Global Free Energy Blog

Please help keep 6 extremely important magnetic devices as open source:

http://globalfreeenergy.info/misc/help-open-source.html

What are they:
They are 6 solid-state magnetic designs that will self-run and produce “free energy.”  These are the result of years of magnetic research based on the mathematics of conventional physics.

What’s the problem:
In early 2009 I posted the 6 FEMM (a 2D magnetic simulation Windows application) designs to the google websites server, but google has since moved to a new server and is saying these files are in danger of being moved, which will reset the file date stamps, and hence destroy the evidence that they were last modified in February 2009. Another problem is that there’s a specific well funded company that IMO will try their best, legally, to prevent me from marketing these devices. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fighting to keep these designs open-source, but most people will have no interest in building such a machine, as they will want to buy a prefabricated unit. One day, soon, I will start a company to market such devices to such people, but anyone will always be free to build their own.

For anyone replicating the Steorn Orbo or any spinning machine, here are a few websites that can help you calculate wind drag,

Drag force calculator java applet. Great calculator for even ultra light devices:
http://www.ecs.syr.edu/centers/simfluid/redder/dragforce/DragForce.html

Aero drag calculator. This will not help you with small devices, but it will give you an idea how air drag changes with respect to drag coefficient, frontal area, weight, and rpm:

http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml

Drag coefficient. WikiPedia page showing Cd (drag coefficients) for various shapes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

Reynolds number calculator:

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/fluid/reynolds

Sorry to the few people that received a bunch of notifications of test posts today. Nearly all of the subsribers database was somehow modified to cause conflict with the subscription php code. It took awhile to fix, but everything once again looks like it’s working.

Paul Lowrance

This is a continuation from Mathematical proof of over unity.

As the post left off, the mathematics is indeed showing there’s something very odd occurring. The example in the above post considers a worst case scenario, where all of the energy that goes into saturating the core is lost. Real measurements on these experiments using Metglas MAGAMP cores show that roughly all of the inductance energy that goes into saturating the core can be captured back. That places a completely different spin on the problem. In order to compare two examples, the input energy from inductance in both examples needs to be the same. Therefore consider the following two examples. Note, once again for the sake of simplifying the mathematics, the size of the magnet & toroid are appreciably small relative to the separation distance. Example 1, a magnet with a volume of 1X moves from a far away distance to a separation distance of 1r, the toroid is saturated, the core moves away. Example 2, a magnet with a volume of 8X moves from a far away distance to a separation distance of 2r, the toroid is saturated, the core moves away. In example 2 the magnet has 8 times the volume as in example 1, but in example 1 the magnet moves twice as close to the toroid. So the magnetic field from the magnet on the toroid is the same in both examples. Therefore, the input energy into the toroid inductance is the same in both examples. Even though the input energy is the same, the output energy (from moving the magnets as they are attracted to the toroid) in example 2 is twice as example 1. This is seen in the following integrals. Example 1: . Example 2: . The in example 2 is because the magnet has 8 times the volume, which produces a magnetic field 8 times the strength on the toroid, which means the field on the magnet from the toroid is 8 times as great. Since the field on the magnet from the toroid is 8 times as great, and there’s 8 times as much material, the attraction force between the magnet and toroid is thus times greater. The integral of example 2 is twice as example 1. The results from comparing both examples shows that the *efficiency* doubles when the magnet moves to a separation distance that is twice as far away from the toroid.

Once again, the two examples are for a worst case scenario in that the all of the inductance energy is lost. Real experiments show that roughly all of the inductance energy is not lost, but most of it can be captured back and the remaining goes to Joule heating. Joule heating can be useful energy, as in the case of a heater.

What the mathematics shows is over-unity / excess energy. The input energy in both examples is the same, but the output is twice the difference between example 1 & 2.

Has the Universe provided a loophole, a doorway to excess energy? It appears to be the case.

Please refer to the following blog posts:

Tiny orbo replication 170 efficient

Tiny orbo replication major update – – shows 3400% efficiency.

Recently I believe to have discovered a simple mathematical model that proves so-called over-unity or excess energy. Such mathematical proof is based on my magnetic switch designs, which are shown to use Metglas magnetic core material, and is based on measurements. Consider a coil wound magnetic toroid appreciably separated from a magnet. The magnet, pointing toward the toroid, applies a magnetic field on the toroid. The magnetic field is relative to , where r is the distance between the magnet and toroid. The magnetic field produced by the toroid, due to the magnet, is relative to . Therefore, the magnetic field on the magnet produced by the toroid is relative . The total energy from moving the magnet far away to a separation distance of r is thus relative to . As r doubles, the gained energy is 32 times less. Please integrate the equation to see. IOW, if the magnet moves twice as close to the toroid, then the gain in energy (due to the attraction between magnet & toroid) increases 32 times. It takes the same energy to pull the magnet back away from the toroid to its starting position, but if we sufficiently saturate the toroid core by means of current flowing through the toroid coil, then the attraction between the magnet and toroid appreciably vanishes. Please note there is no point where a core is 100% saturated on average over time, due to ambient thermal energy. Of course it takes energy to sufficiently saturate the core. Measurements on Metglas MAGAMP cores indicate that twice the magnetic field on the toroid requires twice the current. The magnetic field on the toroid from the magnet is relative to . Thus the coil current is relative to . Therefore, moving the magnet twice as close to toroid requires 8 times the coil current, and thus according to measurements requires 8² = 64 times more energy. Consider two examples. Example 1, the magnet moves from far away to a separation distance of 2r, then sufficiently saturates the core, then moves the magnet back away again. Example 2, same as example 1, except the magnet moves to a separation distance of r. Note, for the sake of simplifying the mathematics, the size of the magnet & toroid are appreciably small relative to the separation distance. In example 2 the mechanical energy gain (output) is 32 times greater than example 1, but example 2 requires 64 times as much electrical energy (input). Therefore, example 1 efficiency is twice example 2. Each time the separation distance (the closest the magnet moves toward the toroid) is doubled in the design, the efficiency doubles; e.g., 25%, 50% 100%, 200%, etc. This is mathematical proof that something very odd is occurring, that indicates over-unity or excess energy. While ignoring losses such as from electrical wire resistance (Joule heating), the math indicates that a design where the magnet goes twice as close to the toroid is half as efficient.

[Important update: please see Mathematical proof of over unity part 2.]

All of the parts have not arrived yet, so today was spent doing lots of calculations. I thought of yet another effect to consider. So now I’m not certain that the tiny magnets very close to the core as planned for “Tiny Orbo Replication 3″ is a good idea. I’ll build #3 and see, and then I’ll build a version using larger magnets farther away from the core, “Tiny Orbo Replication 4″ as a comparison.

I am not affiliated with Steorn. Orbo is trademarked by Steorn.

The email subscriptions was not working that well because the server was not sending authenticated emails, so your email provider (e.g., gmail), was considering it spam. Emails are now sent out authenticated. Furthermore, they’re sent via secure SSL. So hopefully subscribers will now receive post updates via email.

I don’t have enough spare time to work on the “Tiny Orbo Replication 2.5.”  So the next one will be the “Tiny Orbo Replication 3,” after all of the parts arrive sometime next week.

I am not affiliated with Steorn. Orbo is trademarked by Steorn.

While I wait for a bunch of parts to arrive sometime next week (2mm & 1.5mm ID ceramic ball bearings, tiny 1/16″ cube N40 magnets, more cores, etc), I decided to build another “Tiny Orbo Replication”, version 2.5. This will use 4 tiny Radio Shack NdFeB disc magnets, part number 64-1895, that are 3/16″ OD, and 61mil thick. These will be epoxied to a thin 9mil thick plastic round disc that will be ~ 1″ OD. The 1″ disc will spin on a tiny 5mm OD, 2mm ID steel ball bearing. For the cores I’ll use all 4 of my thinnest Metglas MAGAMP cores, part number MP1303P4AS. Those are the thinnest Metglas MAGAMP cores available.

One of the parts that’s on order to arrive early next week that I’m excited about is a very thin magnetic core that has a height of only 0.8mm thick (0.0315″). That, along with the 1/16″ cube N40 magnets, should allow the coil current pulse to be extremely short. The permeability is 12000. Nothing compared to the Metglas MAGAMP 1 million permeability cores, but that’s not as important since the real work done in the Orbo is when the core is well into the saturation curve where the permeability is low. We’ll have to see if these cores can produce the excess energy like the Metglas MAGAMP cores.

I am not affiliated with Steorn. Orbo is trademarked by Steorn.

Someone emailed this to me –>

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php