You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > July 27, 2010
Gap-Power video claims to describe and demonstrate overunity
New videos by Art Porter illustrates a magnetic neutralization technique via an electromagnetic
coil, and in the operation of the device most of the rotational torque comes from permanent
magnets, allegedly producing more energy out than in.
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2010
Last February we posted a story about some demonstration videos that Art Porter of Gap-Power published, demonstrating what John Bedini calls "regauging", a principle involved in being able to replicate some of Tesla's later, more exotic work. The general consensus was that Porter is a very careful scientist who approaches these studies with fastidious adherence to the scientific method.
He didn't claim in those videos to be achieving overunity.
However, last month he posted a new set of videos, this time claiming that he is getting more energy out than what he puts in all while not violating any laws of physics.
YouTube user theENERGYDREAM
posted a video that compiles three of these recent videos by theGAPpower:
t86JWaJ_-L0 (magnet-coil) and
O4F7sGJYoSE (timing cam) and
-blr6q3PRbM (horsepower) from theGAPpower, with permission.
In this video Porter illustrates a magnetic neutralization technique via an electromagnetic coil. Apparently, in the operation of the device most of the rotational torque comes from permanent magnets.
I'm looking forward to your comments.
# # #
- Feel free to view/post comments below following the 'See also' section.
Efficiency Can't be Determined from This Info
On July 27, 2010, 10:06 AM mountain, Dr.
Peter Lindemann wrote:
My only comments are these: The videos presented by Art Porter show a
machine demonstrating the basic "buck/boost" action of an
electromagnetic coil situated between two sets of permanent magnets. The
fact that this general arrangement can produce mechanical energy and electrical
energy recovery is well illustrated in John Bedini's US Patent #6,392,370.
In that sense, no new principles are demonstrated. Since these films do
not show any metered inputs or outputs, besides the weight lifting segment, it
is impossible to determine the efficiency of the machine from them.
* * * *
On July 27, 2010 , 6:45 am mountain, 'We The People' wrote:
In the case of this experiment,
the most force available to use
is wasted to the least leverage
When just past 0 (Zero) or 180 degrees,
almost no "lever" (Hence leverage) is present.
The ratio is just abysmal to say the least...
As the magnets force quickly weakens from distance,
the crankshaft is gradually increasing usable leverage.
A nice heavy flywheel, with a ratchet toothed edge
and the linear motion of a matching "Pawl" ratchet
utilizing the full force of available linear energy
needs to be the first improvement here for sure !
If set up correctly,
when the magnet pair are at their closest
the pawl would be at 90 degrees to the axle,
thus making the longest lever with most leverage
and transfer 100% of the usable energy provided.
Gradually tapering off as the pawl leaves a perfect
90 degree lever transfer angle (Maximum leverage)
decreasing in leveage as the magets force reduces too.
The current arrangement is absolutely backwards
in conversion efficiency to be absolutely clear.
Moving on to the next step of potential improvement,
we have to abandon the usual way we think about power.
We tend to think:
Power in >>> Power out.
(Electricity in >>> Motive force out)
the video's concept is backwards to our way of thinking.
It is the opposite of the usual concepts
we naturally tend to gravitate towards.
Here, we are putting power in to CANCEL
what will the result in power output.
However, once thinking is reversed here,
lots of good things quickly come to mind.
If the force we are trying to harness is linear,
then go with that and add to it in multiplicity.
Let me define the word "Unit" to mean:
One pair of opposing magnets,
orientated to repel each other
(N<>N or S<>S to be clear)
and one coil to cancel the repulsive force
as a "Building block" to save typing space.
Now it gets interesting (LOL), think "Parallel-path" magnetics.
Start with the left "Unit", lets say it is N<>N orientation.
Make a second unit that is S<>S orientation
and mount it directly on top of the first one,
connect the unused core ends with a magnetic bridge.
Mount the movable north and south set on a second
magnetic bridge too, then onto the linear rod's end.
So far it is just a complete path loop.
But we are still in "Repulsion" mode,
only now it is 2X in effective force
in both directions of linear rod travel.
[/Start: "Draw picture with words mode"]
1 - Start with a very heavy large flywheel,
add two opposing sets of ratchet teeth
to the flywheel's edge side-by-side.
2 - Align a linear motion rod past flywheel edge,
support each end in two saddle-block bushings.
3 - provide a staggered set of "Pawl" clutchblocks
such that they engage at each of the rod's travel
forming a perfect 90 degree lever upon the flywheel.
transfering linear power to rotary @ 100% effeciency.
4 - Place one "Unit" on BOTH ends of the linear rod.
5 - Alternatively turn off each of the two end "Unit's"
to utilize both directions of the linear travel rod.
(As opposed to wasting one of the usable directions)
[/End: "Draw picture with words mode"]
OK, now we have a starter kit that has 100% efficiency of linear to rotary energy conversion for the most part,
and we are no longer completely wasting one the linear rod's full range of motion to just a "Return trip" to the beginning.
When the left coil releases the usable magnetic force one of the pawls engages with the corresponding track
of ratchet teeth on the flywheel's edge.
At the end of the rod's full stroke to the right, the right coil will release It's cancellation force.
The second pawl will engage the second track of ratchet teeth and will be lined up at 90 degrees too to maximize
efficiency due to this pawl being mounted at a staggered position on the rod.
[/Start: "Sail off end of concept mode"]
Now add a third bridge and matching coil set
and you will still have 2X Repulsion,
but you can also add 4X attraction too.
with only a small input of electrical energy
to (What has now become) a four coil set.
Thats 4X attraction when energized,
and 2X repulsion when non-energized.
[/End: "Sail off end of concept mode"]
This just isn't easy to put into words here, but I don't have a easy to use drawing utility.
Any suggestions on a free and easy CAD utility, that will work on the old Win-9x kernal machine I use?
Three pics would have done the work of all the above...
To those not familiar with parallel-path concepts:
Google "Parallel Path Magnetic
A "Starter kit" to get your mind wrapped around this:
Hope this helps, sorry to ramble.
* * * *
On July 26, 2010, Leslie
R. Pastor wrote:
All of our energy systems are related to 'Magnets, Magnetism or
"Rotating Magnetic Fields". Without magnetism there would be no energy
systems based on alternating currents. Magnets also power DC systems as well,
but under different circumstances close range.
From my own research: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:Magnets
I am aware of the influence of three individuals who made a significant impact
upon our technological growth involving the use of magnetic fields, i.e.,
Faraday, Maxwell, and Tesla. For those wishing to familiarize themselves with
James Clerk Maxwell http://www.sonnetsoftware.com/bio/maxbio.pdf
Magnets can be conditioned to provide significant results enabling significant
Lest anyone disparage Floyd Sweet, please remember that Sweet was a protege of
Gabriel Kron (General Electric) Sweet graduated 3rd in his class at MIT. Sweet,
Bearden and Bedini were able to extract 500 watts of power from his VTA
conditioned magnets. (Kron was one of four scientists on the Philadelphia
Without Nikola Tesla's intervention in 1885-9 and his installation of his
'rotating magnetic field at Niagara Falls, we would not have the technologies we
take for granted today. Make no mistake without Tesla, we would not have
alternating current as our standard. The only system available without Tesla
would have been Edison, and Edison was fixated having a myopic mindset, refusing
to even look at any technology other than his own. In that regard Tesla was the
true genius, while Edison a mere tinkerer. (War of the Currents).
That stated the above inventor Re: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_HRwqKzFk
makes an interesting observation. Using magnetic force with the aid of gravity
coupled with an on/off switch powering the magnetic field does enable an
interesting possibility. If he can elaborate regarding input (batteries, etc.,
other sources) vs output, then we would have a better understanding of his
invention. He leaves out a significant detail regarding other factors necessary,
such as conversion factors, or change of form of energy, etc. http://www.gap-power.com
Can he provide additional information (input vs output) regarding his magnet
* * * *
On July 28, 2010 11:10 AM mountain; Michael
We all know that this eventually wears out the magnets due to repulsion, but
how long would that take? Seems like if you turn this device up horizontal and
add gravity to the mix, reverse the polarity to have the magnets draw instead of
push, and maximize the weight to that which the magnets can lift. You would have
an awesome machine.
* * * *
On July 30, 2010 8:11 AM mountain; 'An Oracle' wrote:
Art Porter; thank you for your Video Presentation
what you call "Magnetic Neutralization"!
believe what you refer to as "Magnetic Neutralization is actually
I believe was used by
Ed Leedskalnin to build "Coral Castle" in Miami.
Giant Floating Magnetic Repulsion
* * * *