Permanent Magnets

[Dean2]

Look to the Universe for the answers… et al

Now, consider the many coorelations of our earth and space, in regard to harnessing these permanent magnets, as in this track I have demonstrated. The solid and outer molten iron core of our plantet is not responsible for our magnetic field. The Earth's core is hot, more than 1000 degrees Kelvin. Permenant magnets do not like heat, the temperature would cause the orientations of electron spins within Fe to become random. This would cause the element to lose its magnetic field.

The Earth's magnetic field is not a byproduct of magnetized iron deposits. A rotating conductive element is detectable by the electric field produced when its free charges separate radially, due to the force produced by rotation of the conductor. Plus the “magnet material” rotating through its own magnetic field, which does not rotate with the physical elements, causes an additional small current to flow. Where there’s current, a magnetic field materializes. The earth is filled with conductive elements rotating within a universal sea of magnetic fields. When those fields are distorted, they make themselves apparent around the Earth.

When conducting fluid moves across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which creates another magnetic field. This additional magnetic field reinforces the original; a dynamo is created, which sustains itself. Similar magnetic fields are present in many celestial bodies including most stars, including our Sun, containing conducting plasma and active galactic nuclei. In addition to these magnetic fields, the Earth is also traveling through space, distorting the universal-environment of magnetic potential. The universal macro effect of a dynamo that spins our world - the most fundamental dynamic entity.
(theory & demo video) Green Energy 211

[C Rosenkreutz]

Incredible Design and Application!

Barry,
I’m so pleased to find you actively discussing your work! For the last few weeks I’ve been doing some ground-up research on magnetic instability/asymmetry. In the process of digging into various magnetic track theories, I discovered your incredible design. You’ve taken the theories and approach to a whole new level of understanding and implementation. Bravo!

I’ll have to re-read your articles and your posts in this thread several times to absorb the whole of your concepts. Thank you for sharing so much design detail!

I was wondering what kind of previous research you did to arrive at the point of creating your own design?

Some of the basic online references I’ve found interesting include:

• Stewart Harris TOMI (Theory Of Magnetic Instability)
  
• Hickman’s TOMI2
  
• Mag-Gen
  
• PM3 Permanent Magnet Machine
  
• Matthew Jones’ Magnetic Track
  
• Howard Johnson’s magnetic gates and his book, “Secret World of Magnets”

Did any of these provide influence/inspiration with your efforts, and if so, which ones did you find “rang true” or best represented what you eventually discovered through your many trials and errors?

Particularly, have you read through Johnson’s theories on the vortex magnetic field spins in his book (above)? What did you think of his magnetic pole readings and theories on the use of isolating one pole’s vortex spin to provide motive power?

EXCELLENT work, and thank you!!

[Dean2]

influences...

Hi C. Rosenkreutz, One of the first simple permanent magnet demonstrations I ran across was the original TOMI from Stewart, and later Hickman as well. If, anything influenced my pursuit, it was this. Probably, the first gate concept I saw. Thinking, this is simple – soon lead to the realization – it was anything but. Certainly one of those classical situations, the more I learned, the less I understood.

I spent a lot of time with Howard Johnson; I have all the videos, interviews, and read everything published. I have also replicated his work, as well as built everything you have referenced (and then some). After a few years, I learned all the ways that didn’t work (perhaps not all, I’m sure I could come up with a few more that don’t work). I think one has to get past the point of slight-of-hand, multiple angles and tricks. Simply look to nature, how does it really work. This “energy” is all around us – and working quite well.

I’ve studied every design I could find and replicated most. ALL the latest claims, 1200 (recorded) years’ worth of efforts (and magnet cons).

It’s my opinion that many of us fail at this, because we never get past “innocence”. This naive approach has some positive points, the blundering ahead and all. Yet, until we begin to think through, and truly understand the nature of these phenomena – no leaps can be made. One must internalize the concepts; approach an understanding, an intuitiveness. Yes, it’s OVERWHEMLING. If you have gotten to this point in understanding the Universe – then you are on the right path. It’s challenging for a finite mind to understand an infinite concept. (Perhaps we have to open our minds to the infinite?)

I don’t care much for Edison’s legacy, (more of a Tesla guy) but he did make sense once when he said; "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration". I may not be the “record holder”, but I’m certainly a “contender” in knowing more ways that permanent magnets cannot perform work.

My biggest drive; knowing it's possible! A key point; every time I found something that worked, I spent time to figure out WHY it worked. You start with “theory” and test the practical. Once it works, you rewrite the theory and improve upon it. My apologies for rambling on. Yes, re-read the three articles and all the posts. I think you will glimpse more from them, each time. At the point you start to get “excited”, or have an ah-ha moment… you’re close.
Green Energy 211

[C Rosenkreutz]

Similarity to SEG rotors

Barry,
I can't help but draw a similarity to that portion of your video where you're moving six rotors back-and-forth along the stator rails (using two other rotors & cancelling the lock & drag), with the appearance of the rollers beginning to move around the Searl Effect Generator replica in this video:
YouTube - SEG voltage controlled demonstration

Interesting!

[Dean2]

Searl

Hi C. Rosenkreutz,

Yes, I see the relationship. Interesting in that I have been working out a variation in my mind for a motor approach. One of my conclusions was to spin - not only the rotor, but the stator as well (a bit counter-intuitive, may have to rename that component). In a sense, that’s what’s going in that demonstration. However, isn’t that a “mock-up” run with a power input?

BTW, is this your first time with the Forum here?

[Dean2]

multi rotors

I’m glad you brought attention to the grouping of the multiple rotors. I just want to make the point, that all of those rotors have four magnetic poles, attracted to the opposite poles in the track (N50 Neo). A serious amount of locked attraction.

Yet, as you can see, it literally “disappears” in all of them - when they are set in motion with nothing more than peripheral rotors. This simple little demonstration strongly shows how completely the lock up, even the drag, has vanished. This insight alone, should set many of you to work in expanding on this knowledge.Green Energy 211

[LiamXaoh]

Unless someone can identify an as yet undefined force then all magnetic motors, linear or circular, are doomed to fail.

[Dean2]

greetings...

Hi LiamXaoh, would you care to elaborate, what is this “undefined force” you speak of? I also don’t see the doomed failure you claim.

[C Rosenkreutz]

However, isn’t that a “mock-up” run with a power input?

BTW, is this your first time with the Forum here?

Yes, I believe the video shows a proof of concept created by engineer Fernando Morris and uses a small power input to create the motion of the components. It does not currently use the exact rare earth materials in proporation to the Law of Squares that Searl claimed he used to achieve independent overunity, and antigravity (with no outside power source). It's been a little while since I've seen the John Searl Story DVD so I may not be recalling the details correctly.

And, yes, I am a new member of the forum. Even though I've been interested in "free energy" theories off and on for about 5-7 years, I only recently found this forum and decided to participate. (I'm usually a lurker)
CR

[handyman]

questions

Hi everyone
Before I get started on a project I have in mind, this time I am going to ask questions first. My friend tells me it could save me some grief, time, and money.
Anyway,here it goes.
I plan to pass a disc magnet, back and forth inside a coil of copper wire in order to produce electricity. But before I build the apparatus to do this action,I want to know what are the pros and cons of this concept. handyman

[Dean2]

Further comments, and a plea...

I think, as it responds to our “engineering” applications, entering into the more abstract particle physics aspect and the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking is not appropriate. Perhaps the “explicate” symmetry breaking would be – where something asymmetric in the fundamental systems favors one side. If we are to apply a more in-depth look, Condensed Matter Physics with ferrite magnets may be the correct direction. Personally, the pure mathematical examination is beyond my interests. That said – an open-minded particle physicist certainly could shed some light on this discussion. Perhaps, correctly applying the theoretical equations to the tangible results.

Perhaps also, a look at the “theory” of Gage transformation. Addressing the reality of physically breaking symmetry within magnetic and electrical fields, not just the exercise of the theoretical. A harder look at the photon and what I believe is the ability to display the “effects” of mass, even though it has no mass. You could also say mass stands for energy at rest. Yet, it also is energy associated with uniform homogenous shift of fields.

Electromagnetism is called a gauge-theory because the gauge-symmetry actually defines the theory. If you alter the global symmetry, becoming space-time dependent, we have a local symmetry-transformation. This will act differently at each space-time point. The field energy of the transformed system is changed and the original symmetry is lost. There’s no question, magnetic flux (from a permanent magnet) can be altered; increased, decreased, guided, turned-off, turned-on, or reversed – in effect. Within quantum physics, you’ll find the discussion primarily centered around equations and the “abstract” – this is all well and fine, and I salute the fine minds that are so enlightened.

We begin with the premise that with the appropriate permanent magnet geometry, and by applying additional magnetic fields to select permanent magnetic fields - instead of the action slowing down the system that created it, the reaction could add energy to the system. This is accomplished by changing the magnitude of one or more potentials. Change of a single potential is an asymmetrical change, and it also changes the net force field.

In the case of an inner local symmetry, such a "compensating" field is called a gauge field. The classical example of gauge invariance would be in electromagnetism. In the quantum mechanical description of an electron as a wave in motion, a change of the electromagnetic potential implies a change in the phase of the electron field. In this case the gauge symmetry is local, the change of potential and the change of phase both being space-time dependent.

Quoting from McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 2nd Edition, p. 655:
"Gage [gauge is preferred] transformation [Electromag]. The addition of the gradient of some function of space and time to the magnetic vector potential, and the addition of the negative of the partial derivative of the same function with respect to time, divided by the speed of light, to the electric scalar potential; this procedure gives different potentials but leaves the electric and magnetic fields unchanged."

Now, in the words of Tom Bearden, “What this passage says is that in electromagnetics one can appropriately change (regauge) the scalar potential and the magnetic vector potential, without changing the force fields themselves. In other words, that change of the potentials can be accomplished work free."

Changing the potential of a system is also changing its stored (potential) energy. If at least one of the altered potentials in a regauged system is increased, that "recharged" system can take on and store excess energy, without involving the force fields. That excess stored energy can then be judiciously discharged to power the load, so that the system "regauges" back to the starting or initial condition, powering the load in the process. Thereupon, the system must be regauged once again in the charging mode, to accept and store some additional excess energy. And so on.

Obviously then, regauging the potential(s) is one of the master principles of overunity electromagnetic devices and engines.” Isn’t that what’s occurring once movement begins in this track, with a pair of “Motional EMF” fields that are induced because of the conductor moving through the static magnetic fields? In addition to the conductor, we have dual sets of permanent magnets moving through these static magnetic fields, creating a second pair of EMF torques in tandem. In my view, this is regauging potentials, breaking the symmetry, allowing “work” to be performed.

Also, with the “unipolar induction” that is also introduced and multiple electric fields that coexist in space - another significant regauging occurs. I, and others would appreciate the input of our many silent resident experts, in taking a harder look at this. I also believe we could all benefit from the comments and insights from Aaron and Peter, as well as Tom Bearden, Jay R. Yablon, and Leonard Susskind.
Video demo and theory.Green Energy 211

[Dean2]

Any thoughts on...

Has anyone considered what rotary approach might work the best - in taking advantage of this understanding in controlling the flux, and inducing secondary fields?

[gyula]

Has anyone considered what rotary approach might work the best - in taking advantage of this understanding in controlling the flux, and inducing secondary fields?

Hi Barry,

Well, considering your photo on a rotary version here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post133289 I suppose a single "rotor" is shown only at the inner circle rim near at the 12 o'clock position. I think the rotors could be kept mechanically by employing a ball bearing method, using a second inner circle with smaller diameter with respect to the first inner circle, as a counter holding piece for the rotors. Yes, several rotors (you show only one I suppose) and the endings of these rotors could be held together both at the upper and lower endings by spokes and these spokes could have a center shaft (like in bicycle wheel) serving as the main shaft for mechanical output.
This may sound as too complicated, surely some simpler layouts do exist.
So a kind of ball bearing-like setup for holding the rotor always in a rollable position what I basically envision.

Gyula

[Dean2]

possible Rotor

Hi Gyula, Something like this perhaps?Rotor2.jpg

[gyula]

Hi Barry,

Well, not exactly because you have not indicated what would keep the whole rotor in position. If you say for this that the main shaft can be kept in position by using normal ball bearings for the shaft (as is usual for most electric motors), then I have to ask whether the electric contact is still important at the endings of the spokes to the inner part of the stator rim?
If the contact is important, then that is where I think of using ball bearing-like solution: it all depends on how good electical contact is needed? This is what is not fully clear for me yet.
From your linear setups shown I judge the rolling contact is insured by the weight of the rotor and by the attract force between the stator and rotor. I assume an electrical resistance of max 1 - 2 Ohms is involved as a neccessity, right? If this is so, then I assume that this should be likewise for a rotary arrangement too. If this is not so, then I need more explanation on the working principle...

The more I am comfortable with the understanding of the principle, the better mechanical setup could be devised

Thanks, Gyula