1. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

Do you expect there would be no opposing force if an inductor moved in an alternating EM field ? Well, you're wrong. The faster you go the stronger the force is.

2. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

Do you expect there would be no opposing force if an inductor moved in an alternating EM field ? Well, you're wrong. The faster you go the stronger the force is.

Look up the term &quot;back EMF&quot;.

3. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

Also, your magnetite will wear down after some time... the little opposing electro magnet will eventually reduce the magnetism to nothing. And anything that hits the magnetite will reduce it's magnetism as well. So will heat.
That's only a limitation of of the size of the loop. If it's big enough, then you can gather more energy than you put into it. To take this to the extreme, imagine one the size of our galaxy's core. The vehicle could travel nearly the speed of light yet would still take thousands of years to make one revolution. So you might could get millions of years of very high energy power out of it and with very little centrifugal acceleration to overcome.

4. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

Do you expect there would be no opposing force if an inductor moved in an alternating EM field ? Well, you're wrong. The faster you go the stronger the force is.

I think what you're talking about is a conductor holding its magnetic charge temporarily and repelling the next pole temporarily until the poles have time to change. That's why the choice of conductor material will have to be considered (I believe superconductors are also supermagnetic) and a computer will be onboard to maintain the right magnetism.

5. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

If it's big enough, then you can gather more energy than you put into it.
Uh, no. Sorry.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

6. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

Uh, no. Sorry.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
I am aware of this law. The point of this is that I'm asking how this theory wouldn't work, therefore making this law incorrect. There are a lot of people saying it won't work, but nobody can tell me why which is the most important part. I must be leaving something out, so what is it?

7. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

You are suggesting that your machine will convert kinetic energy ( the moving inductor ) into electrical energy. It is that simple. Therefore, as this energy is converted, the rocket has less kinetic energy. It slows down. Eventually it stops.

If you are interested in the actual mechanism that slows the rocket down, it has already been stated - back emf. The relative motion of an inductor inside a magnetic field produces a back emf. This emf will produce a current that sets up a magnetic field that opposes the motion producing it ( Lenz's Law ).

A practical example is a bike with a dynamo. When the lights are off, but the dynamo is spinning, the bike is easier to push than when the lights are on. The lights represent a load that draws a current that will oppose the motion of the bike.

8. ## Re: Perpetual energy?

Now there's a good explanation. I'm going to have to do some research on back emf and find out the specifics.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•