Some of the physics of motion and energy have been ignored when it comes to many of the “Free Energy Claims”. One thing to remember is a “flywheel” or motor armature requires a certain quantity of energy to get it in motion, and will be a greater amount than is required to merely keep something in motion at a constant speed.
Introducing the concept of Inertia to the discussion- it is simply described without math above. At any point in specific time, there is just only so much quantity of energy available in that motion. converting that kinetic energy to “work” by using that energy to spin magnets around a coil, it will only be able to provide a maximum amount of energy equivalent to that amount of energy to bring that flywheel to a stop, and nothing more. There is a finite quantity of energy available.
Next, we consider efficiency of magnetic transfer of energy. As you move the magnet of the passing flywheel closer to the pole piece of the solenoid of wire, you do increase the amount of magnetic flux in the pole piece unless pole piece is fully saturated, in which case there will be a point where the magnet’s magnetic energy cannot induce any additional magnetic energy or flux into that core. Think in terms of a sponge- there is only so much water that sponge can absorb and hold- if placed under a slow running faucet, for a given quantity of water entering the sponge, a corresponding amount of water leaves the sponge at roughly the same rate. It will only “hold so much”, which is a finite quantity.
Now the transfer of that energy is not efficient. Take a piece of one of the stronger magnet materials and hold a nail about 4 inches above it. Now take some small steel screws and start stacking them on the nail. As long as the magnetic flux is strong enough, the screws will stick to the nail, however once you move past a certain point, the flux reduces enough that the screws fall off. Now if you were to measure the force required to pull a screw off that nail You will find in a range of distance close to the magnet where that force will vary somewhat- but it will never be as strong as the energy required to pull that screw off of the magnet itself. In fact, if the nail is now on the magnet, and the screw placed on the nail, anywhere except directly over the magnet, the energy required to pull that screw off that nail will be less than is required to pull that screw off the nail directly over the magnet in contact with it. It is important to note here too, that the amount of energy required to pull the screw off the nail over the magnet will be less, than the energy required to pull the screw off the magnet directly.
So, now with magnets on a flywheel, they can only transfer a given quantity of energy to a solenoid core, or the rotation ceases, and the energy transferred can never equal or exceed that of the input energy or the motion ceases. If you were to rewind 2 poles of a 4 pole motor fan armature in such a way that 2 coils were being energized inductively to produce a current, the energy recovered over time cannot ever equal the energy input over the same period of time and can never exceed it unless a second or third input of energy exists in that “system”. This is assuming zero losses in the windings from heat, hysteresis, or resistance of the wire itself, drag of the blades in the air or in the vearings themselves, and terminal velocity of the air foil of the fan blade itself. Once those other factors of potential losses are added into the equation, the reality becomes even more bleak. a Adding in additional circuitry that has each component disipating energy, you know how this all adds up to even more losses. This is why Bedini and others do NOT want the presence of people such as myself in their forums- they have a real ego problem that way.
In short form- Current does the work, not voltage. The power equation of Volts multiplied by amps applies to Direct current, or the Root Mean Square of an Alternating Current. In looking at some of the actual patents, as well as what is online touted as “Free Energy”- The claims of Bedini and Beardon and others who claim to have achieved over unity fall short of credibility in every example. They get tripped on RMS- they ignore what it really means. So they go off on the same misrepresenting tangent that audio Class “D” amplifier ratings do- mistake peak power (available for only nanoseconds or microseconds) with root mean sqared power which is constant- which is why their claims will never make my pot of coffee faster than RMS AC power or DC power, because at it’s most fundamental explanation- because this is exactly how RMS is determined without math. Or pur another way- heat equivalence
As difficult as it may seem for many to believe, I actually wish it were possible to extract more energy than is input into a system- the fundamental issue so far is the math errors and a lack of understanding of most basic physics- it does not matter that patents were issued to some of these things, because the patent office is staffed with people, and people do make mistakes and the patent office has issued patents for other things that did not work either.
I will take some to task for misrepresenting what they are doing when they are trying to do so for profit and when they are in effect lying to people and trying to rely on implied associations that are not there. Therefore, when they are using the same obfuscations as the banking and oil industry use, how can they be considered to be any more honest than a BP or Exxon Mobile?
Bedini on one of his web pages was using the Ferrari emblem (without the permission of Ferrari to use it) to imply the association with the car maker and not simply the club (who may also may not have been permitted by Ferrari to use their emblem)- who was the real association. Bedini was trying to blurr the distinctions to imply an association that was not there. While I do not speak for Ferrari, they have well spoken lawyers for that, I am just presenting the arguments that Ferrari and other car makers used that forced a change to the way many scale model makers like Hasegawa, Tamiya, Ertl, Pocher and others did business in the 1980’s. I do not fault Ferrari at all for trying to protect their brand, or the others who participated with them, but I do wonder if their motives were simply to make money, or to insure more accuracy in the scale models? If it was the latter- they should be commended, if it was the former, then one can wonder if they did not inadvertantly hurt their image in the eyes of the scale model builders?
Getting back on point though: The bottom line is this: A flywheel or armature requires a quantity of energy to begin movement from a halted condition. This quantity is greater than the quantity of energy required to keep the flywheel or amature in motion- therefore it has a finite quantity of energy available for “extraction”. That energy that is extracted from that system puts a “load” on that system in the form of “drag” and as such the “load” which is resisting the motion of rotation- it is a halting force or braking force. This means energy extraction is a “System Loss”. If you need to keep adding 45 watts of energy onto or into the system to keep it going in motion- there is no way you can remove 45 Watts of energy- or more; without stopping or halting that motion. It is a closed system.
“Energy input”= “Energy output” + [losses]
(from heat, friction, wind resistance, hysteresis, magnetic coupling not being 100 percent efficient at energy transfer, etc)
It is just this simple, and this is where understanding RMS calculations/measurement are important, and where the free energy crowd make a bad name for themselves. It is an absolute in our universe to understand that energy input- no matter what level, can never be exceeded by energy output when dealing with conventional materials.
Over Unity cannot happen while an armature is in motion without energy said extraction being a brake on the system. When these get oversimplified as they are in the patent applications; it is a willful ignoring of the losses to friction, heat, electrical resistance, hysteresis and, the losses to wind resistance to simplify the math, or in the case above to quantify it in the abstract form as just “losses”.
The fact that energy conversion to attain motion and maintain motion in something like an electric motor can never be 100 percent efficient in this universe. Magnetic coupling is not 100 percent efficient, therefore the motor- no matter how configured- can never be 100 percent efficient in operation as a motor, nor as a motor generator.
Achieving “unity” is a “Zero Sum Game”; in a universe where “Entropy” or disorder reigns supreme; is a noble goal that only time will be the arbitter of the ultimate final answer.
Ultimately I do hope over unity is achieved, and considering we have better technologies and better materials available than Fessenden, Tesla or Edison had, it may be achievable someday, or it may be our universe will never will allow it.