Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

Free Energy - No Fuel Magnetic Motor

60 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ettakemehome
of course over unity is possible, deasel lokomotive is the proof, deasel engine inside coupled with a generator makes 5x less power than traction motors, so where does the extra power comes from???

sonic boiler, 20x overunity, proven, mesured, and replicated, in theory it is imposible, but theory is wrong, it exicts.

as for magnet motor, i,m sure it is very posible, just not by someone, who keep quoting 2lot, and keeps saying it is imposible, those will never acheve much.

magnets attract and repel, it isn,t debatable, it is a fact, so there is internal energy that does the work, it can be utilized, if not by itself, than in combination with something else, gravity or electricity, nay sayers never brought up anything usefull, just negativity.

Look at it this way. There is trillions of dollars being made from nuclear power, natural gas, oil and coal power plants, power companies like PG and E, oil companies and auto companies, , (their profits would be less with electric cars.) The middle east would have no money but for oil they will kill to keep it!

You think that they will just sit and allow someone make free power? Not likely.

So true or not they will be stopped and negative propaganda is the way. Convincing people it is a fraud is the way. Name calling is the way. Moles spreading this guy is a con is the way. US patent office refusing patents is the way like Cold fusion. Also getting bought of is the way.

There have been hundreds of inventors paid off by the oil companies for inventions that saved gas or generate low cost power. They have bought off solar power, the best solar panels are owned by BP.

The experiments with so call cold fusion did put out more power than put in. That alone was worth more research. Maybe not fusion but it should not have ended. (And it did not Japan and USSR got the same results and are working on cold fusion. Physicists have Cold Fusion conferences every year, it is not dead.

US companies will be the last in the world to come up with clean free or low cost energy because there is too much money riding on to keep burning oil! US companies will be the last to have electric cars. US will be the last to have decent EV batteries. I drive a electric scooter (28 mph) to work costs .20 a day as opposed to the $6.00 a day for gasoline at $3.50 a gallon. The scooter was made in Italy, there are no US electric scooters.

PS: put solar panels on 30% of the homes and business and you can shut down reactors. Geothermal works just about everywhere and is not supported by the Bush administration. You can generate power with waves, wind and even temperature differential in the ocean. We do not need more nuclear plants or oil exploration.

I do not know if this is legitimate or if http://www.perendev-power.com/home.htm is legitimate, but even if they were the critics would be the same. If Perndev and these guys were in the US they would be dead, killed in a hit and run or food poison or some other natural cause, the usual way. Just like all of the inventors or water “burning” cars. Like Stan Meyer http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Edited by ettakemehome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ettakemehome

Debunked in 2001, unless there is further news on this prodject ?

http://www.skeptics.com.au/spoon/2001winners.htm

Dan Dare

Professional skeptics and so many of the so called consumer fraud sites, are just people working for the industries that need to spread false propaganda.

Quackwatch.com is a perfect example. No one would take these people seriously, they have been pushed and sued for evidence and cannot come up with it because they made it up, or just went thru the motions in fake experiments or tests. This has been going on for decades.

Edited by ettakemehome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ettakemehome
Magnetic motors that run themselves under their own power are IMPOSSIBLE. I have yet to be proven otherwise on this.

Also yes I say net because all the idiots claiming these things work use it to scam fools into thinking they do.

I have talked to people that made motors that run by themselves. You must be a plant, not to be take seriously.

http://www.perendev-power.com/ has been in business for years. If they were a con the German government would have shut them down. He has many of these generators running for years in test homes.

People are arrogant to think that they know all. We know nothing. Look up zero point energy, cold fusion, Water cars, magnetic motor generators. Stanley Meyer fuel cell, (he was killed.) Many that have "made power" and have either been killed or bought off.

See this site http://www.actransit.org/environment/hyroad_main.wu?r=n a hydrogen fuel cell in buses.

The so called law of thermodynamics and other "human laws" are only that human laws, not necessarily correct so do not use it as a "reason" it is not possible. Lots of things were not possible according to the experts that are now!

I am sure you can get a list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ins0mniac
I have talked to people that made motors that run by themselves. You must be a plant, not to be take seriously.

http://www.perendev-power.com/ has been in business for years. If they were a con the German government would have shut them down. He has many of these generators running for years in test homes.

People are arrogant to think that they know all. We know nothing. Look up zero point energy, cold fusion, Water cars, magnetic motor generators. Stanley Meyer fuel cell, (he was killed.) Many that have "made power" and have either been killed or bought off.

See this site http://www.actransit.org/environment/hyroad_main.wu?r=n a hydrogen fuel cell in buses.

The so called law of thermodynamics and other "human laws" are only that human laws, not necessarily correct so do not use it as a "reason" it is not possible. Lots of things were not possible according to the experts that are now!

I am sure you can get a list.

Have you brought one yet? Just curious to hear first hand. I mean, if I believed their products worked, I'd buy one for sure. Why wouldn't you? It'd pay for itself in no time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan Dare
Have you brought one yet? Just curious to hear first hand. I mean, if I believed their products worked, I'd buy one for sure. Why wouldn't you? It'd pay for itself in no time.

Price: 38.000 Euro ex tax and Delivery

Motors are never sold outright; a sale/lease agreement gives the person the use of the equipment for 5 years which is prepaid, thereafter a nominal fee is payable monthly to maintain the lease agreement, this monthly fee is normally in the region of 100-600 Euro per month, depending on the size of the unit, this fee will include a maintenance contact .

No it wont pay for itself in no time. and you wont gain by this new free energy. Nothing in life is free you always have to pay some greedy sods.

Dan Dare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charleh
Price: 38.000 Euro ex tax and Delivery

Motors are never sold outright; a sale/lease agreement gives the person the use of the equipment for 5 years which is prepaid, thereafter a nominal fee is payable monthly to maintain the lease agreement, this monthly fee is normally in the region of 100-600 Euro per month, depending on the size of the unit, this fee will include a maintenance contact .

No it wont pay for itself in no time. and you wont gain by this new free energy. Nothing in life is free you always have to pay some greedy sods.

Dan Dare

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me. The website is poor - and considering they only have several motors produced because they don't mass manufacture why do they put their customer announcements on the website? You'd think they'd phone them or email them with the news.

The only interesting thing to happen with 'free-energy' lately is that guy on youtube that's found a way to feed the back EMF from an electric motor into itself, greatly increasing the efficiency of it. That's still being tested and verified but it looks legit.

Stop chasing 'free-energy'. It doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ettakemehome
Price: 38.000 Euro ex tax and Delivery

Motors are never sold outright; a sale/lease agreement gives the person the use of the equipment for 5 years which is prepaid, thereafter a nominal fee is payable monthly to maintain the lease agreement, this monthly fee is normally in the region of 100-600 Euro per month, depending on the size of the unit, this fee will include a maintenance contact .

No it wont pay for itself in no time. and you wont gain by this new free energy. Nothing in life is free you always have to pay some greedy sods.

Dan Dare

I have seen interviews with the owner. The first people to get them had to generate their own power ie not on a grid. It will not pay for it's self in the US on PG and E but in another country without power I am so not sure, gasoline is expensive in other countries. He has many out there and if was a fraud Germany would shut him down. He got a patent from Germany but US would not give him one, they are just owned by the oil industry. So you will not see it in the US anyway even if it does work.

Edited by ettakemehome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Papaver

Why do these jokers never plug the output into the input and keep the thing running with no other power supply?

I can guess why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
as for magnet motor, i,m sure it is very posible, just not by someone, who keep quoting 2lot, and keeps saying it is imposible, those will never acheve much.

http://www.perendev-power.com/ has been in business for years. If they were a con the German government would have shut them down. He has many of these generators running for years in test homes.

I looked and this is what I found online about magnets:

Posted here

I have seen first-hand three magnetic motors running and have written cost feasibility and reproducibility reports on all three. Two of them I had in my lab and my staff used the inventors' plans to build several working replicas. We also went and saw, first-hand, the Perendev device.

All three designs used "Rare Earth" magnets (Neodymium, or more correctly stated, Neodymium Iron Boron or NdFeB) and our various reproductions used NdFeB, SmCo and Ferrite magnets. We did not attempt to reproduce the Perendev device because of its design proximity to one of the other two.

The results were always the same: they all run down. Under load, they run down very quickly. It doesn't take very long for magnets to lose their magnetism when they are constantly being put in opposition to one another.

Every magnet has a "maximum energy product" rated in Mega Gauss Oersteds, MGOe. This is the amount of work a magnet can do before its level of magnetism has deteriorated to the point that its energy doesn't reach out far enough to affect anything surrounding it. Contrary to the popular notion that rare earth magnets are invincible, even the most expensive sintered NdFeB magnets max out at less than 50 MGOe. If they are used in a device that puts them constantly in opposition, they will run down, and this is the whole assumption behind so-called "magnetic motors".

The amount of energy used in manufacturing a magnet is typically 10 times what the magnet is capable of producing. More expensive magnets are even less efficient. Add to this the losses in energy incurred by these 33%-66% concept magnet devices themselves, and the energy consumed in the overall manufacturing process is 20-25 times the energy you will get out.

There are situations where these types of devices may be useful, but they are not "free energy", nor do they represent any sort of "overunity" phenomenon, nor any solution to the energy crisis.

This is what I always understood about magnets. That they run down with time and that it takes a lot of energy to make a "permanent" magnet.

Check out the wiki site here for a lot of weird stuff about free energy and perpetual motion.

Edit: I had a thought on why they need to do monthly maintenance on the motors... To change out the magnets for fresh magnets. If that is true then the magnets are the fuel being used and changing them out would be incredibly expensive to maintain. Perhaps they only change out a couple at a time. If they change out any of the magnets or recharge them, then this is not free energy as power is being added.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Edit: I had a thought on why they need to do monthly maintenance on the motors... To change out the magnets for fresh magnets. If that is true then the magnets are the fuel being used and changing them out would be incredibly expensive to maintain. Perhaps they only change out a couple at a time. If they change out any of the magnets or recharge them, then this is not free energy as power is being added.

so much for free energy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ravv05

Room temperature superconductors are the way forward for 'free energy'. Scientists are working on it.. but not hard enough.

magents not only loses its magnetic power over time, but also starts to heat up being subjected to constant attraction/replusion. And the heat further reduses its strenght.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

questionmark, DieChecker, look at what was written in this thing and see if it really qualifies as any form of data acceptable to a scientifically oriented research into the subject. Here it is, with my comments in bold:

I have seen first-hand three magnetic motors running and have written

cost feasibility and reproducibility reports on all three. Two of them

I had in my lab and my staff used the inventors' plans to build several

working replicas. We also went and saw, first-hand, the Perendev

device.

What three motors? Where are the reports? Which two in what lab? There is not enough data here to indicate anything about the qualifications of the person writing this or his laboratory, nor is there any indication of what type of motors were tested, and in what format. This is, therefore, useless.

All three designs used "Rare Earth" magnets (Neodymium, or more

correctly stated, Neodymium Iron Boron or NdFeB) and our various

reproductions used NdFeB, SmCo and Ferrite magnets. We did not attempt

to reproduce the Perendev device because of its design proximity to one

of the other two.

Again, what is the configuration. Secondly, Neodymium is the accepted terminology, and there is no "more correctly" involved, as anyone familiar with the term is aware of the chemical constitution, roughly. The use of the term SmCo is also, by his own terminology, incorrect, as it is also an alloy similar to neodymium and should be called as it is in industry, samarium cobalt.

The results were always the same: they all run down. Under load, they

run down very quickly. It doesn't take very long for magnets to lose

their magnetism when they are constantly being put in opposition to one

another.

In the words of the state slogan of Missouri, Show Me. It is not good enough to make an idiotic statement such as this without supporting evidence, and none is forwarded. Magnets, especially rare earth magnets, are well known for their ability to retain their magnetism over very long periods of time, on the order of centuries. In testing magnets for Lockheed while working for Sierracin-Magnedyne, for instance, fully instrumented samarium cobalt magnets were magnetized to 14,000 gauss, 32 magnets (the number of poles on the motor of interest) were subjected to demagnetizing forces equivalent to the current gauss measured, i.e. 14,000 gauss. In this instance, over a period of 28 weeks, the extended statistical deterioration of the magnets would be such that in 200 years the remaining gauss would be 99.2% of the original charge. This experiment was done using laboratory equipment capable of measuring all necessary data, and was run on a computer test setup using LabWindows and associated necessary gear. It was necessary at the request of Lockheed Space, to determine that specifically manufactured ring motors would have a lifetime meeting the specified requirements by NASA.

It does take a long time for magnets in opposition to lose magnetism, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise, and I mean with valid data that I can confirm in a laboratory setting, since I have already done so. It is not enough just to make a statement: there must be some form of repeatable setup, including equipment types used.

Every magnet has a "maximum energy product" rated in Mega Gauss

Oersteds, MGOe. This is the amount of work a magnet can do before its

level of magnetism has deteriorated to the point that its energy doesn't

reach out far enough to affect anything surrounding it. Contrary to the

popular notion that rare earth magnets are invincible, even the most

expensive sintered NdFeB magnets max out at less than 50 MGOe. If they

are used in a device that puts them constantly in opposition, they will

run down, and this is the whole assumption behind so-called "magnetic

motors".

Oh, horse manure. Where in the world does this guy get his data? Even the lowest form of science will not come out and make BS statements such as this. Anyone with any experience using PM motors, such as those little toy motors or small motors in battery equipment can tell you that they will last forever and a day until the bearings wear out. Modern 2 or 3 phase PM motors have a lifetime limited only by the bearings used and the electronics used to generate the drives. Tests on certain motors Magnedyne produced showed that under partial load (50%) and with the bearings constantly lubricated, the electronics was not under any major stress and extended lifetime was shown statistically to be >1000 years. There is no supporting evidence for his claims whatsoever, but in the motor industry there is a widespread knowledge that is contrary to the claims made in that paragraph. No one, no one, in the motor industry uses nonsensical terms such as MGOe.

The amount of energy used in manufacturing a magnet is typically 10

times what the magnet is capable of producing. More expensive magnets

are even less efficient. Add to this the losses in energy incurred by

these 33%-66% concept magnet devices themselves, and the energy consumed

in the overall manufacturing process is 20-25 times the energy you will

get out.

Once again, this is completely ignorant of the facts. To magnetize a stack of samarium cobalt magnets to 12,000 gauss, a bank of capacitors is charged to roughly 600 volts, then discharged through a coil of one or two turns of 00 wire with the samarium cobalt (SC) acting as the core. The stack of SC can be one or a hundred wafers bound tightly together; it makes little difference. When the charge is adequate to obtain the desired gauss, the discharge is accomplished through a high current device such as an Ignetron pulse tube, which can handle very large currents. The charge time is on the order of milliseconds, and the actual motor energy that can be produced is so much greater than that required to charge the magnets it makes the entire statement above laughable. This guy hasn't the vaguest notion of which he speaks.

There are situations where these types of devices may be useful, but

they are not "free energy", nor do they represent any sort of

"overunity" phenomenon, nor any solution to the energy crisis.

Based upon previous false claims by this author, there should be absolutely no validity placed in this statement. He has little knowledge of the subject, he makes no declaration of his testing equipment, lab equipment, or any other supporting evidence; contrarily, any reasonable research into motors produced by any number of companies will show quite the contrary to all of his statements. To say "so much for free energy" on the basis of this nonsense is absurd, and implies little knowledge of the subject and no research into it.

People should know their subject before passing judgement. I know this subject well, having worked in the field for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
There are situations where these types of devices may be useful, but

they are not "free energy",

Ehm...yes, but where did I say something different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bella-Angelique

I am not an expert but I do know that incredibly expensive becomes cost effect when you lose most other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
I am not an expert but I do know that incredibly expensive becomes cost effect when you lose most other options.

Indeed

The market and industry involved with power production is reactive. I truly believe that when we hit crisis point with the non-renewable sources governments will pull these wonders out of the wood work, but right now the utilities are too embroiled in global economy.

The success and frequency of research into efficient power sources is minimal because of the present powers and their financial interests. There have been many conspiracy theories in the past about inventors of efficient motors being paid off by oil tychoons etc. I don't know how true any of these are but there is a basic truth to them, and that is that in the current climate oil companies are dominant and relied upon too much to be replaced.

That said I believe Honda are the first company to release a comercial vehicle that runs on a hydrogen fuel cell, and I believe there is extensive research being put into Fusion power, but then fusion is not necassarily the most efficient but in terms of waste and emmisions it is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Papaver
People should know their subject before passing judgement. I know this subject well, having worked in the field for years. [/b]

As you appear to have a good knowlege of this subject I'd like to ask something.

They claim that the device is over 500% efficient.

As I sated earlier, if overunity is possible, why don't the people with these devices not plug the output into the input and have it run continuously without external power after it is up and running?

That would really prove the effect but they don't ever do that so what's the reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat
As you appear to have a good knowlege of this subject I'd like to ask something.

They claim that the device is over 500% efficient.

As I sated earlier, if overunity is possible, why don't the people with these devices not plug the output into the input and have it run continuously without external power after it is up and running?

That would really prove the effect but they don't ever do that so what's the reason?

I don't know that the Perendev even works. I've studied some of the PM "over-unity" devices in depth, and there are some that look a bit promising; however, since most seem very strange, such as the Johnson motor, I won't spend (or waste?) the time to build such things. That motor, for instance, requires cast magnets of very specific dimensions, and I haven't the means necessary to construct such magnets; further, my analysis of the motor is not definitive enough to warrant such construction. There may be numerous reasons any such device isn't being used. Historically, some of these strange devices are suppressed (not just a claim, by me, but factual, and there are numerous examples of this). A survey conducted of "high-mileage carburetors", for instance, turned up more than 75 patents for these, including the Pogue, which was tested by Ford Canada in the 1930s, and found to deliver extremely high mileage. All patents listed, save one, are owned by major oil companies; the one not owned by same has a dead inventor. It is arguable whether they work, but in principle they should.

There are other motors that are far more promising than a straight PM motor, such as that strange little "electric Wan-kel" that runs in opposition all the time. This one uses an electromagnetic pulse during one portion of the cycle, with three cycles per revolution. A paper is available wherein the writer claims overunity, and it may be, but I'd need some convincing of that.

I am personally more inclined to think we can obtain far greater efficiency using electromagnetic means than using PMs. Such systems would necessarily be comprised of more than one simple device, with an end result being possible over unity. Certain claims are made with some devices now public that those are over-unity, and in at least one case, the theoretical result is positive (the MEG amplifier, based on Floyd Sweet's triode). The MEG uses a permanent magnet within a transformer type core and steers the PM field using repulsive/attractive fields, which are much smaller than the PM field. The oscillating direction of flux flow generates power via output coils. The claims made are that the output power can be as much as three times the steering power. Not having constructed such a device, I cannot verify those claims, in all good conscience.

The one thing that seems to escape conventional wisdom is that a solenoid will return most of the power used to create a magnetic field to the power source if the drive circuitry is properly constructed. The field, then, is free to use as either attractive or repulsive, mechanically speaking. In other words, a switched reluctance motor could be made to produce mechanical power while using less average power as input. This does NOT mean the thing would be over-unity, just that it would be far more efficient than the current crop of motors, since a large percentage of the drive power is returned to source. It is a major fallacy that electric power is "used up" always; it is in standard motors, but it's not necessarily so that a device can be made such that the electrical losses do not coincide with the mechanical output. Standard means for calculating efficiency do not apply in such cases, and there is no "mainstream" means to do so.

Back on subject, I've seen no PM motors that entice me to build one. This doesn't mean they don't or can't exist, simply that I haven't seen one that works, theoretically, well enough for me to put forth the effort. I have plenty of samarium cobalt magnets, and if some design were rolled out that looked good enough, I might build it; I just haven't seen it. My magnets, by the way, range in age from 15-18 years of age, and in terms of gauss are still above 12,500 gauss. These were rejects to be dumped because of chips and so on, so I grabbed a bunch, been using them ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

It is wise for me to explain myself to some degree regarding this subject. In more than 30 years of electronic and electrical engineering, I've seen quite a number of "laws" and "rules of thumb" go down the tubes, helping those to do so in a substantial number of cases.

The thing that people don't seem to realize is that science is in a constant state of flux, and there are no "laws" that are firm. None. What is taught in schools now is generally 25 years old, and for some odd reason, there is high inertia to change that to something more reasonable.

If one says that the Maxwell et al equations are law, then what of a device that circumvents said laws? It is not necessarily true that everything must abide by conventional equations. Look at it this way: you are on an interstate with a speed limit of 70. You want to go faster, and there is a side or alternate route that doesn't have a bunch of Smokeys always patrolling it. So you take the alternate route, and bust the laws as you go. The same thing is true in physics: there are always alternate routes, and since electronics is a part of physics, this must be so also.

Let's take a for instance. The laws tell us that when you build a generator you must somehow vary the magnetic field so there are wires cutting the field. That leads to the laws that state that the more power you take from the generator, the more power is required to turn it. Okay. While this is true by empirical evidence, what if the generator is constructed such that the fields never move, the wire never moves, but the field is deflected in such a way as to take different paths through the generator, without causing the movement of either the magnet or coil? If such a device is constructed, then the only load on the driving force is that required to deflect the field, regardless of the load on the output. In other words, the standard laws do not apply, since the machine doesn't do what the laws state must be done: the machine does it in a different fashion, leading to what must be a different set of laws, which are unknown at this point. The main reason that these new laws are unknown is because of the inertia of science: it is simply not believed that such a device can exist, yet it does, and without question it does. A brief explanation of such a device can be found by google Ecklin generator.

Having a healthy cynicism, I had doubts as to the validity of this generator, but built one of the things anyway. Much to my surprise, it did work, and in bench testing, I found that the no load to full load change is zero. So, output can vary from 0 watts to maximum watts without changing anything on the input. Look it up and try it yourself if you don't believe it. The entire function is deflection of magnetic field, similar to a switched reluctance motor.

So basically, while I am and have been a scientist, I will not allow science to prevent me from trying something that seems logical and reasonable. It does prevent me from something that is not reasonable. Because some fool law that's always quoted exists doesn't mean that there is no way around that law, just as in the Ecklin generator. And so, I will say that it may well be possible to construct a magnetically powered motor; I just haven't seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Hi RabidCat,

Good post :tu: While I do not agree with you (maybe we are just talking semantics here), I do appreciate what you are saying. Please allow me to interject a few points.

It is wise for me to explain myself to some degree regarding this subject. In more than 30 years of electronic and electrical engineering, I've seen quite a number of "laws" and "rules of thumb" go down the tubes, helping those to do so in a substantial number of cases.

This is probably semantic, but to the best of my knowledge the laws as we know them has been proven pretty resiliant and it is the "rules" that we have put on top of them that have seen changes, i.e. the engineering based on those laws.

The thing that people don't seem to realize is that science is in a constant state of flux, and there are no "laws" that are firm. None. What is taught in schools now is generally 25 years old, and for some odd reason, there is high inertia to change that to something more reasonable.

This is indeed very true; science is not a body of knowledge, but a work in progress.

If one says that the Maxwell et al equations are law, then what of a device that circumvents said laws? It is not necessarily true that everything must abide by conventional equations. Look at it this way: you are on an interstate with a speed limit of 70. You want to go faster, and there is a side or alternate route that doesn't have a bunch of Smokeys always patrolling it. So you take the alternate route, and bust the laws as you go. The same thing is true in physics: there are always alternate routes, and since electronics is a part of physics, this must be so also.

If you are thinking maxwell's equations, then they are not laws, but a set of equations tying a number of fundamental laws together. And the alternate routes you are describing I would take as how the interpretation of said the equations (or more fundamental laws) and the engineering thereof is applied. As it is now those laws represent a very good description of our observable Universe. Are they universally correct? Probably not. But in my opinion we are talking small tweaks in extreme scenarios.

Let's take a for instance. The laws tell us that when you build a generator you must somehow vary the magnetic field so there are wires cutting the field.

That leads to the laws that state that the more power you take from the generator, the more power is required to turn it.

Here I would strongly disagree with the emphasized part. While it is absolutely true that the more power is taken from the generator, the more power is required to turn, that does not derive from the fact that to accomplish the generation of current we need a varying magnetic field. And the latter is read from the laws.

Okay. While this is true by empirical evidence, what if the generator is constructed such that the fields never move, the wire never moves, but the field is deflected in such a way as to take different paths through the generator, without causing the movement of either the magnet or coil?

This is now an engineering task and not "breaking" the laws as we know. In the end if such a device could be constructed (I have no idea whether it is actually possible), the deflection of the magnetic field as I read it from your description would effectively constitute a varying magnetic field, thus causing a current generation as described by the laws as we know them :)

If such a device is constructed, then the only load on the driving force is that required to deflect the field, regardless of the load on the output.

Again, that would be cause and effect described by 2 different sets of laws so I cannot see how we can make that association.

In other words, the standard laws do not apply, since the machine doesn't do what the laws state must be done: the machine does it in a different fashion, leading to what must be a different set of laws, which are unknown at this point.

No. A machine like that will still obey the laws as we know them (please see above). I will, however, include the caveat that maybe at the boundary conditions for the laws as we know them, maybe there is a way to generate a current from a static magnetic field albeit I doubt it.

The main reason that these new laws are unknown is because of the inertia of science: it is simply not believed that such a device can exist, yet it does, and without question it does. A brief explanation of such a device can be found by google Ecklin generator.

Hehe, the inertia of science can indeed be quite something. However, that said there is always the stubborn, the oddball, the persistent. From my experience, if you tell 1000 scientists something can't be done, 999 of them will go do something else where the last one will be "bugger me, of course it can" and in some instances it turns up nothing, in others it does.

I am trying to figure out how the Ecklin generator actually works and I have a hard time of seeing what the big difference really is from a standard generator, except for the fact that this is a lot harder to actually engineer ;)

Having a healthy cynicism, I had doubts as to the validity of this generator, but built one of the things anyway. Much to my surprise, it did work, and in bench testing, I found that the no load to full load change is zero. So, output can vary from 0 watts to maximum watts without changing anything on the input. Look it up and try it yourself if you don't believe it. The entire function is deflection of magnetic field, similar to a switched reluctance motor.

That is quiet interesting. Do you have some drawings/pictures of your device that you could possibly send (PM me for email). I would love to put something like that together in my lab (I am sure I can scavenge the parts somewhere). :)

So basically, while I am and have been a scientist, I will not allow science to prevent me from trying something that seems logical and reasonable. It does prevent me from something that is not reasonable. Because some fool law that's always quoted exists doesn't mean that there is no way around that law, just as in the Ecklin generator. And so, I will say that it may well be possible to construct a magnetically powered motor; I just haven't seen it.

Oh, I am pretty sure that it is actually possible to make a magnetic motor and I don't see that the laws of physics as we know them prohibit us to do so. But so far I think it is a question of engineering such a construction and the flexibility it has compared to current generators.

And then just generally, I do not like the term "free energy", there is no such thing. First of all, even if an over-unity generator did exist, building it has a cost associated with it and thus one pays *mumble* dollars up front and the longer it is running, the cheaper the total energy outcome is. But it will never be free. I personally prefer unity or over-unity device or the like, but that is just me nitpicking (I know, it's a phobia, but I can't help it ;) ).

Secondly, I am probably one of these "inertia-of-science-night-mare-ridden" folks, but I have a serious problem with over-unity generators. I can see mankind achieving energy generation devices that we cannot even begin to fathom in our time and age, maybe even to the point of extracting energy directly out of the space-time fabric (and, no, I am NOT talking zero point energy extraction, which is another concept that really annoys me ;) ), but getting energy out of nothing is just something I have a serious problem with. For energy to come out, at least an equal amount of energy has to come in.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I tend to agree with badeskov that no device will ever provide free energy. At best it will convert a existing power source into another power source at little loss. Permenant magnets are just another source of power, like electricity, desiel fuel hydro-power or heat.

Also from the researching I've done online, MGO is still a very common term, as is calling the magnets Neodymium Iron Boron. RabidCat talks a lot of Jargon, but does not provide links to back up said facts.

I think RabidCat is seeing Zebras instead of horses, because that is what he wants to see.

The fact is that the Perendev motor puts out power, but requires monthly maintenance to the tune of up to 600 euros. Do you think that maintenance is work on the magnets or bearings? Is that a lot for your average European, compared to paying an electric bill? Do Europeans even pay an electricity bill. Mine here ranges from $40 to $120 depending on the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
I tend to agree with badeskov that no device will ever provide free energy. At best it will convert a existing power source into another power source at little loss. Permenant magnets are just another source of power, like electricity, desiel fuel hydro-power or heat.

Precisely!

The fact is that the Perendev motor puts out power, but requires monthly maintenance to the tune of up to 600 euros. Do you think that maintenance is work on the magnets or bearings? Is that a lot for your average European, compared to paying an electric bill? Do Europeans even pay an electricity bill. Mine here ranges from $40 to $120 depending on the season.

Yes, Europeans do pay an electrical bill and mine used to be about $80-$100/month with the current currency exchange rate when I lived in Denmark ;) And stuffing diesel rather than magnets into a generator does sound like the best...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat
Also from the researching I've done online, MGO is still a very common term, as is calling the magnets Neodymium Iron Boron. RabidCat talks a lot of Jargon, but does not provide links to back up said facts.

I think RabidCat is seeing Zebras instead of horses, because that is what he wants to see.

Rabidcat's credentials originate from 32 years in the field of control electronics, a very competitive field. Rabidcat also lays claim to have never collected unemployment during that time in engineering. Rabidcat also has teaching credentials from the state of California, college level.

I could copy dozens of articles from such trade mags as PCIM or IEEE and put them here, but it would be copyright infringement. A quick review of those magazines yields no reference at all to your term, but does yield massive amounts of motor/field/torque/torque ripple/efficiency and so forth equations, which printed here would likely be a complete mystery.

My experience comes from working the field, yours, and your statements, come from browsing the internet, and without proper research, any material you find regarding this or any other subject is useless.

Since you appear to have done no valid research, I see no reason to either defend my statements, which originate from empirical sources, against garbage that can be found anywhere on the net, inclusive of the article in question, whose author is obviously ignorant of the subject. Any good applied physics textbook will supply needed information. I suggest those be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat
Precisely!

Yes, Europeans do pay an electrical bill and mine used to be about $80-$100/month with the current currency exchange rate when I lived in Denmark ;) And stuffing diesel rather than magnets into a generator does sound like the best...

Cheers,

Badeskov

There is some question about the term "free energy". There can never be any meeting of minds if terms are not defined. So... If I have a piece of land that has a stream with a 100 ft waterfall, I have a piece of land that includes free energy, since by definition I do not need to pay for that energy; I pay for the means to harness, which would entail a cost of perhaps $750 for a 10kW alternator, raw materials to construct a turbine, and associated mechanical parts. If the machine were modified to use constant lubrication on the bearings v. permanent, the amortized cost over my lifetime would be pennies per month. There is no charge for gravity. This is free energy.

As to the Ecklin generator, just google Ecklin generator, and the results will give you everything you could possibly want to know about the thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
There is some question about the term "free energy". There can never be any meeting of minds if terms are not defined. So... If I have a piece of land that has a stream with a 100 ft waterfall, I have a piece of land that includes free energy, since by definition I do not need to pay for that energy; I pay for the means to harness, which would entail a cost of perhaps $750 for a 10kW alternator, raw materials to construct a turbine, and associated mechanical parts. If the machine were modified to use constant lubrication on the bearings v. permanent, the amortized cost over my lifetime would be pennies per month. There is no charge for gravity. This is free energy.

True. We are probably just talking semantics.

As to the Ecklin generator, just google Ecklin generator, and the results will give you everything you could possibly want to know about the thing.

OK, I have been Googling and reading a little about this device. While interesting, I think we can all agree that it is not a "free" energy device. To make it function one has to apply more energy than is really coming out of it, and maybe even more than a regular generator.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
I tend to agree with badeskov that no device will ever provide free energy. At best it will convert a existing power source into another power source at little loss. Permenant magnets are just another source of power, like electricity, desiel fuel hydro-power or heat.

Also from the researching I've done online, MGO is still a very common term, as is calling the magnets Neodymium Iron Boron. RabidCat talks a lot of Jargon, but does not provide links to back up said facts.

I think RabidCat is seeing Zebras instead of horses, because that is what he wants to see.

The fact is that the Perendev motor puts out power, but requires monthly maintenance to the tune of up to 600 euros. Do you think that maintenance is work on the magnets or bearings? Is that a lot for your average European, compared to paying an electric bill? Do Europeans even pay an electricity bill. Mine here ranges from $40 to $120 depending on the season.

My electricity bill is around 150 Euros every three months...but its cheap in Greece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.