Self Contained Power Source? 397
McOSEN writes "Your Server Cabinet could have a 100% self sustained power source. It's called Parallel Path Technology and it's being coined as a revolution in the magnetic motor industry. From Segways to Vacuum cleaners to Server Cabinets. The article talks about the technology but doesn't exactly lay out specifics."
Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:4, Informative)
1. It's a motor, not a generator. It sounds like it could be a neat motor, but it's still not a generator.
2. "The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier."
That's right folks! It's perpetual motion machine!
So, this is about a motor that makes claims that are pretty universally accepted to be impossible. The poster, of course, is affiliated with the site hosting the page, so he really should have read the article the same way I did. Even if he didn't, maybe ScuttleMonkey should have.
I would be more annoyed, but this fits ScuttleMonkey's past science articles. Could someone send him a few pop-sci introduction texts, so we can stop having the Electric Universe, perpetual motion, and other fringe theories on the frontpage as science?
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:3, Insightful)
The slogan here is "news for nerds", not "news for people who have no knowledge whatsoever of the basic principles of physical science"...
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:3, Insightful)
Actualy (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of weird, and annoying given how crappy this place has become. No one with any authority cares about the site at all. It's pretty lame.
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:5, Funny)
Well I thought it was very funny anyway. Especially the bit that says "The article talks about the technology but doesn't exactly lay out specifics".
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:2)
Are you kidding me?
The reason they're called 'permanent' magnets is that they do not wear out. You cannot get energy from magnets.
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:3, Interesting)
Magnetic field, on the other hand, is rotational. So there are move trajectories which generate net gain or loss. That's why it's possible to magnetize or demagnetize magnets. And of course, law of c
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:4, Insightful)
The iron filings move because you're moving the magnet. Don't move the magnet? No little iron filings moving.
The exception is when you first bring the magnet close enough to the filings to make them move. They will move towards the magnet. That movement is due to their potential energy (energy of position). Now, why don't we harness that? We'll just move the filings away and drop them again... oh, wait, that will take the same amount, or more, energy as we get out. Okay, let's turn off the magnet and them move them away. Oh, wait, you can't turn off a permanent magnet. Okay, we'll use an electromagnet! Oh, wait, the electricity it takes to run the electromagnet is equal to or more than any energy we get out. Oh well.
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:3, Interesting)
No. You can move them 'sideways', this requires _less_ energy (and demagnetises your magnet a bit). That's because magnetic field is a vortex field. If you repeat this process backwards you will lose some energy ang remagnetize your magnet a bit.
What you say is true for electric field, however.
Re:Basic Forces and Zero Point Energy (Score:4, Interesting)
I am currently dumbfounded by two things. (1) That someone keeps modding these comments down, as the subject is intensely interesting and there is valid debate here, as I shall show (again). and (2) That I get responses like this one which are self-defeating, as I shall proceed to show.
As to your comment, above, let us try a simple thought experiment. Imagine two electromagnets sitting on a tabletop and oriented such that their flux will cause a repulsive force when the electromagnets are powered. Imagine that both of these electromagnets are attached to a platform that can move on the table (wheels, low friction surface, whatever). Now further imagine that we place them arbitrarily close together. When we apply power to the electromagnets, what happens? Obviously, the electromagnets exert a motive force on one another and move apart. The act of moving apart clearly uses energy.
Is your assertion that the energy expended to impart a motive force to the experimental apparatus not originating in the electrical power used to energize the magnetic coils? Or, perhaps you believe that the only energy expended is expended when the aparatus actually moves? If your answer is the first one, then your argument is self defeating because that clearly violates the law of conservation of energy. If your answer is the second one, then let us add aditional parameters to our experiment and see what happens. Since you (in this case) are stating that energy is only consumed when the aparatus moves, let us place two rigid bodies with pressure sensors on the opposing sides of each electromagnet and re-run the experiment. In this case, the electromagnets will exert a motive force on one another, but the aparatus can no longer move. However, the pressure sensors will register presure (active compression) related to the imparted motive force. This constant pressure REQUIRES A CONSTANT EXPENSE OF ENERGY.
Do you disagree? If so, can you please explain how the electromagnets are causing a measurable compression of the pressure sensor without a constant expenditure of energy?
Now for the electrons repelling each other; the energy comes from bringing the electrons closer together. So, in order for the electrons to repel each other again, some amount of energy has to be exerted in bringing the electrons close together again. Energy is completely conserved in this situation. Just remember... force is not energy. It also doesn't take a supply of power to maintain a force. While there are problems with our understanding of the universe, this is not one of them.
It took me exactly 2 seconds to conceive of a simple thought experiment to prove you wrong. I am surprised that you didn't realize the same thiing when you were typing your response to me. I must assume that you are not actually thinking about this subject, but rather blinding regurgitating old, learned, conservation of energy religion. Here it is:
Imagine a closed system in free space with a large quantity of electrons freely *bouncing around*
Get the picture yet? Need help?
Ok, here is help: Those electrons don't have anyone pushing them together (e.g. they are not being accellerated, except perhaps by one another). However, over time they will have essentially infinite electrostatic interactions with one another, bouncing around infinitely, never loosing energy. But here is the kicker: Because of their interactions with each other, they will constantly be exposed to electrostatic acceleration which implies the expenditure of energy. Acceleration is not free. At no time does t
Re:"LISA!!" (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
If you like exotic motor designs, check out these "thin gap" motors [thingap.com]. These brushless permanent magnet motors can reach 90% efficiency, which is very impressive. The windings are made from thin copper plates rather than round wires. These are real. You can order them.
There's some interesting work going on in motor electromagnetics, but the "greater than 100%" motor probably isn't it.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
But definitely aren't going to go over 100%
I really wish perpetual motion, free energy
Re:Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Mod parent up (Score:5, Funny)
This idea is already in use: Even as we speak, dead physicists the world over are spinning in their graves from the posting of this Slashdot article. We simply need to harness this energy to solve the worlds energy problems!
Re:Mod parent up (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing happened to the idea. It's been used for decades. My father worked for a defense contractor in the late 60's who had their computer rooms powered via a motor-driven generators with a 6-foot diameter reinforced concrete disks affixed to the shafts between the motors and generators. The inertia of the spinning disks easily kept the big iron powered up during brownouts, and during blackouts they provided enough interim power for the generators to come online.
If you specifically mean those super high-speed flywheels we hear about from time to time, well, those require such exacting construction that they're still too expensive to replace batteries or generators. Someday maybe, but not yet.
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:2)
I always thought that Slashdot editors are somewhat literate as basic science g
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:4, Funny)
> basic science goes...
New here, aren't you?
You emphasized wrong words (Score:2, Insightful)
How to make a small fortune in the stock market? Start with a big one.
Want to increase efficiency over 100%? Start with a motor that has 40%, make one that is 80% efficient - you got 100% increase!
Re:You emphasized wrong words (Score:4, Insightful)
Let say I was to say
"This will increase your runnning speed substatially, over 4 minutes in a mile"
You could assume to you would be cutting 4 minutes from your mile.
If I were to say
"This will increase your runnning speed substatially, over the 4 minute mile barrier"
The assumption would be vastly different.
Re:You emphasized wrong words (Score:2)
Re:You emphasized wrong words (Score:3, Insightful)
100% isn't a barrier if it's a relative increase, as you correctly point out. It is a barrier if you're talking about absolute efficiency. By talking about it as a barrier, the author almost certainly intends for us to read it as "100+% absolute efficiency."
I'd be happy to be corrected by anyone affiliated with the posted site, but until then, I strongly believe that they're talking about a motor that's more than 100% efficient
The meaning of the word (Score:2)
Not necessarily bogus (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, they are using a permanent magnet as a type of high-density chemical-free battery, releasing the energy that was required to magnetize the material in the first place. The magnets would eventu
Re:Not necessarily bogus (Score:2)
It's a neat idea, but I too have doubts about how much energy you can shove into a magnet and get back out. It does raise a pretty fun question: how efficient is the
Time for magnetodynamics 101 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time for magnetodynamics 101 (Score:2)
Not really, thanks. Confirming my suspicion that while energy can be stored in a magnet, it currently isn't that much.
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:4, Funny)
That's the beauty of it! You connect the axes of two of these things together. Power one, and use the power exceeding 100% efficiency to power the other as a generator!
Can anyone tell me why there's no big foot on this story?
-Peter
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:2)
Patent by Boeing Phantom Work? (Score:2)
I seriously doubt the 100% barrier, but approaching it is a different matter. Keep in mind that they are using permanent mags. Those had to be created.
Re:Yet Another Bogus Science Story (Score:3, Insightful)
Developed for the phantom (Score:5, Funny)
Wow.. (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Simpson's quote (Score:5, Funny)
Bah... (Score:3, Funny)
Did someone forget entropy?
Anyone want to buy a bridge (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anyone want to buy a bridge (Score:5, Funny)
> it closer to 100% it won't go over, unless someone discovered some
> new laws of physics.
The only natural law involved here is "There's a sucker born every minute".
Re:Anyone want to buy a bridge (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh Physics (Score:5, Insightful)
Perpetual motion machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously: Editors, please shitcan perpetual motion machines before we have to waste precious seconds on them. When a real PMM is possible, you'll know it's happened because suddenly the universe will have stopped working properly, and you'll be instantaneously and very thoroughly dead.
Name that classic SF story (Score:2)
Re:Name that classic SF story (Score:2)
Naming that SF story... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:3, Informative)
Wikipedia's entry on Perpetual Motion Machines has a good explanation of the obsession with permanent magnets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion [wikipedia.org]
Take a look at the "techniques" section. The core mistake in these theories is that work done by permanent magnets doesn't weaken the magnet.
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:4, Insightful)
What is most sad about the story is that it appeared on the front page of Slashdot. "News for nerds" turned into "News for idiots". This leads me to believe that if even the supposedly scientifically minded Slashdot editors and submitters are willing to believe such crap, the general public will probably be even easier convinces.
Sad, sad, sad... I blame the primary education in this country.
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:2)
Not a PPM (Score:2)
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I think you may be on to something... a suction cup sticks to a window in much the same way! We all know that suction cups work on the principle of "vacuum" (and we're not talking sweepers, here). Outer space
Permanent Magnets and Zero Point Energy (Score:3, Informative)
For example, two electrons, through electrostatic repulsion, will accelerate away from one another. It is impossible to dismiss that energy was required to cause this acceleration. Yet, t
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:3, Funny)
Really!? When?
Even if it were possible to prove something impossible, we haven't done it here. Now.. I'm not defending the article, it's certainly BS.. but the idea that the universe is not a closed loop system, the idea that once energy enters one of it's forms it cannot possibly take any other form ever under any circumstance, I would think,
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Perpetual motion machines (Score:3, Funny)
Besides, if power suddenly became free there would not be much money in that. There might be money in building such power plants and in supplying the raw materials to build those plants. But there would be very little money in the generation of the power itself. The big effect
Clap {sarcasticly long pause} clap {SLP} clap. (Score:3)
Mod article down (Score:3, Insightful)
What could it be? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What could it be? (Score:2)
What gets me is that the submitter said the article is light on details, but the submitter probably wrote the article himself! At least, they're both from OSEN.
lab? (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
The one true statement in the post!
What's it got to do with "Server Cabinets"? Absolooly... nuthin'.
Warning, warning! (Score:5, Funny)
Bullshit detector overload!
This is Slashdot, for crying out loud. We're nerds, we don't fall for this idiotic screed even a high school freshman could debunk.
Ooooh, big words are scary! Stator, rotor, magnetic flux. Dammit, both the editor and article submitter should hand in their geek cards.
This guy does have a real patent, though. I don't know which is worse, the ignoramus patent examiner who allowed this one through or the baboon who posted it to Slashdot. Check the USPTO link here [uspto.gov].I can't wait until Taco's subscription to... (Score:3, Funny)
Don't get too excited yet... (Score:5, Informative)
I glanced through the patent [uspto.gov] at USPTO and it appears to me that what this is is a more efficient electric motor, not something that outputs more energy than is put into it.
I believe they're called "Spindizzy's" (Score:2)
Sadly Misunderstood (Score:5, Insightful)
^ Mod Parent Up ^ (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Ended Stories (Score:2)
It's real... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's real... (Score:2)
Re:It's real... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's real... (Score:3, Informative)
Any motor that's not 100% efficient will dissipate the remainder of its input power in losses such as friction, windage, Joule heating, and the like. If you are going to improve the efficiency of a motor, you must reduce one or more of these losses; there is no other way. How, exactly, does Flynn reduce th
BS-o-meter pegged (Score:2)
I don't need to read any more. Oh:
BS-o-meter just went up in smoke :(
Didn't they make the Flux Capacitor? (Score:3, Funny)
Squeeky Boa (Score:2)
Does my mind look like a punching bag? (Score:2, Funny)
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030922 [userfriendly.org]
Bogus (Score:4, Informative)
There is no room for any meaningful improvement unless you claim to have more than 100% efficiency, and they do. Lunatic bin right here!
Current electrical motors/generators are up to 99% efficient, and the loss is mostly in resistive loss in wire.
There is no room for any meaningful improvement unless you claim to have more than 100% efficiency, and they do. Lunatic bin right here.!
I was curious as to what they based their claim on?
First, go to http://www.flynnresearch.net/ [flynnresearch.net] to se some details on this.
The answer is:
Just doctor up formulaes: Force is proportional to magnetic flux. Se http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ [wolfram.com] Look up 'amperes law', 'magnetic force' and 'Lorentz force'. As you can see they are all _linear_. I.e. F=B*k. (Force = Field times some constant. Flynn makes the relationship quadratic: F=B^2*A/2u.
To translate for
Time travel? (Score:2, Funny)
This looks more promising (Score:2)
SA solar research eclipses rest of the world
n a scientific breakthrough that has stunned the world, a team of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new, highly efficient solar power technology that will enable homes to obtain all their electricity from the sun.
This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures could soon be a thing of the past.
The unique South African-developed sola
100% *increase* in efficiency? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it reasonable to assume you can get more output power with better efficiency? Try this article titled
Increase Efficiency 10 Percent and Double Output:
I think the original poster/editor misunderstood the original claim...
Is it me or does this article smell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the title reeks of faddish words. Remember last year's warm fusion fraudster? This year is mirroring Cell processors and the tech that it uses.
It makes me wonder who is really submitting these articles to Slashdot.
Slashdotted........Here's another link (Score:2)
Pretty cool. The motor is pretty big..
Where is the working model? (Score:2, Funny)
You dont understand..... (Score:2, Funny)
This is the energy associated with a prediction of quantum thoery which proposes th
defending the undefendable (Score:2)
solar sails, picking up energy by flying past planets.
Does the big bang theory of the universe make any sense the universe just appeared and there was a sudden out rush of mass and energy... if the universe has a start point then the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed needs an
Self Contained Power Source? (Score:2)
For the record, I'm not holding my breath on this one . . .
it appears not to be bogus. (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, the magnets will eventually run out...
it makes sense.
It is truly a quantum leap! (Score:4, Interesting)
At least they're being honest. As a scientist would know, (and they purport to be scientists), a quantum leap is the absolute least amount something can move without standing still. And they didn't say whether it was a leap forwards or backwards.
So basically they probably mean that this is a tiny tiny step backwards for them. I'll can believe that.
Re:first (Score:5, Funny)
Re:first (Score:2)
Re:first (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not perpetual motion (Score:2)
Re:Not perpetual motion (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:
The technology claims to be able to increase magnet motor efficiency substantially, even over the 100% barrier.
It may be described primarily as a motor, but if it could generate excess power then it would also be a "self contained power source." Of course, it can't, but TFA does imply that it is one.
If I'm reading the text of their patent correctly, it's not for the motor, but for the ma
Re: Not perpetual motion (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, their pseudo-science is laid on thick, but it looks to me like a variant on the Lutec scam which is, funnily, always going to be ready "at the end of the year X" where X is whatever c
HOW IT WORKS and DOESN'T WORK (Score:4, Informative)
As I understand it, the claim of above unity energy utilization in the articel summary is (of course) false and not being made for this motor.
What they are saying is above unity torque production. And here unity simply means the ratio with respect to a particular arbiratrily chosen standard. It's not a magic number. Just a way to avoid using units in the discussion.
Now what appears to be happeing is that if the rotor were stopped and one measured the torque on the rotor (or linear actuator) then you would find that this force was four times as high as a motor without the parallel path technology, running at the same current and the same number of windings.
Now we can see that this is sort of misleading. If we kept the current constant and the windings constant then the force or toruqe is higher in a non-moving rotor or actuator. But in a non-moving system one can, for the same current always increase the number of windings to increase the force. The ultimate limit comes from several practical realities. 1) increasing the windings increases both the impedance and residual reactance of the motor making it lossy and limiting it's frequency response. 2) The upper limit is reached when the magnetic flux is no longer contained by the ferrite. Both motors probably have a problem with #2 but the parallel path motor has fewer windings for the same level of force as a conventional motor.
Okay but that is still begging the question since were talking about non moving motor. adding in a permenant magent to boost the force is a lot like adding a spring to boos the force. You pay for it by the energy it took to load the spring.
Once this motor starts moving then one has to do a dynamic anayis to the flux collapsing as the rotor or actualtor moves is drawn into the field. What does this do the current in the motor? What does this do to it's complex impedance? I don't actually know the answers to those questions. The static analysis is simply bogus for concluding that. But if one were to maintain the "spring" analogy then it seems like one could not possibly be getting any net gain.
what this device does seem to be doing however is to make an assymetric pull on the acutator. that is it pulls on one arm of the motor with 4 times the torque and the other arm with no torque at all. That might possibly lead so some sort of alteration in the lead-lag curve of of the phase response of the motor at different speeds. If so it might somehow make a motor with a given amount of windings and ferrite optimally usitize it's material content better.
So if there is any gain at all here I suspect it lies with this latter effect. But I cant' do the analysis to be sure.
Re:HOW IT WORKS and DOESN'T WORK (Score:2)
Re:HOW IT WORKS and DOESN'T WORK (Score:3, Insightful)
the key point it if there is any net gain at all. The static force analysis simply does not give the answer. As I said adding a spring would do exactly the same thing as adding a permenant magnet. But then it becomes obvious that there no net gain because the you had to pay the effort of loading the spring.
Since
Re:HOW IT WORKS and DOESN'T WORK (Score:3, Funny)
s/con/sus/ (Score:2)
Re:BS Alert!!! BS Alert!!! (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like no-one read past TFA summary (Score:3, Informative)
Given that the same page confuses force and energy, there's no reason on earth why anyone should take this seriously.