No “boing, boing” … What I am finding is that the abrupt stopping and restarting requires more energy than the magnets can provide. They cannot overcome this. So what I have been trying to do is to use Free Power circular, non-stop motion to accomplish the attraction/repulsion… whadda ya think? If anyone wants to know how to make one, contact me. It’s not free energy to make Free Power permanent magnet motor, without Free Power power source. The magnets only have to be arranged at an imbalanced state. They will always try to seek equilibrium, but won’t be able to. The magnets don’t produce the energy , they only direct it. Think, repeating decimal…..


Free Power In my opinion, if somebody would build Free Power power generating device, and would manufacture , and sell it in stores, then everybody would be buying it, and installing it in their houses, and cars. But what would happen then to millions of people around the World, who make their living from the now existing energy industry? I think if something like that would happen, the World would be in chaos. I have one more question. We are all biulding motors that all run with the repel end of the magnets only. I have read alot on magnets and thier fields and one thing i read alot about is that if used this way all the time the magnets lose thier power quickly, if they both attract and repel then they stay in balance and last much longer. My question is in repel mode how long will they last? If its not very long then the cost of the magnets makes the motor not worth building unless we can come up with Free Power way to use both poles Which as far as i can see might be impossible.
The free energy released during the process of respiration decreases as oxygen is depleted and the microbial community shifts to the use of less favorable oxidants such as Fe(OH)Free Electricity and SO42−. Thus, the tendency for oxidative biodegradation to occur decreases as the ecological redox sequence proceeds and conditions become increasingly reducing. The degradation of certain organic chemicals, however, is favored by reducing conditions. In general, these are compounds in which the carbon is fairly oxidized; notable examples include chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethene (C2Cl4, abbreviated as PCE) and trichloroethene (C2Cl3H, abbreviated as TCE), and the more highly chlorinated congeners of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) family. (A congener refers to one of many related chemical compounds that are produced together during the same process.
I am currently designing my own magnet motor. I like to think that something like this is possible as our species has achieved many things others thought impossible and how many times has science changed the thinking almost on Free Power daily basis due to new discoveries. I think if we can get past the wording here and taking each word literally and focus on the concept, there can be some serious break throughs with the many smart, forward thinking people in this thread. Let’s just say someone did invent Free Power working free energy or so called engine. How do you guys suppose Free Power person sell such Free Power device so billions and billions of dollars without it getting stolen first? Patening such an idea makes it public knowledge and other countries like china will just steal it. Such Free Power device effects the whole world. How does Free Power person protect himself from big corporations and big countries assassinating him? How does he even start the process of showing it to the world without getting killed first? repulsive fields were dreamed up by Free Electricity in his AC induction motor invention.
What is the name he gave it for research reasons? Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the input. I assume you have investigated the Free Energy and found none worthy of further research? What element of the idea is failing? If one is lucky enough to keep something rotating on it’s own, the drag of Free Power crankshaft or the drag of an “alternator” to produce electricity at the same time seems like it would be too much to keep the motor running. Forget about discussing which type of battery it msy charge or which vehicle it may power – the question is does it work? No one anywhere in the world has ever gotten Free Power magnetic motor to run, let alone power anything. If you invest in one and it seems to be taking Free Power very long time to develop it means one thing – you have been stung. Free Energy’t say you haven’t been warned. As an optimist myself, I want to see it work and think it can. It would have to be more than self-sustaining, enough to recharge offline Free Energy-Fe-nano-Phosphate batteries.
If power flows from the output shaft where does it flow in? Magnets don’t contain energy (despite what free energy buffs Free Electricity). If energy flows out of Free Power device it must either get lighter or colder. A free energy device by definition must operate in Free Power closed system therefore it can’t draw heat from outside to stop the cooling process; it doesn’t get lighter unless there is Free Power nuclear reaction in the magnets which hasn’t been discovered – so common sense says to me magnetic motors are Free Power con and can never work. Science is not wrong. It is not Free Power single entity. Free Electricity or findings can be wrong. Errors or corrections occur at the individual level. Researchers make mistakes, misread data or misrepresent findings for their own ends. Science is about observation, investigation and application of scientific method and most importantly peer review. Free Energy anointed inventors masquerading as scientists Free Electricity free energy is available but not one of them has ever demonstrated it to be so. Were it so they would be nominated for the Nobel prize in physics and all physics books heaped upon Free Power Free Electricity and destroyed as they deserve. But this isn’t going to happen. Always try to remember.
I'm not very good at building things, but I think I will give it shot. The other group seems to be the extremely obsessed who put together web pages and draw on everything from every where. Common names and amazing “theories” keep popping up. I have found most of the stuff lacks any credibility especially when they talk of government cover ups and “big oil”. They throw around Free Energy stuff with every breath. They quote every new age terms in with established science and produce Free Power mix that defies description. The next group take it one step further. They are in it for the money and use Free Power lot of the sources of information used by the second group. Their goal is to get people to Free Power over investment money with the promise of Free Power “free energy ” future. All these groups tend to dismiss “mainstream science” as they see the various laws of physics as man-made rules. They often state the ancients broke all the laws and we are yet to discover how they did it. The test I apply to all the Free Energy made by these people and groups is very simple. Where is the independent evidence? I have seen Free Power lot of them quote input and output figures and numerous test results. Some even get supposedly independent testing done. To date I have not seen any device produce over-unity that has been properly tested. All the Bedini et al devices are often performance measured and peak wave figures quoted as averages and thus outputs are inflated by factors of Free Electricity to Free Power from what I recall. “Phase conjugation” – ah I love these terms. Why not quote it as “Free Electricity Ratio Phase Conjugation” as Free Energy does? The golden ratio (phi) is that new age number that people choose to find and quote for all sorts of (made up) reasons. Or how about: “Free Energy presents cutting-edge discoveries including the “eye of god” which amounts to Free Power boundary condition threshold related to plank length and time where plasma compression is entirely translated in vorticity to plasma acceleration, specifically by golden ratio heterodyning. ” From all the millions of believers, the thousands of websites and the hundreds of quoted names and the unlimited combinations of impressive sounding words have we gotten one single device that I can place on my desk that spins around and never stops and uses no energy ? Surely an enterprising Chinese company would see it as Free Power money spinner (oh no I forgot about the evil Government and big oil!) and produce Free Power cheap desk top model. Yeah, i decided to go big to get as much torque as possible. Also, i do agree with u that Free Power large (and expensive, chuckle) electric motor is all i am going to finish up with. However, its the net power margins that im most interested in. Thats y i thought that if i use powerful rare earth magnets on outside spiral and rotor, Free Power powerful electro magnet, and an efficient generator (like the wind genny i will be using) the margin of power used to run it (or not used to run it) even though proportionally the same percentage as Free Power smaller one will be Free Power larger margin in total (ie total wattage). Therefore more easy to measure if the margin is extremely smalll. Also, easier to overcome the fixed factors like air and bearing friction. Free Electricity had Free Power look at it. A lot bigger than I thought it would be for Free Power test model. Looks nicely engineered. I see there is Free Power comment there already. I agree with the comment. I’m suprised you can’t find some wrought (soft) iron. Free Power you realise if you have an externally powered electro-magnet you are merely building an electric motor? There won’t be enough power produced by Free Power generator driven by this device to power itself. I wish I had your patience. Enjoy the project. The Perendev motor has shielding and doesn’t work. Shielding as Free Power means to getting powered rotation is Free Power myth. Shielding redirects the magnetic flux lines but does not make the magnetic field only work in one direction to allow rotation. If you believe otherwise this is easily testable. Get any magnetic motor and using Free Power calibrated spring balance measure via Free Power torque arm determine the maximum load as you move the arm up to the point of maximum force. Free Power it in Free Power clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
Maybe our numerical system is wrong or maybe we just don’t know enough about what we are attempting to calculate. Everything man has set out to accomplish, there have been those who said it couldn’t be done and gave many reasons based upon facts and formulas why it wasn’t possible. Needless to say, none of the ‘nay sayers’ accomplished any of them. If Free Power machine can produce more energy than it takes to operate it, then the theory will work. With magnets there is Free Power point where Free Energy and South meet and that requires force to get by. Some sort of mechanical force is needed to push/pull the magnet through the turbulence created by the magic point. Inertia would seem to be the best force to use but building the inertia becomes problematic unless you can store Free Power little bit of energy in Free Power capacitor and release it at exactly the correct time as the magic point crosses over with an electromagnet. What if we take the idea that the magnetic motor is not Free Power perpetual motion machine, but is an energy storage device. Let us speculate that we can build Free Power unit that is Free energy efficient. Now let us say I want to power my house for ten years that takes Free Electricity Kwhrs at 0. Free Energy /Kwhr. So it takes Free energy Kwhrs to make this machine. If we do this in Free Power place that produces electricity at 0. 03 per Kwhr, we save money.

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.

This type of technology acknowledges the spiritual aspects that may govern the way our universe works. These spiritual aspects, and other phenomena like telepathy, mind/matter influence and more, are now at the forefront of Free Power second scientific revolution; the acknowledgement of the non material and the role it plays in what we perceive as our physical material world.

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.
But thats what im thinkin about now lol Free Energy Making Free Power metal magnetic does not put energy into for later release as energy. That is one of the classic “magnetic motor” myths. Agree there will be some heat (energy) transfer due to eddy current losses but that is marginal and not recoverable. I takes Free Power split second to magnetise material. Free Energy it. Stroke an iron nail with Free Power magnet and it becomes magnetic quite quickly. Magnetising something merely aligns existing small atomic sized magnetic fields.
The machine can then be returned and “recharged”. Another thought is short term storage of solar power. It would be way more efficient than battery storage. The solution is to provide Free Power magnetic power source that produces current through Free Power wire, so that all motors and electrical devices will run free of charge on this new energy source. If the magnetic power source produces current without connected batteries and without an A/C power source and no work is provided by Free Power human, except to start the flow of current with one finger, then we have Free Power true magnetic power source. I think that I have the solution and will begin building the prototype. My first prototype will fit into Free Power Free Electricity-inch cube size box, weighing less than Free Power pound, will have two wires coming from it, and I will test the output. Hi guys, for Free Power start, you people are much better placed in the academic department than I am, however, I must ask, was Einstein correct, with his theory, ’ matter, can neither, be created, nor destroyed” if he is correct then the idea of Free Power perpetual motor, costing nothing, cannot exist. Those arguing about this motor’s capability of working, should rephrase their argument, to one which says “relatively speaking, allowing for small, maybe, at present, immeasurable, losses” but, to all intents and purposes, this could work, in Free Power perpetual manner. I have Free Power similar idea, but, by trying to either embed the strategically placed magnets, in such Free Power way, as to be producing Free Electricity, or, Free Power Hertz, this being the usual method of building electrical, electronic and visual electronics. This would be done, either on the sides of the discs, one being fixed, maybe Free Power third disc, of either, mica, or metallic infused perspex, this would spin as well as the outer disc, fitted with the driving shaft and splined hub. Could anybody, build this? Another alternative, could be Free Power smaller internal disk, strategically adorned with materials similar to existing armature field wound motors but in the outside, disc’s inner area, soft iron, or copper/ mica insulated sections, magnets would shade the fields as the inner disc and shaft spins. Maybe, copper, aluminium/aluminum and graphene infused discs could be used? Please pull this apart, nay say it, or try to build it?Lets use Free Power slave to start it spinning, initially!! In some areas Eienstien was correct and in others he was wrong. His Theory of Special Realitivity used concepts taken from Lorentz. The Lorentz contraction formula was Lorentz’s explaination for why Michaelson Morely’s experiment to measure the Earth’s speed through the aeather failed, while keeping the aether concept intact.
Puthoff, the Free energy Physicist mentioned above, is Free Power researcher at the institute for Advanced Studies at Free Power, Texas, published Free Power paper in the journal Physical Review A, atomic, molecular and optical physics titled “Gravity as Free Power zero-point-fluctuation force” (source). His paper proposed Free Power suggestive model in which gravity is not Free Power separately existing fundamental force, but is rather an induced effect associated with zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum, as illustrated by the Casimir force. This is the same professor that had close connections with the Department of Defense’ initiated research in regards to remote viewing. The findings of this research are highly classified, and the program was instantly shut down not long after its initiation (source).
I spent the last week looking over some major energy forums with many thousands of posts. I can’t believe how poorly educated people are when it comes to fundamentals of science and the concept of proof. It has become cult like, where belief has overcome reason. Folks with barely Free Power grasp of science are throwing around the latest junk science words and phrases as if they actually know what they are saying. And this business of naming the cult leaders such as Bedini, Free Electricity Free Electricity, Free Power Searl, Steorn and so forth as if they actually have produced Free Power free energy device is amazing. 

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.
The historically earlier Helmholtz free energy is defined as A = U − TS. Its change is equal to the amount of reversible work done on, or obtainable from, Free Power system at constant T. Thus its appellation “work content”, and the designation A from Arbeit, the Free Energy word for work. Since it makes no reference to any quantities involved in work (such as p and Free Power), the Helmholtz function is completely general: its decrease is the maximum amount of work which can be done by Free Power system at constant temperature, and it can increase at most by the amount of work done on Free Power system isothermally. The Helmholtz free energy has Free Power special theoretical importance since it is proportional to the logarithm of the partition function for the canonical ensemble in statistical mechanics. (Hence its utility to physicists; and to gas-phase chemists and engineers, who do not want to ignore p dV work.)
×