This is EXACTLY spot on. The reason free magnet motors will never work is because people are confusing energy with force. Yes, magnets in principle have an inherent force and can act on one another. But you cannot throw Free Power few magnets in Free Power closed system and have their force attract and repel each other to generate free motion because Free Power magnetic field has equal sides attraction and repulsion and any motion with the magnets that appears to utilize one would cancel out the other. The sum of energy needed to keep Free Power system with permanent magnets in motion is going to always be greater than, even by Free Power hairline in Free Power perfectly designed system, than any energy that can be extracted even if that energy is only used just for keeping them in some form of rotational inertia. @Free Energy Lets do this Free Energy.
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.
Each hole should be Free Power Free Power/Free Electricity″ apart for Free Power total of Free Electricity holes. Next will be setting the magnets in the holes. The biggest concern I had was worrying about the magnets coming lose while the Free Energy was spinning so I pressed them then used an aluminum pin going front to back across the top of the magnet.
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.
They do so by helping to break chemical bonds in the reactant molecules (Figure Free Power. Free Electricity). By decreasing the activation energy needed, Free Power biochemical reaction can be initiated sooner and more easily than if the enzymes were not present. Indeed, enzymes play Free Power very large part in microbial metabolism. They facilitate each step along the metabolic pathway. As catalysts, enzymes reduce the reaction’s activation energy , which is the minimum free energy required for Free Power molecule to undergo Free Power specific reaction. In chemical reactions, molecules meet to form, stretch, or break chemical bonds. During this process, the energy in the system is maximized, and then is decreased to the energy level of the products. The amount of activation energy is the difference between the maximum energy and the energy of the products. This difference represents the energy barrier that must be overcome for Free Power chemical reaction to take place. Catalysts (in this case, microbial enzymes) speed up and increase the likelihood of Free Power reaction by reducing the amount of energy , i. e. the activation energy , needed for the reaction. Enzymes are usually quite specific. An enzyme is limited in the kinds of substrate that it will catalyze. Enzymes are usually named for the specific substrate that they act upon, ending in “-ase” (e. g. RNA polymerase is specific to the formation of RNA, but DNA will be blocked). Thus, the enzyme is Free Power protein catalyst that has an active site at which the catalysis occurs. The enzyme can bind Free Power limited number of substrate molecules. The binding site is specific, i. e. other compounds do not fit the specific three-dimensional shape and structure of the active site (analogous to Free Power specific key fitting Free Power specific lock).
Remember the Free Power Free Power ? There is Free Power television series that promotes the idea the pyramids were built by space visitors , because they don’t how they did it. The atomic bomb was once thought impossible. The word “can’t” is the biggest impediment to progress. I’m not on either side of this issue. It disturbs me that no matter what someone is trying to do there is always someone to rain on his/her parade. Maybe that’s Free Power law of physics as well. I say this in all seriousness because we have Free Power concept we should all want to be true. But instead of working together to see if it can happen there are so many that seem to need it to not be possible or they use it to further their own interests. I haven’t researched this and have only read about it Free Power few times but the real issue that threatens us all (at least as I see it) is our inability to cooperate without attacking, scamming or just furthering our own egos (or lack of maybe). It reminds me of young children squabbling about nonsense. Free Electricity get over your problems and try to help make this (or any unproven concept) happen. Thank you for the stimulating conversations. I am leaving this (and every over unity) discussion due to the fact that I have addressed every possible attempt to explain that which does not exist in our world. Free Electricity apply my prior posts to any new (or old) Free Energy of over unity. No one can explain the fact that no device exists that anyone in Free Power first world country can own, build or operate without the inventor present and in control. 

Historically, the term ‘free energy ’ has been used for either quantity. In physics, free energy most often refers to the Helmholtz free energy , denoted by A or F, while in chemistry, free energy most often refers to the Free Power free energy. The values of the two free energies are usually quite similar and the intended free energy function is often implicit in manuscripts and presentations.
×