Discover the Magic of a Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy - Free Energy Device

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jonathan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Magnetic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed device that claims to utilize magnetic forces for free energy generation. Participants explore the mechanics of the device, its energy output, and the feasibility of achieving a self-sustaining system. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and practical challenges related to the device's operation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a device that reportedly generates 17.5mJ of energy using a rolling magnet, but acknowledges the inability to create a closed-loop system.
  • Another participant argues that the claimed free energy disregards the energy required to reset the system, emphasizing that the ball's attraction to the magnet prevents a sustainable loop.
  • A different participant claims that their device operates by utilizing gravitational potential energy and does not require manual intervention to reset, suggesting that the magnets accelerate uphill due to the magnetic field.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the practicality of the device, questioning the calculations and the feasibility of achieving free energy without external input.
  • One participant highlights the importance of empirical evidence, stating that if the device truly worked, it would not require debate or theoretical justification.
  • Another participant acknowledges the lack of practical application but insists that the device demonstrates interesting behavior that merits further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility and validity of the device's claims. While some express belief in the potential of the device, others remain skeptical and argue that the principles of energy conservation undermine the possibility of free energy generation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of accounting for energy inputs and outputs, as well as the potential for misinterpretation of the device's operation. There are unresolved questions regarding the energy required to move ferrous materials through magnetic fields and the overall practicality of the proposed system.

Jonathan
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm
I have made a device similar to this, but using a rolling magnet, not a steel ball. I have tried the steel ball, but I can't get it to work. Regardless, I calculate 17.5mJ of free energy from my latest (one-shot) device. I am unable to actually 'close loop it' to make it anything other than a curiosity though. :frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You might care to look back at the previous thread you posted, where I explained this fully. Ie. the free energy disregards the potential energy in play from the magnetic field, and to reset it in each starting position thus requires energy input. Hence the impossibility of making loops, as the ball continues to be attracted to the magnet.
 
I have already addressed that (and I'm not using a ball) if you looked at the magnetic field sims on that site you'd see that the magnetic field suddenly weakens, the magnet/ball being attracked to the prior strong field, so it over-shoots and need only be pulled away from a field that is actually quite weak. I don't do that pulling away part anyway, gravity does. It is a one-shot magnet/gravity driven device. You cannot just explain away the effect without having thoroughly read the site and maybe made a device, which I have, and CONSISTENTLY calculate 17.5mJ output. I'm unfortunately unable to circulate the motion nor can I actually measure such a small amount of energy output at this point, so I can't prove it to any great extent beyond this, but I'm working on it. I want to make sure you all out there don't think I'm deluted, so let the record show that at this point it is an unsubstaniated claim of replication of a free energy device. Let the record also show that I ask for no money and that if the device fails a test to prove free energy output I will report it to all who care to know. (It should also be noted that by postind this thread I was really only trying to repeat the claims because both Ivan Seeking and I have forgotten where the old discussion was and he wanted me to recap for him).
 
Sorry Jonathan, I'm with FZ+ on this one. Besides, if this guy really had something we wouldn't need to argue about it. The fact is, you will never be able to get the system to reset.

I know that you think people are being closed minded, and I'm the first one to cry foul if I think this is the case, but this stuff is well understood and has been tested for about 1oo years.

Besides, like I said, if it worked you wouldn't need to argue the point. We can't ask for more definitive evidence than something that works. You are calculating the energy out. You can't properely account for the energy put back into the system. This is why it seems to yield free energy.
 
You do not understand. I am fully aware this device will never be practical, the fact is that my device is lifting 105g of magnets 1.5cm high, and then dropping it. At no point do I pull the magnets anywhere, gravity does. It does this by releasing the potential energy that is caused to be stored in the height of the magnets by the stationary ramp magnets. Ex.: if I have this device on a meter high table and I place the magnets on the input side, they accelerate uphill, then fall a distance of 101.5cm to the floor. To reset the device, I only lift it 100cm back up. If I had, for the sake of agument, a magical robot arm that could convert sound/heat from a particular source (the sound/heat released by magnets hitting the floor) 100% to moving the magnets back up, it would be able to lift them to 101.5cm of height, but it need only lift them to 100cm, leaving 1.5cm of converted gravitational potential energy left over. Obviously this is rediculus, but I hope you see my point. I can prove to anyone who is at my house (so they can watch) that the magnets ACCELERATE uphill, thereby proving that the kinetic energy is not inputted by me. They then overshoot the region of highest mag. field strength (like a pendulum passing the lowest point of it's swing) and falls, due to the lack of ramp underneath any more, at which point I catch it a couple feet lower. I obiously didn't pull it away from the high field strength area either, since it left that region all by itself. If you still doubt, then I give up, because I really don't want to write this much to prove a device that doesn't have any practical value anyway. I do understand though, as I reread this, why you doubt me, you really have to see what it for yourself, because words can't do the device justice, it's really easy to think I must be leaving something out that accounts for all this. I'd like to add that you (Ivan) should know that it doesn't matter how long you study something, you may miss something that makes your understanding incomplete. We stared at the sky for millions of years, and for most of that time we were oblivious to the fact that there are 4 more planets than we thought, not to mention the innumerable comets and astetoids that we haven't discovered yet. We assumed that if is was there, we'd see it, not yet knowing how to make telescopes and all, and if we didn't see it, it wasn't there. As of yet, no one has convinced me that I've left something out or that I am ignoring something that would prove that I'm not looking at the device the right way, but you are all welcome to try, because I want to know, I don't want to think I know.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jonathan
To reset the device, I only lift it 100cm back up. If...

You are also moving the ferrous material through a magnetic field. How much energy does this require? If you were really getting free energy, then you could make this practical. When you do so, let us know. Until you do, there is no justification to argue this in a theoretical context.