New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible

[Belfior]

@Belfior
I agree with you. Only self-looping is a proof. I noticed that when we try to close the loop of a device that we think is overunity, that's when we see the flaw we didn't see before!

I don't know if Bearden can be trusted or not, I mean haven't seen the MEG in shops yet, but he had some good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNU3MLqyzPk

We put 50% of the input back to the negative rail effectively destroying the dipole, so we got 50% to use in our circuit with all losses of that said circuit. That is how we are taught to make circuits and I don't think it is a mistake, but a deliberate scheme to keep those circuits ineffective.

So in my mind the question really is how to agitate charges without dumping back to the source dipole? We have such techniques and we can go around laws like Lenz, but you can pickup any electrical engineering book and it is telling that is the wrong way or it does not mention these techniques at all. I don't think is a coincidence either.

After 2 years of 'research' I went back and watched all the Don Smith videos again. He is really trying to tell us something, but you really gotta listen.

PS.

I wonder what is hiding in the original Maxwell's equations, that Steinmetz and others changed so that they could be easily used in engineering. Quaternion != Vector. I think it is the same if a 2D map is used to describe this planet

[F6FLT]

Bearden, and at a lower level Don Smith, have theories but not the least working device, not even a proof of concept. In science we must verify and confirm theories by experiments.

For example, let's take the Lenz law you mentioned. Lenz's law is only the consequence that moving charges influence each other via the magnetic field.
The only force on charges is F=q.E with E the electric field either deriving from a potential or, in our case, obtained by a varying magnetic field in which case E=v x B (vector product), v being the speed of the charges relative to the observer who also sees the B field which is the result of moving charges.
Therefore, the situation is symmetrical between the charges of the source of the magnetic field and the moving charges in the field created by the former. From the viewpoint of the charges at the source of the magnetic field, there is no magnetic field (because they are at rest in their own referential) but they see the varying magnetic field of the moving external charges.
The effect of the former on the latter is strictly identical to the effect of the latter on the former, since there is only one physical cause, the relative velocity between charges, resulting in a force (also explicable by Einstein's relativity). So if Lenz's law did not apply, the effect that gives rise to it would not exist either, induction would not exist. Lenz's law and induction law are one and the same, just a question of which charges we look at.

There are many IQ >140 among physicists, we must be very careful to challenge their theories that they have also verified through thousands meticulous experiments. If there is a possibility of free energy, we will have to be very, very, very smart to find it. Or to have an extraordinary luck. It's what we play at.

[Floor]

Yes what we need is empirical evidence !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6v9zkz

[Belfior]

Yes what we need is empirical evidence !

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6v9zkz

Yeah well it is all theories until you have it running on your bench and if it is not self looped I tend not to watch the video. When it is self looped you can forget all measuring error debunkers. Self looping with a battery is also BS Bedini style. I bet you can get OU from a battery system by somehow destroying the battery at the same time. Self loop with caps and I will give you a medal for sure!

Just use 4k video to shoot it, so the "wire finders" can have a good look at it

[onepower]

F6FLT

Many! In electronics, since the age of 11. That's why I'm very careful now. All the experiments in FE I have done so far (single wire transmission, back emf, SMOT, so-called "scalar waves", Steorn-style parametric motors...) show that everything works according to conventional theories.

Cool, many people can work a lifetime and never see anything extraordinary while others just naturally stumble onto it. This is because we are obviously not the same people and we do not think the same and nobody should assume we do.

I'm looking for loopholes but I haven't found any yet. Most of those who believe they have found them are only surprised by commonplace phenomena that they do not understand.

Obviously your not looking hard enough and this relates to the concept of "learning how to learn". I see many people who think learning is simply memorizing what others have done however memorizing is more akin to pseudo-learning not genuine learning. To truly learn something new requires an open mind and independence from others not conformity. No person who has ever accomplished anything great or innovative has conformed to anything in the way of normalcy.

If you want to find a loophole look at this...
http://www.rexresearch.com/treshalov/treshalov.htm

Here we see the concept of Exergy or the absolute energy within the entirety of a system which is available to perform work. As well as an introduction to the concept that Kinetic energy and Potential energy in a system are not always intimately bound to one another as we might expect. Treshalov does a poor job of explaining the concept however the foundation is present.

Learning is about progress and if we have made no progress then obviously we have not learned anything. As one intellectual put it we have lived in a lost decade in which nothing of consequence has happened that matters.