Author Topic: Perendev? (Read 32703 times)

Gregory · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2006, 01:06:12 AM »

Oh yes, after all yes. Sorry... My first explanation about the meaning of the word "disposition" was wrong. I translated wrong in my mind ( i meant asymmetry). Sorry again...

So, yes. Asymmetry without anything other will never help. However a well designed special disposition can play the role, i guess, but only with the right magnets. Orientation, shape, size, location, and every property are always important. Of course with this I don't said any new.

I begin to design and pretest one tomorrow.

Clarky · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2006, 12:16:36 PM »

I think the trick to Perendev's motor maybe quite simple, obviously they are using the repulsion forces as they have stated. I believe Sterling Alan possibly used the attraction forces, or a combination for some reason, like he said about his in one video "its an expensive toy" I have a feeling they didnt do many tests on the principals before they built it

, but you would have to ask them.

Ive thought it through and with mu-metal shielding im almost certain you could do it with pure repulsion, the benifit also here in combination with shielding is preventing damaging eddy current's.

The intial repelling kick when the stator is brought close enough im guessing is able to push the next line of magnet's in the offset past parrallel with the next row of stator magnet's thanks to the shielding, so Perendev mustof created a low enough resistance on the one side of the magnet's to allow the intial direct repulsion to push the magnet's in the rotor past parrallel with the next line in the stator.

If by keeping the spacing tight you can consecutively push the next line past the parrallel (even by the smallest amount).. then once you achieve that the magnet's in the rotor would want to move away in the wanted direction all the time onto the next line in the stator giving the next push to start the process over and so forth. The spacing, angle and offset obviously play key part's to make that action repeat all the way around.

Coupled with the non symmetric interaction of the field's over a set distance because of the shielding, I can see how it may possibly work.

WalMartGreeter · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2006, 04:37:10 AM »

Quote from: Clarky on March 17, 2006, 01:39:21 AM

I have to say I understand being skeptical, but then when you weigh up the fact that it just does'nt really make sense to build such an elaborate and apparently expensive hoax (material and construction wise), it makes it clear that it deserves attention.

It's a hoax. I guarantee you, if the demo happens at all, it won't be any more convincing than a Dennis Lee circus.

Also, consider that out of surplus parts or even outright junk you can very cheaply put together something that will spin and spark and make noises, and you can even make meters twitch so you can point to them and say "Look, free energy!". Note that these guys are planning on charging people something like 100? just to see the demo.

Get real. This one is so blatant it almost hurts.

Omnibus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2006, 05:23:00 AM »

Quote

It's a hoax. I guarantee you, if the demo happens at all, it won't be any more convincing than a Dennis Lee circus.

No, there?s no reason to believe your statement that it?s a hoax. No reason whatsoever. This is some belief of yours which you want to impose on us. Prove that it?s a hoax.

Also, comparison with Dennis Lee?s motor is incorrect. Brady claims a self-sustaining motor, Lee doesn?t. This makes a hell of a lot of difference.

If you like such comparisons then it is Paul Sprain?s motor that is to be compared to that of Dennis Lee.

Quote

Also, consider that out of surplus parts or even outright junk you can very cheaply put together something that will spin and spark and make noises, and you can even make meters twitch so you can point to them and say "Look, free energy!".

Go ahead, make it and show us a video of your self-sustaining motor. Talk is cheap.

Quote

Note that these guys are planning on charging people something like 100? just to see the demo.

A baseball match costs more but you don?t call it a hoax. The hotels they are going to rent space from are not on the cheap side and probably you know that renting space in hotels even cheaper that those doesn?t come free.

These would be pretty dumb scam artists if they will be making money off of the entrance tickets of 100 people attending the show.

Get real. They will be out of their minds to set up this show and not demonstrate a self-sustaining device. Faking self-sustaining device is impossible, it requires no measurements and its viability is evident without approval from self-proclaimed authorities. Fakes (either due to incompetence or deliberate) can only happen when measurements are involved.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2006, 06:38:28 AM »

Hmm, maybe Brady will show now a different motor with some coils in it powered
by battery pulses ? Maybe that is why he announced the EM motor ?

Hmm, he invited me also personally via email to come and pay 100 EUros
for the show. If it really is a motor with coils, hopefully one
can make my own measurements ?
Otherwise this could easily be faked, if altered measurement equipment is used....

We will just wait and see... if he really could show something.
At least one Norwegian guy already paid the motor in advance
since now around 2 years ago and did not yet get anything
and he is pissed, cause he paid around 10.000 US$ when I remember
correctly...

Omnibus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2006, 06:45:16 AM »

Stefan, Mike Brady assured me in an e-mail message the other day that his motor is completely self-sustaing. To verify a self-sustaining motor you don't need to carry out measurements. If it really is it's the easiest thing in the world to prove irs validity.

WalMartGreeter · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2006, 06:01:27 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2006, 05:23:00 AM

Get real. They will be out of their minds to set up this show and not demonstrate a self-sustaining device. Faking self-sustaining device is impossible, it requires no measurements and its viability is evident without approval from self-proclaimed authorities. Fakes (either due to incompetence or deliberate) can only happen when measurements are involved.

That's why they've announced this EM design. A working permanent magnet device would simply run by itself and there'd be no doubt. But a purely permanent magnet design can't possibly work (and I think they know that), and it wouldn't allow any fakery to make it appear to work. Remember, this is all about wowing potential investors.

IF (and that's a big IF) they demonstrate a "self-sustaining" device, it will be a battery-powered device using electromagnets, and not a purely permanent magnet device.

They will do the same thing Tilley did with the TEV and Brits and Christie did with the Lutec: they will run it on the batteries for a short period of time and measure the unloaded battery voltage before and after the run. When the voltage after the run is higher than before, they will claim that the device actually charges the battery as it runs. (Read a bit about batteries to see why the voltage can increase.) And this will be good enough proof for a lot of people in the audience.

But they will not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started. They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.

I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.

Smith001 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2006, 06:15:16 PM »

How could anyone be skeptical about the new Perendev motor when they've provided a beautiful 200x200 pixel CAD drawing as proof !!

Omnibus · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2006, 06:16:40 PM »

Quote

But they will not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started. They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.

I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.

Why should I believe you? Tell me one reason I should believe you?

This is a completely unjustified attack. I?m not an advocate of Brady but I resent such unbecoming, frivolous talk.

I repeat, demonstrating of a self-sustaining device, if real, is the easiest thing in the world. They will be out of their minds to set up such show with such claims and not demonstrate a truly self-sustaining device.

Omnibus · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2006, 06:23:05 PM »

Quote

Remember, this is all about wowing potential investors.

Why are you so much concerned about other people's money?

Omnibus · « **Reply #25 on:** March 25, 2006, 06:35:31 PM »

Either you will provide definitive proof that PERENDEV device is not self-sustaining or I will consider you worse than the scam artists you described.

WalMartGreeter · « **Reply #26 on:** March 25, 2006, 11:15:28 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2006, 06:16:40 PM

Quote
But they will not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started.? They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.

I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.

Why should I believe you? Tell me one reason I should believe you?

Because the claim violates the first law of thermodynamics. And countless others who've made similar claims have pulled the exact same tricks. Why do you expect Perendev to be any different?

Come on. Don't you get tired of constantly getting your hopes up, only to be let down with lame excuses?

Quote

This is a completely unjustified attack. I?m not an advocate of Brady but I resent such unbecoming, frivolous talk.

It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. Be sure to dig this posting up after the demo, if the demo happens at all. And see if you can tell how I was able to predict what happened.

Again, if this "self-sustaining" motor is demonstrated at all, it will be powered by batteries and some naive measurements will be used to convince people that the motor is really recharging the batteries as it runs. But for some strange reason they won't be able to disconnect the batteries and truly demonstrate self-sustaining operation.

Quote

I repeat, demonstrating of a self-sustaining device, if real, is the easiest thing in the world. They will be out of their minds to set up such show with such claims and not demonstrate a truly self-sustaining device.

Yep. Demonstration of a self-sustaining device, IF REAL, would be the easiest thing in the world. There's a reason all these "working" free energy machines are always demonstrated in an obtuse manner. They aren't real.

Omnibus · « **Reply #27 on:** March 25, 2006, 11:38:18 PM »

Quote

Quote
But they will not run the device without the batteries, nor will they remove the batteries from the circuit once the device is started. They may claim it's self-sustaining, but it'll really be the batteries powering it.

I assure you, with 100% confidence, they will not demonstrate a self-sustaining device.

Why should I believe you? Tell me one reason I should believe you?

Because the claim violates the first law of thermodynamics. And countless others who've made similar claims have pulled the exact same tricks. Why do you expect Perendev to be any different?

Come on. Don't you get tired of constantly getting your hopes up, only to be let down with lame excuses?

I told you that I have no reason to believe you and you confirmed it big time. Above statements reveal that you have no clue as to what the essence of the first law of thermodynamics is. I won?t get here into its clarification but I?ll tell you that an argument such as ?Because the claim violates the first law of thermodynamics? is ridiculous and should be rejected outright.

Also, the fact that somebody else has made false claims by no means gives you the right to use that as an argument against the experiment in question. This is non-scientific. You have no clue as to what the scientific method is and yet you dare express extreme opinions.

Quote

Quote
This is a completely unjustified attack. I?m not an advocate of Brady but I resent such unbecoming, frivolous talk.

It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. Be sure to dig this posting up after the demo, if the demo happens at all. And see if you can tell how I was able to predict what happened.

Again, if this "self-sustaining" motor is demonstrated at all, it will be powered by batteries and some naive measurements will be used to convince people that the motor is really recharging the batteries as it runs. But for some strange reason they won't be able to disconnect the batteries and truly demonstrate self-sustaining operation.

Not at all. Yours is a slanderous attack and is by no means statement of fact. No matter what happens with the demo your present position is reprehensible and you should apologize to Mike Brady.

In no way you are in any position now to state what the demonstration will be unless you can provide clear evidence that you?re in the know (which you have not provided at all). Therefore, it is best for you to restrain from expressing unjustified attacks.

Quote

Quote
I repeat, demonstrating of a self-sustaining device, if real, is the easiest thing in the world. They will be out of their minds to set up such show with such claims and not demonstrate a truly self-sustaining device.

Yep. Demonstration of a self-sustaining device, IF REAL, would be the easiest thing in the world. There's a reason all these "working" free energy machines are always demonstrated in an obtuse manner. They aren't real.

Again, you cannot use the fact that someone else?s claims were not real to justify attacks at the claims under discussion. This only shows that you are not familiar with the scientific method and yet have the nerve to make unsupported blanket statements.

WalMartGreeter · « **Reply #28 on:** March 26, 2006, 12:08:36 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on March 25, 2006, 11:38:18 PM

Yours is a slanderous attack and is by no means statement of fact. No matter what happens with the demo your present position is reprehensible and you should apologize to Mike Brady.

If Brady demonstrates a clearly self-sustaining motor, I'll apologize.

When he demonstrates a battery-powered motor and maintains that it's not really running off the batteries, rather, it's really charging the batteries (they're just needed to get it started, but strangely, he won't disconnect them once it's started), I'd appreciate an apology from you.

There's really no use arguing about this until the demo. Just sit back and wait and see what happens.

Omnibus · « **Reply #29 on:** March 26, 2006, 12:14:09 AM »

No, I won?t apologize to you even if the outcome is negative. Your approach is flawed and you don?t seem to understand that.

As for Brady, you should apologize to him now, no matter what the outcome from the demonstration, because you have provided no evidence which would justify your attacks.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Perendev? (Read 32703 times)

Gregory

Re: Perendev?

Clarky

Re: perendev

WalMartGreeter

Re: Perendev?

Omnibus

Re: Perendev?

hartiberlin

Re: Perendev?

Omnibus

Re: Perendev?

WalMartGreeter

Re: Perendev?

Smith001

Re: Perendev?

Omnibus

Re: Perendev?

Omnibus

Re: Perendev?

Omnibus

Re: Perendev?

WalMartGreeter

Re: Perendev?

Omnibus

Re: Perendev?

WalMartGreeter

Re: Perendev?

Omnibus

Re: Perendev?