Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [free_energy] Bobs outdated understanding of magnetism

Expand Messages
  • stephen walker
    To BOB Apples and Oranges my conventional friend. The power loss in a good sealed bearing is far less than the power of even the weakest magnet, you should
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

      To     BOB

           Apples and Oranges my conventional friend. The power loss in a good sealed bearing is far less than the power of even the weakest magnet, you should know that already Bob.

            You wanted to know what type magnets. I use neodymium magnets with an N rateing of 40 and a gauss rating of 10^4. So for a compiled analogy on all 100 levels one could simply state that 10^4 >[100/levels x 40/strands] = P (strand property) each bearing the induction value F=qu x B(P). The same goes for the outer cylinder magnets only arranged in opposite order. So at (3 x 10^8mps) -: 100, the per level magnetic vector quantity of each strand is {10^4 -:[4,000^3] @ qvbP}. The angular opposition is at 67.5 degrees at a distance of 1/16th of an inch and every magnetic strand has its geographical angle nearly 1/50th an inch to one another to help eliminate side flux. And yes bob, each field does infact cross into its nieghboring field but the loss from this is negligable but does create heat.

           I find that pbs plastics are the best to use for the embodiment of the strands. You also ask why 3,000 RPM.  It is nearly 3,000 RPM, actually a little more than that but the tach we used indicated almost right at 3,000. It is maxed out right at 3,000 because this unit does not have a geometric rate of speed gain Bob. The limitations are the measured power rateings and optimum angular opposition positions. In other words the RPMs are dictated to ultimatley by the magnets maximum measured resistance. This deivce is capable of a certain measured magnetic pressure. It is not geared like a tranny Bob. It maxes out where the repulsive energy becomes less than the momentum, the wieght and inertia of the carrying case (the plastic drum like caseing) has reached a saturated equalibrium, a balance. Sort of like a tractor pull. The next prototype will incorperate magnetically levitating the inner cylinder much like General Motors planned new shock absorber of the future. Less friction means more RPMs. And the new gismo will be sealed in a vacume to reduce heat fatigue on the copper strands incorperated within and around each magnetic strand which is there to boost the inner cylinders magnetic quantity induction once the units own generated electricity has begun which is another matter alltogether. But we'll keep it simple for now.

           You say there doesn't "seem" to be any holes in the "theory" of the math that defines magnetic action? I like that word "seems" Bob. There is no "room" in the equations to make something spin forever Bob? INteresting choice of words. Jeemoney christmis buddy, you sound cluastiphobic! Here's a hint...............Shhhhh    (the copper wires around each magnetic strand with electricity running through it prevents the magnetic strand from ever loosing it magnetic quality) and (the source of the electricity is generated by this unit itself from the spinning action)

           You call my device "magical". Indians thought that gun powder  was magical. People, like you Bob, often call things majical when they can't understand something. If you know Maxwell's equations and you know calculus and differential equations then you know that opposing fields have been in the mainstream of science since the day of Einstein and his unified field theories. And if you know this and still don't understand how positive fields in opposition work then you need to sue your math teacher if he is still alive.

           

      >From: "Bob Dubner"
      >Reply-To:
      >To: "stephen walker" ,
      >Subject: RE: [free_energy] magnets, springs, patents, and other weird things
      >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:26:56 -0400
      >
      >Stephen -- if empirical evidence consisted purely of a word count, I'd
      >concede that you were right and I was wrong. But that's not how engineers
      >keep score. I see lots of words. I don't see anything spinning.
      >
      >As for your description below -- as an engineer, you make a very fine
      >novelist.
      >
      >How big are these magnets? What type of magnets are they? What are the
      >exact spacings and arrangements? Diameters? What kind of materials?
      >
      >How about the theory: You say it will spin forever at "nearly 3,000 RPM".
      >Oh? Why 3,000? Why not 2,000? Why not 4,000? Or 40,000? If it is
      >frictionless, then why doesn't it spin faster and faster until it explodes
      >from internal centripetal stresses?
      >
      >If it is not frictionless, then there are losses, right? Those could come
      >from bearing friction, or perhaps because of the eddy currents that develop
      >when you move one magnet through another magnet's field. Where does the
      >energy come from to overcome those losses so that it will "spin forever."
      >
      >Magnets are hunks of material that create static magnetic dipole fields.
      >The math of such fields has been well understood for about a century. The
      >behavior of such materials and such fields, whether stationary or moving, is
      >calculable. There is no room in the equations for making something spin
      >forever, and there doesn't seem to be any holes in the theory that indicate
      >the equations are wrong.
      >
      >In short, I think you are full of words. I think it likely you are looking
      >at a slopppy sketch of this marvelous motor, and are convinced that if you
      >did build it, it would spin. I think it very unlikely that you have a
      >working model sitting nearby. I think it very likely you have never seen a
      >working model. Nor will you ever -- if you build it, it won't work. Oh,
      >give it a push and it will spin for a while; at low speeds magnets make for
      >marvelous low-friction levitating bearings. But it will stop.
      >
      >How can I say that? Because it has to be that way. If you move something
      >like a charge or a magnet in a closed path through a static electric or
      >magnetic field, the total work done is zero. That's the ideal case; in the
      >real world, there are always some losses. For your magical motor to spin
      >forever, that math has to be wrong -- and there is no reason for it to be
      >wrong.
      >
      >This is, indeed, conventional thinking. The reason it is conventional is
      >because it happens to be correct.
      >
      >If you can show me where the math is wrong, I'll concede that a working
      >device may be possible. And if you show me a working device, then I'll
      >concede that the math is incomplete.
      >
      >But you can't just describe a magical device and claim that it would work if
      >it was built and thus the math must be wrong.
      >
      >
      > A series of magnets [which are not parabolically focused] are
      >assembled into long lines and then curved so that all of them form a spiral
      >formation. This spiral is placed within a cylinder to hold them together.
      >Now, lets say that there are 100 levels of spirald out magnets within this
      >cylinder of solid plastic and all the positive ends are pointing outward.
      >Now there is a hollow cylinder with like magnets only their positive ends
      >are all pointing inwards twards its empty core. Now place the cylinder
      >within the empty core. What di you have? 100 levels of cylinder core
      >spiraled magnets repeling 100 other exact replica magnets in the hollowed
      >out cylinder turning the cylinder nearly 3,000 RPM forever. This is an
      >example of when I said that springs cannot repel in infinite repetition but
      >that magnets could. Try and do the above with a spring Bob.
      >


      Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here
    • vcrepair@juno.com
      On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:04:42 +0000 stephen walker writes: You wanted to know what type magnets. I use neodymium magnets with an N
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:04:42 +0000 "stephen walker"
        <sexystephen@...> writes:
        You wanted to know what type magnets. I use neodymium magnets with an N
        rateing of 40 and a gauss rating of 10^4. So for a compiled analogy on
        all 100 levels one could simply state that 10^4 >[100/levels x
        40/strands] = P (strand property) each bearing the induction value F=qu x
        B(P). The same goes for the outer cylinder magnets only arranged in
        opposite order. So at (3 x 10^8mps) -: 100, the per level magnetic vector
        quantity of each strand is {10^4 -:[4,000^3] @ qvbP}. The angular
        opposition is at 67.5 degrees at a distance of 1/16th of an inch and
        every magnetic strand has its geographical angle nearly 1/50th an inch to
        one another to help eliminate side flux. And yes bob, each field does
        infact cross into its nieghboring field but the loss from this is
        negligable but does create heat.
        ****************** **************** ******************
        Reply:
        So how much torque is available from this device? Can you actually put
        your fingers on
        the rotating cylinder and feel some torque without it stopping? Does it
        produce
        a breeze, could a fan be attached? How long has it been spinning now,
        several days?
        Have you measured the electrical power generated by the copper wires?
        Can you get pictures of it to put on a webpage to demonstrate it?

        ________________________________________________________________
        GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
        Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
        Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
        http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
      • vcrepair@juno.com
        To BOB Apples and Oranges my conventional friend. The power loss in a good sealed bearing is far less than the power of even the weakest magnet, you should
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment

          To     BOB

               Apples and Oranges my conventional friend. The power loss in a good sealed bearing is far less than the power of even the weakest magnet, you should know that already Bob.

                You wanted to know what type magnets. I use neodymium magnets with an N rateing of 40 and a gauss rating of 10^4. So for a compiled analogy on all 100 levels one could simply state that 10^4 >[100/levels x 40/strands] = P (strand property) each bearing the induction value F=qu x B(P). The same goes for the outer cylinder magnets only arranged in opposite order. So at (3 x 10^8mps) -: 100, the per level magnetic vector quantity of each strand is {10^4 -:[4,000^3] @ qvbP}. The angular opposition is at 67.5 degrees at a distance of 1/16th of an inch and every magnetic strand has its geographical angle nearly 1/50th an inch to one another to help eliminate side flux. And yes bob, each field does infact cross into its nieghboring field but the loss from this is negligable but does create heat.

          ********************** ***********************

          Reply

          So how much torque is produced by this magnetic motor?

          How much electricity? Has it been running for several days now?

          Will you get pictures and a webpage to show it to all of us?

        • Bob Dubner
          Clarke s Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I ll stipulate it. Although your description seems largely full of
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Clarke's Law:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
             
            I'll stipulate it.
             
            Although your description seems largely full of meaningless babble, a good part of that problem is that you are obviously not trained the same way that I was, and so you don't use words the same way that trained engineers do.  This makes communication difficult.  You are also, apparently, completely indifferent to things like spelling.  Unlike Autymn, I don't regard an inability to spell as itself disqualifying. It concerns me, however, that it bespeaks an inherent lack of precision in your thinking.  For example, you say that the power loss in a bearing is smaller than the power in the weakest magnet. 
             
            "Power loss" in a bearing has a specific meaning in mechanics and engineering.  When we say a magnet has a lot of "power", we are speaking in a casual way.  What we mean is that the magnet exerts a lot of force.  Static force.
             
            You can't extract energy from something that generates static force. 
             
            I have a car outside that weighs about 4000 pounds.  Each tire is endlessly exerting 1000 pounds of static force upward on the car to keep it from settling onto the driveway.  Each tire is <ahem> tireless in its efforts; until something changes, each tire will exert 1000 pounds of force forever, keeping the car levitated about a foot off the ground.  But you can't extract any energy from the system. 
             
            You can put energy in, and get it back out again, like pushing down on the car and then releasing it.  Or lifting it, and then dropping it.  But nothing ever comes out that you didn't put in.
             
            A magnet is just like a tire.  Under certain circumstances, it can exert a force.  Unlike a tire, it can exert a force without any physical connection.  But it can't be used to create energy.
             
            Your lack of precision; your inability to convey a meaningful explanation of what you are doing; your willingness to babble about something that if it does work should be kept a deep dark secret until you have patent protection and are ready to license it; the simple fact that repeatedly verified theory shows your gizmo to be unworkable in principle -- all this supports my conclusion that you are blowing smoke about the design and lying if you claim you've built one that works.  I note that you haven't actually claimed that you've built a working unit.
             
            If I am wrong, and you are right, then you'll get rich beyond dreams and I'll be left scratching my head.  Go for it.  There's nothing I can do to stop you. My understanding, or lack of it, isn't relevant to you.
             
             >>>    You call my device "magical". Indians thought that gun powder  was magical. People, like you Bob, often call things majical when they can't understand something.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.