It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'll happily pay £100,000 for a verified free-energy machine - anyone got one???
Originally posted by Americanist
First one on my list is a production model going for $5000.00,
Originally posted by MASTEREDDY
If any of you are intersted in this vast resource of energy please mail me or reply to this post. ( I knew this would work!)
kind regards for love & peace Eddy
[edit on 25-6-2008 by Gemwolf]
Originally posted by MASTEREDDY
The principle is simply using same pole magnets in opposition.
It does not make sense to say magnets don't produce energy. Opposing magnetic fields would create perpetual motion and that is energy.To brake you would only have to interrupt the fields. I always wondered why magnets were NOT used and sadly I think it is because it is a 'free' energy,not profitable.
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Magnets do not generate energy and there are thousands of non-working "magnet motors" out there that demonstrate this very effectively.
What will make your off-set magnet motor different from all the thousands of failures over the last few hundred years?
Nearly all the designs are based around trying to "trick" nature by cunningly placing magnets so they are just so. Older designs often tried the same, but with gravity rather than magnetism - look up "overbalanced wheel". Some use gravity and magnets combined for extra confusion. Some use shielding, some don't. Whatever, it doesn't matter.
Of course you can't trick nature and the designers are invariably just tricking themselves.
I'd be very surprised if your design had anything that hand't been tried a 1000 times before.
You got that right ! . Right on the scrap heap , on top of this invention. www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... I am leaving this forum , it is not my cup of tea. I only joined to ask / pose one question to a poster named Reconpilot. He never would provide an answer , so I'm outta here , but I've posted this extra link because I think you will get a kick out of it.......bye-bye
Originally posted by DangerDeath
"Opposing magnetic fields would create perpetual motion and that is energy."
This is not true.
Space is the perpetual motion.
The principle of difference itself is the motion, that is: the means of existing in space.
Therefore, opposing magnetic fields do not create perpetual motion.
The goal is to deconstruct space, and that is switching to energy mode (metaphysical mode).
Now if you can do that in a controlled fashion, you could recompose this energy in any given point within the perceived space.
By recompose I mean create a point from which you assemble your perception - that is "physical" existence (perception is differentiation).
I don't know whether you can do that by using magnets in various configurations, but if you intend to create energy in this way and use it in the fashion of reactive propulsion (as we seem to be stuck to it), it will not be possible. Energy can not be "moved".
The practical problem is only one: how to move energy?
Since energy cannot be moved, the real meaning of this is as explained above: make it appear in a certain place instantly, bypassing physical laws.
Tesla was trying to do this.
But what is confusing is the attempt to make a compromise between the physical and metaphysical.
Even if Tesla accomplished this, his lab was destroyed because "moving" energy (as a new source in a new place, any place) could not be "metered".
Accomplishing this is tapping the inexhaustible source of energy (by simply controlling the principle of motion, that is appearance or disappearance of space).
This would totally destroy the existing economical and political system.
This would mean we could all have practically a "replicator" at our disposal - for free, of course.
Such invention will be destroyed, buried, denied, etc. by all available means.