Jump to content

rewebster

Senior Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rewebster

  1. Instead of a drill indentation, maybe a punched (with a nail punch) indentation. If you used a nail punch, you could more easily make new or additional pivot points.

     

     

    If you could find something the shape of a pellet (a lead pellet for a bb air rifle) to use an a axil/pivot holder, but made out of something a little harder would be great. A pellet may work for a while (long enough to get some results) but the needle would make a hole (and friction) before too long. Cardboard (a whole lot easier) would work for the two plates if you could find/think of something to use for the pivot points/holders.

  2. Let's see---

     

    Having the least amount of friction is best. Getting the weight of the magnets to rest on a needle point would help. So if you glued pins or thumb tacks on the 'between the poles' sides (so that the magnets would be able to get close pole-to-pole), they could rotate around the poles.

     

    Getting the pins glued in the exact center may be tricky and it may take a few attempts on each side of each magnets to get it fairly close,--you don't want them to woggle if you can help it. (this may be one of the more frustrating things to get 'right'.)

     

    The pins would become the axes (pl. of axis). But you have to have some thing to hold the pins/axes in place; so that is why I suggested the little glass pipettes (to be 'less-friction' bearings). Something besides glass pipettes would work, but the idea is to have the least amount of friction, and 'something' moving/pivoting on glass would be low friction. If you could think of some small glass/metal cup (curved bottom) like an 1/8 inch across to be the pin point axil pivoting point, that would be great--because you have to keep the pin/axis in place pretty precisely. ----Maybe use a flat piece of brass (or something non-magnetic and drill a small indentation into the metal. But you have to have two of these that match up--one for the bottom and one for the top. Then the tricky 'measurement' part would be separating the plates (and holding them apart) just far enough to hold the pins/axes in place, but still allow for free rotation without pressure causing more friction.

     

    For a straight line of magnets, I would still probably the increase the distance between each of the magnets by, say, an 1/8 to a 1/4 inch more as you went down the line, at least for maybe the first trials. The more interesting trials would be straight (no increase in space), then on to the circular (no increase in space), then some setup, like gcol (and i) thought of with the coils to test and then gather power. And there's the final kicker, if enough power is generated from the coils (the coils are actually 'generators') to be able to match the force needed to overcome the force needed to turn (and keep turning one magnet-IF it is necessary to have to keep turning one)---THEN you have created a self sustaining system!!!

     

    Do you see?

  3. Well, another thing that hasn't been brought up yet is that if there was a coil around each magnet down the line, the changing field as the magnet rotated would set up an electric current in the coil, and that electric current could easily be measured and/or utilized.....

     

     

    Of course, the field set up around the coil may effect the system.

     

    -------------------------------

    The coil could even be incorporated as part of the 'housing' mechanism for holding the pivot and the pivot bearing point.

    ---------------------------------

     

    gcol---I guess my suggestion was just a variation of yours (after reading your post three more times--:) so, good thinking, gcol, it seems we're thinking sort of alike then)

     

    --------------------------------------

    alan2here:

    Well done, well done, and unexpected effect, too!

     

    yes--I should have also said this, too--(I guess I was thinking ahead before)

     

    ---------------------------------------------------

     

    I still think that circular magnets (I would guess that are out there to be found some place) where the N-S axis was across the diameter would be best. They wouldn't have the corners of the ends extend farther into the field of the preceeding and next magnet to have a higher field density as they turn to overcome the rotation.

  4. I'm thinking that the incremently 'increase' in spacing may only have to be as little as 1/8 or 1/4 of an inch down the line. What kind of setup did you do for the pivoting mechanism?

  5. Someone needs to want to build this

     

     

    ---six or eight exactly the same magnets, some super glue, a few straight pins or thumb tacks glued to the magnets, small pieces of glass pipettes (to hold the pins in place) glued to two parallel glass plates---

  6. Belief is irrelevant. Only data matters.

     

    Most of what this is is about beliefs. And it's only in hindsight do some people deserve to be called 'crackpots'. Data, at the time, supported the pre-Copernican Terra centered universe only until data was collected, confirmed, and accepted did that change--and I don't think that happened overnight.

     

    Cold fusion was 'accepted' for a while. Aether was 'accepted' for a while. Both still may happen, but not with the presently known and accepted theories. Data can be wrong (not right, not interpreted right,interpreted from biased or even wrong base knowledge, etc.). Data shouldn't be the only criteria. I think hindsight isn't even the best, but its better than data for determining a 'crackpot'.

  7. As to friction, by using deliberately constricted bearings individual magnet friction could easily be introduced as a deliberate experimental variable,

     

     

    needle point pivots would/might help

     

     

    One of my favorite things around the house is a radiometer, and it uses a needle (and the needle point) as a pivot (weight bearing point) to rotate on.

  8. For instance, Behe is a crackpot who espouses creationism/ID based on various grounds, every single argument of which has been *empirically* shown to be totally worthless. There are stacks of textbooks 3 feet high full of data refuting his points, yet he never even addresses this data. He just keeps on spouting the same bullshit, even though it's been disproven. How is that *not* worthy of being labeled a crackpot.

     

    It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion. It's another to continue harping on about it when any reasonable examination of the data shows it to be absolutely ludicrous and/or flatly contradicted by reality.

     

     

    yes---but if he was talking to a creationism/ID gathering he probably would be accepted with respect.

     

    -----------------------------------------

     

    e.g.--If I had a new theory, based on classical or quantum, I wouldn't expect to be treated well at a 'die hard' MWI conference

  9. Personally,I would be convinced only if as input, something as simple as a mechanical constant torque device provided input, and a similar device showed output.

     

    That's any device, though--What someone is looking for in building these things is getting more out than what is expected.

     

     

    There is nothing in a string of magnets that has an inherent quality of directionality

     

    the attractive and repulsive forces---those are directional

     

    unless perhaps we consider what to me is the unresolved question of whether the forces of attraction are greater than the forces of repulsion perhaps.

     

    Those, I believe, have been always shown to be equal

     

     

     

    suppose you have the linear config with even spacing but make the magnets eliptical or such (poles closer together) so that the force required to rotate them is null plus friction.

     

    yeah, I think you're right--Equilibrium would still come into play for the total forces plus the friction. I think spacing would be the key in a linear, 'same exact magnet' setup.

  10. Well, see this paradox is brought up in the context prior to Einstein's contributions, he was only 16. We were still on Newtonian laws at this point.

     

    you didn't specify this before

     

     

    I don't see what is so paradoxical about traveling the same speed as a moving object, thereby making the object appear stationary.

     

    The paradox is in relation to Einstein's theory, I believe. Everything else (besides light) works that way.

     

    There must be more to what Maxwell stated for any "paradox" to emerge.

     

    I'd say, not until light, as photons (wave/particle) , are fully described.

  11. Whether or not any of these machines (the magnetic ones) work, in the sense of 'making more power than what it should', they appear to be experimenting in one of the 'unknown' forces. Magnets have unusual properties to do strange things.

     

    If someone somehow built two nearly identical machines, one using magnets and one without; and, the one without magnets used 10 watts with an output of 5 watts, and the one using magnets used 10 watts with a output of 8 watts--that would still be worth looking into more.

     

    The thought experiment with the increasing distance with exact magnets (and turning the first) may be a good test to see if more work can be gotten from the work done down the series. If I had the right magnets, I think I would give it a try to see if I could get a setup to, at least, flip them all. The real 'lab' test should be able to measure the work (forces) of turning the first as compared to the total work down the series. It would be an interesting experiment.

  12. Supposedly, Einstein pondered the state of affairs if we chased a beam of light at light speed, thereby causing the light beam to "appear" stationary.

     

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

     

    Constant velocity from all reference frames

     

    It is important to realise that the speed of light is not a "speed limit" in the conventional sense. An observer chasing a beam of light will measure it moving away from him at the same speed as will a stationary observer. This leads to some unusual consequences for velocities.

     

    Of course, this is Einstein's theory--there are others

  13. gcol--

     

    I think you're right ---a circular config as a stand-alone wouldn't work; the same as a straight line config of exactly the same magnets with equal spacing.

     

     

     

     

    But, I would think that a straight line with increasing space or decreasing strength would. Would it produce power? (more than input)

  14. I would suggest either a series of magnets of decreasing strength, or equal magnets spaced at increasing distances, perhaps?

     

    That would be 'the ones' I would have exactly said. As each 'coupling' is of less strength, the ability of the previous one (and those before it) would be greater to that one (and the next adjacent ones down the series).

     

    The problem with them being exactly the same distance is that they would be fighting too much equilibrium, both of field and inertia.

     

    That is why most of the ones referenced DO have an uneven placement--on either the angle or distance.

     

     

    The other scenario is of a ring configuration.

     

    A variable spaced or strength setup wouldn't work----

     

    but, again, for me (thought experiment) the main things to overcome are the field and inertia---turning one wouldn't work either to begin the 'flipping' all.

     

    --however, what if ALL were 'flipped' at the same time---maybe then, after overcoming the initial field restraints and resting inertia, the circle of flipping may continue (or maybe just one has to be mechanically outside driven).

     

    Would, then, the product of the work being done be more, or at least close, to overcome some of the loss due to friction by the work of the inertia of those spinning?

     

     

    ------------------------------

     

    And that would and should be considered with the series/row of magnets of decreasing strength, or equal magnets spaced at increasing distances---Would more work be done from the 'flipping' down the series as it would take to 'flip' the first? (the main idea of this thread)

     

    --------------------------------

     

    I think a lot of people glance at these types of independent experimenters and do think 'crackpot' or 'pseudoscience'. Again, some are---some aren't.

     

     

    Does it seem logical that 'light speed' squared should be in an equation? IF Einstein would have used the actual number there, in place of the symbol, 'c' , in the original equation, what level or kind of difference in thinking would there have been over the last hundred years?

  15. where the magnetic fields were strong enough to overcome the force of friction and the other magnets.

     

    yes---but in what configuration?

     

     

    however like swansont said it won't scale forever, and eventually the magnets won't flip.

     

    Let's just say 10 (exact magnets) in a row, then---not 10 in a circle----how could you get them to flip? (as just a thought experiment)

     

     

    -------

     

    I'll be back later to see if someone came up with a similar 'test'

  16. They won't end up flipping.

     

     

    Let's go at it from a different angle:

     

    Can you devise an (thought) experiment where they WOULD end up 'flipping'?

     

     

    ----------------------------------------------------

     

    (one came to me--and I want to see if we may be on the same page)

  17. Uneven spacing and strength may be a special case.

     

    Most of the ones referenced showed an uneven spacing

     

     

    ------------------------------------------------------

     

    One of things that is 'requested' of these systems seems to be a little extra 'kick' to either start them, or keep them going. The initial resting enertia of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. to start the spin process would, (in my thought experiment) the most major thing to overcome--as well as the field attraction.

     

     

    -------------------------------------------

     

    Whether or not these systems actually produce more work than they take to run, really isn't the point.

     

     

    Even if they produce just 10% of 'some unaccountable' energy IS the point.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.