1? Meh. 2? Humm, 3? Wait a sec, 4? OK problem...

Alex · 02-07-2008, 02:46 PM

If it is well designed I expect what will happen is what always happens, they'll find that there is unrecognized energy input into the system.

If poorly designed I expect what will happen is what always happens, they'll realize that the machinery was so complicated as to mask what's really happening.

If scammily designed I expect what will happen is what always happens, they'll realize that the inventor is intentionally hiding the energy input.

And there's a very, very small chance that what the man has done is not invent a perpetual motion machine but rather to have found a way to transfer energy that doesn't require currently known energy inputs. After all, a solar powered toy car would appear a perpetual motion machine if you were unaware of electromagnetic radiation.

But I feel extremely confident saying he hasn't invented a true perpetual motion machine that consumes less energy than it produces.

Ghoulish Delight · 02-07-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

And there's a very, very small chance that what the man has done is not invent a perpetual motion machine but rather to have found a way to transfer energy that doesn't require currently known energy inputs. After all, a solar powered toy car would appear a perpetual motion machine if you were unaware of electromagnetic radiation.

But I feel extremely confident saying he hasn't invented a true perpetual motion machine that consumes less energy than it produces.

From the article:

Quote:

D Day. Heins has modified his test so the effects observed are difficult to deny. He holds a permanent magnet a few centimetres away from the driveshaft of an electric motor, and the magnetic field it creates causes the motor to accelerate. It went well.

Errr, isn't that the basic principal of any electromagnetic motor? Not that I need any more reason to be suspect of claims of perpetual motion, but the utter lack of details in this article doesn't help.

Moonliner · 02-07-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

From the article:

Errr, isn't that the basic principal of any electromagnetic motor? Not that I need any more reason to be suspect of claims of perpetual motion, but the utter lack of details in this article doesn't help.

Which of course is what makes this story a worthy successor to the Cable cut story. Lot's of drama, not many facts.

02-07-2008, 02:46 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	If it is well designed I expect what will happen is what always happens, they'll find that there is unrecognized energy input into the system. If poorly designed I expect what will happen is what always happens, they'll realize that the machinery was so complicated as to mask what's really happening. If scammily designed I expect what will happen is what always happens, they'll realize that the inventor is intentionally hiding the energy input. And there's a very, very small chance that what the man has done is not invent a perpetual motion machine but rather to have found a way to transfer energy that doesn't require currently known energy inputs. After all, a solar powered toy car would appear a perpetual motion machine if you were unaware of electromagnetic radiation. But I feel extremely confident saying he hasn't invented a true perpetual motion machine that consumes less energy than it produces.
	Submit to Quotes