Free Energy 3-way generator

[Klaynos]

Gravity pulls, and has nothing to do with spinning... Explain how some planets spin faster yet have smaller fields than the slow spinning ones?

[AdrianB]

Gravity pulls, and has nothing to do with spinning... Explain how some planets spin faster yet have smaller fields than the slow spinning ones?

 

The faster a mass is spinning the greater the Electromagnetic field is, if a mass is spinning at such a speed then the EM field becomes unstable, as the mass is trying to emit a greater field then its mass velocity can handle.

 

So it bursts, like a bubble only not with the same effect, (rips and tears apear then it just evaporates, untill the mass slowed down to a point where a new field can be produced.)

 

Also quiet possibly, a mass could spin at such a speed it would create a second heavier field from within. (a bit like a ripple effect)

Edited August 24, 2009 by AdrianB

[mooeypoo]

The faster a mass is spinning the greater the Electromagnetic field is, if a mass is spinning at such a speed then the EM field becomes unstable, as the mass is trying to emit a greater field then its mass velocity can handle.

WHAT?

Where did you get this?

 

So it bursts, like a bubble only not with the same effect, (rips and tears apear then it just evaporates, untill the mass slowed down to a point where a new field can be produced.)

Where are you taking these things from? This isn't physics.

 

Maybe you should share your resources with us ..? It is possible you're just misunderstanding them.

 

Also quiet possibly, a mass could spin at such a speed it would create a second heavier field from within. (a bit like a ripple effect)

Adrian, those are untrue claims. They're not "inaccurate", where we can discuss how to adjust so they fit your theory, they are absolutely false.

 

You should seriously read more about basic physics and the differences between electromagnetism and gravity.

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

you all speak out gravity and electromagnetism as if they are two seperate things...

 

For you to have gravity on a planet you have to have an electromagneticly charged atmosphere.

Absolutely wrong. The Moon does not ahve an electromagnetically charged atmosphere, and yet it has gravity. Asteroids have gravity, but it is far too weak to hold onto gasses and so can't ahve an atmosphere at all, and they they still have gravity.

 

So no. An "electromagnetically charged atmosphere" is not needed to produce gravity.

 

For you to have electromagnetism you have to have motion and gravity.

No. Electromagnetism is created by charged particles. If you have a charged particle, then you have an electric field. If you then move that electric field you get a magnetic field, and if you have a moving magnetic field you can cause charged particles to move around.

 

The faster a planet spins the more energy is created, the higher the static charge is on the surface, the greater the static charge, the greater the gravitational pull is on the planet, as more oxygen is produced, the greater the preasure is within the atmosphere.

Venus has a thicker atmosphere at a higher pressure, it rotates slower than Earth, has very little oxygen in its atmosphere and has a higher incidence of electromagnetic activity in its atmosphere (lightning) but its gravity is less than Earth. This is in direct violation of the prediction you made in your post.

 

As reality gives a different result than what your "theory" predicts, then your "theory" must be wrong.

 

Reality trumps any theory. If it doesn't exist in reality, then no matter how good the theory, or how attractive it might seem, or no matter who came up with it, if it doesn't reflect reality, then the theory is wrong.

 

As your "theory" can't be right (Venus completely disproves it), then any conclusions you reach because of it (like free energy must exist) is therfore also wrong.

[John Cuthber]

This

"As your "theory" can't be right (Venus completely disproves it), then any conclusions you reach because of it (like free energy must exist) is therfore also wrong." isn't strictly accurate.

 

I could reach a correct conclusion even if I used the wrong theory.

It would just be an accident.

However, in this case, Adrian B is just talking complete nonsense and, as it happens, he is wrong.

[AdrianB]

This

"As your "theory" can't be right (Venus completely disproves it), then any conclusions you reach because of it (like free energy must exist) is therfore also wrong." isn't strictly accurate.

 

I could reach a correct conclusion even if I used the wrong theory.

It would just be an accident.

However, in this case, Adrian B is just talking complete nonsense and, as it happens, he is wrong.

 

how many times can one person say "You are wrong" in one thread.

 

Venus

Mass 4.868 5 × 1024 kg

Surface area 4.60 × 108 km²

Orbital period 224.700 69 day

Average orbital speed 35.02 km/s

Surface temp.

Kelvin

Celsius min mean max

735 K[1][6][7]

461.85 °C

 

Venus has totaly different mass variations, which of course means different magnetic behaviour.

 

 

Hey! I know, I know nack all about anything, I am just enjoying the conversation, it is fun, Sorry if you all feel the need to get uptight and start insulting me.

 

It doesnt matter though does it! really, I mean even if I could afford to prove free energy exsist, it would be no good anyway would it.

 

No one really wants free energy, as it doesnt pay, does it.

So chill, have a laugh at me, its ok. No one is really listening to me or reading this "nonsense".

 

[mooeypoo]

Saying you're wrong does not intend to offend you, Adrian B, it's meant to tell you the truth. If you read on, there were a few attempts to actually *SHOW YOU* where and how you were wrong.

 

People will keep pointing out that you're wrong and that you're missing evidence as long as you keep stating wrong physics with such a conviction and refuse to cite or reference anything.

 

I mean, really, what do you expect, that we accept what you say when it's nonphysics and totally baseless because we don't want to offend you?

 

 

As a physicist, I can tell you would *LOVE* it if free energy existed, because it would compltely revolutionize physics as we know it, which will give me a much better potential to research something no one has touched before and win a Nobel prize.

I'm DYING to have a change in physics, and I am not the only physicist, I can promise you.

 

That doesn't mean I'll accept nonsense.

 

Either support what you're saying, or accept the fact you're speaking nonsense, AdrianB. You seem to have a big problem presenting even the most fundamental physics correctly, so really, you can't possibly expect us to accept any of this outright without evidence, can you?

 

As iNow said so aliquently in another thread - You are the one making a claim, you are in need of supplying evidence. It's time for you to put up or shut up.

 

 

~moo

[AdrianB]

I will shut up and never hassle you again, sorry for the inconvenience.

I just wanted to make this open source really, maybe one day someone could take the idea and make something different.

If its wrong or right it makes no difference to my life.

 

Have fun all

[mooeypoo]

Adrian, alternative -- more efficient -- ways to use energy are being researched. don't think they're not. Quite frankly, the entire attitude of "big pharma / big corporation" conspiracy is crap. People DO research those. They just use science to research and not baseless claims.

 

We told you that you are wrong because gravity does NOT behave the way you presented it, electromagnetism does NOT operate the way you presented it and planets do NOT orbit the way you said they do. Those are FACTS.

 

Your innuendo that we're closed minded is ridiculous.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

I frequently used to try to design perpetual motion machines (theoretical ones, not physical ones). Then try to figure out why it wouldn't work. The key to learning something with this exercise is realizing that it won't work.

 

Anyhow, the answer to your question is, it uses just as much energy to separate two magnets as you gain by bringing them closer together (minus losses to friction and electromagnetism). I didn't read the rest of the thread, so if you have more questions as to why your idea won't work, feel free to ask.

[futurewatch]

Hi, my first post, been searching the subject matter found this thread interesting so I like to join in.

 

I am interested in a prospective on the merits of the SEG concept or lack of it. Which appears to be sorely lacking here, why?

 

Upon reviewing the device on searlsolution site, I see how we can address it by its technical points, by its design merits and its theory of operation in a systematic matter and see what we learn.

 

The first question - I have for Mr. Skeptic is why are you applying second law to a device that is described as an open system and not a closed one?

 

Second question - Does it qualify as a generator and a motor?

 

third - Is it possible for this design to manifest a quantum Hall effect where energy conversion is said to take place?

 

That all for starters, of course I welcome physicist here that don’t fear to tread beyond the status quo and are free to express their opinion.

 

Thanks...

Edited October 23, 2009 by Sayonara³
expanded

[AdrianB]

Just to give you an update on John Searls S.E.G.....

 

 

SEG research with the above test units has proven that not only can the roller develop an effective Magnetic Bearing over the plate surface, but also simultaneously it achieves dramatic spin velocities from self induced frictionless magnetic torque.

 

 

 

This image shows a mock roller spinning with a tachometer reading 14449 rpm! These observable demonstrations is further evidence of the SEG's merit in both design and electrodynamic functions; indeed, it is another integral part of the SEG we can now confirm and evaluate.

 

 

 

Now we can bare witness as a matter of FACT, a Neodymium magnet sized to that of an SEG roller, can be seen magnetically suspended and floats about 1/8 inch above the surface of a rotating copper stator ring with just 110 rpm. These tests demonstrate the interaction of self induced eddy currents due to the relative motion between plate stator and roller.

 

Important research data is thus gained, tests that will determine what are the material's design criteria's that will be applied towards an economical manufacturing type version of the SEG.

 

 

 

After almost a year of construction, initial tests of the SEG Printer Magnetizer (PM) confirms the system is operational and performing well with test coil loads. This marks the start of the next phase which involves extensive research & development of the magnetization process. We have already discovered that this system can impress wave patterns on permanent magnetic materials; a critical achievement towards redevelopment of Searl Effect Generator.

 

 

 

With 80 of these industrial high capacity UPS batteries now rack mounted and the nearing completion of all electrical subsystems, it is anticipated that some preliminary testing may begin this month.

 

Not bad work eh!

 

(not looking to start this all off again but thought it would be nice for others to see the work put into the S.E.G)

 

 

edited to add this media found of a presentation of John Searl....

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8635897559220353909&ei=yo_hSs6tMqb22gKx5Zz1DA&q=john+searl+presentation#

 

Filmed in 1994 at the IFNE Conference in Denver, this hour-long presentation by John Searl describes the inner-workings of the infamous Searl-Effect Generator and IGV Propulsion System with photos, schematics, construction details, and a concise summary of 1960's testing that you simply can't afford to miss! John Searl is one of the most controversial figures in Antigravity research, but since beginning his work in the 1940's, he's arguably become "the father of modern Antigravity". His claim is simple: that after a childhood dream showing a rotating set of rollers on a metallic ring, he constructed a device called the Searl Effect Generator (SEG) that seems to produce massive Antigravitational thrust. Searl is one of the cultural icons in the Antigravity

Edited October 23, 2009 by AdrianB