is the hendershot generator ad a scam?

As much fun as this could be I can't watch. It does not work.

There is ONE device that I know of and that is only because I know people w ho worked on it that can appear to give free energy. But it uses magnets an d the way it does it it saps their magnetic properties. It can supply your house with power for approximately seven years and then it is spent. It is no more perpetual motion or magic than a dry cell battery.

I can probably get you one. you can't build it as it costs a shit ton of mo ney in machining and some special materials that are not cheap. Before plac ing your order though take your electric bill for seven years and add it up and see if it adds up to about a million dollars. And if it does, the devi ce does not have the capacity to supply that much so you need a bigger one which will cost even more.

There is no free lunch. First law of thermodynamics, and science in general . You can't even measure something without affecting it and that includes t he entire universe. Even if you look at a star with a telescope you are aff ecting its radiation to the Earth. But that effect being so infinitesimal t hat it is neglibible does not mean it does not exist.

Even an electrometer or elecrostatic voltmeter affects what is being measur ed.

If you want perpetual energy look into geothermal or solar. It will last lo nger than you. Those are your choices. Either that or find a way to harness the tides. Some thought has gone into that, it would require some sort of floating weight that would move up and down with the tides. This would be v ery slow and have to geared up immensely to be of any use. Or, if there is a way to store it but stored water weight really doesn't work all that well , it has been tried. It works but not well enough to replace what we're doi ng now.

Wind and solar work but they are intermittent, you cannot count on it. ther efore you use batteries which are an environmental nightmare.

There just ain't something for nothing. That Hendershot guy missed class on the wrong days, probably out getting high. Not that I have anything agains t that, but I am, and so are others, absolutely sure that could not demonst rate it actually working. The device I mentioned, I grilled the guy for day s upon days before I even started research on how it could possibly work. W e actually got into a couple of loud arguments about it. I asked hundreds o f questions. But in the end I figured out how it works and it is not magic or anything "free". But I do know exactly why they never bothered to patent it. Simply no reason to.

To sum it up, there is no free lunch Grandma.

Reply to
jurb6006
Loading thread data ...

My free electrons are not truly free. They run around all over the place and occasionally create havoc (lightning). You would not believe the trouble one has to go thru to keep a decent number of them corralled. Insulators, special coatings for conductors, taming most of them to reasonably conform to building codes, the list seems to be endless.

Reply to
Robert Baer

First law of business: there is a free lunch when the customer pays for it.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

  • Must be the old wimpy Alnico magnets, which degrade over time all by themselves. Present magnetic technology gives us truly permanent magnets; these magnets cannot degrade and i doubt the accuracy of that statement.
Reply to
Robert Baer

They can degrade due to heating above Curie point.

The amount of energy stored in a permanent magnet will be less than what it took to make it. You can estimate the energy by making an electromagnet with the same strength, and the energy will be 0.5 * L * I^2.

You can make a very powerful electromagnet that uses no power, by using superconductors. All you need is current. Some power may be needed to make up for losses in the current generating equipment, but once current is flowing, it will continue. Of course, you also need considerable power to run refrigeration equipment to maintain near absolute zero.

Paul

Reply to
P E Schoen

Won't L depend on the permeability of the magnet material?

Reply to
Clifford Heath

it

ith

These things are greater than unity efficiency, apparently. We know it is n ot possible. The generator and motor have specially wound armatures that I believe have transistors in them to intermittently disrupt a magnetic field . The examples I have seen have separate units and a flywheel. However I am sure a unit could be built that would be all in on unit and eliminate all belts and whatnot. And if they had it running that way it would be alot bet ter my way.

Look up the Hummingbird Motor, once you understand that then think about a generator made with the same technology, and then you know how it works. Th e cost is the problem.

The permanent magnets used in these are not Alnico to say the least. These things need the bestest of the bestest magnets.

The last I heard was that they were working on an electric car that ran on one of those. We lost touch so I don't know what is up with it now. They mi ght just have decided to go secret, and not even patent the thing. It has s uch a limited market, and a patent app will just give the idea to everyone.

Some rich guys would buy it, especially those who believe that society is g oing down. But I am not interested in it.

Reply to
jurb6006

The not working is the problem.

--

John Devereux
Reply to
John Devereux

That's the bottom line right there.

It can't be "understood" because it's never explained.

"Permanent" magnets are not permanent. They are energy storage devices. It takes energy to magnetize them. Extract that energy and they demagnetize.

Don't buy into bullshit handwaving about magnets "gating" energy in from somewhere else.

There ain't no free lunch.

Mark L. Fergerson

Reply to
Alien8752

They work.

Reply to
jurb6006

It takes energy to magnetize them. Extract that energy and >they demagneti ze. "

Well at least you understand the concept somewhat, while the closed minded just dismiss it. This is what that device uses, and they are those extremel y strong magnets.

Actually these things are less mysterious than a dry cell battery. You asse mble that carbon, zinc and powder stuff in there and you "magically" get 1.5 volts.

I know two people who worked on them and like I said I grilled them about i t. They work but after a few years they quit, and I am pretty sure they can not be rebuilt currently. There might be a way to engineer it so the magnet packs can be replaced, but those things are so strong that if you put them in the same box it will take ten guys to get them apart.

And again, SOMETHING magnetized them like you said. So all it is doing it e xtracting that energy.

The dry cell is ore miraculous. People with education but limited understan ding poo poo this thing and claim it does not exist. They think if they don 't know it it is not true. They do not get it. This is not a perpetual moti on machine or a Hendershot scam, it actually works.

But at what it costs it is for billionaires who intend to survive the Apoca lypse.

but actually, the way you put it gave me a little bit more insight to it. I t is actually using the energy that was used to magnetize those magnets. So it did come from somewhere.

Now, how efficient is it ? I have no idea. I would have to have one and be able to measure its decrease in performance over the years, and then have t he numbers on making those neodinium or whatever magnets and probably a few other things. And of course manufacturing costs which I imagine are not tr ivial.

But it is not the Hendershot scam, I can say that much for sure.

Reply to
jurb6006

Some "permanent magnets" are actually magnetized by electrical or mechanical means, and can be demagnetized and remagnetized. The more powerful rare earth magnets apparently get their strength from the material itself in combination with other materials, but also may require processing to magnetize them. The energy required for magnetization is likely rather insignificant, and comparable to that of an electromagnet of similar size and strength. Probably in the order of 100 watt-seconds (Joules), while the daily energy usage of a house is in the order of 5,000 watt-hours, or 18 million Joules!

formatting link

Also consider the relative magnetic field strength of the most powerful rare-earth magnets (less than 1.5 Teslas), compared to electromagnets which can attain the ferromagnetic limit of 1.6 T. Stronger magnetic fields can be produced by non-saturating air-core electromagnets, up to about 35 T.

formatting link

Also interesting is the range of magnetic field strengths measureable, attainable on earth, and observed in the cosmos.

formatting link

And another fascinating subject is coin shrinking, using extremely high current microsecond pulses to create fields strong enough to plastically deform coins. I didn't see how many Teslas it was, but energy was in the order of 5000 J.

formatting link

No magic there. Chemical reactions can be exothermic, or capable of releasing energy stored in molecular bonds. Carbon based fuels, TNT, nitroglycerine, etc. Some reactions are reversible, such as rechargeable batteries, or electrolysis of water to store energy and oxidation of hydrogen to release it.

The energy contained therein is insignificant.

Not really. The elements were created in stars using nuclear fusion, and the magnetic properties are fairly well understood consequences of atomic structure. Magnetization is also well understood.

Every claim of free energy, or unusually high production of energy from supposed "cold fusion" processes, that I have seen, seems to have significant flaws in measurement techniques and false assumptions that produce impossible results. If any of these had any validity, they would be in use and readily observable. It's fun to speculate and dream, but reality trumps all of these concepts.

Paul

Reply to
P E Schoen

On Sep 5, 2016, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote (in article):

Yep. Many years ago, a coworker showed me a free-energy generator that looked like an electrical motor involving a bunch of rotating permanent magnets following complicated paths such that net torque was supposed to be generated. (No electrical current was involved - all mechanical.) The coworker challenged me to disprove the motor design. I declined to try, saying that it would take me at least a full-time month to do an adequate analysis, and that I already knew the answer - it cannot work. His reply was to ask how I could be so sure without doing the analysis? Because I know that magnetic fields (and electric fields) are conservative in the full physics sense of the word, which means that they exactly conserve energy - nothing is lost or gained, no matter what. How can you be so sure that these fields are conservative? Because I can see the stars at night. Huh? What do stars have to do with it?

Well, visible light is electromagnetic radiation, where the energy shuttles from magnetic field to electric field and back to magnetic field ~10^14 times per second, and we can see starlight that has been traveling through space for billions of years. A billion years is ~10^76 seconds, so that?s ~10^90 oscillations. If there were the slightest loss or gain per oscillation, the sky would be completely dark (loss) or blazing white (gain). Given that we can see stars, even ones billions of light years away, the loss or gain must be infinitesimal, and certainly insufficient to spin a motor armature.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

Great reasoning.

But is this also true when I' wearing my tin foil hat? ;-)

--
Reinhardt
Reply to
Reinhardt Behm

On Sep 6, 2016, Reinhardt Behm wrote (in article ):

Only if the shiny side is on the outside.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

That is pretty limp as real "perpetual" motion machines go.

I have a WWII Zamboni pile that is still going strong and will flex a piece of aluminium foil too and fro until it breaks. Or drive a set of modest Franklin bells. The pile still works and may well last a century or more with a high terminal voltage at static electricity levels of current. ISTR they were designed to power early image intensifiers.

The longest lasting of these devices is at the Clarendon lab Oxford and that has been going now since 1840. See:

formatting link

formatting link

I am sure there is a sulphur ball on a silken thread somewhere too (Leyden maybe?) but the details of that one escape me (and Google).

Regards, Martin Brown

Reply to
Martin Brown

On Sep 6, 2016, Joseph Gwinn wrote (in article):

By the way, what prompted be to think of starry skies was Olbers? Paradox:.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

Hi Syd, I'm building a Hendershot Generator. I'm having trouble getting it working. Do you have any plans or Blue Print recommendations? I'm using thi s video

formatting link
,It does not explain everything step by step. I think I must have a wire mis-wired somewhere alo ng the way. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks, Sterling

Reply to
grandriverrecords

Just on the off-chance that you're serious, it was a (poor) joke. The Hendershot generator is nonsense.

But interestingly, 'gullible' is one of the few English words not to be included in the latest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Cheers

--
Syd
Reply to
Syd Rumpo

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:46:14 +0100 Syd Rumpo wrote in Message id: :

I have the 100% full working plans. A steal at $500. Did you want to use MasterCard or Visa? (Sorry, no AMEX or Discover)

Damn! It's in the last edition, I just checked.

Reply to
JW

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.