Re: Permanent Magnetic Motors
 

I am working on it.

I will let you know how it turns out if the internet is still on by then.


In the meantime you may want to study the work of Stan Meyer which has been replicated and demonstrated by numerous independent individuals and groups.

Re: Permanent Magnetic Motors
 

I have a copy of Stan Meyer's book... I would love to see a working version of one of these motors with my own eyes...
As you may be aware Dr Greer has started a project to build a "overunity" device (the Orion project) and my understanding is that (after having investigated many of these motors) they are now trying to replicate Stan Meyer's device (this in itself with the amount of effort that they already put into it shows that it is not a trivial task without a fundamental understanding of the reason behind the transfer of energy)

From Steven Mark's work it would seem to me that something fundamental (some form of resonant coupling with some field) happens at a (some) specific (high in Meyer's work) frequency (frequencies)...

Houman

Re: Permanent Magnetic Motors
 

All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. -- Bill Hicks


If you understand sound/vibration/cymatics and resonance/dissonance then there is no mystery to the mechanism in Stan Meyers work.

Study the work of John Keely and you will realize that Meyer barely scratched the surface of this knowledge.


Much respect to Pythagoras and The School of Harmonists.

Re: Permanent Magnetic Motors
 

I understand these concepts as I believe all people working in science or engineering do, but still assuming that Kelly did create a "overunity" device, people are still unable to reproduce his device (assuming again that he did produce such a device), why? because he was using these concepts out of their usual context, most inventors develop idiosyncrasies (a language that has precise and rigorous meaning only to them, perhaps because they are working mostly alone) which is why they end up not being understood (and their work not reproducible and eventually forgotten)

This field would gain a lot by using more sentences such as "I don't understand/know" (btw this is also true for "Ufology" and "metaphysical" discussions in general), "why?", "how is this phenomenon is related about what we already know or what we think we know about physics", "can we explain it within these laws?", "should we modify Maxwell's equations?"....

An example of such an accomplishment (showing that it is (in theory) possible to extract energy out of ZP and explaining the precise mechanism behind it) can be found in Pinto's paper http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v60/i21/p14740_1... ideally, what is needed is a prototype + a precise theory (connecting what is observed to what we know about physics or modifying what we know about physics in view of what is being observed ) allowing for its reproduction and the invention of other devices working on the same principle

Houman