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.


Help: Looking for Real Manetic Free Energy Devices

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:16 AM
Star for Roger

No star for rnaa

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.



Semantics and definitions lacking consensus are the bane of true communication and understanding.

I clearly stated that my remark about the windmill was flippant.. It was merely an analogy and an attempt to get people to visualise the basic concept of collecting energy from the "vacuum".. which, since you are quoting the 2nd law of thermodynamics, has clearly still eluded you.

The theory is that the energy is already there interwoven if you like, into the actual fabric of space/time itself so to speak. You are not creating energy. You are merely harnessing an existing source from the quantum environment.. like a windmill harnesses from it's environment... except smaller.

So, no energy creation, no busted thermodynamics, no unbalanced closed systems and by virtue of consumer supply/demand, no more energy would be converted to heat than is currently the case, no global cataclysms.

edit for italics

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Funk bunyip]

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by indigothefish

must be synchronicity; I just got spammed with this:

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 12:06 PM
Edit( since i just saw): Sad that you had to try again but thanks for your continuing efforts bunyip.

Hi Rnaa,

Originally posted by rnaa
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.

Energy can not be 'produced' or 'consumed' ( and i am sure you know that but lets keep reminding ourselves and others) but it can change 'form' and that is what is suggested as mechanism in these devices. Since it is as far as we can tell impossible to 'create' or 'destroy' energy what sane 'free energy' enthusiast advocate is that we make previously 'sources' usable or tap into previously unexploited flows; wind and solar potential existed long before we exploited it.

And its use would indeed add to the heat signature of the local system.

This is a possibility if the energy in it's previous form interacted differently or not at all in terms of the Earth's biosphere; we know that fossil fuels does but so far it's been of massive net benefit to humanity. Only those few who already have sufficient access to energy frowns upon these types of investigations and experimentation.

Replacing petrochemical and coal energy sources with this kind of system would kill the planet very quickly indeed.

There is no point in making up 'facts' as you go.

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.

So basically your just claiming that there is a perfect account of the energy balance of our Biosphere despite the fact that our best scientist have only theoretical constructs to bring into calculation the 96% of mass they need to make their current models work as the universe is seemingly observed to 'work'? What the saner 'free energy' enthusiasts are claiming , and we too have crazies, is that we are not fully aware of all energy flows and sources around us and that we should both find out and see if they can be exploited.

Burning coal doesn't add to the energy signal of the planet, because it is converting energy, not creating energy.

If this is how far your understanding of geology extends you should perhaps scale back your claims about your understanding of electrodynamics and Earth sciences in general. To suggest that releasing carbon , and everything else burning coal releases, into the atmosphere can not and does not have a effect on our short, medium and long term climate prospects is simply ignorant. The fact that so many have so many opinions that are clearly unjustified by the evidence should not obscure the fact that we ARE changing our environment and affecting our biosphere. What we should just stop doing is giving panic mongers and politicians so much control over the money that keeps scientist eating and thus dependent and biased.

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.

The supposition upon which AGW is based yes. If only a warmer planet can be shown to be bad for life ( including human) on Earth i could actually become concerned. Since we know that life likes more Carbon in the atmosphere as well as higher temperatures i can't be and wont be.

So we are keeping more of the energy than we would had we not increased the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

If this is your argument why should we not move away from using greenhouse releasing 'energy stores' and move to the types of 'clean and renewable' sources advocated by the 'free' energy folks? What exactly is the problem beside your misinformed belief that it is not possible?

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.

There can logically be no 'source of energy' outside the 'realm of thermodynamics' (presuming you mean the universe and presuming a UFT); contrary to your uninformed opinion the scientist responsible were not nearly as narrow minded as yourself and well understood the limitations of their knowledge thus allowing for the massive 'fudge factors'( a expression of limitations if ever there was one) that are open, closed and isolated systems.

In closing you are critiquing a field of interest and research that you are as confused by as most of the uninvolved and involved are; well done on managing to be so decidedly average.


[edit on 5-4-2010 by StellarX]

[edit on 5-4-2010 by StellarX]

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:53 PM
( and since i like the slope of my own font )

Hi, again, Rnaa,

Originally posted by rnaa
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.

And yet you managed to either miss or obscure the rather salient point that human beings did not 'build' the sun and that in terms of our local open system , the Earth, the Sun is for practical purposes a free energy generator whose potential is largely wasted by our limited technological means and the monopoly control as exercised by the powerful involved parties and brokers. As you correctly state no laws are being broken when we employ solar, wind, hydro and tidal power and we will still have broken no laws when we use these to the maximum efficiency which will allow renewable energy for everyone till the last days of Earth 3-4 billion years hence.

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.

That is just about as oxymoronical as oxymoron's go. Thermodynamics constitutes the 'laws' resulting from the observation of the how and the why ( rather more how than why) of energy flows and transformation in dynamic systems; it makes little reference to how much energy the system may contain and only risks the commentary that energy can be transferred between a open and isolated system but not between a open and closed system. If you want a little research project perhaps you can tell us more about these theoretical closed systems, as they are not known to exist in nature, or perhaps, more importantly, what the Earth's biosphere is and what our universe might or might not be.

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!

For someone just talked about the Sun, as power 'source' for the the climate that allows Earths diversity of life, you seemed to have not noticed the huge bright object that have been irradiating 'the real world' for the last four billion years. Since we have evidence for continues life on Earth ( OK, to be fair as far as i recall there were a one or two false starts right at the start) practically as soon as the crust cooled down enough to make it practical it's quite hard for me to believe that INTELLIGENT human life can not adapt to or control such technologies if they are shown to have a obvious runaway effect on the Earth's Biosphere.

I would also like to point out that you are seemingly incorrectly presuming that the local system (aka, 'The Earth') is totally unresponsive and can not in the future and have not in the past had widely different climates without ever leading to end of , to say nothing of sentient, life on Earth. By the very fact that life appeared and existed on earth for billions of years it should be obvious that our local system is sufficiently self regulating ( which should not be confused with intelligence or design) to sustain complex life. Your analogy between a 'heat death' and 'global warming' also strongly suggest that you are not familiar with what a 'heat death' entails.

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.

Logically that must be so as energy that does not exist can not be transformed or be dissipated in general. As the few saner voices in the free energy movement can tell you energy that does not 'exist' can not be exploited but energy that is available but not currently exploited can be and , in our minds at least, should be. Just as it's ridiculous to argue that solar potential does not exist on your roof because you can not afford solar panels ( or don't believe that it's possible) it is fallacious to argue that a proper accounting of other potential EXISTING 'sources/flows' can not be done or investigated because they are not currently acknowledged or being exploited.

As you say if these 'inventors' are building similar circuits then i would be quite surprised if they often achieved over unity but not everyone is and a tiny few do realize that if you can keep the source charges separated with the initial energy provided , without using half the induced current to force them together again as is done in closed circuits, some rather interesting observations can be , and all too frequently, have been made.

account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

I obviously reject the proposed 'solution' as again no suggestion is made as to where this massive non-diverged flow of energy is coming from ( it does not cease to exist because it's not being utilized) and while i too would prefer to live in a world where such a state of affairs can not dominate for more than a century i can't ignore it while the 'solutions' currently proposed to 'save' our environment entails continued poverty for everyone who has not reached a certain level yet and lowered standards for many hundreds of millions more.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by StellarX]

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:13 PM
I'm a bit of a new member and i'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but to the best of my knowledge zero point energy is the energy of a quantum system at ground state caused by spontaneous virtual particles allowed to appear and disappear sporadically via the Uncertainty principle (aka Hawking radiation) however, if you planned on utilizing this as an energy source would it not lose the quality of being short-lived and in fact be creation of matter? not to say i would find such evidence damning in light of the cosmic microwave background losing energy, seemingly breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:36 PM
i really like this model

seems like it only needs a more effecient positioning of the magnets to be more sustainable, check the links in the description leads to more info about the video,

personaly i think this design should be tryed with the magnets being positioned in a pattern of a hexagon, flower of life and all,

think about it, spheres stacked make a hexagon, magnetic fields are spherical, it would work better, but the video shows it working well enough to prove magnets can sustain themselves in kinetic energy, which is all thats needed for infinite electricity

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:01 PM
Revision of Tesla Crop Glyph Free Energy Device, schematic
What If "They" Can Already Clean Up Radiation With Frequency?
Earth's Magnetic Poles Equates Over Unity Free Energy Spin on Axis!

World's Most Efficient Overunity Water Heater

Freedom from Leonardo Da Vinci - Perpetual Motion-gravity engine

Neutralizing Radiation Waste Using Searl Effect Generators - MAKE VIRAL

SEG Searl Effect Generator invented and working video proof

These videos are very interesting, based on my thread about neutralizing radiation, but also related to all free energy devices with magnets or permanently magnetized things.

You can't place the magnet in a stationary or flat position and spin then. Place them at angles in cylinders so they produce flux.

The angle of the placement in the cylinders that you spin creates various SINE waves, or reverse HZ. You can cancel out frequencies matching the reverse HZ. But also, the heartbeat or pulse wave, the SINE is energy, life, and will give the needed power output.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:08 PM
That really is something. I must have misunderstood the parts about zero point energy. have you built a model? also, i'm assuming that the kinetic energy coming from the magnetic fields would eventually drain the magnetic energy. is that then truly infinite? it seems to me to be just like any other motor with magnets as the power supply.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in