Magnetic Power Generator

**Imperial Glory** · January 29, 2012, 05:46 PM

Okay is this thing real or is it some scam because if its real why are'nt we all using it by now?
Well anyway heres the link http://sites.google.com/site/magneti...generatorsite/
Tell me what you think

.

**Sphere** · January 29, 2012, 11:53 PM

Yes, I actually happen to have one. I am willing to sell it to you if you're interested.

The Magnetic Power Generator System uses three parts of the laws of physics and synchronizes these to operate together inside a single unit:

It synchronizes three laws of physics, that's right, three. It synchronizes them.

**Gordon Freynman** · January 30, 2012, 02:32 AM

I'm betting conservation of energy isn't one of those three laws.

**xcorps** · January 31, 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sphere

Yes, I actually happen to have one. I am willing to sell it to you if you're interested.

It synchronizes three laws of physics, that's right, three. It synchronizes them.

If you had watched the demonstration video that uses the refridgerator magnets, you wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss such a complex operation.

It's too late now though. Big Oil got to teh Youtube and snuffed the film. It's only a matter of time now. The OP has condemned us all.

**Sphere** · January 30, 2012, 03:11 AM

Conservation of energy apparently isn't a law, it's just a Western moral construct and is therefor relative.

Perpetual Energy is a term that does not go well with western Nations; most people have been programmed that no such thing can be obtained ... How you define Perpetual Energy is up to you to decide

You learn something new everyday

**Imperial Glory** · January 30, 2012, 06:16 PM

[QUOTE=Sphere;10961709]Conservation of energy apparently isn't a law, it's just a Western moral construct and is therefor relative.

Well at least not in quantum physics

**Magicman2051** · January 30, 2012, 06:19 PM

quantum physics

Debatable.

Anyway, isn't this just basically a transformer?

**Jack04** · January 31, 2012, 12:09 PM

Can I just quickly point out that if conservation of energy doesn't exist, then we have no reason to believe that physical laws will be the same tomorrow as they were today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Its BS.

**Gordon Freynman** · January 31, 2012, 12:33 PM

It's not free energy because it costs money, because as we all know the dollar is a unit of energy.

Nothing in life is free; there is a cost to everything including the Perpetual Energy Magnetic Power Generator. It still costs money and Carbon Dioxide gases to produce the materials making the magnetic power generator.

**LSJ** · January 31, 2012, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Scam Site

Human nature also works against new ideas and change, people are quick to criticize and rarely compliment and find it hard to admit when they are wrong. Unfortunately many comments posted on the internet are by people not doing any research, these are the living room scientists that tend that talk before thinking. However there are some professional people making good comments who refuted the concept using traditional rules of physics and their conclusions are correct up to a point. These comments focus either the components of the magnetic power generator or the use of magnets as an alternative power source and not the entire system as whole.

lol.

I think the problem people have with it is that for it to work as it is claimed to, it breaks several laws of physics. If the invention works, why hasn't he taken this miracle machine to a major university? Instead it's advertised on some crappy site with no evidence to support the claims.

A bit of googling shows tons of pages explaining how the thing is a scam run by some Macedonians using a network of sites to promote their product.

**Sphere** · January 31, 2012, 02:17 PM

Well at least not in quantum physics

I trust Jack or Gordon will correct me if I'm wrong, but conservation of energy is a very important part of quantum physics. The very basic rules that allow you to predict possible Feynman diagrams for particle collision/creation (and thus get your probability of an event) assume conservation of spin /angular momentum and conservation of energy/mass (and in QCD conservation of color, but thats something else).

If the history you come up with doesn't obey these laws of conservation, it is not a possible history and doesn't contribute to your sum over all histories. In simple terms, it is not possible.

**Gordon Freynman** · January 31, 2012, 03:01 PM

IG might be referring to virtual particles or quantum fluctuations which are sometimes said to very briefly violate conservation of energy. I have never seen a credible source say that, and I suspect that most professional physicists would staunchly disagree with it.

**Sphere** · January 31, 2012, 03:29 PM

I thought virtual particles predicted the energy of free space because the law of conservation of energy must apply to them as well.

If virtual particles are continually coming into and out of existence it means even empty space should have an energy (else you are getting energy/matter out of nothing). And it seems this energy does indeed exist.

**Jack04** · January 31, 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Sphere

I thought virtual particles predicted the energy of free space because the law of conservation of energy must apply to them as well.

If virtual particles are continually coming into and out of existence it means even empty space should have an energy, which it seems to.

They do, but their existence is sometimes misinterpreted as a slight violation of the law of conservation of energy. Its normally due to a misunderstanding of the uncertainty principle.

**Sphere** · January 31, 2012, 04:00 PM

They do, but their existence is sometimes misinterpreted as a slight violation of the law of conservation of energy. Its normally due to a misunderstanding of the uncertainty principle.

You can't just tease me like that, I need more. Explain.

**Jack04** · January 31, 2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Sphere

You can't just tease me like that, I need more. Explain.

A common misunderstanding of the uncertainty principle is that it can result in energy being "created" from nowhere. What it actually implies is that small energy fluctuations can (and will) occur from the expectation value. You still need energy to exist in the first place for those fluctuations to occur, as with vacuum energy. Specifically, with vacuum energy, the fluctuations occur about the zero point energy (think of the energy levels in a nucleus, only spread out across the whole universe, the zero point energy would be analogous to the ground state).

It's probably answered better here, to be honest: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=120224

Specifically, a few posts down:

The short answer is: no, there's no violation.

The longer answer can be this:
Given the probabilistic aspect of quantum theory, what do we mean now, by "conservation of energy" ?
In quantum theory, it can be expressed in two different ways. The first way is this: A state with a precisely known energy will always keep this energy. The reason is that a state with a precisely known energy is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, and that's a stationary state under unitary evolution: so it remains (up to a phase factor) itself.
The second way goes as follows: for a given state, look at its EXPECTATION VALUE of the energy <psi | H | psi>.
This is the statistical average over many trials of measuring the energy.
Well, this expectation value is to remain the same during time evolution.
It simply means that the energy value was not a well-defined quantity (only its expectation value was), and hence we cannot talk about violation of its conservation, given that it wasn't fixed initially.

And where does the time-energy uncertainty relationship come in ?
It tells you esentially that *in order to perform an energy measurement with precision dE*, you will need to measure (to have your measurement apparatus interact with) the system for a time of at least dt.

So this means that when you are discussing about a system for a time less than dt, that there is no visible difference between a stationary state with precisely energy E, or with a superposition of stationary states of which the energy eigenvalues lie within dE of E. Indeed, below a time dt, the unitary evolution equation (Schroedinger equation integrated) will not have altered significantly the phases between these contributions as can easily be verified (each term taking a factor exp(-i E t / hbar) ).
So you're not able to find out the difference between the two situations, and hence you cannot know whether the system is in such a superposition, or in a precise energy eigenstate.
As such, the uncertainty is a matter of uncertainty on the INITIAL condition (was the system in a pure energy state or not ?) or of the energy transfer during the measurement interaction between apparatus and system. It is not a question of "stealing energy from nowhere" or something of the kind.

There are two typical cases: 1) the system was "created" in a time dt. This means that during its "creation interaction" one cannot be sure that it was in a pure energy eigenstate: it could be created in a superposition of eigenstates with eigenvalues spread over dE. So you measuring (precisely) the energy value just means you selected out one of the possible eigenstates of which the system was in a superposition: no violation of conservation of energy. This is often the case with "particle resonances" or other short-lived phenomena.
2) The system is *prepared* in a precise energy eigenstate, and you quickly measure, during time dt. In this case, it can be shown that the interaction between the system and the measurement apparatus can give rise to a transfer of energy of order of dE. So reading again another value (within dE) of the energy is then just part of the "perturbation" introduced by the energy measurement apparatus. Again no violation of energy conservation.

Finally, in the long run, the *expectation value* will be recovered, as the average of a great many number of measurements. So there will never be a net gain or loss of energy.