Talk:Newman's energy machine/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Newman's energy machine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I built a motor with over 90% efficiency!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO8SiRtfPw4#GU5U2spHI_4

Volts times Amps measures the Power that COSTS us. However, the power output in a permanent magnet motor is due to the Poynting Vector http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector Simply put, the interaction between electric fields (which can be found in large coils with current) and magnetic fields, like that of a stack of permanent magnets is what actually produces the power (energy transfer per unit time). Mainstream theory already has found the mechanism for the gyroscopic particle! Electric and magnetic fields consist of energies from charges and atoms! They are the source of all power! The motor you see in the video is being run at 21 volts and draws usually 10 milliamps to 20 milliamps (0.2 to 0.4 watts). The motor rotates a maximum of about 10 revolutions per second or 600 rpm. The magnet has a moment of inertia of 0.00011 kg*m^2 link and rotational kinetic energy of 0.22 Joules link

By observing what was recorded in the video, it is estimated that it takes the motor 1 second to accelerate to top speed, attaining a rotational kinetic energy of 0.22 Joules in one second, which is equivalent to 0.22 watts.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will buy a 6A, 200V Full-Wave Bridge Rectifier from Radio Shack. I will connect the DC out to front of the battery and the beginning of the primary coil. I will take the two ends of the remaining coil to the bridge rectifier input AC. As the rotor spins, it will produce ac power in the secondary, which will be fed into the primary (and the batteries when its voltage exceeds the batteries). I will connect the DC in to the end of the battery and the end of the coil.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. Your measurement of volts times amps measures the power you need to overcome the losses in the system the power is driving. If you put a load on your motor (like that pen you have to apply drag to the shaft) and try to drive the motor at the same speed (say, by using more batteries), you would see power consumption go up. This doesn't mean your output power is greater than the input power.

2. You are merely making estimates here, not measurements. To measure the output power, you really need to have the motor hooked up to a dynamometer-like device that applies a braking torque, then your power output is watts=torque×rpm/9.549 where torque is in Newton-meters. There are several ways you can apply braking torque, such as having the motor turn fan blades or drive a generator with a variable resistor attached, or turn an aluminum disc in a strong magnetic field to provide eddy current brake.

3. You could easily measure rotation more accurately too. This is trivial; there are optical rpm measuring devices that measure the rate at which a patch of reflective tape passes a sensor. Auto supply stores may have these. You can't draw valid conclusions about your motor's performance unless you make valid measurements.

4. In addition to the full-wave bridge, you should also hook up as large a capacitor as you can find (with the lowest leakage, a supercapacitor will work if you can get one) to provide a more consistent DC output from the bridge. The capacitor would be connected in parallel, across the output terminals of the bridge. Then, after it runs a while, you can disconnect the battery from the circuit and see how long it runs. At 90% efficiency it should slow down more slowly than if you just disconnected all power and let it coast to a stop. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the various estimates that Kmarinas makes are useless without hard numbers to back them up. Your estimates of startup time and rotational speed could easily be off by 10% to 20% and you admit to a +/-50% unknown in the amperage. So rather than 90% efficient - your motor could easily be only 40% efficient. FWIW: You can make a very simple rotation sensor from an old-fashioned computer mouse - the kind with a rolling ball underneath. Take one of those apart and you'll see a pair of rotation sensors. Hook one of them up to your machine and write a little computer program to track the speed of the mouse. You can use the sound card and some suitable amplification to measure voltages - and with some very simple circuitry, current too (it's a stereo device). In that way you can measure the voltage, current and RPM's of your moment simultaneously and get a more accurate picture of how the parameters are varying. But since your "Newman motor" is merely an inside-out conventional motor (you don't have anything like enough wire in the core for the frequency of the commutator to produce the effects that Newman claims) - this is a pointless activity. What you have here is a VERY conventional electric motor. SteveBaker (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread is interesting but off topic. Newman claims "efficiencies" of >> 100% A 90% efficient motor, while useful (if true), would not violate any laws of physics. Prebys (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an experiment that leads to a way to create a closed-loop machine, with the underlying assumption that this would apply to a scaled up machine that has a long enough coil and fast enough rotation and commutator switching to behave as Newman claims it would. Yes, it's of off topic, but if it leads to a closed-loop experiment with an actual Newman machine, that would be something significant to include in this article. But it's a stretch, I agree. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more than a "stretch". E&M stopped being primarily an experimental science over 100 years ago. Maxwell's Equations work - period, and Maxwell's Equations conserve energy. The notion that some magic combination of coil length, winding count, and magnet materials is going to magically produce over unity operation makes as much sense as playing with combinations of levers, pulleys, water wheels, and Archimedes' Screws in the hopes of cheating Newton's Laws. One of the hallmarks of junk science is inconsistent claims. Newman claimed over unity operation, so that would be the only thing relevant to the discussion. 90% is not "just a little bit less than" 110%, nor for that matter is 99.999% "a little bit less than" 100.001%. Newman has claimed "efficiencies" of as much as 200,000%. The notion that those claims are somehow validated by ameasured efficiency of 90% (even in the unlikely event it's true) is ridiculous.Prebys (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, most people make the mistake of thinking that Volts times Amps is gives you TOTAL power output for a 100% efficient device. It's not, as I have been told before. That would simply be 100% of the ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY converted not as heat but as kinetic energy (which is impossible since the use of kinetic energy will eventually lead to vibration and HEAT). The reduction of the proximity of charge is the SUFFICIENT and NECESSARY way in which electrical potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of the electron, which is transfered to other systems. The magnetic field that is experienced due to a passing charge is NOT due to electrical potential energy. Here's the proof. Take two voltage sources one far above the other. Imagine one charge from each voltage source traveling in non-parallel straight lines which eventually meet at a point. Charges coming from these voltage sources will experience a magnetic field corresponding not only to their speed down the wires (affected by resistance no less) but the angle of their approach and NOT the specific voltage, because there are many possible voltages (electrical potential energy per charge) for a given rate of approach of charges.

Application of Poynting's Theorem to a concentric cable carrying DC current leads to the correct power transfer equation ${\mathit {P}}={\mathit {V}}{\mathit {I}}$ , where ${\mathit {V}}$ is the potential difference between the cable and ground, ${\mathit {I}}$ is the current carried by the cable. This power flows through the surrounding dielectric, and not through the cable itself.

As you can see, power (energy flow per second) is only voltage times current when we just dealing with wires. But for permanent magnet motors (i.e. electric motors that operating with the use of permanent magnets) however, there is an externally applied magnetic field that does not originate from the wire!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In physics, the Poynting vector can be thought of as representing the energy flux (W/m²) of an electromagnetic field. It is named after its inventor John Henry Poynting. Oliver Heaviside independently co-discovered the Poynting vector. Usually, it is defined for free space as $\mathbf {S} =\mathbf {E} \times \mathbf {H} ={\frac {1}{\mu _{0}}}\mathbf {E} \times \mathbf {B} ,$ where E is the electric field, H the auxiliary magnetic field, B the magnetic field, $\mu _{0}$ the magnetic constant. (All bold letters represent vectors.)

The above is clear indication that no new theory is needed to explain Joseph Newman's results. In fact, there is no extra math to make up for the alleged over-unity results. Even though the power output does exceed the volts times amps, it still does not defy conventional electromagnetic theory. One does not need to imagine gyroscopic particles spinning and moving at the speed of light. The result can be explained by using a MORE FUNDAMENTAL power law, provided by Poynting's theorem which is THE CONCEPT that defines conservation of energy in the electromagnetic field. Maxwell system of equations (actually 20 of them) explain the RELATIONSHIP between the fields, charges, and current, but only a small part of it is directly related to ties to the law of conservation of energy. The Poynting power theorem is ALL ABOUT the conservation of energy in the ELECTROMAGNETIC field.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 21:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Therefore the claim by that Joseph Newman requires that it only take a small electrical input power to produce a VERY LARGE electric field on a very small electrical power... and that a large magnetic field (of a permanent magnet), which is sustained without input power, crosses the electric field lines of the charges to produce the energy flow corresponding to the Poynting Vector. If you take a straight magnetic field and pass it through a toroid of flowing charges, the result will be a energy flow about an angle, or torque, that is applied onto the permanent magnet. Newman would call these gyroscopic particles, BUT ALL THEY REALLY ARE is the energy that flows according to Poynting's Theorem!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame you don't understand the theories you parrot. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that you don't show evidence that YOU understand them! Oh yes, but you don't need to even TRY to understand them because you can't event talk ABOUT it! At least I can understand what I read. How about you? Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you show the evidence on your talk page that you have a degree in Industrial Electronics. Now THAT's something I can respect. But even if you have the degree, your tendency here is to post really short as if you were just some person who doesn't use their degree every time it can apply. Please, act your knowledge!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a standard undergraduate physics exercise to analyze electrical power flow in terms of the Poynting Vector. The evidence that you've done the problem right is that the power being dissipated in the circuit is equal to the power (P=IV) being supplied by the battery. If you get a different answer, as they say, "check the math" :) Certainly it's NOT a way to cheat energy conservation.Prebys (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Right on! I agree with every word here. Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I have a 1.5 volt battery and I am drawing 1 amp. That's 1.5 watts of electrical power. Obviously, if I have a wire of any shape independent of any magnetic field, that WILL be the power flow. But once I introduce an external magnetic field, any time the current is still 1 amp, you will have to consider that now the cross product of the electrical and magnetic field has changed. Magnetic field lines due to electrical current cross the electrical fields of the charges in the wire, which normally would produce a Poynting vector in the direction of the wire. Where this does not occur perfectly, such as an inductor, the power factor will be less than one, the net magnetic field lines of the current in the wire will not perfectly perpendicular to the electric field, resulting in the loss of real power. When you spin a magnet, you are spinning its electromagnetic fields. These fields have lines, many of which will inevitably cross with the field lines due to current flowing the in wire. In an induction motor, you would not have a permanent magnet that provides a magnetic field from atomic charges that does not need a input from the battery to keep constant. The limit to efficiency in induction motor HAS to be volts * amps because all of its magnetic fields (and corresponding magnetic field lines) come from electrical current made possible by the batteries.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 21:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you spin a magnet, you are introducing mechanical work into the system (a generator can also be analyzed in terms of the Poynting Vector), but the simple introduction of a permanent magnet into a circuit which is powered by a battery does NOT change the overall rules about conservation of energy. Really, this is fun stuff to discuss, but if you think you're going to make some profound discovery, you're at least a century too late. Newman's claims are not supported by classical E&M - PERIOD, FULL STOP, 30, FIN. Either they're false (my belief) or they are some sort of new physics (extremely unlikely).Prebys (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All of what you said there is correct. You're a real expert. Now check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RLGnaWj47Q ... My latest video where, using a True RMS Multimeter (Extech 411), I demonstrate almost 100 times more AC current generated by the magnet flux due to the mechanical rotation of the magnet rotor than the DC current inputted by the batteries. Notice how the magnetic poles of the stator do not spin but the magnetic poles of the rotor, which responds to the magnetic field of the stator, does rotate. The cause and effect magnetic flux goes like this (dc current -> stator magnetic field -> mechanical rotation of magnet rotor -> magnet flux poles rotating perpendicular to the spin of the shaft -> alternating current in stator). The DC voltage is 20 volts while the AC voltage ranges in the hundreds. This is not Newman's theory, but simply due the result that the magnetic field exceeds that which would be normally supplied by the current alone. You cannot deny that magnets affect the cross product of the Poynting vector and that if they did not there would be no use for them. You must understand, and probably already do, that all electromagnetic fields have energy. You also understand that the current in the wire is not the only energy in the system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RLGnaWj47Q Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "I demonstrate almost 100 times more AC current", but then you said "The DC voltage is 20 volts while the AC voltage ranges in the hundreds." Well, make up your mind - is it current or voltage? And at what point were you measuring the current? Across what points were you measuring the voltage? In any case, you're wrong. While I applaud you for experimenting with home-made electric motors in your basement, I kind of feel sorry for you, embarrassing yourself like this - posting calculations you don't understand, taking bad measurements and not understanding them either. You don't understand physics. You don't understand electrical theory. Please, do yourself a favour and get an education. Reading websites is a poor substitute, and in some cases is even worse than nothing. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 13:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Well, make up your mind - is it current or voltage?" No comment.

"And at what point were you measuring the current?" Both AC and DC current were measured right in front of the batteries. Why should I observe an RMS AC current at the beginning of the circuit an order of magnitude higher than my DC? Because the true current is highly variable, and because of the mathematics of RMS versus average, the resulting RMS AC MUST exceed the DC current. For example: (1+2+3+4+5)/5 or 3 is less than sqrt((1+4+9+16+25)/5) or sqrt(11).

"Across what points were you measuring the voltage?" As will be shown in my next video, where I publicly disclose the AC voltages, I measured the AC voltages when the motor is running between the front and back ends of the battery set. I measured DC voltages when the motor is not running that same way as well as (wrongly) by measuring just in front of the batteries, yet the resulting DC voltage from the battery pack is the still the same - 20 volts. When the machine is running and receiving pulsed DC voltages (which you are not supposed to multiply by average DC current), you get various so-called "DC volts" below 10 volts.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New video online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMrjs6IQPeg Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown any ability to discern the difference between energy and power as it pertains to the conservation of energy. Conservation energy is not a statement about the conservation of power or of power flux. It's about the conservation of energy associated with that power. The power may go up or down, but none of those fluctuations affect the quantity of that energy. Energy is conserved. Power is not.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Angular Momentum Conservation vs Energy Conservation

Wheel analogy

Torque is angular momentum transfered per unit time. Let's say we have 18" automotive wheels from brand Z. Torque can be measured in qualitative, but arbitrary, units. Let's say the first qualitative torque unit under discussion is a 18" brand Z wheel rotated from 0-60mph in one second. The second one is the same type of wheel from brand Z rotated from 0-120mph in one second. The first units have 1/2 the angular momentum of the second units, but they have 1/4 the rotational energy! Clearly, the associated torques (angular momentum transfers during the period) and power (energy transfer during the period) are not directly proportional! Let's consider a third unit, a 36" wheel by brand Z going from 0-60 mph in one second. It is just as wide, but now has twice the diameter, four times the weight. Since angular momentum corresponds to mass*velocity*radius, we can see that this third qualitative torque unit (angular momentum rate of transfer unit) is equal to eight of the first units and four times that of the second units. But what about the rotational kinetic energy transfer during that period? Rotational kinetic energy of an object is 1/2 of its moment of inertia times the square of its angular velocity. Cylindrical moment of inertia (as well as the moment of inertia for a point particle about some axis) is simply mass*radius^2. Therefore the moment of inertia of the third unit is sixteen times that of the first unit. The moments of inertia of the first and second unit are the same, because they are both the same 18" wheels. The angular velocity corresponding to the first unit is (2 * pi * radians)*(10 mph/18"); to the second unit it is (2 * pi * radians)*(20 mph/18"); and to the third unit it is (2 * pi * radians)*(10 mph/36").

In general, the angular momentum [mvr] between (unit one:unit two:unit three) [see Wheel Analogy section below] is a ratio (1:2:8); for moment of inertia [mr^2] it is (1:1:16), for angular velocity [v/r] it is (1:2:0.5); for power [mvr / sec * v/r] or [mv^2/sec] it is (1:4:4); and for rotational kinetic energy [1/2 * mr^2 * (v/r)^2] it is (1:4:4). Ratio of rotational kinetic energy gained to angular momentum gained is [(1/2 mv^2) / (mvr)] or [1/2 mv / r] or [1/2 * angular velocity] and the ratio of power (torque * angular velocity transferred per unit time) [mv^2/sec] to rotational kinetic energy [1/2 * mr^2 * (v/r)^2] gained is simply 2 / time in which the power was transferred.

Because a given torque is angular momentum transfered per unit time and because these units (one, two, and three) are measures of torque, one may be interested in knowing how to maximize the rotational kinetic energy provided by these torques.

The idea for above is simple. Since the ratio between rotational kinetic energy of a cylindrical wheel and the angular momentum of cylindrical wheel is simply one half of the angular velocity (which I already established in a previous sentence), we should (under certain wants or needs) maximize the ratio of the angular velocity [v/r] to the angular momentum [mvr], which gets us [1/mr^2], obviously implying that we should minimize the rotor moment of inertia to which we apply our torque.

After reading the last sentence above, should there be any surprise then that tiny particles, millions of times smaller than the tip of a needle, can contain more (rotational energy) then the macroscopic kinetic energy of an entire village?Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 02:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Torque is all energy but kinetic energy

Torque is simply potential energy in motion. Now, that may seem laughably contradicting, but realize that stores of energy exists all around us, and they are never perfectly still with respect to us! If you take the torque (potential energy in motion) that is applied against your body times the angle at which it is applied, you get the work done on your body. To know the power which was required to do this, all you do is take the energy of that transaction and divide that by the time in which it occurred. That power is rate of energy transfer. The rotational energy you have gained with respect to some point is one half of the work which was done around that point; the other half of the work corresponds to the rotational kinetic energy that everything else had lost with respect to that point.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 04:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Producing torque

The torque is simply the cross product of the turning radius vector and the force vector applied at an angle with respect to that turning radius vector. Because of the mechanical nature of torque, it is inevitable that a mathematical cross product be studied when describing how it occurs with mathematical precision, and therefore the application of vectors is required.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 05:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Producing power

The power (rate of energy flow) through an area is simply the cross product of the electric field vector and the auxiliary magnetic field vector applied at an angle with respect to that electric field vector. Because power results from the cross product of vectors, it is foolhardy to calculate power by taking the product of scalars (such as volts and amps), without consideration of the TOTAL energy flow and the time in which it occurs. The consummation of electrical potential energy per unit time, due to the reduction in the proximity of moving electrical charges, does not fully define the electrical field that is produced by the draining of the voltage sources. Without knowledge of the magnetic fields that are present as well as the architecture of the charge distribution, as well as the effect that movements of these charges have on every particle in the system that adds or subtracts from the local magnetic field topography, it is impossible to determine how much power is actually being used. With over-unity claims being touted around, one wonders if a simple, but popular, misunderstanding and oversimplification of the results of their experiments has led to the destruction of their credibility in the eyes of mainstream scientists.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 05:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Newman's machine - not Kmarinas' electric motor (which isn't a Newman machine for reasons already explained). So this debate does not belong here - and we certainly don't need long discussions into the physics of this non-Newman device. Kmarinas: If you truly believe this pile of hogwash you are delivering then you should write it up as a proper scientific paper explaining how you have built a machine that breaks the first law of thermodynamics and try to get it published in a properly peer reviewed journal. At that point you will undoubtedly either look like a complete idiot or win your first Nobel Prize. If you have the courage of your convictions - that it the proper scientific way to proceed. Ranting on about it in the talk page of a Wikipedia article is not the way to go. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The laws of thermodynamics are not violated. Conservation of energy, which is scientific fact, should be not be confused from some alleged conservation of power. If power is not conserved (i.e. it increases or decreases), energy is still conserved. Violations of conservation of energy are impossible to observe since energy comes in many different forms, some only known to science within the last 100 years. Power is not energy. They are distinctly different and should be treated as such.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No rebuttal to my argument above from (18:37, 30 March 2008) suggests that you do not disagree with any of facts (or opinions) therein, including:

Power is not energy.
Violations of conservation of energy are impossible to observe since energy comes in many different forms, some only known to science within the last 100 years.
If power is not conserved (i.e. it increases or decreases), energy is still conserved.
The laws of thermodynamics are not violated.

Alternatively, if you did disagree with something in it, you did not find it worthwhile to rebut against these directly and decided to redirect attention towards something else I have said which you found to be more ill-informed.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 02:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, Kmarinas86, Wikipedia can only work if people are realistic about their own qualifications. You've decided to make this your personal "think out loud" page, and in the process demonstrated a truly profound ignorance of the topic, not to mention spamming us with reams of off-topic material. Pick up any E&M textbook, and you will learn that Newman's claims are NOT supported by classical physics - period, your sophomoric manipulations of Poynting vectors and blathering about angular momentum notwithstanding. If you need a forum to boost your own ego, I recommend you stick to YouTube, or better, start your own blog ("Kmarinas86 explains it all"). Leave discussions of E&M to those who have some understanding of it.Prebys (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You thought I thought Newman claims were supported by classical physics? Now THAT's a laugh! I was trying to explain Newman's machine with classical physics. I wasn't trying to explain his claims. I certainly wasn't claiming that mainstream science supported Newman's statements. What I am saying is that mainstream science can understand what is going on with the Newman Machine. That Newman's theory was not needed in order explain why he had high levels of torque output (angular momentum per unit time) for small power input. Notwithstanding the minimum of knowledge I have of classical electromagnetic theory, I have found no reason in any mainstream source that states specifically that ampere turns and the Poynting vector cannot be used explain the experimental results referred by third-party observers of Newman replications. You say that our motors are VERY conventional. Guess what? I think the Newman machine is also conventional, and the claims about them exaggerate its uniqueness, but I believe they do not exaggerate nearly as much with regards to its potential utility. The only difference is the scale of the fine wire and turns used, and the result is similar to purely conventional motors in terms of the electrical field distribution, but not in terms of how long each charge stays in that electrical field. There are obviously technical advantages with the current mainstream paradigm of electricity, and I believe that Newman has under-appreciated that aspect of the generally accepted paradigm, which is already of immense use.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you babbling about Kmarinas? You said "Power is not energy"...but..."If power is not conserved, energy is still conserved"!?!? Power is energy divided by time.

You're right again! That was simply a point I was trying to make. The implication is that conservation of energy is not violated by the existence of regions of net power flow, whether it be a nuclear reactor, such as the sun, or an electrical machine, such as the sun.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the rate at which energy is moved or delivered or converted. Energy is conserved (at least we agree on that) - but "conservation of power" (which is a rate term) is simply not a meaningful phrase of the English language!

I agree. I was trying to send this point down your spine. This one of the best reactions I could have expected from you.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Conservation implies some temporal extension ("if there is X amount of energy in the closed system at time T₀ then there will be X amount of energy in the system at time T₁") we are comparing the amount of energy at two times and saying that there is no change. But that concept simply can't be applied to something that is a rate term. It's like you're talking about "Conservation of velocity" when you should be talking about "Conservation of momentum"...it's a completely meaningless phrase!

Exactly! So why do you think I made you think that! I'm thinking EXACTLY the same thing. The idea that there is "conservation of power" in physics is utter B.S., and when I tell you about it, that's EXACTLY what you see, B.S..Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you see irony? When I use phrases such as "conservation of power", I am referring to a false condition vital to keeping the validity of the claim that, "(You) cannot get more power from something than what (you) can put into it." The problem is that the "conservation of power" has shown to be a false and nonsensical, and therefore the statement that, "(You) cannot get more power from something than what (you) can put into it.", is not only flawed, but it is wrong. The flaws of accepting that statement would be akin to err in denying the existence of inheritance. If you understand what inheritance is, then read that statement again - "(You) cannot get more power from something than what (you) can put into it". Can you think of any counter examples to this statement that involve the concept of inheritance? It's terrible that so many otherwise rational people believe in such a statement, especially those who have a strong reputation of being rational.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please - go away and read some high school science books before you post any more incoherent ravings. This is just getting annoying...and it's off-topic for this talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement saying that "volts times amps output must be less than volts time amps input" is not implication of the conservation of energy. It's based on the assumption that power output must be less than power input. That assumption is not a logical conclusion that can be made purely from the notion that energy is conserved. In fact, it is erroneous to infer that claims of over-unity POWER necessarily violate the conservation of energy. Only claims of over-unity ENERGY would be claims to perpetual motion as those claims refer to energy ex nihilo, which violates the law of conservation of energy.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright - since you are so clearly confused, let's forget clumsy terms like "power" and take this down to the very basics for you. Look at the very definition of the units you are tossing around: The volt (expressed in SI base units) is m².kg.s^-3.A^-1 (go check in Volt). Hence, the units of volts times amps has the units of m².kg.s^-3 (because the Amps and A^-1 cancel out).

Now, energy in SI units is measured in joules and a joule is m².kg.s^-2 (again, go check in Joule). So Volts times Amps is just J.s^-1...joules per second...or in laymens' terms: Energy transferred per unit of time. So if you are claiming that the Volts x Amps coming out exceeds the Volts x Amps going in - then that is PRECISELY the same as saying that the amount of energy coming out exceeds the amount of energy going in - over whatever period of time we choose. (Presuming, of course that there aren't batteries inside this machine that are gradually running down or something like that).

So the volts x amps coming out over (say) 10 seconds must be less than volts x amps going in over over 10 seconds - or you're violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Consider the conservation of mass, which we know is not a perfect conservation rule, but let's talk about it anyway. By taking your words and replacing the key ones, we can arrive at:

“

So if you are claiming that the mass of hotel customers coming out exceeds the mass of hotel customers going in - then that is PRECISELY the same as saying that the mass of hotel customers coming out exceeds the mass of hotel customers coming in - over whatever period of time we choose. (Presuming, of course that there aren't hotel rooms inside this hotel that are gradually running down or something like that)."

"So the mass of hotel customers coming out over (say) 10 seconds must be less than the mass of hotel customers going in over over[sic] 10 seconds - or you're violating the first law of thermodynamics.

”

Your assumptions assume that the object we are considering has no internal energy. The reality, however, suggests quite the contrary! If it is said more things coming outside of SOMETHING than things coming into that SOMETHING you would conclude that the statement is inconsistent with the laws of physics! Your logic is patently ridiculous! What is sad is you don't recognize the fact that in order for there to be power flow, it must come from SOMEWHERE and go SOMEWHERE ELSE. That SOMEWHERE does not need to have constant mass or energy so as long as it is physically accessible to SOMEWHERE else! That why there are REGIONS of net power flow, while the ENERGY IS CONSERVED.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no dodging that - it's right there in the very DEFINITION of those units. If you don't/can't/won't understand this very basic physical fact then you don't know enough about elementary physics to enter into a meaningful discussion on the subject...much less write these long rambling diatribes of half-baked, half-understood ideas. SteveBaker (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I have two buckets of marbles. Each marble represents one joule. The total number of marbles is conserved. In the first minute, I take 5 marbles out of one bucket and 5 out of the other and place them on a table, which represents a power output of ten joules per minute. In the following minute, I put three marbles back in one bucket, and take ten out of the other bucket. I thereby expressed a net power output of seven Joules per minute, considering the two bucket system as the black box which gives the output. If you don't believe that, I have something to bring to your attention, which needs fixing:

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

“

The first law of thermodynamics basically states that a thermodynamic system can store or hold energy and that this internal energy is conserved. Heat is a process by which energy is added to a system from a high-temperature source, or lost to a low-temperature sink. In addition, energy may be lost by the system when it does mechanical work on its surroundings, or conversely, it may gain energy as a result of work done on it by its surroundings. The first law states that this energy is conserved: The change in the internal energy is equal to the amount added by heating minus the amount lost by doing work on the environment. The first law can be stated mathematically as:

dU=\delta Q-\delta w\,

where $dU$ is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, $\delta Q$ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and $\delta W$ is a small amount of work done by the system.

”

Now back to our marble analogy. Let's say we have fifty marbles in each bucket, a black box system representing an internal energy

U

of 50 Joules. In addition to this, we have 17 marbles on the table. Within the next minute, I could take one marble, two marbles, three marbles, or more from either of the two buckets, and place them on the table, while not taking any marbles from the table and putting them back into the buckets. The buckets are not an isolated system, and therefore, they are capable of a net power output, one that does not violate the law of conservation of energy nor any laws of thermodynamics.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and the 'marbles' analogy

OK - now you're just being deliberately annoying: I quite clearly said "(Presuming, of course that there aren't batteries inside this machine that are gradually running down or something like that)." - so your hotel and bucket analogies (which assume some internal source of stored people/marbles/energy) don't apply.

I was directly contradicting a statement that YOU made. Let me quote exactly what you said so there is no confusion:

"The statement saying that "volts times amps output must be less than volts time amps input" is not implication of the conservation of energy. It's based on the assumption that power output must be less than power input. That assumption is not a logical conclusion that can be made purely from the notion that energy is conserved."

But since volts x amps is just "power" - we can get rid of the confusing electrical terminology and simplify what you wrote to:

"The statement saying that "power output must be less than power input" is not implication of the conservation of energy. It's based on the assumption that power output must be less than power input. That assumption is not a logical conclusion that can be made purely from the notion that energy is conserved."

Which is really just saying the same thing twice - so in the interests of clarity let me simplify what you wrote:

"The statement that "power output must be less than power input" is not a logical conclusion from the conservation of energy."

Needless to say - I have a MAJOR problem with that statement (at least in the context of things that don't have batteries or other energy storage devices inside them). You said it again here (and this is another direct quote from your post):

"If power is not conserved (i.e. it increases or decreases), energy is still conserved."

Your concept that using the term "power" instead of "energy" or talking about (volts x amps) somehow gets you out of the conservation laws is flat out wrong...but that's what you're saying in the things I've just quoted. Putting it in terms of your marble analogy (which perhaps you can understand) - energy is the number of marbles and power is the rate at which you move marbles around, measured in "marbles-per-second". And (volts x amps) is joules/second which is just "marbles-per-second" in your analogy. We can meaningfully talk about "conservation of marbles" but "conservation of marbles-per-second" is just meaningless babble - so we're not going to say that power (or marbles-per-second) is or is not conserved - it's a meaningless phrase.

Now, examine these two statements - it's easy to see that they are both equally true in marble-world:

"A machine that produces more marbles on it's output than it takes in over the same period of time will pretty soon run out of stored marbles unless it's somehow creating them out of thin air in violation of the first law of marbledynamics."
"A machine that produces more 'marbles-per-second' on it's output than the number of 'marbles per second' that we put into it will pretty soon run out of stored marbles unless it's somehow creating them out ouf thin air in violation of the first law of marbledynamics."

When you talk about marbles it's REALLY obvious that they are both statements of the exact same underlying truth that marbles are conserved. Putting those two statements (which I hope we can agree are true) back into physics words:

"A machine that produces more energy than it takes in over the same period of time will pretty soon run out of stored energy unless it's somehow creating it out of thin air in violation of the first law of thermodynamics."
"A machine that produces more power on it's output than the power that we put into it will pretty soon run out of stored energy unless it's somehow creating them it out of thin air in violation of the first law of thermodynamics."

So, although we can't even use the term "conservation of power", we CAN say that the "conservation of energy" principle prevents you from producing more power than you consume. Which is not what you've been saying - ergo I'm right and you're wrong. Put another way:

The law of conservation of marbles does mean that you can't get a sustained "marbles per second" out of your machine that exceeds the "marbles-per-second" provided at the input.

Putting that back into physics terminology...

The law of conservation of energy does mean that you can't get a sustained power out of your machine that exceeds the power provided at the input. (That's the opposite of what you tried to say)

So when we try to parse this statement of yours...(a direct quote):

"The statement saying that "volts times amps output must be less than volts time amps input" is not implication of the conservation of energy."

Then we may translate that into:

"The statement saying that "number of marbles per second output must be less than number of marbles per second on the input" is not implication of the conservation of marbles."

...that's a pretty bold statement! You are telling us that getting more marbles-per second out of the machine than we put into it in each second doesn't imply that marbles are appearing out of thin air?!?! You seem to believe I can tip ten marbles into the machine every second from now until doomsday and take eleven marbles out out of the machine every second from now until doomsday and yet the total number of marbles in the universe is somehow unchanged.

...and then you expect us to pay attention to these long diatribes about who-knows-what? I don't think so!

SteveBaker (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That the number of marbles per second output must be less than number of marbles per second on the input" is not implication of the conservation of marbles. That the number of marbles per second output cannot perpetually be less than number of marbles per second on the input is an implication of the conservation of marbles. There ya go.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just making an offhand mention of capacitance or inductance - principles which we're of course familiar with. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that it is not immediately clear to me how exactly that would tie with this discussion on conservation of energy versus power in/out of something.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AC power(V(t),I(t))>=DC power(V(t),I(t))

Recently I found that AC Power actually is a product of 3 things: The RMS voltage times the RMS current and the power factor of the circuit. The power factor is resistance divided by impedance. The impedance is RMS voltage divided by RMS current. So the AC power of the circuit is really the resistance of the circuit times the RMS current squared. The wire in this video is 270 ohms (40x100' of RC40 ribbon cable from Altex(.com)). Mathematically, RMS of V and I >= Average of V and I. AC power>=DC power.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You're admitting that you've spent the last several weeks trying to "educate" the rest of us on advanced E&M while not even understanding the role of phase in simple electric circuits?!?!? Sadly, I'm confident the irony of this will be lost on you.Prebys (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Holey moley sir, there is MORE THAN ONE WAY to express the power factor than the cosine of the phase angle. Sweet Jesus! You need to get out more!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop pretending you have a clue. It's painful to watch. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was very convincing. Do you say anything else?Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Try this. Out do me on my own game. The silly game of insults being played here does not work with me (but Evan Soule surely loves that game). I do not complain about insults. I respect those who can speak science without being confused about the student who likes to say his own things. I know Prebys does have the capability of giving counterfactual (or factual) statements to my claims. For example, if I say "there is MORE THAN ONE WAY to express the power factor than the cosine of the phase angle" and if that is wrong, I will be supremely mesmerized one can actually disprove that (and indeed, even if one merely attempts doing so). Instead, you two are focused on my persona, lack of age, or absence of experience, not on the things which I say I feel with utmost certainty, such as the existence of other ways to calculate the power factor. You two feel that these personal characteristics are more suitable to complement the discussion than the facts, or errors in facts, that we discuss (or lack thereof). Don't ignore the claims I make which are right (or wrong). If you do not, you will do more to me than the person who does not. Remember, make countering statements. Overwhelm me with interesting knowledge and insight that I cannot find in texts so that I will shut up. I am clearly begging for it.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will look back at my old University Physics textbook anyway. This would be a good time to tighten the loose information in my brain.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kmarinas86

I was wondering, what qualifications do our friend Kmarinas86 possess? Well, he's kind enough to tell us on his YouTube profile: he mops the floors at Kroger. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is best argument I have heard from you. You will go very, very far with this kind of blunt association.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 02:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You strike me as someone who delights in collecting knowledge, but, sadly, understands neither its application nor its significance. This is fine - whatever floats your boat. It's when you regurgitate this knowledge to people who actually learnt it and give us attitude that it's a problem. Not to mention, Wikipedia is not the place for this. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming like a USENET group, where smart people waste all their time arguing with self-deluded idiots. Personally, I've had enough. If Kmarinas86 wants to continue to spam the discussion page with patent nonsense, I for one am going to stop enabling him. If he puts in the article, I'll edit it out as needed.Prebys (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A few facts:

Free energy cannot be achieved.
Spectacular demonstrations of power output do not demonstrate free energy.
That electromagnetic fields have energy does not exclude the possibility of getting energy from them.
Electrical potential energy is simply another kind of energy.
Newman's claims contradict the laws of physics, but...
Newman's device does not break any laws of physics.
The current laws of physics already explain his device.
These laws can also explain his power output, when all relevant forms of energy are considered, not just chemical or electrical potential energy.
The Poynting vector is real, regardless who claims knowledge of its existence.
You know better than I do.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: A statement of fact does not become patent nonsense simply by being irrelevant or having a lack of purpose in the discussion.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're getting nowhere fast. He's living in his own little world. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you realized that.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he meant that in a good way! "He's living in his own little universe - governed by laws of physics that he makes up as he goes along." - would perhaps be NRen2k5's true meaning. SteveBaker (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me he has a passable understanding of physics or at least the ability to derive the equations. His shortcoming is in the real-world significance. And when he discovers something, he decides it should be a revelation to the rest of the world. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)