a role in the water molecules breaking apart with less directly applied energy than is required by standard electrolysis. The mechanism of this reaction is both undocumented and in contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics.

Meyer has presented his fuel cell device to Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Queen Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the Royal Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist. According to the witnesses, the most startling aspect of the Meyer cell was that it remained cold, even after hours of gas production as his system appeared to operate on mere milliamperes, rather than the amperes that conventional electrolysis would require. The witnesses also stated:

The circuit used to drive the electrolysis device, as described in Meyer's patents.
After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established.

The claim about amperage appears strange, as amperage measures the flow of charge (and therefore electrons, which have a fixed charge), and the quantity of charge to be transferred between the electrodes to split water is fixed to two faradays per mole water (about 10,700 coulombs per gram). A reduction in the required energy to split water could have therefore only manifested itself in a reduction in voltage.

It should be remarked that neither Meyer, nor Laughton, nor Griffin, nor Hindley have published any peer-reviewed research papers in the scientific literature (as far as can be reviewed on ScienceDirect), which is detrimental to their credibility. Mr. Laughton wrote a generic "Executive summary" about Combined heat and power in the journal of Applied Energy, but no original research is presented. (An unrelated Anthony Griffin, from Ontario, Canada, can appear in searches).

Meyer's water-fueled car

It Runs on Water is a video with Stanley Meyer demonstrating the water fuel cell in a car. Meyer claimed that he could run a 1.6 liter Volkswagen Dune buggy on water instead of gasoline. He replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" to spray a fine mist into the engine cylinders, which he claimed were electrified at a resonant frequency. The fuel cell would split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would combust back into water vapor in a conventional hydrogen engine to produce net energy. Estimates made showed that only 22 US gallons (83 L) of water were required to travel from one US coast to the other. Meyer also demonstrated his vehicle for his city's local news station Action 6 News. A video of the buggie in action can be found here.

The vehicle failed to work during a required demonstration of the water-fueled car in a 1990 court case. An Ohio court found Stanley Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors. The court decided that the centerpiece of the car, his water fuel cell, was a conventional electrolysis device, and he was ordered to repay the investors $25,000.[14]

References
Patents
Stanley Meyer
Other
See also
External links
  1. ^ Ord-Hume, Arthur W. J. G. (1977). Perpetual Motion: The History of an Obsession. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 031260131X.
  2. ^ Bruton, Eric (1979). The History of Clocks and Watches. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. ISBN 0847802612.
  3. ^ Hartman, Emil T., "U.S. patent 4,215,330". USPTO.
  4. ^ "A Free Energy Demonstrator: The SMOT from Greg Watson". JLN Labs. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Perpetual_motion_machine&oldid=254052215"