Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

[Celebration]

http://www.physorg.com/news121610315.html

Thane Heins knows the track record of inventors that claim to make breakthroughs in power generation methods, especially when they claim to defy the second law of thermodynamics. Every so often, a (usually untrained) scientist comes along with a machine that supposedly creates more energy than is put in. Every time, the ideas have been rebuked by real scientists.

That's why 46-year-old Heins, a college drop-out from Ottawa who's been working on his project since 1985, is being very cautious. He is the first to admit that he doesn't know how his machine works from a physics standpoint. He just hopes that someone else might understand.

Last week, Heins demonstrated his machine to MIT professor Markus Zahn, an expert in electromagnetic and electronic systems. It proved interesting enough to stump the professor, as well. But Zahn thinks the idea is worth investigating further. "It's an unusual phenomena I wouldn't have predicted in advance," Zahn told The Toronto Star. "But I saw it. It's real."

In Heins' machine, he explains that magnetic friction somehow gets turned into a magnetic boost. Working with an electric motor, he attached the drive shaft to a steel rotor with small round magnets lining its outer edges. In this set-up of a simple generator, the rotor would spin so that the magnets passed by a wire coil just in front of them, generating electrical energy.

[phantom power]

1. More discussion (and video) here:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Perepiteia_Generator_by_Potential_Difference_Inc

[Greyskye]

13. Working URL

DU smilies corrupt the above.

http://tinyurl.com/27yhfy

[DCKit]

2. I had to read the original article to get to the gist of this....

For anyone who doesn't understand, there are efficiency losses in (almost?) every motor due to what is referred to as "back EMF" which, basically, acts as a brake on the system.

This guy has apparently stumbled upon a method of using "back EMF" to cause a positive feedback and greater efficiency of the system.

This isn't the first time these types of claims have been made, but who really understands even half the stuff Nicola Tesla did?

[intaglio]

3. Ok, folk, please remember the three rules of thermodynamics

You can't win
You can't break even

YOU CAN'T BREAK THE RULES.

Why no mention of losses due to friction, resistance, capacitance, radio energy or inductance? Please recall that not one snake-oil over unity machine has ever worked or reduced the inventors electricity bill by one cent.

[gtar100]

4. And so it never will? Or why bother trying? Oh, ye of little faith.

The beauty of these experiments and tests are that they can actually drive up the efficiency of a machine. Even if it doesn't become a "perpetual motion" machine, the fact is more work is being done with less energy. That in itself is pretty cool.

Never say never. Skepticism and an open mind are very good companions.

[Tesha]

5. Remember: Never keep your mind so open that your brains fall out.

No purely-electromagnetic machine is going to break the
laws of thermodynamics; the laws are too well understood.

Tesha

[phantom power]

9. I think the talk about laws of thermodynamics is a red herring.

What this guy might have done is stumble on a way to reduce back-EMF efficiency loss. Then again, maybe he didn't. But I don't think he's claiming to have done anything physically impossible, like defeat thermodynamics.

On the other hand, what I know about electromagnetics would fit on a post-it note.

[Zodiak]

12. I'm a biologist, so that naturally means

my physics knowledge would fit on a post-it, as well....especially electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

[gtar100]

16. That's what skepticism is for. A check on fantasy to not stray too far from reality.

We might consider that overcoming the laws of thermodynamics is life's greatest challenge. If it's not overcome, the whole universe will eventually come to a grinding halt. And the remainder of eternity will be motionless.

[n2doc]

7. It's not just a good idea, It's the LAW! n/t

[intaglio]

10. I actually said rules

and as I observed have any of these over unity devices (the correct term as their efficiency is greater than 1) ever generated one cent of power for their makers?

Let me put it another way TANSTAAFL!

[mainegreen]

6. Every year some device comes out.

Every year preposterous claims are made.
Every year the media eats this crap up.
Every year they get investors money.
Every year they delay revealing the invention to 'work out the unexpected kinks'.
Every year the previous years invention fades away, with I suspect investors money.

[TZ]

8. I wish I could recommend this post

Yep. There seems to be a perpetual motion machine of crap in this country.

[Tesha]

11. People are very credulous. (NT)

[Esra Star]

14. Don't forget that the ramjet was a preposterous idea.

I don't know what this guy has found. Probably nothing, but just maybe
a slightly more efficient unit.
I love this stuff.

[TZ]

15. Two words: cold fusion

Yeah, I'm cynical. Too many of these huge "discoveries" turn out to be nothing. Still waiting to see how the Segway is going to replace the automobile (as some claimed pre-marketing)

[Esra Star]

19. When they went out into the desert to test the first atom bomb

there was solid betting that nothing would happen because it was a "stupid" idea.
It is true that the gems are sometimes buried deep.
It would be a good idea to get the do-hickey(?) independently tested.
Cheers

[edhopper]

20. Yeah,

the US Government, used it's precious resources at a time of war (when we had Presidents like FDR and Truman who cared about this stuff) and with the advice of no less than Albert Einstein, built a bomb that was probably not going to work and was a "stupid idea'.
This is so far from the history of the Manhattan project. There was actually a small concern that it would ignote the atmosphere and destroy the world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Uh, no they didn't.

They knew it would work ab initio.

[Esra Star]

23. At that stage they only knew theoretically that it would work.

That is to say before the first successful attempt there could have been
a fatal flaw that nobody saw.
The person I am referring to as being sceptical was some army General who
had no idea, but he was sure it would not work.
I'll attempt to paraphrase:-
"Damn fool thing won't work. And I speak as an expert in ballistics"

If this is apocryphal I retract.

Cheers

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Yeah, but the theory was sound, and supported by solid theoretical evidence.

"The person I am referring to as being sceptical was some army General who
had no idea, but he was sure it would not work.
I'll attempt to paraphrase:-
"Damn fool thing won't work. And I speak as an expert in ballistics""

Well there you go. A general who's on expert on ballistics wouldn't know anything except for ballistics, which has nothing to do with nuclear physics.

[Skinner]

17. This sentence is key:

"What I can say with full confidence is that our system violates the law of conservation of energy," he says.

So, in the opening sentence of the article they tell us that this guy would be the the first to admit that he doesn't know how his machine works from a physics standpoint.

And then he tells us "with full confidence" that it violates the law of conservation of energy.

He doesn't say that it appears to violate the law of conservation of energy. He doesn't say, "I know it's not possible to violate the law of conservation of energy, but this machine sure looks like it is doing exactly that." No, he says with full confidence that it actually violates a fundamental law of physics.

I will admit that it is certainly within the realm of possibility that he has created a machine that does something he cannot explain -- something that may even be worth looking into and trying to understand. But I can say "with full confidence" that he has not violated a fundamental law of physics.

[Johonny]

21. key to science is

not keeping it to yourself. Unless the person actually publishes something about his machine in which allows another scientist to test his machine then you can pretty much assume there's nothing there.

[PATRICK]

25. The main point

is when instead of a dampening effect the field increased. That is the essence of the puzzle. Concentrating on the ever increasing field, motor speed loop is the wow sideshow. Of course invoking the laws against the wow factor is like trying to scoff at a magician's trick without understanding the mechanism.

Since I am good at neither magic tricks or physics I wouldn't even speculate, even so far as to looking up the sleeve of primary energy output. What I don't know could be put on a molecule of spittle futilely attempting to coat the back of stamp.

[Ptah]

18. These sentences jumped out at me.

"Heins has also been raising money for his invention, asking individuals such as
former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, Virgin Group founder Richard Branson,
Tesla Motors chairman Elon Musk, and Google´s "ReCharge IT" project.

Due to his obsession with his machine, he has suffered a failed marriage and
lost custody of his two children, and is currently unemployed."

That's quite a list of people to ask.