i can't find much information on these, but its interesting to me because i thought of the same idea, i did a patent search and found patents for Electromagnetic Turbo Generator and Permanent Magnet Turbo Generator. It works by using magnetic bearings plus no physical connections to the levitating central magnet giving absolute zero friction. In the PM which is what i thought of it would use another smaller magnet towards one end of the central pin with a coil around it, to apply current to, to get motion.

As i was thinking about it i was thinking without friction it would have to produce more energy than put in, because something without friction to slow it down will spin forever. But there is only one possibility of friction other than the very slight rub against air which wouldn't have hardly any effect at all, but also i was wondering if friction is created when elctrons are generated, when electrons jump into the coil, does that process alone cause friction?> Even in the case it does cause friction, is enough friction to slow it down enough to make up to conservatation of energy? I will try to build one either way, but i would like to hear some other thoughts.

really a magnet is like a battery, a permanent magnet is like a battery that radiates an eltro-magnetic feild. When you generate electricity your not extracting the electrons that are contained in the magnet, but extracting or converting from the feilds that the eletrons held in a state without movement are producing. I see it possibly working in a manner as the magnet acts as a natural energy conveter, holding its electrons in a state which produces or converts energy to a electro-magnetic field, The electro-magnetic feild is like a battery that you get power from by motion of the feild through a current carrying metal. Thats the best i understand it anyway.

Q: How much energy/efford does it take to make good powerful magnets?
A: Shit loads

i actually didn't think it took that much at all really, a 12 volt battery works good, compaired to how long they last. But earth magnets are created naturally, so we don't have to put that energy in, just get use it. I have read on this and it clearly states that you are not extracting electrons from the permanent magnet, the electrons stay in the magnet held in a state without movement which radiates an eletric feild which radiates a magnetic feild and on and on.

Your extracting or converting the eletric/magnetic feild into electrons, and the feilds are not using electrons, the feild is the result of holding the electron in that state.

Everyone can generate a magnet with a 12V battery. But how about a magnet that is powerful enough? Or one that can last long enough?. For these you need some powerful electromagnetic fields.

And digging them up is not cheap either. It is a limited raw material that needs to be first dug up (energy cost) transported (energy cost) and processed (energy cost). And then it is not going to be a powerful enough to use.

what do you mean? We use them all the time, thats what a generator is. It uses kentic energy to turn magnetic feilds into electricity, making it zero friction clearly increases the production with less kentic energy needed. magnets are the best source for electricity generators, the proof is there wide spread use.

even if it didn't make more than used, it would still increase the efficiency, which is always good.

The problem with magnets is that they cost more energy to produce then what you can get out of them in a later stage.

The frictionless propulsion system you propose will cost large amounts of energy.
In effect it's just a wireless energy transfer device, and an inefficient one I would say.

Let me explain the electromagnetic version:
1. You power the electromagnet with energy
2. The electromagnet will produce an electromagnetic field in ALL directions
3. The receiving magnet will convert part of the electromagnetic energy to motion

All steps will loose a part of the energy you've put in.
1: A part of the energy you put in will be converted to heat
2: The electromagnet radiates to ALL directions, not only to the receiving magnet, thus loosing loads of energy
3: Again part of the received energy will be converted to heat

He means the sweet kinds of magnets you need to do the kinds of things you are talking about are not cheap and not always so easy to make.

If magnets were that easy to make wow. ~~Burnt dreams about gigabyte NMR's~~

Also think about the trains that run on magnets. They are pretty sweet but they are expensive to make and I think cool the magnets.

i was reffering to the permanet magnet version where you utilize the magnets natural abillity to repeal south and south.

I have another question though, if magnets are so shity and require that we superload them with electricity like a battery to only extract less energy out. That just isn't sounding right. Its fact that we use generators all the time that have central spinning magnets, the purpose is ussally to use a fuel to convert its energy to kenitic which spins the magnet. If what yall say is true then i runs all over conservation of energy, its seems in what you suggest it losses lots of energy because the magnet has to be charged with energy, not even retreaving 100% of it back, then even more by using the fuel to convert kenetic to electrical. That dosen't add up correctly. How can someone make sence of this?

The whole idea of generators is that you turn mechanical energy into electrical energy. You use a machine that runs on fuel to turn the generator, then the generator to convert the rotation into electrical energy.

With this process not all mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy. A large part will be converted to heat, that part is what we call a loss since it's the electricity we need. So in the end no energy is lost but we didn't convert all the fuel to the energy we did like to have so we still say we 'lost' energy in the process.

What i'm getting at is we use these generators all the time. The generator dosen't work without the magnet. But you say that the magnet also has to be charged, and that you will only get out what you put in, but not even all of it because of the heat waste. So what sence would it be to loose electricity by putting it in a magnet when you could just use the electricity you had to begin with. Thats why i think there is an error here somewhere, that would make generators not worth shitand completely pointless to put energy in a magnet to get back the same energy yet less, and that really is not true. You see what i'm saying?


Its like this, i have 20amps @ 1volt, i put it in a magnet loosing 20% in heat. Then i make a generator which again requires a fuel(More energy), but all this energy is lost to kenetic motion and heat. Because of the material and the magnetic feild plus the motion of the magnet gives me electricity which is being extracted from the feild, not the actual electrons which create the feild.(I really did read that the electrons in a permenant magnet do not move, they are held in a state.) Also, i thought a permenant magnet was just that, permenant.


I'm not being to clear here, having a hard time wording it, if all that where true then there would be no point in haveing a generator that used a magnet, because its a big waste of energy, starting with your 100% of electricity to end up with only 50%, surely this can't be true.

But you are not saying that, your saying that the point of a generator is to store energy, because in your explanataion you have to first do a wastefull process of puttining more than you'll get out into the magnet so there is a magnet to generate electricity.

Electrical with heat waste --> Charge Magnet --> Get fuel ready(Requires energy) --> burn fuel 60% kenetic motion/ 40% heat waste --> To only get like 20% electrical from the 60% kenetic. If this where true wouldn't it make more sence to just put that first electrical into a battery where you can get 100% of it back. Thats why i think yall are missing something very important here, becaus a generator would be worthless in this case, and we know they are very useful.

Nope.

The correct flow is this: Fuel->Combustion => Rotation (of magnet) => Electricity

You are correct thought that there are better ways to produce energy directly from a fuel source, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator

There are all sorts of prototypes, and initial funding for Free Energy Devices. These things have been available for years, but have been repressed or shelved due to energy companies and established institutions wanting to keep profitability going.

There are devices out there that work, our own institutions and the greed for money is the only thing keeping us from a free, clean energy source.

I don't know about that. They would make millions and billions on such a device. While it could be true that companies make such devices patent them and then store them away so no one can use them is that really happeneing? Or is it just some wild speculation?

I think free energy wouldn't be something people could keep hidden its too major. Also doesn't it violate the laws of thermodynamics?

Personally I think there is no such thing as free energy and the vast majority of these devices don't work as good as they claim.

And I have to agree with burnt on thisb issue. What I do not really like is the conspiracy theories such as free energy systems do exist but the big corporations actively repress them to consolidate their power.

I have quite a few friends proficient in the issues of green energies with which I have the chance to conversate quite often. It is the kind of people with doctorate degrees but who dream of creating and living in a sustainabel farm. They are also absolutely convinced that there is not such thing as "free energy" at least as it is depicted in those elusive water-fuelled cars or those perpettual motion magnet type of turbines.

That is why their interest lies mainly on the development of better and more efficient techniques of capturing the already available sources of "free" energy, such as solar or aeolian. They have more pragmatic goals.

A good example of improvement on the technology of natural energies harvesting is the OTEC system. Pretty genious and more realistic compared to the all those "free energy" devices advertised by semi-scientists who want to make a quick buck out of the energy conservation hype around the internet.

really if you gave it more thought you might see that there are very good reasons for someone in that position to hold back technology, don't confuse me whith saying its 100% done, thats the whole reason i'm trying to educate myself, no one can lie if you know the answer.


But as a reason for them, money, power....what elese would you think? Sure its not fact only suspicion, but you would have to be crazy to think that the idea is completely impossible. If the held back free energy they can still charge alot for energy, now we don't know there keeping us from free energy, but i can easily see why they would do it if it where true. But its the people out there claiming free energy that sparks the interest, plus its a big need for humanity. I say there's no harm in getting people to learn, say the slim chance that everyone who claimed free energy lied, weather knowing or not(Trust), there lies called on lots of average people to gain interest and start learning more. Its a plus either way to me, Learn that there is free power, or learn why there isn't free power.

ahh, ahh..... don't forget... : Electricity --> Magnet --> Fuel->Combustion => Rotation (of magnet) => Electricity

How is it that it makes it worth while.

Say 100 points for power into magnet and 100 points for power in fuel = 200p

When all is done you end up with 150p. Not getting back but 75% but still more than you actually put in the magnet? Is that more how it is? So with the fuel also you end up with 50% more electricity than you put in the magnet but 25% less than the sum of the fuel & power put in magnet?


But how does that tie in with how a magnet actually works? A permenant magnet does not loose its electrons, they do not move or leave or swirl around to attract and repel, they are held in a state without motion that radiates both an eletric feild and a magnetic feild. But your saying when you generate electricity with a magnet, first the magnet has to be charged like a battery with all or 50% of the energy you plan to get back out of it. If your draining energy out of the magnet, then your saying the electrons are being drained of the energy they where charged with, but the wiki says that that does not happen. It say that the permenant magnet never losses its energy, but yet acts as a generator its self to generate a magnetic field by holding electrons in a natural state of the electron.


I'm not trying to argue the point, but understand it. One of you has to be wrong, or i'm not fully understanding what i'm reading, either way i want to know which it is.