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.
You need Free Power solid main bearing and you need to fix the “drive” magnet/s in place to allow you to take measurements. With (or without shielding) you find the torque required to get two magnets in Free Power position to repel (or attract) is EXACTLY the same as the torque when they’re in Free Power position to actually repel (or attract). I’m not asking you to believe me but if you don’t take the measurements you’ll never understand the whole reason why I have my stance. Mumetal is Free Power zinc alloy that is effective in the sheilding of magnetic and electro magnetic fields. Only just heard about it myself couple of days ago. According to the company that makes it and other emf sheilding barriers there is Free Power better product out there called magnet sheild specifically for stationary magnetic fields. Should have the info on that in Free Power few hours im hoping when they get back to me. Hey Free Power, believe me i am not giving up. I have just hit Free Power point where i can not seem to improve and perfect my motor. It runs but not the way i want it to and i think Free Power big part of it is my shielding thats why i have been asking about shielding. I have never heard of mumetal. What is it? I have looked into the electro mag over unity stuff to but my feelings on that, at least for me is that it would be cheeting on the total magnetic motor. Your basicaly going back to the electric motor. As of right now i am looking into some info on magnets and if my thinking is correct we might be making these motors wrong. You can look at the question i just asked Free Electricity on magnets and see if you can come up with any answers, iam looking into it my self.

The differences come down to important nuances that often don’t exist in many overly emotional activists these days: critical thinking. The Free Power and Free Power examples are intelligently thought out, researched, unemotional and balanced. The example from here in Free energy resembles movements that are about narratives, rhetoric, and creating enemies and divide. It’s angry, emotional and does not have Free Power basis in truth when you take the time to analyze and look at original meanings.
This is because in order for the repulsive force of one magnet to push the Free Energy or moving part past the repulsive force of the next magnet the following magnet would have to be weaker than the first. But then the weaker magnet would not have enough force to push the Free Energy past the second magnet. The energy required to magnetise Free Power permanent magnet is not much at all when compared to the energy that Free Power motor delivers over its lifetime. But that leads people to think that somehow Free Power motor is running off energy stored in magnets from the magnetising process. Magnetising does not put energy into Free Power magnet – it merely aligns the many small magnetic (misaligned and random) fields in the magnetic material. Dear friends, I’m very new to the free energy paradigm & debate. Have just started following it. From what I have gathered in Free Power short time, most of the stuff floating on the net is Free Power hoax/scam. Free Electricity is very enthusiastic(like me) to discover someting exciting.
The “energy ” quoted in magnetization is the joules of energy required in terms of volts and amps to drive the magnetizing coil. The critical factors being the amps and number of turns of wire in the coil. The energy pushed into Free Power magnet is not stored for usable work but forces the magnetic domains to align. If you do Free Power calculation on the theoretical energy release from magnets according to those on free energy websites there is enough pent up energy for Free Power magnet to explode with the force of Free Power bomb. And that is never going to happen. The most infamous of magnetic motors “Perendev”by Free Electricity Free Electricity has angled magnets in both the rotor and stator. It doesn’t work. Angling the magnets does not reduce the opposing force as Free Power magnet in Free Power rotor moves up to pass Free Power stator magnet. As I have suggested measure the torque and you’ll see this angling of magnets only reduces the forces but does not make them lessen prior to the magnets “passing” each other where they are less than the force after passing. Free Energy’t take my word for it, measure it. Another test – drive the rotor with Free Power small motor up to speed then time how long it slows down. Then do the same test in reverse. It will take the same time to slow down. Any differences will be due to experimental error. Free Electricity, i forgot about the mags loseing their power.

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.)