that would be cool wouldn,t it.

It is not "wind". And, yes, you can manipulate a magnetic field: through the application of energy! That's it. You cannot make a motor soley out of magnets using their attraction and repulsion whether dipole or monopole. The field will always equalize and stop moving which then requires the application of an outside force to change this arrangement.

yes but it isn,t all, flux flow is different in a standalone magnet, and if another magnet is placed within its flux lines, using another magnet you can pull away or redirect flow of a nearby magnet, that is why you use magnetic shield, aka mu mettal if this effect is undesired, or you can incorparate it in your design, posibuilities are endless, only imagination is limited.

whatever man, my experements proved otherwise, do some yourself, you'll see, just be presistent, and don,t give up if few attempts don,t work, combine gravity, solenoids, flywheels..., you'll see what i mean.

I didn't say it's "all", I just tried to give some perspective of what "flux" is in physics, because the word is thrown around quite often in various directions

Yes the imagination is the limit, but trying to calculate forces is a nightmare, we are talking about triple triple integration of triple integrals for realistic objects (where magnetization is not homogenuous, and neither is field gradient)

Well, you've done what nobody in history has done and defeated the laws of physics. You should really patent that.

not really, lots of ppl done that, there are many patents, but it didn,t get them far. i do it for my own entertaiment, may be one day i'll make one strong enough to actually be usefull(apart from powering few led bulbs 60-80mah)

lol, yea you are right about that, it isn,t to easy to mathematicly calculate, thou some ppl did, i never do it, i go by trial and error. i use magnetis viewing film, plus magnets i get, are not made to my specks,(no 2 are ever alike similar but isn,t the same) have to do with whatever i got, not always exactly what i need, so it does take a while, but it is ok, i,m in no rush.

It didn't get them far because they don't work. The US Patent office won't even grant perpetual motion patents anymore without a working model. There never has been one. There has never been an over unity machine that works.

lol, not saying it's never been done, the laws are there plain and simple, it's just that if you wanted to create a series of very complex functions for ANY body in ANY kind of field, you'd probably have to end up using a computer, but the first step would still be with pen and paper, and there would be a lot of math before you can
have an automated process ready for the computer. And all that just for simple magnet shapes. Of course there is always a way to approximate any magnet with one or a series of equivalent magnetic moments, but that just gets you into ballpark, and for getting accurate data, I think most people settle for experimentation and measurement instead of math. Well I guess those guys working on maglev trains use real math without approximation or trial-and-error.

by the way, what kind of magnets are you using? (material) ?

neodium magnets work the best in my case, ceramic isn,t as good, cobalt samarium would be the best, but cost too much.
mag lev uses electomagnets, so you can predict and calculate those easyer than permanent magnets.

you'll be very surprised if you go to patent office web site and type in search for magnetic motor, you'll see hundreds of patents.
even better go on youtube and type in magnet motor, you'll see some as well.

I'm curious, has anyone tried using Gadolinium for such things? (well not at room temperature of course). It seems like a wonder-material at low temps



electromagnets can be just as tough, for example interaction between two current loops which aren't coaxial in 3d space is very complex, but it is simpler than having two magnetized bodies yes

never heard of such, and since it isn,t a room temp, pretty much out of the question for me.

I understand that there are many patents, but they don't work. That's the point.

It's the contrast agent injected for MRI

but actually it's a metal, looks almost identical as Neodymium , but has unusual magnetic properties, when cooled down the mag susceptibility goes rocket high.
I have really been having trouble finding comparative data, but it seems so far Gadolinium is the most powerful ferromagnetic material at adequate temps.
The trouble is it's Curie temp is at only about room temperature, so it's far less useful in human environments.

and you know this how?
don,t confuse perpetual motion for magnet motors, not the same thing

that pretty much defeats the purpose if i use those, sure they work for mri, their pupose not to create energy, but in my case it is, i,d have to get involved with a cooling and contament of low temp, that throws efficency of magnetic motor right out of the winow,

No, I'm just talking, didn't suggest they would be good for what you are doing

but you know, at some point, if you wanted more and more energy out of such a device, magnetization at saturation point would become an issue.
Lighting bulbs is one thing, but if you wanted to make a plant using these things, you'd probably have to go with much higher magnetization, or
ever superconductors , all of which require cooling

You are wrong. Theorectically perpetual motion machines are possible in our universe.

This is because of negative energy.

As all physicists know the uncertainty principle means empty space is not really empty but contains negatively charged virtual particles which pop into existance for brief periods of time. Two mirrors in a vacum facing each other reflect the image of these virtual particles back and forth. This screws up the maths and a negative energy field is created between the two mirrors which draws them together.

This negative energy comes from no where and there is an infinate supply of it in the universe. Only small quantities have so far been tapped but it would pave the way for machines powered by nothing more than a ever lasting vacum. So perpetual motion is possible.

No, its cheaper but not free, there still is wear and tear, maintenance, lubrication and I could probably go on for an hour.

Because it does not need to work to be patented? You know, like the sharpening of razor blades under a pyramidal form?

Which is very theoretical and not really demonstrated.

But that's what we're talking about! All electrical motors are magnetic motors but they are about as far from free energy as you can get. Static magnetic motors don't work.

It is theoretical, can be demostrated and is excepted in mainstream science.

Experiments based on it are well known and documented. Try the Casimer effect.

well, you can belive what you choose, i,m not gonna try to change your mind, time will.

No time won't because it's impossible. Magnets can only do work in right angles to their magnetic field. No matter how you arrange them. In order to avoid equilibrium you have to change those angles in cycle with whatever you are trying to move. That requires energy input from the get go. Even a theoretical motor in a vaccum (taking away air resistance) and having it's moving parts suspended in a magnetic field (taking away friction) is subject to gravity. If you use gravity it will still stop eventually as the magnets lose their fields. More importantly you cannot derive work from them because they are barely sustaining themselves as is and the slightest load would stop them (not to mention a motor in a vaccum is fundementally useless). Another important point is magnets can't come close to outputting the energy it takes to produce them so they'll never be efficient given the best theoretical case.

^^^^do you have any practical experience building these? or right question, did you ever attemted to build one?

Yeah, I screwed around with static magnetic motors when I was a teenager. When I kept arriving at the same result (I was trying to make a simple rotary motor but I couldn't stop the rotor from balancing out in the field) I decided maybe I should read more about how magnets work and physics in general. After realizing the futility of it I came to the conclusion that the future of free energy lies in harnessing environmental energy. The problem with magnets is that they simply cannot create enough work to be functional as a source of energy. I'm not saying you should stop experimenting, it's fun. But it will never produce energy even near unity. Thus magnets can't produce a functional motor that can produce work (over-unity) without the introduction of energy.

you mean



negative energy? This is a theoretical curiosity that lately has gained some notoriety, but proven is something else.

If experiments that use it work then it is real.

Irrespective of your views on it being a curisosity or whatever the fact is that it paves the way for the Laws of thermo dynamics to be violated leading to a perpetual motion machine.

this is where you mix up perpetual motion, and overunity, you do intoduce energy, to the equation, but you get out more, magnets are greatly increace power, but you put energy to create initial power, little energy, a magnetic v gate on a drum, and a single diopole magnet as a stator(it will spin as you move the stator towards the v gate), few drums on a shaft, add a flywheel all you need to do is move away the stators at the apex of the v, and it will pass the ballance point, and it will continue to spin, do all of the drums, like that in certan order, than all you need to put in small effort to move the stators, do a camshaft, actuate it with solenoid, (wich will give you almost all energy spent to actuate it, back as you shut it off and magnetic field collapses) put in few of those solenoids...., and you can be sure to get more out than you put in.
that is just one way, there are more, i don,t know all of them, it can be something other than v gate, who knows, don,t forget liner motion,
energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change forms, how efficiantly it happens, limited only by your imagination.

By free energy I mean a motor that will provide more energy than it consumes, in any form. A wind farm transforms kinetic energy to electric, but more goes in than comes out.



However you do it, all you're doing is transferring energy from one place/form to another. You're not creating it.



Again, you're confusing literally cost with energy cost. I don't care how free a magnet is. To create a magnet motor you need a variable field. To create a variable field you need electricity. More than you get back out again. Period.

As for negative energy, its a bit of a fluffy area. I really don't see how it violates the Law of Conservation.

It is interesting how people will insist that the Laws of Physics no longer apply to the 21st century.
It is akin to saying that Gravity isn't really Gravity....that what goes up doesn't have to come down.

I have a machine that runs on 2, 6 volt lantern batteries....the machine boosts the 12 volts to 400 volts thus providing a signal one can follow with a receiver and headphones. Many here would argue endlessly that more energy is being produced than is going in because....400 volts is greater than 12 volts....as Emma has already pointed out over and over again....it is merely a transference of energy....not MORE energy...

Ain't that the truth.

That's all I'm saying.

you missing whole lot of energy that doesn,t look conventional, sure wind puts energy in a windmill, or wateflow in a hydro electic plant, it might be less out than in, but do you care? you don,t pay for wind or water current, it gives you its energy for free, same thing with magnets, put one magnet on the table and put another one above it, it'll jump up, defeat gravity that acts on it, and stick to other magnet's opposite pole, so there is energy inside that magnet that made it fly up, nd stick, so why can't you make it work for you??? it doestn,t have to be rotating fields to create motion, it doesn,t have to be circular motion at all. it doesn,t even have to be visible motion, think about it.

you ppl only limit yourself, you can quote all the laws you want and find excuses before even thinking how to make it work , keep on, nothing usefull ever came from nay sayers.

Right, this thread is seriously starting to do my head in. I've stated over and over again why it won't work. We're going round in circles, and aztek, honey, you're so wide of the mark its bordering on infuriating.

I'm going to respond to your last post, wrap it up and then I'm done, because if you don't get it now, you never will.



A magnetic field is produced by the motion of electric charges. To produce the powerful varying magnetic field that a magnetic motor would require you would have to power the magnetic field with an input of electricity.

Less energy will come out.



For a motor to produce power, yes, generally there have to be moving parts powered by air, steam, combustion, whatever. This is how power stations and power generators work.



Again, you are missing the point completely. Wind energy is not what we mean when we say "free". A free energy machine PRODUCES MORE POWER THAN IS PUT IN.

How many other ways can I say this? I've stated above that without electricity, it won't work. More has to go in than come out.

OK, I've totally had enough. Like I say, if you don't get it now, you never will. Good luck with your plans, I hope they make you very very rich.

thanks emma and everybody. i (think) i've learned a lot i didn't know about magnets and stuff today. very interesting.

You're welcome, as ever.

There are some common misconceptions going on in this thread. I will try to correct those. If you think what I state here is incorrect, you are welcome to look up these things in physics or, in some cases, on the web.

Permanent magnets are not powerful enough to produce work. Fact: More often than not, DC motors use PMs as one field or the other. Small motors use PMs as the stator, many larger motors use PMs as the rotor. This requires a switched stator set, usually 3 phase on/off. The more powerful of these PM motors develop several horsepower. An offshoot of PM motors is the PM generator, which rotates the PM through stator windings to produce relatively clean AC. Neodymium and samarium cobalt have fields in the range of 14,000 gauss, which is quite powerful.

Motors work by magnetic attraction/repulsion. This is patently false, and a common misconception, even among those who work on and design those motors. The actual modus operandi is this: "A current-carrying conductor immersed in a magnetic field will exhibit a torque whose direction is dependent on the field polarity and direction of current flow." From Applied Physics. This can be experimentally shown by connecting a single wire to a power supply then placing the wire into a field. The wire will move from one side of the field to the other. So, in a PM motor (or any bipolar motor) the torque is derived from the winding, not the magnetic poles. The actual cores are included to intensify the field (provide a flux path). A particular type of motor, called the basket motor, has a rotor that has no core, but is wound in similar fashion to a cored motor. This type provides a very fast reaction due to smaller rotor mass, but is limited in power due to the fact that the rotor windings have no support.

Exception: The switched reluctance motor DOES work using magnetic attraction. The SR motor uses (generally speaking) only stator coils to operate, and the rotor is either machined soft iron or cast ferrite. This motor has no rotor windings; the stator is actually magnetizing cogged ferrites to attract similar ferrites on the rotor. This type of motor can be quite powerful, and is more efficient that any other type. The drive mechanism can range from single phase switched to multi-phase switched, and offers the advantage that there is NO back EMF produced, since no permanent fields exist within the motor. The major disadvantage of this type of motor is that the torque ripple is quite high in comparison to other types. This type of motor cannot reasonably be driven by sinusoidal inputs, but must be square (on/off) inputs. In varying form, switched reluctance can be made to appear as a generator, although the construction becomes quite complex.

Motors require a varying field to work. This is also quite incorrect. The most famous non-commutated motor/generator is the Faraday wheel, also known as the Barlow wheel. This is a unipolar motor, and can be produced in varying forms, almost all different than the original, but conceptually the same. This type of motor will run on DC with NO change in the field. The exact process is still conjecture, but it does run. Around the turn of the 19th century (1900), the Forbes dynamo was in widespread use; this was a unipolar generator. Nikola Tesla revised the concept mechanically to make a dynamo that removed the problem with brushes on the rim of the wheel.
The unipolar dynamo does not necessarily require a stator field. The exact process is unknown, as stated, but if you look it up on youtube, you can find a short video of a very simple unipolar motor using a neodymium button, a piece of wire, a screw, and a battery. Note also that this type of motor can produce large amounts of power from much smaller and lighter configurations. General Atomics is currently under contract to produce 20,000 and 40,000 horsepower versions for the US Navy; as proof of concept, GA has produced a 400 hp model. The configuration is different that previous models, but is conceptually the same.

One type of motor developed in the 1980s, loosely known as the "electric Wan kel", uses PMs on both the rotor and stator. The stator is formed as an incomplete spiral; the rotor has (originally) three PMs at 120 degree intervals. One small section of the stator, the size of one of the rotor PMs, was used as a "starter", an electromagnet the pushed the rotor magnet into the spiral field. The rotor and stator are oriented as like poles, therefore repulsing. The majority of the drive came from the like fields "slipping" by one another, towards the spiral gap. This motor concept was exported to Japan, and there was developed to experimentally produce 45 hp, sufficient to drive a small car. The apparent failure of the motor to gain popularity is due to pressures from large firms having interest in fossil fuels. If one looks at this concept critically, it is mathematically possible to avoid the static point. It is also possible to obtain overunity. If there is any interest I will find the paper and place it in this thread. However, I caution that the math is not suitable to easy reading.

I'll Quote the quote's and those you posted and have been following will identify! "free energy" is because you don't have some diesel oil in your backyard, northwest As far as it's usual use it means a machine that puts out more work than the energy required to run it. There are lots of ways to harvest naturally occuring energy though. That energy is not "free" in the physics sense, but for practical purposes it is. capeo but another definition for "free energy" might be a container of energy containing more energy than a person or humanity can ever need.northwest yes but it isn,t all, flux flow is different in a standalone magnet, and if another magnet is placed within its flux lines, using another magnet you can pull away or redirect flow of a nearby magnet, that is why you use magnetic shield, aka mu mettal if this effect is undesired, or you can incorparate it in your design, posibuilities are endless, only imagination is limited.aztek whatever man, my experements proved otherwise, do some yourself, you'll see, just be presistent, and don,t give up if few attempts don,t work, combine gravity, solenoids, flywheels..., you'll see what i mean. aztek ou are wrong. Theorectically perpetual motion machines are possible in our universe.

This is because of negative energy.

As all physicists know the uncertainty principle means empty space is not really empty but contains negatively charged virtual particles which pop into existance for brief periods of time. Two mirrors in a vacum facing each other reflect the image of these virtual particles back and forth. This screws up the maths and a negative energy field is created between the two mirrors which draws them together.

This negative energy comes from no where and there is an infinate supply of it in the universe. Only small quantities have so far been tapped but it would pave the way for machines powered by nothing more than a ever lasting vacum. So perpetual motion is possible.atom268 Because it does not need to work to be patented? You know, like the sharpening of razor blades under a pyramidal form?
quistionmark If experiments that use it work then it is real.

Irrespective of your views on it being a curisosity or whatever the fact is that it paves the way for the Laws of thermo dynamics to be violated leading to a perpetual motion machine.atom88 put one magnet on the table and put another one above it, it'll jump up, defeat gravity that acts on it, and stick to other magnet's opposite pole, so there is energy inside that magnet that made it fly up, nd stick, so why can't you make it work for you? aztek.you ppl only limit yourself, you can quote all the laws you want and find excuses before even thinking how to make it work , keep on, nothing usefull ever came from nay sayers.aztek. this thread is seriously starting to do my head in.Emma Acid 88. There are some common misconceptions going on in this thread. Rabidcat. SEE the unified field Theory by Maxwell before it was tampered with by those unscientific educated idiot's and yes I<M back.

Well, Belowim, you are arguing with the wrong person. I am a firm believer that magnetics can be used to obtain free energy, as stated in my first post, there is the possibility (actually, the fact) that the Dirac sea can be orthorotated into this three-space. In other words, we can tap that which you call "negative energy", or the Dirac sea, or Zero Point Energy, or the aether, whatever you wish to call it.

On the other point, I am well familiar with Maxwell, having been an electronics/electrical engineer for more than three decades. What is NOT understood is that Maxwellian theory, as is true with almost every other classical explanation, disregards such other theory as the Poynting vectors, the inappropriate use of mathematics in the earlier "laws", the addition of matrix math as explanatory, and so on.
It has been shown in classical design of magamps (magnetic amplifiers) that the use of lesser h fields can control greater h fields, similar to the gain of a common transistor or vacuum valve, but in magnetics. Using such theory, we can reasonably assume that the control of a powerful field by a less powerful field will yield excess energy if the application is proper. This is shown by the link in my first post, where the powerful PM fields of samarium cobalt magnets are "brushed" from pole to pole such that a conductor is within the "brush" path. This intersection is a classical generator, but using no moving parts. The input is relatively small, and incorporation of a tuned input transformer will, in fact, provide substantially greater generation than the excitation power input.
It has also been shown that a particular configuration of switched reluctance generation, combined with a flywheel, will produce energy with these characteristics: 1. the mag field can be either PM or electro; 2. there need be no variation in the exciting field; 3. there need be no back emf generated; 4. due to 3 there is no change in input power from no load to full load, however the full load is applied; 5. with proper configuration, the output can exceed the input. See Ecklin (the original patent configuration must be changed dramatically to accomplish over unity).
It has also been shown that using switched reluctance motors, by changing the drive characteristics, input drive power can be recovered and re-used up to near 90%, losses being copper losses and reluctance losses. Using this fact, it is possible to build a motor that will put forth mechanical power of greater than 75% of the input wattage while recovering most of the input. In plain English, you get out 75 watts (or more) of mechanical power plus 90 watts of recovered energy from a 100 watt input, or a net gain of 65 watts of mechanical energy.

Whether a strictly PM motor can be built, I'm inclined to think it can; as suggested, possible use of mu metal for cam shielding offers possibilities. It is also possible to design the electric w.a.n.k.e.l. such that it has no points of stability; failing that, it could easily be converted to use the drives from a switched reluctance motor to recapture some or most of the drive current.

It is simply NOT acceptable to use only the classical laws of physics, and hasn't been for over a century. Nor is it acceptable to comply with those laws in quantum physics that appear to comply with the same laws. Each leaves things hanging, ignoring certain pertinent facts such as the Poynting vectors, and others. I will not get into that stuff here, simply because of the complexity of the theory.
If one wishes to know why such overunity devices have not made it to public use, it requires only the investigation of the workings of the energy industry to understand that why. Any other use, such as the laws of physics, to debunk the generation of energy by the above means is nothing more than partial ignorance of the total picture, and misunderstanding of the actual workings of the natural functions of these energies.

Where oh where RabidCat did you get the idea I was arguing with you?? From the word SEE above are my word's the rest are Quote's from this thread! Please take the time to read from beginning as I Would like to know MY contradiction to you, I have refrained from using technical term,s, at the same time praise you for your Educating Manner, there are many here Listening and also Knowing. And Learning, Thankyou>........

Only, sir, in the following quote:
"Rabidcat. SEE the unified field Theory by Maxwell before it was tampered with by those unscientific educated idiot's and yes I<M back."
And you are correct; However, I don't normally hold with the normal "laws", simply because of the commonality of omission of factors that don't quite fit the theory under development.
As I'm sure you know, but others apparently don't, that it's quite common for someone developing a theory (that might eventually become a "law") to exclude certain functionality that makes the theory not quite right. In some cases, when dealing with the macro world, it doesn't matter, because the "law" is workable, and that which doesn't quite fit doesn't make any difference. The fact remains that the omission was made (as with the vectors), and subsequently, physics doesn't include those omissions in general. Maxwell, for instance, is taught as a generality which doesn't include certain of the energy production/forms that exist; the same is true with Lenz et al.
Belowim, I'm not saying this for your benefit, as I think you are aware of this; there are many people who just don't seem to know any of this, and simply accept the "laws" as being always and forever true, even when those same laws exclude phenomena. This is a major reason I have contention with quoting the laws of physics. Furthermore, it does seem that more and more physicists are concluding that same thing, to wit: Not all "laws" are "laws", and still remain theory. I simply extend the thought to very few "laws" are "laws".
And thanks for the compliments.

Truelly, I, have spent time in these field's, (And still Are) But beating my head against UNscientific Reason to no avail, I came here through exhaustive research/frustration?!?! to Understand the people's Understanding, surely renewing my perception of expectation, And I fully resume my work, Thank's to certain people's manner! Change sometime's is Unacceptable, see my referance to D.I.C. I has studied many Great Master's of Science only to be dismayed at the manner in which they have been portrayed! And Sir THANKYOU,........Verymuch..........

The hilarious part of this story is when it come's to Law's That are Changed Everyday in Parliment/Congress or what have you system!No one mind's! Except the Fundamental Law's that count.?!?! ARE Served in Stone not to be broken?!?! Well guess I,m a EDUCATED IDIOT because I just keep breaking them!!!........

Emma Acid 88"However you do it, all you're doing is transferring energy from one place/form to another. You're not creating it." Creating no, Utilizing yes.Thank you again .