It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# My free-energy experiment - what is wrong with this?

page: 1
0
share:

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:39 AM
I have been thinking a lot about magnets and motors lately and was thinking about trying to put an idea together.

I wanted to run it by some more minds before making any plans. Maybe there is something i am missing before I even begin.

Since North and South attract and North and North repel, it just seems logical for the above to work. While the magnet on the wheel is moving towards (1), the first outside magnet is pulling it, pulling it more as it gets closer. Once the wheel magnet has reached (1) it is accelerating. As it passes (1) and enters the small area between the magnets at (2), it is slowing down, but the wheel will be heavy to help against this and the two magnets will be close together to make this area as small as possible. As the wheel magnet begins to pass the second outer magnet to (3), the reppeling force accelerates the wheel again.

It seems to me that outside the 2 magnets acts with moving the wheel and the space between the magnets acts against it. I am thinking that if the wheel weighs a good amount and the two magnet are close together, it seems there would around 66% for the movement and 33% against, thus making it enough to keep going.

Sound logical?

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by godservant

Sound logical?

Sounds logical and looks logical on paper but why not just get some magnets from Radio Shack and see for yourself.

I've tried thousands of combinations with magnets and have succeded with none.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:55 AM
I hopefully will. I just wanted to run it by other minds before I go further.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:57 AM
The problem here is when the inside magnet is moving towards the attracting/repelling pole it will always find a point of balance.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:59 AM
Yes, I also encourage you to give this a try. Friction comes into play however, and the magnets are just not strong enough to send it "spinning".

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:02 AM
Also, remember magnets aren't just two ended things with point forces. They have full magnetic fields all around them with the end point most coresponding to a single area. In the end the fields will balance themselves when it runs out of input energy. So you'll basiclt end up with something that just burns up any energy you put into it rather than energy output.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Quest]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:09 AM
Yup, try it for yourself.

(it's been proposed millions of times before, and lots of people have tried it. Doesn't work, but in this case you needn't listen to skeptics... go try it for yourself.)

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:31 AM
Well, if this has been tried before, I know now not to waste my time with it. It was a thought and I knew if I passed it through ATS, it would take no time at all to find out if I might be on to something.

Just seems too odd that no one has gotten anything working with magnets.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:52 AM
It will not work because all things are equal, staionary s pole will push
south away from it not only after it gets to it but will push it away before it
gets to one, and stationary north will pull rotating south towards it at all
times before and after. when working with magnets there has to be a
change in attaction or repuslsion at some point to disrupt the balence.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by godservant
Well, if this has been tried before, I know now not to waste my time with it. It was a thought and I knew if I passed it through ATS, it would take no time at all to find out if I might be on to something.

Just seems too odd that no one has gotten anything working with magnets.

well, knowing IT has been tried before
gives You a good RoadMap of what not to repeat

pureenergysystems.com...

If you might want to look over other ideas & 'networking' with peers' ideas, then,
click the ( PES Home ) icon on the left column, there's a PES ~pure energy systems~ 'Wiki' type of open source idea page, as a work-in-progress

...................

they, at the 'PES', present stuff, and your encouraged to 'build' from there
and collaborate....hope that helps

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:57 AM
If you can discover a way to shut off the poles at the zenith then you might have something.

After many years of magnet madness I've moved on to work with gravity.
So for now what goes up must come down.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:57 AM
For those new to free energy experimentation, a good site to go to is www.jlnlabs.org (most of the site is in english). The guy lives in France and puts up his own money to test other peoples theories. One Magnetic device is made by John Bedini and is the only thing to date that is 'supposed' to work. Well, there are others that are supposed to work too, you have to look through his site to find them. There is tonnes of info on his site.

JLNLABS.ORG

Magnetic Devices Research

One important thing to note is BE CAREFUL!!! If you are unexperienced in electricity and want to try to build some of these device for yourself, please consult someone that is experienced. You don't want to get electricuted.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by n01ukn0w]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:07 PM
Save yourself a trip to Radio Shack, and the money you were going to spend on magnets. Instead, use the money to acquire physics books, and the time saved to actually read them.

Energy is conserved in this Universe of ours and there has never been a case when it was not. This has to do with uniformity of time.

No combination of magnets is going to change that (yawn).

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Aelita
Save yourself a trip to Radio Shack, and the money you were going to spend on magnets. Instead, use the money to acquire physics books, and the time saved to actually read them.

Energy is conserved in this Universe of ours and there has never been a case when it was not. This has to do with uniformity of time.

No combination of magnets is going to change that (yawn).

Yep! And 100 years ago man flying was impossible, plus a ton of other miraculous things that have come along in that short time.

Never think never. Always keep trying until something is accomplished to your satisfaction and not those of book writers.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Aelita
(yawn).

I guess that insinuates that you are way above me or that I am boring you. Sorry I am not up to your standard. It was nice of you to point out my stupidity in such an eloquent, subtle way.

Anyways, thanks for the links. It does seem that if such a simple setup was to work, it would have already been thought of. I have wondered though, if magnets could work somehow. Reason being is because of some interpretations of Ezekiels Wheel as being a possible power source.

Gravity and water seems like good candidates as well, especially if the whirlpool energy could be tapped.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:04 PM

Originally posted by godservant

Originally posted by Aelita
(yawn).

I guess that insinuates that you are way above me or that I am boring you. Sorry I am not up to your standard. It was nice of you to point out my stupidity in such an eloquent, subtle way.

Hi there, I'm a big fan of tabletop physics experiments, and like tinkering in general. I spent most of my life studying or practicing physics and computing, so I suppose my PhD does give me a little seniority in this case. I applaud your enthusiasm. I just happen to think that you could be able to apply it more effectively, if you do preparatory work before the experiment. This includes reading up on theories, paying attention to ones that were conclusively proven as science facts by myriads of carefully done experiments. This includes conservaton of energy.

Otherwise, you could also start work on the Philosopher's Stone. Heck, this could make you rich

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:05 PM
Aelita is right. You can never make free energy devices from fields like gravity or electromagnetic... it just fundamentally not possible. What you should look into is tapping new energy sources. If you can pull energy from background radiation, direct matter conversion, or a new source no one has tapped yet, that going to be much more useful, and best of all, possible.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:15 PM
As much respect I have for Aileta and co, I say find out for yourself by trying it.
No doubt you'll find out that it won't work, but you might see a different way. Life is all about doing. Just do it. (not to sound too much like a Nike advert).

Just looking at your diagram, I don't "think" it would work, but it might. What the hell, who am I or others to judge.

On a side note (just to piss off the phds reading this) ICI did a study on their R and D department to find out why they did not accept Maurice Ward's flame proof plastic when he contacted them. They arrogantly dismissed him out of hand, until he appeared on the Tomorrow's World TV program. To the astonishment of ICI, they found out that the more scientifically qualified a researcher was, the fewer patents the person created. In fact, the guy with the most patents didn't even have a science degree!
www.alternativescience.com...

This has led me to conclude that institutionalised science (academic science) is great for creating employed scientists, like a lab technician, but very bad for creating inventors and those looking at things from a totally different perspective.
I believe that too much scientific knowledge is a very bad thing when one wishes to be an inventor (sounds daft I know).
Micah Hinton (15 year old) created a model car that ran on water and didn't need the water to be changed using a little bit of basic physics and chemistry. If the poor kid had been 25 years old with a Masters or PHD he wouldn't have even bothered to attempt it because the 2nd law of thermodynamics says etc etc. Too much nah saying and not enough jah doing. None of the major inventions of today were created by theoretical physists (with the possible exception of the nuclear bomb), that is why I believe theoretical physics to be useless and of zero value.
durangoherald.com...

So I now expect to be blasted to high heaven from those phds on this thread. Come on then, let's have it.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by labasta
This has led me to conclude that institutionalised science (academic science) is great for creating employed scientists, like a lab technician, but very bad for creating inventors and those looking at things from a totally different perspective.

I agree. The project though is a direct test of conservation of energy and as such is not an invention, but an experiment. Well, we know the answer.

Micah Hinton (15 year old) created a model car that ran on water and didn't need the water to be changed using a little bit of basic physics and chemistry. If the poor kid had been 25 years old with a Masters or PHD he wouldn't have even bothered to attempt it because the 2nd law of thermodynamics says etc etc.

No, using a photoelectric panel to generate electricity and perform eletrolysis does not violate any law of phyics (see, education helps
)
It's a neat toy. Nothing exceptional, though. I made my first shortwave radio out of parts, when I was about 11. I knew plenty of people who did it better than I did. It's not a big deal.

Too much nah saying and not enough jah doing. None of the major inventions of today were created by theoretical physists (with the possible exception of the nuclear bomb), that is why I believe theoretical physics to be useless and of zero value.

Let's see, lasers, microwaves, semiconductors. Plasma containment in the magnetic field. Buckey Balls. Etc etc etc.

Usage of gravity field of the planets in the Solar system to propel out spacecraft is a purely theoretical exercise. Which is validated by experiment

So I now expect to be blasted to high heaven from those phds on this thread. Come on then, let's have it.

Here! look at the above. Physisists rule.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Aelita]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:04 PM

Yep! And 100 years ago man flying was impossible, plus a ton of other miraculous things that have come along in that short time.

No body ever said ( i hope not anyway) that flying would be impossible because of conservation of energy. They may have said it because they had limited knowledge of aerodynamics or because no engines existed at the time that had a sufficient power to weight ratio, not because it wouldn't conserve energy.

None of the major inventions of today were created by theoretical physists

Even if this was true, the whole point of theoretical physics is to develop the theory that helps things be invented and built. You can thank theoretical physics for the computer you are sitting in front of. I've never heard of a garage inventor inventing anything as complicated as a laser. Home inventors do however use existing technology to build things that haven't been thought of before.

I do have a bias though, i'm studying theoretical physics...

new topics

0