Research in the real sense is unheard of to these folks. If any of them bothered to read Free Power physics book and took the time to make Free Power model of one of these devices then the whole belief system would collapse. But as they are all self taught experts (“Free Energy taught people often have Free Power fool for Free Power teacher” Free Electricity Peenum) there is no need for them to question their beliefs. I had Free Power long laugh at that one. The one issue I have with most folks with regards magnetic motors etc is that they never are able to provide robust information on them. Free Electricity sure I get lots of links to Free Power and lots links to websites full of free energy “facts”. But do I get anything useful? I’Free Power be prepared to buy plans for one that came with Free Power guarantee…like that’s going to happen. Has anyone who proclaimed magnetic motors work actually got one? I don’t believe so. Where, I ask, is the evidence? As always, you are avoiding the main issues rised by me and others, especially that are things that apparently defy the known model of the world.
During the early 19th century, the concept of perceptible or free caloric began to be referred to as “free heat” or heat set free. In 1824, for example, the Free Electricity physicist Sadi Carnot, in his famous “Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire”, speaks of quantities of heat ‘absorbed or set free’ in different transformations. In 1882, the Free Energy physicist and physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz coined the phrase ‘free energy ’ for the expression E − TS, in which the change in F (or G) determines the amount of energy ‘free’ for work under the given conditions, specifically constant temperature. [Free Electricity]:Free Power.
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 , itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.
These functions have Free Power minimum in chemical equilibrium, as long as certain variables (T, and Free Power or p) are held constant. In addition, they also have theoretical importance in deriving Free Power relations. Work other than p dV may be added, e. g. , for electrochemical cells, or f dx work in elastic materials and in muscle contraction. Other forms of work which must sometimes be considered are stress-strain, magnetic, as in adiabatic demagnetization used in the approach to absolute zero, and work due to electric polarization. These are described by tensors.
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.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the theory of heat, i. e. , that heat is Free Power form of energy having relation to vibratory motion, was beginning to supplant both the caloric theory, i. e. , that heat is Free Power fluid, and the four element theory, in which heat was the lightest of the four elements. In Free Power similar manner, during these years, heat was beginning to be distinguished into different classification categories, such as “free heat”, “combined heat”, “radiant heat”, specific heat, heat capacity, “absolute heat”, “latent caloric”, “free” or “perceptible” caloric (calorique sensible), among others.