how to make permanent magnet motor ? is it true it is free energy device?

As far as perpetual motion it is possible because it is evident in nature....the natural water cycle. So it reasons that if someone was able to artificially reproduce that cycle on a condensed scale then he or she could possibly have a perpetual energy source.

In no way am I saying it doesn't exist I am only 19 and I have been working on a perpetual motion device for almost 8 years now. I have come very close however there is a reason every single person doesn't have one sitting in the back yard. So anyways what I was saying is that anything most people will see on the news or will see on this site for that matter may be long lasting great ideas but at some point any el cheepo is just going to break down.

Nikola Tesla.... haha. And youre the first person Ive read bout who also knows... O.o

Nikola Tesla ? hmmm... I would not be surprised but thanks for the post I have been studying magnetic energys for some time did you know you can transfer energys between magnets! I drained one magnet making the other stronger in one of my experiments now I wanna figure out how to make it do so in a circle so no rotating parts is required and have copper coils absorb the energy into electricity and send power back to the electromagnets that send the power to the other magnets. I don't follow physics books by the way I just do! because physics books were written by human hands so can't always be true (but do have good points don't get me wrong). the only problem I have with what I'm doing is I can't see what is actually happening

WOW!! Thats incredible! I did not know that about the transference of magnetic energy! And I think its wonderful what youre trying to do. You should send me a personal message and we shall keep eaaach other updated on our endeavours : ) I'm just attempting different variations of the classic magnetic motor for my first time >.<

If you could encase each magnet in a cylindrical tube of a material that could block a magnetic field it would help, except that the repulsing field is going to bulge out of the end of the tube and each magnet on the rotor as it approaches, is going to "see" that repulsive field BEFORE IT REACHES IT - So you are going to have a braking effect. If there were some way it could only see the field AFTER IT HAS PASSED the magnet's tip, then you'd have just a propulsive thrust, and you'd have a viable machine. You cannot project a field like the beam of a flashlight. I think this just about sums it all up, and I've just succeeded in convincing myself that the whole idea all a load of rubbish.

Use the horseshoe effect see if that fixes the problem, because both negative and positive can pass through each other with no problems when that shape is applied and it evens the fields

You might want to check prices.

Those magnets you suggested are the lowest commonly available grade of material (N35), but when you include shipping are being sold for 0.34 GBP/cm³ ($8.90 per cubic inch). You can find much better quality (N42) for less than 0.17 GBP/cm³ ($4.50 per cubic inch).

Ask computer stores for old 80's and 90's hard drives they have those type of magnets in them I am not expecting a reply since this post I am replying to is written 2 years ago but I just figured I would leave a tip for everyone else. some computer places give them away for free if they are old enough

i agree with the fact that energy is not free....but thats speaking so literally....what if we agreed that energy we recieve from the sun or earth is "free" because we dont have to do anything for it to be created. we just harness it. kind of like a parasite. also to raise another question, about magnetic engery, i think that a magnet is one of the most efficient forms of a battery we can make. (very generally speaking)does anyone agree? and here is my reasoning behind that statement: It takes molting steel and electricity to make a magnet and those require engery (obviously) but what im trying to get at is that the magnet absorbs the most energy, thus making the harnessing of the energy the MOST EFFICIENT compared to a battery or a motor or whatevever. for instance our car engine loses OVER HALF of the energy it creates from gas through heat. (energy is heat which is in turn molecular motion/destablization)thus making the motor inefficient. but a magnets energy as far as i know doesnt create heat (assuming no friction) and can be turned into linear motion. plus it looses its energy over a long period of time which in leads me to believe that its either loaded with all of this unexplainable energy or it very slowly releases the energy that it has contained, none the less....it can last longer than a battery which is why i think its better...we just need to figure out how to harness it....which brings everyone back around to the topic at hand haha.

There have to dat been no proven successful purely magnetic motors 9although you can find supposed demos on the internet.

There is no such thing as magnetic shielding material that is not magnetic.

About the closest is this demo that as far as I know is still running but obviously only just produce enough energy/movement to keep itself running. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ

The statement free energy relates to the idea you could (perhaps) build a machine that produced more energy than it used and so drive itsellf, so called over unity engines. Another name is perpetual motion. Not possible under our current understanding of the laws of physics.

yes there have. several people have done it, i think one or two groups got one to power a house. it used a lightweight plastic frame that turned because of magnets on the rotar and inner casing, which then turned a shafter with an alternator or generator on the end. but it was pretty big. and i suppose the house didn't consume much, but it worked.

The energy you get from electromagnetism (of this type) comes from doing work against the magnetic field. It's not being juiced out of the magnet, it's the hard-work turning the thing. L

Well? Im not good in physics but i think i still have my common sense. Free Energy is energy we can tap without paying it. We never pay for the sun to shine just to collect solar energy, and same with the wind, we never pay for the wind to blow as strong as we need to make the wind turbine rotate. Am i wrong?

Heh, I thought of this in grade 8 and abandoned the idea because you can't shield the magnetic fields.

There are magnetic shields. We use mu-metal to isolate photomultipier tubes from static magnetic fields in detectors, for example. However, magnetic shielding generally works only against static, and relatively low-strength, fields.

Neat!! But as you said, the shielding only works for low strength fields. It also looks like you'd need a pretty thick layer, making a PM motor very bulky!

When kelseymh says 'static' fields, he means ones that are not moving. Which seems to defeat the purpose in this case.

Yes ! - A shield that's thicker than the distance the field extends anyway ! The actual design requires that the magnets be pretty close together, leaving only narrow gaps to insert blocking pieces. But has anyone any suggestions as to what material these shields might be made of ? Some kind of non-permeable material - maybe simple plain steel, would block SOME. But would it ne necessary to block ALL of the field ? - Also, would the field "leak" around the ends of the shields to any extent ? Both of these possible problems might result in the machine failing to work.

I don't know of anything that will shield a magnetic field. You can obviously short-circuit a magnet, but then you'd have no magnetic field (or to be more precise, a much reduced field).

i figured out if you put a BIG piece of steel on a magnet  it will lose most of the magnetic-ness out o maybe disperse it

Exactly. You can't focus a magnetic field into a "beam" like you can with light.

Who comprises this Jury that hasn't made a decision yet? L

The jury is science - Peer review - repeatable experimental results - nothing has happened. The whole concept is still "Borderline Science".

Please provide citations for your so-called "peer reviewed" articles on this concept. What journals did they appear in? When? Have those articles been cited anywhere else?

I don't know of any authentic repeated experiments - not by any reputable scientists anyway - experiments repeated by other amateur experimenters and inventors don't count. Maybe I'm in error here - but I don't know of any.

Okay, thanks very much for the clarification. The "problem" (which I don't mean disparagingly) with amateurs is that they don't generally document or measure operational parameters with sufficient detail or precision to be useful. Even when they are not hoaxsters (and as you know, this field is rife with them!), amateurs tend to overlook sources of systematic error -- e.g., using a vibrating bearing that can transfer momentum and keep a wheel turning -- or to explain away "failures" of their setup which actually point to fundamental obstacles.

There are scientists who still haven't decided whether this type of free energy really is/isn't? I should think most science - peer review would say "prove it", rather than "maybe"?
Can you link to something scientific that's undecided, I'm interested?
Although this might just be down to the specifics of what we regard science and scientific appraisal to be...

L

If you Google it, there should be plenty to get your teeth into if you want information of the concept of it. I liken it to a turbine, where, instead of say, gas impinging upon the blades of the turbine wheel, you have two opposing (like) magnetic fields impinging upon each other. I wouldn't worry about the semantics of what's scientific and what isn't - I'd worry more about whether this thing could work. The intriguing thing about it is that it's not necessarily "Perpetual Motion"...... We could consider the magnetic field to be an energy input, although exactly what a permanent magnet's field actually is, could be discussed and argued about lengthily. That strange character Ed Leedskalnin seemed to have discovered many years ago, something of a similar nature, and possibly anti-gravity too.

I meant some real scientific judgment, rather than what you can trawl off the internet. As people go in general, free energy is as credible as space-aliens, ectoplasm, bigfoot etc. I thought you were referring to something more authoritative, but that's why I said it might just be down to the specifics of what we regard science and scientific appraisal to be L

Where does the energy you extract, or the energy lost to friction come from ? Steve

I imagine you are extracting it from the magnetic field. It would eventually deplete the magnet. I'm not even sure you can extract energy from the device in any practical amount. It may even be found to be a cousin of the Crookes Radiometer - Spins around fast but it's useless for any practical purpose. I wouldn't consider it to be "Perpetual Motion", because if it's extracting energy from the magnetic field of the magnets, and depleting it, then it's not perpetual.