Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGiWiXMHn0

Perpetuum Mobile.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ...ted&search=
Site: http://www.galleri-finsrud.no/sider/mobile/linker.html

Amazing can it power an suv?LOL.Jkn i wish this stuff would just take over for our sake

The video could be rigged but if it works it is still not free energy even if you get 100% of the power used back. The camera angles they use and the tell tale electrical cord in the back to me suggest that perhaps this is not the real deal.

As a matter of curiosity, can you elucidate on your first comment? I'm not quite certain I understand your statement.

If the thing works using permanent magnets (assuming your second statement is false and the thing is running by itself), isn't it true that if it can generate even a small amount of electrical power, or mechanical power, over time the output will exceed the input requirements? If it runs on ferrites, not much power is required to produce those, and they will last for years, so after a time dependent on output, then the produced energy will surpass the input energy. Are you saying that this is not free energy?

It doesn't work, because your statement above is impossible. A motor run on magnets simply wouldn't work. It wouldn't run. You cannot make energy out of nothing; the output can never exceed the input.

This is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. The groundwork for this as far back as the 1670s by the likes of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and nothing - not relativity or even quantum theory's uncertainty principle - violates this law.

I've been thinking about this and, on the surface, I think RabidCat's statement is true. The motor will provide an excess of energy over it's consumption to overcome inertia etc. What the equation doesn't take into account is the system of energy that went into the construction of the motor and it's maintenance. Basically, we are using a huge quantity of energy to order a system which will provide a fraction of the energy returned. While this seems to be 'free' energy to us, as we may be a later generation than those who ordered the system, when looked at holistically the system does not provide more energy than was imparted into its ordering. In this sense you are correct Emma.

The motor probably would work though, it simply wouldn't provide 'free' energy when you take the entire system into account.

i got that feeling as well, to dodgy, if this was real it would be out their already. can we trust you tube???????????????????????????

Sorry Leo, the energy of "ordering" the unit has zip to do with it. How can it? How can carrying the unit up some stairs to a lab transfer energy to it? By that logic, you could charge batteries by running around with them in your hands.

I'm talking about direct energy transference. When you eat a banana, the energy from it is transferred to your body. How far this banana has travelled (an analogy to your "ordering and construction" example) will not add extra amounts of energy to it.

When looked at this way, you see how illogical your idea is, no offence.

I haven't looked into this hugely, but my guess is that a magnetic motor is transferring the kinetic energy (the rotating outer motor which is controlled by magnets) into electrical energy. Problem being magnets that size generally have to be powered.

Y'know, electricty has to go in. And the Law of Conservation says that less will come out.

"It doesn't work, because your statement above is impossible. A motor run on magnets simply wouldn't work. It wouldn't run. You cannot make energy out of nothing; the output can never exceed the input". Well Emma_Acid_88 how doe,s a magnet work? You can,t say a magnet doe,s no work !! A magnet is not nothing!

Have you bothered reading anything else I've written? I never said magentics don't work. I said you cannot make energy where there wasn't any before.

Ok, you want the technicalities, here they are - why the magnetic motor won't work:



This was written by a engineer on physicsforums.com.

edit - removed sarcasm.

Go buy some magnets and experiment, nobody's trying to violate any fancy written law's, All I,m saying is the actual energy is within or should that be without the magnet. you can,t turn it off.

Sorry, what are you basing your research on? Mind posting up some links?

I'm not going to argue about this, as you simply haven't got the grasp of what I'm saying. I am not an expert by any means, and have had to do quite a bit of research for this thread, but your comments are so wide of the mark I'd have to write a flippin essay to get my point across, which I don't have time to do.

We're talking about the conservation of energy, not the properties of magnets or their fields (which due to special relativity, we understand are linked to electric charge, pretty much voiding your claim about magnets having "energy within").

Read what I've written before, then read this and this.

Then come back and explain how a magnetic motor works, despite the fact that it is physically impossible.

I can't state that this particular Perendev motor work's as I hav'nt physically examined it, just as the like's of Howard Johnsons motor's, there's a lot of other's as a google search reveal's. Your sticking rigidly to the Law of conservation of Energy, Not the propertie's of magnet's or their field's? What more can I say , law's were made to be broken, my statement above is my last word here read it again please and have fun watching magnet,s go round If your patient enough, I forgot you hav'nt got time! One final word of advice don;t try and patent it!!!

Right, here is where you're going wrong (and this is my last word on the subject - to you anyway): you cannot have an output with more energy than went into the input.

This is fact, it has been proven, and this is what the law of conservation is. It isn't a theory, like evolution or the big bang, which are subject to flux and change or have missing parts.

It. Is. Fact.

It is not difficult to find an academic paper, on the internet or in a jounal, written by a physicist, on this subject. And I'm not being nasty when I say that I'm going to take their word over the word of a sarcastic stranger on a forum who can't spell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_phenomenon

Totally unrelated.

Science itself is in a constant state of flux. There are NO "laws", regardless of what you may think and/or read.

You would be well advised to do a far greater amount of research in the field before you make further contributions regarding magnetic fields and associated phenomena. It is an accepted fact within the field that the standard academic illustrations of flux fields are incorrect, and subsequently the standard explanations of magnetic flux are incorrect. NO ONE in the field uses iron filings as a determination of fields or field strength. All measurements of flux fields, locus, and so forth are done using microscopic sensing paper these days, and for the past several decades. This paper, obtainable from nearly any firm that sells permanent magnets, will show the actual field and strength. It is notable that the field shown by such paper indicates that the flux does NOT go from one pole to the other, but goes from the center of the magnet to the poles, in differing directions. This "dive point" is known as the Bloch wall, and cannot be seen using the standard method as described in that unholy reference, Wikipedia.

It is also well known within the field of switched reluctance motors that by altering the drive of said motor type, greater and greater recovery of "used" energy can be obtained, to the point that some 90% of the magnetizing current can be retrieved and re-used. This recovery does NOT include the mechanical power produced by the motor. This concept is not generally used by manufacturers because the size of the motor v. power output must necessarily increase, and a main reason (besides the extraordinary efficiency) for the use of these motors is because of size and ease of manufacture. References may be acquired at Texas Instruments, in the DSP examples section of the PDF research area. This section of a REAL company doing REAL things is ACTUAL research accomplished at many different companies besides TI, as is common in the field as example. The papers presented are not academic papers, they are papers by REAL engineers doing REAL projects that REAL money was paid for, not some paper written by some academic who needs to write a paper for tenure.

It has been stated that academia is a quarter century behind technology. In this case, it is closer to a century.

The statement that something simply cannot work is an academic type of statement: it derives from the egotistical stand that most academics seem obligated to maintain. The fact is that the Johnson motor mentioned in someone's previous post is, in fact, an operational permanent magnet motor which has been duplicated several hundred times around the world. The Johnson motor is patented, and the method of patent was so: the original application was refused by the patent office because the motor "appeared to be a perpetual motion device, which is impossible." To the chagrin of the patent office, Mr Johnson sued the office, demanding a patent be issued. The subsequent court case, from the court record, states that the court required the issuance of the patent on the ground that despite the "testimony of experts", Johnson gave a "demonstration adequate to convince this court that the device operated as stated in the patent application."

Having been a control systems engineer for some thirty-odd years, I have direct knowledge that certain so-called "laws" are broken millions of times daily. It is a simple fact that no one has a complete knowledge of magnetics or of electrical phenomena. It is also a simple fact that if one properly does a switched reluctance generator, more output can be had than there is input. See Ecklin.

A relatively simple toroidal generator has been developed by a fellow in Washington, see http://magneticpowerinc.com/patent.html
This device operates on shifting fields with no moving parts. It does work, I'm currently in experimentation phases.

One must remember, when making statements such as the "law of conservation of energy", that that "law" must be applied universally, meaning that it must be applied in a macro sense, taking into account everything, no just what you see. See Dirac sea. It is a fact that certain applied fields, both electric and magnetic, are able to "orthorotate" this random energy into a coherent usable energy, as witnessed by certain types of lightning, toroidal plasma, and so forth. Bringing gradeschool textbooks into the discussion will not alter the facts, nor will adamant adherence to classical "laws" that leave out important points such as the Poynting vectors. Research is best accomplished AWAY from such "authorities" as wikipedia.

One further point is the old saying: "Those who can, do; those who can't teach." It is well to be skeptical of everything, to some degree, academia included.

How can a tool (science) be in a state of flux?

Science is not the problem here and laws established over the last few hundred years aren't the problem. Bogus bullsh*t claims like getting unlimited energy from simple magnets are the problem.

Fact is no matter how many magnets you have it does not provide an infinite source of energy. You can never obtain more then 100% of any energy being used.

If someone can prove they have accomplished a free energy device that will run forever and provide unlimited amounts of energy they will become richer then Bill Gates.

I was'nt going to reply back on this due to Emma Acid 88's remark's and slander of my ability to spell, she obviously does'nt read her own writing magentics? Magnetism And Electricity are little properly understood even to this day, google "What is Electricity" and you'll see, it's time we revised these word's and Magtricity is a more appropriate description of what is going on ! No Work is just not a description of a magnet and I would advise anybody experimenting to be very cautious, DO NOT take powerful magnets into an area containing unsecured metal object's as severe harm or death could result. Building a magnet motor is only a problem of overcoming the equilibrium point, this can be achieved in a variety of way's, Magnet's have been defying gravity for a long time another simple but relevant misconception which I can Prove right now is this, Magnets are attracted to their opposite's (like repell's , opposite's attract) Simple now The North of a compass point's North?? Misleading information,? Magnet's do have lifetime's but they can do a lot of work over a fairly large timespan, Infinite,Perpetual NO but they do WORK...

Interesting !

We'll have to wait ET to come down and if you have one, you will die a poor man.

NO comment Please Explain, I don't want to become part of my own club which is the D.I.C. (dead inventor's club) I,m the only living member,LOL and I,m staying that way!>>>>>>ooh<<<<<<<<THE catch is the FOREVER?

I agree, Emma. Within any defined (closed) system the amount of energy output from the system cannot exceed the amount of energy input to the system. TANSTAAFL.

That doesn't mean the motor in question doesn't produce more energy than the amount of electricity supplied to it. It just means the system hasn't been defined and is likely to incorporate more than what is being reported. In this case I suspect the energy is a conversion from potential and so the Law wouldn't be broken. I could be wrong, it's been known to happen (joke!)

In your example of the lab equipment, it certainly does have more energy in the form of gravitational potential energy. Any energy in a system can be (theoretically) converted and used and perhaps this is what the magnetic motor is doing?

The original Peredev motor like the Howard Johnson motor Does Not require an Electrical input, the Magnet's are the Energy/ also the convertor's of Energy, Any output whatsoever blow's your Scientific law's to Annihilation. Like I,ve stated go play with some! I am amazed, like my Dad said "Be carefull of the educated idiot's" ...................................................I listened.

BELOWIM,

My response was to Emma's post and I was assuming her information about the motor. If it is simply magnetic then my apologies, however it still does not break any Laws of physics.

Magnetism is a force and any force requires energy. In this respect, the magnetism uses the potential energy in the system (and some kinetic energy) and converts it into a usable source. It is not free energy and does not contravene the Law of Conservation of Energy.

As a brief explanation imagine each part of the fly wheel as a discrete unit. The unit at the 'top' has the highest amount of energy in the form of gravitational potential energy. As the wheel start to move some of this energy is converted to kinetic energy and the rest is assumed by the next 'unit' to attain the GPE max. Where the 'missing' energy comes from is the magnetic energy. There is no 'extra' energy in the system to be got out of it. The energy production is only free if you don't take into account all the disparate parts of the system and the energy they provide to it.

My apologie's to you Leonardo, It,s just I get a bit dismayed when people keep Quoting law's, The evidence is before anybody's eye's. Knowledge is everywhere, a bit like the truth, you just have to find it! My advice is never stop lOOking.

What don't you get? The law of conservation doesn't say that magents don't work. You really don't get that do you?



No, there are laws. There are things that we can say that without reasonable doubt that given certain conditions, we know the outcome. We refer to that as a law.

This thread has got totally sidetracked - my original post was about the concept of free energy, and we're only discussing magents now because BELOWIM wades in a states that



Brilliant. Well done. I know magnets work. I also know free energy motors don't.

And no one here has yet told me why they can.

There is no such thing, it is physically impossible. This "oh well anything could happen, science is in flux" attitude is just new age fluffy thinking.

World's largest Free Energy machine on google Earth and other orbiting planetary systems, macro view. Is there some coin operated slot machine I'm missing? I have yet to utilize Any of my knowledge for this subject. The person Phazonx who started this must be laughing like crazy, and good on ya! Somebody show me the scientific formula for Electricity and I will make some in my lab. I must admit that Magnet's do cost money so broadly/very broadly it is'nt free Energy>>>>>>>$<<<<<<<<but that really does'nt bare consideration.......

Oh you are so missing the point. Because the internet isn't coin operated doesn't mean energy is free. Google Earth is not "energy".

Right. When you eat a banana, that banana contains a certain amount of energy. This energy your body uses in certain ways. If you burn the calories up, you convert the energy into heat, which is expelled from your body and turned into something else.

What I'm saying is that energy can never be created or destroyed. It only ever turns from one form to another. So, in a "free energy system", you are apparently getting out more energy than you put in, which is a physical impossiblity.

Magnets of that strength are electrically charged, like the magnets that keep doors locked. When the power goes the magnet looses its strength. I only thought of this just now cause we had a power cut at uni, and the doors that were locked with magnets were all suddenly unlocked.

So with the free energy motor - as with any motor - you're putting in more energy than you're getting out. Hence, its not "free".

Now do you get it?

Internet?? you missed my point totally! Go up and take a look,Quote from Leonardo"In your example of the lab equipment, it certainly does have more energy in the form of gravitational potential energy. Any energy in a system can be (theoretically) converted and used and perhaps this is what the magnetic motor is doing?" Hey the light's are on hence my sincere apology to said person.

You can't just rely on gravity to make it work. Something has to vary the magnetic fields to actually get the magnets moving. And that requres a lot of electricity.

Oh, look, just forget it. We're both punching above our weight, knowledge-wise. Its been long understood that free energy motors don't work, and some half baked pseudo science on an internet forum is not going to change the world of science. Do you think you've actually discovered something thats alluded scientsits for hundreds of years? Or are you just making a mistake because you actually don't understand the technicalities?

oh, and....





in which case I have no idea what you're talking about.

" in which case I have no idea what you're talking about" Emma Acid 88 Wise word's indeed Thank you! It has been a pleasure madam,.

So, aren't you going to even respond to my questions? How would a free energy machine work?

What can I say Emma Acid 88, That I hav'nt already, lOOk up, IF you can Prove Gravity? Then Rotating masses are Apparent! If you require a scientific equation then visit your local Goverment approved Academy! Good luck sincerely, THIS is my Forte, I have studied, I have proven Now go and do likewise! Experiment , do not, not take Anybody's word for conclusive fact, other wise were all doomed! Once the world was FLAT! If you rode a cycle and went over 30m.p.h. you would die of lack of oxygen,LOL so as you see a changing World/ Perception is A MUST! I only wish to truely work with you Not against. Please The Future Is reliant on people that are here Now. And You are One of them/us. Being Brainwashed is not a career, To the Future>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No because things like friction and what have you come into play. In order for something to be free energy you have to get back more energy then was available in the first place. The motor featured in this highly dubious video is in fact not free.

Let's say it worked, all it really does is convert one energy into another and after you apply things like friction and what have you the energy gained will be less.

I'm not sure why this thread is called "free energy"

What's new about magnetic dipoles making forces?

Forget the motor, you have two bar magnets, and they will attract, and create force, if you let them go, they will move , travel distance and have done work.
Obviously you can have work from permanent magnets.

But it's not free energy. It is energy stored in the structure of ferromagnetic material, so using
magnets to power motors is just another way of harvesting energy from nature. Just like using oil.
If this is free energy, so is a diesel engine

Oh and, I'm not sure of anyone here tried to suggest it, or if I didn't understand correctly, but planets (and electrons) aren't
spending (converting) energy to move. So they aren't free energy machines

it is possible, i am experementig with magnets, and it can be done, period.

A good thing would be for some of the people here, those who say free energy is impossible, to give the rest of us their definition of "free energy".

As one said, a PM motor would be harvesting energy from nature, equating that to a diesel engine. Hydroelectric plants also harvest energy from nature, and so it could be said, by the same logic, that a hydro plant is the same as a diesel engine. I fail to see the logic, and so I request some defining properties.

nothing is free, but some thigs are closer to it than others, windmills, hydro plants, if we take away cost to build them, they are free, no fuel is reqired, no money to put in to get energy out, diesels and others ic or turbine or steam engines need fuel, or boiler, that reqires input(money), wind, hydro, solar, take input from nature, wind is free so are waterflow, and sunlight.
magnets are kind of free, they need initial input, than they work for many years, surely they can generate more energy than it was needed to magnetize them,

No, they can't. Magnets, by themselves can't make a motor. You would only have a static magnetic field so any configuration moves to where dipolar resistance evens out then it stays there.

aztek, this is true, and I agree in principle. Aside from the initial cost of building a hydro plant, for instance, the energy derived from water flow is subsequently free aside from plant maintenance. However, in the case of heat engines, as you say, the mechanical energy derived from the fuels must constantly be replenished, therefore must maintain an ineffective cost/benefit ratio.

For all, let me make an example of a practical application. Let's say I buy a piece of land that is hillside and valley, and has a stream through it. Now, I go to the highest point of this stream, and pipe off some of the water flow, using graduated pipes to increase the velocity of the fluid. At the lowest point, I install a turbine driven generator, and use the power to run my house. I also use surplus power to charge batteries that run an electric car. So at a relatively small cost, I've provided power for my house and transportation.
If I use PVC pipe, all the parts are readily available, and cheap. There needs to be no dam, since the pipe is gravity fed and uses much less than the water flow of the stream. Plastic pipe will last for decades, so the main maintenance cost is for the generator, and since a new generator can be bought for less than $1000 (and will last for decades also, if the bearings are kept lubricated), the overall energy cost is very low. Since the initial cost will be offset versus delivered power within a year or so, any production after that could be considered free.

This type of technology is used worldwide. Even relatively small gradients of waterflow can produce large amounts of energy, and so doesn't necessarily need a huge dam. The Spokane generating plant uses a small gradient and generates more than 6 megawatts, supplying a large percentage of power here.

Is this not free energy?

yes they can, did you experemented with them?? how long??? magnets have flux constantly moving around, it is wind, you can manipulate wind, all you need to do is arrange them right,
field can be static, but field itself is motion of flux, oh btw it is possible to create monopole, allyou have to do is rearange flux, ever heard of hulbach array??

What is illogical there? a Hydroelectric plant takes advantage of energy it finds in nature, and so is oil a container of energy from nature.
And so is sun. etc.

By free energy I understood that people are suggesting you can simply make it out of nothing.


But really, the only reason diesel power is not "free energy" is because you don't have some diesel oil in your backyard, but have to buy it from someone who
has it under theirs.

But so could be said for magnets doing work. Someone has them in their back yard, someone doesn't and the one that doesn't has to buy them, just like diesel

we really got to come to a agreement of what exactly free energy is, or we'll have planty of missundersandings like that.

I'm sure you know already, but for the sake of other people in the thread let's get the terms straight here:

field has a certain strength H, the density of that field is B and flux is surface times perpendicular component of B that travels through it.

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.

That's my understanding of "free energy" too so far

by that definition it is impossible to exist


but another definition for "free energy" might be a container of energy containing more energy than a person or humanity can ever need.
Sort of like carrying a miniature fusion reactor when going camping