Hi Mark. Yes, I find these sorts of reports to undercut his claims.
http://www.phact.org/e/z/perendev.htm The whole "taking money for motors/distributorships then raging at investor who complain when neither is forthcoming" business is very Newmanesque, doing this offshore only adds to the concern. The claim that he built one 30 years ago, then just dropped it because 65 watts wasn't enough, borders on the bizarre. Would you do this? If so, why? The motor stuff looks nice on the website, if Brady built these prototypes at least we can say he has some technical ability. As you say, if production is beginning in 1 month, we'll know pretty quickly if there is anything to it. If not, 30 years is enough time to wait huh? BTW, if actual production is to begin, then they must already have some sort of IP related to the invention. Should I check Espacenet, or have you already done so? K. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Goldes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 4:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MAGNETS - shape and Brady Hi Keith, Brady has left a sour taste with at least some investors and suppliers. His lack of simple courtesy towards some of them have resulted in angry rants on the net. We have done some simulation work that suggests his technical claims might prove valid. But, without actual tests of a machine in a lab there can be no assurance that is the case. He apparently has offered to allow a government lab in the U.S. to test a unit. However, his promises of demonstrations in this country in the past have never been fulfilled. He claims to have begun trying to build a self-powered motor about 30 years ago. An investor had a scientist friend who convinced him it must be fraud. Brady claims he brought a working motor into the courtroom and two scientists brought in by the court could find no evidence of fraud. Brady has stated the case was then dismissed. With magnets of that era, the power output was low, apparently about 65 watts, if memory serves. Perhaps, if his work achieves validation, an investigative reporter in South Africa will check out this story. He resumed work about five years ago with neo magnets. He makes no claims as to theory, but simply kept experimenting until he felt he had a motor ready for the market. One of our investors took his EE Ph.D. in S. Africa, and two EEs who are friends of his, both specializing in power, know Brady from some years back when they worked together. They have stated he is a good engineer. To date, they apparently have not viewed a working motor, although they may do so at some point in the future. When they first visited Brady the motor was in a disassembled state. He claims production in Germany will begin in perhaps 30 days, and that German TV has been invited to film the story. Whatever the truth of the matter -- it may emerge in the not too distant future. Mark >From: "Keith Nagel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: MAGNETS - shape and Brady >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:11:26 -0400 > >Hi Mark. > >You keep bringing this up on the list, so I'll shoot the >breeze a bit with you on it. > >Presumably, you've done due dilligence on Mr. Brady, >as you seem fairly impressed by Perendev. Care to share >with the list what information you may have found on >the Perendev company? Any bad dealings in the past that >might suggest Mr. Brady is not on the level??? > >K. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Goldes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:08 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: MAGNETS - shape and Brady > > >Keith, > >If Brady's machine is validated, the shape of the magnets could prove to be >one of the critical factors. > >Mark > > > >From: "Keith Nagel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: MAGNETS - importance of shape. > >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:08:30 -0400 > > > >Hi Frank. > > > >The shape factor for magnets determines the shape of the > >external field, and perhaps more importantly the internal > >demagnetizing field inside the magnet. It is usually the > >case that special shapes are used to extract the intrinsic > >BH loop from the experimentally measured one. > > > >There is a massive body of prior art on magnet based energy > >machines, if you can be more specific about what you have > >in mind I can point you at the relevant art. > > > >Also, I've been talking to Jones about OCR'ing some of > >your papers. I won't bore the list with details but if you're > >game we'll discuss it privately. > > > >K. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:13 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: MAGNETS - importance of shape. > > > > > >In a recent e-mail from my colleague, Nigel Clayton, he drew > >my attention to a reference in Mark Buchanan's UBIQUITY to > >the importance of magnetic shape. > > > > > >Nigel writes, > > > > ====================================================== > > "A particular point he makes (on page 81) reminded > > me of the concrete compressive stress-strain tests. > > In relation to magnetism, he says that only two > > things matter: the basic physical (external) dimension > > of the thing in question and the general shape of its > > elements. The tests I did in later years also showed > > that the value of the power depended upon the shape > > of the specimen. I tended to ignore this, but it is > > clearly important." > > ====================================================== > > > >The specific passage from UBIQUITY is, > > > > ====================================================== > > page 81, 3rd paragraph > > > > "In studying the critical numbers that pop up in the > > critical states for different phase transitions, > > Kandanoff found that the basic physical dimension of > > the thing in question, of the very space in which it > > lives, is one of the factors that matters." > > > > Mark Buchanan > > ====================================================== > > > >I can see the reason why this might point us in the right > >direction for the goal of extracting energy from the magnetic > >atmosphere. > > > >The essence of Carnot is cycling between two power curves, > >more specifically in the case of Carnot the isothermal and > >the adiabatic power curves. > > > >If different shaped magnets (short and fat, tall and thin) > >give rise to different shaped fluxes (flows), in effect > >different power curves, then by cycling between them one > >might be able to tap ZPE. This is the kind of exploration > >where the "garage experimenter" is likely to come up with > >the answer long before the theoreticians fully understand > >how and why it works. > > > >My question therefore is, have experimenters systematically > >investigated the effect of combining powerful magnets of > >different shapes in a variety of different configurations? > >If not, why not? > > > >One needs to remember from the history of empirical research > >that often success is only achieved after exhaustive > >experimentation since one is groping around, if not > >completely blind, at least very optically challenged. > > > >Cheers > > > >Grimer > > > > > > > > > >
