Turkish Inventor Ready to License Free Energy Motors and Generators for Production

page: 4
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yup, some big company will buy the patent or get the licensing and then bury the whole project.

Leave it in limbo like they have all the other alternative energy folk.

Every Energy Company in the world has pure, renewable free energy on a shelf somewhere...

~Keeper



or perhaps the solution was to fill a boat with turkish nationals and then sail to gaza in hopes the israelis kill them and then as that situation devolves, have the israeli's nuke'em.

no more threat to social control




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The inventor DOES have a patent submitted at the European Patent Office.

To break this down into layman's terms, we all have automobiles with a battery right ? You understand what/how your alternator charges your battery ?

Looking at the schematic of this free energy motor, note the term "motor" BTW, you have essentially 2 magnetic motors tied to a standard electromagnetic generator system.

So in essence, instead of having a wind mill turning the generator for example, the inventor is utilizing two magnetic motors instead.

An example of a basic charging system using a generator on a motorcycle:

My Motorcycle, is a 12V system and once my motor is turning 3200 RPM or more, I am now creating more current than the ignition system requires to operate, which consists of charging coils and firing sparkplugs and powering headlights, instruments etc. and this excess energy in the form of current, produced by the alternator is routed via a voltage regulator back to the battery, and hence I am now charging my battery.

This inventor's motor idea is fundamentally the same, in that the inventor has combined 2 magnetic motors in conjunction with a traditional generator.

If you can read a schematic, you will note the use of a couple of batteries and of LC circuits. Or Inductive/Capacitive circuits which capture current and convert that current to useable Volts, commonly known as electromotive force.

The Magnetic motors, once started, with the assistance of the batteries to charge the system, which is why he uses a mallet to get the system turning, will use their high torque rotational energy and continue to rotate until their magnetic energy is depleted, about, 400 years IMA.

The Magnetic motor, itself a generator, is used to energize/charge a traditional mechanical generator system, via a system of gears and electronics.

Very similar to how your engine's energy is transferred to the wheels of your car BTW.

The cool thing about this concept is that the magnetic motors , having little resistance and generating high torque power based upon their high rpms can create plenty of energy necessary to charge and power the generator based system, without any external energy required once started.

The extra energy necessary to run/energize the system is produced as volts or electromotive force.

If you can read a schematic, take a look a look at the schematic.
The two outer things are your magnetic motors, the center are the generator and gears used to transduce the mechanical energy to run the electromechanical Generator.

The faster the generator turns, the more current/power is produced.
This utiliization of the power of the magnets in conjunction with a generator is how he is achieving over unity, in that the magnet motors don't require any additional energy once they are spinning/running.









The inventor DOES have a patent submitted at the European Patent Office.

v3.espacenet.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by Crazy Man Michael
I see you're quoting from the Tom Bearden website, where he's quoting from "J. A. Wheeler and C. Misner, Geometrodynamics, Academic Press, New York, 1962." A 48 year old book is his reputable source for this data?


Yep. Wheeler was a thoroughly credible physicist, look it up. And physicists like him have been openly writing about absolutely staggering amounts of energy in the vacuum in physics texts for at least 50 years.

So all those who routinely claim that it's "impossible" clearly haven't gone and read the relevant physics texts




And if you were to ask Professor Wheeler whether a little table top device can extract any fraction of this energy for useful purposes? What would he say?

After snorting (or laughing at your naivety) he'd realize that the wide-eyed questioner really is that ignorant and serious, so he'd continue.

"Well, the zero-point quantum fluctuations do formally have some titanic energy density of course, but the laws of thermodynamics still apply: one needs a *lower* energy and higher-entropy state for matter to exist in so that one can extract useful work, which is what we all care about in making a power plant. The zero-point is precisely that---the bottom---and there's nowhere lower to go.

Next there is the serious issue that although the number in the quantum ZPE appears to be staggeringly high, we have observed no evidence of its effect or existence in any astrophysical system, which can explore natural conditions far more extreme than what humans can generate. Therefore we must come to the likely conclusion that the formal calculation is wrong or naive, being a simplistic theory prior to our full unification of quantum mechanics with relativity, or that this ultra-high energy regime is permanently cut off from our experience in the universe because of fundamental physical law."

OK, he might say something even more sophisticated or profound but anyway.

(He was a friend of my grandfather's at Princeton many years ago).

[edit on 15-6-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Hmm so since we in the world of matter are so completely unable to access that mind-bogglingly vast amount of ZPE, or vacuum energy, then can you explain how it is that all particles in all matter everywhere are in a constant state of spin - ie perpetual motion, which is supposed to be impossible? Where do all particles in all matter everywhere get their energy from in the first place?

And can you also explain where permanent magnets get their energy from, like the energy to cause a piece of metal on the ground to defy the force of gravity and jump right up into the air?

Oh and where does all electrical current everywhere come from?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


Originally posted by cupocoffee
Yep. Wheeler was a thoroughly credible physicist, look it up.

I wasn't trying to undermine Professor Wheeler's credentials as a physicist. I was calling into question Tom Bearden's use of a 48 year old text book as his (only) data source.


And physicists like him have been openly writing about absolutely staggering amounts of energy in the vacuum in physics texts for at least 50 years.

Yes, I know. And other physicists have come to completeley different conclusions. One needs to look at all the information and try to understand why there is such a discrepancy.


So all those who routinely claim that it's "impossible" clearly haven't gone and read the relevant physics texts

I haven't claimed that anything is "impossible" (that's too absolute a term for me or any scientist to use).

I don't know what texts you've read, but here's a good starting point, which examines and explains this discrepancy in values for ZPE (from zero to infinite).

What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? - math.ucr.edu...

I have heard widely varying numbers for so called "zero point energy", some as low as practically zero and some as high as astronomical.


So, when you ask about the energy density of the vacuum, you get different answers depending on whether the person answering you is basing their answer on general relativity or quantum field theory.


The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.


Is that relevant enough? I won't poke my tongue out as I consider it rude and childish.

------------

reply to post by mbkennel
 

Thanks for that post, you quote a couple of very interesting and relevant points.


the laws of thermodynamics still apply: one needs a *lower* energy and higher-entropy state for matter to exist in so that one can extract useful work, which is what we all care about in making a power plant. The zero-point is precisely that---the bottom---and there's nowhere lower to go.

So even if there is an infinite supply of energy, getting it to do any useful work is impossible highly improbable.

... we have observed no evidence of its effect or existence in any astrophysical system, which can explore natural conditions far more extreme than what humans can generate.

Since the universe itself doesn't appear to be tapping into it I doubt if we'll be able to do any better.

Therefore we must come to the likely conclusion that the formal calculation is wrong or naive, being a simplistic theory prior to our full unification of quantum mechanics with relativity

Which is almost exactly what is said in the Energy Density of the Vacuum link I posted just above.

Once the Grand Unified Theory reconciles QM and Relativity, and the Theory of Everything unifies Gravity and the other three forces/interactions, then we might be getting somewhere ...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by
 


Hmm so since we in the world of matter are so completely unable to access that mind-bogglingly vast amount of ZPE, or vacuum energy, then can you explain how it is that all particles in all matter everywhere are in a constant state of spin - ie perpetual motion, which is supposed to be impossible? Where do all particles in all matter everywhere get their energy from in the first place?
Your question seems to imply that the classical laws of physics apply in the quantum world when obviously, they don't. We use quantum mechanics to describe the quantum world and classical Einstein-Newtonian physics to describe the macro world. We have yet to develop a unification theory to tie them together.


And can you also explain where permanent magnets get their energy from, like the energy to cause a piece of metal on the ground to defy the force of gravity and jump right up into the air?

Oh and where does all electrical current everywhere come from?

Both of these questions would be answered by taking a course in electromagnetism. We do have a fairly good understanding of electromagnetism in that our models can make quite accurate predictions. If your sister pushes or pulls you in one direction and your brother does so in the opposite direction, then you will move in the direction of the greater force. If a piece of metal jumps into the air as a result of electromagnetic force that means it got a push in the opposite direction of gravity. So saying the metal plate is defying gravity is a little bit like saying your brother is defying your sister if your brother pulls on you a little harder. I suppose you can say that but I'm not sure that's how I 'd say it.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Crazy Man Michael raised the question of whether there is very little or astronomical amounts of vacuum energy, a trillionth of 100 nanojoules or 10^97g/cm3, and also whether or not the universe can tap into it to do useful work.

My view is that the vacuum energy is not the "lowest" energy state, but the highest. It is the Source of All. All particles, all energy, all matter, all life comes from it, and we go back to it when we die.

In a nutshell that the whole Universe is one holographic field of energy of mind-boggling energy density.

And I do believe that we can tap that energy for useful work. Permanent magnets are the most obvious example.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Hmm so since we in the world of matter are so completely unable to access that mind-bogglingly vast amount of ZPE, or vacuum energy, then can you explain how it is that all particles in all matter everywhere are in a constant state of spin - ie perpetual motion, which is supposed to be impossible?


There is a complete logical disconnect between the first part of that sentence and the rest. It reminds me of Steven Colbert routine: "so, you are saying that low-riding jeans are a gateway to drugs? And that means, that we are not in Israel?"

As Arbitrageur said, there are quantum properties of particles (spin being just one of these) which are simply not a part of classical mechanics (which also means you can't visualize spin as rotation). If you really want to know, spin is conserved in particle interaction, it's not created of destroyed. Spin is not "extracted" from ZPE.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


But where do all particles get their energy from?

Where do permanent magnets get their energy from?

Where does all electrical current come from?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


But where do all particles get their energy from?


What energy? The rest mass?


Where does all electrical current come from?


What current? There are currents everywhere, they are powered by all kind of sources.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
ahhh atleast we are getting some good news instead of bad.

but i doubt the government will allow it.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
If I was an engineer of same caliber as this charlatan supposedly has, the first thing I would do is to disconnect external power to my house and replace it with a couple of these machines (for redundancy and ease of maintenance). After I run like this for a couple of months, I won't have problem attracting serious investors, building a scaled-up version and then a power plant. Who needs stupid royalties when he has access to a bottomless well of energy?
Imagine a power plant with no fuel and no pollution -- he would just get rich on carbon credits!

Don't hold your breath.

Well, that situation is usual. I'm very tired of hearing "but the evil government will suppress this"! Yes, that and the snake oil... We know how successfully the government suppressed this miracle cure.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
reply to post by CHA0S
 


you are using the big bang as an example of how this guys machine "creates" energy? Are you serious? If so, please elaborate. Using your theory on the big bang, show me how this knowledge proves the ability that a machine can and does create energy out of nothing. I am all for free energy, I understand how the theory of the big bang goes, but this machine does not create energy from nothing. No machine can. If you care to explain, in simple English, how this machine apparently does this, I would like to hear


If perpetual motion did not exist - the universe would instantly collapse leaving nothing behind.

Electrons constantly move, exhibit a constant charge - they never run out of batteries - where does their energy come from?

A fridge magnet sticks to the fridge - defying gravity - it doesn't get hot, its battery doesn't run down - it could pick up a million paper clips - doing work over and over again - all without losing any field strength - does this contradict the laws of thermodynamics?

Fields ARE energy - they constantly renew the energy within themselves, not matter how much energy is 'taken out'.

These devices are real - they simply tap fields for work using switching - it should not be difficult to understand. If you could switch gravity on and off. like you can a magnetic field, then you would be hard pressed to deny the obvious.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
If perpetual motion did not exist - the universe would instantly collapse leaving nothing behind.


In the context of motors and generators, "perpetual" really means producing energy perpetually, not just moving perpetually. You can put a gyroscope on magnetic bearings in a vacuum chamber and it will spin for quite a while, a good approximation of "perpetual". However if you want to tap this rotational energy source, it will slow down. I think it's pretty simple.


Electrons constantly move, exhibit a constant charge - they never run out of batteries - where does their energy come from?


Electrons can move at different velocities, including rather low velocities. They can be accelerated and decelerated. I don't see your point.



Fields ARE energy - they constantly renew the energy within themselves, not matter how much energy is 'taken out'.


That is demonstrably false. When the Sun heats your umbrella, the surface of the umbrella gets hot. In the shade the umbrella produces, the energy density is much lower (and hence it feels cooler).

If there is discharge between two object originally having different potential, it's the electric field that does the firework. Its energy is spent in the process.


These devices are real - they simply tap fields for work using switching - it should not be difficult to understand. If you could switch gravity on and off. like you can a magnetic field, then you would be hard pressed to deny the obvious.


Laws of thermodynamics are there for a reason.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Amagnon
If perpetual motion did not exist - the universe would instantly collapse leaving nothing behind.


In the context of motors and generators, "perpetual" really means producing energy perpetually, not just moving perpetually. You can put a gyroscope on magnetic bearings in a vacuum chamber and it will spin for quite a while, a good approximation of "perpetual". However if you want to tap this rotational energy source, it will slow down. I think it's pretty simple.



How not to get the point. Electrons in atoms move constantly at a fixed rate - you cannot 'accellerate' an electron that is part of an atom, you can pop it into a higher energy state, or strip it away - but while its attached to the atom it moves at a constant rate. It also produces a field constantly - the energy in this field is infinite - because the field size is theoretically infinite - it simply weakens over distance, but never drops to zero at any distance.





Electrons constantly move, exhibit a constant charge - they never run out of batteries - where does their energy come from?


Electrons can move at different velocities, including rather low velocities. They can be accelerated and decelerated. I don't see your point.

Then try thinking, you are discussing free electrons - I am discussing electrons bound to an atom.





Fields ARE energy - they constantly renew the energy within themselves, not matter how much energy is 'taken out'.


That is demonstrably false. When the Sun heats your umbrella, the surface of the umbrella gets hot. In the shade the umbrella produces, the energy density is much lower (and hence it feels cooler).



What does sunlight have to do with a field? Sunlight is radiation - not a field, radiation is just energy - so it can be converted or captured, but it does not replenish itself. A field is totally different - take gravity for instance - it moves anything that is 'up' to the 'down' position - but the field remains the same - it doesn't lose energy by doing that work.

An electromagnetic field, such as that produced by a permanent magnet, can be used to do work over and over again. You can pick up paper clips all day - it wont wear it out.




If there is discharge between two object originally having different potential, it's the electric field that does the firework. Its energy is spent in the process.



As far as standard science goes - it will tell you that a discharge is a transfer of electrons - so, again the field would have nothing to do with the energy moved or consumed by a discharge. The field is simply a side effect of a charge existing, it doesn't play any part in this kind of energy transfer.





These devices are real - they simply tap fields for work using switching - it should not be difficult to understand. If you could switch gravity on and off. like you can a magnetic field, then you would be hard pressed to deny the obvious.


Laws of thermodynamics are there for a reason.


Yes, they have their place - but they do not apply to fields - no matter how much stuff falls to earth, no matter how many things are under acceleration due to gravity - it remains constant. Imagine what we could do if we could switch it on and off, and reverse it or change its vector at will - we can do all those things with magnets, and their field strength exceeds gravity.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Yes, they have their place - but they do not apply to fields - no matter how much stuff falls to earth, no matter how many things are under acceleration due to gravity - it remains constant. Imagine what we could do if we could switch it on and off, and reverse it or change its vector at will - we can do all those things with magnets, and their field strength exceeds gravity.


Yes it's amazing, how quickly buddhasystem changes the subject whenever these amazing properties of magnets are brought up



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


He has a pulsed motor control like a multivibrator using discrete
component, capacitor resistor etc., wire board circuit.
I constructed one for a motor control.
Does this provide 'free energy' as I never compared results.
I think there is a UFO anti gravity effect cause by the pulsed ether.
It worked to the Tesla ether ship, why not for a motor generator.

The circuit sends positive pulses into the motor generator.

These are electrostatic pulses and not normal electricity and
has taken on the ether force Tesla used.
Tesla used a coil to make consistent voltage pulses in to the
ether to lift his ships.
Wonder if a pulsed motor coil might take off.
I'd sure like to know.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
What does sunlight have to do with a field? Sunlight is radiation - not a field, radiation is just energy



en.wikipedia.org...


Electromagnetic radiation (often abbreviated E-M radiation or EMR) is a phenomenon that takes the form of self-propagating waves in a vacuum or in matter. It comprises electric and magnetic field components



A field is totally different - take gravity for instance - it moves anything that is 'up' to the 'down' position - but the field remains the same - it doesn't lose energy by doing that work.


Let's see, imagine you have an object size of the Earth "falling down" from a distance of 100,000 miles, on our planet. Are you saying by the time the fall is almost over, the field on the surface of our planet will remain the same?



An electromagnetic field, such as that produced by a permanent magnet, can be used to do work over and over again. You can pick up paper clips all day - it wont wear it out.


You can't pick up infinite number of clips at once. After a certain limit, no more clips will be attracted to the magnet.



If there is discharge between two object originally having different potential, it's the electric field that does the firework. Its energy is spent in the process.


As far as standard science goes - it will tell you that a discharge is a transfer of electrons - so, again the field would have nothing to do with the energy moved or consumed by a discharge. The field is simply a side effect of a charge existing, it doesn't play any part in this kind of energy transfer.


You disagree with the statement that any current is movement of charge??? And that in case of a discharge electrons and ions are moving because of the electrostatic force? Imagine two charge spheres, creating a field, and then there is a spark between the two. Where did the energy of the spark come from?



[edit on 16-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Couldn't help but read your post.
An interesting result may have come to light from my point of view.

Considering Tesla used pulsed direct to the ether, quite possibly
there is no current as when electrons in metal are moved.
Pulsing cannot cause EM Hertz waves as Tesla said in court testimony
he did not make EM Hertz waves.
ED: Also thus nothing to do with magnets or magnetism and just
force of voltage induction.


[edit on 6/16/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 


As I understand it, zero point energy is like waves crashing on the sea, you don't empty the sea by capturing the energy of the wave. A good visual of ZPE is looking at the sink drain when it is emptied. The water going out the drain is being pulled in a spiral down the drain. If you stick your finger in the drain you feel the push of the water as it spirals past your finger but you neither decrease or stop the flow.





top topics
 
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join