[Zelder]

Anybody out there interested in the topic of free energy?

I'm talking about unorthodox stuff like magnet motors (using nothing but permanet magnets), radient energy and cold fusion. Magnet motors in particular. I just can't believe the mainstream doctrine that a magnet motor is impossible. I don't care about the laws of physics, its got to be possible. There is a perpetual force field there that could be harnessed.

Now I figure there will be people saying that if it were possible someone would have done it but I look at stories of people like Howard Johnson and believe that people have done it.

Any thoughts? Any believers?

[Lycurgus]

	Originally Posted by Zelder To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now I figure there will be people saying that if it were possible someone would have done it but I look at stories of people like Howard Johnson and believe that people have done it. Any thoughts? Any believers?

Nothing to do with 'if it were possible, it would be done,' thinking like that would cause nothing ever to be done -- however that doesn't because it hasn't been done yet that it is possible either.

	Originally Posted by Zelder To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't care about the laws of physics, its got to be possible.

This is the flaw in your thought process. Not caring if something is impossible and thinking it's possible is the core of the problem.

[Blse]

I have to point about a problem with the idea of free energy: the dismantling of a multi-billion dollars industry that employs thousands upon thousands. To support this idea I would have to be convinced that the reduction in employment and growth-driving aggregate demand that would result from taking down the power industry would be compensated for by a massive hiring spree among employers who now face lower over-head and those who manufacture these new energy devices. Furthermore those jobs would have to be of the same quality as those lost.

I know you probably weren't looking for an economic explanation, but to seriously consider this idea and respond to your questions of whether I'm a believer in free energy this socio-economic consideration can't be overlooked IMO.

[Zelder]

Bise I really like your comment. Yes, the economic impact is HUGE!!! I don't think the economic impact would hurt the average person. Free energy would simply be a transfer of wealth from the corporations to the people. The wealth of energy would still be available but we would not longer have to pay "rent" for it. It would be a revolution of sorts.

[Kisai]

Could the political wonks please point to a free energy model which is being ignored/obfuscated by multinational corporations?

Please, please focus on feasibility in the science thread and not on 'political conspiracy',

[paleoeco]

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have to point about a problem with the idea of free energy: the dismantling of a multi-billion dollars industry that employs thousands upon thousands. To support this idea I would have to be convinced that the reduction in employment and growth-driving aggregate demand that would result from taking down the power industry would be compensated for by a massive hiring spree among employers who now face lower over-head and those who manufacture these new energy devices. Furthermore those jobs would have to be of the same quality as those lost. I know you probably weren't looking for an economic explanation, but to seriously consider this idea and respond to your questions of whether I'm a believer in free energy this socio-economic consideration can't be overlooked IMO.

Um, we wouldn't have automobiles if this were how progress went. I mean, think of all those horse-drawn buggy manufacturers who went out of business. There was a whole industry there that went the way of the dinosaurs because there was progress.

Would you argue against the development non-fossil fuel power sources because of all the multi-billion dollar industry that supports the governments of most Arabian states? Would you have argued against the development of automobiles in favor of the horse-drawn carriage manufacturers?

Just becuase an industry exists now doesn't mean that its existence should be used as any excuse against progress. Do I feel sorry for coal miners losing their jobs because we're moving away from a fossil-fuel economy? Yes. Do I still think we should get rid of coal-based power? Absolutely.

[SirJac]

	Originally Posted by Zelder To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm talking about unorthodox stuff like magnet motors (using nothing but permanet magnets), radient energy and cold fusion. Magnet motors in particular. I just can't believe the mainstream doctrine that a magnet motor is impossible. I don't care about the laws of physics, its got to be possible. There is a perpetual force field there that could be harnessed.

Magnetic fields from rare earth magnets are not perpetual, using them to power a motor results in the weakening of the magnets through loss of hysteresis. This is the source of the energy that powers the motor, though normally hysteresis decay results in heat and is used for induction cooking. So even if someone does manage to make a magnetic motor, it's still not free energy. It's merely transforming magnetic energy into kinetic. Lose some field strength, gain some kinetic energy.

[Zelder]

I've been working on a magnet motor for quite a while. I've tried several different models. I've met with failure every time but I'm absolutly convinced that it is possible.

For my next project I will put little cylinder magnets close together all facing north around wheel. Then I will use a stator magnet with some mumetal shielding to try and make it work. If the shielding is strong enough then I figure the incoming magnets will not be repelled but the outgoing magnets will repel creating movement. I would post a pic of the idea but cant figure out how to post pics.

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 02:50 PM ----------

Originally Posted by SirJac To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Magnetic fields from rare earth magnets are not perpetual, using them to power a motor results in the weakening of the magnets through loss of hysteresis. This is the source of the energy that powers the motor, though normally hysteresis decay results in heat and is used for induction cooking. So even if someone does manage to make a magnetic motor, it's still not free energy. It's merely transforming magnetic energy into kinetic. Lose some field strength, gain some kinetic energy.

I don't know anyting about hysteresis but if I'm understanding you correctly I figure your saying that you think its possible to make one work? I don't care if I'm losing field strengh as long as I'm getting constant supply of kinetic energy as a result.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Zelder To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know anyting about hysteresis but if I'm understanding you correctly I figure your saying that you think its possible to make one work? I don't care if I'm losing field strengh as long as I'm getting constant supply of kinetic energy as a result.

Oh boy...

No. A 'permanent' magnet works because work is expended into aligning molecules in a magnetically permeable mass with another magnetic field. When your 'permanent' magnet's field pushes against a mass (or pushes against another magnetic field, which you'll definitely have in a motor) , the mass pushes back against that molecular alignment. Heat is generated. Your alignment is coerced back into an unstructured mess. Your magnet becomes demagnetized.

In short, permanent magnet is not permanent. You will not get free unlimited energy from it.

[RBM]

Zelder.

Why do you come HERE to ask about FE ?

I've been keeping an eye on FE/OU developments since '95. I'm also pretty familiar with knowledge gaps in conventional science, as a layman.

You are woefully under educated if you are a DIY'er and don't know about hysteresis. How can you find something undiscovered with out knowing what's been discovered ??

I can remember when the Casimir force was outside consideration for conventional physics - now there is a patent pending that uses it to provide high voltage out of thin air.

Besides the deep pockets that ARE doing the R&D needed for FE/OU/ZPE aren't saying much - look up DARPA's efforts, and the US Navy.

[Zelder]

Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh boy... No. A 'permanent' magnet works because work is expended into aligning molecules in a magnetically permeable mass with another magnetic field. When your 'permanent' magnet's field pushes against a mass (or pushes against another magnetic field, which you'll definitely have in a motor) , the mass pushes back against that molecular alignment. Heat is generated. Your alignment is coerced back into an unstructured mess. Your magnet becomes demagnetized. In short, permanent magnet is not permanent. You will not get free unlimited energy from it.

I believe the resistence to this is what they call the coercive force of the magnet. If the magnets are in repel mode they will demagnetize after some time. However if they are in constant attraction mode I doubt this will happen.

There is a "V" shape configuration that uses attraction that I am interested in trying. Aparently there is a german guy by the name of George Soukup that got one to work in the V configuration.

[Kisai]

In 'constant attraction mode' the two magnets can be considered one magnet. If they are perfectly aligned, you are correct, coercion should be minimal.

However, you're interested in doing work with a motor, ne? That means pushing against a mass or having alternating magnetic fields.

[Zelder]

Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Zelder. Why do you come HERE to ask about FE ? I've been keeping an eye on FE/OU developments since '95. I'm also pretty familiar with knowledge gaps in conventional science, as a layman. You are woefully under educated if you are a DIY'er and don't know about hysteresis. How can you find something undiscovered with out knowing what's been discovered ?? I can remember when the Casimir force was outside consideration for conventional physics - now there is a patent pending that uses it to provide high voltage out of thin air. Besides the deep pockets that ARE doing the R&D needed for FE/OU/ZPE aren't saying much - look up DARPA's efforts, and the US Navy.

I've spent some time on PESwiki and other sites. I know that I don't know much. But I have not found anywhere that I can learn how make an easy to build magnet motor. Its just not on the net. So I talk about it everywhere I go.

I think the only way the public will ever get FE is to do it ourselves through grass roots movements and I figure the magnet motor is the best way for that to happen. I think its good to talk about it with open minded people. Spread the word sort of thing. If everybody is doing it they cant stop it anymore.

[SirJac]

The problem is that conservation of energy is built right into Newton's laws. So any device built on Newtonian physics cannot be a source of free energy. Any sort of device that can provide "free" energy is going to have to operate of principles outside of Newton's laws, which generally means quantum. Devices built on the Casimir effect as RBM brought up, are a good example of this.

	I don't know anyting about hysteresis but if I'm understanding you correctly I figure your saying that you think its possible to make one work? I don't care if I'm losing field strengh as long as I'm getting constant supply of kinetic energy as a result.

Hypothetically, you can build one but your kinetic energy output will decrease over time. The magnets would effectively be your battery and you would have to recharge them periodically. I've thought about designs but found that even if they did work, they would be terribly inefficient. It would be a physics novelty rather then have any practical value.

[Zelder]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would guess you haven't read of what the money lender, Westinghouse, did to Tesla's equipment when he learned Tesla wanted to distribute it free ?

I believe that you are talking about JP Morgan not Westinghouse. As I understand it Westinghouse was one of the good guys and a good friend of Tesla.

So yes I am aware of the huge resistance to this stuff. The corporations and governments have nothing to gain and a lot to loose if free energy gets out to the masses.

[Aronnax]

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have to point about a problem with the idea of free energy: the dismantling of a multi-billion dollars industry that employs thousands upon thousands. To support this idea I would have to be convinced that the reduction in employment and growth-driving aggregate demand that would result from taking down the power industry would be compensated for by a massive hiring spree among employers who now face lower over-head and those who manufacture these new energy devices. Furthermore those jobs would have to be of the same quality as those lost.

It's covered as "creative destruction". It'd be like a 3rd industrial revolution, all kind of labor saving devices that aren't practical because of energy cost would suddenly become realistic.

It's also not possible given the current model of physics and this is one of those things that people have been attempting to demonstrate for a long time; it's just not very likely. Fun to talk about but I'm extremely skeptical. A good place to start would be for free energy advocates to stop talking about "government and corporation cover ups" and start trying to experimentally prove the theory.

[Blse]

Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Um, we wouldn't have automobiles if this were how progress went. I mean, think of all those horse-drawn buggy manufacturers who went out of business. There was a whole industry there that went the way of the dinosaurs because there was progress. Would you argue against the development non-fossil fuel power sources because of all the multi-billion dollar industry that supports the governments of most Arabian states? Would you have argued against the development of automobiles in favor of the horse-drawn carriage manufacturers? Just becuase an industry exists now doesn't mean that its existence should be used as any excuse against progress. Do I feel sorry for coal miners losing their jobs because we're moving away from a fossil-fuel economy? Yes. Do I still think we should get rid of coal-based power? Absolutely.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's covered as "creative destruction". It'd be like a 3rd industrial revolution, all kind of labor saving devices that aren't practical because of energy cost would suddenly become realistic.

Ok, let me clarify my position, I am in favor of radical technological changes that render entire industries out-dated as long as they lead to new industries that replace the old ones. In the case of the car, that's what happened. Buggies were gone, cars came. Car companies (and car related industries inlcd. drive-throughs and 7-11s) employ more people than buggy makers and carriage catering industries did. That is why I said, for me to be a beleiver in free energy, I would have to see that this new technology would create as many high quality jobs (or at least has the potential to do so) than were lost through its introduction.

I do, however, think that such technological change would need to be slowly phased in so the economy and labor force can adjust. My main point is one of caution: a beautiful new energy sources that's free (as nice as that sounds) could also have an economic downside to it that needs to be weighed.

[Aronnax]

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ok, let me clarify my position, I am in favor of radical technological changes that render entire industries out-dated as long as they lead to new industries that replace the old ones. In the case of the car, that's what happened. Buggies were gone, cars came. Car companies (and car related industries inlcd. drive-throughs and 7-11s) employ more people than buggy makers and carriage catering industries did. That is why I said, for me to be a beleiver in free energy, I would have to see that this new technology would create as many high quality jobs (or at least has the potential to do so) than were lost through its introduction. I do, however, think that such technological change would need to be slowly phased in so the economy and labor force can adjust. My main point is one of caution: a beautiful new energy sources that's free (as nice as that sounds) could also have an economic downside to it that needs to be weighed.

*head asplode*

So you don't believe creative destruction is a natural, and unavoidable, part of capitalism?

Yes, there would be a period of market readjustment but ultimately this would be as revolutionary as the introduction of the steam engine. "Free" energy would make raw materials and finished products cost next to nothing and low pollution manufacturing techniques that aren't cost effective (because of energy consumption) would suddenly become realistic. Cradle to cradle recycling, food production, fully automated manufacturing... the possibilities are staggering. From an engineering perspective so many things are only impractical because of the associated energy costs.

The global economy would eventually become entirely service based. The only hand produced goods you'd see would be out of a desire for craftsmanship or customization. People would find (or create) work but the goods required to survive and flourish would be nearly free.

But like I mentioned earlier, most of the "free energy" type devices don't get along with the second law of thermodynamics.

[Zelder]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's covered as "creative destruction". It'd be like a 3rd industrial revolution, all kind of labor saving devices that aren't practical because of energy cost would suddenly become realistic. It's also not possible given the current model of physics and this is one of those things that people have been attempting to demonstrate for a long time; it's just not very likely. Fun to talk about but I'm extremely skeptical. A good place to start would be for free energy advocates to stop talking about "government and corporation cover ups" and start trying to experimentally prove the theory.

I agree, there needs to be a lot more experimenting. Which is what I am trying to do despite my inadequcies. However, it can be very difficult not to talk about government/corporate corruption when there seems to be so much technology out there that is not coming out into the light.

[Blse]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

*head asplode* So you don't believe creative destruction is a natural, and unavoidable, part of capitalism? Yes, there would be a period of market readjustment but ultimately this would be as revolutionary as the introduction of the steam engine. "Free" energy would make raw materials and finished products cost next to nothing and low pollution manufacturing techniques that aren't cost effective (because of energy consumption) would suddenly become realistic. Cradle to cradle recycling, food production, fully automated manufacturing... the possibilities are staggering. From an engineering perspective so many things are only impractical because of the associated energy costs. The global economy would eventually become entirely service based. The only hand produced goods you'd see would be out of a desire for craftsmanship or customization. People would find (or create) work but the goods required to survive and flourish would be nearly free. But like I mentioned earlier, most of the "free energy" type devices don't get along with the second law of thermodynamics.

I didn't say that radical innovation is always undesirable, nor did I say it isn't in the nature of capitalism. All that I said, is that such radical changes need to be viewed cautiously and radical readjustments be undertaken in a gradual manner.

[thod]

We do have an almost inexhaustible magnet sitting directly under us. The Earth's core is a spinning ball of iron that gives rise to the planets magnetic field. The problem is to find a way to tap into some of that energy. Not free energy since it is taken from the core, but is free in dollar terms.

[rhiesa]

It would be horrible if we developed free energy.

Think about the history of scientific achievement, what percentage of paradigm shifts came about because of the pressures associated with war? If we had infinite energy we would not only destroy everything but also lose one of the major driving forces that makes humanity so innovative. It may sounds cruel but there /has/ to be disparity and starvation and war for us to strive forwards and try and make the world a better place. If we had an infinite source of energy we would never try to create more efficient systems because it would be unnecessary. Look at the early automobile industry, back when gas would never run out for a great comparison.

Now, that's not to say that humans won't one day (perhaps quite soon) develop power generation that is so efficient and plentiful that we don't have to worry about running out, but still it has to happen slowly so that our common consciousness can adopt an understanding of the beauty within well working systems and a balance, a sense of harmony mirroring the amazingly complex simplicity of evolution. We're far too primitive to be given the power of gods.

[Nightsun]

Free energy can't exist for physical reason. Is like perpetual motion.

[Freedom Geek]

I'll believe it when it's working and has been reproduced by credible sources. Until then I won't be holding my breath.

[Zelder]

	Originally Posted by rhiesa To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It would be horrible if we developed free energy. .... We're far too primitive to be given the power of gods.

There may be some truth to what you say but in my opinion, free energy is here whether we like it or not. If I'm correct then the situation is bad because the "power of the gods" currently lies only in the hands of a few. I say let us all be gods not just the some of us.

Isn't anybody curious about trying to make something work? Anybody heard of John Bedini? I bought one of his battery chargers from R-charge.com. It seems to be working. I have a 2004 Ford Ranger with the original battery. I just charge it up once in a while with my radiant charger and it keeps going. I think its amazing. I tried building a bedini simplifed school girl motor but gave up on it to try the magnet motor.