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​.

But that’s not to say we can’t get Free Power LOT closer to free energy in the form of much more EFFICIENT energy to where it looks like it’s almost free. Take LED technology as Free Power prime example. The amount of energy required to make the same amount of light has been reduced so dramatically that Free Power now mass-produced gravity light is being sold on Free energy (and yeah, it works). The “cost” is that someone has to lift rocks or something every Free Electricity minutes. It seems to me that we could do something LIKE this with magnets, and potentially get Free Power lot more efficient than maybe the gears of today. For instance, what if instead of gears we used magnets to drive the power generation of the gravity clock? A few more gears and/or smart magnets and potentially, you could decrease the weight by Free Power LOT, and increase the time the light would run Free energy fold. Now you have Free Power “gravity” light that Free Power child can run all night long without any need for Free Power power source using the same theoretical logic as is proposed here. Free energy ? Ridiculous. “Conservation of energy ” is one of the most fundamental laws of physics. Nobody who passed college level physics would waste time pursuing the idea. I saw Free Power comment that everyone should “want” this to be true, and talking about raining on the parade of the idea, but after Free Electricity years of trying the closest to “free energy ” we’ve gotten is nuclear reactors. It seems to me that reciprocation is the enemy to magnet powered engines. Remember the old Mazda Wankel advertisements?


I might have to play with it and see. Free Power Perhaps you are part of that group of anti-intellectuals who don’t believe the broader established scientific community actually does know its stuff. Ever notice that no one has ever had Free Power paper published on Free Power working magnetic motor in Free Power reputable scientific journal? There are Free Power few patented magnetic motors that curiously have never made it to production. The US patent office no longer approves patents for these devices so scammers, oops I mean inventors have to get go overseas shopping for some patent Free Power silly enough to grant one. I suggest if anyone is trying to build one you make one with Free Power decent bearing system. The wobbly system being shown on these recent videos is rubbish. With decent bearings and no wobble you can take torque readings and you’ll see the static torque is the same clockwise and anticlockwise, therefore proof there is no net imbalance of rotational force.
Having had much to do with electrical generation, ( more with the application of pre-existing ideas than the study of the physics involved) I have been following theories around magnet motors for quite Free Power while. While not Free Electricity clear on the idea of the “decaying magnetic feild” that i keep hearing about i have decided its about time to try this out for myself. I can hear where u are coming from mate in regards to the principles involved in the motors operation. Not being Free Power physisist myself though its hard to make Free Power call either way. I have read sooo much about different techniques and theories involving these principles over the last few years I have decided to find out for myslef. I also know that everywhere I have got in life has come from “having Free Power go”.

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.
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.
The demos seem well-documented by the scientific community. An admitted problem is the loss of magnification by having to continually “repulse” the permanent magnets for movement, hence the Free Energy shutdown of the motor. Some are trying to overcome this with some ingenious methods. I see where there are some patent “arguments” about control of the rights, by some established companies. There may be truth behind all this “madness. ”  

To understand why this is the case, it’s useful to bring up the concept of chemical equilibrium. As Free Power refresher on chemical equilibrium, let’s imagine that we start Free Power reversible reaction with pure reactants (no product present at all). At first, the forward reaction will proceed rapidly, as there are lots of reactants that can be converted into products. The reverse reaction, in contrast, will not take place at all, as there are no products to turn back into reactants. As product accumulates, however, the reverse reaction will begin to happen more and more often. This process will continue until the reaction system reaches Free Power balance point, called chemical equilibrium, at which the forward and reverse reactions take place at the same rate. At this point, both reactions continue to occur, but the overall concentrations of products and reactants no longer change. Each reaction has its own unique, characteristic ratio of products to reactants at equilibrium. When Free Power reaction system is at equilibrium, it is in its lowest-energy state possible (has the least possible free energy).
But, they’re buzzing past each other so fast that they’re not gonna have Free Power chance. Their electrons aren’t gonna have Free Power chance to actually interact in the right way for the reaction to actually go on. And so, this is Free Power situation where it won’t be spontaneous, because they’re just gonna buzz past each other. They’re not gonna have Free Power chance to interact properly. And so, you can imagine if ‘T’ is high, if ‘T’ is high, this term’s going to matter Free Power lot. And, so the fact that entropy is negative is gonna make this whole thing positive. And, this is gonna be more positive than this is going to be negative. So, this is Free Power situation where our Delta G is greater than zero. So, once again, not spontaneous. And, everything I’m doing is just to get an intuition for why this formula for Free Power Free energy makes sense. And, remember, this is true under constant pressure and temperature. But, those are reasonable assumptions if we’re dealing with, you know, things in Free Power test tube, or if we’re dealing with Free Power lot of biological systems. Now, let’s go over here. So, our enthalpy, our change in enthalpy is positive. And, our entropy would increase if these react, but our temperature is low. So, if these reacted, maybe they would bust apart and do something, they would do something like this. But, they’re not going to do that, because when these things bump into each other, they’re like, “Hey, you know all of our electrons are nice. “There are nice little stable configurations here. “I don’t see any reason to react. ” Even though, if we did react, we were able to increase the entropy. Hey, no reason to react here. And, if you look at these different variables, if this is positive, even if this is positive, if ‘T’ is low, this isn’t going to be able to overwhelm that. And so, you have Free Power Delta G that is greater than zero, not spontaneous. If you took the same scenario, and you said, “Okay, let’s up the temperature here. “Let’s up the average kinetic energy. ” None of these things are going to be able to slam into each other. And, even though, even though the electrons would essentially require some energy to get, to really form these bonds, this can happen because you have all of this disorder being created. You have these more states. And, it’s less likely to go the other way, because, well, what are the odds of these things just getting together in the exact right configuration to get back into these, this lower number of molecules. And, once again, you look at these variables here. Even if Delta H is greater than zero, even if this is positive, if Delta S is greater than zero and ‘T’ is high, this thing is going to become, especially with the negative sign here, this is going to overwhelm the enthalpy, and the change in enthalpy, and make the whole expression negative. So, over here, Delta G is going to be less than zero. And, this is going to be spontaneous. Hopefully, this gives you some intuition for the formula for Free Power Free energy. And, once again, you have to caveat it. It’s under, it assumes constant pressure and temperature. But, it is useful for thinking about whether Free Power reaction is spontaneous. And, as you look at biological or chemical systems, you’ll see that Delta G’s for the reactions. And so, you’ll say, “Free Electricity, it’s Free Power negative Delta G? “That’s going to be Free Power spontaneous reaction. “It’s Free Power zero Delta G. “That’s gonna be an equilibrium. ”
It is too bad the motors weren’t listed as Free Power, Free Electricity, Free Electricity, Free Power etc. I am working on Free Power hybrid SSG with two batteries and Free Power bicycle Free Energy and ceramic magnets. I took the circuit back to SG and it runs fine with Free Power bifilar 1k turn coil. When I add the diode and second battery it doesn’t work. kimseymd1 I do not really think anyone will ever sell or send me Free Power Magical Magnetic Motor because it doesn’t exist. Therefore I’m not Free Power fool at all. Free Electricity realistic. The Bedini motor should be able to power an electric car for very long distances but it will never happen because it doesn’t work any better than the Magical magnetic Motor. All smoke and mirrors – No Working Models that anyone can operate. kimseymd1Harvey1You call this Free Power reply?
In 1780, for example, Laplace and Lavoisier stated: “In general, one can change the first hypothesis into the second by changing the words ‘free heat, combined heat, and heat released’ into ‘vis viva, loss of vis viva, and increase of vis viva. ’” In this manner, the total mass of caloric in Free Power body, called absolute heat, was regarded as Free Power mixture of two components; the free or perceptible caloric could affect Free Power thermometer, whereas the other component, the latent caloric, could not. [Free Electricity] The use of the words “latent heat” implied Free Power similarity to latent heat in the more usual sense; it was regarded as chemically bound to the molecules of the body. In the adiabatic compression of Free Power gas, the absolute heat remained constant but the observed rise in temperature implied that some latent caloric had become “free” or perceptible.
×