An Idea on Perpetual Motion
Comments: 40

   If something exists naturally (naturally occurring) I believe that it is very possible....

Gravity...the resulting product of the strong nuclear force. The force that holds atoms together, the more mass that is present, the more gravitational force exists. Just a theory.
Thank you thoughtflashes
Batteries are a store of electrons; magnets then are batteries of a stored magnetic field. How often would you need to replace the magnets?
ECAT 1MW heat plant with thermal output through a normal pressure warm water/steam outlet. It can be coupled to a high pressure loop, not very hard to attach a turbine for electricity.
Please do not regurgitate what you have been taught. Think about it first.
Black-holes are positive proof of over-unity, holes are positive proof of perpetual motion in physics today. Yes, it means that it is possible.
You simply cannot get energy out of nothing...Yet you can get energy out of Forces. We do every day. Wake up. Yes we are being lied to...and yet, you lie to yourself.
Yes it is......Hawking radiation

In 1974, Hawking showed that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation; an effect that has become known as Hawking radiation. By applying quantum field theory to a static black hole background, he determined that a black hole should emit particles in a perfect black body spectrum. Since Hawking's publication, many others have verified the result through various approaches. If Hawking's theory of black hole radiation is correct, then black holes are expected to shrink and evaporate over time because they lose mass by the emission of photons and other particles. The temperature of this thermal spectrum (Hawking temperature) is proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole, which, for a Schwarzschild black hole, is inversely proportional to the mass. Hence, large black holes emit less radiation than small black holes.

A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink. To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole needs to have less mass than the Moon. Such a black hole would have a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter.
Perpetual as the Cosmos feeds the reaction by design.
“Lift” an object 12 inches, stop, and then open your hand on the ISS, otherwise in space.
Q. How far did the object travel? A. Twelve inches.

“Lift” an object 12 inches, stop, and then open your hand on Earth.
Q. How far did the object travel? A. Twenty-four inches.
You did dot “give” the object that energy. You did not “provide” that downward force, you simply exerted a force against a force. The force exerted by your arm against the downward force of gravity. As that object is lifted upward, yes it gained potential energy. You did not provide it that energy, it gained it by virtue of its elevation.
I have a dream as well, a better world for all.
“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.” -Nikola Tesla
Everywhere there is an adequate source of gravity as well

“ is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature”. -Nikola Tesla
Can we attach our machinery to the wheelwork of nature already?
Gravity is the force that drives the engine of our galaxy, the gravity of a black hole, correct?
Think of it this way, the effect of the force of gravity can be compared to wind for an example. With a wind blowing at a constant consistent speed, if you were standing in that wind with a light wiffle ball, you could manage to play a game of catch with yourself simply by tossing that ball into the wind. The wind provides the ball with the energy (wind is an effect of the sun); it provides the force, to return the ball back to your hand. You did not give the ball the energy to return back to your hand, just like with gravity. Now using the force of gravity, while lying on the ground, you again can play a game of catch with yourself using that same wiffle ball. You do not give the ball the energy or the force to return back to your hand, you are simply exerting a force against a force, just like the wind blowing in a particular direction.
Duh, call it the singularity. Because, Oh yeah...we do not fully understand gravity, It's can admit it now.
Ignorant? Who is ignorant? Please consider this, in general at the basic fundamental level I understand that E=mc2 means that Energy can be converted into mass, and mass can be converted into energy, or vice versa correct? So, if this is true and we "can as a matter of fact" produce energy from forces, more mass can be converted from that energy produced from forces, correct?
Again... if discussing E=mc2 to explain the energy required to move a mass-less particle toward the speed of light is; where energy can be converted to mass or mass can be converted to energy or vice versa, of course it is correct. However, if used to describe that there is “Y” amount of mass available in our cosmos/existence then there is “X” amount of energy available in our cosmos/existence since the “big bang” or vice versa, then it does not account for any energy produced by forces.
Oh and by the way, yes a dead black hole, does not exist any longer, just ask the nice folks at our wonderful CERN particle accelerator, it dissipates and disappears. That is dead, all energy spent, gone. Dead.
Here’s an epiphany... according to astronomers isn't our cosmos constantly expanding? Isn't it also expanding at increasing speeds? Doesn't that mean that everything is “perpetually moving” further and further away from everything else even while I lie motionless asleep in bed? Perpetual motion in reality, in existence right here, right now. The devil is in the details.
Doesn't it require energy to move an object with mass any distance? But, if a force moves an object with mass any distance, how is that not the same?
O.K. fine don't argue forces creating energy is fundamentally just not accepted. Yet, If and when I connect three straight, flat linear tracks, and drop the ball, the only energy that I gave into that system was to begin the reaction. The rest would be from the stored magnetic field of the Neo magnets. Movement from a force, from the energy they received during the magnets manufacture. Lets hope it stops operating when the amount of energy put into the magnets is reached. Otherwise it might break a law and need to be classified as "perpetual motion".
An electron perpetually whizzing around an atom, our ever expanding cosmos, both examples of positive proof of perpetual motion possible within the laws of physics today. Ignore it all that you want, it still does not make it untrue.
OK, Fine, if not a perpetually expanding cosmos, a perpetually "stretching"...COSMOS, still proof of perpetual motion in reality, in the known physics of today. Accept it already, open your eyes.
Electron Spin...Orbital Electron spin...Quantum spin...Will it ever stop? Yo, I don't know...perpetual motion.
Prove it that it is not spinning in a mechanical fashion. Really?
How long does a magnet last with a keeper installed? Indefinitely...
So I want to build it, designed to operate with the magnetic keeper installed
Will it make you laugh to believe that we are the zombies?
Conventions will only change in their due time. So, free energy certainly would never be allowed to surface if it truly was in fact real, until the systems that support us all are beginning to fail or expire. When it becomes lucrative to do new research and to discover and reveal new and even better technologies; and it will be done by those with the resources to do it, thus those with resources remain in control.  Until then, we are just crazy and you explain away any new possibilities.
Open your eyes. The longer it is built, the higher it lifts. I am advertising that "Bishop Wilkins' magnetic perpetual motion machine" design was genius unrealized, yet it cannot be built the way he envisioned it. Place the magnets on the left and right of the track and you have a magnetic propulsion track, It is a different story then.
Here is another whopper for you, not only can magnets do work, but so can gravity. Just ask Cassini if it is burning fuel or if it is using the slingshot effect of gravity of the moon, of Venus, of Jupiter? It actually increased velocity, sounds like moving a mass a distance to me, with gravity? Isn't the Cassini spacecraft getting more out, than what was put in? Ask Bill Nye the science guy, even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity to sling-shot out to Jupiter. Gravity, being used to accomplish work.
If I was you and could make a open source Calloway "V" gate magnet motor (I do not personally like the Calloway "V" gate with little magnets as my propulsion ramp has more propulsive force). You should not place the V gate on the rotor and the bar magnet on the armature like everyone else does. Instead you could place straight bar magnets parallel with the shaft all around the rotor, then you could place the V gate on the armature (it is the same thing just switched around). You could make it a long and curved armature wider than the rotor, so it could be positioned in a manner to prevent the rotor magnets from ever reaching the gate. Just a thought, because the magnets are always moving to get back into alignment but cannot, they are frustrated on purpose. Happy Monday.
The burden of proof is on you.
Happy Science Project. How would you feel if no one believed you?
Thanks for the vote of no confidence. Gee thanks.
I never said anything about changing rotational speed, just do some more research, the Cassini Grand Finale, The grand finally, the Cassini final perihedrion, it is a gravity assist in which it's forward velocity increases, don't tell me to not be petty, help me build this then. I will help fund it. I will pay you. It was gravity being used to produce useful work, not burning fuel.
I never said anything about changing rotational speed, the Cassini gained forward velocity around Venus, then on to the Cassini Grand Finale around Saturns moon hyperion, it is a gravity "sling shot" assist in which it's forward velocity increased, don't tell me to not be petty, help me build this then. I will help fund it. I will pay what I can. It was gravity being used to produce useful work, not burning fuel. All any must do is admit that energy was gained by the Cassini spacecraft, the same effect of burning a fuel.
Methernitha Testatika
What is it going to take to keep helenna from posting spam. I'll just keep deleting it. Have you even seen what I have built? Even so, you all should really go check out the Rosch KPP 15 kW Free Energy System Demo June 20, 2015, Spich, Germany. I believe it is an amazing design and it is very obvious how it operates and where the energy comes from, the upward FORCE known as trade secret I am sure, never mind. The only problem with that is the science and physics consensus today does not accept that energy can be derived from forces in particular, even though forces can have the same effect as thermal energy, it can move a mass over a distance otherwise it is called work. Awesome! I truly hope there is no trickery involved and support this effort. Maybe we have not discovered any advanced civilizations in the Cosmos yet because they are not producing extreme excess heat. Maybe they have figured out that you can manipulate certain forces to create energy, not thermal energy.

I feel happy about and I really like this learning more about this topic. keep sharing your information regularly for my future reference.
Add Comment
Loading Comment Box..