Remember Me? The "Iceberg In Fukushima" Guy?

No to all of that.

OK, then, if one placed a coil in the magnetic field that moves a maglev train, would it induce an electrical current?

If you move a coil in a magnetic field you induce a current.

Physics basics.

Putting the coil there will do nothing or everything. It depends if there is movement.

I think you can move the magnet or the coil same result. Your choice.

seems like the cool blues dude want to have a perpetual Maglev. How would he drop off or ride on such condition? No to that.

100% support on the music.

No? I disagree. Rotating magnetic fields? What he is describing is the basic theory behind an AC induction motor. I'm not sure why he thinks this is anything new, it's the basis of out modern society. But it's not that odd by any means. It was maybe when Steinmetz thought it up and then Tesla made it work.

The "no" occurs when proposing to get energy out without putting any in.

Oh yeah, well there's that...

I failed to read the last line. That's where he falls apart.

"get energy out without putting any in"

I never said that, I just asked if it had to nbe mechanical, I know it takes electricity to charge the magnets, and to run the computer that switches those electrical impulses to the magnets on and of in perfect sequence.

Isn't energy is ambient, and all we are doing is tapping it, not creating it?

Yes you can, but the electricity required to do so is more than the electricity you get back.

Jim

GA!

(You stole my thunder - grumble mutter)

"Steinmetz thought it up and then Tesla made it work"

Let's keep in mind there was a whole lot of AC power, with transformers, and motors, etc., going on before Tesla came along, including at Westinghouse. What Tesla brought to the table was polyphase, along with transformer and motor-winding techniques that made polyphase work. He brought his patents for these things to the table, and sold them to Westinghouse, reportedly for $1M. Plain old single phase was OK at low power levels, but to get serious, one needed polyphase.

I will have to say though, after spending a few hours going through Tesla's huge collection of patents, it appears that someone else invented the 3-phase generators and motors, etc., that we rely on. The drawing on my last post was from US487796, an 1888-1892 patent. The drawing at right is from a slightly earlier patent, US390414, applied for and granted in 1988.

As you can see in the bottom half of the page, the drawing, Figure 3 in the patent, shows a 3-phase machine. But he barely makes mention in the text, except to say,

"There is another well-known type of machine in which three or more coils, A' B' C', on the armature have a common joint, the free ends being connected to the segments of a commutator. This form of generator is illustrated in Fig. 3. In this case each terminal of the generator is connected directly or in derivation to a continuous ring, a b c, and colIecting-brushes a'b'c', bearing thereon, take off the alternating currents that operate the motor. It is preferable in this case to employ a motor or transformer with three energizing coils, A" B" C", placed symmetrically with those of the generator, and the circuits from the latter are connected to the terminals of such coils either directly - as when they are stationary - or by means of brushes e' and contact-rings e."

Note the phrases, "well-known type of machine" "three or more coils" and "placed symmetrically". It would seem this technique was already in use elsewhere. I found no sign of it in his other patents, earlier or later. I may have missed one, but he generally self-referred to his earlier patents in the text of his later patents. Given the clear efficiency importance of 3-phase, if it was his invention, surely he'd have made a bigger deal about it in this patent.

Many of Tesla's ideas, and later patents, were based on his insistence to not use brushes in his motors. This is dialoged as his "ah-ha" moment of drawing in the dirt one day in Central Park (or some such story).

And Niagara Falls (Cataracts) was not the first polyphase generating station. It was just one of a handful worldwide. It was the one where many of Tesla's engineering practices were put into place in one facility...his "system" of producing and distributing alternating current.

With all of the hype out there it's difficult to see the clearing in the forest.

My child's 9th grade text book still states that Edison "invented" the light bulb. Go figure.

totally off topic, but wouldn't we all just love to be a fly on Tesla's wall when he was doing this work?

I think there is just as amazing work going on by many people, but some people are much better at patents and commercializing their products. We often confuse the commercial success with being brilliance - it just is not so.

Thanks for everyone's input. Again, I'm no engineer or physicist, just a curious old fellow with magnetodes on the brain.

Let me offer a scenario here, to illustrate what my head sees... imagine, if you will, a few solar panels connected to a series of wire-wound steel posts, which protrude partially into an open space, those posts being staggered in such a way that they draw a magnetic current from each other whenever they are charged.

My pea brain sees a flow of electrons from one of those posts to the other, if the charge sent through them could be "managed" sequentially with a computer, wouldn't that represent "movement" without mechanical effort? If those posts protruded into a space where a coil could be stationed, then wouldn't that coil pick up that electron flow and send it down its output wire?

If that sequence could be refined, as only computers can do (think of the electronic ignition in an auto engine) so that it was extremely fast, wouldn't that create non-mechanical motion? By tugging electrons from one magnet to another, as long as it was perfectly sequential, seems to this layman that would create an electron flow that could be harvested by a stationary coil.

And while I do understand it takes energy to make energy, the solar panels (or wind turbines or batteries) that charge the magnets would not have to use up that much initial energy just to charge the magnets, if that were the case, the giant electromagnets we now use for generation would suck up all the power they could produce, which we know is not the case, as long as the magnets are charged they draw in more electrons than they consume as magnets.

So, by using a small amount of electricity to create powerful magnets, and using a computer to charge those magnets in sequence, seems to me it is something like a hadron collider, or maglev flow, that would create more energy than it uses. Tesla describes the energy that is perpetually available around us, seems to me Einstien does, too, and by "organizing" that available energy we can tap it, we already do it with rotation generators

And in the same way we could never have discovered fractal formulas without computers, we could never create that sequence of power input I imagine, without them, a mechanical distributor might work up to a point, but to get the kind of super-fast sequencing I THINK it would take to create a magentic flow worth harvesting, it would require computer switching.

Bear with me, folks, I appreciate your answers, I am just offering questions that my limited knowledge leaves hanging in my head. Seems to me, the cost of energy production, both in making it happen and in what we are doing to the planet because of it (coal and nuclear power in particular) is more than it is worth. So, if there are any options, we should use them. It also seems to me we already have some of those options available, but pernicious profiteers have suppressed those options so they can monopolize energy production.

Call me crazy (you won't be the first) but when I looked at maglev trains, the idea stuck in my head that here was a magnetic flow that might be tapped. And putting it into a circle rather than a straight line was just the next thought.

One thing I am certain of, it takes very little energy to charge magnets, relative to the amount of energy those magnets can produce, those magnets can tap a lot more of energy from the ambient availability than they consume. It is just a matter of organizing a series of those magnets to tap that available energy and placing a coil in the midst of that electron motion.

If this is not possible, where am I off here? At which point in my construct does the physics collapse?

"To use the energy in the ether..."

Hey, dude, the ether went out with Michaelson and Morley, not to mention Einstein.

Let's go all out and call it the æther!

wikipedia gives both spellings, but I like yours better - gives essence to the Greek origins.

I think the answer you are looking for is inductive charging.

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

Have fun!

I think an important component in your thought processes is missing! That component I believe is "Heat"! In order to realize your ideas functionality, You need to incorporate some "heat" in the thought processes! I believe once you incorporated some "Heat" into your ideas, the reality will set in?

Will they function properly without the element of "Heat" present?

but a magentic energy flow is frictionless, isn't is? I know you are making a crude attempt at ridicule, but humiliation isn't one of my qualities.

And JEP, where do you think / plan for those "frictionless energy" supposed to flow / how to be of any real use in this world?

You may already have spent those energies just thinking about them!

so, was Tesla wrong about wireless electricity?

that is an unlimited supply...

JEP -

"that is an unlimited supply.." ----

If the above claim of yours is true, then why not you utilize it, to justify your statements! As in your last paragraph, replacing the "If", making your original post a real possibility!

"If this is possible, wouldn't it represent a non-mechanical method of electricity production? And wouldn't that represent a way to produce an electric current that did not require some sort of fuel to generate that electron flow?

If magnetec energy flow is 'frictionless,' then why do transformers (which convert electrical current into magnetic flux and then back into electrical current) get warm when in use?

I never said anywhere that it wouldn't take some form of electrical input to charge the magnets, that is a given, but my point is, can we use a little electricity to start a lot of energy flow, without mechanical means, just switches to send current to the magnets in sequence, to "manage" the ambient energy already available... isn't electrical energy ambient, we don't "create" it, it is always available, we just organize it into an electron flow? Or am I wrong there, too?

You always get less out than you put in.

To start with, you don't just steer current from one electromagnet to another. When you apply voltage to an electromagnet, the current builds up relatively slowly. It takes energy to build up the magnetic field. To move the current to another magnet, you have to do something with the energy in that field, and supply energy to start up an new magnetic field. Any energy captured in "moving" the magnetic field is that much more energy you have to add.

Sorry, no free lunch today.

What you use a BiFilar coil (another of Tesla's patents)?

You could, but the magnetic field stays in the same place. I think the original question was whether you could move a magnetic field from one place to another by switching and draw energy off in a conductor in between without supplying that energy some other way. The answer is no.

I'm more interested on the piece you always play. Seem fun to have a jamming session sometimes "bob dylan" or whatsoever.

I don't do covers, I write my own stuff. Almost exclusively.

Wow, good stuff, awesome. What software are you using for your recording?

Audacity is free (I really enjoyed writing that line)

But I'm a Soundforger from its inception.

I think this is what the other poster is talking about.

And wouldn't that represent a way to produce an electric current that did not require some sort of fuel to generate that electron flow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K3yv9iqDQo

Is this what you are trying to get across?

I looked at the video and it is a simple permanent magnet motor created with a bicycle wheel and several magnets.

He also has a remote power supply that he switches on in order to keep the wheel/motor rotating. (Remove the external power and the wheel stops.)

The wheel does not have any mechanical load applied other than bearing friction and the forces of gravity.

It would be interesting to add more permanent magnets, then spin the wheel up mechanically, and guess how long it would continue operating before coming to a complete stop.

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

Its been done.

Iceberg Guy,

Your persistence smacks of having experienced some sort of revelation.

Don't smoke that stuff dude, thoughts arising only seem profound to the thinker, not the audience!

Regrets, but your moment was not a Eureka one.

all science is science fiction until it is proven...

"Your persistence smacks of having experienced some sort of revelation.

Don't smoke that stuff dude,"

ya got me there... although along with my cloudy delusions, I also maintain a consolation that most of the great advances in technology came despite the ridicule of the existing "current" scientific community. I guess I always wonder here, and there are certainly exceptions, how many "scientists" just say no, instead of "who knows?"

From Galileo to Tesla, it has always been those "no" scientists who refused to accept new ideas, and always said "no" based on their limitations. I still think a magnetic flow can be created without mechanical means by sequential charging of magnets in close proximity, and that it could be tapped by a stationary coil. I have never said it wouldn't take "input" to accomplish that, but the input I describe is just enough to charge the magnets in sequence, and run the computer that does it, whetehr those magnets would produce enough current to pay back the input, I guess only a working (or non-working model) would prove or disprove.

Call me deluded, call me arrogant, I'm sure some of you will, but that only means I'm in good company, if the history if science and its progress against internal skepticism is any indicator.

I still wonder if a magnetic field could be moved, the way the hadron collider moves particles... and I still think there is a way to tap it, even if I don;t know how. I've never said there is "free energy". I just think there is much cheaper versions of it available that have been obstructed by those who would profit off the more expensive versions.

Thanks to everyone for your input, we can close this discussion, I have heard enough, you won't convince me not to think about it so any other insults are futile.

As for those scientific sophists who felt compelled to ridicule, please, go suck an egg.

You rule

so what bout THIS without the fluid, just the charge?

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

Not possible

I'm surprised Lyn Industries hasn't weighed in yet with some variant of the Macro Encabulator to automagically move the magnetic fields. Actually JEB, I've enjoyed the thread you created!!

...don't "magic" and "magnet" share the same Latin root root word?

Is the macro entabulator something akin to a flux capacitor?

Perhaps you are thinking about superconductors. If a wire (conductor) is a superconductor (no resistance, therefore no loss) then a loop of wire will carry a current indefinitely. Of course, we can only approximate a superconductor by chilling the right kind of conductor (perhaps copper?) using liquid nitrogen to get it close. Take a look at this http://www.flixxy.com/magnetic-levitation-model-train.htm link for superconductors in a magnetic field.

all that being said, it made me wonder, is "space," especially deep space, a superconductor for light?

There's a biblical verse that says something about "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness resisted it not", with various translations like "apprehended" rather than "resisted" which made me wonder if that describes space as a superconductor for light.

if an electrical flow is transmitted through space, even denser space like our atmosphere, wouldn't it constitute a much likelier superconductor than much more "massive" copper or any other wire?

If Tesla's contention that electricity can be transmitted wirelessly holds true, would it also hold true for a magnetic field if it was directed or circulated?

Wow, we will get along together better I guess. This is an amazing insight.

Sure is, space is a vacuum that will accommodate all particles(matter) and em wave.

Stop smoking man!

no

Superconductivity only applies to electric and magnetic fields as far as we know. The speed of light is a constant, and it tends to spread out with distance. That is called divergence, not to be confused with the recent movie.

Here is something to think about. The speed of light is constant. But if you were traveling at 99% of the speed of light in your car (in space) and you turned on your headlights, what would happen?

So, then, how fast is a fly flying in a car traveling 75MPH, when it flies from the back window to the front window? If it normally flies 5MPH outside the car, then while doing the usual speed in a moving car, wouldn't it be flying 80 MPH "relative" to a hitchhiker standing by the road?

Is that fly like a photon is to a light wave, relative to the car?

1. Yes

2. No

I admit, better keep smoking then!

Wow...heavy dude.

the future would flash bewfore your eyes?

Yes JEP!!! hit it baby!

Only if you install one of these in your car.

Do you mean something like this?

http://www.cheniere.org/references/MEG_Patent.pdf

this is exactly what my layman's mind is suggesting, at least Ihave the consolation of knowing some serious engineers with imagination still exist. My whole idea is non-mechanical production of energy, and here it is in patent form. I had never heard of this before, BTW, while I am no engineer or physicist, my ideas do come from my head, even if I can't prove them.

At least I can ask questions.

So, why do do many of the "experts" here claim it just can't be done when, in fact, at least on a very small scale, it is being done?

Jep-

If I have to agree with what you have in your mind, I will include /focusing on something like telekinetics... it supposedly is like mind-over-matter energy utilization!

Practicing the art of Tai Chi comes to mind as another way I heard or think of that "can harness /produce /utilize" some form of energy that supposedly developed within! An inherent "inner energy" they claim?

What do you think?