It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Free Energy Motor Discovered?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Emerys
Did any of you watch all 3 videos? If you did, you would notice how efficient the motor runs.


Where exactly in which video was the "efficiency" measured?


It doesn't burn out.


As there was no load on it why would it burn out?


The LED lights are "a load"
I suppose electronics aren't your best subject.. but then what is.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
They can make it move but it has no horse power. They are using simple magnets. To make that motor strong enough to do anything other then use at my kids science fair. You gotta add more power



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?

Assume a rigid empty box, vacuum, no gravity. One magnet is attached to the bottom. The other magnet is suspended on a spring attached to the top. Starting from a non equilibrium position, as long as the spring oscillation is fully elastic (no thermal losses) the magnet will oscillate indefinitely.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?

Assume a rigid empty box, vacuum, no gravity. One magnet is attached to the bottom. The other magnet is suspended on a spring attached to the top. Starting from a non equilibrium position, as long as the spring oscillation is fully elastic (no thermal losses) the magnet will oscillate indefinitely.




I see..and this is a magic spring is it? No friction? Perfect spring? No energy lost as heat?

Please shown me a link to these perfect springs. Also...ill look at your link but i know they are not permanent.

So..those springs. ...



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?



Yeah..none of those are permanent. They call them that cuz they are long lived. Try again
edit on 20-4-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius


Any reply moebius or you cutting and running? Please tell us all where you are going to find this perfect spring and these permanent magnets.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Emerys
Hello,

to make it clear: A machine like this is possible, Prof. Dr. Turtur has prooved it bejond any doubt (www.ostfalia.de...) (site is in German).
I know, we learned that in a closed system it is not possible to win or gain any energy, but: This "closed system" does not exist, it is not possible to close out e.g. vacuum energy or gravity.
One way to get access to free energy would be e.g to take advantage of the limited speed with that a magnetic field extends into space (= speed of light). That means the repelling force of two fast aproaching magnetic north poles is smaller than the repelling force after they have passed. Unfortunally the speed must be near light speed....
The only way to get a machine like this into the world is to tell how it works on the Internet, so let us find out:
Can anybody tranlate the conversations of the videos into english?

Thomas



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?



Yeah..none of those are permanent. They call them that cuz they are long lived. Try again


The are called permanent magnets. It is not my problem if you decide to redefine the meaning of permanent here.

It is possible to create single magnetic domain particles, which can only lose their magnetic field by destruction (heating, mechanical stress).



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?

Assume a rigid empty box, vacuum, no gravity. One magnet is attached to the bottom. The other magnet is suspended on a spring attached to the top. Starting from a non equilibrium position, as long as the spring oscillation is fully elastic (no thermal losses) the magnet will oscillate indefinitely.




I see..and this is a magic spring is it? No friction? Perfect spring? No energy lost as heat?

Please shown me a link to these perfect springs. Also...ill look at your link but i know they are not permanent.

So..those springs. ...


Funny, how you get hang up on the spring, while the actual topic is magnets.

If you keep the amplitude and frequency low the losses in the spring will be negligible, close to zero.

Not good enough for you? Replace the spring with an electric field.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?



Yeah..none of those are permanent. They call them that cuz they are long lived. Try again


The are called permanent magnets. It is not my problem if you decide to redefine the meaning of permanent here.

It is possible to create single magnetic domain particles, which can only lose their magnetic field by destruction (heating, mechanical stress).


Lol...i thought so. You chickened out. They are called permanent magnets because they last a LONG time. They are not permanent. I know this as does anyone who knows anything about physics. I'm not redefining anything.

Your second paragraph is gibberish.

Bye



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?



Yeah..none of those are permanent. They call them that cuz they are long lived. Try again


The are called permanent magnets. It is not my problem if you decide to redefine the meaning of permanent here.

It is possible to create single magnetic domain particles, which can only lose their magnetic field by destruction (heating, mechanical stress).


Lol...i thought so. You chickened out. They are called permanent magnets because they last a LONG time. They are not permanent. I know this as does anyone who knows anything about physics. I'm not redefining anything.

Your second paragraph is gibberish.

Bye


Google "single domain particles/magnets" and try again.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?



Yeah..none of those are permanent. They call them that cuz they are long lived. Try again


The are called permanent magnets. It is not my problem if you decide to redefine the meaning of permanent here.

It is possible to create single magnetic domain particles, which can only lose their magnetic field by destruction (heating, mechanical stress).


Lol...i thought so. You chickened out. They are called permanent magnets because they last a LONG time. They are not permanent. I know this as does anyone who knows anything about physics. I'm not redefining anything.

Your second paragraph is gibberish.

Bye


Google "single domain particles/magnets" and try again.


Not gonna bother mate. Enjoy your ignorance. Good luck with those perfect springs.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?



Yeah..none of those are permanent. They call them that cuz they are long lived. Try again


The are called permanent magnets. It is not my problem if you decide to redefine the meaning of permanent here.

It is possible to create single magnetic domain particles, which can only lose their magnetic field by destruction (heating, mechanical stress).


Lol...i thought so. You chickened out. They are called permanent magnets because they last a LONG time. They are not permanent. I know this as does anyone who knows anything about physics. I'm not redefining anything.

Your second paragraph is gibberish.

Bye


Google "single domain particles/magnets" and try again.


Not gonna bother mate. Enjoy your ignorance. Good luck with those perfect springs.


Lol... thought so. You chickened out.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: moebius


There us no such thing as a permanent magnet. But ok. Lets take this one step at a time. I'll hold your hand, don't worry.

LOL. You can by some here: www.ibsmagnet.com...



Lets assume you magically found 2 permanent magnets..let's assume you are correct about them repelling each other equally blah blah blah...so how do you set the system up?

First question: what are the magnets attached to? They can't just be floating in air, so what are they attached to when you push one towards the other to start this perpetual oscillation?



Yeah..none of those are permanent. They call them that cuz they are long lived. Try again


The are called permanent magnets. It is not my problem if you decide to redefine the meaning of permanent here.

It is possible to create single magnetic domain particles, which can only lose their magnetic field by destruction (heating, mechanical stress).


Lol...i thought so. You chickened out. They are called permanent magnets because they last a LONG time. They are not permanent. I know this as does anyone who knows anything about physics. I'm not redefining anything.

Your second paragraph is gibberish.

Bye


Google "single domain particles/magnets" and try again.


Not gonna bother mate. Enjoy your ignorance. Good luck with those perfect springs.


Lol... thought so. You chickened out.


I suppose not wanting bang my head against a wall is chickening out, so yes.
edit on 20-4-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
Hello Bruce,
As I'm very sure you are aware, the history of the scientific world is literally teeming with examples, covering virtually ALL innovations and novel concepts, approaches and methodologies that initially appear to rail against dogmatic scientific notions...there are many examples of this scientific arrogance, professional ridicule and ignorant nay-saying everywhere for almost every scientific departure imaginable, all through A - Z.

I don't have the time or the will to list them all, or even most, so i would encourage you and other like-minded individuals who may have an interest in opening their minds on this issue, to conduct just a small amount of honest research on these many 'sceptical' scientists and associates, whom throughout history as we all now well know, were not only totally and embarrassingly wrong in their assertions and accusations regarding said novel concepts and their originators, but were SO ignorant and protective of their own scientific ignorance, that they continued to defiantly shout and scream even once it was patently clear they were totally wrong all along...face saving, is apparently so much more important to many than the science and the advancement of the Human experience itself...so depressingly usual.

Many such examples can be found in microcosm even here on this board, if you care to honestly look for them.

And of course, Humans being the mealy-mouthed, self-centred, conceited creatures many of us are, as soon as the band wagon is in motion and the nails are being roundly hammered into the sceptical coffins...we jump right on board with the novel concepts and innovations, claiming to have supported such obvious notions all along! (typically, at any rate)
While Professor Higgs, for example, obviously had many supporters willing to expend such large resources and energies on constructing the L.H.C and proving his theories on particle physics, culminating with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, he had far more detractors and scientific arrogance to content with and battle against, and this is just one of the latest examples of this scientific scrambling to jump aboard the band wagon, once it was obvious it was too ridiculous to do otherwise.


originally posted by: MysterX. Very prominent scientists also said space travel was BS back in the day too...words to that effect.



originally posted by: hellobruce. Care to show us those quotes?


Sure, but first, let me ask you a question.
Can you tell me why J.P.L, the US Jet Propulsion Laboratory was named as such at it's inception back in 1936?
I'll give you a clue, it had nothing to do with 'Jet' propulsion!

As for backing up science's naysayers concerning space flight with quotes, many people incorrectly (probably, although the jury is still out) attribute a certain New Zealand Professor, Alexander Bickerton as being one such naysayer regarding the viability of Rocketry...this is however controversial and disputed, as his quote * may * only have been in relation to the notion of using a 'super-cannon' or very large gun to literally fire a space capsule to orbit. He correctly pointed out that the required energy from the explosive used to propel the capsule from the super-gun barrel would be greater than the best explosives of the day (1920's) would be able to provide, (by as much as 10 times) although he failed to realise that the fuel is not required to reach orbit, with the majority being burned close to the ground. There was also the 'little problem' of the dire effects of extreme acceleration on the craft and occupants, due to being shot out of a massive gun at escape velocity!

Nevertheless, Bickerton used a sweeping statement that 'Projectiles' fired off into space would be impossible.
But of course a rocket IS actually a chemically propelled projectile..hence the confusion over his quote for the Daily Mail back in '29.

Since you appear to value science and scientific commentary, who can say it better than 'New Scientist' magazine.
Here's a quote from the December 1979 Issue;


With monotonous regularity, apparently competent men have laid down the law about what is technically possible or impossible – and have been proven utterly wrong, sometimes while the ink was scarcely dry from their pens.

On careful analysis, it appears that these debacles fall into two classes, which I will call failures of nerve and failures of imagination. The failure of nerve seems to be the more common; it occurs when even given all the relevant facts the would-be prophet cannot see that they point to an inescapable conclusion.

Some of these failures are so ludicrous as to be almost unbelievable, and would form an interesting subject for psychological analysis. “They said it couldn't be done” is a phrase that occurs throughout the history of invention; I do not know if anyone has ever looked into the reasons why 'they' said so, often with quite unnecessary vehemence. It is now impossible for us to recall the mental climate which existed when the first locomotives were being built, and critics gravely asserted that suffocation lay in wait for anyone who reached the awful speed of 30 miles an hour.

(sound familiar to you Bruce...?)

New Scientist article (Google Books Link)

Coincidentally, the same publication goes on to say almost exactly what I said in my previous post.
They mention various examples of sheer arrogant errors from so-called scientific 'experts' who deride, harass and ridicule various now famous innovators, scientific pioneers and alternative thinkers, and other lesser known scientists of course, may of whom were more than likely hounded out of town for their 'absurd ideas and discoveries'...i wonder with sadness, at just how much the world may have lost, and how much preventable suffering has ensued due to undiscovered and undisclosed miracles of invention, simply because arrogant and rather ignorant 'experts' proclaimed them as heresy..in all likelihood a great deal.

They mention British experts who rubbished and ridiculed Edison and his light bulb, they talk of great American astronomers who couldn't contain their derision for the concept of heavier than air flight, they talk of rocketry and the 'majority of experts' of the period, almost to a man, rounding on early rocket pioneers like American Robert Goddard and Romanian Hermann Oberth among others back in 1941.
How ironic then, I'm sure you'll agree, that just a few short years later, the 'impossible rockets' were to begin raining down on London and the South and England in the form of the NAZI V2 Rocket bombs.

You ask for quotes...although quite frankly, I'm absolutely astounded that a member such as yourself, with such tendency to pass critique and regular speedy derisory comment on scientific, even apparently pseudo-scientific posts on this board, would have any difficulty whatsoever in seeking out the quotes for yourself.

(Continued below)
edit on 20 4 2016 by MysterX because: missed out external quote box



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Continued from above;

With that said, it seems almost inconceivable that you are not aware of at least some of the more famous examples, considering the absolute litany available to choose from, unless one concludes you are being somewhat disingenuous regarding what you do and do not know about such quotes...
Perhaps you have more in common with the so-called 'experts' I, and of course respected publications such as 'New Scientist' describe, than you would care to acknowledge Bruce?
Food for thought when commenting with seemingly such a cemented negative bias regarding topics such as these in the future perhaps?

Oh yes, I almost forgot.
The J.P.L question I posited earlier...the answer of course, if you didn't know already, is intrinsically linked to the tenor of my answer to your enquiry... J.P.L had absolutely nothing to do with 'Jet' propelled flight, and everything to do with 'Rocket' propelled flight...the reason why that group of bright Caltech students and graduates didn't instead call their newly formed organisation 'R.P.L', all those years ago back in 1936 should now be obvious, even to a die-hard sceptic.
But in case it isn't, let's let J.P.L. themselves tell you;


The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's history reaches back to the tumultuous years leading up to World War II. Rockets were perceived as devices of fantasy, seen only in movie serials and comic strips like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Despite rocket pioneer Robert Goddard’s successful development of early rockets, he was publicly ridiculed for his work. But in the fall of 1936, a group of enterprising young men in Pasadena, Calif., decided to risk their reputations and give engineering substance to rocket fantasy.


JPL

Have a great day...and remember, for every 10,000 scam artists, fantasists and outright liars...the world only requires one extremely thick-skinned dreamer to change the world for the better. Fortunately, history is replete with thick-skinned dreamers.
Cheers.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

OH DEAR - someone has been "desperation googling " - and discovered science it does not understand based on keywords

single domain particles are just that - fooking particles - creating a single domain magnet that is visible to the naked eye would win you a nobel prize

piss off back to google and try again


a reply to: moebius

talking of ` chickening out ` - i never did get an answer to my first question did i ?



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the scammers in the OP's video aren't going to revolutionise science in any way whatsoever.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Clean energy/Free Energy generation is on the cusp on being released. In 5-10 years maybe sooner a company will amass with the technology required to harness mass amounts of energy using basic principles.

I've never been a fan of magnetic energy generation as it requires extremely precise mechanics in order to work let alone develop any meaningful "Excess energy". I still can't believe no one had developed a means to modulate pitch frequency of a magnetic device to enhance torque and power of a driven device.

I am more of a mechanical energy generator designer, and I am here to say there are mean to develop excess energy output without any input if the system is developed correctly. There will be losses due to kinetic energy losses however the system's inherent design can over come this.

The laws of thermodynamics intact, If your potential energy is constantly exceeding your loss due to entropy, what do you have? an abundance of energy is what you have.



new topics




 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join