Theory of perpetual motion machines

[Magnetic energy]

Hello

I don't know if that is the correct place to post and if it is not i am really sorry.
I am a newbie on free energy subjects and I have to do an assignment on perpetual motion machines and i am looking for web links or any other source talking about perpetual motion machines.
Below is what i already found on the web:
PowerPedia:Perpetual motion - PESWiki
Hans Peter's Mathematical, Technical, Historical and Linguistic Omnium Gatherum
Randall Woods - Home Page at BCIT Physics
Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also does anyone knows what maths and physics do i need to know for an analysis of a perpetual motion machine which employs permanent magnets?

If anyone knows any more good sources can you please help me!!!

Thanks for your time.

Kind Regards
Magnetic energy

[blackchisel97]

Hello

I don't know if that is the correct place to post and if it is not i am really sorry.
I am a newbie on free energy subjects and I have to do an assignment on perpetual motion machines and i am looking for web links or any other source talking about perpetual motion machines.
Below is what i already found on the web:
PowerPedia:Perpetual motion - PESWiki
Hans Peter's Mathematical, Technical, Historical and Linguistic Omnium Gatherum
Randall Woods - Home Page at BCIT Physics
Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also does anyone knows what maths and physics do i need to know for an analysis of a perpetual motion machine which employs permanent magnets?

If anyone knows any more good sources can you please help me!!!

Thanks for your time.

Kind Regards
Magnetic energy

You may want to check this site - The Museum of Unworkable Devices


Vtech

[Neight]

here is an interesting video I watched several months ago, and was one of the first magnetic pulse motors I had ever seen. It's a pretty simple device, and as long as nothing on it fails, I see no reason why it would ever stop, short of being knocked off it's balance.

YouTube - LEGO perpetual motion

not sure youtube can go on a works cited page, but interesting none the less

[Magnetic energy]

Hello and thanks for your replies

Yes i know the site of The Museum of Unworkable Devices and also the LEGO perpetual motion video is very nice and simple.

Does anyone more knows more sources, and what maths and physics i will need for the investigation of the permanent magnets machine?

Thanks for your time

kind regards

[shawnnweed]

Most of the forums that you need have been listed. However, I have been working on a perpetual energy device for a few years. I have two mathemtical theorums both of which I can argue either way; to the advantage of the laws of thermodynamics or to the detriment. If you would like further [email protected]

[Magnetic energy]

Most of the forums that you need have been listed. However, I have been working on a perpetual energy device for a few years. I have two mathemtical theorums both of which I can argue either way; to the advantage of the laws of thermodynamics or to the detriment. If you would like further [email protected]

yes i am open to read and listen any theorem about perpetual motion machines. so do you have any link to let say to your own web page so if i will use some of your work to be able to make a reference...... i don't like copying the work of others without referencing it.

[lamare]

You may want to check my analysis of Meyer/Puharich and Gray's stuff, based on the theories of Prof. Claus Turtur and Tom Bearden. See my sig.

[shawnnweed]

yes i am open to read and listen any theorem about perpetual motion machines. so do you have any link to let say to your own web page so if i will use some of your work to be able to make a reference...... i don't like copying the work of others without referencing it.

Here it is but do not think for a second that you will not be challenged on this. If you show this to anyone you better understand it first.

I would like to submit to the Physics community a proposal for Perpeptual Energy. Now usually when a bonafide physicist catches wind of a nutjob claiming perpetual energy; it is commesurate to blood in the water, the sharks come calling.
However, to establish a common ground let me first say that while I am not a physicist, I do understand the laws of physics very well. And I know that this has been said countless ways, all of them valid in their own perspective however the laws of thermodynamics are essentially this; 0. there is a game. 1. You can't win. 2. The best you can do is break even. 3. The only way to break even is at absolute zero.
Now I will present my idea, the mathematical theorem, and the actual numbers plugged into the theorem to prove its validty. To save time I will do my utmost to argue your points for you so that you do not have to waste your keystrokes or breathe as it were.
The idea is simple, combine photovoltaic cells with Light Emitting Diodes, to exchange light for electricity in a perfect balance. The mathematical theorem is as simple as the pythagorean theorem and is none less valid. Led input - PV output = 0. Now I know immediately that this is how you feel. How many times do we have to go through this?
Now let me argue your points for you. OK, Shawn let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that there is a new solar cell just invented that is 100% efficient and it is connected to a revolutionary LED just created that is 100% efficient. Now lets even say that they are connected with a superconductor (that does not require power hungry machines). Let's even say that we placed all this inside a 100% reflective box so that no light is lost. Even with all this do you not understand that light carries heat and that some of that heat would be absorbed into the mirrors therefore depleating the whole process until it completely shuts down? To put it bluntly, you are wasting your time. Hopefully, I have argued YOUR point well enough. And I completely agree that [(Led input i pv ouput = (0) or (+1)] I.E. to break even or acheve over-unity is NOT possible through and increase of efficiency. Once an object has reached capacity it can not be overfilled.
Now as to not waste your time I will share with you my viewpoint. I beleive that both "breaking even" and "overunity" can be achieved through electrical manipulation of LED's. Call it inversion, call it a transformer effect, I don't care. However, gentlemen, we have been approaching this problem from the wrong perspective. I will explain how this can be acheived if you will simply keep reading.
I have actually run this experiment at my house with a reflective box lined with solar cells. I used a 200 watt LED that at 6 amps put out 16,000 lumen. This 16,000 lumen caused the solar cells to put out 670 milliamps. A small recap 200 watts of light (6 amp input) produced 16,000 lumen which produced (670 milliamps ouput). I used 6 amps to produce the light but only created a tenth in ouput, nowhere near perpetual. Now comes the I told you so's. The rational train of thought would be to try to raise the ouput somehow. Yet the only way to raise the ouput is through 'efficiencies' and the best we could do any any circumstance is to get out as much as we put in; 6 amps in and 6 amps out. Yet as previously stated it is a waste of time and NOT possible even at 100% efficiency.
God grant me the patience to accept the things i can not change, the bravery to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
If we know that we can not acheive over-unity through an increase in efficiency then why don't we simply "accept the things that we can not change". Yet we need to have the "bravery" to change the things we can." Instead of using the input as the base of comparison/goal what if we used the output as the goal. By raising the voltage on an led you can drop the amperage required(inversion). So if we used a high voltage LED at 200 volts and 1 amps it would still produce the same 200 watts required to produce the required 16,000 lumen of light and 670 milliamps of output. A small recap. 1000 milliamps Input produced 670 milliamps ouput. Now this is 67% of perpetual. Does an LED like this exist...yes. Could we make the required voltage...yes by using amorphous silicon to produce the voltage, combined with monocrystalline solar cells to produce the amperage. Now in your head you are probably saying 67% is not even close enough to get a nod from me.
Alright, let me tempt you once more. what if we used an Led that was 400 volts and 500 milliamps? This would still be 200 watts and still produce 16,000 lumen of light which would still produce 670 milliamps of output. A small reacap: 500 milliamps of input produces 670 milliamps of output. Now that the Milliamperes from the LED is under what 16,000 lumen will produce from the solar cells(670ma) then all we have to do is ask one simple question...can we make the voltage?
The voltage could be made by using 57 (7-volt) Amorphous silicon panels. You can pick these up at a website called 'deal extreme.' They are rated at 4.5 volts yet under 16,000 lumen max out at a steady 7 volts. You would have to borrow 40 ma(1000 lumen of light) from your mono crystalline solar cells to power up your amorphous cells to 100% or 399 volts. Of course this will drop your 670ma to 630ma. Yet that is just fine 630 is still greater than 500ma required by the LED. And if you add the 6 volts from your 12 mono crystalline cells then you get a total of 405 volts and 630ma. Your LED requires 400 volts and 500 ma. This would be perpetual with a little left over. (LED input - PV output = +1) and I didn't achieve this by claiming greater than 100% efficiency which is impossible. This does not break any thermodynamic laws and the math can not be refuted. However I will be the first to admit a 400 volt LED that runs from 500ma does not exist but if it did. Ladies and gentlemen as once stated to me, "If you deny the laws of physics which have never been proven wrong then you are simply committing the unforgivable sin if wilfull ignorance." I do not deny the laws of physics or thermodynamics, as it were, but this does not break the laws. Yet I ask you is it "Wisdom" to deny the theorem(LED input - PV ouput = +1)(200watts - 255 watts = -55watts extra) and the math which proves it? Is this also not willful ignorance? This will of course have to be jump started with separate ignition source which would 'immediately' have to be removed otherwise you will over power and burn out your LED. After the ignition source is removed you will have to divert 130 milliamperes or you will 'eventually' burn out your LED's. And I know the burden of proof is on me to prove this so no response is necessary. Just wanted to show it is possible.