It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Help: Looking for Real Manetic Free Energy Devices

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
Well if zero point energy is against the laws of physics then how does the earth stay in rotation and all the planets in rotation and orbit around the sun? How does an electron stay in orbit around the nucleus of an atom? Nature proves it is not against the laws of physics just that we don't understand all the laws of physics yet.


Sorry my friend, you misread my post. Please re-read the first sentence I quoted from the external source and see if that clears it up for you.


Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by hawkiye
 
I'm not sure Arbitrageur said it was against the laws of physics, but perhaps I didn't read the posts well enough.


Thank you, you read my post correctly. Zero point energy is real. It's the idea of extracting energy from zero point energy that is generally considered pseudoscience.



Originally posted by beebs
You bring up a valid point in theory, but I am not sure that it is as significant in practice.

It takes a VERY long time for industrial quality magnets to lose their magnetism.

And even if I give you that point, it still does not address the possibility of using precisely timed electromagnets to get a rotor to spin.


I agree in practice of most magnet applications, the loss of magnetism is very small. I'm referring specifically to the application where greater than unity performance is reported for a generator.

If you use precisely timed electromagnets to get a rotor to spin, you still have the same issue of not being able to get greater than unity output for very long. And other than loss of magnetism in the magnets being converted into energy, I don't know where the power would come from, do you?

If I'm wrong why is there not one verified example of anything that works for more than a short time, in centuries of trying to build these devices, to prove me wrong?

As the OP pointed out, there are plenty of inventors looking for customers to give their money to buy plans, but I have yet to find any satisfied customers, anywhere, who after shelling out the money and building the device, got the results they expected for more than a short time, have you found any?

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]




posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you use precisely timed electromagnets to get a rotor to spin, you still have the same issue of not being able to get greater than unity output for very long. And other than loss of magnetism in the magnets being converted into energy, I don't know where the power would come from, do you?
[edit on 2-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]


Well I think there has been some speculation that if a powerful enough field can get going at a high enough level(or fast enough revolutions) it makes the system sort of self sufficient and the magnetic field recharges the magnets just because... but I'm not going to press that point because I have no links to back that up. Just a hunch that I have read some about it.

The power comes from the rotation of the turbine, obviously, but the fuel to turn it is what is debated. Imagine solar panels or a wind/hydro system fueling one of these magnetic generators to make the magnetic field - basically just really really efficient systems with low internal friction. Just having a little push all the time is all it needs, like someone on a swing.

Also, like what is mentioned at the end of the first vid I posted, certain structures of matter do seem to 'generate' or 'harness' more power from the natural magnetic fields and electromagnetic noise(ZPE) around earth like certain rare earth metals or quasicrystals. So a conventional magnet might not be able to build a useable generator but certainly better engineered magnets might be able to accomplish something along these lines.

As for if some have been built, well Orbo of course claims it, but I haven't heard of too much more than that. Much of it is just speculation because of the world changing nature of the tech. No one wants to share with the public...


But here are a couple vids that make one seriously think about the possibility:

Boyd Bushman from lockheed(mentions Hutchinson like the end of the first vid I posted). My own speculation suggests that this power source is also closely connected to black aircraft programs:


There is a common theme to the structure of the supposed magnetic generators, namely concentric circles and wheels. Don't know what to think of this vid:


John Searle reportedly hallucinated... much like Tesla did. And Tesla was going to give us free wireless electricity a century ago.. Much of this speculation of magnetic generators does depend ultimately on True Physics, which is perhaps not in synch with Known Physics. For instance, imagine if gravity from a black hole is what is known as the 'strong force' that holds protons together in a nucleus. As described in this video:


So then what we are seeing as reality is merely EM/Hawking radiation. If there is a structure to the way this EM/Hawking radiation radiates(like the ratio PHI) then certain structures could be built to harness the radiation better... ala Rodin Coils.

Enough for now.




posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Speculate away, scientists make speculative hypotheses all the time so there's nothing wrong with that...but ultimately they have to be tested, and proven or disproven.

Feedback on the videos:
1. Bushman-ramblings. He doesn't even use a drop tester for the drop test so his results could be biased, it's not a controlled experiment, I've conducted tests in my lab using a professional drop testing machine that makes him look foolish with his dropping them by hand. The drop testing machine is incapable of bias.

2. Searle- I'm so tired of people telling me what they're GOING to do. Tell me when it's done and I'll take a look. In the meantime it sounds like quackery, though his sentiments for treating the planet well resonate with me, but still don't lend any credibility to his claims.

3. Haramein, that paper is

www.physicsforums.com...


standard crackpottery. It did not win "Best New Paper" from the University of Liege in Belgium; it won "Best New Paper" in one of ten sections at a conference that was about - well, the buzzword density was so high that it's not clear what the conference was about, other than that it wasn't about physical science - that happened to be held at the University of Liege.


[edit on 2-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, I am familiar with most of the refutations. I just am 51% towards the possibility.

To me the chance that this technology works is worth a significant amount of time and research.

I just have had so much crazy things happen in the last year that I don't believe in coincidences hardly anymore. Thus, my intuition has led me to the preliminary conclusion that this technology and physics does indeed have merit.

In fact, much of my work so far as an undergrad has been to philosophize about science and future paradigms for this new view of physics and technology.

So until I come across something better, we will have to agree to disagree based on opinions.



edit to add: And this might up Haramein's credentials a little bit, a patent called DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SIMULATION OF MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS.

and also the same published under a diff number it looks like(This one is better looking):
link
[edit on 2-4-2010 by beebs]

[edit on 2-4-2010 by beebs]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Free energy must only be in the ether.
Force can be transmitted in the ether.
So the ether is a loss less medium and I suppose thats
where the free part of the free energy is.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Yes, I am familiar with most of the refutations. I just am 51% towards the possibility.

So until I come across something better, we will have to agree to disagree based on opinions.


So are these opinions? These seem to be facts to me:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If I'm wrong why is there not one verified example of anything that works for more than a short time, in centuries of trying to build these devices, to prove me wrong?

As the OP pointed out, there are plenty of inventors looking for customers to give their money to buy plans, but I have yet to find any satisfied customers, anywhere, who after shelling out the money and building the device, got the results they expected for more than a short time, have you found any?


But at least you leave 49% room for doubt, I give you credit for that, though the number should be a lot higher.

And if you've got enough money to pay a lawyer I don't think getting a patent is that hard to do, they don't care so much if the device actually works or not, they just make sure the patent is defined and that nobody before you has already patented it, etc.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


For the most part I guess you are right. I just have a hunch, and I like my hunches, so my opinion has me at 51% in favor. But of course as far as verified info goes, the scale tips in your favor.

The patent at least shows that he is serious about his work. At least he is actively trying to bring his research into the mainstream academic community.

Just curious, do you think space time is aether-like? The answer is highly relevant to the subject.


Also, to the OP, has anything discussed piqued your interest? Join in the discussion, the water is fine
.

I am interested to know the extent of your research as well. You are mostly looking for a schematic? or what...



[edit on 2-4-2010 by beebs]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Hi Chorizo,


Originally posted by chorizo4
I guess someone could remember to spell Heinz and Fleishman's name correctly. How much did the French govt. spend for their baloney science?


I am familiar with a Pons and Fleishman but not a Heinz and Fleishman so perhaps you could tell me more about the later pair presuming that Fleishman worked with said person after he moved to France and received governmental funding there?


Come on people, to understand Relativity you have to be able to count your fingers and toes.


To understand relatively you will in fact have to manage a great deal more than counting your fingers and toes. Other than that i am not sure where relativity comes into the discussion when there is sufficient inconsistencies in cosmological and physics models to allow for something as comparatively minor as LENR without doing much to upset the 'consensus' that seems to always exist right after some stunning new breakthrough finally found it's way into the text books. It's not like anyone is ever found officially guilty off gross ignorance for believing in and defending a prior consensus so where's the harm?

Stellar



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





Well if zero point energy is against the laws of physics then how does the earth stay in rotation and all the planets in rotation and orbit around the sun? How does an electron stay in orbit around the nucleus of an atom? Nature proves it is not against the laws of physics just that we don't understand all the laws of physics yet.


"Zero point energy" has nothing to do with that.

The answer is gravity.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
My signature is a truncated quote from Don Lancaster.
Here is the complete quote:


• Finding a source of " Unlimited free energy" would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity. For it would inevitably turn the planet into a cinder. Hastening an isoentropic heat death. If you find a free energy source, you damn well better find a new free energy sink as well. Even then, the relative flux rates will still nail you.


Lancaster is a well known engineer with rock solid credentials. He was a pioneer in the microprocessor field, and you would be reading this now if it wasn't for his work.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Great read so far!



Just curious, do you think space time is aether-like? The answer is highly relevant to the subject.


If by aether you mean a subtle latent energy i believe so.

I've never fully understood how a wave can move through space without it... Or how a force can act at a distance for that matter.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Also, to the OP, has anything discussed piqued your interest? Join in the discussion, the water is fine
.

I am interested to know the extent of your research as well. You are mostly looking for a schematic? or what...


Yes, what piques my interest are what appear to be real "free energy machines" that can run more or less "forever" or at least until the sun stops shining with no power source, and don't violate the laws of physics! I gave an example of such a machine in my first post in this thread (Atmos clock), my father has one and they've been in production for a long time. (Actually the indirect power source is the sun, that's why it actually works).

I don't think that's the only such "free energy machine" which can be made, I'm sure there are other ways to build them too without violating the laws of physics, so those are the types of devices I'm looking for.




[edit on 3-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   


Finding a source of " Unlimited free energy" would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity...


windmills are a crime against humanity?


Flippant remark perhaps, but i believe the concept is based on the idea of a "vacuum energy windmill" tapping an already existant "flow", not tearing a hole in space/time and releasing energy from it.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
well, i'm very sorry but due to my own research, i've decided that if there IS a magnetic generator out there, it is yet to be attained,

magnetic energy is too weak

i have however been very impressed with how easy it is to harness solar energy, and from the point of view of an ex electrician, i do wonder why we as americans, in this horrible economy, do not invest in such free energy, the average home could easily be completely solar run, and with a switch hook up to an electric company line you could always have electricity in emergencies, at night or during storms and such...

how to charge a 12 V battery, hook it up to a DC to AC converter, and thus produce 115-120 V useable electricity

i will be hooking up a similiar set up to the one in the link, plus some extra panels and batteries, next winter to power a small low amp heater and one or two grow lights, the total cost of the set up in that link is 300$, pretty cool

not the magnetic motor i was looking for, but still free energy, and easy to construct



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Hi Rnaa,


Originally posted by rnaa


• Finding a source of " Unlimited free energy" would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity. For it would inevitably turn the planet into a cinder. Hastening an isoentropic heat death. If you find a free energy source, you damn well better find a new free energy sink as well. Even then, the relative flux rates will still nail you.


Lancaster is a well known engineer with rock solid credentials. He was a pioneer in the microprocessor field, and you would be reading this now if it wasn't for his work.


Inevitably turn the planet into a cinder? In how many generations? How many people would have to have access and why isn't all the energy we 'release' from fossil fuels
warming up the planet in the near term? Why did the UK ( en.wikipedia.org...–2010_in_Europe ) just have the coldest winter in thirty years? Why have global average atmospheric temperatures remained , despite the supposed climate change, the same and how does that support the notion that our atmosphere isn't all we need in terms of a heat sink? Heat death? Of a planet? Fascinating.....

Lancaster might be a brilliant engineer but these types of grand proclamations lands even the most informed&intelligent minds in trouble.

Again there is no such thing as 'unlimited free energy' in the sense he suggests as that presumes a absence of the known laws of physics which we need not discard to tap into previously unused flows/stores of potential energy. In the same way that hydro electric and wind/solar power potential always existed those in the alternative energy field are mostly just claiming, the few that know what their talking about ( and that's sadly not many), that there are other potential unused sources.

Regards,

Stellar



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
No such thing unfortunately...perpetual motion is a impossibility according to the second law of thermodynamics.

This may one day be demonstrated as not always the case, or a workaround to bend the rules a bit...but we are no where close to understanding such concepts.


Hi Saturn,

The second law cited suggests or claims nothing of the sort so that is a illigitimate bases for a dismissal. What is suggested by most 'free energy' enthusiast is not that we can get perpetual motion but that what we will get is perpetual in the same sense as solar/wind or hydro power is; ai in terms of human life expectancy. As to the source of the energy flow they wish to tap need i remind you that wind and solar potential have been around a lot longer than batteries or devices requiring their use? Why a defense of the notion that what isn't being exploited yet must therefor not exist? If you wish to make a argument from physics and the like please spend some time familiarizing yourself with what is in fact claimed in the laws of thermodynamics and how it makes these statements with respect to open, closed and isolated systems. If you could then accept that the Earth is in fact a open system you will have come a long way to seeing possibilities where others sees impossibilities.



Magnets have been played with for about...what...3000 years now...if it would have worked, it would have been mainstream very long ago.


The age of electricity started little more than a century ago so this suggestion is rather meaningless in the context of our understanding of physics and how it might allow for these somewhat more exotic potential sources of energy. As for the notion that secrets can not be kept were you aware of the fact that the secrets related to Enigma (Ultra) were officially kept secret, successfully too, for nearly thirty years despite the fact that around twenty thousand people( as quoted in Norman Davies 'Europe at War' ) had some awareness of it?

Would you rate technologies that could greatly impact monopoly power 'generation' more or less significant than Ultra?

Regards,

Stellar



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Funk bunyip
 





windmills are a crime against humanity?


Windmills are not 'unlimited free energy'. Windmills convert energy from one form to another. They do not produce more energy than is input, in fact they are quite inefficient. Neither do photovoltaics, geothermal or hydro. Strictly speaking, windmills are powered by the Sun (in the same way that the Atmos clock is) and adhere absolutely to the laws of thermodynamics.

The phrase 'unlimited free energy' does not mean 'any energy source other than coal, petroleum, or nuclear'. It means energy 'pulled' or 'created' from some source not otherwise already available, somehow outside the reach of thermodynamics. Bringing it into the reach of thermodynamics, by making it usable in the 'real' world, means increasing the total energy state of the local system. This means eventual heat death. Talk about Global Warming gone crazy!

Toys like magnetic motors can be made quite efficient, but they are still subject to friction, heat loss, etc, etc, etc. They can NEVER be made to produce more energy usable or not than they consume. They will always produce exactly the amount of energy that is input, except that some of that energy will be lost as unusable heat. Always.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


See my reply to funk Bunyip above.

An 'over unity' device, that is, one that produces more energy than it consumes is exactly something that would be creating energy out of nothing. And its use would indeed add to the heat signature of the local system. Replacing petrochemical and coal energy sources with this kind of system would kill the planet very quickly indeed.

Of course there are untapped energy sources. But everyone of them current or future, every single one, is a process of converting existing energy stored in one form to energy in a form that we have grown accustomed to using to do work.

Burning coal doesn't add to the energy signal of the planet, because it is converting energy, not creating energy. Global warming is not caused by the heat of burning coal or petrol. It is caused by the greenhouse gases that are released by burning coal or petrol trapping energy from the Sun that would have otherwise been radiated out into space. So we are keeping more of the energy than we would had we not increased the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Likewise, if we were to introduce another source of energy (heat) from outside the realm of thermodynamics, we would soon be (not) living on a planet dead from the heat.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
This thread is way above me, but i did read about this fella years ago from the land of the sheep

en.wikipedia.org...

I hope it helps, he seems to think it did.

Wally



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Ooooh goody, another 'practical' discussion on FE.

Hope this one goes the whole way - that would be a first!

Personally, I lost faith in magnet motors but am very excited by the idea of implosion technology, compressed gases/air and pulling energy based on heat differentials. The atmos clock is a great example of using simple temperature changes to pull energy out of the environment.

Perhaps all these threads should include some linkable declaration on what is going to be agreed upon as 'free energy'. Something like: a free energy device is simply a device which uses some 'non-mainstream' method of converting environmental (can include the 'vaccuum'/ether/etc) energy into useable work (electrical power?).

That should keep 90% of the pseudo-intellectual wanna-be physicist debunkers at bay and the continual 'can't defy the second law of thermodynamics' chanting to a minimum.

Even the most mainstream academics must agree that we are perpetually surrounded and permeated by a relatively inexhaustible and abundant 'source' of energy.

I'm ready to get back to work on this now, so sign me up for the discussion if we can keep it practically productive and out of intellectual stagnation


[edit on 4/4/10 by RogerT]




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join