On the notion of a magnetic motor

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > On the notion of a magnetic motor

2024-06-17, 03:26:07
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10

« previous next »

Author Topic: On the notion of a magnetic motor (Read 14998 times)

bistander	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #200 on: 2024-05-21, 02:12:04 »
Full Member Posts: 134	Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-21, 01:30:57 My point is, as long as a mass continues to accelerate, the forces are not equal. In my real life example, the applied force by the man needs to exceed that of the resistive forces of the car, in order for the car to accelerate. Brad Brad, And the difference between the applied force and resistive force is mass times acceleration, a force. The sum of all the forces equal zero. That's what I tried to show in my numerical example. Sorry to butt in PW. bi

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #201 on: 2024-05-21, 02:14:00 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-20, 18:03:15 Brad, Using your cartoon example sticking in numbers: Forces needed to overcome breakaway friction (stiction) = C = 6 Newtons. Man pushes with force B = 6N. Ground exerts force on man D = 6N. Car exerts force on man A = 6N. No motion. All forces equal and opposite. Equilibrium. All of a sudden, man increases to 9N. Now B' = 9N. And D' = 9N. B' = D', equal and opposite. Car pushes back on man with 9N, A'. Now equilibrium is breached and C no longer applies due to motion. To balance equal and opposite force equation, A' = C' + W + F = 9N where: C' = rolling friction = 5N W = windage = O F = m × a = 4N. A bit later, C' = rolling friction = 5N W = windage = 1N F = m × a = 3N. As speed increases, W increases from 1 to 4N, at which time equilibrium is again obtained and F = 0 and a = O. Again equal and opposite forces as there were at each instant during the dynamic period. bi *Flat surface assumed and windage is same as aerodynamic drag force. Maybe chatGPT can explain it better than me--> Newton's Second Law of Motion: According to Newton's second law, 𝐹=𝑚𝑎. F=ma, where F is the net force applied to an object, m is the mass of the object, and a is its acceleration. For the car to accelerate, there must be a net force acting on it in the direction of acceleration. Resistive Forces: The car experiences several resistive forces that oppose its motion: Friction: The force between the car's tires and the ground. Air Resistance: The force of air pushing against the car as it moves. Mechanical Resistance: Any internal resistance in the car's components, such as in the bearings or drivetrain. Net Force: The net force on the car is the difference between the force applied by the man and the sum of all resistive forces. Mathematically, it can be expressed as :𝐹 net=𝐹 applied−𝐹 resistive. F resistive is the total of all opposing forces Acceleration: For the car to accelerate, 𝐹 net must be greater than zero. If the applied force is greater than the resistive forces, the car will experience a net force in the direction of the push, resulting in acceleration. Therefore, the man must push with a force that exceeds the total resistive forces in order for the car to accelerate. If his force is equal to the resistive forces, the car will move at a constant speed (assuming it was already in motion). If his force is less than the resistive forces, the car will either remain stationary or decelerate if it was initially moving. So, as i stated, the applied force must be greater than the opposing force, in order for the car to accelerate. This imbalance of force over distance (work done), is converted into the stored kinetic energy within the car. So, when a mass is being accelerated, the forces are opposite, but they are not equal. Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #202 on: 2024-05-21, 02:18:02 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-21, 02:04:35 Hi Brad, The change in kinetic energy of the mass is equal to the work done on the system during the acceleration period minus the losses. Everything is balanced, both forces and energy. bi We are talking about forces. Kinetic energy is not a force. It is stored energy. I already stated that all energy applied, is equal to all energy dissipated and stored. Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

bistander	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #203 on: 2024-05-21, 04:02:34 »
Full Member Posts: 134	Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-21, 02:14:00 Maybe chatGPT can explain it better than me--> Newton's Second Law of Motion: According to Newton's second law, 𝐹=𝑚𝑎. F=ma, where F is the net force applied to an object, m is the mass of the object, and a is its acceleration. For the car to accelerate, there must be a net force acting on it in the direction of acceleration. Resistive Forces: The car experiences several resistive forces that oppose its motion: Friction: The force between the car's tires and the ground. Air Resistance: The force of air pushing against the car as it moves. Mechanical Resistance: Any internal resistance in the car's components, such as in the bearings or drivetrain. Net Force: The net force on the car is the difference between the force applied by the man and the sum of all resistive forces. Mathematically, it can be expressed as :𝐹 net=𝐹 applied−𝐹 resistive. F resistive is the total of all opposing forces Acceleration: For the car to accelerate, 𝐹 net must be greater than zero. If the applied force is greater than the resistive forces, the car will experience a net force in the direction of the push, resulting in acceleration. Therefore, the man must push with a force that exceeds the total resistive forces in order for the car to accelerate. If his force is equal to the resistive forces, the car will move at a constant speed (assuming it was already in motion). If his force is less than the resistive forces, the car will either remain stationary or decelerate if it was initially moving. So, as i stated, the applied force must be greater than the opposing force, in order for the car to accelerate. This imbalance of force over distance (work done), is converted into the stored kinetic energy within the car. So, when a mass is being accelerated, the forces are opposite, but they are not equal. Brad Brad, So F = ma. ma = F, a Force. Right? My chatgpt gives me: Quote When you push an object with a force of X newtons, the object does indeed exert a force back on you due to Newton's Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that the object pushes back on you with a force of X newtons. However, the concept of inertia itself is a bit different. Inertia is the property of an object to resist changes in its state of motion. It is directly related to the mass of the object. When you apply a force to an object, its inertia resists this force, but this resistance is not a force in the same sense as the applied force or the reaction force. Instead, inertia manifests as a resistance to acceleration. Inertia is the tendency of the object to resist changes in its motion. It is a property of the object's mass. The larger the mass, the greater the inertia, and the more force is required to change its motion (i.e., to accelerate it). Looks to me like forces are balanced even during acceleration. Just a lot of double talk along the way. bi

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #204 on: 2024-05-21, 04:13:02 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-21, 04:02:34 Brad, So F = ma. ma = F, a Force. Right? My chatgpt gives me: Looks to me like forces are balanced even during acceleration. Just a lot of double talk along the way. bi And yet the second law clearly states that there must be a net force in the direction of acceleration. It is this net force that result in the build up of kinetic energy, where a transformation of the net force in the direction of acceleration is converted into kinetic energy. Are you confusing force with energy? The two are related, but not one in the same. Then when a force is applied to the moving mass, so as to oppose it's motion, that kinetic energy is then converted back into a force, where that value is equal to the net force value that accelerated that mass in the first place. As i said, during acceleration, there needs to be a net force in order to accelerate a mass. Brad Brad. --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

bistander	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #205 on: 2024-05-21, 05:12:41 »
Full Member Posts: 134	Brad, You asked me. Quote Do you believe that every force has an equal and opposite force ? I said yes. You said. Quote That is simply not the case. I see force as an action. Logic tells me you contradict Newton using an interpretation of his second to refute his third law of motion. Sorry but I will no longer argue this. bi Quote NASA (.gov) https://www1.grc.nasa.gov › newt... Newton's Laws of Motion Aug 7, 2023 — His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #206 on: 2024-05-21, 09:24:48 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-21, 05:12:41 Brad, You asked me. I said yes. You said. I see force as an action. Logic tells me you contradict Newton using an interpretation of his second to refute his third law of motion. Sorry but I will no longer argue this. bi There is no interpretation--it is exact. Please read Quote: According to Newton, an object will only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it. The presence of an unbalanced force will accelerate an object - changing its speed, its direction, or both its speed and direction. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law#:~:text=According%20to%20Newton%2C%20an%20object,both%20its%20speed%20and%20direction. The third law is in relation to the contact point of the acting force, and the reacting force-between the car and the man The second law is in relation of the sum total of all forces involved in the acceleration of a mass-in this case, the car, where, when all forces are summed up, there must be a net force in the direction of acceleration. As i stated earlier, this net force is converted into kinetic energy. The work-energy principle states that the work done by the net force on an object, results in a change in the object's kinetic energy. This principle can be mathematically expressed as: W=ΔK As i said, you need to stand back and look at the bigger picture, not just a single point. The 3rd law, as you see it, and in relation to the topic title, dictates that an all magnet motor will not work, due to every action having an equal and opposite reaction. But the second law states that, when accelerating a mass (such as a rotor/flywheel), every action does not have an equal and opposite reaction, when the sum total of forces over distance are taken into account-- (if we are to use your claim that you see forces as actions), as the net force on the accelerating mass is converted into kinetic energy. So now, how do we get an imbalance of all forces in an all magnet motor, such as we have in the man pushing the car example (newtons second law), to accelerate a mass?, like a rotor Brad I say there are many types of actions-reactions. --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

broli	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #207 on: 2024-05-21, 09:58:33 »
Sr. Member Posts: 286	Sometimes the itch gets too strong to stay silent. Let me chime in for a second and say this. Newtons third law is NOT wrong, in fact it is the reason why any so called free energy motor would work. However what is wrong is assuming that angular mass and linear mass are the same thing. They are not, one pertains to circular motion and the other to linear motion. Imo the term "moment of inertia" was chosen badly. A better term would be the angular mass of a body. Therefore any body ALWAYS has two masses, its angular mass and its linear mass. This is accounted for in rigid body physics simulation too or else the simulation would have no rotation with linear mass only. HOWEVER this does not explain why any free energy motor works either. We just made a distinction between two sorts of "masses". It is what brings these two completely separate types of mass together and forces them to interact exchanging energy, the world calls it: FRICTION Which surprise, surprise also has two types. Rolling and sliding friction. If you want to how any OU motor works, study this force. Study moment of inertia, Study rigid body dynamics. And finally try to think on how this circular (often wrongly called "rotational kinetic energy" but should be corrected to "potential energy") energy can be exchanged for linear (kinetic) energy and vice versa and you might find "OU". However I just call it electromagnetism

bistander	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #208 on: 2024-05-21, 12:05:09 »
Full Member Posts: 134	Quote from: broli on 2024-05-21, 09:58:33 Let me chime in for a second and say this. Newtons third law is NOT wrong, .... Thank you. bi

Allcanadian	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #209 on: 2024-05-21, 16:23:16 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2689	Broli Quote However what is wrong is assuming that angular mass and linear mass are the same thing. They are not, one pertains to circular motion and the other to linear motion. Imo the term "moment of inertia" was chosen badly. A better term would be the angular mass of a body. Therefore any body ALWAYS has two masses, its angular mass and its linear mass. This is accounted for in rigid body physics simulation too or else the simulation would have no rotation with linear mass only. This sounds really confusing to me. There are not two kinds of masses, there is one kind of mass which undergoes different kinds of motions. With linear motion all the mass is moving at the same velocity. Where with angular motion the velocity increases the further away the mass is from the point of rotation. In effect, with angular motion the momentum or (mass-velocity) increases the further we are away from the point of rotation. This is why we place most of the mass of a flywheel at the perimeter. The inside mass does almost nothing and the majority of the kinetic energy or momentum is stored at the rim. Quote Which surprise, surprise also has two types. Rolling and sliding friction. If you want to how any OU motor works, study this force. Study moment of inertia, Study rigid body dynamics. And finally try to think on how this circular (often wrongly called "rotational kinetic energy" but should be corrected to "potential energy") energy can be exchanged for linear (kinetic) energy and vice versa and you might find "OU". I think part of the confusion relates to how mass and inertia are defined. In physics there is really no such thing as "mass" because mass is represented by an objects resistance to changes in motion which is actually inertia. They also defined inertia as a property of mass. Do you see the problem?, in effect there claiming mass (inertia) is a property of mass. Obviously mass cannot be a property of mass in itself that is absurd. They use circular reasoning because once again nobody seems to have a clue what inertia is. You see, inertia is defined as an objects resistance to changes in motion but they have no idea where this "resistance" comes from. So they just haphazardly lumped mass and inertia together as one hoping nobody was smart enough to notice. AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Allcanadian	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #210 on: 2024-05-21, 19:09:33 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2689	When I think of angular velocity I think of a merry go round. The person at the center feels very little if any outward force but as we get further from the center it get harder to hold on because the velocity thus forces increase. We could also note the kid who inevitably gets thrown off is always at the perimeter and tumbles off in a straight line. The outward acting force we feel is our body wanting to move in a straight line but constrained to move in a circle. In Engineering we think of a rotating mass as more like a rotating onion. Every layer rotates at the same RPM however each layer has a different velocity and momentum (mass-velocity) because of it's distance from the center. So to calculate the total momentum we need to know the momentum (mass-velocity) of each layer. I once built a 12' compound trebuchet based on the same principal. A compound trebuchet uses a large cam on the weight end, like a compound bow, to increase the leverage at the start and increase the velocity near the end of the trebuchet arm swing. This coupled to the secondary arc of the projectile sling produced crazy distances. I was throwing 6" pumpkins over 150 yards. A trebuchet may look simple but there's a lot of physics involved and timing is everything. AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

broli	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #211 on: 2024-05-21, 19:14:22 »
Sr. Member Posts: 286	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-05-21, 16:23:16 Broli This sounds really confusing to me. There are not two kinds of masses, there is one kind of mass which undergoes different kinds of motions. With linear motion all the mass is moving at the same velocity. Where with angular motion the velocity increases the further away the mass is from the point of rotation. In effect, with angular motion the momentum or (mass-velocity) increases the further we are away from the point of rotation. This is why we place most of the mass of a flywheel at the perimeter. The inside mass does almost nothing and the majority of the kinetic energy or momentum is stored at the rim. Imagine we live in 2d space only for a moment where we can draw as much point masses as we like. Ask yourself this then, what is the minimum mass distribution/geometry you need to allow for mass to move at a constant velocity in a straight like with nothing else around influencing it. The answer is a point mass is sufficient to achieve that goal. Now do the same for circular motion, what is the least viable geometry you need if you only had point masses to work with to achieve that goal. Well a single point is out of the question as we would then need to apply a constant acceleration on the mass to keep it rotating and we stipulated that was no outside influence allowed. Alright then what if we two two points and connect them with infinite points in between to get a line segment. This newly evolved geometry will now also have a new attribute associated with it as we used point masses to create it so there must also be an average of all those points masses leading us to the middle of it, that new attribute we call a Center of Mass now. However we gained something else because of that too. If we ignore HOW we set it in rotational motion, would you not agree that such line segment will be able to rotate now without outside influence indefinitely and thus achieving our goal? Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-05-21, 16:23:16 I think part of the confusion relates to how mass and inertia are defined. In physics there is really no such thing as "mass" because mass is represented by an objects resistance to changes in motion which is actually inertia. They also defined inertia as a property of mass. Do you see the problem?, in effect there claiming mass (inertia) is a property of mass. Obviously mass cannot be a property of mass in itself that is absurd. They use circular reasoning because once again nobody seems to have a clue what inertia is. You see, inertia is defined as an objects resistance to changes in motion but they have no idea where this "resistance" comes from. So they just haphazardly lumped mass and inertia together as one hoping nobody was smart enough to notice. AC I agree even if I talk about "mass", I am only doing so as a convenience as everyone at least has a rough idea of what something massive is or looks like. But yes mass is just a repetition of charge but on a greater scale. But mass in of itself is meaningless if we cant measure it and that is indeed what inertia is, it allows us to measure the resistance of something to change. In other words mass is how much something resists change hmmm sounds a lot like magnetic induction. However this does still not get us closer to the circular motion problem, sure we replaced mass by charge now and inertia by magnetic induction. But given a bunch of electrons, what would you need to keep them in circular motion? The real question is not how to link gravity with quantum mechanics. Its all the same if they chose to accept a single force that always brings two opposite forces together and holds them rigidly in place. For our electrons we need a protonic wire to keep them in or we can build a huge tokamak like structure, but with neither the electrons will fly in all direction as there is no structure to hold them. The question is why do we always find a "glue" that holds two seemingly opposite things together. Whether its the proton holding electrons together that want to fly appart or quarks and there "gluons". They always seem to face the same structures on every level. Two BIG things that stick together, attracting 2 small things that dont want to be together. In the atom space we have: The quark: two up/down quarks being held by a charm quark Helium atom: (the first nobel gas) 2 protons stuck together attracting two electrons that would rather fly appart The Water molecule: arguably the most important molecule we know, two hydrogen atoms that wont want to be together but attracted by a much bigger oxygen atom This is the true fractal nature of nature. There always is "something" bigger holding two smaller things together. But here's a hint, what does it take to go from Hydrogen to helium? What is that weird little "thing" that does that. Some sort of glue?? Well again I ask you now, what do you need to keep a line segment or rotating circle of point masses rotating indefinitely without having its points fly out in all direction as soon as you let it go. What "thing" can connect them or rather should I say "glue" them to achieve that goal. When you think about reality I found it help full to think like a programmer. What if you needed to simulate reality using software what would you need in order for things to work like we see in reality. And just by pure logic see how far you can get. Reality is not some complex equation, its ridiculously simple if you know its rules. The true beauty is not the equation that defines it but the art it creates across the entire universe beyond our wildest imagination.

broli	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #212 on: 2024-05-21, 19:35:54 »
Sr. Member Posts: 286	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-05-21, 19:09:33 When I think of angular velocity I think of a merry go round. The person at the center feels very little if any outward force but as we get further from the center it get harder to hold on because the velocity thus forces increase. We could also note the kid who inevitably gets thrown off is always at the perimeter and tumbles off in a straight line. The outward acting force we feel is our body wanting to move in a straight line but constrained to move in a circle. In Engineering we think of a rotating mass as more like a rotating onion. Every layer rotates at the same RPM however each layer has a different velocity and momentum (mass-velocity) because of it's distance from the center. So to calculate the total momentum we need to know the momentum (mass-velocity) of each layer. I once built a 12' compound trebuchet based on the same principal. A compound trebuchet uses a large cam on the weight end, like a compound bow, to increase the leverage at the start and increase the velocity near the end of the trebuchet arm swing. This coupled to the secondary arc of the projectile sling produced crazy distances. I was throwing 6" pumpkins over 150 yards. A trebuchet may look simple but there's a lot of physics involved and timing is everything. AC In the merry go around what did you need to hold on and keep moving in a circle? A pole or anything stuck to it should do. So you needed structure to grab onto using your semi structured and soft hands. If either where not structured enough every atom in your body would stop going in a circle. This "structure" is the glue that repeats on every scale. Whether we call them chemical bonds, gluons, neutrons, its always the same. A force that holds opposite things together and gives them structure so they can interact in time. However perhaps a better way to say it is we needed some sort of glue between our point masses in the simulation software. Back to my cave now, see you soon.

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #213 on: 2024-05-22, 05:26:21 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote author=broli link=topic=4661.msg112329#msg112329 date=1716281913 Let me chime in for a second and say this. Newtons third law is NOT wrong, Neither is Newtons second law. The third law is in relation to the sum of forces between two objects/masses. Newtons second law defines the total sum of all forces within a system, acting upon a single object/mass Newtons second law explains as to how kinetic energy is formed, and as to where that energy comes from. Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #214 on: 2024-05-22, 13:05:06 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	On the notion of a magnet motor, what happens if it adheres to newtons third laws, but violates the conservation of energy as we know it. The only explanation would be that the energy is coming from whatever makes up the magnetic field--would it not? On the subject of the conservation of energy, if the universe is one big isolated system, how is it increasing in energy, by means of speeding up and expanding? Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

broli	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #215 on: 2024-05-22, 20:13:43 »
Sr. Member Posts: 286	If the system is closed then: Potential Energy + Kinetic Energy = Constant The motor or rather "friction" would be the "diode" between both, our free will decides the direction of said diode. If the system is not closed, then we can only assume it has infinite potential energy and then there is even less of a question of our diode or ion channel directing energy in the direction we want. All you need is a tiny hole to extract as much kinetic energy as you want just like ion channels do in our cells: https://youtu.be/MGtc84gFWfo?t=469 Closed or open, a diode or ion channel, at the end of the day it doesn't matter which it is if its applications can transform our lives. Chasing dragons is what the branch of physics has been doing for the past 100 years, history is meant to teach us about past mistakes as to not repeat them in the future. That is also why I have Abandoned the idea of there being a "theory of everything", this egotistical mindset is very detrimental to progress , and just like like any addiction, your mental health will suffer greatly, I dont recommend it. What I do recommend is to build improved simulation software to simulate reality from these new ideas by combining all "forces" into one package, it wont get us on top of the proverbial dragon but at least we can admire it from the distance. Accept the gift, build it, program it, share it and move on with life. « Last Edit: 2024-05-22, 21:33:58 by broli »

F6FLT	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #216 on: 2024-05-23, 09:16:50 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2023	Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-22, 13:05:06 ... On the subject of the conservation of energy, if the universe is one big isolated system, how is it increasing in energy, by means of speeding up and expanding? ... What is the proof that energy would increase in our universe? You assume it in the question, but we don't have it. Energy per unit volume is decreasing. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #217 on: 2024-05-23, 12:59:19 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote from: F6FLT on 2024-05-23, 09:16:50 What is the proof that energy would increase in our universe? You assume it in the question, but we don't have it. Energy per unit volume is decreasing. Would have to disagree with you there F6. If the space is increasing between two massive objects, then the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them. Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

bistander	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #218 on: 2024-05-23, 14:38:02 »
Full Member Posts: 134	Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-23, 12:59:19 Would have to disagree with you there F6. If the space is increasing between two massive objects, then the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them. Brad Hi Brad, That didn't sound right so I sought an opinion from chatGPT. bi Quote ChatGPT User If the space is increasing between two massive objects, then does the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them? ChatGPT Yes, if the distance between two massive objects is increasing, the gravitational potential energy of the system also increases. This is because gravitational potential energy (U) between two masses (m1 and m2) separated by a distance (r) is given by the formula: U = - Gm1m2/r where G is the gravitational constant. The negative sign indicates that the potential energy is lower (more negative) when the objects are closer together. As the distance r increases, the magnitude of the negative potential energy decreases (becomes less negative), meaning the potential energy increases. For example, if the objects are moved further apart, the value of r decreases, making the entire expression for U less negative. This corresponds to an increase in gravitational potential energy. User Then as distance between stars, or between galaxies increases to infinity, energy does also. Does not sound right. ChatGPT Your concern is understandable. When we say that the gravitational potential energy increases as the distance between two massive objects increases, it means it becomes less negative, approaching zero. The formula for gravitational potential energy is: U = - Gm1m2/r As the distance r approaches infinity, the term 1/r approaches zero. Thus, the gravitational potential energy U approaches zero as well. It doesn't increase to infinity; instead, it approaches zero from the negative side. In summary, as the distance between two objects increases to infinity, the gravitational potential energy approaches zero, not infinity. This makes sense because when the objects are infinitely far apart, the gravitational interaction between them becomes negligible. Also, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #219 on: 2024-05-23, 15:00:45 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-23, 14:38:02 Hi Brad, That didn't sound right so I sought an opinion from chatGPT. bi Also, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html Seems to agree with me, as the distance between any two objects in any part of the universe, is at less than 0.000000000000001% of infinity. Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #220 on: 2024-05-24, 00:49:08 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Well this is odd. I asked chatGPT a question in relation to one of my magnet motor designs, and this is what happened, not once, but every time i asked the same question. When i asked a different, totally unrelated question about rising sea levels, it had no problem giving the full answer--no network errors at all. So, after that, i once again asked the same question about the magnet motor, and got this network error garbage again, before it finished answering the question.\ Perhaps someone else could ask lol. Brad ------------------------ On the notion of a magnetic motor chatGPT mag motor answer 1.JPG (177.42 kB, 891x1412 - viewed 162 times.) --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

bistander	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #221 on: 2024-05-24, 03:09:57 »
Full Member Posts: 134	Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-24, 00:49:08 Well this is odd..\ Perhaps someone else could ask lol. Brad OK Brad, Quote Is it possible, where you have two counter rotating interconnected masses, and where newtons 3rd law is adhered to, you could have an all magnet motor. Copilot The concept of an all-magnet motor, where two counter-rotating interconnected masses adhere to Newton’s third law, is theoretically intriguing but practically challenging. Newton’s third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle would need to be maintained in the design of such a motor. In the context of magnetic motors, the interaction between magnetic fields and electric currents is typically harnessed to produce motion. Most electric motors, including those with permanent magnets, operate by converting electrical energy into mechanical energy through electromagnetic interactions. The design and operation of these motors are well-established and rely on principles such as Lorentz force and the interaction between magnetic fields and current-carrying conductors1. For an all-magnet motor that solely uses magnets without electrical input, the challenge lies in creating a continuous motion because magnetic forces are conservative. This means that the work done by magnetic forces over a closed path is zero, making it difficult to achieve sustained motion without an external energy source. While there have been various claims and attempts to create perpetual motion machines using magnets, these designs often fail to produce continuous motion or violate the laws of thermodynamics. The concept of a motor that operates only with magnets and without any external energy input remains within the realm of pseudoscience until a working model can be demonstrated that aligns with established physical laws. If you’re interested in the principles behind rotary magnetic motors, which involve the interaction of magnetic fields and electric currents, you might find resources on commutated rotary magnetic motors informative. These motors use a commutator to reverse the direction of current at specific times to maximize the average positive torque, allowing for continuous rotation1. However, it’s important to note that these motors still require an electrical input to operate. For a deeper understanding of the physics behind magnetic motors and their design, you might consider studying materials from reputable educational sources, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s OpenCourseWare, which offers detailed explanations of electric machines and their operation principles2. 1 phys.libretexts.org 2 ocw.mit.edu 3 magneticbearings.org What are some other challenges in creating perpetual motion machines? Can you explain more about the Lorentz force and its role in electric motors? Are there any real-world applications of magnetic motors? Response stopped New topic That's a different and new version of chat. I'll see what the old one says. bi edit: From the older chatGPT Quote User Is it possible, where you have two counter rotating interconnected masses, and where newtons 3rd law is adhered to, you could have an all magnet motor? ChatGPT The concept of an all-magnet motor where two counter-rotating interconnected masses are used is intriguing and touches on several principles of physics and electromagnetism. To explore whether such a motor could be viable, we need to consider a few key aspects: Newton's Third Law of Motion: This law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Any force exerted by one part of the system on another will result in an equal and opposite force exerted back. This law ensures that the total momentum of the system is conserved. Conservation of Angular Momentum: If you have two counter-rotating masses, the angular momentum of one must be countered by the angular momentum of the other to maintain a net zero angular momentum for the system (assuming no external torques act on it). Magnetic Forces and Work: Magnetic forces are conservative in nature, meaning the work done by magnetic forces in moving a charge (or a magnetic dipole) in a closed loop is zero. For a motor to function, it needs to convert energy from one form to another efficiently. Given these principles, let's outline a hypothetical scenario for an all-magnet motor: Interconnected Counter-Rotating Masses: Suppose you have two masses connected in such a way that they can rotate in opposite directions. If these masses have magnets attached to them, the magnetic fields will interact. Magnetic Field Interaction: As the masses rotate, the changing magnetic fields could induce forces. However, because of Newton's third law, these forces will always be balanced by equal and opposite forces within the system. Challenges: Energy Input: For continuous rotation, an external energy source is required to overcome resistive forces like friction and air resistance. Magnets alone cannot create a perpetual motion machine; energy must be supplied from an external source. Magnetic Synchronization: The magnetic forces need to be carefully synchronized to ensure that they produce useful work rather than merely counteracting each other. Practical Implementation: Designing a system where the magnetic fields produce a net torque without violating conservation laws or requiring external intervention is complex. While purely magnetic motors exist (such as those using permanent magnets and electromagnets in conventional electric motors), a motor relying solely on permanent magnets and adhering strictly to Newton's third law without external energy input would face significant theoretical and practical challenges. In conclusion, an all-magnet motor as described, where two counter-rotating masses interact through magnetic forces while fully adhering to Newton's third law, would not function as a self-sustaining motor. External energy input is necessary to maintain motion and produce useful work.

TinMan	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #222 on: 2024-05-24, 14:00:37 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4719	Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-17, 11:48:13 ps. Thanks for posting that video in reply #153. Wow! I have been thinking. If you enjoyed that video, and if what they show is true, then there must be room there for you to be even the smallest bit open to other laws of physics being broken. If we can have a propellantless drive, then why not an all magnet motor? Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

bistander	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #223 on: 2024-05-24, 15:36:49 »
Full Member Posts: 134	Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-24, 14:00:37 I have been thinking. If you enjoyed that video, and if what they show is true, then there must be room there for you to be even the smallest bit open to other laws of physics being broken. If we can have a propellantless drive, then why not an all magnet motor? Brad Hi Brad, I'm skeptical. If these things come to pass, I believe we'll discover how such fits into our models, or how to improve our models (knowledge). Reason I'm here - looking for proof. Hope to see it some day. I enjoy Star Trek also. bi

F6FLT	Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #224 on: 2024-05-25, 09:05:42 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2023	Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-24, 15:36:49 ... - looking for proof. Hope to see it some day. I enjoy Star Trek also. bi Me too. When you read the vague chatGPT clichés, without a single proof-of-concept model, without operational details and without a theoretical idea, that's certainly not where any practical realization can come from. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-06-17, 03:26:07

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2