Haguenauer electromagnetic motor: the wrong to be right

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Electromagnetic Motor: Wrong To Be Right




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 10:41

eclectron wrote:Absolutely, it is highly probable that it is functional, even if it means offending the established facts of the past. The beliefs of yesteryear, then. : Wink:

it is absolutely not embarrassing to "offend the established facts". All science was built like this. The only thing is
a) that the "established" facts (or supposed to be so) must be replaced by other facts even better established. (and not by blah-blah-smoke-screen-uncontrollable-videos-conspiracy-sites etc etc ...)

b) until then, there has been no exception to the fact that physical laws obey principles. That is, if a principle is violated, it has always been replaced by another principle. For example the simultaneity of Newton's time is not correct, but it has been replaced by another principle, the invariance of the speed of light.

So for example if you want to replace the second principle with something else, you have to say what. The second principle gives you a clear prescription of what is permitted and what is prohibited; if we go from A to B, it is allowed if S (B) ≥ S (A) and it is forbidden if S (B) <S (A), and it gives you the formula to calculate S (B) - HER). (And there is also in addition the first principle which imposes on you that U (B) = U (A), conservation of energy).

You have the right to challenge it, but only if you offer something else instead: how do you know if something is allowed or prohibited, if you don't believe in the 2nd principle?

if you have nothing to offer instead, it's not science, it's wind. And the only people who have an interest in making believe in the wind, they are the crooks and the manipulators.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Hagenauer
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 14
Registration: 04/03/21, 13:58
x 4

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by Hagenauer » 05/03/21, 11:23

Exnihiloest wrote:
Haguenauer wrote:...
Why should I take your floating, muddy rantings into consideration, when you have a video in my posts showing you how this electromagnetic motor works? Whether you have preconceived ideas and a formatted mind, I'm fine. But before you want to contradict something and try to argue at least look at what is presented to you.


Rantings is the presentation of this engine.

Engines like this, I have seen dozens of them over the past 15 years, and not one has kept its promises. They were either commercial scams (Mylow, Perendev), or theoretical errors (gross) so the demos did not work (Newman, Steorn), or fabrications of sweet dreamers unable to measure an energy balance (our compatriot Léon Raoul Hatem ).

The best engines today have an efficiency of over 95%. So what are we talking about? Of a perpetual motion machine?

If it is from a perpetual motion machine, there are two cases:

- or else the machine is claimed to function according to the laws of physics, then there is a hidden source of energy which remains to be identified. If it is not claimed that there is a new source of energy (for example by asserting as here that it would come from permanent magnets), this is the ideal case because all the laws of physics involving conservation of energy, we can denounce right away.

- or else new laws of physics are claimed to be at work, and then the experimental demonstration is essential to prove it.

In both cases, measurements made by an independent team is essential, the proof to be brought having to be up to the height of the "unbelievable" of the advertisement.

In this case, what is the measurement protocol, the data, and who measured them?


new proof that you assert without knowing what you are talking about for the simple will to denigrate.
1) quote you attempts to create magnetic motors (Among the most famous are also Minato and Yildiz) and you assimilate my electromagnetic motor to these. Do you know that there is a difference between magnetic and electromagnetic?
2) you speak of a "hidden source" of energy. Malicious innuendo in accordance with your essential purpose: to harm. While I clearly announce interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity
3) you try to make believe that interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity is against the law of conservation of energy
4) you are also trying to make believe that the videos I am attaching are fake
5) you distort my words and try again to denigrate on principle. So I summarize my position: At the moment I demonstrate by the videos attached to my message that using interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity I have a running motor. This is the demonstration of the working principle. I do not want to publish an energy balance yet because it is not yet as satisfactory as I would like due to the fact that it is not optimized. I am looking for money in order to carry out a simulation study with Ansys software in order to perfectly determine the places of the magnets because the effectiveness of the interactive energy is played out to the nearest mm, and to make new magnets with adapted shapes. (Studies having shown that this change in shape could add 30% more to the forces of attraction / repulsion)
1 x
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by eclectron » 05/03/21, 11:40

Haguenauer wrote:
new proof that you assert without knowing what you are talking about for the simple will to denigrate.
1) quote you attempts to create magnetic motors (Among the most famous are also Minato and Yildiz) and you assimilate my electromagnetic motor to these. Do you know that there is a difference between magnetic and electromagnetic?
2) you speak of a "hidden source" of energy. Malicious innuendo in accordance with your essential purpose: to harm. While I clearly announce interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity
3) you try to make believe that interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity is against the law of conservation of energy
4) you are also trying to make believe that the videos I am attaching are fake
5) you distort my words and try again to denigrate on principle. So I summarize my position: At the moment I demonstrate by the videos attached to my message that using interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity I have a running motor. This is the demonstration of the working principle. I do not want to publish an energy balance yet because it is not yet as satisfactory as I would like due to the fact that it is not optimized. I am looking for money in order to carry out a simulation study with Ansys software in order to perfectly determine the places of the magnets because the effectiveness of the interactive energy is played out to the nearest mm, and to make new magnets with adapted shapes. (Studies having shown that this change in shape could add 30% more to the forces of attraction / repulsion)

I interfere ...
To really move forward and end the guesswork, the videos aren't explicit about the energy balance, hence my question here:
science-and-technology / electromagnetic-motor-wrong-to-be-right-t16783-20.html # p434609
eclectron wrote:Great achievement anyway.
A very simple question, have you made an energy balance measurement:
power required for operation and actually useful output power?
In case it escaped me, if it has already been mentioned here with precision, please let me know where.
1 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 11:44

Haguenauer wrote:
3) you try to make believe that interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity is against the law of conservation of energy

let's talk peacefully then:

if it is not contrary to the conservation of energy, it is because the work produced by the motor corresponds to a decrease in energy elsewhere, which is the case with all known generators: chemical energy consumed in a battery, wind or water energy slowed down or losing potential energy, nuclear energy lost by decay etc ...

If there is no energy lost somewhere, but it increases elsewhere, it is not conserved, and therefore it violates the law of conservation.

Where is the energy lost then, to compensate for that which is recovered by the engine?
1 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by eclectron » 05/03/21, 12:05

ABC2019 wrote:
Haguenauer wrote:
3) you try to make believe that interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity is against the law of conservation of energy

let's talk peacefully then:

if it is not contrary to the conservation of energy, it is because the work produced by the motor corresponds to a decrease in energy elsewhere, which is the case with all known generators: chemical energy consumed in a battery, wind or water energy slowed down or losing potential energy, nuclear energy lost by decay etc ...

If there is no energy lost somewhere, but it increases elsewhere, it is not conserved, and therefore it violates the law of conservation.

Where is the energy lost then, to compensate for that which is recovered by the engine?

In fact the kind of idea in Haguenauer, I already had ...
You have to see this kind of system as static fields switched (static field: magnetism, gravity, electro static),.
If the switching of the effect of the static field costs nothing, or little energy, we make the static fields work.
Making static fields work costs nothing, nor wears out.
(yes that violates ABC and the creator, no doubt too, since we could create energy and even by extension (E = mC²) create matter. Something to be mistaken for God. 8) )

It does not cost anyone anything for an apple to fall to the ground and it does not use the earth's gravity either, nor that of the apple.
What costs is to bring up the apple and it costs as much energy as gained during the fall. balance sheet = zero

For that to have a chance to work, it is necessary that the moving object "falls" permanently, by switching fields cleverly.
rotating a field is one way of switching it (precision for ABC ... : Mrgreen: )

I must say that with intuition, experience and theory : Mrgreen:, It's not win.
Hence the requested energy balance.
Last edited by eclectron the 05 / 03 / 21, 12: 14, 1 edited once.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 12:13

eclectron wrote:It does not cost anyone anything for an apple to fall to the ground and it does not use the earth's gravity either, nor that of the apple.


of course if, it "uses" the gravity of the Earth and the apple, it's just that you don't know it, because you haven't explored the question enough.
The gravitational field of the Earth + the apple in height is not quite the same as that of the Earth + the apple on the ground, and the difference in energy of the gravitational field is exactly equal to that recovered by the apple drop.

By raising the apple in the air, you recreate the configuration of the field and you regain its initial energy, but you had to take energy elsewhere to raise the apple.
Last edited by ABC2019 the 05 / 03 / 21, 12: 15, 1 edited once.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by eclectron » 05/03/21, 12:15

ABC2019 wrote:
eclectron wrote:It does not cost anyone anything for an apple to fall to the ground and it does not use the earth's gravity either, nor that of the apple.


of course if, that "uses" something, it's just that you don't know it, because you haven't explored the question enough.

and what does it use? Apart from the sun : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 12:16

I completed my answer. It has nothing to do with the Sun. The field contains energy, and it changes as you move the objects. It's the same when two magnets come together, the total magnetic field changes, and it contains less energy after than before.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Hagenauer
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 14
Registration: 04/03/21, 13:58
x 4

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by Hagenauer » 05/03/21, 12:17

eclectron wrote:
Haguenauer wrote:
new proof that you assert without knowing what you are talking about for the simple will to denigrate.
1) quote you attempts to create magnetic motors (Among the most famous are also Minato and Yildiz) and you assimilate my electromagnetic motor to these. Do you know that there is a difference between magnetic and electromagnetic?
2) you speak of a "hidden source" of energy. Malicious innuendo in accordance with your essential purpose: to harm. While I clearly announce interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity
3) you try to make believe that interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity is against the law of conservation of energy
4) you are also trying to make believe that the videos I am attaching are fake
5) you distort my words and try again to denigrate on principle. So I summarize my position: At the moment I demonstrate by the videos attached to my message that using interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity I have a running motor. This is the demonstration of the working principle. I do not want to publish an energy balance yet because it is not yet as satisfactory as I would like due to the fact that it is not optimized. I am looking for money in order to carry out a simulation study with Ansys software in order to perfectly determine the places of the magnets because the effectiveness of the interactive energy is played out to the nearest mm, and to make new magnets with adapted shapes. (Studies having shown that this change in shape could add 30% more to the forces of attraction / repulsion)

I interfere ...
To really move forward and end the guesswork, the videos aren't explicit about the energy balance, hence my question here:
science-and-technology / electromagnetic-motor-wrong-to-be-right-t16783-20.html # p434609
eclectron wrote:Great achievement anyway.
A very simple question, have you made an energy balance measurement:
power required for operation and actually useful output power?
In case it escaped me, if it has already been mentioned here with precision, please let me know where.



I just answered that to electron.Thank you for looking at the answer I just gave him
0 x
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: electromagnetic motor: Wrong to be right




by eclectron » 05/03/21, 12:24

ABC2019 wrote: It has nothing to do with the Sun.

you do not know the expression visibly, nor the humor? : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

ABC2019 wrote:The field contains energy, and it changes as you move the objects. It's the same when two magnets come closer, the total magnetic field changes, and it contains less energy after than before.

Be more precise, with the example of the earth and the apple, for gravity therefore.
What do you mean ?

edit: I have just read your edited answer. Clearly you are not saying anything other than what you are saying .... that is to say the obvious.
Try to read before you answer, it will be fine already
Your intervention is really dipteran sodomy ....
Last edited by eclectron the 05 / 03 / 21, 12: 32, 1 edited once.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 61 guests