20th June 08 - PM machine to be revealed ?

[the eskimo quinn]

surprise.

instuctions now on site

:)

[ovyyus]

From: http://www.surphzup.com/gpage3.html

... imagine the length of the drive rod in your head, now place a magnet capable of suspending it just like the rings on the pole, (simply use one strong enough to hold the entire rod away from it) so now you have a tube (the arm) and your rod is inside it if the external magnet is placed at around 7 oclock, what can the rod never do ?????, even without power, what can the rod never do?? if you understand the answer, you will also realize what this does to balance. Game over!!!anyone who can work that out will already know the secret and can design their own, mine simply has a few feature that make this a little easier without fine tolerances required.

Game over indeed - such an obvious mistake! Arrogance seems blind to history's physics lessons. I predict, unfortunately, that the penny will drop well before the 20th when this ballon ride to nowhere runs out of hot air.

The real lesson here will be, once again, built it BEFORE you sell it :)

[arthur]

Quinn,

a picture is worth 1000 words.

[ovyyus]

From the same page:

...i was explaining that perhaps my putting two ring magnets on a pole (pencil) and sitting a washer on top is the first over unity device, it does after all perform work, carry a load, with no energy in, and that this was key to the machine, that there is an existing power source that run indefinitely.

The very essence of Quinn's error.

[evgwheel]

I’m not defending Quin, but he does put things in the open the way he sees it.
Rightly or wrongly most of us are not prepared to share our thoughts if we think we are about to hit that eureka moment.

[Michael]

LOL, your right Bill;

...i was explaining that perhaps my putting two ring magnets on a pole (pencil) and sitting a washer on top is the first over unity device, it does after all perform work, carry a load, with no energy in, and that this was key to the machine, that there is an existing power source that run indefinitely.

and he says he was a patents officer?

[ovyyus]

Well, I'm not sure if having been a patent officer would help or hinder in this regard.

I do think that in large part the current following and interest has been generated on the back of this statement,

...and this is the second machine, the first built 2 years ago, and was destroyed after contemplation that without oil millions will die in arab countires with no income or work...

... so it will be interesting to see how it all pans out when the shit hits the thermal separator :D

[RRRRyan]

Things we know:

1. Lots of people have seen magnets as a possible source of energy if configured correctly.
2. People often miss important factors when imagining magnetic fields, such as momentum loss as it enters, and only see the gain.
3. Archer is unorthodox, over confident, and sometimes vulgar.
4. There are other unexplained magnetic devices operating currently: Finsrud, magnetic ramps: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s102jlnp.htm, others...

Things we don't know:

1. Whether or not his original did what he said. Even an intelligent loony would admit that "I had one working but destroyed it out of compassion for the poor" wreaks of suspicion.
2. How anyone so smart could think that the poor in Arab countries benefited at all from oil money.
3. My favorite:.... can you have work without motion?

Big lead in, simple idea... but IMPORTANT! I still maintain that I do WORK when I try to lift something that I cannot move. If it were sitting on a scale it would show that I momentarily made it lighter. It requires work to counteract gravity, therefore making something lighter takes work. Maybe it should be referred to as static work. Stretching bonds is working, to stretch those bonds there is motion, though it is not visible. In fact a rebound effect should be measurable as well. Though very slight, there will be a "fall" so-to-speak when I release my pull and the bounds recoil.

I am skeptical of Archer's arrangement because his magnet poles are perpendicular to the axis of rotation. I see the repelling poles repelling before the magnet even arrives at 7:00 resisting the rotation as the weight is lifted, the upper right is pulling but that pull is also resisting rotation as it pulls. The exchange is a wash. So introduce the electro magnet boost... okay, so it will spin. I've seen energy/force ratios described all over, but reality says it is 1:1 in this case. The torque removed to charge the capacitor for the boost equates to its motion enhancement ability. If this were not true then we'd need nothing else but the electromagnet. If I could really get a 4:1 ratio out of one, then just use it to repel a vertical piston in a cylinder. Who needs a wheel? 3 parts power 1 part reuse. Anyway, sounds like smoke and mirrors.

He mentioned something that is very intriguingly though. What if a magnet's pull is actually stronger than its push, which his experiment was incredibly flawed, in fact using water was a clever way to confuse the experiment as there are some pretty unusual properties of the bonds in h2o.

If it is true despite the flawed evidence angular magnet designs may have promise. I hadn't thought of that but I had already recently modified my latest design to incorporate a magnet wedge with opposite poles at 45 degrees from each other. The problem here is that the fields will overlap and cancel each other out, however, with different types and strengths of magnets I believe a magnetic wavefront may be possible.

Anything that provokes debate is useful to me, so whether Archer makes good or not... he helped.

[ovyyus]

...I still maintain that I do WORK when I try to lift something that I cannot move.

That's because your muscles are doing internal work (muscle fibre twitching), even though the weight isn't being moved. Biological/chemical processes do work in order to maintain stationary form unlike, for example, a table.

[Fletcher]

Only got a minute.

If you're standing upright holding a heavy weight at ams length you are doing work as Bill said - but - NO work is being done on the weight because it hasn't moved - I think many forget that the physics explanation of WORK DONE [work done = force x distance] is all about the object having the work done on IT & not the object under tension or compression i.e. you or the table :)

[RRRRyan]

If you connect a rubber band to the ground and pull on it you have done work. You moved the matter that was lower higher in the form of the rubber band stretching.

When you do the same thing to a less elastic substance there is work just the same at the micro level. The motion is tiny, but it is there, as the bonds are pulled. If it were rubber it would stretch and move further, but it is not, so it moves less... I think this no movement = no work nonsense is a semantic strategy to defend f=ma. f=ma is safe as long as we recognize the opposing "f" which is the em bond between the molecules of the substance being pulled. How far it stretches or doesn't should not change the physical definition of the process. Just like no one should discount the energy potential of decaying uranium. Even if each atom is tiny and its potential tiny.

Back to PM, if we want PM over gravity (which would only be plain old GM via OB) we think we have to move mass... but we don't have to move mass. We have to move weight. It requires work to move weight. However, whether you macro physically move something or not does not prove that you have not moved its weight. If a magnet outside of the system applies downward pull to a mass in a rotating system at 1:00, even if it is mounted rigidly, the apparent weight of that mass has increased while moving the opposite effect out of the system, and out of the equation. If we push on the mass from 7:00, we can cause the opposite effect, the mass's weight seems to lessen as that force is also transferred out of the system. OB.

Magnets are suited for this transfer, but fields are themselves equal and opposites, mostly. I'm about to modify my design yet again, instead of a simple wedge shaped magnet, I am persuaded that a flat magnet must be mounted such that as it approaches an accelerator it approaches at an angle and rotates as it passes over to only incur the weight distribution without incurring the drag. Would you believe it actually looks like a bird's wing flap. There is still a snap in there that must be dealt with. Here's what I picture, a snowboarder (I love shrinking myself down in my scenarios) descends the downward side of the rotation cut in and along for the ride, then slides onto a rail protruding into the rotation from outside, he distributes his weight momentarily to that rail and then drops back into the groove he left from. yeah, yeah, friction sucks, but magnets don't act the same. That momentary apparent weightlessness on the upward side constitutes gain. As long as the weight transition is non-impact to the rotating system it could account for lost torque which equals gained torque... a penny saved is a penny earned after all...

[DrWhat]

A good way to visualise work being done in holding a stationary object up, like an arm holding a barbell is to imagine a hose with a funnel shaped outlet keeping a ball pushed high up in the air. The ball is not doing work, but the pump pushing the water up is. In the same way our muscles are working holding a weight up. Heaps of stuff is moving but at a microscopic level.

[Ben]

The guy is definately a legend in his own mind.

[Michael]

RRRYAN I think you are falling into a trap that's easy enough to fall into whenn contemplating free energy. As Bill and Fletcher have said in those examples there is no work being done on the weights being held stationary. Now you can argue rightly that the arms muscle is doing work...you can try and argue a magnetic field is in a similar situation, but all that's irrelevent because what's important is the weight and clearly there is no work being done on it. If there is work being done by the muscles, or by a magnets field ( which I doubt regarding the magnets field but I'll leave that as my opinion ) to hold the weight stationary then there's a loss occuring to the complete system. That's the trap. There might be an energy interaction but it's wasted. There isn't a gain.

[RRRRyan]

funny thing is, his track is not far from mine so far with just a few subtle differences. I wonder if that means I must be wrong. I still can't get off of this weight displacement kick (notice I did not say mass) in my designs.

as far as Kevin's build goes, I still hope it works, but he has built it up so much that if it doesn't work he'll be likely tempted to fabricate results. Don't do it mate! In fact, maybe toss around ideas some more with the community. Folks that believed your story about a previous working model will be pretty ticked, but just confess lesson learned and help us get this going. you may be relegated to the floor instead of the soapbox for a while.

one thing I'd like to warn you about. as you try to move you magnet into the 7:00 field you'll find a strong rotational resistance approaching that point. That effect has put an end to most attempts at this and left many folks convinced that it cannot be done. It is what I call "the wall". Breaking through the wall with inertia can be done, but it is very expensive and the thrust does not return the cost. If the thrust does not return the cost then charging a capacitor and stealing the inertia to do it won't pay the man either.

in the statement "what can the tube never do" I assume he meant "find balance" or specifically fall and remain in the middle. however, it can... just not where it would have if there weren't a magnet in the way. It will lay against the magnetic field on one side or the other depending on the inertia it started with. It will look a bit awkward but motionless nonetheless.

these mind exercises are fabulous. anyone that complains about kevin when the smoke clears will need a trip to the wood shed. he has been forthright, and assuming he admits failure or better yet finds success either way he has made everyone think.

BTW, I have an idea to use on the wall, once the smoke clears, I'm happy to share, or before if you care. I already mentioned it somewhere... don't remember where.

finally, the whole thing with the stars. is he saying that he thinks all of the stars are far away planets floating in space? I lost that analogy around the logic and only what you know part... what do you mean by know? Of course I don't "know" they are stars. I see a spec of light. The science on the other hand is more convincing than venus being the brightest of them. The whole orbital paths thing really makes sense at least... I dunno ... which logic were we supposed to use, the daydreamer kind or the "man Al Gore sure doesn't seem like a environmental scientist and I'm pretty sure he didn't invent the internet" kind?

it's all fun... you guys that aren't having fun (Bill are you having fun?) should take a break and come back when it's fun again.