free electricity

[Insight Driver]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... sgenerator

yeah, true, in Argentina, no less. Pending at, "other, " patent offices.

[GreginAlaska]

US Patent # 4,151,431

Permanent Magnet Motor
( April 24, 1979 )

Howard R. Johnson

[Insight Driver]

Alright, so in 1979 a patent is granted. Hmmm.. it's now 2006 and no motor made from that patent had changed anything. I guess there were some insurmountable obstacles encountered. We put a man on the moon in less than ten years. If there was potential I would think in over 25 years there shoud have been at least some progress such that some working machines that can actually be useful would be around by now.

[GreginAlaska]

Maybe, maybe not.

How long had man been trying to create a flying machine before he did it?

[Insight Driver]

Very poor analogy. There were incremental improvements in gliders. It took the advent of gasoline engines before there was a powerplant with sufficient strength to weight ratio to make powered flight possible. From that point, only about 20 years of experiments. The Wright brothers did it. Then look at how quickly powered airplanes evolved after that.

Consider now the need for clean fuel and cheap electricity. If there was a machine viable, 30 years ago, don't you think a lot of people would have been racing to make the first practical machine out of that idea? It didn't happen, though, although many, many shysters and conmen have tried.

[GreginAlaska]

Leonardo da Vinci tested an unsuccessful flying machine in 1496. That's a lot more than 20 years befor the Wright brothers.

Da Vince also had a drawing for a glider that would have worked but he never built it and never knew it would work. Who knows what plans might be sitting in somebodies office, garage, basement etc?

And like I've said before, I don't know if they'll ever make enough torque to be usefull, but I do know it won't come from the "it can't be done" crowd.

[Insight Driver]

Check your facts. Da Vinci made sketches but there is no historical evidence he ever tried to build any. And there were flying toys made even back then. Toys and a machine to carry a man are two different things.

You choose to miss my point. Many inventions take a long time until the technology that can make it successful are discovered. The principles of magnetism were discovered a long time ago and are know as well as a science can be now. There are basic laws of physics that have been learned. You conveniently choose to ignore certain physical laws of conservation of energy.

[GreginAlaska]

According to Da Vinci's notes he tried a machine on 1/3/1496. Even if he lied in his notes, his many drawings of flying machines show mans quest for flight LONG before the 20 year period before the Wright Brothers.

If, and I say IF, the law of conservation of energy says a machine can't turn on the power in magnets alone, then I know it is not correct. I don't care how many times you've read it in a book.

[Insight Driver]

No, the law of conservation of energy does not say a machine cannot turn on magnets alone. Of course you can spin a disc with magnets on it next to another disc with magnets on it. Whether you turn it with another generator attached or by simply pushing a lever which moves a disc closer to the next until you get rotor motion it does not matter. Once you get the disc rotating and leave the system alone, it will come to a stop. I already explained the physics of the action. Due to inertia of the mass and the force of the magnets, the system is unstable and is it in a form of oscillation. It's only a toy because the effect can be scaled up, but no useful power can be pulled from the sytem. You just end up with discs with magnets in them that rotate on a bearing for some period of time. Try these experiments: try discs of different mass to see how fast the rotation is. You will see, then, the relationship between disc mass and rotation speed and time. Try different bearings, roller bearings, pin bearings, ball bearings, bushings. spin a disc by itself and note how long it rotates to gauge how good each bearing is. Then run your machine and not the different rotating speeds and times.

This has all been done. The experimenters convinced that with some more work they could take it to the next level. Many, many experimenters have worked on it. No one, yet, had broken the law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation says that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy can only be transformed. The reason an atomic bomb is so powerful is simply because when you transform matter to energy, the realtionship, as you see, is amazing. There is a tremendous amount of energy in matter. Learn to release energy from matter cheaply and you will do something that will go down in history.

[GreginAlaska]

Any machine man makes will eventually come to a stop. The question is how long it will run between stops and how much torque it produces in the meantime.

[Insight Driver]

This I agree with. I would simply add that no machine can be made that will put out more energy than what was put into it to initiate the movement. The problem is conrolling an experiment so that input and output energies can be accurately measured.

[GreginAlaska]

OK,

Here is parts of an article about Johnson from 1980. He wasn't your run of the mill wacko. He had quite the set of credentials.

"...The critics say Johnson offers a "free lunch" solution to energy problems, and that there can be no such thing. Johnson demurs, reminding repeatedly that he has never suggested that his invention provides something for nothing. He also points out that no one talks about a "free lunch" when discussing extraction of enormous amounts of atomic power by means of nuclear reactors and atom bombs. In his mind, it's much the same thing.

Johnson is the first to admit he doesn't actually know where the power be has tapped derives. But he postulates that the energy may be associated with spinning electrons, perhaps in the form of a "presently unnamed atomic particle." How do other physicists react to Johnson's suggestion that there may be an atomic particle so far overlooked by nuclear physicists? Says Johnson: "I guess it’s fair to say that most of them are revolted." On the other hand, a few converted scientists, including some who are associated with large and prestigious research laboratories, are intrigued enough to suggest that there should be a hunt for the answer, be it a "particle" or some other as yet unsuspected characteristic of atomic structure.

This article is prefaced with the foregoing brief summary of the ongoing controversy so that, in fairness to the inventor, we might all view his claims with open minds, even if it means temporary setting aside of cherished scientific concepts until more complete explanations are forthcoming. The main question to be answered here and now is this: Does Johnson permanent magnet motor work?

Before providing the answer, we need to face up to another question that undoubtedly nags in the minds of many readers: Is Johnson a bona fide researcher, or merely a "garage mechanic" mad inventor? As the following brief summary suggests, the inventor's credentials appear to be impeccable. Following seven years of college and university training, Johnson worked on atomic energy projects at Oak Ridge, did magnetics research for Burroughs company, and served as scientific consultant to Lukens Steel. He has participated in the development of medical electrical products, including injection devices. For the military he invented a ceramic muffler that makes a portable motor generator silent at 50 feet; this has been in production for the past 18 years. His contributions to the motor industry include: a hysteresis brake; non-locking brake materials for anti- skid application, new methods of curing brake linings; and a method of dissolving asbestos fibers. He has also worked on silencers for small motors, a super charger, and has perfected a 92-pole no-brush generator to go in the wheel of Lincoln automobiles as a skid control; that last item reduced the cost to one-eighth of the cost of an earlier design by utilizing metal-filled plastics for the armature and field. In all, Johnson is connected with more than 30 patents in the fields of chemistry and physics..."

At least he did have some experience to be credible. The author of the article, Jorma Hyypia of Science & Mechanics (Spring 1980) tried out one of the machines. This is what he said;

"...The second device has the U-shaped magnets standing on end in a rough circular arrangement oddly reminiscent of England's Stonehenge. This assembly is mounted on a transparent plastic sheet supported on a plywood panel pivoted, underneath, on a free turning wheel obtained from a skateboard. As instructed, I eased the 8-ounce focusing magnet into the ring of larger magnets, keeping it at least four inches away from the ring. The 40 pound magnet assembly immediately began to turn and accelerated to a very respectable rotating speed which it maintained for as long as the focusing magnet was held in the magnetic field. When the focusing magnet was reversed, the large assembly turned in the opposite direction.

Since this assembly is clearly a crude sort of motor, there's no doubt that it is indeed possible to construct a motor powered solely by permanent magnets..."

What if they're right? It would be something if somebody could make it do useful work. And if it never does? I probably won't lose any sleep over it.

[3dO]

Would this setup be able to turn a ceiling fan? I would be willing to move a magnet a couple of times a week for air circulation without the cost of electricity.

[GreginAlaska]

I think my Dads would have been powerfull enough to move a small fan. But it is about 4 feet long by 2 1/2 feet wide and about 2 feet high. It weighs close to 200 pounds and cost thousands of dollars to make.

I wonder if any of the other inventors ever thought of just trying to power something like a fan? I know my Dad was thinking of something to power a generator.

[Insight Driver]

A generator takes energy in and puts energy out, minus losses that are resistive and reactive. Your magnet motors cannot put out energy without taking anything in. It's impossible. As I keep saying, whatever you do to start the magnet motor turning is the energy input, deny it all you want. You are chasing a rainbow.