Author Options:

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

i heared that permanent magnet motor works on magnet repulsion and it is free energy device that works for life time....... is it true???


Here is the answer you are looking for.

There are tons of rumors of people doing things and dying or being hidden as for all that mumbo jumbo it answers no part of this question.
Does it work yes, as we all know it is true that like charges push away.
Will it produce enough push to make energy? if you have the money to build it big enough then yea sure why not.
That being said "There is no such thing as free lunch."
Learn it live it love it.(or at least accept it.)
Perpetual motion works on paper but in the real world things break down. The breakdown rate for magnets ranges from 2 years all the way to 500 years. So it will last your lifetime but just because it out lives you and your kids, so on and so forth, does not make it perpetual it will end at some point.

Any more questions on the matter ask away I have done days of research on things like this.

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.

Sorry little boy...but no 11 year old is going to accomplish something that the world's top scientific minds have failed to do for centuries. It is actually kind of sad how much of your life you have wasted on such a pointless endeavor.

I did it when i was in eigth grade.

dude. the natural water cycle exchanges so much energy. if you count in devices with external feeders i have a much more efficient one for you: solar panels.

That's not true at all. The water cycle is only going because it is getting energy from the sun. It is'nt self sustaining and requires an energy input. Good try though.

but if you use part of the energy that can be created from the fall of water to heat the water to create steam then use that steam to create more out flow of energy then you have perpetual motion

so yes you are correct in saying that you need a heat source for the water cycle to work but other the water cycle also happens at night when the son is on the other side of the earth so unless the sun implodes or explodes the water cycle will run forever or until the water completely drys up

Except that you CAN'T use "part of the energy created from the fall of the water to heat the water to create steam." because the energy you get out of the falling water is not nearly enough to do that.

But wouldn't you need a 100% efficient way to create the steam? Meaning 1 gallon of water falling would need to heat up 1 gallon of water for it to work. Or am I misunderstanding your concept?

So you are one of those people that falls for faked videos where someone has an air compressor bowing on the wheel from off screen?

ever realised that this was a gif format image? or are you just here to troll?

Wow.How laong till we dont see this anymore,huh? Very good.

You obviously have not done very good research on this. Perpetual motion does not work on paper any more than it works in the real world. On paper...people with an actual science background can tell you exactly where any perpetual motion machine will fail to work.

Does it work? No. Because magnets don't just push away. They also attract. So...all the devices that you surely are thinking of are HOAXES. There is not one single permanent magnet motor that will make the computer fan, or whatever else it is attached to spin even ONE time. It has nothing to do with "can you get any energy out of it" it is about that without a hidden battery, or an off camera air compressor, it itself won't spin.

do you have any suggestions for tesla "magnetic",or like ideas that i could actually apply to my home.My hubby is physically disabled,very dependant upon electricity.Therefore i'm concerned about power outages for longer periods of time .It has happened,i almost lost him.Our son is 4 yrs old.Im taking care myself not trying to b a saint just trying to give him a chance .I need any sugesstions.Where i live the snow weighs down pwer lines snappining them it takes weeks sometimes to get it back.can u suggest anything? Thank you for yopur time and consideration,Nicole.

Unfortunately the jury is out on this one. The likes of Sterling Allen keep up an optimistic flow of info about "progress", but to date little has been shown that provides acceptible proof that the concept has any real promise. The concept seems simple, to have a wheel consisting of angled magnets, free to revolve inside a ring of oppositely-angled magnets, their fields shielded so as to only project tangentally to the circumference of the rotating part. The problem, as I see it, is that so far, there isn't a truly effective shield material, the result being that some of the magnetic field actually leaks through and opposes the direction of rotation of the rotor. That's as far as my limited knowledge goes on this concept. But I have considered doing some of my own experiments.

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".

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...


There is not one single REAL scientist who is still uncertain on this. None have EVER been uncertain by this. They know it is impossible.

Wrong again!

Your good at something.

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.

So...you don't care about science, and therefore you think it is wrong? Also...Ed Leedskalnin did nothing but use simple levers

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

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 never said there WERE peer-reviewed articles. So far as I know, there AREN'T any, which explains a lot about the entire concept of magnetic motors and extracting energy from magnets.I said that Science relies upon peer review. It also relies on repeatability.

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.

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.

Magnetic fields don't have energy. So you can't extract any out of it. So right there, your belief in incredibly stupid. It shows you know absolutely NOTHING about science, so why are you commenting on it?

Let me ask you this...if magnetic fields are energy, then give the formula you can use to figure out how much energy is in a magnet. If it has energy, then there has to be some formula to determine it. So...you have the whole internet at your disposal...give me that formula.

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.

Sure...you can shield magnetic fields. You just can't shield only one half (either the attaraction or the repulsion force) of it. So you either have a full blown magnetic that won't work, or you have no magnetic at all..which won't work.

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).

" Free energy magnet motor part 3 " on you tube that gives the suggestion that angle iron might be able to quote on quote 'focus' the magnetisom more than steel. if this were proven the better 'magnet controller' then you could be able to follow the therory of having a 2 : 1 magnetic wheel (that simply is this guys plan for "free" energy). Please if anyone has done this test than can you please report back!
here is the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4oIRd13LFw&feature=relmfu

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.

The jury is not, AND HAS NVER been out on this. IT can't be done.

There has only been one person in the world who as actually made a perpetual motion machine and he was just some old hobbyist who love playing with magnets he didn't attach any energy harnessing attributes to it but he got it to work (I forget his name but he appeared on a documentary before) his machine consisted of a ball that moved around in a perfect circle of precisely placed magnets under and over a track, which the ball moved a bunch of pendulums beneath it, the machine I believe is in vaulted up in a museum somewhere. and the guy is under some kind of witness protection program at the moment, because of the many people that would want to kill him to keep big company money making energy sources around because of all the jobs that would be lost. Which brings up another point anyone who creates such a machine successfully is gonna be in immediate danger if they introduce it to the public. So it's better to keep a low profile. Anyways back to the machine he made if he put magnets on the bottom of the pendulums and copper coils beneath them would it collect any energy whatsoever.

There has never even any person who has done it since magnets won't work and never will.

No...no idiots playing around in his garage has come up with something that the world's top scientists have been trying for centuries

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

You mentioned that you transferred the magnetic energy from one magnet to another magnet? I am very interested to know how, is it hard to duplicate your experiment?