PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 22:28:03
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
Author Topic: Where i'm at 1+1=3  (Read 34683 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Hahaha the party of linear thinkers is growing. Where is F6 when you need him, please rescue me from this dipole charge madness and align these thinkers into circular thinking ;D.

Prove that it is not a dipole as such.
Generate some power using the middle of a rod magnet passing a coil--it's that simple.
Show each end of the PM produce the same sinewave when passing a coil--it's that simple.
Then come tell us all that it's not a dipole.

Explain how like poles repel, and unlike poles attract if it is not a dipole of charge.
Is it a changing electric field, or a changing magnetic field that induces current flow in a conductor ?

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
I will do you one better. When the time comes I will show you what circular thinking can do. How about you then show me a real magnetic "monopole".

The irony is that magnetic "monopoles" exists but not the way you envision them. If you spin already spinning charge in the right way, you can end up with forces that appear to be acting like a monopole. Essentially ending up with something that behaves like a charged particle using magnetic fields only using it to literally position yourself in space. But I dont want to advance too much as the pace might already be too high for the elderly folks around here as magnetic gyroscopes are even a topic too scary for me to handle right now.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote
author=broli link=topic=4603.msg111435#msg111435 date=1712587255


Quote
But I dont want to advance too much as the pace might already be too high for the elderly folks around here

Oh, I see.  :D
What the hell are you doing here with all us old folk?
You should be on one of them science forums, with other physicists, not hanging out with the pension squad.

Quote
How about you then show me a real magnetic "monopole".


There is no mono in  dipole.

Quote
I will do you one better. When the time comes I will show you what circular thinking can do.

I think us elderly folk have seen enough of your !circular! thinking.
The road to nowhere comes to mind.

Quote
The irony is that magnetic "monopoles" exists but not the way you envision them.

We can use one field of the dipole to our advantage, and they exist exactly as we see and use them.

Quote
T If you spin already spinning charge in the right way, you can end up with forces that appear to be acting like a monopole.

You mean like the charge fields at each end of a PM ?

Quote
Essentially ending up with something that behaves like a charged particle using magnetic fields only using it to literally position yourself in space.  as magnetic gyroscopes are even a topic too scary for me to handle right now.

Word salad.

Quote
literally position yourself in space.

Send some pics while you are up there, so as we can show the rest of the flat earthers.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Tinman
Quote
What current ?
The magnetic field is a separation of charge as far as I'm concerned.
Now, what the charge is, is yet to be discovered.
But there is something all around us which the magnet is separating into +/- charges, including the magnet it self.
What ever it is, the charge density close around the PM, is extremely dense, hence why like polls repel (like charges), and opposite polls attract (opposite charges)
It could well be this dark energy or matter they keep on talking about.

If this perspective helps you understand things better and helps you produce better results then that is the correct perspective for you.

Many critics seem obsessed with trying to convince us there mainstream perspective is the only right one. There is also the possibility others want to force the mainstream way of thinking on us because they know it will fail. No successful free energy inventors followed mainstream science to any extent and they were all open minded free thinkers.

So we need to ask, are some people trying to force mainstream science and thinking on others to help or to ensure they fail like everyone else?.   

We could ask the obvious question, why is mainstream science no closer to understanding what the Primary Fields (E,B,G) are in reality than they were 200 years ago?. There has been literally no progress made in this area which should tell us something about the validity of there often nonsensical theories. Here reality is stranger than fiction. Take two magnets and feel the field of force which acts between them. Apparently nobody on this planet is intelligent enough to figure out what this field of force is in reality. How can everybody not know what it is and have no clue?. This in itself demonstrates how primitive we are and how far we have to go in my opinion.

AC







---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Tinman
If this perspective helps you understand things better and helps you produce better results then that is the correct perspective for you.

Many critics seem obsessed with trying to convince us there mainstream perspective is the only right one. There is also the possibility others want to force the mainstream way of thinking on us because they know it will fail. No successful free energy inventors followed mainstream science to any extent and they were all open minded free thinkers.

So we need to ask, are some people trying to force mainstream science and thinking on others to help or to ensure they fail like everyone else?.   

We could ask the obvious question, why is mainstream science no closer to understanding what the Primary Fields (E,B,G) are in reality than they were 200 years ago?. There has been literally no progress made in this area which should tell us something about the validity of there often nonsensical theories. Here reality is stranger than fiction. Take two magnets and feel the field of force which acts between them. Apparently nobody on this planet is intelligent enough to figure out what this field of force is in reality. How can everybody not know what it is and have no clue?. This in itself demonstrates how primitive we are and how far we have to go in my opinion.

AC

What a load of BS. Show us what you have besides your EBG fairy dust and I will change my thoughts. Show me how I can warm my house in the winter with it or never pay for gas again. Where is the idea of century or do you only have your bitterness to show here? And then you wonder why you are seen as a joke by the rest of the world, if you are not willing to compromise, if you cant even change your viewpoint, agree on the very basics then a hard reality awaits you.

Change, adapt and evolve or let nature roll you over to become fertilizer for the next generation that is the only "constant" out there.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
What a load of BS. Show us what you have besides your EBG fairy dust and I will change my thoughts. Show me how I can warm my house in the winter with it or never pay for gas again. Where is the idea of century or do you only have your bitterness to show here? And then you wonder why you are seen as a joke by the rest of the world, if you are not willing to compromise, if you cant even change your viewpoint, agree on the very basics then a hard reality awaits you.

Change, adapt and evolve or let nature roll you over to become fertilizer for the next generation that is the only "constant" out there.

Broli

Rather than continually argue with people, and sling mud toward them, is there anything helpful you have to offer this group?

Please understand that your way is not the way those here think or operate.
We present experiments to back up our theories, not just continually sling mud, and throw out word salad.

Perhaps this old peoples home is not where you should be?

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Broli

Rather than continually argue with people, and sling mud toward them, is there anything helpful you have to offer this group?

Please understand that your way is not the way those here think or operate.
We present experiments to back up our theories, not just continually sling mud, and throw out word salad.

Perhaps this old peoples home is not where you should be?

Brad

Understood, I will keep to my muddy lane and leave your thread in peace. For any younger generation reading this, you are not alone, the sun will shine brightly as you are the future.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 420


Buy me some coffee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ36wQJUYq4

Why is this guy spending so much effort and high tech CGI to "prove" there is no free energy?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Me thinks he protesteth too much."
Anyhow, it may give you guys some ideas.


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a  capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ36wQJUYq4

Why is this guy spending so much effort and high tech CGI to "prove" there is no free energy?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Me thinks he protesteth too much."
Anyhow, it may give you guys some ideas.

The main reason some expend much effort to oppose FE devices is fear and a cult/group think mentality. It's actually kind of comical because they fear the conservation of energy is being broken which we know is not the case. In fact fear and denial go hand in hand.

On the notion of a magnetic motor, there is reason to believe a pure magnetic motor could be possible.
1)What is a magnetic field?, nobody knows and it seems strange that many seem so sure of something they admit to not understanding. As if to say I understand it, but I have no idea what it is or how it works, lol.

2)Superficial observations don't cut it and we cannot deny complex interactions with a simple one. That's like saying an airplane cannot fly just because I cannot see anything holding it up. So just because a simple gating effect is observed (Force-distance in equals force-distance out) this does not exclude more complex or unexpected interactions.

3)I found that most FE devices operate using a very obscure or unknown process. What does that mean, an unknown process?. It means a process which is not known because it is very complex with many variables which can only be understood by specific experiments. Every FE inventor claimed if everything is not exactly right in every detail it will not work. In effect the process is "different" which requires a different way of thinking and perspective. Which is why mainstream or group thinking always fails. In fact, most always think any new discovery is impossible but people discover hundreds of new things others never thought of every day.

Understanding the above we can make a few assumptions.
A magnetic motor cannot be as simple as it appears and there must be some underlying more complex field interactions taking place somewhere. One good candidate I was experimenting with in the past is the shaded pole effect or traveling magnetism. It fits the bill, 99% of people have never heard of it, it can delay a magnetic field, store it's energy periodically and manipulate existing magnetic fields. Most people can understand a static force acting on something over a distance we call work. However very few can understand the more complex concept of a traveling force. In fact many FE inventors spoke of flowing magnetism (Schauberger) and in some cases glowing magnetism(Schappeller).

In any case, there's a 99% chance the most obvious answer is not the right one. A discovery is always obscure in it's nature because it's defined as something nobody else thought of. It's always the last thing everyone else was looking for.

AC








---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 420


Buy me some coffee
I came across this patent for a magnet motor by Howard Johnson.
It may give you some ideas.


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a  capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 275
Quote
It may give you some ideas.
New ideas are good.  :)
I extracted banana-shaped magnets from cheap motors.  Lots of motors, lots of free magnets.
Something didn’t rotation for me. :-[
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee

A magnetic motor cannot be as simple as it appears and there must be some underlying more complex field interactions taking place somewhere.

AC

There most definitely is. Howard Johson laid the ground work out pretty simply - there are two vortices in a magnet. Experiments with ferrofluid are so far showing amazing things that concur with everything he has stated. And interestingly, because the sum of the vortices will (generally) always yield a North and South, that's where people stop looking and attempt to simply manipulate the fields in a binary manner.

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
There most definitely is. Howard Johson laid the ground work out pretty simply - there are two vortices in a magnet. Experiments with ferrofluid are so far showing amazing things that concur with everything he has stated. And interestingly, because the sum of the vortices will (generally) always yield a North and South, that's where people stop looking and attempt to simply manipulate the fields in a binary manner.

I guess it would come down to who understands how to use these fields for gain first.
One would have to agree, that that person must know what is right from wrong.

If the fields have vortices as you state, then carry out the simple experiment a lot of us have.
Fix one magnet to a timber platform, and suspend one from the celling on a long piece of string so it can freely rotate, and so as unlike poles are facing one another.
Leave say a 5mm gap between magnets. We should see the one on the string start to rotate.

The field always remains stationary, even if you spin the magnet.
Once again, that tells me that the energy field around the magnet is fixed in space.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
I guess it would come down to who understands how to use these fields for gain first.
One would have to agree, that that person must know what is right from wrong.

If the fields have vortices as you state, then carry out the simple experiment a lot of us have.
Fix one magnet to a timber platform, and suspend one from the celling on a long piece of string so it can freely rotate, and so as unlike poles are facing one another.
Leave say a 5mm gap between magnets. We should see the one on the string start to rotate.

The field always remains stationary, even if you spin the magnet.
Once again, that tells me that the energy field around the magnet is fixed in space.

Well said and many seem fearful to do these basic experiments which could prove there mainstream theories wrong.

For example, the only thing supporting the notion of closed loops is the concept of lines or force. As we know Faraday who invented the lines of force concept said "there are no real lines of force they are imaginary". Since there are no lines of force there can be no closed loops, field rotation or vortexes. So it would seem most mainstream theories regarding the magnetic field are misguided and built on a lie.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 26
There most definitely is. Howard Johson laid the ground work out pretty simply - there are two vortices in a magnet. Experiments with ferrofluid are so far showing amazing things that concur with everything he has stated. And interestingly, because the sum of the vortices will (generally) always yield a North and South, that's where people stop looking and attempt to simply manipulate the fields in a binary manner.

Compare what you've said about simplicity to an article on the Hojo motors.

Quote
Complex Forces

Some very complex magnetic forces are obviously at play in this deceptively simple magnetic system, and at this time it is impossible to develop a mathematical model of what actually occurs. However, computer analysis of the system, conducted by Professor William Harrison and his associates at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Blacksburg, VA), provide vital feedback information that greatly helps in the effort to optimize these complex forces to achieve the most efficient possible operating design.

As Professor Harrison points out, in addition to the obvious interaction between the two poles of the armature magnet and the stator magnets, many other interactions are in play. The stator magnets affect each other and the support plate. Magnet distances and their strengths vary despite best efforts of manufacturers to exercise quality controls. In the assembly of the working model, there are inevitable differences between horizontal and vertical air spaces. All these interrelated factors must be optimized, which is why computer analysis in this refinement stage is vital. It's a kind of information feedback system. As changes are made in the physical design, fast dynamic measurements are made to see whether the expected results have actually been achieved. The 'new computer data is then used to develop new changes in the design of the experimental model. And so on, and on.

Source: http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm

If differences in the manufacturing between 2 magnets of same origin is of importance then we're dealing with something that takes quite a bit of fine tuning. I would say this suggests that overunity is an epiphenomenon of a complex system where each part doesn't contain FE intrinsically. At least the article has some suggestion that some kind of FEA or other analysis was of use in the design phase though.
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee
I guess it would come down to who understands how to use these fields for gain first.
One would have to agree, that that person must know what is right from wrong.

If the fields have vortices as you state, then carry out the simple experiment a lot of us have.
Fix one magnet to a timber platform, and suspend one from the celling on a long piece of string so it can freely rotate, and so as unlike poles are facing one another.
Leave say a 5mm gap between magnets. We should see the one on the string start to rotate.

The field always remains stationary, even if you spin the magnet.
Once again, that tells me that the energy field around the magnet is fixed in space.


Brad

Done, using 4 x 4mm x 8mm neo cylinders on each end. I then went a step further and had both magnets suspended on string.  Rotating forces present in both cases (as expected).

Then I put a small angle in the magnet column(s) by inserting a very small piece of plastic half way, and the location of where equilibrium existed between the two moved...

Looking through ferrofluid, you can alter where the vortex (typically south, north is dominant) will turn up, and the easiest way is to but a bend in a magnet column or by adding extra magnets. A much more difficult way is to hold an additional magnet where it doesn't want to go - this approach has yielded me 3 vortex's on 1 face of the magnet column.

At the moment I believe the N and S fields don't actually align in a straight line, more a ~72 deg angle, which happens to be about the angle of vortices in nature (whirlpools etc).

Put 5 ball magnets together in a ring, lay flat on a table, make another ring and place beside it. You can rotate the two against each other (very gently)without either collapsing. External angles are ~72 degrees.









« Last Edit: 2024-04-11, 04:03:44 by unimmortal »
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee
I came across this patent for a magnet motor by Howard Johnson.
It may give you some ideas.

Thanks, added to the collection. It essentially looks like what was presented in his book. The idea of a field being used to push another field through the gate works - a bit of hard work to get the magnets setup but the effect is replicable (masking tape over magnets and masking tape to hold them together). I still believe there is a more complimentary way of working with the fields though.
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee

If differences in the manufacturing between 2 magnets of same origin is of importance then we're dealing with something that takes quite a bit of fine tuning. At least the article has some suggestion that some kind of FEA or other analysis was of use in the design phase though.

That's exactly what I've found. Again, with a column of magnets, you can turn any of them and observe a slight field change - a good reason to stay away from simulators until you've got a real good handle yourself.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
unimmortal
Quote
Done, using 4 x 4mm x 8mm neo cylinders on each end. I then went a step further and had both magnets suspended on string.  Rotating forces present in both cases (as expected).

What your seeing is rotation because of a non-uniform field or experimental error. If a good quality magnet is rotated on it's polar axis with the pole faces parallel to one another there is no rotation.

This is a common mistake which I noticed while doing magnetic levitation experiments. Cheap magnets with variable density have non-uniform fields which produce a cogging like effect. Non-parallel faces coupled with variable density only makes matters worse.

Quote
Put 5 ball magnets together in a ring, lay flat on a table, make another ring and place beside it. You can rotate the two against each other (very gently)without either collapsing. External angles are ~72 degrees.

Indeed, this is similar to the cogging effect your seeing which produces a rotation on your magnets on a string. It's due to a non-uniform field producing a rotation force. So we need to be careful about what we think were seeing and why it's happening.

My magnetic rotation experiment was a little different than yours. I built a Electromagnetic Levitation Device similar to this one,
https://www.designnews.com/gadget-freak/how-to-build-an-electromagnetic-levitation-device
It's a pretty easy build and it's really cool.

I levitated a 1"x1" N52 cylinder magnet with a small mirror attached to it and bounced a laser of the mirror. The laser reflected off the mirror on the magnet onto a wall twenty feet away. This can easily measure rotation down to a 1/100 of a degree and was super sensitive with no friction. When I rotated a magnet, copper, aluminum or iron plate under the levitated magnet I measure zero rotation. So I know as a fact there is no rotation.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote
author=unimmortal link=topic=4603.msg111508#msg111508 date=1712800843
Done, using 4 x 4mm x 8mm neo cylinders on each end. I then went a step further and had both magnets suspended on string.  Rotating forces present in both cases (as expected).


Great.
Throw up the test video, and we'll see where you went wrong.

Did the suspended magnet continuously rotate ?
Did it do just a 1/2 turn, and stop?


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee
So I know as a fact there is no rotation.

AC

Happy to concur.

The vague point I'm trying to make with what I have found so far is that there are two active and dynamic forces within a magnet, that I believe can be manipulated, even though the outside appearance and tests as you have pointed out result in zero rotation and two polarities - equilibrium. So what can equalise faster than a magnet?  ;)

Howard Johnson stated something I think is signficant and worth constructing some tests to validate:

"Our mapping operation shows these particles pairing off as the unlike fields merge. Then, our topographical program shows that the gauss count (the strength of the lines of force) at the attracting end has been reduced, because the pairing of a large part of the particle populations.

The repulsion of like poles represents particle activity which is quite different from attraction. The particles react with each other as they form two vortices that spin in the same direction. There is no reduction in the gauss count, which registers about three times as high as it does at the attracting end."

If we can in some way differentiate N from S as stated above, then we can leverage it.



   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee

Great.
Throw up the test video, and we'll see where you went wrong.

Did the suspended magnet continuously rotate ?
Did it do just a 1/2 turn, and stop?

Brad

Suspended magnet rotated 1/2 turn, two on a string danced for a short time. Both scenarios saw them come to rest.

What went wrong? holding ferrofluid vertically... but I did get to see the flows on both magnets - or more correctly the action/reaction of ferrofluid in proximity to them.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote
author=unimmortal link=topic=4603.msg111515#msg111515 date=1712819592




Quote
Suspended magnet rotated 1/2 turn, two on a string danced for a short time. Both scenarios saw them come to rest.

So no rotating fields, but either non uniform fields in the cheap magnets, or not correctly balanced on the string.
As i said, many of us have carried out this very experiment many times.

Quote
What went wrong? holding ferrofluid vertically... but I did get to see the flows on both magnets - or more correctly the action/reaction of ferrofluid in proximity to them.

Your ferro fluid experiments show nothing out of the ordinary.
Grab a saucer of water and a syringe.
Nearly fill the saucer with water.
Mix up a cup full of colored water (food dye) for the syringe.
Now fill the syringe, and squirt into the water in the saucer from the side, and watch the water in the saucer rotate as your ferro fluid did.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 62


Buy me some coffee

Your ferro fluid experiments show nothing out of the ordinary.

Brad

Agree with all of your other points, however I'm still seeing 3 distinct uniform flows in different directions coming from north, and when I'm not seeing a vortex, similar flows at the south.

 I guess I'll have to come up with a more definitive test.

   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 420


Buy me some coffee
I don't know what to make of this South Korean patent - but he claims OU by effectively compressing a piezoelectric module using a simple combination of permanent magnets, electromagnets, and some piezoelectric crystals.

https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20150049713A/en

When the permanent magnet pulls the electromagnet by gravitational pulling force, the ball exerts a force on the piezoelectric element to obtain electricity.
The generated electricity is sent to the electromagnet to generate a magnetic force, and the electromagnet is pushed to the opposite electromagnet by repulsive force with the permanent magnet.
Repeat this exercise to get permanent kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy is converted into rotational energy to produce electrical energy.
It looks very simple and cheap to make.
Seems to be:-  4 coils  (electromagnets) 2 permanent magnets, some piezoelectric elements, and an easily 3d printed crankshaft.

Add a generator and you're home and dry.


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a  capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:28:03