Free Energy Device, please help me

The best! Leonidas brand (I think) comes with a little note in the box that says that the chocolate should be eaten within a couple days of when purchased. Seems to me then, that failing to eat it quickly would be a sin!

Wow! how to get even fatter!!!

Des gouts et des couleurs ne se dispute pas.

The best chocolate doesn't even make it to the border.

Chocolate is also not kept in the fridge. What makes it difficult to sell it in Australia.

these Free Energy blogs really give us some extra energy to keep on going.

Phlegm.

Whith a decent virus scanner the risk is low.

If you still feel uncomfortable there exist some rubber sleeves that tightly fit your mouse.

I will follow your advice immediately!!!!

Will my mouse "talk" with a strong "nasal" accent afterwards?

When the mouse starts talking your are in the wrong dimension.

Try to bounce you out.

OK !

My mouse put up with the sleeves, but when I put the tiny little gloves on his tiny little fingers, he ran away, screaming.

M R MICE.

M R NOT.

M R 2.

C M EDBD FEET?

L I B, M R MICE.

C. I TOLD U SO.

I try not to post while feeling phlegmish. And I try not to speak Flemmish, for fear someone will think I have a cold.

Why, Gwen you wound me! I thought our relationship was based on mutual respect and love?! (Agapae not Eros)

Oh, So to speak, From time to time this bouncing thing hurts. Am I annoyed or just jealous? Let your hart decide.

Silly Boy!!!

[vermin wrote:]

What about electrets?

Please elaborate. I don't understand your point.

Electrets are capacitors that have an electrostatic field permanently fixed in the dielectric. They are most commonly used in small microphones for cell phones and other inexpensive devices. The dielectric in such a device is a thin piece of plastic and it is sandwiched between electrodes. Vibration causes a dimensional change which results in charge redistribution and an AC voltage output.

I know what an electret is, but how does it relate to "energy from magnets"?

My guess is not very well. I think the question was prompted by curiosity but I really couldn't say.

I think that a magnetic motor could work just fine if someone could figure out how to commute the fields.

However, I don't know if that is possible to do. I have not seen evidence of such.

I don't understand why the magnets would "run down" since there are millions of electric motors that incorporate permanent magnets and run for years without "running down" the magnets. Though I agree with Ken that it seems reasonable that you could make a "magnet running down machine" if it were an adequately inefficient affair.

Also, I don't think that even if you could solve the field commutation problem that you would get a tremendous amount of energy from magnets. Perhaps if you scaled them up to huge machines you could get a useful amount of energy but there just isn't that much energy in a magnet to be had, even if someone figures out how to do it and make it efficient.

Unless someone can solve the commutation issue and do it efficiently then they are really just, uh, spinning their wheels, so to speak, or not.

[rcapper wrote:]

Though I agree with Ken that it seems reasonable that you could make a "magnet running down machine" if it were an adequately inefficient affair.

[svengali replied:]

Such a machine is simply *impossible* according to current theory -- it would violate either the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics. And are you sure that Ken believes such a machine is possible? Ken, please clarify.

What I wrote re a demagnetizing machine was this:

One can imagine designing a rotating device that demagnetizes magnets -- but to what end?

Common demagnetizers use AC current in a coil. You can also demagnetize a "permanent" magnet by rubbing another over it in random fashion... or the easiest method is to heat the magnet beyond its Currie temperature. So I can imagine making a demagnetizer that simulates the field around an AC coil, or one that simply moves a strong magnet in quasi-random fashion: hold the magnet to be demagnetized in place, turn on the electric motor (or use a hand crank) powering an array of permanent magnets, and you'd soon have a nearly useless magnet.

I suppose a "magnet motor" could be used in somewhat this way, inadvertently. You spin the thing up, using an outside source of energy (which is always the routine for these motors). The motor could be "engineered"? in such a way the the magnets experience high repulsive forces* and cyclical changes in field direction, so that as the motor coasts down, the magnets are slightly demagnetized, using some of the energy originally imparted through the spin-up process (with the rest consumed in bearing friction, etc) If the optimistic inventor then saw that the magnets were weaker, he could conclude that the magnet weakening caused the motor to slow down (not that spinning the motor caused the weakening). The inventor could conclude that he just needs stronger magnets. Sadly many (most) conclude just that. Practically all these things are powered by expensive neodymium magnets when the cheapest possible magnets would serve for "proof" of concept.

*These would have to be cancelled by opposite repulsive or attractive forces elsewhere in the motor, or the device would be hard to spin up. Such balancing of forces seems to be the norm in these "motors."

I beg your pardon! Neodymium magnets are not expensive. And, besides, they're hoot to play with (if not somewhat suicidal).

I gather you've heard about their use in toys, where somehow the kid swallows a couple, spaced apart by an hour or so, and they end up in adjacent tubes of the small intestine, clamping off blood supply, causing necrotic tissue, etc.

The reason the some Chinese-made toys were recalled in the U.S.

So what's your point? If a kid swallows a modern penny, the kid's going to get really sick because they consist of a very thin plate of copper covering zinc, and zinc chloride is quite toxic. This is what the word "No!" and "recall" was invented for.

So what's your point?

If you'd just stop bouncing for a second, the point would be obvious to you. It's all about population control, and how as population expands, new ways of reducing population naturally show up. Not long ago, it was thought that salmonella was best spread through raw chicken meat. Now we've learned to use spinach as a transfer medium.

Okay, you agree that it takes energy input to demagnetize permanent magnet. So then an over-unity ("free energy") motor powered by the weakening of permanent magnets makes no sense -- we would need to supply *input energy* to get the contraption to turn. This is not the scenario that proponents of "free energy magnetic motors" have in mind (they propose their devices to produce excess energy). I think we agree on the technical points I raised, and on the impossibility of such "free energy" devices (hard to imagine an engineer that didn't understand this stuff), but I just wanted to clarify because some of your wording seemed a bit ambiguous.

The real question is whether or not they actually be made to run. If you can effectively commute the field then they will run. It would not be over unity or free energy! The energy is stored in the magnetic field and as the stored energy is used there would be an immeasurable mass loss and a reduction in field strength. The energy comes from the miniscule conversion of mass and is neither free nor over unity unless you discount the energy from the magnet as an input source, which makes no sense.

The caveat is still whether you would get a useful amount of energy from such a machine. There just isn't that much energy coming out of a magnet to start with so in all likelihood it would take a huge machine to generate enough power to say run your home off grid.

[rcapper wrote:]

The energy is stored in the magnetic field and as the stored energy is used there would be an immeasurable mass loss and a reduction in field strength.

[svengali replied:]

Really? You propose that matter is converted into energy inside of permanent magnets? I've never before heard anyone suggest that idea. Are you just speculating, or can you point to any sources to support this idea?

If we agree that the field is a manifestation of energy then it must be so unless it is converting it from some external source. Even fire is an energy source that comes from miniscule mass loss in the chemical conversion. At least that's what I thought. It has been a long time since I thought I learned that so I could be deluding myself.

I believe that's right - the bit about products of combustion having less mass than before, due to energy given out, by E = m.c².

You often hear refs to nuclear reactors "turning mass into energy" but this is a misconception, chemical reactions can be said to do the same. The total number of (the relevant sort of) particles doesn't change in a nuclear reaction (conservation of baryons). The difference is that in a chemical reaction the energy output is small so the mass change is way below detectable limit, but for say converting hydrogen to helium it's about 0.7% - easily measurable (about 10⁶ x higher than chemical change). Of course you don't need to weigh the H₂, then react it and weigh the He, it's just that He has less mass than it "ought" to compared with H₂ atoms.

Cheers......Codey

Svengali,

I had the chance yesterday to talk with three magnet experts at one of the top US motor companies. I asked where/how magnet energy is actually stored. One said "That's a wierd question!" and walked away. One said "I use terms that engineers don't understand." and walked away. The third gave a long explanation about magnetic domains that made no sense. I concluded they are as dumb as I am about this. I frankly learned much more out of the discussion between you and Ken, plus Gwen's comments.

Tom

TVP45,

Thank you for the kind words. And I'm not surprised that even engineers have a little trouble discussing the details of magnetism. Actually I have some gaps in my understanding of magnetism, especially the quantum mechanical aspects that one must face in order to understand how materials create the various types of magnetism (diamagnetism, paramagnetism, superparamagnetism, Pauli paramagnetism, ferrimagnetism, ferromagnetism, antiferromagnetism, arrrgghh!!). Fortunately, in most cases we can get away with a simplified classical treatment. I can understand why people see mystery and magic in magnets. But I have spent years thinking and reading about them, partly out of pure curiosity, and partly as a skeptic on the free_energy Yahoo group. I encourage people to read up on this topic, even if just the Wikipedia pages. Fascinating stuff, and a potentially lucrative field to get into (even if just non-FE conventional applications). Many of the important (and very cool) new computer and high-tech technologies rely on magnetism. In retrospect, I wish I had gone into superparamagnetism research instead of organic synthesis (the latter career path now starting to suffer in the U.S. due to outsourcing to China and India).

OK, then what about a soliton?

What about it? (I don't see how solitons relate to permanent magnets)

Well, if you take into account that solitons can be made out of electromagnetic fields, then perhaps there's something you can do with that.

They have succeeded in creating a stand-alone soliton in a loop of fiber optics. Also, solitons can meet head on and do not stop each other. They both will continue, except with a phase change.

I don't know, you guys are the free energy patrol!!!

This is exactly as I suspected. Those who attempt to explain end up using "spooky language". OK, magnetic domains, fine, so what exactly is a magnetic domain? It seems that we are some ways off from developing an exact understanding of what exactly constitutes certain elemental forces. We know how they behave and can go into lengthy dissertation about things we have been clever enough to observe but without eventually referring to something that constitutes nothing more than a made up word to label something we don't yet fully comprehend we cannot without ambiguity say what it is.

This is why I try to keep an open mind about what isn't known and how it may ultimately fit with or alter what we think we know now. One of my favorite topics to ponder is how to move things around in space, perhaps without using propulsion as we know it. Yeah I know about all the inertial engine wackos and I am familiar with Newton's laws intimately due to my martial arts practice. But I had to kick myself when the guys at MIT discovered how to generate rotational indexing in free space without inducing spin and without any form of standard propulsion. The way they did it was to study how cats always land on their feet. What upset me about this was that it caused me to remember something my father told me when I was younger. "Boy if you figure out how those cats do that I bet you'd really have something." Now these guys are going to be rich and if I had taken my dad seriously maybe I would have been. Oh well. Their invention doesn't violate any of Newton's laws, it just uses them in a way no one had previously thought to do. Nice.

Big deal! The cats have evolved to say "If I am in free-fall, rotate my pelvis around." What's so big about that? If you had figured it out first, you'd be like them, as rich as some poets!!!

Magnetic domains - If you slice a magnet and etch it, you'll find that the one unpaired electron in iron is the cause of magnetism, and it gets stronger because local bunches of iron atoms align their fields in a certain way. These are the magnetic domains. Each domain consists of millions of atoms. Iron doesn't become magnetized until the random orientation of these domains become somewhat aligned, either by heating and/or applying another magnetic field... It's crunch-chewy!!!

Yeah, I know "unpaired electron in iron is the cause of magnetism" but it is not magnetism. So, without referring to its cause, what is it?

And yes it is a big deal and not just poetry. It can be used to stabilize or rotate satellites and space vehicles without resorting to squirting out stored gasses or using gyros. And it does involve more than just rotating the pelvis

If I knew what it was, I'd be as rich as some poets, as well!

Small correction... if anyone had of checked, using the law of axies, then discovery of the challenge to give the CORRECT orbit times would have been made as being incorrect. The need of an accurate model that clearly illustrated time passing as an orbital plot is still needed to finish the bridge. Only the foundation can be found in the law of axies. Had someone provided an actual case plot of an orbit, the gaps would have been filled and the bridge completed... as it stands, it is only the foundation. Trying to build a bridge without the tools is rather difficult. some limits can't be crossed easily without the right equipment.

Excellent question... "..."unpaired electron in iron is the cause of magnetism" but it is not magnetism. So, without referring to its cause, what is it?"

What? Are you sure you posted to the intended thread?

Granted, it will help balance orbits. beyond that, the math/theory is incomplete.

Excellent question... "..."unpaired electron in iron is the cause of magnetism" but it is not magnetism. So, without referring to its cause, what is it?"

Magnetism is a not an independent force. It refers to how relativity affects the way we experience moving electric charges. So then the question becomes "what is electric charge?" But we can only now a thing by its observable properties (including how it effects other objects). We cannot know directly what a thing ultimately "is" (e.g., what "is" mass? what "is" energy?). A more meaningful question would ask what charged objects *do*.

The quantum view of the cause of force between electrically charged subatomic particles is the exchange of virtual particles, which transmit the force - either to attract or repel. I the case of the electric and magnetic fields, the virtual particles are "virtual photons." Note that since photons have no rest mass, they can remain "virtual" clear into infinity! At least that's the theory.

Perhaps it was a prayer...

"Oh, mighty Free Energy Device! Please help me! My poor toaster can no longer brown the bread!!!"

_{Notice I didn't say "brown the toast?"}

Perhaps it has evolved to a virtual toaster and now only makes virtual toast.

Spooky language!

Does virtual equate to "We know it is, just not what it is."?

Sounds better than PFM.

Not really. The equations work pretty well, and when Feynman took a look, he was delighted and drew-up one of his diagrams to describe it graphically.

Also, virtual particles are a very well established concept in physics. Hawking uses them to show how the mass of a black hole is replaced back into the Universe when the hole eventually evaporates.

Oh humor me just a little. I'm not really trying to go neo-luddite or anarcho-primitivist on you. But I am truly fascinated at how we use language and words as place holders to fill in the holes in our knowledge until we have a better explanation. Truly our grasp of physics is phenomenal, though not yet by any means perfect. Sometimes I think we can paint ourselves into a corner by being too certain about what we know.

I must say I think svengali's explanation seems present the clearest picture so far.

Woof!!! I think the quantum model of electrostatic force goes back at least to the fifties, if not further!!! It's just not a question that comes up often.

Also, if you like vacuum energy, it's all about the virtual particles and nothing else!!!

"... when the [black] hole eventually evaporates." ??

Well that sounds like my new "fact" of the day. Has this Hawking theory been published for very long? I assume it's his theory?

Yes. It's been out there for over ten years as far as I know. And it was postulated by Hawking, himself. If I remember correctly, the smaller the hole, the faster it disappears. And as a last gasp, they cause an explosive rain of virtual particle pairs that split apart to form real particles.

PFM? We all know many things that work on the FM principal. Is the P for Practically? ... Ooops, I just looked it up: Pure.... of course.

I don't rest there. I think you can know directly what a thing ultimately is. Even if we are limited to worded efforts and diagrams of explanation.

0/1/0/1/0|-|1/0/1/0/1 is how I chose to represent it. but the idea will probably be lost in translation because of how profoundly simple the reply is, and because there's the need to relate it to everything.

I could also represent it as {||0/1/0|-|1/0/1||-|0/1/0|-|1/0/1|||0/1/0|+|1/0/1||+||0/1/0|+|1/0/1||} f(/1) f(/0)

and to help grasp it, I speaking in absolutes.

Thank you.

The way I see magnetism is quite simple (I don't dare to use the word energy in the same sentence)

1. As electrons have an electric charge and move the result is that they build up a magnetic field, perpendicular to their movement.
2. In some metals the atom has a non equal divided electron movement in their solid crystal bound state. This means that there is more probability to find an electron moving in one sense that in the other.
3. The result is that from the atom out there is a magnetic field.
4. The crystal is organised so that all atoms in the crystal are pointing to the same direction: the crystal on itself have an organisation which results in a magnetic field.
5. But as you know a metal has different crystal stages when it cools down from liquid to room temperature and the crystal organisation between two phases is directly linked. Steel for example cools down from liquid to an austentitic crystal and transforms to a ferritic. The austentitic form has no resulting magnetic field so the crystals are randomly stacked. The ferritic crystals follow the random organisation so normal steel has no resulting magnetic field.
6. When you apply a field in a certain magnitude you can flip over the crystals to get another organisation, the result is that you organised a certain part of the crystals and the ferritic steel is magnetised. The energy level needed to flip over the crystal is transformed in heat and internal tension (strain) It is this strain that could perhaps be extracted with a magnetic engine, but as postulated before the energy in this strain is maximal 10% of the energy needed the organise the crystals, the other 90% is heat. (oops we're back in my domain)

The difference between ferro magnetic materials is in the ease to get more crystal pointing in the same direction and how stable they are in that position.

Regards,

Gwen

Wikipedia's listing on Energy has en entry for calculating magnetic energy. Energy

Just scroll down to the heading: Magnetic energy

Good description. I would change only one thing: when referring to
the "movement" of electrons causing the magnetic field, instead use
the term "spin". It is the quantum mechanical spin of the unpaired
electrons which generates the magnetic field in permanent magnets.
Analogous to the way the Earth spins about its axis. Note that
quantum mechanics does not literally describe the electron spinning
like a gyroscope (said to be a meaningless concept for electrons).
The term "electron spin" refers to something very abstract (not easily
visualized by human imagination). Usually discussed in purely
mathematical terms. But the classical spinning gyroscope still serves
as a useful analogy for electron spin.

With a spin the actual direction of an object round it's own axis is described (like a gyroscope or the earth)

I tried to keep it simple.

No need to fear that I've gone over to the dark side.

Works for me...

My design is simpler

In all fairness to those unfamiliar with this device, you should explain a few things. 1. It's important to use this type of cord (i.e., one with multiple outlets). 2. First, a lamp is plugged into one of the cord outlets, and the plug is inserted into a wall outlet. (This establishes the electron flow.) 3. Then, very quickly, you remove the plug from the wall and insert it in one of the free outlets in the cord, as you've shown. If you're fast, you'll loose only a little electricity, but if the lamp filament cools completely, you'll need to start over. 4. For practice, start with an electric motor plugged in. As long as you do the plug transfer while the motor is coasting down, you'll be fine, with the total current circulating being equal to Co x Sr / So (the original current times the ratio of the replug speed over the original speed).

Oh and remember not to cross polarize the connection or the results could be disastrous!

Yes, good idea to explain the start-up procedure. The brand-new extension cord initially will have no electron charge. Many new experimenters in this field will experience disappointing results until they figure this out. Got to start from a live source like the wall outlet. And yes, you must use the type of extension cord with multiple outlets. If it has only one outlet, closing the loop will leave no room to plug in any appliances (how embarrassing!).

Theory of operation: when this device is used to power an appliance, the electron flow passes through the load and back into the other end of the extension cord. No electrons are lost -- they are recycled. Electrons are fundamental particles which cannot be destroyed. Some postulate that the zero-point energy is involved (constantly radiated by the quantum foam). Once back in the circulating loop, the electrons will continue to travel in circles indefinitely, ready for use again.

There's something wrong here.

The amount of power going into the plug and out the outlet is constant. As soon as you plug in a load, the electron flow will start to decrease steadily until the whole thing just dies!

It's the same phenomena as the magnets demagnetizing themselves over time.

Awe man, you are being so negative. Don't you know it won't work if you're negative about it.

Just close your eyes, click your heals together three times and say "there's nothing like free energy, there's nothing like free energy..."

There, now don't you feel better already?

That's right, you gotta think out of the box. Forget all of that brainwashing forced on you in school. Science is just another religion with a bunch of fake rules decided by a commitee of high priests. Take off your blinders and anything is possible! Tesla showed the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasim

As soon as you plug in a load, the electron flow will start to decrease...

Most experimenters have found that as you plug in a load, the electron flow increases, with I = E/R. As you know, current must be equal throughout a circuit, so the increased flow resulting from the load causes an increase of flow in the power cord (AKA the Svengali Loop). Many Svengali Loop replicators have had problems with cord overheating, so good practice dictates that a fan be plugged in with the other loads to keep the loop from burning up. It is VERY IMPORTANT that the fan is plugged into the Svengali Loop itself; otherwise naysayers will try to "debunk" this phenomena by suggesting that the energy is coming from the external source for the fan.

It's too early to know for sure, but it looks like a 16 gauge SL will supply a room, and a 10 gauge SL will supply a small neighborhood.

The system works well just as it is, but significant investment is sought for optimizing the color of the cord, and generating standards (such as whether or not three-prong outlets should be required, whether circuit breakers should be built into each cord, etc.).

Your mention of a fan being used in a Svengali Loop brings to mind an interesting application ... one that's been discussed in CR4 before.

Could this very same fan/Svengali Loop system be put aboard a smallish sail boat, whereby the fan blows the sail and propels the boat forward? It would be great to have a source of free power to make sailboats go. Could revolutionize the sport!

That's the perfect application!! Clearly, you've earned your name.

The fan is a stroke of genius Ken. That's thinking outside the box for sure.

Vulcan, you very logically point out the conventional scientific objection to this device. Yes, once a load is connected to the charged device, the electrical flow normally should decrease with time. This reasonably follows from the fact that the electron flow experiences a voltage drop as it passes through the load (analogous to how water loses gravitational potential energy after falling through the turbine of a hydro-electric generator). But we must also take into account an amazing phenomena that occurs under certain conditions. As is now widely accepted, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) allows for the creation of virtual particle pairs which can exist for very brief intervals of time. This is the basis for the zero-point energy (ZPE) field (aka "quantum foam") that pervades all of space-time. The extension cord free energy device (okay, I humbly accept the name "Svengali Loop" for this invention) gets its excess energy from the ZPE field. This permits it to produce unlimited energy without violating any thermodynamic laws (which will really simplify the patenting process!). The ZPE field supplies the energy via the following sequence of steps:

1) The ZPE field causes formation of electron-positron virtual particles pairs inside the conduction band of the copper metal wire (recall that a "positron" is an "anti-electron", the anti-matter analogue of the electron).

2) An energy-depleted low-voltage electron returning from the load collides with the positron, and the resulting energy is re-absorbed by the ZPE field. The vast majority of virtual particle pairs -- due to their exceedingly short lifetimes -- never have a chance to interact with ordinary matter. But inside the electron-rich environment inside of a metal, statistical considerations justify the expectation that a small percentage (circa 0.0000023%) of the positrons will recombine with an ordinary electron instead of its original virtual electron partner. Blink touched upon this aspect when he mentioned that researchers had better results when using thicker gauge copper wire (because the rate of this reaction is proportional to the metal volume).

3) After the virtual positron escapes from its original virtual electron partner, collides with an ordinary electron instead, and then and disappears back into the ZPE, this leaves behind a high-energy (high-voltage) virtual electron. But since the virtual electron has no virtual positron to recombine with, it remains inside the copper wire as an ordinary electron. The net effect is to replace a low-voltage electron with a high-voltage electron, thus recreating the initial high-voltage condition of the Svengali Loop.

Please disseminate this information, and store a copy in a safe place, in case the Men-In-Black come after me.

<One can imagine designing a rotating device that demagnetizes magnets -- but to what end?>

Here's one: they are, or perhaps were (certainly during the late 1970s - it's probably all compact mini-CDs and media storage files now - been out of it too long...), used in radio broadcasting studios to erase quickly large reels of magnetic tape used in sound recording. One energises the thing from the ac mains, places the reel on top of the spindle and gives it a couple of turns. Instant zapping for anything that has been previously recorded!

(Splicing ¹/₄in audio tape is a skill best learned by practice. Del the Cat might mourn its demise, now where's that other thread....)

<One can imagine designing a rotating device that demagnetizes magnets -- but to what end?>

Tape erasers are typically not rotating devices. They are more apt to be AC-powered electromagnets -- roughly half of a transformer. Thus the need to rotate the reel as you erase the tape... and this can be quite a ritual, where you slowly lift the tape away while simultaneously rotating it, to ensure that you have left no trace of a consistent orientation of magnetic fields in the tape. Even with 1/4 inch tape, the obsessive tape eraser will flip the tape over (and do the blessing twice), and with 1/2 inch, it's essential.

You can use the same or similar devices to demagnetize tools. There are actually loads of uses for demagnetizers.

My point was more that, given the availability of demagnetizers, why build a complicated version, in which you would drive a permanent magnet array with (presumably) a motor (although it could be hand cranked) when the standard demagnetizer is so simple?

(Splicing ¹/₄in audio tape is a skill best learned by practice. Del the Cat might mourn its demise, now where's that other thread....)

Gadzooks, yes, practice is required. For the neophyte there were (are?) little machines that would do the cut and also slightly trim the tape edges around the splice, but real tape splicers (the people, that is) use only a razor blade... Ah, yes those were the days -- now, music is just ones and zeros.

svengali- sorry I didn't mean to leave open to interpretation that it would do this without some form of external energy. As Ken has pointed out, there are plenty of ways to demagnetize but energy from somewhere is needed. The magnets in a PM motor do weaken over time but I have seen stepper motors in operation for 20 years that still performed adequately. You could make the argument that these are machines that run down magnets but the ratio of useful work to magnet life is tremendous.

Glad to hear it. I was starting to worry that some engineers around here were buying into a misconceived belief. Magnets may seem very mysterious to the general public, but technically trained individuals like us should not have much problem understanding why permanent magnets have no energy to be extracted.

And I think that most of here have strong confidence that the 1st law of thermodynamics will continue to hold true (as it always has so far). So we can safely (without being guilty of rudeness or suppression) state that over-unity/free energy devices based on permanent magnets are extremely unlikely to function as claimed.

There is one other hazard that may not be obvious. Were you to actually develop such a device, and let's say for example in the US but I'm sure many other countries would likely do the same, you may have to face the possibility that the government would consider the device to be of a level of importance so as to want to control it. There are many instances of the US government stepping in and throwing a blanket over an invention under the justification of "national security". They can, will and have done this on many occasions. If they do this there is really nothing you can do about it unless you want to be jailed and prosecuted for treason. So you have one more tactical hurdle and that is getting it into the marketplace before you draw the kind of attention you don't want. You stand to make a lot more money on it if you can freely commercialize it on your own so Ken's advice on keeping it secret is paramount. Unfortunately, were you to get someone at the patent office to believe you, that would be the most likely point in time that the government would also find out about it. In example, a guy went to the patent office with a camera that fit inside the first Xerox machines. Cool idea but the government wanted to keep it quiet and the device ended up in a lot of peoples machines around the world. And of course the machines were only serviced by Xerox technicians and there were key locks on the cabinets. What a racket they and the intelligence community had going for quite some time.

K Fry:

I believe that you are incorrect. Patents are not granted on the basis of whether they "work" or not, and do not have to be proved to work as designed. Patents are granted based on the general principle of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.... the originality of the idea, modification, design, and/or or process. Attorneys would not be "frauds" for obtaining a patent on an original idea or intellectual property that they thought would not work. I think you are thinking about civil and criminal law... what you really meant to say is "a smart attorney wouldn't waste time on something that he believes has no future asset capability"... As you may or may not know, Patent attorneys do file for patents, BUT the good ones get deeply involved in bringing the product to market, providing venture capital, and assisting is making the invention tangible. They make far more money in the post-patent phase.

In a society where there are patents for "bird diapers", "motorized ice cream cones", "Santa Clause detectors" amino acid sequences, and lawnmower blade sharpeners.... a free energy machine wouldn't be a stretch.

Right in your hometown Atlanta is a HUGE Intellectual Property Law Firm. They are the largest on the east coast, I believe. I went to college with a partner there. Since I don't have permission to name my friend or the firm in this forum - look in your phone book and call them. See what they say.

I agree with some of what you've said here, but in fact, patents are granted on the basis that the device "works". Certainly, in practice, patents are granted on things that do not work. However, they are supposed to "work" to indicate that they have "utility," a requirement under which utility patents are granted.

From the examiner's manual:

A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.^[3]

There is a special exclusion for perpetual motion machines, which includes "free energy" and "over unity" machines. These applications are (in essence) automatically rejected, unless the applicant demonstrates a working model.

With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.^[2]

You say:

In a society where there are patents for "bird diapers", "motorized ice cream cones", "Santa Clause detectors" amino acid sequences, and lawnmower blade sharpeners.... a free energy machine wouldn't be a stretch.

Actually it would be a huge stretch. Some of those ideas may seem frivolous, but motorized candy suckers have sold by the millions, so motorized ice cream cones could too. But in each case, these are inventions that "work" (assuming the Santa Clause detector is a sensor at the chimney entrance or fireplace doors). "Free energy"* machines do not work, in the sense that the millions of them that have been proposed all fail, and many well-accepted laws of physics say they will not work. The patent office allows for the overturning of physics as we know it: just show that the thing works.

My eyes roll just as much as the next engineer's or physicist's when someone claims they have created a perpetual motion machine. But the possibility exists, so I try not to be patently ;) rude to the one proposing such an idea. (There is perhaps a one in several trillion chance that a 747 will land on my house. The likelihood of a free energy machine actually working is much less than that, in my view. Do I seriously worry about 747s?) But if I were a patent attorney, filing an application (and charging a fee to do so) knowing full well that the application would be rejected would constitute fraud. If I had some doubts, or if I simply didn't understand the invention... then sure, file, but risk being sued for gross negligence. But even then, a patent attorney has an obligation to at least be open with the client, and express any reservations. If the client then says "file anyway", then there are no grounds for fraud or malpractice prosecution.

I don't think I said a patent attorney would be a fraud for "obtaining" a patent... only for applying for a patent which he knows would not be granted, and charging money to do so. Further, if he obtains the patent for a device that cannot work, knowing that the device cannot work, then he will be aiding and abetting the client in what we would have to assume is the subsequent fraudulent activity of bilking investors. Granted, this would be nearly impossible to prove, but the the attorney has obtained compensation through deceit (in this case by deceiving the patent examiner, and by extension the US government) and doing so is legitimately considered fraud, whether is can be successfully prosecuted as such or not.

*There are more than one "legitimate" physics uses for the term "free energy". We're not talking about those here. We are talking about perpetual motion machines. Any machine that works on "free energy" can take a portion of that energy to feed itself...

Ken,

What an honest and thorough response. These are the moments that make all the rib tickling that takes place seem just as trivial as it usually is (not to say unneeded though).

Enough of that squishy stuff..

You made an excellent point regarding the claims of the proposed invention re: free energy. Would it not be prudent to attempt the patent w/out making such claim? An applicant can patent as an energy device or such readily. After obtaining patent other claims can be made such as perpetual, free etc. These claims would then be subject to applicable laws re: false claim etc. If the product is what it says it is then no worries, eh.

Thanks again for a very considerate response. The gentleman has been well served by you.

cr3

If it can be demonstrated that a device has utility then a patent can be issued. Where you get into difficulties is claiming that the utility is impossible. So clearly, if you were to have a device that worked you could get a patent. Perhaps you could get a patent for a non-working energy machine if you called it a super cool paperweight, except paperweights are not novel so that might be a problem. You could perhaps call it an entertaining room heater, which is typically what they are.

Funny!!!

Thanks for the kind words.

Azeeco,

Did you try my suggestion of contacting the friendly people at the 'Free Energy' News and Directory web site? They are very pro-free energy, give free advise, and can help advertise your claim (without requiring you to reveal too much). The contact person is CEO Sterling D. Allan; his email address is sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com. Although I'm skeptical about claims involving violation of thermodynamic laws (having heard many such claims at the Yahoo free_energy group), I hope you've got something interesting that will surprise us. I would not object to witnessing a scientific revolution.

http://freeenergynews.com/

Hear! Hear!

Particularly after all that madness!

My mom would be so proud of me for not getting involved.

cr3

Here's my 2p worth - on an unbelieveably long thread.

The US government is currently offering a US$ Million dollar
prize for the winner of a competition to supply troops with
energy packs - which has got to be worth a try!
(Might even have a go myself.)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/16/wearable.power.prize/index.html#cnnSTCText

If his invention can do what he says (and I'm not a disbeliever -
proof in the pudding and all that.) then his first $1,000,000 is assured.

His spin off will be instant fame, plus the irrevocable fact, backed by
the US government, that it was his invention, and no one elses.

Hope this helps. (everyone)

jt.

See it here first: http://www.mfnb.at

Just on the very slim possibility that we might miss something, we should have a "Oddities of Science" forum for perpetual motion, "free energy", engines running on water, etc. We could have a proposal each week and then either show why it doesn't work or why it does work. This would keep all the oddball stuff off the serious forums and make everybody "put up or shut up". People like Azeeco would get a fair (albeit tough) hearing. Whatta ya think, Chris Leonard?

Sort of like?

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/museum/unwork.htm

It is not possible to commute magnets......there falls the great idea.....it does not work.

You may be correct Andy. I don't know that I know enough to say, so I am leaving that one open. I agree that the field of the magnet cannot be altered but I, perhaps foolishly, hold open the possibility of some mechanical or electromechanical method that would produce effective commutation, albeit without altering the field emanating from the magnet. The demo showing the method that used mu metal to shunt the field seems at least plausible. The perpendicular insertion of the shield would seem to minimize the "cogging" in a way the the small amount of net energy might be able to overcome it. I had thought of that but have been too lazy or busy to pursue building a model. Partly because I see the whole thing as more of a novelty than a utility. But perhaps if it resulted in a marketable toy it would have utility to my bank account. Hmmmm....

Gwen,

A brilliant description, I am green with envy, you made it completely correct, understandable and simple at the same time!!!!

You are worth your weight in Gold on such Blogs!!!

That should quieten a few voices (if they understood it fully!!) around here that did not seem to get the picture fully before......!

I agree completely with your description of the arrangement that you describe. Yet I am yet not fully resolved in my own mind that there is no possible configuration that does not emulate the configuration you describe, in one fashion or another.

The fact that all the configurations of which we have yet conceived do not work does not in and of itself prove that there are none, unlikely as, and I agree, it appears to be.

The sliding shunt I saw made me curious and since I am not able to determine the resultant forces in my mind and it looks quite easy to do some simple testing of the forces I think I will just to satisfy my curiosity. It doesn't mean I think it works but since it should be quite simple to take a couple measurements why not.

It may just turn out to be another fancy spring which is typically what is presented, a flywheel with a spring.

Thank you Gwen -- great post for this thread. Finally we're seeing some calm articulate posts showing how engineers and scientists should reply to free energy claims.

I too have a free energy machine.

It is made by Honda. I just pour diesel in it every 60 hrs and I get lots of free E!