To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid


Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)




3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief







Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition



YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines


Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video




WaterMotor kit


  • *Total Members: 83955
  • *Latest: serials

  • *Total Posts: 525631
  • *Total Topics: 15646
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: Why can't we get free energy from magnet motors, according to scientists?  (Read 16075 times)

Offline Ergo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280

We are told by scientists that not even neo magnets cannot provide free energy in a setup and if we try we will deplete the magnets!
But I would like to read their explantion of why they think it's not possible.
Iv'e googled a lot but can't find any information about this. Do any of you have a link?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Offline NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588

If you google words like magnetism conservative force, you will come across this kind of links:

I personnaly do not attach great importance to these sorts of dissertations.

An old Chinese proverb says:
"Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it."

You can also consult:
"Kedron, headed by Kenneth C. Kozeka, Ph.D., presents what they believe will be an abundant source of extremely inexpensive, pollution-free mechanical energy, harnessed from strong electromagnetic forces generated by the spin of electrons in powerful permanent magnets such as those made of neodymium."


Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59

most of these "can't be done" statements close like a steel bear-trap on one principle.

In 1915 - 18 Emmy Noether (a maths genius) proved that any closed system cannot gain energy - all it can do is shuttle it from one form to another.'s_theorem

Her work concerned electrodynamics (energy systems associated with capacitors and charge) - but the way she wrote her maths meant that it had general applicability. Like when someone who is just so skilled does work - she made it all look so easy and simple .... try doing this from blank paper yourself and is really tough. At this time Einstein was stuck - this freed him up to make progress on "relativity part II" (General Relativity). He said he looked up to her.

Emmy's maths and energy analysis has been boosted from a Principle to a Law (i.e. higher standing then Einstein's work). This is the Law of Conservation of Energy, sometimes just called Conservation of Energy. You will hear of research and science being done to test Relativity - none will test Noether's work. There is simply no need.

Thus, the favourite means to sink without trace any "free energy" idea - is to show that the system being proposed fits / complies to Emmy Noether's work. If it has characteristics meeting the starting assumptions - Game Over - that's it, a conclusion is reached.

And magnets have those characteristics.

This is where the "can't work" people come from - they are true scientists, know and have read Noether and have been down this road - like thousands of times (this stuff is NOT new, this has been raked over regularly around the world for about 200 years - this all stopped when Noether showed WHY it was pointless).

OK, so what is wrong with this picture?

It is unlikely that the maths is wrong. This is very long established and heavily inspected. As the Open Source people say "all bugs are trivial given enough eyes". Guys rated as geniuses have crawled all over Noether (I hope she forgives me for putting it like that... There is no error in the maths :)

OK, so let's accept the maths. Magnets of themselves cannot add energy because they fit into one of those LCE categories.

But 101 people have found they can get advantage! So what could be going on? Assumptions!

1. about the process - which assumes:

  physics can be modeled by maths, therefore
  physics will (must!) behave like maths

- it is however unlikely that this is so; for maths is abstract cognition and not connected directly to the world, except in the minds of those imagining the work. It must be given context and applicability

2. Noether's work assumes that Creation (whatever that is) is over. What if... this is not so?

:) since 1998 the Universe has been known to expand in such a way as to show the expansion speeds up - something accelerates expansion (the galaxies retreat from each other like our local Deity has his foot on the gas).

Perhaps - at some level - Creation has not stopped? Could more be arriving all the time - and pushing the rest out?

That would mean that a start assumption "as the system under test sits here - nothing is magically added" - is false. Oops. Noether assumed this (what else was reasonable?).

// it should also point out that the simple existence of the Universe shows a substantial flaw in Conservation of Energy..... LCE would have it that we should not exist, so it cannot be true for all Time

3. physics is different.

The physics of 1915 had empty space (ether ideas had been dropped by then); plus some sort of atom, mass and electrons. That's about it. Oh, photons and fields.

Since then, whole worlds of particles, sub-atomics, smaller and smaller stuff - keeps arriving.

And something odd can be seen - yet is rarely mentioned. There seems (could there be a proof?) that the energy density of the Universe has an inverse relationship to size. What that means - is that the smaller you go, the higher the energy density of - whatever it is that lives at that size (makes sense?)

Oops big-time. When you shrink to foam size (10^-35m) the energy density is ridiculous. If you added up the energy of foam occupied by an atom - it's about 10^20 MORE then the power output of a Supernova. Mad!

That means empty space - the space in which an atom floats (as worked out in the 1960's by Wheeler) - has 10^20 more punch then the 10^41 joules dumped by a Supernova (at this point you should really, really wonder if hi-energy physics is ... completely safe)

Now - this was 100% unknown in Noether's day.

Well, does that matter?

Yes. Very much so. You see, matter is used to build and wall (define) "systems". Noether considered maths for a defined, closed system :)  :)  :) one built of logical, ideal walls.

So, what is the aperture size (wall material size) for a material containers? Um, let's be generous. 10^-18m ? This is the gap between atoms etc.

That means - material walls are POROUS to smaller stuff. Well, it's a good job those small guys - can't carry much energy, then ... oops, um foam size is about 10^-35m ??

With all that insane energy? They'd get through easily!

Damn. That would mean a start assumption for Noether's maths - can't be met, in practice.

Well, perhaps DON'T make LCE systems from material. What else? Fields? Let's see - the strongest we have are electrostatic and magnetic. Let's use them!

Um, anyone seen anything odd in the way energy behaves, about - magnets, then?

What am I getting at is-

a) Noether is mathematically right - but the maths may be non-applicable for wholly practical reasons.

b) material walls are useless for LCE systems, like trying to confine ants in a lion cage. They just leak every way. But those who do try - will never find any excess present (... oh, where did it go?) - as any excess just runs away through those leaky walls.

c) magnets can never add energy - tick!

d) but space has BUCKETS of energy with lots of odd stuff happening (we KNOW this, as the Universe expands)

e) any system wanting to bottle up energy translations - might choose to use magnets, as mag fields do not have dimensional limitations i.e. "wall aperture size".

Conclusion: Noether is formally correct - and always will be. Physicists / scientists rely on such work - and sup it up. Magnets can never add energy - but SPACE itself might well.

Make any sense??


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:

Offline NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588

Make any sense?

As far as I can catch it!
I'm not a scientist.

Magnets can never add energy - but SPACE itself might well

May I say the following ?
When you shiphon a liquid out of a tank with a hose (a pipe).
The hose itself is not adding energy but the atmospheric pressure is.


Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7973
    • free energy research
you are correct,
but magnets can interact with the open space and other materials,
which have a magneticcycleprocess which alters their spin and thus
there are temperature changes involved which can cool down
the other materials or the magnets themself and thus
can convert heat energy back to mechanical energy.

Thus is is a magnetically excited thermodynamical cycle process
which could violate the "2nd law", if the parameters are set right.

Look into magnetic cooling (fridges) and magnetic heat pumps
for references.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:

Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
excellent - new one on me - thinking about this now.

Hm. Tricky..... :)

Offline brnbrade

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 126
"2nd law" Thermodinamics

Enunciated of Carnot: "So that a thermal machine carries through work is necessary two thermal sources of different temperatures"

Being thus, 2 magnets with different values and forces works?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:

Offline HopeForHumanity

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
infinity = infinity
1 = 1
however universe is expanding against equilibrium
(infinity + 1) > infinity
blackhole shoots out energy, and consumes matter; however the void does not let matter escape thus creating a congruent image of the matter stuck inside this void yet energy being not in the void. That means universal matter and energy being added too by the radiation output of the black holes. Problem!

The increased mass would only slow down the universal expansion thus creating the mass subtraction to be viewed as (infinity - 1) < infinity. This contradicts blackholes. But we never said that maybe the blackhole some how flips the charge of mass creating negative mass. Problem!

That simply concludes that the negative mass balances the energy output. Idea!

Something gives rise to a questioning against matter and energy being interchangeable. Hmmm... Say it with me, Aether? Matter only exists to disrupt the balanced Aether flow. Energy was not matter, energy was created by matter falling into an aether pond. We view this energy as WAVES FROM THE AETHER POND! So lets just say this.... AETHER = AETHER or 1=1, while the matter is what disbalances it and you could say the matter is the reason for the universe to expand.

I don't really know, it's just a bunch of word salad, but I still see some connections in their with what we observe. I feel crazy for posting this.

Offline aparodox2003

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Reguarding the black holes, i havent looked to deeply into the subject but my theory on black holes seems to be about the same as yours, mass goes in gets compressed so much that it breaks down the matter and turns it into energy.  The energy is then shot out of the whole, basically i think of it as a solid ball full of liquid with tiny pin-holes  all over keep squeezing and the the liquid will squirt out. What i think allows this is E=mc2 or rather mc2=E
Sounded good in my head but i could be way off.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
I have shown conclusively that the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) can be violated and energy can come out from nothing. One way to do it is by properly superimposing two conservative fields. So far, the only reproducible way of obtaining excess energy (violating CoE) is discontinuously, as in SMOT. Continuous production of excess energy is connected with the overcoming of substantial engineering problems and as of this writing hasn't been done convincingly by any party, despite the many claims to it.

As for the Einstein's theory of relativity it isn't worth spending any time on it since it is nothing else but a compilation of errors and complete nonsense.

Offline NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588

Hi sharp Over_Unity_dot_com members,

I almost forgot...
May I suggest you these very articles (from Chineese scientists) :
Realization of Maxwell?s Hypothesis
An Experiment Against the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Another Way to Realize Maxwell? s Demon
A Non-uniform Magnetic Field Provides a
One-way Channel for Thermal Electrons


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Offline NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588

Hi magnetics guys,

You can also have a look at this new article:


Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Hi guys,

Read that PESNetwork link and saw about electron spins. That reminded me so - I've taken a look back at that "Understanding magnets.." thing from last week (the one with the lens stuff) again as it was all about spins.

OK, page 6 mentions Wesley Gary and his system, so I've dug that up on the web

Looks like it was replicated in 2001 (

Is anyone chasing this? The reason I bring this up is that there is a hint as to where the power comes from.

The way I read it - it's a magnet / gravity see-saw (teeter-totter?) reciprocators using G to drop the main weight (lift the magnets together) whilst a screen is in place - that gets removed and exposes a repulsive magnet - so the see-saw drops down again.

I'll try draw this out one paper - it looks easy!

The trick from the Understanding magnets thing is - the screen lives in the neutral or zero slope zone - no forces there *so no work is needed to move it* (work = force thru a distance, force = 0 so work = 0).

Energetically - it is lop sided, sort of like the Chinese are talking about - come to that, the SMOT too. Gravity does one half of a cycle, magnets the other.

Presumably this runs down / the repulsive forces of the magnets de-magnetise each other?? If this is sooo simple, why is it not everywhere?

Offline rukiddingme

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
    • Kore
A few quotes relevant to this thread:

Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. ~ Robert Heinlein

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ~ Albert Einstein

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. ~ Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut


Offline steve_whiss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59