Crackpot Science And The Quest For The Impossible

[Turtle]

The poles of the magnet are on the short sides, not on the face.:naughty:

 

Excellent. Now when you say 'poles' that is because you have learned what a pole is; a pole is one or the other of the ends of a straight line. So now rephrase your observational statement like this: The [ends of a straight line] of the magnet are on the short side.

 

Now to make this observation you must compare one image to the other, the edge to the face. The angle of the difference between a face and an edge is 90 degrees, or per se a right angle.

I observed that all the pins in the face arrangement align them selves to a kind of middle. This middle line is the very same line we called poles. On the face then, each pin is 90 degrees from the pole line, or per se at right angles to it.

Now where is the 90 degrees of the pins in the edge arrangement relative to that pesky pole line? The pins 'cross' the line at right angles.

Again Beaker! Again! Tell us what you see now.:xx:

[BEAKER]

 

Click on it for larger image.

 

There are neodidium magnets within the PVC caps on the four "claw" looking (hammers) - each with the same pole facing downward.. They are supended by pivots and springs above a PVC tube/shaft with other neodidium magnets inside.

 

Inside the long tube/shaft are the magnets with the opposite pole to the hammers facing outward in progressive 90 degree positions, mounted to a 1/2" threaded rod runing through the center.

 

The idea was that the shaft would turn to polarize with the manet in the hammer above, which would recoil after bouncing off a spring at the point of greatest magnetic intensity.

 

After bouncing off; the next hammer would attract the next magnet which is 90 degrees from the last one... Then the next ...then the next... then the first, second, third, fourth; first, second, third, fourth; first, second, third, fourth; first, second, third, fourth; first, second, third, fourth; - "perpetually".

 

The problem was that (the) hammer would not "bounce" far enough away to allow the (next) hammer to act upon the next set of magnets in the shaft.

 

So once a magnetic "bond" was established between one set, the (next) set could not break the bond of the first set.

 

:xx:

:naughty:

:xx:

[Turtle]

There are neodidium magnets within the PVC caps on the four "claw" looking (hammers) - each with the same pole facing downward.. They are supended by pivots and springs above a PVC tube/shaft with other neodidium magnets inside.

 

Inside the long tube/shaft are the magnets with the opposite pole to the hammers facing outward in progressive 90 degree positions, mounted to a 1/2" threaded rod runing through the center.

 

"perpetually".

 

The problem was that (the) hammer would not "bounce" far enough away to allow the (next) hammer to act upon the next set of magnets in the shaft.

 

So once a magnetic "bond" was established between one set, the (next) set could not break the bond of the first set.

 

:xx:

:naughty:

:xx:

Sweet; Beaker used hammers! Hey, speaking of hammers & magnets, what do you get when you break a magnet in 2? Why, two magnets of course.:D I am grinning ear to ear Beaker.

___ You clearly have the gist of rotation of the magnets on a pole line themselves, visa vi multiple magnets arranged in a tube. As I have just come to understand the nature of the hole by way of the unified field theory as written by Kent Robertson & put up here. The point is, I think I have just learned something new & I am anxious to experiment with it.

I think you have the right idea, but I haven't learned enough yet to say how your particular orientations of things in the machine interact.

__Turtle Over

 

PS I read this work & have assumed it is true & now I am testing that out in comparison to all the other things I have let into the 'assumed it is true' category.

http://hypography.com/forums/websites/4630-total-field-theory-part-i.html

[BEAKER]

Sweet; Beaker used hammers! Hey, speaking of hammers & magnets, what do you get when you break a magnet in 2? Why, two magnets of course.:naughty:

They don't "SLAM!" together - only in close proximity. - close enough to create an "equal and opposite reation" in bounce force.:xx: Here's where magnetism is like gravity.

[Turtle]

They don't "SLAM!" together - only in close proximity. - close enough to create an "equal and opposite reation" in bounce force.:naughty: Here's where magnetism is like gravity.

Excellent observation. I was thinking about that in relation to how fast gravity & magnetism act while I was pickin' all dem pins off o' my magnetic.:xx: :naughty: I was so carefully trying to pour them off the mat into their box with the magnet nearby when the sheet twisted & all the pins fell on the table. Some that fell far away just stayed there, some a little closer just moved a little point wise & stopped, but all that fell close jumped all together in a woosh and a kind of funny rustle sound with a metalic clink.

So we have that magnetism & gravity get faster the closer things get together.

By the way, I was thinking it was 'claw' hammers you said you used? The claw hammer is an excellent analogy for the magnetic axis where one side is for putting in & one side is for putting out, plus two faces right angled between each business end which give you the space you need to turn it whichever end you need to use .:D

[BEAKER]

Hey Turtle - I think I've got it figured out! Just wanted to let you know Im still working on it.

 

Beaker:)

[BEAKER]

I've taken a sabatical of sorts from the pursuit of perpetual motion, but I've got a few relatively new ideas (really modified, old ones) to try. The picture of the stage of my invention that I chose to put on Hypography so long ago is years old - and was then, and I had actually gotten way past that concept when I put it on this page. It hasn't stirred up as much conersation as I had expected; but that's ok. I gave up hope on that design long before I posted it here. Anyway - I've certainly achieved the sort of motion I've been looking for as the primary initial motion; and of course achieving that over and over again (perpetually) without outside intervention is the key to the lock. So I'm about to try another key - if anybody cares. I'm Still working on it. If it wasn't for crackpots we'd all still be scared of fire, and eating our meat raw.

 

Beaker.

[Boerseun]

Well, good luck with your venture. Just keep the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in mind before you open the bubbly in celebrating your invention!

[BEAKER]

Well, good luck with your venture. Just keep the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in mind before you open the bubbly in celebrating your invention!

 

Thanks Boerseun.

 

Believe me I'm not celebrating anything other than the rather incredulous looks on the faces of the few people I have shown my previously "top of the line" design to - in spite of the fact that it did not sustain it's own motion. I am not out to decieve anyone, myself included; and I can apreciate the reason the second law exists. If I say "laws are ment to be broken", I know that in fact that is not necessarily true. That one, in the minds of virtually everone who has a clue, is empirically beyond the realm of that possibility.

 

However, I have caused magnets to do things that would make any rational sceptic think twice about that law. enough to inspire me to continue my experimentation - when I have time, which is getting harder and harder to find; but I digress.

 

Beaker.

[Jay-qu]

 

However, I have caused magnets to do things that would make any rational sceptic think twice about that law. enough to inpire me to continue my experimentation - when I have time, which is getting harder and harder to find; but I digress.

 

Beaker.

 

Im a rational skeptic, try me

[BEAKER]

Im a rational skeptic, try me

 

-Well y'know - I could tell you; but then I'd have ta kill ya.

 

In all seriousness - I know that it's one of those things that nobody will ever believe untill it happens - (if it happens) - that it actually works.

 

And throughout the ages; the greatest inventions have been concieved, developed and brought to fruition by only one or two people while the world at large sat in dissbelief.

 

- Untill a few years later when they could no longer remember a time when that invention wasn't commonplace.

 

Beaker.

[BEAKER]

I have no problem with the second law of thermodynamics. I'm counting on it. Based on my experimentation; that law will in no way prohibit the (perpetual) motion I am atempting to achieve. It wouldn't work without it. It's not somehing to overcome, it's simply a dynamic to work within.

[Boerseun]

You're telling us absolutely nothing of your "machine", or "plan" or "invention", or how it's supposed to work.

 

We cannot contribute to this discussion at all.

 

Jay-Q have asked you to explain to him what the deal is all about, that he's an open-minded skeptic. You simply refused to answer him.

 

Therefore, I'm of the opinion that your discussion here is absolutely meaningless (apart from impossible in a 2nd-Law driven universe), and that the reason you believe that you have created "free" energy is because you don't understand the entrophy flow of the system you've built.

 

We can take a look at this system of yours and gladly advise you as to its pitfalls. The only hitch here is that you have to show it to us in order to be of any help, or for this discussion to bear any fruit whatsoever.

 

Lacking that, there is simply no point to continuing this thread, and I move it be closed.

[Jay-qu]

You're telling us absolutely nothing of your "machine", or "plan" or "invention", or how it's supposed to work.

 

We cannot contribute to this discussion at all.

 

Jay-Q have asked you to explain to him what the deal is all about, that he's an open-minded skeptic. You simply refused to answer him.

 

Therefore, I'm of the opinion that your discussion here is absolutely meaningless (apart from impossible in a 2nd-Law driven universe), and that the reason you believe that you have created "free" energy is because you don't understand the entrophy flow of the system you've built.

 

We can take a look at this system of yours and gladly advise you as to its pitfalls. The only hitch here is that you have to show it to us in order to be of any help, or for this discussion to bear any fruit whatsoever.

 

Lacking that, there is simply no point to continuing this thread, and I move it be closed.

I completely agree with you Boerseun.

 

Beaker, how can you be amazed that people havent found this thread more interesting and sparked more discussion when you wont even give us anything to go on?

[BEAKER]

The fact is, I have given you something to go on. Previous failure, and the pictures of a prior step leading beyond. No one has achieved what I am atempting, and it seems to fly in the face of the immutable laws as you percieve them to be in the year 2007.

 

If you want to close this thread because you are frustrated that I am not asking for your advice, suit yourself.

 

It's just one more example of the genuine search for truth being stiffled; and it's exactly why I'm not asking for advice from anyone.

 

If an inventor of any sort is derailed by those who say it can't be done; he wasn't muh of an inventor to start with. I can make my own observations, thank you very much.

 

Have a nice day.:bow_flowers:

[Erasmus00]

I have a question: science has described quite accurately the properties of magnets (be they moving or stationary). Using this description we can show, quite generally, that you can't use magnets to build perpetual motion machines, etc. So then, what do you think is wrong with the current theories of magnets? What reason do you have for suspecting there is some property of magnetism we don't understand?

-Will

[Jay-qu]

The fact is, I have given you something to go on. Previous failure, and the pictures of a prior step leading beyond. No one has achieved what I am atempting, and it seems to fly in the face of the immutable laws as you percieve them to be in the year 2007.

 

If you want to close this thread because you are frustrated that I am not asking for your advice, suit yourself.

 

It's just one more example of the genuine search for truth being stiffled; and it's exactly why I'm not asking for advice from anyone.

 

If an inventor of any sort is derailed by those who say it can't be done; he wasn't muh of an inventor to start with. I can make my own observations, thank you very much.

 

Have a nice day.:bow_flowers:

Beaker this is hypocritical, just before you where saying you would show any rational skeptic and could make them believe.. saying that you have improved on an old design that didnt work doesnt mean squat, so this thread remains useless. We arent stifling anything because there is nothing to stifle