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.

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 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.)

×