Magnetic motor patented in China

reply to post by sty


Yea, there's many ways to get free energy from the sun, wind and other natural sources which already work. You can also use the ocean currents to drive generators as well. There's a company developing nano solar cells which claim 80% and the cells are dirt cheap to produce being printed onto flexible materials. We sooo don't need oil, yet we are hooked..If and when I get a sufficient amount of money, I would like to tile my roof with these nano solar cells. They even make transparent ones to make windows out of. If you want to take it further they have solar paint, you could essentially build a whole house from solar material. Either way, these guys pushing the oil are going down pretty soon.

I'll happily pay £100,000 for a verified free-energy machine - anyone got one???

First one on my list is a production model going for $5000.00, so you'll save yourself some money. I've also done research on Marko Rodin's Coil, Vertical Algae farms to produce biofuels, pond scum to separate hydrogen atoms from oxygen in the event of beefed-up fuel cell manufacturing, and switch grass becoming a more efficient means of ethanol production. Not that I need any claim to fame, but I keep up-to-date... Trust me. As far as solar energy goes here's a novel idea:


raw-solar.com...





[edit on 26-6-2008 by Americanist]

Originally posted by Americanist
First one on my list is a production model going for $5000.00,

A free-energy device for $5000? Or are you referring to something more conventional?

Happy to pay the money - though will obviously need some independent validation before sending cash.

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]

Hi Eddy

I would be interested in looking at your design.

Cannot PM you on here but my email is [email protected]

Cheers

Sean.

Originally posted by MASTEREDDY
The principle is simply using same pole magnets in opposition.

I'm sorry MASTEREDDY, but this is the main flaw of your device.

It is well known that having like poles repelling each other demagnetizes the magnets much quicker. Your device wouldn't last long.


Also, avoid FatherLukeDuke, its his job to discredit all free energy and alternative fuel discussions. Just look at his posts. It's like he is trying to stop people from discovering new things.

Good luck. The DOE just took control of a guy's assymetrical magnet development. An assymetrical magnet. Think about that for a moment.

The guy discovered the process to make assymetrical magnets, and because he had received some funding, they felt justified to appropriate his technology.

Happens all the time.

reply to post by johnsky


I believe we should take a few specifics into concideration when we speak of the magnetic motor, first of all, the concept for the motor is not to produce an eletricial out-put, it is first and formost a non-fuel drive device therefore the first law of thermo-dynamics is not violated, second, the magnetic drive motor has been proven to work time and time again, as a matter of fact, there are a number of companies offering their motors, (attached to an electric generator) for sale or lease, the most popular of course is the perendev-power system in germany. There is a second company in Australia who apparently, will have their system on the market in the latter part of 2009.

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.

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.

"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.

I've always believed in the Magnetic Motor, as should have American Scientists. China is just rolling in all of our American Dollars and it makes me sick that they come up with this before us. Too bad it will be composed of 90% plastic and 100% Chinese engineering.

Do patents even legitimately count in different countries? I would like to think we will re-engineer this motor with American brains and materials behind it.

reply to post by DangerDeath

I didn't understand your reasoning , but I know that Tesla fully intended for his electromagnetic tower to provide energy for all - for free. He wished it to be his gift to mankind. Of course , he died a pauper , but now thanks to his work-they have H.A.A.R.P. Tesla believed in magnetics , so do I , because magnets are cool ! www.msnbc.msn.com...


[edit on 12-12-2008 by aethernaut]

The classic approach is to find an energy source and then use the energy to create various forms (in the most general sense of meaning).
It is only partly understood that decomposing form releases energy. This because much of the energy at our disposal is used on creating new forms (all kinds of consumers goods) which do not in turn release energy, but result in a huge pile of worthless junk. This, normally, causes the crisis of available resources.
The wrong approach to economy is obvious in how Tesla induction motor is used. Practically, the alternating current is reversed into highly inefficient directional current by the economy model which produces consumable goods (that is, directional power is consuming energy as opposed to alternating current which preserves energy at high rate). This happens on macro economical level in contemporary consumers society. Tesla's invention is used to produce garbage.

The only form of production which doesn't actually use up the energy is art, because products of art cannot be consumed by its usage.

Of course, what existing industry would agree to produce stuff which cannot be consumed, and therefore factories would have to retool every now and then. Like, light bulbs filled with inert gases could last for decades, not only few months as they do now (many examples here). So, production of junk is intended in order to promote a state of mind which leads only to entropy.

Perhaps the creating of motor which would give free energy should be considered first at this level of operation, on social, political/economical level, because the present system will never allow such engines, even if successfully invented.

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.

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

[edit on 12-12-2008 by aethernaut]

[edit on 12-12-2008 by aethernaut]

I will try to explain by giving some examples. But it cannot be easily understood unless you try to get out of the protocol way of thinking. This is a philosophical explanation and it reveals some negligence in the "usual" approach to things as they are or are "supposed" to be. This has been explained by many philosophers, and I will name only few relevant to Western tradition: Descartes, Spinoza.... and even Tesla fits into the picture.


We have two parallel (synchronized) modes of existence: the so called time/space continuum. Those are a combination of body and mind (reason).

By definition, existing in space (body) is by means of motion. Motion is the meansof existing in space. Said that, it means that as there are two points (for example) the difference between them is the motion.
Our perception gives us an input in form of "gradual motion" (as in Zeno's aporia). This is a common mistake in understanding space, because many understand space as an "object" rather than principle. Space is a principle of differentiation. It means that in space every point has a different coordinates.

By definition, existing in thinking (mind) is by means of time. Time is the meansof thinking. This is because we cannot think more than one thing (point) at once. We have to stack: First comes A, then B, and at this moment we can improvise: A then B then C... or A then B then AB.... or A then B then A.... etc. Whatever we do, is creating a linear perception, which is actually reflection.

This is why traveling through time is not possible. Time is just the means of thinking. Traveling is only possible in space, by definition.

The energy (force actually, since energy is the manifestation of force) is how we perceive the force, but we cannot see or feel, perceive force directly by our bodies and thinking. The only way to perceive force directly is by knowledge - and force is the knowledge.

It is tricky if you are used to "understanding" things by simply reasoning without being aware of the principles of existence (to do that you need to apply analytical thinking).

Therefore, the only way of acquiring "free energy" from an inexhaustible source is to acquire knowledge, and then you can apply knowledge (as force) to anything you do without consuming it.

reply to post by aethernaut


Great, but not explained how salt water burns

So how does this work: permanent magnets in the stator and rotor.
Probably no documentation.
Such a simple idea should have proven usable.
Like how do you stop it.
A shield would have to be mechanically placed between magnets
and you know how we dislike mechanics.

I just heard about current generators that explode when there
is no load. Ain't that a kick.

Just a whole lot of energy everywhere.

As you have looked at on You tube, there is the Perendev motor that drives itself. The reason that it works is because it has three sets of magnets carefully spaced and timed so that when one of the sets is confronting the moment of its greatest negative , pull-back force, there are two other sets of magnetic assemblies working together to overcome that force.
I would think that it is simple math that two forces together should be greater than only one working against those two.
As for the laws of thermodynamics, that include the mistake and ignorance that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, i shall point to the entry that is under radioactivity, alpha radiation in particular.
Madam Curie herself contested the mistake of the thermodynamic laws in her research into Radium. Stating that although there are set laws in place,, the radiation that a radioactive element emits is , in reality the mass and form of a helium atom, save a couple electrons.
And a quick googling of 'alpha radiation' will confirm this to skeptics, that one element thus creates, out of thin air, the mass and weight of a second element, helium.
Because the holy grail (thermodynamic 'laws') of all the scoffers of overunity can be proven incorrect and untrue by the science encyclopedia itself, The remainder of those thermodynamic laws has no footing.