Perpetual Motion Claim — If It's a Hoax, It's a Good One

Perpetual Motion Claim — If It's a Hoax, It's a Good One

For my grade 10 science project, my partner and I set out to hook a generator to an electric motor. The idea was that the motor would drive the generator which would drive the motor again in perpetuity. Now we weren’t so naive as to discount the idea of resistance. When you pass current over a wire, a certain amount of that power is lost to resistance (lost as heat). We were proposing using superconductors instead of the wires we used in our mock-up. We also proposed using magnetically suspended bearings and running our set up in a vacuum to eliminate all friction. Even if it was possible to eliminate all friction, there was still another problem for our design.

In grade 10, we had yet to be introduced to the laws of thermodynamics which strictly forbid such arrangements. A physics teacher came over to grade our project and after a quick glance he said: “background emf.” We stood there trying all permutations in our mind of what ’emf’ could possibly stand for. He asked: “Background EMF? Have you taken grade 11 physics?” We dejectedly shook our heads to indicate that we hadn’t. He continued while leaving our booth “well you need it!”

Having recovered from our tragic defeat, and some 18 years later, I can explain the ‘travesty’ we had committed against physics. Background EMF stands for background Electromotive Force. What this means is that when you use a current (electrical power) to drive an electric motor, the electric motor as a result of its operation generates an opposing current to the one driving it. In a sense it is a sort of electromagnetic resistance. In short, what it says is that the system we built could never work, even if we used super conductors as wires and ran in a frictionless environment.

For the lay reader, a generator and an electric motor are virtually the same device. One generates electricity from motion and the other converts electricity into motion. In fact if you were to take an electric motor and hook up a volt meter to it and spin it, you’d discover that there voltage was generated just as if it were a generator. At the core of either device lies a loop (or loops) of wire and magnets. Recall that I said if you spin an electric motor, you generate a current. Well that’s exactly what background EMF is. As the motor spins, it also generates a current in the opposing direction to the current driving it.

Now along comes Thane Heins.
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/300042
http://www.thestar.com/Article/300041
Through experimentation, he has come up with an arrangement which theoretically feeds background EMF back into the electric motor in a way which ADDS to the current driving the motor. In so doing he’s (theoretically) created a positive feedback loop which causes the motor, not only to maintain speed, but actually to accelerate.

This flies in the face of physics, specifically the laws of thermodynamics which say that you the amount of energy in the universe is constant and in a closed system, you can’t create energy. Heins’ system is what’s called a closed system, that is there is no external input of energy, hence it should not be able to create any more energy than was inputted: ie, the wheel should never gain speed, if anything it should always slow down.

Claims of perpetual motion on the Internet are about as common as claims of a new fad diet which will slim you with no effort. If you catch my drift, such claims are usually discarded as junk science. In this particular case though, it has appeared to have attracted the attention of several physicists, one of whom from MIT, who haven’t admitted that he’s achieved perpetual motion, but also haven’t been able to point out any obvious error in his experimental setup and claim.

Even if this fails to be perpetual motion, perhaps some of the concepts can be adapted to produce newer and more efficient electric motors. At the very least, the exploration of Heins’ design and concepts should help illuminate us all. To see video and for some further reading, please see:
http://www.g9toengineering.com/backemf/demonstration.htm

18 thoughts on “Perpetual Motion Claim — If It's a Hoax, It's a Good One

  1. Interesting, but the story claims that someone helped the company pay for patents…but I haven’t been able to find any patents that they hold. Anyone else have more luck?

  2. As I said myself, claims of perpetual motion are about as common as claims of an effortless diet. Just the same, I’m against offhand dismissal of ideas, especially in the realm of thermodynamics. Yes, the first law of thermodynamics forbids the creation or destruction of energy. However, careful readers will note that it stipulates ‘in a closed system’. Now, is the universe a closed system?

    If the big bang turns out to be just a big bounce (expansion and subsequent contraction) then yes, probably the universe is a closed system. However, if the universe goes on expanding forever — and there is evidence that this might happen — then the universe is likely not a closed system. If it’s an open system, it may be possible to get energy from this input source.

    Admittedly, I don’t see how Heins’ design would capture such energy.

    This excerpt from the original article piqued my interest:

    “Contacted by phone a few hours after the test, Zahn is genuinely stumped – and surprised. He said the magnet shouldn’t cause acceleration. “It’s an unusual phenomena I wouldn’t have predicted in advance. But I saw it. It’s real. Now I’m just trying to figure it out.”

    Zahn is an MIT professor. I can’t figure out how it would possibly accelerate, no less maintain speed. I hope some interesting physics comes out of this beyond just a simple mistake in experimental design.

  3. Quote “Heins’ system is what’s called a closed system, that is there is no external input of energy”

    What are you claiming powers his induction motor in the first place? Induction motors cannot start themselves, hence his “kick-start by hand”, but then he turns on the switch to apply power to the motor. Hence, external input of energy via a plug in the wall. This isn’t perpetual motion, just raising efficiency using feedback and magnetics.

    That being said, it is still revolutionary in it’s claims and results, which seem to be validated by MIT (at least he didn’t pull a steorm!) Really looking forward to more info from him!

  4. I was under the impression that it was a closed system, with the coil driving the motor. I’d like it if he released a schematic.

  5. I enjoyed the post from the writer whos says that it would be a smarter thing to just build the machine and to hook it up to the electrical system and reap the rewards like an ATM and then double your connections every few months as you profit. Very smart concept! No need to pruff it to any one and worry about the oil companys stopping you.

    Garry Higgins

  6. Yes, I enjoyed that comment too, quite witty. In all seriousness exponential growth is great but it has two extremes, and extremely slow period of growth and an extremely fast period of growth. What if it would take a near lifetime for the first doubling time? Then exponential growth would do you no good.

  7. I am not trying to follow you’re lead, however I too have almost created a magnetic perpetual motion device. It wasn’t until I had figured out the harder logistics of it that I decided to try and find anyone else who might have an interest in it. Sorry but I will continue with my design until it is in full working order.

  8. I’ll be impressed when someone can show me a machine that uses only electromagnets. Permanent magnets take a lot of energy to charge so there is an additional energy input into these devices(there are many) that isn’t being accounted for.

    The existence of the permanent magnets is the Achilles heel in these devices.

    I haven’t got to the point of opening my textbooks on these things yet to remind me of what I learned while earning a B. Eng in electrical engineering. It seems to me that only electromagnets would be used if the idea were to be proven.

  9. Definitely consider that which you said.
    Your favorite reason seemed to be on the net the easiest thing to consider of.

    I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while other people consider concerns that they just don’t realize about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the entire thing without having side effect , folks can take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back To Top