16 April 2010

N-machine article in Magnets In Your Future 2

This round-up of free energy research featuring the N-machine is from the now-defunct periodical Magnets In Your Future around 1992:

1 of 4:

2 of 4:

3 of 4:

4 of 4:


  1. Doesn't work. See here:
    HEre he's talking about N-Machine designs:
    "One hopeful inventor thought that you could generate an output voltage without generating a reverse force by attaching the magnets generating the field to the rotating disk. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Only relative motion of the field and the current carrying disk generates a voltage. What misled this inventor was that he did measure a voltage when he connected a meter between the shaft and the rim of the disk. He hadn't realized that the ring magnets were generating two fields, one in the disk between the magnets and another toroidal field in the space around the disk. The disk wasn't generating a voltage but the wire leading to the meter was being cut by this rotating field and was generating a small voltage. Connecting a current meter would have shown an output current. However, this current would have reacted on the rotating field to slow the disk down. As I said before, you have to consider what is happening
    everywhere in the system, not just focus on one part of it and ignore the rest. "

    Took me a while to figure it out... Also see wikipedia: "Faraday paradox"

    Too bad ;-)

  2. I disagree with this. When the magnet is rotating with axis of rotation parallel to magnetic axis there is no external flux change and the external circuit does not have a voltage induced in it -- if the field is perfectly uniform and symmetrical. Faraday's paradox is not explained away by Lorentz deflection. For now we just consider that the field is stationary and magnet rotates through it. A rotating conducting AlNiCo magnet all by itself will generate current (with external completing circuit).

    Co-rotating homopolar induction only works with rotation. You can't take the magnet and a wire and co-translate them and get a voltage. The paradox remains.

    If Lorentz deflection was the answer consider the operation of a Faraday Disc Motor. When you apply current to the disc why shouldn't the electrons just spiral in the disc? Why should the +ve nuclei of the disc want to move? A motor paradox. All of the fancy conventional equations do not explain this paradox.

    In two-piece, change-of-flux generators translation will work just as well as rotation. There's no need to have coils or magnets on a rotating spindle; it just happens to be more convenient. You could have linear tracks instead.

    In the N-machine rotation is a crucial part of the generation. It's as though rotation is different form of motion to translation. This idea links in with Bruce DePalma's work with a rotating object: discovering that it will fall faster in gravity than non-rotating and a change in the inertial properties. A gyroscope is heavier along the axis and lighter in the plane.

    I'm preparing a post on the N-machine to discuss some of these issues. I haven't read your link in full, but free-energy is not debunked by it. That link says that magnetic perpetual motion machines are not possible. Wrong. I give you the lego perpetuum mobile. And don't tell me the magnets are demagnetising and that this supplies the energy. Magnet demagnetisation is not an energy source! Besides, far more energy is being manifest overcoming wind and bearing friction for this to be anything other than extraction of energy from space. Conservation of energy is stupid, but feel free to worship at its alter if you like.