I have been doing some research into PMMs for about a year now. I have been reading watching other peoples creations and sometimes I wonder what they were thinking when they built it. So far the best devience I have seen is the one Sterling D. Allan created. So my question is what is problem with these devices? What is the one thing that keeps them from becoming main stream? I?m 18 years old I sometime in the future plan on building my own. I think that one day this could work.
Thanks
I don't think there is one clear thing that keeps OU devices from going mainstream, but there are several.
The most important is of course: failure to replicate. If one person has built an OU device but nobody manages to replicate it, there is no confirmation that the device actually works and that is is not a fluke. There's tons of ideas, but only a relatively small part actually pass the reality check, and of those very few to none are ever replicated and prove to be OU.
Second is of course the continuous antagonism, ridicule, and suppression by the majority of "established" scientists. If your R&D brainiacs tell you device X is not worth looking into because everybody knows OU is impossible, then you're not going to invest in it, are you?
And then of course there are the other established interests; the energy market is one of if not the largest in the world, with more power and influence in sociopolitical and industrial developments than most of us would care to know. If you can force people to pay much higher prices by pushing the essential energy supply into a shortage and price-increase spiral, then of course you are going to do so and thereby increase your own influence in everyday life and systems. So you have more power, more money, more control, and people become more and more dependant on you. Then why would you go and kill your own business by giving the consumer cheaper energy solutions? He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones, after all.
There are undoubtedly a few other interests playing along, but in general it still comes down to: greed, arrogance, and misundertanding. I think ;)
I see that for looking into OU as a whole, but I wanted to know what the major problem with these devices is. Is it the way one arranges the magnets? And I have also seen were they just slow down and stop what causes this exactly?
G'day Roen and all,
Keely said once in his writings (about 120 years ago) "No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated as to induce rotation"
Perhaps he was right.
Keely understood magnetism perhaps more than anyone before or after him. He managed to make non-magnetic materials magnetic by subjecting them to a sonic stream using acoustic resonators only. He also managed to take the magnetism out of very strong magnets by subjecting them to the same type of energy.
This has not been replicated to date but at the time was witnessed by a great many people, including eminent scientists.
Hans von Lieven
Hmmm well problem with Keely is that not much is actually known about his actual tech...
And claims like "he understood magnetism better than anyone before or after" are also made of Tesla for example...
Of course it may be that Keely did understand it better. But he didn't manage to convey that understanding very well.
And it may be that Keely had the 'secret' to free energy. but he didn't explain it, there is no actual legacy of designs we can replicate and study.
Anyway, Roen, in most devices the problem is simply that there is an imbalance in the magnetic fields which does cause the rotor to move, but only for a short period of time untill the device has found its lowest balanced energy state, and then it will stop. Some devices start with a "magnetic spring effect" which cause them to spin quite a bit, but in the end entropy wins and the energy is lost in mechanical friction and magnetic feedback. Other machines use a certain reservoir of energy such as a capacitor to aid their rotation, but when the energy reservoir is empty they also stop moving.
If you can break the symmetry of the laws of nature somehow, and somehow get a permanent off-balance system which does not use input energy to remain off-balance, then you could make one spin... Why does the mini-romag generator work, spin itself, and produce minute ouput, but not an upscaled version?
Good question.
What is Keely's last name?
His name is John Ernst Worrel Keely
Details and short biography on http://keelytech.com
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 30, 2007, 11:48:21 PM
His name is John Ernst Worrel Keely
Details and short biography on http://keelytech.com
Hans von Lieven
Ok thanks ill look him up.
Quote from: Roen Hayden on November 30, 2007, 12:52:38 PM
I see that for looking into OU as a whole, but I wanted to know what the major problem with these devices is. Is it the way one arranges the magnets? And I have also seen were they just slow down and stop what causes this exactly?
Ah, but that's the wrong question. You should be asking why people think these motors
should work. They don't generally have good reasons -- they just want them to work, and then fool themselves by desiging systems of sufficient complexity so that they, themselves, can't see that it doesn't work. For some this is easy, for others it's more difficult.
When you know enough physics to understand that the laws of motion for permanent magents can be
derived from the law of conservation of energy, then there won't be any PMM systems that can fool you in this way. You will understand that finding a way to make a PMM work implies finding
new physical laws, and you can't do that by imagining arrangements of magnets and/or doing math.
Only by experiment can you show where current physical laws diverge from reality. If PMMs can work, then there is likely to be a simple experiment first (not a motor) that shows how the current laws are wrong. Then there will be experiments to make new mathematical models of the physics involved. Then these models will be used to design a motor that works.
Kedron corp and Steorn have shown by their statements that they know this, even though they have failed to demonstrate any spinning devices, and they both claim to have developed those new physical laws. If working PMM technology is going to come from anywhere, I think it'll come from one of them.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 30, 2007, 01:24:38 PM
Keely said once in his writings (about 120 years ago) "No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated as to induce rotation"
Werner Heisenberg disagreed. He said that magnets could be a source of energy.
Paul.
Quote from: Roen Hayden on November 30, 2007, 11:43:42 AM
I have been doing some research into PMMs for about a year now. I have been reading watching other peoples creations and sometimes I wonder what they were thinking when they built it. So far the best devience I have seen is the one Sterling D. Allan created. So my question is what is problem with these devices? What is the one thing that keeps them from becoming main stream? I?m 18 years old I sometime in the future plan on building my own. I think that one day this could work.
Metastability; I think that control is the problem with these metastable machines, like squeezing a wet soap bar.
We are attempting to tap finite amounts of an enormous natural vacuum energy. It hides behind a thin, yet tough, vial. There are many ways to do this, (or so I have heard,) but it must be done exactly right.
Today's internal combustion engines are stable: still able to run with a lean or rich fuel/air mixture and only stopping at the extremes to one other stable state: stopped. Stable-running, easy to control, and forgiving.
Metastable machines are unforgiving, like a woman. You need to treat them just right to get the performance that you desire. But if you cross the line, you may experience a life changing event for the worse. Sort of like a sticky window; hard to budge, yet easy to throw open--do this with the vacuum energy and it will destroy your machine, and maybe even you too.
Some devices, by the nature of their configurations, may offer better control of this metastable condition than others. We, at the very least, seek to control devices which have a failsafe to a stopped condition if falling out of "tune," or if any one component fails. Magnet motors appear to offer this quality: runaway acceleration will meet with increased bearing friction before shaft meltdown grinds it all to a stable stop. We do not expect any crazy EMP type of events with this type of device.
Welcome to the forum, young man. ;)
standing by for the omnibus smot injection. Hayden...I have several non working designs that i would have sworn that i have solved the gate problem. You are young, i am 52 you will see it in your lifetime and it might be you that solves issues...welcome to this obsession for OUFE!
well like i have said before i think some people that create these devices are trying to make them too complex. I have a few designs in my head that are simple but some are close to other peoples designs just a couple of things changed. I would like to build a prototype but one problem is money working three jobs and college and be a drain but hey it will pay off one day. Speaking of money does any one know of any small grants for projects like this?
Simply put:
Magnets which is not changing magnetism on demand, cannot induce rotation or work. An electro motor is working because of the change of magnetism. All electromotors, even those running on DC-power supply are in fact AC-motors inside because they allways are able to change magnetic polarity as they rotate. That's why they work, and permanent magnet motors does not work.
If you even add loads of energy into DC electro magnets, as long as the magnetism does not change, they will just consume energy without doing any work. So how to make a permanent magnet motor to work, is to me a big puzzle.
But never give up. It's very educating to learn about magnets and magnetism, even if you should fail in your projects.
Br.
Vidar
Actually, you don't need to switch polarity in a motor to create work.
You can design the motor to let a magnetic rotor chase a rotatating electromagnetic field.
This will just cause pull on the rotor, but not any push.
Just like any electric motor but efficiency and power density is dropped due to the missing push.
But still there is work being created. No need for AC fields, just switch the electromagnets ON and OFF.
Ever heard of the Homopolar Generator? (aka homopolar dynamo, aka n-machine)
That works just fine as a motor on pure DC input. No AC at all, no switching of magnetic field polarity either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
Quote from: Low-Q on December 03, 2007, 03:42:04 PM
Simply put:
Magnets which is not changing magnetism on demand, cannot induce rotation or work. An electro motor is working because of the change of magnetism. All electromotors, even those running on DC-power supply are in fact AC-motors inside because they allways are able to change magnetic polarity as they rotate. That's why they work, and permanent magnet motors does not work.
If you even add loads of energy into DC electro magnets, as long as the magnetism does not change, they will just consume energy without doing any work. So how to make a permanent magnet motor to work, is to me a big puzzle.
But never give up. It's very educating to learn about magnets and magnetism, even if you should fail in your projects.
Br.
Vidar
You can switch iron or any other ferro-magnetic material On / Off with permanent magnet like current in electromagnet, so the right question is how to get more energy than put in ?
No you cannot "switch ferromagnetic material on" using a permanent magnet!
There is nothing to "switch on".
Ferromagnetic material conducts magnetic flux better than other material, which is why the permanent magnet sticks to it.
When you remove the magnet, the magnetism in the frromagnetic material drops away.
To remove the magnet from the ferromagnetic material needs energy.
The only thing I can think of that might come close to what you are suggesting and that might work,
is a so-called adiabatic energy pump;
you could take a ferro bar, soft iron would be fine, and wrap a coil around it. Now have some current run through the coil and the bar will be magnetised.
Take the cirrent off the coil, and the bar will lose its magnetism. If properly done and tuned exactly right, you might be able to intercept the drop back to 'natural' unmagnetised state of the magnetic domains inside the ferro as tiny e/m fluctuations, then aligns them all using a weak field again, then have them drop back to normal unaligned domains at natural 'polarisation', etc etc, and keep intercepting the weak fluctuations...
In theory and properly done (I realise my description of it isn't very good ;)) you should be able to absorb a small temperature gradient from the environment this way, and with some luck that might even be more than the energy you lose in resistance etc.
Quote from: Koen1 on December 04, 2007, 06:07:15 AM
No you cannot "switch ferromagnetic material on" using a permanent magnet!
There is nothing to "switch on".
Ferromagnetic material conducts magnetic flux better than other material, which is why the permanent magnet sticks to it.
When you remove the magnet, the magnetism in the frromagnetic material drops away.
Go back to school, learn physics ! Have you heard about BH curve ?
What?
The BH curve does not change the fact that you are NOT "switching on" iron or whatever ferromagnetic material by simply sticking a permanent magnet onto it!
Perhaps YOU should go back to school.
Or maybe stay away from your school, rather, if that is the place where they taught you that sticking a magnet onto metal "switches" it "on".
You can of course magnetise iron using a permanent magnet, but that involves slightly more than merely sticking a magnet onto it. You will need to heat or kinetically shock the soft iron while subjected to a magnetic field for the iron to "pick up" on it and become 'permanently' magnetic itself. If you don't, the iron will lose its magnetic polaritation naturally.
No matter how much you dislike that, it is true.
I see where is misunderstanding, by "switching on" I mean B movement as reaction on external H field, and as I see you mean permanent magnetization of material where B<>0 when H is zero. In any case if B is not zero this mean this piece of ferro-magnetic have own magnetic field which can attract or repel other magnetic materials, so I called this "on" state
By the way with external field H you can move not only iron also any permanent magnet along its BH curve, you can prove it by measuring, repulsion force between two magnets is always weaker than attraction.
Ah, now I see where you're going.
Sorry about that earlier hickup, clearly a misunderstanding.
Indeed attraction appears to exert greater force than repulsion between two pm's.
Interestingly, this has often been stated by various researchers...
"The pinciple of attract-attract instead of the normally used principle of attract-reject is a much more efficient way to induce motion in a permanent magnetic motor, and the way to OU." or similar statements have been made multiple times by various people in the OU pmm field...
It seems they are suggesting that the use of a homopolar magnetic field instead of a dipolar (like the "AC" based motors stated earlier in this thread) for use in a pm motor/generator has a stronger effect and can therefore produce more effective output. In other words, they seem to suggest that setups which use only the attraction to "pull" the rotor around may be considerably more efficient than setups which also use the rejection to "push" the rotor around as well.
Clearly, if you spotted the force difference between the two, you will understand what they mean.
Quote from: Honk on December 04, 2007, 02:42:54 AM
Actually, you don't need to switch polarity in a motor to create work.
You can design the motor to let a magnetic rotor chase a rotatating electromagnetic field.
This will just cause pull on the rotor, but not any push.
Just like any electric motor but efficiency and power density is dropped due to the missing push.
But still there is work being created. No need for AC fields, just switch the electromagnets ON and OFF.
That's right. Swithing it on and off will do, but then you still have a relative polarity swap, but then around a polarity offset other than zero. The relative forces are the forces that do work, and utilizing both polarities, makes a more efficient motor.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 30, 2007, 01:24:38 PM
G'day Roen and all,
Keely said once in his writings (about 120 years ago) "No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated as to induce rotation"
Perhaps he was right.
Keely understood magnetism perhaps more than anyone before or after him. He managed to make non-magnetic materials magnetic by subjecting them to a sonic stream using acoustic resonators only. He also managed to take the magnetism out of very strong magnets by subjecting them to the same type of energy.
This has not been replicated to date but at the time was witnessed by a great many people, including eminent scientists.
Hans von Lieven
But he was much to knowledgeable to reason in absolutes without reason.
"No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated"
He doesn't say it cant be constructed, he says it cant be measured as~such with the graduated parrots being the main paroteers propagating the lie perpetually.
http://keelynet.com/interact/arc_1_98-7_98/00001350.htm
The gossip of Ford wearing off his stalkers using magnetic repulsion (haha) really goes confirmed by Ed using only car parts to build coral castle.
With MIT failing to fix Ed's door and finding a mysterious disk sitting on a Ford T1 bearing.
So now we can teach students it's made of unidentifyable material.
Isn't that a super interesting phenomenon in it self???
Would the kids accept it really is unidentifyable? I think some crackpot child may ask if that was the best we could do? no?
Then they can say "if you would know enough physics you would know this material can not be identified" The parrotism is strong in this kind of slogans.
Didn't you learn it was made of unidentifyable material? Well stop trying to identify it? haha??
I know it sounds really weird logic.
Well here we have the same:
Quote from: Mr.Entropy on December 01, 2007, 12:19:40 AM
Ah, but that's the wrong question. You should be asking why people think these motors should work.
As you have been instructed to ignore perpetual motion with all media effort one could possibly utilise to make a person ignore something.
To me this means it is EXTREMELY obvious they are trying to cover up the truth. Where the truth would be exactly the opposite of the ADVERTISEMENT SLOGAN.
That alone should be all the reason you need to assume the exact opposite is in fact the truth!
So you use your curiosity to tell me my effort will be fruitless because you can prove you never questioned the divine truth about it and because you never thought about it this means you are the expert on the subject.
ROFL!!!
The brain enslaved minions of the establishment. That's how I know those devices work. I also know that general denial is the least productive activity one could engage into.
Einsteinian physics claimed no perpetual motion device could be build. So they never looked at any of them.
Now the fact they didn't look should support their original claim?
If you show them one they will call you a lunatic. Data is irrelevant in science!!!! Hallelujah!
Meanwhile in the real world the original claim still goes unsupported. the biggest nonsense of it all is that closed systems do not exist. It's an imaginary universe.
The temperature changes all day, that's pure energy. There is plenty of sun and wind. Every particle is a magnetic perpetual motion device.
And there is so much radio activity everything shakes violently.
FFS! It's just like Galileo with his telescope.
Apparently they don't have to see magnetic fields to be able to make all kinds of weird but baseless claims about it.
How dare you question our weird and baseless claims, we are scientists you should show much respect to us. Lets waste your time talking about how you are waisting your time.I think magnetic flux looks like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n1_6x3kEP8
Every university in the world
didn't order one of his lenses.
They cant be graduated to look tough them either, they already know!
Yeah, right!
ROFL!
Here is some more info on the 1903 Model A engine. I also have some pictures but I dont know how to post them.
FORD MODEL "T" MAGNETIC MODIFICATION
"Report that the 1st run batch of Model T engines could be modified to run
without fuel using self-sustaining magnetic repulsion.
-> Model T Magnetic Engine - 04/06/97
->Information that linked John Keely to Henry Ford, Sr.
The Model T used a hand-cranked magneto starting system to provide the spark
that exploded the gas to move the pistons. This is how a lawnmower produces
the spark needed to keep its engine running. The flywheel had very strong
magnets embedded in it. The bell housing that surrounded the flywheel had
coils of wire which would produce a nasty high voltage spark when the flywheel
rotated the magnetic field past the coils. This spark is what ignited the
gasoline in the cylinders. The magneto type starting system had to be hand
cranked to get the motor running, and the burning gasoline would keep it
running once started.
The first year model T's built by Ford had a special flywheel and housing that
was said to have been designed by John Worrell Keely and sold to Henry Ford.
Ford bought the design as a form of insurance because of all the harassment
he was getting from vested interests not wanting to see him succeed. After
20,000 to 30,000 cars went out, Ford was threatened by oil and gas interests
trying to coerce him to shut down production. It was not made clear who these
forces were or why they were trying to put Ford out of business.
After the first year of manufacturing Model T's, efforts were renewed to shut
Ford down. At this point, Ford then gave THEM an ultimatum, either leave he
and his family alone OR "He would send every Ford Model T owner a set of cow
magnets which fit in special slots that were cut into the bell housings on the
first year run of cars". This bell housing was cast into the engine block and
not a separate unit as on modern vehicles.
The flywheels were the hand cranked units having Vee magnets. They were
magnetos that when cranked, moved the magnets past a coil to produce a very
high voltage/current to spark the plugs. It produced a vicious spark.
Once the cow magnets were placed in the slots, the hand crank was turned and
the flywheel would spin on its own, generating up to 40 HP and completely self
running. You had to get the flywheel spinning to a minimum rpm before the
magnetic drive effect would take place.
Ford told his opponents that all Model T owners would then be running their
cars for FREE, not requiring any gasoline or other fuel. And that the
principle would be copied and applied to all machinery. Once Ford's opposing
forces verified the truth of this, "THEY" instantly ceased all attempts at
intimidating Ford and his company succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
My contact said there were three fellows who got wind of this story several
years ago. They secured a first-run Model T and found it did indeed have
strange slots on the bell housing. Magnets were inserted and when they cranked
it, the flywheel began to spin on its own.
Based on this initial verifying experiment, they eventually produced a 40hp
version which was self-running, using the same magneto system. A demonstration
was scheduled in a larger city and two of the men drove the prototype to the
demonstration, the third man was ill and could not attend.
The demonstration went off without a hitch and was enthusiastically received.
Plans and contacts were made for duplicating the prototype for further tests
that would be followed by marketing.
As the two men were driving home late that evening with their prototype, their
vehicle was run off the road. The next day, their vehicle was found overturned,
both bodies lying in a ditch with their throats slit and the prototype was gone.
The third man who had been too ill to attend the demonstration packed up
everything and went into hiding. Word is, this man is still alive, very
paranoid, yet he has not given up on the principle and has gone even further in
his development of the principle.
Ford intended the Model T to be run on ETHANOL, not gasoline, because it was a
renewable fuel. This could have been the bone of contention with the gas/oil
companies.
The original vehicle produced in 1903 was the Model A, of which about 1,700
were produced.
Henry Ford Sr. was born July 30th, 1863 and died on April 7th, 1947. Keely
died in 1898. So there is a nearly a 40 year period when they could quite
possibly have known each other. Ford did make trips to Manhattan and being of
an inventive mind would have heard of Keely, who was written up in many papers
and magazines from 1872 until his death in 1898. It is not too much of a
stretch to envision Ford attending one or more of Keely's many public demon-
strations (as did Tesla who I have NO DOUBT copied much of Keely's discoveries
using electric current instead of mechanically produced vibrations.
The various claims for PMMs (perpetual motion machines), whether magnetic or
gravity driven, always require a restorative kick to keep it running.
A flywheel or weighted arm mounted on a horizontal shaft so that it rotates in
a vertical plane, will fall by the force of 'gravity' and inertia will push it
past the 180 degree point and up to about 270 plus degrees. At that point,
you have to use a 'kicker' to push it past the 360 degree point so that the
rotation will perpetuate. Just like pushing someone on a swing, if you time
your pushes just right, you can drive them in ever higher arcs and eventually
over the 360 mark.
The Model T engine used a weighted crankshaft, that was why the vehicles would
vibrate from side to side due to the inertial kick of the weight. I am also
told that these engines could also idle at very low rpms, something on the
order of 100 or so revolutions per minute. This story is definitely out there
but should be fairly easy to prove.
Perhaps someone out there has access to a Model A or a Model T and can examine
the bell housings on these vehicles. At this point, I think the weighted
crankshaft would be necessary to the operation of the magnetic engine since it
would provide the restorative force.
Quote from: Roen Hayden on November 30, 2007, 11:43:42 AM
So my question is what is problem with these devices? What is the one thing that keeps them from becoming main stream? I?m 18 years old I sometime in the future plan on building my own. I think that one day this could work.
I think that the problem with these devices is the perfection while doing replications. I can very well see in my own devices that often a less balanced wheel, that has it's 1 gram heavier point exactly on the right spot, performce better than a 100% perfectly balanced wheel.
Often are the devices that actually work not the best mechanical art works: magnets are handheld or glued with tape. The fact that tape is more or less flexible, can be the most important part of the device.
When replicating they are some things that destroy the basic idea:
1. Often are replicaters people that during replicating are building in their own idea's, because they think they understand exactly how the device works.
2. Some replicators use Fred Flinstone technique.
3. Some replicators are building High Tech devices, and thereby removing all the things that made the device run (like the bad tape)
At the end everyone starts to disbelieve the real inventor since often the inventor is not able to replicate his own device anymore.
Regards,
Eric.
Self rotating magnetic devices can be built. I have built one, it rotates freely ;)
Quote from: ignilc on December 07, 2007, 12:35:49 AM
Self rotating magnetic devices can be built. I have built one, it rotates freely ;)
Hi.
Is that a device you want to share information about?
/Eric
Quote from: gaby de wilde on December 04, 2007, 07:19:15 PM
Einsteinian physics claimed no perpetual motion device could be build. So they never looked at any of them.
Now the fact they didn't look should support their original claim?
I fear you misunderstand. Einsteinian physics does not claim perpetual motion is impossible;
Einsteinian physics is simply an extension of the preceding physics systems.
It is the "laws of nature" that state that perpetual motion or "free energy" in principally impossible.
And Einsteinian physics respects the "laws of nature".
Also it is not true that they never looked at any claimed perpetuum mobile.
From quite early recorded modern history claims have been made and studied of various perpetuum mobile.
None of them were proven to actually work, or at least none of them that the public was told about.
Examples are the "Peringeus wheel" and the "Bessler wheel".
And don't forget that a lot of known principles of physics were also not applied; the steam engine for example was known in ancient Greece already, but only applied industrially about 2000 years later. Even though industrial use was suggested by Archimedes already.
You talk as if perpetuum mobile have been suppressed structurally... Do you think the steam engine was actively suppressed?
QuoteIf you show them one they will call you a lunatic. Data is irrelevant in science!!!!
Really? Since when? What proven OU devices have actually been studied then?
QuoteMeanwhile in the real world the original claim still goes unsupported. the biggest nonsense of it all is that closed systems do not exist. It's an imaginary universe.
Ah. Well, yes and no. Obviously there is always some connection with the rest of reality, even in a closed system. But you have to admit that a closed circuit consisting of a battery, a wire, and a LED for example clearly contains the current flow that causes the LED to light up inside itself, and can be considered in that aspect to be a system closed off from the outside? So closed systems do exist, in a way.
Your point is that open systems have the possibility to harness energy that is available outside the systems internal machinery/mechanisms.
That is obviously true. But are those systems acually OU? If we include the existence of wind, for example, in our description of the system, then the system becomes closed once again. The wind may power a windmill, which puts out energy that we did not put into the device outselves. From that view, a windmill in OU because we do not input any energy ourselves, but we can use the output, and the output is more than what we input. But is we consider that wind is moving atmosphere, and if we include the entire atmosphere including naturally occurring winds into our description of the system, then the system already contained the energy because it already contains the wind, and even though the energy may be focussed and transferred by the windmill into a form that we can use more readily than the motion of air, the system only puts out energy that was actually already present in the wind. So if we look at it that way, we again have a closed system with a COP < 1.
Yes, that is energy which occurs naturally in natures physical processes, and yes, we can use that energy like we do in windmills.
No, that is still not over unity.
QuoteThe temperature changes all day, that's pure energy. There is plenty of sun and wind.
And where does that energy come from, ultimately? From the fusion reactions inside the sun, and the gravity of the planetary and solar masses.
When that runs out, in millions of years, the system will halt. The energy source will be depleted. Clearly not over unity nor free energy.
QuoteEvery particle is a magnetic perpetual motion device.
Oh really? So you claim magnetism is responsible for the fact that atoms do not implode? Interesting view.
Doesn't accord with science, which usually brings forward the weak and strong nuclear forces to accomplish that,
but still interesting view. ;)
Quote from: ignilc on December 07, 2007, 12:35:49 AM
Self rotating magnetic devices can be built. I have built one, it rotates freely ;)
Standing by for video.............crickets...............more crickets......................what the hell...a heard of crickets...or is that a swarm of crickets...............................................do they call it a flock, swarm.......or what.....................
Has anyone talked about this following statement or about the 1903 Model A that was said to be able to run off just magnets?
> Hi Folks!
>
> The following was posted by Tim Vaughn on the freenrg list;
> > In around 1985, a gentleman named Ken McNiel who organized one of
> > the first free energy conference told me that he managed to get a fly
> > wheel magneto from a lawn mower (Briggs and Stratton) to self run
> > for over 4 hours by using two samarium cobalt magnets in attraction
> > mode one on the edge of a rotating disc and one fixed.
> > The magneto coil was stationary. At precisely the right moment the
> > points (contacts) on the magneto were opened and this caused a back
> > EMF that created a push from an electromagnet that was enough to push
> > the attracting magnets past center to get it to next the cycle and
> > this, he said, would repeat indefinitely.
> > The device was difficult to adjust and he tried to build a bigger one
> > by robbing parts from the working model (a big no-no). He was not
> > able to get the bigger model to work. I don't know if ever managed
> > or even tried to get the original to work again.--
>
http://www.keelynet.com/interact/Arc_1_98-7_98/00001350.htm
Sounds just like a magnetic wankel motor but he was missing the timing precision of modern electronics.
To manage the timing of the repel pulse by mechanical means is a very difficult task.