I don't want to sound like a jerk...

[Elvis Oswald]

Valveman,

On your transformer experiment... the secondary isn't holding electric current that long, the resistance would cause it to be lost.  But it could hold magnetic current, and that would explain the current in the primary when you unshort it (the magnetic field would collapse.)

The emory coil - aka the Leedskalnin perpetual motion holder proves that this is possible.
The u-shaped iron is not a permanent magnet... but can be magnetized... and closing the loop will contain the magnetic field.  So we know this works - at least with the iron bars.

It's also a fact that Cu wire becomes magnetized when electric current flows through it - though the amount may depend on several factors.  Given this factor... plus the PMH experiment... the odds are pretty good that is what's happening with your wire in the secondary coil.

Pass a compass near the secondary while it's sitting there for the week... I bet it turns.

[valveman]

Hmm I don't know and when I don't know something I try out an experiment.  Myself and another engineer are going to put together an experiment to see if and how this works.  Will give details and perhaps pics when we are done.

Valveman

[jake]

Jack,

I sent you an e-mail yesterday.  If you don't get it post a repy here and I'll resend.

[Gregory]

If you think about a permanent magnet, it in it's self is an overunity or perpetual motion machine.   After it is charged it will almost forever continue to produce a magnetic flow.   Stick up notes on your fridge forever.  There is energy flowing through a permanent magnet 24 hours a day, and in the case of rare earth magnet should continue for over 1000 years.  You can use this energy continuesly and it will allways be there.

All you need to do is figure out how to use it in a motor and you have extra energy for as long as you want it.

Well one more attempt.    You menchend that a rop would be considered to do work if it were holding the 50 lb weight.   Well you are wrong again.  In order for the rope to hold the 50 lb weight up you would need to make a fisical connection from the weight to the rope, a knot or something.

Now using a magnet to hold up this weight there is no fisical connection to the weight.  Only an invisable field, that some call Gauss, however I prefer to call it a continous band of energy from the magnet.  This magnet holding up the weight with out a fisical connection is doing work.  Maybe the magnet isen't but the invisable field is.

You need to starting thinking for yourself and not pay so much attention to books that some proffesor wrought setting at a desk.  Yes there are definitions for energy, work, power, and all else.  Just because some proffesor give things a deffinition that does not allways mean they are accurate. It sometimes pays to think outside the box.

That fridg magnet holding up a picture is doing work.  Maybe not by your standards or some proffesors standards,  But by my standards.  One thing that is allways denied is the fact that a magnet is in itself perpetuial motion.
The magnetic field that continues to rotate around and into a magnet never stops.  You never need to input energy to it to keep it going, it just keeps on moving by itself.  All you need to do is lasso that energy, put it to work, and you have free energy.

Hello Jack!

Let me congratulate you first! Great work! It looks like really art for me.
I never try to immagine a person like you, I never thought before a person like you is exist somewhere. I wonder, it is really good to hear from you.

The thing, what makes me so wonder is simple. I totally agree with you, with almost everything what you post here. I have got the same thinking about magnets, and the same viewpoints as you, and this is very simple.

I agree with you, a magnet is in itself a ?perpetual motion? or ?free energy?, by the way I don?t like these words, because they are became shabby due to many things.
Physics is very accurate in calculations, equations, and numbers, but not too accurate in concepts and definitions. Unfortunately concepts and definitions are the foot-stones of science.

I just write to you, because I want to give an interesting viewpoint to you.
You and Gonzo don?t agree in some points, so at first sight there is a cleft between you and others. But, actually this cleft doesn?t exist! This cleft never existed.

You said, you have motors run at 120% to 500% efficiency. Some people thinks this is very good, but others think this is not good because this is impossible. They are all right from their own viewpoints, and really all right, I can agree with all of them in parts of these things, but I personally think no one of them see what is the reality of this, and why we have two groups of people, seemingly enemies of each other, but in fact they aren?t.

This dissimilarity only caused by the difference of their incomplete (wrong) viewpoints. When one day their viewpoints are become completed, the two groups will become one.

[Gregory]

Some people refer to the efficiency and the coefficient of performance, and they are think these are two different things, but I think they are wrong. Yes, maybe it seems to be useful to separate this into two part for some reason? But in the other hand? Why do we use two different concept to define and describe only one category?
This is not a good approach, and seems to be unscientific for me. This is illogical. Two concept for one category? This approach reminds me of the lack of ability to correctly describe and understand what happens in the category. When once we all understand these things, we don?t need to refer to two concepts, because we will see everything in one.

You said Jack, you have a motor, which runs on few hundreds percent efficiency, and yes, when you include only the electrical input and the electrical or mechanical output of your machine, you are very right, all right? Within this calculation it?s really runs on 400% efficiency. But? You must see, when you include only the electric input (8 watts), and the electric output (32 watts)? You didn?t include everything in your calculation, and this is the point, which causes the people to dividing into two groups.

Well, I just want to show, when you or anybody refer to efficiency, he must include everything and EVERYTHING in the calculation. Every kind of input, and every kind of output, when there are more. In your case, you must include all of the energy closed inside the permanent magnets, and when you include it, finally you see the efficiency of you machines appear under 100%. But this is not a bad thing? This is not mean you didn?t create a great thing. This is not mean your machine isn?t capable for self running. On the contrary this means your machine really can run by itself. It?s a self sustaining machine, which runs on its own energy, but not on its all energy the machine has, because it simply can?t use all of the energy to produce useful work, because you need airgaps to make the machine running. But when you operate with airgaps, you don?t use all of the energy the magnets have. I think you can easily understand this, if you thinking about it for a while?

The calculation:
When you do this calculation, you must consider time values for the input / output, /time.

The Input.
Input 1: You put x quantity of permanent magnets in your motor. And every magnet have z amount of energy closed inside the magnet, circulating continously.
[This is a locked ?electric energy?, something like Leedskalnin said. A magnet is something like a ?special battery? The ?magnetic currents? locked inside the material somehow, and circulating together on their own tracks every time. Science calls it flux.]

Input 2: You have 8 watts of electrical input.

Now, just multiply x by z, and add the 8 watts of electrical input to it with the correct method. Now you have the overall input of your machine. And the x multipled by z is much more than the 8 watts of electric input.

The Output.
Measure the output of your machine in the same way. Include everything in the calculation.
If you attach your motor to a generator you have two different outputs. One is the electric, and the other is the mechanical. (the machine still have some mechanical output, torque)

Perhaps it is difficult to measure the overall output in some ways, but if it will be done correctly, I think finally you found the efficiency of your machine below 100%, so it is not overunity. (As a pure permanent magnetic motor itself is still not overunity, because you can?t use all the energy the magnets have. You put in x*z energy in the machine when you put in the magnets, but you only can use (x*z)-a ; where a is the ?loss? caused by the air gaps, the geometrical construction, the friction, etc.)
But It is a self sustaining machine, which really produces much more electrical energy output than you put in, and it?s a great thing! And it?s very possible, because from this viewpoint I write, it?s not violate the law of conservation of energy, and the basic laws of physics.

How the magnets exactly works, and what happens when they inducing current in a coil it is another question. I can write lots of pages about my ideas and explanations, but I think it?s useless. Most of the people usually don?t want to understand me. It doesn?t matter how many times I say the same. They usually simply refuse my ideas, and maybe they think I?m an idiot. So, I wrote these things especially for you Jack.

I hope you can undertand my viewpoint, and it can be useful for you somehow. Perhaps one day you get a new idea, what is more improve your machine.

Keep up your good work! And please create a self-running machine, and show it for us, while it?s running on its own energy.

Best wishes,
Greg

P.S.: If I have success with my permanent magnetic motor experiments, I also show it.