I would like to join a group of people with diverse skills working to invent a free energy motor.  I was wondering if any groups of people like that exist here in these forums.  If so, how do I find them?  I would like to speak with them about two machines I've got in mind.  If they pointed out a reason my machines would not work then that is fine and I would not get defensive or offensive about it.  Absolutely no hard feelings, we part ways as friends still and I'd thank them for hearing me out.  But, if they agreed my idea for looping static forces is valid, or at least feasible, then I would like to work with them to make this happen.

I'm looking for people with mechanical skills who are willing to put their time and effort into building a free energy machine.

I would pay for all materials out of my own pocket, ensuring no one but me loses money if I'm wrong.  I might even be willing to pay someone extra for building it, but I'm not rich and I can not pay what that labor is worth in a fair world.

But here's the thing---I'm looking to release this machine to the world for replication free of charge and in a way that would not lead back to me and anyone else who works on it.  No patents.  No trying to corner the market on energy.  No fame or fortune.  I want to release it because it's the right thing to do.  I would expect anyone who works with me to be on-board with that.

However, if successful, there is a way to make money on it that does not involve patents or media exposure while still giving it to the world for free.  I would have no problem if others wanted to build and install these machines for customers on their own.  Heck, in my opinion, these machines belong to everyone to do whatever they want with them.  I would just strongly advise against advertising free energy machines in your local paper until the machines become common knowledge in the population and it's safe to do so with no fear of suppression.

I'd bet that those on these boards with mechanical skills have been approached time and again to attempt all sorts of crazy ideas from other members who can not build the machines they have in mind themselves.  I can understand why a skilled fabricator would be hesitant, to say the least, to respond to this post.  All I'm asking of a skilled fabricator is to hear me out first, then make a decision on whether or not you want to work with me.  I absolutely will not harass you or argue with you if you think I'm wrong about the machine working.

If you know of a member here who is a skilled fabricator, please point them to this post so they can make a decision about whether or not to contact me and hear me out. 

Thanks

I honestly can't construct a proof of concept model because I have absolutely no mechanical skills and even less equipment that I don't know how to use.  I look at the replications members here do in their home workshops and marvel at the craftsmanship.  If I had those skills I would have already attempted my idea for looping static forces.

My idea has to do with static forces, like gravity and magnetism.  So, let's throw down with it.

We'll do magnets first.

A magnet motor set in repulsion will encounter a gate at one point in the rotation.  That gate will stop the motor by repelling the array and sending the motor backward.  It will take more energy to push through the gate than the motor produced while running just before it was stopped by the gate.  So, a magnet motor will require more external energy to push by the gate and reset the motor than the motor will produce when it's back in it's power band.

This is where most people stop considering a magnet motor to be a viable source of energy.  If we have to use electricity or fossil fuel to power it and we're not going to get more energy out than we have to put into it, it can't produce usable energy, right?  No sense in wasting more creativity or time thinking it through, right?

But, I still think there is a way to make a magnet motor work while still producing excess, usable energy.  We need external energy to make a single magnet motor reset itself so it can again produce energy.  And we need that external source of energy to be greater than the single motor will produce.

Where do you get the external energy required to reset a magnet motor?
You get it from other magnet motors running out of phase.

I propose to link separate magnet motors using a horizontal axle that is long enough and with a big enough diameter to accommodate multiple magnet motors.  The arrays would be fixed to the axle and they would spiral away from the stators.  The stators would hang next to those arrays, fixed to a frame.

Out of phase in this instance would mean setting up the other motors so their gates are staggered from one another.  No two gates happen at the same time during rotation.  If you have, say, ten motors linked to one another, only one motor will encounter its gate at a time, leaving nine motors actively pushing to overcome the one gate.  When motor #1 reaches its gate, motors 2-10 continue to push.  Once motor #1 is reset and back to powering again, motor #2 would encounter its gate.  Motors 3-10, and the newly reset motor #1 would still be in their power bands, providing the external power to reset motor #2.  And so on until all ten motors had been reset and it's time to do it all again during the next revolution.  Ten gates would be encountered at different points during each revolution, but not one of those gates would be any stronger than normal while multiplying the number of motors would multiply the total power.  How many motors in their power band does it take to overcome a single gate?  I'm not sure.  But increasing the diameter and length of the axle would leave more room for more motors.  A diameter of one hundred and one inches would leave room for one hundred staggered motors.  A motor like that would encounter 100 different gates, but none of those gates would be encountered at the same time.  A motor like that would also have ninety nine motors pushing the motor while just one gate at a time would put resistance on the spin.  Seems to me that all those other motors pushing would overcome the resistance of just one gate at a time.

The Orbo motors seem to work on this principal, if I'm right.  You'll notice that each plastic disc is on an axle---multiple motors attached to one another and running out of phase with one another.  In those plastic discs are magnets, so you can't see the arrays.  But it looks to me like they're using the same principal I've outlined above.  Just one gate while all the other motors continue to push.  One gate at a time, all the rest of the motors pushing, providing the external energy required to reset each and every motor, one at a time during each revolution.

And, if you go look at the youtube videos from RobRoy, you'll see his work on magnetic shielding.  It occurred to me that you can shield the stator magnet on the side the first, closest array magnet will approach and shield the first magnet in the array on the side it will encounter the gate.  What you would have is one shield approaching the other shield, which would reduce the power of the gate.  The first magnet in the array would approach the stator and it would be shield to shield.  Once those two shields pass one another, the other unshielded side of the stator would react with the other unshielded side of the first array magnet, pushing the motor to spin while reducing the power of the gate.

So, by reducing the gate's power through shielding, you can reduce the resistance against the spin.  By adding more motors running out of phase with one another, there should be more than enough external power to reset each motor with plenty left over to produce useful energy for consumption elsewhere.



How about we apply the same principal to gravity?

Obviously, the mechanics of an overbalance system is different than a magnet motor.  But the same principal would apply.

First, get rid of the wheel and go straight to a horizontal axle.  Second, put rods through the center of the axle and put an equal weight at each end of the rod.  This will reduce the distance a lifter needs to reset the weight.  Linear bearings would be inserted into the drilled holes in the axle to allow the rods to slide freely through the center.  The holes would be drilled in a spiral pattern down the axle.

The principal goes like this:  If you can insert, say, ten rods in the axle in a spiral pattern, then only one at a time would reach the lowest point in the rotation where it no longer provides power.  That weight needs external energy to be reset and the external energy will have to be more than the energy just released by that falling weight.  However, out of ten rods, the other nine are still falling, still providing energy for the axle to turn.  Those nine that are still falling would provide the external energy required to reset that one weight back to the top so it can fall again.

The reset would have to be complete before the next weight arrived at the six O'clock position.  So, the weights get reset one at a time quickly enough to be reset before the next rod needs to be reset.  A lifter could be run from the rotation of the overbalance motor.  The lifter would only ever lift one rod while the other rods continued to fall.  At the highest point of the lift a ramp would be waiting.  The rotation would take the weight off the lifter and keep it on the ramp, stopping gravity from bringing the newly lifted rod back down.  Maybe put a roller ball on the end of each rod so the ends of the rod can roll up the ramp, which curves around the axle up to the nine O'clock position.  If one end of the rod is on the ramp at the nine O'clock position, then the other end of the rod is at the three O'clock position.  After it falls toward the four O'clock position gravity will keep the rod extended and falling.

How many rods falling would it take to provide enough external energy to reset just one rod?  I don't know.  Increasing the length and circumference of the axle would provide more room for more rods.  The more rods the better.

If you could insert one hundred rods, then ninety nine rods would be falling while only one rod would need to be reset.  Ninety nine outweigh just one by quite a lot.  There should be more than enough energy constantly released to provide the external power to reset each rod with enough left over to provide useful energy for consumption elsewhere.

Maybe think of it as a juggling act where a lot of weights are falling but just one lands at a time for reset.  This principal incorporates speed and timing to loop the static force of gravity.

So, there it is.  If you know of someone working on a gravity or magnet motor, please direct them to this post.  Maybe it will help someone.  Doesn't matter who accomplishes it first.  All that matters is that someone accomplish a motor and release the blueprints, a parts list, and assembly instructions to the public.

I ran this by a mechanical engineer and he saw it would function, but he said there would be heat issues and the bearings wouldn't last because the axle wouldn't be balanced.  I don't understand the bearing part because watermills are just overbalance wheels and I haven't heard of bearings going out on those.  As far as the heat issue, I'm not sure.  But there has to be a way around it.

As you can see, I'm trying to lay something out that might help others who are attempting to make a working magnet or gravity motor.  I forgot to share something I had a very hard time finding on the web.  This is in regards to magnets set in repulsion demagnetizing one another.

There is debate about whether or not neo-magnets will demagnetize one another if repelled frequently enough.  I don't know if they will or not, but I've seen enough posts from inventors who claim success in getting constant rotation, but whose magnets they claimed wore out, to think maybe there is something to magnet depletion.

I found a chat room log between two inventors who were working on magnet motors.  One of them claimed success.  When asked about magnet depletion, he said that yes, that is a problem.  He said he overcame the problem by adding attraction into his repulsion motor.  I should mention the chat log was gone when I went back to look at it again.  Probably, the logged chat sessions were set to delete within a few days.  Don't know.

Basically, he said that for every dose of repulsion, you need a dose of attraction.  From what I've learned about magnets, this makes sense to me.

What happens when two magnets are repelled against one another is the atoms in the magnet begin to align.  It's the fact that atoms in the magnet are out of alignment that makes the magnet magnetic.  If those atoms ever align, the magnet will no longer be magnetic.  Heat, for instance, aligns the atoms and demagnetizes the magnets.  (This is my understanding of the way magnets work.  If I'm wrong don't hesitate to correct me.)

What happens when two magnets in attraction pass one another is the atoms will try to go farther out of alignment, up to the material's magnetic potential.  So, a dose of attraction will push the atoms further out of alignment.

What this guy was saying was that you give a dose of repulsion to power the machine, which does a little damage to the magnet, then give a dose of attraction to fix that damage on the fly.  In this way he claimed magnets could be used for powering a magnet motor without wearing out, or losing their magnetism.  He claimed a one to one dose, but it would be easy enough to give more doses of attraction for each dose of repulsion if the motor is running on repulsion.  Plenty of power for that.

I don't know if this guy was right or wrong.  Both of them could have been completely full of crap, for all I know.  But if they're right it would be best to share that info here where others are attempting to accomplish a working magnet motor.  Hope this helps someone.


Also, I've read about heat issues due to friction.  Heat will absolutely wear out magnets in a magnet motor.

The fix I read about has been suggested several times in different places on the web by people working on magnet motors.

It has been suggested to add an iron band beneath the array magnets to control the flux, which they say is the source of much of the friction that heats the magnets.  Again, I don't know if this is true or not, but if you get a magnet motor turning and run into heat issues, it might be worth trying to fix it.

AGAIN:

Where do you get the external energy to reset a motor using a static force to run?
You get it from other motors just like it running out of phase.
Where do you get the external energy to reset a motor using a static force to run?
You get it from other motors just like it running out of phase.
Where do you get the external energy to reset a motor using a static force to run?
You get it from other motors just like it running out of phase.
Where do you get the external energy to reset a motor using a static force to run?
You get it from other motors just like it running out of phase.

And did I mention that you get the external energy to reset a motor that uses a static force from other motors just like it running out of phase?

Or, if someone can explain why this will not work, this is just another unworkable idea for clean, free energy production and it'll be time to get back to the drawing board.  From my research on suppression of free energy, I know others have accomplished motors that run on magnets and gravity, not to mention all the other methods that got suppressed.  Without success, there would be no suppression.  If they could figure it out then so can we, if we stay focused and keep at it. 

mscoffman, thank you for your post.

Each motor that pushes through its gate is now in it's next cycle and assisting other motors that are not yet in their next cycle.  If each rotation consisted of just one cycle for the motors and did not put any of the motors in their next cycle, then all the motors working together would suffer a net loss of energy.  But I'm hoping that because each motor that is reset begins its next cycle before rotation is complete, those motors provide external power for the other motors still in their first cycle to reset.  Sort like borrowing from the future?

But I see your point about each motor producing less than it needs to run.  You may well be dead on with your post.  Hopefully, I provided something different to think over.

And I really liked your take on moving the stator over to a different motor so it never encounters a gate in the first place.  On an axle, this should not be too difficult to do.  Food for thought, at the least.

Thanks.