1. does magnetism have a potentially infinite speed? or does it have a terminal velocity like gravity?

if it doesn't, why has this never been used as an alternative energy source, wouldn't it be relatively easy to generate near perpetual motion from it?

2.

3. A magnetic field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, if that's what you mean.

How would you use it as an energy souce?

4. why is it limited to the speed of light?

im thinking a kind of horse and carrot aproach, draw one magnet to an electro magent then just before it hits that switch it off and switch on another further round the circle. obviously this would require something to start it off, (i.e. start off the spinning with an external source and then swap it over) if it is spinning at near the speed of light im sure it would generate enough to power some electro magnets, right?

im working on a virtual model, to sort out some kinks, ill post up an image when its done

5. I apologize for the double post, heres a cut off of my idea.

http://img172.imageshack.us/my.php?image=01fy1.jpg

6. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
why is it limited to the speed of light?

im thinking a kind of horse and carrot aproach, draw one magnet to an electro magent then just before it hits that switch it off and switch on another further round the circle. obviously this would require something to start it off, (i.e. start off the spinning with an external source and then swap it over) if it is spinning at near the speed of light im sure it would generate enough to power some electro magnets, right?

im working on a virtual model, to sort out some kinks, ill post up an image when its done
You can think of it in several ways. One way is to say that if you have to magnets (m and s) and move one of them (m) so that the other one (s)moves as well, (s) will have to recieve information from the (m) and since the highest speed with which information can be transported is the speed of light the speed must be limited to the speed of light.

7. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
im thinking a kind of horse and carrot aproach, draw one magnet to an electro magent then just before it hits that switch it off and switch on another further round the circle.
You have just invented a step motor. Good motor for a number of applications, but not a magic way to fill the world's energy needs. Like any electic motor, it has to be powered somehow. And the amount of mechanical energy you get out of it will never be greater than the electric energy you put in; in practice, it will always be smaller.

8. Originally Posted by thyristor
You can think of it in several ways. One way is to say that if you have to magnets (m and s) and move one of them (m) so that the other one (s)moves as well, (s) will have to recieve information from the (m) and since the highest speed with which information can be transported is the speed of light the speed must be limited to the speed of light.
thanks, but why can information only be transmitted at the speed of light? why would the speed of light limit the speed at which a force applies itself.

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
You have just invented a step motor. Good motor for a number of applications, but not a magic way to fill the world's energy needs. Like any electic motor, it has to be powered somehow. And the amount of mechanical energy you get out of it will never be greater than the electric energy you put in; in practice, it will always be smaller.

the amount of energy actually used by the machine to power the elctro magnets would stay the same no matter how fast it was spinning, however the faster it spins the more it would generate, so at some point it stands to reason that it would be capable of powering itself

im not being argumentativr, im just figuring stuff out

9. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
Originally Posted by thyristor
You can think of it in several ways. One way is to say that if you have to magnets (m and s) and move one of them (m) so that the other one (s)moves as well, (s) will have to recieve information from the (m) and since the highest speed with which information can be transported is the speed of light the speed must be limited to the speed of light.
thanks, but why can information only be transmitted at the speed of light? why would the speed of light limit the speed at which a force applies itself.
Heard of Einstein?

10. yes, and?

11. Know what he proved?

12. just about, i only ever studied physics at a high school level,

from what i remember (its been a few year) , the faster something moves the slower time is for that object, and the more "squashed" it would appear to an observer. But i don't see how that would effect the speed of a magnet if time is essentially stopped then would the magnet in essence, stop existing, would it stop moving completely, or would it just be spinning at a phenomenal speed.

like i said its been a few years since i sudied physics at a low level, so please correct me if im wrong

13. Einstein proved that the speed of light is the absolute maximum. That means that any transmitting mechanism of information is limited to the maximum of light speed, or rather electromagnetic radiation.

14. I'm not very skilled either but he said that nothing could travel with higher velocity than light :-D

15. ok so in theory anything that travels at the speed of light essentially stops time right?

so if that were the case, how does light move at the speed of light?

16. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
just about, i only ever studied physics at a high school level,

from what i remember (its been a few year) , the faster something moves the slower time is for that object, and the more "squashed" it would appear to an observer. But i don't see how that would effect the speed of a magnet if time is essentially stopped then would the magnet in essence, stop existing, would it stop moving completely, or would it just be spinning at a phenomenal speed.

like i said its been a few years since i sudied physics at a low level, so please correct me if im wrong
As far as I know, there are no forces that propagate at faster than c. Even gravity is limited to c. If a planet were to suddenly appear in our solar system, it would take time for the effect of it's gravity to reach earth. Likewise, electricity and magnetic fields require time to propagate. This is why we can have electromagnetic waves, because the changes in frequency and amplitude must travel a distance at a speed no greater than c. It's not a coincidence that measurements of energy have a time component (i.e. a Joule is equal to 1kg * (m<sup>2</sup>/s<sup>2</sup>)).

17. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
ok so in theory anything that travels at the speed of light essentially stops time right?

so if that were the case, how does light move at the speed of light?
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of EM-radiation and nothing that has an invariant mass can travel at the speed om EM-radiation. Light, or EM-radiation has no invariant mass because it only exists when in motion. Therefore EM-radiation can travel at the speed of EM-radiation.

18. Originally Posted by thyristor
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of EM-radiation and nothing that has an invariant mass can travel at the speed om EM-radiation. Light, or EM-radiation has no invariant mass because it only exists when in motion. Therefore EM-radiation can travel at the speed of EM-radiation.
ok i think i get it now, sorry for the slowness

the other part of my question doesn't seem to spark quite so many responses though, can any one help me out with that one?

Quote: "the idea is that it would be powered by an external source to start with and then step over to powering itself,

the amount of energy actually used by the machine to power the electro magnets would stay the same no matter how fast it was spinning, however the faster it spins the more it would generate, so at some point it stands to reason that it would be capable of powering itself"

ok, so it will never spin at the speed of light, but at the same time it wouldn't need to spin even nearly that fast to generate enough energy to power itself + some.

..........right?

19. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
ok so in theory anything that travels at the speed of light essentially stops time right?
This would be the assumption; as an object's velocity approaches c, its relativistic mass (and hence its total energy) increases by its Lorentz Factor (which scales exponentially the closer the object gets to c) and its local time is altered by the same factor. However, since the Lorentz Factor scales to infinity, it suggests that an infinite amount of energy is required to get an object to c. Light, on the other hand, has 0 rest mass, and its masslessness allows it to travel at c.

I'm fairly certain other massless, chargeless waves travel at c; the neutrino comes to mind.

20. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
ok, so it will never spin at the speed of light, but at the same time it wouldn't need to spin even nearly that fast to generate enough energy to power itself + some.

..........right?
You can't get more out than you put in. At the very best, you can create just enough to keep the process going forever assuming you have absolutely 0% loss. The problems you're going to have here are energy loss due to heat, friction, and air resistance on the moving parts and wires used to power the electromagnets.

21. You are attempting to make a perpetual motion device, which is impossible as has been stated.

Take a look over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

I dreamed up a loop system for powering a car, using a dynamo and electric motor on magnetically floating bearings, in high school. I would be cool, but alas. :?

22. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
the amount of energy actually used by the machine to power the elctro magnets would stay the same no matter how fast it was spinning, however the faster it spins the more it would generate, so at some point it stands to reason that it would be capable of powering itself
Nope, sorry. I understand your machine is a combination electric motor / power generator. Doesn't matter if it's two separate machines connected by a shaft or something more integrated; what matters is that you have these two functions: the motor function, converting electric power into mechanical, and the generator function, converting mechanical power into electric.

Now each of these, in the most perfect theoretically possible case, will yield as much output as it receives input. Perhaps you don't know that a generator becomes harder to turn if you connect a load to it (such as a light bulb or motor, whatever) that consumes its output energy. The motor that is turning the generator will "feel" this as if there were a friction brake gripping the shaft (actually, a hydraulic resistance is a more accurate model).

You think of electricity as some supernatural magic, while in reality it's just another form of physical power.

Now imagine a cart with four wheels on two axles, and the rear wheels have a transmission belt round the axle; that belt goes along the cart and winds around the front axle. I push the cart and it starts moving, turning the rear wheels. The rear axle turns with the wheel, pulling at the belt which then drives the front wheels. The front wheels pull the whole cart, so I don't need to push any more, the cart propels itself ever faster.

Do you see my "invention" is not going to work? Now your idea is flawed in exactly the same way, except it's harder to see that because you send the energy through an electric stage, and electricity is invisible and therefore harder to imagine. But whatever you do, you will not get energy out of nothing.

23. Good analogy Leszek! :wink:

24. ok thanks, im not going to pretend i understand, im going to build it anyways, just to learn from my mistake etc

thanks for all the input

25. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
ok thanks, im not going to pretend i understand, im going to build it anyways, just to learn from my mistake etc
Keep us posted and keep asking questions; anybody willing to learn has my full support.

26. thanks , much appreciated

27. By the way, there is a terminal velocity in gravitational fall only because of air drag. If you fall on the Moon or other celestial body with no atmosphere, you keep accelerating all the time until you hit the surface.

Which does not mean that you can reach any velocity if only you find a long enough ladder to jump off. If you get really far from the Moon (or other body), the gravity becomes weaker. As you climb higher and higher, each successive rung of the ladder contributes less and less to your potential energy.

The velocity you will reach by falling all the way to the surface will assymptotically approach a fixed value which is a constant for each celestial body, depending on its mass and diameter.

For the Earth (if there were no air) this speed is something like 11,000 m/s . It is the same as the escape velocity - if you were to fall from an infinite height, hit a perfect spring on the surface of the celestial body and bounce back upwards with the same velocity, you will have exactly enough cinetic energy to fly back to infinite height.

28. Originally Posted by DA_Craven
does magnetism have a potentially infinite speed? or does it have a terminal velocity like gravity?

if it doesn't, why has this never been used as an alternative energy source, wouldn't it be relatively easy to generate near perpetual motion from it?

I never saw any proof that gravity has a terminal velocity. Where is that written?

Think about light, what propels light. From zero to light speed whatever that speed may be.

I was taught light speed was much faster then light is currently believed to be. But I have to explain that I am of a minority taught this. So you have to take it at face value. Some say I am just plain crazy. If that works for you use it.

But to the point, could light go from zero to the speed of light, if something was not propelling it, at least at the speed of light? I do not think so. I don't think a push at the speed of light would do it. From all other experiments and proofs we have.

I know from explosives work that objects propelled by explosive force are moving much slower then the propelling force. This seems to hold true for all collisions and fields of force.

You could create a theory that two particles are launched near the speed of light one a particle of light the other a helper particle that will push the other up to light speed. But this seems complicated and unnecessary to me.

Sure you could say photons are elastic and when hit by large objects they spring to hire speeds. But that would probably require another phony subatomic particle and billions of dollars in grant monies.

This whole misunderstanding comes from the hiding of velocity of ambient radiation. They did away with all the rules of velocity in multi subatomic particle science.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

29. Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
By the way, there is a terminal velocity in gravitational fall only because of air drag. If you fall on the Moon or other celestial body with no atmosphere, you keep accelerating all the time until you hit the surface.

Which does not mean that you can reach any velocity if only you find a long enough ladder to jump off. If you get really far from the Moon (or other body), the gravity becomes weaker. As you climb higher and higher, each successive rung of the ladder contributes less and less to your potential energy.

The velocity you will reach by falling all the way to the surface will assymptotically approach a fixed value which is a constant for each celestial body, depending on its mass and diameter.

For the Earth (if there were no air) this speed is something like 11,000 m/s . It is the same as the escape velocity - if you were to fall from an infinite height, hit a perfect spring on the surface of the celestial body and bounce back upwards with the same velocity, you will have exactly enough cinetic energy to fly back to infinite height.
If your velocity is just under the speed of light, and you are twenty seconds from the sun heading towards it. That is twenty seconds of positive acceleration to contend with.

You could easily disprove all this by doing experiments showing that gravity is constant even at very high velocities. Proving that it is faster then the listed speed of light determined by some department of the United States or international board, in the early nineteen hundreds.

The fact that you can fly a plane away from a light source and still see the light also shows this conclusively. I mean if the particles are going exactly at the speed of light and you move away, certainly they are not going to hit you at the speed of light. Now we will have to justify a range of velocities for light.

This was all worked out many years ago. By Universal Scientists according to my strange and little heard of education. That some say make me crazy. Maybe Moderators do not want any law suits. Or material not sanctioned by donut particle accelerator people.

But my schooling was that ambient radiation is exponentially faster then light. We slow it down to create light.
Along with light there are varying velocity particles that will carry light a much further distance then just light rays or particles would travel. These varying velocity particles will also allow someone traveling at different velocities to see what is emitting the light. Usually in a pretty good color spectrum. In my world color is set by velocity.

It works in both directions. There are also slower rays that create a good picture of what is there if you are moving towards the object.

It is like a redundant signal. But at different velocities.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

30. Originally Posted by KALSTER
You are attempting to make a perpetual motion device, which is impossible as has been stated.

Take a look over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

I dreamed up a loop system for powering a car, using a dynamo and electric motor on magnetically floating bearings, in high school. I would be cool, but alas. :?
Look at some of Tesla's work. He had to much power for some officials.

I believe his circular antenna and multiple point ARC break system create mega voltage and can be put into a capacitor and changed into rather high amperage at extreme voltages. All with the power of air waves.

Did you ever touch the wires from an old television antenna to the terminals on the back of a TV? Even when the TV is off and unplugged.

That white spark is free power. You can do it again and again for free.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement