Language: 
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 : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS  (Read 74871 times)

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« on: May 13, 2008, 05:27:44 PM »
 Bedini and Bearden are the closest so far as far as I can find but then again, they most not have understood the forces at play because if they did, their motors would have been over 200% efficient.

 It is a mater of understanding the forces as well as understanding how to manipulate them properly. All the above were trying to produce more work with two forces without properly utilizing either force. The only true over unity device ever built is the magnet and nature has even produced them but yet we have not properly utilized them. Bedini and Bearden were the closest thus far and they both left out three very important things.

 I shouldn't post this but what the heck.

 One very important thing they are not utilizing is both poles of the coils. While they are using one, the other is being wasted. Both can be utilized. Once both are utilized, the motor becomes 100% more efficient.

 The other is the proper utilization of the magnets. They are only utilizing one half of the face polarity when they could be utilizing 100% of both face polarity's. This can be done if you truly understand how they work. This adds another 100% efficiency to their designs. It only adds 100% because you have to use both poles of the coils to properly utilize them.
 To do this, you need to place one magnet next to another but with opposite polarity's facing up. This has to be done in two different arrangements but they must me arranged in the opposite, meaning, if you have one with the north first, the other has to have the south first.

 Another thing that has to be done is the switching of polarity?s the coils put out. This has to be done between each pulse that the coils are supplied with.

 Once this is all done, you will have what you all call over unity. There is your true free energy. Good luck and please don't be greedy.

 Thomas N. Brown
 36 Hodgson st.
 Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
 269-964-6972

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2008, 05:48:56 PM »
Hi Thomas,

I have been thinking also along the same lines. I've also been wondering why we don't use both sides of coils and magnets ???. I have not wet built it though. Have you built a working unit that demonstrated advantages? I would be interested in your findings.

Thanks

Luc

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2008, 05:51:45 PM »
gotoluc, I am not done building the motor but I have tested the coils and the magnets and they do work as I stated.

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2008, 07:54:59 PM »
Nightlife, can you please elaborate a little?
At first I thought you were talking about using one electromagnet coil
to drive two motor/generator wheels at the same time, thus using
both poles...
But you brought up using two magnets next to eachother, opposing poles
on either side...
I can't really fit that into the 'standard' Bedini motor setup...
I'm sure you have a very clear mental picture of that, but I don't see it yet. ;)

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2008, 11:38:10 PM »
Koen1, here is a rough sketch.

« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 12:11:09 AM by nightlife »

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2008, 01:17:34 PM »
Oooo did you mean it like that ;)

I thought you wanted to use two coils next to eachother,
but you're talking about bending a coil so the two coil
poles are next to eachother, in combination with an
interesting magnet arrangement on the wheel...

Yes, that does appear to be a more effective application of a coil
than only using one pole.

A couple of years ago I was much more into magnet motors than
I am now, and I made a few sketches of ideas back then of which
a couple were along the same lines... But in the designs I recall
I used either one coil to drive two wheels at the same time,
or I used two coils wrapped around a U-shaped core to get something
quite similar to your "bent coil" idea.
But I didn't use the magnet arrangement on the wheel like you
show them...

Question: do you think there is really much difference between
a) using 100% of a coils flux but only at one pole, and
b) using 50% of a coils flux at one pole and 50% at the other
after all, the total magnetic field the coil prodcues does not
change, nor does the total flux. It is now used equally in two
places instead of in one...
But does that really add anything?

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2008, 01:56:30 PM »
Koen1, You cant have a magnetic flux without having both poles. So, if you have one flux strength on one pole, the opposite has to have the same strength used or unused. With that being said, if one pole can pick up 5#, then the other side should be able to at the same time using the same amount of power. How can you have flux one pole with out having flux at the opposite pole? Maybe I have a misunderstanding on how electromagnetic poles react. I assumed they act the same a a magnet and you cant have one pole of a magnet have stronger flux then the other and you cant have no flux on one pole with out having flux on the other.
 I guess I need to do some testing on this. I thought it was simple science but then again, what do I know about science. I ditched that class.

 The magnet arrangement allows us to use the full strength of both poles combined. It adds 100% torque plus it also gives us a longer throw. This I did test.

 


Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2008, 02:29:04 PM »
Koen1, You cant have a magnetic flux without having both poles. So, if you have one flux strength on one pole, the opposite has to have the same strength used or unused.

Yes yes, no no, ;) that's not what I meant. Of course there need to be two poles and of course the total flux applies to the whole of the electromagnet coil.
And obviously that flux must flow equally through both poles at all times. I guess I should have formulated that more clearly. Sorry for the confusion.
What I meant was not actually the magnetic field of the electromagnet, as we can agree that needs to be homogenous and dipolar.
What I meant to say was:
Is there really much effective difference in the interaction with the rotor magnets between the use of
a) only one pole of the electromagnet to "push" or "pull" the rotor, so all the effective force exerted on the wheel
comes from a "monopolar" push or pull with all the energy cotained in the coil flux used at that single pole "push"/"pull", and
b) both poles of the electromagnet "pushing" and "pulling" the rotor at the same time, like your U-coil idea, where the
total coil flux is not only used to exert force on one 'pole' of the coil, but now the flux of the coil is used
in both poles to produce effective "push" and "pull" at the same time.
I ask because it seems to me that, although use of two poles appears to double the applied force on the rotor, the
total flux and energy in the coil does not, so the total force that can be exerted by the coil should remain equal
to that which can be exerted in a setup where only one coil pole is used to apply force to the rotor...
And if that is so, then the total amount of energy received by the coil and force applied to the rotor
should not really be different... should it?

Quote
With that being said, if one pole can pick up 5#, then the other side should be able to at the same time using the same amount of power. How can you have flux one pole with out having flux at the opposite pole?
Not zero flux at the pole, I meant zero effective use of the flux in driving the wheel.
seems to me that, if we input X energy into the coil, the flux must equal that, and if we now use X energy in magnetic attraction or repulsion on one
pole of the coil, we should not be able to use that same amount of X energy at the other pole as well... We should be able to use 50% of X at
either pole, effectively, or otherwise we'd be using 2X output energy in the form of flux while we only put in 1X of energy... Does not compute...
;) Or have I gone completely looney now? ;) :D
Quote
Maybe I have a misunderstanding on how electromagnetic poles react. I assumed they act the same a a magnet and you cant have one pole of a magnet have stronger flux then the other and you cant have no flux on one pole with out having flux on the other.
No, that was clearly a matter of me being extremely vague in my formulation. Sorry again. ;)

Quote
The magnet arrangement allows us to use the full strength of both poles combined. It adds 100% torque plus it also gives us a longer throw. This I did test.
Ah, now this is sort of where I was heading.
So you say that with X energy input to the coil, you get Y torque on the wheel when you use only single pole attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor,
but when you bend the coil into a U shape and use both poles for attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor, and you input X energy, you get 2Y torque out?
Really?
Cool! :D

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2008, 03:07:19 PM »
Koen1, "I ask because it seems to me that, although use of two poles appears to double the applied force on the rotor, the
total flux and energy in the coil does not, so the total force that can be exerted by the coil should remain equal
to that which can be exerted in a setup where only one coil pole is used to apply force to the rotor...
And if that is so, then the total amount of energy received by the coil and force applied to the rotor
should not really be different... should it?"

 I may be wrong with my assumption but I was thinking that electromagnets were the same as regular magnets and I also assumed that if a regular disc magnet was placed with the polarity's facing east and west, the east could be used to attract x amount of weight and even if x amount was the most it could attract, then the west could then attract the same at the same time.
 This may be a wrong assumption for me and I guess I should have tested that before posting what I have.

"So you say that with X energy input to the coil, you get Y torque on the wheel when you use only single pole attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor,
but when you bend the coil into a U shape and use both poles for attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor, and you input X energy, you get 2Y torque out?"

 This was based on my assumption of equal polarity strengths. meaning that if one polarity is loaded with the max it can handle, the other should be capable of being loaded with the same even after the one is already loaded with it's max.
 Again I must state that my assumption may not be correct and I should have tested it before posting just to be sure. I will test it later as well as I will test the U shaped coil with the same test.
 
 What you have said maybe the reason why others have not used the U shaped electromagnets and my assumption of how they act may be wrong. It looks like I have some more testing to do.

 Thank you for the concerns, they are valid and I can now understand where they may be an issue.

Offline resonanceman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2008, 04:47:21 PM »
Nightlife

It looks like  a great  idea to me

I assume that  you plan to drive  your coils  with AC


As I see it   you should   have  nearly  double  the  energy availablle .

the  only  down  side I can see  if IF  you  have  a  place  where  your magnets " catch "  the  problem area  will have twice the  energy to  stop the rotor .




In real life  probably  the  worst  part about  the  idea is it  will make  winding  the  coils  harder .....


gary 

Offline jeffc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2008, 06:16:26 PM »
Question:
Does anyone know if a horseshoe or U shaped magnet can lift more weight using both ends together than a similar bar magnet using only one end? 

I don't have any horseshoe or U shaped magnets to test with, only bar and cylinder so I cannot test this concept.

Regards,
jeffc

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2008, 06:37:03 PM »
Seems to me that two bar or cylindrical magnets connected via
a piece of ferromagnetic material such as 'soft' iron should result
in a sort of U-shaped magnet with two poles on one side,
and you should be able to test if that 2-pole end can lift more
weight than the 1-pole end of the same two cylinder or bar magnets
connected to form one double length bar or cylinder...


Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2008, 06:54:23 PM »
I just finished my testing on both, permanent magnets as well as a electromagnet. Both results confirmed my assumption to be true.

 Both poles from both the electromagnet and the permanent magnet attracted and repelled equally regardless if one pole was loaded or not.

 Are there any other concerns I should check in to before going any further?

 

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2008, 07:32:59 PM »
I don't see any at the moment...

So it's true then?
If you only use one pole of an electromagnet to push or pull the rotor,
you're actually wasting 50% of the energy?

That's quite funky...
And neither Bearden or Bedini noticed this?

It almost sounds impossible eh... But hey, that's what they said about
heavier than air flight too, and two funny bicycle builders made that work...
So that shouldn't stop you from trying your 2-pole setup! ;D

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2008, 07:48:38 PM »
Koen1,
Quote
So it's true then?

 Based on my testing it's true. When I used a permanent magnet, I placed a iron object to the point of attractions start and then I placed a identical iron object on the opposite side at the point of its attractions start and then I confirmed that the other was still at the attraction start and then I measured the distance between the two and I found them to be exact. I then did the test using the repelling effect and ended up with the same results.
 I then Tested a electromagnet the same way and I ended up with the same results.

 
Quote
And neither Bearden or Bedini noticed this?

 I can't say they did or didn't but I have yet to see a motor built and or designed using this design.

 
Quote
It almost sounds impossible


 That is true and that is why I tested what was questioned just to make sure. There may be a design out there like this and it is just being hid from us. Heck, you never know these days and I can't believe that my self being a POS 9th grade drop out could figure this out and no else has. Some one else must have figured this out other then me.