Is it or isn't it, for real? Inquiring minds want to know.
I have to say I understand being skeptical, but then when you weigh up the fact that it just does'nt really make sense to build such an elaborate and apparently expensive hoax (material and construction wise), it makes it clear that it deserves attention.
Despite strong criticisim I think its genuine. Heres an interesting point though.. they clearly state on their site that the principal uses the 'repulsion' of the magnet's, so why I constantly keep seeing attraction and repulsion, or just attraction being used in public investigation's for replication is sortof confusing. It may also explain why the OSEN replication dosent work, im fairly certain they tried to get it working using attraction trying to build the full working model on principals they dont fully understand before hand.
I agree with you. From what I have seen so far, (this includes all m.m.), it seems to be the only one that shows any capability of being a useful device. However, even if it does work as claimed, what would the be the longetivity of it? Magnets do weaken over time and at 25,000 E., it seems like an expensive proposition to me.
QuoteHowever, even if it does work as claimed, what would the be the longetivity of it? Magnets do weaken over time and at 25,000 E., it seems like an expensive proposition to me.
On the contrary, if it really does what Brady says it does, the device will recoup itself in about two years. The magnets will last for another 13 years, according to Brady?s claims. Besides, changing of magnets, if at all needed, is a negligible expense. Mike Brady is underselling it (provided the claims are true).
I think the Perendev video was faked.
Have you seen the video of the rebuild device , that
Sterling D. Allen showed on this last conference ?
Have a look at osen.org
there you can see it and it does not accelerate and just
runs down. This way without the right shielding plates
it will probably never work....
It?s a mystery to me what happened between Sterling Allen and Mike Brady. From what I read in the net Allen is presenting himself as being some kind of a former partner of Brady but in fact it appears that he has only been his potential customer. Brady has obviously shunned him (I don?t blame Brady) and Allen now is sort of getting back at him by trying to convince everybody that Brady?s device is a fake. Allen does it deviously by not directly attacking but by appearing that he?s objective about the whole situation and that Brady is in fact well meaning but misguided. This is what I get from what I read on the net. As far as the replication of the motor, I think Allen has done it from what he thinks he sees in the video. I don?t think Allen knows the details of building that motor and what tune ups to apply. But we shall wait and see. Mike Brady recently told me personally that they will be ready to present a working model in the market sometimes at the end of March or April. He said there will be announcements in the German media to that effect.
I think the Perendev motor is real, and the video is not a fake. Sterling D. Allen used incorrect magnetic setup in his replication, so not the same as Mike Brady used.
That type of magnetic motor works by only repulsive forces, two against one, constantly controlled by geometric and other practicles.
Because the repulsive forces it is possible to demagnetize, maybe this is the reason why the device became a discontinued device. (website say)
I think Mike Brady begin to use both attraction and repulsion in his new device. This can be a logical improvement.
The past months I developed and tested a principle, (basically the same as the prendev) and it seems to be work in a simple experiment. I tryed to get into work in a closed system motor, cutted out from wood. It is not complete yet, but the sizes and positions are not enough precise, so I guess it does not work. I'm trying forth...
QuoteThe past months I developed and tested a principle, (basically the same as the prendev) and it seems to be work in a simple experiment. I tryed to get into work in a closed system motor, cutted out from wood. It is not complete yet, but the sizes and positions are not enough precise, so I guess it does not work. I'm trying forth...
Can you clarify, please. What does ?it seemed to work in a simple experiment? mean and yet ?I guess it does not work?? What was the simple experiment in which it worked?
Both the creators of the Perendev motor and the Cycclone motor claim to be working on super powerful motors in the 300kw or hp range. How many magnets passing by each other does it take to produce 300 kw? Probably a lot. I'd like to see anything from anyone that without question produces just 100 watts of energy. In the past couple weeks we've seen hand held devices, pulsed electromagnets completing loops and poor quality video documentation that leads me to believe there may be some device out there that works, but at this point no one has come close to proving it.
The closest so far to proving it is Wesley Snyder. What we need to see more from him is the self-sustaining device he showed suspended on a stand away from anyone touching the device.
The simple experiment:
Immagine 4mm thin, 20mm long, and 10 mm wide block magnets for example. Oriented through thickness. Apply some magnets on a flywheel, with a constant degree, approx between 40 and 45 degree to the axle.
Take two same magnets in your hands, these are the stators. Place one with its smallest surface near to a rotor magnet, with a chosed air gap. The rotor begin to attracting with its smallest side to this magnet?s smallest side, and stops when reaches the lock point. Now use the other magnet in your hand, close to another rotor magnet, but at this time use the greater sides of the magnets. When you close enough, the rotor break free from the lock point, and turn some degree to the next lock point. Thats all.
The importance of this experiment is the difference of the sides, and the distances between the magnets. I measured 0,4 mm air gap between the attracting magnets (lock point), and 12 mm between the repelling magnets (work point). This means it is possible to place the stator magnets outside of the circle of the rotor, whilst it is rotating. When you use repulsion against repulsion, the effect become more stronger, and the difference of the distances are bigger.
Larger surfaces = more magnetic flux / strenght
Smaller surfaces = less magnetic strenght.
Use more forces (stronger) against less forces (weaker). One force act in one direction, and the other in the another.
Here is a rebuild Perendev magnetmotor
to be seen, that is not working:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6189540769300973039
Greg & Gregory, this is obvious. However, how do you make the rotor turn continuously? There must be some peculiar disposition of the stator magnets to always produce a net force acting on the rotor which would cause it to spin.
Yes, Stefan. I also saw that video.
But read this article: http://pesn.com/2006/02/10/9600233_Calloway_Magnet_Motor_Open_Source/
Don't forget. That replication is partly based on Calloway's suggestion, and other ideas. And Calloway was a cheater in this case, and Allan don't know exactly what is the magnetic setup. And because they are don't know, they use wrong setup.
No one known, except Mike Brady, and maybe few more persons.
When you see the better quality (the shorter) Perendev video, you can see the motor operate by only repulsion. Just go, and see the starting of ther rotor, and see again...
Omnibus. Name me Greg.
Yes, this is obvious, but more important than obvious. Most of the working things are very simple.
Disposition not help you anyway. Because one time help, but after its always not. I know, I drawed more than 50 geometrical setup in the past months, and disposition not helps.
But I think the locking stator and the working stator can be the "same". Every stator magnet are lock point and work pont in one form, but not the same time. They are change their function.
QuoteBut I think the locking stator and the working stator can be the "same". Every stator magnet are lock point and work pont in one form, but not the same time. They are change their function.
Greg, but doesn?t this mean that it is the disposition that plays a role?
Oh yes, after all yes. Sorry... My first explanation about the meaning of the word "disposition" was wrong. I translated wrong in my mind ( i meant asymmetry). Sorry again... ::)
So, yes. Asymmetry without anything other will never help. However a well designed special disposition can play the role, i guess, but only with the right magnets. Orientation, shape, size, location, and every property are always important. Of course with this I don't said any new. 8)
I begin to design and pretest one tomorrow.
I think the trick to Perendev's motor maybe quite simple, obviously they are using the repulsion forces as they have stated. I believe Sterling Alan possibly used the attraction forces, or a combination for some reason, like he said about his in one video "its an expensive toy" I have a feeling they didnt do many tests on the principals before they built it :P, but you would have to ask them.
Ive thought it through and with mu-metal shielding im almost certain you could do it with pure repulsion, the benifit also here in combination with shielding is preventing damaging eddy current's.
The intial repelling kick when the stator is brought close enough im guessing is able to push the next line of magnet's in the offset past parrallel with the next row of stator magnet's thanks to the shielding, so Perendev mustof created a low enough resistance on the one side of the magnet's to allow the intial direct repulsion to push the magnet's in the rotor past parrallel with the next line in the stator.
If by keeping the spacing tight you can consecutively push the next line past the parrallel (even by the smallest amount).. then once you achieve that the magnet's in the rotor would want to move away in the wanted direction all the time onto the next line in the stator giving the next push to start the process over and so forth. The spacing, angle and offset obviously play key part's to make that action repeat all the way around.
Coupled with the non symmetric interaction of the field's over a set distance because of the shielding, I can see how it may possibly work.
Quote from: Clarky on March 16, 2006, 07:39:21 PM
I have to say I understand being skeptical, but then when you weigh up the fact that it just does'nt really make sense to build such an elaborate and apparently expensive hoax (material and construction wise), it makes it clear that it deserves attention.
It's a hoax. I guarantee you, if the demo happens at all, it won't be any more convincing than a Dennis Lee circus.
Also, consider that out of surplus parts or even outright junk you can very cheaply put together something that will spin and spark and make noises, and you can even make meters twitch so you can point to them and say "Look, free energy!". Note that these guys are planning on charging people something like 100? just to see the demo.
Get real. This one is so blatant it almost hurts.
QuoteIt's a hoax. I guarantee you, if the demo happens at all, it won't be any more convincing than a Dennis Lee circus.
No, there?s no reason to believe your statement that it?s a hoax. No reason whatsoever. This is some belief of yours which you want to impose on us. Prove that it?s a hoax.
Also, comparison with Dennis Lee?s motor is incorrect. Brady claims a self-sustaining motor, Lee doesn?t. This makes a hell of a lot of difference.
If you like such comparisons then it is Paul Sprain?s motor that is to be compared to that of Dennis Lee.
QuoteAlso, consider that out of surplus parts or even outright junk you can very cheaply put together something that will spin and spark and make noises, and you can even make meters twitch so you can point to them and say "Look, free energy!".
Go ahead, make it and show us a video of your self-sustaining motor. Talk is cheap.
QuoteNote that these guys are planning on charging people something like 100? just to see the demo.
A baseball match costs more but you don?t call it a hoax. The hotels they are going to rent space from are not on the cheap side and probably you know that renting space in hotels even cheaper that those doesn?t come free.
These would be pretty dumb scam artists if they will be making money off of the entrance tickets of 100 people attending the show.
Get real. They will be out of their minds to set up this show and not demonstrate a self-sustaining device. Faking self-sustaining device is impossible, it requires no measurements and its viability is evident without approval from self-proclaimed authorities. Fakes (either due to incompetence or deliberate) can only happen when measurements are involved.
Hmm, maybe Brady will show now a different motor with some coils in it powered
by battery pulses ? Maybe that is why he announced the EM motor ?
Hmm, he invited me also personally via email to come and pay 100 EUros
for the show. If it really is a motor with coils, hopefully one
can make my own measurements ?
Otherwise this could easily be faked, if altered measurement equipment is used....
We will just wait and see... if he really could show something.
At least one Norwegian guy already paid the motor in advance
since now around 2 years ago and did not yet get anything
and he is pissed, cause he paid around 10.000 US$ when I remember
correctly...
Stefan, Mike Brady assured me in an e-mail message the other day that his motor is completely self-sustaing. To verify a self-sustaining motor you don't need to carry out measurements. If it really is it's the easiest thing in the world to prove irs validity.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 24, 2006, 11:23:00 PM
Get real. They will be out of their minds to set up this show and not demonstrate a self-sustaining device. Faking self-sustaining device is impossible, it requires no measurements and its viability is evident without approval from self-proclaimed authorities. Fakes (either due to incompetence or deliberate) can only happen when measurements are involved.
That's why they've announced this EM design. A working permanent magnet device would simply run by itself and there'd be no doubt. But a purely permanent magnet design can't possibly work (and I think they know that), and it wouldn't allow any fakery to make it appear to work. Remember, this is all about wowing potential investors.
IF (and that's a big
IF) they demonstrate a "self-sustaining" device, it will be a battery-powered device using electromagnets, and not a purely permanent magnet device.
They will do the same thing Tilley did with the TEV and Brits and Christie did with the Lutec: they will run it on the batteries for a short period of time and measure the unloaded battery voltage before and after the run. When the voltage after the run is higher than before, they will claim that the device actually charges the battery as it runs. (Read a bit about batteries to see why the voltage can increase.) And this will be good enough proof for a lot of people in the audience.
But they will
not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started. They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.
I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will
not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.
How could anyone be skeptical about the new Perendev motor when they've provided a beautiful 200x200 pixel CAD drawing as proof !!
QuoteBut they will not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started. They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.
I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.
Why should I believe you? Tell me one reason I should believe you?
This is a completely unjustified attack. I?m not an advocate of Brady but I resent such unbecoming, frivolous talk.
I repeat, demonstrating of a self-sustaining device, if real, is the easiest thing in the world. They will be out of their minds to set up such show with such claims and not demonstrate a truly self-sustaining device.
QuoteRemember, this is all about wowing potential investors.
Why are you so much concerned about other people's money?
Either you will provide definitive proof that PERENDEV device is not self-sustaining or I will consider you worse than the scam artists you described.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2006, 12:16:40 PM
QuoteBut they will not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started.? They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.
I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.
Why should I believe you? Tell me one reason I should believe you?
Because the claim violates the first law of thermodynamics. And countless others who've made similar claims have pulled the exact same tricks. Why do you expect Perendev to be any different?
Come on. Don't you get tired of constantly getting your hopes up, only to be let down with lame excuses?
Quote
This is a completely unjustified attack. I?m not an advocate of Brady but I resent such unbecoming, frivolous talk.
It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. Be sure to dig this posting up after the demo, if the demo happens at all. And see if you can tell how I was able to predict what happened.
Again, if this "self-sustaining" motor is demonstrated at all, it will be powered by batteries and some naive measurements will be used to convince people that the motor is really recharging the batteries as it runs. But for some strange reason they won't be able to disconnect the batteries and truly demonstrate self-sustaining operation.
Quote
I repeat, demonstrating of a self-sustaining device, if real, is the easiest thing in the world. They will be out of their minds to set up such show with such claims and not demonstrate a truly self-sustaining device.
Yep. Demonstration of a self-sustaining device,
IF REAL, would be the easiest thing in the world. There's a reason all these "working" free energy machines are always demonstrated in an obtuse manner. They aren't real.
QuoteQuoteBut they will not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started. They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.
I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.
Why should I believe you? Tell me one reason I should believe you?
Because the claim violates the first law of thermodynamics. And countless others who've made similar claims have pulled the exact same tricks. Why do you expect Perendev to be any different?
Come on. Don't you get tired of constantly getting your hopes up, only to be let down with lame excuses?
I told you that I have no reason to believe you and you confirmed it big time. Above statements reveal that you have no clue as to what the essence of the first law of thermodynamics is. I won?t get here into its clarification but I?ll tell you that an argument such as ?Because the claim violates the first law of thermodynamics? is ridiculous and should be rejected outright.
Also, the fact that somebody else has made false claims by no means gives you the right to use that as an argument against the experiment in question. This is non-scientific. You have no clue as to what the scientific method is and yet you dare express extreme opinions.
QuoteQuoteThis is a completely unjustified attack. I?m not an advocate of Brady but I resent such unbecoming, frivolous talk.
It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. Be sure to dig this posting up after the demo, if the demo happens at all. And see if you can tell how I was able to predict what happened.
Again, if this "self-sustaining" motor is demonstrated at all, it will be powered by batteries and some naive measurements will be used to convince people that the motor is really recharging the batteries as it runs. But for some strange reason they won't be able to disconnect the batteries and truly demonstrate self-sustaining operation.
Not at all. Yours is a slanderous attack and is by no means statement of fact. No matter what happens with the demo your present position is reprehensible and you should apologize to Mike Brady.
In no way you are in any position now to state what the demonstration will be unless you can provide clear evidence that you?re in the know (which you have not provided at all). Therefore, it is best for you to restrain from expressing unjustified attacks.
QuoteQuoteI repeat, demonstrating of a self-sustaining device, if real, is the easiest thing in the world. They will be out of their minds to set up such show with such claims and not demonstrate a truly self-sustaining device.
Yep. Demonstration of a self-sustaining device, IF REAL, would be the easiest thing in the world. There's a reason all these "working" free energy machines are always demonstrated in an obtuse manner. They aren't real.
Again, you cannot use the fact that someone else?s claims were not real to justify attacks at the claims under discussion. This only shows that you are not familiar with the scientific method and yet have the nerve to make unsupported blanket statements.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2006, 05:38:18 PM
Yours is a slanderous attack and is by no means statement of fact. No matter what happens with the demo your present position is reprehensible and you should apologize to Mike Brady.
If Brady demonstrates a clearly self-sustaining motor, I'll apologize.
When he demonstrates a battery-powered motor and maintains that it's not really running off the batteries, rather, it's really charging the batteries (they're just needed to get it started, but strangely, he won't disconnect them once it's started), I'd appreciate an apology from you.
There's really no use arguing about this until the demo. Just sit back and wait and see what happens.
No, I won?t apologize to you even if the outcome is negative. Your approach is flawed and you don?t seem to understand that.
As for Brady, you should apologize to him now, no matter what the outcome from the demonstration, because you have provided no evidence which would justify your attacks.
Yes,I guess we should stop arguing and just wait and see, if Mr. Brady can finally deliver the
claimed motor.
So please stop the flamewars over here.
Many thanks.
I agree completely with stopping the flame wars. They serve no useful purpose. We need to have intelligent, respectful discussions of ideas. Flaming each other does no good for anyone.
I have always heard and believed that magnetic assymetry was the way to go if you wanted a magnetic motor. Unfortunately, it's all 'armchair quarterbacking' at this point. I have not built anything.
Flaming does not help...when the demo happens, it should be relatively easy to prove that it is either real or a fraud.
Quotewhen the demo happens, it should be relatively easy to prove that it is either real or a fraud.
I can?t agree more. As far as I?m concerned, since I?m mostly interested in the scientific aspect of the problem, I don?t need a 300kW motor to convince me in the validity of this important idea. The modest Wesley Snyder?s demo, for instance, will do it big time for me, if he can show the turning of the rotor without holding the motor in his hands. Walter Torbay?s motor, however, if viable, has a direct, immediate practical application and this will make it much easier to convince the society at large.
Quote from: sh123469 on March 26, 2006, 09:05:28 AM
when the demo happens, it should be relatively easy to prove that it is either real or a fraud.
Not quite correct.
If the demo happens and the device really is genuine, it will be excruciatingly easy to demonstrate that it's for real. There will be no doubt. The skeptics will have to shut up because the success will be so blatant.
But, if the demo happens in the way that I predict (battery-powered), there will be no easy way to prove it's real or a fraud unless disinterested third parties are allowed to instrument and run the device themselves and make their own measurements.
Any demonstration short of a pure permanent magnet design, or an EM design where the batteries are removed after starting (with sufficient run duration to rule out other hidden batteries), will at best be inconclusive.
Yes, with such a big 300 KWatts motor it will be very hard to see,
if it will really run on itsself, probably they will have the batteries embeeded into the system
and they willnt change anything during demonstration for "security reasons" ??
I amjust speculating over here, but after reading the new article by St.D. Allan
about this motor and itshuge size, it will not be easy to measure and will
probably have pretty big cables, that are not easy to unscrew from the battery packs
during runtime...
At least 300 KWatts of contineous output power is a pretty lot of power !
Regards, Stefan.
If the device they aregoing to show there produces 300Kwats what are they going to do with that???
Actually that is provably more power than the full hotel were they are needs on electricity ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Who knows precisely how constant magnets will work for a long time? For what time they will be demagnetized?
Yours faithfully, Anatoly.
QuoteWho knows precisely how constant magnets will work for a long time? For what time they will be demagnetized?
One of Walter Torbay's devices has worked continuously for months ? this could not have happened if the magnets were dmagnetized. Common devices using permanent magnets, such as permanent magnet electric motors, also work for quite a while without being demagnetized. Thus, for all practical purposes demagnetization is a non-issue.
However, even if permanent magnets are demagnetized in time, turning of a permanent magnetic motor in the permanent magnetic field of the stator (while the magnetic field is there) is impossible to occur ? magnetic field is a conservative field. And yet it does turn. Wesley Snyder?s device proves it, Walter Torbay?s device proves it.
I read on one of forums, that the pulled together magnets in one year lose the force. Also become twice weaker.
Read in magazine, that firm " Perendev " had problem with the engine, because magnets quickly demagnetized.
What do you think about it?
Anatoliy, can you give a link or maybe give the exact reference. What journal was that in? Demagnetization is worth discussing. Also, what energy do you think is spent to turn a piece of iron into a permanent magnet?
I should mention again that even if magnetization were an issue, even then producing useful work from a closed loop in a conservative field is impossible according to the standard views. And yet, as we now know (after Wesley Snyder and Walter Torbay's experiments) such work can be produced. This goes well beyond any scientist's imagination.
Omnibus this is a lie:
QuoteWesley Snyder?s device proves it, Walter Torbay?s device proves it.
THEY DO NOT DEMOSTRATE OR PROVE ANYTHING AS BOTH DEVICES ARE NOT PROVEN TO WORK AT ALL.
This is the last post I read from you.
On the cotrary, this is a lie:
QuoteTHEY DO NOT DEMOSTRATE OR PROVE ANYTHING AS BOTH DEVICES ARE NOT PROVEN TO WORK AT ALL.
Let us wait and see which motor will really work.
As we now have a firsthand report witness in the Torbay thread (from gnn.tv),
this motor is working.
And yes, if magnets are glued together in repelling mode, they
discharge quite a bit after some time, so the optimal principle
is the Sprain design with just attraction of the magnets.
The Torbay motor would probably also work with attraction
when redesigned...
Stefan, how much energy (approx.) do you think is needed to magnetize a 10 cm^3 rectangular ferromagnetic piece from scratch to, say, 1000 gauss?
Also, let me add, Sprain motor is not self-sustaining.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2006, 12:33:34 PM
Stefan, how much energy (approx.) do you think is needed to magnetize a 10 cm^3 rectangular ferromagnetic piece from scratch to, say, 1000 gauss?
Normally they magnetize these pieces in putting it into a big electromagnet into the airgap
of its big core and give the electromagnet a big kick from
a charged capacitor bank.
The magnetic pulse then is only about a few milliseconds long at maximum,
but this magnetizes the material for its whole life, so the energy spend
for the magnetisation is probably only a few Wattseconds.
Quote
Also, let me add, Sprain motor is not self-sustaining.
Not yet, but soon.
Quote, so the energy spend
for the magnetisation is probably only a few Wattseconds.
There you go. This energy is incomparably small next to the ~2kW being produced by Torbay?s motor. Therefore, demagnetization of the magnets doesn?t seem to be an issue.
QuoteNot yet, but soon.
I think, Sprain?s and Torbay?s are in entirely different leagues. Honestly, now that we have Torbay?s motor confirmed to work, I don?t see why even talk about Sprain's.
Anyone have any idea when we'll find out exactly what the Perendev demo entails? Or what day it'll be?
Quote from: Tzigone on April 11, 2006, 03:04:25 PM
Anyone have any idea when we'll find out exactly what the Perendev demo entails? Or what day it'll be?
According to this it should be in about 5 weeks from now in Munich.
------
Perendev will be launching it's new Em motor in July 7th
2006, at theSheraton Grand Hotel in Arabella strasse Munich
http://perendev-power.com/Page45.html
------
If any of the members here lives near by, and visits, and you have the time, a summary report would be much appreciated.
QuoteAnyone have any idea when we'll find out exactly what the Perendev demo entails? Or what day it'll be?
No clues from the website.
July 7th is the date.
Looks like another case of cold feet:
This is from peswiki:
QuoteFrom: Mike Brady
To: FE_updates-owner@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:20 AM
Subject: RE: [FE_updates] another thug threat; EV directory; gov. blocks wind plans; corn fiber to ethanol
It seems that the more one tries to find solution for alternative fuel the more problems one has to content with, for example I have received emails that state if I proceed with the show on the 7th July I will be killed, this at first was taken lightly, now it seems that I have vehicles parked outside my house watching me, when I record the registration numbers and have them checked they are unknown, why can we not just get on with what we are doing instead of the World just thinking of money, what good will money be when there is no world to spend it in.
Mike Brady
Quote from: Omnibus on March 29, 2006, 01:21:39 PM
Quote, so the energy spend
for the magnetisation is probably only a few Wattseconds.
There you go. This energy is incomparably small next to the ~2kW being produced by Torbay?s motor. Therefore, demagnetization of the magnets doesn?t seem to be an issue.
QuoteNot yet, but soon.
I think, Sprain?s and Torbay?s are in entirely different leagues. Honestly, now that we have Torbay?s motor confirmed to work, I don?t see why even talk about Sprain's.
Uhh, it's been confirmed? Last I heard, we didn't even have a video. I agree that it probably works, but so far, nobody here has completed a replication, and torbay has not put the the video back on his website as he promised. And in his demo in NY, the model he had did not work.
Until I have one spinning on my desk, I cannot say it works. However, I would agree that it probably does.
I wrote to Perendev the following email and received a response.
Liberty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Sent: 18 June 2006 17:30
To: admin@perendev-power.com
Subject: Motor Generator
How about posting a straight forward video of the motor generator at rest, then show it starting up, and then in operation, so that people will generate interest in the device. It might create a better response to a showing and create a market to sell them.
Response:
"We wanted to do this after the presentation. Maybe we will do this now.
well here it is July 10th...did anyone attend the show? or did it even happen? Let's keep the info going :) I for one am extremely interested in this....if it works $10k is cheap for no more power bill :)
Show was cancelled.
Not surprising as magnets breaking through the flux barriers dissipate and lose their magnetism.
So far no one has been able to run for any length of time a permanent magnet against a permanent magnet set up for the reason above.
Only ones which do are a permanent magnet using electromagnets to pulse drive or rotate them.
I have units sitting on my work bench of both systems and the one which runs continuos is the latter.
Just my experimental evaluations at this stage for what it is worth ::)
There has been no confirmed independent evidence of the perendev claim. this has been going on for years. I document some of the people ripped off by him at
www.phact.org/e/z/perendev.htm
all these people keep setting promised released times, they never happen
This young dude claims his hand made one is practically self-sustaining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RZB1xstXS0
If it were a fraud, why make the results so marginal? Doesn't strike me as a fraud..
Not a powerhouse (if it is true) But shows promise
Then again- maybe not.. There is a questionable shadow on the side when it "sustains itself".. Seems it lines up right with the shaft. I think he connects some outside apparatus to keep it spinning.
Both times it sustains, his one hand is out of view on the same side.. And the video is heavily cut and edited.
Maybe we're making this too hard.
This looks simple and I think one reason it appears to work is
because it has a lot of slop and isn't precision engineered.
Those mag fields must have relief when they get bottled up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD873nj2xA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD873nj2xA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG32MoYXDbw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG32MoYXDbw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMlBbPlAZso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMlBbPlAZso)
All magnets are oriented to repel as I suspected with the MagMov.