Here is how to do it

[Kevin Johnson]

https://revolution-green.com/yilditz-ma ... or-update/

[GRTfast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r52VWrIZui8
In the end god makes laws, man just makes discoveries, man is imperfect and so are his discoveries. Things are not always as they appear.
And GRT if it is total bs then why all the engineers agree?

Argument ad populum.

Are you capable of supporting a position without employing logical fallacies?

[GRTfast]

This thread should probably be moved to the dungeon (politics/religion section)

[Kevin Johnson]

...
Its not my deal, I have not made one. I'm just the messenger. There is no free energy with these type of machines they use magnetic force, that force is free though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT1hNAIMk7U

...

I counted seven big capacitors. Did I miss any?

[Kevin Johnson]

...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrJIzrmX1mI
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Daniel is in the county south of where he lived. It is a possibility that his designs acted as tuned antennae and were inadvertently fed off the power grid in some manner. It would also help explain why the results were difficult to reproduce in another location.

[Brian P]

Ohms law works just fine with AC. It requires understanding (and putting numbers to) additional time-related influences that are not relevant with DC - notably "capacitance" or "inductance" in addition to "resistance", which are gathered together as "impedance". The underlying physics is the same. That capacitors and reluctors/inductors are not relevant in a steady-state DC situation doesn't change this.

The laws of thermodynamics work just fine in the system called "earth" (and well beyond).

The main problem is the number of gullible people that think they can somehow escape those laws.

[GRTfast]

Like Ohms law, it works with DC not so with AC..

Ohms law works just fine with AC.

Yes it does work..

[Brian P]

Sure.

It's all well and good that you extract mechanical work from compressed air inside an air cylinder, except that once you've extracted that energy by expanding the air, you would have to put that mechanical work back into it to get your compressed air back. Whether that work of compression is done in the same cylinder (by pushing the piston back in again) or externally (in a separate air compressor) is immaterial. Barring losses (which WILL be present!) the work of re-compressing the air will match the work that you extracted in the first place.

It's all well and good that you extract mechanical work from a piece of magnetic material separated from a magnet, except that once you've extracted that energy by letting the two come closer together, you would have to put that mechanical work back into it to separate the magnetic material from the magnet again. Whether that work is done in the same mechanism (by pulling a piece of iron away from a permanent magnet), or via electricity by destroying the magnetic field of an electromagnet by switching off the current and then re-creating it again after the two pieces are separated, is immaterial. Barring losses (which WILL be present!) the work of re-creating the original magnetic material separated from a magnet by a distance will match the work that you extracted in the first place.

P.S. Electric motors work by alternately creating and destroying (or reversing) magnetic fields. That's what they do. Their operating characteristics are well known.

[GRTfast]

Sure.

It's all well and good that you extract mechanical work from compressed air inside an air cylinder, except that once you've extracted that energy by expanding the air, you would have to put that mechanical work back into it to get your compressed air back. Whether that work of compression is done in the same cylinder (by pushing the piston back in again) or externally (in a separate air compressor) is immaterial. Barring losses (which WILL be present!) the work of re-compressing the air will match the work that you extracted in the first place.

It's all well and good that you extract mechanical work from a piece of magnetic material separated from a magnet, except that once you've extracted that energy by letting the two come closer together, you would have to put that mechanical work back into it to separate the magnetic material from the magnet again. Whether that work is done in the same mechanism (by pulling a piece of iron away from a permanent magnet), or via electricity by destroying the magnetic field of an electromagnet by switching off the current and then re-creating it again after the two pieces are separated, is immaterial. Barring losses (which WILL be present!) the work of re-creating the original magnetic material separated from a magnet by a distance will match the work that you extracted in the first place.

P.S. Electric motors work by alternately creating and destroying (or reversing) magnetic fields. That's what they do. Their operating characteristics are well known.

But didn’t you see the videos?

[Brian P]

*sigh*

Internal combustion engines work because the combustion (heat energy input) leads to the pressure greatly increasing beyond what the initial mechanical compression achieved, and thus, the mechanical work extracted by expansion is greater than the work of compression. It didn't come out of nowhere. It came from the heat released by a chemical reaction (combustion ... fire). If you don't put in that heat energy input (shut off the fuel) ... it doesn't work. In fact, it is a losing game because of frictional and heat transfer losses.

"Magnetic shutters" ... doesn't work that way. Altering the path of magnetic field lines (which is what a nearby chunk of steel does) either does work (if the nearby chunk of steel is getting closer) or requires work (if the nearby chunk of steel is getting further away). Non-magnetic materials can be freely moved around near magnets ... because they don't alter the path of the magnetic fields (and therefore can't act like a "shutter").

[Kevin Johnson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWuXvZFn91Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf1V7okoTVk

Magnetic force does the work, just like air pressure in a cylinder acting on a piston.

He is putting a lot of time into testing/replicating various designs.

[gruntguru]

Did you watch the video?

It must be true - I saw it in a video.

OK, there is enough information in the video - build your own. See how much "free" energy you get. You will certainly learn a lot.

[gruntguru]

Did you watch the video?

It must be true - I saw it in a video.

OK, there is enough information in the video - build your own. See how much "free" energy you get. You will certainly learn a lot.

Its not free energy, you have to buy the materials. And it isn't any more free than nuclear power is. The energy involved is just lower, since the valence bands are used rather than nuclear binding forces.
The guy is not trying to sell anything he is just showing stuff, I guess the video of Jon Kaase's shop is fake as well.

So you think I was suggesting you build a machine at zero cost?

"Free" energy means energy that does not require the input of energy in any other form (chemical, electrical, radiant, etc). It is not free in the sense that it can be produced by a machine that costs nothing.

"Free" energy (as defined above) does not exist - even if it is "lower, since the valence bands are used rather than nuclear binding forces".

[Kevin Johnson]

Having watched the videos my respect goes to the person attempting to replicate the apparent work performed by the various devices.

The key term is "attempting."

There are many iterations of the motors and a common comment is that people are unable to reproduce the effect while following the designs presented.

There is large success in replicating the apparent work performed by way of careful concealment of batteries or capacitors.

Human psychology is complex and varied. It is often difficult to know the actual motivations behind such videos.

[GRTfast]

I guess you missed the funny face........... Nuclear energy is free energy, there is no input from another source. Just put the right stuff together and waaallllaaaa you got heat. Now with a magnet you magnetize it and you got magnetic force, its less free than nuke power.

The heat ENERGY generated in a nuclear reactor is released during fission... the splitting of atoms. When a uranium atom nucleus is hit by a neutron from a neighboring atom experiencing radioactive decay, it breaks the nucleus apart. The resultant atoms have less combined mass than the uranium atom did. The "missing" mass is released as heat ENERGY. This heat energy is used to heat water and create pressurized steam, which is in turn used to rotate a turbine shaft. This shaft work is converted to electricity by using it to move a magnetic field (created by an electromagnet) relative to conductors. This entire process involves ENERGY being converted, and is well understood and can be easily represented mathematically. All the Uranium in nuclear fuel rods will eventually decay, and the reactor will not function. Nuclear energy is not "free" in any way.

Where is the energy coming from in a permanent magnet motor? Describe it in the level of detail I just did for a nuclear power plant. Connect the dots.