BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 06:33 PM

QUICK! DUMP your NYCFTTS stock! All of it! It's a goner. And buy shares in the WSSBA! It's gonna go through the roof. You can trust this tip. WSSBA! Act now, before you get left behind!

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: GUEST,marks
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 06:28 PM

A good way to check the validity of any of these wild claims is to remember that the laws a thermodynamics cannot be repealed, and that in the end entropy always wins!

Now then, let me tell you about my plan to cross minks with snakes, so they will shed their fur every few months, and we can all wear fur coats without the need to sacrifice an animal for its skin.

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 02:00 AM

I forgot to add that magnets while quite 'magical' in the way they exert force through space, do not lead to over-unity devices by virtue of the way they work. Think of them as exerting force like invisible springs. Energy can be stored in magnetic fields, but not 'created'.

A good site with some straight dope:


http://www.phact.org/e/z/freewire.htm

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Dec 04 - 12:40 AM

Tesla was a certified genius who went certifiable, not totally unlike Howard Hughes in his final years, though with considerably less money.

Tesla had a good high-class European technical education, and came to America to work for Thomas Alva Edison, a 'self-educated' genius with a contempt for formal training. ("If I want a mathematician, I can hire one" attributed to him). Edison also made the biggest technical gaffe of his career in backing to the hilt electrical transmission via Direct Current (DC) via his Edison Electric Co. Tesla knew this was a poor choice due to the problems inherent in transmitting DC electric power over any distance. He left Edison and went to work for a business and industry visionary, George Westinghouse. Their AC system won out as it was destined to do, and along the way to the electrification of the modern world, Tesla was the fount of many Westinghouse patents, including advancement in induction motors and I believe the three-phase system that is used throughout modern industry worldwide. One of his earliest projects was the generation of power by harnessing most of the flow of water that heads for Niagara Falls. Edison's company had to switch to AC power which caused Edison to remove his name from a company that continued operation as General Electric.

Tesla pursued other projects which he didn't bring to fruition, among them the transmission of electric energy at high enough frequencies so as to need no wires (Sort of like drawing power from your radio antenna, hugely wasteful unless the power can be 'beamed'. This Tesla did not accomplish.

I'm writing this via memory, so forgive any omissions. Tesla separated from Westinghouse at some point, I don't know why, but as he grew older he lived a solitary life and felt underappreciated for his great contributions to the power industry, although he wasn't ignored, he never received the popular adulation such as a man like Edison. He developed some notions that may have been obsessive compulsive, and these contributed to his estrangement from other folk, and possibly his death, although he lived to a ripe old age.

Tesla left some notebooks, and brief autobiographical writings. Considering his importance, the literature on him is quite sparse. This has left an opening for a lot of utter nonsense to be promulgated which makes rather free with his name, mainly the kind of entertaining rubbish that gets bandied about on late night AM talk radio in the States. Beware.

As for 'over-unity' energy devices, it's a fancy way of saying it puts out more energy than is put into it, in other words, it's a 'perpetual motion' device. A distinction must be made to allow for the fact that when you burn a log, you are putting in the energy of a match and getting out many thousands of times that energy from the combustion of the log. But what you are really doing is 'harvesting' the stored energy of the fuel that is the wood. It's the same whether that energy is stored in paper, gasoline, or the food you consume. Perpetual motion comes from the notion that you can truly create energy from nothing by utilizing some principle of mechanics or electricity that no one has figured out before. When it comes to electric motors, that business with motors made of magnets lends itself to con-artists and idiots because it's pretty easy to mis-measure what's going in and what's coming out, not to mention, hide a battery in the middle of the contraption.

A good rule of thumb is that any time someone brags about over-unity, you should button up your wallet, because they're looking for 'investors', A K A suckers.

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 07:58 PM

*trying to think when I first saw ads for 100MPG carburetors and articles about perpetutal-motion engines...maybe 1954?

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 10:08 AM

One of the strengths of the Internet is that material can be pulled up from years back with a few keystrokes. One of the weaknesses of the Internet is that a current search can come up with material from years back in a few keystrokes. . . once old material turns up, it must be evaluated, and the observation that 1997 was the last original posting on this subject is a clue that might be missed but is crucial to understanding the viability of the subject matter. This thread is a very nice demonstration of that. Thanks, guys, for a tidy little exercise in critical thinking (and showing off electrical engineering smarts).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Grab
Date: 17 Dec 04 - 08:45 AM

The Japanese one

From that article:-

Next we move to a unit with its motor connected to a generator. What we see is striking. The meters showed an input to the stator electromagnets of approximately 1.8 volts and 150mA input, and from the generator, 9.144 volts and 192mA output. 1.8 x 0.15 x 2 = 540mW input and 9.144 x 0.192 = 1.755W out.

Sorry, no. That's known as an "overunity device", which is more popularly called a "perpetual motion machine". If we believe the meters, 1.2W is magically coming from somewhere. That means extra energy is being supplied on a continous basis. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." So either he's mistaken or he's lying. Anyone can rig up meters to show anything.

"Back EMF" is not fiction. What's fiction is that it can be used in this way. If you want to use back EMF as an energy source (which is simply what a generator is), then the energy needs to have been put there by something else spinning the flywheel/rotor. So the energy path goes:-

Chemical energy -> Battery terminals -> electrical energy -> Motor -> kinetic energy (spinning rotor) -> Generator -> electrical energy -> Load

where "Load" will be wherever the generator puts the electricity it generates. At no point is extra energy added, so any energy reaching the load has come from the battery (via a very indirect route).

I Googled a bit more about Minato. An explanation from Chris Drake:-

All Minato's power calculations appear to be wrong (apparently it's a common mistake many scientists make); you can't measure input power using a multimeter when the current drain isn't constant. You can see his workshop in his videos - all his calculations are done using common multimeters and a desktop calculator.

Minato motors use an optical sensor to "switch on" the "stator" (electromagnet) for a fraction of each RPM, so he'd need an oscilloscope and some funky math to figure out how much current the motors are really sucking up (or a stopwatch; and wait for the driving battery to go dead, then estimate based on the battery capacity).

So in other words, Minato's input power figure is incorrect, which explains the mismatch in power readings.

As an aside, I also note that Minato's claim dates from 1997, and that there are no more articles anywhere beyond that first link (there's just a zillion copies of it). Had this worked, it would *definitely* be in production now, and he'd be shouting loudly about it, as would his sponsors. Note that this is Japan, so there's no oil industry to pander to - the Japanese would kill for independence from oil suppliers (and literally did in WWII) so no lack of support there, and the article claims that Nippon Denso were making the motors. But no news of it, no nothing, just fade into the "oops we screwed up" oblivion of every other perpetual motion machine.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 08:35 AM

Back-EMF is not a fiction -- it is a standard term for one of the components of impedance in electrical systems.

A

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 08:08 AM

For 2 years Japan has been selling the new extremely efficient electric motors within their country. What makes them efficient is that the coil is on the outside and the magnets on the shaft are positioned so there is no seize point anywhere in its rotation.
There is also a working design for passenger bus motors along the same line.

If this set up can apply to a generator seems to defy Newtonian law but if Ke energy is not utterly fiction, who knows, it might work.
Hey I'm no Tesla but maybe someone here is.

Subject: RE: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Grab
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 07:31 AM

I'm not. This is utter bollocks and is simply a scam, as shown by them refusing to have anyone independently test it. Notice in particular that they've taken a name similar to General Motors (usually known as GMC)to try and con the unwary into thinking this is a big company making the claim.

the second effect is that of a back electromagnetic force (Ke)

Which is produced by *all* electric motors. Time for a quick lesson in how motors work, for those who didn't pay attention in school... ;-)

When it's stationary, the motor sees the full battery voltage across the motor. It draws a load of current from the battery and starts the motor turning.

But a motor and a generator are basically the same thing - a coil and a magnet rotating. So that means that when the motor starts spinning, the generator principle starts to kick in. The motor starts to produce what's called a "back EMF", which is a voltage opposing the battery voltage.

The effect of this is that as the motor speeds up, the back EMF tends to increase to match the battery voltage. As this happens, the current drops (because the two voltages are starting to cancel each other out). The maximum speed of the motor/battery combination is reached when the back EMF equals the battery - at that point, no current is drawn so the motor has stopped taking power from the battery and therefore can't go any faster. If you put a load on the motor (eg. using it to drive a car or something) then this slows down the motor and it starts drawing more current.

Suppose you could take this back EMF and use it to charge your battery. Then as the motor speed goes up, you're still drawing full current from the battery, instead of the current decreasing. And because your charging mechanism has some losses in it, it's going to be less efficient overall than just letting the motor do its thing.

This school science tutorial quotes electric motors as being 85-95% efficient. Donuel, your link says "Careful analysis of the video data provided on the GMC website shows system efficiency of about 20%." Somehow I don't think a four-fold REDUCTION in efficiency is going to impress anyone!

Graham.

Subject: BS: hey buddy, wanna hot stock tip?
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 02:38 PM

I am reserving judgment
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/11/18/6900053GMC_Holdings_Fuel-less_Motor/index.html