Free energy motor

It took only a few postings to bring the over-unity concept. I really enjoy these threads. At least I didn't see the "need to learn new physics" crowd speak up yet.

This is a magnetic motor that requires more energy to make than it can possibly produce. Of course this will stop no one from screaming free energy, but it looks good and who knows; maybe this "inventor" can get some free money in grant for further study. It's always about money, never forget this.

As for the magnets, how much energy did it take to make them? We'll even call it 100% efficient for the free energy crowd. How much energy was used to machine the casing, rotor, even the nuts and bolts? Well, we won't count that energy either because it makes the free energy angle look bad.

I know, you don't have to tell me. Once we have several of them built, we can use the free energy from them to power a factory and build more of them. Oh, wait a second, they can't put out enough energy to run the machines needed to build...

Well, it's free energy what did you expect. There's an old adage, "nothing is free". It also applies to science and physics.

So I read a bit of www.rexresearch.com...

It was badly written, repetitive and contained several parts that contradict themselves, but he appears to be describing a good old-fashioned perpetual motion machine.

Then I dot to a line that read "I believe the intentions of the inventor were in good faith" and I stopped reading.

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by Funk bunyip

 

You get what you pay for. Of course it's free energy. The reason it's free is because it is so unreliable. If you want something that works when you need it and when you want it sorry but you will have to pay for it.
People years ago weren't brainwashed by political correctness. It isn't that they couldn't comprehend wind energy. It has been around for centuries it's that they were smart enough to know they needed something more reliable.

Tell that to Tesla

reply to post by thomas_

Ok go ahead then. Explain to me how the wind mill works when the wind doesn't blow.

shouldn't free energy be without any kind of devices?
to go anywhere you want without using gadgets

reply to post by zerotensor


Have you considered other variables?

Such as the video wasn't continuous, the guy filming the demo changed audio settings or other parameters, the machines bearings loosened up, reducing or changing the audio.

There are lot's of variables to consider when making measurements such as yours.

The video was edited to fit with Youtube duration limits, i heard that they had ran it for 10 minutes, then one of the people asked for another ten minutes running time, then who knows how long it ran after that before they stopped it to open it up?

Now I know a lot of you will reply saying "hey maaan, of course you scientists have got things wrong" and I accept that our model of the way the universe needs a lot of improvement, but it's going to take a lot more than a desk fan to throw away everything I know and replace it with who knows what? Does this guy even have any coherent theories?

Desk fan? See what you did there? You belittled the invention to lessen its importance while trying to raise the importance of not throwing away everything you know. If scientists couldn't entertain a concept without having to accept it then we would never discover anything new unless it branched from previously accepted theory.
There is a psychology involved here: scientists love their knowledge built up over their lifetime, for many it defines them. If this knowledge were to be proved wrong by another then they are left back at square one with the common man and a lifetime invested in the now defunct knowledge would be wasted. Scientists must be prepared to lose everything or they can gain nothing for the greater good.

I did a spectral analysis of the audio from the demonstration. Here is a spectrogram for ~3 minutes of the video while the machine is running. The machine slows down over the course of the demonstration by about 3.3%.

Now this is the kind of critical analysis, if accurate, that actually matters. Now why did it slow down? That would need to be explained.

People years ago weren't brainwashed by political correctness. It isn't that they couldn't comprehend wind energy.

Huh? political correctness? what? I was implying that at some point in history, ie cavemen for instance would not comprehend a windmill. It's all a matter of perspective.

I know, you don't have to tell me. Once we have several of them built, we can use the free energy from them to power a factory and build more of them. Oh, wait a second, they can't put out enough energy to run the machines needed to build... Well, it's free energy what did you expect. There's an old adage, "nothing is free". It also applies to science and physics.

i covered this in my previous post. Please understand the difference between a closed system and an open system.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Funk bunyip]

reply to post by LuxFestinus


This is true, although it's been estimated to be in the region of between 300-400 years, so your great, great, great, great, great grandchildren may have to replace the magnets or go the whole hog and buy another machine!

Originally posted by BazzeMan
Actually, I know the guy who made this video and he was very much impressed with what he saw that day. Me too for that matter because I never saw a working concept before.

Problem with this thing though, is that the inventor only took part of the machine apart and nobody (except for him) seems to know exactly how this thing works.

If the technology is not completely shared and reproduced by somebody else, it is just a very complicated and expensive fan.

I just don't get these inventor dudes. Why show a 10 minute demo, with a bit of kit that could easily contain a power source able to run the machine for 10 minutes?

If the machine is for real, set it running at the Uni, create a feedback loop so it powers itself and demonstrate the over unity by driving a fan. Leave it running constantly and then invite the experts to come see it - one day later, one week later, one month later ....

Now that would tweak some real curiosity.

I'm a believer, (see my sig), but personally, I don't believe magnet motors will ever do it, but they sure do seem to be one of the best 'draws' for investment funding requests. (see Perendev scam).

I'm still waiting for the real deal demo - been asking for info here on ATS for 3 years now and still nothing. I'll fly anywhere in the world, anytime. I'll put my money where my mouth is and I'll help and support any inventor who's got a working model to not only get financial reward from their efforts, but actually make one of the greatest positive contributions to humanity.

[edit on 24/4/10 by RogerT]

reply to post by fordrew


That's just it fordrew, nobody is saying that energy is being created from NOTHING, it's just that nobody has a working applicable theory of exactly WHERE there energy is actually coming from!

Just because we don't know something, it doesn't equate to impossibilities.

We don't understand 95% of the Universe, but it is there, and it works...our understanding of it is not necessary to either it's existence or it's function.

Look, you and others who have worked hard for a long time studying and training in your respective fields, are not simply going to become obsolete because you denounced these devices you know.

Your training and knowledge will still be valid and useful. Albeit with a few tweaks and corrections to allow for progression of our understanding of the natural world. Let's not let petty dogmatic fears, get in the way of doing real good for ourselves and our world.

Originally posted by Funk bunyip

Desk fan? See what you did there?

Yes, I called it what it is.

You belittled the invention to lessen its importance while trying to raise the importance of not throwing away everything you know. If scientists couldn't entertain a concept without having to accept it then we would never discover anything new unless it branched from previously accepted theory.

No, that's not exactly right. I said that it would take more than some guy with a desk fan (because that's what we saw in the video) to make me throw away everything I've learned and experienced. I am open to adapting my understanding, but only when provided with suitable evidence. If I completely changed my view of the universe based on any little thing I saw on the internet, where would that get me? I'd have to change my views ten times a day. Where would that get anyone, how would we make any progress?

reply to post by Aliensun


I'd advise everyone who seems to think that the torque on the shaft of this thing is the be all and end all, to look up an experimenter based at Ottawa University, named Thane C. Heins.

His device uses a convention electric motor, with a FIXED power input, and has created a device that actually ACCELERATES as the load is APPLIED.

That's right folks, it get's much faster, when he applies a load.

He calls it 'Regenerative acceleration', and it is a thing to see.

It has all the theory written out longhand for all the science and physics types, and it is all easily understandable to non techie types too.

So, really, this machine in the video could be anything BUT an over engineered fan.

reply to post by fordrew


Well to say nothing is ever free is just a play on words, it depends on what you consider free to be, I consider free to be that I don't have to pay someone else for something, ie. my cows eat grass, that grass grows in the paddock nobody pays for the grass but my cows eat it anyway and they get bigger, the grass is free, it contains free energy.

It is true that to utilize free energy work is needed, but if I do the work myself it is free as I don't have to pay anyone for it, I don't pay anyone for my food I make it myself it is free, I make more energy than I use and it is free because it is there for the taking.

Before anyone gets into the free or not free debate we have to first agree on the meaning of the word free in this context. Arguing about free or not free is pointless unless the meaning is agreed upon by those that are arguing with each other.

My understanding of free is that I do not need to give something to someone else to obtain it.

My work is free only to me because I don't have to pay anyone for it and I feed myself.

So what is the agreed meaning of free, because if by free you mean creating something from nothing then the word has no real meaning because it is impossible to make something from nothing,

My question is what is your definition of what is something that is free ?

Cows are yummy especially when you don't have to pay for them.

Cheers.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Toecutter.]

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by zerotensor

 

Have you considered other variables?
Such as the video wasn't continuous, the guy filming the demo changed audio settings or other parameters, the machines bearings loosened up, reducing or changing the audio.

Yes, I have considered this. While the internal clock on the camcorder might drift a bit, I find it extremely unlikely that it did so to such a large extent as to cause the observed 3% dip in the recorded overtones. I also would expect that loosening bearings would favor an *increase* of the pitch-- instead, we see a marked decrease. The icing on the cake is the presence of other bands not due to the machine: a 20Hz hum in the background stays rock-solid for the duration of the clip.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7e8648419f7.jpg[/atsimg]

The video was edited to fit with Youtube duration limits, i heard that they had ran it for 10 minutes, then one of the people asked for another ten minutes running time, then who knows how long it ran after that before they stopped it to open it up?

At the edit point, there is a discontinuity in the frequency drift. During times of continuous filming, the frequency decreases in an apparently linear way. From the magnitude of the discontinuity, (assuming linearity) one could calculate the elapsed time between the shots.

I don't know what caused the observed slowdown-- perhaps there is some governor apparatus which prevents the machine from running too fast or overheating... who knows? What I can say is that there is an appreciable decrease in the pitch made by the machine over time, and this is most likely due to the machine slowing-down during the test.

zerotensor, could the compression used by the camera and then youtube account for any of the tones you're picking up? I'd expect any compression artefacts to be constant, but perhaps there's some kind of syncopation going on.

Where are the blue prints? I want a copy.

reply to post by georgejetson

No, that's not exactly right. I said that it would take more than some guy with a desk fan (because that's what we saw in the video)

Oh come on mate, that is not what we saw, and you know it.

The fan was on there to demonstrate the thing can produce power, illustrate that the shaft was spinning and continue to spin against the resistive force of the air.

Not exactly a desk fan.

Originally posted by spikey
Oh come on mate, that is not what we saw, and you know it.

The fan was on there to demonstrate the thing can produce power, illustrate that the shaft was spinning and continue to spin against the resistive force of the air.

Not exactly a desk fan.

I've seen plenty of electric motors before, what's so great about this one?

reply to post by zerotensor


Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify.

I agree that the obvious deduction of the reduction in pitch is the machine slowing, although i wanted to point out there may be other factors at play that could account for the change, such as those you have pointed out.

Don't misunderstand, i think you have done good work, but when dealing with a subject such as this, something seemingly trivial, overlooked, could have tremendous bearing on the results of your test and may skew the results, leading to an incorrect assessment.

Thanks again, for helping to clarify your work.

Edit to add;

An example of a seemingly trivial parameter could be cool air Vs. Warmer air, changing pitch. As you know, cooler air is denser, and would require more work by the fan blades to move it. As there were a lot of heat sources in the room, and the heat generated by the machine itself, it stands to reason the air would begin to heat up, and therefore be easier to move by the fan.

If your point about a governor or similar is so, this may well be a gradual change in the machine, matching the effort required to move the air, which would become less dense, progressively, as the video went on.

This may or may not be relevant, but it does illustrate there may be a multitude of similar overlooked variables that could account for the change in pitch.





[edit on 24/4/2010 by spikey]

reply to post by georgejetson


What...apart from it being touted as magnetic and not being electric, you mean?

Or should i be reading sarcasm in your question, masquerading as a genuine comment?