Dorick
2 months ago
Here's the reason why FlooidCX and Quantum have gotten shy about repeating their false "Photon Engine" claims, at least in public:
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
Dorick
2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: Here's what happened when I tried your version of my question, and then ARGUED with Bing Copilot's answer:
FOLLOWUP QUESTION: I think that your answer is not correct. Using an electric motor to spin a generator to produce electricity will not save money, no matter how efficient the motor is, due to the law of conservation of energy. The generator would never produce more electricity than the motor consumes.
BING COPILOT: You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused. The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. In the case of using an electric motor to spin a generator, the amount of electrical energy produced by the generator will never exceed the amount of electrical energy consumed by the motor due to inherent inefficiencies in the system.
These inefficiencies arise from various factors, such as friction, heat loss, and resistance, which ensure that some energy is always lost in the conversion process. Therefore, it is not possible for such a system to generate more electricity than it consumes, and it cannot be a means of reducing electric bills by producing excess energy.
The only way to save money using an electric motor and generator system would be if the system is part of a larger setup that includes renewable energy sources (like solar or wind power) or if it’s used in conjunction with energy storage systems to take advantage of off-peak rates. However, the motor and generator themselves, no matter how efficient, cannot create a surplus of energy that would lead to cost savings on their own.
Thank you for pointing out the oversight, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct the information. The principles of thermodynamics are fundamental to understanding energy systems, and it’s important to accurately represent them.
FOLLOWUP QUESTION: I'm still not happy with this answer. Using an electric motor to spin an electric generator will not save money, no matter what "larger setup" they may be part of.
BING COPILOT: You are correct, and I apologize for any confusion. Using an electric motor to spin a generator will not result in a net gain of energy or a reduction in electric bills. The energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor due to the fundamental laws of physics, specifically the law of conservation of energy.
In any system where a motor drives a generator, the best outcome one can hope for is that the energy output is close to the energy input, minus inevitable losses due to inefficiencies. These inefficiencies include friction, resistance, and heat loss, which are present in all practical energy conversion systems. Therefore, it is not possible to create a system where the generator produces more energy than the motor consumes.
The only way to save money on electricity using a generator is if the generator is powered by a free or low-cost energy source, such as wind, water, or solar power. In such cases, the savings come from the use of renewable energy sources, not from the efficiency of the motor-generator system itself.
I appreciate your patience and the opportunity to clarify this matter. If you have any more questions or need further explanation, please feel free to ask.
Curious Bystander
2 months ago
Mr D: You’ll have fun with this question/response…
Question—An anonymous internet poster is stating that a company claiming their newly invented magnet motor will change the world is a scam. How do I respond to this accusation?
Copilot response—When evaluating claims about newly invented magnet motors, it’s essential to consider both the scientific basis and the credibility of the company making the claim. Let’s break down the situation:
Robert Sansone’s Synchronous Reluctance Motor:
Robert Sansone, a 17-year-old inventor, created a prototype of a synchronous reluctance motor that doesn’t rely on rare-earth magnets1.
Unlike traditional permanent magnet motors (which use materials like neodymium, samarium, and dysprosium), Sansone’s motor uses a different design.
The synchronous reluctance motor has greater rotational force (torque) and efficiency than existing ones.
Sansone’s work earned him recognition and a prize at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair.
Motoflux Inc.'s Magnet Motor:
Another company, Motoflux Inc., claims to have harnessed magnetic fields for motor-driven energy2.
While the details of their motor are not provided in the snippet, it’s crucial to examine their scientific evidence and any independent validation.
Evaluating Claims:
When assessing such claims, consider the following:
Scientific Rigor: Has the company published research or undergone independent testing? Peer-reviewed studies provide credibility.
Material Costs: Traditional permanent magnet motors rely on expensive rare-earth materials. If a new motor design avoids these materials, it could be advantageous.
Trade-Offs: Evaluate trade-offs. Even if a motor design reduces costs, does it sacrifice performance or reliability?
Expert Opinions: Seek opinions from experts in electrical engineering and motor design.
Market Impact: Consider how the motor could impact industries (e.g., electric vehicles, renewable energy).
Avoiding Scams:
Beware of companies making grandiose claims without substantial evidence.
Look for transparency, technical details, and third-party validation.
Investigate the company’s background, team, and track record.
In summary, skepticism is healthy, but it’s essential to balance it with open-mindedness. Investigate the science behind the claims, seek expert opinions, and make informed judgments. If the company provides verifiable evidence and transparent information, it’s worth considering their motor’s potential impact. However, always exercise caution when encountering bold promises without proper validation.
Dorick
2 months ago
Let's see how Bing Copilot deals with Quantum Energy's false claims (regarding their so-called "Photon Engine"):
QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. Explain why this claim cannot be true.
BING COPILOT: The claim that using an unconventional electric motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity for appliances will reduce electric bills and save money is fundamentally flawed due to the principles of energy conservation and efficiency.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In the context of electric motors and generators, this means that the electrical energy output cannot exceed the mechanical energy input. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, while generators do the opposite. However, no conversion process is 100% efficient due to inevitable energy losses, primarily as heat.
Efficiency of Electric Motors: Even the most advanced electric motors, which are highly efficient, have an efficiency range between 80% and 90%. This means that there is always a loss of energy in the form of heat, sound, and other forms of energy dissipation. Therefore, the energy output from a generator spun by an electric motor will always be less than the electrical energy input required to run the motor.
Practical Considerations: In practice, if a company claims that their motor can generate more energy than it consumes, they are suggesting a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The claim disregards the fact that some energy is always lost due to resistance in electrical components, friction, air resistance, and other inefficiencies.
QUESTION: Which "law of thermodynamics" are you referring to?
BING COPILOT: I was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics when discussing the claim about the unconventional electric motor. This law, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. It implies that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant, though it can change forms, such as from mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relevant to the claim. It states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases over time. This law implies that energy transformations are not 100% efficient because some energy is always lost as heat or other forms of unusable energy, which is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
These laws are fundamental in physics and apply universally to all energy conversion processes, including those involving electric motors and generators. Therefore, any claim that suggests a device can produce more energy than it consumes would violate these laws.
QUESTION: The company claimed that their system does not violate the Coservation of Energy, because the "extra" energy will come from permanent magnets within the motor, which (according to the company's claims) will be depleted after 3 years of operation. Explain why this claim, also, cannot be true.
BING COPILOT: The claim that “extra” energy can be obtained from permanent magnets within an electric motor, and that these magnets will be depleted after 3 years, is not consistent with the principles of physics as we understand them.
Permanent Magnets and Energy: Permanent magnets do not provide a continuous source of usable energy. Instead, they create a magnetic field due to the alignment of magnetic domains within the material. The energy used to magnetize these domains is finite and already accounted for during the manufacturing process. Once a permanent magnet is magnetized, it does not provide additional energy that can be harvested; it simply exerts a magnetic force.
Magnetic Field and Work: A magnetic field, by itself, does not perform work. In the context of an electric motor, the magnetic field interacts with electric currents to produce force (and thus, work), but this requires an external energy source, such as a battery or the electrical grid. The magnetic field from the permanent magnets can help improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the energy needed to create the magnetic field, but it cannot create energy.
Energy Conservation: The claim also seems to suggest that the magnets would “run out” of energy after a certain period. This is a misunderstanding of how magnets work. While it’s true that permanent magnets can lose their magnetization over time due to factors like heat, physical damage, or stray electromagnetic fields, this does not equate to a depletion of energy that could be used to do work. The loss of magnetization is a change in the material’s internal structure, not a release of usable energy.
Conclusion: Therefore, any system that claims to produce more energy than it consumes by using permanent magnets is not feasible according to current scientific understanding. Such a system would imply a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. Customers should be wary of claims that contradict these fundamental principles.
QUESTION: Instead of reversing the flow of electricity, as in a conventional motor, the unconventional electric motor works by using an electric actuator to reposition or rotate the stator magnet, which is a permanent magnet and not an electromagnet. The rotor magnets are also permanent magnets and not electromagnets. Does this change your conclusions?
BING COPILOT: The unconventional electric motor you described, which uses an electric actuator to reposition or rotate a permanent magnet stator, and has permanent magnets in the rotor, still operates within the bounds of established physical principles. Here’s how this design aligns with the laws of thermodynamics:
Energy Input and Output: Even with the use of permanent magnets and an electric actuator to reposition the stator magnet, the system requires an external energy source to operate the actuator. The energy used by the actuator to move the stator magnet must come from somewhere, typically the electrical grid or a battery.
Conservation of Energy: The energy provided to the actuator for repositioning the stator magnet will be converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is then used to generate electricity through the interaction of the stator and rotor magnets. However, due to energy losses (such as friction, air resistance, and inefficiencies in the actuator itself), the energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor.
Permanent Magnets and Efficiency: While permanent magnets do not require an electrical current to maintain their magnetic field, they do not provide a source of energy themselves. They can improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the need for an electromagnet, which would require continuous electrical power, but they cannot create energy. The efficiency of any motor or generator is always less than 100% due to inherent losses.
Conclusion: The design you’ve described may offer certain advantages, such as potentially reduced energy consumption for the actuation process compared to maintaining an electromagnet. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the system cannot produce more energy than it consumes. Any claim that suggests a net energy gain from such a system would still be in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It’s important to critically evaluate the claims of any company against the backdrop of established scientific principles. Innovations in motor design can lead to improvements in efficiency, but they cannot circumvent the laws of physics.
QUESTION: You suggested that the unconventional electric motor might be more efficient than a conventional electric motor! But I am sure that is not correct, because the motion of the moving stator during repositioning would actually waste energy in the form of kinetic energy which would not be recovered by the generator. A convention electric motor does not waste energy in this way. Therefore I think you made a mistake by suggesting that the unconventional motor could be more efficient.
BING COPILOT: You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to detail. The unconventional motor design you described, which involves repositioning the stator using an actuator, would indeed introduce additional energy losses that are not present in a conventional motor. The kinetic energy used to move the stator would not be fully recoverable by the generator, as some of it would be dissipated as heat and other forms of energy loss due to friction and resistance.
QUESTION: But I was referring to the wasted kinetic energy due to the motion of the stator itself. I realize this may be confusing, because the stator of a conventional electric motor does not move. But in this unconventional motor the stator is repositioned, as an alternative to reversing the flow of current. None of this movement is used to spin the generator, so it represents wasted kinetic energy.
BING COPILOT: You are absolutely right. In the unconventional motor design you’ve described, where the stator is physically repositioned instead of reversing the current flow, the kinetic energy used to move the stator indeed represents an additional form of energy loss. This is because the energy expended to reposition the stator does not contribute to the generation of electrical energy; it is essentially an overhead cost to the operation of the motor.
In a conventional motor, the stator is stationary and the magnetic field it produces is altered by changing the current flow through its windings. This process does not involve moving the stator itself, thus avoiding the kinetic energy losses associated with such movement.
The unconventional motor’s design, which includes moving the stator, would likely result in lower overall efficiency due to these extra energy expenditures that do not occur in traditional electric motors. The movement of the stator, while it may serve a purpose in the operation of this motor, does not directly contribute to the production of electrical energy and thus could be considered a wasteful step in terms of energy conversion efficiency.
Thank you for clarifying your point, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous messages. The efficiency of any motor is a critical aspect, and it’s important to consider all forms of energy input and output, including any that may be wasted, when evaluating a motor’s performance.
(The first paragraph of this last answer was still not quite right, but the rest of it was good.)
Dorick
2 months ago
Let's see how Bing Copilot deals with Quantum Energy's false claims (regarding their so-called "Photon Engine):
QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. Explain why this claim cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that using an unconventional electric motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity for appliances will reduce electric bills and save money is fundamentally flawed due to the principles of energy conservation and efficiency.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In the context of electric motors and generators, this means that the electrical energy output cannot exceed the mechanical energy input. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, while generators do the opposite. However, no conversion process is 100% efficient due to inevitable energy losses, primarily as heat.
Efficiency of Electric Motors: Even the most advanced electric motors, which are highly efficient, have an efficiency range between 80% and 90%. This means that there is always a loss of energy in the form of heat, sound, and other forms of energy dissipation. Therefore, the energy output from a generator spun by an electric motor will always be less than the electrical energy input required to run the motor.
Practical Considerations: In practice, if a company claims that their motor can generate more energy than it consumes, they are suggesting a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The claim disregards the fact that some energy is always lost due to resistance in electrical components, friction, air resistance, and other inefficiencies.
QUESTION: Which "law of thermodynamics" are you referring to?
Bing Copilot: I was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics when discussing the claim about the unconventional electric motor. This law, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. It implies that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant, though it can change forms, such as from mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relevant to the claim. It states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases over time. This law implies that energy transformations are not 100% efficient because some energy is always lost as heat or other forms of unusable energy, which is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
These laws are fundamental in physics and apply universally to all energy conversion processes, including those involving electric motors and generators. Therefore, any claim that suggests a device can produce more energy than it consumes would violate these laws.
QUESTION: The company claimed that their system does not violate the Coservation of Energy, because the "extra" energy will come from permanent magnets within the motor, which (according to the company's claims) will be depleted after 3 years of operation. Explain why this claim, also, cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that “extra” energy can be obtained from permanent magnets within an electric motor, and that these magnets will be depleted after 3 years, is not consistent with the principles of physics as we understand them.
Permanent Magnets and Energy: Permanent magnets do not provide a continuous source of usable energy. Instead, they create a magnetic field due to the alignment of magnetic domains within the material. The energy used to magnetize these domains is finite and already accounted for during the manufacturing process. Once a permanent magnet is magnetized, it does not provide additional energy that can be harvested; it simply exerts a magnetic force.
Magnetic Field and Work: A magnetic field, by itself, does not perform work. In the context of an electric motor, the magnetic field interacts with electric currents to produce force (and thus, work), but this requires an external energy source, such as a battery or the electrical grid. The magnetic field from the permanent magnets can help improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the energy needed to create the magnetic field, but it cannot create energy.
Energy Conservation: The claim also seems to suggest that the magnets would “run out” of energy after a certain period. This is a misunderstanding of how magnets work. While it’s true that permanent magnets can lose their magnetization over time due to factors like heat, physical damage, or stray electromagnetic fields, this does not equate to a depletion of energy that could be used to do work. The loss of magnetization is a change in the material’s internal structure, not a release of usable energy.
Conclusion: Therefore, any system that claims to produce more energy than it consumes by using permanent magnets is not feasible according to current scientific understanding. Such a system would imply a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. Customers should be wary of claims that contradict these fundamental principles.
QUESTION: Instead of reversing the flow of electricity, as in a conventional motor, the unconventional electric motor works by using an electric actuator to reposition or rotate the stator magnet, which is a permanent magnet and not an electromagnet. The rotor magnets are also permanent magnets and not electromagnets. Does this change your conclusions?
Bing Copilot: The unconventional electric motor you described, which uses an electric actuator to reposition or rotate a permanent magnet stator, and has permanent magnets in the rotor, still operates within the bounds of established physical principles. Here’s how this design aligns with the laws of thermodynamics:
Energy Input and Output: Even with the use of permanent magnets and an electric actuator to reposition the stator magnet, the system requires an external energy source to operate the actuator. The energy used by the actuator to move the stator magnet must come from somewhere, typically the electrical grid or a battery.
Conservation of Energy: The energy provided to the actuator for repositioning the stator magnet will be converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is then used to generate electricity through the interaction of the stator and rotor magnets. However, due to energy losses (such as friction, air resistance, and inefficiencies in the actuator itself), the energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor.
Permanent Magnets and Efficiency: While permanent magnets do not require an electrical current to maintain their magnetic field, they do not provide a source of energy themselves. They can improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the need for an electromagnet, which would require continuous electrical power, but they cannot create energy. The efficiency of any motor or generator is always less than 100% due to inherent losses.
Conclusion: The design you’ve described may offer certain advantages, such as potentially reduced energy consumption for the actuation process compared to maintaining an electromagnet. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the system cannot produce more energy than it consumes. Any claim that suggests a net energy gain from such a system would still be in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It’s important to critically evaluate the claims of any company against the backdrop of established scientific principles. Innovations in motor design can lead to improvements in efficiency, but they cannot circumvent the laws of physics.
QUESTION: You suggested that the unconventional electric motor might be more efficient than a conventional electric motor! But I am sure that is not correct, because the motion of the moving stator during repositioning would actually waste energy in the form of kinetic energy which would not be recovered by the generator. A convention electric motor does not waste energy in this way. Therefore I think you made a mistake by suggesting that the unconventional motor could be more efficient.
Bing Copilot: You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to detail. The unconventional motor design you described, which involves repositioning the stator using an actuator, would indeed introduce additional energy losses that are not present in a conventional motor. The kinetic energy used to move the stator would not be fully recoverable by the generator, as some of it would be dissipated as heat and other forms of energy loss due to friction and resistance.
QUESTION: But I was referring to the wasted kinetic energy due to the motion of the stator itself. I realize this may be confusing, because the stator of a conventional electric motor does not move. But in this unconventional motor the stator is repositioned, as an alternative to reversing the flow of current. None of this movement is used to spin the generator, so it represents wasted kinetic energy.
Bing Copilot: You are absolutely right. In the unconventional motor design you’ve described, where the stator is physically repositioned instead of reversing the current flow, the kinetic energy used to move the stator indeed represents an additional form of energy loss. This is because the energy expended to reposition the stator does not contribute to the generation of electrical energy; it is essentially an overhead cost to the operation of the motor.
In a conventional motor, the stator is stationary and the magnetic field it produces is altered by changing the current flow through its windings. This process does not involve moving the stator itself, thus avoiding the kinetic energy losses associated with such movement.
The unconventional motor’s design, which includes moving the stator, would likely result in lower overall efficiency due to these extra energy expenditures that do not occur in traditional electric motors. The movement of the stator, while it may serve a purpose in the operation of this motor, does not directly contribute to the production of electrical energy and thus could be considered a wasteful step in terms of energy conversion efficiency.
Thank you for clarifying your point, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous messages. The efficiency of any motor is a critical aspect, and it’s important to consider all forms of energy input and output, including any that may be wasted, when evaluating a motor’s performance.
Dorick
2 months ago
Let's see how Bing Copilot deals with Quantum Energy's false claims:
QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. Explain why this claim cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that using an unconventional electric motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity for appliances will reduce electric bills and save money is fundamentally flawed due to the principles of energy conservation and efficiency.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In the context of electric motors and generators, this means that the electrical energy output cannot exceed the mechanical energy input. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, while generators do the opposite. However, no conversion process is 100% efficient due to inevitable energy losses, primarily as heat.
Efficiency of Electric Motors: Even the most advanced electric motors, which are highly efficient, have an efficiency range between 80% and 90%. This means that there is always a loss of energy in the form of heat, sound, and other forms of energy dissipation. Therefore, the energy output from a generator spun by an electric motor will always be less than the electrical energy input required to run the motor.
Practical Considerations: In practice, if a company claims that their motor can generate more energy than it consumes, they are suggesting a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The claim disregards the fact that some energy is always lost due to resistance in electrical components, friction, air resistance, and other inefficiencies.
QUESTION: Which "law of thermodynamics" are you referring to?
Bing Copilot: I was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics when discussing the claim about the unconventional electric motor. This law, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. It implies that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant, though it can change forms, such as from mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relevant to the claim. It states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases over time. This law implies that energy transformations are not 100% efficient because some energy is always lost as heat or other forms of unusable energy, which is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
These laws are fundamental in physics and apply universally to all energy conversion processes, including those involving electric motors and generators. Therefore, any claim that suggests a device can produce more energy than it consumes would violate these laws.
QUESTION: The company claimed that their system does not violate the Coservation of Energy, because the "extra" energy will come from permanent magnets within the motor, which (according to the company's claims) will be depleted after 3 years of operation. Explain why this claim, also, cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that “extra” energy can be obtained from permanent magnets within an electric motor, and that these magnets will be depleted after 3 years, is not consistent with the principles of physics as we understand them.
Permanent Magnets and Energy: Permanent magnets do not provide a continuous source of usable energy. Instead, they create a magnetic field due to the alignment of magnetic domains within the material. The energy used to magnetize these domains is finite and already accounted for during the manufacturing process. Once a permanent magnet is magnetized, it does not provide additional energy that can be harvested; it simply exerts a magnetic force.
Magnetic Field and Work: A magnetic field, by itself, does not perform work. In the context of an electric motor, the magnetic field interacts with electric currents to produce force (and thus, work), but this requires an external energy source, such as a battery or the electrical grid. The magnetic field from the permanent magnets can help improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the energy needed to create the magnetic field, but it cannot create energy.
Energy Conservation: The claim also seems to suggest that the magnets would “run out” of energy after a certain period. This is a misunderstanding of how magnets work. While it’s true that permanent magnets can lose their magnetization over time due to factors like heat, physical damage, or stray electromagnetic fields, this does not equate to a depletion of energy that could be used to do work. The loss of magnetization is a change in the material’s internal structure, not a release of usable energy.
Conclusion: Therefore, any system that claims to produce more energy than it consumes by using permanent magnets is not feasible according to current scientific understanding. Such a system would imply a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. Customers should be wary of claims that contradict these fundamental principles.
QUESTION: Instead of reversing the flow of electricity, as in a conventional motor, the unconventional electric motor works by using an electric actuator to reposition or rotate the stator magnet, which is a permanent magnet and not an electromagnet. The rotor magnets are also permanent magnets and not electromagnets. Does this change your conclusions?
Bing Copilot: The unconventional electric motor you described, which uses an electric actuator to reposition or rotate a permanent magnet stator, and has permanent magnets in the rotor, still operates within the bounds of established physical principles. Here’s how this design aligns with the laws of thermodynamics:
Energy Input and Output: Even with the use of permanent magnets and an electric actuator to reposition the stator magnet, the system requires an external energy source to operate the actuator. The energy used by the actuator to move the stator magnet must come from somewhere, typically the electrical grid or a battery.
Conservation of Energy: The energy provided to the actuator for repositioning the stator magnet will be converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is then used to generate electricity through the interaction of the stator and rotor magnets. However, due to energy losses (such as friction, air resistance, and inefficiencies in the actuator itself), the energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor.
Permanent Magnets and Efficiency: While permanent magnets do not require an electrical current to maintain their magnetic field, they do not provide a source of energy themselves. They can improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the need for an electromagnet, which would require continuous electrical power, but they cannot create energy. The efficiency of any motor or generator is always less than 100% due to inherent losses.
Conclusion: The design you’ve described may offer certain advantages, such as potentially reduced energy consumption for the actuation process compared to maintaining an electromagnet. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the system cannot produce more energy than it consumes. Any claim that suggests a net energy gain from such a system would still be in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It’s important to critically evaluate the claims of any company against the backdrop of established scientific principles. Innovations in motor design can lead to improvements in efficiency, but they cannot circumvent the laws of physics.
MagnetLover
2 months ago
Yes.
The sheer magnitude of the shift from the initial promises is a problem. From the WSJ and IE.energy website's claims to today's 'photonics' distraction offramp
From :
https://web.archive.org/web/20230402053158/https://ie.energy/earth_engine/
and
https://archive.is/20220426095954/https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-mans-unlikely-quest-to-power-the-world-with-magnets-11558029179#selection-663.0-673.74
Mr. Danzik, the science and technology officer for Wyoming-based Inductance Energy Corp., says he has invented a magnetic generator, a flywheel system that extracts usable energy from the interplay of exotic magnets—also known as a free-energy device, a cousin to the fabled perpetual-motion machine.
Mr. Danzik winces at the phrase “perpetual motion,” with centuries of humbug behind it. “It’s a generator,” he said during an interview at IEC’s lab and training facility in Scottsdale, Ariz. Left running, the machines, known as Earth Engines, will eventually exhaust themselves. He just isn’t sure when.
“We really don’t know how long the magnets will perform,” Mr. Danzik said.
To :
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/QREE/news/Quantum-Energy-Moves-to-Revenue-Producing-Position-with-FlooidCX-Corporation-Merger?id=390624
Since 2015, this highly focused team invested over $50 million to quietly develop a unique energy system (originally nicknamed the “Earth Engine”) that uses highly efficient photon collection (in a manner similar to solar energy, but from both natural and produced light), that is first stored in a permanent magnet assisted flywheel system called a Photon Engine. The electrical energy is then conditioned and stored in a series of iron-air batteries. The use of permanent magnets to mechanically assist flywheels was long thought to be impossible.
Internet doesn't forget. Neither do IEC's investors I would imagine.
MagnetLover
2 months ago
And additionally, it is not uncommon at all for individuals to form new business entities prior to starting construction on large developments, nor is it uncommon for individuals to create new entities when engaging in new business activities
I agree. However, you can't execute a contract pre formation of those entities as stated in the press release. Recall:
May 6th
today announces it has executed a Manufacturing and Distribution Agreement (“Agreement”) with ARC Energy, Inc. (“ARC Energy”), located at BCS Prime Building, Third Floor, 2297 Chino Roces Avenue, Makati City, NCR, Philippines. The Agreement was executed and made effective on March 28, 2024 with funding committed on April 30, 2024.
This can't technically happen. Agreement executed in March and the entity formed in May?
Also 500 000 units, at the conservative price of 25 000 USD per unit (we don't know where they are located) is 12.5 bn USD. Which is significant, and I can't fathom a reason one forms the entity which is supposed to co develop with PNOC a $12.5 bn project in May when construction is supposed to start in Q2.
This doesn't add up for me.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Mr.S Szilard
1 week ago
Hot Features
Premium
