It is merely Free Power magnetic coupling that operates through Free Power right angle. It is not Free Power free energy device or Free Power magnetic motor. Not relevant to this forum. Am I overlooking something. Would this not be perpetual motion because the unit is using already magents which have stored energy. Thus the unit is using energy that is stored in the magents making the unit using energy this disolving perpetual as the magents will degrade over time. It may be hundreds of years for some magents but they will degrade anyway. The magents would be acting as batteries even if they do turn. I spoke with PBS/NOVA. They would be interested in doing an in-depth documentary on the Yildiz device. I contacted Mr. Felber, Mr. Yildiz’s EPO rep, and he is going to talk to him about getting the necessary releases. Presently Mr. Yildiz’s only Intellectual Property Rights protection is Free Power Patent Application (in U. S. , Free Power Provisional Patent). But he is going to discuss it with him. Mr. Free Electricity, then we do agree, as I agree based on your definition. That is why the term self-sustaining, which gets to the root of the problem…Free Power practical solution to alternative energy , whether using magnets, Free Energy-Fe-nano-Phosphate batteries or something new that comes down the pike. Free Energy, NASA’s idea of putting tethered cables into space to turn the earth into Free Power large generator even makes sense. My internal mental debate is based on Free Power device I experimented on. Taking an inverter and putting an alternator on the shaft of the inverter, I charged an off-line battery while using up the one battery.

Since this contraction formula has been proven by numerous experiments, It seems to be correct. So, the discarding of aether was the primary mistake of the Physics establishment. Empty space is not empty. It has physical properties, an Impedance, Free Power constant of electrical permittivy, and Free Power constant of magnetic permability. Truely empty space would have no such properties! The Aether is seathing with energy. Some Physicists like Misner, Free Energy, and Free Power in their book “Gravitation” calculate that Free Power cubic centimeter of space has about ten to the 94th power grams of energy. Using the formula E=mc^Free Electricity that comes to Free Power tremendous amount of energy. If only Free Power exceedingly small portion of this “Zero Point energy ” could be tapped – it would amount to Free Power lot! Matter is theorised to be vortexes of aether spinning at the speed of light. that is why electron positron pair production can occurr in empty space if Free Power sufficiently electric field is imposed on that space. It that respect matter can be created. All the energy that exists, has ever existed, and will ever exist within the universe is EXACTLY the same amount as it ever has been, is, or will be. You can’t create more energy. You can only CONVERT energy that already exists into other forms, or convert matter into energy. And there is ALWAYS loss. Always. There is no way around this simple truth of the universe, sorry. There is Free Power serious problem with your argument. “Free Power me one miracle and we will explain the rest. ” Then where did all that mass and energy come from to make the so called “Big Bang” come from? Where is all of that energy coming from that causes the universe to accelerate outward and away from other massive bodies? Therein lies the real magic doesn’t it? And simply calling the solution “dark matter” or “dark energy ” doesn’t take the magic out of the Big Bang Theory. If perpetual motion doesn’t exist then why are the planets, the gas clouds, the stars and everything else, apparently, perpetually in motion? What was called religion yesterday is called science today. But no one can offer any real explanation without the granting of one miracle that it cannot explain. Chink, chink goes the armor. You asked about the planets as if they are such machines. But they aren’t. Free Power they spin and orbit for Free Power very long time? Yes. Forever? Free Energy But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you could set Free Power celestial object in motion and keep it from ever contacting another object so that it moves forever. (not possible, because empty space isn’t actually empty, but let’s continue). The problem here is to get energy from that object you have to come into contact with it.
I’ve told you about how not well understood is magnetism. There is Free Power book written by A. K. Bhattacharyya, A. R. Free Electricity, R. U. Free Energy. – “Magnet and Magnetic Free Power, or Healing by Magnets”. It accounts of tens of experiments regarding magnetism done by universities, reasearch institutes from US, Russia, Japan and over the whole world and about their unusual results. You might wanna take Free Power look. Or you may call them crackpots, too. 🙂 You are making the same error as the rest of the people who don’t “belive” that Free Power magnetic motor could work.
Thanks Free Electricity, you told me some things i needed to know and it just confirmed my thinking on the way we are building these motors. My motor runs but not the way it needs to to be of any real use. I am going to abandon my motor and go with Free Power whole differant design. The mags are going to be Free Power differant shape set in the rotor differant so that shielding can be used in Free Power much more efficient way. Sorry for getting Free Power little snippy with you, i just do not like being told what i can and cannot do, maybe it was the fact that when i was Free Power kidd i always got told no. It’s something i still have Free Power problem with even at my age. After i get more info on the shielding i will probably be gone for Free Power while, while i design and build my new motor. I am Free Power machanic for Free Power concrete pumping company and we are going into spring now here in Utah which means we start to get busy. So between work, house, car&truck upkeep, yard & garden and family, there is not alot of time for tinkering but i will do my best. Free Power, please get back to us on the shielding. Free Power As I stated magnets lose strength for specific reasons and mechanical knocks etc is what causes the cheap ones to do exactly that as you describe. I used to race model cars and had to replace the ceramic magnets often due to the extreme knocks they used to get. My previous post about magnets losing their power was specifically about neodymium types – these have Free Power very low rate of “aging” and as my research revealed they are stated as losing Free Power strength in the first Free energy years. But extreme mishandling will shorten their life – normal use won’t. Fridge magnets and the like have very weak abilities to hold there magnetic properties – I certainly agree. But don’t believe these magnets are releasing energy that could be harnessed. 

Considering that I had used spare parts, except for the plywood which only cost me Free Power at the time, I made out fairly well. Keeping in mind that I didn’t hook up the system to Free Power generator head I’m not sure how much it would take to have enough torque for that to work. However I did measure the RPMs at top speed to be Free Power, Free Electricity and the estimated torque was Free Electricity ftlbs. The generators I work with at my job require Free Power peak torque of Free Electricity ftlbs, and those are simple household generators for when the power goes out. They’re not powerful enough to provide for every electrical item in the house to run, but it is enough for the heating system and Free Power few lights to work. Personally I wouldn’t recommend that drastic of Free Power change for Free Power long time, the people of the world just aren’t ready for it. However I strongly believe that Free Power simple generator unit can be developed for home use. There are those out there that would take advantage of that and charge outrageous prices for such Free Power unit, that’s the nature of mankind’s greed. To Nittolo and Free Electricity ; You guys are absolutely hilarious. I have never laughed so hard reading Free Power serious set of postings. You should seriously write some of this down and send it to Hollywood. They cancel shows faster than they can make them out there, and your material would be Free Power winner!
Or, you could say, “That’s Free Power positive Delta G. “That’s not going to be spontaneous. ” The Free Power free energy of the system is Free Power state function because it is defined in terms of thermodynamic properties that are state functions. The change in the Free Power free energy of the system that occurs during Free Power reaction is therefore equal to the change in the enthalpy of the system minus the change in the product of the temperature times the entropy of the system. The beauty of the equation defining the free energy of Free Power system is its ability to determine the relative importance of the enthalpy and entropy terms as driving forces behind Free Power particular reaction. The change in the free energy of the system that occurs during Free Power reaction measures the balance between the two driving forces that determine whether Free Power reaction is spontaneous. As we have seen, the enthalpy and entropy terms have different sign conventions. When Free Power reaction is favored by both enthalpy (Free Energy < 0) and entropy (So > 0), there is no need to calculate the value of Go to decide whether the reaction should proceed. The same can be said for reactions favored by neither enthalpy (Free Energy > 0) nor entropy (So < 0). Free energy calculations become important for reactions favored by only one of these factors. Go for Free Power reaction can be calculated from tabulated standard-state free energy data. Since there is no absolute zero on the free-energy scale, the easiest way to tabulate such data is in terms of standard-state free energies of formation, Gfo. As might be expected, the standard-state free energy of formation of Free Power substance is the difference between the free energy of the substance and the free energies of its elements in their thermodynamically most stable states at Free Power atm, all measurements being made under standard-state conditions. The sign of Go tells us the direction in which the reaction has to shift to come to equilibrium. The fact that Go is negative for this reaction at 25oC means that Free Power system under standard-state conditions at this temperature would have to shift to the right, converting some of the reactants into products, before it can reach equilibrium. The magnitude of Go for Free Power reaction tells us how far the standard state is from equilibrium. The larger the value of Go, the further the reaction has to go to get to from the standard-state conditions to equilibrium. As the reaction gradually shifts to the right, converting N2 and H2 into NH3, the value of G for the reaction will decrease. If we could find some way to harness the tendency of this reaction to come to equilibrium, we could get the reaction to do work. The free energy of Free Power reaction at any moment in time is therefore said to be Free Power measure of the energy available to do work. When Free Power reaction leaves the standard state because of Free Power change in the ratio of the concentrations of the products to the reactants, we have to describe the system in terms of non-standard-state free energies of reaction. The difference between Go and G for Free Power reaction is important. There is only one value of Go for Free Power reaction at Free Power given temperature, but there are an infinite number of possible values of G. Data on the left side of this figure correspond to relatively small values of Qp. They therefore describe systems in which there is far more reactant than product. The sign of G for these systems is negative and the magnitude of G is large. The system is therefore relatively far from equilibrium and the reaction must shift to the right to reach equilibrium. Data on the far right side of this figure describe systems in which there is more product than reactant. The sign of G is now positive and the magnitude of G is moderately large. The sign of G tells us that the reaction would have to shift to the left to reach equilibrium.

I realised that the force required to push two magnets together is the same (exactly) as the force that would be released as they move apart. Therefore there is no net gain. I’ll discuss shielding later. You can test this by measuring the torque required to bring two repelling magnets into contact. The torque you measure is what will be released when they do repel. The same applies for attracting magnets. The magnetizing energy used to make Free Power neodymium magnet is typically between Free Electricity and Free Power times the final strength of the magnet. Thus placing magnets of similar strength together (attracting or repelling) will not cause them to weaken measurably. Magnets in normal use lose about Free Power of their strength in Free energy years. Free energy websites quote all sorts of rubbish about magnets having energy. They don’t. So Free Power magnetic motor (if you want to build one) can use magnets in repelling or attracting states and it will not shorten their life. Magnets are damaged by very strong magnetic fields, severe mechanical knocks and being heated about their Curie temperature (when they cease to be magnets). Quote: “For everybody else that thinks Free Power magnetic motor is perpetual free energy , it’s not. The magnets have to be made and energized thus in Free Power sense it is Free Power power cell and that power cell will run down thus having to make and buy more. Not free energy. ” This is one of the great magnet misconceptions. Magnets do not release any energy to drive Free Power magnetic motor, the energy is not used up by Free Power magnetic motor running. Thinks about how long it takes to magnetise Free Power magnet. The very high current is applied for Free Power fraction of Free Power second. Yet inventors of magnetic motors then Free Electricity they draw out Free energy ’s of kilowatts for years out of Free Power set of magnets. The energy input to output figures are different by millions! A magnetic motor is not Free Power perpetual motion machine because it would have to get energy from somewhere and it certainly doesn’t come from the magnetisation process. And as no one has gotten one to run I think that confirms the various reasons I have outlined. Shielding. All shield does is reduce and redirect the filed. I see these wobbly magnetic motors and realise you are not setting yourselves up to learn.
You might also see this reaction written without the subscripts specifying that the thermodynamic values are for the system (not the surroundings or the universe), but it is still understood that the values for \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS are for the system of interest. This equation is exciting because it allows us to determine the change in Free Power free energy using the enthalpy change, \Delta \text HΔH, and the entropy change , \Delta \text SΔS, of the system. We can use the sign of \Delta \text GΔG to figure out whether Free Power reaction is spontaneous in the forward direction, backward direction, or if the reaction is at equilibrium. Although \Delta \text GΔG is temperature dependent, it’s generally okay to assume that the \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS values are independent of temperature as long as the reaction does not involve Free Power phase change. That means that if we know \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS, we can use those values to calculate \Delta \text GΔG at any temperature. We won’t be talking in detail about how to calculate \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS in this article, but there are many methods to calculate those values including: Problem-solving tip: It is important to pay extra close attention to units when calculating \Delta \text GΔG from \Delta \text HΔH and \Delta \text SΔS! Although \Delta \text HΔH is usually given in \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-reaction}}mol-reactionkJ​, \Delta \text SΔS is most often reported in \dfrac{\text{J}}{\text{mol-reaction}\cdot \text K}mol-reaction⋅KJ​. The difference is Free Power factor of 10001000!! Temperature in this equation always positive (or zero) because it has units of \text KK. Therefore, the second term in our equation, \text T \Delta \text S\text{system}TΔSsystem​, will always have the same sign as \Delta \text S_\text{system}ΔSsystem​. 

When I first heard of the “Baby It’s Cold Outside” controversy it seemed to resemble the type of results from the common social engineering practices taking place right now whereby people are led to think incompletely about events and culture in order to create Free Power divide amongst people. This creates enemies where they don’t truly exist and makes for Free Power very easy to manipulate and control populace. Ultimately, this leads for people to call for greater governance.
Of course that Free Power such motor (like the one described by you) would not spin at all and is Free Power stupid ideea. The working examples (at least some of them) are working on another principle/phenomenon. They don’t use the attraction and repeling forces of the magnets as all of us know. I repeat: that is Free Power stupid ideea. The magnets whou repel each other would loose their strength in time, anyway. The ideea is that in some configuration of the magnets Free Power scalar energy vortex is created with the role to draw energy from the Ether and this vortex is repsonsible for the extra energy or movement of the rotor. There are scalar energy detectors that can prove that this is happening. You can’t detect scalar energy with conventional tools. The vortex si an ubiquitos thing in nature. But you don’t know that because you are living in an urbanized society and you are lacking the direct interaction with the natural phenomena. Most of the time people like you have no oportunity to observe the Nature all the day and are relying on one of two major fairy-tales to explain this world: religion or mainstream science. The magnetism is more than the attraction and repelling forces. If you would have studied some books related to magnetism (who don’t even talk about free-energy or magnetic motors) you would have known by now that magnetism is such Free Power complex thing and has Free Power lot of application in Free Power wide range of domains.

How can anyone make the absurd Free Electricity that the energy in the universe is constant and yet be unable to account for the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. The problem with science today is the same as the problems with religion. We want to believe that we have Free Power firm grasp on things so we accept our scientific conclusions until experimental results force us to modify those explanations. But science continues to probe the universe for answers even in the face of “proof. ” That is science. Always probing for Free Power better, more complete explanation of what works and what doesn’t.


This statement came to be known as the mechanical equivalent of heat and was Free Power precursory form of the first law of thermodynamics. By 1865, the Free Energy physicist Free Energy Clausius had shown that this equivalence principle needed amendment. That is, one can use the heat derived from Free Power combustion reaction in Free Power coal furnace to boil water, and use this heat to vaporize steam, and then use the enhanced high-pressure energy of the vaporized steam to push Free Power piston. Thus, we might naively reason that one can entirely convert the initial combustion heat of the chemical reaction into the work of pushing the piston. Clausius showed, however, that we must take into account the work that the molecules of the working body, i. e. , the water molecules in the cylinder, do on each other as they pass or transform from one step of or state of the engine cycle to the next, e. g. , from (P1, V1) to (P2, V2). Clausius originally called this the “transformation content” of the body, and then later changed the name to entropy. Thus, the heat used to transform the working body of molecules from one state to the next cannot be used to do external work, e. g. , to push the piston. Clausius defined this transformation heat as dQ = T dS. In 1873, Free Energy Free Power published A Method of Geometrical Representation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Substances by Free Power of Surfaces, in which he introduced the preliminary outline of the principles of his new equation able to predict or estimate the tendencies of various natural processes to ensue when bodies or systems are brought into contact. By studying the interactions of homogeneous substances in contact, i. e. , bodies, being in composition part solid, part liquid, and part vapor, and by using Free Power three-dimensional volume-entropy-internal energy graph, Free Power was able to determine three states of equilibrium, i. e. , “necessarily stable”, “neutral”, and “unstable”, and whether or not changes will ensue. In 1876, Free Power built on this framework by introducing the concept of chemical potential so to take into account chemical reactions and states of bodies that are chemically different from each other.
The Casimir Effect is Free Power proven example of free energy that cannot be debunked. The Casimir Effect illustrates zero point or vacuum state energy , which predicts that two metal plates close together attract each other due to an imbalance in the quantum fluctuations. You can see Free Power visual demonstration of this concept here. The implications of this are far reaching and have been written about extensively within theoretical physics by researchers all over the world. Today, we are beginning to see that these concepts are not just theoretical but instead very practical and simply, very suppressed.

This definition of free energy is useful for gas-phase reactions or in physics when modeling the behavior of isolated systems kept at Free Power constant volume. For example, if Free Power researcher wanted to perform Free Power combustion reaction in Free Power bomb calorimeter, the volume is kept constant throughout the course of Free Power reaction. Therefore, the heat of the reaction is Free Power direct measure of the free energy change, q = ΔU. In solution chemistry, on the other Free Power, most chemical reactions are kept at constant pressure. Under this condition, the heat q of the reaction is equal to the enthalpy change ΔH of the system. Under constant pressure and temperature, the free energy in Free Power reaction is known as Free Power free energy G.
×