Jump to content

Talk:Motionless electromagnetic generator/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Maxwell's presentations

NO, neither was Maxwell's original presentations based on quaternions nor was the vector notation reformulation non-equivalent. --Pjacobi 18:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to your opinion ... the original presentations was based on quaternions during the 1st revision (which was by Maxwell himself, IIRC) ... the later finalized vector notation reformulation was "equivalent", but did leave out a bit in reguards to electromagnetics.
Maxwell's bio : Maxwell's most important contribution was the extension and mathematical formulation of earlier work on electricity and magnetism by Michael Faraday, André-Marie Ampère, and others into a linked set of differential equations (originally, 20 equations in 20 variables, later re-expressed in quaternion and vector-based notations).
Heaviside's bio : Heaviside simplified and made useful for the sciences the original Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. This innovation from the reformulation of Maxwell's original equations gives the four vector equations known today.
J. Gibbs was a chemist and helped the co-development vector analysis .... his version and heaviside's version differed in that Heaviside's had a extra variable (his formula was from a electrician viewpoint, Gibbs from a chemist's view) ... when the 2 version merged and were finalized, Heaviside's extra variable was dropped.
Sincerely, JDR 19:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The original presentation by Maxwell were the 20 equations for components.
The modern formulation in vector format (in any format) is perfectly to this original formulation.
Please state in which work of Maxwell you've seen the quaternion notation.
Please state the version of Maxwell's equatations which are not equivalent to the modern formulation.
Pjacobi 19:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
A local library copy of Maxwell's treaty has the early quaternion version by Maxwell himself. I'll try to retrive it in due haste ... but don't take my word for it, go out and get a 1865 copy (a copy that was not edited into the "new" vector notation, which may be hard to do).
Maxwell's equatations are not the modern formulation (not the 20:20 set nor the quaternion set) ... and the modern formulation is vector notation. Also, it's the Heaviside-Gibbs fanalization of Maxwell's equation that removed the extra variable that Heaviside himself had written in the vector form. This was dropped in the reconcillation of his version with Gibb's version.
Sincerely, JDR 20:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
This discussion re-emerges every six months in some articles. Unfortunately this beyound the capacity of brain to remember the exact location where it did emerge the last time.
But I'm rather confident that the timeline in Maxwell's equations is about right:
  • 1864/65 publication by Maxwell of the component form
  • 1873 Maxwell's quaternion form published
  • 1884 vector analysis form publisged
But the core point is the equivalence of all these formulations. It's only syntactic sugar.
Pjacobi 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The copy that I must seen was the 1873 version (as I said it was @ the local scientific library and I do not own the book myself; it was a old book and in the closed stacks) as it contained the quaternion form. And it's not just "syntactic sugar" .... I would recomment that if you have the original reformulation by Heaviside (I'll try to also bring back the work of Heaviside that this is in), you yourself can see the extra variable that was cut off from the modern one ... Sincerely, JDR 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Now I've found old discussions at Tal:Maxwell's equations and you must know better, as you were involved. You didn't achieved much support for the claim of inequivalence there, why do you try to resurrect the issue here?
Pjacobi 21:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Polls of opinions (aka., the achieving support) do not change the facts ....
The text of the works and the historical investigation of the text (by authors that have written on the subject) are far more valuable than the opinion of editors here at wikipedia that have not looked into the subject.
As to why is it being resurrected here? It is at the crux of T. Bearden's theory. If you had taken the time to read his website (something I wqould recommend ifyou can take some of the fringe theories he espouses), you would have knnown that this is what he states.
Sincerely, JDR 21:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course (to the latter). This "conspiracy to change Maxwell's equations"-theory, along with the "it's all magically better with quaternions" theory is cheerished by Bearden, Global Scaling, et. al. This can and should be mentioned in the respective articles.
But this doesn't influence the question whether the 1865, the 1873, the 1884 and the contemporary formulation are equivalent or not. In my not so humble opinion, current scholarly consensus says that all are equivalent.
We are urged to not do original research here, but if you like can do a simple litmus test: Can you provide a set of electromagnetic fields which are a solution to one of the above mentioned sets of equation but not to another?
Pjacobi 22:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Pjacobi ... nice try to lure me into doing some math, original research, etc ... but I will defer to others, such as Tony Smith's Quaternions, Octonions, and Physics.
Sincerely, JDR 22:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
This only marginally fits the bill of being a scholarly resource.
From my POV its an easy decision: Standard textbooks on electrodynamics see all these formulations of ME as equivalent. To present them as factually inequivalent in the article, you must provide reference outside of crackpotism.
Pjacobi 22:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Marginally? YMMV on that .... but it is a knowledge resource.
Standard textbooks on electrodynamics do not verify the history of the formulations of Heaviside-Gibbs eguation with the Maxwellian equation .... they may "note" them as equivalent, but the phenonomena of the echo chamber can easily account for this. There are sources that state that Heaviside (and Gibbs) removed certian features of Maxwell's equation to reformulate them into vector notation (and to fit thier own particular field) ... the reformulation may be "equivalent" (as in being alike or similar) .. but translations, of language or math for examples, can lose parts (much like the spanish-english translation, there is no 'equilivant' (as in equal or identical) translation for the term "aficianado" ... as a person knowledgable in both languages will tell you).
To present the arguement that they are close approxiamation but not exactly equivalent (having "lost" elements of the prior) in the article, all that is required is to provide outside generally knowledgeable reference. AND ... if a person that is knowledgeable in the fields involved that goes against "mainstream" thought does not make the scholar, researcher, investigator, etc, a "crackpot" (and attacking such people aforementioned that are conducting true research does not make one a skeptic, but a pseudoskeptic). Sincerely, JDR 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Standard textbooks "noting" them as equivalent is good enough for Wikipedia. Being a "Free Wikipedia" doesn't mean giving "non standard" sources a bonus. --Pjacobi 17:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Scholars, researchers, and investigators that have "noted" them as inequivalent is good enough for Wikipedia. Being a "Free Wikipedia" doesn't mean giving standard textbooks sources a bonus. Sincerely, JDR 18:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide a reference in peer-reviewed, WoS- or AiP-indexed journal? Physics Essays doesn't count. I repeat: Wikipedia's mission is not to outsmart academic science. If it taught in universities it is good enough for us, too. Yes, there may be cases, where academic science is erring, but the battleground for fighting this out isn't Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's mission is to gather what constitutes human knowledge; aka., to "sum of all human knowledge" . It is one of the suggested mottos (#21) ... and is what Jimbo Wales has said.
"Published" research and other papers do not have to be in peer-reviewed, WoS- or AiP-indexed journals. That is an acamedic POV, not a NPOV. You also exhibit this by the comment "taught in universities it is good enough for [you and other academics]". Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals (for example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not the editor's opinion). Wikipedia isn't a battleground for fighting (though zealots, scientific and not, may disagree) ... Wikipedia is, though, for stating facts and research. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind should not be allowed BUT an article can report objectively about such things. Every user is expected to interact in a spirit of cooperation, not calling true research "crackpotish", "crankish", or any other pejorative term.
BTW (I though of this when I was out ot lunch), according to your stance, the standard textbook for biology (and the statements it makes) in my state, Kansas (USA), would be "good enough" for Wikipedia's articles on biology [though there are plenty that would disagree]. Would you favor promoting this? I would guess that you wouldn't (though probably because of higher academia excuse ...)
Sincerely, JDR 20:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Over the weekend I did find part of what was removed from the original ME. In The Maxwellians [ISBN 0801426413] by Bruce J. Hunt (on page 124 to 125) it is noted that the A and the ψ was removed from the original equations to (according to Heaviside) "simplify" them. The "potentials" were also done away with. Inaddition, the "action at a distance" was removed. This is related to the gauging stuff in Tony Smith's Quaternions, Octonions, and Physics, I believe. Maxwell's full equation were alter by (primarily) Heaviside [and to a lesser extent Gibbs]. I have not had the time, though, to fully look into the situation as to what was removed and what the extent the ommissions impact on the form of equation we use today ... but will repost here when I do. Sincerely, JDR 20:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this reference. Do you happen to know which of the old Maxwell reprints would be the one covering our subject. The descriptions at Amazon leave sometimes much to guess. The thick Dover volume isn't available in Germany (I'll look for a used one).
I'll come back to the factual discussion, when I've got all relevant bits together. I'm of the opinion that you are mislead about the non-equivalence, but there is no hurry to resolve this.
Ah, and the academic POV issue. I assume we hust agree to disagree.
Pjacobi 22:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Saturation

I have corrected the erronous statement in the article from "skeptics" which stated that there was a flux saturation of the core. If your read the patent, he states that the MEG should not ever have saturation in the core. Sincerely, JDR

Intro (and USPTO)

I've did some signigicant changes to the intro:

  • It's name "Generator", but it is a transformer, not a generator.
  • Most notable aspects should go into the intro: And I'm very much of the opinion that's the over-unity claim. Otherwise it would hust be a non-notable patent.
  • Also notable is the inclusion of a permant magnet in the design, I hope my re-formulation makes this crystal clear. Due to superposition principle, an added constant magnetic field wouldn't have any influence on the output, so it effects the operation via the only non-linear element, the magnetic core.

And another point: Reddi, are all these patents really important for this article? I cannot make that out for myself, as the USPTO website doesn't display correctly for me, I always ever see a small top strip of the scanned pages.

Pjacobi 16:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is named a "Generator", as it is a type of "transformer" which "generates" power via the magnetic flux variation. I think the intro is good (eg., citing the "over-unity claim") .... I just consolidated it and removed the "by Tom Bearden in 2002" (that should be in the controversy section). Are all these patents really important for this article? Yes ... as they are cited in the patent itself, or in sites that talk about the MEG. I'll get back to the "inclusion of a permant magnet in the design" re-formulation and the superposition principle thing (after I look at it a bit closer) .... Sincerely, J. D. Redding (PS., the controversy over the IP is an important part of the article also ... please try not to remove it.)

I reinsterted the citations and the material that was cited. There isn't a constant magnetic field as "the electromagnetic generator works by changing the flux pattern" (Column 7 and 8, Lines 21 to 38). Can you explain the "effects the operation via the only non-linear element"? Or provide a citation? J. D. Redding 19:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., please DO NOT remove citations nor cited material, thanks ....)
Without the nonlinearity of the core, the total magnetic flux is the sum of the flux generated by coil plus the flux generated by the permanent magnet. As the induced current only depends on the temporal derivate of the total flux, the flux generated by the permanent magnet would be without any effect.
Very sorry for the cleanup needed after my edit [1]. In all honesty I only intended to change section 0 (the intro), don't know whether a software bug or me editing an outdated version is to blame.
Pjacobi 19:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
"Without the nonlinearity of the core, the total magnetic flux is the sum of the flux generated by coil plus the flux generated by the permanent magnet" ... but does this apply to the cobalt-niobium-boron core? And ... the "choke coils" are not there to "generate" a flux for induction for the secondary output coils .... but to the divert the flux of the permanent magnet (as diagrammed here).
I understand the induced current depends on the rate of change in time of the total flux .... but the flux generated by the permanent magnet is "the effect" which is manipulated to produce the output (from my understanding of the patent ... the "primary coils" (or "choking coils") do not "transform" to the output coil ... they are there as "diverters" ... one primary coil forces the flux through opposite side of the core, then the both choking coils are off, then the other primary coil forces the flux through the other side, then the choking coils are off again ... as seen here).
As a side note .... IIRC, the flux generation is related to an environmental poynting vector and environmental electron avalanche, also ( .... this is from Bearden's website (been a while since I went through his site, though) .... not sure if it really applicable here or part of his overall alternative theories of operation ... though that is getting away from the patent, which is the more concrete summation of the device).
Sincerely, J. D. Redding 20:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
..but to the divert the flux of the permanent magnet.. is a misleading concept. One electromagnetic field (in vacuum or linear) media can't divert or in any other form modify another EM field from an indepedendant source. They simply add. That's the simplicity in EM which is linear, compared to non-linear field equatations like Einstein's ART. --Pjacobi 06:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
2 alike fields (both positive or both negative) repel each other. eg., "opposite poles attract, alike poles repel" go ... Sincerely, J. D. Redding 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
In effect there is force of repulsion or attraction, but the total field strength is simply additive [2]. --Pjacobi
1st ... isn't the core material nonlinear?
2nd ... the lines of manetic flux _follow the easiest path_ to an attractive pole (P->N; N->P). The repulsion of like-polarity fields and the attraction of unlike fields manipulate (read as: "divert") the lines of flux. I see that you are saying that the total field strength (eg, a "flux density") that fluxes the secondary windings is irreguardless of the diversions of the flux lines. But the the total field strength at "non-choked" points, keeping in mind (as far as I can tell) that the core is kept at a non-saturation level at all times, has more line of force than the "choked" path (eg., the magnetic flux lines will follow the path of least resistance (or the greatest permeance or lowest reluctance) and the "like flow direction" flux lines repel each other and never cross)WP. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 18:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ad 1: Of course! That I put in my original change Contrary to standard transformers, a permanent magnet is included in the design, to shift the operation point of the magnetic core. As the material is non-linear, it makes a difference at which point of its H/B curve it operates.
  • ad 2: Totally wrong. Magnetic field lines are mostly a visualation aid. The actual physical actions (forces and induction) depend on the field strengths (which, as a vector, included a direction). These are simply added (vector addition). Then you draw field lines for having a nice, meaningful picture.
Pjacobi 09:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
When you bring up the whole "vector" thing ... I think this ties back in to T. E. Bearden's concerns on "Maxwell's presentations", eg., being more than "vector addition". More later though, Sincerely, J. D. Redding 11:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah Reddi, sure we know -- <sarcasm> Ohm's Law doesn't apply to Adams Motor and the linear superposition of EM doesn't apply to the MEG. That's the way, they achieve over-unity.</sarcasm> -- Seriously, the experimental validation of EM's linearity is very, very good. If someone really drew this card to explain the MEG's operation, it can be mentioned as such, but not without giving a caveat to our readers, that it is way wrong. Look, for example in particle accelerators, all sorts of very powerful magnets are deployed for deflection, beam forming, monochromatisation, generation of synchrotron radiation etc. In dipol, quadropole and sextupole, and octupole configurations (plus special ones). The beam would be unusable if they don't perform within verry stringent limits. There is no way, something strange going on with magnetism, without the beam engineers noticing. Or take a standard coil. Each small piece of conductor generates B according to the Biot-Savart law. Without linear superposition of all these contributions, we wouldn't get the well known resultant field of a coil. --Pjacobi 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah Pjacobi, sure we know -- <sarcasm> the "Standard Model" absolutely reflects reality and has no flaws </sarcasm> -- Seriously, linear superposition of EM _theory_ does not seem to be displayed in all "real" macroscopic Newtonian things. As to the other line of reasoning you put forth ... the MEG isn't a motor. Also, the MEG isn't a particle accelerator. As to the last point, concerning the "linear superposition" and the MEG, the overall "contributions" _does not_ stay linear ... (I don't dispute, though, that the effects desired by the engineers in particle accelerators and of most "standard coils" (pending the winding and the series/parralle nature) is explained inaccord with linear superposition ... )
Sincerely, J. D. Redding
The magnets don't know for which ultimate goal they are switched on, to decide whether to obey the superposition principle. --Pjacobi 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The IP controvery is the least of my problems. Adding some permanent magnets here and there seem to be required in over-unity designs, same with the stator magnets in the Adams motor. Theory says, their effect is totally nil. --Pjacobi 19:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to the USPTO regarding perpetual motion machines Prebys 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual motion tag/revert

I see a revert war in progress. Given this, I can conclude that the "perpetual motion" tag belongs on both the article page and on the talk page.linas 13:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The flag belongs in the article (not the talk page) since this is an over-unity device; see also perpetual motion. Someone just tried to remove the flag from the article and I just reverted that change. That user will no doubt disagree; I asked him to discuss his concerns here.---CH 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Perpetual motion" implies that the device does, indeed involve motion. We can infer by the name of the article that the device does not.

Perpetual motion would also indicate that the energy came from nowhere in 3 dimensions. But infact, if you do read or listen to one of Bearden's talks, he explains where the energy comes from. This device does not pull energy out of 'nowhere'


At first glance, this device will appear to qualify as a perpetual motion device of the first kind, one that "produces strictly more energy than it uses" (from Wikipedia article on perpetual motion). This is valid so long as it produces more energy than it uses, and not so long as it extracts more energy than it uses. Without this latter distinction, a solar cell would be a perpetual motion device of the first kind, while it in fact extracts the energy from an external source, and does not produce it. This principle equally applies to the argument that the claims of over-unity mandate it's categorization as a perpetual motion machine.
The key point here is the question of an external source. The inventors never claimed that the device produces energy from nothing, but that it extracts it from vacuum energy. Hence, an external source of energy has been accounted for, even if the means of extraction are of questionable theoretical validity, and it seems reasonable to suggest that the flag should be changed from categorizing it as a perpetual motion machine to "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed" or something similar. There are mainly three sides to this issue; the inventors' side claiming it extracts vacuum energy, the side of academics who disregard the energy source and consider it a perpetual motion machine anyway, and the academics who move the issue to questioning the credibility and validity of the supposed energy extraction mechanism. A neutral point of view obviously does not side with either party of the dispute, neither the inventors nor the academics, but remains neutral, and in light of this I point out that the current point of view reflected in the article by somewhat arbitrarily (although in agreement with a major party) categorizing the device according to the view of one party only is not an NPOV and does not seem to comply with Wikipedia standards. Crystique 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a pointer to Carvalho and Rodrigues' analysis of Bearden's theories. I know that prior to this article, Bearden had frequently cited Rodrigues in support of his claims. Does anyone have a citation for that? Prebys 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

References in article

Need to be cleaned up; one editor confused the mainstream Institute for Advanced Study with the so-called Institute of Advanced Study founded to promote the cranky "theory" of Myron Evans :-/ ---CH 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that there are a lack of references in certain parts of the article, particularly paragraphs two and three of the "controversy" section.

Pointless list of patents

moved from article page: --Pjacobi 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Patent Documents
Non-U.S. Patent Documents

For a test, I've looked at three of them 3165723, 3,453,876, and 5245521. They have absolute no connection to the subject of the article. --Pjacobi 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is why wikipedia is unreliable. They are all related to the MEG. this removal isn't ignorance ... just idoicy. 02:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointless See Also?

Is it just me or does the 'UFO' link in see-also has no relation to the content of the article, or at least, its subject?


Unbiased choice of words

I have changed certain words in the article to appear more neutral upon reading. I have changed "promised" to "claimed to produce", "physics" to "Classical electromagnetism" ("physics" is too broad a topic for an electromagnetic device), and "Justifies" to "explains," all in the History and Controversy section.

Title of article

Given that the device's proper name, both on file and in the patent, is the "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator", shouldn't the article be renamed from "..Electrical.." to "..Electromagnetic.." ? I see no reason for the misspelling. Crystique 09:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Done. Burns flipper 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: There are working models now in production here: [3]. I removed this line, the URL contains no reference whatever to the Motionless Electrical Generator. Duncan

verification of claims

I wonder if it's worth adding a discussion of trick instrumentation to these pages on 'over-unity' generators. Most people reading this probably know that you can readily simulate an over-unity electrical device by driving a resonant circuit--that is, one that contains inductance and capacitance--at its resonant frequency with any sort of an AC generator. The instrumentation to 'prove' the energy gain consists of (1) a voltmeter and ammeter arranged to measure the power input of the AC generator and (2) an AC voltmeter and an AC ammeter arranged to measure the voltage across and current through the capacitor or inductor of the resonant circuit. The product of the latter readings will greatly exceed the product of the former, thus making it appear that the output 'power' exceeds the input power. As the article stated, you can do even cooler tricks with oddly-shaped waveforms, like spikes, but I believe that you'll find that most free NRG devices--Joe Newman's is one--uses this sort of trick. It's easy to disguise a resonant circuit, and the voltage and current gains are quite dramatic. Kinsler33

Thermodynamic Law Broken

The device described creates energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics and not the Second Law as written, no?

Jackthechap 13:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no claim that the device creates energy. It claims to make existing energy from the vacuum usable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.129.189 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clear explanations have never been Bearden's strong suit. In the stream of rambling and meaningless technical jargon he uses to "explain" this device, he has at various times invoked zero-point energy, "scalar waves", the Aharanov-Bohm effect, weak parity violation(!!), and a kitchen sink full of other stuff. Since none of these explanations even remotely approach making sense, we can feel justified in pointing out the violations of thermodynamics. In any event, in spite of his explanations, Bearden himself characterizes the MEG as an "over unity" device (here, for example), closing the case.Prebys (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs serious work

Okay let's start with just the intro...

The device strongly resembles a standard transformer, but contrary to these a permanent magnet is included in the design and the associated circuitry shifts the operation point of the magnetic core, or to put it differently, switches the direction of the majority of the magnetic flux path. The MEG is alternatively pulsed to provide induced output current pulses.

What? Meaningless pseudoscientific technobabble has no place on Wikipedia. There is nothing in those above sentences that makes any sense whatsoever (what is an "operation point"? What is a "magnetic core"? How does the device manage to "switch the direction" of a permanent magnet's magnetic flux? What does "alternatively pulsed" mean?). So I'm removing it. --Kuronekoyama 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You will indeed find that this needs lots of work: I encourage you to try to do it. Don't forget to sign, though William M. Connolley 19:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Will do. And oops, my bad. --Kuronekoyama 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motionless_electromagnetic_generator/Archive_1&oldid=1072354366"