I am going to make free energy machine soon.

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
101

My theory hasn’t anything to do with that project. It has to do with your attempt to explain why that project is a hoax. I have never said that the project isn’t a hoax, merely that you haven’t yet explained it. Your theory is wrong, even by popular, but adult, physics.

No, you weren’t. That is what I was talking about.

Ask any physicist WHY electrons and protons attract. Or WHY gravity works. Or WHY magnetism works. He will either tell you, “No one knows. It just does” or give you a bogus, double-talk excuse that you won’t really be able to follow. They don’t know WHY such things work. Your holy priests aren’t as holy as you think they are.

102

Until you can produce a working model of the spinning coil, you’ve got nothing I’m interested in and are simply perpetuating a hoax. If you can produce a working model then I’d be curious.

103

My theory has to do with what fundamentally causes magnetism to work, even beyond what modern physicists claim to know.

104

And if you can achieve it with an open coil, I’d be really impressed and my level of curiosity in what you have to say would increase.

I doubt you’d be silly enough to use a hoaxed demonstration in your examples if you thought it was a hoax. Now you might use a hoaxed example and not be aware of it, IF your theory lead you to believe it would work.

Simple, produce a working model of the coil. That would support your theory demonstrably. If you can’t… well, the open circuit hypothesis does provide reason why it doesn’t, a circuit requires a closed loop between an electric potential and ground to provide the path a current can travel. An open circuit does not meet the requirement. Don’t have to explain it any further.

105

Modern physics knows that a current is instigated in ANY metal moving through a magnetic field. That part isn’t new at all. That is the part you seem to not understand.

A continuous current from end to end cannot be established without a complete circuit. But that is a different issue.

You are trying to use a low level education and a worship of modern popular theories in order to debunk a demo. And that isn’t good enough.

106

You aren’t helping your case.

Make the open coil spin James. If your theory suggests it is possible, prove it. The hook in the spinning coil gag is that it appears impossible, yet in the video there it is, spinning away. From the other comments I’d guess a few people were thinking wow, would you look at that.

When a bulb burns out the filament breaks, opening the circuit and my electric meter stops spinning. If every circuit in my home were open the meter would not spin at all. Open circuits break the electric path to the meter and it doesn’t spin. If the meter isn’t spinning I’m not paying for electricity. When the meter spins I’m not getting the electricity for free.

There is no need to make the explanation why it doesn’t work any more complicated then that.

Prove your theory James. Make the coil spin.

It’s not that expensive of a device to make. Just like they show in the video, it’s “nothing more” then a block of wood, a couple nails, a magnet and a length of any old insulated wire wound into a coil. Make the open coil spin James.

"That is basically what I am thinking. As the coil spins, entering and exiting the magnetic field causes the coil to become an electromagnet. The poles of the magnet would reverse as the windings passed the center of the magnet, causing a pushing of a built up north pole and a pulling of the built up south pole (for a north fixed magnet). Again, I don’t see how being a “monopole” or an “effective monopole” would change anything." ~ JJS

Make the coil spin James.

107

~ JJS

~ JJS

And now you make reference to the priests of the church of science, you so love to mock, as knowing something and at the very least, there is some truth in it?

108

Mowk, your attempt to do what they call “snooker” me is futile. For sake of trying to dominate an argument, you try to create one, first by proclaiming a false dichotomy:
A) That video is certainly true
B) That video is certainly false.

Of course the third option is almost always the truth of the situation:
C) You don’t know.

You try to claim that I have to prove something, else you have effectively disproven it - typical Atheist/Religious argument posturing. You are the one actually making an absolute claim, not me. It is you who have to prove the video to be a hoax. All that I have argued is that your attempt at disproof has been in vain. And that hasn’t changed.

You claim that the video is a hoax.
I say that you cannot know it to be a hoax.

I gave one example, all that is required, to demonstrate that there is a possibility of such devices absorbing energy from their ambient surrounding, being true. You haven’t even attempted to debunk that example. Thus your theory of the impossibility of such things is false.

You haven’t the know-how to prove me wrong. And your attempt to snooker me into your strawman dichotomy is futile.

109

James, If you are going to use the device as proof of your claim that free energy machines exist, I think it is you that has to prove it. “You made the claim, not me” Who is snookering who?

Which is it?
A) The video is certainly true
B) The video is certainly false
C) You don’t know

A) is YOUR only option that could prove your claim not false. If you don’t know whether the video is true or false how can it be used to establish that free energy machines truly exist? And if YOU don’t know then it would also not be useful to establish your claim. I at least built the device as it was demonstrated, and as it was demonstrated it didn’t work. I have already proven to myself it doesn’t work. I am as confident as I can be, given the available information, that it doesn’t work, and therefore is not an example of a free energy device as you claimed.

You do have something to prove, if only to yourself. You can try to make the device yourself and see if it works. If it does, show me what you did differently then I, yet the same as the video demonstration did, cause you appear to be rather particular about that.

James S Saint wrote: “There are many other types available today:” >Then shows a video< as if it proves anything. And now claims to have made no such claims.

James S. Saint wrote: “You are the one actually making an absolute claim, not me.”

“There are many other types available today.” sounds like an absolute claim to me, and then you follow it with a video that doesn’t prove anything. A bunch of videos that don’t prove anything.

Who has to prove the claim “there are many types available”? I’d say the burden of proof is yours, as you have made that claim. Perhaps you’re just conveniently forgetful and you’re really not trying to snow anyone at all. That’s not what it looks like from here. In fact a lot of the diatribe you write has nothing to do with the question at all. You waste more time bitching about me, how I have only a limited understanding and that you know so much more and all the modern scientists are crack pot priests of some religious doctrine that I worship. None of which makes what you claimed any more valid. But that’s your style James. When you can’t make a reasoned point you make comments like; “Mowk, what the hell is wrong with you!??” and “You have a rather simple minded view of the world. I don’t.” and “And you seriously don’t want to challenge my understanding of manipulation/inspiration of people.”

It’s OK James, if you can’t build such a simple device to prove your claim, then you can’t, and therefore it wasn’t an example of one of the “many types” you claim, “are available today.” And NOW YOU claim you have made no such claims.

Here is another claim you made:

James S. Saint ~ “There are in fact a few actual real ways to supply endless “free” physical energy. One of which is my own invention from 1972.”

Yet there is no proof offered, just another claim. It is as if you think one unproven claim can prove an other unproven claim. You have lied so much I’d have a hard time believing anything you claim without valid proof.

Silly me, that’s right, >head bump< you claim to have made no claims.

James S. Saint wrote: “You haven’t the know-how to prove me wrong. And your attempt to snooker me into your strawman dichotomy is futile.”

That’s just rich James, I don’t have to prove you wrong, you’re doing a fine job all on your own. It doesn’t look like it would take much smarts at all.

I’m not trying to prove anything to you. You’re just not that special. I’m just attempting to prevent you from further propagating the myth and bullshitting anyone else. I mean you brag about your ability to manipulate. That just doesn’t sound like your heart is really in it.

110

James S. Saint wrote: “My theory has to do with what fundamentally causes magnetism to work, even beyond what modern physicists claim to know.”

James S. Saint wrote: “Ask any physicist WHY electrons and protons attract. Or WHY gravity works. Or WHY magnetism works. He will either tell you, “No one knows. It just does…””

I do find it amusing when what you say is such a wonderful example of self contradiction. Like I said, you’re doing a wonderful job yourself.

111

I never proposed the video or device as proof. And your continued attempt to goad a strawman argument by claiming that I did is pointless.

The simple truth is that YOU claimed it to be a hoax and yet can’t prove it to be.

What “contradiction”???

112

Hmm… I’ve never tried to build a perpetual motion machine that causes friction before …

Let me think this through a bit.

We know of one for sure… Existence.

Hmm… Come to think of it, maybe I shouldn’t say what just occurred to me as I was typing this.

113

James S. Saint wrote: “I never proposed the video or device as proof. And your continued attempt to goad a strawman argument by claiming that I did is pointless.”

Right! … The videos just accidentally followed your claim, James S. Saint wronte: “There are many other types available today:”

“:” you see that punctuation symbol you used after your claim. It is saying you did.

Wiki~ “The colon ( : ) is a punctuation mark consisting of two equally sized dots centered on the same vertical line. A colon is used to explain or start an enumeration.”

So the claim you made, followed by an enumeration, says you did.

Your continued attempts to twist my calling you out on exactly what you said, as being a strawman argument, is a fairly good example of why you think you can brag about your capacity for manipulation.

Perhaps you aren’t as good at it as you boast.

Make the coil spin James.

114

Sorry James, I am getting senses that I have a used a uni given gift in a manner for which it was not intended. The universe put me in its contingency plan. Generalist, broad, but only as deep as is needed. Here to help out in a shit storm. And you’re not the shit storm.

You are 100% right. Free energy does exist. It was given to us, and it breaks my heart what we have done to it.

I like you, how ever my human component responds, as a spark, I really like you.

god, I can be so dumb.

I feel as if I’m done being an asshole for, I guess, as long as I can be aware of it.

I wouldn’t mind, if you catch me in the future being such an ass, to give me a wink.

See you on the flip side and long live perpetual motion. Life.

115

What, you never learned what a proof is? I haven’t proposed anything at all as a proof of anything … other than this conversation proving something about you.

I have provided substantial evidence, which you have failed to refute. My case was done long ago. You are still floundering in the persistent attempt to create a dispute that you hope to be able to win (serious ego issues).

116

Hey James,

I was about to say I’m aware of two forms of proof; one formal and the other informal and as you’re so damn good at manipulation I was seeing you using the less formal of the two, cause it provides you an easy out. “I wasn’t trying to prove anything; stawman.” And I got an idea.

Sorry about all the bull shit before.

I got the coil to spin. Seems your idea of an “effective” monopole triggered an idea. That coupled with what the Indian fellow was saying about no matter how many magnets are connected together they form one single magnetic field.

I tried two magnets connected together by a chain of paper clips. One magnet sits under the coil and is connected by its south pole to a chain a paper clips that become magnets themselves when connected to a magnet, and eight inches away is another magnet connected to the chain of paper clips by it’s north pole. The chain of paper clips and the two magnets create a single magnetic field but the only pole that is near enough to have an effect on the coil is the north pole, (an effective monopole?)

I put the coil in the cradle between two stainless steel pins and the damn coil is running like a top. Its still spinning and I am literally scratching my head. Explain again how the coil interacts with the single pole to induce rotation cause it really messes with my head when it spinning right in front of you. I’ve noticed that it also seems to increase in speed when I get my hands near. I mean its kind of cool you can speed up or slow down the rate of rotation just by how close your hand is too the coil. What’s up with that?

117

I’ve already started thinking about a commercial application.

A desktop novelty sculpture. I was thinking if I mounted the coil on a vertical axis I could pivot one end in a V shaped hole in the base and the other through a bushing with an LED spinner on top. I’m thinking it would make a great conversation piece that demonstrated the energy potential available. A rotating engine that generated light housed in a 3 x3 inch clear plastic box.

I wonder if it would work regardless of scale? Just out of curiousity I mounted the first smaller coil I made and it has no trouble spinning either so it scales at least between the sizes I’ve tried so far. How big a magnet can be made? Maybe paper clips are made of different alloys. What’s the best metal alloy to inherit magnetism? I should probably look up what would be the most effective alloy.

Wonder if an eight inch solid iron rod would make the best conduit between the two magnets. eight inches seems long enough for the size magnets I’ve been using.

COOL You’re the Man.

118

Well, well … kudos to you. =D>

It spins because the completed circuit is electrostatic. And that is why your hand affects it. The fine points at the end of the wire (if not the needles and wood) provide electrostatic discharge antennae.

I am a bit surprised that paper clips worked. I had thought earlier about using a small iron bar to stretch the fields, but I still don’t see what a monopole effect really has to do with it, so don’t ask me why that works. But is great that you played with it enough to find out that it does. :sunglasses:

I can make a guess as to why it works, but it is just a wild guess.

But now check for me to see if it cares what direction it spins. :sunglasses:

119

You’re the MAN. I think I’ll take a look at that thread you mentioned earlier.

I think it is spinning in the same direction, When I slide the magnet out of the field and back it it always spins the same way. I’m right handed and wound the coil that way, I’ll try winding the coil left handed next time and see if that changes the direction. But for now I’m not sure if it “cares”. I just heard back from radio shack, the coil wire I ordered is in so I’ll have wire to play with. The last coil I wound got pretty short, only fifty winds but it still worked. I’m sort of curious too about the number of winds actually required, if there is such a thing.

120

:frowning: