While looking into the Wankel motor's gate problem, I had an idea, which led me to a whole new view for a motor. It's a Must-Try..
This build will use magnets, BUT the magnets are not the source of the anticipated gain. Before getting too far in to it, I will start off by presenting the effect I am working with. Remember, this is not the build, but the basic forces I will be manipulating.
FIRST- A Non-Ferrous Scale..
We place a 1 pound magnet on 1 side of the scale, and a 1 pound weight on the other side. The weight is equal so they balance. Easy enough..
Next, we position a stationary magnet above the scale. It attracts to the magnet in the scale, but the magnets are not close enough to lift the magnet. Now we will notice the scale is no longer balanced. The attractive forces displaced a portion of the gravity that affects the magnet on the scale.
Next part-
We attach a magnet on a non-ferrous toy truck. We then place a stationary magnet avove the truck in attraction mode, and roll the truck under the suspended magnet.
Now we created a "Temporal Gravitational Displacement" event as the truck travelled past the suspended magnet. If the ground was a scale, you would see the truck weigh less as it passed under the magnet. In reality, the truck did not weigh less, but we displaced a portion of the gravitational effect that usually affects the truck in a percise place by applying an upward force.
Conservation- Now the kinetic energy being affected by the magnet's interactions is still "conserved". Since the truck was not lifted off the ground, the law of equal and opposite reactions still hold true. The assistive PULL the truck experiences as the suspended magnet attracts the magnet attached to the truck is the exact same as the Restrictive Impedance the truck faces when trying to pull away from the suspended magnet. No kinetic energy was lost.
The Result- We can create "Temporal Gravitational Displacement" with magnetic interaction and motion, without disrupting the conservation of energy of the motion of the truck.
I will be attempting to use this effect in a magnet-only motor. In which the magnets are NOT responsible for the energy gain, BUT the magnets are used only to create the temporal gravitational displacement - which will be the gain mechanism.
This is just the start of the explaination- and there are several other specifics that must be adbided by for this to work. (at least as I see it). but I will get to those later.
Hi all - First time posting here Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images.
I would like to bring to your attention and subsequently discuss in an objective and open fashion, the work of Thomas Valone
Hyperlinked above is one of his lectures from 2014, one of several he has given on the subject matter.
Prior to discussion please also see episode 16 of the "Energy from the Vacuum" series in which Tom Bearden explains, and John Bedini succinctly demonstrates, the working principle behind the concept: Pt.1 & Pt.2
Another demonstration of the principle can be found here
SMMs' represent a viable opportunity for collaboration between those of us who possess the technical capability and resources to reproduce it in some way.
Bedini stated that being a patented item; it is unsuitable for commercial reproduction - however this does not negate the possibility of home-tinkerers "having a go" at it out of curiosity (unless I am mistaken!) (Semantics as such are also worthy of discussion imo)
It would be good to discuss the specific theoretical requirements since it is quite self explanatory once the goal is cognized.
This could be to take kinetic measurements via dynamometer or theoretically, to loop the system in mention (no mean feat) and / or other configurations.
COP 5 is mentioned in some places but information on it / build replications are relatively scarce with few going further than the stator and rotor assembly.
Valone seems to believe that a MS-PZT neutralizer / Wiegand wire should substitute the role of a standard "pole-piece" however, both are seemingly beyond the capability of many builders, requiring complex machinery, procedures and mathematics to produce something akin.
What might the properties of a suitable iron-core inductor be?
Or, is a standard copper-on-iron inductor simply incompatible with this design?
What arguments could be made for building it in attraction mode vs repulsion mode?
Looking forward to any and all insightful replies, objections and / or affirmations from fellow members!
This is a video that was spoken about a few years ago.. I am unable to find any definitive clues IF this is faked. I had 2 different AI's analyze it frame by frame, and both concluded they can not find any trickery.
A few years ago I tried to replicate- Mine did not run.. Here is my attempt
Now the original uploader had 3 different versions of this. The one shown above- Then he made the whole thing on a clear soda bottle, with clear wings to prove no motor is inside the rotor. Then he actually built a big model trying to power an alternator. None of the videos had sponsors or ads.
Today I tried to view his original videos, but they are all set to PRIVATE now! Hmmmm.. Clickbait vids usually don't make their heavy-hitters private.. Luckily there are 2 of his videos that people reposted still lurking around.
Back to my replication:
After I built my replication, I reviewed his videos piece by piece and he stated that it needs Iron Powder to shield the sides of the magnets. He said if it doesn't work, you need the Iron powder- The video above shows iron powder on the stator wing magnets, but I see none on the rotor magnets. BUT the Soda bottle video- he has the iron powder on the stator wings but none on the stator wings. So perhaps the side shielding has to be on either the stator OR rotor magnets, but not both? See below
I am considering giving it another go- and rebuilding this (including the iron powder side shielding). I can not find any real videos of a true replication, besides a few debunkers who purposely built it to fail, one didn't even use magnets! And none that I have seen used the iron powder shielding at all..
So I am intrigued by this once again.. Perhaps others can look closely and see if it's fake.. The only way I see it could be fake is possibly with compressed air- BUT his builds have ni fins or propellers, and the startup shown seems it would be very difficult to do, as the video looks legit to me.
I have been searching for this effect and I stumbled on to something that MAY be it.. For now I will present the effect.. Then I will attempt to see if it can be used as I envision.
This method can magnetize HALF a solid ferrous plate, while leaving the other half Not Magnetized. I have previously tried to get this to happen with separate magnets around a disc, but could NEVER got it to work. The field either extends to both sides, OR Totally cancels in the entire steel. But seems the Slit Ring Magnet "MAY" Unlock what I seek.
It may not sound like much off the cuff, but I see it very beneficial in the right setup.
The Power Multiplier Device.
Two sprockets connected by a chain, one on the roof and one at ground level, Pull the chain and both sprockets rotate. The bottom sprocket's axle has two other sprockets attached to it, one to a transmission/generator assembly, the other to another larger PMD that produces more energy. It takes a 2,000 pound pull to generate enough energy to be usable.
On the side that is pulled down to turn the transmission/generator is the assembly. It has a drive sprocket on the inside the chain that is kept in place by two heavy plates on both sides (The 2,000# weight). Idler sprockets hold the plates together. The axle for the drive chain goes out holes in the plates on both sides. On the front side, attached to the drive sprocket's axle, is a large diameter heavy duty bicycle-type wheel sprocket. When the bicycle-typewheel is turned clockwise, it turns the drive sprocket clockwise as well, climbing the chain.
There is a small motor at the top of the front plate that has a chain the runs around the circumference of the bicycle-type wheel sprocket so that when the motor is on it is turning the bicycle-type wheel sprocket, turning the drive sprocket, that is climbing the chain. The small motor needs to pull a 400# pull to climb the chain.
Three things now happen:
1) It takes 1 hour for the assembly to climb the chain to the top, pulling 1 hour's worth of a 400 pound pull's worth of energy out of the battery.
Energy Expended: EE = 1 hour/400# pull's worth of energy
2) As the assembly is climbing, it's weight is pulling down on the chain. This is 1 hour of a 2,000# pull's worth of energy into the battery. Energy Generated going Up. EGUP = 1 hour of a 2,000 pull's worth of energy into the battery.
3) When the assembly gets to the top the small motor turns off. Gravity takes over and the 2,000# assembly begins to travel down, pulling the chain down as it goes, turning the transmission/generator for 1+ hours until it gets to the bottom. (1+ hours because it was ascending faster then it was pulling down the chain going up.). Energy Generated going Down.
EGDown = 1+ hours of a 2,000# pull's worth of energy into the battery.
Total generation is EE (1 hour of a 400# pull out) < EGUP + EGDOWN (2+ hours of a 2,000# pull in) = Free Energy
EE < EGUP + EGDOWN = FE.
Adding a second PMD next to the first one will generate more energy.
On the lower axle where there is a sprocket connected to the transmission/generator, another sprocket on the axle outside of it is attached to the bicycle-type wheel sprocket of the larger PMD. As the lower axle turns, that sprocket turns the larger PMD beginning the generation of energy by the larger PMD. There are clutches on each sprocket so that during the primary generation stage the outer sprocket that is attached to the large PMD has it's clutch engaged to turn the larger PMD's bicycle-type wheel sprocket until it reaches the top. Then, once at the top, it's clutch disengages to let the larger PMD's bicycle-type wheel sprocket freely pull down it's chain to the bottom. Once the large PMD's clutch disengages, the clutch on the sprocket connected to the transmission/generator of the first PMD engages so the the first PMD still produces energy into the battery.
Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images. dde [size=1][size=1][size=1][b]Fdd[/size][/b][/size][/size]
I am having some difficulty building a prototype of an idea I've wrestled with for some time now. I cannot find any flaw in my thinking but that doesn't mean I'm right. If a fatal flaw can be found, then I can move along to other ideas.
Suppose you have two flat air core generators (as easily purchased from Chinese sources). In these, a pair of round magnets rotate past both sides of round coils.
In order for Lenz's Law to be true, I would expect that (first) one of these magnet pairs would induce repulsion in the coil. As it passes the coil center, it would then induce attraction in the coil, trying to pull it back from its path of rotation. In this way, Lenz's Law always produces an opposing torque - and conservation of energy is perfect - while the coil has produced a sine wave.
However, suppose we then gang an exact copy of this generator on the same drive axle - BUT perfectly out of mechanical phase with the first generator. So, each time a repulsive torque is generated on the one, an attractive torque is generated on the other. The torques would cancel out, leaving air resistance and bearing friction as the only cost of generation. Diode bridges on each would sum up the currents - and prevent any back flow or contrary reaction.
In this scheme, Lenz's Law is exploited to eliminate its own effect.
I have tried to find any invention that does this but only the Werjefelt device looks similar. However, that uses permanent magnets, not induced ones. I think my scheme might be more precise as to control and balancing torques.
That's it. Thank you for reading this far. Thank you also if you can provide analysis.
WOW.. I placed 2 Piezo sensors under Thick Low Ohm Coils.. I'm driving the piezo's from a function generator in the Khz Ranges.. Coils in series, and it's inducing the coils! And the induction frequency matches the Khz input!
No need 2 piezo's to see the effect. Take 2 coils, place 1 pieze under 1 coil, nothing under the other. Use a sinewave and scan the frequencies..
Hi, I didn't want to hijack Andy's thread so I started mine. It is based on this post by Andy.
The circuit I plan to build is approximately like this:
V1 is a signal generator used to switch the n-channel MOSFET M1, I used IRF840A because I have it available. V2 is a DC source here but in reality I have a VARIAC with a FWBR and a 100uF 500V capacitor for smoothing. R1 is just for convergence of the simulator. D5 makes sure there is no flyback to the MOSFET, D6 is a zener diode with breakdown voltage of 100V to simulate a spark gap (I have 75V, 90V, 470 V, and 1kV). C1 determines the energy that will be released when the spark gap fires, C2 is used to set resonance with the L1. The L1 is a 853 turns of 0.3mm wire on a electrical steel core. L2, and L3 (not on the diagram but otherwise identical to L2) are on the same core with 100 turns of 0.3mm wire.
A circuit like this should help me set the input DC voltage for different spark gaps, and set the switching frequency to virtually any voltage up to about 10kHz, I hope, which should make it possible to do experiments with resonance.
Compared to Andy's circuit I have put the MOSFET on the charging side, rather than the discharging side as ChatGPT advised this should be kinder to the MOSFET as it is not on the discharging path and it is protected by the D5 diode against flyback.
While working on more complex builds, I decided to pause and test something incredibly simple — something you can throw together in just a few minutes. I wanted to see if it was possible to get true AC behavior out of a DC source, but with a twist: what if one half of the wave didn’t just power a load — but actually returned current back into the source?
Not using two supplies, no split rails — just one single source.
So here's what I did: I used a function generator to output a single-polarity sinewave — it only goes from 0 to some positive voltage, never negative. I ran that signal through a resistor, then into the positive of a capacitor. From the negative of the cap, I connected it back to the function generator’s ground.
That’s all.
When the waveform rises, it acts like you'd expect — the supply pushes current through the resistor and charges the cap. But when the voltage starts dropping, something interesting happens: the capacitor now has a higher voltage than the falling supply, so it starts discharging back through the resistor, in the opposite direction, and into the positive of the supply.
So even though the input signal never goes negative, the current across the resistor reverses. You're getting a full AC swing in the current — and during that reverse flow, the energy is literally being pushed back into the source.
And yes — it works exactly as expected. The resistor sees full AC current, even though the voltage only ever goes positive. That means during the second half of the cycle, it's flowing into the positive. You could actually replenish the source with this.
Now, obviously this setup is super basic. But this behavior — being able to produce bidirectional current and potential energy recovery from a single unidirectional source — opens up some pretty exciting design paths. It's not just about efficiency; it's about creating systems where part of the energy naturally loops back to where it came from.
