Bitcoin Forum

How much would you bet that it works or doesnt?

This topic is aimed at mainly:
myrkul (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4602)
Rassah (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=20203)

Is this video a scam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR6Qait2JGY#t=3m12s

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdLA4w3w58

It's not a scam, perpetual motion has been modeled a lot in the past, and for the most part can work, like those plastic birds with that liquid in them, that always go down and up.


The hardship comes in harvesting that free energy. See how at first the little metal piece flies off? Imagine that happening in an electric output battery for a big city, an explosion would ensue, the ground would shake violently, then the city loses power and everyone thinks it's a terrorist attack. Or the end of the world if your town is religious.


It's not a scam, but using magnetism would not be profitable since at some point itcan stop spinning without flying off.


So his piece isn't exactly perpetual.


[Edit] Not a fan of "free perp. energy". I'd much rather huge tesla coils shoot lightning at a big anntennae at our houses periodically and all electric devices can usewirless electricity. I fucking hate chords

see new vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdLA4w3w58

We have something called the Laws of Thermodynamics. Note: they're not even theories; they're laws.
In a perfectly friction-less vacuum, perpetual motion is possible, but not harvesting energy from the system. In this case, it's probably complete bullshit.

I bet it's bullshit. Even if it's not, it's certainly not "free energy."
Those stop eventually. They run out of water.

Thats the point I was looking for. It may move now but the magnet wears out...and the magnet had to be built and charged which is basically like the 'fuel' of the equation

anyway I'd like to build one and see how long it'd run then

It would depend on your magnet, assuming the video isn't as fake as the other one ("see new vid" -- electricity is coming from under the table or a hidden magnet). I've killed magnets in a matter of months before, and that was just performing party tricks. (One surefire way to kill your magnet is to do that "levitation" trick, then weigh down the floating one).

Presumably there's some heat coming out of this too; anyone who's roasted a magnet over a fire will tell you that the magnet dies.

Already debunked as a motor powered by a voltage across the nails.

I gotta admit, this one took me a few seconds to figure out. But then I remembered induction. There's another coil underneath the table, hooked up to a power supply. Current flowing in that coil induces a current flow in this one, powering the bulb. It's the same way the wireless charging on the newer phones work.

Perpetual motion devices using magnets are not perpetual beacuse magnets wear out.

How those work is actually very simple, and pretty interesting. It's a heat engine, using a temperature gradient between the head and the butt of the bird to alternately condense and evaporate a liquid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird

oh now if I even set up perpetual motion there'll be claims i'm using 'wireless power'

Set it up on a glass table, with enough framing that we can see there aren't any hidden power sources.

Pretty sure second video use induction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqAxeyc3bw

meh, could still be powered by IR or UV laser..

We'd see the pickups for that, it would look a bit like an LED.

Oh, and 420, be sure to include schematics. It's not science if it's not reproducible.

There are paints that look metallc-grey in the visible spectrum but are transparent in the uv or ir.
So it could have easily been build into the device.

But my point was maybe more that you cannot tell anything from a youtube video.
You see a small part of what could otherwise be (and with these things usually is) a controlled environment.
In all propability this is indeed just induction. But you have to keep in mind that it does not have to be.
So even if it is then demonstrated that it could not have been simple coil induction then you already know it can still be a trick.
That's how you have to think with these kinds of people.

A rule of thumb is: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
None of these free-energy types has come up with any evidence so far.
I think you can safely dismiss any youtube videos about free energy without actually watching them..

Probably true. Key to science, though, is an open mind. If you dismiss all claims without even looking at the evidence, you could miss something groundbreaking. That's why I requested schematics. If I can build it myself, and it works, pulling energy out of thin air, I'll believe it.

The first one is obviously fake.  The coil speeds up.  There's probably a battery hidden in the wood block, making a simple motor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhaYLnjkf1E).  Also, monopole magnets aren't known to exist.

Listen, I'll save you some time.  This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjhh0Jwj7vo) is the closest you will come to finding a legitimate magnetic "free energy" device on Youtube.

From my own research there doesn't really seem to be such a thing as free/infinite energy, we can make it very cheap or you can have lots and lots of it like if you power something from the sun or with water, the problem with all this stuff like perpetual motion is that it does work on a small scale but you have to look at it from an industrial point of view because people want thousands of kilowatts to power cities. Oil and Nuclear are more popular options because of how much easier it is to get that kind of thing going, that said I can understand oil because all you do is dig that out of the ground and burn it after you prepare it but with Nuclear? It's the equivalent of having a nuclear bomb sitting next to your house and I just think that's insane.

All these ideas are for the most part already there, but particularly with sun and wind they're horribly inefficient because when you want to have something powered constantly you can't really have things like weather dictating how much power you're capable of generating if you want to do stuff long term with it. A lot of these people posting the 'free energy' crap on youtube I think are people who are just learning about science and have no idea what they're talking about, either that or they are probably trying to scam you like you think.

If you invented a free energy machine you would not present the evidence in a youtube video...
There are many places that would gladly investigate such claim so there are enough ways for thee people to verify it actually works how they thin it works.
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
In this respect a youtube video is useless unless it provides verifyable data collected blindly over many trials. Which is much more convenient to do in text so usually people write papers. And that is when you know you can at least put some effort into taking it seriously...
You simply cannot prove this stuff with a youtube demonstration.

About keeping an open mind, you would be way better off just reading some physics books as the whole playingfield of these quacks has been thoroughly mapped out decades ago by science and there was no free energy found despite the scrutiny. There just is no thing like free energy in a closed system on our macro level. There is a slight possibility there is a source of free energy at the absolute lowest quantum level but that happens at a scale of 10^-37m or something like that. Interfacing with something so small requires you to use tools operating at that level. Needless to say that any macroscopic ontraption could never be precise enough.
All these people playing around with macroscopic objects will never ever be able to magically tap energy out of thin air. It is just not how our univers happens to work.
So unless someone opens a 52th dimentional portal to c'thuluville they just cant be talking about really getting free energy and i'm not taking it serously.

Not by themselfs, no.

I would bet $6,000,000,000 USD and the life of the betters that free energy is not possible. The energy always has to come from somewhere.

And sorry, it can't come from a magnet. I don't know where some of the guys here got the idea that you can get energy out of a magnet by slowly demagnetizing it, but that's simply not true. A magnet is just molecules lined up in a specific way. You can't get energy out of that any more than you get energy out of a crystal or from just lining up magnets on the floor top all face the same direction.

We figured out how to make a monopole magnet using superconductors back in early 2000's. It still requires a lot of energy to work.

Perhaps the cosmos its self is a perpetual motion devise?

Can't really argue, there... though it may be possible to tap power from the Earth's magnetic field, or something like that, not "free' or "perpetual" energy, just generated in unconventional means. Thus, it pays to examine the ciaims.


Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

I think those are synthetically defined by their surrounding.
So while no one thing/particle can posses a monopole you can create a situation where the environment forces one out of thin air by defining it's inverse. It's all relative, you see...

You can't get energy out of a magnet. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a small permanent magnet, or a planet sized magnet. I know they are weird and mysterious, being able to attract things without anything visible, but magnets are just springs that work on a different level. You can pull apart a spring and have it snap back together, just like a magnet, but you can't get energy out of just the spring any more than you can out of just a magnet. Any "energy" you may see out of it is the energy that was applied to it earlier (pulling it apart) that is being released.
I don't know how to put it any other way, other than magnets don't have any energy in them to give.

Out of a magnet, no. Out of movement in a magnetic field, or the movement of a magnetic field, yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether

Magnets are not springs because a moving spring will not induce a current in a wire.

<thinking cap><looking serious>Now let's say we can strap a coil to the moon <brief pause>,</brief pause> how much energy could we tap out of it before it crashes into the earth?  </looking serious></thinking cap>

If you move a wire (tether) through a magnetic field it will resist the movement making it lose momentum.
If you created, say, a spaceship that extracts electrical energy in this way you would have to compensate for the loss of speed with other fuel (or even the same). Net result is you at least lost some heat. So in the end you will not be able to get usefull extra work out of such a system.

i think you may be conflating the cosmos with the universe. It may be the case that the universe is the cosmos but it may also be the case that the cosmos is greater in scope than the universe. If it is the case that the cosmos is greater in scope than the universe than it still stands that the cosmos its self may be a perpetual motion devise because entropy may be a property specific to certain universes and not the cosmos its self.

If you could make legitimate free energy (which you can't, because physics), you wouldn't be on YouTube posting shitty videos, you would be rubbing elbows with the worlds leaders because you just solved one of humanities greatest problems (sustainability).

I know... Check the rest of the quote, that Rassah left out:

Where can i find the definition of the difference between the word universe and cosmos?
In my definition they mean the same thing.
The universe includes the known univere so it is already defined as bigger than we can ever hope to see.

Free energy DOES exist. Just build a stirling engine out of scrap parts and stick in on your back yard. It'll run most of the day when there's a temperature difference between ground and air. Big enough stirlingengine with heat pumps to bring in heat from larger area and tada, you can power your mining rigs from the thermal energy of your lawn.

Perpetual motion however, is against the laws of nature. Laws of physics may change, laws of nature do not. :)

:) but you would not be generating, you would be using more energy to sustain your trajectory than you would 'generate' so effectively you would be only using energy, not generating it.
The satelite that uses it uses it as a kind of throttle. If it goes too fast it can use it to slow down and if it goes too slow it can use it to speed up. But it is not for generating electricity. It is to keep a specific balance. If they used it just to create electricity the drag would crash the satelite. So this device cannot be used to generate electricity. It's an energy converter, just like any motor and so you need to supply it with fuel.
Now i have to ask, making energy with fuel..   ::)  ;D

I know, I'm just trying to dumb it down for the people as much as possible. A magnet to inducing a current in a wire (attaching to and pulling electrons) is as a spring attaching to some crap with one end and dragging it along when you pull on the other. I guess I could call a magnet just a fastener.

And how much work can you do with this heat difference between ground and air?

..you missed my obvious evil genius joke following it...
 :'(

You tell that to the universe with the accelerating expansion (that's our universe)....

Is this a challenge or question out of curiosity? Stirling engines efficiency depends on the temperature difference and power output depends on it's physical size. Maths available in wikipedia.

Since only unconfirmed theories exist in this area I'd very much like to propose my own theory... Buuut we would get nowhere with it since it's too unfinished and not in every way agreeing with prevalent physics :)

http://www.hayesequipment.com/images/eg5000-large.jpg

Yes, that's called "generating."

:) It's a challenge as i predict that the work you can do with this temperature difference is small compared to the heat exchangers that are needed and any large scale application of this technology would fail.

No, those are actual observations.
So unless you don't think that light is limited to the speed of light there is no other way to explain the observable universe.
And it's current prevalent physics that are wrong, not the observation of reality.
That is the nature of science. Science is right untill reality shows its wrong.

 :o  ;)

Throughout the history people have tried to build perpetual motion machines. Mechanical things are easy to imagine and build, but magnets and electricity are like magic to the do-it-yourself man... Some have build up a professional career ripping off these blue-eyed people. See Konstantin Meyl (http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_Home&page=1&sublevel=0). He does a speech and "demonstration" now and then and sells these ridiculously small Tesla coils for THOUSANDS OF EUROS. lol

Too bad Meyl ruins Nikola Tesla's reputation by marketing his own nonsense in the name of Tesla.. I hate Meyl for doing that.

I love pseudoscience!  ;D

The best one (or i suppose the funniest one) i know is from the audio world.
Hearing sound has its problems.
One of those problems is that hearing is pretty badly affected by something called confirmation bias.
It is a biological fact that our brain uses prior information when 'rendering' the sound you hear.
With rendering i mean the actual sound you precieve. In the physical world there is only vibrating air. What you experience as sound is a sensation entirely produced by your brain based on measuring and processing the air waves.
Anyhow.
The problem is that if i tell you that i will play a beautifull piece of music your brain will try to justify the music being beautifull and actively starts hunting for bits of beauty to confirm this. Subconsciously, that is. Effect is you perceive the music as more beautifull.
If i tell you that i have these magic pebbles that make the music more clear then your brain will lock onto the high frequencies and you will perceive more clarity. wooo!.
...
So some people have actually made a business out of magical audio pebbles.,., and some other stuff as well:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm)

Don't forget to check out their other 'products' and have a spare pack of pampers ready to go..

The link made me laugh :D haha stones you put around cables I can't believe it. But yea I did know about the "you hear what you want" thing. My brain actively blocks my hearing when I'm focused on something. I can completely miss a "What are you doing?" from a friend if I'm too focused doing something. It's like I have a 5 second hearing buffer. I can miss a question when it's asked but remember it after 5 seconds if I change focus to the person asking. Funny.

I've held a stirling engine that rotates only from the hands heat. It's quite impressive. Lets imagine a situation:

You have a rather constant temperature of ~4 degrees C at the bottom of a lake and a big bunch of evacuated tube solar collectors on your roof giving you ~55C. From this you get a ~50C temperature difference, allowing a theoretic efficiency of 1-277/327=0.152 => 15.3%. A well constructed stirling engine can do about 10% in this particular case. Sounds little, but there's a lot of heat to be transferred (tens of kilowatts). The concept is not flawed.

Because it's impractical to connect stirling engine directly to the bottom of a lake we need a heat pump there as well (Solar collectors have their own heat exchanger thingy already). This lake-source heat pump would work at COP 6, warming the water and cooling the exchanger at stirling engine to -30C. The temperature difference is now 85C this means theoretical efficiency of 1-243/320=0.24 => 24%. Again a stirling engine is likely to do 16%. The efficiency is higher now, making up for the energy dissipated while operating the heat pump. Again, there's nothing wrong with the concept. It's just renewable energy like any other.

I'd like to build this kind of contraption some day. Stirling engine materials are cheap and they are easy to build. But to tap into the natures largest heat sources and sinks I would need heat pumps and they are expensive. :/

True!
I was thinking more from the point of sustainability.
Not everyone has a cold lake in their back yard, but even if that was true then our sociaty would be warming up lakes at a massive scale and do other thermodynamical things to our atmosphere that are propably not so good.
You could make it not work on natural temperature differences but that needs a fuel to create an artifical temperature difference.
I think that there is a big future for heat engines in miniaturisation. Things like using body heat to drive personal electronics.

Yes, but that requires very little power.
The real question is, what can you power from that?
Would this engine be strong enough to lift a weight the size of your hand when powered by the hand?
And if not, how much bigger or hotter would your hand have to be to lift this weight?
And how would that scale to industrial proportions?

..... Ruining Nikola Tesla's reputation? You know he wanted to build a death ray right? LOL!

A universe has a specific set of laws, in our universe we call these the laws of physics. Theoretically there could be other structures similar to our universe that exist outside of our universe and have laws different than the ones we are used to. Cosmos is a term we use to describe all that is.

He wanted to provide unlimited and unmetered (read: free) power to everyone. The death ray was just an offshoot of that.

I highly recommend reading Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" or for that matter anything written by Sagan.

As I said before, you can have extremely plentiful and cheap energy but from what I know so far, never free, unless someone stumbles on something like magic.

I really want to ridicule the OP for posting about perpetual motion but considering that I'm posting rooster / cock pictures can I really take the moral high ground here?

Perhaps we are just looking at the problem all wrong. Science has a way of doing that. Energy may not be the scarcity we think it is. We just need more raw science.

Aah, then i think your definition of the word 'Universe' is not wide enough.

We know that we cannot see (even in theory) the whole universe so we can only speculate about how our local laws of physics behave there. We know that a lot of the laws hold in the Observable Universe but we also know that that is not the whole Universe.
So in fact we cannot know if every part of the whole universe acts according to laws of physics.
Structures outside of the 'universe' are still considered to be part of the universe. You just have to consider a bigger, more complete universe. The universe used to be our earth with a sphere of lights around it. Now we know th universe is so big we only can see a small part of it.
Some theories have use new words like multiverse to avoid confusion but ultimately everything is part of the universe, or indeed, the cosmos.

I propose 'free' is a relative word...

But Captain, we're already pumping over one YottaPlancks into the stratum! The engines just can't take that amount of science! They're gonna blow!

i see what you are saying but its not just me. There are many "multiple universe theories" that are held by reputable scientists. Where as with the word cosmos by definition there can not be more than one of them. You say that i am using the word universe too narrowly but i think you are using the word universe when you in fact mean to use the word cosmos.

Casimir forces, anyone? (Never mind the "currently impractical" or "improbable" or "lowest energy point" naysayers) ;)

Yes, that is why we invented the word multiverse.
Can you show where i can find the word cosmos defined broader than the word universe?
Where have you encountered this distinction?

In fact, the wiki pages are quite the opposite.
Cosmos is defined much more as the observable universe, so the part where laws of gravity apply etc while unviverse (and the extended multiverse) is considered as the more abstract supercontainer of everything.
So now i'm confused...

Our brains work a bit like computers, in that they have short term memory, like RAM that stores about 7 seconds of mmemory, and long term memory, like a computer hard drive. Everything you experience gets recorded into your short term memory, and your brain selectively records stuff out of it into your long term. So, if you catch yourself fast enough, you can recall what you just heard even if you weren't actively listening to it.
I use it to count the number of coo-coos our clock makes to tell time, after it already chimed (as in, it starts going, half way through I realize it's coo.cooing, and after it stops I go back and count how many I heard, despite not noticing or counting them right away).

You mean a microwave generating magnetron? Yeah, we already built one. His death ray is now practically in every kitchen in America  ;D

I don't think that's yer actual normal short term memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory)
It's a separate bit of specialized memory (operates in the very short time domain).
Then after you become conscious of the sound it is stored in the usual short term memory as an experience from where it can pass to long term.
Normal short term memory operated on a range of about 5 minutes or so.,
Cool stuff alltogether. :)

Same problem as producing energy from gravity or magnetic fields. Say you've got two plates attracted to each other by the Casimir force. They will move towards each other and you can extract energy from that movement (theoretically, at least). But they can only move a limited distance and then they stop producing energy, and the Casimir force will cause the plates to resist being moved back into their original position. Overcoming this force requires that you expend at least as much energy as you just produced. No free lunch there.

What about this website?

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk

Anyway, could someone please explain me because this isn't "free energy"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs

I can assure you none of the devices in that website give out more energy than is put in. Apart from the mechanical drawings, there appear to be mostly just oscillators and step-up transformers. Nothing special.

The video shows typical magnet behavior. Fascinating, but not breaking any laws of thermodynamics. Search youtube for "v gate" experiments and you will see that when a full circle of magnets is constructed in this manner, the magnet put in the rail will always stop at the point it started moving.

EDIT: Not sure if you were just trolling nevermind  ;)

Stirling engine in your back yard is the last thing you should worry about. They are only moving existing energy from one point to another, speeding up a natural process. Constantly changing weather provides us with temperature differences. In the winter, the stirling engine would turn the other way, lake being 4C and air being -20C.

Since wind is a result of temperature differences on earth, we are already exploiting this particular energy source by means of wind turbines and wave power. It comes from the sun, and is therefor "renewable". If you are worried about atmosphere or temperature rising in anything, point your finger at the nucler power plants and fossil fuel burning stations. They are both turning enormous amounts of previously hidden energy into heat. Along the years that's hundreds of TWh of "new" thermal energy released into the atmosphere. A stirling engine does not introduce "new" heat, only moves the existing around. :)


Yes.
No.
Tesla's "Death Ray" was not a magnetron. It was a particle projection device. His idea was to have a tesla turbine operated tower (similar to van de graaff generator but more powerful), able to sustain hundreds of millions of volts static charge. Picture below:
https://i.imgur.com/7LcoT.jpg
This static charge could then be used to accelerate small particles of mercury to speeds of >600 000Km/h. The whole thing would take less than 25Kw to operate, since the stream of particles is very small. (yet, very deadly). He had this apparatus drawn as well. A vacuum tube open to atmosphere. Makes no sense? Take a look:
https://i.imgur.com/fLRTr.gif
It's quite genius. Pressurized air was used to create a vacuum inside the projector. I can't see a flaw in this concept either.

Unlimited? No. His idea was to exploit the atmospheric heat differences. Very much like the idea I've proposed here, except he had it much better. Tesla wanted to use sun collector like vacuum tubes on earth and a turbine instead of a stirling motor. Something much more efficient than a bunch of heat pumps and a stirling engine, but also much more complex.
https://i.imgur.com/EtDebl.gif
Unmetered? Yes. Because Tesla towers he designed would transmit energy through the earth. Anybody can construct a receiver and plug it in the ground. There is no way to know who spends the energy transmitted.

Don't ridicule him. :) He was just born a few decades too early.

No, i wasn't trolling. I was sure of the answer, but now i know why, so thank you.

This is the simplest and clearest explanation I've seen so far. It also helps us understand what a "free energy" device would really entail. It would entail a source of power that was unlimited in comparison to our lives/the lifespan of the earth. Such as solar power. The sun will die, in billions of years, but we don't have to worry about that now.

I like physics so I'd like to ramble about this a bit.

There is another kind of "free energy" which is not free energy but comes from a self-sustaining exothermic reaction. This means the process tends to be explosive (produces more energy than the process of 'combustion' requires). Burning fossil fuels is (iirc) a chemical reaction of this type, and beyond that we have nuclear power. Such kinds of "free energy" are extremely dangerous. So take a look at any such perpetual energy machine and ask yourself a simple question: is it's source of power dangerously explosive? If not, then it uses an endothermic reaction and is not a free energy device (the machine itself is a load). This is why batteries heat up with no load; the batteries themselves are a load. I call it the battery principle. If it heats up or has any kind of friction or noise or light it's not a perpetual machine. If it's explosive it may be free energy but it's not perpetual either (it's just explosive and therefore can be made self-sustaining given enough fuel).

The holy grail of renewable/unlimited energy would probably be about drawing out some kind of strength from a large deep-ocean of energy like background radiation, cosmic rays, the curvature of space, etc. But it would not be a source of "perpetual energy". The reason is because in the conversion of energy from one form to another (such as, say, combustion) some energy is lost from the process (for example as heat or light or pressure) and this energy cannot be repaired into the original source of energy. That's why even recycling energy back into the original source doesn't ever work, because as soon as you try to use the energy the load you place on the original energy source is converted into heat via friction (or some other thing like light).

This lends itself to a simple trick in evaluating perpetual energy machines. All such machines must do work. For example to power a drive a belt that runs a car. The load placed on this machine must cause it to "work harder" in some regard. This will cause the machine to generate more heat via friction. Identify this source of heat/friction and you will have discovered why the machine is not a perpetual energy device. Like the battery principle, above. The machine itself which converts the energy is itself a load. Even chemical/nuclear reactions are themselves a sort of machine -- the only interesting principle being whether they are endothermic or exothermic.

If you want to do your best to design a free energy machine I think you are going to want to look at gravity (the curvature of space). We enter the realm of deep-end physics here. The problem with gravity is that it pulls mass, and there's no way to make it pull mass less on the way up than on the way down. So any kind of physical machine which relies merely on the force of gravity will never work. You would want to derive some sort of energy from the pressure it exerts on stationary objects. I can't remember where I read so but I think this is actually impossible. I.E. getting energy from a system that is at rest. I'm thinking quartz crystals here but quartz crystals require a change in pressure to generate electricity.

If you're interested in theoretical physics I can recommend "The Black Hole War" by Susskind. It's a pretty cool book that discusses some key points regarding gravity and mass as information. I'd also recommend the Feynman lectures on physics. His explanation of how to determine how many dimensions we live in is a classic and will help you understand gravity (the curvature of space) a lot more. But I doubt we will be designing any kind of perpetual motion device any time soon.

Oh godamnit. Let me say it again, using the words of the simple sentence you quoted:

Perpetual motion devices using magnets are not perpetual because MAGNETS ARE NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY

Neither is gravity. Background radiation might be, but there is so little energy in that radiation that it would take an ENORMOUS collector to collect any useful amount of it. In all your examples, it's not a question of "how do we tap it," it's "how much energy is actually in it?" And all your endo/exo-thermic examples are not "free" energy, they are engines that take in energy and covert it into another energy, whether solar to motion, or explosions to heat. This whole think with perpetual motions is actually really quite simple: that energy can not be created or destroyed is a law, and anything that uses energy only converts it into some other form of energy. No other options or "but's." You just can't have something that is moving perpetually. Even in the vacuum of space, not connected to anything, just the fact that you are able to look at it moving around means that light is exerting a force on it and is causing it to slow down. And you can't have something that is generating energy from nothing. It ALWAYS has to come from somewhere.
So our ONLY options are cheap energy generators that convert energy from something else (solar power, chemical reactions, etc), or... nothing. That's pretty much it. If anyone claims they have created a perpetual motion machine or a source of free energy, just ask him where that energy comes from. If he says "magnets," or some other fancy physics gobledegook, he's an idiot.

At least roosters and cocks actually exist.

Except for those stupid electrons that keep on spinning around the nucleus. :)
The thing is that on our macro scale stuff has friction and that is a form of energy conversion. Moreover, macro-scale systems are extremely leaky and have to be designed specifically to conserve energy.
On the nano scale things are completely different and you can have frictionless movement which results in perpetual motion in most atoms we know.
As long as you can perfectly isolate a certain energy loop in a system you can have your perpetual motion machine. But measuring it would be a problem because you would be interacting with the system and messing with its energies.
And that is the difference between free energy and perpetual motion.
Perpetual motion is not about generating energy but about containing energy.
Free energy is an 'infinite' energy potential that we can safely tap at large enough bandwidths.

Except they don't "spin." They actually exist in a "shell" around the nucleus, with more energetic electrons existing in higher energy levels, higher "shells." They actually move around pretty randomly in that shell.

You only have a chance to find an electron in any given place which means the charge always moves.
The charge oscillates around the nucleus untill energy is injected or extracted.
This oscillation is perpetual motion.
 

Think about how you determine where an electron is (or rather, was), and you might understand where energy is coming from in that system.

[Alt-science warning]
Nobody can know what exactly atoms are. We only have theories and a bunch of statistics. I do not think the electrons are spinning around nucleus like pictured in countless text books. I think the entire atom is rolling around it's axis, or better, is itself just a whirl, with it's center rolling fast and the outer parts moving slower (just like our solar system). The speed of the whirl depends on temperature, at absolute zero all motion ceases and and matter decays back to background of space. Opinions welcome ;)

Learn what epistemology is so that you can understand the difference between science and just making up a story.

You measure its momentum so the energy was in movement.

How do you measure the momentum? With what instrument?

I dunno actually.,
But due to uncertainty principal you propably would have to attack it from multiple angles.

The important thing to understand, tho, is that a stable atom will not change it's energy level unless it is interacted with.
This despite being a dynamic entity.

It's also important to understand that it's constantly being interacted with. Just because it's not being observed does not mean that photons (or other particles) aren't hitting it.

interesting thread here but lots of misconceptions

magnets work because unmatched electron spins within the material are all lined up in the same direction. this can be stable if unperturbed, but any attempt to extract "work" or "useful energy" out of them results in those spins becoming less aligned, and the magnet eventually wearing out. in a sense, this is like the magnet acting as a battery.

similarly, with atoms and electrons. electrons orbit their nuclei, and do have momentum, but that momentum is inherent to the specific type of atom, and the current state of the electron. quantum mechanics says that electrons can only occupy certain quantized momentum "states", meaning the momentum can only have discrete values in the atom. by interacting with individual photons, electrons can interact with their environment. for example, an electron in a high-energy state can fall to a lower state, and release energy, but would have had to be excited in the first place (which required energy). if an electron is not excited, it can't release any more energy, even though it does have (angular) momentum. also, to release energy, an unoccupied, lower-energy state must be available for the electron to "fall" into. for this reason, electrons in the lowest, or "ground" state can't release any energy!

stirling engines work by exploiting a temperature difference between two thermally insulated reservoirs. a great example of this is geothermal energy (see Iceland). the hot reservoir is the hot magma, which functions as a source of energy, since the heat tends to flow towards a cold reservoir. in theory this is a great energy source, but the act of extracting it eventually will cool down the core of the planet (but this would take millennia to even be measurable.)

so yes, large temperature differences are a great source of energy, but it is still much easier to create a temperature difference by burning things or fissioning nuclei than by drilling gigantic 10-mile deep holes into the ground.

That is in fact exactly what it means.
Quantum mechanical observation is nothing more than interaction.
But an atom has multiple energy loops/resonances and you can observe one while using another to get a grip on the atom.
Whether something is an observer depends on whether it has interacted with part of the system.
So random photons falling on it makes that system observed by the photons and they now carry information about the system.
But as i said you can isolate a system from that.

You can bombard atoms with masses and the electrons will absorb part of the momentum of the masses and jump up, then drop down and release the energy as a photon. So electrons interact with momentum not just with photons. Photons are maybe an easier way of interacting but they are not the only way of interacting.


Iceland is a nice example as lava gives a big temperature difference. But it is technology that can only easily be exploited in certain parts of the world. It is by no means a universally available source of energy.
Btw, arent they totally into steam in Iceland? I heared they pump water into these hot places and leverage the phase transition of the water.

Anyway, what was proposed was a stirling engine that is practical and uses only the temperature difference between a lake and air. I say the surface you need to pump through enough usable energy would render it unusable for most applications.
Furthermore this would work mostly on the energy stored in the outmost layer of the earth. It's nothing compared to the volume of energy sitting inside our earth.
So my guess is if we used this surface potential that pretty soon the sun will not keep up with warming the surface enough to make a difference.

Ahh, the beauty of the English language. Either that, or you're up to your old tricks (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity) again...

Switching from talking about measurement to "Quantum mechanical observation" is slippery at best, and intentional trickery at worst. As previously stated, an electron in it's orbit is in a balance of forces, and calling it perpetual motion would be like calling a planetary orbit perpetual.

Here's my lame quote of a reply:
I'm not in disagreement with any observervations. Experimets are the best part of science. :) My only intention with storymaking is to understand the observed results.

For example. Everybody knows wave-particle duality, that particles have both wave and particle properties, but nobody knows why? Making up a story based on the observed results to explain the behavior is Science. ;)

Propably you havent stomached the realities at the quantum level yet.
In the quantum world observation equals interaction.
An electron doesn't actually orbit, it spreads over a cloud of propability.
Furthermore, because we are on the quantum level, the atom will only absorb or expel certain quantities of energy. It cannot lose energy in a constant way like a planet in orbit can. That is why it is so special.
A planet in orbit IS in a way a perpetual motion machine.
It is just not perfect as it will radiate away its own energy.
And an atom system is much more perfect in this way as the quantization of the fabric of the universe throws up energy thresholds that give a system local stability.

The problem is that there are no macroscopic things that can behave in this way.
So there are no stories to be told from our prespective that can prepare you for the mind bendings that go on on the quantum level.

This is a common, but incorrect, description of science. Whether your stories are about atoms or are about leprechauns, telling stories isn't science.

Presenting repeatable process for logically deriving conclusions from empirical measurements is science.

No. Saying that is the easiest and dumbest way to bring down a curious mind. Is physical cosmology not science? With all the problematic theories about the early universe.. a bunch of irrelevant unscientific stories?

Telling stories is just making up hypotheses. Anyone can make tons of those, and they are entirely useless. Just stories. It only becomes science when you actually start to test them.

EDIT: And yes, you can test the theories behind physical cosmology, which makes them not stories.
We also have "microscopes" that can see individual atoms, so those aren't just guesswork, either.

Thank you. That is what I was trying to say. Now we can stop calling it perpetual motion.

Would it be fair to say that orbiting planets and electrons are just stores of energy (kinetic, atomic, etc), like a battery or a spinning gyro, and not perpetual motion machines?

Yes and no.
A perfect store of energy IS a perpetual motion machine.
All mechanism that store energy are motion machines.
Wether they are to be considered 'perpetual' is a relative case.
The practical definition of a perpetual motion machine is a machine that doesn't need an external power source to operate for an indefinite ammount of time.

If I were to build a machine so efficient that the heat death of the universe would occur before it spun down of it's own accord, would that be a perpetual motion machine?

Agreed.

Why would someone explain to a child that money is just something to buy TVs and candy, as opposed to explaining what it is, how it came about, and who is in control of it now? I think dumbing down things for kids is part of  the reason for all our problems today :(

I'm pretty sure that's exactly to plan.

No, I think we should explain to them as much as we already know, and if they have more questions, explain those as well, as opposed to oversimplifying because "they're just kids, so they wouldn't get it anyway." That's what my parents did, anyway (explain everything in as much detail as possible I mean). I still remember the lecture while walking with mom to the metro station on the properties of light, it's multiple wave frequencies, how they reflect at different angles when sent through prisms, and how prisms could be made of glass or water, and clouds are essentially a collection of millions of little prisms, when my 5 year old self asked, "Mom, where do rainbows come from?"
The idea, or hope, is that you can give your kids as much of your own knowledge as possible, so that they can start from where you are at and continue expanding their knowledge beyond that, instead of dumbing things down for them, and hope they get to your level when they have "grown up."

But if you don't dumb things down for them, they won't be good little slaves when they grow up!

To get back OT:

I can't believe the number of of posters who actually bothered to watch the vids before posting. I haven't, and won't be wasting my time.

Perpetual motion machines are impossible. There's no video evidence I'll accept without an accompanying re-examination of the laws of thermodynamics (for laughs).

I don't think free energy is impossible. Our experimental and mathematical modelling requires closed systems by definition, but in reality nothing exists in a closed system. The standard model doesn't hold up at the edges of our observational capabilities, especially when we use vast amounts of computational data to see new and unexplainable relationships. We have plenty of energy here and now for any conceivable purpose, but when it comes time to conquer the Universe, I'm sure we'll discover how to utilize Planck energy. It still may not be free, but there is evidence of power beyond our current understanding.

Um, the only "radioactive" way to use hydrogen is to fuse it. Hydrogen is the lowest level element (1 proton, 1 electron), so any energy from it would have to be either from nuclear fusion, or burning it with oxygen. Only the fusion is radioactive. Did he actually figure out how to make a fusion reactor? If he did, he's ahead of every other scientist on the planet... Warning: Bullshit detected.


Oh, plasma! OK. Except "plasma" is just a fancy word for "fire," so I guess his reactor just burns hydrogen. Why the hell is that radioactive? Bullshit alert level rising.


What country? Is it in the Americas or Europe? What government office? What scientists? What university? Was it a diploma mill? Were the scientists even in the same field of research? Why so vague??? Bullshit levels critical!

Keshe bottle plasma energy = dude just created a very basic acid battery, no different from a potato or lemon school science fair battery. Contrary to his claims, we understand where electromagnetism and gravity come from really well.

Not quite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium


Plasma is a shit-ton more energetic than simple fire. The electrons are actually stripped from the nucleus. Not in itself radioactive, but a tritium-fueled Plasma reactor would be doable... if difficult to fuel. Not to mention shield.


100% agreed here, the lack of details makes it smell like urban legend.

Fire, the actual yellow or blue flame you see IS plasma. Just as different materials turn to solids, liquids, and gasses at different temperatures, they turn to plasma at different temperatures as well. Nor does it have to be particularly hot, as n neon lights are technically plasma too.

Getting a patent doesn't prove anything scientific. If they had been published in IEEE, that would've meant something.

Sure, I can read their claims and news, or I can just read the following

And laugh at them and their believers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXT7DNKnL8s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXT7DNKnL8s)
"Klaatu... verata... n... Necktie. Nectar. Nickel. Noodle."" - Ash

+1 what cbeast said

Good point. But if I understand what the guy is doing, He's basically making a tritium neon light, and then using that as the core of the reactor. After a little more research, I found that shielding wouldn't be a problem, as the decay is beta particles, which could be blocked by paper shielding. (or just left unshielded, it's blocked by skin)

I still say LFTR would be more economical.

Pure energy systems websites are filled with pseudoscience. Linking to their wiki is not good evidence.

Yeah, that's not how inventors and scientists work. They come up with ideas on how to create motors and energy generators using actual real physics, discovered and tested by others before them, then they build their machines with very specific expectations, and then they test to see if their ideas and hypotheses were correct.

They don't just slap some magnets and "scientific" stuff together, test what it does, and try to come up with "explanations" afterwards. Crackpots do that. Besides, if these guys build something, test it, and their tests show that it's putting out more energy than it's taking in, the correct conclusion isn't "free energy" or "over-unity," it's " your testing equipment is broken."

It's also something these guys do: http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Sons_of_Ether ;)

This does happen sometimes. It happened to me last year (without magnets, tho :P) when I built two tesla coils and found out that wireless (via ground) energy transfer between the two is many times more efficient than radiative energy transfer. Internet is filled with crackpot explanations to that and I wasted half a year of my life just to figure it out. Stupidest thing being that without these crackpot explanations making a mess out of a simple phenomenon I probably would have figured it out myself very fast.

There's also one thing I've found out by experiment that I haven't found an explanantion to. An U shape steel core electromagnet and a steel bar connected to it, activated with a high current pulse. The steel bar attached at the point of activation stays strongly attached even after the short pulse if over and power source disconnected. If forced apart they will no longer attach. Nothing significant, just interesting :)

And back to the topic: Telluric currents are also a possible source of free energy for a few light bulbs. ;)

Yeah, I believe I read about that in an issue of Paradigma.


Just in case it's not clear (we might not all be White Wolf fans):  ::)

I don't get it sry. (I'm not a netive english speaker)

This link should help:
http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Sons_of_Ether

Ah, right. :D I see.

The universe itself may be a perpetual motion device. I don't have the blueprints here right now but a very unreliable source reassured me that creating another one from within may cause the collapse of the original.

Yildiz magnet motor is also a hoax. He had another motor back in 2010 that turned out to not work, AND he was convicted of scamming investors. It really doesn't matter how he arranges the magnets in his "magnet motor." As I keep saying, magnets are not a source of energy.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/argument.png (http://xkcd.com/1166/)

^^ Yeah, that was so timely :)

Bullshit. It's all bullshit.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/free-energy-project--2

Funny how it's the "stop pollution" guys who promote this crap. If energy was free, people all over the world would carelessly run their inefficient devices producing ridiculous amounts of heat. Oh yeah, save the world by burning it.

okay?? So you make a provocative post to initiate a lecture about wind power or something?

Don't get me wrong. I'm probably going to build a reverse heat pump complex in my back yard one day, I'm just sick of these uneducated people who dig up a Tesla's patent from hundred years ago and think they can somehow break the very laws of nature.

There's really only one thing that prevents our conversion to "free" renewable energy: money. That "free" energy is actually a hell of a lot more expensive than oil, so we'll keep burning oil until either renewable becomes cheaper, or we stop subsidizing the oil infrastructure.

Methinks an independent power "grid" would be an interesting experience. As in, a bunch of small personal (renewable?) power stations around the world, carefully synced through the earth.

This would remove the need for big power plants, when peaks (day/night) are compensated by all the partakers in the system.

Nothing you mention there is "free energy". Renewable is not "free".

I agree that renewable sources are infinitely preferable to CO2 based sources, but calling them "free energy" just makes me think that you somehow consider them magical, like a magic perpetual motion machine. They're not, and they do have the cost of upkeep.

If i follow your philosophy right, oil should be free energy too? Where does the line go?

by free energy we mean no fuel/ raw materials are burned up to produce it

by some ways we could then argue none will be free since it requires the construction of a device to gain and retain said energy, like a solar panel

so then we have to make a more complicated definition that free energy is one that uses up no fuel and is more cost effective to create the device to utilize it than solar power is

energy is never produced. Fuel / raw materials contain chemical energy, which is then transferred into heat (and further into electricity)

nit picky ass

Sorry. In this particular thread it felt rather important to point that out ;)

Rather depends on your definition of "production", doesn't it? Cars produce greenhouse gases, but they don't create the constituent elements.  I argue 420 meant something similar.

Ok.

Ok then.

Sooooo ... anyone have any magic energy for me?

You can learn my secret for only 0.25 BTC.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Hmmm. Is it a magic secret or a mundane secret?

It's scientific, but it's a method of using magnets that the energy lobby doesn't want you to hear!

 ::)

Magnets store energy.  When they demagnetize, the energy is released.  So it is like a battery, but it is neither free nor is it perpetual.

Some friends had a 10 or 12T superconducting magnet and it quenched.  All the stored energy was released, quickly.  For a long time, if there was a loud sound they would drop to the floor.

I'm sure many of you have the same perpetual motion device that I have. I've had mine for 22 years. All I have to do to start it is tell it how much I hate its mother and it bitches indefinitely. It's almost impossible to turn off once started. If I'm tired of hearing its motor run I have to leave the house.

Right, roll your eyes at me. You've been indoctrinated! Or, you are afraid of the truth. I've been living off of my magnetic engine for years.

I found your so-called secret in this book right here:

http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1271753858365652.jpeg

This tread is about joke technology. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion device! There are machines of extreme efficiency but no manfacured device can operate perpetually without interference. Even a waterfall will eventually run dry or be naturally diverted to a different to a new location.

How about God? AFAICT He's a perpetual motion device. Are you telling me He cant exist?

Wow, look at how indoctrinated this guy is! "No such thing" that's what they said about atoms!

Trust me, I have unverifiable testimonials from millions if not hundreds of satisfied customers!

+1 million billion

I imagine I know way more about magnets and electricity than you do, since it's my job to. I also know quite a bit about things people think were impossible, which turn out to be true thanks to some new ways of mechanical interactions. But energy is energy. It doesn't really matter where it comes from or what it's generated by. The rules governing it never change.

So, what powers your magnetic engine?

Ok, that's fantasy technology but perpetual fantasy. lol

Everything has a usable life. Nothing (even the sun) can operate forever.

They're just feeding you government crap!!!!!!11

Your personal belief conflicts with the evidence provided by my machine.

You can find that out for 0.25 BTC.

My machine will outlast the sun by a factor of 10. Or it would, if it wasn't near the sun.

Just wondering how long you think you'll be able to keep this up? At least you don't have to worry about keeping a straight face :)

I don't know. I started to fear that people were taking me seriously (?!), so I was planning on making it more and more ridiculous before shunning the nonbelievers and making a grand exit.

Now, though, I guess my work here is done.

You fucker! LMFAO

Incidentally, I ordered four N52 12cm x 2cm x 1.5cm magnets, which should be arriving shortly, and have all the wiring and rods needed for my 2 meter long rail gun. Just need to put it together. Should be fun!  ;D

railguns don't involve magnets, do they? ???

Crap! I guess I ruined everything. I should've pm'ed you. I was actually expecting something along the lines of "Keep this up? What do you mean? And why would "keeping a straight" face be difficult? You lot are all alike - blinded by your devotion to science, etc."



I thought they involved electomagnets.

lol... show of hands, how many people actually thought I was a free energy nut?

you had quite a clear sarcastic tone in your posts. I don't think you fooled many.  ;D

The wiring and rods will make the electromagnet rail. The permanent neodymium N52 (EXTREMELY powerful) magnets will attract to the wave traveling down those rods, one on each side with the electromagnetic flux going between them. I'm not going to let them shoot out, though, since the 4 of them were about $200. This is just for a demo to sell to some companies. Theoretically, though, I should be able to send them through a wall easily enough.


I thought you were. But then, I deal with those nuts often enough in my real life, so...

I did! Kind of wondered how you could be preaching that crap. lol

I can't imagine any way to interpret the monopole video that isn't problematic.  Did any of you actually watch it, especially those who have had a NiFeB magnet?

if you're serious, please repost a link. I always like to comment. :)

interesting. (and cool :D)

It was in the OP.

yeah, that one. It's called a homopolar motor and it's powered by a battery inside the piece of wood.

EDIT: wait i'm not sure it's a homopolar motor. But a motor anyhow.
EDIT2: nevermind the edit, it's a homopolar motor

I'm trying to decide if it is fraud, or farce.
The standard view is that no monopole magnets exist, though very serious and capable investigators are searching for them.
The presentation in the film fails to present monopoles in any light that is credible.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwrel&v=izvitxGgZiQ

There's a complete description of the device. It does not involve monopole magnet.

Monopole magnets exist (the discovery was presented at the Global MAGLEV Conference in 2000 in Lausanne, Switzerland), but they are only possible in superconducting type environments, needing a ton of energy input. Regardless, you wouldn't be able to get a piece of wire to spin with a monopole magnet, since that wire would just be attracted to such a magnet the same way it would be attracted to one of the poles of any normal magnet.
What's happening in the video is the nails are hooked up to a battery hidden in the wooden block, and the ends of the wire insulation are scraped off on one side, so the wire coil becomes a magnet when the scraped side is down, and stops being a magnet when the scraped side is up. Once you get the coil spinning, it periodically turns into a magnet, pulling one end of it (actually just orienting itself) towards the magnet, then it turns off, using inertia to continue spinning until it turns on again, pulling itself once more. A fairly basic motor.

I just leave that here


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/StonerWohlfarthMainLoop.svg/500px-StonerWohlfarthMainLoop.svg.png

Um, can you provide some context/explain how this is relevant?

I strongly suspect that the majority of perpetual motion "inventors" were annoyed by the explanation of magnetic hysteresis in high school.
Essentially that is the juggalo meme in a graph.

Cool.  I guess I'm 13 years behind in my reading...

Perpetual energy in the sense of perpetual motion seems less than ideal to me.  Why not utilize the energy of empty space?  Free energy baby :D 

please continue

I made a device following Geim et al in Nature, 2000, nicknamed "the diamagnetic levitator."

I used a Radio Shack NiFeB, some custom made 0.5" x perhaps 3/16" Bismuth disks of which I still have perhaps 5,000, and a low energy ceramic "Kitchen Magnet" all in very carefully aligned initial geometry.

Is there any chance you have the software to do a mesh analysis of the magnetic field and potential energy vs displacement of the system?
In addition, I would like to have an analysis with a bismuth torus about 1mm tube, ideal cross section, large enough to clear the NiFeB magnet, at at the height where gravity and magnetic life nominally cancel.
Such software was far, far outside my budget in 2000.

I guess I need to take my "!!!!!11" and make it "!!!!!11one" ;)

I have access to such software, but don't actually own it :(

Does that mean "work justified access" only?  :-\
But wait, professional development is always ok, right?

According to the disclosure project, the aliens (:o) use a "free energy" device that does just this.  You know how in a quantum vacuum state there is still energy present?  Heisenberg had a lot to say about this.  Here's the wiki with more info on vacuum energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy).  Now I understand that the disclosure project has a scientific importance roughly equivalent to the town drunk, but it's still a neat idea to consider.  No fuel required.  You're using the energy inherent to the universe.  There's something beautiful about that.  

ah, I see. 8) I'm into this aether theory actually, that there's an all space filling medium. That means no free energy ofc, but it can explain the appearing and disappearing particles :)

Aliens? Are these Mexicans, Canadians or New Zealanders?

The timing of today's XKCD is quite ironic http://www.xkcd.com/1240/

You know your way around magnetism, tell me what you think about this device:

https://www.google.com/search?q=clearwave+cw-125+review

My water is so hard that I need a chisel to clean the tub and I don't have room for a salt softener. Think it'll work?

Edit: BTW, did you ever complete that project for the maglev train? You know, the one where I asked you if we're doing your homework for you.

I don't really know much about particle ionization, sorry :(

As for that MAGLEV train. working on it. We've decided to focus on the linear motor, first, since a model of it is fairly easy and cheap to built (that's what the "rail gun" with the magnets I ordered is for), and our (my business partner and I) idea is to pitch the linear motor to roller coaster companies. We want to present it to them as an option to set up a high speed linear motor down the lengths of the entire coaster track, so roller coasters don't have to be limited by inertia from the first drop any more and can even accelerate up.

Thanks anyway. I'm going to try it only because it doesn't take up much space.

That's a cool idea and much less red tape to plow through. You're lucky that uncle left you the rights to his work. You can build on that for a lifetime career.

Grandpa. And the main issue we're dealing with is that his  level of physics and mathematics is beyond that of anyone else we can find, so it's going to be really hard to keep moving forward

Oh yeah, Grandpa. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Its nice to see some guys actually make progress and best of all its 100% open source.
Unfortunately its in German but he is running a 230 volt AC Washing machine motor of a 9 volt battery (yes its barely turning but you have to start somewhere), or charging a 40Ah car battery for half an hour with the 9 volt milliamp battery.
http://www.slimlife.eu/wordpress/2013/09/selbstlaufender-stromerzeuger-ritter-ladegeraet/ (http://www.slimlife.eu/wordpress/2013/09/selbstlaufender-stromerzeuger-ritter-ladegeraet/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK8hQX7GDDA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK8hQX7GDDA)
http://i.minus.com/jbskJ4quSiXjla.jpg
A word of warning though as the ball rotates at several thousands of RPM (yes you read right) some guys have overdone it and consequently the ball disintegrated and seriously wounding some guy. Main rotation is North to South and also alternatively spins left to right.

yay, a step up converter. I made a solid state version of one year ago. It made 9mm long sparks, terrible noise and lit up many 120cm fluorscent bulbs with a single 4.2V li-po cell.

Efficiency was very good (>90%), probably much better than the above posted circuit has.

Finally we are starting to get into the real crank territory. :D

What infuriates me is how every perpertual motion site has Nikola Tesla's face next to all the crackpot free energy researchers.

Tesla was a brilliant guy, ruining his image is the worst way to gain interest to shady websites :(

Lol, that first video is just a basic electric motor; there's just a battery inside that wooden block connected to those pins.
You can learn how to build a similar device to the one in the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elFUJNodXps

It works using the same principle that all electric motors use, which is that a magnetic field exerts a force on a current-carrying wire.

Tesla gained a lot of popularity after Red Alert 1 :P

repost of a repost etc.

Well he is said to have lost his mind in the last years. The stuff he did come up with prior to his death functions as a crank magnet. Mostly his dispute with Einstein and the rest of the community of the time. This makes him look like a role model to people who think they are up to something but have more screws loose than Tesla had at an old age.

Tesla and Einstein only had different theories on things. Neither were wrong, they just had different explanations to the same observations. Judging from his engineering abilities Tesla was nothing but clueless of how nature works. I'd like read about his theories, too bad the internets weren't around back then to capture the debates ;)

Perpetual motion is possible only if you don't try to get energy out of it.

Pulling energy from the system make it slow down and stop.

Thats another build this guys use a 1.8 amp 12 volt (flat 9.6) battery.
Its Open Source you know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1ErNfqV5fM&feature=player_embedded
@Meizirkki
Electric motors and Neon lamps are completely different worlds

no they aren't

And by the way, that washing machine motor is likely an universal motor that runs on any kind of input. You could probably power it from enough batteries without using a step up circuit.

That could well be, that is just some guys reproducing the circuit and trying different things.

Now going back to the original source the inventor Richard Ritter and his Battery charger.
He is lighting a car back-light 12v and charging a 40Ah Battery at the same time with a death 9v 200mA (5.4 volt) Battery.
His Batteries get burned out because 13.9 volt AC is feed back into them.
Remember its 100% Open source so no hidden coils or whatever.
I guess i just have to invest in a 10mm Neo-Magnet Ball and have a play myself.

Original source of all the fuss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3ZYxhLdqqw&feature=youtu.be

I believe perp motion is possible, to an extent.

This is the most complete site I know about the topic:

http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/

It's really worthy to check out, and the one that really made me think that alternative methods of energy production are indeed possible.

sort of
http://www.absurdnoize.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/drinking-bird-220626657656.jpg

Which is powered by the enthalpy between the ambient air and the water.
So not even close.

Tesla was brilliant, but like most brilliant guys, he was a bit "touched."  Towards the end of his life, he was touched more than just a bit.  I make this list of the "weirder" Tesla claims as an admirer, not to be an ass.

Tesla theorized about, planned to build, or claimed to have invented the following inventions.

-Teleforce [deathray, particle ray that would destroy armies & all the airplanes in the air.  "But it is not an experiment... I have built, demonstrated and used it. Only a little time will pass before I can give it to the world." ]
-Free Energy. [wikip claims that he meant "utilizing untapped natural sources," but the line's pretty hazy, he was describing harnessing "energies" like gravitational fields]
-Earthquake Machine: a pocket-sized device that could shake a house apart with building waves of energy. [he was obsessed with resonant circuits.]
-Force Field: a Scalar field dome made of energy that will eventually be built big enough to protect a city from attack during wars.
-Tesla's Flying Machine: cigar-shaped.  Nuff said.
-Tesla's car powered by cosmic energy -- a hoax having nothing to do with Tesla, that his loony admirers nevertheless attribute to him.  See here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla_electric_car_hoax)
-Thought Camera: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/16/Teslathoughtcamera.jpeg/300px-Teslathoughtcamera.jpeg

And tons more.  He was a great troll.  Possibly the best known pic of him, the one where he reads a newspaper as the Tesla coil is blasting mile-long sparks, is a superimposition of two negatives :)

Edit:  The list can be sort-a/mostly found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents), though wikip is really shaky on Tesla.  Some stuff pruned/some added.

I encourage you to buy the ball, and do some testing. Also, take some time to learn about how electricity and the nature work.

These circuits you're posting are very simple. If any of them were to create energy it would surely happen somewhere in the nature. Think about the consequences. Free energy theorists often talk about saving the world and endign energy wars. But what would happen if all the sudden, someonefound a way to create energy for free? The entire planet would overheat and burn because of humans wasting energy.

BS. I really need a better cite for the gravitation thing. However, Tesla did propose the utilization of geothermal energy, which today is utilized exactly the same way he theorized hundred years ago.
Here's my earlier post dealing with these two points
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=136137.msg1451263#msg1451263

I call [citation needed] on force field and thought camera. Resonator thingy and flying machine are plausible.

I'm not sure what sort of citations you expect.  I can certainly give you Wikip links, would you be happy with that?  I can point you to books like "The Fantastic Inventions of Nikola Tesla," multiple biographies, and other questionable authorities.  I can not otherwise document my claims without doing some serious poring through the stacks & a healthy dose of luck.  If Tesla was not granted a patent for a particular "invention," what would you accept as "documentation"? 
If you *are* happy with wikipedia as a source, everything i have mentioned could be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents :)

Finally, i hope you have read my post in its entirety.  I'm not trying to make Tesla out to be a loon. He's someone i admire.

yes, I did. I wasn't challenging you, only questioning your cite. :)

Tesla has indeed been a crack magnet, for much much longer than the internet has existed. Many old books get things wrong about him too, some which wikipedia use as citations. The only sources I consider very reliable are interviews and patents, plus other documents where Tesla himself has had the chance to state things by himself.

For example, his magnifying transmitter and the rest of the "world system" he planned have been taken out of context countless of times throughout the history and if you look into some of the perpertual motion communities in the web, they have a lot of credible looking citations that basically say "it works but nobody knows how". It just so happens that Tesla himself was interviewed about it during his lifetime, and that interview is available in some e-books too. Tesla's own words leave no room for anything magical about it, but rarely does anyone choose to cite Tesla instead of a random "Tesla researcher".

EDIT: Here's the interview I'm talking about
NIKOLA TESLA ON HIS WORK WITH ALTERNATING CURRENTS
and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony and Transmission of Power : An Extended Interview (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm)

Wikipedia gets it right in their World Wireless System -article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wireless_System),

I think the closest thing to a practically usable almost perpetual energy source are those renewable ones: solar, wind, geothermal, gravity, tides, earths magnet. Dyson spheres around the sun, or satellites around the earth like in Gundam 00.

I've had this idea for a long time, but need to actually do it to test it, despite all the signs pointing to "it won't work". Basically, you chain a bunch of gen sets and motors together. Or a bunch of UPS.

Probably won't work, but I'd like to see how long it lasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current ;) plug two wires into earth and you have free energy

[/not sarcastic] Some early telegraph stations were powered this way.

I believe in it, just like I believe in everything Dank says.

Thanks for the interview link -- never seen that before, bookmarked.

And i agree, wikip is all over the place on Tesla, with individual articles contradicting each other.

I propose a revolutionary new energy source -- The Spider Generator.
It works thusly:
1.  Capture a spider, who spins very strong & lightweight strand of web.http://www.vectorfreak.com/images/preview/hanging-spider-cartoon-clip-art.jpg
2.  Attach the end of the web fiber to a rocket.
3.  Point the rocket at a black hole, hide in bunker, countdown to zero & press big red button.
4.  Wait, as the spider spins & the rocket zooms toward the Black Hole.  Eat plenty of snacks & remember to feed your spider.
5.  Before the rocket reaches the hole's event horizon, wrap the web strand around the shaft of a generator, so the shaft spins as the web is fed out.
6.  Remember to feed the spider -- this is important!
7.  As the rocket passes the event horizon, apply electrical load to generator.
8.  The hole will continue sucking the web thread forever, feeding on the thread & powering the generator.
9.  You will have to keep feeding your spider yourself, keeping him happy & spinning.
10. Eco-friendly gravity-driven symbiotically-profitable & humane energy source (we love the spider) :)

You where doing so well, then cam point 6.....so much for the new revolutionary energy source.

As long as (energy in)<(energy out), i'm fine.  Black holes suck more than my spider eats 8)

Edit:  If you're arachnophobic, there's always Maxwell's Demon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon) :)

If every one of you focused on getting energy from water, wind and the sun the mankind might take a leap or two.

That's not enough energy to make a leap

But it gets us quite a long way. The energy solar radiation is approx 1kW/sqm an there are only a few applications which consume power at an higher density.

Yeah, but if we use up the precious solar energy, the trees will stop making us oxygen to breathe & wood to burn, the rivers will stop powering our hydroelectric powerplants & making us electricity, the wind will stop blowing & we'll turn pale & gross like goth kids or naked rat moles.  And other stuff.
Boo!http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/article-1300967207614-0b51086100000578-330784_636x336.jpg

Currently there are 21138 sqm of land mass per Person.
If we leave out 50% of that for wilderness and utilize 1% that would be 105.69sqm of solar power on average.
If we utilize that only one hour a day that would still be 4.4kW of continuous power. I also left a 2400x margin.

Once you factor in the oldskool miners that will go online -- your margin is gone :(
Of course, i'm lazy & didn't bother to verify any of your numbers.  Where are you getting the power per square meter?  What does it represent?  Average over day/night/season/rain/shine/equator/pole?  Or?

Edit:  Do you mean KW/hr per sq. meter or?
Edit2:  I learned the awkward-sounding word "insolation," not to be confused with insulation, which sounds fine.  And that your numbers are way off :(
Edit3: ~1366 watts per square metre *at the top of the earth's atmosphere*.  By the time we dfilter down to breathin' level, we've got droppings & leavings.  Then there's the ~15% panel efficiency, ~80% conversion efficiency, ?% storage efficiency, cat food & other expenses -- not lookin' gud :(

Yeah, mining, or wasting energy as a form of a contest is unsustainable either way. It doesn't really matter how much energy we would have since the contest is tied to the cost of the energy.
Even if we had thorium reactors or even fusion power it wouldn't be enough. We'd probably make ourself extinct by heating the atmosphere beyond our living conditions.

1kW is an average solar radiance during daytime, of course it's higher on the equator and lower at the poles and varies during seasons. That's why I said use one hour a day.
It's also more like a rule of thumb.

e: You're right, it's not an average which is 250w/m2, well there is 2400x margin for error in my estimation. ;)

Since this thread is more or less about alternative energy sources, that 15% panel efficacy can be dramatically improved, with nantennas. Molecular scale antennas imprinted on a metal foil. They are not subject to the Carnot limit (allegedly). They already work but we cannot rectify the energy yet to utilize it as electricity, But even if it were possible to utilize half of their output it would mean 50% efficiency and cheap and flexible enough to use it everywhere we live.

I have an idea.
Make a giant drinking bird and put it next to a lake.
Free energy!  ;D

I'm sure it's theoretically possible, but we'll still have "unavoidable" problems in practice -- silly stuff like high production costs, maintenance, lifespan (if these (monomolecular?) antennae don't regenerate themselves, dirt & wind & stuff will quickly muck them up).  On the other hand, stuff like wind, hydro & coal are already solar -- we just had nature turn solar energy into something more usable for us :)  It would be interesting to find something that's organic & easily scalable, some weird genetically engineered algae that eat water, minerals & sunlight... I keep coming back to "nature sort'a does that already."  Biosphere provides :)

Just look at solar. There are pictures on the interwebs that show that we only need a few solar panels in some places. Like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-csPQp6ENZVw/T42mDMAuYDI/AAAAAAAAFfU/7AqKvRu1Ts8/s320/Sunniest+Places+in+the+World+-+Solar+Energy+Map.png

If we put solar panels on the black dots, we can power the world. For now.

http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/solar_land_area.png

http://s3.media.squarespace.com/production/482333/5498857/_V1hky3QMM4k/Sp5ghpYEIKI/AAAAAAAABuY/CigRNOomlBg/s400/Solar+Power+Surface+Area.jpg

http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

In the map below, the pink squares represent the area required to power the entire world with another alternative energy source -- atomic power.


Atomic energy has been hounded by the oil industry and its liberal stooges in politics & the media since day one.  Promising projects such as the revolutionary Ford Nucleon, the stylish car powered by a portable fission reactor, mysteriously lingered in dusty design studios.  The project was inexplicably abandoned, with key development personnel meeting with eyebrow-raising career impasses.  Resigned to the trash heap of history, this pinnacle of auto engineering was recently unearthed by an intrepid reporter.
Faqu, Liberals, you can't hide the Truth!


Nothing lay outside of Oil Industry's greedy grasp -- not even our once-mighty military. The daring NB-36H Atomic Bomber project was scuttled in its nascent stages, along with its Soviet counterpart.