Does this video show a working self propelled magnetic engine?

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 


Yeah.


It's funny. I remember watching That 70s Show, and Hyde was talking about how the government was cover-upping the car that ran on water, or something like that. Then the audience/canned laughter. I just dismissed him as either, crazy, joking, or just a stoner. Until its on shelves, people don't care about or believe it.

I don't have a problem sleeping, but I have, on occasion been kept up at night, thinking about perpetual motion and magnets. Even though I'm sure I woulda rather have gotten sleep, only a couple other things woulda been better time killers.


I didn't know they were like batteries, in a sense. I'm gonna trust that's the case, so thanks(?).




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 


Just like how petroleum was suppressed to keep the steam engine oligarchs in power, right?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Good question, and I bet the output and input are equal, except maybe slightly less charge as charges deplete and are replenished. I don't know anything about the subject though. I just think magnets and puzzles are fun.

(That last part makes me feel like the "I like turtles!" kid.)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Here's a couple Q's for fun:

If you heat up a magnet to where it loses it's charge, or if you strike a magnet hard enough (that works too, right?), where does the magnetic energy go? I would assume just 'out' and then it dissipates? Does the internal magnetism just flip and hug, cancelling itself out?

We know of animals using magnetism for navigation, but what else is there? Imagine something that 'eats' magnetic energy! Fun!

What, if any, magnetic qualities do 'the pyramids' have? They're on some magnetic grid lines, right? I've heard guesses about them being some sort of perpetual energy device.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by dashen
 

It's interesting, but there are some issues here:
-- the demo time is far too short. I'd rather watch a half-hour video and be able to observe any possible variations in spin rate. Something that's very well balanced can rotate for a fair while with limited loss and what we're seeing doesn't allow us to determine if it's truly "self-running" itself or not.

-- the music. If a demo of a device has music playing the first thing I ask is: "Why they didn't just leave the original sound? Could they be covering up something?" eg a fan blowing pulses of air (but sited off-camera), or the possible clicks of relays for electromagnets below the device.

-- what is below the device? At no time do we actually get a long shot to show the entire table/bench it's sitting on. Okay, he turned it slightly this way and that but it's sitting on an opaque surface and there could be something beneath it. (Like electromagnets as mentioned above.)

-- the over-run problem. If the device is a self-runner then a common argument is that once it starts it should spin up faster and faster, unless it has a governor system. I don't see any such system in use but the device's rate of spin does not get faster. So, under that argument, either it's governed somehow by something we can't see (and that makes the hidden e-magnet argument stronger), or its "power" is just sufficient to make it turn and overcome friction, but nothing more. In that case, we have the:

-- "useful work" problem. These machines might be interesting but unless they'll run with a load connected they are not useful for anything. If you connect any load to it and it stalls then it's simply a novelty item but is not going to solve the world's future energy requirements. It's got to be able to do work.

So, that's as I see it. If the thing is a self-runner, then I'd rather have seen it on a glass table top and hooked up to something to put a load on it. A small set of fan blades would do. Pushing air places a load on the device that turns the blades. The amount of work can even be guesstimated fairly well.

I'd also have preferred the video without any music. Just leave it as it is.

Finally, about the perma magnet question. There are magnets and magnets but okay, I guess we all know that.
Some are much stronger per unit mass than others, but they lose strength at varying rates depending on their composition. Even so, from what they say on overunity.com, a few hundred years would be a fair guess for a decent perma magnet to lose its effective strength.

However, with devices as finely set up as these, only a very small percentage of loss would be enough to make them stop working. And if the device is one that can take a load and therefore perform useful work (and I've not seen a genuine one yet), then that loss rate becomes critical. It could be a matter of only a few years or even less.

Just my 2c


Mike

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
And to finish my short string of posts:

If you had a large enough design scale, you could put a large load on a couple of these designs, no? Theoretically, since it has enough power to operate the LEDs and stuff. Keep it proportional, which might not be very plausible, but it should work for more if you increase the size, I would think. (?)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Very interresting. No doubt in my mind that magnetism will be the future's energy.
Be it earth magnetism or something else.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I allways thought this could be improoved upon.

Using magnets and a cpu fan video.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by proob4
I allways thought this could be improoved upon.

Using magnets and a cpu fan video.


That's pretty Bad Azz. Now, anyone can make a self contained perpetual motion machine easily and cheaply for proof of concept. In fact, this or a larger version would be Kick Butt when you need a fan and the electricity goes out, like in the hurricane I just went through. Spent a week with no AC.. I would have loved this little fan.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by proob4
 

Good find! Now, that is interesting, because assuming there's no chicanery here, we have a device that's operating and creating useful work.


It's worth investigating further. I'll have to dig out some old computer junk and see if I can get one to work.

Worth a try.

Mike

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 5/9/12 by JustMike because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


Yeah, I got one of those.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
To all the " scientists" in this thread... this is where science fails us. Here we have at least 3 good models of perpetual motion machines and yet, like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand, you guys refuse to see the potential in them and claim, "But these cant be real, They deny the laws of Physics! or, They cant do any work or they will kill themselves! " as if your disbelieving what your seeing.

I challenge you to look beyond your scientific religious programming and defy the laws of physics. Ha ha.

Don't state why it cannot work based on what has failed in the past - That's not being a good objective scientists. Ask instead How can we overcome these limitations to make this work like we want it to? Like I said, this .. you, are where science fails us.

I strongly believe a closed loop magnetic engine that feeds back into itself can be built. This engine can be made to do heavy physical work or produce enough electricity to power common everyday things with no external power source. This engine would have to use a mixture of a simple perpetual motion machine like the units we see above, and possibly capacitors, other coils that produce electricity through electromagnetic induction, simple motors, and lastly, electric magnets that are powered ( replenished) by the built device to keep the power through the loop going. I can almost draw the diagram on paper. My background is in electric components, the large stuff, not micro electronics. I worked with motors, relays, capacitors, switching systems, transformers and the like. Sure, these parts won't last forever, but they aren't meant to - they are only meant to get us off the grid.

Since we are using stored energy to boost the next component in line, there does not have to be any over unity or anything that would be Ify or difficult for the scientists to work with. How sharp are you guys? Can you envision a way to put these parts together ( or multiple of these parts) to make such an engine? Where you find a limitation in your design, counter it with another properly placed component.


Heck you could do it simply by putting a long shaft on the Free Energy Magnetic Motor above and add magnets and a coil to produce additional electricity through electromagnetic induction. This would be a great starting point.
edit on 5-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


In my opinion, I think you(and others) turn off a lot of "scientists" to the idea when you use the term perpetual.

Definition from Google:



per·pet·u·al/pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/
Adjective: Never ending or changing.


The truth is, while it seems perpetual, there is a force being applied to it, and even if the force would take 100 or even 1000 years to run out, it is NOT perpetual.

It is extremely efficient (I factor in environmental damage), and has no effect (that we are aware of) on our environment, and may not require much maintenance, but it is still technically not perpetual.

Even Nikola Tesla's Tesla Coil ran on "dark energy" or "zero-point energy" (called ether in ancient mythology, call it what you will.) and while this energy was undetectable at the time (and still is today), there was still something powering the coil, it did not simply run by itself.



to cover my butt: (off topic but relative to my post)

I do not believe global warming is entirely man-made and while I'm almost positive a huge portion of it is due to our solar system constantly moving, if you honestly believe that the billions of toxic waste, nuclear radiation, and other toxins that are polluting our water, air, and the body cells that run off of said elements is NOT a factor in the increasing temperature and/or increasing heath problems throughout the world then you are a fool.
edit on 5-9-2012 by theshepherd2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by theshepherd2
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


In my opinion, I think you turn off a lot of "scientists" to the idea when you use the term perpetual.

Definition from Google:



per·pet·u·al/pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/
Adjective: Never ending or changing.


The truth is, while it seems perpetual, there is a force being applied to it, and even if the force would take 100 or even 1000 years to run out, it is NOT perpetual.


Yes, it's understood that it's " perpetual" in as long as the parts last.. that's good enough for my purposes of creating a useful device that does the work of getting us self energy sufficient. I think it's wrong for scientists to get so hung up on the terminology that it stops progress cold without them even trying - spouting theory all day doesn't build a thing or discover the problems in their theories. Scientists seem to forget, nothing is written in stone like their so called Laws. Even these laws have been in a state of change with new information.

How about we adopt new terminology? Long Running Motor That Runs Under It's Own Power Until Such Time That It Breaks - is way too long LOL. We need something short and to the point that covers all of the above.. you know.. to satisfy the scientists...
edit on 5-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: addition



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 
That is brilliant. Whoever built it is as much artist and craftsman as engineer. Beautiful piece of engineering to watch. Thank you. S&F. :up

I liked how logical the inventor's mind was in demonstrating the principle of how it worked, too.:

On a large scale, if a way was built in to recharge the magnets, but left passive until the "machine" was turned off and then re-magnetized, it would seem to have many uses. Bah, I'm no engineer, but I do know when something is uber-cool.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Haha I agree completely my friend! I just believe this is why so many shrug off the idea without so much as a roll of the eyes.

Nikola Tesla proved it could be done, and was almost erased from history for doing so. If that doesn't raise a few eyebrows, I don't know what will.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I strongly believe a closed loop magnetic engine that feeds back into itself can be built. This engine can be made to do heavy physical work or produce enough electricity to power common everyday things with no external power source.
So why haven't you built one?

If you read my posts explaining the problems you will see I also said these are simple enough devices to build yourself, and I encourage you to build it yourself. I neither expect nor want you to take my word at face value...go ahead and try it, and report the results back to us here.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The basic physics of attempting to use a permanent magnet as a power source, is analogous to using a rock on a string pulley. Pretty soon the rock is going to reach the ground, and what ever the magnet is pulling will reach the magnet. In order to reset the system, you have to use energy to pull the rock back up, and you have to use energy to separate the magnet farther from its attractive counterpart,

The pull and push always balances out since you cannot create surplus energy from nothing in a closed system.
The friction , or resistance will always get ya.
edit on 5-9-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
The physics governing magnetic flux is so well documented that it is considered to be the most well understood of the five forces of atomic theory.

Yes, a magnet stores energy like a battery.
Yes, it's a well researched phenomenon and I'll even provide a name and a link:

Magnetic hysteresis.

Note in particular the hysteresis graph at that link. It's not exactly the same as a battery but it's a predictable phenomenon on a macro scale. In college I had a lab where we measured the hysteresis curve similar to what is shown in that link, so this stuff is taught in school, and people could even do this at home if they want to learn.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 


If that is true, then surely you must power your house with such a setup right?





top topics
 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join