Permenant Magnet motor, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 27-11-2005 @ 02:49 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
You should bear in mind that none of these companies has ever publicly demonstrated over unity in any of these devices.


Well that is what you have decided to believe but were you there? Why do you think i stick with the principles instead of speculating about wether individual machines work? Your approach is designed to avoid taking the topic seriously imo.

You might notice a common theme running through them in that that they are always just about to get a device to market, but for some reason (have a guess) never quite do. You can look at these sites again in 5 years and see that production or public demonstration is still "imminent".


Wich might either indicate that their all lying and that it's a huge conspiracy to fool us all or that the powers that be are very good at preventing these devices from reaching the market. Once again why not just stick to principles full well knowing how awesome the forces that are trying to prevent these technologies?

These are just 3 examples of the hundreds of magnet based perpetual motion machines that people have been attempting to build for over a hundred years with no success.


You have no evidence other than the fact that you do not have one in your home. Absence of said machines on market is proof that they are not possible? That is not logic and you know it.

Why not rather continue this in the thread were it started? You though i would not notice?

Stellar


reply posted on 28-11-2005 @ 04:33 AM by FatherLukeDuke
Originally posted by StellarX
Well that is what you have decided to believe but were you there?

And why do you choose to believe they might have worked? For a start any of them could simply demonstrate their machine to
James Randi and win a million dollars. If they worked that is. Any idea why no one has chosen to do this?


Why do you think i stick with the principles instead of speculating about wether individual machines work?

Well the principle is bunk, and the machines don't work either.


Wich might either indicate that their all lying and that it's a huge conspiracy to fool us all or that the powers that be are very good at preventing these devices from reaching the market.

Well as their is no evidence of a conspiricy, massive or otherwise, I shall assume they are all lying (or misguided in some cases). Can you show me any evidence of the "powers that be" somehow interferring with any of the "free energy" machine makers? Aside from anything else the "powers that be" here in the UK are desperately looking for ways to wean us off our dependence on Middle East oil. They would jump at a perpetual motion machine.

If any of these "inventors" could demonstrate over unity in their machines not only would they take a $1 million from James Randi but they would have investors throwing money at them. Electricity supply companies would be bidding billions to get hold of the patent and start churning out ultra-cheap electricity for enormous profits. Any reason why this hasn't happened?


Why not rather continue this in the thread were it started? You though i would not notice?

Don't really know what you mean by this.


reply posted on 28-11-2005 @ 09:12 AM by Shadow88
[edit on 28-11-2005 by Shadow88]



reply posted on 28-11-2005 @ 10:47 AM by Frosty
Originally posted by Shadow88

I wonder why they think that they alone can pull off such a feat and produce effective designs.


Its not "such a feat", its not at all that complicated. The basic principles are simplistic, its 5 year old physics. "the north pole repels the south pole" etc. The only difference is this will be set up on an axis so it spins.

We have people here who think otherwise


Its called free will and individuality. We're not robots we can be creative.

I think you need to watch this
Askwhy.wmv Its really inspiring

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Shadow88]


I know that electric spark into gasoline produces fire, but does that necessarily mean I can build an internal combustion engine based just upon that? I would like to think not. There is more that goes into building an IC, and I would like to think the same is true with a magnet motor.

You say it is free will and individuality, I will call it lack of education.


reply posted on 28-11-2005 @ 04:48 PM by Shadow88
(I will be posting a small conceptual video tomorrow by the way)

Well firstly i will be using neodymium as they are high power and fairly cheap.

To gain the maximum torque i will likely not be using ball bearings, but a liquid-based drag reducer, but i will get a professional opinion on which would be the best.

The shell and supports will be made out of non magnetic material, whether that be some kind of strong plastic or simply non magnetic metal.

The finished prototype will have two sets of rings; each angular section you can see will be a separate magnet; there will be spacers between each.

As for the weight, see, this is why i was leaning toward using as much plastic as possible, for weight reduction, but the base would have to be either weighted or screwed down, as it will likely vibrate a lot.

Lastly G+S the power. Obviously i cannot say how much power will be produced, but if its not sufficient to power many external devices "live", then i will look into firstly increasing torque, and if all else fails it will have a storage device that it would charge up overnight for example.

In all honesty im an inventor (no thats not a full time job ), im not an electrician so electronics isnt my forte. I have a good friend however that is collaborating with me on the electricity generation and storage etc. Im just building the device itself and focusing on the workings of the PMM. Storing or utilising that kinetic-potential energy comes later.

EDIT: oh sorry and specification/custom parts; my father is an expert in engineering, metalwork etc. and has access to the neccessary machinery to build parts for a working prototype.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Shadow88]


reply posted on 30-11-2005 @ 03:48 AM by FatherLukeDuke
Originally posted by postings
Another word of note to the naysayers . . . Basically what you are saying is "your not going to be able to get it to work, so why try?"

As one of the "naysayers", I'm not saying don't try - it will be an interesting project and you will probably get some useful skills and knowledge out of it. Just don't expect to build anything than a normal magnetic motor. People have been building
magnetic motors since 1821 and none of them have ever achieved over-unity. What is it about your device that is different from all the ones that have ever been made?


The other thing is there is talk of evidence. I am 2 degrees away from a person who invented a device that was supposed to improve AC efficiency drastically in cars. He was bought out by one of the big oil companies (if I remember correctly) and the invention was never heard of again.

That's not really evidence though is it? It's just rumour, and pretty vague at that.



reply posted on 30-11-2005 @ 09:31 AM by Shadow88
Done! Its all there in the PMM Project page and a couple more pics.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Shadow88]


reply posted on 1-12-2005 @ 01:44 AM by Earthscum
automotive torque converters are power hogs to tell you the truth... in concept, it seems feesable, but the drag is where you'll lose power. The best idea would be to create a high RPM motor and gear it down to create more useable torque.

Basically, all an automotive torque converter does is allows the engine RPM's to reach a bit higher in the torque curve before fully locking the transmission and engine into drive, thus why they have "stall speeds". Witha fairly standard 1500 RPM converter, you can apply the brakes and stomp your gas pedal to the floor and it will only go up to 1500 RPM's (depending on how much power your engine produces...).

In the 4WD world, you create torque to climb things by gearing... in almost all autos, your top gear is meshed 1:1 ratio, meaning that for every revolution of your crankshaft, your driveshaft spins the same. That is why they do power tests on a chassis dyno in drive gear (overdrive gear is, for exxample, 0.7:1 ratio... sometimes the 5th or 6th gear, depending on your transmission...) When you are in drive gear, you are relying on horsepower to keep you moving, whereas when you are in first gear you have a multiplied torque to get you moving. 4WD vehicles use lower gearing to multiply the torque even more, such as low gear in a transfer case.

I know the engineers may not have needed that explanation, but ya never know... sometimes you just don't think about something until someone brings it up
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^