Free Energy: Exploring and Discussing the Searl Generator's Magnets, Rings & Rollers

This generator is clearly a scam.
The author found a way to earn money ... he publishes a book, tells nonsense and for 40 years he has been building a prototype and he has retired ...
It's a waste of the frog's time to even think about it, it doesn't work, it never worked, maybe he had a dream, but that's no reason to take it seriously. How could it work, it would be for sale and that's it.

JohnSearl wrote:

Then let's start discussing the construction of the searel generator from the inside. Do we know what should be in the middle of the generator? What dimensions should it have? what physical phenomena take place there etc? As we can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEFFK7mprTI in 1min5sec there are 4 ring-shaped layers. Which layer is what and what for? To make it easier to imagine what we are talking about, I present a picture of the generator center. So we have a ring 1-black 2-white 3-gray 4-gold. I suppose white is a magnet and gold is a copper plate. Somewhere there must be eddy currents, etc.

If you are already writing about eddy currents, pay attention to the fact that in any motor design, eddy currents are the main obstacle to getting better performance.
If you find a point where these eddy currents act in reverse, i.e. instead of disturbing the system, write where and at what point it occurs.
Then I will join your posts.
I have gone through the Searl system many times and although I have a lot of hands-on experience with magnetic fields, I was unable to find the epicenter of this motor's operation.

saskia wrote:

I have gone through the Searl system many times and although I have a lot of hands-on experience with magnetic fields, I was unable to find the epicenter of this motor's operation.

Because you don't know where to look. It is as clear as the sun, that nothing can drive on magnets alone, and that it is an electrical device, just like an ordinary motor in which electricity must flow, so it should also be here. Even the inventor himself says that he pumps huge amounts of electrons - so look for it It is quite easy to see the problem is that it is not known how to power it, therefore this fact is ignored. It is so easy that the mind cannot see it.

What is not there can be searched for long and fruitlessly - if one does not take into account that the possibility of finding is a fiction.

_jta_ wrote:

What is not there can be searched for long and fruitlessly - if one does not take into account that the possibility of finding is a fiction.

What does not need to be supplemented and fiction will become a fact. A fact that beats the eyes.
A few adjustments to the whole layout, a few removed parts and you have no idea how to set it in motion ...

_jta if you want to wait for the finished product, you can't wait.

If I want to do what cannot exist, I will not do it, if I wait for someone to do it, I will not live to see it - because if it is impossible, it will not exist, whether I try to do it or not - but I can doing something else that is possible and useful - and I do.

I don't know - you may want to explain to me - what your motivation is to persuade others to try to do what cannot be done - whether you want others to waste time trying fruitlessly, or are you counting on being constantly encouraged to try eventually someone will succeed and you will benefit from it?

And I recently realized that man has a desire to influence the weather, he makes such attempts, but the results are meager - and bacteria successfully do it, they have overtaken us; and I wrote a long time ago that if it was possible to generate energy from magnets, bacteria would discover it and use it. So maybe it is better to observe the bacteria and copy ideas from them instead of experimenting?

Radd wrote:

A few adjustments to the whole layout, a few removed parts and you have no idea how to set it in motion ...

So make these few corrections, add the missing parts and show the whole world a working device - Nobel Prize is guaranteed, millionth profit on sales and lifetime as well as posthumous respect. Look, such Archimedes - over 2,000 years has passed away, and to this day they teach about him in schools.

Won't you be tempted?

_jta_ wrote:

I don't know - you may want to explain to me - what your motivation is to persuade others to try to do what cannot be done - whether you want others to waste time trying fruitlessly, or are you counting on being constantly encouraged to try eventually someone will succeed and you will benefit from it?

_jta I do not urge people to try to do something that cannot be done, just to try to use something that has been around for a long time and is known. I have already written that in such a system as it is presented to the public, it is impossible (or at least I do not see it), so do not turn the cat with its tail because I do not want to write again Yes it won't work, but a similar circuit is quite possible it will.
You see, you do not even ask me about this unfortunate current about which I wrote earlier, but you write immediately about energies drawn from magnets that cannot be derived, because it is clear that you cannot.
Sorry, but if you put up a wall like this, we won't get along. Just tell me one thing, why are you following this topic so persistently on the electrode? Do you hope someone will come up with a sensible idea? Because if you think all this SEG is nonsense, you should stop being interested in it and not waste time on idle discussions, right? There are better things to do, for example, bacteria are very interesting and I'm not saying that it is not.

Probably you can add power and get one more version of the electric motor ... Only it is quite probable that with much worse parameters than those already known.

And I look because I see that there are many who want to cheat - so someone warns against them.

And there are many who have not learned, believe in some nonsense - they need to be told how it is, let them not waste many years of their lives on it. Maybe at least some of them will be able to prevent it ...

_jta_ wrote:

Probably you can add power and get one more version of the electric motor ... Only it is quite probable that with much worse parameters than those already known.

So you've deduced something, I'm just not sure if we're thinking the same thing. As for the parameters, I also have mixed feelings, nowhere have I found any data about this type of engine. There was one guy who was doing research on a similar type of engine, but he didn't go down in the history of science because the engine was not used. However, if the parameters are enough to overcome the inertia plus part of the pole attraction force, it would be enough for me to start with. Currently, I have gone through the power supply. As for the power supply, I think you would be very, very pleasantly surprised.

_jta_ wrote:

And I look because I see that there are many who want to cheat - so someone warns against them.

And there are many who have not learned, believe in some nonsense - they need to be told how it is, let them not waste many years of their lives on it. Maybe at least some of them will be able to prevent it ...

I treat it more as a hobby and don't devote my whole life to it. Every now and then something new comes to mind and I sit down, draw and deduce whether it makes sense or not, and if it is in line with current science, I add this brick to the pile. And I've come too far to let go now.
In my opinion, defense against experiencing reality is like defense against development - don't you think? But that's your business.

It is possible that the searel generator will not go into self-drive and you need to help it a bit by arousing a magnetic field in two opposite coils and controlling a generator with a certain frequency. But assuming that the current consumption to excite the spinning of the rolls is 1A and the current generated in the remaining coils has a value of e.g. 10A, the game is worth a candle because it is enough to power the 12V installation, e.g. in a camping house or charge a dead battery in the car.
The theoretical project assumes the use of 1.5x30 mm neodymium magnets on the fixed ring and rollers, creating a "magnetic gear", which at a certain spin speed should theoretically cause a kinetic effect supporting "jumping" from one magnet field to another, etc. Looping the coil outputs through a stabilizer supplying a control generator with the excitation coils it is enough to mechanically "spin" the rollers to power the generator and the system should start working. On a ring of 96 magnets on a roll, 8 the diameter ratio as in Searl's 12. That's the theory.
Drawing.

Radd - This looks like an addiction to me - similar to the addiction that is caused by heavy drinking, smoking, taking drugs ...

margas4542 - I assure you that more will have to be put in than it will get - this "generator" will only bring losses. And it can be addictive.

As I wrote, these are only theoretical considerations so that the gray cells do not get rusty.

As the concept of the SEG principle of operation returns to me from time to time, and I started my topic a long time ago Link I will write this what was born to me quite a long time ago and new things have recently come.
The key issue is the principles of operation according to me roll. The outer ring cannot be smooth, but must have a specific "carving". What ? And the fact that the imploding bubbles (oxygen, nitrogen, maybe other air components) formed at its surface give it energy. Where does this energy come from?
Apparently, heat generators based on Link have a surplus in relation to the energy consumed. Even my colleague _jta_ did not question it.
If the cavitation phenomenon takes place in liquids, that is in gases, then perhaps the Searl generator worked by accident. How ?
The author had a rather poor workshop, but the lathe on which he processed the copper rings of the rollers could have excessive clearances. What do they give?
I recently turned a steel ring for other purposes on such a "slack" lathe. I noticed that without coolant, furrows are evenly distributed around the circumference on the cylindrical surface of the ring.
Note that a golf ball with a series of indentations on the surface and sufficiently high rotation on its axis will fly further than a smooth ball. A "vacuum bubble" forms at the surface.
SEG rollers, having the "right" surface, rotating at high speed can induce the formation and implodation of gas molecules. These in turn, like the wind blowing on the wind turbine, propel the SEG.
These are just my thoughts. In my free time, I can add something.
Houk

RADASSS wrote:

Note that a golf ball with a series of indentations on the surface and sufficiently high rotation on its axis will fly further than a smooth ball. A "vacuum bubble" forms at the surface.

))

Maybe a colleague elaborate on this thought?

It is worth checking what "seems to us" with what is really:
http://dlapilota.pl/wiadomosci/aopa/aerodynamika-zaglebien-dolek-w-jednym-uderzenie

Even my colleague _jta_ did not question it.
You mean by the fact that condensing combustion produces more heat than non-condensing combustion?
Is it a cavitation pump where almost all the energy used to drive it is turned into heat? (as provided by the author of the page)
Nothing comes of any of these matters for the "Searl's generator" ...

If I assume that perhaps SEG's operation is to produce implosions at the surfaces of appropriately shaped rollers. Perhaps the imploding air molecules can transform "dark energy" at least to a small extent, and it is it that turns the SEG.

Hmm ... And what is the point of such a plea?

In our civilization, it happens that someone wants to show off profligacy, so he goes to an expensive restaurant; in "Pan Tadeusz" Major Płut lit a cigar with a banknote (IX.245), although hardly anyone would consider such behavior sensible; describes a culture in which it is appropriate to destroy something valuable for show - there was a scene in which the leaders of the neighboring tribes bring valuable items and throw them to the fire, competing in the one who destroys the more valuable - in our movie "Sami swoi" by Pawlak and Kargul they destroy their shirts and pots, but they do it by mistake - Pawlak thinks he is destroying Kargul and Kargul is destroying Pawlak.

Here I have the impression that there are people who show off with those who write more stupidity. It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe these people belong to a culture where showing off stupidity is the most honorable behavior? Because it is difficult for me to explain these repetitive statements differently, that the "Searl's generator" could work, with absurd justifications.

If the great inventor Nikoala Tesla thought there, who knows at what stage energy and electronics would be now. Man has always searched and experimented, although many of them eloquently knocked on the forehead. Verne described a steel submarine while wooden ships still sailed the seas. Now we are looking further and we do not ask if we will master gravity, but when. Free energy is not convenient for energy companies because the money would not flow in such a fast stream. I am asking why no design work is carried out on the use of the force of winds that sets huge vertical windmills in motion, but only deliberates on nuclear energy, forgetting that one mistake or natural disaster can turn it into a giant bomb, mutilating and killing thousands of people. Searl's generator is controversial but I am convinced that it is being worked on in secret and maybe already used as an energy source for e.g. lasers on board US planes. Fantasy?

Tesla made millions of dollars on his inventions and ended up bankrupt - sometimes he had meaningful ideas and was able to work hard on them, thanks to which he made millions and gained recognition, and more often he did stupid things that made him lose everything.

Verne wrote the novel "20,000 miles of undersea shipping" after the Civil War - for him the fleet used in that war might have been a model for the "Nautilus" and other ships featured in the novel. And wooden yachts still sail today, after nearly 150 years ...

Work on the use of wind energy is underway. Unfortunately, there is not much of it, many times less than it is needed, so the power industry cannot be based solely on wind and hydro power plants.

My distant neighbor, counter-debater, supporter of certain theories, opponent of various lobbies, built himself a windmill (and not only), which worked only when the wind blew. Unfortunately, for some time as a result of some inversion or probably criminal actions of the above-mentioned, it has not blown ?.
When I pass by, I will twirl those vertical wings from time to time, out of friendship .

This is what it is like with renewable energy sources - whether they are wind, hydro or solar power plants, the effect is exactly the same - there is not enough energy produced. Solar panels are the most promising, which is why work / research is constantly being carried out to improve these devices, but they are far from being perfect, and I am afraid that not much will change in this matter in the near future, and we need more and more energy. The problem is that the production of energy from fossil fuels is becoming more and more expensive, as deposits become more difficult to exploit. No wonder that other sources of energy are being looked for, but at the moment the only source that provides adequate amounts of energy are nuclear power plants, which, contrary to what the lobby says (I do not like this word, but I have to use it), is the cleanest and the least environmentally harmful source of energy.

It's fun to read novels or watch science fiction movies, but still the vast majority of them are fiction, not science.

A small amount of energy obtained from renewable sources compared to others is certainly a limitation, but fossil fuels are running out and one day they will run out or mining will no longer be profitable. better less than nothing because it is impossible to live without electricity, so we are looking for alternative solutions. Photovoltaic panels based on perovskites, much more efficient than the current ones, may appear in two years and, as the village carries, they will be cheaper and easier to install. Let the sun give enough energy to power low-power devices up to 500 watts in total, it will turn out how much we have relieved the current energy system and how many zlotys are left in our pocket.

margas4542 wrote:

Photovoltaic panels based on perovskites, much more efficient than the current ones, may appear in two years and, as the village carries, they will be cheaper and easier to install. Let the sun give enough energy to power low-power devices up to 500 watts in total, it will turn out how much we have relieved the current energy system and how many zlotys are left in our pocket.

And what does it mean much more efficient? Currently, the efficiency of photovoltaic cells is probably at the level of 10% and, what is worse, it decreases with increasing temperature. A panel with 20% efficiency will be much more efficient (twice as much), but it is still not enough.
In addition, the sun must also shine, which you can not always count on, and the storage of electricity is also not a simple and cheap thing.
And finally - what is 500W of power? It is nothing, it is enough for lighting, but it is not enough to power other appliances in the household. In fact, the most energy is not consumed by lighting, only RTV / household appliances, especially one connected to the 24h network called a refrigerator.

1/2 kW is just as much as the average I use non-stop in a large hut; calculation of EE bills. So, according to me 1/2 kW, if it was available from inexpensive panels, it would be ok. At the peak I charge an order of magnitude more (for max 1 hour), but that's what the batteries are for.

In summer, in sunny weather, you can get from 100W per m2 (with an efficiency of 10% and aiming at the Sun). The question is how many m2 we can place and maintain (e.g. wash, because when a layer of dirt settles, less light will pass and we will get less power). Storing energy in batteries can cost much more than buying it - unless the battery life-price ratio improves or energy becomes more expensive.

If we could get energy "for free", as Searl promises, it would be very beneficial - the expected benefit makes people less soberly about the possibilities - so many people fall for it and Searl has a lot to live off of, pretending to be an inventor who it will give the world such a wonderful source of energy.

RADASSS wrote:

1/2 kW is just as much as the average I use non-stop in a large hut; calculation of EE bills. So, according to me 1/2 kW, if it was available from inexpensive panels, it would be ok. At the peak I charge an order of magnitude more (for max 1 hour), but that's what the batteries are for.

Well, now count how real it is to receive 500W from the sun for 24 hours. The day is 24h, assuming very optimistically that the sun is shining 12h and 12h is not shining, we need 500W * 12h = 6000Wh = 6kWh of energy stored in the batteries for the "dark" period. Only that in order to charge the batteries during the day and still cover the current energy demand, we need a source capable of delivering 12kWh of energy.
It is no longer 500W, but 1kW.
Count how much it would cost (and the area it will take) such an installation with batteries at the prices applicable today. Then optimistically assume that in 5 years the technique will move forward and everything will stop twice. I do not want to look for specific prices, but without counting, I know that the sum will be substantial, even the one divided by two. This will pay for itself in the next 20 years, and considering that during this time something will probably be damaged and will need to be repaired, moreover, the batteries will have to be replaced (probably more than once) - it will never pay off.

And these are only optimistic assumptions, because in practice, we can only count on 12 hours of sun for a very short summer period of time, and even this, unless there are clouds, which nobody can guarantee.
This is a utopia, not only for today, but for the next decades, I think.

Stack all panels or break them. Down with panels, down with the sun, down with renewable energy. It is easier to shout on forums about not dyrdymały with calculations. Merry Christmas.

RADASSS wrote:

Stack all panels or break them. Down with panels, down with the sun, down with renewable energy. It is easier to shout on forums about not dyrdymały with calculations.

I can see that my colleague has run out of arguments, because the hard reality does not match the ideas ...

Note, buddy, that we currently have quite a lot of panels, but it is also worth noting where they are used and thinking why.
Where are they? Most often just for lighting, because thanks to LED technology, lighting consumes little energy, and small amounts of energy can be stored relatively easily and cheaply. The problem arises when you need to power something more sensible than pedestrian crossing lighting or flashing warning lights by the road.
I am afraid (and I have reasons to do so) that it will not change for a long time.