Author Topic: What exactly is the problem with these devices? (Read 16737 times)

Roen Hayden · « **on:** November 30, 2007, 05:43:42 PM »

I have been doing some research into PMMs for about a year now. I have been reading watching other peoples creations and sometimes I wonder what they were thinking when they built it. So far the best devience I have seen is the one Sterling D. Allan created. So my question is what is problem with these devices? What is the one thing that keeps them from becoming main stream? I?m 18 years old I sometime in the future plan on building my own. I think that one day this could work.

Thanks

Koen1 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 30, 2007, 06:34:06 PM »

I don't think there is one clear thing that keeps OU devices from going mainstream, but there are several.

The most important is of course: failure to replicate. If one person has built an OU device but nobody manages to replicate it, there is no confirmation that the device actually works and that is is not a fluke. There's tons of ideas, but only a relatively small part actually pass the reality check, and of those very few to none are ever replicated and prove to be OU.
Second is of course the continuous antagonism, ridicule, and suppression by the majority of "established" scientists. If your R&D brainiacs tell you device X is not worth looking into because everybody knows OU is impossible, then you're not going to invest in it, are you?
And then of course there are the other established interests; the energy market is one of if not the largest in the world, with more power and influence in sociopolitical and industrial developments than most of us would care to know. If you can force people to pay much higher prices by pushing the essential energy supply into a shortage and price-increase spiral, then of course you are going to do so and thereby increase your own influence in everyday life and systems. So you have more power, more money, more control, and people become more and more dependant on you. Then why would you go and kill your own business by giving the consumer cheaper energy solutions? He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones, after all.
There are undoubtedly a few other interests playing along, but in general it still comes down to: greed, arrogance, and misundertanding. I think

Roen Hayden · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2007, 06:52:38 PM »

I see that for looking into OU as a whole, but I wanted to know what the major problem with these devices is. Is it the way one arranges the magnets? And I have also seen were they just slow down and stop what causes this exactly?

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2007, 07:24:38 PM »

G'day Roen and all,

Keely said once in his writings (about 120 years ago) "No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated as to induce rotation"

Perhaps he was right.

Keely understood magnetism perhaps more than anyone before or after him. He managed to make non-magnetic materials magnetic by subjecting them to a sonic stream using acoustic resonators only. He also managed to take the magnetism out of very strong magnets by subjecting them to the same type of energy.

This has not been replicated to date but at the time was witnessed by a great many people, including eminent scientists.

Hans von Lieven

Koen1 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2007, 07:42:14 PM »

Hmmm well problem with Keely is that not much is actually known about his actual tech...
And claims like "he understood magnetism better than anyone before or after" are also made of Tesla for example...
Of course it may be that Keely did understand it better. But he didn't manage to convey that understanding very well.
And it may be that Keely had the 'secret' to free energy. but he didn't explain it, there is no actual legacy of designs we can replicate and study.

Anyway, Roen, in most devices the problem is simply that there is an imbalance in the magnetic fields which does cause the rotor to move, but only for a short period of time untill the device has found its lowest balanced energy state, and then it will stop. Some devices start with a "magnetic spring effect" which cause them to spin quite a bit, but in the end entropy wins and the energy is lost in mechanical friction and magnetic feedback. Other machines use a certain reservoir of energy such as a capacitor to aid their rotation, but when the energy reservoir is empty they also stop moving.
If you can break the symmetry of the laws of nature somehow, and somehow get a permanent off-balance system which does not use input energy to remain off-balance, then you could make one spin... Why does the mini-romag generator work, spin itself, and produce minute ouput, but not an upscaled version?
Good question.

Roen Hayden · « **Reply #5 on:** December 01, 2007, 03:59:52 AM »

What is Keely's last name?

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #6 on:** December 01, 2007, 05:48:21 AM »

His name is John Ernst Worrel Keely

Details and short biography on http://keelytech.com

Hans von Lieven

Roen Hayden · « **Reply #7 on:** December 01, 2007, 05:57:36 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on December 01, 2007, 05:48:21 AM

His name is John Ernst Worrel Keely

Details and short biography on http://keelytech.com

Hans von Lieven

Ok thanks ill look him up.

Mr.Entropy · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2007, 06:19:40 AM »

Quote from: Roen Hayden on November 30, 2007, 06:52:38 PM

I see that for looking into OU as a whole, but I wanted to know what the major problem with these devices is. Is it the way one arranges the magnets? And I have also seen were they just slow down and stop what causes this exactly?

Ah, but that's the wrong question. You should be asking why people think these motors should work. They don't generally have good reasons -- they just want them to work, and then fool themselves by desiging systems of sufficient complexity so that they, themselves, can't see that it doesn't work. For some this is easy, for others it's more difficult.

When you know enough physics to understand that the laws of motion for permanent magents can be derived from the law of conservation of energy, then there won't be any PMM systems that can fool you in this way. You will understand that finding a way to make a PMM work implies finding new physical laws, and you can't do that by imagining arrangements of magnets and/or doing math.

Only by experiment can you show where current physical laws diverge from reality. If PMMs can work, then there is likely to be a simple experiment first (not a motor) that shows how the current laws are wrong. Then there will be experiments to make new mathematical models of the physics involved. Then these models will be used to design a motor that works.

Kedron corp and Steorn have shown by their statements that they know this, even though they have failed to demonstrate any spinning devices, and they both claim to have developed those new physical laws. If working PMM technology is going to come from anywhere, I think it'll come from one of them.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Paul-R · « **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2007, 04:07:14 PM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 30, 2007, 07:24:38 PM

Keely said once in his writings (about 120 years ago) "No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated as to induce rotation"

Werner Heisenberg disagreed. He said that magnets could be a source of energy.
Paul.

Rosphere · « **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2007, 07:45:34 PM »

Quote from: Roen Hayden on November 30, 2007, 05:43:42 PM

I have been doing some research into PMMs for about a year now. I have been reading watching other peoples creations and sometimes I wonder what they were thinking when they built it. So far the best devience I have seen is the one Sterling D. Allan created. So my question is what is problem with these devices? What is the one thing that keeps them from becoming main stream? I?m 18 years old I sometime in the future plan on building my own. I think that one day this could work.

Metastability; I think that control is the problem with these metastable machines, like squeezing a wet soap bar.

We are attempting to tap finite amounts of an enormous natural vacuum energy. It hides behind a thin, yet tough, vial. There are many ways to do this, (or so I have heard,) but it must be done exactly right.

Today's internal combustion engines are stable: still able to run with a lean or rich fuel/air mixture and only stopping at the extremes to one other stable state: stopped. Stable-running, easy to control, and forgiving.

Metastable machines are unforgiving, like a woman. You need to treat them just right to get the performance that you desire. But if you cross the line, you may experience a life changing event for the worse. Sort of like a sticky window; hard to budge, yet easy to throw open--do this with the vacuum energy and it will destroy your machine, and maybe even you too.

Some devices, by the nature of their configurations, may offer better control of this metastable condition than others. We, at the very least, seek to control devices which have a failsafe to a stopped condition if falling out of "tune," or if any one component fails. Magnet motors appear to offer this quality: runaway acceleration will meet with increased bearing friction before shaft meltdown grinds it all to a stable stop. We do not expect any crazy EMP type of events with this type of device.

Welcome to the forum, young man.

laserman · « **Reply #11 on:** December 01, 2007, 09:08:36 PM »

standing by for the omnibus smot injection. Hayden...I have several non working designs that i would have sworn that i have solved the gate problem. You are young, i am 52 you will see it in your lifetime and it might be you that solves issues...welcome to this obsession for OUFE!

Roen Hayden · « **Reply #12 on:** December 02, 2007, 01:52:18 AM »

well like i have said before i think some people that create these devices are trying to make them too complex. I have a few designs in my head that are simple but some are close to other peoples designs just a couple of things changed. I would like to build a prototype but one problem is money working three jobs and college and be a drain but hey it will pay off one day. Speaking of money does any one know of any small grants for projects like this?

Low-Q · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2007, 09:42:04 PM »

Simply put:
Magnets which is not changing magnetism on demand, cannot induce rotation or work. An electro motor is working because of the change of magnetism. All electromotors, even those running on DC-power supply are in fact AC-motors inside because they allways are able to change magnetic polarity as they rotate. That's why they work, and permanent magnet motors does not work.
If you even add loads of energy into DC electro magnets, as long as the magnetism does not change, they will just consume energy without doing any work. So how to make a permanent magnet motor to work, is to me a big puzzle.

But never give up. It's very educating to learn about magnets and magnetism, even if you should fail in your projects.

Br.

Vidar

Honk · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2007, 08:42:54 AM »

Actually, you don't need to switch polarity in a motor to create work.
You can design the motor to let a magnetic rotor chase a rotatating electromagnetic field.
This will just cause pull on the rotor, but not any push.
Just like any electric motor but efficiency and power density is dropped due to the missing push.
But still there is work being created. No need for AC fields, just switch the electromagnets ON and OFF.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: What exactly is the problem with these devices? (Read 16737 times)

Roen Hayden

What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Koen1

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Roen Hayden

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

hansvonlieven

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Koen1

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Roen Hayden

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

hansvonlieven

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Roen Hayden

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Mr.Entropy

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Paul-R

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Rosphere

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

laserman

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Roen Hayden

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Low-Q

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?

Honk

Re: What exactly is the problem with these devices?