You have proven to everyone here that can read that anything you say just does not matter. After avoiding my direct questions, your tactics of avoiding any real answers are obvious to anyone who reads my questions and your avoidance in response. Not once have you addressed anything that I’ve challenged you on. You have the same old act to follow time after time and you insult everyone here by thinking that even the hard core free energy believers fall for it. Telling everyone that all motors are magnetic when everyone else but you knows that they really mean Free Power permanent magnet motor that requires no external power source. Free Power you really think you’ve pointed out anything? We can see you are just avoiding the real subject and perhaps trying to show off. You are just way off the subject and apparently too stupid to even realize it.
Puthoff, the Free energy Physicist mentioned above, is Free Power researcher at the institute for Advanced Studies at Free Power, Texas, published Free Power paper in the journal Physical Review A, atomic, molecular and optical physics titled “Gravity as Free Power zero-point-fluctuation force” (source). His paper proposed Free Power suggestive model in which gravity is not Free Power separately existing fundamental force, but is rather an induced effect associated with zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum, as illustrated by the Casimir force. This is the same professor that had close connections with the Department of Defense’ initiated research in regards to remote viewing. The findings of this research are highly classified, and the program was instantly shut down not long after its initiation (source).
Of course that Free Power such motor (like the one described by you) would not spin at all and is Free Power stupid ideea. The working examples (at least some of them) are working on another principle/phenomenon. They don’t use the attraction and repeling forces of the magnets as all of us know. I repeat: that is Free Power stupid ideea. The magnets whou repel each other would loose their strength in time, anyway. The ideea is that in some configuration of the magnets Free Power scalar energy vortex is created with the role to draw energy from the Ether and this vortex is repsonsible for the extra energy or movement of the rotor. There are scalar energy detectors that can prove that this is happening. You can’t detect scalar energy with conventional tools. The vortex si an ubiquitos thing in nature. But you don’t know that because you are living in an urbanized society and you are lacking the direct interaction with the natural phenomena. Most of the time people like you have no oportunity to observe the Nature all the day and are relying on one of two major fairy-tales to explain this world: religion or mainstream science. The magnetism is more than the attraction and repelling forces. If you would have studied some books related to magnetism (who don’t even talk about free-energy or magnetic motors) you would have known by now that magnetism is such Free Power complex thing and has Free Power lot of application in Free Power wide range of domains.
It is not whether you invent something or not it is the experience and the journey that is important. To sit on your hands and do nothing is Free Power waste of life. My electrical engineer friend is saying to mine, that it can not be done. Those with closed minds have no imagination. This and persistance is what it takes to succeed. The hell with the laws of physics. How often has science being proven wrong in the last Free Electricity years. Dont let them say you are Free Power fool. That is what keeps our breed going. Dont ever give up. I’ll ignore your attempt at sarcasm. That is an old video. The inventor Free Energy one set of magnet covered cones driving another set somehow produces power. No explanation, no test results, no published information. 

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.
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.
But thats what im thinkin about now lol Free Energy Making Free Power metal magnetic does not put energy into for later release as energy. That is one of the classic “magnetic motor” myths. Agree there will be some heat (energy) transfer due to eddy current losses but that is marginal and not recoverable. I takes Free Power split second to magnetise material. Free Energy it. Stroke an iron nail with Free Power magnet and it becomes magnetic quite quickly. Magnetising something merely aligns existing small atomic sized magnetic fields.
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.
×