Magnetic Propulsion

[Boingusboingus]

I offered this idea - propulsion using the reverse polarity of magnets - to a number of major automobile manufacturers more than a decade ago. They all turned me down flat.

[TitanaMaster]

I can assume that to create for example an electron out of "nothing", you would ALSO spend as much energy required to make one as the internal energy too. Still not an energy gain.

Physics is actually one thing. UNIVERS. If you can imagine the mass and the energy flow you know physics. Well, almost cause there are little equations and maths, haha...

[TitanaMaster]

free energy means new masses in the univers...

That means that to really create energy out of nothing, you will then CREATE new mass in our system which could be even harmfull for us or the univers, but surelly not with one of these!

Otherwise, when speaking for renewable energy which is not a dream, then OK because you "pump" the energy around you from the environment.

[TheMeansardine]

this is fantastic Great concept of the oscillation!! keep at it, i know its on everyones minds every second of the day. it is for me :D

[lhakvoort]

how do you know it works this is only a simulation

[bigstiggerNo1]

I made a few of these two years ago. The magnets have to be of unbalanaced sizes and the flexible mounts have to be installed to isolate the counter effect balancing out the torque. Have you made one yet? it's a bit like a mini starship enterprize engine.

[goingtoeatpizza]

"Making Magnetic directional and re-directional magnetic actions could produce perpetual motion"

No it couldn't. In order for a machine to run perpetually in spite of lost energy to friction it would need to be creating energy which is a breach of the first law of thermodynamics.

These machines at best can only ever act as a flywheel as each round the system makes will be less powerful then the last and eventually wind down to stationary as there is no extra energy input.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

A machine need not breech the first law of thermodynamics in order to run perpetually. For instance a waterwheel running from a waterfall will run as long as the waterfall is flowing. If its been there for 10 thousand years I think that is near enough to perpetual to count. In other words an open system can run forever. Some have suggested magnets could tap energy from the vaccume, however I dont think this video is an example of such an Idea...its hard to say as it does little to explain itself

[goingtoeatpizza]

@frankensteinmoneymac The long lasting energy we can derive from hydro or solar power are tapping into larger celestial bodies which are not perpetual. All stars have limited fuel and all orbits will eventualy decay. This is not perpetual.

And the same physical laws still apply. More energy would need to be spent to make a star or planet then their radiation or gravitational forces could give back.

P.S.

"Some have suggested magnets could tap energy from the vaccume" Who has said that?

[frankensteinmoneymac]

The Idea of 'perpetual' is generaly meant to be practically perpetual. To use the term literally is nonsense since the Universe itself will collapse into enropy in the end, nothing at all is perpetual. I dont think anyone ever uses the term is such a nonsensicaly literal sense. Attacking something by reducing it to such literal nonsense is just silly and simply a way of dimissing Ideas without consideration. I will continue in another reply due to space.

[goingtoeatpizza]

@frankensteinmoneymac yes nothing is perpertual literaly.

The idea of a perpetual motion engine, wether or not it last forever is to create more energy then it uses. Thats just impossible.

As for zero-point energy all the information i have ever seen on it is pseudo scientific. If you can point me in the direction of something credible i would be very interested.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

You are kidding right? You must not read must physics texts to think its psuedoscientific! You do realize the Idea was first proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913?!?! Yep They are both psuedoscientific nutjobs fer sure, LOL! As for possible evidence of ZP energy try reading about the Casimir effect or the Lamb shift. ZPE is generally accepted by most scientists as (at the very least) extreamly probable, and predicted by theory. PS you are describing an Over-Unity Machine not PME

[goingtoeatpizza]

"First proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913"

When you try to sound condescending by quoting Wikipedia it helps to actually read the full article instead of quoting the first paragraph. They proposed the idea of ZP energy not the idea that it could be harnessed.

"Zero point energy-based power generation systems currently have the status of pseudoscience"

PS. Perpetual motion and over-unity are the same. For a perpetual motion machine to work it needs to achieve over-unity.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

Perhaps you should not assume meaning where there is none. I was simply answering your comment "As for zero-point energy all the information i have ever seen on it is pseudo scientific"...The Idea of which WAS proposed by Einstein & Stern...I NEVER claimed that they proposed a way to harness it. YOU claimed ALL info You had seen about ZPE was psuedoscientific. Changing the meaning of both what you said, & what I replied in order to make yourself right is a pretty poor arguement! LOL! {continued}

[frankensteinmoneymac]

{continuation} Also I never suggested that there where any scientifically accepted 'Free Energy' Devices. Therefore the qoute you show is correct. I will add info about the German device when I can (im not at home..my internet is out for a few days). PM and OU are 2 different things. This is a mistake everyone seems to make, Literaly a Perpetual Motion machine would include a machine with an open system such as a waterwheel or ZPE device. An OU device is a closed system and impossible.

[goingtoeatpizza]

Fair enough i didnt write that well. All information i have seen (or people ever discuss) relates to harnessing zero point.

The perpetual motion machine vs over-unity just seems like a matter of oppinion since such devices have not been made and are scientifical inplausible i dont think it matters what we call them.

[goingtoeatpizza]

(Continuation) However for arguments sake you said "literally perpetual motion would include a water wheel"

Perpetual motion is only used colloquially to describe systems that, despite lost energy to friction etc, continue to run indefinitely without additional energy input. Such a system achieves over-unity.

A waterwheel cannot be called perpetual in that sense because its receiving additional energy from water flow

Sounds like we both agree with each other just not on the terminology?

[frankensteinmoneymac]

Very good point.... I think you are right about us only disagreeing on Terminology mainly. My problem is that by equating the Term PM with OU, The former term is made automatically impossible since OU breaks known laws of physics. Now a ZP energy device, if proven, would not break any physical laws.IMHO the term PM fits nicely...but not if it is automatically tied to the concept of OU. Tieing all such PM devices to OU seems to be a 'dismission by association' type of 'logical fallacy'.

[LeonPhythian69]

look up nicola telsa specifically his last invention before jp morgan pulled the funding on his research...or failing that depending how good your math is check out a paper by a dr Frank Znardsic called " controlling the natural forces " it's a bit heavy but a good read!

[bigstiggerNo1]

@goingtoeatpizza

perpetual engines, well yes. An engine is perpetual if it can maintain it'self forever! We all know, things break! So the perpetual engine would have to produce enough energy to power other machines, to gather up material, build, then fit replacement parts for it'self and each other machine required. Then the whole micro society of machines within the collection are all perpetual. To prove it is impossible! But it is possible!

[datzfast]

@bigstiggerNo1 non issue

[bigstiggerNo1]

@datzfast You're here talking about it! If it's not an issue why make it one?

[datzfast]

@bigstiggerNo1 just point to the fact its not an issue

[frankensteinmoneymac]

Here is my continuation of my last reply...

There are Public Domain documents of a device investigated by the British around the time of WW2. It was invented by a German and used magnets in a unique circuit set-up. The military built it from his plans with his help and verified its authenticity. 1 suggestion the military scientists had was that it tapped the huge amount of zero-point energy around us somehow by its arangements of magnets.I can find more specific info and post it when I do.

[spitfireXVIb]

its just pistons + basic motor, Did I guess it right?

[MnKndsDoom]

One can dream. One can imagine....

[Plumee]

Make it longer so I can see what is going on. Thanks.