Searching \ for '[TECH] Magnetic Motor based on Howard Johnson's De' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/motors.htm?key=motor
Search entire site for: 'Magnetic Motor based on Howard Johnson's De'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Magnetic Motor based on Howard Johnson's De'
2009\03\23@203444 by Enki

picon face

Running just on magnets:

http://mylowmagnetmotor.com/

2009\03\23@211742 by Richard Prosser

picon face
I'm not convinced I'm afraid.

Anyway - aren't most electric motors magnetic (apart from the
electrostatic ones?)

RP

2009/3/24 Enki <spam_OUTenkitecTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com>:
>
> Running just on magnets:
>
> http://mylowmagnetmotor.com/
>
> -

2009\03\23@213543 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Richard Prosser wrote:
>> Running just on magnets:
>>
>> http://mylowmagnetmotor.com/
>

> I'm not convinced I'm afraid.

I'm skeptical too.

"I do not see magnet motors as a being perptual motion machines. Rather,
they are somehow harnessing a force of magnetism that has not yet been
appreciated by conventional science. This wouldn't be the first time that
physics was wrong about something. After all, they said it would be
impossible for many build a flying craft. It took four years of the Wright
brothers flying around before they finally relented.

My guess is that the magnet motor creates a local disturbance in some kind
of magnetic field, creating a flux which is then harnessed for work."


2009\03\23@225704 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

There could be a new tag [Fantasy] for these kind of things.  It is  
most likely, probably, possibly ( Ben Franklin ) a scam and a fraud.
MA


2009\03\23@234638 by Chris Gavin-Egan

flavicon
face
If everything bar the magnets were made from transparent perspex
and you had video footage of it being assembled (maybe as a kit) and then
run with 2or 3 streams of video p-in-p showing the room in its entirety
along with the people in the room as one continuous shoot with no
cuts/edits; THEN i would be inclined to believe aspects of it. Or even if it
was clearly demonstrated by more than one person that would help

Having said all that - i think what little thrust(?) it had was incredibly
small whether it real or otherwise.

Fascinating to watch all the same - thanks.
{Original Message removed}

2009\03\23@235628 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
I love the part where the magnet needed to be remagnetized for the
motor to work again after some period of time.

The remagnetizing took place in a shop where the machine consumed
significant power, all so it could push a few magnets on a very, very
expensive bearing.

No practical application whatsoever, but a nice little line about, "If
anyone makes a commercial product out of this, please consider paying
us royalties..."

Then the disclaimers are hilarious.  Might as well say, "We have no
idea what this is or how it works, but we're sure it's useful."

Good for a chuckle once in awhile.

-Adam

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Enki <.....enkitecKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Running just on magnets:
>
> http://mylowmagnetmotor.com/
>
> -

2009\03\24@054558 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Well worth a look for any engineers or permanent children that haven't seen
it.

That said:
It's a hoax.
Don't know why.
Don't know how - but it would be easy to do.

> Running just on magnets:
>
> http://mylowmagnetmotor.com/

Comment
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_MYLOW%27s_Magnetic_Motor_based_on_Howard_Johnson%27s_Design

Videos:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_MYLOW%27s_Magnetic_Motor_based_on_Howard_Johnson%27s_Design#NOTE_ABOUT_VIDEO_TAKE-DOWN

Poor Richard may be mad at me, but I have to say it:
I'm essentially sure that this is a hoax. ie fraudulent claims.
.
It would be nice to say that it was caused by a misconception of some other
effect.
Or, best of all, that it was "real".
But I strongly feel that the nice honest sounding straight forward gentleman
on the videos is a liar and a cheat.

I'd greatly love to be wrong.
I'd love it to work.
Notwithstanding the comments by some about low power etc, if this DID work
it would change the world. Totally and forever.
This is magic. Or fraud. It's not any form of physics as we know it, Jim.
Alas.

This is making in the order of 1 Watt. Per year it would only require a few
dollars of electricity to run it . (8.8 kWh/Watt/year)
Or, as shown it could only make a few dollars of electricity per year. But,
if you can make one at this level then a proper utilisation of the forces
involved (and there are necessarily forces) would probably allow something
smaller than this to generate 10 to 100 Watts. Continually. In short order
they would be powering deep space probes, for which there is NO cheap
reliable available energy source available. It would power Mars landers, and
small telemetry sites, and more. Soon it would power pacemakers, and
watches, and MPx players and cell phones and ... . It would change the
world. In due course you'd have "power too cheap to meter". Really.

It's a hoax (sorry Ben).
It breaks the known laws of physics and is vanishingly unlikely to offer new
ones in return.

A law of physics is simply an observation of what we see happenm in due
course explained in terms of other thing stht we see happen. We put numbers
and formulas on the observations and call them explanations. BUT there are
NO explanations. Rutherford notwithstanding, it's ALL stamp-collecting.
Physics more than almost anything else, as whereas the soft sciences allow
us to wonder when we can't explain, Physics allows us to explain tightly,
based on what we have seen. And use our numerical describing tool to change
the observations into explanations.

So, I'm saying that what we see here is NOT what we see here. It is not a
new observation of how things are. Its some nice believable people trying to
hoax us all. Why I don't know.

Ben / Richard would be mad at me after that, had he not resolved never to
be, if possible.



    Russell

2009\03\24@061409 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Russell McMahon wrote:

> It's a hoax (sorry Ben).
> It breaks the known laws of physics and is vanishingly unlikely to offer new
> ones in return.

I would have said so too about a year ago. Then I stumbled across a video
on magnatism. In it this guy demonstrated what he called a magnetic gate.
Esentially it was a ring of magnets arranged as a doughnut (about 8 - 12
inches across) standing on its end. He placed a small truck near one side
of the opening and the truck was pulled toward the gate (accelerated from
rest), through the gate and on out the other side. It continued to travel
away from the gate at constant speed.

This wasn't a video made to demonstrate the gate. It was a scientific
video discussing magnetism. The gate snippet was a "BTW look at this"

I will try to find it but in the mean time try googling "magnetic gate"
and see if you can find info on this yourself.

Regards
Sergio masci

2009\03\24@063012 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Russell McMahon wrote:
>> It's a hoax (sorry Ben).
>> It breaks the known laws of physics and is vanishingly unlikely to offer
>> new
>> ones in return.

> I would have said so too about a year ago. Then I stumbled across a video
> on magnatism. In it this guy demonstrated what he called a magnetic gate.
> Esentially it was a ring of magnets arranged as a doughnut (about 8 - 12
> inches across) standing on its end. He placed a small truck near one side
> of the opening and the truck was pulled toward the gate (accelerated from
> rest), through the gate and on out the other side. It continued to travel
> away from the gate at constant speed.

I'd love to see that. I really would.

BUT either
- That too is a hoax or
- The gate is triggered or operated in some way and either
-        It is a one time even that involves an energy decrease as the gate
closes or
-        The gate is closed by an external energy source that provides more
energy than th 'truck' receives.


I would LOVE such things to be true.
I would love new "laws" of Physics to be described.

BUT they are not going to come [tm] from people playing with magnets
Sorry Ben.

Somebody plase please please prove me wrong.
But, alas, they won't :-(.

If a generalised magnetic gate existed as per the video (as opposed to a one
time effect or  ahoax) you'd have seen it in about a zillion motors by now
with the "trucks" rotating through a zeries of gates permanently.

Energy can not* be created or destroyed.
Anything that violates this has an extreme duty of care to prove its bona
fides and so far nothing ever has.

* "can not" here means that the described observtions which we call the
relevant laws of physics have NEVER EVER been seen to allow otherwise. One
of these days ... . But, not on U Tube yet :-)


     Russell




2009\03\24@065956 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> * "can not" here means that the described observtions which we call the
> relevant laws of physics have NEVER EVER been seen to allow otherwise. One
> of these days ... . But, not on U Tube yet :-)
>  
There is a theoretical free lunch, ZPE (zero point energy). (what
happened to your weasel words? tisk tisk)
The cassimir (sp?) effect where by excluding potential waveforms from a
space ,by say putting it between 2 conducting plates, you get a pressure
pushing the plates together. If you then somehow make the plates non
conductive you can pull them apart again.
As its only the *possibility* of waves existing nothing is consumed
doing work to push the plates together.

This effect is well known and dealt with by MEMS machines (where it
causes all kinds of irritating problems).

As yet nobody has an energy positive way of extracting this energy. In
addition the power output is rather small as a rule, the force only
starts to become really significant at around the molecular scale.



2009\03\24@072004 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> * "can not" here means that the described observtions which we call the
>> relevant laws of physics have NEVER EVER been seen to allow otherwise.
>> One
>> of these days ... . But, not on U Tube yet :-)

> There is a theoretical free lunch, ZPE (zero point energy).

It's a theoretical theoretical free lunch :-).
(Casimir effect).
Several ways of looking at what happens - you described one of them.

Buzz "Contact Light" Aldrin (THE Buzz Aldrin) wrote  a SciFi novel in which
the primary means of Starship propulsion was using zero point energy
extracted via the Casimir effect. It pays to keep up the maintenance on your
plates, according to the story :-(. An OK story.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

As you say, getting it out is the trick. Once the plates are 'stuck
together' you are resisted by the forces which provide the power in the
first place.

At the risk of carrying an analogy too far, it seems very similar to the
problem using to the effect in question in this thread - magnets can
approach from a great distance and deliver net energy as they are attracted
to each other. BUT once you need to separate them you need to put in an
equal (or greater) amount of energy. That's why the "magnetic gate" and the
current magic motor CANNOT [tm] work.

> (what
> happened to your weasel words? tisk tisk)

Various apologies to Ben / Poor Richard / Mister President ... were
scattered around.
And note that "can not" in fact is defined as meaning "have never [to our
knowledge*] ever been veraciously reported".

* - minkly defined.

About 1 atmosphere equiv (100 kPa at about 1 atomic radius) they say.



       Russell

2009\03\24@084332 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I've found the video of the magnetic gate. I'm embaressed to say that it's
not as I remember it. There is a great deal less about magnetism in it
than I remember and it does indeed seem to focus on the magnetic gate.

Anyway, I'll upload it to the server and give access to it to the first 10
people that request it. Sorry it's 200k and I don't want my server
swamped. Hopefully some of these people will also make it available for
others to download. Send me a private email if interested. Russell has
already said he'd like to see it - so that's one request.

<rant>
Now for something that really bugs me: all the concrete assertions
that verious things cannot happen. I was watching a documentry some time
ago about black holes in which various theories were being put forward. I
almost fell off my seat when one of the speakers explained that some of
the maths currently describing space time and relativistic effects does
not fit so it is ***ignored*** by many scientists. Over the years it has
become apparent that a great many scientists are like priests following a
religion - there's lots they don't understand but they still push their
view as though it is a fundamental irrefutable truth.
</rant>

Regards
Sergio Masci

2009\03\24@091203 by olin piclist

face picon face
sergio masci wrote:
> Now for something that really bugs me: all the concrete assertions
> that verious things cannot happen. I was watching a documentry some time
> ago about black holes in which various theories were being put forward.
> I almost fell off my seat when one of the speakers explained that some
> of the maths currently describing space time and relativistic effects
> does not fit so it is ***ignored*** by many scientists. Over the years
> it has become apparent that a great many scientists are like priests
> following a religion - there's lots they don't understand but they
> still push their view as though it is a fundamental irrefutable truth.

There is a big difference between being unsure about the laws of physics at
the extremes of the parameters versus on a human scale.  We might be unsure
what exactly goes on at or very near the singularity of a black hole, why
there is more gravity (or something like it) at a cosmic scale than we can
account for, or what exactly the dynamics are that lead to sunspots and the
lack of them, but we are a lot more sure about the conservation of energy as
it applies to anything you're going to do on your desk.

Newton basically got it right a few hundred years ago.  We've meanwhile
found that his equations are only a simplification when you're not zipping
around near the speed of light.  I expect we'll continue to find what we
know now is a simplification of ever more general cases, but to make the
errors apparent requiring ever more extreme parameters.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\24@092350 by jim

flavicon
face

----- Original Message -----
From: "sergio masci" <smplxspamKILLspamallotrope.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistKILLspamspam.....mit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [TECH] Magnetic Motor based on Howard Johnson's Design


{Quote hidden}

> --

2009\03\24@092512 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Russell,

You probably know this but Ben Franklin was never US president.

Sean


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Russell McMahon
<EraseMEapptechspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2009\03\24@103621 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Ok lets talk about the desk.

How long ago was it that everyone "knew" that everything contained
phlogiston? That was set in stone as well. Then along came Lavoisier and
showed us that air contained something we couldn't see or understand
except through its interaction with something else - oxygen.

What about radiation, electricity, radio waves. All things that we've come
to understand and use but for a very long time we didn't even know
existed.

We smugly (and I used to include myself in this statement) talk about the
absurdity of perpetual motion machines - you can't just create energy :)
Now scientists are talking seriously about dark mater and dark energy and
I for one am starting to feel a little less smug and far less secure in my
knowledge that you can't get energy out of nothing-ness.

>
> Newton basically got it right a few hundred years ago.  We've meanwhile
> found that his equations are only a simplification when you're not zipping
> around near the speed of light.  I expect we'll continue to find what we
> know now is a simplification of ever more general cases, but to make the
> errors apparent requiring ever more extreme parameters.

Or maybe we just need to create the right set of condition on my desk.
Look at A bombs, these don't occure naturally on this planet but we can
gather enough of the pure element to make a very big hole in my desk :)

Friendly Regards
Sergio Masci

2009\03\24@104838 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
I'm happy to host it on my server and publish the link to the list -
200k isn't a problem even if everyone on the list downloads it.

-Adam

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM, sergio masci <smplxspamspam_OUTallotrope.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\03\24@105054 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Both are good points.
"Big Science" [tm] often tends not to work the way that many people may
think.
While one might expect a Popper style: model-propose tests- test - remodel -
... .

HOWEVER what often happens is an "Island" of respectability forms where a
good enough theory becomes a cause in its own right and reputations are
built on it. Once enough scientists flock to the theory they tend to defend
it with passion against all comers. If a newer better theory is generated it
must batter on the doors of established writ until its adherents gather
enough prrof that the established theory is suddenly seen to be totally
without merit and is swept away almost instantly.

This is what happened when plate tectonics replaced the gradualist
geological theory theory (name now wholly lost to brain) that had held sway
for decades +. It took about 50 years of hammering on the old theories dorrs
before platre tectonics suddenly became obvious to all and in its time
became holy writ within a decade.

Other current theories which I personally feel are in similar positions are
(no surprise) Global warming and evolution. Dark matter / dark energy seems
likely to be in a similar position. Big bang well may be. I'm not going to
even start to rave on about these. (Sign of collective relief). There will
be many more. What they will be suddenly replaced by is, of course, unknown
to me. That they probably will be seems more likely.

SO when it comes to Black Hole theory, the status quo tends to be well
supported. There will alwys be people with pet theories that they hope will
displace the staus quo. But they will be resisted until they can gather
enough support to very solidly demonstrate that their model is superior.


     Russell



2009\03\24@110059 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, M. Adam Davis wrote:

> I'm happy to host it on my server and publish the link to the list -
> 200k isn't a problem even if everyone on the list downloads it.
>
> -Adam

Sorry it seems to be my day for making mistakes today. The video is 200M
not 200k.

Regards
Sergio Masci

2009\03\24@113258 by Enki

picon face
sergio masci wrote:
> Sorry it seems to be my day for making mistakes today. The video is 200M
> not 200k.
>
> Regards
> Sergio Masci
>  


   Just upload it to http://www.Sendspace.com


2009\03\24@124324 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
Hey Adam
Based on your analysis:
I have a car that runs mysteriously all around town.
Every once in a while I have to return it to the gas station to be
re-gassified. If you use my car idea, consider paying me royalties.

You are correct, it is quite funny.
MA
{Quote hidden}

 WFT Electronics
Denver, CO   720 222 1309
" dent the UNIVERSE "

All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by WFT  
Electronics ( and it's principals ),  that are included with this  
signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as  
of the date of this communication .

2009\03\24@141620 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Sergio, please send me a link to the video. I may be able to convert/host
it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "sergio masci" <KILLspamsmplxKILLspamspamallotrope.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspammit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: [TECH] Magnetic Motor based on Howard Johnson's Design


{Quote hidden}

> --

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...