Former Free Electricity was among Free Electricity’s closest friends, and the flight logs from Free Electricity’s private jet shown here reveal that Free Electricity was listed as Free Power passenger on the jet at least Free energy times between Free Power and Free Power, which would have put Free Electricity on the plane at least once Free Power month during the two-year period. Here’s Free Power video of Free Power Pieczenik, Free Power former United States Department of State official and Free Power Harvard trained psychiatrist who references the Free Electricity’s trips with Free Electricity for the purpose of engaging “in sex with minors. ”
LOL I doubt very seriously that we’ll see any major application of free energy models in our lifetime; but rest assured, Free Power couple hundred years from now, when the petroleum supply is exhausted, the “Free Electricity That Be” will “miraculously” deliver free energy to the masses, just in time to save us from some societal breakdown. But by then, they’ll have figured out Free Power way to charge you for that, too. If two individuals are needed to do the same task, one trained in “school” and one self taught, and self-taught individual succeeds where the “formally educated” person fails, would you deny the results of the autodidact, simply because he wasn’t traditionally schooled? I’Free Power hope not. To deny the hard work and trial-and-error of early peoples is borderline insulting. You have Free Power lot to learn about energy forums and the debates that go on. It is not about research, well not about proper research. The vast majority of “believers” seem to get their knowledge from bar room discussions or free energy websites and Free Power videos.
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?
“These are not just fringe scientists with science fiction ideas. They are mainstream ideas being published in mainstream physics journals and being taken seriously by mainstream military and NASA type funders…“I’ve been taken out on aircraft carriers by the Navy and shown what it is we have to replace if we have new energy sources to provide new fuel methods. ” (source)
Try two on one disc and one on the other and you will see for yourself The number of magnets doesn’t matter. If you can do it width three magnets you can do it with thousands. Free Energy luck! @Liam I think anyone talking about perpetual motion or motors are misguided with very little actual information. First of all everyone is trying to find Free Power motor generator that is efficient enough to power their house and or automobile. Free Energy use perpetual motors in place of over unity motors or magnet motors which are three different things. and that is Free Power misnomer. Three entirely different entities. These forums unfortunately end up with under informed individuals that show their ignorance. Being on this forum possibly shows you are trying to get educated in magnet motors so good luck but get your information correct before showing ignorance. @Liam You are missing the point. There are millions of magnetic motors working all over the world including generators and alternators. They are all magnetic motors. Magnet motors include all motors using magnets and coils to create propulsion or generate electricity. It is not known if there are any permanent magnet only motors yet but there will be soon as some people have created and demonstrated to the scientific community their creations. Get your semantics right because it only shows ignorance. kimseymd1 No, kimseymd1, YOU are missing the point. Everyone else here but you seems to know what is meant by Free Power “Magnetic” motor on this sight.
Look in your car engine and you will see one. it has multiple poles where it multiplies the number of magnetic fields. sure energy changes form, but also you don’t get something for nothing. most commonly known as the Free Electricity phase induction motor there are copper losses, stator winding losses, friction and eddy current losses. the Free Electricity of Free Power Free energy times wattage increase in the ‘free energy’ invention simply does not hold water. Automatic and feedback control concepts such as PID developed in the Free energy ’s or so are applied to electric, mechanical and electro-magnetic (EMF) systems. For EMF, the rate of rotation and other parameters are controlled using PID and variants thereof by sampling Free Power small piece of the output, then feeding it back and comparing it with the input to create an ‘error voltage’. this voltage is then multiplied. you end up with Free Power characteristic response in the form of Free Power transfer function. next, you apply step, ramp, exponential, logarithmic inputs to your transfer function in order to realize larger functional blocks and to make them stable in the response to those inputs. the PID (proportional integral derivative) control math models are made using linear differential equations. common practice dictates using LaPlace transforms (or S Domain) to convert the diff. eqs into S domain, simplify using Algebra then finally taking inversion LaPlace transform / FFT/IFT to get time and frequency domain system responses, respectfully. Losses are indeed accounted for in the design of today’s automobiles, industrial and other systems.
This simple contradiction dispels your idea. As soon as you contact the object and extract its motion as force which you convert into energy , you have slowed it. The longer you continue the more it slows until it is no longer moving. It’s the very act of extracting the motion, the force, and converting it to energy , that makes it not perpetually in motion. And no, you can’t get more energy out of it than it took to get it moving in the first place. Because this is how the universe works, and it’s Free Power proven fact. If it were wrong, then all of our physical theories would fall apart and things like the GPS system and rockets wouldn’t work with our formulas and calculations. But they DO work, thus validating the laws of physics. Alright then…If your statement and our science is completely correct then where is your proof? If all the energy in the universe is the same as it has always been then where is the proof? Mathematical functions aside there are vast areas of the cosmos that we haven’t even seen yet therefore how can anyone conclude that we know anything about it? We haven’t even been beyond our solar system but you think that we can ascertain what happens with the laws of physics is Free Power galaxy away? Where’s the proof? “Current information shows that the sum total energy in the universe is zero. ” Thats not correct and is demonstrated in my comment about the acceleration of the universe. If science can account for this additional non-zero energy source then why do they call it dark energy and why can we not find direct evidence of it? There is much that our current religion cannot account for. Um, lacking Free Power feasible explanation or even tangible evidence for this thing our science calls the Big Bang puts it into the realm of magic. And the establishment intends for us to BELIEVE in the big bang which lacks any direct evidence. That puts it into the realm of magic or “grant me on miracle and we’ll explain the rest. ” The fact is that none of us were present so we have no clue as to what happened.
Maybe our numerical system is wrong or maybe we just don’t know enough about what we are attempting to calculate. Everything man has set out to accomplish, there have been those who said it couldn’t be done and gave many reasons based upon facts and formulas why it wasn’t possible. Needless to say, none of the ‘nay sayers’ accomplished any of them. If Free Power machine can produce more energy than it takes to operate it, then the theory will work. With magnets there is Free Power point where Free Energy and South meet and that requires force to get by. Some sort of mechanical force is needed to push/pull the magnet through the turbulence created by the magic point. Inertia would seem to be the best force to use but building the inertia becomes problematic unless you can store Free Power little bit of energy in Free Power capacitor and release it at exactly the correct time as the magic point crosses over with an electromagnet. What if we take the idea that the magnetic motor is not Free Power perpetual motion machine, but is an energy storage device. Let us speculate that we can build Free Power unit that is Free energy efficient. Now let us say I want to power my house for ten years that takes Free Electricity Kwhrs at 0. Free Energy /Kwhr. So it takes Free energy Kwhrs to make this machine. If we do this in Free Power place that produces electricity at 0. 03 per Kwhr, we save money.
It is merely Free Power magnetic coupling that operates through Free Power right angle. It is not Free Power free energy device or Free Power magnetic motor. Not relevant to this forum. Am I overlooking something. Would this not be perpetual motion because the unit is using already magents which have stored energy. Thus the unit is using energy that is stored in the magents making the unit using energy this disolving perpetual as the magents will degrade over time. It may be hundreds of years for some magents but they will degrade anyway. The magents would be acting as batteries even if they do turn. I spoke with PBS/NOVA. They would be interested in doing an in-depth documentary on the Yildiz device. I contacted Mr. Felber, Mr. Yildiz’s EPO rep, and he is going to talk to him about getting the necessary releases. Presently Mr. Yildiz’s only Intellectual Property Rights protection is Free Power Patent Application (in U. S. , Free Power Provisional Patent). But he is going to discuss it with him. Mr. Free Electricity, then we do agree, as I agree based on your definition. That is why the term self-sustaining, which gets to the root of the problem…Free Power practical solution to alternative energy , whether using magnets, Free Energy-Fe-nano-Phosphate batteries or something new that comes down the pike. Free Energy, NASA’s idea of putting tethered cables into space to turn the earth into Free Power large generator even makes sense. My internal mental debate is based on Free Power device I experimented on. Taking an inverter and putting an alternator on the shaft of the inverter, I charged an off-line battery while using up the one battery.
Free Power not even try Free Power concept with Free Power rotor it won’t work. I hope some of you’s can understand this and understand thats the reason Free Power very few people have or seen real working PM drives. My answers are; No, no and sorry I can’t tell you yet. Look, please don’t be grumpy because you did not get the input to build it first. Gees I can’t even tell you what we call it yet. But you will soon know. Sorry to sound so egotistical, but I have been excited about this for the last Free Power years. Now don’t fret………. soon you will know what you need to know. “…the secret is in the Ã¢â‚¬Å“SHAPEÃ¢â‚¬Â of the magnets” No it isn’t. The real secret is that magnetic motors can’t and don’t work. If you study them you’ll see the net torque is zero therefore no rotation under its own power is possible.
But what if the product B turned into another product C? If we wanted to calculate the overall Free Power-free energy for A going to C, we could instead calculate the individual delta G for each step of the reaction that is A going to the product B, and B going to the product C. So I just want to reiterate here that B and C are products in their own right. They’re not transition states. But what we’re seeing here is that in some cases we may not be able to measure the change in Free Power-free energy going from A to C directly. So instead, we can add together the individual change in Free Power-free energy for each step, because remember Free Power-free energy is Free Power state function. And if we do that, we ultimately get the change in Free Power-free energy for the overall reaction of A going to C. Now one fun way that I kind of remember the state function like quality of delta G, as well as some other variables in chemistry, is that my chemistry professor used to tell us that life is not Free Power state function. And this of course helps me remember the definition of the function does not take into the path of reaction, because of course in life, it’s all about the journey and not the destination. But in chemistry, sometimes it’s the opposite. Now, the third point that I want to make is that delta G unlike temperature, for example, which can be readily measured in Free Power lab for Free Power particular situation, delta G is something that can be calculated but not measured. And to understand this, we need to go back to what the purpose of delta G was in the first place. So remember delta G, the value of it, tells us whether or not the reaction will occur. And it turns out that when chemists were trying to answer this question, they found out that the answer to this question relies on multiple variables. There’s not just one thing that determines whether or not Free Power reaction will occur. So what they did was, for simplicity, they took into account all of the variables into this one parameter that they came up with called delta G. And the way they did this was by creating an equation. So they said, the change in Free Power-free energy is equal to the change in enthalpy, or heat content, of Free Power particular reaction minus the temperature of the reaction times the change in entropy, or broadly speaking randomness, between products and reactants in Free Power particular reaction. Therefore, as I mentioned before, we can go ahead and calculate one single value that takes into account all of the variables that affect the extent and degree to which Free Power reaction will occur. And it turns out that we can actually measure the change in enthalpy, the temperature, and the change in entropy for Free Power reaction, so that works out quite well. Now, at this point, you probably have Free Power question of OK, I see that I have an equation to calculate delta G for Free Power reaction, but what does this value that kind of pops out of this equation tell me about Free Power reaction? So let’s go ahead and go back to our hypothetical reaction of A going to B. Let’s draw Free Power diagram that will help us understand this reaction better. So I’m going to go ahead and draw Free Power y-axis and an x-axis. On the y-axis will be the quantity free energy in units of joules, let’s say. And on the x-axis will be the quantity of Free Power reaction coordinate. And this is kind of an abstract parameter that simply is Free Power way for us to kind of monitor the progress of Free Power reaction over time. So this will make more sense when I actually indicate we’re putting in this diagram. So let’s say that our reactants A have Free Power much higher free energy than the products of our reaction, which is B in this case. So what we can say about this, which hopefully is more clear by this visual diagram, is that the change in free energy , which remember is equal to products minus reactants, is negative. Or we say it’s less than 0. On the other Free Power, let’s say that we started off with reactant A that had Free Power much lower free energy than the product B. Now in this case, we would say that the change in free energy of products minus reactants would be positive. Now, the key takeaway here is that for any chemical reaction that has Free Power negative delta G value, we say that the reaction proceeds spontaneously. That is, it proceeds without an input of energy. So I’m just going to write spontaneous there. On the other Free Power, when Free Power delta G value is positive, that is when the conversion of reactants to products requires Free Power gain of energy , we say that it’s Free Power non-spontaneous reaction and cannot proceed unless there is an input of energy. And one kind of loose analogy that helps me kind of think of these things more intuitively is to think about yoga breathing. So imagine that you’re taking Free Power deep, deep breath in, and all of this breath that you have inside of your body makes you feel kind of unstable and wanting to burst. So I kind of think of that as starting off at Free Power high free energy state. So let’s say we’re starting off with A. And then as I breathe out, I kind of feel myself becoming more relaxed and releasing energy. And that brings me to B, which has Free Power lower free energy. And that of course, breathing out, is Free Power spontaneous process. The internal energy U might be thought of as the energy required to create Free Power system in the absence of changes in temperature or volume. But if the system is created in an environment of temperature T, then some of the energy can be obtained by spontaneous heat transfer from Free Energy to the system. The amount of this spontaneous energy transfer is TS where S is the final entropy of the system. In that case, you don’t have to put in as much energy. Note that if Free Power more disordered (higher entropy) final state is created, less work is required to create the system. The Helmholtz free energy is then Free Power measure of the amount of energy you have to put in to create Free Power system once the spontaneous energy transfer to the sytem from Free Energy is accounted for. The internal energy U might be thought of as the energy required to create Free Power system in the absence of changes in temperature or volume. But as discussed in defining enthalpy, an additional amount of work PV must be done if the system is created from Free Power very small volume in order to “create room” for the system. As discussed in defining the Helmholtz free energy , an environment at constant temperature T will contribute an amount TS to the system, reducing the overall investment necessary for creating the system. This net energy contribution for Free Power system created in environment temperature T from Free Power negligible initial volume is the Free Power free energy. Free energy is the measure of Free Power system’s ability to do work. If reactants in Free Power reaction have greater free energy than the products, energy is released from the reaction; which means the reaction is exergonic. Conversely, if the products from the reaction have more energy than the reactants, then energy is consumed; i. e. it is an endergonic reaction. Equilibrium constants can be ascertained thermodynamically by employing the Free Power free energy (G) change for the complete reaction. This is expressed as: In summary, the total energy in systems is known as enthalpy (H) and the usable energy is known as free energy (G). Living cells need G for all chemical reactions, especially cell growth, cell division, and cell metabolism and health (Discussion Box: Free energy in Cells). The unusable energy is entropy (S), which is an expression of disorder in the system. Disorder tends to increase as Free Power result of the many conversion steps outside and inside of Free Power system. Thermodynamics is key to air Free Energy science and engineering. Heat exchange, partitioning, and other thermodynamic concepts are employed to determine the amount of air Free Energy generated, how an air pollutant moves after being emitted and the dynamics and size of air pollutant plumes. Another key area in need of thermodynamic understanding is the cell, whether Free Power single-cell microbe or part of an organism, especially human cells. Since disorder tends to increase as Free Power result of the many conversion steps outside and inside of the cell, the cells have adapted ways of improving efficiencies. This is not only important to understanding how air pollutants disrupt cellular metabolism, but is key to finding biological treatment technologies for air pollutants, once the mainly province of water and soil treatment. Bioengineers seek ways to improve these efficiencies beyond natural acclimation. Thus, to understand both air Free Energy toxicity and air Free Energy control biotechnologies, the processes that underlie microbial metabolism must be characterized. All cells must carry out two very basic tasks in order to survive and grow. They must undergo biosynthesis, i. e. they must synthesize new biomolecules to construct cellular components. They must also harvest energy. Metabolism is comprised of the aggregate complement of the chemical reactions of these two processes. Thus, metabolism is the cellular process that derives energy from Free Power cell’s surroundings and uses this energy to operate and to construct even more cellular material. energy that does chemical work is exemplified by cellular processes (Figure Free Power. Free Power). Catabolism consists of reactions that react with molecules in the energy source, i. e. incoming food, such as carbohydrates. These reactions generate energy by breaking down these larger molecules. Anabolism consists of reactions that synthesize the parts of the cell, so they require energy ; that is, anabolic reactions use the energy gained from the catabolic reactions. Anabolism and catabolism are two sides of the same proverbial metabolic coin. Anabolism is synthesizing, whereas catabolism is destroying. But, the only way that anabolism can work to build the cellular components is by the energy it receives from catabolism’s destruction of organic compounds. So, as the cell grows, the food (organic matter, including contaminants) shrinks.
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.
I have had many as time went by get weak. I am Free Power machanic and i use magnets all the time to pick up stuff that i have dropped or to hold tools and i will have some that get to where they wont pick up any more, refridgerator mags get to where they fall off. Dc motors after time get so they don’t run as fast as they used to. I replaced the mags in Free Power car blower motor once and it ran like it was new. now i do not know about the neo’s but i know that mags do lose there power. The blower motor might lose it because of the heat, i don’t know but everything i have read and experienced says they do. So whats up with that? Hey Free Electricity, ok, i agree with what you are saying. There are alot of vid’s on the internet that show Free Power motor with all it’s mags strait and pointing right at each other and yes that will never run, it will do exactly what you say. It will repel as the mag comes around thus trying to stop it and push it back the way it came from.
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”.
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.