Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2020-08-05, 19:59:50
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Permanent Magnets - Conservative Fields?  (Read 6570 times)
Group: Guest
I searched the forum for any references to Kenneth C. Kozeka, Ph.D., and didn't find any.  I'm wondering if anyone has replicated his experiment?

If you're not familiar with his work, you can Google his name, but I would recommend viewing  this Power Point presentation as a starting point:

The data appears to be honestly presented, and not an intentional hoax, but I'm guessing there must be a mistake somewhere.

Basically, his experimentation shows that the energy gained or expended when moving a magnet (relative to another magnet) from point A to point B is path dependent, and therefore a net energy gain is possible.  (The magnetic fields are not conservative.)

There's enough informational in the Power Point presentation to closely approximate his experiment, but not quite enough to duplicate it exactly.

By the way, it didn't seem appropriate to put this post in the Permanent Magnet Motors category since my question is specifically about the behavior of the magnets themselves.  If there was a "Permanent Magnets" sub-category under the "Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center" main category, I would have posted this question there.
Group: Guest
By the way, it didn't seem appropriate to put this post in the Permanent Magnet Motors category since my question is specifically about the behavior of the magnets themselves.


The magic principle of permanent magnets is well explained in the paper that you propose. This is the base of all alleged permanent magnet motors. The most simple of them, the "smot", was popularized in the 90's by J.L. Naudin.

The PMM are supposed to work by assuming that the work done by a magnet for going from a point A to a point B under the magnetic field of other permanent magnets, is more than for going from point B to point A. This supposition allows to loop two different paths from A to B in order a permanent magnet endlessly repeat the cycle.

In the PPT, it is said: It has been discovered that cube-shaped and thin, rectangular magnets (magnetized through their thickness) generate significantly more mechanical energy when they pull themselves together “sideways” or horizontally (perpendicular to an axis between their poles) compared to the amount of mechanical energy required to pull them “straight” or vertically".
I remember that I saw a real experiment that attempted to measure the difference. This was a very interesting goal. I don't remember if it was from Kozeka. The experiment consisted in measuring the distance between two magnets mounted on rails, the pulling or pushing force in the two cases, and in computing the work. I remember only that the difference was estimated to be 10%. This would be well enough to build a PMM. Unfortunately, when I saw the photos of the rough setup, I estimated that the experimental uncertainty was surely more than 10%!
In the PPT, the focus is put on the forces, and it is sure that the forces are very different when the magnets slide side by side and when they move away along their axis of magnetic symmetry. But forces are irrelevant. Only the work is relevant, which is force by distance.

From a theoretical viewpoint, there is no difference of principle between the magnetic potential energy (depending on the distance between permanent magnets and on their magnetic force) and the gravitational potential energy (depending on the distance between massive objects and their gravitational attracting force). A potential energy of any type is inherently independent of the path. The  work to climb a hill in the same, the path being a smooth slope or a vertical wall. Therefore only an experimental evidence has to be shown in order to prove that the theory is wrong, i.e. that the magnetic field is non conservative and the energy available from the separation of two permanent magnets is not a potential energy. Until now, we have not it. This proof would be a real PMM. But nobody succeeded in duplicating the very numerous alleged PMM.

Hero Member

Posts: 1285
Until now, we have not it. This proof would be a real PMM. But nobody succeeded in duplicating the very numerous alleged PMM.

However we should understand that theoretically impossible or just plain old impossible is simply an opinion and makes no consideration for Time. We have seen it all before --- AC motors, Airplanes, nuclear power and computers were not only thought impossible at one time but were inconceivable before that. I believe that when we finally have a firm grasp of what Magnetic, Electric and gravitational fields are fundamentally then things will change because history has shown us that there is always someone out there with a new solution to an old problem.


I don't like morning people... or mornings or people

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
Hero Member

Posts: 1146

I reviewed the power point slides that Dr Kozeka put together, and it has lots of beautiful color graphs and charts, and even the results are true and I believe them, but, something is missing that is quite critical.  I’ll explain:

In order to have a practical closed cycle machine, a magnet has to traverse a CLOSED path.    What was left out in his analysis is the energy that is required to bring the magnet from point B to point A  (see my diagram below.)  This energy is labled as U3, and since a magnetostatic field is a conservative field, this means that U1 + U2 + U3 = 0     

Be very leary when medical doctors get invovled in free energy, there's always something wrong with that scenario.


PS.  You can get even less energy if you pick a departure path that invovles translation AND twisting of the magnet!  
Group: Guest
Referring to the drkozekafalacy.JPG diagram posted by EMdevices, presumably U3 approaches zero as you make positions A and B very far from the fixed magnet.

But, that brings me to another thing.  As I "play" with magnets, I find that as I try to move from position A towards the fixed magnet, the force appears to change direction half way through the travel for a short distance.  It seems to pull, then push, and finally pull again.  If we're considering extracting energy on that path, then the "push" part of it would have to count as a negative.  Kozeka's data doesn't show that, and that makes me a bit suspicious.  On the other hand, I'm not using the same magnets as he did, and I don't have a test fixture set up to limit motion to one dimension at a time.  I'm simply "playing" with them in my hands, and trying to "feel" the forces.

Ideally, it would be nice to measure the forces in all three dimension at "every" point, and then analyze multiple closed paths.  We know that they are all supposed to be zero, but it would still be nice to see real data.  Devising a test fixture to make these measurements might be a major undertaking.  Allowing twisting would infinitely complicate everything - but might reveal some interesting behaviors.
Group: Guest

You don't distinguish between what is logically impossible according to a theory because not consistent inside this theory and leading to illogic, and what is alleged to be impossible according to a current knowledge, but in fact coud be possible and explainable by a new theory.

Only the second case allows for saying that nothing is impossible and it is what I said: in this case, only an experimental confirmation can prove a new possibility.

I didn't speak about generalities but about real matter: the magnetic field. In science, all concepts are well defined. If you claimed that the magnetic field was not conservative, then you have to provide a definition of your own magnetic field, because a non-conservative magnetic field is not a magnetic field, which is defined by those who elaborated the theory of electromagnetism.
It is completely absurd to use words and concepts of science, like the magnetic field, while not accepting their definitions and characteristics: this leads to internal inconcistencies that make the whole science illogic. For instance, if the magnetic field is not conservative, the electromagnetism becomes false, and consequently the laws of mechanics become also false (they are fully compatible wih electromagnetism), the relativity too, and so on... All the science becomes false, and so "the magnetic field" which is defined by science means nothing. So your start point becoming a nonsense, your conclusions also.

I reformulate what I said. In physics, the magnetic field is conservative and the potential energy is independent of the path. If you consider it is not, then you have to:
1) show the experimental evidence that it is not
2) eleborate a new theory defining new concepts instead of "magnetic field" and "potential energy"
Otherwise it is pure gibberish and it is not with gibberish that we will get free energy.

Pages: [1]
« previous next »


Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2020-08-05, 19:59:50