So... I sincerely hope to see this experiment a become a success. If not, well... we're one step closer towards that perfect understanding.

"I did not fail to make the light bulb ~2,000 times, I simply found ~2,000 ways how not to make a light bulb." -Thomas Edison (wording is off, my apologies

I can't believe this is legitimate without a walkthrough of all the electronics behind it. Anyone can make a youtube video, and anyone can make claims. He may have had a friend turn on a supplementary motor or something.

We just don't know.

- Big snake nest of wire
- No diagram
- No clear view where those ampmeters/voltmeters are in the circuits
- Not enough information to reproduce the experiment

And as an explanation, we have an MIT professor 'stumped' by it. There were many comments from people closer to nuts and bolts that offered much simpler explanation. I don't have a huge background in electrical engineering, so I can only second the explanation that appear sound.

And as a last comment, wouldn't it be a more proper way to "create load" by inserting a resistance, something that "consumes" power, instead of shorting the circuit (which is like 0 ohm resistance, save the internal resistance of the wires, which, clearly is not much)?

I think it's really cool. Even if it's not perpetual, it's still potentially ground breaking and thusly life altering. Even for nerds.

Short and simple.

Many highly complex problems have simple but artistic solutions.

By all means, bring on the interesting stories. Ask 'what is happening?' It seems we've already got some good answers - why wouldn't the fact putting a permanent magnet near a DC electrical motor account for it? Not the first time an academic has been stumped by something so simple (Uri Gellar has done it with cheap parlour tricks for years).

I use Neatorama as a net to catch some interesting stories I can pass on. This story subscribes to that, even for discussion value. But selling it with such a sensationalist slant makes for dishonest or just plain naive reporting.

He's formed a company, meaning he's already thought about how to merchandise the "device." That doesn't inspire me with confidence...

...only about 100x more often and with 1000x more vitriol. That general civility alone is worth celebrating, you members of the Neatorama community. Always endeavor to preserve that.

Having looked over some of this guy's other work, I don't think this device's fabricator trying to pull a fast one. I believe his intentions are innocent, if not honorable. That doesn't mean he's built anything particularly compelling, mind you. Hell, the fabber probably doesn't entirely comprehend what exactly his device is doing or how. He's just a "magneto-gearhead," if you will, who made a neat toy and thought others would dig it.

It does seem to be the community of scientific hobbyists whom have been addressing his flywheel construction as a perpetuum mobile, not the fabber himself. It's another demographic of those same hobbyists -- along with some semi-professional and entirely professional scientists and engineers -- whom are dismissing this as a hoax. I suspect the truth lies in between.

As a professional engineer trained well outside the realm of thermal dynamics, I would guess that this device utilizes a mechanical analog to an EM-driven monorail or railgun. The acceleration is produced by a series of precisely controlled magnetic fields, flip-flopping their polarity as the permanent magnets that are driving the payload pass. But instead of using digitally-controlled EM coils, this device uses very powerful permanent magnets. This designer clearly reduced friction on the various axles as much as possible, allowing both the flywheel and the peripheral magnets to spin relatively freely. From there, he just used trigonometry and basic magnetic field theory to produce a matrix of circulating polarities through which the flywheel is driven. An impressive trial-by-error application of angular maglev technology, but I suspect that's all it is.

There will always be a human desire to evolve through experimentation. Someone will always want to build the "better mousetrap," the "better light bulb," or the "next big thing." These days, we all seem to share an interest in letting human engineering break our total dependence on consumable energy sources. But we cannot let our hopes cloud our vision or erode our understanding. Regrettably, I fear much of the passion expressed towards this device does precisely that.

I'm willing to call this an educational little toy and give its designer the benefit of doubt. Keep in mind, however, I'd wholeheartedly stop trusting this guy should he ever ask around for investors.

OK so the laws of science say it's not possible, and yes, we've all seen that an electric motor speeds up when you bring another magnet near it, and yes, it draws more current.

Trouble is, we're all human beings, which means we also have hope.

OK, so it can't possibly be true. Except...

What if it is?

Alex brings you information and you attack him for it. Get off your rear and go to another Blog, maybe there's a Bore-0-Rama or something.

I get it, I see that it has a logical explanation. Stop getting on Alex about it. He could simply stop blogging and leave you to your lives. He brings new entertaining possibilities to us... stop smacking him around.

I'm not talking about perpetual motion, here. I'm simply saying that if a magnet could make engines more efficient or use less gas or do something positive for our everyday life, that would be really great. I know nothing about science - my study lies mainly in the fields of dead languages and painting. My point is that when explained this invention could have good, positive and helpful effects and people jump immediately into arguing semantics! Think about what that says about yourselves!

I can fake all sorts of things that may appear to be "neat", but that doesn't make them deserving of attention. There's nothing wrong with approaching this stuff with skepticism, and factual explanations aren't any less surprising nor do they make the universe any less mysterious and amazing. Don't pretend to be open-minded and then ask others to get lost.

Remember, a fool can create questions that a wise man cannot answer. Just because a wise man (scientist) is stumped does not lend credence to the fool. Of course, if Zahn didn't measure the power consumed by the motor, well ...

Why not throw "Free Beer" in there while you're at it?

No one will take you seriously if you lie.

About the third thing you learn on an electrical engineering course is that if you weaken the field of an electric motor, say by bring another magnet near it to interfere with the field, it will go faster. It has to, in order to generate enough back-EMF from the weaker field to get back into balance. The fourth thing you learn is that it draws more power from the supply when this happens, showing that you don't get anything for nothing.

How strange that the Professor wouldn't immediately think of this. He must have been teaching the "Electricity for Jocks" course to long.

A nice diagram or animation that explains what's happening would also be nice, but that's not everyone's forte'.

As far as I can tell, he's saying that the approaching magnets induce an opposing field in the coil. Is this generating a current that feeds back to the motor, letting the wheel with the magnets spin faster? Most perpetual-motion ideas use the concept of feeding back energy to keep the system running, while siphoning off any excess to make us rich. Not having viewed the rest of the videos, I cannot say if he is ultimately convincing.

To reiterate: A cleaner workspace with more obvious purposes for all of those dangling wires would go a long way towards relieving suspicion.

========
They laughed at me in Vienna! They said I was mad! Mad! Bwahahahahah!

Fools! I'll destroy them all!

OK, so perpetual motion is impossible because of the upcoming Big Crunch. Everything breaks down over time.

But that's not the point. The point is, there is a machine which appears to create energy, which in a perfect universe -- where magnets don't decay, parts don't wear down, Big Crunches don't happen, etc. -- could be used to sustain motion indefinitely.

The essence of "perpetual motion" is not that we could really build a machine that keeps moving despite anything that might happen. Rather it is that the physical law of conservation of energy is being broken.

You've done what you've been doing all along, bringing information to us that we might not have come across. I appreciate your hard work on your site! Keep it up!

Perpetual motion must be maintained forever. There are no varying degrees of permanency.

Period.

Usually when a knee-jerk story like this is published, it's given too much creedence (check), and then never head of again.

So, there's contributing energy coming in from somewhere. There's again two possibilities - one is it's trickery, the other is that it is a phenomena which truly has an MIT professor baffled.

Without knowing much about it, this is the furtherest anybody can speculate. However, I will say (as an ex-scientist) that scientists aren't used to being tricked by what they study. They aren't in the business of being fooled. Having a scientist admit they are baffled, especially when sensationalists love to play the 'phenomena baffles scientist' card, isn't quite enough yet to make me sit up and notice.

If it's really something special, we'll hear more about it. I'm not holding my breath though.

Isn't that confrontational? I'm stunned by many things, true, but I'm rarely stunned into stupidity.

I'll say it again: decay of magnetic material is not in the timescale of the experiment. If indeed the wheel accelerates, where is the source of energy being inputed into the system? Let's cut to the chase - we're talking about perpetual motion machine, regardless of what you want to call it.

I stand by what I said at the end of the article, which simply reads: before you dismiss this idea as completely bunk, please consider other accepted scientific principles that - before they became accepted - began as crazy ideas.

Re: only serves to make it appear that you are attempting to quash any discussion of the veracity of the inventor’s claim.

No, actually that's the opposite effect of what I wanted - I'm trying to prevent attempts to quash discussion of the phenomenon described by outright dismissal like the one by Dus.

I objected to your choice of words and I objected to the tone of your piece.

I pointed out that the particular point you wanted to make was severely damaged by your confrontational stance, a stance taken all too often by the woo-meisters.

I pointed out that you did not mention what it was that had the MIT prof so interested: Acceleration, not perpetual motion. The title of your entry is misleading, and should someone not link through to the other articles, they would not have a true understanding of the issue.

These are not the acts of a scientist, Alex. They are the acts of a sensationalist.

If you are genuinely interested in this invention and it's implications for science then please edit or append your entry to reflect the truth of the matter and remove the inflammatory language at the end of the piece. It adds no value to you writing, and only serves to make it appear that you are attempting to quash any discussion of the veracity of the inventor's claim.