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

reply to post by Realtruth


Thomas Bearden has done this on his website www.cheniere.org...
but how many people have heard of him or seen his work?

reply to post by cupocoffee


check out Nassim Haramein's web page
www.theresonanceproject.org... he explains it perfectly. I sat and watched all 8 hours of his videos and was fascinated every minute. He explains where the energy is coming from and where it goes.

Originally posted by Amagnon
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.

Actually that's partially correct and partially incorrect. If you are careful about what you do to the permanent magnet, it can last a very long time. Here are some of the things that can affect it:

Permanent magnets

The "life" of a permanent magnet depends on many factors. Naturally occuring forces conspire to knock the little domains out of alignment. But this is normally a very slow process. Temperature is a major player in this process. The higher the temperature, the faster this process will occur. Extreme heat [surpassing the curie point] will immediately randomize the domains. A sharp blow can also knock domains out of alignments, as can other nearby magnetic or electrical fields. Radiation can also knock domains out of alignment.

Many motors use permanent magnets (usually rare earth strong type). In this cases, there a few things that can demagnetize them, and thus must be avoided:

-extreme temperature (Currie temperature I think?)
- Too high of current (and thus magnetic field from the coils)
- damage from dropping, bashing, or even disassembling the magnets.

So, although permanent magnets can quickly become demagnetized, in such an application, you have to know at what temperature, current, etc this occurs, and design your system to avoid it.

Engineers involved in motor design need to be aware of the things that can demagnetize the permanent magnets in the motor and ensure that the design limits exposure to these factors appropriately. Notice one of the things that CAN disrupt the magnetic field of a permanent magnet is another magnetic field.

Can a magnet lose its magnetism?

How long will a permanent magnet last?

A permanent magnet will retain its magnetism unless it is affected by a strong outside magnetic or electrical force, or elevated temperatures. If they are not exposed to any of these conditions, permanent magnets will lose magnetism on their own, however this degradation is very slow, on the order of one percentage point every ten years or so.

Can a magnet lose its magnetism?

Yes, if a magnet is influenced by another strong magnet, is affected by a powerful electrical force, or is exposed to temperatures above a certain level, it may lose some or all of its magnetic strength. Be sure to identify the properties of the magnet in question before using it if loss of strength is a concern.

The reason I note this is I have seen people try to construct "over unity" generators thinking nothing can run down the magnetic field of a permanent magnet. While it's true that in many applications a permanent magnet can last a very long time, exposing them to other magnetic fields like in an over unity generator can run down the magnetic field. Just ask anyone who has built one of these how long it lasted and how much power they got out before they had to replace or re-magnetizete the magnets.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Cher Arbitrageur,

this is completely inconsequential. I don't care is permanent magnets get ruined in the alleged "perpetual motion" machine just after two cycles. The point is that you can't make even one over-unity cycle.

reply to post by buddhasystem


It's incredibly consequential!

How is it that, as long as you are kind to your permanent magnet and take precautions to preserve its field strength, as Arbitrageur has outlined for us, that it can do real work and cause objects to accelerate, over and over and over again, for years, without consuming ANY fuel whatsoever and barely losing any field strength?

WHERE does the energy to do all that work come from? If not from the vacuum energy?

Can you explain it for us in simple layman's terms that anyone can understand?

No? Hmm........

The Foo on History Channel:


Bright light and mechanical drive and ether drive from electrical
coil discharges.

Disruptive ether bonds are the power source and have more
energy than the initial voltage to the coil.

Also in another shown was fission and fusion they got totally wrong.
Mass does not give the energy.
The Neutrons breaking ether bonds delivers the energy.
I said that.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It's incredibly consequential!

How is it that, as long as you are kind to your permanent magnet and take precautions to preserve its field strength, as Arbitrageur has outlined for us, that it can do real work and cause objects to accelerate, over and over and over again, for years, without consuming ANY fuel whatsoever and barely losing any field strength?

You have a magnet in your hand, you pick up let's say a steel nut. How do you do it over and over again?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Once again you avoid the question of where magnets get the energy to do work from. No big surprise there.

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Once again you avoid the question of where magnets get the energy to do work from. No big surprise there.

I think you are confusing the magnetic field with energy. The energy required for attracting a piece metal over and over is coming from the actor that removes the piece of metal again after it has been attracted. The required energy to do this is at least equal to the energy you can ever generate by attracting a piece of metal. In practice the required energy to do this is alway more. The magnetic field however can remain for a long period. But the field itself is not generating any energy.

That is why machines like the one in this topic will never work. It is a nice fantasy, but nothing more than that.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Once again you avoid the question of where magnets get the energy to do work from. No big surprise there.

Oh please. There is plenty of energy spread around the Universe. Nuclear weapons is one shining example. As I said before answering the same inane question, you can drive to the Grand Canyon and jump off the rim. Rest assured gravity will do work on your sad body. That doesn't mean that you can extract energy from vacuum, by jumping into the Canyon multiple times, even if you were to survive the fall.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh please. There is plenty of energy spread around the Universe. Nuclear weapons is one shining example. As I said before answering the same inane question,

The inane question, that you quite clearly don't know the answer to.....

you can drive to the Grand Canyon and jump off the rim. Rest assured gravity will do work on your sad body. That doesn't mean that you can extract energy from vacuum, by jumping into the Canyon multiple times, even if you were to survive the fall.

Not that I particularly enjoy talking about my own death, but thanks for bringing Gravity up too. How is it that the Earth accelerates millions and millions of objects, all day long, every day, for thousands of years, but the force of Gravity never changes?

Accelerating things requires energy, doesn't it? So where does the Earth get all that energy from?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Cher Arbitrageur,

this is completely inconsequential. I don't care is permanent magnets get ruined in the alleged "perpetual motion" machine just after two cycles. The point is that you can't make even one over-unity cycle.

I used to think so, but I've seen enough reports like these to make me wonder:

Do you think an all-magnet motor (no electrical input) is possible?

I know a few people who built a device like this and they had a similar result, where it would spin faster and faster until it either fell apart, or until the magnets were depleted and had to be recharged (resulting in a net loss in overall energy).

Of course it's possible to build something with magnets that will spin for a while. Many people have done it. But eventually it will demagnetize and slow down, and end up losing more energy overall than was gained.

All alleged motors (spinning or not) have one thing in common and that is they produce virtually no excess torque. As soon as a load is placed the thing will halt. A motor that cannot work under a load is not practical.

Another thing is the energy isn't infinite nor free. So even if it were possible to create a spinning motor, placing magnets within the field of other magnets will gradually wear down the flux.

I can't find the better source where I read about this but one person calculated how much energy they got out of the device before the magnets needed to be re-magnetized, and they figured out how much energy it took to re-magnetize the magnets, and calculated the energy efficiency was maybe 20% or so, far less than the "over unity" or over 100% some people claim.

So according to his explanation, extracting the work while the magnets are becoming demagnetized is like accelerating into the grand canyon. You change some "potential energy" into "kinetic energy" but to repeat the cycle you have to put a lot of work into the system, either traveling back up to the rim of the grand canyon, or re-magnetizing the magnets.

So I don't know if it's true or not but if it's really only 20% efficient as one experimenter explained it, then it's not really over unity any more than jumping into the grand canyon is.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So according to his explanation, extracting the work while the magnets are becoming demagnetized is like accelerating into the grand canyon. You change some "potential energy" into "kinetic energy" but to repeat the cycle you have to put a lot of work into the system, either traveling back up to the rim of the grand canyon, or re-magnetizing the magnets.

So I don't know if it's true or not but if it's really only 20% efficient as one experimenter explained it, then it's not really over unity any more than jumping into the grand canyon is.

Okay so jumping into the grand canyon may not be the best example.

But how about putting something in orbit?

Once something's in orbit, the Earth accelerates it continuously, indefinitely; and yet the force of Gravity never changes and the Earth never runs out of energy.

Accelerating something is supposed to require energy, and yet there's this mysterious "Force of Gravity" in which everything is accelerating toward everything else all the time - but no energy is ever spent.

I mean...... I'm not even a physicist but I can see a lot of these contradictions as plain as night and day.

We are told "perpetual motion" is impossible, but we are also told that everything in the Universe is in a constant state of motion all the time.

We are told that you can't get more energy out than you put in - but the Earth does that all the time.

etc etc....

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Once again you avoid the question of where magnets get the energy to do work from. No big surprise there.

I think you are confusing the magnetic field with energy. The energy required for attracting a piece metal over and over is coming from the actor that removes the piece of metal again after it has been attracted. The required energy to do this is at least equal to the energy you can ever generate by attracting a piece of metal. In practice the required energy to do this is alway more. The magnetic field however can remain for a long period. But the field itself is not generating any energy.

That is why machines like the one in this topic will never work. It is a nice fantasy, but nothing more than that.

You hit the nail right on the head YOU never get something for nothing but these guys never seem to work that out.
Its funny they claim all these types of motors disappear due to big business buying the patents and the device then vanishes BUT we all know about the inventors claims they are posted all over the net BUT you never see one of these inventions PUT to a REAL pratical demonstration its always some stupid little lab set up.

Its to bad but.

This thread will run longer than that motor

reply to post by cupocoffee


An object in orbit around the earth does not accelerate, it moves at more or less constant speed. Just look at the moon, or any satellite we have up there. If you increase the speed of an object in orbit it will fly away and finally it will no longer be affected by the earths gravity. In fact, the moon is slowly moving away from earth.

The reason it doesn't require energy to keep an object in orbit it because space is a vacuum. A vacuum has no resistance so wont slow down objects. Therefor objects can move freely.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by -PLB-]

reply to post by -PLB-


An object in orbit is always accelerating toward the Earth, even if its actual velocity does not change.

The constant acceleration vector toward the Earth is what creates the orbit in the first place.

reply to post by cupocoffee


An object in orbit is in constant free fall yes, but its velocity is constant, the object does not accelerate. So no energy is generated nor required to keep it in orbit.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The constant acceleration vector toward the Earth is what creates the orbit in the first place.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

An object in orbit is in constant free fall yes, but its velocity is constant, the object does not accelerate. So no energy is generated nor required to keep it in orbit.

Yes there's an acceleration vector and yes if the object is in a circular orbit it would have a constant velocity. But almost no orbits are perfectly circular so what is really conserved is not velocity but angular momentum, which allows for slight accelerations and decelerations due to the orbital eccentricity. In the case of Earth orbit, there is enough atmosphere at the altitude of the ISS to make it necessary to fire the thrusters every so often to keep it in orbit because it loses altitude due to friction with the Earth's atmosphere.

So maybe Earth orbit isn't such a good example either, because we have to spend over $200 million per year on fuel cost just to maintain the orbit of the ISS. And the moon keeps moving away from the Earth, it's spiraling away from us, so it's not a great example of a stable orbit either.

But I'm not sure what your point is. As soon as you try to extract any work from the system of angular momentum, like the ISS overcoming air friction, some angular momentum is lost (in that case to frictional heat losses) so it's a system you have to put energy into, to maintain angular momentum. Any energy you get out comes at a cost, in either the loss of angular momentum, or in the ISS at a fuel cost of over $200 million per year.

VASIMR Testing on the space station

The ISS orbits at a relatively low altitude, so as to make it easily accessible from Earth. The downside of this, however, is that the ISS experiences fairly high levels of atmospheric drag, making periodic boosts of altitude necessary. Currently, altitude reboosting by chemical rockets fulfills this requirement. If the tests of VASIMR reboosting of the ISS goes according to plan, the increase in specific impulse could mean that the cost of fuel for altitude reboosting will be one-twentieth of the current $210 million annual cost.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is, accelerating something is supposed to require energy. But in the case of something orbiting the Earth, there's a constant acceleration vector toward the Earth, but no energy is spent, the Earth never runs out of energy and the force of Gravity never changes.

All I am trying to say is that all these different things make sense if you accept that there's a hidden (virtual) energy field that powers the whole Universe - that gives electrons their charge, that causes Gravity and Magnetism, etc.

The vacuum energy of astronomical energy density that Bearden speaks of. (And Wheeler, and Feynman, and Lee and Yang, and, and, and.........)

And that vacuum energy is what makes these "free energy" devices possible.