Free Energy Device (Perpetual Motion)! He did it simply! Arranging magnets like people said couldn'

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I don't follow your thinking. Are you saying it would spin longer without the magnets? Because without the magnets it wouldn't even spin once. Gravity at most would pull the cam down and then back up to about 90 degrees past dead bottom then gravity would pull it back down.....and done.

I have seen these designs before, even built some in college in computer and electronic engineering class, but we had to restart the cycle manually by hand every turn. His idea of applying a cam to do this at the top, and again at the bottom, is quite good.

I am not convinced this is for real though. As it would have to lose magnetism over time from coercivity from the top magnet on the upper arm, and the bottom magnet on the base, that the cam manipulates, not to mention wind and friction.

It was working, and I don't doubt it will work quite well for a time, but the magnets losing strength would still cause it to wind down eventually.




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Magnets.....how do they work?

...heh...sorry had to
I do believe though that free energy is indeed possible, plausible, and has most certainly been supressed.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AutOmatIc
 


I totally agree, I believe it is quite possible, I just don't think the device seen here is an over unity device, it is simply using the power stored in some very expensive rare earth magnets to make it work. They will lose power and the device will fail. Though it remains to be seen how long, as rare earth magnets are very powerful.

If it would work for say....hell even a month, I would say it is proof of a sort. But I don't see this being able to make any actual power output.

For example if the device were hooked up to a generator, and the magnets had 100 volts of power in them, it would not get even half that much out, as friction and wind resistance would eat up some. And then there is the ohms of resistence in the wires to overcome etc.

Scaling up would only cost a lot more in expensive magnets.....I just always hope. One day, soon, we will see somthing that actually blows my mind.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


So when can I buy one pre build that will at least charge my iphone?????? It's NO WHERE TO BE FOUND.



THEREFORE IT'S BULLSHEAT AS FAR AS i'M CONCERNED


this ladies and gentlemen is called the entitlement generation, they have no patience and think they "deserve" #,

"dont show me how to fish just give me a fish or # you"

"dont show me how to build it, build it for me and give it to me NOW or # you"

this is what happens after 200 years of government build up to a welfare dependant populace. coupled with the pansy ass parenting we have today, they are all too busy with the 9-5 job to bother instilling morals into their children


I don't feel I "DESERVE ANYTHIng" I'm just pointing out the simple fact that if anyone had anything even reasonably workable then they'd likely have a video showing it at least charging there iphone, and or selling plans or selling actual working models.

BUT NO ONE DOES???? Why not??

Plus I don't know how to build anything that technical. Even if it was simple to do there's no plans out there??? And or they don't really show step by step for someone who isn't an engineer how to build them nor what they're capable of doing once you do have them built.


see that there, thats you answering your own question, why doesnt someone build it you ask? then you state that you are incapable of such as you lack the knowledge, question-answer.

prior to this post stating you lack the knowledge to create something average and well known as a generator, you stated that it must not be possible cause you dont see someone having done it yet.........

by your logic everything youve never done or witnessed is impossible........

welcome to the same logic as claimed manned flight was impossible before the wright brothers,
edit on 9/25/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Hmm, that is a nice toy. Would be interesting to calculate the energy supplied at start when the upper bar is moving down.

The biggest issue I see is that he is running it with no load (friction can be reduced considerably by lubrication and coatings) and he is only running it for about one minute.

Given this constraints the wheel on my bike is a better perpetuum mobile.

PS:
He could easily have placed an up and down moving magnet driven by an electric motor under the green plate the device is resting on to power it.
edit on 25-9-2012 by moebius because: ps



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
welcome to the same logic as claimed manned flight was impossible before the wright brothers,[


Funny that claim, you forget man flew in 1783, and Otto Lilienthal, and 1891 Samuel P. Langley.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
By the way this "manned flight was impossible" argumentation is getting boring. Manned flight was not a physics issue. It didn't violate any laws, was more a question of materials and engineering.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
By the way this "manned flight was impossible" argumentation is getting boring. Manned flight was not a physics issue. It didn't violate any laws, was more a question of materials and engineering.


And nither will free energy do when we find out
HOW to do it...



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 

You have to differentiate. Free energy could mean geothermal, photovoltaic or tidal energy which do not violate physics. The so called perpetuum mobiles like the one in the video discussed here would violate conservation of energy if they actually worked. But as I posted above the video is not very convincing, could be faked rather easily.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
like all "perpetual motion" machines, it will stop once you divert any of the energy to do useful work.


People keep saying this but I disagree. I believe you could create the device that captures the energy in such a way as to not take all of it.. just a little, still leaving this thing spinning - do it in some non physical way where there is no friction on the unit - then take that tiny bit of energy and step it up for useful work.
edit on 25-9-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


I don't have to convince you.
Continue thinking that this guy suddenly rewrote everything we understand about the world.


And that's your big problem and shows how unscientific you are. I don't blame you, much of the scientific world suffers from the same delusions. True science calls for us to be open minded and objective. To explore all possibilities. To know nothing has ever been proven and all we have to work with are theories that change constantly when new information comes along. When you get to the point you believe we know it all, that the so called Laws of Physics are written in stone and cannot be changed or challenged or expanded on, then your science becomes dogma, pseudo science and religion.

So, which religion do you belong to? Are you an Einstinian, a Saganologist or a Newtoneist ?

Leaps in science have in the past been discovered by amateurs ( even uneducated ones) who thought different enough to challenge the accepted view. Check out this article about some of them www.cracked.com...

Michael Faraday,
A Musician Discovered the Planet Uranus,
Srinivasa Ramanujan a teenager from India, a self taught theorist who challenged the norms.
Gregor Mendel an uneducated Monk who discovered how genetics work



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 
What about open-mindedness towards the youtube devices being simple magician tricks(hidden mechanism) and fakes?

Some here are trying too hard to believe it seems, ignoring the obvious. I've yet to see a convincing perpetuum mobile demonstration. And it is not that it would be too hard to make one if the devices worked as advertised.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


I did the same experiments 30 years ago... technology is way past that now, thats why it's allowed on youtube.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Miccey
 

You have to differentiate. Free energy could mean geothermal, photovoltaic or tidal energy which do not violate physics. The so called perpetuum mobiles like the one in the video discussed here would violate conservation of energy if they actually worked. But as I posted above the video is not very convincing, could be faked rather easily.


Perhaps, but still...We dont have ALL the facts..
We dont KNOW everything.
Just like the ppl talking bad about the Wrightbrothers,
they didnt have all the facts. All we have are a series
of theories, that we can observe yes, but still, MOST of
them ARE theories..Without ALL the facts, we cant say
Perpetual Motion is IMPOSSIBLE.

So i doesent matter WHAT you say about it...
Your probobly Wrong, or most likely.....



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Im going to waste my money and build one of these. but i dont understand the north/south alignments of thevmsgnet mountings? Hmm



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
could this be used to create static?
i.e like a van der graff (sp?)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
A Permanent Magnet Motor, in .pdf format. There ya go


www.4shared.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Have any of you seen this footage before?

www.youtube.com... ?

This design (what OP posted) can and will make energy, just needs some tweaks that's all.
edit on 25-9-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
Maintaining a vacuum on earth would require more energy than this could ever produce.


Wait, my thermos maintains a vacuum without using any energy...

And, there is gravity in space... if orbiting, then it would be falling so gravity couldn't be used... but what if you used rotation to simulate gravity?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
Wrong again. It takes energy to push the springs back. That's energy you can't use, and would probably stop the machine.


What...? It takes energy to lift the arm against the force of gravity...

Springs, gravity... what's the effective difference?
edit on 25/9/2012 by Recouper because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join