Motionless Magnetic Generator, Patented

Factual Questions
1

article:

http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm

the device’s site:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm

Just a question: could this work, or it is another example of a “perpetual motion machine”?

Thanks in advance, Dopers.

2

The inventor is trying to tap into the Vacuum Energy (or quantum background energy, or Zero Point Energy.) Could it work? I think this is a case of “if it exists, then it must be possible.” However, the evidence that his device functions as claimed is still pretty weak. Electrical measurements could be mistaken. Patents do mean something, but they aren’t proof because there are LOTS of existing patents on “ZPE” devices and perpetual motion machines. People who work with these “free energy” inventions propose a single hurdle for proof: close the loop.

If Mr. Bearden can make his device self-acting (by routing the output to the input), and then if he submits one of these closed-loop systems for 3rd-party testing, that would be some very strong evidence. Or he could just start selling 2.5KW versions, then any hobbyist with some test equipment could check one out and look for measurement errors.

Free Energy FAQ http://amasci.com/freenrg/fefaq.html

3

There was another thread not too long ago on the very same subject : Motionless Electromagnetic Generator

I’m not very well-informed on the idea of vacuum energy, but as I understand it, it’s really more of a theoretical construct (I’ve seen it equated with the cosmological constant) and not something that could be used to perform any work.

4

The zero-point energy is (almost) certainly there, but by definition, it’s not accessible. If you can pull more energy out of a system, then it’s not at its zero point yet. The presence of that energy does have gravitational effects (the afore-mentioned Cosmological Constant), but there’s nothing special about a perpetual source of gravity (any old chunk of rock will do that).

There are, of course, real devices which can get energy out of non-obvious sources in their environment (self-winding watches, for instance), but they’re usually not significant, and it sure doesn’t sound like this is one of them.

5

If that thing was published in a peer-reviewed journal it would have a better credibility.

Right now it sounds like bunk.