It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


EXCITING NEW TECH: Programmable Magnets

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:10 AM
reply to post by VonDoomen

I'm thinking a new key system for locks...I'm low tech, I know

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:26 AM
I read something past month : they find that there is a magnetic courrant ( not just a field ), like an electronic courrant .

And this could maybe used with advantages in some device.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by psychederic]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:36 AM
This will open the way to properly free energy generation too!

This should solve all of our energy problems, by finally eliminating the braking effect from magnet generators.

The age old stumbling block of all attract/repulse magnet generators has been it's inability to get around the braking effect caused by attraction from opposite poles, with this tech it should be possible to finally present useful and essentially free energy using nothing but magnets.

This is good news.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by VonDoomen

I think it's on, off AND on and off at the same time.

Could be wrong though, my brain is mostly in the off position at the moment!

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:40 AM
This would definately only work as a turbine type engine.

A piston type engine would suffer from the fact that the magnetic field fall away is much faster than usual with distance between the magnets. Therefore the start of the attraction phase would be far weaker than the start of the repulsion phase.

Also some kind of friction would be required to turn the stationary magnet, or could this be done with another of these magnets?

I definately agree this is probably going to have huge implications. They can make a decent revenue just by selling various types of these magnets for others to experiment with.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:30 AM
personally i see this as being amazingly useful in electronic stock systems, etc for mechanizing object sorting - useful for nearly ALL industrial purposes.

Frictionless gears would be amazingly useful, the complexity of mechanical devices could rise rapidly if it works...

one vital point however about free energy machines, while it might be possible if a few more inventions thats promise to be as important as this show up to create a machine that spins forever - to generate power or use this force you would need to attach a load, the load would introduce resistance and thus your machine would grind to a halt. Thermodynamics doesn't mind things spinning forever, theoretically you can even get all that energy back out of the system again later -however getting more energy than is in the system just isn't going to happen.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:43 AM
Here is some prior art on this from 1998 coupled with a fancy construction method. They have produced some pretty complex magnets.

New Scientist

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by JayinAR

Im having trouble understanding how a magnetic turbine wouldn't be a free energy device. Using the Neodymium magnet's focusing a Toroidial magnetic force.
The closer the magnet gets to the turbine, the more force or spin would be exerted upon the turbine. The farther away the magnet, the less force. As long as the magnetic force is strong enough to overcome the initial friction to start the turbine spinning, why wouldn't it keep spinning as long as the neodymium magnet is kept stationary.

reply to post by randyvs

All the more reason to keep this on the front page

[edit on 11/26/2009 by VonDoomen]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:36 AM
I am puzzled.

The wording "programmable magnets" would imply the ability of dynamically and logically changing their magnetic properties, yet nothing of the sort is presented here.

These should in all fairness be called "customized magnetic field magnets", because that's all they really are. Once created their field properties remain constant and are by no means programmable as I see it.

Sincerely, M.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by VonDoomen

Well, the problem that I see isn't that the machine couldn't spin indefinately, just that you wouldn't be able to actually harness any energy from it without introducing friction.
I could be wrong, and if so I would like to be pointed in the right direction. I've always thought that a cool project would be to build a wind turbine. But in order to harness any energy from the machine you have to have a rod spinning inside of a copper coil, do you not?

I mean, the gears could be frictionless and they may spin forever, but you would just have a frictionless gearing system. You still have to plug into the machine to draw energy from it and that is where you would introduce the friction. It wouldn't be perpetual at that point, but it would be Uber efficient.

I readily admit that I may be completely wrong. It's just how I understand it.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

and thats the point I was trying to make. These magnets are STRONG.
And if they are strong enough to overcome the initial friction, which is the strongest friction in the system. It shouldkeep going.
the point being, instead of using normal fuel like gas or wind, we're using magnetic force as the "fuel" and magnetic force last a long time.

I have enjoyed talking with you about this.. consider yourself on the friend list!

[edit on 11/26/2009 by VonDoomen]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by JayinAR
I mean, the gears could be frictionless and they may spin forever, but you would just have a frictionless gearing system. You still have to plug into the machine to draw energy from it and that is where you would introduce the friction. It wouldn't be perpetual at that point, but it would be Uber efficient.

I readily admit that I may be completely wrong. It's just how I understand it.

You aren't really wrong at all. Friction should not be an issue at all in a free energy system. The load you're driving should extract the majority of the energy. With friction, you'll just get a bit less than whatever souce it draws from. Any system that can drive a substantial load will not have gearing friction as an issue, not even if the gearing or other friction is the majority of the load. If it can only run by being frictionless, it will be useless as an energy device since the only energy in the system is what was put into it to give it momentum. Place a load on it and that energy will be extracted, causing it to halt.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:49 PM

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by rickyrrr

I am resisting my urge to dismiss the idea entirely

I notice you're replying to my first post. I'll answer your questions, but after some additional thought I'm less certain the idea would work for reasons described in this followup post. Please forgive my intial enthusiasm if this proves less than useful. I prefer to keep my mind open to testing new possibilities rather than simply accept truths and "laws" simply because somebody else said so.

are the cylinders mounted on shafts so that they
can only rotate?

There are many ways it could be built, but here's one possibillity:

Generally speaking, the cylinders need to be able to move towards and away from each other. This is, after all, a piston. Imagine two cylinders with their flat edges facing each other. Both cylinders are speared through their center by guiding rods running through them. One is allowed free motion back and forth along the cylinder, the other is allowed to rotate.

Posistion 1: Magnets attracting

| |

Posistion 2: Magnets repelling:

| |

Note that the guiding rods are not one solid piece all the way through. One cylinder must be able to rotate, while the other must be mounted so that left-right motion is unrestricted, but it cannot rotate. In the above, the cylinder of the left rotates, the cylinder on the right moves back and forth. Since the one on the left only needs to rotate, it can be mounted exclusively by the guiding rod. Since the one on the right doesn't need to rotate, you can cut a length along its underside and attach it to the frame on something that allows it to slide.

However, the particulars of the physical construction aren't really important. Again, it could be built in any of several ways. For example, you'd probably want to rotate the entire thing 90 degrees to reduce friction from the guiding rods. The important question to answer is whether overcoming the repulsion necessary to rotate the cylinder costs more energy than the piston can generate. Which, the more I think about it, the more I think it would.

how exactly do they attract?

Imagine the "coins" in the video as being a "slice" of the above cylinders. Looking directly on to the flat edge of a cylinder, alternate magnetic poles every 15 degrees or so. In position 1, the cylinders are rotated such that every south is next to a north in the other cylinder. In position 2, the cylinders are rotated such that matching poles are in line.

When you rotate one cylinder, the two cylinders will alternately attract and repell one another.

I am not sure how they will make it past 360 degrees.

Same way the wheels on your car do?

free energy

If energy cost of rotating one cylinder is less than what you can generate from the back and forth motion of the other cylinder, you have a free energy machine. If it isn't, you have a linear actuator.

It appears like what you are describing is equivalent to a cam and a cam follower. So in that sense, I guess it is a legitimate application for those magnets (with its own limitations and advantages) less friction due to lack of contact and less accuracy due to lack of rigid connection. But I did not see any part where this would produce free energy.

When I questioned the device's ability to make a full cycle I don't think that I meant ability to rotate 360 unrestricted, but ability to rotate 360 while producing a net energy output. so it's not exactly like the car wheels because they rotate at a net energy *expense*.

When dealing with potential fields (such as gravity and magnets) and ignoring relativistic effects, basically you have the ability to convert kinetic to potential energy, and vice versa. No configuration of magnets, even with the ability to program them like this can result in a field whereby one can find a cyclical path that would result in a net production of energy.

For free energy to result from potential fields, what would be needed is a discontinuous field, literally having an object attracted to a magnet, and repelled after moving it *losslessly* at 90 degrees with respect to the vector of attraction. Such a contraption could be, for instance, a perfectly defined antigravity zone, where if you put a vertical wheel straddling its edge, the side that is directly over the antigravity zone is more lightweight than the side that is directly over the normal zone, and a torque would cause the wheel to rotate. But because discontinuous fields have never been found thus far (and even if antigravity were discovered and harnessed, there is nothing to indicate that a discontinous field would be the outcome, so there is no indication that they might be found in the future) by its very definition, any lossless path at 90 degrees with the vector of attraction cannot exist if that vector is changing its direction, because then it is not at 90 degrees and is not lossless. So the mere fact that a field has continuity in space will kill any free energy mechanical device attempting to exploit the potential field.

I am sure that somebody with a better math background can explain it better and in a way that is much harder to understand, but this is my basic point.

Now, I can't really say anything about what would happen outside the realm of what is known, say, at relativistic speeds, or under the influence o something yet to be discovered. I know that in relativity there are provisions for conservation of energy.

In short, I can pretty much guarantee that free energy is not hiding inside a machine that arranges in complex ways energy conserving elements, because any combination of energy conserving elements will produce a more complicated energy conserving device. Potential fields fit in this category, whether they are gravity, electrostatic, hydrostatic (gravity really), inertia, inductance, charge, magnetic, momentum, and so on.

In my opinion, free energy, if and when discovered, will be literally a thing that produces energy from nowhere or from ambient heat, no less, probably due to a quantum effect or some yet to be discovered nuclear effect.


posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:18 PM

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by LordBucket

no complex pole arrangement should be needed.

...but come to think of it, it's not a complex arrangement at all. Simply alternate positive and negative around the cylinder. 15 degrees is positive, 30 degrees is negative, 45 posistive, etc. Simply rotate it and you have a piston.

I can't wait to see the possible outcomes of this technology.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

That is what I was thinking. I'm not thinking "free energy" I'm thinking more along the lines of super efficient battery powered motors. Just as you have described at some point in the system physical friction has to be introduced in order to transfer the power. What I was thinking at first it would work extremely well on remote control cars because of weight problems and the limitations of the magnetic force. My idea of the electromagnet for extra RPM would be for acceleration.

Also people have to keep in mind the magnets strength would have to be more than the weight of what you are trying to propel at ALL points in the system so every individual magnet would have to have a force greater than what it is trying to propel. Which means it has to be a force greater than all situations that it would be subjected upon it.

These magnets in the OP would allow for Extreme Precision of the placement in order to generate the force necessary as a complete system. So potentially the force of each magnet could be as much as 10 times or greater in order for it to work.

As you state it wouldn't be "free energy" but the efficiency would be off the charts and the maintenance costs would be extremely low. And in my book that is a vast improvement over what we have now.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I'm thinking that this would revolutionize wind turbine technology.
I remember living in Oahu and looking all of the wind turbines and wondering why they weren't in operation. Turns out that the gears just wore out over time and they didn't have the money to upgrade them.

If the gears themselves could be frictionless, this would greatly increase the longevity of the turbines... and they would spin really quickly generating a LOT of electricity.

I think that they would be extremely efficient. This technology will have far reaching implications if it is allowed to see the light of day, but the wind turbine implications are the most shocking, at least in my eyes.

I'm also imagining a car that will run without lubricants...a rather clever man may be able to directly translate this efficiency to an entire automobile! Wouldn't that be grand? But I don't think they should focus on that initially, lest big oil swoop in and kill the product.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:37 AM
As has been pointed out frictionless != free energy, as a few people have explained.

I haven't seen the video because I can't at work here. However if programmable magnets = asymetric pole magnets, where one pole can be programmed to be stronger than the other pole, which I highly doubt, than you could make a permanent magnet motor which would produce free energy.

However if the poles are equal and programmed but still symetrical, than you have the same old problem as the poles would cancel out any usuable work motion created. you cannot shield one of the poles to get around this.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:40 AM

Originally posted by whattheh
This is the future of space travel if they get it right.

Attract to the magnetic field of one planet and repel away from the magnetic field of another.

This could be huge.

This is the dumbest idea I ever heard. A normal magnet could be oriented this way. But think about the magnetic field strength and the distances involved.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

Yet another problem with Wind Turbines. But yes, frictionless gears would be a vast improvement, baby steps is the way to go with this. The best thing about Frictionless gears is that if you over torqued them they would just break the magnetic force, all you would have to do is reduce the torque and you would be back in business.

We are still years away from anything practical coming from this though. Although it should be sometime in our lifetime. I definitely agree with you with this running a whole car though too. Should be interesting hopefully they will sell individual magnets and allow people like us to experiment.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by insideNSA

True, but at the same time if you could "program" a cylinder style magnet where one side of the length of the magnet is N and the other side is S you could rig up a system that spins the magnet. At the same time though you still need just as strong of a repulsion force to break the attraction force.

Also after pondering upon this for a while, the only way "free energy" is going to exist is through nuclear fusion where certain elements, either natural or synthetic, when fused it's by product is more fuel for the reaction. Then you would have "free energy" but even that has it's problem because each time the element would be fused you would end up with less of the element. So eventually it would run out, but it could take 100's of years for that to happened. I.e. A star in the universe.

Ultimately you would want to create a product that could turn heat into electricity.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in