Magnetic Potential Energy

That's really cool and all but you're talking about a levitating device and I'm talking about powering a dc motor. I'm not sure how your device will power your home or your car and what is a superconductor at room temperature and what power is produced and in what form. And please talk to me in normal terms that I can understand. While you work on your project, I'll work on mine. This is really cool to talk about. I'm learning alot. Thanks. Tom.

i have images representing a ball that can be built with magnets that are pushed by the opposing magnetic force running along the track is conducting material to harness the energy created and store it.

never ending energy, just need to store enuff in a battery to start it

i drew them have been into this idea since the hutchenson effect, these magnesperes can be created in any size, just need the resources and extra heads to get it jump started, i even have crude blueprints, the ideas is solid in my head an im constantly improving it thru info i learnt workin on f16s and elsewhere.

but the power produced by these can be endless. and electromagnets could make even more powerful magnespheres

[edit on 15-12-2007 by Tranceopticalinclined]

That's another cool idea but it sounds to me like it would require a hugh mega infrastucture that I'm trying to get away from. It might be perfect for mass transit but I want something for home use.

dude these can be as small as a soda can or as big as a building
its the materials and power output that determines the size

Ok I love the ideas coming in. I believe that absolutely NO SPECIAL material is needed to tap atomic energy! That is the most important thing, we don't need superconducting material or anything, in a way it would make it more efficient yes but it really is not necessary.

And also let me just explain what free energy is because it does not violate any laws of physics.

The common misconception with free energy is that it comes from nowhere. It is like saying that this computer I am typing on just all of the sudden popped up here. Things like that just don't happen. When qualified researchers, and I mean most of you, talk about free energy we mean that it does in fact come from somewhere, we are just tapping that source.

I did some more research and found that the current classical electromagnetic theory is surprisingly very flawed. It has been pointed out by many notable physicists.

Also thinking about atoms, instead of thinking why do electron continue to rotate around a nucleus or flow through a conductor think why do electrons continue to exist. What keeps them ticking. Isn't that source potentially unlimited.

Think about this, an electron must lose some energy eventually right? Of course, it is an object in motion this must mean there is an energy input from somewhere OR that it in itself is an overunity device.

I think that the former sounds like a more reasonable approach to it. Well guys go at it see what you can come up with!

One thing to keep in mind Rhombus is that as technology increases and we start using more and more nanotechnology and people want smaller stuff these circuits are going to be more and more tightly packed. This in turn is going to produce heat reducing it's operability. Superconductivity and nanotechnology are going to have to go hand in hand down the road together if this is going to work. Superconductivity produces no heat.

reply to post by kdial1


No superconducting does produce heat. A liquid such as helium is near 0K but no material can reach 0K. Superconducting DOES produce heat that is why we continue to need more helium. In nanotechnology I do not believe that overheating would be so significant as to require a supercool liquid. Most likely if it did go nano whatever liquid or material it was immersed in would provide a fairly good heat sink.