Could our modern engineers be so wrapped up in the complex problems of improving the efficiency of standard machinery that they " cannot see the forest through the tree's "?
It is blind to argue with physical law's, but it is more blind to ignore something that appears to be an exception simply because it violates our known understanding of nature. Was it not once proven scientifically impossible to go to the moon or travel faster than sound?
How does one define energy? Most textbook's state that energy is "the ability to overcome resistance" or " the capacity to do work". Most experts agree that there really is no good definition for energy, yet they allseem to agree that one cannot obtain it from nothing. Nature, however, isfull of examples of free energy. A permanent magnet can exert a force infinitly without consuming energy. Gravity constantly pulls us downwards without consuming energy. Yet these forces pull only in one direction, and have a dead end.
When an object falls it hits the earth and stops moving. The force, however, continues to pull. Is it possible to construct a device, which converts a " dead" unidirectional force into a "live" rotary or oscillating force which can do that which we prceive as work?
Perpetual motion has for cenuries given free energy a bad name. Although perpetual motion and free energy are interrelated, there is an important difference. Perpetual motion is not in itself a form of energy. It is merely the situation which exists when something is set in motion and there is nothing to slow it down. Which brings us to the first rule of free energy - That which appears as one thing in one frame of referance may be perceived quite differently in another.
" Work is something done against a force, not perpendicular to it". To comprehend this, consider this analogy: If one has an iron ball and wishes to change it's location by a certain distance, one of two things could be done. It could be lifted that distance upward, which is work against gravity or one could move the ball horizontally, perpendicular to the force of gravity, which as one would imagine, would require less effort. Thus no work would have been done as moving horizontally is at a right angle to the direction of the force of gravity. This idea of something acting perpendicular to a force will herein be refered to as the " Perpendicular concept". This is also the second rule of free energy.
The standard rule that once an object is set in motion, untill resistance stops it, brings us to the third rule of free energy- inertia. The only energy needed to move the iron ball sideways is just enough to overcome it's inertia to get it rolling which is returned, however, by reabsorbing it when the rolling stops at it's destination. Therefore, it can be stated that no energy needs to be consumed to produce a change in position, as the astronauts did when going to the moon.
Our modern electrical machinery creates a misconception as to what force really does " work". It is not the direct force of the flowing electrons, which produce physical force, but the magnetic fielf that acts like a force. Since no energy is required to produce a change in position, no energy should be required to produce a magnetic field.
To design a free energy machine the forces must reverse polarity periodically. Permanent magnets are a natural free force. But to switch their field polarity without itself doing work has eluded most designers- this can be done by applying rule#2.
There are only two ways to achive free energy using permanent magnets, deflective and distributive.
A load put on these forms of generators will not affect the output of said generator because what is happening mechanically is isolated from what is happening electrically.Lenz's Law states that " an induced electric current flows in a direction such that the current opposes the change that produced it".
Lenz's Law upholds the conventional belief that it takes energy to make energy. Thus the world has excepted the fact that it takes physical force to make electrical force and it takes electrical force to make physical force. If we have a conductor in a magnetic field as before, and we have current flowing, the conductor tries to move. This time, however, we physically prevent the conductor from moving. It is held in place. A force is exerted, but no work is done. The current continues to flow. This may not sound like much but it should. Why should the electrons flow so freely when the output is loaded ininatly? Shouldn't the flow be loaded also? It is not, and sice there is no motion there is is no opposition current to act as electrical resistance to the current flow. Here is a loophole that lies right before our eyes. You may have heard that " a D.C. current flowing through a stationary coil will produce a stationary field around the coil, but a stationary field around a stationary coil will not produce any current flow". The relationship between magnetic field, current flow, and motion may be reversible, but the relationship between current and magnetic field alone is not reversible. The key to free magnetic energy lies in how we deal with the physical motion. As long as the motion produced by the force does not produce resistance to the flow of electrons, Lenz's Law is avoided.
Free energy is produced by a system in which a non-energy concuming unidirectional force is caused to oscillate by means which is not defined as work to the system.
Note: I'm not the author of all this, but the stuff I played with seemed to be interesting.
