here is yuor Perpetual motion

[eccentrically1]

It depends on the length of the chain from ground. If it’s one meter, then it takes 29 joules to lift the 3 kg.
ETA: that is to lift both the 1kg and 2 kg to the top. If you only lift the 1kg say halfway, it’s less. About 25 joules.

[spinner361]

Never mind.

[WaltzCee]

For those interested in a motor using only magnets.

https://www.electronicdesign.com/techno ... r-feasible

It's a good short read.

[spinner361]

Walter, if this is true, would you consider this to be a discovery, or would you consider it to be an invention and not a discovery? Please explain your thoughts.

[thx4]

For those interested in a motor using only magnets.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/techno ... r-feasible

https://quanthommesuite.pagesperso-oran ... 070705.htm
Albert Michel a réussit à mettre au point un masque ou filtre magnétique pour son moteur à aimants permanents.
Il a était retrouvé mort d'une balle dans la tête... Des années plus tard un chercheur (très riche) a réussi à soustraire à sa femme la recette miracle qu'il a payé une fortune devant notaire...
J'ai été en contact avec ce chercheur (disparu depuis) et j'ai la liste de tous les ingrédients (une vingtaine dont du mercure) mais pas la recette ... lol
La recette consistait à faire fondre les éléments dans un certain ordre et quantité, j'ai refusé d'aller plus loin à cause du mercure.
Pour la petite histoire, une équipe avant que j'entre en contact (4 ans) avec le chercheur à réussi à fabriquer une plaquette de quelques centimètres carré parfaitement efficace mais par accident !!! il n'y avait personne au moment final de la cuisson, il était partis déjeuner lol, et la plaquette était carbonisée. La plaquette quelques jours plus tard c'est totalement désagrégée, ils ont cherchés pendant des années à refaire la même chose, sans succès, étrange...
A++
Albert Michel succeeded in developing a magnetic mask or filter for his permanent magnet motor.
He was found dead of a bullet in the head... Years later, a (very rich) researcher managed to take the miracle recipe away from his wife and paid a fortune in front of a notary...
I was in contact with this researcher (since disappeared) and I have the list of all the ingredients (about twenty of which mercury) but not the recipe... lol
The recipe consisted in melting the elements in a certain order and quantity, I refused to go further because of the mercury.
For the record, a team before I came into contact (4 years) with the researcher managed to make a perfectly effective plate of a few square centimeters but by accident!!! there was no one there at the final moment of cooking, he was out to lunch lol, and the plate was charred. The plate a few days later is totally disintegrated, they have sought for years to do the same thing, without success, strange ...
A++

[neuberlintourist1]

Just do a Video on Youtube and show how to replicate it, and there will be no more questions about possibility that is whats needet-wide scale replications
Unless that is done, no one gets exited

[Tarsier79]

Kenenths video showing the principle is gone, as is his website.

[WaltzCee]

Walter, if this is true, would you consider this to be a discovery, or would you consider it to be an invention and not a discovery? Please explain your thoughts.

Hey spinner.

I think they discovered an interesting property of magnetism. This property has existed before people were invented. :)

Any contraption using this property would be an invention. Internal combustion is a single property with many different engines.

I'm doing a roadside repair on someone's iron pony this morning. Sorry for the late reply; I've been very busy.

I think a gravity powered wheel will be like an engine operating by some characteristic of gravity yet to be discovered.

[preoccupied]

Do you really think that a magnetic shield was created, released and then hidden? There was no real scientific insight into making the magnetic shield. The process described that materials were combined step by step. Sounds like alchemy and not chemistry. I call bullshit on this. If it were real they would have used YouTube and not a private website. This is just meant to stir up the emotions of perpetual motion enthusiasts but I am not convinced. What is so convincing about this demonstration? Will the properties of the iron be degraded after the magnetism runs out? Will that iron ever be able to become magnetic again? Permanently damaging matter for the sake of free energy would be a big loss. Even nuclear fuel has a half life for its radiation. The possibility of destroying matter for free energy might be irreparable if that is what would happen. It's like using cavitation to create an engine that runs on water. What if it destroys water quality and life dies off later when water no longer has the same characteristics? Free energy isn't worth destroying the characteristics of matter especially matter we use in biological sense like iron and water. I mean I could possibly think of a way right now to use cavitation to cause water to release hydrogen and oxygen. For example, possibly teeth could chomp down on water and when the teeth pull away from the water it would cause cavitation and release hydrogen and oxygen with very little energy used because the vacuum created in the teeth would tear up the water creating low pressure evaporation. Maybe? This might even be how hard water is created. We need to thoroughly know the consequences of free energy before we ever use it in large amounts. I believe this magnetic motor would be unsafe somehow. I also don't believe it actually works and is a hoax.

[agor95]

Hello perPedes

Thank you in bringing the concept to our attention.

The example of the buoyant vertical wood being raised as the local water level rises is proof in itself.

This helps people too see what is possible. After that it is all about what is practical.

I noticed you have looked at two methods of raising a local fluid's level by electrostatic [capillary] action and electromagnetic action using a ferrofluid.

Two things come to mind

1. Could the buoyant wood be treated with a wax or another water repellent?

Also finding the lowest density float with this repellent quality.

2. Raising water at the rim in a cylinder container.

I consider water is wet due to it's extreme static charge negative at the Oxygen head and
positive at the Hydrogen tails. Molecules have different electrostatic charge and water is a good
example.

If the inside of the cylinder can was waxed [water repellent],
Then de-ionised water was contained within and spin to create a parabola in it's water surface.

What keeps the water spinning is a waxed string with waxed styrofoam beads along its' length.

This acts like the chain loop, but is guided via wire too follow a helix path up the around the rim.

The chain leaves at the top and follows a helix path near the centre of rotation down.

So the chain enters the water at a lower level than it leaves.
Also the chains path sustains the water's and air rotation.

There are many radial chain loops not just one within the cylinder.
These spiral too transition from inner to outer helix paths.

Note.

The cylinder is under pressure too increase the buoyancy of the chain.

Regards

[Tarsier79]

The example of the buoyant vertical wood being raised as the local water level rises is proof in itself.

I disagree. I suspect surface tension could be the cause, which would not work to constantly pull on one side of a ring. It doesn't make logical sense that the stick is raised through buoyancy, but there is every chance I am wrong.

[agor95]

The example of the buoyant vertical wood being raised as the local water level rises is proof in itself.

I disagree. I suspect surface tension could be the cause, which would not work to constantly pull on one side of a ring. It doesn't make logical sense that the stick is raised through buoyancy, but there is every chance I am wrong.

Let me understand the post

You start with disagreeing that a piece of wood is buoyant and therefore no proof in itself is present.
Then you end with disagreeing with yourself 'chance I am wrong'.

You bring in 'surface tension' as a cause of what? increased water level or buoyancy.

You also state buoyancy does not raise wood in water; no logical sense - really

What can we believe?

A material volume less dense than water will be buoyant. Like low dense wood [balsa].
A column of wood will have a section above the water level due to buoyancy.

The key concepts are to find ways to raise the local fluid level.

1. Electrostatic
2. Magnetic
3. Inertial

Putting these key to one side for now.

The buoyant chain will pull more on the side were the chain is in the most fluid.

The difference in pull can be used to do work.

In this concept moving the chain from the top on one side down to the other top through air.

The water tension issue pulling on the chain is addressed with the repellent coating.
It is true there is a cancelling out present as the chain enters or leaved the fluid.

In the key option 'Inertial' there is a question on there being enough difference in pull to rotate the fluid in the cylinder. At leased the water is repelled from the internal walls on the cylinder to reduce electrostatic cohesion.

That is why I included pressure to increase the apparent water density.
This would affect buoyancy more than resistance.

Regards

[eccentrically1]

T79 was quoting someone so there isn't a contradiction. He is correct about the buoyancy , the wood rises as the water level rises.

[Tarsier79]

Agor, I never said wood isn't buoyant. Buoyancy is the water pushing down, not the wood magically rising. If the water doesn't push down, how can it push the wood up?

When water level is raised in the meniscus, the water isn't pushing down to lift the wood. The water is attracted to the capillary due to surface tension. The sudden change in surface tension is what I believe is changing the level of the wood floating in the water, not its buoyancy. The evidence of this to me is the amount of height the wood rises compared to the height of the meniscus. If it were just buoyacy, the wood would rise the same level the water rises.

...or they are faking it

[agor95]

Agor, I never said wood isn't buoyant. Buoyancy is the water pushing down, not the wood magically rising. If the water doesn't push down, how can it push the wood up?

Now that is a better piece of analysis and quite valid.

The example of the buoyant vertical wood being raised as the local water level rises is proof in itself.

My statement is now vague when comparing to your statement.

So the point you are alerting us to is the height of the wood after appears to be more than one would expect from it's initial position. Therefore could be fake.

So we need too measure, with detail, the height the wood is coming out of the water before and after.

Note.

With pressure I look at atoms hitting each other. The ones in the wood and the ones in the water.
That is more real than pressing down or lifting up.

Regards