The Perpetum Mobile is here
Apparently.
I think we've all heard about numbers of "perpetual motion" devices, either from Google or, more likely, from school. Yeah, THOSE things. And, wouldn't you know it, the endeavours never ceased: we're just that damn stubborn, as a species, just in case religion and politics haven't made it obvious by now.
Well, guess what, we have yet another device on our hands. And it works.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JikYfmEdF8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JikYfmEdF8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
To the best extent of my research on the company, they've presented something like this before, and failed on numerous levels: the device broke, the press scolded them, invited jury said it's crap. Obviously that stopped no one, and they continued working on whatever they were working on. Amassed some ~$10 mil in funding from various companies, and have since refused to take in any more until the device is publicly proven. Nevertheless, they plan to start commercially licensing it... Right now.
I'm inclined to think that it's a very stupid hoax. The fact that it works - and that I have very shady understanding of electromagnetism - however, pose a few problems to this line of thinking.
I think we've all heard about numbers of "perpetual motion" devices, either from Google or, more likely, from school. Yeah, THOSE things. And, wouldn't you know it, the endeavours never ceased: we're just that damn stubborn, as a species, just in case religion and politics haven't made it obvious by now.
Well, guess what, we have yet another device on our hands. And it works.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JikYfmEdF8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JikYfmEdF8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
To the best extent of my research on the company, they've presented something like this before, and failed on numerous levels: the device broke, the press scolded them, invited jury said it's crap. Obviously that stopped no one, and they continued working on whatever they were working on. Amassed some ~$10 mil in funding from various companies, and have since refused to take in any more until the device is publicly proven. Nevertheless, they plan to start commercially licensing it... Right now.
I'm inclined to think that it's a very stupid hoax. The fact that it works - and that I have very shady understanding of electromagnetism - however, pose a few problems to this line of thinking.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As he claims in the video the basic thermodynamic principle of energy conservation is broken. This is no small thing. This is the deepest and most fundamental laws of nature, and it has a very firm basis (more so than even many physicists know) in rather pure mathematics.
Fair enough. Perhaps they break that rule then.
However, note that this is a significant claim and it would require significant evidence to mount this as something other than a hoax. First of all, we don't know that it works. A company with vested interests in selling something has promoted that something works, which is something completely different. There's no peer reviewed papers under the scrutinizing eyes of physicists claiming this, nor is anything that can be reproduced and examined given.
Of course, one might say that is because they want to sell it and keep their knowledge secret, but that is no indicator that adds credibility to the story.
No: Perpetum Mobile is as obscure as (insert any supernatural phenomena), and the science up to now tells us that it cannot happen. Evidence beyond "I made an efficient machine, and I'll now tell you that it produces energy" is needed for these extraordinary claims to stand, and up untill those evidences surface, I will go with labeling this as a well produced hoax even if their apparent honesty and humbleness is used as selling points.
Their basic reason for selling this machine is to demonstrate to their potential customers that they can make people believe anything, which is a good quality in a PR company.
On the other hand... The thing's been on exhibit for the last few months, constantly filmed, constantly running, without any external source of energy, and the company advocating it actually refuse to take in funding.
So it's very confusing, to be intellectually honest, very two-fold for both sceptics and advocates.
The best we could count on right now is that something like this was already proposed, and is known and demonstrated to be false, as countless perpetual motion machines were. I wouldn't be too surprised if it came up relatively quickly: we're on the Internet, after all. On a related note, conservation of energy, nor any physical law, should ever be approached in a dogmatic manner: think hyperbolic geometry versus euclidean, or gravity versus relativity. Plus there's a possibility that the device feeds of some other, unknown, energy source. Somehow. Possibly fairy dust.
<!--quoteo(post=1759793:date=Mar 18 2010, 01:50 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 18 2010, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Steorn are an Irish company that kicked around the dot.com era as a specialist PR company for managing hype in the digital age.
Their basic reason for selling this machine is to demonstrate to their potential customers that they can make people believe anything, which is a good quality in a PR company.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hah, that's genius.
Granted they'll have to show good prison-evading skills too if that's the case.
On the other hand... The thing's been on exhibit for the last few months, constantly filmed, constantly running, without any external source of energy, and the company advocating it actually refuse to take in funding.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it isn't hard to produce a very efficient engine that apparently does not use energy. The devil's in the details, however. Miniscule consumptions of energy might not be apparent on a mere year-based scale. It might be able to run for years before it stops. However, does it produce energy? That is something completely different and will not be demonstrated by a mere demonstration of longwidth.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On a related note, conservation of energy, nor any physical law, should ever be approached in a dogmatic manner: think hyperbolic geometry versus euclidean, or gravity versus relativity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, now while that is true, I am not sure you appreciate how fundamental this law is (as with the other conservation laws, momentum and angular momentum). They go beyond theories like relativity and quantum mechanics, and deduce properties of the natural universe based on assumed mathematical symmetries. (Time-, space- and rotational invariance.) These laws lie deep down as the fundament of our physical understanding. Every existing theory in use have these assumed to be true.
If this is not the case, then the implications go far beyond what Newton and Einstein has done. And I mean way far beyond. I am not sure if I manage to convey the extraordinarity of the claim of Perpetum Mobile; it a really extraordinary claim! Claiming things as "Einstein was wrong!" or "Gravity is just orange juice!" doesn't even come near it.
I will keep it as a near-dogma till extraordinary evidences surface. Untill then, energy is conserved ;)
That's also true. Apparently the thing uses magnetic bearings, which doesn't help credibility at all.
Granted, even if it extracts energy from the magnets or structural integrity or whatever, that would still blow existing energy paradigm out of the water, which is just as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1759798:date=Mar 18 2010, 02:18 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 18 2010, 02:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ah, now while that is true, I am not sure you appreciate how fundamental this law is (as with the other conservation laws, momentum and angular momentum). They go beyond theories like relativity and quantum mechanics, and deduce properties of the natural universe based on assumed mathematical symmetries. (Time-, space- and rotational invariance.) These laws lie deep down as the fundament of our physical understanding. Every existing theory in use have these assumed to be true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have limited understanding of empirical science, but I do have a vague idea of how fundamental symmetry is in this regard. It's just important to remember that we're dealing with human understanding of reality, nor reality itself. Furthermore, new findings do not necessarily completely invalidate the old in the sense of contesting it: just like relativity does not invalidate good old gravity, it just makes it more accurate.
I think it's more credible to assume that the device extracts energy from an unknown source rather than outright produces it, assuming it actually works.
Steorn's previous demos were based on magentic devices probably coupled with either a) a nearby powerful magnet, or b) the earth's own magnetic field. In terms of practical applicaitons, it is good for one thing and one thing only - spinning a very very light magnet in a very very weak magnetic field - i.e. it is completely useless. Now, their latest device appears to work a lot better, but you attach a feather load to that motor and it will probably stop instantly. It does use external energy but the real technology here is in its very very efficient mechanics.
These are snake-oil salesmen selling the fact that they can *still* sell snake-oil in the modern era.
But then again, scientology has been demonstrating that for a long time.
This is a fraud.
If they're extracting energy from the weak magnetic field, that would be awesome on its own. As long as it produces any energy at all, it's interesting regardless of what it claims to be.
I believe the actual claim they're riding on is that the system produces three times the energy that is being fed into it (from the battery). I have no idea how long a battery-powered rotor like this would run on it's own accord.
<!--quoteo(post=1759803:date=Mar 18 2010, 02:35 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 18 2010, 02:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Real scientists write papers, not press releases.
This is a fraud.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not entirely fair when most scientific journals will not publish anything relating to perpetual motion, is it? But, yes, unfortunately.
From an energy-economical viewpoint, definitely. Physics? Not really, unless they claim that this is an undepletable source of course.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have limited understanding of empirical science, but I do have a vague idea of how fundamental symmetry is in this regard. It's just important to remember that we're dealing with human understanding of reality, nor reality itself. Furthermore, new findings do not necessarily completely invalidate the old in the sense of contesting it: just like relativity does not invalidate good old gravity, it just makes it more accurate.
I think it's more credible to assume that the device extracts energy from an unknown source rather than outright produces it, assuming it actually works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I'm not saying that actually demonstrating that the PM works (and invalidating energy conservation) would render the application of energy conservation useless (it could be a new relation; energy evolution to give it a name).
It would however have a much larger implication than, say, "just" re-doing the entirety of Einstein's work. It would also add some pretty interesting bullet points that at least cosmologists would have to account for. For example, isolated systems would be prone to change over time without ANY interaction whatsoever, and effect would be possible without cause. I guess this would add a bit of philosophical drama as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: They're picking the worst battle possible. Contesting any other theory or law would be easier and prone to less resistance both from a dogmatic view and a theoretical view. But if what puzl is saying is true, then perhaps that is their intention. And I got to admit, they're doing it quite well!
(And don't diss snake oil! It works, and it does enlarge your p...never mind.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If they're extracting energy from the weak magnetic field, that would be awesome on its own. As long as it produces any energy at all, it's interesting regardless of what it claims to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Extracting energy from magnetic fields is not hard, it is doable. It is not taking the energy from an undepletable source, though. The magnetic fields (of the earth or the sun for example) come solely from electric current. Drawing energy from those fields diminishes the power of the currents. In this case, if they draw on the magnetic field of the earth, they probably caues the iron in the earth's core to slow down a bit meanwhile.
Yeah, that. Engineering is the hand of science in reality, isn't it?
<!--quoteo(post=1759806:date=Mar 18 2010, 02:48 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 18 2010, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759806"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh, I'm not saying that actually demonstrating that the PM works (and invalidating energy conservation) would render the application of energy conservation useless (it could be a new relation; energy evolution to give it a name).
It would however have a much larger implication than, say, "just" re-doing the entirety of Einstein's work. It would also add some pretty interesting bullet points that at least cosmologists would have to account for. For example, isolated systems would be prone to change over time without ANY interaction whatsoever, and effect would be possible without cause. I guess this would add a bit of philosophical drama as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: They're picking the worst battle possible. Contesting any other theory or law would be easier and prone to less resistance both from a dogmatic view and a theoretical view. But if what puzl is saying is true, then perhaps that is their intention. And I got to admit, they're doing it quite well!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're in complete agreement here then.
To me it'd be amusing to know why it doesn't work as much as why it does. Plus there are some tangent applications we're missing, they could be harvesting lead-out energy somehow, for one. It's a bit like parapsychology: even if it's crap, it's still both useful and amusing to know what's going on.
Speaking of cosmology... I rather faintly remember something along the lines of "spontaneous uncaused bursts of energy" being an troubling phenomena recently, would you happen to know anything about that?
<!--quoteo(post=1759806:date=Mar 18 2010, 02:48 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 18 2010, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759806"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Extracting energy from magnetic fields is not hard, it is doable. It is not taking the energy from an undepletable source, though. The magnetic fields (of the earth or the sun for example) come solely from electric current. Drawing energy from those fields diminishes the power of the currents. In this case, if they draw on the magnetic field of the earth, they probably caues the iron in the earth's core to slow down a bit meanwhile.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Precisely. For all human intents and purposes, however, this energy is virtually limitless: if we can tap into that in an efficient manner, it doesn't really matter what the absolutes are.
It would pretty much decimate the economy though, for obvious reasons.
<!--quoteo(post=1759806:date=Mar 18 2010, 02:48 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 18 2010, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759806"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(And don't diss snake oil! It works, and it does enlarge your p...never mind.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...You mean, your snake? ;)
There is no energy for free. Somewhere you have to get it from. However if you can harvest energy from alpha centauris sun remotely, why not do it?
Wha?.. When did we do that?..
Also, global warming can't really have any profound effect, it's a rise of a few degrees overall in worst-case scenario, on the surface. Not to worry though, Earth's core doesn't need help, it's humongous and renewable source of energy... And come to think of it... Why would tapping into a magnetic field actually slow down the motor?
Bah, nevermind. Nerdy stuff.
I don't recall anything of "spontaneous uncaused bursts of energy" lately; have you got any more details for me to go on? Although cosmology isn't really my field of expertise, it's a tremendously interesting subject!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...You mean, your snake? ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that's what I said! ;)
Quite complicated, but the explanation is well done....
Okay, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_Electromagnetic_Generator" target="_blank">THIS</a> would be the device I'm talking about.
And <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwlo0ym-rE&feature=channel" target="_blank">THIS</a> being the movie I was talking about.
I wish.
It's actually incredibly annoying just to go and lose knowledge. It's probably how Alzheimer's feels...
<!--quoteo(post=1759814:date=Mar 18 2010, 04:02 PM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Panigg @ Mar 18 2010, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These have been around for some time now. Will see if I can find that video where they show how it works.
Quite complicated, but the explanation is well done....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I recall hearing about a couple myself, yes.
You can follow the video in OP to the official channel, they have a tech presentation there somewhere. Not exactly satisfying I don't think, but it's there.
Genius.
All the more true if it's a scam.
...Too.
There's a good reason that journals don't publish claims to have violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. They don't like publishing nonsense.
These guys say that they can basically take a battery to somehow power magnets and/or a tiny spinning thing, and then that tiny spinning thing both recharges the battery and produces excess power?
From basic physics courses, which I was forced to take and have long forgotten, I know that perpetual motion can't exist. So if this machine works as advertised then what does that mean for physics?
I'm not sure how Steaoms machine works, but the thing I linked is basically sucking energy out of the vacuum. The vacuum of space is not empty. It has energy warping in and out of existence. (Afaik this is proven by science). So, they place a negative charge in vacuum and the positive charges stick to it. Viola, energy.
This is the simplest explanation possible. :)
Nothing in science is set in stone.. even the fundamental expectations about reality must be questioned. I recently read a biography of Chandrasekhar, the guy who took the perfect gas law and general relativity and came up with a model for the formation of stars that predicted, amongst other things, black holes...long before they were ever observed. The guy got ridiculed, most notably by Eddington - the most eminent astrophysicist of his day - for predicting physical phenomena that had characteristics that broke down the laws of space and time as we understood them. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics many years after his discovery, and many years after the ridicule by his peers sent his career in a different direction.
So science as a culture is well aware of the danger in ridiculing new ideas, however, tankefugl is correct in that the laws of thermodynamics are so absolutely fundamental and basic to almost everything in physics that if you create a device that claims to break them then you need to go to immense effort to explain every aspect of it under peer review before making such bold claims about your device. As insane says, if this device had real research behind it, it would be based on a body of peer reviewed underlying theory and experimentation.
Ah, no. They're not claiming to harness vacuum energy (which is an interesting concept, but at the "is this possible?"-stage of theory). They're claiming that by using anomalies in the magnetic field they're able to produce energy.
And yes, that breaks with energy conservation. The implications are many and far-reaching, if this were to be more than just a hoax. Perhaps most importantly, cause and effect would not be causally tied together anymore (as mentioned earlier): You'd have effects without cause! And that is a rather juicy piece of philosophical meat to say the least.
These guys say that they can basically take a battery to somehow power magnets and/or a tiny spinning thing, and then that tiny spinning thing both recharges the battery and produces excess power?
From basic physics courses, which I was forced to take and have long forgotten, I know that perpetual motion can't exist. So if this machine works as advertised then what does that mean for physics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It means physics is wrong.
Which brings up the entire point of perpetual motion, either all natural law as we understand it is wrong, or you forgot the carry the two.
Which brings up the entire point of perpetual motion, either all natural law as we understand it is wrong, or you forgot the carry the two.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or their machine is working by another mechanism and they are ( intentionally or not ) misrepresenting it.
There is nothing new in this. Check out the wikipedia page for a very long list of failed attempts at perpetual motion
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pe...motion_machines</a>
These guys say that they can basically take a battery to somehow power magnets and/or a tiny spinning thing, and then that tiny spinning thing both recharges the battery and produces excess power?
From basic physics courses, which I was forced to take and have long forgotten, I know that perpetual motion can't exist. So if this machine works as advertised then what does that mean for physics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It means, that q is greater than 1 and that we have been idiots for quite a few decades :)
The basic idea behind perpetual motion is, that a machine generates more power output, than it has intake.
Power refers to any form of energy, regardless of its state. So a diesel motor uses energy (which is chemical energy stored in the form of diesel fuel and diesel matter) and transforms this energy into motion and another less energetic form of matter and heat and bla.
If you build a machine that charges a battery, using an electromagnet and that battery in return powers the electromagnet the following could happen,according to the first law of thermodynamic:
a) Nothing!
b) It works, because at some point in the process matter is transformed into energy. (Magnet melts and it works, till the magnet has disappeared)
c) It works, because you are tapping a power source, that is outside the observed system.
The best thing next to perpetual motion is tapping a remote power source, like a distant star or a nearly endless power reservoir, like a certain close star.
People often claim that they use the earths magnetic field for power generation. That's fine and possible. But telling folks, that this is perpetual motion is wrong! You most likely cool of the earths core, or alter its spinning speed (which stores potential energy) during your perpetual motion and thus output>intake.
Actually, that's the opposite of what "in theory" means. The theories quite clearly state that this is impossible. Far-fetched as it may be, it might turn out to be practically possible, in which case the theories would have to be altered to fit the facts.
Yeah right.
The one angle here (which may be complete bollocks, I'm no expert on magnetism) is that this device harnesses the power of the magnets. However, in order to harness that power, it would have to remove it from the magnets - i.e. the magnets would demagnetize over time, eventually necessitating replacement. Furthermore, the first law of thermodynamics states that the energy required to produce these magnets would have to be equal to or greater than the energy that could be drawn from. This would still not make the device a perpetuum mobile, but it would allow us to use magnetism as an energy source.
Still, my hunch is that this is all bogus.
That's what you call circular logic. "We don't publish subject X, because it's nonsense. Why is it nonsense? Because we don't publish subject X."
<!--quoteo(post=1759835:date=Mar 18 2010, 06:30 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Mar 18 2010, 06:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759835"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So I don't really know physics, but what's going on here?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They use a battery to generate a magnetic force which spins the wheel, then use this spinning wheel to generate magnetic force which powers the battery, in cyclical manner. This shouldn't really ever increase the device's life expectancy, only shorten it (due to energy being lost as heat in the process, and some other things).
<!--quoteo(post=1759836:date=Mar 18 2010, 06:34 PM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Panigg @ Mar 18 2010, 06:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure how Steaoms machine works, but the thing I linked is basically sucking energy out of the vacuum. The vacuum of space is not empty. <b>It has energy warping in and out of existence.</b> (Afaik this is proven by science). So, they place a negative charge in vacuum and the positive charges stick to it. Viola, energy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you. I mentioned that exact thing just a few posts before, at least now I know I'm not just making it up.
Can you elaborate on that? Where does the claim originate, or something?
<!--quoteo(post=1759838:date=Mar 18 2010, 06:44 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 18 2010, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These are all generally bull###### with some kernel of real physics behind some aspect of them that sort of looks perpetual.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably.
Open-sourcing (i.e. obliging with scientific method in regards to) the thing would do wonders to fend of such accusations, but, everyone needs money. The mighty dollar...
<!--quoteo(post=1759838:date=Mar 18 2010, 06:44 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 18 2010, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So science as a culture is well aware of the danger in ridiculing new ideas, however, tankefugl is correct in that the laws of thermodynamics are so absolutely fundamental and basic to almost everything in physics that if you create a device that claims to break them then you need to go to immense effort to explain every aspect of it under peer review before making such bold claims about your device.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Contradiction much?..
But yes, having no papers to show for it doesn't help their credibility much. Then again, it's not really fair when most scientists will simply refuse to touch the subject.
The videos on their YouTube channel the device is mostly a product of direct experiment rather than directed research ("Victorian science"), which would lend credence to both not publishing any papers and it being nonsense.
<!--quoteo(post=1759839:date=Mar 18 2010, 06:45 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 18 2010, 06:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yes, that breaks with energy conservation. The implications are many and far-reaching, if this were to be more than just a hoax. Perhaps most importantly, cause and effect would not be causally tied together anymore (as mentioned earlier): You'd have effects without cause! And that is a rather juicy piece of philosophical meat to say the least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you elaborate on that bit? I don't really see how breakdown of conservation would accomplish something like this... Then again, thinking about world without conservation of energy at all makes my head hurt. If we only assume it doesn't apply in certain cases, like those spinning magnets, then it's fair enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1759844:date=Mar 18 2010, 07:04 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 18 2010, 07:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759844"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It means physics is wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like puzl said, not at all. Not even disproving all laws of science in existence would change observable reality. If the thing is really working, it's more likely harnessing some unknown source of energy, and if it's really somehow generating it, it still won't suddenly make all other motors break into pieces.
<!--quoteo(post=1759853:date=Mar 18 2010, 07:48 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 18 2010, 07:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one angle here (which may be complete bollocks, I'm no expert on magnetism) is that this device harnesses the power of the magnets. However, in order to harness that power, it would have to remove it from the magnets - i.e. the magnets would demagnetize over time, eventually necessitating replacement. Furthermore, the first law of thermodynamics states that the energy required to produce these magnets would have to be equal to or greater than the energy that could be drawn from. This would still not make the device a perpetuum mobile, but it would allow us to use magnetism as an energy source.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're using electrical magnets and simple metal, I think.
If the device actually somehow managed to strip raw metal matter into energy, it would still be pretty amusing. Not much in way of application though, I don't think.
I know what circular logic is.
It's considered nonsense because it violates existing and extremely well founded natural laws. To disprove those laws, a large volume of extraordinary evidence would be required, and that evidence is simply either non-existent or of laughably poor quality. It's not like the opportunity has never been there. As you said earlier, a jury of twenty-two experts assessed Steorn's claims for two years, and <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/#more-1233" target="_blank">resigned</a> after it became apparent that the claims were baseless.
Then you should know that what you just said is fallacious. You accuse them of not publishing papers knowing full-well that no one will publish them. This is circular at best and hypocritical at worst.
Remember, it's always possible to defend a valid point with fallacious argument, just never a fallacious point with a valid argument.
In this case, you have two valid points: a)Scientists don't examine perpetual motion devices; b)They're considered nonsense for a good reason. One can be used to support the other (B -> A), but never in a circular pattern. More to the point: however understandable, neither one is scientifically or logically justified nor admissible. Dogmatic thinking runs contrary to the naturalistic methodology itself.
If the thing is working, it's working, there's no two ways about it: the required evidence has been provided, and the paradigm has to be changed. The question is whether it is indeed working, and to what end.
It's also important to not misinterpret claims contrary to existent knowledge for attacks on reality itself. Per se, Einstein's relativity did not disprove Newton's gravity, it only made it more accurate. I think this, in itself, is much more important than our stubborn attempts to extract energy out of thin air.
Not fairy dust. Nanites, duh.